It is ok to relapse

[Anonymous]

The giggle, that is ::rocker::

[Anonymous]

I find it interesting however that a lawyer is the new expert on this field.  Once again another example of how the "lawyer" is so nieve.  I wonder is he even a lawyer...one begs to ask...however my Uncle is and once I forwarded this site to him and asked his opinion...him knowing nothing of the AARC program, other then I graduated it...claims that no one who has written the bar would be able in any way to write the garbage that he has.

[Hamiltonf]

On 2005-03-07 12:45:00, Anonymous wrote:

"I find it interesting however that a lawyer is the new expert on this field.  Once again another example of how the "lawyer" is so nieve.  I wonder is he even a lawyer...one begs to ask...however my Uncle is and once I forwarded this site to him and asked his opinion...him knowing nothing of the AARC program, other then I graduated it...claims that no one who has written the bar would be able in any way to write the garbage that he has."

"This "anonymous" writer, of course, can say anything he wants without anybody being able to check out its veracity."
It's always the same guy, always the same misspellings.
And it's always ad hominem attacks when he's unable to attack the arguments.  But then, that's the very essence of AARC methodology, isn't it?

[Anonymous]

Ok, I must admit that the counter argument posted by the lawyer is so convincing that I must admit that I am wrong.  So presausive...I am speechless.  LOL.  What a joke.  Come on you are a lawyer, supposedly they are master arguers, surely you can do better then that.  It was said by a very intelligent person that the attempt to use big words in order to appear smart in reality only causes one to prove that they are not.

[Anonymous]

On 2005-03-09 10:11:00, Anonymous wrote:

"It was said by a very intelligent person that the attempt to use big words in order to appear smart in reality only causes one to prove that they are not. "

Wow, I got a line similar to that while in AARC. I wasn't allowed to use words with more than 3 syllables, because big words were my "front" and made me "egotistical" as I was told (remember, ego stands for Edging God Out, after all!:roll:).

The comedically pathetic fact of the matter is that AARC-ites (particularly the Vause-employed ones) have a self-constructed image of absolute superiority over anyone sitting in the rows and couldn't or wouldn't stand to be lesser in any way to anyone as "sick" as a newcomer "crackfiend loser" such as myself.

I don't blame them for having a limited vocabulary though... I would too if the vast majority of my social contact was made through spouting incessant buzz-words and catch-phrases based on AARC doctrine.

I'm glad for them though if they can make themselves happy by displacing their faults onto patients who're unable to defend themselves in a rehab centre. I guess if someone can find their purpose, and feel good about themselves in a job (hobby?) where they emotionally bruise an already downtrodden group of kids to alleviate their own self-hate then they should ride that gravy train all the way. Unfortunately for them, they weren't born 70 years earlier, they could've made excellent Camp Kommandants in Poland.

p.s. I eagerly await the inevitable forthcoming onslaught of replies telling me that I'm a whiner. Maybe I'll be surprised with an original retort... :lol:  Doubt it.

[Anonymous]

Please do not make reference to concentration camps in Poland when ragging on AARC - it is offensive to those of us who lost family to the Nazis.

[Anonymous]

Whatever these schools are--and I have yet to be convinced that they are anything more than just one more-or-less effective way of approaching substance-abuse and other problems in adolescence---there is no excuse for bringing in references to undeniable atrocities from the Nazi era.

Reminds me of a debate that occurred between William Buckley Jr. and some feminist type a few  decades back.  She was going on shrilly about how child abuse, I think in the form of spanking, was equivalent to "The Holocaust".  

Buckley calmly responded that if child abuse as presented represented a "Holocaust", then we would have to find another name for what Hitler did to 6 million Jews.

[Antigen]

Buddy, you're in CANADA! It's like the land that time (blessedly) forgot. In Canada, it's shocking and appaling when a couple of cops get popped for crashing in on some lunatic's private residence. Down here, it's not really newsworty. We're trying to give you a heads up here. Vause is an oddity in Canada. Where the hell do you think he got his mantra?

The Holocaust didn't just happen one day. It was the culmination of decades of progressive insanity.

Learn from history or be doomed to repeat it, ya fuckin' idiot!

Cop Uses Taser Gun On Man Who Refused Urine Sample
Man Was Strapped To Hospital Bed

POSTED: 10:55 am EST March 9, 2005
UPDATED: 11:28 am EST March 9, 2005

ORLANDO, Fla. -- Authorities say a police officer twice used a Taser stun device on a drug suspect who was restrained to a hospital bed because the man refused to give a urine sample to medical staff.

Discussion: Officers Go Too Far With Stun Guns? Or Do They Get Bad Rap?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Orlando police said Antonio Wheeler was arrested on a drug charge and taken to an emergency room after telling officers he had consumed cocaine.

The police document said Wheeler was handcuffed to a hospital bed and then secured with leather straps after he refused to urinate in a cup. When medical staff tried to insert a catheter to get the sample, Wheeler refused.

At one point, police officer Peter Linnenkamp noted that he jumped on the bed with his knees on Wheeler's chest to restrain him. Then, when Wheeler still refused to let the catheter be inserted, Linnenkamp said he twice used his Taser gun, which sends 50,000 volts into a target.

Friday's incident has prompted an internal affairs investigation.

http://www.local6.com/news/4267905/detail.html

[Religion is] the daughter of hope and fear, explaining to ignorance the nature of the unknowable.
--Ambrose Bierce

_________________
Ginger Warbis ~ Antigen
Seed sibling `71 - `80
Straight South (Sarasota, FL)
   10/80 - 10/82
Anonymity Anonymous
Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the leather straps.

[Anonymous]

Just a heads up for those above who don't take time to comprehend what they read before they let their fingers flail on about the most offhand part of my post: I wasn't comparing AARC to a Nazi concentration camp, but simply making a statement about the mindsets of those running AARC being akin to that of a prisoner camp overseers'. It's all too obvious that they thirst for absolute power over others just the same.

The only great atrocity in this situation takes place in your nonexistant understanding of how to reply with any sort of valid, on-topic substance to a perfectly reasonable comparison. Way to uphold the sanctity of human rights there, friend (ironic, no?).

[Hamiltonf]

What Ginger is saying, of course is that she doesn't want Canada to go the same way as the US, which seems to be:
The scale of the War on Drugs is immense and the irrationality profound. Surely the War on Drugs is the greatest modern reminder that policy is the product of politics and cultural forces rather than of a rational cost-benefit analysis. For a society to inflict such deep wounds upon itself the political, social and economic forces and their alignment must run deep. Again, over a third of all state prisoners are serving time for drug offenses, while less than a fifth were convicted of violent crimes. The majority of federal prisoners are incarcerated for drugs. Marijuana, a drug far safer than either tobacco or alcohol, heads the list as cause of incarceration. The FBI's Uniform Crime Report estimated 588,963 marijuana arrests in 1995 to achieve over 1.5 million marijuana arrests in the first three years of the Clinton presidency. Criminal justice in America, the fastest growing field of the public sector, is more about forbidden sin than crimes against persons or property. While not reducing drug use, the public sector has shifted funding priorities from all the programs that are meant to help people and build the quality of life to punishment of crimes against cultural sins. Consider these vignettes of the era.

"Drug Hate and the Corruption of American Justice"
David Sudofsky Baggins
Published by Praeger Publishers, Westport Connecticut, 1998

[Anonymous]

The following are stats that are from stats the Canadian government website.  Please read carefully and see that there is a difference between offences and charges being laid.  The number of charges being laid for possession is minimal compared to the number of reported offences.  Where as the numbers for other crimes are much higher.  These are the numbers which I thought applied to the previous posters claim.  Not as shattering as previously reported when it comes to cannabis.  Remember that the stats at the end of this are dealing with all drug related incarcerations, including cocaine, heroine and others.  I do not have an opinion either way just thought the actual facts should be stated:

(the figures would not copy)

  "As is clear from Figure 1, incidents reported by police according to the most serious crime reveal that, from 1983 to 1995, incidents related to drug offences were relatively stable, hovering around 60 000 per year.  However, from 1995 to 2000, there has been an increase of approximately 50%, with the number of reported incidents reaching nearly 88 000.  In fact, the rate of drug offences increased by 9% in 2000 in relation to the previous year.    

Much of this increase can be attributed to cannabis-related offences.  These offences account for the majority of all drug-related offences in Canada.  In 2000, cannabis-related offences accounted for just over 66,000 of reported incidents, thus 75% of all drug-related incidents.  This percentage has been relatively stable over the years.  Of this number (66,000), 68% (over 45,000) were for possession of cannabis, 16% for trafficking, 14% for cultivation, and 2% for importation.([2])  This means that over 50% of reported incidents in relation to drug-related offences are for possession of cannabis.
 

From the available data (see figure 3), it would seem that total charges for drug-related offences have declined noticeably since 1997.  The reader should be aware that the number of reported incidents (discussed previously) is not equivalent to the number of charges that are laid by the police.  In some cases, the police will report a drug incident but will decide not to charge the offender.

   As of 31 December 2000, 5,779 convicted drug offenders were under federal jurisdiction (either serving their sentence:  1) in a federal institution or 2) on conditional release).  Of these, 3,890 were serving sentences for trafficking, 621 for importation, 225 for cultivation and 2,221 for possession.([8])  

Of the 5,779 convicted drug offenders serving their sentences on 31 December 2000, 2,548 were serving their sentences in federal correctional institutions:  1,613 for trafficking, 113 for importation, 82 for cultivation and 1,318 for possession.([9])  In addition, 3,231 were on conditional release:  2,312 for trafficking, 508 for importation, 145 for cultivation and 946 for possession.([10])"

Am not sure about the laws of Canada, but I do not think that you gain federal time for little amounts of cannabis.  If I am wrong please let me know.  I admit I am a bit of a optamist when it comes to the federal system, but I would hope that the ones in jail are the most serious offences and I can say that it does not bother me that money is being spent on keeping these people in institutions.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/1/parlbus/comm ... d1-e.htm#([10])

[Hamiltonf]

However, see the next thread about how the US exerts pressure around the world.  There is no question that, in Canada at the user level police are not as willing to charge, but are most likely inclined to let off with a warning.  Unfortunately, some politicians seem to want to Kow-Tow to US pressure by  advocating "get tough" policies and minimum sentences for trafficking and cultivation.  
Current Liberal policies ( which I have advocated for as a step in the right direction) of decriminalization of use but increasing sentences for trafficking and cultivation is still based on a wrong premise... that if you cut off supply you reduce use.  This does not make economic sense.  Moreover, merely passing a joint to a friend, by definition is trafficking, so the vilification that  is associated with the word trafficking comes into play.  Even with users acceptance of the  Steppenwolf's sterotype "Goddamn the pusher man" does not reflect the reality that most people at that level are not really such bad people and are often helping out friends.  They are not "pushers"  hoping to get you hooked and into a web of depravity and addiction.  If they were why isn't 50% of our population in treatment?   Major Grow ops of an industrial nature have no doubt "grown" in recent years but busts of this nature only scratch the surface.  If pot were legalised  and people  able to grow their own with sales at a local MJ store as in Amstredam I am convinced it would cut down on the profits that make these so attractive to organised crime.  
I like to think of the war on (some ) drugs as a turf war between Hells Angels and  Pharmaceutical  Comapanies both of which would like to control the market on mind-altering substances.

Unfortunately AARC brings all the ideological baggage of the US into Canada and needs to be confronted for the abject failure that their policies are.

[Hamiltonf]

After reading the last post, take a look at this.
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n410/a03.html?999
Oh people of the lost AARc where are you now?

[Anonymous]

so Canada legalizes and the US invades Canada as a drug haven. Look what they have done over one sick cow. Thousands more jobs lost so people can ingest a mind altering substance. great idea. like it or not, bigt picture, the USA calls the shots. and the UN? Well when Burundi and all their US money dependent dictatorships start dictating to north america it will be a frosty day in hell. I know, reality hurts, but then thats why there are drugs.

[Anonymous]

On 2005-03-10 17:12:00, Anonymous wrote:

"so Canada legalizes and the US invades Canada as a drug haven. Look what they have done over one sick cow. Thousands more jobs lost so people can ingest a mind altering substance. great idea. like it or not, bigt picture, the USA calls the shots. and the UN? Well when Burundi and all their US money dependent dictatorships start dictating to north america it will be a frosty day in hell. I know, reality hurts, but then thats why there are drugs."

So, let me get this straight.  Because the a rogue terrorist state is calling the shots, we should go along with it?   Give me a break.  The world is beginning to realize what the US is all about -- and its aims are not benevolent.  We don't HAVE to accept it y'know.  I say legalize pot and sell it in all our duty free stores in $50.00 vacuum packed  baggies.  Let the US deal with it as they will, taht's not our problem.  Maybe we can do something about the US guns moving north.  I mean, why should we stem the flow of POT south when the US does nothing to stop gun-running north.  What's wrong with THIS picture, you fucking idiots?