—
Claire Saenz is a SMART Recovery Facilitator for SMART Recovery. It is an addiction recovery service without a necessary reference to a higher power or incorporation of a faith, or some faith-based system into it – by necessity. Those can be used it, but they are not necessities. The system is about options. In this series, we look at her story, views, and expertise regarding addiction, having been an addict herself. This is session 2.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Now, you’re working for SMART Recovery and have been for a while. How long? Why there? What is in it for you (cui bono?)?
Claire Saenz: I started with SMART Recovery in 2007 as a participant, following my departure from AA. At the time, I was going through a deep reevaluation of my personal belief system. I call it my “recovering from recovery” period. My initial reaction upon learning about SMART and its philosophy was profound sorrow that I had not had access to that program when I initially made the decision to quit. I was horrified to realize that the counselor at the rehab I attended in 1998 had done me a vast disservice by insisting that my history of addiction meant that my thinking could not be trusted and that the only way to recover was through AA. It was due to that misdirection that I ended up spending years of my life in an ill-fitting program.
I continue to participate in SMART now, after ten years, for one simple reason: I do not want others to have the same experience I did. I want to see that people have knowledge of, and access to, SMART as well as other approaches to addiction recovery.
I suppose you could say that there is nothing to be gained for me personally in my continued work with SMART and the issue of choice in recovery since I’m comfortably abstinent now. To be honest, I have been tempted at times to say “I’ve got mine and I’ve done enough” and take up another meaningful cause. But then I meet yet another person who is caught in the net of endless 12 step, who weeps to meet a person who is contented and healthy outside of that world, and I realize afresh that this is my life’s work.
Jacobsen: How do you work with people? What is the process there?
Saenz: There are several aspects to my work. The first is advocacy: getting the word out that quality recovery treatment requires that people seeking recovery receive full information about their choices. I have done this in many contexts. In addition to writing articles about SMART Recovery and the constitutional issues surrounding mandated 12 step attendance, I have been interviewed for books and television and presented several continuing legal education programs regarding SMART and the general issue of choice in recovery.
The second aspect has been working with SMART at the board or committee level to help set policy and strategize for further growth.
The third aspect is working directly with people seeking recovery, which is the activity I enjoy the most. Even before I began facilitating a local meeting, I would often communicate directly with people seeking recovery who were going to SMART’s online meetings and felt they would benefit from personal contact with a SMARTie. I’ve also served as the point of introduction for newcomers who learned about SMART from AA members. Within AA, there is a growing group of members who are more than willing to send struggling newcomers to SMART. I love to see this increasing awareness that although we may have different philosophies, we share the same goal: helping people achieve abstinence.
Jacobsen: If you could take one principle from working with addicts in recovery and have that implemented at a federal level, what would it be?
Saenz: I would like to see a Supreme Court decision that mandated 12 step participation by the criminal justice system is a violation of the First Amendment and cannot take place in the United States. There are several federal circuit court cases that say this very clearly, as well as state supreme court cases, but I would like to see this principle come from the highest court in the land.
Jacobsen: Why do people become addicts? How do they? Does the 12-step program deliver on its purported ends?
Saenz: Well, if I could provide a simple answer to the “why?” question, we could all brush off our hands and go home! However, the question is controversial and the topic of much research. At the moment, the evidence seems to point to the conclusion that while the etiology varies, for most, it is a combination of genetics, environment, and psychological factors. As a complicating factor, at least half of those with addictions have a co-occurring mental illness, often a mood disorder. Treatment of dually diagnosed people has to be integrated—the two conditions must be treated together as they tend to be inextricably entwined.
As far as the “how” question, I think that’s fairly simple. People become addicted by engaging in the addictive behavior too much for too long. I know there are theorists who could complicate this, even going so far as to claim that people are “addicts” before they ever engage in addictive behavior, but this strikes me as an entirely illogical stance.
As far as whether 12 step delivers what it promises, the answer is it does—for some, but by no means all. It’s great choice for those it helps. For those people, it delivers what it promises. The problem is that it doesn’t work for a significant number of people. The exact success rate is a matter of extreme controversy and I’ve witnessed some fine people following the argument down a hopeless rabbit hole. However, it is unquestionably true that 12 step does not help, and may in fact harm, a number of people.
Jacobsen: Does faith more often or less often than not improve the recovering addict through their recovery to sobriety?
Saenz: Once again, it depends on the person. It amazes me that we all too often view people with addictions through a lens that presumes they are all the same, have the same experiences, and find the same approaches helpful. Faith helps some people. It does not help others. It did not help me.
Jacobsen: What are the personal dangers in helping addicts through recovery?
Saenz: If you’re talking about me personally, I can’t think of any dangers that aren’t already present in my day to day work as a lawyer. The fact is simply that some people are not safe, whether they suffer from addictions or not. I do the best I can to protect myself, I have security systems in place and generally try not to be entirely alone with people, but other than that I don’t worry about it. I am also not particularly concerned with whatever reputational danger might exist by being open about my history of addiction. I believe I am a success story and am proud to help the next person achieve their own version of success.
—
—
Photo Credit: Getty Images