NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/alt/recovery/3587

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-20 | 3.5 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!olivea!gossip.pyramid.com!pyramid!infmx!hartman
From: [e-mail] (Robert Hartman)
Newsgroups: alt.recovery
Subject: Re: Violence at AA meetings
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 20 Nov 92 19:34:04 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Usenet News)
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.
Lines: 55

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Robert Hartman) writes:
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bruce Baer) writes:
>>
>>Whew!  This is either tough love taken to an extreme, or it's
>>insane.  I don't know which.  Rolling someone into recovery!  Well,
>>I suppose it's better than leaving them to rot in the gutter.
>
>    Not.  Beating the hell out of someone and then having them taken to
>detox hardly constitutes bringing "someone into recovery".  If I were the
>drunk victim of this assault, I'm quite sure I wouldn't go to any lengths
>to get what my assaulters had.  I can think of no rational reason for
>treating a victim of alcoholism in this manner.

This is a very ugly topic.  I don't think that I could participate in
anything like that.  But I'm not sure that I can completely condemn it
either.  For one thing, we're talking about a victim of the disease who
perpetrates violence in meetings (and God-knows where else).

Nevertheless, I should hope that such drastic measures would be held in
reserve as long as possible.  So I guess the "preferred method" comment
put me off a little bit.  But if it's someone's third or fourth violent
disruption and the police are too slow to be of any real help, a forceful
ejection might be necessary.  And if it comes to that, making sure the
person gets medical care is at least somewhat compassionate.

Even so, it is an ugly thing to do.  Even when it appears necessary
for the safety of the meeting, I would never want to kid myself into
thinking that I was doing it for the good of the violent drunk.
That sounds like denial talking.  Denying the ugliness of what one
sometimes has to do to protect one's sobriety doesn't help.  If it
seemed necessary at some time or other to physically put a stop to a
vioent drunk and then get them to a hospital, the person who had to
do that has my condolences--even if it gratified his own violent
tendencies at some level.  We all have those tendencies, but in a
way, I should think that having such a thing feel gratifying would,
at some level, only make it worse.  I certainly hope that we can
respect ourselves, and what we have to do to protect ourselves, enough
to avoid placating our conscience with a story about how it's in the
interest of the violent drunk.  I don't think so.

After mulling this over, I think that "rolling someone into detox" goes
against every principle of the program.  We cannot work another
person's program.  As far as I'm concerned, a meeting has to be a safe
place for the newcomer, even if he does have violent tendencies that
have been exacerbated by the disease.

An involuntary stay in detox might save a shit-faced drunk's life, but
it isn't my job to save his life.  It's my job to save _my_ life, and
to share with him what I learned when he's interested and ready.  If
he's not interested or not ready, then I don't need him interfering in
my recovery.  By the same token, I don't need to interfere in his
disease.  And I sure as hell don't need to risk jail to interfere in
his disease, even if it is New York.

-r