Jump to content

Talk:Narcotics Anonymous/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Where were the WCNA held between the years 2000 - 2018

Facts and History

How about some facts? - how many meetings in the world, how many countries with meetings, what is the service structure.

How about some history? - Jimmy K., the early days in LA and San Diego, the troubles with personalities before principles, etc.

Any NA Group that incorporates a religous prayer in it's meeting is, in fact, directly violating traditions.

Alexander King, in his book Mine Enemy Grows Older (1960) refers to attending the first NA meetings in New York City in the late 1940s. So were there seperate groups on different coasts?

NA as such wasn't founded until 1953. There were other similar groups in NYC and other places before this, though, and he probably was referring to one of those. This info is now in the history section. Sarah crane 13:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
If he was talking about Narcotics Anonymous, he is in violation of traditions. "Our public relations policy is based on attraction rather than promotion; we need always maintain personal anonymity at the level of press, radio, and films." If Alexander were to relapse or full out fall back into active addiction what kind of image would that show his readers about NA as a whole?

Narcotics Anonymous "has no opinion on outside issues," 3. We made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood Him. Is it just me, or do these two statements contradict one another? They obviously have their own opinion about God...

That's not an "outside issue". The belief in a Higher Power is a requirement for working the 12 steps, although you don't need to call that power God, and many atheists have found recovery in NA. -anon
I think this is just a misunderstanding of what the 3rd step means when it refers to "we". In this context "we" is meant to mean the indivual addict working the step not the organization as a whole. The statement "as we understand him" is supposed to highlight the indivuals right to make up his own mind how they wish to conceptualize god. This statement is interpreted so liberally within the culture of Narcotics Anonymous that, in my experience, only a handful of members would insist that a belief in any sort of supernatural force is a requirment for working the 12 steps. - Atheist member of NA

Objectivity

How about a reality check? This article looks like it came straight out of a Narcotics Anonymous brochure. If no one else volunteers, I guess I'll get around to it eventually. Jessesamuel 18:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

It pretty much came right out of official NA literature. That said, it's basically accurate, although it's missing a lot of information (specifically controversies and history). -anon
P.S. More critical and historical info can be found at http://lakeportna.homestead.com/untitled2.html
And http://www.na-history.org/history_of_na_scott.html and http://www.na-history.org/history_of_na_scott.html

I've beefed this section up a lot. Sarah crane 13:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

While now more complete this article does not address the suitability or otherwise of NA for a person dealing with drug abuse; the broad based appeal or lack of and its effectiveness in adressing large scale addiction. It also makes no indication of the size and spread of the organisation and how it has adapted to cultures other than the judeo-christian one from which it originated. It is a largly internal view of the organisation.

  • It has nothing to do with any Jedeo-Christian values or cultures. It is a SPIRITUAL not religious program. That's why it's so accepted globally. An addict is an addict, no matter what culture you come from. Go check out a meeting and you will see for yourself. Men, women, gay, straight, black, white, old, young, catholic, jew, muslim, agnostic, atheist... drugs affect anyone. ANYONE. Who you are and or where you're from makes absolutely no difference whatsoever. The bottom line is, no religion can supercede the reward and feeling of one addict helping another. In fact, if you look at any spiritually based belief, you will see man helping fellow man is at the core. J-Dog 05:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

It did actually come from AA, which came from the oxford group, which was christian. Also, a US judge has stated that the 12 steps ARE a religious exercise. I would personally add that there is very little difference between organised religion and organised spirituality (if any). I would be very interested to see how NA tanscends into different cultures. My understanding is that UK meetings are different from US ones, and we are two countries with a fair amount in common. To assume that ethinicity and culture would have no bearing on a persons ability to "get" the 12 steps would would be wrong. Indeed, project match showed that AA was most succesful in treating alcoholics of a certain class (white middle class males, if I remember correctly), so why should NA be any different?

Anyone with any experience within AA or NA can tell you the cultures of these two groups is VERY different. I can tell you here in South Carolina the average person who has some measure of success with the Narcotics Anonymous program is most definatley not a white middle class male. Hell a stroll through any NA convention can tell you that. - Atheist member of NA
To the individual two comments above... There is a HUGE difference between organised religion and organised spirituality. Religion teaches you what to believe in. The spiritual principles of NA and AA do not. They promote a belief in a God of one's own understanding, meaning that each person's higher power can varry from member to member. And none of them would be right or wrong. Some judge's opinion is absolutely meaningless because it's wrong. NA decided long ago that it would be a spiritual program and not a religious one, not some judge somewhere. And by the way, your understanding of NA may be different form mine. I am a member of NA, are you? There are indeed differences in format. This can very from meeting to meeting, not only state to state, or nation to nation as you pointed out. And lastly, as a member of NA I can tell you that ethnicity and culture have zero meaning in the rooms. An addict is an addict on every inch of this globe. My experience tells me that any person can recover, BECAUSE I'VE WITNESSED IT WITH MY OWN EYES. There's over 1,000 meetings a week in Iran, so what the hell does that tell you? These are facts that exist here. They are not subject to your opinion or debate. They are what they are, so let them speak for themselves from now on. J-Dog 16:43, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Statistically speaking, some cultures in America do have a harder time finding recovery in NA. Probably the biggest example is the Latino community. But there are sub-commities at the area, region, and world level that try to compensate. The area I attend ONLY speaks English and there is no translator. Which is common. One requirment in the bi-laws of the outreach commitee is to reach out the the Latino community. The basic text and other literature provided by the NA world service office are translated into Spanish and are available at the service office. I don't attend Spanish speaking meetings but they do have them and are marked on the meeting lists. I would guess that these meetings would stock Spanish translated NA literature more than English versions. Spanish keytags are also available.
The WORLD office is located in California. All literature is first written in English and then translated. One issue at the world conference was to lengthen the required approval time for recovery literature for 150 days to a year. The intent is to give other groups more time to make rough translated drafts to bring to their groups. This was brought up by a German speaking region. Blugrass Apalachian, North Carolina, Iran, South Africa, and Western Russia were voted in as new participants in 2006. There were 102 regions present. CUBA WAS THERE! They actually had a rep. There were 3 to 4 meetings in Cuba but all literature had been confiscated by the government and some members arrested. They are down to 2 members in Cuba. That's damn amazing. NA literature is printed in 32 languages.
I'm not sure exactly how AA does it cause I'm not a member of AA. But evidence shows that NA really has no cultural limits.
All this info can be found at NA.org. The info about Cuba was taken from the June minutes at naminnesota.org/area/tca/tca.htm-Eric H.

The Meetings -> Language section to me is somewhat POV and not an objective view of N.A. or addiction. Anyone care to tackle this and make it read more like an encyclopedic entry? fonetikli 05:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The comment that "It came from AA, which came from the Oxford Group, which was Christian" is quite irrelevant to the topic of whether or not NA is religious. A peanut comes from a combination of sun, soil and water. Yet one must admit, a crushed peanut tastes a whole lot better with jelly than a blend of its three primary predecessors.

Iran hosts one of the fastest growing NA communities in the world. Government and religious agencies there — which tend to be highly-critical of anything western-oriented — have welcomed NA and have not impeded its growth there at all. The government of China has been a bit more contentious. Then again, their cure for addiction is a bullet in the brain.

Zonal Forums

Not sure if anyone else wants to have a go at tidying this recently contributed section up? Also the "Worldwide Workshop" system is not discussed elsewhere in the article. Without going too overboard on the NA service structure detail, it may be worth expanding on what they are and how regularly they are held etc. thanks, --fonetikli 08:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

5th edn

"A 5th edition was released in 1991, correcting these problems,"

This is not correct, the 5th failed to address any more than a minority of the problems with the 4th, and was never approved by any genuine fellowship process. The 5th has caused a good deal of controversy, just like the 4th, 3rd & 1st. Tabby 04:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Symbol

Has anyone thought of an article explaining the significance of the NA symbol? How it differs from the AA symbol?

It appears that the non-affiliated website, "NA Way of Life, unofficial N.A. literature" found at http://www.nawol.org/ has been suspended. The explanation given there is simply the following: "Account for domain nawol.org has been suspended." (I don't believe that copying this explanatory text here violates any copyright, so I've included it.) I was unable to locate a new URL that points at the information described. However, I didn't think it was prudent to remove the sub-heading and link altogether without further discussion or explanation regarding the status of the domain in question. Bobthecorncob 11:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

It now appears this external link is now working properly. Bobthecorncob 16:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:NaGroupLogo.gif

Image:NaGroupLogo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 00:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Inaccuracies in references to Cocaine Anonymous

Regarding the statement "Cocaine Anonymous seeks to treat cocaine addiction specifically (although it is also a program of abstinence from all drugs, including alcohol and marijuana.)[19]", this is untrue. Check the cited website at ca.org and see that the CA program never mentions cocaine without adding the corollary "...and all other mind-altering substances." In reality, people join and use CA to recover from a myriad of addictions. Cocaine is a common thread, but even at there are members who have never had a cocaine problem. What differentiates CA from NA primarily is the former's use of the AA Big Book as its basic text. CA has never published it's own set of step instructions or commentary; it simply uses the AA text, whereas NA has all of its own literature and actively discourages or even prohibits the use of AA literature. --Ksteveh 21:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

  • NA doesn't prohibit anything. It simply publishes it's own literature. It's not like there's the NA secret police that runs around and patrols the meetings making sure there's no AA literature being used. J-Dog 15:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Effectiveness

This article provides a nice history and description of NA. However, I did not see any reference to the effectiveness of the program. I understand that it is difficult to determine effectiveness in 12-step groups, but surely there must be clinical trials out there that have at least tried? Please do not respond with personal stories or other anectodotal information. We need peer-reviewed studies.Desoto10 (talk) 02:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Go to Google Scholar and type: "Narcotics Anonymous" Effectiveness.
feel free to use that tip for the rest of your life for anything you're interested in learning. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 04:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for that valuable information. I have added what appears to be the most often cited reference for 12-step facilitation treatment for cocaine abuse. It has similar issues with the MATCH project over in AA entry.Desoto10 (talk) 04:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Na books.PNG

Image:Na books.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 00:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Nature of Addiction

This section contains this bit about "bottoms":

"Addicts often first enter N.A. after reaching a "bottom" in their life, a point at which life feels completely unmanageable, characterized by "unemployability, dereliction and destruction" and centered around the getting and using and finding ways and means to get more drugs. Every N.A. member reaches a different bottom, which can be wherever the addict chooses to stop using. In practice, it is drug use and the extreme consequences associated with its abuse that bring most addicts to their bottom."

Does anybody have any citations for this? Has a study been performed among NA newcomers to see if this statement is true? If not, then it should go.Desoto10 (talk) 05:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

NA vs. Narcanon

Regarding the statement that Narcotics Anonymous is "sometimes referred to as narcanon," the website narcanon.net refutes this:

"Narcotics Anonymous is also known as NA. Narcotics Anonymous was founded in 1947 and is the world's oldest and largest organization of its kind. It is not officially referred to as NarcAnon. Many people who are not associated with Narcotics Anonymous refer to NA as NarcAnon, but this misnomer creates confusion in the public's mind. Our research has not found any organization officially known as NarcAnon, and to the best of our knowledge, it is a fictitious name. It is most often used as a nickname for Narcotics Anonymous.

Due to misuse of the term NarcAnon, the Scientology Narconon program is often mistakenly confused with the real Narcotics Anonymous organization. We would like to emphasize the distinction between Narcotics Anonymous and the Scientology organization, Narconon. Among other differences, the Narcotics Anonymous program is free; the Scientology Narconon program is not."

In nearly 23 years of active involvement with NA meetings and NA service, including extensive work with the professional community on local and regional levels, I have never once heard NA referred to as NarcAnon.


I would agree that "NA has never in its history treated drug abuse. Rehabs do that, not 12 step programs. And it's not self help because it's a fellowship involving many others."

WCNA Controversy

How many people do we need to get a consensus that the loss of $596000 by the 2007 WCNA is an internal controversy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yobkcis (talk • contribs) 20:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, first of all: Who says that it is an internal controversy? Is there a special board that meets and makes this decision? And if there is, then that needs to be cited as well as the monetary loss. Secondly, who put you in charge of editing the Wikipedia article to reflect this? Or have you simply taken it upon yourself? Perhaps you need to go back and read the 12 Traditions again. And lastly, if it officialy is an "internal" controversy, why are you airing here publicly? That transforms it from internal to external. Which answers your original question: Your fuss has now made it an external issue which forfits the issue's right to be labeled as an "internal controversy." Any other questions? J-Dog 20:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Since you can go to any internet discussion site and read discussions of the controversy and there are service committees in various NA communities discussing the issue as a controversy, it would seem to me that this is a controversy. I'm sorry you've been offended. If every issue we put in the topic of Internal Contorversies immediately becomes an external issue, then perhaps we should remove the section altogether since everything written in that section has now become an external issue and forfeited its right to be labeled an internal controversy by your own logic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yobkcis (talk • contribs) 21:09, 13 June 2008

Removing that whole section is the best idea you've had yet. And by the way, your ability to overexagerate is really spectacular. ANY internet discussion site you say? Does that include ESPN Sportsnation? Are they discussing it in there? Perhaps it's a bigger issue in your head than it is in reality. I've done NA service for two years straight, my grandsponsor was at World and is a member of our region, has over 20 years, and is one of the most opinionated NA members that I've ever met. This issue has never been raised at our ASC, homegroup, or in casual conversation, and I see him at least twice a week. Are you catching my drift? Again, the bottom line is, you have no right to air NA issues in public, no matter what they are, nor who has done so before. It's not that you've offended me, it's that your motives are unhealthy to Wikipedia, NA as a whole, and weather you know it or not, yourself. So please do the responsible thing and let this issue die. J-Dog (talk) 21:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

This last change wasn't so bad. If the last sentence (Discussions are ongoing...) is removed or {{fact}}'d, I wouldn't have a problem with it. -- Scarpy (talk) 22:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

But what's up with the use of "we" and "our?" We who? This isn't an NA site, it's Wikipedia. "We" doesn't belong here. There are tons of Wikipedia users that don't contribute to NA donations and funds, so "we" is incorrect. Honestly, I don't get the obsession over this whole topic anyway. I still haven't seen a philosophy that explains why it's notable. To me it's a user or two's personal agenda to voice their displeasure, which is inappropriate for Wikipedia. But, that's just me. The reason I keep reverting the edits is that I don't feel that they follow the editing guidlines at all. But again, that's just me; I don't proclaim to be the ultimate authority on Wiki guidlines. J-Dog (talk) 23:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
There was no "we" in the text, it just said "Recently a new controversy has arisen over the loss of $596000 by the 2007 World Convention of NA." It did give a self-published source, but that is acceptable in this circumstance. -- Scarpy (talk) 23:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok, totally my bad. I overlooked the fact that the "we" was in the quote at the bottom of the page. Careless oversight on my part. Still not seing why it's notable...? J-Dog (talk) 00:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

It's always going to be notable when any organization as small as NA loses $596000 on a single event. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yobkcis (talk • contribs) 04:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Ya know what? I give up. You obviously have never heard of the word logic, because you sure as hell won't listen to any. If it makes you wake up in the morning feeling good about yourself making it public that a monetary error was made, then good for you. I know when I'm beat; I can't win an argument with a close-minded cement wall. Feel free to edit wahtever you like. I'll simply sit back and let the empty tin can rattle as loud as it likes. I just feel bad for you that you don't get the fact that NA is a non-profit organization. It's goal is NEVER to make money, therefore it can NEVER lose money on a single event or a million events. Maybe someday you'll grasp that reality. In the meantime, it must drive you nuts, and that just a damn shame. Good luck with all of that. Me, I'll go ahead and bow to the NA police cop that you think that you are, even though you can't follow simple guidlines, such as signing your posts with four tide marks. Insane. J-Dog (talk) 06:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I hate to revisit this issue after I said I would drop it, but I feel compelled to make a point because I just don’t think that the most recent edit is justified in being here. The section in the 76 page report that this recent edit concerns, the specific section, is 670 words long. If one feels that this bit of info is important and notable enough to be included here, it certainly deserves more than 18 words. In other words, there is a huge amount of detail that is not included in those 18 words. This is otherwise known as taking something out of context. Not to mention the fact that nowhere in the entire 670 words of text about which this edit concerns itself does it ever mention an internal controversy, a new controversy, or any controversy for that matter. Is the numerical figure correct? It appears so to me, but I didn’t do the actual math. I’m going to assume that the number is accurate. But the way that it is included is so obviously biased, that it could be used as a prime example of what bias is. Based upon these observations, it is my opinion that this edit does not belong here at all. I believe that it should be either completely revised so that it reflects a neutral point of view, or completely removed. I would appreciate opinions and responses on this so that a consensus can be reached. J-Dog (talk) 02:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Protect Please

Can we block/protect this article for a bit until the hot-headed unregistered user(s) calm down and lose the desire to vandalize? It's getting really annoying policing their idiocy this often. J-Dog (talk) 03:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

You'll want to put it here. They usually won't grant those without a lot of vandalism, but it's worth a shot. -- Scarpy (talk) 16:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok, cool. Thanks for the tip! J-Dog (talk) 16:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Mediation

In the past, a user has requested mediation on this issue. The dispute was resolved by Firestorm Talk 18:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC). For more information, see the case page.

Size

I think there is some confusion about the number of groups verses the number of members. For instance the sfna site says: "Today, NA members hold more than 50,000 meetings weekly in 130 countries." The Overeaters Anonymous article says it has more than 70,000 members. In this case we're comparing apples and oranges. I looked, but now can't find a citation for the 70,000 number in the OA article. But the OA website states: "Today, about 6,500 OA groups meet each week in over 75 countries. With OA divided into 10 regions worldwide and approximately 54,000 members worldwide, it helps thousands of compulsive eaters find new life in recovery." The main NA website, says: "In 2007, there are over 25,065 groups holding over 43,900 weekly meetings in 127 countries."[1] I can't find anything that estimates the number of NA members. But NA has almost four times as many meetings, which puts it safely ahead of OA. -- Scarpy (talk) 01:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. I must have read the sfna article too rapidly. Thanks for correcting. Student7 (talk) 11:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Spirituality

"Individuals from countless spiritual and religious backgrounds, as well as many atheists and agnostics, have developed a relationship with their own higher power."

I am not sure that an atheist can have a relationship with a higher power. Not sure about agnostics, either. If they believe in a higher power or any sort it seems as though they cannot be either an agnostic or an atheist.

Since there are no references for this claim, I am going to edit it.Desoto10 (talk) 00:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

It depends on what you mean by a "higher power." As I argued in the afd for the Higher Power article, it's not a scientific or well-defined concept as much as it is twelve-step lingo. When you're defining your own concept, it can mean almost whatever you'd like it to. So, atheist and agnostics certainly can believe in a Higher Power. That being said, "countless" and the related phraseology is very WP:PEACOCK. -- Scarpy (talk) 00:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

In reference to this conversation, it states in step 2 of NA Basic Text, "We came to believe that a power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity" (page 17, 5th edition) Based on this wording, an agnostic and atheist can in fact have a higher power or a power greater than themselves. (ChipK89) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chipk89 (talk • contribs) 17:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The Basic Text, 6th Edition, adds stories from an atheist and an agnostic. Added reference (I'll find page number later). LotLE×talk 00:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Assessment

This article does not have enough references to meet B-class standards. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

my name is keyla shaw and im from rome ga and i just want to let people know that i was a meth user for about 18 years and it has done nothing but took my kids away from me and the all the people that cared about me away when i went to jail in 2007 for a probation warrent dfacs took my daughter that was only 3 months old so the only way i could get her back was to get some help so i called this great place called womens outreach and they set me up appoitment so i went and i lived there for 9 months and i even got a job while i was there and even got me a apartment and then june 13,2008 i got custody back of my daughter and now i have a 1 year old and another one on the way and still working at the same place for 2 years now and even got me a good man that loves me and has been there for me through all the roller cousters i had to go through well i finshed that program and i been clean for 2 1/2 years now and i will never ever go back down that dead end road so for those out that on that devil drug i hope that when you read this that it will let you see that there is hope and help out there but you have to want it in order for it to work theres this old saying stay slight stay sick and by the way all meth is is a get away to cover up the pain and guit and what ever else that you have been hiding inside for so long well i hope this touches someones heart and open up there eyes and reach out and get some help before its to late. writed by keyla shaw my email adresse is keylavaughn@yahoo.com if you have any comments i want to know your thoughts about meth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.145.129.215 (talk) 00:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The majority of references are broken, or incorrect links. I counted roughly 13 such links in references 1-10, and I know, without counting, that most of the subsequent references are also in need of repair. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 17:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Narcotics Anonymous Founded in 1951

Narcotics Anonymous was founded in 1950 by Daniel L. Carlsen in New York. You can view the Articles of Incorporation filed in January of 1951 at www.magshare.org/narchive. This official paperwork was filed 2 years before Jimmy K is claimed to have started Narcotics Anonymous. Although Jimmy K should certainly be praised for his great work, please give credit where credit is due. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.227.62.199 (talk) 04:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I've got nothing in that archive, besides it would hardly be a WP:RS, any chance you have a WP:RS for this claim?Coffeepusher (talk) 17:41, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
To be fair, there's a lot in this article that isn't cited, or is cited incorrectly. -- Scarpy (talk) 07:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

there is a solution

i once was a member of na my first meeting was in 1978 i was 17 years old i had some sucsess in the rooms i once had 10 years clean and many of times i would get 2 to 3 years or 5 to 6 months i have 8 days now the one thing about na is they promis only freedom from active addiction i have worked the steps 3 times through but got no rleife in my life every day for as long as i can remember i have wqanted to die thats the one thing i can be sure of i will face now i have 8 days clean and i do not think i will use agin and will die clean i have lost all the people in my life my son my girlfreind my sponser non of wich will have any thing to do with me i have bi polar disorder also and am trying a new med in hopes that it works in such that i can hang on i am weitting this to let who ever reads it no na was once my life but i can nolonger go i cant go there and see the sponser i have known for 40 years of my life or the girl who once loved me or pick up my 50th white key tag i just cant i have tried but i want to say na is great and i will die clean probley soon er than i would of hoped but clean never the less so this im so greatfull the one thing aa says that is more true is there are such unfortints the have grave emotianl or meantel and there chancees are but if they have the cap-acity to be honest they to can recover yes that is true from addiction but maybee not from the living hell they face every day i use to be so fearfull of all of this but i now no the way out for me the road to peace so thank you guys for sll the years all we are is all we are — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.145.122.25 (talk) 14:30, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Narcotics Anonymous. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:38, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Narcotics Anonymous. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:45, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Narcotics Anonymous. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:00, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Narcotics Anonymous. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:26, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Na meetings

Looking you for a meeting Holly1225 (talk) 04:18, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Meeting search (on the NA website). Note: This notice appears on the NA website as of 26 April 2020: "The current health crisis has impacted our ability to post all of the meeting updates we are receiving. Please check Local NA Helplines & Websites for meeting updates that may be posted there."   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 19:37, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Original research

I added the "no original research" banner[a] to the article today. It states: "This article possibly contains original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding inline citations. Statements consisting only of original research should be removed."

This article, Narcotics Anonymous, is well-written, well-organized, and informative. I say that because I do not want anyone who has worked on this article to perceive the "no original research" banner as criticism of your contributions. ¶ At first blush, Wikipedia's "no original research" policy might seem counter-productive, and I admit it took me a while to grasp its importance. Therefore, I highly recommend reading up on the policy before reacting to the notice I posted.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 20:22, 26 April 2020 (UTC)


Notes

  1. ^ technically it's known as the "No original research" template. See No original research.

This article seems written by the organization which produces it.

This should be re-written by a third party. 76.20.51.28 (talk) 20:45, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Having 2 home groups

Yes ive been a member of n/a for a year. In early recovery i felt it necessary to attend the 2 na group meetings to keep me focussed on revovery. During that time i grew to lobe the fellowship and people of both groups. They had jomegroup meetings and each group expressed the importance of have a home. Nit to mention they were short handed so i joined both groups chairing meetings and giving tonthe newcomers what i was given through the program. Im secretary of one group. So i serve both groups very well probably a lil too much. But i do it willingly to give back what i was given. There was a person that expessed concern about 2 group membership. To my knowlege as long as i keep anonymity if either group the only requirement is a desire to stop using and ti share to newcomers what uve been given through the program. Is there any laws that state i cant serve 2 groups? I serve equally . And i do it for my recovery and the recovery of others. Thank you 2603:6011:DD44:EF00:DC4A:3D83:5E85:9FB3 (talk) 12:04, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Narcotics_Anonymous/Archive_1&oldid=1154373984"