How Do I Get My Wife Off Drugs?

Archive for January 4th, 2010

For most of the past decade, a number of editorial writers, politicians, members of the clergy, and other pundits have described America as a nation in some sort of crisis. They point to a growing number of people who drop out of high school, who are living on probation, parole, or in prison, who are victims of domestic or criminal assault, who are addicted to drugs or alcohol, who are infected with sexually transmitted disease, who are having abortions, who are giving birth outside of marriage, who are getting divorced, or who are relying on Ritalin, Xanax or Prozac to make it through the day. They maintain these statistics are evidence something has gone terribly wrong with the American way of life.

As a practicing clinical psychologist, I work with people included in these numbers every day of the week. Monday I talk with a man on his way to prison for writing bad checks, a middle-aged mother struggling to quit drinking herself into a stupor every night, and a twenty-something single woman recently diagnosed with herpes. Tuesday I talk with a teenager dealing with an unintended pregnancy, a father court-ordered out of his house after assaulting his son, and a wife conflicted about whether to end her extramarital affair. On Wednesday I meet with an 11-year-old boy who doesn’t cooperate with his teachers, on Thursday with a woman who was devastated by the news that her husband has filed for divorce so he can marry his girlfriend, and, on Friday, with an adolescent who recently attempted suicide.

From this perspective, rather than being numbers, persons included in statistics are living, breathing, human beings. Each has a unique history and set of circumstances as well as very personal thoughts, emotions, ideals, regrets, hopes, and dreams. But despite their differences, all of these individuals have one thing in common—they are all, to some degree, unhappy, discontent, and dissatisfied with life.

Recognizing that all of these people are in some sense unhappy, it is possible to characterize the number of persons in all of the statistical groups referred to by the pundits as a global measure of unhappiness in the United States. Since the total number of people in each of these groups continues to rise, it is reasonable to infer that we are in the midst of an epidemic of unhappiness. Recognizing that this nation was designed to optimize the conditions for the personal pursuit of happiness, this epidemic of unhappiness can be referred to as the current crisis in the American way of life.

Attempts to Cope with the Crisis

One group of opinion leaders offers a simple explanation for, and solution to, this crisis. Presuming illiteracy, probation, incarceration, assault, addiction, sexually transmitted illness, unintended pregnancy, domestic violence, and divorce are consequences of dysfunctional behavior, conservatives maintain that the rising number of people who find themselves with these conditions is the result of poor decision-making. They contend that people could avoid these outcomes by making better choices when managing their personal lives.

Conservatives remind us that the basic structure of the American way of life is a legal system based on a foundation of moral principles—ideas about right and wrong. They cite Founding Fathers, such as John Adams, who, in 1798, wrote, “Our constitution was made for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to govern any other.” Or they refer to James Madison, who, in 1778, wrote, “We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions . . . upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.”

Conservatives point to the fact that, beginning with Colonial America and up until roughly forty years ago, the people of this country generally assumed the moral principles the Founding Fathers inherited from the Judeo-Christian tradition were a set of guidelines for making choices which would lead to real and lasting happiness in this world and the next. They note that since those advocating a separation of church and state began to succeed in removing all reference to religion from public schools there has been an increase in the number of people who are failing to finish high school, living on probation, parole, or in prison, victims of domestic or criminal assault, addicted to drugs or alcohol, infected with sexually transmitted diseases, having abortions, giving birth outside of marriage, getting divorced, and relying on antidepressants and other psychotropic medications. They argue that each of these undesirable conditions could be lessened if Americans, once again, began to act on the Ten Commandments and the teachings of Jesus Christ when making choices in daily life.

On the other side, liberals insist there are several problems with the conservative approach. First, the moral position of the Judeo-Christian tradition is far from clear. Although all believers root their morality in scripture, there are wide differences in how sacred texts are understood. While some Christians maintain using alcohol is a sin, others serve wine in church. Similar differences exist with respect to the Christian positions on gambling, divorce and homosexuality. Liberals point to the fact that people of faith can be found on both sides of abortion, capital punishment, and assisted suicide to demonstrate that religiously based moral reasoning is incapable of effectively dealing with the major moral controversies of our time.

Further, liberals maintain that religiously-based moral reasoning permitted many of the most outrageous injustices of the past. Thousands were slaughtered in the Crusades, tortured during the Inquisition, and died during centuries of European holy war. Many who settled the British colonies in North America were fleeing persecution at the hands of religious authorities intolerant of their beliefs. After the American Revolution, the Bible was used to justify the perpetuation of slavery and the subordination of women. Even today the Ku Klux Klan uses a Christian symbol to terrorize non-white Americans who are simply exercising basic rights.

Liberals also note that the American Revolution was as much a rebellion against religion as it was a military campaign. Instead of relying on the British notion that it was a citizen’s duty to God to obey a divinely enthroned king, the Founding Fathers based their declaration of independence on rational philosophy—the other source of moral authority which has shaped and influenced the course of Western civilization since its beginning in ancient Greece. They went on to establish a government explicitly based on philosophical rather than on religious ideals. Referring to the first amendment of the Constitution and the fact that America has become a nation of many faiths, liberals argue that it is now un-American to base public education or any type of public policy on a set of moral principles which belong to any particular religious tradition.

Beyond rejecting the conservative solution to the crisis, liberals offer a different analysis of the crisis itself. Although acknowledging that failure to finish high school, delinquency, crime, addiction, sexually transmitted disease, unintended pregnancy, domestic violence, divorce, and emotional disorders involve some type of dysfunctional human behavior, they deny these conditions have anything to do with moral reasoning or ideas about right and wrong. Drawing on the theory of human nature generally accepted within contemporary social science, they contend that this behavior is determined by instinctive drives, patterns of prior conditioning, imbalances in brain chemistry, socioeconomic circumstances, or some other, as yet, unidentified factor which involves something other than choice. They believe further scientific research will inevitably discover the causes of this dysfunctional behavior and that the results of this research will eventually lead to a reduction in the number of persons who behave this way.

A Need for a New Approach

Rather than attempting to work together in an effort to find some common ground, today’s conservative and liberal leaders invest their energies in attempting to win hearts and minds to their respective points of view. Their strategies are to affect public policy through opinion polls and the election process. Unfortunately, as the leaders of these ideologies engage in cultural civil war, the epidemic of unhappiness continues and the current crisis in the American way of life endures.

One means of moving beyond this quagmire begins with the realization that crises are events which have a structure and dynamics of their own. Crises occur when people are confronted with undesirable conditions which are unintended and unanticipated. They result from pursuing courses of action based on assumptions which are in some way inaccurate, ineffective, or inappropriate with respect to achieving an intended outcome. Crises persist as long as those attempting to achieve the intended outcome continue doing what they do without realizing their assumptions are in some sense flawed.

Crises are resolved when three events occur. First, the assumptions of those who end up with the undesired outcome are clarified. Next, these assumptions are evaluated with respect to the degree that they are actually accurate, effective, and appropriate with respect to achieving the intended goal. Finally, the results of this evaluation are used to develop a new course of action aimed at achieving the intended outcome based on assumptions which are more accurate, effective, and appropriate for achieving the desired result.

This insight into the structure of a crisis suggests that a resolution to the current crisis in the American way of life could be obtained by identifying the assumptions within the conservative and liberal traditions, evaluating their accuracy, effectiveness, and appropriateness, and then developing a new approach to dealing with the epidemic of unhappiness based on what this evaluation has revealed.

Identifying Existing Assumptions

The conservative approach is rooted in three assumptions about human nature deeply rooted in Western civilization. These assumptions were contained in the writings of British Enlightenment philosophers—Francis Bacon, Thomas Hobbes, and John Locke—who provided a theory of human nature for those who led the American Revolution and went on to write the Constitution of the United States. Today’s conservatives often make reference to George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and other Founding Fathers who made use of these philosophers’ ideas.

The first conservative assumption is known as a volitional theory of human nature. It asserts that human beings have the capacity to choose between alternative potential courses of action. It also includes the notion that, when confronted with a choice, people are naturally motivated to select the potential course of action they believe is most likely to make them happy in some way.

The second conservative assumption is a moral theory referred to as enlightened self-interest. This theory presumes that moral principles are a set of guidelines for making choices which are essential to obtaining an optimal quality of life. It also presumes that if individuals act on these principles when making choices in daily living they are doing what they can to maximize their potential to achieve happiness, emotional well-being, contentment, and satisfaction with life.

Finally, conservatives assume that moral principles are a matter of religion. This assumption is based on the belief that individual human beings are limited in their ability to distinguish between those courses of action which only apparently enhance a person’s quality of life and those which enrich it in actuality. Accordingly, conservatives maintain that an all-knowing God revealed this knowledge about how to become and remain happy to specific persons—Moses, the Prophets, Jesus, and the Apostles—and that the rest of humanity can find real and lasting happiness by utilizing this information when making choices in daily life.

The liberal approach to dealing with illiteracy, probation, incarceration, assault, addiction, sexually transmitted disease, unintended pregnancy, domestic violence, divorce, and a variety of emotional disorders is based on a set of assumptions about human nature which began to influence the Western world as the philosophy of the Enlightenment was replaced by a new set of ideas about the nature of human existence. While Enlightenment thinking was rooted in faith in God, a vision of heaven, and a fear of hell, the notions about human nature utilized by liberals developed as an atheistic, scientific worldview emerged.

The first liberal assumption is referred to as determinism. This is the theory of human nature advanced by Sigmund Freud, William James, and John Watson, seminal thinkers who set the foundations for contemporary social science. Determinism consists of the belief that human behavior is caused by instinctive drives, patterns of prior conditioning, genetics, changes in brain chemistry, socioeconomic status or some other process which has nothing to do with choosing between alternative potential courses of action.

Second, liberals assume that moral principles are irrelevant to dealing with dysfunctional behavior. This assumption is based on the belief that rather than religion, the great minds of Western philosophy are the proper source of moral authority and the belief that the French philosopher Auguste Comte, is the great mind Americans should turn to as the appropriate authority on morality. His theory, altruism, maintains that what’s right is that which enhances the welfare of other people, society, or humanity in general. Since altruism insists that moral activity consists of service to others, acting on principle is viewed by altruists as an obstacle to, or restriction on, the personal pursuit of happiness.

Third, liberals assume that religion is not a reliable source of knowledge about life or how to live. This assumption is rooted in their opinion that the quality of human life has improved in virtually every domain of human existence where scientific discoveries have replaced pre-scientific thought. Liberals maintain that it makes more sense to rely on science as a means of trying to figure out how to help people who engage in dysfunctional behavior than referring to religious texts which they view as outdated relics from a bygone era.

Evaluating Assumptions

Clearly, the traditional approaches to dealing with the current crisis in the American way of life involve a set of questionable assumptions about whether people are capable of making choices, as well as the purpose and source of ideas about right and wrong. While conservatives assume that people have the capacity to choose between alternative potential courses of action, that religion is the proper source of ideas about right and wrong, and that acting on moral principle is essential to becoming and remaining happy, liberals assume that human behavior has nothing to do with choice, that morality is irrelevant to the personal pursuit of happiness, and that science, rather than religion, is the appropriate source of knowledge for dealing with the dysfunctional behavior contributing to the epidemic of unhappiness. Now that these questionable assumptions have been identified, each can be evaluated in terms of the degree to which available evidence suggests it is accurate, effective, and appropriate with respect to attempting to resolve the current crisis in the American way of life.

Throughout the course of Western civilization and up until the establishment of social science, roughly one hundred years ago, all educated and thoughtful intellectual leaders recognized that people have the capacity of choice. Since the first philosophers of ancient Greece, every major philosopher in the Western tradition has maintained that, with respect to many behaviors, human beings are able to select between alternative potential courses of action. In addition, every known society has had a legal system based on the notion human beings actually make choices in the course of daily living.

These historical and sociological facts are consistent with observations human beings have made with respect to themselves and one another since the dawn of time. In everyday descriptions of human behavior, people have always regularly made reference to intentions, desires and choices when describing the activities of friends, family members and those whom they deal with in commercial and community affairs. Moreover, we have direct access to the process of choosing between alternative potential courses of action when we decide what to eat for breakfast, what color coat to purchase, and which program to watch on television.

Although the results of some animal studies can be used to argue for a deterministic theory of human nature, there is no conclusive evidence to suggest that this is an accurate means of describing many types of human behavior. Over the course of the Twentieth Century, scientists have attempted to identify a number of non-volitional processes such as instinctive drives, patterns of prior conditioning, genetics, changes in brain chemistry, and socioeconomic status which cause people to fail to acquire adequate vocational skills, commit crimes, become addicted to drugs or alcohol, engage in risky sexual behavior, abuse family members or get divorced. At best, these studies have produced only modest correlations. The results of thousands of these studies over nearly one hundred years reveal that although non-volitional processes may play some role in these dysfunctional behaviors, they do not actually cause people to behave in any of these ways. Based on all of this scientific evidence, it is reasonable to conclude that scientists have never been able to prove that human beings lack the capacity of choice.

One way of determining whether moral principles are relevant to the personal pursuit of happiness consists of looking at what research has revealed about the relationship between acting on principle and subsequent quality of human life. Statistics show that there is a correlation between personal reports of happiness, emotional well-being, contentment, and satisfaction in living with people who regularly tell the truth, keep their agreements, and refrain from theft. Research also reveals that there is a correlation between people who report they are unhappy, discontent, and dissatisfied with life and a tendency to frequently lie, cheat, and steal. What’s more, virtually all psychological research on the reasons people describe for acting on principle reveals that the vast majority of individuals who do what’s right act on principle because they believe they will personally benefit as a result.

Assuming that people have the capacity to choose between alternative potential courses of action and that moral principles can enhance a person’s potential for becoming and remaining happy, the next assumption which needs to be evaluated is whether it is more appropriate to assume that religion is the proper source of moral principles or whether to turn to philosophy for ideas about what’s right and wrong. In this respect, both conservatives and liberals assume there are only two sources of moral principles. Neither considers the fact that within the past decade a new source of moral principles has emerged. This source is science and what the scientific method has revealed about the relationship between choices people make and how those choices affect the quality of their lives. Given the fact that these principles were specifically formulated as a means of determining which potential courses of action maximize a person’s likelihood of becoming and remaining happy, scientifically formulated principles of morality provide a more effective means of dealing with the epidemic of unhappiness than continuing to operate on the assumptions about the source of moral knowledge contained in either the conservative or liberal approach.

Scientifically Formulated Principles of Morality

Scientifically formulated principles of morality were developed by following the same logic scientists used to come up with principles for achieving health and physical well-being. Researchers were able to formulate wellness principles by observing a correlation between certain types of voluntary human behavior and a number of serious illnesses. Studies revealed that people who regularly smoke tobacco often end up with cancer, emphysema, or heart disease. It also detected that a lack of exercise is correlated with diabetes, obesity, and stroke. Based on these and other correlations, scientists were able to formulate alternatives to unhealthy patterns of behavior which they then promoted as guidelines for making healthy choices in daily life. These principles for healthy living indicate that when we avoid tobacco, street drugs, and the excessive use of alcohol, obtain adequate amounts of rest and exercise, and eat a high fiber, low-fat diet, we are doing what we can to maximize our potential for becoming and remaining healthy.

Similarly, the search for scientifically formulated principles of morality began by determining which types of voluntary human behavior correlate with a loss of happiness, emotional well-being, contentment, and satisfaction with life. Once these correlations were determined, alternatives to these behaviors were identified. Conceptualized as principles, these guidelines for making choices in daily living maximize a person’s potential for becoming and remaining happy.

Research which led to the development of scientifically formulated principles of morality revealed that there are basic similarities between the voluntary behaviors of the majority of people who become, in one way or another, unhappy as a result of doing what they did. These patterns of behavior are referred to as self-defeating because they undermine a person’s effort at becoming and remaining happy. Research revealed that there are the following seven types of self-defeating behavior which lead to a loss of happiness, contentment, and satisfaction with life.

Heedless behavior consists of pursuing a course of action while knowing it poses a threat to something or someone essential to a person’s overall contentment and satisfaction with life. Examples include smoking cigarettes, using illicit drugs, driving while under the influence of consciousness altering substances and engaging in unsafe sex. Self-effacing behavior consists of regularly pursuing courses of action aimed at enhancing the happiness of others while failing to attend to what is essential to one’s own. Examples include a female adolescent who consents to unprotected sexual relations as a means of pleasing her boyfriend, a husband who constantly defers to his wife’s wishes on decisions which negatively affect his own quality of life, and parents who continue to provide for able-bodied adult children while neglecting what they need to do to prepare for retirement. Non-productive behavior involves spending time and energy on activities which have little or nothing to do with acquiring or maintaining what is required for contentment and satisfaction with life. Examples include teenagers who spend their time watching television, listening to music or talking on the phone rather than doing homework or studying for exams, employees who spend portions of their workday surfing the Internet rather than completing assigned tasks, and spouses who spend virtually all of their time in activities which have nothing to do with nurturing their partners in life. Unfaithful behavior consists of failing to fulfill agreements freely entered into at an earlier point in time. Examples include adolescents breaking curfews, salespersons who fail to honor warranties and married people who cheat on their spouses. Disrespectful behavior consists of pursuing a course of action which violates another person’s basic rights. Examples include physical or sexual assault, theft, or the disclosure of certain types of personal information. Deceptive behavior consists of attempting to create in another person’s mind an image of reality which does not correspond with actuality. It includes creating misleading audio or video recordings, filing falsified reports, or simply telling lies. Ill-considered interpersonal interaction occurs when people pursue a course of action which involves other persons whose behavior is heedless, nonproductive, disrespectful, unfaithful and/or deceptive. Examples include riding in an automobile with an impaired driver, continuing to employ an individual who does not put in a day’s work for a day’s pay, disclosing personal information to an individual who has demonstrated no respect for privacy, remaining in a marriage with a spouse who has an ongoing series of extramarital affairs, and trusting a person who frequently lies.

Once it was determined that these seven patterns of behavior are the ones which correlate with unhappiness, discontent and/or dissatisfaction in life, a set of alternatives was identified. The alternative to heedless and self-effacing behavior as well as ill-considered interpersonal interaction is referred to as self-respect. Self-respect consists of avoiding any course of action which clearly poses a threat to what is required for contentment and satisfaction with life. Industry is the alternative to non-productive behavior. Industry consists of investing the time and energy required to obtain and maintain what is essential for contentment and satisfaction with life. The alternative to unfaithful and disrespectful behavior is referred to as equity. Equity consists of honoring agreements and respecting the basic rights of others. Honesty, the alternative to deceptive behavior, consists of rendering an accurate description of reality. Like wellness principles, these guidelines for making choices only maximize the potential for achieving emotional well-being when they are combined and acted on consistently in the course of daily living. Given this reality, the combination and regular use of the four scientifically formulated principles of morality can be referred to as the formula for happiness.

Prevention and Dissemination

The potential that the formula for happiness has for reducing the epidemic of unhappiness becomes evident when the connection between acting on its principles and a person’s ability to avoid functional illiteracy, probation, incarceration, assault, addiction, sexually transmitted illness, unintended pregnancy, or divorce is clarified.

People who act on the principles of self-respect and industry can acquire adequate skills for competitive employment in today’s post-industrial economy. When those who are inclined to violate the rights of others act on the principle of equity, they avoid probation and incarceration which is frequently a consequence of murder, assault, and various types of theft. When those who are mulling over an opportunity to experiment with illicit drugs act on the principle of self-respect, they avoid future addiction. When people who have become addicted to drugs or alcohol act on the principles of self-respect, industry, and honesty, they enter into substance abuse recovery programs and invest the blood, sweat, and tears required to overcome their dependency. When interested in having casual and unprotected sexual intercourse, people who act on the principle of self-respect avoid sexually transmitted disease and unintended pregnancy. When people act on the principle of self-respect in choosing a spouse, industry for investing time and energy in working on a satisfying marriage, and equity in forsaking all others, there is a reduction in the number of people who live with marital disharmony, domestic violence, and divorce.

Scientifically formulated principles of morality only hold the promise of reducing the epidemic of unhappiness if people become aware of these ideas about what’s right and act on these principles as they go about their daily lives. This means that a reverse in the epidemic of unhappiness requires a general recognition of the value of acting on these principles to the individual and to society at large. Clearly, the most efficient and effective means of achieving this goal is through the process of education.

The first step in teaching a significant number of youth about scientifically formulated principles of morality began with The Facts of Life Seminar which was instituted in Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania in 1993. This program for character development was designed to teach the formula for happiness to teens who are on juvenile probation and to show them how to apply the formula in the course of daily living. All of the adolescents adjudicated delinquent in this county are currently required to complete The Facts of Life Seminar as a one of the conditions of their probation.

In The Facts of Life Seminars students learn that when they act on scientifically formulated principles of morality they get the tangible benefit of improving and maintaining the quality of their lives. Students are provided with mnemonic devices similar to those used in teaching principles of nutrition and health. They are equipped with decision trees and given several exercises to help them learn to recognize a context for principled decision-making and how to systematically employ scientifically formulated principles of morality to figure out which alternatives to pursue. In addition to learning about the principles themselves, students are trained in behavioral techniques such as imaging and self-talk as a means of enhancing self-control when confronted with temptation to engage in a self-defeating course of action.

Since its inception, hundreds of adolescents have gone through Facts of Life Seminars taught by juvenile probation officers, mental health treatment personnel, and a number of teachers in residential placement centers, day treatment programs, outpatient counseling centers, and alternative education schools. Outcome research reveals that of those who complete this program there is a 123% increase in the number likely to refrain from violence, a 92% increase in the number likely to refrain from theft, a 178% increase in the number likely to keep their promises, and a 160% increase in the number likely to tell the truth. In 2006, the Pennsylvania Center for Juvenile Justice Training and Research sponsored the first state-wide program to prepare youth workers to lead Facts of Life Seminars throughout the Commonwealth.

In addition, a number of public school administrators and guidance counselors who learned about The Facts of Life Seminar have expressed an interest in integrating the formula for happiness into classes on decision-making and self-awareness in public schools. They recognize that many of the youth on juvenile probation may have been able to avoid trouble with the law if they learned to use scientifically formulated principles of morality as part of their overall education. As a result of this interest Lessons on The Facts of Life have been developed. This is a set of lesson plans which can be integrated into existing curriculum on decision-making and self-awareness classes in both public and private schools.

When scientifically formulated principles of morality are taught within a public school, influential persons in the community need to be aware of their existence as well as their value in promoting personal responsibility and citizenship. Public meetings provide opportunities for parents and other community leaders to learn about the origin and nature of the formula for happiness as well as why and how it is effective in motivating adolescents to act on principle in daily life. These meetings also equip members of the community with a vocabulary and a set of concepts about right and wrong which they can share with other adults who are dealing with the challenge of character development in youth. This ability to speak a common language enables teacher, school administrators, parents, clergy, and other community leaders to coordinate their efforts in dealing with issues of responsibility and accountability at school, at home, and in the neighborhood. Clearly, this effort can only succeed if those involved in implementing programs for character education based on the formula for happiness are able to enlist support from community leaders who represent both conservative and liberal groups.

Conservative Support

Because scientifically formulated principles of morality are based on a volitional theory of human nature and because they are clearly relevant to the personal pursuit of happiness, many conservatives who learn about the formula for happiness recognize its value with respect to reducing the epidemic of unhappiness in the United States. But, since most conservatives believe that morality must be a matter of religion, some have difficulty supporting the idea that scientifically formulated principles of morality should be taught in public schools. They are frequently used to taking a position that it would be more appropriate to either return biblically-based moral principles to the classroom or to take all instruction in moral reasoning and action out of the schools, leaving this aspect of education to parents and to the clergy.

The conservative position that biblically-based morality should be brought back into public schools is rooted in the history of the United States. Conservatives remind us that when the Founding Fathers framed the Constitution they recognized democracy was a very fragile form of government. They knew it had only been tried twice before in the history of Western civilization and that each time it had collapsed into some form of dictatorship. In order to prevent this from happening in America, some of the Founding Fathers advocated for a system of public education so that citizens who are electing public officials would be able to make good choices when it came time to cast their votes. Benjamin Rush, one of the Founding Fathers, and the father of American psychiatry, was a chief architect of public schools in America. He maintained public schools should have two objectives. The first was to teach basic academic skills—reading, writing, and arithmetic. The second was to train students to act on the moral principles contained in the Ten Commandments and the teachings of Jesus.

Based on this mission, for nearly 200 years, public schools in America were one of three institutions which trained successive generations of Americans in moral reasoning and its relevance to daily life. Public school’s functioned in concert with the church and family in presenting an integrated and effective means of acting on principle at home, at school, at work, and in the larger community. History reveals that this combined effort at character development began to unravel when advocates for the separation of church and state were successful in requiring public schools to remove any reference to The Ten Commandments and the teachings of Jesus. Since most Americans view morality as a matter of religion, public schools rapidly and completely abandoned all formal teaching of moral reasoning based on a concern the school district would become the object of litigation by the American Civil Liberties Union.

Conservatives who cite this history as a means of arguing for a return of biblically-based moral instruction to the classroom can be reminded that given the political strength of those who advocate the separation of church and state, it is unlikely religion will be returned to public school classrooms in the United States anytime in the foreseeable future. What’s more, even if this were to occur, teaching moral reasoning based on scripture will do little to motivate a large number of students to act on principle because many Americans no longer understand the world in terms of Biblical descriptions of reality. Students who have no faith in God, who have no vision of heaven, and who have no fear of hell, have no reason to take seriously what the Bible has to say about life and how to live. Clearly, scientifically formulated principles of morality are much more powerful in motivating public school students who have no religious foundation to make use of them in daily living because these ideas about how to behave are consistent with the scientific worldview which pervades everything else they learn at school.

Those conservatives who maintain moral training should be kept out of public school and left up to the family and the clergy can be reminded that in America today millions of children have never seen the inside of a synagogue or a church. Millions more are being raised by parents who see no value in acting on moral principles in the course of daily living. Since public schools are the only place these children would have an opportunity to receive formal training on how to act on principle, failing to provide this type of education only perpetuates the epidemic of unhappiness in the United States. Persons of faith who have no problems using scientific discoveries which have led to vaccinating virtually all children in America against smallpox, diphtheria, and polio should be encouraged to recognize that teaching the formula for happiness is a means of inoculating children against functional illiteracy, probation, incarceration, addiction, sexually transmitted diseases, unintended pregnancy, marital disharmony, domestic violence, divorce, and a variety of problems with their mental health. It makes no more sense to deprive millions of children of the benefit of learning about scientifically formulated principles of morality than it would to limit the availability of vaccinations to the children of persons who believe in God and who take their kids to Sunday School.

Those conservatives who believe that acting on a secular set of moral principles may have a negative effect on fostering faith can be reminded that scientifically formulated principles of morality are in no way hostile to a belief in God or any traditional religion. While letting students learn about the formula for happiness at school, parents and religious leaders can combine this product of scientific research with their approach to religious education. Religious educators can show children how scientifically formulated principles of morality are compatible with many of the ideas about right and wrong contained in scripture as a means of providing further validation for the moral principles found in sacred texts. What’s more, religious teachers can demonstrate how combining Biblical instructions on how to relate to God with scientifically formulated principles of morality enables persons of faith to experience a greater degree of joy than the level of fulfillment people are able to find by simply following the formula for happiness

Liberals

Because the formula for happiness is a product of the scientific method, many liberals find the notion that it can be taught in public school to be an intriguing idea. Since they can also see how training youth to act on scientifically formulated principles of morality will go a long way toward reducing the epidemic of unhappiness, they generally recognize the value of encouraging this approach to teaching decision-making in public schools. At the same time, some liberals have difficulty supporting a program for character development which inspires students to act on principle by an explicit appeal to self-interest. This resistance can subside once these liberals recognize how following the formula for happiness results in a number of benefits to others and to society as a whole.

When an individual acts on the principle of self-respect that person is doing what he or she can to promote his or her overall physical and emotional well-being, thereby relieving healthcare and social service agencies of the need to provide for that individual and making their services available to other needy members of the community. When people acts on the principle of industry, they provide for the material needs of other people in the form of such tangible items as food, clothing, shelter, automobiles, appliance, electronic devices, and countless other meaningful material objects which enhance the quality of human life. When a doctor, nurse, attorney, banker, police officer, auto mechanic, building inspector, or custodian acts on the principle of industry, he or she is serving others by providing quality healthcare, legal representation, financial assistance, security, transportation, or safe and clean buildings, streets and parks, which enhance the lives of other members of the community. When a person acts on the principle of equity, he or she is enabling others to maintain their physical and emotional well-being while, at the same time, contributing to the freedom and security of other members of the community. When a person acts on the principle of honesty, he or she is providing others with accurate information which enables them to make informed and realistic decisions choices when faced with momentous decisions which will have a long-term impact on their future quality of life.

Beyond these benefits which result from acting on specific scientifically formulated principles of morality, persons who behave according to the formula for happiness tend to be those who support institutions which are central to the American way of life. Self-respecting, industrious, equitable, and honest people are those individuals who provide most of the contributions to charitable organizations in the United States. As taxpayers, they also provide service to others through government-funded health and welfare programs.

Self-respecting, industrious, equitable, and honest individuals build better families, neighborhoods, and communities. Working within these networks of interpersonal relationships they develop, support, and maintain quality education, healthcare institutions, libraries, and emergency services. They become politically informed and conscientious voters who support politicians and public policies which balance agricultural, mining and manufacturing interests with environmental concerns. They also support candidates and government officials who are ensuring fair law enforcement, protecting the integrity of the courts, and maintaining military readiness so that all citizens can benefit from a government designed to protect each individual’s right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Assuming liberals are interested in a program for character development which can provide these benefits to society, it is important for them to recognize that these benefits only materialize when individuals are motivated to act on those principles which yield these results. Since character education based on the formula for happiness demonstrates that it is in the students’ interest to act on principle, this approach to character education is effective in inspiring them to make use of scientifically formulated principles of morality in the course of daily living. As such, teaching the formula for happiness is a much more reliable means of enhancing the welfare of others than simply requiring students in character development programs to engage in public service activities such as serving meals in a soup kitchen, picking up litter along the highway, or baking cookies for the residents of the local homeless shelter.

Resetting the Moral Foundation

In 1776, a group of British subjects declared their independence from royal rule and went on to design a blueprint for a way of life intended to optimize the conditions for the personal pursuit of happiness. Recognizing that the pursuit of happiness depends on individual self-control, they based the Constitution and the Bill of Rights on the assumption that Americans would continue to govern their personal lives with the moral principles they inherited from Judeo-Christian tradition. Although the Founding Fathers were aware that science was making impressive advances even in their day, they had no way of envisioning how that moral foundation would disintegrate when the Christian vision of reality gave way to the scientific worldview which characterizes America today.

“These are the times that try men’s souls” wrote Thomas Paine at the beginning of The American Crisis. Five months after the Continental Congress issued the Declaration of Independence, he wrote this essay to awaken Americans to the fact that the war for winning that independence was not yielding the intended, desired, and anticipated result. He urged the people of this nation to recognize that if they simply went about their daily lives assuming the war would be won without some effort on their part, they were pursuing a course of action which would have disastrous consequences with respect to the future of the American way of life. We now know that those who reevaluated this assumption and devoted themselves to the cause, were eventually successful in establishing the first nation on earth devoted to protecting each citizen’s right to the pursuit of happiness.

Like the Americans of his day, we are currently confronted with a crisis and with a soul-searching choice. One alternative involves continuing to flounder along, arguing about whether choices make a difference in the quality of human life, bickering over whether morality plays a part in the personal pursuit of happiness, and quarreling about whether morality must be a matter of religion or whether it should be based on some philosophy, while each year more and more children move into adult life with virtually no appreciation for the role morality plays in the pursuit of happiness. The other alternative consists of recognizing that the choices we make determine the quality of our lives, acknowledging that ideas about right and wrong are essential to the pursuit of happiness, and doing what we can to promote the notion that scientifically formulated principles of morality are an effective means of restoring moral reasoning and moral action to its proper place at the foundation of the American way of life.

Copyright 2006

Florida drug treatment centers say the number of people seeking help for the abuse of painkillers is on the rise. OxyContin, Vicodin, and other opiates are only available with a doctor’s prescription, but more and more people are still able to abuse them. In fact, an estimated 5.2 million people are believed to be abusing painkillers right now. Because people with this type of addiction are often living with chronic pain, their addiction requires an individual plan introduced by residential drug rehabs to be treated.

Who Is Abusing Painkillers?

What was once a very hidden addiction is now making headlines throughout the country. In Georgia in 2007, WWE wrestler Chris Benoit murdered his wife and seven-year-old son before killing himself after a history of concussions, drug abuse, and an addiction to painkillers. This isn’t the only famous addiction to painkillers. Many famous names such as Anna Nicole Smith and Matthew Perry have also suffered from this terrible addiction. Conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh has also admitted to abuse of opiates.

Residential drug rehabs aren’t just treating the rich and famous for this addiction, however. Many ordinary people start using painkillers after an accident or injury that is causing genuine pain, eventually becoming addicted. This occurs because the longer someone takes the opiates, the more their body becomes accustomed to the drug. This requires them to increase their dose in order to achieve the same effect. Once that person becomes an addict, say Florida drug treatment experts, the addict can be taking upwards of thirty or more pills every day.

Where Are They Coming From?

In 2005 in Florida, drug treatment wasn’t in the mind of one 60-year-old family physician. The doctor received a 25-year sentence and $550,000 in fines for trafficking Oxycodone, fraud, and racketeering and an additional five-year sentence for selling and handing out Xanax and Valium. Doctors do not generally cause addictions intentionally, but an estimated 50% do fail to talk to their patients about their addiction.

Pain pill addicts don’t just rely on their regular prescriptions for the drugs either. They use excuses such as losing their medication or saying that they spilled them in order to get their doctor to prescribe more. Florida drug rehabs say that when this stops working, addicts will head to drop in clinics or jump between several doctors to get enough medication to satisfy their habit.

How Painkiller Addictions Are Treated

One of the first steps residential drug rehabs take to treat someone addicted to opiates is a medically controlled detoxification. This doesn’t cure the addiction, but it makes the violent withdrawal caused by the addiction much easier to deal with. This withdrawal causes chills, vomiting, pain, and a variety of other symptoms that make the abuser very ill. From there, Florida drug treatment centers say, a personalized program is developed to help the addict live a drug-free life. This includes an alternative treatment plan for dealing with pain that many addicts do suffer from.

The abuse of opiates is a tragic reflection of modern society and it is taking its toll in devastating ways. It isn’t a poor man’s drug, it isn’t a fad of the rich, it is a very real addiction that permanently affects millions of lives every year. Florida drug treatment experts say the only way to combat this form of addiction effectively is to educate the public, work with healthcare professionals, and get addicts into residential drug rehabs before it is too late.

I really like this song it’s a girl singing and its almost to the end of the show “the cleaner” in an episode where he is helping a house wife that is addicted to oxycotin and other perscription pills.

My wife wants to try drinks with me and get drunk as well, however she dislikes the taste of most alcohol. She can taste it in drinks where I can barely perceive it and she stops drinking before she gets tipsy. She’s interested in finding out what it’s like to be drunk but she cannot stomach the flavor of liquor and she’s especially disgusted by beer.

What mixed drinks might you recommend to help me out?

Warning: Drug Use Is Hazardous to Your Health. You probably already knew that, but drug addiction doesn’t care. All that addiction cares about is getting high. All addiction cares about is you doing what you need to do to take the drugs that it wants you to take. Drug addiction is marijuana, addiction is crystal meth, addiction is cocaine, addiction is heroin, addiction is Percocet, Oxycontin, addiction is drugs, and if you don’t battle a drug addiction, that addiction may eventually kill you. Think that sounds harsh? How many heroin addicts do you know in their 80’s? How about their 60’s? Drugs, some may take longer to kill than others, but eventually after continuous abuse, they will kill. Although drug addiction speaks loud, your over riding sense of self preservation probably speaks louder. If it is time to end drug addiction and leave it in the past, and to live life drug free, addiction treatment is what you need to get you there.

Addiction treatment is for any person who is addicted to drugs or alcohol. It doesn’t matter the severity of the addiction or even the duration of the addiction, the right addiction treatment will have you finding sobriety. There are different types of addiction treatments that you have access to. The addiction treatments that are offered at one addiction treatment center may not be the right addiction treatment for you. Choosing the one that is best for you will only help to ensure success in recovery. You have access to a free resource like Treatment-Centers.net which is a valuable tool for locating the addiction treatment center for the best treatment possible.

Maybe you are looking for an addiction treatment center for someone else in your life. Maybe it’s your father, wife, or your daughter; maybe it is even for your boss, if you are trying to get someone you care for addiction treatment, you will find that Treatment-Centers.net can assist you in finding the care that they need to help them find recovery. You also will find resources that are valuable to you throughout the addiction treatment process as well.

If you have never dealt with addiction you may not understand or be able to empathize with the addict, not knowing what they are going through physically or psychologically makes it difficult to grasp why the addict does what he or she does. Addiction will turn an otherwise loving person into an angry, desperate person that causes chaos and confusion in your life. Drug addiction lets loose a stranger in your life, as well as the person whose life gets lost to addiction that they have a hard time controlling. Addiction by its very nature hates to be controlled. But it can be, and sobriety can be life-long. With the varying addiction treatments available, the right addiction treatment is available to your loved one. Do not hesitate to ask for help. Call 1-877-335-HOPE and get the help that can save a life.

They have five kids and the parents make and smoke methamphetamine all day. There is barely enough food and the children need a better home. Everyone tells me that I don’t have enough proof to call the police, but the wife who lives there used to come to my home and talk about her obnoxious husband smoking meth (she’s stopped doing that, because she picked it up to). It’s horrid and I want it to end. What can I do?

Millions of Americans are enrolled in the welfare system; a program designed to give a boost to the poor and needy families to help them make it through the year while they got back on their feet.  Unfortunately, it has now become a way of life for many.  Many argue that welfare is now destroying our culture and creating dependent people who learned to abuse privileges that come with living in America.  Welfare has become a target for gluttonous mothers and others who have no values or willingness to obtain a job.  This definitely makes an impact on the needy families and people with disabilities who deserve to receive aid from this program.  Mothers who sit around waiting for the next check to come in the mail and are not willing to do anything to help themselves or their families should not have the privilege of receiving government assistance.  That is why there should be enforceable guide lines that are met to regulate how long people stay on the welfare system.

            In earlier times of American history there were no welfare programs to help aid the needy.  All America had depended on the charity of churches, and sometimes private organizations to help the poorest families.  It was not until 1935 when President Roosevelt signed the Aid For Dependant Children (AFDC) that a program was put in effect by the government.  This was a bill containing the original provisions of the welfare program:

The bill allowed $18 per month for one child and $12 for each additional child.     The bill expanded on the infrastructure of state programs that had been set up as        ‘widow’s funds’.  Only single mothers received funds.  At this time, just about           50% of those receiving AFDC were children supported by widows, 17% were             children with an incapacitated father, 21% were supported by a woman who had   been abandon by her husband and just 2% of children on the welfare rolls were    supported by women who had never married (Snyder 1).

This bill continued to stay in effect until 1996 when President Bill Clinton negotiated with Congress to pass the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act which drastically changed the program.  The program replaced AFDC by calling it the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF).  TANF was very similar to AFDC but limited the receipt of benefits to five years and with few exceptions made recipients responsible to find work as soon as ready, or no later than two years after coming on assistance.  Bill Clinton’s reform was criticized by many because they believed it was too much like AFDC and would have no effect on a change.  Statistics show that:

There were 2,032,157 families receiving TANF cash benefits in June 2003, the       most recent month for which data is available.  The total represents a 0.3 percent    decrease from March 2003 and a 54 percent decrease from August 1996, when        TANF was enacted.  A total of 4,955,479 individuals were receiving TANF             benefits in June 2003, 0.6 percent fewer than in March and 60 percent fewer than in August 1996.  From January 2001 to June 2003, the number of TANF families    declined 5 percent and the number of recipients declined 9.2 percent (“Temporary         Assistnace” 1).

Although statistics show that Clinton’s reform works, people are still continually abusing the system   Recipients find new ways each year to prolong their dependency on the system.  It is not fair to hard working tax payers who are giving their well earned money to greedy, lazy Americans that are able to work, but do not choose to.  Mothers are the most common offenders among the many million Americans who receive aid from the government.  Women easily cheat the program by simply having more children, by having more children means more money comes in the mail.  They also live with partners, which according to the regulations are not allowed. In order to be a recipient, mothers eligible to receive welfare are to be single and be the sole support of their children. Drug and alcohol use are the two other ways that mothers could and will abuse the welfare program.  Many problems occur when welfare recipients begin to use drugs.  They tend to use their allotted money on drugs which leaves no money for taking care of their children.  Their next step into deceit is to resort to getting pregnant because they know by having more children means more money.  Pollack states in the “American Journal of Public Health” that, “Among 2002 National Survey of Drug Use and Health respondents deemed “in need” of substance-abuse treatment, welfare recipients were significantly more likely than non-recipients to receive such services….Controlling for other factors, welfare receipt was associated with higher prevalence of illicit drug use” (2024).  This study shows how people on welfare are still abusing the system even with the reforms that have been activated and put into effect.

To show personal experience or occurrence with this situation would be an example my grandparents informed me of.  My grandparents have a dear friend that lives next door to a woman who is collecting welfare.  The row home she lives in with her three children and her boyfriends rents for approximately $1300. per month.  But being that she is on government assistance, she only pays $24. a month.  This lady does not hold a job and also gets food stamps and subsidized electric.  She receives money from the government for her three sons.  Critics on the opposing side may say that she might not have the skills to work.  This is a totally false statement.  It is a personally known fact that if someone is looking for a job that is on welfare the government will provide training and help that person find a job.  This is a known fact because it has happened to my second cousins wife before they got married.  The most ridiculous part about the welfare program is that the government is willing to provide help for people that are capable of working but are just too lazy to work.  A more irritating situation is when a honest working family becomes a victim to hard, unfortunate times and requires assistance from the government but don’t qualify to receive the help.  Here is an example from the news; a father and mother are both working two jobs to make ends meet, they have a son who has a chronic illness that can not be treated because they don’t have the money for pay for it.  The government would not help this family in any way, so the married couple had to get a legal divorce so that they could say their son lives with and is supported by a single mother and she doesn’t have enough money to pay for the bill.  By the mother being single and having a child she was able to receive the health care.  This situation completely makes no sense.  Basically what the government is doing is allowing people to cheat the system just so their child can receive treatment.  What is wrong with this picture?  You would think that the government would be willing to help the family instead of putting them on Medicare which would go against their ultimate goal of decreasing the governments’ responsibility for yet another dependent family.  The government needs to re-evaluate and enforce their government assistance system. 

In Clinton’s reform, “PRWORA permitted chemical drug testing.  This allowed states to deny benefits to adults convicted of drug felonies, and allowed states to terminate benefits to illicit drug-using women who violated program requirements or who simply failed to find employment” (Pollack 2024).  From the beginning of this reform, some states began to implement their state welfare programs to help illicit drug and alcohol abusers to receive treatment to able them entry into the work force.  The state of California developed the “Cal-WORKS” program where “each county receives a portion of a 63.5 million dollar funding pool designed to help persons receiving welfare benefits remove alcohol and drug-related barriers to employment” (“California Counties” 1).  Not only is the state of California trying to help drug abusers, but the “Governor of Illinois, Jim Edgar has proposed to reduce welfare program spending by 2.5 percent in the states fiscal year that begins July 1.  He also is suggesting setting aside 3 million dollars in new money toward the establishment of a drug screening and assessment program for welfare beneficiaries” (“Illinois Considers” 4).  If Edgar’s proposal is approved, the state will require welfare recipients who have substance abuse problems to undergo treatment.  The good part, state officials believe that beneficiaries will get off the public assistance treadmill and provide for themselves.  The bad part would be for those beneficiaries who would have their benefits gradually decrease and have no intentions to cooperate with the rehab programs. 

Welfare programs have proven beneficial in helping people and families that are in need.  Because of the program’s abuse, new state regulations were needed.  Statistics show that the reform program implemented by Bill Clinton back in 1996 is working.  It has succeeded in reducing the number of families and people on assistance.  A quote from the Truman Show states, “we except the reality of the world who which we are presented.”  This phrase underlines what sociologist call agents of socialization.  The book definition for agents of socialization is groups or social contexts in which significant processes of socialization occur.”  There are two types of socializations, the first is primary socialization which takes place in infancy and early childhood and is the most crucial period of culture learning.  Children around the age of two tend to absorb a lot of crucial information at this stage.  The family is the main source of cultural learning where they learn language and behavior patterns.  If a child is born from a mother that abuses drugs and lives on welfare it is obvious to say that this child will be exposed to nothing but the environment they live in.  This will start a family trend where everything is given for free and nothing is achieved.  Children will have no incentive to achieve anything in life because they would not have the right support for their goals.  The final type is secondary socialization which takes place from childhood to maturity.  At this point other agents take over the family role such as peer groups and the surrounding communities.  As children begin to develop into young adults, they start to be influenced by their surroundings and friend.  Stereotypically, most welfare families live in subsided homes where there is nothing but government assisted families.  This point refers back to the family where there is no incentive to make oneself better.  No one peer involved in the young adults life will be able to support or encourage higher education because they may not have achieved that themselves.  Not even the school could help the young adult because most teens will find school not important because most likely there parents dropped out or failed high school.  So to them, there would be no need in school.  The point is, if more welfare mothers keep having more and more children just for the money, they are just bringing more and more future government assisted people in the world.  The children will not be able to see any other side of the world if they are trapped within that type of environment.  The agents of socialization proves that the Truman quote is true that children are highly influenced by their families and environment.  Without strict regulation, a vicious cycle will continue to grow with an increasing number of government assisted people.  In the reform, Clinton allowed states to implement their own regulations to the program.  Many states have introduced into their program assistance abusers.  The results have clearly shown that the programs were helping, but if not regulated properly, many people will continue to abuse and find new ways to cheating the program.  That is why enforcement of the laws that are already in place need to be applied and up held so that the numbers of recipients continue to decrease.  The welfare program was implemented to help those who are in need of a little extra help until they can become a self sufficient individual and should not be allowed to be used as a source of permanent income. 

 

I’m tired of having to re-finish the table every time she wants to put her hooves up.

I’m asking as a loving husband who would like to stay sleeping in my Sleep Number bed.

“Keep coming back, it works if you work it!” This is what is chanted at the end of every meeting, but what if you have “worked it” and you still keep going back and getting drunk or loaded? Now, most people in the program will say things like, “Well, you must not have really done the steps right,” or  “You didn’t go to enough meetings,” or  “You didn’t pray to your Higher Power,” or  “You know you did something wrong or else you would still be sober!” But what if the truth was that you did nothing “wrong,” that in reality you did not fail the Program, but rather the Program was just not a right fit for you, and in fact, it fails for most people? Hopefully even this little bit of knowledge would start to alleviate some of the guilt and shame that many carry due to numerous relapses and going in and out 12-step programs for many years.

Since what you are told from your very first 12-step meeting is, “Your only options are to get sober using our Program, or it’s jails, institutions or death,” you tend to stop thinking for yourself, (since it was your “best thinking that got you here“), stop questioning, and just follow what other’s tell you to do. This would be fine if this is what worked… but unfortunately, evidence is proving otherwise.

The 12-step success rate is showing to be approximately 3 percent. Yes, that’s right… only 3 percent! (Brown,Treatment Doesn’t Work, 1991). Here are some more startling statistics (Based on Alcoholics Anonymous World Services’ own statistics).:

          *45% of the people who attend Alcoholics Anonymous meetings never return after their first meeting.

          *81% of AA attendees are gone after one month

           *90% are gone after three months

           *93% are gone (7% remain) after 6 months

           *95% never return after the first year.

So there is a 5% retention rate for the first year. Note that the claimed five percent of A.A. newcomers who are still coming back after one year (and sober, we hope) is exactly the same number as the normal rate of spontaneous remission among alcoholics. A number of studies have found that a small percentage of alcoholics improve to the point of remission of problems associated with alcohol consumption, and we call this spontaneous remission. The preponderance of studies suggests that a spontaneous remission rate for alcoholism of at least one-year duration is about 4-18 percent. Successful treatment would, therefore, have to produce rates of improvement significantly above this probable range of spontaneous remission. Alcoholics Anonymous comes nowhere near exceeding a 4 to 18 percent per year recovery rate. Harvard Medical Schoolreported that in the long run, the rate of spontaneous remission in alcoholics is slightly over 50 percent. That would put the annual rate of spontaneous remission to be around 5 percent. Yet the claimed success rate of Alcoholics Anonymous does not even exceed that much lower rate.

If we subtract the usual spontaneous remission rate from A.A.’s claimed success rate, we get zero percent for A.A.’s actual effective cure rate. A.A. didn’t make anybody quit drinking — those who quit were the ones who were going to quit anyway. They would have quit anyway, no matter what treatment they were receiving, or even no treatment at all!  So, an alcoholism treatment program that seems to have a 5% success rate probably really has a zero percent success rate, and it is just taking credit for the spontaneous remission that is happening anyway. And a program that has less than a five percent success rate, like four or three, may really have a negative success rate — it is actually keeping some people from succeeding in getting clean and sober. Any success rate that is less than the usual rate of spontaneous remission indicates a program that is a real disaster and is hurting the participants.

Yet even with all of this research, 93-97% of conventional drug rehabs and alcohol treatment centers are still 12-step or AA based, so those who leave AA to look elsewhere, such as conventional alcohol and drug treatment for solutions, are essentially rejoining AA!

AA hardly sounds like a “proven method,” let alone one that works for most people. So, if only about 5% of the people are getting the help that they need, what about the 95% of the people who are not being helped? That is the purpose of this article… to provide much needed awareness to individuals, rehabilitation centers, hospitals, sober livings, and even 12-step programs themselves so that people with substance abuse problems can actually start be helped. The bottom line is this… is the goal to get alcoholics and addicts into AA or NA or CA, or is it to actually get them some help?

Professor (and Doctor) George E. Vaillant of Harvard University is an enthusiastic advocate of Twelve-Step treatment, and is currently a non-alcoholic member of the Alcoholics Anonymous World Services, Inc. (AAWS) Board of Trustees. So he really wanted to prove the effectiveness of AA. To study the effectiveness of various methods of treating alcoholism, Vaillant compiled forty years of clinical studies. Vaillant and the director William Clark also conducted an eight-year longitudinal study of their own where Vaillant reported having followed 100 patients who had undergone twelve-step treatment. He compared those people to a group of several hundred other untreated alcohol abusers. The treated patients did no better than the untreated alcoholics. Fully 95% of the treated patients relapsed sometime during the eight-year period that Vaillant followed them.

After initial discharge, only five patients in the clinic sample never relapsed to alcoholic drinking, and there is compelling evidence that the results of their treatment were no better than the natural history of the disease (spontaneous remission). What Professor Vaillant, a Trustee of Alcoholics Anonymous World Services, Inc. — in other words, one of the highest-ranking A.A. leaders — is candidly, clearly describing is a zero-percent success rate for his A.A.-based treatment program. And it was even worse than no help: The A.A.-treated group, with the death rate of 29%, had the highest death rate of any kind of program, significantly higher than all of the other programs. And those five people out of the hundred in the A.A.-treated clinic sample who successfully stayed sober for 8 years are just the result of that same old five percent spontaneous remission rate at work, again.

Remember that these terrible numbers were reported by a Trustee of Alcoholics Anonymous World Services, Inc., by a real true believer in A.A., by someone who loves A.A. and was trying hard to make it look good, not by some harsh critic of A.A. who might be suspected of bias, or of fudging the numbers to make A.A. look bad.

Let me mention that I think 12-step programs are great for those individuals who it does work for, (or at least seems to work for—again, it might just be the work of spontaneous remission rather than the program itself that is working). I have seen it change many lives for the better, including my dad, who has now had 15 years of continuous sobriety, maintaining his sobriety from his very first meeting. It is also a great fellowship to share experiences, strength and hope. So, in no way am I anti-AA. However, it has become clear to me that substance abuse is not a “one size fits all” problem, and therefore, there can not be a “one-size-fits-all” solution. 

The National Institute of Drug Abuse, NIDA, has even gone on record to emphasize that no single addiction treatment method is right for everyone. They claim that matching treatment services to each individual’s specific needs is critical to success. In addition, research studies indicate that even the most severely addicted individuals can participate actively in their own treatment, and that active participation is essential for good outcomes. According to the NIDA, counseling, either individual or group, and other behavioral therapies are critical components of effective treatment for addiction. It’s interesting to note that participation in a 12-step program was never mentioned anywhere in this research based guide which discussed the principles of effective treatment. 

Reliance on outdated and ineffective treatment methods has created an environment that fully expects individuals to fail, and fail again until such time that rock bottom has been reached. It is often said that once an individual has reached rock bottom that there is only one way to go, UP. The problem with that philosophy is that for many people, the ultimate rock bottom is death. (Vacovsky, Executive Director, American Council on Alcoholism, May 12, 2005).

Vacovsky goes on to write:

“Many, (if not indeed most) alcohol dependent individuals have lost faith in themselves, and more importantly hope for the future. It is common for such individuals to have numerous attempts at sobriety, most often using 12-step methods. They have been programmed to accept themselves as hopeless and powerless, with their chance for recovery being slim to none… It is up to the individual to determine what the most appropriate treatment is. It is up to the treatment community to provide options that set up individuals to succeed, rather than be expected to fail.”

Sadly, Americans are largely unaware that such options even exist. At least, the general public is. While the public is being told that “turning your will and life over to the care of God as you understand Him,” as AA suggests, is the only treatment for their illness, scientifically based research has been going on for decades. Results of this research are threefold:

We now have options for treatment that are based on science rather than fundamentalist religion;<br>
Gives back choice and a sense of control to the individual, which is proving to be extremely important and<br>
We now have evidence that is in direct contradiction to the traditional view of problem drinking.

What, exactly, is the research finding? Here is what some of the experts in the addiction field have found: 

Well-designed research conducted over more than three decades has conclusively demonstrated that problem drinking will not inevitably get progressively worse, and that this is one attribute of being a “disease” of alcoholism is simply wrong. Some problem drinkers “progress,” but the vast majority don’t.<br>
What most Americans believe about drinking problems and their treatment is substantially inaccurate.<br>
Drinking problems do not occur as a result of a disease. It is a learned behavior, and additional learning can therefore modify behavior.<br>
For no other “disease” do so many physicians, psychologists and counselors themselves believe in the non-research-based myths of problem drinking, ignoring the research of their own peers in developing their treatment plans.<br>
“Problem drinkers in the United States are faced with a daunting dilemma when they seek help. They can either accept the prevailing myth that abstinence is the only effective means to resolve a drinking problem, or they can be accused of being “in denial…”<br>
Insistence by treatment programs to only offer abstinence has been shown to deter many problem drinkers from seeking treatment.<br>
Individualizing treatment is crucial.<br>
Chronic “relapsers” can actually be harmed by the 12-step model view that once a slip has started, you are powerless to stop; the stronger one’s belief in this is the longer and more damaging the relapses are.<br>
The confrontation and treating alcoholics and addicts like children commonly thought necessary to help them actually often hinders any change.<br>
Many providers deliberately resist change because they have too much of an attachment to their own ideas of what should work, claiming, “I know what worked for me, and I’m sure that it can work for everyone else as long as they just do what I say.”<br>
The only way to resolve a problem with alcohol is to abstain for life is wrong for the majority of people. A substantial proportion becomes moderate drinkers even when achieving abstinence is the primary focus of treatment.<br>
Dr. Patricia Owen, Director of Research of the Hazelden Foundation, who was a long-time supporter of abstinence-only treatment, referred to these individuals as “in recovery without abstinence” and acknowledged their presence in large numbers among a sample of Hazelden graduates.

Of course, not even all scientists agree on the nature of and best treatments for alcohol abuse. But this is the twenty-first century, and no one would disagree that all patients suffering with an alcohol or drug problem have a right, just like any other patient suffering with any other problem, to be fully informed of the available options, the risks or areas of uncertainty, and, after reviewing the relevant information, in consultation with one or more providers, choose a course of action. This is simply good, ethical medicine.  Should people struggling with substance abuse issues accept anything less?

It is also important to acknowledge that recovery programs are not necessary to discover how to quit and stay quit. The following is from the Harvard Medical School’s Mental Health Letter, the August/September 1996 issue:

Most recovery from alcoholism is not the result of treatment. Only 20% of alcohol abusers are ever treated… Alcohol addicts, like heroin addicts, have a tendency to mature out of their addiction…

In a group of self-treated alcoholics, more than half said that they had simply thought it over and decided that alcohol was bad for them. Another group said health problems and frightening experiences such as accidents and blackouts persuaded them to quit… Others have recovered by changing their circumstances with the help of a new job or a new love or under the threat of a legal crisis or the breakup of a family. Support from a husband or wife was important in sustaining the resolution.

Study results from addiction researchers, Doctors Linda and Mark Sobell, confirm Harvard’s 20% treatment statistic:

Surveys found that over 77 percent of those who had overcome an alcohol problem had done so without treatment. In an earlier study… a sizable majority of alcohol abusers, 82 percent, recovered on their own.

 However, even though it is possible to recover on your own, you may want a recovery program, or at least a licensed professional for support.  The good news is that many more treatment programs are starting to provide more evidence-based options beyond just the traditional 12-step approach, and this list is growing everyday. You can find a complete, comprehensive directory of over 100 professionals and drug and alcohol programs all over the U.S. and abroad that will provide you with many options in Melanie Solomon’s newly released 2nd Edition of “AA Not the Only Way; Your One Stop Resource Guide to 12-Step Alternatives.”

 Leading U.S. addiction expert Dr. Marc Kern states, “I have long awaited this directory of addiction treatment alternatives. It represents what I believe to be the future of the field. It is a pioneering effort to organize this unique body of knowledge. A directory of this type was never available before.”

 Dr. Frederick Rotgers, another leading addiction expert explains, “The problem is finding treatment providers who provide these alternative, evidence-based approaches. Melanie Solomon has taken a wonderful step toward making that process, of identifying alternatives to traditional treatments, easier.”

 It is finally time to stop living in the dark ages of recovery, educate people about all of their choices and alternatives that are out there and maybe start making a dent in the alcohol and drug use problem that millions are facing each day instead of continuing to perpetuate it. If you are one of those people who still believe that the 12-steps are the “only way” to recover, I implore you to have an open mind. In fact, Bill W., one of the co-founders of AA said, “It would be a product of false pride to claim that A.A. is a cure-all, even for alcoholism.” Bill W. repeatedly said that “our hats are off to you if you can find a better way” and “If [those seeking a different cure] can do better by other means, we are glad.”

You may think you are capable of managing your drug use, but take it from me; it is just a matter of time before things begin to spiral out of control. Drugs have an insidious way of blinding you from the truth.

When I was pulled over for driving erratically and spent the night in jail, I rationalized it was just an overzealous police officer trying to make a name for himself.

When I lost my job, I rationalized that my boss let me go because of a faltering economy.

When my wife filed for divorce, I convinced myself she was having an affair.

When I lost custody of my children, I convinced myself that divorce proceedings always favored the woman.

When my friends and family begged me to see I had a drug problem and to seek drug treatment, I ignored them and isolated myself.

When I was evicted from my home and forced onto the street…. Well, you get the picture.

When I was addicted to cocaine, nothing was ever my fault. My problems were everyone else’s problem. My being pulled over was the police officer’s fault; losing my job was my boss’s fault; getting divorced was my wife’s fault; losing my children was the judge’s fault; and isolating myself from friends and family was their fault. For years, I pointed a finger at everyone but myself.

The list of things I lost during the course of my addiction could fill a novel. But it was only after I lost everything that I finally admitted that my problems were my responsibility and sought a drug treatment center.

I called a friend who suggested I check out Sunset Malibu. After comparing Sunset Malibu with other drug treatment centers, I called their toll free hotline at 1-800-332-9202 and spoke to a caring counselor. Two days later, I checked myself in. It was a decision that changed my life forever. Sunset Malibu’s wide range of treatment programs and top-notch amenities were the tools I needed to get sober and stay sober.

Years later, I am happy to report that I have a successful career, a beautiful home, and a new lease on life. Most importantly, I have reconciled and remarried my beautiful, loving wife, and I have my family back. Today, I know I am forever indebted to those who have forgiven me and supported me during and after my rehabilitation.

My only regret is that I didn’t call Sunset Malibu sooner, before losing everything I knew and loved to addiction. Call Sunset Malibu at 1-800-332-9202 today.

I have been happily married for years and I have no complaints with the exception of one;
My wife uses prescription drugs at a level which is beyond safe.

She uses them in the morning. She uses them in the evening.

I am very scared. Her Dr. told me that it is a safe level, but she has two doctors who do not know about each other and each prescribes the same medication.

I am at my wits end. I do not want her to get into trouble with the authorities but I do not want her problem to get worse.

WHAT SHOULD I DO???????

The oral ED pills invented during the last 10 years completely revolutionized the definition of ED treatment. Before the invention of ED pills, the treatment of erectile dysfunction was not a possibility. The ED treatments that existed before the invention of ED pills were not quite effective. They were nothing short of the “hit and miss” sorts. This is especially applicable to the rudimentary ED medications discovered by our ancestors. ED is a disease that is afflicting human beings right from the latter’s inception. There are very few men who can boast of escaping ED. Otherwise, almost 98% of men experience ED at some point of their lives. This is a calculation based on the contemporary prevalence of erectile dysfunction in the society but there are possibilities that the rate might be slightly low in the earlier times. The lifestyle of people in the recent times is also responsible for the growing instances of ED to a considerable extent. Nevertheless, the miraculous ED pills, as these drugs are commonly referred to, have changed things and brought significant relief to human beings.

Erectile Dysfunction is not one of those diseases that actually pose a threat to life. Interestingly, its impacts are no different from those of the serious illnesses. ED is not a disease that simply affects the workings of the male sex organ. It affects people to a deeper level and successfully leaves scars on the affected man’s ego, self respect, self esteem, confidence and sometimes even affects his relation with his kinsmen and particularly with his sex mate, be it his wife or girlfriend. The social implications and altogether the stigmas that are associated with a man’s sexual abilities, actually make ED highly significant as a disastrous male sexual disorder. Man fails to see ED as just a disease that requires simple treatment. ED is thought to a big question mark on a man’s manliness but in reality erectile dysfunction is far from it. However, now people are aware of the ED drugs and are opting for ED pills like levitra and for other erectile dysfunction treatment procedures. There is also a specific issue that is very relevant here. Many people feel embarrassed to go for the ED pills openly. For these patients, there is a way out as they can buy levitra online also. Even the other ED pills are available online. Nonetheless, before you buy levitra, just make yourself acquainted with the levitra myths or you might be the victim of disaster unleashed by wrong usage of erectile dysfunction pills.

No doubt, these ED pills are nothing short of miracles, they do have a flip side to them. Apart from the side- effects occasionally triggered off by ED pills, the oral ED pills are not accessible to the majority of the ED affected population as they are quite pricey. Though the sexual disorder erectile dysfunction afflicts a large section of the society, ED pills are not meant for all. They are well beyond the financial capacity of a larger section. People can’t go for ED medications by burning a hole in their pockets when the other necessities of life remain to be fulfilled. The price factor of ED pills is an issue that has given rise to the illegal sale of both approved and unapproved ED drugs. As these drugs are available at cheap rates, people opt for them instead of buying approved ED drugs legally. Just to quote an example, recently in the UK, two men were imprisoned for selling unapproved ED drugs. One of the drugs that they were selling was funnily called Loveagra. You will surely notice that this name possesses an uncanny resemblance to the two famous ED pills Levitra and Viagra, but let me inform you that this medicine is not effective like Viagra and levitra in treating the erectile dysfunction disorder and is a wholly counterfeit drug.

i started smoking crack a few weeks ago and i think i might have become addicted, i tried the CAP(crack addiction program) 2 times now and they arent helping at all, i just need a few methods from a few of you crack heads, i think that my problem has gotten in the way of me and my family, i once hit my wife when she confronted me about my program, can someone give me a few tips on quitting?

While every person who struggles with addiction often deals with similar patterns of addiction, each of their stories is different.  Each person who struggles with addiction is different, and they’re not just “addicts” who are all the same.  So if everyone is different, then their struggles with addiction are going to need different responses and methods in their treatment for addiction.

Some people may need to have inpatient or residential treatment program to treat their struggles with alcohol, prescription drug or street drug abuse. Drug Rehab programs vary, but every treatment program should include psychological counseling as well as treatment for physical withdrawal.  Treatment programs may also provide exercise or holistic treatments to help patients cope with withdrawal and help them feel healthier and more in control of their lives.  It is important for people who want to enroll in a rehab facility to look into the success rates of different programs to make sure the programs they are considering use proven methods.

There are several ways for people struggling with drug and alcohol abuse to find the right treatment center for them.  One of the best ways is through a counselor or an advocacy organization that helps people find places in treatment centers.  It can help those struggling with addiction and their loved ones to do research on rehabilitation clinics on their own as well to check out recommendations that people give them to make sure the treatment facility is a good fit for them.  Most facilities and treatment centers are provide a number of different programs to fit different people’s needs, so patients need to be sure to research the different programs within each facility as well so they can enroll in the right program at the right facility.

Once a person picks a facility or program to go through, it is important that they commit to going through the program and see it through to its completion.  Kicking addiction isn’t easy, but if a person makes the decision to commit to a program and see it through because they want it for themselves, then they are much more likely being successful in their recovery.  Treatment facilities and programs can make a big difference in addiction recovery, but if the person enrolling doesn’t commit to the program, then it doesn’t matter how good the program is.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR :-

Nathan Humpherys is a journalist who writes about Drug Rehab and Addiction Treatment.  He lives in Phoenix, Arizona with his wife and family.

My best friend is 9 weeks pregnant and just found out her husband was using anabolic steroids when he got her pregnant. Can this cause problems and if so what?
She did ask her doc who said that it does not affect the baby, however I remembered reading an article last year that said new studies had showed a potential risk for childhood leukemia. I didn’t tell her that however, not until I researched it more.

Why didn’t their pastor minister to their family and help her stop stealing from the Children’s Charity?
For websites start with Wiki or google Cindy Hensley McCain…(I don’t know how to “post” websites yet…can barely 2 finger type) Wiki will give you the creepy details as well as the various “misstatements” made by them both.

Tit for tat.

i was wondering, when a person is hooked on heroin is it possible for that person to love anyone else? do they care about their family? wife kids? or does the drug leave them emotionless?i’m very confussed and heartbroken, i don’t know what to think. and if the person has been doing heroin for about 10 yrs what are the chances that they quit?

I was someones house one night drinking. I didn’t really trust these guys but i don’t why i was there, Anyways I started having flashbacks of something happening. i shouldn’t give details but it was bad. is this nightmare or was it real. its very hard to tell. I thought about Ketamine might make it possible. I’m actually sure that it happened i don’t know what to do though. my wife doesn’t remember anything but i can remember details. what do i do? the police wont believe meim actully sure that it happend i dont know what to do though. my wife doesnt remember anything but i can remember details. what do i do? the police wont beleive me and i have no proof.
didnt have flash backs til a while after, it was to late to have any tests done.
i was only 19 at the time we werent married. and it has been a year since but it still troubles me.
nvm. ill just have to handle it myself
ketamine is used for large animals and is also a date rape drug
when you use ketamine it affects your memory. you would have flash backs till about a month after that’s what makes it a perfect crime. i am more saying something about it so people know its possible. and hopefully someone will read this who was had the same experience i have had and they will know it was real and to come forward. i know i cant do anything about but this only my first attempt to get the word out. imagine if it happened to you how you would feel it has to be the worse than death. the feeling of hopelessness