Question about 3rd Tradition-Addicts and AA
 

I am relatively new in recovery (about 4 months sober) and was wondering if anyone could shed some light on why some AAs want to discourage drug addicts from attending. I have heard several people reference the third tradition but did not find anything I thought pertained to the issue in the 12 Steps 12 Traditions.

I have often heard people say things like
"If you have a problem with drugs you need to go down the street to NA"

"By having addicts say they are alcoholics in AA meetings we are encouraging them to lie."

"When I was drinking I was doing other stuff but I went somewhere else for help with that."

Also at several groups I have been to there seems to be a major taboo against saying "Hello I am SoandSo and I am an alcoholic-addict" as well as any mention of drugs.

Also I know people with years of quality sobriety on opposite sides of this issue. On the other extreme I have heard people express the opinion that NA is unnecessary because "all you really need is AA."

Personally I am a real alcoholic (as described in the big book) and alcohol was my substance of choice although I did plenty of other stuff as well. However it was alcohol that was the problem for me and what got me here. Of course now I abstain from all mind altering substances. I am careful never to mention drugs in AA meetings out of respect for the traditions and other members of the group.

Some of my best friends in recovery came to AA with problems other than alcohol (drugs, sex addiction etc). It seems to me that if AA worked for us then why would we want to deny anyone else the happiness and salvation we found in the program? I guess I am asking if anyone could shed some light on this issue or explain where the literature says that drug addicts should not be welcome?

Regards,
RedCasey

It has to do with AA's singleness of purpose as explained by Bill Wilson in the Pamphlet
"Problems Other than Alcohol"
http://www.aa.org/assets/en_US/P-35_...hanAlcohol.pdf
As far as I am concerned, someone could say I'm Jo and I am a bunny rabbit
if that person has a desire to stop drinking then he belongs.

The logic is like this - more or less

If addicts and gamblers and overeaters can all attend AA - then where does that leave an alcoholic when he wants to stop drinking and can't relate to anyone in the meeting.

AA does not ask anyone to lie nor want them too - as long as you have a desire to stop drinking, you belong.

Thanks guys, this is exactly the kind of info I was looking for.

The problem is not so much addicts attending meetings. But rather the addicts using valuable meeting time to discuss problems other than alcohol. War stories about snorting, shooting, smoking or dealing drugs is pretty much an outside issue to the average alcoholic. It even disgusts some of the old-timers.

I myself am not in NA nor would I waste either my or anyone elses time by sitting in one of their meetings talking about drinking. I do however sometimes attend Al-Anon and ACOA meetings. My rule in them is I only identify and talk about problems related to that particular fellowship that I am in at the time. My rule is:

"When in Rome do as the Romans do."

I am multi-addicted myself. My belief is we are all addicts. Even the codependent is an addict (of people). But i drank alcoholically so AA was my primary fellowship.

I respect the traditions of AA because AA has to remain forever as it is for the alcoholic who still suffers. I try to do the right thing by God and Truth, not what I want or feel like doing. I find that benefits me because it's a practice in being honest

However I will guide anyone through the Big Book if they want to find a Power greater than themselves which will solve their problem. I just explain singleness of purpose.

When I'm at Alanon I qualify as an Alanon only. When I'm in ACA I qualify as an Adult Child only. When I'm in AA I identify as an alcoholic ONLY. When I'm in NA I qualify as an addict only.

When i was newer I wanted to be different or i was trying to figure out who I was so id say different things. It took me engaging in the BB process to get real clear.

I'm really blessed I drank because it led me to AA's Big Book faster than it might have otherwise (if at all.) I started realizing this as i did the steps. God has been amazing to me

Anyone, alcoholic or not, is welcome to attend open AA meetings.

The long form of Tradition Three states: "Our membership ought to include all who suffer from alcoholism."

Only alcoholics can become members of AA. Some addicts are also alcoholics. They can become members of AA. Pure drug addicts are not AA members, even if they only attend AA meetings.

I am a member of NA and just to get the information out there, I feel like someone should clarify what the NA program says about alcohol versus other drugs. In the NA program, no distinction is made between drugs. NA deals with the disease of addiction, regardless of what the actual drug we used to use happens to be. There is even an NA clarity statement which is read at the start of some meetings which makes this specific point:
There is a misconception that NA is only for people who are/were addicted to narcotics and this is just not the case. The NA literature makes this clear in numerous places. The NA 12 steps do not even use the word "drugs", they use the word addiction, as in "we admitted that we were powerless over our addiction, that our lives had become unmanageable."

I attend 3 different groups - total of around 5-6 meetings per week. Every meeting is open around here with minor exception. With or without an ism all are welcome.

My experience has been that the vast majority of drug users also are alcoholics.....
Remember, AA is not franchised - there is no quality control! People are people and fiefdoms crop up with differing opinions.

YOUR opinion is just as important as the guy with 20 years. So, what do you think is what matters :)

FlyN

NA considers alcohol to be a drug. Alcoholics are welcome there.
Alanon also has a lot of alcoholics like me who are "Double Winners".
And AA has lately had more and more OAs and Alanons qualify by saying "I have a desire not to take a drink today" and they speak. After all, that's all AAs requirement is, and these folks sincerely don't want to take a drink.

There's more and more cross-fellowshipping now, as our society becomes more and more cross-addicted, codependent, etc.

Generally, in meetings you do not get too graphic about drinking or drugging, so the relatability thing is less an obstacle in practice than in theory. Generally as a courtesy people say alcohol when in AA. That does not mean they do not have a drug problem, but addiction is addiction so whether you say that you were drawn to drink or drug it is pretty much the same urge and people in any fellowship will relate. Since there is so much overlap in the fellowships, you sometimes hear people talk about the same experience, but relate it to drinking in AA and drug use in NA.

If people are there for recovery, the steps are the same in any program. So what they tell and do not tell about their history at any particular meeting is not such a big thing.

i've long found this an interesting thing to think about. and i see a contradiction of sorts. 'problems other than alcohol', yet then also the message is that alcohol itself is not the problem, alcoholism is.

everuy time the part is read about please confining yourself to speaking about your problems with alcohol, i get that bit of a disconnect.
and yeah, i'm an alcoholic. i've got nothing much to say about my problem with alcohol.

the meeting i go to....quite a few multiply-addicted now clean and sober people. nobody really speaks about alcohol or drugs per se; people mostly speak about their lives and how 'the program' or 'the steps' are helpful in their daily living.

Right on. I believe we should talk about the solution rather than our own specific problems generally. Also when someone said that drug users war stories aren't relatable, I dislike war stories in a meeting generally. The book tells me I am not going to remember my own horror stories much less yours. After all " We are unable, at certain times, to bring into our consciousness with sufficient force the memory of the suffering and humiliation of even a week or a month ago."

This winds up a topic every couple months in discussion AA discussion meetings. I did drugs, but for me it was just a means to help along my drinking experience. Singleness of purpose is a very important ideal at least in the area where I live. It is a big deal being that this area is littered with some of the oldest original AA meetings in the world. There is a strong sense of tradition among those who are active and work the program.

The big issue I see here is that everyone wants to change the structure and traditions to suit their needs, but in reality they should be taking what they can gain from the meetings and leaving the rest behind. In this area there are very few NA meetings that have anyone attending that have more then 3 years clean. While in the AA meetings there are a vast majority of people with 10,20,30+ years sobriety. If you want what they have and are willing to go to any lengths to get it, which group do you want to be a part of?

Myself I know this is a changing world we live in, being in a rural area, people didn't think heroine would affect them here. But today the number one drug of choice in our small schools is heroine. It has become an epidemic that is killing our neighbors and our children. Being that i feel strongly that AA needs to be singleness of purpose and those attending need to understand that. Changing the one that basically all the others are derived from is not the answer. The simple truth here is AA does work if you have the capacity to be honest, and truly work the suggested steps to recovery.

I am an IV drug user (I'll hit the vodka bottle if my doc isn't around). Abstinence from all mind-altering substances is my goal. I therefore have a desire to stop drinking. Therefore I may call my self a member of AA. I am not lying when I introduce myself. Addiction is addiction. A drink is a drug is a man is a cookie for me. So whatever 12-step meeting I am in, I qualify using their particular vocabulary.

I disclose my story in a general way, just like it is suggested. I have never had a problem.

Unfortunately, there is a schism developing on the "drug" treatment side: harm reduction vs abstinence. The use of maintenance therapy for opioid addiction made NA untenable for me. I wanted abstinence and so many folks in the meetings were nodding off and I literally could NOT find a female with sober time to sponsor me. I finally found a crack-head with over 30 years clean and she said, "Go to AA. I did. And it saved my life."

So I did. Best decision I ever made.

I'm mfanch, and I'm an alcoholic. Thanks for letting me share.

Double post.

From Bill W. 1958 Grapevine article, many parts of which were included in Conference approved 'Problems Other than Alcohol' pamphlet.

PERHAPS THERE IS NO SUFFERING more horrible than drug addiction, especially that kind which is produced by morphine, heroin, and other narcotics. Such drugs twist the mind and the awful process of withdrawal racks the sufferer's body. Compared with the addict and his woes, we alcoholics are pikers. Barbiturates, carried to extremes, can be almost as bad. In AA we have members who have made great recoveries from both the bottle and the needle. We also have a great many others who were -- or still are -- victimized by "goof balls" and even by the new tranquilizers.

Consequently, this problem of drug addiction in its several forms lies close to us all. It stirs our deepest interest and sympathy. In the world around us we see legions of men and women who are trying to cure or to escape their problems by this means. Many AAs, especially those who have suffered these particular addictions, are now asking, "What can we do about drugs -- within our fellowship, and without?"

Because several projects to help pill and drug takers are already afloat -- projects which use AA's Twelve Steps and in which AA members are active -- there has arisen a whole series of questions as to how these efforts, already meeting with not a little success, can be rightly related to the AA groups and to AA as a whole.

Specifically, here is a list of questions:
(1) Can a non-alcoholic pill or drug addict become an AA member?
(2) Can such a person be brought, as a visitor, to an "open" AA meeting for help and inspiration?
(3) Can a pill or drug taker, who also has a genuine alcoholic history, become a member of AA?
(4) Can AAs who have suffered both alcoholism and addiction form themselves into "special purpose" groups to help other AAs who are having drug trouble?
(5) Could such, a "special purpose;" group call itself an AA group?
(6) Could such a group also include non-alcoholic drug users?
(7) If so, should these non-alcoholic pill or drug users be led to believe that they have become AA members?
(8) Is there any objection if AAs who have had the "dual problem" join such outside groups, such as Addicts Anonymous or Narcotics Anonymous?

While some of these questions almost answer themselves, others do not. But all of them, I think, can readily be resolved to the satisfaction of everyone if we have a good look at the AA Traditions which apply, and another look at our long experience with the special purpose groups in which AAs are active today -- both within and without our society.

Now there are certain things that AA cannot do for anybody, regardless of what our several desires or sympathies may be.

Our first duty, as a society, is to insure our own survival. Therefore we have to avoid distractions and multi-purpose activity. An AA group, as such, cannot take on all the personal problems of its members, let alone the problems of the whole world.

Sobriety -- freedom from alcohol -- through the teaching and practice of the Twelve Steps, is the sole purpose of an AA group. Groups have repeatedly tried other activities and they have always failed. It has also been learned that there is no possible way to make non-alcoholics into AA members. We have to confine our membership to alcoholics and we have to confine our AA groups to a single purpose. If we don't stick to these principles, we shall almost surely collapse. And if we collapse, we cannot help anyone.

To illustrate, let's review some typical experiences. Years ago, we hoped to give AA membership to our families and to certain non-alcoholic friends who had been greatly helpful. They had their problems, too, and we wanted them in our fold. Regretfully, we found that this was impossible. They couldn't make straight AA talks; nor, save a few exceptions, could they identify with new AA members. Hence, they couldn't do continuous Twelfth Step work. Close to us as these good folks were, we had to deny them membership. We could only welcome them at our open meetings.

Therefore I see no way of making non-alcoholic addicts into AA members. Experience says loudly that we can admit no exceptions, even though drug users and alcoholics happen to be first cousins of a sort. If we persist in trying this, I'm afraid it will be hard on the drug user himself, as well as on AA. We must accept the fact that no non-alcoholic, whatever his affliction, can be converted into an alcoholic AA member.

Suppose, though, that we are approached by a drug addict who nevertheless has had a genuine alcoholic history. There was a time when such a person would have been rejected. Many early AAs had the almost comical notion that they were "pure alcoholics" -- guzzlers only, no other serious problems at all. When alcoholic "ex-cons" and drug users first turned up there was much pious indignation. "What will people think?" chanted the pure alcoholics. Happily, this foolishness has long since evaporated.

One of the best AAs I know is a man who had been seven years on the needle before he joined up with us. But prior to that, he had been a terrific alcoholic and his history proved it. Therefore he could qualify for AA and this he certainly did. Since then, he has helped many AAs and some non-AAs with their pill and drug troubles. Of course, that is strictly his affair and is no way the business of the AA group to which he belongs. In his group he is a member because, in actual fact, he is an alcoholic.

Such is the sum of what AA Cannot do -- for narcotics addicts or for anybody else.

Now, then, what can be done? Very effective answers to problems other than freedom from alcohol have always been found through "special purpose" groups, some of them operating within AA and some on the outside.

Our first special-purpose group was created 'way back in 1938. AA needed a world service office and some literature. It had a service problem that could not be met by an AA group, as such. Therefore, we formed a Board of Trustees (The Alcoholic Foundation) to look after these matters. Some of the Trustees were alcoholics, and some were non-alcoholics. Obviously, this was not an "AA group." Instead, it was a group of AAs and non-AAs who devoted themselves to a special task.

Another example: in 1940, the New York AAs got lonesome and installed themselves in a club. The club had directors and dues-paying AA members. For a long time, the club members and directors thought that they were an AA group. But after awhile, it was found that lots of AAs who attended meetings at "Old 24th" didn't care one hoot for the club, as such. Hence, the management of the club (for its social purpose) had to be completely separated from the management of the AA group that came there to hold its meetings. It took years of hassling to prove that you couldn't put an AA group into the club business and make it stick. Everywhere today, club managements and their dues-paying members are seen as "special purpose" groups, not as AA groups.

The same thing has happened with drying-out places and "Twelfth Step Houses" managed by AAs. We never think of these activities as "AA groups." They are clearly seen as the functions of interested individuals who are doing helpful and often very valuable jobs.

Some years ago, numbers of AAs formed themselves in "retreat groups" having a religious purpose. At first, they wanted to call themselves "AA groups" of various descriptions. But they soon realized this could not be done because their groups had a dual purpose: both AA and religion.

At another time a number of us AAs wanted to enter the field of alcohol education. I was one of them. We associated ourselves with some non-alcoholics, likewise interested. The non-alcoholics wanted AAs because they needed our experience, philosophy, and general slant. Things were fine until some of us AAs publicly disclosed our membership in the educational group. Right away, the public got the idea that this particular brand of alcoholic education and Alcoholics Anonymous were one and the same thing. It took years to change this impression. But now that this correction has been made, plenty of AA members work with this fine group and we are glad that they do.

It was thus proven that, as individuals, we can carry the AA experience and ideas into any outside field whatever, provided that we guard anonymity and refuse to use the AA name for money-raising or publicity purposes.

I'm very sure that these experiences of yesterday can be the basis of resolving today's confusions about the narcotic problem. This problem is new, but the AA experience and Tradition which can solve it is already old and time-tested. I think we might sum it up like this:

We cannot give AA membership to non-alcoholic narcotics-addicts. But like anyone else, they should be able to attend certain open AA meetings, provided, of course, that the groups themselves are willing.

AA members who are so inclined should be encouraged to band together in groups to deal with sedative and drug problems. But they ought to refrain from calling themselves AA groups.

There seems to be no reason why several AAs cannot join, if they wish, with a group of straight addicts to solve the alcohol and the drug problem together. But, obviously, such a "dual purpose" group should not insist that it be called an AA group nor should it use the AA name in its title. Neither should its "straight addict" contingent be led to believe that they have become AA members by reason of such an association.

Certainly there is every good reason for interested AAs to join with "outside" groups, working on the narcotic problem, provided the Traditions of anonymity and of "no endorsements" are respected.

In conclusion, I want to say that throughout AA's history, most of our special-purpose groups have accomplished very wonderful things. There is great reason to hope that those AAs who are now working in the grim regions of narcotic addiction will achieve equal success.

In AA, the group has strict limitations, but the individual has scarcely any. Remembering to observe the Traditions of anonymity and non-endorsement, he can carry AA's message into every troubled area of this very troubled world.

Bill W.

My journey that got me to AA and the 12 step program involved (in part) drug use. When I share my experience, strength and hope I share my journey. If others take issue with me sharing my journey, that is their issue.

It's pretty simple, actually. If you don't identify with the description of the alcoholic in AA literature, meaning you don't have the phenomena of craving with alcohol or the obsession to drink, then you are probably not an alcoholic.

Therefore, when you call yourself an alcoholic in an AA meeting just to fit in, you are lying. If you are not an alcoholic but have a desire to stop drinking, you are still welcome at open AA meetings, but you are not a member of AA. If someone offers to take you through the steps, you can still go through them with an AA sponsor. But you are not a member of AA. Hopefully, when you have a spiritual awakening, you will realize that NA needs you. Or SA or OA or Alanon. Those fellowships need you at their meetings so you can help the next person walking through the door. So that there is someone recovered and waiting for them. So those fellowships will grow stronger.

The closed meeting card states "if you have a problem with alcohol, you are welcome to attend this meeting."

I have a problem with alcohol, so I am welcome at the meeting. The "types" of alcoholics are on page xxx of the 4th edition. I fit into at least one type. BUT, I would rather shoot fentanyl than take a drink, if both were in front of me. I was never physically dependent on alcohol. I have a lot of "not yets" in relation to alcohol that I experienced with drugs. (high bottom vs low bottom)

I will not risk my sobriety on the NA meetings in my town. Do I "belong" there? Sure. But, I am not a martyr. Drug deals in the parking lot and few females, along with harm-reduction-instead-of-abstinence make AA the choice for me. And in no way am *I* lying when I say I'm an alcoholic, because I am.

I had to do what was right for me at the time. Thank goodness I did. I have yet to meet a "pure alkie" who doesn't have other issues (gambling, relationships, food, shopping, cutting, gambling, sex, etc). I, too, could easily qualify for a dozen 12-step groups.

Baskin Robbins makes tons of flavors of ice cream. Vanilla is their most popular. For me, the BB of AA is the vanilla that makes it all possible. It is THE SOURCE for me.

Thanks for letting me share.