It is reported in the press today that Peaches Geldof was a
heroin addict, which comes as no surprise.
I have in front of me Issue 80 of the newspaper
positiveNews. On page 17 is an essay by
Matt Mellen which argues for a more compassionate legal system, by which he
appears to want drugs like heroin to be legalised.
Mellen adopts the familiar strategy of cleverly mixing fact
with fiction, and does so early on when he says that drug addicts are
punished, not treated.
Consider this quote from Wikipedia about a billionaire drug user: Hans Kristian Rausing
... was sentenced on 1 August [2012] to ten months' imprisonment, suspended for
two years; the Judge required him to attend a two-year rehabilitation
programme. In other words, Rausing’s
punishment was in fact treatment.
Mellen then mentions the move towards legalisation of
certain drugs in the USA, but omits to mention some of the problems this has
caused, such as children eating sweets laced with marijuana. Note that these children do not eat the
sweets because they want to experiment with marijuana. They eat the sweets because they like sweets,
and do not know that the sweets contain marijuana.
I do not know whether or not it is true that almost 2000
young people die in the UK each year from taking illegal drugs of unknown
potency, but equally I am not convinced that legalisation would do anything to
change that. A recent conversation with
a teenager suggests to me that many young people do not really care
about the potency of the drugs they use.
Mellen quotes Russell Brand as saying that many people use
drugs to anaesthetise the pain of living, but I wonder to what extent this is
true. Did Hans Kristian Rausing and his wife take drugs to anaesthetise the pain of being among the richest of the rich? Did Peaches Geldof take heroin to anaesthetise the pain of being a wealthy socialite with a loving family? Did Sarah-Jane Honeywell snort cocaine to anaesthetise
the pain of singing happy songs on children’s television?
Furthermore, if I accept that some drug users really are
motivated by a desire to anaesthetise the pain of living, then surely it would
be wrong to treat such people, which is what Mellen appears to want. Surely it would be proper to let such people
carry on taking drugs – or would it?
Maybe Mr Mellen could explain himself here.
But it seems that Mr Mellen is not really that bothered
about explaining, but rather about brainwashing. He harps on about compassion, as if this
appeal to compassion somehow proves that he is right. He also harps on about the environment, and
seems to want us to believe that punishing a drug user is somehow equivalent to
harming the environment.
I am not sure that there is such a thing as addiction. I accept that certain substances, such as
heroin, may contain chemicals which affect the human body in a certain
way. The problem arises however that as
soon as the existence or possible existence of addiction is allowed, then the
word becomes open to abuse. Anyone can
claim to be an addict, but how many of them can demonstrate an addiction?
I am compassionate. I
believe that convicted drug dealers should all be sentenced to death, and that
all or nearly all of them should be hanged.
I believe that such a policy would make it less likely that people would
have access to drugs, and that there would therefore be far fewer people out
there in need of treatment, compassion, and so on. There would probably also be far less crime.
Related previous posts include:
No comments:
Post a Comment