I just came from an alcohol free meeting.  In other words the meeting itself abstained from the use of alcohol in any form.

The meeting was the bimonthly open talk or speaker's meeting.  The outside speaker mentioned only his drug use, but otherwise kept discussion of his use of alcohol out of his talk except to apologize for it.  He mentioned several drunk driving convictions, but since he virtually never mentioned any alcohol use, it was probably driving under the influence of, or while impaired by, drugs.  Strangely, for someone with 15 plus years "sober", I heard nothing about his struggles to get sober or his experience in AA.  But I did hear that he initially joined NA.

For the newcomer who is confused, the long form of the 3rd tradition says in part that AA is for "alcoholics:  "Our membership ought to include all who suffer from alcoholism."  The long form of the 5th tradition says in part:  "having but one primary purpose---that of carrying its message to the alcoholic who still suffers." Finally, a person who is only a drug or narcotics addict is not an alcoholic just because he/she drank alcohol and otherwise they can't take AA's 1st step.  While many claim alcohol is a drug, nicotine is a drug but NA doesn't cater to smokers, and alcohol is not a narcotic; drug addict, alcoholic, and smoking behaviors are vastly different (but there is "some" commonality that is surely lost on the newcomer).  Finally, the reason there is NOT an addictions anonymous is that a person who is one type of addict can best identify, relate, or understand someone who is of the same addiction, the reason Bill and Bob got together.  Ever hear of a food, sex, or gambling addict go to an AA meeting and actually get help with their disease?  Absurdity is best exemplified with absurdity!