RavenMorganLeigh wrote:

Willow wrote:

RavenMorganLeigh wrote:

I'm pretty sure that he was trying to draw out Magnussen with the junkie act-- partly because he kept turning down the morphine thingie in the hospital after he was shot. 

I'm in the US, too-- and we have a punitive attitude to drugs; and as for nicotine, well-- here, it's he Anti-Christ. So, I feel like there are some mixed messages in the series--regarding drugs and cigarettes; we don't seem to get as upset with Greg Lestrade for his drinking and smoking, not Mrs. Hudson for her herbal soothers-- but with Sherlock, an intervention complete with slapping the heck out of him is approved and lauded. It smacks of the American focus on "tough love" for addicts, seeing the addict as victimizer *first*-- and not someone with a disease. It's just an observation-- and I'm actually curious to hear from UK viewers-- what is the attitude towards drug use in the UK? How does it differ from the US? Because the approach the writers are using seems a little...Hollywood. 

And by the way-- Maybe Sherlock should take up Vaping. :-)  Much less offensive to his freinds. I did, and haven't had a cigarette in a year and three months. 

 

 
Our laws are slightly more rational; for example, the NHS website suggests that for some people it is better for them to continue on methadone for years, rather than try to stop using altogether. This would go down like a lead balloon in the US, but here it is the conventional medical viewpoint. I have to say that there is no way in which someone can be forced to provide samples of anything for drug testing here; Moftiss were most definitely taking major liberties with the law. Equally, there would have been no way to obtain a search warrant for Baker St; again, Moftiss were going for dramatic effect rather than any semblance of reality.

It did, however, give John an excuse for getting away from suburbia, so it's not all bad

Getting John back to Sherlock is always a good thing....

We do have some rather draconian laws here in the States; here, where we have prisons for profit-- people go to jail, partly because it's big business. In some states, where there's a three strikes law, you get busted on a drug possion charge 3 times, and you are in federal prison doing hard time. Sherlock is very luck he's a UK citizen. :-)

Another thing I was thinking about-- John couldn't understand why Sherlock wouldn't call him if he thought he was getting close to using again... but I think i can understand. One, look at the reaction he got. Who would want to go through that, particularily if you were in an emotionally vulnerable state? 

Also-- The Mrs. Hudson effect. I can't believe that she wouldn't have been saying, "Oh, don't bother John, dear, he's on his honeymoon, " and " They're expecting, dear--they need time to bond, " and " Marriage changes people, Sherlock, they need time alone..."  That might be why Sherlock didn't reach out to John. 

 
Well, I suppose the simple answer is that it really doesn't help to have John clomping around the place when Sherlock is working on a highly confidential case and is endeavouring to plant a lure to Magnessen, but I certainly agree that John's behaviour is justification enough for Sherlock not telling him anything about it.

John's behaviour was wholly contrary to what, as a doctor, he should have done; the GMC does not look kindly upon doctors who act as doctors to friends and families, for very good reasons; they cannot maintain the psychological distance which is needed.

And they sure as hell don't look kindly on a doctor dragging a friend, or indeed a patient, off to a hospital demanding drug testing, since it's illegal. Very. Just as searching Baker St is illegal. Very.

Doctors are not supposed to be embroiled in assault- which is what happens when a doctor touches someone without their permission- or illegal searches; yet another thing the GMC really don't like.

Coupled with the general medical acceptance that best practise is to maintain the addict on methadone, sometimes for very long periods, John's behaviour is impossible to defend; he has broken every rule in the book.

I don't think that Sherlock actually wanted to reach out to anybody at all; he was working a case and he was wholly focused on how he could help his client, Lady Smallwood. A bit less emotional, I know, but it seems more probable to me

It's not exactly illigal to 'drag' your patient places as long as you don't put your hand on them. It's perfectly acceptable to persuade or some would say coarse them to comply. Does John actually manhandles Sherlock at any point in that scene or just tells him to go with him for a drug test? They wouldn't be able to force a specimen of urine out of him so it looks to me like he actually co-operated for whatever reason. I think John should be more worried about what GMC would have to say about him hitting Sherlock multiple times on his return from being 'dead'. Again though they would get involved only if Shrlock would pass charges and I guess John can be pretty confident that he won't. I don't think that John cares much about GMC and the rules. That's one of the reasons why I like his character so much.

There are ways to force people to have drug tests even in UK. From time to time it's court ordered and often a condition of probation. You don't comply you go straight back to jail. More comonly we force people under MHA sections. You can't be sectioned for use of drug or alcohol alone but if you happen to have dual diagnosis and we think that use of drugs interfers with treatment of another mental health conditions we can impose a drug screen. In extreme it will take form of blood sampling under restraint. Obviously it doesn't apply under the circumstances as Sherlock is neither under court order nor detainable under MHA.

It's opened to debate if maintaining people on methdone (aspecially for ages) really is best practise. It's what we do as this is the sort of outcome that we can hope for with limited resources. If Sherlock only just started dabbing in heroine I doubt anyone would want to start maintaining him on methadone. If there is an element of physiological dependence a quick detox with Subutex would be my best bet.

When I was young and naive I used to think that methadone programs are about trying to get people off drugs. Now I realise that it's all about harm reduction. It reduces crime as people don't need to steal to fund the drug habit. It helps people move away from prostitution as a way of funding the drug habbit. It's a way of engaging people with health service so we can treat their other conditions. It's usefull in many ways but it's not that great at stopping people from taking drugs. Majority of people in methadone programme use heroine on top and have no intention of stopping. Some don't use on top but for one reason or another can't reduce and stop. Plenty of people carry on normal lives, hold jobs etc whilst being on methadone for years and years. Not a perfect outcome but I would say good enough.

 

Last edited by belis (February 10, 2014 8:10 am)

I never trust an addict, no matter what their drug is...

I would love to think that Sherlock did it to make Magnussen think he had him figured out; that he was 'just' an addict and that was it. But I do fear that Sherock got bored and when faced with his old 'enemy' he couldn't stop himself.

 

belis wrote:

Willow wrote:

In London, at any rate, there is a vast distance between people on methadone + heroin, and my neighbours;

You could be surprised.

Stranger things have happened!

But yes, I have no doubt that there are plenty of apparently respectable people holding down decent jobs who are, and may well always will be, addicted to heavy duty opiates; my only reservation is about the sort of drugs likely to appeal to those of us within the Square Mile.

For example, working for 24 hours on a merger, getting two hours sleep and then doing another 24 hours is likely to be pushing the boundaries beyond what any un drugged human being can do, but nevertheless people have to do it, because that is what the job entails. Opiates are not hugely helpful for staying awake and functioning for that length of time, whereas cocaine is seen as helping people function. Alcohol provides a balance point, and champagne is generally thought to get alcohol into the bloodstream very quickly, so, in an environment in which time is devoutly believed to be money, the combo becomes the dominant usage.

That's when they are working, of course; heaven only knows what they do on their days off
 

RavenMorganLeigh wrote:

It's always struck me that here, in the US-- almost EVERYBODY'S addicted to something-- as per US modern perceptions: If you have a glass of wine or a drink every evening, you're a "maintence alcholic", smokers are considered addicts, there's food addiction, internet addiction, relationship addiction, sex addiction, ; we have a very cut and dried , black and white view of it, and we are most often quite punitive in the way we handle it. That attitude in Sherlock makes me sad, because I've always thought of our cousins accross the pond as being far more enlightened and sensible about such things.

That said, I can understand that it was done for dramatic licence. Still doesn't make me love it. 

It's yet another of the dualities that Moftiss love to write; we have John sliding shots into his own and Sherlock's drinks on his stag night, yet going bonkers when he finds Sherlock in the dope den. John's sister is an alcoholic yet John really wants to get drunk on his stag night; he simultaneously recognises that alcohol is a drug yet sets it apart as if it isn't a drug, really.

Fortunately our culture has not yet succumbed to the extent that the US has, possibly because we have the NHS, which everybody pays for, not wishing to use funds on stuff which appears to be designed to ensure that every single person has something wrong with them for which they should have expensive treatment. 




 

Willow wrote:

RavenMorganLeigh wrote:

It's always struck me that here, in the US-- almost EVERYBODY'S addicted to something-- as per US modern perceptions: If you have a glass of wine or a drink every evening, you're a "maintence alcholic", smokers are considered addicts, there's food addiction, internet addiction, relationship addiction, sex addiction, ; we have a very cut and dried , black and white view of it, and we are most often quite punitive in the way we handle it. That attitude in Sherlock makes me sad, because I've always thought of our cousins accross the pond as being far more enlightened and sensible about such things.

That said, I can understand that it was done for dramatic licence. Still doesn't make me love it. 

It's yet another of the dualities that Moftiss love to write; we have John sliding shots into his own and Sherlock's drinks on his stag night, yet going bonkers when he finds Sherlock in the dope den. John's sister is an alcoholic yet John really wants to get drunk on his stag night; he simultaneously recognises that alcohol is a drug yet sets it apart as if it isn't a drug, really.

Fortunately our culture has not yet succumbed to the extent that the US has, possibly because we have the NHS, which everybody pays for, not wishing to use funds on stuff which appears to be designed to ensure that every single person has something wrong with them for which they should have expensive treatment.


 

You do wonder if the Stag Night contributed to Sherlock's fall off the wagon...and if John felt so strongly about Sherlock staying off drugs, and about Harry, it was pretty irresponsible or hypocritical to get Sherlock drunk. 

The author of the Decoding the Subtext blog reviewed the Russian series and pointed out that that series eliminated the cocaine issue..that western media takes addiction too much for granted. 

But in the case of Sherlock Holmes and drugs, we can't really blame modern western media: since he uses cocaine and opium in canon. Now, in canon, it doesn't seem at all like he's addicted to cocaine or opium per se; he can very easily set them aside when he has a case, and they appear to be a last resort. The Johnlockers speculate that missing Watson and/or thinking he can't have Watson the way he wants contributes.

And though Watson is concerned about the drugs screwing up Holmes' abilities, we never see that happen (unless you choose to interpret it from one of the weirder stories).

Those of you that feel like he's "off his game" in this season might attribute it to the drugs.

CAM said he didn't feel he could use Sherlock's drug use as a pressure point. In the US, drug use is a big thing people get arrested for. So either that's not the case in the UK, or Scotland Yard would look the other way because Sherlock Holmes' assistance was more important to them than enforcing drug laws? I would worry, though, about criminals pressuring Sherlock in another way: not threatening to expose his habit publicly, but offering to trade drugs, which he wanted, for favors or for going easy on them.

RavenMorgan and Willow: not to be argumenative, but it seems like your two comments about the US were a little contradictory: "everyone's addicted to something," kind of implies it's culturally acceptable, but you also said, "we're punative about it." Certainly the LAW treats alcohol differently from some other substances, right or wrong.
 

SherlocklivesinOH wrote:

Willow wrote:

RavenMorganLeigh wrote:

It's always struck me that here, in the US-- almost EVERYBODY'S addicted to something-- as per US modern perceptions: If you have a glass of wine or a drink every evening, you're a "maintence alcholic", smokers are considered addicts, there's food addiction, internet addiction, relationship addiction, sex addiction, ; we have a very cut and dried , black and white view of it, and we are most often quite punitive in the way we handle it. That attitude in Sherlock makes me sad, because I've always thought of our cousins accross the pond as being far more enlightened and sensible about such things.

That said, I can understand that it was done for dramatic licence. Still doesn't make me love it. 

It's yet another of the dualities that Moftiss love to write; we have John sliding shots into his own and Sherlock's drinks on his stag night, yet going bonkers when he finds Sherlock in the dope den. John's sister is an alcoholic yet John really wants to get drunk on his stag night; he simultaneously recognises that alcohol is a drug yet sets it apart as if it isn't a drug, really.

Fortunately our culture has not yet succumbed to the extent that the US has, possibly because we have the NHS, which everybody pays for, not wishing to use funds on stuff which appears to be designed to ensure that every single person has something wrong with them for which they should have expensive treatment.


 

You do wonder if the Stag Night contributed to Sherlock's fall off the wagon...and if John felt so strongly about Sherlock staying off drugs, and about Harry, it was pretty irresponsible or hypocritical to get Sherlock drunk. 

The author of the Decoding the Subtext blog reviewed the Russian series and pointed out that that series eliminated the cocaine issue..that western media takes addiction too much for granted. 

But in the case of Sherlock Holmes and drugs, we can't really blame modern western media: since he uses cocaine and opium in canon. Now, in canon, it doesn't seem at all like he's addicted to cocaine or opium per se; he can very easily set them aside when he has a case, and they appear to be a last resort. The Johnlockers speculate that missing Watson and/or thinking he can't have Watson the way he wants contributes.

And though Watson is concerned about the drugs screwing up Holmes' abilities, we never see that happen (unless you choose to interpret it from one of the weirder stories).

Those of you that feel like he's "off his game" in this season might attribute it to the drugs.

CAM said he didn't feel he could use Sherlock's drug use as a pressure point. In the US, drug use is a big thing people get arrested for. So either that's not the case in the UK, or Scotland Yard would look the other way because Sherlock Holmes' assistance was more important to them than enforcing drug laws? I would worry, though, about criminals pressuring Sherlock in another way: not threatening to expose his habit publicly, but offering to trade drugs, which he wanted, for favors or for going easy on them.

RavenMorgan and Willow: not to be argumenative, but it seems like your two comments about the US were a little contradictory: "everyone's addicted to something," kind of implies it's culturally acceptable, but you also said, "we're punative about it." Certainly the LAW treats alcohol differently from some other substances, right or wrong.
 

Being addicted to one or more drugs is not a criminal offence in England; there are specific criminal offences of possession of various drugs, and more punitive ones for dealing in various drugs, but being high as a kite is not illegal in itself. We do have a less punitive attitude; as Belis has noted, apparently respectable people with responsible jobs may well be on a long term programme where drugs like methadone are prescribed to be used instead of illegally acquired heroin. So we have some way to go before we succumb to the hysteria of the War on Drugs, but our system is not without problems. It does mean, however, that the police are a great deal more interested in criminal behaviour collateral to drug use, rather than people being addicted.

You raise an interesting point about whether the booze up might have kick started Sherlock's drug use; I don't think it did. The fundamental flaw in believing that Sherlock was on drugs and hiding it is that Sherlock wouldn't  see why he should hide it; he is indifferent to the opinions of people less clever than him, and in his view that includes everyone but Mycroft, and, possibly, his mother. Besides, Sherlock is much too vain, in a rather sweet way, to go the crack house route; he is not a guy who can tolerate all those smelly unwashed bodies and nasty clothes.

Obviously he has remarkable olfactory powers; remember Sherlock warning Janine about the guy using two brands of ultra strong deodorant at the wedding? And his lengthy screed about identifying gazillions of perfumes? Which turned out to be a major plot point in HLV. And then there's his masterpiece on ash; which led to a beautiful line in the stag night

I really cannot see him being able to live with dirty people and crappy, and, possibly, flea ridden clothing; for any lengthy time.

I think that the apparently ever growing list of alleged mental disorders in the US has a great deal to do with the desire of big pharma to find diseases for cures, rather than the other way around; it is less likely to happen here because funding is different.

I'm sorry I haven't tackled all of your post but it's quite late over here and I need to get some sleep for a busy day tomorrow. I hope to follow up on it, and if you want, your further thoughts, sometime tomorrow


 

That's the thing about nicotine.
Boys and girls, don't do it.
That includes you, Benedict.

josabby wrote:

Sherlock seems to be able to turn on and off his drug use quite easily.  He never shows even a hankering for coccaine once he's done with his under cover work.  Cigarettes are a different story altogether where Sherlock is concerned. He seems to want those a lot more when he's bored.

This is very much the case in canon. There is no doubt he would rather have brainwork than drugs, and the drugs seem to be a last resort when he has nothing else to do. I would say there's an addiction there, but it's not cocaine, per se.

In the canonical story where Watson finds him in the opium den, it does seem to be part of a case - he's tracking someone or looking for them. (Married Watson returns with Holmes to the new client's home, where the spend the night in the same room.)

Interestingly, in canon, the drugs provide a point for conflict between Holmes and Watson - they are the one thing Watson really takes a stand about, with Holmes (well, that and the health effects of overwork), even though the harmfulness of cocaine was not well-recognized in that era. Watson is afraid Holmes will ruin his mental prowess...but I don't think we ever that happen...unless we want to infer it from some of the odder cases or ones where he's not doing as well. Watson's attitude is clearly motivated by friendship if not love, and it's implied Holmes less prone to both drug use and depression in later stories. Johnlockers like to say this is because he's happily married.

The Seven Percent Solution makes it more of an addiction - and deals with taking him to Freud to cure him. He goes over the edge when Watson gets married and he's left alone.

In this series, it seems weird that someone who is on the outs with his sister because she drinks too much would get himself and his friend (who is also his "charge" in a sense) drunk.

Last edited by SherlocklivesinOH (February 24, 2014 4:11 am)

besleybean wrote:

Juat another example of an aspect of humanity that makes me despair...
Alcohol, the silent killer.

And sometimes a very loud killer; my daughter, when she isn't at her current hospital,  lives in a small town in Medway which is utterly idyllic, apart from the fact that it's the alcohol destination of choice for people from even smaller towns. It gets very, very loud and the number of people who end up in fights or accidentally injure themselves is scarily high...