|
|
| For Partygoers Who Can't Say No |
|
Posted by FoM on September 24, 2001 at 19:42:50 PT By Jeff Stryker Source: New York Times 
Despite frequent admonitions to "just say no," some people ? from their teens to well past middle age ? will use drugs anyway. Acknowledging that reality, some experts on drug abuse are advocating an approach called harm reduction, which says, in essence, that while drug use should be discouraged, people who do take drugs should be taught to do so in the least dangerous way possible.Harm reduction is controversial. Proponents say it can save lives, but critics say it means giving up on the drug problem, and may condone drug use and lull people into thinking drugs are safe. Dr. Alan I. Leshner, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, said, "I'm against anything that sends a message that if you do it well it is O.K., because it is not O.K." Harm reduction gained prominence with the AIDS epidemic. The spread of H.I.V. among drug users who shared needles prompted the establishment of programs to distribute needles and exchange used ones for clean ones ? essentially helping drug users shoot up more safely. Patterns of drug use evolve, and harm reduction advocates have moved to dance clubs and raves, all-night dance parties fueled by loud music and, often, drugs. "Harm reduction is about meeting the drug users where they are," said Amu Ptah, the director of policy at the Harm Reduction Coalition a nationwide nonprofit group based in Manhattan. One of the most popular drugs among clubgoers is Ecstasy (also known as MDMA, for 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine). It appeals to users because it seems to melt away their defenses and inhibitions and often gives them warm and loving feelings toward those around them. Last year, 11 percent of high school students surveyed reported that they had used Ecstasy at least once, according to a survey of 50,000 students around the country conducted by University of Michigan researchers. The Drug Enforcement Administration seized three million Ecstasy tablets in 2000, about three times as many as were confiscated the previous year. Ecstasy can cause a range of adverse effects, including nausea, chills, sweating, muscle cramps and blurred vision. Dr. Leshner called it dangerous and "clearly neurotoxic." Ecstasy users at clubs and raves dance energetically in stuffy quarters, increasing the risk of heat exhaustion, which can result in dangerous dehydration leading to convulsions and, on occasion, death. Last month, the federal Drug Abuse Warning Network, a survey covering 21 metropolitan areas, reported more than 4,500 Ecstasy-related emergency room visits in 2000, up 58 percent from 1999. Several organizations have been formed to combat the risks by applying harm reduction principles to club drugs. One is DanceSafe, a nonprofit national network of volunteers in two dozen local chapters, which promotes guidelines for "safe settings" for Ecstasy use. The guidelines encourage club owners and rave promoters to provide "free and accessible cold drinking water," "adequate ventilation" and "a separate chill-out room." Because Ecstasy is illegal and not made by any legitimate manufacturer, users risk taking pills contaminated with other drugs, like PMA, a powerful stimulant easier to make than Ecstasy but far more dangerous. Concerns about poison pills drive DanceSafe's most controversial harm reduction program ? "adulterant screening" by volunteers who test illicit pills for content and purity. The volunteers douse a tiny scraping from a partygoer's pill with a few drops of a reagent. A color change instantly reveals whether MDMA is present, but not how much or whether any other ingredients contaminate the pill. Volunteers maintain a nonjudgmental approach, never telling a person whether or not to take a particular pill. But a spokesman for the group said teenagers almost always threw the pills away if they were shown to contain no MDMA. DanceSafe also negotiates with the local police to give volunteer testers and Ecstasy users amnesty from arrest. "If the police started arresting users who sought out these health services, they would no longer be utilized, and people would die," the group says on its Web site. "We see a lot of bad pills out there," said DanceSafe's executive director, Tim Santamour, who has been involved in harm reduction since the early days of the H.I.V. epidemic. He maintains that merely threatening to test deters purveyors of bogus or adulterated pills. DanceSafe volunteers record the popular name, size, color and shape of pills, along with any distinguishing logos. The testing helps monitor waves of pills flowing through the illicit market. A pill from a certain distributor may become popular, only to be followed by a copycat pill that looks the same but contains different ingredients. Marcie Chambers of Louisville, Colo., thinks parents need to know more about the risks of club drugs, which are spreading beyond the dance and rave scene. Ms. Chambers's 16-year-old daughter, Brittney, died earlier this year from brain damage after taking Ecstasy in her own home. The drug was a birthday gift from a girlfriend. Ms. Chambers praised DanceSafe for its educational efforts, but expressed reservations about the drug-testing program. "I struggle with that one," she said. "They are giving kids a false sense of safety by handing them back a pill and saying it's MDMA. I can tell you from personal experience that MDMA by itself is not safe." DanceSafe also offers more sophisticated testing. A gas chromatography analysis is available (with results posted to the Internet in a few weeks) to those who mail a sample pill to a laboratory in Sacramento. No questions are asked. The test identifies the presence and amounts of virtually all known illicit or pharmaceutical drugs in the pill. Senator Bob Graham, Democrat of Florida, thinks there needs to be more awareness of Ecstasy's dangers. "We need to get the word out ? and fast ? before one more teenager `raves' himself to death," says his Web site, promoting the Ecstasy Prevention Act of 2001, which was introduced July 19 to increase financing for research into long-term effects of Ecstasy and education about its risks and harms. "Arguably, organizations such as DanceSafe promote Ecstasy use," said Tandy Barrett, a legislative aide to Senator Graham. "These organizations are giving a mixed message, a very dangerous message to people who use this drug." Ms. Barrett said if teenagers heard the real dangers of Ecstasy, "they wouldn't need to go to an organization like DanceSafe because they wouldn't be wanting to use this drug." Last year Congress voted to enhance penalties under federal sentencing guidelines for large-scale Ecstasy sales. Senator Graham's pending bill would provide federal financing for local initiatives to combat Ecstasy use, giving priority to communities "passing ordinances restricting rave clubs" and "seizing lands under nuisance abatement laws to make new restrictions on an establishment's use." Proponents of harm reduction say banning rave clubs will simply drive drug users underground, beyond the reach of public health programs. Graham Boyd, who is with the New Haven office of the American Civil Liberties Union and directs the group's drug policy litigation project, is one of the lawyers representing the owners and promoters of a New Orleans electronic music club, the State Palace. A young woman died at the club a few years ago. Last year, three men who operated the club were indicted under the federal Crack House Statute, enacted in 1986 during the crack cocaine epidemic. It was the first application of the statute to defendants not charged with selling or trafficking in drugs. Mr. Boyd said, "Worst of all, law enforcement officials decided to identify some of the safety precautions that promoters take, like making water and chill rooms and ambulances available, as actually being evidence of criminality ? running a crack house." But ultimately, a plea bargain resulted in no prison time for the defendants. Complete Title: For Partygoers Who Can't Say No, Experts Try to Reduce the Risks Source: New York Times (NY) Related Articles & Web Sites: ACLU DanceSafe Pot, MDMA, and Too Damn Many Happy People CannabisNews Articles - Ecstasy Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help |
 |
| Comment #14 posted by freedom fighter on September 25, 2001 at 16:47:40 PT |
| took Ecstasy. But she did not die from it. As Troutmask mentioned, she overdosed on drinking too much water. Brittany also died from fear of prohibition. She was so scared to come out of her bedroom. If she just would get out of the bedroom and go outside, she would have cool down considerably as it was very chilly that night. If Brittany had only drank some gatorade, she would have been okay. ff [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #13 posted by Sudaca on September 25, 2001 at 10:11:57 PT |
| why are Americans so complicated over this issue and not for example sex? Do concerned parents argue that condoms promote promiscuous unmarried sex as the pope insists? Why are the concerned parents of America and the establishment, willing to fund organizations like planned parenthood and are ok with sex ed in highschool.. how can they be so understanding of a topic that is as thorny in terms of biblical morality as drug use? "These organizations are giving a mixed message, a very dangerous message to people who use this drug." [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #12 posted by TroutMask on September 25, 2001 at 07:57:45 PT |
| Ms. Chambers's 16-year-old daughter, Brittney, died earlier this year from brain damage after taking Ecstasy in her own home. The drug was a birthday gift from a girlfriend. Okay, Britney died from brain damage after taking "Ecstasy." Now, what caused the brain damage? ANSWER: WATER. That's right, H20. Britney's uninformed friends had her drink enough water that it killed her. X toxicity had nothing to do with it. Lies, misinformation and lack of education (e.g., drug prohibition) had EVERYTHING to do with it. These lies and misinformation killed Britney, so why do we continue this way? -TM [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #11 posted by Rambler on September 25, 2001 at 06:14:52 PT |
| Go ahead and throw seven grains,spuds,seeds,bran,anything.The fact is,eat bread,you die.Sooner or later,bread use will catch up with you. But,there have been reports of non bread users eventually getting the same bread-user symptoms,especially the death part.It is believed that the non bread users,were infected with this fatal disease,due to contact with bread users.Bread use is widespread throughout the world,and bread has been commonly linked to terrorists,who are known to be heavy users of breads of many types. Pitas,buttermilk, rye, sourdough. A war on terrorism,isnt that far from a war on bread. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #10 posted by i420 on September 25, 2001 at 05:51:05 PT |
| Harm reduction is controversial. Proponents say it can save lives, but critics say it means giving up on the drug problem, and may condone drug use and lull people into thinking drugs are safe. If the drugs are used properly they are safe. drugs are safer than... riding in a car, collisions kill! playing golf in an electrical storm, shocking huh? riding a bike on the street, bumper ride anyone?? playing football, serious brain damage there too! don't eat the bread you will die of cancer I tell you BTW Rambler is the 7 grain natural wheat safe??? What about POtato Spuds bread???
[ Post Comment ] |
|
Comment #9 posted by xxdr_zombiexx on September 25, 2001 at 05:04:48 PT:
|
| I attended a professional workshop on Harm Reduction about 3 weeks ago. I elected to go to it because it was "free" for me and got me out of 2 days of regular work. I was also pleased to see the term Harm Reduction (HR): this is the painfully-backwards East Coast and such ideas are not well-recieved. However, it was a HR workshop focused on "triple diagnosed" populations. Persons with a major mental illness or major emotioanl disturbance with a genuine substance abuse problem AND HIV issues. Your basic, nearly impossible group to deal with. One of the biggest issues in HR is not so much allowing people to continue using, but the concept of "treatment on demand". In all American Substance abuse treatment, they actually want you to be abstinant BEFORE you get help!! You may decide today you want to stop using crack. Good for you, but at any Americvan treatment center you will be asked a few screening questions and then be told to wait. And you will wait. If you capitualte and start using again, you have to wait more. HR says "see them today!". Get people when they are ready, have treatment available at a moments notice. This concept alone frustrates the concrete american substance abuse dogma, but wait until its explained that if they have to come to thier group session high, they are welcome. HR says at least they are there. During this workshop there were a number of people from the correrctions side of substance abuse counselors. They had genuine difficulty understanding this and asked lots of the expected questions. 1 man in particular, tall, good-looking black man, built like a mountain, working in a jail-based program was quite disturbed by this and uttered a phrase that probaly sums up the mentality of a lot of so-called "substance abuse professionals". He was totally against any sort of permissive attitude and described how jail helped: "We keep them aweay from the drugs long enough, some of them even become human again". I challenged this notion. He was irritated and brought up how people cannot do things when intoxicated. I countered by asking the group if they'd ever heard the term "functional alcoholic", which of course, they had. He left after the first afternoon break and never returned. It as clear it was such a foreign concept he couldn't listen to anymore. It is these sorts of people that exist in the positions where decisions about substance abuse treatment are made. Treatment is currently still part of the overall scheme, it seems, to ensure that people use drugs while politicians claim to be totaly at war with trafficking. HR works by coaxing people in from their horrid lifestyles. It doesnt say what you are doing is good. It says you are killing yourself and we don't want that to happen. It's real hard work. And it is the new Paradigm [ Post Comment ] |
|
Comment #8 posted by kaptinemo on September 25, 2001 at 05:02:59 PT:
|
| Thank you, again, Rambler! You've made my morning; now if we can only convince the likes of Grandma Joyce, a.k.a Mary Friend and all her ilk to partake of this deadly substance, we'll have no furhter opposition. ROFLMAO! [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #7 posted by Rambler on September 25, 2001 at 04:42:18 PT |
| Here's another Item. KONFORMIST: More than 98 percent of convicted felons are bread users. Fully 50% of all children who grow up in bread-consuming households score below average on standardized tests. In the 18th century, when virtually all bread was baked in the home, the average life expectancy was less than 50 years; infant mortality rates were unacceptably high; many women died in childbirth; and diseases such as typhoid, yellow fever, and influenza ravaged whole nations. Every piece of bread you eat brings you nearer to death. Bread is associated with all the major diseases of the body. For example, nearly all sick people have eaten bread. The effects are obviously cumulative: a. 99.9% of all people who die from cancer have eaten bread. b. 100% of all soldiers have eaten bread. c. 96.9% of all Communist sympathizers have eaten bread. d. 99.7% of the people involved in air and auto accidents ate bread within 6 months preceding the accident. e. 93.1% of juvenile delinquents came from homes where bread is served frequently. Evidence points to the long-term effects of bread eating: Of all the people born in 1839 who later dined on bread, there has been a 100% mortality rate. Bread is made from a substance called "dough." It has been proven that as little as one pound of dough can be used to suffocate a mouse. The average American eats more bread than that in one month! Primitive tribal societies that have no bread exhibit a low incidence of cancer, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's disease, and osteoporosis. Bread has been proven to be addictive. Subjects deprived of bread and given only water to eat begged for bread after as little as two days. Bread is often a "gateway" food item, leading the user to "harder" items such as butter, jelly, peanut butter, and even cold cuts. Bread has been proven to absorb water. Since the human body is more than 90 percent water, it follows that eating bread could lead to your body being taken over by this absorptive food product, turning you into a soggy, gooey bread-pudding person. Newborn babies can choke on bread. Bread is baked at temperatures as high as 400 degrees Fahrenheit! That kind of heat can kill an adult in less than one minute. Increased temperatures cause global warming. Most bread eaters are utterly unable to distinguish between serious significant scientific fact and meaningless statistical political babbling.... [ Post Comment ] |
|
Comment #6 posted by kaptinemo on September 25, 2001 at 04:33:57 PT:
|
| For unintentionally pointing something else out in your shared article: "Try the Turtle Technique, recommends a psychologist in the Boston Globe (September 20, 2001). Tell your preschooler, “Let’s pretend we’re turtles. We’ll crawl up into our shells and picture our shell over us. Now we’re safe and we can relax.” Shorn of it's simplistic prose, this is exactly the same modus operandi that the United States Government wishes its' citizenry to follow. And not just about terrorism, but the War on Drugs, wasted tax revenues, social injustices perpetrated by corporations against communities, etc. Indeed, you could make a case that this "Maginot Line Mentality" is even fostered by the USG in the hopes that the public will begin to apply this to democracy, itself. As the voting records seem to bear out they already have. But the turtle is not the proper animal to use for this illustration - the sheep is. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #5 posted by dddd on September 25, 2001 at 01:11:16 PT |
| It's no big deal,,,but White Rabbit looks better when the lines are arranged in the poetic/song lyric form... .....I dont mind,,as long as I can keep my redundant dots and commas...
....d
...d
..d
.d [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #4 posted by dddd on September 25, 2001 at 01:02:49 PT |
| White Rabbit
(Grace Slick) One pill makes you larger And one pill makes you small, And the ones that mother gives you Don't do anything at all. Go ask Alice When she's ten feet tall. And if you go chasing rabbits And you know you're going to fall, Tell 'em a hookah smoking caterpillar Has given you the call. Call Alice When she was just small. When the men on the chessboard Get up and tell you where to go And you've just had some kind of mushroom And your mind is moving low. Go ask Alice I think she'll know. When logic and proportion Have fallen sloppy dead, And the White Knight is talking backwards And the Red Queen says "off with her head!" Remember what the dormouse said: "Feed your head. Feed your head. Feed your head" [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #3 posted by Rambler on September 25, 2001 at 00:59:35 PT |
| As we attend the vigils and rallies, light candles, organize meetings,
and respond to news reports, our kids will be watching us, scanning for
clues about how to orient themselves in the fray. They will ask us
questions. We should answer in the most appropriate and honest way we
can. When my nine-year old asked a series of questions that resulted in
her understanding for the first time the meaning of a suicide mission, I
did not enjoy watching the look of understanding cross her face as the
meaning came clear to her.
Nor did I have a good answer for the “Why?” that followed. Partly
because I don’t know myself. Should I lie? Distract her from the
question? Or let her know that that is, in fact, the most important
question of all, and that we need to work at finding an answer.
There are other understandings that are becoming clear to her as well.
Some people are trying to influence what happens next. They are joining
with others so their voices will be stronger. They are not squashing the
difficult questions, but trying instead to expose them to the light.
Soon after we left today’s peace rally, we ran into Mel King – longtime
Boston-area political activist and leader of a community-based effort to
dedicate a large swath of South End property to low-income housing
instead of a parking garage for a high-end mall. He told us the story of
how activists set up tents and moved onto the property, which is now
called Tent City, refusing to leave until the mayor met their demands.
“It took 20 years,” he said, “but we got what we wanted.”
It sounds like a minor moment, but it gave my daughter another piece of
scaffolding. She probably can’t even fathom the meaning of 20 years, but
she can fathom it a little bit. She studies the well-built and
attractive homes. She notices kids playing and remarks that they look
happy. Occasional drivers passing by honk and wave at Mel. He knows just
about every pedestrian by name. People like Mel King are doing what
they’re supposed to be doing in the world, and the world gets safer and
more humane because of their actions. And that is perfectly obvious to
any kid who is lucky enough to witness it.
Role-playing a turtle withdrawing into its shell might make a child feel
momentarily cozy -- (Though I can also imagine many a sensible child
taking the opposite message. “If my mom can only feel safe hiding under
a pretend turtle shell, then the world must be even scarier than I
thought!”) – but it doesn’t provide a helpful scaffolding. It doesn’t
give the child real-world, sensible, humane adult actions to witness
and, little by little, begin to practice.
Let’s allow our children to participate with us and observe us as we
simply do as we should. The message is implicit in our practice: Peace
and justice are possible.
Why not?
Cynthia Peters (cppk@email.msn.com) is a political activist, writer and
editor. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #2 posted by Rambler on September 25, 2001 at 00:58:54 PT |
| To Parents – Going Beyond Mainstream Advice
September 23, 2001 By Cynthia Peters Every parent knows that “Why?” is kids’ most frequently asked question, with “Why not?” being a close first runner-up. So it’s interesting that in the flurry of recently generated commentary about responding to kids’ concerns regarding the September 11th attacks, one major piece of advice is, “Don’t ask why.” “This is something that falls into the category of ‘impossible to explain,’” says “Kidsinternet,” a web site produced by Primedia, the $1.7 billion company that speaks to millions of American youth through such outlets as Seventeen Magazine and Channel One TV. “Do not even try to understand the ‘whys’, just look to your parents and family for help in feeling safe and secure again.” Not all the tips and tricks for parents and kids fall so squarely in the camp of squashing this most important and sincere question of Why? Most of the advice to parents and kids is oriented around “feeling safe.” “First and foremost,” says Dr. Sylvia Rimm a psychologist and regular contributor to the “Today” show, “reassure children of their personal safety.” Try the Turtle Technique, recommends a psychologist in the Boston Globe (September 20, 2001). Tell your preschooler, “Let’s pretend we’re turtles. We’ll crawl up into our shells and picture our shell over us. Now we’re safe and we can relax.” Other advice recommends looking outward, and patriotically (if naively) suggesting that the president and other leaders are doing everything they can to keep us safe. Alternatively, “Go to the helpers,” recommends Ellen Goodman, a nationally syndicated columnist. Tell them the stories of the rescue workers who had a choice about how to act and chose to risk their lives in an effort to save people. Tell about the man who carried the woman on crutches down dozens of flights of steps. I agree that it is important to help children feel safe at a time like this, and to remind them of the many humane and generous acts that have happened in the wake of this most inhumane atrocity. But the parenting advice around this tragedy has a familiar ring to it – scripted conversations, specific games to play and suggestions for narrating the play, exact and quantifiable goals (say, “I love you”; hug your child; spend a few minutes alone with your child every day). It’s as if we could carry around this checklist and end each day with confidence that we are meeting our children’s needs. And this is what we are told to do even as we feel no confidence whatsoever about how the future will unfold. The fact of the matter is, after all, that the President and national leaders are issuing ultimatums to foreign governments, mobilizing for war, and calling for retaliation. These are not thoughtful, humane reactions to a tragedy. If our children are old enough and cognizant enough to be aware of the war-cry, then we might forgive them for sensing some discrepancy between what the news reports and what their parents are saying. When it comes to supportive words, lots of hugs, and active listening, I am just as gung ho as the average mainstream commentator. But there is something else adults need to think about right now. That is: what are we doing? How are we acting? My guess is that the exact words you use to talk to your kids are much less important than the activities they see you participate in, and perhaps join you in. Kids learn most of what they know from watching grown-ups and older children. When times are complicated, scary and stressful, as they are now, perhaps the most important thing we can do for our children is the most important thing we should be doing anyway – whether the children are watching or not. And that is: be agents of our destiny. Be empowered adults. Find a role to play in the crisis. If there are things we don’t understand, then work to understand them. Go beyond giving blood. Reach out to neighbors and friends to find ways that our communities can influence the outcomes of the catastrophe. Set up meetings, vigils, listening circles, and teach-ins. Let your children see you tackle hard questions as best you can. Let them see you struggle. The issues we now confront are not easy and there’s no reason to misrepresent them as such. In some cultures, children grow up in the midst of working parents. From the day they are born, they are integrated into the daily labor required for subsistence. They are slowly integrated into the work. By the time they are old enough to do it themselves, they are practicing what they already know. The Russian psychologist Lev Vygotsky had a term for this kind of learning. He called it “scaffolding.” He noticed that just instructing a child on how to solve a puzzle does not yield much success. Nor does leaving her on her own with a pile of puzzle pieces. But sitting down next to her and doing the puzzle yourself provides the child with a model of sorts. The child notices your method and sees that it yields a solution, and she takes from what she is witnessing as much as she is developmentally ready to take. In this case, the adult has simply gone about the business of solving the puzzle, providing, in the process, a higher level of understanding – a scaffolding – from which the child can proceed. The child, in the role of participant and observer, gradually gains new levels of understanding in this integrated process of witnessing and trying it out for herself. Every family, child and parent has different issues and concerns and unique ways they must find on their own for getting through any crisis. But consider, as you figure out the ways that your family will move forward through this, what sort of scaffolding you are providing. Perhaps the most important way to help your child feel safe is to let her witness peaceful adults getting together to solve a very hard problem. At a peace rally in Boston today, my kids alternately played on the grass, listened to prayers and chants from numerous different religions, deciphered signs, met up with friends and acquaintances, and clapped for Howard Zinn, Barbara Schulman, and numerous other speakers. They saw people grieve the dead; they heard passionate pleas for peace and justice; they heard grave concerns about the potentially tragic consequences of U.S. actions. They didn’t pay attention the whole time, but they saw other people pay attention. They saw that it mattered. And they understood implicitly that it mattered that they were there – simply because we took them. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #1 posted by Robbie on September 24, 2001 at 19:57:10 PT |
| Marcie Chambers of Louisville, Colo., thinks parents need to know more about the risks of club drugs, which are spreading beyond the dance and rave scene. Ms. Chambers's 16-year-old daughter, Brittney, died earlier this year from brain damage after taking Ecstasy in her own home. The drug was a birthday gift from a girlfriend. Does this smack of misinformation? How did the girl die? Did she actually take Ecstasy, or was the pill actually something else? If she did die as a result of the use all by itself, why hasn't the media hyped the hell out of it? Ms. Barrett said if teenagers heard the real dangers of Ecstasy, "they wouldn't need to go to an organization like DanceSafe because they wouldn't be wanting to use this drug." If they heard the "real dangers" of jingoistic war-mongering...they probably wouldn't want to do that either. How ironic that this apostle to Bad Information No. 1 would assert that people don't already know what's up...she sounds like she's reaching. [ Post Comment ] |
| Post Comment |  |
 |  |