A Pain to Abstain and Regain...Ones Pain-killer
I got confused reading the news today, so I wrote the reporter:
Mrs. XYZ,
Just wondering about the story you ran today on page B2 of todays KW Record about how a 64 year old man smoked pot to deal with the pain that he has in his leg. I got confused about the ambiguous status of his "alcoholism" because you stated that he hasn't touched alcohol for a long time yet he's a self-declared "alcoholic" which is his reason for refusing to take pills.
I know that alcoholism shows itself in many forms but I was just curious as to what your own definition of alcoholism is: is it simply the addiction to alcohol? Is it chronic abuse of alcohol? Is it the urge to drink even in cases when people are disciplined enough not to satisfy that urge? If so, do alcoholics ever "recover"? Do you think it is logical to refuse medication because of how it conflicts with alcoholism even though you don't drink alcohol? Do you think there's weight behind Mr.Fidlers claim that at least for him, pills "mess" with his head? These are a lot of questions but they just point to the fact that "alcoholism" seems to be a very confusing concept these days.
It's a big issue for public health to know how different drugs, both medical and recreational interact and produce reactions in different individuals. I'm not asking you to interpret Mr.Fidlers stance on this. I'm more interested in the way you strategically laid out the message in your article and that's why I'm asking. I'm a PR student and I'm interested in how the media thinks so there's another reason you sparked my interest. Anyways, I thought it was well written. Keep it up!
Sincerely,
Barrett Cressman
This article blew away my definition of alcoholism. I mean, you're an "alcoholic" who doesn't drink, and a man with a bad leg who won't take pills because they "mess" with your head, what do you do? To the average mind you're a walking paradox. I think he should be allowed to grow his own pot and smoke it. It's a shame he had to be led away in handcuffs. He's free now but potless and his neighbours probably think he's a thug. He said he would just "grin and bear it". We'll see. Maybe after all he'll turn to the really hard stuff: tylenol.
Mrs. XYZ,
Just wondering about the story you ran today on page B2 of todays KW Record about how a 64 year old man smoked pot to deal with the pain that he has in his leg. I got confused about the ambiguous status of his "alcoholism" because you stated that he hasn't touched alcohol for a long time yet he's a self-declared "alcoholic" which is his reason for refusing to take pills.
I know that alcoholism shows itself in many forms but I was just curious as to what your own definition of alcoholism is: is it simply the addiction to alcohol? Is it chronic abuse of alcohol? Is it the urge to drink even in cases when people are disciplined enough not to satisfy that urge? If so, do alcoholics ever "recover"? Do you think it is logical to refuse medication because of how it conflicts with alcoholism even though you don't drink alcohol? Do you think there's weight behind Mr.Fidlers claim that at least for him, pills "mess" with his head? These are a lot of questions but they just point to the fact that "alcoholism" seems to be a very confusing concept these days.
It's a big issue for public health to know how different drugs, both medical and recreational interact and produce reactions in different individuals. I'm not asking you to interpret Mr.Fidlers stance on this. I'm more interested in the way you strategically laid out the message in your article and that's why I'm asking. I'm a PR student and I'm interested in how the media thinks so there's another reason you sparked my interest. Anyways, I thought it was well written. Keep it up!
Sincerely,
Barrett Cressman
This article blew away my definition of alcoholism. I mean, you're an "alcoholic" who doesn't drink, and a man with a bad leg who won't take pills because they "mess" with your head, what do you do? To the average mind you're a walking paradox. I think he should be allowed to grow his own pot and smoke it. It's a shame he had to be led away in handcuffs. He's free now but potless and his neighbours probably think he's a thug. He said he would just "grin and bear it". We'll see. Maybe after all he'll turn to the really hard stuff: tylenol.
posted by sirbarrett at 5:52 p.m.
1 Comments:
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Post a Comment
<< Home