Letters for January 17, 2002

Other routes to recovery

Re “Stepping Out” by R.V. Scheide (SN&R Cover, January 3, 2002):

A.A. was once the new kid on the block and had a lot of trouble getting any respect. Because it persisted for 67 years, and got some good results, it became part of the status quo.

Now Rational Recovery is a new kid on the block. Why didn’t you include another, namely bio-repair? Although it’s been around for 20 years, you can tell it’s new because it’s shunned by the psychiatric brethren, A.A., the courts, and, one deduces, by Rational Recovery.

Brain chemistry matters, or anti-depressants wouldn’t work. Therefore, it should not surprise anyone that what we put in our mouths affects our brain chemistry.

Joan Mathews Larson, Ph.D., wrote Seven Weeks to Sobriety to explain how diet and nutritional supplements transform lives. Two decades ago, her teenage son killed himself despite conventional treatment for alcoholism. Larson was shocked into looking for safe, effective alternatives. Her Health Recovery Center in Minneapolis has a 75 percent long-term sobriety rate!

Sigmund Freud predicted in 1927, “one day all these mental disturbances we are trying to understand will be treated by means of hormones or similar substances.” Linus Pauling concluded that orthomolecular therapy would lead to the “effective control of a very large part of mental disease.”

Larson explains that a prime ingredient to mental health is omega-3 lipids, which are found in tuna and other fish, flax seeds, greens and beans. Ninety percent of Americans, according to NIH, are deficient in omega-3s. How sad that so few have ever heard of it!

SN&R lifted the flaps on the box and hopped out. Now how about a few brave steps into the unorthodox by reporting on bio-repair success stories?

Lauren Ayers
via e-mail

My program beats your program

Re “Stepping Out” by R.V. Scheide (SN&R Cover, January 3, 2002):

I really think that the Rational Recovery vs. Alcoholics Anonymous battle misses the point. It is not whether my recovery program can beat up yours, but what help is available to people that are struggling with alcohol and drugs.

As a treatment professional it would be more than helpful to have other options besides 12-step and cognitive-behavioral tools to help people deal with these issues. The problem, I think, lies in Rational Recovery’s stance against all other treatment models. It is not just A.A. that is the target. Trimpey’s vitriolic stance isolates Rational Recovery and any benefit it could have in the bigger picture. It’s also a rather one-sided fight, as A.A. doesn’t care about Trimpey and R.R. one way or the other.

When there are so many people suffering and dying because of their use of alcohol and drugs, it is not only unfortunate, it is tragically negligent for any competent treatment professional to take a stance that narrows anyone’s opportunities for recovery.

Jerry Rhodd
via e-mail

Program proliferation

Re “Stepping Out” by R.V. Scheide (SN&R Cover, January 3, 2002):

Good reporting, but it didn’t go far enough.

Yes! A.A. is not the only recovery program available! But neither is Rational Recovery the only other recovery program. There are also: Women for Sobriety, SMART Recovery, Secular Organizations for Sobriety, LifeRing Secular Recovery, Moderation Management, and Drink Wise, as well as numerous resources for those who wish to beat addictions on their own.

You can learn about these alternatives in a potentially life changing and very readable book called Sober for Good by Anne M. Fletcher.

Anyone who is interested in recovery, or who is simply puzzled that one program (i.e. A.A.) doesn’t work for everyone would do well to take a look at the resources and research offered in this book. Above all, the individual stories of people who have conquered addictions both with and without A.A. and its 12 steps, offer hope to those who have tried one recovery method and failed.

For too long people have been told that if A.A. doesn’t work for them, nothing will. It’s time we recognized that one option doesn’t work for every person with substance abuse problems.

Carla Conrad
via e-mail

Thanks for the alternative

Re “Stepping Out” by R.V. Scheide (SN&R Cover, January 3, 2002):

Thanks for giving us a balanced story on these differing programs for recovery from alcohol and drug addiction.

It is certainly true that the 12-step program totally dominates the scene, so your story offered useful information about an alternative. I’ve found religion—liberal Christianity—effective for me. As your story indicates, some programs work for some people, some programs work for other people and, for some people, there is no change.

Karl Greene
Sacramento

Laying his cards on the table

Re “Don’t Bet On It” by Jim Evans (SN&R Cover, December 27):

There is one critical fallacy (the most important among many) in your “Don’t Bet On It” article about Indian gaming possibly coming to West Sacramento.

Yes, Californians approved casinos on Indian land by a wide margin, though the margin was not as wide as campaign expenditures would dictate.

The fallacy: most voters thought Indian land meant already established reservation territory, which are nearly all far from urban areas. If the proposition had clearly stated its intent—that Indian land is any acreage a tribe purchases, which could be in the middle of San Diego, L.A., San Jose, SF or Sacramento—it would not have passed.

The land in West Sacramento that your article refers to as Indian land is not Indian land by any sensible definition.

Las Vegas-style gaming casinos in or very close to urban areas are bad ideas for a long list of reasons.

Randy McClure
Rocklin

Editor’s note: We did not refer to it as Indian land. We wrote that the tribe had bought an option on 65 acres in West Sacramento.

A bold defense

Re “Hysterical Perspective” (SN&R Editorial, December 27):

In speculating how historians 20 years from now will look back at how America responded to the terrible events of September 11, you say, “it seems history will show that U.S. moved its armies and fleets boldly.”

Not all historians share or will share this characterization of the war in Afghanistan as some sort of glorious expression of U.S. resolve. This is certainly a mainstream historical perspective, and doesn’t account for the interpretations of dissident authors and scholars such as Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, Michael Parenti, William Blum, Edward Said and Michael Ruppert.

These writers and I see the war not as some sort of “bold” response to the September 11 attacks, but as yet another imperial foreign adventure that must be seen within the historical context of U.S. intervention in Latin America, the Middle East, Africa, the Balkans, Southeast Asia and Central Asia. In fact, the mounting evidence by journalists, most notably Michael Ruppert, indicates that this latest war is motivated by corporate greed and goals of securing an oil pipeline though the region, rather than being a “bold” and heroic effort to defeat a group of fundamentalist terrorists that the U.S. helped put into power.

However, your observation that, “This is not the time for fear and silence; it’s the time for debate and dialogue” rings very true. The Patriot Act, the Military Tribunals and wholesale detentions of “suspicious” individuals represent a cynical use of the September 11 attacks by George Bush Jr. to consolidate his power and to further erode our civil liberties as he promotes “free trade” and the corporate agenda.

Now is the time to speak up, debate and question the goals of our government’s foreign and domestic policies, rather than to unite behind the president in his campaign to crush our civil liberties and prosecute more bloody military adventures under the guise of “stopping terrorism.” We must be more bold, vocal and forceful than ever in defending our civil rights and liberties!

Dan Bacher
Sacramento

Blow by the rules

Re “Strike a Blow” by Ted Rueter (SN&R Guest Comment, December 27):

As a member of Citizens for a Quieter Sacramento, who several years ago hoped to convince our City Council to ban leaf blowers, I have no illusions that our city will do the right thing and ban blowers. And outside the city limits, the county is even less enlightened.

However, the city does have a leaf blower ordinance. Leaf blowers used within 200 feet of a residence may only be operated from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. Monday through Saturday and 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. on Sundays. Blowers acquired after November 1995 may not exceed 65 decibels measured from 50 feet. (If it bothers you a block away, it’s over the limit.)

People disturbed by blower noise should speak to the offending worker and/or property owner. Sometimes when people know there is a law, they will comply! You might make a more persuasive case by recruiting neighbors or fellow tenants. If that doesn’t work, call City Code Enforcement at 264-5948.

Even if the blower is within legal limits, a user might modify his blower usage if he knows there is a problem. Believe it or not, there are some people who don’t believe they are disturbing anyone. So when blowers bother you, speak up! Otherwise, your inaction shares the blame for this blight.

Julie Kelts
Sacramento