Russell Brand: Philip Seymour Hoffman is another victim of extremely stupid drug laws.

[another_liberal]

This opinion piece is, of course, well worth reading in it's entirety. I have copied here only what I consider to be Mr. Brand's central argument:

(snip)

Addiction is a mental illness around which there is a great deal of confusion, which is hugely exacerbated by the laws that criminalise drug addicts. If drugs are illegal people who use drugs are criminals. We have set our moral compass on this erroneous premise, and we have strayed so far off course that the landscape we now inhabit provides us with no solutions and greatly increases the problem.

This is an important moment in history; we know that prohibition does not work. We know that the people who devise drug laws are out of touch and have no idea how to reach a solution. Do they even have the inclination? The fact is their methods are so gallingly ineffective that it is difficult not to deduce that they are deliberately creating the worst imaginable circumstances to maximise the harm caused by substance misuse. People are going to use drugs; no self-respecting drug addict is even remotely deterred by prohibition. What prohibition achieves is an unregulated, criminal-controlled, sprawling, global mob-economy, where drug users, their families and society at large are all exposed to the worst conceivable version of this regrettably unavoidable problem.

Countries like Portugal and Switzerland that have introduced progressive and tolerant drug laws have seen crime plummet and drug-related deaths significantly reduced. We know this. We know this system doesn't work – and yet we prop it up with ignorance and indifference. Why? Wisdom is acting on knowledge. Now we are aware that our drug laws aren't working and that alternatives are yielding positive results, why are we not acting? Tradition? Prejudice? Extreme stupidity? The answer is all three. Change is hard, apathy is easy, tradition is the narcotic of our rulers. The people who are most severely affected by drug prohibition are dispensable, politically irrelevant people. Poor people. Addiction affects all of us but the poorest pay the biggest price.

(snip)

No doubt if Philip Seymour Hoffman could have purchased Heroin legally he would not have been injecting himself with a tainted product of unknown power and lethality. It is clearly time to change a few laws, before even more wonderful people die in the same way.

Read more at:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/06/russell-brand-philip-seymour-hoffman-drug-laws

[backscatter712]

1. There's a lot of way to structure legalized hard drugs...

For example, if people are worried about overdoses, on top of strict regulations on the manufacture of heroin, with packaging and labeling with precise doses, that's one way to do it.

Or there could also be legal, regulated "opium dens", where there are trained people on staff that administer the opiates, in known doses, and they have the customers lay in beds or couches on site, where they can be watched, and medical intervention can be done quickly if there's a problem. If Philip Seymour Hoffman got his heroin at one of these dens, he'd still be alive.

This way, people can get their highs without dying, with prices in a legal market that are affordable, so people don't have to steal to get their highs.

[kelliekat44]

58. H's a victim of extremely bad decisions. nt

[Yavin4]

2. We tend to criminalize or bomb things we don't understand

Then it takes years of human suffering to correct things.

[Boom Sound 416]

3. Regardless of the stupidity of the drug laws

He's not a victim. Period.

[another_liberal]

5. You knew him?

Seems you're certain of your opinion, so I assume you must have.

[Boom Sound 416]

6. Well you know what they say about assumptions

[another_liberal]

7. Assumptions like yours . . .

Your assumption: "He's not a victim. Period."

That kind of an assumption?

[Boom Sound 416]

10. Can you be a victim of yourself?

[another_liberal]

16. One can be a victim of uncaring, greedy pushers . . .

The kind who will cut their wares with dangerous additives. That much is certainly true.

As to your question, allow me to ask in return: Just because a person has a weakness or an addiction, does that make him worthless and expendable in your eyes?

[Boom Sound 416]

17. On your question

God no. And that's my point. Addiction and victim are not synonymous.

Their difference has to do with responsibility.

Would you agree?

[another_liberal]

19. There is a difference, yes.

I do doubt, however, that it's so simple, so black and white.

[Gormy Cuss]

25. Opiate addicts are victims.

It's not a failure of personal responsibility.

[Boom Sound 416]

27. im not totally blind to complexity of the human experience

but their is a line in there somewhere for nearly all of us

[CreekDog]

32. and you've decided (see your posts above) where that line is

and you have no doubt.

how many times have we seen a dispassionate poster tell us that most of the values we share are wrong, or crap, in some form or another.

caring about addicts, wanting controls for guns, wanting expanded social welfare programs.

and the dispassionate folks to the right, in small numbers come here and without emotion, tell us we are wrong.

the posts always sound the same because not only is the content the same, the delivery is too.

[Boom Sound 416]

34. Take a breather

You might pull something

[CreekDog]

36. Don't worry, I'm not the one pulling anything

[Boom Sound 416]

37. You know I get a nickel

For every time you call me a troll. Why haven't you been able to make that stick, I wonder?

Anywho, I feel very bad for Hoffman and his family. Hell, he was one of my favorite actors by far.

He's the whole movie in Charlie Wilson's War and unforgettable in Magnolia especially in the scene on the phone with the customer rep.

That said, I don't think he's a victim. What say you?

[another_liberal]

42. It's a label, Boom . . .

And, frankly, a meaningless one at that.

A hundred years from now, people will remember who Philip Seymour Hoffman was. Will they remember you?

[Boom Sound 416]

43. I'm sorry

Last edited Sat Feb 8, 2014, 07:36 PM - Edit history (1)

Who the fuck are you again?


And I have my name on the silver screen as well, my anonymous friend. You just don't know it.

[another_liberal]

49. A big deal, are you?

I'm very impressed.

[Boom Sound 416]

52. You asked the question

I'm happy to keep to the discussion points.

[another_liberal]

54. Discussion points?

What a disappointment you turned out to be.

[Boom Sound 416]

57. ...

[Boom Sound 416]

47. Let's predict

Exactly how he will be remembered a hundred years from now.

Artist
Died before his time
Heroin

That file is getting pretty weighty. Hate to see it in the 22nd century.

Lotta great names. And that's how they are remembered.

For God sake it took Jerry Garcia at what, 58? It takes them all and even the great Jerry Garcia's legacy is punctuated with Heroin.

It's a damn shame. Buts it's not victimhood.

[LanternWaste]

71. Odd that-- as it seems to have adhered rather effectively.

"Why haven't you been able to make that stick.."

Odd that-- as it seems to have adhered rather effectively.

[Boom Sound 416]

72. Well,

I did get two hearts







But really, the comment was just intended for streamy friend.

[Skip Intro]

38. oh my God, you are so full of it...

Not every Democrat agrees on treatment of addicts, further gun restrictions, or expanding social welfare programs, to begin with, and those voicing other opinions are not automatically right wingers here to tell everyone else they're wrong. In fact, that is what you do.

[Boom Sound 416]

39. ...

[CreekDog]

70. so you're saying you don't agree with Democrats on most of the major issues

expanding social welfare programs.
expanding gun control

but there's also the matter of you defending Ron Paul more than Barack Obama, even Ron Paul's record on racist statements.

so being a little different on one issue, that's one thing, true, being at odds on most issues and being a defender of Ron Paul while excoriating Obama isn't one issue, it's a pattern.

and your posts on the IRS issue and Benghazi are just bonuses.

[HangOnKids]

9. HaHaHa

The 5th grade humor is amazing isn't it? Do you know what your reply says about you? Sorry I can't share. It is triple pinkie swear secret.

[Boom Sound 416]

11. It says you should keep

Deleting your responses to me

[HangOnKids]

12. Sorry don't take orders from you

Keep Booming on!

[Boom Sound 416]

14. And here's your sign

[HangOnKids]

15. BOOM BOOM BOOM

You are cracking me up.

[kelliekat44]

13. No more a victim than all those entertainers in the 50-70 who chose drugs that ended their lives.

Most of those Jazz musicians were labeled other than a victim of any kind. More often they were thought of as disgusting, reprobates. Wonder why?

[another_liberal]

18. Just because some rather shallow people may have thought of them as such . . .

That does not mean it is what they were.

Was Jimi Hendrix just a disgusting reprobate?

Was Brian Jones?

Was Janice Joplin?

Was Keith Moon?

Was Marilyn Monroe?

Was Judy Garland?

There are many, many more. Were they all just disgusting reprobates?

[HangOnKids]

20. The term reprobate is highly charged and quite offensive

Disturbing to see it used on DU.

[another_liberal]

21. Especially in this context.

We all have faults and failings. There are many worse things than being under the sway of an addiction.

[HangOnKids]

22. Sorry I was agreeing with you

I guess I didn't clarify.

[another_liberal]

24. My mistake.

I will alter my comment.

[grahamhgreen]

26. Sure. Regulated dosage could easily have saved him. Had he known his dose he most likely would not

have over dosed.

[Boom Sound 416]

28. sure and someone could have injected for him

like his manager
his agent
his best bud from way back
his wife
his kids, anyone of the three, right?

[grahamhgreen]

29. Or his doctor. But still the dosage is not marked on the illegal drugs.

[Boom Sound 416]

30. Crazy, right?

[CreekDog]

31. you're not the authority on that

but i see you're intent on stinking up the thread nevertheless.

[Boom Sound 416]

33. Their goes my paddle again

[Heidi]

62. YOU are the arbiter of such matters?

Oh, dear. Pardon me if your argument doesn't convince me. Your reputation precedes you. Should addicts just be taken out beyhind the shed and shot?

Bless your heart. At least you're consistent in your...whatever it is.

[Boom Sound 416]

65. Pardoned

[Bluenorthwest]

4. Question Time, video of Brand talking about this very subject

[Ichingcarpenter]

8. Russell Brand 'Heroin the retina of my soul

This is an older article from him


I cannot accurately convey to you the efficiency of heroin in neutralising pain. It transforms a tight, white fist into a gentle, brown wave. From my first inhalation 15 years ago, it fumigated my private hell and lay me down in its hazy pastures and a bathroom floor in Hackney embraced me like a womb.

This shadow is darkly cast on the retina of my soul and whenever I am dislodged from comfort my focus falls there.

It is 10 years since I used drugs or drank alcohol and my life has improved immeasurably. I have a job, a house, a cat, good friendships and generally a bright outlook.

http://www.theguardian.com/culture/2013/mar/09/russell-brand-life-without-drugs


A great piece of writing, so please read the rest.



I have a picture of him
with my daughter that they sent to me after his concert.

I might try to post it.

[clarice]

23. Victim ?????!!!!!! lol. nt

[WillowTree]

40. Philip Seymour Hoffman was.......

.......another tremendously talented man who was the victim of his own tremendously stupid choices. I've known a few of those myself. Very sad, but no one to blame but the "victims" themselves.

[another_liberal]

41. Are you sure?

I guess then that the fucking drug laws are just and fair after all, right?

[Boom Sound 416]

44. The heroin ones are

It's a death sentence.

[another_liberal]

51. Brand is right . . .

Despite your strongly held opinion, Brand is right. Current drug laws are stupid. They kill people every day.

[SomethingFishy]

68. Maybe you should check out some places that don't have such neanderthal drug laws

You legalize, you save lives. Period. Including Heroin. There is no debate, it's already been proven in a number of countries.

I would venture to say that the day all drugs are legalized will be no different than the day pot was legalized in Colorado. The only people who will see any fucking difference in the day are the cops, the dealers and the users. The rest of you, will wake up to the sunrise in the east, and the sunset in the west. The Earth will not spin off it's axis, hordes of crazed zombie drug users will not come out of the closet, Wall Street will still be bleeding you dry and corrupt politicians will still be supporting them.

[Boom Sound 416]

69. Good post

Of course I am sucker for cynicism.

I'm aware of the some of the international statistics. That's fair. But I don't think one can draw an equilateral comparison to the US based on user rates, crime, mortality, etc.

Mostly the ratios don't compare because of the size of the us both population and area. Also given our young, rebellious and rather wealthy nature, we're singular in the world.

Churchill said of Americans, 'they will always do the right thing, once all other possibilities are exhausted.' I can't imagine the national drug control policy confined to any other principles.

On legalization saving lives. With respect to heroin, that is a bit of a stretch considering its track record and body count. I think it runs dangerously close to 'ends justify the means' as well, because to legalize heroin to surrender to it. At least in this country anyway.

I think I have more in response. Good post.

[WillowTree]

46. Pretty sure.

I've never heard of anything in any drug law that forces, or even entices, anyone to use heroin or any other drug. Never could understand why any halfway intelligent person would try something like heroin in the first place.

Have you ever heard of anything good coming to anyone arising from his/her heroin use? Ever?

I didn't think so.

[progressoid]

48. Addiction is a complicated thing.

"Never could understand why any halfway intelligent person would try something like heroin in the first place"

You could say the same about smoking, or gambling, or ...

[another_liberal]

50. It's a big World . . .

In it are many kinds of people. Don't flatter yourself that you know how to judge all of them.

[WillowTree]

55. "You could say the same about smoking, or gambling......."

And I do. That first cigarette was among the stupidest things I've ever done. Cost me untold thousands of dollars over the years and no doubt carved some years of the end of my life. But taking that first one was a choice and I have to take full responsibility for it. (Quitting, I found, was more a matter of sheer force of will an a lot of prayer than just a choice, but I finally did it and have always been glad.)

And I also understand that some people can become addicted to gambling, but most people who gamble don't.

Things like heroin and cocaine are different. A person doesn't have to have a predilection to addiction to get hooked. It's just in the nature of the substance itself and that's no secret. So yeah, I don't get the decision to try "hard" drugs even once considering that the likely best outcome will be rehab which may or may not be successful in the long run, as demonstrated last weekend.

Thus, it is my opinion that Philip Seymour Hoffman wound up dead on a bathroom floor with a needle in his arm at the age of 46 not because of anything in any drug law, but because of the monumentally stupid decision to try heroin in the first place. That's not something I'm likely to change my mind about.

[NYC Liberal]

53. Addiction is not a choice.

[WillowTree]

56. But doing drugs in the first place is.

No one who never tried drugs ever became addicted to them. Funny how that works out.

[NYC Liberal]

59. Wrong. Genetics plays a large part in addiction.

[WillowTree]

61. But only if you use the drug(s) at least once.

Unless Mom was using during pregnancy, no one is born addicted. A person may be born with a predilection to addition, but not to a predilection to trying drugs. A person is not addicted to drugs before ever using them.

Again, if a person never tries the drug, s/he will never become addicted to it. Not sure why that's so difficult for some people to grasp.

[NYC Liberal]

66. And again, that "predilection" is much, much stronger in those whose parent(s)

were addicts. Not sure why THAT is so hard to understand.

[WillowTree]

67. Because they didn't *become* addicts until they themselves used drugs the first time.

Until then, they were only potential addicts. And if they never used.......even once......they never would have become addicts.

And if you were paying attention, I did say that my comments don't apply if Mom was using during pregnancy.

[Heidi]

63. I guess you win DU for being so superior.

Congratulations, you right fighter, you!

[WillowTree]

64. Not superior at all. Just being real.

I've made some terribly boneheaded choices in my life and I've paid, sometimes rather dearly, for them. But I acknowledge that they are my mistakes and don't try to blame others.......or in this instance, the drug laws.......for the choices I freely made.

[Romulox]

60. Nooooo! We *need* the War on Drugs.

Because???????

I don't know, I've never heard a good explanation why.

[hunter]

73. It's the U.S.A., so it's all about money and control.

Pretty simple. It's profitable to the powerful.