Nuance 9

There is an individual who is often in the news, local and sometimes national. He lives in my city. He is charismatic, articulate and educated. He is a political and social activist, has a lot of leadership capabilities and actually is considered a community leader. I have heard him on the radio, in documentaries, and we have a close friend in common. I have never met this person, and I'm sure that he wouldn't know me from Cain or Abel. He is also a heroin addict. I am not going to name him, since embarrassing others is not the purpose of this blog, unless they are politicians, or a particularly irresponsible journalist. Almost everyone else is hands off here. He was previously in the news on many occasions for his activism for the homeless and socially-marginalized. Recently he has publicly come out as a drug user and has now lent his name to the causes of harm-reduction and legalization of all addictive drugs, including and especially heroin. He is prominent in organizing and advocating in the community for no strings attached availability of heroin for those who use it. There are others living with addictions who are working with him, and have also been emboldened about going public. I find this all troubling. And for one simple reason: No one is talking about treatment or rehabilitation. They are, understandably, using the effects of prohibition of alcohol during the twenties and thirties as their reason for advocating for drug legalization. And, superficially, this makes a lot of sense. With alcoholic beverages being now widely available and the consumption of alcohol being perfectly socially acceptable, one would imagine that we have here a perfect model for harm-reduction. Except for one little detail. Alcohol, like heroin, is also an addictive substance. Both also cause longterm health affects and damage. The legitimization of alcohol has done absolutely nothing to minimize the damage as every year thousands of Canadians are impacted, whether by the health affects of alcoholism, the social fallout of losing their lives and livelihood, the many innocent victims who die in car accidents thanks to drunk drivers, etcetera. Addiction is no cakewalk, and it should never be entertained not even as a lesser evil, except in the context of strict harm reduction programs that is designed to help facilitate treatment and rehab. By the same token, I only wish that had been the object for ending alcohol prohibition, but booze is seen as being so socially legitmate that if you so much as raise an eyebrow about social drinking then you are often not likely to do well socially or professionally. Even if heroin addiction carries a lot of stigma, the parallels are still inescapable. It is also only fair to mention here that the roots of addiction are pretty universal, and many or most with substance addictions have also a very troubled personal history, often including a lot of child abuse and family dysfunction. I agree with making drugs legal. But I am not comfortable with this illustrious gentleman speaking very loudly about getting his daily fix whenever he wants it, while saying nothing about his possible options for treatment and rehab, and for someone in his position this is particularly significant. He is a leader and a role model. Highly visible. If he is unwilling to go through rehab, himself, then what kind of spoken and unspoken messages does this give to his peers, some of whom might be ready for treatment, but will turn it down because it is suddenly okay just to go on being addicted with a lifetime of easy availability of the drug you are hooked on? But addictions treatment is very complicated, and success is contigent upon the willingness of the addicted person, and this doesn't happen that often. Add to this complication the often prohibitive cost of treatment and rehab. This does sound cynical, but I really wonder if our governments would just as soon not spend the money on treatment because it is far cheaper just to keep people alive from fix to daily fix. True it is, that harm reduction does provide people with some safety and protection and it does save lives. Sad, though, it isn't it, that the ones who hold the purse strings just might rather save the taxpayer a few extra dollars than see lives restored from making treatment more available and more possible for those who want it.