Would he better off with a caning as punishment?

[The Hen]

If I had ever wondered where dumb-fuck bogan kids had come from, all I should do is check out their dumb-fuck bogan parents.

[Gob]

Sources within the Jakarta Attorney-General's office revealed the 14-year-old boy's case went "pear-shaped" once it became known his parents had engaged an agent to shop around for a highly-paid media deal, The Daily Telegraph reported.

Good.

[The Hen]

They are as stupid as their son, whom I am now convinced would have been warned about the sheer stupidity of being found with drugs in Bali.

[Andrew D]

Of course AA and other twelve-step programs appear to work for some people. If they did not, then their success rate would be zero.

And I also have known people for whom twelve-step programs appear to have been working. That has to be in the present progressive tense, because according to the twelve-steppers, there is no such thing as a program that has worked (present perfect, as in completed): If you have ever been an addict, you will always be an addict -- you're still addicted to methamphetamine even if you haven't had any in forty-plus years.

To me, that looks like a perpetual-dependence program, not a treatment program. So it is probably not an accident that twelve-step programs apparently work rather better for people who are religious than for people who are not.

But there are other programs -- non-twelve-step programs -- out there that work better. Indeed, according to some research, the "success" of twelve-step programs is entirely accounted for by the rate of spontaneous remission.

In other words, the "success" rate of twelve-step programs is the same as (or not statistically distinguishable from) the "success" rate of doing absolutely nothing: About 5% of addicts will just stop being addicts all on their own. So if the "success" rate of twelve-step programs is about 5% -- a commonly concluded figure -- then the "success" rate of twelve-step programs is the same as the "success" rate of no program at all.

And that is snake oil: If the success rate of doing X is the same as the success rate of doing nothing (except making one's own decision, unassisted by any program), then, as should be immediately obvious, doing X contributes nothing of value.

But that is a statistical generalization, and all of us who understand statistics grasp that a statistical generalization is not a definitive predictor of an individual instance. There may well be people who, had it not been for a twelve-step program, would not have recovered from their addictions.

But there is no way to know. If a person chose a twelve-step program rather than a different program or no program, there is no way to know what would have happened had that person chosen a different program or no program. Would a different program have worked faster? Would it have worked without developing the perpetual-dependence relationship that so markedly characterizes twelve-step programs? Would it have a greater likelihood of long-term success -- a greater likelihood of one's not "falling off the wagon"?

Would choosing no program have worked as well for a particular individual as choosing a twelve-step program? Would making the crucial decision -- the decision no longer to be an addict -- have been more successful for a particular individual if it had been the result of a self-directed, autonomous decision-making process rather than an externally-directed, inherently dependent decision-making process?

We have no way of knowing. But what we do know is that there are kinds of programs which are, on the whole, far more effective than are twelve-step programs.

And that conclusion is the polar opposite of "a profoundly ignorant thing to say". That conclusion is the result of applying logical reasoning to observable facts -- something which some here never do, partly because doing it is beyond them, and partly because the prospect of doing so frightens them.

For most people, twelve-step programs simply do not work.

That is just a fact: For most people, twelve-step programs simply do not work.

[Andrew D]

The Harvard Mental Health Letter, from The Harvard Medical School, stated quite plainly:

On their own

There is a high rate of recovery among alcoholics and addicts, treated and untreated. According to one estimate, heroin addicts break the habit in an average of 11 years. Another estimate is that at least 50% of alcoholics eventually free themselves although only 10% are ever treated. One recent study found that 80% of all alcoholics who recover for a year or more do so on their own, some after being unsuccessfully treated. When a group of these self-treated alcoholics was interviewed, 57% said they simply decided that alcohol was bad for them. Twenty-nine percent said health problems, frightening experiences, accidents, or blackouts persuaded them to quit. Others used such phrases as "Things were building up" or "I was sick and tired of it." Support from a husband or wife was important in sustaining the resolution.

Treatment of Drug Abuse and Addiction — Part III, The Harvard Mental Health Letter, Volume 12, Number 4, October 1995, page 3. (See Aug. (Part I), Sept. (Part II), Oct. 1995 (Part III).)

So much for the sayings that "Everybody needs a support group" and "Nobody can do it alone". Most successful people do.

In his book on the treatment of alcoholism, Dr. Sheldon Zimberg surveyed the literature for reports of spontaneous remission of alcoholism:

Spontaneous Remission in Alcoholism

A number of studies have found that a small percentage of alcoholics improve to the point of remission of problems associated with alcohol consumption. Bailey and Stewart (235) interviewed alcoholics after three years without treatment and found that about 27 percent of the former patients denied alcoholism. Cahalan (268) in a national drinking practices study noted that drinking problems decrease in men after age 50 and the amount of alcohol consumed also decreases. Cahalan, Cisin, and Crossley (11) in another national survey of drinking practices found that about one-third more individuals had problem drinking in a period before their three-year study period than during the study period itself, suggesting a tendency toward spontaneous remission of drinking problems. Goodwin, Crane, and Guze (269) found that on an eight-year follow-up with no treatment about 18 percent of the alcoholic felons had been abstinent for at least two years. Lemere (238) reported long-term abstinence in 11 percent of untreated alcoholics over an unspecified interval. Kendall and Staton (236) reported 15 percent abstinence in untreated alcoholics after a seven-year follow-up. Kissin, Platz, and Su (203) reported a 4 percent one-year improvement rate in untreated lower class alcoholics. Imber et al. (10) described a follow-up of 58 alcoholics who received no treatment for their alcoholism. It was noted that the rate of abstinence was 15 percent at one year and 11 percent after three years.

In sum, the preponderance of these studies suggests that a spontaneous remission rate for alcoholism of at least one-year duration is about 4-18 percent. Successful treatment would, therefore, have to produce rates of improvement significantly above this probable range of spontaneous remission.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Imber, S., Schultz, E., Funderburk, F., Allen, R. and Flamer, R. The Fate of the Untreated Alcoholic. J. Nerv and Ment. Dis., 1976, 162:238-247.
11. Cahalan, D., Cisin, I. H. and Crossley, H. M. American Drinking Practices: A National Survey of Drinking Behavior and Attitudes. New Brunswick, Rutgers Center for Alcohol Studies, 1974.
203. Kissin, B., Platz, A. and Su, W. H. Social and Psychological Factors in the Treatment of Chronic Alcoholics. J. Psychiat. Res., 1970, 8:13-27.
235. Bailey, M. B. and Stewart, S. Normal Drinking by Persons Reporting Previous Problem Drinking. Quart. J. Stud. Alc., 1967, 28:305-315.
236. Kendall, R. E. and Staton, M. C. The Fate of Untreated Alcoholics. Quart. J. Stud. Alc., 1966, 27:30-41.
238. Lemere, F. What Happens to Alcoholics. Amer. J. Psychiat., 1953, 109:674-675.
268. Cahalan, D. Problem Drinkers: A National Survey, San Francisco, Jossey-Bass, 1970.
269. Goodwin, W. W., Crane, J. B., and Guze, S. B. Felons Who Drink: An Eight-Year Follow-up. Quart. J. Stud. Alc., 1971, 32:136-147.

The Clinical Management of Alcoholism, Sheldon Zimberg, M.D., page 179, footnotes on pages 223 to 234.

[liberty]

They are as stupid as their son, whom I am now convinced would have been warned about the sheer stupidity of being found with drugs in Bali.

At least the boy has an excuse, he is fourteen.