Interestingly, I married him in part BECAUSE he was Jewish, and it was MY stereotype that his family would be close and protective of any family I might have. Wrong. My husband was an abuser, physically and emotionally (the bigger part), and was abusive to my children. He was a serial adulterer, and my running joke now is that he dated more in the marriage than he does since leaving it. Sad, but true.

The link to your article comes from the fact that, no matter how many times I desperately approached his parents and two brothers to get him help, they ignored me. A counsellor I saw later said they would rather sweep it under the rug than “deal”. Unfortunately, this meant the children and I endured hell we should not have had to.

Now, the “dad” has claimed an inability to earn what was a very high self-employment income, and has left me $120000 in credit card debt, scrabling to get our pathetic court system to do something. Again, I have approached his family, literally BEGGING for help. They are all quite wealthy. “Dad” was president of his high end tennis club, travels, and was last seen during a work day with a personal trainer. Again, this semi-prominent family in Toronto simply acts as though we do not exist.

Can someone explain to me how a people who pride themselves on “goodness” and “giving” and “decency” (and by people I refer only to this family) can turn their backs on a mother and three incredible boys?

I thought part of being a good Jew was looking after one another. My children and I have been shut out and let down, and most unfortunately, they are forming THEIR opinions from the disgusting behaviour of a few.

I pray for better days and fairness!

Dear Susie, William and all,

To my mind, ‘unhooked thinking’ isn’t anything to do with persuading people about the correctness of its findings – it is hooked thinking that tries to do that.

Unhooked thinking is about removing a mental block that lies at the root of human suffering and leads to hooked thinking – otherwise known as objective rationality – the practice of unrealistically objectifying nature and human nature in ways that dislocate content from context and so can never escape the loop of trying to ‘fix problems’ (locally fixing fixing).

My feeling is that the RSA is missing a great opportunity to help us out of the loop.

As Louis Pasteur recognised as he was dying ‘the microbe is nothing, the terrain is all’. The addiction, whatever local form it might take, is what could draw our attention to a much deeper question. Sure, ways need to be found to ease suffering through provision of local services. But that is only the proverbial ‘tip of the iceberg’. Important in its own way, but only a superficial appearance.

More about liberating ourselves from fixing things can now be found at http://www.inclusional-research.org.

Warmest

Alan

DrugScope has just sent in its response to the government drug strategy consultation and it should be up on the DS website sometime this week. It’s about 80 pages long, but one of the key points we make is that specialised clinical drug treatment is by no means the whole story – that we should have a much broader definition of ‘treatment’ that is really any intervention which helps people with drug problems – and it could be that they need secure accommodation before they need a clinical intervention and there is some US research to back that up.

On the drug bribe ’scandal’ – DS did put up a press notice about this on our site, but we also covered it from a slightly different angle on the second part of our latest Druglink blog http://www.druglink.blogspot.com/

Harry Shapiro

Hi William – I don’t think you’re necessarily shouting into the wind, but I do think you’re shouting something different from the RSA. You’re interested in a philosophical exploration of the nature of addiction – which could ultimately have practical consequences for the nature of treatment, if you were able to persuade enough people of the correctness of your findings. But the RSA is interested in a more immediate exploration of the practical implications for drug services of an approach which treats drug users like any other users of public services, whether these be health services, housing, family support etc etc.
If you’re saying that you don’t think drug users need these services, then I think we do have a real difference of opinion.

Incidentally, I don’t agree with your interpretation of the NTA/ methadone ‘bribe’ story. I think the story was over-simplified by the BBC and then unnecessarily complicated by the NTA’s response. I think what the NTA should have said was ‘if this were true, it would be unethical’, and that the situation with the prescription of ‘extra’ methadone is far more complicated than was made out by either side.

Best
S

Dear Susie (and All)

Yes, I agree with your analysis. You are toiling in a different field.

And just in case people want more about the NTA item, I’m appending the DrugScope piece on it – Martin Barnes explains it very well, I think.

Best wishes

Richard Ives

educari

William Pryor kindly copied me into the letter that he wrote to you, he seems to be a little stuck around his reaction to the illness conception of addiction … your approach seems to harmonise very much with my approach in my private practice http://www.addictionresolution.com

Addiction is a spectrum of diction dysfunction that is pregnant with solutions not only for specific substance and behaviour based individual problems, but also for the overarching social and geopolitical problems facing us all today. Terrorism is a form of addiction in its obsessive and compulsive fanatacism. All of us are addicted to oil for our daily fix.

As individual inner worlds are examined and encouraged to reconstitute, whatever recovery dynamic works well inside the human personality microcosm to transform internal addicted behaviours can, in principle, be incorporated into macrocosmic planning and support for whole collections of individuals in communities that will have to navigate through great external change over the next 40 years as oil supplies diminish.

Kind regards,

Andrew