Russel Brand.....on drugs......in parliment
Discussion
Pothole said:
I think it's hilarious that this has even sparked debate. It's government fluff and nothing will change in any significant way.
Agreed, just like Richard Branson alluded to, Politicians are too wimpy and afraid to do what is correct.http://www.virgin.com/richard-branson/blog/time-to...
As long as drugs make you feel really good people will take them whether governments approve or not - government denial won't solve it only treating it as a part of everyday life will bring addicts in to everyday life.
You can't expect nonconformists to conform whilsts the rules won't let them and 500 years from now the governments of the world will still be arguing how to make drugs go away - they won't, some are sensationally fun and affordable and therefore will always be used.
You can't expect nonconformists to conform whilsts the rules won't let them and 500 years from now the governments of the world will still be arguing how to make drugs go away - they won't, some are sensationally fun and affordable and therefore will always be used.
mattnunn said:
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.
You suggest that one lays down a principle. And that principle is that it is alright to abuse these drugs on this list, all of which are known to be very dangerous and some of which cause you to act in a manner which harms society, but not alright to use the drugs on this other list which generally are slightly less dangerous, some much less so, and cause little problem apart from the cost.
You seem to have had personal experience of someone hooked on hard drugs. I sympathise. I have had friends, colleagues and relations who have died because of their addiction to alchol and tobacco, lots with tobacco, and it is something that stays with you. However, I have also seen the results of prohibition. Kids with sores all over their body, one who was given drugs to inject that had been cut with a scourer. One businessman who held down a responsible job in the City who had been given 50% pure so an OD. There was half a dozen deaths in and around Brighton at that time due to the fact that the stuff hadn't been cut.
Kids can grow out of addiction. If they have the chance.
What has to be accepted is that the current system doesn't work. It gives criminals easy money and it give druggies contaminated drugs. The irony is that when drugs were given to addicts it was much harder to buy opiates than nowadays. My shift in Brighton wanted to stop dealing in the town centre but every time they mounted an operation other demands took them away. With the 20% cut in funding so a 20%+ cut in staffing, even the low level operations are now a things of the past. Even when they did catch someone the punishment was derisory. But harsher punishment isn't the answer. Look to the USA where they lock up more of their population than in most other countries in the world yet it is easier to get drugs there than over here.
If there is an answer then OK, I'd go with it. But there isn't. It is a problem that has to be managed. We have to accept the bleedin' obvious: there is, unfortunately, no solution. We have to work from that. But it is difficult so the politicians find it much easier to let things ride.
mattnunn said:
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.
I knew a heroin user a few years back - Giles was a lawyer, public school educated, erudite and funny. He used the drug recreationally and completely turned on it's head my image of the hollow-eyed smack head curled up in an alleyway, robbing pensioners for their next fix. He was a friend of my neighbour, and if he came round and the neighbour wasn't in, we'd share a bottle of wine and chat - until he told about the heroin I had no idea.There's no doubt the desperate, broken addicts exist (indeed, a large percentage of burglaries are committed by people trying to raise money for drugs), but it is possible to use heroin without becoming one. I've no idea how, but as Giles told me there are more people like him than you might think - perhaps there would be more if the drug were regulated and taken out of the hands of the criminals who think nothing of the people they sell to. I'd say it's probably worth a try, the current state of affairs doesn't seem to be helping matters much.
Giles died a few years ago in Spain while visiting his mother. Ironically, given this conversation, he was killed when the car he was traveling in was run off the road by a drunk driver...
I think the argument has switched to are illegal drugs good or bad, or are they worse/better than legal ones argument.
I don't think that's the point really, personally I'd be happy if certain drugs were never made again and every addict was cured of their addiction, but the last 30 years or show have shown us that trying to do it with an incredibly expensive war on drugs doesn't work and cannot be won, because it's a war against our own people.
ALL drugs, legal and otherwise have some negative effect on your health, but some of them have a mild / passing effect if used sensibly and the enjoyment users get from it outweigh the negatives, some are deeply harmful and addictive and should be tightly controlled as addiction removes people ability to make rational decisions but the control should be done by the right people, not drug dealers.
Personally I don't use any illegal drugs, don't smoke and drink so rarely on most medical questionnaires I'm listed as a non-drinker, so I've no vested interest, but I can see that our current policies are stupid and as a tax payer I am unhappy that my tax money is being wasted trying to win and unwinnable war. money we could me getting for being tolerant to our own citizens less harmful drug use is being fed into the pockets of criminals here and abroad and we spending fortunes punishing people for addictions they cannot control and will only get worse in prison instead of trying to cure them for good.
I don't think that's the point really, personally I'd be happy if certain drugs were never made again and every addict was cured of their addiction, but the last 30 years or show have shown us that trying to do it with an incredibly expensive war on drugs doesn't work and cannot be won, because it's a war against our own people.
ALL drugs, legal and otherwise have some negative effect on your health, but some of them have a mild / passing effect if used sensibly and the enjoyment users get from it outweigh the negatives, some are deeply harmful and addictive and should be tightly controlled as addiction removes people ability to make rational decisions but the control should be done by the right people, not drug dealers.
Personally I don't use any illegal drugs, don't smoke and drink so rarely on most medical questionnaires I'm listed as a non-drinker, so I've no vested interest, but I can see that our current policies are stupid and as a tax payer I am unhappy that my tax money is being wasted trying to win and unwinnable war. money we could me getting for being tolerant to our own citizens less harmful drug use is being fed into the pockets of criminals here and abroad and we spending fortunes punishing people for addictions they cannot control and will only get worse in prison instead of trying to cure them for good.
Surely comparing drug users to alcohol users isn't fair, as there are far, far more alcohol users, and those drug users that exist currently aren't generally shooting up during the walk between pubs on a Friday night?
So, alcohol users are statistically vastly more likely to be involved in trouble, partially as a function of their greater number? I'd certainly be reticent in suggesting we use alcohol related violence figures to promote legalisation of drugs, on that basis alone.
Maybe I'm wrong, though.
So, alcohol users are statistically vastly more likely to be involved in trouble, partially as a function of their greater number? I'd certainly be reticent in suggesting we use alcohol related violence figures to promote legalisation of drugs, on that basis alone.
Maybe I'm wrong, though.
Mark Benson said:
mattnunn said:
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.
I knew a heroin user a few years back - Giles was a lawyer, public school educated, erudite and funny. He used the drug recreationally and completely turned on it's head my image of the hollow-eyed smack head curled up in an alleyway, robbing pensioners for their next fix. He was a friend of my neighbour, and if he came round and the neighbour wasn't in, we'd share a bottle of wine and chat - until he told about the heroin I had no idea.There's no doubt the desperate, broken addicts exist (indeed, a large percentage of burglaries are committed by people trying to raise money for drugs), but it is possible to use heroin without becoming one.
You can not use heroine recreationally, or crack. Anything beyond that is self medicating an addiction, at best, self medicating emotional or psychological issues. Some people can appear happy withing this situation, as it gives them a certain control over their life, but they are addicts.
Addiction is extremely interesting, heroine addicts are not.
mattnunn said:
Mark it really isn't, Giles is an addict, he will behave in the way an addict behaves, which is the central core of what Russel Brand's speech was about, the misunderstanding of addiction.
You can not use heroine recreationally, or crack. Anything beyond that is self medicating an addiction, at best, self medicating emotional or psychological issues. Some people can appear happy withing this situation, as it gives them a certain control over their life, but they are addicts.
Addiction is extremely interesting, heroine addicts are not.
Promise I'm no pendant, but...You can not use heroine recreationally, or crack. Anything beyond that is self medicating an addiction, at best, self medicating emotional or psychological issues. Some people can appear happy withing this situation, as it gives them a certain control over their life, but they are addicts.
Addiction is extremely interesting, heroine addicts are not.
Heroine
Heroin
Derek Smith said:
You missed, or perhaps avoided?, my point. It was the comparison between alcohol and opiates that I was making. There is very little public order problem with opiates apart from that brought about by the restrictions.
Because opiates render humans zombies, I'm not historian but the opium wars and the Eastern attitude to opiate use is very interesting, yes you can render humans zombies and they won't do you any harm - is that really where you want to go? It's a fact that Russians used alchohol in a very similair way during the cold war to escape the horrors and oppression of the soviet regime, even their own leaders were known to drink a litre or 2 of vodka a day. Our public order issues with alchohol are, im my opinion, more culturally based rather than beer based.Derek Smith said:
You suggest that one lays down a principle. And that principle is that it is alright to abuse these drugs on this list, all of which are known to be very dangerous and some of which cause you to act in a manner which harms society, but not alright to use the drugs on this other list which generally are slightly less dangerous, some much less so, and cause little problem apart from the cost.
Tobacco is being phased away, I doubt people will be using tobacco in 50 years time, not in it's health damaging form anyway. Alchohol has social benefits, heroine, crack, meth amphetamine etc... really don't, they don't make humans easier to communicate with, or help grease social interaction, they're effects rouine the person. E and weed are arguable, but they're side effects over recreational casual use are as damaging to the user as alchohol. Derek Smith said:
You seem to have had personal experience of someone hooked on hard drugs. I sympathise.
Kids can grow out of addiction. If they have the chance.
My parents fostered whilst I grew up, we had a series of children in our house from the most unbelievable circumstances, live ruined before they started, babies born into addiction. People take to hard drugs for all types of reasons, same as alcohol, I have tales of women taking to heroin in their 30s and totall destroying their life and others lives in the process due to relationship break ups etc... it's a form of self medication. Forget the wider social context, drugs themselves ruin individual lives. Heroine addicts will do anything for their fix, sell their children into prostitution, abandon babies etc... really unbelievable things and it's nothing to do with the availability of the drug, it's the addiction itself.Kids can grow out of addiction. If they have the chance.
MX7 said:
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.
The big problem is every single drugs adviser to the government has said the same, just politicians cant socially accept that.
elster said:
He is one of the hundreds of people who are going in to discuss this at the select committee.
The big problem is every single drugs adviser to the government has said the same, just politicians cant socially accept that.
I suspect that some (many?) politicians do accept it, but believe that it would be political suicide to come out as suporting legalisation/decriminalisation/control.The big problem is every single drugs adviser to the government has said the same, just politicians cant socially accept that.
Imagine the response from the tabloids, and, as this thread demonstrates, the highly vocal minority screaming 'won't someone think of the children!'.
TTwiggy said:
elster said:
He is one of the hundreds of people who are going in to discuss this at the select committee.
The big problem is every single drugs adviser to the government has said the same, just politicians cant socially accept that.
I suspect that some (many?) politicians do accept it, but believe that it would be political suicide to come out as suporting legalisation/decriminalisation/control.The big problem is every single drugs adviser to the government has said the same, just politicians cant socially accept that.
Imagine the response from the tabloids, and, as this thread demonstrates, the highly vocal minority screaming 'won't someone think of the children!'.
The way i was pointing with MPs is specifically they will accept in private, several former users too, but to publically denounce the war on drugs would not be good for party politics. Possibly make a minority party or individual rather high profile.
The costs saved from the 'war on drugs' would be enough to pay the deficit off at an easy rate. The tax revenue created would be significant.
freecar said:
mattnunn said:
E and weed are arguable, but they're side effects over recreational casual use are as damaging to the user as alchohol.
Source please as I've never read of any study condluding that cannabis is as harmful as alcohol but feel free to try to make one up.You can read papers on long term cannabis use, such as the one below, the equivalence to alchohol would be an entirely based on usage and personal experience, obviously 3 litres of vodka a day is going to be more harmfull than a toke a week.
http://www.priory.com/psych/cannabis.htm
I'm in with the let the kids have fun argument, but let's give them factual based information, not rumour.
mattnunn said:
I've recreationally used all 3 for extended periods of time, I now only drink. Anyone I know who hit E pretty hard in the early 90's is not doing it anymore, but we all still enjoy a beer. I smoked weed pretty much everyday for 6 years, I don't touch it anymore, I still enjoy a beer. I know no one damaged long term by recreational alchohol use, I mean damage caused by the alchohol itself rather than external factors caused by being drunk. I know quite a few people damaged by the chemical process of E on the brain or psychological issue related to bad trips etc...
You can read papers on long term cannabis use, such as the one below, the equivalence to alchohol would be an entirely based on usage and personal experience, obviously 3 litres of vodka a day is going to be more harmfull than a toke a week.
http://www.priory.com/psych/cannabis.htm
I'm in with the let the kids have fun argument, but let's give them factual based information, not rumour.
Heres some factual based information,alcohol causes psychosis as well.You can read papers on long term cannabis use, such as the one below, the equivalence to alchohol would be an entirely based on usage and personal experience, obviously 3 litres of vodka a day is going to be more harmfull than a toke a week.
http://www.priory.com/psych/cannabis.htm
I'm in with the let the kids have fun argument, but let's give them factual based information, not rumour.
www.drugrehabwiki.com/wiki/Alcohol-induced_psychos...
http://www.psychtreatment.com/alcohol_related_psyc...
Sump Scraper said:
mattnunn said:
I've recreationally used all 3 for extended periods of time, I now only drink. Anyone I know who hit E pretty hard in the early 90's is not doing it anymore, but we all still enjoy a beer. I smoked weed pretty much everyday for 6 years, I don't touch it anymore, I still enjoy a beer. I know no one damaged long term by recreational alchohol use, I mean damage caused by the alchohol itself rather than external factors caused by being drunk. I know quite a few people damaged by the chemical process of E on the brain or psychological issue related to bad trips etc...
You can read papers on long term cannabis use, such as the one below, the equivalence to alchohol would be an entirely based on usage and personal experience, obviously 3 litres of vodka a day is going to be more harmfull than a toke a week.
http://www.priory.com/psych/cannabis.htm
I'm in with the let the kids have fun argument, but let's give them factual based information, not rumour.
Heres some factual based information,alcohol causes psychosis as well.You can read papers on long term cannabis use, such as the one below, the equivalence to alchohol would be an entirely based on usage and personal experience, obviously 3 litres of vodka a day is going to be more harmfull than a toke a week.
http://www.priory.com/psych/cannabis.htm
I'm in with the let the kids have fun argument, but let's give them factual based information, not rumour.
www.drugrehabwiki.com/wiki/Alcohol-induced_psychos...
http://www.psychtreatment.com/alcohol_related_psyc...
Anyway the topic at hand was the treatment of addiction, not really the damaging effects of dope.
mattnunn said:
Right, so where does that leave us? For the sake of argument say they're both as bad as each other, you really think a satisfactory position to take is to legalise cannabis rather than prohibit alchohol? You seem to be taking a 2 wrongs make a right approach.
Anyway the topic at hand was the treatment of addiction, not really the damaging effects of dope.
Where does it leave us you ask,Anyway the topic at hand was the treatment of addiction, not really the damaging effects of dope.
What right do we have to tell an individual what they can or cannot do with their body?
There is dangers everywhere in life,you cant protect people from them selves all of the time.
We could have better drug education, inform people on the use of drugs, their effects, the good sides and the bad sides of drug taking,scientific fact,remove dealers from the scene that add crap to the drugs making them more dangerous than they need to be, i could go on and on.
Humans love taking drugs in some shape or form,all ways have done and probably all ways will.
Not all drug takers are addicts or abusers,plenty folk know how to take them in moderation like alcohol.
Time for a factual debate on drugs,none of this 'drugs are bad,think of the kids' crap we get at the minute but politicians are more concerned with vote gaining and getting in to power than sensible debate,going to take a long time to un-brainwash people of years of 'drugs are bad' messages.
Edited by Sump Scraper on Wednesday 25th April 13:18
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff