First congrats on finding something that works for you and making it stick!
From that perspective, I can see why you would not like folks that insist on AA being a monopoly, but I'm curious about that position. I've seen a lot of people that hate AA and a lot of people that think it saved their lives, but I've never seen anyone say that AA must be the only way to sobriety. What's the angle?
I can't speak from first hand experience or actual knowledge, but I've seen several articles over the years about AA being the only US court approved treatment, leaving some people with the choice of accepting only AA or jail. Atheists in particular have commented on this, but also people that take issues with certain other AA stances (such as "you will forever be an alcoholic").
I have no idea if this was federal, state, or local courts.
That doesn't seem like an unjustified statement to me. I'm not an alcoholic, but I am a food addict and the experience of losing half my body weight and keeping it off for years has only reinforced, to me, the idea that I will always be a food addict.
Many agree with you. I've not encountered an addiction myself, (yet, at least, knock on wood), so I have no stance one way or another, but I've read accounts where many people have experiences similar to yours, and yet there are others that (claim to, at least) encounter it like an illness. They were sick, got treated, and now are not sick. Perhaps the Sinclair method that others discuss does that, breaking the longing for the alcohol, perhaps not.
From where I sit, if you're in a place where you are no longer suffering and others are no longer suffering, you get to define how you relate to the problem you had. Having your only option be a group that insists you must be a victim when you don't agree feels wrong. Now, do we have real people in that situation - not a perma-alcoholic but somehow being forced to join AA or go to jail?. I don't know.
You may have encountered these people casually in passing but not read anything from AA proponents. Basically every AA proponent I’ve ever read from tows the party line that it is the only viable treatment. Many of them disparage and suppress alternatives like the Sinclair method.
This is completely contrary to anything officially published by Alcoholics Anonymous. Possibly "proponents" have their own opinions but AA itself specifically states in its that it does not have a monopoly on recovery from alcoholism.
AA's "Big Book" says "Rarely have we seen a person fail who has thoroughly followed our path. Those who do not recover are people who cannot or will not completely give themselves to this simple program, usually men and women who are constitutionally incapable of being honest with themselves."[1] In other words, "it works if you work it". They may not say that AA is the only way to sobriety, but why would you need anything else?
From that perspective, I can see why you would not like folks that insist on AA being a monopoly, but I'm curious about that position. I've seen a lot of people that hate AA and a lot of people that think it saved their lives, but I've never seen anyone say that AA must be the only way to sobriety. What's the angle?