tricky164

tell me, if there was no alcohol wouldnt you take drugs. the same as when i stop heroin i drink. what were doing is trying to cure the spiritual malady, doesnt matter with what !! as for you cant make an alcoholic out of a non alcoholic, i agree wholeheartedly. but they were talking of so called normal people.
normal people dont drink a beer and stick needles in themselfs, just as normal people dont give up taking a bit of speed then drink themselfs to death. if we have the malady, we have it. i sponsor alcoholics and addicts and the success rate is the same.
they get recovery if they truly want it !!

i agree that our purpose is to talk only of alcohol and i respect that. but never would i start to say "were in the life boat, now youve spent some time with us go get your own"

intresting debate, and for once its not in my own head !

god bless all our opinions, they truly are like @ssholes, everybodys got one

hee hee

Bob23

Thank you all for you comments and opinions. They gave me much to think about.

RufusACanal

Terminal uniqueness and self-centeredness continues to be the major stumbling blocks for the Alcoholic in or out of recovery; "I am different" and "I know best" philosophies have been the obituary for many a departed Drunk or Addict. Until you are ready to surrender all, the Alcoholic will find recovery a slippery deal at best.

Our need for adherence to Alcoholics Anonymous Primary Purpose may seem ridiculous to some particularly in a world where the Alcoholic believes they are more informed and therefore more able to treat their Alcoholism. So, when statements like some of these pop up from our British friend, I am no longer ruffled or otherwise disturbed. Drug addiction is not new to our generation and times and people have not changed so much that our Primary Purpose should need altering because a Drunk said so.

Alcoholics Anonymous is for the man or woman who has a desire to stop drinking; it is not then, now or later for anyone else. Please talk to your Higher Power, your Sponsor or a recovered member for clarification; of course you can always try some more controlled drinking.

shaun00

"Alcoholics Anonymous is for the man or woman who has a desire to stop drinking; it is not then, now or later for anyone else".

amen.

sugErspun

If I give credit to AA for recovering, I would be lying. If I don't identify as a member of AA, can I not carry the message? AA happened to be the "umbrella" under which I met a fellow who took me through the steps and the title of the book we read together.

That fellow is an active member of NA and AA. Truly a 'double winner' if there ever was.

I have been around enough NA's to know that our solution is the same. It seems that the sticking point here might be in this fellow being able to relate or another knowing his pain (and all the nuance inbetween).

I don't refrain from, or take action based on people's opinion. The bleeding deacons need to feel comfortable or at least spout out when they begin to feel uncomfortable..have some compassion.

Sit down with this guy...is he hopeless? Is he willing to believe?

The rest is just footwork ~ who knows, this could be the start of strong NA in your area. If this is the option available that could possibly save his life, I don't think "no" is an answer. If he needs to lie about being an alcoholic to make others feel comfortable in meetings - he wouldn't be the first.

I am the first to say AA is for alcoholics, but that doesn't mean I dismiss things immediately. Usually I pray and ask for guidance..because

the answers do come.

Pinkcuda

None for me. At 47 I've smoked dope twice and took speed about half a dozen times.
I also have a 5 year old vicodin presription laying around here somewhere that I've been meaning to throw away. I probably will as soon as I see them and happen to be in the vicinity of a trash can.
I simply have no interest in drugs.

McGowdog

Same here. Wife has some unused oxy and percocet in medicine bottles somewhere in her side of the medicine cabinet.

I did some drugs in the past but was never an addict to them. Except for tobacco and coffee.

jimhere

This isn't my opinion, it's my experience.

The answer to your question is no. I am not an addict, I take or leave drugs.
That is not to say that if I chose to use drugs, and I mean I would have to choose to do that, it would lead me back to what I have no choice over, booze. I know addicts who take or leave booze, but when they drink it takes them back to what their real problem is.

I've sponsored addicts too. I sponsor them through the steps using the Big Book. That's what I know. The problem these guys have encountered is that when they do go into NA and carry their message, they are are met with hostility. So in a sense, NA already has the idea that they have their own lifeboat. It is almost an us against them mentality.
Jim

meditation

I started out my Better living thru chemicals with alcohol. At 17 the first time I ever touched alcohol I had a blackout. I social drank my way thru college. I guess I was a binge drinker, never touched the stuff much but when I did I would be on my way. When I was 25 I drank a bottle of wine daily thru the difficult first year of my stressful new job. I realized if I continued on this way I would be in trouble so at that time I just quit. I was not yet an addict or an alcoholic.
I had 20 years of nothing.. maybe a cocktail on a birthday, but nothing to speak of as alcohol literally made me feel sick, gave me a headache and a dried out dehydrated feeling. NOW 20 years later throw in a couple of surgeries in one year and I am a full blown addict. I don't think my disease got there that fast on pills. I think I was a fuse waiting for the match. I think personally I could have been maybe an alcoholic if I had kept at it.
I guess the point I am trying to make is I do understand the singleness of purpose but I also realize in this time and day that drugs are so prevalent that the makeup of the groups that attend AA or will be attending AA are not going to be pure alcoholics but people with chemical substance abuse. I can't see how AA can hold back the dam. I see it will be changing regardless of the original premise. Society has changed.
I also think in my heart of hearts that alcohol and drugs are the same disease with the same solution.

jimhere

Well, it looks to me like you qualify. Don't see it as a point of contention anyway.

You know, I also agree about the changes that are occurring. Our group has already withdrawn from the service structure of Alcoholics Anonymous and now we are about as far from a mainstream AA group as you can get. Our meeting is closed and our opening statement makes that clear. It says that if you are alcoholic your are welcome but if your problem is other than alcoholism you cannot attend this meeting.

We are not trying to hold the dam. We don't want to be a part of today's AA.

Lastly, I abused drugs but I am not an addict. I know people who abused alcohol but they are not alcoholics.

I'll agree that the root is the same. That's why the steps work for an alcoholic or an addict. But other than that they are two different animals, therefore the fellowships aren't interchangeable.

lizw

Great topic! I like the ones that get everyone passionate.

I've done my time in NA and attend on occasion, usually for friends birthdays these days etc...and it was explained to me that because I could identify as both, that when I am @ NA I say I am an addict and when I am @ AA I say I am an alcoholic. I was told it was a good way to 'keep it simple'.

I have also been raised (in AA) to believe anyone can attend AA meetings but that closed meetings were for those who identified as an alcoholic and it is each individual group's choice as to whether those who don't identify as an alcoholic (say a gambler/addict/overeater) share during the meeting.

Sharing in an AA meeting does not instantly make one an AA member either. This is probably the stuff in the phamplet others are reffering to. Having been in both fellowships, I became well versed on the literature.

It is heard a lot in AA that the traditions keep AA safe from us - AA members. The traditions are not about 'outsiders' because the problem isn't that people with other addictions want to attend our meetings, it's the way groups and individuals will react to it. We all have different opinions and the inside fighting will kill a group faster than any outside force ever could.

I say good for you for sticking with the kid and wish you all the best. If he won't or can't confirm (even if it is to say 'Hi I'm so and so and I have a desire not to drink) try calling a group conscience meeting and address it that way, if you are a group member. I think alot of groups fall into being dominated by certain members and as far as I am concerned it isn't very attractive nor spiritual.

tricky164

why cant you alcoholics get your head around the fact that if there was no alcohol you 'would' use. its ok saying "i dont do drugs", and "i could take them or leave them" but your talking with the bennefit of recovery, dont do recovery, take alcohol out the way and you would use. because we like the effect, that sence of ease and comfort that comes from taking a mind altering substance.

look, im an alcoholic, it wasnt my drug of choice, and thats the point because i did it anyway to change the way i feel. thats using alcohol against my will, as was using heroin and knowing the concequences and still doing it.

as for separating our meetings, wheres the unity there ? tradition 1,

as for your sponcee, try suggesting he go to CA, they work from the big book and he gets to identify as an addict.

god bless. :praying

navysteve

The program of AA is universal- it will work for all addictions. That is my experience. The program of NA held No Answers for me.

The fellowship is a different thing altogether. CA is a great fellowship that uses the Big Book as the foundation for its program. It and many other 12 step fellowships have cropped up because many have felt as I do in an NA meeting. The problem is, NA is the second most known fellowship out there, many such as myself have gone and found no home there so they come back to AA, hence the animosity that many experience.

I am alot of other things along with being an alcoholic, but in AA, it is ok to be an alcoholic

jimhere

I was hoping you'd chime in here Steve. Before I go any further, I think that this has gotten away from the Op's original intent, but then again I 'm not surprised.

Tricky said:

"why cant you alcoholics get your head around the fact that if there was no alcohol you 'would' use. its ok saying "i dont do drugs", and "i could take them or leave them" but your talking with the bennefit of recovery, dont do recovery, take alcohol out the way and you would use. because we like the effect, that sence of ease and comfort that comes from taking a mind altering substance.

look, im an alcoholic, it wasnt my drug of choice, and thats the point because i did it anyway to change the way i feel. thats using alcohol against my will, as was using heroin and knowing the concequences and still doing it.

as for separating our meetings, wheres the unity there ? tradition 1,"

If they were the same problem, there would be no need for different fellowships. I would also advise against putting your words onto another's experience. Read my posts again, I think it is you that can't wrap your mind around my experience. Booze was my drug of no choice, if you will. Methamphetamine was my drug of choice. I'd rather roll in cow manure (or smoke it) than smoke marijuana. I walked away from that stuff years before I ever thought about stopping drinking. I dabbled with heroin a few times, but all it did was make me puke and nod out, which ain't my idea of fun. So what part of take or leave do you not get? I couldn't stop drinking even when it didn't work anymore. And when booze stopped working, which was after I'd stopped using drugs, it never occurred to me to enhance it with drugs.

You mention unity. But then you use a statement like "You alcoholics.." Have you considered that by making that statement you've drawn a line and separated yourself from the whole of Alcoholics Anonymous? In fact from the whole of everything. By your own words you are saying "But I'm different." Maybe you are different. Maybe you aren't really an alcoholic. Maybe you're a heroin addict who had a drinking problem. Not for me to decide, just a consideration I'm posing to you. Hard to have unity if there's not a common problem.

As for our group withdrawing from the mainstream of AA, a big reason is that attitudes such as yours are the rule rather than the exception.
Jim

mumbai78

I'm not sure I understand you correctly. Are you saying you had no mental obsession with the crack high and that you were just using it casue you were physically addicted ?

Could the reason you're not able to shake off the alcohol be because alcohol is legal and more acceptable and so there is no immorality associated with the act of drinking ?

tricky164

i am being quite naughty here as i do agree with you both, i am just l am playing devils advocate. i attend AA mtgs that others call a cult, (big book thumpers). i dont sit in meetings talking about drugs, or drink for that matter, what i do is share my experience of the steps and recovery as do the rest of my group. i am not special and different just a bog standard alcoholic and addict,

unfortunately after attending NA for some ten years (and constantly relapsing) i had to find another way. thank god i found it in AA.

the addicts i work with on a daily basis i send to CA, and that is where i am now gravitating to. 'although', my sponsor would hit me over the head with the b,book if i missed my home (AA) group.

i didnt have a drug of choice apart from "MORE.

sorry jim i didnt mean to get on your case, as i said, playing devils advocate as here this question comes up all the time. "should we sponsor addicts"

may your god keep you safe and protected

mumbai78

Can't say this is always true.

For me i started drinking socially when I was 15. First smoked pot when I was 16. Although i smoked it occasionally it was a take it or leave it thing with me. I was never obsessed with it. I continued to drink alchohol frequently and overindulge in it.

At 18 I got introduced to opiates, that high was something I'll never forget. I never thought I'd feel that good. At that time I had no idea what opiates really were or how they worked but I loved that feeling. During the 2 years I abused opiates I rarely drank if ever. I just did not feel the need to drink except at parties.

When I got off them 2 years later, I went back to drinking. I know it may sound strange but everytime I drank I longed for the opiate high.

Most times I would drink till I blacked out. By the age of 24 my drinking was getting more and more frequent. I just could not stop after one drink. Gradually the quantities started increasing, my behavior after drinking got weirder with each passing week, blackouts were getting more frequent. There were a couple of times when I longed to take opiates but never did. There were times when I was really drunk and I felt that the booze was just not giving me enough. Smoked pot a couple of times after I got drunk.

However not once did I actually use because I had no access to booze.

tricky164

are you an addict or an alcoholic ?

quote; when i got off them i went back to booze" you mean you didnt want the concequences of the opiates ?

qoute; booze was not giving me enough:

what i was saying earlier was that if we have the malady we will use whatever to get rid of it. even if its not my drug of choice.


god bless

mumbai78

The opiates were great but they were physically addictive so I had to lie cheat and steal to support my habit. I wanted something that could get me high and that I could use when I wanted to and would not be as physically damaging.

In the last few years before I got sober I had all the symptoms of alcoholism as described in the BB and all the personality traits of the alcoholic as described in the BB.

Note that I was never a daily drunk except for a brief period when I was 20 years old.

jimhere

No problem. I like to be the pot-stirrer quite often.

I do agree about NA, although I have no first hand experience with it. I hear it a lot, both in my workplace and in AA. Unfortunately that is not AA's problem. On a personal level, I'll work with an addict on the condition that they take their recovery to NA or CA. But I won't mislead them into believing that they qualify for AA membership if they have no history of alcoholism.

Another consideration. Could it be that you are helping to water down CA's singleness of purpose by sending all of your addicts there? I attended a workshop that was sponsored by CA and was rather uncomfortable with them taking the blanket approach. This waters down the primary purpose. In my opinion, as I stated before, I think taking that approach is a big reason NA is not that effective.
Jim