published February 21, 2026
I have written publicly for many years about addiction treatment, public policy, politicians, corporations, media companies and institutional failure. That includes institutions I have worked for or served under. I do not reserve criticism just for outsiders.
Some of my earlier writing was sharp and argumentative. It reflected strong convictions and, at times, incandescent anger at what I believed to be hypocrisy, cowardice or harm. I do not retroactively edit previously published opinions.
Over time, I have come to understand that moral intensity is not the same as persuasive force. Strident attacks and questioning motives are not the way to reasonably win an argument.
Plus, some of my writing got me in a bit of trouble. One of Governor Christie’s subordinates filed an ethics complaint against me in 2012 after I publicly questioned some of the Governor’s policies regarding the opioid epidemic. The State Ethics board wrote “after considering a report of the staff’s preliminary inquiry, the Commission, pursuant to N.J.A.C. 19:61-3.1(g), dismissed the allegations.” That was a stressful year. Just before COVID, a national for-profit treatment program sued me in Federal court for what they believed were “malicious, unrelenting and disparaging attacks.” The case was resolved without either side admitting fault, but I ended up taking down a few articles. That was stressful too. In 2021, I was flagged by the Army for my play about an Army therapist in Poland. A three-year investigation was the result. In 2024, I was granted my honorable discharge after a one-day trial. That was quite stressful.
I believe in confronting wrongdoing. In certain roles and situations, remaining silent feels dishonest. But aggressive confrontation has, as stated directly above, undermined my positions.
I supervise clinicians and teach undergraduates. My writing is a model for them. I do not want those I train to equate volume with strength or insult with clarity. George Orwell, if we had met, might have told me that precision is a professional obligation.
I also serve in institutions that demand trust and professionalism. My public conduct should not harm the organizations I work for or serve. Critique must be careful not to spill into recklessness. Institutional trust is hard to build and easy to erode.
My current writing emphasizes systems, incentives and governance rather than personal attack. I distinguish between documented fact, allegation, inference and opinion. I avoid imputing intent without evidence. I aim for arguments that can withstand scrutiny, not simply generate reaction.
Public commentary is separate from my clinical, forensic and military work. In court, in evaluations, in supervision and in service, I adhere to formal evidentiary standards and professional codes. Those roles require neutrality, methodological rigor and restraint. Opinion writing allows analysis and conviction. It does not replace professional discipline.
My archive must remain. To edit or hide past writing would be dishonest. But my standards must continue to mature.
Disclosure: Structural organization, editing and risk-review assistance were provided by a large language model in accordance with my AI Use & Writing Standards. All arguments, interpretations and conclusions are my own.
https://greenagel.com/ai-use-and-writing-standards/