Certified recovery coach jobs
Member
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 214
I don't know. I can't stop thinking about an old SNL Chris Farley bit. He was like a motivational speaker who would randomly show up. I think his name was Matt Foley or something like that. He lived in a VAN DOWN BY THE RIVER! It was super hilarious god rest his soul. I am not trying to make light of your choice I just can't stop thinking about it.
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 334
It's interesting. It's run by a rehab, but the women are in the community, so they promote "harm reduction" when working with them- which is completely different than the AA mindset. I work with people I know outside of AA who continue to use, so I'm familiar with the process, but I'm more comfortable with just saying, "put it down and walk away" because that's what worked for me, so if I get the job, it would be an adjustment. I had one interview and have another one (hopefully) soon.
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 334
I have a LOT to say on this topic.
if you are in AA or NA, I would seriously consider NOT doing this sort of job. Some people can, but it's really difficult. They believe in "harm reduction." It puts you into a difficult situation when you are expected to counsel someone and say "it's okay to kee drinking as long as you don't use heroin" or "congratulations! You're graduating from our program today!" Even though the person smokes pot every day.
I just can't, in good conscience, tell some person it's a good idea to continue to use ANY substance in "recovery." I think my attitude about all of this was showing through and when I decided to ask for the time off they just figured it would be best to let me go. It probably was best, tbh. I think it's totally asanine to go tell some person who is on probation or involved with a child case worker, "go smoke pot" then they get a positive test and go to jail, or lose their kid.
We we all know how addict brains work. They're going to thin, the mentor- the person sent here by the courts- said pot is okay! They're going to be off to the races. That's not me helping someone. That's not me giving someone good advice. This isn't going. To end well. Some "mentee" is going to get behind the wheel and kill 6 people and their defense is going to be XYZ Organizations's Mentor said drinking was okay! And what is the defense? No thanks. Not for me.
if you are in AA or NA, I would seriously consider NOT doing this sort of job. Some people can, but it's really difficult. They believe in "harm reduction." It puts you into a difficult situation when you are expected to counsel someone and say "it's okay to kee drinking as long as you don't use heroin" or "congratulations! You're graduating from our program today!" Even though the person smokes pot every day.
I just can't, in good conscience, tell some person it's a good idea to continue to use ANY substance in "recovery." I think my attitude about all of this was showing through and when I decided to ask for the time off they just figured it would be best to let me go. It probably was best, tbh. I think it's totally asanine to go tell some person who is on probation or involved with a child case worker, "go smoke pot" then they get a positive test and go to jail, or lose their kid.
We we all know how addict brains work. They're going to thin, the mentor- the person sent here by the courts- said pot is okay! They're going to be off to the races. That's not me helping someone. That's not me giving someone good advice. This isn't going. To end well. Some "mentee" is going to get behind the wheel and kill 6 people and their defense is going to be XYZ Organizations's Mentor said drinking was okay! And what is the defense? No thanks. Not for me.
Member
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 3,027
Well, harm reduction is just a totally different ballgame than recovery. It's not in the same league.
In my IOP the coach said "there are different views on whether or not it's ok to drink if you're coming off pills or whether it's ok to use marijuana when coming off alcohol."
Knowing I couldn't cut back on alcohol, I thought this was a grand idea. I started using marijuana a few weeks in. I believe this kept me in escape mode. I used it to sleep. I used it on my day off. I used it any time I felt distressed from quitting alcohol. Weed is an inferior drug to my reward system. It's just off. I get numb, I can't think straight, or I go to sleep. Senses are heightened but usually, that meant I'd end up in tears. Every time I had a rough patch due to early sobriety, I used it. But I still didn't like it. It was a pretty easy choice to me to return to drinking. Despite near daily group counseling for four hours, when they told me I'd have to kick down another $2,800, I quit and said I'd go to AA. At some point in that week I picked up a drink simple as pie, no regrets, just told myself I'd Stick to beer which lasted a bit, then I was back to the hard stuff.
You made the right decision and for the right reasons. I completely agree. Even if there are no disastrous consequences the substitute substance frustrates and agitates the addiction, and doesn't allow sober healing.
In my IOP the coach said "there are different views on whether or not it's ok to drink if you're coming off pills or whether it's ok to use marijuana when coming off alcohol."
Knowing I couldn't cut back on alcohol, I thought this was a grand idea. I started using marijuana a few weeks in. I believe this kept me in escape mode. I used it to sleep. I used it on my day off. I used it any time I felt distressed from quitting alcohol. Weed is an inferior drug to my reward system. It's just off. I get numb, I can't think straight, or I go to sleep. Senses are heightened but usually, that meant I'd end up in tears. Every time I had a rough patch due to early sobriety, I used it. But I still didn't like it. It was a pretty easy choice to me to return to drinking. Despite near daily group counseling for four hours, when they told me I'd have to kick down another $2,800, I quit and said I'd go to AA. At some point in that week I picked up a drink simple as pie, no regrets, just told myself I'd Stick to beer which lasted a bit, then I was back to the hard stuff.
You made the right decision and for the right reasons. I completely agree. Even if there are no disastrous consequences the substitute substance frustrates and agitates the addiction, and doesn't allow sober healing.
Forum Leader
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Posts: 16,945
A recovery "coach" is a fairly loosely defined term within itself anyway. Harm Reduction is certainly a controversial issue and the fact that this particular "coach" was recommending it was likely a personal decision, not something inherent to being a recovery coach/mentor.
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 334
No...I was in training to become a mentor. I have 15 years. BECAUSE when I came in, people told me to stop, period. If I tried to cut back, I'd either be dead or in prison. I owe my life to the AA principle of abstinence from ALL drugs and ALL alcohol. I believe in this with every fiber of my being. But, my supervisor (not an addict or alcoholic) was telling me we CANNOT tell people NOT to smoke pot or not to drink because "everyone's path to recovery is different" and "some people can be in recovery and do those things." So, there's at least one county out there in a major metropolitan area that is training mentors to tell people these things. Harm reduction. I think this is SO dangerous and counterproductive.
Forum Leader
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Posts: 16,945
I understand that - SR is also a forum that very strongly promotes complete abstinence, in fact promoting any type of program that condones any drug usage is prohibited.
What I was suggesting is that there is no standard method to even become a "mentor" for addiction - so it's good to always check out the background of a program. Not all mentors/counslors promote harm reduction - in fact I would guess that the majority do not.
What I was suggesting is that there is no standard method to even become a "mentor" for addiction - so it's good to always check out the background of a program. Not all mentors/counslors promote harm reduction - in fact I would guess that the majority do not.
Member
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 2,775
Originally Posted by ScottFromWI 
I understand that - SR is also a forum that very strongly promotes complete abstinence, in fact promoting any type of program that condones any drug usage is prohibited.
What I was suggesting is that there is no standard method to even become a "mentor" for addiction - so it's good to always check out the background of a program. Not all mentors/counslors promote harm reduction - in fact I would guess that the majority do not.
What I was suggesting is that there is no standard method to even become a "mentor" for addiction - so it's good to always check out the background of a program. Not all mentors/counslors promote harm reduction - in fact I would guess that the majority do not.
Yet, the recovery industry can be a lucrative market so nothing would surprise me.
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 334
Originally Posted by ScottFromWI
I understand that - SR is also a forum that very strongly promotes complete abstinence, in fact promoting any type of program that condones any drug usage is prohibited.
What I was suggesting is that there is no standard method to even become a "mentor" for addiction - so it's good to always check out the background of a program. Not all mentors/counslors promote harm reduction - in fact I would guess that the majority do not.
What I was suggesting is that there is no standard method to even become a "mentor" for addiction - so it's good to always check out the background of a program. Not all mentors/counslors promote harm reduction - in fact I would guess that the majority do not.
This was my experience, which is what the thread was about. Get a mentor, be a mentor, whatever. I can't do it.
Member
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 25,373
Has this been their stance always? Or is it something new(ish) that they are trying out? It's funny/not funny that non-addicted people think moderation is as simple as just being told to do it.
It seems like at some point someone is going to sue them for the "Harm Reduction" advice when an addict/alcoholic kills or harms someone while attempting moderation under their recommendation.
I can't imagine that this type approach could stand up in the face of the litigious society we live in (in the US anyway.)
It seems like at some point someone is going to sue them for the "Harm Reduction" advice when an addict/alcoholic kills or harms someone while attempting moderation under their recommendation.
I can't imagine that this type approach could stand up in the face of the litigious society we live in (in the US anyway.)
Member
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 1,183
I knew some people in Lifering who worked as recovery coaches, they can serve valuable roles and they get at least some training, but not very much training, so whether or not you interact with a good one will be random chance - but the same is true for AA sponsors who aren't trained at all, so whatever works.
But on harm reduction, I think the supervisor was pretty much spot on - everyone's path in recovery is different, and the role of a coach or counselor is not to dictate based on his own personal beliefs, it's to help people with their problems. Some people who have a problem with heroin (say) may not have any problem with alcohol (say), or that alcohol problem may be far less severe. If heroin is a life-threatening problem, they need to get off the heroin, and insisting that they stop the heroin, and stop drinking, and stop smoking, any by the way get a haircut, isn't really consistent with the role of a guidance counselor or coach. So, that sort of role may not be for everyone.
But on harm reduction, I think the supervisor was pretty much spot on - everyone's path in recovery is different, and the role of a coach or counselor is not to dictate based on his own personal beliefs, it's to help people with their problems. Some people who have a problem with heroin (say) may not have any problem with alcohol (say), or that alcohol problem may be far less severe. If heroin is a life-threatening problem, they need to get off the heroin, and insisting that they stop the heroin, and stop drinking, and stop smoking, any by the way get a haircut, isn't really consistent with the role of a guidance counselor or coach. So, that sort of role may not be for everyone.
Member
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 2,775
The popularity of harm reduction on an international scale is evidenced by the increasing support for the International Conference on the Reduction of Drug Related Harm, now in its tenth year, and by the formation of the International Harm Reduction Association (IHRA). Despite the increase in popularity amongst workers in the field, many health and addictions agencies in North America and elsewhere remain ambivalent about harm reduction as it pertains to alcohol and other drugs. Harm reduction raises some difficult questions, but it is evident that it is better to debate these openly rather than to ignore them as has been done all too often in the past. Comprehensive harm-reduction programs that are culturally sensitive are necessary: harm reduction must be multifaceted, not just a singular intervention. The data regarding such drug-related consequences as AIDS make it clear that we need a long-term plan for harm reduction. Risk reduction is a social process, it is not something that public health officials can impose; an effective programs must provide multiple means for behavior change and needs to be conducted on a long-term basis.
Harm reduction, in the final analysis, is concerned with ensuring the quality and integrity of human life, in all its wonderful, awful complexity. Harm reduction does not portray issues as polarities, but sees them as they really are, somewhere in between; it is an approach that takes into account the continuum of drug use and the diversity of drugs as well as of human needs. As such, there are no clear-cut answers or quick solutions. Harm reduction, then, is based on pragmatism, tolerance and diversity: in short, it is both a product and a measure of our humanity.
Harm Reduction: Policy and Practice | Canadian Harm Reduction Network
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 334
Originally Posted by biminiblue
Has this been their stance always? Or is it something new(ish) that they are trying out? It's funny/not funny that non-addicted people think moderation is as simple as just being told to do it.
It seems like at some point someone is going to sue them for the "Harm Reduction" advice when an addict/alcoholic kills or harms someone while attempting moderation under their recommendation.
I can't imagine that this type approach could stand up in the face of the litigious society we live in (in the US anyway.)
It seems like at some point someone is going to sue them for the "Harm Reduction" advice when an addict/alcoholic kills or harms someone while attempting moderation under their recommendation.
I can't imagine that this type approach could stand up in the face of the litigious society we live in (in the US anyway.)
I just cannot consign telling someone, "hey it's great that you're not doing heroin anymore. Smoking pot is okay." When they're on probation or their being monitored by Children and Family Services. Because they can be drug tested at any time and guess what? If they get a positive test, they're going to jail, or losing their kid (or both). To me, that's just sabotaging them, because idc who you are, if someone takes your kid, you are using your drug of choice.
Member
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 2,775
Originally Posted by LaceyDallas
Exactly my thought. "But the mentor said I could have a beer!" As they're sitting in jail on a vehicular manslaughter charge related to DUI. No, thanks.
I just cannot consign telling someone, "hey it's great that you're not doing heroin anymore. Smoking pot is okay." When they're on probation or their being monitored by Children and Family Services. Because they can be drug tested at any time and guess what? If they get a positive test, they're going to jail, or losing their kid (or both). To me, that's just sabotaging them, because idc who you are, if someone takes your kid, you are using your drug of choice.
From the little I have read Harm Reduction is behind such programs as passing out clean needles to addicts.
Some government run social services view H.R. as a more realistic way to manage those with an alcohol or drug problem. Especially when such individuals show no interest in stopping.
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 334
No, they literally told me we could discharge someone- congratulations! Take them out to lunch, etc- say they completed the program IF they were still using pot or alcohol. I swear to god this is true. I asked two separate people for clarification and they both said, it's not a requirement to be sober to complete the program. We were encouraged to let them make their own choices in life- even though those choices brought them into contact with law enforcement. Obviously they're not the best judges here lol. But if they decide drinking is okay for them, we have to agree- drinking in moderation (???) is okay. It's their life. Even pot. Harm reduction says that going from shooting heroin to just smoking pot is an accomplishment. That's how they see it.
Member
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 1,183
Originally Posted by LaceyDallas
Harm reduction says that going from shooting heroin to just smoking pot is an accomplishment. That's how they see it.
Currently Active Users Viewing this Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
