Electing a 'recoving' alcoholic

[Gunner-D]

Now I use the term "recovering" or "recovered" much in the same sense because the definition of a 'relapse' is unspecific...

Would you vote for someone who is a former alcohol and/or drug abuser?

If the answer is yes (and in the hypothetical vote, it is alright to assume that this candidate shares all of your political views), would you still vote for this person if he/she has submitted to the 12 steps program?

Let me remind you, the 1st step is admitting you are powerless of the alcohol or drugs.

[Malachy]

George W. Bush was and still is a recovering alcoholic and admitted former cocaine user and people voted for him for a number of positions.

[aviewaskewed]

At 11/14/10 12:27 AM, Malachy wrote: George W. Bush was and still is a recovering alcoholic and admitted former cocaine user and people voted for him for a number of positions.

I didn't though...I think that's what he's trying to get at. Not COULD or WOULD people in general vote for one, but would the individual posting do so.

[SteveGuzzi]

At 11/14/10 12:13 AM, Gunner-D wrote: Would you vote for someone who is a former alcohol and/or drug abuser? If the answer is yes would you still vote for this person if he/she has submitted to the 12 steps program?

possibly. i mean, i wouldn't immediately dismiss them from consideration because of it.

Let me remind you, the 1st step is admitting you are powerless of the alcohol or drugs.

yeah... so?

i thought if anyone had objections to the "12-step program" method of recovery it would have to do with all the religious rhetoric involved in it, or maybe a statistical analysis of the program's effectiveness, or something along those lines.

a person being required to admit that they were powerless against a substance and that it was ruining their life seems like the last thing to be concerned about if they are indeed a former alcoholic or drug abuser, or at least on the road to recovery.

[Gunner-D]

Politicians are representing the people. So if an alcoholic admits "I am powerless over alcohol", stays clean, gets elected to office, and then relapses, don't you think that they would have to take their focus and energy away from fighting for the people to engage in the selfish pursuit of trying to catch up to the bandwagon?

Should any logical voter elect a man who has admitted that experience the effects of alcohol could possibly make him lose control of his own life?

[Korriken]

At 11/14/10 12:27 AM, Malachy wrote: George W. Bush was and still is a recovering alcoholic and admitted former cocaine user and people voted for him for a number of positions.

Obama was also a drug user, what's the point?

[SolInvictus]

At 11/14/10 01:52 AM, Korriken wrote: Obama was also a drug user, what's the point?

would we have seen him in California, had things gone differently?
aren't there methods to deal with people suddenly unfit for their jobs?

[yurgenburgen]

I wouldn't not vote for them just because of their previous mistakes.

Might be good to get a politician who has some experience with real life, for a change.

[poxpower]

If that guy is the guy I agree with and the other one is a dipshit, I won't think twice.
Why would I?

George Bush was an alcoholic? Boohoo, the main problem with him was that he was also a dumbass. That sort of takes precedence.

[LordZeebmork]

Sure, why not? I'd rather elect a recovering alcoholic (who has presumably been through a lot of shit) than another fucking Yale drone who has never seen the world outside a few rich white suburbs in the Northeast.

Also, I'd say the main problem with Bush was the other people in his administration. If he hadn't had people like Cheney and Rumsfeld who went after Iraq and tried to scare the American people into submission, I think things would've turned out differently.

[Gunner-D]

At 11/14/10 07:25 AM, yurgenburgen wrote: I wouldn't not vote for them just because of their previous mistakes.

Might be good to get a politician who has some experience with real life, for a change.

The point isn't that they made 'mistakes' in their past - the point is saying have admitted that at points of their life, they had no control over their actions because the alcohol or drug had control (the 1st step).

The real life experience that you talk about (the 'under-the-influence' experience) would be, if they had been involved in the 12 steps, not the product of the person's merit but of a life driven to intoxicate themselves with their drug of choice.

At 11/14/10 01:52 AM, Korriken wrote: Obama was also a drug user, what's the point?

The edge Obama has over Bush in this regard is that he did not submit his life to the 'higher power' of the 12 steps. He just told himself, "Stop getting high" and voila. However, is a pro or a con for someone in this situation to humble themselves and say that the substance has the power over them, or is it more respectable for someone just to stop the substance abuse on their own terms?

[Korriken]

At 11/14/10 09:20 AM, Gunner-D wrote:

The edge Obama has over Bush in this regard is that he did not submit his life to the 'higher power' of the 12 steps. He just told himself, "Stop getting high" and voila. However, is a pro or a con for someone in this situation to humble themselves and say that the substance has the power over them, or is it more respectable for someone just to stop the substance abuse on their own terms?

hmm. how do you know Obama never had any kind of rehab?

Also, there are different levels of addiction and different ways of handling it. no one just "walks away" from an addiction. that's simply a myth. addiction is a powerful force that pulls you like an electromagnet lifting a junk car. I've been fighting video game addiction for quite a while now. for a while its all I wanted to do. I'm getting to the point where I can handle a game like a sensible human being.

Obama didn't just say, "meh, addiction over, I'm through" no, he fought with it for a while, despite what his books and the media want people to believe. He may have even been to rehab, I don't know one way or another. to me it doesn't matter if someone went to rehab or not. the only thing that matters is that they're not a raging alcoholic or a coke fiend when they're in office.

[Gunner-D]

At 11/14/10 10:05 AM, Korriken wrote: hmm. how do you know Obama never had any kind of rehab?

Rehabilitation is relative, 12 step program is not.

I've been fighting video game addiction for quite a while now. for a while its all I wanted to do. I'm getting to the point where I can handle a game like a sensible human being.

Yes, but I'm pretty sure your not going to admit that you are 'powerless' over video games (for the rest of your life), are you? Do you take the "one-day-at-a-time" approach to gaming (not to get too off topic)? Your rehab and the 12 step rehab is different.

[Camarohusky]

Personally, I couldn't care less whether an elected official is a recovering addict. I give them the presumption that they have overcomed it unless someone shows me CLEAR evidence otherwise.

Politicians are there to create laws, strategize, and hopefully to negotiate and compromise. Their past as an addict ha sno negative effect on this. if anything, it may give that politician a useful perspective that the others just cannot understand.

[SteveGuzzi]

At 11/14/10 01:25 AM, Gunner-D wrote: So if an alcoholic admits "I am powerless over alcohol", stays clean, gets elected to office, and then relapses, don't you think that they would have to take their focus and energy away from fighting for the people to engage in the selfish pursuit of trying to catch up to the bandwagon?

if they indeed had power over the substance in question then they wouldn't have needed to join a support group recovery program in the first place, right??? and each 12-step related thing i've seen so far has the phrase worded as "I was powerless" or "we were powerless", not "I am powerless" or "we are powerless". it's past tense, not present tense, and if a person relapses in the future it's an issue unto itself.

making a politician's personal life out to be a "selfish pursuit" because his job entails civil service is ridiculous though. everyone has home/family/etc issues that can distract them from their jobs, but its not like everyone stops going to work whenever some drama arises. yeah, battling alcoholism can take away focus and energy from work. sure. but so can a divorce, or unruly children, or bothersome neighbors, or personal financial issues, or a medical condition (besides addiction...), or a family dispute, or any other number of things. it's just silly to not elect someone based on the possibility that they might be distracted by something non-work-related at some point in the future.

if you think people can change, then there's really no reason not to trust a former alcoholic who took the necessary steps to recover himself and is currently clean. but if you think people can't change, and that "once an abuser, always an abuser" is true, then i suppose i can see why you might think that a relapse is near certain and thus worth worrying about.

[SohlTofang]

Drugs and alcohol,
over hyped, over used and over rated

[Korriken]

At 11/14/10 10:23 AM, Gunner-D wrote:

Yes, but I'm pretty sure your not going to admit that you are 'powerless' over video games (for the rest of your life), are you? Do you take the "one-day-at-a-time" approach to gaming (not to get too off topic)? Your rehab and the 12 step rehab is different.

I'm still not sure what you're driving at. and i don't go through any kind of rehab for my problem. I just find other entertaining things to do.

you might as well just name the politician you're trying to hammer and be done with it. beating around the bush isn't going to get anyone anywhere.

Also the "one day at a time" deal does help some people who are quite messed up mentally and for some reason feel they must be addicted to something at all times, whether it be drugs, alcohol, gambling, or even sex.

[chairmankem]

Of course I wouldn't. I would only vote for people who are without sin and perfect in every single way.

[Gario]

At 11/14/10 11:54 PM, chairmankem wrote: Of course I wouldn't. I would only vote for people who are without sin and perfect in every single way.

Wait, how could you possibly expect...

Oh ho ho, I see what you did thar.

A lot of good presidents had problems with alcohol, scandal, etc., so I don't see why I wouldn't vote for a president that I agree with otherwise.

[SolInvictus]

At 11/14/10 04:14 PM, SohlTofang wrote: Drugs and alcohol,
over hyped, over used and over rated

meh.

[The-General-Public]

I wouldn't have a problem with voting for one