May 18, 2006
Something we expect...
I recently read this oh-so-very-sympathetic account in the NYT of someone who is addicted to painkillers...
Representative Kennedy, scion of America's most loved and hated Democratic clan, has been a passionate advocate for ending the stigma of mental illness; he told voters years ago of his treatment for depression and cocaine abuse. But when he slipped off to the Mayo Clinic last December to get help for addiction to prescription painkillers, he had trouble overcoming that stigma himself.
When he crashed his Mustang convertible into a Capitol barricade in the middle of the night earlier this month, Mr. Kennedy, of Rhode Island, was thrust into a clash between personal privacy and political beliefs. Hours before he told the world he was checking himself back into the Mayo Clinic, he wrestled with going public...
And yet---gee, my memory isn't what it was--wasn't there some other public figure who had an addiction to painkillers? Someone else, in the political and public realm? In the last year or two? Hmmm? And don't I recall that somehow he didn't get treated with quite the same tenderness as Mr Kennedy? Wasn't there even some element of criminal prosecution? For a First Offense?
And, horrid thought, don't I remember that there were some people who---how shall I put this...baldly I guess---who expanded like roosters and crowed over this other person's misfortune?
Maybe Mr K's situation is different because in this case it was something, umm, expected:
But his cousin Mr. Shriver, who said he had watched "countless members of my family" overcome addiction, was optimistic. "Once he gets this current challenge under control, watch out," Mr. Shriver said. "He'll just knock the socks off of everybody."
"countless members?"
Posted by John Weidner at May 18, 2006 01:49 PMI’m not sure what you want here. Would you like the current drug laws to be:
A) Enforced (toss the Kennedy into jail, continue the prosecution of Rush)
Or
B) Changed (neither Rush nor Kennedy goes to jail)?
‘Cause right now it sounds like you’re pointing a finger and saying “hypocrite” which isn’t constructive at all...
Andrew, you are probably confused over my position on drug laws BECAUSE I NEVER MENTIONED DRUG LAWS, or wanting anyone to go to jail.
I'm pointing out, tongue-in-cheek, that there is an absurd double-standard in the REPORTING (and prosecution) of these two cases.
And shining a spotlight on such anomalies out can often be a constructive thing. As can pointing out hypocrisy. I believe you've even done so yourself...
Posted by: John Weidner at May 18, 2006 09:32 PMWell then, which would you prefer? Rush and Kennedy to go to jail, or the drug laws changed? Me? I want to see the laws changed so that those convicted of most drug-use crimes (not sales, use) spend a week in jail (to let ‘em know where they could be, save for society’s mercy) and then ship ‘em to rehab...
How about you? What do you want our drug-use laws to look like?
Actually, I don't have a position on drug laws. I'm quite torn on the subject, which is why I don't mention it often.
On the one hand, I think drugs are a great evil, very destructive of human lives. And it is wrong for government to in any way condone them. It's sending a terrible moral message. And worse, the debating and lawmaking is mostly done by people of the middle-class, but it is the poorer folk who usually suffer the consequences.
One the other hand the Drug War is an evil mess also. And it is based on a lie. The only way to stop drugs is to end demand, by punishing users. But that has been politically impossible since the 60's, when millions of middle-class kids started using various drugs.
So we invented the fiction that we could fight drugs by fighting supply; by going after smugglers and dealers and drug-producing countries. This was never a scheme that could work, since any interruption of supply just raises prices, thereby generating a host of new suppliers.
And our policies not only corrupt our own people, but also those of other countries, something I find utterly loathsome.
We took a wrong turn in the 60's, and I don't now see a right way out of it.
Posted by: John Weidner at May 19, 2006 10:11 AMI’m in full agreement with you right up until “by punishing users.” If you view drug use, as I do, as a soul searching for fulfillment and meaning—or at least a soul’s attempt to dampen lack of same—then punishment won’t really work. What will work, or can work (perhaps), is to help people fix themselves. Rehabilitation programs are a potent tool to this end...
Posted by: Andrew Cory at May 19, 2006 01:05 PMMy two cents' worth:
Just as the War on Alcohol was a disaster in the '20s, so too is our War on (Some) Drugs. Make the stuff lawful again, like it was prior to 1914.
As for the sainted Kennedy clan.... Andrew, I think what John and I are asking for is consistency on the part of the authorities and the lame-stream media. If Limbaugh is going to be hassled by the authorities and the lame-stream media for his alleged misuse of pain-killers, then Kennedy should be hassled equally for his misuse of pain-killers (of whatever kind). But no.... if you are a Republican, you get nailed; if you're a Democrat, you get a free pass. *sigh*
John, it's an old saying: "Useless laws weaken the necessary laws." (Charles De Montesquieu) That's what makes the War on (Some) Drugs so dangerous-- the necessarily erratic enforcement of those laws brings the whole edifice of law-enforcement into disrepute, which isn't a good thing in a republic.
Posted by: Hale Adams at May 19, 2006 06:19 PM
