[lbo-talk] RE: Panopticon 2003 surveillance = treatment?

John Thornton jthorn65 at mchsi.com
Wed Oct 1 23:16:03 PDT 2003


Your experience is quite correct. Addicts who don't wish to stop will not even if watched closely. This drug testing surveillance is about control not drugs. Anyone who writes "that getting someone off of drugs will require some degree of surveillance" hasn't a clue what is required. Changing habits, places, friends, having lots of support and a strong desire to kick are what is generally "required" to shake an addiction, no surveillance needed. I spent several years working with addicts and have a tremendous dislike of ignorant statements like this. Your friends are lucky to have someone like you help them in such a non-judgmental and supportive manner. As far as not being able to tell your friend was high when visiting I hope you don't feel like it's something you should have noticed, your note doesn't sound like you do. An experienced junkie can hide it very well. I was an excellent paramedic for years in Chicago all the while I was using. No testing in those days. I don't think addicts are ever cured. They simply stop using. All the ones I have known say the desire never goes away. Some days desires are stronger than others but it's just under the surface most of the time.

John Thornton


>Joanna wrote:
>"Surveillance is not treatment."
>
>Brian wrote:
>"It's certainly part of it. Seems to me that getting someone off of drugs
>will involve some degree of surveillance. After all, aren't AA meetings
>just a way of having people check in with their case workers?"
>
>In my experience, addictions can only be cured by the addicts
>themselves.... Support helps a lot. Support includes: medical support,
>therapy, places to go and dry out in safety and temporarily away from
>drugs, places and a means to live while transitioning back to a normal life.
>
>A few years back a lesbian couple (one pregnant) came to live with me.
>They had just stopped using when they moved in. It took them about two and
>a half years to be ready to be on their own. A while after they moved out,
>one of them started using again, but the other is still clean after nearly
>six years. So, the support and the transition period was effective in one
>case but not in the other. But the baby was born without having been
>exposed to any drugs.
>
>Folks who go to AA tell me that what helps them about the organization is
>the group therapy aspect of it and also having somewhere to go and
>something to do other than to go to a bar and drink. The "case worker" is
>nothing other than an ex-alcoholic.
>
>I don't see what surveillance has to do with any of this. You could not
>say that the couple who lived with me were "under surveillance"; I
>performed no drug tests and I haven't a clue as to what a heroin addict
>who is using looks or acts like. The one woman who relapsed came around a
>few times while she was high, and I could not tell a thing. What helped
>them by living with me was being in a heroin-free environment and in a
>fairly pleasant family setting where stress was low and a capable mother
>figure was around to lend a hand or give encouragement when needed.
>
>Joanna
>
>
>
>
>
>
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list