3 ms·

8% is in the ballpark of AA/NA, IIRC (those organizations claim that they've "never"* seen a person following their steps fail to stay clean/sober, but that's j

8% is in the ballpark of AA/NA, IIRC (those organizations claim that they've "never"* seen a person following their steps fail to stay clean/sober, but that's just tautological nonsense), and this is about the same as people who attempt rehab by going to church. To be clear about my biases I'm not religious, I'm not categorically opposed to drugs (see username), but I've also seen addiction wreck lives (including those of family members). It's not obvious to me that everyone who gets clean from AA/NA would also get clean from going to church or a work program like the one in TFA, and the same is true of those other routes. I suspect there are overlapping sets of people who would benefit from these different programs -- I don't know that, but it would be surprising if human psychology was so simple that they were all the same set, or that one was a superset of the other two. I've also known people who went to AA/NA briefly, got clean, and went back to relatively minor drug use without engaging in the sort of self-destructive excesses they had in the past. I bet that some of the dropouts still found improvement in their lives. I have mixed feelings about this article, and I'm not trying to defend Cenikor, but I'm also not trying to attack them, just adding some thoughts that might be relevant. *IIRC, "never" has been changed to "rarely" in recent editions of the text, but only in the last decade or so.

munk-a 8y ago
If you think that vocation is that valuable to recovery and you think it needs to be extreme (80 hrs a week) vocation... we can have a conversation about that, but those people should be paid fairly for their labour - again there may be an interesting question about the benefits for holding that payment in trust during their stay - and you might want to allow patients to borrow out of their trust to pay for treatment, but all that money going back and forth should be clearly declared and traceable - and I bet you that sending addicts out into the world with some cash in the bank as opposed to unable to afford rent would lower recidivism[1]. [1] And to counter the argument, if you think "Oh, they're just going to spend it on drugs" yea, they might, they're an addict, but keeping their money is saying "they can never be trusted to work and earn an income" in which case why are they even being released.
- blotter_paper 8y ago
  It seems uncontested that this company is doing some good, whether or not that good is outweighed by the bad. I'm unclear on the net effect, and not really making a claim; I tried to be clear about that near the end of my prior comment. If, hypothetically, the bad outweighs the good, I have no disagreement with you. But in the other hypothetical, where the good outweighs the bad, it seems like you're letting perfection be the enemy of improvement. Just because we can imagine a better system doesn't mean we should tear down an existing one that has some problems before beginning to implement a replacement. I would be glad to see a program with all of the good and less of the bad outcompete this one, even if this one has a net positive effect in the mean time. “You never change things by fighting against the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the old model obsolete.” --Buckminster Fuller
  - munk-a 8y ago
    Sorry to clarify - I'm not rejecting the idea of vocation as a supporting treatment to addiction. I, thankfully, have never had to deal with it in myself or a loved one, I am stating that if their innovation is beneficial - great, but now they need to shape up and stop abusing their patients - the money needs to go into their clients hands along so that the incentive to push this vocational opportunity too the point of abuse is removed. So I agree that perfection is the enemy of the good in innovation, but it's been innovated so now it's time to incrementally improve the system if it's one that works. In this case unfortunately the company has been at it for more than twenty years, so they have refused to work to improving the system and instead have carried on with greedy exploitation which is a well warranted reason for punishment for those individuals. Also, my apology if my statement seemed directed at you, it was not intended that way. I am quite serious about labour rights having worked in the gaming industry and my passion may have overflown.

munk-a 8y ago

If you think that vocation is that valuable to recovery and you think it needs to be extreme (80 hrs a week) vocation... we can have a conversation about that, but those people should be paid fairly for their labour - again there may be an interesting question about the benefits for holding that payment in trust during their stay - and you might want to allow patients to borrow out of their trust to pay for treatment, but all that money going back and forth should be clearly declared and traceable - and I bet you that sending addicts out into the world with some cash in the bank as opposed to unable to afford rent would lower recidivism[1]. [1] And to counter the argument, if you think "Oh, they're just going to spend it on drugs" yea, they might, they're an addict, but keeping their money is saying "they can never be trusted to work and earn an income" in which case why are they even being released.

blotter_paper 8y ago
It seems uncontested that this company is doing some good, whether or not that good is outweighed by the bad. I'm unclear on the net effect, and not really making a claim; I tried to be clear about that near the end of my prior comment. If, hypothetically, the bad outweighs the good, I have no disagreement with you. But in the other hypothetical, where the good outweighs the bad, it seems like you're letting perfection be the enemy of improvement. Just because we can imagine a better system doesn't mean we should tear down an existing one that has some problems before beginning to implement a replacement. I would be glad to see a program with all of the good and less of the bad outcompete this one, even if this one has a net positive effect in the mean time. “You never change things by fighting against the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the old model obsolete.” --Buckminster Fuller
- munk-a 8y ago
  Sorry to clarify - I'm not rejecting the idea of vocation as a supporting treatment to addiction. I, thankfully, have never had to deal with it in myself or a loved one, I am stating that if their innovation is beneficial - great, but now they need to shape up and stop abusing their patients - the money needs to go into their clients hands along so that the incentive to push this vocational opportunity too the point of abuse is removed. So I agree that perfection is the enemy of the good in innovation, but it's been innovated so now it's time to incrementally improve the system if it's one that works. In this case unfortunately the company has been at it for more than twenty years, so they have refused to work to improving the system and instead have carried on with greedy exploitation which is a well warranted reason for punishment for those individuals. Also, my apology if my statement seemed directed at you, it was not intended that way. I am quite serious about labour rights having worked in the gaming industry and my passion may have overflown.