Deconstructing Intoxtication Culture: Supporting Non-Normative Substance Users at the Allied Media Conference in Detroit

Conference: Allied Media Conference (AMC)

Workshop title: Deconstructing Intoxtication Culture – Supporting Non-Normative Substance Users

Presenters: from the margins AKA Clementine Morrigan and geoff

When: Friday, June 17, 2016 from 4 to 530 PM

Where: Wayne State University, State Hall: Room 123, 42 W Warren Ave, Detroit, MI

Workshop description: Most community spaces cater to social drinkers and people who can drink in a fun, moderate, and controlled way. Sober people, addicts, drug users, and a number of others, fall outside of this definition, and are often explicitly or subtly unwelcome in drinking-centric spaces. In this workshop we will create spaces and events for those of us who fall outside of the label ‘social drinker’, while recognizing that we have different access needs.

Additional info: This workshop will be interactive and encourage participation from attendees. The presenters will have the zine series “make all good things fall apart” available to purchase and also information about the submission call out for the upcoming zine “Sober Queers Do Exist”.

Sober Queers Do Exist – Zine Callout

Sober Queers Do Exist: Sober Queer and Trans People On How They Got Sober and Stay Sober

Facebook Event Page: Sober Queers Do Exist – Zine Callout

This zine will centre the voices of people that have experiences with addiction, alcoholism, and/or self-defined substance misuse, but will also accept submissions from people who identify as straight edge, or who are sober for political, health, religious or personal reasons. This zine will accept submissions from people with long term sobriety, people who are new to sobriety, and people trying to get sober.

This zine will not moralize sobriety, shame substance use, or contribute to a hierarchy of drug use. We value and respect the substance users in our communities. We recognize that relationships to substance use are diverse and complex and we do not believe there is a right way or wrong way to relate to substance use.

This zine will create a space for queer and trans sober people to share their stories. Sharing our experiences about getting and staying sober is a way to build community, and let others getting sober know they are not alone.

We are seeking submissions in a variety of formats, including personal reflections, stories, poetry, short essays, and prose. Submissions should be no more than 550 words, including title, short bio, and website or contact info if applicable. Please send submissions to < soberqueersdoexist@gmail.com > by July 15 2016. This zine will be edited and compiled by @clementinemorrigan and geoff AKA @livingnotexistingblog. Please feel free to get in touch with the editors at the above email if you have any questions. Each contributor will receive a free copy of the zine.

Feel free to write about anything related to your experience of sobriety. If you need a place to start writing, here are some prompts to consider:

What has been the hardest thing about maintaining your sobriety, and how do you cope with this?

How did you get sober?

What do you love about sobriety?

What’s it like getting or being sober as a queer and/or trans person?

Share a memorable story about your experience of sobriety.

Why did you decide to get sober?

for sure

historically, the consequences of my drug use included but should not be limited to:

harm to others including family, loved ones, friends, acquaintances and people i’ve only met a couple of times.

conflict with the law.

being institutionalized against my will.

phyical, emotional, spiritual and psychological harm to myself.

i didn’t just use drugs to get by and cope with certain moments. i used drugs to get by and cope with life in its entirety. i used to be able to wake up, to go to sleep, when i was anxious, when i was sad, when i was angry, when life was amazing, when life was alright, when i was hungry, when i hated everything, when i wanted to destroy myself. i used drugs every moment i could.

lots, like lots of other people do not use drugs to cope these ways. and lots, like lots of other people do not face these same consequences because of their alcohol and other drug use. so when i say that i am an addict and have a history of drug addiction, i mean it. and just because i am sober addict today doesn’t absolve the risks i would take at potential causing harm to others or myself. when i say i am sober, i am saying that i do not wish to cause harm to myself or to others. i am saying that i am want to love myself and others, that i want to treat myself with respect and do the same to you. lots of people in my life today have not seen me use alcohol or other drugs and very few have. i’m still not perfect and still make mistakes. the difference today is that i would want to take responsibility and accountability for my mistakes and make it right when i can. before i just wouldn’t care. sobriety is a benefit in my marginal experience because i could lose it in an instant if i pick up. so when i say i am a sober addict in recovery, it means that i am still an addict.

clarifying some of the different cultural understandings of “sober” and not using alcohol and other drugs

*this pieces is in make all good things fall apart #3 by clementine morrigan and myself. it is available to order of the from the margins catalog.

there are different contemporary cultural understandings of “sober”, “addiction” and not using alcohol and other drugs. addiction is not a metaphor, it is the realest shit in my life. it’s not appropriate for people that do not have experience with heroin use to use the word junkie. it’s not appropriate for non-addicts to describe their experiences through the language of addiction. the conditions and consequences are not the same. addiction is primarily understood as a “disease”. i believe that this understanding of addiction leaves out complexity. this understanding of addiction as a disease legitimizes and prioritizes medical intervention of it. addiction is not just a medical matter. it is a social, political, psychological and spiritual phenomenon.

i am not a spokesperson for any 12-step fellowship but in a 12-step context, like alcoholics anonymous (AA), cocaine anonymous (CA) and narcotics anonymous (NA), “sober” is understood as abstinence from all drugs not just alcohol. the use of “sober” to describe abstinence is more common in AA than NA. coffee, tea and tobacco use is commonly used in 12-step circles. medication prescribed by a doctor and taken as instructed is considered appropriate. it is suggested that a person using prescribed medication is honest about their history of substance use with their doctor and themselves. i use sober to describe my recovery, it is a 12-step understanding. in NA, “clean” is used more often to describe abstinence. i used to use “clean” to describe my recovery but now refrain from using the word and opt for “sober” instead. a friend of mine provided some feedback to me and pointed out the long moralized history of “clean” & “dirty” dichotomy.

in popular culture, “sober” is more often understood as only not drinking alcohol. “sober” is also used to refer to a person that is not intoxicated, like a “sober mind”. a “sober mind” has a moralizing history as well. being sober within this context is highly valuable, virtuous and considered to having a “better than thou” attitude. personally, i have heard “sober” used to describe abstaining from a particular drug other than alcohol but this is rare.

“dry” is also used to describe spaces that do not serve alcohol or where alcohol is not allowed to be present. more often, i have noticed that “dry” is used to refer to spaces that don’t involve drinking in the anarchist, punk and DIY spaces. to me this has a negative connotation. in 12-step recovery spaces, alcoholics that are not practicing spiritual principles and just not drinking are referred to as “dry drunks”. a “dry drunk” is a person that is sober but still angry, bitter, resentful and characterized as living a non-spiritual life. the idea is that they are an alcoholic that is quite unhappy while being sober and pretty much might as well be drinking. “dry” alludes to a drink or the drunk being empty, void and nothing. my recovery and sobriety are not dry rather they are full with gratitude, life and spirituality. this is why i prefer to refer to spaces that do not involve drinking as sober spaces.

straight edge culture in hardcore and punk music also values not using alcohol and other drugs. sometimes straight edge culture also promotes not having promiscuous sex. this culture has a long history of being moralizing suggesting that if you’re not straight edge and not using substances then you’re a bad person. i have also heard about straight edge people assaulting and beating up on people that are smoking cigarettes, drinking or using other drugs at shows. the moralizing of not using alcohol and other drugs within straight edge culture is wrapped up in white supremacy and misogyny. although i love hardcore music and am sober, straight edge culture hasn’t really appealed to me as much because of this. this is not to say that all straightedge people are assholes rather it is important to highlight a part of the history of this cultural movement. i do have friends that are addicts in recovery, straight edge and equip themselves with PMA (positive mental attitude). there is a “queeredge” sub-culture creeping up and this appeals to me more because it works to make space for queer, trans, women and racialized people more visible in the hardcore music scenes.

i do not wish to moralize my sobriety. i have a strong affinity with addicts and alcoholics whether using or not before people that choose sobriety or to not use alcohol and other drugs. there are also people that do not drink or use other drugs for their own reasons. i really wish to change to culture of sobriety within understandings of addictions and substance use. i want people to know that whether an addict or an alcoholic is using or not, that they are worth it.

Whose Drug War – Who Is the Legalization of Marijuana Really For?

Pour traduction français par CÂLINS, PAVÉS, PAILLETTES, l’article est disponible ici:

Pour qui est vraiment la guerre à la drogue – pour qui est vraiment la légalisation de la marijuana?

Who is the legalization of marijuana for? There will be less criminal and legal penalties for weed smokers, but will this be delivered equitably? There should be less violence occurring too, but who will experience less violence? The movement for the legalization of marijuana in America and Canada is racist: it allows white privileged people to profit off of an industry and economy that Black, brown and Indigenous people have been violently criminalized for over the last century.

Currently, in the United States, medical and recreational marijuana use is legal in Alaska, Colorado, Oregon and Washington. Laws regulating marijuana differ from Canada and the United States. Even in the United States, there is different legislation and regulation among states. Legislation determines if a drug is legal or illegal. Criminalization involves criminal penalties when drug laws are broken while decriminalization involves reducing or eliminating criminal penalties for drug related offences. Legalization and regulation involves regulating the production, cultivation, transportation, sale and taxation of a drug.

The CBC documents that in Vancouver, Canada there is a continuing growth to the already 93 medical marijuana dispensaries (np). The city had proposed legislation for the regulation of these shops. In Vancouver, public recreational marijuana use is tolerable. The Georgia Straight, writes that Vancouver has passed legislation for regulating medical marijuana dispensaries (np). Further they report that new rules include “dispensaries must not stand within 300 metres of a school or community centre, minors are not allowed inside the stores, and shops must comply with all relevant building, zoning, license, and development bylaws” (np). Licensing fees for dispensaries is about $30,000. Vancouver has started to enforce this new legislation in a relatively calm and orderly way.

Marc Emery AKA the “Prince of Pot” and his partner Jodie Emery continue to champion the advocacy work for the legalization of marijuana in Vancouver and across Canada. This advocacy is undeniably overrepresented with white faces while disproportionately Black, brown and Indigenous bodies are criminalized and face the gravest consequences due to the illegality of drugs. Yet, what often gets neglected in the discussion of legalizing marijuana is that this shift is occurring within a context of capitalism, ongoing colonization, white supremacy, the prison industrial complex and intoxication culture.

Weed is starting to have a social value. It’s considered healing and has medical properties supported with strong scientific evidence. Most importantly, weed is highly profitable. It’s cheap to produce and it’s taxable for the government. Unlike marijuana, other drugs like crack, MDMA or heroin are considered to have no social value because there is little scientific evidence to support it having a medical use and thus not having economic benefit. Heroin is completely illegal while prescription opiates like oxycotin and fentanyl are regulated for medical use. In Canada, Indigenous people are disproportionally criminalized and incarcerated for their opiate sales while in the US, Black and brown people face increased criminalization and incarceration. Oxys and fentanyl are produced and distributed by pharmaceutical companies, prescribed by doctors and sold at pharmacies. The Sackler family was listed in Forbes’ 2015 list of the richest families in the United States (np). The (white) family made its fortune with their pharmaceutical company Purdue Pharma and sale of Oxycodone. The sale of drugs by Black, brown and Indigenous people is considered to be morally wrong while the sale of drugs by white people is considered a respectable profession. So drugs continue to be profitable, but for who?

Already there exists “street economies” where people profit from the sale of weed through street level dealing. These are people making a living and getting by selling drugs (I am really not thinking about the main drug suppliers on top). This work is done with risks: getting robbed or ripped off, the constant threat of going to jail and the threat of violence by either the police or other dealers. White people do participate in this underground “street economy” of drug dealing but Black, brown and Indigenous are racially profiled and targeted by police officers because they are considered to be violent threats. White people have the privilege of not constantly being profiled and don’t have to worry about the consequences police violence as much as people of colour.

Already this industry exists, yet who will profit from the legalization of marijuana? Who will profit and not have to risk much, or anything at all? Will street level dealers have the capital startup or investors to set up and sell weed legally? Maybe but not likely. Will they be able to gain employment in this “new” industry with criminal records? Will their knowledge, experience and skill be valued or dismissed? Will addicts have equal and equitable opportunity to get employed in these shops? Will Black and brown people be released from prisons in the US? Will Black and Indigenous people be released from prisons in Canada, given pardons for their marijuana related offenses and given proper education and employment to survive and thrive? I wish. So please think again, who is the legalization of marijuana for?

The legalization of marijuana is dependent on regulation and support from the government. This shift from illegal to legally regulated economies will stifle the invisible markets and unemploy the unemployable. The “drug war” has a complex history made up of several separate wars around the world all rooted in imperialism, colonialism, xenophobia and racism. Alcohol was used just like germs and guns intended to commit genocide against Indigenous people on Turtle Island, popularly known as North America. Crack use exploded in low-income neighborhoods of New York during the 1980s, resulting in increased violence among black communities. Alcohol and crack were used as biochemical weapons to disavow black and Indigenous people. The United States Sentencing Commission reported that Black men were more likely to receive long prison sentences for drug trafficking offences than white people (24). The Sentencing Project comments on the racial disparity in the United States writing “More than 60% of the people in prison are now racial and ethnic minorities. For Black males in their thirties, 1 in every 10 is in prison or jail on any given day. These trends have been intensified by the disproportionate impact of the “war on drugs,” in which two-thirds of all persons in prison for drug offenses are people of color” (np). These statistics illustrate that the “drug war” continues to disproportionately disenfranchise Black and brown people in the United States. White people benefit when racialized people are incarcerated because it allows them to continue to exercise there liberties and rights.

In his novel Chasing the Scream: The First and Last Days of the War On Drugs, Johann Hari outlines the historically racialized beginnings of the drug war. Yet conveniently (because he is white), neglects to actually call the drug war what it is: racist. The war on drugs in America was started as a racist war against Black drug users in a context of racism and segregation specific to its time. If the war on drugs is a colonial, racist and class based war, then it would require anti-colonial, anti-racist and anti-capitalist action. The ideological focus for legalization of marijuana should be shifted from “legalization for all” to considering “legalization for who?”

Advocacy work to legalize and regulate weed serves the status quo: white, able-bodied, middle-class/upper middle-class/wealthy, non-addicted and non-criminal citizens. The legalization of marijuana will have a significant impact on many people but not all will benefit from this legislation. The needs and interests of the most marginalized will continue to be overlooked. What about the decriminalization of cocaine, crystal meth and heroin? How come this is not being proposed alongside the legalization of marijuana movement? Who will have the “right” and “liberty” to smoke weed without fear of repercussions? Will this legislation be a privilege that only some will be able to enjoy?

Since advocacy work for the legalization of marijuana is led by white faces, representing the status quo, then arguably, the decriminalization of all illegal drugs is more favourable to those most marginalized by legislation that makes weed illegal or legal. In the zine, Towards A Less Fucked Up World: Sobriety and the Anarchist Struggle, Nikita Riotfag defines intoxication culture as “a set of institutions, behaviours, and mindsets centered around consumption of drugs and alcohol”. Within Western intoxication culture, most people drink alcohol. Most people have at least smoked weed and at least understand it as culturally tolerable. Heroin, crack and coke, not so much. Decriminalization of all illegal substances would make sure addicts, drug users and street workers including hustlers and sex workers could use with reduced fears of repercussions.

Is the legalization of marijuana about liberty and rights or about social justice? Rights and liberties are granted to citizens and those considered to have social value. Those considered disposable and marginalized face the most violent and grave consequences because of the criminalization of drug use.

Drug addicts, disabled and substance users must have their needs centered. Black, brown and Indigenous people must have their needs centered. Trans and gender non-conforming people must have their needs centered. Sex workers and street level dealers must have their needs centered. Drug use is profitable whether its illegal or not, it just depends who is profiting. The legalization of marijuana is for the liberties of white people, not those of us who face the gravest consequences targeted by the drug war.

Bibliography

Baluja, Tamara. “93 marijuana dispensaries in Vancouver identified by CBC.” CBC. May 1, 2015. Web. < http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/multimedia/93-marijuana-dispensaries-in-vancouver-identified-by-cbc-1.3058501&gt;.

Lupick, Travis. “City of Vancouver begins crackdown on marijuana dispensaries selling edibles or allowing smoking on site.” Georgia Straight. July 24, 2015. Web. <http://www.straight.com/news/496036/city-vancouver-begins-crackdown-marijuana-dispensaries-selling-edibles-or-allowing&gt;.

Morrell, Alex. “The OxyCotin Clan: The $14 Billion Newcomer to Forbes 2015 List of Richest U.S. Families.” Forbes. July 1, 2015. Web. < http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexmorrell/2015/07/01/the-oxycontin-clan-the-14-billion-newcomer-to-forbes-2015-list-of-richest-u-s-families/ >.

Riotfag, Nikita. Towards A Less Fucked Up World: Sobriety and Anarchist Struggle. Self-published, 2010. Zine.

The Sentencing Project. “Racial Disparity.” The Sentencing Project- Research and Advocacy For Reform. Accessed on August 31, 2015. Web. < http://www.sentencingproject.org/template/page.cfm?id=122 >.

United States Sentencing Commission. “Demographic Differences in Sentencing.” Report on the Continuing Impacts of United States v. Booker on Federal Sentencing. 2012. Web. < http://www.ussc.gov/news/congressional-testimony-and-reports/booker-reports/report-continuing-impact-united-states-v-booker-federal-sentencing >

 

it’s complicated and not that simple

i do not wish to moralize my sobriety. i do not think that substance use makes a person bad or that sobriety makes a person good. it seems as though that the mere mention of sober spaces threatens peoples’ choices to use alcohol and drugs. i realize that these choices are quite personal. this sense of being threatened could possibly be related to histories of sobriety being moralized including the temperance movement, misogynist and white supremacist straight edge culture and forced sobriety from institutionalization. i am less concerned about the different reasons of why people use or don’t, rather the consequences of these actions.

the creation of safe(r) spaces involves the exclusion of a certain person, group or population. for example, a people of colour only space would exclude white people from the space. a queer only space would not allow non-queer people to attend the space. following this logic, an exclusively sober space may exclude people that are using substances. the creation of sober spaces is a disability justice issue that primarily supports the accessibility needs of sober people.

i have noticed that on the margins of intoxication culture, there are several groups of people that are considered non-normative substance users. among non-normative substance users there are people that practice abstinence (understood as sobriety), individuals that may be abstaining from one substance but not others and people that are in active addiction not wishing to change their substance use. following the idea that the preferred type of substance use is alcohol in a fun yet controlled way, moderation not excess is preferred. chronic and compulsive substance use and not using are both considered to not fit this standard of use. a person may identify as addict or may just relate to being addicted to a specific substance. a person may relate to having “problematic substance use” or may have difficulties controlling their substance use at a particular time. a person may identify either as a sober addict in recovery, a sober addict, an addict in recovery, an addict in active addiction or an addict that is addicted to a specific substance. a person may practice sobriety or a person may practice harm-reduction. there are different benefits and consequences to these actions. each person’s relationship to substances is different and should not be limited to the examples mentioned previously.

these groups of non-normative substance users are marginalized by intoxication culture in different ways. too often these groups are lumped together as requiring the same access needs instead of different access needs. even within 12-step spaces (like alcoholics anonymous and narcotics anonymous), people with long term sobriety and people new to sobriety may have different needs. the homogenization and conflation of all non-normative substance users requiring the same access needs creates tensions between these groups and is not helpful to any of them. for example, sober spaces support the access needs of sober people. another example would be that a bar is accessible for a person that feels they need to drink alcohol. a bar may not support access needs for a sober person or a person that is smoking crack.

accessibility should not simply be thought of in terms of linear logic. accessibility can never be 100%, that is perfection. i have noticed sometimes community organizers strive to meet the accessibility needs of all people. in this way, accessibility is understood as an ideal. sometimes this is impossible and that’s okay. if you are planning on organizing an event, please consider the following questions:

how do you balance the accessibility needs for people that require scent-free spaces while also hosting a space where people may be smoking cigarettes?

how to you hold a space to support the accessibility needs of sober people and people that need to use? do you designate a specific sober area of the event and a drinking/drug using area of the event? could the smell of alcohol and weed potential trigger someone?

how many sober events do you see or attend in your area? how many events do you see or attend that involve drinking and substance use?

there are so many questions to consider and ask. please continue to think about them.

make all good things fall apart: zine launch and community discussion on addiction, intoxication culture and sober spaces in halifax, nova scotia

facebook event page < make all good things fall apart: zine launch and community discussion on addiction, intoxication culture and sober spaces >

clementine morrigan and geoff featured in broken pencil’s “10 in 2015”

clementine morrigan and i (along with a bunch of other rad peeps) were featured in broken pencil‘s “10 in 2015” for their 67th issue for our collaborative project from the margins.

you can order the current issue of broken pencil’s magazine off of their website:

http://www.brokenpencil.com/issues/current-issue

from the margins participating in roberts street social centre residency in may !!!

clementine morrigan and i, as part of from the margins, will be participating in the roberts street social centre residency in halifax, nova scotia from may 16 to may 30, 2015. we are excited to be working on make all good things fall apart #3 and share some of our most recent thoughts about addiction, intoxication culture, sobriety and recovery with y’all.

you can order the first two issues of make all good things fall apart off of the from the margins catalog, sweet candy distro and doris press + distro.

Beyond Bars

The impacts of intoxication culture and substance use on trans culture have been overlooked in trans studies even though bar culture has played a formative role in creating trans spaces. In “Sex Change, Social Change” Viviane Namaste argues that trans activism should focus on trans people existing the furthest on the margins, specifically trans sex workers. I would like to extend Namaste’s argument by arguing for a focus on trans addicts and drug users. Trans advocacy work must be inclusive of trans addicts and drug users. There is a need for trans specific alcohol and other drug use services that is culturally specific to the concerns and needs of trans addicts and substance users.

Trans people face higher rates of discrimination and violence than non-trans people. These harms are further compacted when a trans person is also a racialized person, a sex worker or a woman. This results in increased rates of substance use among trans people to cope with recurring stresses and trauma. Historically, within queer and trans culture, there has been an emphasis on bar culture in order to create the social and economic supports necessary to combat discrimination and social isolation. Both the increased use of substances to cope with stresses and the emphasis on bar culture within trans communities increases the risk of criminalization, stigma and violence to trans people. Existing public health services directed at trans people are often limited to sexual health and transitioning. Services for substance use support that are not trans specific are often inaccessible to trans people because of institutional transphobia. Therefore there is an explicit need to create trans specific alcohol and other drug use services to get trans people the support they need.

For the purpose for this paper, “trans” is used as an umbrella term to describe a range of gender identities and expressions that are different from sex assigned at birth. This includes but is not limited to transgender, transsexual, gender queer, non-binary, intersex and two-spirit people. The term “addict” includes alcoholics. Alcohol is a drug. There is also a difference between addicts and drugs users. Not all drug users are addicts and not all addicts use drugs. These distinctions make space for the myriad relationships that trans people have to addiction, substances, recovery and sobriety. Lastly, this paper will use information from Canada and the US. The information gathered from US sources is not directly pertinent or suitable to the lives of trans people in Canada but is still relevant. It is important to keep in mind the social and institutional differences between the US and Canada including but not limited to differences in health care, the criminal (in)justice system, colonialism, racism, slavery, immigration and human rights legislation.

Trans people face disproportionately higher rates of discrimination and violence than cisgender people. In 2001, a study led by Emilia L. Lombardi and her colleagues exploring trans people’s experience with violence, harassment and sexual violence showed that over half of the sample had experienced some form of harassment or violence in their lifetime (95-96). The top three harms caused to trans people reported in the study were “Street harassment/Verbal abuse”, “Being followed or stalked” and “Assaulted without a weapon” (96). The study also found that just over a third of the sample experienced workplace discrimination. They write “Working adults who disclose their trangendered [sic] experience, or request reasonable accommodation to it, are fired, harassed, intimidated or assaulted by supervisors and coworkers, have their privacy violated, have their property defaced and destroyed, or are murdered” (98). This study demonstrates that trans people are at risk of harassment and violence for being themselves and trying to earn a living wage in legal jobs. Another study by Lombardi conducted in 2009 examining the relationship between trans people and transphobia found that “Those who transitioned at a young age were likely to experience more transphobia” (988). The study allowed participants to report their identification as transgender, transsexual or “any other individual identity” (988). Lombardi speculates that the longer a person lives as trans, the more exposure they have to experiencing transphobic events (988). The study documented no significant difference in experiences of transphobia between those who’s gender identity was man, woman or other and those who’s gender presentation was man, woman or other (988). Both of Lombardi’s studies support the notion that if you are trans, transitioning or gender non-conforming, then you are at a considerable risk of experiencing transphobia, either in the form of harassment or violence. These negative experiences show that trans people are unwanted and undesirable within Western society at large.

In 2012, a study led by Rylan J. Testa focused on the effects of violence on trans men and trans women. His study found that among the sample, 38% had experienced physical violence and 27% experienced sexual violence (455). Among those people, 98% reported that the physical violence experienced was attributed to their gender identity or presentation while 89% attributed this for sexual violence (455). This shows that violence towards trans people is specific and targeted due to transgressions of gender norms and expectations. Similar to Lombardi’s study, there was no significant difference between trans men and women. These studies show that harassment and violence is a consistent reality in the day-to-day living of trans people. Trans people are discriminated against because of their gender identity, presentation and expression. They are targeted due to transmisogyiny, gender based violence and transphobia. Being visibly trans and the discovery of trans identity are rick factors for violence directed at trans people. Transphobia limits the full participation of trans people in society. Trans people are marginalized from public space, ostracized and socially isolated.

Trans women, racialized trans people and trans sex workers are further at risk of discrimination and violence. Through Lombardi’s study on trans people and their relationship to transphobia, it is revealed that African American, Hispanic and multiracial individuals experience more transphobic events than white trans people (987). In 2005, Jessica M. Xavier, Marilyn Bobbin, Ben Singer and Earline Budd conducted a needs assessment of transgender people of colour in Washington. Their report revealed “One hundred seven participants (43%) had been victims of violence or crime. Thirteen percent had been victims of sexual assault or rape” (36). An Ontarian report using data collected from the Trans PULSE Project written by Roxanne Longman Marcellin, Greta R. Bauer and Ayden I. Scheim explored the impacts of transphobia and racism in conjunction with HIV risk among trans people of colour. Their report found that, in addition to experiencing violence and discrimination due to transphobia, “45 per cent of trans people in Ontario reported experiencing at least one instance of racism or ethnicity-based discrimination, including 90 per cent of persons of colour, 34 per cent of white, and 65 per cent of Aboriginal persons” (101). Another Trans PULSE Project report written by Ayden I. Scheim, Randy Jackson, Liz James, T. Sharp Dopler, Jake Pyne and Greta R. Bauer focused on issues impacting Aboriginal gender diverse people found “43 per cent [of participants] had experienced physical or sexual violence” (115). Indigenous, black, mixed race and people of colour trans people are at further risk of discrimination and violence due to their transness than white people. In a cis-normative and white supremacist Western culture, racialized trans people are considered a double negative for their non-normative bodies.

Although Lombardi’s 2009 study and Testa’s 2012 study demonstrated no difference between trans’ people relationship to transphobia across genders, it is imperative to note that trans women as disproportionately murdered at rates higher than any other trans people. Black trans activist, Janet Mock, documents on her website that as of February 16, 2015 there had been six trans women murdered in the US in 2015. Five out of six of the women were people of colour including three black women and three Latina women. Mock reflects on the murders writing “Yes, trans women are being murdered. Yes, trans women of color have gained mainstream visibility. But trans women, particularly those of color, have always been targeted with violence. The differences now? There are some systems in place that better report violence and there is finally visibility of a select few that helps challenge the media’s framing of these women’s lives” (np). Additionally in contrast to findings of Lombardi and Testa, work through the Trans PULSE Project found that transfeminine people experience more transphobia than transmasculine people (Marcellin, Scheim, Bauer & Redman, 2). Violence against all trans people is transphobic gender based violence. Violence against trans women and transfeminine people is transphobic and transmisogynist gender based violence.

Throughout “Sex Change, Social Change” Namaste speaks to the lived realities of trans women sex workers. In the text, a statement written by Monica Forrester, Jamie-Lee Hamilton, Mirha-Soleil Ross and Namaste addressed to organizations delivering services to trans sex workers writes “Attitudes towards prostitution make up the first problem…There is a prevalent conception of prostitution – within transsexual organizations, and social service agencies – as inherently negative…prostitution is seen as the only occupation available to transsexuals because of social marginalization” (104). In Canada, sex work is increasingly criminalized. Josh Wingrove reporting for The Globe and Mail reports that Bill C-36 also known as the Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act restricts the liberties of sex workers while increasingly putting them in jeopardy of violence (np). Trans people face a double bind: they are discriminated against in the legal workplace yet if they engage in consensual sex work, they are stigmatized and criminalized. In addition to discrimination directed towards trans people because of their gender identity and expression, being a woman, racialized person and/or sex worker further compacts the risks of abuse, harassment, sexual violence and violence. The consistent threat of violence is stressing and traumatizing. The relationship between trans people and substance use needs to be understood within a context that acknowledges the impacts of cis-normativity, cis-sexism, sexism, gender based violence, transmisogyny, racism, classism, colonialism, criminalization and stigmatization of sex work.

The increased threat of and exposure to violence and trauma increases substance use among trans people. Alcohol and other drug use can be used to cope with stress. In 2014, Rainbow Health Ontario issued a fact sheet written by Dr. Margaret Robinson titled “LGBT People, Drug Use & Harm Reduction”. Research for this document found that LGBT people have higher rates of substance use than non-LGBT people due to factors including lack of non-bar space, lack of cultural acceptance, coping with stigma and trauma (2-3). Robinson writes “Some LGBT people use substances to cope with the stress of coming out, rejection from family and friends, discrimination, harassment, or internalized biphobia, transphobia, or homophobia” (2-3). The 2005 needs assessment of trans people of colour in Washington documented that “Nearly half this sample reported a substance abuse problem” (Xavier, Bobbin, Singer & Budd, 44). In 2005, Lombardi conducted a study that explored the substance use treatment experiences of trans men and women. Her study found that “Those who reported drug use in the past 30 days also reported higher levels of anxiety, depression, and transphobic events in the past year” (43). Testa’s 2012 study found that trans people who had experienced violence were at higher risks of suicidal ideation, suicide attempts and substance abuse (456). A document issued by the Trans PULSE Project found that transphobia negatively impacts the physical and mental health of trans people (Marcellin, Scheim, Bauer & Redman, 2). The negative attitudes and treatments towards trans people become internalized. Alcohol and other drug use among trans people cannot be understood outside of context of transphobia. The experience of trauma due to transphobic violence and substance use tocope with this trauma become mutually reinforcing. It also increases the risk of addiction.

Bars have been central in creating economic and social supports for trans people. Viviane Namaste interviewed trans activist Michelle De Ville about the significance of bars to the trans community in Montreal starting in the late 1970s. De Ville explains that although many gay bars were not welcoming to trans people she worked as a waitress and Montreal’s “first door bitch” at a bar (Irving & Raj, 21). She shares that bars and clubs also provided opportunities for trans people to perform in drag shows and afforded her networking opportunities for acting and modeling (Irving & Raj, 21). Namaste also interviewed Marie-Marcelle Godbout, founder of L’Aide aux Transsexuel(le)s due Quebec. In their interview, Godbout shares about the start of Cleopatre, one of the first clubs to be welcoming of transsexuals in Montreal during the late 1970s. Godbout refers to a conversation she had with the club owner saying “if it were me, I would open a bar for transsexuals, with transsexualas as barmaids, servers, and everything. He told me that he would have to talk it over with his partners. He later called back and said okay” (Irving & Raj, 112). The bar and club scenes in Montreal offered De Ville and Godbout economic and social benefits while being trans. While trans people are ostracized and isolated from society, bars allowed trans people to be themselves.

In the film Rupert Remembers, trans activist Rupert Raj takes a tour around Toronto visiting sites that were central trans spaces during the 1970s and 1980s. Throughout the film, he visits many places that are bars or used to be bars. He also cites several apartments of key activists where they used to drink, meet and party. These sites created safer spaces for trans people while providing opportunities for networking, social supports and sharing of resources. These were spaces where trans people could be themselves. Raj also points out the “London Pub” as a place where trans women sex workers could connect with clients. These spaces provided opportunities for trans people to connect with one another and support each other in their shared struggles. The film demonstrated that being around alcohol, bars, drinking and parties was normal for Rupert and his peers; it was just as normal as being discriminated, harassed and violated for being trans. Trans people have a history of being criminalized and limited participation to society due to transphobia. This results in marginalizing trans people from public spaces and forcing them into private places. Many of these private spaces were centred on alcohol.

Queer anarchist zinester, Nick Riotfag defines intoxication culture as “a set of institutions, behaviours, and mindsets centered around consumption of drugs and alcohol” (np). Intoxication culture normalizes alcohol and other drug use among the queer and trans culture. It is hard to imagine a Toronto Pride party that is not focused on alcohol consumption. In Rainbow Health Ontario’s fact sheet on “LGBT People, Drug Use & Harm Reduction”, Robinson attributes the lack of non-bar spaces to higher rates of substance use among LGBT people (2). She writes “For many years, discrimination against LGBT people made visibility unsafe, and there were few options for socializing in LGBT environments apart from bars or parties. As a result, many LGBT people associate socializing with the use of alcohol and other drugs. When bars are a primary social outlet LGBT people may develop a peer set that uses alcohol and other substances regularly” (2). Since trans people’s participation in society is limited due to transphobia, trans people have gained economic and social supports from spaces that are centred on alcohol consumption. Trans people experience higher rates of violence than cisgender people. The increased amount of violence increases substances use among trans people. The increased exposure to alcohol and other drug use normalizes these behaviours in trans culture. While participation in these spaces can be beneficial, they can also be harmful because they increase the risk of addiction, stigma and violence.

Toronto hosts the largest amount of LGBT people in all of Canada. For trans people in Toronto, it is easier to attain services for transitioning than trans specific substance use supports. According to their websites, community health centres like Planned Parenthood Toronto (np) and Sherbourne Health Centre (np) offer trans specific health services and services for physical transition. Family doctors are able to prescribe hormones. Trans people can get gender affirmative surgeries through private health services. Yet in Toronto there is no trans specific substance use support program or service. According to the CAMH (Centre For Addiction and Mental Health) website, the Rainbow Program at CAMH offers a range of alcohol and other drug use counseling, programming, supports and treatments open to lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, two-spirit and intersex people (np). While, this service exists, it is the only one of its kind in Toronto and is not specific to trans people. Public health services culturally specific to the needs and concerns of trans people are limited and focus on sexual health and transitioning. In Toronto, there is a gap in services for trans people needing support for their substance use.

Trans people have unmet healthcare needs and there is a lack of services directed to their particular needs. Research through the Trans PULSE Project attributes this to informational and institutional erasure in service provider contexts (Bauer, Hammond, Travers, Kaay, Hohenadel & Boyce, 352). The project defines informational erasure as “both a lack of knowledge regarding trans people and trans issues and the assumption that such knowledge does not exist even when it may” (Bauer, Hammond, Travers, Kaay, Hohenadel & Boyce 352). Institutional erasure is characterized as “a lack of policies that accommodate trans identities or trans bodies, including lack of knowledge that such policies are even necessary” (Bauer, Hammond, Travers, Kaay, Hohenadel & Boyce, 354). This research demonstrates the cisgender-centrism and institutional transphobia that manifests in service provider contexts. In 2005, a needs assessment was conducted by Jodi Sperber, Stewart Landers and Susan Lawrence in Boston exploring the relationship between trans people and their access to health care. Their findings show that trans people do not feel comfortable disclosing their trans identity in service provision contexts, services were insensitive and ineffective to the particular needs of trans people, accessing services was distressing and participants experienced high levels of mistrust with service providers (Sperber, Landers & Lawrence, 80, 82 & 85). Primary health concerns for the participants of this study included mental health and substance use treatment services (81). In Lombardi’s 2007 study exploring the substance use treatment experiences of trans men and women, it was shown that social discrimination and stigma negatively impact and limits trans people’s participation in accessing services (39). Participants in this study reported that programs they had accessed did not address trans issues (43). Transphobia and cissexism are barriers for trans people accessing services. Trans people encounter discrimination in their daily lives. They use alcohol and other substances to cope with the negative feelings associated with discrimination and violence. When they finally try to access services to support them, they again encounter the same systemic problems they are seeking support for.

Although proposing a trans specific substance use support program is outside of the scope of this paper, a such a program would need to consider the following. The Northwest Frontier ATTC (Addiction Technology Transfer Center Network) recommends that LGBT substance use treatment programming should be “sensitive, affirming, and culturally relevant” (1). Trans programming cannot be imagined outside of the context of institutional discrimination and violence. Trans people do not feel comfortable and safe accessing existing substance use support services due to barriers including but not limited to: homophobia, queerphobia, transphobia, cissexism, heterosexism, sexism, transmisogyny, ableism, racism, lack of queer representation among staff delivering services and stigma related to HIV/AIDS, STIs, sex work, substance use and addiction. Christine F. Hartley and Stephen Whittle advocate that different trans bodies require different needs to be met. They write “In supporting the social welfare needs of these communities professionals need to be aware that people with differently sexed and gendered bodies do exist and have particular needs…Professionals need to be aware of specific issues that affect the lives of trans people” (Hartley & Whittle, 64-65) Existing services are not culturally specific and fail to meet the specific needs of trans people, especially concerning support for transitioning, trauma related to gendered and sexualized violence, insidious trauma, complex PTSD and body dysphoria. Programming would have to be knowledgeable of the realities that trans people live in. Program content could include how to address multiple forms of internalized –isms & –phobias, body dysphoria, queer & trans specific sexual health, exploring gender identity and sexuality, body image, transitioning, grief and loss of relationships, defining family, relationships and boundaries. A trans women health education program that occurred in San Francisco during 2005 emphasized the importance of having trans women as facilitators and educators within their program (Nemoto, Operario, Keately, Nguyen & Sugano, 3). The project found that this increases accessibility to trans women participants, reduces stigma, creates a safe physical space for trans women to talk freely and increases the success of the program (Nemoto, Operario, Keately, Nguyen & Sugano, 3). Having services delivered by trans people themselves is a way of providing culturally appropriate services to trans people.

Trans people experience more discrimination and violence that cisgender people. This can result in increased substance use and addiction. Trans culture has historically been centered on spaces of intoxication which compacts the risk of addiction. Trans advocacy work must include the needs of trans substance users and addicts. A trans specific substance use support program would be one way to address these needs. Although a trans specific alcohol and other drug use program would fill a gap in services, there would still be a need for queer and trans specific withdrawal management services, residential treatment, shelters, supportive housing and permanent housing. It is imperative that the advocacy for trans people to be led and directed by trans people themselves and not allies. This work must continue. There needs to be trans specific services that are aware of the specific needs, concerns and systemic barriers that these people face. A trans specific substance use support program would affirm identities and not deny them. Trans advocacy must center the most marginalized which includes trans addicts and drug users.

References

Bauer, Greta R., Rebecca Hammond, Robb Travers, Matthias Kaay, Karin M. Hohenadel, and Michelle Boyce. ““I Don’t Think This Is Theoretical; This Is Our Lives”: How Erasure Impacts Health Care For Transgender People.” Journal of the Association of Nurses in AIDS Care5 (2009): 348-61. Database.

Hartley, Christine F, and Stephen Whittle. “Different Sexed and Gendered Bodies Demand Different Ways of Thinking about Policy and Practice.” Practice3 (2013): 61-73. Database.

Irving, Dan and Rupert Raj. Trans Activism In Canada: a reader. Canadian Scholars Press Inc. (2014): Toronto.

Lombardi, Emilia, Riki Anne Wilchins, Dana Priesing and Diana Malouf. “Gender Violence: Transgender Experiences with Violence and Discrimination.” Journal of Homosexuality1 (2001) 89-101. Database.

Lombardi, Emilia. “Substance Use Treatment Experiences of Transgender/Transsexual Men and Women.” Journal of LGBT Health Research2 (2008): 37-47. Database.

Lombardi, Emilia. “Varieties of Transgender/Transsexual Lives and Their Relationship with Transphobia.” Journal of Homosexuality 56 (2009): 977-92. Database.

Marcellin, Roxanne Longman, Greta R. Bauer, and Ayden I. Scheim. “Intersecting Impacts of Transphobia and Racism on HIV Risk among Trans Persons of Colour in Ontario, Canada.” ETHNICITY AND INEQUALITIES IN HEALTH AND SOCIAL CARE4 (2013): 97-107. Database.

Marcellin, Roxanne Longman, Greta R. Bauer, and Ayden I. Scheim. “Experiences of Transphobia among Trans Ontarians.” Trans PULSE E-Bulletin 3.2 (2013) 1-2.

Mock, Janet. “A Note on Visibility in the Wake of 6 Trans Women’s Murders in 2015.” Janet Mock (2015). < http://janetmock.com/2015/02/16/six-trans-women-killed-this-year/&gt;

Namaste, Viviane. Sex Change, Social Change. Women’s Press (2011): Toronto.

Nemoto, Tooru, Don Operario, JoAnne Keatley, Hongmai Nguyen, and Eiko Sugano. “Promoting Health for Transgender Women: Transgender Resources and Neighborhood Space (TRANS) Program in San Francisco.” American Journal of Public Health3 (2005): 382-384. Database.

Northwest Frontier Addiction Technology Transfer Center Network. “LGBTQ Issues in SA Treatment.” Addiction Messenger (2008) 11.10 1-3. Database.

Riotfag, Nick. Towards A Less Fucked Up World: Sobriety and Anarchist Struggle. Self-published, 2010. Zine.

Robinson, Margaret. LGBT PEOPLE, DRUG USE & HARM REDUCTION. Rainbow Health Ontario, 2014.

Rupert Remembers. V Tape, 2000. DVD.

Scheim, Ayden I., Randy Jackson, Liz James, T. Sharp Dopler, Jake Pyne, and Greta R. Bauer. “Barriers to Well-being for Aboriginal Gender-diverse People: Results from the Trans PULSE Project in Ontario, Canada.” ETHNICITY AND INEQUALITIES IN HEALTH AND SOCIAL CARE4 (2013): 108-20. Database.

Sperber, Jodi, Stewart Landers and Susan Lawrence. “Access to Health Care for Transgendered Persons: Results of a Needs Assessment in Boston.” Transgender Health and HIV Prevention2 (2005) 75-91. Database.

Testa, Rylan J., Laura M. Sciacca, Florence Wang, Michael L. Hendricks, Peter Goldblum, Judith Bradford and Bruce Bongar. “Effects of Violence on Transgender People.” Professional Psychology: Research and Practice. 452-459. Database.

Wingrove, Josh. “Tory prostitution bill gets Senate approval.” The Globe and Mail. November 4, 2014. Web. <http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tory-prostitution-bill-gets-senate-approval/article21450839/&gt;

Xavier, Jessica M., Marilyn Bobbin, Ben Singer, and Earline Budd. “A Needs Assessment Of Transgendered People Of Color Living In Washington, DC.” International Journal of Transgenderism 8 (2005): 31-47. Database.