As for membership in NA; our position ought be one of unrestricted and inclusive participation. We ought never erect even the slightest barrier between ourselves and the still using or suffering addict. More often than not, these addicts will come to us as non-conformists. Few among us today can claim to not identify with that position. Hence, we ought neither insist nor suggest that they conform, not even that they meet us at the half-way point. These individuals are often too sick, weak, and frightened to overcome any obstacles. Consequently, in erecting them, we may be sentencing them if not to death, to many more years of dereliction and institutions. Grateful for our lives as protected by a loving God, we ought never hesitate to venture into the darkness where they are, as they are, and demonstrate that we truly do care and understand. Not having the power to impose conformity, we do have the power of example. Unable to spiritually control their thoughts, feelings and actions, we can rely on our faith in God that they will come to their own understanding in the time He has allotted. Eventually all addicts will conform to the principals that guarantee their survival, if not, they sicken and possibly die. This is our truth and our reality. Practical application of this viewpoint will provide “an atmosphere of identification and empathy.”

The preceding depicts one of the more frequently contradicted traditions in our fellowship, our Third Tradition, the only requirement, no buts, and no exceptions. Quite often misinterpretations of other traditions lend justification to this dilemma. I have seen the “complete abstinence” issue brought up as justification to exclude from, or withhold a full membership status. Along the same line the phrase ‘if you have used in the past twenty four hours we ask that you participate by listening only...’ may lead one to believe that ‘desire’ is not enough. These ideals are believed and used by some members and groups to supposedly maintain an atmosphere of recovery. Consequently, they raise barriers and promote controversy. They offer encouragement to stray from, rather than adhere to, our Ninth Tradition through the implementation of special rules and extra membership requirements or, if you rather, creating a “second class” of membership. These ideals may also invite some members into a position of government through the apparently justified enforcement of... promoting deviation from Tradition Two and blurring the principles embodied in our Third Tradition. In effect, carrying a mixed and confusing message by implying our traditions are somehow negotiable.

As for NA opinion; should we, as a fellowship, attempt to define “using” or “drugs?” If our fellowship were to present a definition for these words the result would seem immanently self-destructive. It would invite controversy through individual language interpretations, professionals and other organizations. All of whom may find differing definitions. A practical solution could be for NA groups, boards and committees to have no opinion on this terminology all together. In respect, it can be left to the individual members to interpret for themselves these terms and conditions, as they come to their own understanding in Gods time.

I have seen some argue the difference between medicinal use and substitution of drugs. While there may be a difference, my experience has taught me that addiction is a treatable not curable disease. In many instances, any number of substitutions can occur in our members programs of recovery; such as food, sugar, caffeine, sex, relationships, working, spending, and gambling. If we were to have an opinion, where would we start, and could we ever draw a line? For example, if our movement were ever to begin being “politically correct” in this matter, there should be one absolute - an opinion on nicotine. Not too often does an addict find themselves in jails or institutions directly related to this substance, but the death rate attributed to it out weighs all other drugs used by our members combined. Now, if NA were to have an opinion on nicotine for instance, that encouraged excluding these addicts from equal and active participation along with all other service to our fellowship, the results could be devastating. Yet, having an opinion on one drug and not others seems almost hypocritical. Point being, drugs themselves ought be viewed by our fellowship as an outside issue. This perception works because it not only avoids external controversy it eliminates internal strife as well. It presents the opportunity to adhere to our tradition of non-professionalism through exercising a discipline in having no opinion. It also offers an understanding of Tradition Ten than compliments our Third Tradition by allowing the simplicity of “desire” to be the all inclusive benchmark for equal membership; this encourages fellowship unity.

I asked a number of local members what they thought on this subject, and most agreed that NA history plays a major part. Back in 1953 when NA was formed, there wasn't much concern for what we call a drug today. Heroin was the big demon. Over time, more and more drug addicts came to NA with a variety of different drug addictions (cocaine, pills, etc..) and the issues of comparing, disunity and prejudice had to be addressed. The literature (or language) is written in general terms as not to place importance of one drug over another, and to keep the focus on the disease of addiction - the the specific drugs we became addicted to.

Some things about NA and NA literature may never be fully understood by folks who aren't NA members. What comes to mind is the NA Symbol (or the AA symbol for that matter). Non-members can look at it and never really know what it stands for due to the "occult and esoteric connotations" found in their outlines, "but foremost in the minds of the Fellowship are easily understood meanings and relationships." I come away with thinking that it goes: we get it...you don't, and you don't have to...but if you're like us, you will.

If NA used the word "narcotic" in its 1st Step, the focus would be on a specific group or class of drugs instead of the disease addiction - there's a wide range of drugs that people get addicted to that aren't really narcotics, yet they are in fact "drug addicts" who suffer from the same disease as the narcotic addict suffers from.

Our literature tells us that NA is a "universal and total program that has room within it for all manifestations of the recovering person." Someone could read that and think that they could go to NA with a gambling problem, a sex problem, or food problem right? Well, of course they can go to NA, but once they got there they'd find out what it's about and wouldn't be able to identify. Now, for the drug addict who comes to NA and later realizes they have a problem with food, gambling or sexual behaviors (addiction), they find that the NA program can address these areas as well.

"All drugs" simply means, for most NA members, that it isn't about putting down the crack pipe and picking up a bottle of Remy, or a prescription for ocxy's. As I shared before, addicts don't come to NA unless they have a drug problem or believe they have a drug problem. I think that's a given, but once you get here, they'll find that recovery in NA is not about substitution or getting high on anything. "Abstinence from all drugs" means don't get high...period. It doesn't mean you can't take a Tylenol for a headache or a Tums for upset stomach. It also doesn't mean you can't smoke a cigarette, have a cup of coffee, or eat a snickers. For me, that's venturing into fanatism because no one comes to NA for an addiction to Tylenol or coffee. But once again, the program can address these areas too, if they become problematic for you.

AA has what is called a "Singleness of Purpose," right? So does NA. Just as AA's focus is the disease of Alcoholism, NA's focus is the disease of Addiction. AA's focus regarding a substance is very narrow and specific, NA's is on the disease and not the substance. This difference alone can be cause of confusion for many.

From my understanding, NA doesn't "try" to include anyone in its fold, yet it doesn't turn people away because they didn't use a specific substance, either. Either you're a drug addict or you're not. We're not interested in what drugs you used because it's not the drug that makes you an addict - it's your reaction to the drugs. Kinda like AA's refer to the "allergy."

for me, getting nookie wildly effects my behavior, in fact, not getting nookie makes me even more wild - gawd i hate it when that happens.