What would you say are the differences between NA & AA?
Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Pugetopolis
Posts: 2,384
What would you say are the differences between NA & AA?
Well one is called Narcotics Anonymous and one is called Alcoholics Anonymous.
That should give you a clue as to what the main difference is between the two.
That should give you a clue as to what the main difference is between the two.
Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 196
Originally Posted by jimhere 
Well one is called Narcotics Anonymous and one is called Alcoholics Anonymous.
That should give you a clue as to what the main difference is between the two.
That should give you a clue as to what the main difference is between the two.
Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Pugetopolis
Posts: 2,384
Originally Posted by zencat
From N.A. (Reprinted from Newsline Vol. 2, No. 6.)
N.A.:
1. We admitted we were powerless over our addiction, that our
lives had become unmanageable.
A.A.:
1. We admitted we were powerless over alcohol, that our lives had become unmanageable.
The link to the article below explains the difference between the powerless over our addiction or alcohol.
Some thoughts regarding our
relationship to Alcoholics Anonymous
Right away I can see in N.A. with regards to step one the behavior of addiction causes unmanageably and in A.A.'s step one the substance causes unmanageably. Then I conclude the 'locus of control' for the N.A. member is internal and for the A.A. member its external.
Very interesting, good question.
N.A.:
1. We admitted we were powerless over our addiction, that our
lives had become unmanageable.
A.A.:
1. We admitted we were powerless over alcohol, that our lives had become unmanageable.
The link to the article below explains the difference between the powerless over our addiction or alcohol.
Some thoughts regarding our
relationship to Alcoholics Anonymous
Right away I can see in N.A. with regards to step one the behavior of addiction causes unmanageably and in A.A.'s step one the substance causes unmanageably. Then I conclude the 'locus of control' for the N.A. member is internal and for the A.A. member its external.
Very interesting, good question.
Used to be I believed that I had drank to escape, but now I believe that I was looking for something. Except towards the end when my greatest hope was to blot out the consciousness of my miserable existence.
I was looking for something, what I don't know, but" it" was always "out there," just like "it" is out there in the parking lot doing pushups. I was as Doctor William D. Silkworth said, restless, irritable, and discontent without a drink. So when I found booze at an early age, I thought I had found "it." A sense of ease and comfort, a sense of being whole & complete, a sense of being all right right now. Not a bad deal for a kid who felt like a misfit in the family he was born into. Of coarse that is not all that happened. I drank too much too fast and fell down and made an ass of myself and threw up. But I was willing to pay that price for that few minutes when I belonged in the world. Much later in my drinking, I was not getting that effect from booze, but I couldn't stop.
When I came to AA is too misread the First Step. I though the dash meant fill in the blank. "I am powerless over alcohol and that's why my life is unmanageable." You see I always put the problem outside of me. I drank the way I drank because of (fill in the blank). I drank because of stress, my wife, etc. So I always looked for a solution outside of me. Money, material possessions, sex, authority, the right set of circumstances, booze, some drugs, you name it. I used those things to run away from the problem. I thought that if I could just get my life in order the way I thought I needed it to be, then I'll have what it takes to stop drinking.No luck, I drank anyways. I drank no matter what.
What I have learned through the steps is that my problem is within physically, mentally, emotionally, and spiritually. My problem is not this job, or that money, or her, or them. It is within.
I have also, through the steps found that the solution is within: "Deep within every man, woman, and child is the fundamental idea of God." Or whatever you want to call 'it." Through a process of facing and being rid of what was in the way, I have found spiritual power within myself, where it always was.
The problem is within and the solution is within. Run from the problem, run from the solution.
Jim
Big Book references from Alcoholics Anonymous, First Edition
Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: md
Posts: 3,042
I feel like it is kind of insulting to say that you are "recovering from Catholicism" as though the religion itself is some kind of disease. As a practicing Catholic, I find it offensive that this is allowed here and in meetings.
I mean really, think about it: If I was to say "I'm a recovering Jew" would that be acceptable to those who are Jewish? Would you even have the nerve to say it? I bet not.
You have the freedom to not be or to be whatever religion you choose. I ask that you express that choice in a more tasteful and respectful way, such as, "I was raised to be Catholic, but I am now choosing to believe _________." Rather than referring to my religion in terms reserved for a disease.
One of the principles here is that we don't insult one another's religions, races, sexuality, or genders. It's a respect for others thing. Thanks.
KJ
I mean really, think about it: If I was to say "I'm a recovering Jew" would that be acceptable to those who are Jewish? Would you even have the nerve to say it? I bet not.
You have the freedom to not be or to be whatever religion you choose. I ask that you express that choice in a more tasteful and respectful way, such as, "I was raised to be Catholic, but I am now choosing to believe _________." Rather than referring to my religion in terms reserved for a disease.
One of the principles here is that we don't insult one another's religions, races, sexuality, or genders. It's a respect for others thing. Thanks.
KJ
Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Pugetopolis
Posts: 2,384
It bothers me too when I hear that. Not because I am Catholic, but because it is not in the spirit of our Tenth Tradition. By our traditions I mean that both AA and NA share those traditions.
The Tenth Tradition is about having opinions on outside issues such as politics and religion. Most of us know that neither AA nor NA have any kind of opinion on those issues. But the uniformed member of the public might not know that. I can't voice my opinions on those outside issues in such a manner that would imply that those are AA's views.
What if it is an open meeting and a member of the clergy is in attendance? Sometimes they refer members of their congreation to us, but not if we imply that we have an opinion about The Catholic Church. Or the Lutheran Church or The Baptist Church or any other denomination for that matter. Or what if there was a person at the meeting for the first time seeking help and they happened to be a practicing Catholic? It might turn them away.
I have learned to be very careful of what I say and how I say it. To the public I am AA and they may well gauge their opinion of AA by my words and actions. Everything we do or say has the potential to affect many lives.
JIm
The Tenth Tradition is about having opinions on outside issues such as politics and religion. Most of us know that neither AA nor NA have any kind of opinion on those issues. But the uniformed member of the public might not know that. I can't voice my opinions on those outside issues in such a manner that would imply that those are AA's views.
What if it is an open meeting and a member of the clergy is in attendance? Sometimes they refer members of their congreation to us, but not if we imply that we have an opinion about The Catholic Church. Or the Lutheran Church or The Baptist Church or any other denomination for that matter. Or what if there was a person at the meeting for the first time seeking help and they happened to be a practicing Catholic? It might turn them away.
I have learned to be very careful of what I say and how I say it. To the public I am AA and they may well gauge their opinion of AA by my words and actions. Everything we do or say has the potential to affect many lives.
JIm
Member
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2
Unity in Recovery
First of i just like to say that the substance is just the symptom to the problem.
The drugs or alcohol did not make our lives unmanagable.
Our lives were unmanagable before we took the drugs & when we found the drugs it took care of the unmanagability.
And the drugs n alcohol were the answer to our problems.
And we didnt have to deal with the unmanagability between our ears.
Because the Mind altering susbtance took care of it .
So the unmanagability came from with in & not from the substance.
here is a run down on the history of 12 step recovery programs
Alcoholics Anonymous was the first 12-step program. Many people with both drug problems and drinking problems found sobriety through this program, although people without a desire to stop drinking were not (and are still not) able to attend closed A.A. meetings (the Third Tradition). However, in accordance with the Fourth Tradition, each A.A. group is able to decide for itself if non-alcoholic addicts are welcome. Open A.A. meetings are very common and all people are welcome, including those with drug problems. 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.
On February 16, 1947, a group of drug addicts began to meet as part of a treatment center in Lexington Federal Prison in Lexington, Kentucky. It was founded by a man named Houston Sewell, and was based on the 12 steps of A.A. This group called itself NARCO or Addicts Anonymous, and continued to meet weekly for over twenty years. Then in 1948, one of the members from the NARCO program moved to New York City and started a similar group in the New York Prison System. This was the first group to be called "Narcotics Anonymous", but it did not last long, and dissolved soon after it was founded. Another group in Fort Worth, Texas followed the "Lexington model" in its own 12-step group. A similar group in Lorton, Virginia called itself NOTROL. In 1950 an unrelated group in California called the "Habit Forming Drug Group" used the 12 steps to address drug addiction. Each of these groups were largely independent, and were not a part of N.A. as it now exists; however they showed that there was a need for such an organized program.
Early history of N.A.
Narcotics Anonymous was founded (as AANA) in California in 1953 by Jimmy Kinnon and others. This group differed from its predecessors in that it specifically attempted to form a fellowship or network of groups that would be mutually supporting. Throughout that summer, founding members, most of whom had found recovery in A.A., debated the bylaws of the organization, and the first documented meeting occurred August 17, 1953. On September 14, 1953, they received notice from the leadership of A.A. that they could use the A.A. steps and traditions, but not the A.A. name. The organization then officially changed its name to Narcotics Anonymous.
In 1954, the first N.A. publication was printed, called the "Little Yellow Booklet". It contained the 12 steps, and early drafts of several pieces that would later be included in subsequent literature. At this time, N.A. was not yet recognized by society at large as a positive force. The initial group had difficulty finding places that would allow them to meet, and often had to meet in people's homes. One of the most difficult places for NA to become established was in the State of New York. The Rockefeller drug laws there had made it a crime for drug addicts to meet together for any reason, making N.A. in effect illegal. Addicts would have to cruise around meeting places and check for surveillance, to make sure meetings would not be busted by police. It was many years before N.A. became recognized as a beneficial organization, although some early press accounts were very positive.[16] In addition, many N.A. groups were not following the 12 traditions very closely (which were quite new at the time). These groups were at times accepting money from outside entities, conflating A.A. with N.A., or even adding religious elements to the meetings. For a variety of reasons, meetings began to decline in the late 1950s, and there was a 4-month period in 1959 when there were no meetings held anywhere at all.[citation needed] Spurred into action by this, Jimmy Kinnon and others dedicated themselves to restarting N.A., promising to hold to the traditions more closely.
So N.A. Came out of the 12 steps of Alcoholics Anonymous
Your powerless over your addiction part of that addiction is alcohol as well as other mind alterering susbstances the susbstance was but the symptom to the problem. Just as it says alcohol is a drug Period.
your conclusion that step one in NA is internal and that in AA it is external has no merrit.
The only difference between AA & NA is that NA has no big book and does not follow the same process as in AA to work the steps.
And if u have not worked the steps From the AA Big book u will never know
The drugs or alcohol did not make our lives unmanagable.
Our lives were unmanagable before we took the drugs & when we found the drugs it took care of the unmanagability.
And the drugs n alcohol were the answer to our problems.
And we didnt have to deal with the unmanagability between our ears.
Because the Mind altering susbtance took care of it .
So the unmanagability came from with in & not from the substance.
here is a run down on the history of 12 step recovery programs
Alcoholics Anonymous was the first 12-step program. Many people with both drug problems and drinking problems found sobriety through this program, although people without a desire to stop drinking were not (and are still not) able to attend closed A.A. meetings (the Third Tradition). However, in accordance with the Fourth Tradition, each A.A. group is able to decide for itself if non-alcoholic addicts are welcome. Open A.A. meetings are very common and all people are welcome, including those with drug problems. 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.
On February 16, 1947, a group of drug addicts began to meet as part of a treatment center in Lexington Federal Prison in Lexington, Kentucky. It was founded by a man named Houston Sewell, and was based on the 12 steps of A.A. This group called itself NARCO or Addicts Anonymous, and continued to meet weekly for over twenty years. Then in 1948, one of the members from the NARCO program moved to New York City and started a similar group in the New York Prison System. This was the first group to be called "Narcotics Anonymous", but it did not last long, and dissolved soon after it was founded. Another group in Fort Worth, Texas followed the "Lexington model" in its own 12-step group. A similar group in Lorton, Virginia called itself NOTROL. In 1950 an unrelated group in California called the "Habit Forming Drug Group" used the 12 steps to address drug addiction. Each of these groups were largely independent, and were not a part of N.A. as it now exists; however they showed that there was a need for such an organized program.
Early history of N.A.
Narcotics Anonymous was founded (as AANA) in California in 1953 by Jimmy Kinnon and others. This group differed from its predecessors in that it specifically attempted to form a fellowship or network of groups that would be mutually supporting. Throughout that summer, founding members, most of whom had found recovery in A.A., debated the bylaws of the organization, and the first documented meeting occurred August 17, 1953. On September 14, 1953, they received notice from the leadership of A.A. that they could use the A.A. steps and traditions, but not the A.A. name. The organization then officially changed its name to Narcotics Anonymous.
In 1954, the first N.A. publication was printed, called the "Little Yellow Booklet". It contained the 12 steps, and early drafts of several pieces that would later be included in subsequent literature. At this time, N.A. was not yet recognized by society at large as a positive force. The initial group had difficulty finding places that would allow them to meet, and often had to meet in people's homes. One of the most difficult places for NA to become established was in the State of New York. The Rockefeller drug laws there had made it a crime for drug addicts to meet together for any reason, making N.A. in effect illegal. Addicts would have to cruise around meeting places and check for surveillance, to make sure meetings would not be busted by police. It was many years before N.A. became recognized as a beneficial organization, although some early press accounts were very positive.[16] In addition, many N.A. groups were not following the 12 traditions very closely (which were quite new at the time). These groups were at times accepting money from outside entities, conflating A.A. with N.A., or even adding religious elements to the meetings. For a variety of reasons, meetings began to decline in the late 1950s, and there was a 4-month period in 1959 when there were no meetings held anywhere at all.[citation needed] Spurred into action by this, Jimmy Kinnon and others dedicated themselves to restarting N.A., promising to hold to the traditions more closely.
So N.A. Came out of the 12 steps of Alcoholics Anonymous
Your powerless over your addiction part of that addiction is alcohol as well as other mind alterering susbstances the susbstance was but the symptom to the problem. Just as it says alcohol is a drug Period.
your conclusion that step one in NA is internal and that in AA it is external has no merrit.
The only difference between AA & NA is that NA has no big book and does not follow the same process as in AA to work the steps.
And if u have not worked the steps From the AA Big book u will never know
Originally Posted by Zencat
From N.A. (Reprinted from Newsline Vol. 2, No. 6.)
N.A.:
1. We admitted we were powerless over our addiction, that our
lives had become unmanageable.
A.A.:
1. We admitted we were powerless over alcohol, that our lives had become unmanageable.
The link to the article below explains the difference between the powerless over our addiction or alcohol.
.na.org/bulletins/bull13-r.htm"]Some thoughts regarding our
relationship to Alcoholics Anonymous
Right away I can see in N.A. with regards to step one the behavior of addiction causes unmanageably and in A.A.'s step one the substance causes unmanageably. Then I conclude the 'locus of control' for the N.A. member is internal and for the A.A. member its external.
Very interesting, good question.
N.A.:
1. We admitted we were powerless over our addiction, that our
lives had become unmanageable.
A.A.:
1. We admitted we were powerless over alcohol, that our lives had become unmanageable.
The link to the article below explains the difference between the powerless over our addiction or alcohol.
.na.org/bulletins/bull13-r.htm"]Some thoughts regarding our
relationship to Alcoholics Anonymous
Right away I can see in N.A. with regards to step one the behavior of addiction causes unmanageably and in A.A.'s step one the substance causes unmanageably. Then I conclude the 'locus of control' for the N.A. member is internal and for the A.A. member its external.
Very interesting, good question.
Member
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2
Unity
First of i just like to say that the substance is just the symptom to the problem.
The drugs or alcohol did not make our lives unmanagable.
Our lives were unmanagable before we took the drugs & when we found the drugs it took care of the unmanagability.
And the drugs n alcohol were the answer to our problems.
And we didnt have to deal with the unmanagability between our ears.
Because the Mind altering susbtance took care of it .
So the unmanagability came from with in & not from the substance.
here is a run down on the history of 12 step recovery programs
Alcoholics Anonymous was the first 12-step program. Many people with both drug problems and drinking problems found sobriety through this program, although people without a desire to stop drinking were not (and are still not) able to attend closed A.A. meetings (the Third Tradition). However, in accordance with the Fourth Tradition, each A.A. group is able to decide for itself if non-alcoholic addicts are welcome. Open A.A. meetings are very common and all people are welcome, including those with drug problems. 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.
On February 16, 1947, a group of drug addicts began to meet as part of a treatment center in Lexington Federal Prison in Lexington, Kentucky. It was founded by a man named Houston Sewell, and was based on the 12 steps of A.A. This group called itself NARCO or Addicts Anonymous, and continued to meet weekly for over twenty years. Then in 1948, one of the members from the NARCO program moved to New York City and started a similar group in the New York Prison System. This was the first group to be called "Narcotics Anonymous", but it did not last long, and dissolved soon after it was founded. Another group in Fort Worth, Texas followed the "Lexington model" in its own 12-step group. A similar group in Lorton, Virginia called itself NOTROL. In 1950 an unrelated group in California called the "Habit Forming Drug Group" used the 12 steps to address drug addiction. Each of these groups were largely independent, and were not a part of N.A. as it now exists; however they showed that there was a need for such an organized program.
Early history of N.A.
Narcotics Anonymous was founded (as AANA) in California in 1953 by Jimmy Kinnon and others. This group differed from its predecessors in that it specifically attempted to form a fellowship or network of groups that would be mutually supporting. Throughout that summer, founding members, most of whom had found recovery in A.A., debated the bylaws of the organization, and the first documented meeting occurred August 17, 1953. On September 14, 1953, they received notice from the leadership of A.A. that they could use the A.A. steps and traditions, but not the A.A. name. The organization then officially changed its name to Narcotics Anonymous.
In 1954, the first N.A. publication was printed, called the "Little Yellow Booklet". It contained the 12 steps, and early drafts of several pieces that would later be included in subsequent literature. At this time, N.A. was not yet recognized by society at large as a positive force. The initial group had difficulty finding places that would allow them to meet, and often had to meet in people's homes. One of the most difficult places for NA to become established was in the State of New York. The Rockefeller drug laws there had made it a crime for drug addicts to meet together for any reason, making N.A. in effect illegal. Addicts would have to cruise around meeting places and check for surveillance, to make sure meetings would not be busted by police. It was many years before N.A. became recognized as a beneficial organization, although some early press accounts were very positive.[16] In addition, many N.A. groups were not following the 12 traditions very closely (which were quite new at the time). These groups were at times accepting money from outside entities, conflating A.A. with N.A., or even adding religious elements to the meetings. For a variety of reasons, meetings began to decline in the late 1950s, and there was a 4-month period in 1959 when there were no meetings held anywhere at all.[citation needed] Spurred into action by this, Jimmy Kinnon and others dedicated themselves to restarting N.A., promising to hold to the traditions more closely.
So N.A. Came out of the 12 steps of Alcoholics Anonymous
Your powerless over your addiction part of that addiction is alcohol as well as other mind alterering susbstances the susbstance was but the symptom to the problem. Just as it says alcohol is a drug Period.
your conclusion that step one in NA is internal and that in AA it is external has no merrit.
The only difference between AA & NA is that NA has no big book and does not follow the same process as in AA to work the steps.
And if u have not worked the steps From the AA Big book u will never know
The drugs or alcohol did not make our lives unmanagable.
Our lives were unmanagable before we took the drugs & when we found the drugs it took care of the unmanagability.
And the drugs n alcohol were the answer to our problems.
And we didnt have to deal with the unmanagability between our ears.
Because the Mind altering susbtance took care of it .
So the unmanagability came from with in & not from the substance.
here is a run down on the history of 12 step recovery programs
Alcoholics Anonymous was the first 12-step program. Many people with both drug problems and drinking problems found sobriety through this program, although people without a desire to stop drinking were not (and are still not) able to attend closed A.A. meetings (the Third Tradition). However, in accordance with the Fourth Tradition, each A.A. group is able to decide for itself if non-alcoholic addicts are welcome. Open A.A. meetings are very common and all people are welcome, including those with drug problems. 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.
On February 16, 1947, a group of drug addicts began to meet as part of a treatment center in Lexington Federal Prison in Lexington, Kentucky. It was founded by a man named Houston Sewell, and was based on the 12 steps of A.A. This group called itself NARCO or Addicts Anonymous, and continued to meet weekly for over twenty years. Then in 1948, one of the members from the NARCO program moved to New York City and started a similar group in the New York Prison System. This was the first group to be called "Narcotics Anonymous", but it did not last long, and dissolved soon after it was founded. Another group in Fort Worth, Texas followed the "Lexington model" in its own 12-step group. A similar group in Lorton, Virginia called itself NOTROL. In 1950 an unrelated group in California called the "Habit Forming Drug Group" used the 12 steps to address drug addiction. Each of these groups were largely independent, and were not a part of N.A. as it now exists; however they showed that there was a need for such an organized program.
Early history of N.A.
Narcotics Anonymous was founded (as AANA) in California in 1953 by Jimmy Kinnon and others. This group differed from its predecessors in that it specifically attempted to form a fellowship or network of groups that would be mutually supporting. Throughout that summer, founding members, most of whom had found recovery in A.A., debated the bylaws of the organization, and the first documented meeting occurred August 17, 1953. On September 14, 1953, they received notice from the leadership of A.A. that they could use the A.A. steps and traditions, but not the A.A. name. The organization then officially changed its name to Narcotics Anonymous.
In 1954, the first N.A. publication was printed, called the "Little Yellow Booklet". It contained the 12 steps, and early drafts of several pieces that would later be included in subsequent literature. At this time, N.A. was not yet recognized by society at large as a positive force. The initial group had difficulty finding places that would allow them to meet, and often had to meet in people's homes. One of the most difficult places for NA to become established was in the State of New York. The Rockefeller drug laws there had made it a crime for drug addicts to meet together for any reason, making N.A. in effect illegal. Addicts would have to cruise around meeting places and check for surveillance, to make sure meetings would not be busted by police. It was many years before N.A. became recognized as a beneficial organization, although some early press accounts were very positive.[16] In addition, many N.A. groups were not following the 12 traditions very closely (which were quite new at the time). These groups were at times accepting money from outside entities, conflating A.A. with N.A., or even adding religious elements to the meetings. For a variety of reasons, meetings began to decline in the late 1950s, and there was a 4-month period in 1959 when there were no meetings held anywhere at all.[citation needed] Spurred into action by this, Jimmy Kinnon and others dedicated themselves to restarting N.A., promising to hold to the traditions more closely.
So N.A. Came out of the 12 steps of Alcoholics Anonymous
Your powerless over your addiction part of that addiction is alcohol as well as other mind alterering susbstances the susbstance was but the symptom to the problem. Just as it says alcohol is a drug Period.
your conclusion that step one in NA is internal and that in AA it is external has no merrit.
The only difference between AA & NA is that NA has no big book and does not follow the same process as in AA to work the steps.
And if u have not worked the steps From the AA Big book u will never know
Originally Posted by Zencat
From N.A. (Reprinted from Newsline Vol. 2, No. 6.)
N.A.:
1. We admitted we were powerless over our addiction, that our
lives had become unmanageable.
A.A.:
1. We admitted we were powerless over alcohol, that our lives had become unmanageable.
The link to the article below explains the difference between the powerless over our addiction or alcohol.
.na.org/bulletins/bull13-r.htm"]Some thoughts regarding our
relationship to Alcoholics Anonymous
Right away I can see in N.A. with regards to step one the behavior of addiction causes unmanageably and in A.A.'s step one the substance causes unmanageably. Then I conclude the 'locus of control' for the N.A. member is internal and for the A.A. member its external.
Very interesting, good question.
N.A.:
1. We admitted we were powerless over our addiction, that our
lives had become unmanageable.
A.A.:
1. We admitted we were powerless over alcohol, that our lives had become unmanageable.
The link to the article below explains the difference between the powerless over our addiction or alcohol.
.na.org/bulletins/bull13-r.htm"]Some thoughts regarding our
relationship to Alcoholics Anonymous
Right away I can see in N.A. with regards to step one the behavior of addiction causes unmanageably and in A.A.'s step one the substance causes unmanageably. Then I conclude the 'locus of control' for the N.A. member is internal and for the A.A. member its external.
Very interesting, good question.
Member
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 2
Many differences
The only difference between AA & NA is that NA has no big book and does not follow the same process as in AA to work the steps.
And if u have not worked the steps From the AA Big book u will never know
And if u have not worked the steps From the AA Big book u will never know
It's true that NA doesn't follow the same process to work the steps. Actually, NA works different steps. The 12 steps of NA were adapted, not adopted. This is evidenced by the use of the word addiction in step 1 and the addition of the word we in 2 thru 11. It's also true that NA doesn't have a 'big book'. But NA does have the Basic Text, It Works: How and Why, and the Step Working Guide.
I have worked the steps from the Big Book. Twice. With 2 different sponsors.
This usually consisted of reading the step in the Big Book or 12x12, followed by 5 minutes in the parking where I had to convince my sponsor that I 'got it'. Both times through took less than 2 months and that was stretched due to my procrastination. Attended, on average, 12 meetings a week for most of 6 years. Had 18 months once, and 22 months once. And enough chips to fill a bank bag. Also had numerous sponsees who I led the same way. Throughout this time I was told that if I didn't think I was an alcoholic I should go try it again. Since I couldn't identify (but didn't realize it since I had no idea what empathy / identification was like) I felt like I wasn't sick enough or hadn't gone low enough. I finally decided that if I used again I was going all the way. When I relapsed I went straight down, no spiral. 9 months later I came back to my AA homegroup homeless, hopeless, suicidal, completely lost. I shared that they had taught me to be brutally honest and that if I didn't like what I was getting, change what I was doing. I told them I didn't like what I was getting after going to meetings there and working that program for years. I said I'm an addict. I'm gonna work a different program. After the meeting, men who'd been my biggest fans when I was playing dressed up garbage can and group success story, turned on their heels. That reaction was the norm and not the exception. Just like everyone else in my life, they had no idea what unconditional love is.
I started going to NA exclusively even though I have to drive 30-45 minutes to make meetings every night. Got an NA sponsor who has an NA sponsor. Used to say the programs are the same but they are not. Forget the **** you hear people sharing at meetings about the programs. Go to the literature. Find out for yourself. The programs are the literature.
Nowhere in the NA literature does it say 'if you're not convinced you're an addict, go use'. That would be insane. It says we must not use. It's never okay for an addict to use drugs. I've worked the NA steps twice. Both times using the Basic Text and It Works and an old school sponsor. And writing. On each step.
I have found so much freedom and love. I feel like a part of something. And I know that I have been given a gift that I don't unwrap until I give it to another addict. The greatest joy in life is watching an addict's light come on. Seeing them bloom. I learn way more from sponsees than they do from me. And I know that I don't ever have to use again. No matter what.
AA and NA are just different. If you disagree, sit down with the literature. Compare them. Neither is better or worse (or perfect!),they are just intended for different purposes. Since the programs are different the fellowships are different. I found where I belong. I suffer from a disease, not a state of mind. NA says that ANY addict can stop using, lose the desire to use and find a new way to live. AA had me thinking maybe I was constitutionally incapable of being honest with myself and that my grave emotional and mental disorders disqualified me from recovering. And I never could 'find Him now'. He wasn't lost.
Whichever program and fellowship you belong in, I love you and there's nothing you can do about it!
Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Southern Colorado
Posts: 1,167
Originally Posted by zakari
No, really people are still sick in both programs.
Member
Join Date: May 2014
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 2
AA vs. NA
I'll come right out and say that I highly prefer AA (I'm an active member) over NA (which I started with). I'm very biased.
NA suggests that, "Relapse is a part of recovery," and AA suggests that, "With this attitude you cannot fail." I agree -- relapse is the end of a period of recovery, not a part of it, usually because one has not been thorough or honest enough in a program of ACTION.
When AA meetings begin, it is not necessary to ask members to please leave their weapons and paraphernalia outside -- there's a major difference in demographics.
That said, I heard a lot of people in NA talk about "triggers," people, places and things. Whereas in AA, I was taught that if you think you have a trigger, you're putting a condition on your sobriety. In AA, the Steps shoot for a spiritual experience, a complete psychic change/rearrangement, sufficient to bring about recovery from a hopeless state of mind and body. To hell with your triggers.
I've heard people say, "They're the same Steps!" To me, the two Fellowships seems to have quite different approaches as to what type of recovery they're shooting for.
I'd love to read some thoughts on this.
NA suggests that, "Relapse is a part of recovery," and AA suggests that, "With this attitude you cannot fail." I agree -- relapse is the end of a period of recovery, not a part of it, usually because one has not been thorough or honest enough in a program of ACTION.
When AA meetings begin, it is not necessary to ask members to please leave their weapons and paraphernalia outside -- there's a major difference in demographics.
That said, I heard a lot of people in NA talk about "triggers," people, places and things. Whereas in AA, I was taught that if you think you have a trigger, you're putting a condition on your sobriety. In AA, the Steps shoot for a spiritual experience, a complete psychic change/rearrangement, sufficient to bring about recovery from a hopeless state of mind and body. To hell with your triggers.
I've heard people say, "They're the same Steps!" To me, the two Fellowships seems to have quite different approaches as to what type of recovery they're shooting for.
I'd love to read some thoughts on this.
12 Step Recovered Alcoholic
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 6,613
I don't know the first thing about drug addiction. I was in AA at a time before na came to life in nz, oa as well, and a remember how we tried to accommodate people with problems other than alcohol. It didn't go that well, there was a lot of friction.
Today, AA is the fellowship of choice for many but not all NAs. They site as a reason that AA runs better, whereas the NA is off track. It's a shame that the clean ones hiding in AA are really needed in NA and don't want to go.
What about CA? I have heard of a high level of cooperation between AA and CA members even to the extent of running step workshops where both AAs and CAs attend. I wondered why we got on so well. I am guessing that there are similarities in the social settings in which contained and alcohol are used, and to be larger than life is a common motive, as apposed to getting "out of it".
Maybe someone with Ca experience could chime in.
Today, AA is the fellowship of choice for many but not all NAs. They site as a reason that AA runs better, whereas the NA is off track. It's a shame that the clean ones hiding in AA are really needed in NA and don't want to go.
What about CA? I have heard of a high level of cooperation between AA and CA members even to the extent of running step workshops where both AAs and CAs attend. I wondered why we got on so well. I am guessing that there are similarities in the social settings in which contained and alcohol are used, and to be larger than life is a common motive, as apposed to getting "out of it".
Maybe someone with Ca experience could chime in.
Member
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Gulf Coast, Florida USA
Posts: 5,731
These days I mainly go to NA even though alcohol was my drug of choice. Hubby is an addict. But I enjoy both. In my area, there
are 12-15 NA meetings a week.
I did AA for years.
AA by far has more people with long term sobriety in my area. They have more step and literature meetings which is
important. I work my steps out of the Big Book and the NA workbook.
NA is a younger group of people overall. NA considers alcohol a drug. If a person is younger say early 20's-30's. They
will find more people their age at an NA meeting.
The turnover is greater at NA meetings from what I have seen. People come and go, The AA meetings I go to there
are a lot of the same people there from years ago. A few new people each week.
As far as higher power, each group refers to a higher power in the 12 steps.
The NA literature has newer information because it has not been around as long and more things are now known
about addiction and it's accompanying behaviors. Especially if you read the newer book Living Clean.
I have a feeling it won't be long until the people that come through AA will be suffering from both alcohol and
drug addiction combined.
I always hear people say that AA looks down on people who say they are addicts, But I have yet to see
anyone in an AA meeting confront anyone on the issue.
They are both great organizations and are saving my life for sure.
are 12-15 NA meetings a week.
I did AA for years.
AA by far has more people with long term sobriety in my area. They have more step and literature meetings which is
important. I work my steps out of the Big Book and the NA workbook.
NA is a younger group of people overall. NA considers alcohol a drug. If a person is younger say early 20's-30's. They
will find more people their age at an NA meeting.
The turnover is greater at NA meetings from what I have seen. People come and go, The AA meetings I go to there
are a lot of the same people there from years ago. A few new people each week.
As far as higher power, each group refers to a higher power in the 12 steps.
The NA literature has newer information because it has not been around as long and more things are now known
about addiction and it's accompanying behaviors. Especially if you read the newer book Living Clean.
I have a feeling it won't be long until the people that come through AA will be suffering from both alcohol and
drug addiction combined.
I always hear people say that AA looks down on people who say they are addicts, But I have yet to see
anyone in an AA meeting confront anyone on the issue.
They are both great organizations and are saving my life for sure.
Member
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 831
The third tradition in AA is "the only requirement for AA membership is a desire to stop drinking."
I found my recovery home in CoDa. It's not very active where I live, so I have an AA sponsor and I go to both meetings. The first step in CoDa is
1) we admitted we were powerless over others - that our lives had become unmanageable.
Tradition 3) The only requirement for membership in CoDa is a desire for healthy and loving relationships.
Oh and they changed all references to God instead of Him.
My DOC was to be "the life of the party" - my self worth based on how I believed other people saw me. I drank alcohol cause it was fun. I smoked weed cause it was fun. I took acid, mushrooms, extacy, and coke cause it was fun. I loved the party, I loved getting all dressed up in funky clothes, I loved dancing all night long and took more drugs to continue the party well into the afternoon the next day. I thought those party people were my friends. We sure did have a lot of fun.
Until it wasn't fun anymore when I became paralyzed without the booze or pot. I couldn't even do the dishes without being blitzed. I woke up every morning with the shakes and sometimes even went to work still drunk from the night before. I would sneak out to my car to smoke a bowl in the middle of the work day. I even went so far as to pretend I smoked cigarettes to mask the smell. Tobacco/nicotine always made me puke and get horrible nasty headaches so I'd puff without inhaling and blow the smoke around. LOL I see how ridiculous that sounds now, I was like the opposite of the politician that smoked weed but "never inhaled."
My need to be in a constant state of altered consciousness in order to have "friends" was a SYMPTOM of a bigger problem having to do with my flawed thinking. That's why attending AA only never worked for me. How many times have I tried to get sober before? I think I have posted at least 3 day one threads on SR and how many more that I didn't bother with because I wasn't getting the right recovery message for ME. I never attended any NA meetings because I assumed incorrectly that was for opiates/heroin only. I thought about attending MA - marijuana anonymous, but I have not made it to a meeting yet. Maybe I should go, just to check it out.
PS I'm sorry if I got off topic here.
I found my recovery home in CoDa. It's not very active where I live, so I have an AA sponsor and I go to both meetings. The first step in CoDa is
1) we admitted we were powerless over others - that our lives had become unmanageable.
Tradition 3) The only requirement for membership in CoDa is a desire for healthy and loving relationships.
Oh and they changed all references to God instead of Him.
My DOC was to be "the life of the party" - my self worth based on how I believed other people saw me. I drank alcohol cause it was fun. I smoked weed cause it was fun. I took acid, mushrooms, extacy, and coke cause it was fun. I loved the party, I loved getting all dressed up in funky clothes, I loved dancing all night long and took more drugs to continue the party well into the afternoon the next day. I thought those party people were my friends. We sure did have a lot of fun.
Until it wasn't fun anymore when I became paralyzed without the booze or pot. I couldn't even do the dishes without being blitzed. I woke up every morning with the shakes and sometimes even went to work still drunk from the night before. I would sneak out to my car to smoke a bowl in the middle of the work day. I even went so far as to pretend I smoked cigarettes to mask the smell. Tobacco/nicotine always made me puke and get horrible nasty headaches so I'd puff without inhaling and blow the smoke around. LOL I see how ridiculous that sounds now, I was like the opposite of the politician that smoked weed but "never inhaled."
My need to be in a constant state of altered consciousness in order to have "friends" was a SYMPTOM of a bigger problem having to do with my flawed thinking. That's why attending AA only never worked for me. How many times have I tried to get sober before? I think I have posted at least 3 day one threads on SR and how many more that I didn't bother with because I wasn't getting the right recovery message for ME. I never attended any NA meetings because I assumed incorrectly that was for opiates/heroin only. I thought about attending MA - marijuana anonymous, but I have not made it to a meeting yet. Maybe I should go, just to check it out.
PS I'm sorry if I got off topic here.
Member
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Lakeside, Ca
Posts: 10,208
done both Programs
NA seems to be much weaker with more relapses
AA works very fine for most I know who sober up
sure has been a blessing for me over the years
after thousands of meetings attended
I still hit two or three a week
if it works -- don't fix it
Mountainman
NA seems to be much weaker with more relapses
AA works very fine for most I know who sober up
sure has been a blessing for me over the years
after thousands of meetings attended
I still hit two or three a week
if it works -- don't fix it
Mountainman
Not again
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Central NY
Posts: 1,139
Originally Posted by Mountainmanbob
if it works -- don't fix it
Mountainman
Mountainman
I see so many people no longer drinking or drugging and attending meetings on a regular basis. This recoveredcrackhead prefers AA over NA, but noticed both espouse a reliance on sponsors and meetings rather than on God as suggested in the 12 Steps. I had endevoured to raise the awareness of others as to their wayward beliefs, to no avail. Frustrating.
Then it occured to me. What does it matter how people get sober as long as they find the peace and happiness they seek. I found mine, may you find yours.
Be Well,
Larry
Member
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 132
I went to AA at first.
I had a hard time understanding the Big Book. People told me I was making it harder than it was and I was being stubborn and willful.
I read NA literature. It made sense to me. I worked the steps and got clean and sober.
Maybe my brain was too messed up to understand the language of the Big book. Reading it made me feel stupid and resentful. Reading NA Basic Text made me feel like I belong.
For me the difference is the literature and how they work the steps. NA has a book for it and it made it easy for someone like me with a confused brain to work the steps.
I had a hard time understanding the Big Book. People told me I was making it harder than it was and I was being stubborn and willful.
I read NA literature. It made sense to me. I worked the steps and got clean and sober.
Maybe my brain was too messed up to understand the language of the Big book. Reading it made me feel stupid and resentful. Reading NA Basic Text made me feel like I belong.
For me the difference is the literature and how they work the steps. NA has a book for it and it made it easy for someone like me with a confused brain to work the steps.
Life the gift of recovery!
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Home is where the heart is
Posts: 7,061
Thank you for this thread. I have learned a lot from it. This is actually quite close to a topic several of my friends and I have been talking about lately.
I am someone who considers myself an alcoholic not an addict. I have several friends, including my partner, who identify as addicts/alcoholics. I have never had any interest in any substances except alcohol. Pot interfered with my drinking as it made me sleepy so I could not stay up and drink more so it was not something I liked after trying it a couple of times. I was always afraid of medications because of my medical background. The couple of times I did try pills I did not like the effects they had. None of those things made me feel like alcohol did so they did not hold my interest. Even at 6 months of sobriety, when I was prescribed a daily opiate pain medication while recovering from a serious motor vehicle accident, I never developed the obsession for the pills like I had for alcohol. Of course my body did develop an addiction to them and I experienced physical withdrawals from them when I decided that it was time to stop them before the doctor recommended it but all that did was reinforce to me that I never wanted to take that type of medication again unless absolutely necessary and for sure not for recreation. For me alcohol was my obsession when I stopped it I even lost my desire for cigarettes and stopped smoking them at the same time I quit drinking and was a 3-4 pack a day smoker at the time. I just went cold turkey as I no longer wanted them once I quit drinking. Before I found long term sobriety through AA I had several dry spells but during them I did not turn to other substances even though they were readily available, they just did not interest me.
My friends that consider themselves addicts/alcoholics on the other hand are just the opposite. They would pick up whatever substance that would help them escape reality be it cocaine, pot, pills, alcohol, or whatever. Anytime they tried to stop drinking prior to finding long term sobriety through AA they would pick up a different substance to fill the void that alcohol left. They are very careful about what medications the will let a doctor prescribe for them in sobriety because they know their history and are concerned about addiction. We definitely see drugs from very different perspectives. They see alcohol through the "a drug is a drug is a drug" lens. These friends have attended both NA and AA in the past but now only use AA. Because they view alcohol as their primary addiction they use AA as their primary recovery program rather than attending NA.
After reading through this thread I have a better understanding of where my friends are coming from. I also have learned a bit about the NA program. Thanks for starting it and thank you to those who have shared.
I am someone who considers myself an alcoholic not an addict. I have several friends, including my partner, who identify as addicts/alcoholics. I have never had any interest in any substances except alcohol. Pot interfered with my drinking as it made me sleepy so I could not stay up and drink more so it was not something I liked after trying it a couple of times. I was always afraid of medications because of my medical background. The couple of times I did try pills I did not like the effects they had. None of those things made me feel like alcohol did so they did not hold my interest. Even at 6 months of sobriety, when I was prescribed a daily opiate pain medication while recovering from a serious motor vehicle accident, I never developed the obsession for the pills like I had for alcohol. Of course my body did develop an addiction to them and I experienced physical withdrawals from them when I decided that it was time to stop them before the doctor recommended it but all that did was reinforce to me that I never wanted to take that type of medication again unless absolutely necessary and for sure not for recreation. For me alcohol was my obsession when I stopped it I even lost my desire for cigarettes and stopped smoking them at the same time I quit drinking and was a 3-4 pack a day smoker at the time. I just went cold turkey as I no longer wanted them once I quit drinking. Before I found long term sobriety through AA I had several dry spells but during them I did not turn to other substances even though they were readily available, they just did not interest me.
My friends that consider themselves addicts/alcoholics on the other hand are just the opposite. They would pick up whatever substance that would help them escape reality be it cocaine, pot, pills, alcohol, or whatever. Anytime they tried to stop drinking prior to finding long term sobriety through AA they would pick up a different substance to fill the void that alcohol left. They are very careful about what medications the will let a doctor prescribe for them in sobriety because they know their history and are concerned about addiction. We definitely see drugs from very different perspectives. They see alcohol through the "a drug is a drug is a drug" lens. These friends have attended both NA and AA in the past but now only use AA. Because they view alcohol as their primary addiction they use AA as their primary recovery program rather than attending NA.
After reading through this thread I have a better understanding of where my friends are coming from. I also have learned a bit about the NA program. Thanks for starting it and thank you to those who have shared.
Member
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 861
I prefer NA, but it's great that they are both available.
Maybe I live where there is a well-established NA community. At NA meetings, I see lots of people with many clean years (10 to 25 years is typical in some meetings). And lots of older people (as well as younger people). At some meetings I am one of the youngest members (in my 40's).
AA seems more Christian, especially ending with the Lord's Prayer. NA seems spiritual but not Christian.
The main NA book says that they don't care what or how much people used. Maybe that is why I hear so few 'war stories' in NA meetings (and only once did I hear a long, off-topic share). The meetings seem primarily focused on recovery.
I feel self-conscious at NA meetings since my DOC was alcohol, but I like the idea that addiction is addiction and that the substance doesn't matter. That fits for me.
AA & NA books are very different.
Obviously, there are similarities also.
Maybe I live where there is a well-established NA community. At NA meetings, I see lots of people with many clean years (10 to 25 years is typical in some meetings). And lots of older people (as well as younger people). At some meetings I am one of the youngest members (in my 40's).
AA seems more Christian, especially ending with the Lord's Prayer. NA seems spiritual but not Christian.
The main NA book says that they don't care what or how much people used. Maybe that is why I hear so few 'war stories' in NA meetings (and only once did I hear a long, off-topic share). The meetings seem primarily focused on recovery.
I feel self-conscious at NA meetings since my DOC was alcohol, but I like the idea that addiction is addiction and that the substance doesn't matter. That fits for me.
AA & NA books are very different.
Obviously, there are similarities also.
Currently Active Users Viewing this Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
