No, I don't but he specifically mentions that at least some were for months and as far as I know a rehab stint is at least a month.. About the 'another stint', it's also what he saidYou don't know how long each "stint" was. It makes no sense. Your statement of fact that he could only come home if he promisrd them to "take another stint".
RSBM
In the 2016 film promotion interviews with Nick and Rob, Nick claims that he has been at 17 treatment facilities since age 15. In 2016, he was 23 years old, and he claimed that he was clean for a period of time prior to releasing the film.
I don't know which interview you're referring to but on Dopey he said he went through 18 rehabs by the time he was age 19. In one of his last appearances there he indicated he had relapsed and went to do more. This was post-Charlie
He said he was homeless for some of those because he tended to run away. As far as him going back, the way he explained it on Dopey was that he could on the condition he gets clean and goes to another rehab. And the cycle repeats.17 treatment facilities in 6-7 years is roughly 3 per year. He couldn't have been homeless during that time, other than homeless meaning that he was not living at home with his parents. I doubt that he was living on the streets for any length of time. He could go home anytime he needed money, food, a rest from drug life.
Nobody suggested anything different. But the point is he was still a kid and arguing that going through them wouldn't be damaging to his psyche isn't exactly novel science.That was his choice to run away, again and again.
Yeah? But that is not how drug addicts operate (or any kind of addicts in general). They will stop when they themselves reach that conclusion, not when they are forced to.So for 6 years he could not agree to comply, stop using drugs, and see how that worked for him?
Who argued different?Their approach was to try and get their young son to clean up his drug usage and get back into school. I think that is understandable.
But this is not what we're arguing about, that's the problem. If it went that way, then this wouldn't have happened and we wouldn't be talking about it.Yes, homeless by his own choice. He could have quit using drugs and then stayed home in his luxurious room in his mansion. It was up to him.
His exhaustion came about because of his total resistance to following basic rules all minors must follow. Don't do anything illegal under your parent's roof and you can live your life your own way when you are independent.
He said it on a podcast with other former junkies, I don't think he was trying to manipulate anyone.Just because 'he said' it was the 1st time it ever crossed his mind, doesn't make it true. It sounds more like a manipulation or gaslighting, than a true statement. IMO
Where are you getting all that from? This is all new to me. With that said, I never suggested his parents overreacted, just that they went the wrong way about it. They should have kept a closer eye on him and had him under direct supervision, not send him to people they don't know on the other side of the country. That doesn't mean they were bad parents, I get why they did that - they had money and thought that the best way to help him is to send him to exceedingly expensive fancy treatments. The best money can buy. But the problem is I don't think Nick Reiner's problems (or any other drug addict's problems) are solved by throwing money at it. I'm not at all blaming them, they tried to provide the best for their son with the means they had at their disposal, and of course there is nothing to suggest he'd have turned any better if they took a different approach, all I'm simply arguing and trying to understand is where he got so wrong. And I'm absolutely not of the belief that he was always born rotten or any of that.His teen transgressions were not 'mild teenage stuff'. He began having explosive temper tantrums as a young child. And that behaviour continued and then amped up.
The boot camps were about more than just pot use. It was about him being a defiant, angry kid who needed a wake up call.
He was destructive, disobedient and unwilling to comply with basic requests. His whole family tip toed around him because of his extreme reactions.
I think you're trying to make it seem like he was a regular teenager who smoked a joint now and then, harmless fun, and his parents overreacted.
That is not what they were dealing with. He was throwing furniture across the room, throwing dishes and glasses during dinner, refusing to go to school , and purposely obstructing the family life scene.
What were they supposed to do?