DARE To Kill Families

[Antigen]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/miller-joel/miller-j3.html
DARE To Kill Families


 by Joel Miller
by Joel Miller
         
 For their role in cuffing dope pushers and supporting the DARE program, cops
in one Massachusetts town were recently awarded a $1,000 by a local
drug-abuse prevention organization. A job well done: Only part of which involved
undermining the family and the relationship between parent and child ? but an
important part.
 While the DARE program has come under intense criticism in the state,
resulting in drastic funding cuts, Marshfield, Massachusetts, Police Lieutenant Phil
Tavares has been fulsome in praise for the anti-drug school program. Reports
the July 8 Boston Globe, "Tavares said he has received only positive feedback
about the program and he firmly believes it's a needed resource. As an
example, he talked about the recent case of a DARE graduate who called the police on
his mother after finding marijuana in the house."
 Oh yeah. That's good: Fink on your mom.
 It's nothing new. DARE has always warred on the family, pitting kids against
parents. Writes Diane Barnes in the Detroit News, "Children are asked to
submit to DARE police officers sensitive written questionnaires that can easily
refer to the kids' homes. And you might be surprised by a DARE lesson called
'The Three R's: Recognize, Resists, Report,' which encourages children to tell
friends, teachers or police if they find drugs at home."
 As I point out in my book, Bad Trip: How the War Against Drugs is Destroying
America, drug arrests in a number of states have been tied directly to
children ratting on parents. The reason is simple enough: DARE classes are taught by
cops, who are duty-bound to follow up on tips from kids. The Wall Street
Journal reported two Boston cases in which "children who had tipped police stepped
out of their homes carrying DARE diplomas as police arrived to arrest their
parents."
 If we are keen enough to see them for what they are, we should be thankful
for such horrifying news items. For all its destruction to families, the DARE
program tips the hand of the drug-war establishment in one important regard: It
brilliantly highlights the fact that the State will tolerate no competing
authority. Its goals are absolute.
 Writes Oxford Don C.S. Lewis in one of my favorite essays of his, "The
modern State exists not to protect our rights but to do us good or make us good ?
anyway, to do something to us or make us something." We, in this scheme, have
no right to make ourselves something or do things for ourselves unless our aims
fit within those of State's, for as Lewis continues, "We are less their
subjects than their wards, pupils, or domestic animals. There is nothing left of
which we can say to them, 'Mind your own business.' Our whole lives are their
business."
 No uppity slaves will be tolerated. For the State, the province of our very
will and desires are seen as under its jurisdiction. They only wait to be
conquered ? along with the other intermediary authorities that stymie the State's
advance, which is why down through the years ambitious governments have warred
on churches, businesses, communities, and families ? precisely because it
they will allow no other competing loyalties. It doesn't matter what the agenda
is; the State wants total support and involvement from its subjects. Divided
loyalties must be squashed, even if it means, in the case of the drug war,
ratting on a parent or finking on a friend. The State's word is both law and final.
And that means, however much you may love your mother, if you find a doobie
in her drawer, you call the cops.
 ''Having teenagers feel comfortable talking about problems with police ? you
can't beat that," said Travers to the Globe. Translation: Replacing parents
as the confidants of their children is key to the State's absolutist goals. The
child must be taught to see his true loyalties in the camp of the police, not
his parents. He must be taught to come to the police with any infraction of
his parents', so the true object of his loyalties can mete out the proper
punishments for nonsubmission to the goals of the State.
 Of course, the drug-war's undermining of parental authority started long
before DARE, and the program is not the ultimate focus of this discussion. We are
looking at how the drug war as a State project undermines rival authorities.
Go back to something foundational to the both the war on drugs and the
undermining of parents: The moment the government took parents out of the position of
training children in the proper use of intoxicants ? i.e., by banning
particular substances across the board, regardless of the user's age or the drug's
purpose ? it began chipping away at its rivals and their authority over
children.
 For the State this is paramount. We must never forget what children are for
the State: both potential tools and threats. Because just as children are
subject to their parents, they are also subject to the State and someday, once
mature, will be primarily subject to it. If children are raised by parents to
value individual freedom and choice, the rival authority of parental control is
simply exchanged for self-control and the State's domain is not much increased.
If their parents encourage them to extreme levels of individuality, their
resultant autonomy can lead directly to decreases in state power; ergo, they
become a threat.
 To gain substantial control over the individual (turn him into an ally and
stifle the threat his autonomy represents), the State must assert control early
and broadly ? removing from parents the ability to properly empower children
with much sense at all of self-determination and autonomy. The child must
learn to see the State as the final authority, period.
 "Today the state controls not merely the individual's body but as much of
his spirit as it can preempt," writes social critic Christopher Lasch in his
1977 book, Haven in a Heartless World. "The citizen's entire existence has now
been subjected to social direction, increasingly unmediated by the family or
other institutions to which the work of socialization was once confined. Society
itself has taken over socialization or subjected family socialization to
increasingly effective control. Having thereby weakened the capacity for
self-direction and self-control, it has undermined one of the principal sources of
social cohesion, only to create new ones more constricting than the old, and
ultimately more devastating in their impact on personal and political freedom."
 The drug war and its ancillary programs like DARE are only part of this
undermining of the family, but everyone concerned about the State's intrusion into
the private lives of individuals and families must see the attack on all
fronts.
 So when you next spy a DARE bumper sticker or T-shirt, remember that the
Statist usurpers of parental authority are afoot and, whether you use illicit
substances or not, they distrust and oppose your role as parent. As we all know,
these days it takes a village to raise a child, and sometimes you've got to
throw a few moms and dads in prison for the kid to grow up properly servile.
 July 13, 2004
 Joel Miller [send him mail] is the author of Bad Trip: How the War Against
Drugs is Destroying America.
 Copyright © 2004 LewRockwell.com

Every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid."
--Alexander Hamilton    

[Deborah]

And the irony- Isn't it more a war on drug dealers? 'Illegal' drugs, not okay. 'Legal' drugs okay.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2004/ ... tion.htmNo

No Child Left Un-medicated?

"A sweeping mental health initiative will be unveiled by President George W. Bush in July," reported the British Medical Journal on June 19. The administration's "New Freedom Initiative" envisions "comprehensive mental health screening for 'consumers of all ages,' including preschool children."

According to the Presidential Commission on Mental Health: "Each year, young children are expelled from preschools and childcare facilities for severely disruptive behaviors and emotional disorders." "There are good data showing that if you identify kids at an earlier age who are aggressive you can intervene . and change their trajectory," insists Dr. Graham Emslie, who helped develop a Texas pilot project on which the Bush administration proposal is based. The commission points out that schools are in a "key position" to screen 52 million students and 6 million adults who work at schools.

The pilot program, called the Texas Medication Algorithm (TMAP), was implemented under then-Governor George W. Bush. TMAP promoted the use of new, expensive antidepressant drugs to treat schoolchildren diagnosed with behavioral problems. Allen Jones, an official in Pennsylvania who helped implement that state's version of the program, disclosed that "key officials with influence over the medication plan received money and perks from drug companies with a stake in the medication algorithm."

Jones also points out that the same "political/pharmaceutical alliance" behind the TMAP was using the New Freedom Initiative "to consolidate the TMAP effort into a comprehensive national policy to treat mental illness with expensive, patented medications of questionable benefit and deadly side effects, and to force private insurers to pick up the tab." As the British Medical Journal observes, "Bush is the clear frontrunner when it comes to drug company contributions," outstripping Kerry by more than four to one.

In totalitarian societies such as Soviet Russia and Communist Cuba, the state pathologizes dissent as a mental disorder. Mr. Bush's proposal, in principle, would permit the same horrific abuses by putting Washington in charge of screening all schoolchildren - and, eventually, all other Americans.

[Deborah]

And this one all but proves the double standard in the War on Drugs- The article below is not satire - this psychiatric quack is dead serious.  An argument for 'cosmetic' or 'reconstructive' psychiatry for 'well' people who are seeking SUBJECTIVE PERFECTION or to minimize the emotional discomforts of everyday life, reducing any minute impairment in their work life, love life or play life. Skip diagnosis and prognosis and go straight to treatment- not that it would matter much since the diagnoses are fraudulent to begin with.

http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/p040601b.html
The Case for Cosmetic Psychiatry: Treatment Without Diagnosis
by A. James Giannini, M.D.      
Psychiatric Times  June 2004  Vol. XXI  Issue 7

"Is that all there is?" may not be a question limited to recovering psychiatric patients. It is one that can be asked by any person, including
those who do not meet diagnostic standards. Many psychiatrists tend to limit the application of their skills to those whose discomfort matches the phenomenological criteria of DSM-IV-TR.

It is the mission of this profession to render assistance to any who seek relief from emotional illness. This noble mission, however, does not
currently apply to people who seek only SUBJECTIVE PERFECTION. These are people who, while not experiencing a psychiatric disorder, wish to minimize the emotional discomforts of everyday life, reducing any minute impairment
in their work life, love life or play life. [Isn't that why people have a drink or smoke a joint?] It is therefore valid to ask: Can psychiatry transcend the concept of "objective cure" and include "subjective perfection" as a goal? Is there a logical reason why the concept of "treatment pills" cannot coexist with that of "lifestyle pills" on the psychiatric prescription pad? Cannot there be both "cosmetic" as well as "reconstructive" psychiatry? Does one need a disease in order to be treated? [Are they trying to create a new market? Making off-label Rx cool? Are they loosing customers because they can't prove 'mental illness' is a disease and fits the medical model?]

By utilizing DSMs and other official disease catalogues, the psychiatric profession achieves mastery of its domain. It defines disease and then limits treatment to those who have disease: the patients. But the D-word can be applied and withdrawn at will. Homosexuality can be a disease or not, depending on the votes. Premenstrual syndrome can be accorded or denied disease status or relabeled "L2D2." Nicotine use can mutate from non-disease status to a dependency to an addiction. The scarlet D can or cannot be
bestowed. But if it is not bestowed, one cannot be defined as "patient." Without the proper definition, no treatment is available. [Must be getting desperate when one of their own makes such damning statements.]

All diagnostic categories, even the "V" codes (for other conditions that may be a focus of clinical attention) require a disease or problem state. The sick can be cured and made well; there is no room for the well who have no disease or problem, but merely wish to pursue their subjective definition of perfection. [CURED? MADE WELL? He meant, addicted to psychotropic meds the rest of their subjective lives.] This definition may be particular to the individual, and it may even be peculiar. However, if it requires the psychiatrist to do no harm, then individuals should be able to expect professional guidance in pursuing their self-defined ideal state of being.
[And there in lies the reason we have the psychiatric octopus with all its many tenacles, such as: drug treatment, behavior modification warehouses, residential treatment, psychotropic drugs, mental institutions, ECT, etc. etc.]

This pursuit, however, is blocked by a wasteland of introjected ideology and professional inertia. The operational medical protocol encompasses
diagnosis, prognosis and treatment. As such, it may be a quantum jump to practice in the absence of diagnosis and prognosis and then proceed immediately to treatment. [Quantum jump? Isn't that a quantum violation of law? If not, should be. Sounds like a drug dealer to me]  What HMO will authorize treatment for a wish that is neither Axis I disease nor a V code problem? Indeed, how does a psychiatrist justify prescriptions for people who have unfulfilled ambitions, not diseases? [S/HE CAN'T]  How does the psychiatrist fill in the "diagnosis" line on mail-in prescription forms? For the strictly disease-oriented psychiatrist, it may be difficult to prescribe a medication without a PDR-recognized indication or "minority school of thought" for support.

Well people seeking subjective perfection are discouraged by physicians wielding the persuasive powers of diagnostic definition--no diagnosis or
label, no prescription, no pills. Acceptance of the label redefines the "well" as the "unwell."

By such transformative redefinition, the well are not seeking cosmetic change; rather, the sick are asking for cure. Now defined as "patients" who
are ill, they can receive prescription medication. Well people are now diagnosed as "dependent," "addictive" or the all-encompassing "personality disorder not otherwise specified." Ideology is served. Choices can now be made on the basis of social coercion, not individual choice (Foot, 2002). Who, indeed, is to be master?

Cosmetic psychiatry may raise fears of a brave new world with a "pill for every ill." Yet, Huxley (1958) in his review of the drug-oriented society, Brave New World Revisited, worried not about the use, but the overuse, of psychoactive drugs. It was the need for equipoise that drew his concern. Western philosophy does not allow emotions to be erased; the physical, intellectual and spiritual worlds exist to be "experienced." It is also a post-Enlightenment axiom that the full range of human emotion is the birthright of all. This birthright, however, is not always accepted.

Physicians routinely mask the "experiences" of pain, insomnia, nausea and motion sickness. In addition, physical cosmetic pharmaceutical agents such as tretinoin (Retin-A), minoxidil (Rogaine) and á-hydroxy acid are used daily by well patients wishing only to blur the effects of aging by cosmetic physical pharmacology.

It is the use and not the abuse of psychotropic medication that forms the framework of cosmetic psychiatry. Cosmetic use is conceptualized as an
adaptive, nonabusive approach to life. This is in contrast to the nonadaptive, abusing retreat of addiction. Cosmetic psychiatry can enhance but not distort memory and perception, increase performance but not create introversion, and establish conditions for an overall sense of enjoyment and fulfillment.

Many nonaddictive, relatively safe medications are available for the well person seeking subjective perfection. In some cases it is the side effect that provides the desired enhancement.

Propranolol (Inderal), an antihypertensive, has short-lived anxiolytic effects and can be cosmetically prescribed for people who do not meet criteria for an anxiety disorder but must, nevertheless, occasionally function in emotionally charged situations (Kohnen and Oswald, 1988).
Overscheduled students could likewise benefit from the short-lived energy boosts and diminished sleep requirements associated with the early phase of bupropion (Wellbutrin) usage (PDR Drug Guide for Mental Health Professionals, 2002). Moderate weight reduction can be achieved with
sertraline (Zoloft) in euthymic patients without amphetamine-like effects (PDR Drug Guide for Mental Health Professionals, 2002). End-of-workday ennui can respond to the ã-aminobutyric acid (GABA)-ergic effects of kava kava
(Piper methysticum) without the intoxication of an evening nightcap (Singh, 1992). [And he throws in herbs as if they are comparable to mind altering psychotropics that indeed can be addicting.]  (The U.S. Food and Drug Administration advised consumers of the
potential risk of severe liver injury associated with the use of kava-containing dietary supplements in 2002--Ed.) [But no warnings about the psych drugs?]

A feeling of overall well-being, not quite realized in daily pursuit of the mundane, can sometimes be produced with St. John's wort (Hypericum perforatum) without addiction in people without depression (Hoffman and
Kuhl, 1979). Bupropion can increase libido, while fluoxetine (Prozac) can decrease this drive depending on the requirements of the well person's lifestyle. Overstressed workers can "come down" with valerian (Valeriana
officinalis), experiencing enhanced mood and diminished anxiety (Kohnen and Oswald, 1988).

Well people can use these substances with or without the guidance of psychiatrists. If this guidance is withheld, the users of these medications may be exposed to the dangers of side effects and misuse. It has been reported that self-prescribing individuals without guidance are less likely to follow directions and report greater toxic effects (Beckman et al., 2000;
Chan et al., 1995). Our knowledge of psychopharmacology can be properly employed to achieve the greatest possible benefit. It is our responsibility to use that knowledge when harm is not done and well-being is enhanced (Glazer et al., 2001).

It may be further argued that acceptance of the concept of cosmetic psychiatry can also encourage recreational drug use. This argument, however,
ignores the current availability of cosmetic psychotropics. Valerian and kava kava can be purchased in commercially bottled teas or tea bags. These botanicals, as well as St. John's wort, can also be purchased without prescription in capsule form at the neighborhood pharmacy or mall-based health food store. The public is ready for these agents. One need not embrace the libertarian agenda to accept that, in a free society, adults are capable of making informed decisions regarding their emotional status
(Bentham, 1996). Psychiatry can respond to the legitimate needs and expectations of the public or be shunted aside. We can appropriately
administer these medications to well people or allow such use to proceed without our guidance (Giannini and Giannini, 2000).

Dr. Giannini is corporate medical director of Chemical Abuse Centers headquartered in Boardman, Ohio. His most recent books are Drug Abuse: A
Family Guide to Education and Drugs of Abuse, 2nd ed.

[thepatriot]

T"he Three R's: Recognize, Resists, Report,' which encourages children to tell
friends, teachers or police if they find drugs at home."

I am sorry but if a parent is irresponsible enough to be stoned around around their child or to have drugs where they are in reach of the child/teenager their ass deserves to be reported come on people what ever happened to being a responsible parent. If your ass wants to get stoned find them a friggin baby sitter. Is it really necessary to be stoned around your child. Or how about the parents and I know some that have their infant in a baby seat in a cloud of pot smoke on their way to the grocery store sorry but thats not healthy. Let alone the parent too stoned to drive with their kids in the car. Go ahead and flame me I don't want to hear the "But what about alcholhol and the drunk parent around their kid" The goes with out saying, if you want to medicate yourself fine just set and example for your kids. You can call this a conservitive attitude if some of you lefties wish, but for the love of god DARE as a threat....PALEEEEEZ get over it all ready

My favorite is the parents that get stoned with their kids....oh yeah thats real fucking healthy those are the kids that usually call their parents by their first names. As far as dare being a dangerous part of the drug war that is reaching way too far , find something else....good god

_________________
Sarasota Straight Escapee

[ This Message was edited by: thepatriot on 2004-07-15 06:20 ]

[Anonymous]

OUr Public School System has the DARE program. When my children are old enough to be a part of it, will I be given a choice as to whether or not I let them, or is it a manditory thing?
My husband and I have nothing to hide, that's not the case, it's just that I don't subscribe to the values of that program or the power it has to rip apart families. I would rather my children didn't take part in it. So, do you know if we have a choice? Is there some sort of a form we have to sign?  
   I wonder, however, if it would affect relations with the other children if my kids were excluded. I don't want my children singled out or
used as examples to the other children.  

- T

[thepatriot]

Just curious but why is everybody on this site so goddam afraid or leery of the Police and law enforcement in general, what about the DARE program bothers you so much? Sometimes I think people will find anything to creat controversy over.

[tommyfromhyde1]

On 2004-07-15 12:02:00, Anonymous wrote:

"OUr Public School System has the DARE program. When my children are old enough to be a part of it, will I be given a choice as to whether or not I let them, or is it a manditory thing?

My husband and I have nothing to hide, that's not the case, it's just that I don't subscribe to the values of that program or the power it has to rip apart families. I would rather my children didn't take part in it. So, do you know if we have a choice? Is there some sort of a form we have to sign?  

   I wonder, however, if it would affect relations with the other children if my kids were excluded. I don't want my children singled out or

used as examples to the other children.  



- T "

 It's my understanding that DARE America does
include consent forms to be sent home to parents
but that alot of school districts don't bother
with them. Also to be considered is that if you're
 the parent who objects they may grill your kid,
or label you adversarial or call the social
workers on you.

Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind. And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and gladly so. How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar.
                                                                               
--Julius Caesar

[Anonymous]

On 2004-07-15 06:16:00, thepatriot wrote:

"T"he Three R's: Recognize, Resists, Report,' which encourages children to tell

friends, teachers or police if they find drugs at home."



I am sorry but if a parent is irresponsible enough to be stoned around around their child or to have drugs where they are in reach of the child/teenager their ass deserves to be reported come on people what ever happened to being a responsible parent. If your ass wants to get stoned find them a friggin baby sitter. Is it really necessary to be stoned around your child. Or how about the parents and I know some that have their infant in a baby seat in a cloud of pot smoke on their way to the grocery store sorry but thats not healthy. Let alone the parent too stoned to drive with their kids in the car. Go ahead and flame me I don't want to hear the "But what about alcholhol and the drunk parent around their kid" The goes with out saying, if you want to medicate yourself fine just set and example for your kids. You can call this a conservitive attitude if some of you lefties wish, but for the love of god DARE as a threat....PALEEEEEZ get over it all ready



My favorite is the parents that get stoned with their kids....oh yeah thats real fucking healthy those are the kids that usually call their parents by their first names. As far as dare being a dangerous part of the drug war that is reaching way too far , find something else....good god



_________________

Sarasota Straight Escapee



[ This Message was edited by: thepatriot on 2004-07-15 06:20 ]"

  I could not agree with you more. I was starting to wonder if there were any sane people posting here.

[Anonymous]

You are required to sign a consent form for your child to participate in the DARE program. Most people want their kid to learn to not use drugs and find out about all the harmful effects of drug use. If you are smoking dope around them and acting like it is a regular cigarette it is likely they will learn what it is. Now that is sad. So many people talk about all the abuse they endured in the program and don't think twice about what they are doing to their kids NOW.

[Anonymous]

I choose not to have my children included in the DARE program.  I do not use drugs.  My husband does not do drugs.  We do not allow illegal drugs in our home.  We do, however, feel that we can and WILL teach our children to make healthy choices.  We will tell them the about the dangers of drug abuse, and we will keep the family unit alive. WITH OUT POLICE INTERVENTION.  Not everyone who dislikes the DARE idealogy is doing drugs. Thank your for your response.