The traditions do not tell us to not help others... Show me.

DT, for me it is about how to be most helpful to others. Sometimes that is to not offer the help myself but rather to show someone to a person or place where they can get the help that they need.

I learned this the hard way by thinking that I could help people that I couldnt (cocaine addicts that were not alcoholics - I tried to sponsor them and it all went horribly wrong).

I think that because we look at common solution that we forget the importance of identification and a true step 1 experience. I cannot help someone who is for example a cocaine addict with that experience in relation to cocaine because I do not share it. I can help them with a step 1 around alcohol but not cocaine. And despite what people say those experiences are different.

I also think it is quite interesting that NA have moved away from some of the AA program even though they still use the 12 steps. They do not use the big book so much as a basic text. The way a step 4, for example, is done in NA is different from the standard way in AA. I think this may be because addicts have seen that they need something different in terms of their recovery. That is what I would like to believe anyway that recovered heroin addicts know better what they need to do to recover than I know.

I have found some really good stuff about primary purpose/singleness of purpose in my wanderings round the internet. Would be happy to share it with you if you are ever interested.

I think the really important thing for me is that this is never about excluding any alcoholic from AA regardless of what other problems they may have. But it is about not diluting the effectiveness of the message we have by trying to be all things to all people. Tradition 5 in the 12 steps and 12 traditions is a good place to start on this.

Oh, I have helped an addict. He couldn't find any veins anymore to shoot his drugs so I did it for him at times even though it really disgusted me. Once I saw him in the bathtub the blood running down his face trying to hit a vein on the back of his head with a mirror in one hand and the injection in the other. Then this look when he got the job done. I have lived some time with that guy and I truely cannot understand that people say alcoholism and drug addiction is the same.

It's no idiot that cannot suggest a new and different place to find help. DUH! Pushing people away in an AA forum? Pretty sad if you do that.

If you think that alcohol is "different "than other chemicals others choose than you are wrong.

I guess I feel that in many things I am pretty much an idiot and therefore I am much better at passing someone on to a person that may help them.

My experience recovering as an alcoholic only gives me experience to share about how to recover as an alcoholic, in many other matters of life etc I am pretty clueless.

I don't think you or anyone else here is clueless. Do you think where you live separates alcoholics and drug addicts in rehab? There is no seprartion here because AA will work for both.

Is there a heroin rehab?

A cocaine rehab?

An LSD rehab?

A benzo rehab?.......etc.

It's all in the same.

How did "Primary purpose " become "Single purpose"?

Where I have heard it most is on the closed meeting blue cards issued by the General Service Conference though from reading various bits and pieces the term has been around for a long time.

I was just looking for info on it on the internet today and found out that the 2004 general service conference was called "Our Singleness of Purpose - The Cornerstone of AA" I havent yet managed to find out what was said about it at the conference but I am looking. :-)

IMO, we need to live up to what we read in meetings. Things like "The only requirement for AA membership is a desire to stop drinking" and "Our primary purpose is to..."
We can't say a and interpret b, it's not like this is the second ammendment after all.

The "singleness of purpose", "primary purpose" and "the only requirement for membership is a desire to stop drinking" do not conflict or contradict each other in any way - not the way I have been lead to understand them anyway.

the "real alcoholic" concept and "qualification" certainly contradict ther third tradition.

live and let live, if asked I will help if not I can not.

DT, it really depends how you see those things - you see them as exclusionary terms whereas I do not.

real alcoholic = someone who is powerless over alcohol, cannot stop drinking on there own and therefore needs help. Presumably someone who can stop drinking on their own wouldnt need to be in AA.

qualification - essentially taking someone through step 1 so that they can decide for themselves that alcoholism is their problem and thus establish that AA is the right place for them to get help. No point in sitting in AA waiting for your problem to get solved if it turns out you have a completely different problem and therefore need a different solution. And no point in sitting in AA trying to grapple with the rest of the steps if you do not have a step 1 foundation to build upon.

Neither of these terms exclude people who also have an issue with drugs. In fact all other issues are irrelevant. The only thing being considered is a persons problems with alcohol.

If you can substitute the use of the word, "higher power" with a different word that makes sense to the individual seeking help, why not with "alcohol?"

Someone struggling with sobriety from Vicodin might find being around other alcoholics comforting and helpful.

I know people who understand AA to mean Addicts Anonymous.

There are two statements that the 1987 General Service Conference made available as an A.A. service piece for those groups who wish to use it. I quote them as follows:

"THIS IS A CLOSED MEETING OF ALCOHOLICS ANONYMOUS. In support of A.A's singleness of purpose, attendance at closed meetings is limited to persons who have a desire to stop drinking. If you think you have a problem with alcohol, you are welcome to attend this meeting. We ask that when discussing our problems, we confine ourselves to those problems as they relate to alcoholism."

"THIS IS AN OPEN MEETING OF ALCOHOLICS ANONYMOUS. We are glad you are all here - especially newcomers. In keeping with our singleness of purpose and our Third Tradition which states that "The only requirement for A.A. membership is a desire to stop drinking," we ask that all who participate confine their discussion to their problems with alcohol."

Whilst there is some truth in the fact that a drug is a drug is a drug it is, just in my opinion of course, it is no way near the whole picture!

Give anyone addictive drugs other than alcohol on a regular basis and all will become addicted. Give anyone alcohol on a regular basis and not all will become addicted - that shows to me that some are bodily and mentally different to so-called "normal" people.

For substances other than alcohol, illegal drugs drive people "underground" and those drugs are far more difficult to obtain and far more expensive than alcohol.

None of this matters when I mix with my addict friends because I am not sponsoring them and the fact they mention they are dual addicted or whatever in AA meetings does not bother me either as they do not expand on their using experience other than that, having respect for the singleness of purpose of AA!

The trouble with lumping us all together in treatment (which I have personally experienced and certainly have not gained from) is that most treatment centre are a commercial enterprise and have their profits as their primary purpose - essentially because they are a business!

In my experience this lumping us all together and considering us the same is more a matter of commercial convenience, most treatment centres only have one van so you all get to go to NA and you all get to go AA. Obviously I could not relate at NA as I am only an alkie and have never tried the other stuff. I would therefore be a totally inexperienced sponsor to a dual addicted or a non-AA addict.