Aellyce

I would say the same for anonymity: it's everyone's individual right to maintain anonymity about addictions or become transparent about it. In principle... but then I start thinking: how is it possible that these choices do not affect anyone else? Most of us don't live in a vacuum, as was said above... even if we don't have children (like myself), usually we have a few responsibilities: work, friends, or just general productivity. I really believe that thinking that we can exist completely independently and not affecting anyone with whatever we do is a delusion.

But then there are all these problems with majority opinions, judgments, stigmas that we are discussing here. I think the question of anonymity is not a simple one and not an easy decision, if we really think about it.

There was a guy that we invited once to speak with our research group (a team working on addictions) about his experience. He's been in recovery from alcohol and other drugs for over 20 years. A very active member of AA. He is also frequently involved in meetings and education like the 2 hours he spent with us, has participated in research studies, etc. He spoke with us completely openly about his life experience, much like we do here on SR or in an AA meeting. He's obviously not anonymous when he does this. It was a very moving experience for the whole group, but of course these are scientists studying addiction and not people clueless about it. No idea how he reconciles this type of mission with the anonymity in AA. He talked about AA a lot with us. I did not think much about AA back then so did not ask, I would ask now.

soberlicious

and who is going to decide this? In the case of the hypothetical me...the school teacher living alone, with no children. I drink every day from the time the afternoon bell rings until I pass out. I do not drive in the evenings. I have never been arrested, nor been to the ER. I provide mediocre education to hundreds of children. I know that I want to stop drinking, but I have taken no steps toward doing so. I am addicted. Do I have a right to remain addicted?

Legally, yes. Morally, I don't think so.

Yes, that was my point. But an addicted person doesn't legally lose rights until they have broken laws, and honestly not even then sometimes.

bigsombrero

That was pretty good. "Most people don't want to be cured, they only want relief. They don't want to wake up, they just want their toys back". Too true.

I have a good friend that suffers from severe depression, she constantly bemoans her life situation...but she doesn't want to do the work to change things. She just wants relief.

I have another good friend that went out and had an affair. She just needed an escape, a scare, so that she would value her husband again. In the end, she just wanted her toys back.

I think many of us who recover from alcoholism actually find it easier to jump off the deep end and make real changes. After all, what have we got to lose? In my personal case, I think a lot of my old friends were a little shocked at the changes I made. To most of them, a "lifestyle change" means that they start getting their groceries from Whole Foods, buy a new car, or put bay windows in their living room.

EndGameNYC

Neither do I, and I never commented that things haven't changed since the '60s.

I also don't get what individual rights, including the right to remain addicted, have to do with the stigma of AIDS and addictions.

soberlicious

Well, I think that the whole "I can do whatever I want. I'm not hurting anyone" or the "it's my life, I will do as I please" mentality does contribute to the contempt (which leads to the tendency to stigmatize) that people may feel toward the addicted, especially when it directly causes them pain. Maybe I'm wrong though. Also, I'm not addressing the stigmatization of AIDS, since I don't think it is at all like addiction. If you could send me the rules of what fits into the conversation according to you, then I will try to comply.

ElleDee

Same here.

EndGameNYC

I agree.

FT

I have enjoyed the varying viewpoints expressed here about the stigmatism of alcohol and drug use in our society. Yes, AA has advanced to being "respectable," however just ask any HR manager who is going to get picked for a position, the person with a "history" or the person without such, given all else being equal?

Our society has gone nuts with glorifying "celebrity," with our fashion trends following hip hop "stars" and the Kardashian family being viewed as some sort of freakish "class act." I suppose I now qualify as an old bag, but in "my day" that kind of overly made up and flashing T&A "style," not to mention making music videos simulating sex acts, was considered sluttish. Here's a scary fact: the last US Census showed that 4.93% of American women have had breast augmentation surgery, according to the American Society of Plastic Surgeons. That is HUGE (pardon the pun).

I'm getting off point here, but here's what I am getting at: Americans seem to idolize movie stars, pop artists, and slutty fashion icons. At least the younger generation seems to want to emulate them. And we should worry about being stigmatized? Compared to whom?

I wonder whether society is emulating the addictive behaviors of celebrities as well? Even rehab centers have now become fashionable, at least certain ones. It's just a thought passing through my own pea-brain, but today when I read that Robert Downey, Jr. is now Hollywood's top earning actor, I can't say I was surprised. Robert Downey, Jr. tops Forbes' list of highest paid actors once again | Inside Movies | EW.com

It seems that "outing" oneself as an alcoholic/addict only makes movies stars more marketable, not less. At least the males. Females are not treated so kindly it seems, and of course they become far less marketable with age, where the males seem to have that one on their side as well.

Maybe this kind of idolization in our culture has caused less stigmatization of drug and alcohol abuse,... or not. I don't know. It just seems to me that we have a pretty strange culture of "celebrity" in this society. How many Americans know who Robert Downey, Jr. is? I would bet a LOT. How many know who Kim Kardashian is? Ha! How about Francis Crick and James Watson? ???? Jay Leno used to have a great gig on his show where he interviewed random people on the street about their knowledge of politics, history, and science.

My point really is this: what is stigmatization and just whose opinion really matters, anyway. I like to think I have a healthy sense of "self." But what I see going on in US society today in terms of common sense and general knowledge really scares the hell out of me. I mean, some of these people VOTE.

Aellyce

It's not only in the US, FT. The artificial image-centered view is not even a new phenomenon in, say, the past 10 years. It has very significantly increased during probably the last 10 years, though, in part (or mostly?) due to the super fast development of communication tools and general technology to modify what's natural and then be proud of the result.

And back to stigmas: isn't it crazy that nowadays whoever refuses to go with the flow of these "developments" tend to receive a sigma for being stuck in the past? While they probably try to live a healthier and more balanced life. So in this context, we get stigmatized for NOT being obsessed with all the technology and the image cult it can create and spread across the globe. Same for certain types of medications, and now we are in the topic of drugs. We want the flashiness and instant gratification from everything, and become uneasy when anything gets in the way. And most people want to transmit the image that they are living the perfect life that's better than ever. Really?! Whatever.

I think it's pretty hard to maintain a healthy sense of self amongst all this.

RobbyRobot

You have the right to live as what suits you, until you don't. The don't may never come around in your hypothetical. History is rich with the experiences of people losing rights and/or establishing rights on the stroke of a pen in any number of courtroom landmark decisions of the past 200 years.

I believe each individual has the right to be an individual as they please unless that same right enacted takes rights away from others. This is a slippery slope though, and generations of minorities and marginalized peoples have suffered while the law makers make merry.

Morally rights can't be challenged without also discriminating against somebody else's or some other populations morals, as we have for centuries in Western societies with the ugly side of women and children being subjugated under all lawful men and this justified supposedly and lawfully and morally under God.

Not so long ago, as an everyday adult man for example, I could without moral or legal consequence beat my wife and children. In the context of those times, did I have the a real right to do so? Or was society simply morally and individually too ignorant and complacent about the ways of things to even care? I speak of this since I'm sure men at the time were freely saying they did indeed have such rights. Saying they did, and the law books agreeing with them, and the morality of the day all twisted like it was -- nonetheless, we now know in fact those so-called rights were not rights at all. Slavery as well comes to mind. And the so-called rights of others in present times to dis-allow an individuals right to identify with a gender not based entirely on their sex. Obviously gender is a choice, imo.

I could go on...

As a disabled guy, my experience I was born well before anybody was celebrating the rights of the disabled. Now things are different, but growing up I was forced to adapt or deal with the consequences of my refusal to be marginalized. I made my choices and this created consequences for me, naturally.

In any case, I'm not arguing with you. I respect your right to express yourself as you are so doing. I'm just also not agreeing with your premise for addicted persons to have rights of addiction. I do agree they have the right to nay say their addiction and as a society we must deal with those consequences. Addiction and recovery are just too inherently subjective to not allow for people to self-realize their own responsibilities. Besides, forcing treatment never works well anyways, don't we know.

This is one hell of a thread, lol.

Soberpotamus

Good point.

Here is the definition of stigma: stig·ma (stĭgmə)
Share: stig·mastig·ma
n. pl. stig·mas or stig·ma·ta (stĭg-mätə, -mătə, stĭgmə-)
1. An association of disgrace or public disapproval with something, such as an action or condition: "Depression ... has become easier to diagnose, and seeking treatment does not carry the stigma it once did" (Greg Critser). See Synonyms at stain.

I can understand a public disapproval of addiction. The masses find it easier to look at a thing with disdain rather than visualize a solution to a social or medical problem. And whose responsibility is it to correct anyway? Isn't it the addict's? And perhaps anyone whose concern is for the addict... namely, family, friends, and professional caregivers, doctors, scientists?

All this "coming out" that the Anonymous People doc champions is nice and all, but I'm not going to hold my breath for a perception shift in the general public towards addicts and addiction.

It was up to ME to stop drinking no matter who thought I was a piece of s*&# or whether they had an enlightened and progressive idea of me as an addict.

Patriciae

Yes!!

DoubleDragons

The people who have the greatest influence on me, don't tell me how to live, but show me. I look at their lives, their countenance, their "being" and I think, I want what that person has, and by following their example, I am able to find the path that is right by me. The most influential people in my life have come from all walks of life and none of them have been famous, because famous people do not have an effect on my daily life. They are the people that God has put into my arena when I was in need of them or the life's lesson that they represented. I hope God has used me in that way and will continue to use me to help others when I could and can be of service.

Aellyce

Jennie, maybe that perception shift would be more likely to happen if someday we arrived to a relatively easy solution for addiction, medications that would very effectively eliminate the problem or similar. Because then addiction would cease to be a serious problem; why to pay so much attention to, stigmatize and marginalize something that can be treated easily? Before then, such a shift is probably unlikely to occur in any serious terms.

Soberpotamus

Of course. Figured that goes without saying.

Although I am not so sure a medication is going to be the simple answer. I have my doubts about that. It may be one means of treatment, but I have a hard time envisioning a drug as the answer to what is the origination and causes of addiction. What I'm saying is I do not think a drug or set of drugs is going to correct what happens in the brain of an addict. And, I might be wrong.

soberlicious

I'm not arguing with you either, Robby. As I said, legally people have the right to remain addicted to substances until they break the law. As I already stated, morally, I don't believe it's a right. Like it or not, there is nothing stopping someone from living out their life addicted if they so chose. So in other words, they currently have that right.

FT, I agree that it is more difficult when the HR person knows about a past addiction. However, I don't think that the HR person necessarily assigns a value judgement on that person, ie they are "bad", but it is a business and I can see how they might think there would be a risk factor. The problem I have with it, and where I think that argument fails is that the risk is equal to or maybe even less with an "outed" recovered person. With the other guy, you may also be getting a recovered person, or you may be getting an actively addicted person.

Hmmm, FT. I've had my breasts surgically augmented. Is that a mark against my character?

I'm feeling stigmatized.

Lol

FT

Like I said, that's HUGE!

Boleo

It's even more complex than that. Not only is the statement "not everyone is addicted" true, but not everyone who thinks they are addicted is actually addicted. People are sent into recovery by authority figures because they are on the road to addiction before they have the "obsession" component to addiction.

So what we have is a whole other group of people going around saying "All you gotta do is stop drinking like I did". As if willpower alone is the answer.
This throws a "Red Herring" into the recovery issue where those who stopped in time are sending a message to those who did not stop in time that willpower is the answer. So now we have at least 4 groups of drinkers and ex-drinkers;

Current responsible drinkers
Current irresponsible drinkers
Ex-drinkers who are not powerless
Powerless ex-drinkers.

FeenixxRising

Don't be cryptic Boleo. Just state unequivocally that you believe anyone who got sober without a spiritual experience via the 12-Steps was 1) never a real alcoholic or addict and 2) isn't really sober.

Conversely, you believe the only way for a real alcoholic or addict to get sober is through a spiritual experience by working the 12-Steps.

This way, we will at least know exactly where you stand. And of course, those people who got sober without AA /NA will know that you believe their substance problem really wasn't a big deal if they achieved sobriety without AA/NA. That is to say, the nightmare of their addicted life wasn't real; the consequences of their addiction were equally false; and their countless days and months of outright struggle, work and effort to free themselves from the slavery of addiction is somehow insignificant because after all, they weren't really addicted.

Seriously, if you're going to belittle and condescend, you should at least openly state your beliefs, rather than hide them in veiled commentary.

Boleo

You're half right. I do believe that anyone who can choose to not-drink ODAAT has not experienced the ISM component of alcohol-ISM (YET). Alcohol-ISM is a specific type of addiction that includes an obsession so powerful that willpower is rendered useless and only a Higher Power can compensate for it.

However, the idea that only 12 step recovery can lead a person to the type of Spiritual Awakening is completely foreign to me. I believe anyone who has a process that gets results with enlightenment can do it as well. Zen, Buddhism, Taoism, and The Spiritual Exercises of Saint Ignatius of Loyola are just a few of many other possibilities.

Now, as long as you want to use the "argumentum ad hominem" style of debating, lets talk about your "experience" for a minute. Do you have any "experience" with spiritual based recovery? Or are you trying to project your inexperience onto my experience?