A short time ago, I wrote a blog about the selective path to redemption we, as a society, provide to those who we admire, or who agree with our positions; "Selective Speedbumps on the Road to Redemption". I also talked about how, for many others, there were significant obstacles we had placed on that road, and for still others the road may even be non-existent.
In illustrating my point, I used several examples, the most controversial being a recently deceased pop idol and a blustery political commentator, who for this piece will go unnamed so as to avoid the purely subjective controversial comments associated with personal preference, loyalty and perception; the very things I was trying to highlight.
Since reading the comments to that blog, there was one line of thought that has bothered me and provides the impetus for this piece. The idea that some people, identified as practicing addicts, are less culpable for their actions because of how they were exposed to their drug of choice. Specifically, several people commented that comparing the singer and the commentator to street addicts in their quest for redemption was comparing apples to oranges, because the singer had allegedly been first exposed to drugs when his scalp was burned, and the commentator when he developed back pain, implying a greater degree of innocence for both. In my experience, nothing could be further from the truth.
Addiction is physical, biological, psychological, social, behavioral and even spiritual in nature. Most people who experience chronic pain, who develop tissue tolerance to whatever pain medication they are given, do not become addicts. Under the direction of their physician, they simply stop taking the drug when the pain goes away, or if it doesn't go away, find alternative treatment. On the other hand, there are others who, when exposed to the drug feel as though they have found something that has been missing in their lives. They react as though they have an allergy that is triggered and that produces a compulsion that justifies the violation of law, trust and intimacy that most held high prior to their exposure. They develop a love affair with how the drug makes them feel, that in all likelihood replaces their perceived lack of love, both external and internal, without it. The simple truth is, they continue to use drugs because they like who they are when they are under their influence, more than they like who they are when they're not. In the case of both individuals I referenced, they continued in their drug seeking behavior long after they were pronounced better by a credible physician. They (allegedly, for the serial defenders) used false identities and doctors who could be bought, and also employed surrogates to get their drugs; all of which are illegal. By all accounts, they did not steal to get their drugs, nor did they sell drugs. But of course their circumstances were such that they had the resources to obtain them in other ways.
Which brings us to pain. People have different pain thresholds. In fact, there are different pain thresholds in each of us, depending on the source and type of pain. I have a good friend who, in his youth and even into his 50's, was a beast. He would fight anyone; the more the merrier. He would take a beating and still continue on, taking pride in his ability to fight through the pain. On the other hand, if he had the sniffles, he not only would not come to work, he wouldn't get out of bed. And when he went through a divorce, he took the loss of his wife in stride, but cried like a baby over the loss of his dog. In his case, physical pain was much more tolerable than emotional pain, providing it was experienced as a result of what he determined was a noble cause. Pain is relative, as is our reaction to it's collateral behavior. For instance, stereotypically we will excuse a veteran who watched his comrades die on the streets of Iraq, quicker than we will excuse the same behavior from a kid in Minneapolis who watched his friends die on the streets of the Northside. Both experience PTSD, but in our minds, one person came by it honorably, and therefore is less culpable. Just as some will excuse a celebrity who becomes an addict after being exposed to a drug for treatment of physical injury, but won't excuse someone exposed to a drug because of a circumstantially imposed social structiure and a reaction to the pain associated with growing up homeless, poor, without hope and fatherless.
And again, for those who would point to the subsequent behavior of the Northside kid, who, unlike the celebrity, may steal and victimize others.......the celebrity has different resources. An accident of status is still an accident.
The point here is less about how we, as a society, treat any one group of people, and more about how our inconsistent treatment is usually not based in anything remotely objective.