now, if the police or authorities are unable to stop the availability of drugs in a closed off, controlled penal institution, how on planet fucking earth do they think they can do so in the outside world?? its mind-boggling
Oh my days, I normally respect the views of a Hitchens, but he's totally in another world here. He thinks prison should used as a viable deterrent to prevent people from taking drugs. Prison hasn't been a viable deterrent to prevent any crime for a long long long time, if ever.
Not really because a huge proportion of the thousands who use drugs recreationally would not do so if there were stern penalties that threatened their prospects or careers. I know that I could get away with paying on many forms of public transport hundreds of times a year if I decided to but I don’t not just because it’s probably morally wrong, but on the off chance that one day the inspectors will board and slap me with a not insignificant fine plus the chance of losing job. Possession of drugs is virtually decriminalised as the law is very rarely enforced. Also if the authorities really wanted to keep drugs out of prison it’s not beyond the wit of man to do so theses days with all the technology at hand. It would require a massive effort for 10-20 years of enforcements through the chains but afterwards it would almost certainly lead to less people addicted and more people deterred from taking which would have a knock on effect of reducing prison numbers.
The REASON why a fear based model (like the war on drugs) doesn't work is because, people (addictive personalities or otherwise) are going to use drugs regardless of the consequences. Fear based reasoning doesn't compute within this society anymore. We NEED love and compassion; like Russell had mentioned.
Your post hasn't aged very well. Now that we've allowed the softer more compassionate types to take over much of drug policy, we have streets full of homeless encampments shooting animal tranquilizer into their arms. Consequences stop rational people from doing stupid things. You might as well say "people are going to commit murder even if it's illegal, so why bother punishing murderers?"
I love how while Russel actually answers the questions and the concerns and listens to what Hitchens is saying, he only attaks Russel personally and then tells him he doesn't know how to debate seriously, the irony is just... delicious
Peter was a terrible choice as a representative for the side opposing Russell. He makes several good points, but if the issue is narrowed down to systematically addressing addicts and young people who may begin abusing the drugs in question, they're going to relate far better to Russell than they will to Peter. As someone who loves Peter's brother, Christopher, it's hard not to feel that Peter can sometimes be a bit of a cunt.
I like how Russell is debating with thorough, empirical knowledge whereas Peter appears to be debating like a child: Neglects every other opinion, then continues to interrupt those speaking, only to be insulted when others do the same to him. The question is not 'Why is Russell allowed on the BBC?' but 'Why is Peter allowed?'.
Thank god there are still some high iq, mature, compassionate, well educated, well spoken and valuable members of society just like yourself, sir! We feel much safer now!
Peter Hitchens seems to deny the reality of addiction because possession of certain drugs is a crime ... but this is illogical. Addiction is a medical term. Crime is a legal term. Hitchens is also needlessly aggressive and clearly has some psychological issues ....
@@sosalpha There is plenty of evidence for addiction while Peter's view that it is not well-defined as some people believe is also based on medical evidence. Most people however really miss his point: We should treat addicts as people breaking the law rather than victims of circumstance
@@guidad542 I see neurologists and psychiatrists for ptsd. I've drilled them on the subject of addiction. None of them have the same definition, just chemicals in the brain trying to balance and detoxing. It ultimately boils down to will power, choices, preferences, hobbies, entertainment, joy etc. All are choices (good or bad). Also note; the BRAIN initiative PROJECT isn't completed, yet these people make serious claims without much complete understanding of the brain. What we do know from experiences, it's a choice and willpower is invoked.
@@firstnamett4656 Sure, here is a relevant study: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2928221/. Probably the paragraph you're most interested in is "Nicotine and the Neurotransmitter Release". It explains how smoking has a tangible effect on your pleasure receptors (what can be broadly classified as addiction). That doesn't mean that you DON'T have a choice, it just makes said choice harder.
Why Peter fails as an intellectual: he wants less people addicted to drugs, yet, he doesn't mention the cause of addiction, nor does he indicate that he understands the cause of addiction. Bring a behavioral psychologist or criminologist on; bring some science into this discussion.
Hmm, I would say that both disciplines contain vast amounts of data, methods of prediction, and explanatory power of human behavior that are far more accurate than anything else known to man. I'm not sure how they can be classified as pseudoscience. Would you explain, please?
I was going to say: Hitchens does not understand there is an underlying cause pushing people to use the drugs. Perhaps a statistician would be more effective at showing Hitchens that people turn towards drugs during economic or social hardship... when we are unhappy. Coming up with an explanation as to why we are unhappy would be the next step.
***** I would agree that people who study human behavior might not make the most compelling arguments to the complexity of human nature and drug-abuse, but there has to be some factual basis for proving or disproving the reasons people use drugs. What would you suggest as an alternative? Should we leave it up to the politicians?
Peter Hitchens is everything obnoxious about his older brother without being any of the things redeeming. Being loud, having a large vocabulary, and having a posh accent doesn't make one right. Russell Brand's nature is as comedian, but that doesn't mean he isn't qualified to weigh in on issues of substance abuse. The US has, since Reagan, gone crazy throwing even minor drug offenders in jail, and in exchange we've got the world's largest and most expensive penal system... and still, drug use in our country charges ahead. Spending more money on "deterrence" doesn't work because it fails to understand the psychology of addiction... something Peter Hitchens would do well to study before he spends any more time being a pompous ass.
Ronnie Swoleman It's important, when you're about to criticise someone, to make sure you've understood the entirety of what they've said and ensure at least part of your criticism hinges on the substance of what they've said as much as how they've said it, lest you make yourself look foolish for having missed the point. In fact, it's the very mistake Mr. Hitchens makes in this debate, and it's the one you just made as well. It isn't, however, a mistake I made. What seven other people (at the time of this writing) noticed that you didn't is the entire middle section of my comment where I said: "The US has, since Reagan, gone crazy throwing even minor drug offenders in jail, and in exchange we've got the world's largest and most expensive penal system... and still, drug use in our country charges ahead. Spending more money on "deterrence" doesn't work because it fails to understand the psychology of addiction." Having made a salient, substantive point on the subject matter, I feel just fine about the position I've staked out, the manner in which I delivered it, and the opportunity I also took to criticise Mr. Hitchens for his hollow attempt to emulate his vastly more thoughtful brother (may his memory live on). Thanks for playing.
lekoman "It's important, when you're about to criticise someone, to make sure you've understood the entirety of what they've said and ensure at least part of your criticism hinges on the substance of what they've said as much as how they've said it," You should possibly understand the irony, therefore, that you said about Hitchens 'Being loud, having a large vocabulary and having a posh accent doesn't make one right.' This is Classic projection. You're jelly that he has a bigger vocabulary than you and since you type like a posh person, you're probably well aware that your lack of intelligence isn't masked by your posh accent. Nevermind, though, I'm sure some people are fooled by it. "lest" Lest. Who uses 'lest'? That's right, posh (or pseudo-posh) people trying to sound intelligent. "you make yourself look foolish for having missed the point." Incorrect, obviously. You made an Ad Hominem, I called you on it. That is the point. "In fact, it's the very mistake Mr. Hitchens makes in this debate" He had no idea you'd made an ad hominem against him. "What seven other people (at the time of this writing) noticed that you didn't is the entire middle section of my comment where I said: "The US has, since Reagan, gone crazy throwing even minor drug offenders in jail, and in exchange we've got the world's largest and most expensive penal system... and still, drug use in our country charges ahead. Spending more money on "deterrence" doesn't work because it fails to understand the psychology of addiction." "Having made a salient, substantive point on the subject matter," You made an unsubstantiated 'point' on US drug taking. This is different country with different culture and different laws. Do you have any information on UK drugs culture? No? Then I'd advise you to sit down and stay seated. "I feel just fine about the position I've staked out," You shouldn't. "the manner in which I delivered it, and the opportunity I also took to criticise Mr. Hitchens for his hollow attempt to emulate his vastly more thoughtful brother (may his memory live on)." Christopher Hitchens is indeed a great mind also, but they both consider topics to a level that you can only dream of. "Thanks for playing." I can at least admire your misplaced arrogance. You are just one of millions of pseudo-intellectuals that has read a few books and thinks they're an expert on life.
Russell's fans won't see it, I'm sure, but Russell really did lose it by resorting to diversion, trivialisation and insults - showed himself to be the angriest man in the room.
I love that Russell tells it like it is! To a degree it is not self inflicted to take drugs, but rather self medicating as to fill a hole within oneself. People don't understand the reasons as to why would someone become addicted to drugs or take drugs. The primary reason is to escape from reality. Why do people want escape reality? Because this life is hard in every way and sometimes people can't get a grip on life because of it's complexities. I believe we should be helping these afflicted people more with compassion and kindness, not just shunning them away. I can't stand listening to Peter Hitchens!
Cashel O'Neill That was done democratically though, voted into law by popular opinion, so to say there's no hope of going back is like saying there's no hope of recriminalizing bleach. It's something people want that has negligable negative effects next to alcohol, that they voted out of the black market and into the proper channels other controlled substances have to go through. Which, sadly, does include industrialization, but they're not going to vote it out of their reach again just because someone is making money off of it. And there are huge positive effects of its legalization, such as enabling tax revenue from an entire, flourishing market where there was none before and where there was in fact was a net negative tax effect before, counting only how damned expensive it is to jail every weed smoker with the same legal parameters you use for meth, crack, and heroin. The legalization in my state could have been done better, but it's very Yin/Yang, and not nearly as simple as "driven by money." For once, an industry broke that mold just a little.
@@cashwhistle2074 its true weed (and all drugs, caffeine and nicotine included) are VERY dangerous. But they have always been relatively easy to get. And even when they get harder to get people start making drugs (meth and fentanyl, and many other like benzos) getting drugs will never be the problem and really isn't the problem, its a symptom (or "solution") for our REAL problems. Similar to guns not being the real problem, violence is. We need to deal with the REAL problems!
You would genuinely rather have slaves that are victims of their circumstance than have people getting the help that they need? I knew some people were psychopaths but I didn’t know they were ballsy enough to say it.
10:46 LMFAO!!! "I don't even think that you're ignorant, I just think you're innocent... you're like a peculiar child." ROFL!!! That had me laughing for a solid minute...... he really does have the look of a peculiar child! Russell couldn't have possibly described him any more accurately. LOL!
Peter Hitchens. What a narrowminded fool who thinks the world is black and white. He talks of debate like it's a game. Russell may not have all the answers, but he has compassion for human beings and first hand experience on what it's like to be addicted to drugs and get clean, Mr. Hitchens, so perhaps instead of chastising his "debating skills," you should open your ears and more importantly your heart and listen to what he's saying. Drugs should remain illegal, but neither that fact alone, nor harsher punishments will deter the number of people who become drug addicts. People who fall into drugs are either young, in pain or have other issues in their life. Young people don't fully comprehend the consequences that will happen, legal or otherwise if they get caught, and people with issues in their lives simply don't care about the legal ramifications of getting caught. Think about if someone you cared about became an addict. Would you want them locked away, would you want them addicted to methadone instead, or would you want them to get help getting on a program of abstinence?
***** I think he's talking more about people who fall into addiction, rather than people who experiment casually with drugs. The latter of course being a much, much higher percentile of people.
***** you self righteous bore! I can assure you that you haven't convinced a single soul to change their mind, real life circumstances get in the way of this sheltered existence you are living in...
Brand says Hitchens has no compassion, yet it seems clear to me that Hitchens is actually far more concerned about protecting people from getting muddled up in the first place. Protecting the youth from suffering in the first place, is that not compassion?
+shrunkensimon No, because every young person will take drugs at some point or another so what Hitchens is saying is throw them all in prison, that'll teach them. Which is the opposite of compassion.
+redmeatheart1 Not what he says at all. He actually believes you should get 1 genuine caution if you're under 18, then after that treated as a criminal. His point is if genuine punishment were enforced the majority would be deterred, not to throw everyone in prison.
They wouldn't be deterred though, people will continue to take drugs, it'd just mean that the unfortunate ones that get caught will have their lives ruined by going to prison over petty drug charges. They'll come out without any life skills, with a criminal record that will stop them from being allowed into legitimate lines of employment and they'll be hardened by their experience on the inside. You'll create a monster out of an 18 year old kid that got busted for smoking cannabis, thats the reality. More severe punishments don't work, not with an addiction.
+redmeatheart1 "They wouldn't be deterred". You're wrong about that. When children see others getting criminal records and screwing up their chances in life, they will back away from it. Only the foolish would ignore the precedent. If children saw that the law was being taken seriously only the fools would gamble on it. You would get some people going to jail to begin with probably, yes. Once the trend has been established and usage rate drops way down, then you could potentially pardon those original offenders of their criminal record. As for addiction, I smoked it daily for several years. Apart from 1 week of sleep disturbance, I had little trouble stopping once I developed the conviction it was shit for my well being.
+shrunkensimon I think it's pretty obvious that the potential of being caught is not a big deterrent. Drug use is rife and millions of productive, otherwise law abiding citizens, take drugs every day. Where decriminalization has happened, hard drug usage has actually dropped! I'm of the mind that as an adult I should have every right to consume whatever I please. To stop the use of hard drugs we need educational reform. Teach children about the use and side effects of individual drugs. Get them informed. After all, isn't that how we slashed the number of tobacco smokers? Do you think making tobacco illegal due to it's terrible health effects would have been a better idea?
As a recovering addict... the man across from Russell is driving me crazy, but I applaud Russell because is obviously working his program during this interview and using compassion, open mindedness, etc.
"There's more to debate than acting all serious and posh" this man completely ignores what Russell has to say purely because he is to stuck up to accept Russell's more chilled way of speaking. You don't need to be serious to make a good point.
Why is a comedian being given a programme to push policy on drugs??? For the same reason that a columnist is being given air time to push another policy on drugs...
Brand isn't just a comedian, he's a recovering drug addict for 13 years, so I think he knows quite better than most people about the war on drugs. He's also an activist, and humanitarian. If you listen to what he's saying you would see he's a well educated person with good intentions. So, calling him just a comedian, is an understatement.
Marcus Moody your opinion but in my case I didn't give a fuck mate. The legal system employed on non prescription drugs is simply because they make zero money on them, that why America has now made weed legal in nearly every state. cash money.
Your not getting this there are thousands all over the world, look at prisons, bursting at the seems mate. Plus the key word is less, if it was a deterant there would be zero.
Propagandhi900 no, people who put emotions before what "they" think is right who are more worried about hurting someone emotionally then doing the difficult thing in order to help them
Prisons in the United States are filled with non-violent drug users... many with longer sentences than violent criminals. This type of punishment has not deterred drug use in the least. Hitchens can continue to intellectualize his own personal ideology with regards to drug users, but it's already been shown to be completely ineffective.
Well to me it is clear that both arguments hold their own merit. More compassion and understanding is needed to help fuel the fire that battles drug addiction. But it does still need a level of sternness when coming in contact with the law. What Peter doesnt seem to grasp is that not everyone has the upbringing that he had. Few of us have private schooling and a structured family. When you have nothing, making the mistake of turning to drugs is an easy choice to make. He lacks compassion.
***** A brain without compassion is dysfunctional. Even from a purely logical point of view he is incorrect since evidence from the countries which treat drug abuse as a mental health issue show that doing so is the best solution. Peter's approach is deeply seated in sadism and Victorian age hierarchies.
Jeremy calhoun Both are true, that's why disregarding the evidence of the benefit in treating drug abuse as a health issue rather than a criminal one is doubly insane.
***** The magna carta has little to do with modern democracy. It was a treaty between barons and the king which excluded the whole populace and human rights.
Wow that guy is so emotionally and spiritually shut down. The problem is that these kinds of people are running our countries. Russell Brand is speaking with a lot of wisdom and heart. He is actually very clear and insightful.
I prefer to see these two debate on a forum so they weren't constantly cutting each other off and they could make their points and counter arguments. Can we have that?
Humans follow the pleasure principle. We seek out pleasure and try to avoid pain. Pleasure is a healthy thing. It is a bodily experience combining relief, satisfaction, and energy that also has a secondary reaction in the brain. However, because humans are smart, we can directly target the reward center in the brain, ignoring the body in the process. This is how addiction starts. Then the reward center becomes progressively desensitized until affect is dampened or numbed. Once the person's affect is numbed, they can't experience normal everyday pleasures anymore. They need some form of stimulation that effects the reward center. That could come from anything that has enough power to hold your attention without actually engaging your bodies pleasure functions. Popular activities include internet surfing, porn, video games, TV, and drugs are the most intense. Once your brain is fried from addiction, once the person is deadened, they are basically defenseless. Normally, what gets you through the day is not willpower, being a "moral person," and making the right decisions, its your emotions. Your emotions provide the energy that realizes your inner impulses and goals. Without those emotions, you are floating adrift and there is nothing to really stop your from playing 8 hours of vidya, surfing the internet all night, watching porn, or ingesting a substance that will stimulate you. Its just not possible. No amount of willpower can stop you from reaching for alcohol when you know it can drown you in bliss while simultaneously freeing you from a crushing isolation and hollow feeling. Emotions provide boundaries. Then you might say, well, then you shouldn't be taking drugs in the first place, you have to make the correct decisions in the first place. However, I've just established that its not just drugs that do this, its anything that directly stimulates the brain and bypasses the body. Not everyone grows up in a perfectly air tight bubble with nothing on the line without having to make a real decision and then becomes a modern day conservative. Some people are abused as children, bullied at school, don't form good parental attachments, undergo traumatic experiences, and then there are the rest of us that live in a culture so embedded with activities that contribute to reward abuse that we are all progressively weakened as we grow into adulthood. Even the education system, and heavy studying can do this, though its not as bad as the others. Also, not everyone just "has a choice." Again, conservatives have a hard time understanding this because they don't grasp consensual power exchange. Even though to an outside observer, it may seem like everyone has a choice to go either way, the emotional realities are often very different. Lots of people just don't have the ability to say 'no' because they find themselves in profound states of scarcity and desperation. Will power just has no place in the discussion of addiction. In fact, addiction is antithetical to moralism. It has nothing to do with right or wrong. It has everything to do with pleasure and feeling. People suffering from addiction are dealing with a profound lack of feeling, which is why many addicts feel so isolated and alone. We feel the most powerfully when we are deeply connected with others in loving relationships. Addiction goes hand in hand with loneliness. So no, its not a moral argument. Conservatives like to say they are objectivists, but any notion of objectivism goes out the window when talking about something like climate change (which by the way isn't objective fact, its scientific consensus). In fact, objectivism only exists on the right, probably so they can continue their easy black and white thinking while, again, never having to make a real, thoughtful decision. The moral/willpower argument is careful narcissism and self aggrandizement. A lifestyle guided by will power is alienating and depressing, the only antidote being inflation of the self into an ivory tower of moral correctness. The conservative argument for everything under the sun is objectivism and willpower/moralism. Objectivism, does just what it sounds like, it leads to objectification. Absolute moral arguments are designed to create an artificial, uniform platform on which a conscientious decision can be made EASILY. In doing so, the complexities and subtleties of people and their lives go out the window, what's left are objects to be judged. Ironically, objectivism is a sort of cure for lack of willpower. Only someone so emotionally alienated and lost resorts to black and white thinking in order to live their life.
Well im a libertarian/ conservative and i beleive 90% of drugs shld be legalized. Also rehab like Russel suggests. One of the big reasons behind drug addiction is soulless post modernism bring like a new religion... , lack of small communities, lack of fathers thsnks to the welfare state. See candace owens, denzel Washington on the latter.
One of the first philosophers I came across upon being interested in the area, named Ken Wilber, talked a lot about lines, levels, stages, waves, etc. In terms of stage development, he described how psychologists analyzed a group of people over a period of time, asking them one of a group of questions my favorite of which is "A mans wife is sick, but he doesnt have the money for the medicine. Should he steal it?" So they asked the subjects this question, some time would go by and they asked the same question to the people at a later point in their lives and noticed that people for the most part gave 3 answers. The first answer is Yes steal the medicine because fuck you I do what I want kinda thing. A very egoic, singular mentality. Stage one. Another answer they got was No dont steal the medicine because stealing is wrong, and the cops might get you, Jesus will be mad at you, etc. At least now you are thinking of someone other than yourself, but its a conformist view where you arent thinking for yourself AKA the insensitive prick you see in this video. Stage two. And lastly Yes of course steal the medicine because life is worth more than X amount of dollars and peoples deepest desire once they realize wtf this world is about is *HELPING OTHERS*. So you get this macro rather than micro, unified, pluralistic, global view of things and consider the whole, not just pieces... the interests of the many, not the few AKA the motherfucking *MAN*, Russell Brand. And heres the cherry on top: the answers *always* flowed in one direction. Makes sense right? You start out life as an egocentric dipshit, and some of us make it to stage 3(people like Gandhi), and some dont quite get past stage 1.5(Hitler). But you damn sure dont have people reverting back to stage 2 from stage 3. So, in conclusion, this douchebag is just an underdeveloped, overweight, rude, egocentric tool who is a product of the many systems currently in place designed to keep people away from their true nature as human beings. And fucking *EASE UP* on the perpetuation of these conceptual misunderstandings relating to altered states, and more specifically heavy psychedelics that have been used for several millenia that can not only actually *HELP* addicts(initial clinical application of LSD was for substance abuse- result 80% success rate with just 1 dose), but has the potential to further humanity in ways Ive come to realize 95%+ people know nothing about. Understand that these are just molecules people. Different Lego-like Newtonian building blocks do different things. I wouldnt say there are good and bad molecules, just good and bad applications. People get so hung up on chemicals, not understanding how many chemical reactions are taking place inside their body every second of every day. Embrace the tools that were put on this earth for us to utilize. Tools far older than our species e.g. the psilocybin containing mushroom which has a piece of its molecular structure that is unlike anything else on this planet. Coincidentally enough it provides you with a sense of oneness with the universe, your fellow man, animals, plants, nature, and much, much more(gee I wonder who would stand to lose from a population full of individuals like that hrmmm). And who is Russell Brand to be speaking about these issues? Are you fucking kidding me? Anyone who thinks he isnt qualified to speak on such matters has clearly only caught some mainstream interview of him having to answer dumb fucking pop culture questions, all the while you see the pain in his eyes of having to converse on such a superficial level. The mans intelligence level is un-fucking real. A lot of it is emotional intelligence and some people like this fat bloke just aint wired like that yet. *cough* stage 2
Dumbass McGee I feel the same way. I was talking about debating people a couple of months ago with a great guy, who was really impressive at debating (not to mention just being curious about so many things and just a super openminded guy). He would go through every argument and present an incredibly detailed and voluminous number of precise references and examples. I was so impressed with him, and asked him how he found the resources. I had a long exchange with him, but some of what he wrote was the following (my translation): ”I understand your disillusionment. One has to pick one’s battles with care. For example I see you today have commented on one of the videos I have uploaded (and thanks). I just haven’t been bothered to do it. Under the other related video I also uploaded, I have made thorough answers and comments, but to what use? You know, people are so brainwashed, hungry for more brainwashing (TV, media, education, etc.) and protect so fiercely the brainwashing they have already acquired, that it has all but no point. Then I’d rather spend the time exchanging opinions with openminded people like you, and “...” and “...”, which I have learned a lot from, and for which they hopefully also could find some use, because they - like I, don’t “shutter off” either. Mostly I can’t be bothered to begin discussions where I see people already have formed an opinion.” This may not be exactly what you mean, but more like having the sense no one sees the meaning and relevance in what one is saying, and seem much more interested in things which seem to have not much depth or direction. I have often had that feeling, and it had made it more difficult for me to sustain the urge to write something serious, and so I am more and more prone to just write something superficial and emotional, perhaps to protect myself against what I fear will be attacks from people I don't feel I can respect. Perhaps it's my fault.
Isak Lytting Word. Terence McKenna said "The price of sanity is alienation." Are you familiar with him? I like how that was put, the part about not even bothering with people who already have their rigid minds locked in to a certain frequency. Its true though, because the true philosophers can't just keep shit to themselves... yet its taxing trying to enlighten every product of their environment that crosses your path. Carefully selecting your prey is something I too have come to understand is necessary. I catch a bright mind every now and then, met a lot of smart people here on G+... definitely a tier or two above your average TH-cam comment IQ level. Yeah peoples inability to see the relevance of things is a major source of frustration for me. Quantum physics is a perfect example. People will crack out on the dumbest shit trying to get some kind of piece to the puzzle that is "life".... yet just seem numb when you describe, in detail, the most jaw-dropping details about what's going on on pretty much the deepest known level of our inner being. Smh
I think we'd agree on a lot of things in this field, however I would put further emphasis on the importance of not bothering trying to wake people up and try to meet them at their stage of the journey. I find myself getting very self righteous when I come across people I perceive as closed minded or ignorant and all that frustration is usually traced back to my need for some type of ego gratification and I end up shooting myself in the foot. Are your remarks on LSD referring to the work of Stanislov Grof's work with LSD? I'm very familiar with Wilber, McKenna and study transpersonal psychology. I think that Brand is on a different frequency and so might as well be specking to these people in foreign language. Would I be right in guessing that you've experienced some kind of awakening experience yourself?
milo it often goes hand in hand and there are underlying social issues. De-Criminalisation should be attached to all drug related offences. If people want to look at drugs in society - look at how they are manufactured and imported in mass and who is responsible for them getting into the country. You will find that it usually is the government themselves. Most people do not know that a few months before September 11 attacks Al-Quaeda (an Islamic group that does not advocate or believe in drugs) began burning the poppie fields in Afghanistan that produced 75% of the worlds Heroin at that time. Those poppie fields were owned by the US government. A few months later the US was in Afghanistan and seized control of those poppie fields once again. They now produce 95% of the worlds heroin. True story.
+milo yes in theory I agree but most retail and lower management dealers are doing so to supply their habit. I think there should be massive sentences for high level players and the white collars who help them clean the money. If you take out the top the rest will diminish. As to prison as a way of dealing with users, a lot of people get addicted in prison. As somebody who was tied up in this in my youth and server in Asia then sent back here to finish my time I can vouch for the fact that prisons here are awash. I was considered an oddity because I didn't use. But yea I would advocate life sentences for top lever class A dealers.
***** Ok... and who did those addicts buy their drugs from in the beginning? Imagine if that dealer didn't deal because the punishment wasn't worth the risk? Kill the roots, not the branches if you want the tree to die.
man, it's impossible to get russell agressive and defensive and offended and cornered .. when peter is trying to bash him, he still shares compassion and trying to introduce to him the concept of not isolating but instead helping the ill members of society and turning them into useful members of society
Wow, I have watched like 3 videos with Hitchens and jesus christ he loves his voice. In this debate, he double backs on his comments. He says that people using drugs are criminals and then he says he doesn't want to imprison them when Brand calls him our. So how? How does Hitchen's provide an answer? He doesn't. "No reason and just abuse" he says when Russell Brand clearly wasn't. How does one argue against this Hitchens? Russell and everybody else are very very neutral about it all. The Parliamentarian was very unbiased in what he was saying and tried to calm down Hitchen's but then Hitchen's backlashes on him. Hitchen's gets very personal. "Is that you peter?!?" at the very end. Gold
In order to have a debate there has to be a point and a counter point. The only thing that Russell Brand did was shout make rude comments and offer nothing of substance (pun intended). Mr. Hitchens tried to debate with him like an adult and Brand was behaving like an 8 year old ADHD youngster.
Funny that Peter Hitchens mentions the notion that "all crimes are caused by law", which he doesn't believe in. Tao Te Ching mentions this in chapter 57: [...] The more laws and restrictions there are, The poorer people become. The sharper men's weapons, The more trouble in the land. The more ingenious and clever men are, The more strange things happen. The more rules and regulations, The more thieves and robbers. [...]
Peter Hitchens is a reasonable/intelligent man with an opinion i disagree with. Russell Brand is an ego maniac seeking attention. I know who'd i rather see more of on television.
So, if I understand correctly, if you throw people in prison for theft or murder other people won't do it anymore.. right. ( I'm not saying that theft and murder are ok, but I'm not quite sure it works as intended..?)
Brand is just so well spoken. It always amazes me at his ideas and ways of expressing them. I'm deeply sorry to see him formerly using drugs and presently suffering the effects from it. I also wish he chose a career in law or politics opposed to comedy and entertainment. I feel he would be so much more fitting for it, especially with a mind like that. I also find it highly admirable about his views concerning drug treatment. I feel him advocating a more or less cold-turkey solution opposed to one where he's continuing using a form of mental hallucinogen is very courageous and speaks so much about him as a person. I wish him well in his battle.
Arnatuile11 how does his opinion make him an idiot? I believe the point of an opinion is to differentiate each person from the next. You saying he's an idiot from his opinion says alot about your personal character. Maybe a look in the mirror is required before your allowed back at a keyboard.
Konstantyne Payne thank you so much for defending me friend. The world is filled with both good and bad people and believe me when I say, I can tell you're a good person. All the best to you and your life's pursuits.
Mr Brand is freer as a comedian to get his points across. The legal and political system would surround him with the type of viewpoints that would see Brand having to defend himself more than influence others. As a comedian he is answerable to nobody and can shine as an inspiration to help others.
That's the worst.. People pronouncing subjective opinions as objective/absolute truths. Especially those who just spout out their beliefs without having any personal experience or knowledge of the subject. Even on a much simpler level.. I guess I'd much rather be a drug addicted alcoholic than a self-righteous piece of shit.
Thanks for your honesty Russell.You are and can be a great role model for kids staying off drugs.I know its getting worse in England. Keep helping these kids they need it.
This is absurd! People born with these genetic discrepancies must first, according to Biological evidence and the most recent studies in Neuroscience, activate them. The answer is simple, you have both laws and programs. Laws are used to deter people from using drugs in the first place, while recovery programs are used to help drug addicts cope and overcome with their already drug addiction.
Exactly. The argument put forwards by druggies is that it is either or. Why can we not have a cold turkey ward that is unpleasant enough to deter people, but also helps them get clean while there? Surely this is possible.
Russell kept quite WAY more and gave Hithens plenty of opportunity to express a point which he did not do. All he did was angrily fight for his point to be acknowledged. All the points he made were already addressed by Russell with a SOLUTION and all Hitchens says is how he cant reason when Russel has already provided a not only reasonable but PROVABLE solution. For russell to be silent shows his compassion, acceptance, tolerance and wisdom. Hitchens made his character very obvious.
The Hitchens brothers are/were great at defending the hard-to-swallow positions. Christopher gave the best argument, IMO, in support of the Iraq War, even when that wasn't the popular position. Peter is the same way; he just doesn't have the charisma that Christopher had.
Being arrested isnt a lesson, you sure as hell now that if youre taking drugs, the chances of getting arrested is very high. Im not taking drugs or even drinking but i think every drug should be legal, i dont feel like its any of my business. But the legal staters make no difference for people taking drugs like russell says, and this man keep blabbering about legal that legal that laws that laws that, IT makes NO difference, people dont care. Make it simple. I would rather live in a world where people are free to take drugs than not. Fuck all this laws bullshit about drugs,
Soon we will have to go to prison for even talking about drugs, because drugs are bad, drugs are really really bad, like alcohol isnt bad? and cigarettes is more dangerous than weed, not a single person has died from weed, from just weed, maybe if they drived a car or something but not from the actual weed. From cigarretes u get cancer and all sort of bullshit plus its more addictive, wtf is this world. Sorry for my bad english
even if you disagree with him completely and think he is trolling, surely some part of your brain must find him entertaining just for the fact that he consistently rails against consensus and accepted "wisdom".
Huey W well for someone who could be mentally ill , he has been proved right many times in his predictions when everyone told him he was mad. strange that right ?
As a medicine student, i can assure you that addiction is a DISSEASE. A multifactorial one, to be precise. There are genes multiple genes causing predisposition for an addiction and also the environment plays a big roll in it the development.
IClock Works The you best get your money back from that medical school. Addiction is not a disease. It's always a choice. There's only things you enjoy doing more than life itself. People who are addicted stop blaming others or anything out of your control. You did this and you continue to do it to yourself. Yet you just simply don't care.
alex mh The American Medical Association struggles to find its own arse, which is funny because their heads are so far up it. I understood nothing of what you just said, it was just waffle. You obviously see me as stupid so please enfuckinglighten me.
Boy, this guy Hitchens really makes my skin crawl, my spine shiver and gives me nausea. Fascist and self-satisfied and his big heart full of hatred. A real piece of work. It must have taken him a long time of diligence to work away all the nuances in his views. A big LSD-dose might do him some good and show him how he is. Amazingly, worse fellows than him have come out as decent people after a trip. In his case, maybe doing it surreptitiously might even be warranted, even though it's a good rule to not dose people without their knowledge. Maybe even Russell could use a trip about this time, to get out of his holy, "I feel what I did worked so well for me, and that means that it is exactly what everybody else needs and would benefit the most from"-trip. There are probably about as many different forms that addiction can take, as there are addicts. Some people - after kicking their habit - can begin to drink again in moderation, despite having been mean, raging drunks for 10 years, and hardly ever think about it again, while some find they can't make their lives work again, unless they make an effort to never even smell the stuff again, and that they have to work on themselves every day. What works the best for some types of people, is not the best by a long shot for other kinds, and they would be far happier with a different outcome. People are different. Their minds work in different ways. People are complicated. Some more complicated than others. I appreciate people trying to help other people. But sometimes they may make things more difficult than they need to be, by having a fundamentalist approach - by having a certain belief or set of beliefs, which they insist on applying to everyone and everything they come into contact with.
Isak Lytting ignoring all of the emotional drivel that comes out of your mouth .... i love how you have managed to justify taking LSD by convincing yourself that somehow putting a unknown quantity of chemicals into your brain which you have no clue how it will effect you , but not just you , even the best neurosurgeons in the world do not have a clue .....
Russell Brand's defence every time someone disagrees with him is to say "Oi'm a comedian m8" make a joke that's not funny and dismiss what the other person is saying. It's a very aggressive and bigoted way to debate and unfortunately it works for him.
I take it you haven't seen how foolish Christopher Hitchens can be. A perfect example of this is when he got took apart by Peter on question time (and on C-span)
So Peter, what would you say to someone who starts on Codeine from their Dr, which wasn't strong enough and then got on Oxycodone and then it stopped working so they started using heroin when they they could have potentially used cannabis for their pain but legally were never allowed to? Peter tries to make this out to be a simple subject when it's actually very complicated.
+IndicaDreaming lol you are missing the point. Personal life stories are always complex; and if you dig deep enough…you can often sympathise with almost anyone, no matter who they are or what they have done to themselves or others. That's not the point though, because it's not about psychology and treatment. It's about society and our criminal justice system. If you say that drug users are addicted; and if you state a case where someone starts off with so-called "soft" drugs (which is a terrible label) and moves on…until one day where he has completely lost it and destroyed his life....isn't it similar to the story of a serial murderer who started by torturing small insects or animals…before one day murdering his family? I am not trying to say that the crimes are equal. I am just saying that they are both crimes. And they are both about "addiction". Addiction though…should not be considered in a criminal court hearing. Because the justice system isn't about the criminal. It's about society as a whole. The bank robber suffers from addiction of money, …the rapist from an addiction of lust…you can explain everything with addiction if you want to. And you probably would be right…in most cases. But does that mean that we shouldn't have any laws whatsoever…or soften all laws? No. It simply has nothing to do with the consideration and psychological analysis of a criminal. It should be about us; as a society, culture and country. And if our country decides to relax its drug laws, then we will suffer more and more from it~
+flammendgrab the case of Mexico, where thousands fall victim to the drug war each year, would refute your claims that not stoftening laws is the way to go about the issue. what about portugal?? the softening of the laws has as a matter of fact reduced drug abuse and drug related crimes. this is a positive for the society of Portugal, not? theres loads of evidence that refute your claim.
![แฉกลโกงงานวัด 2024 [ โกงมั้ยครับ ep.106 ] | DOM](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/taC5dpP3HXA/mqdefault.jpg)
![เปิดคำทำนาย นอสตราดามุส - บาบา วานก้า ปี 2025 คนทั่วโลกต้องเจออะไรบ้าง? | แฉ 11 ธ.ค. 67 [2/3] |GMM25](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/xmTIKWJUMPM/mqdefault.jpg)
Drugs are widely available in prison. Prison does not represent abstinence.
now, if the police or authorities are unable to stop the availability of drugs in a closed off, controlled penal institution, how on planet fucking earth do they think they can do so in the outside world?? its mind-boggling
IndicaDreaming If the government tried properly this could be solved.
yep there was a documentary where prisoners were saying that drug dealers would put drugs in hollowed tennis balls then throw them over fences/walls
OblivsicasMTC93 Many officers literally sell drugs in prisons.
"was that you Peter" I died
Oh and to see Peter's face afterwards would have been priceless. Probably look of a face like a slapped arse.
So did I!!!
@@drestarman you can hear him and russel laughing in the background
at 20:15 "is that you peter?" haha. made me crack up
@Daniel Yawn.
"It's like rearranging the furniture on the Titanic" classic
Oh my days, I normally respect the views of a Hitchens, but he's totally in another world here. He thinks prison should used as a viable deterrent to prevent people from taking drugs. Prison hasn't been a viable deterrent to prevent any crime for a long long long time, if ever.
Exactly. His basic premise is wrong, and that pretty much invalidates his argument. Peace.
Not really because a huge proportion of the thousands who use drugs recreationally would not do so if there were stern penalties that threatened their prospects or careers. I know that I could get away with paying on many forms of public transport hundreds of times a year if I decided to but I don’t not just because it’s probably morally wrong, but on the off chance that one day the inspectors will board and slap me with a not insignificant fine plus the chance of losing job. Possession of drugs is virtually decriminalised as the law is very rarely enforced. Also if the authorities really wanted to keep drugs out of prison it’s not beyond the wit of man to do so theses days with all the technology at hand. It would require a massive effort for 10-20 years of enforcements through the chains but afterwards it would almost certainly lead to less people addicted and more people deterred from taking which would have a knock on effect of reducing prison numbers.
For some it' definitely is a deterrent
Travel to other countries who have stiff penalties for drug possession.
See the lack of drug taking because of it…
Russell Brand use to annoy the hell out of me, but the I watch him the more I like him.
i though i was the only one.
Always has and always will annoy the shit out of me.
The REASON why a fear based model (like the war on drugs) doesn't work is because, people (addictive personalities or otherwise) are going to use drugs regardless of the consequences. Fear based reasoning doesn't compute within this society anymore. We NEED love and compassion; like Russell had mentioned.
Your post hasn't aged very well.
Now that we've allowed the softer more compassionate types to take over much of drug policy, we have streets full of homeless encampments shooting animal tranquilizer into their arms.
Consequences stop rational people from doing stupid things. You might as well say "people are going to commit murder even if it's illegal, so why bother punishing murderers?"
I love how while Russel actually answers the questions and the concerns and listens to what Hitchens is saying, he only attaks Russel personally and then tells him he doesn't know how to debate seriously, the irony is just... delicious
He started with the personal attacks on Peter Hitchens pretty much as soon as Peter started speaking.
Peter was a terrible choice as a representative for the side opposing Russell. He makes several good points, but if the issue is narrowed down to systematically addressing addicts and young people who may begin abusing the drugs in question, they're going to relate far better to Russell than they will to Peter. As someone who loves Peter's brother, Christopher, it's hard not to feel that Peter can sometimes be a bit of a cunt.
I like how Russell is debating with thorough, empirical knowledge whereas Peter appears to be debating like a child: Neglects every other opinion, then continues to interrupt those speaking, only to be insulted when others do the same to him. The question is not 'Why is Russell allowed on the BBC?' but 'Why is Peter allowed?'.
Thank god there are still some high iq, mature, compassionate, well educated, well spoken and valuable members of society just like yourself, sir! We feel much safer now!
Honestly Peter doesn't even come close to the brilliance of his late brother. It's a shame really.
You're spot on. Well said.
Who is the one with more legitimacy these days I ask you? You’re a child yourself. 😢
Peter's solution has been flogged to death in the USA. Does it work well there?
Peter Hitchens seems to deny the reality of addiction because possession of certain drugs is a crime ... but this is illogical. Addiction is a medical term. Crime is a legal term.
Hitchens is also needlessly aggressive and clearly has some psychological issues ....
"Addiction is a medical term." So?
objective evidence for addiction?
@@sosalpha There is plenty of evidence for addiction while Peter's view that it is not well-defined as some people believe is also based on medical evidence.
Most people however really miss his point: We should treat addicts as people breaking the law rather than victims of circumstance
@@guidad542 I see neurologists and psychiatrists for ptsd. I've drilled them on the subject of addiction. None of them have the same definition, just chemicals in the brain trying to balance and detoxing.
It ultimately boils down to will power, choices, preferences, hobbies, entertainment, joy etc. All are choices (good or bad).
Also note; the BRAIN initiative PROJECT isn't completed, yet these people make serious claims without much complete understanding of the brain.
What we do know from experiences, it's a choice and willpower is invoked.
@@firstnamett4656 Sure, here is a relevant study: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2928221/. Probably the paragraph you're most interested in is "Nicotine and the Neurotransmitter Release". It explains how smoking has a tangible effect on your pleasure receptors (what can be broadly classified as addiction). That doesn't mean that you DON'T have a choice, it just makes said choice harder.
Why Peter fails as an intellectual: he wants less people addicted to drugs, yet, he doesn't mention the cause of addiction, nor does he indicate that he understands the cause of addiction. Bring a behavioral psychologist or criminologist on; bring some science into this discussion.
Are you saying that behavioral psychology and criminology are pseudoscience?
Hmm, I would say that both disciplines contain vast amounts of data, methods of prediction, and explanatory power of human behavior that are far more accurate than anything else known to man.
I'm not sure how they can be classified as pseudoscience. Would you explain, please?
I was going to say: Hitchens does not understand there is an underlying cause pushing people to use the drugs. Perhaps a statistician would be more effective at showing Hitchens that people turn towards drugs during economic or social hardship... when we are unhappy. Coming up with an explanation as to why we are unhappy would be the next step.
*****
They do want to. Are you agreeing with me or do you have a cogent argument that doesn't involve irrelevant labeling.
*****
I would agree that people who study human behavior might not make the most compelling arguments to the complexity of human nature and drug-abuse, but there has to be some factual basis for proving or disproving the reasons people use drugs. What would you suggest as an alternative? Should we leave it up to the politicians?
Peter Hitchens is everything obnoxious about his older brother without being any of the things redeeming. Being loud, having a large vocabulary, and having a posh accent doesn't make one right. Russell Brand's nature is as comedian, but that doesn't mean he isn't qualified to weigh in on issues of substance abuse. The US has, since Reagan, gone crazy throwing even minor drug offenders in jail, and in exchange we've got the world's largest and most expensive penal system... and still, drug use in our country charges ahead. Spending more money on "deterrence" doesn't work because it fails to understand the psychology of addiction... something Peter Hitchens would do well to study before he spends any more time being a pompous ass.
Ad hominem bullshit. Nice. You do realise that calling someone names doesn't make them incorrect? Debate the subject matter.
Ronnie Swoleman It's important, when you're about to criticise someone, to make sure you've understood the entirety of what they've said and ensure at least part of your criticism hinges on the substance of what they've said as much as how they've said it, lest you make yourself look foolish for having missed the point. In fact, it's the very mistake Mr. Hitchens makes in this debate, and it's the one you just made as well. It isn't, however, a mistake I made. What seven other people (at the time of this writing) noticed that you didn't is the entire middle section of my comment where I said: "The US has, since Reagan, gone crazy throwing even minor drug offenders in jail, and in exchange we've got the world's largest and most expensive penal system... and still, drug use in our country charges ahead. Spending more money on "deterrence" doesn't work because it fails to understand the psychology of addiction."
Having made a salient, substantive point on the subject matter, I feel just fine about the position I've staked out, the manner in which I delivered it, and the opportunity I also took to criticise Mr. Hitchens for his hollow attempt to emulate his vastly more thoughtful brother (may his memory live on). Thanks for playing.
lekoman
"It's important, when you're about to criticise someone, to make sure you've understood the entirety of what they've said and ensure at least part of your criticism hinges on the substance of what they've said as much as how they've said it,"
You should possibly understand the irony, therefore, that you said about Hitchens 'Being loud, having a large vocabulary and having a posh accent doesn't make one right.'
This is Classic projection. You're jelly that he has a bigger vocabulary than you and since you type like a posh person, you're probably well aware that your lack of intelligence isn't masked by your posh accent. Nevermind, though, I'm sure some people are fooled by it.
"lest"
Lest. Who uses 'lest'? That's right, posh (or pseudo-posh) people trying to sound intelligent.
"you make yourself look foolish for having missed the point."
Incorrect, obviously. You made an Ad Hominem, I called you on it. That is the point.
"In fact, it's the very mistake Mr. Hitchens makes in this debate"
He had no idea you'd made an ad hominem against him.
"What seven other people (at the time of this writing) noticed that you didn't is the entire middle section of my comment where I said: "The US has, since Reagan, gone crazy throwing even minor drug offenders in jail, and in exchange we've got the world's largest and most expensive penal system... and still, drug use in our country charges ahead. Spending more money on "deterrence" doesn't work because it fails to understand the psychology of addiction."
"Having made a salient, substantive point on the subject matter,"
You made an unsubstantiated 'point' on US drug taking. This is different country with different culture and different laws. Do you have any information on UK drugs culture? No? Then I'd advise you to sit down and stay seated.
"I feel just fine about the position I've staked out,"
You shouldn't.
"the manner in which I delivered it, and the opportunity I also took to criticise Mr. Hitchens for his hollow attempt to emulate his vastly more thoughtful brother (may his memory live on)."
Christopher Hitchens is indeed a great mind also, but they both consider topics to a level that you can only dream of.
"Thanks for playing."
I can at least admire your misplaced arrogance. You are just one of millions of pseudo-intellectuals that has read a few books and thinks they're an expert on life.
Ronnie Swoleman Whatever you say, buddy.
lekoman
Lol, typical. I bet you didn't even read the schooling I just gave you. Off you go then.
Russell's fans won't see it, I'm sure, but Russell really did lose it by resorting to diversion, trivialisation and insults - showed himself to be the angriest man in the room.
The comedian usually is.
I love that Russell tells it like it is! To a degree it is not self inflicted to take drugs, but rather self medicating as to fill a hole within oneself. People don't understand the reasons as to why would someone become addicted to drugs or take drugs. The primary reason is to escape from reality. Why do people want escape reality? Because this life is hard in every way and sometimes people can't get a grip on life because of it's complexities. I believe we should be helping these afflicted people more with compassion and kindness, not just shunning them away.
I can't stand listening to Peter Hitchens!
Peter lives inside the world of the ideals inside his head rather than the actual reality of the situation.
"Was that you, Peter?" Hahaha
Hitchens is a perfect example of what's so totally wrong with government. Well done Mr. Brand.
I actually agree. The war on drugs in America hasn't worked.
Cashel O'Neill That was done democratically though, voted into law by popular opinion, so to say there's no hope of going back is like saying there's no hope of recriminalizing bleach. It's something people want that has negligable negative effects next to alcohol, that they voted out of the black market and into the proper channels other controlled substances have to go through. Which, sadly, does include industrialization, but they're not going to vote it out of their reach again just because someone is making money off of it. And there are huge positive effects of its legalization, such as enabling tax revenue from an entire, flourishing market where there was none before and where there was in fact was a net negative tax effect before, counting only how damned expensive it is to jail every weed smoker with the same legal parameters you use for meth, crack, and heroin. The legalization in my state could have been done better, but it's very Yin/Yang, and not nearly as simple as "driven by money." For once, an industry broke that mold just a little.
@@cashwhistle2074 its true weed (and all drugs, caffeine and nicotine included) are VERY dangerous. But they have always been relatively easy to get. And even when they get harder to get people start making drugs (meth and fentanyl, and many other like benzos) getting drugs will never be the problem and really isn't the problem, its a symptom (or "solution") for our REAL problems. Similar to guns not being the real problem, violence is. We need to deal with the REAL problems!
They would rather send people to prison, to get FREE labour, to recompense society. Instead of getting people free of drugs.
You would genuinely rather have slaves that are victims of their circumstance than have people getting the help that they need? I knew some people were psychopaths but I didn’t know they were ballsy enough to say it.
As a methadone user I can say it as helped me stabilise my life but I would also add abstinence is the key .
I'd love a pint with Peter Hitchens. Said no-one ever.
Well I guess to try and change his mind about everything he's ever said but that wouldn't be as fun as pints with almost anybody else, surely
definitely wouldn't be as fun as hanging out with Russell
"Was that you Peter?" At the end hahaha love Russell..
10:46 LMFAO!!! "I don't even think that you're ignorant, I just think you're innocent... you're like a peculiar child." ROFL!!! That had me laughing for a solid minute...... he really does have the look of a peculiar child! Russell couldn't have possibly described him any more accurately. LOL!
Hitchens doesn't care about the problem of drugs, he's the type that gets off on punishment-the more painful the better
“Your like a perculiar child” 😆
Peter Hitchens. What a narrowminded fool who thinks the world is black and white. He talks of debate like it's a game. Russell may not have all the answers, but he has compassion for human beings and first hand experience on what it's like to be addicted to drugs and get clean, Mr. Hitchens, so perhaps instead of chastising his "debating skills," you should open your ears and more importantly your heart and listen to what he's saying.
Drugs should remain illegal, but neither that fact alone, nor harsher punishments will deter the number of people who become drug addicts. People who fall into drugs are either young, in pain or have other issues in their life. Young people don't fully comprehend the consequences that will happen, legal or otherwise if they get caught, and people with issues in their lives simply don't care about the legal ramifications of getting caught. Think about if someone you cared about became an addict. Would you want them locked away, would you want them addicted to methadone instead, or would you want them to get help getting on a program of abstinence?
shut up
The man is completely out of touch of reality and lives in his small fairytale.
***** I think he's talking more about people who fall into addiction, rather than people who experiment casually with drugs. The latter of course being a much, much higher percentile of people.
***** you self righteous bore! I can assure you that you haven't convinced a single soul to change their mind, real life circumstances get in the way of this sheltered existence you are living in...
***** you are such an open book! A narrow minded trod without an ounce of insight.
I never thought Peter Hitchens would be so simple-minded.
"Oh my dear chap" was the closest Peter Hitchens came to smiling, lol
20:10.. That last punch at the end killed me!
Brand says Hitchens has no compassion, yet it seems clear to me that Hitchens is actually far more concerned about protecting people from getting muddled up in the first place. Protecting the youth from suffering in the first place, is that not compassion?
+shrunkensimon No, because every young person will take drugs at some point or another so what Hitchens is saying is throw them all in prison, that'll teach them. Which is the opposite of compassion.
+redmeatheart1 Not what he says at all. He actually believes you should get 1 genuine caution if you're under 18, then after that treated as a criminal. His point is if genuine punishment were enforced the majority would be deterred, not to throw everyone in prison.
They wouldn't be deterred though, people will continue to take drugs, it'd just mean that the unfortunate ones that get caught will have their lives ruined by going to prison over petty drug charges.
They'll come out without any life skills, with a criminal record that will stop them from being allowed into legitimate lines of employment and they'll be hardened by their experience on the inside.
You'll create a monster out of an 18 year old kid that got busted for smoking cannabis, thats the reality. More severe punishments don't work, not with an addiction.
+redmeatheart1 "They wouldn't be deterred". You're wrong about that. When children see others getting criminal records and screwing up their chances in life, they will back away from it. Only the foolish would ignore the precedent. If children saw that the law was being taken seriously only the fools would gamble on it.
You would get some people going to jail to begin with probably, yes. Once the trend has been established and usage rate drops way down, then you could potentially pardon those original offenders of their criminal record.
As for addiction, I smoked it daily for several years. Apart from 1 week of sleep disturbance, I had little trouble stopping once I developed the conviction it was shit for my well being.
+shrunkensimon I think it's pretty obvious that the potential of being caught is not a big deterrent. Drug use is rife and millions of productive, otherwise law abiding citizens, take drugs every day. Where decriminalization has happened, hard drug usage has actually dropped!
I'm of the mind that as an adult I should have every right to consume whatever I please. To stop the use of hard drugs we need educational reform. Teach children about the use and side effects of individual drugs. Get them informed. After all, isn't that how we slashed the number of tobacco smokers? Do you think making tobacco illegal due to it's terrible health effects would have been a better idea?
"I think you're a Harry Enfield character!"
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
I don't agree with either Peter or Russell, but Russell is being more rude in my opinion.
***** listen in time of prohibition in us there were less alcoholics, but crime was bigger, that is what we call law of constant energy
***** Russell starts by calling Peter a bigot before he can make a proper point.
***** they both have valid points...
I think Peter is right about everything except the criminalization of drug use. Where is the objective evidence of addiction being a disease?
From what I gather addiction is a disorder. If you take an addictive substance you have a chance of being addicted.
15:54 - "I don't even think you're a real person" - Russell sums it up perfectly.
Hitchens is just SO BITTER he didn't get a show on the BBC and Russell did.. He said it himself
As a recovering addict... the man across from Russell is driving me crazy, but I applaud Russell because is obviously working his program during this interview and using compassion, open mindedness, etc.
Junkie🤣🤣🤣🖕🏻🖕🏻🖕🏻
Brand totally out of his depth
That Hitchens guy is classic. Full of conviction and self-belief, but just not quite enough self-awareness to see that he is just not getting it.
kind of sad how Peter Hitchen's brother died of his addiction and Peter still can't reach a point of empathy
15:55 - "I don't think you're a real person". Brilliant.
"There's more to debate than acting all serious and posh" this man completely ignores what Russell has to say purely because he is to stuck up to accept Russell's more chilled way of speaking. You don't need to be serious to make a good point.
Why is a comedian being given a programme to push policy on drugs??? For the same reason that a columnist is being given air time to push another policy on drugs...
Brand isn't just a comedian, he's a recovering drug addict for 13 years, so I think he knows quite better than most people about the war on drugs. He's also an activist, and humanitarian. If you listen to what he's saying you would see he's a well educated person with good intentions. So, calling him just a comedian, is an understatement.
i think anyone should be allowed to enforce new ideas. you shouldnt have to be a toury to debate
20:16 - was that you, peter?!
lol
GO RUSSELL! LOVE HIM TILL HE UNDERSTANDS!!
20:00 peter's face when russell shouts "LET'S GO!" is priceless.
fear is no deterant
Marcus Moody your opinion but in my case I didn't give a fuck mate. The legal system employed on non prescription drugs is simply because they make zero money on them, that why America has now made weed legal in nearly every state. cash money.
That's why there is no such thing as murder, rape, robbery even drug abuse .?? Fear doesn't work it's not that simple.
Your not getting this there are thousands all over the world, look at prisons, bursting at the seems mate. Plus the key word is less, if it was a deterant there would be zero.
What ever.
Matt Edge cause my morals are fine pal, i smoke so fukin what, are u stupid
Who are these people talking in the background? Unawares that those mics are icking up the noise
Peter Hitchens doesn't seem to know about compassion and empathy for other people.
the world today is more concerned about peoples emotions then about whats right
Pat f.x. Who determines what's "right"? You?
Propagandhi900 no, people who put emotions before what "they" think is right who are more worried about hurting someone emotionally then doing the difficult thing in order to help them
Pat f.x.
Exactly. Short term feels>>>long term benefit in today's society. It's why we're all fucked.
Is compassion lighting up a joint for a toddler or removing it from the toddler?
Prisons in the United States are filled with non-violent drug users... many with longer sentences than violent criminals. This type of punishment has not deterred drug use in the least. Hitchens can continue to intellectualize his own personal ideology with regards to drug users, but it's already been shown to be completely ineffective.
I agree with Peter. I don't understand why he is getting so much abuse in the comments section.
See instead of attacking Peter's point, they are just throwing insult such as "dead wrong", "moronic", or "stupid" to attack Peter's character.
Trash culture is why
"How does one deal with a person who can't debate seriously?" I was wondering the same myself! But it wasnt russell i was thinking of
yeah, prohibition works! totally! good idea! Always worked before!
Well to me it is clear that both arguments hold their own merit. More compassion and understanding is needed to help fuel the fire that battles drug addiction. But it does still need a level of sternness when coming in contact with the law.
What Peter doesnt seem to grasp is that not everyone has the upbringing that he had. Few of us have private schooling and a structured family. When you have nothing, making the mistake of turning to drugs is an easy choice to make. He lacks compassion.
This is a joke. Peter is saying that FEAR is the answer.
My friends, fear is NEVER the answer.
Loved Russell's little "was that YOU Peter?" comment at the end.
Why do people like Peter exist?
***** A brain without compassion is dysfunctional. Even from a purely logical point of view he is incorrect since evidence from the countries which treat drug abuse as a mental health issue show that doing so is the best solution. Peter's approach is deeply seated in sadism and Victorian age hierarchies.
Polycube A brain without reason and logic TRULY is dysfunctional.
Jeremy calhoun Both are true, that's why disregarding the evidence of the benefit in treating drug abuse as a health issue rather than a criminal one is doubly insane.
***** Law is arbitrary. Everything the Nazi party did was within their law.
***** The magna carta has little to do with modern democracy. It was a treaty between barons and the king which excluded the whole populace and human rights.
Wow that guy is so emotionally and spiritually shut down. The problem is that these kinds of people are running our countries. Russell Brand is speaking with a lot of wisdom and heart. He is actually very clear and insightful.
I think everyone on all sides of this argument can agree that this conversation went nowhere
And Peter is a Christopher wannabe but hes actually a fucking Karen.
"He was worried about their soft bones getting bruised" Russel - "Was that you Peter?" HAHAHA...wish I could see his expression
Amazing how in the same family one sibling is revered and the other, well, not so much ...
I prefer to see these two debate on a forum so they weren't constantly cutting each other off and they could make their points and counter arguments. Can we have that?
Humans follow the pleasure principle. We seek out pleasure and try to avoid pain. Pleasure is a healthy thing. It is a bodily experience combining relief, satisfaction, and energy that also has a secondary reaction in the brain. However, because humans are smart, we can directly target the reward center in the brain, ignoring the body in the process. This is how addiction starts. Then the reward center becomes progressively desensitized until affect is dampened or numbed.
Once the person's affect is numbed, they can't experience normal everyday pleasures anymore. They need some form of stimulation that effects the reward center. That could come from anything that has enough power to hold your attention without actually engaging your bodies pleasure functions. Popular activities include internet surfing, porn, video games, TV, and drugs are the most intense.
Once your brain is fried from addiction, once the person is deadened, they are basically defenseless. Normally, what gets you through the day is not willpower, being a "moral person," and making the right decisions, its your emotions. Your emotions provide the energy that realizes your inner impulses and goals. Without those emotions, you are floating adrift and there is nothing to really stop your from playing 8 hours of vidya, surfing the internet all night, watching porn, or ingesting a substance that will stimulate you. Its just not possible. No amount of willpower can stop you from reaching for alcohol when you know it can drown you in bliss while simultaneously freeing you from a crushing isolation and hollow feeling. Emotions provide boundaries.
Then you might say, well, then you shouldn't be taking drugs in the first place, you have to make the correct decisions in the first place. However, I've just established that its not just drugs that do this, its anything that directly stimulates the brain and bypasses the body. Not everyone grows up in a perfectly air tight bubble with nothing on the line without having to make a real decision and then becomes a modern day conservative. Some people are abused as children, bullied at school, don't form good parental attachments, undergo traumatic experiences, and then there are the rest of us that live in a culture so embedded with activities that contribute to reward abuse that we are all progressively weakened as we grow into adulthood. Even the education system, and heavy studying can do this, though its not as bad as the others.
Also, not everyone just "has a choice." Again, conservatives have a hard time understanding this because they don't grasp consensual power exchange. Even though to an outside observer, it may seem like everyone has a choice to go either way, the emotional realities are often very different. Lots of people just don't have the ability to say 'no' because they find themselves in profound states of scarcity and desperation. Will power just has no place in the discussion of addiction. In fact, addiction is antithetical to moralism. It has nothing to do with right or wrong. It has everything to do with pleasure and feeling. People suffering from addiction are dealing with a profound lack of feeling, which is why many addicts feel so isolated and alone. We feel the most powerfully when we are deeply connected with others in loving relationships. Addiction goes hand in hand with loneliness.
So no, its not a moral argument. Conservatives like to say they are objectivists, but any notion of objectivism goes out the window when talking about something like climate change (which by the way isn't objective fact, its scientific consensus). In fact, objectivism only exists on the right, probably so they can continue their easy black and white thinking while, again, never having to make a real, thoughtful decision. The moral/willpower argument is careful narcissism and self aggrandizement. A lifestyle guided by will power is alienating and depressing, the only antidote being inflation of the self into an ivory tower of moral correctness.
The conservative argument for everything under the sun is objectivism and willpower/moralism. Objectivism, does just what it sounds like, it leads to objectification. Absolute moral arguments are designed to create an artificial, uniform platform on which a conscientious decision can be made EASILY. In doing so, the complexities and subtleties of people and their lives go out the window, what's left are objects to be judged. Ironically, objectivism is a sort of cure for lack of willpower. Only someone so emotionally alienated and lost resorts to black and white thinking in order to live their life.
Well im a libertarian/ conservative and i beleive 90% of drugs shld be legalized. Also rehab like Russel suggests. One of the big reasons behind drug addiction is soulless post modernism bring like a new religion... , lack of small communities, lack of fathers thsnks to the welfare state. See candace owens, denzel Washington on the latter.
Peter Hitchens angers me enormously. He is so out of touch.
One of the first philosophers I came across upon being interested in the area, named Ken Wilber, talked a lot about lines, levels, stages, waves, etc. In terms of stage development, he described how psychologists analyzed a group of people over a period of time, asking them one of a group of questions my favorite of which is "A mans wife is sick, but he doesnt have the money for the medicine. Should he steal it?" So they asked the subjects this question, some time would go by and they asked the same question to the people at a later point in their lives and noticed that people for the most part gave 3 answers. The first answer is Yes steal the medicine because fuck you I do what I want kinda thing. A very egoic, singular mentality. Stage one. Another answer they got was No dont steal the medicine because stealing is wrong, and the cops might get you, Jesus will be mad at you, etc. At least now you are thinking of someone other than yourself, but its a conformist view where you arent thinking for yourself AKA the insensitive prick you see in this video. Stage two. And lastly Yes of course steal the medicine because life is worth more than X amount of dollars and peoples deepest desire once they realize wtf this world is about is *HELPING OTHERS*. So you get this macro rather than micro, unified, pluralistic, global view of things and consider the whole, not just pieces... the interests of the many, not the few AKA the motherfucking *MAN*, Russell Brand. And heres the cherry on top: the answers *always* flowed in one direction. Makes sense right? You start out life as an egocentric dipshit, and some of us make it to stage 3(people like Gandhi), and some dont quite get past stage 1.5(Hitler). But you damn sure dont have people reverting back to stage 2 from stage 3. So, in conclusion, this douchebag is just an underdeveloped, overweight, rude, egocentric tool who is a product of the many systems currently in place designed to keep people away from their true nature as human beings. And fucking *EASE UP* on the perpetuation of these conceptual misunderstandings relating to altered states, and more specifically heavy psychedelics that have been used for several millenia that can not only actually *HELP* addicts(initial clinical application of LSD was for substance abuse- result 80% success rate with just 1 dose), but has the potential to further humanity in ways Ive come to realize 95%+ people know nothing about. Understand that these are just molecules people. Different Lego-like Newtonian building blocks do different things. I wouldnt say there are good and bad molecules, just good and bad applications. People get so hung up on chemicals, not understanding how many chemical reactions are taking place inside their body every second of every day. Embrace the tools that were put on this earth for us to utilize. Tools far older than our species e.g. the psilocybin containing mushroom which has a piece of its molecular structure that is unlike anything else on this planet. Coincidentally enough it provides you with a sense of oneness with the universe, your fellow man, animals, plants, nature, and much, much more(gee I wonder who would stand to lose from a population full of individuals like that hrmmm). And who is Russell Brand to be speaking about these issues? Are you fucking kidding me? Anyone who thinks he isnt qualified to speak on such matters has clearly only caught some mainstream interview of him having to answer dumb fucking pop culture questions, all the while you see the pain in his eyes of having to converse on such a superficial level. The mans intelligence level is un-fucking real. A lot of it is emotional intelligence and some people like this fat bloke just aint wired like that yet. *cough* stage 2
Very interesting points and facts. Thank you. And to me, everything you say sounds correct and pertinent.
Isak Lytting thanks dude, its nice to hear that every now and then lol. Lots of times I feel like I'm speaking Chinese :]
Dumbass McGee I feel the same way. I was talking about debating people a couple of months ago with a great guy, who was really impressive at debating (not to mention just being curious about so many things and just a super openminded guy). He would go through every argument and present an incredibly detailed and voluminous number of precise references and examples. I was so impressed with him, and asked him how he found the resources. I had a long exchange with him, but some of what he wrote was the following (my translation):
”I understand your disillusionment. One has to pick one’s battles with care. For example I see you today have commented on one of the videos I have uploaded (and thanks). I just haven’t been bothered to do it. Under the other related video I also uploaded, I have made thorough answers and comments, but to what use? You know, people are so brainwashed, hungry for more brainwashing (TV, media, education, etc.) and protect so fiercely the brainwashing they have already acquired, that it has all but no point.
Then I’d rather spend the time exchanging opinions with openminded people like you, and “...” and “...”, which I have learned a lot from, and for which they hopefully also could find some use, because they - like I, don’t “shutter off” either.
Mostly I can’t be bothered to begin discussions where I see people already have formed an opinion.”
This may not be exactly what you mean, but more like having the sense no one sees the meaning and relevance in what one is saying, and seem much more interested in things which seem to have not much depth or direction.
I have often had that feeling, and it had made it more difficult for me to sustain the urge to write something serious, and so I am more and more prone to just write something superficial and emotional, perhaps to protect myself against what I fear will be attacks from people I don't feel I can respect. Perhaps it's my fault.
Isak Lytting
Word. Terence McKenna said "The price of sanity is alienation." Are you familiar with him? I like how that was put, the part about not even bothering with people who already have their rigid minds locked in to a certain frequency. Its true though, because the true philosophers can't just keep shit to themselves... yet its taxing trying to enlighten every product of their environment that crosses your path. Carefully selecting your prey is something I too have come to understand is necessary. I catch a bright mind every now and then, met a lot of smart people here on G+... definitely a tier or two above your average TH-cam comment IQ level. Yeah peoples inability to see the relevance of things is a major source of frustration for me. Quantum physics is a perfect example. People will crack out on the dumbest shit trying to get some kind of piece to the puzzle that is "life".... yet just seem numb when you describe, in detail, the most jaw-dropping details about what's going on on pretty much the deepest known level of our inner being. Smh
I think we'd agree on a lot of things in this field, however I would put further emphasis on the importance of not bothering trying to wake people up and try to meet them at their stage of the journey. I find myself getting very self righteous when I come across people I perceive as closed minded or ignorant and all that frustration is usually traced back to my need for some type of ego gratification and I end up shooting myself in the foot. Are your remarks on LSD referring to the work of Stanislov Grof's work with LSD?
I'm very familiar with Wilber, McKenna and study transpersonal psychology. I think that Brand is on a different frequency and so might as well be specking to these people in foreign language.
Would I be right in guessing that you've experienced some kind of awakening experience yourself?
Peter Hitchens statements blaming addicts is equivalent to blaming a child for being abused
Drug dealing should be punished severely, not drug taking... People should be made afraid to deal drugs.
milo it often goes hand in hand and there are underlying social issues. De-Criminalisation should be attached to all drug related offences. If people want to look at drugs in society - look at how they are manufactured and imported in mass and who is responsible for them getting into the country. You will find that it usually is the government themselves. Most people do not know that a few months before September 11 attacks Al-Quaeda (an Islamic group that does not advocate or believe in drugs) began burning the poppie fields in Afghanistan that produced 75% of the worlds Heroin at that time. Those poppie fields were owned by the US government. A few months later the US was in Afghanistan and seized control of those poppie fields once again. They now produce 95% of the worlds heroin. True story.
^ literally gibberish. no idea what your on about.
+milo yes in theory I agree but most retail and lower management dealers are doing so to supply their habit. I think there should be massive sentences for high level players and the white collars who help them clean the money. If you take out the top the rest will diminish. As to prison as a way of dealing with users, a lot of people get addicted in prison. As somebody who was tied up in this in my youth and server in Asia then sent back here to finish my time I can vouch for the fact that prisons here are awash. I was considered an oddity because I didn't use. But yea I would advocate life sentences for top lever class A dealers.
***** Ok... and who did those addicts buy their drugs from in the beginning? Imagine if that dealer didn't deal because the punishment wasn't worth the risk? Kill the roots, not the branches if you want the tree to die.
People that sell drugs nearly always take drugs,they only sell to feed there own habit.
"Was that you Peter" Hilarious ending
man, it's impossible to get russell agressive and defensive and offended and cornered .. when peter is trying to bash him, he still shares compassion and trying to introduce to him the concept of not isolating but instead helping the ill members of society and turning them into useful members of society
Wow, I have watched like 3 videos with Hitchens and jesus christ he loves his voice. In this debate, he double backs on his comments. He says that people using drugs are criminals and then he says he doesn't want to imprison them when Brand calls him our.
So how? How does Hitchen's provide an answer? He doesn't.
"No reason and just abuse" he says when Russell Brand clearly wasn't.
How does one argue against this Hitchens? Russell and everybody else are very very neutral about it all. The Parliamentarian was very unbiased in what he was saying and tried to calm down Hitchen's but then Hitchen's backlashes on him. Hitchen's gets very personal.
"Is that you peter?!?" at the very end.
Gold
In order to have a debate there has to be a point and a counter point. The only thing that Russell Brand did was shout make rude comments and offer nothing of substance (pun intended). Mr. Hitchens tried to debate with him like an adult and Brand was behaving like an 8 year old ADHD youngster.
As far as debates go, Hitchens tore Russell a new one. You don't see Brand squirm very often, but he was visibly uncomfortable.
The wrong Hitchens died.
Funny that Peter Hitchens mentions the notion that "all crimes are caused by law", which he doesn't believe in. Tao Te Ching mentions this in chapter 57:
[...]
The more laws and restrictions there are,
The poorer people become.
The sharper men's weapons,
The more trouble in the land.
The more ingenious and clever men are,
The more strange things happen.
The more rules and regulations,
The more thieves and robbers.
[...]
Peter Hitchens is a reasonable/intelligent man with an opinion i disagree with. Russell Brand is an ego maniac seeking attention. I know who'd i rather see more of on television.
KTGA Shanghai you do realize that’s what an addict is in a nutshell right?
I mean at some point, or maybe always.
So, if I understand correctly, if you throw people in prison for theft or murder other people won't do it anymore.. right. ( I'm not saying that theft and murder are ok, but I'm not quite sure it works as intended..?)
Brand is just so well spoken. It always amazes me at his ideas and ways of expressing them. I'm deeply sorry to see him formerly using drugs and presently suffering the effects from it. I also wish he chose a career in law or politics opposed to comedy and entertainment. I feel he would be so much more fitting for it, especially with a mind like that. I also find it highly admirable about his views concerning drug treatment. I feel him advocating a more or less cold-turkey solution opposed to one where he's continuing using a form of mental hallucinogen is very courageous and speaks so much about him as a person. I wish him well in his battle.
If that's your opinion then you're an idiot
Arnatuile11 how does his opinion make him an idiot? I believe the point of an opinion is to differentiate each person from the next. You saying he's an idiot from his opinion says alot about your personal character. Maybe a look in the mirror is required before your allowed back at a keyboard.
Konstantyne Payne thank you so much for defending me friend. The world is filled with both good and bad people and believe me when I say, I can tell you're a good person. All the best to you and your life's pursuits.
Jason Gafar Indeed. You as well
Mr Brand is freer as a comedian to get his points across. The legal and political system would surround him with the type of viewpoints that would see Brand having to defend himself more than influence others. As a comedian he is answerable to nobody and can shine as an inspiration to help others.
14:37 What did Peter say at which Russell laughed?
He said ..no need to put your hand on me....to the conservative politician
That's the worst.. People pronouncing subjective opinions as objective/absolute truths. Especially those who just spout out their beliefs without having any personal experience or knowledge of the subject.
Even on a much simpler level.. I guess I'd much rather be a drug addicted alcoholic than a self-righteous piece of shit.
Does nobody agree that we need a new definition, between Disease, Illness and addiction...?
Thanks for your honesty Russell.You are and can be a great role model for kids staying off drugs.I know its getting worse in England. Keep helping these kids they need it.
This is absurd! People born with these genetic discrepancies must first, according to Biological evidence and the most recent studies in Neuroscience, activate them.
The answer is simple, you have both laws and programs. Laws are used to deter people from using drugs in the first place, while recovery programs are used to help drug addicts cope and overcome with their already drug addiction.
Exactly. The argument put forwards by druggies is that it is either or. Why can we not have a cold turkey ward that is unpleasant enough to deter people, but also helps them get clean while there?
Surely this is possible.
I get his argument, but Russell Brand is insufferable and the punchline was never a valid means for an argument.
not nearly as insuifferable as peter
Russell kept quite WAY more and gave Hithens plenty of opportunity to express a point which he did not do. All he did was angrily fight for his point to be acknowledged. All the points he made were already addressed by Russell with a SOLUTION and all Hitchens says is how he cant reason when Russel has already provided a not only reasonable but PROVABLE solution.
For russell to be silent shows his compassion, acceptance, tolerance and wisdom. Hitchens made his character very obvious.
"You're like a peculiar child" 😂
So true, and so sad!
The Hitchens brothers are/were great at defending the hard-to-swallow positions. Christopher gave the best argument, IMO, in support of the Iraq War, even when that wasn't the popular position. Peter is the same way; he just doesn't have the charisma that Christopher had.
i love peter hitchens
Does punishing murder stop murder?
This Peter Hitchens dude is a total troll ..
Criminalizing drugs won't solve the problem. DUI is considered a criminal offence, yet people still do it.
+Cedric2Hockey9 More than people would if it wasn't illegal?
Holy shit... Peter makes a very valid point. Russell is very annoying in this video.
Russell is very annoying.......FULL STOP.
Being arrested isnt a lesson, you sure as hell now that if youre taking drugs, the chances of getting arrested is very high. Im not taking drugs or even drinking but i think every drug should be legal, i dont feel like its any of my business. But the legal staters make no difference for people taking drugs like russell says, and this man keep blabbering about legal that legal that laws that laws that, IT makes NO difference, people dont care. Make it simple. I would rather live in a world where people are free to take drugs than not. Fuck all this laws bullshit about drugs,
Soon we will have to go to prison for even talking about drugs, because drugs are bad, drugs are really really bad, like alcohol isnt bad? and cigarettes is more dangerous than weed, not a single person has died from weed, from just weed, maybe if they drived a car or something but not from the actual weed. From cigarretes u get cancer and all sort of bullshit plus its more addictive, wtf is this world. Sorry for my bad english
My favorite part was at the end when Russell says "was that you,Peter?" haha
Hitchens is just a professional troll. The male version of Katie Hopkins.
even if you disagree with him completely and think he is trolling, surely some part of your brain must find him entertaining just for the fact that he consistently rails against consensus and accepted "wisdom".
some might consider that a form of mental illness.
Huey W well for someone who could be mentally ill , he has been proved right many times in his predictions when everyone told him he was mad. strange that right ?
As a medicine student, i can assure you that addiction is a DISSEASE. A multifactorial one, to be precise. There are genes multiple genes causing predisposition for an addiction and also the environment plays a big roll in it the development.
IClock Works The you best get your money back from that medical school. Addiction is not a disease. It's always a choice. There's only things you enjoy doing more than life itself.
People who are addicted stop blaming others or anything out of your control. You did this and you continue to do it to yourself. Yet you just simply don't care.
alex mh The American Medical Association struggles to find its own arse, which is funny because their heads are so far up it.
I understood nothing of what you just said, it was just waffle. You obviously see me as stupid so please enfuckinglighten me.
Dr Harold Shipman was a medical student at some point and loom what happened to him.
+IClock Works Why, as a medical student, can you not spell the word disease?
'He was worried about there soft bones getting bruised.' 'Was that you peter?' hahaha
Who is the winner?
Boy, this guy Hitchens really makes my skin crawl, my spine shiver and gives me nausea. Fascist and self-satisfied and his big heart full of hatred. A real piece of work. It must have taken him a long time of diligence to work away all the nuances in his views. A big LSD-dose might do him some good and show him how he is. Amazingly, worse fellows than him have come out as decent people after a trip.
In his case, maybe doing it surreptitiously might even be warranted, even though it's a good rule to not dose people without their knowledge.
Maybe even Russell could use a trip about this time, to get out of his holy, "I feel what I did worked so well for me, and that means that it is exactly what everybody else needs and would benefit the most from"-trip.
There are probably about as many different forms that addiction can take, as there are addicts.
Some people - after kicking their habit - can begin to drink again in moderation, despite having been mean, raging drunks for 10 years, and hardly ever think about it again, while some find they can't make their lives work again, unless they make an effort to never even smell the stuff again, and that they have to work on themselves every day.
What works the best for some types of people, is not the best by a long shot for other kinds, and they would be far happier with a different outcome. People are different. Their minds work in different ways. People are complicated. Some more complicated than others.
I appreciate people trying to help other people. But sometimes they may make things more difficult than they need to be, by having a fundamentalist approach - by having a certain belief or set of beliefs, which they insist on applying to everyone and everything they come into contact with.
Isak Lytting ignoring all of the emotional drivel that comes out of your mouth .... i love how you have managed to justify taking LSD by convincing yourself that somehow putting a unknown quantity of chemicals into your brain which you have no clue how it will effect you , but not just you , even the best neurosurgeons in the world do not have a clue .....
Russell Brand's defence every time someone disagrees with him is to say "Oi'm a comedian m8" make a joke that's not funny and dismiss what the other person is saying. It's a very aggressive and bigoted way to debate and unfortunately it works for him.
Peter Hitchens is as awful as his brother is awesome.
I take it you haven't seen how foolish Christopher Hitchens can be. A perfect example of this is when he got took apart by Peter on question time (and on C-span)
masonmmaspecilist
sure he wasn't perfect. he supported the iraq war for god's sake.
yep, polar opposites.
Peter Hitchens keeps harping on about reason, and yet as far as I can see he does not exercise it.
So Peter, what would you say to someone who starts on Codeine from their Dr, which wasn't strong enough and then got on Oxycodone and then it stopped working so they started using heroin when they they could have potentially used cannabis for their pain but legally were never allowed to? Peter tries to make this out to be a simple subject when it's actually very complicated.
+IndicaDreaming lol you are missing the point. Personal life stories are always complex; and if you dig deep enough…you can often sympathise with almost anyone, no matter who they are or what they have done to themselves or others. That's not the point though, because it's not about psychology and treatment. It's about society and our criminal justice system. If you say that drug users are addicted; and if you state a case where someone starts off with so-called "soft" drugs (which is a terrible label) and moves on…until one day where he has completely lost it and destroyed his life....isn't it similar to the story of a serial murderer who started by torturing small insects or animals…before one day murdering his family? I am not trying to say that the crimes are equal. I am just saying that they are both crimes. And they are both about "addiction". Addiction though…should not be considered in a criminal court hearing. Because the justice system isn't about the criminal. It's about society as a whole. The bank robber suffers from addiction of money, …the rapist from an addiction of lust…you can explain everything with addiction if you want to. And you probably would be right…in most cases. But does that mean that we shouldn't have any laws whatsoever…or soften all laws? No. It simply has nothing to do with the consideration and psychological analysis of a criminal. It should be about us; as a society, culture and country. And if our country decides to relax its drug laws, then we will suffer more and more from it~
+flammendgrab the case of Mexico, where thousands fall victim to the drug war each year, would refute your claims that not stoftening laws is the way to go about the issue.
what about portugal?? the softening of the laws has as a matter of fact reduced drug abuse and drug related crimes. this is a positive for the society of Portugal, not?
theres loads of evidence that refute your claim.
Love vs Hate
Yet Subjectivity vs Objectivity
Who is actually right and who’s wrong here?!