Tough Love Fails Drug Addicts
Well, I will probably never be convinced that depriving a drug addict of public assistance money to obtain food and shelter is good policy. That’s inhumane. Just consider all those homeless drug addicts living perpetually on the street. Many have been addicts for two decades or more, left by society to languish and flounder. No one loves them, except in the harsh, neglectful ways of tough love. Yet their drug addictions persist. Many will live their whole lives in neglect without ever breaking their addictions. So, except for a few highly unusual cases, it’s apparent that tough love fails the drug addict.
Proponents of the tough love tactic of denying public assistance to drug addicts, say that depriving food stamps from these addicts would not harm their children any more than they already are, because the children benefit very little from the aid anyhow. The drug-addicted parents spend virtually all of their welfare check each month on drugs, and very little if any, on caring for their offspring. But there are degrees of neglect. Not every addicts totally neglects his children. So, not ALL addicts spend ALL their money on drugs. Some actually do apply some of it to supporting their children. I’ve known some welfare moms who were also addicts who were not totally neglectful. For these cases, if the government’s going to take that money away, then they should also assure that the children are taken care of.
12-step programs aren’t available in all areas. Even in places where such meetings are very close by, many addicts can’t reach them due to lack of transportation funds. They cannot even afford to take a public bus, and that’s true even for those who receive public assistance. Plus, the effectiveness of these addiction recovery programs is by no means a hundred percent. In fact, many addicts do attend them but without good results; some have been going for years. Yet their addictions persist. The more expensive programs generally work better but again, they suffer significant failure rates. So, insisting that an addict involve himself in said programs will likely not cure him. Thus, 12-step programs can by no means substitute for the daily sustaining public funds given to drug addicts. As these programs often require months or years of work before the addict recovers, how would the addict survive in the interim? Send the addict to all the recovery programs you wish. But none of them works quickly. But if you take away their living funds, the addicts may die before completing said programs.
Also, Jesus Christ doesn’t “save” everyone either. Religion only works if one has a belief system that supports it. Such a system develops very early in life if properly nurtured. However, not all addicts share a religion-based cause & effect beliefs (if you pray to God, he will set you free). So, it would be inappropriate to make a drug addict’s public assistance contingent upon his following someone’s religious doctrine. In fact, from what I know of Christ, I don’t believe he would have advocated using tough love against the downtrodden folks he became so famous by helping them. Could you imagine Christ telling someone who had come to him for help, “Gee, I don’t know. I think I’ll deny your request because you need tough love.”
Some tough love advocates insist that a drug addict’s persistence in obtaining illegal drugs with their welfare money is another good reason to practice tough love. and withhold these funds. My response: Yes, addicts often buy illicit drugs with their food stamps. But this is still no excuse to leave them high and dry, without any public assistance at all. True, addiction drives them to do destructive things including spending the only money they have for food, on drugs instead. For these, the state should implement another way to feed them besides giving the stamps (soup kitchens, home-delivered meals, free food programs at fast-food joints, and such). But since it’s unlikely that you could talk the food industry into subsidizing the drug addict, the answer is therefore not to pull their stamps totally. Again, that’s pretty heartless. That’s tough love.
A recovering addict would be well-off compared to most other drug addicts, since he or she has beaten an addiction where the still-suffering have not. But insisting that the tough love solution can (and should) be done by all addicts is reckless, lacks compassion, and is thoughtless. Just because one methodology works for one person does not imply that it would (or should) work for all. That’s the basic problem with the tough love argument that supports cutting addicts off from receiving public assistance funds. I’m truly glad for those addicts who succeed at kicking their drug habits. But oftentimes, their success leave them lacking in pity and empathy for those whom fortune has yet to endow. Recovering addicts often advocate the toughest love of all, which is surprising. How quickly they forget how hard it was for them to beat their own addictions. But forcing drug addicts to break their addiction via tough love generally fails them, and thus, I oppose this easy-way-out idea.
Related Posts
Tags: Tough Love Addiction