Quote:
|
When this was AA’s only purpose it had a 50% – 75% success rate (see page Forward to 2nd Edition).
|
That statistic comes from one group of 29 men in one group of AA. AA was different then and had to grow and adapt. That does not mean be all things to all people. But that does mean we have to be more inclusive, read AA history a little closer and you will see the talks about AA's worried about people with other problems and how foolish that was. Now, having said that, you as an individual have every right to refuse to sponsor anyone you wish
Based on what???? Who?? Where and when????
Quote:
|
Suppose, though, that we are approached by a drug addict who nevertheless has had a genuine alcoholic history. There was a time when such a person would have been rejected. Many early AAs had the almost comical notion that they were "pure alcoholics" -- guzzlers only, no other serious problems at all. When alcoholic "ex-cons" and drug users first turned up there was much pious indignation. "What will people think?" chanted the pure alcoholics. Happily, this foolishness has long since evaporated.
|
We read what we want. This is black and white of AA literature. Many addicts have found freedom in AA. And from the start, many pious AA's have been threatened by them. And yet AA remains. The statistics you claim are a joke. Until science can measure intent to work the program. AA is the dumping ground for DUI offenders in many states. I owe my sobriety to that fact. I got a nudge from the judge and it saved me. Thank God AA is all-inclusive.
Statistics are not an exact science my friend. These problems you speak of have been with AA from its inception