« it takes as long as it takes | Main | I was already cranky, I freely admit it »

August 03, 2010


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

recovering jezebel

Needed. This. So badly. Today.

Thank you.


Nicely said. :)

Jeff Key

I wonder if the title change for his story was run past Dr. Paul. Do you know? I was blessed to hear him speak at the Hayworth meeting of AA when I still lived in LA. I'm just curious. I've seen many a still suffering (dry) alcoholic, grit their teeth whenever anyone points out how MANY references to drug addiction there was in that 3rd edition (the one I got sober on as well). "Some of us have tried to hold on to our old ideas...." It still astonishes me the way the ego (edging god out) can stand in the way of serenity. In this old timer's opinion, most of the people who rush to get formats changed (etc) to deter even the mention of drugs in meetings just need so very badly to still be able to feel superior in some way... if only to say "at least I wasn't a drug addict." Thanks for the insightful blog!
Jeff K


I would like to say that this blog really convinced me, you give me best information! Thanks, very good post.


Mr. Sponsor pants, you are jus fucking phenomenal. to get anything throug my thick head, that is a magic act and you are getting trough to me (somewhat)until the thinking starts to kick in, but I keep coming back to your blog
God! you writting is so devoid of bullshit
Thank you

Charlie Haviland

"Acceptance" is mentioned once in the first 164. And, it is a reference to how readily we accept science, not any spiritual matter. Is acceptance the answer to all my problems? No. Spiritual principles will solve all my problems as promised on p42. Good, necessary essay, Mr SP!


Especially in today's A.A. where nonalcoholic drug addicts feel entitled to AA membership and attendance, Dr. Paul's story is problematic. I assume that A.A. felt his acceptance message overshadowed the drug message, but A.A. obviously had some 2nd thoughts as evidenced by the title change.

I have heard that Dr. Paul publicly announced that his message on acceptance has been misinterpreted. Is that true and what is the proper interpretation?


It appears that Dr. Paul shared my position on discussing drugs in A.A. meetings:

"But he denied that there is anything in the story he would want to change. The story "makes clear the truth that an alcoholic can also be an addict, and indeed that an alcoholic has a constitutional right to have as many problems as he wants! But that doesn't mean that every A.A. meeting has to be open to a discussion of drugs if it doesn't want to. Every meeting has the right to say it doesn't want drugs discussed. People who want to discuss drugs have other places where they can go to talk about that."


The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad