Who knows Dean Vause - lets have some facts here too

[velvet2000]

I completely disagree with the "detachment" theory. I know that many people in AA and Al-Anon abandon someone as soon as they seem a little messed up and justify their means by saying that they had to "let them go" so that they could "focus on themselves" but that's not friendship. I think it's self centered and cowardly. Detachment to me means that you stop feeling pain for someone, and that you don't let their troubles take you with them, not that you turn them away. In the twelve steps, and in AARC, you repeatedly recieve messages that everyone is going to be there for everyone unconditionally, and that these are the deepest friendships you can ever have. I'm sure that's why Brian returned to AARC for support, and I'm sure that's why he took it so hard when he made a mistake and nobody was there for him anymore. Can you see it from this perspective? I ask because I know it's not just Brian, but plenty of other graduates who sway away from the AARC clique then change their mind and decide to come back, and nobody is happy to see them again. I know one graduate who relapsed shortly after graduation, was honest about it, but wanted to maintain their friendship with the other grads in the worst way. Nobody would have anything to do with that person anymore just because they'd relapsed. That person hadn't changed a bit, just changed one behavior, isn't that when you are supposed to be there for them the most???

I don't doubt that the AARC staff who had once been close with Brian grieved his passing. I also don't assume that AARC is the sole reason why he passed. But I do think that his experience with Kids and AARC together probably contributed largely, and that being turned away from this group he put so much love into may have broken the last straw.

As for "research" the people posting as friends of Brian were able to know him the best shortly before he left, but Brian is the only person who could tell us why he chose to do it.

[Anonymous]

your characterization of "detachment" couldn't be more wrong. One does not stop loving a person who is in the grips of addiction and harmong those around them. It simply means not giving them the means or opportunity to hurt other. If I give an active drug user money, where will it be spent? I had to detach from an extremely toxic alcoholic who did nothing but put me through hell for years. It was the hardest thing I ever did, but I would not expose the rest of my family to this man who happened to be my father! I never stopped loving him, and cared deeply about him, but I needed to detach from him or get caught up in an endless go-round of pain. And speaking directly of AARC, I know of many who after relapse have been welcomed back with open arms, some who ended up on staff. Brian worked hard to finally be told no more.

[velvet2000]

See, there are those who beleive that love is a feeling, and those who beleive that it is an action, and I believe that it's an action. When you stop treating someone with love, you stop loving them. That's certainly how it feels to the person on the recieving end.

There are obviously situations where you have to stop giving love to someone whether you like it or not, alcoholoism or no alcoholism. But I'm talking about situations where people are quick to cut people out just because they don't like their behavior. For instance if someone is "toxic" because they are physically or mentally abusive, obviously that person needs to be shut out. But if they are "toxic" just because you don't think that they are as spiritual as you are, or as reliable, or whatever it is that person is doing, then I believe there comes a time when we all have to learn that if we want to love that person, then we continue to give love to that person and hope that it helps them to grow out of their troubles. If we don't do that, then we must think that we are All Knowing, and I've yet to meet someone like that.

If you are an addict/alcoholic and you relapse you are probably aslo acting on a lot of behaviors that will push people away. But does that mean that your 12 step friends should shut you out? A lot of people in AA/NA have an "every man for himself" attitude, which shows that their mental stability or sobriety is pretty weak if they can't help someone else through the trenches step by step. How many people do you know in AARC who will stay friends with another graduate when that graduate is using? Honestly? I know none. So that friendship was never really strong. I made friends once with a severely addicted heroine junkie. I would never in a million years call her "toxic" just because of one addiction. Despite her addiction her spirit shone through. She was lost in one way, just like all of us get lost in some way. Don't you have overweight staff members? Does that mean that they are "toxic" and should be fired because of their food addiction? Should you "detach" from them so that they don't make you fat too?

I also think that with kids or teens the "tough Love" bit is a huge mistake. A few years back I read a study (can't remember who it was by) saying that addicts who came from families who continued to support them and allow them in their home had a better success rate of recovering, and were less likely to go as far down because of it. I say I think it's a worse idea for kids, because if you kick a fifteen year old out of the house and stop giving them cash, where are they going to go? They're going to do something a lot worse than if they'd just kept spending their allowance and coming home in the middle of the night. It's like encouraging your child to become a theif, dealer, or prostitute.

This has gotten a bit off topic...But it's just my two cents on living with addicts and being a better friend in general.

[Hamiltonf]

So...
Velvet,  what do you know of "harm reduction"? And what can you, or others on this site tell us about what Dean Vause's reaction would be to people like "dancesafe" or "ravesafe" who say that they neither condone nor condemn the use of drugs but that people who are fully and truthfully informed about drugs will make wiser choices on not only what to use, but also how to use?  In other words they will take care of themselves.
For example..  Is there a "safe" way to use ecstacy?  meth?   cocaine?  
What is the lethality of these substances?
What is the addictive potential of them?
What does AARC say about them?

[Anonymous]

I don't totally have my mind made up about all of the area's of Harm Reduction. It's a wide word. When I was in AARC, Dean Vause made a lot of comments about Harm Reduction. He usually used it reffering to AADAC and Woods, saying that they used harm reduction by asking clients to cut down on drugs or alcohol slightly every week, like cutting down on smoking. That's what I thought Harm Reduction meant. He made harm reduction out to be a joke, and a waste of money. It seems to me that AARC people mostly believe that it's their way or the highway.

Having now listened to both (for example) people living on Vancouver East Side, and recovered addicts or former homeless, I've developed some ideas on harm reduction, but am undecided on many...Such as legalization. But I can say this;

I completely support Needle Exchange programs, the idea of opening "shooting gallery's", and providing healthcare for needle users such as teaching them how to properly inject. Watch your rediculously expensive neighborhood go to hell because of junkies and you'll feel the same way too.

Every former prostitute I know has said that they beniffited greatly from the vans which handed out coffee, condoms, and provided HIV testing. Both for the services and the understanding support.

Ask anyone who has ever lived on the streets and they will tell you that if they could have any help they would have asked for more or better safe/transitional housing. I used to think that it's not enough, but now I've changed my mind completely. How can you tell people who have gone through it that they are wrong? I don't believe in forcing people to change, especially when it does not include a justice system to protect people from being falsely imprisoned.

I think that Dance Safe does only good and no harm. The users already have the drugs anyways. I don't think that there are 100% "safe" ways to use drugs like the ones you've listed, but there are "safer" ways. But they don't claim to be saving everyone's lives, just lowering bad incidents by letting the kids know when there is more in their drugs than what they think.

I personally think that if you want to put an end to drugs, or lessen the problem, then you have to crack down on the major distributors instead of pouring money into rehabilitating every addict. But I doubt that Canada will do that in my lifetime, because of the power those distributors have. In the meantime all that we can do is the best prevention we know how (which is another big word, and not at all connected to things like DARE anymore) and care for the problem we've already created.

Getting around to reading all of your feelings on this issue...

[Hamiltonf]

I like most of your comments.  And what you say about DV is what I expected.  I suppose that what harm reduction proponents recognize is that people will experiment with drugs no matter what. It's a realistic, pragmatic approach at the street level.  
But you talk about "cracking down" on the major suppliers.  Well, isn't that what the DEA have been trying for the last 30 years with, for example, Plan Colombia?  been there, done that, it doesn't work.
It seems to me that the war on drugs does more harm than the drugs themselves, and "crack-downs" merely exacerbate the situation.
A psychologist friend of mine suggested that the war on drugs is really a turf war between the hell's angels and the pharmaceutical companies.  
My question is, where does AARC fit into the grand scheme of things?

[Anonymous]

First of all I don't know why my last post appeared as anonymous...that was me.

Well yeah the "turf war" is why I say it will never happen. 40% of Canada's police is infotrated by the Hells Angels (or so Newsworld claims). That's probably why over 60 Lower East Side girls were allowed to go missing, and a millionaire serial killer (who owns a biker bar) gets Legal Aid. Trying to break down organized crime would take a lot of lives, and cost a lot of money. I'm not saying that it is the "right" way to solve the drug problem, just the only way that I can imagine Canada greatly reducing the amount of illegal drugs.

I am more concerned about the War on Drug Users, which includes the "72 hour" bill, and places like AARC. The legislation post is a prime example of where AARC stands in all of this. Their fundraising technique is using a young and attractive youth from a normal looking family (often middle to upper class)who has either been arrested for committing a crime (such as car theft) or is a former prostitute. Often these youth had only used drugs for a year or two tops, but their story morphs into a dramatic Downword Spiral after school special. The youth recites how they started out small with pot or alcohol, then the depths of drug addiction takes them by the hand and forces them to become a criminal in order to pay for their habbit. Then "by the grace of god" they are forced into AARC where they learn through "tough love" that they were hopeless addicts, will be for the rest of their lives, and now that they have learned this they have returned to highschool, love their parents, and are the ideal teen. The prostitutes story goes the same way, which is interesting because none of the prostitutes I knew in AARC actually ever worked to support a drug habbit. They all had been recruited by a pimp who provided them with drugs, which they used to deal with the pain of hooking to support their pimp.

Dean is very good at fundraising because he is persistant in sticking to what he believes in and sharing the exact same message over, and over, and over again through the kids. The message is that these suburban kids have a disease, and if you don't treat the disease then they will grow up to be the next drug suppliers and criminals, therefore if you put these kids through AARC while they are young, you are preventing crime and ending the wide drug spread too. AARC's theory usally implies that things such as methadone clinics are a waste of money, because everyone can and must become 100% rehabilitated in order to survive, and that if everyone just did as AARC did then the world would know that. To back that up they claim a %75 - %90 success rate (it's ever changing!) which nobody knows where they gather it from considering they don't ask their graduates whether or not they are still sober.

Did I ramble or did I answer the question?!

[Hamiltonf]

No, I don't think you rambled on.  And I can understand you being more concerned about the war on drug users than the war on producers.
But it seems to me that you have only gone half-way in your reasoning.  As you know, the US  in its war against everything equates drug users with sponsoring terrorism.  That's because the high price of drugs caused by prohibition moves marketing into the hands of organised crime, because the profits are so tempting. The other side of that picture is that if the drugs were legal they could be prescribed, you could obtain them from licensed outlets, the profits would not be going to criminals.    
Mo Mowlam, who was the UK drug czar came out in favour of legalising drugs as a means of countering organised crime.  
What has happened in Portugal (virtual legalization) demonstrates that the sky will not fall, children will not become overnight heroin addicts.  While there may be some minor increase in narco tourism, that would not be a problem if the policy were to be adopted world-wide.  
The United Nations drug control authority is rife with corruption.  If newsweek says our police forces have been corrupted on this issue, how much more has that happened in the US.  eg, at least 2 Federal Judges have declared the LAPD to be a racketeering organisation -- & the drug war is central to that.  And hence we come back to AARC -- borne out of Straight, Inc and the Sembler family, with links going back to Nancy Reagan, the Bushes and the Fundamentalist Christian   right (I have a "christian" relative on the  Edmonton Police Force who worked on narcotics and once opined that the death penalty would be too good for traffickers of marijuana -- you can imagine the interesting discussions we can get into).
What I am trying to tell you is that there are more people who can have a positive influence  in positions of influence than you probably realise.
For example a former prosecutor in Grande Prairie who stated to the press that Legalization of marijuana would be a more logical than mere decriminalization.  This point of view has recently been expressed in the Montreal Gazette.  Do I ramble, or is this just a rant?
AsI said before, I really would like to talk to you, but I can see how you would need to check me out

[Anonymous]

What I said about Brian, back on the 2nd of Nov. was simply what I saw Brian go through.  Of course both Dean and Brian are going to have different 'sides' of the same story.  Brian told me that he went to Dean and asked for help.  Brian's words: "The only time I've ever maintained sobriety was when I have been helping people."  "Can I come back to AARC in some capacity, so I can start helping people and in turn get out of this 'hole' I'm in?"  Dean's words (via Brian) No, you've let me down, one too many times.  I'm sorry, but I can't do it.  
For Brian, this was a major blow.  I am NOT saying that Dean is the devil, or that he is responsible for Brian's death, that would be absurd!  But if you knew the rest of the story you might be able to see why Brian went to Dean for help.  You see, in the KIDS program and probably AARC too, they teach:  "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink it... but you sure can make them thirsty for it."  You can make their lives so damn misreable that they have no choice but to take what they are being fed.  That saying, is just one way that KIDS (and AARC) justifies their modalities of treatment.  We know from the 12 steps that you can't force someone into sobriety.  We also know that when an addict asks for help to get sober again that we are (or should) be there for them (the 12th step) helping others???  I don't think it's suddenly changed over the last 14 years.  Brian was at his end, when he went to Dean for help.  After that, his brother and his wife had kicked him out of where he was living, (which is why he was at that apartment building where he hung himself).  Oddly enough, Brian's sister in law was also in Al-anon.  
Granted Brian was messed up.  He hurt a lot of people while he was active in his addiction.  Brian reached out for help to someone that he once relied on and who knew him when he was sober.  That person turned his back on Brian, why?  I don't know, probably to protect his precious reputation...  
Brian was a good person, not perfect, but who is?  When he was using, he screwed over a lot of people. I was one of those people!  Didn't we learn that that was their disease? Not the person?  I know whoever told me to "check my facts"  is just trying to protect Dean, but the facts are, that Brian did go to Dean for help, and Dean did turn him away.  There is no excuse for that.  Except, that Dean doesn't follow what he preaches.  (Hmmm, sounds like Newton too).  No one is at fault for Brian's death, this isn't a 'fault' issue.  I sure as hell hope that if I EVER need help someday that the people I have in my life won't give up on me.  I think at the end of Brian's life there were only 2 maybe 3 of us that he felt could turn too.  He chose not to turn to us.  Do you think that I haven't questioned myself about Brian's death?  If only I had picked up on the signs that I now know, all too well, if only they had kept him in the hospital longer after he ingested a bunch of pills in bed one night, while he thought I was sleeping.  I love Brian deeply, and his person (not his addiction) is what I try to remember.  If Dean had that in mind and practiced what he preached, maybe Brian would have remained sober this time.  I don't know, because that didn't happen, did it?  Instead Dean got up at his funeral and spoke like that were the best of friends.  I was sitting on the front row, and couldn't for the life of me make eye contact with Dean or with Peter.  DO you really think that Brian would have wanted Dean and Pete to speak on his behalf?  Absolutley not!  
I am sorry to go on and on about this but, when Brian worked for Dean, he WAS sober, and when he was in trouble, Dean couldn't be bothered to help him out.  Enough said!
Bye!

[velvet2000]

You're right, I do only have my mind halfway made up on this. Like I said initially, especially around the idea of legalization, I'm not sure what to think. I think I'd have an easier time being confident with a decision on this if I'd actually been to a country where drugs are legal and controlled, instead of just reading about it.

Velvet.

[Hamiltonf]

Well that's kind of the same as saying "I'm not sure what I think about using heroin until I've tried it", isn't it?  I think the problem is that one would almost have to have a graduate degree in epistemology to sort out the myths and propaganda from valid facts, logic and rationality when dealing with what you get through the established media.
 I recently visited an habitual criminal who believes that marijuana should be available for medical purposes.  However, he didn't agree with legalization either.  In fact, he thought prohibition was a good thing and, as a consequence of what he'd been told at Adaac, he felt that alcohol should once more be prohibited because of all the harm it does.  When I pointed out that the vast majority of people who might drink recreationally do not become alcoholics, and that rates are no higher in countries like France and Italy, hr found it hard to comprehend.  
Despite what you have said, I suspect that the indoctrination you have received stands in the way of the sort of rational approach that  would allow for the informed use of drugs.  If that were to happen, I would argue there would be far less tragedy arising from the abuse of drugs.  

By the way, you mention the 72 hr. legislation.  Have you studied the impact of this/talked to any "survivors"?  If so, I would certainly be interested in the outcomesfrom their perspective, since all I've been getting is from the perspective of the "authorities"
I remember a criminologist who was very strong on developing "self-report" analyses  which came up with very different conclusions than others -- but that was back in the seventies.

I'm appalled at several things in our education system, police in classrooms, DARE, teachers who are afraid to teach critical thinking.  things like "bowling classes",  sometimes so-called "life skills". , etc.
There I go ranting again.  
Actually, I'm still very interested in getting together a sytematic critique of AARC.
When are you going to contact me?

[velvet2000]

I think the "indoctorine" made my mind up for me for a long time, but that it's only influencing me one way now. Having made statements inspired by AARC in the past, I now regret them, and so I am slower to make a "confident" decision because I've proven that I've certainly been wrong before. The reason I would like to see a community living this way is because what changed my mind about the Rehab way (to note, I never actually believed that AARC was good, but supported the idea of intensive rehabilitation to make people sober)was by going out and meeting people who were perfectly healthy and had used entirely different resources.

No, I haven't met anyone who has been affected by the 72 hour legislation. I'm sure that many of us never will because - as Alexia Parks would say - those kids are "dissapeared". But I thought we had a justice system for a reason, don't we? Not in the 72 hour law. If your parents and a social worker or police officer think that you deserve to be locked up, then that's all it takes I guess. Can you imagine if kids could have their parents taken away for 72 hours just because they claim their parents are behaving irrationally?

Check your private messages!

[Anonymous]

:wave:

Hey, your are just another sick puppy. You have no clue what actually went on between BRIAN and Dean and what Dean went through over that . . .
"La, La, La . . . bunch of sick little losers here with nothing else to do

 :cry2:  <-  the members of this list

[Anonymous]

Dear Velvet, is that a statement about how soft your brain tissure is?

"detachment theory"  

And what have you done with your life?? Have you ever gone to school past grade 6 or 7 or what ever it is that you flunked out at? Don't come back and tell me that you made it to grade 12 and are therefore you are at the leading edge of knowledge in the field of addictions. Incidentally, you couldn't cut a 'recovery program' because you did not have enough synapses connected to understand very simple things like what 'detachment' really is all about.

ANonymous #221 and counting

Go do something with your life and then come back and tell us how smart you are, dear. Take antigen along, she has the same capacity to understand (NOT) simple concepts.

[Anonymous]

The no-minds on this list go on and on about how F.D.Vause thinks and acts like he is God, and he needs to find out he is just some idiot with a PhD and then because they can't maintain a train of thought for any length of time before they contradict themselves, . . . . and then they they BLOW it again -  if Dean had the power to 'MAKE' Brian kill himself, well then, duh, HE MUST BE GOD!!!!

Brian killed himself because he wanted to die not because Dean Vause hurt his feelings or did anything for that matter. He could have gone anywhere, any NA meetin, AA meeting to do what they do there - ah, duh - help one another. Only juveniles would blame someone else when some guy hangs himself. NOW if Dr. Vause put the rope around his neck and kicked the stoll, you morons might have a case. But I am sure you can't even understand that either. There are LOTS of people in the world that have been torture beyond belief, abuse for years by one culprit and probably 95% don't kill themselves, they survive and become better people just to spite the abusers, etc. (can't see that among people on this list like velvet or antigen or AARCgrad). The ones that kill themselves certainly would not because Dean had to protect the current clients at AARC when Brian came back form BC so screwed up. Thought you wanted Dean to run his place better than he is - can't yuou put it together that Brian was a hazard to other newly recovering addicts, esp. after he killer himslef!!!