Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
NO Drinking, Drugs, Sex, Smoking, Gambling, Over Eating, etc
44 views
Skip to first unread message
exi...@myplace.com
Mar 24, 2013, 6:37:07 AM3/24/13
to
The one thing I never understood about AA, NA and other 12 step groups.
In the past I went to NA, and quite often I heard people say "I'm
staying off of drugs, all I do is drink now". And everytime, someone
would say something like "alcohol is a drug, you must abstain from
alcohol too". At the same time, I've heard numerous times at AA
meetings, where people say something like "smoking pot has helped me
stay sober from drinking". Most of the time that was overlooked, but a
few of the purists have said something to the effect that "to be sober,
you cant be using any drugs, and I've even heard some of the real
fanatics tell people that they have to stop taking prescriptions meds
too.
WHOA, just who makes up these rules, and why do they differ so much.
Lets begin by discussing ALL the 12 step groups that exist. Besides
Alcoholics anonymous, and Narcotics anonymous, there's Smokers
anonymous, Gamblers anonymous, Sex addicts anonymous, Cocaine anonymous.
(why NA is not enough for them I never understood), Over eaters
anonymous, Emotions anonymous, and a few others. Considering this, if
AA says a person cant smoke pot or do other drugs, or NA says you cant
drink, how come they all dont say you cant do any of the things that
there are 12 step groups for? I know many AA and NA people smoke. Some
gamble, many over do the sex, and I wont evne get into the Emotions
thing.
My point is this. If someone goes to NA to quit their drug of choice,
why are they told they cant drink alcohol? Ok, I know the arguement is
that "alcohol is a drug too" (which it is), but then again, so is
nicotine. Actually caffein is a drug too, and they serve that at AA and
NA by the gallons. So, lets just say that I go to AA and say I smoke
pot to help me stay sober. What gives anyone a right at AA to say I
cant smoke pot? AA is *ALCOHOLICS* anonymous, that means it's about
ALCOHOL, not pot ot cocaine or nicotine, or LSD...... [Not to mention
that Bill W. ate LSD and other drugs quite often].
Although I did not go to real many NA meetings (because NA was fairly
new when I was starting my 12 step groups and there were not many
meetings). But I'd say that one of the most common gripes were people
objecting to the fact they were being told to not drink alcohol.
At this point, I want to say that I actually agreed that it would be
best to stay off alcohol, when trying to get off drugs, or at least
drink very little. Simply because when someone gets a lot of alcohol in
thir system, they will break down and do drugs, over eat, smoke, etc....
Just a common way that people's minds work when they are drinking,
because all their cares go out the window.
Yet, what gives poeople in AA the right to tell someone not to smoke
pot, do other drugs, especially their prescribed meds? And what gives
people the right at NA to tell someone to not drink? Like I said, who
makes up the rules and why do they differ so much?
I have known at least one person who drank, but did not drink heavily,
yet that same person would smoke pot all day long, and do other drugs
too. Their drug use was a problem, not their drinking. I dont know if
that person ever went to any 12 step group, but if they did, I think
they would have a hard time coping if they were told not to drink.
I got the impression that there were too many bosses in all these
programs, and they just made up the rules as they went.
In the past I went to NA, and quite often I heard people say "I'm
staying off of drugs, all I do is drink now". And everytime, someone
would say something like "alcohol is a drug, you must abstain from
alcohol too". At the same time, I've heard numerous times at AA
meetings, where people say something like "smoking pot has helped me
stay sober from drinking". Most of the time that was overlooked, but a
few of the purists have said something to the effect that "to be sober,
you cant be using any drugs, and I've even heard some of the real
fanatics tell people that they have to stop taking prescriptions meds
too.
WHOA, just who makes up these rules, and why do they differ so much.
Lets begin by discussing ALL the 12 step groups that exist. Besides
Alcoholics anonymous, and Narcotics anonymous, there's Smokers
anonymous, Gamblers anonymous, Sex addicts anonymous, Cocaine anonymous.
(why NA is not enough for them I never understood), Over eaters
anonymous, Emotions anonymous, and a few others. Considering this, if
AA says a person cant smoke pot or do other drugs, or NA says you cant
drink, how come they all dont say you cant do any of the things that
there are 12 step groups for? I know many AA and NA people smoke. Some
gamble, many over do the sex, and I wont evne get into the Emotions
thing.
My point is this. If someone goes to NA to quit their drug of choice,
why are they told they cant drink alcohol? Ok, I know the arguement is
that "alcohol is a drug too" (which it is), but then again, so is
nicotine. Actually caffein is a drug too, and they serve that at AA and
NA by the gallons. So, lets just say that I go to AA and say I smoke
pot to help me stay sober. What gives anyone a right at AA to say I
cant smoke pot? AA is *ALCOHOLICS* anonymous, that means it's about
ALCOHOL, not pot ot cocaine or nicotine, or LSD...... [Not to mention
that Bill W. ate LSD and other drugs quite often].
Although I did not go to real many NA meetings (because NA was fairly
new when I was starting my 12 step groups and there were not many
meetings). But I'd say that one of the most common gripes were people
objecting to the fact they were being told to not drink alcohol.
At this point, I want to say that I actually agreed that it would be
best to stay off alcohol, when trying to get off drugs, or at least
drink very little. Simply because when someone gets a lot of alcohol in
thir system, they will break down and do drugs, over eat, smoke, etc....
Just a common way that people's minds work when they are drinking,
because all their cares go out the window.
Yet, what gives poeople in AA the right to tell someone not to smoke
pot, do other drugs, especially their prescribed meds? And what gives
people the right at NA to tell someone to not drink? Like I said, who
makes up the rules and why do they differ so much?
I have known at least one person who drank, but did not drink heavily,
yet that same person would smoke pot all day long, and do other drugs
too. Their drug use was a problem, not their drinking. I dont know if
that person ever went to any 12 step group, but if they did, I think
they would have a hard time coping if they were told not to drink.
I got the impression that there were too many bosses in all these
programs, and they just made up the rules as they went.
Jimbo
Mar 24, 2013, 11:19:39 AM3/24/13
to
On 24 Mar, 05:37, exit...@myplace.com wrote:
And what gives people the right at NA to tell someone to not drink?
Like I said, who
> makes up the rules and why do they differ so much?
AA deals with recovery from alcoholism while NA deals with recovery
And what gives people the right at NA to tell someone to not drink?
Like I said, who
> makes up the rules and why do they differ so much?
from addiction. Most treatment centers
have also adopted the addiction model.
I personally know 2 guys who were hard core heroin users and they
recovered thru NA but now drink socially and b/c of that they don't
attend NA anymore.
My brother-in-law blew a 600K inheritance on coke and he got clean at
a coke only rehab back in the 80's. At that time they actually tried
out social drinking
as an out patient. He has stayed clean since and drinks socially.
I believe that the idea that a drug is a drug and addiction is
addiction was created so as treatment centers only needed one bus.
exi...@myplace.com
Mar 25, 2013, 3:57:04 PM3/25/13
to
On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 08:19:39 -0700 (PDT), Jimbo <jbl...@videotron.ca>
wrote:
>On 24 Mar, 05:37, exit...@myplace.com wrote:
> And what gives people the right at NA to tell someone to not drink?
> Like I said, who
>> makes up the rules and why do they differ so much?
>
>AA deals with recovery from alcoholism while NA deals with recovery
>from addiction. Most treatment centers
>have also adopted the addiction model.
>
>I personally know 2 guys who were hard core heroin users and they
>recovered thru NA but now drink socially and b/c of that they don't
>attend NA anymore.
>
Were they told to not attend NA anymore, (if they drank), or was this a
personal choice?
>My brother-in-law blew a 600K inheritance on coke and he got clean at
>a coke only rehab back in the 80's. At that time they actually tried
>out social drinking
>as an out patient. He has stayed clean since and drinks socially.
>
>I believe that the idea that a drug is a drug and addiction is
>addiction was created so as treatment centers only needed one bus.
So, it's really the treatment centers that are now dictating what AA and
NA do?
While I somewhat agree that people who use any drug to excess, including
alcohol, have an "additive personality", then why are these programs
ignoring smoking for example? At the same time, I do believe that
alcoholism and drug addiction are a lot worse than smoking. I also know
that attempting to quit multiple things at the same time (such as drugs,
alcohol, and smoking), is almost guaranteed to fail.
I also want to state that persons with an addictive personality often
tend to use AA or NA as their *new* addiction. It always amazes me just
how addicted some people seem to get to 12 step groups.
Yet, regardless of what the treatment centers say or do, I do not think
a person who joins NA should be *required* to also quit drinking, unless
they personally admit to alcoholism, or excessive/heavy drinking. This
should be a personal choice. I can also see this in reverse, where an
AA member may choose to use drugs. However, in this manner I do think
that using harmful drugs are not going to help the alcoholic in any way
and will likely harm them more than anything. But I'm referring to
cocaine, heroin, and most all chemical drugs, not smoking some pot or
hash. Granted, pot and hash have their problems too, but much less
likely than the chemical type drugs.
wrote:
>On 24 Mar, 05:37, exit...@myplace.com wrote:
> And what gives people the right at NA to tell someone to not drink?
> Like I said, who
>> makes up the rules and why do they differ so much?
>
>AA deals with recovery from alcoholism while NA deals with recovery
>from addiction. Most treatment centers
>have also adopted the addiction model.
>
>I personally know 2 guys who were hard core heroin users and they
>recovered thru NA but now drink socially and b/c of that they don't
>attend NA anymore.
>
personal choice?
>My brother-in-law blew a 600K inheritance on coke and he got clean at
>a coke only rehab back in the 80's. At that time they actually tried
>out social drinking
>as an out patient. He has stayed clean since and drinks socially.
>
>I believe that the idea that a drug is a drug and addiction is
>addiction was created so as treatment centers only needed one bus.
NA do?
While I somewhat agree that people who use any drug to excess, including
alcohol, have an "additive personality", then why are these programs
ignoring smoking for example? At the same time, I do believe that
alcoholism and drug addiction are a lot worse than smoking. I also know
that attempting to quit multiple things at the same time (such as drugs,
alcohol, and smoking), is almost guaranteed to fail.
I also want to state that persons with an addictive personality often
tend to use AA or NA as their *new* addiction. It always amazes me just
how addicted some people seem to get to 12 step groups.
Yet, regardless of what the treatment centers say or do, I do not think
a person who joins NA should be *required* to also quit drinking, unless
they personally admit to alcoholism, or excessive/heavy drinking. This
should be a personal choice. I can also see this in reverse, where an
AA member may choose to use drugs. However, in this manner I do think
that using harmful drugs are not going to help the alcoholic in any way
and will likely harm them more than anything. But I'm referring to
cocaine, heroin, and most all chemical drugs, not smoking some pot or
hash. Granted, pot and hash have their problems too, but much less
likely than the chemical type drugs.
Charlie M. 1958
Mar 25, 2013, 4:03:32 PM3/25/13
to
On 3/24/2013 10:19 AM, Jimbo wrote:
> My brother-in-law blew a 600K inheritance on coke and he got clean at
> a coke only rehab back in the 80's. At that time they actually tried
> out social drinking
> as an out patient. He has stayed clean since and drinks socially.
>
> I believe that the idea that a drug is a drug and addiction is
> addiction was created so as treatment centers only needed one bus.
>
I don't believe it's a black and white issue. How many times have you
> My brother-in-law blew a 600K inheritance on coke and he got clean at
> a coke only rehab back in the 80's. At that time they actually tried
> out social drinking
> as an out patient. He has stayed clean since and drinks socially.
>
> I believe that the idea that a drug is a drug and addiction is
> addiction was created so as treatment centers only needed one bus.
>
heard alcoholics in meetings talking about other behaviors/substances
they have done addictively? You're not likely to convince me that opiate
addiction and alcoholism are unrelated conditions.
That being said, different substances affect individuals differently.
One of my best friends is a guy with 12 years of sobriety whose main
problem was prescription opiates. He /knows/ he can drink socially
because he has done it in the past. But taking pain medication, even for
major surgery, is a huge ordeal for him. I, on the other hand, never
really got anything out of pills. I either felt nothing, or just didn't
like the way I felt.
Does that mean we have two different conditions that require two
different treatments?
Tommy
Mar 25, 2013, 4:16:14 PM3/25/13
to
"Charlie M. 1958" <alw...@impatient.com> wrote in message
news:kiqaf5$mgj$1...@dont-email.me...
believed he was addicted to alcohol (I wasn't addicted to it, just had a
great fondness for it)
I had 2 serious surgeries in which I had an amnesiac fed through the
drip....
The first 'n'th of a second I was in nirvana, pure cuckoo land.
They could have cut my leg off and I didn't care.
The second time, it took a leetle bit longer, but I got to nirvana too....
I decided to chance ordinary anaesthesia the third and subsequent times -
made me quite ill but I didn't die - - - yet!
I relate my experience to descriptions from addicts of their intro to drugs.
Alcohol never did that to me. Might have sent me to a form of heaven, but
it took ages to get there - that was the enjoyable part for me. Getting
there, the camaraderie, the jokes, the company, the safety inside our nest
of like minded drinkers.. And the taste of the bitter creaminess as it
slowly made its icy cold way down my parched gullet hehehh :-)
Of course the next morning when the dry heaves and scuttery underpants took
the gloss out of it was a different story
Cheers
Tommy
news:kiqaf5$mgj$1...@dont-email.me...
> On 3/24/2013 10:19 AM, Jimbo wrote:
>
>> My brother-in-law blew a 600K inheritance on coke and he got clean at
>> a coke only rehab back in the 80's. At that time they actually tried
>> out social drinking
>> as an out patient. He has stayed clean since and drinks socially.
>>
>> I believe that the idea that a drug is a drug and addiction is
>> addiction was created so as treatment centers only needed one bus.
>>
>
> I don't believe it's a black and white issue. How many times have you
> heard alcoholics in meetings talking about other behaviors/substances they
> have done addictively? You're not likely to convince me that opiate
> addiction and alcoholism are unrelated conditions.
>
>
>> My brother-in-law blew a 600K inheritance on coke and he got clean at
>> a coke only rehab back in the 80's. At that time they actually tried
>> out social drinking
>> as an out patient. He has stayed clean since and drinks socially.
>>
>> I believe that the idea that a drug is a drug and addiction is
>> addiction was created so as treatment centers only needed one bus.
>>
>
> I don't believe it's a black and white issue. How many times have you
> heard alcoholics in meetings talking about other behaviors/substances they
> have done addictively? You're not likely to convince me that opiate
> addiction and alcoholism are unrelated conditions.
>
> Does that mean we have two different conditions that require two different
> treatments?
It would be great if we all suffered the same pain in the same way - Virt
> treatments?
believed he was addicted to alcohol (I wasn't addicted to it, just had a
great fondness for it)
I had 2 serious surgeries in which I had an amnesiac fed through the
drip....
The first 'n'th of a second I was in nirvana, pure cuckoo land.
They could have cut my leg off and I didn't care.
The second time, it took a leetle bit longer, but I got to nirvana too....
I decided to chance ordinary anaesthesia the third and subsequent times -
made me quite ill but I didn't die - - - yet!
I relate my experience to descriptions from addicts of their intro to drugs.
Alcohol never did that to me. Might have sent me to a form of heaven, but
it took ages to get there - that was the enjoyable part for me. Getting
there, the camaraderie, the jokes, the company, the safety inside our nest
of like minded drinkers.. And the taste of the bitter creaminess as it
slowly made its icy cold way down my parched gullet hehehh :-)
Of course the next morning when the dry heaves and scuttery underpants took
the gloss out of it was a different story
Cheers
Tommy
Jimbo
Mar 25, 2013, 4:30:43 PM3/25/13
to
On 25 Mar, 14:57, exit...@myplace.com wrote:
> Were they told to not attend NA anymore, (if they drank), or was this a
> personal choice?
No, they just did not feel comfortable.
> Were they told to not attend NA anymore, (if they drank), or was this a
> personal choice?
> So, it's really the treatment centers that are now dictating what AA and
> NA do?
Some give it up over a period of time and
adopt AA's language and culture and some hang onto it.
> While I somewhat agree that people who use any drug to excess, including
> alcohol, have an "additive personality", then why are these programs
> ignoring smoking for example?
Jimbo
Mar 25, 2013, 4:48:24 PM3/25/13
to
On 25 Mar, 16:03, "Charlie M. 1958" wrote:
> I don't believe it's a black and white issue. How many times have you
> heard alcoholics in meetings talking about other behaviors/substances
> they have done addictively?
What does doing something addictively mean?
> I don't believe it's a black and white issue. How many times have you
> heard alcoholics in meetings talking about other behaviors/substances
> they have done addictively?
They may be related but that does not make them brother and sister. I
smoked a lot of pot, sniffed a lot of coke,
smoked heroin and opium and ate mushrooms.I could take them or leave
them and I know why. Drugs always
gave me an out of control feeling while alcohol gave me an in control
feeling.
When I had my colon resection 4 years ago I had a morphine pump that
gave me a dose every 15 minutes.
The pain management nurse keep asking me if I was ok b/c I used so
little. I know I used so little b/c I did
not want to experience the out of control feeling.
> That being said, different substances affect individuals differently.
pick-me-up.
> One of my best friends is a guy with 12 years of sobriety whose main
> different treatments?
Maybe. If he became addicted to opiatres during a medical procedure,
why would he need the steps. Is selfishness and
self-centeredness the root of his problem?Just don't dio opiates.
Studies have shown that most, up to 70% of drug addicts age out of
drug use.
The fact that the use of alcohol is socially acceptable while the use
and misuse of drugs is criminal has a lot
to do with it.
The Shick-Shadel Sanitariums in Washington State started turning out
recovered alcoholics in 1935. They used
aversion therapy coupled with talk therapy. They worked only with
married men with children and a job. They produced 70K recoveries.
Imagine if people could be steered into the most effective therapy for
them. Wow, what a novel thought.:-)
exi...@myplace.com
Mar 25, 2013, 5:51:51 PM3/25/13
to
started around the age of 17. At first it was just pot, (which was not
a real problem). Then I got into the psychedelics, which I have mixed
feelings about. But toward the end I got into the hard stuff. In all
honesty, I never wanted to get into the hard stuff, but both peer
pressure and the fact that sometimes it was all I could find, I began
using that stuff, and that shit fucked me up badly. Yet, it was some
badly made acid that caused me to nearly die, (along with other bad
things caused by the hard stuff), which finally lead me to make a
decision (on my own), to quit the drugs except pot and hash.
That was not easy to do, but I knew I had to do it. I could only recall
being extremely sick during that last near death experience on that so
called "acid", which was pure poison. And many other bad experiences.
Noy to mention seeing other friends dying, and realizing I was hanging
around with people who carried guns, went to prison, and other very
negative influences. After all, this was the early to mid 70's. It all
began with "Peace and Love", and turned into violence and crime. I
wanted out of that whole scene.
The first thing I did was relocate away from that scene, and just
stopped the hard stuff cold turkey, while relying on pot and alcohol to
replace the drugs, and keep me from shaking and freaking out. I began
to drink more and more. But alcohol was legal, and in my mind at the
time, it was safe. This was even after losing an uncle from alcoholism.
Somehow I did not see myself getting like him. In my own distorted
mind, I thought that I was really succeeding by leaving that drug scene
behind me. But soon I found that the shakes were now being caused by
lacking alcohol, not the drugs any longer, and that got worse, as well
as the alcohol causing many other serious problems for me. Eventually
that lead me to AA under the advice of a therapist, who I had gone to
because I was not coping well without my former drugs, and with life in
general.
Before the drug problem occurred, I was not that much of a drinker.
Sure, I got extremely drunk a few times, and was drinking a few beers
often when I smoked some pot, but at that time it was nore like most
guys who reach the legal age to drink, tend to over do it on occasion.
Even though I would occasionally drink before I was legal.
So, in the beginning, alcohol was not all that important. It only
became a problem when I used it as a substitute for the drugs which my
body was lacking, but which I wanted out of my life.
Looking back, NA should have been where I started, not AA, but NA was
pretty rare in those days. But AA was there and since I was recommended
to join, and since my drinking had gotten out of control, it seemed
right at the moment.
I have often wondered if with all the talk on here about the *REAL*
alcoholic, if I differ somewhat, because my *choice* drug, was initially
other substances, not so much the alcohol. Yet, the alcohol did become
a problem, and quite severely.
I can and do drink in moderation now, but I have not used any
non-prescribed drugs since the late 70's and not even smoked pot since
the early 80's. I have no desire to do any drugs. Being far away from
that scene, I would not even know where to get them now, but on occasion
I have been offerred some pot, and refused it. Maybe this is where I
differ. It's not so much whether I am a co called *REAL* alcoholic, but
that my *CHOICE* drug was other stuff.
I can not see myself EVER using drugs again. Not even pot. I dont thing
pot is all that bad, but after using it for years, I found I just did
not like the way it made me feel anymore. There is nothing short of
being forced at gunpoint that would make me take drugs. But I feel
comfortable having a few drinks and no longer have any fear of drinking.
It was only the AA guilt trip that made me fear it as long as I did.
Addiction IS addiction, but I believe that the substance matters very
much too. I really believe that almost everyone has some sort of
addiction. Some people it's food, others it's smoking (that's my worst
one still), and people are addicted to money, sex, collecting stuff, and
the list could go on. I've seen some people addicted to hunting,
camping, sports, cars, womanizing, clothing, (I know a woman who is
addicted to shoes, and has over 100 pairs), and the list goes on and on.
Maybe in the end everyone is an addict in some form. Maybe a priest is
addicted to religion, or the guy with 20 cars is addicted to cars and so
on. We all have our likes and dislikes and our obcesssions. But some
addictions are bad, while others are pretty harmless. I just know that
I MUST avoid drugs, and need to be cautious with my drinking. I know I
should probably quit smoking, but likely never will. I guess age
teaches us what we should and should not do.....
exi...@myplace.com
Mar 25, 2013, 6:57:40 PM3/25/13
to
On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 13:48:24 -0700 (PDT), Jimbo <jbl...@videotron.ca>
wrote:
>What does doing something addictively mean?
>
I'm sure there are a million definitions, but I'd say it's anything done
constantly where a person finds it hard to stop. I mentioned a woman
that I know who is addicted to shoes, had over 100 pairs and everytime
she sees a pair she wants, even if it's her last dollars, she will buy
them. Compulsion might be a good way to describe it. I know that
smoking is bad, and I have asthma too. But I cant stop. If I run out
of smokes, I go nearly insane. I have rolling tobacco, papers, and a
rolling machine for such emergencies, and that truly IS an emergency for
me. I know it's an addiction. Maybe the best way to describe addiction
is to say that it's where a person will go to any length to get whatever
it is that they are addicted to. They will risk their health, spend
their last dollar, in some cases, such as illegal drugs, they will risk
getting arrested and prison. The fact remains that some addictions are
worse than others. Drinking to excess can get a person arrested,
drinking and driving is far worse, while illegal drugs have even more
serious complications. Being addicted to shoes is minor in many ways,
but if it affects paying the rent, or not eating as a result, it could
be damaging too, but in a lesser way than drugs or drinking.
>They may be related but that does not make them brother and sister. I
>smoked a lot of pot, sniffed a lot of coke,
> smoked heroin and opium and ate mushrooms.I could take them or leave
>them and I know why. Drugs always
>gave me an out of control feeling while alcohol gave me an in control
>feeling.
I can relate to the out of control or in control feelings. But I'm not
exactly the same. Hard drugs and psychedelics often made me feel out of
control. Pot/hash usually kept me feeling in control, with a few
exceptions when the stuff was extremely potent. At the same time, I can
have a few drinks and feel completely in control, and the little I drink
these days, there is no reason not to, because I dont get drunk. But
back when I was drinking heavy, there were many times I felt out of
control. The time I drove my car into a lake, was one time I had no
control whatsoever. I didn't have a clue what I was doing, because I
fell out of the car before it went into the lake, because I thought it
was parked. I recall another time falling down a flight of stairs, and
I had no clue what was going on. It took several friends to carry me
home, and I woke up 3 days later and remembered nothing after that fall,
and only vaguely remember the actual fall.
I think part of whethere there is control or not, depends on the
substance, the amount, and how it reacts in a person's body. I also
think a person's mental state has an effect too, but regardless of the
mental state, too much of any mind and body altering substance (incl
alcohol), will take away a persons ability to control themselves. I'd
say this is where the moderation plays a part. I can get a slight buzz
from a few beers but still function normally, but if I was to drink 5
beers, I'd lose some control, and 20 beers and I'd lose all control.
I do agree with the statement made that age alone stops most people from
doing illegal drugs, and I think in many of not most cases, excessive
drinking too.
I also know that even after all my abusive use of drugs, I now have a
low tolerance to prescribed drugs. The doctor prescribes me Prednisone
for asthma. I get real goofy on that shit. The doctor said that it's
unusual. Most of the time I refuse drugs that are only intended to stop
pain, and offer no real cure. Or I ask for the least potent drug or
amount if I absolutely need it. When I had an abcessed tooth, I was
given tylenol with codein. That shit really makes me goofy, but tooth
pain can be unbearable, so I took it, and it helped, but I got to the
dentist to have the tooth extracted as quickly as possible. Not only to
get rid of the pain, but to be able to stop the drugs. I just dont like
feeling "fucked up" these days. I really have no urge whatsoever to get
drunk. I dont like the feeling. A mild buzz is fine, but not where the
shit makes me feel out of control or sick.....
wrote:
>What does doing something addictively mean?
>
constantly where a person finds it hard to stop. I mentioned a woman
that I know who is addicted to shoes, had over 100 pairs and everytime
she sees a pair she wants, even if it's her last dollars, she will buy
them. Compulsion might be a good way to describe it. I know that
smoking is bad, and I have asthma too. But I cant stop. If I run out
of smokes, I go nearly insane. I have rolling tobacco, papers, and a
rolling machine for such emergencies, and that truly IS an emergency for
me. I know it's an addiction. Maybe the best way to describe addiction
is to say that it's where a person will go to any length to get whatever
it is that they are addicted to. They will risk their health, spend
their last dollar, in some cases, such as illegal drugs, they will risk
getting arrested and prison. The fact remains that some addictions are
worse than others. Drinking to excess can get a person arrested,
drinking and driving is far worse, while illegal drugs have even more
serious complications. Being addicted to shoes is minor in many ways,
but if it affects paying the rent, or not eating as a result, it could
be damaging too, but in a lesser way than drugs or drinking.
>They may be related but that does not make them brother and sister. I
>smoked a lot of pot, sniffed a lot of coke,
> smoked heroin and opium and ate mushrooms.I could take them or leave
>them and I know why. Drugs always
>gave me an out of control feeling while alcohol gave me an in control
>feeling.
exactly the same. Hard drugs and psychedelics often made me feel out of
control. Pot/hash usually kept me feeling in control, with a few
exceptions when the stuff was extremely potent. At the same time, I can
have a few drinks and feel completely in control, and the little I drink
these days, there is no reason not to, because I dont get drunk. But
back when I was drinking heavy, there were many times I felt out of
control. The time I drove my car into a lake, was one time I had no
control whatsoever. I didn't have a clue what I was doing, because I
fell out of the car before it went into the lake, because I thought it
was parked. I recall another time falling down a flight of stairs, and
I had no clue what was going on. It took several friends to carry me
home, and I woke up 3 days later and remembered nothing after that fall,
and only vaguely remember the actual fall.
I think part of whethere there is control or not, depends on the
substance, the amount, and how it reacts in a person's body. I also
think a person's mental state has an effect too, but regardless of the
mental state, too much of any mind and body altering substance (incl
alcohol), will take away a persons ability to control themselves. I'd
say this is where the moderation plays a part. I can get a slight buzz
from a few beers but still function normally, but if I was to drink 5
beers, I'd lose some control, and 20 beers and I'd lose all control.
I do agree with the statement made that age alone stops most people from
doing illegal drugs, and I think in many of not most cases, excessive
drinking too.
I also know that even after all my abusive use of drugs, I now have a
low tolerance to prescribed drugs. The doctor prescribes me Prednisone
for asthma. I get real goofy on that shit. The doctor said that it's
unusual. Most of the time I refuse drugs that are only intended to stop
pain, and offer no real cure. Or I ask for the least potent drug or
amount if I absolutely need it. When I had an abcessed tooth, I was
given tylenol with codein. That shit really makes me goofy, but tooth
pain can be unbearable, so I took it, and it helped, but I got to the
dentist to have the tooth extracted as quickly as possible. Not only to
get rid of the pain, but to be able to stop the drugs. I just dont like
feeling "fucked up" these days. I really have no urge whatsoever to get
drunk. I dont like the feeling. A mild buzz is fine, but not where the
shit makes me feel out of control or sick.....
nipntuk
Mar 25, 2013, 8:03:55 PM3/25/13
to
Listening to your dumb feckers talk about addiction is like listening to
Akroid and Belushi talk about 'Women's Problems'.
Seriously...
Akroid and Belushi talk about 'Women's Problems'.
Seriously...
exi...@myplace.com
Mar 25, 2013, 10:30:16 PM3/25/13
to
one that interests you.
Charlie M. 1958
Mar 25, 2013, 10:11:29 PM3/25/13
to
conversation around here? :-)
Jimbo
Mar 25, 2013, 10:21:53 PM3/25/13
to
Jimbo
Mar 25, 2013, 10:23:42 PM3/25/13
to
On 25 Mar, 21:31, exit...@myplace.com wrote:
> Then why dont you go to a different newsgroup. I'm sure youy could find
> one that interests you.
He thinks himself to be the resident expert on all matters but to me
> Then why dont you go to a different newsgroup. I'm sure youy could find
> one that interests you.
he is just Mr. Fuck up.
nipntuk
Mar 25, 2013, 10:26:30 PM3/25/13
to
The assumption that if it doesn't quite mesh with one's own personal
experience, it must then necessarily be somehow bogus has long been SOP.
The total lack of respect or regard for the experience of millions of
people, both in and out of recovery.... That would be the long-standing
SOS. :-)
My own attempts at engaging in any substantive discussion being
generally ignored in the past, I'm disinclined to try again after 17
years of it. Insanity is ________________ and expecting_____________
nipntuk
Mar 25, 2013, 10:35:17 PM3/25/13
to
How could you go on about the business of being so much better than
everyone if you didn't have your vast arsenal of 'Things (and People) To
Look Down On'?
Have a nice evening.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection
Jimbo
Mar 25, 2013, 10:36:53 PM3/25/13
to
On 25 Mar, 22:35, nipntuk <> wrote:
> How could you go on about the business of being so much better than
> everyone if you didn't have your vast arsenal of 'Things (and People) To
> Look Down On'?
Your a first class ass hole!
> How could you go on about the business of being so much better than
> everyone if you didn't have your vast arsenal of 'Things (and People) To
> Look Down On'?
nipntuk
Mar 25, 2013, 10:40:26 PM3/25/13
to
nipntuk
Mar 25, 2013, 10:43:37 PM3/25/13
to
Hank
Mar 26, 2013, 1:33:59 AM3/26/13
to
In article <OsWdnXwffMZ2eM3M...@giganews.com>,
Well well well. Who pissed in your Wheaties?
Like it or not, the AA's who are trying to get sober and stay that way
are too often confronted with court slippees who got nailed
for---well, something---and it wasn't drunkenness---and who got
"sentenced" to attend AA meetings. After all, why do they name the
outfit that's doing the sentencing "drug court?" It's a big "get out
of jail free" sham, backed by attitudes like "a drug is a drug is a
drug" when alkaloids are most definitely not related chemically to
alcohol. Most of them think drinking alcohol is OK, but would prefer
something else. And if they've got a "desire to stop drinking," it's
strictly "for the duration."
Of course we're going to talk about drug addictions to try to get some
understanding of just why our meetings are being inundated by people
who don't belong in AA.
Hank
Like it or not, the AA's who are trying to get sober and stay that way
are too often confronted with court slippees who got nailed
for---well, something---and it wasn't drunkenness---and who got
"sentenced" to attend AA meetings. After all, why do they name the
outfit that's doing the sentencing "drug court?" It's a big "get out
of jail free" sham, backed by attitudes like "a drug is a drug is a
drug" when alkaloids are most definitely not related chemically to
alcohol. Most of them think drinking alcohol is OK, but would prefer
something else. And if they've got a "desire to stop drinking," it's
strictly "for the duration."
Of course we're going to talk about drug addictions to try to get some
understanding of just why our meetings are being inundated by people
who don't belong in AA.
Hank
nipntuk
Mar 26, 2013, 2:19:31 AM3/26/13
to
aren't necessarily tied to the exact same mechanisms, but which have the
same general effects. Just as alkies can argue nature or nurture all day
and into the night, ultimately it's a dumb argument to engage.
Who really gives a shit whether craving is the result of dopamine
depletion, or stress reactions, or some other neurochemical process,,when
the end result is a common experience of loss of control, obsession and
compulsion and complete insanity?
From the standpoint of AA's singleness of purpose, the beef should be with
the courts, not the addicts, who would find far more sense of
identification in Narcotics Anonymous, not withstanding all the bullshit
being spread here about people being chased off because of their substances
of 'choice'.
My comment is directed at the rhetoric that because some alkies may manage
to pop pills or smoke weed without triggering their alcoholism ( though
many of those do show up sick and miserable in the rooms of NA) that
somehow that implies that addiction as a condition either is a scam
perpetrated by the treatment industry,or a behavior problem whose sufferers
are somehow a lesser class than Real Alcoholics.
It's hysterical to hear crapped-pants, puking, lying, mug shot, repo'd,
knocked-up, stinking drunks now trying to pretend they are a better class
of drug addict, and working so hard to keep the heathen at bay.
I respect and understand AA's singleness of purpose, so encourage you to
direct anyone identifying as an addict in a closed AA meeting to the next
and nearest meeting of NA.
The ignorant banter that flies in the face of the experience of millions of
addicts for whom to use ANYTHING is to die, the arrogant assumption that
not only invalidates the concept of addiction as a disease, but also the
power of an addict's recovery - that's what i get a gut full of hearing
from people who forgot the grace they got, which apparently they would deny
for another, lesser being.
exi...@myplace.com
Mar 26, 2013, 5:37:53 AM3/26/13
to
On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 01:19:31 -0500, nipntuk <car...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I respect and understand AA's singleness of purpose, so encourage you to
>direct anyone identifying as an addict in a closed AA meeting to the next
>and nearest meeting of NA.
Although I no longer go to AA, I did have issues with this matter when I
>I respect and understand AA's singleness of purpose, so encourage you to
>direct anyone identifying as an addict in a closed AA meeting to the next
>and nearest meeting of NA.
did. Being addicted to drugs along with alcohol, and going to NA on
occasion back in those days, I would often say "my name is _____ and I'm
and alcoholic and addict". I too understood and mostly respected AA's
single purpose. However, I did feel that at the meetings I was told to
not say the extra words (and I was), that I was being violated.
Granted, if I did *not* say the "Alcoholic" part, there may be some
questions as to where I belonged. (AA or NA). I also understand that
there is both a similarity and a difference between drug use and
alcohol. However, I had two objections.
1. I'm not a robot. Just because everyone said the same introduction
("my name is _____ and I'm and alcoholic"). Come on, I said what was
expected, and I should have a right to add to it, if it fits my problem.
That's been one of my big gripes about AA. They seem to want robots.
There are far too many "canned" responses in AA. The slogans are often
just used to hush people up, or offer a response without actually
communicating as human beings. When I see a therapist, the goal is to
open up and say what is bothering me. Most group therapy groups work
the same way. But in AA, I regularly felt that I had to follow an
agenda, could not say certain things, and when I did try to open up to
many members, especially the old timers, I was met with a few quick
slogans and there was no heart to heart communication whatsoever. What
the fuck good is that? Quite often I left AA meetings very frustrated,
because I went to the meeting with issues to discuss, and left with the
same issues unanswered, because when I asked them, all I got were
slogans and/or words from the BB or God talk, rather than honest person
to person communication.
2. If my story (drunkalog) included drugs, how in the hell can I
honestly tell my story if I dont include the details, which in my case,
the drugs played a huge part, and preceeded the alcohol abuse? I've
heard numerous drunkalogs that included details, often far too many,
about bad marriages playing a big part in the person's drinking, along
with terrible bosses and jobs, and money problems are another big issue.
Then there were lots of stories about wrecking cars, going fishing while
drunk, going to jail, and so on. No one seemed to complain about that
stuff, but heaven forbid someone mention drug addiction as part of their
drunkalog.
One other thing. There is one problem with expecting all addicts to go
to NA. That being that NA is much more available today than it was in
the 1970s, but that's for people in the cities. In rural areas, there
may not be any NA. Where I live, there is none, unless I cross the
state line into another state and go to a larger city which would mean a
substantial drive. Thus, for some people, there is no place for them to
get help, at least not from NA. So, if they are addicted to drugs and
also to alcohol, AA could be a little more open minded. After all, the
NA steps are darn near the same as those of AA, and addiction is
addiction in most ways regardless of the substance. Although I've never
read them, from what I understand, the steps used for Smokers Anonymous,
Gamblers Anonymous and all the other 12 step groups is darn near the
same. After all, AA was the model for them. Thus, what applies to
alcohol, applies to all these other programs, just for a different
substance. For all I know, they might even refer to the same God.....
(Unless smokers have a cigarette god, alkees have a booze god, druggies
have a syringe or pill god, and so on.....).
exi...@myplace.com
Mar 26, 2013, 5:40:39 AM3/26/13
to
On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 19:23:42 -0700 (PDT), Jimbo <jbl...@videotron.ca>
wrote:
I guess that leaves this website to respond with!.......
http://www.amishrakefight.org/gfy
wrote:
http://www.amishrakefight.org/gfy
Charlie M. 1958
Mar 26, 2013, 9:10:49 AM3/26/13
to
On 3/26/2013 1:19 AM, nipntuk wrote:
> It's hysterical to hear crapped-pants, puking, lying, mug shot, repo'd,
> knocked-up, stinking drunks now trying to pretend they are a better class
> of drug addict, and working so hard to keep the heathen at bay.
I have long believed that an awful lot (not all) of the folks hollering
> It's hysterical to hear crapped-pants, puking, lying, mug shot, repo'd,
> knocked-up, stinking drunks now trying to pretend they are a better class
> of drug addict, and working so hard to keep the heathen at bay.
about the "infiltration" of drug users into AA, hide behind singleness
of purpose when their true motivation is their desire to not be
associated with a common junkie.
> I respect and understand AA's singleness of purpose, so encourage you to
> direct anyone identifying as an addict in a closed AA meeting to the next
> and nearest meeting of NA.
> The ignorant banter that flies in the face of the experience of millions of
> addicts for whom to use ANYTHING is to die, the arrogant assumption that
> not only invalidates the concept of addiction as a disease, but also the
> power of an addict's recovery - that's what i get a gut full of hearing
> from people who forgot the grace they got, which apparently they would deny
> for another, lesser being.
>
but can use some other substance without losing control:To me, it's just
playing with fire. Alcohol or anything else, even in moderation, has a
temporary effect on judgment. A former coke addict with a couple of
drinks in him is a lot more likely to accept an offer to do a few lines
than he would be if he was stone-sold sober. And once he does, it's
probably off to the races again.
For me, sobriety has to be a mindset. If I start trying to figure out
which substances I can cope with and which ones I can't, I'm in deep
shit. That may not be the universal experience, but I don't think I'm
alone either.
Hank
Mar 26, 2013, 4:42:59 PM3/26/13
to
In article <1586465961385969326.30...@news.giganews.com>,
put it, something of a "matrix." Some large percentage of people who
come to AA didn't drink to get drunk and viewed (as much of the
"civilian" world seems to) as a social lubricant---until having to
confront the fact that as time went on, they consistently got
overlubricated and had to deal with it. I know any number of stories
of people who seemingly drank socially for a number of years, then
went through a fairly short downfall culminating in entry to AA. My
first sponsor, who came to AA in 1947, was one such---five years from
top to bottom. I can identify with that group. And, like many of
them, what experiences I've had with medications that made me "high" I
found very unpleasant, and something avoidable to the point of not
taking the medication if not absolutely necessary. In short, you have
to contend with a subset of genuine alkies who couldn't make it as
drug addicts if they tried.
>My comment is directed at the rhetoric that because some alkies may manage
>to pop pills or smoke weed without triggering their alcoholism ( though
>many of those do show up sick and miserable in the rooms of NA) that
>somehow that implies that addiction as a condition either is a scam
>perpetrated by the treatment industry,or a behavior problem whose sufferers
>are somehow a lesser class than Real Alcoholics.
It's not a case of a greater or lesser class. It's a case where a
druggie comes to an AA meeting and starts spouting off about drugs and
using drug culture slang, and baffles too many of the AA's.
>It's hysterical to hear crapped-pants, puking, lying, mug shot, repo'd,
>knocked-up, stinking drunks now trying to pretend they are a better class
>of drug addict, and working so hard to keep the heathen at bay.
You're making the assumption that the low-bottom-drunk newcomer is a
"drug addict" of some sort. Remember that chemically, alcohol is
different from just about any other drug that makes people "high."
>I respect and understand AA's singleness of purpose, so encourage you to
>direct anyone identifying as an addict in a closed AA meeting to the next
>and nearest meeting of NA.
What "nearest meeting of NA?" Up until recently there has been zero
NA in this 8X16 block two-cop town. We've recently (about two months)
seen a committment from druggies to open up a meeting, and many of us
in AA have encouraged the people who are doing that. And don't talk
about the "next town," there's no NA in the other AA town in the
district 30 miles away, and from there, it's 120 miles to the next
place that has AA.
>The ignorant banter that flies in the face of the experience of millions of
>addicts for whom to use ANYTHING is to die, the arrogant assumption that
>not only invalidates the concept of addiction as a disease, but also the
>power of an addict's recovery - that's what i get a gut full of hearing
>from people who forgot the grace they got, which apparently they would deny
>for another, lesser being.
You're making some pretty vast assumptions about some sort of a
pecking order here. We've had some pretty dramatic deaths among hard
core druggies whom AA's have tried to help. And there have been some
post-mortems among dedicated AA's where the conclusion has been that
in trying to help, without being able to identify, AA was enabling.
If this newest group of NA's can get a good core of recovery going in
this town, more power to them. We AA's can offer support, but there
are too few of us who are qualified to attend a closed NA meeting to
be participants in the recovery.
You'll remember that I lived in Denver for about five years, quite
near where you do, and saw some pretty effective NA, and Cocaine
Anonymous getting going there.
AA trying to be a one-fits-all has two problems. One, the message one
drunk can carry to another drunk gets diluted, and we lose people who
might otherwise get some recovery. And, two, trying to reach out to
people whose issues seem so different than recovery-from-alcohol
patterns ends up enabling, something I see as worse than not trying to
help at all.
I think that over the past 78 years that AA has been around, if it
could devise methodologies for helping druggies, it would have.
Remember that the AA traditions were written in blood, and the fifth
tradition is an admonishment against trying to be all things to all
people.
Hank
nipntuk <car...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Hank, addiction is a matrix. There are common attributes, or symptoms, that
>aren't necessarily tied to the exact same mechanisms, but which have the
>same general effects. Just as alkies can argue nature or nurture all day
>and into the night, ultimately it's a dumb argument to engage.
>Who really gives a shit whether craving is the result of dopamine
>depletion, or stress reactions, or some other neurochemical process,,when
>the end result is a common experience of loss of control, obsession and
>compulsion and complete insanity?
>From the standpoint of AA's singleness of purpose, the beef should be with
>the courts, not the addicts, who would find far more sense of
>identification in Narcotics Anonymous, not withstanding all the bullshit
>being spread here about people being chased off because of their substances
>of 'choice'.
Steve, I think we've got to recognize that alcoholism alone is, as you
>
>Hank, addiction is a matrix. There are common attributes, or symptoms, that
>aren't necessarily tied to the exact same mechanisms, but which have the
>same general effects. Just as alkies can argue nature or nurture all day
>and into the night, ultimately it's a dumb argument to engage.
>Who really gives a shit whether craving is the result of dopamine
>depletion, or stress reactions, or some other neurochemical process,,when
>the end result is a common experience of loss of control, obsession and
>compulsion and complete insanity?
>From the standpoint of AA's singleness of purpose, the beef should be with
>the courts, not the addicts, who would find far more sense of
>identification in Narcotics Anonymous, not withstanding all the bullshit
>being spread here about people being chased off because of their substances
>of 'choice'.
put it, something of a "matrix." Some large percentage of people who
come to AA didn't drink to get drunk and viewed (as much of the
"civilian" world seems to) as a social lubricant---until having to
confront the fact that as time went on, they consistently got
overlubricated and had to deal with it. I know any number of stories
of people who seemingly drank socially for a number of years, then
went through a fairly short downfall culminating in entry to AA. My
first sponsor, who came to AA in 1947, was one such---five years from
top to bottom. I can identify with that group. And, like many of
them, what experiences I've had with medications that made me "high" I
found very unpleasant, and something avoidable to the point of not
taking the medication if not absolutely necessary. In short, you have
to contend with a subset of genuine alkies who couldn't make it as
drug addicts if they tried.
>My comment is directed at the rhetoric that because some alkies may manage
>to pop pills or smoke weed without triggering their alcoholism ( though
>many of those do show up sick and miserable in the rooms of NA) that
>somehow that implies that addiction as a condition either is a scam
>perpetrated by the treatment industry,or a behavior problem whose sufferers
>are somehow a lesser class than Real Alcoholics.
druggie comes to an AA meeting and starts spouting off about drugs and
using drug culture slang, and baffles too many of the AA's.
>It's hysterical to hear crapped-pants, puking, lying, mug shot, repo'd,
>knocked-up, stinking drunks now trying to pretend they are a better class
>of drug addict, and working so hard to keep the heathen at bay.
"drug addict" of some sort. Remember that chemically, alcohol is
different from just about any other drug that makes people "high."
>I respect and understand AA's singleness of purpose, so encourage you to
>direct anyone identifying as an addict in a closed AA meeting to the next
>and nearest meeting of NA.
NA in this 8X16 block two-cop town. We've recently (about two months)
seen a committment from druggies to open up a meeting, and many of us
in AA have encouraged the people who are doing that. And don't talk
about the "next town," there's no NA in the other AA town in the
district 30 miles away, and from there, it's 120 miles to the next
place that has AA.
>The ignorant banter that flies in the face of the experience of millions of
>addicts for whom to use ANYTHING is to die, the arrogant assumption that
>not only invalidates the concept of addiction as a disease, but also the
>power of an addict's recovery - that's what i get a gut full of hearing
>from people who forgot the grace they got, which apparently they would deny
>for another, lesser being.
pecking order here. We've had some pretty dramatic deaths among hard
core druggies whom AA's have tried to help. And there have been some
post-mortems among dedicated AA's where the conclusion has been that
in trying to help, without being able to identify, AA was enabling.
If this newest group of NA's can get a good core of recovery going in
this town, more power to them. We AA's can offer support, but there
are too few of us who are qualified to attend a closed NA meeting to
be participants in the recovery.
You'll remember that I lived in Denver for about five years, quite
near where you do, and saw some pretty effective NA, and Cocaine
Anonymous getting going there.
AA trying to be a one-fits-all has two problems. One, the message one
drunk can carry to another drunk gets diluted, and we lose people who
might otherwise get some recovery. And, two, trying to reach out to
people whose issues seem so different than recovery-from-alcohol
patterns ends up enabling, something I see as worse than not trying to
help at all.
I think that over the past 78 years that AA has been around, if it
could devise methodologies for helping druggies, it would have.
Remember that the AA traditions were written in blood, and the fifth
tradition is an admonishment against trying to be all things to all
people.
Hank
Tim and Lisa
Mar 26, 2013, 4:54:49 PM3/26/13
to
"Jimbo" wrote in message
news:8f79f36b-3960-4a28...@v20g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
and sober, after all it's all poison!!! ;O)
nipntuk
Mar 26, 2013, 6:23:06 PM3/26/13
to
addiction. It's a bitter pill for Alcoholics to swallow :-)
>> My comment is directed at the rhetoric that because some alkies may manage
>> to pop pills or smoke weed without triggering their alcoholism ( though
>> many of those do show up sick and miserable in the rooms of NA) that
>> somehow that implies that addiction as a condition either is a scam
>> perpetrated by the treatment industry,or a behavior problem whose sufferers
>> are somehow a lesser class than Real Alcoholics.
>
> It's not a case of a greater or lesser class. It's a case where a
> druggie comes to an AA meeting and starts spouting off about drugs and
> using drug culture slang, and baffles too many of the AA's.
by specific people here on the NG, as being general comments about the
AA fellowship. For those specific folks, yes, there does indeed seem to
be a need to stratify.
But as a regular visitor to AA, involved in assisting with regular AA
related fundraising events and around a crowd which is especially given
to clean/sober, alcoholic/addict stuff, I look at it this way: The
demographics of society as a whole have changed, therefor the
demographics of AA will change as well. Because the generation that is
coming in the doors now tends to have been involved with a culture where
drug abuse was more pervasive than in the past, it will probably
continue to be the case that those identifying as alcoholic/addicts will
proliferate.
I'm speaking as a visitor here - my sense is that AA will have to
adjust. It's not a bad thing. If we're in agreement that whatever
affects a person's sobriety should be fodder for open discussion, then
it's not an outside issue for alkies to talk about their drug abuse.
>> It's hysterical to hear crapped-pants, puking, lying, mug shot, repo'd,
>> knocked-up, stinking drunks now trying to pretend they are a better class
>> of drug addict, and working so hard to keep the heathen at bay.
>
> You're making the assumption that the low-bottom-drunk newcomer is a
> "drug addict" of some sort. Remember that chemically, alcohol is
> different from just about any other drug that makes people "high."
bottom drunk is a drug addict of some kind. Chemically, a lot of
substances are quite distinct from each other. A person crawling on the
floor, miserable and sick and powerless - that's pretty universal.
were belittling of addicts, addiction and the program which I claim
membership in, which I felt needed speaking up for in the face of some
unmitigated falsehoods being bantered around here. I'm not a militant
Defender of The Program, but I will speak up if I hear something
patently false, because apparently there isn't another such person
around with the experience to do so, or at least none so moved.
So, okay, that said, my take is that AA should in no way be in the
business of supporting NA, and vice versa. That NA may not be present in
a particular area is no more the problem of AA than would be the
inverse. They're distinct and separate entities. Where an individual
addict who also attends AA might find the need and start an NA meeting,
that would be good and desirable, but not as an alcoholic trying to
'help' addicts.
OTOH, if a person walks into a room of AA and identifies as an
alcoholic, claiming membership, that he may have a drug problem
shouldn't be cause for vigilantes to run him or her off because they
feel he or she pollutes the well.
You may recall that I was raised by an alcoholic single mom, who was
explosive and abusive in the extreme until she found her sobriety in AA.
Being dragged around to a zillion meetings and conventions and social
functions - doing Alanon and Alateens, and beyond - supporting mom in
her recovery even as I was in my own active using 'career' - I have a
good understanding that while the fact of 'drug addiction' is
effectively no different, the /culture/ of alcoholism is quite different.
I believe that there *is* an appreciable difference in the fact that
Alcohol is a socially sanctioned drug which is treated differently by
society, and which has a different kind of stigma - perhaps at times a
perceived distinction in reality - but an important distinction
none-the-less. And THAT is where I go to the importance of identification.
> You'll remember that I lived in Denver for about five years, quite
> near where you do, and saw some pretty effective NA, and Cocaine
> Anonymous getting going there.
>
> AA trying to be a one-fits-all has two problems. One, the message one
> drunk can carry to another drunk gets diluted, and we lose people who
> might otherwise get some recovery. And, two, trying to reach out to
> people whose issues seem so different than recovery-from-alcohol
> patterns ends up enabling, something I see as worse than not trying to
> help at all.
>
> I think that over the past 78 years that AA has been around, if it
> could devise methodologies for helping druggies, it would have.
> Remember that the AA traditions were written in blood, and the fifth
> tradition is an admonishment against trying to be all things to all
> people.
>
> Hank
extended permission for other groups to adapt them to other problems. So
in that respect, it devised a methodology for helping 'druggies'.
I am grateful to AA for this, but also and especially for being there
for one battered child and his mom in a dusty little wild west Nevada
town in August of 1963. I wouldn't want that program to be any less
available, just as it is today for any other family anywhere, even as I
required a more overarching approach for my addiction.
I am not one of those who feel that AA's singleness of purpose is cause
for resentment or acrimony, as some addicts seem hell bent on. It is
what it is, and I completely understand *why* it is.
But as a more objective observer and as I said before, the world is
changing and regardless of what you or I think about it there are some
things that require us to adapt or die.
For alkies to become too attached to the way things were, to the extent
that they create an atmosphere of unwelcome because they disapprove of
the language or lifestyles of newer members (and I'm talking about the
past 20 years or so) seems to me to be as great a threat to the
long-term survival of the Program than any dilution of the message, real
or imagined.
The Catholic Church feels that it's principles are God-inspired and that
even if society changes, God's 'rules' (as they see them) don't. So they
resist change which is more appealing to the contemporary world,
standing against female clergy, birth control and reproductive rights
against a rising tide even within their own ranks. Meanwhile the public
perception of The Church crumbles in the larger world, and fewer are
attracted because of those perceptions. AA, I think oughta perk up and
pay attention to that - when the majority of the membership has some
other substance abuse history, how orthodox do they wish to be in
policing the language and identification of it's members?
That's a question for them to grapple with though - I'm an addict in
NA and don't really have much more than observations to offer AA, as a
family member, and kindred spirit.
nipntuk
Mar 26, 2013, 7:23:04 PM3/26/13
to
On 3/26/13 2:54 PM, Tim and Lisa wrote:
>
>
> "Jimbo" wrote in message
> news:8f79f36b-3960-4a28...@v20g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
>
> On 24 Mar, 05:37, exit...@myplace.com wrote:
> And what gives people the right at NA to tell someone to not drink?
> Like I said, who
>> makes up the rules and why do they differ so much?
>
> AA deals with recovery from alcoholism while NA deals with recovery
> from addiction. Most treatment centers
> have also adopted the addiction model.
>
> I personally know 2 guys who were hard core heroin users and they
> recovered thru NA but now drink socially and b/c of that they don't
> attend NA anymore.
But they could if they chose to - and nobody would tell them to go away.
>
>
> "Jimbo" wrote in message
> news:8f79f36b-3960-4a28...@v20g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
>
> On 24 Mar, 05:37, exit...@myplace.com wrote:
> And what gives people the right at NA to tell someone to not drink?
> Like I said, who
>> makes up the rules and why do they differ so much?
>
> AA deals with recovery from alcoholism while NA deals with recovery
> from addiction. Most treatment centers
> have also adopted the addiction model.
>
> I personally know 2 guys who were hard core heroin users and they
> recovered thru NA but now drink socially and b/c of that they don't
> attend NA anymore.
They'd just be told that they aren't clean today in a program that is
about complete abstinence from all drugs, including alcohol.
> My brother-in-law blew a 600K inheritance on coke and he got clean at
> a coke only rehab back in the 80's. At that time they actually tried
> out social drinking
> as an out patient. He has stayed clean since and drinks socially.
>
> I believe that the idea that a drug is a drug and addiction is
> addiction was created so as treatment centers only needed one bus.
advancing the message that addicts cannot afford to use any drug,
including alcohol.
> I think it was beacause in the beginning we went to any lengths to get
> clean and sober, after all it's all poison!!! ;O)
drinks in moderation, very occasionally today. How will that go for her
in the future? Given our family history and how far back it goes, it's a
scary proposition, but it's her walk to do, and I'm not gonna beat her
up about it.
Hank
Mar 28, 2013, 1:02:24 PM3/28/13
to
In article <zZednUOkhbpXgs_M...@giganews.com>,
the sky.
You seem to have some emotional investment in getting "retired
drinking folk" to accept that they are/were addicted to alcoholic
beverages. But there are just too many people in AA who needed to
recognize that when they were not drinking, they were fine, but the
idea that they could take one or two drinks and not end up with a
vicious drinking bout that was totally unintended was an idea that
"had to be smashed," as the big book puts it. To me, and to many
others, "addiction" means inability to function without keeping a
maintenance dosage of some sort going. While some alkies get to that
point, many do not. It's pretty well known and documented all over
the place that medical detoxification from alcohol use is a 2-5 day
process. Also, that this is not the case for withdrawal from a lot of
other substances.
Now, take a good look at the description given for Brown-Forman
distilleries common stock (BFB) on the stock market. I'll quote from
one: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/pr?s=BF-B+Profile
"Brown-Forman Corporation engages in manufacturing, bottling,
importing, exporting, and marketing alcoholic beverages. The company
provides wines, ready-to-drink products, vodka, whiskey, tequilas,
liqueur, and other distilled spirits. It offers products primarily
under the brand names of Jack Daniels, Gentleman Jack, Southern
Comfort, Finlandia, Antiguo, Canadian Mist, Chambord, Don Eduardo,
Early Times, el Jimador, Herradura, Korbel California, Maximus, New
Mix, Old Forester, Little Black Dress, Collingwood, Pepe Lopez,
Sonoma-Cutrer, Tuaca, and Woodford Reserve."
You seem to have a need to convert the word "beverages" to "drugs."
I think you'll recognize the brand names. There are two places where
I can walk in and buy those products that back up to my home group's
meeting hall, and less than a mile to 3 or 4 others here.
Conversely, I think we can agree that Aspirin and Xanax are "drugs."
Bayer, AG, and Pfizer are listed under terms such as "drug
makers-major," and "pharmaceuticals." Stores that sell them are
"drugstores" and "pharmacies." We can throw out some more trade names
like "Librium" and "Valium," and yes, some who come into AA have or
have had problems with dependencies on those two, and needed to find
MD's who had experience at getting them off those dependencies.
To me, that's "drugs" and dependency that requires a serious ween-off
is "addiction."
sober" just does not cut it with me. I'll note that in both cases,
the person saying such things is clearly differentiating between
alcoholic beverages and drugs.
"Clean?" I took a shower this morning and put on clean clothes, so
if anyone asked, I'm "clean." But nobody asked, and that bit of
information shared at an AA meeting would be totally superfluous.
And so far as announcing "and an addict," that's also superfluous.
"Ya got one problem, and it's booze" was a blunt rejoinder to the
newcomer whining about all sorts of other problems 35 years ago, and I
don't think that's changed. Part of the idea of anonymity is that
whatever else we are or are not, our common cause and our common
purpose is to deal with a booze problem. Maybe that other person is
the state's Governor, or is the honcho running the biggest industry in
the area; that should not be allowed to get in the way of sharing
methods for not-drinking-today and not going nuts in the process.
And nothing beyond that.
"I'm an alcoholic and an addict" and "I'm clean and sober" is nothing
but a very loud statement that "I'm not one of you." Now, either
you've got a booze problem or you don't, and if you don't, why are you
at a closed meeting?
did, though it was 2700 miles distant and neither one of us told the
other. We had 20 good years afterward.
"The 12-step job is not done until you've discussed Alanon," and there
are times to take the newcomer aside and point him/her in that
direction as well.
Now, talk to us about your booze problem.
Hank
nipntuk <car...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On 3/26/13 2:42 PM, Hank wrote:
>> In short, you have
>> to contend with a subset of genuine alkies who couldn't make it as
>> drug addicts if they tried.
>
>Alcoholism is addiction. Alcohol is a drug. Therefor, alcoholism is drug
>addiction. It's a bitter pill for Alcoholics to swallow :-)
>
Yeah, my pickup is blue. The sky is blue. Therefore, my pickup is
>On 3/26/13 2:42 PM, Hank wrote:
>> In short, you have
>> to contend with a subset of genuine alkies who couldn't make it as
>> drug addicts if they tried.
>
>Alcoholism is addiction. Alcohol is a drug. Therefor, alcoholism is drug
>addiction. It's a bitter pill for Alcoholics to swallow :-)
>
the sky.
You seem to have some emotional investment in getting "retired
drinking folk" to accept that they are/were addicted to alcoholic
beverages. But there are just too many people in AA who needed to
recognize that when they were not drinking, they were fine, but the
idea that they could take one or two drinks and not end up with a
vicious drinking bout that was totally unintended was an idea that
"had to be smashed," as the big book puts it. To me, and to many
others, "addiction" means inability to function without keeping a
maintenance dosage of some sort going. While some alkies get to that
point, many do not. It's pretty well known and documented all over
the place that medical detoxification from alcohol use is a 2-5 day
process. Also, that this is not the case for withdrawal from a lot of
other substances.
Now, take a good look at the description given for Brown-Forman
distilleries common stock (BFB) on the stock market. I'll quote from
one: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/pr?s=BF-B+Profile
"Brown-Forman Corporation engages in manufacturing, bottling,
importing, exporting, and marketing alcoholic beverages. The company
provides wines, ready-to-drink products, vodka, whiskey, tequilas,
liqueur, and other distilled spirits. It offers products primarily
under the brand names of Jack Daniels, Gentleman Jack, Southern
Comfort, Finlandia, Antiguo, Canadian Mist, Chambord, Don Eduardo,
Early Times, el Jimador, Herradura, Korbel California, Maximus, New
Mix, Old Forester, Little Black Dress, Collingwood, Pepe Lopez,
Sonoma-Cutrer, Tuaca, and Woodford Reserve."
You seem to have a need to convert the word "beverages" to "drugs."
I think you'll recognize the brand names. There are two places where
I can walk in and buy those products that back up to my home group's
meeting hall, and less than a mile to 3 or 4 others here.
Conversely, I think we can agree that Aspirin and Xanax are "drugs."
Bayer, AG, and Pfizer are listed under terms such as "drug
makers-major," and "pharmaceuticals." Stores that sell them are
"drugstores" and "pharmacies." We can throw out some more trade names
like "Librium" and "Valium," and yes, some who come into AA have or
have had problems with dependencies on those two, and needed to find
MD's who had experience at getting them off those dependencies.
To me, that's "drugs" and dependency that requires a serious ween-off
is "addiction."
>>
>> It's not a case of a greater or lesser class. It's a case where a
>> druggie comes to an AA meeting and starts spouting off about drugs and
>> using drug culture slang, and baffles too many of the AA's.
>
>
>I think you're construing my comments made about specific staements made
>by specific people here on the NG, as being general comments about the
>AA fellowship. For those specific folks, yes, there does indeed seem to
>be a need to stratify.
>But as a regular visitor to AA, involved in assisting with regular AA
>related fundraising events and around a crowd which is especially given
>to clean/sober, alcoholic/addict stuff, I look at it this way: The
>demographics of society as a whole have changed, therefor the
>demographics of AA will change as well. Because the generation that is
>coming in the doors now tends to have been involved with a culture where
>drug abuse was more pervasive than in the past, it will probably
>continue to be the case that those identifying as alcoholic/addicts will
>proliferate.
All of this "I'm and alcoholic and an addict" and "I'm clean and
>> It's not a case of a greater or lesser class. It's a case where a
>> druggie comes to an AA meeting and starts spouting off about drugs and
>> using drug culture slang, and baffles too many of the AA's.
>
>
>I think you're construing my comments made about specific staements made
>by specific people here on the NG, as being general comments about the
>AA fellowship. For those specific folks, yes, there does indeed seem to
>be a need to stratify.
>But as a regular visitor to AA, involved in assisting with regular AA
>related fundraising events and around a crowd which is especially given
>to clean/sober, alcoholic/addict stuff, I look at it this way: The
>demographics of society as a whole have changed, therefor the
>demographics of AA will change as well. Because the generation that is
>coming in the doors now tends to have been involved with a culture where
>drug abuse was more pervasive than in the past, it will probably
>continue to be the case that those identifying as alcoholic/addicts will
>proliferate.
sober" just does not cut it with me. I'll note that in both cases,
the person saying such things is clearly differentiating between
alcoholic beverages and drugs.
"Clean?" I took a shower this morning and put on clean clothes, so
if anyone asked, I'm "clean." But nobody asked, and that bit of
information shared at an AA meeting would be totally superfluous.
And so far as announcing "and an addict," that's also superfluous.
"Ya got one problem, and it's booze" was a blunt rejoinder to the
newcomer whining about all sorts of other problems 35 years ago, and I
don't think that's changed. Part of the idea of anonymity is that
whatever else we are or are not, our common cause and our common
purpose is to deal with a booze problem. Maybe that other person is
the state's Governor, or is the honcho running the biggest industry in
the area; that should not be allowed to get in the way of sharing
methods for not-drinking-today and not going nuts in the process.
And nothing beyond that.
"I'm an alcoholic and an addict" and "I'm clean and sober" is nothing
but a very loud statement that "I'm not one of you." Now, either
you've got a booze problem or you don't, and if you don't, why are you
at a closed meeting?
>
>You may recall that I was raised by an alcoholic single mom, who was
>explosive and abusive in the extreme until she found her sobriety in AA.
>Being dragged around to a zillion meetings and conventions and social
>functions - doing Alanon and Alateens, and beyond - supporting mom in
>her recovery even as I was in my own active using 'career' - I have a
>good understanding that while the fact of 'drug addiction' is
>effectively no different, the /culture/ of alcoholism is quite different.
>I believe that there *is* an appreciable difference in the fact that
>Alcohol is a socially sanctioned drug which is treated differently by
>society, and which has a different kind of stigma - perhaps at times a
>perceived distinction in reality - but an important distinction
>none-the-less. And THAT is where I go to the importance of identification.
>
So? What makes you the Lone Ranger? My mother came to AA same time I
>You may recall that I was raised by an alcoholic single mom, who was
>explosive and abusive in the extreme until she found her sobriety in AA.
>Being dragged around to a zillion meetings and conventions and social
>functions - doing Alanon and Alateens, and beyond - supporting mom in
>her recovery even as I was in my own active using 'career' - I have a
>good understanding that while the fact of 'drug addiction' is
>effectively no different, the /culture/ of alcoholism is quite different.
>I believe that there *is* an appreciable difference in the fact that
>Alcohol is a socially sanctioned drug which is treated differently by
>society, and which has a different kind of stigma - perhaps at times a
>perceived distinction in reality - but an important distinction
>none-the-less. And THAT is where I go to the importance of identification.
>
did, though it was 2700 miles distant and neither one of us told the
other. We had 20 good years afterward.
"The 12-step job is not done until you've discussed Alanon," and there
are times to take the newcomer aside and point him/her in that
direction as well.
Now, talk to us about your booze problem.
Hank
Charlie M. 1958
Mar 28, 2013, 1:29:07 PM3/28/13
to
On 3/28/2013 12:02 PM, Hank wrote:
> You seem to have some emotional investment in getting "retired
> drinking folk" to accept that they are/were addicted to alcoholic
> beverages. But there are just too many people in AA who needed to
> recognize that when they were not drinking, they were fine, but the
> idea that they could take one or two drinks and not end up with a
> vicious drinking bout that was totally unintended was an idea that
> "had to be smashed," as the big book puts it. To me, and to many
> others, "addiction" means inability to function without keeping a
> maintenance dosage of some sort going. While some alkies get to that
> point, many do not.
I think Steve was leaning on a somewhat different definition of
> You seem to have some emotional investment in getting "retired
> drinking folk" to accept that they are/were addicted to alcoholic
> beverages. But there are just too many people in AA who needed to
> recognize that when they were not drinking, they were fine, but the
> idea that they could take one or two drinks and not end up with a
> vicious drinking bout that was totally unintended was an idea that
> "had to be smashed," as the big book puts it. To me, and to many
> others, "addiction" means inability to function without keeping a
> maintenance dosage of some sort going. While some alkies get to that
> point, many do not.
addiction, but I lean the same way as you on this particular point. I
was a non-addicted alcoholic for about 24 years, and an addicted one for
the last year or so of my drinking. For me, there was a very clear
difference.
>
> You seem to have a need to convert the word "beverages" to "drugs."
> I think you'll recognize the brand names. There are two places where
> I can walk in and buy those products that back up to my home group's
> meeting hall, and less than a mile to 3 or 4 others here.
person I've heard put up the "beverage" argument, and frankly I just
don't get it.
Alcohol is a drug. Just because it is mixed with other ingredients and
marketed as a beverage makes it somehow /not/ a drug? By the same logic
then, back when Coca Cola actually contained cocaine, were people who
drank it not ingesting a drug?
nipntuk
Mar 28, 2013, 1:55:53 PM3/28/13
to
On 3/28/13 11:02 AM, Hank wrote:
> In article <zZednUOkhbpXgs_M...@giganews.com>,
> nipntuk <car...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On 3/26/13 2:42 PM, Hank wrote:
>>> In short, you have
>>> to contend with a subset of genuine alkies who couldn't make it as
>>> drug addicts if they tried.
>>
>> Alcoholism is addiction. Alcohol is a drug. Therefor, alcoholism is drug
>> addiction. It's a bitter pill for Alcoholics to swallow :-)
>>
> Yeah, my pickup is blue. The sky is blue. Therefore, my pickup is
> the sky.
No that's a false equivalency - and it's not a black swan. Sky and truck
> In article <zZednUOkhbpXgs_M...@giganews.com>,
> nipntuk <car...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On 3/26/13 2:42 PM, Hank wrote:
>>> In short, you have
>>> to contend with a subset of genuine alkies who couldn't make it as
>>> drug addicts if they tried.
>>
>> Alcoholism is addiction. Alcohol is a drug. Therefor, alcoholism is drug
>> addiction. It's a bitter pill for Alcoholics to swallow :-)
>>
> Yeah, my pickup is blue. The sky is blue. Therefore, my pickup is
> the sky.
are different things, where the only commonality is blue. But alcohol is
a drug. Alcoholics are addicted to alcohol. *That* is drug addiction.
Just a fact.
> You seem to have some emotional investment in getting "retired
> drinking folk" to accept that they are/were addicted to alcoholic
> beverages.
investment in calling a spade a spade. It's alkies who have the
emotional investment in denying that they are - or were - addicted to a
drug. For the most part, I find that amusing. It doesn't much matter to
me what folks want to accept or deny - people accept and deny all kinds
of mythical or non-mythical things, all the time. But a fact is a fact.
8<
> You seem to have a need to convert the word "beverages" to "drugs."
substance which has an effect upon the body, you know, that pesky
medical definition...
> Conversely, I think we can agree that Aspirin and Xanax are "drugs."
> Bayer, AG, and Pfizer are listed under terms such as "drug
> makers-major," and "pharmaceuticals." Stores that sell them are
> "drugstores" and "pharmacies." We can throw out some more trade names
> like "Librium" and "Valium," and yes, some who come into AA have or
> have had problems with dependencies on those two, and needed to find
> MD's who had experience at getting them off those dependencies.
> To me, that's "drugs" and dependency that requires a serious ween-off
> is "addiction."
driving under the influence of aspirin. Common sense. This is a really
tired old argument.
B.) *your* definitions of things may reflect your understandings, but
they may also reflect the limits of those as well. I defer to the
medical definition of drugs, as 'a chemical substance which has a
predictable effect, usually therapeutic, upon the body' - and in the
context of psychoactive drugs in particular.
>>> It's not a case of a greater or lesser class. It's a case where a
>>> druggie comes to an AA meeting and starts spouting off about drugs and
>>> using drug culture slang, and baffles too many of the AA's.
add? It's your problem, or AA's to deal with. I might attend an open
meeting of AA as a visitor. I am careful to respect AA's traditions. I
think you may just have a problem with the change you're seeing, and
fear about people with differences somehow polluting your well. I
understand that, but it's not really a problem I am especially invested
in. I attend NA and identify there as an addict. I am clean today. I
have not touched a psychoactive drug, including alcohol, except under
physician's order according to directions for an intended purpose, for
22 years and 4 months. I try to (and fail) apply the principles of the
Steps to all my affairs, attempt to be of service, and am not going to
engage in a pissing match with anyone over the quality of my recovery,
or how I might or might not qualify for whatever other labels. I am in
recovery. Some days a newbie with a day clean is in better shape than
me, and there isn't anyone who doesn't have something to offer if I pay
attention. Including you, and I mean that.
8<
> "The 12-step job is not done until you've discussed Alanon," and there
> are times to take the newcomer aside and point him/her in that
> direction as well.
>
> Now, talk to us about your booze problem.
>
> Hank
>
singleness of purpose. You're preaching to the choir in some respects.
This NG is NOT AA. I can talk about whatever I like. I have a strong
affinity for AA and was raised in an AA household, so I take that as my
qualification to be here, and to discuss the shine on my Chevy, dog
breeds, Canadian applesauce or albanian dictators. Just like everybody else.
You having control issues these days, my friend?
nipntuk
Mar 28, 2013, 2:59:42 PM3/28/13
to
On 3/28/13 11:29 AM, Charlie M. 1958 wrote:
> On 3/28/2013 12:02 PM, Hank wrote:
>
>> You seem to have some emotional investment in getting "retired
>> drinking folk" to accept that they are/were addicted to alcoholic
>> beverages. But there are just too many people in AA who needed to
>> recognize that when they were not drinking, they were fine, but the
>> idea that they could take one or two drinks and not end up with a
>> vicious drinking bout that was totally unintended was an idea that
>> "had to be smashed," as the big book puts it. To me, and to many
>> others, "addiction" means inability to function without keeping a
>> maintenance dosage of some sort going. While some alkies get to that
>> point, many do not.
>
> I think Steve was leaning on a somewhat different definition of
> addiction, but I lean the same way as you on this particular point. I
> was a non-addicted alcoholic for about 24 years, and an addicted one for
> the last year or so of my drinking. For me, there was a very clear
> difference.
By addiction, I'm using the DSM definition of substance dependency. The
> On 3/28/2013 12:02 PM, Hank wrote:
>
>> You seem to have some emotional investment in getting "retired
>> drinking folk" to accept that they are/were addicted to alcoholic
>> beverages. But there are just too many people in AA who needed to
>> recognize that when they were not drinking, they were fine, but the
>> idea that they could take one or two drinks and not end up with a
>> vicious drinking bout that was totally unintended was an idea that
>> "had to be smashed," as the big book puts it. To me, and to many
>> others, "addiction" means inability to function without keeping a
>> maintenance dosage of some sort going. While some alkies get to that
>> point, many do not.
>
> I think Steve was leaning on a somewhat different definition of
> addiction, but I lean the same way as you on this particular point. I
> was a non-addicted alcoholic for about 24 years, and an addicted one for
> the last year or so of my drinking. For me, there was a very clear
> difference.
strictest definition of addiction implies physical withdrawals - in
which case only a small few qualify anywhere. But the common experience
of dependency is what is referenced both by AA and NA, with respect to a
condition under which a suffer is prone to loss of control - that using
a substance will lead to the user wanting more, beyond the point of
negative consequences. We all understand that condition, I think. From
potheads to alkies to glue sniffers... Once we start, eventually we lose
control. One doesn't have to experience gut wrenching earthshaking,
bowel emptying withdrawals to understand the power of craving.
Powerlessness, I believe it's called...
>> You seem to have a need to convert the word "beverages" to "drugs."
>> I think you'll recognize the brand names. There are two places where
>> I can walk in and buy those products that back up to my home group's
>> meeting hall, and less than a mile to 3 or 4 others here.
>
> I have to part ways with you on this one, though. You are not the first
> person I've heard put up the "beverage" argument, and frankly I just
> don't get it.
>
> Alcohol is a drug. Just because it is mixed with other ingredients and
> marketed as a beverage makes it somehow /not/ a drug? By the same logic
> then, back when Coca Cola actually contained cocaine, were people who
> drank it not ingesting a drug?
nipntuk
Mar 28, 2013, 3:12:00 PM3/28/13
to
On 3/28/13 12:59 PM, nipntuk wrote:
> By addiction, I'm using the DSM definition of substance dependency. The
> strictest definition of addiction implies physical withdrawals - in
> which case only a small few qualify anywhere. yup.
> By addiction, I'm using the DSM definition of substance dependency. The
> strictest definition of addiction implies physical withdrawals - in
By the way, in my early 20s I was physically dependent on alcohol - was
so strung out that I had to keep a baby bottle on a shelf in the galley
of the kitchen I worked in, filled with wine, which the rest of the
staff took as a little joke, but I had to keep a steady stream going to
ward off the shakes. From the time I was 17 I drank pretty much full
time, and at that point, age 22, I was physically strung out. I drank in
the morning to clear away the misery, and as soon as the restaurant
closed, I knocked back a half gallon of draft until I could get to the
bar, which I closed every night. Blackouts were fairly regular things
for me.
After a sincere but failed suicide attempt, (head in the oven) I went to
the community mental health center and got on self-monitored Antabuse,
which I took on and off for the next two years. I went to one AA meeting
in Santa Cruz during that time - but decided the Antabuse was a better
choice, because I could still smoke dope... which I did relentlessly for
the next 14 years.
So, am I a 'Real Alcoholic' now? Maybe I was too young.... maybe it
was too long ago.... maybe the drugs disqualify me...
Tommy
Mar 28, 2013, 4:29:55 PM3/28/13
to
"Charlie M. 1958" <alw...@impatient.com> wrote in message
news:kj1uhi$m36$1...@dont-email.me...
and I certainly cannot buy drugs in a bar/off licence
Thats good enough difference for me, thank you :)
All the other red and blue herrings are fodder for arguments that don't make
a blind bit of difference.
But you guys have it tough, what with your Justice department forcing drug
addicts to go to AA meetings.
I'm not sure how I'd feel about Justice sending drunks to AA though. Maybe
someone should wise up your lawmakers - a sensible recommendation might be
that "if a prisoner/defendant declared himself an alcoholic, then the Judge
might give him an option" - notice I said "option"....
We don't suffer this problem in the real world, outside of America,
thankfully :-)
Cheers
Tommy
news:kj1uhi$m36$1...@dont-email.me...
> On 3/28/2013 12:02 PM, Hank wrote:
>
>> You seem to have some emotional investment in getting "retired
>> drinking folk" to accept that they are/were addicted to alcoholic
>> beverages. But there are just too many people in AA who needed to
>> recognize that when they were not drinking, they were fine, but the
>> idea that they could take one or two drinks and not end up with a
>> vicious drinking bout that was totally unintended was an idea that
>> "had to be smashed," as the big book puts it. To me, and to many
>> others, "addiction" means inability to function without keeping a
>> maintenance dosage of some sort going. While some alkies get to that
>> point, many do not.
>
>> You seem to have some emotional investment in getting "retired
>> drinking folk" to accept that they are/were addicted to alcoholic
>> beverages. But there are just too many people in AA who needed to
>> recognize that when they were not drinking, they were fine, but the
>> idea that they could take one or two drinks and not end up with a
>> vicious drinking bout that was totally unintended was an idea that
>> "had to be smashed," as the big book puts it. To me, and to many
>> others, "addiction" means inability to function without keeping a
>> maintenance dosage of some sort going. While some alkies get to that
>> point, many do not.
> Alcohol is a drug. Just because it is mixed with other ingredients and
> marketed as a beverage makes it somehow /not/ a drug? By the same logic
> then, back when Coca Cola actually contained cocaine, were people who
> drank it not ingesting a drug?
All I know for sure is that I cannot buy alcohol in a chemists (pharmacy) -
> marketed as a beverage makes it somehow /not/ a drug? By the same logic
> then, back when Coca Cola actually contained cocaine, were people who
> drank it not ingesting a drug?
and I certainly cannot buy drugs in a bar/off licence
Thats good enough difference for me, thank you :)
All the other red and blue herrings are fodder for arguments that don't make
a blind bit of difference.
But you guys have it tough, what with your Justice department forcing drug
addicts to go to AA meetings.
I'm not sure how I'd feel about Justice sending drunks to AA though. Maybe
someone should wise up your lawmakers - a sensible recommendation might be
that "if a prisoner/defendant declared himself an alcoholic, then the Judge
might give him an option" - notice I said "option"....
We don't suffer this problem in the real world, outside of America,
thankfully :-)
Cheers
Tommy
Charlie M. 1958
Mar 28, 2013, 4:54:17 PM3/28/13
to
On 3/28/2013 3:29 PM, Tommy wrote:
> All I know for sure is that I cannot buy alcohol in a chemists (pharmacy) -
> and I certainly cannot buy drugs in a bar/off licence
Ha. In New Orleans, every pharmacy sells liquor! :-)
> All I know for sure is that I cannot buy alcohol in a chemists (pharmacy) -
> and I certainly cannot buy drugs in a bar/off licence
Tommy
Mar 28, 2013, 4:57:29 PM3/28/13
to
"Charlie M. 1958" <alw...@impatient.com> wrote in message
news:kj2ai4$1l5$1...@dont-email.me...
Cheers
Tommy
dav...@agent.com
Mar 28, 2013, 11:30:53 PM3/28/13
to
>> All I know for sure is that I cant buy alcohol in a pharmacy -
>> and I certainly cannot buy drugs in a bar/off licence
>
>Ha. In New Orleans, every pharmacy sells liquor! :-)
http://www.nola.com/opinions/index.ssf/2012/12/a_check_on_new_orleans_murder.html
>
>Ha. In New Orleans, every pharmacy sells liquor! :-)
0 new messages