Our Sponsors are an important foundation of our online community. Please visit their websites.
Our Associate Sponsors provide valuable support to our community and help build 'The Wall'.
Our partners help move the Wired In agenda forward.
Join our community, create your own profile page, and communicate about what matters to you.
In possibly one of the most divisive interviews given within the recovery community in the UK, Joe Gerstein, described as the founder of SMART Recovery, talks to Guardian journalist Denis Campbell in an article published on 10th March 2010.
Before I go any further, I want to be clear that I am a supporter of SMART recovery, or at least my previous understanding of SMART Recovery, as a tolerant mutual aid group in the UK. I like what I’ve heard about it and respect members who blog here as they respect other mutual aid approaches.
Prof Gerstein does not respect Alcoholics Anonymous. He calls is “ethically wrong, medically wrong and psychologically wrong”. He says that a myth has grown up that you “can’t get over a substance addiction without AA”. Really? It’s not one I subscribe to; there are many paths to recovery, but 12 step is one where the evidence is most convincing.
As evidence that it does not work he describes seeing patients he’d referred to AA in the past “coming out of the liquor store with a bag that did not contain doughnuts”. This is an unusual research method and I’ve not seen it described in the literature before.
In fact the article as a whole could have been better researched. How about a counter view from an AA member or from an academic who knows the evidence base? Alcohol Concern are quoted in a short supportive comment, but that’s it.
The article states that London has 300 meetings a week. This is a curious error. Alcoholics Anonymous list well over 700 active weekly meetings in the capital. That is 700 out of the 4,700 meetings that exist in the UK compared to the 30 SMART meetings. SMART has a bit of research to support it and more is needed, but 12 step approaches have a hugely robust evidence base.
The journalist compounds some old myths; SMART is apparently “scientific” while AA is not and AA has “heavy religious associations”. Most AA members would disagree.
Professor Gerstein indicates that people “come, recover and get on with their life”. Where are the five to ten year follow ups to show that this is what happens?
The most upsetting part of this article is not the above, but the wasted opportunity.
Why on earth disparage AA and set SMART up as a rival? It could have been packaged as an alternative or even an adjunct (in many places AA members also benefit from SMART). This polarised and polarising rhetoric has done SMART Recovery no favours.
And to be honest, it’s done the recovery community no favours either. We want to be inclusive here and make this a broad church. That won’t happen where we rubbish the route a significant number of others have taken. I haven’t lost my respect for SMART members, but I’m afraid my respect for the organisation is greatly diminished.
I must admit that I share your dismay. Having close links to SMART through uchooseit, I have only ever heard clear messages from those on the ground that SMART is one of several routes to abstinence. And, as you point out, many participate in both SMART and AA meetings.
I do hope that there is an explanation from SMART (UK or US?) as I feel one is needed.
Even if you take the disparaging comments on AA out of the equation, there seems to be a worrying lack of respect for, or understanding of, a UK Recovery Movement that is founded on personal choice.
From a personal perspective i.e. as Michaela, not Wired In Editor,I would like to say to Carl and the other SMART facilitators that you have (for what it’s worth) my complete support and respect.
Peapod I have to say when I read the article this morning with my morning coffee, I had one of those jaw dropping experiences, where I had to re read the sheer ignorance, contempt and outright myth after myth after myth being displayed with my mouth hanging open in sheer disbelief.
I had that horrible sinking feeling of horror in my stomach at the division that could be created in the recovery community over this and how undone a lot of the good work in uniting communities of recovery could be totally wiped out by such an ill researched and obvious very personal opinion from one person related to the SMART board in the states.
As a fellow supporter of SMART recovery, I certainly hope, the board in the UK and the states have been alerted to this article that very clearly sets out one mans very outspoken and ill informed opinion and I am positive it is not held by his fellow board members or SMARTIES across the UK.
I wonder how the SMARTIES on wiredin feel about it all with the recent going ons with SMART here in the UK …. it cant be good for anyone thats for sure.
Shocked, saddened and dismayed
Annemarie
Just got back from London after spending the day at a training event facilitated by Prof Gerstein having met him for the first time on Tuesday at the SMART/Alcohol Concern conference.
Joe said this morning that what he actually said was it was unethical and morally wrong to send a person to AA/NA if it wasn’t suitable for that person but I don’t suppose he will be the first or last person in this country to have his words edited and taken out of context – whats that saying from a journalist “don’t let the truth stand in the way of a good story”.
Also anyone who has seen the AA/SMART chatter in the US which in my opinion is antagonistic at least and a waste of energy and effort at best, will understand that mutual aid in US is very different than mutual aid in UK with some people attending US meetings just to get their cards signed for the judge/parole officer.
Hopefully we wont go down that route and people in the UK will attend PSG because they want to – not just to stay out of trouble or jail.
If its not voluntarily its not really recovery – is it ?
Also just for the record anyone who attends a SMART meeting in the England and starts to say anything negative about any other programme will be firmly told that we at SMART find it unhelpful and disrespectful to talk about other programmes in a SMART meeting.
PS Michaela I will write an blog about a very interesting well attended conference but Laura G also covered the event for Addiction Today and is writing an article for them.
A big thank you to everyone who attended.
Hello Pea Pod
Thank you for your interesting blog – I am just learning about SMART and know quite a bit about AA through both my personal and professional life.
I always wonder why different modes of recovery and organisations have the need to become rivals instead of embracing difference.
I am a little heartened by Carl who said that Prof Gersteins remarks were taken out of context but it is sad that so many of the readers of the article will not know that.
lets hope that something can be learnt from this and that recovery programmes can work together recognising their differences in the same way as we realise different people have different needs and therefore different recovery pathways are a necessity.
Thank you for bringing this to our attention.
Misquoted?
As Wilde might have said: “to be misquoted once may be regarded as a misfortune. To be misquoted multiply in the same article looks like carelessness.”
I can’t help but think the Professor got his message across more or less as told to the journalist.
Not good for unity to poke fun at AA, but very good for newspaper sales.
In New Zealand I have in the past been aware of Rational recovery falling into the same error. RR offered an alternative, and a person coming into rehab that was cynical could find a different message at RR that still showed the addicted person’s need for stopping. Unfortnulatly the book had a whole chapter attacking AA and we hear little of it now,
I’ve just read the article and I kind of go with some of it being a writers attempt to give the article more impact. It could also be read as a basic promotional exercise if you felt like being cynical. However I’d be careful about the divisive bit. That will happen if we associate the views of one individual (if even accurately reported!!) with an entire methodology and all practitioners of it. What’s interesting for me are the motives behind the article, clearly aiming to generate division. I guess we have a choice as individuals as to how we respond.
And, completely unrelated (promise), Carl, could you bung me a message (I couldn’t seem to do it through your profile). I’d like to enlist your help with a workshop at the upcoming UKRF conference.
Alistair I could not agree more about it not being what people say or do (of which we often have little or no control over) but how we react to it that often causes us problems.
I couldn’t message you, so try .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
What a great shame for SMART. and embarrassing too I’m sure for those who believe they can help others from a different angle. I think given Carls corrective comment from the Prof “ …unethical and morally wrong to send a person to AA/NA if it wasn’t suitable for that person” probably shows its a pretty accurate article. Who is anyone to decide if AA/NA or other groups are unsuitable for that person, other than that person him or herself?
The Science behind it when searching on the SMART web site basically tells you to go read a book.
To me its pretty simple, it’s based around CBT which in the end we all have to employ in some form to make a step into recovery. The fact that there are “groups” for this suggests addicts can not do it alone. In addition, SMART seems to be a generalised approach and can be used for other situations. Retraining the brain to think differently when your faced with FEAR is completely different to tackling the FEAR head on.
Just my observation.
Cliffy
p.s were there any new acronyms in there?
As some of you will know from my previous blog I haven’t been a fan of AA and the disease model however you will also read that my recent experience enlightned me to the 12 step programme. I do still have huge issues over the label ‘disease’ In Ireland there is no other alternative than AA, many clients whom I have worked with go to AA because there is no other alternative, I do believe that a person should be offered a choice . Its interesting that in the article that Professor Gerstein says A myth has grown up that you can’t get over a substance addiction without AA that is certainly the case in Ireland. I do know several people who have tried to start SMART over here but failed due to pressure from (certain quarters). Its a great shame when other alternatives start slating one another. It dosen’t help anyone and only adds the the confussion, especially for those who have recovered and continue to recover through a particular model
Please allow me to make an obvious point:
If you have strong feelings about this, rather than just a debate on this website where it is largely invisible to the outside world, why not post your comments here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/mar/10/alcoholism-treatment-smart-recovery-programme
So far there are 6 comments, none of which represent the points of view above.
For what it’s worth, while AA helps more people than pretty much any other approach, in my experience there is a down side for a lot of people, many of whom find it ‘too religious,’ or don’t like the label ‘alcoholic,’ or struggle with the ‘disease model.’
There needs to be a set of alternatives so that people feel empowered to choose, and find what helps them.
Entrenched opposing camps will help no-one.
So a positive debate would be good … e.g. on the Guardian website for a start.
Jez
Oh the temptation not to publish this. But being Editor of such an insignificant little website I suspect nobody will notice anyway. Ho hum.
6 comments – go Guardian, go!
I’m afraid that I don’t recall who asked about what SMART Recovery’s stance is, but I’ll gladly share that! …
SMART Recovery advocates for choice in recovery, so that individuals in recovery are informed of the range of recovery options, and are free to choose among them.
I do know that Joe feels badly about the misquote and how what he said was presented. As a little aside, my husband started a SMART Recovery meeting last August, and we had a big article in the local paper. The writer was a delight — she interviewed my husband in person for about an hour and a half, me for at least 45 minutes, a local meeting participant, and one of our board members who found SMART Recovery while serving time as an inmate. Overall, the article was excellent, but I confess, after reading it, I asked my hubby about a few things and said “did you say that?” He said, “no, did you?” While it wasn’t “terrible” nor “awful”, I think sometimes when an interviewer is totally unfamiliar with a program, things can presented in a manner that doesn’t fully match what was stated, or trying to be stated. But, that aside…
When I represent the program, I try to focus solely on the SMART Recovery program, and avoid any discussions about AA, so as to not ever be misrepresented — nor do I consider myself expert about AA. Mind you, sometimes the question is directly posed, i.e., what’s the difference between SMART Recovery and AA? If I’m asked directly, I try to keep it positive. Something along the lines of… “both programs seek to help people overcome drinking and drugging. While AA uses a reliance on a higher power, SMART Recovery focuses on “Self Management”. If someone chooses to combine their spiritual beliefs with the SMART Recovery program, that’s great, but it’s not part of the SMART Recovery program. And, SMART Recovery teaches tools that empower individuals to be successful in overcoming an addictive behavior. One program may be better than the other for certain individuals, and some people choose to use both programs.”
By the way, it’s a very true statement that many of our face-to-face and online participants utilize both SMART Recovery and AA. And that’s a beautiful thing! Whatever is working for the individual should be maintained…be it AA, SMART Recovery, Women for Sobriety, LifeRing, etc. — or some combo thereof!
The key is that people be aware of choices, and are free to choose among them.
Wishing you all a great weekend!
Shari (I’m the Executive Director of the SMART Recovery Central Office in Mentor, OH)
Interesting Jez, that you think this website is largly invisible, I think it may be appropriate to let you know that in Feb the stats go like this
15,934 Visitors
79,697 page views
Average View 5 page per visit
of which
31.34% were new Visitors
Now Im not qualified to judge these things, mabye someone out there is and can comment for us but I think for a site in its first year, that is attracting at least 10 new members per a week, it appears to me to be pretty impressive.
I also tend to think it is the quality of content that attracts these visitors and members……….
and Im also not sure the Guardian is the place to have this discussion, but maybe you could tell me why it is and even explain that given we do not advertise at all how you yourself came to view it.
I am assuming you are a new member so please let me say welcome and I hope you find the site useful.
Big hug
Annemarie
Shari – thanks for your comments. Very helpful. And have a great weekend yourself.
Actually Annemarie 6 to 10 new members a day!
whoops 6 to 10 a day!
sorry Shari just seen your reply thanks so much for this, it is helpful.
I’ve said for a number of years if we are going to change society’s views we are going to have to create our own press – and give it a louder and louder and louder voice. I hope we are at the beginnings of doing this.
I love the Guardian, but the quality of their recovery-oriented articles relative to ours? There is no comparison, we win hands down.
In the future, I hope Wired In To Recovery will interview Joe (or other speaker) during a conference and write an objective article – and get large readership.
For now, I’m happy that we have better quality – and more comments!
PS. Thanks Shari, for clarification.
Jez it is impossible to have a debate on newspaper articles as they seem to close comments soon after the article is published. You can not post to the Guardian one now as that is closed for comments (soon after you posted lol).
However you are correct that there are many people here with extremely good and valid points and opinions which are wasted to the wider community and the people that should be hearing them. People should get off “high horses “and tackle these head on by replying to relevant articles. (I’m not suggesting anyone here is on a high horse of course, but to hear others moan about articles and yet they can’t be bothered to reply direct).
Sorry Annemarie and Michaela WiredIn is a very very small fish in a huge ocean and always will be, however, congratulations on your stats so far. It would be inappropriate to comment here about webstats etc but feel free to contact me direct if you wish.
I am not sure if newspaper comments would allow links to other sites, but you may wish to talk to the editors so you can get your URL posted in a comments post so people can continue their discussion on your site. Just a thought,
Cliffy
Helpful thoughts Cliffy – thank you. As for high horses I really don’t do lofty steeds!
However, there may be some confusion about purpose. Wired In is first and foremost a community. The community decides what it wishes to debate and membership of Wired In does not mean individuals are not active on other sites. Please don’t make assumptions.
Also I have to stress that Wired In, in our view, is the medium not the message. It is a space where people can bring to the table the things that they want to talk about. And if it is to have a good moan, so what?
In the grand scheme of things I feel there is more value in having a space where small fish can talk about their very real issues – like death of a loved one, and hopefully get some of the support that they need. Without spin and without an eye on how we look to the public. These comments are not wasted – have a look properly and see the difference they make to people’s lives.
Let the big fish puff and blow.
Wired In does have plans but nothing will be allowed to compromise the main purpose of the site. A million members and no community is NOT the aim.
Hope this helps.
Hello again all, especially Michaela, Anne-Marie & David,
Firstly, I apologise for apparently offending you by sounding like I was belittling Wiredin.
I EMPHATICALLY wasn’t. I love Wiredin, with it’s supportiveness, it’s debate, and it’s connection to the real world of what works for people needing help. I read it daily, it’s always revealing.
Either I worded my post badly, or you read it carelessly. Either way I failed to communicate, so I apologise.
I would comment, Michaela, that your published introduction to my comment invites people to interpret it that way, which wasn’t helpful or impartial. However, I’m sorry that I had irritated you, and that I hadn’t conveyed my meaning.
My fault. I apologise.
The ‘largely invisible to the outside world’ comment was not an underestimate of this website’s membership. I’m glad it’s so big and growing so fast. Nor was it an overestimate of the quality of the debate on the Guardian website, David. Precisely the opposite.
My point was that this website is largely the province of people in different stages of recovery, and practitioners and policy makers. That is good, but if a debate started in the Guardian continues here, then the average Guardian reader does not end up with a balanced view of the debate that either is going on, or needs to happen.
Post here, Yes DEFINITELY. But why not post the same there as well? Then the media gets more rounded and the public outside of this world get more informed.
I acknowledge the point that those forums close quickly – which is why when all this informed debate was going on here it was a missed opportunity to improve an element of mainstream media coverage of this area.
Once again. No offence was meant. I apologise. Please accept my contribution in the spirit in which it was intended. Please keep up the EXCELLENT work.
Jez
Apologies Jez – was trying to be a bit tongue in cheek but I can see your point and I in turn apologise. I think I may need to go and pop my own ego balloon (see Wynford’s blog on Laughter).
I guess that I can get frustrated about the concept of looking at what Wired In isn’t rather than what it is.
Some context – David Clark funded Wired In out of his own pocket and worked every hour that god sends to establish it. I now work every hour that I can find to keep it going – also for no money and juggling other jobs.
Oh god, ignore the whine in that last sentence. Because it is not a whine. I love Wired In (sad but true) but, like you, can get frustrated by missed opportunity.
However, and this is honest, when it comes to a choice (for that is what it is with the resources we have) I will always put editing a blog from one of the community over the average Guardian reader. That’s reality folks.
And I definitely do accept your contribution in the spirit it was meant. Note to self : defensive is not a good look!
Hi Jez, I certainly did not mean any offense in my comment – or took any – so if it read as if there was was, I also apologise. Does make sense? My best from down-under.
Thanks to all for the comments above and to Jason Schwarz of Dawn Farm for picking up the theme in his blog.
http://www.dawnfarm.org/blog.html
I need to confess that I do lofty steeds, high horses, towering ponies and nags in orbit at times, but it’s only because of passion and spirit and these are gifts of recovery.
Judgement and wisdom I’m working on.
Letting off steam, highlighting interesting or contentious views and stimulating debate sit alongside support, connection and narrative on this site and I love it.
My judgement here is that this remains a divisive article. It was interesting to hear (albeit through third parties) that Prof Gerstein is concerned that he’s not been represented accurately and I’d like to hear more about that. What are his views on AA?
I’m not at all blinded to the possible duplicities of the press. However, action is always possible to correct erroneous information. If there are untruths here, the Press Complaints Commission is a good port of call to hold the newspaper to account.
Writing a letter to the Guardian to put the picture straight is also an option as would have been commmenting on the website or indeed coming to Wired In taking part and building bridges. Will we see any of this I wonder? If I’d been misrepresented in a way that was harmful to the recovery community I’d be working hard to put it right.
While Jez’s point about taking the debate to the original readers of the article has considerable merit (and I have to admit, it didn’t enter my head until your comment Jez) I also find that debating this in a community of fellows in recovery and those who support recovery is of high value.
I’m reassured by what Carl and Shari have written above and want to thank them. This is the language of mutual respect and cooperation. The values are those of recovery. Thanks for that.
As Sue says, people have different needs and different recovery pathways are a necessity. Amen. Let’s also look to where the evidence lies and use that to inform our choices.
Peter wisely points out from experience the danger of taking a divisive stance and that is a prime concern for our fledgling recovery movement.
Tim, I agree that there are many recovery pathways and AA/NA/CA/Alanon may be part of some people’s. In terms of mutual aid, it’s where the evidence is strongest, though I’m the first to admit we need to gather more evidence.
Alistair you are so right, we do have a right to decide how to respond and I don’t want to lose any (more!) babies with my bathwater. Memo to self: SMART still good.
Cliffy, there’s a whole other debate here about referral to mutual aid and who knows what will suit one person or another. There’s UK research to show that (like the newspaper article) more than 50% of professionals involved in treatment hold negative attitudes.
Nurses for some reason had the least prejudice. Other recent research shows that if professionals emphasise the social value of 12 step rather than banging on about perceived relgious connotations, people will engage.
Finally great information about the site and activity on it. This one blog is getting close to having had 1000 different views (I am informed) and it is less than three days old and off the main page.
I know from past experience and spies in camps that officials in government, the NTA and the media have read my blogs here. If they read mine they will read others. Take a look at the activlty level on the DDN forum and compare. (Note: I read DDN voraciously and support it, so not criticising, just observing)
Well done to David and now Michaela!
We do have the power to influence and change and no doubt irritate too.
Quality comments; thanks.
Sorry my post didn’t come across very well. I was trying to point to people who would perhaps pick up the Guardian (and other Newspaper articles) and say “pffff, this is wrong, they should do this, the government should do this and that, I’d do it this way, I’d do that” etc. These people you wouldn’t find on WiredIn, but only on their high horses i.e.
I don’t think I am confused about the purpose of Wired In, nor do did I assume individuals are not active in other areas. Did you assume I made this assumption? I think Wired In is a great site, that’s why I signed up.
In regard to the small fish, I was merely pointing out the fact in regard to the Internet, nothing more. In no way was I suggesting comments were wasted or challenging the good of the site. I wish David had responded a few minutes before me and I could have put my post in more context in terms of you achieving a louder and louder voice.
Sorry for any confusion.
And thanks Cliffy too – I think I am guilty of misplaced ‘hot under the collarness!’
Re-iterate note to self : hot collars not a good look! (but genuine passion nonetheless!)
Where to begin with this.
So SMART vs AA
Wired-in vs the guardian
All I can say is, as I have done before, when one pathway or approach to recovery comments on another, they should never question ethics, credibility or intelligence.
Again, as I have said before, this is when debate turns in to argument.
The written word is too easily misconstrued.
I think people feel “heard” when they comment on wired-in, I certainly do and find the community feel more personal than on sites such as the guardian. This is no reflection on anyone who wishes to comment on the guardian. Personal choice is available to all
So it’s not comment on either wired-in or elsewhere, feel free to do both.
We are all trying to achieve similar things in this recovery movement of ours. Wired-in is such a valuable resource in this, and can and will direct people to other forums to discuss these issues, to campaign etc.
There is never any need for a judean people’s front vs people’s front of judea type stand-off. Although a debate about the merits of both may be helpful and informative
I hope this all makes sense
I am Joe Gerstein, Founding President of SMART Recovery Self-Help Network, Inc. [Not THE founder…there were 9 founders]. I am sorry to be so late to this thread…I was on my way back from the UK and getting my registration straightened away.
Let me be very explicit: I was quoted entirely out of context in paragraph 4 of the Guardian article and the change in context grotesquely altered the thrust and meaning of what I had said to the reporter. I don’t think this was intentional on his part, but likely the result of trying to distill over 1.5 hours of conversation and much written material into a digestible article. Nothing derogatory of AA or the 12-Step program was ever voiced by me or the written material supplied. Those who have read the article are likely confused by the obvious contradiction between what I am quoted as saying in an earlier paragraph of the article about the 12-Step approach and this misquotation by context.
This would be equivalent to a critic reviewing a play and saying “Anyone who attended this play and thought it was very entertaining must have slept through it” and posting a broadsheet outside the theater quoting the critic as saying “Very Entertaining”.
In an attempt to avoid confusion on this issue (which has dogged me in previous interviews), I had sent to the reporter an email, immediately after the interview, warning of the potential for confounding the legitimate differences between the two programs with some sort of battle or contention or competition. I quote directly from that email of March 4, 2010 [the article was published on March 10]:
“BTW I want to be sure that one of the points in our discussion is clear. SR is not anti-AA. We are anti-absence-of-choice in addiction care. In fact, an informal survey of SR attendees in Massachusetts who consider SR their primary approach to recovery indicated that about 25% also attended AA meetings occasionally or even frequently. We have absolutely no problem with that. Both research and logic indicate that choosing your own recovery pathway is more likely to lead to success.
I mention this because reporters sometimes present t[w]o alternatives as some sort of contest [between] both programs.”
I think this is pretty clear! [Anyone wanting a forwarded copy of the actual email contact me at .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)).
What I did say was that in my opinion, therapists and especially courts, coercing people into AA without offering alternative options was unethical and medically and psychologically inappropriate. In the US it is also illegal in 6 Circuit Court Districts and 3 states on the basis of precedent if the person’s objections are on religious grounds.
The protocol of a pharmacological study of 800 veterans with biopsy-proven alcoholic cirrhosis in US VA hospitals by Charles Lieber had to be halted because the alcoholism treatment prescribed by the study (attendance at AA meetings) was rejected by 80% of the subjects. I doubt there were any of them had not been exposed to the opportunity to attend AA groups in the past. They did amazingly well with a Brief Motivational Enhancement program involving 15 minutes with a nurse ONCE A MONTH followed by a 5 minute reinforcement visit with a physician. The average number of drinks per day fell from 16.5 to 2.5 and 40% became abstinent. There was absolutely no progression in cirrhosis at all! The improvements in drinking pattern persisted throughout the 6 years of the study whether or not the participants stayed in the program or dropped out. Different folks, different strokes. This study certainly demonstrates the importance of choice in recovery. Motivational enhancement is one of the important components of the SR program.
SR was introduced into Danbury Federal Prison by myself and my wife in 1996. Women could receive a 6-month reduction in sentence if they joined an isolated group of 100 and remained there for the full period of 6 months intensive addiction program. They were given a week of introduction to 12-Step and SMART Recovery approach and then asked to choose one or the other course for the duration of the program. Over a sequence of 3 cycles, approximately 50% of women chose each program. There were generally a few who did not specify because it was more important to them to stay in the program chosen by one of their friends.
Ideally, this would be the situation that would generally obtain in selection of addiction programs for clients. A simple alternative for counselors or therapists would be to recommend attendance at a variety of mutual-help groups with continuation in whichever one seemed most congenial to the individual…or both!
Although autonomous SR self-help groups in the US (including on-line groups) will accept coerced attendance and certify such attendance, they will only do so if the attendee has been given an option and chosen to come to the SR group.
I hope this clarifies both my position and SMART Recovery® policies in this area. We hope to see more alternatives in the future. We know we don’t have a monopoly on good ideas for helping people end their addictions.
Cliffy and Joe G thankyou very much for taking the time to respond and my apols for taking you both out of context…easy mistake given the facts Or rather the written word. I suppose this has then highlighted the responsibility of the press in helping or hindering the recovery agenda here in the UK …..
Lets hope they get on board!
Hi Joe a big warm Mancunian welcome to wiredin. Joe it was excellent meeting you at the SMART conference and I really enjoyed the training you delivered on Wednesday.
I hope you didn’t mind me speaking on your behalf regarding the interview and I hope what I did say was a true reflection of your words minus the boston accent.
Joe you have given my SMART recovery batterys a big boost and it was a pleasure meeting you and I hope you return to the UK soon.
Thanks for taking the time to respond to concerns that were raised on Wired In Joe. I hope you’ll hang out in the community in the future and share you’re thoughts and experience. That would be great. I for one would be really into getting your thoughts on the development of the UK Recovery Federation. Take care.
There’s a very good interview with Joe in DDN this week:
http://www.drinkanddrugsnews.com/magazine/5061bf54cb044e5b828579634090eb19.pdf
Thank you Joe for taking energy and time to clarify your stance. I am very reassured. I’m actually quite sad at how the article turned out, despite your best efforts.
I agree with David Clark. The DDN article is an example of good reporting and I commend it highly. My faith is restored!
Addiction Today ran an article on the Guardian story:
NOT SMART: GUARDIAN MISQUOTES:
http://www.addictiontoday.org/addictiontoday/2010/03/not-smart-guardian-misquotes.html
