Print

[mefree]

I'm sure that most of the people who participate or lurk on this forum are aware of the Narconon Exposed website. The site is loaded with information and well-sourced.
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Narconon/

Apparently, Scientology's answer to Narconon Exposed is Narconon Watch
www.narcononwatch.org/narconon-exposed.html (Warning sci-site)

We have had family members ask us "What do people say about Narconon?" to find out their reputation. That is a good question, but the important factor is that it of course depends on who you ask.

A family member considering Narconon for their loved one should do their own independent research, rather than relying on Narconon alone, for this information.

Critics of the program are usually one of the following: A drug-addicted individual who left the program and continued to use drugs, a traditional mental health advocate who promotes the use of mind-altering and addictive drugs on people, a person who is a religious biggot and has a misunderstood problem with L Ron Hubbard, or someone who has never taken the time to go and visit a Narconon center and speak with staff members and students and see all there is to the program.

This paragraph bears evidence of Scientology's biased opinion of "traditional mental health advocates" by making a generalized statement that these individuals promote the use of mind-altering and addictive drugs on people. I believe the general public who by and large have had some experience with addiction can see through this. The usual goal of drug treatment is to allow addicts to stop abusing drugs and to live a drug-free existence.

Furthermore, the idea that a critic who disagrees with Narconon's junk science approach to drug treatment, dreamed up by a science fiction writer, equals a religious bigot is simply an illogical conclusion. One is not required to have a "misunderstood problem" with LRH to believe that Narconon is dangerous for those seeking help with an addiction. Critics have protested Narconon (live and in-person) and have talked with staff and students. They were not impressed with the staff or the way students were treated and handled.

For additional information, see the Tipping Point Narconon page@ http://www.reachingforthetippingpoint.net/Narconon.php

[wynot]

Critics of the program are usually one of the following: A drug-addicted individual who left the program and continued to use drugs,...

Don't they claim a nearly 100% success rate? So how could there be many addicts who 'left the program and continued to use drugs"? Isn't that exactly the evidence one needs when looking into a treatment program?

(I'm sorry; I just can't resist rhetorical questions! )

'til next time;
wynot

[mefree]

Yes. That statistic defies logic also.

I'll just leave this here for further reference: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Narconon/critics.htm

[ethercat]

Poor narconon, always so "misundersood"...

From http://www.narcononwatch.org/narconon-news.html

Narconon Detox Receives License
Narconon Detox License in Georgia  After years of misundersanding and false information, the State of Georgia finally issued a license for the Narconon New Life Detoxification program. Previously, ther rest of the Narconon Program was certified, but now the life-changing detox procedure has been recognized as well!

They show a picture of their license from 2007 for this.  Wasn't that when they got their license back after their appeal to the state - DHR had denied their license in 2006, they appealed it, made some kind of closed door settlement, and magically got the license? 

Lol!  http://www.narcononwatch.org/narconon-scientology.html

Support from the Church of Scientology and Its Membership
When all else fails, critics of the Narconon program try to scare people from the program by twisting information about the Church of Scientology and connecting Narconon to it.

Well, that would sure scare me!  In fact, it does.   

I find this to be more more balanced: 
A cautionary tale of poor science, politics and money gone astray
http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2007/01/cautionary-tale-of-poor-science.html