Shared from
http://news.infoshop.org/opinion/radical-sobriety-montreals-responseFrom
Radical Sobriety Montreal
Radical Sobriety Montreal welcomes the discussion initiated by Alexander McClelland and Zoe Dodd's article “
The revolution will not be sober: the problem with notions of 'radical sobriety' & 'intoxication culture'”.
However, we feel an obligation to clear up a number of misconceptions.
While we cannot speak for all groups using the term 'radical sobriety',
since the term does not refer to a unified discourse, we are able to
speak for our group and the positions it holds. Please note that below,
unless otherwise specified, we use the terms 'addict' and 'drug user' to
also include alcoholics and people who drink. So, in no particular
order:
The article states that radical sobriety plays into the
criminalization of drug use. Radical Sobriety Montreal supports the
total decriminalization of drug use. We feel that prohibition is, first,
a primary vector of oppression for millions of people, and second, a
counter-productive policy which fuels violence, does nothing to help
active (or abstinent) drug users, and leads to the perpetuation of many
of the conditions that lead to dangerous forms of drug use in the first
place. We completely oppose prohibition, criminalization, and the savage
violence of the 'war on drugs'. And we fucking hate cops.
The article states that radical sobriety uses moralizing tactics to
set up a dichotomy between “good” abstinent drug users and “bad” active
drug users. Perhaps this is based on a misconception about our name: we
don't think we're more radical than you because we're sober, we think
our sobriety is more radical than AA's and Minor Threat's. Radical
Sobriety Montreal completely rejects moral value judgements based on
one's status as an active or abstinent drug user. We do not promote
abstinence as the only way to engage with harmful drug use patterns. We
have criticisms of some forms of harm reduction but generally speaking
fully support harm reduction initiatives, particularly if they are
conceived of or operated by drug users or ex-drug users themselves.
Members of Radical Sobriety Montreal volunteer with harm reduction
initiatives in this city. And we fucking hate people who hate drug
users.
The article states that radical sobriety is opposed to all drug use,
including therapeutic, traditional, medicinal, and/or various indigenous
practices involving drugs, and that it considers experiences stemming
from these practices to be “hollow” and “inauthentic”. Radical Sobriety
Montreal is not categorically opposed to drug use, especially not in
traditional or medicinal contexts, nor do we deny the very positive and
authentic effects that drug use can have for people. (Believe us, we
know how awesome getting high can be.) We simply acknowledge that there
is very little, to put it mildly, that is traditional or therapeutic
about overdoses and delerium tremens in your early twenties. We are
organized on the basis that the casual, therapeutic, or recreational
self-administration of mind-altering drugs is no longer a viable option
for our members; this should not be understood to mean that we condemn
all such use categorically and in perpetuity. Incidentally, the article
also calls 12-step programs prohibitionist. Though we are not a 12-step
program, in the interest of accuracy we would like to point out that
this is not in fact true.
The article states that radical sobriety subscribes to the
pathologizing medical approach to drug use, particularly through the use
of the term 'addict', and by extension implicitly supports and condones
violent state intervention which mobilizes such terminology. While we
are neither doctors nor addiction scholars, we at Radical Sobriety
Montreal consider ourselves experts when it comes to being addicted. We
consider addiction to be an objectively real phenomenon both socially
and physiologically; we believe that it is, medically speaking, a
pathology; and we consider it to have many of the properties of a mental
disorder or disability. However, we are immensely critical of coercive
interventionist approaches, both because they are obviously repressive
and ineffective and because, as drug users, we have experienced their
extremely negative effects ourselves. We believe that our use of
terminology like 'addiction' cannot be equated with the state's coercive
intervention. We believe that we should not be held responsible for the
grotesque misuse of this terminology by the state, anymore than a
person self-identifying as 'homeless' rather than 'unhoused' should be
held responsible for the state's violent repression of street people.
The article states that communities of queers, punks and so forth
have used drugs for all kinds of reasons, some of them very positive,
and that radical sobriety misses this point. Radical Sobriety Montreal
would like to point out that we are in fact members of those communities
and understand this point very, very intimately.
The article states that the emergence of radical sobriety should be
cause for “concern”, particularly because radical sobriety apparently
fails to engage with the “need to build our own ways”, create “circles
of care and new forms of harm reduction support”, and “create space for
people to come together to foster new forms of healing and social
connection”. Radical Sobriety Montreal would like to point out that that
is exactly and precisely what we aim to do. The article mentions the
extremely individualized approach of 12-Step programs and the extremely
medicalized approach of some rehabs; Radical Sobriety Montreal aims to
provide an alternative based on interdependence, autonomy and radical
social analysis. It is a circle of care. It supports people in their
attempts to reduce harm to themselves. It created a space for people to
come together to foster new forms of healing and social connection. We
exist to support drug users who cannot use anymore and aren't willing to
put all their faith in the medical system or a higher power. In short,
we are exactly what the article is attacking us for failing to be.
The article states that blog posts made by random libertarians are
typical of radical sobriety. Radical Sobriety Montreal is not affiliated
with those libertarians, does not agree with them, and never heard of
them before seeing this article. Those libertarians apparently think
that “morality is central to sobriety”. Radical Sobriety Montreal
dismisses that stance as harmful, hurtful, self-righteous nonsense. They
apparently also think that sobriety is 'natural' and 'natural' is good;
we think they don't understand history or anthropology and have a shaky
grasp on ethics. They apparently think that authentic relationships can
only be had while sober; our own experiences completely disprove such a
simplistic notion. These people sound like straight-edge bros who
swallowed an Ayn Rand book, and it is a mistake to assume that they
accurately represent groups like ours.
The article states that radical sobriety is obsessed with the word
'addict' as a “static political identity”. Though we'd appreciate
clarification on what they mean by this, we're pretty sure we don't do
that. We're aware that identities can change over time, we're wary of
relying too much on identity politics as form of activism, and we affirm
the right of people to autonomously understand, negotiate, and present
their own identities. Members of Radical Sobriety Montreal are not
forced to adopt 'addict' as an identity.
The article states that radical sobriety, in its use of accessibility
discourse, attempts to assign privilege to active drug users, and that
this is basically a cynical ploy to claim more oppression points than
the next white genderqueer punk kid. Radical Sobriety Montreal does not
consider sobriety to be a source of oppression, because come on, no one
is oppressed for being sober. Rather, we use intoxication culture theory
to understand how oppression and privilege play out with regard to drug
use. People who align most closely with the norm can be said to
exercise privilege; in other words, people whose drug of choice is
legally purchased alcohol, which they consume in safe quantities in
socially sanctioned settings. Alcoholics living on shitty beer they
drink alone at home exercise less privilege; if it's shitty vodka and
it's on the street, even less. People injecting street drugs in public
are heavily oppressed. Addicts who are abstinent are not oppressed for
their abstinence; instead, they live under a form of deferred
oppression. It's like being on parole. The reason why we need people to
consider our needs as abstinent drug users is that if we are not
abstinent we are criminalized, marginalized, oppressed drug users with
patterns of use that are very dangerous for our health. The article
implies that creating safe spaces for sober people is to marginalize
drug users. Radical Sobriety Montreal believes that this is like saying
that making sure your buddy with heavy parole conditions doesn't have to
break any laws to hang out with you is to marginalize prisoners. We
just want people to be considerate of our needs when possible.
The article implies that radical sobriety has not considered the
implications of safer spaces for sober people. Radical Sobriety Montreal
discusses this topic regularly. We are aware that making all spaces
safer for us would not make the world an inherently safer place. We
support drug users' access to safer spaces as well, in which they can
openly use drugs without being stigmatized or criminalized. We do not
equate accessibility for sober people with accessibility for disabled
people because there is no equivalent of the active addict in the
context of disability activism. We support initiatives that attempt to
make the world safer both for active and abstinent drug addicts. We
would however like to point out that in the scenes we're in, the open
use of drugs and alcohol is both very commonplace and regularly
promoted; we do not feel that people who casually drink and get high
have any particular lack of safer spaces in the context of these
communities.
The article states that radical sobriety is basically the same as
other models which practice “recovery as oppression” because they
understand recovery to mean learning how to fit into society. Radical
Sobriety Montreal wonders if the authors of the article missed the part
where we think our sobriety is “radical”. We're not interested in
teaching members how to be productive consumers. Approaches like that
are exactly what we exist as an alternative to.
In conclusion, we think that critical analysis is important,
including towards groups like ours. We are not immune to criticism nor
are we perfect. However, there can be harmful effects when this analysis
is performed while employing broad generalizations and cherry-picking
one's primary sources. The article makes a number of very problematic
assumptions about our group, particularly about our views on, and
involvement in, harm reduction; detox methods; drug users' resources;
and service accessibility, as well as about our political positions on
criminalization and intervention. The article treats a number of
unconnected actors as interchangeable, and assumes that we have not
thought about or critically engaged with the points the authors borrow
from drug users' advocacy groups. We believe that this is intellectually
irresponsible, potentially needlessly divisive, and, frankly, more than
a little insulting.
The article makes a gesture toward civility with an admission that
“some” people involved in radical sobriety have more nuanced views, and
notes that the discussion can be an intensely emotional and personal one
for people involved. These gestures are noted and appreciated. It is
true that this is an emotional issue for us. To drive the point home, we
have this to say: the main thing the authors miss is that we all sought
sobriety in desperate need, literally in order to save our lives. Most
of us used substances to the brink of death and for our survival we need
to abstain. We are people in recovery from substance abuse, not
adherents of straight-edge, or church members in disguise. The point of
Radical Sobriety Montreal is to provide a support group where we can
discuss our experiences as drug users, alcoholics and addicts, and as
people who have radical, revolutionary or alternative political
worldviews and ideologies. We wanted to make a space where people who
didn't feel comfortable in AA, NA or a rehab could feel comfortable. The
point of Radical Sobriety Montreal isn't to accumulate oppression
points and talk shit about drug users. We ask that people please bear
this in mind in the future when critically engaging with radical
sobriety discourses.
In solidarity,
Radical Sobriety Montreal
