Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform > News Items
Who knows Dean Vause - lets have some facts here too
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.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version