Any tong to beat Smith with.

Vincent J. Curtis

30 May 23

RE: Forced drug treatment is no answer.  Editorial The Hamilton Spectator 30 May 23.

As UCP leader Danielle Smith basked in the glow of victory, having gained a majority government with nearly 53 percent of the popular vote, the Spectator dredges up a contentious piece of nonsense to throw at Smith concerning her plan to handle drug addiction in Alberta.

One of the Spectator’s arguments is that forced treatment is against the will of the addict.  Free will is a subject deeply analyzed by Scholasticism, and that school argues that addiction deprives the addict of free will.  The addict can’t control his impulse and compulsion, and hence his will is not free.  There is a sound case, in other words, to be made that compulsory treatment isn’t against the free will of the addict, since they don’t have one.

The editorial may be right that successful treatment is not enough in itself for permanent resolution of the addict’s problem, and that the addict may fall back into old habits; but the nanny state has to end somewhere.  The addict’s will having been freed by treatment, he needs eventually to stand on his own feet.

The alternative, legalized drug dens, proved to be disasters wherever they’ve been tried.  Smith’s compulsory treatment plan at least gets the addicts off the streets and deprives the pusher of a market.

It’s not so much the merits of the plan, it’s who’s advocating it!

-30-