The following article is reprinted with permission from NEWSLINE, the Narcotics Anonymous World Service Newsletter. It is a statement issued by the Board of Trustees of Narcotics Anonymous:
The question of just how Narcotics Anonymous relates to all other fellowships and organizations is one which generates a good deal of controversy within our fellowship. In spite of the fact that we have a stated policy of "cooperation, not affiliation" with outside organizations, much confusion remains. The most sensitive issue of this nature involves our relationship to the Fellowship of Alcoholics Anonymous. A constant stream of letters is received by the World Service Board of Trustees asking a variety of questions about this relationship. The time has come for another Newsline article to shed some light on this important subject.
Narcotics Anonymous is modeled after, though not identical to, Alcoholics Anonymous. Nearly every NA community in existence has leaned to some degree on AA in the group's formative stages. Our relationship with that fellowship over the years has been very real and dynamic. Our fellowship itself sprang from the turmoil within AA over what to do with the addicts knocking on their door. So we will look at those roots for some perspective on our current relationship to AA.
Bill W., one of the AA co-founders, often said that one of AA's greatest strengths is it's single-minded focus on one thing and one thing only. By limiting its primary purpose to carrying the message to alcoholics, avoiding all other activities, AA is able to do that one thing supremely well. The atmosphere of identification is preserved by that purity of focus, and alcoholics get help.
From very early on, AA was confronted by a perplexing problem: "What do we do with drug addicts? We want to keep our focus on alcohol so the alcoholic hears the message, but these addicts come in here talking about drugs, inadvertently weakening our atmosphere of identification." The steps were written, the Big Book was written. What were they supposed to do, re-write it all? Allow the atmosphere of identification to get blurry so that no one got a clear sense of belonging? Kick these dying people back out into the street? The problem must have been a tremendous one for them.
When they finally studied the problem carefully and took a stand in their literature, the solution they outlined possessed their characteristic common sense and wisdom. They said that while they cannot accept addicts who are not alcoholics as members, they freely offer their steps and traditions for adaptation by any groups who wish to use them. They pledge their support in a spirit of "cooperation, not affiliation". This far-sighted solution to a difficult problem paved the way for the development of the Narcotics Anonymous Fellowship.
But still the problem that they wished to avoid would have to be addressed by any group who tried to adapt those principles to drug addicts. How do you achieve the atmosphere of identification so necessary for surrender and recovery if you let all different kinds of addicts in? Can someone with a heroin problem relate to someone with an alcohol or marijuana or Valium problem? How will you ever achieve the unity that the First Tradition says is necessary for recovery? Our fellowship inherited a tough dilemma.
For some perspective on how we have handled that dilemma, one more look at AA history will be helpful.
Another thing Bill W. used to frequently write and speak about was what he called the "tenstrike" of AA-the wording of the Third and Eleventh Steps. The whole area of spirituality vs. religion was every bit as perplexing for them in those days as this unity issue has been for us. Bill liked to recount that the simple addition of the words "as we understood Him" after the word "God" laid to rest that controversy in one chop. An issue that had the potential to divide and destroy AA was converted into the cornerstone of the program by the simple turn of a phrase.
As the founders of Narcotics Anonymous adapted our steps, they came up with a "tenstrike" of perhaps equal importance. Rather than converting the First Step in the most natural logical way ("We admitted that we were powerless over drugs...") they made a radical change in that step. They wrote, "We admitted we were powerless over our addiction..." Drugs are a varied group of substances, because each of us used a different drug of combination of drugs. The one thing that we all share is the disease of addiction. It was a masterful stroke. With that single turn of a phrase the foundation of the Narcotics Anonymous Fellowship was laid.
Our First Step gives us one thing to focus on, so we can do that one thing supremely well. We carry the message to the addict who still suffers. As a bonus, this wording of Step One also takes on the focus of our powerlessness off the symptom and places it on the disease itself. The phrase "powerless over a drug" does not go far enough for most of us in ongoing recovery-the desire to use has been removed--but "powerless over our addiction" is as relevant to the oldtimer as it is to the newcomer. Our addiction begins to resurface and cause problems in our thoughts and feelings whenever we become complacent in our program of recovery. This process has nothing to do with "drug of choice". We guard against the recurrence of our drug use by reapplying our spiritual principles before our disease takes us that far. So our First Step applies regardless of drug of choice, and regardless of length of clean time. With this "tenstrike" as its foundation, NA has begun to flourish as a major worldwide movement, clearly appropriate to contemporary addiction problems. And we've only just begun.
As any given NA community matures in its understanding of its own principles (particularly Step One), an interesting fact emerges. The AA perspective, with its alcohol oriented language, and the NA approach, with its clear need to shift the focus off the specific drug, don't mix very well. When we try to mix them, we find that we have the same problem as AA had with us all along! When our members identify as "addicts and alcoholics", or talk about "sobriety" and living "clean and sober", the clarity of the NA message is blurred. The implication in this language is that there are two diseases, that one drug is separate from the pack, so that a separate set of terms is needed when discussing it. At first glance this seems minor, but our experience clearly shows that the full impact of the NA message is crippled by this subtle semantic confusion.
It has become clear that our common identification, our unity, and our full surrender as addicts depend on a clear understanding of our most basic fundamentals: We are powerless over a disease that gets progressively worse when we use any drug. It does not matter what drug was at the center when we got here. Any drug we use will release our disease all over again. We recover from this disease by applying our Twelve Steps. Our steps are uniquely worded to carry this message clearly, so the rest of our language of recovery must be consistent with those steps. Ironically, we cannot mix these fundamental principles with those of our parent fellowship without crippling our own message.
Does this mean that AA's approach is inferior to ours, and based on denial or half measures? Of course not! A casual, cursory glance at their success in delivering recovery to alcoholics over the years makes it abundantly clear: theirs is a top notch program. Their literature, their service structure, the quality of their members' recovery, their sheer numbers, the respect they enjoy from society, these things speak for themselves. Our members ought not embarrass us by adopting a "we're better than them" posture. That can only be counterproductive.
The simple fact is that both fellowships have a Sixth Tradition for a reason--to keep from being diverted from our primary purpose. Because of the inherent need of a Twelve Step fellowship to focus on "one thing and one thing only so that it can do that one thing supremely well", each Twelve Step fellowship must stand alone, unaffiliated with everything else. It is in our nature to be separate, to feel separate, and use a separate set of recovery terms, because we each have a separate, unique primary purpose. The focus of AA is on the alcoholic, and we ought to respect their perfect right to adhere to their own traditions and protect that focus. If we cannot use language consistent with that, we ought not go to their meetings and undermine that atmosphere. In the same way, NA members ought to respect our own primary purpose and identify ourselves at NA meetings as addicts, and share in a way that keeps our fundamentals clear.
As a fellowship, we must continue to strive to move forward by not stubbornly clinging to one radical extreme or the other. Our members who have been unintentionally blurring the NA message by using drug-specific language such as "sobriety, alcoholic, , clean and sober, dope fiend", etc. could help by identifying simply and clearly as addicts, and using the words, "clean, clean time, and recovery" which imply no particular substance. And we all could help by referring to only our own literature at meetings, thereby avoiding any implied endorsement or affiliation. Our principles stand on their own. For the sake of our development as a fellowship and the personal recovery of our members, "our approach to the problem of addiction" must shine through clearly in what we say and do at meetings.
Our members who have used these sound arguments to rationalize an anti-AA stand, thereby alienating many badly needed stable members, would do well to reevaluate, and consider the effects of that kind of behavior. Narcotics Anonymous is a spiritual fellowship. Love, tolerance, patience and
In article <32A4CCBC.1...@datasync.com>, Jim Smitherman
<j...@datasync.com> writes: >xanax is another benzodiazepine, more solid alchohol. staying sober is >my single purpose. i can't take benzo's, smoke dope, etc, and be sober. >it's a very very single purpose.
Well, Jim, you're certainly right about the fact that I'll never convince you of anything.
Too bad your very single purpose has nothing to do with the AA program.
And that's one reason why alcoholics sometimes feel very frustrated about the dopers who come in and mess up their SIMPLE program. Solid alcohol. Wow. And I spent all those years just drinking it.
> In article <32A4CCBC.1...@datasync.com>, Jim Smitherman > <j...@datasync.com> writes:
> >xanax is another benzodiazepine, more solid alchohol. staying sober is > >my single purpose. i can't take benzo's, smoke dope, etc, and be sober. > >it's a very very single purpose.
> Well, Jim, you're certainly right about the fact that I'll never convince > you of anything.
> Too bad your very single purpose has nothing to do with the AA program.
> And that's one reason why alcoholics sometimes feel very frustrated about > the dopers who come in and mess up their SIMPLE program. Solid alcohol. > Wow. And I spent all those years just drinking it.
> Repsychled to Newspeak, in a bedazzled amaze.
my single purpose has to do with keeping me sober. this has nothing to do with AA? well, you are wrong, there are probably many things you could convice me of, I never said 'anything' you put words in my mouth. You won't convince me that I can take pills and be sober. It took too much grief and pain, and loss for me to come to understand that. But, I guess grief pain and loss are alien to most regular ol alchoholics, huh? I don't usually use sarcasm as a rhetorical device, but what the hell.
One thing is clear, it really doesn't matter if you understand this or not. So, good luck with your simplistic program.
> In article <32A4CCBC.1...@datasync.com>, Jim Smitherman > <j...@datasync.com> writes:
> >xanax is another benzodiazepine, more solid alchohol. staying sober is > >my single purpose. i can't take benzo's, smoke dope, etc, and be sober. > >it's a very very single purpose.
> Well, Jim, you're certainly right about the fact that I'll never convince > you of anything.
> Too bad your very single purpose has nothing to do with the AA program.
> And that's one reason why alcoholics sometimes feel very frustrated about > the dopers who come in and mess up their SIMPLE program. Solid alcohol. > Wow. And I spent all those years just drinking it.
> Repsychled to Newspeak, in a bedazzled amaze.
I just know I'm gonna regret this....BUT....
An old fart in AA (I mean he had over thirty years in 1981), told me when I first sobered up that "uppers and downers and all that other happy horseshit" was just alcohol in pill form. The subject came up because I was asking about using drugs after I went to AA (something I had fully intended to do). I thought maybe drugs were okay, see, because after all it's *Alcoholics* Anonymous, right? So, I planned to use a little coke, smoke some pot...you know, to take the edge off...
What I heard from the older members was, "If you're using dope you're not sober." It's what I still believe today. I'm an alcoholic--I didn't use any other drugs pathologically, and every other drug I used (except nicotine) was no problem for me to put down. But alcohol was a constant in my life, no matter what. I don't go into detail about my drug use in AA, beyond mentioning 'dope' in the generic sense. I was taught that anyone--regardless of what 'other' drugs they took--was welcome in AA IF they had a desire to stop drinking. Has that changed? Maybe I missed something...
> > In article <329fa8ce.10740...@news.serv.net>, log...@serv.net wrote:
> > > There is no better or > > > worse time to seek recovery.
> > I beg to differ -- the earlier the better. The closer to bottom you insist > > on having somebody be, the more likely the last bottom he sees is that of a > > casket. I came too close -- and I'm sure that had I known only a couple > > of months before that what I know now about alcoholism and as a result thereof > > entered the program then, which is quite likely, I would have been judged > > to have had about as high a bottom as one can get. Too damn close.
> > Ted L.
> Oh, I don't care for that, Ted. I came into AA eight years before 'I was > ready'. Never, never did anyone even hint that I should go back 'out > there' till I 'hit bottom' and became 'ready.' Everyone, *everyone* said > to just keep coming back...I did...it saved my life!
> Catlin
Hey! I'm curious! How can you narrow it down to 8 years before you were ready?
Best I could ever do is I got here too early and I've stayed too long.
> > In article <329fa8ce.10740...@news.serv.net>, log...@serv.net wrote:
> > > There is no better or > > > worse time to seek recovery.
> > I beg to differ -- the earlier the better. The closer to bottom you insist > > on having somebody be, the more likely the last bottom he sees is that of a > > casket. I came too close -- and I'm sure that had I known only a couple > > of months before that what I know now about alcoholism and as a result thereof > > entered the program then, which is quite likely, I would have been judged > > to have had about as high a bottom as one can get. Too damn close.
> > Ted L.
> Oh, I don't care for that, Ted. I came into AA eight years before 'I was > ready'. Never, never did anyone even hint that I should go back 'out > there' till I 'hit bottom' and became 'ready.' Everyone, *everyone* said > to just keep coming back...I did...it saved my life!
> Catlin
If I could read I might not be so curious! I get it!!
Reading and understanding are 2 different things.....
> if this is not the place for drug abusers to go then where is...i think if > someone has a problem with crack or any hard-core addiction then there > should be a place they can go for support > nick bradfield
THERE IS.. once again it is called Narcotics Anonymous.. IT is not called Alcoholics Anonymous
On 4 Dec 1996 07:31:12 GMT, "C Toby" <ct...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> I was taught that >anyone--regardless of what 'other' drugs they took--was welcome in AA IF >they had a desire to stop drinking. Has that changed? Maybe I missed >something...
;;;;;; rhetorically speaking, of course not. but you know the deal. it's part of the real live brain washing that goes on and gets handed down. progress? forget it. if the truth is bottled, the snapping sound you hear is the brain shutting down. of course anything oral which is ingested a menace to an alcoholic. isn't that the real party line? anything "mind altering" is taboo...and wait, mind altering will be defined by the speaker based on opinion and a few personal anecdotes and a hellfire threat/warning.
.. the actual hazards of valium and pain killers have been expanded to include anything new and the requirement for a desire to stop drinking has never been accepted as the sole requirement by many, far too many AAers. if that were true, much of the discussion here would not take place. you also have to "want what we have" and accept that the problem is not alcohol but intriscally the person, yadayadayada ya. a simple (if i may borrow that word) indicator of these mind capturing beliefs is the emotion that it arouses. cool people become inflamed and indignant and begin ridiculing others wrongheaded and imputed motivations.
i wish there were another act to this play. the reruns both in meetings and in this ng are numbing. facts are that there is medication, specifically engineered (not discovered through herbal experimentation) which deals with the brain but is not mind altering (in the sense of alcohol or even valium, painkilllers, etc). it works. people who experience unconsciousnable and incomphrehensible demoralization through depression can return to life. aa fanatics are opposed because it fits somehow into their little category of taboos for an alcoholic and arouses emotions, not facts. hostility, not understanding. reruns, reruns.
AA has hypocrites who think that as long as they show they aren't taking a drink, they can practice their hypocracy and justify it. whatever. when "it works" flies back in their face, they get pissed. you know all that. the question for most is that given those arrogant, know it all, uninformed (and not wanting to be informed) people in AA, is it still worth hanging around? some would have one believe that sans meetings, most get drunk (no one can know that of course, but that's not the point). the point is to scare the vulnerable trusting souls into submission so that these self appointed medical and "spiritual" prophets can keep an audience for themselves.
it's why some people can make a case for cultism in AA. some people and damn they are vocal, can take AA (or anything, I suppose) to extremes, argumentum ad horrendum. it doesn't meet some academic criteria (such as a personal leader) but it's BB fanatics qualify as a group as a leader function. Fanaticism is not required for sobriety but some would have you believe, of course, it is.
on the other hand, i suppose some people need to be fanatic. giving up fanaticism for drink leaves a hole. so the fanaticism is transferred, i guess. maybe the "message" is get sober and get out quick and get on with life....
>On Mon, 02 Dec 1996 09:37:16 -0500, in alt.recovery.aa >Richard Davidson><davic...@concentric.net> posted: >That is what AA was founded on, that is why I attend and that is >why I desparatly seek to find the old timers in the fellowship, >who have gone off on their own to get away from the wanna-bes, >the alanons, the joiners and the fucking whiners. >IMHO Richard D.
Seems pretty obvious that you do your fair share of whining -- only from a different perspective.
> repsych...@aol.com wrote in article > <19961204064900.BAA25...@ladder01.news.aol.com>... > > In article <32A4CCBC.1...@datasync.com>, Jim Smitherman > > <j...@datasync.com> writes:
> > >xanax is another benzodiazepine, more solid alchohol. staying sober is > > >my single purpose. i can't take benzo's, smoke dope, etc, and be sober. > > >it's a very very single purpose.
> > Well, Jim, you're certainly right about the fact that I'll never convince > > you of anything.
> > Too bad your very single purpose has nothing to do with the AA program.
> > And that's one reason why alcoholics sometimes feel very frustrated about > > the dopers who come in and mess up their SIMPLE program. Solid alcohol. > > Wow. And I spent all those years just drinking it.
> > Repsychled to Newspeak, in a bedazzled amaze.
> I just know I'm gonna regret this....BUT....
> An old fart in AA (I mean he had over thirty years in 1981), told me when I > first sobered up that "uppers and downers and all that other happy > horseshit" was just alcohol in pill form. The subject came up because I was > asking about using drugs after I went to AA (something I had fully intended > to do). I thought maybe drugs were okay, see, because after all it's > *Alcoholics* Anonymous, right? So, I planned to use a little coke, smoke > some pot...you know, to take the edge off...
> What I heard from the older members was, "If you're using dope you're not > sober." It's what I still believe today. I'm an alcoholic--I didn't use any > other drugs pathologically, and every other drug I used (except nicotine) > was no problem for me to put down. But alcohol was a constant in my life, > no matter what. I don't go into detail about my drug use in AA, beyond > mentioning 'dope' in the generic sense. I was taught that > anyone--regardless of what 'other' drugs they took--was welcome in AA IF > they had a desire to stop drinking. Has that changed? Maybe I missed > something...
> Carla
no you haven't missed anything. I had much the same atittude as you when I got to AA, in 1980. I was told much the same thing. I didn't listen to anything but the 'alchohol' part, unlike you. 7 years 'sobriety' after that, I got drunk again. Still didn't listen to anything but the 'alcholhol' thing, despite being told, by members and the BB, which also calls tranquilizers 'alchohol in pill form', got drunk again 5 years after that . . . still didn't listen to anything except the alchohol thing . . got drunk again last december . . . each of these drunks was incredibly destructive, deadly close. These arguments about substance and effects, and traditions and all that, so silly. I'm talking about living, dying.
AA and NA are a peoples separated by a common language.
alright, I'll grant that it's a 'proper question':
catlin77 wrote:
> On what, for God's sake? Truly, this is a proper question. Is it, by > any chance, about the 'drug issue?' If so, my stance on that issue is > not a 'personal opinion.'
yes, it is, it's your own personal interpretation. it's an opinion, and it's based on ignorance, the most dangerous kind of opinion. still, you are entitled to it.
> I get my information from our >literature...so, > disagree with the literature, if that is the issue you disagree with.
this is merely a conceit. The issue is sobriety or death. Your simplistic interpretations of 'the literature' would kill me, if I were to REadopt them. I don't have two separate diseases, I have one disease, which I aim to not die from. In the face of my own destruction, your puny arguments pale.
> Catlin > PS 'If' that is the issue, which I'm pretty sure it is then the proper > way to put your remark is, "...there are alcoholics, 'real' ones, who > disagree with the principles of Alcoholics Anonymous. Me for one." > Sounds better, eh?
that's incredibly naive, and supremely arrogant. There is no substance there whatever. The proper way to put my remark was the way I put it. Try again.
> > if this is not the place for drug abusers to go then where is...i think if > > someone has a problem with crack or any hard-core addiction then there > > should be a place they can go for support > > nick bradfield
> THERE IS.. once again it is called Narcotics Anonymous.. IT is not > called Alcoholics Anonymous
oh, I don't know, I was at a meeting of Alchoholics Anonymous yesterday evening, one of the topics was specifically valium and vicodin, about how they can be totally destructive of sobriety. This one guy only called himself an addict (not me, I call myself an 'alchoholic'). No one got up and left the meeting, nor did anyone ask him to leave. Neither did lightening strike the group, albeit we were apparently destroying the holy of holies, the traditions. I say, if you meet the 12 traditions on the road, kill them.
DNUSK...@concentric.net(dave) wrote: >ad-dict (n. ad'ikt; v. uh dikt') n., v. <-dict-ed, -dict-ing> n. > 1. one who is addicted to a substance, > activity, or habit. > v.t. > 2. to cause to become physiologically or > psychologically dependent on an > addictive substance, as alcohol or a > narcotic. > 3. to habituate or abandon (oneself) to > something compulsively or obsessively. > [1520-30; < L addictus assigned, surrendered, ptp. > of addicere = ad- AD - + dicere to fix, determine] >My news reader limits me on being able to highlight words or phrases,
but I'm sure you know what words and phrases would be highlighted above. I feel that turning away any addict away from any meeting dealing with dependency and recovery is the same as turning your back on your own kind.
I think we agree that if one is addicted to alcohol, then one can be considered an addict; therefore all addicts can relate to some common ground.
However, there are many of us, myself included, who were NOT Addicted to Alcohol, but yet are alcoholic due to a biological nature or predisposition that makes it completely UNSAFE to take even one drink.
I have shared this before. But I have never been addicted to a substance; however, the first time I drank a glass of wine, I was completely unable and unaware of the fact that I could not stop until I passed out. The Very First Time!!! Granted, it gets worse, and addiction is the end result, but in the last three years of my drinking, I actually went 11 months without a drink, then decided to have one drink as I was celebrating out with friends on New Year's Eve. I ended up in bed with some guy I didn't know, woke up with a bucket of puke next to me, and to this day have no recollection of about a four hour block of time that night.
This experience is not indicative of an Addiction. For me this is the crux of the problem. Many alcoholics just simply cannot drink like other people, and NEVER could even from the first sip.
It is not that I consider myself to be a "better" alcoholic. The ONLY reason for my insistance on making a point, is that the mind set that alcoholics are always addicts is Completely not true. I worry about a newcomer who doesn't get it if we adopt this attitude. It certainly isn't part of the traditions. The only requirement for membership is a desire to stop drinking.
Jim Smitherman <j...@datasync.com> wrote: >repsych...@aol.com wrote:
>> In article <32A4CCBC.1...@datasync.com>, Jim Smitherman >> <j...@datasync.com> writes:
>> >xanax is another benzodiazepine, more solid alchohol. staying sober is >> >my single purpose. i can't take benzo's, smoke dope, etc, and be sober. >> >it's a very very single purpose.
>> Well, Jim, you're certainly right about the fact that I'll never convince >> you of anything.
>> Too bad your very single purpose has nothing to do with the AA program.
>> And that's one reason why alcoholics sometimes feel very frustrated about >> the dopers who come in and mess up their SIMPLE program. Solid alcohol. >> Wow. And I spent all those years just drinking it.
>> Repsychled to Newspeak, in a bedazzled amaze. >my single purpose has to do with keeping me sober. this has nothing to >do with AA? well, you are wrong, there are probably many things you >could convice me of, I never said 'anything' you put words in my mouth. >You won't convince me that I can take pills and be sober. It took too >much grief and pain, and loss for me to come to understand that. But, I >guess grief pain and loss are alien to most regular ol alchoholics, >huh? >I don't usually use sarcasm as a rhetorical device, but what the hell. >One thing is clear, it really doesn't matter if you understand this or >not. So, good luck with your simplistic program. >Jim
Good point Jim! Don't give in though, not all of us alcoholics are that closed minded. Are far as I'm concerned, going from alcohol to drugs or drugs to alcohol is like changing seats on the Titanic! You're still going down.
>I just know I'm gonna regret this....BUT.... >An old fart in AA (I mean he had over thirty years in 1981), told me when I >first sobered up that "uppers and downers and all that other happy >horseshit" was just alcohol in pill form. The subject came up because I was >asking about using drugs after I went to AA (something I had fully intended >to do). I thought maybe drugs were okay, see, because after all it's >*Alcoholics* Anonymous, right? So, I planned to use a little coke, smoke >some pot...you know, to take the edge off... >What I heard from the older members was, "If you're using dope you're not >sober." It's what I still believe today. I'm an alcoholic--I didn't use any >other drugs pathologically, and every other drug I used (except nicotine) >was no problem for me to put down. But alcohol was a constant in my life, >no matter what. I don't go into detail about my drug use in AA, beyond >mentioning 'dope' in the generic sense. I was taught that >anyone--regardless of what 'other' drugs they took--was welcome in AA IF >they had a desire to stop drinking. Has that changed? Maybe I missed >something... >Carla
Hell, don't regret that!! I knew I liked you for a reason. dn
(clipped) Another point, drunk-a-logs can be very important.
Yes, they can. Especially if they fit in the 3-5 minute window allowed in most meetings as part of "what it was like, what happened, and what it's like now.
I think the (my) objections to drunk-a-logues is when they go into the seemingly endless details some will go into without ever getting into the solution.
In article <19961204154300.KAA02...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, od...@aol.com wrote: > This experience is not indicative of an Addiction.
Perhaps it is simply that your definition of addiction is too narrow. Sounds to me like youse was born addicted to alcohol. Just that it's very clever and trying to convince you that you aren't. We have to remember that the brain is a complex organ and once it starts to work on itself the results can be pretty strange and much of what it is doing to itself we aren't consciously aware of. With most of these chemicals we have something that both physically (chemically and electrically) changes the way the brain works *and* directly and indirectly because of that affects how it perceives the world and it's a vicious cycle. Your brain wants more of the chemical, but is still thinking well enough to know that it has to preserve some aspects of normalcy or it won't get any at all. It's like a virus that for a long while is just virulent enough to keep propagating itself, but not so virulent as to destroy its host. But like some viruses, if left untreated it will eventually get so bad that it does destroy its host. (Most of that from the second sentence down is of course a metaphor -- alcohol itself is an inanimate thing; all the above is what our brain does to itself as a very complicated consequence of being exposed to it.)
Dave wrote: > snippage > Are far as I'm concerned, going from alcohol to > drugs or drugs to alcohol is like changing seats on the Titanic! > You're still going down.
exactly. as Spock might say 'a difference that makes no difference, IS no difference'
> catlin77 wrote: > (clipped) > Another point, drunk-a-logs can be very important.
> Yes, they can. Especially if they fit in the 3-5 minute window allowed > in most meetings as part of "what it was like, what happened, and what > it's like now.
> I think the (my) objections to drunk-a-logues is when they go into the > seemingly endless details some will go into without ever getting into > the solution.
It's a wonder the human race still exists. We have over three hundred posts arguing whether or not drug addicts should be involved with AA. Why? I'm not sure. It had been mentioned that in order for NA to meet AA the Big Book would have to be re-written. Well then re-write the god damn thing. It was written a long time ago when views on drug intake were very different then they are now. This entire argument is one hugh indication that people strive at separation. For Christ sake, we are all here on this planet and we all have problems to deal with. If your an alcoholic I'm sure you have something a drug addict can learn from and if your a drug addict, I think you have something I can learn from along with every other alcoholic out there. All I know is that when I talk to anyone that has overcome active partisipation with any dangerous substance, I FEEL HOPE! If you feel that you can't learn anything from a drug addict simply because your an "alcoholic" then I feel sorry for you. I also suggest that you seek out alcoholic only meetings and hang out with no one else but recovering alcoholics because I fear that you would crumble under the strain of "cross- talk." It apparently would become to confusing for you to follow the simalarities and be able to draw anything valuable from it. It would surely drive you right back into drinking.
As for me, anyone with any story about recovery has an open invitation to talk with me. I don't care if you were addicted to drugs, alcohol or any other chemical, I'm sure you have something to teach me.
In article <32a57792.4149...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, gar...@ix.netcom.com (Gary E.) wrote: >i wish there were another act to this play. the reruns both in >meetings and in this ng are numbing. facts are that there is >medication, specifically engineered (not discovered through herbal >experimentation) which deals with the brain but is not mind altering >(in the sense of alcohol or even valium, painkilllers, etc). it >works. people who experience unconsciousnable and incomphrehensible >demoralization through depression can return to life. aa fanatics are >opposed because it fits somehow into their little category of taboos >for an alcoholic and arouses emotions, not facts. hostility, not >understanding. reruns, reruns.
Unfortunately, Gary, it's a One Act Play - all guised under what the fanatics would term "singleness of purpose." Forget about new information; do not under any circumstances even hint about change. That is fucking taboo!! They will cling to that 50+ year old text and claim it is etched in stone - forever!! Nothing is forever....
Sad part is that people who suffer from the debilitating effects of depression are too full of guilt and shame to treat their problem. For years some have heard the fanatics proclaim the Ultimate Truth of what they would believe is "The Program." They've heard others put down because of their decision to treat their depression through prescribed medications. They're not "Good AA's," they're "not working a Good Program." They're taking the "easier softer way" ad nauseum....
>AA has hypocrites who think that as long as they show they aren't >taking a drink, they can practice their hypocracy and justify it. >whatever. when "it works" flies back in their face, they get >pissed. you know all that. the question for most is that given those >arrogant, know it all, uninformed (and not wanting to be informed) >people in AA, is it still worth hanging around? some would have one >believe that sans meetings, most get drunk (no one can know that of >course, but that's not the point). the point is to scare the >vulnerable trusting souls into submission so that these self appointed >medical and "spiritual" prophets can keep an audience for themselves.
Yes, it's worth hanging around; at least to the extent that we can be there for others; to refute irrational bullshit when its propogated. To say to the fanatics (at meetings and in this ng), "that's bullshit!!"
>on the other hand, i suppose some people need to be fanatic. giving >up fanaticism for drink leaves a hole. so the fanaticism is >transferred, i guess. maybe the "message" is get sober and get out >quick and get on with life....
Sure they need to be fanatic, Gary. Their entire world is built upon it - they need to parrot the crap over and over again because it is literally all they know. Look at all the parrots here - it's the same crap, and they even believe it. Actually they have to believe it - looking outside the scope of it is too frightening. They don't have the courage to embrace anything other than what they've been told over and over again.
Gary E. wrote: >good stuff snipped > ;;;;;; rhetorically speaking, of course not. but you know the deal. > it's part of the real live brain washing that goes on and gets handed > down. progress? forget it. if the truth is bottled, the snapping > sound you hear is the brain shutting down. of course anything oral > which is ingested a menace to an alcoholic. isn't that the real party > line? anything "mind altering" is taboo...and wait, mind altering > will be defined by the speaker based on opinion and a few personal >>etc.
good post. unfortunately, we are dealing with the mind set of the 'true believer' who is never going to doubt the rightousness of his or her mission from god (or Bill, as the case may be). I think that's one of your points anyway.
All we can hope for is that others won't be deluded into thinking they can ignore everything but a simple minded, blinders on sort of attention to 'alchohol.'
I don't know why so few seem to be so intimidated by the idea that alchohol is a drug. I only really know, that in 16 years of going to AA meetings, I've never encountered the kind of vociferous ignorance that's being displayed here, in the name of 'tradition'. Leads me to believe, it's fortunately not widespread.
catlin77 <catli...@biddeford.com> wrote in article <32A53EBF.7...@biddeford.com>...
| nhoop wrote:
| > | > x-no-archive: yes | > | > >AGAIN, what's the source for all this "learn-ed posting" re Dr. Bob and | > >Bill W.? I keep on hearing it bantered around like it was gospel. I've | > >been an AA for a little over 4 years (thanks, HP) and the first I heard | > >about it was in this NG. If you have a legitimate source and can quote | > >from it, PLEASE LET ME KNOW. Al Cooper sends. . . . . | > | > It is all smoke and mirrors, Al, pay it no heed. If you want to find out what | > kind of man Bill W. was, read "Language of The Heart"...everything he wrote in | > the Grapevine over the years. Compare THAT with some of the negative trash | > spewed here and his stunning insight into our common problem really stands | > out. | > | > Nat H. | > Oxford, Arkansas | | | Amen, Nat. | | |
catlin77 <catli...@biddeford.com> wrote in article <32A5374E.1...@biddeford.com>...
> David wrote:
> > In article <32A33100....@ni.net>, advance bionics <abus...@ni.net> wrote: > > >My experience is that MY alcoholism activated my drinking alcohol.
> Come again, David? I thought it was the other way around...no? I thought > drinking alcohol activated one's alcoholism, no? There is no way you can > have "alcoholism" before you drank alcohol...there may have been plenty > wrong with you; a little 'ol gene might have given you a bad break but, > you can't *have* alcoholism is you never drank alcohol. > Catlin
> > > if this is not the place for drug abusers to go then where is...i think if > > > someone has a problem with crack or any hard-core addiction then there > > > should be a place they can go for support > > > nick bradfield
> > THERE IS.. once again it is called Narcotics Anonymous.. IT is not > > called Alcoholics Anonymous
> oh, I don't know, I was at a meeting of Alchoholics Anonymous yesterday > evening, one of the topics was specifically valium and vicodin, about > how they can be totally destructive of sobriety. This one guy only > called himself an addict (not me, I call myself an 'alchoholic'). No > one got up and left the meeting, nor did anyone ask him to leave. > Neither did lightening strike the group, albeit we were apparently > destroying the holy of holies, the traditions. I say, if you meet the 12 > traditions on the road, kill them.
> Jim
Now now Jim. No fair chumming the waters...
I've known six people (alcoholix) who took Vicodin (for medical problems) and later drank. Does that mean they were dope fiends? In my mind, the question is moot. What it tells me is that Vicodin is a bad drug for alcoholix to take. Ditto valium, or any other drug that affects an alcoholic's mind in such a way as to make him/her decide that drinking is a good idea. In that respect, I have no problem with someone talking about it in a meeting. Provides a valuable warning for others (like me).Now, if the person is a Vicodin addict(or whatever addict), and has never had a problem with alcohol, then AA is prolly not going to help that person. Far as I can tell, that's Catlin's point...and mine, too...
Where we differ (I believe) is in the idea that 'pure' dope fiends will a) hang around AA if it isn't working for them, and b) having 'pure' dope fiends in AA threatens singleness of purpose. The ones I've known have left AA for NA, because they didn't hear what they needed to hear to identify. The others, the 'dually addicted,' who stay, and identify, become part of the solution, not the problem...
|
