Take A LEAP

[Carmel]

perhaps you are on to something with the puritan angle. I am from a country which was founded as a penal colony for petty english & irish crims. There is a healthy cynicism when it comes to the rule of law.

Given that this is the Stragh board i assume many of you are alumni fron there so I dont know how extreme the situation was in the 80s. However my question is: Do you think that fear that you would be in Jail was a motivating factor for your parents? The Deadinsanejail catchcry seems popular but perhaps the big nerve programmes hit with parents is In Jail.This  is not afterall such an unreasonable fear. Is this why your parents sent you? Afterall straight was about drugs not necessarily other misbhaviour.

I think its important to understand that firstly, the idea that was the Straight modality was never just a good idea gone bad.  It was a bad idea gone worse.  There was/is no rationality in the concept to begin with.

Whether or not fear of their children being sent to jail was a motivation or not, its important to understand that at the root of the issue is an irrational regulation policy that is the War on Drugs that fostered the entire idea to begin with.  There are no loopholes here to try and make sense of "why".  Staright was about drugs yes, but the basis for its concept was a flawed one to start....not to mention that a good 60-70 percent of children placed in the program were not drug addicts in the least.  What Straight was supposed to be "about" is irrelevent, it was an abusive system based on a corrupt policy.

Welfare for your children is not an unreasonable emotion, as youve mentioned, but this does not bear enough complexity to justify the subsequent abuse and irresponsible methodology that was to become widely visible as a consequence of the choice made by parents to relinqish their children to these programs.  

How many times does someone have to show you a beaten and abused child before you start to worry about the welfare of your own? Apparently quite a few times more than simply telling you your kid has a chance of getting thrown in the slammer.  Thats the reality of what happened to us.  there is no foundation of rationality to define, it never existed to begin with.

Ive always loved Eudora's quote......"A shit sandwich is still a shit sandwich, and no pickle on the side is ever going to change it."

[Anne Bonney]

i dont doubt the horror that was straight. But did your parents put you in there because of the legal aspect (19 yr olds being jailed etc) or because they felt you had an addiction? Which angle was sold to them?
i agree that LEAP seem great. I also think that a group of people as conservative & respected as cops can really get a wide audience to listen to the message.

I was 16, just turned.  I wasn't an addict, far from it but I guess my parents were convinced that I either was or would be very soon.  My dad fell for Miller's bullshit hook, line and sinker.  There was no threat of jail, I was never in any legal trouble.  Got drunk, smoked pot, took a couple of quaaludes and got in a car accident (someone else driving).  That was it.

I love the fact that LEAP goes to a lot of the Rotary clubs.  Those conservative fuckers can't dismiss current and retired cops and judges.  It's about fucking time people woke up and understood wtf the whole drug war is really about.  It's all been said above by others and I agree.

[Rumpofsteelskin]

Welfare for your children is not an unreasonable emotion, as youve mentioned, but this does not bear enough complexity to justify the subsequent abuse and irresponsible methodology that was to become widely visible as a consequence of the choice made by parents to relinqish their children to these programs.

I know what yo sayin'. Welfare fo' yo' kids ain't a unreasonable emoshun, like yo said, but dis ain't complex enough t'justify de abuse and irresponsible medodology dat wuz t'happen BIGTIME as some consequence uh de choice made by parents t'givvup dey kids t'dese honky programs.

[teachback]

I love the fact that LEAP goes to a lot of the Rotary clubs. Those conservative fuckers can't dismiss current and retired cops and judges. It's about fucking time people woke up and understood wtf the whole drug war is really about. It's all been said above by others and I agree.

:tup:

[Carmel]

Welfare for your children is not an unreasonable emotion, as youve mentioned, but this does not bear enough complexity to justify the subsequent abuse and irresponsible methodology that was to become widely visible as a consequence of the choice made by parents to relinqish their children to these programs.

I know what yo sayin'. Welfare fo' yo' kids ain't a unreasonable emoshun, like yo said, but dis ain't complex enough t'justify de abuse and irresponsible medodology dat wuz t'happen BIGTIME as some consequence uh de choice made by parents t'givvup dey kids t'dese honky programs.

Word.

[Anne Bonney]

Good point, however....we are already dealing with these issues as side effects of drug use.  Do you think that more people will drive while on coke if it were legal, than they do now? Whether a drug is legal or not, makes little bearing on whether people are going to make poor decisions on a personal level.  Attempting to control drug use at this level is what got us into this mess to begin with.  Why should we exchange one bad policy for another? We dont go around convicting people of a felony if they dont make proper choices in eating food or obtaining medical care.  It wouldnt be unlike putting people in jail for being obese.

 :tup: Absolutely!



The main undesirable by-product of drugs is the criminal element. (See Al Capone and Prohibition) Legalize, regulate as booze/cigs, tax and you take away the 'black market' so to speak.  There may be a slight spike initially due to the curiosity and novelty factor, but it's not like everyone's going to run out and start slamming smack just because it's been legalized.  The people who want to do that are already doing it.  We're just talking about making it safer, not only for the user but society in general.

[starry-eyed pirate]

Right On.

[Anonymous]

[Antigen]

i dont doubt the horror that was straight. But did your parents put you in there because of the legal aspect (19 yr olds being jailed etc) or because they felt you had an addiction? Which angle was sold to them?
i agree that LEAP seem great. I also think that a group of people as conservative & respected as cops can really get a wide audience to listen to the message.

I think it is/was whatever works. In the `70's when my parents put my older brothers and sister in the Seed, it was the irrationally exagerated fear of the power of the drugs themselves. This was the Summer of Manson and Woodstock and all that. They had ppl believing that one hit off a joint would render a kid insane and insensible and set us on an inextricable path to junkiedome.

Now some of the advertising is different because people fear different things. Just check into the various recruiting websites and their lists of "warning signs" for an indication of which buttons and levers they're pushing and switching these days.

[Anonymous]

it's not like everyone's going to run out and start slamming smack just because it's been legalized.  The people who want to do that are already doing it.

Damn right we are, and no fucking police force in the world can stop it.  The Beast ain't going nowhere, baby!

[Oz girl]

Now some of the advertising is different because people fear different things. Just check into the various recruiting websites and their lists of "warning signs" for an indication of which buttons and levers they're pushing and switching these days.

And this is my point. I really dont understand the programme mentality much and i am from a country were the law is fairly lenient on the indiscresions of kids.  Particularly middle class white kids who seem to be the main target group of programmes. I would not want my kid to ever go to one because they are pretty much jail under a nicer name. By the same token though, if a young person can genuinely end up in serious legal trouble for doing what all kids do from time to time I really do get why parents feel a programme may be the answer. i feel for parents in this respect. The difference is that the idea that your kid will become addicted from the first joint is not factually correct. Apparently though giving a joint to another kid is trafficing. therefore the idea that they may end up is Jail is not unreasonable.

[Anonymous]

I think you are mistaking the programs as being some sort of "intervention" for kids who are "at rik" of going to jail or whatever.  Not so.  THe programs exist solely to make $$$$$ by promising shitty parents that they can restore their kids, most of whom are engaging in normal adolescent behaviors,  to some sort of prepubescent state where Mommy and Daddy can deal with them.  Like you obserrverd, most of these programs are aimed at middle and upper class parents, the ones who can afford to spend the money.  By putting the kidds in a program, these parents get to pat themselves on the back for being so loving and concerned as to go to that extreme, absolve themselves of any responsibility for their family dysfunction,  and fulfill their subconcious (or not so subconscious) desire to punish their kids for engaging in whatever disapproved behavior,drugs, sex, truancy, whatever, that the parent deems "uncontrollable" and that the program promises to "fix".  This is America, it's all about the fucking money.....

[Oz girl]

again i agree that these programmes are absolutely making money off parents fears and that there is an element of being able to abdicate responsibility. I suspect that this is particularly the case when there is a stepparent who did not sign on for a bratty kid involved. They make it all too easy to say i cant do this any more & just throw money at the problem to make it go away. It also seems that the current middle class eq of "your grounded young lady" is Im sending you to a wilderness programme. i can not tell you how fucked up i think this is.
I also agree that it seems for profit programmes dont give a shit as to whether they are able to help the kid or the family & use techniqes which are harmful. Moreover the attitude of most programmes seems to be spiteful.

Having said all this, if the laws on kids are so tough that they could potentially have criminal records for the most minor of things then some parental fears are legitimate. If a kid who is out past midnight, smoking drugs with their friends who are intoxicated can actually get into real trouble with the law then it stands to reason that their parents will be concerned about what will happen to them. Therefore a legal system which is unreasonably strict on kids contributes to the problem. The blame can not rest with parents alone.

As a sideline what is most troubling about all this is it does not keep kids safe or protected. It seems in lots of cases gone are the days when parents would say something to the effect of " i dont care what time it is or what you did call me" and actually have the kids do it because to the kid it is the difference between being read the riot act in the morning but ultimately being safe and assisted and being escorted to somewhere frightening and damaging. If kids can't turn to any of the adult authority figures in their lives when thhey get into some minor scrape then they are becoming by default more at risk.

[teachback]

Therefore a legal system which is unreasonably strict on kids contributes to the problem. The blame can not rest with parents alone.

True!

[Antigen]

True, but missing an important point. Who owns and operates the legal system? We do now as our parents did then. It's cowardly and lazzy to try and cast off blame on "the law" asif it were some immutable force of some faceless other. We are the law and we are responsible for what it is and does.