If the following quote from the bottom of the Intro page somehow contradicts the rest of the site, which I admit to not haven't read it in its entirety, I'd be very surprised: It's quite possible that some of the posters in the SMART forums are anti-AA? (I certainly was for quite a while.) Which leads me to respond to this: Oh my, have you nailed it! But this is a *huge* topic, and one that I will start a separate thread on. I share this conclusion. How much of addition is behavior, how much is biochemical and how does this symbiosis happen? Is it even helpful to compartmentalize the cognitive from the biology for the purpose of examination? These, I think, are questions for cognative scientists to answer first, although I think philosophers have something valuable to say about the methodology of scientific inquiry. While I'm largely in agreement here, I'm not uncertain about the claim of "anything that makes an addict stop is good." I need to work through that argument. But again, another another topic for another time. I look forward to the evolution of this thread. I think SMART has a particular appeal to Objectivish-leaning people due to its evidence-based approach. The principles appear to be very sound and tough (for me, anyway) to equivocate with.
