Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

‘Romancing opiates’ - the nature of addiction

By Ben-Peter Terpstra - posted Tuesday, 9 December 2008


For their part, the compassion police treat addicts as wounded babies. In some circles they’re celebrity victims. No abuse excuse is too awful to buy. And addicts almost always have an excuse to sell. “It was the addiction wot dunnit,” they’ll say.

“Theodore Dalrymple is,” according to Kenneth Minogue, professor emeritus at the London School of Economics “a brilliant observer of both medicine and society,” and inarguably one of England’s greatest essayists. Thus, he deserves a larger audience.

And, one should note that drug-taking criminals commit crimes before they first took drugs. In Dalrymple’s observations, many lawbreakers committed between 50 and several hundred crimes before they even took heroin. Nevertheless, abuse excuses are abuse excuses. The chattering classes, after all, see addicts through their politics.

Advertisement

It is scarcely surprising too, that heroin addicts feel little compassion for their fellow junkies. They, after all, are playing the same game, and competing for the affections of paternalistic bureaucrats, and mummy figures.

In Sydney, Australia, some experts have embraced silly projects: “safe injecting” rooms, say. But after weighing up the pro and con arguments, Darlymple stands against legalisation. He stands for reason. He rightly stands up for taxpayer slaves.

Finally, Dalrymple asks that all socially correct drug clinics shut shop. On the other hand, he asserts, “doctors should treat addicts only for serious physical complications of drug addictions: abscesses, viral infections and the like,” as reason maintains.

The addiction ladder is manmade, and it can be unmade by “unmentionable facts”. I, for one, am terribly tired of the paternalistic medical model, and applaud Dalrymple for encouraging us all to think about the many ways in which it “infantilises the subject.”

Most bravely, Dalrymple states that, “In short, the bureaucracy of drug addiction needs drug addicts far more than drug addicts need the bureaucracy of drug addiction”. You see, there really are uncomfortable moral issues on both sides. Mommies love to nurture their junkies. They’re addicts too.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All

First published in Family Security Matters on December 1, 2008.



Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

24 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Ben-Peter Terpstra has provided commentary for The Daily Caller (Washington D.C.), NewsReal Blog (Los Angeles), Quadrant (Sydney), and Menzies House (Adelaide).

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Ben-Peter Terpstra
Related Links
Don't do drug legalization by Ann Coulter
Libertarians on Drugs by Mac Johnson

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Article Tools
Comment 24 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy