Addiction is not an excuse

James Pacenza says his problems began after a dramatic and trying stint in Vietnam in 1969. That was not the year of love for Pacenza. Instead, allegedly suffering from post traumatic disorder, the Vietnam veteran came home and found solace in Internet chat rooms.

However, he alleges that, eventually, the stress of a being a vet led him to an a sex addiction and that led to an addiction to Internet adult chat rooms.

Why is all this important? Because Pacenza was recently fired from IBM for visiting these types of chat rooms during company hours. Pacenza's lawyer is blaming the sex addiction (due to the trauma of war) on Pacenza's use of the chat rooms; Pacenza's lawyer also alleges that the termination of his client has little to do with the charges and more to do with the man's age (Pacenza is 58 now, he was caught in the chat rooms at 55-years-of-age, after 19 years of employment with IBM. He would have been eligible for retirement at 56).

OK-- that's the run down.
Now, here's my take.

Listen, there are companies that consistently abuse the labour laws and skirt morality. Companies like Wal-Mart are known for bending the rules (hiring part-timers to work full time hours so they don't have to pay benefits; terminating employees before they reach retirement age, etc. etc.) -- IBM is not one of these companies.

That said, I want to also profer a little opinion on this notion of addiction, trauma and responsiblity.

First: addiction exists. It manifests in all forms and destroys the life of the sufferer and the lives touched by the sufferer.

Second: trauma CAN lead to addiction -- but is not a prerequisite.

Third: the only way out of addiction is to take responsibility.

Pacenza may truly be a sex addict. He may truly feel a compulsion and an obsession that drives him to seek out the fulfillment of that desire. This desire is far different than the love or lust one feels when attraction occurs. Rather, it a compulsive need to reduce angst and abate fears.

Saying this, however, I cannot be sympathetic for Pacenza. I do feel for him in terms of the devestation his addiction has wrought on his life. However, to legally hold the employer responsible for one's own disease is limited at best (in this circumstance -- there are MANY occasions where an employer IS responsible for the health of a worker). I say this, because, our society is very well versed on addiction of all sorts. Alcoholism, drug addiction and gambling problems dominate the debate, but other forms of this disease (and it is a disease) do seep through in media reports. As such, Pacenza would have access to information that would allow him to seek help. Now, my guess, having worked in large corporations before, is that IBM has a rather comprehensive program to deal with addictions. As such, Pacenza has access to the help.

Herein lies the difficulty. See, addiction is marked by a person's denial of the problem. Why would Pacenza ADMIT to himself or anyone else he has a problem, IF the disease has not yet cost him. Now, put an addict in a position where they must come face to face with their disease...and THEN they wake up. This is what happened to Pacenza. He lost his job due to his addiction and NOW he is willing to admit he has a problem. In otherwords, if he had not have lost his job (due to his own actions) he would not be seeking help.

So, the first step in responsibility requires that a person admit and accept that a situation exists. Only through honest appraisal can one come to terms with the enormity and the powerlessness that exists in the addictive state. Unfortunately, this admittance often comes only from major upsets.

Pacenza is an addict. A true addict. He acts to quell feelings he dislikes. He acts externally to change his internal state. Then, when caught in his own web, he cries foul and denies his own responsibility for his actions.

I empathize with Pacenza. I do not agree. I think the termination of his employment was a blessing. For if he truly is an addict, the admission of a problem is the first step.