John Thornton
>Joanna wrote:
>"Surveillance is not treatment."
>
>Brian wrote:
>"It's certainly part of it. Seems to me that getting someone off of drugs
>will involve some degree of surveillance. After all, aren't AA meetings
>just a way of having people check in with their case workers?"
>
>In my experience, addictions can only be cured by the addicts
>themselves.... Support helps a lot. Support includes: medical support,
>therapy, places to go and dry out in safety and temporarily away from
>drugs, places and a means to live while transitioning back to a normal life.
>
>A few years back a lesbian couple (one pregnant) came to live with me.
>They had just stopped using when they moved in. It took them about two and
>a half years to be ready to be on their own. A while after they moved out,
>one of them started using again, but the other is still clean after nearly
>six years. So, the support and the transition period was effective in one
>case but not in the other. But the baby was born without having been
>exposed to any drugs.
>
>Folks who go to AA tell me that what helps them about the organization is
>the group therapy aspect of it and also having somewhere to go and
>something to do other than to go to a bar and drink. The "case worker" is
>nothing other than an ex-alcoholic.
>
>I don't see what surveillance has to do with any of this. You could not
>say that the couple who lived with me were "under surveillance"; I
>performed no drug tests and I haven't a clue as to what a heroin addict
>who is using looks or acts like. The one woman who relapsed came around a
>few times while she was high, and I could not tell a thing. What helped
>them by living with me was being in a heroin-free environment and in a
>fairly pleasant family setting where stress was low and a capable mother
>figure was around to lend a hand or give encouragement when needed.
>
>Joanna
>
>
>
>
>
>
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk