On Doping




No: all is hush’d and still as death.—‘Tis dreadful!
How reverend is the face of this tall pile,
Whose ancient pillars rear their marble heads,
To bear aloft its arch’d and ponderous roof,
By its own weight made steadfast and immoveable,
Looking tranquility!  It strikes an awe
And terror on my aching sight; the tombs
And monumental caves of death look cold,
And shoot a chillness to my trembling heart.
Give me thy hand, and let me hear thy voice;
Nay, quickly speak to me, and let me hear
Thy voice—my own affrights me with its echoes.

—William Congreve, from his play The Mourning Bride



ne question that those who’ve never had a drug or alcohol problem, would naturally have, is how some people go right on developing the drug or alcohol problems which lead to addiction, without any awareness of the consequences.  If most people became addicted because they had to take an addictive prescription drug for a long time, as soon as they could stop taking it, they’d do whatever it took to get their systems back to normal.  Then, they’d never have any “insane thinking” of the sort described in the Big Book, where a recovering alcoholic would suddenly dispassionately think something like, “It would be nice to have a couple of cocktails with dinner,” so he’d just go right ahead and do it, despite all that he’d learned would result.  If ever they got biological cravings for more of the drug, they might as well be having cravings to steal something.  So it seems very strange that though everyone knows that drug and alcohol abuse could kill if not ruin people’s lives, some people just go right ahead with it even though when they decide to, drugs and alcohol aren’t impairing their judgments.  Women who think that by marrying guys like this the women could win them over from the self-destruction, would likely be told, “Since they don’t care that this could kill them, why would they care about anything that you could tell them?” though this really does beg the question of why they don’t care that this could kill them.

The more that you’ve been close to this, the more that you could relate to:

And this also makes very relevant the fact that the original conception of a codependent, is someone who wants to get involved with addicts, in the hope that these non-addicts, through tenderness, could get the addicts to stop their extremely self-destructive behavior.  Sure, centuries of practical experience as well as modern scientific measurements, have shown that no matter how much of an impression that one might make on an addict’s mind, his drug-addled brain could still cause him to crave drugs, delude himself into thinking that he could safely use again, etc.  Yet practical experience has also shown that such support would make the addicts relatively more likely to get and remain sober, so these addicts aren’t really not guilt by reason of insanity.  The whole reason why the thinking of codependents seems self-defeating, is that some people are so lacking in self-regulation, that the tenderness that tries oh so dedicatedly and desperately to persuade them into stopping that self-destruction, doesn’t work.



Considering what’s at stake, one certainly wouldn’t have to be codependent to care a lot about this. Renaissance poet John Donne wrote, “Any man’s death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee.”  Then you could add to this att the other harm that addiction does to people’s lives, that didn’t have to happen.  As Lord Byron wrote, “Tis not so difficult to die,” and the same would also apply to the other destruction that results from addiction.  As Albert Camus wrote, “Don’t wait for the last judgment.  It happens every day.”

Recently, many in the Seattle area have been condemning the war on drugs, the one-dimensionality of which I’ve also had problems with.  A King County Bar Association report showed how useful addiction treatment would be as versus imprisonment of all those potheads, and the Washington State Bar Association, Washington State Medical Association and Washington State Pharmacy Association then endorsed it.  The ideal is treatment instead of imprisonment.

But judging from what I’ve seen of addictive personalities, this leaves out one very important fact, which the war on drugs also ignores.  That is, those who’d do dope or booze in the first place, are probably so oblivious about the consequences that they might as well be the villains of a book on codependency.



Their spouses try to win them over from dangers as if they could be won over as normal people could.  This could very easily be no more naïve or full of wishful thinking that Dr. Benjamin Rush, the only MD who signed the Declaration of Independence, telling his insane patients to write their pathological thoughts and secrets on paper in hopes that they’d have enough insight to be shocked by their grotesqueness.  Though the thinking behind addicts’ relapsing and the like would be just as glaringly bad, spouses are told that they’d just have to accept that no one and nothing had ever won those impossible people over, so why should these spouses be any different?

“Interestingly, cohort of birth and ethnicity are two major individual factors that also affect the susceptibility for developing alcohol dependence. Even though it is extremely unlikely that the human genome has changed significantly over the past 100 years, more recent birth cohorts have higher prevalence rates of alcoholism than birth cohorts from the earlier part of the twentieth century (Reich et al., 1988; Grant, 1997). The differences in prevalence rates are thought to be due to variations in the availability of beverage alcohol resulting from Prohibition, economic depression, or wartime shortages.”

Those who want the public to be more understanding of how certain mental illnesses make people powerless to choose to do better, would include addiction as one of these, but would also include suicidality.  The December, 2006 issue of Counselor, The Magazine for Addiction Professionals, has an article, “Six Steps to Stop Suicide: A Crash Course in Emotional Life Saving,” by Howard Rosenthal, EdD, CCMHC, MAC, giving six ways in which psychologists could prevent a good deal of suicides.  These are:

  1. ask if the person is planning suicide

  2. assess how serious these plans are

  3. get those who live with him to eliminate the means to kill himself

  4. have him make a contract, preferably written, not to kill himself

  5. refer him to ongoing counseling about suicide

  6. refer him to a psychiatrist or other medical help

Considering that suicidal people’s desires to kill themselves are so strong, something equally persuasive should be able to keep recovering addicts from relapsing.  Quite possibly, the only difference between deterring suicidal people from killing themselves, and deterring recovering addicts from relapsing, is that people who get the anti-relapse messages could dismiss them as “square,” “restrictive,” “controlling,” etc.  If a recovering addict’s psychologist or spouse had him sign a contract committing himself never to relapse, then when he wants to relapse, he could figure that the contract is only an authority figure, or “the old ball and chain,” trying to RESTRICT HIM.  If a suicidal person’s psychologist or spouse had him sign an anti-suicide contract, then breaking it wouldn’t have that appeal to it.  If a recovering addict’s spouse got him to sign an anti-relapse contract, self-help gurus would very likely call this a codependent attempt to “control” him, but if a suicidal person’s spouse got him to sign an anti-suicide contract, this wouldn’t seem neurotically and self-pleasingly controlling.

The webpage What Addicts Do, on the website of Sober Musicians, is all about how intractable active addicts are, and is obviously addressed to those who are personally close to addicts.  This includes, for example, “You cannot make me treat you better, let alone with any respect.

“All I care about, all I think about, is my needs and how to go about fulfilling them.”

Of course, the law doesn’t treat addicts as not guilty by reason of insanity when they commit, for example, driving while intoxicated.  Not only that, if someone tried to convince lawmakers that they should be more realistic about, and understanding toward, criminal addicts, and he did this by telling them, “You cannot make them treat society better, let alone with any respect.  All they care about, all they think about, is their own needs and how to go about fulfilling them,” that certainly wouldn’t convince any of the lawmakers that these people are not guilty by reason of insanity, and plenty of anti-crime activist groups would be outraged.  If a woman’s husband or boyfriend simply is a non-addicted butthead, realists would tell her, too, “All he thinks about is his own needs and how to go about fulfilling them, and you’d better just accept that that’s just the way that he is,” but of course the law would never just accept anyone’s horrendously bad character.  The weak, but not the strong, lose respect by getting upset about harm done (including harm done by non-addicted buttheads), etc.  (As can be seen in Nietzsche, the weak could easily seem to be the dangerously WILLFUL ones, since everyone’s beliefs regarding what they deserve are shaped by their own SELF-WILLS, and the weak can exercise their supposed SELF-WILLS only in ways that would seem mollycoddle, “dishonest” and “ignominious,” whereas red-blooded strength is “honest,” proud, and at least forgivable (i.e. must be forgiven).  We must appreciate all the hidden dangers of unchecked “victim-power.”  As Niebuhr wrote, power, which would include victim-power, “cannot be wielded without guilt, since it is never transcendent over interest,” over (hidden and surreptitious) SELF-WILL, though we dare not talk in such overgeneralized terms when passing judgment on overt sinful power.  We fear fearmongering, but not greed-mongering.  “Accepting hardship as a pathway to peace; Taking as Jesus did this sinful world as it is not as I would have it,” could happen to anyone.

As one could see in the Great Crash of 2008, such a laissez faire concept of personal response-ability could seem good ’n’ gutsy, until you see the consequences of the moral bankruptcy.  (Of course, this self-response-ability must include the same self-justifying, fatalistic, conformist, simplistic, “upbeat,” absolutist, unconditional, predictable, and dogmatically necessary illusions as laissez faire economics has, the very illusions that got our economy into such trouble; after all, people will do only what they feel motivated to do.)  Economist Steven Landsburg said, “Most of economics can be summarized in four words: ‘People respond to incentives.’  The rest is commentary,” and that’s also how this sort of self-help could be summarized: You’re the only one who has a reliable incentive to solve your problems, and nothing that disagrees with this “natural” pragmatism could matter, no matter what chaos and helplessness result.  Realism simply must be oriented around the fact that you absolutely can change what’s tactically wrong with your own reactions, and absolutely can’t change what’s morally wrong with others’ actions; not being realistic would be ridiculous (said sardonically, or maybe to encourage victims to empower themselves in what laissez faire economists would call “tough love,” though the expression “tough love” originally meant the authoritarian and coercive approach that parents could use on their teenagers who have drug problems and the like).  Our economy reward$ those who think like this.  And even if this sort of thinking leads to a worldwide economic catastrophe, it could always be blamed absolutely on the supposedly mollycoddle weak.  (We all know how insidiously dangerous they are!)  All relationships and marriages considered codependent are treated just as fatalistically, whether or not the problem person is addicted.  As Greenspan said, that’s what works; even behavior problems who aren’t addicted aren’t motivated to change so expecting them to do what they don’t feel an incentive to do won’t work.  Victimhood doesn’t produce anything, so why should we give it any credit?  The ends justify the means, since the ends, functionability and good coping skills, are necessary.  Is someone sociopathic?  Avoid him since you’re incompatible!  End of story!  NO ONE HAS A RIGHT TO ENDURABILITY!  Endurability has to come from somewhere.  Either we have self-responsible self-reliance, or we have nanny-ism, whining, trauma-drama, etc.  Both the economics that led to the financial crash, and self-help for anyone in trouble including addicts’ family members, wear the cloak of realism, which is both all-important and expected of all red-blooded people.  After all, we must have an un-ignorable incentive to do certain things that we may or may not be able to do.  One could say that the fix is in, not in the sense that a conspiracy put the fix in, but in the sense that our untermensch-bashing cultural norms did, so it’s predictable that if you’re the one with the problem, you’d be held response-able for “empowering yourself,” “taking care of yourself,” etc., by solving it.


THE GREATEST RISK IS NOT TAKING ONE, AIG ad from 2001, so if you tried to restrain this you’d seem profoundly: weak, whiny, defeatist, controlling, unrealistic, counterproductive, opinionated, manipulative, negative, moralistic, etc.  Sure, post-scandal AIG CEO Edward M. Liddy said, “I have seen the good side of capitalism.  But over the past six months, since agreeing to take the reins of AIG and reviewing how it was run in prior years, I have also seen instances of the bad side of capitalism,” but one could also call the gutsiness of AIG in its PIG era, “character-building,” giving plenty of backbone and fortitude.



In theory this means self-responsibility, self-reliance, gutsiness, anti-controlling, good coping skills, realism, conventionality, respectability, etc., but in practice this means that nothing except, “Can I change this?” including the most basic morality and concern for the weak, can really seem to matter.  Sure, you could recognize that destructive sinfulness is destructive sinfulness, but in the end you’d have to forgive it, or you’d be maladjusted and suffer the consequences of this weakness.  (“YOU VILL ENJOY!”)  Frank Buchman, leader of the Oxford Groups, the club on which AA and then Al-Anon was based and until recently was called “Moral Re-Armament,” (Sinclair Lewis’ novel It Can’t Happen Here, from 1935, includes Buchman in its list of currently trendy “Messiahs.”) said, “D’you know Heinrich Himmler?...  Say, you ought to know Heinrich.  He’s a great lad....  [Hitler] lets us have house-parties whenever we like.”  Anti-Nazi British travel-writer and journalist Robert Byron, who got a chance to observe Nazism up close, wrote in his diary, “Himmler apparently dotes on the Oxford Group [How cute.] and writes to its English members discussing their troubles with them,” so he was their Dear Abby.  If Himmler had sent you some “Dear Abby” letters that didn’t mention the Nazi practices that Buchman didn’t like, the advice that the letters would have given would have helped you become more resilient, courageous, self-responsible, realistic, and abiding by Gelassenheit (a fatalism that teaches that willfulness leads to self-defeating frustration if you’re helpless to get what you want or need), so you would have ended up with a stronger character.  This was the same Himmler who said, in his speech on October 4, 1943 to the SS Group Leaders in Poznan, “Most of you know what it means to see a hundred corpses lying together, five hundred, or a thousand.  To have stuck it out and at the same time—apart from exceptions caused by human weakness—to have remained decent fellows, that is what has made us hard,” but that personal strength concerned one of the Nazi practices that Buchman didn’t like.  It’s pretty obvious what the “Dear Abby” version of that would advise those in trouble, who are members of an honored group of people who are working on their own resolute and impassively accepting attitudes.  Anything less than, “Happiness is an inside job,” (in general), or, “Things happen.  It’s what we do when they happen that’s key,” (in general), would have been too weak-spirited and blaming for Himmler, so he was their perfect “Dear Abby.”  The only suggestions that Himmler would have made in a Dear Abby letter would have been, (1) courageously change what you can, and, (2) serenely accept what you can’t, since anything else would have mollycoddled WEAKNESS.

Himmler Logic, after all, would focus on whether the person with the problem seems to have a weak (as in literally WEAK) character, and would be quick to interpret inadequacies in problem-solving as weaknesses of character, so the weak seem contemptible, blameworthy, and, possibly, insidiously dangerous.  This self-responsible self-help approach is also like the “exemplary dualism” of the Militia Movement, like classifying people as redbloods or mollycoddles, or as übermenschen or untermenschen; this preaches that those who seem to have (literally) strong characters are the allies of decent people so are at least forgiven, and those who seem to have (literally) weak characters are the enemies of decent people.  This leads to some predictable distortions in our conceptions of right, wrong, shame, etc.  Take the Nazi might-makes-right ethos, remove the racism and war crimes, and you’d have what Western culture considers to be the only conception of personal responsibility that works, which is what Hitler’s Wagner’s and Nietzsche’s main inspiration, Schopenhauer, actually wrote about.

The question of whether “it” can happen here, all depends on whether or not “it” includes the aspects of Nazism and Himmler that Buchman’s formula for living didn’t include; if not, “it” happens every day.  The “it” in It Can’t Happen Here included merely an ambiguous, covert, attitude-of-gratitude racism (“It was understood... that all Jews of all conditions were frequently to sound their ecstasy at having found in America a sanctuary, after their deplorable experiences among the prejudices of Europe....  The allegiance of all such Negroes as had the sense to be content with safety and good pay instead of ridiculous yearnings for personal integrity Sarason got by being photographed shaking hands with the celebrated Negro Fundamentalist clergyman, the Reverend Dr. Alexander Nibbs, and through the highly publicized Sarason Prizes for the Negroes with the largest families, the fastest time in floor-scrubbing, and the longest periods of work without taking a vacation.”), so the “it” in modern America could include merely an ambiguous, covert, attitude-of-gratitude form of the strong horrifying the weak.  A classic cliché expression is, “There is no alternative,” to the power dynamics of our economy, and another way to say this is that there is no alternative besides dictatorship and/or Zimbabwe-style economic failures, so every time that these power dynamics horrify us, we should be grateful that we’re not instead dealing with dictators’ outrages, and/or economic failures including massive unemployment, irrespective of any indefinable abstractions such as integrity.  If you’re in a Wagnerian conflict, and you simply must deal with your realities, then you simply must deal with them as Schopenhauer prescribed.  The psychology of, “You don’t want to think/act like a weak person, do you?” could be called a form of neo-Nazism.



Yet, in a society with rampant depression, one could just as easily call that “pragmatic logic”: the weak courageously change what they can (themselves) and serenely accept what they can’t (everyone else), and what one deserves is completely irrelevant.  You can’t change your enemies, except for one.  Yet the limits of the threshold of human endurance are a fact, and if we don’t deal with it, it will deal with us.

“Accepting hardship as a pathway to peace; Taking as Jesus did this sinful world as it is not as I would have it,” is all about what the weak should do, believe, and take responsibility for.  Even sophisticated psychology tends to classify people, aspects of human nature, desires, etc., into categories that are very German, Freudian: übermensch means ineradicable so at least forgivable, while untermensch means true shamefulness, suspiciousness.  (And, of course, treating this moral bankruptcy as necessary for realism seems a lot better than does treating this as admirably open-minded and gutsy.)  These Oxford members no doubt tended to take his ideas about coping skills, to heart, since they wanted self-improvement that would build fiber.  After all, we must accept that if you win, you win, and if you lose, you lose.  That self-responsible self-motivation is also how, and why, market discipline works; we must discipline even perfectly innocent failures.  The more that the weakness of the weak is blamed (What exactly is to blame when someone doesn’t protect himself well enough to succeed?): the more that they’d be motivated to take responsibility for taking care of themselves, the more hope that they’d have that they could change what causes their problems (themselves), and the more that we could all have faith in this red-blooded worldview.   Prejudice against the weak means an optimistic and patriotic faith in The System, and focusing on how the weak could hopefully solve their own problems if only they made themselves worthy, changed what they can.   “Personal strength,” “strength of character,” etc., tend to mean literally strength, transcending “weak” but natural and warranted feelings. Victim Correction as a Panacea, is Gelassenheit and similar all-encompassing attitudes about physical response-ability for one’s own problems, exactly what a society with rampant depression, anxiety disorders, etc., would most need.



Anyone who’d love the Nazis, couldn’t help but love victim-blaming, targeting weaknesses (as in whiny) of character, etc.  Übermensch imperfection such as sinfulness would have to seem at least forgivable, while untermensch supposed imperfection would have to seem to be an insidious (as in “the hidden lie,” and, “We are all victims of victims.”) expression of weak people’s SELF-WILLS.  Dictator or no dictator, just about all of those in any society must define “personal responsibility” in basically the same predictable way and truly believe it, or different people would play by different rules, and plenty of people wouldn’t take the rules to heart when fortitude would be most necessary.  No doubt plenty of Oxford members who weren’t Himmler’s advisees, could have been just as easily, since they were just as free of whiny resentment; all “good” members followed the same school of psychology.




Very relevant to this is the following definition of addiction, from the DEA’s publication Drugs of Abuse, from February, 2003, “Contrary to popular belief, physical dependence is not addiction.  While addicts are usually physically dependent on the drug they are abusing, physical dependence can exist without addiction.  For example, patients who take narcotics for chronic pain management or benzodiazepines to treat anxiety are likely to be physically dependent on that medication.  Addiction is defined as compulsive drug-seeking behavior where acquiring and using a drug becomes the most important activity in the user’s life.”  If most people took Oxycodone as Rush Limbaugh did, even if they became physically dependent on it, they wouldn’t figure that this meant that they needed to keep taking it even if they risked the consequences that most Oxycodone abusers who are caught, would get.


Rodney Dangerfield, in his memoirs It’s Not Easy Bein’ Me, A Lifetime of No Respect but Plenty of Sex and Drugs, wrote of being so enthusiastic about smoking pot, that if he didn’t have to maintain his square reputation for his square audience, he very easily could have done a Cheech and Chong style routine.  On the first page of the introduction, he wrote, “It’s hard for me to accept the fact that soon my life will be over.  No more Super Bowls.  No more Chinese food.  No more sex.  And the big one, no more smoking pot.”  He then goes on to tell of how once, after smoking a joint, he proceeded to eat half of a German chocolate cake, then saw that it had been covered with red ants so, “I realized I had eaten an army of red ants.”  In the book he wrote about his pot smoking as if it were cool, though the Washington Post article about his death told of, “his psychological troubles.  He brooded.  He was a longtime marijuana user and attended regular sessions with a psychiatrist.”

Rodney also wrote of having problems with the legal recreational drugs, “People often say, ‘It’s a miracle I’m alive.’  And for me, they may be right.  I was a heavy smoker for over fifty years,” and, “I still had my bouts with depression.  Like most people in that situation, I tried to self-medicate, which is New Age talk for ‘I got loaded.’  I used to drink.  A lot.  Too much.”  When he wrote about his boozing, though, this had the tone of showbiz wildness rather than anesthesia.  “I tell ya, I’m a bad drinker.  I got loaded one night.  The cops picked me up.  The next morning I was in front of the judge.  He said, ‘You’re here for drinking.’  I said, ‘Okay, Your Honor, let’s get started.’”  (Interesting that when that Washington Post article mentioned his marijuana problem, they didn’t include his problems with legal drugs, which were just as bad.)

He also tried cocaine, but decided it was too addictive.  “I did coke for a while.  What a mistake that was.  Coke is easy to start, and hard to stop....  Coke makes you do stupid things.”  Also, when he was given Dilaudid in the hospital for very real pain and was told that it’s synthetic heroin, he felt so good he thought, “I can see how people get hooked on the real stuff.”

This same book includes, in the chapter “I Am Not High!,” a picture of Rodney with John Belushi, captioned, “Nobody partied harder than John Belushi—not even me.  Here’s a rare shot of both of us standing up.”  Absolutely no mention of the fact that the average American associates Belushi’s doping with his dying from it.  Also, this book doesn’t mention the fact that during the 1970s and 1980s, the concentration of THC in pot went way up.

Of course, Rodney could figure that his use of cigarettes was more dangerous than was his pot smoking, booze problems often lead to problems such as violence that pot smoking can’t, and he didn’t abuse hard drugs to the point where they really could become very dangerous.  “Booze is traffic accidents, booze is wife beating....  They oughta think about what booze leads to—you lose your wife, your home, your life.”  At the same time, pot smoking does have its dangers, some of which would be as bad as the dangers of booze if pot smoking were legal so people smoked it with the same sense of impunity with which they now drink booze.  Also, Rodney was so unusually prone to smoking pot in full public view, when he was in intensive care in the hospital and when he was in an airport (during which a cop ran up to him but only asked for his autograph, so Rodney commented, “Don’t try that unless you’re in show business—and out of your mind.”), that anyone should have been able to see that he wasn’t logically weighing the costs and benefits.

When you consider how self-destructive was his boozing and cigarette smoking, it seems pretty obvious that he shouldn’t have trusted his own judgment regarding what risks in smoking pot are acceptable.  He told of both of his parents being way too impulsive, with his dad moving out and living with various girlfriends, and Rodney’s mom being cold and off in her own world.  (Plus, once her sisters physically attacked her, yet they went on being on good terms.)  That really should have taught him the problems with impulsivity, even pothead impulsivity despite its trendy appeal.

Where my own experiences come from, is that ever since I was a teenager anyone who didn’t have a chronically manic personality, which science calls a “hyperthymic” personality, seemed half dead to me.  What hyperthymic people tend to look like, is celebrities who attract hordes of groupies, charismatic smart creative and soulful, but also having plenty of artistic-temperament-style behavior problems, such as boozing, doping, irascibilility, flamboyant eccentricities, and irresponsibility.  It might seem strange that the very same hyperthymic person who’s very attractive most of the time,

could also be very problematic some of the time,

but that’s the reality.

In 1809, John Haslam wrote, in On Madness and Melancholy, “Madness has many colours, and colours have many hues… it very frequently occurs that the descendants from an insane stock, although they do not exhibit the broad features of madness, shall yet discover propensities, equally disqualifying for the purposes of life, and destructive of social happiness,” and, “The slighter shades of this disease include eccentricity, low spirits, and oftentimes a fatal tendency to immoral habits, notwithstanding the inculcation of the most correct precepts, and the force of virtuous example.”  This is the very picture of the lover of the woman who’s labeled “codependent,” having a very attractive personality, but also having propensities destructive of social happiness and  fatal tendencies to immoral habits, which no one could win him away from, though his demeanor comes across as good-natured and amenable.  Other people may similarly be impulsive, have inadequate self-insight, etc., for other reasons.

One example of the moral bankruptcy of addictive personalities, is the Serenity Prayer.  The entire unredacted Serenity Prayer as originally written by Reinhold Niebuhr says, “God, grant me serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and wisdom to know the difference.  Living one day at a time, enjoying one moment at a time; Accepting hardship as a pathway to peace; Taking as Jesus did this sinful world as it is not as I would have it; Trusting that You will make all things right if I surrender to Your will; So that I may be reasonably happy in this life and supremely happy with You forever in the next—Amen.





Yet even if the only part of The Serenity Prayer that one knows is the famous first sentence, it should still be obvious that even this sentence alone, strains at resentment and swallows sinfulness.  This simply can be nothing else other that neo-Buddhism.  No matter what hardship, sinfulness, etc., impacts one’s life, he’s simply supposed to deal with it by courageously changing what he can and serenely accepting what he can’t.  That would mean that if he doesn’t. he’d get the victim-vilification treatment, as if the problem isn’t the destructive person (He couldn’t help it because he was addicted or sinful.), but the victim (who should have taken care of himself better).  When it comes to the moral responsibility that we really take seriously,

All you’ve got to do is look at the ladies’ auxiliaries of Twelve-Step groups, groups for addicts’ friends and family members such as Al-Anon, and you could see how “Accepting hardship as a pathway to peace; Taking as Jesus did this sinful world as it is not as I would have it,” isn’t just what could possibly be at the end of a slippery slope when a culture insists that everyone stolidly deal with their own realities whatever they are.

The whole reason for the ladies’ auxiliaries is to coach those closest to addicts, especially those who live with them, in how to use exactly this spirituality to transcend the hardship, sinfulness, etc., in their lives.  If the account of therapy for codependency that Susan Faludi described in Backlash, in the subchapter “STAGE TWO: THERAPY FOR THE OVERLY FEMININE WOMAN,” sounds Kafkaesque, that’s what such spirituality for those dealing with very problematic partners, must look like.  Since the power involved with this hardship, sinfulness, etc., isn’t absolute power, it seems only natural to figure that if anyone doesn’t deal with them as if they’re simply life’s vicissitudes, then that’s just her whiny, resentful, manipulative, judgmental, etc., opinion.



More AA and Al-Anon stuff along these same lines is on my A Glimpse Into the Soul of Victim Correction webpage, and more on Niebuhr on my webpage on Niebuhr’s book set The Nature and Destiny of Man.  Simply from what’s here, you could certainly see the difficulty of trying to persuade someone who has an addictive personality, with even Situation Ethics, the anti-authoritarian ethics which determines the ethicality of an act not on what a religious or other law book decrees but on what the consequences would be in a given situation.  Even Situation Ethics would get a response of, “Confess thy resentment!” “Why do you keep letting yourself feel bad like this?” “Sure I caused your problem, but finding blame isn’t going to accomplish anything.  Why don’t you just have the courage to fix your own problem?” and, “Don’t pass judgment on me!” an attitude of, “Sure, I caused those problems, and simply and objectively, that’s reality, but I really do regret that I felt resentful about how they affected me.  This isn’t because I no longer think I deserved better, but because, in general, resentment is the number one offender, and that includes your resentment.”

Or, all you’ve got to do is look around you, and you could see how much our culture accepts, even adulates, mores that pretty much boil down to might-makes-right.

Without this rousing faith, too many losers would have too many excuses, and even legitimate excuses have a price.


One’s wildest dreams would be that since addiction depends so much on choices made at different time, the addicts whose lives would be in danger don’t really have to die.  Sociologists are very aware of how much cultural influences do change the rate of addiction.




The difference between dependence on a drug, and addiction, is all-important regarding whether addicts really have to keep putting themselves in danger.  The Source Book of Substance Abuse and Addiction, edited by Lawrence Friedman, Nicholas F. Fleming, David H. Roberts, and Steven E. Hyman, says, “Patients with sickle cell disease may receive chronic opiate treatment for sickle cell crises and develop intermittent dependence on these drugs. However, dependence does not imply addiction.”  If you don’t have a “Let’s party!” attitude toward a drug, then even if you develop a dependency toward it, you probably won’t become addicted to it.  You wouldn’t have the hallmarks of addiction, the obliviousness of consequences, state of denial, tendency to relapse, etc.  It would be as if you took non-addictive drugs that do cause dependency, such as Paxil or anticonvulsants, and tapered down until you were no longer taking them.

Also, it’s all too easy for a “so cool, he’s frozen” attitude about drugs or booze, exactly what hyperthymics would be unusually likely to have, to lead to addiction.  The Addiction Process, Effective Social Work Approaches, by Edith M. Freeman, lists the steps on the path to addiction as “Use,” “Abuse or Problem Use,” and, “Addiction.”  You might think that “Abuse or Problem Use” means someone choosing to be a pothead or Jack Daniels devotee.  Yet according to this, those who came up with that formula, “state that the difference between use and addiction is quantitative rather than qualitative,” though the disruptions in one’s own life would obviously be a lot higher with addiction.  Though we tend to associate drug tolerance with addiction, those who simply use may have developed it.  And though we certainly associate dependence with addiction, “Abuse or Problem Use” involves it, just not to the degree that it would seem only natural to treat the abuser as if he’s not guilty by reason of insanity (“Oh, well, we’ve just got to accept that his disease made him do it.”)  At the same time, it’s very easy to be impaired by a disease that doesn’t make one not guilty by reason of insanity, but does impair one to a degree that’s somewhere between that and normal irrationality.  You could still say that the person’s “real self” wouldn’t have done what he did.  A classic sign of addiction is that the people just go ahead and keep doing what they’re addicted to despite serious consequences, but it wouldn’t really take that much impairment to figure that a lot of these consequences are “accidents that sometimes happen,” problems that before they happen don’t seem real and after they happened are impossible to undo, etc., especially when the person is under the influence.

In a statement by an AA member, he had such a great hyperthymic stage presence that the following quotation, completely lacking all of the exquisite expressive nuances in his voice, doesn’t come close to doing it justice, but here’s what he said: “If you have an allergic reaction to alcohol, and it’s coupled with some fascinating thinking, it’s referred to as ‘alcoholic thinking.’  In... in... meetings of AA it’s a source of a lot of mirth.  And I love it.  I love reasons to drink.  I collect them.  I have a friend named Mark, who the first time he ever read our book, he read the first page of Chapter Four, which contains a sentence which basically says, ‘Facing an alcoholic death or a spiritual life is not always an easy decision to make.’  Very tough decision.  Die in a pool of my own urine, spiritual life, very very tough.  What am I gonna do?  And when he read that sentence he said to himself, ‘Well, how bad of an alcoholic death are we talkin’ about here?’.  That’s not a normal reaction to that sentence, but I don’t have a normal reaction!  I still don’t have a normal reaction.  At sixteen years sober I don’t.  Two years ago, at fourteen years sober, I need hand surgery, surgery on my hand.  Doctor says to me, ‘Mr. Jones, you’re gonna need general anesthetic.’  I said [in an irrationally gloating giggly tone of voice] ‘Oh-ho general anesthetic!  Oh, ho, man!’.  Normal people don’t get excited about general anesthetic!  No normal person gets excited about it!  And I’ll tell you why!  You’re generally anesthetized for it, you’re asleep during it, but you see, I know somethin’ about general anesthetic.  When they hit you with it, they say, ‘Count backwards from a hundred,’ and you go, ‘a hundred, ninety-nine, [loud puttering sound of person quickly dropping off to sleep].’  I love ninety-nine.”  Some people in the audience then clap.  “And it sounds like some of you love ninety-nine too.  They don’t love ninety-nine at the Lions Club.  You say it at the Lions Club, and they’ll go, ‘What in the hell is he talking about?’; at AA, guys are going [boisterously and enthusiastically approving] ‘Whoa-ho!  Ninety-nine!’.  I found out last year I might have to get the same surgery on this other hand, and I’m still going [gloatingly again] ‘Wo-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho!’.”  He then goes on to say that he’s certainly losing sight of all the pain and hassle that follows surgery, but he’s still excited about ninety-nine.  Fairly soon after, he tells of how a doctor prescribed “Mickeys” for him to use as sleeping pills, but he did his best to stay awake after taking them, by slamming his arms into the wall, etc., because “I didn’t want to waste a perfectly good Mickey.”

A typical statement, from the handbook of Gamblers Anonymous, (which would mean that the addicts don’t have any unnatural substance distorting their consciousness), is “I thought marriage would straighten him out and all he needed was to settle down in a good solid relationship,” which certainly isn’t narcissistic wishful thinking on the part of the woman, just treating obliviously impulsive people as if they were normal.  The web page “What Is Alcoholism?: Basic information about alcoholism - what is it, what causes it, and who is at risk,” had said under the heading Personality Traits, “Studies are finding that alcoholism is strongly related to impulsive, excitable, and novelty-seeking behavior, and such patterns are established early on, if not inherited,” and not harmlessly impulsive excitable and novelty-seeking, either.  The webpage Factors Contributing to the Development of Pathological Gambling, now says basically the same thing about addictions in general, in more depth.

Michael Craig, Miller, MD, the Editor in Chief of the Harvard Mental Health Letter, wrote in the February, 2006 issue, “Genes shape temperament: People who are impulsive, take risks, and habitually seek new experiences are more likely to become addicted.” The same article also says that one of the way in which genes “influence the brain’s susceptibility to addiction,” is in “the prefrontal cortex, which organizes our responses to the environment,” and that this is the same obliviousness that constitutes an effect of booze: “Addictive substances may also cause the prefrontal cortex to work at low power—one of the reasons addicted persons often deny that they have a problem.”  This is also the reason why booze, which is a depressant, feels like a stimulant.  Other genetic effects, such as that drugs feel unusually good to some people, wouldn’t lead to addiction in those who have a strong enough awareness that no matter how good they feel now, overusing them would have the dangers of addiction.

The impossible people’s thinking is so apart from the norm, that it could be called moderately insane.  It may be only natural to assume that another will care about the big consequences of his own behavior, yet all that a woman would have to do to seem codependent, is assume that her addicted husband will wise up and change.  Whether the spouses use the sort of heavy-handed approaches that could be condemned as “pathological codependent control tactics,” or the sort of warm cooperative approaches that could be called “pathological codependent naïve giving,” she’d still be held responsible for thinking that she could change him, into someone who cares that the drugs are gradually killing him.  His obliviousness ends up self-justified, since to well-adjusted people, he’d seem morally blameless for not seeing the consequences.  Sure, the law expects people to show the sort of care about consequences that a reasonable person would, but in our day-to-day lives, we must realize that some people don’t show reasonable caution.  “Oh, well, some people are that unreasonably unaware of the consequences of what they do,” sounds a lot more reasonable than does, “Taking as Jesus did this sinful world as it is not as I would have it,” or anything that implies this.

When it comes to addiction, especially the beginnings of physiological addiction and the “insane thinking” that would lead to relapses of addiction, one big question would have to be, what constitutes a psychological need?  Mark David Chapman said, “I killed John Lennon because I couldn’t handle being a nobody anymore,” and, “I was choking, I was suffocating, in that nobody-ness.”  Sure, the cravings of a strongly developed addiction are stronger than that.  But what about the cravings which, if someone without an addictive personality had them due to some prescription drugs he had to take, he’d figure that he’d better just ride them out until his system went back to normal?  Just because someone feels a need that feels like choking and suffocating, doesn’t mean that we must understand if he acts on it.


Here’s an example of what addictive personalities would regard as moral accountability.  When AA was established through the writing of their Big Book, this was basically an expression of what the addicts who wrote it, wanted to say.  In Chapter 5, “How It Works,” they tell of how one takes a searching and fearless moral inventory, that one confesses his own resentments angers and fears, “Resentment is the ‘number one’ offender,” “If we were to live, we had to be free of anger,” and “[Fear] was an evil and corroding thread; the fabric of our existence was shot through with it.... Sometimes we think fear ought to be classed with stealing. It seems to cause more trouble.”  This then gives the following as the model moral inventory:



I’m resentful at: The cause: Affects my:
Mr. Brown  His attention to my wife. 
Told my wife of my mistress. 
Brown may get my job at the office.
Sex relations 
Self-esteem (fear)
Mrs. Jones  She’s a nut—she snubbed me. 
She committed her husband for drinking.
He’s my friend.
She’s a gossip.
Personal relationship.
Self-esteem (fear)
My employer  Unreasonable— 
Threatens to fire me for my drinking and 
padding my expense account.
Self-esteem (fear)
My wife  Misunderstands and nags. 
Likes Brown.
Wants house put in her name.
Personal sex relations
Security (fear)







So this is what someone who has an addictive personality, would regard as a searching and fearless moral inventory.  Soon after this, the Big Book says, “We are in the world to play the role He assigns. Just to the extent that we do as we think He would have us, and humbly rely on Him, does He enable us to match calamity with serenity.”  Resentment anger and fear are the emotions that addicts hate most, the emotions that most motivate others to try to stop them from doing as they please, which to them seems to be a horrid offense; what determined what went into the Big Book and other AA ideology wasn’t what science found would create the healthiest, most well-balanced, personality society and relationship with the society around us, but what felt right to a bunch of longtime addicts.

If you’ve listened to enough life stories of those in Twelve Step groups, you might notice, over and over again, the same strangely amoral conception of personal responsibility and personal dignity that you could see in that model moral inventory. A very typical example of this is the following, from an MD member of Gamblers Anonymous, who financed his gambling habit partially through inveterate insurance fraud, “My license to practice, which took me fifteen years to obtain, was revoked by the state of New Jersey, on the grounds of moral turpitude.  So my life’s work has gone down the drain.  If I weren’t a member of GA, I wouldn’t have been able to deal with this on an adult basis.  I accept the things I cannot change.”

Question number one would be, but what about the fact that he caused his own problem through his fraud?  Sure, since it’s impossible to OD on compulsive gambling it can eat up an unlimited amount of money, and one could say that the theft of all that money is just a symptom of a disease.  The mom of former football player Art Schlichter, who for gambling conned and stole probably close to $2,000,000, pled to a judge for treatment instead of prison time, “How many times did Darryl Strawberry have relapses?  How many times has Robert Downey, Jr.?” but many figure that gambling is gambling and theft is theft, and you can’t steal money and then just claim that grand theft is a symptom of a disease.

Question number two would be, wouldn’t inveterate insurance fraud obviously be immoral in a practical sense, making him a lot more untrustworthy as a doctor than would an abstraction like “turpitude”?

 The third question would be, don’t others have a right to protect themselves from more of the same, and to be able to carry out their business without having to be cagey about everybody and their possible larcenous diseases?

Question number four would be, is the problem that now both theft and gambling are totally out-of-character for him, so he’s now paying the price for past history and everyone’s entitled to a second chance?  If so, then many others could get excused of many other things since from the moment after anyone does anything it’s past history.  Also, if this truly is out-of-character for him now, in time this fact would outweigh the importance of the magnitude of the fraud.

And question number five would be, what if none of these questions about causality morality others’ rights and currentness existed, and the only reason why he was to accept the loss of his license was that he was helpless to change this fact?  Would that mean that he wouldn’t be dealing with this on an adult basis, if he didn’t serenely accept this fact?

These are basically the questions that really should be answered whenever such amoralism comes up in discussions within twelve-step groups, and I’ve seen exactly this sort of amoralism come up time after time after time.  Of these five questions, the only one that you can’t see in the model moral inventory is that of currentness, since none of the real problems are holdovers from the past that others insist on burdening him with.  What is there is that he caused his problems with his wife and boss, that he should have known how unethical these were and how much they violated others’ rights, and that even if these didn’t exist and everything that he felt RESENTFUL about was being victimized by others’ coldhearted immorality, he’d still tabulate these RESENTMENTS as confessions, exactly as he would have if he himself immorally and coldheartedly brought about what caused them.

The next story in the GA handbook is by a former attorney who got some of his gambling money through embezzlement but he thought that he only “borrowed” it since he intended to pay it back after he won it back in gambling, and near the end says, “I realize that eventually I will face indictment, which is imminent, but I don’t feel I am a criminal.  I know I will have to pay for a criminal act that I committed, and because of GA I am able to face that, but that is another part of my life that I deal with.”  I’m sure that this very same attorney wouldn’t want to live in a society where if people did to him what he did with the same benign but mistaken intent, everyone would understand that this wasn’t really a criminal act, but if some people with power thought that it was, then that’s just something that the embezzlers would have to deal with and they should keep tabs on whether or not they’re resentful about it.  This is exactly the sort of amoralism, and anathematizing of objections, that one would expect from addictive personalities.  Other examples of this sort of amoralism I’ve heard from members of Twelve Step groups include:

Some AA volunteers who go into prisons to conduct meetings, got inspiration from the resiliency of a prisoner who keeps being denied for parole (probably for good reasons), and from sex offenders since any one of them could be committed after he’s served his maximum sentence.

Some Sex Addicts Anonymous members giving as their idea of “creating communities of compassion,” as basically showing overgeneralized unconditional forgiveness.

An SAA member on one of their Prison Outreach tapes, who writes to members in prison, who tend to be sex offenders, says about a sex offender, that the poor guy didn’t start telling of his crime until after writing to the member for two and a half years.  Since everyone treats the inmate with contempt, even his wife and kids left, now he has no one who he could “trust,” and that’s why he was defensive even toward the helpful SAA member.  This ignores two very crucial facts, that if the inmate realized how much he broke the trust of others, this may help him realize why it’s important that he stop offending, and that, since the women’s auxiliary of SAA is called Codependents of Sex Addicts, if his wife did stay with him for any reason whatsoever, SAA would consider her to be suffering from a self-defeating self-sacrificing mental disorder!

A Gamblers Anonymous member wrote that he’s pleased to have learned from meetings, “Living just for today is a pleasant adventure for me,” though it would be pretty hard to develop a gambling addiction without living in the short-term too much to begin with.

Also, one of the personal stories in the handbook of Cocaine Anonymous, Hope, Faith & Courage, because of the writer’s cocaine usage, “I lost a house I had lived in for ten years.  I blamed the loss on bad luck and made myself out to be a victim.  I indulged in a lot of self-pity and was depressed most of the time.  I had this feeling in my gut of impending doom and still I didn’t stop.” It doesn’t say anything about trying to stop but being overwhelmed by addictive cravings.  Then, a very close friend, who he introduced to cocaine, suddenly died during a freebasing binge, but even this wasn’t enough to get the writer to even try to stop.  Finally, as he was working on a railroad train, a job that he’d had for seventeen years, and he was under the influence of cocaine marijuana alcohol and lost sleep due to partying, his train had a head-on collision with another.  This was loud and noticeable enough to make him want to give up the cocaine after about five months, and nothing is said about his being overwhelmed by addictive cravings at that time.  Since so much of the time in which he was addicted, he was mentally competent enough to work at that job, there must have been some times in which a normal person would have had at least flashes of insight about the harm that the cocaine did or might do.  At those times he would have done what it took to kick the habit, including getting medical or other help.  You might think that looking inside such an addict’s mind would be looking into the heart of darkness, but actually, it would be more like looking into the banality of evil, since the person simply lacks enough awareness.

Very much connected with the idea of directing druggies to treatment instead of prison, is the overblown tendency to forgive that comes from absolutist Christian commands to forgive, such as the following from the Sermon on the Mount:  “But I say to you, Do not resist one who is evil.  But if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also...  You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’  But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.  For if you love those who love you, what reward have you?  Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you salute only your brethren, what more are you doing than others?  Do not even the Gentiles do the same?  You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect... Give us this day our daily bread; And forgive us our debts, As we also have forgiven our debtors... For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father also will forgive you; but if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.... Judge not, that you be not judged.  For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get.” 

 Niebuhr’s The Nature and Destiny of Man includes, “The Biblical warning ‘if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye,’ is certainly relevant to historical realities; for the failure of pure love to calculate possible reciprocal responses to it is the force which makes new ventures in brotherhood possible,” without bothering to mention that this is a very codependent love, where no matter how much someone sins at your expense, you perfectly take as Jesus did this sinful world as it is not as you’d have it.

More is in the section of my Victim Correction as a Panacea webpage which gives these and similar Bible verses by Jesus and his followers. The Bible Handbook, written and now published by Atheists, says about Christian unconditional commands to practice the Virtue of Forgiveness, or you fall short and will burn in hell, “Christ’s absurd reversals of true morality would place the good at the mercy of the bad, and would make an end of civilized society.” The entry on Niebuhr in The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition, 2001, says that he “defended Christianity as the world view that best explains the heights and barbarisms of human behavior,” so we’re simply supposed to accept the existence of barbarity, and change our vulnerability to barbarisms.  You might think that strife in the material world that one is helpless to change, is just something to be dealt with stolidly, though:


Washington State Bar Association President Jan Eric Peterson wrote in his last column as the president, “What troubles me most is the hypocrisy. We criminalize and harshly punish the use of recreational drugs, but not alcohol and tobacco.”  So it seems that being fair means not taking dangerous drugs seriously, though alcohol is legal largely because moderate use is safe, and tobacco is legal only because it became commonly used before its dangers were firmly established and once it had become established the manufacturers could wave the flag of freedom saying that anyone who doesn’t like them are simply out to stifle people’s freedoms.  Also, this is exactly the sort of attitude that, among moderate drug abusers, would lead them not to take drug abuse treatment seriously.  From there the drug abuse could get worse until, by the time they could no longer call themselves “recreational” drug abusers, it would be too late.

Rather than allowing more problems, what we really need is a discovery of what really does work in getting dopers to stop doping.  The big question has got to be, what is the best way to deal with the fact that if their lovers or spouses treat them as if they respond as normal people would to normal relationships, the lovers would seem pathological?  Are those who have impulsive excitable and novelty-seeking tendencies strong enough to make them do obviously destructive things, reached better by telling them that a searching and fearless moral inventory is a tabulation of one’s resentments about suffering the consequences of his own behavior that truly is morally wanting, or by telling them how to have more depth than that?

I’ve long believed in Situation Ethics, in that it’s neither moralistic nor opinionated.  Also, since the morality of the Bible puts so much emphasis on intent, it’s very easy to dismiss harmful behavior that wasn’t intended to cause the harm, such as drug abuse, as being not that bad, but Situation Ethics wouldn’t accept that.  (Also, it’s a lot easier to forgive behavior that seems to be merely violations of an abstract law, as in Romans 7:15-17: “I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. Now if I do what I do not want, I agree that the law is good. So then it is no longer I that do it, but sin which dwells within me,” than it is to forgive behavior when you’re facing huge consequences.)  What could be more important, though, is how we could teach these people not to be so short-sighted and impulsive that even if they were clean and sober without experiencing any addictive cravings, spouses who’d expect them to be won over by what would win most people over would seem sorely deluded.  Fractal’s Australian website, describes an addiction-producing attitude common among hyperthymics that the website calls the “romantic renegade,” and says, “In any case, a significant number of bipolar types can be forces to contend with because of their keen, sharpened senses and wit, and an exaggerated ego equipped with an excess of bravado. If you add substance abuse to this already volatile mixture, I can almost guarantee you’ll end up with either a renegade or a corpse—sometimes both, in that order. So, if you find you’re often the charismatic leader of the pack, perhaps it’s a combination of your genetic birthright and an abundance of legal and illegal chemicals that made you so.  Beware the bravado doesn’t land you in jail or the hospital--it’s done both for me...but I always had my fans cheering me on. And you know what? Sometimes it was awful goddamn fun too!”

We mustn’t conform, be

Along these lines are statements made by the founder of Sex and Love Addicts Anonymous in their handbook, “I thought I was living the life that others secretly envied. ‘They are the gutless ones,’ I thought, ‘too scared to take a chance on living.’  The possibility that no durable happiness or fulfillment could ever come from living out this pointless pattern did not occur to me at all,” and, “It was society that was sick, I thought, trying to force bondage upon me. I was a true pioneer of alternative modes of living—and loving.”  The main book of Narcotics Anonymous says, “We have learned that old ideas and old ways won’t help us to stay clean or live a better life. If we allow ourselves to stagnate and cling to ‘terminal hipness’ and ‘fatal cool’, we are giving into the symptoms of our disease.”  That’s certainly one kind of attitude that’s short-sighted and impulsive, and intractably won’t be won over by what wins most people over.  Knowing how to reach druggies who think like this would also let us know how to reach alkies like this, those who think like John Wayne’s, “Republic...it means people can live free, talk free, go or come, buy or sell, be drunk or sober, however they choose.”


This completely ignores the fact that, as the AA slogan says, “Alcoholics don’t have relationships; they take hostages,” so getting drunk isn’t necessarily the drunk’s own business.  But then again, as Bobby Shriver said on Larry King Live on October 13, 2006, “And we were reading this poll the other day that the number one movie star, Larry, in America today is still John Wayne.  He hasn’t had a movie in the theaters, as you know, in 40 years.”

Considering how much is at stake, both for those using the dope or booze, and those who are hurt by such behavior, it really is important that we find some way to reach these people.  As one suddenly realizes when he hits bottom:



even when, for one reason or another, he wants to believe that what really matters is being tough, cool, etc.




















 Home Page

 About Us, Introduction

About Us, the Summary

 About Us, Index

My Story

 To The [Abuse] Survivors ♥♥♥♥♥

Men Dying for Love

Top of On Doping

 “Oh, Yeah?” Upbeat Echoes from the First Great Stock Market Crash

Victim Correction as a Panacea, the Summary (Page 1)

(Page 2)(Main Page 3)

  Cancer Victims Corrected Too

The Main Victim Correction as a Panacea

 Documentation On the Social Problem of Unnaturally Rampant Depression

 Standard Rationales for Victim Correction as a Panacea

 Schopenhauer on Predators

 Emphasis on Victim-Self-Blaming

Darwinist Lehman Brothers' INSIDE Sales Tips

  Darwinist Lehman Brothers INSIDE Introduction to Management Book

Out of the Same Mold as the Great Crash of 2008

Message for Intellectuals in the Islamic World

Candace Newmaker’s Experience

Breaking Important Confidences for Your Own Good

A Glimpse Into the Soul of Victim Correction

Cigarette Industry and Victim Correction

Niebuhr’s Ideas on Our Nature and Destiny

Herbal Experiences for Women

Some Ideas for Rapport