NY Times Article-The Lawyer, the Addict Forum

[A. Nony Mouse]

People don't typically start doing drugs at 45, they start younger 20s even if its softer drugs. I don't know when this guy started, his wife does but she didn't talk about his addiction at all nor seem to know about it.

The guy listened to hendrix and was into philosophy as a grad student and into chemistry the article says, suggestive of an interest in drugs.

Both of your posts ITT are bad, mostly because they make all kinds of unsubstantiated assumptions in an effort to assume biglaw had nothing to do with it, this guy already had problems. I mean, her whole point was that law/biglaw changed him. And I'm pretty sure there's no age limit on when people start doing drugs, especially if they end up in a culture where it's acceptable (biglaw, according to this article, and, frankly, you). Also he'd been in law for 20 years, so lots of time to have started in law.

And whatever distinctions make you feel better aside, there isn't any legitimate reason to be using drugs in biglaw. The legitimate medical reason thing doesn't fly (unless you mean smoking pot while on chemo or the like, which is completely outside the circumstances we've been discussing), and using it as a tool to work long hours? Good luck with that. Someone who does that has a problem (and probably is at the earlier stages of where the guy in the article ended up). There is no such thing as a "good" work drug, dude.

[Pokemon]

I am surprised that people have the impression that drug use is acceptable in biglaw environment. It is the exact opposite in my experience. but biglaw is very Victorian, there might be drug use but everyone has to put on a veneer that everything is perfect and cracks on that veneer really screw you. That is why lawyers do not seek help etc...

[jarofsoup]

People don't typically start doing drugs at 45, they start younger 20s even if its softer drugs. I don't know when this guy started, his wife does but she didn't talk about his addiction at all nor seem to know about it.

The guy listened to hendrix and was into philosophy as a grad student and into chemistry the article says, suggestive of an interest in drugs.

Both of your posts ITT are bad, mostly because they make all kinds of unsubstantiated assumptions in an effort to assume biglaw had nothing to do with it, this guy already had problems. I mean, her whole point was that law/biglaw changed him. And I'm pretty sure there's no age limit on when people start doing drugs, especially if they end up in a culture where it's acceptable (biglaw, according to this article, and, frankly, you). Also he'd been in law for 20 years, so lots of time to have started in law.

And whatever distinctions make you feel better aside, there isn't any legitimate reason to be using drugs in biglaw. The legitimate medical reason thing doesn't fly (unless you mean smoking pot while on chemo or the like, which is completely outside the circumstances we've been discussing), and using it as a tool to work long hours? Good luck with that. Someone who does that has a problem (and probably is at the earlier stages of where the guy in the article ended up). There is no such thing as a "good" work drug, dude.

By your logic he should have been into hallucigenics. I don't see the connection between Hendrix and drug use? Maybe just that Art Prior is very young??

[cavalier1138]

I am surprised that people have the impression that drug use is acceptable in biglaw environment. It is the exact opposite in my experience. but biglaw is very Victorian, there might be drug use but everyone has to put on a veneer that everything is perfect and cracks on that veneer really screw you. That is why lawyers do not seek help etc...

Looks like you answered your own question.

[Anonymous User]

Did anyone else that read this article get freaked out? Not with the drug problem, but how someone can get so lost in their work?


https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/15/busi ... ealth.html

Beware, that's spoken like somebody who hasn't done the work.

That's exactly what I would have thought before practicing law. After nearly 30 years of litigation, however, all the stuff about work life balance, etc., is truly baloney. At least for litigators, the essence of their work is all work, all the time, and trying to have as much work as conceivably possible. At some point it becomes too much for most of them, and something corrosive sets in, whether drugs or alcohol, other addictions, or personal character defects.

It's a lousy way to live, and takes the life of more than a few.

[sanzgo]

Did anyone else that read this article get freaked out? Not with the drug problem, but how someone can get so lost in their work?


https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/15/busi ... ealth.html

Beware, that's spoken like somebody who hasn't done the work.

That's exactly what I would have thought before practicing law. After nearly 30 years of litigation, however, all the stuff about work life balance, etc., is truly baloney. At least for litigators, the essence of their work is all work, all the time, and trying to have as much work as conceivably possible. At some point it becomes too much for most of them, and something corrosive sets in, whether drugs or alcohol, other addictions, or personal character defects.

It's a lousy way to live, and takes the life of more than a few.

what kind of litigation do you do?

as a law student who's deliberately avoiding corporate b/c litigation seems to have more predictable hours (not less), your comment freaks me out.

[Anonymous User]

This is such a tragic story, and it gets at some very systemic problems with the culture of biglaw. It's a horrible story deserving of attention for those of us who have struggled/are struggling with some manner of addiction and substance abuse.

If anything good comes from this, it's helping people like me realize that I need to seriously cut back on intake of things that are both harmful to me and harmful to my career, both future and present. I was/am a pretty regular consumer of alcohol, and while it probably borders closer to the typical "functional alcoholic" than it does one that goes on benders and won't be found for several days, it's not any less destructive a behavior. It was borne out of habit, stress, and frankly just not identifying it as problematic behavior. I was functioning in my life, so why should it change, right? Well after reading this article, along with a few other pretty major developments in my personal life, I've unilaterally decided to cut alcohol out of my life for the foreseeable future. I'm not saying I'll never have a drink again because I feel I have complete control over my consumption (giving it up has felt like a blessing every day to this point, and I don't expect that to change anytime soon), but this article pushed me over the edge to stop justifying why it's okay to have a drink or three most nights because I continued to function. My mornings are better, my work feels more focused, and I'm just generally in a better mood day to day.

What I'm most happy to have done is to share this decision with my family to allow for accountability and support. They never thought I was a problem drinker, but that support is all I need to justify not mixing a cocktail at night when the night settles down.

I don't realistically believe I've ever exhibited truly addictive behavior where I couldn't go without alcohol, but I just thought that if it's not negatively impacting my personal or professional life (in hindsight, it very well may have been and probably was to some degree, but it never felt like it at the time because I've always been pretty successful in whatever I've tried to do), then I am not a problem drinker. But I still kept on increasing my consumption to the point where I was consuming an ugly amount of alcohol on a weekly basis. I could always control drinking in social/work settings, but having a nightcap when I get home was normal, and anytime I have/had a night off, I'd supplement whatever activity I was doing with several cocktails. It was just a habit, I told myself, and because nothing bad was coming from it, that seemed to be enough.

So all I'll say to this poor family and to those others who are struggling/have struggled, thank you for the wake up call. It helped at least one person save themselves from a destructive devolution that eventually would've caught up to me, whether I wanted to let it or not.

[Anonymous User]

My situation is a bit more unique, I don't take any type of drugs, but I've fallen into the habit of seeing escorts. I've literally wasted so much money on this sex addiction, at least thousands of dollars. And I can't seem to control it. Even before going to work this morning, I went to see an escort. I feel so horrible, but I always seem to go back to it again and again. I've been in this rut for 2 years.

The worse part is that I am married and I know it would kill my SO if I told them of this addiction, I just wish I can conquer this. I need help.

Depending on where you live, SMART recovery meetings may be available in your area. SMART is unlike AA in that it is tailored to all "addictive behaviors" and not just alcohol, and focuses on a cognitive behavioral therapy approach to change. Seeing a therapist may also help. Best of luck, I'm pulling for you.

[Anonymous User]

Did anyone else that read this article get freaked out? Not with the drug problem, but how someone can get so lost in their work?


https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/15/busi ... ealth.html

Beware, that's spoken like somebody who hasn't done the work.

That's exactly what I would have thought before practicing law. After nearly 30 years of litigation, however, all the stuff about work life balance, etc., is truly baloney. At least for litigators, the essence of their work is all work, all the time, and trying to have as much work as conceivably possible. At some point it becomes too much for most of them, and something corrosive sets in, whether drugs or alcohol, other addictions, or personal character defects.

It's a lousy way to live, and takes the life of more than a few.

what kind of litigation do you do?

as a law student who's deliberately avoiding corporate b/c litigation seems to have more predictable hours (not less), your comment freaks me out.

I'm in litigation but not biglaw, so with that caveat (people feel free to tell me I'm wrong), I think the point above isn't that litigation *requires* some obscene number of hours compared to corp - just that it becomes *all-encompassing*. Trial (both actual prep when you know the trial is definitely going/imminent and trial itself) is absolutely all-consuming. I've only done short ones and I don't know how people survive things like six-week trials. It's also more adversarial than corporate (at least from what I can tell) and when you're in a setting where it feels like the other side is constantly trying to screw you over or get an advantage, it can get you equally obsessed with not getting screwed over/screwing the other side over.

So I think the point above was more that after doing lit long enough, it takes over your life and consumes you. (And I can't even comment on how this is probably worse as a biglaw partner who presumably has to develop business to succeed.) Not so much that lit hours are objectively worse than corporate, but that people will work those hours anyway. Also, one of the big things people seem to hate about corporate is unpredictability - sitting around with no work till 5, then getting an assignment due the next day; fire drills generally. Lit hours are likely to be more predictable because deadlines from the court are clear and known in advance (although you still likely have to deal with senior people dumping work on you at short notice, whether for good reason or not). But it doesn't mean the hours are *less*. Get staffed on a trial that actually goes to trial and your life is consumed.

Tl;dr - it's not about lit requiring more hours than corp, it's about reaching the point where you don't know what to do with yourself apart from litigation.

[Anonymous User]

I didn't like the exwife acting like she didn't know until Peter died. Shes hes wife of course she would find some evidence of use throughout life. Probably the reasons they are divorced is the drugs.

You must be a very lucky person to have never dealt with a family member, friend, or loved one struggle with an addiction they were able to successfully hide for so long. Not all of us are so lucky. My father was an alcoholic for thirty years before anyone noticed something might be wrong - and it was his ex-wife (my mother) who realized AFTER they were divorced, AFTER they were no longer living together. His family never noticed because he was smart and crafty about hiding it. Also, incidentally, a chemist (but not a lawyer.)

People hide things. People can hide things extremely well. Just because you can't doesn't mean others can. For example, I'm sure others regularly have to hide how miserable it probably is to interact with you.

[Art Prior]

I didn't like the exwife acting like she didn't know until Peter died. Shes hes wife of course she would find some evidence of use throughout life. Probably the reasons they are divorced is the drugs.

You must be a very lucky person to have never dealt with a family member, friend, or loved one struggle with an addiction they were able to successfully hide for so long. Not all of us are so lucky. My father was an alcoholic for thirty years before anyone noticed something might be wrong - and it was his ex-wife (my mother) who realized AFTER they were divorced, AFTER they were no longer living together. His family never noticed because he was smart and crafty about hiding it. Also, incidentally, a chemist (but not a lawyer.)

People hide things. People can hide things extremely well. Just because you can't doesn't mean others can. For example, I'm sure others regularly have to hide how miserable it probably is to interact with you.

are we leveling personal attacks just because drug use makes you uncomfortable? go back to your church and pray some more.

You're being vicious for no reason. I didn't attack anyone I was just commenting that the wife was acting like she didn't know, when she later mentions that Peter would receive giant shipments of syringes WHILE they were still married. Also she states that he would run out for a soda and spend the entire night out. These seem like indications of drug use, but then in the first paragraph she's saying she had no idea.

[Anonymous User]

I didn't like the exwife acting like she didn't know until Peter died. Shes hes wife of course she would find some evidence of use throughout life. Probably the reasons they are divorced is the drugs.

You must be a very lucky person to have never dealt with a family member, friend, or loved one struggle with an addiction they were able to successfully hide for so long. Not all of us are so lucky. My father was an alcoholic for thirty years before anyone noticed something might be wrong - and it was his ex-wife (my mother) who realized AFTER they were divorced, AFTER they were no longer living together. His family never noticed because he was smart and crafty about hiding it. Also, incidentally, a chemist (but not a lawyer.)

People hide things. People can hide things extremely well. Just because you can't doesn't mean others can. For example, I'm sure others regularly have to hide how miserable it probably is to interact with you.

are we leveling personal attacks just because drug use makes you uncomfortable? go back to your church and pray some more.

You're being vicious for no reason. I didn't attack anyone I was just commenting that the wife was acting like she didn't know, when she later mentions that Peter would receive giant shipments of syringes WHILE they were still married. Also she states that he would run out for a soda and spend the entire night out. These seem like indications of drug use, but then in the first paragraph she's saying she had no idea.

LOL-ing hard at the church comment...you're definitely proving my last comment

Of course they seem like indications of drug use - now that she knows there was drug use. Hindsight is 20/20. You have no idea if she thought he was cheating, if he made excuses about having to go back to the office, etc etc. You knee-jerk reaction to assume that the ex-wife must be lying about not knowing is telling more about you as a person and contributes nothing to the conversation about this article.

[A. Nony Mouse]

The wife makes clear she didn't know. There are whole sections of the article talking about the signs she didn't know at the time were signs. Also, it's pretty clear lots of this (if not all) is post-divorce - the syringes were in 2015, the same year he died, when they were clearly NOT married.

If you're saying she should have known, that's pretty judgmental of you - the fault isn't in an ex-wife who's not a drug addict not realizing what the signs of drug use are. No one expects a smart successful Silicon Valley lawyer to be a drug addict. Should they? Maybe, but I think you're projecting onto the wife.

You read this article about and addict who OD'ed and are telling someone whose family has dealt with addiction that they're "uncomfortable" with drug use and to go back to church and pray? Really? If you have a problem I hope you get help, but your minimization of the seriousness of this is really disturbing.

[Art Prior]

People don't typically start doing drugs at 45, they start younger 20s even if its softer drugs. I don't know when this guy started, his wife does but she didn't talk about his addiction at all nor seem to know about it.

The guy listened to hendrix and was into philosophy as a grad student and into chemistry the article says, suggestive of an interest in drugs.

Both of your posts ITT are bad, mostly because they make all kinds of unsubstantiated assumptions in an effort to assume biglaw had nothing to do with it, this guy already had problems. I mean, her whole point was that law/biglaw changed him. And I'm pretty sure there's no age limit on when people start doing drugs, especially if they end up in a culture where it's acceptable (biglaw, according to this article, and, frankly, you). Also he'd been in law for 20 years, so lots of time to have started in law.

And whatever distinctions make you feel better aside, there isn't any legitimate reason to be using drugs in biglaw. The legitimate medical reason thing doesn't fly (unless you mean smoking pot while on chemo or the like, which is completely outside the circumstances we've been discussing), and using it as a tool to work long hours? Good luck with that. Someone who does that has a problem (and probably is at the earlier stages of where the guy in the article ended up). There is no such thing as a "good" work drug, dude.

This is a message board not a court room, speculation and opinions are ok as long as they are not presented as fact. Thats how normal people make conversation btw.

Exactly the type of gut-fear-based reaction I expected from non-drug users (I mean you guys are being sympathetic to the guy that fucks prostitutes before breakfast and personally attacking the drug user).

The medical reasons thing does not fly? There are 100 million americans with a chronic pain conditions (no colon, CHRONS, MS, CRPS, migranes, car accidents leaving permanent nerve/musculoskeletal damage, permanent paralysis). These people take opiates every day of their lives and some of them, believe it or not, are actually successful and not giving BJs to round up change for their next fix. Are you telling me that people with such conditions have no legit medical reason to use a drug at work and are not allowed to be lawyers? For such people the line between taking more drug to block the pain to feel better VS. taking more drug to work 15 hours becomes a bit blurred if you can try to step down from your chruch/DARE perch and put yourself in someone else's shoes that is chronically ill and trying to be successful for a minute.

Anyways, just know that drug users are your colleagues, bosses, and even friends at work. Why do you thing BigLaw doesn't drug test employees? Most use it just to get by, not stay home from work slamming meth like Peter. Time for my next dose so gotta go

[Art Prior]

The wife makes clear she didn't know. There are whole sections of the article talking about the signs she didn't know at the time were signs. Also, it's pretty clear lots of this (if not all) is post-divorce - the syringes were in 2015, the same year he died, when they were clearly NOT married.

If you're saying she should have known, that's pretty judgmental of you - the fault isn't in an ex-wife who's not a drug addict not realizing what the signs of drug use are. No one expects a smart successful Silicon Valley lawyer to be a drug addict. Should they? Maybe, but I think you're projecting onto the wife.

You read this article about and addict who OD'ed and are telling someone whose family has dealt with addiction that they're "uncomfortable" with drug use and to go back to church and pray? Really? If you have a problem I hope you get help, but your minimization of the seriousness of this is really disturbing.

Do you think if she DID know about his use, and was therefore complicit in hiding illegal activity, not getting him help, and enjoying his money, that she would openly admit these things or write the story she did?

Again, nobody can prove what she knew. Just making conversation .

[Anonymous User]

People don't typically start doing drugs at 45, they start younger 20s even if its softer drugs. I don't know when this guy started, his wife does but she didn't talk about his addiction at all nor seem to know about it.

The guy listened to hendrix and was into philosophy as a grad student and into chemistry the article says, suggestive of an interest in drugs.

Both of your posts ITT are bad, mostly because they make all kinds of unsubstantiated assumptions in an effort to assume biglaw had nothing to do with it, this guy already had problems. I mean, her whole point was that law/biglaw changed him. And I'm pretty sure there's no age limit on when people start doing drugs, especially if they end up in a culture where it's acceptable (biglaw, according to this article, and, frankly, you). Also he'd been in law for 20 years, so lots of time to have started in law.

And whatever distinctions make you feel better aside, there isn't any legitimate reason to be using drugs in biglaw. The legitimate medical reason thing doesn't fly (unless you mean smoking pot while on chemo or the like, which is completely outside the circumstances we've been discussing), and using it as a tool to work long hours? Good luck with that. Someone who does that has a problem (and probably is at the earlier stages of where the guy in the article ended up). There is no such thing as a "good" work drug, dude.

This is a message board not a court room, speculation and opinions are ok as long as they are not presented as fact. Thats how normal people make conversation btw.

Exactly the type of gut-fear-based reaction I expected from non-drug users (I mean you guys are being sympathetic to the guy that fucks prostitutes before breakfast and personally attacking the drug user).

The medical reasons thing does not fly? There are 100 million americans with a chronic pain conditions (no colon, CHRONS, MS, CRPS, migranes, car accidents leaving permanent nerve/musculoskeletal damage, permanent paralysis). These people take opiates every day of their lives and some of them, believe it or not, are actually successful and not giving BJs to round up change for their next fix. Are you telling me that people with such conditions have no legit medical reason to use a drug at work and are not allowed to be lawyers? For such people the line between taking more drug to block the pain to feel better VS. taking more drug to work 15 hours becomes a bit blurred if you can try to step down from your chruch/DARE perch and put yourself in someone else's shoes that is chronically ill and trying to be successful for a minute.

Anyways, just know that drug users are your colleagues, bosses, and even friends at work. Most use it just to get by, not stay home from work slamming meth like Peter. Time for my morning dose so gotta go.

You have literally ZERO idea if any of us are drug users though? Like literally none? You are just making knee-jerk assumptions because not everyone needs to waive their hands in the air talking about the drugs they do like a thirteen year old who smoked pot for the first time...

[Anonymous User]

Seriously, I'm extremely frugal and in 4 years, I've saved $120,000 (not including $55,000 401K) and paid off $130,000 of loans (still have $130,000). You aren't going to get anywhere near those numbers unless you work until year 6, and that freaking sucks.

On the one hand, yes. On the other hand, you just invested $200k and 7 years of your life (plus lost income for 3-4+ years) into the big-law rat race. Why not try to stick it out another two and have a (little) something to show for it?

Of course, 80% of people leave before that, so there is obviously a powerful answer to this question. A big part of it is that one way or another, the firm expects (read: needs) 80% of people to be gone by then to make their numbers work. (Don't get me started on how this level of attrition can't be the best way to run a business).

When you say "extremely frugal", could you (or anyone similarly situated) elaborate on your monthly expenses?

The whole thing (grinding for 7 years to get to a net worth of zero, so you can exit to a job paying $100k) seems slightly absurd.

Does anyone have thoughts on solid exit options for generalist corporate associates?

By extremely frugal I mean that I live well below my means. My budget is set up that I could survive on a job paying $100,000 easily and still save some money. My monthly expenses, in NYC, with an SO and debt, are about $3,700 a month. Rent and debt make up about $2,600 of that and the rest is food, some social activities, weekend travel, weddings, etc. I could probably do better, but I do have an SO, and doing nothing fun isn't really a way to live.

Also, what is so absurd about making $100,000? If anything, that is the point. Bust your ass to get into a position financially where you can make less and live better. If you have low debt payments and a nice nest-egg, that is plenty of money to be happy on. I also do have something to show for it. My net worth is slightly higher than when I started school, but now I have $120,000 in the bank to have more freedom to choose what I want to do. I could not work for four years and still have money left over. I have also discovered that the rat race isn't for me at all. The job has given me anxiety I never had, depression for weeks at a time sometimes. I don't know, I feel like life is too short to think this way about your career if it makes you absolutely miserable. I'm in a better situation financially than most of my non-rich friends from law school, so while I get that it isn't ideal, I think I've done a decent job setting myself up for an exit to a lower paying, less stressful job when the time comes that the firm lets me go.

[Mockingbird42]

The Law School Effect

Some research shows that before they start law school, law students are actually healthier than the general population, both physically and mentally. “There’s good data showing that,” said Andy Benjamin, a psychologist and lawyer who teaches law and psychology at the University of Washington. “They drink less than other young people, use less substances, have less depression and are less hostile.”

In addition, he said, law students generally start school with their sense of self and their values intact. But, in his research, he said, he has found that the formal structure of law school starts to change that.

Rather than hew to their internal self, students begin to focus on external values, he said, like status, comparative worth and competition. “We have seven very strong studies that show this twists people’s psyches and they come out of law school significantly impaired, with depression, anxiety and hostility,” he said.

Has anyone been able to find any of the studies referenced in this article? It looks like the guy cited doesn't do research on this (or anything for that matter - he's an adjunct clinic professor).

I've found studies that say law students are more anxious/depressed, but I had assumed law, because it's a risk averse profession, attracted a particularly anxious and depressed segment of the population. The idea that law students were particularly healthy before law school seems absurd. I would not describe almost anyone I've met interested in law as healthier, mentally or physically, than the general white-collar population. I'd be interested to see if there is actually evidence for this really bold/hard to measure assertation.

[A. Nony Mouse]

The wife makes clear she didn't know. There are whole sections of the article talking about the signs she didn't know at the time were signs. Also, it's pretty clear lots of this (if not all) is post-divorce - the syringes were in 2015, the same year he died, when they were clearly NOT married.

If you're saying she should have known, that's pretty judgmental of you - the fault isn't in an ex-wife who's not a drug addict not realizing what the signs of drug use are. No one expects a smart successful Silicon Valley lawyer to be a drug addict. Should they? Maybe, but I think you're projecting onto the wife.

You read this article about and addict who OD'ed and are telling someone whose family has dealt with addiction that they're "uncomfortable" with drug use and to go back to church and pray? Really? If you have a problem I hope you get help, but your minimization of the seriousness of this is really disturbing.

Do you think if she DID know about his use, and was therefore complicit in hiding illegal activity, not getting him help, and enjoying his money, that she would openly admit these things or write the story she did?

Again, nobody can prove what she knew. Just making conversation .

Well, that's kind of a convenient circular argument for you, isn't it?

"The wife totally had to know, he bought SYRINGES"
"There's no evidence she knew, she said she didn't know, the syringes were after they got divorced"
"She's not going to SAY she knew."

Like, why write an article all about how this is a problem people don't expect and needs to be addressed and lie about knowing all along if the whole point is that she needs to hide her complicity in this? This isn't me turning the thread into a courtroom, this is me *making conversation* about how it's shitty of you to assume bad faith on her part because you don't want to admit biglaw could contribute to someone doing this.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Also, re: the medical thing - you're blurring the conversation by throwing in legitimate medical uses. No one has claimed people shouldn't take drugs as appropriately prescribed by medical professionals. But this thread is about illegal drug use/drug abuse, so I presumed you were talking about self-medicating.

And really if you can't tell that using illegal drugs "just to get by" is simply an earlier step on Peter's path to staying home to slam meth - well, again, good luck with that and I hope you get help. Recreation is one thing, but recreation =/= a way to "get by" in your job.

[Art Prior]

The wife makes clear she didn't know. There are whole sections of the article talking about the signs she didn't know at the time were signs. Also, it's pretty clear lots of this (if not all) is post-divorce - the syringes were in 2015, the same year he died, when they were clearly NOT married.

If you're saying she should have known, that's pretty judgmental of you - the fault isn't in an ex-wife who's not a drug addict not realizing what the signs of drug use are. No one expects a smart successful Silicon Valley lawyer to be a drug addict. Should they? Maybe, but I think you're projecting onto the wife.

You read this article about and addict who OD'ed and are telling someone whose family has dealt with addiction that they're "uncomfortable" with drug use and to go back to church and pray? Really? If you have a problem I hope you get help, but your minimization of the seriousness of this is really disturbing.

Do you think if she DID know about his use, and was therefore complicit in hiding illegal activity, not getting him help, and enjoying his money, that she would openly admit these things or write the story she did?

Again, nobody can prove what she knew. Just making conversation .

Well, that's kind of a convenient circular argument for you, isn't it?

"The wife totally had to know, he bought SYRINGES"
"There's no evidence she knew, she said she didn't know, the syringes were after they got divorced"
"She's not going to SAY she knew."

Like, why write an article all about how this is a problem people don't expect and needs to be addressed and lie about knowing all along if the whole point is that she needs to hide her complicity in this? This isn't me turning the thread into a courtroom, this is me *making conversation* about how it's shitty of you to assume bad faith on her part because you don't want to admit biglaw could contribute to someone doing this.

Sorry maybe I was being too hard on the wife. In retrospect it's easy for me to spot a serious drug user a mile away due to firsthand experience using. Maybe the signs were truly lost on her.

Lets move on and talk about why biglaw doesn't drug test anyone ever, even new associates.

[cavalier1138]

Lets move on and talk about why biglaw doesn't drug test anyone ever, even new associates.

Is that really even a point of discussion? It's clear that they don't want to know.

Of course, one could argue that drug testing people for employment in general is ridiculous and pointlessly invasive, but that's a different can of worms.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Oh, I don't think anyone disagrees that biglaw doesn't have any incentive to try to address this or even admit it's an issue. I'm sure you're right that there are plenty of people using.

[Art Prior]

Also, re: the medical thing - you're blurring the conversation by throwing in legitimate medical uses. No one has claimed people shouldn't take drugs as appropriately prescribed by medical professionals. But this thread is about illegal drug use/drug abuse, so I presumed you were talking about self-medicating.

And really if you can't tell that using illegal drugs "just to get by" is simply an earlier step on Peter's path to staying home to slam meth - well, again, good luck with that and I hope you get help. Recreation is one thing, but recreation =/= a way to "get by" in your job.

The actual medical use of painkillers is for the purpose of "getting by with less pain." Its the sole purpose of the drugs, medically. They don't treat the condition at all just allow you to get by.

I'm not sure what legit medical use you are referring to other than to lessen pain so ppl can get about their lives more (like work more!).

And when you find out, as everyone that starts using opiates as prescribed does, that increases in dopamine = increases in speed, concentration, and mood, the line between using only what you have to and using what you want to perform better in law starts becoming blurred. What you also find out is what goes up must come down, so trying not to cross that line is a battle drug user professionals fight within themselves constantly, Peter was far past that.

[A. Nony Mouse]

"Getting by with less pain from my diagnosed medical condition using drugs prescribed by a doctor" is not at all the same as "getting by in my high-stress long-hours job that requires more than I can handle without using drugs illegally," though. Having a crappy job is not a medical condition for which someone should be taking drugs.