Substance Abuse, Article Review Example

David Colman’s article, “Challenging the Second ‘A’ in A.A.”, published on May 6, 2011, in the New York Times,  is a well-researched editorial on one aspect of substance abuse.  Colman actually introduces himself as an alcoholic, in the way made famous by Alcoholics Anonymous (AA).  He then quickly states that he violates one of the founding principles of the organization by doing this.  Personal secrecy about alcoholism, and all substance abuse,  is then developed as the basis for the article itself.  Colman points out an obvious fact of modern life, and he cites many examples from his own experience with AA to support it; namely, that a vast number of alcoholics who attend the meetings do not at all bother with efforts to protect their own identity any more.  He refers to many celebrities who, through appearances and/or creative works, have loudly announced to the world that they are addicts of one substance or another.  Colman then moves on to present other points, including the problem AA itself has with this increasing ignoring of its rule about anonymity.  It appears that the issue, based on Colman’s extensive research and interviews, is more complex than a case of a traditional organization adapting to modern changes in how substance abuse is seen.  The fact remains that many alcoholics still resist revealing their identities, no matter how many celebrities expose their own problems.  In concluding, Colman himself acknowledges that the value of maintaining the code of anonymity within AA may be less about personal choices, and more in keeping with a spirit in place to encourage humility in those suffering from substance abuse.

Analysis and Comparison

The text and the article appear, at least at first sight, to be as unrelated as two works dealing with substance abuse can be.  In addressing alcoholism, the text presents ratios of this abuse in regard to age and gender.  It also provides information on exactly what alcohol does to the human system and brain.  Two sections of the text, however, are directly linked to Colman’s article.  The first is the acknowledgment that what a drug actually is changes in the perspectives of a changing society.  The text makes it clear that society itself defines what “substance abuse” is.  This very much goes to the core of Colman’s article; it is generally understood that AA required anonymity in its earliest days because, so many decades ago, there was an enormous stigma attached to alcoholism, along with no real understanding of the illness.  Then, the text talks about  AA itself, citing it as the world’s most widely turned to resource for help with alcoholism.  Nonetheless, it also offers clinical evidence that even this massive organization reports only a forty-six percent ratio of success, as over fifty-percent of studied members return to drinking.  This also ties into Colman’s article.  The question becomes, how can anonymity be necessary when  AA’s results in treating alcohol addiction are so mixed?

Personal Reaction

I selected this article because it centers on one aspect of one treatment of one substance abuse issue, but it is extremely relevant to all the others described in the text.  That is to say, while it is true that alcoholism does not have the criminal and/or dangerous associations of many other substances, the fact remains that modern society has radically changed in regard to how any addiction is viewed.  If AA has problems with how its anonymity rule is ignored, it is likely that other such substance abuse organizations face the same challenge because addiction to any substance is, today, far less the dark secret it once was.  Current practices, in fact, usually refer to addiction as “illness”.   In a more knowledgeable society, it does appear that anonymity might be pointless.  The shame is gone, and the larger numbers of people admitting to substance abuse problems only clear the way for more.  Ultimately, however, it seems to me that some care should be exercised in just how far people should go in dismissing what was a vital part of a treatment.   As Colman points out, it may be that the anonymity factor is in place not only to  protect identity, but to keep in check an addict’s impulse to “celebrate” recovery, and then lose sight of the struggle itself.  Moreover, and most importantly, many AA members still insist upon the privacy anonymity gives, and that alone is reason enough to keep it in place.  No addiction is easily beaten, and it is a huge mistake to remove tools many addicts require.

References

Coleman, D.  (May 6, 2011.)  Challenging the Second ‘A’ in  A.A. The New York Times.  Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/08/fashion/08anon.html?_r=1&ref=alcoholabuse