Addiction can have devastating consequences on families. Many people become so caught up in the whirlwind of hard drugs that they lose touch with reality and begin to forget the person they used to be. They make decisions based on the drugs instead of using common sense, and people tend to get very hurt, and in many cases, they die. People will do anything for money, including committing crimes, and those crimes can end up leading them to jail or other criminal punishment. In Anthony’s Intervention episode, his addiction has a significant affect on all aspects of his life, family, and community, which opens a debate about the pros and cons of the current legal intervention system for drugs.
Anthony’s drug addiction affects his life as well as the life of everyone around him. He is committing crimes and putting his community in danger, as well as his family and his acquaintances. He affects his family very negatively because he is causing them to live in fear that he is going to die, and makes them worry about him for a variety of reasons. They are worried he will not come home alive, and his mother stays up every night waiting for him to get home. She has to get up for work at 5:00 in the morning, and he often does not come home until 2:00 a.m., which means she only gets three hours of sleep every night. His addiction is making his mother extremely sad, and his siblings are getting very stressed out because they are trying to help him but no one knows what they should be doing. Some of his family members are enabling him and giving him everything he needs because they think it is the right decision, but in reality they are continuing to fall apart as a family. No one seems to know how to help him, so the family believes that an intervention will be the right decision if he agrees to get help.
There are both pros and cons to the current legal interventions involving drugs. The pros are that legal interventions provide the help that the drug addict needs, help them get help when they are unable to ask for it themselves, and they get the push they need to realize the condition they end up in. The cons of legal intervention are the question of human rights infringement and the idea that forcing someone to do something they do not want to do will not work.
Interventions also allow the family and friends to help the drug addict when they may not have had the courage to ask before. For many drug addicts and those suffering from addiction, it can be hard to ask for help. It can also be hard to recognize that they need help, so it can sometimes be important for loved ones to step in and take control of the addict’s life. Today, it is common knowledge among society that each person owes a duty of care to their friend or family member to ensure that they are taking appropriate measures to stay alive and healthy (Smart & Stoduto, 1997, p. 214). In addition, certain people need a push to realize that they are tearing up their family and hurting the people around them. Many addicts are frequently surrounded by a cloud of haze and distorted reality, and they do not realize what they are doing to their family until it comes time for someone to intervene. At the same time, those around them, both peers and family members, are educated and aware of the negative consequences that drugs can cause on the human mind and body, and therefore they assume that it is their responsibility to intervene (Smart & Stoduto, 1997, p. 219). For example, when someone is leaving a party and they are attempting to drink and drive, common knowledge dictates that someone should be responsible for taking away their keys and stopping them from driving. This is because the drunk person is incapacitated and unable to coherently make these types of decisions for themselves.
Some might argue that mandating someone through the courts to attend rehab is an infringement of their human rights, and one cannot simply force someone to alter their lifestyle in this way. In the Constitution, it states that an American has the right to enjoy the “highest attainable standard of physical and mental health” (Takahashi, 2009, p. 764). However, there is no clear definition as to what constitutes a high attainable standard, and what is considered the line when the government has the right to step in to prevent an individual from harming themselves through drugs (Takahashi, 2009, p. 764). Therefore, it is hard to determine what the government and the court systems should and should not be doing for someone else’s life. The other issue with legal intervention comes when people are forced to go to rehab or treatment when they do not willingly want to go. Legally, a court can order someone to attend rehab. However, when someone is forced to go to rehab, this often does not end up working. Anthony’s episode is an example of how sometimes it does not work and people end up relapsing when they are pressured to get help from rehabilitation facilities. People who suffer from addiction need to be willing to change before they will adapt and absorb any new habits or behaviors. In the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, which was later revised in 1988, it states that in certain minor situations, the court can order drug offenders to participate in a drug education and treatment program instead of jail time or corporal punishment (Takahashi, 2009, p. 750). This is a nice idea in theory, but the reality is that many people can abuse this intervention and take advantage of it to get out of going to jail.
Anthony’s experience on Intervention showcases the affects that drug addiction have on one’s family, friends, and community, and it also highlights a significant discussion surrounding the pros and cons of legal intervention. Anthony is a prime example of someone who has begun to exhaust their resources, and for whom intervention seems like the only solution before he will end up in jail. However, he is also an example of how intervention does not always work, as his first attempt at rehab results in a relapse a few months later. While there are pros and cons to interventions, it is important to note that every drug addict is different and not all interventions work. However, many have a high success rate and are effective ways to treat people who are suffering from serious drug addictions.
References
Smart, R.G. & Stoduto, G. (1997). Interventions by students in friends’ alcohol, tobacco, and
drug use. Journal of Drug Education, 27(3), pp. 213-222.
Takahashi, S. (2009). Drug control, human rights, and the right to the highest attainable
standard of health: By no means straightforward issues. Human Rights Quarterly, 31(3),
pp. 748-776.
