On Mon, 17 May 2004 15:36:17 GMT, rockhound <user@null.org> wrote:

>On Mon, 17 May 2004 15:26:42 GMT, Blue Moon <mfoco@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Google this group, and you'll find the transcript I posted here some
>>months ago. That way you won't get any quote out of context, and
>>you'll see that AA's position fully supports those who warn against
>>using drugs to escape reality, prescribed or otherwise, and it also
>>fully supports those who need drugs for genuine reasons. I discovered
>>that AA's literature fully supported my own position on the subject.
>
>Can you google this for us, please, because the AA i once knew and
>loved had no position on drugs whatsoever except to say they would
>never cross over into that dark realm.

You are welcome to use google yourself.

--
Blue Moon

On Mon, 17 May 2004 15:36:17 GMT, rockhound <user@null.org> wrote:

>On Mon, 17 May 2004 15:26:42 GMT, Blue Moon <mfoco@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Google this group, and you'll find the transcript I posted here some
>>months ago. That way you won't get any quote out of context, and
>>you'll see that AA's position fully supports those who warn against
>>using drugs to escape reality, prescribed or otherwise, and it also
>>fully supports those who need drugs for genuine reasons. I discovered
>>that AA's literature fully supported my own position on the subject.
>
>Can you google this for us, please, because the AA i once knew and
>loved had no position on drugs whatsoever except to say they would
>never cross over into that dark realm.
>
>AA offers a working solution to alcoholism, nothing more and nothing
>less, and demands no conformity whatsoever to any idea from anyone.
>They're just glad if their book helps anybody.
>
>I believe that much is clearly stated in their literature.
>
>Of course, i understand some Drug Prevention Squadron Leaders have
>sort of taken over the helm at central office USA, so i wouldn't be
>surprised to learn that more recent AA literature has begun to give
>the impression as you state above that AA actually takes a position on
>such issues.
>
>Clarify pls?

Correction - the Venerable Drug Control Unit of
http://www.drugabuse.gov/MeetSum/CODA/Research.html
Please also see
http://tinyurl.com/3dvc2

Patent owners as you know are within their rights to prevent or
authorize the use of their invention, and withdraw imitations from the
commercial market.

The owners of patents may protect their market by taking suo moto
action and proceed to a minute analysis of the competition and ensure
that the person does not exploit / use their invention.

But AA's leaders are of course forever but trusted servants, and do
not govern. Is your position on the demise of AA as some of us once
knew it correct, then??? Is that the final word? Is that it then?
Drug control? This is AA? Freaky. Too bad. Old AA's used to keep
me in fresh stock, way back when. Could always count on them when
ya'd been kicked out of the bar for a beer and some lively chit chat.
Guess they'd get reprimanded for that sort of behaviour now. I am
forlorn.

What can i say? It's as sad a day as the Frankfurt Fiasco, when AAs
in such a grand and idealistic nation as freedom-loving USA pick a
government rubber stamper flunkie to lead them, while that very
government terrorizes everyone from bin laden's bunch with bullets
etc, to their very own families of elementary school children, with
forced dosages of mild forms of cocaine and very expensive and tedious
doctor's permissions to allow them back to class after a tummy ache.

Oh well, turn the world at large into protective parents, guess that's
what we get for failing to grow up.

Not that i mean to beat around the bush or anything, but obviously
those of you AAs who have by grace and effort and willingness been
enabled to rejoin society with dedicated purpose and brotherly and
harmonious action might want to double check who you've got in your
sights. Might be a mirror after all, an old, old trick to be sure.

On Mon, 17 May 2004 16:08:18 GMT, Blue Moon <mfoco@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 17 May 2004 15:36:17 GMT, rockhound <user@null.org> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 17 May 2004 15:26:42 GMT, Blue Moon <mfoco@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Google this group, and you'll find the transcript I posted here some
>>>months ago. That way you won't get any quote out of context, and
>>>you'll see that AA's position fully supports those who warn against
>>>using drugs to escape reality, prescribed or otherwise, and it also
>>>fully supports those who need drugs for genuine reasons. I discovered
>>>that AA's literature fully supported my own position on the subject.
>>
>>Can you google this for us, please, because the AA i once knew and
>>loved had no position on drugs whatsoever except to say they would
>>never cross over into that dark realm.
>
>You are welcome to use google yourself.

Got some recommended search terms at least?

you ARE a contributing cause, google yourself for just the past two
days!


"Blue Moon" <mfoco@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:66171afe082e2c58d7fc01fecf9d8469@news.teranew s.com...
: On Mon, 17 May 2004 15:59:16 GMT, "rosie"
: <readandpost@yahooORhotmail.com> wrote:
:
: >can we all tell that BLUE MOON has returned?
: >nothing like a good lecture on "drug abuse" and antidepressants
to
: >get the week started off right!
:
: The discussions on antidepressants were rampant during my absence.
I
: am not the cause nor even a contributing factor to that reality.
:
: --
: Blue Moon

On Mon, 17 May 2004 16:48:04 GMT, Tono <tono1@verizon.net> wrote:
>"and it also fully supports those who need drugs for genuine
>reasons" Hmm, so maybe you did read it after all? Are you going to
>tell me that I do not need prescribed drugs for genuine reasons? Do
>you know my psychiatric background? Are you a psychiatrist? Do you
>feel you have more knowledge of my condition than that of my Dr? If
>not, keep it to yourself! If so, maybe you need to be medicated!

Doctors know best, always. Just ask them. They'll tell ya.

On Mon, 17 May 2004 16:00:44 GMT, rosie <readandpost@yahooORhotmail.com> wrote:

> "Ron" <can@the.spam> wrote in message
> news:6p4qc.105575$Ik.8605802@attbi_s53...
>
>: Sometimes people posit that architects of the great cathedrals
>: possessed structural engineering knowledge ahead of their time.
> Of
>: course, we only pay tribute to the architects of cathedrals still
>: standing...
>:
>: > Ironic how those rationalising their drug dependency by
>: > claiming chemical imbalance appear unable to honestly
>: > consider the hypothesis that such an imbalance could indeed
>: > be a consequence of incorrect diet/thinking, as opposed to a
>: > cause of incorrect thinking.
>:
>: I think it's all connected.
>
> ron,
> are you or have you been RX treated for depression?

Huh? Nope, pretty happy, all-in-all. Why do you ask?

--
AB5DB9CC

Blue Moon wrote:
> On Mon, 17 May 2004 01:40:44 GMT, Tono <tono1@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Yes indeed! One attempt even included doing my best to follow the
>>12 steps of AA. That was silly of me, AA is for alcoholism, not
>>depression.
>
>
> If you're not alcoholic, or even if you are, the chances are you'll
> only have done a half-assed job at "following" the 12 Step program.
> Did you actually *work* the program, or just try to follow it by
> osmosis?

Osmosis of course! ;-) The hell with practicing those principles in
all my affairs! That is just for the newcomers. ;-)


>>I didn't listen to fellow AA members who told me that prescription
>>medications are a cop out and I'm not really sober. What they told
>>me goes directly against AA's opinion on the subject.
>
>
> No, it doesn't. AA has no opinion, therefore any opinion is not
> against AA's opinion.
>
>
>>>Whose advice? When it comes to either medications or professional
>>>help, AA has no opinion.
>>
>>Sure they do! Just pick up a "THE AA MEMBER-MEDICATIONS & OTHER
>>DRUGS" pamphlet. The first half deals with recreational drugs, and
>>the second half deals with medications, including prescription meds.
>
>
> This is incorrect. The whole pamphlet deals with drugs, recreational
> or prescribed, and it warns against using them for chemical escape. I
> know of plenty who abused prescribed medications, and even justified
> this on the grounds that it was prescribed.

Go read it again.

>> I wish I could find my copy right now, I'd give you a quote or
>>two.
>
>
> Google this group, and you'll find the transcript I posted here some
> months ago. That way you won't get any quote out of context, and
> you'll see that AA's position fully supports those who warn against
> using drugs to escape reality, prescribed or otherwise, and it also
> fully supports those who need drugs for genuine reasons.

"and it also fully supports those who need drugs for genuine
reasons" Hmm, so maybe you did read it after all? Are you going to
tell me that I do not need prescribed drugs for genuine reasons? Do
you know my psychiatric background? Are you a psychiatrist? Do you
feel you have more knowledge of my condition than that of my Dr? If
not, keep it to yourself! If so, maybe you need to be medicated!



I discovered
> that AA's literature fully supported my own position on the subject.

It fully supports both sides. You seem to only see it one sided though.


>>>>that they
>>>>could benefit from the use of an anti-depressant but refuse to
>>>>because they don't believe in using medications, or were shunned by
>>>>other who gave medical advice as if they were Drs., these poor
>>>>people seem to be the ones with 10 or more years sober, then one day
>>>>committing suicide when everyone thought they were just fine!
>>>
>>>
>>>So your leap of logic here is that with medications they'd have been
>>>fine?
>>
>>Yes, I do believe there are a good number of them that could still
>>be here today, living a happy, sober life.
>
>
> On what medical, scientific or supernatural evidence do you base this
> assertion? There are many people hooked even on so-called
> "non-addictive" medications.

My psychic told me so. ;-)


>>Just curious, would you recommend a schizophrenic recovering
>>alcoholic not take any prescribed anti-psychotic meds? Does AA cure
>>that also? Or does it only cure depression?
>
>
> I have never suggested that anyone not take anything.

Then why don't you shut the hell up and mind your own business?


What I do have
> is the experience that having antidepressants in the home can be very
> tempting for an alcoholic dealing with everyday life, and particularly
> Step 4.

Tempting, yes indeed! I went against my Drs. advice (advice, not
orders) and lowered my dosage due to the fact that it made me too
sleepy. Since then she is in agreement with my current dosage. Is
that the temptation you speak of?

I also have the experience and knowledge that only a small
> proportion of those who start out doing the AA program are willing to
> continue working it when it starts to feel difficult.

Does this have anything to do with taking anti-depressants?

Tono

the reason i ask is, i find that the most informed people regarding
depression are usually those of us who have "been there, done that"
and there is NOTHING that pisses me off more, than others in AA
giving us lectures about drug dependency due to our required
medications.

i don't wish ANYONE to take the journey of depression that some of
us in this newsgroup have had to take, and your comments about "diet
control/correct thinking, as treatment are quite condescending.

do you actually think that "we" haven't tried everything?

i wish you would share you own experience, strength and
hope............................we can ALL learn from that!







"Ron" <can@the.spam> wrote in message
news:j%5qc.66988$536.10938815@attbi_s03...
: On Mon, 17 May 2004 16:00:44 GMT, rosie
<readandpost@yahooORhotmail.com> wrote:
:
: > "Ron" <can@the.spam> wrote in message
: > news:6p4qc.105575$Ik.8605802@attbi_s53...
: >
: >: Sometimes people posit that architects of the great cathedrals
: >: possessed structural engineering knowledge ahead of their time.
: > Of
: >: course, we only pay tribute to the architects of cathedrals
still
: >: standing...
: >:
: >: > Ironic how those rationalising their drug dependency by
: >: > claiming chemical imbalance appear unable to honestly
: >: > consider the hypothesis that such an imbalance could indeed
: >: > be a consequence of incorrect diet/thinking, as opposed to a
: >: > cause of incorrect thinking.
: >:
: >: I think it's all connected.
: >
: > ron,
: > are you or have you been RX treated for depression?
:
: Huh? Nope, pretty happy, all-in-all. Why do you ask?
:
: --
: AB5DB9CC

Blue Moon wrote:

> On Mon, 17 May 2004 02:01:13 GMT, Tono <tono1@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Blue Moon wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Mon, 17 May 2004 00:37:42 GMT, Tono <tono1@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Blue Moon wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Sun, 16 May 2004 02:08:50 GMT, Tono <tono1@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>A little hint for you. Exogenous Depression is the type that is
>>>>>>triggered/caused by things outside the body. It's the type that
>>>>>>people can often get over with the proper attitude and/or therapy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Endogenous Depression comes from within the body. It is in the
>>>>>>persons chemistry, a chemical imbalance. Sort of like having
>>>>>>cancer. You can think all the happy thoughts you want, but you
>>>>>>can't think it away.
>>>>>
>>>>>I've asked here before, and I'll ask it again... how is that "chemical
>>>>>imbalance" tested?
>>>>
>>>>I don't know if it can be tested? How is a higher power tested to
>>>>be sure it is real? Or is it just a cop out?
>>>
>>>
>>>What's that got to do with the price of bacon?
>>
>>Neither can be proven.
>
>
> Either a "chemical imbalance" can be tested, or what you're really
> asking others to do is put blind faith in a doctor who diagnoses
> "chemical imbalance" even without having experience of chemical
> imbalance himself.

Do you claim to have better knowledge of psychiatry than my Dr?


> If the doctor diagnosed "the tooth fairy has removed some of your
> marbles", would you still take it seriously and take these nice new
> marbles called "Paxil" to replace them? No, "chemical imbalance" has
> a certain ring to it to "sell" an idea that no doctor is apparently
> able to demonstrate.

No, I don't take paxil or any other SSRI.


>>>All long-term users of such medications that I'm aware of have not
>>>been on the same medication the whole time. Apparently, you're one
>>>such statistic. Go check out the depression newsgroups for plenty of
>>>such examples.
>>
>>From what you wrote, it seems as if you are under the impression
>>that "a few months" is long term?
>
>
> That is your interpretation of the words "long term", not mine. Last
> time I was there, alt.support.depression had plenty of people who'd
> been on ADs and benzos for years.

You mentioned changing meds every few months, that is where I got my
interpretation of your rubbish.


>>I would venture to say that those people did not have a good
>>reaction to the medication. And again, the placebo effect. I don't
>>know why you don't think that has any bearing in this question?
>>Luckily there are many who do have a good reaction to the meds. :-)
>
>
> Then they have no problem, and are not the topic of discussion.

So why did *YOU* bring it up?


>>>>>The difference with cancer is that it's actually physically tested for
>>>>>before it's diagnosed.
>>>>
>>>>There are hundreds, if not thousands of medical problems that have
>>>>no real physical test, but a diagnosis is made from the symptoms. I
>>>>believe MS is one of them. Does this mean MS doesn't exist?
>>>
>>>
>>>We're talking about chemical imbalance, and you drew a comparison with
>>>cancer. Cancer is tested prior to diagnosis, chemical imbalance in
>>>depression generally is not.
>>
>>OK, I gave a bad comparison. How about schizophrenia? I would
>>think that schizophrenia is a very good example for a comparison.
>>Do you believe it really exists? There are no known ways to test a
>>patients brain chemicals for a diagnosis. They go by symptoms. Is
>>schizophrenia real? It is also said that schizophrenia is a
>>chemical imbalance. Can AA cure it?
>
>
> If a schizophrenic's medications are working, then the problem would
> be to get them to keep taking the medications. If they're clearly not
> working, I'd be the first to suggest they get their ass back to the
> psychiatrist ASAP, or try a different approach.

Oh, to follow a Drs. advice that has no firsthand knowledge of
schizophrenia. That sort of goes against your "blind faith"
gibberish above doesn't it?

Speaking of your "blind faith" crap, do you think I would be better
off following my Drs. advice or yours? You act as if you know much
more than my Dr. Maybe you suffer from delusions of Grandeur(sp?)?
Better get some meds for that dear.

Tono

:......................... Are you going to
: tell me that I do not need prescribed drugs for genuine reasons?
Do
: you know my psychiatric background? Are you a psychiatrist? Do
you
: feel you have more knowledge of my condition than that of my Dr?
If
: not, keep it to yourself! If so, maybe you need to be medicated!
:
:


tono,
the longer you stick around this newsgroup, the more you are going
to understand that there are a few in here, who DO believe that they
know more than our doctors..................

obviously, they have NOT been restored to sanity!