The Crossroads of Addiction: Perceptions and Policies

Pete Hegseth, said in an interview with Megyn Kelley, “I’ve never had a drinking problem. No one’s ever approached me and said, ‘Oh, you should really look at getting help for drinking.’ Never. I’ve never sought counseling, never sought help. I respect and appreciate people who do.”

He went on to say, “My plan going forward, ongoing, is when I deployed, we had something called General Order Number One. And in General Order Number One, it is, you are not allowed to drink while you’re on deployment. So, if you’re in Iraq and Afghanistan in a combat zone, you’re not allowed to drink. That’s how I view this role as Secretary of Defense, is that I’m not gonna have a drink at all. That’s not hard for me, because it’s not a problem for me. […] So, this is the biggest deployment of my life, and there won’t be a drop of alcohol on my lips while I’m doing it” (Yahoo).

In his confirmation hearing to be appointed as the Director of Health and Human Services, Robert Kennedy, Jr., was asked the following by Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, “Do you agree with me that the United States should join every other major country on earth and guarantee healthcare to all people as a human right?”

Kennedy’s explanation was, “In the way that free speech is a human right…I would say it’s different because, if, with, free speech doesn’t cost anybody anyone anything, but in health care, if you smoke cigarettes for twenty years, and you get cancer, do you, then you are now taking from the pool.” Then there was a lot of cross talk and the message got garbled (YouTube).

My point here is that regarding our government and how we view addiction, we’re at a crossroads. On the one hand, the perception regarding Secretary Hegseth is that regardless of his relationship with alcohol, he deserved to be confirmed as the Secretary of Defense because he promises not to drink anymore. And, on the other hand, those who have addictions, under would-be-Director Kennedy’s tenure, should pay more for having them.

I’m not saying that either stance is wrong; I’m saying that they are wrong together. Either we as a nation believe that addiction is a disease for which individuals are not to blame. It’s not a moral failing; it’s not a weakness of character; it’s not a choice. Or, we believe that those who have addictions should be penalized for them. We believe that they choose to use mind-altering substances despite the negative consequences and so they should be punished for that behavior, even if that punishment means paying more for their healthcare.

I concur with the experts and recognize that addiction is a disease. I know that making the choice to recover is one only the individual with the disease can do, so I see the merit in considering whether or not someone who has smoked for twenty years should have the same insurance plan as the person who didn’t smoke at all. But here’s where that falls apart from a bird’s eye view: recovery can and does happen, and this two-pronged view about it only working for some people is helping no one. Who decides how long someone has to be in active addiction before ze is punished? Who decides how long someone has to be in recovery before ze is treated the same as others? Who decides who has the addiction in the first place? Treating the 17.1% of the population living in addiction (JAMA) as less deserving than others is a heckuva slippery slope.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2828693

https://www.yahoo.com/news/wont-drop-alcohol-lips-pete-165304753.html