Court mandated attendance – the 'chit' system

A contribution from the States:

“Background

At one time the government money was separated into alcohol money and drug money. A few years ago all the government money was put into one bucket called substance abuse money. This forced the Rehab centers to become Substance abuse recovery centers. When this happened, the Rehab centers and Court system began to treat Alcoholics Anonymous as just another Substance abuse class and this loaded Alcoholics Anonymous with substance abusers and criminal abusers including sexual predators.

This brings us to this: “Alcoholics Anonymous World Services and Santa Clarita Alcoholics Anonymous has been sued by the parents of murder victim Karla Brada.”

“Grieving parents say in court that their daughter was murdered by her sociopathic addict boyfriend because Alcoholics Anonymous concealed his history of domestic violence.”

For more information go to:http://nadaytona.org/tag/lawsuits-against-alcoholics-anonymous/#sthash.exXy0u2P.dpuf

Or Google, Lawsuits and Alcoholics Anonymous.

We have brought this about through our court card system.

I would like to see either the CPC committee or a special committee work with the Rehab facilities and the Courts to change the system.

My idea for a solution would be to send panels of AA speakers to the Courts and Rehabs; this would relieve us of the accounting for the attendance and put it back on the Courts and Rehabs. It would keep much of the criminal element out of AA.

…..."

(edited to preserve anonymity)

Comment: Well argued and succinctly put

Cheers

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

PS Our thanks to this contributor

Is AA to blame for ‘13th Step’ slaying, as lawsuit claims?

See link

American Bar Association Journal

Comment: The consequences of a failure by AA members to take effective action against sexual predators …. and the 'chit' (court mandated attendance) system

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

The 'chit' system

The Winner’s Group

(a saga)

We quote:

“Here's a real life story. A great meeting was held every week for 20 years. The courts sent first one court slip person, he stayed for 6 months and left. Nobody really noticed but he never participated and he left. Then came 2 and 3 at a time. Same thing but everyone thought we were supposed to welcome people "no matter how they got there" the Oldtimers said it wasn't right but we all shouted them down just like we did when those Oldtimers talked about singleness of purpose. Then the court mandated people came in 5's and 6's. One stayed sober! He didn't really live the program but by golly he was sober and we could really shut those Oldtimers up. Then the meeting reached critical mass of 50% people who were on court paper. Things were getting crazy but we told the Oldtimer to be quiet after all didn't we get the court people to stop texting during the meeting and almost all of them were saying "I have desire to not drink" when they identified themselves (tip of the hat to the probation department that taught them to say that). Many members now had no experience with what AA could be like if everyone there had made a decision to go to any length to stay sober. But the group told anyone that said anything that this is the "new" AA and they had better get with the times. We were reminded that one or two of the now over one hundred court slips had stayed sober. Members that sought to create the fellowship they craved left and tried to form new meetings. Now the percentage of court mandated reached 70%. More people left. Some formed underground meetings because they were tired of the flak they got when the asked that AA as a whole take a look at the problem. What happen next? That great meeting folded! This is a real life story. The group was called the "Winners Group and it met every Thursday night at 8 PM. It saved lives for 20 years and is gone.”

Comment: A success for the 'chit' system spells a disaster for AA. If we allow the courts (ie. government) to treat AA as a 'dumping ground' for anyone they think might have a drinking problem this is the probable outcome. All it requires is that the government neglect its duties, AA its traditions

Cheers

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

PS Our thanks to our correspondent

Court mandated attendance – 'chit' system

We quote: 

“Background 

At one time the government money was separated into alcohol money and drug money. A few years ago all the government money was put into one bucket called substance abuse money. This forced the Rehab centers to become Substance abuse recovery centers.  When this happened, the Rehab centers and Court system began to treat Alcoholics Anonymous as just another Substance abuse class and this loaded Alcoholics Anonymous with  substance abusers and criminal abusers including  sexual predators.
 
This brings us to this: “Alcoholics Anonymous World Services and Santa Clarita Alcoholics Anonymous has been sued by the parents of murder victim Karla Brada.”

“Grieving parents say in court that their daughter was murdered by her sociopathic addict boyfriend because Alcoholics Anonymous concealed his history of domestic violence.”

For more information go to:http://nadaytona.org/tag/lawsuits-against-alcoholics-anonymous/#sthash.exXy0u2P.dpuf 

Or Google, Lawsuits and Alcoholics Anonymous.

We have brought this about through our court card system.

I would like to see either the CPC committee or a special committee work with the Rehab facilities and the Courts to change the system.

My idea for a solution would be to send panels of AA speakers to the Courts and Rehabs; this would relieve us of the accounting for the attendance and put it back on the Courts and Rehabs. It would keep much of the criminal element out of AA. 

…......”

(our edits to preserve anonymity)

Cheers

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

PS Thanks to our correspondent 

PPS For AA Minority Report 2013 click here 

PPPS Plymouth Intergroup corruption

How the court mandated attendance ('chit') system works (?) in the US …...

Oh yeah! And Clancy was there too!

Our correspondent writes: 

“Hey fellas,

I was at the 80th anniversary AA International Convention this past weekend in Atlanta, Georgia. I attended several panels. One noteworthy one was on "Our Critics Become our Benefactors" which attempted to address the large volume of "bad press" we are receiving. Two of the speakers stayed on task but were pretty neutral when it came to causes and possible corrections. My personal opinion is that the cause is that we do not practice the Traditions and that results in many people attending the fellowship who do not meet the primary purpose. People who do not have a desire to stay sober will not be successful. Then they want to blame the AA program instead of the fact that they should have been in some other program or no program at all. When you have the internet at your disposal you have a worldwide soapbox for your views. If you are not a member of Alcoholics Anonymous you are under no obligation to practice the Traditions. This goes for attendees and for referral parties such as doctors, judges, treatment centers and others.

Then I attended another one, it was on "Cooperating with the Courts". This panel featured 2 judges, neither one is an alcoholic. One is a Sobriety/DWI/Drug court judge who took over the court from a judge who was an AA member (so much for his anonymity). Having an AA member who is a judge is the same scenario as occurred in Maryland in the late 1980's. There an AA member who was a judge flooded local meetings with mandated attendees. Fortunately for the Maryland Groups they revolted and had a Call for Unity. Please see attachment. [DWI's and Court Slips in AA Meetings, Maryland General Service, February 9, 1987]

This speaker went on and on praising her AA volunteer (Ralph) who shows up at court four times a week to provide assessments of how the probationers are performing, what meetings they should be attending, who their sponsors should be and even providing rides funded by the local groups. No affiliation there though!

The other judge is a Federal Judge and a Non Alcoholic Trustee on the GSO board (can you say "there goes our claim of non-affiliation?"). Please understand that here in the states a Federal Judge generally handles High Crimes that are more "white collar" with a high percentage of drug dealers who have gone to prison over their choice of vocation. Simply put, he would see more drug addicts than alcoholics. He was abetted in his court by some kind of "re-entry probation/parole department head". This assistant was not an AA member so he involved local AA members to discern who should be given the great opportunity to cut a few years off their sentence by going into his re-entry program. They were actually cackling when telling us how they coerced inmates into accepting a deal that was not always in their best interest. This coercion was clearly designed to get around the 22 higher court rulings that parolees could not be sentenced to AA because of its religious nature. Mr. Re-entry was proud that they found a way around the court rulings. He also bragged that he used the threat of more prison time to give them an offer they couldn't refuse. He justified this by saying it's okay to break the rules if you are doing it for someone's own good.

Again putting aside how hard it is to claim non affiliation when your board has a Judge as a Non Alcoholic Trustee, the whole thing reached the level of absurd on many other points. Chief among my personal issues with their process was how condescending their attitude was to the people they were trying "help". Talks of letting them sit up on the bench and fist bumps were the order of the day. The Lady DWI/Drug Court Judge admitted she was happy to report that while in her court they did not drink. With a wink and a nod she seemed to be implying that even she knew that most went right back to drinking once they were off probation.

Still she forged on, asking us to please seek out the sobriety courts in our towns and attempt to replicate what her and her dear "Ralph" had done. Volunteer 4 days a week and collect money from his groups so that the system could "keep on keeping on". She tried to close the deal by saying all her 4 main volunteers had indicated that they kept doing it because of the great feeling they got when lives were turned around. Since there was no question and answer session after the panel, I didn't get to ask the obvious question "if the sobriety court is so successful why don't the masses of success stories just come and volunteer??" It would seem with all the fist bumping, bench sitting and graduation robe wearing there would be a list of volunteers so large that you couldn't find your way to the front of the line! 

Mr. Re-entry specialist regaled us with stories how one convict had a gun charge and was thereby usually ineligible for the "great deal". However, his local AA advisor interviewed the soon to be paroled criminal and deemed him safe enough to be coerced into going to meetings. Mr. Re-Entry specialist said it was against his normal protocol but he went with the AA volunteer's call and it all worked out. It never seemed to cross his mind that had it not "all worked out" gun play could have occurred at an AA meeting.

One final note that I am sure you'll get a kick out of. The world famous Clancy was speaking practically next door at another recovery organization's meeting. Well on Saturday night they had the old timers panel in the Georgia Dome. This is a huge American football stadium and 60,000 AA members had gathered to hear a panel of 12 AA members with 50 years or more of sobriety speak. The twelve were chosen by pulling their names out of hat. Then they were each given 5 minutes to speak. This was very fun when one of the first old-timers to speak started his talk by saying, "All I know is that I'm up here and Clancy is out there!!!" And a large portion of the crowd howled. Seems the old timers still see through the nonsense of circuit speakers. I told one younger member who asked why the statement was made and about the response it generated, I explained that not every AA member agrees with the cult of personality that can be reached by the "anointed ones". I went on to say, most of us wouldn't cross the street if Clancy was speaking at a free cookout. Let alone pay $10 a head.

Let me close by saying there was plenty of good fellowship to be had attending an event where there are 60,000 like minded people. Not only was there was great fellowship, there was much inspiration to be gained. Even the odd events I have detailed above were worth the trip. I would rather have an idea what was going astray than to live like an ostrich and stick my head in the sand.

Many say our program is self-correcting. Myself, I believe it will self correct if we follow the Traditions and keep our collective egos in check.........

As usual, please feel free to use any part of this missive in any manner you find fit.

Sincerely, 

….....”

(edits to preserve anonymity)

Comment: None other than to point out the date of the Maryland report: 1987! And we still haven't learnt from our mistakes! We just keep on repeating and repeating and …..... What's that called? Ah yeah! Plain insanity!

Cheers

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

PS Our thanks to the US member for their correspondence. We're always interested in such contributions

PPS For AA Minority Report 2013 click here 

PPPS Plymouth Intergroup corruption

'Chit system' - experience from the US ... all bad!

An email we received (with thanks to the contributor)

“Fellas,

Please accept this healthy criticism in the spirit in which it is offered.

In fact, it is actually an amend from across the pond.

Your recent post on the AA conference questions (2015) and in particular the Revised chapter Nine 'Probation/Criminal Justice Service' lacks sufficient input as to the requirements of how to practice the Traditions when approaching new or potential expanding opportunities to serve and to practice the 12th step.

We here in the "States" did not practice the required fore-vision to determine where our "Cooperation with the Courts" would have unintended consequences. In fact, my amend to you is that we did not practice that part of our requirements to assess where our precious autonomy would effect neighboring groups and AA as a whole in regard to any such cooperation with outside agencies.

Simply put, the Groups here have been unable to manage and keep the "Cooperation" from spilling over into "AFFILIATION". I would caution you that the long-form of Tradition 6 states, "While an AA group may cooperate with anyone, such cooperation ought never to go so far as affiliation or endorsement, ACTUAL OR IMPLIED". Emphasis mine.

Fresh probationers reeling from a serious alcohol arrest (or even a minor one) cannot discern between the punishment and the offer of help. Court/Probation departments cannot discern between an alcoholic and a party that made a mistake. From the governmental agencies side they feel "what can it hurt to send someone who is not an alcoholic to AA"? We fell for the same trap.

The effort to do the most good for the most drunks got us into huge problems. Here are but a few:

1-Anonymity is broken at both the level of the media AND personal anonymity in your own community. At the level of the media, national celebrities have their sentences published that they are to attend AA as part of the probation and then when they re-offend AA is seen as less than effective or the problem. Worse, violent criminals are given reduced sentences if they attend AA. Then this information is digested by potential members they are less likely to want to go a fellowship that is attended by convicted violent felons who are forced to attend. Again when the violent party re-offends it is front page news. The media is so expansive today that the Conference simply cannot control it with annual letters to the press.

On a personal level, your anonymity will be broken. You will be attending AA with parties that do not want to be there. Not having a desire to embrace the AA way of life they are not required to follow our Traditions. And they don't! Your meeting mate will leave your meeting and spread the word but it won't be the word of recovery. When he is a co-worker of your spouse or your boss or your child's teacher it can be very damaging to the relationships you are trying to rebuild. Many people in the United States travel 20-30 miles to attend a meeting when there is one just down the street. Many start underground/invite only meetings. 

2-Bureaucracies being what they are, they have never met a concept that isn't worth expanding. We started with Drug Courts then added Sobriety Courts, Mental Health Courts and Veterans Courts. In spite of studies that these courts are neither successful nor healthy they continue to send parties from all issues to the rooms of AA. The court does not share our purpose of to carry the message to the suffering alcoholic. Their goal is to say they did something! When things go wrong they feel their bases have been covered. They can pull out a folder filled with court slips (chits in your land) and say, "What more could we have done?" We sent them to AA! I have attended AA meetings with Court ordered child molesters, shoplifters, wife beaters, marijuana smokers, crack heads, pill heads, bad parents, bad employees and the list goes on. The issue is NOT that this was their crimes. My fourth step includes some of these very offenses. The issue is that these parties did not think that AA was the solution to their defects. They thought it was the solution to their legal issues. They thought it was the solution to a reduction in their jail sentence. Some weren't even problem drinkers let alone alcoholics.

3- AA stratifies. There is a line between those who meet the requirement and those who do not (remember the Big Book calls upon us to determine if a man is alcoholic AND willing before working with him. Such a discernment is not hard to do). Newcomers that have the desire to quit drinking get mixed in with the legions who do not. Most newcomers of either stripe consider existing AA to cliquish. They are right!

4-Cult activity increases. Senior members who long for a day when the Traditions meant something but are afraid to confront it was THEM who did not follow the Traditions, try to clamp down and re-create an AA that they once knew. Unfortunately that utopia can only exist when ALL attendees meet the only requirement for AA membership. The result is they practice "hardcore AA". That is except for the old time practice of presenting a simple spiritual toolkit and leaving it to the prospect to pick it up. The AA member cannot practice this style of AA because the "prospect" is sentenced to another 100-200 meetings.

5- You simply cannot practice "Working with Others" "To the Wives" and "To the employer" with someone who is coerced into attendance. If you do not believe me please re-read those chapters looking for the theme of not forcing anyone to do anything. It actually says that you may spoil a future opportunity.

6-All of these unintended consequences damage AA unity in a manner you cannot imagine. After 25 years of the wide scale practice, the percentage of parties that were around when the process started and can act as "elder statesmen" shrinks. The parties that cry we have always done it this way (they have always done it that way because they have less than 15 years sobriety) grows. Any mention of even taking a look at the issues is met with frothy emotional appeal and worse.

7-Unity is constantly in jeopardy. You cannot practice the "we" of the first step. The step says "we admitted" not "some of us admitted".

I hope my information makes up for our error of not performing our own due diligence in some small way. Please do not let our mistakes travel into your land and harm your groups. Read the Traditions with an eye to how ultra inclusiveness may lead you break other Traditions. Go to AA.org and read their guideline on "Cooperating with the Courts" ( link provided http://www.aa.org/assets/en_US/mg-05_coopwithcourt.pdf ). PLEASE read it with a focus on sections on how to solve the problems because by doing that you may be able to AVOID the problems. Read it scanning the horizon for damage you can do if you practice your group's autonomy without due diligence as to how it may effect AA as a whole.

There is a video on the website AA.org (link below) that specifically address the issue you face. Putting aside the implied affiliation caused by the fact that one of the chief speakers is a Non-alcoholic Trustee AND a former sobriety court judge; please listen to her advice to the Professionals she is addressing. She says that the probationers ought only be sent to Open Meetings. More importantly she says "if I were setting up a Sobriety Court today I would NOT rely on any system that requires that AA verifies attendance. In stead, I would train my professionals (probation officers) to be able to discern if the probationers were involved in the AA recovery program. In other words, she would make the government do their job! 

http://unikron.http.internapcdn.net/unikron/aa/cpc/v2/Legal_en_sub.mp4 

Please accept my sincere efforts to make amends for our mistakes. Please follow the Traditions in this and in all other matters. Please be aware that we fell for one or two court mandated attendees couldn't hurt. Now our meetings have 60-70 and even 90 per cent Court Affiliated Attendees. Our mistakes do not have to be yours. Once the toothpaste is our of the tube you will have a devil of a time getting it back into the tube.

As always use this email as this as you see fit or not at all,

Your friend, 

….....”

(edit to preserve anonymity)

Cheers

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

Yet more misquotes of Tradition Four

(see AA Document Library – Guidelines Handbook)

From Chapter Nine: Probation/Criminal Justice Service of the above Handbook under “9:3 Groups”:

Here we are informed that: “ Each group is autonomous and how it chooses to co-operate (if at all) with Probation/Criminal Justice Service is for the group conscience to decide.”

Incorrect: What Tradition Four actually states is:

“Each group should be autonomous except in matters affecting other groups or AA as a whole” (our emphasis)

and in the long form:

It is clear from the above that each group is (contrary to the information provided in the AA handbook would you believe!) NOT unconditionally autonomous and therefore it is NOT simply down to the group conscience to decide whether it does or does not participate in the 'chit' (or court mandated attendance) system.

This misinformation is repeated in a later section (9:5 Setting up a Confirmation of Attendance/Chit System):

“Each group, intergroup or region is autonomous and free to use any method it sees appropriate.”

At this point we refer you to the Bill Wilson's discussion of this tradition in the 12 and 12 in particular the example (imagined) he cites of a particularly ambitious “promoter” in AA. We would suggest that the current ambitions demonstrated by some in the fellowship move well beyond cooperation with the probation service taking us in the process into some very treacherous territory indeed. We are not and never should be an adjunct of the sentencing system. If people are referred to us (or even compelled to attend) by the courts that's the courts' business not ours. But it is NOT OUR BUSINESS to facilitate this process beyond mere cooperation. The provision of chits etc in whatever form means we are quite literally endorsing government policy in this area – again something we're not supposed to be doing (see Preamble and relevant traditions). No matter how the system is designed no group, intergroup or region can implement such a system without breaching these principles. And as we've pointed out before the whole point of principles is you're supposed to observe them especially when it's most inconvenient …... otherwise they AREN'T principles! To act otherwise simply makes us hypocrites!

We don't often suggest revisions to AA literature but we believe there's one amendment to the above tradition which would do much to eliminate this form of error. Not exactly a rewording - more a re-ordering!

“Except in matters affecting other groups or AA as a whole each group should be autonomous”

Cheers

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

PS See here for more discussion on the chit system both in Great Britain and the US

PPS These misrepresentations are carried over into proposed revisions included in the following document:

Conference questions (GB 2015) Background Committee 6 Question 2 Revised Chapter 9

The “chit” system (US) – an abuse of constitutionally guaranteed rights

“In the ten year period between 1996 and 2007, five high-level US courts -- three federal circuit courts and two state supreme courts -- did take a long and hard look at AA's claim. Each of these cases involved a person who was being forced to participate in AA meetings, either as a condition of their parole or probation, or while actually incarcerated. These cases reached the highest level of judiciary scrutiny -- only one level below the US Supreme Court -- because they involved the critical issue of separation of Church and State. This separation is a fundamental aspect of US law, known as the Establishment Clause, and is explicated in the first amendment to the US Constitution, which states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

The parolees, probationers and inmates in each of these cases claimed that the State was using its power to force them to participate in a religious activity. They claimed that AA meetings were religious. Thus, their required attendance was a violation of the Establishment Clause, which requires governmental neutrality with respect to religion and a wall of separation between Church and State.

In Establishment Clause cases, the high-level courts use a three-part test to determine if the wall of separation has been violated. First, has the State acted? Second, does the action amount to coercion? And third, is the object of coercion religious rather than secular? The answer to the first part of the test was quickly answered: yes, these cases clearly showed action by the State, involving the governmental branches of probation, parole and imprisonment. The second test was likewise quickly answered: yes, the probationers, parolees and inmates were being coerced into AA attendance.

Next, the high-level courts addressed the third part of the test. They took a long look at the Big Book and its 200 references to God; a look at the Twelve Steps and their unmistakable references to God; the prayers in A.A. meetings; and based on a full examination of these, ruled that AA doctrines and practices must be viewed as religious. Because multiple high-level courts have ruled uniformly on this matter, these rulings now constitute "clearly established law" in the US.

Here are links to the judicial decisions for the five US high-level court cases:
Griffin v. Coughlin (1996), Kerr v. Farrey (1996), Evans v. Tennessee Board of Paroles (1997), Warner v. Orange County Dept. of Probation (1999) and Inouye v. Kemna (2007). [see Links and downloads under Case law (US)(relating to AA)]

…......

The 2007 Inouye v. Kemna was SO clear, that it suggested any agent of any state which attempted to force a person to attend AA/NA could be sued. Recently this is what happened in California, and the state of California and Westcare were each told to pay approximately $1 million dollars to Barry Hazle who brought the lawsuit.”

Source: [AAHistoryLovers] Re: U.S. court decision that AA is religious

(our emphasis)

Cheers

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

PS Our thanks to the member who drew this article to our attention

Court mandated AA attendance - “chit” system – a perspective from the US

We quote:

“…... As to your continued efforts to keep the chit or any other system that involves the courts out of your meetings........ I say fight like the dickens to keep it out because once it is in it is hard to get out.

I know we have discussed before, but another good Tradition is the sixth 'long form'. In fact, in the 12 and 12 the discussion on the Sixth Tradition pages 154-156 expressly presents such a scheme as one they rejected and presumably we should too.

…......

I have attached a document inspired [see below], in part, by your anti-cult writings. I simply went through the Big Book and juxtaposed how our simple program differed from the courts belief about how to coerce a recovery. I have done this with a different attitude than the cult influences. I have looked at how open and non controlling the process is as laid out in the big book. Hopefully the only musts are the must of a degree of self-diagnosis and not court or even established AA member diagnosis.

As you could well guess the difference is as stark as night and day. There are over 30 examples, while some are weaker the majority do contrast in a clear fashion how the two approaches are not even the least bit similar. I will be producing a more concise edition that features only the most blatant differences......”

(our edits)

Again we quote:

“BIG BOOK, TRADITIONS AND THE 12 AND 12 AND THE COURTS METHODS SEEM TO BE 180 DEGREES APART

But we saw that it had really worked in others, AND we had come to believe in the hopelessness and futility of life as we had been living it. When we were approached by those in whom the problem had been solved, there was nothing left for us but to pick up the simple kit of spiritual tools laid at our feet. BB Page 25 “There is a Solution”.

The court does not seem to understand that the second part of the equation in the first line is more important than the first.

If you were as seriously alcoholic as we were, we believe there is no-middle-of- the-road solution. Then it speaks of two very bitter alternatives other than accepting spiritual help. BB Page 25 “There is a Solution”.

Courts seem to believe that you can catch recovery without the admission of being seriously alcoholic.

Most of us have been unwilling to admit we were real alcoholics………………. We learned that we had to fully concede to inner most selves that we were alcoholics. This is the first step in recovery. The delusion that we are like other people, or presently may be, has to be smashed. BB Page 30 “More About Alcoholism”.

The courts only ask that you admit that you would rather chose to attend AA rather than go to jail.

We do not like to pronounce any individual as alcoholic, but you can quickly diagnosis yourself, step over to the nearest barroom and try some controlled drinking. ……………………It may be worth a bad case of the jitters if you get a full knowledge of your condition. BB Page 31-32 “More about Alcoholism”

The Courts say if you drink you will go to jail. In fact if you go to the nearest barroom you will go to jail.

If anyone questions whether he has entered this dangerous area, let him try leaving liquor alone for one year. If he is a real alcoholic and very far advanced, there is scant chance of success…………………..We think few whom this book will appeal, can stay dry anything like a year. BB Page 34 “More about Alcoholism”

The court says you will stay sober for a year and that is how you’ll know that you are an alcoholic? AA repeatedly asks ‘John Barleycorn’ to be the teacher”. Not the threat of Jail.

For those who are unable to drink moderately the question is how to stop all together. We are assuming, of course that the reader desires to stop. Whether such a person can quit upon a nonspiritual basis depends upon the extent to which he has already lost the power to choose whether he will drink or not.BB Page 34 “More about Alcoholism”

Obviously the court is assuming that the defendant can’t control his drinking and they are assuming that AA is for them. Finally they are assuming that AA can produce the desire to stop. Please see the pamphlet “What AA does and Doesn’t Do”

In the preceding chapters you have learned something of alcoholism. (note: The courts used to do this). We hope we have made clear the distinction between the alcoholic and the non-alcoholic. IF WHEN YOU HONESTLY WANT TO, YOU FIND YOU CANNOT QUIT ENTIRELY OR WHEN DRINKING YOU HAVE LITTLE CONTROL OVER THE AMOUNT YOU TAKE, YOU ARE PROBABLY ALCOHOLIC. If that be the case, you may be suffering from an illness which only a spiritual experience will conquer. BB Page 44 “We Agnostics”

The courts seem to think that they can make this determination for the defendant. They are afraid that if he is posed this question he won’t make up his own mind and chose to seek a spiritual solution. AA seems to have the opinion that he will if he is seriously alcoholic and can relate to us.

To be doomed to as alcoholic death or to live on a spiritual basis are not always easy alternatives to face. BB Page 44 “We Agnostics”

The court knows that choosing between going to jail and going through the rigors of sobriety court is an easy choice to make for most people. One they will accept a conviction.

Remember it was agreed at the beginning we would go to any lengths for victory over alcohol. BB Page 76 “Into Action” (about the 8-9^th steps).

The court says it was agreed that you would go to 3-5 meetings a week for up to 2 years and submit to random PBT’s. The Courts punishment is jail. Relapse is the punishment for the party trying to recover who does not follow through on the agreement.

Reminding ourselves that we have decided to go to any lengths to find a spiritual experience, we ask to be given strength and direction to do the right thing, no matter what the personal consequences may be. BB Page 79 “Into Action”

The courts are supplying the direction and the motivation is not to find a spiritual experience but rather to avoid an earthly consequence. The defendant has made a decision to follow the path of Sobriety Court.

When you discover a prospect for Alcoholics Anonymous, find out all you can about him. If he does not want to stop drinking, don’t waste your time to persuade him. YOU MAY SPOIL A LATER OPPORTUNITY. BB Page 90. “Working with Others”.

The Courts want us to work with these parties. Please see the Pamphlet “What AA Does and Doesn’t Do”. Secondly those that are in favor of us “Cooperating with Courts” constantly are telling us to be careful to not ‘Judge’ the court mandated because they won’t feel welcome. However the experience in the groups seems to be our welcoming is covered in the passing around of a newcomer packet. I believe that most people assume that the defendants do not want to stop drinking so they don’t waste their time with them. There is certainly no comments about if you want to stop you will have to take some drastic steps.

Sometimes it is wise to wait till he goes on a binge…..it goes on to say if he is ugly you must back the advice by helping the family (not very convenient eh). Wait for the end of Spree, or at least for a lucid interval. Then let his family or a friend ask him if he wants to quit FOR GOOD and if he would go TO ANY EXTREME TO DO SO. BB Page 90. “Working with Others”.

Because the courts are not concerned with the recovery but the recidivism they want no part of such a plan. They do not want the question posed by them or anyone else as an entry qualifier into AA. The only question they are willing to ask is will you accept Sobriety Court in exchange for a guilty plea and a suspension of Jail time.

If he does not want to see you, never force yourself upon him. Neither should the family hysterically plead with him to do ANYTHING. BB Page 90. “Working with Others”.

The Court refuses to follow this course of action.

The family should wait for the end of his next drinking bout. You might place this book where he can see it in the interval. Here no specific rule can be given. The family must decide these things. But urge them not to be over anxious, for that might spoil matters. BB Pages 90-91. “Working with Others”.

The Court wants to decide and the court wants to create anxiety and the court wants to have specific rules i.e. jail.

Tell him how baffled you were, how you finally learned that you were sick. Give him an account of the struggles you made to stop. Show him the mental twists which lead to the first Drink of a spree. We suggest you do this as we have done it the chapter on alcoholism. If he is alcoholic, he will understand you AT ONCE. He will match your mental inconsistencies with some of his own. BB Page 92. “Working with Others”.

The court seems to think this process will take 3-5 meetings a week for up to 2 years. This also seems to indicate that if he has related he will “share” his mental twist that signal he is an alcoholic.

If you are satisfied that he is a real alcoholic, begin to dwell on the hopeless feature of the malady. BB Page 92. “Working with Others”.

The court wastes little or no time determining if he is an alcoholic real or otherwise. But to the extent that they do they have taken this tool out of our hands. By sending the defendant to AA they have pronounced them alcoholic. Closed meetings of AA long term are for Alcoholics who have a desire to stop drinking. In many cases they have done an assessment. By a paid professional who has determine that they need to go to AA “X” times a week.

And be careful not to brand him as an alcoholic. Let him draw his own conclusions. If he sticks to the idea that he can still control his drinking, tell him that possibly he can—if he is not too alcoholic. But insist that if is severely afflicted, there may be little chance he can recover by himself. BB Page 92. “Working with Others”.

It seems to me that since the paragraph noted above this one says to judge him as to whether or not he is a real alcoholic and this one says to be ‘careful not to brand him one” the emphasis is that we shouldn’t bother going forward if he isn’t a “real alcoholic” in the first one and in this paragraph the emphasis is on the prospect admitting personal powerlessness over the malady. Personally… not the judge, not you, not his family but him. I believe the seed you plant is the last sentence. The difference between the Book’s seed and the court’s is that the book consistently plants a seed of hopelessness “if” he is an alcoholic and then lets him go to be alone with his thoughts on the matter. The courts sends him to a place where to join he has to make such an admission to qualify to attend more meetings AND they demand that he keeps coming back until he does it in spite of his own truths in the matter. The Courts method of planting a seed is like someone who plants a seed and waters and fertilizes until it is drowned and chemically burned and does not sprout at all.

Stress the spiritual feature freely. BB Page 93. “Working with Others”.

The Courts have lost 22 cases on appeal for sending defendants to “spiritually based 12 step programs. They loath that we would do this because is a huge fly in the Sobriety Court system.

If he is not interested in your solution, if he expects you to act only as a banker for his financial difficulties or nurse for his sprees you may have to drop him until he changes his mind. This he may do after he gets hurts some more. BB Page 95. “Working with Others”.

Is it really a large leap to place “if he only wants you to supply a signature on his to court slip” to the list of reasons to drop him that Bill supplied in the 30’s?

If he is sincerely interested (their Bill goes telling us to make a judgment on his willingness) and WANTS to see you again, ask him to read this book in the interval. After doing that he MUST decide for himself whether he wants to go on. He should not be pushed or prodded by you, his wife or his friends. If he is to find God the desire must come from within. BB Page 95. “Working with Others”.

The difference between the Big Book and the courts approach is so dramatic I am afraid I will be insulting by comment. The main point is that Bill makes the point continually that it is truly the voluntary nature of making a decision to follow the AA way of life that is mandatory to success and any diminishing of this will result in failure. The NY GSO guideline minimizes the original lack of self-motivation in most members. What this passage seems to say to me is that the way to overcome that is to repeatedly place the decision firmly in the lap of the prospect. Otherwise he will not go through with harsh measures that the twelve steps dictate.

If he thinks he can do the job in some other way, or prefers some other spiritual approach, ENCOURAGE HIM to follow his own conscience. We have no monopoly on God; we merely have an approach that worked with us. But point out that we alcoholics have much in common and that you would like, in any case, to be friendly. LET IT GO AT THAT. BB Page 95. “Working with Others”.

The court does not believe in “letting it go at that”. The court does not believe in being friendly they believe in jail if you follow your conscience. The court does not accept any other spiritual approach and society does not offer non-spiritual approaches in sufficient numbers to satisfy the heavy demands of Sobriety courts. Demands so heavy that even drug addicts, wife beaters, shoplifters and assorted other petty and violent criminals need to be sent to AA.

In our belief any scheme of combating alcoholism which proposes to shield the sick man from temptation is doomed to failure. If the alcoholic tries to shield himself he may succeed for a time, but usually winds up with a bigger explosion than ever. We have tried these methods. These attempts to do the impossible have ALWAYS failed. BB Page 101. “Working with Others”.

Sobriety Court demands that you not frequent bars and worse it tries to shield you from drinking by PBT’s on both regular and random basis. Trying to place a technological shield against the first drink. The point Bill is trying to re-enforce that the prospect must have the motivation from within. Not get that motivation within AA and AA cannot overcome this external motivation to “control” access to alcohol.

Suppose, however, that your husband fits the description of number two. The same principles which apply to husband number one should be practiced. But after his next binge, ask him if he would really like to get over drinking for good. Don not ask that he do it for you or anyone else. Just would he like to? BB Page 112 “To Wives”.

Note that it says or anyone else. Bill seems to always drive home the personal decision nature of committing the prospect to the program.

If he is lukewarm or thinks he is not an alcoholic, we suggest you leave him alone. Avoid urging him to follow our program. The seed has been planted in his mind. He knows that thousands of men, much like himself, have recovered. But don’t remind him of this after he’s been drinking, for he may be angry. Sooner or later you are likely to find him reading the book once more. Wait until repeated stumbling convinces him he must act, for the more you hurry him the longer his recovery may be delayed. BB Page 113 “To Wives”.

If this advice that is given to a wife of the husband who is type 2. If this is sound advice for a wife who has to live with the problem 24-7 why it isn’t sound advice for the courts?

About the number three husband who already has a desire to quit the book says: Being certain he wants to stop you can go to him with this volume as joyfully as though you had struck oil. He may not share your enthusiasm, but he is practically certain to read the book and he may go for the program at once. If he does not, you will probably not have long to wait. Again, you should not crowd him. Let him decide for himself. BB Page 113 “To Wives”.

Wow what difference wanting to quit makes. The courts actions are the exact opposite of how to handle even a prospect who has a desire to quit. In fact, according to this passage the courts actions may sabotage this excellent opportunity. The theme of let him decide for himself continues. Even for wives who are dealing with the difficulty first hand. I would think it would apply to the Court if they are truly interested in his recovery.

In regard to husband number 4 who is or has been in an institution the book says: If he is already committed to an institution, but can convince you and his doctor that he means business, give him a chance to try our method, unless the doctor thinks his mental condition too abnormal or dangerous. BB Page 114 “To Wives”.

Even someone who is obviously an alcoholic of the worst kind has to prove that he is sincere in believing not only is that his condition but that he means business.

In the chapter “To Employers” it tells the employer to say: Say that you believe he is a gravely-ill person, with this qualification—being perhaps fatally ill does he want to get well? You ask because alcoholics being warped and drugged, do not want to quit. But does want to get well? Will he take every necessary step, submit to anything to get well, to stop drinking forever? If he says yes, does he really mean it, or down inside does he think he is fooling you, and that after rest and treatment he will be able to get away with a few drinks now and then? We believe a man should be thoroughly probed on these points. Be satisfied he is not deceiving himself or you. BB Page 142 “To Employers”.

Sound advice for outside agency who has their own “stick” firing not jail as in the case of the Court. The court poses a much different question to the defendant. Do you really want to go to up to 250 meetings a year for up to 2 years so you won’t have to go to jail? Are you will to accept a conviction? For this deal? If you fall short you agree to go to jail? And by the way the court spends little time determining if he is deceiving himself if he says he really wants to get well.

Either you are dealing with a man who can and will get well or you are not. If not, why waste time with him? BB Page 142 “To Employers”.

The court is not worried about wasting our time with him.

The Employer is further educated that physical treatment is but a small part and that his man must undergo a change of heart. To get over drinking will require a transformation of thought and attitude. We had to place recovery above everything, for without recovery we would have lost both home and business. BB Page 143 “To employers”.

The court seems to think that the probationer must place getting to his sobriety court requirements above everything else. Because without freedom from jail he will lose everything else. Unfortunately by this thinking the threat of jail ends and then the motivation for both developing spiritually and staying sober ends. The Book continues to demonstrate that the motivation must come from within early in the recovery and those associated with the process should insure that this is happening.

We hope the doctor will tell him the truth about his condition, whatever that happens to be. When the man is presented with this volume it is best that no tell him he must abide by its suggestions. The man must decide for himself. BB Page 144 “To Employers”.

“whatever that happens to be” does anyone really believe that the court mandated Alcohol Assessor (who isn’t a doctor for this disease situation) is really telling these people who drank and drove one time and blew a .07 that they probably just need to moderate on their own? No they are being told that they need a minimum of 3 meetings a week for 6 months. What about the kids that get an M.I.P. and get sent to AA for ten sessions? Are they really being told the truth? What is up with different levels of AA participation for differ levels of criminal activity? Doesn’t the Book say that to achieve recovery you need to go to any lengths? So by definition if you say you need to go to AA even for one meeting shouldn’t you as an assessor be saying they need to really mean business? Should they be probed on the issue of personal surrender? By the way in some instances the Assessor actually gets a forced paying client if the Probationer scores high enough on the test. Not only that, if the probationer fails to pay his bill the court acts as the therapist’s collection agency. What ever happened to absence of profit motive being a key to working with and assessing their conditions. Remember we are constantly called to assess their willingness before letting them into AA and we do it for free. Not the other way around where lack of willingness is a sign you need more AA.

Do you want to quit drinking or not? Page 147 “To Employers”.

This advice is given to the outside agency i.e. Employer. Does it not apply to the Court as well? The key of course is the freedom to answer truthfully and not in a dishonest manner to gain access to the less harsh penalties that Sobriety court that taints every interchange for the Prospect.

If he wants to stop, he should be afforded a real chance. If cannot or does not want to stop he should be discharged. Page 144 “To Employers”.

The court is only interested in if he wants to strike the deal that Sobriety court offers. Then they send them to AA where they don’t belong because they haven’t passed the acid test of wanting to stop.

Of course, this chapter refers to alcoholics, sick people, deranged men. What are friend the Vice President, had in mind was the habitual or whoopee drinker. As to them, his policy (just firing them if it interfered with their job) is undoubtedly sound but he did not distinguish between such people and the alcoholic. Page 149 “To Employers”.

The court does not distinguish between even problem drinkers and alcoholics and to whatever extent they do distinguish between the two they do not recognize that the probationer’s belief about their condition is key to AA having any positive effect on them.

It is not to be expected that an alcoholic employee will receive a disproportionate amount of time and attention. He should not be made a favorite. The right kind of man, the kind who recovers, will not want this sort of thing, He will not impose. Far from it. He will work like the devil and thank you to his dying day. Page 149 “To Employers”.

If you read any of these judge’s writings or view any of the human interests reports on television one thing they all take pride in is how much attention they load on their sobriety court clients. They aren’t even referred to as criminals or probationers. They keep coming back into court and getting PBT’s and talking to’s, they are never trusted to be in charge of their own recovery. They impose on AA to have their slips signed and to be questioned about their where a bouts. The person who is recovering does not need to prove they are on the beam. Living a recovery center life will take care of that. They do not need to give book reports on the steps just as those around are required to discern if they are sincere those parties will be able to discern (dare I say judge) if they are recovering. The courts don’t want the advice of AA. They want the rooms of AA. They think it is a great program just not one they should follow.

Now and then a serious drinker, being dry at the moment says, “I don’t miss it at all. Feel better. Work better. Having a better time.” As ex-problem drinkers, we smile at such sally. We know our friend is like a boy whistling in the dark to keep up his spirits. He fools himself. Inwardly, he would give anything to take a half dozen drinks and get away with them. He will presently try the old game again, for he isn’t happy about his sobriety. Page 153 “A Vision for You”.

There goes the book again telling judge the guy in the meeting. Putting it gentler it is admonishing us to not ignore that insight that we have gained about the alcoholic and his chances of recovery. I think it falls under the general category of you can’t BS a BS’er. None the less, we all have heard this phrase or one similar from a Court mandated attendee. Often right before he is about to get of probation. Then what so often happens, happens you never see them again. In hindsight we recognize that he was justifying that he had learned all he needed to learn at AA. Self-knowledge and a week embrace of a sober life-style was enough to convince himself that he didn’t need to “keep coming back”.

On the third day the lawyer gave his life to the care and direction of his creator, and said he was perfectly willing to do anything necessary. His wife came daring to be hopeful, though she thought she saw something different about her husband already. He had begun to have a spiritual experience. That afternoon he put on his close and walked from the hospital a free man. Page 158 “A Vision for You”.

He never drank again. The point is his wife new instantly that he was changing she did not him to prove he had gone to his allotted meetings. Secondly, the planting of the seed had taken two visits from doctor Bob and Bill W. not a sentence of up to 250 meetings a year for up to 2 years.

Talking about the next success the book says: He had three visitors. After a bit, he said, “The way you fellows put this spiritual stuff makes sense. I’m ready to do business. I guess the old folks were right after all. So one more was added to the Fellowship. Page 159 “A Vision for You”.

Once again a seed can be planted fairly quickly in a fertile ground and not at all in an unopened mind. Or mind that does not need the seed. The court does not seem to know or care that without the proper receptacle we cannot do anything and with one that does not need our program we should not do anything.

No one is too discredited or has sunk too low to be welcomed cordially—if he means business. Social distinctions, petty rivalries and jealousies—these are laughed out of countenance. Being wrecked in the same vessel, being restored and united under one God, with hearts and minds attuned to the welfare of others, the things which matter so much to some people no longer signify much to them. How could they?

Once again the caveats contained in this passage have little meaning to the Sobriety Court. I will highlight them: The reoccurring theme of “if he means business” he will welcomed cordially. “United” under one God with hearts and minds attuned to welfare of others. If they aren’t attuned to the Principles/Traditions that bring about a recovery they won’t care about AA’s welfare. If they do not have unity of purpose they will not protect the sanctity of a closed meeting.“

Think on that!

Cheers

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

PS Our thanks to this AA member for their analysis