Addiction Ideology

Doyle Saylor djsaylor at
Mon Jul 13 12:31:51 PDT 1998

Hello everyone, Alec Ramsdell wrote July 13 1998: By saying "addicts can easily qualify . . ." I had in mind dual diagnosis. When I was at the treatment center I talked to others who had received disability through being additionally diagnosed with deppression by a psychiatrist. I saw a psychiatrist too and discovered it's not too difficult to be diagnosed with depression, you just don't even have to really ask nicely with some doctors, just as many doctors are pretty generous with doling out opiate pain-killers.

Is the dual-diagnosis qualification true?


Doyle A doctor knowing someone is an alchoholic would assume a late stage alchoholic is depressed because that is a standard effect of alchohol as a mood depressor. The doc would hardly need to think about that one. That would be a medical cinch. It is not that simple in reality. I have a friend in Social Security benefits review process. They have docs for some addict to see. The doctor is paid for, and it is hard for penniless addicts to have an alternative to the Social Security Doc. The Doc is biased to the Social Security system views. You might be an addict, but can you work? What is medical about such a diagnostic technique. But that is Doc-work nevertheless. And if you can work, then no you can't have the benefits. The process takes a long time. If you fail to hang in there because you live on the streets, and get confused in the day to day, not just the month by month slow drip drip of Social Security, then off you go from the process to start again, or perhaps through an appeal stay stationary for months.

Doyle My wife does peer counseling. She sees people in crisis. Again depression. Getting treatment for depression is very problematic. You need insurance to get the better kind. Suppose you threaten suicide. The system is designed to immediately alert the cops. Your treatment is to be depressed and go to jail for a day, or go to county lockup in the psych ward. Then 72 hours later with some strong tranqs back on the street. That person is very clearly depressed. Not an addict, but they can't get any kind of aid. Nothing. Nothing. Nothing. Nothing. Nothing. And Nothing. Every day thousands of people in every damn major city in this country. Every layer of the process is about making it clear to you they can be as arbitrary as they want. If they make a mistake it is your fault. If you make a mistake, start all over again.

Doyle The only point I'm trying to make is that in the U.S. by rejecting addiction as a qualification for Social Security benefits, the accompanying symptoms of addiction which result from long term physcial abuse do not necessarily qualify you for Social Security. There is a lengthy problematic process to run the gamut of. There is the fact that depression or any other medical diagnosis does not by any means make itself into the right hands, or when in the hands of "qualified" evaluators get accurate judgements done. At best all that seems to happen is if the addict lives long enough, (more than a year really) they "may" find a way to qualify under other rules of eligibility. regards, Doyle Saylor

More information about the lbo-talk mailing list