Actor Robert Downey Jr is in the news yet again. Recently, he was arrested on suspicion of taking drugs, and was sent to a detox facility. Clearly, this guy has a problem, as incarceration, loss of employment, and prohibition of contact with his son are seemingly not impediments for him to continue to abuse himself.
While we are tempted to dismiss his plight as the case of a pathetic and overprivileged loser, there are greater issues in play here.
First of all, exactly what is addiction? Not surprisingly, no one agrees. Is it a habit? Is there a physiological component, or merely a mental one? Perhaps the least controversial definition would be "persistent compulsive use of a substance known by the user to be harmful." But even that description begs a key question.
Is the use compulsive because the victim CAN'T stop or WON'T stop?
Proponents of physiological addiction tout the existence of receptors, located in the brain, and possibly elsewhere, for certain "habit-forming" drugs. That is true enough, but it has been clearly demonstrated that as the substance in question leaves the body, the number of receptors diminish, as well. Thus, even a lifelong nicotine addict is said to be free of all receptors if he refrains from smoking for 72 hours.
Simply stated, there is a great deal of money to be made from certain "addictions" in the form of treatment centers (government sponsored and otherwise) and there is much monetary support for law enforcement efforts against illegal drugs. That neither of these programs has achieved any measure of success is somehow beside the point.
Why, indeed, should certain drugs be illegal, when there are many other harmful substances readily accessible? Given the availability of thousands of dangerous devices and materials, including alcoholic beverages, the State can surely not argue that it has a fundamental interest in protecting us from harming ourselves. Rather, the draconian application of drug laws is merely another tool of enforcement, providing continuous employment for police, prosecutors, defense attorneys, judges, prison operators, and treatment scammers.
Not that drug abuse is a victimless crime. Any act of sin--and abusing the body given to you temporarily as a gift from God is undoubtedly a sin--ALWAYS hurts another person. In Downey's case, consider his son and his co-workers, at the very least.
Moreover, many behaviors that could otherwise be described as "addictions" would not qualify as such simply because of how they are viewed by the popular culture. Is treatment available for those addicted to chocolate, donuts, potato chips, TV, the Internet, rap music, driving too fast, gardening, photography, Dungeons & Dragons, and pornography?
With any of these products or pursuits, a person could be causing himself harm, or neglecting other responsibilities by investing too much time, money, or emotional or physical capital.
There is no rational legal theory that can criminalize heroin, and allow the sale of alcohol. While God's law would prohibit drug abuse for the reasons discussed, our country is hardly a theocracy. Furthermore, the Government has demonstrated on numerous occasions that it has no interest in the public morals, other than superficial enforcement of various pornography statutes. That the President of the United States could have been a notorious public sinner for his entire term is sufficient proof of this contention.
Logic and right reason would propose a simple and fair solution to the whole drug problem. Please note that I am not advocating the use of recreational drugs, but I believe that the Government has no proper role in restricting a person's access to these substances.