Joy-earned
Leap 4 Love This Web address is www.korky.ca (formerly at www.99url.com/korky ). This page revised 2011 October 19. Part 2: Joy-earned Articles below on this page: 1. My life off drope: why my analysis is still worth considering. (Formerly "Drope fools you".) 2. Leap 2 is Joy-earned. (Includes "A new word: drope" which was titled "Definition of drope".) 3. Drope is religious. 4. We could easily end youth smoking. 5. New Swiftian plan for in-school fundraising. 6. Cold Turkey is the best "reality" show on television. 7. Smoking is for losers. 8. The 12 steps from drope to Joy-earned. 9. Extreme Recovery Camps. Article 1. My life off drope: Why my analysis is still worth considering ~2003, revised 2011 September 27. Rare, small amounts of drope (legal and illegal drugs-dope; further defined in following article) have entered my body, mostly unintentionally. I never intended to alter my consciousness or emotions that way, as most people do. When I was about 8 years old, I once puffed a tobacco cigarette. When I was about 9, I drank a couple of cups of cafe au lait and a couple of sips of wine. All those tasted horrible. When I was about 17, I quit the regular North American diet of sick food. I had been eating an average amount (for those days) of candy, pop, cake, ice cream, cookies, and other sugared "foods". Steadily improving my diet, by the time I was about 23, I quit eating all added sweetening, even honey. Once, in 1967 November, at age 19, I accidentally got a little something in turkey dressing, with mild effects. I have breathed much less second-hand smoke than most people. That's all. I've taken no other drope (drugs-dope). My confession is over. Have I had enough drope to qualify in your mind to have an opinion or an analysis worth considering, or will you listen only to those who experiment on themselves more? Relatively unbiased analysis of droping A scientist tries to objectively examine and experiment, preferably on others and the world around. Guinea pigs and rats are sometimes used. Also, social scientists look at other people who are already harming-improving themselves to determine why and how. A scientist need not destroy her ears to study deafness. Scientists who experiment on themselves risk deluding themselves and biasing the results. The great Scottish psychiatrist RD Laing made that mistake. He tried to go crazy to better understand craziness. He died emotionally tortured. While that might have had some benefit, it's also necessary, for the most part, to stay very rational in order to help the mad. Throw them a rope, don't jump into the quicksand, too. I have known and observed dropers all my life in order to understand drope like a scientist. If I consumed it I easily might be deluded by the chemical action of the drope in my brain into misinterpreting something (or everything) about drope and its context, the universe. There are plenty of self-experimenters to tell you their "results" and opinions. A great many will tell you what's wrong with the kinds of drope they don't take, and will condone the kinds of drope they do take. I have a different, quite unusual view to share with you. Drope, the trickster A person "expanding their mind" with a book or music is less likely to end up in gaol than someone who tries to do so with dope. So the minds of a great many dope smokers were definitely not expanded on the subject of staying out of gaol. That's just like the guy who swears up and down that he can drive better after he's had a few alcoholic drinks. I've met men like that. (No women yet.) You agree, I hope, that he's deluded. So, if you drope, how do you know that the chemicals therein (natural or not) haven't switched off a key brain connection or 2 of yours which would have enabled you to evaluate more rationally your own experience with it? Many compare trying sex with trying dope. I say that, yes, it is wise to consider rationally the possible merits and risks of each. I did. Before trying it, I decided that the well-meaning advice to save sex for marriage was wrong. Those advisors were not totally stupid, though, I thought, so I took care, trying to avoid disease, unwanted pregnancy, force, trickery, and hurt feelings--my own and everyone else's. (See Part 3 Nude-peace when I re-post it.) Confusing to me were the well-meaning pro-drope people who put their faith in what they seemed to experience directly. Also confusing were the "anti-drug" people, who was severely mistaken in the areas of psychology and politics as they relate to drope. Finally, in 1967, I came to a conclusion about marijuana, the only drope which had any appeal to me by then. I decided, at least for the time being, that no drope is any good at all, except maybe as a pain-killer for those with serious physical disease. I've kept my mind open: studying, debating, and pondering all these years. Nothing, however, has convinced me otherwise. On the contrary, I understand more and more why Joy-earned is better. What I've always enjoyed about hippies, though, is that we open our minds to all possibilities, and our hearts to all people. I don't want to punish dropers, as do most in the "anti-drug" movement. I want to lure them to better alternatives and to cure the world of the problems which drive people to emotional anesthetics. I want to deter people from droping, not because they'll have too much fun, but because they won't have enough fun. So let's all live Joy-earned, plus the other 3 Leaps, and really save the world this time! End of Article 1, My life off drope. Article 2. Leap 2 is Joy-earned ~2003, revised 2005 and 2011 September 6. Good feelings are "nature's reward" for behaviour which helps you and humanity to survive. That functions imperfectly, of course, but that's the general effect of evolution. To get "joy", to "have fun", or to experience any other positive emotion, without such good behaviour, is cheating yourself and everyone. Without the behaviour, other ways of getting that reward are self-defeating shortcuts. Getting "stoned", for instance, often seems fun at the time. However, that's "fake fun" because it wasn't earned by some real-life act which genuinely helps someone, either the droper or anyone else. Your joy can be earned by you or by somebody else who shares it with you. Either way is re-inforced by evolution. Many forms of joy-UNearned are cheap and easy--at first. But they don't help you work against oppressive ideas, people, cultures, or substances. They are "fake fun", as I have dubbed it. Trap 2: Fake Fun The most popular category of fake fun is "drope", all drugs or dope which alters your mind or mood, whether legal or illegal. (See full definition below at ________ .) Examples of drope are alcohol, nicotine, caffeine, chocolate, Ritalin, Prozac, lithium, cannabis, peyote, magic mushrooms, methamphetamines, ecstasy, cocaine, crack, and heroin. Other joy-unearned ways to by-pass our natural pleasure-pain survival mechanisms (besides drope) include -- gambling. -- vicarious emotionalism and spectatorism. -- pet-oholism. -- sick food. -- religion, spirituality, and other superstition. (See also Fake Love in Part 3, Trap 3, when I re-post it.) Lies against Joy-earned: "Drope must be violently suppressed." "Drope in moderation is just harmless fun." No, both the war on drope and its opposite, the pro-drope movement, are wrong, I think. Drope is bad fundamentally, but not because it is fun (which it can be) or because it is bad for your physical health (although it usually is) or because it might disrupt your subservience to your culture (although it can do that or the opposite). Rather, besides those side effects, drope rewards the individual with pleasure without anyone doing any activity biologically "required" for that reward. For instance, one feels "happy" on some drope without doing any activity to promote love and peace among people, nor anyone else sharing their love with us. Drope often creates the illusion in the user of such achievement, of course. It is such illusions which curb one's incentives to actually do good for oneself, for one's associates, and/or for the world. If drope actually accomplished something for us, we could use drope and then try to minimize the physical risks and other side effects. By comparison, cycling is useful, so I minimize the physical risk in part by wearing a helmet and reflective vest. But droping has no benefits, so merely minimizing the physical risks is not the answer. The War on Drugs is fought mostly by users of legal drope against users of illegal drope. I'm on neither side. Oppressive governments profit financially and politically by prolonging the "war". "I must take drope because of a chemical imbalance." That is a lie or delusion to try to convince people that there is some fundamental difference between psychiatric dope and, say, heroin or alcohol. Scientifically, there is no such distinction. That's like saying a person too shy to dance has a "deficit" of limb-loosening alcohol in their brain. Laws to restrict certain drope to prescription use are passed so that those drope can be successfully portrayed as medicine. Also, that way, drope can be forced into you by psychiatrists, judges, teachers, guards, etc. "Illegal drugs" are made illegal by the authorities so that would-be dissidents will use them to "rebel" and will thus be less able to overthrow their masters. Therefore, the more people in every category who can be forced and lured into droping, the less empowered they are. That helps those with ruling power to keep it, though they are droping, too. But many people on psychiatric dope swear by it. Yes, so do users of booze and LSD and cannabis. They're all deluded in the same basic way. They have not gotten to the roots of their unhappiness and reformed their lives accordingly. Nor have they received enough love, compassion, and concrete help from their associates, institutions, or media. Drope merely makes discontented people "happier" with their unimproved lives. Drope fools you A new word: drope English has no good, short word for psycho-active substance, so I coined the word "drope" in 2000. We can use "drope" instead of the very misleading and inaccurate uses of terms such as "drugs and alcohol", "drugs or alcohol", "drugs", "dope", "substances", (certain) "meds", etc. DEFINITIONS drope [< drug + dope] noun. Any substance entering a body which alters thought, emotions, or behaviour and thus reduces that person's pleasure-or-pain response protection. Also called psycho-active or psycho-tropic substance. verb. To affect oneself or another with drope. droper, noun. Someone who consumes drope. dropish, adjective. Similar to drope or a droper. dropy, adjective. Of, or affected by, drope. A usual effect of drope is to bolster the user's opinion that its use is under control and justified. Almost all kinds of drope are addictive or habituating and cause other physical disease and disability, but that is what not makes them drope by my definition. Availability of drope Legality categories of drope (in many Western countries): a. Illegal, such as cannabis (marijuana & hashish), LSD, opium, powder cocaine, crack cocaine, ecstasy, heroin, methamphetamines (?Rx), psychedelic mushrooms, peyote, other narcotics, etc. b. Non-prescription legal ("over-the-counter"), such as nicotine, alcohol, caffeine, St. John's Wort (?), solvents to inhale, aspirin, betel nut, chocolate, etc. c. Legal by physician's prescription ("shrink" drope), such as Ritalin, methadone, Prozac, lithium, some slimming drugs, amphetamines (speed) (?Rx), barbituates (downers), morphine, some sleeping pills, tranquilizers, etc. Those are rough categories, and there are some exceptions and qualifications. Anyway, that general idea is enough for this discussion. Over the limit Sometimes an otherwise good substance can be used as drope. Examples: 1. Sugar. It's in fruit, but it is drope when it raises one's blood sugar level too high or too often. That can occur from eating too much dried fruit or fruit juice, which contain an unrefined sugar, fructose. A "sugar high", however, is much more likely and common from eating refined sugars, which are white, brown, or in syrup form. Why refined sugar is so dangerous: a. Easier to over-consume. b. Displaces other things in your diet. c. Satisfies sweet cravings without providing nutrients. Full of nutrients and yet sweet are fruit and mother's milk. Whole, fresh fruit is the best form of fruit. I have never heard of over-consuming lactose (a sugar in mother's milk) by breastfeeding. d. Cheap. e. Legal. 2. Water. Psycho-active effects occur in people drinking many times as much water as is needed to quench their thirst, enough to make them physically ill. 3. Air. Hyperventilating is dangerous, I've heard. I don't know much about it. Borderline Some substances might be borderline in value. These 3 substances below are intended mainly for their physical effects. Even then, they are almost always poor therapy, harmful, or anti-social. They have psychoactive effects, too, I think. 1. Aspirin. Temporarily suppresses headaches, but might cause recurrences of headaches later. 2. Sleeping pills. 3. Anabolic steroids. Used to cheat in training for sport. Might not be physically habituating, but the subject might want to continue getting a large salary or admiring gazes. Any of those 6 above can cause major problems. Not included in the definition of drope are drugs which have no significant psycho-active effects, such as penicillin, vaccines, and Antabuse. Habit LSD has been called non-habituating--or one of the least habituating drugs. Many children hate taking Ritalin, but their parents and teachers get "hooked" on having the little devils controlled by it. Most people, including experts, commentators, and users, judge the kinds of drope mainly by how addictive or habituating they are. More important, I think, is the more general question of how much it alters your life course. From that view, LSD can be quite harmful, yet if used with enough care and supervision, it might cure alcoholism quite well. Justification The definition of drope (including "pleasure-or-pain response protection"), is subjective, circumstantial, and political. It depends on the opinion of the person uttering it. A substance which is ordinarily drope, by the above definition, can be non-drope when its use is justified. For instance, I think the narcotic heroin can be justified for people with very painful incurable fatal diseases. There seems to be no point to suffering that pain. On the other hand, a young, healthy person, for instance, more often has another kind of pain: emotional. Are they going to resort to drope, such as heroin, or will they let their emotional pain motivate themselves to improve their relationships, their work, their diet, etc. Most people in the latter situation, unfortunately, won't admit that the pain could help in that way at all (as motivation), or, anyway, don't want to try. They will often claim that they are improving their lives as much as they can already and don't benefit from the emotional reminders of sadness, loneliness, boredom, etc. I don't buy it. Many alleged experts claim that "too much" sadness is the "disease" of depression that requires "anti-depression" drugs. I reject excuses like that. They mostly come from those with profits to be made from the drugs and from their prescription. They also come from the associates of "depressed" people who won't or don't know how to help naturally, otherwise. POT OR BOOZE? Beer is not refreshing or good-tasting. It's stinky, rotten, putrid grain. Hard liquor is like drinking motor fuel or hospital disinfectant. You choke down either one only because of habit or a desire to alter your state of mind or emotions. The only good drinks are water, mother's milk, and other unsweetened non-alcoholic health food. People compare pot to booze. For those who have tried both, more of them prefer canabis, I think, except for the legal risks. It seems to me that for them, cannabis is the more deluding. They can more readily see the stupidity of booze. But weed can persuade you that it's really helping you, although it's still just fantasy, just like booze, but seeming to be on a more intellectual, peaceful, artistic, "spiritual", and politically progressive level. STIGMA OF ILLEGAL DOPE The stigma of illegal drugs is used by the authoritarian System to entice rebels into using it. Very tricky! That's "reverse psychology". In other words, people use illegal drugs in part because the System has told them not to. The System profits greatly by luring so many rebels into becoming less efficient at rebelling against that System. When wanting to conquer aboriginal people, Europeans were clever enough to give them "firewater" (alcoholic drink) to make their whole nations weaker. The wise elders of the tribes tried to keep their people off booze, but it was too tempting for many young bucks. Almost the same happened to the hippie movement of the 1960s. The war machine couldn't draft us, so they tricked most of our young bucks into trying dope and thus they severely weakened our movement. Otherwise I think we would have succeeded in bringing love and peace to the whole world. DROPE MODERATION? Most people think that their drope use is excused by its relative infrequency, low doses, or other "moderation". If you are one of those people and you believe in experimenting on yourself, I challenge you to try my plan. Go without drope for one year of every 7 years, like a sabbatical. Not one day out of 7--that's way too easy. If you can't do that, then maybe you are habituated: not keeping your consumption "moderate". Do you think that I should try dope, in exchange, if you do that? No, I won't. You're the one who likes risky, biasing experiments with no potential benefit, not me. Tell me how it goes, will you? End of Article 2: Leap 2 is joy-earned. Article 3. Drope is religious ~2003; revised 2006 and 2011 September 6. For many otherwise hip people, their religion is cannabis. Catholicism is, of course, an alcoholic religion. That's their sacrament. In Islam, they go more for hashish, last I heard. For some indigenous religionists, it's sacred mushrooms, peyote, or tobacco. Almost all modern business people bow down 3 times a day (or more) to worship caffeine and refined sugar, especially. I've been an atheist since 1965. Two years later I remember first hearing the word hippie. I immediately self-identified as one. But I never tried to delude myself with mind-altering substance: not acid, not weed, not alcohol, not Ritalin. "Good" and "bad" acid trips (LSD) are both delusions. I've had neither. Now, if you want to be like a typical closed-minded dupe, don't read any further. But if you think my mind might still be able to have deep insights about drugs without being a guinea pig, please read on. While I make peace with all religions, I also criticize them all. Their drug sacraments are all harmful delusions. Although marijuana makes you tend to lie back and avoid fights, and although another religion's delusion, alcohol, makes them tend to brawl and rape, neither drug is any less of a delusion. Those are both pitiful ways of living. If you think you need a ritual, find one that improves your mind and your will power enough to help you stay out of gaol. Cannabis and alcohol are too dumb to do that for millions of incarcerated victims. Turn instead to nicotine or caffeine? Those 2 don't give you fun or satisfying highs. So what's wrong with sobriety? My fellow hippies, especially when they get to know me, respect my preference for natural highs and lows. For generations, the alcoholics, being the sadists they tend to be, and being in control of most of the world, have been punishing the flaked-out stoners with prison. Both such sadism and such masochism are a waste of good human beings. De-criminalization will, I hope, open the door to true recovery, not just of individuals, but recovery of our whole deeply dysfunctional society. Our culture alienates people, who then want to forget the life-long pain of lost love (starting with insufficient breastfeeding) by taking legal and illegal drugs. That includes psychiatric dope. I've dubbed all those substances "drope" (dr ugs + d ope). On the other hand, Joy-earned is joy which is real, functional joy, not merely stimulated by a chemical, even if that chemical is found in nature. One old religion worships the providers of substitute mother love. That's the Hindus, who worship the cow, the milked mother-goddess. In that case, though, it's not so much the substance (cow's milk) itself that's deluding, rather, it's the way it's delivered to a child in an unloving, cruel way (bottle-feeding, especially). Though cow's milk might not be physically deluding, it's unhealthy for a species to drink the milk of a different species. That mainly causes psychological harm. In spite of everything above, industrial and medicinal hemp are great resources. That is, medicinal for the body, not the fictitious soul. I remain an atheist regarding taking drope for so-called metaphysical reasons, for religious ecstasy, for easing the pain of emotions and social problems, etc. Few if any "anti-drug" campaigns, of course, mention any of the above. That's because they are phony and self-serving. The truth they withhold would be liberating. Most governments actually want you to stay droped and unliberated and religious. Then they can exploit you and pretend to be trying to help you. So their "anti-drug" programmes are ineffective, which is fine with the exploiters. Religionists tend to be loyal, obedient citizens, even when their rulers are evil. Rebel dopers, on the other hand, are perfect political scapegoats. With the excuse of protecting society and of reforming the "criminals", the government locks away many of its most rebellious subjects. End of Article 3, Drope is religious. Article 4. We could easily end youth smoking ~2003, revised 2006 April 22. Why do almost all hit movies nowadays show smoking? Maybe you hadn't noticed. In the 1970s, smoking in movies went into a decline. Many actors prided themselves in refraining from smoking on screen, even if they smoked in their private lives. They knew that young movie-goers were greatly influenced to smoke by movies. As role models, the movie people wanted to be ethical. In the years since, however, the tobacco companies have been prevented from using many of their former means of promoting smoking to youth. Movies are now their biggest and best remaining avenue. Movies are very effective at recruiting children and teens to smoke. So effective that hardly anyone notices. Therefore, they've been able to get away with it. Why are movie directors and actors co-operating with the tobacco cartel? For one reason, there are many new actors desperate to enter the big time. I think the ones willing to smoke on screen are given an advantage. More importantly, though, it seems that the tobacco companies, desperate for their products to be in the movies, are putting much more pressure onto the movie industry. The public has become complacent, too. With corporate mergers, movie and tobacco companies more often wind up in the same conglomerates. Also, tobacco companies now pay the movie companies directly to have their products on screen ("product placement"). Also, some unethical, money-hungry actors, such as Sylvester Stallone, are actually contracted to smoke in movies. As a result, I think, youth smoking rates, which had been falling, have stabilized. What should we do? Does "freedom of speech" guarantee the tobacco companies a chance to brain-wash our youth of all ages? Society doesn't allow other things to be shown to children. Wholesome nude images don't hurt children at all, yet they are censored. At the same time, extreme violence, including smoking, is allowed to be shown to them. If the general public were aware of all this, I think they would support banning smoking in movies for youth. If we did that and tightened restrictions on the few other ways the tobacco companies promote smoking to children, we could pretty much end the recruitment of young smokers in about 5 years. Otherwise, we might never win. Movie reviewers, too, if they were ethical, would warn audiences against movies which show smoking. But all the major reviewers recommend all the popular movies which glamourize the nicotine habit. Even if a minor character or a villain smokes in a movie, that encourages the audience to smoke. Especially the rebellious kids in the audience, many of whom emotionally identify with the villains. Surprisingly, even a anti-smoking ad which shows smoking will psychologically stimulate the viewer to smoke. Most of us don't notice because we're not insecure 12-year-olds. However, the human mind doesn't "see" negatives. "Monkey see, monkey so." Actors generally don't realize their influence Christina Applegate smokes in the 2004 hit movie The Anchorman, starring Will Ferrell. In real life, she's a Christian. She made her name as the daughter in the television comedy series Married . . . With Children (which I like). To make matters worse, the clip of her smoking in the new movie was shown to promote the movie on a television talk show. Neither Applegate, the host, nor anyone else on the show, even mentioned the smoking. Everyone is so used to it now, I guess, that they don't even think of commenting. (Or they are willing shills.) With a ban on smoking in movies for youth, the movie companies would simply cut out all the smoking, except for the very few movies directed at adults-only audiences. That ban wouldn't cost the taxpayers anything! All the expensive government (and private) education which tries to dissuade youth from smoking will continue to fail as long as the movies are allowed to promote that unhappiness and death to our kids. Hardly anyone first starts to smoke as an adult. Without recruiting children, the tobacco industry would die. Imagine adopting this plan and then, a generation from now, hardly anyone smoking! End of article "We could easily end youth smoking ". Article 5. New Swiftian plan for in-school fundraising (Humour) [Below is my response to sick food being sold in schools because they "can't afford" to forgo the bribes from the sick food pushers! It was published as a letter to the editor in the Vancouver Courier newspaper, BC: Vancouver, 2003 November 23, page 11:] 1. Kids must pay to enter playground. 2. Auction off the cafeteria to a fast-food chain. 3. The school uniform is a big gunny sack---but students don't have to wear them if they buy exemptions. 4. Video game and slot machine room. 5. Sell ghost-written essays to students. 6. A sweatshop for students who misbehave, fail a test, or have "attention deficit". 7. Set up a racket for wagering on school teams. 8. A tax on acts of bullying and hazing. 9. Red-light district under the bleachers (staffed by students and teachers). 10. Sell cigarettes, beer, marijuana, meth, crack, heroin, and Ritalin. (Everyone knows the students would buy them off-grounds anyway!) End of Article 5, New Swiftian plan for in-school fundraising. Article 6. Cold Turkey is the best "reality" show on USA television ~2003, revised 2006 February 19. The second season was broadcast 2005 April 19 to June 21. 1 hour long. Re-runs are showing in some areas. The Web publication (see below) is not always helpful about that, but you can try it. (In Arizona lately, re-runs are Saturdays 5 p.m., Channel 51. The printed television guides have often been wrong.) Kick Butt (shown in British Columbia) might be a similar show. It was supposed to have returned in 2005 November, but I didn't get to see it. See end of article. If you watch telly, I want you to see the weekly series called Cold Turkey. It is by far the best of the "reality" shows, as far as I've seen. Why? Because the participants are working for the good of all instead of for the benefit of only one final winner. No one leaves involuntarily. There is conflict, but not the treacherous kind. They're all trying, with varying degrees of willingness and success, to quit smoking tobacco. A little after I first watched it, I saw the first episode of a similar show, Biggest Loser (NBC), about losing fat. Unfortunately, that's a loser of a show. They vote people out of the cast, like that stupid sadistic show, Survivor. Cold Turkey does use prize money, but it's not so much money that any of the contestants will gain much by making the others start smoking again. Urge your smoking friends and relatives to watch. It should appeal to the older kids, maybe 8 years old and older. See www.paxtv.com/shows/coldturk/ . Their new Web address is www.ionline.tv . Read there, for example, what happened to the first season's cast after that season finished. TIME & CHANNEL GUIDE, U.S.A. Cold Turkey is on the i Network, formerly PAX Family Network, in the USA. In Arizona> Phoenix and Tempe, watch Channel 51 KPPX. PAX was really bad about such last-minute changes, changing too late to appear in your local printed listings. It is or was also on DirectTV Channel 255 and EchoStar Channel 181. COLD TURKEY, THE MOVIE The 1971 comedy movie with the same title is completely different, but very good, too. It's one of my favourite movies. It stars Dick Van Dyke, Pippa Scott, Bob Newhart, Jean Stapleton, Tom Poston, and "Bob and Ray". Written and directed by Norman Lear. See www.imdb.com/title/tt0066927/fullcredits. COLD TURKEY (television) NOT IN CANADA I could find no showings in Canada for Cold Turkey on their Web site: www.paxtv.com/shows/coldturk/. Maybe it's seen in Canada on cable from USA stations, but that's not mentioned at the Web site. Check www.paxtv.com/stations/list.cfm. In Washington State are just 2 Pax stations, KWPX and KGPX, but I don't know if they are on cable in Canada--not in Vancouver, Parksville, or Qualicum, according to the Shaw cable Web pages. It's also on DirectTV Channel 255 and EchoStar Channel 181, but I don't know if those go to Canada. Tell me if you know, please. BRING BACK CHELSEA! The episode Cold Turkey II on 2005 May 31 disappointed me greatly. What happened was that cast members succeeded in bullying one of their number out of the show. That was Chelsea, age 21. Cold Turkey is my favourite programme, but hounding her out showed a really low aspect of human nature. That was too much like that stupid, inhumane show "Survivor". The first season of Cold Turkey (2004) was better and more inspiring, I think. That was in large part because everyone remained for the entire season. That was partly because Francesca refused to leave, but also partly because the other cast weren't so vengeful, as far as I could tell. The fact that Fran stayed made them all into better people. Yes, I know Chelsea was unpopular, perhaps for good reasons. However, it shows the cowardice and hypocrisy of the others who weren't a good example to the viewing public of how to achieve something difficult: success for everyone in the cast. Intolerance of Chelsea's irritating aspects shows just how immature and unkind the older (supposedly more mature) cast members are. Evidence of that conclusion is how sorry everyone was when Chelsea actually was leaving, which shows how guilty all the others felt. They admitted that they liked her, but their egos wouldn't let them admit they were wrong. I think they should redeem themselves and ask her to return. If they won't do that, I think the show's producers should replace Chelsea with someone even more problematic. Make the cast earn their money! Who said it should be easy? Everyone deserves to be supported in quitting smoking, even if it is tough to give that support. How important is some lost sleep or hurt egos? Chelsea didn't actually assault anyone. I'm not a Christian, but it wouldn't have hurt the cast "to turn the other cheek"! KICK BUTT Re-runs were supposed to have been shown 2005 November 15 to December 18. I haven't had a chance to watch Kick Butt. It looks like a similar show to Cold Turkey. It might even be better than CT, I don't know, since it is a BC non-commercial production. It was first broadcast for 5 weekly episides starting 2005 May 3 on Knowledge Network in British Columbia, on Cable 5 in some areas. See www.knowledgenetwork.ca/kickbutt or telephone 604-431-3222. Tell me what you think of it, please: korkyday (at) yahoo (dot) com. End of Article 6: Cold Turkey is the best "reality" show on television. Article 7. Smoking is for losers ~2003, revised 2004 September 20. Smoke: Lose self-respect. Lose respect of others. Lose friends. Lose love. Lose sexual function. Lose money. Lose hope. Lose will-power. Lose freedom. Lose health. Lose your mind. Lose your life. However, people pretty much know that already. In this part, I'll detail more about how people take tobacco to try to get some Joy-unearned. They earn more pain, but they are trying for the joy. End of article 7 "Smoking is for losers". Article 8. The 12 steps from drope to Joy-earned ~2003, revised 2006 February 19. These are suggested "steps", that is, verbal statements and commitments to make to oneself--and maybe to others. 1. I now realize that I cannot drope beneficially. Even low doses delude and weaken people. Drope fools a body's pleasure-pain motivation system by distorting feeling and thinking. 2. I realize that I can restore my sanity, starting with a simple act of will, preferably with others' encouragement. Droping is the opposite: a quest for unearned feelings, relief, abilities, or knowledge, whether ending in addiction or not. 3. I boldly decide to return to my undroped state, to immerse myself in society's love, and to use a realistic withdrawal plan. 4. I make a searching, courageous moral inventory of myself. 5. I explain to myself and another person the exact nature of my errors and weaknesses. 6. I am entirely ready to rectify my life and to elude traps, like so-called moderate, responsible, recreational, or medicinal drope use. 7. I humbly ask others for help, avoiding those who pressure me or tempt me to slip, including professionals. 8. I list all persons I have harmed, so I can face reality and make amends. 9. I make direct amends whenever I can without causing further harm. 10. I continue to examine myself. When wrong, I promptly admit it. 11. I study, ponder, and discuss Joy-earned. 12. I neither coax nor assist others to drope. Instead, having awakened from my drope stupour, I offer the joyous, hopeful alternatives. The above is my new variation of the 12 Steps of Alcoholics Anonymous (AA), of Narcotics Anonymous (NA), and of other such recovery groups. My version mentions no god or higher power. It encompasses all kinds of drope. I have tried to make it more empowering, not humiliating. I encourage you to use whichever version you prefer, or to write your own. The steps are always suggested. No group, as far as I know, tries to enforce them. For comparison: The 12 Steps of Alcoholics Anonymous: 1. We admitted we were powerless over alcohol--that our lives had become unmanageable. 2. Came to believe that a Power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity. 3. Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood Him. 4. Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves. 5. Admitted to God, to ourselves and to another human being the exact nature of our wrongs. 6. Were entirely ready to have God remove all these defects of character. 7. Humbly asked Him to remove our shortcomings. 8. Made a list of all persons we had harmed, and became willing to make amends to them all. 9. Made direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others. 10. Continued to take personal inventory and when we were wrong promptly admitted it. 11. Sought through prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with God as we understood Him, praying only for knowledge of His will for us and the power to carry that out. 12. Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these steps, we tried to carry this message to alcoholics and to practice these principles in all our affairs. --from www.alcoholics-anonymous.org/default/en_about_aa_sub.cfm?subpageid=17&pageid=24 End of Article 8, "The 12 Steps from drope to Joy-earned". Article 9. Extreme Recovery Camps 2006 April 22, revised 2011 September 6. Most recovery programmes nowadays are much too mild, limited, and/or flawed. Addicts (and other victims of un-earned joy) need the option of a much more radical programme to relieve their many sufferings. Some of the more promising treatments, like the Montreaux Clinic's former treatment for anorexics and like the psychedelic treatment advocated by Marc Emory, have been attacked by government. Others, like the Betty Ford Clinic, are expensive. Others in the field just accept defeat and instead of offering real help, offer political substitutes, such as safer injection rooms. The latter should exist as a last resort for some unfortunates, but those human beings must have better options, too, such as the one described below. Much cheaper for society will be to help each person recover from as many of their problems as possible, all at once, not one problem at a time. If you recover from only one problem, you're still unhappy and dysfunctional. Someone who gets off heroin, for example, but is still on nicotine, is not ready to be a self-respecting contributing member of society. I believe that this programme proposal of mine should be tried experimentally, at least. As described, it will be very inexpensive and easy to establish very soon. Basics of the proposed Extreme Recovery Camps (ERC) 1. Staff approval of a patient leaving is very limited, such as when they are deemed cured, incurable, unsuitable, or temporarily for medical emergencies, for some marriages, funerals, etc. 2. The camps are not fenced or walled, but if a patient leaves without approval, they will not be re-admitted to any camp ahead of others more co-operative. 3. The cost is covered by the BC Medical Plan. If a patient leaves without approval, they must repay the cost to the insurance plan. 4. Small camps are built at least 35 kilometres from any human activity on land, including homes, railroads, roads, and other camps. Most camps are near the ocean or a river and are accessible only by boat and helicopter ambulance. 5. Such isolation makes it harder for people to leave with approval, since they have the choices of hiking out, stealing a canoe, or waiting for the supply boat. 6. Some of the first patients will build the camps and cabins, etc., for pay. It's all make-shift, inexpensive and very rustic: as much as possible made of scrap and recycled materials, found fallen logs, rocks, clay, etc. 7. Each camp might hold around 30 patients and 20 staff. 8. Admitted at first are only patients who volunteer and who are not under legal duress. When enough camps are built, other kinds of patients will be admitted. The latter will include patients who choose a camp over prison or other sentence, those who have been expelled from a camp or left before recovery, and foreigners. Soon, all local people who want in will be accepted. 9. The first time a patient misbehaves seriously, they go to the brig and wait for the next boat out. They might be re-admitted later, at staff discretion. 10. Within minutes of walking into an in-take office and agreeing to start treatment, a patient can start on the initial withdrawal treatment in a hospital or clinic, if needed; put into a wait house to wait for the next boat to a camp; or sent immediately to a camp (if a boat is leaving immediately). 11. Inexpensive locations could be in the wilderness, by agreement, on indigenous land, federal land, provincial land, private land, etc. 12. Patients completing their recovery are guaranteed afterward, as long as needed, to receive welfare and assistance getting work, etc. 13. This plan is inspired by ancient aboriginal rituals, such as North American sweatlodge ceremonies and the Australian aboriginal "walkabout". Joy-earned treatment 1. For a definition and description of my term "joy-earned", see other articles here. 2. Patients can be treated for many different problems simultaneously, such as drope (psycho-active drugs), insanity, eating disorders, fatness, continuing or extreme unhappiness, gambling, pornography, vidiocy, insomnia, sloth, self-harming, anti-social or inhumane feelings or behaviour, etc. 3. A variety of therapies are offered, but all the cures are helped by the lack of temptation to use the problem physically, such as drope and sick food, plus the isolation, calm, contact with the wilderness, health food, work, exercise, camaraderie of others, and caring advisors. Types of therapy which could be offered: mega-vitamin, herbal, group discussion, counselling, aboriginal ritual, 12-step, JE 12-step (Article 8 above), reading, hug, hug-restraint, dance, live music, acting, role-playing, story-telling, writing, art, massage, anger release, psycho-analysis, reality, comedy, family visits, political awareness, lactation, re-lactation, sleep, games (non-electric), gardening, composting, crafts, sewing, acupuncture, nude, sweat lodge, religion, spirituality, ritual, masturbation, and (under limited conditions) 2-person sex. The counsellors might video-tape patients for self-analysis. 4. Banned from the camps except with rare staff permission are weapons, food knives, ice picks, drope (defined above in # 14), other addictive substances, sick food, television, recordings, radios, computers, electric games, electric shavers, baby bottles, pacifiers, breastmilk substitutes, motor vehicles, power tools, washing machines, money, jewelry (except what's made in camp), etc. The supply boats will have a minimum of those. Food will be delivered already cut up, so knives are not needed. Nuts in shell only. 5. The only electric equipment are smoke alarms, refrigerators, squeeze torches, pace-makers, hearing aids, other medical aids, staff cell phones (for emergency only), and video (for therapy only). The only electricity sources are batteries and green power (human power, solar, wind, tidal, etc.). 6. All literature, song books, media, board games, and other materials are carefully selected to be therapeutic: not violent, racy, gory, frightening, criminal, mindless, frivolous, showing psycho-active drugs, etc. They can be educational, documentary, enlightening comedy, heart-warming drama, indigenous culture, etc. 7. In addition, other overtly political and religious literature will be allowed, if requested by a patient. 8. With those strict limits (in # 18 and 19), the patients will have much incentive to create their own art, music, theatre, etc., which won't be as restricted. Camp staff 1. The staff of each camp all form a workers' co-op or union. Each worker is paid a double minimum wage for each week worked, as if they worked every week for 48 hours. Each is also paid generous bonuses based on how long their released patients live successfully: a bonus for each such patient as long as they both live. 2. All staff rotate every 2 weeks and then have one week off (or more time off, unpaid, if they want). 3. Patients do chores. The staff do not cook or clean (etc.) for the patients, unless too disabled physically. If a patient doesn't cook or wash dishes, they can eat cold food on their unwashed plate. They may wash their clothes by hand or wear them dirty. Patients are trained to co-operate, share, help each other, and conserve nature. Other camp conditions 1. Staff and patients may bring their minor children. 2. Each camp has a big sauna and warm, very insulated cabins. Everything is designed for low harm to the environment. Heating is by scrap wood, green power, etc. 3. Each camp is fully supplied with organic food (95% vegan), non-drope medicine, used clothing, literature (as above, # 18 and 19), writing supplies, manual typewriters, sports equipment, acoustic musical instruments, art supplies, craft supplies, etc. 4. Unlike a prison, the camps are not full of prescribed and contraband dope and not full of hand-made and contraband weapons. On arrival, all patients, staff, and visitors strip and are searched. They may not bring in anything except medical necessities, not even clothes, except by special permission. 5. Since there are no weapons, there is no hunting except by hand-made devices. There are adequate devices for repelling dangerous animals. Specialised camps 1. Patients may choose a camp that is tailored to them. Examples could be monosex or mixed; specialising in certain problems; by language; emphasizing a certain therapeutic philosophy; nude-friendly or not; by religion; etc. 2. If there is enough demand, a camp for fire-bugs is in the desert of Interior B.C. with huts of stone and a minimum of flammable material. 3. Youth camps are for minor patients attending without an adult family member. I have been developing this idea in my mind for years. Even better, though, some people have created places where some of my features are practiced. See # __ above. Also, I just read an article by Kate Fillion "Fixing Generation XXL" Maclean's magazine, 2006 July 19, p. 34+. It describes Academy of the Sierras, a boarding school for fat teens in rural Reedley, California. Their motto is "Extreme measures for extreme problems." The teens eat a strict low-joule diet and exercise often. They offer an alternative to the medical mainstream, which criminally offers stomach surgery. A Canadian founded it. I would improve their regimen by eliminating artificial sweeteners, too. It is also expensive, costing 5 800 US$ per month. I think it could be done much less expensively. www.macleans.ca/topstories/health/article.jsp?content=20060724_130647_130647 End of Article 9, Extreme Recovery Camps. Article 10 Am I moralistic and crazy? by Korky Day 2011 July 18, revised 2011 October 19. When we throw out religion, we sometimes "throw out the baby with the bathwater". Morals are necessary and unavoidable. Some morals are religious, some are not. Everyone has morals, whether they know it or not. Which morals we choose is the question! Every moral has its opposite moral. Morals are about much more than sex, they also are about equality, politics, wealth, the environment, drope, feminism, religion--every issue. A psycho-path's morality is like a baby's: "Whatever I want to do is right." My morality is, "I do for others and myself--and that persuades others to do the same." The prevailing myth today about craziness in secular Western culture is that it is "mental illness", a disease. We're supposed to feel compassion for the "sick" because they can't help themselves. Many consider addictions, too, to be part of "mental illness". Compassionate people attempt to save the "mentally ill" people from being punished as criminals by putting them in the "sick" category instead of the "evil" category. Compassion is great, but the "evil" people deserve it, too. That's the only way we might cure them of being "evil". Furthermore, both "sick" and "evil" people CAN help themselves, too. Usually we can help all those under-loved people. We won't succeed as well, though, if we think that they have a "disease" or a "chemical brain deficiency" that is properly treated only by professionals and psychiatric dope. Mostly they need love, not "substances" or things. Even people who commit crimes need love. To punish them, instead, helps no one. Craziness and addictions, which we almost all exhibit, to some extent or another, are moral problems for society (or "social problems", if you prefer). As I see it, being crazy or addicted is a personal failing, a weakness, a character defect, not a disease. My brain doesn't have a Prozac deficiency or a cannabis deficiency. However, your failings and my failings are the result of everyone's failings. Everyone getting along and helping each other with their failings and weaknesses is a common goal of living. To society, that's a moral problem. It's immoral for our society to load onto each individual almost all the responsibility for their own happiness. Also, it is immoral and a failed strategy to load onto therapists that responsibility. Rather, one person's joy is often earned for them by others around them. Pass it on! My morality is that we are a social species which is happiest and survives best when we all increase each other's happiness. By opposing drope in general, do I want to deny relief to people who are suffering horribly--just because they haven’t ‘earned’ enough joy yet? If there are no better options, then using drope as a last resort might work. However, almost always it is tried first, not last. There are better options, especially after an initial crisis has eased. The cure is mostly loving social support, counselling, and improved life circumstances. Drope, on the other hand, when widely used, is highly profitable to the drope-pushers and to the politicians who accept their campaign donations in return for being allowed to continue to bilk us. There is a long list of better attitudes and actions which relieve and prevent depression, confusion, and other craziness: 1. Loving and being loved. For each of us, that should begin with breastfeeding. (Never bottle-feed, use pacifiers, or deny a child the breast.) 2. Socializing. Being alone very much is unnatural and crazy-making. Best to be nude with others. Sleep together. 3. The touch of human skin. We all need it often. 4. Effective, non-drope group or individual therapy. 5. Satisfying activities, including sex, work, play, and activism. Those should include plenty of physical exercise. Join others to improve the rules of the world. Peace. 6. Good amounts of good food. Nutrition therapy (including mega-vitamins). 7. Quitting harmful activities, including drope, sick food, gambling, and living vicariously (such as violent video games and watching sport), even if they seem just to be wasting time and are not to the level of addiction. 8. Good amounts of natural sleep. 9. Knowledge and wisdom to enable a realistic view. 10. Showing another that you care can uplift them (and maybe prevent their suicide), especially if you are not being paid to do so. Joy-earned is a term which does not limit WHO is earning joy. I can earn my joy and earn some for you, too! So can everyone. End An unrelated link by KD: http://Co-op-Radio-Matters.weebly.com . © Copyright 2003 to 2011 by "Korky" Kirk Norman Day in Canada, in the USA, and in all countries. End of the page called "Part 2: Joy-earned" of www.korky.ca . |
