Quote:
|
Originally Posted by bballdad I`m just curious,how do you all feel about Bill raising the bottom to include young,maybe even just potential alcoholics in AA?Did it help them or hurt AA?
Do they have the right to be in AA and get sober?
Do we have trouble today,discerning the difference between the 2?Do the potential alcoholics in AA cause confusion? |
I believe that when an AA group follows the 12 Traditions properly, it can't be harmed by any "certain kind" of alcoholic, whether low-bottom, high-bottom, court-ordered, etc.
I'm grateful that when I reached out for help, the hand of AA was there. It didn't stop to judge whether I deserved to be there. So I don't feel comfortable judging whether anyone else has the right to be there.
About a year ago, someone shared something unexpected in a meeting: "When my stock portfolio dropped 12% three years ago, I knew I really had a problem with alcohol, so I came here, and I've been sober ever since!"
I don't really care whether that guy was a high-bottom or low-bottom drunk, or even if he was a drunk. I'm there to stay sober and offer support to people who want it. I have no right to determine whether they deserve my support or qualify for it.
I'll bet that guy was glad that the AA group accepted him when he reached out for help three years before. Perhaps he was also, like me, on the verge of suicide before coming to AA. Or he could have been a total drama queen. But who cares? The point is, he came to AA because he felt that alcohol was destroying his life, and he needed help to stop drinking.
Did he hurt AA? I don't think so. He offered a different perspective from many other people in the room. I don't think that's a bad thing.
I just think it is dangerous to judge whether someone belongs there or not. "The only requirement for AA membership is a desire to stop drinking."