AARC is what it is because people who had money and connections wanted it to be thus. These people wanted the product that Miller Newton sold. That product was not successful treatment of adolescent substance abuse. That product was psychological freedom, and people craved it.
Parents who ignored or mistreated their children were freed from the psychological burden of responsiblity for the inner turmoil these children experienced. They were freed from all responsiblities for their children beyond paying AARC to keep them.
Other parents who did not approve of their children's defiant behaviour were able to have complete control over these defiant children by having them confined in the Centre and in the host homes.
For some of the clients who were no longer children, they were freed from the demands of adult living. These people formed their social structure around AARC. They were able to gain direction from AARC and a sense of community.
AARC served a great purpose for politicians as well. They were able to curry favor from constituents who wanted AARC for their own purposes. Additionally, these politicians served themselves by creating the appearance of making advances in the complex problem of substance abuse.
The Police got behind AARC because it gave the appearance to the public that gains were being made in stemming the perceived tide of crime surrounding drug abuse.
The media got a story that was tailor-made. It encompassed scandal, drama, and redemption.
It didn't matter that the entire thing grew out of deception.
AARC began with the deception of Miller Newton, who claimed to be able to treat an array of adolescent problems from substance abuse to eating disorders. He also claimed to be able to cure homosexuality.
This panacea had great appeal to certain people in Calgary, and these people were not to be dissuaded simply because Newton was exposed as a fraud. These people loved the idea that the range of behaviors that in any way involved substance abuse could be neatly packed as addiction.
It did not matter if the substanace abuse arose as a means of coping with childhood sexual abuse. It did not matter if the substance abuse was simply a part of adolescent rebellion. In certain instances, it didn't even matter if the substance abuse was real.
The entire array of behaviors could be labelled as addiction, and AARC could then deliver it's product, which is psychological freedom.
Unforunately, there is another group of people involved. These are adolescents who do not want to join AARC's community. These are also people who are not interested in adopting the religion of the twelve steps. These people do not wish to give their lives over to a higher power. This group also includes young people who do not accept AARC's view of substance abuse as a chronic disease, and a moral failing.
AARC can make no accommodation for these people. They must be broken, and there's the rub. In order to break them, AARC uses means that are entirely illegal. They force these people to remain in the program until they do adopt AARC's religion as their own. AARC detains them against their will, until these people flee from AARC or they submit.
People who choose to give their children have the right to do so, the same as they have a right to send their children to any other church. Nobody, however, has the right to hold these children against their will until they accept AARC's belief system.
No judge, nor any other figure of authority, ever had any right under the laws of our society to force children into AARC. AARC is not a legal detention facility, nor is it a medical facility. It is a religious institution. It's methods are not those of medical science, and the staff are not health care professionals. They are converts to a particular religion, and their goal is to convert their charges to the same belief system.
Every aspect of AARC has been established to avoid adherence to the laws of our land. The facility is unlicensed so that it can operate with no official oversight. The staff are unlicensed to ensure that AARC has the final say in what qualifications are required to perform the work done at AARC. It receives it's money either from charity, from clients, or in lump sums from government, thus avoiding any regulation of it's activities.
AARC uses unlicensed, unregulated foster homes to avoid paying the overhead for residences, and to avoid having to submit to the regulatory procedures required to operate a residential facility.
AARC has specifically cultivated a relationship with our Attorney General, which it advertises. This relationship has resulted in a complete refusal by the Ministry of Justice to examine the practises surrounding AARC.
As a sub-class of AARC clients exists, those who do not wish to be converted, a dynamic has emerged wherein these people can be subjected to all manner of degradation and abuse. Oldcomers and Peer Counselors, who have demonstrated loyalty to the institution, are given power to subjugate and bring the recalictrant Newcomers into the fold. This dynamic is the direct cause of much of the more egregious abuses of individual rights in AARC, and it is a fundamental elemen of AARC's make-up.
Ron Stevens has vouched for AARC in the legislature. He has repeated, in the legislature, the preposterous and demonstrably false claims of AARC's effectiveness at treating adolescent substance abuse. The Attorney General has vouched for a man who has repeatedly misrepresented himself as a qualified mental health professional. This is a very serious error in judgement on the part of Ron Stevens, and he has compromised himself. As long as he remains the Attorney General, there is no reason to assume that the Province will make any move to investigate AARC.
This leaves individual clients to file police reports detailing specific instances of abuse. This is a very unfortunate situation. Members of Calgary's police force have appeared in public at AARC's fundraisers, lending their support. Others have given accounts to the media detailing claims of AARC's ability to treat child sex workers.
Each client, by their admission into AARC, has been labelled a drug addict. The word of these purported social deviants is suspect before they open their mouths.
AARC has created a complex system to ensure it's survival, and to obscure from the general public it's true nature. It has a steady supply of new recruits. It has a supply of members willing to debase and degrade themselves in public in order to garner support for the institution. It has the support of government and law enforcement officials who have compromised themelves after consuming AARC's promises of freedoom from the complexities of modern life. It has the support of the media who took AARC's claims at face value and provided a stage from which AARC members could pitch their testimonials. And it has cash. More cash than the Wizard could have imagined in his wildest dreams while apprenticing under Miller Newton down in New Jersey.
So what's the point of railing about AARC, an apparently immovable monolith? The point is that it is wrong. It's wrong to swindle people. It is wrong to subject adolescents to the twisted thought control techniques perfected by Miller Newton and stolen by the Wizard. It is wrong to take children who have been subjected to these practises and put them in charge of other defenseless children. And it is wrong to do all of this while denigrating the laws of this land, and in the name of medicine.

As far as forcing these children to go, it is only for four or five days, and I know here in Edmonton that the program is run by highly qualified professionals, I have been a part of it.

1. Do you find their explanations for irresponsible behaviour or decreasing performance to be unbelievable or implausible?
2. Are they frequently dishonest?
3. Has their personality changed (i.e., are there inappropriate mood swings, hostility, giddiness or irritability?)
4. Has anyone expressed concern about their alcohol/drug use?
5. Are they less responsible re chores, schoolwork or being on time?
6. Have you found obvious signs of drug/alcohol use such as bottles, drugs, or paraphernalia?
7. Have they lied about their use of alcohol or drugs?
8. Have their grades dropped or is there decreased interest in school activities?
9. Do they have unexplained periods of depression, anxiety or difficulty with sleep?
10. Have they become withdrawn and uncommunicative?
11. Do they spend a lot of time alone?
12. Do they show a lack of motivation or an apathetic attitude?
13. Have you noticed alcohol or pills missing from your home?
14. Are you missing money, credit cards or valuables that could be converted into cash?
15. Do they seem to have difficulty remembering things?
16. Is there a change in their personal hygiene, dress habits or sleeping and eating habits?
17. Do you ever notice physical indicators of drug/alcohol abuse (i.e., red eyes, dilated pupils, and slurred speech)?
18. Have you observed irrational or explosive behaviour?
19. Are they increasingly secretive about their whereabouts?
20. Are there signs of medical or emotional problems, such as depression, anxiety, suicidal ideation, ulcers, or gastritis?
21. Is there evidence they are involved with the occult?
22. Has their peer group changed to include friends that are involved in drinking, using drugs and partying?
23. Do they become belligerent, angry or defensive when others express concern about their drug use?
24. Are they irresponsible drivers?

If you have answered "Yes" to:
4 of these questions, it indicates that your child is exhibiting significant emotional or behavioural problems that may be related to substance abuse.

5 of these questions, it indicates that your child probably has a significant emotional or behavioural and/or alcohol/drug problem.

6 or more of these questions, it indicates that your child should abstain from all mood-altering chemicals. A professional assessment is suggested in order to determine the extent of the problem.

I'm so heartbroken it's difficult to breath.

My son is 100% convinced that his entire life was a lie, everything he's done, everything he's ever said and everything he's ever thought.

When I was committed to the rehab clinic I weighed 67 lbs and could no longer support my skeleton. I couldn't walk. My reproductive system shut down. My eyes bled. My nose bled. My throat bled. I was in the early stages of kidney failure. My heart had weakened to the point that anything likely to cause my heartbeat to increase would cause me to go into cardiac arrest. I was told that if I hadn't gone into treatment, that I would likely have been dead within another thirty days.

The government can no easier force addicts into treatment than they can force the unemploed to work.

As for the OP's comment: "Some private facilities uses this model and forces addicts into treatment, such as a local program for adolescents, which boasts an 85% success rate" ... I have a real hard time digest that high a success rate with ANY kind of rehabilitation institute. Exactly how private is this local program and how many adolescents have they even dealt with? Just curious. I mean, I know there are programs out there that have success with setting teen addicts straight. I've seen it with my own eye. But 85% sounds extreme.

I have asked two of our research staff and have received the following
information.

One is familiar with the AARC program and suggests that a good question to
be asked would be "how many adolescents were admitted to the program and how
many completed?" Those who do not complete are not considered as program
failures because the responsibility is shifted to the client who is regarded
as non-compliant or not-treatment-ready or such.

The other researcher points out that it is a pretty standard 12-step/disease
model approach and that it works for some. This researcher suggested that
the attached article provides information on a few different approaches
which you may find of assistance and urged that you think deeply about who
the person is you are wanting to help, and the possible sources of their
discontent (which may involve a lot of complex and personal life factors),
and then consider what kind of intervention might be most beneficial.

Both concluded that this confrontation based approach works for some but not
everyone. As far as we are aware, there has been no external evaluation of
the program and its effectiveness.

Good luck

What I have seen as a problem with forced treatment is this.........when in your program, there is only one *thing* you have to change........and that is *everything*.......so when you do whatever the alloted time in is, eventually you are thrown in the same environment......

We teach what we know, and never turn away a soul.

All such practices begin with a concerted assault upon the individual's personal identity, i.e., an attempt to destroy his or her sense of self and its relation to the pre-existing social matrix.5 By systematically undermining their sense of individual autonomy, target persons can be driven to a state of child-like vulnerability to outside influences, dramatic alterations in beliefs, and in extreme cases, psychotic-like behavior and suicidal tendencies.

Deceit, Coercion and Disorientation During Early Captivity. Straight, like many religious cults, has maintained its right to conceal its aims from potential inductees. Abetted by usually well-meaning parents, it has routinely deceived adolescents as to the purpose of their initial visit and used psychological and physical coercion to prevent them from leaving.16 Straight's rationalization for this is: "they lie to us about their drug use, so it's OK to lie to them about treatment, it's for their own good." Of course, the loss of trust this engenders eliminates one of the central requisites of a legitimate therapeutic relationship. [p. 247-248]

. . . Exploitation of this state was also apparent in the elaborate rituals many American prisoners of war experienced at the moment of capture by Chinese troops.18 Quick adoption of the prisoner role was facilitated in Straights induction ritual by a humiliating search of all body orifices, dramatically signaling the end of privacy and self-direction. From that point on, even urinating and defecating was closely observed and inmates would be led from place to place by their belts, like a dog on a leash.

Thought reform seeks to blur self-identity by shattering ties with the captives previous network of people, organizations and standards of behavior. Thus, Straight prevented communication with parents, siblings or friends. . .

Straight also adopted the old interrogators ploy of alternating periods of intensive indoctrination with periods of social isolation during this early stage of vulnerability. [p. 248]

Rapping, Relating, Motivating and Marathoning

According to Robert J. Lifton, the essential elements of thought reform are: "confession, the exposure and renunciation of past and present 'evil; and reeducation, the remaking of [the individual] in the [reformers] image."21 The mere threat of physical violence hovering in the background maximizes its effectiveness. Elaborate sessions where groups of prisoners were cajoled by Chinese re-educators to confess real or imagined crimes of thought and deed, and to profess their guilt and unworthiness, are described by Edgar H. Schein and Lifton. Group members were also encouraged to denounce one another for alleged transgressions. We observed highly similar processes, called "relating" and "moral inventories" in Straight jargon. Straight demanded that youths repeatedly confess their "bad habits," their worthlessness, and their inability to reform by themselves. . . .

Straights use of informants throughout the program is also right out of the thought reformers handbook. The intent is to destroy any trust and solidarity among resisters and to undermine all attempts to question the messages being hammered home by relentless repetition. . .

In Straights group sessions, we observed counselors and higher level inmates encouraging hysterical chanting of program jargon, accompanied by ritualistic movements in unison. Those who failed to exhibit enough enthusiasm were goaded on, verbally and physically. These so-called "group raps" occurred daily, often lasting 12 hours per day on weekdays and six on weekends. In the process known as "motivating," public confessions called "renouncements" were demanded-- the more lurid, the greater the group approval . . . A technique found most effective in the Korean POW camps, and in evidence in the Straight "raps," was heavy use of testimonials from converts who vigorously denounced their past evilness and extolled their present redemption. . .[pp. 248 - 249]

In "Rules Raps," the group was required to memorize Straights dogma in mindless rote drills. Social pressure to conform was ratcheted up by making everyone repeat the exercise if one member faltered. Those who continued to lag were subject to "marathoning" where they would be singled out and humiliated and bullied by the group until they conformed. There is documentation of up to 80 hours of continuous "marathoning" being applied to some hold-outs in the program.22

To enhance the emotional and physical exhaustion and the passivity it induces, Straight adopted another triad of time-honored "thought police" techniques: sleep deprivation, dietary restriction and restriction of bathroom privileges.23 Disorienting in themselves, these restraints make sleep, food, and access to the toilet powerful rewards that can be meted out to conformers. According to sworn testimony, Straight often left restrained group members sitting in their own urine, feces or vomit until suitable concessions were extracted." We observed none of this, but the vacant "prisoner's shuffle" was evident as clients were led around the facility. [p. 249]

People who have never experienced such treatment frequently ask why the victims don*t simply "go along" overtly while secretly maintaining their prior beliefs. The answer is that, while this does occasionally happen (Fred Collins is one case), it is much easier said than done. One of the best supported findings of social psychology is that if people can be induced by rewards, threats or a sense of obligation to act contrary to their beliefs, it is the beliefs that are more likely to shift in the direction of the behavior, rather than the other way around. Schein, Lifton and Sargant all noted that thought reformers everywhere seem to have discovered this, as well as the effectiveness of gradually shaping compliance in small steps. Straight is no exception here, either. Making seemingly trivial concessions, which can be rationalized as harmless and only done to achieve a reward (e.g., a letter from home or even just a moment*s peace), seems like a reasonable bargain under the circumstances. The hidden cost is that this makes it more likely that a bigger concession will be granted next time. It also offers an example of collaboration that can be shown to holdouts or used to blackmail the perpetrator at a later date.

Control of others is, after all, a daily and often benign occurrence. Questions arise when the motives of the controller are suspect, control is exerted against the will or interest of the person controlled, the controlee is of diminished capacity, or the control is so subtle as to be beneath the awareness of its target. Susan Andersen attempted to assess the real extent of cult abuses of this sort. She tried to steer a middle course between the needs to safeguard the rights of unsuspecting potential recruits and the desire not to infringe upon constitutional protections that even cult devotees enjoy. In identifying those aspects of cults that should worry civil libertarians, Andersen settled on two essential factors: presence of significant physical or psychological coercion and use of deception. Realizing that families, friends, schools, employers, advertisers, and mainstream churches and political parties all engage in persuasion and manipulation to some degree, she sought to demarcate permissible limits. Those boundaries have been overstepped when any group:

1) isolates its members from past and external sources of social support . . .;

2) demands all ties with family, friends, defectors, and non-group members be broken;

3)offers initial unconditional love and support, but later threatens its withdrawal for deviancy; . . .;

4) institutionalizes disrespect for personal privacy and forces constant contact with the group;

5)exerts extreme pressure to maintain unanimity and severely discourages questioning or diversity of opinion;

6)threatens physical harm for thought deviation or departure from group norms;

7) threatens spiritual, mystical or psychological punishments for deviation from the one true path";

8)demands protracted confessions of unworthiness, sinfulness;

9)systematically induces guilt, anxiety and confusion about self-identity, previous attitudes;

10)holds out the group as the only relief for this disquieting and confused state;

11)rigidly divides the world into the good, enlightened "us" versus the evil, ignorant them" who must be shunned;

12)continually barrages inductees with "pro-group" information while rigidly isolating them from any contrary opinion; and

13)seeks to produce disorientation and an inability to engage in critical thought through physical exhaustion, sleep and food deprivation, and by emotional exhortation and ritualized behaviors in protracted, mandatory "rallies."

Andersens criteria for inferring cult-like deceptive practices include:

1)lying to prospective members about the purposes of the organization;

2)providing misleading information to families, the community, the police, government, or the media;

3)attempting to convince inductees that the only source of authority for beliefs and actions resides in the groups leader and/or dogma; and

4)ruthless control of all information from without and within the group.28

By any objective standard, the activities of Straight Inc. and its imitators run afoul of these criteria. While Straight may be among the worst offenders, it is far from alone. [pp. 250 - 251]

Excerpts of this report are printed with permissions from Professor Barry L. Beyerstein and from the Lindesmith Center-Drug Policy Foundation