"The fantasy of addiction" - Peter Htichens

[goldstone]

Hitchens is nearly as vile as Will Self

That's a very sweeping statement. Care to provide a couple of well supported reasons?

 

[keaton]

It says much about the nature of celebrity that Newsnight decide that the best person to debate a serious point with Hitchens is a third rate actor and ex addict (who seems to still think he is Chandler) rather than a possibly less glitzy expert in the field of addiction. Like you say why should Perry be held up as a representative for all addicts and an expert on all addiction just because he has suffered with it. From the preamble though it seems he was there to talk about his work with the drug courts and not the nature of addiction it's self which Hitchens turn the discussion to rather expertly.

But then the best person they could find to argue against the Courts doesn't believe in drug addiction which should pretty much rule him out of the debate. A sensible debate would have had an expert, someone with experience (Chandler) and someone to argue against who isn't a mentalist

 

[supaseagull]

Surely heavy sentencing would stop people taking drugs in prison and give them a chance to get clean.

Sorry but prison is definitely not the answer.

No one chooses to be an addict.

Are you suggesting that being an alcoholic or addicted to prescription drugs should carry a prison sentance?

I guess it would get rid of all the smokers aswell!

 

[User removed 4]

Sorry but prison is definitely not the answer.

No one chooses to be an addict.

Are you suggesting that being an alcoholic or addicted to prescription drugs should carry a prison sentance?

I guess it would get rid of all the smokers aswell!

Oh do leave off, no-one chooses to be an addict my arse, take skag, and you WILL end up an addict , no-one can be unaware of this fact with the amount of info around these days, so by definition it's a choice.

 

[seagullmouse]

Very one-sided conversation on here. I think Hitchens is closer to the truth than people are willing to admit.

Yes addiction is real, describing it as a disease is just semantics. Like describing love/anger etc as a disease. It just frees people of control of a situation to say it is the disease's fault.

 

[BadFish]

Oh do leave off, no-one chooses to be an addict my arse, take skag, and you WILL end up an addict , no-one can be unaware of this fact with the amount of info around these days, so by definition it's a choice.

Do do you think that people decide to become smack addicts thinking clearly about all the information they have at hand? or is the decent into addiction less simple and clear cut than this?

 

[brightonrock]

Are there any casual heroin users ? I know a few heroin users, none of them casual , they may start that way , but it doesnt last, they either end up as functioning addicts with a poor quality of life , or the wretched individuals who's life is one never ending search for the next fix, quite why ANYONE , with the level of information that is available would take heroin i dont know, that is why i have very little sympathy for heroin addicts ,its a choice to start, do they REALLY think they will be the one person to not end up as a filthy, skanky skaghead ?

They were two separate points which you've lumped together. I was agreeing with Brand that illegality is irrelevant to an addict. If you're addicted to heroin and your body is crying out for it, it doesn't matter how severe the hypothetical punishment is, your mind is not in the right place to make a logical decision based on the potential consequences.

Secondly, I agree with you that the first time someone is offered heroin or other highly addictive and dangerous drug, they must know the risks.

Hitchens however includes ALL drug users, of ALL drugs, in the same bracket. In his mind a meth-head is one and the same as someone who smokes the occasional joint. His entire premise is based on the idea that addiction is a fantasy, and that "an addict" does it for a laugh. That view in itself is a fantasy. He's either on a fishing trip to sell his book to an equally judgemental, sanctimonious send unsympathetic audience, or he's genuinely dead inside. I hope it's the former but I fear it's the latter.

 

[Questions]

The problem with people like Hitchens and an awful lot of others like him is they put alcohol into its small little box and every other drug known to mankind in the other bigger box. It's too narrow a position to take if you want to engage in any meaningful debate on the subject. Besides there are many underlying reasons what someone can become an addict whether with drink, heroin or for that matter any of the other regularly legally prescribed drugs.
Of course there are people who think they can 'handle it', I've known plenty, but there are also people who just need to forget for a short period of their lives. It's a deeper more in depth discussion than people like Hitchen could ever engage in.

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

What an absolute TIT that Hitchens is. When someone has an addiction they quite often carry on until they die, even given warnings before. According to Hutchens they do it for a laugh. Absolute BELL END.

 

[spring hall convert]

Are there any casual heroin users ? I

Do give over, there are plenty of casual heroin users. The instantly addictive crap that is pedaled (for very good reasons, granted) is a complete myth. Once you are hooked, it is extremely physically addictive but it takes a good while to get to that point.

 

[spring hall convert]

Surely heavy sentencing would stop people taking drugs in prison and give them a chance to get clean.

Prison is probably the easiest place on earth to score drugs. Many go in as dabblers and come out as full blown addicts, that's if they make it out at all.

 

[Spider]

Sorry but prison is definitely not the answer.

No one chooses to be an addict.

Are you suggesting that being an alcoholic or addicted to prescription drugs should carry a prison sentance?

I guess it would get rid of all the smokers aswell!

I hate defending Hitchins but this is missing the point. You can't become an addict to something until you've taken it. You wouldn't know you were an addict until you've taken something for the first time. Hitchins' idea is that if you make sentencing much tougher it would deter people from trying it in the first place. He also argues that, even if it becomes something other than free will when taking a lot of drugs, the initial point of becoming addicted was a decision made by the user.

I'm not sure I'm comfortable with the idea that some people are able to extricate themselves of all free will by suggesting that they had a pre-disposition to become addicted. I'm also not sure that Hitchins claim that tougher sentencing would deter drugs is correct.

 

[The Truth]

If Hitchens wants to make sentencing harder on drug takers so they wont end up with bad habits, what's his idea for alcoholics and gambling addicts?
The majority of the uk's addicts are addicted to alcohol. I'd be interested to know what sort of punishments he would want on alcoholics?

 

[Hamilton]

I hate defending Hitchins but this is missing the point. You can't become an addict to something until you've taken it. You wouldn't know you were an addict until you've taken something for the first time. Hitchins' idea is that if you make sentencing much tougher it would deter people from trying it in the first place. He also argues that, even if it becomes something other than free will when taking a lot of drugs, the initial point of becoming addicted was a decision made by the user.

I'm not sure I'm comfortable with the idea that some people are able to extricate themselves of all free will by suggesting that they had a pre-disposition to become addicted. I'm also not sure that Hitchins claim that tougher sentencing would deter drugs is correct.

I think there may well be certain imbalances people have that mean their potential for addiction is heightened. Those imbalances might be natural character traits or they might be enforced through things like abuse. This means the potential for addiction can be set at an early age. Are we to expect young people or those facing extreme mental pressures to be cognisant of what the law says? I don't think we can.

It's not as simple as saying "you have a choice not to be an addict." Addictions can consciously arise and unconsciously arise.

 

[seagullmouse]

If Hitchens wants to make sentencing harder on drug takers so they wont end up with bad habits, what's his idea for alcoholics and gambling addicts?
The majority of the uk's addicts are addicted to alcohol. I'd be interested to know what sort of punishments he would want on alcoholics?

Hitchens isn't saying that all addicts should be punished, he is just saying that they had the choice at the beginning and that it is not a disease. Any more than being a Brighton fan is a disease or having a favourite colour is a disease.

 

[The Truth]

10% of humans will have an addictive personality, drugs are a massive danger for anyone with an addictive personality. Hitchens obviously doesn't agree.

 

[spring hall convert]

I hate defending Hitchins but this is missing the point. You can't become an addict to something until you've taken it. You wouldn't know you were an addict until you've taken something for the first time. Hitchins' idea is that if you make sentencing much tougher it would deter people from trying it in the first place. He also argues that, even if it becomes something other than free will when taking a lot of drugs, the initial point of becoming addicted was a decision made by the user.

I'm not sure I'm comfortable with the idea that some people are able to extricate themselves of all free will by suggesting that they had a pre-disposition to become addicted. I'm also not sure that Hitchins claim that tougher sentencing would deter drugs is correct.

What about alcohol then? Plenty of people ruin their lives with that, yet you can walk into any corner shop on the way home from work and buy as much of it as you want. I'm sure even Mr. Hitchens is partial to the odd glass of vino.

In my view, the price we as a human society have to bear if we wish to experiment with recreational drugs of any form (alcohol and tobacco included), is the responsibility of dealing with addiction.

 

[The Truth]

Booze is the gateway drug to using harder drugs. Most peoples first experience of drugs is getting drunk.

 

[Nibble]

Hitchens deliberately says this stuff for media coverage. He doesn't believe it any more than you or I do. That Matthew Perry comes across fairly unlikeable. Looks totally lost and responds with sarcasm, I can see him being a very unpleasant drunk indeed.

 

[The Truth]

Hitchens isn't saying that all addicts should be punished, he is just saying that they had the choice at the beginning and that it is not a disease. Any more than being a Brighton fan is a disease or having a favourite colour is a disease.

I knew someone who's parents were heroin users from when he was born. He became an heroin addict by the time he was 16 years old and died at 19. Hitchens clearly doesn't know jack about society if he thinks all addicts were under the assumption they had a choice. Some people don't know any different!