Does AA have a 33% success rate after 10 years?

Threre is a reason for identifying as an alcoholic in AA and not an adict. Bill wrote about it in 1958 not that you couldn't be dually addicted or that meetings couldn't exist that spoke to both... but they weren't AA meetings and couldn't be indentified as such. Look at the preamble of AA. WE used to have a meeting in MB at a coffee shop where the guy let the group use a backroom. No rent, but they had to buy their coffee and sodas from him. That was a more "mixed meeting." It also isn't an advertised meeting because of that. Of course, you can go to open meetings and not idenity at all.

Singleness of purpose

AA's Singleness of Purpose is a principle derived from the Fifth Tradition of Alcoholics Anonymous, "Each group has but one primary purpose—to carry its message to the alcoholic who still suffers."[1] Other groups replace the word alcoholic with the identifying characteristic of their fellowship, or otherwise rephrase it to have a similar meaning. For instance, in Narcotics Anonymous that member would be an addict.[4] The principle is based on the philosophy that those that share common physical cravings and mental obsessions can best understand and help those that are struggling with their specific addictions. Alcoholics Anonymous founder Bill Wilson wrote in the February 1958 AA Grapevine that

"We cannot give AA membership to non-alcoholic narcotics-addicts. But like anyone else, they should be able to attend certain open AA meetings, provided, of course, that the groups themselves are willing.
AA members who are so inclined should be encouraged to band together in groups to deal with sedative and drug problems. But they ought to refrain from calling themselves AA groups. There seems to be no reason why several AAs cannot join, if they wish, with a group of straight addicts to solve the alcohol and the drug problem together. But, obviously, such a "dual purpose" group should not insist that it be called an AA group nor should it use the AA name in its title. Neither should its "straight addict" contingent be led to believe that they have become AA members by reason of such an association. Certainly there is every good reason for interested AAs to join with "outside" groups, working on the narcotic problem, provided the Traditions of anonymity and of "no endorsements" are respected.”

—Bill W., AA Grapevine[6]

I did both heavily but stopped hard drugs quite a few years before I stopped drinking. I never stole or committed crimes to feed either problem. Many people manage to work and then binge afterwards. There are obviously those that did commit crimes regularly but I did not associate with them while I was drinking. I only really came into contact with them in large numbers in the rooms of AA where they were often the ones that would relapse every few days and then turn up for a couple of meetings when they were skint to get some sympathy. Drug abuse takes place everywhere. Users range from the homeless to members of the most exclusive clubs in the world. Channelling both groups into one faith healing meeting can have rather predictable consequences. I wonder who caused the more chaos in the uk last night - those out on the town celebrating st Patrick's ( the Irish saint of erectile disjunction and wife beating ) or the stoned person at a rave. Which one would you rather sit next to in an annonymous meeting