The Drugs Bureaucracy

Written by

in

Theodore Dalrymple on heroin use:

It is not only those who take heroin who are blinded by illusions, but almost the entire population, including – or especially – the experts. Every problem in contemporary society calls forth its equal and supposedly opposite bureaucracy. The ostensible purpose of this bureaucracy is to solve that problem.

But the bureaucracy quickly develops a survival instinct and so no more wishes the problem to disappear altogether than the lion wishes to kill all the gazelle in the bush and leave itself with no food for the future.

In short, the bureaucracy of drug addiction needs drug addicts far more than drug addicts need the bureaucracy of drug addiction. Thanks to propaganda assiduously spread for many years by everyone who has concerned himself with the subject, there is now a standard or received view of heroin addiction that is almost universally accepted by the general public, by the addicts and by the bureaucracy.

This view serves the interests of the addicts who wish to continue their habit while placing the blame elsewhere, as well as the bureaucracy that wishes to continue in employment, preferably forever and at higher rates of pay.

This standard or received view conceives opiate addiction as an illness and therefore implies that there is a bona fide medical solution to it. When all the proposed “cures” fail to work, as they usually do, and when the extension of quasi-medical services to addicts is accompanied not by a decline in the prevalence of the problem but, on the contrary, by an increase, who can blame addicts if, in continuing their habit, they blame not themselves but the incompetence of those who have set themselves up as their medical saviours and offered them solutions that do not work?

But where bureaucracies are concerned, nothing succeeds like failure….

The addict has a problem, but it is not a medical one: he does not know how to live. And on this subject the doctor has nothing, qua doctor, to offer. What he ought not do, however, is to mislead the addict, or allow the addict to mislead him, into thinking that the problem is medical and requires, or is susceptible to, a medical solution.

That’s from the Australian, which adds, “Dalrymple has worked as a prison doctor and as a psychiatrist in a general hospital in a British slum”. I suppose Britain has slums like the US has ghettoes. Sounds dated, but fits in nicely with Dalrymple’s persona as one reporting back from the forgotten world of Britain’s lumpenproletariat.

Comments

  1. dearieme Avatar
    dearieme

    Sounds plausible to me. I’ve reached my 60s without ever seeing in a newspaper a remotely scientific account of heroin’s effects. Just hand-wringing and alarmism.

  2. IanCroydon Avatar
    IanCroydon

    started drinking to excess. The idea that they “do not know how to live” is plausible, the idea that perhaps the person retained an element of social dysfunction that allowed alcohol to enter their life is very credible.
    One ex-alcoholic person I know gives his entire pay packet to his wife who then gives him “pocket money”, after he’s bought his ciggies there’s not enough to drink or gamble away, he knows he’s a poor soul and accepts this arrangement without complaint. He’s not ill, he’s just a guy with no idea how to get himself on the right track and needs help doing so, so he can get on with his job and provide for his family, he doesn’t need someone to supply him with “fake booze” and tell him he’s ill.

  3. Richard Avatar
    Richard

    “where bureaucracies are concerned, nothing succeeds like failure” – that’s one for Gordon Brown and New Labour. T’was ever so.
    The ability to directly trigger our pleasure centres or to instantly take away the pain of a bleak life is too much for a significant proportion of us. Monkeys wired up so that they could get an instant orgasm on pressing a lever (an experiment carried out in the 70s, I think) will keep pressing that lever until they die of starvation. The lesson is that a society in which instant gratification is freely available is in danger of auto destruction. Yet the freedom of choice (so long as it keeps Gordon’s Jewish Pianos playing) that New Labour seems to think we want (24 hour drinking, mega-casinos) are just giving us all more auto destruct buttons.
    Prohibition is not the answer, but neither is unlimited license. Those who seek a facile formula for a perfect society (from Wilfred Owen to Ayatollah Khomeini) will never find it, because it lies in our souls – in compassion, respect, self-denial and hard work.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *