Papa bear.

I also remember a time in NSW when more than a couple of drug rehab programs were run like cults. One of the reasons the field embraced training and professionalism was to avoid a reoccurance of similar situations. Now it seems the field has come full circle. With DFA, the Scientologist and a number of others declaring that they alone have “the answer” the drug problem and receiving govt funds.

More than once I have sought advice via the ADCA Update on how to address the needs of clients who have experienced permanent psychological, physical and sexual harm inflicted by the religions of which they had been members.

I believe that the basic training of D&A counsellors should include “exit” counselling, because so much of our work includes trying to help people heal from some of the “help” they have received in the past.

Gayle

I am willing to bet that those professionals who intervene and cause trouble for FASD sufferers also support faith based initiatives and ‘tough love’ treatment for drug addicts.

Terry, this unfortunately is not always the case. Professionals unfortunately are not always more knowledgeable than the parents. Take FASD for example – here in Australia the majority of ATODS professionals (or other health professionals for that matter) know very little about the impact of FASD or how to deal with a client who has FASD. Because of their lack of knowledge their intervention often exacerbates the clients condition. It is the parents who have done the research, read the scientific papers and attended the international conferences and it is the parents who have become the information source for the providers rather than the other way round. This is an untenable situation.

I have many friends whose drug use over the years would make you cringe with fear that society is crumbling. But generally speaking most people in their early 20′s who flirt with drugs will grow out of it with no ill effects, just like those who continue. Use of illegal drugs should not be a crime, and in some cases is less dangerous than smoking or drinking. Or eating peanuts.

Many drug users whom I know have important, extremely well paid jobs.

And all of them can make a better argument than you.

Each and every argument you make is shown to be wrong. You have only provided more sanctimonious dribble to be disproved once again. How about dealing with the first lot of lies.

“Anyone knowing anything about the drug recovery process understands at least the following salient points”

This simply sums up that your idea of drug treatment is confined to a small group of misguided, arrogant, selfish, ignorant, agenda driven, reality absent, non-medical, holier-than-thou zealots. You people are the parasites of the ‘junkie industry’ being that you do not contribute any scientific, psychiatric or medical input. You survive only by introducing an extra variable called morality that is not even part of this medical issue. The point is, you’re irrelevant and only exist because you have forced your way in by playing on the public’s ignorance and fear.

I must admit though, I love your reference to outspoken, right wing ultra-conservative and HR critic David Berner as some sort of proof for your argument. Canada’s own Andrew Bolt/Tim Blair. Even better are the references to Canadian Health Minister Tony Clement. Now he’s a winner. LOL.

These people are as deceitful as you. Saying “the vast majority of injections still take place in back alleys and seedy hotels” when Insite can only service 5% of the injecting population is just typical. Also saying “The centre’s $3-million annual cost would be better spent elsewhere” is not true because Insite has been deemed a success. Or “We recognize that the best recovery programs are those like AA, which cost very little money and large investments of time and effort by people who care and people who KNOW THE TERRITORY”. Or “If all of that money or even a small portion of it were dedicated to treatment, our addiction problems would be considerably relieved”. All not true thus all are lies. I can see a pattern here.

I could go on for hours.

I think this following sentence sums up your selfish ideology you try to pass off as caring for the drug addicted.

“I would argue that to a large degree, the addict is unable to soberly choose what is right for them anymore. Their loss of dignity and health speaks to that so we must be compassionate and steer them into treatment”.

Interpretation:

An addict is an undignified sinner who is unworthy of respect and must be forced to into abstinence or go to jail (compassionately of course), regardless of the medical research and evidence that they might not be psychologically ready and will most probably relapse.

1) The primary issue that an addict needs to face is his/her relationship with their drug of choice. Period. Addicts need the cure, not the poison. It’s not about needles or crack pipes. We can’t solve problems of permissiveness with more permissiveness. Abstinence within a proper treatment setting is the answer. Sweden has 1/3 of the drug problems as the rest of Europe because they aim for a ‘drug free society’. This is not an achievable goal but, as with the complete elimination of child molestation which is also unattainable, it is nonetheless a worthy aim and one that is worth fighting.
2) No one has ever died or gotten a drug-related illness while in proper treatment. To be truly compassionate, you don’t give an addict what they want (drugs, needles, shooting galleries, crack pipes, etc.), you give them what they need (treatment, life skills training job skills training, etc.).
3) The secret to winning the battle of drug addiction is hard work, as with decent long-term treatment following the Therapeutic Treatment Model (San Patrignano in Italy, ‘Inner Visions’ in New Westminster, or the ‘Welcome Home Society’, in Surrey). Since 1978, San Patrignano has taken in over 18,000 people, offering them a home, healthcare, legal assistance, and the opportunity to study, learn a job, change their lives, and regain their status as full members of society.
4) We must be judgmental about an addict’s drug-related behaviour, not who they are as people. We owe it to those whom we are caring for. Harm Reduction proponents want to reduce the harms done by an addict to him/herself and possibly the community but without being judgmental about their drug use. This is a growth factor in the junkie industry, as those being afflicted by drug use are allowed to freefall through society until they hit the Skids and roll into the grave. The farce behind the HR saying of “Getting them where they are at” is self-evident. Why not get them where they are at when they dropped out of school or lost their job after first starting to use drugs (or have decent prevention practices in place to begin with)? Because that would be judgmental. Shame on us!
5) There is a marked shift in an addict’s mindset after sobriety is reached. During active use, everything they do and say backs up their need to get their next fix. In drug survival mode, they will lie, cheat, rob and steal from their own mother. They are in a clouded state of mind with poisons coursing through their systems. Harm Reduction does little to dissuade them from using drugs, regardless of what the proponents say. After detoxifying and getting on the road to recovery, the vast majority of addicts denounce the enabling and condoning aspects of Harm Reduction as that which kept them stuck in their addiction.
6) After 20 years of harm reduction, you may have a live addict and most certainly a diseased one (40% share needles due to the frailties of the human character), but after two decades of treatment-related modalities, a far healthier and productive citizen emerges.
7) Those in the thriving ‘junkie industry’ are tossing lifesavers made out of blood-soaked meat to the hapless shipwreck victims who have gone overboard with their drug ‘experimentation’ in cold, shark-infested waters. All this is done under the banner of compassion mind you, as we must not take away their ‘freedom of choice’. That would be judgmental of us. I would argue that to a large degree, the addict is unable to soberly choose what is right for them anymore. Their loss of dignity and health speaks to that so we must be compassionate and steer them into treatment. The surviving addict population in the DTES is so sick now compared to that of the late 80’s. It is shameful to facilitate disease and death in this manner.

Health Minister Tony Clement has finally set a new, healthy and prosperous course for Canadian drug policy. The efforts behind the ‘Four Pillars Model’ (prevention, treatment, enforcement, and harm reduction) have been in vain, if you pardon the pun, because there has been too much emphasis on the so-called harm ‘reduction’ components. As outspoken HR critic David Berner recently posted on his blog:

“[Health Minister] Clement is bucking all the accepted wisdom and all the official stories about safe injection sites. Like you, he knows that these are hideous mistakes that help very few. He knows that numbers and facts have been endlessly manipulated by doctors and social workers and politicos to support a program that is a deadly waste…Addressing the Canadian Medical Association, Clement said, “Over the last five years, while Insite has been operating, we could have provided treatment to 5,000 addicts. Instead, during that time, 250 addicts have died of drug overdose alone,” adding that the vast majority of injections still take place in back alleys and seedy hotels, and the centre’s $3-million annual cost would be better spent elsewhere. Of course, he has been viciously attacked for stating the politically incorrect truth.” (thebernermonologues.blogspot.com:80)

Herschel Baker: “The inevitable intoxicating effect of illicit drugs distinguishes these substances from alcohol and tobacco.”

One standard drink causes a degree of intoxication. That’s the point isn’t it? Otherwise we would all be drinking chocolate milk, soft drink or non alcohol wine. For the purposely ignorant, “a few drinks” has no effect. Not true. Alcohol gives you a mild relaxation effect from one standard drink. About the same effect as one Valium, a few puffs on a joint, a small amount of opiates like morphine or heroin. This old argument of “a few drinks versus getting stoned” was dismissed decades ago but the anti-drug crusaders continue to play on the public’s ignorance. The fallacy that drug users cannot vary their intake like drinkers do is part of the lie that any use of illicit drugs deems the user instantly “out of their mind”. Repeating the same old lies over and over will never actually make it true.

Herschel Baker: “It is difficult to conceive of how one can justify distributing dangerous and addictive drugs to those that desire them and at the same time require a prescription for potentially helpful medicines such as antibiotics.”

Again, more lies. How many drug law reformists support the open sale of hard drugs? No one I know and it’s not the goal of any of the major anti-prohibition groups. Herschel Baker and co. know this but shamefully they continue to deceive the public It’s this disingenuous tripe that is the only way to keep themselves relevant. Repeating the same old lies over and over will never actually make it true.

Herschel Baker: “Illicit drug use is wrong. It enslaves the user and victimizes all of society. The current law reflects our overwhelming recognition of that fact”.

And again, more lies. The current laws DO NOT reflect the harms of drugs. Alcohol and tobacco being legal proves this. Repeating the same old lies over and over will never actually make it true.

The underlying theme is that “Illicit drug use is wrong”. This type of misguided personal opinion is the basis for causing over a million deaths and massive suffering. Attempts to halt science and common sense drug policies continue to cause untold suffering around the world whilst twits like Herschel bask in their self righteous glory of evangelism and/or conservative ideology.

Their selfish motives are not about better treatment for addicts or helping people. I doubt that any well grounded person especially a dedicated Christian could support their deception and cruel, non compassionate dogma.

Read more here:
http://theaustralianheroindiaries.blogspot.com/2009/02/lies-deceit-dfa-and-herschel-baker.html