Unfair Question: addict or alcoholic?

[Pluted Pup]

I could only lie were I to be forced to answer the question
whether I am an addict or I am an alcoholic but am not
allowed to say "both".

Alcohol started as the strongest foe, eventually the drug felt
stronger and not too far in the future alcohol became much
stronger than the drug.

I had drugs seeking behavior, as I see it, before getting
drunk or high the first time, and I also feel that
alcoholism and drug addiction fed off of each other,
and one causes the other. So for laughs, do I sound like
I am an alcoholic or a drug addict but only one or the
other? Since I am apparently making excuses for drug
addicts in AA I could be blamed as being just an addict,
not an alcoholic but it wouldn't be true.

The gist I get about complaining about hearing about drugs
in AA is that something is going wrong beyond merely the
subject of drugs: are the addicts glamorizing drugs, which they/we
often do, even if unintended? Are the addicts thinking
they can't go to Narcotics Anonymous because they don't
consider alcohol a drug? Should we as alcoholics try more
not to glamorize alcohol, knowing there are addicts
present, in order not to push alcohol as a "drug that I
don't like so it is OK for me to use it"? Is it the
formality at meetings of worrying about whether or not
someone doesn't address themselves as an alcoholic?
Are there alcoholics who don't want drugs described
because they want to hold on to the idea that drug addiction
is fundamentally different to alcoholism, so leaving
themselves an "out", a different style of drinking fantasy?

And not to get me wrong, I wish there are more meetings that
discourage drug talk, but I am not aware of any. The last time I
saw a speaker that was interrupted with the message that we
restrict our sharing to the subject of alcohol, not drugs, was
over 15 years ago, a meeting companion of mine loyal to that
meeting for that reason, and was disappointed that it changed. There
used to be meetings with titles like "pure alcoholics only" and
"just alcoholics", etc., but no more. It would be a shame to
keep such meetings private, unlisted, for fear of drug talk of
by newcomers.

Those who want such drug free meetings to exist ought to give
such rules in the very title of their meetings, and not as a
"gotcha", not as a surprise, to be sprung on newcomers in
the middle of a share, or to see others interrupted. Sorry, but
merely calling yourselves an AA meeting is not clear enough
information that drug talk is not allowed.

There is less of an excuse to complain about how meetings are
run if there are a lot of different meetings available to make
a switch to, if dissatisfied. But there is no group I know of
that I can refer to if they say they want to avoid drug talk.

[badgolferman]

Post by Pluted Pup
I could only lie were I to be forced to answer the question
whether I am an addict or I am an alcoholic but am not
allowed to say "both".
Alcohol started as the strongest foe, eventually the drug felt
stronger and not too far in the future alcohol became much
stronger than the drug.
I had drugs seeking behavior, as I see it, before getting
drunk or high the first time, and I also feel that
alcoholism and drug addiction fed off of each other,
and one causes the other. So for laughs, do I sound like
I am an alcoholic or a drug addict but only one or the
other? Since I am apparently making excuses for drug
addicts in AA I could be blamed as being just an addict,
not an alcoholic but it wouldn't be true.
The gist I get about complaining about hearing about drugs
in AA is that something is going wrong beyond merely the
subject of drugs: are the addicts glamorizing drugs, which they/we
often do, even if unintended? Are the addicts thinking
they can't go to Narcotics Anonymous because they don't
consider alcohol a drug? Should we as alcoholics try more
not to glamorize alcohol, knowing there are addicts
present, in order not to push alcohol as a "drug that I
don't like so it is OK for me to use it"? Is it the
formality at meetings of worrying about whether or not
someone doesn't address themselves as an alcoholic?
Are there alcoholics who don't want drugs described
because they want to hold on to the idea that drug addiction
is fundamentally different to alcoholism, so leaving
themselves an "out", a different style of drinking fantasy?
And not to get me wrong, I wish there are more meetings that
discourage drug talk, but I am not aware of any. The last time I
saw a speaker that was interrupted with the message that we
restrict our sharing to the subject of alcohol, not drugs, was
over 15 years ago, a meeting companion of mine loyal to that
meeting for that reason, and was disappointed that it changed. There
used to be meetings with titles like "pure alcoholics only" and
"just alcoholics", etc., but no more. It would be a shame to
keep such meetings private, unlisted, for fear of drug talk of
by newcomers.
Those who want such drug free meetings to exist ought to give
such rules in the very title of their meetings, and not as a
"gotcha", not as a surprise, to be sprung on newcomers in
the middle of a share, or to see others interrupted. Sorry, but
merely calling yourselves an AA meeting is not clear enough
information that drug talk is not allowed.
There is less of an excuse to complain about how meetings are
run if there are a lot of different meetings available to make
a switch to, if dissatisfied. But there is no group I know of
that I can refer to if they say they want to avoid drug talk.

Around here groups read the open/close meeting statement. Both
statements say to keep your comments related to recovery from
alcoholism.

The real problem is people are uneducated about the traditions. They
come out of treatment being told drugs and alcohol are the same and to
go to AA. They are clueless about the singleness of purpose and think
AA stands for Anything Anonymous. And you have chairman who are just
as ignorant or unwilling to enforce the group's position. They let
people drone on about their drug use or other outside issues that have
nothing to do with alcoholic recovery. This is one reason why regular
group business meetings and/or group inventories are important.
Members need to be in agreement about how their home group should be
run and how to handle such issues when they arise.

[Skeezix LaRocca]

Post by badgolferman

Post by Pluted Pup
I could only lie were I to be forced to answer the question
whether I am an addict or I am an alcoholic but am not
allowed to say "both".
Alcohol started as the strongest foe, eventually the drug felt
stronger and not too far in the future alcohol became much
stronger than the drug.
I had drugs seeking behavior, as I see it, before getting
drunk or high the first time, and I also feel that
alcoholism and drug addiction fed off of each other,
and one causes the other. So for laughs, do I sound like
I am an alcoholic or a drug addict but only one or the
other? Since I am apparently making excuses for drug
addicts in AA I could be blamed as being just an addict,
not an alcoholic but it wouldn't be true.
The gist I get about complaining about hearing about drugs
in AA is that something is going wrong beyond merely the
subject of drugs: are the addicts glamorizing drugs, which they/we
often do, even if unintended? Are the addicts thinking
they can't go to Narcotics Anonymous because they don't
consider alcohol a drug? Should we as alcoholics try more
not to glamorize alcohol, knowing there are addicts
present, in order not to push alcohol as a "drug that I
don't like so it is OK for me to use it"? Is it the
formality at meetings of worrying about whether or not
someone doesn't address themselves as an alcoholic?
Are there alcoholics who don't want drugs described
because they want to hold on to the idea that drug addiction
is fundamentally different to alcoholism, so leaving
themselves an "out", a different style of drinking fantasy?
And not to get me wrong, I wish there are more meetings that
discourage drug talk, but I am not aware of any. The last time I
saw a speaker that was interrupted with the message that we
restrict our sharing to the subject of alcohol, not drugs, was
over 15 years ago, a meeting companion of mine loyal to that
meeting for that reason, and was disappointed that it changed. There
used to be meetings with titles like "pure alcoholics only" and
"just alcoholics", etc., but no more. It would be a shame to
keep such meetings private, unlisted, for fear of drug talk of
by newcomers.
Those who want such drug free meetings to exist ought to give
such rules in the very title of their meetings, and not as a
"gotcha", not as a surprise, to be sprung on newcomers in
the middle of a share, or to see others interrupted. Sorry, but
merely calling yourselves an AA meeting is not clear enough
information that drug talk is not allowed.
There is less of an excuse to complain about how meetings are
run if there are a lot of different meetings available to make
a switch to, if dissatisfied. But there is no group I know of
that I can refer to if they say they want to avoid drug talk.

Around here groups read the open/close meeting statement. Both
statements say to keep your comments related to recovery from
alcoholism.
The real problem is people are uneducated about the traditions. They
come out of treatment being told drugs and alcohol are the same and to
go to AA. They are clueless about the singleness of purpose and think
AA stands for Anything Anonymous. And you have chairman who are just
as ignorant or unwilling to enforce the group's position. They let
people drone on about their drug use or other outside issues that have
nothing to do with alcoholic recovery. This is one reason why regular
group business meetings and/or group inventories are important.
Members need to be in agreement about how their home group should be
run and how to handle such issues when they arise.

I have said this before, Mike...Damn, I hate it when we agree.

I agree that a good sound home group is important in that they vote on
and stick to the agreed upon guidelines on how their meeting / meetings
should be conducted..If people don't like it, feel free to go elsewhere.

I have been to anything goes meetings, and those that were secular,
while some were quite religious..Nobody is forcing me to stay there, and
many times I left.

What puzzles me is that at some meetings, they will allow some member to
blab on and on for 10 minutes about his shitty in laws, and when you
bring it up in a business meeting , you are met with ...Well, we need to
show patience and tolerance, but let some guy mention in his five second
intro that he's a cross addicted alcoholic, then say no more about
drugs, and all you hear is screams of singleness of purpose...Where is
the patience and tolerance there ?

I'm beginning to think some people's definition of singleness of purpose
is to just always be an asshole.

[badgolferman]

Post by Skeezix LaRocca

Post by badgolferman

Post by Pluted Pup
I could only lie were I to be forced to answer the question
whether I am an addict or I am an alcoholic but am not
allowed to say "both".
Alcohol started as the strongest foe, eventually the drug felt
stronger and not too far in the future alcohol became much
stronger than the drug.
I had drugs seeking behavior, as I see it, before getting
drunk or high the first time, and I also feel that
alcoholism and drug addiction fed off of each other,
and one causes the other. So for laughs, do I sound like
I am an alcoholic or a drug addict but only one or the
other? Since I am apparently making excuses for drug
addicts in AA I could be blamed as being just an addict,
not an alcoholic but it wouldn't be true.
The gist I get about complaining about hearing about drugs
in AA is that something is going wrong beyond merely the
subject of drugs: are the addicts glamorizing drugs, which they/we
often do, even if unintended? Are the addicts thinking
they can't go to Narcotics Anonymous because they don't
consider alcohol a drug? Should we as alcoholics try more
not to glamorize alcohol, knowing there are addicts
present, in order not to push alcohol as a "drug that I
don't like so it is OK for me to use it"? Is it the
formality at meetings of worrying about whether or not
someone doesn't address themselves as an alcoholic?
Are there alcoholics who don't want drugs described
because they want to hold on to the idea that drug addiction
is fundamentally different to alcoholism, so leaving
themselves an "out", a different style of drinking fantasy?
And not to get me wrong, I wish there are more meetings that
discourage drug talk, but I am not aware of any. The last time I
saw a speaker that was interrupted with the message that we
restrict our sharing to the subject of alcohol, not drugs, was
over 15 years ago, a meeting companion of mine loyal to that
meeting for that reason, and was disappointed that it changed. There
used to be meetings with titles like "pure alcoholics only" and
"just alcoholics", etc., but no more. It would be a shame to
keep such meetings private, unlisted, for fear of drug talk of
by newcomers.
Those who want such drug free meetings to exist ought to give
such rules in the very title of their meetings, and not as a
"gotcha", not as a surprise, to be sprung on newcomers in
the middle of a share, or to see others interrupted. Sorry, but
merely calling yourselves an AA meeting is not clear enough
information that drug talk is not allowed.
There is less of an excuse to complain about how meetings are
run if there are a lot of different meetings available to make
a switch to, if dissatisfied. But there is no group I know of
that I can refer to if they say they want to avoid drug talk.

Around here groups read the open/close meeting statement. Both
statements say to keep your comments related to recovery from
alcoholism.
The real problem is people are uneducated about the traditions. They
come out of treatment being told drugs and alcohol are the same and to
go to AA. They are clueless about the singleness of purpose and think
AA stands for Anything Anonymous. And you have chairman who are just
as ignorant or unwilling to enforce the group's position. They let
people drone on about their drug use or other outside issues that have
nothing to do with alcoholic recovery. This is one reason why regular
group business meetings and/or group inventories are important.
Members need to be in agreement about how their home group should be
run and how to handle such issues when they arise.

I have said this before, Mike...Damn, I hate it when we agree.
I agree that a good sound home group is important in that they vote on
and stick to the agreed upon guidelines on how their meeting / meetings
should be conducted..If people don't like it, feel free to go elsewhere.
I have been to anything goes meetings, and those that were secular,
while some were quite religious..Nobody is forcing me to stay there, and
many times I left.
What puzzles me is that at some meetings, they will allow some member to
blab on and on for 10 minutes about his shitty in laws, and when you
bring it up in a business meeting , you are met with ...Well, we need to
show patience and tolerance, but let some guy mention in his five second
intro that he's a cross addicted alcoholic, then say no more about
drugs, and all you hear is screams of singleness of purpose...Where is
the patience and tolerance there ?
I'm beginning to think some people's definition of singleness of purpose
is to just always be an asshole.

Being addicted to the cross is an outside issue…

[Charlie M. 1958]

Post by Skeezix LaRocca
I'm beginning to think some people's definition of singleness of purpose
is to just always be an asshole.

Hey, when a guy finds his strength he's gotta lean into it!

[Skeezix LaRocca]

Post by Charlie M. 1958

Post by Skeezix LaRocca
I'm beginning to think some people's definition of singleness of
purpose is to just always be an asshole.

Hey, when a guy finds his strength he's gotta lean into it!

That reminds me...I wonder how Warner is ? :)