Fornits
Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform => Straight, Inc. and Derivatives => Topic started by: Anonymous on July 10, 2004, 03:12:00 AM
-
We are parnets who are thinking of putting our son into Arrc. there is no denial that he needs help or needs nothing less then 90 days at least. we are looking for responses from people who as attendent aarc. we can send him to any treatment center in North America
-
Normally I don't address anonymous postings (you can't always tell if it is a new person or one of the site "regulars" having a little fun with you) but the situation that you describe is so touching ot me! It is exactly what we went through when my son was 15, using drugs and placing himself in danger in a variety of ways. I remember so well the feeling of not knowing what to do and who to trust, but realizing that something had to happen.
I don't know much about AARC--my son went to a CEDU school and is now in college and doing fine, personally and academically. This is not meant to be an infomercial for the school that I chose--there may well be many other schools and programs out there just as good and a better match for your particular child. You'll have to make that decision.
What you will hear at this site is, I imagine, that not everyone had the good experiences that our family had with this kind of program. You are likely to hear from some, in fact,that the very notion that some people report a good experience is proof that we are in a cult, brainwashed, etc. Obviously I don't believe that this is so. Neither does our son who has told us that being sent away gave him a future and possibly saved his life.
The parent seminars and workshops that were part of our son's program were a real growth experience for us as parents as well as for our child. It is now one of my dreams to open my own school someday, building on the positive aspects of existing programs and refining them in other ways, such as by modifying them for kids with certain dual diagnoses and less ego strength than is needed for certain confrontory approaches. To accomplish this I've gone back to school and have just gotten my masters in clinical psychology and am working on my doctorate. I watch this and other sites to get non-academic input about the whole therapeutic boarding school industry, and to hear about the perceptions of a variety of people, whether, at the end of the day, I agree with them completely or not.
My advice to you in making your decision is, as noted, to be somewhat skeptical of people who don't give some kind of identifier. If the claims made by anonymous or even named posters seem really unlikely to you (for example, the whole governmental apparatus of a certain state is covering up a particular school's abuses), check around on news web-sites or other postings here and get a perspective on the believablity of the claim. It doesn't hurt to go to the profile of a named poster---sometimes the way they describe themselves speaks volumes.
I wouldn't worry too much about the "potty-mouth", gratuitous profanity in some posts, some of these people have had at least unsatifactory experiences, and are quite angry--try to see past the words and the anger and consider whether what is being reported is believable and generalizable to all such schools and programs that you are considering.
What convinced me to send my child to the school we did was talking with other parents who had had children there--both parents who had kids who graduated and parents who withdrew their kids---our school gave us a list of both and those we spoke with gave us other names as well. We spoke with a couple of dozen people before making the decision. I really think that if you are a good judge of character talking to people directly, face to face or even on the phone can give you pretty important insights.
So good luck to you. When we sent my son away it was the hardest thing I had ever done--if there had been another way, any other way, I would have taken it. But by the time we realized that things were out of control, it was just not possible, by counselling or by reasoning or by loving him, to change things in a way that would make him safe. I had to live with the fact (and still do) that if I had been more attentive to his emotional needs earlier in his life, if our relationship had been stronger, if I had done a variety of things differently, we might not have ended up where we did. But we can't go back in time and I did the only thing I could in the circumstances. And by the grace of God (or luck or destiny or fate, some people might say) we had a happy ending.
Perhaps you can find a way to make things work out at home---if you can, that is always the best way. If you can't, really can't, my advice to you is get as much info as you can here and elsewhere, choose carefully, and do what you have to do.
P.S. As I looked over my message, I saw that it may sound extreme that my son would think that being sent away saved his life--in our case it is in fact a real possibility. A neighborhood friend who he used to cruise around and buy and sell drugs with went across a median at 3 in the morning some time after my son had gone to the school. That boy was dead that the scene and it is quite likely, given their friendship that my son would have been in the car with him if he had still been at home and running with the same crowd.
-
thank you for a response
-
i recently attended a Seminar given by a well known Family Court Judge from San Diego who favours coerced treatment, yet at the same time says that the worst thing you can do for a child is put him in foster care.
I've encountered many parents with kids who have behavioural problems who would "speak up" their kids sentences in, for example , youth court, or call the police to assist in settling disputes. In the short term such "tough love approaches" may seem to work. I can assure you that in my experience they do not work in the long term.
What I think you need to do, since you are in Alberta is first contact AADAC for information about the various drugs, then search around for a good, properly credentialled psychologist. Unfortunately, even well credentialled psychologists are not always that knowledgable about the pharmacological properties of the drugs in question.
If you want to have information about the types of schools of which AARC is an example, you might want to contact Professor Barry Beyerstein of Simon Frazer University. He is a Psychopharmacologist and as such he is even more knowledgable about drugs young people use and the effects they may have on the brain than even the people at AADAC. He is the most familiar of anyone with the "cult" aspects of schools that spawned those such as AARC as he wrote the book.
Or, you might try Dr. David Cooke at the University of Alberta. He has been interviewed on a number of occasions by CBC.
Before you do anything, I would suggest that such organizations as AARC are the absolute last resort, and probably should be avoided like the plague.
Unfortunately I have had to advocate for a client to go into coerced treatment (he was a methamphetamine addict) but this was only because his only other choice was to end up in a federal penitemtiary for three years. Had he been the US it would have been twenty years minimum. I don't like what this coerced treatment has done to him any more than I like what the Meth did to him.
But I can tell you this, -- At no time did anybody in the system ever ask why he was abusing methamphetamine.
And guess what --- there are pharmacological reasons in many many cases why young people resort to drugs. It is often a result of self-medication for a (sometimes) undiagnosed medical condition -- in the case of meth -- ADHD or ADD, or sometimes bipolar
And many people who suffer from unrecognised clinical depression whether situational or chronic, find relief in cocaine, which is extremely dangerous, but this form of use does not require coerced treatment rather guidance in obtaining appropriate alternatives.
So please, find out what's bothering your son.
And determine whether it is "use" or "abuse" since some recreational use of drugs, e.g. LSD can be quite enervating. The INFORMED use of many of these designated illicit drugs may often be more beneficial than some of the licit drugs PUSHED by pharmaceutical companies. One has only to look at the recent banning of SSRI's in Britain for use with children to realise that there is an awful lot of misinformation to be dug through on these matters.
And if you really are serious and not an anonymous poster opening the door for the coerced treatment advocate who first replied to you, you can contact me by registering and sending me a private message , so that I can give you further information about a credentialled peer counsellor with a psycho-pharmacological background who has had some phenominal success with some serious Meth users and someone who'd been labelled a crack head. Not one of the persons she has counselled has been required to give up their freedom or enter into a "program"
cheers
[ This Message was edited by: Hamiltonf on 2004-07-10 17:11 ][ This Message was edited by: Hamiltonf on 2004-07-11 09:11 ]
-
If the lawyer from Canada had read my previous post with at least some degree of open-mindedness, I should think it would have been clear that we are not really saying such different things: coerced treatment should be a last resort, after everything else has been attempted.
But sometimes, hopefully rarely, as parents we do reach a "last resort" position, and when this happens, it requires courage, balance, and resolve to act in the best interests of a child in trouble. I don't really think claims about cults or imagined plots to "open the door" to an over-broad advocacy of that "last resort" help to reach that kind of balance.
By chance, I used to be a Canadian myself before my marriage, and, at least when I lived there, in some provinces, a child of 14 could refuse either a drug test or any kind of treatment. Don't know if it's still that way. Obviously different people will have different opinions on whether this kind of decision-making authority should be given to 12 or 10 year olds (or younger?).
And to the paremts: of course you may contact me also if you are interested in talking further.
-
May I ask why you would consider sending your child to AARC when you are aware that AARC is a branch of the Synanon church and has a long history of abuse behind it, so much so that places such as AADAC offer therapy for youth who have been put through it? Did you link here from http://www.thestraights.com (http://www.thestraights.com)? There is no situation desperate enough to put a youth through these experiences. If your child needs to physically detox from drugs he would be safer in a hospital where proper care can be taken from him. If he's emotionally in need you probably can't force him to change anything, just be there to love and listen as a parent. But there are many good treatment centers that do not take away someones civil rights and who assist in healing via the help of certified therapists, psycotherapists, psychologists, analysts, and psychiatrists, as opposed to AARC where there is only "graduates" and a former gym teacher.
-
thank you for your time to responed.
-
thank you also for your response
-
This is an AAARC bashing website why don't you phone AARC for yourself and look at their website. ALso the people below have not gone to AARC so how can you take their advice....get your son help whereever you can!
-
The only way I see places like AARC as a last resort is when the only other alternative is worse. And the only time I have had anyone go to coerced treatment was when the only alternative was far worse -- Federal peniteniary.
In other words, the WORST thing you can do for your child, unless he is facing incarceration in a Federal penetentiary is send him to AARC. I do not know how I can be any clearer than that!
As it happens, if the anonymous poster had read and fully comprehended my post, he would have seen that I recommend far better alternatives.
It is pretty clear to me that the anonymous parents seeking advice really are not interested in hearing about viable alternatives to coerced treatment as they have not registered in order to communicate with me privately. I can refer them to an individual who can talk to them and the child, assess them and make recommendations. This individual has been doing some work connected with Vancouver's lower east side, and will be flying into Edmonton to spend a week next Tuesday (20th July). If these parents are in Calgary, I'm sure that if they care as much as they say they do, they can afford the trip up to Edmonton and I can arrange for the first step to be taken.
It'll be far more effective than destroying this child's free will and substituting the "opiate of the masses" for whatever his drug of hoice might be. Isn't this opportunity better than wasting $30,000.00 on Orwellian conditioning?
[ This Message was edited by: Hamiltonf on 2004-07-11 09:15 ]
-
I do not agree at all that it is "pretty clear" that the anonymous parents are not really interested in hearing about viable options in addressing their child's problems.
Maybe they are still considering some of the advice that they have gotten (from any one or all of those who has offered it here). Maybe they are looking elsewhere. Maybe they don't like the idea that revealing themselves may lead to a long, pointless, badgering series of "true believer"-type messages from people with opinions that they are still deciding whether or not are believable.
I know that as a parent in a similar position to the one that they describe I would have been pretty offended if someone had made that kind of blanket statement about me. Especially someone I didn't even know existed a day ago. The fact that they are not immediately accepting some poster's particular opinion, hook, line and sinker, may be the sign of independent thinking and the kind of balanced approach that sounds like a good quality in navigating the complex situation in which their family finds itself. No one likes the hard sell approach of "I'm telling you I know everthing--take this opportunity right now or you are this, that, or the next thing"--it reminds me of high pressure tactics for selling a used car.
In psychology we talk about "cognitive rigidity" and "uncertainty avoidance", this black and white way of thinking which allows only one approach to weighing and looking at complex situations. The fact that these people are not responding that way may be a sign that that they are not afraid to face the ambiguities, a quality that is very well suited for the complex problem they have on their hands, whatever they decide to do eventually.
Of course any parent in this situation will want to act as expeditiously as possible: that is not the same as allowing one's self to be guilted or manuevered into a premature, party-line, solution.
-
Once in a while we get posts to this site that are presumably asking for "advice" to deal with some wayward drug-addicted child. Inevitably the immediate response, out of the blue is a response from some AARC supporting person parroting what a wonderful programme it is.
Repeatedly I, and others, offer a way of communicating with the anonymous poster in a way that is none-threatening and maintains confidentiality -- and guess what? The concerned poster never establishes contact and reinforces my belief that the post is a hoax, designed to open the door for cult members to perpetuate their disinformation and lies about the effectiveness of treatment.
Once again, though, if these parents are genuine, I would encourage them to subscribe, contact me by private message whereupon I will provide them with my e-mail address, telephone number and anything else they want to know. In return I will give them information that will truly help them with their problem. They have no reason not to do it. Nothing to fear, other than perhaps facing some truths they might not like, but then, that's what comes from truly considering ALL the options.
I would have thought that if these individuals ARE genuine, which I am now even more uncertain of, the converse of what Ottawa5 says must be true.
So, what are they afraid of ?
Contact me or the moderator of this site --- [ This Message was edited by: Hamiltonf on 2004-07-11 13:13 ]
-
The Canadian lawyer may or may not be right in the analysis given of these parents being not genuine-I would certainly be interested in knowing if they really exist or are some kind of front for a scheme to entice people to a program.
However, it sounds as though the lawyer really does not know this to be a fact. It may just be that sometimes people come to this site, looking for info when they have a kid in trouble, they don't like the zealous, "I have all the answers" tone of some of the posts, and move on. They may just be too stressed out to deal with some stranger they don't know from Adam, pushing an agenda at them: after all, just because a poster sees him or herself as an expert on what to do with a troubled child, that doesn't mean that a) it is true that he or she is an expert, or b) the parents accept that it is true. That would be an alternative explanation of the phenomena of anonymous posts that dry up after a few exchanges.
But as to the current anonymous parents or their intentions, I am not afraid to say "I really don't know" (it's a valuable thing to be able to admit to, in general, by the way) that's about where I have to leave it. The lawyer's interpretation sounds a bit paranoid to me, I admit, but then again it is not impossible. I will be interested to see if they do post again however, and I wish them well regardless.
-
Well, the style of the last post sounds awfully like Ottawa5, only this time anonymously. they still haven't responded. I'll give them another week. if no private response, I will draw the obvious conclusion, and challenge Ottawa5 to prove me wrong.
Of course I can guarantee that if they do respond privately I will let you no, even if they never post to the public board again.
Otherwise Ottawa5 is full of ----- well, you know what.
-
It was definitely me, that last post--I was responding to a seemingly infinite amount of email from various sources and somehow skipped the sign in at this site, I guess. (Actually this gives me a good insight into why certain people post by name sometimes and sometimes anonymously--live and learn, as they say).
However, I don't really get why I am somehow responsible for whether these parents, who I do not know at all beyond the posts here, ever return to this site again.
And, by the way, I don't think the lawyer's promise to report on any contacts that occur is going to encourage a response if they are concerned with privacy. Quite to the contrary, I will certainly not report anything to anyone, here or anywhere else, if they contact me and ask me not to.
I have, in my previous posts, simply put forward what would seem to be a reasonable hypothesis that the reasons that they have not returned may not relate to authenticity, but rather to their engagement with the tone of the site.
I suppose that it may be hard on the legal-ego when strangers do not, out of the blue, accept and kow-tow to, self-proclaimed expertise, in this case on the subject of treatment of troubled children--- but that's not my fault as any sensible person could discern--again I see in the lawyer's remarks the rigid thinking that tries to draw clear, and, in this case, blaming inferences where logic dictates that this cannot be done.
In the abstract sense, this could represent disordered thinking but more likely just a lawyerly way of trying to slyly scape-goat someone just for the heck of it? I come from a family of attorneys so this kind of gamey-ness is not unknown to me.
Nice try, that is if you like being gamey, but in my view at least, a person would have to be pretty green to take it seriously.
-
That's all right, it was pretty obvious anyway.
I'm sure that all those millions across the Anglo-Saxon world who subscribe to the AA, NA & Synaon view of things still do not understand that they have really been sold a bill of goods.
You see, it all goes back to the Puritans who left England (where I was born) to escape persecution and decadence. They invented the Great American Way of providing answers to ultimate questions which you will find reflected in a great deal of American Literature. As my American Literature Prof ( from Harvard) would say from Miss Lonelyhearts, I believe it was -- there is a string of thought running through the American Psyche that will claim that "X is the answer" . Now , X can be whatever you want it to be -- Christ, Mormonism, Free market, even communism, the fact is that the intelligencia of the US with some exceptions seek to provide answers.
The problem is, that nobody is sure of what the question is in the first place.
It's in the definition of the problem that the supporters of these cults(for CEDU and AARC are, indeed, cults)are fundamentally at odds with the reality of drugs as they may be used and/or abused. You see it's a question of definition. Is marijuana a drug of abuse or a drug that is useful? How about LSD? While your child, dear Ottawa5 may have been "cured" by these cults and gone on to greater things in terms of a money grubbing career in medicine, mine has become enlightened by her experiences with "illicit" drugs, --mushrooms, LSD pot, and the writings of Alexander Shulgin, and has embarked upon a career much more helpful to those with misconceived notions of the efficacy of those psychotropic drugs being palmed off on an unsuspecting public by the pharmaceutical companies that seem to control all the information your child may now seek to prescribe. Let's see -- valium, (or benzodiazepines) still being prescribed, still highly addictive, still the cause of impairment after how many years? Oh -- and SSRI's still prescribed for children in N. America yet banned in Britain. All of these drugs always an "answer" to some "problem" defined by the pharmaceutical companies
But I digress.
You see, in defining all none approved drug use as abuse (the DEA definition) you are saying that you have the answer, and the answer is --- abstention and if not done voluntarily, then by coercion.
This is not to say that some drug use does not have associated harms. It may, and often does. But it's in the definition of the problem that the real harm lies. Why, because, going back to the Puritans, it hearkens back to the old adage that "X" is the answer when in fact the question remains unclear.
So, I have an answer for you....
The answer is 46. Now tell me what the question was.
-
First things first. If the parents who originally posted are still getting this, I reiterate that I, the poster called Ottawa5, have been given no proof at all that you are not real. If you'd like to talk privately I give you my word that I will not refer in this forum to you, not in any way or in terms of what we talk about. Or even about the fact that you have contacted me. If you've gotten as much info as you need, either here or elsewhere, I wish you the best--you can turn this thing around.
Now to the lawyer, I can't be sure, but your comments might be taken to suggest that you are are a little off-base in terms of what you assume to be my points of view on certain cogent issues.
I couldn't agree with you more that many of the policies, laws, and presumptions that surround illegal drugs are short-sited and misguided---as a libertarian, if I were able to start the whole thing over. a case could be made for not having drug laws at all. And if I lived in a country where, say, marijuana was legal, and if an adult child of mine occasionally used it, without obsessive dependence on it or interference with living a full life, it would not be a great issue with me--although my own perspective is that there are better ways to feel good than dabbling in this kind of thing.
Without violating anyone's privacy, I can say that I know a number of CEDU grads and parents who feel as I do about the way society handles drug use--it's just that many people love their lives enough, and have enough other proirities that are central to their hopes and dreams: they are not going to play around with their futures either by taking a legal risk or in some cases a risk of over-use, just to recreate with some substance. If people like you are right that CEDU is a cult, and if you assume that it was supposed to program everyone to feel one way on issues like this, then it occurs to me that it's not a very good cult because I've seen a spectrum of different points of view on different aspects of the whole drug question, just among the CEDU people I know personally.
My above position is, however, a far cry from abdicating my parental responsibilties to keep a minor child from abusing his or her body and mind by heavy use of illegal, possibly impure street drugs. News flash for you: with lot of kids, drug use is not about enlightenment--it's about masking pain, defying authority, lack of control and moderation when something feels good, fitting in, among other reasons.
Of course the underlying questions (societal, personal and familial) as to why a child is behaving in certain ways need to be asked, but first the child must be made physically safe. Sometimes that means coercion. Making hard choices is part of being a grown-up. End of story.
I also believe that psychotropic medications are precribed way too much and without regard for safer alteratives. And there is no question that other alternatives do exist in many cases and can work with many people. Yet, on the other hand in my role as a clinical psychologist, I have seen people in whom their use has been fabulously successful and in whom nothing else has worked. Again, many of these issues do not lend themselves to black and white thinking.
Do I detect a touch of socialism (or as closet socialists like to say, democratic socialism) in your "money-grubbing" comment? If that is your ideological bent, it explains a lot. I was once married to one of those people, a Canadian actually. Talk about cult-like thinking--- the old left agenda is pretty much buried here (although parts of the agenda surface in strange, local, sneaky ways more often than you'd expect) but I hear aspects of the whole perspective are alive and well in my country of origin.
Yes, I hope my son makes plenty of money especially if he works hard and earns it. Another news flash--money is good when come by honestly. I would wish that for any child, actually, I would wish that they find a way to live as well as they want to, while doing something they love.
Key de-programming concept for recovering socialists: money is good, and wonderful things can be done with, especially when it is given freely, in the pursuit of a dream (as opposed to being extracted from its rightful owner by some blood-sucking government for someone else's idea of a "just" purpose).
In that light, too, I don't begrudge a good profit to companies or individuals who come up with useful products, including psychotropics, I am more interested in whether they are used in a way that helps, rather than hurts, people.
You say "we" are not asking the right questions--speak for your own part of "we" on that score. To me the "question" is obvious: how can I live to my full potential as a human being, keeping in mind what it means to me to be human? How can each of us?
This may involve directly helping others (willingly, not through politically based coercion) or it may involve ways of being more individually oriented in meeting one's particular potential. Among other things, it means understanding yourself and knowing where you fall on that individualist-collectivist spectrum, and it requires courage, and free-thinking, and a respect for liberty. I suppose the related question is how to reach that potential, but in my experience at least, if you know yourself, that tends to unfold, if not easily, then at least predictably.
As you can imagine, placing my son in a coercive program was a very grave thing for me ethicially, since liberty is one of my major values. However his behavior was such that he illustrated fairly definitively that, not only was he at physical risk, he was in fact anything but free in the way that his life was going. If he had been an adult I would have had no recourse legally or ethically--because he would have grown to an age at which he was make his choices as he pleased--as a child, he was my responsibilty.
Somehow, perhaps it was instinct, I knew implicitly that I had a responsibility to act in my child's best interest--I am well aware there are some parents who do not seem to know the difference between being a child and parent--I only know that I could never be so uninvolved or uninformed or lazy or whatever makes them like that. I am just glad I knew what had to be done. And did it.
So if some people don't like the idea that we had a good CEDU experience, well, they might as well get used to it, it really would be indoctrination if I let other people control my understanding of my own experiences. Not much risk, fortunately, my personality is such that people I know laugh when I tell them that certain posters at this site think that CEDU could have brain-washed me!
So thanks for your interest in helping me with the "question" but I think I know what it is already. I like puzzles though, so if "46" (I think that's what you said) is the answer, what is the question (beyond 23+23=)?
-
for anyone to even attempt to answer such a question, one would have to be aware of the true situation of your child. Is he or she a heroin addict? , or just experimenting with more than you are used to. Is the child rebelous or an outrite criminal? parents tend to get a bit in a frenzy during their childs puberty and needs to be totally aware of the possible outcome of their child going into one of these "theraputic communities" WE can't totally control ones future as we would like to and sometimes need to let nature take its course. rehab and thought reform should not be confused. please dont take my comments as an attack as i am speaking from person experience. sincerely, another synanon survivor
-
Uhhh? You don't know that the answer can be found in the hitch-hiker's guide to the galaxy?
As for my socialist tendencies
Now there's a red herring! and coming from a professed libertarean? Surely you must know of Thomas Szasz's excellent works on the myths of Psychiatry!
Try http://www.szasz.com/iol20.html (http://www.szasz.com/iol20.html)
then you might understand where I am coming from.
Try this as an example:
The date rape drug GHB.
Effective for dealing with narcolepsy and possibly sleep apnea, insomnia. Addictive in a small, almost minuscule number of cases. But very useful also for treating alcoholics and weaning them from withdrawal Yes, in the hands of a small number of irresponsible, unscrupulous perverts, it can be slipped into an unsuspecting drinker's drink and whammo, not only can they be subject to non-consensual sex, but they can also die, especially if Medics are not trained in how to deal with people showing symptoms.
BUT --- alcohol remains the date rape drug of choice. AND GHB is prohibited because --- it is far more effective for a number of ailments including depression than other drugs BIG PHARMA will offer you and it is also considerably cheaper to produce.
And danger? -- well think of the dangerous drugs your son will be licensed to dispense and ask how much cover up there is of the unfavourable research that BIG PHARMA won't let your son near, and think of the free golfing weekends your son will have all fully paid for by the generous budgets afforded to the sales departments of BIG PHARMA. And consider the factors that influence a child to take street drugs. And compare the factors where a person with, say, mild feelings of anxiety will go to a GP and after a five minute interview be prescribed CELEXA; and consider that when he goes back and complains that it makes it worse, the GP will say, "Oh, then try Effexor" . And consider that when the individual says No, I don't want drugs, then and only then the GP says. "perhaps you are drinking too much coffee, But I'll give you a prescription for Effexor anyway."
So, who are the drug pushers here?
And when it comes to these Cult adolescent treatment organizations, without exception the ones I have read about on this site fit that description. And, oh, About AARC, I and my psychologist friend have watched both TV accounts that featured AARC. One of them concentrated on WWASP and Barry Beyerstein was interviewed on it. The other was solely focussed on AARC and was produced by David Suzuki who, (out of his area of expertise) thought it was the gretest thing since sliced bread. My psychologist friend who specializes in dealing with real addicts couldn't bear to watch because it made him sick to his stomach that kids should be treated that way.
Again the persons who started this thread did not say much about what they thought was so bad about their childs behaviour that would require coerced treatment. But again, I would suggest that the last people he should be talking to are AARC because they will define ANY use of illicit drug as the cause of the problem even though upt o 30% of teenagers may have experimanted with illicit drugs.
So again, to those parents if they exist, define for us please, exactly what you consider the problem to be --- and above all, do not criminalize your child.
-
The parents looking for help for their child certainly should clarify in their own minds what they want to happen--there is a fighting chance, however, that the answers they are looking for are not going to be succinctly stated in "A Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy"!
However, I agree that once they get their son safely placed somewhere, they can start to investigate new and different ways of looking at life and their relationships, which may include such broad reading, not for indoctrination but for insight. That is certainly part of what I did while my son was at CEDU; actually he did a lot of reading there also; by his second year, he had started to read a bunch of classics and philosophical/ enlightenment type texts--I was astounded because he hated books at home--I'll have to ask him if he's read this one.
A person's world view is always important--- when life is not simple (ie most of the time), that perspective colors how we interpret ambiguous information, what we focus on in a complex situation, what we value most when values are in conflict.
In fact, I don't totally disagree with much of what you say--it is just that I think you are missing a lot of subtle things that, at least in my mind, come into the equation, sometimes less, sometimes more.
That's why I just don't buy that all "coercive" programs are bad for all adolescents--again I know really nothing about AARC--it is possible that it is a program that is so completely ineffective that it is beyond redemption, but I would have to hear from people who had a variety of experiences with it before I could draw that kind of sweeping conclusion.
The thing is, schools,like any institutions, are run by people, and people are sometimes less than perfect--so the question becomes: are we talking about imperfection here or total, unmitigated evil or ineptitude--it isn't clear to me on the basis of what I've heard at this very polarized site. It just isn't a school I know much about.
I think we could probably agree that some things are all bad (murder, rape,maybe robbery, although socialists may see some robbery as justified). We might even be able to find common ground in the fact that any program can be improved upon, or that some are so flawed that they are not worth trying--but the bottom line is that I believe that a) adults sometimes have to be in charge of children, and that sometimes means coercion b) children (including young teenagers should not be using illegal drugs (or drinking recreationally for that matter) not only because of legal constraints, but because they have other, more important psychological tasks to complete (and mind-alteration recreation is a true "red herring" for doing what they need to be doing to become fully functioning adults).
I know Thomas Szasz'work, read some of it in one of my psychopathology classes (our school offers a pretty broad survey of different points of view in psychology)and there is definitely something to it and a voice like his is needed in an overly medication-driven world. His work contributes to my conceptualization of psychological functioning and will likely influence it with some clients at least.
Have not personally read the "Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy" (a title that almost makes you hear the old love beads rattling!) but interestingly enough, I do recall that it was among a list of books recommended by one of the moderators in a CEDU parent work shop that I attended when my son was at school there. I may well have a look at it one of these days.
I met David Suzuki years ago at Carleton University. As I recall, he was between wives, which he talked about a lot during a lecture on something or other, and he and my husband, the Communist, got into a shouting match, with my husband calling him a "Nationalist" and him calling my husband a "Continentalist". Haven't heard the name for years, he is, I believe, much more well known in Canada than here. Interesting that he approves of AARC, I wonder if he had personal experiences with it in his own family or if his opinion was just based on his own research into it.
-
On 2004-07-01 20:13:00, ottawa5 wrote:
"
I suppose that I could accept unquestioningly the point of view that the individuals who could be called CEDU success stories are brainwashed. Yet several of these people are known to me reasonably well and I see no sign of delusion or dysfunction in the ways (which are appropiately individualized) in which they have gone on to live their lives after CEDU.
Puzzling, but then life is sometimes like that--I am confident that patience and further information will help to clarify the situation."
It shouldn't be that puzzling to people who have read Chomsky, and before that Willhelm Reich, on the "Mass Psychology of Fascism"
You mentioned earlier something about my belief system being perhaps socialist. Where brainwashing is concerned, it's not a question of belief systems, but of cold hard logic and science. That's one reason I have so much difficulty accepting so many things that are dictated by "The Law". True, there is a great deal of logic involved, but very little hard science, and Law does not base itself on scientifically validated data, but frequently on myths, propaganda and socially determined legislation. With an unthinking media involved, this is how you have the manufacture of consent as Chomsky calls it.
It's easy to see how the US, from the cold war onwards has fallen victim to brainwashing. Brainwashing based on fear was the very foundation of Nazi Germany, and, today, of the American Bushist state. Chomsky, again goes into this in his "Hegemony or Survival" While he only mentions the drug war in passing in relation to the US involvement in, for example, Colombia, I would suggest that it is equally significant that once the Taliban agreed to ban poppy production in Afghanistan, the US were willing to ignore all the other incredible abuses being wrought by them, at least until 9/11. The Cold War had been replaced by the War on (some) Drugs and only then the War on Terrorism. But perhaps I'm getting too far afield.
The brainwashing of almost an entire population by Hitler was relatively easy following the Reichstag fire.
It's been just as easy for Bush following 9/11, especially as the US has been on an almost constant war footing since WWII.
In law we have a saying that some people "never let the facts get in the way of a good argument." other times "never let the Law get in the way of a good argument"
Bush succeeded in both in his immoral and illegal invasion of Iraq.
But it would never have been possible without the brainwashing of unfortunate Americans that had been taking place for years.
And that brainwashing included the Drug war based as it was on some very flawed thinking. You, dear Ottawa5 must realise, if you have read John Stuart Mill that the drug war was what created victimless crimes.
The indoctrination about the evils of drugs was so complete that even many drug users came to believe that they were victims of "pushers" The Demonization of pushers has come to be regarded as a universal truth (by pressure at the UN from the US) It was reflected in Steppenwolf in the 1970's "Goddam the Pusher man". But almost inevitably the pushers that are arrested or entrapped are people at the low end of the scale and most often are doing friends a favour in dealing small amounts. Sometimes they are addicts, but only sometimes.
So the grown-ups begin to see their kids experiment with small amounts of pot and they begin to panic (after all, says the brainwashing propaganda, its 30 times more potent than when YOU experimented with it.(false) And this is where the cults can move in. They feed on fear, which is endemic to the American belief system. "Somebody is going to seduce my child into a life of drug-abusing decadence and I do not have the confidence in my own upbringing to be able to handle this and have him come out of it alive." The cults know your fears, and they will tell you after a brief "assessment" of your child that he's on a slippery slope, and if he's not treated by them, he's going to be dead within 3 years"
And it's all about money and politics ,too. Do some more reading on these fora, and you will see a very interesting link between the money making schemes of private "treatment" facilities, mandatory drug testing (private organizations), drug warriors like Mel and Betty Sembler (Mel's a Bush appointee to the US ambassadorship in Italy, and DARE (widely criticised for it's ineffectiveness).
So, Boot camps, Adolescent Treatment, adult treatment AA, NA, Synanon, All of the 12 step programmes (note my English spelling) are based upon a fundamental flaw.
And I think that I feel very very sorry for the victims of these programmes because they have been deprived of so much of their potential for true joy, independance, freedom and experience.
And if you think that Fahrenheit 9/11 is a pack of lies, you might as well go on believing these cults, created by the hard religious right are a good thing. ( I cheered when I heard Ted Kennedy referring to that segment of the US population as religious zealots)
So that's my final word on this thread, I named myself after that great American Republican Hamilton Fish Jr from New York who opposed the US getting into the war against Hitler. Perhaps because my belief system tells me that he was a perfect example of deluded thinking.
-
OK, here is the problem. Whatever ideology a person chooses, whatever method you select, real life is going to be messy-- the translation of what you believe ideally, into real life, is much like the result that you get when you paint, or do scupture, or whatever---the actual result is going to deviate, in one way or another, for good or ill, from the original ideal. (Vladimir Lenin, who I suspect has some standing with you, encapsulated one aspect of this whole concept nicely in the idea that (and I paraphrase) "in order to make an omelette, you have to break some eggs".)
If you get too hung up on perfection, a course of action that is fail-safe perfect, you will be paralysed, and I might say, at the mercy of the arguments of those who are not so ethically constrained.
So what is left to us? To me, it's about standing up for my values which I have weighed and found to be central to the state of being fully human and living to one's full potential, a la Carl Rogers and Abraham(?) Maslowe ( specifically, values being that which we are willing to fight to defend). It is also about cultivating necessary virtues, which are the qualities that help us defend the values that we have decided are worth fighting for.
To me, as a mother, it is implicit, for example, that I will fight for my child. And if I decide, after adequate research, that the best thing for that child is placing him or her in a setting (such as a CEDU school, where there is hope of removing influences that are alien to his or her happiness and/or success, so that the natural energy of growth can occur) then I will do it--- and all sorts of nay-sayers may come forward, or criticize me, or even demonize me to those who will listen--it will make no difference. I am content in the knowledge that I have done what I need to do.
And happily, in practice, this approach seems to be paying off, in terms of my children's fulfillment.
But I must say that you have interesting ideas; if I am out west in Canada or you are down here, I would like to keep keep in contact--I think that disagreement, when it is done elegantly, is very growth promoting-- and you have shown that you are capable of such elegance, though I think often somewhat simplistic,---you of course know how to send me a message via this site, if you are in this geographical vicinity!
[ This Message was edited by: ottawa5 on 2004-07-31 07:41 ]
-
Ok, you insist on throwing out little tid-bits that I cannot resist. In my undergraduate Ed Psych classes my favourite theorist was Carl Rogers. I have modelled much of my interviewing technique of clients even as a lawyer on his approach to counselling. It's very useful.
WRT Abraham Maslow, his heirarchy of needs was all the rage in my first graduate degree, but I found his list sadly lacking in that it did not seem to address some people's drive for power -- and the powerlessness and alienation that I feel lies at the basis of today's materialistic malaise. I actually gained most of my insights not from Lenin, but from the literature of the Lost Generation between the wars T.S. Eliot, James Joyce, Ernest Hemingway, Morley Callaghan.
And as for music, I learned a great deal about the great American Jazz Musicians by borrowing records from the US Embassy in Grosvenor Square, London during my teens.
So I suspect your suggestion that my conclusions are somewhat simplistic is, in itself simplistic. When I consider the lives of great artists like Charley Parker and Billie Holliday cut short in their prime and that the American Puritan Morality could not see beyond their drug use and reefer madness based as it was on racism to comprehend their physical and emotional pain, and that, had the US had policies such as Britain in those years they might have survived much longer. Both were victims of the "cures" wrought by coerced treatment.
No, I will not compromize and admit to the simplistic construction you place on my "belief system". My motivations are much more complex.
[ This Message was edited by: Hamiltonf on 2004-07-15 20:32 ]
-
Just realize the websites of the facility are grossly misleading. They have PR companies working for them to attract clients.
I don't know about AARC; I know it takes a long times sometimes to figure out the deleterious effect these places can have. I could not discount the testimony at these sites. A lot of time people don't use identifiers because they are afraid to. Sometimes parents are not the best source because they have been manipulated. If their kid is scared "straight" (from coercion, verbal and mental abuse, the bullying that is rampant in some of these facilities), they might look fine when they first get out, but suffer PTSD, anxiety, and other problems later. Also they will lose trust in you for putting them there to begin with. Last, I will say that at many places, the staff tightly regulates your contact w/family, monitors your letters and phone calls, and tells the parents things that aren't entirely honest to keep your kid there. Who are you going to believe, your kid or a staff member?
Many of these facilities are on the ISACC watch list, so check there.
Find out where the staff is accredited. Many of them get accredited from bogus Internet "schools" and have no idea how to run a therapeutic program. Ask them exactly how they conduct their "therapy."
Question everything. It's your kid, afterall.
-
To the Hamilton-Canadian poster:
I was truly quite interested in hearing from you over in the CEDU posts. It is just that the day had been taxing---I don't really mind that you are sort of socialistic or drug-obsessed or America-bashing, there is a place for all those things.
But, for heaven's sake, you morph out into all these areas, you say things like "Bushist" and "cold war" and "Chomsky", and more, there is nothing wrong with broad interests, but what about the reality of one's own life, one's own family, one's own interests and, indeed, one's own loves?
This is where I am--looking for meaning within my own life--I am not saying you are wrong to go universal at the slightest opportunity, but, I wonder, does it not ever occur to you that the truth can be accessed more easily closer to home?
You must forgive me for being so philosophical, I am in the midst of reading "The Gnostic Jung and the Seven Sermons to the Dead" by S. A. Hoeller, and the personal is much more on my radar screen than the larger political, at the moment.
But even the ghost of Carl Jung was not enough to keep me from taking a time out and checking this site.
-
And as you confess, unable to see the bigger picture.
All this introspection is a retreat into superstition and religion in a world gone mad.
And all of the CEDU's and the WWASP's and the AARC's are a symptom of that madness.
Read Thomas Szasz
-
On 2004-07-10 11:45:00, ottawa5 wrote:
"Normally I don't address anonymous postings (you can't always tell if it is a new person or one of the site "regulars" having a little fun with you)
Uh, Ottowa? This is one of the regulars having a little (sadistic) fun with you. She also posts as
Anonymous 32 posts
AARCgrad 1 posts
JessicaM 2 posts
Just thought you might like to know.
A little government and a little luck are necessary in life, but only a fool trust either of them
P.J. O'Rourke
-
Not quite sure why you're telling me this and don't really have time to go back and look at the post at the moment. I glean from your kind of smug tone that there was something there that indicated the identity of this person, when I had thought she was Anonymous--this would not surprise me, computerized communication is not my favorite medium.
Oh well, not everyone is good at everything, and I must go, I have to leave you a little gift at another Hot Topic before we take off for a little "vacance" some place nice and sunny and not hooked up to the Internet.
I'm sure you will be able to plod along without me until I get back, no??
-
You should go look. It's really funny! See, this person has been trolling the AARC forum for some time. But, it seems, because they put forth a positive take on the Program, not only to you buy it hook, line and sinker, but you even allude to the practice as regards anon posters who put forth views that you're not so willing to accept.
Boy! You're gonna be some great head shrinker, I'll tell you what! :rofl:
The most important bill in our whole code is that for the diffusion of
knowledge among the people. No other sure foundation can be devised, for the preservation of freedom and happiness.
--Thomas Jefferson
_________________
Ginger Warbis ~ Antigen
Seed sibling `71 - `80
Straight South (Sarasota, FL)
10/80 - 10/82
Anonymity Anonymous
It is wrong to leave a stumbling block in the road once it has tripped you.
-
Antigen,
This is the user known sometimes as JessicaM. I have never posted under the name ottawa (or whatever it is), and I don't like being catagorized with that person. I have been posting here for a couple of years, at the beginning I was "cheeky54", then I was JessicaM, mostly just anonymous, because I always forget my sign in as I don't post often enough.
I'm not mad, I just wanted to clear that up. And I am definitely not positive when it comes to AARC.
-
Me again, okay you weren't saying I was ottawa, but I did go back and see the post that apparently I had written, and nope, it's not me. Anyway, it's early Tuesday morning...forgive me.
JessicaM.
-
No, somebody registered a username "JessicaM", which has been used a couple of times from the same IP address as AARCGrad and a bunch of anon posts that are very pro program. Same general geographic area as you, but worlds apart in temperament.
I hope this clears things up. :smile: "Replace end user" (The Top Support Call Closer 10 Years Running)
--Bastard Administrator
-
Weird, I wonder why someone would chose to use my name as their user name. Crazy....
Thanks for clearing that up. :smile:
-
thank you for your answer
-
Look, I admit that computers are difficult for me to understand. So this whole string of posts is sort of obscure to me.
Is this what you were saying:
that somehow, you had come to the conclusion that certain posts with anonymous and other usernames were from the same person?
But then it proved not to be true?
Well, this is interesting, in itself, but doesn't it also imply that our posts are not really anonymous, even when we post anonymously, because you, Ginger, are able to discern where each of us are posting from?
I mean, this is sort of an academic question for me, because I do not post anonymously, but for those who do, it sounds as if their post still gives you considerable info about them.
Tell me if I am wrong.
-
Usually each person has an individual IP address (which yes, us hosts can see but you can't). The cable company servicing most people from Alberta who post here in lamens terms, hands out group IP's. Jessica M happens to be sharing an IP with AARCGrad. However if needed we can always still find out the exact personal IP and find out who is who with help from the cable company, which has been pretty helpful.
Her point I believe was to out someone posting under various identities, (not so much their names, but their different stances on the issues). However in this case it's a little different and the identities are legit.
-
On 2004-07-15 17:26:00, Hamiltonf wrote:
"
On 2004-07-01 20:13:00, ottawa5 wrote:
"
I suppose that I could accept unquestioningly the point of view that the individuals who could be called CEDU success stories are brainwashed. Yet several of these people are known to me reasonably well and I see no sign of delusion or dysfunction in the ways (which are appropiately individualized) in which they have gone on to live their lives after CEDU.
Puzzling, but then life is sometimes like that--I am confident that patience and further information will help to clarify the situation."
It shouldn't be that puzzling to people who have read Chomsky, and before that Willhelm Reich, on the "Mass Psychology of Fascism"
You mentioned earlier something about my belief system being perhaps socialist. Where brainwashing is concerned, it's not a question of belief systems, but of cold hard logic and science. That's one reason I have so much difficulty accepting so many things that are dictated by "The Law". True, there is a great deal of logic involved, but very little hard science, and Law does not base itself on scientifically validated data, but frequently on myths, propaganda and socially determined legislation. With an unthinking media involved, this is how you have the manufacture of consent as Chomsky calls it.
It's easy to see how the US, from the cold war onwards has fallen victim to brainwashing. Brainwashing based on fear was the very foundation of Nazi Germany, and, today, of the American Bushist state. Chomsky, again goes into this in his "Hegemony or Survival" While he only mentions the drug war in passing in relation to the US involvement in, for example, Colombia, I would suggest that it is equally significant that once the Taliban agreed to ban poppy production in Afghanistan, the US were willing to ignore all the other incredible abuses being wrought by them, at least until 9/11. The Cold War had been replaced by the War on (some) Drugs and only then the War on Terrorism. But perhaps I'm getting too far afield.
The brainwashing of almost an entire population by Hitler was relatively easy following the Reichstag fire.
It's been just as easy for Bush following 9/11, especially as the US has been on an almost constant war footing since WWII.
In law we have a saying that some people "never let the facts get in the way of a good argument." other times "never let the Law get in the way of a good argument"
Bush succeeded in both in his immoral and illegal invasion of Iraq.
But it would never have been possible without the brainwashing of unfortunate Americans that had been taking place for years.
And that brainwashing included the Drug war based as it was on some very flawed thinking. You, dear Ottawa5 must realise, if you have read John Stuart Mill that the drug war was what created victimless crimes.
The indoctrination about the evils of drugs was so complete that even many drug users came to believe that they were victims of "pushers" The Demonization of pushers has come to be regarded as a universal truth (by pressure at the UN from the US) It was reflected in Steppenwolf in the 1970's "Goddam the Pusher man". But almost inevitably the pushers that are arrested or entrapped are people at the low end of the scale and most often are doing friends a favour in dealing small amounts. Sometimes they are addicts, but only sometimes.
So the grown-ups begin to see their kids experiment with small amounts of pot and they begin to panic (after all, says the brainwashing propaganda, its 30 times more potent than when YOU experimented with it.(false) And this is where the cults can move in. They feed on fear, which is endemic to the American belief system. "Somebody is going to seduce my child into a life of drug-abusing decadence and I do not have the confidence in my own upbringing to be able to handle this and have him come out of it alive." The cults know your fears, and they will tell you after a brief "assessment" of your child that he's on a slippery slope, and if he's not treated by them, he's going to be dead within 3 years"
And it's all about money and politics ,too. Do some more reading on these fora, and you will see a very interesting link between the money making schemes of private "treatment" facilities, mandatory drug testing (private organizations), drug warriors like Mel and Betty Sembler (Mel's a Bush appointee to the US ambassadorship in Italy, and DARE (widely criticised for it's ineffectiveness).
So, Boot camps, Adolescent Treatment, adult treatment AA, NA, Synanon, All of the 12 step programmes (note my English spelling) are based upon a fundamental flaw.
And I think that I feel very very sorry for the victims of these programmes because they have been deprived of so much of their potential for true joy, independance, freedom and experience.
And if you think that Fahrenheit 9/11 is a pack of lies, you might as well go on believing these cults, created by the hard religious right are a good thing. ( I cheered when I heard Ted Kennedy referring to that segment of the US population as religious zealots)
So that's my final word on this thread, I named myself after that great American Republican Hamilton Fish Jr from New York who opposed the US getting into the war against Hitler. Perhaps because my belief system tells me that he was a perfect example of deluded thinking.
"
If I got to be in another "Values Workshop" at CEDU ed, I would choose you for my hero.
Keep telling it like it is. Or am I so pessimistic about my experience that I am more suseptable to paranoia? Hmmmm...
-
i dont think you should send ur son to aarc !!!!!!!!
-
Funny, the original post was in regards to me. I did end up going, and was brought to fully realize the absolute twisted cult-like atmosphere that is AARC.
I ran after a month, thank god, and today I remain sober after going to a (very well-known) secondary rehab centre (whom, by the way, most of AARCs step materials originate from).
Currently I'm awake at 4:00 am thinking about the shit that AARC put me through. I've been told that this is due to PTSD, as a result of AARC's brainwashing quack-bullshit. It's pretty sad to know how many people who I left behind in AARC are still there because their families have been swindled by "Dr." Dean Vause.
I hope someday the public will be enlightened to the psychological cruelty that takes place within AARC.
--Mike
-
Mike,
im so glad to hear that you are doing well.
you have met me but im not gonna reveal who i am on here.(for obvious reasons)
are you in treatment in the states?
im glad you got out before aarc destroyed your personality, like what has happened to me and so many others.
are you still in treatment? are you with your family?
will you be coming back to calgary again? maybe we could meet up if you are.......
-
Hi Mike. You got away? good for you!
In some literature about cult recovery they discuss why PTSD kicks in in cults. The kicker is that conventional therapy uses regressiosional therapy to recover from PTSD, but in places like AARC regressional therapy is what causes the PTSD! Either way - learning about PTSD was helpful for me.
I'm sorry that you are waking in the night because of it. You can vent here if it helps.
-
Yes I am back in Calgary, and have been for a while now. I completed my treatment in the states about 2 months ago (it was only a month-long program, but it seems to have done the trick). I don't regularly attend meetings, as I often find that I get cravings from them, but I think it's better to stay away instead of simply go out of guilt and risk a craving situation, personally.
I'd be glad to meet sometime if you'd like.
-
If you'd like to contact me, you can e-mail me at [email protected]
-Mike
-
Hey parents who are reading this, please know that the responses you are getting are from a non licensed lawyer and the rest being failures of the program... probably the last people you should ask if you believe your son needs help. They are likely to tell you to buy him some drugs and ween him off.
-
Hey loser read the goddamn thread before you reply. I escaped AARC, and my parents have since apologized for ever putting me through that shit. Infact, they thanked me for running from that crazy fucking institution of lies, which made it nearly impossible for even them to withdraw me by their own discretion.
And before you say anything, I'm still sober. You should feel ashamed of yourself for supporting such mentally and emotionally destructive ideals.
-
On 2004-12-18 23:02:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Hey parents who are reading this, please know that the responses you are getting are from a non licensed lawyer and the rest being failures of the program... probably the last people you should ask if you believe your son needs help. They are likely to tell you to buy him some drugs and ween him off. "
That's just the sort of crap some of the supporters of AARC would give you. Try to convince you that the lawyer who has posted on this site is a phony when in fact anybody who has read this site over a long period of time knows that Hamiltonf is a real lawyer and not only that, if you need Legal Aid will give you the real information you need to get a hold of lawyers in Calgary.
Remember, there is no legal reason that you can be kept in AARC against your will.
-
Telling people to be ashamed of themselves is also a prime example of the crap your kid can learn in AARC.
-
On 2004-12-19 03:27:00, Anonymous wrote:
"
On 2004-12-18 23:02:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Hey parents who are reading this, please know that the responses you are getting are from a non licensed lawyer and the rest being failures of the program... probably the last people you should ask if you believe your son needs help. They are likely to tell you to buy him some drugs and ween him off. "
That's just the sort of crap some of the supporters of AARC would give you. Try to convince you that the lawyer who has posted on this site is a phony when in fact anybody who has read this site over a long period of time knows that Hamiltonf is a real lawyer and not only that, if you need Legal Aid will give you the real information you need to get a hold of lawyers in Calgary.
Remember, there is no legal reason that you can be kept in AARC against your will."
Are you joking? Hamilton openly admited in a thread long time ago that he was unlicensed. If you are under 18 and were signed in by your parents or court ordered. You are either legally obligated to stay there, or in the custody of Aarc, Im surprised you legal wizards haven't figured that one out yet. :roll:
Oh, and are you saying people shouldnt feel ashamed of filthy behaviour? Time to sing hare krishna.
-
On 2004-12-19 01:55:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Hey loser read the goddamn thread before you reply. I escaped AARC, and my parents have since apologized for ever putting me through that shit. Infact, they thanked me for running from that crazy fucking institution of lies, which made it nearly impossible for even them to withdraw me by their own discretion.
And before you say anything, I'm still sober. You should feel ashamed of yourself for supporting such mentally and emotionally destructive ideals."
Your parents were sick of you, signed you in, and didnt have the balls to stick it out. You also claim you are still sober... so howe can you question its effectiveness? You werent sober before you went in. Sounds like a good program to me if you could spend a short time there and still remain sober after :wink:
-
I was a full blown addict before I started having lobster for dinner every night. Funny, now that I eat the lobster, I don't drink anymore......must have been the lobster!!!! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
-
On 2004-12-22 22:36:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Your parents were sick of you, signed you in, and didnt have the balls to stick it out. You also claim you are still sober... so howe can you question its effectiveness? You werent sober before you went in. Sounds like a good program to me if you could spend a short time there and still remain sober after :wink:"
Actually, if you had read the thread, you'd know that I went to Hazelden in Minnesota following AARC. I attribute my sobreity today to the latter program 100%.
Also, regarding your comment toward my family and I not having "the balls" to stick out AARC; I think that most people would agree that submitting to a program that denies nearly all of your (legally entitled) personal freedoms is more indicative of a shortcoming in one's testicular department. But please, continue to make baseless claims about my situation, which you seem to know so much about, you fucking mentally-indentured drone.
-
On 2004-12-22 22:33:00, Anonymous wrote:
"
On 2004-12-19 03:27:00, Anonymous wrote:
"
On 2004-12-18 23:02:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Hey parents who are reading this, please know that the responses you are getting are from a non licensed lawyer and the rest being failures of the program... probably the last people you should ask if you believe your son needs help. They are likely to tell you to buy him some drugs and ween him off. "
That's just the sort of crap some of the supporters of AARC would give you. Try to convince you that the lawyer who has posted on this site is a phony when in fact anybody who has read this site over a long period of time knows that Hamiltonf is a real lawyer and not only that, if you need Legal Aid will give you the real information you need to get a hold of lawyers in Calgary.
Remember, there is no legal reason that you can be kept in AARC against your will."
Are you joking? Hamilton openly admited in a thread long time ago that he was unlicensed. If you are under 18 and were signed in by your parents or court ordered. You are either legally obligated to stay there, or in the custody of Aarc, Im surprised you legal wizards haven't figured that one out yet. ::bangin:: ::bangin:: ::bangin:: ::bangin:: ::bangin:: ::bangin:: [ This Message was edited by: Hamiltonf on 2004-12-23 20:47 ]
-
And once again, after 13 years, close to 300 graduate families, tons of other people in an dout, no law suits, TV exposes, etc etc. What's going on? If all this terrible stuff is happening, isn't it your duty as an officer of the court to stop it? But of course, that would take evidence of wrong doing. I think you just like to see your comments in print. Sad.
-
I think what is really sad is that the defenders of AARC feel that they have to resort to outright lies, misrepresentation and deception to propagate their spurious claims.
-
On 2004-12-23 21:48:00, Anonymous wrote:
"And once again, after 13 years, close to 300 graduate families, tons of other people in and out, no law suits, TV exposes, etc etc. What's going on? If all this terrible stuff is happening, isn't it your duty as an officer of the court to stop it? But of course, that would take evidence of wrong doing. I think you just like to see your comments in print. Sad."
I'm not concerned with launching law suits, I'm merely concerned that people are properly informed of their rights and that they know that they cannot be forced to remain when they do not want to. They need to know their rights so that they can assert their rights and not be afraid. Moreover, this thread was started (purportedly) by someone who was making an enquiry. They need to be informed of all of the ramifications of this type of treatment and the risks that they face. Many of these cults have been around for much longer than AARC. Some have been closed down by governments, some have been sued and had to pay out millions in dollars to victims, but still morph into other versions of the same thing. In the great scheme of things, 300 "happy families" over thirteen years averages only 23 families per year. That's not very many considering the millions of dollars involved in the place. I'm sure that other places less devoted to "breaking down" the psyche are much more
successful.
and you said it " tons of other people in and out" . One can only assume that the "tons of others in and out are those who AARC would rather not talk about or would demean as being "failures" because they haven't bought into the ideology of the cult.
Why should anybody launch a law suit who hasn't suffered any damage, has realised their rights, has got out before any harm was done?
and you say:
"isn't it your duty as an officer of the court to stop it?"
You should think about that comment. Perhaps you believe lawyers emulate Don Quixote?
Said he riding off into the sunset....
:rofl:
-
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!
-
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!"
Ah, the truth will out. You said, "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."
First, it'll never happen. But you have revealed that yours ARE in real trouble. Given the attitudes you have revealed about yourself, why am I not surprised?
Second, how much of their being "victims" is a direct result of the scare tactics and lies that are part and parcel of the "war on drugs"
Third, ever heard of self-fulfilling prophecies?
The flaw in the whole attitude relating to addiction is that it is necessary to completely abstain. Maintenance programs in Europe are proving otherwise.
re: "But your analogy is correct. Tilting at windmills is bang on."
I thought you'd like that. In fact, I have practical hands on experience with so-called "drug-problem" cases every day, though I prefer to call it the "prohibition problem", or the "self-righteous fundamentalist problem" .
I can understand your bitterness. But really. Destroying a personality to save it leaves it distorted and unable to deal with real life.
And it is not I that have hurled insults, defamation and lies, my friend. Just look over your own posts, and see how you have managed to duck and weave, twist snd turn. Your credibility is now shot as you have been hoist on your own petard. I just hope that the readers of this site are able to appreciate that.
Enjoy your Xmas.
I hope I'm not too much of a grinch for you and that you will in the end see my point. And by the way, if you want a referral to someone who can empower your grandchildren to deal with their problem without being destroyed in the process, please do not hesitate to contact me by private message.
-
Oops, that last post was mine.
-
On 2004-12-24 06:04:00, Anonymous wrote:
". 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!"
Funny, my kids went through their bout with drugs. After what I went through there was NO WAY I was going to put them in a program. The key to raising well rounded children is to be involved in their lives. Sending them off to be "fixed" is just a cop out. In fact, my oldest got fairly heavy into drugs but I knew that if I let her experience her own consequences she would learn more than if I FORCED her to change. She's doing so well now, getting ready for nursing school, lives on her own and is a contributing member of society. How come I did LESS drugs than her but came out screwed up and she was left to grow on her own and came out great????
-
Perhaps the answer lies in this article:
Addiction Is a Choice, by Jeffrey A. Schaler, Ph.D. Open Court, 2000, 179 pages.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hooked on Addiction
By Jeff Riggenbach
Liberty Magazine
September, 2000, pages 65-66
Most people who oppose the War on Drugs - including, alas, most libertarians - never question the propaganda that is used to justify it. "Yes," they say, "it's true: drug use destroys the user's health and, not infrequently, his entire life. We stipulate to that. But, after all, people have a right to destroy themselves." Or, alternately, they say, "But, after all, the results of attempting to prohibit these drugs are even worse than the (undeniably horrible) effects of the drugs themselves."
The question is whether the effects of drugs like marijuana, cocaine, or heroin really are all that horrible. And the answer is no, they aren't. The history of the War on Drugs, which goes back more than a hundred years to the first drug prohibition laws adopted in San Francisco and other localities in the late 19th century, is overgrown with the exaggerations, oversimplifications, and outright lies of anti-drug propagandists. The result is a tangled thicket of mostly baseless myths. Anyone interested in the truth about "dangerous drugs" and the American war to stamp them out must hack his way through the thicket in order to find the truth. There's the myth of "addiction," the myth of the "heroin overdose death," the myth that "drugs cause crime," the myth that "drugs cause poverty and ill health," and the myth of "drug treatment," to name just a few of the more pernicious.
Jeffrey Schaler, a psychologist in private practice who counts teaching posts at American University and Johns Hopkins among his academic credits, explodes two of these myths: "addiction" and "drug treatment." Anyone who labors under the delusion that drug addicts are helpless to control or change their bad habits without "drug treatment" desperately needs to read his new book Addiction Is a Choice.
Schaler begins his line of inquiry by asking the fundamental question, "What is addiction?" He answers that until about two hundred years ago, the word "addiction" was universally understood in English-speaking countries to mean "commitment, dedication, devotion, inclination, bent, or attachment." He beings his Introduction and eleven of his thirteen chapters with quotations, many of them charming, from writers of the 16th through 19th centuries. In each quotation, the word "addiction" is used in its original sense. Thus we read of addiction to virginity, to melancholy, to the dance, to hot countries, to sports, to other people's money (written, not surprisingly, of members of the ruling class), and, inevitably, to vice.
In the late 18th and early 19th centuries, Schaler explains, activists and writers in the Temperance Movement (and certain medical doctors too - the American Benjamin Rush and the Scot Thomas Trotters among them) began speaking of addiction as something quite different. Now, suddenly, one was addicted, not to, say drunkenness, but to alcohol itself. And this addiction was to be looked upon as a disease, from which the addict was suffering.
Schaler writes:
"Neither Rush nor Trotter offered scientific evidence to support this new claim, but Rush was a powerful rhetorician and exerted an influence on public opinion. The newly invented medical language grew to be accepted as fact."
Schaler examines this new theory, which he calls the "disease model," in detail. "If addiction is a disease," he writes, "it's either a bodily or a mental disease." There is a problem with regarding addiction as a physical disease, however. It doesn't have the right characteristics. As Schaler puts it, "pathology . . . requires an identifiable alteration in bodily tissue, a change in the cells of the body, for disease classification." This is the reason that "a simple test of a true physical disease is whether it can be shown to exist in a corpse. There are no bodily signs of addiction itself (as opposed to its effects) that can be identified in a dead body. Addiction is therefore not listed in standard pathology textbooks."
Schaler acknowledges that "a doctor might conclude that someone with cirrhosis of the liver and other bodily signs had partaken of alcoholic beverages heavily over a long period, and might infer that the patient was an 'alcoholic,'" but this doesnot show that there are bodily signs of addiction. As he observes a few pages later:
". . . diseases are medical conditions. They can be discovered on the basis of bodily signs. They are something people have. They are involuntary. For example, the disease of syphilis was discovered. It is identified by specific signs. It is not a form of activity and is not based in human values. While certain behaviors increase the likelihood of acquiring syphilis, and while the acquisition of syphilis has consequences for subsequent social interaction, the behavior and the disease are separate phenomena. Syphilis meets the nosological critera for disease classification in a pathology textbook. Unlike addiction, syphilis is a disease that can be diagnosed in a corpse."
Well, then, is addiction a mental disease, a "mental illness"? The American Psychiatric Association, Schaler tells us, does not list addiction in its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders IV. The Association does list certain "substance-related disorders" in the manula, but, as Schaler comments, "they would not fit the category of organic disorders because they are described in terms of behavior only. 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." These "functional disorders," Schaler writers, "are mental in the sense that they involve mental activities." But "as [Thomas] Szasz has pointed out, they are diseases only in a metaphorical sense."
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."
To say that Alcoholics Anonymous is a religious cult is not, of course, to say that it is ineffective. But, in fact, it is. As Schaler puts it,
"treatment generally doesn't work. "Ill repeat that: addiction treatments do not work. This doesn't mean that individuals never give up their addiction after treatment. It's simply that they don't seem to do so at any higher rate than without treatment. One treatment tends to be just about as effective as any other treatment, which is just about as effective as no treatment at all."
In Schaler's view, addiction is not a "disease" that requires "treatment"; it is a choice that requires individual responsibility. "Drugs don't cause addiction," he writers. "No thing can 'addict' any person. Moreover, 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."
Why, then, do people choose to use drugs? "People use legal and illegal drugs like Prozac and heroin," Schaler answers, "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."
The myth of addiction has made ignominous contributions to public issues other than the War on Drugs, of course. It is, after all, the nonsensical concept of the addictiveness of tobacco that has been used to justify the recent financial assault on cigarette manufacturers by larcenous state governments and unscrupulous personal injury lawyers. Jeffrey Schaler's crusading little book is poised to do a whole world of good, if only it can reach and persuade a broad enough public. Let us fervently hope that it does so.
Copyright, 2000, Liberty Magazine
-
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 ]
-
On 2004-12-24 12:00:00, Hamiltonf wrote:
"
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
-
"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 the 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.
-
So this is why millions of sensible, intelligent, independent people who have a drinking problem no longer drink - with the help of AA and AA related treatment programs. I just attended a breakfast meeting where 190 sober alcoholics are able to celebrate christmas with their families.
Among the celebrants
- and Order of Canada recipient
- a psychiatrist
- several heads of large corporations
- a priest
Many "psychologists" who have taught at ivy league schools have claimed to have successful alternatives for addicted people. So where are the results? Any academic can write a book and claim to be an expert. Lots of addicts are looking for an easier way - that is because AA is hard. It requires some degree of commitment, character and willingness to be honest. Offer an addict a pill or some course to be cured and they will likely go for it. and more than likely iy won't work. At least that is my personal experience.
-
On 2004-12-24 12:13:00, Anonymous wrote:
"So this is why millions of sensible, intelligent, independent people who have a drinking problem no longer drink - with the help of AA and AA related treatment programs. I just attended a breakfast meeting where 190 sober alcoholics are able to celebrate christmas with their families.
Among the celebrants
- and Order of Canada recipient
- a psychiatrist
- several heads of large corporations
- a priest
Many "psychologists" who have taught at ivy league schools have claimed to have successful alternatives for addicted people. So where are the results? Any academic can write a book and claim to be an expert. Lots of addicts are looking for an easier way - that is because AA is hard. It requires some degree of commitment, character and willingness to be honest. Offer an addict a pill or some course to be cured and they will likely go for it. and more than likely iy won't work. At least that is my personal experience. "
What a load of self-righteous claptrap. I was warned 30 years ago by an AA member that I was headed on a "downward spiral". I wasn't. So. Are you the one with "personal experience" for whom it didn't work?
Where are the results of the N. American experience? Mostly languishing in jails. Obviously you haven't read the science. And psychiatrists are among the worst offenders
-
If you've caused a car accident and somebody tells you that you therefore need to never leave the house so you don't ever do it again and you find that it works; does that mean stepping outside of the house will mean you'll "relapse" and cause an accident again? Do you say to yourself "Sure other bad drivers leave the house again but I never see them so they're probably all dead or just waiting until they cause another one someday."
Of course the arguement of whether or not AA works has nothing to do with AARC because it is not a meeting where people choose freely to attend and come and go as they please using the program the way that feels right to them. Nor is AARC a place for people who have proven to have addictions or an allergy to alcohol.
-
On 2004-12-24 20:28:00, Anonymous wrote:
"If you've caused a car accident and somebody tells you that you therefore need to never leave the house so you don't ever do it again and you find that it works; does that mean stepping outside of the house will mean you'll "relapse" and cause an accident again? Do you say to yourself "Sure other bad drivers leave the house again but I never see them so they're probably all dead or just waiting until they cause another one someday."
Of course the arguement of whether or not AA works has nothing to do with AARC because it is not a meeting where people choose freely to attend and come and go as they please using the program the way that feels right to them. Nor is AARC a place for people who have proven to have addictions or an allergy to alcohol."
So what is AARC a place for? I don't understand
-
It's a place for locking up and making money off of kids who's parents don't know how to deal with them.
Some kids are normal kids and others have more troubles but are still "normal" in the long run. Few are actual addicts who need to be put in a detox facility and probably none are actual alcoholics.
-
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
-
In the real world people cope by going through hard times by going to their friends or family, and taking time to do things for themselves that they know have helped them in the past. In 12 step programs people preach that you need to go to more meetings. In AARC kids are taught that they aren't normal people and that they can't survive in the real world and that real world people won't "call you on your bullshit" so they will "enable you" and you will eventually die if you go to these normal people for help. Many young AARC grads get older and step away from AARC but keep going to meetings and then as they mature they look around them and realize that they're making friends with "normal" people on the "outside" and that maybe they don't need that 12 step program to lead a normal life.
Some people do have a lifelong struggle with alcoholism and need therapy and support. I think AA would be more effective if they stopped trying to protect their steps and books from the ever terrifying "change" and instead modernized it a bit and made the groups more about supporting one another than making speeches. When people come to a 12 step meeting during a vulnerable time in their life they are usually just looking for someone to talk to who will relate to them and keep their secret. Instead they enter a room where people have 1 way conversations and blabber about themselves.
-
"But don't impose your view of what works on kids. "
And what are you doing?
"learn to cope"
I have quite nicely. I attend 1 hour of AA per week, and am happy successful and pretty normal. No "PTSD" here.
"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)"
That is the biggest oxymoron I have come across on this site.
"Drugs are inanimate objects." so are guns, knives, poison, explosives etc. Hand 'em all out to children, after all inanimate objects don't hurt anyone. And of course children make excellent decisions about such inanmimate objects
And finally, what expertise do you have? Have you had a drug or alcohol problem? I speak only of my own experience, personally. You are offering no solutions, just pontificating with comments like "learn to cope". Sounds a lot like "you are weak, just stop using". That has probably killed more addicts than every other piece of advice combined.
-
On 2004-12-26 10:26:00, Anonymous wrote:
""But don't impose your view of what works on kids. "
And what are you doing?
"learn to cope"
I have quite nicely. I attend 1 hour of AA per week, and am happy successful and pretty normal. No "PTSD" here.
"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)"
That is the biggest oxymoron I have come across on this site.
"Drugs are inanimate objects." so are guns, knives, poison, explosives etc. Hand 'em all out to children, after all inanimate objects don't hurt anyone. And of course children make excellent decisions about such inanmimate objects
And finally, what expertise do you have? Have you had a drug or alcohol problem? I speak only of my own experience, personally. You are offering no solutions, just pontificating with comments like "learn to cope". Sounds a lot like "you are weak, just stop using". That has probably killed more addicts than every other piece of advice combined."
You assume, of course, that kids being taken into AARC are addicts, and if it were not for AARC they would be deadinthegutterorinjail.
What has probably killed more addicts than every other piece of advice combined is prohibition and the war on drugs. In England from the 1920s until Thatcher adopted Reagan's War on Drugs, there were NO DEATHS from Heroin addiction because a program had been set up where addicts could register and get maintenance injections. After Thatcher stopped it there were 300 deaths in the first year and it has been steadily escalating since. You might argue that's false logic, "post hoc, ergo proctor hoc" but that is the very same argument used by the drug warriors to justify labelling marijuana the gateway drug... But there are millions more deaths caused each year caused by cigarettes than are caused by all other illicit drugs combined.
But we're not talking about AA here we are talking about AARC But the difference between mainland Europe and N. America wrt alcohol and children is significant. When I was 15 I visited Austria and we schoolboys thought it was a big deal to be able to go into an inn and drink wine, because in England the age was 18. In most of the US the age is 21. The reality is that Europe's alcoholism rate is no higher than N. America's (England had had it's Prohibition too and they now have soccer hooligans whose parents never taught them how to handle their liquor. In Dicken's time, with bathtub gin the underclass with no hope could get "drunk for a penny, dead drunk for tuppence")
My young Italian hairdresser relates how she grew up by a vineyard her father owned in Italy and was surrounded by a culture that respected moderation in drinking. She was amazed at her young friends here for whom it ws a "big deal" to go out and get blasted each weekend.
When prohibition reared its ugly head in N. America , it destroyed viniculture in the Italian community and launched the biggest wave of organized crime in US history.
When I arrived in Alberta in 1965, some of the after-effects were still evident. "ladies and escorts" "men only" Kids in cars in back lanes drinking Jack Daniels out of brown paper bags. The beer slinging in local pubs with the limit on the size of the glass so that each order was for two glasses rather than one. And going to parties where the taxi driver stops the car at the town limits and brings a brown paper bag from the trunk. Now that was weird.
Oh yes, I've partied, and some of the people I've partied with realised that they had better quit altogether. But NONE went into AA because they did not need to give in to a higher power. So fine, if you need the supports, feel free. But the kids post AARC need support to get over the demeaning personality disintegration that they have been subjected to . That's what this site is about. Support for the after-effects of cult-treatment
So you think you've learned to cope quite nicely? Does that mean you can take a glass of wine or two with a meal, or a beer, or two and not go on a bender? If you can truly cope, you have nothing to fear and do not need any higher power to prevent you "falling off the wagon".
If you cannot practice the "Aristotelean Mean", I guess, so be it.
Guns are made to kill, knives, poisons and explosives have victims when other directed. I can commit suicide with a gun, a knife, a poison or an explosive, but it is not a crime to do so. Only when I do unto others would it be a crime. If I was really really depressed I might want to kill myself slowly by repeatedly drinking myself into oblivion. But that's not illegal either. If I wanted to alter my consciousness by using a drug , that should not be a crime either. It would be my choice and as long as I do not do anything to others, I should be free to choose my poison. As an adult!
But kids subject to AARC are not given the truth and often, if being self-destructive are never properly diagnosed.
Does anybody really communicate with these kids to discover what is really going on with them? I really doubt it from what I've seen of "recovering Crystal"
::cheers:: ::cheers::
-
On 2004-12-24 12:13:00, Anonymous wrote:
"So this is why millions of sensible, intelligent, independent people who have a drinking problem no longer drink - with the help of AA and AA related treatment programs. I just attended a breakfast meeting where 190 sober alcoholics are able to celebrate christmas with their families.
Among the celebrants
- and Order of Canada recipient
- a psychiatrist
- several heads of large corporations
- a priest
Many "psychologists" who have taught at ivy league schools have claimed to have successful alternatives for addicted people. So where are the results? Any academic can write a book and claim to be an expert. Lots of addicts are looking for an easier way - that is because AA is hard. It requires some degree of commitment, character and willingness to be honest. Offer an addict a pill or some course to be cured and they will likely go for it. and more than likely iy won't work. At least that is my personal experience. "
I refer you to my life counselors ::rocker:: :
http://www.sho.com/site/ptbs/topics.do?topic=12 (http://www.sho.com/site/ptbs/topics.do?topic=12)
Please watch the video preview under their picture on the right hand side. It may open your eyes. :wave:
-
Not available in Canada, you say:
We at Showtime Online express our apologies; however, these pages are intended for access only from within the United States.
-
On 2004-12-26 21:36:00, Anonymous wrote:
Does anybody really communicate with these kids to discover what is really going on with them? I really doubt it from what I've seen of "recovering Crystal"
Thing is, they really and truely believe that they do. They determine (based on what the parents say and their rather wild assumptions about all teenagers) that they know just exactly what the kid is thinking, feeling and doing when no one's looking. That's pretty easy. What's the formal name of the scam when you make generalized gueses and then claim telepathy? That's the trick. Then they simply "communicate" this to the kid by whatever means and for however long it takes until the kid believes it too.
Once that's done (More or less similar to a primary diagnosis), then it's all very simple. The problem is drugs (all problems derive from drugs, of course) and the solution is the Program. No other problem is relavent or important and no other solution ever need be sought. Simple and sweet as that good old Mountain Dew. Except, of course, for the kid who has to scrupulously hide any and all manifestation of any kind of problem in order to avoid more of the cure.
Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction.
--Philosopher, Blaise Pascal
-
My daughter & I spent 10 months at AArc, have no regrets and totally support the program. It has changed our lives for the best.
-
yep, i guess things are great now that she is too afraid to say what she really thinks and you speak for both of you.
-
On 2005-04-10 17:04:00, Anonymous wrote:
"My daughter & I spent 10 months at AArc, have no regrets and totally support the program. It has changed our lives for the best."
And I have offered to meet such people before, but somehow it never pans out. Send me a private e-mail and let's discuss how this miracle works.
-
yep, i guess things are great now that she is too afraid to say what she really thinks and you speak for both of you.
:roll: :roll: :roll:
-
I also spent time in treatment with my family and it was the hardest 10 months of my life but I have never had such a relations ship with my family like I do today.
This program is a life saver for more then the child that goes in. It helped me get my life back and I am forever thankful for that.
This programs works for thoes who want to work it and thats the bottom line!
-
On 2005-05-02 15:07:00, Sibling wrote:
"I also spent time in treatment with my family and it was the hardest 10 months of my life but I have never had such a relations ship with my family like I do today.
This program is a life saver for more then the child that goes in. It helped me get my life back and I am forever thankful for that.
This programs works for thoes who want to work it and thats the bottom line!"
How long have you been out? You sound about like it was probably...last week??
Spilling out program language over and over won't save you...
And were you in there, or a sibling of yours? I don't know if you really know what goes on if you werent in there yourself. And the kids become too scared to say exactly what goes on because they're afraid of seeming dishonest, or like they're glamorizing their drug use, or trying to be manipulative, or any other number of horrible horrible things they tell you for simply trying to take care of yourself.
Getting kids to act in a way that makes the rest of the family at the expense of them being zombie-robots and having half of their thoughts cut off out of intense terror, is not really the way to go for therapy, IMO.
Good luck to you, time will tell time will tell...
-
Well my family graduated in 1997. I am a sibling of teen who was in treatment. We are very close and she never had anything bad to say about AARC. She knows that it saved her life, she is happy to have had the chance to make a change in her life. She said it was hard and it was not fun at times but there is not another program that would have kept her sober. AARC is an important part of my famlies life and will always be.
-
Does she call herself names like selfish, self centered, lazy, a coward...
This stuff isn't good for a young girl's self-esteem.
Exactly where do you think they came up with this treatment method? At Harvard in a research study? Not exactly...try from a drug addict, who started his own cult and then tried to kill someone with a rattlesnake before people caught on to the fact that he was a little off. That's always a good way to find good therapy. But really, I wish your family the best. But know that there are many people that spend the next 20 years suffering from traumatic memories and nightmares.
-
AARC never dealt with any issues reguarding my self-esteem. Instead they continued to deal with the drug aspect, and I still couldn't help feeling like a horrible person. Personally I don't think drug addiction was the main root of my problem, rather issues reguarding my self-esteem. As soon as I left AARC, I had begun to realize how much self-pity I was filled with. I looked for other psychological help and found it immediately, mostly to heal from the "aftermath" of AARC. I began to recover quickly from the emotional wreck and began working on my self-esteem. I think I feel the best I ever have and am extremely motivated. While I was in AARC I always thought about going back to my old life. Now I don't think twice about it. I have acquired confidence in myself to not think about, or do drugs or anything that would be detrimental to my self-worth.
-
I agree, focusing only on the "addiction" if there truly was one ignores the underlying issues. And shaming kids for having a problem like that only exacerbates the originating problem as well. And IMO, using behavioral conditioning to get kids to behave the way their parents and other adults *want* them to is like burying a ticking time bomb that will most likely go off at some point. Not that what the parents want is necessarily bad, but the fact that they are willing to sacrafice TRUE honest change for coercive change IS bad. What will happen when the conditioned fear wears off, or worse yet, someone charming and/or controlling comes along and takes the place of that authority figure in the person's mind? The person will have NOTHING to fall back on, no way to think for him/herself, no way to determine the appropriate course of action, no way to be introspective and self reliant. What then??
Bravo to you for working through all of that !!!
-
coerce: to cause to do through pressure or necessity, by physical, moral or intellectual means
Hmmmm just what parents do every day in order to get appropriate behaviour from their children.
The only coersion I underwent was when my parent told me I would no longer get money for my drug habit. While I was in AARC, we dealt with my addiction. But we also dealt with my abandonment by my father, my poor self image, the shame and guilt I had for the shitty things I did during my 10 years of using drugs every day. I was given responsibility, respect, invited into peoples homes to interact with their young children, and shown a positive way to live where I wasn't hurting people. 13 years later I am doing awesome, have written 2 books, have a 2 year old, well adjusted baby, a great marriage, good income and good friends. I worked my ass off for the last decade to get here, and AARC was the initial springboard, taking me out of my destructive lifestyle and giving me a safe place to work out my stuff, become responsible for my future. I could have walked away any time - I chose to get what I could out the experience. Was it fun? Sometimes, but not always. But it was better than the lonely, criminal existence I was living. I took what worked for me and ran with it.
Now I am "coersed" to work hard and get what I want because I like succeeding. Life is about being pushed to do better.
I feel compassion for anyone who felt they were harmed by their experience at AARC, but my experience did nothing but help me to do better.
-
DG, what are your books called?? Where can I buy them, I interested in reading them.
-
Jess, check your PMs
-
On 2005-05-03 20:25:00, Anonymous wrote:
"But we also dealt with my abandonment by my father, my poor self image, the shame and guilt I had for the shitty things I did during my 10 years of using drugs every day. I was given responsibility, respect, invited into peoples homes to interact with their young children, and shown a positive way to live where I wasn't hurting people.
Now I am "coersed" to work hard and get what I want because I like succeeding. Life is about being pushed to do better."
I am glad to hear that you are happy and things are going well. There is however a difference between learning that certain things are more helpful to your life than others, and in being told that you are shitty.
Why would you need such a harsh program unless you really were wanting to be horrible and didn't care about yourself or others. I think if you take a close look at your life up until things started to go badly, you will see a child who wanted to be loved and didn't feel that way. Did your parents know how to talk to you, and better yet, to listen??
It sounds like you learned how to take care of yourself and are now happy, which is good. I just question the means and the necessity of it being so condemning.
-
"I am glad to hear that you are happy and things are going well. There is however a difference between learning that certain things are more helpful to your life than others, and in being told that you are shitty. "
In response I was never told I was "shitty" or anything else that was demeaning.
"Why would you need such a harsh program unless you really were wanting to be horrible and didn't care about yourself or others."
I'm not sure what you mean by "harsh". The only thing that sucked was the food. Raps were "uncomfortable", but I was as honest as I could be, and would get things pointed out to me and asked how I felt. I would relate to others when they talked about something that was similar to my experience, or to give them support.
"I think if you take a close look at your life up until things started to go badly, you will see a child who wanted to be loved and didn't feel that way. Did your parents know how to talk to you, and better yet, to listen?? "
My parents were excellent communicators - my father and step fathers were both PhDs, Drs in Psychology, and my mother was a Speech Pathologist and later got her Masters in Psychology. We were a normal, middle-class family, and my brother and I turned out to be drug addicts. I certainly do not blame my parents!
"It sounds like you learned how to take care of yourself and are now happy, which is good. I just question the means and the necessity of it being so condemning."
I was a hard core career criminal. Today I am a productive, happy person. AARC was not "condemning" me and was not harsh towards me. I could have left anytime. The people were gret to me, especially once I was unclouded by years of drug use.
-
I was a hard core career criminal.
What crimes were you committing? How often? How much money did you make? How old were you?
-
On 2005-05-04 14:13:00, Anonymous wrote:
"In response I was never told I was "shitty" or anything else that was demeaning.
"
Why did you call yourself that then? They never told you that you were "full of shit"?
"I'm not sure what you mean by "harsh". The only thing that sucked was the food. Raps were "uncomfortable", but I was as honest as I could be, and would get things pointed out to me and asked how I felt. I would relate to others when they talked about something that was similar to my experience, or to give them support.
"
So they didn't scream at you? They didn't control your every move, including where your eyes were looking at every moment? I would call that harsh, and way beyond uncomfortable. Demeaning and humiliating would be more accurate.
"My parents were excellent communicators - my father and step fathers were both PhDs, Drs in Psychology, and my mother was a Speech Pathologist and later got her Masters in Psychology. We were a normal, middle-class family, and my brother and I turned out to be drug addicts. I certainly do not blame my parents!
"
Well...straight had psychologists working there too, that doesnt mean they knew anything about communicating or being empathetic. What's wrong with "blaming" (notice this is another self deprecating remark) your parents for things they may have done wrong? Do you think that would mean you didn't love them?
When would you draw the line and say, now THATS not acceptable?
"I was a hard core career criminal. Today I am a productive, happy person. AARC was not "condemning" me and was not harsh towards me. I could have left anytime. The people were gret to me, especially once I was unclouded by years of drug use.
"
Your words are full of self-condemning remarks, that also happen to be the very same terms used in there.
Again I am happy you have grown from the time when you were young and are now happy, I just have the feeling that it's in spite of your time at aarc, rather than because of it.
-
I'm not to sure why you can not just let this lady be happy for you sucess at AARC! She seems to have a great program and why must question and rip apart every word she is saying?
You seem to have a more problems about AARC then the those who have gone through.Maybe all the stories are not the best but I'm sure if you got down to the bottom of the hate of AARC it is because people do not want to look at there part of the bad situation. Honesty is a huge part of this program and having the staff tell you that you are "full of shit" is far different than telling them they are a "shitty" person. If you are Honest as you can be the situation will be a fine one as this lady had stated!
-
"Why did you call yourself that then? They never told you that you were "full of shit"? "
Call myself what? I don't recall anyone saying that I was "full of shit". I was certainly dishonest, and i was called on inconsistencies in my stories.
"So they didn't scream at you? They didn't control your every move, including where your eyes were looking at every moment? I would call that harsh, and way beyond uncomfortable. Demeaning and humiliating would be more accurate. "
No, never screamed at, in fact I did my fair share of yelling. My every move was far from controlled. I could look any where
I wanted. I agreed to abide by rules, and the further I went in AARC, the more these rules were relaxed.
"Well...straight had psychologists working there too, that doesnt mean they knew anything about communicating or being empathetic. What's wrong with "blaming" (notice this is another self deprecating remark) your parents for things they may have done wrong? Do you think that would mean you didn't love them? "
My parents made every attempt to talk to and listen to me. They were compassionate, generous and often overly trusting. They made mistakes, and I made choices. I never believed they didn't love me, and if I hadn't chosen to tell them I was still involved in drugs after they thought I was done, and I asked for help, they would have continued to love me. They were and are awesome people. Your interpretation sounds like you may be projecting your parental experience onto me.
"Your words are full of self-condemning remarks, that also happen to be the very same terms used in there. "
If "hardcore criminal" and "unclouded by years of drug use is self-condemning" then I am guilty. By the way, see below:
"What crimes were you committing? How often? How much money did you make? How old were you? "
MY RESUME OF CRIME
Age
12 - 21 possessed illegal drugs all the time
14 - 21 sale of illegal drugs
12 - 21 theft, possession of stolen goods, sale of stolen goods
16 kidnapping and extorsion (twice)
17 Break and Enter to Commit Assualt, Assault with a weapon
19 - 21 Cultivation of a Narcotic
17 - 21 Possession of illegal unregistered handguns
15 - 21 possession of prohibited weapons
20 home invasion, armed robbery
As to how much money I made, that is between me and the government. Suffice to say I supported myself, paid rent, bought food, paid bills from 16 - 21, travelled, used drugs and drank every day, paid for lawyers and fines and paid for all of it by proceeds of crime. Hence, hardcore career criminal.
-
Well I may have misjudged some things about your story, it sounds like you really did need some help and that they may not have been as demeaning as I thought. But I still find it hard to understand how someone from a great family ended up doing all of the things you did if everything was so great. I don't think people do things like that for absolutely no reason...
This is NOT to say that your parents meant to do anything wrong either, its not a blaming type point of view. That's what disturbs me here. We ALL make mistakes, and our parents are no exception. To say otherwise is just not accurate, only a half truth.
What do you think is the reason then that you started doing all of those drugs?? The answer to that I think would be very telling.
My point here is that to say that your parents had at least SOMETHING to do with your behavior, does not mean YOU don't love THEM. (Not the other way around although that's true too). It does not mean you are "blaming" them or don't love them or feel sorry for yourself or anything like that. That's my point. The fact that what I'm saying is so difficult to understand is kind of what I was getting at.
We all do the best we can, under the circumstances we have been given.
-
On 2005-05-05 09:40:00, Sibling wrote:
"I'm not to sure why you can not just let this lady be happy for you sucess at AARC! She seems to have a great program and why must question and rip apart every word she is saying?
You seem to have a more problems about AARC then the those who have gone through.Maybe all the stories are not the best but I'm sure if you got down to the bottom of the hate of AARC it is because people do not want to look at there part of the bad situation. Honesty is a huge part of this program and having the staff tell you that you are "full of shit" is far different than telling them they are a "shitty" person. If you are Honest as you can be the situation will be a fine one as this lady had stated!
"
How come I am "ripping her apart" while what she went through in aarc was them pointing out things she needed to hear. HMMMMM.
You say people who don't like it there don't want to look at "their part" .... from what I understand, there is ONLY "their part." How can there even be a "their part" if there is NO "other part." This is my question.
And what I'm saying is that it's OK to see both sides of it. That isn't going to cause the world to shatter and life as we know it to end. It's just called life and that's part of it. We deal with it, and move on.
-
Logically speaking...
If we are all the only ones to blame for everything we've ever done or been through, plus pretty much everyone that we've known or had an influence on, then how can anybody else take any blame for anything? We can't all say we only are to blame, because then everyone's to blame but thinking nobody else is to blame. So is it one, or millions?
Honesty means being honest about what we see others do too. To ignore that is DISHONESTY.
-
On 2005-05-05 13:07:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Logically speaking...
If we are all the only ones to blame for everything we've ever done or been through, plus pretty much everyone that we've known or had an influence on, then how can anybody else take any blame for anything? We can't all say we only are to blame, because then everyone's to blame but thinking nobody else is to blame. So is it one, or millions?
Honesty means being honest about what we see others do too. To ignore that is DISHONESTY. "
What is the point of blaming anybody? I can't do anything about what my parents did or did not do, except learn from it. I go t help, and 13 years later I have a great life. Not everyone will, and mine can turn to crap any time. And it isn't like I didn't have struggles, both my mother and father died! But today I have great support, a loving wife and a great family of my own. I took responsibility for the only person I could - me. I live in the only time I can - right now.
Why did I turn to drugs and crime? Peer influence, an older brother who took me with him, a rebelious nature, the effect that I felt from using, shyness, feeling like I didn't fit in, boredom at school, fantasies about being like the musicians and actors I idolized, who knows? The point is once I didn't want to do it anymore, it was all I knew.
-
I only used the word blame because it got thrown out there. But I agree, the whole concept is skewed. To "blame" someone isn't the same as seeing what happened as it really did and to learn from it. To seek support from those who can give it. But to act like you are "to blame" for **everything** is just as skewed. All people make mistakes and the point isn't to demonize people for it, but it's also not the point to think you can't acknowledge it or you will go back to drugs. It's all part of our god-given life. Live and learn I say. We are all interconnected and, heaven forbid, we NEED other people. We need them to be responsive to us, and if certain people can't then find someone who can. That's what I call taking responsibility.
-
Then it looks like we aren't that far apart in ideology after all. Cool.
-
Why did I turn to drugs and crime? Peer influence, an older brother who took me with him, a rebelious nature, the effect that I felt from using, shyness, feeling like I didn't fit in, boredom at school, fantasies about being like the musicians and actors I idolized, who knows? The point is once I didn't want to do it anymore, it was all I knew.
I thought people went to AARC because they were addicts. Those all sound like social problems, not addiction problems.