There's More Than One Way To Get Sober

Author Katie Herzog examines new approaches to treating addiction, the cultural obsession with moralizing sobriety, and why she believes freedom means choosing how to heal.

1x 1.1x 1.25x 1.5x 2x 3x

:15 :15

Download

There's More Than One Way To Get Sober

HD Video Download

Today's guest is Katie Herzog, co-host of the popular Blocked & Reported podcast and author of the paradigm-shattering new book Drink Your Way Sober. Katie writes about her and other people's experiences with The Sinclair Method—a medication-assisted approach to alcoholism where you use one drug to counter problematic use of another. Her story—and the cutting-edge research and treatment she reports on—upends just about everything we think we know about drug use, recovery, and autonomy.

She talks with Nick Gillespie about naltrexone, the drug that helped her retrain her brain, why Alcoholics Anonymous works for some people but not for others, and how modern medicine is finally catching up to the idea that we should treat adults like adults when it comes to what we put in our bodies.

They also get into the insane cancel culture politics that gave rise to her and Jesse Singal launching the Blocked & Reported podcast in 2020, whether we've passed peak woke, and if conservatives are now simply presiding over their own version of cancel culture.

Previous appearance: Katie Herzog and Jesse Singal on Left-Wing Cancel Culture, June 17, 2020.

The Reason Interview with Nick Gillespie goes deep with the artists, activists, entrepreneurs, policymakers, and visionaries who are making the world a more libertarian—or at least more interesting—place by championing free minds and free markets.

 

0:00—Introduction

1:34—What is the Sinclair Method?

6:59—Herzog's experience with alcoholism

15:50—Sexuality, self-identity, and self-loathing

22:22—Recognizing addiction and the myths of willpower

27:43—Alternatives to Alcoholics Anonymous

35:03—Herzog on differences in weed and alcohol use

38:44—Beta-blockers for overcoming anxiety

43:51—Transgenderism in media and cancel culture

58:29—Tolerance vs. agreement

• Producer: Paul Alexander
• Audio Mixer: Ian Keyser

Comments

[But SkyNet is a Private Company]

The cultural obsession with moralizing sobriety?
Lol

[Kungpowderfinger]

AA provides results, Katie Herzog provided Reason with an interview.

[ricbee]

AA has rescued millions all the others do is provide a mere stopgap to the Road to a Happy Destiny

[Use the Schwartz]

You wanna know why we moralize sobriety?

'Cause junkies are unreliable, narcissistic, liars, thieves, criminals, and general assholes. If you've ever had a junkie in the family you know from experience that they ruin everything they touch.

Maybe it isn't as much "moralizing" as it is recognition of reality?

[Don't look at me! ( Is the war over yet?)]

They can be worse than an untrained dog.

[mad.casual]

Technically, we *can* cut down on the number of drunk drivers killing people by giving more CDLs to illegal immigrants, but that doesn't exactly make drunk people (or illegal immigrants) better drivers.

[LIBtranslator]

Dr Robert DeRopp reported that the category most attracted to the one naturally addictive drug, opium, are those suffering from mental illness. Oddly revealing how User's testimonial here removes all doubt as to which member of its own family is being self-criticized.

[Chumby]

Watching Maddow religiously and regurgitating Dem talking points is not one of those ways to achieve sobriety.*

Based on the experiences of another Maineah.

[Rick James]

Look, I'll never criticize someone for finding a novel way to stop a chemical addiction, but really? Another magical prescription pill to fix humanity? How many are we up to now?

[ricbee]

The USA provides Methadone and Suboxene as a subsistute for other drugs.I hope Trump closes every one of those evil clinics.

[LIBtranslator]

Insulin! Since the time Hitler wrote his Christian National Socialist Elegy, insulin addiction has risen to a catastrophe of major proportions--second only to nefarious physical dependence on sodium chloride.

[Rick James]

Anyone getting the impression that Gillespie has been humbled on the trans issue?

[Rick James]

@58:23 Herzog suggests that everyone just "be fucking normal". She refers to the "Gender critical"* space becoming more extreme and less compassionate. She references J.K. Rowling's earliest liberal criticism of the trans movement with her open letter "dress how you want, just don't force everyone to participate". Unfortunately what Herzog whistles past is the "just don't force everyone to participate". Those words have meaning and they encompass a set of views and more importantly actions that manifest as a method of "pushing back" against being forced to participate. When she refers to the 'figureheads' of the TERF movement, I'm around 390% sure who she's talking about because those are the left-of-center feminists who have occupied a space in my algorithmic feed, and they have been very effective in putting the words "just don't force everyone to participate" into concrete results. While I have nothing against Ms. Herzog, and she seems like a perfectly reasonable person, if she thinks a court ruling recognizing that "biology matters when defining women" was 'going too far', then she's basically the Bill Maher of this whole topic. She has decided that sure, the cuckoo bananas activists went a little far when they decided to try to abolish the nuclear family and other Neo Marxist horseshit, but at the same time, she's shruggingly agreeing that that world might be kind of flat... right? The so-called English TERFS are the only people who have recognized how utterly destructive this movement has been, how misogynistic it is, how homophobic it is, how ghoulish it is in regards to the butchering and sterilization of children, and just how utterly creepy it is when you realize just how far the "sanitization" of sexual perversion has become in an attempt to mainstream things like amputation porn, or grown men getting their kicks breastfeeding infants.

So no, we're not going to say, "Dress how you like, but like, don't force me to participate man" and then we agree to disagree on the last part and let the Queer Marxists have their way.

*FYI, I've got a lot to say about the "gender critical" space. I understand that it's a term that people found useful, but it's like if half a dozen people decided they believed the world is flat, and then after a long protracted fight, everyone decided that the people who believed the world is round got their own special category, everyone nodded along with eye-rolls and statements such as, "okayyy, you have a protected right to believe the world is round... we may not agree with you but we'll defend your right to blah blah blah *hand waves and lol-snorts of dismissal*" and then the people who believed the world is round were called "flat earth critical". No, the people who believe that a man can become a woman are "round earth critical".)

[Rick James]

I also got a kick out of Gillespie's quip, "Yeah man, like can't we just go back to like, the 1930s when they just had "bathrooms"?

As if sex-separated bathrooms are some late-stage Capitalistic artifact of the Reagan era when Jesse Helms decided that we needed to get rid of those single-sex bathrooms and impose a strict Puritan system of bathroom duality.

Couple of observations on that:

1. If he's talking about small businesses, restaurants etc., yes, there often was just a ' bathroom' because the relative cost of putting in a second washroom in the early 20th century, let alone the late 19th century was astronomical. And there are still plenty of places-- especially restaurants in quaint old spaces that still operate this way, and no one bats an eye, or ever did.

2. When the question comes to communal washrooms or changing rooms, like in places of work or factories etc, yes there often was just one bathroom because we still lived in a time when women in the workplace were a relative rarity. But women were increasingly entering the workplace and as such, those early 1st, 2nd etc. wave feminists demanded their own facilities and single-sex spaces. But once society began to swivel its hips and allow the chicks in because that was the way of progress, the sex-segregated spaces began to pop up because women demanded them, and rightly so.

I would suggest that Mr. Gillespie invite a one Mary Harrington to "the pod" and discuss these issues with her. FYI, Ms. Harrington occupies a special place in my feed, so I'm guessing Gillespie will have nothing to do with her. Sure, Gillespie loves to interview the feminists, just not that kind of feminist.

[Sometimes a Great Notion]

1. ...and no one bats an eye, or ever did.

ADA lawsuits say otherwise. link below has added humor filed under: hoisted by own petard.

https://lbpost.com/news/business/small-business/ada-lawsuits-bar-owners-long-beach-counter-suit/

[mad.casual]

As if sex-separated bathrooms are some late-stage Capitalistic artifact of the Reagan era when Jesse Helms decided that we needed to get rid of those single-sex bathrooms and impose a strict Puritan system of bathroom duality.

I would add a 3rd point; there are places in the world where men and women share a bathroom; everyone squats over the same log just upshore from the river. Of course, those are also the same sort of places where an unescorted girl can get raped and wind up owing her rapist's family blood money in lieu of her being hanged for defending herself and her father says "I gave you away in a wedding dress, the only way you can return is in a coffin."... ... ...but enough about the cultural diversity of London.

[NCMB]

Whatever works to break a harmful addiction is good; there is no one size fits all approach.

[mad.casual]

Uh... death breaks everyone's harmful addictions... all of them... always.

[You're Kidding]

The failure of all governmental "answers". It's always the one size fits all approach.

[LIBtranslator]

The Kleptocracy's addiction to the initiation of deadly force as panacea for all ills real and imaginary consistently manages to escape all manner of hand-wringing scrutiny.

[mad.casual]

I'm not the only one questioning as to whether one of the troll-socks (notably more retarded ones) that went by the handle "addictionmyth" (or similar) just got an interview, right?

[mad.casual]

The Science-Based Method to Break Free from Alcohol

For those of you who don't hang around the space; the "science-based" fitness community in-and-around YouTube imploded recently.

So, to be clear, an activity that, for over 50 yrs., has been oriented around meticulously and progressively measuring calories, macronutrient ratios, percent composition, muscle volume, respiratory volume and VO2, workouts per week, reps per workout, pounds per rep, exercises per muscle, insulin levels, testosterone levels, FSH levels, LH levels, IGF-1 levels, etc., etc., etc. by thousands and thousands and thousands of individuals around the world... still doesn't have one, standard "Just do this to reach optimum levels of fitness and health." much beyond "Get off the couch and quit eating like shit." For those who've been around for a while, this isn't the first (failed) "science-based" revolution of the field and much of it, aside from "Get off the couch and quit eating like shit." is simply wallowing in minutiae. People recommend protocols with a 10% increase in results only to be absolutely swamped and crushed by people who got off the couch and quit eating like shit 10% harder, 10% sooner or with 10% more intensity or 5% more intensity and 5% better genetics or whatever.

So, color me a little-bit skeptical when someone proposes an addiction/consumption cure that's the equivalent of "You can stay on the couch about as much and still eat mostly shitty. Just take it at the pace your comfortable with."

Most people know someone who drinks to excess at parties, know someone who is a teetotaller, knows someone who has lost their license, and sees at least a couple addicted degenerates in their community. They aren't moralizing sobriety, they're objectively acknowledging dysfunction and self-(and other-)destruction.

Edit: And, once again, I say this as someone who can smoke a cigar (which is eleventy-billion times as addictive as alcohol) a day for a week, not consume any nicotine again for years and suffer no withdrawal or cravings. I understand addiction is different for everyone. That's the point.

[ricbee]

Alcoholism and doing dope are two very different things

[LIBtranslator]

Right. One is a central nervous system depressant, whereas the other depresses the central nervous system--albeit with less atrophy of bodily dopamine production. Funny how the rise of the manufactured cigarette industry coincided with bought legislation banning the smoking and chewing of all other plants. 'Murrican cigarettes are forming habits all over Central and South America, where SOCOM patrols enforce letters of marque and attainder against all competitors.

[LIBtranslator]

Right. One is a central nervous system depressant, whereas the other depresses the central nervous system--albeit with less atrophy of bodily dopamine production. Funny how the rise of the manufactured cigarette industry coincided with bought legislation banning the smoking and chewing of all other plants. 'Murrican cigarettes are forming habits all over Central and South America, where SOCOM patrols enforce letters of marque and attainder against all competitors.

[LIBtranslator]

Very delightful interview, more because of Nick's skill than any unusually brilliant performance on the part of Katie. Practically all habits not caused by atrophy from opiate use are imaginary. People imagine they are hooked on cigarettes or alcohol because of incessant dinning and social pressure to buy into the belief.