If you don't want what we have ... no worries. You won't get it.
The problem is when we make decisions for other people. Things look very, very different, when it's our own butt on the line.
Which is precisely what this article is complaining about. AA both as a program and as cultural push "abstinence first" is harming addicts for which the AA method is not successful. Which is most people. For instance drug therapies are slow to be given approval, people are sent to AA programs through court orders, etc.
As an individual if it works for you that's wonderful. But governmental policy and cultural norms should be based on what's effective.
Also, AA and NA don't collect much, in the way of data. It's actually hard to tell how truly effective they are. Something to do with the second "A," I would guess...
That brings up another point that people have been avoiding, here: Desperate people can be squeezed hard. A lot of folks are making a lot of money, from people with their lives in tatters.
Some of the therapies are effective, but a lot of them are definitely not.
Since people like to cast addiction (and alcoholism is simply addiction to the sedative-hypnotic drug ethyl alcohol) as a moral failing on the part of the addict, it's easy to blame them, and say that "they got what they deserved."
It's really pretty hard to feel sorry for many addicts. Pick up the paper, on any given day, and you'll likely see some horrific stories of crimes committed by addicts.
That's why programs like AA and NA work. The only people that actually care about addicts, are other addicts. It's also important that they not be in a position to profit from their treatment. 12-Step programs live on a regimen of enforced poverty. They love to fight about money, but the amounts are chicken feed, compared to what the for-profit orgs make.
Which begs the question: If someone makes money by selling treatment to desperate, ostracized, people, is it surprising that they don't like organizations that provide highly effective treatment for free?