The original 'CHANGES' has been edited for content. Though the same point on other pages of this Website will at times be stated in different ways for optimum effectiveness, we do not consider the presentation redundant. The reader can explore in more depth with our simple buttons that are installed to quickly refer, redirect, and then return, enabling the reader further details or alternative clarification. We hope and believe you will find this Website smooth, informative, and at an appropriate level necessary for your subject purposes. We are not exclusive nor are we suggesting or offering advice nor soliciting business. We encourage the reader to take the time to explore other theories and additional information from the multiple and legitimate excellent Websites that are available. Challenge yourself and look deeper into subjects important to you. Do not accept internet fortune cookies as fact without validation, and do not necessarily equate facts as the truth. Please contact us with questions or comments. We thank you for visiting our site.
People in jails, prisons, or residential treatment centers for drug-related issues, by statistics, fare much better while in these facilities than out of them. The percentage of success decreases as the freedom increases. Recidivism rates are all we need to realize something is not working at rehabilitation treatment or retributive incarceration. When we continually do not have a viable solution, perhaps we need to approach the issues from a different perspective.
Prison reform and substance issues are not the same contentions. There seems to be a conclusion that the cause and solution of drug abuse in the U.S. is a cause and problem of the prison system. People are on drugs or act in other inappropriate behaviors, before they get to prison, and go back by large percentages to their same old behaviors after leaving prison. In actuality while in prison, drug use percentages are much lower than when out of prison. Prisons in California have 1/10 of the deaths per capita as the general public of drug overdose,by the same class of diagnosable drug disorder persons. (CDC, 2004, CA Dept. of Corrections and Rehabilitation, 2004.)
Legalizing substance use or early releasing of prisonersis not an issue of substance use. It is a legal reform issue. It is absurd to believe any behavior is reduced or changed by its decriminalization. We have only removed or altered the statistical category. For example, to lower prison populations, let's make grand theft auto, no longer a crime. Will this reduce the actual number of cars still taken from people? We alleviated a crime. Does that alleviate the thought distortion and behavior problem? Stealing a car, or taking drugs, came before the consequence. Fairly strong evidence shows the consequence wasn't a deterrent to the behavior, thus hard to argue that having no consequence, will be a deterrent. We support prison reform and believe in its necessity. We support other retributive means where appropriate, and stronger emphasis on rehabilitation for all who are incarcerated. We do not conclude these changes would be a major factor in resolving the epidemic of drug usage. It also appears decriminalization to not be the resolve of mass incarceration, the original justification. According to BOJS, approximately only 14% of all prisoners would be released under conviction guidelines. This paper is not on prison reform. It is about Addictive Thinking and Impulsive Behavior. What we call Latent ImpulsiveThinking (Syndrome). Substance use is only one behavior and one symptom of Latent Impulsive Thinking, as numerous other behaviors also can be. The purpose of discussing incarceration is two-fold. First to seek answers to its success in the reduction of substance abuse while incarcerated, and to its extreme rates of recidivism. these are the same truths for treatment. And second, to ask the question:
If the current deterrents of criminal and abusive drug behavior, such as probation monitoring, or incarceration, after repeated chances have been ineffective, and rehabilitation centers, treatment, meetings, sober homes, etc., also have unacceptably high recidivism rates, and a large percentage of drug criminality is attached to other crimes, then how can there be a reasonable conclusion that our communities are safer and the expense is minimized, when even less culpability, less assistance, and more opportunity and exposure to the public is given to persons with this destructive repeated behavior ?
Retribution and rehabilitation are currently unsuccessful upon persons re-entering our society. Eliminating either is also not a deterrent. Our focus is now on what will be successful.
Our first step was identifying the main points:
1) Accurately describing what we are dealing with.
2) Recidivism rates.
3) The current treatment theory and methodology.
4) The client themselves.
Alcoholics Anonymous, by their own admittance, carries a 2-3% success rate. (Alcoholics Anonymous, World Services Inc., NY, NY.). Overall not a successful percentage rate. Yet AA is by far and continually, the most inclusive model for recovery. Alcoholics Anonymous with its 3% success rate, also states it has approximately 3 million recovered alcoholics. Thus, also making them by sheer numbers, the most successful model ever. The Center for Disease Control estimates that 10% of our population over the age of twelve in the United States as having diagnosable Substance Use Disorder, (23 million people, CDC, 2004.). It is contributory as one of the top three causes of death in the United States. It numbers one through four of the top contributory causes of death among young people. It is an easily identifiable issue, documented for thousands of years. In the United States $320 billion dollars a year spent in health care costs due to substance abuse (excluding cigarettes, another $120 billion.), and up to 40 percent of hospital beds are used for alcohol/drug related issues. (Figures from 1999 to 2005. Department of Justice, Association of American Physicians, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse, Columbia University.) In 1956, three years after the discovery of the Nobel winning Double Helix, which is one of science's greatest breakthroughs in history, the American Medical Association classifies alcoholism as a disease.
The AMA does this by not following the definition of the word, disease. A disease needs an etiology. (Source.) Cancer cells and virus strains are sources of scientific evidence confirming the disease. The AMA did this based on the social problem of alcoholism and their belief due to the Double Helix discovery, of finding the etiology of alcoholism, the alcoholic gene. They protected themselves with the redefining issue by making alcoholism a mental illness and giving it to the nomenclature psychiatrists. They repeated this once more in 2013. They declared obesity a disease, showing no etiology, (opposed by their own Council on Science and Public Health, CSPH) and creating major debate amongst themselves, about whether a lifestyle choice is a disease. Almost simultaneously, the mental health profession releases the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual V, with the exploration of internet gaming being a disease. We have concerns the theory of lifestyle choices with no etiology being labeled as diseases opens the door for any behavior that shows a subjective amount of duress to an individual, and interference with normal living function, as a classifiable disease.
With our first focus, we brought in the Latin root etymology, literal semantics, and continued our detailed Acquired Living Potential (ALP) measure of life skills. (Further down the page are buttons labeled: Redefining, 'Consciously Pause', and Acquired Living Potential, for further information.)
Our second focus, recidivism. We were originally curious about the phenomenon of the enormous recidivism rates to both treatment and retribution. We looked for the common denominators. Sequestering was obvious. To varying degrees, there was anxiety, shame, and fear being masked when leaving treatment or jail for the same familiar streets. Neither treatment or jail had the client or inmate actually practiced to be prepared for responding different, and since all behavior is learned, they did exactly what they knew. The mandatory part of learning any new behavior or different behavior is the actual practice of that behavior, with proper supervision and under real or duplicated conditions. For example, we currently call this person of supervision, depending on the situation, a driving instructor, coach, commanding officer, teacher, parent, boss, etc. We realized recidivism was not as much psychological (about the person), as it was environmental, or sociological, (about the solution). The participant needed to have behaviors practiced in properly controlled environments, duplicating real settings. There was too big of a discrepancy between treatment or jail, and where they lived when released, for either to have an impact on their everyday living. (Halfway houses and sober livings theoretically are validations to our model, except they also have a lack of practical applications.)
Next was our approach to the shame-based, fear-based, and anxiety based issues, causing duress and a cycle of old behaviors from our participants. We felt and still believe these are the three hidden core determinants that are a commonality in all Latent Impulsive Thinking (Addiction). We are also in absolute agreement there very well can be, what we use to call dual-diagnosis, or presently call co-occurring disorders. Athletics, business internships, the military, etc., all give practice or training under conditions to prepare responsive behavior. We considered this an obvious inclusion. Treatment programs bring family or loved ones once a week generally speaking. We brought everybody freely all the time. Transparency and engagement with the actual participants living in a controlled environment with other participants and having exactly the same engagement. We made a step, not a leap of the transference out of the controlled environment, and more natural for everybody involved. Day one on a job is nerve-wracking. Anxiety goes away with familiarity and knowledge. That basic comfort of experience also absolves fear to all or tremendous degrees. What is left in our participants is the shame. We call it responsibility, restitution, retribution, remorse. It is an absolutely proper way for all people to live and behave. Admit a wrong, fix it, then apologize and do not repeat the same wrong. Cleaning up past behaviors lets a person answer the phone, look straight ahead, walk anywhere, hide from no one or nothing, sleep better and have more energy while awake to move forward, instead of stuck or decline backward. The exact opposite of shame-based results. The co-occurring issues do need proper psychological help. As part of the team, or fingers to a hand, not independent. Medicine has specialized doctors who confer with each other over a person's medical condition. Mental health has caught up to this necessity and termed it, evidence-based. Neuroscientists and M.D.'s are absolutely included and are the first person our participants visit, for an overall general health report. They monitor blood panels, prescribe, and in our view, become the guides. Impulsive behaviors and protective addictive thinking are electrochemical produced messages. Due to their strides in CNS mapping, biochemists and neuroscientists are the most effective, vital, and our opinion, are in all likelihood, the ones with the eventual answers. We also believe in medication for an individualized assessment. It could impede or cease progress if a participant is not on properly prescribed medication. Though medication cannot be used as a shortcut. We teach eating disorders how to eat properly. A drug abuser can learn to take a pill.
We took focus #1) and went back to the Latin etymologies to conclude categorically with absolute decisiveness, the terms, definitions, and semantics of addiction and conjoining issues. The DSM-IV is, (was) the latest release of The American Psychiatric Association, and due to an earlier revision, was their fifth attempt at defining and diagnosis for their disease of drug addiction. Recidivism or focus #2), we felt the transference back into society was too big a leap, and not a smooth, simple, transition, so we brought the two closer together, and merged. Our third focus includes the first two, and a controlled environment for practice, with a wider scope of professionals communicating as a team, and the inclusion of people, places and things from the participant's life. Be it school, job, music, hobbies, friends, family, etc.
The last focus, the client themselves. (Called participant by us.) We needed a participant who is willing and understanding of the process, and in agreement of the purpose to change their intent was vital. The participant needs to be conscious of the occurring changes taking place. We still hold to our program that the thinking is protective (addictive) of the behavior out of fear of what happens if the behavior ceases. (The false original belief system that sets the tone for all behaviors, and to also maintain shame brought on by the behavior. We believe fear of success is greater than fear of failure.) We noticed that the original Alcoholics Anonymous claimed 50% to 75% success rates. We attributed that to their selecting of members and to the immediate relief when the program was worked correctly and as originally intended. Our participants need immediate relief to want to continue with proper intent. The answer was to immediately get the participant to begin to figure out the sources of their fear, anxiety, and shame, and to see they are empowered over them. Neuroscience in the last decade has tremendous advancement in mapping and tracking of electrochemical messaging, neuron pathways and the entrance points of triggers that send off the messages. We devised a writing assignment that immediately began to identify what we now call External Primary Environmental Influencesand Internal Trigger Stimuli. (Or just Triggers.) Our participants themselves are the authors of today's current list.
Understanding the meaning of addictive thinking and impulsive behavior, to know what one's triggers are, and then learning to consciously pause to alter electrochemical messages, and stop impulsive reactive behaviors, and finally, to be prepared and practiced to rewire and pave a new response, is in our estimation, the only viable current answer,
Page: https://www.steveizenstark.com/changes.html <title>Changes</title> <meta name="description" content="The postulate stating triggers, cause, and a methodology, included with neuro science succeeds over addictive thought and behavioral impulse issues.">
Due to editing, most statistics have been removed. If there is a statement with the presumption of (statistical) fact, the sources are:
Department of Justice, 2004; 1999 -2005.
Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2004-2015.
State of California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, 2000-2013.
Center for Disease Control, 2004; 2000-2013.
Alcoholics Anonymous, World Services, Inc. NY, NY.
Association of American Physicians, 2005.
Public Policy Institute of California. 2005, www.ppic.org
Mayo Clinic. www.mayoclinic.org
National Institute on Drug Abuse, 2004.
Columbia University, 2005. www.ox.ac.uk Oxford University. Paid subscription.
www.harvard.edu Paid subscription.
The original postulate titled 'CHANGES' began to form in the mid to late 1990's as ongoing, random conversations between executives from a University trying to remedy multiple issues regarding students and their abuse with drugs, alcohol, and their behaviors towards other people. Eventually, those conversations became serious discussions, motivating into intensive research and study, then a return to college courses and curriculum, a new plan, and career changes. The advent of California Proposition 36 that was approved by the voters, November 2000, and in effect July2001,with its lack of preparation and immediate and substantial non-success, was the pertinent component resulting in the postulate 'Changes', challenging decades of conventional treatment. 'Changes' introduces the 'Consciously Pause'- LITS theorem of environmental (sociological), alongside biochemistry as the predominance causation and solution of poly- team-treatment with real-time practice. (Conditioning over genetics, if a person has a so-called alcoholic gene yet never was exposed to, nor ever had a drink, are they alcoholics? ) Due to the advances in neurosciences over the past decade, other models have taken notice of ' Consciously Pause'. There are still major differences including our ongoing belief that a lifestyle choice cannot be a disease as there is no etiology, though a lifestyle choice can create accompany diseases. And the most vital difference was our belief in 2005 that pharmacology was the number one drug abuse crisis and to treat opioid prescription abuse with the same doctors prescribing different opioids manufactured by the same pharmaceutical companies, will in all probability, be very unsuccessful.
CHANGES. (c) Copyright, 2003-2018. steveizenstark.com, Probation Opportunity Programs, Latent Impulsive Thinking (Syndrome), ASATEAM, SJI. All rights reserved.
CHANGES. (c) Copyright, 2003-2018. steveizenstark.com, Probation Opportunity Programs, Latent Impulsive Thinking (Syndrome), ASATEAM, SJI. All rights reserved.