Television has made a tremendous impact on the way of living for people of the twenty- first and twenty-second centuries. Some people claim that television has corrupted the morals of America's youth. Some even compare television to drugs. Peter Hamill did so in his essay entitled Crack and the box. Peter Hamill states that television is as addictive as crack/cocaine. His idea has some interesting points, but his claim is hard to defend. Television is not as addictive as crack/cocaine because it is easier to resist TV than it is crack and because no physical, mental, and emotional side effects occur when there is withdrawal from TV.
             Towards the end of his essay, Hamill comments on what should be done to break down addiction to television. "It's a lot easier to 'just say no' to television than to heroin or crack." (Hamill, Crack and the Box). With this statement, Hamill makes a noticeable contradiction to his theory. His claim is that television is as addictive as crack/cocaine. Television is not as addictive as crack if we can say "no" to it more easily than we can to crack. The term addiction can be defined as "a habitual repetition of excessive behavior that a person is unable or unwilling to stop, despite its harmful consequences." (Microsoft Encarta 2000). Therefore, if someone is able to say no to television more easily than to crack, they are not as addicted to television as they are to crack.
             In cocaine addiction, if the user of the drug is prohibited from receiving that drug, then physical, mental, and emotional side effects will occur. The reason that cocaine is so addictive is because it creates a dependency relationship between the user and itself. Without cocaine, an abuser will often experience confusion, depression, and usually will become violent. Without the cocaine, the drug addict usually lacks all motivation. Television creates no such sympto...