Re: [Fwd: Psychometric Instruments Help Measure AA Process...

[Guest guest]

The guy, whose name I unfortunately can't recall ( Mc?)

who died as a result of choking on his own vomit after a

California federal district judge barred him from using marijuana for

controlling nausea that was a side effect of chemotherapy. (The judge

said he had an alternative -- that pill that contains THC, I think

it's called Marinol. But you have to SWALLOW a pill, and he couldn't

keep them down.)

> > In a message dated 4/17/01 8:54:08 PM Pacific Daylight Time,

> > neilsthedude@a... writes:

> >

> >

> > > Drug laws kill

> > >

> > Literally.

> >

> > --Mona--

>

> Mona and Neil - as my soc teacher is fond of saying...EXAMPLES!

>

>

[Guest guest]

The guy, whose name I unfortunately can't recall ( Mc?)

who died as a result of choking on his own vomit after a

California federal district judge barred him from using marijuana for

controlling nausea that was a side effect of chemotherapy. (The judge

said he had an alternative -- that pill that contains THC, I think

it's called Marinol. But you have to SWALLOW a pill, and he couldn't

keep them down.)

> > In a message dated 4/17/01 8:54:08 PM Pacific Daylight Time,

> > neilsthedude@a... writes:

> >

> >

> > > Drug laws kill

> > >

> > Literally.

> >

> > --Mona--

>

> Mona and Neil - as my soc teacher is fond of saying...EXAMPLES!

>

>

[Guest guest]

Thank you, Mona.

Neil

[Guest guest]

Thank you, Mona.

Neil

[Guest guest]

Thank you, Mona.

Neil

[Guest guest]

At 05:09 PM 4/18/01 +0000, you wrote:

> I guess I am niavely failing to grasp

>the moral outrage against " drug users. " Especially when alcohol use

>is so accepted.

At this point, I think it's self-reinforcing. Most of us know some

casual social alcohol users, but few people know any casual

social heroin users.

We can suggest to people that the illegality is a large part of the

problem. Some will reject the idea out of hand, and some will say

" Hmm, interesting idea. " But few people will really make up their

minds based just on theory, when day-to-day experience differs.

Just my HO, as always.

[Guest guest]

At 05:09 PM 4/18/01 +0000, you wrote:

> I guess I am niavely failing to grasp

>the moral outrage against " drug users. " Especially when alcohol use

>is so accepted.

At this point, I think it's self-reinforcing. Most of us know some

casual social alcohol users, but few people know any casual

social heroin users.

We can suggest to people that the illegality is a large part of the

problem. Some will reject the idea out of hand, and some will say

" Hmm, interesting idea. " But few people will really make up their

minds based just on theory, when day-to-day experience differs.

Just my HO, as always.

[Guest guest]

At 05:09 PM 4/18/01 +0000, you wrote:

> I guess I am niavely failing to grasp

>the moral outrage against " drug users. " Especially when alcohol use

>is so accepted.

At this point, I think it's self-reinforcing. Most of us know some

casual social alcohol users, but few people know any casual

social heroin users.

We can suggest to people that the illegality is a large part of the

problem. Some will reject the idea out of hand, and some will say

" Hmm, interesting idea. " But few people will really make up their

minds based just on theory, when day-to-day experience differs.

Just my HO, as always.

[Guest guest]

Thank you, Mona.

<curtsy>

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

Thank you, Mona.

<curtsy>

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

Thank you, Mona.

<curtsy>

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

He's the one, his book is on the net.

> In a message dated 4/18/01 12:02:51 PM Pacific Daylight Time,

> kayleighs@m... writes:

>

>

> >

>

> If it's the same guy, he wrote a great book called " Ain't Nobody's

Business

> if I Do, " which examines everything from the idiocy of drug

prohibition to

> sodomy laws. I know he was ill and had heard he died. The DEA

busted into

> his home and took his computer and all of his disks, because they

knew he was

> writing a book critical of drug laws. Great fellows, those DEA

folks.

>

> --Mona--

[Guest guest]

He's the one, his book is on the net.

> In a message dated 4/18/01 12:02:51 PM Pacific Daylight Time,

> kayleighs@m... writes:

>

>

> >

>

> If it's the same guy, he wrote a great book called " Ain't Nobody's

Business

> if I Do, " which examines everything from the idiocy of drug

prohibition to

> sodomy laws. I know he was ill and had heard he died. The DEA

busted into

> his home and took his computer and all of his disks, because they

knew he was

> writing a book critical of drug laws. Great fellows, those DEA

folks.

>

> --Mona--

[Guest guest]

I don't believe alcohol is well-accepted. They keep lowering the

acceptable BAC for driving, wine at business lunches is no longer

acceptable, the drinking age was raised from 18 to 21, and Snuffy

no longer operates a still. As I get older, alcohol becomes

less and less tolerated.

> > I guess I am niavely failing to grasp

> >the moral outrage against " drug users. " Especially when alcohol

use

> >is so accepted.

>

> At this point, I think it's self-reinforcing. Most of us know some

> casual social alcohol users, but few people know any casual

> social heroin users.

>

> We can suggest to people that the illegality is a large part of the

> problem. Some will reject the idea out of hand, and some will say

> " Hmm, interesting idea. " But few people will really make up their

> minds based just on theory, when day-to-day experience differs.

>

> Just my HO, as always.

>

>

[Guest guest]

I don't believe alcohol is well-accepted. They keep lowering the

acceptable BAC for driving, wine at business lunches is no longer

acceptable, the drinking age was raised from 18 to 21, and Snuffy

no longer operates a still. As I get older, alcohol becomes

less and less tolerated.

> > I guess I am niavely failing to grasp

> >the moral outrage against " drug users. " Especially when alcohol

use

> >is so accepted.

>

> At this point, I think it's self-reinforcing. Most of us know some

> casual social alcohol users, but few people know any casual

> social heroin users.

>

> We can suggest to people that the illegality is a large part of the

> problem. Some will reject the idea out of hand, and some will say

> " Hmm, interesting idea. " But few people will really make up their

> minds based just on theory, when day-to-day experience differs.

>

> Just my HO, as always.

>

>

[Guest guest]

Forgot to mention a couple other things: most businesses don't allow

alcohol on the premises and the Drug Free Workplace Act, with which

all federal contractors have to comply, says that workers shouldn't

even come to work with a hangover. I think most of us can accept that

we shouldn't come to work intoxicated, but a hangover?

> > I guess I am niavely failing to grasp

> >the moral outrage against " drug users. " Especially when alcohol

use

> >is so accepted.

>

> At this point, I think it's self-reinforcing. Most of us know some

> casual social alcohol users, but few people know any casual

> social heroin users.

>

> We can suggest to people that the illegality is a large part of the

> problem. Some will reject the idea out of hand, and some will say

> " Hmm, interesting idea. " But few people will really make up their

> minds based just on theory, when day-to-day experience differs.

>

> Just my HO, as always.

>

>

[Guest guest]

Forgot to mention a couple other things: most businesses don't allow

alcohol on the premises and the Drug Free Workplace Act, with which

all federal contractors have to comply, says that workers shouldn't

even come to work with a hangover. I think most of us can accept that

we shouldn't come to work intoxicated, but a hangover?

> > I guess I am niavely failing to grasp

> >the moral outrage against " drug users. " Especially when alcohol

use

> >is so accepted.

>

> At this point, I think it's self-reinforcing. Most of us know some

> casual social alcohol users, but few people know any casual

> social heroin users.

>

> We can suggest to people that the illegality is a large part of the

> problem. Some will reject the idea out of hand, and some will say

> " Hmm, interesting idea. " But few people will really make up their

> minds based just on theory, when day-to-day experience differs.

>

> Just my HO, as always.

>

>

[Guest guest]

Forgot to mention a couple other things: most businesses don't allow

alcohol on the premises and the Drug Free Workplace Act, with which

all federal contractors have to comply, says that workers shouldn't

even come to work with a hangover. I think most of us can accept that

we shouldn't come to work intoxicated, but a hangover?

> > I guess I am niavely failing to grasp

> >the moral outrage against " drug users. " Especially when alcohol

use

> >is so accepted.

>

> At this point, I think it's self-reinforcing. Most of us know some

> casual social alcohol users, but few people know any casual

> social heroin users.

>

> We can suggest to people that the illegality is a large part of the

> problem. Some will reject the idea out of hand, and some will say

> " Hmm, interesting idea. " But few people will really make up their

> minds based just on theory, when day-to-day experience differs.

>

> Just my HO, as always.

>

>

[Guest guest]

----- Original Message -----

> The guy, whose name I unfortunately can't recall ( Mc?)

> who died as a result of choking on his own vomit after a

> California federal district judge barred him from using marijuana for

> controlling nausea that was a side effect of chemotherapy. (The judge

> said he had an alternative -- that pill that contains THC, I think

> it's called Marinol. But you have to SWALLOW a pill, and he couldn't

> keep them down.)

Smoking is a much more efficient delivery system than swallowing.

[Guest guest]

----- Original Message -----

> The guy, whose name I unfortunately can't recall ( Mc?)

> who died as a result of choking on his own vomit after a

> California federal district judge barred him from using marijuana for

> controlling nausea that was a side effect of chemotherapy. (The judge

> said he had an alternative -- that pill that contains THC, I think

> it's called Marinol. But you have to SWALLOW a pill, and he couldn't

> keep them down.)

Smoking is a much more efficient delivery system than swallowing.

[Guest guest]

----- Original Message -----

> The guy, whose name I unfortunately can't recall ( Mc?)

> who died as a result of choking on his own vomit after a

> California federal district judge barred him from using marijuana for

> controlling nausea that was a side effect of chemotherapy. (The judge

> said he had an alternative -- that pill that contains THC, I think

> it's called Marinol. But you have to SWALLOW a pill, and he couldn't

> keep them down.)

Smoking is a much more efficient delivery system than swallowing.

[Guest guest]

> I don't believe alcohol is well-accepted. They keep lowering the

> acceptable BAC for driving, wine at business lunches is no longer

> acceptable, the drinking age was raised from 18 to 21, and Snuffy

> no longer operates a still. As I get older, alcohol becomes

> less and less tolerated.

Hmmm, interesting points. I do see a trend there.

Yet, I can still go into the liquor store and pretty much buy as much

booze as I want. If I have it in my house, no one will view me as a

criminal. During Prohibition this would not have been the case. I

think attitudes and cultural images do change over time with regard to

this issue.

A long time ago I did some research on heroin and I would have to find

my sources to have the exact thing again, but what I remember is that

heroin was first hailed as the cure for morphine addiction. (duh! )

Some major drug mfgr produced it, I want to say " Bayer " but I really

can't be sure.

Also a long time ago, morphine was used to treat (successfully!)

alcohol addiction. What doctors found was that when people took a

measured dose of morphine daily they tended to stay away from alcohol

quite well. The " high " it produces is not as unpredictable as

alcohol's high and there was much less violence associated with it.

Ahhh, the good old days!

Somewhere along the line, puritans or some such, managed to change the

view of these drugs to the negative images that we were taught. They

also got the law on their side and made these substances illegal.

Along the way they marginalized the people who used them. Part of it

was out and out racism against the Chinese people who used opium and

the association with that.

I guess my whole point here is that perceptions of these things have

changed drastically over the years. Morphine and narcotics are GREAT

drugs! They ease pain with very little side effects. I found it

really interesting that recently JCAHO (Joint Commission for

Accredidation of Health Care Organizations) has made pain relief a

*vital sign.* This is the agency that accredits hospitals and other

health care providers. Accredidation is a " voluntary " procedure, but

try getting paid by an insurance company without it.

People have been undermedicated for pain for years and years in

medical settings because of the stigma of drug addiction. That is

*starting* to change. This JCAHO thing is going to make a big

difference in it.

I don't know if I said it on here before, but I worked as a support

person for a hospice team. Many of our patients were in a great deal

of pain before they died. Morphine helped those people. There were

still a few people who refused " drugs " until the very end. Surely

that is their decision, but I felt it showed strongly how negative the

perception about narcotics is.

When I was giving birth to my daughter, a scheduled c-section, the

anesthesiologist had a button on his lab coat: NO PAIN. Thank-you!

I also remember a time when I was having migraine after migraine, just

clusters, and I was so brainwashed by AA that I wouldn't accept a

little shot of demerol that my MD offered. I was so fearful that it

would take me right back, I just suffered instead. Go figure.

I see that I am rambling...oh well!

See you,

[Guest guest]

> I don't believe alcohol is well-accepted. They keep lowering the

> acceptable BAC for driving, wine at business lunches is no longer

> acceptable, the drinking age was raised from 18 to 21, and Snuffy

> no longer operates a still. As I get older, alcohol becomes

> less and less tolerated.

Hmmm, interesting points. I do see a trend there.

Yet, I can still go into the liquor store and pretty much buy as much

booze as I want. If I have it in my house, no one will view me as a

criminal. During Prohibition this would not have been the case. I

think attitudes and cultural images do change over time with regard to

this issue.

A long time ago I did some research on heroin and I would have to find

my sources to have the exact thing again, but what I remember is that

heroin was first hailed as the cure for morphine addiction. (duh! )

Some major drug mfgr produced it, I want to say " Bayer " but I really

can't be sure.

Also a long time ago, morphine was used to treat (successfully!)

alcohol addiction. What doctors found was that when people took a

measured dose of morphine daily they tended to stay away from alcohol

quite well. The " high " it produces is not as unpredictable as

alcohol's high and there was much less violence associated with it.

Ahhh, the good old days!

Somewhere along the line, puritans or some such, managed to change the

view of these drugs to the negative images that we were taught. They

also got the law on their side and made these substances illegal.

Along the way they marginalized the people who used them. Part of it

was out and out racism against the Chinese people who used opium and

the association with that.

I guess my whole point here is that perceptions of these things have

changed drastically over the years. Morphine and narcotics are GREAT

drugs! They ease pain with very little side effects. I found it

really interesting that recently JCAHO (Joint Commission for

Accredidation of Health Care Organizations) has made pain relief a

*vital sign.* This is the agency that accredits hospitals and other

health care providers. Accredidation is a " voluntary " procedure, but

try getting paid by an insurance company without it.

People have been undermedicated for pain for years and years in

medical settings because of the stigma of drug addiction. That is

*starting* to change. This JCAHO thing is going to make a big

difference in it.

I don't know if I said it on here before, but I worked as a support

person for a hospice team. Many of our patients were in a great deal

of pain before they died. Morphine helped those people. There were

still a few people who refused " drugs " until the very end. Surely

that is their decision, but I felt it showed strongly how negative the

perception about narcotics is.

When I was giving birth to my daughter, a scheduled c-section, the

anesthesiologist had a button on his lab coat: NO PAIN. Thank-you!

I also remember a time when I was having migraine after migraine, just

clusters, and I was so brainwashed by AA that I wouldn't accept a

little shot of demerol that my MD offered. I was so fearful that it

would take me right back, I just suffered instead. Go figure.

I see that I am rambling...oh well!

See you,

[Guest guest]

> I don't believe alcohol is well-accepted. They keep lowering the

> acceptable BAC for driving, wine at business lunches is no longer

> acceptable, the drinking age was raised from 18 to 21, and Snuffy

> no longer operates a still. As I get older, alcohol becomes

> less and less tolerated.

Hmmm, interesting points. I do see a trend there.

Yet, I can still go into the liquor store and pretty much buy as much

booze as I want. If I have it in my house, no one will view me as a

criminal. During Prohibition this would not have been the case. I

think attitudes and cultural images do change over time with regard to

this issue.

A long time ago I did some research on heroin and I would have to find

my sources to have the exact thing again, but what I remember is that

heroin was first hailed as the cure for morphine addiction. (duh! )

Some major drug mfgr produced it, I want to say " Bayer " but I really

can't be sure.

Also a long time ago, morphine was used to treat (successfully!)

alcohol addiction. What doctors found was that when people took a

measured dose of morphine daily they tended to stay away from alcohol

quite well. The " high " it produces is not as unpredictable as

alcohol's high and there was much less violence associated with it.

Ahhh, the good old days!

Somewhere along the line, puritans or some such, managed to change the

view of these drugs to the negative images that we were taught. They

also got the law on their side and made these substances illegal.

Along the way they marginalized the people who used them. Part of it

was out and out racism against the Chinese people who used opium and

the association with that.

I guess my whole point here is that perceptions of these things have

changed drastically over the years. Morphine and narcotics are GREAT

drugs! They ease pain with very little side effects. I found it

really interesting that recently JCAHO (Joint Commission for

Accredidation of Health Care Organizations) has made pain relief a

*vital sign.* This is the agency that accredits hospitals and other

health care providers. Accredidation is a " voluntary " procedure, but

try getting paid by an insurance company without it.

People have been undermedicated for pain for years and years in

medical settings because of the stigma of drug addiction. That is

*starting* to change. This JCAHO thing is going to make a big

difference in it.

I don't know if I said it on here before, but I worked as a support

person for a hospice team. Many of our patients were in a great deal

of pain before they died. Morphine helped those people. There were

still a few people who refused " drugs " until the very end. Surely

that is their decision, but I felt it showed strongly how negative the

perception about narcotics is.

When I was giving birth to my daughter, a scheduled c-section, the

anesthesiologist had a button on his lab coat: NO PAIN. Thank-you!

I also remember a time when I was having migraine after migraine, just

clusters, and I was so brainwashed by AA that I wouldn't accept a

little shot of demerol that my MD offered. I was so fearful that it

would take me right back, I just suffered instead. Go figure.

I see that I am rambling...oh well!

See you,

[Guest guest]

If I can trust my recollection, all your points are correct.

Except in my case, once when I had morphine in the first few days

after surgery I had terrifying dreams, and I was told this was a side

effect of morphine. I don't know if that's true, or just an old

wives' tale to keep people from requesting morphine, or maybe just my

reaction to morphine. But I was unhappy enough never to want it

again.

I think it's a great step forward that the JCAHO has stated that level

of pain is one of the vital signs. After all, if someone's in great

pain it affects other areas of the body, and also the mind. People

who are adequately medicated for pain recover more quickly, and if

they are terminally ill, why should we officiously care if they are

addicted? I know that during my eight or twelve week recovery from

surgery, our pharmacist at one time told my husband that I had about

reached the limits of the fairly mild, but nevertheless prescription,

painkiller that I could take without becoming addicted. I never

became addicted, I never even wanted the stuff after I didn't need it.

There is something about the juxtaposition of pain and a narcotic

that doesn't make it very desirable. I have also had Dilaudid for

pain, and while it's a wonderful pain reliever, I have never had any

desire to take it if not in extreme pain. I think all this stuff is

greatly overblown.

Here's a horror story for you. Another surgeon told me that a patient

of his had metastasis to the liver of the cancer he had operated on,

and that her life expectancy then could be no more than two years.

When she was still alive after two years, he cut off her pain

medication -- completely!

> > I don't believe alcohol is well-accepted. They keep lowering the

> > acceptable BAC for driving, wine at business lunches is no longer

> > acceptable, the drinking age was raised from 18 to 21, and Snuffy

> > no longer operates a still. As I get older, alcohol becomes

> > less and less tolerated.

>

> Hmmm, interesting points. I do see a trend there.

>

> Yet, I can still go into the liquor store and pretty much buy as

much

> booze as I want. If I have it in my house, no one will view me as a

> criminal. During Prohibition this would not have been the case. I

> think attitudes and cultural images do change over time with regard

to

> this issue.

>

> A long time ago I did some research on heroin and I would have to

find

> my sources to have the exact thing again, but what I remember is

that

> heroin was first hailed as the cure for morphine addiction. (duh!

)

> Some major drug mfgr produced it, I want to say " Bayer " but I

really

> can't be sure.

>

> Also a long time ago, morphine was used to treat (successfully!)

> alcohol addiction. What doctors found was that when people took a

> measured dose of morphine daily they tended to stay away from

alcohol

> quite well. The " high " it produces is not as unpredictable as

> alcohol's high and there was much less violence associated with it.

> Ahhh, the good old days!

>

> Somewhere along the line, puritans or some such, managed to change

the

> view of these drugs to the negative images that we were taught.

They

> also got the law on their side and made these substances illegal.

> Along the way they marginalized the people who used them. Part of

it

> was out and out racism against the Chinese people who used opium and

> the association with that.

>

> I guess my whole point here is that perceptions of these things have

> changed drastically over the years. Morphine and narcotics are

GREAT

> drugs! They ease pain with very little side effects. I found it

> really interesting that recently JCAHO (Joint Commission for

> Accredidation of Health Care Organizations) has made pain relief a

> *vital sign.* This is the agency that accredits hospitals and other

> health care providers. Accredidation is a " voluntary " procedure,

but

> try getting paid by an insurance company without it.

>

> People have been undermedicated for pain for years and years in

> medical settings because of the stigma of drug addiction. That is

> *starting* to change. This JCAHO thing is going to make a big

> difference in it.

>

> I don't know if I said it on here before, but I worked as a support

> person for a hospice team. Many of our patients were in a great

deal

> of pain before they died. Morphine helped those people. There were

> still a few people who refused " drugs " until the very end. Surely

> that is their decision, but I felt it showed strongly how negative

the

> perception about narcotics is.

>

> When I was giving birth to my daughter, a scheduled c-section, the

> anesthesiologist had a button on his lab coat: NO PAIN. Thank-you!

>

> I also remember a time when I was having migraine after migraine,

just

> clusters, and I was so brainwashed by AA that I wouldn't accept a

> little shot of demerol that my MD offered. I was so fearful that it

> would take me right back, I just suffered instead. Go figure.

>

> I see that I am rambling...oh well!

> See you,

>