Thursday 18 March 2010
Meet Terry Richardson, the world's most fucked up 'fashion' photographer
Terry Richardson's sexual tastes run to making tampon tea, being called "Uncle Terry," and hand jobs — at least according to one model who says the fashion photographer got naked on set and suggested that she touch his dick.
Jamie Peck, who was 19 at the time, shot with Richardson at his studio twice. Although she was prepared and willing to pose for him nude, she writes, "This man has built his business/pleasure empire on breaking the cardinal rule of asking a young girl you don't know to come over to your house and hang out naked: don't be a fucking creep."
The first shoot wasn't so bad. Richardson and Peck chatted before they started working, and he even made her tea, although she does note that "he spoke in the effeminate tones of someone trying very hard not to come off as sexually threatening despite the fact that he was basically walking around in a hipster pedophile costume." He also asked her to call him "Uncle Terry." Peck obliged.
"The second time," she says, "was the weird one."
I told him I had my period so I wanted to keep my underwear on, and he asked me to take my tampon out for him to play with. "I love tampons!" he said, in that psychotically upbeat way that temporarily convinces so many girls that what's fun for Uncle Terry is fun for them. (I can just imagine him chirping, "Why don't you wear these fairy wings while I fuck you in the ass? Wouldn't that be like, so fun?" to some attenuated girl fresh off the boat from Eastern Europe. Either the man's totally delusional, or he gets off on the fact that many of these things are not, in fact, very much fun for the girls.) I politely declined his offer to make tea out of my bloody cunt plug. It was then that he decided to just get naked.
Before I could say "whoa, whoa, whoa!" dude was wearing only his tattoos and waggling the biggest dick I'd ever seen dangerously close to my unclothed person (granted, I hadn't seen very many yet). "Why don't you take some pictures of me?" he asked. Um, sure.
It gets worse. "I'm not sure how he maneuvered me over to the couch, but at some point he strongly suggested I touch his terrifying penis," writes Peck.
This is where I zoom out on the situation. I can remember doing this stuff, but even at the time, it was sort of like watching someone else do it, someone who couldn't possibly be me because I would never touch a creepy photographer's penis. The only explanation I can come up with is that he was so darn friendly and happy about it all, and his assistants were so stoked on it as well, that I didn't want to be the killjoy in the room. My new fake friends would've been bummed if I'd said no.
I must have said something about finals, because he told me, "if you make me come, you get an A." So I did! Pretty fast, I might add. All over my left hand. His assistant handed me a towel.
The pictures were published in Purple, the magazine run by Richardson's friend, the influential editor Olivier Zahm. Peck was supposed to receive payment in the form of a signed print, but she was too disgusted with what had happened at Richardson's studio to return to pick it up. (For the record, Peck hardly seems bitter about it: "If you're reading this, Terry, and want to prove you really are a nice guy after all, I'm over it now and wouldn't mind collecting that print.")
Richardson wouldn't comment to The Gloss on Peck's allegations. He also wouldn't comment to the New York Post, and nor would he comment last week, when supermodel Rie Rasmussen publicly accused him of sexually harassing young girls. (Though he did reportedly call Rasmussen's agency to complain about her.) To date, his only response, if you can call it that, has been to post a picture on his blog of his mother proudly holding a copy of his book. But what Richardson, who seems to see himself as an heir to both Helmut Newton and Andy Warhol, has said in the past about the industry and his work is troubling. "A lot of it starts with me saying to a girl, 'Do you want to do nudes?' And they're like, 'I don't want to be naked,'" Richardson told The Observer in 2004. "So I say, ' I'll be naked and you take the pictures. You can have the camera. You can have the phallus.'" That's exactly what Peck says happened to her — but having a camera in her hands didn't make her feel more comfortable about Richardson having suddenly whipped off his clothes.
In the same Observer story, Richardson is described as having an intern, a NYU communications major identified only by her first name, Alex, whose duties included doing his dishes and posing for photos fellating Richardson from the kitchen trash can while wearing a tiara that reads "Slut." Perhaps the most discomfiting passage of the article discusses "Boonk," a model Richardson says was a meth addict and a prostitute. He photographed her black eyes after she tried to escape from a john and didn't make it. "Whatever happened to Boonk?" he wonders in front of the reporter. This is a man who once said of breaking into modeling, "It's not who you know, it's who you blow. I don't have a hole in my jeans for nothing."
Frankly, "creep" seems inadequate to the task of describing Richardson's behavior. While it's important to note that Peck does not imply that she didn't consent to what went on with Richardson, it is troubling that she describes "zooming out" during their encounter. The environment she writes about at the studio, where she is surrounded by Richardson and his assistants, all armed with cameras (and, apparently, towels), all cheering her along, and all acting like it's the most natural thing in the world for a photographer to interrupt a shoot and demand a hand job from his model, is even more troubling. "Inappropriate" and "unprofessional" don't even begin to cover it. Given the power differential that exists between Richardson, who is old, wealthy, regarded as an artist, and vastly influential, and most of his model subjects, can the consent of these women even be said to be freely given? Richardson is a guy who publishes books with Taschen, hangs out with celebrities, and photographs the President. Peck was a "nerdy as hell" college freshman when she met him. Most professional models are even younger.
To those who would argue that any nude shoot carries an implied risk of lewd behavior on the part of the photographer, or that models should be aware of Richardson's oeuvre and avoid him if they don't like working in a sexualized environment, I say: Bullshit. Nudity is common in fashion, and when the clothes come off, it doesn't denote a holiday from the responsibilities of maintaining a safe working environment. When I modeled, I shot both topless and implied nude with a variety of photographers — in fact, my first editorial shoot, for Italian Glamour, was topless — and never was I sexually harassed on a set. Nor did I expect, or feel that I deserved, to be simply because of the kind of work I was there to do. Instead, I expected those around me to not violate my dignity at work. Peck agrees that Richardson's behavior is exceptional, and crosses some clear lines. "Of all the fine folks I've frolicked au naturel for, he's the only one who's left me feeling like I needed to take two showers."
It's not terribly surprising that Peck, who describes herself as "not a model, just a vain girl with nice tits who likes to pose for the occasional cheesecake photo," is more comfortable speaking out about her experiences with Richardson than many professional models. Rie Rasmussen is one notable, and courageous, exception, but the fact of Richardson's immense power within the industry, his long-standing relationships with both influential magazines like Vogue, Harper's Bazaar, and Vogue Paris, and commercial clients like Miu Miu, Gucci, and Sisley, makes it difficult for most working models to openly criticize him. Pointing out the wrongfulness of his behavior risks hurting you more than it will him. And so agencies continue sending their young charges to castings with him, in the hopes of him giving one a big break. And so magazine editors who would never for a moment consider leaving their teenage daughters alone with someone like Terry Richardson continue booking him for shoots with other people's teenage daughters.
The stories about Richardson and his disgusting behavior are legion. Do you have one? If you do, I'm listening — and I can protect your identity if you, unlike Peck and Rasmussen, don't want your name to be known. Tell me if Richardson sexually harassed you while you were working with him, if he acted in ways that made you uncomfortable, if he asked you to perform sex acts on him. Tell me how old you were, and how he made you feel. And tell me what happened if you tried to complain or resist. If enough people start speaking out about Terry Richardson, then, at the very least, the people, brands, and publications who work with him won't have the fig leaf of plausible deniability anymore. And who knows? Perhaps some of them might even think on it, and reconsider those relationships.
Picture of Terry Richardson and Kate Moss via
Terry Richardson's Dark Room [NY Observer]
Me and My Mom [Terry's Diary]
For my fave couple from the PNW...(slight return)
A certain bassie says to say hello...
PS: Thanx - it was a great night,
MonaXXX
The Drug Experience: Heroin
By David Clark
Heroin is the illegal drug that has the worst reputation. The popular press never tires of informing us of new “heroin deaths”. Government considers heroin to be the cause for much of the acquisitive crime that occurs within the UK. Local officials will often ignore heroin problems in the community because of the stigma associated with the drug.
Heroin is also the drug that myths are made of. In their book Heroin Century, Tom Carnworth and Ian Smith point out that no drug has been subject to more misinformation and moral panic.
Here is a drug that is pilloried on the one hand, and yet is used [diamorphine] in the UK without controversy to treat severe and intractable pain, arising from illnesses such as cancer.
It is a drug that is so controversial that when two Scottish researchers published a paper that identified 126 long-term heroin users in Glasgow who were not experiencing the health and social problems normally associated with the drug, there was an outcry from certain circles, including government. Some people considered it irresponsible that such research was published.
In one sense, the first part of the title of this article is misleading: “The drug experience…” There is, of course, no single drug experience, rather a multitude of experiences. It is important to emphasise this point, particularly when considering a drug as controversial as heroin.
Heroin has terrible long-term consequences for some people who try the drug. They become addicted to, or dependent on heroin, and experience withdrawal symptoms when not taking the drug. They reach a point where the drug is more important to them than anything else. They need it on a daily basis in order to function normally.
Their addiction to heroin has many repercussions, which can include a deterioration in their physical and mental health, breakdown of family relationships, loss of employment, housing and material possessions, and participation in criminal offences to fund their habit. They risk overdose, as well as catching a blood-borne viruses, such as HIV or hepatitis C, from sharing needles and syringes.
However, only a small minority of people of people who try heroin take this drastic path.
This is clearly evident from statistical data from the US National Household Survey. In the 1999 survey, just over 3,000,000 people were reported to have tried heroin at some time in their lives, but only 208,000 had used in the past month. Therefore, 93% of people who had used heroin had either given up or were not using dependently.
It is easy to consider drug effects in a simplistic, physiologically pre-determined fashion. However, as I have discussed in various articles on this website, the subjective effects of drugs are determined by drug, set (e.g. a person’s personality, expectancies, emotional state) and social context (the physical and social setting in which drug use takes place).
This fact is no less relevant to heroin, than to other drugs that are considered less dangerous.
Whilst some people experience great difficulty in stopping use of heroin, a large-scale study showed that the vast majority of American soldiers who were addicted to heroin or opium in Vietnam, did not show addictive behaviour in the twelve months following their return to the US.
If we are to understand the factors that underlie problematic drug use and addiction, and help people recover so that they can lead healthy lives, then we need to look at the lives of people who use heroin, (and stop or try to stop using the drug). Ethnographic studies dating back to the work of Robert Park and his colleagues in the US in the 1920s have provided important insights.
Chuck Faupel (1991), on the basis of interviews with heroin users in Delaware, talked in terms of heroin “careers”. He described a career as “a series of meaningful related statuses, roles and activities around which an individual organises some aspect of his or her life”.
Faupel provided a chart of four common patterns of heroin use, which depended on two key elements: the availability of the drug and the underlying structure of the user’s life. Structure was considered as a function of the regularity of social networks and patterns of behaviour.
Four types of user were described by Faupel: the occasional user, the stable user, the free-wheeling user and the street junkie.
The street junkie is the type of user most described by the popular press in the UK, the one that most people perceive as being the “typical” heroin user. The street junkie is the most visible heroin user – and the one most likely to attend treatment services.
The most common route into “junkiehood” is through lack of life structure. Many people who become street junkies do not have a life structured around conventional jobs and activities, and do not have a commitment to a conventional personal identity, factors which can help keep drug use under control. They commonly lack adequate funds to purchase heroin.
In fact, many of these people have had bad life experiences (e.g. social deprivation, long-term unemployment, sexual abuse) before they started taking heroin.
Heroin can have a devastating effect on human lives, although as we described in Part 1 of this article, evidence indicates that it has this impact on only a minority of people who first try the drug.
In this Part, we start to describe the experiences of people whose lives are seriously affected by heroin. The experiences are based on those described in the seminal book “Beating the Dragon” by James McIntosh and Neil McKeganey, and our own research with clients on the Peterborough Nene Drug Interventions Programme.
The majority of people in these studies committed crimes to fund their heroin habits. In fact, the Peterborough project recruited many of the highest level offenders in Peterborough. However, we emphasise that this does not mean that all people who take heroin commit crimes.
Many people who use heroin describe a steady progression from use of legal substances (alcohol, solvents), through to softer drugs such as cannabis and then on to heroin.
The most frequently cited reasons for trying heroin are curiosity and a desire to comply with the expectations of others, particularly of a peer group. However, there is little indication that heroin users are pressurised to take the drug for the first time – the vast majority feel that they have made their own decision.
However, this decision is often not well-informed. Many of our interviewees emphasised that they were naïve about the effects of heroin before they first tried the drug. Some believed that it was no worse than other drugs; others were not even aware that they were trying heroin.
Some people admit to not thinking about the consequences of their actions, and in fact do not think much about their drug use at all. Many others, when they first start taking heroin, are confident that they will not become addicted. A common belief is that, “addiction is not something that could happen to me; it happens to other people”.
Many of our interviewees discussed the ease of availability and frequent exposure to various substances, including heroin. Drugs were rife on the housing estates in Peterborough on which some of our interviewees had been brought up.
Many people who first try heroin will say that they experienced a feeling of great relaxation and detachment from the outside world. They may feel drowsy, experience a clouding of mental functioning, and feelings of warmth (from dilation of blood vessels).
They may also experience feelings of euphoria, particularly after intravenous injection. Heroin also reduces anxiety and emotional pain – it helps people escape from reality.
There is a reduction in respiration, heat rate and pupil size. Many first time users feel sick and vomit, although this vomiting is often not enough to stop them using again, as the pleasurable effects far outweigh this negative side effect. This vomiting subsides in many people after the first few experiences of heroin.
Many first-time users try the drug again because they enjoyed the first experience. Others, some of whom may even have had a bad initial experience, continue taking the drug because they remain in the same social circles that led them to their first use.
Some people very rapidly move towards daily use of the drug, whilst others may continue to use on a periodic basis over a period of weeks or months. Our Peterborough sample, whose lives were badly affected by heroin, all ended up using the drug daily.
Heroin users develop a tolerance to the drug, such that increasing amounts of the drug must be taken in order to achieve the same positive effects. This tolerance results in the drug habit becoming more costly. Some users will shift from smoking heroin to injecting the drug because the same effects can be achieved with much smaller amounts of the drug.
They may also start injecting drug as part of a continued desire to experiment and to find new “highs”. As part of this process of finding new “highs”, some people use multiple drugs, sometimes at the same time. Use of benzodiazepines, legally and illegally obtained, is common amongst heroin users.
Many heroin users recognise the decision to inject as having been a significant step in their drug-using career. Injecting is an invasive process that heightens the risk of overdose and introduces additional risks such as contracting HIV, hepatitis C and other blood-borne infections.
Often, these are not the factors that make people reluctant to start injecting. Rather, they appear to be apprehensive about the actual process of injecting. Many users have a fear of injections and, of course, generally people do not know how to inject. Other users help first-time injectors and continue to do so until the latter person feels confident in the process.
There are variations in individuals’ experiences when they first inject heroin. Many people experience a pronounced euphoria almost immediately after injection. Other people do not experience this rush, whilst others report feeling very ill.
However, many of those who initially have negative experiences continue to persevere taking the drug and eventually became intravenous drug users.
In Part 2, we started to describe the experiences of people whose lives are seriously affected by heroin. The experiences are based on those described in “Beating the Dragon” by James McIntosh and Neil McKeganey, and “The Heroin Users” by Tam Stewart, as well as our own research.
The recognition by individuals that they are addicted to, or dependent on, heroin can take anywhere from a few weeks to several months or even years, depending upon the amount of drug being used, the frequency with which it was being taken, and the person’s ability to fund their habit.
For the majority of individuals in each of the above research studies, the recognition that they were addicted usually came from the experience of withdrawal symptoms which arose when they purposefully attempted to stop using the drug, or through not having heroin available. The most common reason for being deprived of heroin is a lack of money to purchase the drug.
These withdrawal symptoms disappeared when heroin was used again. Some people are actually surprised to find that they actually needed heroin to function normally. They were no longer in control of their drug-taking; rather, it was controlling them.
These withdrawal symptoms included stomach cramps, vomiting and retching, muscle pains, the shakes, hot and cold spells, and headaches. Some people experience considerable discomfort and pain, and seek out the drug to escape or avoid this discomfort and pain.
The authors of “Beating the Dragon” describe Michael’s experience, who was taken to prison at a time of his drug-using career that he had never experienced withdrawal, and never considered the possibility that he might be addicted to the drug.
Once he started to experience withdrawal in the police cell, Michael started to ask for help believing that there was something wrong with him. The policeman knew what was wrong and asked, “Did your pals not tell you this?”
Michael continued, “But, as soon as I got out next day, I went straight for a hit and that was me, within seconds I was brand-new again. So that was me, I wasn’t usin’ it for fun anymore, I was usin’ it ‘cos I had to use it.”
Being deprived of the heroin they are using, for whatever reason, is absolutely fundamental to an individual’s realisation that they are addicted to heroin. In the absence of such enforced abstinence, and its physical consequences, it is possible for a person to maintain a belief that whilst they are using heroin they are doing so out of choice, rather than because they are dependent on the drug.
Heroin users will say that, apart from the experiences associated with withdrawal, there is little to indicate that they have become addicted to the drug.
“There’s no sign that says, ‘you’re now entering addiction’, there’s no big sign that says, ‘you’ll need to stop now, if you go once more that’s you’. You just cross that line and you don’t realise you’ve crossed it until you try to stop. I didn’t think about withdrawal symptoms or anything like that ‘cos I always had access to money.” (from “Beating the Dragon”)
When heroin users realise that they addicted to the drug, they respond in a number of ways. Some accept that they are addicted to the drug, but decide not to do anything about it at this time as they are enjoying using heroin and/or the drug-using lifestyle. They are also able to fund their habit.
Other users do not want to continue using the drug, but they soon discover that it is not just a simple case of stopping. This becomes a difficult and often emotional time as they realise that they have no choice. They have to continue using the drug to avoid the physical symptoms of withdrawal.
Some of our interviewees described becoming depressed, others either considered or tried to commit suicide.
Many heroin users point out that they reached a time where they no longer experienced pleasurable effects of the drug. They continue to take it just to feel “normal”. Some say that they never really experience the same effect as those first few times that they injected or smoked heroin.
Sometimes, family members or friends inform the heroin user that they believe that they have a drug problem. This appears to happen less frequently than one might expect. This may be because heroin users hide their habit well from their families, or because the family members choose to deny that there is a problem or simply ignore it.
When the issue is first raised, the heroin user usually denies that there is a problem. As long as they can sustain their habit and avoid the distress of withdrawal, they can maintain the belief that they are in control.
In their seminal book “Beating the Dragon”, Professors James McIntosh and Neil McKeganey describe heroin addiction as an extremely hard taskmaster.
Clients from the Peterborough Nene Drug Interventions Programme who recounted their stories to us also repeatedly referred to the comprehensive way that their heroin addiction took over their lives.
“My whole life, my whole being was centred on drugs and any means to get them you know. My whole life revolved around drugs, drugs, drugs.” (Beating the Dragon)
At the peak of their addiction, users are often using large amounts of heroin. At this time, the process of funding, finding, and using the drug becomes a daily routine. Heroin becomes the most important thing to the user, and very little else matters to them at this time.
Heroin users progressively spend less time with their family and loved ones, and more time with other drug users. They became affiliated into drug-using networks, although these new drug-using acquaintances are not generally considered to be friends. The nature of these relationships is not genuine or real, and tends to be very fickle.
As people become immersed in the drug-using lifestyle, their life before drugs gradually becomes a distant memory. They become stuck in a vicious circle, whereby the drug is affecting their lives yet they need it to function normally and even to ‘survive’.
Some people use heroin to ‘numb’ their emotions and remove themselves from the reality of their situation, i.e. the problems the drug has caused.
The lives of heroin users often become characterised by secrets and lies. This is commonly due to shame and embarrassment, as they have become something that they had looked down on previously and were living a life of which other people disapproved.
For many heroin users, it becomes impossible to sustain their drug use legitimately. As tolerance levels rise, increasing amounts of drugs are required, and therefore more money is needed to fund the habit.
For many heroin users, it becomes impossible to sustain their drug use legitimately. As tolerance levels rise, increasing amounts of drugs are required, and therefore more money is needed to fund the habit.
In many cases criminal activity becomes the most common way of funding heroin use. Shoplifting is especially popular, particularly amongst female users, whilst burglary, street theft (bag snatches) and car/bike crime are common sources of revenue for male users.
Some people support their habit by dealing in drugs, whilst some may resort to prostitution.
Many report that they would steal anything from anyone in order to support their habit. Their own families are frequent and ready targets for theft.
Some heroin users report that crime simply becomes a routine part of their day. Involvement in criminal activity frequently leads to involvement with the criminal justice system, and sometimes imprisonment. Some addicts consider this philosophically as being an occupational hazard.
Some of the interviewees in our research became locked into a vicious cycle of crime to fund habit → prison sentence (and a period clean) → release from prison → re-introduction to drugs → return to crime → prison. They frequently felt stuck in this cycle and did not know how to get out of it.
Many users report how their behaviour and personality changed during their drug-using days. They often felt that they acted very out of character.
They describe how, in the world of drug-using, everyone thinks primarily about themselves, and more specifically, about feeding their addiction. Many are lacking in morals and conscience and have no consideration for anyone else. They live a life full of deceit and manipulation.
“You’ve got no boundaries, which is wrong. And you lose all of your emotions, you know. You don’t feel guilty, it’s just, ‘Me, me, me, I want that, I need that’, and you don’t think of others, what it does to others.”
One major occupational hazard of regular heroin use is deteriorating health. For injecting drug users, serious vein damage is common and there is an ever-present risk of contracting blood-borne viruses such as hepatitis C and HIV. There is also a risk of overdosing.
Alongside physical health damage, many heroin users experience mood and mental health problems. Periods of low self-esteem, depression, anxiety and mood swings are frequently reported. Users will regularly have negative opinions of themselves and what they have become.
This can sometimes lead to contemplating, or attempting, suicide.
Many heroin addicts also use other drugs, such as benzodiazepines and alcohol, and this can result in further complications (e.g. increased risk of overdose) and further contributes to deteriorations in health.
Users can neglect to pay attention to their appearance and personal hygiene. They lose respect for themselves and for their well-being.
It is common for users to experience a breakdown in their family relationships due to their drug use and the resultant changes in their behaviour. They may be kicked out of home, or their partner may leave them. Many users, in particular men, lose contact with their children.
In general, the lifestyles of heroin users are very unsettled. Many may experience homelessness through relationship breakdown or through losing their homes due to going to prison or inability to maintain rental payments.
We have been looking at the experiences of people whose lives are seriously affected by heroin. In the present Part, we take a first look at the recovery process for those people who become dependent on heroin. We focus on the research described in the seminal book “Beating the Dragon: The Recovery from Dependent Drug Use”, by Professors James McIntosh and Neil McKeganey.
These researchers interviewed 70 recovering addicts (the term used by the authors) to gain insights into their views of the recovery process.
Whilst the vast majority of the sample had been dependent upon opiates, most would have been classed as poly drug users at the height of their drug use. The average length of time that interviewees had ceased using their drug of choice was 4.3 years (range: 7 months to 12 years).
For this sample, the process of giving up drugs was not a single, once- and-for-all experience. The great majority had made several attempts to stop.
A variety for reasons were given for attempting to stop use: impact of use on partner, children or family; threat to own health; to prevent children being removed from them; a sense of tiredness of demands of maintaining habit; death of someone close; threat of prison, etc.
The researchers pointed out that the experiences and events that interviewees cited as reasons for stopping use did not “appear to differ in type or quality as far as successful and unsuccessful attempts were concerned. The same sorts of reasons were given for both.”
They propose another factor – centered on the addict’s sense of identity or self – that distinguishes successful attempts from unsuccessful attempts at stopping drug use.
More specifically, the person wishes to restore what is described as a “spoiled identity”. The central feature of a spoiled identity is the realisation by the person that he exhibits characteristics that are unacceptable to himself and to significant others.
McIntosh and McKeganey emphasise that the theme that dominated their interviewees’ accounts “is their concern to recapture a sense of value and self-respect; in other words, a desire to regain a positive self. Whereas earlier attempts to abstain tend to be utilitarian in nature and geared to achieving a particular practical outcome – such as getting one’s partner to return or avoiding losing one’s children – what characterises the successful attempt is a fundamental questioning and rejection of what one has become, together with a desire and resolution to change.”
Of course, this desire to restore one’s identity is not sufficient to lead the person to stop using, but it is in most cases a necessary condition.
The negative impact which a person’s life as a drug addict had upon their sense of self was expressed in various ways: a deep unhappiness, sense of self-disgust, and a revulsion of the drug-taking world they inhabited. There was a recognition by the individual that their drug-using identity was no longer acceptable and had to change.
A memory of the person’s drug-free existence remained and this could play a role in the decision to quit in two ways.
Firstly, it acted as a comparison for the addict to realise how bad their life had become. Secondly, it provided a basis for hope, as they had been different in the past and could be so again.
The process of recognising and acknowledging a spoiled identity and the subsequent decision to give up drugs were usually the result of a gradual process of realisation.
The circumstances which forced addicts to review their identities could be single events, ongoing experiences, or usually both. Often, it was the impact that their drug use was having on people close to them that forced addicts to confront what they had become.
The decision to quit was often precipitated by certain ‘trigger’ events. However, for most addicts the trigger came at the end of a period of reflection and review that had been going on for some time, sometimes months and even years.
The recognition that one’s identity has been spoiled is not sufficient for one to give up drugs. The person must have a desire for a new identity and a different style of life. Positive occurrences (e.g. birth of child) can re-awaken an addict’s perspective on the future and show that it can be better than the present and be worth striving for.
Addicts also have to believe that it is feasible to develop a new identity and life.
Some of the sample decided to quit following a rock-bottom crisis. The person had deteriorated to such an extent physically, socially and psychologically that there were only three possibilities open to them.
Firstly, continue, but this would lead to total degradation of identity and likely physical damage as well. Secondly, exit through suicide, which was given serious consideration by many addicts at this stage, and tried by some. Thirdly, try to beak the addiction and thereby exit a drug-using career.
Despite the role of rock bottom experiences, the majority of the sample exited on the basis of what appeared to be a rational decision. This decision generally involved a conscious balancing of the pros and cons of continuing drug use.
Analysis of the interviews with 70 recovering addicts in Scotland emphasised the importance of the person wishing to restore a “spoiled identity” as being key to a successful recovery. The person must not only desire a new identity, but also want a different style of life. They must also believe that this is feasible.
Nearly all the interviewees described previous attempts at trying to stop taking drugs which ended in failure. These failed attempts are not simply a waste of time and they may play a significant role in the process of recovery.
A period of abstinence can clarify and highlight the extent their identities have been damaged. During abstinence, addicts can examine their drug-using lifestyle from the perspective of a non-user. Also, the addict’s residual identity (non-using identity) can re-emerge and comparisons can be made between it and the drug-using identity.
Addicts not only acquire first-hand experience of an alternative lifestyle, but also potentially see its feasibility. If they can abstain from taking heroin for a time, why not for good?
Despite knowing that they need to stop taking heroin, a person may continue because they fear the pain and discomfort of withdrawal.
Ambivalence is a striking feature of addiction, particularly when the person has made a rational decision to stop using and makes attempts to do so. There is a conflict between wanting to change on the one hand and a reluctance to give up the drug on the other.
In people who have become dependent on heroin, the vast majority of periods of abstinence are followed by relapse (mind you, this is the same with smoking!). It is much easier to stop taking drugs than it is to stay stopped.
Factors that are known to precipitate relapse include: craving or continued desire for drug; negative emotional states such as depression, boredom and loneliness; the experience of stressful or conflicting situations; and pressure from others to resume drug.
However, these risks, or predisposing factors, do not lead inevitably to relapse. Many addicts recover successfully despite these negative experiences. Why?
McIntosh and McKeganey emphasise that “… the key to successful recovery from addiction is the construction by the addict, of a new identity incorporating non-addict values and perspectives of a non-addict lifestyle.”
The construction of a new identity, or a renewed sense of self, has to be built and constantly defended against a variety of often-powerful opposing forces.
“One of the reasons why the transition is so difficult is because the individual has to get used to an almost entirely different way of life. The drug using lifestyle has provided much of the meaning, structure and content of the person’s life, often for many years, then all of a sudden it is gone and something has to take its place.”
It is generally very difficult for addicts to re-enter conventional life – they often feel strange, incompetent and lacking in important practical and social skills. They have been detached from mainstream activities and culture for a long time, and have often done “every-day” things under the influence of the drug.
“The second thing that makes managing the transition out of drugs so difficult for addicts is the unrelenting nature of the task of ensuring that they remain abstinent.”
In establishing a new identity, addicts have to distance themselves from their past lives and their drug-using networks. Interviewees emphasised that a continuing desire for drugs – which does abate over time – and a lack of confidence in being able to resist, makes them vulnerable.
They wanted to put as much distance as possible – socially and physically – between themselves and those who might seek to tempt or pressurise them into using again.
Recovering addicts also have to develop a range of new activities and relationships both to replace those that they have given up and to reinforce and sustain their new identities.
One of the major problems that addicts face when giving up drugs is how to occupy their time. The drug-using routine – getting the money, acquiring and then taking the drug – took up a major part of the day.
Interviewees recognised how important it was to keep themselves as fully occupied as possible, both mentally and physically. However, simply occupying their time was not enough. They want to do something that provides a sense of purpose and gives their life some meaning. The ideal solution is paid employment.
Recovering addicts also need to develop new social relationships in order to fill the social vacuum. These relationships must reinforce the new identity, support the alternative lifestyle, and help provide the recovering addict with a new sense of purpose.
The acceptance by non-addicts of the recovering addict’s new identity is especially important in sustaining its development and, thereby, maintaining abstinence from drugs.
Once the person’s new life begins to develop – with new activities, relationships and commitments – this creates a powerful barrier against temptation to revert back to drug taking.
New activities and relationships impart a sense of normality and progress and help to reinforce faith in both the desirability and in the probable success of rehabilitation. They also provide positive reinforcement for the recovering addict’s attempt to develop a more positive sense of self and self-worth.
The new life provides a stake in the future.
@'Wired In'
Further Reading:
Beating the Dragon: The Recovery from Dependent Drug Use by James McIntosh and Neil McKeganey, Prentice Hall, 2002.
The Heroin Users by Tam Stewart, Rivers Oram Press, 1996.
Matters of Substance: Drugs – and why everyone’s a user by Griffith Edwards, Penguin, 2004.
Once again it would appear to me that any sane person would see that total legislation of ALL drugs is the only rational course of action to take...
Once again it would appear to me that any sane person would see that total legislation of ALL drugs is the only rational course of action to take...
Wednesday 17 March 2010
The Great Catholic Cover-Up by Christopher Hitchins
The pope's entire career has the stench of evil about it.
On March 10, the chief exorcist of the Vatican, the Rev. Gabriele Amorth (who has held this demanding post for 25 years), was quoted as saying that "the Devil is at work inside the Vatican," and that "when one speaks of 'the smoke of Satan' in the holy rooms, it is all true—including these latest stories of violence and pedophilia." This can perhaps be taken as confirmation that something horrible has indeed been going on in the holy precincts, though most inquiries show it to have a perfectly good material explanation.He was wrong twice. In the first place, nobody has had to strive to find such evidence: It has surfaced, as it was bound to do. In the second place, this extension of the awful scandal to the topmost level of the Roman Catholic Church is a process that has only just begun. Yet it became in a sense inevitable when the College of Cardinals elected, as the vicar of Christ on Earth, the man chiefly responsible for the original cover-up. (One of the sanctified voters in that "election" was Cardinal Bernard Law of Boston, a man who had already found the jurisdiction of Massachusetts a bit too warm for his liking.)
There are two separate but related matters here: First, the individual responsibility of the pope in one instance of this moral nightmare and, second, his more general and institutional responsibility for the wider lawbreaking and for the shame and disgrace that goes with it. The first story is easily told, and it is not denied by anybody. In 1979, an 11-year-old German boy identified as Wilfried F. was taken on a vacation trip to the mountains by a priest. After that, he was administered alcohol, locked in his bedroom, stripped naked, and forced to suck the penis of his confessor. (Why do we limit ourselves to calling this sort of thing "abuse"?) The offending cleric was transferred from Essen to Munich for "therapy" by a decision of then-Archbishop Joseph Ratzinger, and assurances were given that he would no longer have children in his care. But it took no time for Ratzinger's deputy, Vicar General Gerhard Gruber, to return him to "pastoral" work, where he soon enough resumed his career of sexual assault.
It is, of course, claimed, and it will no doubt later be partially un-claimed, that Ratzinger himself knew nothing of this second outrage. I quote, here, from the Rev. Thomas Doyle, a former employee of the Vatican Embassy in Washington and an early critic of the Catholic Church's sloth in responding to child-rape allegations. "Nonsense," he says. "Pope Benedict is a micromanager. He's the old style. Anything like that would necessarily have been brought to his attention. Tell the vicar general to find a better line. What he's trying to do, obviously, is protect the pope."
This is common or garden stuff, very familiar to American and Australian and Irish Catholics whose children's rape and torture, and the cover-up of same by the tactic of moving rapists and torturers from parish to parish, has been painstakingly and comprehensively exposed. It's on a level with the recent belated admission by the pope's brother, Monsignor Georg Ratzinger, that while he knew nothing about sexual assault at the choir school he ran between 1964 and 1994, now that he remembers it, he is sorry for his practice of slapping the boys around.
Very much more serious is the role of Joseph Ratzinger, before the church decided to make him supreme leader, in obstructing justice on a global scale. After his promotion to cardinal, he was put in charge of the so-called "Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith" (formerly known as the Inquisition). In 2001, Pope John Paul II placed this department in charge of the investigation of child rape and torture by Catholic priests. In May of that year, Ratzinger issued a confidential letter to every bishop. In it, he reminded them of the extreme gravity of a certain crime. But that crime was the reporting of the rape and torture. The accusations, intoned Ratzinger, were only treatable within the church's own exclusive jurisdiction. Any sharing of the evidence with legal authorities or the press was utterly forbidden. Charges were to be investigated "in the most secretive way ... restrained by a perpetual silence ... and everyone ... is to observe the strictest secret which is commonly regarded as a secret of the Holy Office … under the penalty of excommunication." (My italics). Nobody has yet been excommunicated for the rape and torture of children, but exposing the offense could get you into serious trouble. And this is the church that warns us against moral relativism! (See, for more on this appalling document, two reports in the London Observer of April 24, 2005, by Jamie Doward.)
Not content with shielding its own priests from the law, Ratzinger's office even wrote its own private statute of limitations. The church's jurisdiction, claimed Ratzinger, "begins to run from the day when the minor has completed the 18th year of age" and then lasts for 10 more years. Daniel Shea, the attorney for two victims who sued Ratzinger and a church in Texas, correctly describes that latter stipulation as an obstruction of justice. "You can't investigate a case if you never find out about it. If you can manage to keep it secret for 18 years plus 10, the priest will get away with it."
The next item on this grisly docket will be the revival of the long-standing allegations against the Rev. Marcial Maciel, founder of the ultra-reactionary Legion of Christ, in which sexual assault seems to have been almost part of the liturgy. Senior ex-members of this secretive order found their complaints ignored and overridden by Ratzinger during the 1990s, if only because Father Maciel had been praised by the then-Pope John Paul II as an "efficacious guide to youth." And now behold the harvest of this long campaign of obfuscation. The Roman Catholic Church is headed by a mediocre Bavarian bureaucrat once tasked with the concealment of the foulest iniquity, whose ineptitude in that job now shows him to us as a man personally and professionally responsible for enabling a filthy wave of crime. Ratzinger himself may be banal, but his whole career has the stench of evil—a clinging and systematic evil that is beyond the power of exorcism to dispel. What is needed is not medieval incantation but the application of justice—and speedily at that.
The 70s were definitely a simpler time, but today this logo for the Catholic Church’s Archdiocesan Youth Commission looks like an admission of guilt. Tuesday 16 March 2010
Saturday 13 March 2010
Tuesday 9 March 2010
Wednesday 3 March 2010
Thursday 25 February 2010
RePost: Talisker - Land of Stone
Ken Hyder: drums
Marcio Mattos and John Lawrence: basses
Davie Webster: alto saxophone
John Rangecroft: tenor saxophone, clarinet
Ricardo Mattos: soprano and tenor saxophones, flute
Maggie Nicols, Frankie Armstrong, Brian Eley, and Phil Minton: vocals
Ken Hyder has two web sites here and here.
There you will find tracks from the past and the present to download.
Here is an interview with Ken from 'The Wire'.
The vocalists, substituting Julie Tippetts (nee Driscoll) for Frankie Armstrong had worked together as
'Voice'.
Enjoy/
Davie Webster: alto saxophone
John Rangecroft: tenor saxophone, clarinet
Ricardo Mattos: soprano and tenor saxophones, flute
Maggie Nicols, Frankie Armstrong, Brian Eley, and Phil Minton: vocals
Ken Hyder has two web sites here and here.
There you will find tracks from the past and the present to download.
Here is an interview with Ken from 'The Wire'.
The vocalists, substituting Julie Tippetts (nee Driscoll) for Frankie Armstrong had worked together as
'Voice'.
Phil Minton sang in my band, but that is only because I asked him to...
WHY...?
Because...
"...it sounds for all the world like an Albert Ayler album released post-New Grass when the tenor alchemist was experimenting with a woodwind contraption called the chanter—the blown portion of Scottish highland bagpipes. The twin sax / twin bass lineup of Hyder's quintet creates a droning, cantatorial spiritsound one can imagine as the sound of Ayler's dreams."
(From a review of the first Talisker album)This is my 'desert island disc' and it has never been reissued on CD!
Finally for those of you who were in the Feral Choir when Phil Minton came out here to Melbourne, you can watch (and hear) yourself here and you may recognise one of the vocal motifs from the above album.Enjoy/
Wednesday 24 February 2010
There is NO truth to the rumours...
...that the editorial team here at 'Exile' are off to Switzerland to get our blood changed!
However we may be popping in for a quick bop at the
Death Disco
Death Disco
Tuesday 23 February 2010
"Ooer Missus"
How green was my 'cwm'?
(It is amazing what you can learn from someone else playing Scrabble...now straight to the Doctors!)
(It is amazing what you can learn from someone else playing Scrabble...now straight to the Doctors!)
The 10p cocaine byproduct turning Argentina's slum children into the living dead
Paco addicts in the slums of Buenos Aires
Monday 22 February 2010
Australian internet users support education over mandatory Internet filtering
Electronic Frontiers Australia (EFA) today welcomed the results of a recent survey that found Australian Internet users do not support the idea of mandatory Internet filtering.
The preliminary results of the Australian Broadband Survey 2009, conducted by Whirlpool (whirlpool.net.au), found that 91.8% respondents did not support the idea of mandatory Internet filtering.
The survey also found 83.4% of respondents said that the introduction of mandatory Internet filtering might affect their vote at the next Federal election.
“The results highlight widespread community disagreement with the Government’s plan,” said Peter Black, EFA’s campaign manager. “These results also show that Australians believe the Government would be better off focusing on increased education and law enforcement, instead of an impractical and costly policy of Government censorship.”
When asked what the Government should focus on in terms of internet safety, 81.8% supported educating parents, 63.9% said educating children, 43.7% said law enforcement, 42.1% said subsidising desktop filter software, and 33.5% said subsidising ISP-level opt-in filters, with only 3.2% supporting mandatory Internet filtering.
These preliminary results from the Australian Broadband Survey 2009 only include respondents aged 18 years of age or older. The survey was successfully completed and verified 21,775 times by respondents aged 18 years of age or older. The full results of the Survey are expected to be published soon.
“These results confirm that people who understand the issue overwhelming oppose the Government’s policy,” Black said. “The big challenge now is to win the hearts and minds of ordinary Australians, who perhaps aren’t particularly computer or Internet savvy.”
That is why last week EFA launched the Open Internet campaign, centred around a new website, OpenInternet.com.au, blog and Facebook fan page, to, to, that together will act as campaign hub for all the different individuals and organisations that are campaigning against the Governmentb s mandatory Internet filtering policy.
The Open Internet campaign marks an escalation of opposition to the Government’s policy, which will continue throughout the year. “Our goal is to ensure the Australian public know what they’re in for,” said Black. “It’s important that such a major and expensive policy gets the public scrutiny it deserves. And we believe that Open Internet portrays a positive and understandable message that will resonate with Australians who are yet to form a strong opinion on the Government’s policy.”
American Takfiris
[A. Serwer]The theological justification for al Qaeda's wholesale slaughter of civilians was provided by Sayyid Imam al-Sharif, also known as Dr. Fadl, one of the founding fathers of al Qaeda. Because the murder of innocents is forbidden in Islam and the murder of Muslims in particular, Ayman al-Zawahiri and Osama bin Laden required some sort of theological framework for justifying terrorism. This was provided by al-Sharif, who essentially argued in his book, "The Compendium of the Pursuit of Divine Knowledge," that apostates could be murdered, and that approach, takfir (which has come to be known as takfirism) allowed al Qaeda to, for all intents and purposes, kill anyone they wanted without violating the laws of Islam by declaring them to be apostates. In other words, Dr. Fadl helped provided a theological justification for something that everyone involved knew was wrong.
The legal memos justifying torture aren't very different in terms of reasoning--it's clear that John Yoo and his cohorts in the Office of Legal Counsel saw their job not as binding the president to the rule of law, but to declare legal any tactic that the executive branch believed necessary to fight terrorism. They worked backwards from this conclusion, and ethics officials at the Department of Justice, we now know, decided that they they had violated professional standards in doing so. Whereas al-Zawahiri and bin Laden turned to al-Sharif for a method to circumvent the plain language of the Koran, Bush and Cheney went to Yoo and Jay Bybee to circumvent the plain language of the law. Most Islamic scholars, just like most legal experts, reject their respective reasoning as unsound.
The torture memos--indeed, all of the pro-torture arguments rest on a similar intellectual themes to the takfiris. Suspected terrorists are "illegal enemy combatants", outside the framework of laws that would otherwise guide us. Just as the takfiris justify the killing of even self-identified Muslims by excommunicating them as "infidels", torture apologists argue that even American citizens like Jose Padilla who are accused of being terrorists become legal "apostates" without any rights the president is bound to respect. These are extraordinary circumstances, this is an extraordinary war--and so, the Bush administration turned to Yoo, a man who believes the president is bound by no laws during wartime: he can murder a village of innocent civilian non-combatants just as surely as he can crush the testicles of a child or deploy the military against residents of the United States. The architects of torture are the intellectual mirror image of their declared enemies, depending on the perceived inhumanity of their foes to justify monstrous actions. It's worth noting however, that the Bush administration did not take full advantage of the wrongs that the lawyers in their Office of Legal Counsel would have enabled. My point is not to equate the deeds of AQ with the deeds of the Bush administration--merely to point out justification for acts that are on their face unjustifiable take a similar intellectual path.
From his cell in an Egyptian prison, al-Sharif denounced his former colleagues in al Qaeda, declaring that the killing of innocents was wrong. He essentially renounced his earlier work providing the theological basis for politically motivated murder and destruction, declaring, "There is no such thing in Islam as ends justifying the means," now arguing that the murder of innocents, Muslim or otherwise, was sinful. Whatever theological cover al-Sharif's original arguments provided were meaningless against the body count of mostly Muslim innocents amassed by al-Qaeda in their war against the "West", which by the numbers has been a war against fellow Muslims. In combination with the furious efforts of moderate Muslims and even committed Islamists like al-Sharif, al Qaeda and its methods have been largely discredited, to the point where, as Fareed Zakaria writes, we don't fear "a broad political movement but a handful of fanatics scattered across the globe."
I confess to being bothered that we haven't seen a similarly backlash against the architects of torture here--part of the reason we haven't, is because even though innocents were tortured, we still see them as fundamentally alien. Few Americans directly suffered as a result of what Yoo and Bybee did--although I think we have yet to understand that damage that's been done to our society as a whole. Bolstered by ideological partisans and powerful figures looking to avoid accountability for their actions, men like John Yoo and Jay Bybee have yet to be held responsible for the crimes they enabled--and I'm not sure they ever will be--although I'm less concerned with their punishment than with the permanent American rejection of torture. The Justice Department's David Margolis overruled the original conclusions of the Department's ethics lawyers that Yoo and Bybee had, in ignoring legal precedents and sanctioning behavior that was likely illegal, had committed "professional misconduct". That would have triggered professional sanctions for Yoo, a tenured professor at Berkeley, and Bybee, a sitting federal judge, but Margolis' memo instead concludes that they had excercised "flawed legal reasoning" that could be forgiven in part because of the context in which the memos were written, months after the 9/11 attacks. Margolis though, does not endorse their reasoning, and as for Yoo, he writes that whether or not he deliberately gave bad legal advice is a "close question." Al-Sharif will never be able to wash the blood from his hands, but while this founding father of al Qaeda has recoiled from the fruits of his labor, the American architects of torture continue to argue that their reasoning is legally sound.
The American conscience, when it decides to act, is mighty--but it is also sluggish and vain. Americans are crushed by the weight of not fulfilling their own high expectations--so the shameful acts of one generation are often rectified by a subsequent generation unencumbered by their own complicity in such acts. So the compromise the Founding Fathers reached on the issue of slavery, in defiance of the spirit of the documents they authored, was eventually righted by the Civil War. The slavery by another name of reconstruction was ignored by a nation weary of conflict after nearly being rent in two--but eventually gave birth to the civil rights movement. The suffragettes were forced to accept a compromise on the 14th Amendment that denied them the vote--but they would ultimately prevail. Roosevelt interned Japanese Americans, Reagan gave them reparations. The American conscience is often slow to action, but not because it cannot recognize evil--but because our view of ourselves as a people guided by justice is so important to who we are that when confronted with proof of our own shortcomings, we recoil in shame and precious vanity. Eventually, with the big stuff, we usually find our way--we see this with our slow, staggering, but inevitable march towards full personhood for gays and lesbians. And while those who stained America's honor with war crimes have escaped accountability for now, these American takfiris will eventually be judged by history with a clarity we cannot muster today.
The arc of the universe is long...you know, all that stuff.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
