To Anon:
Geez, I was trying to be quiet for awhile but your point needs to be addressed.
You stated: "but offering no alternative solutions"
I just assumed anyone seriously reading this link would be able to scroll to the bottom of page where it explicitly states that SOS is itself an alternative form of treatment:
"Today there are SOS groups meeting in every state, as well as in other countries. SOS has gained recognition from rehabilitation professionals and the nation's court systems. In November of 1987, the California courts recognized SOS as an alternative to AA in sentencing offenders to mandatory participation in a rehabilitation program. Also, the Veterans Administration has adopted a policy which prohibits mandatory participation in programs of a religious nature." ---quote from the link
There are numerous links given on that page that explain the nature of SOS. I have no personal knowledge or experience with that or any group (other than the Seed) so don't take my giving that link (or any link for that matter) as meaning I endorse all material on the link. But it definitely does offer an alternative...whether their alternative is greater or viable I have no way of knowing. The mere fact that they do not endorse coercive thought-control techniques as a means to achieve sobriety puts them miles ahead of the seed and similar programs imo.
Those suffering from certain depressive or severe personality disorders could often be 'cured' via lobotomy. In that case, there is real cause for debate as to whether the cure is far worse than the disease. In some narrow sense they seem to 'work' for many people...just like amputating a gangrenous leg often 'works' to save the person's life. But at what cost? I'm often amused when I see ads for some of the drugs hawked by big pharma on tv. One cures psoriasis...but as a side effect sometimes gives you cancer!
Then you ask: "Unless, (much like this web site), you advocate just letting everyone do whatever the hell they want to, consequences be damned."
It depends upon what you mean by 'everyone' and 'consequences'. To address this question to any degree takes us past the purpose of this forum into political discussion. As I see it, the far left and far right share one similar belief...the belief that 'we know what is best for you'. Both engage in social engineering and share this elitist pov. Whether it is the Left's efforts to criminalize cigarettes or the Rights efforts to criminalize adult films and photos..both spring from the same conceit. The Seed epitomized this conceit imo. It isn't surprising to me that it has led logically to such groups as straight and various bootcamps for kids. So, unless 'everyone' (& by that I mean adults) behaves in such a way as to cause others serious harm (stealing, murder, rape, forced brainwashing, etc) they indeed should be 'allowed' freedom to 'do whatever the hell they want. BTW, the idea of being 'allowed' freedom is in direct contradiction to the very principles this nation was founded upon. We are 'endowed' with freedoms and rights. These do not spring from any earthly, governmental 'authority' as was the view in monarchist England of the time. The government does not 'allow' us freedom...or at least that was the way the founding fathers saw it.
As to the specific issue of drug use. I am a radical. I believe that any sane adult should be 'allowed' to do as they please with their own body and mind. I do not believe the state or federal government owns our body-mind. I am for the complete legalization of all drugs. Not because I believe they are good or healthy, but because I view the imprisonment of users and other consequences of drug prohibition as far worse than the problem it seeks to fix...much as cancer is worse than psoriasis. I am also against the criminalization of cigarette smoking...though I haven't smoked since right after graduating my program and view smoking as a terrible habit. I share this view with many other radicals...including such druggies as George Shultz (former Reagan secretary of state), conservative pundit William F. Buckley, former White House general counsel Lloyd Cutler, Milton Friedman, Willie Brown, Richard Burt, Bob Strauss, Jocelyn Elders, Ahmet Ertegun, Harvey Cox, Charles Murray, Bishop Paul Moore Jr., former FDA Commissioner and Stanford President Donald Kennedy, Ruth Messinger, & Walter Cronkite amongst others.
http://fornits.com/eminent.htmAs to offering viable alternatives... For the great majority of us (excluding addicts and genuine alcoholics) the better alternative would probably have been to do absolutely nothing. The vast majority of teen drug users simply grow up and either stop using completely or become rare or special occasional users. This happens to those who are put into 12 step programs and to those that are not. The parents that founded Straight did so because they were 'devasted' when they discovered their teenage son was using marijuana. Statistics suggest that he would likely have eventually quit on his own. (he quit with the help of a standard therapist...not via his parents own program) Instead, they gave us all the wonders of Straight.
It is frustrating and frightening for any parent when a child begins to rebel and test limits. Desparate to maintain 'control' over their offspring they consider any alternative that offers to give them their 'child' back. Teenagers have been rebeling and testing limits for at least all of recorded history. Adolescence is a risky time in our development. We might drive too fast, have unprotected sex, take up bungee jumping, shoplift and use drugs and alcohol. Drugs being especially attractive due to their illegality. Most of us survive this period. Some do not. If parents will just be strong, loving, firm and patient...as opposed to shipping their teen to bootcamp...most will be pleasantly surprised to find that their 'child' comes back on their own. As a mature adult rather than a programmed cookie-cutter person. The best cure for adolescence and all of it's problems...is time...growing to adulthood.