Recovering Vs. Abstaining.

[pankreeas]

I was curious as to how many of you think that our society would benefit from a recovery center that teaches you how to live and manage an addiction rather than trying to hammer it out of ones head. Think about it like couples counseling, only the couple is you and your drug of choice. I know so many people; some close friends, who are in and out of recovery houses more often than they should be. All because they will always choose the companionship of drugs over anyone/anything else. Each time they are told they have a problem, addiction, dependency, etc.. yadda yadda and that it will always be there. Well if you tell someone that shoudln't it be common courtesy to prepare them for the worst?

Is it just me or does anyone else think this crazy world would benefit from finally letting people know at least the basics of harm prevention, tolerance, and efficient use as a part of the recovery process simply as a fallback just in case the temptation never dies?

[Corksil]

The big-bad-Gov'nt cannot send any sort of message that drug use is okay. Helping those who 'suffer from drug use' would make just that statement.

[rodent]

I agree with pankreeas that there is NO help with abstinence once a person has beat the physical issues with drugs besides NA,AA blah, blah.

I also think that in the US there never will be any sort of " help" in educating people about drugs and how, when, where to do them safely if they do choose. And you know they almost always will choose to do them.

Like mystereo2099 said, "it sends the wrong message" or so say the gov.

Someday, all of us younger folks will grow up and say wait "even if heroin is legal, and even IF you show me how to inject it, I likely won't cause I just don't want to". And these smarter younger folks will be the ones making the rules.

The time will come that we will bury all the old crusty folks that wrecked so many lives because their dads told them too.

[toe]

I'm pretty sure the US rates of addiction, incarceration, and overdose compared to those of nations not exercising "zero-tolerance" policies speak pretty clearly on this. But here in America we don't abandon policies designed to protect the public against imaginary boogeymen based on expired ideals- been to Havana lately?

[bcubed]

Well, for SWIM, he could have made his mind up not to drink ('cause it's so euphoric that he tends to forsake--well everything--for the high), but the second he gets buzzed, it's all "Oh, Ethyl, why did I ever THINK of leaving?"

So SWIM has discovered that he can either have LOADS of booze or none. Doubt "harm reduction" would be advisable for him.

But the whole "a drug is a drug" bit is BS, IMO. Not only could a less-addictive drug be a good "safety valve" for SWIM, but psychadelics have been proven to have therapeutic benefit for addicts. Of course, this type of info is immediately quashed by the gov't.

Of course, some people might respond positively to harm-reducing use (in particular, a current starlet ought to be made to write 500 times, "I make enough money to hire someone to drive my drunk, coked-up ass around."

[pankreeas]

Originally Posted by bcubed

in particular, a current starlet ought to be made to write 500 times, "I make enough money to hire someone to drive my drunk, coked-up ass around."

Hey keep my mom out of this!

anyways i've always wondered what kind of response I would get if I dressed up in a doctors getup with stethoscope and all, and moved in onto the local drug dealers turf. Can you imagine the hullaballo that would cause? so i'm out of the office makin extra coin big deal. Nurse hold my calls ill be at "lunch"... Drug pushing is a billion dollar industry and it's the doctors who have it good.