Anyone seeking evidence of how the western mind is snapping shut and how insult is steadily replacing evidence and reason need only watch this instructive altercation on BBC TV’s Newsnight last night. Ostensibly a discussion about the efficacy or otherwise of drug courts, it fast descended into a row between actor and self-confessed former drug addict Matthew Perry and journalist Peter Hitchens over the nature of drug addiction itself.
Hitchens argued that addiction was not, as is almost universally assumed, a disease over which the sufferer has no control but a form of willed self-indulgence which drug users could end if they really wanted to do so enough. A controversial proposition, indeed, and surely one of which few have previously been made aware.
But Hitchens did not encounter scepticism and a reasoned counter-argument. Instead, an incredulous Perry scoffed at him as ”˜Santa’ and frothed that his argument was crazy, ”˜as ludicrous as saying Peter Pan was real’. All of this, however, merely served to highlight the fact that when asked for evidence to support his claim that addiction was an illness Perry could not do so, resorting instead to the lame response that ”˜doctors say it is’, that he himself was proof of his own argument and that addiction was an ”˜allergy of the body’ (eh?)
I didn’t know anything about Peter Hitchens before reading this article. He’s an interesting man and his conversion to Christianity is inspiring.
That said, I wish they’d paired him against someone other than Matthew Perry. There are many good arguments to make in favor of 12 step programs and the view of addiction as a disease. Such arguments do not give a pass to bad behavior committed by addicts, or permit them to continue in their addiction, which is what Hitchens objects to if I’m reading him right.
[blockquote] “All of this, however, merely served to highlight the fact that when asked for evidence to support his claim that addiction was an illness Perry could not do so, resorting instead to the lame response that ‘doctors say it is’, that he himself was proof of his own argument and that addiction was an ‘allergy of the body’ (eh?)”[/blockquote]
For heaven’s sake, what else was Perry supposed to say? He is not a doctor himself, so that was a good answer – he referred to those with more expertise than himself.
The fact is that many experts do consider addiction to bear many hallmarks of a disease, and Hitchens knows that. I expect Ms Phillips does too. If they want to dispute it (or dispute its extent) then they should take it up with those experts, rather than taking cheap shots at a reformed addict.
[Clarification – I am not a fan of Friends and have no particular liking for Matthew Perry. But if he’s kicked his addiction then good on him. He deserves encouragement, not Hitchens’ or Phillips’ pseudo-intellectual snobbery].
[blockquote] “The Peter Hitchens view, that drug abuse is an absolute evil which must be eradicated, is scorned in favour of ‘harm reduction’ which accepts that harm from drugs will always be done. But here’s the thing. The former view, vilified as reactionary and bonkers, is actually based on the progressive belief that the world can be made a better place.” [/blockquote]
The fallacy in that argument is obvious – just because a person sees only limited improvement as possible, doesn’t mean that they don’t believe the world can be made a better place. If this is the best Ms Phillips can do, then she will rapidly jettison respect for her argument.