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

[Ozzie Osmond]

Since when did we have to pay any heed to an idiot like Russell Brand?

He's the kind of half-wit who squeals for "personal freedoms" and then when it all goes wrong moans that the state should have protected him.

[Derek Smith]

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.

Furthermore the argument that criminals will stop being criminals and start paying legal taxes on the decriminalisation of their is ridiculous and shows extreme niavety to the business model criminality is based on. You can buy criminal DVDs, booze and fags as easilly as the non criminal taxed items.

I like Brand, he's a funny man, but I wouldn't trust a professional comedian and self promotionalist to have a clear view on these matters, I've read his books and his supposed "drugs hell" seems little more than some late teen dabbling, he never even injected, by his own admission he is not prepared to make judgment on the issues surrounding decriminalising.

Edited by mattnunn on Tuesday 24th April 17:19

Some iffy logic there.

We already have drug addicts. We have more now in proportion to the population than we did when opiates were available on prescription. Part of the problem of illegal drugs is the cutting agents. I've seen a corpse where the cutting agent what the killer. Not nice.

Making money from drugs is fairly easy. There is little chance of being caught. The likelihood is set to drop as more and more forces bin their drugs units. Further, importing it is also easy. We should make it harder for criminals to make money from their crimes.

Further there is no doubt that opportunity is a major motivator in such crimes. If there is not easy to fall into criminality, most people will not.

The comparison with alcohol is somewhat flawed as well. In 30 years in the police, the majority of time in uniform at stations, I did not have problems with any cannabis user. Nor opiates. Alcohol on the other hand . . . I have been assulated a few times, only once by someone sober, never by someone using illegal drugs. I've had my PCs assaulted, never by druggies, mostly by drunks.

Decriminalisation, at least as far as making opiates available to those who would register, worked in the past to a great extent. There is little doubt that the 71 drugs act has increased usage and criminal supply.

Drugs will not go away. The only option is to manage the problem. We have had 40 years of failure. It seems to me just about time to try something different.

[defblade]

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

Well, that's not true, is it?

There's Russell Brand, for a start, and then there's me (not a user myself), so that's 2 before I even go looking.

[Zaxxon]

Russell Brand is a pretty switched on bloke, anyone who used to listen to his Radio 6 show would know that. The problem is hat he got a taste for celebrity and went too far.
I agree with a lot of what he says, it should be treated as an illness.
But then, it's exactly what Bill Hicks was preaching back in the early 90's.

[elster]

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.

Furthermore the argument that criminals will stop being criminals and start paying legal taxes on the decriminalisation of their is ridiculous and shows extreme niavety to the business model criminality is based on. You can buy criminal DVDs, booze and fags as easilly as the non criminal taxed items.

I like Brand, he's a funny man, but I wouldn't trust a professional comedian and self promotionalist to have a clear view on these matters, I've read his books and his supposed "drugs hell" seems little more than some late teen dabbling, he never even injected, by his own admission he is not prepared to make judgment on the issues surrounding decriminalising.

Edited by mattnunn on Tuesday 24th April 17:19

Are you saying the massive heroin problem they had in Portugal hasnt been reduced since legalisation?

I would suggest anyone who writes off the legalisation of drug use does not impact on usage is short sighted.

There is also the cost aspect of western worlds attitude on 'the war on drugs'. The greatest expense has not helped in anyway.

[Carpie]

For as long as alcohol and tobacco are legally available and cannabis and MDMA aren't, then this country's drug policy will be severely flawed.

Both of the former can easily kill you, and do so on a regular basis, whilst one of the latter will never and the other has to be seriously misused in order to do so.

Some people are idiots and will hurt themselves with drugs, regardless of legality, there's no getting away from that fact. Why shouldn't the rest of us that want to use them responsibly be allowed to do so?

Alcohol users are allowed that luxury, and it's a far more damaging drug than many that are banned (It's also an extremely boring experience, to the point where I stopped using it when I discovered the alternatives available).

[Willie Dee]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2090534/Ri...

‘The fight has failed globally’: Richard Branson calls drugs to be decriminalised to free up police time, or is Richard Branson an idiot as well with no idea what he is talking about (despite presenting the facts and statistics to his claim)

[Ozzie Osmond]

Carpie said:

Both of the former can easily kill you, and do so on a regular basis, whilst one of the latter will never and the other has to be seriously misused in order to do so.

Your point would have more value if it took account of the vast majority of alcohol drinkers who are broadly unaffected by their habit. It should sit firmly in your "has to be seriously misused" category. Or to put it another way, alcohol cannot "easily kill you" any more than a wide range of other products lining the shelves of your local supermarket.

[Ultuous]

defblade 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

Well, that's not true, is it?

There's Russell Brand, for a start, and then there's me (not a user myself), so that's 2 before I even go looking.

I'm not saying drugs can't have terrible effects - far from it (and the thought of 'street' heroine sends a shiver down my spine, righty or wrongly)... But, a lot of people (particularly medical 'professionals') have a very skewed view of the effects of illegal substances, because they cases they are made aware of are the serious ones and take that to be 'the norm', staying blissfully unaware of just how widespread use is.

It's akin to working in an A&E unit and thinking cars/ lawnmowers/ chainsaws cause severe injury to everyone who possesses them, based entirely hearing the stories from people who come in and having never been near a road/ garden/ tree!

[Carpie]

Ozzie Osmond said:

Carpie said:

Both of the former can easily kill you, and do so on a regular basis, whilst one of the latter will never and the other has to be seriously misused in order to do so.

Your point would have more value if it took account of the vast majority of alcohol drinkers who are broadly unaffected by their habit. It should sit firmly in your "has to be seriously misused" category. Or to put it another way, alcohol cannot "easily kill you" any more than a wide range of other products lining the shelves of your local supermarket.

And the points of the many misinformed people who speak out about the dangers of drugs would have more value if they took account of the vast majority of drug users who are broadly unaffected by their habit.

What you've said is exactly my point, alcohol can cause serious damage, but it doesn't in most instances of someone having a drink. Given that many illegal drugs carry a far lower risk, shouldn't they be put in the same legal category as alcohol?

An inexperienced drinker could mistakenly drink too much and black out, an inexperienced cannabis smoker could do exactly the same, however negative consequences are minimal.

As for 'other products lining the supermarkets shelves', bleach and such isn't marketed to be consumed, alcohol is, very aggressively.

[Thom987]

Ozzie Osmond said:

Since when did we have to pay any heed to an idiot like Russell Brand?

He's the kind of half-wit who squeals for "personal freedoms" and then when it all goes wrong moans that the state should have protected him.

Brand has been there, done it and got the rehab t-shirt to prove it. Who better to ask?

Its not like the current anti drug policies are actually working.

[MX7]

Thom987 said:

Brand has been there, done it and got the rehab t-shirt to prove it. Who better to ask?

Probably a whole bunch of people actually. There are quite a few highly educated people who are ex-addicts, and now work with all sorts of drug related charities and organisations, who dedicate their lives to understanding drugs.

I don't know why he was asked to attend. It seems like they were seeking out a media circus. Just because he's famous it doesn't mean that he has any sort of exclusive or especially valid opinion.

It seems pathetic that they ask for someones opinion based on their fame.

[mattnunn]

defblade 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

Well, that's not true, is it?

There's Russell Brand, for a start, and then there's me (not a user myself), so that's 2 before I even go looking.

I think if you read the article and watch the news tonight (he made great copy - it'll be on) you'll see what Brand was saying was "Love and nurture the addict, they're victims too".

He categorically states he is not in a position to pass comment on the legality issue.

If you been close to a heroin or cocaine addict for long periods and seen what it does and could justify selling the drug over the counter or even giving it away to other people who aren't already in addiction I'd be suprised.

[MX7]

mattnunn said:

defblade 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

Well, that's not true, is it?

There's Russell Brand, for a start, and then there's me (not a user myself), so that's 2 before I even go looking.

I think if you read the article and watch the news tonight (he made great copy - it'll be on) you'll see what Brand was saying was "Love and nurture the addict, they're victims too".

He categorically states he is not in a position to pass comment on the legality issue.

If you been close to a heroin or cocaine addict for long periods and seen what it does and could justify selling the drug over the counter or even giving it away to other people who aren't already in addiction I'd be suprised.

You've switched your argument from 'user' to 'addict'.

Following that logic, drink is out too.

[Derek Smith]

mattnunn said:

If you been close to a heroin or cocaine addict for long periods and seen what it does and could justify selling the drug over the counter or even giving it away to other people who aren't already in addiction I'd be suprised.

You could equally replace H with tobacco or alcohol. In fact the results would be worse.

I've known more injury and deaths through alcohol than any other drug. I'm trying to remember if I've ever been to a domestic where a person has been violent due to illegal drugs. I probably have but the vast majority have been alcohol related. Nasty, viscious assaults, totally out of character many victims suggest, but for 'the drink'.

Most people on illegal drugs such as the opiates tend to switch off and curl into a ball.

Then there are those who die through cancers and heart disease brought on by smoking. I had a tea stop where the bloke sat quietly in the corner breathing oxygen through a tube. I had a biopsy on a couple of lumps in my throat. Seven of the others who had one on the same day were given tracheotomies, the eigth sent home to die.

I know you can't justify extending the availability of drugs just because there are worse ones around. However, illegal substances are here, all around. If you want to take them, you can. We had a mother bring her daughter to the police station after finding some Es on her. I'd be more frightened if a daughter of mine regularly got drunk - see the rape thread for attitudes of some men.

I doubt there are many people who do not know an alcoholic, work with them, live with them, try and avoid them. When I was warned off alcohol for life due to a slight genetic defect I studied what alcohol does to your body in the hope that I might find some form of solace. And d'you know what? I did. It is a poison, and is very addictive.

I belonged to a group where we all took certain drugs, not so easily available in my time as this was before the 71 drugs act - a certain irony there. Out of a group consisting of around three classes at college, so possibly 45 guys or so, I know of only one who became an addict. Smoking and alcohol have probably killed a number of the others.

[mattnunn]

MX7 said:

You've switched your argument from 'user' to 'addict'.

Following that logic, drink is out too.

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.

There is no way anyone is going to persuade me using some skewed utilitarian argument that giving away drugs to addicts, or selling drugs to users is a good idea, for me it's akin to the logic of giving paedophiles manga cartoons of kid rape. Some times the state has to guidance and moral judgment on behalf of the citizens, this is one such time.

Drugs screw you up, as I believe the slogan was.

[MX7]

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.

mattnunn said:

There is no way anyone is going to persuade me using some skewed utilitarian argument that giving away drugs to addicts, or selling drugs to users is a good idea

I'm not trying to, in fact I have no interest in the pros and cons of legalised drugs at all. All I wanted to comment on was the validity of having Brand contributing to the drug debate, but I thought that your original claim was a bit dramatic.

[mattnunn]

Derek Smith said:

Most people on illegal drugs such as the opiates tend to switch off and curl into a ball.

Well yes...

And that's a good thing because...?

We've a shadow of a Brave New World hanging over us here. What's wrong with a bit of Soma.

This is not a question of management, it's a question of laying down a principle.

We're in an unfortunate position visa vie alchohol as it's part of our cultural history, but opiate use and drinking a couple of pints a few times a week are not comparable.

[mattnunn]

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.

[Pothole]

I think it's hilarious that this has even sparked debate. It's government fluff and nothing will change in any significant way.