A libertarian belief meets a reality show
You know, I’ve long been a libertarian about such things as drug use. I understand, too, that addiction is a disease, not a crime. But I have also witnessed how parents struggle when their kid is caught up in it, not wanting to enable, yet not willing to write the kid off, either.
It’s a balancing wire act that few parents will ever get right all the time.
Of course, the personality of the addict is also something that needs to be weighed. Some are just over their head, completely lost. Others are scam artists, who’d sell their grandmother to survive.
I know one addict better than any other. Unfortunately, he’s the scammer type. Even if he found a way to get clean, I wouldn’t trust him as far as I could throw him. He has taken advantage of everyone in his life. His two teenage boys are being raised now by his 80 year old mother.
Should drug abuse ever be treated as a crime? Probably not. But when there’s a laundry list of related crimes - selling, pawning the things of others, and especially the abuse of children and parents and siblings, mental, verbal and physical - you reach a point when all the reasons to say ‘No’ aren’t good enough. They endanger and abuse too many and the place of last resort - a prison - is the only answer left.
I’m certain others will disagree and ask me to turn in my ‘progressive’ credentials for saying that. It may seem heartless, and maybe my ‘heart’ is more limited than I think. It’s not an easy conclusion to reach, I assure you.
Especially…
since I’m talking about my youngest brother.
February 1st, 2005 at 10:07 am
We all become more “conservative” when our own family members are victims. I have been in that position, and I did become more “conservative” as a result, but have shifted back to the belief that drug use is not inherently a criminal matter. Locking people up in prisons for possession or use of drugs does not, in my opinion, benefit society. However, I still have no good idea for an alternative.
February 1st, 2005 at 10:14 am
“Inherently” it’s not. I still believe the better alternative is counselling and a medical approach to treatment. But when the subject has zero interest in such rehabilitation, and refuses the only alternative with a chance to work, and is otherwise abusing others right and left, I think it’s the only option left.
February 1st, 2005 at 10:20 am
I’m so sorry about this, Kevin. Believing that some people need to be separated from the rest of us because of their destructiveness is not a conservative ideal in my book. My old neighbor Karin lost everything, including her kids, because she couldn’t quit drinking & doping. The only time she was sober was when she was in prison, and the rest of the time she spends on a spectrum that runs from annoying people to causing much grief. She is safer and better when she’s locked down.
Her heroin-shooting former brother-in-law called her “gutter trash,” and it wasn’t because she was shooting Mexican chiva in between her toes, it was because she ripped off his mother. You’re right, Kevin, that kind of betrayal is sickening, even to the other drug addicts.
I am praying for your mom, and Maggie, and your nephews. I hope your brother and sister-in-law go down long enough to give their kids a chance at a better life.
February 1st, 2005 at 10:40 am
I have no business being here since I have no first hand experience with this kind of thing, but I fail to understand why prisonis going to help in any way except to make your brother worse. Or at least a standard prison. If there is absolutely no hope on his part to change and he is endangering other people some sort of involuntary committal to a rehab facility would be something I’d look at, but again I have no firsthand, up close and personal experience in the matter and my prayers go out to you and your family.
February 1st, 2005 at 10:56 am
Sad as it is, you are right to say They endanger and abuse too many and the place of last resort - a prison - is the only answer left. My own brother finally got smart and cleaned up, but my husband’s youngest brother still hasn’t and never will and continues to bring grief to elderly parents. Both of my sisters are dealing with young men (one is a son, the other a grandson) who are master manipulators and users/abusers who clearly are not going to stop ruining lives around them unless they end up incarcerated and unable to continue on that path.
The only conclusion any of us can come to is that prison would be a blessing at this point. I don’t think we have to turn in our “progressive credentials” to admit that there are times when all the charity and good will you have will be wasted on someone who has no desire to live differently.
We can’t fix everything that’s broken in this world, much as we wish it were so.
February 1st, 2005 at 12:22 pm
Kevin, I’m so sorry. What a rough time you’ve had lately.
I faced this situation with my own family last year, except it was my nephew not my brother. Unfortunately, his parents, who I guess would be considered ‘progressive’ believe that love is all that matters and won’t hold him accountable, even when he steals from our elderly father. Even when he brought drug dealers home when I was staying there watching my Dad.
The resulting anger has permanently split our family. After my Dad died, my brother and I know longer communicate.
All it takes is one user in the family to destroy it. And I’m not talking about just drugs.
February 1st, 2005 at 12:38 pm
It’s a terrible situation, and there are no easy answers. It must feel like being kicked in the chest by a mule. Please know that we’re with you. I hope you’re not thinking you have to justify or explain how your emotional reaction measures up against your political philosphy. You certainly don’t have to, to us.
February 1st, 2005 at 3:07 pm
It’s those related crimes that need prosecuting.
As in so many other things, what is needed in law is to be clear, honest and direct: the charge should reflect the objectionable behavior directly. Making the drugs the crime is indirect. That indirection catches those who are not harming others. That lack of clarity garbles the signal - it is the harm to others that we object to, if he were to clean up his act in every other way, learn to respect those around him, and yet continue the drugs (true, this is not a practical possibility) I think you would be satisfied. The law says the drugs are the major crime and abusing people is just a side effect, going by penalties a relatively minor one. Those who are doing the work of getting him out of circulation are forced to complain about what isn’t really what bothers them. It is an innocent, neccessary, and forced dishonesty, but harmfull nevertheless. In similar situations where they need to deal with someone doing just as much damage without the illegal drugs - with alcohol, or just plain bad behavior - the law is not there to help.
February 1st, 2005 at 3:43 pm
My deepest sympathies in this time of personal troubles.
I wonder about this - sometimes, I think, the sociopathy is a result of the addiction; other times, perhaps, the addiction is a symptom of the sociopathy. When the subject of discussion is your own blood, the academic problem in reconciling these phenomena just isn’t very interesting.
However, having the benefit of personal distance, I couldn’t help but compare your policy question - whether the results of addiction should be treated differently from a legal perspective based upon the essential personality attributes of the individual - reminded me of a raging discussion (in which I have been forced to articulate the minority position) over at Pandagon about hate crimes legislation. I wonder - if its so hard for you, as someone who knows this individual so well and who has been victimized by his actions, to know how best to respond, what hope is there for an impersonal justice system to get it right?
February 1st, 2005 at 3:50 pm
Kevin,
Are you actually my friend Brian? His brother is/was/whatever, addicted to meth. He has drained his poor grandparents of their life’s savings for the most part. And his grandparents (who raised him) are some of the nicest people you could ever meet.
It’s just damn sad.
February 1st, 2005 at 4:40 pm
I’m sorry your family is going through this, Kevin. I have an addict in my family as well. It’s a hard thing to handle for everyone involved. And everyone is involved. Someone said to me once, where there’s life, there’s hope. I think of that often.
February 1st, 2005 at 7:48 pm
I’m sorry to hear of the burden you bear, Kevin. I sense from your post that it’s not your heart that is limited, maybe it’s just your understanding that has limits.I hope that all who are touched by this trial of life come through it with a positive outcome. Thank you for sharing.
February 1st, 2005 at 8:27 pm
damn.
you know, if someone’s determined to go to hell, you can’t keep racing downhill to try and catch them.
at a certain point, you’ve been rolled over enough.
I’m all over giving people the chance to take their lives back with treatment. That doesn’t mean letting them predate until they feel like taking advantage of it.
I’m so sorry, Kevin. I’ve known my share of people who’ve done this, and it sucks.
February 1st, 2005 at 9:47 pm
My experience is with alcohol rather than other drugs.
In one case, my best friend was a drunk and eventually all of his good friends told him not to come around when he was drinking. We didn’t know it was the right thing to do but it was. When an addict starts messing up your life, you have to cut them loose. You can’t rescue a drowning man who’s dragging you down at the same time.
My friend got sober and has stayed sober for nearly 20 years now.
We both found great wisdom in the work of Anne Wilson Schaef, _When Society Becomes an Addict_ and _The Addictive Organization_. Her work leads me to believe that late stage capitalism is an addictive system and our present government exhibits the symptoms of a “dry drunk,” at the very least. Addiction is now at the core of American culture and nobody talks about it. We talk about eating disorders, drugs, alcohol, credit card debt as a result of “shopping therapy,” and sexual acting out but we don’t recognize the common symptoms of addiction among them all.
The second story is my brother-in-law who was a heroin addict during his Vietnam service and transitioned to alcohol when he got “clean.” A few years ago he had a crisis and his behavior became so abusive that I eventually counseled my sister to do what I did and save her own life first. He found out and has banished me from his family’s life. For the last three years I have missed seeing my nephew and niece growing up. My sister and I keep in contact and our relationship may even have grown stronger since then. My brother-in-law has reportedly stopped drinking but has not gotten any treatment, much like George W. Bush. I believe he is also a dry drunk but have no way of knowing how he acts as I make sure not to talk about him with my sister or the kids, on the rare occasions when I talk to them.
I don’t know what the policy solution is to your brother’s addiction but if he is wrecking your life, you probably have to get him out of it until he straightens out. Al-Anon may be of help. I know it helped me during the first year and is there when I need it.
Good luck and thanks for your honesty. Your personal problem is at the heart of our politics.
February 2nd, 2005 at 2:39 am
For what it’s worth, I agree with gmoke.
Take care of the rest of your family. Your brother and his wife have to wake up to what they’re doing to themselves. Don’t soften the blow. What they do is their choice, and only they can get themselves out of it. In the mean time, you have your niece and nephews, and parents. Take care.
February 2nd, 2005 at 6:51 am
Over 300,000 people are in state or federal prison for drug offenses. While some of those were truly bad people, there’s a horrible number serving draconian sentences who are good family members and were productive members of society. You can meet some of their family members at The November Coalition. These are family members who are hurting because their loved one is behind bars.
And then, of course, there are the extreme cases — Weldon Angelos will be serving 55 years for selling 3 small bags of pot to undercover officers, and quadriplegic Jonathan Magbie is dead after receiving a fatal 10 day sentence in a system that couldn’t handle his medical condition.
And then there are the issues that progressives have been ignoring way too long, such as the fact that the drug war is inherently racist. Although almost five time as many whites use illegal drugs as African Americans, nearly twice the number of black men and women are incarcerated for drug offenses.
Then, prohibition makes drug dealing profitable, particularly to the dealer that can ensnare an addict and force him to pay up whatever the black market demands for his regular fix (the harsher the enforcement, the higher the price, the more related crime increases). Take away the profits and you lose the dealer. Prohibition also prevents many who do want help from seeking it.
Then there are the drug war tactics. Prohibition has so many victims of its own through the military style tactics we use to war against our own people.
So while I am very sympathetic to the extreme frustration brought about by the incorrigible addict, I ask you to re-consider whether an entire prohibition systems with all its evils is the right way, or even an effective way, to deal with the problem.
February 2nd, 2005 at 1:52 pm
In response to several:
1) Yes, I have seen more lives damaged by alcohol than all other drugs combined. It is hypocritical to treat it different than the rest.
2) I did not mean to indicate that criminalization of addiction is a positive. It is, as Pete noted, ineffective, expensive and - like many laws - both racist and classist.
3) I understand cutting off contact with addicts; it is the only sane choice of people who wish to remain sane. But when enough do that, addicts bottom out and get help….. or …. they die. Being a parent, I can understand why the sane choice is damn near possible to accept. You just don’t want to risk your own child dying.
4) My principal concerns here are my Mom and my brother’s kids. My siblings and I have taken turns moving to FL for 2-3 years, to aid the parental units (now there’s just Mom). But we can’t fix the broken, who’s sole rehab effort is the standard jailhouse conversion which gets left at the exit. Then it’s all about how he’s the victim of everyone, including my folks. “Poor me” he cries, while we lock up our valuables.
5) Having said all that, since a healthy systemic approach in our society simply doesn’t exist, I can continue to advocate for that reform. Yet in the system as it is, there is no other place my brother fits. Yes, he’s a threat to those around him. Yes, a mandatory treatment facility - with locked doos - would be preferable. But since it’s not available, permitting his continued freedom puts lives beyond his own at risk. So as the system is, a locked-in condition is the only reasonable choice that protects.
Finally, while I fully appreciate the sympathy messages from you wonderful people, the truth is, I lost my brother years ago. Whether he ever returns is solely up to him. My sadness and sympathy goes mostly to my Mom. And I hope his kids see there’s consequences, so they’ll not pck up the habits both their parents have. It will take a lot of effort to help them find a truer path.
Illness or not, the crimes committed while stoned are not victimless and being too stoned is an insufficient defense. Drug laws, by themselves, are not racist. But in a racist society, any law can be used in a discriminatory way, and the drug laws simply make such racial practices too convenient and too common.
I can and do oppose that. I can and do support decriminilizing drugs. But just as I helped liberate institutionalized mental patients only to watch society drop the ball by not providing the ICF’s needed to complete the reform (and watched those former patients get brutalized by homelessnness), I also understand that the half-reform of simple decriminalization can be just as bad as no reform at all.
The system is badly corrupted and makes a bad problem worse. Fixing it has to be an all-or-nothing proposition, though.
And, no, this has zero to do with freaking marijuana. By any measure, it’s safer than 75% of the FDA approved drugs, and is quite useful to treat many maladies and symptoms, with minimal risks to the individual or society.
I’ll take a society with 50% stoners on pot than 20% hooked on booze. The drugs, like booze, that are physically addicting will always be where the real risks lie.
February 2nd, 2005 at 2:59 pm
Illness or not, the crimes committed while stoned are not victimless and being too stoned is an insufficient defense. Drug laws, by themselves, are not racist.
That’s not entirely true. Much of the reason that marijuana is illegal in this country in the first place is because it was seen as being a part of Mexican culture that was contrary to American culture. People were also warned about cocaine (which used to be in Coca-Cola of course) as a drug that caused black men to rape white women. Some of our drug laws did in fact have a legacy of racism behind them.
But nax is dead right. You have to separate the real crimes from the drug use. If you don’t make any distinction between drug use and crimes that actually involve victims, you give a drug user less of a reason to remain law-abiding in other ways. Their existence becomes criminal so why should they follow any other laws? This is why drug laws hurt society much more than they help.
February 2nd, 2005 at 6:20 pm
I think there’s a good compromise between decriminalization and prison. That’s ‘getting recovery through the court system’. In San Francisco we call it drug court. Basically addicts get diverted to a special court. They are required to attend recovery stuff very frequently for like a year and get frequent UA’s. If they test dirty or don’t comply — jail. This is a strong incentive.
February 2nd, 2005 at 11:24 pm
For some, treatment programs may be helpful. However, there are great risks inherent in the treatment model for abuse and inhumanity, as there are in the prison system. Forcing someone to enter drug treatment, which is what ‘getting recovery through the court system’ is, is not likely to be successful because it is forcing people to undergo a dehumanizing process which they are not ready for, and many will never be ready for. This is the reason that nearly half of the people in treatment programs are there because of marijuana-related court referrals, although marijuana is one of the least addictive substances we know of. And many would rather choose jail than some of the treatment programs out there. Jail is not a strong incentive. If jail were a strong incentive, we would have no crime. This is the problem, we seem to have no option that is midway between enabling of a substance abuse problem and total damnation by way of the prison-industrial complex. However until we start approaching the situation rationally as a nation, we have no hope of coming up with a viable and reliable alternative.
February 3rd, 2005 at 7:53 am
Drug use and abuse is such a complex issue that folks can easily misunderstand all of the issues involved. I agree with the reformers that in order to begin to solve this problem we need to open up widespread understanding and discussion of Prohibition itself. I find too many people really don’t talk about it, maybe because of complacency or fear. Gmoke has something here WRT our ignorance of the root problem - addiction. Addiction comes in many forms, some more easily identifiable than others. We (Americans) need to acknowledge the white elephant in our living rooms, in all of its disguises. No doubt that Prohibition will cease once the majority of us understand it vis-Ã -vis addiction.
Our direction becomes clear and we can actually face our collective problems head on rather than hiding them in the closet or perceiving that we have solved it by (or don’t need to address the issue because we’ve sent the problem away by) throwing it down the rat hole of prison. Our issues surrounding addiction (Prohibition, crime, corruption etc.) will not resolve themselves as long as we refuse to truly understand or even acknowledge them; they can only persist or worsen.. When we finally realize that it’s ok to do whatever you want provided that you don’t harm another’s person or property, society will be much more civilized. It seems that we’re slow learners, but we’ve been influenced by the WoD programs for so long that we can’t tell what’s a cause and what’s a symptom. Thank God that ultimately the Truth is always revealed. Let’s try to make it sooner rather than later.
February 3rd, 2005 at 4:24 pm
Im a heroin addict who is currently not using heroin. I’ve been to a treatment program before that was pretty much forced on me via family pressure. Ive been to jail for things like “disorderly conduct” and the like, though I haven’t really commited any crimes other than those related to posession of drugs, such as being a white person in a “black” area, and things like that. My habit costs me a lot of money, and the laws that insist that I stay clean are a burden on me. Truth be told, I have no interest in getting or staying clean; I function better and am more productive when I have some kind of opiate in my system. Do you think it is right for people like me to be forced into abstinence based treatment or into jail as the alternative? Feel free to ask any questions or to make any comments. Cheers.
February 3rd, 2005 at 4:48 pm
No I don’t think you should be locked up. And as I recall, methadone is more lethal than heroin, so that’s a lousy answer, too. People who can function without added criminal behaviors really oughta just be left alone.
February 4th, 2005 at 7:23 am
I’ve been fortunate, as that the only addictions I can safely say as having are to fast food and caffeine, which hardly rate given the scale of the tragedy here. But this tragedy and so many like it could be dealt with in a way much less punitively and more constructively than our present means allows. I’m sure everyone here has heard of the phrase ‘fruit of the poisoned tree’. The ‘tree’ of the issue of addiction was poisoned long ago by moral posturing as opposed to a medical paradigm being used. The present DrugWar is the ‘fruit’ that we all must ‘eat’ courtesy of our tax dollars being used to pay for it’s implementation. Tax dollars that could be more effectively used for treatment. And, sorry to contradict you, Mr. Hayden, but if you read the original writings of those who first proposed those laws, you will find a decidedly bigoted slant to them, with nary a scrap of scientific evidence to justify them. For proof of my statement, please go here Black Fiends and White Hope to see for yourself what the progenitors of these laws thought about - and had in mind - for minorities.
February 4th, 2005 at 8:53 am
These are all well and good for the long run, but short term doesn’t grant time for theoretical exercise about perfect outcomes. Right now I have to deal with the ‘what is’, and the best immediate solution is to keep my brother off the streets.
That doesn’t mean I’ll quit advocating for change. But even with change, there’ll be plenty of difficult cases like my brother to contend with. Perfect answers from legal systems are simply not possible.
February 7th, 2005 at 1:31 pm
I can understand your dilemma but have not felt it. I’ve heard about heroin addiction being treated with Ibogaine. I think Marc Emery runs an “Ibogaine” recovery house somewhere in North America. Unfortunately addiction is a lifelong condition and as Richard Prior said “…can hear the pipe calling from across the room…come over hear”. Until legalization, which may be never, maybe he can find a less harmful substitute for heroin. Until then he needs 24 x 7 support – with not even 1 minute unsupervised time or he’ll probably slip back into the problem. God bless him and give him (and you) the strength to overcome his vice.