Sincere questions don't make anyone seem like a snob in my opinion.

I have been to NA (and AA) meetings in literally hundreds of districts and have found the dynamics to be quite diverse, but generally speaking, I'll agree.

Perhaps you're right. My take is that AA is full of people who are little more than potential alcoholics. I came in (court ordered) forty-one years ago and in that time, I've watched the bottom raised to the penthouse in many cases. Too, while there is such a thing as a social drinker, you'd be hard pressed to find a social heroin or meth user. This results in addictive behavior starting almost from the first use unlike alcoholics, who often have years or even decades of 'functional' alcoholism.

Alcoholics rarely reach the bottoms that drug users do. i.e how many alcoholics are street walkers selling themselves dozens of times a night for a drink? Recalling the adages, 'Twenty miles in, twenty miles out' and 'We stop growing emotionally when our addiction begins', addicts tend to take more time to crawl back to socially acceptable levels of maturity in recovery.

AA meets the legal definition of a religion in our country. I tend to agree with that assessment. That is not to say that many people don't view or treat it that way - but many do.