If you're interesting on helping out on this issue stateside I can point you in a few directions. Check out Isaccorp.org or Cafety.org. Tell em "Psy" sent ya.
Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baronâ(TM)s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. Their very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be âcuredâ(TM) against oneâ(TM)s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level with those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals. - C.S Lewis - the Humanitarian Theory of Punishment
Yes. You're absolutely right. It is a far worse problem in the states... Hopefully China does not become the same way but judging how history repeats itself i'm not entirely optimistic.
Hell. I'll give you a very long list. If you think it's bad enough that the kids are dead, look up how they died. Check out Michelle Sutton's story. A while back the GAO did an investigative report on it. Written report here. Video of hearing here. There was a second report and hearing as well but that mainly concentrated on deceptive marketing practices (how the kids end up in these places). Has anything been done yet about it? Nope. The congressman Miller acted mighty angry in the hearings but the regulation legislation get anywhere (not that it would have done much anyway)... nope!
Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baronâ(TM)s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. Their very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be âcuredâ(TM) against oneâ(TM)s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level with those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals. But to be punished, however severely, because we have deserved it, because we âought to have known betterâ(TM), is to be treated as a human person made in Godâ(TM)s image. - C.S Lewis - Humanitarian Theory of Punishment
This sort of thing happens all the time in the states. Google "Aaron Bacon" and he's hardly the only one. US boot camps have a really bad history in this area only nobody seems to care very much since they kids were somehow "troubled" (allegedly, since there is no due process).
Blather. As a 20+ year member of AA and an atheist, I say that a higher power can be the guy with the key to the handcuffs.
So you pray to him and admit your shortcomings to him and so on and so forth? Here's my response. You may not call your god "god" but you believe in a form god and it is not a rational belief. Unless you're trying to tell me the cop prevents you from drinking when you pray to him and admit your shortcomings to him (real bad idea)... Unless you're speaking of thinking of the consequences (something an alcoholic isn't supposed to be able to do, now is he, 'stupid drunk'?) How are you doing it?
In Step Eleven we saw that if a Higher Power had restored us to sanity and had enabled us to live with some peace of mind in a sorely troubled world, then such a Higher Power was worth knowing better, by as direct contact as possible. The persistent use of meditation and prayer, we found, did open the channel so that where there had been a trickle, there now was a river which led to sure power and safe guidance from God as we were increasingly better able to understand Him.
So, practicing these Steps, we had a spiritual awakening about which finally there was no question. Looking at those who were only beginning and still doubting themselves, the rest of us were able to see the change setting in. From great numbers of such experiences, we could predict that the doubter who still claimed that he hadn't got the "spiritual angle," and who still considered his well-loved A.A. group the higher power, would presently love God and call Him by name.
Twelve Steps and Twelve Traditions, William Wilson, pages 108-109.
You call that any sort of medical treatment or religion? Tell the group here how many times god is mentioned in the steps, in the 12&12 and what your definition of sobriety and recovery is. Tell the group her what a "spiritual disease" is? Do you pray to your laws of physics as the 12 steps command? Did you admit your shortcomings to the trees? Do you honestly believe it's them that keep you sober? I'm sorry if i'm harsh, but the simple fact here is that there is no sky fairy of *any* sort and if there is anybody you should thank for being sober, it's you. Give yourself a little credit and stop giving credit to a fruity little group for your own work!
That's the very definition of self medication right there.
And why, exactly, is that a problem if it works? And what if pot not only helps them deal with their problems but helps them heal from whatever trauma? For many, pot is not a "cover it up" drug. It's a "help you focus on it and process it" drug. People who want to cover up their pain drink to excess. It's a much better tool for the job and it's legal. For certain things, such as PTSD, it's a VERY good medication.
What I don't understand is why this is so god damned important to you. Do you care what kind of treatment schizophrenics receive? If schizophrenics and their doctors all agree on a treatment that works for them, who the hell are you to question it? Not being either a patient or a health care professional, why do you care?
In standard referral, patients received a schedule for local 12-step SHG meetings and were encouraged to attend. Intensive referral had the key elements of counselors linking patients to 12-step volunteers and using 12-step journals to check on meeting attendance.
I don't even know where to start with the rest of the study. Also keep in mind that once a person is indoctrinated into AA, they *are* likely to do worse without it, as they are indoctrinated to believe that not going to meetings means jail institutions or death. It's the AA equivalent of hell and creates a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Here's some research for you. Remember. Contempt prior to investigation.
It's hardly Scientology, and if they need to use bait & switch to be effective, well, it's hard to argue with success.
But it's not *ethical*. Have you ever heard of informed consent? That's a hell of a rationalization there. Even if it worked, which i'm still waiting on, it would still not be right. People have the right to choose. Something can't be consensual if you don't know what you are consenting to or are deceived into it. I don't care how benign you claim it is. "It's for your own good" is not an idea I like very much.
Not sure what I missed. I read the whole thing. You think some alcoholics are powerless. I argue that it's not true and presented some evidence as well as common sense to argue the opposite. You argue you've seen AA help people; I'm not sure you can say something helps if people would statistically have been OK without it.
Well. You believe you are powerless. I get that. Do you have any scientific evidence that it's actually so? I'd suggest looking at both sides of the issue. Read some Stanton Peele. Let me ask you this, though. If you're powerless. Waht is stopping you from driving out right now and buying a bottle of vodka? It's not god as you've admitted and the people you know presumably aren't with you 24/7. Who exactly is doing that? Now tell me again. Are you truly powerless? Because otherwise you're not making much logical sense. The picking up of a drink is a behavior and a choice, as is the decision not to.
Sure. People get better in AA. Statistically, though, they would have gotten better anyway and there is evidence to suggest they're worse off in AA (Brandsma et. al). What you have there is anecdotal evidence. Don't you think that if AA really worked there would be some studies out there showing it to be so? I challenge you to look into that... to look into both sides. You know what they say about contempt prior to investigation.
If you go to NA to come clean off of coke and you're spending every Friday night at the same old bar having a beer and a joint - you're fucking up.
See. That's funny. I know two heroin "addicts" and a meth "addict" who quit on their own and several years later are doing just fine. Two still smoke pot and one drinks. They tell me that weed has helped them stay away from the harder stuff. Either way, all we have here is anecdotal evidence, neither side of which proves anything. To me, the gateway theory is just that... a theory. Problem is that theory has been put forth as fact into the public mind. That's the problem I have with the gateway theory. Far-fetched theory is set forth as fact and as a result people are sentenced to a bona-fide religious organization for the "cure" (which you later find out they don't actually do). Fast forward a bit through the indoctrination process and they believe the stuff they are told as a matter of faith and are acting it out. They end up believing they're powerless. They end up believing "one drink one drunk" and as soon as somebody hands them a joint they go "ooh... i can't control myself. i've relapsed... i must have heroin now"... And there goes the neighborhood. It would be as comical as the South Park dramafication if it wasn't so sad.
I don't smoke weed, never lost a job over weed, barely drink, and never drive under the influence. What would make you conclude such a thing? Is that prejudice I hear... because I couldn't possibly be criticizing the holy church of "sobriety" (different definition in AA) with honorable intentions. I must be in denial!
Your higher power can not be anything. That's bait and switch. AA is a religious organization (court decisions which the supreme court has refused to challenge making it the law of the land) that somehow manages to, despite those decisions, weasel converts from the state (60% of AA members were first coerced into it. Source grapevine magazine Novermber 2001). My Problem with AA stems from the above, the fact that it's no more effective than no treatment at all, the fact that peopel are coerced into it, and the fact that it statistically causes an increase in binge behavior (Brandsma, et al).. What else do you expect when you tell people they are powerless to control themselves and should "let go and let god".
I absolutely adore messing with 12 steppers. There are so many logical fallacies to point out. It drives them batty. It's a religious cult disguised cleverly as "treatment" (which they then tell you is lifelong recovery meaning AA meetings for the rest of your life).
I think the "higher doses" problem is solved by the fact that people on such doses become paranoid and are very unlikely to drive. Most drugs make people impulsive. Weed is not one of them. If anything it nudges people to err on the side of caution.
Apparently you are unaware that drug use is directly relatable to numerous genetic maladies such as bipolar/manic-depression disorder and higher intelligence.
Yes. Certain conditions are genetic, some of which are associated with a tendency to self medicate. It's still not correct to say that drug use itself is a disease or genetic. It would be as accurate to say suicide is genetic. You're not differentiating between cause and effect, disease and symptom.
As stated before the related crimes of drugs are still illegal, and rightly so (like burglary to fuel expensive addictions).
OK. But see. You're saying basically "drug [user] related crimes". It's like saying Moslem related crimes or [generic personal choice] related crimes. The distinction should not be made is what i'm saying. There is a tendency to mislabel behavior as some sort of uncontrollable disease. Not only does it teach people that they aren't responsible for their own actions (it's not my fault I mugged that guy. I have a disease which made me do it) this let judges sentence people to "treatment" (which is really incarceration plus re-education).
I have a real problem with the government "treating" people or in any way getting involved in public health, especially when the evidence of a disease actually being there is spotty at best. It's often a veiled cover for a religious organization such as AA to prostheletize and spread. I also quite frankly don't feel like paying for it. I'd rather pay to jail criminals and I really don't care what they claim made them do it.
Yeah. The studies do go in both ways. If you say that, for example, 30% of the general population smoke pot and only 25% of road fatality victims have pot in their system, that's actually an improvement. You have to look at the data in context and see what it means as well as how the researchers came to any conclusions they did
(how exactly can you judge that cannabis caused the crash). Often it's either misleading or skewed for a misleading result. "Attributed to" could simply mean that pot was found in a person's system (very long half life). It could also mean there were other substances in the person's system as well as cannabis. A drunk driver who smoked cannabis in the previous week would, for example, fall into the category.
Slashdot Mirror
If you're interesting on helping out on this issue stateside I can point you in a few directions. Check out Isaccorp.org or Cafety.org. Tell em "Psy" sent ya.
Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baronâ(TM)s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. Their very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be âcuredâ(TM) against oneâ(TM)s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level with those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals. - C.S Lewis - the Humanitarian Theory of Punishment
And the us is far far far worse on this issue. Please remove log from own eye.
Yes. You're absolutely right. It is a far worse problem in the states... Hopefully China does not become the same way but judging how history repeats itself i'm not entirely optimistic.
Hell. I'll give you a very long list. If you think it's bad enough that the kids are dead, look up how they died. Check out Michelle Sutton's story. A while back the GAO did an investigative report on it. Written report here. Video of hearing here. There was a second report and hearing as well but that mainly concentrated on deceptive marketing practices (how the kids end up in these places). Has anything been done yet about it? Nope. The congressman Miller acted mighty angry in the hearings but the regulation legislation get anywhere (not that it would have done much anyway)... nope!
Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baronâ(TM)s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. Their very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be âcuredâ(TM) against oneâ(TM)s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level with those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals. But to be punished, however severely, because we have deserved it, because we âought to have known betterâ(TM), is to be treated as a human person made in Godâ(TM)s image. - C.S Lewis - Humanitarian Theory of Punishment
This sort of thing happens all the time in the states. Google "Aaron Bacon" and he's hardly the only one. US boot camps have a really bad history in this area only nobody seems to care very much since they kids were somehow "troubled" (allegedly, since there is no due process).
A depressant, like barbituates.
AA's real message is: join us and stay forever of YOU WILL DIE. And it's a fuckin lie!
Blather. As a 20+ year member of AA and an atheist, I say that a higher power can be the guy with the key to the handcuffs.
So you pray to him and admit your shortcomings to him and so on and so forth? Here's my response. You may not call your god "god" but you believe in a form god and it is not a rational belief. Unless you're trying to tell me the cop prevents you from drinking when you pray to him and admit your shortcomings to him (real bad idea)... Unless you're speaking of thinking of the consequences (something an alcoholic isn't supposed to be able to do, now is he, 'stupid drunk'?) How are you doing it?
In Step Eleven we saw that if a Higher Power had restored us to sanity and had enabled us to live with some peace of mind in a sorely troubled world, then such a Higher Power was worth knowing better, by as direct contact as possible. The persistent use of meditation and prayer, we found, did open the channel so that where there had been a trickle, there now was a river which led to sure power and safe guidance from God as we were increasingly better able to understand Him. So, practicing these Steps, we had a spiritual awakening about which finally there was no question. Looking at those who were only beginning and still doubting themselves, the rest of us were able to see the change setting in. From great numbers of such experiences, we could predict that the doubter who still claimed that he hadn't got the "spiritual angle," and who still considered his well-loved A.A. group the higher power, would presently love God and call Him by name. Twelve Steps and Twelve Traditions, William Wilson, pages 108-109.
You call that any sort of medical treatment or religion? Tell the group here how many times god is mentioned in the steps, in the 12&12 and what your definition of sobriety and recovery is. Tell the group her what a "spiritual disease" is? Do you pray to your laws of physics as the 12 steps command? Did you admit your shortcomings to the trees? Do you honestly believe it's them that keep you sober? I'm sorry if i'm harsh, but the simple fact here is that there is no sky fairy of *any* sort and if there is anybody you should thank for being sober, it's you. Give yourself a little credit and stop giving credit to a fruity little group for your own work!
check your mail.
I never did conclude such a thing.
NO.. but you did say:
if you're losing your job over weed or getting DUIs, you aren't exactly one to talk about fallacies.
After I just talked about a fallacy. My bad if I misinterpreted.
That's the very definition of self medication right there.
And why, exactly, is that a problem if it works? And what if pot not only helps them deal with their problems but helps them heal from whatever trauma? For many, pot is not a "cover it up" drug. It's a "help you focus on it and process it" drug. People who want to cover up their pain drink to excess. It's a much better tool for the job and it's legal. For certain things, such as PTSD, it's a VERY good medication.
What I don't understand is why this is so god damned important to you. Do you care what kind of treatment schizophrenics receive? If schizophrenics and their doctors all agree on a treatment that works for them, who the hell are you to question it? Not being either a patient or a health care professional, why do you care?
Email me and i'll tell you. psyborgue@mac.com
Moreover, there is empirical data to suggest that 12-Step programs are more effective than alternative treatments: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T63-4NT93TD-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=3532d0365bafe068101e1d966398ec3a
No. That's 12 step vs 12 step.
In standard referral, patients received a schedule for local 12-step SHG meetings and were encouraged to attend. Intensive referral had the key elements of counselors linking patients to 12-step volunteers and using 12-step journals to check on meeting attendance.
I don't even know where to start with the rest of the study. Also keep in mind that once a person is indoctrinated into AA, they *are* likely to do worse without it, as they are indoctrinated to believe that not going to meetings means jail institutions or death. It's the AA equivalent of hell and creates a self-fulfilling prophecy. Here's some research for you. Remember. Contempt prior to investigation.
It's hardly Scientology, and if they need to use bait & switch to be effective, well, it's hard to argue with success.
But it's not *ethical*. Have you ever heard of informed consent? That's a hell of a rationalization there. Even if it worked, which i'm still waiting on, it would still not be right. People have the right to choose. Something can't be consensual if you don't know what you are consenting to or are deceived into it. I don't care how benign you claim it is. "It's for your own good" is not an idea I like very much.
Not sure what I missed. I read the whole thing. You think some alcoholics are powerless. I argue that it's not true and presented some evidence as well as common sense to argue the opposite. You argue you've seen AA help people; I'm not sure you can say something helps if people would statistically have been OK without it.
It's not the state's business to measure "social cost"... Especially not at the expense of individual liberty (the only kind).
Well. You believe you are powerless. I get that. Do you have any scientific evidence that it's actually so? I'd suggest looking at both sides of the issue. Read some Stanton Peele. Let me ask you this, though. If you're powerless. Waht is stopping you from driving out right now and buying a bottle of vodka? It's not god as you've admitted and the people you know presumably aren't with you 24/7. Who exactly is doing that? Now tell me again. Are you truly powerless? Because otherwise you're not making much logical sense. The picking up of a drink is a behavior and a choice, as is the decision not to.
Sure. People get better in AA. Statistically, though, they would have gotten better anyway and there is evidence to suggest they're worse off in AA (Brandsma et. al). What you have there is anecdotal evidence. Don't you think that if AA really worked there would be some studies out there showing it to be so? I challenge you to look into that... to look into both sides. You know what they say about contempt prior to investigation.
Define "dry drunk". Isn't that where you have quit drinking but have avoided the "spiritual" portion of the treatment? It seems to me like there is a lot more to AA/NA than they let on publicly if that is the case.
If you go to NA to come clean off of coke and you're spending every Friday night at the same old bar having a beer and a joint - you're fucking up.
See. That's funny. I know two heroin "addicts" and a meth "addict" who quit on their own and several years later are doing just fine. Two still smoke pot and one drinks. They tell me that weed has helped them stay away from the harder stuff. Either way, all we have here is anecdotal evidence, neither side of which proves anything. To me, the gateway theory is just that... a theory. Problem is that theory has been put forth as fact into the public mind. That's the problem I have with the gateway theory. Far-fetched theory is set forth as fact and as a result people are sentenced to a bona-fide religious organization for the "cure" (which you later find out they don't actually do). Fast forward a bit through the indoctrination process and they believe the stuff they are told as a matter of faith and are acting it out. They end up believing they're powerless. They end up believing "one drink one drunk" and as soon as somebody hands them a joint they go "ooh... i can't control myself. i've relapsed... i must have heroin now"... And there goes the neighborhood. It would be as comical as the South Park dramafication if it wasn't so sad.
I don't smoke weed, never lost a job over weed, barely drink, and never drive under the influence. What would make you conclude such a thing? Is that prejudice I hear... because I couldn't possibly be criticizing the holy church of "sobriety" (different definition in AA) with honorable intentions. I must be in denial!
Your higher power can not be anything. That's bait and switch. AA is a religious organization (court decisions which the supreme court has refused to challenge making it the law of the land) that somehow manages to, despite those decisions, weasel converts from the state (60% of AA members were first coerced into it. Source grapevine magazine Novermber 2001). My Problem with AA stems from the above, the fact that it's no more effective than no treatment at all, the fact that peopel are coerced into it, and the fact that it statistically causes an increase in binge behavior (Brandsma, et al).. What else do you expect when you tell people they are powerless to control themselves and should "let go and let god".
I absolutely adore messing with 12 steppers. There are so many logical fallacies to point out. It drives them batty. It's a religious cult disguised cleverly as "treatment" (which they then tell you is lifelong recovery meaning AA meetings for the rest of your life).
I think the "higher doses" problem is solved by the fact that people on such doses become paranoid and are very unlikely to drive. Most drugs make people impulsive. Weed is not one of them. If anything it nudges people to err on the side of caution.
Apparently you are unaware that drug use is directly relatable to numerous genetic maladies such as bipolar/manic-depression disorder and higher intelligence.
Yes. Certain conditions are genetic, some of which are associated with a tendency to self medicate. It's still not correct to say that drug use itself is a disease or genetic. It would be as accurate to say suicide is genetic. You're not differentiating between cause and effect, disease and symptom.
As stated before the related crimes of drugs are still illegal, and rightly so (like burglary to fuel expensive addictions).
OK. But see. You're saying basically "drug [user] related crimes". It's like saying Moslem related crimes or [generic personal choice] related crimes. The distinction should not be made is what i'm saying. There is a tendency to mislabel behavior as some sort of uncontrollable disease. Not only does it teach people that they aren't responsible for their own actions (it's not my fault I mugged that guy. I have a disease which made me do it) this let judges sentence people to "treatment" (which is really incarceration plus re-education).
I have a real problem with the government "treating" people or in any way getting involved in public health, especially when the evidence of a disease actually being there is spotty at best. It's often a veiled cover for a religious organization such as AA to prostheletize and spread. I also quite frankly don't feel like paying for it. I'd rather pay to jail criminals and I really don't care what they claim made them do it.
There is a penn and teller episode on AA (that discusses these topics) you might enjoy.
Yeah. The studies do go in both ways. If you say that, for example, 30% of the general population smoke pot and only 25% of road fatality victims have pot in their system, that's actually an improvement. You have to look at the data in context and see what it means as well as how the researchers came to any conclusions they did (how exactly can you judge that cannabis caused the crash). Often it's either misleading or skewed for a misleading result. "Attributed to" could simply mean that pot was found in a person's system (very long half life). It could also mean there were other substances in the person's system as well as cannabis. A drunk driver who smoked cannabis in the previous week would, for example, fall into the category.