UK - Russell Brand: Show drug addicts love & compassion, not carrot & stick

E

edgarshade

Bluelighter
Joined
Aug 31, 2010
Messages
1,954
Location
UK
Metro

By Matthew Champion - 24th April, 2012

With reader comments

Russell Brand has told a parliamentary committee of MPs the government should pursue abstinence-based drug treatment programmes as he called for addicts to be shown 'love and compassion'.

Addressing the Home Affairs Select Committee the comic and movie star criticised state-approved opiates such as methadone and said abstinence had helped him get clean. In a typically flamboyant performance the 36-year-old accepted there could be a case for decriminalisation but insisted he wanted addiction to be treated as a health matter rather than a criminal or judicial matter. Whether drugs were legal or not was 'irrelevant' to addicts, Brand, who had a well-documented battle with drugs, said.
Click to expand...

The committee is also due to hear from opponents of drug liberalisation including journalist Peter Hitchens and campaigner Mary Brett.
Click to expand...

More...
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/897082-...icts-love-and-compassion-not-carrot-and-stick
 
Apart from Richard Branson who else is this committee hearing from? Where's Davit Nutt and the guys from Transform? Or didn't they get invited? It looks like they are loading the dice by pitching a non-expert and a comedian against two of the most ruthless and expert prohibition-pushers in the UK.
 
So is this an actual review of the UK's whole drug policy? If so that is good news.
 
Get him to the Greek changed my opinion of Brand as far as humor goes. Before I saw that movie, I thought he was sort of annoying. Afterwards, I thought of him as pretty funny. If the guy has a rational idea of what drug policies should be, I definitely thing its a good thing. There are definitely people out there who get their views from famous people and so if he can convert some ignorant people over to our side, I'm all for it. The only thing is that from his comedy, I'm guessing his audience is more of my age group and most people my age (from what I've come across) have an open mind toward decrim/legalization.

I have a friend that has smoked maybe 5 times in his life and doesn't like it. He's never tried any other drugs and won't, besides alcohol which he consumes on occasion. He is definitely not someone you'd think would be supportive of decrim but without me even preaching to him or anything, he thinks that the war on drugs is bullshit. It really makes me happy that someone who has no personal interest in drugs still thinks we should all have the freedoms to use.
 
I have nothing against our Rus Brand but I think some of his opinions seemed a bit muddled. At some times he seems to support decriminalisation, but not legalisation, and at other times he seems to echo the government "abstinence" policy.

My understanding of "decriminalisation" in the context of these debates is that personal possession is OK but the stuff has to magically appear out of nowhere because there is still no legal supply chain or medical script.

Also, if you have loads of cash you can probably check into treatment at will. What happens if you have to wait a few months to get a place? How does "abstinence" work then?
 
edgarshade said:
My understanding of "decriminalisation" in the context of these debates is that personal possession is OK but the stuff has to magically appear out of nowhere because there is still no legal supply chain or medical script.
Click to expand...

for context, alcohol was decriminalized during US prohibition. Personal use was not a crime, only sale and manufacture.
 
Just managed to watch the video. Actually I take back what I said about Russell Brand. It was the reporting that was muddled. He was actually very articulate and clear in what he was saying.

I even understood where Peter Hitchens was coming from, though he bases his beliefs on some grossly inaccurate stereotypes and beliefs, e.g. most drug users are not prepared to pay for their drugs because most drug users don't do anything productive to earn any money to pay for them. Twit!

I noticed that the Hitchens crew were given a a bit more time than Brand was, 40 mins vs about 33mins, and were even grovellingly invited by Mr Vas to let the committee know if the committee wasn't following the right path, or some words to that effect.

I would be interested to know else will be called in as a witness and when that would be as Mr Vas indicated there would be many.
 
Last edited:
Clearly they chose Russell Brand for this to discredit the anti-prohibition side of the debate.
 
BBC News
Hitchens urges tough drugs policy
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17829394

Newspaper columnist Peter Hitchens has told a committee of MPs that he would like to see the government introduce a more hardline policy on drugs.

Speaking at the Home Affairs Select Committee inquiry into drugs policy, he said a softer approach to drugs in recent years had led to a drastic rise in the number of people taking drugs.

Mr Hitchens is currently working on a book entitled 'The War We Never Fought - Britain's non-existent war on drugs'.

The committee also heard from comedian and actor Russell Brand who said taking drugs should not be seen as a "criminal or judicial matter" but a "health issue".
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top