Author Topic: At Core: Too Much Ado About Nothing  (Read 1510 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Paul St. John

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 835
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
At Core: Too Much Ado About Nothing
« on: January 18, 2006, 03:26:00 PM »
At Core: Too Much Ado About Nothing


Daytop was created by a Monsignor from Brooklyn.  He would send youths to the synanon, which he believed in strongly, for addictions. ( mostly heroine addictions)
When the synanon was shut down, and it?s organizer were arrested for conspiracy to commit murder, the monsignor responded ny creating his own program based on the synanon.  That program was Daytop.

The syanon was an extremely violent, vulgar, and abhorrent organization.  Such a place is not the type of place that most would expect a monsignor to condone, and one might ask why a seemingly well intentioned Monsignor would not only send youths to such a place, but also create his own off-shoot in it?s absence.

The answer to this question is the key to Daytop.  To understand a system, you must go back to it?s source.  If you want to understand the actions of a Nazi, understand Hitler.

The answer is this:

Although, he may not have agreed with all aspects of the synanon, at the time there were almost no treatments for heroine addicts available for heroine addicts.  Society, as a whle, quite simply, couldn?t care less about them.  When the monsignor saw a person become addicted to heroine, more often then not, they ended up dead, basically living dead..  the monsignor felt he had no alternative, and right here is where the monsignor created an idea that is the backbone of Daytop philosophy today.  It is the rationalization, and justification for al the wrongs perpetrated against individuals within the walls of a Daytop center today, no matter how wrong these wrong may be at any time.  

The idea the monsignor came up with, and which is the foundation of Daytop today is:

If one does drugs, one will end up dead, and so any action against another in an attempt to get them sober or keep them sober, that does not actually the person is always okay and even warranted.

His error in judgement started it all.

To them:

   Sobriety= Life

It is an absolute in the minds.

Also, being that a person is a drug user, the person?s life is nullified before they even walk in the door.

In their view, a client would be dead, if not for them, and so ought have nothing to say on any matter.  In their veiw, it is entirely within their rights to bring a client within inces of their death in a quest for sobriety, ands so long as the client does not actually die, their actions are both moral and just.

What about human rights?

What about the fact that drug usage is not the only thing in the world that can kill a person?

What about the right of the individual to either live or die on his/ her own terms?

What about the reality that the ends do not justify the means?

What about the fact that not all drug users will die form their drug usage in the near future?

What about the user who would probably quit on their own in the very near future?


.. and here do they get the right to decide that a person should be sober, or even that a person should live.  How did they obtain this authority over others?


Even if their ideas that [ Drugs=Death], and [ Sobriety= Life], they would still be grossly wrong for their actions.

( It is senseless. ? Sobriety? is the higher power because it equals life, and so it is always right.  Sobriety is good as a constant, so let?s achieve sobriety at the cost of life.  Let?s achieve life at the cost of life)

But besides the idea that they would be wrong anyway, the whole idea itself is based on a fallacy.

When I was in daytop, they often said ? Notice, you never see or hear about a forty year old drug user, and that is because they are all dead, and if not dead, then they are homeless, or in jail?

I must say that I don?t know what world they live in, because, here on this planet, I know, personally, more people then I can count who are in their 40?s, and beyond, who use some type pf drug, or another, are very much alive and healthy, have very nice homes, making far more money then a Daytop counselor, and are not in jail, and most of whom never have been in jail.  As many people as I know personally, I know of probably thousand times more people who fit this category.  I think we all do.

So really what?s all the here and now, life or death in this second fuss about?

Paul St. John

Life is versatile.  These maniacs need to chill.

Daytop is like living inside the head of a person who is having a perpetual panic attack.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline odie

  • Posts: 179
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
At Core: Too Much Ado About Nothing
« Reply #1 on: January 19, 2006, 09:24:00 AM »
Just a few corrections right off the top of your post. If you're going to give a history of Daytop try to be accurate because if you're not it's a bit difficult for anybody to believe the rest of your message.
First off Monsignor O'Brien wasn't from Brooklyn. He was a priest in Manhattan at the time he founded Daytop. He didn't send anyone to Synanon as you say, rather he formed Daytop after visiting Synanon. As far as Synanon's founder being charged with attempted murder, that is true but Charles Dederich ( Synanon's Founder) pleaded guilty along with 2 associates to assault and attempted murder in 1980, almost 17 years after Daytop was founded.
It is very well documented about the atrocities that happened at Synanon because of it turning into a cult led by Dederich, but although Daytop got its core concepts from Synanon it in no way became the cult that Synanon did.

India Indicas, Mr. Peabody?
-- Sherman

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
die

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164661
  • Karma: +2/-1
    • View Profile
At Core: Too Much Ado About Nothing
« Reply #2 on: January 19, 2006, 09:54:00 AM »
Quote
On 2006-01-19 06:24:00, odie wrote:

"although Daytop got its core concepts from Synanon it in no way became the cult that Synanon did.

India Indicas, Mr. Peabody?
-- Sherman

"


That is a matter of personal perspective. I can think of numerous arguments to the contrary.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Paul St. John

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 835
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
At Core: Too Much Ado About Nothing
« Reply #3 on: January 19, 2006, 07:37:00 PM »
Quote
On 2006-01-19 06:24:00, odie wrote:

"Just a few corrections right off the top of your post. If you're going to give a history of Daytop try to be accurate because if you're not it's a bit difficult for anybody to believe the rest of your message.

First off Monsignor O'Brien wasn't from Brooklyn. He was a priest in Manhattan at the time he founded Daytop. He didn't send anyone to Synanon as you say, rather he formed Daytop after visiting Synanon.

As far as I know, he practiced in Brooklyn, and did in fact send youths to the synanon.  Of course, I may be wrong.  Just because I have read it doesn t necessarily mean that it is true.  As per the rest of the post, it would stand on it's own all the same whether he was from Brookln, or Poland.

Quote

 As far as Synanon's founder being charged with attempted murder, that is true but Charles Dederich ( Synanon's Founder) pleaded guilty along with 2 associates to assault and attempted murder in 1980, almost 17 years after Daytop was founded.

It is very well documented about the atrocities that happened at Synanon because of it turning into a cult led by Dederich, but although Daytop got its core concepts from Synanon it in no way became the cult that Synanon did.

India Indicas, Mr. Peabody?
-- Sherman

"


I never said that Daytop had or hadn't become the cult that Synanon that had, although I certainly consider it by definition, a cult.

My post was not so much about the fact that Daytop was based on the synanon.  It was about the underlying priniciples that rule Daytop, beginning from the Monsignor.  I am not sure that you understood my post at all, and it seems you missed the entire point.


Paul St. John
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »