|
Post by kbillyh on Dec 16, 2014 19:43:34 GMT
Forget all the moral bullshit, use a purely compassion based approach to the problem. A drug addict is ill and they need their medicine, give it to them and cut the various levels of social problems and costs incurred. Long term everybody in the know, knows it will reap better rewards.
|
|
|
Post by wizzardofdribble on Dec 16, 2014 21:19:46 GMT
I 'modified' my views about Brand after watching this documentary. I think he came out of it looking like a genuinely decent bloke. However having done a bit of work with drug users myself I found Brands grasp of the subject a bit tenuous. We heard Brand tell us what he was against but he didn't really go into the specifics of what he was for. Most people think re-hab is the anwser..well it isn't. It is extremely expensive about £25,000 for a 12 week programme and it has a failure rate of about 90% (about 9 out of 10 people taking part are back 'on the gear' within 6 months). Lifestyle is the main problem with drug users and unless you change the lifestyle, in my experience, nothing changes. I also find it (and this is only my opinion) morally wrong to be spending that amount of money on drug users when there is much need elsewhere in the health service. My view..ground out of reality..is that some drug users actually enjoy their lifestyle and don't want to change. They are totally resistant to change. That is their choice but as a society we shouldn't just continue chucking money at them. At some point they have to accept the consequences of their actions. The real difficulty occurs, where there are children involved. Some addicts have children. This is a point that is very rarely mentioned by those sympathetic to drug users. For addicts drugs come first...children are brought up in chaotic lifestyles surrounded by drug paraphenalia & illegal substances & other drug users. At some point the police & social services get involved and an Initial Child Protection Conference is held. This all costs time and money. As we can see there is a 'knock on' effect...ripples in a pond. Some babies are even born with heroin addiction. What do people sympathetic to drug use have to say about that? People who advocate decriminalisation of drugs need to consider this. Are people responsible enough to use drugs safely? And what choice do there children have? Drugs are not the anwser..they don't solve anything they just make matters far worse. Sweeping a problem/problems under a carpet or trying to blank it out via drugs doesn't make it go away. It just makes the problem worse. People advocating/sympathising with drug use..in my opinion..in some ways..are part of the problem not the solution. You've raised some interesting points as ever Wizzard. I agree with you that for some its their lifestyle that causes the issue, and its for the exact same reasons you've given that I think criminalisation doesn't work. An example of the type of programme has the best chance of working was the lady who wasn't funded by the government who had houses that recovering addicts could live in in order to get away from the bad environment/lifestyle they had previously. I'd be really interested to see if that works on a larger scale. Before I go into things any further given your experience Wizzard what do you believe is the best way to combat problematic drug use? Have a read of cheesefreeex post edge, he's a lot more knowledgeable than me about the subject. How do you define 'drugs' ? According to Legal Status? What context are they taken in? Leisure or dependency? Cultural factors? Steroid misuse is certainly on the increase probably linked with the increasing number of gyms & the desire to look a certain way & attract social approval. Link with criminality to fund drug taking? Cheesefreeex also raises the issues of structural inequality...and makes a very interesting point about what R D Laing called the Double-Bind...faced with an obviously intractable situation..highly abnormal behaviour sometimes becomes rational. Think there's enough there to keep you going edge ;-)
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Dec 16, 2014 21:22:19 GMT
Plus it's not just a class problem. Even the rich start taking drugs for no reason get addicted and lose everything.
|
|
|
Post by wizzardofdribble on Dec 16, 2014 21:38:56 GMT
Rich people usually do drugs for recreational purposes though Salop..not because they're hopelessly dependent on them. They usually have some control over their drug use too..look at Paula Yates..she was doing heroin for decades. Whereas people at the bottom of the pile have no control over their drug use..as in prostitution..doing anything to get money to buy drugs.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Dec 16, 2014 21:49:41 GMT
Rich people usually do drugs for recreational purposes though Salop..not because they're hopelessly dependent on them. They usually have some control over their drug use too..look at Paula Yates..she was doing heroin for decades. Whereas people at the bottom of the pile have no control over their drug use..as in prostitution..doing anything to get money to buy drugs. Usually not all the time Drugs are not always due to circumstances they can be a life style choice too Additionally : iread archers prison diaries. A middle class man gets sent down for somthing stupid and comes out a heroin addict. Why? Because drugs get time added to your sentence. Rather than have a bit of smoke they turn to hard drugs because they get flushed out quicker. He argued for a change in prison drug rules to go easy on canabis to stop this problem.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Dec 16, 2014 21:51:02 GMT
Even at the bottom people sometimes start from choice for no reason. It's only once addicted the crime etc starts
|
|
|
Post by wizzardofdribble on Dec 16, 2014 21:56:32 GMT
Yes I agree, I don't think people are pre-ordained to become drug addicts. People use drugs for all sorts of reasons and some of that is choice.
|
|
|
Post by The Drunken Communist on Dec 16, 2014 22:04:15 GMT
Drugs should be legal.
People who've hit rock bottom & think their only escape is the 'paradise' that smack takes you to will (And are) still do it.
Young kids in clubs who want that feeling of love that a few Gazza's give you will still take them..... Whether that be off some dodgy fella they've never met before selling who the fuck knows what, or some over-the-counter what-it-says-on-the-tin dealy. I know which is better.
No gangs fighting over who can sell the dodgiest shit anymore either when you can buy what you expect it to be over the counter. Takes away the stigma of trying to kick the habit too.
Massive 'thumbs up' from me.
|
|
|
Post by Billybigbollox on Dec 16, 2014 22:15:03 GMT
Drugs should be legal. People who've hit rock bottom & think their only escape is the 'paradise' that smack takes you to will (And are) still do it. Young kids in clubs who want that feeling of love that a few Gazza's give you will still take them..... Whether that be off some dodgy fella they've never met before selling who the fuck knows what, or some over-the-counter what-it-says-on-the-tin dealy. I know which is better. No gangs fighting over who can sell the dodgiest shit anymore either when you can buy what you expect it to be over the counter. Takes away the stigma of trying to kick the habit too. Massive 'thumbs up' from me. Drug taking is virtually legal. Few people are prosecuted for drug abuse. It's the associated criminality that comes from supporting a habit that brings people into conflict with the law.
|
|
|
Post by The Drunken Communist on Dec 16, 2014 22:20:50 GMT
Drug taking is virtually legal. Few people are prosecuted for drug abuse. It's the associated criminality that comes from supporting a habit that brings people into conflict with the law. When you push something into the underworld, you have to expect underworld actions. People don't go robbing old women of their pension to buy a pack of fags, or a pint of cider, or stick a few quids worth of petrol in their car. Likewise you don't see gangs fighting eachother for control of the fags/beer/petrol/etc... In each city. Drugs, especially things like smack & crack, have got such a bad rep about them. Things could change real easy.
|
|
|
Post by wizzardofdribble on Dec 16, 2014 22:25:15 GMT
Hardly anybody is prosecuted for possession anymore unless they are carrying certain amounts. Drugs have been decriminalised by the back door, so to speak. Plus you can buy anything off the internet if you know where to look. The problem is that not all human beings are responsible and some people (ie; children) need protecting. It's analogous to gun law in America.Letting everyone own guns doesn't stop crime, it just makes it even worse.
|
|
|
Post by The Drunken Communist on Dec 16, 2014 22:37:16 GMT
Hardly anybody is prosecuted for possession anymore unless they are carrying certain amounts. Drugs have been decriminalised by the back door, so to speak. Plus you can buy anything off the internet if you know where to look. The problem is that not all human beings are responsible and some people (ie; children) need protecting. It's analogous to gun law in America.Letting everyone own guns doesn't stop crime, it just makes it even worse. I don't buy it. You can buy guns off the internet just as easily as drugs. Kids can get their hands on beer just as easily too. If you're going to take drugs you will take drugs. They being illegal isn't going to stop you, it's just going to force you underground, taking drugs that anit really what you think they are....... ..... If I go & see 'Big Dave' cos I want some Beak for a good night out I've got no clue what it is I'm actually buying. Bit of teething powder to make my gums go numb & then plenty of other shit to add to the weight - That weight being about 0.6 of a gram, 0.7 if I'm lucky. Or I could go to my local, lets say Bargain Booze. There I could buy a gram of Beak that would actually be a gram of Break & it'd all be regulated. I know which place I'd be doing my shopping from now on.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Dec 16, 2014 22:52:13 GMT
Hardly anybody is prosecuted for possession anymore unless they are carrying certain amounts. Drugs have been decriminalised by the back door, so to speak. Plus you can buy anything off the internet if you know where to look. The problem is that not all human beings are responsible and some people (ie; children) need protecting. It's analogous to gun law in America.Letting everyone own guns doesn't stop crime, it just makes it even worse. I don't buy it. You can buy guns off the internet just as easily as drugs. Kids can get their hands on beer just as easily too. If you're going to take drugs you will take drugs. They being illegal isn't going to stop you, it's just going to force you underground, taking drugs that anit really what you think they are....... ..... If I go & see 'Big Dave' cos I want some Beak for a good night out I've got no clue what it is I'm actually buying. Bit of teething powder to make my gums go numb & then plenty of other shit to add to the weight - That weight being about 0.6 of a gram, 0.7 if I'm lucky. Or I could go to my local, lets say Bargain Booze. There I could buy a gram of Beak that would actually be a gram of Break & it'd all be regulated. I know which place I'd be doing my shopping from now on. i get that but A government cannot legalise drugs because it would mean legalised deaths. It's easy to say by not winning the war on drugs govts are facilitating drug deaths It will never happen
|
|
|
Post by wizzardofdribble on Dec 16, 2014 22:54:18 GMT
Fair point but I think that once you made drugs legal and sold them 'over the counter' the number of different drugs would escalate massively..a bit like Legal Highs.Then you would get the associated problems of whether they were safe etc etc long term effects etc etc
|
|
|
Post by Billybigbollox on Dec 16, 2014 22:54:20 GMT
Drug taking is virtually legal. Few people are prosecuted for drug abuse. It's the associated criminality that comes from supporting a habit that brings people into conflict with the law. When you push something into the underworld, you have to expect underworld actions. People don't go robbing old women of their pension to buy a pack of fags, or a pint of cider, or stick a few quids worth of petrol in their car. Likewise you don't see gangs fighting eachother for control of the fags/beer/petrol/etc... In each city. Drugs, especially things like smack & crack, have got such a bad rep about them. Things could change real easy. Unless the state provided class A's on the NHS the problem would still exist. People need money to support their habit and they are not going to be handed out free.
|
|
|
Post by The Drunken Communist on Dec 16, 2014 23:07:05 GMT
Salop - Saying we can't legalise drugs 'cos it legalises deaths should mean that we make fags, beer, cars, areoplanes, crossing the street etc.. illegal. You know the risks, you take your chance.
Wizard - Come on, we all know that the main drugs are Beak, Smack, Stone, Ket, Trips, Gazza's & Pot. You make them legal, make them 100% what they say on the tin, avalible over the counter. I'll tell you now that people will overnight stop fucking about with all that 'legal high' shit.
BBB - It's the stigma of it all. We can deal far better with, say, an alky, than we can with a crackhead. One is seen as someone whose hit rock bottom but can be helped. The other is seen as some scumbag who needs putting down 'cos they'll never amount to anything.
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Dec 17, 2014 13:30:59 GMT
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Dec 17, 2014 13:51:31 GMT
Brilliant and quite a bit of truth in there
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Dec 17, 2014 13:59:12 GMT
Brilliant and quite a bit of truth in there Indeed he nails it for me in this bit "I get it, Russell, I do: footage of being asked to leave by security is good footage. It looks like you're challenging the system and the powers that be want your voice suppressed. Or something. But all it really means, behind the manipulative media bullshit, is that you don't have an appointment."
|
|
|
Post by redstriper on Dec 17, 2014 14:15:53 GMT
"...in order to accommodate the puerile self-aggrandising antics of a prancing multimillionaire. If you had any self-awareness beyond agonising over how often to straighten your fucking chest-hair, you'd be ashamed." nice!
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Dec 17, 2014 15:34:24 GMT
And that's the thing with anarchist part time left wingers.
They don't give a fuck about anybody that their actions have impact on.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 17, 2014 15:46:43 GMT
And that's the thing with anarchist part time left wingers. They don't give a fuck about anybody that their actions have Indubitably ylfc
|
|
|
Post by edgepotter on Dec 17, 2014 22:03:21 GMT
As always everyone has the right to reply and I think Brand's response is a good one. The guy who wrote the open letter made some good points, but also spoke a lot of nonsense as well. www.russellbrand.com/2014/12/8164/The guy who wrote the letter thought it would look good to say that the bail-out of the banks is fine because the government will eventually make a profit (probably). He's completely missing the point that if the banks were properly regulated and in order in the first place there would have been no need to bail them out. As correctly pointed out by Russell Brand the money we've used bailing out the banks has meant that other vital areas in our society, such as the NHS and the fire service have seen massive cuts which could have been avoided. The money we've used to bail out the banks could and should have been used better elsewhere. Russell is right to go after the banks.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Dec 17, 2014 22:42:14 GMT
Amongst the comments from his fanboys was this one:
Russell mate, I'm definitely not your biggest fan. I read your book and watch The Trews every day but I'm gonna park any comments about those or any personal attacks for another day (although I would relish the opportunity to meet you one day and argue the toss about why you are nearly always so so wrong) and stick to this apology.
You fail to engage with any of the points that Jo made in his letter. You don't mention anything about the BBC, your Hollywood career or the tax affairs of YOUR financial backers, you know, the ones paying your salary. You don't offer any explanation for why you acted like a bully to Jo and dismissed your actions as being 'lairy' (which sounds like the sort of excuse a bully would cook up for the head master). You don't engage with his sensible points about the fact that the RBS bailout, unlike most taxpayers spending, will be paid back to us the tax payer, with interest, or consider what would have happened to the millions of ordinary people who would have suffered immense hardship, far greater than that caused by austerity, if RBS had been allowed to fail. I could go on. But I think you know you've dodged a few questions here and disappointed a lot of people who were looking forward to a PROPER response from you. What you've written seems more like a plug for your documentary.
|
|
|
Post by edgepotter on Dec 17, 2014 22:55:14 GMT
Amongst the comments from his fanboys was this one: Russell mate, I'm definitely not your biggest fan. I read your book and watch The Trews every day but I'm gonna park any comments about those or any personal attacks for another day (although I would relish the opportunity to meet you one day and argue the toss about why you are nearly always so so wrong) and stick to this apology. You fail to engage with any of the points that Jo made in his letter. You don't mention anything about the BBC, your Hollywood career or the tax affairs of YOUR financial backers, you know, the ones paying your salary. You don't offer any explanation for why you acted like a bully to Jo and dismissed your actions as being 'lairy' (which sounds like the sort of excuse a bully would cook up for the head master). You don't engage with his sensible points about the fact that the RBS bailout, unlike most taxpayers spending, will be paid back to us the tax payer, with interest, or consider what would have happened to the millions of ordinary people who would have suffered immense hardship, far greater than that caused by austerity, if RBS had been allowed to fail. I could go on. But I think you know you've dodged a few questions here and disappointed a lot of people who were looking forward to a PROPER response from you. What you've written seems more like a plug for your documentary. Salop if you've read my previous post I've already explained why Russell is right to go after the banks. Nobody is saying RBS should have been allowed to fail, not even Russell, the point is that they shouldn't have been in a position where they failed in the first place. Forget the fact that the taxpayers money will be returned, its really not relevant in the slightest, the fact is the money we've used bailing out the banks could and should have been used better elsewhere like the where all the cuts have taken place like the NHS and fire service etc. Cuts have had to be made because of the economic crisis, because we the taxpayers have had to bail out the banks, so it's more than a little galling that 80billion has been made in cuts, that many people in roles that are incredibly important to our society have lost and are continuing to lose their jobs. It's also just a little galling that because of these cuts there are many people that have gone to university on the premise that they would get a decent job, only to see those job opportunities/prospects cut drastically thanks to government cuts. And all because we've had to use a large proportion of taxpayers money to bail out the banks. And best of all what's happened in the meantime? Those that work in the banking industry have given themselves £81billion in bonuses. it's an absolute joke. Just to add to this the taxpayers money is supposed to go on things like education, police, NHS, fire service etc and none of these things are supposed to give us a monetary return. It's not supposed to be paid back to us and it's certainly not supposed to be used to bail out banks. The rest of the stuff we've already discussed at great length so there's no real need to go into it apart from one point I'd like to pick up on. The comments about the BBC are pointless also, by that logic everyone should boycott the BBC, and I'd love to know if the guy who penned the letter watches the BBC along with the person whose comment you've quoted above boycott anything BBC related, if they feel it's such a massive waste of the taxpayers money (I bet they don't). Its a nonsense argument really.
|
|
|
Post by britsabroad on Dec 18, 2014 10:44:21 GMT
As always everyone has the right to reply and I think Brand's response is a good one. The guy who wrote the open letter made some good points, but also spoke a lot of nonsense as well. www.russellbrand.com/2014/12/8164/The guy who wrote the letter thought it would look good to say that the bail-out of the banks is fine because the government will eventually make a profit (probably). He's completely missing the point that if the banks were properly regulated and in order in the first place there would have been no need to bail them out. As correctly pointed out by Russell Brand the money we've used bailing out the banks has meant that other vital areas in our society, such as the NHS and the fire service have seen massive cuts which could have been avoided. The money we've used to bail out the banks could and should have been used better elsewhere. Russell is right to go after the banks. What are your thoughts on the 250 billion the banking industry contributes to the uk government every year before and since 2008?
|
|
|
Post by dutchstokie on Dec 18, 2014 13:45:20 GMT
Russell Brand is as much of a comedian as Fred West was as a family liason officer
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Dec 18, 2014 14:30:27 GMT
Amongst the comments from his fanboys was this one: Russell mate, I'm definitely not your biggest fan. I read your book and watch The Trews every day but I'm gonna park any comments about those or any personal attacks for another day (although I would relish the opportunity to meet you one day and argue the toss about why you are nearly always so so wrong) and stick to this apology. You fail to engage with any of the points that Jo made in his letter. You don't mention anything about the BBC, your Hollywood career or the tax affairs of YOUR financial backers, you know, the ones paying your salary. You don't offer any explanation for why you acted like a bully to Jo and dismissed your actions as being 'lairy' (which sounds like the sort of excuse a bully would cook up for the head master). You don't engage with his sensible points about the fact that the RBS bailout, unlike most taxpayers spending, will be paid back to us the tax payer, with interest, or consider what would have happened to the millions of ordinary people who would have suffered immense hardship, far greater than that caused by austerity, if RBS had been allowed to fail. I could go on. But I think you know you've dodged a few questions here and disappointed a lot of people who were looking forward to a PROPER response from you. What you've written seems more like a plug for your documentary. Salop if you've read my previous post I've already explained why Russell is right to go after the banks. Nobody is saying RBS should have been allowed to fail, not even Russell, the point is that they shouldn't have been in a position where they failed in the first place. Forget the fact that the taxpayers money will be returned, its really not relevant in the slightest, the fact is the money we've used bailing out the banks could and should have been used better elsewhere like the where all the cuts have taken place like the NHS and fire service etc. Cuts have had to be made because of the economic crisis, because we the taxpayers have had to bail out the banks, so it's more than a little galling that 80billion has been made in cuts, that many people in roles that are incredibly important to our society have lost and are continuing to lose their jobs. It's also just a little galling that because of these cuts there are many people that have gone to university on the premise that they would get a decent job, only to see those job opportunities/prospects cut drastically thanks to government cuts. And all because we've had to use a large proportion of taxpayers money to bail out the banks. And best of all what's happened in the meantime? Those that work in the banking industry have given themselves £81billion in bonuses. it's an absolute joke. Just to add to this the taxpayers money is supposed to go on things like education, police, NHS, fire service etc and none of these things are supposed to give us a monetary return. It's not supposed to be paid back to us and it's certainly not supposed to be used to bail out banks. The rest of the stuff we've already discussed at great length so there's no real need to go into it apart from one point I'd like to pick up on. The comments about the BBC are pointless also, by that logic everyone should boycott the BBC, and I'd love to know if the guy who penned the letter watches the BBC along with the person whose comment you've quoted above boycott anything BBC related, if they feel it's such a massive waste of the taxpayers money (I bet they don't). Its a nonsense argument really. As britsabroad points out below if you want to go down the brand route and insist the banks bought the economy down than it was also them that bought or kept the economy up, you can't have it both ways. The truth of the matter is as a country we have been overspending for a long time, that's why Gordon started to use PFI so much to hide how bad things were, one example everyone has known for decades is that pensions needed changing, people are living longer and someone has to pay for that but no one did anything because telling people to pay more and or work longer tends not to win any votes so everyone left it for the next lot to sort out. All Russell has to say about this is my mate Lee's pension blah de blah and having to run into burning buildings at the age of 60. 60 by the way is the retirement threshold amongst most of the fire services in the rest of the world I read somewhere. It's also the retirement age for the police and the army and the same as those two jobs unless you pass a fitness test you're out and unlike the fire service they don't get to spend most of their night shift sleeping either. But of course it's far easier to blame the banks than deal with some real world issues.
|
|
|
Post by Beertricks Potter on Dec 18, 2014 18:00:16 GMT
Brand is another Joey Barton. Average at his full time profession and believes he is an intellectual, when in reality they are a both self righteous, self consumed, arrogant dicks. just my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Billybigbollox on Dec 18, 2014 18:42:49 GMT
Brand is another Joey Barton. Average at his full time profession and believes he is an intellectual, when in reality they are a both self righteous, self consumed, arrogant dicks. just my opinion. And mine.
|
|