It is ok to relapse

[Anonymous]

Okay, you like studies. Find studies that say what happens to victims of thought reform.

[TheWho]

Okay, you like studies. Find studies that say what happens to victims of thought reform.

Sorry if this seems fragmented, just a few thoughts.

In my experience and from what I have learned, the most damaging aspect or dynamic of a cult is the unending pushing of the individual towards a non-attainable perfection.  A person needs an individual identity along (with all its flaws) to be healthy and suvive.  Forcing a person to conform to a group identity which is defined as perfect (with vacillating rules) does the most damage to the individual, in my opinion.  

Post Cult:  Whether you are a castaway or a walkaway from a cult or cult like environment the person will lack purpose above all the other problems he/she will face in the outside world (IN MY OPINION).

Studies show that helping these individuals find a purpose outside of the group dynamic is essential in any recovery.  The individual needs to understand what was done to them and how thought reform works before healing can begin.  Some advocate the use of attending a 12 step program (which is a cult in itself) as a step down from the dynamics of their intense cult experiences.  Sort of like using the patch to help with the withdrawal from nicotine.  The 12 step program utilizes the group dynamics but is softer and allows the person to feel the comfort of belonging to a group while working to understand the damage that was done to them.  Eventually the person needs to break away from the softer cult (12 step program).

If you are interested in reviewing some of the studies and discussion a good place to start:
http://http://www.icsahome.com/default.asp

[Anonymous]

Sort of like using the patch to help with the withdrawal from nicotine.  The 12 step program utilizes the group dynamics but is softer and allows the person to feel the comfort of belonging to a group while working to understand the damage that was done to them.  Eventually the person needs to break away from the softer cult (12 step program).

This is a good idea.  The problem is that in some areas, the meetings are "taken over" by members of the program or sympathetic parties.  In a sense, those meetings can become an extention of the program itself.  Is it any less harmful?  I'm not so sure about that.  All it does is to re-inforce the learned helplessness instilled in the program

[anonAARCgrad]

I'd like to know just how many of those graduates didn't have a substance abuse problem before they entered the program. What about the numerous amounts of teenagers who tried drugs but grew out of that on their own... are we really supposed to think that this program is responsible for the fact that all humans eventually mature?

Heres a for instance, If i were to participate in a WWASP study and as the questions would be written by WWASP they would ask me questions like this:

Do you use any drugs? No.

Can you hold down a job? Yes.

Have you been charged with any criminal activity since you came home? No.

and so on and so forth.

So would my answers to these questions indicate that the program was a success for me? Was the fact that I was neither a criminal nor a drug addict before I went into the program taken into account in this study? or that I did my fair share of drugs and drinking AFTER the program and matured out of that stage on my own? or that I was physically abused and strongly oppose the program. Does that have anything to do with the "success rate" or is that just all a little too relative to be taken seriously? Furthermore what about the kids that died or are in jail or wouldn't have even the slightest reason to keep in touch with AARC in order to be on their list for this survey. So honestly what surprises me is that other 15%, why would "druggies" even do this study in the first place?

Psy nailed it, this was a biased internal study from the beginning and these bogus claims have no credibility, but the programs have been lying for years so why should we put it passed them now?

I participated in intake/assessments for 3 years, both as a "client" and as a "peer". I would say perhaps 1 in 5 people I "assessed" had actual drug or alcohol usage to the extent that it was serious problem. 1 out of 5 would not have the amount of drug usage for it to be more than an occaissional beavioral issue. Certainly not a primary problem, almost always some marijuana usage, and some drinking. The middle three would vary, but EVERY kid that was assessed while I was there was told they were level 3 or 4. And believe me - many of the positive answers were inferred, not actually told to us by the kid. How many kids who walk through there could be honestly diagnosed with a substance abuse problem? Maybe half. Needless to say, I had no training in drug assessment - but I got lots of kids to stay, either by convincing the parents or even the kid. I think about it every day, and deeply regret my part in this BS.

[Anne Bonney]

I participated in intake/assessments for 3 years, both as a "client" and as a "peer". I would say perhaps 1 in 5 people I "assessed" had actual drug or alcohol usage to the extent that it was serious problem. 1 out of 5 would not have the amount of drug usage for it to be more than an occaissional beavioral issue. Certainly not a primary problem, almost always some marijuana usage, and some drinking. The middle three would vary, but EVERY kid that was assessed while I was there was told they were level 3 or 4. And believe me - many of the positive answers were inferred, not actually told to us by the kid. How many kids who walk through there could be honestly diagnosed with a substance abuse problem? Maybe half. Needless to say, I had no training in drug assessment - but I got lots of kids to stay, either by convincing the parents or even the kid. I think about it every day, and deeply regret my part in this BS.

Sounds exactly like Straight and KIDS.  How can the AARColytes keep insisting that AARC is so very different from Straight yet everything I've seen the AARC people describe, even the supporters, is IDENTICAL to Straight?  And I mean everything.  I haven't heard anyone state one significant difference.  They obviously use the 'phases' and 'steps', but even the ways they get around regulations and licensing......the excuses and justifications for non-communication between parent and child.....the excuses and justifications for unqualified "staff"......motivating.  The plain truth is that there's no fundamental difference between the two/three/four (KIDS and Pathways included).  Especially given that Vause learned everything he knows from Newton and I know from personal experience, THAT son-of-a-bitch is PURE EVIL.

[Anonymous]

Okay, you like studies. Find studies that say what happens to victims of thought reform.

Sorry if this seems fragmented, just a few thoughts.

In my experience and from what I have learned, the most damaging aspect or dynamic of a cult is the unending pushing of the individual towards a non-attainable perfection.  A person needs an individual identity along (with all its flaws) to be healthy and suvive.  Forcing a person to conform to a group identity which is defined as perfect (with vacillating rules) does the most damage to the individual, in my opinion.  

Post Cult:  Whether you are a castaway or a walkaway from a cult or cult like environment the person will lack purpose above all the other problems he/she will face in the outside world (IN MY OPINION).

Studies show that helping these individuals find a purpose outside of the group dynamic is essential in any recovery.  The individual needs to understand what was done to them and how thought reform works before healing can begin.  Some advocate the use of attending a 12 step program (which is a cult in itself) as a step down from the dynamics of their intense cult experiences.  Sort of like using the patch to help with the withdrawal from nicotine.  The 12 step program utilizes the group dynamics but is softer and allows the person to feel the comfort of belonging to a group while working to understand the damage that was done to them.  Eventually the person needs to break away from the softer cult (12 step program).

If you are interested in reviewing some of the studies and discussion a good place to start:
http://http://www.icsahome.com/default.asp

http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/discussion/2009 ... rless.html
Intersting comment from an AA group in which intermingle:
"One final thought, to all AARC grads who infest AA meetings and use it as a dating pool and social club. Please do us all a favor and examine your motives for being there....."

This AA group knows the AARC people are "off," even without knowing why. I am a survivor and eventually, will have my BA in psych. AA is not in the cultic spectrum. IMO,  the term you are looking for might be  'group support' or even communal relationship (blech), but not 'softer cult.'  Of course, use any word you like, I just dont likethat word gets thrown around as it wipes away the meaning of 'cult' which needs to be used appropriately for it to retain its usefulness.  JMHO

[Anne Bonney]

http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/discussion/2009 ... rless.html
Intersting comment from an AA group in which intermingle:
"One final thought, to all AARC grads who infest AA meetings and use it as a dating pool and social club. Please do us all a favor and examine your motives for being there....."

This AA group knows the AARC people are "off," even without knowing why. I am a survivor and eventually, will have my BA in psych. AA is not in the cultic spectrum. IMO,  the term you are looking for might be  'group support' or even communal relationship (blech), but not 'softer cult.'  Of course, use any word you like, I just dont likethat word gets thrown around as it wipes away the meaning of 'cult' which needs to be used appropriately for it to retain its usefulness.  JMHO

While I understand your apprehension to dilute the word 'cult', I think cult-like or cultish or softer cult are most appropriate terms with regards to AA.

[FemanonFatal2.0]

Actually, IMO AA is a bit closer to a religion than a cult, the word "softer" cult seems fitting, but for all intensive purposes, reading the 12 steps seems more like a conversion to the christian religion than to recovery from substance abuse. IMO AA has little to do with recovery, and more to do with converting the weak and needy into full blown Christians. I see it more as a modern day religious crusade.

However, seeing as IMO religion is as well a "softer" cult, I think they should ALL be considered to exist in the same category. Just remember that the definition of a cult is not evidence of abuse, its the existence of tactics of thought reform, "group think", isolation from the outside world and a systematic push for more conversions.

Both religions, AA, Behavior modification programs (and their seminars) and registered (abusive and non abusive) cults all operate on a similar system to control their followers. So how do we really separate the like from the like? I believe the best way to do that is to put these institutions on a sliding scale of cult-like severity because in every one of these groups there is the good things that make them a service to our society and the bad things that relate them to the reputation of a cult group. The problem is that the word "cult" has such a bad connotation that no one wants to accept that their group is in its conception very similar to the way that a full blown cult operates. From what I can assume, cults must have snagged their system model from religion, or in my opinion, cults are just the small business versions of religions. I guess for some, things just went completely wrong, but apparently making up your own rules on behalf of an all mighty higher power really gives you a lot of room to go nuts, and many of them do. So maybe the word cult would refer to those institutions that would be at the bottom of this sliding scale, but lets be honest here they all swim the the same pool.

[Anne Bonney]

Actually, IMO AA is a bit closer to a religion than a cult, the word "softer" cult seems fitting, but for all intensive purposes, reading the 12 steps seems more like a conversion to the christian religion than to recovery from substance abuse. IMO AA has little to do with recovery, and more to do with converting the weak and needy into full blown Christians. I see it more as a modern day religious crusade.

Oh yeah, I don't disagree with any of that.  

However, seeing as IMO religion is as well a "softer" cult, I think they should ALL be considered to exist in the same category. Just remember that the definition of a cult is not evidence of abuse, its the existence of tactics of thought reform, "group think", isolation from the outside world and a systematic push for more conversions.

But I think "thought reform" scares me more than just about any other aspect of the program.  It requires "group think" which, I believe, is devastating to the soul.

Both religions, AA, Behavior modification programs (and their seminars) and registered (abusive and non abusive) cults all operate on a similar system to control their followers. So how do we really separate the like from the like? I believe the best way to do that is to put these institutions on a sliding scale of cult-like severity because in every one of these groups there is the good things that make them a service to our society and the bad things that relate them to the reputation of a cult group. The problem is that the word "cult" has such a bad connotation that no one wants to accept that their group is in its conception very similar to the way that a full blown cult operates. From what I can assume, cults must have snagged their system model from religion, or in my opinion, cults are just the small business versions of religions. I guess for some, things just went completely wrong, but apparently making up your own rules on behalf of an all mighty higher power really gives you a lot of room to go nuts, and many of them do. So maybe the word cult would refer to those institutions that would be at the bottom of this sliding scale, but lets be honest here they all swim the the same pool.

Sage words  Fem.....sage words.

[Sam Kinison]

Jean Cassidy,co-founder of Second Chance with her husband Scotty,told me very few of these clients are true addicts.Later on,she and her husband went on to start a program to treat unaddicted kids for non-existing addictions.Money talks and I'm sure that it pays better than than the brewery,Scotty's prior employer.This conversation came several years after me leaving Straight in an office where she was working.I explained that I was an occasional drinker,a non-user of other drugs and that any substance that I choose to indulge in,I truly can stop at my leisure.If there was any doubt,I was happy to make it a wager,the only vice that I do struggle with.That's when she revealed the uncomfortable truth(she was a former exec staff)about our powerlessness being a hoax.I left that afternoon realizing that my whole programming was a sham are started to discount everything I was led to believe.Before I thought it was just a mistake.To answer the question "Is it OK to relapse?",the question must be asked was the person in question an addict at all.If the answer is NO,then it's not a relapse.The therapy is a sham.

[FemanonFatal2.0]

I agree, and I must also state that in my experience, not being an addict having the AA dogma forced into my psyche allowed for me to be MORE drawn to doing drugs after I left the program. I've heard this from a few other survivors and the same is true for me, I thought, "I already did the time, might as well do the crime". It's easy to use that "powerless to addition" excuse when your a teenager who has been locked up and robbed of a normal adolescence. It's also easy to say that I can get fucked up now and just go to AA later... but the truth is that never worked. The only thing that made me stop using drugs is that I grew out of that party stage in my life. Do I regret having those experiences? no, not at all. Do I think I had a problem back then? No, I was just being a kid having fun and getting it out of my system so that I could grow up to be an experienced adult. Today I don't use any drugs, I know how to drink responsibly on the rare occasion that I do and I am surely not a "recovering addict". It doesn't take any strain for me to stay away from drugs, as I see it I am far beyond that point in my life both mentally and emotionally. In my case I think it was a good thing that I choose to "relapse" had I NOT used drugs in my younger years, I might still to this day think that I am a recovering addict and would not have developed the ability to rely on my personal choices and willpower to define my life.

The problem is that the program is judgmental, if you used alcohol at all as a teen you had a problem. If you smoked weed you had a problem. If you didn't come home in time for curfew you had a problem and it pretty much boiled down to whatever we did to piss off our parents enough that they sent us to a program meant we had some serious problem. No one would asses our individual situation, our actions back home or even our medical records and determine if the program was in reality the necessary step for our "treatment", they just took any kid with any problem and sent them through the Stepford Kid factory.

So the question remains... Is it ok to relapse?... well, if you were never an addict in the first place, then yes. and I believe maintaining a judgmental stigma over yourself is never healthy. I think that a drug user can overcome their addiction by changing their lifestyle choices and believing in their own strength and vision for the future, I don't think guilting themselves into avoiding real life experiences is really any kind of cure.

[Sam Kinison]

Femanon Fatal said

The problem is that the program is judgmental, if you used alcohol at all as a teen you had a problem. If you smoked weed you had a problem. If you didn't come home in time for curfew you had a problem and it pretty much boiled down to whatever we did to piss off our parents enough that they sent us to a program meant we had some serious problem. No one would asses our individual situation, our actions back home or even our medical records and determine if the program was in reality the necessary step for our "treatment", they just took any kid with any problem and sent them through the Stepford Kid factory.

A statistic that will NEVER be provided.
What percentage of kids who were interviewed did not eventually find themselves on front row.
I'll bet that we'll resolve the licks and the tootsie pop question long before somebody will divulge that.
Fear is a horrible way to manipulate someone.As angry as many former inmates feel,remember that their families reacted out of terror for the most part.They were swindled on the great lie that for us,their choice was going to be the "facility" or the cemetery.This was hammered into them until they eventually capitulated.Many of them think,even after the fact,that they saved our lives rather than they had been had.Their egos(sorry for the Str8 talk)won't let them see the truth.Any effort to shine a light on this,at least in my case,is pointless.
Mortality tables not withstanding,they will go to the graves not knowing the truth.

[Anonymous]

Fear is a horrible way to manipulate someone.As angry as many former inmates feel,remember that their families reacted out of terror for the most part.They were swindled on the great lie that for us,their choice was going to be the "facility" or the cemetery.This was hammered into them until they eventually capitulated.Many of them think,even after the fact,that they saved our lives rather than they had been had.

You completely nailed it right there.

[Anonymous]

From AARC's website:

Michael Quinn Patton, former President of the American Evaluation Society, was the principal author of an outcome evaluation of AARC in 2003. His findings showed that AARC clients were suffering severe losses prior to their admission to the program:
“Psychosocial problems included academic difficulties (78.8%) family discord (76.4%) and involvement with the child welfare system (23.5%). Academic difficulties included lack of attendance at school, behavioural difficulties at school, lack of academic success (failing grades), and poor or intermittent attendance. Involvement in criminal behaviour prior to admission to AARC was reported by 63.5% of the subjects.” (p.2)

and

Patton’s research (2003) reviewed AARC intake records and concluded that “on admission to treatment all 85 interviewed clients met the criteria for a Substance Dependence Disorder, according to SASSI, Adolescent version. Of those matching this level, 85.8% of the 85 interviewed qualified for two or more drugs.” (p.2)

This is in contradiction to the 5th Estate investigation:

“I did not conduct the study. They conducted the study. I oversaw the analysis,” Patton.

How do they get off calling this "Patton's Study" and "Patton's Research" ??

And then I notice just below that:

Cathy Lane Goodfellow, Associate Senior Counsel, Youth Criminal Defence Office says:
“AARC is an approved provider of addictions assessments to the Provincial Court, Family and Youth Division. It is my observation that members of this judiciary division support the AARC program and where a young person is facing detention, AARC is seriously considered as an alternative to custody.”

I observed that members of that judiciary division support AARC too, but according to the Minister of Justice's department, AARC is NOT an approved provider of anything as it pertains to the justice system and it is NOT an alternative to custody. According to the justice system, youth can not be held in remand at or sentenced to AARC.

[Froderik]

Fuck AARC.  ::deadhorse::