Stanton, you have deep unresolved pain

typesI’m not a fan of either of these high profile addiction experts, but Stanton Peele’s recounting of his meeting with Gabor Maté illuminates a lot about both men and their approach to addiction. It also helps in understanding the conceptual boundaries of harm reduction, at least as Peele sees them. The boundaries are more rigid than I would have imagined.

Seeking common ground with Gabor, I noted his work with psychedelics as a chance to teach people how to manage drug experiences. But he told me that teaching people competency in drug use is the last thing on his mind. I emailed him in March this year:

I DO like this title—Substance Use Competency. It is interesting to play that idea out—including dealing with people’s traumas (without allowing them to grow to life-overcoming proportions) while also actually teaching them to manage substance use (as you are doing in Mexico). Perhaps we can combine around this.

Gabor responded by rapping my knuckles:

We are not teaching substance use competency with this process. The goal and process is to help people shed the physical and psychological patterns of old trauma, so that they are no longer trapped in the past. If successful, substance use is no longer an imperative. [My emphases.]

The last thing in the world Maté wants people to do is to take drugs as a normal part of life experience. In this way, he is no more a harm reductionist than Nancy Reagan.

Hmmm. Like I said, I’m no fan of Maté, but the goal of eliminating substance use as an imperative puts one in the same category as Nancy Reagan? Count me in that club.

3 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

3 responses to “Stanton, you have deep unresolved pain

  1. The blind leading the blind, these two. How they rose to the top of the pile, publicity wise, is beyond me. Neither man has anything to offer that is remotely relevant to current debates about addiction. Stanton wants to teach everybody to use drugs responsibly. Gabor wants to heal the obvious childhood trauma that leads inevitably to addiction. Neither has the slightest interest in the neurobiology or genetics of addictive disease. They’re like throwbacks to an earlier time, before we knew anything at all about the neural substrate of addiction. (Thanks for the mention in your Spice post).

  2. Ach, sorry, the Spice reference was over at Recovery Review.