Home Page of Hypoism, The Disease of Addictions

Web site advertising

The Overriding Principle

The reason for this web site


send me a message

Discussion Page

Buy the book

Buy the Book

Hypoism Issues

Role of Dopamine in Addiction Causation

Theory of Addiction - Hypoism Hypothesis

Why drug use is unconscious and against one's willfulness - not volitional

Misuse of the word choice in addictions



What Am I Angry About? - Don't Ask Me This Again

Disease Concept - A Perspective


Page Directory of this Site with Explanations and Links

The History of the Proof of Hypoism in the Wake of the P/R Paradigm page 1.

History page 2

Why Addiction Experts and Other People Are Ignoring Hypoism

Strange Brew


The Paradigm Vacuum in Addictions Today


What Does An Addiction Expert Know?

The Hypoism Addiction Hypothesis - An Evolutionary Psychology Perspective

Addiction Questionnaire

Misconceptions of addictions and addicts

What's Hypoism? What's an Addiction?


Why We Need Hypoism: A Comparison of the Principles and Consequences between the two Paradigms

Entitled to Your Opinion? Not Anymore.

HYPOICMAN: A non-recovering, unimpressed Hypoic

The Field of Addictionology: A Golfing Analogy


Contact Information

Hypoism Treatment Research

The Addiction Treatment Fraud Finally Exposed

Hypoism Treatment Research Proposal



The National Association for the Advancement and Advocacy of Addicts

Make A Contribution To The N4A

Addict Discrimination Documentation

Social Innovations Award 2000 for The N4A

Third Millennium N4A Conference Keynote Address on Hypoism - Pathophysiology in Addictions vs. Superstition

N4A Goes on the Offensive - Suggesting Real Action

The Verdict

Blind Faith?

Learn More About the Book

Letters from book readers

Title Page of Book

Book Blurb

Book Cover

Back Cover

Table of Contents



Opening Statement

Chapter 1

Vision For The Future

Outcomes of Hypoic's Handbook


Book Corrections

Harm reduction prototype: Swiss PROVE program

Book Reviews

The Phoenix Magazine

Hypoics Not-Anonymous

Hypoics Not-Anonymous

Things You Can Do

What you can do---

My Kids

Special Links

Special Links to important web sites

Addiction Links on the Web

Addiction Genetics

Recent Genetic Studies on Various Addictions from a Large Twin Registry

Genetic Studies page 2.

Gateway theory finally disproven

Celera Discovers Millions of Tiny Genetic Differences in People

Interesting Addiction Science

Clinically Important Neurotransmitter Deficiencies

Hypoism Magazine-Articles by and for Hypoics


#1 Hatred, #2 The Words: Opinion, Belief, and Knowledge, #3 Hate Addiction

#4 The Drug War War, #5 Evolution vs. Creationism Revisited for Addictions

#6 American Society for Addiction Medicine Statement for Recovering Physicians

#7 Issues Peculiar to the Disease of Addictions

#8 Critique of Alan Lechner's (NIH), "The Hijacked Brain Hypothesis."

#8a. Update!! Dr. Leshner recently makes a change

#9 MY STORY - The Doctor Drug War - Wrong and Wasteful p.1, 1/6/00

The Doctor Drug War p.2

Doctor Drug War p.3

Doctor Drug War p.4

Doctor Drug War p.5

Affidavit for judicial review of NYS Dept. of Ed.

#10 The Superstition Instinct 3/1/00

#11-Conflict of Interest in Addiction Research

#12 - Controlled Drinking Lands On Its Ass

#13 - The Kennedy Curse or Kennedy Hypoism?

#14 - The Lord's Prayer for Hypoics

#15 - Replacing Alan Leshner is the only way to end the Drug War

#16 - The Brain Addiction Mechanism and the COGA Study

#17 - Letter to the director of the National Academy of Medicine's Board on Neurobiology and Behavior Health on Addictions

#18 - Is Addiction Voluntary, A Choice, as Leshner and NIDA Insist?

#19 - Bush's Alcoholism and Lies

#20 - A P/R Paradigm Addict - "Cured?"

#21 - Congress Misled and Lied to by NIAAA

#22 - Special Letter to the Times on Addiction Genetics

#23 - JAMA Editor Publishes According to His Beliefs, Not Science

#24 - Smoking as Gateway Drug. I Don't Think So!


#25 - One Less Heroin Addict. But At What Cost?

#26 - An Open Letter to the Judge who Sentences Robert Downey, Jr.

#27 - Letter To Schools About The Pride Program Against Drugs

#28 - A Letter To Bill Moyers, Close To Home, and PBS


#30 - Brookhaven Labs Provide More Evidence For Hypoism

#31 - Addiction Prevention Revisited


#33 - NIDA Is Close But No Cigar

#34 - Bush's Addict Discrimination and Hypocricy Begins

#35 - Maya Angelou's, "Still I Rise."

#36 - Leshner Lies To Congress

#37 - Addiction Combos

#38 Brain tumor proves Hypoism hypothesis

#39: So-called Availability Debunked as Contributor of Addictions

#40 - Hypoism Reproduced By A Pill



The Hypoism Blog - The Addiction Blog

The Addiction Blog 4/17/11 -

The Addiction Blog 9/14/10 - 4/16/11

The Addiction Blog 11/12/09 - 9/14/10

The Addiction Blog 7/23/09 - 11/09/09

The Addiction Blog 5/16/09 - 7/22/09

The Addiction Blog 3/3/09 - 5/13/09

The Addiction Blog 8/3/08 - 3/3/09

The Addiction Blog 4/1/07 - 8/3/08

old letters

My NY Times Letters to the Editor page 1.

My NY Times Letters to the Editor page 2.

My NY Times Letters to the Editor page 3.

My NY Times Letters to the Editor page 4.

My NY Times Letters to the Editor page 5.

My New York Times Letters to the Editor page 6.

My Letters to the editor of the NY Times page 7.

My Letters to the Editor of the NY Times page 8.

NY Times Letters Page 9.

New York Times Letters Page 10

My NYT Letters page 11

NY Times Letters page 12.

NY Times letters p. 13

Letters to the NY Times page 14.

Letters to Newsday

Letters To The Los Angeles Times

Creationism/Evolution Letter to BAM 11-25-05


Committee for Physician Health Speech

The Future of Addictions

Addict Discrimination in the News

Mandated Treatment for Welfare Recipients

Anorectic Murdered by Doctors out of Ignorance and "Desperation"(10/20/99)

Six Dead Heroin Addicts-Enough? 10/31/99

American Society of Addiction Medicine Discrimination

Darryl Strawberry Punished Again

South Carolina Forces Pregnant Women to Take Drug Tests

When it comes to drugs, the constitution doesn't apply

Parents of Overweight Girl Will Sue New Mexico



Download Files

huffington post

Custom HTML


Hypoics are born, not made.

Dan F. Umanoff, M.D.  
8779 Misty Creek Dr.  
Sarasota, Florida 34241  


How the drug war and demonization of drugs nullify the constitution.

The following article shows how ordinary people in a small town in Texas WILLINGLY throw the constitution out the window whenever they feel like it and ostracize a member of the community who opposes doing that for the sake of principle - one family out of an entire town. This type of unconstitutional behavior abounds in the war on drugs and addicts and manifests the deep hate and irrational fear the P/R paradigm has evoked in our country towards drugs and addicts.

NY Times, April 17, 2000

Family in Texas Challenges Mandatory School Drug Test
LOCKNEY, Tex. -- For three years, people in this tiny farming town fretted that stopping the local drug problem was like trying to lasso the winds that blow day and night off the flat Texas plains. Teachers complained of students getting stoned at lunch. Parents worried about peer pressure at school to get high.
Eventually, after an emotional public meeting and demands that something be done, the school board here enacted what is considered the toughest school drug testing policy in the nation. It requires that all junior and senior high school students take a mandatory drug test. There is no choice; refusal by a parent or student draws the same punishment as failure to pass the test, an in-school suspension for first offenders.
Now, as many other school districts across the country institute drug tests, Lockney, with only 2,200 residents, has become an unlikely constitutional battleground. A parent, aided by the American Civil Liberties Union, filed a lawsuit in March asserting that the policy violated his and his son's Fourth Amendment rights prohibiting unreasonable searches. Arguments in the case could be heard as soon as this summer by a federal judge.
"They cannot tell me how I'm supposed to believe," said the parent, Larry Tannahill, 35, whose 12-year-old son, Brady, attends the junior high. "I believe in the Constitution. And because I believe in our Constitution and our rights, you're going to punish my son? I don't think so."
Since 1995, when the United States Supreme Court opened the door to drug testing in schools by permitting the testing of athletes, the unanswered question has been where would schools, and ultimately the court, draw the line.
Until now, school districts had been tentative in pushing the boundaries, particularly because legal challenges to wider testing are pending in Oklahoma, New Jersey and other states. But Lockney's policy of testing every student has shattered any boundaries.
"If the policy has no teeth, there's no use having it," said Donald G. Henslee, the lawyer representing the Lockney Independent School District. Mr. Henslee said at least a dozen other Texas districts had inquired about instituting a similar policy.
For Mr. Tannahill, the controversy has made clear the tensions that can arise when an individual challenges the will of the majority, particularly in a small town. He and his wife, Traci, are the only parents who are fighting the policy. He was dismissed from his job as a farm worker, though his former employer says the firing was unrelated to the lawsuit, and he has found a threatening note outside his home. Some people have invited the Tannahills to leave town.
Up and down Main Street, people say they do not wish Mr. Tannahill any harm, but they cannot believe one person should stop them from doing what they believe is in the best interests of their children. To many parents, the drug test is a "tool" to provide students a reason to resist peer pressure to drink or do drugs. The debate over constitutional rights seems secondary to many people.
"I don't feel like it's violating my rights for my kid to be tested," said Kelly Prayor, 35, who has two children and is a teller at the local bank. "As far as my kids' rights, they're not responsible. What rights do they have? They don't have a right to drink or do drugs."
Lockney, which is between Lubbock and Amarillo, is a tiny spot in the agricultural sea of the Texas plains, which stretch to the horizon, interrupted only by telephone poles and windmills and, occasionally, a tree. The local schools are the biggest employer, and the red logo of the Lockney Longhorns, the high school, is painted on the two water towers and displayed in the rear windshields of many of the trucks rumbling through town.
People in Lockney do not believe that drugs are any worse here than in other small towns, but the issue has generated attention for several years. In 1997, nearly 300 people attended a public meeting to discuss drugs. A year later, 12 people were charged with selling cocaine, an event that stunned the town.
By then, school officials were studying drug testing policies, including those in several surrounding towns. Most of the policies involved testing students for extracurricular activities. One nearby town with such a policy, Tulia, is continuing the testing even as it is under challenge in federal court.
But Lockney officials were intrigued by another town, Sundown, which instituted a mandatory testing policy for all students in 1998 that has yet to be challenged. Last December, the Lockney school board approved its own mandatory policy and notified parents that testing would begin in February. Under the plan, all junior and senior high students would take a urine test and submit to random follow-up tests. Employees of the district also undergo the tests.
Today, all 388 students in junior and senior high schools in Lockney have taken the text except Brady. School officials would not say how many tested positive other than to describe the number as a "Texas handful." The in-school suspensions given to first-time offenders last three days and require students to complete their class work in a separate room. They also undergo drug counseling and are suspended from all school activities for three weeks. Repeat offenders face longer suspensions, though not expulsion.
Julie Underwood, general counsel for the National School Boards Association in Washington, called the Lockney policy "about as broad as it could ever be," saying it resulted from the "slippery slope" created by the Supreme Court's ruling allowing testing of athletes. Since then, Ms. Underwood said, the court has resisted clarifying the parameters for testing and has sent mixed signals.
In October 1998, the court let stand a lower court ruling enabling an Indiana school district to require a drug test for students participating in after-school activities. But last March, the court dealt a blow to another Indiana school by leaving intact a lower court ruling that prohibited the school from requiring suspended students to take a drug test before resuming classes.
"School districts don't know exactly how far they can take this," Ms. Underwood said. "There hasn't been a definitive ruling by the Supreme Court on mandatory testing or random drug testing by school districts."
Eric E. Sterling, president of the nonprofit Criminal Justice Policy Foundation in Washington, predicted that more districts would emulate Lockney as more parents felt helpless to prevent their children from using drugs. Mr. Sterling said the policy could be a deterrent for some students but he cautioned that it could further alienate students at risk of taking drugs. He said the "presumption of guilt" created by the policy flies in the face of the Pledge of Allegiance that students recite every morning.
"Their sense of liberty and what liberty means will be offended every time they're asked to provide a urine specimen without any cause that they're using drugs," he said.
A lanky, laconic man, Mr. Tannahill says he is hardly a rebel, but he fears his neighbors are too eager to give up their rights. He said that he had not used drugs and that he did not oppose some sort of drug testing policy, though not mandatory. His stance seems far more libertarian than liberal: he also says that growing gun control efforts violate the constitutional right to bear arms.
His family has lived in Lockney for four generations, and he calls the town "a good little community." Yet he was incensed that under the school testing policy his refusal to sign a parental consent form meant that Brady was considered guilty.
"I'm tired of letting our rights just be taken away," said Mr. Tannahill, whose younger son, Coby, 11, attends the town's elementary school. "They are taking my rights away as a parent, telling me I had to do this or my son would be punished. That's what really got to me."
Mr. Tannahill, who graduated from Lockney High, added, "The teacher taught me that if you give up your rights, and you're not going to fight for them, you'll lose them."
Mr. Henslee, the school district's lawyer, said the board was reconsidering its stance on parents who refuse to give consent. He said the board remained committed to mandatory testing but was considering alternatives to punishments attached to cases like the Tannahills. Brady has been allowed to continue his normal classes and activities, pending the result of the lawsuit.
Mr. Tannahill, meanwhile, is struggling with life as a pariah. He said he had gotten friendly phone calls or quiet nods from some people, but few support him publicly.
His wife works as a clerk at a nearby prison. Unemployed, he builds miniature barns and windmills at home that he hopes to sell on the Internet. He said his sons had been treated well at school, as if nothing had happened, but he remained wary.
Several weeks ago, the family's pet boxer was sprayed with orange paint from a paint gun. Mr. Tannahill said he found a note outside his house that read, "You're messing with our children, and next time maybe this won't be a paint gun."
At a school board meeting in March, Mr. Tannahill and his lawyer unsuccessfully asked the board to change its policy. Hundreds of people packed into the Lockney Independent School District's high school gymnasium for the meeting, many of them wearing T-shirts that read: "We asked for it. L.I.S.D. delivered it. We appreciate it." Speaker after speaker extolled the policy to loud applause until Mr. Tannahill's lawyer was greeted with stony silence.
"If looks could kill, me and my family would have been dead a long time ago," Mr. Tannahill said.
Graham Boyd, a civil liberties union lawyer who is representing Mr. Tannahill, asserted that the policy had many failings, including that a urine test does not detect all drugs. But beyond the legal questions, Mr. Boyd said he was surprised at the tensions that had arisen.
"This isn't about race or religion or one of the things you would expect to inflame a community," he said. "This is about drug testing a 12-year-old boy."
People in Lockney say Mr. Tannahill is not in any danger, though a few concede they would not mind if he left. Residents described the drug policy as a common-sense solution to help children resist drugs. A few people expressed doubts about the policy, but an overwhelming majority of parents and students agreed with Jordan Lambert, a senior and the quarterback of the football team.
"I think it's great," Jordan said. "I don't see how we're being forced to when we're more than willing. Ninety-eight percent of the student body is more than willing. Nobody is being forced to." 



You can take the addiction out of the hypoic, but you can't take the Hypoism out of the addict.

Sign In