Newcomers Rescue League

Clara said:

People wanted change, Penny, and that is fine. AA doesn't want to change and doesn't have to.

No, most people didn't want change. The South had a group conscious and decided that negros should remain separate. That's why segregation laws had to be overruled ruled by the courts instead of by popular vote or the legislature. Like the people who fought so hard to preserve racial segregation, your AA group no doubt finds the idea of substance abuse integration unthinkable. I suspect this is because deep down you think you are somehow better or above them, although you will never admit to it.

Clara said:

I find it very interesting that the very people that claim that AA doesn't work or is unnecesary or is whatever you want to fill the blank with... are upset that it focuses on one thing, alcohol. If you don't think it works, why are you concerned that it doesn't open its arms to not work for yet more people? Strange argument you have, Penny.

I already addressed this yesterday. I'm not going to do it again. This is copied and pasted from another one of my posts:

Well, I don't think I have ever said AA does not work. Rather, I've said that the 12 Steps can't work in the way the Big Book says they do. Indeed, I acknowledge that the group support aspect of AA can benefit some people. You want to deny addicts the full benefit of that.

But whether AA works is beside the point. The point is that I think your group is immoral, and whether AA actually helps people stay sober is irrelevant to that analysis.

Look at it like this:

To test a person's honesty, you might leave him alone with a pile of fake money that he thinks is real. If he steals it, you won't be financially hurt because the "money" is actually worthless paper. Nevertheless, if he takes the money, it speaks volumes about the person's character. The fact that you weren't actually hurt by the theft would not change anything when it came to your determination about whether the man is trustworthy.

Here, you say your group has found the solution to addiction. Yet you wish to exclude an entire class of suffering addicts from the full benefits of your solution. Just as the authenticity of the money in the above example is irrelevant when determining the character of the person who steals it, the actual effectiveness of your AA group has no bearing on my conclusion that your group is immoral. The fact that you wish to exclude certain people from what you THINK is a lifesaving solution is all I need to know in order to condemn you. Simply put, it's the thought that counts.

You don't think it's possible to indentify with someone whose problem was with drugs? What's so different? Can't we find commonality regardless of what we chose to f*ck ourselves up with? Why is it only about you?

Anyway Clara, you don't have a problem with alcohol anymore. You had one and you kicked it, right? Maybe you could be there for someone who walks through the door with a nasty drug habit instead of shutting the door on them because you can't identify.

No offense Clara, but I have at least a little more to identify with in my own using in AA than usually in NA. And no offense to anyone reading this who was addicted to anything illicit, either. I don't mean it that way. Most people I met in NA had huge issues with stimulants. OK, mainly meth. Which is also illegal. I was addicted to a legal (and legally gotten) depressant, which I was not using socially or getting from some party circuit. I realize that does differ from alcohol use as well, but it's quite a bit closer socially than having my alternative be a "sponsor" who used to (literally, and she would scream this at every opportunity, too) "suck dick for meth".

Again, I say this all not to be snotty, I found just as much in common while still in withdrawals and PAWS with people coming off of heroin as well as alcohol, we all had similar anxiety reactions during that early period. But I doubt that you would've felt much differently either, Clara, had you been in my position.