The Double-Edged Coin of "Enabling"

We often hear the term “enabling” when speaking on the continuum of substance use, specifically chaotic substance use. There are many different perspectives on what enabling is and isn’t. What’s worked for some hasn’t worked for others. To be quite honest, it’s a roll of the dice and no one way is right for everyone.

Let's reframe what it means to enable

If I give money to someone who is unhoused, some people may say I’m enabling them. Perhaps I did enable them to use; or maybe I enabled them to have their needs met without having to steal or engage in criminal behavior. These two things don’t have to be mutually exclusive—we can accept both as true.

There’s also the possibility I’ve enabled someone’s safety, in the sense that they aren’t putting themselves in danger that day. What if they did what they said they would do with the money? And if they didn’t, that’s none of my business.

The weaponization of enabling

The term “enabling” has been weaponized against people who are struggling with substance use, unhoused, and managing mental health issues. To fully understand my view on this topic, we first have to understand the facts about substance use in America. This includes the complicated intersections of poverty, a broken healthcare system, and a need to punish vulnerable populations in the name of capitalism and greed.

Some folks will say, “I’d rather not give them money. If they get arrested they’ll be safer, and I don’t have to worry about them.” This is is an “out of sight, out of mind” stance. It benefits only those who perpetuate harm and ignore the realities of America’s failed war on drugs.

Utilizing this narrative might justify that a person who uses drugs is safe for an intermittent amount of time while incarcerated. We can quickly disprove this when we examine the risks associated with intermittent breaks from use. There is a high likelihood of folks accidentally overdosing due to tolerance changes that happen over a short period of time.

Not to mention, people in carceral systems are not without access to illicit substances such as fentanyl, methamphetamine, and others. I’ve heard people boast about doing three shots of dope on a good day while serving prison sentences.

When a loved one asks for help

About a year ago, my friend reached out to me for some advice regarding her husband. He had disappeared but eventually reached out to her, letting her know he was stranded in Mexico. He asked for money, promising to use it to come home.

Feeling unsure, she reached out to several trusted friends before me, and each one assumed he was lying. They said she would be enabling him to continue his substance use while in Mexico to avoid the consequences awaiting him in the States. I told her, “Utimately, the only thing that matters is that you do what you can live with. You’re the one that must live with your choices; no one else.”

In the event that the resources you provide end up truly enabling your loved one to harm themselves, you must ask yourself if you can you live with that. And if they’re telling the truth, can you live with your choice to withhold support (monetary or otherwise) and risk something terrible happening to them?

Setting boundaries

Considering the outcome of all of these scenarios doesn’t mean you can’t set boundaries. Choosing to set boundaries to protect yourself and is an individualized process, and no two situations looks the same.

The concept of enabling becomes moot if the person is going to achieve their goal one way or another. Whether or not you choose to provide money, resources, or a couch to crash on, the outcomes remain the same if they have already committed to carrying on as they wish.

I feel as though people use "enabling" as an adage to shame our loved ones struggling with substance use when we feel we have lost control. No one needs added shame while trying to navigate relationships in chaotic or problematic use.

Can you live with your decision?

There is not a right or wrong decision when navigating the often tumultuous relationships that exist within this ethos. Even with many variables and individual circumstances, it comes down to asking yourself if you can live with your decisions.

As the loved one and stable person in this dichotomy, you sit in a position of power. You have the choice to set firm boundaries just as you would with anyone else in your life. Or you can choose to disengage entirely and withhold connection from your loved one. What’s right for one relationship might not be right for others, and that’s totally ok. You must decide what you’re ok with and stick to that for continuity.

Challenging the idea of "rock bottom"

It’s also important to address the misunderstood practice of cutting someone off while they are experiencing problematic substance use. We often call this letting someone hit “rock bottom”. Through my own lived experience, knowledge, and understanding of documented evidence, I simply cannot agree that “rock bottom” even exists.

I don't believe there is any merit in disconnecting with someone who needs a link to humanity during their darkest times. However, there is a balance that can be reached between both parties through mutual understanding and respect of boundaries.

Unconditional love and self-protection

We must understand that we aren’t responsible for another person’s decisions. Treating the relationship as you would with any other loved one stands as a reminder that unconditional love takes many forms. All of these forms offer support and stability in their own right.

At the end of the day, it's ok to say yes, and it’s ok to say no. Just like I wouldn’t allow toxic behaviors to permeate any relationships I hold, I choose not to make allowance for a loved one to gaslight or manipulate me just because they are experiencing chaotic drug use.

I can allow for more grace and empathy towards someone when they’re struggling, but that doesn’t mean I write them a pass to disrupt my peace and stability. I do my best to keep it simple and hold all of my relationships to a standard that protects both of us.