While admitting to an addiction may the hardest step for the addict, intervention may be the hardest step for the individuals closest to the one addicted. There are many reasons for this, but I think that the best reason is that our desire is mainly to help the individual. No matter what it takes, we want to see the person freed from that which is destroying them inside and out. The husband doesn't leave his addicted wife because he feels that he must stay in the relationship to show they are not abandoning them and show that they love her. The mother of the addicted son can't kick him out of her house because it is akin to throwing them to the wolves, and they may be devoured, and no parent want to see their child in that predicament. It goes on and on, but the underlying desire is the same: we want to help.
But under the new paradigms, addiction can't be looked at as something to be stopped or overcome. It must be looked at as a worldview problem. This makes intervention all the more important. We must intervene because, if we don't, the addiction worldview will become so all-consuming that it may become impossible to see it ever intercepted.
We are accustomed to seeing interventions in the context of a group of people confronting an addict and telling them how they feel about their addiction. They yell at them, tell them they hate them, cry, beg, plead, and everything else in an attempt to elicit an emotional turning from their drug of choice and to a new path. It's like a scene from Fyodor Dostoyevsky's novella The Gambler:
“...Tell me, do you intend to give up gambling?"
"Oh, damn! I shall give it up at once as soon as I..."
"As soon as you have won back what you have lost. Just what I thought; you needn't say any more - I know - you have spoken unawares, and so have spoken the truth. Tell me, have you any occupation except gambling?"
"No, none..."
He began cross-examining me. I knew nothing. I scarcely looked into the newspapers, and had literally not opened a single book all that time.
"You've grown rusty," he observed. "You have not only given up life, all your interests, private and public, the duties of a man and a citizen, your friends (and you really had friends) - you have not only given up your objects, such as they were, all but gambling - you have given up your memories. I remember you at an intense and ardent moment of your life; but I am sure you have forgotten all the best feelings you had then; your dreams, your most genuine desires now do not rise above pair, impair, rouge, noir, the twelve middle numbers, and so on, I am sure!...Yes, you have destroyed yourself. You had some abilities, a lively disposition, and were not a bad fellow; you might have even been of service to your country, which is in such need of men, but - you will remain here, and your life is over."
But this is only one aspect of an intervention. If we stop there, then we will inevitably fail in helping them come to grips with their own need for freedom. It's similar to when Christians share the Gospel with a "lost" person. If the message ends at the death of Jesus and what that means, the story is incomplete. They must also be told of the resurrection and see examples of those who are positively effected by acceptance of the God-Man. For an addict, they not only need to be told how dangerous their addiction is, but also shown how wonderful life is without it. They need to be exposed to a different world and worldview: one free of the influence of addictive substances.
Or, to say it another way, we must give the addict an example of a lifestyle of intervention. Everything that we say, do, the television shows and movies we watch, the books we read, everything must be done intentionally to show that certain things don't have to be a part of your world to live a fulfilled life. According to the articles I cited in my last entry on this subject, simply seeing images on a screen of people shooting up or of drug paraphernalia can very quickly lead to a relapse, even when the addict has been clean for a number years.
The implications are hard for us to accept, but if we want to succeed in helping someone work through their addiction, we must face them. If their is an addict living in your home, you need to be careful not to watch TV programs that show drug use and paraphernalia (shows like CSI and Gangland). We must seek to avoid those topics of discussion and rather speak of the positive nature of being free.
Not only must the addict listen to us as we confront their addiction head-on, we must also live intervention before them. We must step in and change our ways of thinking as well. We need to be the Good Samaritan in their life and not only pick them up, but also nurse them back to health. Of course, this all assumes that the addict has admitted their need for help and accepted it from us. But what do we do if they don't respond positively to our intervention? We'll save that topic for next time.
Comments