Addiction Today

[sapphire]

Well, inspired by the inimitable Derek I went exploring t'interweb to find this site.

I am not impressed, what a one sided load of old drivel.

Does anyone know who funds them? I see they have all the same sponsors as the Weird In crew, which doesn't bode well.

[Pogle]

Oh its repellant - borderline libellous most of the time, full of hate and bile and terrible misinformation. Addiction Today and its parent charity The Addiction Recovery Foundation are self supporting more or less. A small number of donations, but they make the bulk of their income from their conference and the magazine. The board is made up of largely residential treatment providers who use it and Dreary Blond as their mouthpiece.

A thought which is making me fleetingly bilious.

Pnm

[derek d j]

There are certainly some remarkable journalistic styles in evidence. Their trademark tactic is to 'explode the myths' about a particular subject. They proceed to debunk things nobody would dream of in a month of Sundays and replace them with myths of their own. Their ''rehabs: the myths and the facts'' is a classic of the genre. The only 'myth' I'd even contemplate - that they don't work - is denied with a link to the 'facts'. My server found it impossible to find the page, which is probably appropriate. The statistics they produce are distorted in ways that are almost hilarious.

An alien visitor would think the NTA force citizens onto methadone and enslave them. They've told users there's no way back. But there is, thanks to, yes, you've guessed it, the saints who fund the crummy rag with their adverts. In my experience, the only people who tell early users they can't get off have been representatives of those rehabs seeking to peddle their wretched wares, But let's not quibble. Everyone knows it's only bought for the Page 3 girls. Whoowee! Some of these hotties put Anne Widdlecombe to shame.

[sapphire]

What are you on about Derek, Anne is a hottie. 

I'd let her purple ballon me anytime.

[simon]

I am all for giving people choices and part of that is access to detox units and residential rehab for those that do want it. I do dislike a one size fits all approach as it doesn't.
I remember speaking at a conference in Vancouver and I went for a meal with a friend the night before and we were talking about Methadone and the taxi driver then gave us a huge lecture on 12 steps and how God helped him and God would help everyone. I thanked God when I got out of the taxi.

[derek d j]

What do you make of 'The Concordiat'? An appropriately sinister and authoritarian term for the ubiquitous rehab owners pressure group. They're the driving force behind AT and it's their money that keeps the wretched rag afloat. They seek to influence policy in their favour and are behind the 'whistleblower' initiative to report slacker commissioners who don't direct their funds to the abstentionist cause.

You have to admire the sheer gall with which they represent themselves as charitable philanthropists and shamelessly bend statistics to fit whatever nonsense they're trying to prove. But it's a mistake to laugh these people off. They're dangerous and they're quite ruthless. A 'rehab watchdog' with teeth is long overdue, as is perhaps the arrival of libel writs on AT's doorstep.

As a rule, 'harm preventionists' don't like it up 'em and dislike giving dissenting voices the oxygen of publicity. It would be interesting to see whether they permit any critical comments forumites here might post to remain on their website.

[sapphire]

It does all seem a bit weird Derek, and I think you're right, there is a requirement for a watchdog.

I have heard some horror stories about how vulnerable women have been basically, sexually assaulted by men working at these rehabs. The women go on to report it, only to either have the rehab manager push it under the rug or the woman not believed.

I believe a forum now requires me to set them straight on the state of things!

[derek d j]

Astonishingly, my most mild observation on the 'what is recovery' article that recovery means different things to different people fails to make it onto the 'Addiction Today' comments section. Seems de rigeur to damn the NTA as a bunch of cavalier drugpushers to have any hope of publication.

Perhaps you can have a crack, Sapph, at breaking through the censorship barrier in the same splendid fashion you did with 'Wired In'. These are ugly, dishonest people who, left to their own devices, would destroy whatever remains of intelligent UK treatment practice. Even the impeccable Professor Strang arouses their ire for not sufficiently prostrating himself at the feet of the abstinence deities. They give the impression of being slightly to the right of Pol Pot when it comes to troublesome scientists and intellectuals for whom blind faith in the gospel according to Deidre isn't quite enough.

Now back to my efforts to get published. " I was grabbed from the streets by a NTA snatch squad and forcibly indentured into opiate slavery. I was only rescued when brave campaigners raided the 'clinic' in which we were held in squalid conditions and forced to do unpaid labour filling in TOPS forms from dawn to dusk. I'm so grateful they heed the pleas of users across the land to remove their accursed prescriptions.." On reflection, a request for a hand shandy from one of their Page 3 gals might be more appropriate.

[sapphire]

Haha, I know. I was quite surprised they published me!!

There is a quote on there now from David Hayes? who runs Wired In, saying that drug treatment providers are acting "disgracefully", and that Wired In would LOVE more MMT users to post.

Yes, I thought, that's why the site is sooo MMT friendly. 

I did tell him I thought the site was biased, and am going to continue to post from my POV on there just so anyone NTA'ish reading it sees it isn't all from an abstinence POV.

[derek d j]

Did you make it onto the pages of AT then, Sapph?

A comment from every Alliance member who reads this thread might go some small way to counterbalancing the outrageous nonsense they persist in printing as 'the facts'. Anyone want to bet on how many make it through the vetting procedure?

[simon]

Why not write something for drink and drugs news?

[derek d j]

Has anyone tried to get a comment past the AT approval squad? i suspect my email address is on their black list and the ridiculous frauds aren't worth the trouble of opening another account. But those with a nom de plume other than their Alliance signature may slip through.

Suggest Paul Hayes is the devil, Professor Strang an anarchist or Howard and Barnes are Al-Qaeda operatives and you'll definitely find favour.

You think I'm joking? Read what passes for reasoned debate on their pages and weep.

[sapphire]

I have tried to comment, my comments did appear a day after I posted them (on the mitch winehouse atricle in the News section), but they are not there any more, which is very weird.

I am going to keep annoying them and trying to post though.

That they actually had to give the reader the answer to Who is Right? Mitch Winehouse or Paul Hayes absolutely beggars belief.

[usandthem]

Sapphire. You may have already been blocked. That is probably why all their comments are biased to their fighting cause. Human Farming is on the rise. Also the Wired-in bunch are organizing marches to London that would put the UAF and EDL to shame.  John

[sapphire]

Wired In are always doing those "Recovery" walks. Loads of purple balloon and ribbon waving from purple tshirt wearing loons.