Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Showing Original Post only (View all)Russell Brand: Philip Seymour Hoffman is another victim of extremely stupid drug laws. [View all]
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
73 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Russell Brand: Philip Seymour Hoffman is another victim of extremely stupid drug laws. [View all]
another_liberal
Feb 2014
OP
No more a victim than all those entertainers in the 50-70 who chose drugs that ended their lives.
kelliekat44
Feb 2014
#13
Just because some rather shallow people may have thought of them as such . . .
another_liberal
Feb 2014
#18
Sure. Regulated dosage could easily have saved him. Had he known his dose he most likely would not
grahamhgreen
Feb 2014
#26
Maybe you should check out some places that don't have such neanderthal drug laws
SomethingFishy
Feb 2014
#68
And again, that "predilection" is much, much stronger in those whose parent(s)
NYC Liberal
Feb 2014
#66
Because they didn't *become* addicts until they themselves used drugs the first time.
WillowTree
Feb 2014
#67