Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: dennis.l.erlich@support.com
Subject: ...NOT ALL WHO WANDER
Message-ID: <9512012142.0UHU203@support.com>
Organization: L.A. Valley College Public BBS (818)985-7150
X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35
Distribution: world
Date: Fri, 01 Dec 95 21:42:27 -0800
Lines: 108


dave@xemu.demon.co.uk

> >Tubbard's droppings on the subject are distinctly evasive:
> >are clams supposed to avoid medical drugs apart from in the
> >gravest emergency?

Me:
>     Yes.
>
>Contrary to what Sky Dylan says !
>
>
> >Do Scns make an artificial distinction
> >between allowing nicotine and forbidding alocohol when
> >both have a severe effect on the nervous system
> >and ought logically to affect auditing (if there were
> >any logic to auditting).
>
>     There is no prohibition to nicotine and auditing except you
>     cannot smoke *during* a session.
>
>But there is a prohition on having taken alcohol before.
   
    24 hours.

> >"Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
> > Waffle.  I've never heard of a doctor prescribing Nicotine to anybody
> > for anything (Nicotine patches, yes, but not Nicotine itself).
>
>     Supposedly a cure for radiation, Tubby said.
>
>
>
> >No, I'm quite interested in what Scn says both about medical AND
> >recreational/moodaltering drugs.  I can see thay might be against
> >treating mental states like depression with anti-depressants.
>
>     Toadly.
>
>[this is common ground, I can see Scn
>might oppose anti-depressants etc]
             
    Let 'em kill their downstat selves or sign up as Bodies in 
    the Shop.  Either one would be the scieno solution to 
    depression.

> >How far do they go in saying you shouldn't use therapeutic drugs
> >for physical ailments -- painkillers are specifically mentioned
> >as harmful to auditting -- given that the Hubbard text  **ONLY**
> >makes an exception for using anaethetics etc in major injuries.
>
>     Right.
>
> >Is there doctrine against the routine use of medical drugs for
> >*non-lifethreatening*  *physical*  ills?
>
>     If the person is under the care of a physician for a medical
>     condition, he cannot get auditing.  The person is to limit
>     the treatment to the minimum required to get the physical
>     condition out of the way so that an auditing assist can be run.
>
>So if the person has a chronic problem requiring medication:
>diuretics for high blood pressure, glycophages for diabetes,
>inhalers for asthsma?  Are they then disqualified??
    
    Yes.  They cannot get real auditing if they are on any type 
    of drug, medical or otherwise.  The can be given assists.
    
    It has to do with the legal liability of auditing someone who
    is ill.

> >Also, is there different treatment for nicotine vs alcohol
> >among legal moodaltering drugs;
>
>     No.  They are all handled (if reading on the e-meter) by the
>     same Drug Rundown in the same way.
>
>But my point was they are different as regards auditting.
>Tobacco *does* make attentiveness swing about
>[not just in the way chocolate bars do!],
>and having smoked just before ought logically to have some effect.
           
    Logically, yes.  However the addiction rate to cig's is high 
    in the cult.  Tubby smoked, therefore smoking is ok.

>What conclusion do we draw from this?  Perhaps that LRH didn't
>take it into account "intuitively", because the research papers
>establishing the full effect only came out after his death.....
                                                        
    Braindead, you mean?  The harmful effects of cigs were know 
    back in the 70s.
    
> >and are the vcarious attitudes
> >to cannabis, LSD, etc,  because of the "wog" laws against
> >them  *or*  because of the actual effect of the drug?
>
>     Neither.  It's because El Rotundo said.
>
>Seems to be their answer to everything :-)
    
    That's why we call it a cult.

            +--------------------------------------+
           Rev. Dennis L Erlich  * * the inFormer * *
      dennis.l.erlich@support.com  +  inForm@primenet.com
                           "tar baby"