Media Guy is there for you.

Today's analysis of the comments of the online edition of our local you know what will cover a subject that is close to Media Man's heart.

Unfortunately, one of our public officials made the mistake of drinking and driving. Media Man does not support drinking and driving at all, and yet, knows a bit about the subject.

In another story, an apparent drug addict was caught shoplifting and pulled a knife on security, only to end up being arrested.

What, might you ask, do these two issues have in common?  Addiction.  Yep....the Big A.

Considering that I am anonymous, here, at the level of press, radio and film, I'll say "I'm Larry and I'm an alcoholic".  As someone who is willing to say that, I know that the only difference between me and the "addict" is the substance of choice. 

It's a disease, so says the AMA and many other substantial experts on the subject and considering that I didn't make a choice to become addicted to my substance of choice, I agree.  I'm told that alcohol (fill in the blank with the drug of choice) is "cunning, baffling and powerful".  I say "amen".  As I watch many people who can take a drink once in awhile and never think about whether or not they have a "problem", I'm reminded that my condition was a "seemingly hopeless state of mind and body".  Again...not a choice, a disease.

Some will respond with a contrary approach to this, but I submit that they haven't done their homework and are just working with their OPINION, which is legal and their right, but if my opinion is that the moon is green cheese, that doesn't make it so.

Back to the real point.  As usual, sides and drawn on the comments threads of these two stories - the "law and order" folks want to basically hang them both, while others see this for what it is.  A person under the influence of addiction doesn't make good decisions, much like a person having a seizure isn't capable of controlling themselves.  Again, like it or not, it's a fact.  I've been on both sides of the coin.

"Put the addict in jail for the rest of his life" will do nothing more than cost taxpayers his room and board, and probably won't get him treatment. (make no mistake, I know a few that have gotten sober in jail, but it's danged tough).  "Fire the public servant" - again, not the answer.  The justification for this is that this person is in charge of prosecuting criminal actions by others guilty of his actions.  Sorry, folks, that is like telling a cancer patient that he can't tell others that cancer is a bad thing.  Again....it's a disease, not a job performance issue.  If someone is performing their job, while battling a disease, they are not fired, nor should be.

I'm sure that someone is tallying up the points on these divisive issues and making sure that the numbers depict that they are a valid source of message.  If you want to make your living that way, I guess you're going to do so.

I submit that each person, regardless of who they are and what they do for a living, should be treated equally in terms of exposure.  I wonder how many DUIs got front page treatment in the past 6 months, versus the total number of DUIs.

Subjective treatment, but not treatment for the disease.  We leave that to the compassionate.