rb@cci632.UUCP (Rex Ballard) (10/06/86)
In article <3707@hplabsb.UUCP> piety@hplabsb.UUCP (Bob Piety) writes: > >All this BS about escalating drug wars is ridiculous! We will gradually lose >our civil rights and freedoms from these "drug wars", yet the drug problem >will continue and, perhaps, escalate from all the attention! This is a justified fear. Anybody remember the (Playboy, Penthouse,???) article a few years back on DEA enforcement tactics? Anybody want to go to Chile because they might know a dealer? (The article indicated that it was common practice for the DEA to send people to Chile for "questioning" at the prompting of cattle prods or other unconstitutional pursuasions. Treat it as you wish). >Now look around at the people you know who DON'T use drugs. WHY don't they >use them? Because they can't get them? Because they can't afford them? >NO!!! Most people don't use drugs because they understand the risks of taking >them. Even more fundamental than that. Those who don't use drugs usually don't because they have some other area in which they prefer to gain self-esteem. Churches, athletic organizations, social environments of all sorts build self-esteem in constructive ways, often discouraging use of drugs. Of course, to be popular in these groups, you have to have the resources and/or talent to dress, perform, compete, and live according to the "in" lifestyles for that group. To be popular among the drug community, you only need to have access to drugs. >Drugs will no longer be a problem when enough people CHOOSE, ON THEIR OWN >FREE WILL, NOT TO USE DRUGS. They key to successful dealing with the drug >problem is EDUCATION! Absolutely true. The problem is, what type of education? Education about drugs, or education about mental, emotional, and spiritual health? All the accurate information in the world will only encourage someone who does not feel good about themselves. >Plain old truth about the risks must be known-- not >"Reefer-Madness"-type hype. Credibilty must be established by the >authorities. Kids must be made to BELIEVE the risks, through credible >sources, so that they turn down drugs if they are offered them. Even when believable sources of information are available, the attraction of a substance or activity which makes one feel better about oneself and without which one has low self-esteem, can be too powerful when offered by someone whose only requirement for acceptance is that you "try it". This is especially true if the person offering is viewed as popular, sexy, attractive, or "cool" to the person recieving the offer. Certified teachers and "experts" impress parents and other adults, but they carry little weight with many kids, especially those most likely to use drugs. Some of the information I was most receptive to was presented by a guy in a leather vest, leather pants, and a leather hat. It didn't stop me from using, but it helped me to recognize my problem much earlier. >Lastly, ask yourselves why YOU don't use drugs. Today, because I have found other ways to enjoy life, cope with emotional pain, get pleasure, and get emotional support. >Why didn't YOU accept >undoubted offers of drugs when you were younger. I started late. Until I was 15, and more interested in girls, sex, and other people in general, my interests in high technology, ham radio, airplanes, and music were sufficient. When I began to feel bad about being "SuperNerd", I started using drugs and booze. >Why don't YOU have a drug problem? I don't have one today, because I am involved in a (free) recovery program. This group provides positive reinforcement for not using, provides experience strength and hope when problems arise, and encourages me to help others when things are going well. Also, I have a relationship with a "higher power", which I don't need to fear. Just a power that helps me change myself, and make better choices. One of my reasons for using was contempt for the "boogie man god" fundamentalists. One in particular considered just about anything that was fun (dancing, women, women in pants, miniskirts, music (other than old hymns), kissing, holding hands, playing cards, erotic books and magazines, and anything worse, to be a "one-way ticket to hell" even after being saved, babtised, born-again, born-in-the-spirit, and resurrected. If he was wrong about those other things, why not smoking, drugs, and alcohol? >Now.... help pass the same insights to others so thet they make >their own choices. To someone who has not tried drugs, I would reccomend finding ways of sharing your feelings with others, getting into a group that can provide support. I would also reccomend learning to be as honest as possible with yourself and others about all of your wants and needs, including sex, career, money, and security. If any of those needs threaten your acceptance by the group, find another group. To those who enjoy drugs now, I would suggest you look at how you feel, act, and react when intoxicated, when "coming down", and when "not using". Are you really more handsome, beautiful, sexy, strong, tough, or whatever you want to be when stoned? If you could be those things without using, would you want those things without the drugs? When not using, do you feel as good about yourself as you used to? Have you really been able to use without hurting anyone by thought word or action? What about when coming down? What about when not using for a period of time? To those who aren't getting what they want out of drugs. I can only suggest that you contact someone who can help you get help. A.A., N.A., O.A., and others can work, but only if you really want the "goodies", more than the substance you abuse. The same is true of any other program. It is possible to make the first step for the wrong reasons, but find better reasons as you go along. If you know someone who uses, do you attack his self-esteem? How does he react? How do you react to his/her abuse? For you as well, there are also "help groups" available. >Don't get hysterical and promote laws that further >chip away at our declining liberties. Such laws are counterproductive anyway. Adding the "criminal" lable to the "addict" lable only worsens the problem. For those who are proud of their abuse, it can even reinforce their own justifications as a "persecuted victim". If I were to suggest any law, it would be an amnesty program. Those who wish to quit should be encouraged in every way possible to do so. This should include dealers, and pushers, if they are also users. For those who don't wish to quit yet, Al-Anon reccommends a "tough love" approach. The addict cannot be stopped by external forces, however rescuing him/her from the consequences of his abuse through financial aid, housing, or bribery will prolong his desire to use. Are welfare, housing aid, student aid, even public education, and other "entitlements" programs a form of "rescue"? >Bob
prs@oliveb.UUCP (Phil Stephens) (10/07/86)
In article <467@cci632.UUCP> rb@ccird2.UUCP (Rex Ballard) writes: >In article <3707@hplabsb.UUCP> piety@hplabsb.UUCP (Bob Piety) writes: >>Now look around at the people you know who DON'T use drugs. WHY don't they >>use them? Because they can't get them? Because they can't afford them? >>NO!!! Most people don't use drugs because they understand the risks of taking >>them. > >Even more fundamental than that. Those who don't use drugs usually >don't because they have some other area in which they prefer to gain >self-esteem. Yes. Scare stories don't help, criminalization doesn't help much and has bad side effects, and crackdowns on one drug lead to users doing worse things or just trying even harder. For real prevention, self esteem works. Not an easy thing to actually implement, you can't force a teenager to have it, you can't give it to yourself overnight, and it is not a handle for criminal politicians to incite/distract the public. Not politically expedient for Runold Raygun. But most other approaches are either "slapping a bandaid on gangrene" or "bleeding an anemic". One of my social activities happens to have several AA members, and I have come to deeply respect their "process" and their values. You mention being in a program with similar values, and I am glad that it is getting mentioned here. Most of the verbage on this subject, including my own, is peripheral; you have cut right to the heart of the matter: physical addiction is real, but secondary; emotional predisposition is the real problem. And the heart of that, in turn, is self-esteem. Thank you for cutting through the (our) bullshit. (I'm still very concerned about abusive drug-testing of employees, but I want to emphasize that the heart of the matter is still what should be done *instead* of RR's drug war). I trust no-one takes this as putting words in Rex's mouth. Just dashing this off during lunch, no time to be eloquent or even spell-check! - Phil prs@oliven.UUCP (Phil Stephens) or: prs@oliveb.UUCP