• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Carrie Fisher Had Cocaine, Heroin, Ecstasy in Her System, Autopsy Shows

First it should be noted that the coroner STILL cannot offer an actual cause of death. Everything he was able to examine came from a tox screen and a physical external evaluation. No autopsy was done.

That being said...

Chica was on cocaine, methadone, heroin, ecstasy Prozac, Abilify and Lamictal under prescription and was also on oxycodone without a prescription. The external evaluation showed puncture sites at her major femoral artery, carotid artery, inner forearm...in ADDITION to a fricken pic line for mainlining ****.

So while the drugs may not be labelled as the cause of death...they damn sure werent helping matters any.
 
First it should be noted that the coroner STILL cannot offer an actual cause of death. Everything he was able to examine came from a tox screen and a physical external evaluation. No autopsy was done.

That being said...

Chica was on cocaine, methadone, heroin, ecstasy Prozac, Abilify and Lamictal under prescription and was also on oxycodone without a prescription. The external evaluation showed puncture sites at her major femoral artery, carotid artery, inner forearm...in ADDITION to a fricken pic line for mainlining ****.

So while the drugs may not be labelled as the cause of death...they damn sure werent helping matters any.

She's gone, don't much give a **** how, no one killed her.
 
Based on... the simple fact that she used drugs?

I don't suppose you've ever heard of a distinction being drawn between correlation and causation?

I guess you have never read that many articles on what those things can do to you physically.
Doesn't surprise me though.
 
Your emotional state, and your mind, are controlled by chemicals produced by your body.

If your opinion were true, quitting cold turkey wouldn't be lethal, as it all too often is.

It depends upon the substance, as to the chance of lethal withdrawal. Just as it depends on the substance as to the chance of use itself being lethal.
 
The medical community only recognizes one substance as physically addictive. And it's not the one most of us think of. Actually, it's the one most of us would be certain is not physically addictive.

That one substance, or one drug, is alcohol.

Heroin, cocaine, meth and any other drug is regarded as non-physically addictive by the medical community and only psychologically addictive.





To understand this one must understand the role politics and prejudice play in the sciences. Because whether a scientist or a medical doctor you bring your political beliefs and moral prejudices into your profession and try to advance them. Of course, not all scientists and medical doctors do, but plenty of them do.

So far as I can tell the primary criteria the medical community has used for conceptualizing physical addiction is a biological dependence that without for a given period of time can result in death.

Withdrawal from cocaine certainly does not do that. Withdrawal from heroin or any opiates is far worse than cocaine, physical pain and sickness sets in, but one does not die.

One can die from withdrawal from alcohol though. But even with that it is a small percentage of alcoholics that reach that stage.

So, when a heroin addict is withering in pain and sickness on the floor, and medical professionals are standing indifferent with Nazi observation and rationalization, intellectually concluding the subject is merely psychologically addicted through morally corrupt behavior. And then when those medical professionals trip over each other to claim LGBTQ behaviors and obsessions are purely physical, one can spot subjectivity through political beliefs and moral prejudices present in the science of medicine as practiced. For the medical community raises a far higher bar for substance addicts as to what requires physicality void of any choices and will power.





As for forensic investigation. I took two different forensic courses in college. Both in anthropology. One was lectured by a forensic anthropologist and the other course was lectured by the Milwaukee County Medical Examiner (a forensic pathologist that worked in other states and even for the US military before coming to Milwaukee).

One thing I learned in the course lectured by the Medical Examiner is that in forensic pathology, that field of scientific investigation differentiates between cause of death and manner of death.

You can think of it in terms of say... a case of homicide were a victim was strangled to death. The manner of death would be the strangulation through homicide but the cause of death would be whatever biochemical process, given whatever medical name or medical terminology, that actually produced the death in a medical sense. If I'm explaining that correctly? I'm a layman so I struggle trying to explain something I really don't understand fully myself.

In the case of substance addiction alcohol and alcoholism has been behind more American deaths than probably all "drugs" combined in the USA. Particularly over long term. Heroin and opiates have far more lethal rates in short term. Ergo, high rates of fatal over doses (something anabolic steroids does not have by the way, not a single death from over dose). But in the long term few to nothing wrecks havoc and ruin on the body and its organs than alcohol does. Alcoholism over years also results in dementia. But you don't find in coroners reports and hospitals that x person died from alcoholism. Even though rates of it causing death and various organ diseases is analogous to a Chicago skyscraper (alcohol related deaths) next to a tiny Ethiopian hut (cocaine related deaths).





(The medical community has been slowly changing with more professionals and literature coming to conceptualize "drug" [alcohol is a drug too, not socially but chemically] addiction as physically addictive.)
 
It was stated in this thread that drug addicts do use drugs for the reward of a sensation, a high if you will. Or at least often do. And I think the objective fact is that is true.



Bernard Hopkins does not drink alcohol. Certainly not like most Americans. I'm surprised to hear he does not drink soda either. But he makes a good point about the lack of health benefits from consuming soda, particularly on a regular bases. Even an occasional glass of wine has some health benefits. But soda so far as I know has zero. Yet I like many other am hooked on it. But unless something destroys your life very few people will give up x unhealthy addiction. Rather, you will relish it and sings songs of praise about it. That's how we humans are.


Published on Feb 15, 2017

Bernard Hopkins details the strict diet that helped make him the oldest champion in boxing history, including a strong disdain for soda and an art for crafting the perfect peanut butter and jelly sandwich.



Many Muslim countries prohibit alcohol too.


Muslims, Why Don't You Drink Alcohol? - Yasir Qadhi
Published on Dec 27, 2012

Yasir Qadhi on The Deen Show talking about alcohol and the wisdom behind its prohibition in Islam.
 
The medical community only recognizes one substance as physically addictive. And it's not the one most of us think of. Actually, it's the one most of us would be certain is not physically addictive.

That one substance, or one drug, is alcohol.

Heroin, cocaine, meth and any other drug is regarded as non-physically addictive by the medical community and only psychologically addictive.

That is completely false. I don't even know where to begin with you if you actually think that.


Each of those drugs you named are physically addictive and psychologically addictive.
 
That is completely false. I don't even know where to begin with you if you actually think that.


Each of those drugs you named are physically addictive and psychologically addictive.

I stated what the medical community, the American medical community, regards as physically addictive. It is only alcohol. For reasons I gave.

Heroin and cocaine are only psychologically addictive. That's repeated not some times, not part of the time, but all of the time in every Federally funded Veterans Administration Hospital rehab.





I never said I believe alcohol is the only physically addictive drug. I said that is what the medical community pontificates. Albeit, as I said, some views and literature is changing on this.
 
What specific mental disorder did she suffer from, that she supposedly was ashamed of?
 
That is completely false. I don't even know where to begin with you if you actually think that.


Each of those drugs you named are physically addictive and psychologically addictive.

Here is another thing that might shock you. You know how Democrats are always yapping on about "separation of church and state." Well... US courts routinely order alcholics and addicts to attend meetings like AA and the ones that spawned off AA like NA and CA. And said people have to attend by court order of a judge x number of meetings and have sheets of papers signed at each meeting by a member heading one of those meetings.

So, that must *mean* AA and the 12 Step Program are "scientific" rather than "moral", right?

Yeah, not quiet. Actually, not at all. At best they are psychological but irrespective they are heavy in morality preaching.

AA was created by Christians. Protestants from the Oxford Movement.

Now notice how many times the word "God" is used in the 12 Steps as well as mention of prayer and meditation. And one of the Steps states God will remove character defects (not the individual, not a psychologist, not a scientist, not anyone but God).

The 12 Steps


Step 3

Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood God.


Step 4

Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves.


Step 5

Admitted to God, to ourselves and to another human being the exact nature of our wrongs.


Step 6

Were entirely ready to have God remove all these defects of character.


Step 7

Humbly asked God to remove our shortcomings.


Step 11

Sought through prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with God as we understood God, praying only for knowledge of God's will for us and the power to carry that out.


Step 12

Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these steps, we tried to carry this message to other addicts, and to practice these principles in all our affairs.

"Spiritual awakening" and carry a Gospel like a Mormon or Jehovah's Witness...? Sounds a lot less like science to me than metaphysics born from religion. One of the beautiful things about AA, NA, CA is that like religions when a person makes total conversion and is reborn they take all the credit. But when a person fails they take none of the blame.

And US judges order alcoholics and addicts to meetings to recite prayers (because that's what they do at the conclusion of most AA meetings--and often times it is a Christian prayer).


Today, most people in AA have no idea that the roots of AA began with Christians in the Oxford Movement (a movement by Anglicans I think to re-awaken some of their lost catholic past, CS Lewis the famous English author I think was part of this movement). Honestly, I don't know much about the Oxford Movement so I can't speak too much on it.

There are some people in AA aware of the Protestant origins though.

One of the main founders, one of the holy icons or saints in AA, left alcohol alone but went on to experiment with drugs that cause hallucinations. On his death bed he reportedly demanded alcohol but no one would bring it to him.


AA History-The Early Oxford Group Movement
Published on Jul 24, 2011

An Alcoholics Anonymous member shares his research about the theological movement that present day twleve step programs grew out of.
 
Hey, I have not watched this video at all. But I'm slightly familiar with the guy doing the video. I have confidence in his academic competence (not saying he is 100% right on anything). So, he may contradict what I said about the Oxford Movement being something Anglicans were involved in etc.

Like I said... I don't know much about the Oxford Movement. I should probably watch the video myself.

Anyways, it (the video) might provide (or might not) some insight into a socio-religious movement that would eventually come to help shape Alcoholics Anonymous, and from AA grew Narcotics Anonymous and Cocaine Anonymous.

I'm not preaching I'm offering info. Or adding info to the thread. Each person can take the info (or not take it) and make up their own minds. :peace




The Oxford Movement
Published on Jul 16, 2015

Ryan M. Reeves (PhD Cambridge) is Assistant Professor of Historical Theology at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary.
 
I stated what the medical community, the American medical community, regards as physically addictive. It is only alcohol. For reasons I gave.

Heroin and cocaine are only psychologically addictive. That's repeated not some times, not part of the time, but all of the time in every Federally funded Veterans Administration Hospital rehab.





I never said I believe alcohol is the only physically addictive drug. I said that is what the medical community pontificates. Albeit, as I said, some views and literature is changing on this.

I think you're ignoring caffeine and tobacco, for whatever reason, on the "physically addicting" line of thought.
 
I stated what the medical community, the American medical community, regards as physically addictive. It is only alcohol. For reasons I gave.

Heroin and cocaine are only psychologically addictive. That's repeated not some times, not part of the time, but all of the time in every Federally funded Veterans Administration Hospital rehab.

I never said I believe alcohol is the only physically addictive drug. I said that is what the medical community pontificates. Albeit, as I said, some views and literature is changing on this.


That is not what the medical community says.
 
Holy ****, that's... that's a lot of drugs.

Yea. Rich Hollywood person. I wonder how big a dent would be made in the drug trade of actors took drug tests like athletes?
 
I think you're ignoring caffeine and tobacco, for whatever reason, on the "physically addicting" line of thought.

I have a broader concept of what is physically addictive than the medical community. So, I might include caffeine and tobacco in there or I might not. I'm addicted to caffeine through coffee and have the normal withdrawal symptom (headache) if I don't drink some small amount of coffee every morning. But I'm not sure caffeine or tobacco are physically addictive (the latter I hazard a guess more likely is). I don't smoke cigarettes for one, although, I on rare occasions will smoke a cigar.

The problem with terms like physical addiction and psychological addiction are that you have to establish a definition and criteria for each to give the terms any teeth.

If I were to take off "my hat" so-to-speak of religion and put on my hat where I attempt to think in a purely "scientific" and "analytical" way then I can not there are certain characteristics exhibited in alcoholics, heroin addicts, cocaine addicts that are not seen in say... people addicted to coffee. That principally being the craving issue in which one is observed in the ability to stop once they take "one." Something outside themselves must stop them.

For me, this is the real indicator of physical addiction, and I hypothesize that it is biologically set in. Like diabetes. For me this is the disease nature of physical addiction.

What I'm suggesting is that in psychological addictions--like drinking coffee, or even social or emotional reliance on drinking to heavy in social events--behaviors can be modified in relation to the substance consumed without giving up the substance.

With physical addictions, save a cure or some pharmacological medication that can be taken to reactivate control in the nervous system of the person, total abstinence from the substance one is *physically* addicted to must be maintained.


Analysis | Define Analysis at Dictionary.com



2. this process as a method of studying the nature of something or of determining its essential features and their relations:
the grammatical analysis of a sentence.

But the medical community seems to regard the main criteria, so far as I can tell, of physical addiction being the potential to die from withdrawal. Currently, that potential only exists in the substance known as alcohol, and not with a little irony the only substance legal (between alcohol, crack cocaine, heroin, and meth).

You are not going to die going through crack cocaine, heroin, meth, caffeine, or tobacco withdrawal.

People often yap about how tobacco is "harder" to quiet than say heroin or alcohol (for an alcoholic). But they never stop to consider smoking cigarettes is like dancing in a gay parade and being a guy going out to a bar and screwing a woman you jut met on the first night. By that I mean they don't crash your world. Crack cocaine, heroin, and alcoholism do. Devastate family relations, job lose, you can end up homeless. You don't end up homeless because you like to drink coffee to much, are over weight and hooked on junk food, or even hooked on cigarettes. So, great suffering motivates to stop.

Albeit, a single $10 rock of crack cocaine should cost less than a *single* cigarette (if it were made legal). So, if cigarettes were made illegal and droughts set in (just as the price of diamonds sky rocket by being made artificially rare on the market) because shipments had to be smuggled and criminal organizations raised prices radically, a single cigarette might cost an American cigarette addict $5 or $10 dollars. Then some of them might end up homeless. How so? You are a crack cocaine or cigarette addict earning $320 before taxes a week for $8 an hour. Your addiction is such that you can smoke up on a single Friday evening in 5 hours $200 by yourself. For crack if bought in "dime" bags ($10 bags) that is 20 rocks. Or for a cigarette addict 20 cigarettes. But imagine if cocaine were legal and could be bought at certain stores, or bought even as cooked up crack. Then I hypothesize what costs $10 now in crack would plummet to between $0.50 to $1.00.

So, if it costs $1 a bag then the crack addict smoking on Friday, that earned $320 before taxes, spend only $20 or if he keeps going until his body feels sick from doing so much, he bought 60 altogether for a sum of $60. In other words he pays bills, or pays them more frequently, he's not homeless. Even the cost on society is reduced.
 
That is not what the medical community says.

Yes it is because that is what is continually lectured in Federally funded (as in pro-liberal, pro-Democrat) hospital rehabs in the Veteran's Administration Hospitals. The rehab councilors flat out state it's what the medical community teaches.

And I suspect you personally have a greater prejudice against heroin and crack cocaine use than say... alcohol consumption. So, you want to believe crack and heroin and meth are viewed as physically addictive as alcohol. In fact, I think you desire to believe they are even more physically addictive than alcohol.

I know... you get your info from American politicians as well as from black comedians like Dave Chappelle.




And there are few comedy shows depicting alcoholics with "wet brain" (dementia, to the point 50 year-old men have to pin notes to themselves), hallucinating during withdrawal seeing people fly through their windows or giant purple elephants chasing them, or swollen, hard bellies on skinny men, or red noses, or a great many of the things alcoholism does destructively to the body.

What you don't expect, is that a crack addict might be "fat," dressed in a suit, and regarded by many as the best mayor in the history of one of North America's greatest cities: Toronto.







But you might reply, "But the medical community calls crack, heroin, and meth addictions "diseases!"

Yeah, plenty of them do. But ironically you don't find them treating their disease patients dealing with self caused skin cancer, self caused diabetes 2, self caused heart disease, with morality based rehabs. Morality and prayer and warning phrases like, "People, places, and things" are psychological.

However, they will prescribe certain medication to alcoholics and opiate addicts. I don't think that drug they used to give alcoholics which made them violently throw up if they drank alcohol, is prescribed anymore (but I might be wrong on that).




Let me give you some advice, while stereotypes are often (not always) born from some grain of truth, usually they exaggerate even in the universality of their scope. So, I would not rely on American comedians to get all my "known truths" from.

 
Yes it is because that is what is continually lectured in Federally funded (as in pro-liberal, pro-Democrat) hospital rehabs in the Veteran's Administration Hospitals. The rehab councilors flat out state it's what the medical community teaches.

And I suspect you personally have a greater prejudice against heroin and crack cocaine use than say... alcohol consumption. So, you want to believe crack and heroin and meth are viewed as physically addictive as alcohol. In fact, I think you desire to believe they are even more physically addictive than alcohol.

I know... you get your info from American politicians as well as from black comedians like Dave Chappelle.




And there are few comedy shows depicting alcoholics with "wet brain" (dementia, to the point 50 year-old men have to pin notes to themselves), hallucinating during withdrawal seeing people fly through their windows or giant purple elephants chasing them, or swollen, hard bellies on skinny men, or red noses, or a great many of the things alcoholism does destructively to the body.

What you don't expect, is that a crack addict might be "fat," dressed in a suit, and regarded by many as the best mayor in the history of one of North America's greatest cities: Toronto.







But you might reply, "But the medical community calls crack, heroin, and meth addictions "diseases!"

Yeah, plenty of them do. But ironically you don't find them treating their disease patients dealing with self caused skin cancer, self caused diabetes 2, self caused heart disease, with morality based rehabs. Morality and prayer and warning phrases like, "People, places, and things" are psychological.

However, they will prescribe certain medication to alcoholics and opiate addicts. I don't think that drug they used to give alcoholics which made them violently throw up if they drank alcohol, is prescribed anymore (but I might be wrong on that).




Let me give you some advice, while stereotypes are often (not always) born from some grain of truth, usually they exaggerate even in the universality of their scope. So, I would not rely on American comedians to get all my "known truths" from.



.

.

.

.

<slowly backs away>
 
I have a broader concept of what is physically addictive than the medical community.

The medical community - which, by the way, isn't restricted to the VA agency - says that the drugs you are rambling on about are physically addictive. I don't know where you could possibly have gotten any other idea in your head, but get it out because it's dead wrong.





I don't know how to be any clearer and won't waste my time trying to be. You are either woefully ignorant or lying, and the latter doesn't make much sense.
 
But the medical community seems to regard the main criteria, so far as I can tell, of physical addiction being the potential to die from withdrawal.


That is not true.
 
So, when a heroin addict is withering in pain and sickness on the floor

Um....

Those are symptoms of physical withdrawal from a substance that is physically addicting.




, and medical professionals are standing indifferent with Nazi observation and rationalization, intellectually concluding the subject is merely psychologically addicted through morally corrupt behavior.

No, that is not what they conclude. That is not what they say. The things that you are typing are not true.





(Nice Godwin move there, though)
 
The medical community - which, by the way, isn't restricted to the VA agency - says that the drugs you are rambling on about are physically addictive. I don't know where you could possibly have gotten any other idea in your head, but get it out because it's dead wrong.





I don't know how to be any clearer and won't waste my time trying to be. You are either woefully ignorant or lying, and the latter doesn't make much sense.

I've been a substance addict (dually addicted) for over 2 decades. I've been in rehabs multiple times. I know more about this than you do.

Aren't you the one who earlier in this thread claimed people going through withdrawals from drugs sometimes die?

Er... wrong. Only *alcohol* (again, even with that it is only a small percentage of severe alcoholics). No one has ever fatally overdosed on steroids either. People don't die going through withdrawal from anabolic steroids or testosterone. But you would not know that listening to the media hype (which ironically puts women on testosterone and men on female hormones if they want to *look* like the opposite sex). But the least harmful drug the public thinks is *alcohol.* In fact, alcohol is probably the worst, in the long term. But IV use of any drug is probably the worst in the short term period.

I used to think (like most Americans) that withdrawal from heroin could result in death. I'm not a heroin or IV addict. But it was an impression I had from TV. It was sitting through classes in VA Hospital rehabs that I learned that is a total myth. Furthermore, they would always go on to say that the only physically addictive substance is alcohol *because* it is the only one you *can* die from while going through withdrawal. Their sources they attribute are to the US medical community.
 
Um....

Those are symptoms of physical withdrawal from a substance that is physically addicting.

I never said they were not. I fully concur they are. But I was saying the criteria that the medical community uses is higher. Due to the fact they only recognize alcohol as such.

As an aside... what does the lack of such a thing in abstaining from sex for both homosexuals and heterosexuals indicate? I've never seen a gay person collapse on the ground in pain and sickness because they haven't gotten sodomized in the last 48 hours. Nor for a heterosexual who hasn't gotten a penis in her vagina in the lat 2 weeks.

("Harm reduction" or state sponsored "enabling" proposes in their models handing out latex condoms, and for IV addicts providing free needle exchange programs.)

But let me guess... even though from Buddhism to Hinduism to Christianity for thousands of years women have become celibate nuns, men celibate monks, but according to modern man "no one can possibly even temporarily abstain from sex by sheer moral choice," but the IV heroin addict withering on floor in leg pain and sickness is full of *choice* if he only muster a proper framework of morality.
 
No, that is not what they conclude. That is not what they say. The things that you are typing are not true.





(Nice Godwin move there, though)


Well... this brilliant medical doctor who developed the most severe form of alcoholism (he collapsed more than once, having massive seizures, from withdrawal, going too many hours without alcohol in his system) recounts the prejudice he even received from some medical staff. One doctor in particular refusing to give him a certain medication because he viewed alcoholism as purely a *psychological* and *moral* issue. Now, I can hazard a guess how that doctor must have viewed heroin addicts if he had that attitude towards alcoholics.

https://www.amazon.com/End-Addiction-Olivier-Ameisen-M-D-ebook/dp/B0057A90G8



The End of My Addiction Kindle Edition
by Olivier Ameisen M.D. (Author), Jeffrey S., MD Borer (Introduction)

"After years of battling uncontrollable addiction, I have achieved the supposedly impossible: complete freedom from craving."

Dr. Olivier Ameisen was a brilliant cardiologist on the staff at one of America's top teaching hospitals and running his own successful practice when he developed a profound addiction to alcohol. He broke bones with no memory of falling; he nearly lost his kidneys; he almost died from massive seizures during acute withdrawal. He gave up his flourishing practice and, fearing for his life, immersed himself in Alcoholics Anonymous, rehab, therapy, and a variety of medications. Nothing worked.

Editorial Reviews

From Publishers Weekly


A French-American cardiologist then affiliated with New York Hospital–Cornell University Medical College descended into years of hellish alcohol addiction that essentially ended his medical practice in 1997. His move back to Paris and self-treatment with the unproven drug baclofen is the subject of this clinical, thoroughgoing memoir. Early on, Ameisen, the child of Holocaust survivors and an accomplished pianist, recognized that deep-seated anxiety was driving him to drink, yet doctors treated the drinking rather than the anxiety. He tried years of AA, rehab and medication, but in time he was binging again—blacking out and ending up in psych wards or the emergency room with broken bones. When he read about the muscle relaxant baclofen in a New York Times article, suggesting that it could repress the craving in addicts as well as control muscular spasm, he seized on the drug as his life line. He researched baclofen, prescribed it to himself (thanks to France's medical identity cards) and essentially used himself as a study over several months, increasing the dosage as necessary. The results were remarkable...

Review

“You have discovered the treatment for addiction.” —Jean Dausset, M.D., winner of the 1980 Nobel Prize in Medicine



Listen... I have tremendous respect for AA (Alcoholics Anonymous). It is one of the greatest fellowships on planet earth in my opinion. And miracles happen there. I say this even if I don't believe every single or minute thing AA might claim. And as a spiritual process of growth and discovery and rebirth few organized religion communities are as effective as the community of AA with its lived traditions and working of its literature and principles.

But given my educational background is in biology, and actual science, I can recognize that AA and the 12 Step program is moral, metaphysical, and psychological program.

You see... in a science, a natural science, if there is a chemical problem you seek a chemical solution. You don't have people hold hands in prayer and take moral inventories of themselves.

So, as I said, while the medical community likes to frame drug addiction as a "disease," pay special note to the fact they send people off to rehabs that try to change they way they think, promotes the 12 Steps with prayer to God. Is that how they treat skin cancer? Telling a person to think differently and pray to God? So, I'm saying there are glaring contradictions in their talk.



Here, I found this and watched it. It goes into the Protestant Oxford Movement's connection to AA and gives examples of AA practices and beliefs taken from the Christian Oxford Movement. (Contrary to the video, AA is hardcore old school Christian in preaching *personal responsibility,* it's just that it teaches God removes character defects, akin to hoe Christians believe on the power of God to change people by his grace.)

 
Back
Top Bottom