Sobriety Statistics, 12 Step Recovery Rates

16 thoughts on “Sobriety Statistics, 12 Step Recovery Rates”

1. The only statistic I care about is, “Rarely have we seen a person fail who has throughly followed our path.
   True in 1939, true now. The path is the first 164 pages of the big book.

   Reply

2. The question becomes – for those who said they got sober at AA – what was the reason? I believe it is the same reason that others outside AA get sober – they made a decision that the angst of using was not worth it! They connected to a bigger part in them and yes you might consider that a higher power or God Within. We have the power to create our lives the way we want and on a lower level we are all pleasure seekers. To me using is false passion – when we have something we care about more than pleaure we moderate or stop all together. My experience with 12 step was that it became a more positive addiction for those attending programs. I actually got worse during my 12 step expereince – the idea that I was ill or had a disease made it easy to "slip"

   AA and other 12 step programs – in my belief – take people out of life and creates a belief "we are different" – that is sad! We all have to power to create the life we want and to be honest that is a hard path for many with many disempowering beliefs. I am not expert and I am sure it is possible that "genes" cause alcoholism but recent advances in biology are showing that genes are not the determiner of behavior – environmental issues are more determiners – and that includes the inner environment of a person – their thoughts in beliefs!

   Should we get rid of AA and other 12 step programs? It won’t happen any time soon – too big of a buesiness… that feeds "recovery programs." And maybe being part of a 12 step community is a good thing for some but in my experience there was far less than 10% that had any period of sobriety over 90 days… it took me a year to get over the damage 12 step programs did to my pysche but i am sober and not looking back. It was my decision to make and up to me to be responsible for my actions.

   Reply

   1. if i have some reservation that aa wont work maybe i need to say goodbye to my ego after all if i drink a litre a day every day for 20 years maybe no human power could relieve my alcoholism but god could and would if he were truly sought

      Reply

   2. Hi David, I agree with many of your thoughts. I was in AA for 20 years and would throw myself in enthusiastically, secretary a lot of meetings, sponsor a lot of women, take women into my home to sober up. But when things got really tough in my life, I relapsed and was ashamed to go back because the old timers MADE ME FEEL ASHAMED. What finally got me sober for good was just an old fashioned cost benefit analysis. I looked at all of the negative consequences of my drinking, from relationships to careers to finances, and especially to my health, and decided that drinking was just plain slow suicide. So I stopped. The important thing I got out of Alcoholics Anonymous… and that has only gotten stronger…was a spiritual connection, a spiritual path. I am not pushing any particular religion , but the Unitarians have provided me with exactly what I needed and what I had previously gotten in my years in AA. I am a retired scientific writer and have read lot of the literature about the heritability of alcoholism. Fifty percent is definitely genetic. Science has located the “alcholism gene” and tested with studies of identifcal twins separated at birth (long story). But 50% is due to the environment, of growing up in a home where you were always around alcholics. My parents were both alcoholics, and even my distant ancestors had alcoholism in the family tree. Anyway I am really enjoying long term sobriety. It is even better than I ever thought it would be.

      Reply

3. You’ve done a great service in posting this success rate material. So often the commentators simply express their opinion on who did or didn’t get sober, who was or wasn’t a mere rim-runner or be-backer, and what number is or isn’t important. Frankly, I much prefer to look at the rosters that I have seen and personally compared with Dr. Bob’s daughters. You can see them in the Griffith Library if you wish. I prefer to turn to the actual Cleveland records that were kept and that Clarence Snyder surveyed to find the 93% rate. What seems to be missing from the speculation is a knowledge that early A.A. was small in numbers of people. The serious ones wrote down the names and addresses of the fellowship. When Dr. Bob and Bill counted noses in 1937 and came up with their figures, they knew the people-the specific people-they were counting. Even a meager knowledge of early A.A. will make it clear that Bill and Bob and Clarence pointed out how many people came and went and weren’t at all significantly involved. And when some of your commentators talk about numbers or their own present-day experiences, I would always insist that they produce the source of their facts. If they don’t and can’t, then the remarks merely contribute to the unending myths about the real early A.A. program and its highly successful real alcoholics who went to any lengths to establish their relationship with God and grow spiritually. It was Almighty God to whom they looked for guidance, strength, and healing. They never claimed other people couldn’t get sober. They just thoroughly followed the path to a relationship with God that the pioneers laid out. See Real 12 Step Fellowship History for an overview. http://www.dickb.com/titles.shtml. God Bless, Dick B.

   Reply

4. Clearly it’s about thoroughness. Not whether we’re a so-called "REAL" alcoholic, not the meetings, not even the steps themselves… it’s about thoroughness and practice. I know people who have been taken through the book, had a spiritual experience and then when out and scored an 8-ball. I know many people who have sat on their butts instead of getting into the steps and then when out and used. What do they have in common?

   My experience has been that people fail because they are unable to be honest with themselves, open-minded, willing, or are unable to find a Higher Power. We can digress all day long on aspects of the book or program, or meetings or God or any of that, but if a person cannot be honest, open-minded, willing or have a HP, they cannot get or keep this program.

   On the other hand, if they have those things, it doesn’t seem to matter much which "method" they use, what kind of meeting they go to, or whether it’s even in a 12-step program. If they have those things, they can find sobriety.

   Reply

5. Congratulations again on this early comprehensive effort to gather statistics together on the early program. It is important also to remember the very substantial differences between the original Akron program as reported by Frank Amos, published in DR. BOB and the Good Oldtimers, and confirmed by the rosters, comments of Bill Wilson and Clarence, and offering facts of value to those willing to learn them. Then came the Big Book four years later which did a substantial turn and embodied primarily Sam Shoemaker’s Oxford Group principles and language adding also thoughts from Jung, James, New Thought, Peabody, and others mentioned in my recent Sixteen Wellsprings article. This was immediately followed by the widely varying "programs" that emerged in the 1940’s during the period of Wilson’s severe depression–ideas from Clarence Snyder, Sister Ignatia, Father Ed Dowling, Richmond Walker, Father Ralph Pfau, Ed Webster, and eventually Father John C. Ford as well. The caveat again is to look at all the history, notice the trends and twists and alterations, and see names and dates in terms of length of sobriety, period of occurrences, source of the information, items omitted, and so forth. Keep up the good work. I’d agree with the dude who stresses it’s not about the meetings we make. I’d add that, for me, it is about the Creator upon whom some AAs rely. God Bless.

   Reply

6. Richard K. of Mass. has done the most thorough study of anyone I know, and he has published four books with the results. Fortunately, he reviewed the rosters from Akron, the statements of Nancy O., and a host of others. He names the people, specifies the sobriety dates, and traces the recovery record. He documents the statements by Bill that there were forty when Bill and Bob counted noses in the fall of 1937. Clarence Snyder also named the names. My own titles, When Early AAs Were Cured and Why and Cured: Proven Help for Alcoholics and Addicts flesh out the facts. This website has aroused a healthy exchange of materials. And we are all learning more and more as the efforts are expended. For some reason I cannot fathom, people seem inclined to reject the statements of Bill Wilson, Bob Smith, Bill Dotson and the dozens of others who stated they were cured in the early years. Recently I published the article reported in the Tidings in 1948 about the remarks of Bill and Bob on the stage together at the Shrine Auditorium which illustrates they were still agreed on the fundamentals of the earliest days–conversion, Divine Aid, prayer, Bible study, reading religious literature, resumption of church attendance, confession, and amends. This material didn’t become available until this March of 2008. As I have written through the years, I still favor the expression "Rarely have we seen a person fail who has thoroughly followed our path." That path, though the language was changed from time to time, was the path to "finding" and establishing a relationship with God. Are there other paths? Yep. Can you get sober on your own? Yep. Can you get sober with the help of God and without A.A. Yep. It’s a matter of choice, and I’m very very thankful to the Creator that I chose the A.A. path in 1986, learned the Big Book and how to take and take others through the 12 Steps, learned our accurate early history and how they did it in the 1930’s, and then dived into reliance on God, prayer, seeking God’s guidance, studying the Bible, and helping others. It’s sure not the only way. But it sure did work for the 40 Akron pioneers who gave it their best shot in the earliest days. Save us, please, from the days when the only thing we share is our own sobriety and fail to give credit to the Creator when He has been the main instrument in our sobriety. God Bless.

   Reply

7. (snip)There never were the 100 men and women that Bill mentioned at the time of writing of the Big Book. There were 40 in 1938, and slightly over 70 when the Big Book went to print. The Cleveland growth did not begin until May, 1939 after the Big Book was published – Dick B (snip)

   See? This is the problem. Which are we to believe? The book says 100 but there were not 100. The book says 50% right away and then 25% later, but, if we don’t believe one, why would we believe the other? To say nothing of the alleged statistics not including those that didn’t want the program were somehow omitted from the count. If 40 turned into 100, who knows what the reality of the alleged 50% rate was. I know this, for myself, I’ve never seen anybody that was a REAL (LOL) alcoholic/addict show improvement if they didnt stop altogether.

   So why go on and on about success rates? Heck, Bill was 100% success rate, but it went down from there with every person he carried the message to!

   Quoting faulty or questionable statistics doesn’t seem to me to be the way to attract anybody to any particular experience of the program. Showing people our own sobriety does.

   Reply

   1. You are passing on false information and misleading people with your ignorance of the facts. Please stop lying. Whether intentional or not.
      There were 40 recovered alcoholics in 1937 when Bill came back to Akron. That was the counting of noses we hear about. It was in February of 1938 when Frank Amos was dispatched by Rockefeller to Akron to see what was going on and to bring back a report. Those 50 were listed on the “Amos Roster”. They only counted the Akron fellowship. Not the NY group. But apparently according to Jimmy B. there were only a handful staying sober in New York. Jimmy got drunk again himself in 1938 but sobered up many months before the Big Book was published. So his memory is not the best. Frank Amos said there were 110 recovered Alcoholics or members of AA in 1939. So, the million $ question is if you don’t believe Bill’s numbers do you believe Frank Amos. A trusted agent of Rockefeller, the richest man in The USA and some say the world. With philanthropic foundations that have helped untold millions over the decades. If you believe Bill “embellished” or “exaggerated” the numbers because he was selling AA and you don’t believe his “over one hundred men and woman” account in the Big Book then I can try to hear you out. But why would Frank Amos lie? He was an upstanding gentleman.
      No. I believe there were more sober members of AA that you stated. And I also believe the accounts of the 75% success rates in Akron and 93% in Cleveland. It’s documented.

      Reply

8. Of the 200 addicts and alcoholics I have worked with, and I keep track of everyone, including those who did not want it, 52% are sober today. I will also add, that this program is 100% successful for me because I am still sober as a result of frequent contact with newcomers. Cameron F.

   Below is an article from Dick B., an A.A. archivist and author. The original article can be found here.

   http://dickb-blog.com/aahistorysources3.html

   AA And Its Success Rates: A Contemporary Brief by Dick B. – Copyright 2004

   You can find much more complete and detailed summaries of A.A. success rates in my titles God and Alcoholism, Why Early AA Succeeded, The Oxford Group and Alcoholics Anonymous, The Good Book and The Big Book and When Early AAs Were Cured and Why.

   A.A. Success Rates, A.A. History, Alcoholics Anonymous History

   You can also find some new, surprising, and welcome details in the work of Richard K. on early AA cures. He documents over a decade of comments and news articles reporting the cures in early AA. He documents the first forty pioneers as to geographical area, sobriety dates, and ultimate outcomes. Richard has three titles which should be in your library if you want accurate information on early AA success rates and cures.

   After fourteen years of research and writing, and also building on Richard K.’s recent splendid research and writing, I believe the following facts can be sustained and documented:

   1. The statement that all or most of the 40 AA pioneers got drunk or died drunk is without any foundation whatever. Some of those whose personal stories were included in the multilith and First Edition Big Book may have gotten drunk or even died drunk. But a list of these people is not congruous with the carefully documented list of the pioneers and their successes.

   2. In early Akron AA and then in early Cleveland AA, names, addresses, phone numbers, and data about sobriety, relapses, and ultimate outcomes were commonplace. I personally have copies of Anne Smith’s address book which contains data on many of the pioneers. On the walls at Dr. Bob’s Home in Akron, there are pictures of a number of these pioneers. There are several written rosters of each and every early AA with names, dates of sobriety, dates of death, and ultimate sobriety outcome. There is a written list of the early Cleveland AAs as well as rosters kept by individual Cleveland AA groups. I either have copies of all of these or have sent them on to the Griffith House Library at Bill Wilson’s birthplace in East Dorset, Vermont.

   A.A. Success Rates, A.A. History, Alcoholics Anonymous History

   3. Careful reviews by Richard K. of the early AAs show convincingly that when Bill and Bob counted noses in 1938, there were forty pioneers who had maintained sobriety, some for as long as two years. There was a much higher proportion of successes among the Akron and Ohio people than from those on the New York and East Coast scene.

   4. In counting those who were and those who weren’t successful in early AA, one must eliminate a number of candidates. For one thing, there definitely were those who floated in and out and never really tried the rigorous program that Dr. Bob conducted in Akron and that Frank Amos reported to John D. Rockefeller, Jr. In other words, when you see the rosters, you see the names and data of people who often were personally known to Sue Smith Windows (Dr. Bob s daughter) and confirmed to me personally and to a number of other researchers. You see the names and data of people whose names and addresses and signatures are found in Anne Smith’s address book. You see these same names often mentioned in A.A. literature names of Bill, Dr. Bob, Bill D., Archie T., Bob E., Earl T., Clarence S., Bill Van H., the two Stanley brothers, J.D., Wally G., Ernie G., Walter B., Hank P., Fitz Mayo, and others listed in Richard K.’s First Forty title. And in Cleveland records, you can see name and addresses verified by the Cleveland AA founder, Clarence S.

   5. There never were the 100 men and women that Bill mentioned at the time of writing of the Big Book. There were 40 in 1938, and slightly over 70 when the Big Book went to print. The Cleveland growth did not begin until May, 1939 after the Big Book was published.

   A.A. Success Rates, A.A. History, Alcoholics Anonymous History

   6. What were the success rates? Success was measured among the pioneers as 50 percent who never drank again, and 25 per cent who drank but returned to succeed. This group is critical because it is the group as to which specific names, records, and outcomes were kept. In Cleveland, there was a ninety-three success rate based on a specific survey conducted by Clarence S. and reported in A.A. literature.

   7. What about today? There are several factors which make accurate calculations virtually impossible. First, the triennial surveys by AA itself are anything but accurate, and A.A. says so. This because only groups are surveyed, and many in one group go to several other groups and meetings each week and are surveyed more than once. Most are simply never the subject of a survey and certainly not a survey conducted by statistical standards. A.A. service workers and surveys do confirm that one-third of those who come into A.A. are out of the door in ninety days; and fifty percent are out of the door in a year. Second, there are no rosters in almost any group or meeting in A.A. Third, the Tradition of anonymity makes an accounting much more difficult than when early AAs knew each other, all belonged to one group (in Akron), kept rosters with names and addresses and sobriety data, and used full names in their references. Finally, today s AA is supposedly a pure alcoholic one who is in A.A. for an alcohol problem, not a drug problem. But I personally don t think one in five hundred meet that test. Both young and old today those who come to AA have tried and often become addicted to every kind of drug imaginable: alcohol, prescription drugs, cocaine, LSD, the sex-enhancers, marijuana, heroin, after-shave, and a dozen other concoctions. These are the facts also among the men I have sponsored and also have met in thousands of meetings.

   8. Professionals have conducted surveys among veterans, patients, and selected groups of AAs. The accuracy is not the subject of my knowledge. But the facts about present-day A.A. are these in their studies: (a) A definite 75% fail to maintain sobriety. (b) Probably no more than one to five percent maintain permanent sobriety. (c) As often as not, those who aligned with AA have a lower success rate than those who got sober without AA. (d) To date there has been no adequate survey of success or failure among those AAs who like the pioneers were born again Christians, reliant upon the Creator for help, and joined together in some Christian church or Bible fellowship, or prayer group.

   9. Within A.A. itself, among those of us who are in the trenches, going to meetings, helping newcomers, sponsoring people, and fellowshipping with AAs in outings, dances, retreats, movies, and the like, there is no mystery about success or failure. If you are active in A.A., you go to conferences and meetings where sobriety count-downs are conducted No matter how large or small the number of people attending, the count-downs invariably produce the same results: A large number will identify themselves as having 30 days or less; a fairly large number, 90 days or less; a fairly limited number with one year of sobriety; and then the staggering diminution in the number of people who have 5, 10, 15, 20 years with only a rare member claiming 25 or more years. Yes. Old-timers exist. But you won t find them in A.A. meetings not today.

   10. There is a caveat about success rates. I took great heart in the portion of the Big Book that is read at most meetings: Rarely have we seen a person fail who has thoroughly followed our path. Even when I couldn’t identify the path, I believed and counted on the veracity of the statement. For me, it is true. I thoroughly followed every step of the A.A. path. Furthermore, I put my trust in Almighty God; sought Him through His son, just as early AAs did; continued to grow in my understanding and fellowship with God and other believers through Bible study, prayer, fellowship, and witness. And I have not had a drinking or drug problem since two days before I entered A.A. in the Spring of 1986. Nor have a small handful of the men I have sponsored and who followed the same route.

   11. AAs can and should be the first to acknowledge that they have no monopoly on God; that just about any person alive can quit drinking if he or she wants to; that A.A. today has no special record of success that cannot be found in many other groups and therapies; and that as with so many other organizations and disciplines you probably get out of A.A. exactly what you put into it. If you throw yourself wholeheartedly into a life without the necessity for drinking, remember what excessive drinking does to you, and count on God for help in resisting temptation, you can be and have the same success as member of the A.A. Society that the early A.A. was when he thoroughly followed their path.

   Reply

   1. Please correct #3. It was 1937 when Bob and Bill counted noses. It was 1938 when Frank Amos (Rockefellers Right Hand Man) came to Akron and counted 50. Ten more in one year. That was just in Akron. Not new York. There were only a handful maintaining any sobriety in NY in Feb. 1938. Frank Amos stated that there were 110 sober Alcoholics in 1939 at the time of the printing of the Big Book.

      Reply

9. None of these so-called "statistics" include the number of people that came and then decided they didn’t want the program.

   Reply

10. What a great site I just stumbled upon – yours. For many years, a number of us have assembled statistics showing the documented 75% to 93% success rates among seemingly hopeless, medically incurable early AAs in Akron and Cleveland who really went to every length to establish their relationship with God and help others recover. Your work is a valuable addition. See Richard K.’s four titles, including "So You Think Drunks Can’t Be Cured." He has a scrap book from GSO in New York that contains hundreds of articles. My own book "Cured" contains proof after proof of the statement. And the original A.A. draft cover talked of "A pathway to cure".

    Reply

    1. Rest in Peace Dick. I’ve listened to many of your talks on your YouTube channel. They’re great!

       Reply

11. I have personally worked with 73 alcoholics and addicts since June 2005. As of today, my records of working with others show 38 (52%) are sober or clean, 15 (21%) are MIA or missing in action, and 20 (27%) are known to have relapsed.

    There have been many failures but the occasional heartening success. Amazingly, I’m still sober and clean.

    P.S. Here are some interesting early A.A. statistics from the 1940’s:

    Philadelphia A.A. Statistics 1940-1941
    The Philadelphia A.A. group was formed February 20, 1940

    Special Report On AA Work At The Philadelphia General Hospital
    December 13, 1940

    The following is the complete experience of the Philadelphia A.A. Group with patients of the Philadelphia General Hospital since March 15. On this list are included only those men who have attended at least two or three A.A. meetings and have signified their intention of following the A.A. program.

    Brief notes on the various individuals follow:

    Joseph A. – Dry seven months, no trouble.
    Frank B. – Dry five months, one slip after he left group one month ago.
    Herbert C. B. – Dry four months, no trouble.
    Joshua D. B. – Probably psychopathic; continuous slips.
    Charles J. C. – Dry nine months, no trouble.
    John D. – Dry four months through Philadelphia General Hospital and Byberry.
    Joseph D. – Dry four months, no trouble.
    George G. – Dry one month, no trouble.
    John H. H. – Continuous slips before and after hospitalization.
    William K. – Dry four months, no trouble.
    Alfred K. – Dry four months, no trouble.
    Arthur T. McM. – Dry eight months, no trouble.
    William P. – Continuous after two hospitalizations, only attended five meetings, no work.
    Harry McC. – Dry eleven months, one slip two months ago, hospitalization then.
    James S. – Continuous slips before and after hospitalization.
    George K. – Continuous trouble up to two months ago, first hospital May.
    C. M. M. – Dry nine months, no trouble.
    Hugh O’H. – Dry two months, no trouble.
    Edmonds P. – Dry nine months, hospitalization recent, trouble since.
    William J. P. – Dry three months, no trouble.
    James R. – Dry five months, no trouble.
    William R. – Dry six weeks, no trouble.
    Carl R. – Dry eight weeks.
    Biddle S. – Dry four months, hospital trouble now dry one month.
    Thomas S. – Dry four months, one slip.
    David W. – Dry seven months, no trouble.
    William W. – Dry nine months, no trouble.
    Margery W. – Dry three months, no trouble.

    Nineteen out of twenty-eight who have come through the Philadelphia General Hospital have had no trouble. Of the nine who have had trouble, five have been with the group and had trouble previous to hospitalization.

    This list was made at the request of Jack Alexander, writer for the Saturday Evening Post.

    (Signed) A. W. Hammer M. D. – Surgeon
    (Signed) C. D. Saul, M. D. – Chief resident, Saint Luke’s Hospital
    (Signed) Philadelphia General Hospital, By: John F. Stouffer M. D. – Chief Psychiatrist

    ———-

    From:
    AA
    Philadelphia Group
    Post Office Box 332
    William Penn Annex

    To:
    Alcoholic Foundation
    30 Vesey Street
    New York, N. Y.

    December 14, 1940

    Gentlemen:

    We believe that the time has arrived when we can give you a preliminary statement of the results of the work of Alcoholics Anonymous in Philadelphia since its inception in this city on February 20, 1940. This in effect is a ten months’ report but for all practical purposes it can be considered only nine months because about a month was occupied in working out methods of prosecuting the activities.

    According to the records of the Group, which have been kept with reasonable accuracy, ninety-nine men and women have during this period attended at least two meetings of the A. A. Group. In other words, they have had a fair opportunity to familiarize themselves with the A. A. program of recovery as given at the Thursday night meetings held at Saint Luke’s and Children’s Hospital.

    Of the ninety-nine, seventy have remained dry without any slip at all; thirteen others are recovering from one or more slips, and sixteen have slipped without recovery up to the present time. It is not impossible that some of these sixteen may yet return to the Group.

    Of the seventy, who have been dry without slips, thirty-nine have been dry from one to three months; seventeen from three to six months; twenty-five from six months to a year, and five from one to three years.

    Obviously these five were not dried up through the activities of the Philadelphia A. A. Group but have recovered from alcoholism in other localities and through other means

    You can see that the Philadelphia A. A. Group has a core of thirty men who, we have every reason to believe, will never drink again. Seventeen more have gotten by the three months’ critical period. It has been our observation that the first three months are the most difficult and that the man who gets by that period has every reason to believe that he is on the road to complete recovery.

    We are even more sanguine of results which shall be achieved since we succeeded in opening our clubhouse about one month ago. It is being used extensively, especially by the unmarried men and is proving helpful not only as a social center but as a base for the spreading of the A. A. message.

    We can testify as physicians to the increasing interest in A. A. work among members of the medical fraternity and are grateful for the opportunity that the A. A. has given us of assisting in the recovery of the unfortunate victims of alcoholism.

    (Signed) A. W. Hammer M. D. – Surgeon
    (Signed) C. Dudley Saul, Chief Resident Saint Luke’s Hospital

    —–

    Statistical Record of Philadelphia Alcoholics Anonymous Group

    The Philadelphia A. A. Group was formed February 27, 1940, with seven men as a nucleus. Six of these are definitely recovered cases.

    We consider a man or woman an active member of A. A. when they have been dry in the group two months and have attended at least six general meetings.

    We now have an ACTIVE MEMBERSHIP of one hundred and thirteen alcoholics, eighty-three of whom have not had a drink since their first A. A. meeting. Five of these have been dry from two to four years, twenty-seven dry from one to two years, forty-one dry from six to twelve months and twenty-six dry three to six months.

    Twenty-three of these active members came directly from the Philadelphia General Hospital, thirteen from other hospitals and institutions.

    There have been only twenty-three active members who do not appear to be recovering. These are not included in the above figures. Neither are the fifty other men and women who are now in the process of becoming members.

    This gives us a total general membership of Two Hundred men and women.

    To the best of our knowledge, the foregoing is correct.

    (Signed) Dr. A. Weise Hammer
    (Signed) Dr. C. Dudley Saul
    Medical directors

    The above letters bear out the statistics of early A.A., that 3 out of 4 alcoholics that attend meetings and apply the Steps of the A.A. Program and the Ideals contained in the BigBook to their lives, recover from the scourge of alcoholism and a seemingly hopeless state of mind and body.

    Reply