Drugs Of Destruction And Human Rights

Main Category: Alcohol / Addiction / Illegal Drugs
Article Date: 31 Mar 2008 - 3:00 PDT

email to a friend   printer friendly   opinions  

Drugs of Destruction are defined here as, any addictive substance, whose properties are known to bring about disturbing and irreversible changes to the users brain, resulting in loss of control; the erosion of inhibitions which control civilised human behaviour, the loss of the latter more frequently than not, can cause users to display anti social behaviour, characterised by unpredictable and unprovoked, violence being inflicted on others.

Drugs of Destruction, destroy, or damage the cognitive processes of users and their immune systems, rendering them vulnerable to a variety of diseases. Aids, HIV and Hepatitis C & B, are common among drugs users. In addition users develop a number of other psychiatric, mental and behaviour disorders, whilst increasing the severity of any pre-existing disorders. In short Drugs of Destruction deprive users of their ability to participate and enjoy their rights and the rights of others, as enshrined in the 'Declaration of Human Rights'; including but not limited to:

The right to life, liberty and security of person.

The right to the free development of the user's personality

The right to work,

The right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, together with the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

To put the above into a contextual and balanced perspective, discussions with users of Drugs of Destruction, who somehow, have found a way out of the slavery those drugs inflict on users, will, if asked, explain how their personalities became warped, and their emotional growth stunted. How Drugs of Destruction robbed them of their ability and motivation to work; how those drugs destroyed their mental, physical and spiritual health; the wellbeing of their families, together with the loss of their ability to provide them with food clothing and shelter, thus making them wholly dependent on the welfare systems, and other charities, of their country of residence.

Apart from this obliteration of the users' human rights, which by definition includes their dignity, it is apparent that Drugs of Destruction inflict considerable collateral damage on the mental, physical and emotional, well being of users' families, thus in turn, robbing them of their human rights.

As members of the human race free to exercise our human rights, we enter into a social contract, which requires us not to inflict harm on ourselves, or others. It is therefore not surprising that the elected governments of civilised nations in fulfilling their part of that contract, and in a spirit of worldwide cooperation, unite with other nations to protect their citizens from many of the Drugs of Destruction by outlawing the use of specific substances. In doing so they have with the free and willing, consent of the overwhelming majority of their citizens, passed laws, designed to protect the citizens of the free world, from the horrendous, but avoidable dangers, inherent in the use of Drugs of Destruction. An integral part of that consent is the sovereign right of independent nations, without contravening the Declaration of Human Rights, to decide the penalties they consider necessary, in order to deter those who would prey on their more vulnerable citizens, by encouraging them to use Drugs of Destruction which have been prohibited. Some of those countries consider capital punishment to be appropriate for drug traffickers, as opposed to users, and again, with the free consent of their citizens, following a democratic trial, where the accused has the option of providing his own legal advisers, or those appointed by the court, together with any subsequent appeal, both of which comply fully with the Declaration of Human Rights, exercise their sovereign right to invoke the death penalty.

Whether or not, as individuals we consider such an ultimate, and irreversible punishment, justified for those, whose own regard for the rights of others, and the sanctity of life, makes Genghis Khan appear to be the epitome of moderation, is irrelevant. The inescapable and relevant fact is that, motivated solely by greed, drug traffickers, despite being fully aware of the risks involved, flagrantly disregard the wording and spirit of The Declaration of Human Rights, whilst simultaneously and maliciously, disregarding the sovereign laws of independent nations. In doing so, they arrogantly display their contempt for the express wishes and rights of that nation's citizens, and the sanctity of their own life. They knowingly, willingly and voluntarily, accept the risk of forfeiting their right to life.

Incredible as it may seem, there are a number of highly influential organisations, who despite being fully aware, of the total harms Drugs of Destruction, inflict on their fellow human beings, and their families, insist that those who so choose, have a right to use them. Some of those organisations openly argue that they should have the legal right to do so. They also insist that it is a contravention of the Declaration of Human Rights to execute what they describe as, 'drug offenders', an innocuous sounding, but undefined description. Attempts by this writer to establish what that description meant, was informed by the International Harm Reduction Association, that it did not differentiate between drug users and drug traffickers.

© Peter O'Loughlin, The Eden Lodge Practice.

Peter is the principle of the Eden Lodge Practice, which is a small, private agency, engaged in assisting those seeking freedom from Drugs of Destruction. Other than the obligatory professional bodies, Peter has no affiliation with any other organisation. His sources of funding are the fees paid by those clients, who, by referral from past clients, other psychotherapists, and medical advisers, opt to use his services; fees from his 'Introduction to Understanding Addiction' workshops, and public speaking engagements.

The views he expresses are entirely his own, influenced solely by the knowledge he gains from the addictive and recovery experiences of clients, together with empirical and scientific, evidence based practice, and practice based evidence, rather than ideology.

Written by Peter O'Loughlin

The Eden Lodge Practice

• Additional
• References
• Citations