I have a few friends who have battled the addiction to heroin for years, but it wasn't until the recent overdose of another friend that my friend Jim* really understood the need to stay clean. They might have felt hurt or guilty, that he was spending more time on their sobriety then his own, but probably not betrayed. Addicts understand the battle more than anyone else.
He must have felt so guilty during filming if he was trying to battle his demons while trying to help these other people. I can't imagine having to face your own problems in other people while trying to hide them from the world.
As for how the participants feel, I doubt it's betrayed. His death probably showed them that addiction really is a difficult thing to overcome. I bet it gave them more of a reason to continue their battle.
I agree with those who say that these addicts shouldn't feel personally betrayed. If anything it's just a warning how hard sobriety is, and how the danger of relapse never truly goes away.
I really respect AM for making this series. It makes me so sad to think that his coming back into contact with the world of addiction may have been the trigger that prompted his own relapse.
One of the first things all addicts should learn is that relapse can happen at any moment - to anyone. It's likely that these folks are terrified (as they should be) by what happened to AM, but it doesn't have to happen to them. They should think of it this way - he went out and did this, so they don't have to.
What's striking to me is that she seems pretty coherent in the first clip. I assume she's using at that point, but she comes across as pretty "normal" looking, depressed, but normal. I don't have much experience with users of hard drugs, but the one person I knew was using behaved in such a manner that his addiction was pretty pronounced.
@Bgirl_Hamster: It depends a lot on the drug, in my experience. People who are into stimulants and hallucinogens usually behave erratically, but those on opiates often come across as simply "depressed, but normal." Hell, I don't think most of Rush Limbaugh's listeners noticed anything amiss when he was putting away enough oxy to stun a mule. (Then again, that was Limbaugh...)
I could see feeling very, very discouraged, but betrayed? My guess is that most of these people know better than to judge others, given how much they've probably been judged along the way. And they alone know how powerful the demons can be. It seems to me that by her example, Amy is carrying on the work DJ AM left unfinished, which is the greatest gift anyone can hand on to someone who is suffering just like them ...
I think addicts, more than anyone else, understand what its like to struggle with your addictions and ultimately give in. I would be surprised if they feel personally betrayed.
I'd understand it, but this isn't something they can/should take personally. As they learn more and more about addiction and their own addictions, they will realize the very real threat they all face when it comes to relapse, in spite of huge leaps forward and years of effort. It's unfortunate, but it happens. Hopefully, they will have empathy in that way rather than feelings of betrayal.
Even Jeff, my favorite interventionist from "Intervention" relapsed recently after YEARS of sobriety.
@LaComtesse: Jeff Van Vonderen relapsed?! I did not know that. He is my favorite too...better than over-involved Candy Finnegan by far. You could even say I love him like crazy...anything the other interventionists say is just noise
@Caitastrophe: Yeah, it's why he wasn't around too much a couple seasons ago. He was in treatment; he’s doing better now though, apparently.
Yeah, I really like him, though I think the show is pretty good with putting the right interventionist with the right addict/family. I like Jeff because he’s usually placed with the addicts who have deluded themselves into thinking they’re smarter than all other addicts, they’re not an addict, or they don’t need help and are more hostile than most. I remember one particular episode (Chad, I believe) who said "I love living on the streets" to which Jeff goes "You are so full of shit."
Candy goes with the tragic cases/cases wherein the family is super-duper involved. Ken goes with people who usually have an accompanying mental illness (usually drug related). At least this is the pattern I’ve noticed.
@BeckySharper: I remember he talked about his relapse on an update show, where there was a host and they had a studio audience. It was great because he was so honest about it and said, it's an everday struggle, and he was back in treatment to help him through. I love that man.
OMG. Please save the baby. 'Cause you know, the baby will be totally well-adjusted upon learning that you killed it's mother shortly after it's birth. No harm (to the fetus), no foul.
Really, when it comes to situations like this, crimes committed in a foreign country, I really think that the person should be exchanged and punished in their country of origin. There are just too may vaguities and idiosyncracies when it comes to dealing with the legal and social mores of other countries. Plus, I highly doubt that her defense will put up much of a fight for her.
@Ulookinatmyjunk: Diary of a Mad Black Blogger: Lots of people from fucked up situations get adopted as infants and do turn out pretty well adjusted... Should the baby instead not have a shot because the mom screwed up?
@Ulookinatmyjunk: Diary of a Mad Black Blogger: So... if someone was arrested in the US for a crime that WAS legal (or rarely punished back home) -- such as domestic abuse, honour killings, etc -- we should just send them back to wherever they came from, even if they won't be punished? Yes, laws are different everywhere -- so that means you should abide by the laws of the country you happen to be in, and if you break them, deal with the consequences.
@eirwen: I think it's mostly fair (that one is subject to the laws of the country he/she is in) except when the laws and legal systems are inherently unfair. But that's a global justice issue, not a personal behavior issue, I guess.
@Ulookinatmyjunk: Diary of a Mad Black Blogger: A completely different crime, but maybe look into how the French spies that blew up the Greenpeace ship Rainbow Warrior while it was docked in Auckland Harbour in 1984 (killing one person) were treated; France reached an agreement with NZ where the spies were to be punished by the French government, resulting in them not really being punished at all, which pissed off (and continues to) New Zealanders to no end.
@MissyMcCLung: Um, yea...didn't say that. I'd hoped that my sarcasm was pretty obvs without adding: /sarcasm. I'm not pro-baby killing for the crimes of the parent. However, I typed this early in the a.m. so maybe my sarcasm meter is off.
@heatherwritesstuff: How about getting your hand chopped off for stealing...they do that in some countries too. How would you like to come back handless because you couldn't keep you hands off of a cowry shell necklace? Some places judge certain crimes too extremely. And that "if you can't do the time don't do the crime" mess is pure basura. Paticularly in this case in which the woman says that she was forced to be a mule.
My personal opinion is that if I am not allowed to own property, pay taxes or partake in the benefits of being a citizen of your country, then why should I be punished by your laws as though I am a citizen of your country? Send their asses back home and let them be punished there; in their land of origin where they understand the laws and are not subject to social and legal customs that they do not understand.
Two friends of ours were in our car once, and the woman was preggers, like, first trimester. My husband was driving. Anyway, I guess he was not driving to her liking and she said "Hey! Take it easy: I'm pregnant."
To which my husband said "Oh, well NOW I'll try not to kill us all. See I wasn't concerned about my wife or my friends or myself: but now that I've remembered you've got a little blob baby somewhere in there I'll be really careful."
@LaComtesse: I always hate those Baby on Board stickers for the same reason. Well, when I thought the car was filled with a bunch of sinful adults, I had no problem with possibly killing them (and myself), but a BABY? EEEP! Let me drive slower!
@bananastand: @angelina jolie-laide is a gaudy tulip: To this day, I'm really annoyed at this person for that one... of course, she was someone who has wanted to be pregnant since I MET her and was on parenting and pregnancy message boards for YEARS before she popped the little one out and I shudder to think about how she will identify once her children grow up and she no longer identifies as a mother.
When the UK had the death penalty (thankfully long abolished) it was always the case that pregnant women were never executed until some time after they had given birth. In addition, there was a tradition for women in the mixed sex jails which existed prior to the 19th century, to deliberately get pregnant so they could plead their belly at their trial and so postpone execution. It is somewhat perplexing the way western commentors have had healines screaming "pregnant woman facing execution" when the idea that she would face execution WHILST pregnant was never ever the issue. Likewise, if Amnesty International says no one has been executed since 1990 (a record the US for example cannot match) why the hysteria that she might be sentenced to death? British officials will be working quietly behind the scenes to do what they can for her. However we have no historical ties with Laos nor particular trade links to my knowledge. Hystercial westerners denouncing Laos for executing pregnant women is unlikely to have helped Ms Orobator's case within Laos itself. Whatever Ms Orobator's fate, you will still get foolish westerners travelling to other countries, breaking their laws and then being horrified that they are subject to the laws of that foreign land. Even the actual execution of westerners for drug smuggling does not seem to deter them.
@Rare Affinity: "Whatever Ms Orobator's fate, you will still get foolish westerners travelling to other countries, breaking their laws and then being horrified that they are subject to the laws of that foreign land."
I couldn't have put it better myself. Exactly. The law may seem to us ridiculous and unfair, but the fact is, that is their law, and you better believe they'll hold you to it. Otherwise, it sends the wrong message that Westerners can break the law with impunity because their governments get them off.
@GoodBadNotEvil: While I agree that foreigners should be subject to laws of other countries, it's really difficult for some Westerners to comprehend the justice systems of foreign counties.
The idea that you might not get a lawyer, might not get a fair trial, might not get a speedy trial, etc. are just beyond the realm of comprehension to a lot of people. This kind of incident, where citizens of countries that stand for those elements of justice are at the mercy of other countries' systems, is a good opportunity to intervene in the interest of "justice" for that person and for that country. Not that we shouldn't be doing that all the time, in an ideal world, but it makes sense especially to do it when it happens to apply to one of your citizens.
By the sound of this, she may well be executed after the birth of her child...who will care for the child? Will it be cosidered Laotian and remain there? Would the father be given rights despite the non consensual circumstances of conception?
This reasoning seems utterly flawed in so many ways.
Barring any ancillary circumstances that might mean that this woman is innocent. Assuming she wasn't forced to carry the drugs, that they were actually hers and that she willingly and knowlingly broke the law.
Assuming that's the case (which they may well not be, but for the interest of this particular discussion on pregnant women on death row), then the logic, I assume, is that she broke the law, she must pay the consequences. However, given that her unborn fetus did NOT break the law, it should not be terminated or put to death.
I can kinda see that.
Of course, it raises all kinds of other really sticky issues like, y'know, who's gonna raise the kid? What are they going to do with a newborn once they execute it's mother? Are they going to send it home? Put it in Laotian foster care? This clearly is not a simple issue.
@Werrick: And what about the issue of how she became pregnant - was it intentional on her part, or was it rape by a prison guard or male prisoner at some point? And in the case of rape, will there be an investigation into it?
They said they were investigating the pregnancy, hopefully if it turns out that a guard or prisoner that raped her then he'll get what's coming to him.
Of course, it's also possible that she did her absolute best to get pregnant specifically because she knew that they wouldn't execute her.
I don't know, I think they're both possible.
It's not really the specifics of the case that I was wondering about and chewing on. It was simply the ethical question that this case asks, it's not your typical procreation issue.
10/13/09
10/13/09
As for how the participants feel, I doubt it's betrayed. His death probably showed them that addiction really is a difficult thing to overcome. I bet it gave them more of a reason to continue their battle.
10/13/09
10/13/09
I really respect AM for making this series. It makes me so sad to think that his coming back into contact with the world of addiction may have been the trigger that prompted his own relapse.
10/13/09
10/13/09
10/13/09
10/13/09
10/13/09
10/13/09
Even Jeff, my favorite interventionist from "Intervention" relapsed recently after YEARS of sobriety.
10/13/09
10/13/09
10/13/09
Yeah, I really like him, though I think the show is pretty good with putting the right interventionist with the right addict/family. I like Jeff because he’s usually placed with the addicts who have deluded themselves into thinking they’re smarter than all other addicts, they’re not an addict, or they don’t need help and are more hostile than most. I remember one particular episode (Chad, I believe) who said "I love living on the streets" to which Jeff goes "You are so full of shit."
Candy goes with the tragic cases/cases wherein the family is super-duper involved. Ken goes with people who usually have an accompanying mental illness (usually drug related). At least this is the pattern I’ve noticed.
10/13/09
10/13/09
05/05/09
Really, when it comes to situations like this, crimes committed in a foreign country, I really think that the person should be exchanged and punished in their country of origin. There are just too may vaguities and idiosyncracies when it comes to dealing with the legal and social mores of other countries. Plus, I highly doubt that her defense will put up much of a fight for her.
05/05/09
05/05/09
05/05/09
05/05/09
05/05/09
05/05/09
@heatherwritesstuff: How about getting your hand chopped off for stealing...they do that in some countries too. How would you like to come back handless because you couldn't keep you hands off of a cowry shell necklace? Some places judge certain crimes too extremely. And that "if you can't do the time don't do the crime" mess is pure basura. Paticularly in this case in which the woman says that she was forced to be a mule.
My personal opinion is that if I am not allowed to own property, pay taxes or partake in the benefits of being a citizen of your country, then why should I be punished by your laws as though I am a citizen of your country? Send their asses back home and let them be punished there; in their land of origin where they understand the laws and are not subject to social and legal customs that they do not understand.
05/05/09
To which my husband said "Oh, well NOW I'll try not to kill us all. See I wasn't concerned about my wife or my friends or myself: but now that I've remembered you've got a little blob baby somewhere in there I'll be really careful."
So totally called for.
05/05/09
05/05/09
05/05/09
05/05/09
05/05/09
05/05/09
It is somewhat perplexing the way western commentors have had healines screaming "pregnant woman facing execution" when the idea that she would face execution WHILST pregnant was never ever the issue. Likewise, if Amnesty International says no one has been executed since 1990 (a record the US for example cannot match) why the hysteria that she might be sentenced to death? British officials will be working quietly behind the scenes to do what they can for her. However we have no historical ties with Laos nor particular trade links to my knowledge. Hystercial westerners denouncing Laos for executing pregnant women is unlikely to have helped Ms Orobator's case within Laos itself.
Whatever Ms Orobator's fate, you will still get foolish westerners travelling to other countries, breaking their laws and then being horrified that they are subject to the laws of that foreign land. Even the actual execution of westerners for drug smuggling does not seem to deter them.
[news.bbc.co.uk]
05/05/09
I couldn't have put it better myself. Exactly. The law may seem to us ridiculous and unfair, but the fact is, that is their law, and you better believe they'll hold you to it. Otherwise, it sends the wrong message that Westerners can break the law with impunity because their governments get them off.
05/05/09
The idea that you might not get a lawyer, might not get a fair trial, might not get a speedy trial, etc. are just beyond the realm of comprehension to a lot of people. This kind of incident, where citizens of countries that stand for those elements of justice are at the mercy of other countries' systems, is a good opportunity to intervene in the interest of "justice" for that person and for that country. Not that we shouldn't be doing that all the time, in an ideal world, but it makes sense especially to do it when it happens to apply to one of your citizens.
05/05/09
This reasoning seems utterly flawed in so many ways.
05/05/09
Assuming that's the case (which they may well not be, but for the interest of this particular discussion on pregnant women on death row), then the logic, I assume, is that she broke the law, she must pay the consequences. However, given that her unborn fetus did NOT break the law, it should not be terminated or put to death.
I can kinda see that.
Of course, it raises all kinds of other really sticky issues like, y'know, who's gonna raise the kid? What are they going to do with a newborn once they execute it's mother? Are they going to send it home? Put it in Laotian foster care? This clearly is not a simple issue.
05/05/09
05/05/09
Oh, lord, I have no idea.
They said they were investigating the pregnancy, hopefully if it turns out that a guard or prisoner that raped her then he'll get what's coming to him.
Of course, it's also possible that she did her absolute best to get pregnant specifically because she knew that they wouldn't execute her.
I don't know, I think they're both possible.
It's not really the specifics of the case that I was wondering about and chewing on. It was simply the ethical question that this case asks, it's not your typical procreation issue.
05/05/09