By Peter Lyndon-James / Founder, Shalom House
For thirteen years, I’ve watched families respond to addiction with the same approach at every stage. Reasoning with someone past reasoning. Believing words when they should be watching behaviour. Showing love in ways that made sense to them but actually made things worse.
The central mistake is treating addiction as a single problem requiring a single response. It’s not. Addiction is a progression through distinct stages, each with different characteristics and different requirements for intervention.
This article introduces two frameworks that change how families, and systems, respond to addiction. The first describes where someone has been in their journey. The second describes what they can engage with now. Both assessments are required. They answer different questions.
THE A-E PROGRESSION: Where Have They Been?
Addiction rarely begins with crisis. It begins with solution.
A teenager discovers that alcohol quiets social anxiety. A worker finds that a drink after shift releases the tension of the day. Someone with trauma history finds that certain substances create distance from intrusive memories. In each case, the substance works. This is the critical point most prevention efforts miss.
People don’t begin using substances because they want to destroy their lives. They begin because the substance solves a problem they couldn’t solve any other way. Understanding this changes everything about how we respond.
Stage A: First Contact
Experimentation. First exposure. The person still has a conscience that bites. Internal conflict is present, they know what they’re doing isn’t right, even if they can’t explain why. They hide it. They minimise it. They tell themselves it’s a one-off.
At Stage A, the window is open. Clear conversation, education, and early boundaries can prevent progression. If the family response is panic, chaos, or denial, the person learns a different lesson, either that they can get away with it, or that they can’t talk about it honestly.
This is the easiest point for intervention and the most commonly missed. By the time concern grows, Stage A has usually passed.
Stage B: The Lie They Believe
Use becomes regular, typically weekends. The internal conflict is still there but quieter. The person starts building reasons why it’s not a big deal. “I’m in control.” “It’s no different from having a drink.” “I’m not hurting anyone.”
At Stage B, people are still reachable. They still have a future that feels possible. They still have relationships they can return to. The danger is that behaviour becomes pattern and pattern becomes normal.
Every addict I’ve worked with started here, believing they were different, believing they had control.
Stage C: When Words Stop Working
Daily use takes over. The person stops listening. Not because they’re stupid, but because the substance is doing a job for them, regulating emotion, masking shame, creating belonging.
Lying increases. Defensiveness becomes automatic. The person protects the behaviour because losing it feels like losing the only thing that works. They’ve built walls to survive, and those walls keep help out.
At Stage C, families get pulled into rescuing. Professionals get pulled into managing symptoms. The person still has consequences, but not heavy enough to force change. They can still patch things up. That ability to keep patching things up keeps them stuck.
Stage D: Desperation
Desperation drives behaviour. The person’s life revolves around obtaining and using. Work becomes unstable. Relationships fracture. Money becomes chaotic. Crime, violence, exploitation, whatever it takes to sustain the addiction.
The person says what they need to say to relieve pressure. They’re not building a future. They’re managing survival. Insight shrinks. The nervous system is trained for urgency.
At Stage D, families are no longer dealing with their loved one. They’re dealing with the drug. Self-management is minimal. External structure becomes necessary because internal structure has been hollowed out.
Stage E: The Wall
Total collapse. Loss of home, job, family, dignity. Survival mode. The substance is required for baseline function. Consequences no longer deter because the person is operating in survival state.
They may beg for help, cry on the phone, show up at the door broken and desperate. This is the critical window.
But not everyone at Stage E is ready for change.
THE E1-E2-E3 FRAMEWORK: What Can They Engage With Now?
At Stage E — the bottom, everyone looks similar: broken, desperate, begging for help. But internal readiness varies dramatically.
This is where most systems fail. They treat everyone the same. An E1 desperate for transformation is placed in the same environment as an E3 with no intention of changing. The E1 watches others break rules, negotiate exceptions, sneak around the edges. The fire dies. “Why am I bothering when no one else is?”
The E1-E2-E3 framework sorts individuals by genuine readiness for change. It answers a different question than the A-E progression. A-E describes history, where someone has travelled. E1-E2-E3 describes present function, what someone can engage with now.
E1: Genuine Readiness
E1 is rare and critical. This person has truly hit bottom and knows it. Not looking for comfort or relief, looking for transformation. Willing to do whatever it takes.
Signs of E1:
– Unprompted admission of the problem without blame-shifting
– Acceptance of strict requirements without negotiation
– Willingness to commit long-term, understanding this is life or death
– No conditions, no shortcuts, no bargaining
– Words carry weight; eyes tell truth; demeanour reflects surrender
The window for E1 is short. Willingness fades. Fear creeps back. Old habits whisper. If action is delayed, the moment is lost. E1 requires immediate placement in a structured program with full accountability.
When someone calls genuinely ready to change, don’t schedule a meeting for next week. Act now. The window may close by tomorrow.
E2: Wants Relief, Not Transformation
E2 is deceptive because it looks like hope. The person cries, begs, says all the right things. But dig deeper and the truth emerges. They don’t want transformation. They want the pain to stop.
Signs of E2:
– Negotiation during offers of help: “I’ll go if I can smoke,” “I’ll go if it’s short-term”
– Focus on immediate relief rather than long-term accountability
– Selective compliance: agreeing to programs but resisting rules
– Charm and emotional appeals to manipulate outcomes
– Departure from programs when discomfort increases
E2 still wants the kick of the chemical. They want the drug but not the consequences. They need firm boundaries, professionals providing what they need, not what they want.
Treating E2 like E1 wastes resources and destroys the E1’s environment. Expect relapse if pressure reduces. Maintain boundaries. Some E2s eventually become E1s, but only when relief-seeking stops working.
E3: No Intention to Change
E3 is the hardest category because it forces us to accept a difficult truth: not everyone wants to be saved.
This person does not want to change. Compliance is driven solely by external force, court orders, jail, fear of consequences. Participation is performance, not progress.
Signs of E3:
– Blame directed at everyone else: family, system, circumstances
– Hostility toward structure and rules
– Manipulation of staff and influence over other participants
– History of early exits, relapses, and exploitation of loopholes
– No remorse, no insight, no genuine engagement
E3 will break into your house, steal your car, and show no conscience. They require containment, not open rehabilitation. Placing E3 in a rehabilitation environment with E1 poisons the atmosphere. The E1, who was ready, loses hope.
Some E3s eventually develop capacity for change — usually after extended containment allows neurological recovery. But that capacity must be demonstrated through sustained behaviour, not words.
WHY SORTING CHANGES EVERYTHING
The current system doesn’t sort. It treats everyone the same.
A young person comes in to prison. Scared. Hit bottom. Might actually be ready to change, an E1. But there’s no sorting. Gets housed with lifers, with people who’ve given up, with E3s who’ll never change. To survive, learns to project an image. Hardens. Adapts.
Twelve months later, walks out the gate. Physically free. But the prison is inside now. The system taught criminality, just like it taught me.
Proper sorting changes everything:
– E1 goes to integrated rehabilitation with reintegration and re-socialisation
– E2 goes to drug and alcohol units with structured accountability
– E3 goes to secure containment where they cannot harm others or contaminate those who are ready
Each category receives what it needs. Resources aren’t wasted. Outcomes improve.
WHAT THIS MEANS FOR FAMILIES
Before you respond to any situation, ask four questions:
1. What stage are they at? (A, B, C, D, or E)
The answer determines your approach. What works at Stage B won’t work at Stage D. Trying to reason with someone at Stage C is exhausting and futile, they’ve stopped listening.
2. If they’re at E, which type? (E1, E2, or E3)
This is critical. Acting like they’re E1 when they’re E2 sets everyone up for heartbreak. Treating E3 like they’re ready for rehabilitation puts everyone at risk.
3. Am I a finger keeping them from the wall?
Addicts survive by moving between support options, burning through family first, then institutions. If you keep rescuing them from consequences, you keep them from the wall that might finally break through.
4. Is what I’m about to do helping or enabling?
Help supports genuine change. Enabling removes consequences they need to feel. The test is simple: Is this action removing a consequence they need to experience? If yes, it’s probably enabling.
THE PRACTICAL APPLICATION
At Stage A or B: Clear conversation, education, firm boundaries. The person is still reachable. Don’t panic, but don’t ignore it either. Professional assessment may help clarify where things actually are.
At Stage C: Words stop working. Professional help becomes necessary. Family needs to unite, if one person keeps rescuing while another holds boundaries, the addict exploits the gap. Stop enabling. Let consequences land.
At Stage D: Safety focus. External structure. This is containment, not conversation. Families must protect themselves and others, especially children, while maintaining clear boundaries about what they will and won’t do.
At Stage E: Assess E1, E2, or E3 carefully. Don’t believe words, watch behaviour. If genuinely E1, act immediately. The window is short. If E2, maintain boundaries and don’t invest in false hope. If E3, accept that containment may be the only current option.
A FINAL WORD
The A-E Progression and E1-E2-E3 frameworks aren’t complicated. But they change how families see their situation and what they do about it.
Understanding that addiction is a progression, not a single problem, stops the frustration of applying wrong solutions to real problems. Understanding that not everyone at rock bottom is ready for change stops the heartbreak of treating E2s like E1s and being devastated when they fail.
These frameworks come from forty years of experience, twenty-six years in and out of prisons myself, then fifteen years building Shalom House and working with over two thousand people and their families. They work.
Next week, we’ll go deeper into the E1-E2-E3 classification and explore how to tell the difference between genuine readiness and performance.
Peter Lyndon-James is the founder and CEO of Shalom House, a residential rehabilitation organisation in Perth, Western Australia. Shalom House has operated for 15 years with a 70% completion rate and 80% long-term sobriety among graduates, entirely self-funded through social enterprise.
Yours in and for Recovery
Peter Lyndon-James GAICD, QBE, CitWA 🇦🇺
CEO/FOUNDER WASG Inc
Best Selling Author
Leave a Reply