Abu3baid, what would you suggest the courts do?
As I stated in a previous post, prior to 1935 there was nothing that could be done to alcoholics/addicts to "cure" them. They were locked up. The 12-step recovery program was founded that year, and it has become a method for millions to recover (not be cured) from their addictions. To date, 80 years later, it is still the only treatment with a level of success. That's why the courts, at times, mandate AA to a defendant.
I really don't want to get into the success rate of the AA program which is at best around 33% and at worst 5%, but this program is still a solution imposed on individuals during sentencing by the courts (don't ask me why)!
It is a much lower cost to society than incarceration. That's why.
Now, the 12 steps. I can assure you that everyone who first walks into an AA meeting & sees those steps on the wall thinks, 'How in the hell does that work for me?' - they seem counter-intuitive or not really addressing what is wrong with the person. I know I felt that way. My attitude was uh dudes...give me something else. That looks like total b.s.
Success rates vary. You know why? Because it puts to onus on the person to do what is recommended. Why would they do that? Because they are in a room full of people who are doing it & have not drank or drugged in years, sometimes decades. The results are sitting all around them. And the alternative is, well, to die.
The reason that they are not 'cured' is that implies they can drink/drug safely again. They can't. Total abstinence is the only method, and what the steps do is introduce a new way of life to the addict that, if followed, removes the compulsion to drink. And the reason they look counter-intuitive is that it is a blueprint to that new life. Do these things, and you won't want to drink/drug. That's what recovery is - a new mindset implanted in the addict which removes the compulsion, and ultimately even, the thought to drink or drug.