I don't think this would work in real life - The Cleaner (2008) Discussion

[–] nicacope 16 years ago

It must work somewhat as it is based on a real life person doing similar things. However, I do have to admit I don't know how similar. I do know though that it often does take something drastic to make the person want to quit. To know that there is someone out there who cares, to know that there is help, because the person does have to want to change but they can't do it on their own.

reply

[–] katieshrike 16 years ago

Didn't he say in the first episode something about having only a 27% success rate? I've been in rehab a few times and if I remember correctly they told us the relapse rate is about 80%.

I dunno if they based the 27% on accepted medical averages, or on the numbers that the real "William Banks" collected over the years. My point being, that if that number is based in reality, apparently the kidnapping method works jut as well. Which would surprise me, also.

reply

[–] cane-phoenix 16 years ago

Not 27% success rate... it was 27% rate of mortality and 75% relapse rate.

reply

[–] looey-1 16 years ago

kidnapping would certainly point out to the victim exactly how out of control their lives have become.

the folks who used to do "de-programming" would do something similar, if my memory serves me....

i enjoyed the show, and have alot of respect for william banks.

die hard KJ fan http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0425543

AKA: hott

reply

[–] crappola515 16 years ago

I have two issues with the show's premise.

1-Walking up to someone and stabbing them with a drug to knock them out would get you thrown in jail pretty fast and for a very long time. I understand that Banks and crew are helping people, but I can't imagine that all are happy about that. And I find it surprising, if not unrealistic, that they haven't been brought up on charges at leat once.

2-As you pointed out, for the rehab to work, the individual has to want help.

Vic Mackey: "God creates all men equal. Out of the womb, he starts playing favorites."

reply

[–] summoner68 16 years ago

We learn in the pilot he's on good terms with the local police. They know who he is, and what he does, so they grant him some leniancy. If they catch him in the act, they have to follow procedure but otherwise, they turn a blind eye.

Secondly, a lot of people who get this far gone dont want to continue, but feel alone and dont know where to turn. Like others have said, having someone grab you and yell "look at what your doing" is something of a wake up call. Regardless of how it works, it does. The guy actually exists. He actually does this, though of course has almost definately been embellished.

reply

[–] crappola515 16 years ago

I understand that he's on good terms with the local police. But realistically, NOT ONE person has gone to complain about being kidnapped? I mean from the upcoming promos, they take people in full view of others. Even the friendly police can't turn a blind eye to an actual complaint. There isn't one disgruntled "victim"?

And as Banks pointed out in the pilot as well as a poster above, the success rate is only 25%-ish. Continued success in being clean is where the individual "wanting" to be helped comes in handy.

Vic Mackey: "God creates all men equal. Out of the womb, he starts playing favorites."

reply

[–] ponyiq 16 years ago

Here is another aspect that would be boring so not shown. A lot of times addicts that have gotten so far gone as to be living on the streets etc may have someone that has a medical proxy, power of attorney granted by the courts.. which would mean that if they had hired the person to " kidnap'restrain medicate the person that legally if the person had a prescription for the meds and the go ahead by the person that hired them.. then guess what it would not be a legal issue anymore

as well as remember in the pilot the kid is a minor which means the mother can grant him the ability to kidnap/restrain her child to get the child out of a dangerous situation

people are picked up all the time on pec, cec or opc orders- meaning a local doctor or coroner or medical examiner has issued an order saying that the person can be restrained , detained and moved for x number of hours or days depending on the order

there is a lot of back informatin that may well not being showed on the tv show

i like it
and i think it has a lot of potential

nicole

reply

[–] angelofvic 16 years ago

It's the same principle as an intervention. Some people need more of a forceful intervention than others.

When it's a matter of saving someone's life, force is worth it and necessary these days when ice and other instantly addictive, brain-eating drugs are so rampant, and that and any other drugs are so easy to get. Since you were never an addict, your situation is different.

Force can indeed save someone's life. Most all addicts relapse, whether they seek help voluntarily or involuntarily; that's just the path of recovery for any addict. So the force element doesn't increase that happening.
. . . . . . . .

reply

[–] sinisterseven 16 years ago

But you don't kidnap anybody and force them to do anything in intervention. You get a group of close loved ones together and you sit down, or surprise the person you're confronting and try to get them to see why they should stop using.

Intervention isn't kidnapping a person and locking them in a room until they stop using drugs. Just like it's a person's choice to use, it also has to be a person's choice to stop using. Just like a person's peers may have influenced him or her into using drugs, a person's family or loved ones can influence them to stop using. But never should force be used. You, as a common citizen do NOT have the right to force me to do something I don't want to do, regardless of whether or not you think it's beneficial to me. Your ways of overcoming addiction don't have to be my ways, if I choose to overcome addiction at all.

I mean think about it, what happens if I'm a devout christian or catholic or some other faith and I think my faith is the greatest in the world so I go to some atheist meeting and start kidnapping people and preaching to them until they "admit" there's a god. What would happen to me? I would get thrown in prison, and rightfully so.

This is a free country. We get a lot of amenities a lot of other countries don't get. The major right we waive as citizens is the right to impose our wills on others, no matter how right we think we are. The reason we give up this right is to ensure that everyone else has equal rights to practice, believe, do, act, say whatever they want, and that includes things that are harmful, such as drugs, tobacco, and alcohol. I'm not saying that there aren't consequences to those actions, such as jail time, health, and financial penalties for breaking the law, but you have the right to take those chances and live the life you want, whether it be a crackhead on the street or your local soccer mom. It's your choice.

reply

[–] angelofvic 16 years ago

You're only familiar with the "talk" kind of intervention. There are other kinds -- this is one. An involuntary intervention is just as much an intervention as a voluntary one, and more necessary than ever in the age of crystal meth and rampant drug availability.

Watch Dr. Phil sometimes, if you want to see the wonderful efficacy of "forced" interventions. The addicts always thank their rescuers in the end.

The thing is, in the throws of an ice addiction, one is NOT thinking for oneself, and one's life is at stake. If someone were about to jump off a ledge, you would grab them and pull them off if you could. You wouldn't try to talk to them as they were hurtling towards the pavement, because it's too late then.

Lastly, these interventions have nothing to do with getting someone to change their beliefs. They have to do with saving their lives.

. . . . . . . .

reply

[–] eml3 16 years ago

When the strung out kid's cousin was fighting withing and telling him to stop, he even said 'I can't'.... In theory, you have to want it for it to work, but sometimes people need to get a taste of it before they realize they want it or can have it. ('it' being life free from addiction). I work in treatment and often get frustrated with court ordered clients ('they're full of s*%T, wasting my time, etc') when no doubt a friend will remind me that they're clean today because they were court ordered into treatment. It's the old 'lead a horse to water' thing. Once they get there and feel the refreshing taste on their lips, some realize they want it. Some say don't. But it's worth it for those lives that get saved.

reply

[–] angelofvic 16 years ago

Yes, plus with minors, parents DO have every right to put them into treatment against their will. Kids are not mature enough, and their brains have not grown enough, to know what's good for them. That's why minors are minors, and adults have care and protection of them until they are of age.

. . . . . . . .

reply

[–] sinisterseven 16 years ago

angelofvic: Dr Phil is a pusher himself. He pushes ratings to get paid. Of course he's not going to talk about the cases where forced intervention didn't work, because that doesn't sell.

Of course he's going to have the subject on his show thanking their moms, and their family, and whoever forcefully intervened, and Dr Phil, and Oprah, and meow mix and Dove moisturizer for sponsoring Dr Phil's show. Television is biased, please don't use something as trivial as Dr Phil's show to backup your statements. That's like me using Jerry Springer to prove all white people live in trailer parks and have sex with their relatives, and all black people are lazy, have 20 kids and smoke crack.

If someone was about to jump off a ledge, I would try to talk them down off the ledge. Think about a real life situation where someone is about to jump off the side of a building. Does the police department rush in with an ER team and grab them before they fall? No. The first thing they do is see if they can put a safety net below the person in case they really want to jump. The second they do is bring in a negotiator to talk them down from the ledge. They don't make these drastic, sudden moves towards the person as not to scare them, or frighten them. The person ultimately either chooses to jump or chooses to come down on his own terms.

These interventions have everything to do with getting someone to change their beliefs. You're trying to get the person to realize that drugs are ruining their lives, that they're not beneficial, and that they have people that love them and care about them. You're trying to get them to change the belief that they need the drug to go on living, or as an escape, or whatever the case may be.

You argue that the interventions have to do with saving their lives. Well, isn't it a Christian belief that people that commit adultery, homosexual acts, and a whole sleuth of "sins" are going to eternal damnation? Going back to my original comparison, I could easily argue that me kidnapping you and converting you into a fellow Christian and making you "see the light of the almighty savior Jesus Christ" will save your eternal soul, which is much greater than the measly 80 years or so you spend on this earth. But again, if I did that you would consider me a lunatic criminal and send me to jail.

I'm not arguing that intervention doesn't work. I'm only arguing against forced intervention. Like someone before stated, 80% of patients in rehab relapse anyway, and I'm guessing those are the ones that actually volunteered to go to rehab. If you take someone that's addicted to meth, they're going to be paranoid, hostile, disoriented, and confused as it is due to the nature of the drug. Kidnapping them and trying to force them to see the light is not the best way to handle that situation. If you really want to help people overcome their addictions, then help the ones that want to do it. The time and effort you waste kidnapping random druggies off the street could be used for someone that really wants to get off drugs,instead of someone that is forced into changing their lifestyles.

reply

[–] angelofvic 16 years ago

I'm not finding any area of agreement with you, so I'm happy to agree to disagree. I think that saving people's lives is a good and important and worthwhile thing. I also know an awful lot about crystal meth and the crystal meth and crack epidemics in America. I think you should educate yourself on the subject.

Rehab isn't about forcing someone to see the light. It's about detoxing them so they can make rational decisions instead of irrational decisions, and have options not dictated by a poisoned brain.

I personally think you're twisting around every thing we say here. All addicts relapse. It's part of the PROCESS of recovery, which is a journey. Falling of the horse and getting back on the horse immediately is PART of the journey. Since you've never been in recovery you don't realize that. But an addict will never have the chance to recover if he isn't given one. And that's what this man is doing and has done. It works. It saves people's lives. Yes, they will relapse, but they will get clean again. It's nearly impossible to recover without a single relapse. But it's also nearly impossible for a crystal meth addict or crack addict to decide to seek recovery on his own, even with the exhortations of others.

Anyway, we've told you what we know to be true, and you are free to disagree. This man's story is true and it DOES work. This show is based on Warren Boyd, and he's been doing this for well over a decade, and it WORKS:

http://communities.canada.com/shareit/blogs/tvguy/archive/2008/07/11/r eal-life-vs-reel-life-extreme-interventionist-warren-boyd-talks-about- reality-and-a-fictionalized-tv-show.aspx

If you think it's not true, then don't watch the show.

Anyway, that's the last I'll say on the subject.
. . . . . . . .

reply

[–] sinisterseven 16 years ago

agree to disagree it is then :)

reply

[–] sabar-1 16 years ago

Sinisterseven, this is a free country, but we are NOT free to do whatever. If I want money, I can't rob the bank without getting arrested. We are NOT free to use illegal drugs. I understand that you said there are consequences, but sometimes the actions of drug abusers affect others. If I robbed the bank, my consequences are probably prison. But it's more than that. I affected everyone else in the bank. I scared the tellers, forced police to drag me in, burdened the court system, etc. A kid stealing his mom's jewelry isn't just being free to abuse drugs. A guy doped up is affecting more than himself if his toddler is in danger. I think that's part of the problem with abusing drugs or even alcohol, which is legal. It's not about being free to do it. If it were, why would society care? Why would we lock people up? When someone on drugs goes to jail, it's not to save him. It's to protect everybody else.

Rachel

reply

[–] sinisterseven 16 years ago

A guy who's neglecting his child should have his child taken away by CPS and have to serve jail time.

A bank robber has willingly committed a crime, and should to go to prison.

A kid stealing his mom's jewelery is committing a crime. He's also a minor. If his parents so wish, they have the right to press charges or haul him to rehab. They're his legal guardians.

I specifically said in this country, but not only in this country but in our lives, as human beings, we are free to do, say, act, think, whatever we want. That's a given right. But like I said, there are consequences to our actions. In the above examples you provided, there are harsh and just consequences for these individual's actions. Nobody is arguing that these people should be able to do whatever they want *without consequences.* That's how life works, I touch a hot oven and the consequence is I get burned. Did I have the right to do something as stupid as touch a hot oven? Sure. Did I pay the price? Absolutely.

You seem like a smart individual, so I don't mean to patronize or explain it in such basic terms, if it came out that way I apologize.

The point I'm making is that just like the examples you've provided above, drug use and abuse also comes with consequences. If you want to call CPS (child protective services) because you suspect that one of your neighbors is using up all the grocery money to buy heroin while his toddler hasn't had his diaper changed in two weeks, I applaud you. You're doing the right thing. You're calling the proper authorities to handle the situation.

You also have the right to knock on your neighbor's door, or maybe if you know him well, get a group of friends and relatives together to try to shed light on the situation before you decide to call the police. Because you're right, jail is the worse thing that can happen to a drug addict. It is not about rehabilitation, our prison systems are solely based on punishment, and if anything else, creating more drug users than successful rehabilitation cases.

But if you decide to take matters into your own hands, kidnap the father, and hold him in some room to detox and recover until he comes to his senses, then I have a problem with that. You are not a police officer. You were not court appointed, or mandated by any governing body within our laws to go out, kidnap people and force them to see the light for the benefits of that small child, I don't care if you think you've made a "deal with god" or not. And that's pretty much what it comes down to. Kidnapping, breaking and entering, holding someone against their will; these are all punishable crimes. But because you're breaking the law for what you see is a good cause, you should automatically be excused from the same laws that govern the rest of us? You should not have to face the same consequences we do? What gives you the right? What gives this man the right?

Like I said originally, I haven't watched this show and am only basing my viewpoints on what I've seen and read on reviews, and advertisements. Perhaps I'm not qualified to condemn this man for his actions, but I'm very much against vigilantes like this man. Another poster commented that there's a lot that they leave out that goes on behind the scenes on this show. If he has some sort of court jurisdiction to do what he does, then I have no problems with it. All I know is no one should be above the law. No one.

reply

[–] sabar-1 16 years ago

When you touch that hot stove, you aren't affecting anyone but yourself.

I think intervention people are doing a good thing - if they work with law enforcement. The difference, to me, from what you described above is that law enforcement can only act in certain situations. They can't necessarily do anything to you just because you are high. When they step in, it's for an actual crime committed, which may be simply having drugs on you.

Rachel

reply

[–] sabar-1 16 years ago

I think a lot of folks are so far gone that they CAN'T help themselves. Someone has to step in and force the situation.

Rachel

reply

[–] angelofvic 16 years ago

Exactly, sabar. And with ice or crack, that's generally always the case. The detox is so painful, no one wants to face it -- so someone has to lock you up and force you to detox, because you're never going to want to do it of your own. And you can't even begin to think rationally until you do detox.

. . . . . . . .

reply

[–] angelofvic 16 years ago

People who still believe that you have to hit bottom first and then choose for yourself to seak help/rehab are thinking about old-school problems like alcoholism, cocaine, gambling, heroin, etc. They aren't familiar at all with the new problems of ice and crack. Any addiction specialist will tell you the old problems and the new problems are not comparable, and different steps are necessary for the new problems -- life-saving ones.

. . . . . . . .

reply

[–] sinisterseven 16 years ago

Angelofvic, I know you're a bit frustrated with my viewpoints, but just hear me out.

I'm currently 25 years old. I started doing drugs when I was 16: first weed, then ecstacy, then around when I was 18 I started doing blow because I could afford it and finally at 23 I started smoking meth for a short while before I decided to quit everything. I lived in Long Beach, CA during these years in a city where drugs are rampant, and in a time period in which meth addiction has substantially risen. The crack epidemic was strong in the 1980's, and although still strong today, has died down considerably since that era. So I'm not from an old-school generation. These new problems you keep referring to, specifically meth addiction, I've witnessed and tasted first-hand.

My original post stated that I was doing blow for five years, then got bored and quit. But truth be told, that's not the full story. I was trying to keep it short because, well frankly people don't respond well to long paragraph posts on IDMB. By the end of those 5 years, I started experimenting with Meth. I know what the drug feels like, and the intense euphoric effects that it produces. You feel fuzzy and warm inside, energetic, awake and focused, like you could go on for days. I can see why it's such an addicting drug.

I'm not a religious person by any means, but I am spiritual, and came to be this way because of my experiences with drugs; mainly meth. I remember one day walking across the street to the house that I normally went to purchase a gram of meth. I wasn't peaking on the drug, but I was still feeling the afterglow so I decided to walk over and buy some more. I walk in the door like I did many times before to see the same faces sitting on the couch getting high, but something was different that day. I don't know what it was, or what hit me, but everyone in that room looked dead. It was if they were possessed by a force... I don't like using the term evil or demon because I don't believe in either one, but there was definitely some sort of collective energy over these people that had them trapped in a nightmarish world of habit and, if you want to use the word, addiction. It was a truly horrifying epitome.

I rushed back home in a panic and looked at myself in the mirror. The combination of cocaine and meth usage had turned me into a very pale, skinny individual. Although I was not physically or psychologically dependent on the drugs, I had lost myself to them. So I immediately scoured the house for any left-over drugs and paraphernalia, got rid of them as well as my drug seeking friends, and have been clean of drugs for two years. Now I'm not saying that everybody has the willpower to stop cold turkey, I know that there are some people that are physically and psychologically dependent on drugs, and need rehabilitation services. I am only sharing part of my story because I truly believe that it has to be you that makes the first step towards recovery. You can't try to force people to see the light. Scratch that. You can try all you want, but you're wasting your precious time, resources, and knowledge of addiction when you could be using it more efficiently: on someone that consciously wants to get help.

The old proverb: "you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink." Why beat it until it gets thirsty? Why not tend to the other 20 horses in your stable that are just waiting for a drink?

reply

[–] angelofvic 16 years ago

You're projecting your own personal unique experience onto the world.

Everyone doesn't need forced intervention, and so it's only done when necessary. This forced intervention DOES work -- there is overwhelming evidence that it does. You simply don't seem to want to see that, and your own beliefs about the matter are rigid in the face of evidence to the contrary. You can rail all you want, but that doesn't make the facts disappear. You also keep using the term "see the light" and "lead a horse to water" -- which is not what this is about at all. It's about detoxing their minds so they can make rational decisions instead of irrational ones.

You're going to have to stop using spiritual and religious terms for what is a purely physical phenomenon -- detox, and forced detox. It's NOT about "seeing the light," getting religion, getting 12-stepped, using a higher power. It's simply about forced detox.

If you keep getting it backwards, you're never going to see the point of this show.

. . . . . . . .

reply

[–] sinisterseven 16 years ago

When I use terms such as "seeing the light" it's not meant as religious or spiritual. It just means coming to the realization that drugs are causing you harm. How are you supposed to "detox" if you don't even realize that drugs are harming you?

What overwhelming evidence? Show me the kind of forced intervention that this man is practicing works. Show me hard evidence that this works better than voluntary rehab, or even court appointed rehab.

reply

[–] angelofvic 16 years ago

Are you simple-minded? Either that, or you're a troll. I suspect the latter, because you are asking questions over and over that I've answered already. Bye.
. . . . . . . .

reply

[–] hopefin2000 16 years ago

I think it has worked in real life- there were over 250 cases that the real life "cleaner" helped.

But, I have to agree with the original poster of this thread, it will only work when the addict/alcoholic WANTS it work.

I like the premise of the show overall so far, and I did see it the first week.

reply

[–] sinisterseven 16 years ago

I've been nothing but courteous to you and your differing viewpoints so far, but call me simple-minded and a troll, that's fine.

Simple-mindedness to me is trying to back up your arguments with television shows such as this one, and Dr. Phil. You have not provided any statistics that prove that being kidnapped and locked up by a stranger vigilante helps people to rehab. Believe what you want, your viewpoints are your own, as such are mine. I'm not going to kidnap you and force you to share them.

Bye-bye.

reply

[–] angelofvic 16 years ago

You have not been courteous to my mind; you've twisted things around and been deliberately difficult, obtuse, or simple. You say you have drug experience but admit you have no experience with addiction, yet you feel you are an expert on addiction and know what works and what doesn't work. You comment on this show and others without watching them, you disregard the evidence presented to you and available online, you pretend not to know what detox is and claim that all these people are doing are trying to get people to "see the light" or have a spiritual awakening, you call them "vigilantes."

Next time around, try watching the shows you want to comment at length on before you do so.

How can we take you seriously when you've neither been an addict or watched the show, and beyond that, twist any response to you around till it is unrecognizable? I don't see how it is possible to have an intelligent discussion under those circumstances. Sorry, that's just my experience with you. I apologize if I disregarded your long story; it was quite interesting and I imagine very personal, but it has nothing to do with the show or the subject at hand.

. . . . . . . .

reply

[–] sinisterseven 16 years ago

I apologize as well angel, when I respond to something you say, it's not twist around your words, or make things difficult: it's just a method of counter-argument to try to to explain my viewpoints to you in a way that will make you stop and think.

For example, you say I would try to grab a person if I thought they were going to throw themselves off the side of a building, and I said no, I would try to talk them down. You cite that Dr Phil are credible sources for successful rehab cases, and I point out that Dr Phil is a television show geared at producing against-all-odds, tragic, shocking stories with happy endings because that's what sells. It's not a biased, credible source on the real statistics of forced intervention.

I've seen Dr. Phil, I've never seen this show, and I stated before that I may not be the best source to critique this man's methods. I openly admitted that, I'm not sure why you're bring it back up.

I've never claimed myself an expert on drug rehabilitation. I've specifically several times I've never been addicted. I shared my story to prove that point, and to make people aware of the closest I've ever been to reaching addiction. I haven't experienced first-hand what addiction does to you mentally, but believe me when I say that I've seen the outcomes of the situation. I've been in situations where single moms bring their toddlers into a meth den. I've seen people smoke all their property away. I've seen the horrors of drug abuse first-hand, and although I've never been an addict myself, I know enough about what I saw to make an informed opinion, just like you're qualified to make your own opinion based off Dr Phil and shows like this.

And that's really just what it is. My opinion. I think the problem here is that maybe I didn't make that clear enough. I understand your arguments. I'm not arguing that forced intervention has a 0% success rate. I understand what you mean when you say that sometimes people need these extreme interventions to really shake themselves up.

There's only two major points I'm trying to make:

1. This man has no right to go around kidnapping people unless he's been given some sort of court appointed authority. It doesn't matter if he's doing it for a just cause. We all need to live by the laws that we agreed on. If I see a child being mistreated, as much as I'd like to, I can't just break into the home and kidnap the child. I have to go through the proper channels. I will say that by reading the interview you posted, I can see he's recently been appointed to head some sort of State Prison facility, which is great. More power to him.

2. In my opinion, his time would have been better served helping people that want help instead of running around trying to kidnap (i mean "rescue") random people. As another person posted on this board, it seems like he's doing this for himself more than for the people he's trying to help. He went from one extreme to another, and in the process, broke laws to justify his need for salvation. As stated in the interview you linked me to, extreme intervention is a highly controversial topic, and rightfully so. So don't get upset if people's opinions on this subject are different from yours. It's the nature of the subject.

And that's pretty much it. Everything I've said before this, the 3 days and however many posts on this topic, they're all my opinion. I'm not asking you or anybody else to agree with them, or to change their own viewpoint on the situation. I'm just trying to share my own.

reply

[–] angelofvic 16 years ago

I still think you have no right or even reason to criticize the show or the man until you've actually seen it. And I still do not understand your obection to using force in order to save someone's life. If that's your stance, I respect it, but from my end I will always use force in order to save a life. It's called the protective use of force (as opposed to an aggressive use of force).

I bring Dr. Phil up again because you have misrepresented him and his methods. He shows the process in its entirety, from the beghinning, in real time. He doesn't just show what works and hide what doesn't work. And all of his forced intervetions have worked, same as with Boyd. We see them four months later, in real time, and they have worked -- the person is detoxed and able to make rational decisions from a brain unpoisoned by drugs. Which leads me to believe you have not watched Dr. Phil; certainly not on a basis regular enough to opine on the matter.

You twisted my words around about the building. Would you grab someone as they threw themselves off, or would you watch them fall and talk to them mid-fall? Those are the only two options.

I'm not sure what you mean by "helping people who want help." You need to watch the show. He's not a 12-step program, he's not a Hazelden counselor, he's not a therapist. He's in the business of saving lives, not talk therapy. There's a difference. Again, you're talking in a complete vacuum if you haven't watched the pilot of the show and if you claim this doesn't work. It does. You claim it doesn't. It does. Your claiming it doesn't does not alter that fact. You may disagree with the methods, but that's your own judgment, made without even having investigated the matter in the form of watching the show. If the method of saving a life bothers you, but it still saves a life, then I think you have to ask yourself why you value a human life so little? And why are you judging something you haven't even seen and so do not fully understand?

Again, I think the issue here is that you have not watched the show and so don't know what you are talking about. Plus, you do not see this as saving a life, because you are not an addictions expert.

In any case, I really don't have time to discuss this further with someone who hasn't watched the show (I didn't realize you hadn't till today, or I wouldn't have done all this discussing), so that's about all from me. Cheers.

I'm happy to discuss with anyone who has watched the show.
. . . . . . . .

reply

[–] sinisterseven 16 years ago

Fair enough. I'll watch the first episode and then comment.

reply

[–] sinisterseven 16 years ago

I just watched the show, and frankly I wish had that hour of my life back.

I wasn't criticizing the show, I was (and still am) criticizing extreme intervention methods. My problem is not with using force. My problem is with vigilantes using force to accomplish something because they believe they talk to god. This man is not an officer of the law, he's not even a counselor. He's just some guy with some retarded friends running around thinking they're self-appointed angels sent by god.

You can't be so naive as to think that Dr. Phil and Warren Boyd have a 100% success rate.

"The issue of whether extreme measures work better than traditional rehab is addressed in an upcoming episode in which guest star Isaiah Washington plays a traditional therapist who differs with Mr. Bratt’s character’s methods. They discover they have similar success rates with their treatments—somewhere in the 20% range—which means in most cases they fail.

And the program will show cases in which the intervention team fails.

“It wouldn’t feel real if it didn’t happen. It’s not ‘Touched by an Interventionist,'” Mr. Prince said."

http://www.tvweek.com/blogs/blogging-the-tca/2008/07/ae_has_original_take_on_interv.php

Dr. Phil only shows the cases that are successful. He doesn't show the other 80% of his cases that didn't go well. This is television, failure does not sell. If you don't believe that, and are gullible enough to really think that a ratings whore like Dr. Phil is going to admit his little television experiment didn't work on somebody, then I don't know what to tell you.

I've already addressed this, but I'll say it again: Warren's "methods" of saving lives bothers me because he plays the role of a vigilante. He somehow self-proclaims himself a savior, and the local police add to that notion. "All of Warren's crew gets a free pass??"

Lets say I'm a father and my baby is dying. I make a pact with god that if my child lives from this irreversible cancer I'll crusade around and kidnap every mistreated child I see on the streets. Do you think that's right? Do you think just because I think I made a deal with god that I should be able to appoint myself power? Do you think that my local police station should say "oh, he kidnaps babies but it's ok cause the parents are crackheads. He gets a free pass to kidnap all the babies he wants."

I don't understand why you think it's ok when it comes to drugs, but in other situations it's not ok. You're playing by double standards. Because you're interested in addiction and believe in this man's cause, you're willing to look the other way when he drugs and kidnaps people. I don't devalue human life. I value equality for all. If this man had some sort of credentials, like real court-appointed credentials to run a task force to do this, then I would have no problems. But this man is out here, basically to serve his own type of "help" to people, which is ludicrous.

I don't understand what being an addictions expert has to do with acknowledging the fact that this man saves "some" lives. Like I said before, I don't contest that his methods might work on some people. I don't need to be an addictions expert to realize that. And, pardon my frankness because I don't mean to come off as rude, but watching a few Dr. Phil episodes and reading a couple of books on addiction does not make make you an expert, just like being around and using the drugs in question does not make me one, so lets not play the role.

As far as the actual show is concerned, I really learned very little about what it is he does from the pilot. 3/4th of it was basically setting up his backstory: showing his relationships with his co-workers, the stress his "job" brings on his family, and some background on the other characters on the show. The other thing is that A&E ridiculously embellished his story for television. I'm really supposed to believe he dresses up in a bum outfit, drugs the kid, gets beat up by the Aryan brotherhood guy, then when the cops show up he chases the guy down, knocks him out and basically gift-wraps him for the cops while his partner runs off undetected with 180 lbs of drugged-up kid on his back? TV shows like this embellish the truth too much. Based on this pilot, I can honestly say I cannot make an educated opinion about the real Warren Boyd.

reply

[–] angelofvic 16 years ago

I think you're quite judgmental and self-righteous. You use words like "vigilante" and "because they think they talk to god," and "retarded" and "self-appointed angels sent by god" when NONE of that is the case; you'd know that if you really watched the show closely; but it seems you watched it having already decided beforehand (incorrectly) what/who it is about and what their motives are.

Then you bash Dr. Phil and Boyd not knowing anything useful about them, just because you want to bash them. Again, I have explained over and over how the Dr. Phil show works -- it's in REAL time -- he can't go back an unair stuff that's already aired just because something unexpected might possibly happen in a follow-up.

No one has ever said this or anything else in the entire world has a 100% success rate (nothing in the universe does, concerning anything). Why you use that juvenile tactic to bash something that incontrovertibly DOES work is really indicative of where you are coming from, IMO. You're not here to learn, but to bash.

Well, since you obviously think you have more answers than people in the field (I'm a professional therapist and extremely well-aquainted with addiction, both in myself and others), and since you continue to negate the facts and use irrelevant comparisons and twist words around, and since you had obviously made up your mind completely and irrevocably before you even wrote your OP, there's certainly no ground for me to attempt to have an intelligent conversation with you. And certainly no reason for you to watch the show further, or opine about it, except to troll around criticizing stuff for the sake of being negative about something that saves lives, just becuase it offends your very narrow and preconceived sensibilites (not even having accurately perceived what is going on).

Your method continues to be to bash and twist and misquote what you don't know and haven't investigated. It's been your M.O. from the beginning. I have no interest in discussing with you further. I'll simply agree to disagree. Please don't respond further or expect me to respond if you do [I won't; I know better by now], because I know your pattern by now and I have no desire to get sucked into it.

Be well.

. . . . . . . .

reply

[–] TheEmulator23 16 years ago

Sorry but Dr. Phil is an idiot. He is so pathetic and his opinions & just about anything he says is more crap that actual addicts laugh at. This show is just another attempt to cash in on the suffering of actual people in pain (both physical & mental & both at the same time makes it worse trust me) too bad this is crap. I watched the 1st 2 episodes and they are really poorly done. Stick with the A&E's excellent true show "Intervention." Too bad we don't see the people that fail because most of us do.

reply

[–] angelofvic 16 years ago

What are you defining as "failure"? Relapse is not failure. Relapse is part of the recovery process.

Your other statements don't even merit dignifying with responses. They are simple trolling like you've done on the other thread about this show.
. . . . . . . .

reply

[–] sinisterseven 16 years ago

drew23: I agree, with the Dr. Phil comment and that Intervention is a great show. I'm not a fan of reality television, but Intervention is definitely good. And guess what? It's legal!

reply

[–] sinisterseven 16 years ago

angelofvic: Your opinion of me is irrelevant. You call yourself a professional therapist, and "extremely well-acquainted with addiction", but your demeanor and outright refusal to understand another person's viewpoint tells me otherwise. This, coupled with the fact that you had no idea meth is sometimes carried in a vial, and the only credible sources you've given me to backup any of your statements in any of your previous posts has been either "watch Dr. Phil" or some ridiculous random article about the show. You have not provided any facts, any statistics, basically anything that proves your point, and yet I gave you the benefit of the doubt and met you half-way on some issues, because I, unlike you, actually tried to understand your viewpoints.

Boyd DOES think he talks to god. At LEAST one of his teammates DOES think god put him on this earth to save lives; the black guy selling cars specifically said he believes that's what god put him on earth for. Perhaps you were the one not paying attention?

Dr. Phil's show is taped. He does not air every show he tapes. He also does not follow-up every rehab case he's worked on. His producers go out and investigate the cases they previously worked on to make sure they're viable sources before they go on air. Dr. Phil does not just bring people on his show out of the blue after "rescuing" them four months later to follow up on them. He has his producers check on their status first, and then if Dr. Phil gives the green light, they bring said subject back on the show. You are horribly, horribly naive if you think that Dr. Phil's show is not in any way altered, and that this man who is laughed at and ridiculed by the psychiatric community is nothing more than a ratings pusher to middle aged housewives. The man has had his psychologist license revoked for ethics violation, namely having a relationship with a 19-year old patient. Not enough evidence for you? How about:

http://www.dietboard.net/forums/general/18023-drphil-is-a-fraud-read-this.html : Dr. Phil sends two overweight women out and then tells producers to stage laugh at them to tape for a story on his show about respect for overweight citizens.

http://s91498905.onlinehome.us/DrPhil/ : Dr Phil unknowingly pays two women who are porn stars to act on his show. The show was taped, but never aired.

http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=news/entertainment&id=5766545 : Phoenix man sues Dr. Phil for 100 million after attending a taping. He was an audience member, and the cast of Dr. Phil came and asked everyone in the audience if they had any history of mental problems or were seeing psychiatrists. Those that answered yes were not allowed to participate in the question and answer, or speak to Dr. Phil directly.

http://hollywoodsnark.com/2008/01/16/dr-phil-sued-by-colleagues/ : Dr Phil sued by members of the psychology community after violating Britney Spear's rights

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15014778/ : Dr. Phil settles for 10.5m in diet pill lawsuit, making false statements about the pills.

The show gives out waivers that everyone signs that states: "McGraw's statements shouldn't be considered therapy or a substitute for any form of therapy." His show is purely for entertainment, just like this show is purely for entertainment. It is not credible proof of anything other than how much money Dr. Phil can make off of the people he exploits on his show. But I guess as a "professional therapist" and "addiction expert", you would realize that by now.

He shows the process in its entirety, from the beghinning, in real time. He doesn't just show what works and hide what doesn't work. And all of his forced intervetions have worked, same as with Boyd.

The above is a DIRECT quote taken from you in which you CLEARLY state that all of Dr. Phil's forced interventions have worked, as well as Boyd's. So please don't try to argue the opposite, or use the same "you're twisting my words around!!!!" stuff you've been saying because what you said is extremely clear.

I am allowed to share my viewpoints on this message board about this show, it's topics, or anything else I choose. Since your mind cannot grasp such simplistic concepts as counter-arguments, analogies, and what is and isn't considered credible evidence, or even such basic terms like "vigilante", without reverting to this "you're a troll!" 5-year old mentality, I ask you to stop replying to this thread. No one is forcing you to reply to anything here. Frankly I've had it with trying to bend over backwards and dumb things down to you that even a child with a 4th grade education would understand.

If anyone else would like to have a conversation about extreme interventions or if Boyd's ends justify his means, and feel they can do so without getting confused by analogies and logic, please feel free to join in the discussion. Thank you.

reply