Fornits
Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform => Straight, Inc. and Derivatives => Topic started by: Anonymous on February 18, 2005, 04:59:00 PM
-
If you have clicked this message your probably getting high this very second or twitching out because you can't. :nworthy: CONGRATULATIONS YOU HAVE RELAPSED! :nworthy:
What is replase you say?
:idea:
Good question, well apart from being a very positive event. It means being once sober and having a possible chance to live a good life, instead you decide to once again consume mood or mind altering substances. Apparently this is the best thing that has ever happened to these people.
Why do replased AARC graduates bash AARC?
That is very thoughtful and deeply meaningful question? Well it is obvious AARC is a satan worshiping cult that saves relationships, famlies and lives. But please do not concern your selves wtih the positve attributes at AARC. But instead look at the fact that we worship satan, and the harsh physical abuse that goes on DAILY! Me personally have been brain washed to believe that i am a duck, let alone being a drug addict. (they are that good) Quack, Quack, Quack, Quack, Quack, Quack, Quack, Quack, Quack, Quack, Quack, Quack, BURP!, Quack, Quack, Quack, Quack, Quack, Quack, Quack, Quack, Quack, Quack, Quack, Quack, Quack, Quack, Quack, Quack, Quack, BURP!, Quack, Quack, Quack, Quack, Quack
CRACK!!
Did that get your attention? You might be thinking to yourself, is this guy high right now? Or does he really think he's a duck? The answer to both questions is NO. The above post makes little to no sense, but it fits right into the nonsense i read on this website. Continue to belittle AARC and watch as time passes you by.
Ultimatly, wether you use or not is your decision. But creating a web site promoting the negitive choices you've made and helping others to feel ok with doing the same is bullshit.
Joel Mader
-
Everything in moderation.
Relapse is something that happens to people who have an illness.
Recreational, moderate drug use is not an illness, it is pleasurable.
For the vast majority of recreational drug users -- maybe 90% there is no problem. For the others, there is the possibility that some pre-existing mental or emotional state has affected them and what they are doing, in effect, is self-medicating. AARC, of course, is another form of medication for those who cannot control their drug use. Just like religion, it is the opiate of the masses.
-
Yes I agree that recreational crack users do it simply for the thrill they arent actully addicted. My self well, I just pawned off everything i owned for drugs but i was just a recreational drug user right?
Tell Andrew Mazur's family it was just recreational.
AARC gives you a choice wether you want to use drugs or not. Maybe it works for you but there is so many others that needed AARC to give them a step in a right direction. Good luck to all of you if drugs is the choice you make.
-
On 2005-02-19 00:55:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Yes I agree that recreational crack users do it simply for the thrill they arent actully addicted. My self well, I just pawned off everything i owned for drugs but i was just a recreational drug user right?
Tell Andrew Mazur's family it was just recreational.
AARC gives you a choice wether you want to use drugs or not. Maybe it works for you but there is so many others that needed AARC to give them a step in a right direction. Good luck to all of you if drugs is the choice you make.
"
Considering what Andrew Mazur got into, I don't think it's the drugs that caused that. He was suicidal, remember? Way before he was successful. And who's to say it wasn't AARC that finally pushed him over the edge? Oh, no, it was the crimes of which he stood accused.
-
On 2005-02-19 00:55:00, Anonymous wrote:
AARC gives you a choice wether you want to use drugs or not. Maybe it works for you but there is so many others that needed AARC to give them a step in a right direction. Good luck to all of you if drugs is the choice you make.
No, everybody already has the choice to begin with. AARC takes credit for giving you this choice while taking away (at least if you believe them) all of the choices in between. If a woman has to choose between catching a fly ball and saving an infant's life, she will choose to save the infant's life without even considering if there are men on base.
-- Dave Barry
-
On 2005-02-18 13:59:00, Anonymous wrote:
The above post makes little to no sense, but it fits right into the nonsense i read on this website. Continue to belittle AARC and watch as time passes you by.
Ultimatly, wether you use or not is your decision. But creating a web site promoting the negitive choices you've made and helping others to feel ok with doing the same is bullshit.
Joel Mader"
Although I don't claim to represent everyone who posts on this site, and I do recognize some level of nonsense, not all is this way. I don't believe that my writing about my semi-traumatic experiences at AARC in an attempt to move past that pain is nonsense. Also, I don't think I have made that many negative choices; and those that I have, I am most certainly not promoting. Neither do I get the impression that that is the intention of most who post here.
-
Listen up people. Nobody on this site has any right to talk about Andrew Mazur like they knew what was going on with him. However I do know for a fact that he did not blame AARC, if you want to dispute it let me know the time and the place and I will met you. Let the man and his family live in peace and move on. You guys want to debate whether or not AARC is a good place, do it until you are blue in the face, but no more talk of Andrew Mazur. I doubt that there is one person on this site who really knew him so back the fuck off.
-
He was accused of attepted murder of a police officer. He committed suicide.
Was he an AARC success?
-
On 2005-02-24 19:08:00, Anonymous wrote:
"He was accused of attepted murder of a police officer. He committed suicide.
Was he an AARC success?
"
Were you? I'm not sure if Andrew did or not, but I don't blame AARC for any of my failures, and I have had some big ones. They sure have supported me for years when I needed it, and asked nothing in return. They gave me a head start and a taste for success, but after I graduated, it was up to me. I live my life grateful for the help I get, and forgiving those who aren't so helpful. It makes life a lot better. I encourage you to try it. If it doesn't work, your hate and bitterness will be right were you left it. But you are worth more than that. Live free.
-
How about saying you succeeded IN SPITE OF AARC. Many do, you know
-
On 2005-02-24 20:57:00, Anonymous wrote:
"
On 2005-02-24 19:08:00, Anonymous wrote:
"He was accused of attepted murder of a police officer. He committed suicide.
Was he an AARC success?
"
Were you? I'm not sure if Andrew did or not, but I don't blame AARC for any of my failures, and I have had some big ones. They sure have supported me for years when I needed it, and asked nothing in return. They gave me a head start and a taste for success, but after I graduated, it was up to me. I live my life grateful for the help I get, and forgiving those who aren't so helpful. It makes life a lot better. I encourage you to try it. If it doesn't work, your hate and bitterness will be right were you left it. But you are worth more than that. Live free."
Yech! I think I'm going to puke..............
::puke:: ::puke:: ::puke::
-
I mean, I understand that some people don't think that AARC or similar programs do a lot of good, maybe they think that these programs don't reach a lot of people, maybe they think that programs such as this focus on the wrong thing.
But here is someone (the person who posted previous to you) who obviously got something positive out of AARC, you can tell by the way his/her post is presented, and all you can say is that it makes you puke??
So how you you spell "Cult of Negativity", you ought to know, because you're in it, friend. Sad, really sad. How about considering that, maybe AARC etc., while perhaps imperfect, as are many things, can do some good.
How about celebrating the fact that at least one person,specifically that last poster was energized and motivated by that program and is moving into the future because of it.
And you might also ask yourself, when you have time, what you are going to find, to help move you out of the negative space that makes you post a comment like that.
-
Therapy is like sex. Coerced therapy is like rape. Rapists evidently get something positive out of rape. And hearing them talk about it fondly makes some people feel sick. Nothing wrong with that. In fact, most people would agree that there's something very wrong with going all dewey eyed and nastalgic about it.
I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotism.
--Albert Einstein, German-born American physicist
-
Yes obviously I agree that rape would be wrong--I see no connection between that common ground we hold and the comments (and reactions to the comments) of the poster who benefited from AARC.
Your view, it seems to me, is extreme, even hysterical---this person was in a situation (ie at AARC) and made human connections that have been a source of strength and growth, if you are to believe his/her assertions, and I see not reason not to believe.
On the other hand,, your extreme reference to rape makes me doubt your sincerity and/or your judgment. And in no way recuses, or justifies or elevates the petty shallow and obviously bitterness as reflected in the "makes me puke" comment.
-
Any therapy involves some degree of intelectual and emotional intimacy. You must make yourself vulnerable, confess your faults and sins and open yourself to criticizm and advice, right? Nothing wrong with that, right?
Ok, except for one minor little detail. Same thing that distinguishes consensual sex from rape; consent.
If you seek the intimacy of a therapeutic relationship voluntarily, it can be a wonderful thing (or, often times, just a disapointing waste of time). It's something entirely different to have it forced upon you.
If you can't see the connection, you must by trying damned hard not to.
I'm well familiar w/ AARC's brand of therapy, having experienced it firsthand from Vause's mentor, Virgil. And I'm told that Vause and Miller are like two peas in a pod, like twins seperated at birth. The really sick thing about Virgil is that he enjoys the coercive aspect of it all. He just loved seeing a little girl broken to hysterical sobbing; forced to accept his will and his dominance.
Is Dean like that too? I've heard that he is. And I can well understand why someone might feel sick at the thought of someone enjoying taking part in that.
We ought to be grateful that our government monopoly schools are such a failure. If today's 18 year olds could do arithmetic, they'd be out buying enough rope to hang everybody over 40.
--Alan Handleman on Social Security
_________________
Ginger Warbis ~ Antigen
Seed sibling `71 - `80
Straight South (Sarasota, FL)
10/80 - 10/82
Anonymity Anonymous
Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the leather straps.
-
That I get. But my point is that the poster who made the subsequent poster "puke" obviously did get something good from being involved with this program.
Are you going to take on the role of telling this person that his/her experience was "wrong" because it doesn't match your preconceived notions?
Are you so doctrinaire that you cannot even consider that this person gained something positive, motivation, energy, hope, whether you approve or not?
Your premise is that somebody might reasonably "feel sick" at the idea that this person got a postive experience out of this program?? no, I don't get that, it sound like "Get on the bus and buy into the party line of hating AARC, whether it matches your truth or not".
Personally, I absolutely do not buy that approach.
-
On 2005-02-25 17:23:00, Antigen wrote:
"Therapy is like sex. Coerced therapy is like rape. Rapists evidently get something positive out of rape. And hearing them talk about it fondly makes some people feel sick. Nothing wrong with that. In fact, most people would agree that there's something very wrong with going all dewey eyed and nastalgic about it.
"
Ginger, I feel saddest of all for you. In your case, at least there is some justification for all your hate and bitterness. Sadly, you are ill informed about the similarities between Straight and AARC. I sure hope you get some peace one day. Those ugly demons of yours must be aweful to carry around. I know I can't convince you of anything, but I still think you are worth more than all that rage, especially when it is focused on an oraganization that isn't what you think.
-
On 2005-02-25 19:07:00, Anonymous wrote:
Are you going to take on the role of telling this person that his/her experience was "wrong" because it doesn't match your preconceived notions?
No, I'm going to tell you that it's in bad taste, to say the least to celebrate events that others found to be horrible and traumatic.
You have been spurned! Accept that. It's not an indication of mental illness in the person who has rejected you. Quit trying to force your saccharine epitaph about how wonderful AARC was and how the dearly deceased, if he had not done himself in, would vehemently agree with you. Now that is sickening!In order to live free and happily you must sacrifice boredom. It is not always an easy sacrifice.
-- Richard Bach
-
On 2005-02-25 19:24:00, Anonymous wrote:
"
Ginger, I feel saddest of all for you. In your case, at least there is some justification for all your hate and bitterness. Sadly, you are ill informed about the similarities between Straight and AARC. I sure hope you get some peace one day. Those ugly demons of yours must be aweful to carry around. I know I can't convince you of anything, but I still think you are worth more than all that rage, especially when it is focused on an oraganization that isn't what you think. "
But my psychologist friend watched "Recovering Crystal" for half the program and then shut it off, he said, "because I couldn't bear to watch it". That's what makes people want to puke, because AARC is PRECISELY what Ginger has experienced.
As for puking, it's the self-righteous, holier than thou attitude that says "those ugly demons of yours " and "i still think you are worth more than all that rage" that makes ME want to puke. Sorry, but I do not see Ginger as being possessed by ugly demons. She's very well informed. and I do see this treatment modality as particularly pernicious.
-
On 2005-02-25 19:24:00, Anonymous wrote:
Sadly, you are ill informed about the similarities between Straight and AARC.
How do you know? Where you in Straight? Cause I've talked to people who were in AARC and who describe essentially the same "treatment" that I remember.
Specifically, I remember talking to a young lady who attempted suicide while in AARC. She said that the staff/Group response was to stand her up in front of the whole group and shame her for it and then to define her problem as wholely owing to substance abuse. And she went on to describe how that made her feel. (yes, we do have the power to make others feel certain ways; especially when we're talking about adults w/ an agenda dealing w/ vulnerable adolescents)
Yup, just as I remember. Ya' can't make this shit up. No one but another Program survivor would even believe you.Infidel: In New York, one who does not believe in the Christian religion, in Constantinople, one who does.
--Ambrose Bierce
-
On 2005-02-25 21:06:00, Antigen wrote:
"
On 2005-02-25 19:24:00, Anonymous wrote:
Specifically, I remember talking to a young lady who attempted suicide while in AARC. She said that the staff/Group response was to stand her up in front of the whole group and shame her for it and then to define her problem as wholely owing to substance abuse. And she went on to describe how that made her feel. ("
It is interesting that you should mention that "suicide attempt". I was on staff, in fact I was in charge that day. I was the one who found the young lady. She had taken the razor out of a disposable, and barely scratched the surface of her wrist, just enough to make a little blood appear. I rushed to get a parent who was a nurse, and the girl was taken to hospital. I am not trying to belittle her event, but the "attempt" caused a lot of chaos and hurt. She ended up graduating, and yes, I know she was angry at AARC, but she is doing pretty darn well now. Did she get confronted on this? Yup. But as I remember it, she admitted it was out of an attempt to get attention. This event is all about perception - yours (Ginger) who wasn't there and read the information of the girl who was, who had her own perception as well. And my perception as well. I still feel that yours is ill-informed, Ginger, because you were not there, and had no idea what is true, or at least the extent of the truth.
-
[No, I'm going to tell you that it's in bad taste, to say the least to celebrate events that others found to be horrible and traumatic.]
So said Antigen yesterday about someone who posted here and was crass enough not to "get on the bus" and tote the party line about how evil and worthless AARC is.
Here's some unasked-for advice for you Antigen: you'd be a whole lot less bitter and better able to overcome the rigid mindset of "us-and-them" (that you've obviously been stuck in for quite a long time) if you'd consider it.
If you'd just take a deep breath once in a while and ask why people have different opinions on programs like these. Instead of defaulting to "they must have been brain-washed"position as you always do.
If you'd ask a person (like the one who had the bad manners to talk about a beneficial experience) what was helpful in AARC for her--- instead of being demeaning, lecturing,attacking, guilting, your normal range of interaction with people of other opinions.
You're in a preconceived box Antigen, do yourself a favor and get out of it. By all means--trust your own experience--but know that it is not necessarily a universal experience.
Who knows---if you took this advice even a little bit(fat chance I know) it could actually make this site a helpful supportive useful place (where people on both sides of the subject actually learned new ways of seeing things) instead of a paranoid fantasy-ridden gripe session.
-
You did belittle it by saying this "barely scratched the surface of her wrist, just enough to make a little blood appear"
As you may or may not recall, I hit my vein, not just scratched my self, hitting a vein with a dull razor takes a lot of work. The blood just didn't appear, it was pulsing out of the vein. If you remember correctly my pants and shirt were soaked in blood. I have very prominent scars to look at ever day. In fact I have tatooed both of my wrists so I have something positive to look at everyday instead of those ugly scars. This is a very major event in my life, that to this day effects me. Yes part of it was done out of attention, but a lot was just the hopelessness of where I was at the time. Being confronted in that state, was not what I needed at the time and did a lot of damage. The thing that pissed me off even more, was it being used down the road to convince other parents what would happen should aarc not step in. I will never forget the day when Dr.V said in a Friday night rap (once I was on staff), "remember Jessie, remember when we had to break the door down when you tried to kill yourself, you would have died if we wouldn't have broken in"... That never happened, but it was used as a scare tactic for the parents.... only aarc can save your kids lives. I didn't like being used that way.... [ This Message was edited by: JessicaM on 2005-02-26 10:29 ]
-
On 2005-02-26 06:48:00, Anonymous wrote:
I still feel that yours is ill-informed, Ginger, because you were not there, and had no idea what is true, or at least the extent of the truth.
But if I agreed w/ you, you'd be (virtually) patting me on the head and telling me how enlightened I am. Of course.
So I have two sides to the story. Which should I believe? The one that's consistent w/ my experience w/ these same groups or the one that flies in the face of all reasonable standards of care for someone who's suicidal?
Oh, how to choose, how to choose!
Ministers say that they teach charity. That is natural. They live on hand-outs. All beggars teach that others should give.
--Robert G. Ingersoll, American politician and lecturer
-
On 2005-02-26 07:38:00, Anonymous wrote:
You're in a preconceived box Antigen, do yourself a favor and get out of it. By all means--trust your own experience--but know that it is not necessarily a universal experience.
And, btw, thanks for the free psychoanalysis and therapy session. Of course, you have no idea what you're talking about. But then, wadaya want for free? I think I'll pass on this one. :rofl: Eskimo: "If I did not know about God and sin, would I go to hell?"
Priest: "No, not if you did not know."
Eskimo: "Then why did you tell me?"
--Annie Dillard, "Pilgrim at Tinker Creek"
-
On 2005-02-26 11:05:00, Antigen wrote:
"
On 2005-02-26 06:48:00, Anonymous wrote:
I still feel that yours is ill-informed, Ginger, because you were not there, and had no idea what is true, or at least the extent of the truth.
But if I agreed w/ you, you'd be (virtually) patting me on the head and telling me how enlightened I am. Of course.
So I have two sides to the story. Which should I believe? The one that's consistent w/ my experience w/ these same groups or the one that flies in the face of all reasonable standards of care for someone who's suicidal?
Oh, how to choose, how to choose!
Ministers say that they teach charity. That is natural. They live on hand-outs. All beggars teach that others should give.
--Robert G. Ingersoll, American politician and lecturer
"
You will believe whatever keeps your anger justified. Continue to project your experience onto others. As for Jess being suicidal, she was obviously unhappy. No doubt about it. Yet she signed herself in, with no family support. Could have left at any time. Stayed, complied, graduated, and then hung out with others who graduated as well, (I think she was on staff for a while even) and went to AA. She was unhappy before, during, and possibly after. I will continue to to say what her experience were uniquely hers, just as mine was mine. Even some events we shared are seen differently. That is part of being human. I am sorry for all her hurt, before during and after AARC - it just plain sucks when someone you care about hurts, for whatever the reason. For me, compassion for anothers suffering cuts through ideology. Why? Ideology changes (watch and see what opinions have changed, even subtly over the years), but we all suffer, and are all deserving of compassion. If I damaged someone by my behavior, then I do what I can to make up for it, or I end up suffering as well. Again, I intended no pain from telling my side of your story Jess, but it was brought up by someone who was not there, and being used for their agenda of anger and bitterness.
-
On 2005-02-26 13:48:00, Anonymous wrote:
If I damaged someone by my behavior, then I do what I can to make up for it, or I end up suffering as well. Again, I intended no pain from telling my side of your story Jess,
But it obviously does cause pain and yet you continue to do it and make excuses for your behavior.
You just never learn, do you?
Honestly, I'm not angry or bitter and I don't have any demons. I don't think I'm illinformed about the similarities between Straight and AARC. In fact our Anon former (former, right?) staffer even confirms that he/she did indeed stand this young lady up in front of group and confront her about a suicide attempt. Not only that, but then to go on and explit the event. That's just exactly what they used to do in Straight.
Nobody who knows anything about real therapy would ever dream of doing anything like that. No one w/ an actual licence to provide therapy would do such a thing because they'd lose their license. Only Program people who think what they're doing is therapeutic, despite all the evidence to the contray, would do that.
And, again, just because I reject your philosophy doesn't mean I'm sick, twisted, bitter or anything like that. It just means I reject your philosophy. Why does that bother you so much? Have you got some demons whispering in your ear or something? I can well imagine that you have.
Is uniformity [of opinion] attainable? Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites.
Anonymity Anonymous (http://fornits.com/anonanon)
Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the leather straps.
-
All that bothers me is how sad you are Ginger. Every vitriolic post of yours shows that so clearly. As far as traditional therapy for treating addiction, you surely must know that individual therapy, based on Freudian THEORY is sadly lacking. Psychology is an ever evolving, extremely young "science". And it is usually conditional on sinking into and trying to understand the neuroses instead of learning to get past it and be successful and thrive. Anyone who hangs onto their bitterness and pain, however justified by going through a place like Straight or KIDS, is in need of compassion and caring to get past it and move on, hopefully to help others.
-
On 2005-02-27 09:32:00, Anonymous wrote:
"All that bothers me is how sad you are Ginger. Every vitriolic post of yours shows that so clearly. As far as traditional therapy for treating addiction, you surely must know that individual therapy, based on Freudian THEORY is sadly lacking. Psychology is an ever evolving, extremely young "science". And it is usually conditional on sinking into and trying to understand the neuroses instead of learning to get past it and be successful and thrive. Anyone who hangs onto their bitterness and pain, however justified by going through a place like Straight or KIDS, is in need of compassion and caring to get past it and move on, hopefully to help others. "
-
On 2005-02-27 09:32:00, Anonymous wrote:
"All that bothers me is how sad you are Ginger. Every vitriolic post of yours shows that so clearly. As far as traditional therapy for treating addiction, you surely must know that individual therapy, based on Freudian THEORY is sadly lacking. Psychology is an ever evolving, extremely young "science". And it is usually conditional on sinking into and trying to understand the neuroses instead of learning to get past it and be successful and thrive. Anyone who hangs onto their bitterness and pain, however justified by going through a place like Straight or KIDS, is in need of compassion and caring to get past it and move on, hopefully to help others. "
::puke::
Oh, gawd, spare us, spare us
::puke::
Freudian Theory? Where the hell did THAT come from?
:idea:
-
On 2005-02-27 10:44:00, Anonymous wrote:
"
On 2005-02-27 09:32:00, Anonymous wrote:
"All that bothers me is how sad you are Ginger. Every vitriolic post of yours shows that so clearly. As far as traditional therapy for treating addiction, you surely must know that individual therapy, based on Freudian THEORY is sadly lacking. Psychology is an ever evolving, extremely young "science". And it is usually conditional on sinking into and trying to understand the neuroses instead of learning to get past it and be successful and thrive. Anyone who hangs onto their bitterness and pain, however justified by going through a place like Straight or KIDS, is in need of compassion and caring to get past it and move on, hopefully to help others. "
"
Oops, I posted that while I had to rush to the bathroom to throw up, Sorry.
::bwahaha::
I feel much better now, thank-you.
-
On 2005-02-27 10:51:00, Anonymous wrote:
"
On 2005-02-27 09:32:00, Anonymous wrote:
"All that bothers me is how sad you are Ginger. Every vitriolic post of yours shows that so clearly. As far as traditional therapy for treating addiction, you surely must know that individual therapy, based on Freudian THEORY is sadly lacking. Psychology is an ever evolving, extremely young "science". And it is usually conditional on sinking into and trying to understand the neuroses instead of learning to get past it and be successful and thrive. Anyone who hangs onto their bitterness and pain, however justified by going through a place like Straight or KIDS, is in need of compassion and caring to get past it and move on, hopefully to help others. "
::puke::
Oh, gawd, spare us, spare us
::puke::
Freudian Theory? Where the hell did THAT come from?
:idea: "
On 2005-02-28 10:48:00, Antigen wrote:
"Yeah, it's not a bad idea to seek council informally from friends. But bear in mind that the 'tie that binds' us is that we were all exposed to the same toxic cult. Some of us are even more fucked up than most shrinks, and in my view that's sayin' something. But I'd be happy to get to know you and if there's something I can say help, well all the better. But, in all honesty, either way it's sort of a crap shoot. Distrust all in whom the impulse to punish is powerful.
--Friedrich Nietzsche
"
-
On 2005-02-27 09:32:00, Anonymous wrote:
All that bothers me is how sad you are Ginger.
Good news! Your troubles are over! I'm not sad at all. That's right! Even though I never graduated, even though I reject the Program philosophy, I have not been met w/ a life of missery and failure. In fact, I've got just about everything I ever wanted. Thanks for your concern and all, but I really don't need it. Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived.
--Isaac Asimov, Russian-born American author
-
On 2005-02-27 09:32:00, Anonymous wrote:
"As far as traditional therapy for treating addiction, you surely must know that individual therapy, based on Freudian THEORY is sadly lacking. "
Oh dear "Higher Power of my choosing", please tell me that this evidently misguided soul doesn't actually believe what he just wrote. Does he truly think that the concept of individual therapy was only developed during the time of Freud? He must be joking, surely.
-
Sadly, he probably believes it. Sadder still? He probably doesn't even know that that same bogus rant goes all the way back to Art Barker's Seed and even Chuck Deiderich's Synanon.
But Vause said it, he believes it, that settles it!If they can get you to ask the wrong questions they don't have to worry about the answers
--Thomas Pynchon, Gravity's Rainbow (Proverbs for Paranoids)
-
On 2005-03-01 22:10:00, Rachael wrote:
"
On 2005-02-27 09:32:00, Anonymous wrote:
"As far as traditional therapy for treating addiction, you surely must know that individual therapy, based on Freudian THEORY is sadly lacking. "
Oh dear "Higher Power of my choosing", please tell me that this evidently misguided soul doesn't actually believe what he just wrote. Does he truly think that the concept of individual therapy was only developed during the time of Freud? He must be joking, surely."
Rachael, my mother, father and stepfather are all registered psychologists in Alberta. I have a pretty good idea about the concept of individual therapy. I studied psych at university. I have also studied sociology and anthropology. I was simply pointing out that most forms of modern therapy evolved in the last century and a half, based on theory, and in very real terms have taken the spiritual aspect out of the teachings of early pioneers like Jung and Freud. As such, people languish for years and even decades excavating painful memories and never learning tools to cope with life. and when it comes to treating addiction in young people, individual therapy, usually conducted by a therapist who knows very little about addiction, and is seen as just another authority, it is not only useless much of the time, but dangerous. Thanks for encouraging me to expand on my first post, it was lacking in clarity.
-
On 2005-03-02 14:28:00, Anonymous wrote:
"
On 2005-03-01 22:10:00, Rachael wrote:
"
On 2005-02-27 09:32:00, Anonymous wrote:
"As far as traditional therapy for treating addiction, you surely must know that individual therapy, based on Freudian THEORY is sadly lacking. "
Oh dear "Higher Power of my choosing", please tell me that this evidently misguided soul doesn't actually believe what he just wrote. Does he truly think that the concept of individual therapy was only developed during the time of Freud? He must be joking, surely."
Rachael, my mother, father and stepfather are all registered psychologists in Alberta. I have a pretty good idea about the concept of individual therapy. I studied psych at university. I have also studied sociology and anthropology. I was simply pointing out that most forms of modern therapy evolved in the last century and a half, based on theory, and in very real terms have taken the spiritual aspect out of the teachings of early pioneers like Jung and Freud. As such, people languish for years and even decades excavating painful memories and never learning tools to cope with life. and when it comes to treating addiction in young people, individual therapy, usually conducted by a therapist who knows very little about addiction, and is seen as just another authority, it is not only useless much of the time, but dangerous. Thanks for encouraging me to expand on my first post, it was lacking in clarity."
Unfortunately, only a portion of Psychologists have a thorough, and I mean thorough, understanding of psychopharmacology, which is what you are dealing with when your talking about addiction. It's useful in checking the credentials of psychologists to see how much of a basis they have in the hard science of the brain which is to be found more in the B.Sc stream than the B.Ed or B.A stream at the undergraduate level.
This "anonymous" writer, of course, can say anything he wants without anybody being able to check out its veracity. But in any event he betrays considerable ignorance when he assumes that we are talking about people in AARC having been diagnosed as "addicts".
Perhaps he should read PIHKAL by Alexander Shulgin and the many excellent tomes on the use of entheogens if he wants to talk about the spiritual. Again, with his other soft science background of sociology I doubt if he would take anything but a moralistic view on anything critics of AARC would post here. Moreover, AARC like all the AA & NA or 12 step programs are most unreliable in the statistics they quote, because they are very selective. Oh, sure, their "successful" graduates can say, "well it worked for me" but really, you don't see the control group, the 90% who never went to AARC, survived and "succeeded" in life.
Dr Kalant, probably one of the world's leading experts on drugs who is often trotted out by the Crown in drug prosecutions freely admits that the types of programs that make these claims of success are very skewed and selective. "self-slective" in fact, and not subject to peer review. So... our anonymous AARC supporter friend can't produce any peer reviewed research anywhere that supports AARC's fantastic claims, and that really causes me to doubt the credentials of his relatives that he keeps bringing up, but never disclosing in private messages though repeatedly promising to do so. This guy and his arguments are highly suspect, as I'm sure you already realised, Rachael.
[ This Message was edited by: Hamiltonf on 2005-03-02 16:16 ]
-
On 2005-03-02 15:51:00, Hamiltonf wrote:
"
On 2005-03-02 14:28:00, Anonymous wrote:
"
On 2005-03-01 22:10:00, Rachael wrote:
"
On 2005-02-27 09:32:00, Anonymous wrote:
"As far as traditional therapy for treating addiction, you surely must know that individual therapy, based on Freudian THEORY is sadly lacking. "
Oh dear "Higher Power of my choosing", please tell me that this evidently misguided soul doesn't actually believe what he just wrote. Does he truly think that the concept of individual therapy was only developed during the time of Freud? He must be joking, surely."
Rachael, my mother, father and stepfather are all registered psychologists in Alberta. I have a pretty good idea about the concept of individual therapy. I studied psych at university. I have also studied sociology and anthropology. I was simply pointing out that most forms of modern therapy evolved in the last century and a half, based on theory, and in very real terms have taken the spiritual aspect out of the teachings of early pioneers like Jung and Freud. As such, people languish for years and even decades excavating painful memories and never learning tools to cope with life. and when it comes to treating addiction in young people, individual therapy, usually conducted by a therapist who knows very little about addiction, and is seen as just another authority, it is not only useless much of the time, but dangerous. Thanks for encouraging me to expand on my first post, it was lacking in clarity."
Unfortunately, only a portion of Psychologists have a thorough, and I mean thorough, understanding of psychopharmacology, which is what you are dealing with when your talking about addiction. It's useful in checking the credentials of psychologists to see how much of a basis they have in the hard science of the brain which is to be found more in the B.Sc stream than the B.Ed or B.A stream at the undergraduate level.
This "anonymous" writer, of course, can say anything he wants without anybody being able to check out its veracity. But in any event he betrays considerable ignorance when he assumes that we are talking about people in AARC having been diagnosed as "addicts".
Perhaps he should read PIHKAL by Alexander Shulgin and the many excellent tomes on the use of entheogens if he wants to talk about the spiritual. Again, with his other soft science background of sociology I doubt if he would take anything but a moralistic view on anything critics of AARC would post here. Moreover, AARC like all the AA & NA or 12 step programs are most unreliable in the statistics they quote, because they are very selective. Oh, sure, their "successful" graduates can say, "well it worked for me" but really, you don't see the control group, the 90% who never went to AARC, survived and "succeeded" in life.
Dr Kalant, probably one of the world's leading experts on drugs who is often trotted out by the Crown in drug prosecutions freely admits that the types of programs that make these claims of success are very skewed and selective. "self-slective" in fact, and not subject to peer review. So... our anonymous AARC supporter friend can't produce any peer reviewed research anywhere that supports AARC's fantastic claims, and that really causes me to doubt the credentials of his relatives that he keeps bringing up, but never disclosing in private messages though repeatedly promising to do so. This guy and his arguments are highly suspect, as I'm sure you already realised, Rachael.
[ This Message was edited by: Hamiltonf on 2005-03-02 16:16 ]"
Sad that my reply gets deleted.....
-
Anon is clearly a dissembler.
-
Or a Sembler
-
And a liar
-
On 2005-03-02 21:07:00, Anonymous wrote:
"And a liar"
Sticks and stones.
-
On 2005-03-03 05:40:00, Anonymous wrote:
"
On 2005-03-02 21:07:00, Anonymous wrote:
"And a liar"
Sticks and stones."
That's good for a giggle. :roll: :wink:
-
On 2005-03-02 19:31:00, Anonymous wrote:
"
Sad that my reply gets deleted....."
Not deleted, or even posted
-
Only if he meants sticks and stoneRs
-
The giggle, that is ::rocker::
-
I find it interesting however that a lawyer is the new expert on this field. Once again another example of how the "lawyer" is so nieve. I wonder is he even a lawyer...one begs to ask...however my Uncle is and once I forwarded this site to him and asked his opinion...him knowing nothing of the AARC program, other then I graduated it...claims that no one who has written the bar would be able in any way to write the garbage that he has.
-
On 2005-03-07 12:45:00, Anonymous wrote:
"I find it interesting however that a lawyer is the new expert on this field. Once again another example of how the "lawyer" is so nieve. I wonder is he even a lawyer...one begs to ask...however my Uncle is and once I forwarded this site to him and asked his opinion...him knowing nothing of the AARC program, other then I graduated it...claims that no one who has written the bar would be able in any way to write the garbage that he has."
"This "anonymous" writer, of course, can say anything he wants without anybody being able to check out its veracity."
It's always the same guy, always the same misspellings.
And it's always ad hominem attacks when he's unable to attack the arguments. But then, that's the very essence of AARC methodology, isn't it?
-
Ok, I must admit that the counter argument posted by the lawyer is so convincing that I must admit that I am wrong. So presausive...I am speechless. LOL. What a joke. Come on you are a lawyer, supposedly they are master arguers, surely you can do better then that. It was said by a very intelligent person that the attempt to use big words in order to appear smart in reality only causes one to prove that they are not.
-
On 2005-03-09 10:11:00, Anonymous wrote:
"It was said by a very intelligent person that the attempt to use big words in order to appear smart in reality only causes one to prove that they are not. "
Wow, I got a line similar to that while in AARC. I wasn't allowed to use words with more than 3 syllables, because big words were my "front" and made me "egotistical" as I was told (remember, ego stands for Edging God Out, after all!:roll:).
The comedically pathetic fact of the matter is that AARC-ites (particularly the Vause-employed ones) have a self-constructed image of absolute superiority over anyone sitting in the rows and couldn't or wouldn't stand to be lesser in any way to anyone as "sick" as a newcomer "crackfiend loser" such as myself.
I don't blame them for having a limited vocabulary though... I would too if the vast majority of my social contact was made through spouting incessant buzz-words and catch-phrases based on AARC doctrine.
I'm glad for them though if they can make themselves happy by displacing their faults onto patients who're unable to defend themselves in a rehab centre. I guess if someone can find their purpose, and feel good about themselves in a job (hobby?) where they emotionally bruise an already downtrodden group of kids to alleviate their own self-hate then they should ride that gravy train all the way. Unfortunately for them, they weren't born 70 years earlier, they could've made excellent Camp Kommandants in Poland.
p.s. I eagerly await the inevitable forthcoming onslaught of replies telling me that I'm a whiner. Maybe I'll be surprised with an original retort... :lol: Doubt it.
-
Please do not make reference to concentration camps in Poland when ragging on AARC - it is offensive to those of us who lost family to the Nazis.
-
Whatever these schools are--and I have yet to be convinced that they are anything more than just one more-or-less effective way of approaching substance-abuse and other problems in adolescence---there is no excuse for bringing in references to undeniable atrocities from the Nazi era.
Reminds me of a debate that occurred between William Buckley Jr. and some feminist type a few decades back. She was going on shrilly about how child abuse, I think in the form of spanking, was equivalent to "The Holocaust".
Buckley calmly responded that if child abuse as presented represented a "Holocaust", then we would have to find another name for what Hitler did to 6 million Jews.
-
Buddy, you're in CANADA! It's like the land that time (blessedly) forgot. In Canada, it's shocking and appaling when a couple of cops get popped for crashing in on some lunatic's private residence. Down here, it's not really newsworty. We're trying to give you a heads up here. Vause is an oddity in Canada. Where the hell do you think he got his mantra?
The Holocaust didn't just happen one day. It was the culmination of decades of progressive insanity.
Learn from history or be doomed to repeat it, ya fuckin' idiot!
Cop Uses Taser Gun On Man Who Refused Urine Sample
Man Was Strapped To Hospital Bed
POSTED: 10:55 am EST March 9, 2005
UPDATED: 11:28 am EST March 9, 2005
ORLANDO, Fla. -- Authorities say a police officer twice used a Taser stun device on a drug suspect who was restrained to a hospital bed because the man refused to give a urine sample to medical staff.
Discussion: Officers Go Too Far With Stun Guns? Or Do They Get Bad Rap?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Orlando police said Antonio Wheeler was arrested on a drug charge and taken to an emergency room after telling officers he had consumed cocaine.
The police document said Wheeler was handcuffed to a hospital bed and then secured with leather straps after he refused to urinate in a cup. When medical staff tried to insert a catheter to get the sample, Wheeler refused.
At one point, police officer Peter Linnenkamp noted that he jumped on the bed with his knees on Wheeler's chest to restrain him. Then, when Wheeler still refused to let the catheter be inserted, Linnenkamp said he twice used his Taser gun, which sends 50,000 volts into a target.
Friday's incident has prompted an internal affairs investigation.
http://www.local6.com/news/4267905/detail.html (http://www.local6.com/news/4267905/detail.html)
[Religion is] the daughter of hope and fear, explaining to ignorance the nature of the unknowable.
--Ambrose Bierce
_________________
Ginger Warbis ~ Antigen
Seed sibling `71 - `80
Straight South (Sarasota, FL)
10/80 - 10/82
Anonymity Anonymous
Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the leather straps.
-
Just a heads up for those above who don't take time to comprehend what they read before they let their fingers flail on about the most offhand part of my post: I wasn't comparing AARC to a Nazi concentration camp, but simply making a statement about the mindsets of those running AARC being akin to that of a prisoner camp overseers'. It's all too obvious that they thirst for absolute power over others just the same.
The only great atrocity in this situation takes place in your nonexistant understanding of how to reply with any sort of valid, on-topic substance to a perfectly reasonable comparison. Way to uphold the sanctity of human rights there, friend (ironic, no?).
-
What Ginger is saying, of course is that she doesn't want Canada to go the same way as the US, which seems to be:
The scale of the War on Drugs is immense and the irrationality profound. Surely the War on Drugs is the greatest modern reminder that policy is the product of politics and cultural forces rather than of a rational cost-benefit analysis. For a society to inflict such deep wounds upon itself the political, social and economic forces and their alignment must run deep. Again, over a third of all state prisoners are serving time for drug offenses, while less than a fifth were convicted of violent crimes. The majority of federal prisoners are incarcerated for drugs. Marijuana, a drug far safer than either tobacco or alcohol, heads the list as cause of incarceration. The FBI's Uniform Crime Report estimated 588,963 marijuana arrests in 1995 to achieve over 1.5 million marijuana arrests in the first three years of the Clinton presidency. Criminal justice in America, the fastest growing field of the public sector, is more about forbidden sin than crimes against persons or property. While not reducing drug use, the public sector has shifted funding priorities from all the programs that are meant to help people and build the quality of life to punishment of crimes against cultural sins. Consider these vignettes of the era.
"Drug Hate and the Corruption of American Justice"
David Sudofsky Baggins
Published by Praeger Publishers, Westport Connecticut, 1998
-
The following are stats that are from stats the Canadian government website. Please read carefully and see that there is a difference between offences and charges being laid. The number of charges being laid for possession is minimal compared to the number of reported offences. Where as the numbers for other crimes are much higher. These are the numbers which I thought applied to the previous posters claim. Not as shattering as previously reported when it comes to cannabis. Remember that the stats at the end of this are dealing with all drug related incarcerations, including cocaine, heroine and others. I do not have an opinion either way just thought the actual facts should be stated:
(the figures would not copy)
"As is clear from Figure 1, incidents reported by police according to the most serious crime reveal that, from 1983 to 1995, incidents related to drug offences were relatively stable, hovering around 60 000 per year. However, from 1995 to 2000, there has been an increase of approximately 50%, with the number of reported incidents reaching nearly 88 000. In fact, the rate of drug offences increased by 9% in 2000 in relation to the previous year.
Much of this increase can be attributed to cannabis-related offences. These offences account for the majority of all drug-related offences in Canada. In 2000, cannabis-related offences accounted for just over 66,000 of reported incidents, thus 75% of all drug-related incidents. This percentage has been relatively stable over the years. Of this number (66,000), 68% (over 45,000) were for possession of cannabis, 16% for trafficking, 14% for cultivation, and 2% for importation.([2]) This means that over 50% of reported incidents in relation to drug-related offences are for possession of cannabis.
From the available data (see figure 3), it would seem that total charges for drug-related offences have declined noticeably since 1997. The reader should be aware that the number of reported incidents (discussed previously) is not equivalent to the number of charges that are laid by the police. In some cases, the police will report a drug incident but will decide not to charge the offender.
As of 31 December 2000, 5,779 convicted drug offenders were under federal jurisdiction (either serving their sentence: 1) in a federal institution or 2) on conditional release). Of these, 3,890 were serving sentences for trafficking, 621 for importation, 225 for cultivation and 2,221 for possession.([8])
Of the 5,779 convicted drug offenders serving their sentences on 31 December 2000, 2,548 were serving their sentences in federal correctional institutions: 1,613 for trafficking, 113 for importation, 82 for cultivation and 1,318 for possession.([9]) In addition, 3,231 were on conditional release: 2,312 for trafficking, 508 for importation, 145 for cultivation and 946 for possession.([10])"
Am not sure about the laws of Canada, but I do not think that you gain federal time for little amounts of cannabis. If I am wrong please let me know. I admit I am a bit of a optamist when it comes to the federal system, but I would hope that the ones in jail are the most serious offences and I can say that it does not bother me that money is being spent on keeping these people in institutions.
http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/1/parlbus/comm ... d1-e.htm#( (http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/1/parlbus/commbus/senate/com-e/ille-e/library-e/gerald1-e.htm#()[10])
-
However, see the next thread about how the US exerts pressure around the world. There is no question that, in Canada at the user level police are not as willing to charge, but are most likely inclined to let off with a warning. Unfortunately, some politicians seem to want to Kow-Tow to US pressure by advocating "get tough" policies and minimum sentences for trafficking and cultivation.
Current Liberal policies ( which I have advocated for as a step in the right direction) of decriminalization of use but increasing sentences for trafficking and cultivation is still based on a wrong premise... that if you cut off supply you reduce use. This does not make economic sense. Moreover, merely passing a joint to a friend, by definition is trafficking, so the vilification that is associated with the word trafficking comes into play. Even with users acceptance of the Steppenwolf's sterotype "Goddamn the pusher man" does not reflect the reality that most people at that level are not really such bad people and are often helping out friends. They are not "pushers" hoping to get you hooked and into a web of depravity and addiction. If they were why isn't 50% of our population in treatment? Major Grow ops of an industrial nature have no doubt "grown" in recent years but busts of this nature only scratch the surface. If pot were legalised and people able to grow their own with sales at a local MJ store as in Amstredam I am convinced it would cut down on the profits that make these so attractive to organised crime.
I like to think of the war on (some ) drugs as a turf war between Hells Angels and Pharmaceutical Comapanies both of which would like to control the market on mind-altering substances.
Unfortunately AARC brings all the ideological baggage of the US into Canada and needs to be confronted for the abject failure that their policies are.
-
After reading the last post, take a look at this.
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n410/a03.html?999 (http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n410/a03.html?999)
Oh people of the lost AARc where are you now?
-
so Canada legalizes and the US invades Canada as a drug haven. Look what they have done over one sick cow. Thousands more jobs lost so people can ingest a mind altering substance. great idea. like it or not, bigt picture, the USA calls the shots. and the UN? Well when Burundi and all their US money dependent dictatorships start dictating to north america it will be a frosty day in hell. I know, reality hurts, but then thats why there are drugs.
-
On 2005-03-10 17:12:00, Anonymous wrote:
"so Canada legalizes and the US invades Canada as a drug haven. Look what they have done over one sick cow. Thousands more jobs lost so people can ingest a mind altering substance. great idea. like it or not, bigt picture, the USA calls the shots. and the UN? Well when Burundi and all their US money dependent dictatorships start dictating to north america it will be a frosty day in hell. I know, reality hurts, but then thats why there are drugs."
So, let me get this straight. Because the a rogue terrorist state is calling the shots, we should go along with it? Give me a break. The world is beginning to realize what the US is all about -- and its aims are not benevolent. We don't HAVE to accept it y'know. I say legalize pot and sell it in all our duty free stores in $50.00 vacuum packed baggies. Let the US deal with it as they will, taht's not our problem. Maybe we can do something about the US guns moving north. I mean, why should we stem the flow of POT south when the US does nothing to stop gun-running north. What's wrong with THIS picture, you fucking idiots?
-
As i said, look what the americans did about one sick cow. canadian economy is utterly dependent on the US. Case closed. I am unwilling to piss off our largest trading partner so a few people can legally consume mind altering substances. Their are no upsides. As far as what marijuana activists tout as a financial boon from legalizing and selling marijuana, this is a farce. If illegal growers produce 7 billion $s worth of product a year, and do it with increasing potency, totally unregulated, who in their right mind would pay for a taxed, meiocre substandard product? People will grow their own or continue to buy from unregulated growers. These growers will not be happy being undercut, or having the government try to tax their product. And what will the legal age be for consumption be? 18? 21? Then the most at risk group for using marijuana, teenagers, will be out of luck if they want pot - oh yeah, those dealers and growers will be out there still, with drastically reduced incomes, except for those exporting to the US, where it will remain illegal. And they will happily supply children.
So, are the current marijuana laws just? No. Believe me I know, and have the record to prove it. But reality is what it is.
-
On 2005-03-11 05:46:00, Anonymous wrote:
"As i said, look what the americans did about one sick cow. canadian economy is utterly dependent on the US. Case closed. I am unwilling to piss off our largest trading partner so a few people can legally consume mind altering substances. Their are no upsides. As far as what marijuana activists tout as a financial boon from legalizing and selling marijuana, this is a farce. If illegal growers produce 7 billion $s worth of product a year, and do it with increasing potency, totally unregulated, who in their right mind would pay for a taxed, meiocre substandard product? People will grow their own or continue to buy from unregulated growers. These growers will not be happy being undercut, or having the government try to tax their product. And what will the legal age be for consumption be? 18? 21? Then the most at risk group for using marijuana, teenagers, will be out of luck if they want pot - oh yeah, those dealers and growers will be out there still, with drastically reduced incomes, except for those exporting to the US, where it will remain illegal. And they will happily supply children.
So, are the current marijuana laws just? No. Believe me I know, and have the record to prove it. But reality is what it is. "
Sounds like the battered wife syndrome to me. Y'know , the woman keeps getting taken to hospital but keps going back because of her dependency. Shame on you, guy.
-
On 2005-03-11 05:46:00, Anonymous wrote:
I am unwilling to piss off our largest trading partner so a few people can legally consume mind altering substances. Their are no upsides.
What you're leaving out is that those 'few' people who want to smoke or eat pot are going to do it whether it's legal or not. And they're going to keep on doing it for just the reasons that you mention; because it is profitable for the growers and sellers.
When we repealed alcohol prohibition, the quality and purity of the product improved dramatically! No more bathtub gin. And the price came down, too, allowing for a huge tax and regulatory bumper and still providing a much less expensive, higher quality product. No reason to think the laws of economics have any differing opinions on marijuana than they do on the demon rum.
The up side to a regulated trade in marijuana as opposed to the unregulated prohibition policy is that mounties and producers and distributors would not have to be at odds w/ each.
Canada has stood down the US before. You lent us a great deal of help in getting the Mad Monk to quit the Vietnam War. And some of us are grateful for that. I hope Canada won't bow to this round of bullying and I hope Americans will become rightiously indignant over any vindictive, bully tactic that our government might try to use.
A Freudian slip is when you say one thing but mean your mother.
--Anonymous
-
Yes, using drugs is extremely pleasureable, especially the process in getting them. First call the loser dealer that you hope is gonna show up, bitting your nails fiendishly waiting, hoping he will sell you what you want, not rip you off and then running out as few hours layer and repeating the process. Oh what a life to live. I would not trade my worst day for that.
And it appears that your life is so full of pleasure, spending your time on the internet promoting drug use and how pleasureable it is. It must be brutal having to get high to have pleasure. Grow up, grab a pair and get a fuckin life. Just because your life is a complete and utter failure doesn't give you the right to bash AARC. And even if you do have a job or something going for you, your life must really suck if you hold this bitterness for that long.
So if any struggling graduate wants what this REAL WINNER has, sure it is ok to relapse. You can make great internet buddies!!!!!!
-
Wow! I have never had an experience such as you describe. I suppose if I did, I'd have to permanently swear off off whatever substance was involved.
But that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about Canadians having the freedom to try and improve upon their disastrous US imposed prohibition policies.
Here's the bottom line. I don't care if you agree w/ it or not. It's fairly objective, I think. (BTW, do they still refer to "objective reality" as equivalent to "group/staff's take on things"?)
Nearly all the addicts alive today to stand up at a stepcraft ritual tell their sad, sad talke became addicts under prohibition policy. The drugs you're worried about keeping away from your fellow Canadians are pretty nearly 100% available to anyone who wants them. The same is true in Singapore or Saudi Arabia, where they practice public summary execution, use death squads and chop off limbs in an effort to enforce this policy.
At the same time, under prohibition or not, down' through history, the overwhelming majority of people to whom these same drugs are available do not become addiction, or not so morbidly as to need any kind of formal intervention to kick.
It's your problem, a personal medical and/or psychological problem. Prohibition tries to make it a public problem. It also places LEO in a round room and instructs him to piss in a corner. It does not work, cannot work, never has worked in all of human history. And it's extremely expensive and causes major problems in the process of failing to deliver.
I think you should give it up. I think the results will be reduced crime and violence, better faith among LEO and the people they serve, a better, more efficient and less strained justice system, tax savings, improved safety to users to quality control and access to voluntary treatment of their own chosing.
I think if that happens, the rabid, zealot drug warriors who have lain siege to my beloved homeland for all these years would find themselves unable to defend their policies and maybe we'd stand a better chance of seeing an end to this sorrow south of the 49th.
They used to burn witches. Today we laugh at them. Today we jail people for marijuana. Tomorrow they'll laugh at us.
--Robert "Rosie" Rowbotham
-
Joel, u rock!!! I agree with u 100%!!!
When it comes down to it, all u bashers are really bashing urselves!!! But hey it's ur life so enjoy ur lack of self-esteem!!!
Elsa
-
I do not bash AARC. I stated that I was better off without it, to put it in easiest terms. That's the truth and proves to be obvious for me everyday that I continue to no longer be a part of the program. People could argue all day about the politics of AARC, but it has worked for some people. What do I mean by worked? Well I guess that could be debated too.
-
So...when IS it acceptable to not agree with something. When does it NOT mean you are bashing yourself.
Just to disagree does not mean you are being dishonest or that you are being selfish or are about to die from going back to drugs!!
I am so sick of hearing this line...the propaganda that people still spew spew spew
-
"The drugs you're worried about keeping away from your fellow Canadians are pretty nearly 100% available to anyone who wants them. The same is true in Singapore or Saudi Arabia, where they practice public summary execution."
I gotta question this, Antigen. While the drug trade and availability is undeniable in many places (an interesting bunch of people on the street trying to make money for their own habit?). While I have never been to Saudi or Singapore I really don't think that it is a comparable scene. Can you substantiate that remark? I'm pretty sure that these reactions are a very effective incentive to not use or traffic.
Personally I don't agree with such measures and can appreciate personal choice. It is a sticky situation. As for my own experience with drugs, it was far from absolutely horrible, but all of a sudden years and years had past and i realized i didn't like who I had become and hadn't really accomplished anything with my life. Also the reasons that I was using were pretty wack.
When I look at our society and the drug culture elements of it, I feel concern. Anti-social and hopless attitudes abound, it doesn't look terribly healthy or positive. Well i'm off to that outsidey place.
-
Just check google news occasionally for news on the drug war in various countries. You'll find that, despite barbarically draconian policies and practices, the drug trade lives on. My point is a reductio absurdum; that, even if Americans, Canadians and other 2nd world, industrialized countries were willing to go to those extremes, it still wouldn't work.
Prohibition of any comodity for which there is a steady demand always fails and, in the course of failing, always creates a black market. That's a hard, imutible rule of ecconomics. The more vigorous the enforcement efforts, the broader, more violent and more lucrative the black market.
When I look around at the drug scene today, I'm also concerned. Since our state established an area drug taskforce a couple of years ago, things have predictably gone downhill. Violent crime is up. The local prison is overcrowded w/ former breadwinners sleeping on the floor. They were over budget by a million dollars last year and the media has been silent on that problem since.
And the result here in town, the focus of the effort? The poor users now have to lug their butts all the way to the next town 2 miles away and pay a little more for lower quality product, violence is up, homelessness is up (especially among women and children), police corruption is up and property values continue to stagnate. We're actually missing the housing boom that most of the rest of the country is enjoying. That sucks! I was rather counting on that!
In other words, we have (predictably) all of the problems associated w/ prohibition and none of the promised benefits. That should not be too surprising. That's what always happens.
So, where do you look for a good example? The only good example I know of is our own history. Prior to the New Deal in general and the Harrison Narcotics Act specifically, we had drugs aplenty, freely sold at retail outlets and even through the Sears catalog to anybody w/ a nickle w/o a Rx. At that time, Bayer sold aspirin and heroin for the same price. And we had addicts, to be sure. But we had no drug crime. There were no drug gangs. There were no gnangland shootings or kids used as corriers and snitches.
And, most notably, we had no more nor fewer addicts than we have today. None. No difference at all.
So, why are we doing this again? Why are we funding the drug war in Thailand? Why are we airial spraying reformulated Agent Orange all over Colombia, Peru and Bolivia again? Why are we threatening sanctions against Mexico? Why are we sending DEA thugs to arrest bedridden terminal patients at gunpoint? What are we supposed to accomplish by it all?
If experience is any teacher and our leaders are not total idiots, they must like havning a black market, a booming prison industry, our courts and prisons overwhelmed to the point of collapse and absolutely no benefit to anyone else. Cause that's what we've always gotten from prohibition. I know for a fact that many people have made sure that our governments know this. And yet we persist.
Then again, we're still working that old Manifest Destiny saw all over the planet, too. Maybe they are just hopeless religious zealots and are, therefore, incapable of seeing what they're doing.
I am married, not Buried !
-- Steve Webb
-
On 2005-03-11 15:31:00, Antigen wrote:
Canada has stood down the US before. You lent us a great deal of help in getting the Mad Monk to quit the Vietnam War."
Antigen, you forgot the more obvious example of
Canada standing up to the US - prohibition.
Booze remained legal north of the border and
lots of good Canadian..er..rye whisky got
smuggled down here. Did a lot to make the Volsted
Act unworkable.I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard was not what I meant.
---Richard Nixon
-
Yeah, that's so. And it's also probably worth mentioning that Canada's MJ laws and policies are 1) far more lax than ours and 2) only exist because of pressure from us.
As de dawg chases his tail...I hold it to be the inalienable right of anybody to go to hell in his own way.
--Robert Frost, American poet
-
You doubt that there was one person on this site that didn't know Andrew Mazur. Your wrong. Knew him better than any of you who sit there and pretend to know him or know what he was about. You all knew shit. He didn't commit suicide. It was a overdose. And it wasn't crack that killed him. Get your shit figured out then you can talk about him. And if you want to sit and talk more shit about him. Call me up and say it to my Face...554-4281
-
It is clear to me that the comments of Antigen are spoken from a true person who took a first year class in economics and does not read the paper. I am not going to get into the workings of the black market debaate, as it does not really matter and is rather complex. But I would like to talk about some of the other views. From what I can gather you live the United States and that you believe the lack of a housing boom and rise in homeless people is due to the "prohibition" problem. I would personally think that it could have something to do with the fact that you live in a country that has a government with the worst economic policy since the 60's and with the rising cost of oil and gas more jobs, that are in sectors that rely on these as an input, are being slashed. You have a government that is on the brink of bankruptcy and the only real solution for now is possibly to send the country into a recession. Also there are a lot of companies that are leaving the states for there are better markets to be in. China and Europe are two examples. Due to this there are less jobs and more people desperate for money to live. This in turn causes more illegal activity and thus a strain on the legal system. Unfortunately it is, in the opinion of almost every "expert", the doing of the economic state of your country, not drug enforcement, that is causing these problems. As for the rise in gang violence. The above mentioned is a problem. But there are others that are much more potent then drugs and alcohol. The lack of education for members of society joining gangs. It is proven that a youth is more likely to persue and education if they believe it can be attained. Unfortunately there are many that are part of society that are not given this opportunity. Either by parents not being a positive influencs or by a system that does discriminate. This then leads into the next major contributor and that is societies glorification of "gang" members. Rap stars are rewarded for living this way, hollywoods portrayl of the life etc...
There are many problems in society today. It is a closed minded view to blame this on drug enforcement. This is part of the problem, but it is no were near the top of the list. And there are much bigger issues to tend to. If you want to look at history, take a look at Lydon Johnsons Presidency and the economic policies he needed to implement in order to correct the path of the country. Take a look at the present and near future and the rise of China as the new super power and the fall of the US. Not the fault of the "Drug War", in my opinion.
Have a nice day.
-
I would just like to respond Andrew Mazur was one of my best friends befor and during to here people talk shit about him is wrong if there was any one to ask how Andrew felt, it would be me we were closer than anyone. Andrew was a good person and everyone makes mistakes, its when you think you have nothing and feel casted away is when things go wrong. If any one has anything to say about Andrew email me[ This Message was edited by: Amber_Rae on 2005-11-28 22:13 ]
-
On 2005-10-02 15:20:00, Anonymous wrote:
"You doubt that there was one person on this site that didn't know Andrew Mazur. Your wrong. Knew him better than any of you who sit there and pretend to know him or know what he was about. You all knew shit. He didn't commit suicide. It was a overdose. And it wasn't crack that killed him. Get your shit figured out then you can talk about him. And if you want to sit and talk more shit about him. Call me up and say it to my Face...554-4281
"
who is this because if your as close as you are you should know me
Amber
-
actually i lost family to the holocaust and i attended a bemod program. i lost family there too My sister comited suicide.The comparison is apt.
A strong group persecutes a weak minority for no reason. Their fanatism, Greed, personal demons, and love of complete Totalitarian Domination over another person drive them to completely disregard the persons' human rights. In both, the childs family help to kill her. In one way the bemod world is much darker, the childs family leads the charge to slaugher her.
Everything was twisted so that anything done to my sister was acceptable and acts of gratutious and perverted cruelty were seen as necessary and merited acts of rigeousness. Her every action and word was attacked as :sick" & "selfish" I watched as bit by bit my sister was murdered. I was there as she slowly was dismantled. I even took part in it. "better her then me" I know you will say that one destoyed helpless child is not the holocaust but for me it is the same. To me she is worth every soul in the world. she is MY SISTER
-
On 2006-05-02 03:32:00, Anonymous wrote:
"actually i lost family to the holocaust and i attended a bemod program. i lost family there too My sister comited suicide.The comparison is apt.
A strong group persecutes a weak minority for no reason. Their fanatism, Greed, personal demons, and love of complete Totalitarian Domination over another person drive them to completely disregard the persons' human rights. In both, the childs family help to kill her. In one way the bemod world is much darker, the childs family leads the charge to slaugher her.
Everything was twisted so that anything done to my sister was acceptable and acts of gratutious and perverted cruelty were seen as necessary and merited acts of rigeousness. Her every action and word was attacked as :sick" & "selfish" I watched as bit by bit my sister was murdered. I was there as she slowly was dismantled. I even took part in it. "better her then me" I know you will say that one destoyed helpless child is not the holocaust but for me it is the same. To me she is worth every soul in the world. she is MY SISTER"
Well you must not know much about AARC. My Grandmother isa German Jew who left Germany in 1935 had more than a dozen family members killed in concentration camps by the Nazis. She came to Open Meeting at AARC more than once. She and my grandfather donated to AARC for more than 10 years. She is so grateful to have a grandson back in her life after years of active addiction. After her only daughter, my mother, passed away it was my sister and I who have pitched in to help her. That is the reality of AARC. Turning around lives to become positive people for their families.
-
has anyone noticed that when the bemod prisons have been closed, there are not constant posters defending the prisons?
Isnt this a bit suspicous? The prisons seem to be employing their "products" (your word not mine) staff & owners to promote the prison. If this was not so,their would be equal dedenders on the closed prisons- especailly since the owners of the closed prisons are the same as the now opened ones.
I know a great deal about AARC, as do you, though you'll never admit it. DId you know that many nazi leaders insisted to the end they were not killing jews? And this was when they had the whole power of the world agaisnt them. They were sitting in jail, on the run, hounded out of their communiities, facing an international crimes tribunal...and still they denied it. Why would anyone expect you to admit what you have done becasue one girl on the internet relates your program murdered her sister?
What we need is the power of the law behind us- ((even then it will be tough. Do you know that most of the Nazi drs served only 2-9 years for performing experiments, torturing and murdering thousands of people))) But thats what we need. We need to get together and go to the authorities and media- everyone. People (after a while) will not alow the imprisnment and torture of kids to go on. Its up to us no one else is going to help us. They need to find out about the cult/totalitarian prison that is the AARC Can someone suggest a way to get all the survivor testimony to helpful authorities and to attract other survivors?
-
On 2006-05-02 20:29:00, Anonymous wrote:
"has anyone noticed that when the bemod prisons have been closed, there are not constant posters defending the prisons?
Isnt this a bit suspicous? The prisons seem to be employing their "products" (your word not mine) staff & owners to promote the prison. If this was not so,their would be equal dedenders on the closed prisons- especailly since the owners of the closed prisons are the same as the now opened ones.
I know a great deal about AARC, as do you, though you'll never admit it. DId you know that many nazi leaders insisted to the end they were not killing jews? And this was when they had the whole power of the world agaisnt them. They were sitting in jail, on the run, hounded out of their communiities, facing an international crimes tribunal...and still they denied it. Why would anyone expect you to admit what you have done becasue one girl on the internet relates your program murdered her sister?
What we need is the power of the law behind us- ((even then it will be tough. Do you know that most of the Nazi drs served only 2-9 years for performing experiments, torturing and murdering thousands of people))) But thats what we need. We need to get together and go to the authorities and media- everyone. People (after a while) will not alow the imprisnment and torture of kids to go on. Its up to us no one else is going to help us. They need to find out about the cult/totalitarian prison that is the AARC Can someone suggest a way to get all the survivor testimony to helpful authorities and to attract other survivors? "
More chaos logic I suppose... rather unsupported banter from an aching neolib.
Really, in order to see where you are coming from, I would have to intisuscept my head with my anus.. and well... my ass isn't loose enough for anything like that.
The authorities know full well what goes on in AARC. The government is well aware of the procedures therein. There had been detailed video documentary of the inner workings of AARC. What I am saying is that if someone found the treatment unethical or in a breach of basic human rights; AARC would be shut down completely.
I now ask; "What ground do you have left to stand on to support anything you are saying?"
I have removed and refuted several of your arguements in this post, pretty much leaving you with no basis to your hypothesis. Are you willing to continue?
-J.P.
-
On 2006-05-02 20:29:00, Anonymous wrote:
"has anyone noticed that when the bemod prisons have been closed, there are not constant posters defending the prisons?
Isnt this a bit suspicous? The prisons seem to be employing their "products" (your word not mine) staff & owners to promote the prison. If this was not so,their would be equal dedenders on the closed prisons- especailly since the owners of the closed prisons are the same as the now opened ones.
I know a great deal about AARC, as do you, though you'll never admit it. DId you know that many nazi leaders insisted to the end they were not killing jews? And this was when they had the whole power of the world agaisnt them. They were sitting in jail, on the run, hounded out of their communiities, facing an international crimes tribunal...and still they denied it. Why would anyone expect you to admit what you have done becasue one girl on the internet relates your program murdered her sister?
What we need is the power of the law behind us- ((even then it will be tough. Do you know that most of the Nazi drs served only 2-9 years for performing experiments, torturing and murdering thousands of people))) But thats what we need. We need to get together and go to the authorities and media- everyone. People (after a while) will not alow the imprisnment and torture of kids to go on. Its up to us no one else is going to help us. They need to find out about the cult/totalitarian prison that is the AARC Can someone suggest a way to get all the survivor testimony to helpful authorities and to attract other survivors? "
Your baseless and disgusting comparison of AARC to Nazis and their slaughter of millions of innocents is disgusting and shamefull. My grandmother and her family were decimated by the nazis. The comparison is baseless and ignorant. We live in a society of laws and intrusive media. After 14 years of helping kids and their families there was ANY abuse whatsoever it would have been exposed. Your conspiracy theories are typical of all that seek to defame decent organizations. Throw out accusations and wild comparisons and hope that something sticks. After how many years of this and still nothing. Not one substantiated complaint. I could care less about your ranting, but when you dishonor those of us who have lost family in WW II you go to far.
-
actually i lost family to the holocaust and i attended a bemod program. i lost family there too My sister comited suicide.The comparison is apt.
A strong group persecutes a weak minority for no reason. Their fanatism, Greed, personal demons, and love of complete Totalitarian Domination over another person drive them to completely disregard the persons' human rights. In both, the childs family help to kill her. In one way the bemod world is much darker, the childs family leads the charge to slaugher her.
Everything was twisted so that anything done to my sister was acceptable and acts of gratutious and perverted cruelty were seen as necessary and merited acts of rigeousness. Her every action and word was attacked as :sick" & "selfish" I watched as bit by bit my sister was murdered. I was there as she slowly was dismantled. I even took part in it. "better her then me" I know you will say that one destoyed helpless child is not the holocaust but for me it is the same. To me she is worth every soul in the world. she is MY SISTER"
i wrote that and stand besided everything I said. Looks like you supposedly lost family in the holocaust too. Wow, whose holocaust-link gives them more moral authority!? I have a deal- you give kids human rights , like the ones Nazis stole from Jews, Ill stop calling you a nazi. As Jews today cannot be kidnapped, imprisoned, & tortured for for years& years without trial or legal representation (or somethimes even the accusation of illegal action) neither should children.
Crazy huh? Suggesting children should be granted the rights of a human being
-
On 2006-05-19 04:26:00, Anonymous wrote:
"actually i lost family to the holocaust and i attended a bemod program. i lost family there too My sister comited suicide.The comparison is apt.
A strong group persecutes a weak minority for no reason. Their fanatism, Greed, personal demons, and love of complete Totalitarian Domination over another person drive them to completely disregard the persons' human rights. In both, the childs family help to kill her. In one way the bemod world is much darker, the childs family leads the charge to slaugher her.
Everything was twisted so that anything done to my sister was acceptable and acts of gratutious and perverted cruelty were seen as necessary and merited acts of rigeousness. Her every action and word was attacked as :sick" & "selfish" I watched as bit by bit my sister was murdered. I was there as she slowly was dismantled. I even took part in it. "better her then me" I know you will say that one destoyed helpless child is not the holocaust but for me it is the same. To me she is worth every soul in the world. she is MY SISTER"
i wrote that and stand besided everything I said. Looks like you supposedly lost family in the holocaust too. Wow, whose holocaust-link gives them more moral authority!? I have a deal- you give kids human rights , like the ones Nazis stole from Jews, Ill stop calling you a nazi. As Jews today cannot be kidnapped, imprisoned, & tortured for for years& years without trial or legal representation (or somethimes even the accusation of illegal action) neither should children.
Crazy huh? Suggesting children should be granted the rights of a human being"
Your "program" that you were a part of sounds like it was disgusting. You should be ashamed of how you helped destroy your sister. But obviously you know nothing about AARC. Your ignorance causes you to lump every place that has anything to do with young people together. Not unlike Nazis lumping Cathoics, Jews, homosexuals and Gypsies together, calling them evil and then destroying them.
My sister was in AARC as sibling. She was able to speak her mind, dealt with lots of issues, made great frinds and reconnected with me. We are close and great friends. I feel sorry for you taking part in your sisters demise. No one trampled on my human rights. I was 21 when I went to AARC, entered freely and could have left at any time. No guards, bars etc. So please get a clue. And if you care to call me a Nazi let me know where and when and I would be happy to discuss it with you face to face you gutless coward.
-
While I would not wish a severley addicted child on anyone, I wonder what you would do if your child was a drug addict and totally out of control. The majority of kids in AARC haveen through every conceivable type of "therapy" only to get worse and worse. That description sure fit me. Now I have over a decade of health and success. Not bragging, just a fact. Most of the graduates I know are the same. Happy and highly functional. Maybe one day you will have the joys of a crack or meth or alcohol addicted child who is killing themself.
-
???Your "program" that you were a part of sounds like it was disgusting. You should be ashamed of how you helped destroy your sister. But obviously you know nothing about AARC. Your ignorance causes you to lump every place that has anything to do with young people together. Not unlike Nazis lumping Cathoics, Jews, homosexuals and Gypsies together, calling them evil and then destroying them.
My sister was in AARC as sibling. She was able to speak her mind, dealt with lots of issues, made great frinds and reconnected with me. We are close and great friends. I feel sorry for you taking part in your sisters demise. No one trampled on my human rights. I was 21 when I went to AARC, entered freely and could have left at any time. No guards, bars etc. So please get a clue. And if you care to call me a Nazi let me know where and when and I would be happy to discuss it with you face to face you gutless coward.??????
So you were 21 about 14 years ago? Don?t you think when you?re pushing 40 you?re a bit old to be threatening girls with beat downs? We are not in AARC and you cannot ?restrain? girls into doing what you want them to anymore.
My close friend was abused by her mother - sexually, psychologically, physically. She was imprisoned, tied up, had her head shaved (some of the highlights) and coerced into feeding her sister from a dog bowl. I was coerced to tell my sister she was sick - program guidelines. We (my friend and I) have both spoken of our experiences to police, many child protection organizations, c.p.s, at our University, etc - no one has ever told us to be ashamed of ourselves. That is because normal human beings don?t ?shame? youth for what they were coerced into doing by abusive, all-powerful authorities at age 13. No - That takes a ?programmed? person.
Please, keep up the bizarrely sadistic remarks and physical threats. Remember, outsiders and officials read this forum. People will see the sort of character and ?judgment making skills? possessed by pro-program grads and will assess their pro-program position accordingly. Your words condemn AARC better than I ever could.
Don?t cage and torture children and you won?t be confused with Nazis.
First off AARC does imprison children. Are you saying it doesn?t? Or are you just avoiding answering that question by saying ? you PERSONALLY were 21. I think that?s it, since its not just repulsed program survivors that describe imprisonment. The AARC lists imprisonment as it?s official policy.
Here?s the AARC describing itself to the ?secure working group? (This group was founded by the ARRC to open the VARC. They lobbied for a law which would allow parents who felt their kids were involved with drugs to imprison the kids for 90 days)
.?the Secure Working Group notes the involuntary nature of the AARC program?
?85% of the kids are there involuntarily?
http://ir.lib.sfu.ca/retrieve/2472/etd2076.pdf (http://ir.lib.sfu.ca/retrieve/2472/etd2076.pdf)
It is common knowledge the AARC imprisons kids. This practice (lockdown) is relayed as fact among official government drug treatment overview services like ADDAC. You can call & find out for yourself! (quickly! call them and tell them to stop giving out company secrets!.)
The imprisoning of children is also relayed to reporters to promote the opening of the VARC . Here the AARC describes how unfortunate it is they can?t imprison kids in Vancouver like they can in Alberta?
?A group made up of local business executives, social workers and social activists is investigating opening a similar centre to AARC in Vancouver. In Alberta, under the longstanding Child Welfare Act, parents have always been allowed to detain children up to the age of 16 for treatment.?
(program kid) ?Almost immediately they took me in. I had no choice. My parents signed me over and I was stuck there."
(Father whose child supposedly would not stay in school) ?We took him to AARC for an assessment and they just kept him. Basically, he never left until he graduated."
?As far as Vause is concerned, abstinence is vital to the future success of clients, even if that means keeping them against their will? http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:0Y ... =clnk&cd=1 (http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:0YThMhO99loJ:www.vancourier.com/issues02/121102/news/121102nn1.html+secure+%22Alberta+Adolescent%22+forced+into+treatment+%22against+their+will%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1)
And most touchingly, here is a proud graduate describing chasing after a kid who tried to escape
?I'm still quite impressed you ran into a random house just to lose me when you ran.?
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:qq ... =clnk&cd=1 (http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:qqc2zzohJJMJ:fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php%3Ftopic%3D10793%26forum%3D4%269+fornits+++crack+Adrian&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1) (you can feel in her words the support she gave Mike as his peer-counselor /master)
So we can agree AARC keeps kids against their will right? And as deceptive as you are about imprisoning children, you are deceptive about torturing them (Incidentally, AARC is a direct descendent of Straight, which was hounded out of the U.S for child abuse and is now recognized as a cult). When prosecuters press charges against the AARC perhaps they can be referred to this thread to see for themselves how misrepresentative pro-program witnesses are. Perhaps they can speak to you directly? What did you say your name was? Surely you are not going to hide your name now, as you were willing to forgo anonymity when you met me on that street corner to beat me. Surely it is something you would be proud to share right?
-
Here is the testimony of the kid who has not proven themselves to be violently out of control and deceptive.
????My name is Mylitta and I was in the Alberta Adolescent Recovery Centre (AARC) for a little over one year. My mother's aunt and uncle had put their child through Kids of North Jersey, and even though she was freed from "Kids" by the police her parents continued to support the program. When Miller Newton tried to bring his program to Canada they offered their help, and began holding "Rap's" in their basement, which were run by Dean Vause. This is where AARC began until they were given funding to buy a building in the industrial area of Calgary.
When I was 13 I smoked pot about 30 times (probably less) and took LSD about 10 times. I did this because I attended the high school with the highest drug population in Canada at the time and drugs were "normal" there. After using drugs for almost a year I became bored with them and I had negative effects from LSD, so I stopped entirely. When asked "why did your parents put you through AARC" I've come to understand that I was in AARC because of Munchausen by proxy (MBP), which is what my mother had.
My mother claims that the 9 months she spent in a psychiatric unit after slitting her wrists was the "happiest time" in her life. She claims to have been cured of schizophrenia while in there. I'm aware that she has a head injury from childhood which caused her brain damage, but not aware of any diagnosis she was given in the psychiatric unit. I do know that she moved to another country and changed her first and last name, and I believe that there is a possibility that she was under Witness Protection. After much time questioning her I've come to suspect that she'd slit her wrists while on LSD which was her "schizophrenia" and also why she focused so much on me having taken it.
When my father began seeing other women, the only thing that would bring him home was if my sister and I were very sick. So I spent most of my childhood in hospitals and she even pulled strings to make me the poster child (literally) for a disease. I was heavily medicated for reasons I don't understand and on a weekly basis I was coaxed into situations with doctors where she would tell me what my symptoms were and if I were "good" I would tell the doctors. I was even burnt and cut as a child to go to the emergency room. I was lead to believe that they were accidents. Even as a small toddler if I had a bad dream my mother would tell me it was a hallucination and drag me to a psychologist where she would tell them I had schizophrenia.
When I was 14 my father was spending the mortgage on prostitutes. My mother spent time with the aunt and uncle involved with AARC, and soon decided that she needed to send me there. Her and my father both spent time in Calgary attending meetings at AARC, which I was unaware of. When they returned they were increasingly crazy. It was summer time and I was spending a lot of time with my friends, hanging out at the beach, coffee shops, etc. I was not using drugs, being promiscuous, or doing anything "at risk". I was emotionally struggling, but that is a given considering my home situation. Once they began attending AARC they made a rule that I could only leave the house for 1 hour a day. They didn't chose a home with a bedroom for me, so my home was under the dining room table. After a week of only exiting the dining room table for an hour a day I began running away from home, often being dragged back (physically) by police or my parents. As a runaway I spent most of my time in friends homes, and met a woman who began fighting for legal custody of me, but unfortunately I spent a small time homeless because my parents were knocking on the doors of my friends homes and threatening their parents. During this summer my mother had me physically restrained and taken to a rehabilitation center in the states. I was soon released and social services (I learned years later) decided to watch me and arrest my mother if she continued with this.
Eventually, after my "normal" life was being torn to pieces, my parents told me that they'd found a foster program in Alberta that had space for me and that they would be willing to let me go if I chose to live with that foster family. I said yes, believing it was the only way to stop the fight with my family. Two days later they took me to the center where I'd supposedly meet my family, and I was in AARC.
Being this the most bizarre experience of my life it will be hard to keep the explanation of AARC short.
At the time the industrial garage AARC was in was mostly cement walls and floor, with some areas having painted gray walls and gray carpets. The only decorated part of the building was the front portion where staff had their offices and curious parents learned about AARC. Also everything beyond the front of the building was not heated during the winter and the air conditioning was turned up in the back during the summer. We weren't allowed to wear our coats in Rap's and only allowed one sweatshirt or sweater and a few t-shirts, so I was always freezing and had cold sweats. The blinds were shut so that we didn't get any sunlight, and we were not allowed any outside stimulation such as newspapers or any literature for that matter that was not AA literature, or any contact with people not directly involved with AARC. When I left AARC I was unaware of major events such as the Oklahoma bombing.
Many of my civil rights were violated. I wasn't given the right to partake in ceremonies of my own religion and I was even forbidden to speak of my religious beliefs because they differed from AARC's. Mail that friends sent to my mother she'd hand over to AARC and they would open them and read them, but not tell me about them. I found out as an Oldtimer. I had no way of contacting anyone for help because I wasn't allowed to use a phone, have computer access, or write letters. The only time I was allowed to speak to my parents was with Oldcomers and staff monitoring me.
AARC staff told us that legally they could keep us until we were 16 and could sign ourselves out. Anyone who attempted to leave while under the age of sixteen was physically restrained by staff and oldcomers, including being sat on for long periods of time. I've heard that they now say the same for anyone under the age of 18.
The process of rap's was traumatizing. Clients had to tell "incidents" during every rap, so I don't know what was made up for the sake of an incident, or what was real, but I heard awful stories of incest, sexual abuse, rape, physical abuse, things that at that young age (15) I was unaware of and did not need to be forced to hear extreme details of every day for hours at a time for one year. "Girls Rap" was intended for purely sexual discussion. It was usually run by a man and it was held in a room built with a viewing room behind a one way mirror, which continues to disgust me. I remember Girls Rap's where girls told stories of being raped, and instead of being counseled to understand that it was not their fault, they were told them that their "disease" lead them to it. That they attended a high school party in search of alcohol so therefore they set themselves up for this to happen to them. There were child prostitutes (as young as 13) who had been court ordered into AARC and even though these girls were recruited by gangs, drugged and raped, they were still taught that they became prostitutes to support their addiction. Anyone who had homosexual thoughts was told that it was because of their "disease".
All of us spent time undergoing "blast raps" or being the "target" of regular raps, which involved everyone (staff and clients) calling you names, telling you that you're a worthless druggie, for hours and hours at a time, and the only way to make it end is to agree with them which is called "accepting powerlessness". If you didn't accept powerlessness for a long period of time you were put on "The Zero Club" which meant that an Oldcomer was assigned to control even your basic functions, meaning that you had to ask permission for each spoonful of food you were given and the Oldcomer was allowed to deny you. You had to ask for one square of toilet paper at a time, and again the Oldcomer could deny you.
Undergoing this caused me to start having altered states. I had to have a private place to go to where they could not reach, and I had to have a personality that was acceptable to them. I bounced in between these at all times and by the end of AARC I could not control bouncing in between the real me as a 15 year old, and the AARC me. When I "graduated" I behaved in a perfectly acceptable way to AARC people, but to the rest of the world I was totally out of place, which the more I tried to merge into the real world the more obvious this became.
I wasn't eating enough to sustain a healthy weight during my first half of AARC and therefore was in pain all over. Normally clients were taken to a doctor who was a friend of Dean Vause's, when they first enter AARC. Their visit was supervised by staff and the purpose was to check for STD's, lice and scabies. I wasn't given this doctors appointment, probably because my poor health was too risky. When I became an Oldcomer and had a Host Home my mothers MPB became beneficial. She found that I had a cyst forming from spinal tissue, which needed to be operated on. I was operated on and quickly escorted back to AARC where home nurses visited me 3 times daily to care for the open wound, which soon became infected. A "Clinical" once told me that the home nurse had told her that I was making it all up and didn't need any help, therefore she was no longer letting the nurses in. Meanwhile I could barely walk and had a two inch long open wound and infection in my spinal tissue. My mother found out about this and quickly had the situation changed long enough for me to heal up.
Immediately after AARC I found a wonderful therapist who helped me start to recover from AARC. She reminded me that I could have my own opinions and that all of the things done to me and the other kids were not for a good reason. It was still a few years before I cut contact with AARC because I continued to bounce between the real me and the AARC me, and I was afraid that maybe outsiders really were evil, and maybe I really would be "dead insane or in jail" (as we were told) if I separated from AARC. I also continued to support my mom and her MBP until I turned 18, at which point I felt free legally that I couldn't be dragged into a rehab, hospital, or a cult. I moved away and limited contact with my immediate family.
The most surprising things to have learned about AARC once out were first of all that the rule of turning 16 and signing out was false and that AARC at the time did not have the legal right to keep me or restrain us, which means that I was actually kidnapped and illegally held. Also We had called Dean Vause "Dr. Vause" because he claimed to have been a psychologist to us, while professionally to the outside world he referred to himself as "clinical director". I was shocked to find that he is not a psychologist and had undergone his training at Kids of North Jersey. Also I began reading about cults and cult recovery, and it feels to me that AARC's program is so alike all descriptions of what makes a cult, that it's possible they designed the program around cult structure. I could not believe that these books about cults worded exactly what I went through.
At 20 I had gotten my dream apartment and had married my husband who helped me put things into perspective. I'd still say some AARC things or refer to myself as "sick" in the way that both AARC and my mother would, and he'd ask me why on earth I thought those things. I realized that I was not ill throughout my life mentally or physically. At 22 I'd moved even further from my family and researched my mothers history where I was able to fill in some blanks. I felt safer to have a clearer understanding of my life. Around that time the MBP became clear. Living in fear of AARC, or "deadinsaneorinjail", seeing myself as a bad or dangerous person was gone. I was able to be a woman with her own life, her own values, and no more bouncing in between who I was and who I was told to be. I'm now 25 and lead a full life, although it has been much harder to get here then it is for most people. When I listen to my friends talking about their lives I am always amazed at how different our stories are. I am often jealous of students who were able to stay with their parents while attending school or who have a safety net if they can't make their rent one month. I've had to do everything while working overtime, and I've never had that safety net to fall back on (until in laws came along). At 19 I was exhausted all the time, working around the clock to make it, knowing that if one little thing went wrong, like if I got a sick and had to take a week off, I might not be able to pay my bills and I'd be on the streets.
I saw my family recently. My mother is now unable to care for herself, I don't know exactly what the reasoning is. She is starving herself and so underweight that she could probably die any second. I don't think she is doing it for the sake of vanity, I think that now that she doesn't have someone to make sick, she has to do it herself. She typically sees a doctor once a day five times a week, and again I don't know why.
From what I hear about AARC these days they have dressed the building up and worsened the situation for it's clients. I don't believe that there is any way to improve AARC. The amount of violence engraved in the staff members is too powerful to cure. I'd tell you that the only people who should end up in this place are the worst of criminals or rapists, but I remember a situation where a boy had raped one of the girls in AARC (before either of them were in AARC), and he did not have to "make amends" to her, meanwhile she was being taught she was the problem. In fact the boy was made a staff member after graduating. I feel that there are probably many kids out there who were abused enough in AARC to press criminal charges, but they are either too afraid or too confused about what happened to talk about it. Most of the victims I speak to are working so hard to change their lives and get away from anything involved with AARC that they simply say "I just can't deal with it right now."
I will always live with the knowledge that I lost one year of my youth during one of our most developmental years. When freed from AARC I heard about a local man I'd known who was arrested for sexually assaulting his 2 daughters (both under the age of 12). He spent only 3 months in prison where he was allowed all civil rights, time to himself, outside contact. Meanwhile everything had been taken from me and I wasn't even allowed to speak about the people I'd loved before AARC. ????
-
On 2006-06-03 15:37:00, Anonymous wrote:
So we can agree AARC keeps kids against their will right? And as deceptive as you are about imprisoning children, you are deceptive about torturing them (Incidentally, AARC is a direct descendent of Straight, which was hounded out of the U.S for child abuse and is now recognized as a cult). When prosecuters press charges against the AARC perhaps they can be referred to this thread to see for themselves how misrepresentative pro-program witnesses are. Perhaps they can speak to you directly? What did you say your name was? Surely you are not going to hide your name now, as you were willing to forgo anonymity when you met me on that street corner to beat me. Surely it is something you would be proud to share right?
"
"And if you care to call me a Nazi let me know where and when and I would be happy to discuss it with you face to face you gutless coward."
My exact words - DISCUSS. I have not hurt anyone since before Iwent into AARC. You are delusional. By your thinking any parent who sends their child to summer camp, to school, to boarding school, to stay with relatives is a fascist. And it is likely they are being tortured. Out of AARC's 300 + Graduate families, as well as an unknown # ofpeople who did not stay to complete treatment, not one has laid charges or started a lawsuit. Even unhappy AARC assosciated people rarely come here to say their piece. In 14 years I would say that is remarkable with all those poor victims free now.
As to who I am, my name is David Grant. I am 36. Have 2 healthy wonderful kids, a good job and I regularly volunteer and mentor kids. Your turn anonymous mud slinger. I would be happy to speak to any law enforcement representative. Considering the the Calgary Chief of Police was at AARC's big fundraiser along with the Alberta Justice Minister, I am less than concerned about a subpoena arriving at my door. I also spoke with an AARC graduate parent who is a retired Crown Prosecuter - I am sure he would send his regards. Get a clue.
-
To the young lady imprisoned in ARC: bless you my child. You are an amazing young lady to have survived so much with your humanity intact. It is truly humbling to see what you have been through and how much insight you have. My sincere wishes for a very happy life; you certainly have earned it! :nworthy:
-
### If you care to call me nazi let me know where and when and I would be happy to discuss it with you face to face you gutless coward####
haha. Funny, if that kid had gone to meet you and gotten bruised up, he wouldnt even be able to press charges. Legally, he'd be considrered to have consented to fight. and therefore not due damages
Thats because after intense arguments on the internet where one man demands the other "gutless coward" "LET THEM KNOW WHERE AND WHEN" to meet PHYSICALLY if he wants to continue speaking, it sure looks like an invitation to fight.. and it usually IS. If you want to claim to be the 1 exception to the rule-have fun.
But it looks like your trying to weasel out of something you said. I guess you're sorry you gave the wrong impresion huh?
By the way, if an organization wants to claim it doesnt imprison kids it probably shouldnt publish info about how it imprisons kids. I am so sorry about what happens to the children in it's clutches
-
On 2006-06-04 18:06:00, Anonymous wrote:
"### If you care to call me nazi let me know where and when and I would be happy to discuss it with you face to face you gutless coward####
haha. Funny, if that kid had gone to meet you and gotten bruised up, he wouldnt even be able to press charges. Legally, he'd be considrered to have consented to fight. and therefore not due damages
Thats because after intense arguments on the internet where one man demands the other "gutless coward" "LET THEM KNOW WHERE AND WHEN" to meet PHYSICALLY if he wants to continue speaking, it sure looks like an invitation to fight.. and it usually IS. If you want to claim to be the 1 exception to the rule-have fun.
But it looks like your trying to weasel out of something you said. I guess you're sorry you gave the wrong impresion huh?
By the way, if an organization wants to claim it doesnt imprison kids it probably shouldnt publish info about how it imprisons kids. I am so sorry about what happens to the children in it's clutches"
I have only ever DISCUSSED anything regarding AARC or any other issue in my life since I got sober. I have never threatened anyone. However, if someone wants to take a poke at me - physically or verbally, I am more than able to defend myself. I stand by what I said - the anonymous weasel who throws mud is the only one here (besides you) that is hiding, ducking and making assumptions.
-
Hey, I'm up for kicking some ass.
-Josh
P.S. Just Kidding
-
Please do not make reference to concentration camps in Poland when ragging on AARC - it is offensive to those of us who lost family to the Nazis.
I lost family in AARC
-
This is one of the best threads in AARC survivor. Joel Mader, who appeared recently looking like he was in the middle of a seven day meth binge, sounds off three years ago. If you ain't staff asshole, why are you still hanging around AARC? It also has a number of self-righteous, whining prevarications by famous criminal mastermind, former AARC-staffer and step-son of AARC founder Dr. Dookie, Pablo Escobaro-Grant.
Good to see Joel carrying on the tradition of deranged scum-bags hanging onto AARC for dear life while denying their connection. High-fives to David, Josh et al.
-
Considering the the Calgary Chief of Police was at AARC's big fundraiser along with the Alberta Justice Minister, I am less than concerned about a subpoena arriving at my door. I also spoke with an AARC graduate parent who is a retired Crown Prosecuter - I am sure he would send his regards. Get a clue.
That gives you some kind of immunity to do whatever you like?
You all keep counting on the name dropping to keep you in business.
Remember Straight had strong backers too, didn't stop the abuse from coming to light and the program being CLOSED.
And regarding AARC's "big fundraisers" what exactly do they DO with all that money considering the amount parents pay?
-
Is it Ok to relapse? If you have clicked this message your probably getting high this very second or twitching out because you can't. CONGRATULATIONS YOU HAVE RELAPSED!
What is replase you say?
Good question, well apart from being a very positive event. It means being once sober and having a possible chance to live a good life, instead you decide to once again consume mood or mind altering substances. Apparently this is the best thing that has ever happened to these people.
This is coming from Joel Mader, AARC "counsolor" almost 3 years ago.
The same person to write in this forum that he is not even a counsellor, but an abused client, who is forced to do things against his will.
http://wwf.fornits.com/viewtopic.php?t=24460 (http://wwf.fornits.com/viewtopic.php?t=24460) (See posts #6-9)
IF Joel was any kind of properly trained addictions counselor he would KNOW that relapse is an expected and normal part of the recovery process. And, if Joel were any kind of professional dealing with adolescents he would have a higher level of maturity and personal integrity than to go into a public forum and randomly post the comments that he did.
The public displays of immaturity and lack of professionalism speaks volumes to the quality of treatment provided by AARC staff.
But that's ok, you have former police chiefs, former prosecutors/program parents, and a Minister of Justice convinced, so carry on.
-
"This is one of the best threads in AARC survivor. Joel Mader, who appeared recently looking like he was in the middle of a seven day meth binge, sounds off three years ago. If you ain't staff asshole, why are you still hanging around AARC? It also has a number of self-righteous, whining prevarications by famous criminal mastermind, former AARC-staffer and step-son of AARC founder Dr. Dookie, Pablo Escobaro-Grant.
Good to see Joel carrying on the tradition of deranged scum-bags hanging onto AARC for dear life while denying their connection. High-fives to David, Josh et al."
I find you a laughable person this could be due to the fact that you are responding to a post that I made when I was 16 years old. I also find it very funny that for a guy that is trying to "get the facts strait about AARC" that you would also be intelligent to understand how AARC works before you make assumptions such as "if you ain't staff asshole, are you still hanging around AARC". Well this is simple friend. I have friends that work there. Have you ever gone to a friend's area of work? As for the fact of me being a "deranged scum-bag" I guess you may have your opinions of your self but keep in mind you where responding to a comment that was stated when i was six teen and I assume that you are at least in your 20's so you may be the true "deranged scum-bag". Any way i hope to see all your wonderful posts another three years from now and enjoy a good laugh due to comments. Take care guys
Joel Mader
-
If you were 16 Joel and unaccountable for your actions, why on God's green earth would you be put in control of the worst of the worst drug addicted teenagers?
And, I find it completely unprofessional for counselors of a confidential teen drug rehab to have their "friends" hanging around.
All of you who go through AARC and never leave truly are a segregated part of society. There are many of you, but you are still a segregated part of society.
-
You can debate it in any way that you see fit about the 16 year old comment. But the this small "society" that you speak of doesn't really make any sense to me. I don't even live in calgary and have many friends that have no relation to AARC. All i can say is that AARC helped me and again you can look at it any way that you want but it did. I have had time away and considered that question but to be honest i have never seen any prof that it didn't. I feel for others that may feel differently but i can not debate there remarks nor there feelings. All i can speak from is my own experience. Take it or leave it.
-
You AARColytes always have a hard time separating your sentiments from verifiable facts. In one breath you say that one can "look at it any way you want", while stating emphatically that your sentiment is an unassailable truth. The issue at hand is not whether or not you believe that you were helped. You, and any AARColytes are entitled to your beliefs, and if you can find someone to listen to you, you're entitled to expound on them. The problem is that you insist that your beliefs must be accepted by others, who must then give money and more believers to your organization.
In order to accomplish these two goals, AARC has undertaken to disseminate a body of lies. That is not an opinion, it is a fact.
The principle lies are that the program is a new creation, that it is clinically proven, and that it works.
It is indisputable that the entire AARC program was taken directly from Kids, which was taken from Straight, which was taken from the Seed. To say otherwise is a lie, and AARC says otherwise.
It is also indisputable that the program is not clinically proven. The Seed was judged to be providing experimental treatment, and was obligated to provide it's clients with forms consenting to human experimentation. The Host Home model used in AARC came directly from the Seed. It was determined thirty-five years ago that this ritual was dangerous, and the Seed was unable to comply with legislation drafted to ensure the safety of clients in Host Homes.
There is no evidence that the methods used at AARC work to accomplish the goal of rehabillitating those who are chemically dependent. The only evidence offered by AARC is testimonials from individuals, and their study which showed that most clients in the study group resumed drug and alcohol consumption after treatment in AARC.
The confrontation/attack therapy that constitutes AARC "treatment" was taken from Synanon. It was dreamed up by Chuck Dederich, a stand-up comedian. Art Barker, founder of the Seed, was also a former stand-up comedian. Dederich admitted late in life that he had no idea how to cure a dope fiend. But AARC continues to use his raps as part of their program of psychic surgery.
There is no scientific basis for AARC's treatment. It is merely the fourth or fifth generation of a set of rituals devised by a pair of comedians.
AARColytes can take the route chosen by Seedlings after the US Congress ruled against using the very same methods used in AARC: take in consenting adults, and leave the kids alone.
AARC was never intended to help kids. It is exists to provide a socio-religious community for parents who can't handle their offspring. Nothing bears this out better than the case of Andrew Mazur. Mazur's father put him in AARC to save him from addiction. Mazur ended up dying in Remand after taking cocaine and either heroin or morphine. AARC's role in the Mazur's family was to save Mazur and he ended up dead. Yet his father continues to praise AARC. AARC gave Mazur Senior what he needed, and his son ended up dead.
The operation was a success, but the patient died.
-
bump
-
You AARColytes always have a hard time separating your sentiments from verifiable facts. In one breath you say that one can "look at it any way you want", while stating emphatically that your sentiment is an unassailable truth. The issue at hand is not whether or not you believe that you were helped. You, and any AARColytes are entitled to your beliefs, and if you can find someone to listen to you, you're entitled to expound on them. The problem is that you insist that your beliefs must be accepted by others, who must then give money and more believers to your organization.
In order to accomplish these two goals, AARC has undertaken to disseminate a body of lies. That is not an opinion, it is a fact.
The principle lies are that the program is a new creation, that it is clinically proven, and that it works.
It is indisputable that the entire AARC program was taken directly from Kids, which was taken from Straight, which was taken from the Seed. To say otherwise is a lie, and AARC says otherwise.
It is also indisputable that the program is not clinically proven. The Seed was judged to be providing experimental treatment, and was obligated to provide it's clients with forms consenting to human experimentation. The Host Home model used in AARC came directly from the Seed. It was determined thirty-five years ago that this ritual was dangerous, and the Seed was unable to comply with legislation drafted to ensure the safety of clients in Host Homes.
There is no evidence that the methods used at AARC work to accomplish the goal of rehabillitating those who are chemically dependent. The only evidence offered by AARC is testimonials from individuals, and their study which showed that most clients in the study group resumed drug and alcohol consumption after treatment in AARC.
The confrontation/attack therapy that constitutes AARC "treatment" was taken from Synanon. It was dreamed up by Chuck Dederich, a stand-up comedian. Art Barker, founder of the Seed, was also a former stand-up comedian. Dederich admitted late in life that he had no idea how to cure a dope fiend. But AARC continues to use his raps as part of their program of psychic surgery.
There is no scientific basis for AARC's treatment. It is merely the fourth or fifth generation of a set of rituals devised by a pair of comedians.
AARColytes can take the route chosen by Seedlings after the US Congress ruled against using the very same methods used in AARC: take in consenting adults, and leave the kids alone.
AARC was never intended to help kids. It is exists to provide a socio-religious community for parents who can't handle their offspring. Nothing bears this out better than the case of Andrew Mazur. Mazur's father put him in AARC to save him from addiction. Mazur ended up dying in Remand after taking cocaine and either heroin or morphine. AARC's role in the Mazur's family was to save Mazur and he ended up dead. Yet his father continues to praise AARC. AARC gave Mazur Senior what he needed, and his son ended up dead.
The operation was a success, but the patient died.
It seems as if the sickest joke those ex-comedians told was about all of us, (the ones from the Synanon,Seed,Straight,Safe,Kids,Pathway.........family fucking tree!). The joke must have went something like this:
"What do you call a bunch of white middle class children locked up all day, with a token child of color sprinkled here and there?"....and then, the other one says..."Gee, I dunno. What do you call a bunch of white middle class children locked up all day with a token child of color sprinkled here and there?.....and then the first one says: "Fucked"!.... and then they both burst out in obnoxious laughter.
Yeah, not so funny, you fuckers you!
-DP
-
Look at this guy, I don't know what your debating about or what type of valid information you are contributing to this cause but for the most part it looks like you are taking it away from it. Maybe if you put some intelligent thoughts together before you write something. Your concerns might be taken more seriously. Posting FUCK for example removes any form of credibility. maybe you should go back to school and learn how to debate an issue possibly. For the most part AJAX your posts are a waste of time not only for AARC's but the people you are trying to side with. Grow up.
-
Sorry Ajax i meant Deprogrammed
-
"You AARColytes always have a hard time separating your sentiments from verifiable facts. In one breath you say that one can "look at it any way you want", while stating emphatically that your sentiment is an unassailable truth. The issue at hand is not whether or not you believe that you were helped. You, and any AARColytes are entitled to your beliefs, and if you can find someone to listen to you, you're entitled to expound on them. The problem is that you insist that your beliefs must be accepted by others, who must then give money and more believers to your organization.
In order to accomplish these two goals, AARC has undertaken to disseminate a body of lies. That is not an opinion, it is a fact.
The principle lies are that the program is a new creation, that it is clinically proven, and that it works.
It is indisputable that the entire AARC program was taken directly from Kids, which was taken from Straight, which was taken from the Seed. To say otherwise is a lie, and AARC says otherwise.
It is also indisputable that the program is not clinically proven. The Seed was judged to be providing experimental treatment, and was obligated to provide it's clients with forms consenting to human experimentation. The Host Home model used in AARC came directly from the Seed. It was determined thirty-five years ago that this ritual was dangerous, and the Seed was unable to comply with legislation drafted to ensure the safety of clients in Host Homes.
There is no evidence that the methods used at AARC work to accomplish the goal of rehabillitating those who are chemically dependent. The only evidence offered by AARC is testimonials from individuals, and their study which showed that most clients in the study group resumed drug and alcohol consumption after treatment in AARC.
"The confrontation/attack therapy that constitutes AARC "treatment" was taken from Synanon. It was dreamed up by Chuck Dederich, a stand-up comedian. Art Barker, founder of the Seed, was also a former stand-up comedian. Dederich admitted late in life that he had no idea how to cure a dope fiend. But AARC continues to use his raps as part of their program of psychic surgery.
There is no scientific basis for AARC's treatment. It is merely the fourth or fifth generation of a set of rituals devised by a pair of comedians.
AARColytes can take the route chosen by Seedlings after the US Congress ruled against using the very same methods used in AARC: take in consenting adults, and leave the kids alone.
AARC was never intended to help kids. It is exists to provide a socio-religious community for parents who can't handle their offspring. Nothing bears this out better than the case of Andrew Mazur. Mazur's father put him in AARC to save him from addiction. Mazur ended up dying in Remand after taking cocaine and either heroin or morphine. AARC's role in the Mazur's family was to save Mazur and he ended up dead. Yet his father continues to praise AARC. AARC gave Mazur Senior what he needed, and his son ended up dead.
The operation was a success, but the patient died."
By the way, guest, I can't speak for Deprogrammed, but but all means I encourage you to go fuck yourself.
-
"You AARColytes always have a hard time separating your sentiments from verifiable facts. In one breath you say that one can "look at it any way you want", while stating emphatically that your sentiment is an unassailable truth. The issue at hand is not whether or not you believe that you were helped. You, and any AARColytes are entitled to your beliefs, and if you can find someone to listen to you, you're entitled to expound on them. The problem is that you insist that your beliefs must be accepted by others, who must then give money and more believers to your organization.
In order to accomplish these two goals, AARC has undertaken to disseminate a body of lies. That is not an opinion, it is a fact.
The principle lies are that the program is a new creation, that it is clinically proven, and that it works.
It is indisputable that the entire AARC program was taken directly from Kids, which was taken from Straight, which was taken from the Seed. To say otherwise is a lie, and AARC says otherwise.
It is also indisputable that the program is not clinically proven. The Seed was judged to be providing experimental treatment, and was obligated to provide it's clients with forms consenting to human experimentation. The Host Home model used in AARC came directly from the Seed. It was determined thirty-five years ago that this ritual was dangerous, and the Seed was unable to comply with legislation drafted to ensure the safety of clients in Host Homes.
There is no evidence that the methods used at AARC work to accomplish the goal of rehabillitating those who are chemically dependent. The only evidence offered by AARC is testimonials from individuals, and their study which showed that most clients in the study group resumed drug and alcohol consumption after treatment in AARC.
"The confrontation/attack therapy that constitutes AARC "treatment" was taken from Synanon. It was dreamed up by Chuck Dederich, a stand-up comedian. Art Barker, founder of the Seed, was also a former stand-up comedian. Dederich admitted late in life that he had no idea how to cure a dope fiend. But AARC continues to use his raps as part of their program of psychic surgery.
There is no scientific basis for AARC's treatment. It is merely the fourth or fifth generation of a set of rituals devised by a pair of comedians.
AARColytes can take the route chosen by Seedlings after the US Congress ruled against using the very same methods used in AARC: take in consenting adults, and leave the kids alone.
AARC was never intended to help kids. It is exists to provide a socio-religious community for parents who can't handle their offspring. Nothing bears this out better than the case of Andrew Mazur. Mazur's father put him in AARC to save him from addiction. Mazur ended up dying in Remand after taking cocaine and either heroin or morphine. AARC's role in the Mazur's family was to save Mazur and he ended up dead. Yet his father continues to praise AARC. AARC gave Mazur Senior what he needed, and his son ended up dead.
The operation was a success, but the patient died."
By the way, guest, I can't speak for Deprogrammed, but but all means I encourage you to go fuck yourself.
and some of the staff are nice and others are mean, who gives a crap. Bottomline is they are 84% successful which means there are much more of them then there are of you, try to get over it and move on. Try AA or something, but dont sit around bitching about other people and what they do or dont do.
-
Bottomline is they are 84% successful
oooooooooohahoooo. I HIGHLY doubt that.
-
Something that you should understand AARColyte, is that you are a group of a few hundred parents, and some of their offspring, who were duped by Dean Vause. We are everybody else who doesn't believe that a phys ed teacher invented an 85% successful method to cure addicts that revolves around the acquisition by his church of millions of dollars. You are the small group of people pretending that Dean Vause came up with the program at AARC. We are everyone else who can see quite plainly that he simply stole the Kids/Straight model for his cult. You are the demented few who accept Dean Vause's lie that his program is 85% successful, when in fact most clients resume using alcohol and other drugs after leaving AARC. You are the AARColytes, and we are everybody else who is not. So by all means, get back to AA, get back to crying, drooling, and hugging your fellow cult members at AARC.
-
Something that you should understand AARColyte, is that you are a group of a few hundred parents, and some of their offspring, who were duped by Dean Vause. We are everybody else who doesn't believe that a phys ed teacher invented an 85% successful method to cure addicts that revolves around the acquisition by his church of millions of dollars. You are the small group of people pretending that Dean Vause came up with the program at AARC. We are everyone else who can see quite plainly that he simply stole the Kids/Straight model for his cult. You are the demented few who accept Dean Vause's lie that his program is 85% successful, when in fact most clients resume using alcohol and other drugs after leaving AARC. You are the AARColytes, and we are everybody else who is not. So by all means, get back to AA, get back to crying, drooling, and hugging your fellow cult members at AARC.
Lets see your study then!! The most recent study I am aware of places the success rate at around 85%. If you feel otherwise then produce your source, until such time we will rely on the presnt study. I can passionately hate heart surgeons and can substantiate my feelings by a few people who are still sick after surgery. But this wouldnt override the fact that over a larger cross section of the population surgeons enjoy a substantially higher success rate.
We should base our opinions on studies, not a few friends opinions, but I appreciate your input and passion on the subject. It is good to keep AARC discussions in the forfront and our interest in the topic here has helped to drive this. Curiosity for AARC has resulted in a 10 to 30 fold increase in hits on AARC'sWebsite (http://http://www.aarc.ab.ca/index.php) over the past several months which has contributed to private funding toping 28% in the last quarter.
If your wife has a problem and you care for her you may consider spending more time focused on getting her the help she needs, although, not at the expense of keeping up your posts here on fornits which has helped to keep their name visable. Has there been any discussion on developing a forum dedicated to AARC topics?
-
I suggest you look at AARC's study, which demonstrated that most of the clients in the study group resumed drug and alcohol use after completing AARC's fake treatment. It's no longer necessary to keep attention focused on AARC through Fornits. Dean Vause was filmed calling his former clients liars, at the same time that it was demonstrated that he has lied about creating AARC himself, when he stole the whole program from Kids. I suggest you read the Fifth Estate's interview with Michael Patton for some more information related to the completely unreliable and typically fraudulent AARC study. An analysis of the entire grad population would help to get a realistic picture of the effectiveness of AARC. I would start with determinning how many are already dead, how many are incarcerated, how many have become hard drug users after their "treatment" for marijuana and alcohol abuse, etc.
In the meantime, good luck with that AARColyte army, little boy.
-
I suggest you look at AARC's (http://http://www.aarc.ab.ca/index.php) study, which demonstrated that most of the clients in the study group resumed drug and alcohol use after completing AARC's (http://http://www.aarc.ab.ca/index.php) fake treatment. It's no longer necessary to keep attention focused on AARC (http://http://www.aarc.ab.ca/index.php) through Fornits. Dean Vause was filmed calling his former clients liars, at the same time that it was demonstrated that he has lied about creating AARC himself, when he stole the whole program from Kids. I suggest you read the Fifth Estate's interview with Michael Patton for some more information related to the completely unreliable and typically fraudulent AARC (http://http://www.aarc.ab.ca/index.php) study. An analysis of the entire grad population would help to get a realistic picture of the effectiveness of AARC (http://http://www.aarc.ab.ca/index.php). I would start with determinning how many are already dead, how many are incarcerated, how many have become hard drug users after their "treatment" for marijuana and alcohol abuse, etc.
In the meantime, good luck with that AARC (http://http://www.aarc.ab.ca/index.php)olyte army, little boy.
I suggest you look at AARC's (http://http://www.aarc.ab.ca/index.php) study, which demonstrated that most of the clients in the study group resumed drug and alcohol use after completing AARC's fake treatment.
I have reviewed the study and it was quite impressive. I did have a few questions on the sample population that was chosen, but other than that it seemed they did a good job. Bringing in Hazelden helped out I think with the credibility aspect of the results.
It's no longer necessary to keep attention focused on AARC (http://http://www.aarc.ab.ca/index.php) through Fornits.
It is not necessary either way, but Its always good to keep the focus on as much as possible. If AARC (http://http://www.aarc.ab.ca/index.php) is to continue to grow it will need fresh contributors and the more light we can cast on them the better (good or bad).
Dean Vause was filmed calling his former clients liars, at the same time that it was demonstrated that he has lied about creating AARC (http://http://www.aarc.ab.ca/index.php) himself, when he stole the whole program from Kids.
I had not read that the kids model was protected in anyway from others using it. If it was in fact stolen do you have any court documents which show anyone has filed suit on an infringement of any kind? Again I think this is all fabricated in your mind. Show as a link where there is a law suit of this alleged theft.
If someone lies about you are you going to just ignore it? Especially on national television. Wouldnt you speak up?
I suggest you read the Fifth Estate's interview with Michael Patton for some more information related to the completely unreliable and typically fraudulent AARC (http://http://www.aarc.ab.ca/index.php) study.
I actually watched the entire program, not just Michael Pattons interview, you should try sitting thru the whole program before making a judgement, not just focusing in on small sound bites.
An analysis of the entire grad population would help to get a realistic picture of the effectiveness of AARC (http://http://www.aarc.ab.ca/index.php).
Studies rarely consider interviewing the entire population. If you are at all familiar with outcome studies you would know that a sample size is determined based on the number of members(whole population) and the sample population is looked at to reflect results of all graduates. Pull a few studies at random and look at their core population and you will see it is a sample of the whole.... some move away, some die, others do not respond to studies etc.
I would start with determinning how many are already dead, how many are incarcerated, how many have become hard drug users after their "treatment" for marijuana and alcohol abuse, etc.
The study did not indicate an abnormal death rate or incarceration rate as a result of attending. As far as drug use the study was clear. 85 % were successful in moving on with their lives.
Getting viable information on those that have passed away would be difficult. The studies would have to rely on hearsay information from family members which would carry a bias and have to be noted in the studies which makes it difficult to justify inclusion into the sample study. Trying to get feedback from those who are incarcerated is also sometime difficult. But as I read thru the study, none of the sample people had died or were in prison so this was not a hurdle.
This is a good discussion, Ajax. Did your wife attend for the entire time or did she leave the program early?
-
The disinfo doesn't work, guest. AARC is following the identical pattern of Kids. First the media expose some of the abuses, along with some of the deceptions of the Leader. This is coupled with some police investigation into the allegations once the media spotlight is on the cult. Then the lawsuits follow. In addition to individual malpractise suits, such as those that served to fully discredit Kids and Miller Newton, AARC may also be on the receiving end of a class action suit. The supporters will have no choice but to ride the train as it careens down the hillside, since AARC used their begathons as public relations tools and essentially made the supporters publicly complicit. Think of the "Wreck of the Ole '97", with Dean Vause at the throttle.
Now the first part has already ocurred. The Fifth Estate piece was seen nation-wide. The police have to respond to the revelations about serious crimes taking place in the course of AARC's program, and finally the lawsuits which will cripple the place will follow.
Always remember guest, Maskirovka.
-
The disinfo doesn't work, guest. AARC is following the identical pattern of Kids. First the media expose some of the abuses, along with some of the deceptions of the Leader. This is coupled with some police investigation into the allegations once the media spotlight is on the cult. Then the lawsuits follow. In addition to individual malpractise suits, such as those that served to fully discredit Kids and Miller Newton, AARC may also be on the receiving end of a class action suit. The supporters will have no choice but to ride the train as it careens down the hillside, since AARC used their begathons as public relations tools and essentially made the supporters publicly complicit. Think of the "Wreck of the Ole '97", with Dean Vause at the throttle.
Now the first part has already ocurred. The Fifth Estate piece was seen nation-wide. The police have to respond to the revelations about serious crimes taking place in the course of AARC's program, and finally the lawsuits which will cripple the place will follow.
Always remember guest, Maskirovka.
So it seems we have established you have no other study other than the one which reports an 85 % success rate. You also failed to support your allegations that AARC stole a model from another program in the form of law suits and happy to see you understood the power of sample populations and understand that there is no abnormal death rate or incarceration rate. So far we have a viable program which has continued to increase its basis of support before and after the airing of “Fifth Estate” . The website has experienced a big jump in activity and contributions since its airing. Seems the rest of your post is wishful thinking on your part. No one is scrambling except yourself.
You and others pay a huge tribute to AARC in that with all your effort to discredit them you have brought nothing to the table. AARC continues to be open to studies and local news media for documentaries. This continued testing is a tribute to its success and openness.
-
Maskirovka. Look it up. Or don't. Head between knees AARColytes, try to go limp before impact.
-
What you dont seem to understand here is that there is no way that that study could have possibly been accurate. You said it yourself you had some questions about the sample population used in this study but that is exactly where you are getting that 85%. Because the people who were contacted had to first be recommended by the program, how else would the people doing the study reach the former clients? No one came here to Fornits to ask the former students to participate so that in itself proves that they used a small audience of people they knew would give the program a positive review. The only way a study like that could be considered credible is if they had an equal amount of pro and anti- program people being surveyed and they asked specific questions about tangible results, not just someone's loyalty to the cult.
The next thing you need to consider is, are they talking about the success rate or the satisfaction rate? because that is VERY relative, I know people who have claimed satisfaction with the program even though their kids have long since returned to the life of drugs or are already dead or in jail.
I have a little experiment that I am doing myself. For the last few months I have been making contact with former students of Darrington Academy a WWASP affiliated school. I have recently asked them to participate in a survey that will ask specific questions, not just about the kind of system that was being run and the various human rights violations that were committed but also about their general opinion and satisfaction with the program. I have made it clear that I welcome both positive and negative reviews of the school and no matter what is said in their answers I will not discriminate when I turn the results over to the department that is investigating the school. Now just so you know I did not find these people on a anti-Darrington Academy website and I did not find them through means of advertising the fight against institutionalized child abuse. I found them by following the friend list trail on myspace which by doing such there is absolutely no way I could disscern if that person was for or against Darrington Academy. I still, and don't plan to even ask their opinions on the school until after they have taken the survey. I am more than certain there is no way that any significant amount of people participating in this survey would be biased for or against the program. They are truly "picked at random" and should be a pretty good representation of the general population of ex students of Darrington Academy. Although I can tell you that the response, simply via comments these people have made are synonymous with the assumption that Darrington was another one of those bullshit programs but I will let the results of that survey show you the TRUTH.
-
What you dont seem to understand here is that there is no way that that study could have possibly been accurate. You said it yourself you had some questions about the sample population used in this study but that is exactly where you are getting that 85%. Because the people who were contacted had to first be recommended by the program, how else would the people doing the study reach the former clients? No one came here to Fornits to ask the former students to participate so that in itself proves that they used a small audience of people they knew would give the program a positive review. The only way a study like that could be considered credible is if they had an equal amount of pro and anti- program people being surveyed and they asked specific questions about tangible results, not just someone's loyalty to the cult.
Choosing your population sample isn’t a fair approach. You may choose 50 people who are positive and 50 people who are negative towards a particular program but what if 90% of the kids didn’t like the program or were unsuccessful? Your sample would be biased towards the school making them look much better and more successful than they are. Samples need to be random or consecutive and cannot be hand picked.
The next thing you need to consider is, are they talking about the success rate or the satisfaction rate? because that is VERY relative, I know people who have claimed satisfaction with the program even though their kids have long since returned to the life of drugs or are already dead or in jail.
I agree that the term success is relative and difficult to nail down and define. Can living a clean and sober life include having a drink once in a while? Can a person call themselves a vegetarian if they have a little Turkey at family gatherings at thanksgiving? Does their actions on that day erase their diet choices for the rest of the year.
If a persons life was spiralling out of control due to daily intoxication, losing their job and family. Then after treatment they lived a sober life, held down a job, contributed to society but had a drink once or twice a year. Would this person be considered a success? If this person relapsed after 3 years would we say the program was a success or failure?
I think because of these questions the data was presented the way it was, showing number of months sober and percent relapse.
-
"As recently as last year, AARC described the study as an “independent outcomes validation study,” according to an AARC funding submission document sent to the Alberta Alcohol and Drug Abuse Commission, which the fifth estate obtained through the province’s freedom of information legislation.
We obtained a version of the 2003 study and showed it to three psychology professors who specialize in addiction—the University of Calgary’s David Hodgins, the University of Lethbridge’s Robert Williams and Bruce Alexander, professor emeritus at Simon Fraser University.
All three raised questions about the way the study was carried out. While Hodgins described the study as “not a bad program evaluation,” he, Williams and Alexander all listed flaws. Among them:
The success rate doesn’t include people who didn’t finish the program.
The grads were interviewed by people linked to AARC. This could bias what was reported, Alexander said. “Imagine calling up somebody who’s graduated from a program and saying: ‘Hey, are you taking drugs any more?’ And this person has already been put in the program against their will perhaps precisely because they took drugs. And what are they going to say? ‘Oh yes, I’m taking lots of drugs now,’” Alexander said.
As for whether the study is “independent,” Williams characterized it as “semi-independent.” He said in an email, “It is always better to have a totally independent evaluation. However, it is not unusual for ‘in-house’ evaluations to occur.”
http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/2008-2009/power ... study.html (http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/2008-2009/powerless/aarc_study.html)
The fifth estate also asked the man who AARC says completed the study—Dr. Patton. He told the fifth estate his involvement was largely limited to supervising a graduate student who crunched the data—data gathered by people associated with AARC.
“I did not conduct the study. They conducted the study. I oversaw the analysis,” he said.
Patton said that while the study was a good preliminary “internal evaluation” with positive results, the next step would be to review AARC’s success rate independently. He noted that the study was rejected for publication by two journals.
“It’s expensive of course to commission an external evaluation. But, that would be the next step. I do remember that the internal evaluation results were quite positive. But, the evaluation that was done did not independently examine the process. The graduate student that I supervised did not independently talk to any of the young people or the parents. He simply analyzed the data that they sent him. And I was the supervisor of him which is how my name ends up on the report,” Patton said.
http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/2008-2009/power ... study.html (http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/2008-2009/powerless/aarc_study.html)
Alberta Hansard April 4, 2006
688
Mr. Speaker, in 2005 an evaluation of the AARC program was
conducted by a noted addiction program evaluation authority, Dr.
Michael Patton, PhD. He studied and interviewed 100 consecutive
cases and found that 85 per cent of the graduates were still clean and
sober after five years.
http://www.assembly.ab.ca/Documents/isy ... /doc/#hit1 (http://www.assembly.ab.ca/Documents/isysquery/2b5a2b2d-bce1-46c9-b432-cff3fc8390b8/13/doc/#hit1)
Of the sample of 100 graduates, 85 reported being sober and 48 of the 100 were continuously sober since graduation.
http://www.aarc.ab.ca/alumni/AlumAdv_winter05.pdf (http://www.aarc.ab.ca/alumni/AlumAdv_winter05.pdf)
-
Hodgins described the study as “not a bad program evaluation,”
Of the sample of 100 graduates, 85 reported being sober and 48 of the 100 were continuously sober since graduation.
85/100 = 85% .... approx. half had relapsed at some point since graduation.
-
Hodgins described the study as “not a bad program evaluation,”
Of the sample of 100 graduates, 85 reported being sober and 48 of the 100 were continuously sober since graduation.
85/100 = 85% .... approx. half had relapsed at some point since graduation.
That is impressive, what does AA claim? 5-6%? which is about even with doing nothing at all. So having 50% of the graduates not drugging or drinking is incredible. Does anyone have a link to the study? or a copy they could post?
-
Hodgins described the study as “not a bad program evaluation,”
Of the sample of 100 graduates, 85 reported being sober and 48 of the 100 were continuously sober since graduation.
85/100 = 85% .... approx. half had relapsed at some point since graduation.
That is impressive, what does AA claim? 5-6%? which is about even with doing nothing at all. So having 50% of the graduates not drugging or drinking is incredible. Does anyone have a link to the study? or a copy they could post?
AARC Study (http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=312005&sid=414be1a873c75febc6c01acfb195745a&sid=414be1a873c75febc6c01acfb195745a#p312005)
Summary:
85% of all graduates are still living a clean and sober life after 4 years
93% of all graduates are still living a clean and sober life after 12 months
52% of all graduates have had at least one relapse since graduating.
-
whoops, forgot. Here is their website:
AARC WebSite (http://http://www.aarc.ab.ca/index.php)
-
"The grads were interviewed by people linked to AARC. This could bias what was reported, Alexander said. “Imagine calling up somebody who’s graduated from a program and saying: ‘Hey, are you taking drugs any more?’ And this person has already been put in the program against their will perhaps precisely because they took drugs. And what are they going to say? ‘Oh yes, I’m taking lots of drugs now,’” Alexander said."
Maybe you could address the above comment, or the fact that your Dad, along with the Wiz, and Natalie Oldcomer wrote the study, passed it on to Herard, who then claimed that the study was written by Patton, which it wasn't, and that it showed that 85% of the sample population were still sober after 5 years, which it didn't.
The mean time since graduation was just over 2 years, not 5, and only 48%, not 85%, reported being still sober since graduation. Taking into account what Alexander said, there is no reason to believe any of the data gained in the interviews. In light of the fact that parents are the ones invested in AARC's success, and will reject their offspring in favor of AARC, it's one more reason to attribute bias to the interviews.
It's never hard to catch you folks in an outright lie. As always, you have my gratitude for your unbridled willingness to lie pubicly, and to embarass yourself by attempting to support your church's deceptions.
-
Maybe you could address the above comment, or the fact that your Dad, along with the Wiz, and Natalie Oldcomer wrote the study, passed it on to Herard, who then claimed that the study was written by Patton, which it wasn't, and that it showed that 85% of the sample population were still sober after 5 years, which it didn't.
The fact that the study was conducted by people connected to AARC could indicate that it was biased. The emphasise on “could”. Your facts are way off, they are all guesses on your part derived in your head. My father died 9 years ago and I never attended AARC. I am interested in the study outcome. Or maybe you are thinking of another poster.
The mean time since graduation was just over 2 years, not 5, and only 48%, not 85%, reported being still sober since graduation. Taking into account what Alexander said, there is no reason to believe any of the data gained in the interviews. In light of the fact that parents are the ones invested in AARC's success, and will reject their offspring in favor of AARC, it's one more reason to attribute bias to the interviews.
It's never hard to catch you folks in an outright lie. As always, you have my gratitude for your unbridled willingness to lie pubicly, and to embarass yourself by attempting to support your church's deceptions.
I didn’t see anywhere in the study where it said the “mean time” was 5 years. Could you point this out for me? Take another look at the study, it seems you misinterpreted it. Your post indicates that you either didn’t read the study or didn’t understand it.
The rest doesn’t apply to me, I never mentioned what church I went to or if I even attended church service. You seem to be mixing up several people. The summary given above seems to be accurate from what I have read. If you are reading a different rendition could you post that for me or post a link. Thanks.
As far as the 48% or 85% either one would be a huge success compared to the 30 day models and AA results. I feel if you study the results a little more you will see how they differentiate the 48 and 85%. Its an interesting distinction.
-
Guest, I wouldn’t waste alot of time trying to explain the study to Ajax13. Someone attempted this in another thread and he doesn’t understand the basic tables nor the dialog. There is no “Mean time” of 5 years, he doesn’t know what he is talking about.
I was here about a year ago and everyone was screaming “we need studies”!!!. Now that studies have been presented everyone is scrambling to try to discredit them. Its funny to watch, facts are not high on the priority list here. As more and more studies are presented the anti-program people will have to figure out a new spin or get better at disinformation.
-
"He studied and interviewed 100 consecutive
cases and found that 85 per cent of the graduates were still clean and
sober after five years."
No comment on this lie passed off in the legislature to beg more money from the government and to legitimize the fraudulent faith healing activities in AARC?
No comment on the lie that Patton wrote the study when it was in fact written by Mr. Garrison's Dad, the Wiz, Natalie Oldcomer, and Choda?
No comment on the obvious bias pointed out about the methods used in information gathering, specifically the interviews conducted by AARColytes?
I for one was never screaming for a study. It took me about an hour of reading back in March of 2007 to discover that AARC was a fraud, passing off the Synanon attack therapy and the Seed's isolation techniques as a new form of treatment invented by Dean Vause. While I am sure that a portion of AARC's clients are indeed chemically dependent, to this day I have yet to meet a former client who was chemically dependent prior to entering AARC.
So I don't know who was crying for a study of a cult with a phony treatment method led by lying fraud and staffed with incompetent amateurs. It didn't really seem necessary to me.
-
"He studied and interviewed 100 consecutive
cases and found that 85 per cent of the graduates were still clean and
sober after five years."
No comment on this lie passed off in the legislature to beg more money from the government and to legitimize the fraudulent faith healing activities in AARC?
No comment on the lie that Patton wrote the study when it was in fact written by Mr. Garrison's Dad, the Wiz, Natalie Oldcomer, and Choda?
No comment on the obvious bias pointed out about the methods used in information gathering, specifically the interviews conducted by AARColytes?
I for one was never screaming for a study. It took me about an hour of reading back in March of 2007 to discover that AARC was a fraud, passing off the Synanon attack therapy and the Seed's isolation techniques as a new form of treatment invented by Dean Vause. While I am sure that a portion of AARC's clients are indeed chemically dependent, to this day I have yet to meet a former client who was chemically dependent prior to entering AARC.
So I don't know who was crying for a study of a cult with a phony treatment method led by lying fraud and staffed with incompetent amateurs. It didn't really seem necessary to me.
Ajax, Where was it indicated that there was a "mean time" of 5 years. I am trying to track down some validity to your comments and have yet to find any. Can you point to this reference that you made?
I was told that you do not understand these studies, but you can atleast reference where in the study this was said?
-
Nobody has a comment or explanation for the lie that 85% of the graduates were still clean and sober after 5 years?
How about the lie that the study was written by Patton?
How about the issue of bias in the reporting due to the fact that AARColytes conducted the interviews?
-
Nobody has a comment or explanation for the lie that 85% of the graduates were still clean and sober after 5 years?
How about the lie that the study was written by Patton?
How about the issue of bias in the reporting due to the fact that AARColytes conducted the interviews?
So when you mentioned the "mean time" of 5 years. This was just something you made up? Do you typically just fabricate information? If you cannot justify your own comments how can we believe anything else you say.
The study was clear as I had read it. Patton himself said it was a good study. AARC has an 85% success rate. Do you have any studies which indicate other wise? Can you back up your statement that the data specifies a "mean time" of 5 years?
-
Any AARColytes have an explanation for the blatant series of lies spun by Herard in order to beg more money and support for AARC?
"Mr. Speaker, in 2005 an evaluation of the AARC program was
conducted by a noted addiction program evaluation authority, Dr.
Michael Patton, PhD. He studied and interviewed 100 consecutive
cases and found that 85 per cent of the graduates were still clean and
sober after five years."
The study was conducted by AARColytes. Patton states very clearly that he did interview the graduates. The study claimed that only 48% of grads reported that they were still clean and sober after five years. There is no figure given in the study indicating how many of the grads were still clean and sober after five years. Just that mean time since graduation of just over two years, after which only 48% were still reportedly clean and sober.
I can't decide if that's three lies or four.
Maskirovka!
-
The study was conducted by AARColytes.
It was an internal study, which means it was conducted by members of AARC’s staff. This is common. Even fifth element interviews stated this is common and the results of the study were good.
Patton states very clearly that he did interview the graduates.
I think you meant “Didnot”. Do you believe that all ford cars are personally built by Henry Ford? The study never stated Patton interviewed anyone. He was there to crunch the numbers.
The study claimed that only 48% of grads reported that they were still clean and sober after five years.
You should read the report yourself. If I remember correctly 48% had at least one relapse since graduation
There is no figure given in the study indicating how many of the grads were still clean and sober after five years.
Look at table 2:
Table 2 Longest period of continuous sobriety of interviewed graduates, maintained by time since graduation
Time since graduation One month Six months Twelve months or more
One year or less (n=29) 0% 6.9% 93.1%
Two to three years (n=42) 2.49% 4.8% 92.9%
Four or more years (n=14) 0% 14.3% 85.7%
Just that mean time since graduation of just over two years, after which only 48% were still reportedly clean and sober.
So where is the mean time of 5 years that you stated earlier? Read the report, Ajax, before commenting on it. Read the fifth Element again. The consensus was that it was a good study and that it should be followed up with an independent study, although costly they admit.
-
Going back, I cannot locate the 48% figure. It may be a continuous sobriety number vs. a relapse figure. The 85% comes off Table2.
-
Any AARColytes have an explanation for the blatant series of lies spun by Herard in order to beg more money and support for AARC?
"Mr. Speaker, in 2005 an evaluation of the AARC program was
conducted by a noted addiction program evaluation authority, Dr.
Michael Patton, PhD. He studied and interviewed 100 consecutive
cases and found that 85 per cent of the graduates were still clean and
sober after five years."
The study was conducted by AARColytes. Patton states very clearly that he did not interview the graduates. The study claimed that only 48% of grads reported that they were still clean and sober since graduation. There is no figure given in the study indicating how many of the grads were still clean and sober after five years. Just that mean time since graduation of just over two years, after which only 48% were still reportedly clean and sober.
I can't decide if that's three lies or four.
-
The study was conducted by AARColytes.
It was an internal study, which means it was conducted by members of AARC’s staff. This is common. Even fifth element interviews stated this is common and the results of the study were good.
Patton states very clearly that he did interview the graduates.
I think you meant “Didnot”. Do you believe that all ford cars are personally built by Henry Ford? The study never stated Patton interviewed anyone. He was there to crunch the numbers.
The study claimed that only 48% of grads reported that they were still clean and sober after five years.
You should read the report yourself.
There is no figure given in the study indicating how many of the grads were still clean and sober after five years.
Look at table 2:
Table 2 Longest period of continuous sobriety of interviewed graduates, maintained by time since graduation
Time since graduation One month Six months Twelve months or more
One year or less (n=29) 0% 6.9% 93.1%
Two to three years (n=42) 2.49% 4.8% 92.9%
Four or more years (n=14) 0% 14.3% 85.7%
Just that mean time since graduation of just over two years, after which only 48% were still reportedly clean and sober.
So where is the mean time of 5 years that you stated earlier? Read the report, Ajax, before commenting on it. Read the fifth Element again. The consensus was that it was a good study and that it should be followed up with an independent study, although costly they admit.
-
Any AARColytes have an explanation for the blatant series of lies spun by Herard in order to beg more money and support for AARC?
"Mr. Speaker, in 2005 an evaluation of the AARC program was
conducted by a noted addiction program evaluation authority, Dr.
Michael Patton, PhD. He studied and interviewed 100 consecutive
cases and found that 85 per cent of the graduates were still clean and
sober after five years."
The study was conducted by AARColytes. Patton states very clearly that he did not interview the graduates. The study claimed that only 48% of grads reported that they were still clean and sober since graduation. There is no figure given in the study indicating how many of the grads were still clean and sober after five years. Just that mean time since graduation of just over two years, after which only 48% were still reportedly clean and sober.
I can't decide if that's three lies or four.
Would you AARColytes consider this statement to entail three lies or four? I'm torn.
-
The study was conducted by AARColytes.
It was an internal study, which means it was conducted by members of AARC’s staff. This is common. Even fifth element interviews stated this is common and the results of the study were good.
Patton states very clearly that he did interview the graduates.
I think you meant “Didnot”. Do you believe that all ford cars are personally built by Henry Ford? The study never stated Patton interviewed anyone. He was there to crunch the numbers.
The study claimed that only 48% of grads reported that they were still clean and sober after five years.
You should read the report yourself.
There is no figure given in the study indicating how many of the grads were still clean and sober after five years.
Look at table 2:
Table 2 Longest period of continuous sobriety of interviewed graduates, maintained by time since graduation
Time since graduation One month Six months Twelve months or more
One year or less (n=29) 0% 6.9% 93.1%
Two to three years (n=42) 2.49% 4.8% 92.9%
Four or more years (n=14) 0% 14.3% 85.7%
Just that mean time since graduation of just over two years, after which only 48% were still reportedly clean and sober.
So where is the mean time of 5 years that you stated earlier? Read the report, Ajax, before commenting on it. Read the fifth Element again. The consensus was that it was a good study and that it should be followed up with an independent study, although costly they admit.2BULWXS
-
Any AARColytes have an explanation for the blatant series of lies spun by Herard in order to beg more money and support for AARC?
"Mr. Speaker, in 2005 an evaluation of the AARC program was
conducted by a noted addiction program evaluation authority, Dr.
Michael Patton, PhD. He studied and interviewed 100 consecutive
cases and found that 85 per cent of the graduates were still clean and
sober after five years."
The study was conducted by AARColytes. Patton states very clearly that he did not interview the graduates. The study claimed that only 48% of grads reported that they were still clean and sober since graduation. There is no figure given in the study indicating how many of the grads were still clean and sober after five years. Just that mean time since graduation of just over two years, after which only 48% were still reportedly clean and sober.
I can't decide if that's three lies or four.
Would you AARColytes consider this statement to entail three lies or four? I'm torn.
Come on fellas! Joel, Joshy, Mr. Garrison, even you Joanne! Can't one of you come up with something to say about this blatant deception of the people of Alberta on behalf of your church?
-
Any AARColytes have an explanation for the blatant series of lies spun by Herard in order to beg more money and support for AARC?
"Mr. Speaker, in 2005 an evaluation of the AARC program was
conducted by a noted addiction program evaluation authority, Dr.
Michael Patton, PhD. He studied and interviewed 100 consecutive
cases and found that 85 per cent of the graduates were still clean and
sober after five years."
The study was conducted by AARColytes. Patton states very clearly that he did not interview the graduates. The study claimed that only 48% of grads reported that they were still clean and sober since graduation. There is no figure given in the study indicating how many of the grads were still clean and sober after five years. Just that mean time since graduation of just over two years, after which only 48% were still reportedly clean and sober.
I can't decide if that's three lies or four.
Would you AARColytes consider this statement to entail three lies or four? I'm torn.
Come on fellas! Joel, Joshy, Mr. Garrison, even you Joanne! Can't one of you come up with something to say about this blatant deception of the people of Alberta on behalf of your church?
Look at the study Ajax!!! Read it!!! Its all there. All this time and you still havent read it!
-
Jeeesh, Ajax, forget about what everyones says or different peoples interpretions, even your own with your mean time of 5 years (where did that come from?). When you are unsure about what was concluded go back to the study and reread it.
The success rate is still 85% no matter what anyones says or how you try to spin it. Go look at the study!!! Its all there
-
AARC Outcome Study (http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=312005&sid=1b549c9d774f105b37ae8005700d0a9c&sid=1b549c9d774f105b37ae8005700d0a9c#p312005)
85% of all graduates are still living a clean and sober life after 4 years
93% of all graduates are still living a clean and sober life after 12 months
52% of all graduates have had at least one relapse since graduating.
-
Ajax, you should be the last one to critisize others on interpreting the study. You havent been able to understand any of it and every figure you reference is wrong. Where is that mean time of 5 years again? Do you live in a glass house by chance?
-
AARC Outcome Study (http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=312005&sid=1b549c9d774f105b37ae8005700d0a9c#p312005)
85% of all graduates are still living a clean and sober life after 4 years
93% of all graduates are still living a clean and sober life after 12 months
52% of all graduates have had at least one relapse since graduating.
The CBC blew all sorts of holes in your little "study", including the fact that it wasn't really independent.
http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/2008-2009/power ... study.html (http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/2008-2009/powerless/aarc_study.html)
-
Actually it was viewed as "not a bad study" by some and a "good study" by others. It was also viewed as a semi-independent study, so some could classify it as independent since they brought in outside people from Hazelden to crunch the data and others would view it as not an independent study because the interviews were conducted by AARC people. Depends on the point of view.
The CBC also pointed out (Cleared up) that only those who completed their time at AARC were included in the study, which showed consistency within the population. This was argued earlier on here at fornits. Ajax has started to come around in understanding the report and the fifth estate has helped there a bit I think in the areas of involvement, outcome and adding credibility to the study.
-
Actually it was viewed as "not a bad study" by some and a "good study" by others.
Others? Whom? TheWho?
-
Actually it was viewed as "not a bad study" by some and a "good study" by others.
Others? Whom? TheWho?
Fifth Estate:
....Hodgins described the study as “not a bad program evaluation,......”
.....Patton said that while the study was a good preliminary “internal evaluation” with positive results, the next step would be to review AARC’s success rate independently.
-
Reading along here, Ajax, I don’t blame anyone for not responding to you. You have refused to have a discussion with anyone on this board. You have just attacked peoples weight conditions, college background whether or not they played hockey, making up mocking names for people etc. You have not responded to questions posed to you regarding the issues and the study. I agree with the other posters thoughts that you have not even read the study based on your knowledge of it. If you read thru it and looked at the tables you would be able to save yourself a lot of grief and embarrassment.
Now I read that you are pointing fingers at someone who misquoted the study’s results or misread them while at the same time you are doing it yourself and you don’t have a grasp on the studys results. Watching your hatred and ridicule I am probably in the majority when I say I side with AARCs responses (or pro AARCs) when it comes to credible information here. They are atleast less defamatory and stick to the facts for discussion.
-
It is clear that the "Patton" study was not his, it iwas AARC's. It is light weight preliminary survey and in no way a credible outcome study. I am pleased people are starting to review this as well as the response from Patton to the Fifth Estate. AARC has used this "study" to garner support both politically and from donors. I used it myself when I supported AARC - then I ran the numbers and based on my own experience with hundreds of graduates, I know the statistic to be completely false.
-
It is clear that the "Patton" study was not his, it iwas AARC's. It is light weight preliminary survey and in no way a credible outcome study. I am pleased people are starting to review this as well as the response from Patton to the Fifth Estate. AARC has used this "study" to garner support both politically and from donors. I used it myself when I supported AARC - then I ran the numbers and based on my own experience with hundreds of graduates, I know the statistic to be completely false.
Thats great that you took an interest, especially as a graduate. Patton has said himself that it is a good evaluation and I am sure he stands by his calculations. If you have some numbers to present please feel free to post them here. AARC has presented their data, there is no reason you should hold back your study.
The study stands on its own merit and has sparked much interest in the AARC model and success. I believe any study is worthwhile looking at and I look forward to reviewing your results.
-
Always funny to watch AARColyte latch onto a false bit of information and run with it. The American pedophile planted the notion that I had stated that the study showed a mean-time since graduation of 5 years, which of course I did not.
"The mean time since graduation was just over 2 years, not 5, and only 48%, not 85%, reported being still sober since graduation." The figure of 5 years was taken from Herard's lie. Herard does not state that it is a mean time, I used that term since it is the only time frame applicable to the rate of continuous sobriety used in the study:
"Mr. Speaker, in 2005 an evaluation of the AARC program was
conducted by a noted addiction program evaluation authority, Dr.
Michael Patton, PhD. He studied and interviewed 100 consecutive
cases and found that 85 per cent of the graduates were still clean and
sober after five years."
Yet the AARColytes picked up the disinfo and puked it up, the way they puke up the 80% success rate, which is purely subjective and ignores the relapse rate shown in the study, 52% after a mean of two years and a bit.
Again, AARColytes, try and address the very blatant lies, and let's get a consesnsus on whether or not there are three or four distinct lies in this con used on the tax-payers.
Can't wait to see you guys at the top of the hill. What's it called again, Turd Mountain?
-
The mean time since graduation was just over 2 years, not 5
So where the 5 is referenced? You keep indicating that people are lying or misreading the study. Show us where the study shows a "mean time of 5 years" which you are disputing. You are having trouble reading the study and you dont know what you are talking about, again, Ajax.
Reference the point in the study which you dispute
-
At no time did I state or even imply that the study showed a mean time of 5 years, in fact I stated quite clearly that the study did not show this figure. Why are you repeatedly asking me where this figure was shown in the study, when I have stated that it is not shown in the study? As you know that the figure is not in the study, since you have been posting about the study since the summer time, then your question is not intended to illicit an answer, the question itself is a deception. Silly old pedophile.
Still no AARColytes willing to comment directly on Herard's lies? I'm still trying to get a consensus on whether or not there are three lies or four lies being used to steal from the tax-payers on behalf of AARC.
-
The mean time since graduation was just over 2 years, not 5
You are infering that there was an indication of a mean time of 5 years. I didnt read where anyone said this. You seem to always be putting words in peoples mouths. I can cut you a reference of where you said this if you like.
There was no reference to a mean time of 5 years. Can you clear this up?
-
Look, I think Ajax meant to say 4 years instead of 5. Its an honest mistake, I wouldnt hang him for it!!
-
Look, I think Ajax meant to say 4 years instead of 5. Its an honest mistake, I wouldnt hang him for it!!
Some could call it a lie, others could say he just a made an error when speaking. I depends on each persons point of view. I think Ajax was try to deceive the readers. But you are welcome to your own opinion.
-
You AARColytes aren't very good at this. If you want to play the disinfo semantics game, you have to first find an ambiguity or an error. Since I stated clearly that the time since graduation used in the study's analysis of continuous sobriety was just over two years and not five years, as Herard implied, you didn't find an ambiguity or an error. So instead, you skipped over that part and kept repeating the assertion that I had made the statement or inferred that the study showed that the mean time since graduation was 5 years. Since I said that opposite, you had to resort to a lie again.
It's easy to play the game if you undertand the rules, but you guys are too used to repeating what you're told, rather than figuring things out for yourself.
Pedophile, you're excluded, since you planted the disinfo. AARColytes, this one's for you. Find an instance where I stated that the mean time since graduation applied to determine the rate of continuous abstincence was five years. On your mark, get set, see you at the top of the hill!
-
I don't see why you bother debating the numbers. It's an internal study and as such, the data has as much integrity as AARC does from the get-go (which is not saying much at all). AARC has lied about lots of stuff. Why would anybody think statistics would be any different.
-
You AARColytes aren't very good at this. If you want to play the disinfo semantics game, you have to first find an ambiguity or an error. Since I stated clearly that the time since graduation used in the study's analysis of continuous sobriety was just over two years and not five years, as Herard implied, you didn't find an ambiguity or an error. So instead, you skipped over that part and kept repeating the assertion that I had made the statement or inferred that the study showed that the mean time since graduation was 5 years. Since I said that opposite, you had to resort to a lie again.
It's easy to play the game if you undertand the rules, but you guys are too used to repeating what you're told, rather than figuring things out for yourself.
Pedophile, you're excluded, since you planted the disinfo. AARColytes, this one's for you. Find an instance where I stated that the mean time since graduation applied to determine the rate of continuous abstincence was five years. On your mark, get set, see you at the top of the hill!
Nice try, but you stated a mean time of 2 years, not 5. Where did the mean time of 5 come from? Look Ajax, if you want to hold everyone else to every word they say you need to be able to handle it yourself.
So show me the refernce to the mean time of 5 years which you are disputing or correcting. Then we can move on. If you mis spoke and made a mistake that is okay too. People make errors when speaking, I understand.
-
No one's debating the numbers. Pedophile is back on the disinfo campaign, and I'm a little bored today, so I'm playing along. Keep in mind AARColytes, the way this will be decided is in the courts. The Provincial Government can never openly acknowledge that they stole tax-payer's money to fund a cult. It will have to be lawsuits that cripple the organization. The philanthropists who pay AARC's tab can't turn around and admit that a phys ed teacher and his minions duped them out of tens of millions of dollars. These people are successful businessmen and women, and would look like fools if the reality of AARC is exposed. So, over time the money will be scaled back. Those with the most to lose when AARC goes down will fight the hardest to keep it afloar, others will simply back away slowly.
Because rehab is being touted as a great money-making scheme for those who will provide treatment to the inmates in Alberta's jails, AARC will gain some defenders from those who could profit from this new drug court system. AARC may evolve into something else, as Straight did.
But the lawsuits will serve to expose the ridiculous and unethical psychic surgery used in AARC, as well as the long-proven dangers of the Newcomer/Oldcomer dynamic, as well as the host homes.
There will always be parents who want a simple solution to the problems posed by their children, and there will always be crooks like Vause, Miller Newton, and Mel Sembler who claim to have that solution.
-
You AARColytes aren't very good at this. If you want to play the disinfo semantics game, you have to first find an ambiguity or an error. Since I stated clearly that the time since graduation used in the study's analysis of continuous sobriety was just over two years and not five years, as Herard implied, you didn't find an ambiguity or an error. So instead, you skipped over that part and kept repeating the assertion that I had made the statement or inferred that the study showed that the mean time since graduation was 5 years. Since I said that opposite, you had to resort to a lie again.
It's easy to play the game if you undertand the rules, but you guys are too used to repeating what you're told, rather than figuring things out for yourself.
Pedophile, you're excluded, since you planted the disinfo. AARColytes, this one's for you. Find an instance where I stated that the mean time since graduation applied to determine the rate of continuous abstincence was five years. On your mark, get set, see you at the top of the hill!
Nice try, but you stated a mean time of 2 years, not 5. Where did the mean time of 5 come from? Look Ajax, if you want to hold everyone else to every word they say you need to be able to handle it yourself.
So show me the refernce to the mean time of 5 years which you are disputing or correcting. Then we can move on. If you mis spoke and made a mistake that is okay too. People make errors when speaking, I understand.
From what I have read in the past good luck trying to get Ajax to admit to one of his lies. He will run you in circles after he is caught, but it is fun to watch. He expects everyone else to tell the truth except himself.
-
Why are you asking where the figure came from when you can plainly see where it came from? If you disagree with my interpretation of Herard's lie, wherein he claimed that 85% of the grads were still sober after 5 years, by all means you're entitled to your opinion. Since the study did not say that 85% of grads were still sober after 5 years, Herard's figure of 5 years is open to interpretation. My assumption was that he was implying that the mean time since graduation for those in the study was 5 years, which it wasn't. Perhaps he was implying that each graduate was assessed at the 5 year mark since graduation, which they weren't. As always, I await an AARColyte explanation for the lies.
So far, none of you have made an attempt, choosing instead to latch onto Pedophile's erroneous statement that I had claimed that a mean time of 5 years since graduation was included in the study.
You see, I've pointed out a series of lies, specifically that Herard lied about what was in the study. You AARColytes have claimed I was lying, but as always, you can't quite seem to show how.
Can't say that I'm due for a haircut. That's the Synanon word for what the Wiz passes off as his treatment, and I'm not about to join your cult.
-
Why are you asking where the figure came from when you can plainly see where it came from? If you disagree with my interpretation of Herard's lie, wherein he claimed that 85% of the grads were still sober after 5 years, by all means you're entitled to your opinion. Since the study did not say that 85% of grads were still sober after 5 years, Herard's figure of 5 years is open to interpretation. My assumption was that he was implying that the mean time since graduation for those in the study was 5 years, which it wasn't. Perhaps he was implying that each graduate was assessed at the 5 year mark since graduation, which they weren't. As always, I await an AARColyte explanation for the lies.
So far, none of you have made an attempt, choosing instead to latch onto Pedophile's erroneous statement that I had claimed that a mean time of 5 years since graduation was included in the study.
You see, I've pointed out a series of lies, specifically that Herard lied about what was in the study. You AARColytes have claimed I was lying, but as always, you can't quite seem to show how.
Can't say that I'm due for a haircut. That's the Synanon word for what the Wiz passes off as his treatment, and I'm not about to join your cult.
I will respond when you clear up your lie. If you bothered to read the report you would see where the information comes from. Here it is again:
85% of all graduates are still living a clean and sober life after 4 years
93% of all graduates are still living a clean and sober life after 12 months
52% of all graduates have had at least one relapse since graduating.
AARC Study (http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=312005&sid=a9df5f65b5264925d59bde68208fe54c&sid=a9df5f65b5264925d59bde68208fe54c#p312005)
AARC Website (http://http://www.aarc.ab.ca/index.php)
-
:guesswho:
-
I didn't attempt to murder anyone or commit suicide, still a AARC failure
is A. Mazur a success or failure based on what he did?
Or A. Evans, he was one of those graduates and counsellors. Still killed someone, so success or failure? You tell me.
-
85% of all graduates are still living a clean and sober life after 4 years
93% of all graduates are still living a clean and sober life after 12 months
52% of all graduates have had at least one relapse since graduating.
Since we're splitting hairs here.
IF 52% of graduates had a relapse they aren't STILL living a clean and sober life after 4 years
-
85% of all graduates are still living a clean and sober life after 4 years
93% of all graduates are still living a clean and sober life after 12 months
52% of all graduates have had at least one relapse since graduating.
Since we're splitting hairs here.
IF 52% of graduates had a relapse they aren't STILL living a clean and sober life after 4 years
Maybe another way to look at it is suppose you were a 3 pack a day smoker and you entered a cessation program and were able to quit. Then after a year you had a few smokes after your fathers funeral but went back to not smoking again. Even though you relapsed doesn’t mean the program didn’t work for you or that you are not considered a non-smoker. The entire process of becoming abstinent includes relapses. Very few people can ever quit cold turkey “The First Time” and never go back. It takes several tries and steps backwards before you can move forward for good.
-
I'd like to know just how many of those graduates didn't have a substance abuse problem before they entered the program. What about the numerous amounts of teenagers who tried drugs but grew out of that on their own... are we really supposed to think that this program is responsible for the fact that all humans eventually mature?
Heres a for instance, If i were to participate in a WWASP study and as the questions would be written by WWASP they would ask me questions like this:
Do you use any drugs? No.
Can you hold down a job? Yes.
Have you been charged with any criminal activity since you came home? No.
and so on and so forth.
So would my answers to these questions indicate that the program was a success for me? Was the fact that I was neither a criminal nor a drug addict before I went into the program taken into account in this study? or that I did my fair share of drugs and drinking AFTER the program and matured out of that stage on my own? or that I was physically abused and strongly oppose the program. Does that have anything to do with the "success rate" or is that just all a little too relative to be taken seriously? Furthermore what about the kids that died or are in jail or wouldn't have even the slightest reason to keep in touch with AARC in order to be on their list for this survey. So honestly what surprises me is that other 15%, why would "druggies" even do this study in the first place?
Psy nailed it, this was a biased internal study from the beginning and these bogus claims have no credibility, but the programs have been lying for years so why should we put it passed them now?
-
I'd like to know just how many of those graduates didn't have a substance abuse problem before they entered the program.
I think the study covered that part of it to insure there was a problem to solve. Each kid was matched with a problem.
What about the numerous amounts of teenagers who tried drugs but grew out of that on their own... are we really supposed to think that this program is responsible for the fact that all humans eventually mature?
That is a good point. There is no way to tell if any of these kids would have worked things out on their own regardless if they were in a program or not.
Heres a for instance, If i were to participate in a WWASP study and as the questions would be written by WWASP they would ask me questions like this:
Do you use any drugs? No.
Can you hold down a job? Yes.
Have you been charged with any criminal activity since you came home? No.
and so on and so forth.
So would my answers to these questions indicate that the program was a success for me? Was the fact that I was neither a criminal nor a drug addict before I went into the program taken into account in this study? or that I did my fair share of drugs and drinking AFTER the program and matured out of that stage on my own? or that I was physically abused and strongly oppose the program. Does that have anything to do with the "success rate" or is that just all a little too relative to be taken seriously? Furthermore what about the kids that died or are in jail or wouldn't have even the slightest reason to keep in touch with AARC in order to be on their list for this survey. So honestly what surprises me is that other 15%, why would "druggies" even do this study in the first place?
The only way to know “for sure” is if we could take the same kids and go back in time have them not attend AARC and see how their outcomes differed. Another study which may be more accurate is to take similar kids with similar back grounds and send half thru AARC and allow the other half to try to make it thru on their own and compare the 2 groups. It would be nice to even get an full independent study done, but I doubt that will happen any time soon based on how expensive they can be.
Psy nailed it, this was a biased internal study from the beginning and these bogus claims have no credibility, but the programs have been lying for years so why should we put it passed them now?
Any internal study is bound to be somewhat biased but it doesn’t mean it lacks credibility. An independent agency would word the survey questions differently. If fornits regulars wrote the questions they would be different still and carry its own bias.
-
Okay, you like studies. Find studies that say what happens to victims of thought reform.
-
Okay, you like studies. Find studies that say what happens to victims of thought reform.
Sorry if this seems fragmented, just a few thoughts.
In my experience and from what I have learned, the most damaging aspect or dynamic of a cult is the unending pushing of the individual towards a non-attainable perfection. A person needs an individual identity along (with all its flaws) to be healthy and suvive. Forcing a person to conform to a group identity which is defined as perfect (with vacillating rules) does the most damage to the individual, in my opinion.
Post Cult: Whether you are a castaway or a walkaway from a cult or cult like environment the person will lack purpose above all the other problems he/she will face in the outside world (IN MY OPINION).
Studies show that helping these individuals find a purpose outside of the group dynamic is essential in any recovery. The individual needs to understand what was done to them and how thought reform works before healing can begin. Some advocate the use of attending a 12 step program (which is a cult in itself) as a step down from the dynamics of their intense cult experiences. Sort of like using the patch to help with the withdrawal from nicotine. The 12 step program utilizes the group dynamics but is softer and allows the person to feel the comfort of belonging to a group while working to understand the damage that was done to them. Eventually the person needs to break away from the softer cult (12 step program).
If you are interested in reviewing some of the studies and discussion a good place to start:
http://http://www.icsahome.com/default.asp
-
Sort of like using the patch to help with the withdrawal from nicotine. The 12 step program utilizes the group dynamics but is softer and allows the person to feel the comfort of belonging to a group while working to understand the damage that was done to them. Eventually the person needs to break away from the softer cult (12 step program).
This is a good idea. The problem is that in some areas, the meetings are "taken over" by members of the program or sympathetic parties. In a sense, those meetings can become an extention of the program itself. Is it any less harmful? I'm not so sure about that. All it does is to re-inforce the learned helplessness instilled in the program
-
I'd like to know just how many of those graduates didn't have a substance abuse problem before they entered the program. What about the numerous amounts of teenagers who tried drugs but grew out of that on their own... are we really supposed to think that this program is responsible for the fact that all humans eventually mature?
Heres a for instance, If i were to participate in a WWASP study and as the questions would be written by WWASP they would ask me questions like this:
Do you use any drugs? No.
Can you hold down a job? Yes.
Have you been charged with any criminal activity since you came home? No.
and so on and so forth.
So would my answers to these questions indicate that the program was a success for me? Was the fact that I was neither a criminal nor a drug addict before I went into the program taken into account in this study? or that I did my fair share of drugs and drinking AFTER the program and matured out of that stage on my own? or that I was physically abused and strongly oppose the program. Does that have anything to do with the "success rate" or is that just all a little too relative to be taken seriously? Furthermore what about the kids that died or are in jail or wouldn't have even the slightest reason to keep in touch with AARC in order to be on their list for this survey. So honestly what surprises me is that other 15%, why would "druggies" even do this study in the first place?
Psy nailed it, this was a biased internal study from the beginning and these bogus claims have no credibility, but the programs have been lying for years so why should we put it passed them now?
I participated in intake/assessments for 3 years, both as a "client" and as a "peer". I would say perhaps 1 in 5 people I "assessed" had actual drug or alcohol usage to the extent that it was serious problem. 1 out of 5 would not have the amount of drug usage for it to be more than an occaissional beavioral issue. Certainly not a primary problem, almost always some marijuana usage, and some drinking. The middle three would vary, but EVERY kid that was assessed while I was there was told they were level 3 or 4. And believe me - many of the positive answers were inferred, not actually told to us by the kid. How many kids who walk through there could be honestly diagnosed with a substance abuse problem? Maybe half. Needless to say, I had no training in drug assessment - but I got lots of kids to stay, either by convincing the parents or even the kid. I think about it every day, and deeply regret my part in this BS.
-
I participated in intake/assessments for 3 years, both as a "client" and as a "peer". I would say perhaps 1 in 5 people I "assessed" had actual drug or alcohol usage to the extent that it was serious problem. 1 out of 5 would not have the amount of drug usage for it to be more than an occaissional beavioral issue. Certainly not a primary problem, almost always some marijuana usage, and some drinking. The middle three would vary, but EVERY kid that was assessed while I was there was told they were level 3 or 4. And believe me - many of the positive answers were inferred, not actually told to us by the kid. How many kids who walk through there could be honestly diagnosed with a substance abuse problem? Maybe half. Needless to say, I had no training in drug assessment - but I got lots of kids to stay, either by convincing the parents or even the kid. I think about it every day, and deeply regret my part in this BS.
Sounds exactly like Straight and KIDS. How can the AARColytes keep insisting that AARC is so very different from Straight yet everything I've seen the AARC people describe, even the supporters, is IDENTICAL to Straight? And I mean everything. I haven't heard anyone state one significant difference. They obviously use the 'phases' and 'steps', but even the ways they get around regulations and licensing......the excuses and justifications for non-communication between parent and child.....the excuses and justifications for unqualified "staff"......motivating. The plain truth is that there's no fundamental difference between the two/three/four (KIDS and Pathways included). Especially given that Vause learned everything he knows from Newton and I know from personal experience, THAT son-of-a-bitch is PURE EVIL.
-
Okay, you like studies. Find studies that say what happens to victims of thought reform.
Sorry if this seems fragmented, just a few thoughts.
In my experience and from what I have learned, the most damaging aspect or dynamic of a cult is the unending pushing of the individual towards a non-attainable perfection. A person needs an individual identity along (with all its flaws) to be healthy and suvive. Forcing a person to conform to a group identity which is defined as perfect (with vacillating rules) does the most damage to the individual, in my opinion.
Post Cult: Whether you are a castaway or a walkaway from a cult or cult like environment the person will lack purpose above all the other problems he/she will face in the outside world (IN MY OPINION).
Studies show that helping these individuals find a purpose outside of the group dynamic is essential in any recovery. The individual needs to understand what was done to them and how thought reform works before healing can begin. Some advocate the use of attending a 12 step program (which is a cult in itself) as a step down from the dynamics of their intense cult experiences. Sort of like using the patch to help with the withdrawal from nicotine. The 12 step program utilizes the group dynamics but is softer and allows the person to feel the comfort of belonging to a group while working to understand the damage that was done to them. Eventually the person needs to break away from the softer cult (12 step program).
If you are interested in reviewing some of the studies and discussion a good place to start:
http://http://www.icsahome.com/default.asp
http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/discussion/2009 ... rless.html (http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/discussion/2009/02/powerless.html)
Intersting comment from an AA group in which intermingle:
"One final thought, to all AARC grads who infest AA meetings and use it as a dating pool and social club. Please do us all a favor and examine your motives for being there....."
This AA group knows the AARC people are "off," even without knowing why. I am a survivor and eventually, will have my BA in psych. AA is not in the cultic spectrum. IMO, the term you are looking for might be 'group support' or even communal relationship (blech), but not 'softer cult.' Of course, use any word you like, I just dont likethat word gets thrown around as it wipes away the meaning of 'cult' which needs to be used appropriately for it to retain its usefulness. JMHO
-
http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/discussion/2009 ... rless.html (http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/discussion/2009/02/powerless.html)
Intersting comment from an AA group in which intermingle:
"One final thought, to all AARC grads who infest AA meetings and use it as a dating pool and social club. Please do us all a favor and examine your motives for being there....."
This AA group knows the AARC people are "off," even without knowing why. I am a survivor and eventually, will have my BA in psych. AA is not in the cultic spectrum. IMO, the term you are looking for might be 'group support' or even communal relationship (blech), but not 'softer cult.' Of course, use any word you like, I just dont likethat word gets thrown around as it wipes away the meaning of 'cult' which needs to be used appropriately for it to retain its usefulness. JMHO
While I understand your apprehension to dilute the word 'cult', I think cult-like or cultish or softer cult are most appropriate terms with regards to AA.
-
Actually, IMO AA is a bit closer to a religion than a cult, the word "softer" cult seems fitting, but for all intensive purposes, reading the 12 steps seems more like a conversion to the christian religion than to recovery from substance abuse. IMO AA has little to do with recovery, and more to do with converting the weak and needy into full blown Christians. I see it more as a modern day religious crusade.
However, seeing as IMO religion is as well a "softer" cult, I think they should ALL be considered to exist in the same category. Just remember that the definition of a cult is not evidence of abuse, its the existence of tactics of thought reform, "group think", isolation from the outside world and a systematic push for more conversions.
Both religions, AA, Behavior modification programs (and their seminars) and registered (abusive and non abusive) cults all operate on a similar system to control their followers. So how do we really separate the like from the like? I believe the best way to do that is to put these institutions on a sliding scale of cult-like severity because in every one of these groups there is the good things that make them a service to our society and the bad things that relate them to the reputation of a cult group. The problem is that the word "cult" has such a bad connotation that no one wants to accept that their group is in its conception very similar to the way that a full blown cult operates. From what I can assume, cults must have snagged their system model from religion, or in my opinion, cults are just the small business versions of religions. I guess for some, things just went completely wrong, but apparently making up your own rules on behalf of an all mighty higher power really gives you a lot of room to go nuts, and many of them do. So maybe the word cult would refer to those institutions that would be at the bottom of this sliding scale, but lets be honest here they all swim the the same pool.
-
Actually, IMO AA is a bit closer to a religion than a cult, the word "softer" cult seems fitting, but for all intensive purposes, reading the 12 steps seems more like a conversion to the christian religion than to recovery from substance abuse. IMO AA has little to do with recovery, and more to do with converting the weak and needy into full blown Christians. I see it more as a modern day religious crusade.
Oh yeah, I don't disagree with any of that.
However, seeing as IMO religion is as well a "softer" cult, I think they should ALL be considered to exist in the same category. Just remember that the definition of a cult is not evidence of abuse, its the existence of tactics of thought reform, "group think", isolation from the outside world and a systematic push for more conversions.
But I think "thought reform" scares me more than just about any other aspect of the program. It requires "group think" which, I believe, is devastating to the soul.
Both religions, AA, Behavior modification programs (and their seminars) and registered (abusive and non abusive) cults all operate on a similar system to control their followers. So how do we really separate the like from the like? I believe the best way to do that is to put these institutions on a sliding scale of cult-like severity because in every one of these groups there is the good things that make them a service to our society and the bad things that relate them to the reputation of a cult group. The problem is that the word "cult" has such a bad connotation that no one wants to accept that their group is in its conception very similar to the way that a full blown cult operates. From what I can assume, cults must have snagged their system model from religion, or in my opinion, cults are just the small business versions of religions. I guess for some, things just went completely wrong, but apparently making up your own rules on behalf of an all mighty higher power really gives you a lot of room to go nuts, and many of them do. So maybe the word cult would refer to those institutions that would be at the bottom of this sliding scale, but lets be honest here they all swim the the same pool.
Sage words Fem.....sage words.
-
Jean Cassidy,co-founder of Second Chance with her husband Scotty,told me very few of these clients are true addicts.Later on,she and her husband went on to start a program to treat unaddicted kids for non-existing addictions.Money talks and I'm sure that it pays better than than the brewery,Scotty's prior employer.This conversation came several years after me leaving Straight in an office where she was working.I explained that I was an occasional drinker,a non-user of other drugs and that any substance that I choose to indulge in,I truly can stop at my leisure.If there was any doubt,I was happy to make it a wager,the only vice that I do struggle with.That's when she revealed the uncomfortable truth(she was a former exec staff)about our powerlessness being a hoax.I left that afternoon realizing that my whole programming was a sham are started to discount everything I was led to believe.Before I thought it was just a mistake.To answer the question "Is it OK to relapse?",the question must be asked was the person in question an addict at all.If the answer is NO,then it's not a relapse.The therapy is a sham.
-
I agree, and I must also state that in my experience, not being an addict having the AA dogma forced into my psyche allowed for me to be MORE drawn to doing drugs after I left the program. I've heard this from a few other survivors and the same is true for me, I thought, "I already did the time, might as well do the crime". It's easy to use that "powerless to addition" excuse when your a teenager who has been locked up and robbed of a normal adolescence. It's also easy to say that I can get fucked up now and just go to AA later... but the truth is that never worked. The only thing that made me stop using drugs is that I grew out of that party stage in my life. Do I regret having those experiences? no, not at all. Do I think I had a problem back then? No, I was just being a kid having fun and getting it out of my system so that I could grow up to be an experienced adult. Today I don't use any drugs, I know how to drink responsibly on the rare occasion that I do and I am surely not a "recovering addict". It doesn't take any strain for me to stay away from drugs, as I see it I am far beyond that point in my life both mentally and emotionally. In my case I think it was a good thing that I choose to "relapse" had I NOT used drugs in my younger years, I might still to this day think that I am a recovering addict and would not have developed the ability to rely on my personal choices and willpower to define my life.
The problem is that the program is judgmental, if you used alcohol at all as a teen you had a problem. If you smoked weed you had a problem. If you didn't come home in time for curfew you had a problem and it pretty much boiled down to whatever we did to piss off our parents enough that they sent us to a program meant we had some serious problem. No one would asses our individual situation, our actions back home or even our medical records and determine if the program was in reality the necessary step for our "treatment", they just took any kid with any problem and sent them through the Stepford Kid factory.
So the question remains... Is it ok to relapse?... well, if you were never an addict in the first place, then yes. and I believe maintaining a judgmental stigma over yourself is never healthy. I think that a drug user can overcome their addiction by changing their lifestyle choices and believing in their own strength and vision for the future, I don't think guilting themselves into avoiding real life experiences is really any kind of cure.
-
Femanon Fatal said
The problem is that the program is judgmental, if you used alcohol at all as a teen you had a problem. If you smoked weed you had a problem. If you didn't come home in time for curfew you had a problem and it pretty much boiled down to whatever we did to piss off our parents enough that they sent us to a program meant we had some serious problem. No one would asses our individual situation, our actions back home or even our medical records and determine if the program was in reality the necessary step for our "treatment", they just took any kid with any problem and sent them through the Stepford Kid factory.
A statistic that will NEVER be provided.
What percentage of kids who were interviewed did not eventually find themselves on front row.
I'll bet that we'll resolve the licks and the tootsie pop question long before somebody will divulge that.
Fear is a horrible way to manipulate someone.As angry as many former inmates feel,remember that their families reacted out of terror for the most part.They were swindled on the great lie that for us,their choice was going to be the "facility" or the cemetery.This was hammered into them until they eventually capitulated.Many of them think,even after the fact,that they saved our lives rather than they had been had.Their egos(sorry for the Str8 talk)won't let them see the truth.Any effort to shine a light on this,at least in my case,is pointless.
Mortality tables not withstanding,they will go to the graves not knowing the truth.
-
Fear is a horrible way to manipulate someone.As angry as many former inmates feel,remember that their families reacted out of terror for the most part.They were swindled on the great lie that for us,their choice was going to be the "facility" or the cemetery.This was hammered into them until they eventually capitulated.Many of them think,even after the fact,that they saved our lives rather than they had been had.
You completely nailed it right there.
-
From AARC's website:
Michael Quinn Patton, former President of the American Evaluation Society, was the principal author of an outcome evaluation of AARC in 2003. His findings showed that AARC clients were suffering severe losses prior to their admission to the program:
“Psychosocial problems included academic difficulties (78.8%) family discord (76.4%) and involvement with the child welfare system (23.5%). Academic difficulties included lack of attendance at school, behavioural difficulties at school, lack of academic success (failing grades), and poor or intermittent attendance. Involvement in criminal behaviour prior to admission to AARC was reported by 63.5% of the subjects.” (p.2)
and
Patton’s research (2003) reviewed AARC intake records and concluded that “on admission to treatment all 85 interviewed clients met the criteria for a Substance Dependence Disorder, according to SASSI, Adolescent version. Of those matching this level, 85.8% of the 85 interviewed qualified for two or more drugs.” (p.2)
This is in contradiction to the 5th Estate investigation:
“I did not conduct the study. They conducted the study. I oversaw the analysis,” Patton.
How do they get off calling this "Patton's Study" and "Patton's Research" ????????
And then I notice just below that:
Cathy Lane Goodfellow, Associate Senior Counsel, Youth Criminal Defence Office says:
“AARC is an approved provider of addictions assessments to the Provincial Court, Family and Youth Division. It is my observation that members of this judiciary division support the AARC program and where a young person is facing detention, AARC is seriously considered as an alternative to custody.”
I observed that members of that judiciary division support AARC too, but according to the Minister of Justice's department, AARC is NOT an approved provider of anything as it pertains to the justice system and it is NOT an alternative to custody. According to the justice system, youth can not be held in remand at or sentenced to AARC.
-
Fuck AARC. ::deadhorse::