Saturday, June 03, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
He visto la papa.
Facebook Badge
Followers
Blog Archive
-
▼
2006
(352)
-
▼
June
(33)
- And So It Begins
- Pure devastation
- The Clock is Ticking Down...
- Update from G-Par
- Some Baseball Stuff
- Dig It?
- Amped
- Ya'll Go On... I'll Keep the Home Fires Burning...
- Pound Pound Pound
- Quick Hits
- Update from Caffeine Central
- how beautiful
- I was funky
- plastic gloves, a suppository and a flashlight
- Which American Cities Best Fit You?
- Where the Time Goes
- BB Pontificates
- Rampant Masochism
- Notes from the Heel
- Quote
- Quickly
- qualifying for the psychological Olympics
- Captain Geeky, at your service...
- Captain America and the Enchantress
- Algo Para la Gente Quien Habla Espanol
- Recapping the Trip
- Where's BB?
- The Stuff of Nightmares
- This Just in: BB Signs Deal with Satan
- An Editorial on Heroin Addiction
- Odds/Ends/Survey
- RAAAAAWK!
- Everybody Was Krav Maga Fighting
-
▼
June
(33)
1 comment:
He makes some good points. I'm glad someone is pointing out the folly of substituting one drug for another - I've never gotten the logic behind methadone programs. I'm glad he's reiterating that opiates are not instantly addictive, like some would have us believe. And I'm glad he's also reminded us that people can kick smack without having to go through expensive treatments. (But then, you could argue that about any substance abuser. Contrary to what he obviously wants us to believe, not everybody has the will power to do it on his/her own.)
But I think his conservative bias is showing, especially in the last paragraph. Is he really saying that threatening to kill junkies is a better method than treating them with compassion and offering them assistance? And, of course, he lauds getting religion. Isn't that just another instance of substituting one drug for another?
And I think ex-junkies like Paul K and Steve Earle, who never bought into the whole romanticization of heroin addiction, would disagree that smack addicts aren't really suffering. Paul didn't feed his addiction by living in squats and robbing people on street corners because he thought he was romantic in his suffering.
I think he thinks that any report of a junkie kicking that doesn't demonstrate his definition of moral fortitude (whatever it may be) is automatically romanticizing it. I'm glad he's been able to witness recoveries that involved little suffering, but that doesn't mean that no one suffers withdrawal.
This is exactly the kind of editorial I'd expect from the WSJ. "Suck it up and grow a moral backbone, you stupid junkie! You're not really sick! You can get over this with no trouble at all!"
Michael
Post a Comment