And first of all it's necessary to note:
  – an adolescent cannot be habituated to speak without slang, demanding from him to learn by hart a list of prohibited words;
  – an adolescent cannot be habituated to live without drugs, informing him of drugs and why it is bad;
  – it's necessary to SHOW him with own example advantages of pure literature and everyday speach;.
  – it's necessary to SHOW him with own example advantages of living without drugs using
  A pedagogue telling about drugs is a nonsense.
  All the more if such a pedagogue smokes.
  Such a pedagogue isn't too different from the tempter and provoker of Blue Beard

The problem of rehabilitation is broken into two problems:
     psychological one, which is to help a drug addict who WANTS to free himself from his drug dependence, to get liberty – the present I-site is in great rank devoted just to this part of rehabilitation, to abilities of psi-technique, – and
     properly pedagogical problem, aimed to help an addict to UNDERSTAND, what is DESIRABLE to him, and it almost coincides with the task of prophylaxis – to help him to grasp his feelings and thoughts, to form priorities of his aims and tasks, to define own wishes, to confirm in own intentions, not to change them too easily. If this task is solved, so success is expected hardly not full, for psi-technique will not fail. But if this task isn't solved, so a drug addict, and rather more likely his close people, may be merely felt for. A double minded man is unstable in all his ways (James, 1,8).

On the problem of PROPHYLAXIS
   At contacts with smokers and other drug dependent patients, distorted, inverted notions of their problems are found not seldom. They consider entire refusal from a drug as limitation of their liberty to choose, as inferiority. What's the matter: the others may do it, but I mustn't?!
   So, one has to understand.
   1. Who really has a liberty of choose, is a person who can equally easily both to have a drink (or a drug injection, a cigarette) and not to do it. It is, for example, a person who has not try yet to have alcohol (drug, cigarette). It is just he who can choose calmly, "without nerves", just as his "common sense" suggests.
   A carrier of a drug dependence has just not such a liberty (or it is distinctly limited): it is much harder to him to refuse than not to refuse. His real problem is not whether he limits his own liberty if/when he refuses, but that to have easiness (or to return it) of choice (to have ability to refuse easy).
   Psi-technique can return this liberty. Another, a special problem is that if post receiving of the liberty one choose using (but not abstention), so the liberty may again be lost.
   2. Not every refusal is prohibition (limitation), deprivation of ability to do quite the contrary (not to refuse). If going along a road one meets with a dirty pool or dunghill, he tries to pass it round, in spite of he has natural right not to go round but to get into it.

   Seemingly, it must be hard to meet a baby mouse, who tries to meet a cat. And, seemingly, only accidentally one can fall into a drug dependence chasm. But not! In Internet's conferences one can see such a question as "What to begin with? I'd like to try very much..." An anecdote of wise Mr. X. may be recalled in response. When he was asked: "Whether you can climb into a bottle?", he answered with a question: "But how can I get out?". It may be advised to a fortune hunter Follow Mr. X's example. Reserve for a start some about $500÷5000 at a reliable place of those money, which you plan to waste for drugs, as a payment for your liberation in future from the drug-dependence bottle.

   It concerns also to the problem of right behavior choose that some of physicians allege, it is dangerous to a hard smoker to give up smoking at once, harshly. It is semi-truth, which is not better, than notorious lie. It may turn out the truth only if the harm from abstinence is more than harm from using. And besides, only those physicians may assert this semi-truth who don't know yet of abilities of psi-technique, who perhaps even don't hear of it, and it isn't astonishing: psi-technique is young, and HPM actively ignores it.
   It can be harmful not the abstinence itself but discomfort produced by it. But psi-technique guaranties saving from discomfort and therefore from harm, danger, risk.

   An adolescent comes to a hard drug, or, rather, to fall into a drug dependence chasm, not suddenly and at once, but he descends into it, allegedly step by step, which are known to specialists: