I think I understand your point of view just fine. I have friends, family, and exes in AA and NA. I just disagree that the best way to treat addiction is a sett

I think I understand your point of view just fine. I have friends, family, and exes in AA and NA. I just disagree that the best way to treat addiction is a settled matter. What I think is still up for debate is whether AA's framings are a net benefit, due to the lack of good research. Your comment brings up standard AA doctrine, and I'm glad it's worked for you. But by your own admission, a lot of people fall off the wagon. You blame it on being court-mandated, but it doesn't seem to occur to you that another program may have worked better, court-ordered or not. There's no consideration in your comment for survivorship bias in who remains in AA. Perhaps AA works great for a small subset of people, who stick with it, but is worse for a larger majority, who would be better served in a different program. > Fundamentally though, the evidence is pretty clear that there's a neurological basis to most addictions Uh, I'm not disagreeing. Not sure why you think I was? I used to chat about this stuff with Dr. Carl Hart, who studied meth addiction, when I was in grad school. He was also of the opinion that AA's efficacy was a black box, and said that he'd recommend Scandinavian outpatient facilities over AA, based on the research he'd seen.