C.E.P.T.A.

The CAMPAIGN for EFFECTIVE PREVENTION and TREATMENT of ADDICTION.

LUCKY 13. Recent Media Reports, Reader’s Comments and STOP PRESS:

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

CAN THIS REALLY BE U.K. GOVERNMENT SUPPRESSION OF THE WORLD’S MOST

EFFECTIVE ADDICTION RECOVERY SYSTEM ?

a CEPTA investigation

Most sane politicians and members of the general public would expect that an event promoted as the 2006 National Drug Treatment Conference would automatically wish to include at least one paper and speaker on the recent establishment in the U.K. of a centre delivering what is indisputably the world’s most successful training in self-recovery from drug addiction.

Not a Johnny-cum-lately training system, but one which was developed 39 years ago in the Arizona State Prison System, which since then has been responsible for helping hundreds of thousands of former drug addicts of both sexes, every adult age, most nationalities, ethnic groups and beliefs achieve comfortable abstinence for life, and which today has some 150 centres (including prison units) in over 40 countries.

One would expect that a ‘national’ event of such proclaimed importance, supported as it is by the NHS, the National Treatment Agency, the National Addiction Centre, the Federation of Drug & Alcohol Professionals, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the Royal College of General Practitioners and the U.K. Harm Reduction Alliance, would be anxious in any conference on “drug treatment” to feature a training programme which – first time through – helps 69+% achieve lifelong abstinence from drugs and which on a shorter second time through helps another 14 to 16 percent achieve the same goal.

But, apparently, NOT if your conference is organised by “Exchange” tools for harm reduction and “The (Methadone) Alliance”, and is sponsored by multinational pharmaceutical drug producers Schering-Plough.

Understandable really, because these organisers, sponsors and most of the supporting groups depend on continuing drug addiction for their livelihood. So the last thing they want publicised is a training programme which permits addicts to get themselves off drugs without use of pharmaceutical products.

After all, a drug addict is ‘a goose which lays golden eggs’ for those companies which treat addiction on a continuous ‘habit management’ basis. The last thing they want is someone to help their consumers get cured, because a cured addict is a lost customer.

On the other hand, you would really expect government departments like the National Health Service & the National Treatment Agency, who waste billions in taxpayers’ money on maintaining addicts, to want to see addiction cured by any system or by any organisation under the sun – as long as the cure is effective.

Although, on second thoughts – perhaps not – because when the treating and counselling of addicts is your livelihood, and when you are paid by the government out of taxpayer’s funds, do you really want to see your customers taken away by effective drug rehabilitation?

The truth is that the U.K. drug prevention and drug treatment scene is dominated and controlled by psychiatry and the pharmaceutical drug companies. It provides a significant part of their income and costs the British taxpayer many billions in failed and ineffective treatment, whilst boosting addict numbers each year.

Such ‘treatment’ cures no one, and the accompanying so-called ‘harm reduction’ ‘drugs education’ does nothing to train our youth in actual PREVENTION. As a result, more individuals enter the addicted population every year, whilst existing addicts are being ‘managed’, with none actively being CURED.

The methadone programme is a marketing man’s dream. The government pays your company to keep your consumers addicted, because the users themselves can’t pay. What sane board director is going to want to lose such a huge, profitable and easy business. He doesn’t even have to advertise his products to the consumer. All he needs is to keep a few politicians and civil servants blindfolded sufficiently to ensure they don’t see the truth.

Is it any wonder that the NHS is overspending by billions, when so much of its taxpayer provided budget is squandered on totally ineffective psycho-pharmaceutical ‘treatments’. Isn’t it time that successive governments woke up to the fact that they have been and are still being used as cash-cows by those vested interests, who clearly don’t give a damn about the addicts and who care only for the power and profit which their marketing ploys and manipulation of politicians and civil servants has achieved.

The situation revealed here is only the tip of the iceberg, recently also glimpsed in John le Carré’s book and film: “The Constant Gardener”. It is today quite clear that the psycho-pharmaceutical fraternity is not only unable to cure drug addiction, but that they also don’t want any one else to cure anybody of drug use.

In fact, practically every demand for liberalisation - and particularly legalisation - of drugs is backed directly or indirectly by psycho-pharmaceutical interests. This is because legalisation not only puts the whole drugs market turnover into their hands, but also because history has shown that legalisation increases the number of drug users (including illicit teenagers) and the amounts they use.

Legalisation by any means is in fact the guarantee the psycho-pharmaceutical interests seek for their future expansion, and so must be resisted if all of us are to avoid becoming increasingly controlled within a bio-chemical society.

However, to receive agreement to publish free of charge, you need only phone (01342) 811099 or e-mail keneck@btopenworld.

For further information visit: www.solutionstodrugs.com.

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

ADDICTS AND THEIR ACTIVITIES ARE

THE MAIN IMMEDIATE PROBLEM.

A Report From C.E.P.T.A. – the Campaign for Effective Prevention & Treatment of Addiction.

To divert attention away from the damning stark reality of drug usage in the U.K. the government attempts to focus public attention 1) on the work being done by hard pressed police and customs officials to reduce illegal drug supplies, 2) on so-called ‘drugs education’ for young people, 3) on the number of people ‘entering treatment’ and 4) on reducing drug-related crime.

As a result:

1) government totally fails to handle or curtail the supply of equally addictive licensed drugs, such as alcohol and tobacco, and even more addictive prescription drugs such as methadone, Subutex, Ritalin and Prozac, etc.

2) ministers promote ‘harm reduction’ concepts, which may be fine for entrenched addicts, but give totally wrong and harmful ‘how to choose & use drugs’ messages to infants & juniors. Messages which project the idea to young people who are yet to use drugs, that drug usage is O.K.

3) whilst government reports increases in the number of people ‘entering treatment’, we nowhere find any statistics on how many people actually emerge cured for life by such ‘treatments’, and in fact it appears that a heroin addict entering the methadone maintenance programme – because he has moved from an illicit to a legally prescribed drug – is then considered as no longer an addict! And,

4) ministers obscure drug related crime figures by juggling with the drug classifications, and by ignoring the crimes and other problems attributable to legally prescribed drugs such as the benzodiazepines and methadone, etc.

Most important of all, ministers nearly totally ignore the effect of demand on the drugs market-place and concentrate on supply, when every successful businessman will tell them that it is ‘demand’ which creates and sustains the ‘supply’ of a product, not the other way around.

All this arises because of the stranglehold exercised on government thinking and policy-making by vested interests in the alcohol, tobacco and psycho-pharmaceutical industries. Blindfolds and ear-plugs are provided to politicians by the highly sophisticated P.R. and lobbying activities of some of the largest corporations in the world, who try to lay the whole blame on the illicit drugs. And the tragedy is that this vested interest direction of government policy is so well done that government seems never able to see that it is being manipulated, even when it is pointed out.

The truth being hidden is that it needs the implementation of only 3 policies in order to start reducing and increasingly diminish the usage of drugs of all types.

i) Abolish so-called ‘harm reduction’ ‘drugs education’ as currently given to many young people in our schools, and replace it with effective “prevention training” aimed – not at educating youngsters how to choose and use drugs - but on the proven recognition that children are not stupid and that they will respond to intelligent explanations of the truth about drugs and about why it is anti-survival and un-cool to use drugs of all types.

ii) Abolish any form of so-called drug rehabilitation which (like a methadone programme) substitutes one form of drug usage for another. Then replace it with training in a workable system of recovery from drug usage which a user can then apply to him or her self. Life is a D.I.Y. do-it-yourself activity. Becoming addicted is also a do-it-yourself activity and so is the recovering of oneself from drug addiction.

This is why drug addiction is so often mistakenly assumed to be incurable, whilst the truth is that it is curable – but only by the addict himself when properly trained.

At the training centres of one international organisation founded 39 years ago, 69+% of students achieve comfortable abstinence for life the first time through a residential training programme, and of the 31% who fail to graduate at their first attempt, about half will also achieve for themselves the same result on a shorter second run through the programme.

iii) The third main policy for success has already been mentioned in i) and ii) above, but is covered again here, because it must be implemented to permit i) and ii) to occur.

It is the prior abolition of the status quo ineffective psycho-pharmaceutical ‘drugs education’ system plus the equally ineffective pharmaceutical drug-based addiction ‘treatment’ system, both of which stand in the way of and deliberately impede the recognition and introduction of i) and ii) above.

ONLY BY REDUCING THE NUMBER OF NEW DRUG USERS JOINING THE ‘PARTY’ (EFFECTIVE PREVENTION) AND BY REDUCING THE NUMBER OF EXISTING USERS (EFFECTIVE CURE) CAN THE U.K. DRUG SCENE BE IMPROVED.

Both of these have been proven fully achievable in 40 countries over the last 39 years, but have been continuously attacked, discredited, side-lined and marginalised in many western countries by profit hungry vested interests determined to develop and maintain as many addicts as possible – because an addict is a goose which lays golden eggs for the psycho-pharmaceutical industries.

Quite apart from the above vital reasons for combating the menacing influence of this power and profit greedy fraternity, there is also the urgent necessity to combat the existing effects of drug addicts’ behaviour on every single member of our society.

Every U.K. citizen needs to recognise that, amongst other problems.

* Addicts cause the most accidents at work.

* Addicts mug and rob old people.

* Addicts and drunks cause most road accidents.

* Addicts sell drugs to children (and others).

* Addicts increase the numbers of prostitutes and ‘toy boys’,

* Addicts disrupt our schools and the education of our children,

* Addicts bankrupt businesses and destroy jobs.

* Addicts break into and burgle peoples' homes.

* Addicts spread HIV, AIDS and hepatitis.

* Addicts waste our tax money and other resources.

* Addicts and drunks commit the most crimes, and,

* Addicts are undoubtedly the real current threat to our lives and to

everybody’s future.

This is because their addiction controls them, and THIS AFFECTS EVERYBODY, EVERYONE’S FAMILY, EVERYONE’S INCOME, EVERY JOB, EVERYONE’S HEALTH AND EVERYBODY’S HOME !

We currently have just under one-fifth of the population addicted to one form of drugs or another. But, at the rate the size of the addicted population is growing every year, the number of addicts is set to nearly double within the next quarter century. By 2030, with nearly 40% of our population on drugs, the behaviour of that large minority of drug users will be dictating the quality of life for everybody, and the steps government will take to combat this will result in more State control of population than ever before in our history.

As we’re not about to shoot addicts, and as it’s too costly to imprison them, and too cruel (and also costly) to put them on methadone or any other prescription drug for life (at taxpayer expense and for psycho-pharmaceutical profit), the only effective way to protect everybody is to make sure today's addicts and alcoholics quickly achieve comfortable lifelong abstinence - which of course helps them too!

It makes no sense whatsoever to try and get the addict out of the society. Therefore, what we have to do is to get the drug out of the addict, and help him or her to again become a productive, helpful and respected member of society.

THIS IS DONE SIMPLY BY TRAINING THEM IN A WORKABLE ADDICTION RECOVERY SYSTEM WITH WHICH THEY CAN THEN CURE THEMSELVES.

Only by preventing new users from joining the drug scene, AND by training those who are already addicted - on a programme which permits them to cure themselves - can we reduce the demand for drugs and thus stop control by drugs of our society and ourselves.

This protects our children, our grand-children and their children from becoming part of a society controlled by drug barons, alcohol producers and the psycho-pharmaceutical industries.

And bear in mind that training addicts in a workable D.I.Y. recovery system is the only way they can be cured with certainty in from 69 to 84 percent of cases !

It is the only way because the fundamental effect of drug use is to take away an individual’s self-determination – i.e. it takes away the control of himself by his own decision and intention.

Therefore because an addict “must-have” his addictive drug, his life becomes determined by that drug and by the wishes of others in his environment and he loses the power to choose his own destiny, the intentions of other people becoming increasingly capable of being imposed upon him by his overwhelming need for that drug or drugs.

For most people surveyed, ‘cure’ basically means ‘relaxed and comfortable abstinence for life’, and the essence of a cure for drug addiction is therefore now seen - not as the doing of something to or for a user - but as the recovery by an individual of his power of choice over his own life, and so it follows that any system in which another person or group seeks to ‘treat’ an individual will normally fail to cure.

This is because the only sure route out of addiction is the lessening and eventual eradication of control of the individual by a drug, WHICH ALSO INCLUDES the escape from control by other persons doing something to or for him.

Medical ‘interventions’ seldom if ever cure or even claim to cure addiction. This is because interventions by definition are themselves further attempts by others to by-pass the individual’s own personal intentions and his responsibility for (and control of) SELF, and so are doomed because they ‘intervene’ between the individual and the drug he is determined to confront and wrest control from.

It follows that no-one can withdraw another individual from drug use. He himself is the only person capable of withdrawing himself. Consequently, the only truly viable route is TO TRAIN that individual in a workable method of withdrawal which he may then - of his own volition - apply to himself and his condition.

As a result, there are now numerous rehabilitation centres both here and abroad which offer users:

1) training in how to comfortably withdraw themselves from drugs along with, 2) education in those modes of rehabilitation and living necessary to aid them in their abandonment of drug use, and 3) training in how to recover from the residual effects on their lives and livelihood of their earlier addiction, plus 4) training in the avoidance and prevention of future drug use by themselves and others, with the goal of becoming contributing and productive members of society.

In other words, these programmes stand completely outside the fields of care, counselling, use-advice, treatment by others, habit management, therapy, substitution prescribing, nursing, medical detoxification, harm reduction and other interventions, etc., and stand solely and only in the field of training and education which supports the drug user’s own abstinence intentions and goals.

This is, adult learning, gradual self-improvement and development with a view to achieving knowledge about, responsibility for and control of themselves and their own lives, whilst also adopting respect for the lives of others in their environment.

Addiction to all forms of drugs – whether illicit, licensed or prescription – creates an addict, and the behaviour which addicts provenly adopt under the influence of their drug usage makes them the real existing threat and the real future threat to our society and the British way of life.

We must therefore stop creating them by expanding available provenly effective prevention training, and we must get rid of current addicts by training them in existing effective D.I.Y. self-curing techniques which they can apply to themselves.

Bear in mind that such recovery techniques are not some Johnny-come-lately new fashion, but have been available for over 39 years, are delivered across 40 countries in over 150 centres (including prison units) and have helped hundreds of thousands of individuals of both sexes, most adult ages, numerous creeds, various ethnic groups, backgrounds and social strata to achieve comfortable abstinence from drugs for life.

Furthermore, such training is far less costly than imprisoning addicts, enforcing DT&T Orders, running methadone maintenance and counselling programmes, paying unemployment benefit, income support, housing allowances and providing expensive and excessive NHS services to that group of seriously ill individuals we call addicts. It turns individuals who are a burden on our communities and on our taxpayers into productive contributing citizens, whilst relieving their families and their local communities of the sort of day upon day worries which spoil their lives and also make them ill, depressed and in need of more State support.

Effective prevention training and effective training in D.I.Y. addiction recovery are already available. All it now needs is for government to throw off the yoke of psycho-pharmaceutical mis-direction and start looking & listening to others.

For fuller information, phone: (01342) 810151, or phone / fax: (01342) 811099, or e-mail keneck@btopenworld.com.

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

DRUG LEGALISATION BY STEALTH & SPIN

by Kenneth Eckersley

The Home Office announced this week that the police and courts are to receive guidelines on what quantities constitute the so-called ‘small amount’ of drugs which may be carried for ‘personal use’. This decision appears to be based on the regularly reiterated ‘advice’ from high society, bureaucratic and other top drawer establishment users who can afford to pay for their drugs and so want to make their habits ‘legal’.

But legalisation does not change a drug, or its effects or the nature of the drug user. Legal addicts remain as unemployable as those using illicit drugs. And those without the resources to personally pay for their habit will continue to rely on State supplied methadone, diamorphine, Subutex, naltrexone and disulfiram, etc., and on Unemployment Benefit, Income Support and Housing Benefit, etc., as well as consuming more National Health Services than others and – even when their drug supply is both legal and provided free of charge by the taxpayer - addicts and legal drunks are still the drivers who most often kill and injure other road users.

Furthermore, because those addicted to legal drugs mainly have a very low standard of living, we know from the behaviour of legal methadone addicts that, to supplement their income and so “keep up with the Jones’s” many still rob old ladies, burgle houses and cars, sell drugs to children, and, because in reality they are desperately ill people, they are still a huge burden and the biggest threat to the future of everyone in their communities.

So who really wants legalisation, and why?

For many observers it has been clear for years that one of the major pharmaceutical industry goals is the legalisation of all currently illicit drugs. In fact, along with their psychiatric marketing partners, the pharmacologists can be found directly or indirectly backing just about every liberalisation initiative and legalisation promotion whether to the public, to government, to the medical profession, to the media, to the police, to academics or to educationalists, etc., via numerous ‘friends’ and front organisations throughout the society.

Because whilst legalisation fails to kill illicit sales to minors, it vastly expands drug usage, and places drug production and adult sales firmly in the hands of the psycho-pharmaceutical fraternity, thus escalating their turnover and profit. But, because the U.K. Drugs Czar, successive Prime Ministers and most of their Cabinet colleagues have all been openly opposed to legalisation, the question remains: “How will the psycho-pharms achieve their expansion goals?” And the answer is: “quietly, covertly and little by little”.

Prescription by a psychiatrist or doctor gives any drug, illicit or otherwise a legal status. So, for instance, drugs sold over the internet to individuals who have never even met the prescribing doctor, achieve a spurious legality because the pharmaceutical supply company gets a ‘physician’ to issue a prescription to cover each sale - or so industry P.R. spokesmen say.

Harmful and fully addictive drugs such as tranquillisers, the benzodiazepines, methadone and others, are given full legality by being prescribed by physicians and, in the near future, also by nurses. Under the supervision of prescription issuing “school psychiatrists”, school matrons and nurses are today dispensing Prozac, Ritalin and other dangerously addictive drugs to our children on a daily basis and on school premises – all quite ‘legally’. But how are the psycho-pharms going to take over the huge illegal market for cannabis, cocaine, crack, ecstasy and heroin, etc.?

The first move of course was to get cannabis downgraded from a Class “B” to a Class “C” to make its eventual legalisation less of a major issue.

This backfired when it was recognised that, like many other drugs, cannabis is a serious source & developer of psychosis. It further backfired when, following the earlier Lambeth liberalisation experiments, police and campaigning liberalisers chose to interpret the new ‘C’ classification for cannabis as a sort of licence to carry a small personal supply for the individual’s own use.

However, this inevitably led to argument as to exactly how much constitutes a personal supply for the drug carrier’s own use? So now – in an obscuringly busy political week – we discover that the government will shortly ‘help’ the police and courts by issuing them with ‘guidance’ on what constitutes a small personal supply of drugs !

A normal supply of tobacco for personal usage is something between 10 and 30 cigarettes per day. Two to three spliffs a day would be considered a lot by even regular cannabis users. Anyone carrying 20 cigarette packets each with 20 cigarettes would be either a tobacconist with a licence or a smuggler delivering to his illicit customers.

Proportionally, anyone carrying more than a normal daily supply of any drug must be assumed to be a dealer or smuggler.

But that is not the significant point. Whether the personal usage amount will vary according to drug type, whether it will be 1 gram 30 grams or 100 doesn’t matter, because as soon as any government quantifies how much of a drug may be carried or used “personally” they have in fact made it legal for that quantity to be carried and used by every single person !

And so the big pharmas create creeping legalisation, because once any small but apparently legal quantities are established in the public’s and the authorities’ minds, the next question to be raised will be: “If its OK to carry such amounts for personal use, then why shouldn’t it be legal to produce and supply those same amounts?” And the answer the psycho-pharmaceutical companies want to hear is: “Providing that supply is properly controlled and is done through licensed premises, then – why not – because we will be cutting out the criminal element.”

But we won’t. Because other licensed addictive drugs like alcohol and tobacco are distributed through licensed premises, and the illicit trade in both those commodities grows every year – not only with the adults who are allowed by law to drink and smoke, but also for the millions of children under licensing age who are increasingly being pulled into addiction and alcoholism.

The only logical, safe and easy to police amount of any addictive recreational drug which can be carried for personal use - is ‘0’ grams.

New York unequivocally demonstrated that anything above zero tolerance opens the whole Pandora’s box, so it is right that Brixton is learning the same lesson, and thus avoiding the thin end of the disastrous legalisation wedge.

But what about the rest of the country?

If the Home Secretary’s proposal becomes fashionable - namely that the size of a cannabis stash which can be carried for personal usage might well be 500 spliffs (6½ months supply) without the owner being regarded as a dealer - then larger handbags for both men and women are going to become a fashion, and although it will be legal for them to be carrying that quantity of their drug of choice, the fact is that every one of them will still be in receipt of illegally trafficked substances.

But who’s going to care? We’ll all be too ‘chilled-out’ on secondary smoking to notice!

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

HOW THE CITY OF LONDON

BANKROLLS TERRORISM

by Kenneth Eckersley

C.E.O. CEPTA Campaign for the Effective Prevention and Treatment of Addiction

Like every other enterprise terrorism must have a steady supply of money to fund its operations. Who better to look toward than the sons of Eton , Harrow , Rugby and the City for regular funding.

Not that these upper class princes of finance appear aware of their part in the provision of the explosives a dedicated terrorist must have if he is to fulfil his drug promoted destiny.

The dictionary tells us that the word “assassin” is derived from “hashish-eaters”: i.e. “Arab / Moslem fanatics in the time of the Crusades who were sent by their leaders to murder Christian leaders by ‘treacherous violence’”. They were prepared for their task by ingesting drugs – mainly Indian hemp which we know now as cannabis.

Today, although seldom mentioned in the media, drugs continue to rear their ugly heads in relation to terrorist suicide bombers. Cannabis, heroin and a wide range of easily obtainable prescription drugs are listed in the British National Formulary official medical handbook as “hypnotics”, and there is a similar range of anxiolytics and pain-killers which can be used to reduce the stress a would be suicide needs to confront.

The hypnotics lay individuals wide open to destructive or suicidal suggestions which they probably otherwise would not take on board or act upon. Even mild hypnotics (e.g. cannabis, tranquillisers) when coupled with the repetition of certain concepts, chants or commands will eventually serve to have a subject carry out actions which he would not contemplate when in an un-drugged or un-hypnotised state. So drugs not only can ‘blow your mind’ - they can be used to have you ‘blown-up’ !

But where do our well-heeled and well-educated feature in this. Those whose families shop at Harrods have from the beginning been an easy target for the drug pushing fraternity. At boarding school, plenty of free time and freedom from parental restraint has laid those of our youth born with silver spoons in their mouths wide open to the enticements of cannabis, heroin and cocaine, and the pushers could be sure that public school pupils, bankers, stock exchange dealers and other City members are able to pay top dollar – which they continue to do nearly every weekend.

Few Belgravian or week-end country house parties are today complete without host provided lines of “coke”, failing which an increasing number of guests will bring their own or some other drug. Rather like having your own pocket-flask of cognac in case the party turns out to be ‘tee-total’.

This bio-chemical thrill-seeking behaviour seems to be founded in the fallacial belief that, because they are not stealing or committing GBH to pay for their drugs, no harm is being done, but this is pure and dangerous self-delusion.

The illicit drug trade is ruled from its production areas and right up to the local pusher by organised international crime, and is accompanied by a host of other law-breaking and corruptive activities.

But even more deadly is the fact that every international and local terrorist group in the world uses drug dealing to provide the major part of their income – without which they could not operate so effectively.

All upper and middle class “recreational” drug users therefore need to have their attention sharply drawn to the fact that their next “spliff”, “fix”, “high”, “chill-out” or" snort" is paying all or in part for the bomb that blows up their commuter train or a local bus, restaurant or night-club along with their own wives, children or friends.

At the same time, high-class drug usage does nothing for the benevolence and effectiveness of the leaders of our society, and they should be aware of the increasing range of business and financial enterprises which have failed or changed hands because “the management” has to a greater or lesser degree succumbed to finding their relaxation in the currently fashionable manner.

Drug usage has been turned into ‘the fashionable thing for the very best people to do’ by hooking models, pop-stars and other celebrities onto cocaine. For most such users, it is a once a week recreational activity which they feel they can take or leave – and they can until . . . . Cocaine has the interesting characteristic of appearing non-addictive for quite some weeks, months or even years. Then, quite suddenly, over a period of days or weeks it can become possibly the most addictive of all the drugs, as we know from Kate Moss’s unfortunate fall from grace.

The lesson is that every drug-user, whatever their position, contributes to terrorism and to the demise of their own job, business, family and society.

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

FASHION, and DRUGS MARKETING

A Report From A.R.T.S. - ADDICTION RECOVERY TRAINING SERVICES.

For centuries, ‘fashion’ has been the name given to ‘the marketing of clothes’.

‘Fashion’ was born on the day when the clothing industry realised that the public were not renewing their wardrobes often enough to keep the dressmaker and tailor production lines busy. Dresses, skirts, blouses, cardigans, jackets, trousers, shorts & shirts, etc., were lasting far too long and were still obviously not worn out, so some way had to be found to persuade the public to throw out the old and buy in the new.

So along came “fashion” and “fashionable”, accompanied by the derogatory “old- fashioned”, “unfashionable”, “out-of-date”, “un-cool”, “not with it”, “non-U”, etc., all with the sole purpose of making appearance-conscious persons shun their last years clothes and buy new ones.

Since then, fashion has spread into other products as a way of stimulating the demand to replace the old with the new – NOT because the old doesn’t work or is worn out, but because it is simply said by some fashion guru to be “unfashionable”.

In fact very often the older product is better designed, stronger, longer lasting, more comfortable and in many ways more practical than the newer replacement. But when a society has become committed to the fashion idea these things don’t matter, as a result of which our charity shops reap the benefit.

Look at women’s shoes and boots, with their ridiculously high heels, look at tight-fitting jeans, with the health problems they can create. Look at ‘fashionable’ tiny spectacles which make everyone look like villainous mad scientists who, because the frames are so tiny, find themselves continuously looking out upon a world framed by their specs. Make no mistake however, the next fashion ‘spectacle’ will be BIG frames - again. And how do we manage to get the names of ‘famous’ fashion clothes designers on reading and sun-glasses, shoes and even underpants? OK, underpants they are into, but what do they know about the optical and shoe industries?

Just as we go from short skirts to long ones - and back again, and from slim trousers to loose ones - and back again, from lightweights to heavy and from dark to light colourings – and back again, so in terms of comfort and economy we go from the sublime to the ridiculous, for only one reason. Just to sell more – whether needed or not! In fact the job of fashion is to sell on ‘desire’ and not on ‘need’.

The pharmaceutical industry realised this more than a century ago, and have convinced succeeding governments that they (and only they) have the answers to our drug usage and addiction problems.

So to handle the “opium” problems of the 1800s they brought in “morphine”, and when that in turn became recognised as a problem, they produced “heroin” (diamorphine) which, as we all know, then also became another even bigger addiction problem, as a result of which they brought in “methadone” – an even stronger and more addictive drug with horrendous side-effects, and huge cost, crime and unemployment implications carried by the whole society and its taxpayers.

More recently the pharmacologists have introduced “buprenorphine” (Subutex), but because heroin, methadone and buprenorphine are now ALL recognised as continuing drug problems, our pharmaceutical friends have introduced “naltrexone” which, at first sight seemed workable, but is already beginning to demonstrate its short-comings – such as continuous expensive usage for months and even years, plus the ever present chance of a relapse if the regular naltrexone doses are stopped.

Today fashion also rears its head in the illegal ‘street’ drugs industry. Not to replace last years drugs with new ones, but just for the purpose of stimulating interest by launching new drugs and so expanding the whole illegal marketplace.

“Ecstasy”, “skunk”, “nederweed” and the so-called “designer” drugs have all increased demand beyond that for the original basics like, speed, pot, heroin and cocaine. Recently we had the Evening Standard October headline which told us: “Crack overtakes heroin as addicts’ drug of choice”. And just this week another fashion conscious newspaper tells us that “crystal meth” is set to overtake “crack” as the most currently fashionable street drug.

Today fashion is of course created by celebrities as a well as by designers, so that celebrities have a huge responsibility for the way they lead our youth and other impressionable members of our society. Because of the power which fashion and fashion statements have built up over the years, celebrities must learn to choose their fashions carefully. Do they wish to be known, like Helen of Troy, as “the face which launched a thousand ships”, or would they prefer to be remembered as “the snorter who launched a thousand kids on to the cocaine habit”, and thus caused hundreds of spoilt careers and broken lives, and dozens of divorces and early deaths?

Fashion has its uses and a place in our society. But misusing it and exploiting it just to make the concept of “NEW” more important than “comfortable”, “safe”, “reliable”, “healthy” and “good for survival”, is a crime against society and particularly against our children and their children.

After all, anything which, or anyone who, creates a new addict by making drugs ‘fashionable’, is creating a menace to their community and to their own and everybody else’s future, simply because: . . . .

* Addicts are the people in our society who cause the most accidents at work,

* Addicts mug and rob old people,

* Addicts and drunks cause the most road accidents.

* Addicts sell drugs to children and others,

* Addicts bankrupt businesses and destroy jobs,

* Addicts break into and rob people’s homes,

* Addicts spread HIV, AIDS and Hepatitis,

* Addicts increase the numbers of prostitutes and ‘toy boys’,

* Addicts waste tax money and other costly resources,

* Addicts disrupt our schools and the education of our children,

* Addicts and drunks commit the most crimes, and,

Addicts are undoubtedly the real threat to our lives and to everybody’s future -

SO WE MUST NEVER HELP CREATE THEM !

Especially as we’re not allowed to shoot them, and it’s too costly to imprison them, and too cruel (and also costly) to put them on methadone or any other prescription drug for life, at taxpayer expense and for psycho-pharmaceutical profit.

So we can’t get the addict out of the society. Therefore, what we have to do is to get the drug out of the addict, and help him or her to again become a productive, helpful and respected member of society. And this is done simply by training them in a workable addiction recovery system with which they can then cure themselves. After all, becoming an addict is a Do It Yourself activity, so it is not surprising that successfully getting off drugs is also a D.I.Y. game – with the right training.

IN FACT – if we’re lucky - D.I.Y. RECOVERY FROM ADDICTION COULD VERY WELL BE THE NEXT FASHION !

After all, there are many addicted celebrities who need help to recover. If such celebrities know Tom Cruise, John Travolta or Kirsty Alley, those three will always help by telling addicts, in confidence, where their salvation lies. But we’re not all celebrities. So if drugs or alcohol are ruining the life of someone you hold dear, and you would like to see them back in control, you may wish to enquire about the world’s most successful addiction recovery training programme, the U.K. branch of which is now open.

For information in the strictest confidence and to view references, testimonials and premises,

kindly contact the not-for-profit organisation:

Addiction Recovery Training Services, ARTS House, Plaw Hatch Lane, SHARPTHORNE, West Sussex, RH194JL,

or phone: (01342) 810151, or phone / fax: (01342) 811099, or e-mail keneck@btopenworld.com.

If you don’t wish to give your name, you will not be pressed for it.

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

Return to Main Menu