Posted on 12/27/2005 9:16:00 AM PST by Wolfie
Or "Dude," at the front, man.
I also replace showering with patchouli oil, wear tie-dye and ripped bell-bottoms but no shoes, eat a vegan diet, have no job except making bead jewelry, live with my parents, support Mumia, can never remember what day of the week it is, and drive an old VW van. Did I miss anything?
Yes, thankfully Americans have thrown off the yolk of prescriptive mood modifiers.
Presumably all of the others are Flaming Liberal Democrats!
At most, this means that one cannot be an effective drug rehab counselors ... a far cry from your claim, "One cannot be an effective/ethical psychologist".
It's more like the author wants to show that not all Republicans are WODbots.
(Yes, kids, that's sarcasm.)
And very good sarcasm, at that. : )
Sounds that way to me too. Does it make sense to try to ban all the avenues by which they might try to effect that escape?
This particular "avenue" has tragic long term consequences for some people who are prone to escapism.
Trying to normalize pot smoking into the american routine may make certain people feel better about themselves but it might also lead other people into making some bad choices.
FReedom rears it's ugly head, we'll have none of that! Blackbird.
You're entitled to your opinion, however many psychological problems have their roots in drug (ab)use. If a psychologist advises someone to quit using pot because it interferes with their daily life while the therapist is him or herself a current user, is in my opinion at the very least a breach of ethics. One of those "Do as I say, not as I do" things that I have always detested.
As for me, I will treat my clients in the most ethical manner possible - and that includes avoiding hypocrisy at all cost.
I suppose the counselor who drinks while advising clients to abstain would run into the same hypocrisy.
I've never seen a "marijuana addict" before; Come to think of it, I've never seen anybody get stoned and come home and beat their wife either.
Anybody who says pot does more damage than alcohol is out of their mind.
Cancer claims are fraudulent as well. While it could be true that marijuana has 10x more of a certain carcinogen than tobacco, 1/100th the amount is smoked.
Carried to its logical conclusion, yes...however alcohol is a legally obtainable substance for adults. This does not make consumption "right" or appropriate, but it is legal. Your arguments revolve around legality, thus if The People do not like current laws, they should labor to change them.
Prohibition did not work. In fact, alcohol consumption increased during those years, solely because it was illegal. Personally, I believe the War on Drugs is a complete waste of time and resources. Education about the effects of substance abuse, teaching personal responsibility and accountability, plus ethical and medically sound psychotherapy are far better answers to simply outlawing drugs.
Ethanol (ETOH) has a variety of effects upon the brain, not the least of which includes opening GABA receptor sites on the surface of the posterior synapse. In some individuals this effect is useful: for instance those demonstrating hypocampal atrophy from long term stress secrete very low levels of GABA and therefore are subject to anxiety, depression, and sleep disorders. ETOH mimics the effects of GABA, as do certain tranquilizers and tetracannibinoids, thereby aborting anxiety attacks, and temporarily relieving the symptoms of depression. The effects on sleep are far more deleterious, for REM periods are supressed by ETOH and most other tranquilizing substances.
ETOH has also been implicated in altering the dopamine reward system, but in some individuals this alteration results in alcoholism. There are however, new drugs that block the dopamine reward system (Campral is one such medication), more or less making ETOH consumption irrelevant for some individuals.
The problem with ETOH is its cumulative physiological effects. The same is true for tranquilizers and other medications, but the often overlooked goal of psychotherapy is to eliminate or significantly decrease dependence on chemical intervention. One way to do this is through rehabilitative excercises designed to regenerate the hypocampus, and thus functionality.
And here we return to the issue of ethics, and the problem is two-fold: First, as identified by the individuals interviewed for this article, is the easy acceptance of regular neurochemical alteration. The second is that insurance companies find it cheaper to medicate patients than actually treat disorders. The former attitude is reinforced by the latter, yet drugs of choice are illegal.
But go ahead and use whatever you wish. Someday you may end up on my "couch", however I will treat you as a human being that deserves a solution - not more medication.
Trying to normalize pot smoking into the american routine may make certain people feel better about themselves but it might also lead other people into making some bad choices.
All equally true about the legality of the drug alcohol. Do you support banning that drug too?
So must an ethical psychologist also be a teetotaler lest he ever have a patient who's a problem drinker?
How is the drug's legal status relevant to the hypocrisy of advising someone to stop doing what one does oneself?
Prohibition did not work. In fact, alcohol consumption increased during those years, solely because it was illegal. Personally, I believe the War on Drugs is a complete waste of time and resources. Education about the effects of substance abuse, teaching personal responsibility and accountability, plus ethical and medically sound psychotherapy are far better answers to simply outlawing drugs.
I agree.
Mother of the year award? /sarcasm
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.