![]() |
|
![]()
March 13, 2011
Avoiding my avoidance drug of choice
And now for a post I really REALLY don't want to write. M. Simon's post about Katie Granju's son Henry gave me the willies. Seriously, I was having blog nightmares last night. (That is the truth.) It's like, our two approaches are so diametrically different that it's almost a Yin/Yang situation. I am indirect, introverted, and circumspect, while he is direct, extroverted, and zeroes right in on problems. I wrote a post yesterday about the emotional mindset that fuels lawsuits and leads to prohibition, and I never mentioned Katie Granju, who is calling for escalating the war on drugs because her son died. I figured, why write something that might antagonize a grieving mother? I also thought that there would be no way to ever hope to persuade her, so why bother? Besides, I had already made what I thought as clear as I could without being confrontational in an earlier post, so yesterday I just wrote a post on the general topic. Meanwhile, I sent Simon some links -- one to a post in which Katie expressed a desire to sue a methadone clinic because her son overdosed on methadone she claims was diverted from the clinic, another to a methadone lawsuit specialist, and another to an organization devoted to banning methadone. Methadone being one of the few treatments available to addicts, I think calls for crackdowns and prohibition would increase human suffering, and would only worsen the drug problem. And while I am in logical nerd mode, I might as well throw in that it is simply wrong to blame methadone clinics for methadone overdoses. The vast majority of overdoses involving methadone do not involve methadone diverted from clinics, and most deaths involve combinations of methadone with other drugs (especially tranquilizers and antidepressants such as the ubiquitous SSRIs, which can dramatically increase methadone levels in the body.) So, one might ask, why is methadone being singled out as the demon drug of choice? Because the latter is "bad" and associated with "junkies," while "nice" drugs like SSRIs are taken by as many as 67 million respectable Americans? However, as I said in a comment to Simon's post, I realize that fact or logic based arguments are likely lost on a grieving mom like Katie and probably a waste of time with people who are driven by emotion:
Thanks for the link, and for daring to go where I didn't! I've been agonizing over whether it would be possible to persuade Katie Granju that further crackdowns in the war on drugs will only increase (and not decrease) human suffering, but a more cynical friend advised me that all arguments would be hopeless. If he is right, that means that the argument is not with her, but with those who would potentially follow her. I worry that those are persuaded by emotional arguments will not be swayed by rational arguments, and vice versa. This reminds me of the gun control debate. I have friends who lost close relatives to suicide by gun, and I do not debate the gun issue with them because it is a waste of time. And just as you do not tell a grieving mom that "GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE, PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE," nor would you make similar human-agency-type arguments about drugs to a mom who lost her son to drugs.* Not only are these arguments lost on them, but all debates tend to be. Worse, they can be interpreted as cruel, callused, and insensitive. And in addition to being an introvert, I tend to be a bleeding heart. So I'm just stuck with this feeling that no arguments I could make could ever hope to persuade emotion-driven thinkers. They might just exacerbate the problem. I admire Simon for trying, though, and I am so lucky to have as a co-blogger someone who dares to go where I don't. I write posts like the one I wrote yesterday to escape what eats at me. In a weird irony, I may be using this blog as a drug to help me avoid reality. An avoidance drug? Perhaps I need help. If so, I seem to have gotten it from M. Simon. *Interesting how that phrase just slipped out of my mouth fingers. Would I ever say that a mom "lost her son to guns?" I don't think so. Perhaps I have been unwittingly influenced by drug war hyperbole. posted by Eric on 03.13.11 at 11:40 AM
Comments
I've been reading blogs for 10 years, writing them for seven. It's been an education for me, to say the least. Those who know me apart from words on the screen generally describe me as kind, funny, sweet. Those who know me primarily from my writing on the Web have called me everything from Mr. Spock (in the least flattering sense) to "contrarian", but most often fall back on those old standbys--"a--hole" and "pain in the ---". I am a logical, analytical thinker. In the real world the folks like me are who people go to with their problems, because we are the ones who use our temperaments to become doctors, lawyers, detectives, engineers, scientists and librarians. We are systematic thinkers who relish looking at a problem from all angles to arrive at the most workable solution. In the early days of blogging most bloggers were of the same ilk. We gravitated toward this medium because it was a place to analyze problems and situations with others who tended to look at the world in like fashion. Then the emotional thinkers began to arrive in droves. I blame Dooce. Mothers heard about a way they could get paid to talk about being mommies and that side of the blogosphere exploded. Nowadays its very difficult to maintain an analytical presence in blogging, especially around a blogstorm that is so clearly the property of the emotional side of the universe. I've been following this whole thing closely from the beginning, because I know that there will be (as indeed there have already been several) cries for stricter drug controls. As a proponent of marijuana legalization and a chronic pain patient under the care of respected physicians at Vanderbilt University I get to be the lone voice of libertarian philosophy. It isn't fun. But I figure, hey. We can't let emotion continually drown out logic in public discourse. That tends to be the historical foundation of fascist regimes. The older I get the more I think I'd rather be known for standing against fascism than for being cuddly. Katherine Coble · March 13, 2011 11:08 PM Post a comment |
|
April 2011
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
April 2011
March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 Sarah Hoyt Skepticism See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
A knee sock jihad might be premature at this time
People Are Not Rational No Biorobots For Japan The Thorium Solution Radiation Detector From A Digital Camera Voter Fraud? This war of attrition is driving me bananas! Attacking Christianity is one thing, but must they butcher geometry? Are there trashy distinctions in freedom of expression? Please Don't Let Me Be Misunderstood
Links
Site Credits
|
|
I'm lucky to have worked in engineering so long. First we tend to verify our truths. And second is that every trade off is as explicit as possible.
Things like: if I raise the weight of an aircraft 1 oz it will cost this much fuel per year and reduce failure probability by Y and a human life (on average) is worth X. Is the improvement worth it?
We don't have any metrics like that for our social programs as they actually function. So it is all opinion.
In my opinion when all you have is opinion you should have lots of them. Not that I expect to sway Katie. But I might snag a few of her readers.
BTW one thing engineers have going for them is that they are not noted for their social skills. They are liable to speak their minds with no thought for the social graces.