nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Fair play to Peter Hitchens

Robroy36

Was anyone else watching Newsnight last night? Peter Hitchens and Matthew Perry had a tête-à-tête over, among other things, the current trend in society to absolve addicts of all responsibility by classing them as "ill" or "disabled". This particular line really struck a cord with me - certainly last week the debate about "addicts" terrorising people on the LUAS is one aspect of the sickening decline that we see on our own shores.

What do you think After Hours - is Hitchens right? Are we too quick to look past the person and classify any poor decisions people make in life as part of some sort of nebulous medical condition?

http://www.eveningtelegraph.co.uk/life/celebrity-life/matthew-perry-in-heated-newsnight-drugs-debate-1.166399

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Wopp

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

hitchens is a conservative, therefore has nothing worthwhile to say about anything and it can be safely assumed the opposite of what he says is the truth

also mother of ****, why is anybody listening to matthew perry about anything. he was only ever worthwhile when he was on coke.

Second comment in and I would consider the debate finished with that haha.

I honestly don't know why people give Peter Hitchens any platform to spread his vile idology. Let him say what he thinks, freedom of speech and all that, but giving him a platform makes it sound like he has something constructive and valuable to say.

sbsquarepants

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Interestingly the very well off are actually probably less responsible towards wider society,

That's an interesting point, I was listening to George Hook last night on the way home from work, Michael Graham was on from Boston about a case in the US (Florida, I think) where a young man from a really rich family had killed 4 people drink driving. His lawyer argued, successfully too by the way, that it wasn't really his fault because he suffered from "affluenza" - in other words his rich upbringing had basically distanced him from ever having to consider the consequences his actions had on others.
Now there was some suggestion that the judge was swayed more by Daddy's cheque book than the lawyers argument, but it's an interesting point nonetheless.

judge_dredd

Manach wrote: »

I find Mr. Hitchens both an excellent writer of books and blogs that chronicle the disintegration of Western society into a fractured and impoverished backwater. He skewers both the radicalised individualisation that has undermined social bonds and well and the growth of the PC Nanny state whose reach now emcompasses more power to interfere with familiy life that is unprecedented and shows no sign of waning.

i loved christopher hitchens and i like his brother peter aswel , its refreshing to hear the view of a traditional conservative thee odd time , peter hitchens was opposed to britains role in iraq and afghanistan , he,s like the british version of pat buchannan who is also always worth listening to

i dont believe addiction is a disease myself , i do feel sorry for addicts however but i dont think labelling their problem as an addiction helps them

--Kaiser--

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

hitchens is a conservative, therefore has nothing worthwhile to say about anything

Wow.....this is the stupidest statement I have encountered in a long, long time

old hippy

Manach wrote: »

the growth of the PC Nanny state whose reach now emcompasses more power to interfere with familiy life that is unprecedented and shows no sign of waning.

How does this PC Nanny interfere with family life, specificaly?

Nodin

Manach wrote: »

I find Mr. Hitchens both an excellent writer of books and blogs that chronicle the disintegration of Western society into a fractured and impoverished backwater. ..........

Hehehe. Go to rural India, Egypt, the Congo, Guatamala Columbia and the like, get a good idea of "impoverished" and "fractured" and get back to me.

kunst nugget

judge_dredd wrote: »

i dont believe addiction is a disease myself , i do feel sorry for addicts however but i dont think labelling their problem as an addiction helps them

I presume you meant labelling their problem as a disease.

I think the problem is that labelling it as a disease has connotations for people of addicts fobbing off responsibility of their behaviour by having the excuse of being helpless against a disease. I tend not to think of alcoholism or addiction as a disease but rather as a mental disorder similar to depression and one that often involves intervention and hospitalisation when it progressed to a severe enough state. It might be a tomayto-tomahto scenario for many but I do think there is a distinction.

I think for Hitchens to talk about 'the fantasy of addiction' is completely dunderheaded and we need to have a clean slate look at how we approach drug policy in the west. I think the ideas behind the drug courts are interesting and something that should be given time to see if they are effective in helping people out of their addictions before dismissing them out of hand. The current system doesn't seem to be doing anything positive at the moment.

Corkfeen

old hippy wrote: »

How does this PC Nanny interfere with family life, specificaly?

I think this may be a hit and run and you're unlikely to get a response. :pac:

[Deleted User]

Soft Falling Rain wrote: »

Maybe Hitchens should go meet a few people currently in addiction and ask them if they enjoy their life. I'm not talking about celebrities enjoying the excesses of their infamy, I'm talking about addicts who have destroyed their own lives as well as those around them. The kind of people who have no-one and nothing to live for other than to feed their addiction.

Addiction is not a choice, in fact, it's a pretty idiotic idea. Why would anyone in their right mind choose what I've outlined above?

While I would agree, in most cases, it was their own choice to take up the substances that they are addicted to.

old hippy

Corkfeen wrote: »

I think this may be a hit and run and you're unlikely to get a response. :pac:

Damn those drive by postings. Destroying the very fabric of family life etc etc...

Soft Falling Rain

Deleted User wrote: »

While I would agree, in most cases, it was their own choice to take up the substances that they are addicted to.

You're correct, and I personally believe in empowering the person to "own" their decisions again (once they have been given the tools to cope in their recovery that is).

However, it's not called drug dependency for nothing. In most cases, when it comes to substance misuse, drugs are being used as a coping mechanism for whatever is going on in that individual person's life. Their drug use is no longer a matter of choice but rather a matter of surviving.

I am pie

Who is more likely to be right here, some conservative ideologue shooting from the hip with a clumsy point to prove around personal freedom or qualified medical professionals trained in addiction management and recovery?

Mammanabammana

There seems to be this widespread perception that addiction is a get out clause for anything an addict does under the influence of whatever the substance might be. The substance abuse may explain the behaviour since the person's thinking and behaviour has usually been completely distorted by the substance. However, this shouldn't absolve the offender of any responsibility. If you get drunk and commit a crime, you should still pay the penalty, irrespective of whether you're on a night out and have one too many or whether you're an alcoholic destroyed by drink. Same thing goes for drug addicts or any substance abusers. Being out of your head is not an excuse, and it shouldn't for one second stop you from paying the penalty.

old hippy

Mammanabammana wrote: »

There seems to be this widespread perception that addiction is a get out clause for anything an addict does under the influence of whatever the substance might be. .

Is there? I haven't noticed that. I'd be more inclined to say mitigating circumstances surrounding the individual case.

Mammanabammana

old hippy wrote: »

Is there? I haven't noticed that. I'd be more inclined to say mitigating circumstances surrounding the individual case.

Mitigating circumstances in what respect? Do you mean as in being drunk or stoned should be considered mitigating circumstances?

Soft Falling Rain

Mammanabammana wrote: »

There seems to be this widespread perception that addiction is a get out clause for anything an addict does under the influence of whatever the substance might be. The substance abuse may explain the behaviour since the person's thinking and behaviour has usually been completely distorted by the substance. However, this shouldn't absolve the offender of any responsibility. If you get drunk and commit a crime, you should still pay the penalty, irrespective of whether you're on a night out and have one too many or whether you're an alcoholic destroyed by drink. Same thing goes for drug addicts or any substance abusers. Being out of your head is not an excuse, and it shouldn't for one second stop you from paying the penalty.

Goes without saying, and I think the law generally agrees with you......that is, unless, you have the good fortune of being from the right post code.

old hippy

Mammanabammana wrote: »

Mitigating circumstances in what respect? Do you mean as in being drunk or stoned should be considered mitigating circumstances?

Depends on what led up to the crime, the nature of the crime, the background to the person who committed the crime etc.

Mammanabammana

old hippy wrote: »

Depends on what led up to the crime, the nature of the crime, the background to the person who committed the crime etc.

That's a different situation though. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I'm speaking specifically about people who commit a crime while not in control of themselves as a result of being under the influence of a substance and then try to use being under that influence as a reason not to have to pay a fine, go to jail or whatever. To take a fairly simple example, if you wouldn't normally smash the windows of a car in and you do so when you're hammered, you should still have to pay for the windows.

old hippy

Mammanabammana wrote: »

That's a different situation though. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I'm speaking specifically about people who commit a crime while not in control of themselves as a result of being under the influence of a substance and then try to use being under that influence as a reason not to have to pay a fine, go to jail or whatever. To take a fairly simple example, if you wouldn't normally smash the windows of a car in and you do so when you're hammered, you should still have to pay for the windows.

Of course, I don't condone crimes committed under the influence.

Wattle

It's a tricky one. On one hand I think that some people have addictive tendencies handed down to them and it is a very complex problem requiring intervention, treatment and sometimes group therapy like AA. On the other if you have continuing evidence that you have a substance abuse problem and it's causing chaos in your life and the life of others you have a responsibility to actively do something to address it. A friend of mine is an alcoholic and for a long time I tried to talk him out of his drinking but he's still the same and nothing changed. You can't save people from addiction they've got to want to do it themselves.

I think if you commit a crime while intoxicated you should have to pay for that crime but I think criminalising the act of taking drugs is wrong in cases where it's a victimless crime.

shantolog

The sooner we stop treating drug abuse as a crime, and start treating it like a health issue as it clearly is, the better off society will be in the long run.

But we can't have that conversation yet as we still have to ignore the big elephant in the room, Alcohol, and all the violence and broken homes that causes. I don't think Ireland is ready to rid itself of that particular addiction yet, so we heap attention on the illegal drugs as if somehow getting of junkies will solve our drug problems.

Wolf Club

Hitchens seems to be completely detached from society, living in his own upper middle class Tory bubble. Saying harsher sentencing for drug offences would deter users is a ridiculous argument, does every person caught with drugs need to be stigmatized and their lives ruined? It would cause further damage to people who's only crime is damaging their own bodies.

Robroy36

Wolf Club wrote: »

Hitchens seems to be completely detached from society, living in his own upper middle class Tory bubble.

That dope don't live in the reel worild. :rolleyes:

Nodin

Robroy36 wrote: »

That dope don't live in the reel worild. :rolleyes:

Some point you're trying to get across there.....?

Robroy36

Wolf Club wrote: »

It would cause further damage to people who's only crime is damaging their own bodies.

Tell that to the people who have had their communities and families ripped apart by the drug users and dealers.

Robroy36

Nodin wrote: »

Some point you're trying to get across there.....?

Nodin, I am highlighting his ignorant, petulant, inverse snobbery. Do you need the definitions of any of those words spelt out to you?

Nodin

Robroy36 wrote: »

Nodin, I am highlighting his ignorant, petulant, inverse snobbery. Do you need the definitions of any of those words spelt out to you?

O, so that was meant to be an accent denoting 'ignorance'. Fascinating. Do please expand on this new theory of society. Is it a fact that a Dublin accent is linked to ignorance?

Wattle

Robroy36 wrote: »

Tell that to the people who have had their communities and families ripped apart by the drug users and dealers.

The present system is only perpetuating that. Send a drug user to prison and he's surrounded by drugs. Give him a criminal record and he can't get a job. Give him no hope for the future and he thinks **** it might as well get out of my head. And on and on it goes. We need a different approach.

jank

Not that Peter Hitches won the argument but Perry lost the argument when he had to resort to smug childish name calling and put downs.

Waking-Dreams

Peter Hitchens isn’t the only person to reject the disease hypothesis of addiction. Gene Heyman makes a great case that current conventional wisdom about addiction, that it is a disease and a compulsion beyond conscious control, is dead wrong. His book, Addiction: A Disorder of Choice, argues that addiction is actually voluntary, influenced by preferences and goals, and can be understood as a quirk in the psychological principles governing all human decisions. (So it’s more of a mental health issue then.)

The trouble with labeling something like addiction as a disease is that it tends to remove much of the accountability from the addict and promotes the idea that they are somehow a victim at the mercy of their own corrupted neurology.

What this does for many addicts is that whenever they feel the unrelenting compulsion to engage in their addiction, they find absolution in the concept; that making that impulsive choice is because they have a disease and are powerless to counteract it. As you can imagine, this does not help them in taking full accountability for their weakness and assigns responsibility to something else instead.

While people with addictions may very well be victims in the conventional sense, it would seem more appropriate to label them as victims of their own desires, not of some disease in their body or mind. In the same way that Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s or Lou Gehrig’s Disease are all legitimate diseases and cannot be overcome by willpower and cognitive awareness, addicts are able to give up their addictions.

Many will argue passionately that such addicts who manage to give up their addictions are not proper addicts, or fall into a different class of compulsive user. Certainly, some people do become more addicted than others but this doesn’t mean that choice isn’t playing its part.