Show Posts
1
Straight, Inc. and Derivatives / Death at Tranquility Bay (Teen Help), Jamaica
« on: August 01, 2001, 06:39:11 PM »
Re: AARC's laws.
Alberta Addiction Recovery Center, I do believe. So Canadian law would apply.
In Florida at the time I was in Straight it was not legal for anyone to hold anyone over the age of 16 against their will without a court order. Of course, it's also illegal to use or threaten criminal charges in order to coerce someone into doing something. I think that's called blackmail. So every time one of these TOUGHLOVE idiots advises a parent to try and get their kid to hit them next time they have an argument so they can file criminal charges, it's a conspiracy to commit blackmail. It's done every day, right out in the open, though. And I'd bet dollars to donoughts you wouldn't be able to find a cop, DA or SA willing to persue those charges. Even when HRS got behind our efforts to stop the abuse at Straight, they lost the battle to the real authorities in Florida, the Republican Party. (not to be confused with Republican people)
The law is just not anywhere near as powerful or effective as people seem to believe it is. It's just words on paper and is open to the interpretation of whoever perceives themselves as the authorities.
The question most present in my mind is how in the world did we get into this mess in the first place? NIDA propagates most of the myths that make up a diagnosis of adolescent drug addiction. The DOE propagates most of the myths that make up a diagnosis like Oppositional Defiant Disorder (Drug me, teacher, cause I don't like you.)
People perceive their kids as standing in need of treatment or intervention because the presumed experts impose that belief through force of law. If a parent chooses to reject those notions, they find themselves at odds with the authorities who might very well declare them to be unfit parents by virtue of the fact that the disagree with the experts. Now, character and human nature being what they are, it's a whole lot easier for a parent to go along with the authorities and use all the leverage they can to get their kids to come along too than to stand against the authorities and likely lose the battle. So that's what most people do.
What you're proposing is that we bring in a different bunch of experts to impose a different set of beliefs through force of law. To my mind, government hasn't done a real impressive job of raising kids over the past 100+ years that we've been gradually giving them more and more authority to do so. Why should we expect them to any better job in future.
More importantly, even if we could get all of the agencies and the individuals who work for them 100% in-line with how you and I think things ought to be, how do you propose keeping them from being corrupted or copted by people who would regard such a state of affars as a total catastrophy?
I think a better solution is to promote critical thinking and debate on the wisdom of turning over the traditional role of family to force of law in the first place.
Please, Big Brother, don't threaten my kid with jail because you assume that the consensual activity that she's engaging in today might eventually lead to non-consensual, criminal behavior at some point in the future. You just leave it to me to raise kids who don't victimize anyone. If I fail, they'll have me to blame. Then who will I turn to when I'm old and senile?
Alberta Addiction Recovery Center, I do believe. So Canadian law would apply.
In Florida at the time I was in Straight it was not legal for anyone to hold anyone over the age of 16 against their will without a court order. Of course, it's also illegal to use or threaten criminal charges in order to coerce someone into doing something. I think that's called blackmail. So every time one of these TOUGHLOVE idiots advises a parent to try and get their kid to hit them next time they have an argument so they can file criminal charges, it's a conspiracy to commit blackmail. It's done every day, right out in the open, though. And I'd bet dollars to donoughts you wouldn't be able to find a cop, DA or SA willing to persue those charges. Even when HRS got behind our efforts to stop the abuse at Straight, they lost the battle to the real authorities in Florida, the Republican Party. (not to be confused with Republican people)
The law is just not anywhere near as powerful or effective as people seem to believe it is. It's just words on paper and is open to the interpretation of whoever perceives themselves as the authorities.
The question most present in my mind is how in the world did we get into this mess in the first place? NIDA propagates most of the myths that make up a diagnosis of adolescent drug addiction. The DOE propagates most of the myths that make up a diagnosis like Oppositional Defiant Disorder (Drug me, teacher, cause I don't like you.)
People perceive their kids as standing in need of treatment or intervention because the presumed experts impose that belief through force of law. If a parent chooses to reject those notions, they find themselves at odds with the authorities who might very well declare them to be unfit parents by virtue of the fact that the disagree with the experts. Now, character and human nature being what they are, it's a whole lot easier for a parent to go along with the authorities and use all the leverage they can to get their kids to come along too than to stand against the authorities and likely lose the battle. So that's what most people do.
What you're proposing is that we bring in a different bunch of experts to impose a different set of beliefs through force of law. To my mind, government hasn't done a real impressive job of raising kids over the past 100+ years that we've been gradually giving them more and more authority to do so. Why should we expect them to any better job in future.
More importantly, even if we could get all of the agencies and the individuals who work for them 100% in-line with how you and I think things ought to be, how do you propose keeping them from being corrupted or copted by people who would regard such a state of affars as a total catastrophy?
I think a better solution is to promote critical thinking and debate on the wisdom of turning over the traditional role of family to force of law in the first place.
Please, Big Brother, don't threaten my kid with jail because you assume that the consensual activity that she's engaging in today might eventually lead to non-consensual, criminal behavior at some point in the future. You just leave it to me to raise kids who don't victimize anyone. If I fail, they'll have me to blame. Then who will I turn to when I'm old and senile?