taplow

This is an old discussion on BBC's Newsnight programme where Matthew Perry comes into contact with Peter Hitchens on the subject of addiction. You might find it interesting, or at least entertaining.
Which point of view would you most agree with?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDtIZZiySgA

suki44883

I came away wanting to punch Peter Hitchens in the throat. Plus, he sounds like he has a mouth full of cotton.

MLK, Jr. once said "We have a moral obligation to disobey unjust laws".

Obladi

In regard to what?
- Whether addiction is a disease?
- Whether the threat of locking people up could effectively solve the problem of drug abuse?
- Whether Peter Hitchens is a toad?

1. It's a medical condition. Call it disease or disorder, it's a medical condition.
2. Huhn?
3. Obviously

trailmix

I couldn't listen to more than a few minutes of it, Peter obviously has no idea what he is talking about.

babycat

Yeah, Peter Hitchens is so infuriatingly wrong here. wow.

taplow

I guess me asking which point of view people agree with is a silly question here. What I should have asked was what do people think about their points of view.

DriGuy

I thought the exchange was unnecessarily caustic. It's a serious issue that should be discussed without getting defensive or baiting, and the media was milking the conflict. It reminded me of an American program no longer on the air called Crossfire, the whole point of which was to keep people apart based on political ideology. I don't think that media approach is helpful. Oh, it gets people spitting mad, and people pay attention to the conflict the way they watch train wrecks. But I don't think it's productive.

Having said that I saw two points of view, each one with some things worth considering, but no one actually considering. Then tendency with this format is for viewers to rate people, not viewpoints, and I think Obladi's questions help sort out the fact that there are actually a variety of ideas that need to be considered separately. I'm less interested in who has the best stage presence. Sure that counts in debate. It shouldn't, but it does.

trailmix

I agree that both arguments have validity.

What works for one person will have less affect or no affect on another, how do you figure that out. You don't, that's why there is a conflict.

As for stage presence, no, it shouldn't be a huge factor but when the person is so annoying that you can't actually stand to listen to them, well it definitely plays in to it.

kinzoku

Peter comes across smug and unkind. Matthew comes across emotional and illogical.

It is unfortunate, I wouldn't chose either as my champions though both want the same thing: to combat a substance abuse problem.

If believing that alcoholism is a disease helps a person stay sober, than they should. Whether or not it is classified as such in any book, be it a manual, a bible or a textbook seems to me to be far from the point.

A philosophical discussion on the nature of addiction, or even a medical one, seems unnecessary for an addict. Maybe even dangerous. That is what I believe.

It is like...I don't bring my scientific brain to the mat I meditate on.

kinzoku

Actually having finished the clip the lady comes across the most reasonable! But they didn't let her talk.

DriGuy

That's what I thought. It doesn't mean he's wrong. He just didn't support his claims well.

My interpretation also.

Yes, this issue has little to do with the personal work of solving the problem, which is to quit drinking no matter the classification. It may help people to reject a self image of a weak willed reprobate that much of society hangs on the alcoholic, but it's not the cure.

In this particular debate, I had to look up Peter Hitchens to fully understand the controversy. Turns out Hitchens is an advocate of throwing the book at users, and wrote an entire book about it. It sounds like an odd idea to me, if that means anything, but he was attacked on his rejection of disease issue. The logical fallacy being that if you were wrong there, you must be wrong on everything, and to muddy the water some more, while there are opinions on what alcoholism is and how it functions, I don't think anyone really knows the whole picture.

Media debates, presidential debates, aren't my idea of debates. Whoever can get away with the most logical fallacies without being brought to task is not a good way for me to form an opinion. I believe there is probably a right and wrong approach at stake in recovery, but it wasn't dealt with logically with most of the arguments. As entertainment, it probably meets that goal of the media. But as helpful tool, not so much.

Like you, I give a slight edge to the woman, but she wasn't given enough time to support her arguments or to raise more of them.

DreamCatcher17

They both have great points.
I am a believer that alcoholism is NOT a disease.
I do believe that it about will power. - I know that my will power is- that I am unable to have 1 drink because after that 1 hits my lips, this demon takes over and the constant want for more does not stop in my brain until I am passed out.
There is no amount of LAW that is going to stop people from drinking or using drugs. That doesn't even stop murderers, so that's silly. Criminals will commit crim and addictions will continue the addiction until they are ready to stop themselves.
I do think that a repeat offender, so the second time they are sent to jail they should then be in that 18 months to 2 year program.
The first time in jail gives you time to think and if it wasn't worth it to stop, then the second time around a 2 year program, that is enough sober time to hopefully have the desire within yourself to want to be sober.

My thoughts- They do not have to be the same as yours!

taplow

I think Matthew Perry the big TV star was a bit surprised to be challenged like this. Whatever you might think of Peter Hitchens' views, he's a seasoned debator who knows how to support his arguments, and Matthew Perry was out of his depth when it came to putting his case across if met with any scrutiny. It was a bit like a tennis match with one person tiring the other out, placing his shots all over the court while the other scampered around trying to reach the ball.
I agree with Perry about how he's fine until the first drink and then he loses control. It's the same with me, with probably everyone who has an addictive personality.
I think Hitchens is wrong in that he suggests that everyone starts from the same position, as if we all have an equal ability to control our behaviour. If he can have one glass of wine and stop then everybody else should be able to do it as well, so any action they take is deliberate.
We're clearly not all the same though. I choose to drink but I don't know where my choice comes from. I'm not excercising choice from a neutral position.
It is obsessional behaviour which supports Hitchens in his argument about detering people from starting in the beginning. But if it's a disease then how can it be a criminal act? So to support this he has to say it's wilful behaviour and there's no such thing as addiction.
It's all too much for me. Still it was a good little row.

ScottFromWI

It's a bit much for me too. To me argument for the sake of argument, or using argument to attract viewers ( which it does ) is not of much value when it comes to my addiction.