D.W.I.’S and Court Slips in AA Meetings. A Report on the Experience of the Maryland Area of Alcoholics Anonymous, Maryland General Service,
PO Box 788, Waldorf, MD 20601, February 9, 1987
(Note: DWI or DUI - “Driving while intoxicated” or “driving under the influence”).
We have already received much information in relation to the adverse impact this policy was and is having on AA (see here and here). One has to wonder for how much longer the fellowship is going to continue making these mistakes before it remembers to abide by its own traditions Here is yet another example of why they exist!
Continued participation by AA in the CMA (or 'chit') system breaches the following traditions:
Long form:
"3.—Our membership ought to include all who suffer from alcoholism. Hence we may refuse none who wish to recover. Nor ought A.A. membership ever depend upon money or conformity. Any two or three alcoholics gathered together for sobriety may call themselves an A.A. group, provided that, as a group, they have no other affiliation.
4.—With respect to its own affairs, each A.A. group should be responsible to no other authority than its own conscience. But when its plans concern the welfare of neighboring groups also, those groups ought to be consulted. And no group, regional committee, or individual should ever take any action that might greatly affect A.A. as a whole without conferring with the trustees of the General Service Board. On such issues our common welfare is paramount.
6.—Problems of money, property, and authority may easily divert us from our primary spiritual aim. We think, therefore, that any considerable property of genuine use to A.A. should be separately incorporated and managed, thus dividing the material from the spiritual. An A.A. group, as such, should never go into business. Secondary aids to A.A., such as clubs or hospitals which require much property or administration, ought to be incorporated and so set apart that, if necessary, they can be freely discarded by the groups. Hence such facilities ought not to use the A.A. name. Their management should be the sole responsibility of those people who financially support them. For clubs, A.A. managers are usually preferred. But hospitals, as well as other places of recuperation, ought to be well outside A.A.—and medically supervised. While an A.A. group may cooperate with anyone, such cooperation ought never go so far as affiliation or endorsement, actual or implied. An A.A. group can bind itself to no one.
10.—No A.A. group or member should ever, in such a way as to implicate A.A., express any opinion on outside controversial issues—particularly those of politics, alcohol reform, or sectarian religion. The Alcoholics Anonymous groups oppose no one. Concerning such matters they can express no views whatever.”
(our emphases)
Also:
From a research report conducted for and published by the DWP (under Conclusions and Recommendations):
“6.4.3 Mandation to treatment
Findings regarding the merits of linking benefit receipt to engagement with treatment were varied. We identified a small amount of relevant evidence on this issue from the literature, all of it from the US. What this literature tells us is that firstly, the receipt of benefits does not encourage or increase alcohol dependency (Stevenson, 2002). Alcohol misuse can cause unemployment which may result in being on benefits, but it is not the benefit receipt in itself that causes or escalates alcohol misuse. Secondly, the US experience suggests that when treatment is a mandated part of welfare receipt, more adults with substance misuse problems do engage with it than would otherwise be the case (Schwartz et al., 2004). However, termination of benefits for those who fail to comply with a treatment regime can have negative consequences (in terms of health and homelessness, for example) particularly in the short term (Schwartz et al., 2004).
Findings from our qualitative research suggest that mandating treatment as a condition of benefit receipt may be counterproductive. The professionals we interviewed stated that the threat or actual loss of benefits (i.e. moving from one benefit to another, appealing a decision about eligibility) was a trigger to relapse for some of their clients. They and clients felt that compulsion was likely to be counterproductive. Individuals need to be motivated to engage with services and motivation is an important determinant of successfully completing treatment. In our view, therefore, there is inadequate evidence from either the literature or qualitative research to support the view that making treatment a condition of benefit receipt would improve treatment outcomes for clients or result in more alcohol misusers re-entering employment.”
(our emphases)
Source: Alcohol misusers’ experiences of employment and the benefit system. Research report No. 718 DWP
Comment: Now what was that definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results (Albert Einstein) . Also from Albert: Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former …. and …...The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it.
So do something about it!
Cheerio
The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)
