The astonishing shall inherit the earth, alas
Just when I think the world can't get any stupider, there it goes and makes a liar of me. We used to joke when I was addictions counseling that injection sites for junkies were hardly fair to the poor downtrodden alcoholics. Why not bars, and even free booze for drunks? Why should they be left out in the streets drinking sterno?
Now I read where a man named Don MacPherson, who is the City of Vancouver's drug-policy coordinator, who some who have labored in the field of addictions counseling might deem to be a certifiable buffoon (although surely he can't be, since he's the coordinator of Vancouver's drug-policy), thinks chronic street alcoholics should get free booze. Ahh, the world is indeed a tolerant place.
Mr. MacPherson maintains that "(alcohol) maintenance can work.", which is a thought that flies in the face of virtually all conventional wisdom on the topic, and therefore a good shot of taxpayer supported plonk would make the world a happier place for the chronically zoned.
In the alcoholism recovery business, the attitude expressed by Mr. MacPherson is known as "enabling". Rather than getting the person to recognize he (or she) has a serious problem, we do what we can to make life easier.
Despite the fact that alcohol statistically kills more people than all our hard drugs combined, we not only hype the stuff via improving access and advertising blitzes, but now we want to give it free to those who have run afoul of it. So, let's go a step further. Booze is about on a death-toll par with tobacco, so why should smokers be left out in the rain, as they are now? How about some smoking parlors and maybe free smokes while we're at it? Seems fair, and it's surely just as logical as free gargle for the tipplers.
The foregoing was not a diatribe against alcohol. Used in moderation there is not only nothing wrong with it, and it can even be beneficial in some circumstances. Abused it's as lethal as any toxin. Therefore, we should continue to pay for it, and we should have to pay a lot for it.
Otherwise, and I didn't notice this mentioned in Mr. MacPherson's quaint comments, there is such a thing as treatment for alcoholism. And thousands of recovered alcoholics who lead fruitful and happy lives around the world can bear testament to the fact that of all major addictions, for most people it's probably the easiest one to arrest.
Now I read where a man named Don MacPherson, who is the City of Vancouver's drug-policy coordinator, who some who have labored in the field of addictions counseling might deem to be a certifiable buffoon (although surely he can't be, since he's the coordinator of Vancouver's drug-policy), thinks chronic street alcoholics should get free booze. Ahh, the world is indeed a tolerant place.
Mr. MacPherson maintains that "(alcohol) maintenance can work.", which is a thought that flies in the face of virtually all conventional wisdom on the topic, and therefore a good shot of taxpayer supported plonk would make the world a happier place for the chronically zoned.
In the alcoholism recovery business, the attitude expressed by Mr. MacPherson is known as "enabling". Rather than getting the person to recognize he (or she) has a serious problem, we do what we can to make life easier.
Despite the fact that alcohol statistically kills more people than all our hard drugs combined, we not only hype the stuff via improving access and advertising blitzes, but now we want to give it free to those who have run afoul of it. So, let's go a step further. Booze is about on a death-toll par with tobacco, so why should smokers be left out in the rain, as they are now? How about some smoking parlors and maybe free smokes while we're at it? Seems fair, and it's surely just as logical as free gargle for the tipplers.
The foregoing was not a diatribe against alcohol. Used in moderation there is not only nothing wrong with it, and it can even be beneficial in some circumstances. Abused it's as lethal as any toxin. Therefore, we should continue to pay for it, and we should have to pay a lot for it.
Otherwise, and I didn't notice this mentioned in Mr. MacPherson's quaint comments, there is such a thing as treatment for alcoholism. And thousands of recovered alcoholics who lead fruitful and happy lives around the world can bear testament to the fact that of all major addictions, for most people it's probably the easiest one to arrest.
posted by Ian Lidster at
3:29 PM
2 Comments:
Doesn't it just go back to todays general lack of personal responsiblity?
"I'll let myself walk willingly into the clutches of a drug addiction; someone else will take care of me. If not, there's got to be SOMEONE around here I can sue!"
Excellent point raised and of course goes back to our general disinclination to take responsibility for our lives and our choices.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home