The Cure's worse than the Disease
I really wish doctors would stick to treating the sick and encouraging health.
I wish they would walk away from alcoholism and addictions where they often cause more harm than good.
Dr. Perry Kendall is the provincial health officer. In his latest dictum, he urges the government to tax booze more so that the millions raised could be put to work treating alcoholics.
Someone aught to tell this expert that the single greatest treatment program in the world for alcoholics is AA and it is free.
Millions of dollars raised in more booze taxes will be spent on bureaucrats and their desks and ipods and cells and memos and committees and on medically run programs that are statistically no where near as successful as AA.
Does the government want to help?
Fine.
Buy lots of TV ads that say, "HEY, STUPID. GET YOUR SORRY ASS TO AA TONIGHT. IT WORKS!"
8 comments:
Doctors and government would send people to AA except for one thing: it acknowledges the existence of God, and relies on some kind of faith in or dependence on Him for success.
There is a strong culture of anti-God (and especially anti-Christian) bias in the medical community. I've spoken with several medical professionals who must hide their faith in order to continue working without harassment.
Apparently, this belief (or anti-belief) is more important than actually helping people. Apparently, faith is worse than addiction.
Excellent! Supremely excellent points by both you and Steve!
Perry Kendall is part of the dunce brigade who see more money as an opportunity to expand already well-entrenched hokum about harm seduction. He is a povertarian. He doesn't give a damn about real treatment. Why would he?
He knows absolutely noting about it. Or, at least, doesn't care.
Pathetic.
Alcoholics Anonymous may indeed work.
I don't think calling alcoholics "stupid" and "sorry ass(ed)" is particularly helpful though, so I would revise the TV ad idea.
A little more about the taxation on booze thing though.
Before I had kids (back when I had a disposable income) - I used to go to the Wine Festival and pick up a few bottles. I like wine. I also like good quality beer and the occasional good quality liquor (usually neat or on ice).
An alcoholic - no. We are talking about a glass of wine with a meal and the very occasional single malt scotch or high quality rum.
The problem with taxing booze more - is that people like me would be paying a disproportionate amount of this tax.
Most hard care alcholics don't drink the good stuff. They like Colt 45 (the worst beer ever made and marketed). It is cheap. It also has 8% ETOH, so one can get drunk faster. As for the hard stuff - most alcoholics don't care whether they are drinking Potters or Appleton Estate rum. The Potters is cheap and has 40% ETOH - so one can get drunk even faster.
For that matter, alcoholics can get their beer at the U-brew, make wine in a carboy and utilize a homemade still (illegal, but it really is just grade school science applied to real life...)
Why tax the people who enjoy a glass of wine with their meal so that the problem drinkers can stumble around, being offered dubious "treatment" by dubious "experts".
Keep my wine affordable and, to paraphrase ...
"Listen friend, there is effective help available if your drinking is a problem. It's called A.A. - it's free and it really works."
Linda Yuill, WSOB (Wine Snob on Budget)
Linda began by making a valid point when she stated, "I don't think calling alcoholics "stupid" and "sorry ass(ed)" is particularly helpful though, so I would revise the TV ad idea."
Yes indeed. You'd be surprised at the number of extremely intelligent and successful members of AA there are out there in many cities, towns - and countries.... Addicted, yes - stupid? - most often quite the opposite.
Then you went off the rails by adding...
"Most hard care alcholics (assume you meant hard core alcoholics) don't drink the good stuff. They like Colt 45 (the worst beer ever made and marketed). It is cheap. It also has 8% ETOH, so one can get drunk faster. As for the hard stuff - most alcoholics don't care whether they are drinking Potters or Appleton Estate rum. The Potters is cheap and has 40% ETOH - so one can get drunk even faster."
One addicted to alcohol is addicted - period. The term "hard core" does not exist in AA, nor I would venture to say in venues where alcoholics go for help.As for your "cheap booze theory", you would be surprised at the number of alcoholics living in the most affluent neighborhoods - doctors, lawyers, nurses, business owners and executives - wives of professionals and professional women themselves, etc......and believe me their choices are *not* the "cheap" stuff.
Take in an AA convention at one of the larger hotels some time. You may experience, by watching and listening, quite an eye opener....and if you appreciate good taste and style - an added bonus awaits you.
It saddens me to read some of the insensitive descriptions of those who, for any number of reasons, may be addicted.......to alcohol, cigarette smoking, drugs (both prescription and street), etc.
And, to end my rant..... For someone who has no problem with alcohol, you certainly know a lot about the alcoholic content of quite a few substances...... Hmmmm
I really wish the media folks would stick to reporting the "truth" and leave their opinions out of things, but hey, we can't all get our wishes granted can we? (said vaguely tongue in cheek)
I think Perry is a bit misguided in this too, because I've seen the monstrous health care costs stemming from alcoholism, and more money could certainly be used there. Liver transplants, Splenectomy, treatment and surgery for stomach and pancreas cancer, treatment for upper esophagus and mouth cancer...I could go on.
There is no magic cure-all for alcoholism, because everyone is different.
Logic 101 should also tell you that just because a person has problems and drinks, does not necessarily mean that they have a drinking problem.
I think a decent job, good housing, amiable relationships and a little bit of personal support (whether from family members or others) would go a long ways to reducing the carnage of alcohol abuse.
Cheers!
Anonymous, you may indeed by correct about alcoholics you also enjoy the high end stuff - point well made.
As for insinuating that I have a problem with drinking because I have knowledge of various products - ?????
I, Linda Yuill, can assure you that I can count on one hand the number of drinks I have had this month alone.
You, anonymous person making insinuations about my non-existant drinking problem, do not even have the balls to sign your name.
Merry Christmas.
Linda Yuill
Anonymous Linda - Much like the folks in AA - Quite acceptable I believe.
I did not insinuate that you had a problem with alcohol........I wondered.
Further....it is not necessarily the number of alcoholic drinks one has had in any given time - rather it is what those drinks *do* to the person - personality changes, actions, etc. and *why* said person is partaking of said alcohol, which is a drug, at any given time. There are those who who imbibe only two - three times a year and they definitely have a major problem with the booze. They are known as binge drinkers.
Guess my point is, if you are not familiar with a subject - best to leave it alone.
BTW People who have no problems with alcohol do not count the number of drinks they have - any more than they count the number of carrots they eat....
And a Merry Christmas to you as well - From
No Balls :-)
Post a Comment