Could Peter Hitchens possibly have been more pompous and hateful? You have to wonder what experience of this issue he has – and why he’s qualified to speak about it. If it had been his son/daughter caught up in addiction, would he still have been huffing and puffing… or might he have found a bit of understanding and compassion in there somewhere?
Hitchens was not there to discuss but to put down Russell for past encounters gone wrong for him (ie intelligence2 debate). Prison as a deterrent does not work; I believe education and cultural change is the key. People can get hooked quickly without being caught by the law at the beginning. Once hooked, their actions are dictated by addiction rather than by free will. There is no deterrent effect of prison for these people. The sentences for breaking the laws were relaxed for a reason; they probably did not work and were too costly. As for recovery, I do not see how Hitchens could have anything against Russell’s position as he and Chip are truely the experts on the matter. They have been there and they are proof that abstinence based recovery works. It is admirable that Russell lends his name to this great cause; I commend his courage and thank him for introducing us to Chip Somers. Addiction is a disease and without a program, the prognosis is grimm; I know as I lost my ex-husband to alcoholism at 52..
Why did he not talk about the legal drug alcohol at all?
We were all born innocent and ignorant until the day we have to learn, but sometimes it’s hard to tolerate the ones who don’t.
Governments should get right down to the cause of the problem which starts when a human is born. A baby is a bit like a joey, or it would come out walking to the fridge getting itself a glass of milk.
When we are allowed to be humans then maybe the neurological conditions such as stress will decrease and less of us have to self medicate from the age of <10.
It's a fucked up place this wonderful world but there is hope. And I Love people who are using their voice to help – beautiful souls they are. xxx
i dont think Mr Hitchens like being wrong. if he wishes a healthy dialogue that will provide an appriopriate solution, perhaps he should let his tendancy to discriminate based on class as what is being said and not who it is being said by. who comes up with the idea / argument / solution is irrelevant. parents of the addicted or the addicted themselves, what might work. telling russell he would not have taken drugs becausse he would be afraid to go to gaol… how would hitchins know what would make a person stop?
then he criticises his ability to bring humour amd lighten the debate..
Rather than keep bashing Peter Hitchens, listen to what he is saying!
As usual, people jump on the bandwagon of running down The Mail, Hitchens and bigots etc – it’s become popular to do so. But listen to he is saying; without repercussions and punishment, are we not allowing drug use to become more mainstream and acceptable. He is not saying he wants to be a draconian Victorian but that we need proper deterrents to stop the weaker minded being tempted to take drugs. That said, perhaps Hitchens is too intellectual for the mainstream hence why Brand is being used instead?
Advice to both: stop the tit for tat bullshi*t and try to use Brand’s popularity and Hitchen’s intellect to come up with a solution. Meet somewhere in the middle. And also stop allowing rap music and other forms of media to pollute the airwaves with their gangster culture etc IF this helps encourage crime.
That was such an amazing debate on your part. Apart from how great you handed Hitchens ass to him, you could have also made the case that drug use is on the rise in countries such as those in the middle east with a death penalty for carrying more than 30 grams of heorin.
As a person who has worked on drug treatment provision for some time, i find it amazing how stupid some like Hitchens can be with their medieval arguments.
I am Canadian and am not up on your politics, but I don’t understand why Hitchens turned the debate in a political issue. It appeared to me that David Burrowes was open minded and prepared to help people in the system progress away from methodone treatment to an abstinent lifestyle. Sounded very reasonable to me. How can this not be a good thing? Am I missing something?
I’m a clueless American, so I’m completely unfamiliar with Peter Hitchens (had to look him up on Wikipedia). I must say, I found him arrogant, overbearing, aggressive and quite frankly loathsome. The worst sort of “do as I tell you, or else” social conservative. I finally had to skip over his tirades–they were positively corrosive. (Is this guy perhaps in need of extra fiber in his diet? That can make a person cranky.)
Here’s the problem I have with continuing to criminalize drugs: it doesn’t work. Drug use, according to all of the statistical data, decreases in places where drugs are legalized. Also, the proponents of criminalization tend to leave out the biggest health-destroying mood-altering drugs: alcohol and cigarettes. (Nicotine is most definitely a mood-altering drug. Combining it with the MAOIs that are deliberately added to cigarettes makes nicotine incredibly powerful.) If we funneled the fortunes our countries spend on fighting the transport and sale of drugs instead into the health and recovery of addicts (and into better drug prevention education), we might be a lot better off.
I almost never drink, don’t smoke, tried pot twice in my experimental youth and thought “eh, meh. I don’t get it,” have never tried any other recreational drugs. So my opinion may or may not be valid. But I know that locking people up for an illness just doesn’t fix the problem.
This guy Hitchens was formerly a Marxist! (read his background bio on Wikipedia) He became “disillusioned” with the left and moved to the right. Seems he spent a lot of his life at the extreme edges on both left and right, one of the “red flags” of narcissism…..no middle ground; rather rigid fellow.
Russell, I liked your attempt to use reason, experience and compassion. Its very hard to deal with “sherman tanks” and other idealogues like Hitchens; you did the best anyone could do with this type of fellow.
It’s really strange that a person wanting to offer a solution to the drugs debate would so easily dismiss a person like you who has much insight into the issue. A more intellectually curious person would want to know your opinions and insights rather than dismiss you so easily.
Well that was like watching Canadian Parliment in session. No one can get a word in. Bloody Peter, shut your trap and listen. If only we could lock all drug addicts up and forget that they exsist. But we cannot. Unfortunately they are our family members and friends and it is very hard to give up on them even when that’s all you want to do. I agree with doing away with methadone, I agree with providing treatment centres affordable to all and I agree wholeheartedly to sitting down with a prior addict (Russell Brand) and discussing addiction and possible solutions to it. Would it not make sense to talk to the people that these decisions affect. Speak with the family members who spend hours upon hours calling up government agencies trying to get help, but there is not really any to be had. What would they like to see happen? Instead it gets left up to the good ol’ boys in government to decide the outcome.
A fascinating, serious debate and an equally fascinating documentary by Russell, which was on TV tonight… However, the final “was that you, Peter?” comment, during the next segment, made me do an actual laugh out loud (and no mistake). Russell Brand, you are a well-meaning, inspirational man to have in entertainment and, as a totally unsuccessful sitcom writer, I shall cast you when a production company finally relents and creates one of my shows… Although you will probably refuse, owing to the paltry contractual terms on offer, and my gluttonous retention of all future royalties… A true comedy genius! Do something with Gervais – Instant Karma! Peace!
Peter closed his heart the moment Mummy and Daddy packed him off to boarding school and he’s carrying all that anger and resentment around with him 60 years on. He himself has an addiction, and that addiction is to the superiority he feels when he thinks he’s won an argument. It’s a shame because his argument is overshadowed by his unpleasant character. And of course he swings to the right. He wasn’t nurtured as a child so, in his eyes, why should anybody else get to be? I hear Russell’s argument and I stand somewhere in the middle of the two. I agreed with the chief superintendent on BBC3 when he said something like “punish the dealers and rehabilitate the addicts”.
I found the way you were able to still even manage to reflect and communicate back to Peter Hitches in a positive well-meaning way after he treated you so rudely and snobishly really edifying for me. I think I might have gotten really offended and started shouting at him, which would not have been as productive. But I think really that is what he wants to get out of people. He kept on backing down to his tagline ‘reason’ and Russell’s apparent inability to ‘debate/speak with reason’. I think his conception of reason is totally perverted and off on a tangent in another galaxy…It was a triumph of compassion over reason, as even with all the ‘cold hard scientific facts’ about substance abuse prevention on Brand’s side, Hitchins still thinks he has the copyright on what ‘reason’ is, when it is just his perception of it.
Oh dear. Peter is a pompous dick. Russell, don’t you worry none, lovely, you made him look like a bird who swallowed a hat. Sorry, that is completely irrelevant but I felt the need to quote Blackadder for some reason.
What is it about the man.. he aint my fucking type, long and spindly, gobby and repulsive, but also alluring, Kooky and a man of such alarming intellect, he kinda draws you in, in a way, im alright cause my daughters dont fancy him so im safe thank fuck!! but i kinda like him really! hes kinda sexy in a strange way, if i could explain… It would be like going to Stonehenge and you would have fun with old mates and you would have him wake up in your sitting room the next day, not knowing who the fuck he was!! and then he would stay for three months after and he knows lots of people but nobody ever knew him, aghh fuck it, he a good bloke :-)
Could Peter Hitchens possibly have been more pompous and hateful? You have to wonder what experience of this issue he has – and why he’s qualified to speak about it. If it had been his son/daughter caught up in addiction, would he still have been huffing and puffing… or might he have found a bit of understanding and compassion in there somewhere?
Hitchens was not there to discuss but to put down Russell for past encounters gone wrong for him (ie intelligence2 debate). Prison as a deterrent does not work; I believe education and cultural change is the key. People can get hooked quickly without being caught by the law at the beginning. Once hooked, their actions are dictated by addiction rather than by free will. There is no deterrent effect of prison for these people. The sentences for breaking the laws were relaxed for a reason; they probably did not work and were too costly. As for recovery, I do not see how Hitchens could have anything against Russell’s position as he and Chip are truely the experts on the matter. They have been there and they are proof that abstinence based recovery works. It is admirable that Russell lends his name to this great cause; I commend his courage and thank him for introducing us to Chip Somers. Addiction is a disease and without a program, the prognosis is grimm; I know as I lost my ex-husband to alcoholism at 52..
What a man, that Peter Hitchens.
Why did he not talk about the legal drug alcohol at all?
We were all born innocent and ignorant until the day we have to learn, but sometimes it’s hard to tolerate the ones who don’t.
Governments should get right down to the cause of the problem which starts when a human is born. A baby is a bit like a joey, or it would come out walking to the fridge getting itself a glass of milk.
When we are allowed to be humans then maybe the neurological conditions such as stress will decrease and less of us have to self medicate from the age of <10.
It's a fucked up place this wonderful world but there is hope. And I Love people who are using their voice to help – beautiful souls they are. xxx
i dont think Mr Hitchens like being wrong. if he wishes a healthy dialogue that will provide an appriopriate solution, perhaps he should let his tendancy to discriminate based on class as what is being said and not who it is being said by. who comes up with the idea / argument / solution is irrelevant. parents of the addicted or the addicted themselves, what might work. telling russell he would not have taken drugs becausse he would be afraid to go to gaol… how would hitchins know what would make a person stop?
then he criticises his ability to bring humour amd lighten the debate..
Rather than keep bashing Peter Hitchens, listen to what he is saying!
As usual, people jump on the bandwagon of running down The Mail, Hitchens and bigots etc – it’s become popular to do so. But listen to he is saying; without repercussions and punishment, are we not allowing drug use to become more mainstream and acceptable. He is not saying he wants to be a draconian Victorian but that we need proper deterrents to stop the weaker minded being tempted to take drugs. That said, perhaps Hitchens is too intellectual for the mainstream hence why Brand is being used instead?
Advice to both: stop the tit for tat bullshi*t and try to use Brand’s popularity and Hitchen’s intellect to come up with a solution. Meet somewhere in the middle. And also stop allowing rap music and other forms of media to pollute the airwaves with their gangster culture etc IF this helps encourage crime.
That was such an amazing debate on your part. Apart from how great you handed Hitchens ass to him, you could have also made the case that drug use is on the rise in countries such as those in the middle east with a death penalty for carrying more than 30 grams of heorin.
As a person who has worked on drug treatment provision for some time, i find it amazing how stupid some like Hitchens can be with their medieval arguments.
I am Canadian and am not up on your politics, but I don’t understand why Hitchens turned the debate in a political issue. It appeared to me that David Burrowes was open minded and prepared to help people in the system progress away from methodone treatment to an abstinent lifestyle. Sounded very reasonable to me. How can this not be a good thing? Am I missing something?
I’m a clueless American, so I’m completely unfamiliar with Peter Hitchens (had to look him up on Wikipedia). I must say, I found him arrogant, overbearing, aggressive and quite frankly loathsome. The worst sort of “do as I tell you, or else” social conservative. I finally had to skip over his tirades–they were positively corrosive. (Is this guy perhaps in need of extra fiber in his diet? That can make a person cranky.)
Here’s the problem I have with continuing to criminalize drugs: it doesn’t work. Drug use, according to all of the statistical data, decreases in places where drugs are legalized. Also, the proponents of criminalization tend to leave out the biggest health-destroying mood-altering drugs: alcohol and cigarettes. (Nicotine is most definitely a mood-altering drug. Combining it with the MAOIs that are deliberately added to cigarettes makes nicotine incredibly powerful.) If we funneled the fortunes our countries spend on fighting the transport and sale of drugs instead into the health and recovery of addicts (and into better drug prevention education), we might be a lot better off.
I almost never drink, don’t smoke, tried pot twice in my experimental youth and thought “eh, meh. I don’t get it,” have never tried any other recreational drugs. So my opinion may or may not be valid. But I know that locking people up for an illness just doesn’t fix the problem.
Also, Peter Hitchens: DUDE. Lighten up, man.
This guy Hitchens was formerly a Marxist! (read his background bio on Wikipedia) He became “disillusioned” with the left and moved to the right. Seems he spent a lot of his life at the extreme edges on both left and right, one of the “red flags” of narcissism…..no middle ground; rather rigid fellow.
Russell, I liked your attempt to use reason, experience and compassion. Its very hard to deal with “sherman tanks” and other idealogues like Hitchens; you did the best anyone could do with this type of fellow.
It’s really strange that a person wanting to offer a solution to the drugs debate would so easily dismiss a person like you who has much insight into the issue. A more intellectually curious person would want to know your opinions and insights rather than dismiss you so easily.
Well that was like watching Canadian Parliment in session. No one can get a word in. Bloody Peter, shut your trap and listen. If only we could lock all drug addicts up and forget that they exsist. But we cannot. Unfortunately they are our family members and friends and it is very hard to give up on them even when that’s all you want to do. I agree with doing away with methadone, I agree with providing treatment centres affordable to all and I agree wholeheartedly to sitting down with a prior addict (Russell Brand) and discussing addiction and possible solutions to it. Would it not make sense to talk to the people that these decisions affect. Speak with the family members who spend hours upon hours calling up government agencies trying to get help, but there is not really any to be had. What would they like to see happen? Instead it gets left up to the good ol’ boys in government to decide the outcome.
A fascinating, serious debate and an equally fascinating documentary by Russell, which was on TV tonight… However, the final “was that you, Peter?” comment, during the next segment, made me do an actual laugh out loud (and no mistake). Russell Brand, you are a well-meaning, inspirational man to have in entertainment and, as a totally unsuccessful sitcom writer, I shall cast you when a production company finally relents and creates one of my shows… Although you will probably refuse, owing to the paltry contractual terms on offer, and my gluttonous retention of all future royalties… A true comedy genius! Do something with Gervais – Instant Karma! Peace!
Peter closed his heart the moment Mummy and Daddy packed him off to boarding school and he’s carrying all that anger and resentment around with him 60 years on. He himself has an addiction, and that addiction is to the superiority he feels when he thinks he’s won an argument. It’s a shame because his argument is overshadowed by his unpleasant character. And of course he swings to the right. He wasn’t nurtured as a child so, in his eyes, why should anybody else get to be? I hear Russell’s argument and I stand somewhere in the middle of the two. I agreed with the chief superintendent on BBC3 when he said something like “punish the dealers and rehabilitate the addicts”.
I found the way you were able to still even manage to reflect and communicate back to Peter Hitches in a positive well-meaning way after he treated you so rudely and snobishly really edifying for me. I think I might have gotten really offended and started shouting at him, which would not have been as productive. But I think really that is what he wants to get out of people. He kept on backing down to his tagline ‘reason’ and Russell’s apparent inability to ‘debate/speak with reason’. I think his conception of reason is totally perverted and off on a tangent in another galaxy…It was a triumph of compassion over reason, as even with all the ‘cold hard scientific facts’ about substance abuse prevention on Brand’s side, Hitchins still thinks he has the copyright on what ‘reason’ is, when it is just his perception of it.
Oh dear. Peter is a pompous dick. Russell, don’t you worry none, lovely, you made him look like a bird who swallowed a hat. Sorry, that is completely irrelevant but I felt the need to quote Blackadder for some reason.
What is it about the man.. he aint my fucking type, long and spindly, gobby and repulsive, but also alluring, Kooky and a man of such alarming intellect, he kinda draws you in, in a way, im alright cause my daughters dont fancy him so im safe thank fuck!! but i kinda like him really! hes kinda sexy in a strange way, if i could explain… It would be like going to Stonehenge and you would have fun with old mates and you would have him wake up in your sitting room the next day, not knowing who the fuck he was!! and then he would stay for three months after and he knows lots of people but nobody ever knew him, aghh fuck it, he a good bloke :-)