mibrane
Bluelighter
- Joined
- May 22, 2000
- Messages
- 226
As promised in a previous thread, I'm posting several articles from the last few years which look at issues affecting the drug user activist movement and harm reduction more broadly. I'll post mine first as I have them readily accessible, but will try and bring you some great written work from some of Australia's most prominent user-activists, and some equally great pieces from lesser-known campaigners.
I hope the series will broaden bluelighters' understanding of drug user activism and hopefully inspire involvement from some new blood.
The piece below was first published in Whack the magazine of VIVAIDS - Victorian Drug Users' Organisation - in 1999. It looks at the question of self-outing yourself as a drug user, the political and personal ramifications. While targeting drug user activists particularly, it has a broader relevance for many drug users.
Venceremos! :D
Come out of the drug closet... just check who's bedroom you're in first
By Michael A
At a mural exhibiton in Springvale recently I had an experience that made me think a lot about the issue of whether or not to tell other people that you use, a process which is often referred to as disclosure, or coming out.
I was talking in a group with about 1/2 a dozen young users, discussing issues surrounding grief and overdose, when I relayed my experience. For me, it was incredibly natural - drug talk- which comes incredibly easily to most users. One of the young women interrupted me and asked, somewhat incredulously, “So you’re a user?”. I explained that I was on mthadone, that at times I use everyday, other times only once or twice a week - in short, when I can afford it.
The young woman apologised and said “Sorry, we just assumed you (meaning my peer educators and I) were all goodi-goodies.”
People who are familiar with my physical appearance will realise that this came as somewhat of a shock to me. When people meet me socialy, many assume that I am a user, and I don’t wear long sleeved shirts to hide tracks (but I do wear them if I’m cold.) Had I gone to Springvale to score, most would have assumed that I was a user, in fact in a five minute walk to get some lunch that day I was asked at least 10 times if I wanted to get on.
Yet, in a professional capacity, the very same users often assume that I am not one of them. Its an interesting paradox which underlines one of the biggest challenges faced by the harm reduction movement.
I want to explore this issue from three angles. Firstly, the attitudes of Drug & Alcohol organisations towards assisting and employing known users; the challenges faced by users working in the field; and privacy and disclosure issues which affect all users, everyday :
To deal with the organisational issue first:
Many organisations within the field, particularly some of the larger treatment centres, still have formal qualifications as their number one selection criteria when recruiting for positions such as peer educators and drug policy and research officers, and particularly workers who will be coordinating peer education projects, and who may be in charge of a budget. While many users do have those qualifications, much of the field continues to be dominated by workers who have formal qualifications rather than life experiuence and first hand knowledge.
This is why the automatic reaction of the Springvale crew was to assume that I was not a user - becuase peer based employment policies such as those upon which VIVAIDS operates are still very much in the minority.
At best, organisations tend to hire ex-users.
Kirsty Morgan has dealt with the issue of defining peers very extensively in her 1999 discussion paper “Defining Peer Education”, and it is not my intention to repeat that discussion here. I thoroughly recommending reading her piece for a more detailed discussion of this side of the issue.
Suffice it to say, where users are not employed at all levels of a project which is targeted at users, this is not true peer education, but targeted information delivery.
One of the really disturbing things about the continuation of these employment policies, is that if organisations established for users benefit can’t even trust users enough to employ them into positions working within and for our own community, how can we expect other employers to place known users into positions of responsibility?
The validity of peer education in being able to lead to real behaviour change that minimises harm is well documented, and generally accepted within our sector.We must now follow that acceptance through to its logical conclusion and give users the power to design and implement peer education projects. User groups are leading the way in establishing standards and models for peer education because we are leading the way in employing users to coordinate and work on them.
This requires a cultural shift in the field’s employment practices, and often requires a greater allocation of resources to professional development. However, after that expenditure we will have workers who have both formal training in vital skills, and first hand knowledge of the issues and community.
The issues associated with when users working in the field should disclose are very complex. At root, I believe coming out is a political issue, and a personal responsibility, but its not an easy thing to do. While it can resolve some problems, it can also create complications.
Young users have few role models. The classic stereotype shows users as dirty, inarticulate, and unemployed. Many users internalise this stereotype, and find it very difficult to develop self esteem. This can affect their willingness to take the time to use safely, as the stereotype depiects users as not caring about our health. It also affects the likelihood of gaining employment, trapping users in cycles of poverty, malnutrition, and petty crime.
When users working in the field or in any other other position step forward and say “I use, I maintain my health as best I can, and I work” it challenges the negative stereotype. Every time that stereotype is challenged the impact it has on users, and the likelihood of internalisation, is decreased. As more users throw off shackles of false limitations, our community is strengthened.
It also has an impact on the wider community, who’s main knowledge of users comes through the mainstream media - the very place where negative stereotypes of users are promoted.
Still, deciding when to disclose, and to whom, remains a question which we may have to deal with every time we meet a new group. It should always be judged on whether it will advance the cause of users rights and law reform. A part of that judgement needs to be how much stress wil it place on you, and is it likely to lead to burnout, which will certainly not help our progress.
An interesting example is when representing users on a governmental advisory board, or a committee with other executives. Some people are simply so prejudiced that admitting you use will only cause the board to view you as irrational, no matter how together and articulately we may present ourselves. Any benefits you may have been able to gain for users would be lost.
On the other hand, working closely with committee members who may not have much contact with users, and demonstrating how hard we work can win people over, and make them challenge myths they may subscribe to.
It is, at all times, a tactical question -ie do what you believe wil most advance your personal influence and the drug law reform movement as a whole -, and achieving a balance is very diffiicult.
When users are working with users I believe the issue is much more clear cut. Coming out challenges stereotypes as I have discussed, but it also facilitates a trusting conection with users which is much harder for non-users to obtain.
Even with users though, we should always assess it. If you think a client is likely to wind up at your house at 1am looking to score, you may want to withhold your disclosure, but I believe this is certainly the exception to the rule.
A report by one of our workers about a workshop program they conducted explained that usually disclosing their using status to workshop participants generally achieved very positive results, but when conducting a workshop at a recover-halfway house for people not currently using, the workers disclosure created an atmosphere of distrust, and a slightly hostile perception that the worker represented something they were trying to distance themselves from. Responses to coming out can be surprising and unpredictable, but after a while making educated guesses becomes a lot easier.
For users generally, the issues can be just as complex. I believe what I have said about the need for users doing drug & alcohol work to come forwards, anbd the reasons for that, hold true for all users. Ultimately, our best chance for law reform is for users to be viewed as a mass movement with real power. An analysis of social reform, whether that be for women’s rights, Aboriginal civil rights, or gay and lesbian rights shows clearly that uinless users are willing defend our rights openly and publicly, noone else will.
Involvement in VIVAIDS is the perfect way to do this. The solidarity experienced working with other users provides a buffer from the everyday offensive attempting to convince us that our lifestyle is worthless and immoral.
But what about with our parents, friends and employers? I am not looking to moralise and crticise people who hide their use. Using is illegal so we are open to arrest, we do not have anti-discrimination coverage so we can be dismisssed from our jobs, parents may fear having their children stolen, and some people just treat you like shit. And as I have said, its not as if you can just tell a couple of people you are a user and you’ve come out, its something that we must do continually, and it can get really tiring.
Once, while living in rural NSW, I went to have dental treatment at a dental hospital and admitted that I was a speed user in case it had an impact on the local anaesthtic. My reward for my honesty was that I was basically totured in the chair. I developed a phobia and can now not go to a dentist without heavy sedation, and even then I’m usually in tears.
It is by no means your individual responsibility to try and change the views of every small minded bigot you meet. If therte is nothing to be gained through your disclosure, if it is going to cause you undue stress or complications, keep the information to yourself.
The other point I want to make is that even if you choose to be open about telling people about your use, others should not presume that they have a liberty to pass on that information.
Multi-service organisations like community health centres and hospitals should do all they can to minimise attention on clients utilising D&A services, siblings should not feel it is “their duty” to pass your disclosure to them on to your parents - I’m sure we all have an example of an inappropriate disclosure. Coming out can be powerful, but it is your power, and your choice when, where and with whom you wish to exercise it.
Being outed can be embarassing, can destory the relationship, whether it be personal or professional, between the user and the person who outed them, and can potentially have a major impact on the users life if the information falls into the wrong hands or is used inappropriately.
As I’ve said, coming out is never easy, its a continual process, and can be stressful.But the more often it takes place the more power we exercise collectively, and the greater the opportunity for a better go for all users. ITS YOUR CHOICE!, I just hope to encourage those users who do feel it is within their power to disclose, please do so, whenever possible.
I hope the series will broaden bluelighters' understanding of drug user activism and hopefully inspire involvement from some new blood.
The piece below was first published in Whack the magazine of VIVAIDS - Victorian Drug Users' Organisation - in 1999. It looks at the question of self-outing yourself as a drug user, the political and personal ramifications. While targeting drug user activists particularly, it has a broader relevance for many drug users.
Venceremos! :D
Come out of the drug closet... just check who's bedroom you're in first
By Michael A
At a mural exhibiton in Springvale recently I had an experience that made me think a lot about the issue of whether or not to tell other people that you use, a process which is often referred to as disclosure, or coming out.
I was talking in a group with about 1/2 a dozen young users, discussing issues surrounding grief and overdose, when I relayed my experience. For me, it was incredibly natural - drug talk- which comes incredibly easily to most users. One of the young women interrupted me and asked, somewhat incredulously, “So you’re a user?”. I explained that I was on mthadone, that at times I use everyday, other times only once or twice a week - in short, when I can afford it.
The young woman apologised and said “Sorry, we just assumed you (meaning my peer educators and I) were all goodi-goodies.”
People who are familiar with my physical appearance will realise that this came as somewhat of a shock to me. When people meet me socialy, many assume that I am a user, and I don’t wear long sleeved shirts to hide tracks (but I do wear them if I’m cold.) Had I gone to Springvale to score, most would have assumed that I was a user, in fact in a five minute walk to get some lunch that day I was asked at least 10 times if I wanted to get on.
Yet, in a professional capacity, the very same users often assume that I am not one of them. Its an interesting paradox which underlines one of the biggest challenges faced by the harm reduction movement.
I want to explore this issue from three angles. Firstly, the attitudes of Drug & Alcohol organisations towards assisting and employing known users; the challenges faced by users working in the field; and privacy and disclosure issues which affect all users, everyday :
To deal with the organisational issue first:
Many organisations within the field, particularly some of the larger treatment centres, still have formal qualifications as their number one selection criteria when recruiting for positions such as peer educators and drug policy and research officers, and particularly workers who will be coordinating peer education projects, and who may be in charge of a budget. While many users do have those qualifications, much of the field continues to be dominated by workers who have formal qualifications rather than life experiuence and first hand knowledge.
This is why the automatic reaction of the Springvale crew was to assume that I was not a user - becuase peer based employment policies such as those upon which VIVAIDS operates are still very much in the minority.
At best, organisations tend to hire ex-users.
Kirsty Morgan has dealt with the issue of defining peers very extensively in her 1999 discussion paper “Defining Peer Education”, and it is not my intention to repeat that discussion here. I thoroughly recommending reading her piece for a more detailed discussion of this side of the issue.
Suffice it to say, where users are not employed at all levels of a project which is targeted at users, this is not true peer education, but targeted information delivery.
One of the really disturbing things about the continuation of these employment policies, is that if organisations established for users benefit can’t even trust users enough to employ them into positions working within and for our own community, how can we expect other employers to place known users into positions of responsibility?
The validity of peer education in being able to lead to real behaviour change that minimises harm is well documented, and generally accepted within our sector.We must now follow that acceptance through to its logical conclusion and give users the power to design and implement peer education projects. User groups are leading the way in establishing standards and models for peer education because we are leading the way in employing users to coordinate and work on them.
This requires a cultural shift in the field’s employment practices, and often requires a greater allocation of resources to professional development. However, after that expenditure we will have workers who have both formal training in vital skills, and first hand knowledge of the issues and community.
The issues associated with when users working in the field should disclose are very complex. At root, I believe coming out is a political issue, and a personal responsibility, but its not an easy thing to do. While it can resolve some problems, it can also create complications.
Young users have few role models. The classic stereotype shows users as dirty, inarticulate, and unemployed. Many users internalise this stereotype, and find it very difficult to develop self esteem. This can affect their willingness to take the time to use safely, as the stereotype depiects users as not caring about our health. It also affects the likelihood of gaining employment, trapping users in cycles of poverty, malnutrition, and petty crime.
When users working in the field or in any other other position step forward and say “I use, I maintain my health as best I can, and I work” it challenges the negative stereotype. Every time that stereotype is challenged the impact it has on users, and the likelihood of internalisation, is decreased. As more users throw off shackles of false limitations, our community is strengthened.
It also has an impact on the wider community, who’s main knowledge of users comes through the mainstream media - the very place where negative stereotypes of users are promoted.
Still, deciding when to disclose, and to whom, remains a question which we may have to deal with every time we meet a new group. It should always be judged on whether it will advance the cause of users rights and law reform. A part of that judgement needs to be how much stress wil it place on you, and is it likely to lead to burnout, which will certainly not help our progress.
An interesting example is when representing users on a governmental advisory board, or a committee with other executives. Some people are simply so prejudiced that admitting you use will only cause the board to view you as irrational, no matter how together and articulately we may present ourselves. Any benefits you may have been able to gain for users would be lost.
On the other hand, working closely with committee members who may not have much contact with users, and demonstrating how hard we work can win people over, and make them challenge myths they may subscribe to.
It is, at all times, a tactical question -ie do what you believe wil most advance your personal influence and the drug law reform movement as a whole -, and achieving a balance is very diffiicult.
When users are working with users I believe the issue is much more clear cut. Coming out challenges stereotypes as I have discussed, but it also facilitates a trusting conection with users which is much harder for non-users to obtain.
Even with users though, we should always assess it. If you think a client is likely to wind up at your house at 1am looking to score, you may want to withhold your disclosure, but I believe this is certainly the exception to the rule.
A report by one of our workers about a workshop program they conducted explained that usually disclosing their using status to workshop participants generally achieved very positive results, but when conducting a workshop at a recover-halfway house for people not currently using, the workers disclosure created an atmosphere of distrust, and a slightly hostile perception that the worker represented something they were trying to distance themselves from. Responses to coming out can be surprising and unpredictable, but after a while making educated guesses becomes a lot easier.
For users generally, the issues can be just as complex. I believe what I have said about the need for users doing drug & alcohol work to come forwards, anbd the reasons for that, hold true for all users. Ultimately, our best chance for law reform is for users to be viewed as a mass movement with real power. An analysis of social reform, whether that be for women’s rights, Aboriginal civil rights, or gay and lesbian rights shows clearly that uinless users are willing defend our rights openly and publicly, noone else will.
Involvement in VIVAIDS is the perfect way to do this. The solidarity experienced working with other users provides a buffer from the everyday offensive attempting to convince us that our lifestyle is worthless and immoral.
But what about with our parents, friends and employers? I am not looking to moralise and crticise people who hide their use. Using is illegal so we are open to arrest, we do not have anti-discrimination coverage so we can be dismisssed from our jobs, parents may fear having their children stolen, and some people just treat you like shit. And as I have said, its not as if you can just tell a couple of people you are a user and you’ve come out, its something that we must do continually, and it can get really tiring.
Once, while living in rural NSW, I went to have dental treatment at a dental hospital and admitted that I was a speed user in case it had an impact on the local anaesthtic. My reward for my honesty was that I was basically totured in the chair. I developed a phobia and can now not go to a dentist without heavy sedation, and even then I’m usually in tears.
It is by no means your individual responsibility to try and change the views of every small minded bigot you meet. If therte is nothing to be gained through your disclosure, if it is going to cause you undue stress or complications, keep the information to yourself.
The other point I want to make is that even if you choose to be open about telling people about your use, others should not presume that they have a liberty to pass on that information.
Multi-service organisations like community health centres and hospitals should do all they can to minimise attention on clients utilising D&A services, siblings should not feel it is “their duty” to pass your disclosure to them on to your parents - I’m sure we all have an example of an inappropriate disclosure. Coming out can be powerful, but it is your power, and your choice when, where and with whom you wish to exercise it.
Being outed can be embarassing, can destory the relationship, whether it be personal or professional, between the user and the person who outed them, and can potentially have a major impact on the users life if the information falls into the wrong hands or is used inappropriately.
As I’ve said, coming out is never easy, its a continual process, and can be stressful.But the more often it takes place the more power we exercise collectively, and the greater the opportunity for a better go for all users. ITS YOUR CHOICE!, I just hope to encourage those users who do feel it is within their power to disclose, please do so, whenever possible.