The Passion of Addiction

"The reason we think that people suffer from addiction is because of cravings. A craving is a form of emotional memory - it's a fond memory, but it's a memory that's very strong. But once things around you remind you of your drug use it triggers your cravings and you very much want to use. What we found a few years ago that emotional memories, be they positive or negative, can be turned down or dampened." McGill psychologist Alain Brunet

This is the reasoning of psychologists attempting to establish a remedial protocol for people suffering from post-traumatic stress syndrome, and likening it to an addiction. Both, it is claimed, are driven by powerful memories. And the search for a successful way in which to treat that memory that impels people to set aside reason and succumb to the emotion of craving something irrespective of how harmful it is has McGill university scientists working with habitual-memory minimization.

Cravings and addictions are obvious symptoms of a mind that has succumbed to the powerful draw of a substance that sparks a welcome response, even if the result is completely debilitating, transforming an ordinarily reasonable person into a psychotic, sensual-driven zombie. Anyone who has become addicted to mind-altering drugs and who cannot find it in themselves to shrug off the powerful impulse to indulge even when they are aware on a certain level that they harm themselves and others becomes a threat to society.

Just how much of a threat can be seen in the too-often-repeated scenario of drunk-driving. And what is even worse, repeated drunk-driving offences. When people under the influence of alcohol, incapable of adequately controlling their impulses, let alone the mechanics of driving and being aware of highway safety, choose to combine their drinking habit with driving, they present as a violent danger. Should catastrophe in the form of a single-vehicle accident take the life of a drunk driver their family members would mourn them.

When that inebriated driver, incapable of reasonable decision-making opts to drive and endanger the lives of others and in so doing takes the life of an innocent human being, they have set themselves apart from the pale of the social contract in human interaction. And by their neglectful decision making, they commit the criminal act of vehicular homicide. Such was the case with Christy Natsis, a Pembroke dentist, who caused the death of a 50-year-old father of three.

She was freed on bail awaiting trial and certain provisions were imposed upon her, one of which was that she was not to drive, the other that she would not consume alcohol. She breached her release conditions, and was taken into custody to appear before court when she was found at a Rideau Centre liquor store on Thursday. It can perhaps be concluded that the charge of impaired driving causing death, driving with over 80 milligrams of alcohol and dangerous driving causing death did not comprise a severely traumatic-enough memory to compel her to cease and desist.

Justice of the Peace Ray Switzer has released this woman for a second time; this time on a $12,000 bond. The previous bond posting of $7,000 should now be forfeit. It represents little enough 'punishment' for those who can afford to surrender that sum, as is clearly the case with Ms. Natsis and her husband. Her trial on the original drunk driving charges is anticipated to take place a year from this date, while another court appearance related to this latest breach of recognizance charge will take place a month later.

Society does have a problem with people like Christy Natsis. Her alcohol addiction feeds her inner compulsion which she either cannot or will not discipline. She was the cause of the premature death of another human being, depriving that individual's family of a father, husband, son. Their grief at the loss of someone whom they loved is surely greater than Christy Natsis' need to feed her craving. One might assume her to harbour feelings of guilt at being the cause of the death of Bryan Casey of Ottawa.

Yet if she does, and she should, it is obvious that any guilt, if it is at all present, is insufficient to deter her from her compulsion to accede to her craving for alcohol. As long as she and those like her are free to conduct themselves as they decide they will, with little regard for public safety and their responsibility in exercising free choice as mature adults, society is held ransom to an individual's addiction cravings.

Presumably, she and her husband have sought medical assistance for this addiction. She is obviously incapable of policing herself, and it may be that counselling also has not been successful in dissuading her from continuing to represent as a social menace. What, in the final analysis, to do with conscienceless people like this, short of continued incarceration?

The penalty of notoriety and public censure, coming afoul of the law, the threat of disciplinary action, and the potential for a court finding her guilty of vehicular manslaughter resulting in a criminal sentence and a term in jail may, in the final analysis, force a stop to indulging in the passion of addiction.