Self-Help Addiction Recovery Training

 

LEARNING TO CURE

 

YOURSELF OF

 

DRINK & DRUG

 

ADDICTION.

BASED ON 50 YEARS OF INTERNATIONAL SUCCESS.

As you may well have noticed, you can't live somebody else's life for them, and equally, nobody else can live your life for you.

So that, whether we like it or not, life is a do-it-for-yourself activity.

This means that becoming addicted to drink or drugs is also mainly a do-it-for-yourself activity AND ALSO that escaping from addiction is something you must do-for-yourself, provided you know how to go about it.

A self-help residential programme of addiction recovery training for lasting relaxed abstinence is vastly different from other addiction rehab systems because, instead of offering “treatment”, it “TRAINS” addicts in HOW TO CURE THEMSELVES.

And it is the many differences in a self-help training programme which make all the difference to the results which such programmes obtain first time through in from 55 to 69+% of cases.

The FIRST Difference: between a self-help training programme and other forms of rehabilitation is found in such programme's view of the individual addict who is regarded as an “addiction victim” and designated as a “STUDENT” rather than as a “patient”, a “client”, a “bum”, a “criminal”, a misuser, an abuser or a “service user”.

An “addicted patient” for psychiatrists and pharmaceutical producers is a client with an addictive demand who should be “treated” by doing something “TO” him or her in order to have that addict as a consumer of substitute addictive medication for as long as U.K., taxpayers via the NHS, will go on paying for prescribed supplies of drugs such as methadone and Subutex, etc.

The definition of a “criminal drug user” varies from country to country and from time to time, but the intention and effect of the “criminal” label is to punish what any particular jurisdiction currently regards as a crime – which in practice across the world can mean anything from being given a caution or being sentenced to a fine, imprisonment, a whip lashing or even execution !

And interestingly, the above “criminal” view of addiction is usually concerned only with smuggled, stolen, illegal and designer drugs, and so does not include the vast majority of addictive substances such as licensed ALCOHOL and prescribed MEDICAL drugs – each of which are vastly bigger problems than smuggled, stolen, illegal and designer drugs.

The defining of an addict as a “student” recognises four things:

a) That 70 to 75% of all drink and drug addicts who have been using for more than 3 weeks, 3 months, 3 years or 30 years desperately want to quit, and although they have thus tried and failed on numerous occasions (often daily) to do so, they nevertheless have no lack of willingness to stop. Their problem is simply and actually “finding out HOW to stop”.

b) That – (because life is obviously and inescapably a “do-it-for-yourself” activity) – addiction is NOT just about a chemical substance but is a condition permitted by the individual's lack of a real understanding of life, mainly brought about by misinformation & lies from vested commercial interests in the massive alcohol and medical supply businesses, as well as from criminal sources.

 

c) That an addict is no longer in total charge of his or her life and so wishes to again take control, and,

d) That, to again take control of his or her life, an addict needs training in self-help addiction recovery techniques, with which they can concurrently procure lasting relaxed abstinence for themselves, and thus thereafter be able to easily apply what they have learned - for life.

 

So the first vital difference is that a self-help programme does not “treat” drug addicts, nor does it transfer addicts from one addictive substance to another as in so called Opioid Substitution Therapy where addicts are moved from illegal heroin to legally prescribed but more addictive methadone or Subutex, thus basically ensuring they remain as prescription drug addicts for life.

Self-help instead TRAINS THEM to cure themselves !

GIVE A MAN A FISH, AND YOU FEED HIM FOR A DAY.

BUT, TEACH HIM HOW TO FISH, AND YOU FEED HIM FOR LIFE.

This is the difference between treatment in most rehabs and training in self-help addiction recovery.

Give a heroin addict methadone and you satisfy his habit for that one day. But teach him HOW to take control of and get rid of his habit, and you give him the gift of recovery of the natural state of relaxed abstinence into which he was born, and which he can then maintain.

Which brings us to self-help's very different recognition of “WHY” addiction occurs.

SECOND Difference: Psychiatrists, psychologists, politicians, social workers and police, etc., assign a large variety of reasons as to why an individual becomes an addict. They ignore completely the fact that the UK's largest group of addicts (over 2 million) are NHS patients prescribed into involuntary addiction by the medical profession, and instead blame “peer pressure”, wanting a “thrill” or a “high”, irresponsibility, lawlessness, recklessness, criminal inclination, misuse and numerous other “possible” causes.

But for centuries medicine, alcohol and drugs have been used to solve problems, and that is still the reason for their usage today. For certain heart problems we take aspirin, for a headache or toothache we take paracetamol or some other pain killer, for the problem of travel sickness we take another tablet, for the problem of shock or family loss we are prescribed Valium or another “benzo” drug, and to solve shyness or anxiety many take spirit alcohol or another chemical stimulant, etc.

And it is the misinformation and even downright lies which are used to make the guy (who has what he “considers” a problem) use an addictive drug in order to solve it.

In fact, Mary Wakefield the deputy editor of the “Spectator” once commented that the pharmaceutical industry has grown into possibly the largest industry in the world by manufacturing “A Pill for Every Ill”.

“Drugs solve problems” - or so we are told from an early age, not only by psycho-pharms, but also by Grandma, Dad & Mum, our local doctor and even the local pub barman.

It is therefore not at all surprising to find self-help students finding and recognising for themselves that they decided or agreed to take an addictive substance IN ORDER TO SOLVE WHAT THEY THEMSELVES (and usually them alone) CONSIDERED A PROBLEM OF SURVIVAL IN THEIR DAILY LIFE OR ENVIRONMENT.

In other words: DRUGS ARE A SOLUTION – NOT A PROBLEM.

But strangely enough, most “treatment” forms of addiction rehabilitation, EXCEPT self-help, basically consider drugs as “a problem” which doctors believe can only be solved with some form of medication.

A solution is simply an action adopted by individuals to handle some problematic situation in their life.

Those readers with the benefit of self-help training will know that a solution comes under the heading of “a self-determined change”. i.e. It is not something forced on the individual.

So the second difference is that self-help training recognises that the initial cause of addiction is not a search for thrills, or highs, or misuse, or abuse, but that the cause is the desire of an individual to solve what he or she considers a worrying personal problem by employing a solution which he or she is wrongly advised or led to believe involves using an addictive substance.

So they are a VICTIM of both the addictive drug and the misleading information given them in order to persuade them to try a few doses.

In other words, they make a disastrous decision to use an addictive substance based on a lie or on some misunderstanding, and become addicted because it is addictive drugs themselves which are what impose and enforce addiction on the user.

This is obvious, because NO-ONE CAN EVER BECOME ADDICTED TO A DRUG WHICH ONE NEVER EVER USES !

THIRD Difference: From the above we see that the goals of self-help training are:

1) knowledge of recovery techniques,

2) resurrection of personal responsibility, and

3) the regaining of relaxed control of one's life - leading to self-determination

    of one's life.

But for other addiction rehabilitation systems the goal is often to be able to struggle through each difficult day - one day at a time - without taking the drug to which they are addicted, just by courageously fighting their craving.

Whilst this can eventually bravely lead some to increasingly relaxed abstinence, because other rehab systems make no attempt to remove the individual's store of drug toxins and metabolites lodged in the fatty tissues of the body, there is always the possibility of re-stimulation from the breakdown of such deposits, their release into the blood stream, a consequent re-triggering of desire for the drug, and a return to addiction. Release of such addictive deposits is triggered by increases in body temperature usually caused by physical work, exercise and / or weather hot enough to lead to sweating.

Which brings us to an examination of the technicalities and nomenclature involved in recovery from addiction.

FOURTH Difference: When self-help training says: “detoxification”, we mean flushing from the addict's body ALL drug residues, metabolites, hormones and other toxic deposits built up by addiction and life in general.

When a psychiatrist, doctor or pharmacists says: “detoxification”, they misleadingly mean the stopping of the regular taking of any further doses of a particular addictive substance. (What self-help regards as: “withdrawal”.)

 

So, when an addict is given medication to stop him taking heroin, that is the psycho-pharm idea of a “heroin detox”. The addict is no longer adding to the store of toxic heroin metabolites in his body, but nevertheless he still retains whatever damagingly poisonous store of them he has already built-up.

However, IF in order to stop the heroin intake he is prescribed methadone or Subutex, etc., (which is normally the case), IN ADDITION TO his existing store of heroin metabolites, he then starts to build up a further store of methadone metabolites or Subutex metabolites, etc., any or all of which (including the original heroin) – by engaging in hard physical work, energetic sport or just warmer than normal summer weather conditions – can by sweating be released from the body's fatty tissues, re-enter the bloodstream and lead to a return to a former state of addictive desire.

“Recovered” and “rehabilitated” are other words which for self-help trainees have different meanings from those which other addiction rehabilitation systems assign them.

For us: “recovered” means returning to the natural state of lasting relaxed abstinence into which 99% of the population is born. To fully understand why this is different – try ringing a local rehab and asking what THEY mean by “recovered” ! Or ring your local MP and ask what he or she (mis)understands by “recovered”.

Self-help training goals (and achievements) are seen by many as sky-high when compared to the goals of most other rehabs.

FURTHER Differences:

Because of the fundamentally basic differences between the self-help “TRAINING” approach and psycho-pharm “TREATMENT” approaches the reasons why self-help is totally different becomes apparent in every aspect of an addict's journey through his or her programme.

Self-help training “withdrawal” procedures are DRUG-FREE. Many other withdrawals are not. In LASTING RELAXED ABSTINENCE terms self-help programme results run at a 55 to 69+% success rate, normally reached in 11 to 13 weeks.

 

Methadone achieves only 3% abstinence after decades of prescribed usage. Twelve Steps does better at 20 to 30% achieved in 9 to 36 months or longer.

And even the cost of delivering self-help training residential recovery is different from other residential rehabilitation operations, because of our willingness and ability to offer the choice of “Payment by Results” as an alternative to the usual full up-front fee for attendance on course rather than for an agreed result.

Depending on local property and wages costs, which can vary from one part of the UK to another, the current self-help programme fee for the newest Centre in the expensive south of London counties is £29,000 on a Payment by Results basis. But other residential rehabs cost from £12,000 to £39,000 or more, for treatment periods far shorter than self-helps 12 weeks and with full payment due irrespective of the result.

And of course results of 20 to 30% abstinence are nowhere near as valuable as the self-help training results of 55 to 69+% of lasting relaxed abstinence and recovery – first time through the programme.

There is also another important difference.

Psycho-pharm treatment prescribing considers ALL addicts as nearly impossible to cure, as a result of which they say they should ALL be put on Subutex or methadone Opioid Substitution Therapy (OST).

On the other hand, self-help training centres know from 50 years experience of training addicts to cure themselves, that 70 to 75% of addicts who have been using for months or years WANT TO QUIT, have tried at numerous times (often daily) to do so and yet, having again failed, STILL WANT TO STOP.

THEIR PROBLEM IS THEREFORE NOT WILLINGNESS,

IT IS LACK OF RECOVERY KNOW-HOW.

The other 25 to 30% are resistive cases who for the three well known main reasons have no desire or intention whatsoever to quit. These are the horses you can lead to water, but who will not drink. So, with no willingness, how can they ever be trained ?

The other 70 to 75% of addicts need, want AND DESERVE Self-Help Training Technology. And the rest of the society also needs them to have it, because addicts are the 5% of the UK population which impinge most heavily on the lives of the other 95%.

It is therefore encouraging to observe that internationally more citizens and a majority of policy-makers are now recognising the direction in which addiction inevitably takes our families and society, and have seen that the most important first step is to REDUCE THE DEMAND which can arise from within a family from vested interest and criminal advice leading to poor parenting.

Westminster, Brussels, Edinburgh, Belfast, Dublin, Cardiff and other parliaments are now increasingly aware that amongst the problems which drug and alcohol addicts cause are the following:

* Addicts and drunks cause most accidents at work.

* Addicts mug and rob old people.

* Addicts and drunks cause most road accidents.

* Addicts sell drugs to children (and others).

* Addict increase the numbers of prostitutes and toy boys

    in our towns and cities.

* Addicts disrupt our schools, the education of our children

    and the life of our communities.

* Addicts bankrupt businesses and destroy jobs.

* Addicts break into and burgle people's homes.

* Addicts spread HIV, AIDS and hepatitis.

* Addicts and drunks commit the most crimes,

and,

ADDICTS ARE UNDOUBTEDLY THE REAL CURRENT THREAT TO

OUR LIVES AND TO EVERYBODY'S FUTURE.

AND THIS INCLUDES ADDICTS ON ILLEGAL, LICENSED

AND PRESCRIBED DRUGS.

This is because their addiction controls them, and

THIS AFFECTS EVERYBODY – EVERYONE'S FAMILY, EVERYONE'S

INCOME, EVERY JOB, EVERYONE'S HEALTH AND EVERY ONE'S

HOME – INCLUDING YOURS.

The above is about addicts in general and the increasing damage which they do to all walks of society and to our whole economy.

They are also the reasons why (although we might believe it is not our fault or our problem) WE MUST ALL DO OUR UTMOST TO POSITIVELY HELP ADDICTS reduce their numbers and their dependency on those of us who do not use drugs.

Because we have the truth staring us in the face, we can be sure it is no use relying on government alone to solve the substance addiction problems which are daily causing anxiety, crime, violence, terrorism, damage, accidents, injuries, disease and even death.

Every one of us is needed to solve this problem because, in the final analysis, it is OUR problem, even if our family and children have so far managed to avoid actual drug usage and the direct results of addictive behaviour.

SO, IT IS SINCERELY HOPED YOU AND YOURS WILL NEVER HAVE

TO DIRECTLY FACE ADDICTION, AND HOPED ALSO THAT YOU WILL RECOGNISE THAT SUCH AN ESCAPE WILL MAINLY COME ABOUT BECAUSE YOU HELPED STAMP OUT ADDICTIVE DRUGS

BY HELPING VICTIMS OF ADDICTION TO RECOVER !

-------------------------------------------------------

For further information, you may wish to contact:

Elisabeth M. Reichert, Field Staff Member

for Narconon United Kingdom,

e-mail elisabeth.3@btinternet.com, or phone 0775 263 0319.

who can arrange for you to inspect (without obligation),

and talk to the staff and students at,

the NARCONON UNITED KINGDOM Training Centre,

at HEATHFIELD, East Sussex, TN21 0DJ.

Giving Science A Bad Name

THOSE CHEMICAL GIANTS
 
WHO ARE DICTATING
 
ALL OUR FUTURES.

We are told by the main English language dictionaries and by various academics, that “science” is the study of the nature and behaviour of the “physical universe”, based on observation, experiment and measurement, plus the knowledge obtained and assembled by those methods, as well as the contents of any particular branch of such knowledge (e.g. medical science, physics, biology, cosmology, etc.).

However the term is also applied to any and nearly all other bodies of knowledge which are organised in a manner resembling that of the physical sciences but concerned instead with non-physical subjects (e.g. political science, psychiatry, sociology, economics and theology, etc.).

Arising out of research into the effects of multi-numerous substances on both human and animal bodies, minds and emotions, that major branch of science concerned with the composition, properties and reactions of substances - “Chemistry” - has become probably the most consumer influencing and controlling science of all, impinging as it so often does on the daily lives of nearly every individual, as well as on other sciences.

Food, clothing, shoes, cars, books, entertainment, holidays, furniture, houses, sports and hobbies, etc., etc., all employ marketing, promotion and merchandising, etc., to help them sell often and expensively enough to ensure a worthwhile business for their producers and distributors.

But only chemical based products (inc. alcohol & tobacco) have the power to irresistibly influence people physically, mentally and emotionally in good, but too often unhealthy, controlling and devastating ways.

And these influences arrive with us via a wide variety of routes and for a wide variety of different reasons.

Chemicals help produce very many of our foods, via fertilisers to make plants grow, herbicides to kill weeds and pesticides to kill insects. Unfortunately, because some growth promoting chemicals can also make human bodies grow, and some herbicides and pesticides can also poison and even kill human bodies, there have been, and still are, enough real wide ranging problems to promote continuing fears and arguments about our agricultural products.

These are not limited to plant growing, because chemicals used in rearing pigs, sheep, cattle, eggs, hens and other livestock are also often transmitted to the humans who eat them, so that the chemicals which give us great cuts of meat also too often help to give us great big ladies and gentlemen. So much so, that families and now doctors and politicians are getting worried about our size and weight.

Today, most of our foods and drinks (inc. water) depend on chemical filters, colourings, flavourings, preservatives, purifiers, texture enhancement additives and artificial fragrances and appetising aromas, etc., and these are sufficiently impinging on the health and condition of consumers to require close European and U.K. legislative control and limitation.

But in addition to the thousands of chemicals to found on supermarket shelves and in our drinking water, care must also be taken with other commonplace chemicals to be found in the home, at work, at school, at garages and filling stations, in sports and leisure situations, and a lot of chemistry increasingly dominates our industrial processes and personal and household cleaning procedures, and we even have some such chemicals starting addictive desires and being used to satisfy them.

Then especially, there are the pharmaceutical chemicals we are a thousand times a day on television, radio, hoardings, newspapers and by doctors and psychiatrists, etc., increasingly advised to put into our bodies as a means of enhancing our physical and mental / emotional lives in one way or another.

They are also often advised for pleasure, and we are all well aware of what effect drinking half a pint of whisky, gin or vodka will have on 95+% of the population.

But just a mere thimbleful of one of many common household cleaners, disinfectants, washing powders and even medications, etc., are poisonous enough to make us or our children extremely ill, or even kill, whilst many so-called medical anxiety treatments and physical painkillers can make involuntarily addicted slaves of MILLIONS of NHS patients at taxpayer expense.

Whilst chemistry has given us cleaner homes, smoother running cars, food which stays saleable longer, whiter teeth, better suntans and, via pharmaceuticals, a generally healthier and longer living world population, some pharmacists have also taken advantage of their products to wreak upon mankind some of the most devastating physical and mental conditions in the name of more chemical production, increasing sales, greater profits, bigger bonuses, larger dividends and greater control of individuals, plus their governments and their spending.

Pharmaceutical chemistry is the originating cause of ALL FORMS of substance addiction existing in the world today, whether legal, Illicit, licensed or prescribed – because no individual can ever become addicted to nicotine or an alcoholic or medical drug substance which they never actually take or use !

An addictive substance is the ultimate unique selling proposition available to any commercial operation in the world today, whether used by smugglers, terrorists and criminals to illegally addict juniors, teenagers, other adolescents and adults into daily usage of cannabis, skunk, amphetamines, heroin, alcohol or cocaine, etc., OR, used by pharmaceutical drug companies to ensure that National Health supported patients remain as consumers for life, by daily dosing them with various “symptom managing” addictive medical preparations, including painkillers, anti-psychotics, sedatives, hypnotics and many others.

And in the majority of increasing instances, the “symptoms” that the multi-daily doses of these patients are “treating”, are nothing more nor less than the extremely uncomfortable and unconfrontable “cold turkey” withdrawal effects created by the ever imminent demand for the next dose of their particular addictive substance.

There are various ways by which individuals can be persuaded to use, try or experiment with addictive drugs, but the most effective is to offer them initial “free of charge” dosages in order “to help” the victim solve some problem which they might consider they have.

Even the drug pusher at the school gate does this for the first one or two doses just to get a potential cash paying customer “hooked”. But psychiatrists promoting pharmaceutical drugs do this all the time as they utilise the NHS free prescription service to enrol more and more consumers onto their treatment listings.

They and their pharmaceutical paymasters know full well that any patient can be made into an addicted drug consumer for life, simply by making sure that they daily consume an addictive (and / or hypnotic) drug for a period of under one month.

JUST LIKE THAT ! As one popular comedian used to say - but this is no laughing matter.

It explains why the number of legally prescribed involuntarily addicted drug addicts paid for by the U.K. National Health Service is over six times higher than the number of criminally supplied il-legal addicts.

It explains why the number of NHS patients increases every year, because, whilst symptoms may be getting relieved, the underlying causes of those symptoms are not being cured.

It explains why, whilst NHS annual spending is increasing, there is not enough money available for A&E Services, nursing and doctor staffing, personnel training, beds, equipment, ambulances and buildings, etc., because most of the increased spending goes on the increasing supplies of NONE-CURE symptom management medication being prescribed and daily supplied to more and more involuntarily addicted patients.

MAKE NO MISTAKE.

Although blamed on inattentive, lazy over-prescribing doctors, this is deliberate psycho-pharmaceutical marketing policy, held in place by those organisations' failures to broadly offer and produce dosages of their addictive / hypnotic drugs in small enough units to permit the necessary low level “step-down” doses essential to achieving a relatively relaxed withdrawal from the clutches of daily addiction.

If small enough doses were a common part of the medical supply scene, every doctor in the country with patients on say the benzodiazepine ranges, would be able to move them gently and gradually onto smaller and smaller doses until they could totally withdraw with little or no adverse effect.

It might take 3 months or it might take 6, but at the moment a patient on 3 doses a day of 250 milligrams of one of the benzos or an opioid painkiller, would, instead of continuing for life on 750 milligrams a day, after those 3 or 6 months return to an addiction free life simply by changing prescription procedures and doses with the help of the pharmaceutical industry's small size dose offerings – IF AVAILABLE.

If that industry would willingly, urgently and inexpensively make the necessary small step-down dosages of all their addictive and / or hypnotic drugs regularly, widely and easily available, the world would know that they are not the avaricious, couldn't care less, patient damaging drug pushers they currently appear to be.

But to the degree that they continue to procrastinate about helping to solve this problem, politicians and public alike will know that current pharmaceutical policies are not accidental and not co-incidental, BUT are deliberate “enemy action” in the name of turnover and profit, and so respond accordingly.

Introducing legislation to make it illegal to produce a 100 mgm or larger tablet, capsule or other dose offering WITHOUT also equally offering a range of 2.5, 5, 10, and 50 mgm tablets, capsules or dosages at the same or at a proportionally lower cost, would put General Practitioners back in control of their patient's involuntary addictions, via normal prescribing practices.

CHOICE of dose sizes are the tools of effective prescribing, not only for the original medical condition, but also for the curing of involuntary addiction accidentally brought on by over-enthusiastic original prescribing.

Once such small step-down doses are fully available, legislation should also be introduced to penalise GPs who have an involuntarily addicted patient on their books for longer than say 6 or 9 months, because that doctor, WITH THE NECESSARY ADDICTION CURE DOSE SIZES AVAILABLE TO HIM, would be deliberately acting as a local drug pusher of free supplies, paid for by UK Taxpayers via the Exchequer.

All the benefits of abstinence from addiction are available to British GPs and their patients, but only if our politicians wake up to the facts of pharmaceutical life, AND LEGISLATE ACCORDINGLY.

For further info you may wish to phone: 01342 810151 any weekday

between 11.00am & 9.00pm.

Or e-mail keneck@btinternet.com.

S.A.F.E. Is A Not-For-Profit Community Support Group Formed In 1975.


_________________________________________________________________________________

Life Crippling Alcohol

HOW CURRENT U.K. ALCOHOL LAWS ENCOURAGE 
SCHOOL AGE CHILDREN’S BOOZE PROBLEMS,

MAKE TEACHING THEM SLOW AND DIFFICULT, 

AND DEVELOP FUTURE DEMAND FOR
MANY OTHER ADDICTIVE SUBSTANCES.

When just a couple of decades ago the legal drinking age was reduced from 21 to 18 in the political hope of increasing the size of the group of voters supporting the party of the government then in power, official backing was unfortunately added to today’s increasing problems of binge drinking – particularly amongst our teenage youngsters.

However, whilst this change aggravated the increasingly damaging behaviour of mainly young people on Thursday, Friday and Saturday nights, this is not the root cause of the escalation in infant, child and youth drinking over the last several decades, a situation underlined by the 25% increase in deaths from liver failure reported in March 2012.

i.e. It is not just as a result of the legal but irresponsible public drinking of the 18 to 21 year olds, but is rooted in the stupidly naïve LEGALISED drinking of our children of 5 to 17 years of age which has been gnawing away at Britain’s productivity, educational progress, reputation and very survival for decades !

County Council and national statistics on 5 to 17 year old’s drinking habits are both horrendous and frightening, and the behavioural results and lasting damage which follow are even worse.

Statistics from many British schools reveal that children as young as five are using alcohol, that nine year olds and above confess to having been drunk on many occasions, and that just under half of the age range from 5 to 17 inclusive have drunk alcohol fairly regularly, and continue to do so - all quite legally - when with parental approval !

AND THIS, OF COURSE, IS ALL BEFORE THEY REACH THE SO-CALLED “LEGAL DRINKING AGE” OF 18 YEARS.

It is now 83 years since the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, set out to protect the rights and morality of those under 21 and to protect children from neglect and abuse.

But in those 83 years practically NOTHING has been done by successive tax hungry governments to improve that protection.

That Act laid down that it was illegal to allow children below 5 years of age to drink alcohol at home or anywhere else.

AN EXTREMELY SMALL START TOWARDS LOGICAL AND HUMANE MEASURES.

But unfortunately, as already indicated above, at that time (and still today) busy, ill-informed or unconcerned Home Secretaries (as well as other Ministers) have failed to fully consider the extremely dangerous implications of allowing children from 5 years and up to drink alcohol at home or at a friend’s house “with (so-called) parental consent”.

They obviously did not know, as we now do today, that whilst the bodies and brains of older persons can be more resilient, the developing bodies, brains and minds of those below 21 years of age suffer serious retarding of growth and efficiency, leading to slower comprehension, poorer memory, erratic classroom and playground behaviour, poorer sports performance, youth criminality and a reducing standard of attainment at examinations and in employment.

Nor did they recognise that because a child’s first taste of beer, wine or spirits is usually a “yeuck” off-putting experience, the child’s strong desire to be “grown-up” and emulate its parents then necessitates that he or she must persevere with getting used to the taste, and then getting to like it and its “funny” intoxicating effects.

IN OTHER WORDS, A 13 YEAR LONG PERIOD FOR TRAINING TO USE ALCOHOL WAS, AND STILL IS, LEGALLY GRANTED AT HOME.

Thirteen years in which to get used to the harsh bitterness of beer, the burning fire of spirits, the tainted sourness of wine and the intoxicating effects from “funny” through disorientating and on to retching, fighting, falling over and feeling lousy, whilst also messing up your environment and your life.

And darned good training it has proved to be, helped by:

1) the booze producers sweetening their drinks to suit young palates,

2) by successive governments failing to control alcohol strengths,

3) by 24/7 licensing hours,

4) by cheap drinks “happy hours”,

5) by bulk buy discounted supermarket retailing, and,

6) by the encouraging of total drinking freedom 3 years sooner at age 18 instead of 21 in an ever increasing number of licensed premises.

NOW: THE PROOF OF THE DRINKING LESSONS OUR CHILDREN HAVE LEGALLY LEARNED AT HOME IS NOT ONLY WEEKLY DEMONSTRATED IN OUR TOWN CENTRES, BUT ALSO IN THE EVER RISING ILLEGAL USAGE OF CANNABIS AND OTHER EVEN MORE ADDICTIVE AND DAMAGING SUBSTANCES.

This relationship between DRINK and DRUGS MUST be quoted because, when surveyed, a significantly large majority of 13 to 17 year olds admitted that the first time they were persuaded to try smoking cannabis was immediately after having had 1 or 2 beers or other alcohol IN THE SAFETY OF THEIR OWN OR A FRIEND’S HOME, and a similar number of them admitted that this applied to their second usage.

Furthermore, nearly half of those who had been persuaded to “make a first try” when drinking, went on to use cannabis again, some only now and then, but most of them on a fully addicted basis.

When also asked: “Would you have tried the cannabis on that first occasion if you had not been drinking?”. Practically all of them replied - in one way or another - that they didn’t think so.

THE PROBLEM WITH ALCOHOL OF ALL TYPES IS THAT IT CHANGES AND QUICKLY REDUCES THE RESPONSIBILITY LEVEL, EMOTIONAL CONDITION AND JUDGEMENT OF THE DRINKER, THUS NO LONGER PROTECTING HIM OR HER FROM IRRATIONAL DECISIONS AND ACTIONS.

It follows that children allowed to drink alcohol from 5 years on, by the time they have reached 12 or 13 are already consuming 6-packs of beer or bottles of something with friends IN ONE OF THEIR HOMES.

So that when a “mate” produces a cannabis spliff during an evening comprised of video games and legal drinking, three-quarters of them find saying “YES” to cannabis far easier than saying “NO”.

IF THEIR FIRST EXPERIMENTS WITH ALCOHOL HAD BEEN AT 21 YEARS INSTEAD OF 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 or 20 WHAT A VASTLY DIFFERENT WORLD IT WOULD BE !

Not as many teenagers would be on cannabis, and not as many would fail and have to re-sit their GCSEs and “A” levels. And not as many would drop out of university, or give up sport. We would have more better athletes. There would be a drop in road and other accidents, less teenage crime, less premature juvenile deaths and shorter queues of methadone prescribed youngsters at Job Centres drawing benefits.

FURTHERMORE THERE WOULD BE FAR FEWER TEENAGE GIRLS LEAVING SCHOOL EARLY TO BRING UP THEIR BABIES.

Increasing the minimum price of alcohol starts to tackle the SUPPLY part of the equation, but DEMAND REDUCTION has always been the more significant monitoring factor in any marketplace.

Of course it’s far less than 1% of children who start at 5 years old with a “special treat” at aunty’s wedding or birthday, but its up to 16% who have started by 10 years, 50 to 60% by 15 years and 80% by 17 years.

So by the time they reach the legal drinking age of 18 their consumption is already at binge levels.

YES, increasing minimum pricing may help.

YES, reduce the number of licensed premises and their hours of business.

YES, reduce the maximum permitted strengths of alcoholic drinks, but also PLEASE reduce the size of the market DEMAND by making the legal age for drinking ANYWHERE – including at home – at least 18 years or better still 21 – thus supporting sensible parents by giving them the power to say to their kids “NO, IT’S AGAINST THE LAW”, and the right or even the duty to lock their pantries and booze cupboards is a first massive step in the direction of Thursday, Friday and Saturday night sanity and a population of school-children with a far brighter future.

At the same time as lifting the suppressive effects of alcohol off our younger children’s learning, performance and enjoyment of life, because youth alcohol home usage has proved the most significant gateway to starting cannabis and other addictions, new booze laws can begin to have a significant effect on drug consumption as well as on alcohol usage.

In those countries where it IS illegal for children of any age to be allowed alcohol at home - so that the parents (not the kids) are those responsible for the enforcing of the law - police and the authorities have found it is not necessary to randomly raid family homes every night.

Neighbours tell tales and point fingers, and every recently guilty set of parents in each town or city, WHOSE CRIME IS THOROUGHLY EXPOSED IN THEIR LOCAL PRESS, is enough to make the law work extraordinarily well !

BUT WHAT ABOUT “HUMAN RIGHTS” MANY MAY BLEAT.

“Surely people have a right to do what they like at home, and parents are entitled to bring up their kids as they see fit.”

OH NO, THEY ARE NOT.

The law does not allow the sexual abuse of children in the family. It does not allow parental assault on children. It does not allow them to be used as child labour.

A parent cannot supply illegal drugs to a child, but IT IS MAINLY BECAUSE IT IS CURRENTLY LEGAL TO DO SO that parents often regrettably have few reservations about allowing their kids to use alcohol.

We have these sanctions, which are built on key principles, for the protection and nurturing of a new generation, in order to uphold and improve upon the democratic rights and freedoms of the majority.

Common law accepts that children up to the age of culpability do not know right from wrong. And on this basis, children of 10 years and under totally rely upon parents or guardians to protect them from all physical and emotional harm, including the development of habits which have the potential to adversely affect the rest of their life.

Above 10 years the child has legal responsibility for his or her own conduct and condition, but with the drinking laws as they stand, it is totally permissible for teenagers to drink and even get drunk every day without being held responsible for their actions.

BUT, if it were illegal for ANYONE to drink alcohol ANYWHERE under the age of 18, or better still, 21 years, then both the parents and the youngsters themselves would feel the need to exercise responsibility over their choices and actions, thus helping us move towards the drug-free society we all basically need and want.

So the truth is that NO HOME SECRETARY, CHANCELLOR, PRIME MINISTER, OTHER POLITICIAN OR PARENT has the right to ruin a child’s potential for a long, happy and successful life by allowing or encouraging them to acclimatise themselves to regularly drinking a dose of addictive poison at any time.

SCIENTISTS HAVE ONLY RECENTLY RE-CONFIRMED THAT THE REGULAR DRINKING OF EVEN JUST ONE GLASS OF BEER OR WINE DEFINITELY IMPINGES ON THEIR DEVELOPING BRAINS AND RUINS THEIR MENTAL CAPABILITIES AND LEARNING POTENTIAL.

And what about a drunkard’s behaviour and how it impinges on the environment and on the rest of us in so many different ways - including violence and other abuse within the family and in the school yard.

Even if one is never present to be shocked by the behaviour of weekly town centre binge drinking, as a rate-payer or taxpayer it still hits everyone’s pocket.

Whilst basically everyone may have a right to do as he or she likes, that right can be justified only as long as it does not rob other people of THEIR rights – directly or indirectly - and an addict and drunk free society is felt by most electors to be their right.

In any none drinking household children tend to be much more relaxed, hard working, obedient, loving and family orientated. But, many of these qualities go out of the window as soon as alcohol is officially allowed for ALL family members.

IT IS THEREFORE TIME FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO: JUST SAY “NO” TO INFANT, CHILD, JUVENILE AND ADOLESCENT DRINKING, SO THAT PARENTS MAY MUCH MORE SUCCESSFULLY SAY THE SAME TO THEIR CHILDREN.

(It might even end drunken brawling between MPs in Parliament.)

It would keep our town centres cleaner and easier to police. Importantly, it would delay starting on damaging drugs, as well as reducing the number of deaths from liver failure caused by the last decade’s increase in younger usage of both alcohol and cannabis.

SO, THE BURNING POLICY QUESTION IS . . . . How can continuing to legalise children to practice and develop drinking skills at home for 13 years (before going out to paint the town red at 18) ever be considered sane, legal and defensible by any Home Secretary or Prime Minister seeking re-election ?  Especially if they have children of their own !

Parents need their hands strengthening in the fight against demand from within their own family, and against alcoholic youth behaviour.

But the present law goes totally against supporting effective sober parenting, by allowing the kids to loudly, justifiably and effectively argue:

“But Dad, Mum, you have to admit: IT’S TOTALLY LEGAL - so where can be the harm?”

Any marketplace is based on “supply” and “demand”, and DEMAND has always been the dominant governing factor.

Recognise how REDUCTION OF DEMAND KILLS SUPPLY !

And REDUCING DEMAND for Drugs and Alcohol will have the same effect on their supply.

So do not for one moment expect the suppliers of any such addictive substances – including ESPECIALLY THE LEGAL AND LICENSED ALCOHOL SUPPLIERS – to effectively practice any form of self-regulation or to offer any sensible advice on demand reduction.

BECAUSE DEMAND REDUCTION BY SELF-REGULATION OR IN ANY OTHER MANNER IS TOTALLY AGAINST THEIR PROFIT MAKING PRINCIPLES and is like leaving the fox in charge of the hen-house . . . AGAIN !

The objectives of ALL commercial operations are to increase demand, to increase the number of users of their products, to increase the amount each customer consumes, to maximise the profit on each sale and to avoid losing any consumers for any reason.

And these goals are often regrettably supported by the objectives of any and ALL governments, which are to Increase the number of electors voting for their Party, to increase the amount of tax income they have to work with and to thus maximise the attainment of the core goals of their particular political beliefs.

As a consequence alcohol suppliers and drug suppliers - such as tobacco producers, sugar purveyors and pharmaceutical companies – enjoy a bitter / sweet relationship with governments.

SWEET:

because these commercial operations supply governments with a major proportion of their tax income (plus drink for those MPs who do),

but intensely BITTER:

a) because of the various life spoiling and destroying devastations their products inflict on a major part of our population,

b) because of the increases in crime they engender,

c) because of the long term extra health, policing and benefits costs they create,

d) because of what they do to destroy student potential and because of the burden they place on the lives of most other people – especially teachers and police.

So, let us look at what we must do, with legislation and in other ways, in order to start providing most of our population with a happier life.

However, before we set off, shouldn’t we first decide on what goal we should be aiming for – for the benefit of a majority of our population.

How about reaching for A DRUG & ADDICTION FREE SOCIETY ?

THE ESSENCE OF AN ADDICTION-FREE SOCIETY IS THATNO-ONE IS THREATENED BY THE BEHAVIOUR OF ADDICTS, BECAUSE NO ONE IS USING ADDICTIVE DRUGS, AND NO ONE INTENDS TO USE THEM.

IMPOSSIBLE AND UNOBTAINABLE ?

VERY LIKELY !

But that should never be allowed to stop us from HAVING a worthwhile goal and TRYING to reach it.  Especially when the ability to get closer and closer to such a goal is also in itself a valued result.

Worth aiming for, because it has the vital effect of benefiting a majority in our society.

So the definition of an “EFFECTIVE” drugs policy is therefore one which continuously moves a society or community IN THE DIRECTION OF TOTAL ABSTINENCE,

That is: TOWARDS A SOCIETY FREE OF ADDICTIVE DRUGS.

By definition, such a policy must essentially result in less and less overall production and distribution of ALL types of addictive drugs

(Illicit, Licensed AND Prescription)

BROUGHT ABOUT BY A CONTINUING REDUCTION IN DEMAND FOR THEM,

and

a reduction in the number of citizens of all ages using all types of drugs, both voluntarily and involuntarily.

Whilst what has just been written above is nearly all about the unhelpful and in fact dangerous nature of our present old-fashioned laws on alcohol, it is certain that you recognise what all of us as parents must do to try and ensure that our children do not start down the slippery path towards drug addiction by being allowed to drink alcohol below the legal adult drinking age of 18 years.

We should not only be telling our MPs to change the law, but on the basis of the continuing current bad law we should ourselves be acting in every way possible to keep our infants, children and teenagers away from alcohol.

* Avoid making alcohol drinking look like it is one of the pleasant benefits of being an adult.

* Try to avoid drinking in the presence of your children or you will make them jealous of your adult privileges.

* Make sure that your booze supply is always in a locked cupboard, and keep in regular contact with the parents of your youngsters' friends to monitor what might be happening when your children are away from home – just in the next street or even next door.

* Be wary of other families who drink regularly and / or heavily and who think it is OK for THEIR kids to drink at home.

It's not easy, and you have to be diplomatic, but if you want your child to avoid drug taking and addiction, you really must keep them away from alcohol for as long as possible in their infant and teenage years.

This is not me saying this. It is history, research and statistics reporting what the main road to the hell of addiction is for a majority of individuals and their families.

These are facts – not guesswork.

If you would like a personal copy of a booklet which:

1) first, gives you more detail on ways of keeping your children away from addictive drugs,

2) second, tells you how to KNOW if your child is using drugs, and,

3) thirdly, WHAT TO DO if your child IS using drugs.

Phone: (01342) 810151 after 11.00am and before 9.00pm any weekday, or e-mail keneck@btinternet.com

That's (01342) 810151, and we also give you this number in case you may want to talk confidentially about your own situation or that of your family.

Finally.

YOU MAY WISH TO REMEMBER THE FOLLOWING:

a) The only people who demand drugs are addicts.  None users don't.

b) It is the usage of drugs which causes addiction, because:

c) No-one can become addicted to a drug which they never take !

So “Say 'NO' to Drugs & Drink” is still:

the most healthy and safest action for anybody & everybody to take !

ESPECIALLY WHEN YOUR BODY AND BRAIN

                                                                              IS LESS THAN 21 YEARS OLD !