|
Post by soberinmi on Jul 4, 2018 15:23:27 GMT -5
All:
I want to comment on the above-mentioned article written by Buddy T and updated in May 2018.
I strongly disagree with your permissive attitude towards Tradition Three and the discussion of drug addicts and the admission of drug addicts at closed meetings and so does Dr. Paul:
I agree that alcohol is a drug and a narcotic, being that alcohol is mood altering. But alcoholism is officially not within the scope of N/A membership ( see N/A Bulletin # 13) and Traditions Three, Five, and Ten say that drugs are not a part of AA. If N/A were honest, its scope of membership would indicate that it is for illicit drug users. Nicotine is a legal drug as well as alcohol, but neither are within the scope of N/A membership.
If you want to understand and properly interpret the Third Tradition, you gotta go to the long and forgotten form from which the short form is condensed. The long form says that AA is for “alcoholics”, people with an alcohol problem, and nothing else. Bill W. was short-sighted in so many ways including here giving a back door to N/As with the mere and deceptive “desire to stop drinking”; N/A makes a of point of telling its members that alcohol is a drug, so wanting to stop drinking is a drug addict's back door in to AA. Actually, N/A preaches that alcohol is a drug to warn about substitution.
The long and forgotten form of Tradition Five by itself holds that AA has a “singleness of purpose” that only includes alcoholism.
Both the long and short forms of Tradition Ten indicate that AA has no opinion on outsides issues where helping drug addicts recover from drug addiction is an outside issue.
AA is a program of rigorous honesty, so a drug addict without an actual alcohol problem can’t work Step One. Many will dishonestly claim to be cross-addicted in order to be accepted in AA while others boldly proclaim their arrogance by only identifying as an “addict.” I have listened to one well respected person tell his story at an “open talk” or speakers meeting, but he only mentioned alcohol once at the beginning of his story, therefore he was only powerless over his drug addiction speaking of it at great length and giving into his urge to profusely use profanity at a women’s meeting and in violation of the rules of the Alano club where the meeting was held which he was a director of. The same person at another meeting studying the short-form of the Third Tradition was heard by me to whine in his booming voice about some old timer well in the past telling him that he, as a drug addict, doesn’t belong in AA, and the old timer was right.
I don’t know how many times I have heard an old timer say he doesn’t know why AA works. What about Bill and Bob's first meeting? Alcoholics can best understand or identify with another alcoholic. Drug addiction as addressed in N/A is an illegal habit that spawns a lot of risky, dishonest, and unlawful behavior far greater than that of an alcoholic and effects the people suffering from the slow progression of alcoholism differently frog the decidedly quick progression of drug addiction and its different effect on the body so alcoholics can’t identify with the progression and effects of drug addiction. So how is a newcomer going to see himself in a drug addict and feel that he is not alone in his addiction? He can't sufficiently to make it work!
Sunday I was at an AA “open talk.” The young kid claiming 6 years sobriety apologized profusely in the beginning for the drug stories he was about to tell. When his story turned to all drugs, I walked out where I waited for the friend I gave a ride to. One AA friend came out of the meeting to take a smoke break to get away from all the drug talk and another simply left which is what I wanted to do. As an AA member I had the right to be in the meeting and the right to expect that it would be an AA meeting in substance and form. Even if I had stayed in the meeting I would have gotten nothing out of the meeting. And in the end, despite the fact that this kid just admitted in words and actions to having thrown the principles of the AA program out of the window, he got a standing ovation louder than any I have very heard in my 29 years.
Dr. Paul, whose story is told in the BIG Book under Doctor, Alcoholic, Addict (Third Edition) and Acceptance was the Answer (Fourth Edition) and in the AA GrapeVine, agrees that drugs have no place in AA:
Dr. Paul: I think the story makes clear the truth that an alcoholic can also be an addict, and indeed that an alcoholic has a constitutional right to have as many problems as he wants! But I also think that if you're not an alcoholic, being an addict doesn't make you one. The way I see it, an alcoholic is a person who can't drink and who can't use drugs, and an addict is a person who can't use drugs and can't drink. But that doesn't mean that every AA meeting has to be open to a discussion of drugs if it doesn't want to. Every meeting has the right to say it doesn't want drugs discussed.
People who want to discuss drugs have other places where they can go to talk about that. And AA is very open to living the Steps and Traditions to other groups who want to use them. I know this from my own experience, because I wrote to the General Service Office and got permission to start Pills Anonymous and Chemical Dependency Anonymous. I did that when I was working in the field of chemical dependency. We started groups but I didn't go to them because I get everything I need from AA. I don't have any trouble staying away from talking about drugs, and I never introduce myself as an alcoholic/addict. I'm annoyed -- or maybe irritated is a better word -- by the people who keep insisting that AA should broaden to include drugs and addictions other than alcohol. In fact I hear it said that AA should change its name to Addicts Anonymous. I find that a very narrow-minded view based on people's personal opinions and not on good sense.
“An Interview With the Author of ‘Doctor, Alcoholic, Addict’”, AA GrapeVine, July 1995; available at: westbalto.a-1associates.com/LETTERS%20ETC/drpaulsinterview.htm.
I disagree with the idea that each group should decide for itself whether drugs can be discussed. the Traditions are neither suggested or optional. And otherwise, Dr. Paul contradicts this statement by being personally opposed to discussion of drugs at AA meetings
If Dr. Paul, as an addict and alcoholic, can get everything he needs from AA without discussing his drug addiction, who are we to disagree with him?
This posting is by no means intended to be comprehensive or a treatise on the subject, it merely presents the facts and a few observations.
|
|
|
Post by Mark_LA on Jul 4, 2018 16:37:09 GMT -5
Don't know who you are or how you happened onto this tiny, forgotten backwater of the online recovery world, but I must say, you don't sound very "happy, joyous, and free" to me.
Three AA phrases immediately come to mind:
"Love and tolerance of others is our code,"
"Practice these principles in all our affairs," and
"Rule 62."
Clean house, trust God, help others -- can you explain how your above tirade fits in with that fundamental ethic?
If you can carry around this much resentment over such a tiny tempest-in-a-teapot issue, I suggest maybe you need to review the purpose of the 12-Step program of recovery in the first place?
I wish you the best in your recovery.
|
|
|
Post by soberinmi on Jul 4, 2018 17:56:21 GMT -5
For what you saw that wasn't there, in situations like this we tell newcomers to keep coming back, it works if YOU work it.
Thanks for your input.
|
|
|
Post by slimkim on Jul 16, 2018 23:46:14 GMT -5
I agree with you. I have basically ditched AA due to all the drug addicts. We alcoholics aren't usually criminals as well. Unfortunately in my area there is a wide acceptance that alcohol is just a onother drug . Do I want drug addicts as friends who will potentially steal lie and use me? No that is why I believe the two should be kept separate. I love meeting true alcoholics but they seem few and far between. I can relate to their stories.
|
|
|
Post by soberinmi on Jul 17, 2018 16:50:14 GMT -5
I agree with you. I have basically ditched AA due to all the drug addicts. We alcoholics aren't usually criminals as well. Unfortunately in my area there is a wide acceptance that alcohol is just a onother drug . Do I want drug addicts as friends who will potentially steal lie and use me? No that is why I believe the two should be kept separate. I love meeting true alcoholics but they seem few and far between. I can relate to their stories.
I gotta disagree with the criminal part. It is true that the culture of narcotic addiction is far more dishonest, unlawful, more downright risky and debilitating than alcoholism and the progression by comparison is lightening speed, but society has increasingly made alcohol consumption unlawful.
For example, it is illegal in some places to merely be drunk in public, no requirement to be disorderly: public intoxication vs. drunk and disorderly. The mere consumption of alcohol in public is unlawful. In Europe there is no drinking age.
When I served in the U.S. Navy, I had a civilian cop pull me over on a Navy base for what he claimed was an unlawful U turn, he was wrong, and ran a disappointing for him sobriety test merely because he smelled alcohol on my breath. I see lots of people coming in with drunk driving convictions which wasn't a crime when the Big Book was written nor were many of the alcohol related criminal laws that exist today.
The basis for the AA program, what makes it work where others fail, is that an alcoholic can best identify with another, even see themselves, and don't feel alone anymore, etc. Bill W. supported the fact that AA is for alcoholics only, AA's "singleness of purpose", in his pamphlet Problems Other Than Alcohol, but he missed the most important problem is that an alcoholic cannot sufficiently identify or relate to drug addicts, unless he or she is cross addicted, to make the program work. Even if there only one non cross-addicted alcoholic in the room, that person is hurt, robbed of an "AA" meeting, when drug talk comes up in an AA meeting.
It appears that Buddy T overlooked or dismissed Bill W's pamphlet...
Almost forgot to mention that the pamphlet Problems Other Than Alcohol is Conference-approved. The term "'Conference-approved' describes written or audiovisual material approved by the Conference for publication by G.S.O. This process assures that everything in such literature is in accord with A.A. principles. Conference-approved material always deals with the recovery program of Alcoholics Anonymous or with information about the A.A. Fellowship"
|
|
|
Post by slimkim on Jul 17, 2018 21:41:12 GMT -5
I feel more alone when I go to AA. It's like I have to worsen my story to fit in. There was one young drug addict who came to a different meeting and had to keep putting the emphasis on the word when I drink. I had another guy pick me up for meetings who had never drunk. He has since gone back to the drug world. I agree that alcoholics are capable of violence and shoplifting to support their habit. We don't join gangs and kill people to pay off a drug debt. I don't know what the answer is. There are a few old timers around who only drank. Drug addicts pretending to be alcoholics seems to be the way of the future. There are some meetings left with just alcoholics. Once you weren't even allowed to discuss drugs.
|
|
|
Post by slimkim on Jul 17, 2018 21:51:37 GMT -5
I have a brother in law who was addicted to speed. He has been in jail twice and is now in rehab. He doesn't drink. I had to put up with him at AA valiantly declaring he was a alcoholic.
|
|
|
Post by soberinmi on Jul 17, 2018 22:05:28 GMT -5
I can't say I understand why you feel alone, why you don't fit in. Early on I was comparing and not identifying not knowing what that means and I didn't feel like I belonged because I didn't (YET) drink like the others (blackouts didn't count). When I started to identify with the feelings, I realized I was one of "them." You too may be early in your sobriety. You are under no obligation to speak at an AA meeting. Around here where we have table meetings where each table becomes an individual meeting after the opening and everyone is given an opportunity to speak (and often expected to speak), but the word "pass" works. Make friends with a few women and even get a sponsor that you can talk to; get some phone numbers. If you are truly alcoholic, and only you can decide, uniqueness is fatal. Repeat, uniqueness is fatal! Find a woman's meeting where you can feel more at home.
I believe that the courts are part of the problem with alcoholic and nonalcoholic drug addicts attending AA meetings and sharing about their drug experience in detail; I can live with a short reference to drug use or be a little patient, tolerant, and understanding. Some would argue not.
|
|
|
Post by slimkim on Jul 17, 2018 23:40:12 GMT -5
Thanks soberinima. I will keep working on it.
|
|
|
Post by Dana on Aug 3, 2018 9:07:19 GMT -5
Hi soberinmi - I wanted to respond to a statement you made in another thread; I copied it into this thread because it goes with the discussion you started about the article BuddyT wrote.
"I found my way here responding to an article by Buddy T on another website directing responses be posted here. He seems to ignore the Traditions and sympathize with nonalcoholic drug addicts in AA..."
I disagree. I read the article you're referring to and it doesn't look to me like he's "ignoring the traditions" at all. Looks to me like an introduction to Tradition 3 and then some excerpts ("observations") from visitors to the site.
Personally, drugs are not part of my story and I don't relate to some of the things that drug addicts go through.. which is why I don't go to NA meetings. But I would understand if an alcoholic really needed a meeting and NA was the only thing available they might choose to go there and be among people in recovery.
There's a step study meeting I used to attend regularly, I loved it! Then I hadn't been in a long time (the meeting moved across town, I got busy, yada yada yada) and the next time I went there was a woman in there who identifies as an addict, not even alcoholic/addict.. just addict. It's an open meeting and all are welcome and in the secretary script it even says "all are welcome" and it goes on to say that "we do, however, ask that only sober alcoholics share" so I'm thinking well, she probably just really needs a meeting and she's here to listen. There are al-anon members who are not alcoholic who come to open meetings to listen too. No biggie. However, when it came time for the sharing portion of the meeting - much to my surprise - this woman shared about her drug addiction and recovery from it. It made me uncomfortable but nobody else in the room seemed to mind it. So I tried to have an open mind and practice love and tolerance but I don't go to that meeting much anymore.
I think of tradition 4 which states that each group should be autonomous except in matters affecting other groups or AA as a whole. I'm not sure that this group's decision to allow the drug discussion affects other groups or AA as a whole (?) I don't know. Maybe. And maybe the group conscious will change over time, depending on the mix of people who attend. Nobody is in charge; there is but one ultimate authority, a loving god as he may express himself in our group conscious (tradition 2).
I can just imagine the vein popping out on your forehead when I tell you this next part though... when I attended that meeting again a month or so later... the woman who identifies as an addict is now secretarying the meeting. Oh how I was offended and put off by that!! I haven't been back. And I am conflicted. Am I doing a dis-service to AA by not saying something? On the other hand, who am I to judge? Do I really want to get that involved? Or do I just want to remember Rule 62 and not take myself so seriously? Resentments, some say, are the number one offender.
|
|
|
Post by soberinmi on Aug 3, 2018 11:12:53 GMT -5
I disagree. I read the article you're referring to and it doesn't look to me like he's "ignoring the traditions" at all. Looks to me like an introduction to Tradition 3 and then some excerpts ("observations") from visitors to the site. I can just imagine the vein popping out on your forehead when I tell you this next part though... when I attended that meeting again a month or so later... the woman who identifies as an addict is now secretarying the meeting. Oh how I was offended and put off by that!! I haven't been back. And I am conflicted. Am I doing a dis-service to AA by not saying something? On the other hand, who am I to judge? Do I really want to get that involved? Or do I just want to remember Rule 62 and not take myself so seriously? Resentments, some say, are the number one offender.
An imagination is God-given and useful, but yours is not accurate here. The long form of Tradition Three says that AA is to include all who are alcoholic. The long form of Tradition Five speaks of AA's "singleness of purpose", a debate ender unto itself. Both forms of Tradition Ten says that AA has no opinion on outside issues including drugs other than alcohol. Even NA agrees with this in Bulletin # 13. Did you read it? On point: (Dr.) Paul complained in an interview with A.A. Grapevine that the story might have "overshot the mark." One of the most uncomfortable things for him was people run up to him at a meeting and tell him how glad they are the story is in the book. "They say they were fighting with their home group because their home group won't let them talk about drugs. So they show their group the story and they say, 'By God, now you'll have to let me talk about drugs.' And I really hate to see the story as a divisive thing. I don't think we came to A.A. to fight each other."Dr. Paul's Interview (above) -Dr. Paul's story 'Doctor, Alcoholic, Addict' was published in the Third Edition of the Big Book; his remarks on acceptance, which appear on pages 449 and 450, have been helpful to many AA members over the years. This interview was conducted by telephone to Dr. Paul's home in California. The reading Acceptance comes from Dr. Paul’s story. Factually Tradition Four doesn't support nonalcoholic drug addicts at closed AA meetings and drug talk at any AA meetings. Bill W. says in his pamphlet Problems other than Alcohol: " It has also been learned that there is no possible way to make nonalcoholics into A.A. members. We have to confine our membership to alcoholics, and we have to confine our A.A. 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 (italics in original, underlining added)." Groups and individuals get away with violating the Traditions because AA has decided there should be no consequences: "We believe that the spirit of democracy in our Fellowship and in our world service structure will always survive, despite the counter forces which will no doubt continue to beat upon us. Fortunately we are not obliged to maintain a government that enforces conformity by inflicting punishments. We need to maintain only a structure of service that holds aloft our Traditions, that forms and executes our policies thereunder, and so steadily carries our message to those who suffer." The A.A. Service Manual Combined With Twelve Concepts for World Service A.A., pg. 22. Adding my own 2 cents, an alcoholic can best identify with another alcoholic. In other words, it takes one to know one or you must walk a mile in an alcoholic’s shoes before judging him/her. It is that shared experience, the camaraderie, the understanding that another alcoholic brings that makes AA work and the reason Bill and Bob got together in 1935. Anybody know when parking lot sobriety began? Regardless, because illicit drug use is far different from alcohol use, I can’t identify with drug talk at meetings and neither can the non-drug addicted alcoholic newcomer; alcoholism has a longer and generally legal path where illicit drug addiction generally has neither. AA is a program of rigorous honesty meaning that a nonalcoholic drug addict often must falsely identify as an alcoholic or falsely identify as cross addicted and therefore cannot work the AA program as suggested (maybe their own program); they can’t even work AA’s First Step. Regarding Tradition Four, this harms all of AA.
Many groups adopt the following primary purpose statement in their opening that nonalcoholic drug addicts must violate in order to share: "This is a closed meeting of Alcoholics Anonymous. In support of A.A.'s singleness of purpose, attendance at closed meetings is limited to persons who have a desire to stop drinking. If you think you have a problem with alcohol, you are welcome to attend this meeting. We ask that when discussing our problems, we confine ourselves to those problems as they relate to alcoholism (emphasis added)." Or "This is an open meeting of Alcoholics Anonymous. We are glad you are all here — especially newcomers. In keeping with our singleness of purpose and our Third Tradition which states that “The only requirement for A.A. membership is a desire to stop drinking,” we ask that all who participate confine their discussion to their problems with alcohol (emphasis added)." . Finally, Buddy T actually does opine against Tradition Three: "I am no judge to turn anybody away at any time. This is why we have closed meetings. Let's let God do the judging." A Study of Tradition 3: The 12 Traditions of A.A. and Al-Anon. The Third Step tells us that God won't do everything for us, we must put in the legwork: God helps those that help themselves; so saving AA is up to its members!
|
|
|
Post by Dana on Aug 3, 2018 12:48:08 GMT -5
I went to an Al-Anon meeting last night, one that I had not been to before. In the opening, I recall the leader reading aloud something about we understand there are those among us who belong to other 12-step programs but we ask that you come in here without any labels, that for the next hour you maintain your anonymity or something along those lines. I'm doing a bad job of paraphrasing here, but I took it to mean that they don't want me to introduce myself as an alcoholic, which is totally fine by me!! I've been to quite a few Al-Anon meetings but I don't recall hearing this particularly passage at the beginning of any other meeting.
Anyway, the irony was that when we turned to the page in the AlAnon Works book they had left off from the week before, we started reading a story about a sober member of alcoholics anonymous who came to Al-Anon many years later in order to deal with his mother who had become an alcoholic later in life. For me, I felt right at home because I could relate. I got sober in AA and then later went to Al-Anon. While at times when "they" are talking about their qualifier I feel like they are talking about me, and I could see how some would feel like an outsider at Al-Anon - but I know I have plenty of qualifiers of my own and I do belong there because I say so. I don't introduce myself as an AA'er because I go to Al-Anon for a different reason. When I want to talk about my journey in sobriety I go to AA. I can keep them separated during that hour with no problem.
I didn't think much more of the story than that I could relate to some parts of it; and yes, I'm in the right place, until someone brought up the fact that here is a prime example of how conference approved literature directly contradicts the singleness of purpose schpeal that was given at the beginning of the meeting... that we don't say we're alcoholics, yet here is a story in the conference approved AlAnon book that starts out by saying he's an alcoholic! The person who pointed this out went on to say that she would be writing a letter to the general service office about it. Now, I don't think she's going to lose any sleep over it, but she feels strongly about it and is doing what she feels is right. And maybe something will come of it and maybe something won't.
We want the hand of AA always to be there, and for that I am responsible. As a member of AA, I do feel an obligation here and yes, this addict situation does bother me. I struggle with the "how" though... what exactly am *I* supposed to do about it. I'm genuinely interested in how you have handled a situation like this in your experience, in your own words. What did you do? After all, we "ask" that participants confine their discussions to alcohol... we don't "demand" it. If the individual doesn't respect our traditions enough to oblige, that's on them. Old-timers or sponsors might say something to the person after the meeting in a non-confrontational way... like, hey we care about you and you're welcome to listen in these open meetings but it's really disrespectful to go on and on about your drug problem in here, this is an AA meeting, and re-iterate our singleness of purpose, etc. etc. Beyond that, what can one do?
|
|
|
Post by soberinmi on Aug 3, 2018 21:16:25 GMT -5
We want the hand of AA always to be there, and for that I am responsible. As a member of AA, I do feel an obligation here and yes, this addict situation does bother me. I struggle with the "how" though... what exactly am *I* supposed to do about it. I'm genuinely interested in how you have handled a situation like this in your experience, in your own words. What did you do? After all, we "ask" that participants confine their discussions to alcohol... we don't "demand" it. If the individual doesn't respect our traditions enough to oblige, that's on them. Old-timers or sponsors might say something to the person after the meeting in a non-confrontational way... like, hey we care about you and you're welcome to listen in these open meetings but it's really disrespectful to go on and on about your drug problem in here, this is an AA meeting, and re-iterate our singleness of purpose, etc. etc. Beyond that, what can one do? There's the rub. The General Service Conference hamstrung AA to never enforcing the Traditions or any other rules with its 1962 adoption of the Twelve Concepts of World Service, though a year ago World Services sued the owner of the printer's copy of the First Edition of the Big Book because Bill was too egotistical to turn it over to AA for its archives, not even for 100% of the royalties, an issue for another time, because AA let that manuscript slip between its fingers after Bill's death.
Drug addicts hiding out in AA are far too entrenched to be gotten rid of, and the truly cross addicted selfishly have no problem with it because they can identify with drug behavior never selflessly thinking about those who cannot identify with it and dismissing Bill's pamphlet Problems other than Alcohol. And then you have the large number of middle and higher bottoms who don't feel the need to work the AA program "rigorously." It doesn't help that Bill compromised and condensed the long form of the Traditions into the short form. I am of the opinion that because of this and for other reasons, that Bill was never a forward thinker. He never imagined that anybody would question that Alcoholics Anonymous is for anything other than alcoholics. He even wrote about the short form of the Traditions in the 12&12 rather than the more authoritative long form thus undermining the long form.
Old timers don't get the respect that they used to. I don't see a purge of nonalcoholic drug addicts from AA in the foreseeable future. AA will either slowly collapse as Bill predicts or AA will slip into mediocrity.
Does God have other plans for AA? I don't know. But that is the only place I see grass roots changes or a return to AA's core coming from.
Maybe we can reach mediocrity quicker by merging with NA; NA is pretty mediocre now, that's why so many nonalcoholic drug addicts cross over.
|
|