Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Hamiltonf

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 13
31
News Items / Legalize NOW
« on: March 08, 2005, 10:49:00 PM »
I was too quick to blame deaths on drugs, RCMP chief admits
Zaccardelli says he condemned grow-ops without knowing full story of ill-fated raid on farm
 
Allan Woods
National Post

Tuesday, March 08, 2005

CREDIT: Tom Hanson, The Canadian Press
In a sign that life -- and the game -- must go on, members of the RCMP detachment in Mayerthorpe, Alta., went ahead with a previously planned fundraiser hockey game last night. Before the game began, the police officers observed a moment of silence for their four comrades who were gunned down on Thursday.

Canada's top police officer said yesterday that he was too quick to condemn a marijuana grow operation as the root cause in the deaths of four Royal Canadian Mounted Police officers last week.

RCMP Commissioner Guiliano Zaccardelli said in an interview that his condemnation of grow-ops just hours after the shootings may have been inappropriate because police and politicians did not have full details of the particular case and the background of the killer.

Commissioner Zaccardelli and Deputy Prime Minister Anne McLellan, his political boss as the minister of public safety and emergency preparedness, spoke of the scourge of marijuana grow operations within hours of the killings and the need for tougher penalties for those who operate them.

"I gave what I believed was the best information I had knowing full well that at that time I didn't have all the information," a contrite Commissioner Zaccardelli said. "Clearly, there's a lot of things in there that, in hindsight, we will have to look at in a different perspective."

Police in Mayerthorpe, Alta., first attended James Roszko's home last Wednesday with a court order to seize stolen auto parts. While there, they discovered what a search warrant said were 20 "mature" marijuana plants, "several pots containing dirt with stems coming out of them numbering close to 100," and a smell "consistent of a marijuana grow operation." They returned the next day -- the day of the killings -- with a warrant to search for the drug outfit and seized 280 plants, $8,000 worth of growing equipment and a generator worth $30,000, the Edmonton Journal reported.

But now it appears the murders were the work of a deranged man with a long criminal history and a grudge against police, and not that of a gangster protecting his cash crop.

"None of these are simple issues. This requires some reflection and discussion," Commissioner Zaccardelli said. "Let's honour the memory of these four fallen police officers and help their families get through it, and then we need to carry on the debate after this."

Commissioner Zaccardelli's comments followed statements in the House of Commons yesterday by all four political parties commemorating the deaths of constables Peter Schiemann, 25, Anthony Gordon, 28, Brock Myrol, 29, and Lionide Johnston, 32.

Opposition parties declined out of respect for the four dead officers to use yesterday's question period to probe the initial reactions of Commissioner Zaccardelli and Ms. McLellan.

Last Thursday night, Ms. McLellan said the officers "were killed in an operation involving, as far as we know at this point, an illegal grow operation."

She went on to speak of the great danger grow-ops pose to police officers, their frequent links to organized crime, and the need for stronger penalties for those who run them. All are positions she has held consistently for a long time.

Ms. McLellan would not discuss Commissioner Zaccardelli's comments yesterday.

"The first thing that happened was that everybody acted based on a lack of information," said Randy White, a tough-on-crime Conservative MP from British Columbia. "Yeah, they did react, but based on information they didn't have."

Prime Minister Paul Martin, Gov. Gen. Adrienne Clarkson, Ms. McLellan and Commissioner Zaccardelli will travel to Edmonton on Thursday for a national memorial service. Following that, Commissioner Zaccardelli said, he will be making a "more extensive" public statement on the killings.

All four political parties spoke yesterday in the House of Commons in honour of the four dead officers.

Ms. McLellan, an MP from Edmonton Centre, southeast of where the killings took place, said she was personally shaken by the incident because it occurred in her home province.

"These four officers served their community," she said, "but they were also part of their community."

There were hints that Ms. McLellan and the country's national police force could come under heavy scrutiny in coming days.

"All Canadians are asking why. Those answers will have to wait for another day," said NDP leader Jack Layton.

"The time is coming to understand the implications of their deaths and the public policy involved," said Conservative leader Stephen Harper.

Politically, it appears the federal gun registry could bear the brunt of the fallout in the days to come. Mr. Roszko had a long criminal record and should not have had access to weapons.

There have also been questions raised about the level of training and preparation given to the officers guarding Mr. Roszko's property.

A bill to reform laws governing use and cultivation of marijuana is currently under parliamentary review. It would increase penalties for those who grow the drug, but proposed decriminalizing possession of small amounts.

More Inside: Killer stalked town's police officers, page A5
© The Ottawa Citizen 2005

http://www.canada.com/ottawa/ottawaciti ... d1db21a5a0
[ This Message was edited by: Hamiltonf on 2005-03-08 19:51 ]

32
Straight, Inc. and Derivatives / It is ok to relapse
« on: March 08, 2005, 08:05:00 AM »
Quote
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?

33
Tacitus' Realm / An open letter to Condi
« on: March 04, 2005, 07:52:00 PM »
Hamilton Fish 7th thought you'd like to read this:

Missile Counter-Attack

Axworthy fires back at U.S. -- and Canadian -- critics of our BMD decision in An Open Letter to U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice

Thursday, March 3rd, 2005

By LLOYD AXWORTHY

Dear Condi, I'm glad you've decided to get over your fit of pique and venture north to visit your closest neighbour. It's a chance to learn a thing or two. Maybe more.

I know it seems improbable to your divinely guided master in the White House that mere mortals might disagree with participating in a missile-defence system that has failed in its last three tests, even though the tests themselves were carefully rigged to show results.

But, gosh, we folks above the 49th parallel are somewhat cautious types who can't quite see laying down billions of dollars in a three-dud poker game.

As our erstwhile Prairie-born and bred (and therefore prudent) finance minister pointed out in presenting his recent budget, we've had eight years of balanced or surplus financial accounts. If we're going to spend money, Mr. Goodale added, it will be on day-care and health programs, and even on more foreign aid and improved defence.

Sure, that doesn't match the gargantuan, multi-billion-dollar deficits that your government blithely runs up fighting a "liberation war" in Iraq, laying out more than half of all weapons expenditures in the world, and giving massive tax breaks to the top one per cent of your population while cutting food programs for poor children.

Just chalk that up to a different sense of priorities about what a national government's role should be when there isn't a prevailing mood of manifest destiny.

Coming to Ottawa might also expose you to a parliamentary system that has a thing called question period every day, where those in the executive are held accountable by an opposition for their actions, and where demands for public debate on important topics such a missile defence can be made openly.

You might also notice that it's a system in which the governing party's caucus members are not afraid to tell their leader that their constituents don't want to follow the ideological, perhaps teleological, fantasies of Canada's continental co-inhabitant. And that this leader actually listens to such representations.

Your boss did not avail himself of a similar opportunity to visit our House of Commons during his visit, fearing, it seems, that there might be some signs of dissent. He preferred to issue his diktat on missile defence in front of a highly controlled, pre-selected audience.

Such control-freak antics may work in the virtual one-party state that now prevails in Washington. But in Canada we have a residual belief that politicians should be subject to a few checks and balances, an idea that your country once espoused before the days of empire.

If you want to have us consider your proposals and positions, present them in a proper way, through serious discussion across the table in our cabinet room, as your previous president did when he visited Ottawa. And don't embarrass our prime minister by lobbing a verbal missile at him while he sits on a public stage, with no chance to respond.

Now, I understand that there may have been some miscalculations in Washington based on faulty advice from your resident governor of the "northern territories," Ambassador Cellucci. But you should know by now that he hasn't really won the hearts and minds of most Canadians through his attempts to browbeat and command our allegiance to U.S. policies.

Sadly, Mr. Cellucci has been far too closeted with exclusive groups of 'experts' from Calgary think-tanks and neo-con lobbyists at cross-border conferences to remotely grasp a cross-section of Canadian attitudes (nor American ones, for that matter).

I invite you to expand the narrow perspective that seems to inform your opinions of Canada by ranging far wider in your reach of contacts and discussions. You would find that what is rising in Canada is not so much anti-Americanism, as claimed by your and our right-wing commentators, but fundamental disagreements with certain policies of your government. You would see that rather than just reacting to events by drawing on old conventional wisdoms, many Canadians are trying to think our way through to some ideas that can be helpful in building a more secure world.

These Canadians believe that security can be achieved through well-modulated efforts to protect the rights of people, not just nation-states.

To encourage and advance international co-operation on managing the risk of climate change, they believe that we need agreements like Kyoto.

To protect people against international crimes like genocide and ethnic cleansing, they support new institutions like the International Criminal Court -- which, by the way, you might strongly consider using to hold accountable those committing atrocities today in Darfur, Sudan.

And these Canadians believe that the United Nations should indeed be reformed -- beginning with an agreement to get rid of the veto held by the major powers over humanitarian interventions to stop violence and predatory practices.

On this score, you might want to explore the concept of the 'Responsibility to Protect' while you're in Ottawa. It's a Canadian idea born out of the recent experience of Kosovo and informed by the many horrific examples of inhumanity over the last half-century. Many Canadians feel it has a lot more relevance to providing real human security in the world than missile defence ever will.

This is not just some quirky notion concocted in our long winter nights, by the way. It seems to have appeal for many in your own country, if not the editorialists at the Wall Street Journal or Rush Limbaugh. As I discovered recently while giving a series of lectures in southern California, there is keen interest in how the U.S. can offer real leadership in managing global challenges of disease, natural calamities and conflict, other than by military means.

There is also a very strong awareness on both sides of the border of how vital Canada is to the U.S. as a partner in North America. We supply copious amounts of oil and natural gas to your country, our respective trade is the world's largest in volume, and we are increasingly bound together by common concerns over depletion of resources, especially very scarce fresh water.

Why not discuss these issues with Canadians who understand them, and seek out ways to better cooperate in areas where we agree -- and agree to respect each other's views when we disagree.

Above all, ignore the Cassandras who deride the state of our relations because of one missile-defence decision. Accept that, as a friend on your border, we will offer a different, independent point of view. And that there are times when truth must speak to power.


In friendship,

Lloyd Axworthy


Lloyd Axworthy is president of the University of Winnipeg and a former Canadian foreign minister

34
Straight, Inc. and Derivatives / It is ok to relapse
« on: March 03, 2005, 12:02:00 AM »
Anon is clearly a dissembler.

35
Straight, Inc. and Derivatives / It is ok to relapse
« on: March 02, 2005, 06:51:00 PM »
Quote
On 2005-03-02 14:28:00, Anonymous wrote:

"
Quote

On 2005-03-01 22:10:00, Rachael wrote:


"
Quote


On 2005-02-27 09:32:00, Anonymous wrote:



"As far as traditional therapy for treating addiction, you surely must know that individual therapy, based on Freudian THEORY is sadly lacking. "










Oh dear "Higher Power of my choosing", please tell me that this evidently misguided soul doesn't actually believe what he just wrote. Does he truly think that the concept of individual therapy was only developed during the time of Freud? He must be joking, surely."




Rachael, my mother, father and stepfather are all registered psychologists in Alberta. I have a pretty good idea about the concept of individual therapy. I studied psych at university. I have also studied sociology and anthropology. I was simply pointing out that most forms of modern therapy evolved in the last century and a half, based on theory, and in very real terms have taken the spiritual aspect out of the teachings of early pioneers like Jung and Freud. As such, people languish for years and even decades excavating painful memories and never learning tools to cope with life. and when it comes to treating addiction in young people, individual therapy, usually conducted by a therapist who knows very little about addiction, and is seen as just another authority, it is not only useless much of the time, but dangerous. Thanks for encouraging me to expand on my first post, it was lacking in clarity."


Unfortunately,  only a portion of Psychologists have a thorough, and I mean thorough, understanding of psychopharmacology, which is what you are dealing with when your talking about addiction.    It's useful in checking the credentials of psychologists to see how much of a basis they have in the hard science of the brain which is to be found more in the B.Sc stream than the B.Ed or B.A stream at the undergraduate level.  
This "anonymous" writer, of course, can say anything he wants without anybody being able to check out its veracity. But in any event he betrays considerable ignorance when he assumes that we are talking about people in AARC having been diagnosed as "addicts".  
Perhaps he should read PIHKAL by Alexander Shulgin and the many excellent tomes on the use of entheogens if he wants to talk about the spiritual.  Again, with his other soft science background of sociology I doubt if he would take anything but a moralistic view on anything critics of AARC would post here.  Moreover, AARC like all the AA & NA or 12 step programs are most unreliable in the statistics they quote, because they are very selective.  Oh, sure, their "successful" graduates  can say, "well it worked for me" but really, you don't see the control group, the 90% who never went to AARC, survived and "succeeded" in life.  
Dr Kalant, probably one of the world's leading experts on drugs who is often trotted out by the Crown in drug prosecutions freely admits that the  types of programs that make these claims of success are very skewed and selective.  "self-slective" in fact, and not subject to peer review.  So... our anonymous AARC supporter friend can't produce any peer reviewed research anywhere that supports AARC's fantastic claims, and that really causes me to doubt the credentials of his relatives that  he keeps bringing up, but never disclosing in private messages though repeatedly promising to do so.  This guy and his arguments are highly suspect, as I'm sure you already realised, Rachael.              
   
      [ This Message was edited by: Hamiltonf on 2005-03-02 16:16 ]

36
News Items / Legal Aid
« on: February 02, 2005, 01:12:00 PM »
If you have questions about the legality of any confinement against your will in any institution in Alberta, you can find out your rights by contacting the new "Access to Legal Aid Services call centre(AtLAS) which recently opened its phone lines as a province-wide centralized source of legal information, resource referrals , and summary legal advice.  Office hours of AtLAS are 8:00 am to 5:00 pm .  The AtLAS phone service is available to the public from 9:00am to 4:00pm weekdays except Wednesdays which are 9:00am to 2:30 pm.
The toll-free number is 1-866-845-3425.  You can also access them on the internet at http://www.atlaslaw.ab.ca

37
News Items / With respect and sadness
« on: January 18, 2005, 12:34:00 AM »
Psychoactive Drugs & Harm Reduction
Heather, Nick, et al, Eds. Psychoactive Drugs & Harm Reduction: From Faith to Science. London: Whurr Publishers Limited. April 1993, 345 pages.
World Health Organization

Psychoactive Drugs & Harm Reduction is based loosely on the Third International Conference on the Reduction of Drug-Related Harm held in Melbourne, Australia at the end of March, 1992.

"As the HIV/AIDS pandemic accelerates and people around the world search for ways beyond the ineffective and harmful drug war policies of the past, this book arrives to lead the way forward. It has the scope, strength and depth to bring "harm reduction" squarely into the arena of public and professional attention. This book goes far beyond advocacy, to consider the evidence, the experience and the insights - precious lessons learned in the practice of harm reduction. Fine editing, superb organization and diverse perspectives - from government ministers to police and from criminologists to political scientists - are linked with a strong commitment to exploring international experience - North, South, East and West. This is one of those very rare books which has the power to influence the course of history. For all concerned with drugs (licit and illicit), health and society - this is the single book to read now. Read this book, introduce yourself to harm reduction - and the world may just possibly never the same."
   --     Jonathan Mann, MD, MPH, Professor of Epidemiology and International Health, Harvard School of Public Health and Founding Director, World Health Organization's Global Program on AIDS.

"This book stands as a milestone in the growth and development of harm reduction. (It) contains contributions from some of the most influential figures in the harm-reduction movement and will establish itself as essential reading for all who are involved in the field."
   --     Michael Gossop, PhD, National Addiction Center, London.

"The term 'harm reduction' has become a popular sound bite and has heralded a new social movement in drug policy reform. Yet, until now, no comprehensive document about harm reduction has been available. This book fills this important void...(It) is sure to become a reference work in harm reduction and a necessary resource for those involved in drug prevention, treatment, research and policy."
   --     Marsha Rosenbaum, PhD, former Director, Center for Drug Studies Institute for Scientific Analysis, San Francisco.

"With the publication of this volume the harm reduction approach achieves a new maturity. It presents a growing body of data and experience, conceptual models and ethical judgements all of which point the way to new solutions to our massive drug problem."
   --     Ernest Drucker, PhD, Director, Division of Community Health and Professor, Department of Epidemiology and Social Medicine, Montefiore Medical Center/ Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York.

About the Authors

Nick Heather is Professor of Drug and Alcohol Studies and the Director of the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.

Alex Wodak is the Director of the Alcohol and Drug Services, St. Vincent's Hospital, Sydney.

Pat O'Hare is the Director of the Mersey Drug Training and Information Centre, Liverpool, UK.

38
News Items / With respect and sadness
« on: January 15, 2005, 06:44:00 PM »
Quote
On 2005-01-15 14:05:00, Antigen wrote:

"Oh, and btw, I'm not sure Canada is really tougher on drunk drivers than some US jurisdictions. So. Florida has roving road blocks. It's been a matter of contention and litigation quite often. PA is much tougher than that, even. They'll pull just about anybody over for a sobriety test and probably half the yenzers I know have had their license suspended at some point for DUI.

Revelation indeed had no weight with me.
--Benjamin Franklin, American Founding Father, author, and inventor


"

What are yenzers?

39
News Items / With respect and sadness
« on: January 15, 2005, 06:39:00 PM »
Quote
On 2005-01-15 14:37:00, Anonymous wrote:

"
Quote

On 2005-01-15 14:02:00, Antigen wrote:


"The amazing thing to me is that this keeps happening. Velvet, how many times have people posted obits in this forum w/ an appeal to donate to AARC?



Really?  THat is pretty strange.  I haven't seen that before. :eek: "

To be fair, Ginger, There aren't any in the AARC forum.  That doesn't mean to say they haven't been posted in the obit columns of the Calgary Herald.  however, that could just be an assumption.  
In Canada, if you are detained by a police officer there has to be a basis.  "check-stops" are legal for roadside breath samples.  This does not look like that to me, otherwise I suspect the newspaper item would have said "check-stop".
The police will use the term "routine traffic stop" when it is nothing of the sort, when, in fact, they are profiling, the same as in the States.  Example: young person driving a Cadillac in a poor area of town.  That is not sufficient cause.
It really sounds to me as if there was no basis to stop the car in the first place, and the kid gave attitude and it escalated from there.
Lawyers are always dealing with cases of illegal searches from "routine traffic stops".  And police are always doing them because they know they can get away with it most of the time because people do not know their rights.
This unfortunate kid had already had contact with police, so we can only speculate about what had happened, and it is still speculation as  to the cause of his death.  However, I think it is very important that we know exactly what his connection was with AARC before we get carried away.              
The evidence needs to be examined.

40
Straight, Inc. and Derivatives / Response to a request for information.
« on: January 06, 2005, 11:52:00 PM »
Quote
On 2005-01-06 20:33:00, Anonymous wrote:

"It seems to me Rachael can speak just fine for herself."


Yup, she certainly can.      :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:

41
Straight, Inc. and Derivatives / Response to a request for information.
« on: January 06, 2005, 11:07:00 PM »
Quote
On 2005-01-06 17:21:00, Anonymous wrote:

"Right on Rachael! FINALLY an Anti-AARC person who isn't whining about how AARC is still keeping them down, and who has gone on to be successful and to use their potential! You have my admiration."

Don't get the wrong idea.  If you read her first post it's obvious that she was able to escape before AARC could do her any real harm.  
The people who continue to be damaged are the ones she left behind.  
There's hope for them yet.  Maybe there are more than you think who are about to go over to the dark side.
 ::bangin::  ::bangin::  ::bangin:: [ This Message was edited by: Hamiltonf on 2005-01-06 20:09 ]

42
Straight, Inc. and Derivatives / Response to a request for information.
« on: January 06, 2005, 07:41:00 PM »
Way to go Rachael.  I can see that you must move on with your life.  Fantastic.  If you ever feel like  doing anything to help others who might not have been as resilient as you, I'm sure you will.   ::drummer::  ::drummer::  ::drummer::  ::cheers::

43
News Items / research says
« on: December 27, 2004, 02:19:00 AM »
Actually, I agree with much of what Halpern has to say, particularly when it comes to dealing with people who might have a dual diagnosis .. (addiction/mental illness)
he says:
Current pharmacotherapy for drug dependence includes screening for an underlying psychiatric condition after the patient has successfully completed detoxification. People may choose to self-medicate with an addictive drug, all the while unaware that they have a treatable psychiatric illness.

Does AARC screen for underlying psychiatric condition after a child has "successfully completed detoxification"  I doubt it.

And I HAVE REFERRED EVERY ONE OF MY CLIENTS THAT HAS HAD A DRUG PROBLEM FOR A SCREENING.  
1.  Client abusing cocaine and alcohol-- thought she might be bipolar  -- voluntarily into Alberta Hospital -- Bipolar confirmed.  released on course of medication and support groups.  Successful rehabilitation.
2.  Meth addict convicted for trafficking .. psychological assessment confirmed improperly or misdiagnosed ADHD on earlier tests.  Successful rehabilitation through the Anchorage program.
3.  Client severely depressed after he was jilted  and defrauded by his boyfriend.  Required a "curative discharge".  Previously had been the AA route but his underlying bipolar condition had remained undiagnosed.  Successfully following a recommended  "harm reduction" course based on the dual diagnosis.  Relapses becoming less serious  over time as he becomes more empowered in dealing with  his mental illness.
4.  18 year old meth addict from impoverished background  with  serious depression.  Again, undiagnosed ADHD.    Sobbing uncontrollably when  first seen.  Referred to harm-reduction specialist  who worked with probation officer to build his self esteem and confidence.  Confronted father who had abandoned him as a child and is now in full time employment where he had had no hope before.

Not to mention the several schizophrenics I have had contact with over the years.

Certainly, the science will often show a correlation between mental illness and drug dependance.  But again, the problem is one of establishing causality. Did the mental illness cause the drug - dependance, or did the drug cause the mental illness? Or are they inter-related Remember Reefer Madness? Well there are many psychiatrits who will readily give a diagnosis of "drug-induced psychosis" being of the school that still confuses cause and effect.  Remember the post hoc, ergo proctor hoc fallacy?  After it therefore because of it?
Could it be that schizophrenics might like marijuana because it helps to calm their mental turmoil?  I know one schizophrenic who is definitely better off with pot than with the valium her GP had prescribed her to reduce anxiety.  No drug-induced psychosis there!
If a person is able to gain sufficient insight into their mental state, I would suggest it is entirely possible for them to determine what is an appropriate level of a particular drug to take.  When our friend talks of self-medication, the name of Winston Churchill comes to mind.  Undiagnosed as Bipolar, he drank very heavily.  (Also the big cigars)  When Manic, his drinking slowed him down.    I also know a diagnosed Manic depressive who drinks when in a manic phase and in this sense is self medicating.  

There are some real breakthroughs coming with dual diagnoses.  BUT AARC IS NOT PART OF THAT PROCESS.
If anything AARC is the very antithesis of the science we have here described.

44
Straight, Inc. and Derivatives / AARC
« on: December 25, 2004, 09:36:00 AM »
Quote
On 2004-12-24 12:03:00, Anonymous wrote:

" "But really. Destroying a personality to save it leaves it distorted and unable to deal with real life."



Excuse me? I know dozens of the people who have been through AARC and hundreds who are in recovery, and they have the most vibrant, interesting, and humerous personalities. How dare you. As far as my insulting anyone, you are mistaken. and I absolutely do not insist on anyone but myself abstaining. I want nothing between myself and life. If I had an allergy to nuts, I would stay away from them. Drugs and alcohol affect me negatively - why would I want to use them moderately? I deal with life just fine. My friends in recovery supportsed me through the deaths of both parents, among other trials, and I gratefully return the favor. "

The reason I dare is this, if you cared to read (and comprehend) the article...
"What is addiction?" ... activists and writers in the Temperance Movement ... began speaking of addiction as ...a disease, from which the addict was suffering....

(there is no) scientific evidence to support this new claim, but ... The newly invented medical language grew to be accepted as fact."

...  Addiction is... not listed in standard pathology textbooks."

". . . diseases are medical conditions...(For example)... Unlike addiction, syphilis is a disease that can be diagnosed in a corpse."

Well, then, is addiction a mental disease?... They would conceivably fit the functional disorder category but probably would be subordinated to one of the established [functional] disorders such as discouragement or anxiety." ....But ...they are diseases only in a metaphorical sense."....

This is why Alcoholics Anonymous,... is nothing more nor less than a "religious cult." and ...it is ineffective....  One treatment tends to be just about as effective as any other treatment, which is just about as effective as no treatment at all."....

Drugs don't cause addiction,... addiction doesn't mean you can't control your behavior. You can always control your own behavior. Drugs are inanimate objects. They have no will or power of their own....
People use legal and illegal drugs like Prozac and heroin, to avoid coping with their lives. The reasons people avoid coping with their lives may be judged good or bad. Addiction is the expression of a person's values. Therefore, whenever we talk or write about addiction we are dealing with an ethical issue, not a medical one. Addiction is not a disease, nor is addiction a public health problem. Addiction is a choice."
--------------------------------------------------------
You say " Drugs and alcohol affect me negatively - why would I want to use them moderately?"
So what you are saying is that you have an allergy?  
If drugs and alcohol affect you negatively, why would you want to make the choice to use an allergen?  "I deal with life just fine." Why would you need AARC or AA or Synanon or any such cult to help you?  It sounds to me like you have replaced one drug with another..  (religion is the opiate of the masses)  If that's your choice, that's fine, and as another poster stated,  AA and NARC are often freely entered by consenting adults"  (with the exception of those under coercion from the State)  Statistically, no more people "succeed" in these cults than would "succeed" on their own.
You say    "My friends in recovery supportsed me through the deaths of both parents, among other trials, and I gratefully return the favor."
That's fine if it works for you.  But don't impose your view of what works on kids.  
And finally, learn to cope.  You really do not need AA or any such if you are allergic to those things, because you will choose not to use anyway, won't you?
Or are you addicted to "supports"?  (recognizing, of course, that those who may have been victims of AARC may need supports while they learn to regain their self concept and withdraw from their PTSD)
 ::cheers::
Enjoy your Xmas

45
Straight, Inc. and Derivatives / AARC
« on: December 24, 2004, 03:01:00 PM »
Quote
On 2004-12-24 12:00:00, Hamiltonf wrote:

"
Quote

On 2004-12-24 06:04:00, Anonymous wrote:



"What an altruist and idealist you are! but go into action oh defender of the rights of others? No, just sling mud, slander a successful propram by calling it a cult, and try to belittle their success by talking about how they have only graduated 23 families a year on average. But your analogy is correct. Tilting at windmills is bang on. Except you don't have the courage to even saddle up.Stay in your ivory tower an hurl insults. Its much safer. I just pray your grandchildren never show up with a drug problem, and after being taught moderated usage at a government run day program are in real trouble, treatment resistent and victim to drugs like meth and coke. I guess we would see how high and mighty you are then.







Merry Christmas!"




and just as a point of emphasis from the article quoted:

Perhaps the most telling comment Schaler makes on the "disease model" comes during his first references to Alcoholics Anonymous, whose Twelve Step Program is the basis for almost all of the "drug treatment" programs into which local, state and federal governments in this country pour taxpayers' money. Alcoholics Anonymous, he maintains, is nothing more nor less than a "religious cult."

Q.E.D.[ This Message was edited by: Hamiltonf on 2004-12-24 12:00 ]"

and so is AARC

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 13