"[[]]" <[[]]@[[]].com> wrote in message
news:3Gp4d.2501$G%6.1071@fe12.usenetserver.com...
>> This guy, though, he was practically celebrating it. "I used
>> to smuggle drugs for Pablo Escobar personally and I had a suitcase
>> with $750,000 in it." It sounded like he missed it. I'd rather
>> have heard more about how he got straight and what he has done
>> with his life since.
>> Dan
> sounds like grandstanding to me...
>
> when I hear a lousy lead (like the guy I heard speak for 30 minutes
> on the finer points of Buddhism) I try really hard to focus in on
> the comments and discount the lead.
>
> my sponsor tells me there's no bad lead or bad meeting. my sponsor
> is almost always right.
>

With the only requirement for membership being a desire to stop
drinking, where else but AA could drug addicts without "a life" feel
both welcome, and superior?

Bob

> Steve,
> I can usually live with the leads and the comments are usually just
> mutual stroking from their friends, so I can meditate through them. The
> ones that drive me crazy are the comments that are really "mini-leads."
> In you home group you can usually predict (and when you drop in on a group
> you can usually look around and guess) who is going to give a 10 minute
> "comment" that is basically a stream of consciousness rambling on their
> own life.
> My sponsor says to me on that: "Still have some resentment issues,
> dude?" <grin>
> Dan



Dan- I just reread D. Paul O.'s interview (author of "Doctor, Alcoholic,
Addict"). If you haven't read it and would like to, I've sent a link to it.
http://www.a-1associates.com/AA/dr_pauls_interview.htm

-Steve

Dear Dan - Getting an insight into the 'other side of addiction' can be very
informative. Seeing that a lot of AA's do use prescribed tranquilisers and
some still use Codeine and 'Pain powders' unwittingly, not realising that it
is part of the same addiction, perhaps it could be a good thing imho.
Alcohol is also not illegal and drugs are. People may use the AA opportunity
to get into a program and only later admit to the addict side.
For myself, I dislike addiction simply because it enables people in AA to
talk and roar like a lion and control the meeting, being high on drugs, and
you can not smell them. In the final analysis I would say that the two is
better seperated but the problem is how do you do that with those who wont
admit to addiction. Perhaps, if once in a while, an alcoholic/addict does
speak, they can get the guts to go to NA etc. meetings.
Kind regards
Mias
"Dan McGown" <dmcgown@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:Bv2dnTkMwKffK8zcRVn-iw@adelphia.com...
> Last night at my homegroup, the guest lead was definitely an alcoholic who
> had been doing a fifth plus a pint a day when he crashed. However he was
> also cross addicted to just about everything that you could think of from
> pot to pills to coke (powder and crack) to heroin. He had been 30 years
> on and six years clean.
>
>
>
> While I thought that his lead dwelt a bit excessively on the glorious size
> of his drunk and not enough on the recovery and new life, I didn't mind
> the references to his other addictions. I know that it really bothers a
> lot of the traditionalists, though.
>
>
>
> When it came to the "thanks" part, one of them simply said: "I'm an
> alcoholic and I come here to hear about people dealing with alcoholism. I
> didn't get that tonight. There are other groups for other addictions and
> if I wanted to hear about them, I'd have gone there."
>
>
>
> Was he over the line or do you expect leads at AA meetings to confine
> their stories to the alcoholic problems?
>
>
> --
> "The Daily Show -- it's better than being informed."
>

> my sponsor tells me there's no bad lead or bad meeting.

Reminds me of what my old man used to say - there no such thing as a bad
pint, it's just that some are better than others.

--
J



[[]] wrote:
>> This guy, though, he was practically celebrating it. "I used to
>> smuggle drugs for Pablo Escobar personally and I had a suitcase with
>> $750,000 in it." It sounded like he missed it. I'd rather have
>> heard more about how he got straight and what he has done with his
>> life since. Dan
> sounds like grandstanding to me...
>
> when I hear a lousy lead (like the guy I heard speak for 30 minutes
> on the finer points of Buddhism) I try really hard to focus in on the
> comments and discount the lead.
>
> my sponsor tells me there's no bad lead or bad meeting. my sponsor is
> almost always right.
>
> -Steve

I am in complete agreement with the "oldtimer". I, as an alcoholic, cannot
relate to another addiction.

For me, my behavior would represent the height of self-centredness and
contempt for others, to walk into a meeting of Narcotics Anonymous, for
example, and sit there and talk about alcoholism.


"J" <welshalky@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:415214cd@news.greennet.net...
>> " There are other groups for other addictions and if I wanted to hear
>> about them, I'd have gone there."
>
> I guess that this kind of attitude is a little selfish. Although, the
> preamble, I believe, does state that sharers should confine themselves to
> the topic of alcoholism.
>
> I have been guilty of this kind of attitude myself (inwardly), though, on
> occasions. Particularly in some of the first meetings I went to. One woman
> used to prattle on for 20 minutes about the divorce she was going through.
> I was kinda thinking, "what's this got to do with alcoholism?". She
> doesn't come in so much now, but if she did, I think I'd be a bit more
> tolerant.
>
> Having said all this, I just got from a local meeeting and only 2 of us
> turned up. We just sat around for an hour and talked about football, lol.
>
> --
> J
>
>
>
> Dan McGown wrote:
>> Last night at my homegroup, the guest lead was definitely an
>> alcoholic who had been doing a fifth plus a pint a day when he
>> crashed. However he was also cross addicted to just about everything
>> that you could think of from pot to pills to coke (powder and crack)
>> to heroin. He had been 30 years on and six years clean.
>>
>

Dan,

This is a first tradition issue. Let's say someone comes in and we spend a
meeting talking about addiction. Pretty soon we are talking about
alcoholism and addiction. Then there comes the Eating Disorder -- well now
the discussion is about alcoholism and addiction and eating disorders. Then
there come the compulsive gambler and now we're talking alcoholism and
addiction and eating disorder and complusive gambling. Then comes the sex
addict and now we're talking about alcoholism and addiction and eating
disorder and complusive gambling and sexual addictions. Then comes the
anxiety attack folks and now we're talking about alcoholism and drug
addiction (which now includes both narcotics and amphetamines and cocaine
and heroin) and eating disorders (which now includes both bulimics and
anorexics) and compulsive gambling (which now includes the casino patrons,
the bingo players and lottery ticket junkies) and sexual addictions (which
includes orgasm junkies, pedophiles and auto-erotics) and anxiety disorders
(which now includes prozac patients, manic-depressives and the not yet
addicted oxycotin folks). It is no longer an AA meeting but a dysfunctional
faminly reunion -- A group of folks with some real issues but no single
thing that holds them all together.

Now lo and behold, a real broken-down alcoholic comes into the meeting
looking for help, but here's about a whole lot of shit that has nothing to
do with alcoholism. Do you think he stays? Do you think he get help?
Somehow I doubt either.

There are many alcoholic addicts and addicted alcoholics and these are
issues that each individual must address as part of his or her recovery --
HOWEVER, they are not issues that should be discussed at AA meetings. "Our
Common Welfare should come first. Personal recovery depends on AA unity."
Each member of Alcoholics Anonymous is but small part of a great whole. AA
must continue to live of most of us will surely die. Hence our common
welfare comes first. But individual welfare follows close afterward.

A man who tries to look out two windows will soon walk into the wall. This
is not to say we should not address these issues - simply that we focus on
them at meetings. The group was there when you got there and singleness of
purpose was why it was still there. We have come to learn this singleness
of purpose is why it will be here tomorrow for the next drunk who comes here
for help.

Bobby L

Perhaps I am a thumper at heart.



"Dan McGown" <dmcgown@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:Bv2dnTkMwKffK8zcRVn-iw@adelphia.com...
> Last night at my homegroup, the guest lead was definitely an alcoholic who
> had been doing a fifth plus a pint a day when he crashed. However he was
> also cross addicted to just about everything that you could think of from
> pot to pills to coke (powder and crack) to heroin. He had been 30 years
on
> and six years clean.
>
>
>
> While I thought that his lead dwelt a bit excessively on the glorious size
> of his drunk and not enough on the recovery and new life, I didn't mind
the
> references to his other addictions. I know that it really bothers a lot
of
> the traditionalists, though.
>
>
>
> When it came to the "thanks" part, one of them simply said: "I'm an
> alcoholic and I come here to hear about people dealing with alcoholism. I
> didn't get that tonight. There are other groups for other addictions and
if
> I wanted to hear about them, I'd have gone there."
>
>
>
> Was he over the line or do you expect leads at AA meetings to confine
their
> stories to the alcoholic problems?
>
>
> --
> "The Daily Show -- it's better than being informed."
>
>

oops -- NOT FOCUS ON THEM AT MEETINGS


"Bobby L" <BobbyL2000spam@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:sZ15d.2647$Ir3.2518@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
> Dan,
>
> This is a first tradition issue. Let's say someone comes in and we spend
a
> meeting talking about addiction. Pretty soon we are talking about
> alcoholism and addiction. Then there comes the Eating Disorder -- well
now
> the discussion is about alcoholism and addiction and eating disorders.
Then
> there come the compulsive gambler and now we're talking alcoholism and
> addiction and eating disorder and complusive gambling. Then comes the sex
> addict and now we're talking about alcoholism and addiction and eating
> disorder and complusive gambling and sexual addictions. Then comes the
> anxiety attack folks and now we're talking about alcoholism and drug
> addiction (which now includes both narcotics and amphetamines and cocaine
> and heroin) and eating disorders (which now includes both bulimics and
> anorexics) and compulsive gambling (which now includes the casino
patrons,
> the bingo players and lottery ticket junkies) and sexual addictions (which
> includes orgasm junkies, pedophiles and auto-erotics) and anxiety
disorders
> (which now includes prozac patients, manic-depressives and the not yet
> addicted oxycotin folks). It is no longer an AA meeting but a
dysfunctional
> faminly reunion -- A group of folks with some real issues but no single
> thing that holds them all together.
>
> Now lo and behold, a real broken-down alcoholic comes into the meeting
> looking for help, but here's about a whole lot of shit that has nothing to
> do with alcoholism. Do you think he stays? Do you think he get help?
> Somehow I doubt either.
>
> There are many alcoholic addicts and addicted alcoholics and these are
> issues that each individual must address as part of his or her recovery --
> HOWEVER, they are not issues that should be discussed at AA meetings.
"Our
> Common Welfare should come first. Personal recovery depends on AA unity."
> Each member of Alcoholics Anonymous is but small part of a great whole.
AA
> must continue to live of most of us will surely die. Hence our common
> welfare comes first. But individual welfare follows close afterward.
>
> A man who tries to look out two windows will soon walk into the wall.
This
> is not to say we should not address these issues - simply that we focus on
> them at meetings. The group was there when you got there and singleness
of
> purpose was why it was still there. We have come to learn this singleness
> of purpose is why it will be here tomorrow for the next drunk who comes
here
> for help.
>
> Bobby L
>
> Perhaps I am a thumper at heart.
>
>
>
> "Dan McGown" <dmcgown@adelphia.net> wrote in message
> news:Bv2dnTkMwKffK8zcRVn-iw@adelphia.com...
> > Last night at my homegroup, the guest lead was definitely an alcoholic
who
> > had been doing a fifth plus a pint a day when he crashed. However he
was
> > also cross addicted to just about everything that you could think of
from
> > pot to pills to coke (powder and crack) to heroin. He had been 30 years
> on
> > and six years clean.
> >
> >
> >
> > While I thought that his lead dwelt a bit excessively on the glorious
size
> > of his drunk and not enough on the recovery and new life, I didn't mind
> the
> > references to his other addictions. I know that it really bothers a lot
> of
> > the traditionalists, though.
> >
> >
> >
> > When it came to the "thanks" part, one of them simply said: "I'm an
> > alcoholic and I come here to hear about people dealing with alcoholism.
I
> > didn't get that tonight. There are other groups for other addictions
and
> if
> > I wanted to hear about them, I'd have gone there."
> >
> >
> >
> > Was he over the line or do you expect leads at AA meetings to confine
> their
> > stories to the alcoholic problems?
> >
> >
> > --
> > "The Daily Show -- it's better than being informed."
> >
> >
>
>

On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 13:28:32 -0400, "Dan McGown"
<dmcgown@adelphia.net> wrote:

>While I thought that his lead dwelt a bit excessively on the glorious size
>of his drunk and not enough on the recovery and new life, I didn't mind the
>references to his other addictions. I know that it really bothers a lot of
>the traditionalists, though.
>
>When it came to the "thanks" part, one of them simply said: "I'm an
>alcoholic and I come here to hear about people dealing with alcoholism. I
>didn't get that tonight. There are other groups for other addictions and if
>I wanted to hear about them, I'd have gone there."
>
>Was he over the line or do you expect leads at AA meetings to confine their
>stories to the alcoholic problems?

I wasn't there, so couldn't comment on the specifics. But in general
terms, the "traditionalists" were right. If I wanted to go somewhere
to talk at length about my asthma or my employment prospects, I
wouldn't do it in an AA meeting.

By focusing on issues other than alcohol/ism, at least 3 Traditions
come into question: Traditions 1, 3 and 5, possibly 10 as well.

From my experience, this sort of stuff can go on far too much,
particularly in open AA meetings. I was recently at a district
meeting where it was "suggested" that individuals should go to open
meetings to identify the problem and only then attend closed meetings
if they'll admit to being alcoholic. Even ignoring AA's own
Traditions that impose no such requirement, in the current climate of
open meetings being a free-for-all this suggestion seemed ridiculous.

--
Blue Moon