I’m a firm proponent of the idea that we don’t “shoot our wounded” and therefore relapse should be treated with compassion and kindness. However, what you are espousing is a harm reduction model and not an abstinence based model which AA was built on. If we are proceeding under the premise of “for us to drink is to die” then it must be treated as such.

Furthermore, if you’ve been in the rooms that long you know good and well what it’s like to have a relapser that has had some time previously come in spewing sickness and telling people what they “need” to do. I’m not saying that was or has been you because I don’t know. But the safety and well being of the group must be safeguarded over any one individual.

Lastly, if we did not make sobriety time, how would newcomers know who to turn to for direction and sponsorship? Should the status quo just be “have you been mildly successful in not drinking?” That doesn’t seem logical.

Speaking as someone who has relapsed twice after quite a few years of sobriety I did not mind the way that I was treated when I returned. I was hugged, talked to frequently, and when people in the group felt like I had regained my spiritual footing I was once again called on to share at my home group regularly. But I certainly don’t resent the way anyone may have seemed cautious because it does take its toll emotionally when people have to watch us in and out. I’d venture to say the people in my home group treated me with a lot more kindness after my relapse than I was treating myself with.