tomsteve

"Have you ever seen someone turn to prostitution for alcohol? " ive heard it that way and also people turn to alcohol for prostitution.

freethinking

I believe this supports what I was saying. I think Music is the one who stated EVERYONE would get addicted to said drugs. I tried drugs and never got addicted....not that I would mess around with them now.

Also, I do consider myself as technically an addict. I am addicted to a substance called alcohol. However since there is a specific name for that in society, I refer to myself as an alcoholic . The term "addict", by societal norms, suggests one who is addicted to street drugs or prescribed drugs - which I am not. When I go to AA, I identify with the specific "high" or "feelings" alcohol gave me and others around me. I did not have a problem with Coke...I did not want to be "up" all day. Nor did I have a problem with weed...I did not want to feel that particular high either (it makes me paranoid anyway, ha!). I am glad AA is aimed at alcoholics...I think we emotionally have something in common because of the type of "buzz" we were looking for from alcohol.

paul99

My identification as an alcoholic is solely based on the AA model of alcoholism. It is outside of what my opinion is regarding the social stigma or and self-identifying "issues" I may have. We can argue that being an alcoholic is more "socially acceptable" than being an drug addict, but for me that doesn't play into my separation. I have a lot of friends in the program who are also addicts. I am probably in the minority of those people in the rooms who doesn't have drugs in their story. Regardless, they and I can have awesome discussions and relate to many things in terms of the spiritual malady and emotional tendencies, etc. But there is difference when talking about the physical and the mental. And that's why AA is where I stay and belong.

The question I guess is why does it bother you that many of us here don't accept ourselves as addicts, as you would see it that way?

Riverbird

I was just reminded of something else I forgot to mention in my earlier post. About a year ago I watched a meeting that I'd really like fall apart, and the catalyst was one guy coming in to talk about prescription drug addiction. He was an alcoholic too...had been sober for like 15 years but then ended up back in rehab due to taking prescription meds. The first time he shared that in a meeting it was off topic, but I figured he wasn't a big deal. He needed to get it out. Over time though that was all he talked about. He didn't talk about alcohol because he felt he'd been sober long enough that that wasn't his issue anymore. To make it worse, the meds he was making such an issue over were psych meds...totally isolating people like me who would not be alive and functional if it weren't for psych meds... I know there are AA people out there who believe that someone isn't truly sober if on psych meds, but the book says specifically to seek outside professional help if necessary. This particular guy would regularly blame his doctor for giving him the meds, giving him the wrong doses, etc...saying he should've instead relied on his higher power to take away his mental health issues. Personally I believe my higher power gave me my amazing doctor to help take away my mental health issues. He did this over many meetings in a row, which opened the door for others to talk about their own use of medications of any sort, whether or not they were addicted, how they felt about people using psych meds, etc. I know I wasn't the only one in that meeting on psych meds, so a divide started to form. Then there were the old-timers who thought that nothing about pills should be discussed period, and it became this weird clique system within the meeting. Unfortunately there was no chair person strong enough to stand up and put a stop to it, so people just stopped coming because it wasn't healthy and wasn't worth it. I don't think prescription meds should be a taboo topic in AA (actually went to a really good meeting on the subject at a convention), but to me this is an example of allowing regular talk of a separate addiction killing an AA meeting. As soon as the meeting stopped being about alcohol and alcoholism, it totally fell apart. (Not to say that I think people should only talk about alcohol and not about other stuff in their lives, but as soon as other addictions became a regular focus or topic of conversation, that was the beginning of the end).

yeahgr8

Remember that this is predominantly an AA audience in this section.

If you want to discuss this from an outside AA point of view then of course we are all addicts and the addiction is a coping mechanism. Some people will find out why and some will be content to just stop and manage the addictions.

This whole discussion is as simple as comparing a tennis player to a wrestler, both are sportsmen but it is highly unlikely that the tennis player will feel comfortable and safe at the wrestlers club and vice versa.

4thdimension86

If alcohol was illegal and as costly as drugs alcoholics would go to the same extremes as addicts do to get drugs. I know a woman who turned to prostitution to support her alcohol habit. Part of her life story is that she tried to be a crack head but she was too drunk to do it. I work in the addiction treatment field and can ensure everyone on here that alcohol is by far one of the most destructive drugs on the market. In the North East US I would say that alcohol is the number one killer followed by opiates. Furthermore, it seems like alcohol causes far more long term damage than drugs. I know plenty of long term alcoholics with wet brain syndrome who will never recover but can only recall meeting one individual who suffered permanent brain damage as a result of his drug use. He overdosed and the oxygen supply to his brain was cut off for too long.

matt4x4

The AA Preamble states it quite clearly. You can always just leave the drugs out of your stories if you are a story teller in the rooms.

muvinon

You're totally entitled to your feelings, but the traditions are based upon principles, not feelings.

AA has single purpose......very clearly stated. If you choose to ignore that, then you are, in fact, violating the tradition.

That's not a feeling deal. That's simply fact. Now, whether that bothers others? I dunno how it is in your group.

In Texas, you betcha it would bother others if you talked about your drug of choice and not about alcoholism.

jdooner

Honestly? I feel its a brainwashing technique to adopt someone else's belief and use it as your own. Particularly in the face of evidence that suggests otherwise.

Why it bothers me personally? I think because like many aspects of my life there is a desire to fit and be accepted. I need to let this go in this situation, as I can also observe my ego playing a role in my context to enlighten others to how I see things and this is wrong and self harming.

FT - I am sorry - I have been on planes for the past 28 hours and was tired - my apologies for confusing Music's post with yours. I am glad we share a similar view, as I have found great wisdom in some of your other threads.

StevenT

Keep it simple.

AA has no rules. As per the 2nd tradition, our leaders are but trusted servants, they do not govern (actually out of the long form of the 9th, but that's a different discussion). Group conscience can create guidelines, and ask members to follow them, but the only consequence any group has to impose is asking someone to leave the meeting. Unless there is a legal reason, they cannot make anyone do so.

I say that to say this: People can and will do whatever they want. Today I choose to show respect to the requests the group conscience makes, and respect to the tone of AA. I am a drug addict. I do all of my work around the steps through AA and the big book. I reference drugs in my share. I do not focus on drugs, however. I bring it up as part of my story because I cannot change my story. It is my experience.

Should it be done? As there are no rules, there is no clear answer. I think the point is more to carry the message in the meeting (5th tradition) then to bicker over the content of your share. As long as there is a recovery centric message, especially if it shows respect to the particular room you are in, I welcome it.

freethinking

Nope, I tend to disagree (about the part about going to extremes to get it illegally). One of the reasons I credit myself having to not really given myself sufficient chance to see if I could get addicted to other drugs is because I am scared of the legal system. There is no way in my 30s you would catch me trying to do a drug deal. I am terrified of getting arrested (always have been), getting my name in the paper, how my kids would be shunned because of that in our town, etc.

On the flip side of that, I STILL have done some awful things so I could drink. I have put alcohol as more important than my kids....it doesn't get more dispicable than that. I am no better than a drug addict. My drug of choice is alcohol - it being legal is a HUGE factor in that.

soberhal9

most people who are under 30 in AA are alcoholics/addicts. others like me who came in at 26 and am straight up alcoholic is the few. But i see a lot of younger people come in at 20-25 and are straight up alcoholics and stay because they have hit their bottom.

readerbaby71

Really? EVERYONE who does drugs becomes addicted? I tried crystal meth. Hated it. Did cocaine a few times but could take it or leave it. I did heroin twice and knew I could easily become addicted to it. I did ecstacy frequently in my youth, but was easily able to leave it behind.

Did I actually become addicted to any of these substances? No. I know a ton of people who have done all sorts of drugs and quit them pretty easily, especially psychedelics and pot.

Ultimately alcohol is the substance that caused problems for me. I loved it the first time it crossed my lips. Your generalization does not hold water.

jdooner

I love the little popcorn image at the end. Not only is your information factually incorrect but you seem like the child on the playground hoping your pithy little comment is going to stir the pot - implied by the popcorn.

The Vietnam case is widely adopted in modern psychiatry as to why when 20% of vets were habitually using heroin did only 5% relapse? Based on your comments all that were exposed to heroin should be addicts...hmm...

What Vietnam Taught Us About Breaking Bad Habits : Shots - Health News : NPR

It's a tradition as old as New Year's: making resolutions. We will not smoke, or sojourn with the bucket of mint chocolate chip. In fact, we will resist sweets generally, including the bowl of M &Ms that our co-worker has helpfully positioned on the aisle corner of his desk. There will be exercise, and the learning of a new language.

It is resolved.

So what does science know about translating our resolve into actual changes in behavior? The answer to this question brings us — strangely enough — to a story about heroin use in Vietnam.

In May of 1971 two congressmen, Robert Steele from Connecticut and Morgan Murphy of Illinois, went to Vietnam for an official visit and returned with some extremely disturbing news: 15 percent of U.S. servicemen in Vietnam, they said, were actively addicted to heroin.

“ People, when they perform a behavior a lot, outsource the control of the behavior to the environment.
- David Neal, psychologist, Duke University
The idea that so many servicemen were addicted to heroin horrified the public. At that point heroin was the bete noire of American drugs. It was thought to be the most addictive substance ever produced, a narcotic so powerful that once addiction claimed you, it was nearly impossible to escape.

In response to this report, President Richard Nixon took action. In June of 1971 he announced that he was creating a whole new office — The Special Action Office of Drug Abuse Prevention — dedicated to fighting the evil of drugs. He laid out a program of prevention and rehabilitation, but there was something else Nixon wanted: He wanted to research what happened to the addicted servicemen once they returned home.

And so Jerome Jaffe, whom Nixon had appointed to run the new office, contacted a well-respected psychiatric researcher named Lee Robins and asked her to help with the study. He promised her unprecedented access to enlisted men in the Army so that she could get the job done.

Soon a comprehensive system was set up so that every enlisted man was tested for heroin addiction before he was allowed to return home. And in this population, Robins did find high rates of addiction: Around 20 percent of the soldiers self-identified as addicts.

Those who were addicted were kept in Vietnam until they dried out. When these soldiers finally did return to their lives back in the U.S., Robins tracked them, collecting data at regular intervals. And this is where the story takes a curious turn: According to her research, the number of soldiers who continued their heroin addiction once they returned to the U.S. was shockingly low.

A GI lights up a cigarette in Saigon in 1971. He poured grains of heroin into the menthol cigarette, from which he had first removed some of the tobacco.i
A GI lights up a cigarette in Saigon in 1971. He poured grains of heroin into the menthol cigarette, from which he had first removed some of the tobacco.

AP
"I believe the number of people who actually relapsed to heroin use in the first year was about 5 percent," Jaffe said recently from his suburban Maryland home. In other words, 95 percent of the people who were addicted in Vietnam did not become re-addicted when they returned to the United States.

This flew in the face of everything everyone knew both about heroin and drug addiction generally. When addicts were treated in the U.S. and returned to their homes, relapse rates hovered around 90 percent. It didn't make sense.

"Everyone thought there was somehow she was lying, or she did something wrong, or she was politically influenced," Jaffe says. "She spent months, if not years, trying to defend the integrity of the study."

But 40 years later, the findings of this study are widely accepted. To explain why, you need to understand how the science of behavior change has itself changed.

Riverbird

There's a story in the big book...I forget the name of it off hand...in which a woman does in fact turn to prostitution due to alcohol. I don't remember if she was "turning to prostitution for alcohol," or turning to prostitution because she'd lost everything to alcohol, but really there's not much difference there. I just want to say that I hope you're not saying this kind of stuff in meetings. One of the first AA meetings I went to was a big book study where we happened to be reading this story. One woman responded to this part of the story saying, "well clearly she had other issues going on because no just alcoholic would do something like that." That one sentence nearly turned me off of AA entirely. Thankfully another woman saw my reaction to it, talked with me afterwards, and convinced me to keep trying. You have no idea what a person may or may not have done because of alcohol or to get alcohol. For this program to work it's best if we keep our judgments and assumptions to ourselves.

4thdimension86

So my OP might have been confusing but this has gotten off track. The original topic was whether or not discussing drug use in AA was a violation of the traditions. My argument is no because of the many references to drug use in the BB and the fact that one of the most notable stories in the BB describes a great deal of drug use. In fact the alcoholic in the story "Acceptance is the Answer" seems to have suffered from addiction to speed and morphine as much as he suffered from alcoholism.

sugarbear1

Mickey B. - AA Speaker - "His Funniest talk EVER!" - YouTube

jdooner

What a great talk - thank you for sharing SB. I heard Chris R speak and felt all speakers were like him. Mickey really resonated with me.

Riverbird

And when have you EVER known a group of AA people to stay on topic? lol

At least I answered your original question a couple times before getting caught up in tangents! I think you got some pretty good answers from all sides already...

zorah

I've never seen this come up in my meetings. What makes both addicts and alcoholics alike is addiction to a substance that takes hold of our bodies and minds in an abnormal way and progresses over time. I'm not underestimating the problems of people in other 12 step programs, many of which can and do lead to serious conditions, but when I hear an addict speak, I know what she/he is talking about. Which substance is irrelevant to me. We all have to have that bottle, powder, whatever to give us the feeling we crave and we keep doing it even when it gives us nothing but pain. That's insanity and that's us, or at least me. I always feel bad when people get treated badly in meetings. I remember a strict chair who barked at a woman for cross-talking; she was new and clearly didn't even know what was wrong. She left and, who knows, went back out and drank. My advice, if it's worth anything, is to stick with progressive meetings where self-appointed gatekeepers of AA are scarce. If you can't avoid them, then just roll your eyes and move on. Your sobriety is too important.