John D. Reuben and SavingTeens.org

[Anonymous]

 This lack of evidence actually strengthens the common belief that programs are extremely effective otherwise there would not be a need to present events which occurred years after graduation.

Years?  Michael Reuben was 22 yrs. old, for God's sake.  He was barely a year past the drinking age when he died of an overdose.  How long had he been shunt of ASR?  Long enough for the PTSD to set in?

Poster, do you believe that what happens to kids post-program is in no way connected to the treatment they received?  Interesting, because by that logic you can't cite any "successes" years after graduation.  Don't most programs parade out old alumni to impress potential paying parents?  Show them the other side as well, then, and don't let what happened to Michael Reuben get swept under the rug or exploited by his father.

[Ursus]

If there was any real evidence that programs were damaging  then it would be presented.  But since evidence is lacking many here work to exploit events that are unrelated to the programs themselves.  This lack of evidence actually strengthens the common belief that programs are extremely effective otherwise there would not be a need to present events which occurred years after graduation.

Michael was just 22 when he died. This is barely after program.

Psychological effects from programs last long past the time the kid is actually IN the program, especially in cases where outright abuse occurred. Otherwise, you wouldn't have people here still posting about the experience in negative and angry terms, decades later. This, in and of itself, is evidence enough that programs can be quite damaging.

Seems to me that posting on forums about one's experience isn't the only way that such effects manifest themselves. Dysfunctional relations with family, friends, and the rest of society is another. So is resumed or increased drug abuse. So is suicide.

I think you can safely assume that Michael Reuben's preexisting dysfunctional family relations, presumably preexisting heroin abuse, SUW and ASR experiences all played a factor in his premature demise.

One thing is for sure: his program experiences do not appear to have helped matters!

[Whooter]

Drug addiction is a life time struggle.  The best any of us can do is to stablize and educate people on the dangers of addiction.  The rest is up to the person themselves on how (and if) they wish to apply it.

Is anyone aware of other methods which are more effective?

[Anonymous]

Drug addiction is a life time struggle.  The best any of us can do is to stablize and educate people on the dangers of addiction.  The rest is up to the person themselves on how (and if) they wish to apply it.

Is anyone aware of other methods which are more effective?

Quitting.  

Why is what happens to an in individual post-program not an indicator of the program's efficacy?  Are the deaths and criminal convictions brushed aside as the failures of the individual, but "successful" alumni are proof of the programs success years after graduation?

Why don't programs allow parents to know the potential dangers of program placements, ie., the risk of physical harm and death, psychological damage, and the very real possibility the program will have no effect if the child doesn't "apply it".  (Nice program-speak there)

STICC tells folks all the good things programs promise.  Fornits shows the harsh reality of program failure.and incompetence.

Parents should be able to make a decision based on all the information, yes?  Why do programs demand 100% compliance and blind faith when they don't present all the information available?

[Whooter]

Why is what happens to an in individual post-program not an indicator of the program's efficacy? Are the deaths and criminal convictions brushed aside as the failures of the individual, but "successful" alumni are proof of the programs success years after graduation?

Every business puts their best foot foward.  Car dealerships hardly ever have pictures of car accidents on the wall or warn you of recalls on the car you are considering.  It stands to reason that the program would like to show parents the successful side.

Why don't programs allow parents to know the potential dangers of program placements, ie., the risk of physical harm and death, psychological damage, and the very real possibility the program will have no effect if the child doesn't "apply it". (Nice program-speak there)

They do, to some extent.  There are no promises.  They dont promise to cure addiction and if the risk of harm or death was a greater risk than anywhere else then the parents would be warned.  But I have never seen any info which shows programs to be a higher risk to kids.  Most programs supply a lower risk environment than the one they are coming from.

STICC tells folks all the good things programs promise. Fornits shows the harsh reality of program failure.and incompetence.

Parents should be able to make a decision based on all the information, yes? Why do programs demand 100% compliance and blind faith when they don't present all the information available?

Probably the same reason that fornits doesn’t make a huge effort to present the successes of programs.  We dont get all the information here on fornits.  We mostly see just the failures and incompetent or under qualified staff.

[Whooter]

Poster, do you believe that what happens to kids post-program is in no way connected to the treatment they received? Interesting, because by that logic you can't cite any "successes" years after graduation. Don't most programs parade out old alumni to impress potential paying parents? Show them the other side as well, then, and don't let what happened to Michael Reuben get swept under the rug or exploited by his father.

Interesting question.  If you have a child who has dropped out of school and has no interest in returning or interest in living by the basic family rules and then post program you have a child who completed college and has rebuilt their family ties then this could be considered a turn around by the program he/she attended.

On the other hand if the child is struggling with the same issues and also has a family history of addiction then the child may get turned around and placed on the right track but the addiction is going to always be with him/her.  The family and child knows this.  This is why a return to drugs or an overdose cannot be tied back to the program as a cause.  It is something that has always been there which there is no cure for.

People who attend AA meetings and then years later return to drinking cant stand there and blame AA for their regression.  I dont see how the 2 are tied together in that way, as one being the cause of the other.

[Anonymous]

Poster, do you believe that what happens to kids post-program is in no way connected to the treatment they received? Interesting, because by that logic you can't cite any "successes" years after graduation. Don't most programs parade out old alumni to impress potential paying parents? Show them the other side as well, then, and don't let what happened to Michael Reuben get swept under the rug or exploited by his father.

Interesting question.  If you have a child who has dropped out of school and has no interest in returning or interest in living by the basic family rules and then post program you have a child who completed college and has rebuilt their family ties then this could be considered a turn around by the program he/she attended.

On the other hand if the child is struggling with the same issues and also has a family history of addiction then the child may get turned around and placed on the right track but the addiction is going to always be with him/her.  The family and child knows this.  This is why a return to drugs or an overdose cannot be tied back to the program as a cause.  It is something that has always been there which there is no cure for.

People who attend AA meetings and then years later return to drinking cant stand there and blame AA for their regression.  I dont see how the 2 are tied together in that way, as one being the cause of the other.

Alright.  So it's individual initiative, then?  That begs the question whether "successes" have anything to do with the program at all.  Some teens get through their difficult periods without being sent to programs through a unique method unknown to you - they mature, and they do it on their own.

People who attend AA meetings and then years later return to drinking cant stand there and blame AA for their regression.  I dont see how the 2 are tied together in that way, as one being the cause of the other.

People (hopefully) attend AA of their own free will, and AA doesn't charge thousands of dollars.  If it fails you blame yourself, and I've never heard of anyone being killed in a restraint during an AA meeting.  You said it before, programs are businesses and people have a right to complain when a service they paid for kills or fucks up their kids.  Don't you agree?  Programs put their "best foot forward" to attract customers, but the foot they are hiding is crippled and gangrenous.

[Whooter]

Alright. So it's individual initiative, then? That begs the question whether "successes" have anything to do with the program at all. Some teens get through their difficult periods without being sent to programs through a unique method unknown to you - they mature, and they do it on their own.

Long term, it could be an argument.  When does the program responsibility end and the childs begin?  Interesting question.  Placing the kid back on track is 100% the programs.  Whether or not it sticks is up to the child.  If the kid comes out and goes back to school and then heads off the path again then that was the choice of the child to go back to their old ways.

People (hopefully) attend AA of their own free will, and AA doesn't charge thousands of dollars.

So cost is a big issue with you.

If it fails you blame yourself, and I've never heard of anyone being killed in a restraint during an AA meeting.

No I haven’t either.  But there are plenty that overdose a few hours later, killed in car accidents after leaving the bar etc.  In a program you dont have that type of access to substances which could harm you.  Those decisions are taken off the table while you are there.

You said it before, programs are businesses and people have a right to complain when a service they paid for kills or fucks up their kids. Don't you agree?

Of Course they do and if the child is harmed by the program the parent should sue and have the place investigated or shut down.

Programs put their "best foot forward" to attract customers, but the foot they are hiding is crippled and gangrenous.

Could be, depending on the program.  This is why I always say the parents should always look deeper...ask for references, speak to other parents.  Read up and get local opinions from therapists and schools.

[Anonymous]

Long term, it could be an argument.  When does the program responsibility end and the childs begin?  Interesting question.  Placing the kid back on track is 100% the programs.  Whether or not it sticks is up to the child.  If the kid comes out and goes back to school and then heads off the path again then that was the choice of the child to go back to their old ways.

Someone needs to do a 10 yr. study, then.

So cost is a big issue with you.

Now, now.  I was merely pointing out AA is not a business interested in exploitation for profit.  My views on finances are not an issue and not being discussed, right?

Could be, depending on the program.  This is why I always say the parents should always look deeper...ask for references, speak to other parents.  Read up and get local opinions from therapists and schools.

You forgot the simplest method:  run the program name through an internet search engine, or is that something you would encourage parents to avoid?

[Whooter]

Someone needs to do a 10 yr. study, then.

I agree, the more studies the better

Now, now. I was merely pointing out AA is not a business interested in exploitation for profit. My views on finances are not an issue and not being discussed, right?

No it isn’t for profit.  Your point wasn’t clear, thats why I made the comment.  I dont see how the cost plays into this.

You forgot the simplest method: run the program name through an internet search engine, or is that something you would encourage parents to avoid?

That too. I would encourage parents to gain as much information as possible.  I know that many here are against parents branching out and doing this but I believe the more information they  get the better equipped they will be to make a decision.

[Anonymous]

No it isn’t for profit.  Your point wasn’t clear, thats why I made the comment.  I dont see how the cost plays into this.

Let me break it down simply for you:  tuition for programs can run $100K and up.  Cost is a factor to families who aren't as privileged as yourself, especially those who mortgage their homes to pay for what they are led to believe will save their child.  Imagine the horror of a family hocking all they own to pay the cost of program tuition only to have their child be killed by staff.

Simply being able to afford to put a child in a program is no reason to do it.

I would encourage parents to gain as much information as possible.  I know that many here are against parents branching out and doing this but I believe the more information they  get the better equipped they will be to make a decision.

Then you would encourage them to come to Fornits, correct?  It may be an error in perception, but you seem to view the posters on Fornits with extreme distaste.  Do you consider Fornits to be without merit when it comes to researching a program?

[Whooter]

Let me break it down simply for you: tuition for programs can run $100K and up. Cost is a factor to families who aren't as privileged as yourself, especially those who mortgage their homes to pay for what they are led to believe will save their child. Imagine the horror of a family hocking all they own to pay the cost of program tuition only to have their child be killed by staff.

Simply being able to afford to put a child in a program is no reason to do it.

I think losing a child would be a horror even if it were free.  Trying to place a price on a child doesn’t work for me.  The cost of the programs are determined by the families not the programs.

Then you would encourage them to come to Fornits, correct? It may be an error in perception, but you seem to view the posters on Fornits with extreme distaste. Do you consider Fornits to be without merit when it comes to researching a program?

I feel parents should have access to all the information they can to make their decision (fornits included).  From what I have read posters here would rarely suggest parents gather information outside of anti program sites and I think that is wrong.  People should be open to make up their own minds.

Would you direct a parent to Struggling teens site or to the individual program sites to get their questions answered?

[Anonymous]

I think losing a child would be a horror even if it were free.  Trying to place a price on a child doesn’t work for me.  The cost of the programs are determined by the families not the programs.

 

You'll have to explain your business model, then.  How do families determine the cost, or is this some reference to what you do with STICC?  Losing a child is a horror, but you miss the point:  families are trying to save their children by paying for the most expensive program thinking they are saving their child, they want protection.  In light of that, your inability to understand how the extraordinary costs of programs conflict with the treatment looks like a dodge.


I feel parents should have access to all the information they can to make their decision (fornits included).  From what I have read posters here would rarely suggest parents gather information outside of anti program sites and I think that is wrong.  People should be open to make up their own minds.

Would you direct a parent to Struggling teens site or to the individual program sites to get their questions answered?

ST has a history of not tolerating opposing viewpoints - they couldn't censor their forum enough so they locked it down.  I would not encourage any parent to visit a site that still allows military-style boot camps for teens to advertise.   At least on Fornits you are here to provide the opposing view, right?  ST does not provide the same.  Despite your criticism of Fornits, you are here and sharing your views.  Program survivors aren't allowed at your table.

[Whooter]

You'll have to explain your business model, then. How do families determine the cost, or is this some reference to what you do with STICC? Losing a child is a horror, but you miss the point: families are trying to save their children by paying for the most expensive program thinking they are saving their child, they want protection. In light of that, your inability to understand how the extraordinary costs of programs conflict with the treatment looks like a dodge.

I dont do anything with STICC nor am I associated with it and I dont have a business model for programs.  The price of anything you purchase is determined via supply and demand.  If everyone stopped buying weed the price would drop to pennies.  If we found out that weed was a wonder drug that preserved life then demand would out run supply and you would pay thru the nose for a single blunt.  The same with programs... the more they build the lower the cost will be.  There are many people who cannot afford kidney transplants because there are not enough to go around.

ST has a history of not tolerating opposing viewpoints - they couldn't censor their forum enough so they locked it down. I would not encourage any parent to visit a site that still allows military-style boot camps for teens to advertise. At least on Fornits you are here to provide the opposing view, right? ST does not provide the same. Despite your criticism of Fornits, you are here and sharing your views. Program survivors aren't allowed at your table.

So your tried to rationalize your answer , but it is still no.  So one of the differences between us is I direct and encourage parents to learn as much as possible from all perspectives and you do not.

[Troll Control]

I think losing a child would be a horror even if it were free.  Trying to place a price on a child doesn’t work for me.  The cost of the programs are determined by the families not the programs.

 

You'll have to explain your business model, then.  How do families determine the cost, or is this some reference to what you do with STICC?  Losing a child is a horror, but you miss the point:  families are trying to save their children by paying for the most expensive program thinking they are saving their child, they want protection.  In light of that, your inability to understand how the extraordinary costs of programs conflict with the treatment looks like a dodge.


I feel parents should have access to all the information they can to make their decision (fornits included).  From what I have read posters here would rarely suggest parents gather information outside of anti program sites and I think that is wrong.  People should be open to make up their own minds.

Would you direct a parent to Struggling teens site or to the individual program sites to get their questions answered?

ST has a history of not tolerating opposing viewpoints - they couldn't censor their forum enough so they locked it down.  I would not encourage any parent to visit a site that still allows military-style boot camps for teens to advertise.   At least on Fornits you are here to provide the opposing view, right?  ST does not provide the same.  Despite your criticism of Fornits, you are here and sharing your views.  Program survivors aren't allowed at your table.

Well said!  But :wall: You're dealing with TheWho, aka John Reuben of STICC, here.  He's conceded your argument already by resorting to ad hominems.  :beat:  He's already moved beyond the realm of sound argument and he ain't comin' back, baby!