here’s another one for you

[badgolferman]

On Thursdays my home group meeting is a closed Big Book study meeting.
Surely you all know the difference between a closed and open meeting of AA.

When the meeting started the chairman (female) asked for any new people and
someone spoke up and introduced themselves as “Derek and an addict.” The
chairman ignored that and didn’t remind them that is a closed meeting. I
almost spoke up but she moved on to the next agenda item. I decided to talk
to the addict and the chairman separately after the meeting myself.

With about 20 minutes left before the meeting ended, a fellow walked in
whom I’ve never seen before. He almost immediately started talking about
everything other than alcoholism or recovery and even gave us some
scripture quotes. After ten minutes or so I had enough and interrupted him,
asking if he realized this was an AA meeting where we share our experience
with alcohol and recovery and that we didn’t need a sermon from him. That
slowed him down for a minute but he continued on to the end of the meeting.


After the meeting was over I approached the addict and told him this was a
closed meeting for alcoholics only and asked whether he had a problem with
drinking. He told me he did, so I told him to let us know that because he
only identified as an addict. He said he understood.

I also talked to the chairman and told her the group gives her the power
and has our support to keep the meeting focused on recovery from AA. I also
plan to ask what the group conscience is regarding non-alcoholics in our
closed meeting at the next business meeting.

[Sharx335]

Post by badgolferman
On Thursdays my home group meeting is a closed Big Book study meeting.
Surely you all know the difference between a closed and open meeting of AA.
When the meeting started the chairman (female) asked for any new people and
someone spoke up and introduced themselves as “Derek and an addict.” The
chairman ignored that and didn’t remind them that is a closed meeting. I
almost spoke up but she moved on to the next agenda item. I decided to talk
to the addict and the chairman separately after the meeting myself.
With about 20 minutes left before the meeting ended, a fellow walked in
whom I’ve never seen before. He almost immediately started talking about
everything other than alcoholism or recovery and even gave us some
scripture quotes. After ten minutes or so I had enough and interrupted him,
asking if he realized this was an AA meeting where we share our experience
with alcohol and recovery and that we didn’t need a sermon from him. That
slowed him down for a minute but he continued on to the end of the meeting.
After the meeting was over I approached the addict and told him this was a
closed meeting for alcoholics only and asked whether he had a problem with
drinking. He told me he did, so I told him to let us know that because he
only identified as an addict. He said he understood.
I also talked to the chairman and told her the group gives her the power
and has our support to keep the meeting focused on recovery from AA. I also
plan to ask what the group conscience is regarding non-alcoholics in our
closed meeting at the next business meeting.

Sounds okay, to me, how you handled it. I suspect that much of any
criticism you might receive here, from the usual suspects, is mere
bloviating.

[badgolferman]

Post by Sharx335

Post by badgolferman
On Thursdays my home group meeting is a closed Big Book study meeting.
Surely you all know the difference between a closed and open meeting of AA.
When the meeting started the chairman (female) asked for any new people and
someone spoke up and introduced themselves as “Derek and an addict.” The
chairman ignored that and didn’t remind them that is a closed meeting. I
almost spoke up but she moved on to the next agenda item. I decided to talk
to the addict and the chairman separately after the meeting myself.
With about 20 minutes left before the meeting ended, a fellow walked in
whom I’ve never seen before. He almost immediately started talking about
everything other than alcoholism or recovery and even gave us some
scripture quotes. After ten minutes or so I had enough and interrupted him,
asking if he realized this was an AA meeting where we share our experience
with alcohol and recovery and that we didn’t need a sermon from him. That
slowed him down for a minute but he continued on to the end of the meeting.
After the meeting was over I approached the addict and told him this was a
closed meeting for alcoholics only and asked whether he had a problem with
drinking. He told me he did, so I told him to let us know that because he
only identified as an addict. He said he understood.
I also talked to the chairman and told her the group gives her the power
and has our support to keep the meeting focused on recovery from AA. I also
plan to ask what the group conscience is regarding non-alcoholics in our
closed meeting at the next business meeting.

Sounds okay, to me, how you handled it. I suspect that much of any
criticism you might receive here, from the usual suspects, is mere
bloviating.

They know I’m right.

[Skeezix LaRocca]

Post by badgolferman
On Thursdays my home group meeting is a closed Big Book study meeting.
Surely you all know the difference between a closed and open meeting of AA.
When the meeting started the chairman (female) asked for any new people and
someone spoke up and introduced themselves as “Derek and an addict.” The
chairman ignored that and didn’t remind them that is a closed meeting. I
almost spoke up but she moved on to the next agenda item. I decided to talk
to the addict and the chairman separately after the meeting myself.
With about 20 minutes left before the meeting ended, a fellow walked in
whom I’ve never seen before. He almost immediately started talking about
everything other than alcoholism or recovery and even gave us some
scripture quotes. After ten minutes or so I had enough and interrupted him,
asking if he realized this was an AA meeting where we share our experience
with alcohol and recovery and that we didn’t need a sermon from him. That
slowed him down for a minute but he continued on to the end of the meeting.
After the meeting was over I approached the addict and told him this was a
closed meeting for alcoholics only and asked whether he had a problem with
drinking. He told me he did, so I told him to let us know that because he
only identified as an addict. He said he understood.
I also talked to the chairman and told her the group gives her the power
and has our support to keep the meeting focused on recovery from AA. I also
plan to ask what the group conscience is regarding non-alcoholics in our
closed meeting at the next business meeting.

Some may say you were wrong for interrupting the guy, but WTF, the
meeting chair should have gotten the meeting back on the rails after a
minute oe two at most of anything but AA.

A group will allow what it will allow, but so many groups have no
guidelines for a meeting chair, and they probably should.

[badgolferman]

Post by badgolferman
On Thursdays my home group meeting is a closed Big Book study meeting.
Surely you all know the difference between a closed and open meeting of AA.
When the meeting started the chairman (female) asked for any new
people and someone spoke up and introduced themselves as “Derek and
an addict.” The chairman ignored that and didn’t remind them that is
a closed meeting. I almost spoke up but she moved on to the next
agenda item. I decided to talk to the addict and the chairman
separately after the meeting myself.
With about 20 minutes left before the meeting ended, a fellow walked
in whom I’ve never seen before. He almost immediately started talking
about everything other than alcoholism or recovery and even gave us
some scripture quotes. After ten minutes or so I had enough and
interrupted him, asking if he realized this was an AA meeting where
we share our experience with alcohol and recovery and that we didn’t
need a sermon from him. That slowed him down for a minute but he
continued on to the end of the meeting.
After the meeting was over I approached the addict and told him this
was a closed meeting for alcoholics only and asked whether he had a
problem with drinking. He told me he did, so I told him to let us
know that because he only identified as an addict. He said he
understood.
I also talked to the chairman and told her the group gives her the
power and has our support to keep the meeting focused on recovery
from AA. I also plan to ask what the group conscience is regarding
non-alcoholics in our closed meeting at the next business meeting.

At our business meeting last night I made a motion to have a greeter
outside talk to people they don't recognize and ensure they understand
the meeting is closed for those who have a desire to stop drinking.
This would eliminate any potential embarrassing situations where a
non-alcoholic would be confronted during the meeting. There was so
much discussion and conditions placed upon my motion, that I withdrew
the motion. It's become clear to me that there are numerous drug
addicts already in that group and/or people ignorant of the singleness
of purpose tradition.

I have watched AA morph from Alcoholics Anonymous to Anything Anonymous
over the years. Deep inside I've blamed us oldtimers for not educating
the newer people about the Traditions and being afraid to speak up.
Now I see even that is not enough and it's too late to do anything
about it. The Alcoholics Anonymous membership is probably at least 50%
non-alcoholics who just call themselves alcoholic. Even our new
Virginia Area delegate whom I know personally and have heard her story
several times, is a drug addict yet poses as an alcoholic.

Now it's become clear why so many AA members don't like the term "real
alcoholic". It's because they're fake alcoholics themselves.

[Charlie M. 1958]

Post by badgolferman
I have watched AA morph from Alcoholics Anonymous to Anything Anonymous
over the years. Deep inside I've blamed us oldtimers for not educating
the newer people about the Traditions and being afraid to speak up.
Now I see even that is not enough and it's too late to do anything
about it. The Alcoholics Anonymous membership is probably at least 50%
non-alcoholics who just call themselves alcoholic. Even our new
Virginia Area delegate whom I know personally and have heard her story
several times, is a drug addict yet poses as an alcoholic.
Now it's become clear why so many AA members don't like the term "real
alcoholic". It's because they're fake alcoholics themselves.

I hear the same speech from some of the folks in a Facebook group I'm in.

My personal belief is that your estimation of the percentage of
non-alcoholics in AA is way off on the high side. I think what's
happening is that alcoholism and drug addiction have become much closer
to each other over the years. IMO, the only real differeence between the
two is that the nature of illegal drug use leads to a very different
life experience from that of a garden-variety alcoholic. That difference
is why I have always supported singlness of purpose... so that an
alcoholic like you and me coming in off the street would be able to
identify with the stories he was hearing. But in the last couple of
generations, much of the stigma has worn off drug use. More people are
growing up partying with both alcohol and drugs. By the time they get
into trouble and wind up in AA who'sto say whether they are addicts or
alcoholics?

To put it simply, I think the line between addicts and alcoholics (or
maybe I should say the line between the substances themselves) has
become very blurred, and that's why you hear so many people in meetings
talking about drugs.

I think it's still possible to maintain singleness of purpose in AA by
continuing to make it clear to newcomers that the only requirement for
membership is a desire to stop drinking. Meaning if you're trying to
stay off drugs but you can drink socially, this is not your program. But
if you know you can't drink, you're welcome here for you alcohol
problem. If you want to talk at length about your drug problem, there
are other fellowships for you to do that.

[badgolferman]

That difference is why I have always supported singlness of
purpose... so that an alcoholic like you and me coming in off the
street would be able to identify with the stories he was hearing. But
in the last couple of generations, much of the stigma has worn off
drug use. More people are growing up partying with both alcohol and
drugs. By the time they get into trouble and wind up in AA who'sto
say whether they are addicts or alcoholics?
To put it simply, I think the line between addicts and alcoholics (or
maybe I should say the line between the substances themselves) has
become very blurred, and that's why you hear so many people in
meetings talking about drugs.

We've discussed this before and obviously the answer to your question
is that only the individual themselves can determine if they are a durg
addict or alcoholic. I don't deny that people will do both substances,
but I also contend they have a "drug of choice". Given a choice
between their favorite drug and their favorite drink, which would they
pick? Whichever one it is, they are best suited to that particular
fellowship to share their experiences.

I have known many people in AA who freely admit they are more addict
than alcoholic, but they prefer the AA fellowship so that's why they
come here. It's these people who are needed the most in NA in order to
strengthen that fellowship and bring recovery there.

[Skeezix LaRocca]

Post by badgolferman
I have known many people in AA who freely admit they are more addict
than alcoholic, but they prefer the AA fellowship so that's why they
come here. It's these people who are needed the most in NA in order to
strengthen that fellowship and bring recovery there.

I've never been known as a hardliner, but about 10 years ago we had a
boatload of addicts come through the door..I suggested we get some NA
literature for them to guide them to NA, provided they did not have a
alcohol problem. This one member said we should welcome them because NA
sucked...Well, if we keep plucking their best and brightest, how does
one expect NA to get any better ?

Granted, I don't have a problem if they also have an alcohol problem,
but some of these people were pure addicts.

[Pluted Pup]

Post by Charlie M. 1958
I think it's still possible to maintain singleness of purpose in AA by
continuing to make it clear to newcomers that the only requirement for
membership is a desire to stop drinking. Meaning if you're trying to
stay off drugs but you can drink socially, this is not your program. But
if you know you can't drink, you're welcome here for you alcohol
problem. If you want to talk at length about your drug problem, there
are other fellowships for you to do that.

Narcotics Anonymous makes it clear that alcohol is a drug, so lacking a
desire to quit drinking also means not a member of NA either.

Where do you get the idea that addicts talking about drugs
are saying that drinking is OK?

An addict who never took a drink in his life is on the
same boat as the alcoholic who never took a drug
in his life. Addicts can't drink and alcoholics can't
use.

That sounds like singleness of purpose to me.