State Rep. Dan Saddler, a Republican from Eagle River, indicated that heroin addicts and the Alaska Legislature face similar problems and it is time that they both face the problems head on instead of avoiding them with a needle or a bottle of alcohol. This is how he justifies cutting funds for recovery programs, implying that addicts need to "face the difficult choices and to make difficult choices." His argument is many things: uninformed, damaging, hurtful -- and that doesn't include the logical fallacies embedded in his perspective. Perhaps it could be best summarized as a fundamental attribution error.
A fundamental attribution error occurs when we exaggerate a person's behaviors as strictly conscious individual choices, rather than appreciate that there are always many different factors influencing every action we take. We are particularly susceptible to attribution errors when we are evaluating groups that we are familiar with (usually they get a pass) and groups we are unfamiliar with (they usually get heaps of blame). Attribution errors are common and have some useful qualities. They help us maintain a sense of self-esteem and confidence in our way of thinking and behaving. They also can be protective and keep us from being taken advantage of by outsiders.
However, when our elected officials are relying on attribution errors to make and justify policy decisions, they become dangerous. Rep. Saddler seems to believe that addicts ought to face up to the realities of their drug use and decide to not be addicted any more. We know that making a choice to change and taking action toward change is an essential step toward recovery. We also know that when that person chooses to take that first step, they are lucky to get on a waiting list for one of the 14 detox beds in Anchorage. Unfortunately, for the many Alaskans suffering with addiction, when they do make that choice, their representatives have elected to cut vital and necessary funding for organizations supporting their efforts.
In this case, Rep. Saddler appears to believe that life as a legislator in Alaska is as hard as life as a heroin addict. He is welcome to his self-fulfilling belief of the trials and tribulations of public service. However, it is reprehensible to say that some of our most vulnerable citizens need to make the tough choices and not use drugs and alcohol to solve their problems, and in the same breath justify cutting funding for treatment programs. The unfortunate consequences for not having effective treatment available can include increased costs for health care, law enforcement, prosecution, incarceration, foster care and many other reactive services that taxpayers will fund eventually.
Fundamental attribution errors run rampant in this day and age. As we ramp up to the presidential election cycle, it is getting even more polarizing and hostile. Arguments are debased and people are dehumanized solely because they are associated with a particular cause or candidate. Another example: In the last 18 months, we have become exceedingly aware of police-involved shootings, sparking movements such as Black Lives Matter. In the circus that is social media, quickly a counter-movement was established promoting the safety of police and law enforcement, i.e., Blue Lives Matter. It seems as though there is a belief that if one believes that black lives matter, then they must not believe that blue lives matter, and vice versa. In reality, I suspect the vast majority of Americans would agree with me that black lives and blue lives matter very much and these beliefs are not mutually exclusive.
It is entirely likely that Rep. Saddler believes that he is doing what is best for Alaskans. It is also likely that he harbors the common belief that addiction is a conscious choice, and that heroin addicts must love the drug itself more than their families, friends, jobs, etc. When attribution errors such as these go unchecked in our personal lives, that is one thing. When they are driving policy decisions, it is another entirely.
Not only is this type of ill-informed legislation dangerous, but by reducing the funding for treatment in Alaska we will be footing the bill for other services in the future. Today's solutions can be tomorrow's problems.
Chris Cavanaugh is a doctoral student in the University of Alaska's clinical-community psychology program, with a rural and indigenous emphasis.
The views expressed here are the writer's own and are not necessarily endorsed by Alaska Dispatch News, which welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, email commentary@alaskadispatch.com. Send submissions shorter than 200 words to letters@alaskadispatch.com or click here to submit via any Web browser.