TO NBC Nightly News
DATE 30 January 1994, 1:30 a.m.
RE Drug-related violence and psychoactive management(*1)

(Continuation from Part One)

1) Abandoning the "us against them" mentality (like, the ATF against pot growers), and the government admitting that it has not been able to stop public psychoactive consumption or problems resulting therefrom. Along with this would go a complete abandonment of involuntary treatment.(*7)

2) The awareness growing that an enlightened citizenry, practicing the principles of psychoactive management, could provide rationally based questions and solutions.

3) Government and other official agencies dedicated to "wiping out drug abuse" announcing that political leaders would respond to the enlightened will of the public, in matters of psychoactive problem solving, and accept, from that source, input about what had gone wrong.

4) An official effort among enforcement and prevention agencies, to see what had gotten fouled up as a result of practicing these erroneous beliefs and attitudes, not with a "heads will roll" mind-set, but with a desire to improve things.

5) Admitting to the aforementioned enlightened public, to themselves in official memoranda, and to other agencies, the exact nature of those foulups.

6) Developing a willingness, among those institutions and agencies, to respond to the enlightened public's recommendations for change.

7) Explicitly requesting the aforementioned enlightened public, to have that come about.

8) Creating a list of people and institutions that had been harmed as a result of the aforementioned foulups.

9) Making direct amends to those people and institutions wherever possible, except when doing so would make things worse.

10) An ongoing effort by those agencies to review their perception of their mandate, purpose, and activities, with an aim to avoiding future foulups.

11) Deliberately communicating with the enlightened public, to be sure of an understanding of their expressed needs and purposes, in the effort to reduce problems of psychoactive mismanagement.

12) As a result of a change of outlook, said agencies can try to explain their experience to others, promoting similar change among other agencies not yet at their level of awareness or improved functioning, using themselves as an example rather than exhorting or forcing other ones to change.(*8)

I believe that this modeling would be a powerful influence in reducing problems of psychoactive mismanagement, explicitly violence and other destructive behavior. It may seem a tall order, but I have seen this format, which is not original with me, work dramatically, in other contexts, to reduce violence and restore a sense of security, order, and mature purpose.

The key is self-behavior modeling. If I can't show how it works for me, don't force it on people. We're talking major negative modeling, here. The question is, can someone smoke and shoot guns at the same time? The answer is, yes, but there's a lot to be said against sidestream bullets. ------------------------------------------------------------------

Footnotes

*1) Psychoactive management is a collection of social and personal skills, transmitted by self-behavior modeling, aimed at understanding one's own psychoactive consumption as goal-directed, risk-taking behavior demanding a degree of responsibility similar to that required to own a car, and aimed at the reduction of psychoactive consumption toward zero, focusing on desired effects as ones that are possible through personal training and social interaction, and not needing psychoactive consumption to bring about. The payoff to society is diversion of economic resources into more constructive channels (for example, less money going up in smoke, or down the drain), and reduction of chemically-complicated behavior and related problems, through a consistent approach in education, enforcement, and, chiefly, etiquette. (This is miles away from what is commonly confused with psychoactive management, "safe drug use," a concept which is actually an oxymoron, because no illegal drug use can be safe, as it violates Rule 5 of "The Five Rules of Psychoactive Management" (see attached 24 January 1994 memo faxed to NBC Television News.)

*2) The rebound from a psychoactive results from the body's accommodation to it.

 When we consume an upper, the brain's equilibrium mechanisms cause self-quieting; when we consume a downer, the brain's equilibrium mechanisms cause self-stimulation. The result, with downers, is called psychomotor agitation. Depending on one's regular dosage, this can be greater wakefulness (from, say, 3 beers daily) to life-threatening DT's and convulsions (from, say, 30 beers daily.) In between we have a lot of violence. Not from reduced inhibitions to violent impulses, but from the agitating aftermath of consuming a sedative. A friend who was in charge of Domestic Relations in a county court believed about 3/4 of the cases of violence in the troubled families in his caseload of about a thousand, were from alcoholic drinking, which he understood in terms of this psychoactive rebound of psychomotor agitation. This is what causes a need to drink, in a steady drinker of more than 6 beers daily: The brain becomes agitated, from its constant struggle to overcome the effects of sedation. The agitation, and accompanying violence, can happen even when the person is drinking at levels less than their customary dosage, making it difficult for the casual observer to conclude that agitation from dranking, rather than release of inhibitions from drinking, was the cause of the violence. "Violence" includes changes of personality from easy-going into easily annoyed, or grouchy, or mean-spirited. The main point is, this development happens over a long period of time, and is unknown to the observers, because during this time, drinking happens and stops, and the slow buildup of agitation happens over a different time frame than the cycles of intoxication. It's like a piece of metal finally breaking, after being bent back and forth many times. (See graphs at http://www.geocities.com/psmgt/psychoactive_rebound.html) (it may take several minutes for this to load in, as it includes about a dozen large GIF files.)

*3) Two psychoactive users I know are exceptions, using the rebound effect deliberately. One drinks lots of coffee in the afternoon, in order to fall asleep more deeply at night. The other took Valium at bedtime, to wake up brighter.

*4) Actually, part of good psychoactive management consists of ways of asking such questions, and making such observations out loud, that are consistent with diplomacy and etiquette(*5). I have considered recommending to the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts that they provide a Merit Badge in Psychoactive Management, consisting largely in the successful completion of such skills as giving tactful feedback and tactfully asking questions about others' psychoactive consumption, with an aim to increasing one's sense that other people are formulating such questions in THEIR minds about one's OWN consumption, and being able assertively and politely to solicit feedback about one's own psychoactive consumption. With children, this can include caffeine, chocolate, and refined sugar. "Mom, when I eat a lot of candy, how do I act for a day or so afterwards? When I go without drinking Coke for a while, do I get nervous?". Other skills would involve being able to specify typical doses used by others, such as a shot of whiskey, glass of wine, bottle of beer, cigarette, cigar, pipe-bowl, sugar cube, chocolate bar, cup of coffee, needle-full, joint, hit, etc., or used by one's self; being able to take constructive feedback from others; being able to say "No, thank you" (just saying "No" is, after all, rude); and so on. Advanced skills could include being able to model the primary skills to others; being able to predict the elevation, size, and timing of a psychoactive rebound peak, based on the half-life of the substance, the frequency of consumption, the weight of the consumer, how long they have been consuming, their age, what other psychoactives they consume, etc.

*5) One might think that etiquette requires that no one have attention called to their risk-taking behavior. But when risks are being taken with psychoactives, one's judgment may be clouded, and advice from a friend, even a stranger, may be as allowable as abruptly pulling someone from the path of a speeding car. And tact is possible. I have said to people, "Pardon me, I don't mean to be personal, but did you notice there is smoke coming out of your nose?" Or, to someone smoking a smelly cigar, "Excuse me, but would you mind keeping your smoke out of my air?" Or, more humorously, "I don't mind if you smoke, but would you mind not exhaling?" The debate over the merits of sidestream smoke, largely structured by the pro-smoking Tobacco Institute, focuses on whether sidestream smoke causes cancer and other horrible diseases. But why put up with obnoxious odors? Etiquette allows a polite request for a change in someone else's behavior. What does this have to do with violence? The general denial of the addicting nature of tobacco, fostered by irrelevant debates over smokers' rights, and fostered by irrelevant debates (in most contexts) over the health consequences of smoking, bury one's awareness of tobacco's drug nature. This amounts to modeling denial to all drug users, which keeps them locked into their addiction. One is falsely reminded dozens of times daily, of tobacco's supposedly non-drug nature, particularly in schools with teachers' lounges where tobacco smoke wafts out from under the door, cancelling all messages that drugs are harmful or that one should confront drug users boldly (teachers? Drug users?) How do students deal with such inconsistency? Are there any school surveys on this subject? Not likely.

*6) A friend gave up drinking for a week, just out of curiosity, when I told him about tolerance to sedation. He then took one drink and, he reported, "It hit me like a brick." His tolerance had gone down. Later, as his habit increased, he experienced severe psychomotor agitation several times, which he recognized as rebound phenomena. This self-awareness did not prevent him from dying in a drunk driving accident, which one might interpret as an example of violence caused by direct effects of drinking alcohol, but my interpretation is that the long term effect of dranking alcohol, psychomotor agitation, is what brought about his demise. We have a sort of chicken/egg situation here. What is obviously needed is more discussions of where chickens and eggs come from; the facts of life for psychoactive consumers. (It deserves mentioning here that the rebound from caffeine can be just as impairing to a driver as the direct effects of alcohol.)

*7) This would free up spaces for sincerely motivated people to improve their lives, thus setting an example for others to examine their psychoactive consumption patterns. Pressure for involuntary treatment would diminish, as the jail-overflow diminished as a result of more responsible psychoactive management. Currently, the abuse of the treatment system, and its counseling staff, by involuntary incarceration in treatment programs, is, in my opinion, one of the worst scandals of the official effort to control drug abuse.

*8) I call these "The Twelve Steps of Preventianon".

TO NBC Television News
DATE 24 January 1994
RE Violence 5-part special 1/24-28/94

The topic of drug enforcement and its connection to violence was discussed on the TODAY SHOW on 24 January. No one brought up the idea of psychoactive management, which is the promotion of rational and sensible handling of psychoactive substances-- things that do what drugs do but may or may not be called drugs. Psychoactive substances include tobacco, heroin, caffeine, pot, crack, prescription mood-altering compounds, alcohol-- Anything used with the aim of altering awareness, where set and setting, as well as pharmacology, dosage, and history of use, are factors.

The question of which drugs are harmful should be replaced by another question, expressing the same kind of concern, but more consistent and broader in scope: Which psychoactive substances are easiest to tame? "Easy" meaning with a minimum of education and propaganda, minimal funding, how fast they are to learn to use safely, how likely one's use is to become addictive, and so on. Currently, ANY illegal substance use, including prescription medication used recreationally, contraband substances, and underage use of "OK" stuff like alcohol and tobacco, is difficult to tame because of a lack of common vocabulary ("psychoactive" is not understood by the public, but is the only term I can think of, covering substances with the common aspect of self-use for mood or consciousness altering, potential for addiction or social disruption, and so on.) Without a common vocabulary, we struggle with silly concepts like "target population", "peer pressure", "addicting substance", and so on. Thus, social harm from "drug abuse" becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Instead, we need self-behavior modeling; much more effective.

Discussions of social costs of drug abuse, as on the TODAY SHOW on 24 January, should have a common vocabulary. The figures presented included costs of abusing alcohol, but "drugs" was mentioned most of the time. Other costs of alcohol and tobacco abuse were NOT included. Those two psychoactive substances are very hard to tame, and cause much harm, in human suffering and dollars. Example: Compare 1000 deaths per year, 50 years early from cocaine, with 400,000 deaths per year, 10 years too soon, from tobacco. Tobacco comes out 80 times worse, in terms of lost people-years. Billions of dollars are lost yearly, from fires caused by smoking tobacco. Drug abuse? Are there any gains from tobacco use? It relaxes me? No, it quells withdrawal.

If the substances which are hardest to tame, alcohol and tobacco, are legal, and the lesser ones illegal, we have a massive, institutionalized state of denial, at every level of education and enforcement, which undermines all positive messages and educational efforts against "drug abuse." Both licit and illicit users feel, as a result, "It doesn't really matter if I use this (psychoactive)", because society doesn't take the whole thing seriously. Now and then we see this weird scene in news of enforcement: Officers with "ATF" on their jackets, conducting a drug raid. What exquisite irony. And a thoroughly self-defeating "message"-- "Our reasons for prohibiting these illegal drugs, are a concern for public health." Nope. Enforcement, as part of fear and ignorance, simply keeps us living in a fog of myths. The State of Pennsylvania encouraged high-level drinking by giving motorists charts saying "Know your limit", meaning "Don't drink more than X amount." Psychoactive management recommends "Know how little it takes to get X effect." The former rule (State of Pa.) fosters ever higher drinking levels, as one's tolerance increases. Psychoactive management fosters ever lower use levels, as one focuses on desired "drug effects" and loses a need for the drug.

Enforcement is self-defeating, even when humanely forcing people into treatment. Most treatment programs are glutted with involuntary participants, avoiding legal punishment, making deals with employers and spouses, and so on. There are millions who would walk in for treatment, if it were promoted as an alternative lifestyle, and not a threat, or alternative to incarceration. The relatively few who are in treatment for sincere reasons, are bewildered and eventually get discouraged, at the presence of the involuntary population.

"The Five Rules of Psychoactive Management" are: 1) When faced with an option to consume psychoactively, consider not consuming. Don't "just say no", say "what if, and what if not?" 2) When consuming, aim toward zero comsumption. Use as little as needed for a predetermined effect, not as much as I can get away with without aversive results. This results in lowering consumption. Psychoactive "effects" can be learned; like, I might learn to relax without beer. 3) Discuss sought effects with others, and consider whether my history of use is requiring more, or less, consumption to reach those effects, and whether the value I place on those effects is changing. 4) Discuss side effects with others, that is, effects I haven't considered or may be cropping up increasingly, in my pattern of use. 5) Include, among those with whom I'm discussing 4) and 5), non-consumers of my substance, who will not be biased in favor of consuming the variety I prefer.

This is more complicated than "Just say No," but "Just say No" doesn't work, because if used consistently, it would mean, we (I, the producers of your program, the news personalities, educational authorities, and everyone else using alcohol, tobacco, caffeine, and so on) say no to our OWN use. Nonsense! But now we see the denial at work-- WE don't use drugs-- THEY do. The communications gap is already immense. Let's make it worse: Adults vs. youth; whites vs. Blacks; doctors vs. patients, police vs. other citizens.

These 5 rules allow discussions amongst all sorts of users of all sorts of stuff, not just targeted young people, Black people, elderly people, etc. Heroin users can talk about Rule 2 with tobacco users. Alcohol drinkers can think about tolerance increasing. Etc.

This is not "safe drug use" because that phrase implies "safe use of dangerous, illegal drugs", which is impossible. Nothing can be used illegally and safely, because illegal use prevents using Rule 5. Let's talk less about making dangerous, stupid drug use legal, and talk more about which substances can be TAMED, and how, and at what cost, and at what levels of purity and concentration, and marketed in what fashion, and so on.

Thank you for your fax number. I am an addictions counselor, 16 years inpatient and outpatient, education and therapy, group and individual counseling, and as a community leader. Also much experience with politicians, enforcement people, and therapists with unresolved co-dependency issues wrecking treatment, educational, and counseling efforts. We have more words for managing our automobiles, than we have for managing our psychoactives, which are far harder to tame.Imagine having laws against speeding, just for Fords, or just for young people. Would those laws be taken seriously by anyone except the police, or doctors? Let's start talking consistently, about the vast psychoactive use we are already having massive problems with, which is far greater than (yet of the same nature as) the scapegoated social ill of "drug abuse." I created the "5 Rules" and promoted them in State-run seminars, brochures, and so on. Politicians don't like it. But psychoactive management gets quick results, on talk shows, in lectures, etc. Namely: The hosts and other participants start talking calmly about our own chemical use.

It is politically unpopular to talk about solutions to the "drug problem" which involve seeing similarities between "bad" and "good" psychoactives. But politicians might consider the positive acclaim they would get from discussing psychoactive solutions to health care and other social costs. Sensible psychoactive management would reduce health-related consequences of psychoactive mismanagement, reduce drug abuse, and make more money available for sensible pursuits. (I maintain that voluntary smoke inhalation, and paying for something to burn all day long, is not sensible.) Sure, there would be temporary losses to the tobacco and alcohol industries, if the 45% of alcohol consumed by addicts, and 99% of tobacco consumed by addicts, were to be unbought-- So, let's burn alcohol in our cars, and feed tobacco to pigs. Both have been successful. I understand the pigs loved it. No wonder; it's the most addictive psychoactive going. Maybe this would not be humane. Maybe we could burn tobacco in our car engines.

I'd make these 2 things illegal: Advertising and selling psychoactives. An economic incentive, for persuading someone to change the way the world appears, is carrying free market dynamics too far. What someone can do by themselves in the privacy of their own home, should not be something they have to buy. What should be sold is educational packages for managing psychoactives. The best package-- easiest to learn, promoting the most conservative psychoactive activity-- would sell the best. What sort of education sells currently? The most frightening, most glitzy, most teacher-intensive, law-enforcement intensive, materials. This seems self-defeating. But who knows, without measuring results? Results? "The teachers liked it." How about instead: "The community had lower incidences of sick addiction and wasted money".

"If we don't manage our psychoactives, they will manage us."

1/24/94 faxed to NBC 18:57



You are visitor # . Feel welcome at the Psychoactive Management page.