Coffee and smoking notorious at Alcoholics Anonymous meetings

Jul 20, 2008 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Medical News

More than one million Americans currently participate in the Alcoholics Anonymous program.

Comments
1 - 20 of 137 Comments Last updated May 14, 2014
First Prev
of 7
Next Last

“Just Say No to Smoking Bans”

Since: Jul 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Jul 20, 2008
 

Judged:

2

2

2

So, now the health fascists are questioning AA and its methods? They claim that more alcoholics drink coffee and smoke and that smoking is more detrimental to health. You NAZI freaks have never lived with an alcoholic, have you? I have and I can say that most family members of an alcoholic would do anything to get that person off alcohol, EVEN if it involved other health risks to the recovering alcoholic. Those of us who have had the unfortunate experience of dealing with drunks on a daily basis are eternally grateful to anything that makes them stop drinking.

“Just Say No to Smoking Bans”

Since: Jul 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Jul 20, 2008
 

Judged:

3

2

2

NOTORIOUS, are they? Everyone who smokes a cig and drinks some java are now called NOTORIOUS. Go F yourselves, you friggin freaks.

“Fredneck County Md”

Since: Feb 08

Small Town

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Jul 20, 2008
 

Judged:

1

1

Sheri wrote:
So, now the health fascists are questioning AA and its methods? They claim that more alcoholics drink coffee and smoke and that smoking is more detrimental to health. You NAZI freaks have never lived with an alcoholic, have you? I have and I can say that most family members of an alcoholic would do anything to get that person off alcohol, EVEN if it involved other health risks to the recovering alcoholic. Those of us who have had the unfortunate experience of dealing with drunks on a daily basis are eternally grateful to anything that makes them stop drinking.
The antis are just drunks... they don't go to the meetings!

“Non smoking freedom loving vet”

Since: Apr 08

Chicago

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Jul 21, 2008
 

Judged:

1

1

Are the zealots now going to prevent alcoholics from seeking help over smoking? AA is a wonderful organization that helped many people for many years. Many alcoholics eventually quit smokming after they quit drinking, but trying to both at once is asking too much. As large as AA is, I'm sure that they have non smoking meeting places in areas where they are desired by the AA members. This is one areas where outsiders have absolutly no business interfering.

“Non smoking freedom loving vet”

Since: Apr 08

Chicago

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Jul 21, 2008
 

Judged:

1

1

It's hard to believe that a seeminly prestigious medical publication would resort to "name calling" like kids in a playground.
ROHO

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Oct 26, 2009
 

Judged:

1

i have not had a drink for either 19 or 20 years, AA saved my life . alcohol was killing me quicker than all the tobacco smoke in the world so why dont all of you holier than thou bastards just keep the skelitons in your closet hidden and leave us drunks alone . it is plain to see that you know nothing about us and your entire life is built around finding fault with others , GET A LIFE !!!

Since: May 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Oct 26, 2009
 

Judged:

2

2

2

The article discussed the subject of AA members having higher consumption of coffee and cigs...it msde no comments on how effective AA is for treating alcohol addiction.
We'll assume for a moment that AA is effective at treating addictions (it isn't), why is this article so offensive to those of you that have posted? Cigarettes are dangerous...it's your choice to use them or not, but what's the harm in pointing out a higher rate of smokers in AA?

“Just Say No to Smoking Bans”

Since: Jul 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Oct 26, 2009
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Headhunter 300M wrote:
The article discussed the subject of AA members having higher consumption of coffee and cigs...it msde no comments on how effective AA is for treating alcohol addiction.
We'll assume for a moment that AA is effective at treating addictions (it isn't), why is this article so offensive to those of you that have posted? Cigarettes are dangerous...it's your choice to use them or not, but what's the harm in pointing out a higher rate of smokers in AA?
Uhh, AA is supposed to focus on alcohol. Having known some flaming alcoholics, I can say that the sooner the get help, the less time their families will have to suffer from their disease. Alcoholics search for any excuse they can find to avoid treatment. Adding a new dimension to the difficult road of recovery gives one more reason for alcoholics to refuse treatment.

Since: May 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Oct 26, 2009
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Sheri wrote:
<quoted text>
Uhh, AA is supposed to focus on alcohol. Having known some flaming alcoholics, I can say that the sooner the get help, the less time their families will have to suffer from their disease. Alcoholics search for any excuse they can find to avoid treatment. Adding a new dimension to the difficult road of recovery gives one more reason for alcoholics to refuse treatment.
Most "treatment" is nothing more than cult religion and quack-medicine (AA).
If it's too much for someone quitting an alcohol addiction to quit their tobacco addiction at the same time, that's somewhat understandable but I have seen a lot of ex-drinkers justify their continued tobacco addiction with "at least I'm not drinking". Whatever, but it is still harmful.
As far as your last statement, alcoholics that refuse treatment or to stop drinking do so because they do not really wish to stop drinking. The fact that someone might also encourage them to quit smoking would be just an excuse...if it weren't present they would come up with another one, and another one...

“Just Say No to Smoking Bans”

Since: Jul 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Oct 26, 2009
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Headhunter 300M wrote:
<quoted text>
Most "treatment" is nothing more than cult religion and quack-medicine (AA).
If it's too much for someone quitting an alcohol addiction to quit their tobacco addiction at the same time, that's somewhat understandable but I have seen a lot of ex-drinkers justify their continued tobacco addiction with "at least I'm not drinking". Whatever, but it is still harmful.
As far as your last statement, alcoholics that refuse treatment or to stop drinking do so because they do not really wish to stop drinking. The fact that someone might also encourage them to quit smoking would be just an excuse...if it weren't present they would come up with another one, and another one...
Have you ever struggled with an alcoholic loved one? I know many who have, and getting their loved one to stop smoking is not even on their wish list. The effects of alcohol on family members and friends is so immediately harmful that those who live with another's alcoholism simply don't care about smoking.

Since: May 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Oct 26, 2009
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Sheri wrote:
<quoted text>
Have you ever struggled with an alcoholic loved one? I know many who have, and getting their loved one to stop smoking is not even on their wish list. The effects of alcohol on family members and friends is so immediately harmful that those who live with another's alcoholism simply don't care about smoking.
I have struggled with both addictions myself, and others, and yes, have had loved ones struggle with addiction as well.
I see your point. I'm just saying that the adverse effects of tabacco use should not be minimized and that there really is no "greater good" in it. I didn't see anything in the article indicating that anyone was out to deny sobering alcoholics their right to smoke, and was baffled at all of the angry comments as though it was there.

“Just Say No to Smoking Bans”

Since: Jul 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Oct 26, 2009
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Headhunter 300M wrote:
<quoted text>
I have struggled with both addictions myself, and others, and yes, have had loved ones struggle with addiction as well.
I see your point. I'm just saying that the adverse effects of tabacco use should not be minimized and that there really is no "greater good" in it. I didn't see anything in the article indicating that anyone was out to deny sobering alcoholics their right to smoke, and was baffled at all of the angry comments as though it was there.
Many addiction centers now ban smoking anywhere on the grounds. In other words, for many cocaine or meth addicts who are reluctant to enter treatment, the non-smoking rule would be the final reason not to do so. AA will also lose some who are struggling with the decision should they insist on stopping smoking as a part of the program.

Since: May 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Oct 26, 2009
 
Sheri wrote:
<quoted text>
Many addiction centers now ban smoking anywhere on the grounds. In other words, for many cocaine or meth addicts who are reluctant to enter treatment, the non-smoking rule would be the final reason not to do so. AA will also lose some who are struggling with the decision should they insist on stopping smoking as a part of the program.
Quitting smoking should be a personal decision. we probably agree on that.
If someone uses the fear of not smoking as a deterent to quit their other addictions, however, then they are not serious about quitting them, they're using that as a cop-out and will use something else if that fails. Many AA meetings are smoke-free as the places that they are held insist on it. That doesn't stop the smokers from puffing away outside before, after and even during meetings...and certainly not any other time away from the meetings. I really don't see where anyone is trying to make non-smoking part of the program itself, though there are 12-step groups for that too.
As far as the treatment centers go, they are widely considered hospitals, and at a minimum, public places...so they're not singled-out. It's getting to where you can't even smoke in bars in most counties.

“Non smoking freedom loving vet”

Since: Apr 08

Chicago

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Oct 27, 2009
 

Judged:

1

1

1

These meddling busybody antis are losing more credibility every day. Their claim that people will die after breathing second hand smoke for 30 minutes is making a joke of their fanaticism. The fact that they go to AA meetings just to cause trouble is absolutly appalling.

“Just Say No to Smoking Bans”

Since: Jul 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
Oct 27, 2009
 
Headhunter 300M wrote:
<quoted text>
Quitting smoking should be a personal decision. we probably agree on that.
If someone uses the fear of not smoking as a deterent to quit their other addictions, however, then they are not serious about quitting them, they're using that as a cop-out and will use something else if that fails. Many AA meetings are smoke-free as the places that they are held insist on it. That doesn't stop the smokers from puffing away outside before, after and even during meetings...and certainly not any other time away from the meetings. I really don't see where anyone is trying to make non-smoking part of the program itself, though there are 12-step groups for that too.
As far as the treatment centers go, they are widely considered hospitals, and at a minimum, public places...so they're not singled-out. It's getting to where you can't even smoke in bars in most counties.
I guess you don't understand my point. I am not saying they are singling them out. What I am saying is that human nature, being what it is, the response to the policy is refusal to participate in a program that requires an effort beyond what the unwilling participant is willing to make. The alcoholic or meth addict is not usually concerned with his health and will find the requirement to also stop smoking while stopping alcohol or meth beyond his capabilities. This person does not care about the legal issues of a smoking ban. He just cares about cleaning up the addiction that is killing him right now. Expect even more of him and you will not even get that. BUT, you will have compliance with your precious smoking ban.

Since: May 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
Oct 27, 2009
 
Sheri wrote:
<quoted text>
I guess you don't understand my point. I am not saying they are singling them out. What I am saying is that human nature, being what it is, the response to the policy is refusal to participate in a program that requires an effort beyond what the unwilling participant is willing to make. The alcoholic or meth addict is not usually concerned with his health and will find the requirement to also stop smoking while stopping alcohol or meth beyond his capabilities. This person does not care about the legal issues of a smoking ban. He just cares about cleaning up the addiction that is killing him right now. Expect even more of him and you will not even get that. BUT, you will have compliance with your precious smoking ban.
I do understand your point. I'm just saying that the typical addict who uses this to prevent them from seeking treatment doesn't want to quit anyway. If there were documented proof that a significantly higher percentage of addicts successfully undergo treatment because they are allowed to smoke in treatment facilities, I would at a minimum advocate that there be facilities available that would allow this.
That aside, the article in question discussed the increased percentage in AA of tobacco and caffiene users, and like I said previously, they are free to smoke as much as they want, just not indoors in many cases. That's an individual choice of whomever they are renting the meeting space from.
BTW, I do think that the smoking bans are getting out of hand. I think people should have choices...I think that there are certain places, such as health facilities, family-oriented public places, etc. where smoking SHOULD be banned, but plenty of places where it should not.
just candid

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
Oct 27, 2009
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Sheri wrote:
<quoted text>
I guess you don't understand my point. I am not saying they are singling them out. What I am saying is that human nature, being what it is, the response to the policy is refusal to participate in a program that requires an effort beyond what the unwilling participant is willing to make. The alcoholic or meth addict is not usually concerned with his health and will find the requirement to also stop smoking while stopping alcohol or meth beyond his capabilities. This person does not care about the legal issues of a smoking ban. He just cares about cleaning up the addiction that is killing him right now. Expect even more of him and you will not even get that. BUT, you will have compliance with your precious smoking ban.
I think we can, and do agree on most of your statement. More power to any Alkie/Alky or Meth addict who is trying to clean up their act. If their already aquired addiction to nicotine, plus the precived need to smoke helps them, so be it.
just candid

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
Oct 27, 2009
 

Judged:

1

1

1

generalsn1234567 wrote:
Are the zealots now going to prevent alcoholics from seeking help over smoking? AA is a wonderful organization that helped many people for many years. Many alcoholics eventually quit smokming after they quit drinking, but trying to both at once is asking too much. As large as AA is, I'm sure that they have non smoking meeting places in areas where they are desired by the AA members. This is one areas where outsiders have absolutly no business interfering.
Can't believe i agree with yo. While AA may not be perfect, it's a hell of a lot better helping people overcome their problem than anything else i've heard about.

Since: May 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19
Oct 27, 2009
 
just candid wrote:
<quoted text>Can't believe i agree with yo. While AA may not be perfect, it's a hell of a lot better helping people overcome their problem than anything else i've heard about.
Unfortunately, there is no evidence to support this. In fact, it has shown to have a no-better success rate than spontaneous remission (those that simply quit with no treatment or "program", and a higher rate of suicide, hospitalization and re-arrests.
That's not the relevent discussion on this thread, however. Come over to the "AA, Does It Work" thread to discuss this further.
just candid

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20
Oct 27, 2009
 

Judged:

1

1

Headhunter 300M wrote:
<quoted text>
Unfortunately, there is no evidence to support this. In fact, it has shown to have a no-better success rate than spontaneous remission (those that simply quit with no treatment or "program", and a higher rate of suicide, hospitalization and re-arrests.
That's not the relevent discussion on this thread, however. Come over to the "AA, Does It Work" thread to discuss this further.
As i just posted on another thread i learn something new every day. ;~) Will try to be over sometime today. Right now i have to see someone on the Hill about a major problem Navajo peoples are having with uranium mining. I hope to learn more about their problem. JC, Of Piscataway blood

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

First Prev
of 7
Next Last
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••