Clean (-n- Sober!?)

[FarFromLoozen]

Hi, I'm blake and I have heroinism

Yes it sounds silly. You also will not find it in the Dictionary. You will find Alcoholism though.
In 1939, when the “Big Book” was 1st published, the idea that Alcoholism was a disease or an addiction was still 17 years away from being recognized. The early members of AA however, already had an idea that this was true.

The idea for creating a 12-step program specifically to help drug addicts emerged several times; the earliest mention was in a question asked to Bill Wilson, A.A.'s founder, in 1944.

The “term” alcoholic or alcoholism predates the fellowship of NA.

Consider if they knew then what we know now, maybe the term “Addict” would have been the only one to emerge.

Then all would be well.

Just a thought.

FFL

[Blake]

http://www.answers.com/topic/heroinism

My point is the disease concept has evolved over the years and by NA's message, teachings and literature, the specific symptoms don't matter, it's the root cause, the disease, itself, that is important.

[FarFromLoozen]

I’ll be damned. It is in a dictionary.

…. the disease concept has evolved over the years and by NA's message, the specific symptoms odn't matter, it's the root cause, the disease, itself, that is important.

Absolutely; the message that the use is only a symptom, also predates NA.

It’s NOT NA’s message, it’s universal with all 12 step programs.

So if alcohol is a drug, then we can view "alcoholics" as drug addicts. That way we can focus on the similarities instead of the differances.

“Narcotics” Anonymous implies addiction to drugs specifically. So should it be changed to “Addicts Anonymous?”

Using the term “Drug Addict” is exclusive of other addictions therefore simply “Addict” will do.

I am an addict, there are lot's of things I can not leave alone...eh?

[Gooch]

Sum gun I learned sumptin new! .. and here I thought Blake was just pulling your chain.

“Narcotics” Anonymous implies addiction to drugs specifically. So should it be changed to “Addicts Anonymous?”

I think there is a sticky at the top of this page with some historical info as to how the name Narcotics anonymous was chosen. There actually was an addicts anonymous at one time.

I remember when I hated to have to study. now it's fun because it helps me with my arguholism symptoms.

[Gooch]

[quote][Then all would be well./QUOTE]

As long as the ties that bind us together are stronger than those tat would tear us apart...........

all will be well!

[Blake]

I don't know much about other fellowships as I have been somewhat of an NA purist and have had just a small amount of exposure to AA in the past. I do know that our first step varries dramatically from AA's

"We admitted we were powerless over our addiction and our lives had become unmanagable"

as opposed to

"We admitted we were powerless over alcohol and our lives had become unmanagable"

See the difference? It is a fundemental shift in concept. AA's step reads of powerlessness over Alcohol, the symptom...and NA's reads of powerlessness over the disease itself, which I can relate to much better and why this whole debate over the clarity statement got started.

I'm not bashing AA, they are very good at what they do, it just isn't a place for addicts. It is a place for alcoholics seeking recovery from alcoholism. AA is exclusive, just like OA, GA, CA and pretty much all other 12 step programs, NA is all inclusive.

The term Drug Addict is just as counterproductive as Alcoholic. It all shifts the focus onto the symptom rather than the disease.

The reason NA isn't addicts anonymous is b/c there was already a group formed in 1947 called addicts anonymous that eventually failled. The first NA meeting occured in 1953 and was originally called AANA, AA told us that we could use the steps and traditions but not the name so we dropped the AA part.

[Blake]

Gooch beat me too it....

I too have a severe case of arguholism....in case no one had noticed....


I just really like a good debate!

[FarFromLoozen]

Many of our problems are like those that our predecessors had to face.

Over and over again.

[Gooch]

Not exactly .... If we read the archives, talk to the predecessors, we find that we don't have to repeat creating the same problems over and over again.

thats why it's imperative that the members with some time and expereince at service set aside their egos and make room for the newcomers to work side by side with them. And it's imperative that the newcomers realize that the old fuddies might have allready crossed the bridge so we don;t have to make every experience soething that drains us and puts our committees at odds.

Right Todd?

[Chance]

See I think here is that saying heroism or potism or is the ism why not say herodict, potodict or odict. Alcoholics Anonymous like Blake said only has to do with alcohol. WE in NA don't focus on the drugs we focus on the addiction.

Recently we had someone come into our group that couldn't stay clean all there lives off of alcohol even with AA. They kept relapsing, just on alcohol. When this person came into our fellowship of NA, they said that something was always missing until they found NA.

Yes you have AA, MA, CA, SA and then you continue going down and you will find that NA is the last house on the block. When all else fails people hit the rooms of NA. I didn't go to NA to stop using dope, I came because I was tired of the way that I was living. Big difference. Sure the dope didn't help much as we all know.

So what is the big deal. The big deal is that NA has room for everyone who has the problem of addiction. Obsessive, Compulsive behaviour.

[FarFromLoozen]

That was kinda my point, with the "Over and Over" thing.

[Gooch]

oh .. I usually recognize sarcasm as I'm such a big fan.

[tramp]

im andy and i suffer from satyriasis
ps, i cant spell very well anymore either. and i am too lazy to click on my dictionary......

[godsonmyside]

it was Addicts Anonymous, but AA wouldn't fly. Then it wass AANA, no good. Also, this Fellowship known as Narcotyics Anonymous had members in the 50's through 80's Jimmy K. was an Addict/Alcoholic and he was recovered. Bob B., Pepe A. and many others were DRUG ADDICTS. Remember, this Fellowship was FOUNDED on members with 3 years and less.
Opinions are like A$$HOLES, Everybody has one.

What happens is members come here and want to protect there precious recovery and protect themselves. This is Gods work, if we do Gods work, all will be well.

Older members that force this crap on people, ask them if they have recently worked a 4th step, get with it. I learned from folks that loved me until I could love my self, and worked the steps, traditions and lived the spiritual principles in all their affairs, and that is what I do today.

And yes, we do chase the newcomer away by defining what belongs at a meeting and what doesn't belong at a meeting during the recovery part of the meeting. During that 1 hour to 1 1/2 hours its to carry the message to the addict who still suffers, what is our message, look it up, 5th tradition of the basic text or it works how and why.

Problem just recently happened in this area. A sponsee called last night and he went to the local AA meeting in town.
The meeting hall just booted 4 meetings out and they are meeting at various locations. So sunday night is at a resturant. He goes to go in and was told $2 or no enter.

I NA keeps acting like this, pretty soon others might think it is acceptable to break Traditions to feed each others Ego.

Peace,
Todd J.

[Found]

I don't think Clarity Statements (like the one I know from AA of late) make me feel any part of me is excluded, it guides us to highlight our primary purpose within the meeting proceedings. I think the majority of our AA members have had their addictions take in other substances and activities as well. On occasion I have been to NA because its timing and venue was more suited to my movements and I found them stressing the addiction to anything. I think that during a 15 minute main share some minutes may be devoted to addictions to other substances and activities as long as the primary purpose is respected, after all, that's how you identify and attract. Personally I never felt anyone was trying to single themselves out by admitting "another" addiction, I accepted they were saying just about the same thing as I was about myself, in a (very) slightly different way. We too have a body of people who, to enable them to attend meetings frequently, attend both AA and NA (they go around in a minibus) and I haven't heard about frictions surrounding them. I think their seriousness is seen as a good example.

[disorderlydamie]

I have found the best way for me and those in our area is to take someone aside after the meeting and explain in a loving way the reasons why we identify ourselves as "simply addicts." When I first came around, and even today, I wanted to be different, stand out. Our addiction wants us alone, singled out, and not a part of. Rehab and recovery houses blur the programs together to encourage people to find their own home in recovery because everyone finds their family in different places and gets what they need out of the program they choose. It gets confusing in early recovery and we begin to make a habit out of saying "Clean and sober" and "addict/alchoholic." When we choose to stay in a fellowship, we figure out what's going on through the keep coming back process.
At the first few meetings I attended, I could barely listen over the ramblings and yellings of my disease and my paranoia and self conciousness. It took me a while to figure it out.
I think these kinds of situations are a great oppurtunity to grow. We practice patience, rembember what it was like to be new and get gratitude for where we are, and it gives us the chance to reach out to a newcomer and give away what was so freely given to us.

[andyaddict]

I think taking someone aside and in a loving caring way sharing misinformation with them is not just wrong, it's plain rude. It blurrs our message and confuses the newcomer. Do the newcomer a favor, let them come to their own understanding of the NA program in their own time, please.

In loving service and fellowship
andyaddict
Los Angeles

[Blake]

Andrew, How is explaining to a newcommer that in NA we focus on the disease of addiction rather than the symptoms, rude or misinformation?

In my personal experience, an oldtimer explaining that to me in my early recovery is one of the things that saved my life, so if it is rude to give back what was given to me, in a loving and caring way, then I'll keep on being a rude *******.

[Gooch]

Originally Posted by andyaddict

I think taking someone aside and in a loving caring way sharing misinformation with them is not just wrong, it's plain rude. It blurrs our message and confuses the newcomer. Do the newcomer a favor, let them come to their own understanding of the NA program in their own time, please.

In loving service and fellowship
andyaddict
Los Angeles

YOu left rudness out if your signature Andy..

[Gooch]

I see both sides of this coin.

and but for initializing the corrective action.. ie. [i]taking somone aside[\i] to "straighten them out" m there is nothing wrong with the intent of trying to help someone understand the difference between suffering from a symptom and having a diseae.

I know because I was always n a big hurry to fix everyone else once "I had seen the light".

Come to think of it though I remember that after a while I heard people sharing during their story, why they identifid themselves as being addicts.

I also remember asking of my own volition whay everyone talked about ddiction and not what they weer addicted to.

I think it's pretty safe to say that when the student is ready the teacher will appaear, and we don't have to drag anyone into class til they are ready to learn. That probably after most meetings the newcomer os allready formulatong questopns and that if we just invite them for cofee or a soda, they'll hear what they need at the meeting after the meeting.

[Blake]

I had the pleasure to hear Vito L. speak at two different conventions since I got clean and in his story he goes on about the importance of identifying himself as an addict only and how with 4 or 5 years clean he was identifying as a cross addicted alcoholic sex addicted dope fiend...till he finally worked the first step with a sponsor.

Is it rude or misinformed for him to include that in his story? Doesn't NA's first step focus on the disease of addiction instead of the symptoms of the disease? Isn't it our responsibility to pass this information on to the newcommer in a loving and caring manner? I'm not talking about being an ******* or a censor or the NA police, but simply explaining why we identify as addicts to a newcommer. It's about taking personal responsibility for your recovery.

We have beaten the clarity statement discussion to death before, so I'll just say this, it is simply a suggestion, not a law...the only rule is that to be a member of NA you have to have a desire to stop using.

[FarFromLoozen]

Blake:

Is it rude or misinformed for him to include that in his story?

No, it isn’t. It’s the perfect way to convey NA’s language of unity. I prefer that it be included in one’s story as opposed to the “take them aside” method, which singles that person out as having committed an error. If anyone should “take them aside” it should be their sponsor or close friend. It is NOT my job to do so.

No matter how “Loving and Caring” you may be, you have no idea how you are making the person feel by being singled out. We can not be sure that all will be “Loving and Caring.” It sets a precedence for less qualified members who have, “Seen the Light” to take someone aside and belittle them.

This is just my way of looking at it. I am not against “the NA way of Sharing” but as others have said, let them learn on their own. Less chance of alienating someone.

FFL