Well enabled by grief

I'm grieved because a former friend with an addiction who wanted to turn his life around 3 yrs. ago died last month. And when death hits home & is premature, and/or may have been prevented, it gives one pause to reflect on the extenuating circumstances.

What springs to mind is why transitional housing for men who struggle with addictions do not offer alternatives to AA 12 step, not only because of clients who've tried this method and failed to abstain, but also for those who cannot relate to AA 12 step at all.

One size doesn't fit all.

Furthermore, addiction is not a moral deficiency. William Burroughs cited from first hand experience in his 1st novel "Junky" that withdrawal from an addictive drug constitutes an allergic reaction. His findings eventually made it into medical literature.

I'm also opposed to the labeling and scapegoating of addicts partners, relatives and friends by AA 12 step pros & their adherents. It also appears that partners, relatives and friends of addicts are the only ones, with rare exceptions, who really want their loved ones to "get clean." And what also dismays me is that AA 12 step pros & their followers always insist that "getting clean" has to come from within the addict himself or herself, an insight into human nature they've claimed exclusive rights to. At the same time, addicts are also exhorted by the same pros to relinquish their power & let an external deity sober them up.

Then of course the co-dependency conspiracy rears it's bizarre head. Just for the record, co-dependency is the AA 12 step disease model of love and it appears to apply to any partner, relative or friend of an addict, whether they support their loved ones attempt at sobriety, or they accept him or her with their addiction intact. In other words, the label is simply a guilt by association designation that applies to everyone except the pros.

I was not exempt from this label, even before I ever heard of the concept or I became acquainted with the behaviours this concept embraces. Then I found out that the concept of co-dependency distorts the natural tendency for women to care for and nurture loved ones. However, if love is indeed humanities greatest virtue, why have the patriarchs in question decreed women's natural inclination to care for and nurture our partners, relatives and friends a misdeed?

I find it impossible to view co-dependency as any more than pop-culture rhetoric that has no scientific basis in fact whatsoever. However a sane comprehensive view of the co-dependency idea by Robert Westermyer, Ph.D. can be found on the Habit Smart Website.

What happens behind the scenes when someone is in a relationship with a loved one who is "actively using" an addictive substance is the natural tendency to be concerned and to experience a range of emotions such as shock, dismay, anguish and futility over the circumstances. However, whatever one feels for an addict will automatically be considered excessive in AA 12 step circles. In other words, ones natural reactions will be construed as pathology.

Although I did not experience any guilt or shame, I can readily understand why someone in a relationship with a loved one who is "actively using" an addictive drug does suffer guilt and shame for maintaining said relationship, as there's no support at all to my knowledge in North America for anyone who functions as a caregiver for an addicted loved one. Yet in Scotland, someone who looks after an addict, whether the loved one is an adult or a child, is called a "caregiver", not a codependent

On the other hand , if one finds the need to detach from a loved one with an addiction, it is wise to do so at one's own pace, for ones' own reasons, on one's own terms. It is also wise to bear in mind that it is highly likely that addiction/recovery pros may exhort an addict to keep away from their loved ones or even to end a relationship (under the guise that it threatens the addicts sobriety) even if the addict wants to see his relatives and maintain a relationship with them.

However, "Harvard Medical School says that the support of a good spouse is more important than that of a 12 - step group." But AA says just the opposite: "Dump your spouse and marry the AA group because AA is the Only Way." http://www.orange-papers.org/ I find this appallingly grim allegation from the alleged addiction/recovery movement a travesty of justice because no such institution (or whatever it is) has any business endeavouring to co-opt family life.

I also firmly believe that it's important for people with addictions to be exposed to the voices of reason.

Therefore it is wise, for purposes of self preservation, to retain respect for ones own intuitive wisdom/intelligence and to allow logic, good sense, reason and truth to prevail when faced with the daunting realities of addiction, if one is to rise above obstacles in order to support an addicted loved one, like the inspiring From Grief to Action website participants/parents do.

It is also the duty of professional people who oversee the lives of addicts to consider every possibility for sobriety when an addict declares that he or she hates his or her "junky life" and doesn't consider it living... Furthermore, if an individual shows up at a transition house, isn't their presence enough reason to consider every possible option to help them?

As an example, the implementation of "harm reduction" strategies such as detox on demand and safe injection sites where people are not vilified or condemned for their addictions or even expected to completely abandon their habits, would obviously be helpful.

If the war on drugs which is really a war on people was ended and drugs were regulated for quality/purity and quantity and distributed medically, numerous lives would be saved and criminal activity would be curtailed if not totally wiped out.

However, if we don't stop the war on drugs, I'm inclined to surmise that the alleged addiction/recovery movement is one more sham that spells genocide, owing to the fact that addiction has reached pandemic proportions with considerably high mortality rates in marginalized communities where the status quo is basically maintained.

Once again, I've posted a skeleton view i.e. I've basically scratched the surface of the addiction/recovery movement. An excellent study about how this movement also stigmatizes women is "Mothers & illicit drugs: transcending the myths" by Susan C. Boyd. She includes how methadone treatment is administrated, the wisdom of ending the war on drugs is also expressed by participants in the study, along with the necessity for harm reduction strategies. This study is publ. by Univ. of Toronto Press, c 1999.