Re: Universal Drug Testing (no sacred cows in WOD)

[Guest guest]

Rita....this is pretty scary stuff. It is particularly disturbing because it

is apparent that so many citizens are willing to hand over to government more

and more of their personal responsibilites (RE: the school district where

parents begged the school district to 'do something' about the 'drug

problem'). If this trend continues, we will all become, in essence,

'children of the state'. What a horrific thought.

It occurred to me today that cults like AA flourish because so many people

are anxious to look to an outside source as an answer to their problems,

instead of realizing their own ability to solve their own problems. It's

harder to solve one's own problems, and it is certainly not the 'easy answer'

society seems to look for.

I am probably going to stir up some emotion here, but I feel the need to ask

this: I wonder if, instead of blaming AA, the treatment industry, the courts

who have ordered participation, and the psychiatrists/psychologists who have

promoted the 'disease theory' of alcoholism, we assume responsibility for bad

choices, and, in speaking out in this way, if our voices would command

greater respect?

In other words, the treatment industry is consumer driven...it would not

survive without a stream of consumers. The government theoretically performs

a public service, and without backing from a majority of citizens, would not

stand.

I am talking about self-empowerment and belief in self-efficacy. I see that

there is a 'new' movement in the treatment industry which seemingly is

promoting empowerment. What concerns me is that this is being presented in

precisely the same way that all other treatments have been presented...that

there exists 'expert's who can tell us how to become empowered. And, these

'expert's will make money because so many people want to be told what to do.

It is just too difficult to figure it out on one's own.

We already know how to be empowered. It is a matter of believing in our own

power, and in our own ability to effect change (self-efficacy). We do not

need an 'expert' to tell us this...

Sorry for the tangent...and Rita, thank you very much for the links.

Ellen

> Hi list --

>

> Here is the latest news from the frontlines of the lunatic war on

drugs.

> Aside from the accuracy problems (and the 4th Amendment problems!), the

> myopic supporters of these draconian measures cannot possibly fathom that

> drug use does not necessarily equal drug abuse.

>

> http://webtv.webmd.com/content/article/1691.50811

>

> http://webtv.webmd.com/content/article/1691.50522//Living+Better+Feature/pi

>

> ~Rita

[Guest guest]

,

I understand your concerns, and I will try to address them:

arroyoh@... writes:

> . We haven't taken responsibility for our bad choices

We ourselves know we assume responsibility, but the arguments (and I am as

guilty as anyone else here) that I am hearing and reading are about

AA-bashing and industry-bashing. There is a great deal of anger, and with

good reason. But, our critics hear the anger and the criticism, and often

interpret these with an 'having an axe to grind' explanation.

> 2. Our voices would command greater respect if we did (what does this say

> about the level of respect our voices currently have?)

I am not sure we have commanded all that much respect in 'professional'

circles. Even among peers, there are those who would much more likely

respect someone with 'credentials' than someone without them.

It is very powerful to speak from personal experience in a responsible way,

however...for instance, at the risk of this being an 'N=1' type of argument,

I will use myself as an example:

Back in 1983, I entered alcoholism treatment. Up until that time, I used

alcohol to help me cope with certain situations, emotions, etc. I can say

that I was dependent on this drug to help me cope. It was an easy way to

cope because it didn't require too much thinking.

I enter treatment, and, while I knew that I did not feel comfortable in AA,

and I disagreed with many of the concepts in therapy, I remained in therapy,

and in AA sporadically. Why? On some level, it felt good to be dependent on

another person (therapist), and on a program -- good enough to invalidate my

thinking and feelings. This meant that I could ask someone else to give me

answers, and I really didn't have to work all that hard.

It took a severe crisis to make me realize that I had to depend on myself,

and I finally rid myself of the 'need' to be dependent. It was pretty scary

to realize that no one, other than myself, really the answers for me.

In the long run, however, this paid off, because it feels very, very good to

trust in, rely upon, and believe in myself.

So, , if, for example, I submitted an argument against the principles

of AA, would it not be far more effective to write of my own responsibility

(as stated above), and how AA fed into my need for dependence, as opposed to

simply pointing out either how AA harmed me, or how harmful AA is in general?

I have not read much of this type of argument.

> 3. We're blaming AA the treatment industry the courts,

> psychiatrists/psychologists for our lack of responsibility in accepting our

> bad choices.

Didn't say this. We are blaming them for inflicting harm...

> 4. If we take exception to this it's probably going to be on emotional

> grounds.

I say emotional here, because there are some who feel they were coerced into

treatment, and do not see how they were responsible. This may be true, by

the way.

>

> Ellen this is how I read that question but I've been known to be mistaken

> before so I'm not going to respond to this until I hear back from you on

it.

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Ellen

> Re: Universal Drug Testing (no sacred cows in

> WOD)

> I am probably going to stir up some emotion here, but I feel the need to

ask this: I wonder if, instead of blaming AA, >

> the treatment industry, the courts who have ordered participation, and

the psychiatrists/psychologists who have promoted

> the 'disease theory' of alcoholism, we assume responsibility for bad

choices, and, in speaking out in this way, if our

> voices would command greater respect?

Man that's a loaded question. If I'm reading this correctly

1. We haven't taken responsibility for our bad choices

2. Our voices would command greater respect if we did (what does this say

about the level of respect our voices currently have?)

3. We're blaming AA the treatment industry the courts,

psychiatrists/psychologists for our lack of responsibility in accepting our

bad choices.

4. If we take exception to this it's probably going to be on emotional

grounds.

Ellen this is how I read that question but I've been known to be mistaken

before so I'm not going to respond to this until I hear back from you on it.

[Guest guest]

Rita,

Thanks for the articles on universal drug testing.

There is another problem with universal/widespread drug testing in

the schools. It probably turns some kids away from marijuana towards

alcohol. A school official in a nearby small town acknowledged as

much in a recent press article on the success of their drug testing

program.

Does anyone know how the false positive rate is calculated? Does a

10 percent rate, for instance, mean that 10 percent of all positives

are false or does it mean that 10 percent of all those tested are

false positives?

[Guest guest]

Rita,

Yes, I do get the picture. The information I found most striking from the

two links that you sent was this:

>>Lockney district officials say they decided to implement the new policy

after concluding that their schools had a significant and growing drug

problem. The board began discussing the policy in 1997, when 13 indictments

were handed down against local drug dealers.

" The information [police] got from the dealers is that they were selling to

the students, " said Don Henslee, an Austin, Texas, lawyer representing the

Lockney school system. " Based on that, the community literally insisted that

the school system do something in terms of a drug policy. "

It's an outcry that's been heard in school districts across the country. <<

from

http://webtv.webmd.com/content/article/1691.50522//Living+Better+Feature/pi

It appears, in the above article, that it is the COMMUNITY who is actually

the driving force behind the power that the school district now appears to

have (or is trying to have). Rather than relying upon their own

responsibility as parents to guide and instruct their own children, they have

handed over this responsibility to the school district.

So, you ask me who makes these decisions? Based on what I see above (and on

my own personal beliefs), it is the CONSUMER who makes the decisions. The

consumer hands over his or her responsibility to the school district (as

shown above), to the treatment industry ('I can't help myself, please fix

me'), to 12-step groups ('I am unable to control my habit, please help me'),

to the government ('society is out of control, please control it').

When responsibility is handed over, so is power. We have, in effect, given

government the power to control us. We have infantilized ourselves in the

process.

I believe a distinction needs to be made between 'voluntary' and

'involuntary' 12-step attendance. The people who are court-ordered into

treatment do not have responsibility in the selection of 12-step attendance.

However, they are responsible for any crimes committed while under the

influence of a drug.

One then would need to ask why the courts have this power. As I see it, the

first amendment has been blatantly ignored, and society has let this happen.

The hysteria over drug abuse had to arise somewhere. It's my opinion that it

arose within society itself, and the states are merely implementing policies

reflecting public fear and opinion.

Admittedly there is a lot of propaganda out there serving many different

factions from big business to government, and many of us are susceptible to

this propaganda because we have learned not to trust ourselves, but, instead

to trust (or listen to) 'authority'. This 'learning', as I see it, is a

direct result of handing over, or abdicating, responsibility.

Ellen

rita66@... writes:

> But, the question that needs to be asked is, WHO DECIDES WHAT KINDS OF

> CHOICES ARE " BAD " CHOICES? Several states are now instituting policies of

> drug testing for all people arrested for relatively minor crimes -- and if

> they have a " positive " for, say, marijuana or cocaine, they are then forced

> into drug treatment for their " addiction " . Now I ask you, how does one

draw

> a conclusion of " addiction " from the mere presence of traces in urine? The

> treatment industry thrives, in part, because of the ridiculous hysteria in

> this country over " bad " drugs, and the belief that a single usage, or

> occasional usage, is " addiction " , which requires " treatment " ... Get the

> picture?

[Guest guest]

Judith,

Do you mean that you think it is a myth that the general public doesn't agree

with our 12sf attitudes, or do you think it is true that the general public

doesn't agree with our attitudes (perhaps assessment might be a better word

here...:-))?

j_stillwater@... writes:

> More and more I believe the myth

> has been that the majority of people DON'T agree with our 12sf

> attitudes.

>

> In my opinion, the 12 steps don't stop people from drinking, they

> stop

> people from seeing themselves as normal or average. That leads to

> unhealthy side effects, along with the desired outcome of abstinence.

> Even the desired outcome is occasional, certainly cannot be assumed.

>

> good discussion.

>

[Guest guest]

,

I am not implying this at all. What I am saying is that society has allowed

(and even asked for) cohersive mandatory treatment because it has sat back

and said almost nothing about how this practice violates the first amendment.

Also, society has increasingly looked to the government to 'protect' us from

the evils of drug addiction (War on Drugs as an example).

Ellen

arroyoh@... writes:

> You seem to be implying that cohersive mandatory meeting attendance is the

> logical end result of abusive drinking and therefore we should accept

> culpability for it. I completely disagree with that assumption.

>

[Guest guest]

---

Hi Ellen --

You wite:

" I wonder if, instead of blaming AA, the treatment industry, the courts

>who have ordered participation, and the psychiatrists/psychologists who have

>promoted the 'disease theory' of alcoholism, we assume responsibility for bad

>choices, and, in speaking out in this way, if our voices would command

>greater respect?

>

>In other words, the treatment industry is consumer driven...it would not

>survive without a stream of consumers. "

But, the question that needs to be asked is, WHO DECIDES WHAT KINDS OF

CHOICES ARE " BAD " CHOICES? Several states are now instituting policies of drug

testing for all people arrested for relatively minor crimes -- and if they have

a " positive " for, say, marijuana or cocaine, they are then forced into drug

treatment for their " addiction " . Now I ask you, how does one draw a conclusion

of " addiction " from the mere presence of traces in urine? The treatment

industry thrives, in part, because of the ridiculous hysteria in this country

over " bad " drugs, and the belief that a single usage, or occasional usage, is

" addiction " , which requires " treatment " ... Get the picture?

~Rita

----------------

>Rita....this is pretty scary stuff. It is particularly disturbing because it

>is apparent that so many citizens are willing to hand over to government more

>and more of their personal responsibilites (RE: the school district where

>parents begged the school district to 'do something' about the 'drug

>problem'). If this trend continues, we will all become, in essence,

>'children of the state'. What a horrific thought.

>

>It occurred to me today that cults like AA flourish because so many people

>are anxious to look to an outside source as an answer to their problems,

>instead of realizing their own ability to solve their own problems. It's

>harder to solve one's own problems, and it is certainly not the 'easy answer'

>society seems to look for.

>

>I am probably going to stir up some emotion here, but I feel the need to ask

>this: I wonder if, instead of blaming AA, the treatment industry, the courts

>who have ordered participation, and the psychiatrists/psychologists who have

>promoted the 'disease theory' of alcoholism, we assume responsibility for bad

>choices, and, in speaking out in this way, if our voices would command

>greater respect?

>

>In other words, the treatment industry is consumer driven...it would not

>survive without a stream of consumers. The government theoretically performs

>a public service, and without backing from a majority of citizens, would not

>stand.

>

>I am talking about self-empowerment and belief in self-efficacy. I see that

>there is a 'new' movement in the treatment industry which seemingly is

>promoting empowerment. What concerns me is that this is being presented in

>precisely the same way that all other treatments have been presented...that

>there exists 'expert's who can tell us how to become empowered. And, these

>'expert's will make money because so many people want to be told what to do.

>It is just too difficult to figure it out on one's own.

>

>We already know how to be empowered. It is a matter of believing in our own

>power, and in our own ability to effect change (self-efficacy). We do not

>need an 'expert' to tell us this...

>

>Sorry for the tangent...and Rita, thank you very much for the links.

>

>Ellen

>

>

>

>> Hi list --

>>

>> Here is the latest news from the frontlines of the lunatic war on

>drugs.

>> Aside from the accuracy problems (and the 4th Amendment problems!), the

>> myopic supporters of these draconian measures cannot possibly fathom that

>> drug use does not necessarily equal drug abuse.

>>

>> http://webtv.webmd.com/content/article/1691.50811

>>

>> http://webtv.webmd.com/content/article/1691.50522//Living+Better+Feature/pi

>>

>> ~Rita

>

--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--

Before you buy.

[Guest guest]

Judith..thanks for clarifying. You know, I think we are saying similar

things. The general tendency is to 'sit back' and not risk disapproval by

saying unpopular things. I really agree with you.

This, in my view, is because people do not accept responsibility for the

state of affairs. If it does not seem to concern them, then it's somebody

else's problem.

Thanks so much for your input!!!

Ellen

j_stillwater@... writes:

> Hi Ellen. That idea wasn't expressed in the clearest possible way,

> was

> it?

>

> I think most people in the US just want to work, raise their kids,

> and

> not be bothered to toe the line of any belief system other than their

> own. I think almost everyone knows of someone with chemical

> dependency/ addiction, or broader compulsive behavior, issues. If *A

> worked for that person then those around him/her are going to sing

> its

> praises; if not, they are more likely to agree with the type of thing

> we say here.

>

> Whether they agree with us (12sf) or them (12 step supporters), the

> average person (and my perception of average is based on me) is not

> going to openly express an unpopular opinion, because that could

> infringe on their ability to work and raise their kids (survive).

> Diverse voices, such as those to be found here in 12sf, uniting to

> speak the truth eventually break through political and ideological

> barriers.

>

> is basically what I think.

>

> judith

>

[Guest guest]

Judith,

Wow...These figures do seem to indicate that there may be an increasing

dissatisfaction with XA philosophy.

If so, this is very good news indeed. How encouraging!

I like your style, Judith...ALL viewpoints are acceptable. Thanks!!

Also, thanks for looking up these figures...:-)

Ellen

j_stillwater@... writes:

> June-January 1998

> 1450 posts total, avg = 207 posts/month

>

> 1999

> 9376 total, avg = 781 posts/month

>

> 2000 ytd (Jan-Aug)

> 9712 total, avg = 1214 posts/month

[Guest guest]

The treatment industry thrives, in part, because of the ridiculous

hysteria in this country over " bad " drugs, and the belief that a

single usage, or occasional usage, is " addiction " , which

requires " treatment " ... Get the picture?

>

> ~Rita

>

The drug warriors who are now urging treatment for offendors are

guilty of this king of bogus argument. ph Califano's

organization at Columbica University issued a report saying that 80

percent of inmates needed drug or alcohol treatment. Turns out that

they got that figure by including anyone who had used an illegal drug

4 times in a one month period. The percent who said they had

committed a crime to finance a drug habit was much lower--something

like 15 percent.

[Guest guest]

, Ellen: This is an important topic to me. I'm not certain of

the process by which a concept moves from myth to fact in public

perception. I'm currently reading Silence of the Lambs. This book and

movie brought the practice of profiling serial killers into public

consciousness on a large scale, portraying the FBI profilers in a

positive light. However, profiling also leads to

disproportionate, often inappropriate targeting of people of color

when rounding up suspects for a crime.

There was a time, late 80s to early 90s, when I felt that the

prevailing public attitude toward drugs was " zero tolerance. " I

believe this perception came from pop culture, mostly tv. (yeah, I'm

not rotting my brain, I'm observing pop culture, that's the ticket!)

However I was also working in a public health environment then. I was

also a student writing papers about Iran Contra, and what I read in

preparing those reports showed me that the loser in the war on drugs,

at home in the US and abroad, was the little guy. Street dealers in

the US got put in prison, while (allegedly) military and commercial

aircraft were used to transport cocaine into the country to fund an

illegal war in Nicaragua. (Nothing was ever proven according to the

final Special Prosecutor's report, Ollie North took the whole rap and

last I heard he's got a radio show and has run for public office.)

Since Clinton has been in office, pop culture (from my perspective)

reflects a great deal more tolerance for recreational drug use. I

hear

references on prime time, network sitcoms to getting drunk in the

morning, getting drunk, period, as being part of life. Not so much a

normal, everyday thing, as a response to stress.

You could have all kinds of discussions of this topic, from a public

health perspective, from a civil liberties perspective, from a

religious perspective. At some point, though, prevailing public

attitudes do come into play. Politicians listen to their constituents

because they want to be re-elected. More and more I believe the myth

has been that the majority of people DON'T agree with our 12sf

attitudes.

In my opinion, the 12 steps don't stop people from drinking, they

stop

people from seeing themselves as normal or average. That leads to

unhealthy side effects, along with the desired outcome of abstinence.

Even the desired outcome is occasional, certainly cannot be assumed.

good discussion.

judith

> ,

>

> I understand your concerns, and I will try to address them:

>

> arroyoh@h... writes:

>

> > . We haven't taken responsibility for our bad choices

>

> We ourselves know we assume responsibility, but the arguments (and

I

am as

> guilty as anyone else here) that I am hearing and reading are about

> AA-bashing and industry-bashing. There is a great deal of anger,

and with

> good reason. But, our critics hear the anger and the criticism,

and often

> interpret these with an 'having an axe to grind' explanation.

>

> > 2. Our voices would command greater respect if we did (what does

this say

> > about the level of respect our voices currently have?)

>

> I am not sure we have commanded all that much respect in

'professional'

> circles. Even among peers, there are those who would much more

likely

> respect someone with 'credentials' than someone without them.

>

> It is very powerful to speak from personal experience in a

responsible way,

> however...for instance, at the risk of this being an 'N=1' type of

argument,

> I will use myself as an example:

>

> Back in 1983, I entered alcoholism treatment. Up until that time,

I

used

> alcohol to help me cope with certain situations, emotions, etc. I

can say

> that I was dependent on this drug to help me cope. It was an easy

way to

> cope because it didn't require too much thinking.

>

> I enter treatment, and, while I knew that I did not feel

comfortable

in AA,

> and I disagreed with many of the concepts in therapy, I remained in

therapy,

> and in AA sporadically. Why? On some level, it felt good to be

dependent on

> another person (therapist), and on a program -- good enough to

invalidate my

> thinking and feelings. This meant that I could ask someone else to

give me

> answers, and I really didn't have to work all that hard.

>

> It took a severe crisis to make me realize that I had to depend on

myself,

> and I finally rid myself of the 'need' to be dependent. It was

pretty scary

> to realize that no one, other than myself, really the answers for

me.

>

> In the long run, however, this paid off, because it feels very,

very

good to

> trust in, rely upon, and believe in myself.

>

> So, , if, for example, I submitted an argument against the

principles

> of AA, would it not be far more effective to write of my own

responsibility

> (as stated above), and how AA fed into my need for dependence, as

opposed to

> simply pointing out either how AA harmed me, or how harmful AA is

in

general?

>

> I have not read much of this type of argument.

>

> > 3. We're blaming AA the treatment industry the courts,

> > psychiatrists/psychologists for our lack of responsibility in

accepting our

> > bad choices.

>

> Didn't say this. We are blaming them for inflicting harm...

>

> > 4. If we take exception to this it's probably going to be on

emotional

> > grounds.

>

> I say emotional here, because there are some who feel they were

coerced into

> treatment, and do not see how they were responsible. This may be

true, by

> the way.

>

>

> >

> > Ellen this is how I read that question but I've been known to be

mistaken

> > before so I'm not going to respond to this until I hear back

from

you on

> it.

> >

[Guest guest]

> Re: Universal Drug Testing (no sacred cows in

> WOD)

>

>

> ,

>

> I understand your concerns, and I will try to address them:

>

> arroyoh@... writes:

>

> > . We haven't taken responsibility for our bad choices

>

> We ourselves know we assume responsibility, but the arguments

> (and I am as

> guilty as anyone else here) that I am hearing and reading are about

> AA-bashing and industry-bashing. There is a great deal of anger,

> and with

> good reason. But, our critics hear the anger and the criticism,

> and often

> interpret these with an 'having an axe to grind' explanation.

>

> > 2. Our voices would command greater respect if we did (what

> does this say

> > about the level of respect our voices currently have?)

>

> I am not sure we have commanded all that much respect in 'professional'

> circles. Even among peers, there are those who would much more likely

> respect someone with 'credentials' than someone without them.

Agreed that people do tend to flock to credentials even to people with

little experience so long as they're card carriers.

I can't really speak for " we " but I can say that I've given my opinions on

this subject to professionals who've responded

that they were unaware of most of the issues. Respect really wasn't much of

an issue. They weren't aware prior to our conversation they are now.

Whether or not that relates to a change in attitude concerning XA I can't

say.

> It is very powerful to speak from personal experience in a

> responsible way,

> however...for instance, at the risk of this being an 'N=1' type

> of argument,

sniped a little here.

> So, , if, for example, I submitted an argument against the

> principles

> of AA, would it not be far more effective to write of my own

> responsibility

> (as stated above), and how AA fed into my need for dependence, as

> opposed to

> simply pointing out either how AA harmed me, or how harmful AA is

> in general?

Speaking from personal experience is very effective indeed. What's also

effective are anger responses because initially people usually want to know

what you're upset about so it can be effective in initiating dialogue.

> I have not read much of this type of argument.

I've related here before how my behavior with alcohol wasn't exactly

exemplary and that I sought help for my abusive behavior because at some

stage of the game I assumed that I needed it. Also that I had been

preprogrammed to come to that conclusion.

My misbehavior with alcohol, however; comes nowhere near the unacceptable

illegal practice of the government in forcing me to attend AA. On a

comparative scale of 1 to 10 on the misbehavior scale I give my misbehavior

with alcohol a 1 and the actions of the Navy/Marine Corps via it's brand of

trickment a 10. One isn't good but 10 is much worse and I tend to post on

this group in a way that reflects that disparity. For myself I see very

little need to repeatedly acknowledge my previous faults with alcohol when

the treatment industry as a whole refuses to accept any faults of it's own.

Either past or present.

I have no wish to reform XA. I would be appreciative if it were to reform

itself but I would rather see it gone.

>

> > 3. We're blaming AA the treatment industry the courts,

> > psychiatrists/psychologists for our lack of responsibility in

> accepting our

> > bad choices.

>

> Didn't say this. We are blaming them for inflicting harm...

Ok but that's how I read it.

> > 4. If we take exception to this it's probably going to be on emotional

> > grounds.

>

> I say emotional here, because there are some who feel they were

> coerced into

> treatment, and do not see how they were responsible. This may be

> true, by

> the way.

>

In the sense that anger is an emotion I'd have to agree with you. You may

get some angry responses. I don't believe for a minute that I hold any

culpability for being illegally shunted into AA. I believe my employer had

an obligation to provide the assistance which I sought which does not equate

to giving them the authority to conduct themselves illegally nor that my

request for assistance led them to illegal activity. They did that on their

own. I accept no responsibility for their illegal activity only my

misbehavior with alcohol.

You seem to be implying that cohersive mandatory meeting attendance is the

logical end result of abusive drinking and therefore we should accept

culpability for it. I completely disagree with that assumption.

[Guest guest]

> Re: Universal Drug Testing (no sacred cows in

> WOD)

>

>

> , Ellen: This is an important topic to me. I'm not certain of

> the process by which a concept moves from myth to fact in public

> perception.

I'm not sure either but I suspect when people see XA's insisting that XA has

saved their lives it tends to stick with people especially if that person

has shown a substantial turn around.

>I'm currently reading Silence of the Lambs. This book and

> movie brought the practice of profiling serial killers into public

> consciousness on a large scale, portraying the FBI profilers in a

> positive light. However, profiling also leads to

> disproportionate, often inappropriate targeting of people of color

> when rounding up suspects for a crime.

I have given profiling some thought in the past. I think it's used as an

excuse to condone what law enforcement had already been doing. It just

gives them the PC justification they didn't have previous to " profiling " .

> There was a time, late 80s to early 90s, when I felt that the

> prevailing public attitude toward drugs was " zero tolerance. " I

> believe this perception came from pop culture, mostly tv. (yeah, I'm

> not rotting my brain, I'm observing pop culture, that's the ticket!)

> However I was also working in a public health environment then. I was

> also a student writing papers about Iran Contra, and what I read in

> preparing those reports showed me that the loser in the war on drugs,

> at home in the US and abroad, was the little guy. Street dealers in

> the US got put in prison, while (allegedly) military and commercial

> aircraft were used to transport cocaine into the country to fund an

> illegal war in Nicaragua. (Nothing was ever proven according to the

> final Special Prosecutor's report, Ollie North took the whole rap and

> last I heard he's got a radio show and has run for public office.)

Old Ollie has taken on the mantle of a Marine Corps folk hero. When the

investigators were in his office he distracted them while his clerks were

passing to and fro in front of them destroying the very documents they were

there to collect. So the legend says and I believe it.

> Since Clinton has been in office, pop culture (from my perspective)

> reflects a great deal more tolerance for recreational drug use. I

> hear

> references on prime time, network sitcoms to getting drunk in the

> morning, getting drunk, period, as being part of life. Not so much a

> normal, everyday thing, as a response to stress.

With the immergence of Hip Hop and Rap as well as alternative music it's

become all the rage to loudly declare what's on your mind. I think people

felt this way all the time but it wasn't PC. As popular culture reflected

these beliefs more and more people espoused them without fear of being non

PC.

> In my opinion, the 12 steps don't stop people from drinking, they

> stop

> people from seeing themselves as normal or average. That leads to

> unhealthy side effects, along with the desired outcome of abstinence.

> Even the desired outcome is occasional, certainly cannot be assumed.

Agreed. I'm really digging that link Dave sent to the list.

[Guest guest]

>

> > -----Original Message-----

> > From: Judith Stillwater [mailto:j_stillwater@e...]

> > (Nothing was ever proven according to

the final Special Prosecutor's report, Ollie North took the whole rap

and last I heard he's got a radio show and has run for public office.)

> Old Ollie has taken on the mantle of a Marine Corps folk hero.

When

the investigators were in his office he distracted them while his

clerks were passing to and fro in front of them destroying the very

documents they were there to collect. So the legend says and I

believe it.

I read an excellent book by a former DEA agent, I'm sure I could find

the author and title if I sifted through my notes from school. He was

in Latin America during the height of Iran Contra and saw the whole

operation up close and personal. The first section of his book was

about his experience in Viet Nam, and the prevalence of heroin use in

that environment (along with the insane war activity he experienced

firsthand). I assumed that the implicit message (he never made any

explicit accusations re: government involvement in the ready

availability of heroin to American soldiers) was that heroin use was

acceptable because it enabled the soldiers to participate in a war

that was 1) hugely unpopular at home, and 2) hellacious for many

other

reasons never remotely grasped by those of us who were never there.

Many's the time I wish I had ripped that book off, I wonder if I

could

still get my hands on it somehow? It was the kind of thing that

probably sold about 100 copies. At the end he said he had lost his

job

at the DEA because he tried to bring US involvement in drug

trafficking to light, so I imagine he was discredited in a big way.

judith

[Guest guest]

You're definitely more up on Old Ollie than I. I don't think he ever has to

worry about a steady source of income after his performance at the televised

hearings. Although it's a distant memory now I recall thinking at the time

that he handled himself rather well. That he was being evasive and even

lied I think is a given. Those were the Reagan years though and you know

about those Republicans (JK) I suppose those traits come in rather handy

for someone looking to become an elected official. OUCH!

> Re: Universal Drug Testing (no sacred cows in

> WOD)

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Ellen. That idea wasn't expressed in the clearest possible way,

was

it?

I think most people in the US just want to work, raise their kids,

and

not be bothered to toe the line of any belief system other than their

own. I think almost everyone knows of someone with chemical

dependency/ addiction, or broader compulsive behavior, issues. If *A

worked for that person then those around him/her are going to sing

its

praises; if not, they are more likely to agree with the type of thing

we say here.

Whether they agree with us (12sf) or them (12 step supporters), the

average person (and my perception of average is based on me) is not

going to openly express an unpopular opinion, because that could

infringe on their ability to work and raise their kids (survive).

Diverse voices, such as those to be found here in 12sf, uniting to

speak the truth eventually break through political and ideological

barriers.

is basically what I think.

judith

> Judith,

>

> Do you mean that you think it is a myth that the general public

doesn't agree

> with our 12sf attitudes, or do you think it is true that the

general

public

> doesn't agree with our attitudes (perhaps assessment might be a

better word

> here...:-))?

>

> j_stillwater@e... writes:

>

> > More and more I believe the myth

> > has been that the majority of people DON'T agree with our 12sf

> > attitudes.

> >

> > In my opinion, the 12 steps don't stop people from drinking, they

> > stop

> > people from seeing themselves as normal or average. That leads

to

> > unhealthy side effects, along with the desired outcome of

abstinence.

> > Even the desired outcome is occasional, certainly cannot be

assumed.

> >

> > good discussion.

> >

[Guest guest]

Political policy makers make policy based on their perception of what the

public wants. On what do they base their perceptions? On studies that show

the effectiveness of treatment? or on the general sense of fear in our

communities about drugs? Are these fears realistic? According to crime

stats over several decades they really aren't.

Fundies tend to be the loudest factions on conservative issues so their

voices are often the ones heard because they're the only ones doing the

talking. Most of us to one extent or another believe the old adage if it

aint broke don't fix it. It seems at times that fundies think everything's

broke because they want their input to predominate everything. So on one

side you've got the fundies blathering on and on and on about everything and

others blathering about their particular interests and the somewhat content

majority staying silent. Whether that silence is based on ignorance I cant

say. I do know that too often the fundy blathering is based on ignorance

and fear.

Meanwhile the policy maker who's probably well aware of the actual stats on

crime makes the politically expedient decision to support who? The somewhat

content silent majority? No I don't think that's it. How about those of us

blathering about our particular interest? Well we're making noises he can

hear but it's not as loud a racket as the fundies are making. So the

fundies win it hands down. He's got a problem now though. He has to decide

how he's going to sell to the silent majority the absolute need for spending

prodigious amounts of their tax dollars on crime when the stats don't really

support it. How does he do that. Well if he's smart he'll catch hold of

the news media and feed their sensationalistic tendencies with reports on

the steps he's taking to curb that ungodly crime rate and he'll give them

skewed stats to boot. If he's really smart he'll throw in the drug and

alcohol stats to prove that they're what's behind the crime rate in the

first place.

Meanwhile the somewhat content silent majority has been standing by watching

the news reports and reading the papers and talking amongst each other and

they've decided that there really is a crime crises in this country. I mean

there must be it's been all over the media and look at Senator X he's

building yet another prison or two but not in my back yard thank god.

Senator X the news media and the fundies have done a bang em up job of

convincing society that it's broke and that they've got the answer on just

how it needs to be fixed. All of which started based on the opinions of the

moralistic minority.

So I have to say I disagree with you when you say society agrees and has

asked for government intersession. That is to say society does ask for it

but the government and the fundies have orchestrated the request for

assistance from the get go by creating and feeding the fears, of the silent

majority, in the first place.

Society as a whole has absolutely no clue what goes on in the treatment

industry to include knowing that there are people cohersively cycled in and

out of treatment more often then the number of cycles on an expensive

washing machine. They don't care about it because they don't know about it.

They're far more concerned about the cycles in their washing machine because

it's important to their every day lives.

If people with religious leanings, who have looked at AA, can't figure out

that it's inimical to their own faith it's asking a bit much that Society

will come to the conclusion that XA is about as bad for it as a reoccurrence

of the black plague would be without help in coming to that conclusion.

> Re: Universal Drug Testing (no sacred cows in

> WOD)

>

>

> ,

>

> I am not implying this at all. What I am saying is that society

> has allowed

> (and even asked for) cohersive mandatory treatment because it has

> sat back

> and said almost nothing about how this practice violates the

> first amendment.

> Also, society has increasingly looked to the government to

> 'protect' us from

> the evils of drug addiction (War on Drugs as an example).

>

> Ellen

>

>

>

> arroyoh@... writes:

>

> > You seem to be implying that cohersive mandatory meeting

> attendance is the

> > logical end result of abusive drinking and therefore we should accept

> > culpability for it. I completely disagree with that assumption.

> >

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Regardless of whether we agree or disagree (and I'm inclined to agree

that we are saying similar things), you have made a positive

contribution to 12sf. You've shared information, and you've shared

your own perspective, which is all any of us can do. Well no, we

could

do more, but most of us are under a lot of pressure to fulfill a lot

of different obligations. My point is, just talking about it honestly

makes an impact that is as yet unpredictable.

Take a look at how 12sf has grown since it was started. The following

info is from the main page on egroups.

June-January 1998

1450 posts total, avg = 207 posts/month

1999

9376 total, avg = 781 posts/month

2000 ytd (Jan-Aug)

9712 total, avg = 1214 posts/month

People are talking more and more. They have attitudes ranging from

reform of *A to...well, more extreme attitudes, let's leave it at

that

I'm too lazy to compile stats on troll activity but it's safe to

assume Ken keeps the trolls effectively at bay, so trolls are not

artificially inflating posting rates.

anyhoo...just keep talking, that's my approach.

judith

> Judith..thanks for clarifying. You know, I think we are saying

similar

> things. The general tendency is to 'sit back' and not risk

disapproval by

> saying unpopular things. I really agree with you.

>

> This, in my view, is because people do not accept responsibility

for

the

> state of affairs. If it does not seem to concern them, then it's

somebody

> else's problem.

>

> Thanks so much for your input!!!

>

> Ellen

[Guest guest]

I am afraid I have to disagree with you also.

" Justice will only be achieved when those who are not injured by crime

feel as indignant as those who are. "

-- King

kayleighs@... writes:

> agree that most people are ignorant. And I can't say I blame them.

> Gathering information is enormously time-consuming, and most people

> don't have that kind of time. Even if they do, unless their own

> house

> has been raided, why should they be more interested in addiction

> treatment and its basis than in, say, highway funding or utility

> deregulation?

>

> We are a nation of experts and we are accustomed to relying on

> experts, and why should we not? We know experts will sometimes be

> wrong, but no one can be an expert in everything.

>

[Guest guest]

Don't think this got thru on first send.

I am afraid I have to disagree with you also.

" Justice will only be achieved when those who are not injured by crime

feel as indignant as those who are. "

-- King

>

> kayleighs@... writes:

>

> > agree that most people are ignorant. And I can't say I blame them.

> > Gathering information is enormously time-consuming, and most people

> > don't have that kind of time. Even if they do, unless their own

> > house

> > has been raided, why should they be more interested in addiction

> > treatment and its basis than in, say, highway funding or utility

> > deregulation?

> >

> > We are a nation of experts and we are accustomed to relying on

> > experts, and why should we not? We know experts will sometimes be

> > wrong, but no one can be an expert in everything.

> >

>

I am afraid I have to disagree with you also.

" Justice will only be achieved when those who are not injured by crime

feel as indignant as those who are. "

-- King

kayleighs@... writes:

> agree that most people are ignorant. And I can't say I blame them.

> Gathering information is enormously time-consuming, and most people

> don't have that kind of time. Even if they do, unless their own

> house

> has been raided, why should they be more interested in addiction

> treatment and its basis than in, say, highway funding or utility

> deregulation?

>

> We are a nation of experts and we are accustomed to relying on

> experts, and why should we not? We know experts will sometimes be

> wrong, but no one can be an expert in everything.

>

[Guest guest]

I agree that most people are ignorant. And I can't say I blame them.

Gathering information is enormously time-consuming, and most people

don't have that kind of time. Even if they do, unless their own

house

has been raided, why should they be more interested in addiction

treatment and its basis than in, say, highway funding or utility

deregulation?

We are a nation of experts and we are accustomed to relying on

experts, and why should we not? We know experts will sometimes be

wrong, but no one can be an expert in everything.

> Political policy makers make policy based on their perception of

what the

> public wants. On what do they base their perceptions? On studies

that show

> the effectiveness of treatment? or on the general sense of fear in

our

> communities about drugs? Are these fears realistic? According to

crime

> stats over several decades they really aren't.

>

> Fundies tend to be the loudest factions on conservative issues so

their

> voices are often the ones heard because they're the only ones doing

the

> talking. Most of us to one extent or another believe the old adage

if it

> aint broke don't fix it. It seems at times that fundies think

everything's

> broke because they want their input to predominate everything. So

on one

> side you've got the fundies blathering on and on and on about

everything and

> others blathering about their particular interests and the somewhat

content

> majority staying silent. Whether that silence is based on

ignorance

I cant

> say. I do know that too often the fundy blathering is based on

ignorance

> and fear.

>

> Meanwhile the policy maker who's probably well aware of the actual

stats on

> crime makes the politically expedient decision to support who? The

somewhat

> content silent majority? No I don't think that's it. How about

those of us

> blathering about our particular interest? Well we're making noises

he can

> hear but it's not as loud a racket as the fundies are making. So

the

> fundies win it hands down. He's got a problem now though. He has

to decide

> how he's going to sell to the silent majority the absolute need for

spending

> prodigious amounts of their tax dollars on crime when the stats

don't really

> support it. How does he do that. Well if he's smart he'll catch

hold of

> the news media and feed their sensationalistic tendencies with

reports on

> the steps he's taking to curb that ungodly crime rate and he'll

give

them

> skewed stats to boot. If he's really smart he'll throw in the drug

and

> alcohol stats to prove that they're what's behind the crime rate in

the

> first place.

>

> Meanwhile the somewhat content silent majority has been standing by

watching

> the news reports and reading the papers and talking amongst each

other and

> they've decided that there really is a crime crises in this

country.

I mean

> there must be it's been all over the media and look at Senator X

he's

> building yet another prison or two but not in my back yard thank

god.

>

> Senator X the news media and the fundies have done a bang em up job

of

> convincing society that it's broke and that they've got the answer

on just

> how it needs to be fixed. All of which started based on the

opinions of the

> moralistic minority.

>

> So I have to say I disagree with you when you say society agrees

and

has

> asked for government intersession. That is to say society does ask

for it

> but the government and the fundies have orchestrated the request for

> assistance from the get go by creating and feeding the fears, of

the

silent

> majority, in the first place.

>

> Society as a whole has absolutely no clue what goes on in the

treatment

> industry to include knowing that there are people cohersively

cycled

in and

> out of treatment more often then the number of cycles on an

expensive

> washing machine. They don't care about it because they don't know

about it.

> They're far more concerned about the cycles in their washing

machine

because

> it's important to their every day lives.

>

> If people with religious leanings, who have looked at AA, can't

figure out

> that it's inimical to their own faith it's asking a bit much that

Society

> will come to the conclusion that XA is about as bad for it as a

reoccurrence

> of the black plague would be without help in coming to that

conclusion.

>

>

>

>

> > Re: Universal Drug Testing (no sacred

cows

in

> > WOD)

> >

> >

> > ,

> >

> > I am not implying this at all. What I am saying is that society

> > has allowed

> > (and even asked for) cohersive mandatory treatment because it has

> > sat back

> > and said almost nothing about how this practice violates the

> > first amendment.

> > Also, society has increasingly looked to the government to

> > 'protect' us from

> > the evils of drug addiction (War on Drugs as an example).

> >

> > Ellen

> >

> >

> >

> > arroyoh@h... writes:

> >

> > > You seem to be implying that cohersive mandatory meeting

> > attendance is the

> > > logical end result of abusive drinking and therefore we should

accept

> > > culpability for it. I completely disagree with that

assumption.

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

This is not possible. It is simply not possible. Talk to a victim's

advocate in a courthouse before drawing that conclusion. King

lived in simpler times.

Perhaps I should have said " addiction treatment and its basis than

in,

say, rape or insurance fraud? "

> I am afraid I have to disagree with you also.

>

> " Justice will only be achieved when those who are not injured by

crime

> feel as indignant as those who are. "

> -- King

>

>

> kayleighs@m... writes:

>

> > agree that most people are ignorant. And I can't say I blame

them.

> > Gathering information is enormously time-consuming, and most

people

> > don't have that kind of time. Even if they do, unless their own

> > house

> > has been raided, why should they be more interested in addiction

> > treatment and its basis than in, say, highway funding or utility

> > deregulation?

> >

> > We are a nation of experts and we are accustomed to relying on

> > experts, and why should we not? We know experts will sometimes

be

> > wrong, but no one can be an expert in everything.

> >

[Guest guest]

This is not possible. It is simply not possible. Talk to a victim's

advocate in a courthouse before drawing that conclusion. King

lived in simpler times.

Perhaps I should have said " addiction treatment and its basis than

in,

say, rape or insurance fraud? "

> I am afraid I have to disagree with you also.

>

> " Justice will only be achieved when those who are not injured by

crime

> feel as indignant as those who are. "

> -- King

>

>

> kayleighs@m... writes:

>

> > agree that most people are ignorant. And I can't say I blame

them.

> > Gathering information is enormously time-consuming, and most

people

> > don't have that kind of time. Even if they do, unless their own

> > house

> > has been raided, why should they be more interested in addiction

> > treatment and its basis than in, say, highway funding or utility

> > deregulation?

> >

> > We are a nation of experts and we are accustomed to relying on

> > experts, and why should we not? We know experts will sometimes

be

> > wrong, but no one can be an expert in everything.

> >