First of all, we are just now starting to get a glimpse into what addiction is. So of course the 20th century made a lot of mistakes. However, its a rapidly evolving and constantly changing field that incorporates new methods, medications, behavioral therapy, interventions etc etc. Doctor Crackhead should know this and I am not sure why he seems to be focusing only on the negatives of "Traditional Treatment". It almost seems like a massive rationalization, but that is probably my addict thinking and putting myself in his shoes (he acknowledges he is in active addiction).
In my opinion and my opinion only, the guy doesn't have the qualifications to make these assessments and statements. What does he know that stands up against the body of research done about addiction?
Also, anybody remember the whole James Frey fiasco? This guy kinda reminds me of that. Calling himself a Doctor (which he is) but he is not a Medical Doctor, Psychologist/Psychiatrist, Family Therapist, Addiction Specialist, Social Worker etc.
This statement from his website is interesting:
Peter Ferentzy holds a Ph.D. in Social and Political Thought from York University. His dissertation is a historical sociology of the origins and recent development of the modern concept of addiction with an emphasis on how it has interacted with ideas about mental illness and compulsions in general. Dr. Ferentzy has studied and written extensively on Gamblers Anonymous, as well as other issues related to pathological gambling. Two of his more recently completed studies involve: 1. The history of ideas related to addiction with an emphasis on problem gambling wherein special attention is paid to the role of metaphoric conceptualization in the construction of scientific discourse; 2. A street level, ethnographic study of gambling patterns among crack users in downtown Toronto.
So he is basing his research on what exactly? Immediately, the concept of "small sample size" jumps out at me.
Metaphoric Concepts are often used in recovery because A: They are easy to remember. B: People coming into recovery often are still very much in a fog. I would also like to see his "street level" study. He notes that he is a "former crackhead", I hope that he isn't basing this study on "personal experience". I know if I wrote a paper using my experience as an addict and gave it to my Professors in my MSW program they would not accept it as research. Even if he is basing his research on addicts at the place he works, its still too small of a sample size.
Doing a bit more work/research
WARNING: POTENTIALLY VERY TRIGGERING VIDEO:
Is he still actively addicted? This video makes it seem like it. Also, the guy looks like he is very much trying to make money off of being "Dr. Crackhead" (to the point of a business card saying so). Take that for what you will.
Also, while watching that video again he claims "abstinence has only worked for a "handful" of people". That isn't true. Fact of the matter is that most addicts relapse. That is the "game" we are playing right now. However, I know plenty of people with multi-decades of clean time that use the abstinence only model.
For me personally: I learned (and it took me 15 years to learn this) that trying to manage and control addiction is actually much worse then when I was telling myself I didn't care. Talk about demoralization. I kept failing over and over and over and over and... well you get the point. I suck at using drugs responsible to the point that I start committing slow suicide with them.
So...
If I want to live (and God I do) I have to accept that I cannot use. The "Doctor" also basically claims that "abstinence leads to rape." I am sure he is talking about "13 stepping" which is kinda the vogue criticism of AA/NA (its full of perverts! Don't get me wrong there are some real POS there but I know plenty of people, including myself that often tell girls "if anyone is bugging you or making you uncomfortable then you can tell me or him or him or her etc etc).
Also, AA/NA is not the only "abstinence only" model. SMART is as well for example. Yet, he posts an "endorsement" from one of the people involved with SMART.
Some of his claims are straight up absurd:
Those who insist that addicts need to “hit bottom” are participating in murder, and on a scale large enough to be designated genocide. No other marginalized group is subject to an explicit call for what can amount to beatings, rapes, infections and deaths –- legal sanction against the mere use of a substance is simply an offshoot of a larger call for our degradation.
He totally ignores "high bottom" people. People don't have to hit a major rock bottom, but pain often compels change. Very few addicts will change unless they really want to. "Hitting a personal bottom" is just a term for the moment when you decide to take action. I haven't ODed, been raped, infected or died but I hit my bottom and it was just as bad FOR ME as it was for anyone else who hit a bottom. Using drugs and living in active addiction has been a personal hell I endured for at least a decade.
I know very few people who want addicts to be raped, infected or die. They might not have sympathy for them, but most do not want us to die or be raped. If they do they are a fucking asshole and should be ignored IMO. Also, lets face facts. Lots of us do some fucked up shit to survive our using careers. This doesn't leave the best impression. Especially if you are ignorant of addiction.
I am very supportive of the Harm Reduction Model... In my opinion only, this guy could do tremendous damage to it. He doesn't speak for me that is for sure.
Edit: Fixed spelling and added some more thoughts, thanks NSAM!
