Clinical Supervision in Alcohol and Drug Abuse Counseling: Principles, Models, Methods "The perfect handbook for the clinical supervisor."Nancy
 |
| Clinical Supervision In Alcohol And Drug Abuse Counseling . |
"The perfect handbook for the clinical supervisor."
Nancy Waite-OBrien, director, Education and Training, Betty Ford Center
"An outstanding contribution to the professional well-being of the addiction field."
Thomas McGovern, editor, Addiction Treatment Quarterly
"Forever useful."
S. Beckett, education and training coordinator, National Association of Alcohol and Drug Abuse Counselors
 |
| Clinical Supervision in Alcohol and Drug Abuse Counseling: Principles ... |
|
| Clinical Supervision in Alcohol and Drug Abuse Counseling: Principles ... |
|
| Clinical Supervision in Alcohol and Drug Abuse Counseling: Principles ... |
 |
| Clinical Supervision in Alcohol & Drug Abuse Counseling (REV 04) by ... |
Source : http://imentalhealth.net/mental-health-disorders/substance-related-disorders/clinical-supervision-in-alcohol-and-drug-abuse-counseling-principles-models-methods-reviews
Related video about Clinical Supervision in Alcohol and Drug Abuse Counseling: Principles, Models, Methods Reviews
Addressing Suicidal Thoughts and Behaviors in Substance Abuse Treatment
Addressing Suicidal Thoughts and Behaviors in Substance Abuse Treatment This video on Addressing Suicidal Thoughts and Behaviors in Substance Abuse Treatment was developed by the Department of Veterans Affairs in Clinical Supervision in Alcohol and Drug Abuse Counseling: Principles, Models, Methods Reviews
Commonly question about Clinical Supervision in Alcohol and Drug Abuse Counseling: Principles, Models, Methods Reviews
Question :
-Have a high potential for abuse
-No currently accepted medical use for treatment in the United States
-Have a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms regulates alcohol and tobacco sales rather than the DEA, but according to the Controlled Substance Act, don t alcohol and tobacco meet the requirements for a Schedule I substance? Alcohol and tobacco both have high potential for abuse, neither of them are used medically in the treatment of any illness, and there are no accepted safety standards. That brings me to marijuana. I myself don t like marijuana. Makes me feel gross. However, there are accepted medical uses for marijuana. Many states allow it to be used medically. It may have a high potential for abuse, but so does methamphetamine, which is available by prescription as Desoxyn for the treatment of obesity and ADHD and is Scheduled II (high potential for abuse, but accepted medical use and proven standards of safety under medical supervision).
Alcohol and tobacco meet all the requirements for Schedule I substances, and could reasonably be made completely illegal to buy, sell, produce, or possess, yet our government uses a system of controlled distribution for those substances. Why should marijuana not be distributed in the same controlled manner, when it is proven to be less harmful (people drink too much and die of simple alcohol toxicity. Nobody dies from a marijuana overdose)?
This brings me to MDMA, or as it is called on the recreational market, Ecstasy. This is another Schedule I substance. There are currently FDA approved clinical trials testing the efficacy of MDMA as an adjunct to psychotherapy to assist in the treatment of post traumatic stress disorder among other things. So far, the results have proven very promising. MDMA has several self limiting factors that prevent addiction. Frequent use leads to reduced effects, and increasing the dosage does not negate this effect, unlike alcohol. Deaths from simple MDMA toxicity are rare. Ecstasy deaths are usually the result of irresponsible use, or users who consume a tablet sold as ecstasy but actually containing another substance altogether. MDMA is Schedule I, but does not meet the criteria for such scheduling. It is showing to have medical value and is proven to be safe under medical supervision.
What are your thoughts on current drug policy? Do you feel that we are winning the war on drugs, or do you feel our current policy is doing more harm than good? If alcohol and tobacco are distributed under a controlled system, should other drugs be available in the same way? I am not an advocate for complete legalization of all drugs, but I don t think the current no tolerance policies are working, especially if we allow alcohol and tobacco to be available, as that sends a mixed message. What do you guys think? Don t get me wrong, I am not advocating the legalization of all drugs, I am just curious as to what other people think about the state of drug control in our country, which is clearly not working.
What do you think of the legal status of alcohol and tobacco?
If you don t know, the DEA regulates substances by placing them into "schedules" based upon various attributes of a certain substance. Schedule I is the most restrictive Schedule and includes things like LSD and MDMA (ecstasy). Schedule I substances must:-Have a high potential for abuse
-No currently accepted medical use for treatment in the United States
-Have a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms regulates alcohol and tobacco sales rather than the DEA, but according to the Controlled Substance Act, don t alcohol and tobacco meet the requirements for a Schedule I substance? Alcohol and tobacco both have high potential for abuse, neither of them are used medically in the treatment of any illness, and there are no accepted safety standards. That brings me to marijuana. I myself don t like marijuana. Makes me feel gross. However, there are accepted medical uses for marijuana. Many states allow it to be used medically. It may have a high potential for abuse, but so does methamphetamine, which is available by prescription as Desoxyn for the treatment of obesity and ADHD and is Scheduled II (high potential for abuse, but accepted medical use and proven standards of safety under medical supervision).
Alcohol and tobacco meet all the requirements for Schedule I substances, and could reasonably be made completely illegal to buy, sell, produce, or possess, yet our government uses a system of controlled distribution for those substances. Why should marijuana not be distributed in the same controlled manner, when it is proven to be less harmful (people drink too much and die of simple alcohol toxicity. Nobody dies from a marijuana overdose)?
This brings me to MDMA, or as it is called on the recreational market, Ecstasy. This is another Schedule I substance. There are currently FDA approved clinical trials testing the efficacy of MDMA as an adjunct to psychotherapy to assist in the treatment of post traumatic stress disorder among other things. So far, the results have proven very promising. MDMA has several self limiting factors that prevent addiction. Frequent use leads to reduced effects, and increasing the dosage does not negate this effect, unlike alcohol. Deaths from simple MDMA toxicity are rare. Ecstasy deaths are usually the result of irresponsible use, or users who consume a tablet sold as ecstasy but actually containing another substance altogether. MDMA is Schedule I, but does not meet the criteria for such scheduling. It is showing to have medical value and is proven to be safe under medical supervision.
What are your thoughts on current drug policy? Do you feel that we are winning the war on drugs, or do you feel our current policy is doing more harm than good? If alcohol and tobacco are distributed under a controlled system, should other drugs be available in the same way? I am not an advocate for complete legalization of all drugs, but I don t think the current no tolerance policies are working, especially if we allow alcohol and tobacco to be available, as that sends a mixed message. What do you guys think? Don t get me wrong, I am not advocating the legalization of all drugs, I am just curious as to what other people think about the state of drug control in our country, which is clearly not working.
Answer :
I think they should legalize all drugs just like they legalized Alcohol..
Like you said, people die from alcohol poisoning, people die or kill others from drinking and driving. Just because it s legal doesn t mean it s safe. Just because it s illegal for those underage, doesn t mean they won t get it.
I think of it this way, if people want alcohol, if people want drugs, they ll get them, weather it s legal or not. It would be much safer to be able to buy some ecstasy from a corner store than some shady drug dealer..
And from personal experience, I ve felt much worse after drinking to much than after taking ecstasy. One time I got so sick from drinking my wife looked up poison control and was ready to call them if I completely passed out, it was a terrible feeling. I ve never been that ill from taking E. That said, how much you take of any drug or alcohol affects how much it affects you. But as you know, alcohol is legal for me, so if I want to Eff myself up or kill myself by alcohol poisoning, I can! Legally! What kind of sense does that make? They say "drink responsibly", well, why can t we do other drugs responsibly? We can.
There will always be people who aren t "responsible" with drugs or alcohol. There will always be alcoholics, and there will always be people who just don t like drinking and never drink.. I think the same would be true for drugs, there will always be your addicts, and there will always be your people who just don t want to do it, and there will be people who will just do a little on occasion. I say if someone wants to screw up their lives to doing drugs to much, let them, it s their life right? I mean people can already do that with alcohol if they wanted to! Whats the difference to do it with something else? None, they both can ruin your life. Or they can both bring you relaxation after a stressful week.
So yeah I agree, its screwed up that alcohol is legal once your 21, and you can easily ruin your life or kill yourself and others from drinking to much, but other things are completely illegal... I think it makes no sense.. I think they should just legalize other drugs and regulate them just like they regulate alcohol, have an age limit and all that.
I really don t understand that whole war on drugs thing. I remember seeing something on TV about it a while back and they said it started years and years ago, but they haven t made any progress. So they think its a way to just keep putting funding into something, I think is what they said.
This subject kindof upsets me, lol. I hate to think that for having a little E, like if I had a single pill or two just for myself, I could get in trouble for it, probably arrested. But I CAN buy enough alcohol to kill myself 20 times, and that s ok... Because I m over 21...
I think they should legalize all drugs just like they legalized Alcohol..
Like you said, people die from alcohol poisoning, people die or kill others from drinking and driving. Just because it s legal doesn t mean it s safe. Just because it s illegal for those underage, doesn t mean they won t get it.
I think of it this way, if people want alcohol, if people want drugs, they ll get them, weather it s legal or not. It would be much safer to be able to buy some ecstasy from a corner store than some shady drug dealer..
And from personal experience, I ve felt much worse after drinking to much than after taking ecstasy. One time I got so sick from drinking my wife looked up poison control and was ready to call them if I completely passed out, it was a terrible feeling. I ve never been that ill from taking E. That said, how much you take of any drug or alcohol affects how much it affects you. But as you know, alcohol is legal for me, so if I want to Eff myself up or kill myself by alcohol poisoning, I can! Legally! What kind of sense does that make? They say "drink responsibly", well, why can t we do other drugs responsibly? We can.
There will always be people who aren t "responsible" with drugs or alcohol. There will always be alcoholics, and there will always be people who just don t like drinking and never drink.. I think the same would be true for drugs, there will always be your addicts, and there will always be your people who just don t want to do it, and there will be people who will just do a little on occasion. I say if someone wants to screw up their lives to doing drugs to much, let them, it s their life right? I mean people can already do that with alcohol if they wanted to! Whats the difference to do it with something else? None, they both can ruin your life. Or they can both bring you relaxation after a stressful week.
So yeah I agree, its screwed up that alcohol is legal once your 21, and you can easily ruin your life or kill yourself and others from drinking to much, but other things are completely illegal... I think it makes no sense.. I think they should just legalize other drugs and regulate them just like they regulate alcohol, have an age limit and all that.
I really don t understand that whole war on drugs thing. I remember seeing something on TV about it a while back and they said it started years and years ago, but they haven t made any progress. So they think its a way to just keep putting funding into something, I think is what they said.
This subject kindof upsets me, lol. I hate to think that for having a little E, like if I had a single pill or two just for myself, I could get in trouble for it, probably arrested. But I CAN buy enough alcohol to kill myself 20 times, and that s ok... Because I m over 21...
Question :
-Have a high potential for abuse
-No currently accepted medical use for treatment in the United States
-Have a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms regulates alcohol and tobacco sales rather than the DEA, but according to the Controlled Substance Act, don t alcohol and tobacco meet the requirements for a Schedule I substance? Alcohol and tobacco both have high potential for abuse, neither of them are used medically in the treatment of any illness, and there are no accepted safety standards. That brings me to marijuana. I myself don t like marijuana. Makes me feel gross. However, there are accepted medical uses for marijuana. Many states allow it to be used medically. It may have a high potential for abuse, but so does methamphetamine, which is available by prescription as Desoxyn for the treatment of obesity and ADHD and is Scheduled II (high potential for abuse, but accepted medical use and proven standards of safety under medical supervision).
Alcohol and tobacco meet all the requirements for Schedule I substances, and could reasonably be made completely illegal to buy, sell, produce, or possess, yet our government uses a system of controlled distribution for those substances. Why should marijuana not be distributed in the same controlled manner, when it is proven to be less harmful (people drink too much and die of simple alcohol toxicity. Nobody dies from a marijuana overdose)?
This brings me to MDMA, or as it is called on the recreational market, Ecstasy. This is another Schedule I substance. There are currently FDA approved clinical trials testing the efficacy of MDMA as an adjunct to psychotherapy to assist in the treatment of post traumatic stress disorder among other things. So far, the results have proven very promising. MDMA has several self limiting factors that prevent addiction. Frequent use leads to reduced effects, and increasing the dosage does not negate this effect, unlike alcohol. Deaths from simple MDMA toxicity are rare. Ecstasy deaths are usually the result of irresponsible use, or users who consume a tablet sold as ecstasy but actually containing another substance altogether. MDMA is Schedule I, but does not meet the criteria for such scheduling. It is showing to have medical value and is proven to be safe under medical supervision.
What are your thoughts on current drug policy? Do you feel that we are winning the war on drugs, or do you feel our current policy is doing more harm than good? If alcohol and tobacco are distributed under a controlled system, should other drugs be available in the same way? I am not an advocate for complete legalization of all drugs, but I don t think the current no tolerance policies are working, especially if we allow alcohol and tobacco to be available, as that sends a mixed message. What do you guys think?
What do you think of the legal status of alcohol and tobacco?
If you don t know, the DEA regulates substances by placing them into "schedules" based upon various attributes of a certain substance. Schedule I is the most restrictive Schedule and includes things like LSD and MDMA (ecstasy). Schedule I substances must:-Have a high potential for abuse
-No currently accepted medical use for treatment in the United States
-Have a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms regulates alcohol and tobacco sales rather than the DEA, but according to the Controlled Substance Act, don t alcohol and tobacco meet the requirements for a Schedule I substance? Alcohol and tobacco both have high potential for abuse, neither of them are used medically in the treatment of any illness, and there are no accepted safety standards. That brings me to marijuana. I myself don t like marijuana. Makes me feel gross. However, there are accepted medical uses for marijuana. Many states allow it to be used medically. It may have a high potential for abuse, but so does methamphetamine, which is available by prescription as Desoxyn for the treatment of obesity and ADHD and is Scheduled II (high potential for abuse, but accepted medical use and proven standards of safety under medical supervision).
Alcohol and tobacco meet all the requirements for Schedule I substances, and could reasonably be made completely illegal to buy, sell, produce, or possess, yet our government uses a system of controlled distribution for those substances. Why should marijuana not be distributed in the same controlled manner, when it is proven to be less harmful (people drink too much and die of simple alcohol toxicity. Nobody dies from a marijuana overdose)?
This brings me to MDMA, or as it is called on the recreational market, Ecstasy. This is another Schedule I substance. There are currently FDA approved clinical trials testing the efficacy of MDMA as an adjunct to psychotherapy to assist in the treatment of post traumatic stress disorder among other things. So far, the results have proven very promising. MDMA has several self limiting factors that prevent addiction. Frequent use leads to reduced effects, and increasing the dosage does not negate this effect, unlike alcohol. Deaths from simple MDMA toxicity are rare. Ecstasy deaths are usually the result of irresponsible use, or users who consume a tablet sold as ecstasy but actually containing another substance altogether. MDMA is Schedule I, but does not meet the criteria for such scheduling. It is showing to have medical value and is proven to be safe under medical supervision.
What are your thoughts on current drug policy? Do you feel that we are winning the war on drugs, or do you feel our current policy is doing more harm than good? If alcohol and tobacco are distributed under a controlled system, should other drugs be available in the same way? I am not an advocate for complete legalization of all drugs, but I don t think the current no tolerance policies are working, especially if we allow alcohol and tobacco to be available, as that sends a mixed message. What do you guys think?
Answer :
LMFAO at the person who said zero tolerance on all drugs but then proceeded to say alcohol and tobacco are fine. Those ARE drugs, dumb***.
EDIT... Wow... if you think tobacco and ALCOHOL (i realize tobacco is debatable for those smokers who believe smoking doesnt effect their brain, but certainly alcohol) are less intoxicating and dangerous than marijuana, you have fallen off your rocker.
I think are drug policies are backwards. Many of the drugs that should be illegal are legal, and at least a few of the illegal ones should be legal and are no where near as bad as the dea has made them sound. Marijuana is an example.
As far as mdma, the problem is that all mdma available is street cooked, which means you have absolutely no idea whats in it. With no legal pharmaceutical mdma, its use is dangerous. Now, if real mdma was accessible, then that would b a different story in my opinion.
I believe that marijuana should be legal and regulated the way alcohol and tobacco are.
LMFAO at the person who said zero tolerance on all drugs but then proceeded to say alcohol and tobacco are fine. Those ARE drugs, dumb***.
EDIT... Wow... if you think tobacco and ALCOHOL (i realize tobacco is debatable for those smokers who believe smoking doesnt effect their brain, but certainly alcohol) are less intoxicating and dangerous than marijuana, you have fallen off your rocker.
I think are drug policies are backwards. Many of the drugs that should be illegal are legal, and at least a few of the illegal ones should be legal and are no where near as bad as the dea has made them sound. Marijuana is an example.
As far as mdma, the problem is that all mdma available is street cooked, which means you have absolutely no idea whats in it. With no legal pharmaceutical mdma, its use is dangerous. Now, if real mdma was accessible, then that would b a different story in my opinion.
I believe that marijuana should be legal and regulated the way alcohol and tobacco are.
Question :
-Have a high potential for abuse
-No currently accepted medical use for treatment in the United States
-Have a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms regulates alcohol and tobacco sales rather than the DEA, but according to the Controlled Substance Act, don t alcohol and tobacco meet the requirements for a Schedule I substance? Alcohol and tobacco both have high potential for abuse, neither of them are used medically in the treatment of any illness, and there are no accepted safety standards. That brings me to marijuana. I myself don t like marijuana. Makes me feel gross. However, there are accepted medical uses for marijuana. Many states allow it to be used medically. It may have a high potential for abuse, but so does methamphetamine, which is available by prescription as Desoxyn for the treatment of obesity and ADHD and is Scheduled II (high potential for abuse, but accepted medical use and proven standards of safety under medical supervision).
Alcohol and tobacco meet all the requirements for Schedule I substances, and could reasonably be made completely illegal to buy, sell, produce, or possess, yet our government uses a system of controlled distribution for those substances. Why should marijuana not be distributed in the same controlled manner, when it is proven to be less harmful (people drink too much and die of simple alcohol toxicity. Nobody dies from a marijuana overdose)?
This brings me to MDMA, or as it is called on the recreational market, Ecstasy. This is another Schedule I substance. There are currently FDA approved clinical trials testing the efficacy of MDMA as an adjunct to psychotherapy to assist in the treatment of post traumatic stress disorder among other things. So far, the results have proven very promising. MDMA has several self limiting factors that prevent addiction. Frequent use leads to reduced effects, and increasing the dosage does not negate this effect, unlike alcohol. Deaths from simple MDMA toxicity are rare. Ecstasy deaths are usually the result of irresponsible use, or users who consume a tablet sold as ecstasy but actually containing another substance altogether. MDMA is Schedule I, but does not meet the criteria for such scheduling. It is showing to have medical value and is proven to be safe under medical supervision.
What are your thoughts on current drug policy? Do you feel that we are winning the war on drugs, or do you feel our current policy is doing more harm than good? If alcohol and tobacco are distributed under a controlled system, should other drugs be available in the same way? I am not an advocate for complete legalization of all drugs, but I don t think the current no tolerance policies are working, especially if we allow alcohol and tobacco to be available, as that sends a mixed message. What do you guys think?
What do you think of the legal status of alcohol and tobacco?
If you don t know, the DEA regulates substances by placing them into "schedules" based upon various attributes of a certain substance. Schedule I is the most restrictive Schedule and includes things like LSD and MDMA (ecstasy). Schedule I substances must:-Have a high potential for abuse
-No currently accepted medical use for treatment in the United States
-Have a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms regulates alcohol and tobacco sales rather than the DEA, but according to the Controlled Substance Act, don t alcohol and tobacco meet the requirements for a Schedule I substance? Alcohol and tobacco both have high potential for abuse, neither of them are used medically in the treatment of any illness, and there are no accepted safety standards. That brings me to marijuana. I myself don t like marijuana. Makes me feel gross. However, there are accepted medical uses for marijuana. Many states allow it to be used medically. It may have a high potential for abuse, but so does methamphetamine, which is available by prescription as Desoxyn for the treatment of obesity and ADHD and is Scheduled II (high potential for abuse, but accepted medical use and proven standards of safety under medical supervision).
Alcohol and tobacco meet all the requirements for Schedule I substances, and could reasonably be made completely illegal to buy, sell, produce, or possess, yet our government uses a system of controlled distribution for those substances. Why should marijuana not be distributed in the same controlled manner, when it is proven to be less harmful (people drink too much and die of simple alcohol toxicity. Nobody dies from a marijuana overdose)?
This brings me to MDMA, or as it is called on the recreational market, Ecstasy. This is another Schedule I substance. There are currently FDA approved clinical trials testing the efficacy of MDMA as an adjunct to psychotherapy to assist in the treatment of post traumatic stress disorder among other things. So far, the results have proven very promising. MDMA has several self limiting factors that prevent addiction. Frequent use leads to reduced effects, and increasing the dosage does not negate this effect, unlike alcohol. Deaths from simple MDMA toxicity are rare. Ecstasy deaths are usually the result of irresponsible use, or users who consume a tablet sold as ecstasy but actually containing another substance altogether. MDMA is Schedule I, but does not meet the criteria for such scheduling. It is showing to have medical value and is proven to be safe under medical supervision.
What are your thoughts on current drug policy? Do you feel that we are winning the war on drugs, or do you feel our current policy is doing more harm than good? If alcohol and tobacco are distributed under a controlled system, should other drugs be available in the same way? I am not an advocate for complete legalization of all drugs, but I don t think the current no tolerance policies are working, especially if we allow alcohol and tobacco to be available, as that sends a mixed message. What do you guys think?
Answer :
Ecstasy, and all the other hard-core drugs should be illegal. Marijuana should be legal. It s natural, its a herb, and it just makes everyone happy. No bad effects. Unlike Alcohol.
Ecstasy, and all the other hard-core drugs should be illegal. Marijuana should be legal. It s natural, its a herb, and it just makes everyone happy. No bad effects. Unlike Alcohol.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar