Re: I'll drink to that
Jet Foncannon
> One of the best onlines sources about the Sobell experiments is a
> chapter from John Wallace's book, "Controversies in the Addiction
> Field." Chapter 23 talks about abstinence and non-abstinence goals in
> treatment. There is a profusion of references. His conclusions are:
>
> In general, then, consideration of the major studies that have claimed
> successful nonabstinent outcomes of treatment of alcoholism and of
> studies that have failed to support such claims indicates the following:
>
> 1) nonabstinent outcomes such as reduced drinking and
> nonproblem drinking appear possible for only very small
> numbers of persons who have been diagnosed as alcoholics;
>
> 2)such outcomes are far more likely to occur over brief
> temporal spans than over lengthy periods;
>
> 3) such outcomes are more likely to be reported from
> methodologically inadequate studies than as a result of
> scientifically rigorous investigations;
>
> 4) a reliable treatment technology for producing normal
> drinkers out of alcoholics does not exist;
>
> 5) while some observations suggest that level of alcohol
> dependence may be related to brief remission of alcoholism
> (e.g., Foy et al., 1984; Orford et al., 1976) it is not
> possible to predict with an acceptable degree of accuracy,
> the small numbers of alcoholics who may succeed at
> nonabstinent treatment goals from the vast majority of
> alcoholics who cannot;
>
> 6) nonabstinent treatment goals may be appropriate for
> some persons with drinking problems other than alcoholism
> (e.g., Sanchez-Craig and Wilkinson, 1987);
>
> 7) while certain types of problem drinkers may be able to
> moderate their intake of alcohol, alcoholics are at
> considerable risk for grave physical, psychological, and
> social consequences if they continue to drink alcohol and
> they should be so informed. In the face of such severe
> consequences, small numbers of spontaneous remissions do
> not justify routine attempts to train alcoholics to drink
> in a controlled or nonproblem manner;
>
> 8) claims in support of nonabstinent goals for alcoholics
> will continue to be made and will probably be extended to
> include drug addicts as well. Such claims must not be
> accepted uncritically by the behavioral science community
> but must be subjected to rigorous evaluation and criticism.
>
These conclusions seem to me to be very level headed.
> James Lippard's citations about the fates of the Sobell drinkers are
> disingenuous (I assume they come from the book under considertation)
> and are controverted by the facts. One of the issues that Wallace
> discusses in his chapter is why investigators have given such
> disparate accounts of the success of the Sobell experiments.
_______________________________________________
Skeptix mailing list
Ske...@lists.opn.org
http://lists.opn.org/mailman/listinfo/skeptix_lists.opn.org
James J. Lippard
Nope, they come from Internet sources, I haven't read the book in
question.
> >and are controverted by the facts. One of the issues that Wallace
Please elaborate. What did I say that was incorrect?
> >discusses in his chapter is why investigators have given such
> >disparate accounts of the success of the Sobell experiments.
--
Jim Lippard lippard...@discord.org
http://www.discord.org/
GPG Key ID: 0xF8D42CFE
Jet Foncannon
stays sober (or gets clean, for that matter.) Alcoholism is such a
devastating disease, with such an underestimated victimology (the
American Medical Association estimates that 1 out of 5 patients in a
doctor's waiting room are undiagnosed alcoholics) that I see any mode of
recovery as legitimate. What I assert is that one cannot get sober by
drinking. Wallace's point #4:
4) a reliable treatment technology for producing normal drinkers out of
alcoholics does not exist.
says it all. In support of this carefully chosen position, Wallace
appends 26 references.
In mentioning Royce, I did not intend to endorse his chosen
treatment preference (did he actually mention one in his article?) anymore
than I endorse his priestly mission. (As those on this list know, the
Church is my bette noir) . I give money to PETA, because they are one of
the few organizations that give a voice to the voiceless. But some of
their ideas are off the wall.
Wallace'a point bears reiterating:
8) claims in support of nonabstinent goals for alcoholics
will continue to be made and will probably be extended to
include drug addicts as well. Such claims must not be
accepted uncritically by the behavioral science community
but must be subjected to rigorous evaluation and criticism.
As this discussion implies, this controversy will never end.
Had the authors cared to examine an actual myth, they could have
tackled the statement, "Prohibition failed." As Cook shows in his book
"Paying the Tab," by many criteria, prohibition succeeded. Deaths from
car accidents and suicides and cirrhosis of the liver plummeted. Domestic
violence plummeted. Prohibition ended because of the hypocrisy of the
American public. Everyone thought that sobriety was a good idea for
everyone else, but not for him. As Will Rogers said, "Americans will vote
dry as long as they can stagger to the poles."
Karen Daskawicz
wrote:
>I give money to PETA,
Heaven help us!
-KD
James J. Lippard
> I did not endorse AA. As a matter of fact, I don't care how anyone
> stays sober (or gets clean, for that matter.) Alcoholism is such a
> devastating disease, with such an underestimated victimology (the
> American Medical Association estimates that 1 out of 5 patients in a
> doctor's waiting room are undiagnosed alcoholics) that I see any mode of
> recovery as legitimate. What I assert is that one cannot get sober by
But one shouldn't confuse correlation with causality--while "any mode of
recovery" may be good in terms of individual cases of successful end
state,
that doesn't entail that the "mode of recovery" is the cause. We
shouldn't
throw empiricism out the window.
> drinking. Wallace's point #4:
"One cannot get sober by drinking" may have the same flaw as "one
cannot lose weight by eating"--it's certainly not tautological (and
in fact seems to play on an equivocation on "sober" between mental
state at a moment and an ongoing condition of sobriety).
> 4) a reliable treatment technology for producing normal drinkers out of
> alcoholics does not exist.
Perhaps so, though I'm not knowledgeable enough about the literature to
tell.
> says it all. In support of this carefully chosen position, Wallace
appends
> 26 references. In mentioning Royce, I did not intend to endorse his
26 references seems fairly small to me given the size of the
literature, a more comprehensive meta-analysis that included
measurements of study quality would seem more useful.
> chosen treatment preference (did he actually mention one in his
> article?) anymore than I endorse his priestly mission. (As those
on
> this list know, the Church is my bette noir) . I give money to
> PETA, because they are one of the few organizations that give a
> voice to the voiceless. But some of their ideas are off the wall.
> Wallace'a point bears reiterating:
>
> 8) claims in support of nonabstinent goals for alcoholics
> will continue to be made and will probably be extended to
> include drug addicts as well. Such claims must not be
> accepted uncritically by the behavioral science community
> but must be subjected to rigorous evaluation and criticism.
Agreed!
> As this discussion implies, this controversy will never end.
That seems to be a non sequitur.
> Had the authors cared to examine an actual myth, they could have
> tackled the statement, "Prohibition failed." As Cook shows in his
> book "Paying the Tab," by many criteria, prohibition succeeded.
> Deaths from car accidents and suicides and cirrhosis of the liver
> plummeted. Domestic violence plummeted. Prohibition ended
because
> of the hypocrisy of the American public. Everyone thought that
> sobriety was a good idea for everyone else, but not for him. As
> Will Rogers said, "Americans will vote dry as long as they can
> stagger to the poles."
Polls?
The evidence seems to be that Prohibition creates its own negative
side-effects that arguably outweigh the benefits (including making
organized crime profitable on a scale never seen before).
--
Jim Lippard lippard...@discord.org
http://www.discord.org/
GPG Key ID: 0xF8D42CFE
August Pamplona
> > Will Rogers said, "Americans will vote dry as long as they can
> > stagger to the poles."
>
> Polls?
>
Poles, they make vodka.
August Pamplona
August Pamplona
the
> authors cared to examine an actual myth, they could have tackled the
> statement, "Prohibition failed." As Cook shows in his book "Paying the
> Tab," by many criteria, prohibition succeeded. Deaths from car
accidents
> and suicides and cirrhosis of the liver plummeted. Domestic violence
> plummeted. Prohibition ended because of the hypocrisy of the American
else,
> but not for him. As Will Rogers said, "Americans will vote dry as long
as
> they can stagger to the poles.
>
I used to accept those statistics (after all, they make sense: you
ban alcohol and fewer people should be drinking alcohol and thus you
should
have fewer adverse effects from alcohol consumption) but I no longer
believe
that all of those statistics are as clear cut as that author would seem to
make them out to be. Plus, the reductions in the number of deaths from
cirrhosis might actually be outnumbered by the increase in cases of deaths
from poisoning due to consumption of adulterated alcoholic drinks (though
a
lot of those poisonings would be the result of deliberate government
policy
imposing more toxic choices of adulterants on industrial use alcohol).
ric carter
massive and corrupting growth of crime cartels / syndicates; the
institution of a national police force, and increased government
scrutiny of the populace; decreased respect for the rule of law. My
middle-class church-going grandparents in Michigan became smugglers,
hiding jugs of booze under the car seat "behind Grandma's skirts" on
their numerous drives from Windsor to Detroit. Other drug prohibitions
produce the same results: mafias, corruption, surveillance, arbitrary
(and often ethnic-based) enforcement, widespread flouting of the laws,
etc. Any alleged health benefits pale beside the societal dysfunction
generated by prohibitions.
August Pamplona wrote:
>> As Cook shows in his book "Paying the
>> Tab," by many criteria, prohibition succeeded. Deaths from car
accidents
>> and suicides and cirrhosis of the liver plummeted. Domestic violence
>> plummeted.
>>
> I used to accept those statistics (after all, they make sense:
you
> ban alcohol and fewer people should be drinking alcohol and thus you
should
> have fewer adverse effects from alcohol consumption) but I no longer
believe
> that all of those statistics are as clear cut as that author would seem
to
> make them out to be.
>
Jet Foncannon
ric carter
> I'm guessing that your grandparents voted dry, too.
>
was 10 years old. Grandpa was a railroader, a freight conductor -- I
don't think such were a dry crowd, eh?
Jet Foncannon
Detroit. The US wasn't the only country in which prohibition held sway.
It also prevailed in Canada, although the specifics varied from one
province to another. In some provinces liquour could be purchased only
for export. (Cynical, that, huh?) As I recall from my readng,
prohibition held in Ontario, but I don't remember the details. Maybe a
Canadian on this list can enlighten us.
Jet Foncannon
"aren't working."). I get that a lot from those of a liberal persuasion
who haven't thought things through. Amphetamines are probably the most
abused and pernicious of the illegal drugs. I see no way their use can
be made safe. Sweden's brief action to decriminalize amphetamine abuse
was calamitous. Amphetamines are the scourge of Southeast Asia (it is
estimated that 50% of Cambodian youth have used amphetamines.)* This
trend is spreading into Thailand, and area of the world that, up till
recently, was mostly free from illegal drug use. Amphetamine use is
infecting the Midwest and the Southeast. In 2003, 824 meth laboratories
were shut down in the state of Missouri, the leader among the states in
this underground effort.
Perhaps this growing problem will surpass the ingenuity of the human
race in devising effective programs of social engineering. Certainly,
facile pronouncements about the liberalization of drug laws just isn't
going to do it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* "Speed: Ecstasy: Ritalin, the Science of Amphetamines," by Leslie
Iversen, Oxford Univerity Press, 2008.
James J. Lippard
interests...
Jet Foncannon wrote:
> I'm guessing that your grandparents voted dry, too.
>
> ric carter wrote:
>
> >Let us not forget some other side-effects of alcohol prohibition: the
> >massive and corrupting growth of crime cartels / syndicates; the
> >institution of a national police force, and increased government
> >scrutiny of the populace; decreased respect for the rule of law. My
> >middle-class church-going grandparents in Michigan became smugglers,
> >hiding jugs of booze under the car seat "behind Grandma's skirts" on
> >their numerous drives from Windsor to Detroit. Other drug prohibitions
> >produce the same results: mafias, corruption, surveillance, arbitrary
> >(and often ethnic-based) enforcement, widespread flouting of the laws,
> >etc. Any alleged health benefits pale beside the societal dysfunction
> >generated by prohibitions.
--
Jim Lippard lippard...@discord.org
http://www.discord.org/
GPG Key ID: 0xF8D42CFE
August Pamplona
> Decriminalization of drugs (because present interdiction efforts
"aren't
> working."). I get that a lot from those of a liberal persuasion who
haven't
> thought things through. Amphetamines are probably the most abused and
> pernicious of the illegal drugs. I see no way their use can be made
safe.
>
That is true .Amphetamine only becomes magically "safe" if you
change its name and call it Adderall (or, if you are actually talking
about
methamphetamine, Desoxyn).
August Pamplona
August Pamplona
> Decriminalization of drugs (because present interdiction efforts
"aren't
> working."). I get that a lot from those of a liberal persuasion who
haven't
> thought things through. Amphetamines are probably the most abused and
> pernicious of the illegal drugs. I see no way their use can be made
safe.
> Sweden's brief action to decriminalize amphetamine abuse was
calamitous.
> Amphetamines are the scourge of Southeast Asia (it is estimated that
50% of
> Cambodian youth have used amphetamines.)* This trend is spreading into
> Thailand, and area of the world that, up till recently, was mostly free
from
> illegal drug use. Amphetamine use is infecting the Midwest and the
> Southeast. In 2003, 824 meth laboratories were shut down in the state
of
> Missouri, the leader among the states in this underground effort.
> Perhaps this growing problem will surpass the ingenuity of the human
race in
> devising effective programs of social engineering.
>
The sky has been falling for the last,... well,... since the dawn
of time. It's a wonder we've made it this far!
August Pamplona
_______________________________________________
Skeptix mailing list
Ske...@lists.opn.org
http://lists.opn.org/mailman/listinfo/skeptix_lists.opn.org
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---
James J. Lippard
>
>
>
> > One of the best onlines sources about the Sobell experiments is a
> >chapter from John Wallace's book, "Controversies in the Addiction
> >Field." Chapter 23 talks about abstinence and non-abstinence goals in
> >treatment. There is a profusion of references. His conclusions are:
> >
> >In general, then, consideration of the major studies that have claimed
> >successful nonabstinent outcomes of treatment of alcoholism and of
> >studies that have failed to support such claims indicates the following:
> >
> > 1) nonabstinent outcomes such as reduced drinking and
> > nonproblem drinking appear possible for only very small
> > numbers of persons who have been diagnosed as alcoholics;
> >
> > 2)such outcomes are far more likely to occur over brief
> > temporal spans than over lengthy periods;
> >
> > 3) such outcomes are more likely to be reported from
> > methodologically inadequate studies than as a result of
> > scientifically rigorous investigations;
> >
> >
> > 5) while some observations suggest that level of alcohol
> > dependence may be related to brief remission of alcoholism
> > (e.g., Foy et al., 1984; Orford et al., 1976) it is not
> > possible to predict with an acceptable degree of accuracy,
> > the small numbers of alcoholics who may succeed at
> > nonabstinent treatment goals from the vast majority of
> > alcoholics who cannot;
> >
> > 6) nonabstinent treatment goals may be appropriate for
> > some persons with drinking problems other than alcoholism
> > (e.g., Sanchez-Craig and Wilkinson, 1987);
> >
> > 7) while certain types of problem drinkers may be able to
> > moderate their intake of alcohol, alcoholics are at
> > considerable risk for grave physical, psychological, and
> > social consequences if they continue to drink alcohol and
> > they should be so informed. In the face of such severe
> > consequences, small numbers of spontaneous remissions do
> > not justify routine attempts to train alcoholics to drink
> > in a controlled or nonproblem manner;
> >
> > will continue to be made and will probably be extended to
> > include drug addicts as well. Such claims must not be
> > accepted uncritically by the behavioral science community
> > but must be subjected to rigorous evaluation and criticism.
> >
>
> >James Lippard's citations about the fates of the Sobell drinkers are
> >disingenuous (I assume they come from the book under considertation)
-----------------------------------------------------
Nope, they come from Internet sources, I haven't read the book in question.
> >and are controverted by the facts. One of the issues that Wallace
Please elaborate. What did I say that was incorrect?
> >discusses in his chapter is why investigators have given such
> >disparate accounts of the success of the Sobell experiments.
--
Jim Lippard lippard...@discord.org http://www.discord.org/
GPG Key ID: 0xF8D42CFE
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---
August Pamplona
> > sobriety was a good idea for everyone else, but not for him. As
> > Will Rogers said, "Americans will vote dry as long as they can
> > stagger to the poles."
>
>
Poles, they make vodka.
August Pamplona
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---
ric carter
massive and corrupting growth of crime cartels / syndicates; the
institution of a national police force, and increased government
scrutiny of the populace; decreased respect for the rule of law. My
middle-class church-going grandparents in Michigan became smugglers,
hiding jugs of booze under the car seat "behind Grandma's skirts" on
their numerous drives from Windsor to Detroit. Other drug prohibitions
produce the same results: mafias, corruption, surveillance, arbitrary
(and often ethnic-based) enforcement, widespread flouting of the laws,
etc. Any alleged health benefits pale beside the societal dysfunction
generated by prohibitions.
August Pamplona wrote:
>> As Cook shows in his book "Paying the
>> Tab," by many criteria, prohibition succeeded. Deaths from car accidents
>> and suicides and cirrhosis of the liver plummeted. Domestic violence
>> plummeted.
>>
> I used to accept those statistics (after all, they make sense: you
> ban alcohol and fewer people should be drinking alcohol and thus you should
> have fewer adverse effects from alcohol consumption) but I no longer believe
> that all of those statistics are as clear cut as that author would seem to
> make them out to be.
>
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---
Jet Foncannon
ric carter wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> Skeptix mailing list
> Ske...@lists.opn.org
> http://lists.opn.org/mailman/listinfo/skeptix_lists.opn.org
>
James J. Lippard
interests...
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 11:44:01AM -0400, Jet Foncannon wrote:
> I'm guessing that your grandparents voted dry, too.
>
> ric carter wrote:
>
> >Let us not forget some other side-effects of alcohol prohibition: the
> >massive and corrupting growth of crime cartels / syndicates; the
> >institution of a national police force, and increased government
> >scrutiny of the populace; decreased respect for the rule of law. My
> >middle-class church-going grandparents in Michigan became smugglers,
> >hiding jugs of booze under the car seat "behind Grandma's skirts" on
> >their numerous drives from Windsor to Detroit. Other drug prohibitions
> >produce the same results: mafias, corruption, surveillance, arbitrary
> >(and often ethnic-based) enforcement, widespread flouting of the laws,
> >etc. Any alleged health benefits pale beside the societal dysfunction
> >generated by prohibitions.
--
Jim Lippard lippard...@discord.org http://www.discord.org/
GPG Key ID: 0xF8D42CFE
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---
August Pamplona
> Decriminalization of drugs (because present interdiction efforts "aren't
> working."). I get that a lot from those of a liberal persuasion who haven't
> thought things through. Amphetamines are probably the most abused and
> pernicious of the illegal drugs. I see no way their use can be made safe.
>
That is true .Amphetamine only becomes magically "safe" if you
change its name and call it Adderall (or, if you are actually talking about
methamphetamine, Desoxyn).
August Pamplona
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---
August Pamplona
> Decriminalization of drugs (because present interdiction efforts "aren't
> working."). I get that a lot from those of a liberal persuasion who haven't
> thought things through. Amphetamines are probably the most abused and
> pernicious of the illegal drugs. I see no way their use can be made safe.
> Sweden's brief action to decriminalize amphetamine abuse was calamitous.
> Amphetamines are the scourge of Southeast Asia (it is estimated that 50% of
> Cambodian youth have used amphetamines.)* This trend is spreading into
> Thailand, and area of the world that, up till recently, was mostly free from
> illegal drug use. Amphetamine use is infecting the Midwest and the
> Southeast. In 2003, 824 meth laboratories were shut down in the state of
> Missouri, the leader among the states in this underground effort.
> Perhaps this growing problem will surpass the ingenuity of the human race in
> devising effective programs of social engineering.
>
The sky has been falling for the last,... well,... since the dawn of
time. It's a wonder we've made it this far!
August Pamplona
Jet Foncannon
stays sober (or gets clean, for that matter.) Alcoholism is such a
devastating disease, with such an underestimated victimology (the
American Medical Association estimates that 1 out of 5 patients in a
doctor's waiting room are undiagnosed alcoholics) that I see any mode of
recovery as legitimate. What I assert is that one cannot get sober by
4) a reliable treatment technology for producing normal drinkers out of alcoholics does not exist.
says it all. In support of this carefully chosen position, Wallace appends 26 references.
In mentioning Royce, I did not intend to endorse his chosen treatment preference (did he actually mention one in his article?) anymore than I endorse his priestly mission. (As those on this list know, the Church is my bette noir) . I give money to PETA, because they are one of the few organizations that give a voice to the voiceless. But some of their ideas are off the wall.
Wallace'a point bears reiterating:
8) claims in support of nonabstinent goals for alcoholics
will continue to be made and will probably be extended to
include drug addicts as well. Such claims must not be
accepted uncritically by the behavioral science community
but must be subjected to rigorous evaluation and criticism.
As this discussion implies, this controversy will never end.
Had the authors cared to examine an actual myth, they could have tackled the statement, "Prohibition failed." As Cook shows in his book "Paying the Tab," by many criteria, prohibition succeeded. Deaths from car accidents and suicides and cirrhosis of the liver plummeted. Domestic violence plummeted. Prohibition ended because of the hypocrisy of the American public. Everyone thought that sobriety was a good idea for everyone else, but not for him. As Will Rogers said, "Americans will vote dry as long as they can stagger to the poles."
Jet Foncannon
Detroit. The US wasn't the only country in which prohibition held sway.
It also prevailed in Canada, although the specifics varied from one
province to another. In some provinces liquour could be purchased only
for export. (Cynical, that, huh?) As I recall from my readng,
prohibition held in Ontario, but I don't remember the details. Maybe a
Canadian on this list can enlighten us.
ric carter wrote:
> Jet Foncannon wrote:
>
>> I'm guessing that your grandparents voted dry, too.
>>
> I can't be sure, but I doubt it, as they were serving me beer before I
> was 10 years old. Grandpa was a railroader, a freight conductor -- I
> don't think such were a dry crowd, eh?
>
> _______________________________________________
> Skeptix mailing list
> Ske...@lists.opn.org
> http://lists.opn.org/mailman/listinfo/skeptix_lists.opn.org
>
Garrison Hilliard
<ske...@lists.opn.org> wrote:
>Let us not forget some other side-effects of alcohol prohibition: the
>massive and corrupting growth of crime cartels / syndicates; the
>institution of a national police force, and increased government
>scrutiny of the populace; decreased respect for the rule of law. My
>middle-class church-going grandparents in Michigan became smugglers,
>hiding jugs of booze under the car seat "behind Grandma's skirts" on
>their numerous drives from Windsor to Detroit. Other drug prohibitions
>produce the same results: mafias, corruption, surveillance, arbitrary
>(and often ethnic-based) enforcement, widespread flouting of the laws,
>etc. Any alleged health benefits pale beside the societal dysfunction
>generated by prohibitions.
Opinion: Parents, children and substance abuse
iStock.com
Regular Photo Size
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Related Links
¦WARNING: Long-Term Effects Of Teen…
¦Parents Start Foundation To End…
Advertisement
ShareThis
Posted: 06/21/2010
By RITA WATSON, The Providence Journal
BOSTON - Unusual signs began popping up in Des Moines, Iowa, during
graduation and prom nights with a message that should resonate
throughout the summer and teen years, "Parents Who Host Lose the
Most." The signs were to encourage parents hosting parties to be wary
of alcohol use.
Many educators point to parents as a problem in the world of underage
alcohol and drug abuse. Too many parents who frequently consume
alcohol or who are addicted to legal or illegal drugs nonetheless
preach, "Do as I say and not as I do."
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) noted that
18 percent of males and 14 percent of females ages 12 to17 reported
drinking before age 13. The CDC also reports that about 90 percent of
alcohol consumed by the under-21 set is binge drinking. Defined as
four or five drinks an hour, binge drinking accounts for 75 percent of
all the alcohol consumed in the U.S.
Joseph A. Califano Jr. is on a mission to help parents. He is founder
and chairman of the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse
(CASA) at Columbia University (co-founded with Herbert D. Kleber,
M.D.). Califano was secretary of health, education and welfare from
1977 until 1979.
Today he is talking about his new book, "How to Raise a Drug-Free Kid:
The Straight Dope for Parents," published by Simon and Schuster. He
told me that all proceeds go directly to support CASA. With regard to
parents, Califano said, "Interestingly, I've been to at least 25
different organizations and the thing that comes through is that many
parents are a big part of the problem. Parents tell me that they
experience a lot of pressure from other parents regarding this."
Many parents do not wish to deny their children even if it means
giving them too much freedom to be alone and letting them go to too
many parties, supervised and unsupervised. Califano often tells
parents, "You are a parent -- not a pal. If your teenager doesn't say
'I hate you, Mom,' or 'I hate you, Dad,' when you are behaving as a
parent, then you are not doing your job."
CASA's teen-drinking survey in August 2009 queried 1,000 teens, ages
12 to 17 (509 boys, 491 girls), and 452 of the parents of these teens.
They determined, "If your teen drinks, odds are your teen is getting
drunk. Two-thirds of teens who drink at least once a month get drunk
at least once a month." Also, "Teens who get drunk at least once a
month are 18 times likelier to use marijuana and likelier to associate
with teens who abuse other illegal and prescription drugs."
To counter the drug problem, the National Institute on Drug Abuse
produces information for grades 5 through 9 regarding anabolic
steroids, cocaine, hallucinogens, inhalants, marijuana,
methamphetamine, opiates, prescription-drug abuse and tobacco
addiction.
What Califano's group determined from its study was the importance of
parents in preventing and enabling their teens' smoking, drinking and
drug use. Califano's book lists nine tips for parents to help them
raise a drug-free child. One of the most interesting is one of the
most obvious -- "Eat meals together, it makes a difference." Califano
says, "The more often children have dinner with parents, the less
likely they will smoke, drink or use drugs."
The Columbia group has instituted CASA Family Day -- A Day to Eat
Dinner with Your Kids, to be celebrated on Monday, Sept. 27. For more
information, visit www.CASAFamilyDay.org.
As a health advocate, Califano was ahead of his time when he warned
about tobacco addiction and passive smoke inhalation. "Back in 1978
when I declared our offices a drug-free building, I arrived at work
the next day and was met with picket signs. Today we see a dramatic
change in attitudes, and we can do the same thing with alcohol and
drugs."
Change comes, albeit slowly. Some 30 years later, May 31 was declared
"World No Tobacco Day.
http://www.cincyschoolzone.com/dpp/high_school/high_school_news/parents-children-and-substance-abuse
Garrison Hilliard
<ske...@lists.opn.org> wrote:
>Let us not forget some other side-effects of alcohol prohibition: the
>massive and corrupting growth of crime cartels / syndicates; the
>institution of a national police force, and increased government
>scrutiny of the populace; decreased respect for the rule of law. My
>middle-class church-going grandparents in Michigan became smugglers,
>hiding jugs of booze under the car seat "behind Grandma's skirts" on
>their numerous drives from Windsor to Detroit. Other drug prohibitions
>produce the same results: mafias, corruption, surveillance, arbitrary
>(and often ethnic-based) enforcement, widespread flouting of the laws,
>etc. Any alleged health benefits pale beside the societal dysfunction
>generated by prohibitions.
Opinion: Parents, children and substance abuse
Jet Foncannon
"aren't working."). I get that a lot from those of a liberal persuasion
who haven't thought things through. Amphetamines are probably the most
abused and pernicious of the illegal drugs. I see no way their use can
be made safe. Sweden's brief action to decriminalize amphetamine abuse
was calamitous. Amphetamines are the scourge of Southeast Asia (it is
estimated that 50% of Cambodian youth have used amphetamines.)* This
trend is spreading into Thailand, and area of the world that, up till
recently, was mostly free from illegal drug use. Amphetamine use is
infecting the Midwest and the Southeast. In 2003, 824 meth laboratories
were shut down in the state of Missouri, the leader among the states in
this underground effort.
Perhaps this growing problem will surpass the ingenuity of the human
facile pronouncements about the liberalization of drug laws just isn't
going to do it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* "Speed: Ecstasy: Ritalin, the Science of Amphetamines," by Leslie
Iversen, Oxford Univerity Press, 2008.
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---