Could it be that one of AA's goals is the creation of a population of donors to keep their organization funded, just like any other organized religious group? This would explain the reluctance to admit that alcohol addiction is not a 'lifelong disease' that requires lifetime committment to AA, wouldn't it?

Regardless, promoting bogus scientific claims in the name of social good does actual harm to people. It's one of the reasons for the whole anti-vax thing, and the resulting measles outbreaks, for example.

I don't think you have much if any firsthand experience with how these orgs actually do work.

It's especially funny because I am knowledgable on this subject, sympathetic to your concerns, had time and energy this morning to go into depth on the details and problems of AA and how I have chosen to engage with them over the years, and why so many of us continue to.

If you had wanted to learn anything about the day to day fights against addiction as they are experienced, contradictions and all, this was a great opportunity. But you just couldn't get over this specific hangup of yours, and pissed it away. Good luck out there man I hope you never need us but we'll be here if you do.

I think it is a stretch to think that this is a money making endeavor.

Scams to make money like MLMs and Scientology prioritize payment over adherence to the tenants of the organization. And the leaders are paid millions of dollars and live luxurious lives. AA is more like the Salvation Army. It is a group that clearly believes things that are not scientifically true, but most people join with good intentions.

I don't know much about the Salvation Army beyond hearing their name in passing, but what are their scientifically false beliefs?

I looked at the "Beliefs" section of their Wikipedia page but couldn't find, after 1 min or so of looking, a clearly stated scientifically false belief.

Are you referring to this, which sounds similar to AA? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Salvation_Army#Adult_Rehab...

From Wikipedia: "In November 2013 it was made known that the Salvation Army was referring LGBT individuals to one of several conversion therapy groups."

The American Medical Association has never suggested there is scientific data proving this therapy to be successful at changing sexual orientation, in fact the scientific data proves the opposite, it is harmful.

Rather than engage in wild speculation why not attend some actual AA meetings?

Open meetings permit anyone to attend as a visitor.

there are a few layers to "AA".

first there's the philosophy itself and all the associated dogma and religious aspects. I found this pretty weird and not my cup of tea, but I have no problem with it existing and people adhering to it if it helps them.

then there's the community. thirteenth stepping aside, these are mostly people genuinely trying to help themselves and others. I noticed some odd things, like some AA meetings banning the mention of drug use (?) and the fact that people are often preaching total abstinence in between gulps of coffee and drags off a cigarette. but whatever, not a big deal. what was a big deal to me was the attitude some members take towards people who don't find success with the process. the big book is quite clear that it does not claim to have a solution for everyone, only one that worked for the writer. and yet I often heard some variation of "it works if you work it" if I voiced anything like this, the implication being that it would work for me too, if only I tried harder, surrendered more fully, etc. very toxic imo, not sure if all meetings are like this, but it was a persistent theme in the ones I went to.

but the biggest issue I have with AA is not the philosophy/organization/community, but its place in recovery in general. it's not just the default option; it's often the only one. you really have to dive deep to find any alternatives. even if you pay to see a psychiatrist or therapist, they will often just tell you to go to meetings, maybe prescribe some suboxone/naltrexone if you're lucky. rehabs (the ones that will take your insurance at least) are heavily based on the AA model. some of the lazier ones basically are just a series of AA meetings that you can't get away from. it sucks all the proverbial air out of the room. on top of all that, the relationship with ostensibly secular government (ie, court-ordered meeting attendance) is highly inappropriate.

this was a pretty negative comment, so I want to be clear that I do respect what you do. "free" and "works for some people, at least" is a pretty hard combo to beat when it comes to recovery. I don't want to pressure anyone to change something that helps them with such a serious problem. I do wish that, as a group, AA would just stay in its lane though. it should not have the relationship with government and medicine that it currently does.

Yes, your biggest issue with it is also my biggest issue with it. It holds this spot in the cultural consciousness as like, the only/best general-purpose addiction program when it absolutely is not that.

Judges and mental health professionals sending people to AA without specifically understanding its practices and how those will help that individual is terrible and I hate that it's as common as it is.

And speaking from within the US, a lot of the weird AA-isms I think are adaptions to our fucked up healthcare system and general attitudes towards personal agency and addiction. No one is picking people up off the streets and giving them top-notch medicalized in-patient addiction treatment you know? AA isn't ideal or even necessarily very good for a lot of things. But it is there and it is free, and no matter how fucked up your life is they won't turn you away. Can't really say that about many other treatment paradigms right now.