The A Word
What if I told you I had a terminal illness? That I only had a few months to live but there was a chance I could drop off at any moment. How would you react? I can hear the conversation in my head: two ladies sat over two cuppas in the local greasy spoon. “They say she only has a few moths to live.” “Oh that’s just awful. She’s so young, so much life could’ve been ahead of her.” But what if I told you that my terminal illness was a drug addiction? Would you still pity me or would your judgment be tainted by the thought it was deserved? Some wouldn’t describe a drug addiction as a terminal illness.
(Image via)
I heard of Philip Seymour Hoffman’s death watching the news at my friend’s house. “How tragic.” I remarked as various actors commended his exceptional talent but my friend was not so moved: “People die everyday from drug addictions” she replied, “but no one calls it a tragedy unless they’re a celebrity.” I continued to stare at the tearful actors on the television. Did they see him within the criminal spectrum that falls upon most drug addicts? When we are young we are made aware of the danger of drugs.
We sit in a circle in PSHE and read from flashcards that drugs harm us and that most importantly drugs are illegal. If you buy and use drugs you are committing a crime. And yet, inevitably, there are kids that end up doing drugs anyway. When we think of drugs and the culture that surrounds it, we think of violence, of gang culture, of people dead from overdoses. People always think of the collateral but how much of that collateral is due to it being illegal? And what of the punishment for the people that are caught up in this system?
Getting caught committing a crime gets you sent to prison but you will return to the same system, the same life, the same addiction. How much do you think the threat of the law actually stops people from dealing drugs? I could have a line of cocaine with my morning coffee tomorrow if I really wanted. It may take a bit of asking around, attempting to stand inconspicuously in a car park, a bit more cash than I’d like to spend, but I’d get it. What stops me from doing this is because I don’t like cocaine; the threat of the law meaningless. If I needed that line of cocaine with my morning coffee then I would get it. When it comes to addictions the law poses no threat, only a slight hurdle.
Philip Seymour Hoffman was lucky in that he had people to praise his talent. Perhaps people will even overlook his ‘criminal’ addiction and his terminal illness but there are hundreds that die without such prestige because the law that grants them a criminal stigma prohibits them from getting help. Most of these people live in poverty, another statistic which is easily dismissed: “They were an addict. What do you expect?” The only way to cure this illness is a change in the system. The government knows this. There is proof in countries that have relaxed drug laws that drug related crimes and deaths have dramatically decreased. Yet the government chose to do nothing and maybe more of us should be asking why?
Tags: drug abuse life lessons overdose Philip Seymour Hoffman
Categories: Beth Teverson Rant Wise up!
3 Comments
Having experienced a loved one struggle with addiction for many years, I feel it’s so important people change their attitude towards addicts. I think the public are generally afraid of the instability and behaviour of addicts because they DON’T UNDERSTAND THEM – total taboo. So like most things, when human beings don’t understand something they ridicule and treat them like criminals (some of them are).
There is a BIG difference between someone who takes drugs for recreation and someone who is an addict. Addiction is a HEALTH PROBLEM (genetic and environmental) and an irreversible disease not necessarily a CRIMINAL PROBLEM. And once people understand that I think we have more chance of tackling the widespread problem.
Education should not only focus on the health concerns but the affects on your personal life and relationships. Because at the moment drugs are often seen as social currency. People don’t seem to be concerned with their health so much when they are younger (they feel invincible) but they need to know the devastation it can cause to their personal lives and friendships.
Some of the recovering addicts I have come across are the most incredible, intelligent, beautiful human beings. And I’m so glad that someone out there didn’t give up on them. Because now they are a great blessing in my life.
Great for asking these questions Beth!
The legal status of drugs is a great example of morality overcoming reason and sense, and leading to social tragedy. I would place drug addiction more in the sphere of mental illness than terminal illness (that said, mental illness can and sadly often does prove fatal). Now, some will point out that drug taking is a choice. And I find this interesting, for a number of reasons.
Choices are NOT free and limitless. Social conditions, mental conditions (stress, depression etc) severly impair or influence or ‘decisions’. Not everyone from a depraved, crime ridden hopeless corner of the country. And not everyone who is a drug addict lives in a poor environment. But often there is a trigger factor; desperation, escapism etc. The choice to take drugs over and over again is similar to the choice of self harming. Especially when you consider that drug use, like self harm, only directly affects the user. It is blindly obvious that drug taking is not a crime. Selling drugs, I understand. Dealers pray on the weak. Be they base heads living on street corners or bankers and rockstars. They are people vulnerable to a substance that harms them, people who need help. If people sold razors to self harmers, you wouldn’t (or shouldn’t) criminalise and punished self harmers. All crime solving resources (all, not some) allocated to dealing with the problem should be spent on catching those who sell, those who pray on vulnerable souls.
Addicts need medical care. Criminalisation not only makes no sense, it fails to SOLVE THE PROBLEM. If the logic is ‘target users, make them fear serving time at Her Majesty’s Pleasure’ and we will kill the market by shutting down demand’ then we can see that tactic is failing. As Beth pointed out, criminalisation doesn’t work as a deterrent. If one desires drugs, one will acquire drugs. If one is addicted, the need or perceived need of an invasive substance will easily outweigh any fear of being captured and sentenced. Because that’s how the disease of addition works.
It appears to me there is a fear of providing medical health to addicts. I think it’s because the public perception is that they are people who chose to make an illegal, immoral choice. Understand that addiction is a DISEASE is the first step. The fact that will live in a society that acknowledges that alcoholic abuse is worth treatment but drug abuse is not is baffling to me. I think there is also a fear that de-criminalisation will also lead to massive spikes in drug use, addiction and death. It won’t. If I want drugs tomorrow, providing I have the dosh, I’ll be high tomorrow. I don’t want to drugs. It’s that simple. A lot of fear needs to be confronted before real progress will be made.