I understand you. As well, I think a diagnosis of any of the aforementioned diseases...(diabetes, heart disease, alcoholism) can often lead someone straight to depression. I especially feel that way if the afflicted has been previously diagnosed with a depression disorder.
Getting that new diagnosis will take the wind out of a lot of peoples sails. It's like a death warrant for people who are suffering through some kind of depression disorder. Its one more crumby thing for them to try to work around.
Fully 100% agree that at some point an addict did have a choice to get treatment. Actually, fully agree that at any point an addict can choose help. That's why I say that I don't condone the behavior. I am awful sometimes at explaining what I mean, and why I used the analogy of diabetes, so I'll try again.
Science has pretty much proven that some people are hard wired through DNA to be more prone to addiction. It is a medical condition. However, that does not excuse an addict from not choosing to get help. So an addict does not actually choose to be an addict, they make the choice of being and staying active in their addition. I don't hold people responsible for having the medical condition of addiction (the genetic predisposition), however I do hold them responsible for not trying to do something about it. See the difference?
My analogy with diabetes is the same as heart disease or any other medical condition. I do not necessarily hold anyone responsible for having it, but I would sure as heck resent the heck out a loved one if they chose to do nothing about it ie: medical help. That's what I meant. Hopefully that makes what I meant a bit clearer? Or maybe clear as mud..lol.
" On the other hand, these people could offer all of the addiction therapy in the world instead of the beer and it is likely to have more or less the same affect (sic). You know as well as I do that an addict has to want the help in order to receive the help"
Brice seems to say things so much better than I do, sometimes... I wouldn't do it myself, either though I've provided a keg for people that helped us out with farm projects, from time to time... the keg didn't get tapped until the work was done and we didn't have any alcoholics present.
At least, by giving these people "so much" beer, the amount of alcohol they get is limited and I'm thinking that some of them might actually gain some self respect by doing the menial work (2 beers won't make an alcoholic drunk) that they'd want to opt for something more "complex".
I'm all for thinking outside the box.
I re-read this article 2 times. What I am taking away from it is, they are paying alcoholics beer to do these menial tasks. I see how that can be wrong. In fact, I'd have no part in it personally. On the other hand, these people could offer all of the addiction therapy in the world instead of the beer and it is likely to have more or less the same affect. You know as well as I do that an addict has to want the help in order to receive the help.
Using your analogy regarding diabetes. A diabetic isn't going to do a damned thing for their health unless they want to. I know a lady who just had a lower leg amputated as a direct result of her diabetes. She went years and years not following a diet and checking her blood glucose levels. She got a small infection and couldn't shake it and as I mentioned, the result was amputation. (This just happened in the last month.) Now, having lost a limb due to untreated diabetes, she still eats cake and everything she shouldn't..... She is not going to change until she wants to.
The only thing I really disagree with you on Adgal is that addiction is the same kind of illness as something like diabetes. It's not in my opinion. There is a period of time in which people DO have a choice. I resent very much those I've loved with addictions for going down that path when there was time to make a choice. Angry even. No free pass from me that it's an illness and they had no control. I know for a fact that at earlier stages, they absolutely did.
Type one diabetes is quite different. you have no choice if your body doesn't function properly.
This does not mean I don't have compassion for those in the throes of addiction. I do. And it does get to the point that someone is physically addicted and 'just stopping' is very difficult. But it's a progressive disease and I will never believe that some didn't 'do it to themselves.'
This doesn't come from a place of 'observing' someone with an addiction but from a place of loving someone who had/has one.
Having a hard time explaining myself, so going to take another shot at it.
Let's say someone had diabetes. If left untreated, it can be quite serious, with issues like fainting, blindness, so on and so on. So lets say you had an employee with diagnosed diabetes that was refusing to get any sort of medical treatment. In your line of work that could be darned dangerous right? Same thing applies here. Addicts should be offered treatment through the medical system. However, you cannot have an active addict on the job, that's dangerous. So if the addict refuses treatment, then yes, they need to be let go. The thing about addiction is that it IS treatable, and manageable. The addict that stops using is still an addict, just not active. Just like the diabetic on medication is still a diabetic, it's just being controlled. For me and most in the medical system now, this is the same thing. It does not excuse the addict who refuses treatment though. See what I mean?
And I still think paying an addict in beer is disgusting. I just do.
Nothing wrong to agreeing to disagree. I mean really, who wants to have a good conversation with someone who agrees with everything you say..lhow dull! lol. I respect your opinion even if I don't see it quite the same way.
Don't misunderstand my feelings as saying that it is ok. And I too would never condone being under the influence on the job. Not acceptable. I'm not saying I think we should just accept addiction - I'm saying we need to accept addiction as being an illness and treat it accordingly. I just meant that brushing it off as "that person is an addict, therefor worthless, therefor they just need to quit it and get a job" is not the approach I would like society to take. It's an illness, and I want us to treat it the same way we would any other illness and get as many folks as we can back to being productive members of society. In life there aren't really any excuses, but sometimes there are reasons, know what I mean?
Me, you. and El (might have been Brice) had this conversation awhile back and pretty much agreed to disagree.
I Fired a guy about a month ago because he was drinking on the job. I hope I don’t get sued due to terminating him because of his illness.
This makes me so sad. It is enabling, pure and simple, and will never help those struggling with this vicious nasty addiction get the help they need. In fact, it will (at least in my opinion) make the problem worse. Finally addiction is seeing as the medical issue it truly is. Finally mainstream medical is treating it as such. If this man is doing an honest day's work, he should get an honest day's pay. If he sadly chooses to squander it on alcohol, then so be it, but at least it is his choice. To take advantage of someones addiction by getting them to do work for a couple of beers a day makes me ill. I would be opposed in a very strong and outspoken way to anything like this here. It is just wrong. Sorry, strong feelings.
I also agree that people need to be involved in work, etc. wherever physically possible. Just not this way.
Now, a question - if this man had an illness such as heart disease preventing him from working, would you feel the same way about a "free ride?" Not rying to pick a fight, you all know I respect your opinions, but I am trying to pooint out that socially acceptable diseases are treated differently by society in general then an illness such as addiction. See my point?
Peace!!
Whewww - sure glad you two got that off your chests and ended on a friendly note.
We see people everywhere making minimum wage. You know, I started my first job as a car hop, without a wage... I worked for tips; you better believe I had to do well in order to make a living!! I worked my tail off to qualify for jobs that would pay a wage, let alone more than minimum wage.
As for the article, I really don't think this is such a bad plan. While it's true that alcoholism wreaks havoc with a family, friends, job. etc, by providing these people with meaningful work in order to get the alcohol, they are limiting the amount that can be consumed in a day's time. In addition, the alcoholics are gaining a sense of confidence in themselves, because they're doing something useful. AND for someone used to drinking whiskey or other hard liquor and only getting beer, there's potential for some to stop drinking, completely, if they can't get their poison of choice. I'm not an alcoholic, but neither am I beer drinker, so it would sure work for me!!
I wonder if studies have been done/are scheduled to see if any/how many have actually stopped drinking and found jobs.
I, personally, think we should implement some type of community service program for welfare recipients, here in the U.S. If every able bodied person collecting welfare had to check in and provide job search information (like being on unemployment) and do so many hours/month community service, whether it be mowing ditches, picking up trash along the roadway, or dog doo in the park, sweeping sidewalks, washing dishes at the local hospital, volunteering for day care, so others can work, etc; they should have to do "something". People should be screened for specific skills, then volunteer "jobs" found to utilize those skills. Not only would community projects get done for a fraction of the cost, but people would gain a sense of self worth... and who knows what paying jobs might come from something of this nature? Back when I was in my early 20's I secured a full time, paid job because of excelling at a volunteer job.
We all know that volunteering gives a sense of accomplishment.
I, too, care greatly for the less fortunate, but I don't think anyone should get a free ride.
Thanks for that.
I'll look harder for common ground.
Mike
Apology accepted! I reacted with my own comments to feeling incredibly misunderstood by someone I like.
We all have to find in our heart what we feel is right and good people struggle with what they'd like to do and what they can do at this moment in time.
Anyway, hope the day gets better. Peace
And, you're right SM. I can be self righteous and it's something I do try to work on - apparently not too successfully at times. But really, I don't think in this particular instance the driving force is self righteousness. I really do sincerely care for the less fortunate. I have a small business that I have had for nearly 3 decades. I have part time employees who do pretty menial jobs. I just asked a staff member which he thought would be harder - working at McDonald's or an entry job here. He said McDonald's. I have never paid minimum wage. I have always paid more. Right now the lowest hourly wage is $8.50 per hour and honestly I think that is too low. Only 2 employees are at that level and most part timers are at between $9 and $12.50 per hour. I don't ask myself how cheap I can get someone. I ask myself is this person a good fit and then I try to pay a decent wage. And no, I don't think $9 an hour is a decent wage but it's above minimum wage and I am going to fix that but it's not easy in this economy. I really do wonder sometimes how much is enough. I don't want anyone working for me struggling to put food on the table and fortunately my part timers are either retired, students or have other jobs too. So when I see a company with the profits of McDonald's I suspect they could pay more. Maybe I'm naive.
I am not in the greatest mood today and I apologize for being a bit touchy and sharp with you.
Mike
My comment on the end of my initial post on this thread was in response to the other post today regarding striking at McDonalds. We do strike in this country. And I frankly have never heard of a maintenance program for alcoholism *unlike with narcotics/heroin because of the progressive nature of alcoholism. But maybe there is something I don't know as they are obviously finding validity in this program in another country. I've been touched by alcoholism with a loved one and it is an ugly disease but just can not ever give up hope that someone would see their loved one sober again.
My comment was about your comment that here in the US they'd go on strike for more beer. That wasn't a thought about helping the downtrodden - that was a gratuitous negative remark which is all too common these days.
Those food stampers taking money out of my pocket - always wanting more. Those entitlements grabbing parasites.
And you consistently show me how self righteous you are.
Just because someone has thoughts on what might help the downtrodden that differ from your own does not mean they don't have compassion and empathy.
Your horse is WAY too high.
You consistently demonstrate a disdain for the downtrodden.
"But if this were in the US, they would go on strike to get an increase from two cans on a good work day to three."
Really, is that what you think of people less fortunate than you?
I'm not even sure what to say about this.
Alcoholism is such a horrible disease for anyone affected by it or their families and loved ones.
I guess I have hope that alcoholics get real help. I never thought of that as occupying them through the day bribing them with beer. But if you feel that someone has no hope for sobriety, maybe this is a viable alternative. I have no idea.
But if this were in the US, they would go on strike to get an increase from two cans on a good work day to three.