54b69282   
   XPost: alt.support.chronic-pain, sci.med, alt.health   
   XPost: misc.consumers   
   From: stan@surecann.com   
      
   Brother Nate  wrote in   
   news:4921eb47-c7aa-46d7-9863-b7ab7a0e6d51@s5g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:   
      
   > oldgoat wrote:   
   >> Dear Brother Nate,   
   >>   
   >> Please belabor and keep commenting on it. There's no question the   
   >> stigma   
   > of   
   >> drug abusers follow us around, and the majority of pharmacists   
   >> doctors, a   
   > nd   
   >> the general public buy in to whatever BS the media has to offer,   
   >> usually more fiction than fact and folks like the DEA blow thing so   
   >> out of proportion. It's all crap and we are outnumbered  to the point   
   >> where th   
   > e   
   >> truth is no longer relative and the public only cares about what   
   >> titillat   
   > es   
   >> their boring hum drum lives.   
   >   
   > The reason I don't want to belabor my point is rooted in   
   > my primary motivation - I want to persuade individuals to   
   > take less unnecessary risks and hence reduce the harms   
   > of drug abuse on a person by person basis.   
      
   Although I applaud your efforts to reduce drug abuse, I disagree with   
   your method.  I have known many abusers that have quit abusing drugs   
   through drug centers and whatnot.  Usually, they are removed from the   
   environment where they have abused drugs.  Eventually, they return to the   
   environment where they run into "old friends" and go right back to the   
   drugs.   
      
   The solution to this problem is to change the environment while   
   counseling the individuals.  The approach that has been taken has been to   
   outlaw drugs which has also been a failure.  Making drugs illegal has not   
   made any changes to the environment, has turned a health problem into a   
   crime problem, locked up many depressed or otherwise mentally troubled   
   people, and cost billions of dollars.   
      
   I think we could do so much better by changing the environment that   
   exacerbates the problems leading to drug abuse.  Create jobs, better   
   schools, proper sanitation, etc. to raise incomes in poverty areas.  Make   
   the lives of people living in these areas better giving kids a brighter   
   future so they do not grow up with low self esteem, depression and   
   rebelliousness.  If the environment is a happy, healthy, decent place to   
   live, far fewer kids will begin using drugs.   
      
   Another method to improve the environment would be to remove the criminal   
   penalties, instead of treating drug abuse as a crime, treat it as the   
   health problem that it really is.  Educate people by giving the truthful   
   dangers of drugs without the phony scare tactics.  You'd be surprised how   
   many people can tell the difference between the truth and the lies.   
      
   After improving the environment, we can begin to work on the existing   
   addicts.  They will respond to treatment much better knowing that they   
   are not facing criminal penalties and the treatment will be longer   
   lasting when they return to an environment where they can get jobs, not   
   be branded as criminals, and not be surrouded by addicts.   
      
   >   
   > As any college student who's listened to my old friend   
   > Brother Jed can tell you, Jed is a confrontational evangelist   
   > who visits college campuses and gets in peoples' faces,   
   > sometimes not in a nice way.  He does bring out a lot of   
   > listeners, but by being insulting or insensitive almost all   
   > of them then walk away with the conviction, not that he   
   > might be right about a few things but rather determined   
   > that he's probably wrong about almost everything.   
      
   College students require a different approach than the poverty stricken I   
   discussed above.  College students need an approach much like we have   
   approached the cigarrete smoking problem.  First, as above, tell the   
   truth, don't lie.  Next, these kids are very social so campaign against   
   drugs by changing the attitude to socially unacceptable.  Many of these   
   kids experiment with drugs because they are getting out into the world   
   unsupervised for the first time.  It is natural for them to "cut   
   loose."  Make it clear that alchohol is just another drug and that none   
   of the drugs are acceptable.   
      
   As long as alchohol and other drugs are treated differently, the sharp   
   college students will continue to get the message that alchohol is OK.   
   Marijuana is not the gateway drug, alchohol is!  The kids are very smart;   
   they know alchohol is far worse for them than many of the illegal drugs.   
   And with society's approval of alchohol, why not try the less harmful   
   heroin?  Or the misinterpreted meth?   
      
   I say misinterpreted meth because the kids do misinterpret the messages   
   society sends and when asked, many will say meth is less harmful between   
   it and alchohol.  In actuality, meth is the most dangerous drug known to   
   man.  Tell them that.  Tell them how it fries the brain while burning the   
   body out at the same time.  Show them the rotten teeth caused by "meth   
   mouth."  Let's not continue confusing them by saying alchohol is OK.   
      
   >   
   > The stereotype of the crazy activist on the internet has   
   > its roots in people like Jed.  And it's a shame because   
   > Jed is a Methodist which isn't what I'd call a radical   
   > apocalyptic fringe cult of Christianity.  A lot of people   
   > derive comfort from religious belief, but the thing is   
   > that very few of the ones Jed loudly and flamboyantly   
   > confronts end up becoming Methodists.  He does   
   > deserve credit for provoking people to think about   
   > their behavior, so they come away as better people   
   > from having thought about it, but more than 99% of   
   > the time what that means is that they're better Jews   
   > or Catholics or Muslims or atheists.   
      
   Currently, the drug laws are based upon the religious moral attitude that   
   drug use is immoral.  This is another very confusing stance.  What is the   
   difference between sitting at home nodding from heroin and sitting at   
   home stinking drunk.  Why is one moral and the other not?  Why is it   
   moral to take drugs for pain and not moral to use the very same drug to   
   relax for a while?  We're telling them it's perfectly fine to have a few   
   beers to relax, but not a pill or two.  Let's stop mixing the messages.   
      
   >   
   >> We have only one weapon with which to fight back, but it's a dilly.   
   >> Education. The public is not inherently evil or intentionally evil.   
   >> When they are in a pack is when they get out of hand. We need to   
   >> reach out and educate, and don't get discouraged when you find a hard   
      
   Although OG is not suggesting legalization, he seems to be agreeing that   
   we need to educate to make a dent in the problem.  Knowing a little of OG   
   (I also read the chronic pain group), I'm pretty sure he is talking about   
   educating the general public about proper use of pain medication while I   
   am talking more about educating youth about the dangers of drug abuse.   
   Dealing with chronic pain myself, I completely support OG's goals and   
   methods too.  And I suspect he may agree with my goals and methods as   
   well although I am in no way meaning to speak for him or put words in his   
   mouth.   
      
   >> headed moron who   
   > has   
   >> no room for "maybe" in their philosophy. Some day they'll be told   
   >> jumping off a cliff is the latest fad. We wont need to worry about   
   >> that hard head   
   > ed   
   >> moron.   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)