Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform > News Items

Who knows Dean Vause - lets have some facts here too

<< < (4/20) > >>

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...

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page