What illegal drugs would you legalize?

[Maximilian]

And yet drunks who quit drinking manage to avoid alcohol, even though it's everywhere.  Just because some people have little self control doesn't mean we have to restrict the rights of everybody else to protect those few idiots from themselves.

I agree prohibition is not an effective way to keep people from using substances, obviously it's been proven a complete failure. But when drugs are made legal, there will be people suffering from addiction issues, and calling them idiots and ridiculing their poor "decisions" in life is not going to help them.

No.  That's a failure to realize the choices you have, and a failure to take the necessary steps to end the bad habit.

That's exactly what addiction is, because what you describe sounds so simple and easy. Just say no. Yes, we've all heard that before, but it's too simplistic and it doesn't work.

[Botched Programming]

Stealing is just a symptom of drug addiction, caused in part by the high price of drugs due to prohibition. So let's say they are made legal and the price plummets, is that going to affect the number of people who get addicted to drugs? If you can buy an eight ball for $5, isn't it more likely that more people will use, and use to a degree that causes them addiction and health problems?

OK, Max.  I have an assignment for you. I want you to go out and ask random non-drug-users whether they've been just dying to try smack but have avoided it simply because it's illegal.  When you find that one guy, the one nobody has ever met, bring him here.

See this survey.

If hard drugs such as heroin or cocaine were legalized would you be likely to use them? 99% SAY "NO"

What people say, and what they do are not necessarily in agreement all the time. Especially when talking about drug use.

The same argument I just made above applies here.  Legality of a substance is not likely to affect use. It's not likely to affect whether or not people drive under the influence.  I'm not advocating letting people drive under the influence of smack or whatever.  I think that what's done with alcohol should be done with drugs.  Drugs should be evaluated on an indiviudal basis and reasonable limits should be set.  An even better approach would be not to test for substances, but to test ability (for intoxication).  If a person can't complete a test of ability, regardless of cause, they should be charged with reckless endangerment or even attempted murder.  I'm all in favor of throwing the book at people who endanger others in such a manner and not at all in favor of letting them off with a few AA meetings.

The more drunk/high somebody gets, the less likely they are to make a rational and reasoned choice. That's why so many people drive drunk/high even though the consequences are fairly severe. If you did a poll like your previous question, how many people would say they plan on driving drunk in the future? Now compare that with the amount of people who do eventually drive drunk, does it match?

Maybe they are using it to deal with or otherwise coping with an actual disease. I do agree compulsive substance use can be a symptom of disease, but i'll never accept that a conscious behavior in itself, however repetitive, can constituted a disease.  People choose to do irrational things all the time.  People jump off bridges.  They gamble (no substances there). They are otherwise self destructive.  Sometimes they hate themselves.  Sometimes they're depressed.  Sometimes there is some other mental illness.

Well disease is only a word, you can call it whatever you like. I call it addiction. Suicide I believe is an end result of mental illness. Gambling can be an addiction. If you hate yourself enough to harm yourself, that's probably a mental illness as well, same as depression. I also believe that addiction can happen despite not having any other major issues to deal with, it can be an issue all in of itself. I've heard a lot of stories about people who were living the good life, got involved in recreational drugs with their buddies, and for some reason they kept going down the dark path, while their friends were able to remain responsible users.

Sorry, but AA is not science.  It's more akin the the exorcism you talk about.  AA was never science based.  It was and is faith-based.  The problem, like in the dark ages, is that it's gained so much influence those who dare speak ill of it or present addiction as a choice get burned at the stake as heretics.  There is no scientific basis behind the commonly held belief that addiction is a disease.  There *may* be genetic influence (even that is weak) but even if a person is born to "like" a substances more than others, it's still just a sliding scale of desire, not an overwhelming compulsion.

I'm saying until science can cure addiction, people will use whatever is available to them that works. For now, that appears to be AA. If it didn't work, people wouldn't show up, and AA would cease to exist. Some people choose to go the psychiatric route and use medication, other people choose to go cold turkey on their own, and this shows there is no sure fire solution to addiction. I'm sure people with mental illness found a way to cope before modern medical psychology and psychiatry, and I feel that is the stage addiction is in. People know it exists, they don't really know why, or how, but they want to do their best to help themselves in the meantime.

Got a doctors degree in medicine or psyciatry or at least have a license to practice medicine??? Same problem exist with most programs !!!

[Maximilian]

For me personally I feel that people who claim they had a "GOOD PROGRAM EXPERIENCE" still have a problems accepting truth over fact. The conditioned behavior and words that the program saved my life is a phrase is mostly prominent when a person has been indoctrinated.

Or maybe, it's true. Believe it or not, not everybody who goes to a program is abused and brainwashed, and some of us deserved to be there.

[Anne Bonney]

That's exactly what addiction is, because what you describe sounds so simple and easy. Just say no. Yes, we've all heard that before, but it's too simplistic and it doesn't work.

It actually does, if you apply it.  If you just give yourself to this simple program and don't pick up a drink, ever, for any reason, no matter what excuses you tell yourself - you'll be fine.  :seg2:



http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-addmonst.html

[Anne Bonney]

If it didn't work, people wouldn't show up, and AA would cease to exist.

A lot of people show up to Scientology 'services' and swear that it 'works'.  Doesn't make it true or make them any less a cult.


Just because something is popular or has captured the attention of pop-culture (Dr. Drew, "Dr." Phil, "Dr." Laura etc), doesn't mean it "works".

[none-ya]

THIS JUST IN...

MAX IS REALLY A SVELT, WELL ADUSTED LATVIAN FARMER
Well,how do we know "he's" not.

[Maximilian]

If it didn't work, people wouldn't show up, and AA would cease to exist.

A lot of people show up to Scientology 'services' and swear that it 'works'.  Doesn't make it true or make them any less a cult.


Just because something is popular or has captured the attention of pop-culture (Dr. Drew, "Dr." Phil, "Dr." Laura etc), doesn't mean it "works".

Well it obviously works for the people attending, otherwise they wouldn't show up. It's not up to you, or me, to decide what works for other people, that's their choice. People have different needs and seek them out in different ways. Organizations like AA and even Scientology must offer something to the people who attend, otherwise why would they go? Mass brainwashing? Different strokes for different folks. If people can get off drugs or alcohol with religion, or whatever, good for them. Whatever works.

[Botched Programming]

AA says "Rarely have we seen a person fail who have thouroughly followed our path" All they would need would be Billy May to plug this sales pitch and they could save the world...


If you look closely that is part of their sales pitch, just a few steps away from being like scientology... just a lower for of dogmatic belief... just not extorting money.

[Whooter]

If it didn't work, people wouldn't show up, and AA would cease to exist.

A lot of people show up to Scientology 'services' and swear that it 'works'.  Doesn't make it true or make them any less a cult.


Just because something is popular or has captured the attention of pop-culture (Dr. Drew, "Dr." Phil, "Dr." Laura etc), doesn't mean it "works".

On the reverse there are few people who have stated that programs didnt work for them, but that doesnt mean that programs are ineffective.  It just means that their individual experience was great.



...

[none-ya]

MY SINCERE APOLOGIES TO THE LATVIAN FARMING COMUNNITY

[Anne Bonney]

Well it obviously works for the people attending, otherwise they wouldn't show up. It's not up to you, or me, to decide what works for other people, that's their choice. People have different needs and seek them out in different ways. Organizations like AA and even Scientology must offer something to the people who attend, otherwise why would they go? Mass brainwashing? Different strokes for different folks. If people can get off drugs or alcohol with religion, or whatever, good for them. Whatever works.

That's your belief....fine, but AA tries to convince people that they'll die without AA ***.   I have a problem with that and want to see the truth told.  Have you nothing to say about Vaillant's study (George E. Vaillant, M.D., member AA's General Service Board) that shows that AA actually increases binge drinking (not to mention the date rate among alcoholics) and thus endangers people?  Please try and see past your own bias and don't shoot the messenger (Orange Papers).  Really take a look at the study, which happens to be on Orange Papers because AA doesn't really want the study publicized.

http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-effectiveness.html


***12&12 p.174,  Tradition Nine
Unless each A.A. member follows to the best of his ability our suggested Twelve Steps to recovery, he almost certainly signs his own death warrant.

[Anne Bonney]

If it didn't work, people wouldn't show up, and AA would cease to exist.

A lot of people show up to Scientology 'services' and swear that it 'works'.  Doesn't make it true or make them any less a cult.


Just because something is popular or has captured the attention of pop-culture (Dr. Drew, "Dr." Phil, "Dr." Laura etc), doesn't mean it "works".

On the reverse there are few people who have stated that programs didnt work for them, but that doesnt mean that programs are ineffective.  It just means that their individual experience was great.

The burden of proof is upon those claiming efficacy.

[Maximilian]

AA tries to convince people that they'll die without AA ***.   I have a problem with that and want to see the truth told.  

Well some people do die if they don't get sober. So it is the truth, I don't know how you can claim it isn't. What is your "truth" that you want to see told? To me it seems like you have a similar, yet slightly different interpretation of addiction and how to treat it than AA, and instead of embracing the similarities and good aspects of AA you dismiss it completely based on select examples of what you view as inaccuracies. To me this is like the differences between similar religions, in the scheme of things the differences are relatively minor and everyone who attends, no matter what the sect, is a believer in some form or another. In this case of AA I am not a preacher, I am just a believer who will go from church to church seeking answers, I am a non denominational addict seeking answers. I've gone to rehab and read books that aren't based on AA. I've also gone to AA meetings, and to me it's an effective self help group filled with amazing and selfless people who just want to help others, while at the same time helping themselves. Nitpicking terminology or isolated quotes in Aa ideology to me, misses the point entirely. Like arguing over scriptural differences between sects, when in the end all I seek is God.  The only truth in addiction is what works for people, and for a lot of people that's AA. I'm not an AA scholar, I don't have any answers other than my own opinion that I think it helped me.

[Anne Bonney]

AA tries to convince people that they'll die without AA ***.   I have a problem with that and want to see the truth told.  

Well some people do die if they don't get sober. So it is the truth, I don't know how you can claim it isn't.

You're moving the goalposts.  Getting sober does not equal AA.  People aren't going to die if they leave AA, even if the do have a problem. There are other options.

What is your "truth" that you want to see told?

That....People aren't going to die if they leave AA, even if the do have a problem. That there are other options.  That AA is more a religion than a simple self help group.  That it often raises the binge drinking and death rate of alcoholics.

To me it seems like you have a similar, yet slightly different interpretation of addiction and how to treat it than AA, and instead of embracing the similarities and good aspects of AA you dismiss it completely based on select examples of what you view as inaccuracies.

I dismiss it because it tries to tell people that AA is the only way, i.e. the 12 & 12 saying that if they leave they "surely are signing their own death warrant".  That's not true and it's dangerous to convince people that it is.

To me this is like the differences between similar religions, in the scheme of things the differences are relatively minor and everyone who attends, no matter what the sect, is a believer in some form or another.

I agree....AA completely smacks of religion.  So then, what becomes of the non-believers?  Just as religion isn't "the" answer for everyone, neither is AA despite the dire warnings of someone signing their own death warrant if they reject AA's path.

In this case of AA I am not a preacher,

Coulda fooled me.

Nitpicking terminology or isolated quotes in Aa ideology to me, misses the point entirely.

I don't think it's nitpicking to point out that their own guy's study revealed that AA not only didn't "work", it often caused binge drinking and raised the death rate among alcoholics.  He chooses to leave that nit out when he speaks of AA.

Like arguing over scriptural differences between sects, when in the end all I seek is God.  The only truth in addiction is what works for people, and for a lot of people that's AA. I'm not an AA scholar, I don't have any answers other than my own opinion that I think it helped me.

Ok

[psy]

OK ok ok.  Sort of my fault but I think this thread has veered a bit off-topic.  If we're going to talk about AA or the disease concept, let's talk about it as it relates to drug prohibition.  A debate on whether AA works is something better suited to the Addiction Treatment Philosophies forum.