Appendix 5

More About...

More on the "Disease" of Alcoholism and Other Related Topics

In a study conducted by the Kansas City Veterans Administration Medical Center, the VA reported on three groups of substance abusers. Group One received no treatment at all except for a 15-minute appointment each month with a doctor. Group Two was given Antabuse, a drug that causes a severe reaction when combined with alcohol, and Group Three received the full range of treatment including outpatient programs, individual counseling and therapy, family counseling programs, vocational and rehabilitation guidance, access to Alcoholics Anonymous, and the option of taking Antabuse. The group that had no treatment at all did significantly better (by 20 percent) than either of the two treated groups.

However, the VA study is not the only study to show the no-treatment option outperforms the treatment option. For three decades, William R. Miller, a psychologist at the University of New Mexico, has been assessing therapies for treating alcohol abuse. In a 1995 study, Miller rated 43 kinds of treatment by combining the results of 211 controlled trials that compared the effectiveness of a treatment with either no treatment or with alternative alcohol and drug abuse therapies (The Sciences, March-April 1998, pg. 17-21, Stanton Peele). According to the findings, the treatment with the best overall score was by far brief intervention, followed by social skills training and motivational enhancements. Brief intervention is as simple as having the client agree to reduce his or her drinking or drugging or to refrain from drinking and drugging altogether. Motivational enhancement involves the client deciding what is important in his or her life and then adjusting his or her drinking and drugging accordingly. Both processes are far less confrontational than the methods generally employed in conventional treatment, and, actually, motivational enhancement is designed to be completely non-confrontational.

The Miller Report described standard (conventional) treatment as "a milieu advocating a spiritual 12-step (A.A.) philosophy, typically augmented with group psychotherapy, educational lectures and films, and general alcoholism counseling often of a confrontational nature." These standard treatment techniques ranked at the bottom of Miller's list, proving to be the least successful avenue for treating patients with substance abuse problems. What is more distressing is the most frequently used methods throughout the United States are the programs for which there is the least evidence of success. Based on Miller's study, and numerous others in agreement with Miller's findings, substance abusers have a better chance of getting sober without treatment.

Based on the preceding paragraphs, it is a complete waste of your time and money to attend conventional treatment. Conventional treatment can and does actually lower the probability for recovery, and there are specific reasons why.

During conventional treatment or outpatient programs, clients learn they need to be more selfish, and that they have an incurable disease called alcoholism and/or drug addiction. They are encouraged to center their thoughts on their recovery and their disease, and to remain fearful of alcohol and all types of drugs. To the average person this is just nonsense, but to a desperate person struggling with substance abuse, the "selfish program" as it is called, is quite enticing and caters to an already selfish lifestyle. The program becomes the all-encompassing focus, thereby replacing one obsessive and self-centered behavior for another. The selfish attitude, in conjunction with a subscription to the false disease concept, counteracts the hope of conquering substance abuse problems. Individuals become so brainwashed with selfishness and disease propaganda that those learned concepts actually become their identity and a built-in excuse for future relapses. The individuals stay sick and the treatment centers keep on treating.

Trips to multiple treatment centers, followed by still more relapses are, in fact, the usual pattern. Of course, the disease of alcoholism and drug addiction does not really exist. However, calling it a disease allows treatment facilities to "medicalize" the condition, thereby receiving billions of health insurance dollars every year.

If you have been diagnosed with "alcoholism" or "drug addiction," or if you have diagnosed yourself, this program can still work for you. This program works on the premise that you have made a series of bad choices in your pursuit to fulfillment and happiness, not that you have a disease. A series of choices and habits can be changed, a disease is forever.

If it is true that you do not have a disease - and it is true - then logically isn't your alcohol and/or drug problem just a series of bad choices? Is running up a huge debt on a spending spree or a gambler betting away a child's college tuition any different than going to the barroom or crack house to find momentary satisfaction? Sure, alcohol abuse can be characterized by temporary physical addiction, as can some other drug habits, but the choice to drink or drug ultimately lies with you. It is obvious that a problem gambler or a shop-a-holic, is not diseased. These are choices, not diseases. Likewise, there are no credible studies to substantiate the disease of alcoholism or any other addiction. In fact, there is a substantial body of knowledge that refutes that assertion. For more information about the disease concept, see added research sections at the back of this book.

To illustrate this in more detail, let us look at a short analogy. Take someone with diabetes (a genuine disease), lock them in a room for two weeks, and then set them free. That person would still have diabetes. The same cannot be said for alcohol abuse. Lock up a drunk for two weeks without booze, and that person will no longer have the symptoms of the supposed disease. They are 100 percent fine. They may need to detoxify themselves, but again, detoxification from a substance is not criteria for any disease but alcoholism. To get to the point of needing detoxification, however, one must first choose to drink and this inherently causes the need for detoxification. The choice comes first; people do not choose to get diabetes, it happens largely beyond the control of their mind and actions.

If you made the choice to walk among rattlesnakes and were bitten, you would then need to detoxify your body of the poison. The poison will make you sick and there is a chance of death if proper care is not taken. An alcohol abuser going to medical detox has the same situation. Yet, we do not automatically jump to the absurd conclusion that walking among poisonous snakes is a disease. The disease proponents would then have to give the above mentioned scenario a name like the disease of rattlesnakism!

Just because a substance abuser needs medical help to detoxify themselves, does not absolve him or her of the responsibility of choosing to drink and/or drug in the first place.

In this analogy what exactly constitutes the disease? Is it the choice to walk among rattlesnakes? Is it when a person gets bit and is sick? Or is it when they are taken to the hospital for poison detoxification? The answer is none. All of the above were caused by a choice, not a driving internal force beyond one's control. It does not take rocket science to avoid rattlesnakes and, like our unlucky snake trespasser, it is also well known that when a person drinks or drugs too much, that choice can have horrendous consequences.

Because of current treatment methodologies, alcohol abuse and/or drug abuse are seen as specialized and unique problems that need specialized and unique treatment. There is a multi-billion dollar treatment industry based on the disease concept. The disease concept is not going away anytime soon, but that does not change the fact that it is false. It is one of our goals to demonstrate that alcohol addiction and drug addiction are just choices people make to find a moment of satisfaction and happiness. Armed with these facts, the dragon called "ism" becomes a toothless monster, one that disappears once the light of the truth hits it. This, of course, is not to minimize the tragedy that occurs as a result of people's abuse of these mind-altering substances. Every year thousands are killed by substance abuse, and countless more feel the negative repercussions. But there is a solution for anyone who wants it.

Knowing this problem is a matter of choice forces the sufferer to face his or her unsatisfying life head on, and take responsibility for his or her destiny. Doesn't this sound like what the general population does every day?

Substance abuse is an accurate term to describe the choice-based condition. The words "alcoholic" and "alcoholism," therefore, become meaningless. If there are two traits that put the substance abusers in a class by themselves, it would be their grotesque, self-imposed selfishness and their reliance on fear to guide their daily living. Such people turn to alcohol and drugs to function in the horrible life that disproportionate selfishness and fears create. Alcohol and drugs support the illusion that they can remain selfish and fear-ridden and be happy at the same time. This is impossible. Selfishness and fear are the antithesis of a happy and productive life. Eventually, the proverbial house of cards collapses and the person realizes that changes in their life are necessary. That is usually when they look for help.

Once the choice to stop drinking and drugging is made, the grim reality of the life they have created comes into focus, and many people become overwhelmed by what they see. They begin this process of sobriety thinking alcohol and drugs are the problem, and this is only partly true. Once the temporary problem of consuming alcohol or drugs stops, people realize they have a number of problems seemingly unrelated to substance abuse. Once this sober thought-process starts, they begin to feel anxious, like nothing on earth could fix the mess they have created. They give up and return to the illusion of comfort brought on by alcohol and drugs, sometimes to their tragic demise.

Of course, it never has to end that way. Millions of people who were diagnosed with chronic alcoholism or with drug addiction have stopped drinking alcohol and doing drugs, forever. Millions of these people stopped their destructive behavior with nothing more than a brief intervention, accompanied with social skills training and motivational enhancements. In fact, this is currently the most common method used by those who permanently stop abusing substances. (See Appendix)

It's All About Choices

Denial does not exist.
The disease of alcoholism does not exist.
Co-dependency does not exist.
Enablers do not exist.

The majority of the people who read this text have been through the rehab and treatment wringer, and have learned many different aspects of addiction that are false. These erroneous ideas and theories can become serious stumbling blocks that when accumulated over time, gather into a wall of fabrication that stops people from gaining the wonderful life that is awaiting them. Labels like "alcoholic" or "co-dependent" can actually stop people from seeing who they really are and how to deal with their problems effectively. If people blindly accept these handy labels and base their actions on wrong assumptions, progress towards happiness stops.

It is not only the substance abuser who gets labeled, but many times those associated with the substance abuser and even the average lay person can be falsely labeled. In many people's lives the labels become so important to them, they forget they have other choices and means to change their lives for something much better and certainly less self-defeating. These same people, if misguided long enough, behave as the labels instruct, and eventually the label becomes a part of that person's identity. In other words, what they believe, they become.

Denial

If a person says to a trained professional, "I do not have a problem with alcohol or drugs," one of the first things that professional will reply is, "You are in denial. The first sign of a true alcoholic is that the person will deny the problem exists." This, of course, is a circular argument that has no sensible reply.

The conversation continues with the client saying, "So what you're telling me is, if I deny a problem exists, it does exist, and the only other alternative is to agree that I have a problem. Either way, I end up having a problem!"

The frustration aids the professional's argument: "If you really don't have a problem, then why all this defensiveness and aggression?"

The idea that a person does not know that he or she has a problem abusing substances is simply ludicrous. What these professionals are really trying to get an answer to is not how a person can deny the obvious, but rather why the abuser continues foolish destructive behavior, hurting himself and those around him. From all outward perceptions the abuser would stop this behavior if he knew wholeheartedly the seriousness of his condition. This statement makes the false assumption that abusers do not know the seriousness of their condition, when in reality they do.

But there is one extremely important piece of information missing in the professionals' assessment: regardless of the destructive force of substance abuse in a person's life, the substance abuser still enjoys the high, and therefore sees no reason why something that feels so good should ever be stopped, regardless of who is hurt by it.

From that perspective there is no problem because the substance abuser is happy with the current situation of getting high. From the substance abuser's point of view, the reply that he or she does not have a problem is 100 percent accurate. Substance abusers are aware of the price they and those around them are paying, but they simply find the price quite affordable and, therefore, refuse to change. At this point, the professional or friend or family member is talking to a wall, and the substance abuser sees no problem to deny. Therefore, denial does not exist.

Defense, Not Denial

Once a substance abuser has been sufficiently "beaten up" by the alcohol and/or drugs and is being pushed and prodded to stop drinking or drugging by their families, spouses, or the law, the denial tag is used to explain the natural reaction to defend their actions and behaviors.

But what possible defense is there for having a drinking or drug problem? Or felony DUI charges? Or testing positive for cocaine at work? What can the drunk (addict) say after waking up hung-over and remorseful, surveying the damage to the furniture and walls from last night? What possible defense can be offered by the drunk or drug addict when he/she has come home late and drunk (or high) for the fifth night in a row?

When confronted with these facts in a sober moment and told that he/she has a problem, the response is predictable: "No I don't!"

That is usually followed by an affirmative defense, and there are many. There is the adult turn about: "You think I'm an alcoholic (addict), are you high?" Then there's the "I'm in charge" defense: "So long as I'm making the money, you don't get to say how much I drink (drug)." There is the partial agreement defense: "You're right, I have been getting high (drunk) too often - you know I'm under a lot of pressure just now. I'll slow down. But a problem, no I don't have a problem."

Another popular defense is the abusive defense: "Hel-lo - is any one in there? It's the 21st century. People drink (or get high.) It's not a problem. It's just life - what planet are you on, anyway?" There is the threat defense: "Problem, what problem? You think I got drunk (high) last night - just wait till tonight - I'll show you what drunk (high) is." A popular defense is the violent defense: "I don't want to talk about it. I said I don't want to talk about it! For the love of God, shut the #@&# up! One more word and you are going to have a close encounter with this nine iron."

Then there are defenses that are specific to certain groups, for example, adolescents. Most adolescent defenses are guilt based. "You made me this way. If you would just leave me alone, I'd be fine." And, "Oh, sure - when you drink, it's not a problem. But, when I smoke a little dope with my friends, all of a sudden it's a problem. Did you know that booze is worse than smoking a joint? Anyway, try not to be such hypocrites."

The professional treatment community calls all defense endeavors by people who are thought to drink too much alcohol or take too many drugs "denial." However 40 to 50 percent of those who are referred to professional treatment by the courts or family members or by way of other interventions do not actually have substance abuse problems. These people, for whatever reason, get caught up in the "treatment machinery" of the culture, often as a result of merely experimenting with substances. So, when they claim that they don't have a problem - they really don't.

In these instances, it is the professional (or the judge or family member) who is not in reality. Time after time, these do-gooders' egocentric need to be right comes before the pursuit of the truth. And once the accusation (diagnosis) has been put in place, a trap has been set that is for the most part inescapable.

Admitting a Problem Equals Action

Is there really such a thing as "denial," in which people who really do have a problem actually believe that they don't? The simple answer is NO. What is true about these people is that they absolutely know they have a problem. In fact they knew they had a problem long before anyone confronted them. Why then do they argue so vehemently that they don't?

People who experience problems resulting from alcohol or drug addiction do know that problems exist. And they also know the problems are a direct result of their drug and alcohol use. However, once they agree, in the presence of another person, that they have a problem, they will be pressured to do something about it, like stop drinking or drugging. The alcohol or drug addict, at the time of confrontation, may not (and often does not) want to stop drinking or drugging. Thus, the rationale they are using is correct: "I am not going to admit the problem because not admitting to problems fits my personal choice to continue using alcohol or other drugs." This, then, isn't denial; it is a conscious decision.

Denial is not the substance abuser denying that they have a problem - they know that they have problems. Knowing the truth and telling the truth are not the same thing.

Substance abusers know the truth of their situation, no matter how far down the path they may be. In the very worst cases, their mental capacity may be diminished, but even then most are aware of what is happening to them. Those who do not abuse drugs and alcohol cannot accept that anyone would consciously choose to continue using in the face of such trouble. But unless one has personally experienced the relief, the moment of peace, the glimpse of greatness, the freedom, the exhilaration, the euphoria, and a host of other drug-induced flights of fancy, the need to get there over and over again is simply incomprehensible.

Denial vs. Risky Behavior

Some people think that those who bungee-jump, scuba dive, skydive, race motorcycles, cliff dive, rock climb, and pursue a number of other dangerous activities are crazy. These daredevils not only put their own lives at risk, but often the lives of others, as well. Yet even with the possibility of death or irreparable injuries, those involved go back again and again. After one of these accidents (problems) the thrill-seeker is confronted by one or more worried family members. The family member(s) explain how awful it is to sit and wonder every time the skydiver goes out to jump if this is the time he or she won't come home. The skydiver provides reassurance: "Nothing is going to happen. Listen to me, it's not all that dangerous. That guy made a mistake, but that won't happen to me."

Is this skydiver in denial? Does he or she really believe there is no danger? Of course not. The danger is the reason to do it in the first place. If it was not dangerous, there would be no adrenalin rush - there would be no "high" - in short, there would be no reason to do it. He or she knows the danger all too well and has decided the brief moment of ecstasy is worth all the risks and potential loss of health, family, job, reputation, and anything else of importance. He or she is not out of touch with reality. On the contrary, they know exactly what they are prepared to do (or lose) for one more rush, one more high, one more thrill. There is no denial here.

Nor is there any denial with those seeking their moment of comfort from booze or their rush from drugs. Professionals created the term "denial," not because there is any data that supports such a notion, but because professionals cannot understand why anyone would continue to use and abuse when confronted with the problems alcohol and drug abuse cause. That, then, is the truth about denial. Professional cannot and do not understand.

Diagnosis: Denial

Faced with the incorrect diagnosis of being in denial, substance abusers may become defiant, abusive, self-pitying, or even severely depressed, carrying on about how hopeless they are. At this juncture they may go to treatment centers, consult psychiatrists, and admit surrender and defeat over and over again. Yet they will continue to get high and drunk.

This is when therapists and those close to the addict become totally mystified. The abuser sounds as if they are totally ready to quit their habit, yet they keep going back to it. For those witnessing it, the frustration is enormous and the theory of denial once again emerges as an easy explanation. Others think, "My God, they must really be in denial to keep doing what they are doing."

For the substance abuser, the frustration is equally detrimental and depressing. But it is extremely important to understand that regardless of how hopeless some self-pitying substance abusers are, they are only as hopeless as they think they are.

Tossing the Theories

In the absence of the denial theory and the disease concept, there are no more excuses. Without the empty theories and rationalizations, substance abusers realize their power to choose sobriety or continue to use. Even the seemingly gray area where denial looked somewhat plausible becomes clearly seen for what it is (false). Fictitious theories, bogus diagnoses, and psycho-mumbo-jumbo only prolong indecision and aids in the destruction of substance abuser.

There are 700,000 substance abusers in treatment in this country on any given day, learning they have a disease and they are in denial. As these people accept the fallacies, they also give themselves permission to waffle instead of making a clear cut decision to abstain or continue using.

Millions of these "hopeless" types have changed their minds and chosen to get sober and be happy for the rest of their lives. Denial, even in those last stages does not exist. What does exist and what keeps these people active in their addictions, is the absence of a better alternative to drugs and alcohol. This lack of a better alternative is the simple answer to a seemingly complicated problem.

Before we can offer the alternatives to active substance abuse we must clear away the nonsense that has muddied the waters for the past 50 years.

The alternatives to drug and alcohol abuse are infinite. Prior to the medical community creating these false excuses for addicts' inappropriate behavior, addicts got over their problem, were locked away, or died. There was no middle ground. There was no tolerance for their abusive behavior.

In the last century, society's frustration, coupled with rapid advancements in medical knowledge, created an atmosphere that required explanations beyond, "Well, the alky just likes his grog," when in reality that is exactly what has always been going on. What's more, it is the truth!

Today, this need for an expert opinion is a crucial stumbling block for addicts. Many want to stop, but modern therapies with their myriad inconsistent, confusing, and complicated solutions have not and do not offer an addict anything that can compete with alcohol and drugs. Not only does the modern approach not offer a better alternative, but it actually gives the addict false reasons to excuse his or her inappropriate behavior.

Why is it acceptable to offer treatment that does not end in a fulfilling, successful life? So far, the addiction field has stumbled along with the same abysmal success rates that existed prior to the development of treatment! In many cases the treatments actually lower an individual's chances of moderating or getting sober forever. This is why it is important to dispel these false theories and find a solution that makes sense.

This text was created as a solution for those in need to find a clear path devoid of modern therapeutic silliness and fictitious theories. Once rid of contemporary approaches, a substance abuser can become open to lifesaving information. The problems of selfishness and fear can be discussed once the illusions of disease and denial are dispelled. This text offers information and specific lessons to achieve a happiness that surpasses the comfort alcohol and drugs provided for people living in "the gray area" between sobriety and active use.

Co-Dependency

We as a culture are so willing to label and classify problems that the most regular of human problems have become disorders and syndromes. In regards to alcohol and drug abuse, the theory of denial and the disease concept have continued to grow and mutate throughout the last 50 years. One of many offspring of the disease logic is "co-dependency." In co-dependency, people associated with the addict on any intimate level, from spouses and family members to even co-workers and friends, are labeled "sick" for remaining associated with the "sick damaged alcoholic."

As was the case with the development of denial and the disease concept, co-dependency was born from well intentioned professionals and authors who were searching for the answer to some very basic questions: Why do people stay involved with an addict when it hurts, and why do they go back to these relationships time after time?

If you examine those questions, they are comparable to the questions asked in regards to the substance abusers. "Why does an addict do seemingly insane things over and over again?" "Why does the spouse stay with the alcoholic who mistreats him or her?" The questions are the same. The theory was created to solve a problem that was severely misunderstood.

The basic co-dependency theory makes two false assumptions. First, if an individual stays in any type of relationship with an addict, that makes the person just as sick as the addict. The second is that an addict is sick to begin with.

Creating these sicknesses absolves any responsibility on the participants' part for their unhappiness. Both assumptions create a "sickness" that takes the place of the individual's responsibility to each other. Both are choices not illnesses. To mislabel a person's voluntary negative habits and behaviors is to cause those looking for solutions to begin a never-ending wild goose chase, searching for imaginary solutions. For addicts, that goose chase can last long enough for them to die prior to finding the truth, and for the non-addicts close to them to live with guilt and confusion as to where they went wrong.

Those trying to help families with an alcohol or drug addict must understand that people remain doing things that they believe will satisfy them or make them happy. For the active addict, that activity is getting high. For those who love an addict, it means staying involved with that addict. Because these relationships often cause the participants pain and unhappiness they are classified as sick relationships. Unhappiness, however, is a choice, not a neurosis or sickness.

There are those rare relationships where the participants love each other and accept each others' faults. These people usually do not look for help because they do not need it. Most relationships that include an addict are not so accepting. It is in these relationships that the term co-dependent seems to apply. This is especially true when the non-substance abuser complains about the relationship they are in, and is deeply hurt over and over again, sometimes for a period of years or even decades. These people do not remain in these relationships because of a sickness, rather they stay for love and often an internal need to fix the other person sometimes based on their own selfish insecurities and fears. This fear and need is not sick, it is an intense drive to make the other person happy so they can then be happy, too.

In other cases the non-addict stays in the relationship to fix the addict so that he or she can improve his or her self-worth. In these situations, the non-addict usually ends up unhappy and bitter when the addict does not behave to the non-addict's standards. When the change does not does not happen quickly, the non-addict is let down repeatedly, causing resentment, hurt feelings, and a sense of hopelessness.

This phenomenon is driven by the selfishness and fears of the non-substance abuser. Many of these people have little internal value. This lack of self-worth can be caused by any number of factors, many of which may have nothing to do with the relationship in question. Regardless of the cause of this lack of self-worth, their value is then placed on the addict's daily performance of the non-addict's ultimatums.

Having insecurities, although destructive for all involved, is a natural human condition. Labeling people with self-defeating descriptions does not provide a solution.

A person, who chooses unhappy relationships, does just that, they choose it. Just the same as the addict continues to choose to get high, the non-user remains in the mess to be happy for moments, however fleeting. If the non-substance abuser is able to convince the addict to straighten out one out of 10 tries, it brings such satisfaction that it is worth the other nine times the substance abuser fails. Once the spells of fleeting happiness are no longer worth the effort expended, many times the relationship ends.

There are cases where the non-addict's need to fix the addict is so severe, that the non-addict will stay at almost any personal cost. The converse is also true: the addict is completely needy and holds on to the non-addict with all their might. Some people have an enormous threshold for this type of pain, whether it is endured for the sake of love or to counter insecurities and fears. The point is to figure out what the motivation for the relationship is and make the necessary decisions to gain more happiness.

The last thing someone in an unhappy relationship needs is a label that describes them as sick and unable to make alternate choices. With a negative label, people focus on their own defects and reasons to stay rather than on their immense power of choice, which would give them the option to quit the fight for something better. Once choice is taken away, so is any future change.

Enabling

Enabling: Helping the substance abuser hurt himself with kindness, money, love or general generosity. The theory of enabling a substance abuser is a complicated issue, and one of the most misunderstood and misused theories in modern conventional treatment. The first aspect of this theory is whether generosity given to an addict by a non-addict is hurtful to the addict. The second facet to examine is how the non-addict should react if the addict squanders the kindnesses handed to him or her. And lastly, how much of a role does the non-addict have in regards an addict's attempts at sobriety.

Addicts very rarely say no to the generosity of others. Based on this, the addict will almost always be on the taking side of a relationship. That being said, non-addicts should not kid themselves into believing that the addict will be selfless if given the chance or that they will use that generosity for their own betterment. Almost across the board, substance abusers have a deep sense of emptiness that drives them to seek relief in whatever form that presents itself, and taking and squandering that which is given is the norm. Anyone with experience with an addict can attest to that.

Hurting someone with generosity is oxymoronic. You cannot hurt an addict with love, generosity, or kindness of any kind regardless of how misdirected it is when given. The addict will find relief one way or the other, no matter what. If it is not the generosity of those close to him or her, it will be generosity from someone else they are able to manipulate. They are masters at getting what they want, and no one will stop them from getting it, until they decide to change.

So what can influence an addict to get sober and stay that way? And how does someone close to a taking addict remain feeling good knowing an addict is going to be selfish almost 100 percent of the time?

The fact that addicts are good manipulators is not in question. Where the enabling theory goes wrong is when it states that anyone besides the addict has any power to promote sobriety or force or coerce the addict to be pushed towards a goal, such as abstinence, that he or she is not interested in. As an example, if a husband gives his crack-addicted wife money to bail her out of jail on drug charges, this would be considered enabling her to return to the streets for more crack. But, is that true? The professionals in the field of drug addiction and psychiatry would say yes.

Let us look at the inverse scenario. The husband does not bail her out of jail to teach her a lesson. Is her chance of not smoking crack any greater when she gets out? The answer is probably not. Statistically, bailing someone out of jail leaves you with the same results.

In other words, punishing an addict does not promote sobriety. However, using jail as a temporary means to house an addict while a solution is found and then offered when they get out is a move in the right direction. This is a lot different than punishing them.

Does this mean that the husband should continuously give money and affection until the addict dies from an overdose? Obviously not. If the husband feels in his heart that if he bails her out of jail she will have a greater chance of finding sobriety he should try that. But there is a caveat. If this option does not work he must have the strength to try something new immediately.

The non-addict does not have to participate in an addict's chaotic lifestyle. The non-addict has the right to a sane life, devoid of the chaos that drug addiction causes. Many times, it is the non-addict's decision to break away that makes the addict realize what is important to them, and the needed life change occurs. Unfortunately, just as often, an addict will choose not to abstain or moderate no matter what situations or confrontations are brought to the table.

So what does a family or friend have control over in such difficult situations? The answer is resources.

Family and friends do have control over the resources that could be spent on others instead of the substance abuser. Resources such as time, money, and emotional energy are limited. A substance abuser, if given the chance, will drain a family or anyone close to them of all they have. Eventually, a family is forced to make a decision. When do they stop helping the addict and save their resources so the rest of the family has an opportunity to live a sane life? What if you say enough is enough and then the addict dies alone and in the street? What if you never say no to the addict's requests and they die in the home after you supported them over and over in their crazy exploits?

Take a family with a father, mother, and three teen-agers. The middle child is a 15-year-old boy, and his sisters are 12 and 17. The young man has a heroin problem and the rest of the family is totally drug and alcohol abstinent. The young man used to play sports, was on the honor roll, and was a sociable, likeable sort, but his life has now spiraled into a desperate antisocial state. Almost all of the family's time and resources have been spent on bailing their son out of trouble and on two rehab stays. Emotions are consistently on edge as the young man's fits of self-pity and spoiled anger are a constant disruption. Dad wants him out of the house and Mom could not bear to even think of it. Yet, both are at the breaking point. Both sisters are tired of being put on the back burner as their brother's extreme problems take precedence. Resentment in the household is at an all time high. What are they to do?

Current "tough love" thinking would say put him on the street and change the locks on the house. Emotions say to love their son back to health. Which method is right? Both.

No one is wrong, but eventually practical choices become more limited as new methods are tried and fail. Their son could be tossed into the street, the family could get a second mortgage and pay for another lawyer to get him out of trouble yet again. Or they could simply do nothing and let the son run the show until 18, and then kick him out of the nest.

Through all this confusion and heart-wrenching decision-making, there is only one rule that gets results and it has nothing to do with enabling, tough love, co-dependency, interventions, denial, or diseases. Because time is always running out on a substance abuser, this rule must be practiced with as little emotion as possible. The rule is this: If what you are doing is not working, try something else and do it quickly.

To do nothing or to do the same thing twice with an addict is to participate in the manipulation. This book is not saying to toss him to the street nor to keep him protected. These are decisions only the family can make. We are saying to have the courage to try something different every time an attempt fails.

It comes down to limiting the number of options until the addict either finds a solution or chooses not to. It is their choice. The family's choice is to weigh the options and try them all if that is what it takes. Remember, with an addict, you are always racing against the clock, so your courage will be tested. Make a decision and stick with it. If the attempt does not get the desired results, then move on to the next solution. Above all, do not personalize each attempt. This is not about success or failure. This is about searching for a solution that works. In the appendix there is a list of general options that are available with accompanying success rates. This can help educate you on the options available before you are forced to make decisions.

In the above scenario, let's say the addict son is unwilling to live according to the limits placed on him and the parents agree to have him leave. He moves in with a friend and dies of an overdose a week later. Although utterly tragic, addicts die every year in greater numbers than those who died in all eight years of the Vietnam War. To assume that every parent or friend or professional failed with these people is completely unrealistic. An addict who dies has selfishly imposed his or her misery on those who loved him or her, leaving them crushed by guilt and helplessly broken-hearted. But ultimately, it is not the fault of those who grieve but merely a moment's choice of the substance abuser.

Addicts make their own bed, while screaming that it is everybody else's fault. Enablers do not exist. What does exist are people who follow their hearts as best they know how. Non-addicts should ask themselves, did they continue to try the same things over and over, or did they have the courage to try something new each time the addict decided to squander the previous option given him or her. The non-addict should not wait for things to change on their own.

A non-substance abuser has control over, not the addict's behavior, but rather how that behavior affects the non-addict and the rest of the family members. The label "enabler" implies the non-addict has some control over the addict's behavior. They somehow enable the addict to behave poorly. This is just plain wrong, the bad behavior is the substance abusers fault, not the family's.

If there was a positive replacement label for "enabler," it would be "option presenter."

As an option presenter you can set the stage with an option and measure the results. This lets you know how serious an active addict is in finding a solution. If the option is given, (let's say for the sake of argument that the option was for the addict to complete this text) and then the addict hedges, you probably should go on to the next option which may or may not be to cut all ties to the active addict. Only the non-addict can be the judge of the next option and how many different options they are willing to go through before they expect results. In the option presenter role, you are taking the rightful position in the helping role. The responsibility lies on the addict to perform, not on the non-addict, and the non-addict gains the right to passively sit back and watch. If the non-addict is working for the solution harder than the addict, then the non-addict has become ineffective and has overstepped his or her responsibility.

What the option presenter is trying to find is the solution that contains the right combination of attractive and inspirational ingredients that the addict can see. Once the addict realizes the option can bring happiness, they will bite. That is why it is important to keep trying, as no two people are the same. Some addicts will want to moderate and will be able to, while others will be looking to abstain completely. Others will be looking for a spiritual route, while others will be looking for more tangible goals. Still others will be looking for a combination of all of those things. And there are still others who tragically decide to abuse substances to their death regardless of what is given as an option.

There are no victims, just choices that bring a level of happiness and satisfaction or a level of unhappiness and dissatisfaction. In the case of a family dealing with an active addict, many times there is no option for the non-addicts that can bring them satisfaction. This, then, is the conundrum of drug addiction, the obvious lack of control on the part of the non-addicted. It must be emphatically understood, that when an addict dies it is no one's fault. As an option presenter, it is important to understand that sometimes the addict simply loves to get high more than any option the world can offer, and there is nothing that can be done about it, no matter how many options are presented. Still other times an addict's life is cut short by a mistaken overdose or car accident or the like prior to them finding the solution. Although tragic, it must be remembered that those sorts of mistakes are made by addicts and have nothing to do with the option presenter.

An option presenter's job is to live happily, present options, and weigh the cost of the addict's behavior on the family resources.

For more information on these subjects, you can contact the authors, Mr. Mark Scheeren or Mr. Gerald Brown at 1-518-842-3052.

Alcohol Rehab | Alcoholism | Drug Abuse | Heroin abuse
Drug Addiction | Substance Abuse | Chemical Dependency
Alcoholics Anonymous | Cocaine Abuse | Drug Addiction Rehabilitation
www.baldwinresearch.com | www.permanent-solution.com| www.homerecovery.net

Links | Site Map