Clarity Statements

andyaddict · Member

Clarity Statements

avid · Guru

No comment.

MIKEF · Guru

-- Edited by MIKEF on Monday 7th of June 2010 01:28:38 PM

Jana40503 · Senior Member

What I said in another thread:

Our third tradition states that there is only ONE REQUIREMENT for membership, a desire to stop using. We have no requirements as they relate to NA language.

That said, NAWS said that the Clarity Statement is NOT approved NA literature but that group autonomy applies. If a group conscience speaks in favor of a clarity statement, all is good but we still cannot command people to respect it.

Finally, in my opinion, there are good reasons for the clarity statement, a very good one being not to confuse newcomers who don't understand that in the NA program there is no difference between alcoholism and addiction. It comes down to respect for the group I'm a member of or visiting. As we begin to recover and to practice some humility we no longer need to go against the grain. We learn to respect the wishes and feelings of others.

I respect the traditions and the clarity statement however, I don't call addicts out in meetings, cause humiliation and embarassment, because they've not adhered to NA language. It's something we all learn and some of us will belligerantly hold on to our old ideas.

I would like to address this:

"What is the purpose of such clarity statements? To edit the language used by our members in communicating their experience, strength, and hope? Or could it be a self-righteous, misguided control issue, an attempt to organize NA, as such? Could this have the effect of creating a top-down bureaucracy dictating to our members, making our members responsible for serving the will of their service committees rather than the other way around? Remember our Ninth Tradition: NA, as such, ought never be organized, but we may create service boards or committees directly responsible to those they serve."

I think "clarity statements" have a purpose and it's exactly what they say they are, to provide clarity.

We are not "addicts and alcoholics". We are in NA to recover from the disease of addiction. We make no distinction between drugs but make no mistake about it... Newcomers DO. As a newcomer, I missed the part we read that said, "thinking of alcohol as different from other drugs..." but my disease didn't miss that some people said, "I'm an addict" and others said, "I'm an addict and an alcoholic" and it told me that I wasn't an alcoholic so I could probably continue to have a couple of drinks from time to time, so long as I stayed away from the cocaine. I don't have to tell you what the outcome of that thinking was.

My biggest issue with the existing clarity statements is that they are too wordy and therefore, not clear! LOL I have no problem, in the group I started and continue to chair two years later, in a treatment center (NOT an H&I meeting), explaining that we identify as simply addicts in NA and why we do so... Not to edit, control dictate, not to be different, not to govern... WE SUGGEST IT SO AS NOT TO CONFUSE THE NEWCOMER.

I used to get all irritated feeling when I'd hear people in meetings identify as "anda"... NA Naziism had found it's place in my ego... I knew the RIGHT way and they were WRONG. Learning about the traditions has chilled me quite a bit and I no longer have an emotion about it. Chairing meetings full of newcomers in treatment will help with that too! smile

Sometimes I'll talk to an "anda" after the meeting. Ask some questions, share what I've come to learn but most of the time, I leave it alone. There was a time, following treatment, when I identified as everything I'd ever heard anyone else say from "anda alcoholic" to "dually addicted" to "dually diagnosed". I wanted to fit in... Had always wanted to fit in. I learned and was willing to change.

I will say that when I hear an addict with some time in the program using AA language, I do wonder if they've grasped the notion that alcohol is a drug and doesn't require special recognition or if they're just stubbornly rejecting a group conscience in terms of the clarity statement or... What?

-- Edited by Jana40503 on Monday 7th of June 2010 01:32:19 PM

CharlieMcEdin · Member

I find the Clarity statements very divisive. As such they are clearly not compatible with the spiritual base of Narcotics Anonymous. I find myself struggling to attend meetings where the clarity statement is read as it affects me. I have yet to find anyone giving a spiritual reason for these statements. It is always about 'these treatment cases spouting alcoholic addicts' (often those who attended treatment and spent a couple of years describing themselves as such) or 'we need to remind all members we are addicts' (which I see as an attempt to govern) or 'we want it to be an NA meeting' (which I thought I was attending anyway...lol).

Jana40503 · Senior Member

CharlieMcEdin wrote:

I find the Clarity statements very divisive. As such they are clearly not compatible with the spiritual base of Narcotics Anonymous. I find myself struggling to attend meetings where the clarity statement is read as it affects me. I have yet to find anyone giving a spiritual reason for these statements. It is always about 'these treatment cases spouting alcoholic addicts' (often those who attended treatment and spent a couple of years describing themselves as such) or 'we need to remind all members we are addicts' (which I see as an attempt to govern) or 'we want it to be an NA meeting' (which I thought I was attending anyway...lol).

Did you read my post Charlie? Is it not possible that different means of identification in meetings might serve to confuse the newcomer? Our readings say that alcohol is a drug, do we need to hold it out as a seperate drug or seperate disease? It confused me at one time.... To my deep detriment.

John · Senior Member

I like your vision and message. Keep it simple stupid (kiss) is the best policy, opposed to trying to analize the polictical correctness of what others are doing or saying, we need to focus on ourselves and what we are saying and doing.

Am I part of the harmony of the whole or am I insitgating, promoting or encouraging division among those who have a desire to recover today?

I am going to steal a piece of what you have shared and share it with others, while doing so with your annoymity protected.

John

-- Edited by John on Monday 7th of June 2010 01:40:12 PM

MikeW · Newbie

I am wondering if the CS is confusing the newcomer.There are andas and
such in the na literature.I am assuming newcomers read na literature.

Jana40503 · Senior Member

MikeW wrote:

I am wondering if the CS is confusing the newcomer.There are andas and
such in the na literature.I am assuming newcomers read na literature.

I think it (they) might but not because the message is confusing, all the words and talking around it are. It's simple. In NA, we identify as "addicts". The term "addict" is all inclusive. It is about unity, not uniformity. If alcohol is a drug, I'm an addict and your an alcoholic and an addict, what is the difference between us? Why are we id'ing differently?

MikeW · Newbie

at the beginning of this na meeting it was stated that these words alcoholic and an addict dilute the NA message and causes a dilemma in na.What is the new comer supposed to think/do?I mean the na group just said that these words cause a dilemma in the na fellowship.There for the na text is causing a dilemma.The very words alcoholic and an addict that you say cause a dilemma in na are in the na book.

andyaddict · Member

Jana40503 wrote:

CharlieMcEdin wrote:
I find the Clarity statements very divisive. As such they are clearly not compatible with the spiritual base of Narcotics Anonymous. I find myself struggling to attend meetings where the clarity statement is read as it affects me. I have yet to find anyone giving a spiritual reason for these statements. It is always about 'these treatment cases spouting alcoholic addicts' (often those who attended treatment and spent a couple of years describing themselves as such) or 'we need to remind all members we are addicts' (which I see as an attempt to govern) or 'we want it to be an NA meeting' (which I thought I was attending anyway...lol).

Did you read my post Charlie? Is it not possible that different means of identification in meetings might serve to confuse the newcomer? Our readings say that alcohol is a drug, do we need to hold it out as a seperate drug or seperate disease? It confused me at one time.... To my deep detriment.

What I find "confusing" is how so many people can neither see nor admit they are using a divisive and self-righteous approach to isolate NA from AA. Divisive, self-righteous, and isolation - all characteristics of an active disease, yet they are so convinced of their rightness they fail to see their self-righteousness.

Like another said above, there's no "God" or spirituality in any version of these conformity statements, unity is not the same as uniformity - our diversity is our strength. There comes a time when it becomes necessary to separate the spiritual from the political; to allow each member to come to their own understanding of the NA program in their own time; and to put an end to the political indoctrination of the masses to satisfy the character defects of the few.

a

p.s. Addicts have been calling themselves alcoholics in AA for nearly 30 years longer than NA has been in existence, with at least as good of a prognosis and they don't seem all that confused. This makes me wonder "Who really is confused? - maybe it's NOT the newcomer after all.

-- Edited by andyaddict on Monday 7th of June 2010 08:37:12 PM

cleanNOTsober · Veteran Member

andyaddict wrote:
...... to satisfy the character defects of the few.

Gee, does this mean that I should change my nick???

Or should I write a Step Six based on my nickname???

Then again, I'm probably best to continue talking one-on-one to those who like to identify themselves as having two diseases and two recoveries whilst in an NA meeting. Heck, I get talked to enuff times when I err and say "addict" or "addiction" or even "cleantime" when sharing at an AA meeting.

But, that's only my character defect...

MikeW · Newbie

OK so your not sober,hopefully your not driving.Why would you do a 6th step?
You need to get back to basics.1st step,admit you are powerless over alcohol,90 meetings in 90 days get a sponsor.go to meetings and tell on your self.i am not sober.
I think i am clean.But i am not sober.everyone will help you with your drinking problem.
get a sponcer that way you wont drive drunk to a meeting it is alright if you smell like booze they will welcome you with open arms

andyaddict · Member

cleanNOTsober wrote:

andyaddict wrote:
...... to satisfy the character defects of the few.

Gee, does this mean that I should change my nick???

Or should I write a Step Six based on my nickname???

Then again, I'm probably best to continue talking one-on-one to those who like to identify themselves as having two diseases and two recoveries whilst in an NA meeting. Heck, I get talked to enuff times when I err and say "addict" or "addiction" or even "cleantime" when sharing at an AA meeting.

But, that's only my character defect...

"I'm probably best to continue talking one-on-one to those who like to identify themselves as having two diseases and two recoveries whilst in an NA meeting."

I have two diseases (actually a whole laundry list of them) rheumatoid arthritis and addiction. Yes I talk frequently about my recovery from RA in meetings. Most the people I know seem quite intrigued by how I correlate the two, people from 30 days to 30 years

I get talked to enuff times when I err and say "addict" or "addiction" or even "cleantime" when sharing at an AA meeting.

In philosophy this is called the fallacy of "two wrongs make a right." Just because there are those in AA who harbor, coddle, and nourish the same defects of character and attempt to tie them to AA doesn't make it right to do in NA. Read what Bill Wilson wrote in the 12X12 about a new member who suffered from an addiction even worse stigmatized than alcoholism - and the (spiritual) resolution.

Gee, does this mean that I should change my nick???

Or should I write a Step Six based on my nickname???

Since you asked, I suggest you first do a thorough inventory as to "why" your nickname rather than "what" your nickname. Did you pray about it and during meditation God whispered that nickname - or was it something else?

Now, imagine if your God were to present in human form. Would He be preoccupied with linguicide in NA or would He seek to serve a greater purpose in His relations with others?

-- Edited by andyaddict on Monday 7th of June 2010 11:00:29 PM

andyaddict · Member

John wrote:

I like your vision and message. Keep it simple stupid (kiss) is the best policy, opposed to trying to analize the polictical correctness of what others are doing or saying, we need to focus on ourselves and what we are saying and doing.

Am I part of the harmony of the whole or am I insitgating, promoting or encouraging division among those who have a desire to recover today?

I am going to steal a piece of what you have shared and share it with others, while doing so with your annoymity protected.

John

-- Edited by John on Monday 7th of June 2010 01:40:12 PM

John, below the essay is a link to the PDF of the NA Way Journal the article was printed in. No anonyminity necessary, but thank you.

a

cleanNOTsober · Veteran Member

hehe, I guess I shouldna stuck my nose into somethin' that really doesn't concern me! Alls I was trying to do was have a bit o' fun at mostly my expense..
So, let's look at your reply bit by bit, then I'll bow quietly out, regardless of the email i got asking for members to post here:

MikeW wrote:
OK so your not sober,hopefully your not driving.Why would you do a 6th step?

First off, my DOC was booze. I have been going to NA meetings for nigh onto 22 years now and took my 18 year cake in April. I consider myself to be a member of Narcotics Anonymous and work a program as suggested by NA.The 6th Step reference was to the little bit written by Andy about satisfying "the character defects of the few". You know, Step Six? The one about God removing all these defects of character? Just pokin' some fun at Andy and me 'cause of my nickname. My defect of character (re my nick) seemed to fit in to the discussion. A joke, laughing at myself, hehe, etc, dig?

You need to get back to basics.1st step,admit you are powerless over alcohol,90 meetings in 90 days get a sponsor.go to meetings and tell on your self.i am not sober.

Basics? Dang, but last time I looked, my Basic Text didn't mention nada about me needin' to be powerless over alcohol. In fact, I kind of remember a reading we have in our area called, what was it?.... yeah, "How It Works". I hear it at every meeting I go to. There's a little piece at the very end of that reading that talks about addicts thinkin' about alcohol as different, causing a great many to relapse. It also says something about alcohol being a drug. I came to NA because I not because I loved to drink, but if I could snort it, sniff it, drop it, drink it, shoot it, rub it into my belly... hey, if it got me high, that was the thing for me! And NA taught me that if I work their program of recovery, I could get clean, stay clean, and find a new way to live. By gosh, they were right! Today, I am Clean, but I sure as shoot ain't sober because I don't need to be "sober". I need to be "Clean".

I think i am clean.But i am not sober.everyone will help you with your drinking problem.

Whoops! Nope, But I know I am Clean! And I am not sober, because I suffer from the disease of addiction, not alcoholism. Heck, if'n I was just your plain old drunk, I'd have no problem calling myself sober. But booze just weren't my only drug. Thus, today... well, I said that enough already, hm?

get a sponcer that way you wont drive drunk to a meeting it is alright if you smell like booze they will welcome you with open arms

Ouch! Now, that stung a bit. Assuming that I don't have a sponsor. Assuming that I drink, and drive. Assuming that I smell like booze. Jeepers, yeah, that hurt! Oh well, keep coming back, as they say. NA might just show you how to be clean without having to be sober. But hey, wtf do I know, hm? I'm just one of those old-timer curmudgeons who doesn't know this about that, let alone the other thing.

Thanks all, for giving me a wee bit of a smile on a day when I really needed one!!

Raman · Guru

Actually this question of whether the clarity statment violates traditions or not should be purely academic.
Nothing can come inbetween the desire to stop using and the NA Way of life.

IMHO,,,Maybe we should take a straw poll of members here and find out what the tally is,, just a simple yes/ no/ abstain will do.
What do you yall think ?
( smile

Im binging my Masters education into this,,,, called Research Methods).

That said, heres my story,,,
When I came into recovery, there was no NA. I went to AA.
Yes,, I was forced and restricted there by members not to even mention a word of drugs or anything about drugs. They had their own clarity statement there.
"Youll keep real alcoholics that need sobriety away if you say those things".
To get to share at meetings became an exception,,, the way they operated was to have the chair call out persosns to share, I never got called.
Even when allowed to share, I was never listened to. I was never allowed to share at Conventions of AA,,, just because I was an addict.
And mind you, I could have drunk those "pure- alcoholics" under the table at any given time,,, that was the extent id been to in my addiction. I faced many other forms of dis-crimination too. Good for me that Id readn the NA Basic Text and dreamed of the dau Id be in an NA meeting and say
"My name is Raman and I am an addict".

Anyways, my desire to recover was strong and I repaid the debt to AA by doing service at group, area and regional level. This lasted five years. I also tried AA sponsors, but they did not "reach" me. Finally I was lucky to meet a travelling addict who went to AA too and we did my Fourth Step. That was indeed a turning point. I began to feel different, especially because the constant fear and feelings of rejection were gone. That one act of kindness by that addict turned my life around.

In the meanwhile met many addicts that were sent to AA meetings by treatment centres as part of routines. Many came, and only a couple of guys, who had also drank a lot of alcohol like me came to stay in AA. We were witness to hostility when we got addicts into these meetings. Sad part of it was many addicts were lost, though they had a desire to stop using, simply cause the terms Alcoholics Anonymous, alcoholics and alcohol didnt draw em. They werent able to identify with the alcoholic in AA cause it was specifc drugs that were focus there and identification was basically at that level.
So what was there left to do ?

In the year 1989, an NA meeting was started here. It was served by one member and ran for about six months, with few addicts attending now and then. Then that meeting died out and that member became more involved in AA meetings. It was suggested to him by AA oldtimers that he keep coming to AA till NA was up and running. This member was ok and enjoyed respect of AA,s.
However more addicts kept coming into AA. Things got especially difficult in the context of the clarity statement of AA. Conscience meetings were held and it was decided addicts will be allowed in AA provided they did not refer to drugs, drug addiction etc. An uneasy truce prevailed, but the tensions were great. But the need for NA meetings grew stronger.
It seemed a no-go situation.

As luck would have it, a couple of addicts in NA came by from Seattle. This is the year 1992 or so. Theyd travelled all the way from US to Bangalore India after reading a share in Meeting by Mail NA. Meeting by Mail NA was run by the Loner group and had sharings like in an NA meeting, only this was in print and was sent out once in two months to about 1200 addicts worldwide. Bob and Laura had read this and set out here, in the hope that they could help start a group. And we had our first run up meeting in a hotel room; there was Bob, Laura, Raul, Manju, Raman, Cecil and few others. We had a full meeting. A closed meeting for addicts that we came out of feeling like real great. Then a place was found and a meeting was started. It was registered with WSO in 1993. It has seen action ever since. I served as the first GSR of that group, called Reality.

There have been teething troubles, growth problems and all of that but that group stayed. Most amazing was the feeling that this was a for the addict, by the addict thing. We had decided to have the 12 Steps of NA as our guide. And though we did not read the clarity statement at this meeting, to a man/ woman we never strayed out of focus. We kept it very simple and understandable by identifying as addicts, and acknowledging that we were recovering from the dis-ease of addiction, and that we were a seperate and distinct Fellowship. From then on, for the past 17 years, I have been an NA member, with few AA meetings now and then.

And what is the differance ?

Well, I have experienced total identification,unconditional love and unqualified acceptance that only one addict can give another, and Ive experienced it only in NA meetings and have been able to give back unconditional love and acceptance only in NA service. I thank God for NA.

Oftentimes I wonder what would have happened if the clarity statement of AA had never been read in those AA meetings and oldtimers there insisting on adherence to it.
Would us addicts have even bothered tp gop and start a meeting for the addict that still sufers ??

-- Edited by Raman on Tuesday 8th of June 2010 06:28:23 AM

andyaddict · Member

Raman wrote:

Actually this question of whether the clarity statment violates traditions or not should be purely academic.

OK, I'm game

(Im binging my Masters education into this,,,, called Research Methods).

Ok then, what do you say we test the hypothesis of your premise "Because AA did it makes it ok to do in NA."

That said, heres my story,,,
When I came into recovery, there was no NA. I went to AA.
Yes,, I was forced and restricted there by members not to even mention a word of drugs or anything about drugs. They had their own clarity statement there.

You were "forced and restricted." Those are strong words. Let's test this by AA's standards - are you implying that servants in AA "governed?!?" How can THAT be right, doesn't AA's Second Tradition protect you against that? Have you read Tradition Two in AA's 12X12? Does it not say that "No A.A. can give another a directive and enforce obedience?"

"Youll keep real alcoholics that need sobriety away if you say those things".

Could what they say be true, or had this already been tested by Bill Wilson many years ago?

"So beggars, tramps, asylum inmates, prisoners, queers, plain crackpots, and fallen women were definitely out. Yes sir, we'd cater only to pure and respectable alcoholics! Any others would surely destroy us. ... Intolerant, you say? Well, we were frightened. Naturally, we began to act like most everybody does when afraid. After all, isn't fear the true basis of intolerance? Yes, we were intolerant." ... How could we then guess that all those fears were to prove groundless?

To get to share at meetings became an exception,,, the way they operated was to have the chair call out persosns to share, I never got called.

Conscience meetings were held and it was decided addicts will be allowed in AA provided they did not refer to drugs, drug addiction etc.

Again, it sounds as though this group as decided that it was exempt from adhering to Traditions Two and Nine. Here's another quote that I feel should dispel that myth.

"Therefore every nation, in fact every form of society, has to be a government administered by human beings. Power to direct or govern is the essence of organization everywhere.

"Yet Alcoholics Anonymous is an exception. It does not conform to this pattern. Neither its General Service Conference, its Foundation Board,* nor the humblest group committee can issue a single directive to an AA member and make it stick, let alone mete out any punishment. We've tried it lots of times, but utter failure is always the result."

We had decided to have the 12 Steps of NA as our guide. And though we did not read the clarity statement at this meeting, to a man/ woman we never strayed out of focus. We kept it very simple and understandable by identifying as addicts, and acknowledging that we were recovering from the dis-ease of addiction, and that we were a seperate and distinct Fellowship.

The above would be fine if when you said "we" you meant you and your friends each made independent decisions to adhere to this philosophy. However at the first inkling of your trying to put your beliefs and values on someone else this becomes self-righteous, then if this belief get's worked into using the meeting or group format as a vehicle for indoctrination to your beliefs it begins to compromise our traditions.

Now back to the hypothesis "Because AA did it makes it ok to do in NA." It appears that the hypothesis was not true, therefore not a significant premise to build belief and policy in NA due to precedence.

However I do apologize for your experience in AA due to those who did not adhere to the spiritual principles embodied in AA's traditions. As you see, it is like a virus and it trickles down as so many people glom on to the information they get from misinformed people and carry it as the truth to others.

Raman · Guru

Fabulous Andy,, you got all of my respect and attention,, yes sireee...
Youre not abusive, nor are you doing personal attacks,,, I love that style of arguement chief,, with you on this one.

No we should not do because AA did.
Thats a truism that I learned in AA that when Im troubled, disturbed and stressed out, then somethngs the matter with me. My first priority is to look for the source of that disturbance and most of the times, lo and behold,,, the man in the mirror is responsible.
Ok I accept that.

Id also like to state that in meetings where the Clarity statement was read out, it was ended with the words
" this is not to direct or control" or words to that effect.
Therefore, as in any other guideline, this was only a suggestion.
Never once did I have the misfortune of seeing someone being asked to stop sharing or hounded out cause they did not use NA specific language.
I think in this context, NA does score over AA.

That said Andy, lets look at another ground reality, that of the Steps.
When I did my 4th, there were no guides then, later came the yellow coloured piece that said
"Working Step Four in NA".
Then came the "NA Step working guides".
They prescribe the way the steps are to be written.

Are we directing addicts to behave in a certain manner then ?
Does it mean that just because we ask an addict to write as suggested in the Step working guide, we are infringing on an addicts personal freedom.
Will a Step writing be more effective if we allow our sponsees to write as they wish, in their own way, or is it better they do it along the lines of the Step Guide ?
If they knew so much about recovery, why do they need me to guide em and why indeed any guides at all ?
Isnt most NA literature a result of crystallising the varied experiences of thousands of addicts all over the world ? Therefore determining what works !!!

My arguement is simply this=
If we have a theory that something like the clarity statement that suggests propiety is against Traditions, then by the same token, all of the guides are also a violation !!!!

And my standpoint sir,, is that neither the clarity statement nor the Step Guides infringe on or dictate personal behaviour.
They simply are suggestions, at best taken wholeheartedly and at worst ignored !!!!

And yes, I agree with you that uniformity is not equeal to unity; verily, the best example of spirituality is unity in diversity !!!

Thanks for letting me share !

andyaddict · Member

Raman wrote:

Fabulous Andy,, you got all of my respect and attention,, yes sireee...

My arguement is simply this=
If we have a theory that something like the clarity statement that suggests propiety is against Traditions, then by the same token, all of the guides are also a violation !!!!

And my standpoint sir,, is that neither the clarity statement nor the Step Guides infringe on or dictate personal behaviour.
They simply are suggestions, at best taken wholeheartedly and at worst ignored !!!!

Let me first say that I was reading your post with an Indian accent and you sounded so CUTE!!! (My girlfriend was born in Tamil Nadu by the way)

So now, let me attack your argument:

If you try to make a point about something by comparison, and if you do so by comparing it with the wrong thing, you commit the fallacy of faulty comparison. You compared the non-approved (disapproved) "clarity statement" with fellowship approved literature, between the two there can be no comparison in this argument, in essence, faulty comparison.

The problem with the conformity statement is that it is dictated (dishonestly) by the group as though it were NA's official opinion - which it is not. Not only is it not approved but failed to gain approval status not once by twice (World Service Conference cycles '99 and '06). What is the definition of insanity, doing the same thing over and over expecting different results?

Had this statement gained approved status, statement supporters would be stuffing this down everyone's throats, at least where I live. Even though it has failed, twice, they still will not let it go.

I wouldn't object so much if you dictated a statement that said:

Raman, Joe, Bob, and Sue are presented with a dilemma... rather than misleading the already confused newcomer to believe that this is NA's opinion - which it is not.

Change the terms "we" and "NA" to your names, whoever voted it in, then your autonomy would hold inviolate. But when you dictate a statement using the term "we" or "NA" you imply that "I" hold with that position, which I certainly do not. Therefore it is fundamentally dishonest, is it not?

By the way... do you know Simply Sunil?

In loving service
andyaddict
Los Angeles

Raman · Guru

Spot on chief,,,, no doubt you have pointed out an error in thinking.
The difference is accepted.
Yes, comparing NA approved to non is wrong.....

Thanks Andy,, you have cleared a lot of confusion.
Yes, Ive also been victimised by "directors" that said
"This is the right way to share and that isnt".
Thne it became a problem for them cause I never listened to them and followed the feelings of my heart and the thoughts I gathered from NA lit,,, especially the Basic Text.

Basically ,,, I suppose, and my theory is that addicts are very possessive about what they have now in NA,, and want to preserve it in it's purest form and the clarity statement gave them that avenue.

The clarity statement is never read here in MIP..
It is hardly ever read in the Indian Fellowship.
I was surprised that there was no controversy about that in NA-UK.While I lived there i attended meetings in different groups and areas and it was read in all of them.
There was nary even a discussion about it's propiety....

Ha, ha, heyy,, my family is originally from Tamilnadu too, but for four generations have been outside of it.
And Im a Bangalorean and a Sheffieldian,,,
Please say @Namaskaram@ to you gf,, ha, ha,ha... It's like HI in Tamil....

My aunt lives in LA,,,her son came here to India to get recovery from an "acid-head".
Never went to NA,, stayed at a treatment centre for nearly two years,,came out as resentful and paranoid as ever, and two years later, three months ago, died in LA in his house....
He reminded me of the deadly nature of the disease in progress,, especially the denial... God give him rest..

I know Sunil well, we met last at Coorg, the venue for Bangalore Area's 6th Convention...
We had a guy from your area, a John who is a guitarist and claims to have played with Jackson Browne and we did a great set.

Keep coming back Andy,, welcome hugs,,, await your next post/ topic....

-- Edited by Raman on Wednesday 9th of June 2010 04:44:35 AM

Raman · Guru

This is an exact copy of the mail I got from a friend at WSO/NAWS,,,,

"Hello Raman. Thank you for contacting NA World Services.

The clarity statement or identity statement, as it is sometimes called, has many variations. Most can be tied to a World Service Board of Trustees bulletin titled Some thoughts regarding our relationship to Alcoholics Anonymous, produced in 1985, and updated in 1996. While World Service bulletins are not conference-approved, they do represent the thoughts of the board at the time of their publication. The bulletin in its entirety can be found at: http://www.na.org/?ID=bulletins-bull13-r

As a part of any related discussion about using or creating a clarity statement you may be interested to know that there is not a Fellowship-Approved version of this announcement. In fact, this issue has come before the World Service Conference several times in recent years, and at the 2006 WSC the following motion was presented but was not adopted: To direct the World Board to create a project plan for the development of a fellowship-approved Identity Statement to be presented at WSC 2008.

The World Board did not support this motion. Following is their recommendation:
While we do understand that some groups include an identity statement of some kind in their meeting format because they feel that such a statement helps to clarify the language and program of NA, we do not feel it is necessary to have such a statement become the focus of a world services project. Groups who choose to use a clarity or identity statement are, of course, free to do so; the principle of group autonomy ensures that. To develop such a statement on a world level, however, could imply that all groups should read such a statement, an implication we do not support.
Hello Raman. Thank you for contacting NA World Services.
The clarity statement or identity statement, as it is sometimes called, has many variations. Most can be tied to a World Service Board of Trustees bulletin titled Some thoughts regarding our relationship to Alcoholics Anonymous, produced in 1985, and updated in 1996. While World Service bulletins are not conference-approved, they do represent the thoughts of the board at the time of their publication. The bulletin in its entirety can be found at: http://www.na.org/?ID=bulletins-bull13-r

As a part of any related discussion about using or creating a clarity statement you may be interested to know that there is not a Fellowship-Approved version of this announcement. In fact, this issue has come before the World Service Conference several times in recent years, and at the 2006 WSC the following motion was presented but was not adopted: To direct the World Board to create a project plan for the development of a fellowship-approved Identity Statement to be presented at WSC 2008.

The World Board did not support this motion. Following is their recommendation:
While we do understand that some groups include an identity statement of some kind in their meeting format because they feel that such a statement helps to clarify the language and program of NA, we do not feel it is necessary to have such a statement become the focus of a world services project. Groups who choose to use a clarity or identity statement are, of course, free to do so; the principle of group autonomy ensures that. To develop such a statement on a world level, however, could imply that all groups should read such a statement, an implication we do not support".

Raman · Guru

Two touch-points there,,,
should clear away all controversy=

1.
a. While we do understand that some groups include an identity statement of some kind in their meeting format because they feel that such a statement helps to clarify the language and program of NA,
b. Groups who choose to use a clarity or identity statement are, of course, free to do so; the principle of group autonomy ensures that..

2.
a. we do not feel it is necessary to have such a statement become the focus of a world services project.
b. to develop such a statement on a world level, however, could imply that all groups should read such a statement, an implication we do not support.

andyaddict · Member

Raman wrote:

This is an exact copy of the mail I got from a friend at WSO/NAWS,,,,

The World Board did not support this motion. Following is their recommendation:

Groups who choose to use a clarity or identity statement are, of course, free to do so; the principle of group autonomy ensures that. To develop such a statement on a world level, however, could imply that all groups should read such a statement, an implication we do not support".

An Appeal to Authority is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. When a person falls prey to this fallacy, they are accepting a claim as true without there being adequate evidence to do so. More specifically, the person is accepting the claim because they erroneously believe that the person making the claim is a legitimate expert and hence that the claim is reasonable to accept. Since people have a tendency to believe authorities (and there are, in fact, good reasons to accept some claims made by authorities) this fallacy is a fairly common one.

Many people in NA commit this error in logic as they believe our structure is like that of most every other form of social hierarchy. However in every fellowship modeled after AA's social structure the power within the fellowship is to rest with the member, this is the highest rank one can achieve in NA. From that point forward, the tiers step downward into service, not upward to authority.

Those of the World Board are at the bottom of the service structure - not the top of our society's hierarchy. Their position is to take direction FROM us and not to dictate or mandate TO us as occurred in Bulletin 13.

The use of Conformity Statements, in their often used form, cannot be sanctioned as other matters under the Fourth Tradition because reciting such statements DOES affect other groups by leading members to believe it is NA's official opinion as it uses borrows the NA name. Again, if you make sure to clarify to the members of the group that such a statement is ONLY the opinion of the group and NOT NA as a whole, all will be well.

andyaddict

Los Angeles

-- Edited by andyaddict on Friday 11th of June 2010 02:46:25 PM

Raman · Guru

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

JanG · Newbie

It's been nearly a year since this subject was posted, but would like to add my experience with the NA Clarity statement. My home group have started running with in for the past month or so. It came about after I attended an NA convention where the clarity statement was read at the beginning of each meeting. When i first heard it, I must say i had goose bumps, and teared up, it was the most inclusive I have ever felt in NA. (in no way did i find it offensive, controlling or telling me how i must identify or share, i was actually surprised at some of the reactions in this thread)
Alcohol was my drug of choice. I came in through the other fellowship. Someone I knew suggested I try a NA meeting. I was like, oh no I can't go there, I really only used alcohol. The person then explained alcohol is a drug, there is no distinction. I identify as an addict, as it's where the substance takes me, not what i used, but how i used and why i used. My behaviour. And I was aware enough even before going to NA, that I didn't want to swap the "witch for the bitch" so to speak. I knew for me it was going to be a matter to abstain from ALL drugs, and NA was the perfect 12 step to cover this. I have been clean and attending NA for 4 years and 3 weeks now. I have always identified only as an addict, always clean, on occasion clean and sober. I thought I was "faking" it so to speak if I only shared about being clean. I felt I had to identify as sober as alcohol was my primary drug. Even though it is said and I understood that alcohol is a drug.
I still always had slight feeling of being "not part of/ different" as I wasn't shooting up heroin, on smack, speed etc. (I think my HP had a good reason for me not using those drugs as well :o)) Always a seed of doubt that I qualified to be in NA. ( the mind of an addict) even though i totally identified with the feelings, hopelessness, despair and living day to day as an addict. the mental insanity that goes on inside he head.
So when I heard that clarity statement, I felt right at home and so inclusive and part of. It was like being given permission to identify as an addict, I no longer had to justify or note my "alcohol" separately. WOW, what a relief.
I took this back to my home group/ conscience and put forward to read out at the beginning of each meeting. One member was concerned about being too "rigid" and trying to control how people shared (a concern I see here also) as we had an issue a few years back with members being upset about people identifying as addict's /alcoholics or Clean and sober.
(We are a small fellowship, so people attend both to make up meetings as such)
My response was people can share and identify as they choose, what ever it takes, what ever they need to share, what ever keeps you clean, but it is not necessary to make a distinction. It's ok to just identify as an addict. No need to "justify" or make special note of alcohol. I just feel for me it is a very inclusive statement and wanted to share that with others, so they may too find that feeling. (the same has been shared by other members in my group when they heard it) We simply read it out at the beginning. After that people share and identify how they need to.
Just a bit of my experience i thought to share on this topic, as it had such a positive impact.
In loving fellowship
Jan G :o) Cairns, Australia

lanem · Member

Understanding the traditions comes 'slowly over a period of time', I read.
Our groups's Clarity Statement reads, .... "we make no distinction betwen drugs".
This enables us to focus on RECOVERY and not the specific drug (whether that drug be pill, powder, leaf or liquid)
It also enables the pill or prescription drug or weed addict to not feel they don't belong.
They do belong because .. 'we make no distinction between drugs'.
There are not 2 diseases.
Propagating the belief through language that there are 2 diseases has caused ..'many addicts to relapse'.
I was one of them. I relapsed on alcohol because I thought it wasn't a drug. That it was somehow different.
The "IT WORKS HOW AND WHY" states specifically in Tradition 6...."What do i do to clarify NA's relations with other organisations......Do we imply an indorsement of a related facility or outside enterprise when we share in an NA meeting?
Mike L. Gold Coast, Australia

hlanaayes · Newbie

Hi Anyaddict, Having read your well constructed opinion I felt the need to respond with some observations, since it was so well written that some of the debatable points you made were in danger of being masked by the intelligent way you made them. You point out, that in line with the first tradition, each individual member ought to overlook the differences that divide us I agree wholeheartedly. But you come at that from the position of no clarity statement existing within a group and the efforts to shoehorn it in.now, apply the same principle after it has been shoehorned in and apply the same principles is the individual member who may not feel comfortable with the clarity statement equally obliged to overlook any differences that may divide for these purposes, the clarity statement. It is a double sided coin, no? On your point about the second tradition and the spiritual conscience of the group a necessary tenet of your assertion here is that clarity statements are NOT adopted in line with spiritual principles. That is just your opinion. I can equally effectively argue that it can be adopted in a spiritual manner/with spiritual motives. Really, the whole point is moot. When speaking around the Fifth tradition, you used the words, criticize, correct, reject, categorize, disapprove.the Clarity statement does none of those things, that is a subjective interpretation you attached yourself. In fact, the Clarity Statement is written in a very neutral language. When speaking about the 9th tradition, you begin by asking what is the purpose of such clarity statements? Could it be a self-righteous, misguided control issue, an attempt to organize NA, as such? In my own home group, it was introduced and unilaterally approved, because newcomers were under the illusion that there were two diseases, because of what they were hearing. Ironically, in a healthy discussion during the introduction, some long term members knew for themselves there was one disease, but admitted to speaking about it in a dual manner, because society at large makes a practical distinction and ones own mind subconsciously can do so as a result. So, our motive then, in line with the 5th tradition, was to carry the message to the addict that still suffered. A far cry from your assertions. Briefly on tradition ten, you correctly noted that NA has no opinion of AA, alcoholics anonymous or sobriety, since they are outside issues. However, the language used by OUR members in OUR groups, is an inside issue (how could it not be?) and thus does fall under the ambit of the tenth tradition. Anyhow, those were some brief observations. Thank you for your helpful and engaging post. Regards, Alan.

Welcome to the Miracles In Progress Group of Narcotics Anonymous! This is not an official NA site, nor is it endorsed by the NA World Service Office.