I had the luck of finding this presently out of print book in a used book and clothing store in the mid-West. Peele's LOVE AND ADDICTION is about the most concise, eye-opening and, in light of how the problems he documents in American society have only been geometrically exacerbated in the twenty-five years since it was published (now inlcuding an addiction to guns), the most disturbing of the self-help books I have ever read. With the exception of Nancy Friday's JEALOUSY, not since Bradshaw's HOMECOMING, published in 1991, has a book with a psychological theme sent such powerful vibrations through me, forcing me to look again at my life. It effectively removes the veil covering the sad connection between diametrically opposed (and mutually ineffective) views on politics, religion, sex and sexual freedoms, romance, family, marriage, relationships, crimes of all kinds and the spectre/epidemic of drug addiction in the U.S.- as well as the international history of it all.

Many have said with wisdom- often quoting Martin Luther King or a Buddhist philosopher- that we are all joined together in one unified life, like threads in the fabric of society, and until we are all free, no one or group of us truly are. LOVE AND ADDICTION proves such poetic wisdom scientifically for the western mind, and its increasingly growing more fragile soul. Dr. Peele begins to show us the paradox of American society that is crippling us: how we are being psychologically crushed under the weight of our own technological innovations and tremendous freedoms, and how that affects ever single one of us, in all of our relationships, with everyone and everything.

You will learn more about your world- including that of present day self-help book writers with the same problems he delineates- than you may ever have wanted to know. Because he says what you think you already know in a way that makes it all but impossible to ignore.

This book needs to be reprinted, and made available to the general public, now. Twenty-five years later, its prophetic visions and common sense approach have yet to be surpassed.

Stanton Peele, The Diseasing of America 2/E (Lexington, 1995)

There are two types of people in the world: those the recovery zombies have already attacked, and those they will. It doesn't matter if you don't drink and don't smoke, they'll find something else about which you're "diseased"-- perhaps you enjoy shopping, you like to eat, you spend a couple of weekends per year in Vegas. Did you know these are all symptoms of diseases? Oh, you didn't? Well, they are. Don't believe it? You must be in denial. Here, let us help you lead a more well-adjusted life.

Peele seeks atonement for starting this craze with his book Love and Addiction in 1984. (As a side note, the one important thing Peele does NOT try to atone for is his almost singlehanded corruption of the definition of the term "addiction," which he misuses throughout the book; when reading it, you might be better served by substituting the word "compulsion" every time you see "addiction." Addiction requires, by definition, a physical component, and thus it is impossible to be addicted to most of the things that Peele admits are really addictive.) He does this by stating in no uncertain terms that the addiction/recovery industry has gotten way out of hand, then spends the next two hundred fifty pages outlining one of the scariest stories I've ever read-- the sixty-year history of the recovery industry, beginning with the foundation of Alcoholics Anonymous in 1935.

Along the way, Peele stops on occasion to point out some obvious factors we tend to overlook in our quest for political correctness (e.g. the race- and class-based aspects of alcoholism, which are blatantly obvious to the eye but resisted by the mind thanks to decades of being told that alcoholism has nothing to do with class or race). While he occasionally slips into the same crevasse he's trying to close by citing statistics without backing them up, the majority of what he gives us is surrounded with footnotes and citations, important when you're accusing those around you of pulling their figures out of thin air.

Some of Peele's ultimate conclusions should be taken with at least a grain of salt (he could have done himself a couple better by continuing his questioning to its ultimate conclusion, rather than stopping a step short and wholeheartedly endorsing the "family values" idea, which may need questioned even more than

AA's dogma), but that doesn't make the research any less valuable. In a society where "innocent until proven guilty" is a the rule, anyone who expects their word to be treated as gospel and makes sweeping statements only needs one person to find fault with one supposed "fact" they spout. Peele has found a lot of faults with a lot of facts in the original AA dogma, and shows us exactly how the most distorted pieces of the AA marketing scheme have been used to create and power the larger recovery industry in America today.

They will come after you. The faster you read this book, and the longer you spend absorbing its contents, the better-armed you'll be when someone accuses you of "addictive" (actually, compusive) behavior. While I can't give the book five stars thanks to Peele's wimping out in the last chapter, this is certainly a life-changer, and one of the most important books that's ever crossed my path. I strongly urge everyone I know to read this as quickly as possible. **** 1/2

I've read "The Truth about Addiction"; "The Diseasing of America"; and "The Meaning of Addiction." It was so refreshing to read these books, like a cool breeze off the lake on a hot summer day in Chicago. Most psychiatrists and psychologists who write, particularly the New Age variety, quote themselves or other pop-psychology tripe. Peele's books, on the other hand, are scholarly works--well thought out; exhaustively researched; and eloquently worded. I've been troubled by the recovery and twelve-step movements for some time, but I couldn't find the right words to describe my misgivings until I read these books. This is brilliant stuff.

My introduction to inpatient chemical dependency treatment came in my first year of medical school. We eager, young students in short white coats were taken to a reputable, local recovery hospital to observe treatment in action. Thirty patients gathered in a circle and started off: "I'm Steven, and I'm an alcoholic, etc..." The director of the program (a spaced-out and religious fellow) had a developmentally disabled woman tell the group about her resolution to get help--I have no idea what sort--in the future if she felt she needed it. He made her say this again loudly so everyone in the group could hear it. Then he made her stand on her chair and shout it three time at the top of her lungs so that "everyone within a city block" could hear it. I was very disturbed by that scene. My stomach was in knots. It was hard to watch this particular person being humiliated, and I knew that if she called for help, she probably wouldn't get "help" no matter how loudly she yelled. (She had little income which meant that she surely wouldn't get private help. County mental health was meager then. It doesn't exist now.) The whole thing was surreal. Later, the director beatifically smiled and said something about "the disease," its severity, and the need for drastic treatment. (If I treated any group of truly diseased people in this manner, say a group of diabetics, I'd lose my license.) "Gee," I thought to myself, "this is the way addicts have to be treated." We all towed the twelve-step line as students and residents. Medical schools don't select contrary thinkers.

It seems to me that there is a streak of sadism in the neo-Puritan American variety of drug treatment. I've seen it repeatedly. I'm not sure where this comes from. My hunch is that some health professionals with sadistic urges tend to gravitate toward substance abuse treatment since this is the one area in which they can act out on their sadistic wishes, be coercive, and still be seen as healers. One staff member from the now defunct US Naval Hospital in Long Beach said, "We give our addicts a swift kick in the pants to get them headed in the right direction." If one wants see oneself as Mother Teresa or Albert Schweitzer, but unconsciously wants to kick people in the pants, substance treatment would be a good place to go. Tough Love, and all that.

In "Diseasing of America," Peele fretted over the consequences of Grant being taken from the field of battle in 1861 and dried out. I had ancestors in Robert E. Lee's army. I'm sure they would have been more than delighted to see Grant involuntarily taken off to a rehab center. I have a more chilling scenario. In 1940, Nazi Germany had overrun France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, and Norway. Sweden was cowed into an uneasy neutrality. The Soviet Union had signed a diabolical non-aggression pact with the Nazis partitioning Poland between the two of them. The only thorn in Hitler's side was Great Britain. He wanted to invade or at least isolate England and make her sue for terms. Then he could concentrate his entire war machine on the Soviets. Who else but Winston Churchill could have rallied the English-speaking peoples, the only remaining resistance in the West? This was the man, who, more than anyone else, prevented "...a new dark age made more sinister by the lights of perverted science." This was also a man who had whisky and cigars for breakfast. From the recovery standpoint, this man was "delusional," (I use quotes since recovery misuses the term delusional.), codependent, addicted to nicotine, workaholic, and Higher Power-only-knows what else. I grateful that there were no rehab centers in Britain at that time. Imagine what would have happened if, at the moment of Chamberlain's resignation, Churchill had been hauled off to "find a new life." Who would have filled his shoes? Anthony Eden? Stafford Cripps? Atlee? Baldwin? Who would have given the speech about blood, sweat, toil, and tears? So much being owed by so many to so few? Their finest hour?

Peele's books are the sort that should be read in upper level college psychology classes. At the same time, the books are quite readable to anyone who has a high school diploma. I highly recommend them. -JK, M.D.

This is book critiques the big business of recovery and offers an alternative. For too many years, we've been told that only a 12 step program can keep the "disease" of addiction under control. Anybody going against the "party line" is often accused of sabotaging their loved one's well-being. We have in this volume, another point of view. America - pay attention!

This book trounces the idea that addiction is a biologically determined disease that requires 12 step treatment. Even herion addicts say that cigarrettes are the most addictive substance -- and most people quit smoking on their own.

Most people who use cocaine (and other drugs) do not use it regularly, those who use it regularly do not become addicted and those who become addicted recover on their own. Sound outrageous? Citing several thorough sociological studies, this statement becomes more and more believable as you read this book.

I used to think that behavioral compulsions, like addictions to sex and food, were different from substance abuse. Surely shooting heroin involves a chemical dependency, whereas overeating or spending all your money on porn and peep shows is a sign of psychological escape, right? Some say that all such behaviors are biological, but that sounded preposterous to me. This book drove home the idea that ALL addiction, be it abusing credit cards or smoking crack cocaine, is a symptom of a life out of control, not the cause. The book clearly illustrates how people become addicted when their lives lack meaning and hope, during painful transitions, and when they don't have the life skills or coping skills to ride out the rough edges of life.

Why is smoking crack considered more addictive than sniffing powder? People who smoke crack are generally people who live in the desperation of the inner cities, so they have less *motivation* to overcome their addiction, not a stronger drug.

Any serious student of sociology or psychology should read this book

Stanton Peele has a controversial view of addictions, be it to substances or behaviors. The question he asks of those who believe that the drug itself hooks people is, "Even if the substance is incredibly euphoric or blocks pain, what makes the person favor that experience over other rewarding experiences?" He strongly disputes that addiction is biological disease and that the 12 Steps are the only treatment - indeed they may be worse than no treatment at all.

I've always disputed that things like sex, food, and shopping could be addictions, without denying that people can clearly go overboard with such things to ignore inner turmoil or avoid responsibilities they can't cope with, or because they lack relationship skills. Peele's view is that this characterizes *all* addiction, and treatment should involve learning coping, communication and interpersonal skills. The biggest controversy surrounding Peele, however, is his assertion that most people gain life skills naturally as they mature -- when people get jobs or find something they care for and have better things to do then get smashed -- making clinical treatment unnecessary for addictions in young people. He sites sociological studies that show that most drug users "mature out" of drug use, even if the drug use involved drug binges or other obvious addictive behavior.

Still think that some drugs are just more "addictive" than others? Is it the drug or the person taking them? What makes a person take a hard-hitting drug to begin with? I had never really thought before what it meant that crack was more "addictive" than cocaine. As crack is mostly consumed in poor, degraded environments leading most into dead-end lives, what motivation - what opportunity - does one have to put down the pipe get a life? This book makes a strong case for looking at environment, sociological and psychological factors in addiction, not brain chemistry.

This book also opened my eyes to what happens to people who don't go through therapy or drug treatment. I only looked at the statistics that evaluated people *in* treatment, not those who never went! When you consider how most therapy, especially the 12-steps do not address life skills and in fact hinder them with their rhetoric of powerlessness and doomed childhood, its not really a surprise that untreated people have the same or better outcome as people in treatment.

Flying in the face of conventional thought, "The Truth about Addiction and Recovery" encourages the reader to challenge the contention that addiction is a disease. The authors' contention is that addiction is a coping mechanism that people develop to deal with life's stressful situations. Instead of doing the 12-step program the solution is to develop alternative coping skills.
Addiction is a symptom and not the disease.
Peale argues that treatment for addiction should be based on learning skills that allow the addicted person to cope better, communicate easier and relate to others better.
One of the more interesting points of the book is the analysis of people who try to kick an addiction without going through a 12-step type program. Statistically, untreated people have the same or better success rate as those in treatment. The author make a very strong case and argues it well. This should be required reading for anyone dealing with an addiction or who knows someone dealing with an addiction whether it is drugs, sex, food, shopping or whatever other addictive behavior they may have.

I have been a member of 12-Step programs for 20 years. I have been in therapy for 32 years (originally mandated by the court in 1969). I have written a book about addiction myself. People who are mandated to go to 12-Step programs by the courts do not have to stay once their obligation is fulfilled. People who do stay get help. For me the combination of 12-Step programs, therapy and religion has brought me the recovery from addiction that I prayed for before I even knew what praying really meant. Stanton Peele's book is reactionary and uses fear tactics to sell books and inflate the author's ego. I am sad that he chooses to attack programs that have such a wonderful track record. Psychology has been helpful to me over the years, but 12-Step programs (the people, the principles, the literature, and the meetings) have saved my life.

Resisting 12-Step Coercion destroys the flagrant canard that 12-step groups are inherently voluntary. Indeed, authors Chaz Bufe, Stanton Peele, and Archie Brodsky provide ample evidence that each year, over 1,000,000 Americans are compelled to join this crypto-biblical therapeutic cult or face reprisals ranging from extended jail time to unemployment.

In a penetrating analysis of this disconcerting trend, the book questions the legal, medical, and ethical issues which directly undermine this alleged panacea for addiction. And, lest you fall victm to this insidious method of social control, the authors provide invaluable advice for anyone facing the possibility of forced 12-step conscription.

It behooves civil libertarians from across the political spectrum to peruse this important work!

PANIK Magazine, Vol.2, No. 2

it would be helpful if the 12-stepper cult members who review this book would actually READ it before they review it. it also would be helpful if they spoke something other than half truths ."the gal who started Moderation Management as a response to AA was convicted of killing two people in a drunken driving accident. AA's response to that was no comment."

this is not surprising given that Audrey Kishline ("the gal") had been not practicing moderation in her own group, but had become an active AA cult member months before the fatal accident. AA members always forget to mention this FACT.

But this is besides the point because she has nothing to do with the topic of this book, as this stepper is trying to make Mr. Peele somehow guilty by association to Ms. Kishline's lack of personal responsibility and to cloud the issue of 12-Step coercion in this country.

the truth is AA is a double thinking religious cult, whose members use their influence to make it the model for over 90% treatment center is USA, and limit the availability of other models.

the truth is, according to AA's own survey, 50% of people leave AA within first 3 months, and 95% within 12 months. of those 5%, 100% are not sober for that period, if at all. AA did a survey In a 1989 of almost ten thousand members chosen at random, thirty five per cent of the respondents reported less than a year of sobriety. the abstinence rate continues to drop in the following years. AA has been around for about 60 years, but only twenty-nine percent of members have been sober for more than 5 years.

the people who left AA were not served by AA's program, and were taught they would die if they left AA and didnt follow their so called "suggestions"

"unless each AA member follows to the best of his ability our suggested Twelve Steps of recovery, he almost certainly signs his own death warrant" by AA's founder bill wilson..

not much of a choice offered there, "follow the "Program" or you will die." "they are suggestions, take what you want and leave the rest". right. any cult would be proud of that double think.

nor is there any real proof of AA' effectiveness, there isn't one legitimate study which can demonstrate AA is any better than no treatment at all. but based on the number that go thru their doors when they need help, a less than 5% recovery rate of people introduced to AA and seeking help is not successful by any standard.

bottom line is, if your being forced into the religious cult of AA, this book can help you find a something which will work for you.

Peele says, "The label 'addiction' does not obviate either the meaning of the addictive involvement within people's lives, or their responsibility for their misbehavior or for their choices...." Way too much generalization goes on on both sides of the addiction issue. Some leap to the conclusion that alcoholics and other "addicts" have no personal control whatsoever over their behavior. Some leap to the conclusion that of course they do. Peele mostly avoids leaping to conclusions, but if he leaps it's toward the latter of those two.

Here's what I think the truth is, and Peele would agree: When we say that someone is addicted, we have not explained their behavior. Many people in our society think that the word "addiction" contains an explanation for behavior. "Addiction" is a *description* of behavior. It is also -- and I'm not sure what Peele would say about this -- a description of biological processes. What's important is how to get the behavior, and any negative emotions along with it (depression, etc.), to change. How can we best do this? Peele argues that we cannot do it with medical treatment. This may be true in many cases. I think medical treatment can be of assistance in some cases. What I find missing from Peele is more about what DOES work to help someone stop smoking, drinking, etc. What distinguishes those who quit from those who don't? A circular answer here won't cut it. If you say "in order to quit, you've gotta have determination and willpower", then I'll say "how do you know if someone has determination and willpower?", and you'll say "because he quit smoking." Thud. Where does a person GET willpower and determination? Maybe not from medicine. But not from nowhere. (?) I agree that personal responsibility needs to be at the forefront. I agree that the addictive model is a little confused about personal control. But Peele doesn't have all the answers, either. It's a well written book, though, and worth reading just to provoke thought and debate.

In "Alcoholics Anonymous, Cult or Cure," Bufe gives us an intelligible analysis of the largest recovery group in the United States and perhaps the world.

He gives the reader an in depth history of the foundations of Alcholics Anonymous - which are clearly religious in nature. He also does an excellent job of analysing the 12 step process and the 12 traditions of AA. His bibliography of sources is commendable and lend credibility to his monograph.

I would highly recommend this book to those medical professionals who are considering sending patients to AA for "voluntary" treatment. The courts should also take a look at this book - AA simply doesn't work for those who do not "want it." Court cases, 99% of them, have no desire to change their drinking patterns and AA, as a result, is a complete waste of time for these individuals.

This book is not so much of an overt attack on AA, as is Jack Trimpey's Rational Recovery, but nevertheless it does expose the dark underbelly of AA's "diseasing of America" concept proferred by Dr. Stanton Peele.

If you are in doubt about AA - this is a good book for you. However, if the Alcoholics Anonymous program is working for you - then you should avoid this text.

Those who would dismiss this book as simply a diatribe against AA either have not read it thoroughly, or are so entrenched in 12-step dogma as to be impervious to evidence. This book is an analysis, not an indictment, of the tenets of AA and the myriad 12-step groups which have followed it's precepts.

Should virtually anything, watching "teletubbies," for instance, free a single person from the misery which is caused by pathologically heavy drinking, I would not hesitate to recommend it as a possibility to a suffering soul. The facts , however, as Mr. Bufe illustrates so well in this book, show that participation in this program not only is unlikely to result in abstinence, but may well discourage those who are made uncomfortable or who are offended by the unmistakably religious foundation of this paradigm from seeking alternative means of treatment. (For those who would take exception to this assertion, I would direct them to the first paragraph of the fifth chapter of the Big Book, ubiquitous at the beginning of the majority of AA meetings, where the unequivocal statement is made that those who do or will not recover as a result of attendance are "constitutionally incapable of being honest with themselves." If you do not, for any reason, agree with AA, you are engaging in self-deception.)

The critical chapter of this book (and the source of the heading of this review) is the one in which Mr. Bufe examines the effect which the various 12-step programs have had on our society in it's influence over our courts, and in the dilution of the popular concept of addiction.

For those interested in the subject, I would highly recommend "The Diseasing of America," by Stanton Peele,and "Heavy Drinking: the Myth of Alcoholism as a Disease," by Herbert Fingarette,both, of course, available at Amazon.com.

Bufe is one of many writers today who are bravely setting the record straight about the new religion known as alcoholics anonymous. Bufe's history of AA is second to none yet I felt he was almost too "soft" on them regarding the cult aspect. go to a meeting and look at all the group prayers, chanting, mindless thought stopping cliches, and proselytizing. the comformity and obediance one sees at an AA meeting (and in their own literature) is simply frightening - they ALL say the same things over and over and over forever...THAT to me are markings of a religious cult! Even reading some of the reviews here by AA members (easy to detect) is like reading a scientologist defending the great faith. After reading Bufe's book, I would recommend anyone interested in AA to read the official AA books like "Alcoholics Anonymous" and the "12 steps and 12 traditions" then you will see some of what Bufe is talking about. it is scary when you realize the entire addiction treatment world is based on AA and most staff members at these facilities are members of AA as well....very scary indeed, it's like being surrounded by invisible (anonymous) cult zealots... Great book, Chaz!

I bought this book in 1997 as I was becoming increasingly aware that I could not control my drinking. I did not want to go to AA or quit drinking forever. However, I tried this program and simply could not stop for 30 days (the initial pre-requisit). So, as a last resort, I went to AA. During my first week of sobriety, I went to a Moderation Management meeting. It was very small, maybe 5 people. And run by a professional counsellor. Every single person in the meeting had stories about how their drinking was still out of control, but they were learning more about themselves. It just made me sad, to be honest.

At the end of my first 30 days in AA, I had no desire to try social drinking. And here's why. For the first time in my life I could see how my brain worked and how uncomfortable I was in my own skin. I had been masking that uncomfortable feeling for years with alcohol. And I was not a DUI, job-losing, homeless drunk. I was a drink myself to sleep at night kind of guy. Which leads me to this: I believe this program and this book may be very helpful to some people. Just not me. And I would urge anyone with a drinking problem to try it, because if you do end up in AA, you will want to feel confident that you have tried everything you can to control and enjoy your drinking. If, in fact, you can control and enjoy your drinking, then good for you!

As for me, I heard a statement early on that stuck with me. It said that when alcohol is taken away from the problem drinker, the problem is solved. But when alcohol is taken away from the alcoholic, the problem is revealed. That, for me, was the main reason this book/program didn't work for me.

Bottom line: If you have a drinking problem, give this method a try. Give therapy a try. And if nothing else works, you will always be welcomed at AA.

I was encorraged to start going to AA when I was about 20. I was never diagnosed as a "dependant" but rather an "abuser". I had many emotional problems in my life. I spent many years going in and out of AA with the true intention of solving my drink problems. I went through two inpatient treatment centers and was always blaming myself without mercy. I decided to try to moderate and found this book very helpful. I know the troubles the authour had, but that does not negate the importance of treatement options. Even the big book of AA states that if you are unsure "go try some more contrlled drinking". However, AA provides no structure to do this and had no idea of much research to show that many abusers can moderate if the are tought how. I have been succesful for a month and have realized that it is not the substance, but the emotional states that determine my drinking. My drinking has actually decreased over the month. I work with a thereptist to identify possible emotional pitfalls that might leed me back to binge drinking, but I am VERY optomistic that this will solve a very real and dangerous problem where AA could not. I love AA and many of the people in it. I still go to open meetings and do not question anyones path in tackling this problem. For those of you that try your guts out, but can't succede in AA, why not try another approach? People in AA are already suggesting that maybe I was not a "true" alcoholic, but I sure did some scary stuff when binging. I have found a new freedom and a new peace. My God is still large and in charge, but I think I have found my solution. All problem dirinkers are NOT alocholoics in my mind. I also have read "alternatives to abstenacne" and a book about the nature of addiction. Don't be afraid if you are being honest. You can put safety rules in place to minimize dameage if you fail. At least then you will know in your heart you need abstinace.

I am married to a psychologist who long ago had a drinking problem and used the same approach in this book long before it was written. Now more than twenty years later he is a successful social drinker. Unfortunately I now must start the program. I have never had a DWI or have never had job problems from drinking too much. But my drinking has caused problems in my marriage. Recent studies have shown that the success rate with AA is not very high - I forget the percantages, though I'm not knocking the program for those who feel it's right for them. I do know that most AA meetings are notorious for being smoke filled rooms. Where is the higher power for that problem? It is sad to think so many people think AA is the only answer.