Are 12 step programs like Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) the only way to beat addiction? Such programs require a belief in a “higher power” and submission to that power. The Humanist Society was happy to host someone who indeed beat addiction without any gods.
Humanist Society President Judy Flattery introduced the talk by connecting it with two of the Affirmations of Humanism by Paul Kurtz:
We deplore efforts to denigrate human intelligence, to seek to explain the world in supernatural terms, and to look outside nature for salvation.
We are committed to the application of reason and science to the understanding of the universe and to the solving of human problems.
Mary Beth O’Connor is a Board Member for She Recovers Foundation and a Director for LifeRing Secular Recovery. She regularly speaks on behalf of these organizations and about multiple and secular paths to recovery. She had an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal, “I Beat Addiction without God“
Even though O’Connor is a retired judge, she invited us to call her Mary Beth.
Mary Beth jumped right in describing her challenging childhood that led to childhood addiction. Her mother didn’t give her attention and her mother could be violent. Her mother married her stepfather and the stepfather was violent and sexually abusive.
At age 12 she started on drugs with alcohol. With Boone’s Farm Strawberry Hill wine. She was soon addicted. She loved it. She felt better. She even stole beer from her dangerous stepfather.
She went on to use weed and pills. She was shooting meth by age 17. Meth became her drug of choice.
She left home in central New Jersey to go to Berkeley, where she went on to graduate. She was not doing well, but she was doing better. She was mostly using alcohol in ways that mostly did not disrupt her life.
But then she had a horrific kidnapping that included six hours of being raped. Then she moved in with a violent boyfriend during college.
She didn’t get sober until she was 32. That was in 1994. She had gone down the corporate ladder. She couldn’t hold a job and her partner was ready to throw her out. She realized she needed rehab.
She went into a women’s program that was a 90 day minimum. She saw it as “medical treatment”. The program wanted her to focus on her defects. But they also wanted her to enroll in a 12 step program. That can be a good fit for some people, but not for her. She didn’t believe in a higher power, which is essential for these programs.
The rehab program told her there was no other way. That her best thinking got her where she was and it would not get her out. She was paying them for treatment, figuring they are the experts. She looked for the parts that she could use.
She didn’t like to feel powerless over addiction, but she agreed it was hard to moderate it.
In January 1994 she got home from rehab. There was no Google then, so she went to the library. She learned there were in fact other options. She found Women for Sobriety, SMART Recovery and LifeRing. She was relieved to know that other people had recovered without a 12 step program.
She got the books about these programs to understand them. She went to their programs. But she was always “synthesizing and filtering” them. She wanted to control her own recovery on her terms.
That was not so common then, but now LifeRing calls it a “personal recovery plan”. She has been sober since 1994 so she thinks she did a pretty good job!
She realized part of her recovery involved dealing with her trauma. She found a therapist who diagnosed her with PTSD. Recovery from that took more work and was complicated.
She was accepted to attend Berkeley Law directly out of college. But she had started using meth again during her senior year of college so she did not feel prepared to go to law school at that point. She passed up a Top Ten law school.
She worked at part time low level work after she got sober. She worked her way up from there to middle management. She did eventually go to Berkeley Law School in 2000 at six years into being sober. She worked at big law. Then was a class action lawyer for the government.
When she was 20 years sober she was appointed to be a Federal Administrative Law Judge. She took early retirement in 2020, but she is plenty busy!
She is on the board of several recovery organizations: LifeRing Secular Recovery, She Recovers Foundation, Hyer Calling Foundation. She has published her book and essays in notable publications.
All of this was by way of introduction! “Let’s get to the meat!” How does secular recovery work?
She uses the term Substance Use Disorder (SUD). This is the modern medical name for addiction in the official Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). SUD is a mental health disorder.
The definition of a SUD has changed over the course of her 31 years of being sober. This slide shows some of these definitions.
She emphasized that drugs includes alcohol. Alcohol is still the most widely abused drug. The key part of SUD is continued use despite notable negative consequences.
Is SUD a “disease”? This is debated. She says that another way to look at it is as a type of learning disorder. Maya Szalavitz uses this idea in her book “Unbroken Brain”.
It can also be seen as a bad habit. Marc Lewis uses this idea in his book “Memoirs of an Addicted Brain”.
No matter what, it is a mental health disorder. And it can occur on a spectrum of mild, moderate or severe. Hitting bottom is not necessary and is not recommended. That is how people die. More years are lost that way. Better to get out of SUD as soon as possible. There is less to repair the sooner the problems end. Quitting or reducing drug and alcohol use can be beneficial even if you don’t meet the SUD criteria.
She was at a very severe level according to the DSM test. She was using meth almost daily.
Alcohol has negative effects even at moderate use levels: Cancer, liver and heart disease. Drugs can lead to other risky behavior like driving under the influence or regrettable sexual behavior.
Hangovers can interfere with work or living the best life. Drugs are often an escape from a bad partner or job. Those problems need to be solved.
There is good news. You may hear that only 10-15% of people with SUD recover. She said that is not true. Perfect abstinence from day one is rare. She used meth three times in the first five months. That is not a failure. 75% of people with SUD will recover. Sobriety after five years means an 85% chance of full recovery.
She said that medically supervised withdrawal is sometimes necessary. It is possible to die from withdrawal of alcohol or benzodiazepines. This can be a challenge. Insurance may only pay for 28-30 days if you are lucky enough to have that. Maybe you can’t leave your job or kids.
Not everybody needs inpatient treatment. Intensive outpatient (IOP) is an option. Some people work with a recovery coach. Medications can help with opioid and alcohol withdrawal. To reduce pain and craving. And to increase the odds of staying sober after withdrawal.
Harm reduction is another issue. If drug use continues, it is still important to reduce risk. Test strips to be sure what is in the drug, especially to avoid fentanyl. Narcan. Clean syringes. Harm reduction actually helps people get into treatment.
She went on to talk about the peer support options in these slides.
There is no hard line. Atheists and agnostics can make 12 step programs work. And some religious people may do a secular plan.
LifeRing emphasizes that self help can work with a personalized plan.
SMART Recovery uses a Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) approach. It can also work for gambling and gambling.
She Recovers is a peer support program led by trained members. It is not just for SUD. It can help with trauma and other mental health disorders. It focuses on strengths on a journey to wholeness.
Women for Sobriety emphasizes the idea that you are to become a caring, capable, competent person. With a lot of positive reinforcement focus.
Recovery Dharma is Buddhist based and focuses on inner wisdom and the individual journey.
There are other groups, but these five, plus AA, are the largest. Research them and one or two will feel like “my people are there”. And about 20% of SUD people recover with no peer support group.
A personal recovery plan means you are gaining self knowledge. Where am I? Who am I? Where do I want to go? How do I get there?
It is a way to learn self-efficacy. A sense of confidence and competence. And plans can and should be adjusted over time.
Sarah Zemore published a study of the effectiveness of different peer organizations. She found that 12 step, LifeRing, Women for Sobriety and SMART are all about equally effective.
If you participate in designing your plan, you will have a greater chance of success.
There are many reasons for people to be aware of multiple options. The US is increasingly becoming secular. 21-32% are secular now. Secular people used to be concentrated in cities, but now they are everywhere. And they are in all demographics of age, class and ethnicity.
Many treatment programs developed from 12-step ideas don’t inform clients in advance, so it can be important to ask to make sure multiple pathways are supported.
One obstacle can be friends or family who only know about 12 step programs. She holds meetings for LifeRing monthly to educate friends and family about other options.
Courts are not supposed to mandate religion based programs, but some still do. The Appignani Humanist Legal Center fights back. This comes up with diversion from prison, sentencing, probation and parole. And family law and visitation rights.
Judges don’t like to be restricted so she trains them. She points out that the best success will come when the person can pick the program that is the best fit for them.
She recommends samhsa.gov as a starting place for resources. This is the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.
The National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) is part of the NIH and offers more science information.
The California Department of Public Health has an Addiction Prevention Branch. Santa Barbara County has a Behavioral Wellness Department.
Mary Beth emphasized that she makes herself available for contact with questions. She is on social media, narrowly focused on SUD issues. And she is reachable through her web site: https://junkietojudge.com/
She then took questions.
Judy Fontana asked more about what a personal recovery plan entails. It depends on how severe the SUD is. It depends on the person’s financial resources. Whether they are working. Whether some people may need to be cut out of their lives for awhile. She recommended the book “Recovery by Choice”.
Wayne asked whether it is possible to cut back vs total sobriety. A minority can make that work if the SUD is mild.
Wilma asked about a family member struggling with food addiction. Mary Beth said the commonality in all addiction is dopamine. People sometimes switch addictions. The key is to find out what underlies the addiction. Perhaps trauma or other mental health disorders.
David W wanted to get sober and psychiatrists and therapists all recommended AA. He got sober without a peer support group. But he did have support from friends, family and professionals. He wondered if the mental health community is becoming more aware of alternatives. She said yes, but more awareness is needed.
Judy Flattery described her experience recently in Vancouver, Canada. Seeing drug use in public. Mary Beth said most major cities have these problems. Housing is a big issue. Supervised consumption sites are helpful. Criminalization is not helpful. It costs 3-4 times as much to incarcerate someone as to treat them. There is not enough voluntary treatment available. There are also racial disparities in enforcement.
Rhett from Orange County asked what happened to the people who kidnapped her. She said she never reported it. She grew up in a violent household and knew the police would not care. She had no names or license plate numbers.
Dr Andy Thomson asked about the current situation with Trump. He has slashed funds for SAMHSA. Lots of firing and some rehiring. Turmoil and changes. Trying to recriminalize homelessness and drug use.
Mary Beth recommends normal political action. Donating money and supporting good candidates. RFK Jr is a 12 step kind of guy. He does not understand evidence based treatment. He opposes medications. A major impact is slashing funding to local organizations.
For more information about upcoming events with the Humanist Society of Santa Barbara or to become a member, please go to https://www.sbhumanists.org/
“Whatever works for you” indeed was the message she conveyed. She noted that “Atheists and agnostics can make 12 step programs work. And some religious people may do a secular plan.”
There is a difference between “blame” and understanding a causal chain. The people who hurt her probably also had been hurt. Her main message was how to break that chain.
Thank you for your comments.
Whatever works for you embrace it.
Not really a convincing narrative. Glad she got clean but sad that she seems to blame her problems on others, especially men. Sort of misstates AA dogma as well. “Higher power” is generally accepted as the idea that you need to see something to guide you and inspire you to change your conduct. This can be the writings of others or the love of another or the accumulated knowledge of centuries of human philosophers.
So if a man beats you or rapes you or kidnaps you or all of the above you shouldn’t “blame them” when you then seek ways to cope with the pain and trauma of those terrible experiences?
What a s*** take.
And you’re saying that her story is not “convincing”? Convincing of what? Apparently she figured out how to be sober and have a rewarding career and be a productive member of society after being a speed junkie–but that’s not “convincing” enough for you?
What’s your problem with this? Just say you don’t like hearing women relate their experiences.
Wow. I wonder what you mean by “convincing narrative”. Did you not understand that she has been sober a long time now and has achieved much success? Or is your critique more about her story, her “narrative”? It’s messy and nonlinear, which gives it *convincing* gravitas and authenticity, imo.
As for blaming her problems on others, that’s where you give yourself away mate. You are clearly threatened by her independence of thought. She doesn’t blame others at all, at least nothing in this piece even hints at that. She had some really bad stuff happen to her, much like 20-30% of adult women have had, and she made some really bad choices in how she reacted to those events. But *you* think she’s blaming men for her problems. That’s a revealing interpretation! Finally, despite the lip service you cite from AA, in actual practice it is almost always accepted that “Higher Power” means Jesus and the Christian god. Sophocles and Voltaire don’t show up at many AA meetings, but you can bet your ass people be quoting the Bible all day long there.
She does blame others. Her mother, her stepfather, PTSD, drugs, relilgions. You choose to believe her as a “victim” but you have only her word for this. Who knows what her family would say about their experiences with her? Glad she got sober but it does seem she is capitalizing on her claims of victimhood. We are not allowed, apparently, to suggest that someone on the side of rehab and conquering evil is questionable in their recounting of their history.
Recounting milestone events in one’s life is not the same thing as blaming those events for one’s problems. Nowhere in this piece does she assign blame. We’re not even reading her own words here, but those of sbrobert. You alone are supplying the “blame” synopsis, proving that you don’t read very well. You also didn’t read Anon’s comment very well because nowhere in it does s/he imply that she was a victim. Kinda the opposite actually: “She had some really bad stuff happen to her…and she made some really bad choices…” Where’s the “victim”? Sounds more like you want to take her family’s side and blame her, which is bizarre and cruel, and unfortunately way too typical of the manosphere rape-culture we have going on in this country. You can question anything you want, dude, but don’t try to gaslight us with nonsense and your psycho-hack theories. Stick to the facts
Anon in defense of the article’s subject: Your reply was worth posting a “heck yeah!” Thanks!
Nah, you don’t have anything to say, STFU
I blame only you for being the horrible person that you are.
You’re allowed to say stupid vile things and others are allowed to criticize you for them.
I don’t see why it even matters whether she is scrupulously accurate in telling her history. In any interpersonal relationship there will be different recollections and views of how things transpired. The point is that she was an addict, and she got clean without relying on gods or religion.
The discussion has been most revealing of how differently some see the world. Good to have this out in the open.
As for her words vs my words, it may be helpful to know that I asked her to read my article before publishing it. She was very kind to read it very carefully. With a lawyer’s eye, she noted! She made some very helpful corrections. So, what you are reading here has passed her approval.
As noted in the article, she is very accessible if you want to question any of her claims and/or advice. As for “capitalizing” on her claims I have to laugh as a professional writer myself. Very few writers “capitalize” much at all through writing. I am sure she made far more in her legal profession than she will ever make from her writing.
I am very grateful to her for having the courage to go public with her personal challenges. She clearly is hoping to help others through what she has learned the very hard way. Thank you all again for your comments, even the ones I very much disagree with.
It is incredible how gullible people can be when a position is presented that agrees with their world view. Liberals criticize MAGA people for not being critical of the claims of the conspiracy folks and for denying facts when contrary to their views but the simply gulp down stuff that goes with their biases. All that has been presented here is a statement by a person that says she was a drug abuser and had conflicts with her family and others. One may question whether or not her conduct created the family conflict or was the result of it. Some people have lived on both sides of these divides and can see that they are not black and white. PS My comments were not meant to say she was getting money from there accounts, more to the point that she is getting acclaim and validation.
MAGA people repeat claims that are verifiably wrong. That human caused climate change isn’t happening. That Trump won the 2020 election. That vaccines cause autism. What is verifiably wrong in any of the claims in this article?
The Nevada Bar Association seems to believe in her enough to offer Continuing Legal Education credits for attending one of her talks:
https://nvbar.org/events/cle-from-junkie-to-judge-one-womans-triumph-over-trauma-and-addiction/
She is on the boards of organizations helping people recover from addiction. They seem to have a proven track record.
Yes, we should always question information. But there are limits to how far we can go to verify claims. What more can we do to verify her claims? Do you have some specific evidence that contradicts any of her claims?
Wow, so smug to say that MAGA claims are “verifiably wrong” when no one has offered the other side of the “facts” this person’s claims to present. We simply don’t know if she is an accurate historian of her personal narrative or a promoter. And please note that the idea that she is a “judge” and therefore credible is stretching things. Administrative law judges are not much different that DMV hearing officers. They are not publicly elected, are politicallly appointed and usually are comprised of former bureaucrats finishing their time out.
ANON – not smug at all, it’s simply factually correct. Also, you cherry picked Robert’s statement to make it sound like everything MAGAts say is “verifiably wrong.” That’s not what he said. He said you people “repeat claims that are verifiably wrong.” That is 100% accurate and there is absolutely no denying it.
Here, see some for yourself:
– The 2020 election was “rigged”
– Jan 6 was a “peaceful protest”
– Donald Trump is a Christian
– Covid was a hoax
– Haitian immigrants were eating peoples’ pets
– Undocumented immigrants do not contribute to our economy
– Trump doesn’t lie
– Inflation is better
– Groceries are cheaper
– Trump cares about anti-semitism
– The noise from wind turbines causes cancer
– Trump’s Dad gave him only $1 million to start his career
– Trump won the “majority” of votes in 2024
– Trump is a good human being
I mean, I could go on all day, but I got stuff to do.
You get the gist though. A lot of lies all of the time.
So smug of you to sit from afar and disparage this woman. Not credible at all.
It’s similar to your knee jerk hatred of bicycles and private aircraft.
It’s shocking to see how far low you are willing to go to defend your horrible first comment. Now you are peeved that someone accurately sums up MAGA behavior. That’s not being “smug”, it’s telling the truth, and it’s no surprise you can’t recognize it. Then you attempt to smear an entire category of employment in our judicial system by saying they are unelected political appointees. Would that also apply to trump’s Cabinet of Clowns? Your arrogance apparently has no visible limit, unlike your intelligence, grace, and humanity, which are nowhere to be seen.
Jealousy is your motive, it seems. Nice of you to admit it.
Robert: “…I asked her to read my article before publishing it.” Thank you very much for your honesty, but allowing the subject of the article to edit your article is a big/big/big journalistic no-no. Even as a courtesy.
Robert was relating what he heard at a presentation. This was not some deep investigative reporting. The woman is not on trial.
Really, you think that?
Asking someone to read an article to insure accuracy is a good idea.
From a guidebook for journalistic ethics:
“Detailed fact-checking with a source before publication is acceptable and encouraged.”
Nowhere did anyone ask her to edit the article.
What a coincidence; I was reading similar work and experience yesterday from Maia Szalavitz, an opinion writer for The New York Times.
“Her New York Times best seller, “Unbroken Brain: A Revolutionary New Way of Understanding Addiction,” wove together neuroscience and social science with her experience with heroin addiction. It won the 2018 media award from the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Her 2006 book, “Help at Any Cost: How the Troubled Teen Industry Cons Parents and Hurts Kids,” was the first to expose the damage caused by “tough love” youth treatment and helped spur congressional hearings.
She has written or co-written five other books, including a classic on child trauma, “The Boy Who Was Raised as a Dog,” and has written for numerous publications, including Time, Wired and Scientific American.”
She’s got some videos online, is on social media, and here’s a list of her Times pieces:
https://www.nytimes.com/by/maia-szalavitz
She had some issues with AA and is big on harm reduction and MAT (Medication-Assisted Treatment).
Thank you for a positive contribution to the discussion!
As a parent of someone who was once a “troubled teen”, I can verify that there are vultures out there waiting to pounce on the opportunities presented by desperate parents in pain. Thankfully, we avoided their grifting grasp and survived some awful adolescent years. Time and maturity can heal a lot.