Computer Games - The Great Debate Rages On - as does the one about 'Addiction'

Here’s an exchange in the ‘American Spectator’ between me and Scott Shackford about the problem of computer games.

 

http://spectator.org/articles/56093/should-we-worry-about-violent-video-games?utm_content=buffer832c1&utm_source=buffer&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Buffer

I'll just add one small point about the debate on 'addiction' which I posted last week. One contributor said that, since so many of those in that debate seemed to accept that 'addiction' was not an overmastering force, but still maintained that 'addiction' exists, I should surely do the same.

 

On the contrary, it seems to me that their position is the untenable one. Let us not go into dictionary or encyclopaedia definitions here, as they establish nothing except the prejudices or assumptions of the compiler.

 

A much better way of dscovering what a contentious or disputed word means *to those who use it* is to examine its actual usage by them, especially in objective areas such as law.  The English legal  and criminal justice system (plus a large number of journalists, academics, clergymen, 'experts' and pontificators) accepts 'addiction' as a mitigating circumstance in dealing with criminal drug abusers.

 

Pretty much without exception, the courts (supported by modish opinion) presume that those who use these drugs require 'treatment' rather than punishment.

 

Why would anyone require 'treatment' for voluntarily undertaking a serious criminal act?

The response is simultaneously totalitarian (trying to alter the individual rather than punishing him for an act freely and willingly undertaken)and incompatible with a general belief in a person's responsibility for his own actions.

 

Those who say that 'addiction' is in fact something that can be overcome by willpower are therefore arguing totally against the common official usage of it, and the common legal, official, cultural, journalistic and academic definition of it. It is they, not I, who are having it both ways, and they, not I , who need to change their practice. Perhaps they lack the nerve to arrive at the logical conclusion of their position and prefer to get off the train at the stop before the end (this , as we know, is not uncommon).

 

Too bad for them, if so.

I'll say it again. There is no such thing as 'addiction, as the word is generally used and understood in our society.  If it merely means 'something damaging that I like doing and find difficult to stop', then the argument for severe deterrent punishment (to stop people starting and to encourage them to stop) seems to me to be even more unanswerable than it already was.

 

NOTE. I now see that the 'American Spectator' link is subscription only. While this is a bit of a compliment to Scott Shackford and to me, I can see that it wll put some people off. I can't get you a cut rate, but it is an excellent magazine and, as always it is amazing how much you get for not very much.