Does anyone know the proper procedure online for anonymity breaks? I know GSO sends a letter explaining anonymity to AA members that have been broadcast or been on the news and said they were AA members.
according to AA pamphlet "understanding anonymity", it say's to treat basically any online forum that does not require a password to be treated the same as a public broadcast.
I have been following this app called the recoveryapp. Even though it is an app, it also has a web version where all the posts are available to read online without having the app. Everytime i mention that someone has broken their anonymity by full name, or full face photo along with a reference to being a member of AA, they get uptight. Sometimes they say live and let live, rule 62, ect. I only mention the anonymity break if someone has their full name or picture and metions being a member of AA. I feel it's part of my responsibility to safeguard our program. I now have started to screen save the anonymity breaks and attach it in an email to GSO, hoping a letter from GSO will help end the daily anonymity breaks.
Any experience or thoughts would be greatly appreciated.
Where I live there are two neighboring communities. One has flourishing NA meetings and the AA there has relatively few young people in it. The other has very few NA meetings and the AA there has lots of young people in it. My impression I have from speaking with the young people in these meetings is that nearly all of them have had problem with both drugs and alcohol. They say they will attend whatever meeting is available and will tailor their stories accordingly.
I wonder whether this whole drugs vs alcohol discussion will simply fade in coming years as nearly all of the people in both fellowships will have the same experience of having problems with both drugs and alcohol, and realizing that abstinence from both was and is needed.
I'm actually surprised now at the persistence of the discussion. I'm over 60 and my story involved both drugs and alcohol. Seriously, who is left who needs to have a pure, alcohol-only message to identify with?
I, too, am surprised at the persistence of this discussion! Well said. Where I go to meetings (in a big city) AA is absolutely thriving, especially among young people. I go to lots of meetings and meet hundreds of newcomers under 30 every year. There are also many old timers (including myself with 20 years). I don't feel threatened by discussion of drugs other than alcohol. I don't think many of the other old timers do either. When drugs are part of people's stories, people share about them. I hear the circumlocutions sometimes ("I also had another addiction", "my drinking led to other things") but they seem pointless to me. As our friends in NA say, alcohol is a drug, period.
I do think that the anxiety about the "singleness of purpose" has to do with generation and maybe social class. As I understand it, in the 1950s and 1960s when the "singleness of purpose" statement started to become a big deal, there were tremendous social changes going on. Drug use was associated with youth culture, counterculture, disreputable black jazz musicians, protesting the Vietnam War, etc. etc. Moreover, scientists didn't understand the common biochemical roots of both alcohol and other drug addiction like they do now.
I find that even though the "singleness of purpose" statement, as printed, says "...we confine our discussion to our problems with alcohol..." a lot of meeting chairs change it, unconsciously or consciously, to "problems with alcoholism." People take that to mean they can talk about all their addictions to drugs, including alcohol. That makes sense from a biological point of view.
But if someone is uncomfortable with others talking about drugs, for whatever reason, there are meetings here where such talk is frowned on, so they can attend those. To me and nearly everyone else I know in the program, it's a non issue.
I also am a duly addicted person-over 60-In my community AA is very strong-well supported-yet we do have NA-I in the past have attended NA meetings and have found them not as structured as my AA meetings-which I need-they are both important for the recovery process-yet I attend AA meetings and my homegroup is an open AA meeting. We welcome people from both sides yet try to restrict our conversations to that of alcoholism-and then we try to steer people in the direction that might work best for them.I try to keep an open mind about these matters and still uphold our traditions. What came first-the chicken or the egg?
Read Dr. Bob’s nightmare, he “briefly” mentions taking sedatives to make it through work. Read Bill’s story, he “briefly” mentions morphine or sedatives. AA’s cofounders both mention drugs “briefly”. Bill W. wrote our traditions. He’s the author of AA’s singleness of purpose. If your at least an alcoholic, we don’t care what your other problems are. You are welcome in AA, but you have to at least have an alcohol problem. If you are in AA without an alcohol problem, you can’t give a straight alcoholic talk from the podium or around a table. When talking to newcomers, you can’t through your own experience share how you drank and how you recovered from alcohol. No matter how open and loving it may be to allow everyone in, it is also very selfish and dishonest. By letting nonalcoholic drug addicts in AA, we are robbing NA of their chance to grow and help other nonalcoholic drug addicts.
The addicts that should be able to relate to other addicts, are sitting in AA meetings. They could be sharing their experience, strength, and hope with other addicts, but insist on attending AA meetings because they don’t have the willingness to start their own NA meetings. How selfish is that?
Good question! I'm no longer surprised to hear those old-timers get excited about listening to young folks talk about their drug history. My experience is similar to yours, in that recovering druggies learn to tailor their stories to the meeting topic and they generally don't dwell on their drug of choice.
I agree that many of us have had both alcohol and drug problems and "that abstinence from both was and is needed." However, I get concerned about diluting and/or confusing the experience, strength, and hope offerred by so many alcoholics that have gone before us.
Further, the word "exactly" appears 7 times in the main Big Book text and throughout AA literature. Whenever I read that word, I need to study the context and message for me. Seeking advice from self-help experts during the drinking days only made the hole I was in deeper.
Giving up doing things "MY WAY," meetings, my sponsor, the Big Book (my text book) , AA Comes of Age, As Bill Sees It, Came to Believe, and other conference approved pieces have kept me from drinking for many years. I easily tolerate reading and talk about drug related issues; I'm not so sure about combined meetings, especially for newcomers.
hi everyone, my name is sarah and I am an alcoholic. alcohol? drugs? sex? food? does not matter what the problem is... as long as I live one day at a time doing my Higher Power's will, by the steps and traditions, our code of love and tolerance may grow. thank you.
Can't speak for N/A but the AA I've attended from the first meeting over three decades ago to the one last Saturday included those with problems with drugs other than alcohol.
So no one misses the subtlety, I just called alcohol a drug. It is just in a unique category since it has always been so easy to make almost everywhere on the planet for thousands of years. Anybody think it wouldn't be a controlled substance if it was just discovered today?
"So no one misses the subtlety, I just called alcohol a drug. It is just in a unique category since it has always been so easy to make almost everywhere on the planet for thousands of years. Anybody think it wouldn't be a controlled substance if it was just discovered today?"
Caffeine is a drug. Would coffee, tea, cocoa or soda pop be controlled substances if they were invented today? And make no mistake, caffeine is just as addictive as alcohol.
Nicotine is one of the most addictive drugs known - ask anyone who is trying to quit smoking. I would love to have a dollar for every time I've heard someone insist he or she is 'clean' and sober, then drink his coffee and/or light a cigarette.
Addicts ignore several documented facts when comparing alcoholics to addicts.
Nine out of ten drinkers never have a problem with alcohol. One in ten is or will be alcoholic.
Nine out of ten drinkers seldom if ever get drunk. They don't drink simply to get drunk or get high, or get a buzz. There is only one reason to use drugs, to get high.
I know several AA members who are also compulsive gamblers. In over forty years I have never heard a compulsive gambler insist that AA change the traditions to allow non-alcoholic gamblers to become members.
I have yet to hear a legitimate reason for addicts to avoid NA meetings in favor of AA meetings.
my sponsor is 40 yrs sober and never did drugs. my newest sponsee is 9 months sober and did no drugs. 3 members of my homegroup are 1 year sober or less and have never done drugs. they all say the same thing " when problems other than alcohol are discussed at AA meetings, none can relate through personal experience. the main reason AA has lasted this long is groups continue to follow traditions 1,3,&5. if you need to discuss problems other than alcohol, talk to your sponsor after the meeting.
Me! And millions of other alcoholics. ANONYMOUS
I think we all agree that an AA group or meeting calling itself "Christian" would be in violation of the Traditions. The same goes for one calling itself Jewish, or Buddhist, or Muslim. Why then do we not say the same for Atheist groups? If you believe that Atheism isn't a religion, search "Atheism Megachurches" and see how many articles come up.
I have never heard of a Atheism meeting. I have, of course, heard of A & A meetings. (Agnostics and Atheists). With 38 years of sobriety in AA, and still agnostic, I see a great need for meetings like these. The first time I admitted in a meeting to my lack of belief in God, I was roundly condemned and severely chastised. The only reason I am still alive today was the very kind man who stopped me from running out and told me he had recently heard a speaker with 18 years who was an agnostic so not to let the rabid crowd keep me from AA. Just this last week, when I spoke of my agnosticism, I was, again, roundly chastised by the meeting leader. From my 38 years perspective, I just inwardly smiled, and felt no need to argue or run. But if I had been a newcomer, I'm not so sure I would ever have returned.
Threw a practce of praye meditation and prayer on any problems, desires, or directions, the will of god is in my life in the most surprising ways further telling me that THE WILL OF GOD WILLNEVER
LEAD ME TO WHERE THE GRACE OF GOD WILL NOT PROTECT ME. THATS IS MY EXPERIANCE
I fully agree with Bill. Bill allowed NA to use our twelve steps, traditions and concepts. We have open AA meetings and I see no reason that non-AA's cannot attend. As a chairperson, I request that all who share be alcoholic and confine their discussion to problems relating to alcoholism only.
I also fully believe that people that have problems other than alcoholism be allowed to be AA members as long as they are or have been alcoholics. However, when they do share, I do recommend that they confine their sharing to problems that relate to alcoholism. If they venture too far afield, it is the responsibility of the chairperson to correct them. If the chairperson does not do so, then some person in the group should take the responsibility to correct the person who is in violation of this very essential tradition!!
"As a chairperson, I request that all who share be alcoholic "
The long form of the tradition "Our membership ought to include all who suffer from alcoholism..."
That's a group to INCLUDE. Fine so far.
Lets leave those who mention drugs other than alcohol for a different thread.
Does it say only those who call themselves alcoholic. No.
Does it say exclude those who are coming to decide if they are alcoholic? No.
Does it say to exclude heavy drinkers who are not alcoholic who have a desire to stop drinking? No.
Your attempt at making a logical argument contains an error called "Assuming the consequent".
The argument below "When a real alcoholic comes to an AA meeting and hears everything but alcoholism.." doesn't require a course in logic to see through. Kindergarten should be enough.
The only requirement for membership is a desire to stop drinking. Says nothing about alcoholism. Our literature points out that there are plenty of people who drink a lot that aren't alcoholic. I didn't have a doctor diagnose me as alcoholic so I guess I'd be out. Meetings focused on the solution don't dwell on the chemical we want to stop using. If you want to lord over drunkalog meetings, those trying to recover from addiction will clear out anyway.
please read tradition 3 long form. the tradition 3 you quote is the short form. trad 3 long form says our membership ought to include all who suffer from alcoholism. tradition 3 was put into place because groups wanted to exclude "alcoholics" who had other problems, not people with other problems.
I know it's hard to understand that a newcomer alcoholic is not going to recover if your talking about "addictions" at meetings when we all know that addictions are addictions. The fact is that alcoholics don't think they are alcoholics. we focus on alcohol to overcome every alcoholics denial to alcoholism. Just listen next time you attend an AA meeting. listen to how many people intruduce themselves as everything "but" simply "alcoholic". Then you will see the extent of our denial to alcoholism. When a real alcoholic comes to an AA meeting and hears everything but alcoholism, they turn there head to the wall and die. I know, I am an alcoholic who feels out of place at AA meetings were problems other than alcohol are the topic. In fact, there is a pamphlet titled "problems other than alcohol". study that pamphlet so you can carry the message instead of the disease.
There was a time when our reputation was "better than our
actual character". Hardly anyone had anything negative to
say about Alcoholics Anonymous. That is simply not true
today. With today's level of communication, many know about
If we had stayed with our original purpose: alcoholics
helping alcoholics on an individual and group basis, If
we had become self-supporting through our own contributions
we would still be favorable to everyone. Doctors would tell
their alcoholic patients: AA can and will help you, instead of saying AA might help you; it does help some people,
If we had remained a fellowship instead of a twelve step
program, or a religious cult we could and would still be
saving hundreds of thousands of suffering alcoholics every
year. They are out there and, I believe, growing in number.
Their families are suffering. They are all suffering needlessly, standing by, while we complacently ignore
that sledge hammer Dr. Silkworth left for us. It is
hanging on the garage wall. It is the IDEA, offered by
"the little doctor" and used by Bill W. when he met Dr.
Bob in the spring of 1935. That method will still work
"if we work it". And it is not the twelve steps. It has
little to do with the steps, maybe step 12, helping
other alcoholics. ANONYMOUS
Its easy to put too rest any worries about the world’s perception of AA being in trouble. I reviewed the results of a Google search of “AA fails”. The first source that I recognized was Scientific American which discussed the limited appeal we have always had and quoted from a VA study that gave us good marks. The Washington Post had something about “AA fails to support young Addicts”. I guess they could follow up with how we fail to provide the Olympic team with pole vaulters or don’t offer car repairs. There are many things we don’t do or claim to.
After that there were those selling their own books or treatment programs. Then the expected number of sore heads complaining that the spiritual program of recovery offered by AA should leave out that God business.
In any other area, if its there, an internet search will find it. AA failing is not to be found except in the minds of a few who seen to use their overloaded imaginations for a reference library.
Thanks for the referral to "AA fails". It reassures me
that I am not the only one who sees what a disaster we
have become. Sometimes I wonder if I am "viewing with
alarm for the good of AA". (I really no longer have any
doubt that as a TWELVE STEP PROGRAM Fellowship we do
more harm than good).
I have seen the mistakes we have made over the past
three decades. I watched silently as they were being made.
I did not have the information, knowledge or the experience
to question distortions being made. I greatly participated in one of them. I insisted that we use the 24 hour book
as accepted as AA material. I know today, after much study,
that using this material at our meetings was and is a
Contributors to "AA fails" only add to the evidence that
today's AA has lost most of its effectiveness. But none
of them were around when Alcoholics Anonymous was saving
lives by the hundreds of thousands every year. We can
return to that rate of success. Remove the 24 hour book
from our AA rooms. Stop reading How It Works at meetings.
Return HIW to chapter five where it belongs. Stop all
chanting: Hi Joe, spoken as a group is chanting. Remove
the title Sponsor. Today's concept of sponsorship makes
AA a cult. Sure, cults work for a few. Stop making a spectacle of the newcomer. Stop encouraging, or allowing
the newcomer to make a spectacle of himself/herself. Stop
sharing by "show of hands". Stop the "hold hands and pray"
These are some of the reversals of changes made at the
meeting level over the past three decades. All of these
blunders have been covered in this forum; some many times
especially "How It Works". That was our most tragic mistake.
You complainers are the only ones I come across that have a low opinion of AA. Doctors, judges, social workers, personnel directors, psychologists and ministers all refer to AA regularly.
The IDEA was how to make a twelfth step call not to throw the program that works away. Before anyone buys this guy's opinion, read it for yourself.
The IDEA is how to present the solution to other
alcoholics whether in the context of a twelve step
call or at an AA meeting. We lay the tools at their
feet. Don't even tell them they have to pick them up.
They are offered as suggestions. If they see what we
have and like what they see, maybe they will pick
them up. Attraction, absolutely no promotion. In
the final analysis I see this as the IDEA offered to
Bill W. by Dr. Silkworth. I don't say to throw the program
that works away. Just leave it at the prospect's feet.
Do not try to force it on anyone else. Don't even say
"Well, if you want what I have, do what I did. Let the
prospect decide all by him/herself what they want to
do. Just share experience, strength and most important, HOPE. Give the prospect nothing to rebel against. ANONYMOUS Yes, alcoholic patients are still being
referred to AA. We tell them right up front "That One
is God! May you find Him now! The minister could have
given that sermon.
"The only requirement for membership is a desire to stop drinking. Says nothing about alcoholism."
A wise person once said, "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing."
It's true, the short form of Tradition Three 'says nothing about alcoholism' but the long form certainly does.
So does Tradition Five. Not to mention Steps One and Twelve, the AA Preamble and the pamphlet "Problems Other Than Alcohol. There are two reasons for addicts to insist on attending AA meetings. First, there are no NA meetings in the area, in which case he may attend open AA meetings as a guest.Second, to prove to himself and everyone else that he's special, that he's different from the rest.
The excuse that NA meetings don't focus on recovery like AA doesn't hold water. If that were true, he would find other clean addicts and start a meeting that does focus on recovery.
While it sound very high minded and noble to say you want to give everyone a chance to recover, you intentionally leave out the alcoholic who didn't use other drugs. And like it or not, there are many alcoholics who didn't use them.
I have a friend who is a member of Overeaters Anonymous.
He often says that years ago he was told to go to open
AA meetings. He is not an alcoholic or a drug addict.
His only addiction is food. OA meetings are not that
plentiful, so he goes to open AA meetings. He says that
he does not share at AA meetings; only listens.
My strong opinion is that this person ought not be
made welcome at AA meetings, open or closed. Open meetings
are open to the public; yes, but ought to be limited to
individuals interested in alcoholism. They may be there
to "check us out", before even admitting that they may
be an alcoholic.
I think this is the purpose of "open meetings" although
we have strayed from that purpose. ANONYMOUS
Open meetings are for anyone interested, including non-alcoholics/addicts, i.e., those not addicted to anything. They are also open to gamblers, sex-addicts, over-eaters, etc. Our open meetings attract medical students interested in learning more about addiction and AA as a resource for their future patients. Many of our closed meetings start with a brief statement regarding the nature of the meeting, that those who think they have a problem with alcohol are welcome to stay, also reminding folks to restrict their comments to those that pertain to alcoholism (as opposed to any cross-addictions).
I have read material when monitoring an AA meeting from a book of daily readings for Overeaters Anonymous (Hazelden), those more general and addressing the struggle to live life on life's terms a day at a time as opposed to anything specific to that affliction. I have done so in part because I was moved by the reading, and in part because I feel it is important to demonstrate to others that the message I need to hear may come from a variety of sources, not just from fellow alcoholics or AA published literature. In case you are wondering, I am ectomorphic.
The time may have come for all meetings of Alcoholics
Anonymous to become closed meetings. Maybe even a
Secret Society of recovered and recovering alcoholics.
Information about AA is available at so many sources,
there is little reason to have meetings open to anyone
who wants to investigate.
Almost everyone in the world today has heard of A.A.
I believe that anyone who is in need of us has heard
of us. Rose
No, I was not wondering. I could care less if you have a
slim body. It is the rest of your message, or mess, that
disturbs me. Individuals who are not interested in
stopping the use of alcohol or helping someone else quit
ought not be welcomed at AA meetings, open or closed.
If you are using material not approved by our General
Service Conference, you are violating our singleness of
purpose. It is this type of thinking that has ruined
our effectiveness. You can read whatever you choose on
your own time. You
are at complete liberty. But you cannot choose what is to
be read at meetings. That is what the group conscience
is for. Manny Q.
Respectfully, I think you are getting your concepts confused. Each group has the right to choose whether it wants readings restricted to AA published literature or not. Thus, one group I attend, per the group conscience (trust me, this issue came up), I can read from the 24 Hr a Day book, Sermon on the Mount, the Bhagavad Gita, or from an Al-Anon or NA text. With another group I attend, I would be restricted to those materials conference approved for publication. Singleness of purpose is an unrelated issue. As for "effectiveness," please cite the studies on which your statement is based, as my own experience suggests to me a different conclusion, that the intolerant big book thumping god fearing proselytizers drive more people away than the tolerant open-minded folks who don't preach.
Use of the Twenty Four Book at an AA meeting is in
violation of Tradition Four. This practice has greatly affected
AA as a whole. Even if the entire group votes to us it,
it is still a violation. The use of this book has steered
Alcoholics Anonymous to becoming a religion. Bill wrote
that nothing could be so dangerous to the future of AA.
Why do you think Bill and his friends rejected this
book when it was offered to AA. It would have been a
real source of money. The General Service Conference
rejected it again in the early 1970s. Today I am convinced
that it would (and probably will be) approved by a great
majority. It has already been approved by our
membership. This book and the reading of "How It Works"
aloud at meetings has been the cause of our loss
of effectiveness over the past three decades.
My concerns are based on the information that our
membership doubled about every ten years for the
first 57 years until 1992, reaching almost two and
a half million members. We have fewer members than
that, TWO DECADES LATER. But you will be unable to find this
information anywhere. "They" have hidden that information
in the vault, along with GSO employee's salaries. ANONYMOUS
In reading some of the posts here, I noted that there seems to be a lot of people taking "issue" with things they see in the meetings. I also saw a few where people said they go to 12 meetings a year but still carry "the message". I can't help but wonder "what message"? I need to be around my own kind (alcoholics) and hear the message of AA. If that message isn't present then I need to go to God (as I understand him, not as you think I understand Him!) and bring forth that message. Talking about God isn't religious; talking about my religious practice is. Praying together isn't religious; praying together under a religious banner is. People want to hold hands and pray? It isn't wrong because YOU don't like it. When I was new I did everything I was told unless I was certain it was illegal! I tend to think that membership has dropped because people allow the whining and sniveling to drown out the message: Without God (that you design, build, and ultimately trust completely) and the 12 steps, which ARE the program, you will die an alcoholic death! No thanks!
Right on and no one can say it better. I think it's rather funny to see, hear, or read about people whining about prayer and talk of God. Obvisiously these people are missing something and I mean a higher power that we can rely on without any doubts. Lack of trust means we are insecure, and insecurity is a result of not working program. My message is, STOP USING EXCUSES, STOP BEING EGOTISTICAL, AND STOP BEING SELFISH. ACCEPTANCE IS THE ANSWER; >
Your comment reflects what I would describe as terminal intolerance (aka, ignorance): "Without God (that you design, build, and ultimately trust completely) and the 12 steps, which ARE the program, you will die an alcoholic death! No thanks!" I am glad you have found what works for you, but do not suggest to me or anyone else, particularly a newcomer, what we need to do to get and stay sober. I know quite a lot of happily sober drunks who attend AA who do not share your opinion of what AA is, or what AA requires, in particular your view that belief in a god is required.
Belief in a power greater than yourself is required whatever that power is as long as it is not me. The book sugest the group could be your higher power for a begining. Open mindidness and willinfygness are the keys to open the door. I thought the program is the 12 steps and traditons that are sugested as your program for recovery, jails institutions or death may be the result for failing to follow them, unless your disease is not progresive.
Belief in a power greater than yourself is required whatever that power is as long as it is not me. The book sugest the group could be your higher power for a begining. Open mindidness and willingness are the keys to open the door. I thought the program is the 12 steps and traditons that are sugested as your program for recovery, jails institutions or death may be the result for failing to follow them, unless your disease is not progresive.
How can you claim to be sober using the AA program when you refuse to follow any part of the 'basic text' of AA, namely, the Big Book, "Alcoholics Anonymous"?
I have yet to find in AA literature the suggestion that we work our own program and call it AA.
The twelfth step clearly states that we have a spiritual awakening AS THE RESULT OF THESE STEPS (steps one through eleven), and that is the message we try to carry to alcoholics.
"Then we have a certain type of hard drinker. He may have the habit badly enough to gradually impair him physically and mentally. It may cause him to die a few years before his time. If a sufficiently strong reason ill health, falling in love, change of environment, or the warning of a doctor becomes operative, this man can also stop or moderate, although he may find it difficult and troublesome and may even need medical attention." (pages 20, 21) These problem drinkers have no trouble staying sober on the 'just don't drink and go to meetings' program. They don't need what Dr. Silkworth called "An entire psychic change". (page xxix)
I am curious. You comment: "I have yet to find in AA literature the suggestion that we work our own program and call it AA." Where exactly does it say what I have to do in order to get or stay sober? Where does it say I have to read the Big Book or follow any certain steps to be a part of AA? As I recall, the steps are merely suggestions. I know several people who have been sober for decades who regularly attend AA as they have throughout sobriety, and have not worked the steps. They would be the first to admit that they would not recommend their program to anyone. Similarly, the person who has worked the steps, meaning her understanding of what working the steps means (including what "thoroughly" means), if she has acquired basic humility through that process, would also not recommend her program to anyone. There is not one AA program, one way to work the steps, one way to stay sober in AA. To suggest otherwise is just silly. What exactly about "open-minded" are you struggling with? Thankfully, the only requirement for membership is a desire to stop drinking. So like it or not, we must accept one another as fellow AA members. I am an atheist, but I will pray for you.
If the sponsor can be considered the "keeper of the steps," and the GSR is the "keeper of the traditions," than who is the keeper of the Concepts? Would it be the Delegate or Past Delegates? Thanks!
I have never heard of a sponsor as being "keeper of the
steps", or the GSR being "keeper of the traditions". I do
know that the guardianship of our Traditions lies in the hands of our 21 Trustees. And they continue to violate our
seventh tradition by spending more money than we send them.
Spend what we send! Not a penny more. Sell books and literature at the exact cost of printing. Let the Grapevine
be supported by those who want it. The Past delegate is
designated as a Grapevine salesman.
The responsibility for the welfare and future is in
the hands of A.A. members, our fellowship. But they are
unaware of that fact. They do not accept that responsibility, and it seems that our members, leaders
and Trustees have their heads in the sand. "Nothing
wrong here!". ANONYMOUS
Whoever's face we see in the mirror.
Is a district regularly buying cases of Big Books to give to treatment facilities or individuals in treatment facilities during an H&I commitment - a violation of any of AA's traditions?
A home group member who sells Avon brings in her wares in a big tote and sets up in the back of the room every week. Money and product change hands, orders are placed. Is this a violation of Tradition 6? It is an "outside enterprise," and potentially diverts the group from it's primary purpose. Thanks
Does she conduct her business during the meeting?
Does she advertise during the meeting?
Does the chairperson or anyone else announce that her products are for sale as part of the meeting?
At every conference or convention I have ever attended there is a special table set up near the speaker's platform for the purpose of recording the speaker, and CDs are sold immediately after the meeting. The people doing the recording and selling the CDs do it as a business. How is selling Avon products before or after a meeting any different from selling CDs?
Avon Products will not keep an Alcoholic sober.
Our primary purpose is to help the alcoholic who is still suffering.
There are many businesses that would try to make a profit out of AA. We need to guard against that.
We need to be vigilant to make sure our focus is on helping the alcoholic who suffers.
We sell books, and CD's that are AA Conference approved at meetings. At Conventions and Roundups where there are non meeting activities, we allow the sale of recordings of AA speakers at other Conventions and Round Ups.
Anything outside our primary purpose endangers our Unity.
IMO, it is as disrespectful and selfish to sell Avon in a meeting as it would be to set up in the back of a classroom or church to sell it.
"At Conventions and Roundups where there are non meeting activities, we allow the sale of recordings of AA speakers at other Conventions and Round Ups."
The people making and selling those recordings do it as a business, the same as the person selling Avon or any other product. The ones announced and promoted by the meeting chairperson are the ones in violation of Tradition Six.
Sure sounds like it. Her sponsor needs to have a "sit-down" with her, and soon!
I am a firm believer that AA groups that follow the traditions make it and those that don't - don't (make it). But can it be an AA Group and not to follow the traditions - or take the traditions "cafeteria style" as many members do with the steps? Are the steps "suggested" to the group? While there are no AA police or enforcers; does the lack of following the traditions automatically terminate it as an AA Group? Please send source(AA conference approved book/page) with comment. Thank you
re "automatic termination as an AA Group"
The only human authority over an AA meeting that does not follow our traditions is the Area decision not to list it in the regional meeting schedule.
What usually happens when groups do not follow the traditions is a lot of disagreement and chaos at meetings that causes step working folks to go to another meeting.
Eventually, the meeting will fade away or explode. I have seen both.
I have seen AA groups led by active street drug users, running a recovery house, who kicked out and banned anyone who spoke of the traditions. Finally, the funding source shut them and the "meetings" down. It was quite an explosion of emotions.
It is best to get out of the way and pray and start another meeting when something like that is coming.
Bill once explained how traditions are enforced. He said "Alcohol handles our enforcement for us".
Don't have the source handy but if I can find it anyone can and learn a lot while looking.