David Way ([email protected])
Sun, 06 Dec 1998 14:26:25 PST
The posts between Matt and me are a perfect example of constructive
criticism and dialectic, i.e., the offering of two different opinions in
the hope that a "golden mean" will develop. I think we are slowly, but
surely, getting closer.
Let me say for the record that it wasn't Matt's posts that got my
tail in a knot originally. It was the pervasive attitude among Wire
posters/readers that "if U2 are doing drugs, I'm going over to Ireland
and kicking the sh*t out of them". It is precisely the knee-jerk
reaction of "condemn first, ask questions later" that is the problem.
When I was in the hospital with those addicts I never had the
experience to meet before (see my previous post for the reason I was
there), the greatest hurdle these people had in their hoped-for recovery
was fear of rejection from society. That's right, they weren't concerned
as much about using again as they were about being accepted again. If
you are not the forgiving type of person, you are truly ignorant of all
the damage your narrow-minded view can do.
Let me walk you through their thought processes, since I had it
explained to me with scintillating clarity. The users - both
institiutionalized and non-institutionalized - hate where their lives
have gone. I have never heard of a user whose own worst critic wasn't
him/herself. They get into a position where they can no longer help
themselves in their self-destructive downward spiral. These people are
not unrepentant and premeditated scofflaws; they are people who hate
where their lives have gone so much that, if they end up killing
themselves, accidentally or intentionally, for a moment of temporary
relief, they just don't care.
Their fear, as I stated above, is that they won't receive the same
second chance from society that they obviously gave themselves. That's
one of the hardest admissions the addict has to make: I'm addicted and I
am not capable of fully helping myself without help from other people.
This is where you, as a fellow wanderer on the face of this Earth, can
be the most integral part of healing. They took the first brave step by
getting help; you and the rest of the world have the ability to help
this person continue in sobriety. As I had it explained to me, if people
can't get the same second chance from society that they gave themselves,
what's to prevent them from using again? You will have proven to them
that the world doesn't care one way or the other whether they live clean
or not.
U2 content: now, before I conclude, let me reiterate my beliefs. We
are debating essentially a moot point because it has not been proven one
way or the other conclusively that they have been/are(/or perhaps, will
be) regular users. As I said yesterday, I believe that U2 have
been/are/will be relatively (if not absolutely) substance-free; however,
if it is found out that they weren't/aren't/will not be, I think turning
your back on them (or worse) in a fit of sanctimony is pretentious and
just plain wrong. Would you want to be an unforgiving and
un-understanding prig, or would you fervently hope and/or pray for their
eventual return to good health? I'd choose to stand by my group - the
group that has given me so much joy for the last 18 years - and give my
strength and loving thoughts to them in the hope of full recovery. What
would you choose?
David Way
P.S. Whoever started the heroin/cocaine rumors, thank you! You probably
didn't intend it to be quite the way it has turned out, but I think
we're making legitimate progress here concerning open-mindedness and
compassion - two characteristics our group has espoused in their music
and their private lives.
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b2 on Sun Dec 06 1998 - 14:28:31 PST