Addiction finds way into politics

Addiction entered into the political season a couple of weeks ago, when The Washington Post ran a front-page story titled on Sept. 12 titled "A Tangled Story of Addiction: Consequences of Cindy McCain's Drug Abuse Were More Complex Than She Has Portrayed."

The gist is this -- the Democrats set up a news conference with a man named Tom Gosinski, who worked for an overseas medical charity founded by Cindy McCain. Gosinski claims he was fired by Mrs. McCain because he suspected her of taking narcotic painkillers from the charity and informed the Drug Enforcement Administration of his suspicions. The official reason he was let go was because of budget cuts, according to reports at the time.

All this happened back in 1994. At the time, Cindy McCain cooperated with the DEA investigation and, as a first-time offender, was put in a diversion program that mandated community service, drug treatment and reimbursement of investigative costs. She told her story to the media, a compelling struggle with addiction that all addicts are familiar with. The charity ended up shutting down because of it; Gosinski filed a wrongful termination suit against Mrs. McCain; and John Dowd, the attorney for the McCains, wrote a scathing letter after the Sept. 12 Post article claiming Mrs. McCain's addiction has no bearing on Sen. McCain's run for the presidency.

I tend to agree; regular readers are more than familiar with the fact that I lean liberal when it comes to politics, but the fact that Democratic operatives tried to stir up interest in an issue almost 15 years old smacks of dirty politics. It can be debated until the cows come home, to borrow a rural saying, whether Cindy McCain received preferential treatment because of her wealthy background and her husband's status. It can be argued over and over again that while such skullduggery may leave a bad taste in the mouths of a lot of people, it's fair game given the fact she'll be sharing a bed with the leader of the free world every night, if her husband is elected president, and that candidates and their families can expect to have their dirty laundry aired in public. (Remember Billy Carter and Roger Clinton?)

Regardless of whether it's fair to bring it up again, it's out there. As a fellow recovering addict, I applaud Cindy McCain's efforts to take responsibility for her actions and openly discussing her addiction and its consequences on her life. I wish her continued recovery and urge her to use this situation to her advantage.

Addiction and recovery need a voice on the national level, and Mrs. McCain has said in the past that, if her husband is elected president, she'll work on addiction-related issues. I sincerely hope that, if there's a McCain victory in November, she sticks by her word. Because this whole brouhaha is just another example of the kind of stigma society still places on addiction.

Why else would it have been brought up by the political opposition? If she had suffered from any other disease, would Democrats have sought to make it front-page fodder? (Granted, the disease of addiction brings with it certain legal and social consequences that cancer, diabetes, etc. do not, but still -- a disease is a disease is a disease.)

For whatever reason, those of us who suffer from addiction still fight the public misperception that we're somehow weak-willed, morally bankrupt individuals who deserve scorn and whatever ill will we bring upon ourselves. Nothing could be further from the truth, and regardless of whether her husband wins the presidency, I hope Mrs. McCain will use her own experiences to help change that thinking and advance recovery efforts on a national level.

Steve Wildsmith is a recovering addict and the Weekend editor for The Daily Times. Contact him at steve.wildsmith@thedailytimes.com or at 981-1144.