[cardguy]

At some point - I will try and put together a post about why Peter Hitchens is my favourite writer.

But in the meanwhile - for those who already enjoy his work - here he is debating drug policy with Chandler from 'Friends'.

I was a huge fan of the TV show 'Friends' (is that beta?) - and it is pretty bizarre watching him argue (and I mean argue!) with Peter Hitchens. Sadly - there were three guests in the debate. Which always interrupts the flow in these sorts of conversations.

[teh_skeeze]

The most rational one in that discussion was the woman, and she couldn't get a word in edge wise. Hitchens is a hardliner. I assume it's because of his late brother's alcoholism. Perry is someone in recovery who realizes he needs help. However, Perry takes a solipsistic approach in his beliefs about drug court. I do agree with Hitchens that addiction isn't a disease. However, I disagree with his solution. In my experience, addicts have deep seated issues that cause them to chase the escape via the drug of their choice. This is why 12 step doesn't work. You can get the addict off drugs, but if you don't resolve the underlying issues, they will either go back to the escape, or find a new outlet. You can make the laws as harsh as you want. It won't stop someone who wants that escape from finding it.

[Collide]

Matthew Perry sounded reasonable here but then I remembered this.

[cardguy]

I have seen Peter Hitchens argue better than he did above. But so much depends on the format of the show and the presenter. It is really difficult to develop more than one point at a time (which is annoying since your instinct is to respond to your opponent's argument - and separately try and advance your own argument as well). This is difficult on most TV shows due to time pressures and the presenter interrupting in order to ensure everybody has their say.

So - for a start - this debate would be much better if was just one versus one. And not two versus one.

With that said - I feel Peter Hitchens made the better arguments.

Matthew Perry tried some ad hominem attacks and Appeals to Authority. Whilst also trotting out the 'argument' that everybody else disagrees with him so he must be wrong. Which is such a dumb argument that I don't think anybody has ever bothered listing it in the usual lists of logical fallacies.

http://www.richardprins.com/wp-content/u...poster.jpg

Still - even with the Appeal to Authority - Hitchens responded robustly that the same source that once argued Homosexuality was disease may also be incorrect when 30 years later it argues that alcoholism is a disease.

Later in the argument. Hitchens made the interesting point that even if Matthew Perry was 100% correct. Then it would be all the more reason for the law to be as strict as possible when deal with drug offenders. In order to save those poor 'addicts' from the terrible costs of being addicted to a drug which will rob them of all moral choice and free will. Surely if that argument were correct - then the only rational approach would be to act as severely as possible in order to prevent people from ever dablling with drugs in the first place.

Now to take Peter Hitchens' argument. He simply asked for an objective medical defintion of addiction. And was met with silence every time. And Matthew Perry trying to guilt trip him into shutting up by whinging on about his own history of addiction (another fallacy - best not to build your case around a sample of one).

But the key argument that Peter Hitchens put forward - and which was also ignored, is the following. If Matthew Perry is correct then it means no drug addict has ever given up drugs for good through the use of will power alone.

That is the key point that Peter Hitchens wanted a response to. And it is clear that Hitchens is right. Since I know many people who have done this. There will be many people on this forum who have done this. And there are many people around the world, in every country, who do this every single day.

Will power.

And nothing else.

Try curing a real disease like cancer or AIDS through will power alone. You will fail. Because will power is of no use against a real disease.

---------------------------------

I am not particularly passionate about the drugs debate. Since I am pretty tolerant and don't give a fuck what other people do with their lives. I am just a huge Peter Hitchens fan and wanted to give my analysis of the above.

---------------------------------

Here are Hitchens' thoughts on his debate with Matthew Perry.

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2...nter-.html

[cardguy]

Okay - for those who care - Peter Hitchens finally got round to writing a full account of his debate with Matthew Perry. And his thoughts on the debate.

This is a much better article than the one I linked to above.

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2...ction.html

[cardguy]

An indepth article from Peter Hitchens laying out clearly why he doesnt believe in 'addiction'.

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2...annon.html

For those who want to follow this debate to its conclusion.

[The Lizard of Oz]

The whole argument is based on a confusion between two different things, addiction and compulsion. Both sides are arguing as if those two things were the same, whereas of course they're not.

Hitchens is completely correct in claiming that there is no such thing as "addiction" if what is understood by it is "compulsive behavior that is beyond one's control". The gambler, drinker, or drug user can always change his behavior at any moment. It may be very difficult, but it's always possible given sufficient willpower. That is true.

But this is not the same as to say that addiction doesn't exist. It certainly does. To use the wiki definition for convenience:

Quote:

Addiction is the continued repetition of a behavior despite adverse consequences,[1] or a neurological impairment leading to such behaviors.[2]

Addictions can include, but are not limited to, drug abuse, exercise addiction, food addiction, sexual addiction, computer addiction and gambling. Classic hallmarks of addiction include impaired control over substances or behavior, preoccupation with substance or behavior, continued use despite consequences, and denial.[3] Habits and patterns associated with addiction are typically characterized by immediate gratification (short-term reward), coupled with delayed deleterious effects (long-term costs).[4]

Physiological dependence occurs when the body has to adjust to the substance by incorporating the substance into its 'normal' functioning.[5] This state creates the conditions of tolerance and withdrawal. Tolerance is the process by which the body continually adapts to the substance and requires increasingly larger amounts to achieve the original effects. Withdrawal refers to physical and psychological symptoms experienced when reducing or discontinuing a substance that the body has become dependent on. Symptoms of withdrawal generally include but are not limited to anxiety, irritability, intense cravings for the substance, nausea, hallucinations, headaches, cold sweats, and tremors.

This is all more or less correct as far as it goes. Nowhere does it say that addiction constitutes a compulsion. Rather, it describes a constellation of behaviors and sensations that is observed all the time, and which is real enough.

So it's pretty simple. To say that addiction constitutes compulsion, that it removes free will, is false. To say that there is no such thing as addiction is also false. That's about all there is to it.

[teh_skeeze]

It's not that black and white Oz. You can die if you quit a hardcore heroin addiction cold turkey. I'm fairly certain that it's the same with stimulants. Allegedly Lemmy Kilmister from Motorhead has to take amphetamines or his heart will just stop.

[The Lizard of Oz]

(12-30-2013 05:29 PM)teh_skeeze Wrote:  

It's not that black and white Oz. You can die if you quit a hardcore heroin addiction cold turkey. I'm fairly certain that it's the same with stimulants. Allegedly Lemmy Kilmister from Motorhead has to take amphetamines or his heart will just stop.

Well, to say that you will die if you stop doing something is not the same as to say that you can't stop. He can still stop if he chooses to, whether or not that is a good idea.

There are quite a few examples of addiction in which stopping cold turkey is not the best thing to do, though I'm not aware of any examples where you can't taper off the substance. But this doesn't changes the simple point that it's never beyond someone's power to stop if they choose to do so (nor the other simple point that there is such a thing as addiction).

[Teedub]

(12-30-2013 05:29 PM)teh_skeeze Wrote:  

It's not that black and white Oz. You can die if you quit a hardcore heroin addiction cold turkey. I'm fairly certain that it's the same with stimulants. Allegedly Lemmy Kilmister from Motorhead has to take amphetamines or his heart will just stop.

Nah, Lemmy is indestructible. Haha

He also proves the point that looks don't matter if you're a fucking rock star. He's banged thousands of chicks and looks like a monster.

Sorry for derailing the thread!

[tylerdurden1993]

Peter Hitchens is one of my favourite journalists in the UK at the moment. I like the way he argues with logic and reason. Has anyone ever read his book on the drugs called The War on Drugs - The war we never thought. I really need to get around to it but i'm just too lazy to get myself a copy

[teh_skeeze]

(12-30-2013 05:53 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  

(12-30-2013 05:29 PM)teh_skeeze Wrote:  

It's not that black and white Oz. You can die if you quit a hardcore heroin addiction cold turkey. I'm fairly certain that it's the same with stimulants. Allegedly Lemmy Kilmister from Motorhead has to take amphetamines or his heart will just stop.

Well, to say that you will die if you stop doing something is not the same as to say that you can't stop. He can still stop if he chooses to, whether or not that is a good idea.

There are quite a few examples of addiction in which stopping cold turkey is not the best thing to do, though I'm not aware of any examples where you can't taper off the substance. But this doesn't changes the simple point that it's never beyond someone's power to stop if they choose to do so (nor the other simple point that there is such a thing as addiction).

I concur with your first point. Although I'm not sure about "nor the other simple point that there is such a thing as addiction". Is addiction the same as dependency?

[The Lizard of Oz]

(12-30-2013 08:00 PM)teh_skeeze Wrote:  

I concur with your first point. Although I'm not sure about "nor the other simple point that there is such a thing as addiction". Is addiction the same as dependency?

They are related, but dependency has a more specific meaning. It means your body cannot function properly without the administration of the substance to which you are addicted, so that withdrawal would cause serious physiological symptoms. You can have addiction without dependency but you can't have dependency without addiction.

[cardguy]

Peter Hitchens quoting a prison doctor who has dealt with hundreds of heroin addicts on the 'Cold Turkey' myth:

Quote:

People take heroin because they like it, not because they have to. They are selfish pleasure-seekers in need of deterrence and punishment, not sad victims in need of help, rehabilitation and sympathy. An elegant new book ('Junk Medicine, published by Harriman House in Britain and Encounter Books in the USA) by former prison doctor Theodore Dalrymple ought to be causing a huge public controversy, but isn't because the consensus feels safer ignoring it. Dalrymple tears to pieces the idea that heroin addiction is a terrible disease, somehow caught by innocents, and also the fallacy that getting off heroin is a desperate, agonising physical struggle.

I think this wholly false idea is widely believed partly because of the powerful 1975 film 'French Connection II', in which a New York cop played by Gene Hackman is turned into a junkie by the evil drug barons he is trying to bring to justice. In a gruelling scene, Hackman is shown being weaned off the drug Heroin, sweating, moaning and writhing like a man in hell (as I recall).

It isn't true. Dalrymple demonstrates it isn't true. He also shows that it is quite possible to take heroin (or, as a hospital patient in need of painkillers) to be given large doses of morphine, and not to be in any way dependent. Dependency comes only after a lot of deliberate use, and isn't just 'caught' by occasional use. In any case, you have to find heroin. It doesn't come to find you.

And this dependency is purely mental, a matter of wanting a pleasing sensation and preferring not to go without it. It simply isn't true that giving up heroin leaves you wriggling in the floor groaning, wracked by spasms and sweating by the gallon.

Let me quote the good doctor “As it happens, I have seen a large number of withdrawing addicts in the prison in which I work. Of the several hundreds I have seen in the last decade, not a single one has ever caused me as a doctor to feel anxiety for his safety on account of his withdrawal (they sometimes have had dangerous illnesses as a result of their injecting habits, and they are often severely malnourished, starving even, but that is another matter). None has ever had a symptom requiring hospitalization, and all the genuine symptoms, never severe, have been relieved by simple, non-opiate medication."

He adds: ”It is true that the majority of them portray themselves to me as being in the grip of terrible suffering - suffering that they say is physical in nature, not mental. They hunch themselves up, they writhe in histrionic agony. They claim that they have experienced nothing as bad in the whole of their lives, that it is quite unendurable, and they make all kinds of threats if I do not prescribe something (by which they mean an opiate) to alleviate their suffering, threats that range from damaging or setting fire to their cells, to killing themselves, others or even me...and they add that when they do these things the blame will not be theirs, but mine, because if I had done as they demanded, and prescribed what they wanted, they would never have acted in the threatened way.

"In fact, they very rarely do act in the threatened way."

So a whole popular myth turns out to be a complete phoney. Doctors know this, but the medical establishment, and the government, and the politicians who argue ceaselessly for more 'rehabilitation' for drug users, continue on their way.

As I said, film and TV portrayals certainly have something to do with this. But once more we have a case of the establishment believing in something wholly untrue (see also 'ADHD' and 'dyslexia') which relieves the people involved of responsibility.

And that's the key. The issue right at the heart of all other arguments, debates and controversies is really this. Are we responsible, free human beings entitled to govern ourselves, and able to do so if we observe a moral code? Or are we hopeless victims of circumstance, incapable of strength of will or choice, whose every failure to be good, or active evil deed, can be excused by our past lives, in need of a strong hand to help us with drugs and treatment?

Well, you can see where this is leading, can't you? Those who argue that we are all hopeless creatures of circumstance are also arguing for a strong, interfering, ultimately all-powerful state to supply our deficiencies and keep us in order. Calls for 'communitarianism' and 'social responsibility' and the invention of the 'social conscience' that replaces the individual one, are arguing for ever greater government power.

If we are not to go under, those, who consider themselves socialists or conservatives, or liberals, who are attached to human freedom, must realise that it is this issue, of personal responsibility and the liberty to choose that goes with it that must be resolved. We have gone much, much too far away from personal responsibility, so that words such as 'duty' and 'punishment' now cannot easily be used.

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2...y-fre.html

Don't forget as well that alot of US soldiers from the Vietnam war regularly took heroin - and came back and quit completely. This is a point tha Hitchnes has made elsewhere.

[Benoit]

(12-31-2013 12:04 AM)cardguy Wrote:  

Don't forget as well that alot of US soldiers from the Vietnam war regularly took heroin - and came back and quit completely. This is a point tha Hitchnes has made elsewhere.

I'm trying to remember where I saw it, but I read that deaths from withdrawal of drugs are often due to relapses - the addict takes the same amount they would have done at the height of their addiction, but no longer has the tolerance.

It's even weirder because tolerance to narcotics can be dependent on location - ever drunk more than you ever have before without a serious impact because of being at a party? An armful of heroin in a clinic is a lot more potent than taking the same dose with your fellow junkies in a hovel.

And I do agree with the argument that taking drugs can be a rational action rather than an 'illness', so treating the symptoms doesn't touch the underlying cause.

[Benoit]

Here's a blog post that explains my point about tolerance above, and claims it could have been a factor in Philip Seymour Hoffman's death:
http://blog.sethroberts.net/2014/02/04/p...eroin-why/