- cross-posted to:
- chat
You must log in or register to comment.
But you can understand why, over the Internet, strangers would become less willing to provide financial assistance if it is a repeating occurrence that seems to be unresolved.
But what did people expect? Like, it's not a secret she is addicted. I would expect anyone who knows even a little bit about addiction to a drug like meth would understand how this was going to end up. When you give money to an addict, you don't do it expecting they're NOT gonna spend it on drugs, because it very much is what they will do. You don't do it on the condition they're gonna go clean, they won't. Even if they say they will, chances are they are either lying, or they're gonna change their mind next day (or next hour), or they just won't achieve it. 99% of the time, this is what will happen. If you decide you want to give them money, you do it because, even though you know how things are going to go, you still think it is better than them not having money and still being addicted to drugs and still not doing anything about it. Like, how do you send the money and still make the surprised pikachu face when this happens? What did you expect?
I am not hating anyone. I am saying if you give drug addicts money, you don't do it because you think they're actually gonna go clean or whatever, and it's not what you should expect because chances are it's not gonna happen. You do it BECAUSE IT STILL HELPS. Regardless of whether or not you send money, they will still be addicted, that won't change unless something drastic happens. I don't care if they lie about wanting to go clean or whatever. It's what they're gonna do, it's what they know they "have" to do if they're gonna get money. And it is to be expected. I'm not at all sure Rachel or whomever else is actually going to seriously try. But none of us can probably affect that. I hope she gets better but I don't think it is within my control.
Gotta take issue with the "addicts don't recover unless something drastic happens" - that's the 'rock bottom' type myth that prevents addicts from getting the support they need and incentivizes further alienating them from society.
I was a heroin addict and then a hard-core alcoholic and I'm two years sober. The 'drastic thing' that happened was that in the misery of addiction I would try to get clean and fail and then try... and fail... and try another way... and fail... until one day I tried...and succeeded. The silver bullet was actually just that I had enough support and the bare bones resources so that my attempts had a fighting chance of working.
There's a Citations Needed episode that gets into this if anyone wants to listen.
The "rock bottom" concept is basically just asking drug users to die.
By drastic I also mean support, or some kind of big event or lifestyle shift. I definitely don't mean some guy locking you up somewhere. I'm sure there is people who just did it with no external support and nothing big happening just by deciding they're gonna stop, I just don't think it is very common. I don't think users have to hit rock bottom, on the contrary, it is much more difficult if that happens. Which is why I said in my other post it is much better if you are battling addiction and you have a home, as opposed to battling addiction while being homeless. That would be an example of the drastic change that could happen for example, finding a home after being homeless. I guess just saying "drastic" and leaving it at that wasn't a very good way to phrase that.
Gotcha, yeah I was too quick to assume you meant "drastic" in terms of negative consequences, but you're right something drastic that increases their hope for a potential future does precipitate a lot of recoveries!
Yeah I get why you would interpret it that way. Jesus it really sucks how shit the way society has dealt with drugs is...
Right, my reply wasn't really targeted to you, but mostly to the people who are doing the surprised pikachu face and complaining. I can also understand people not wanting to give money in this circumstance. I didn't give money either. It's not like I have money but if I did, I'm not sure I would. Part of it is because I know that if I start giving money to people on the Internet, well, I know that will get out of hand pretty soon. What I don't really understand is the people who did give money and they're now complaining as if they didn't get return on their investment. People should expect the addiction of the person they sent money to isn't just gonna end magically. I can of course understand the people genuinely being concerned.
shaming is always bad because it doesn't lead to constructive outcomes. When has it ever?
After school special moment: You're on a trajectory
drug addicted people go through stages of denial and deflection without always meaning it. And so online strangers don't know/can't know where you're at and it makes them sensitive and suspicious
"I fucking hate doing this and I'm sorry I'm a failure but I really need some help". Maybe some of the shame you feel is actually your own.
I fucking hate doing this and I'm sorry I'm a failure but I really need some help
If you type "meth" into Amazon it gives you ads for digital scales lol
Holy shit chapos I keep nodding out at work and it feels like I'm gonna die
Just in the last couple weeks alone.
There's a pattern here.
I've suffered addiction, the difference is I don't go around making a deal about it, and making it all about me.
If you think this is "just meth", I've some time shares to sell you.
It's never "just meth". That's why drug addiction is so hard to beat. People get addicted to drugs because of other issues in their lives. Those issues need to be addressed as well.
"just weed" makes sense as a phrase, but "just meth" seems a bit like "just cancer".
You might try getting high off life, but I wouldn't recommend it given the withdrawal you'd be in for when the biosphere collaspes.
Only for alcohol, barbiturates and benzos. Others you may feel like you're dying and you'll be sick as a dog, which if you're not in the right shape to survive being really really sick you could die potentially, but on its own you can't die from most forms of withdrawal.
My post was a dumb joke reply to the comment mentioning getting high off of life. Withdrawal from life is... Well... Dying.
Yes, making it all about you.
I hope you get the help you need without steamrolling the good will of others.
It looks like she's only asked for help with money this one time. The last thread you linked actually had her offering money to a commenter who had no money.
Drug addicts do talk about doing drugs and their struggle with drugs a lot. It's a big part of their life. I'm happy that Rachel has been so open about it.
I wasn't on the subreddit, so I was just basing that on the list of links.
Just took a deep drive into the drama lmao. I agree I don’t see why people need to get in some moral high horse. Like just don’t send the money, no point in bitching about it. I wouldn’t send the money either honestly but it’s not like I can blame you for asking
Haha, no, I'm a recovered heroin addict and work with addicts and this approach of "I'll only ever help you if you submit to a round of withdrawals to show you're worth helping," is only one attitude among many.
I think some recovered addicts look back on their own experience and think "yes when I got sober it was because things were really awful and I finally got serious and other addicts can only get clean if things are awful enough [rock bottom myth] ...and if they fail they are not 'serious.'"
Perhaps that was indeed true for you, but it wasn't for me and it's not for many people. I made several extremely serious attempts at sobriety before I was successful. The time I got and stayed clean was not the lowest point in my addiction history.
The most important thing in my mind for helping addicts is making them feel like they are still a part of a community and they have value and that getting sober would mean they could connect to that community even more and fufill all that potential. So... treating them as adult human beings.: "If I had the money to spare to help you, I would, because i know you're in a tough spot, but I'm trying to be there for a few different people... and I can't be of financial assistance, only emotional and transport assistance." Which is true... if I were a millionaire I'd absolutely give them money. Withholding money and resources does not cure addiction. We wish it were that simple. Research shows addicts are more likely to recover if they have more resources. actually. So much for rock bottom...
I also hope you'll look at the research on different ways of treating opiate addiction. "Inpatient" is usually not the most effective treatment model. Outpatient, Medication- Assisted Therapy (buprenorphine/Suboxone) over 1-2 years combined with one- on- one addiction counseling has the highest success rate. It allows addicts to learn how to be sober in the context of their own lives, and avoids withdrawals - severe withdrawals decrease success.
I respect you and your experience, which is why I think it's worth discussing the differences in approach.
I definitely wanted to get sober. I think most people who say they want to get sober are telling the truth. It's just very, very hard to accomplish. There's a lot of immediate suffering for what's hopefully a long term payoff - and that's the exact opposite of the addiction mindset, you know?
So I kept trying, and eventually succeeded. I definitely used again after the worst period (which you can only identify in retrospect). I learned a little each attempt and the final one was a lucky combination and I had a shred of hope for the future.
Which is why I really think giving addicts resources, support, and hope is a better bet than the framing that negative things are happening and will keep happening until they get sober. (And I'm not saying it's a dichotomy and you're all about the latter).
And of course you can and should only help in the ways that are safe and healthy for you. It's so common for recovered addicts to want to work with other addicts but it has its dangers too, which we must stay vigilant about. Not helping because it's unhealthy for you is a good enough reason all in its own! It's independent from the question of whether or would help or hurt the addict.
This rock bottom shit is not based on any science though. Sometimes people just kinda get their shit together but not totally. In Norway they offer housing to drug addicts not contingent on testing or therapy whatsoever. They don’t usually get clean, and a lot of the times they eventually die. But it’s less likely and well it’s just a nice thing to do. The rock bottom stuff is pure ideology. The real rock bottom is death.
Also, I don’t think we can determine for others what they need to do. If someone wants to get high until they die as grim as it might seem they have control over their own life. Doesn’t mean it’s not a nice thing to do to give them money. It’ll still improve things for them.
With that said if you have better things to spend your money on I can’t blame you, I don’t give money because frankly I need it myself. And there is lots of other stuff you can give your energy to if you want.
But the moralizing is gross. As are the claims on how other people should live their life if we care about them. Give money or don’t it’s fine but shaming is controlling and unhelpful
I'm glad you commented these thoughts. I'm a recovered addict who works with addicts and I commented my experiences in reply to amethystamiss too.
Myself and many addicts get clean after many attempts... and the successful attempt is usually when there's some hope and support in the picture. The opposite of rock bottom.
It's hard as a recovered addict to even wrap your head around how you came to be successfully sober after so much hardship and failure to do so. I can see why many just adopt the AA/NA mythology of "I finally hit rock bottom," or "I finally took responsibility for my addiction,".... it's an easier narrative than "my tenth attempt was good timing, a decent treatment model, and a dose of luck," which is how it feels to me.
I'm a huge proponent of giving addicts resources regardless of their sobriety or even their intentions regarding sobriety. One of the most important messages to them is that they are still a part of society, they are not broken off from it... that there's a decent life waiting for them on the other side.
I can’t not do drugs or else I’ll detox at work and get drug tested and fired
Does this mean you don't plan to get off drugs in the near future? Do you have a plan you'll follow to "get clean" this time? I'm very confused about everything you've posted (and other users say… some of them obvious trolls). If it's an invasive question then ignore it.
I'm not getting involved in this because I have no idea what's going on (all I got is that I hope people stop hurting) but this take asdfghjkl.
Oh is asdfghjkl your full name? I bet you go: Please, asdfghjkl was my father. Call me aaaaaaadjsf.
tbh how much does it cost to get a doc to prescribe anti addiction meds? i feel like thatd be a good use of money
they usually order you to continue the dope and take it in tandem with the meds and slowly wean you off the dope?
oh and you might want to try a psychiatrist* not a therapist, psychs can prescribe
Pedantic nitpick here, but maybe still worth saying: Generally, psychologists can't prescribe meds, though there are exceptions. It's usually psychiatrists who do the prescribing.
yeah for some reason the majority of antidepressants make me wired, like drank 50 cups of coffee wired. only one made me sleepy and worked well and it caused jaundice and heart issues lol
but hey maybe itll work for you i have some weird ass medical complications that complicate my stuff
that's also the drug they use to help people stop smoking. marketed under zyban. when i was in hs my doc would prescribe zyban because it was covered 100% while wellbutrin was not
Rachel has been struggling with addiction and poverty for a long time, and there are quite a few harassers around here that love to bully her and some (probably more common) people who see the sympathy posts as enabling addiction or inappropriate for the site or whatever.
Rachel has also been very open about her experiences for a long time here, so the never-do-wells have quite a bit of fodder for their Two Minutes Hate. It's easy for some people to get off to cyberbullying a poor, dope-addicted trans woman who airs her own faults and vulnerabilities a lot.
or maybe cause people are frustrated she's siphoning hundreds of dollars out of this community and shaming and shitting on anyone who's like "maybe this isn't healthy"
Yo, maybe I'm speaking for myself here, but I just don't think that many people are logging into this website with the intention of entering into some sort of anonymized mutual aid pact where they have some sort of comradely obligation to support you financially.
I'm not saying this to shame you, but like, you might need to reframe your expectations, especially given your subsequent thread where you're saying shit like:
"You’ve at least made me aware that this is my last chance, and if I have issues again I have nobody to turn to for help."
"By doing what you say you’re doing out of “concern” for people who could in theory give their money to someone more deserving, you’re basically telling me I should die."
IMO, that doesn't seem like a particularly healthy or realistic perspective.
Do people give her shit when she isn't asking for money? This particular time sounds like it was because of the last two posts she made about it. Some people sound irritated, others confused and many sound bored enough to make sockpuppet accounts to give hate.
Btw I'm asking because I don't know and I can be completely wrong.
Do people give her shit when she isn’t asking for money?
...I think you're onto something here.
I know who Rachel is from the sub and all, I was just wondering about the downbears and all. She is very open about her experiences and that, if you don't want to give a person money no one is forcing it. I don't understand why people go out of their way to hate on a person.
Ummm akhshually sweaty Lenin thought drugs were bad, and we have to uncritically worship everything he ever said or did
But drugs are pretty bad generally... That's not why you shouldn't shame drug users...
But drugs are pretty bad generally...
No. They're not. Drugs (like literally everything we physically interact with) are chemicals. Some are useful. Some change the way you feel. Some have harmful effects and some promote healing. Applying the notion that drug use in general (even recreational drug use specifically) is bad is harmful and the premise itself is false.
Nice try, sentient molecule of DMT, but I'm on to your wily machine elf ways.
When someone talks about drug use, they usually mean recreational drugs like meth, coke, heroine, psychedelics, opioids, etc. Some people also mean weed, which is kinda dumb. And yeah, there is definitely recreational drugs that can be beneficial to some extent. And of course they're not all the same. For instance many popular psychedelics don't have the same destructive consequences of, say, opioids. But most recreational drugs, while they can be used in moderation in a way that is not destructive and doesn't end in nasty addiction (well, except for some, which almost always lead to nasty things), they very, very often aren't used like that, and it doesn't just have to do with the user, it has to do with the substance itself, as well as social factors. But the substance plays a big role too.
So, if I am to make it more specific, recreational drugs, barring some popular psychedelics, are very frequently very destructive. Not all in the same way, but generally they are. Some psychedelics are too, sometimes in different ways.
I'm kind of amazed that that's a contentious statement here. I'd love to see the counterarguments from the people downbearing it. Wtf?
I shame non-drug users. Fucking sober losers. Gotta be hitting that crack pipe every 45 minutes or GTFO
