hopeful4

I guess I am being selfish here, but I guess my question is at what cost? I tried to support my addict XH to the point it nearly caused me a nervous breakdown. I felt as though my life was a terror and had nearly breaking anxiety and fear of what would happen next. I was obsessed with it.

Yes, I believe everyone needs help and to be treated with kindness and dignity. I also believe that you only have a certain amount of obligation to someone who refuses to help themselves.

It's a fine and confusing line sometimes. I did not need my XAH to be "normal." I did however need him to be non abusive, my children safe, and to generally function in life.\

This is where our country fails in providing mental health services to so many that need them.

Chino

I respectfully disagree. Besides The Salvation Army, there is free help available thru social service agencies at the local, city and state levels plus funding from the federal level. All of those agencies and programs formed as a result of need exhibited by society itself.

As far as I can tell, there are too many people (addicts plus loved ones) turning their noses up at them for various reasons. None of which are valid unless it involves an identified danger.

I do know there are many people out there who are just ugly when it comes to this disease but I pay them no mind. With the rising numbers of addicts, they'll unfortunately have to eat their words and figure it out soon enough.

Back to the original topic, I'm still shaking my head at the reference to 'rock bottom'. Seriously? Who are these people deciding what another's rock bottom is? I haven't met one person yet, not one professional nor layperson, that said what my daughter's bottom was. No psychic's either.

I tend to think there is a lot of tilting at windmills and straw man arguments when it comes to 'rock bottom'.

Needabreak

A good friend of mine lost her only son three years ago. She grieved like I never saw anyone grieve. A piece of her life is gone forever. Only recently have I seen the bitterness toward the world lift. But she did not go down the road of addiction.

I was sexually abused when I was 4 years old. I did not go down the road of addiction.

Many of us endure incredibly tragic and stressful situations and don't go down the road of addiction.

To excuse another person's addiction because of a tragedy sounds like telling a person, "it's ok, I understand, you're justified in being an addict." It seems to me that this is an insidious form of enabling, and does more to perpetuate the addiction than anything else.

But who knows, maybe I'm just defective, lacking in love and compassion because I chose to end a relationship with an addict before I went down with him.

hopeful4

I believe that some are just formed with a more addictive type of personality. So if tragedy of some sort tips that person to addiction, they are more likely than I am to become an addict, because I do not have that type of personality.

Just my two cents.

cynical one

Lots of talk and finger pointing about how "society" needs to do this or that, or how "society" thinks, or views addicts.

Besides the addicts in our own lives, how many of us have reached out to others in "society" to give them a hand up by volunteering at soup kitchens, DV shelters, rehabs, homeless shelters, street teams, teaching them to read, giving them a job, or even donations to these causes?

WE are "society".

CaringScared

I certainly don't think it is selfish to ask, "At what cost?" I think it is imperative that people ask themselves what they are willing to take in their own lives and to draw boundaries without hesitation if they feel it necessary. "In the Realm of Hungry Ghosts" has a quote: if the choice is between guilt (at leaving) and resentment (because of harm endured with the addict), choose guilt every time.

I don't judge others' situations. I am just barely involved with this person compared with what others have gone through. I think if people need to run, they should run.

I'm already pretty scared in my own situation as it is.

Firesong

Vale, I was really glad to read your post. Thank you for posting it. It is really encouraging me and helps me feel better about a one-on-one relationship with my friend. I wish things were more like that here!

BlueChair

This is a good book, I read it a couple months ago !

CaringScared

It's a very insightful book. I understand my boyfriend's actions much better after reading it. It is uncanny how much it hits home.

It does not soft sell the idea that many addicts do not get better.

hopeful4

Hmmm...not to sound full of myself, but quite a bit. In CR I learned that when you get through all of that it is time to pay it forward. I am a leader there so I lead class, lead newcomers, offer phone and in person support to people I don't even really know, help at the church supper that is for those w/out food, etc.

I am not honking my own horn, I am just pointing out that there are a lot of people who do things for those in need. It does not have to be money to be effective, a lot of times it is just an ear that a person needs or for someone to listen and validate their feelings.

I think that is why it's so hard to cross over from a codependent supporting those with addiction. We want to fix them and just don't know how.

Ann

Vale, I think there is a lot of misinformation out there, including about safe injection sites. It doesn't matter what society as a whole thinks, what matters is how these places are professionally assessed for their significance in helping addicts, those who love them, and the safety of the community.

Someone mentioned how scary this neighbourhood was. It was already scary long before the safe injection sites were put in place. That may be one reason for approval of sites in this particular neighbourhood...they saw the need. Addiction is scary, no matter where it lives.

chicory

Bluechair, I look forward to hearing more about this seminar you attended. Surely there are more ways than one, to help folks struggling with addiction.

Being compassionate toward someone with a debilitating addiction does not mean we have to live with them...sometimes you just cannot, for your own safety, peace of mind and so forth.

But as we pass the addict who just got arrested, or someone asking for spare change, maybe say a prayer, and think of how we can help each other in this world, instead of snubbing them as if they are garbage.

Compassion is not only the job of government programs, the salvation army, or food pantrys. each of us has something to give, to make the future better.

fairlyuncertain

I needed to see this today. Thanks for the post and the thoughtful comments.

soberlicious

I absolutely believe that addicted individuals should be treated with dignity. I am not sure how I feel about safe injection sites though. I feel like it says to the individual, "I think you are not capable of quitting, so since you will do this anyway, we will help you do it safely." To me that doesn't say "I care about you as a human being and I want you to live a life free from the darkness of addiction." It says "Since on your own you are a problem for society, we will contain you (the problem)...it's easier for everyone this way"
I don't have the answers, and I don't know why something about this mindset pains me, but it does. It's almost like giving up on the addicted, but rubbing their backs and smiling while doing so. It's not a vote of confidence.
Yes, safer for society. Yes, reduces harm. I just wish there was something in between the "just a junkie piece of trash" mentality and the feeding (albeit safely) of addiction.

allforcnm

There is an interesting interview that was given by Dr Gabor Mate. He worked at Insite in Vancouver and has some added points that I think would be helpful to share here, as it describes more of his philosophy. The whole article can be found here on the Secular Family Forum: http://www.soberrecovery.com/forums/...ough-love.html

I will share some of the key points here:

Dr. Gabor Mate is renowned in Canada for his work in treating people with the worst addictions, most notably at Vancouver’s controversial Insite facility, which provides users with clean needles, medical support and a safe space to inject drugs.

In Mate’s book In the Realm of Hungry Ghosts: Close Encounters with Addiction, which was a No. 1 bestseller in Canada, he advocates for the compassionate treatment of addiction, a position that is increasingly receiving international attention

The question is, Is it better for people to inject drugs with puddle water or sterile water? Is it better to use clean needles or share so that you pass on HIV and hepatitis C? This is what harm reduction is. It doesn’t treat addiction, it just reduces harm. In medicine, we do this all the time. People smoke but we still give them inhalers to open airways, so what’s different? You’re not enabling anything they’re not already using.

I worked for 12 years in the Americas’ most concentrated area of drug use, the Downtown Eastside of Vancouver. People live there in the street with HIV and hepatitis and festering wounds: what more of a bottom can they hit? If hitting bottom helped people, there would be no addicts at all in the Downtown Eastside. ‘Bottom’ is very relative, so it’s a meaningless concept. For me as a doctor, rockbottom might be losing my medical license, but what is a bottom for a person who has been abused all her life and lives on the street? It’s meaningless and false.

People don’t need more negative things to happen to them to give it up. They need more positive things to happen.

I think childhood trauma or emotional loss is the universal template for addiction. There are two things that can go wrong in childhood: things that happen that shouldn’t happen — that’s trauma — and things that should happen that don’t happen. Children are equally hurt by things that should happen and don’t as they are by things that shouldn’t happen but do.

What I’m saying is that early emotional loss is the universal template for all addictions. All addictions are about self-soothing.

How will it help if I punish them more? They need the very opposite. We end up punishing them for self-soothing. It makes no sense at all. Harm reduction is not an end in itself. Ideally, what it is is a first step towardsa more thorough-going [recovery], but you have to begin with where people are at.

That’s the key. Quite apart from clean needles and sterile water, the most important factor is for the first time saying to someone who has been rejected all their life, ‘We’re not going to judge you based on how you present your needs at the present moment.’ Harm reduction is much more than set of practices; it’s a way of relating to people. We’re not requiring you to stop using or do anything, we’re just trying to help you get healthier. At least you’re not going to suffer an infection of the bone marrow because you’re using a clean needle: is that not worth something? We’re here to reduce suffering. They may not get better in the sense of giving up the addiction, but that’s not a limit of harm reduction — that’s a limit of the treatment system.

In term of addictions, first of all recognize that these people are traumatized and what they need is not more trauma and punishment but more compassion.

Chino

He thinks tough love is punishing the addict. I'm sure it's perceived that way by the addict when they're in the throes of active addiction and being kicked out, but from the other side, it's protecting myself and my home from a temporarily violent lunatic sociopath.

Again.... I must have missed the class where the one size fits all bottom was determined by some unnamed entity.

I support harm reduction.

I think this guy has some untreated/unresolved issues.

cynical one

I suggest you watch his TED talk.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66cYcSak6nE

And this interview.
TED Talk: The Cause of Addiction

soberlicious

Allforcnm
I understand what harm reduction is. I am not for people suffering or hurting. I've already previously read the article you linked.

When I said I don't know how I feel about it, I meant just that.

It's a complicated, controversial issue. No easy right or wrong on this. No one has the answers. Even with harm reduction, we are still looking at millions of addicted people around the world. It's a sad state of affairs.

People aren't wary of these programs because they are mean people who enjoy the suffering of others. And they are not idiots. It unfair to categorize all who may have reservations about safe injection sites as such.

Ann

I think it is normal to have mixed feeling about a site such as this. Addiction makes us cringe, it has brought personal sadness to each one of us here...and we are the ones who understand the sadness of addiction by experiencing it in our own homes. We hate addiction (not the addicted loved one) and what it has done to our families.

It's also okay to have varying feelings about this, we are not here to agree or disagree with whether these sites work, just to share our thoughts on them.

Addicts will get clean, with or without without these sites. Addicts will die, with or without these sites. But the overall good of having them, to me, outweighs the overall bad without them.

The very thought of safe injection sites make me cringe...that's my emotional side responding. My rational side sees that having these sites is better than not having them. They save lives, even beyond the addicted community by reducing the incidents of HIV and AIDS.

Those are my thoughts, they are personal, as are the thoughts of each one of us here. It's okay to differ, it's okay to not be sure. It is just good to discuss a topic that at some point could affect any one of us.

Hugs

cynical one

I see where the entire Board of Directors of Insite were forced to resign a month or so ago by the provincial government for misuse of funds. Hopefully, the program will remain open.