Russel Brand.....on drugs......in parliment

[Use Psychology]

s3fella said:

Locking the fkers up for 50 years would also stop them doing crimes.

quite right, these individuals deserve to be incarcerated for more than 50 % of their lifespan for using, in private and on themselves, a mind-altering chemical substance that is arbitrarily banned by law. If you accept that it's ethical to drink alcohol then it cannot be unethical or immoral to take other psychoactive drugs. our society has accepted that alcohol consumption is ok, so it's completely hypocritical and illogical to ban other substances.

[Use Psychology]

AshVX220 said:

This country is more tolerant of junkies than it is of smokers.

quite right, only the other night i saw police hiding around the corner from our office front door, ready to jump out and arrest anyone on a fag break.

[Use Psychology]

mattnunn said:

Anyone who suggests decriminalising cocaine or heroine has had no direct experience of the effects of the drug on the user or the people around the user, they are incredibly damaging, legal or not. Weed has arguably less effect but it's still not an advisable pass time and the link between strong weed and psychosis is founded.

I see no reason to decriminalise, legalise or otherwise condone recreational drug use, the alchohol and smoking counter example strengthen the argument for prohibition, not otherwise, because the make proof that many people in society, given the choice, make some incredibly bad choices, and the personally and society at general need protection from that.
/footnote]

because the decision about what to do with one's own body is an idividual one. you can eat what you like, drink what you like, do what you like (climb trees, mountains, run a marathon, be a body builder, whatever), and you also should be able to take what you like. It is nobody's business but the individuals what chemical substances someone ingests.

[Use Psychology]

jogon said:

It's a sad story and Im sorry to hear about it.

But if these drugs were legalised the quality can be controlled. You would not have glass particles sprayed on to skunk to improve weight and 'crystally' goodness, heroin cut with rat poison etc, coke with god knows what dodgy Chinese designer drug cut into it and finally acid made in a safe laboratory rather than in some ones kitchen with household products.

Further more it would open a new industry in which many of the yoof of today have plenty of experience in, at a time when there unemployment levels are at a record high.

Edited by jogon on Wednesday 25th April 19:07

bingo, big pharma companies cold also design new recreational drugs with fewer side effects and new pleasurable effects. that would be pretty cool, and a good industry to give a head start to in the UK. right now big pharma is pulling out of the UK (and everywhere in the west) because R&D is too expensive for them.

[Lost soul]

johnfm said:

Blib said:

Lost soul said:

I can not for the life of me imagine why they gave this the time of day

Because he is an intelligent, articulate individual who has personal experience of this issue as an alcoholic/drug addict with a long and sustained recovery from this pernicious and debilitating illness.

^This

Having watched Brand interviewed by Jonathan Ross and footage of his committee appearance, it is quite clear he is well read and very capable of articulating his views on a wide range of themes. His views on fame and celebrity are particularly interesting.

Jesu christ on a bike , another one sucked into brands ego trip

[speedy_thrills]

Given the experience in Portugal it seems the case for decriminalisation holds a lot of weight now.

[Blib]

Lost soul said:

Jesu christ on a bike , another one sucked into brands ego trip

Yep, don't discuss the posts, attack the poster. Are you on drugs or something?

[mattnunn]

Use Psychology said:

mattnunn said:

Anyone who suggests decriminalising cocaine or heroine has had no direct experience of the effects of the drug on the user or the people around the user, they are incredibly damaging, legal or not. Weed has arguably less effect but it's still not an advisable pass time and the link between strong weed and psychosis is founded.

I see no reason to decriminalise, legalise or otherwise condone recreational drug use, the alchohol and smoking counter example strengthen the argument for prohibition, not otherwise, because the make proof that many people in society, given the choice, make some incredibly bad choices, and the personally and society at general need protection from that.
/footnote]

because the decision about what to do with one's own body is an idividual one. you can eat what you like, drink what you like, do what you like (climb trees, mountains, run a marathon, be a body builder, whatever), and you also should be able to take what you like. It is nobody's business but the individuals what chemical substances someone ingests.

This is a contrived and obviously ill thought out argument, we live in a society of individuals, where the health of the society and the populice at large is, rightly, given equal importance to the liberty of individuals. I' not communist, I'm not totalitarian, I believe in the liberty and freedom of individuals, but you have to balance that against the general demands of society.

Now if you read my posts you'll see that I'm not coming from a position of complete ignorance to the benefits of recreational drug use, but when we're talking about heroine, other strong opiates, tranquilizers, anaethetics (spell check) and extreme stimulants such as crack and meth amphetamine, the negative impacts on society as a whol outway any possible "perceived" enjoyment the "addict" is getting. The reality of addiction is that the real enjoyment is only ever obtained by abaiting withdrawl.

On the point of mind expansion, yes acid and E and weed and beer changes a perception of reality, it opens doors within one mind. But you can open these doors, or other more interesting doors, in other ways, reading Russian literature, philosophy, yoga, travel, food, sex - there are all sorts of harmless and useful mind expanding experiences young people (and old) can have without the need for drugs, I wish I kew when I was 17 what I know now.

[mattnunn]

johnfm said:

mattnunn said:

MX7 said:

mattnunn said:

You can't be a heroine user for very long, addiction kicks in within days, similarly crack, even quicker. Cocaine, arguable, but it ruins the lifes or users aswell as the addicts.

I've read about heroine addicts who lead very meaningful lives for many years.

Really, Keith Richards? Maybe.

Heroine addict with a decent supply of money and a supportive group of people around them might just about give the impression of a functioning member of society, but I've never heard any good news stories of heroine addicts rescuing kittens from mine shafts.

Certainly no heroine addicts, or any other kind of addicts whose life wouldn't be improved without their addiction - you can add gambling to that.

What Brand is in essence asking is that the state accepts addiction as a health issue and tries to bend society to the position of sorrow for the addict, i.e that young man who robbed your gran, if you'd just give him some love he'd wouldn't have done it. Which is translated in the mejia and on here as if you'd just given him some smack he'd still be in his bedsit upside down in a corner. Neither of these solutions really satisfy me.

I'm going to guess that you are not very old and don't have a wide and varied circle of friends and acquaintances.

I have met a few and spoken with others who have met a few high functioning heroin addicts - a few GPs, physics professors, academics.

They consume it much the same way a functioning alcohol consumes alcohol - regular small doses as they get on with their day.

I'm going to call custard on this, I simply don't believe you.

[CommanderJameson]

mattnunn said:

I'm going to call custard on this, I simply don't believe you.

Well, all your stuff on this subject is mere assertion too, you know.

[mattnunn]

CommanderJameson said:

mattnunn said:

I'm going to call custard on this, I simply don't believe you.

Well, all your stuff on this subject is mere assertion too, you know.

I did hear a story about a local GP with an opiate habit. Shipman was his name, it didn't end well.

Even if it were true, the idea that addiction is some kind of harmless pastime or hobby to be enjoyed is to thoroughly misunderstand the whole concept of what Brand was talking about. it's a ball and chain that people drag around, there is no enjoyment in having to take drugs to feel normal or to abait withdrawal symptons.

[Mark Benson]

mattnunn said:

CommanderJameson said:

mattnunn said:

I'm going to call custard on this, I simply don't believe you.

Well, all your stuff on this subject is mere assertion too, you know.

I did hear a story about a local GP with an opiate habit. Shipman was his name, it didn't end well.

Even if it were true, the idea that addiction is some kind of harmless pastime or hobby to be enjoyed is to thoroughly misunderstand the whole concept of what Brand was talking about. it's a ball and chain that people drag around, there is no enjoyment in having to take drugs to feel normal or to abait withdrawal symptons.

You're going to have to accept people's statements (such as mine, about my acquaintance Giles) as fact if you expect us to listen to your point of view. People take heroin and still function at a high enough level to be a productive member of society.
It might not fit with your world-view, it didn't fit with mine until I met someone who did, but it happens.

Usage and addiction are two different things, you seem to be either confusing the two, assume that usage of certain drugs automatically leads to addiction or are simply being obtuse and not listening to other's experience.
I drink alcohol, I'm not addicted - why is it so difficult to believe that someone can use heroin and not become addicted?

[Ozzie Osmond]

Mark Benson said:

I drink alcohol, I'm not addicted - why is it so difficult to believe that someone can use heroin and not become addicted?

Unlogic alert!

[mattnunn]

Ozzie Osmond said:

Mark Benson said:

I drink alcohol, I'm not addicted - why is it so difficult to believe that someone can use heroin and not become addicted?

Unlogic alert!

Heroine has a reputation for being a tad more-ish.

My mate smashed his legs up in an accident and was on a morphine drip etc... for 6 weeks in hospital, they had to ween him off it and he told me he had withdrawal.

You can read about it here...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heroin_addiction

I struggle to understand why anyone who is "high functioning" would lower themselves to doing what needs to be done to score heroine and all that goes with the use of the drug if they were not addicted.

[qube_TA]

given that drug control/prevention etc has been totally ineffectual as it's spectacularly easy to obtain and its usage far more common than most people think. Decriminalising is unlikely in my view to have much of an affect on its usage, put a lot of nasty people out of work and raise a lot of tax revenue.

Otherwise just secretly saturate the market with super strength st, looks like the real stuff but will kill you, the problem with addicts would resolve itself quickly.

[TTwiggy]

I usually roll my eyes at the grammar/spelling nazis on here, but one would hope, that in a post where 'someone' links to the word 'heroin', that 'someone' might not spell it as 'heroine', twice, in the same post.

[TTwiggy]

qube_TA said:

Otherwise just secretly saturate the market with super strength st, looks like the real stuff but will kill you, the problem with addicts would resolve itself quickly.

You mean like the CIA does every now and again, when the policy of keeping the plebs addicted doesn't work out? Now then, where did I leave the tinfoil...

[anonymous-user]

As usual there is some sense and a lot of bks being spoken on this subject

On the subject of well functioning addicts, it does happen more than you would think, its like with Alchies, a lot of them hold down jobs with no one noticing, its the same with smack. Addiction just means you are addicted to the substance and the habit, the quantities can change. So you can have a smackhead who shoots up a 10 bag of an evening and mongs out for 6 hours, they can then go to their job and only have 1/4 of a 10 bag which would give them a hit but allow them to function, then they are managing to feed the addiction, they dont have to get monged, they just need the hit

The other joke about the drugs laws in this country is to do with prisoners

If you are in prison and you have an MDT if it is positive you get 28 days added to your sentence. Lots of young offenders and remand prisoners want to while away the day so they smoke some weed, but weed takes 28 days to leave your system, so they get caught and sentences extended. Smack leaves your system in 24 hours, so many of them will turn to that instead as they can then pass the tests, of course the fact they then leave prison as Heroin addicts is the slight issue with that

[Derek Smith]

mattnunn said:

I'm going to call custard on this, I simply don't believe you.

I think perhaps you haven't worked in the City. Even in Brighton there is a level of usage by the middle classes that is remarkable.

mattnunn said:

My mate smashed his legs up in an accident and was on a morphine drip etc... for 6 weeks in hospital, they had to ween him off it and he told me he had withdrawal.

I had a bad back. This gave rise to 'muscles spasms' which doesn't sound like much although it was like being stabbed in the back a number of times each day and I could only crawl around on hands and knees. Further I could not sleep for more than and hour or so at a time, and even then a chair was preferable. I was on paracetamol, with ibuprofen when the pain got so bad that I needed a bit more. I had to wean myself off of those after only three weeks.

I had a rather serious condition and was on pills for 18 months. Once I got the all clear I had another 6 weeks of the pills at reducing dosage. I had to go back on the pills for five months and then, when given the all clear, I decided to cut them off all at once. Bad idea.

I was called into work once to cover for a chap who had gone to the doctor with heart palpitations. He'd told the doctor he drank 4 or 5 cups of coffee a day but he drank more than one cup an hour at work. He was told to cut down but, scared by the palpitations, he stopped all coffee at a stroke. He collapsed at work after behaving 'oddly'. It was two days before he calmed down enough to return to work.

The majority of drugs have an effect on you that means you have to be weaned off them. That does not mean they are addictive in any sensible meaning of the word. I stoped the pills without any desire to go back to them. I still have back pain that I treat with paracetamol and occasionally ibuprofen but can stop instantly the pain has gone.

[TTwiggy]

^^ I remember (only vaguely) that when my grandmother died in the mid 1980s, my mum cleared a bin-liner full of pills from her house.

This sweet little old lady was hooked on a gamut of stuff, all prescribed by her friendly GP, tested by pharma compaines and passed as 'safe' by the government.

Give me a line of charlie any day