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)
 

another_liberal

(8,821 posts)
Thu Feb 6, 2014, 02:25 PM Feb 2014

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
There's a lot of way to structure legalized hard drugs... backscatter712 Feb 2014 #1
H's a victim of extremely bad decisions. nt kelliekat44 Feb 2014 #58
We tend to criminalize or bomb things we don't understand Yavin4 Feb 2014 #2
Regardless of the stupidity of the drug laws Boom Sound 416 Feb 2014 #3
You knew him? another_liberal Feb 2014 #5
Well you know what they say about assumptions Boom Sound 416 Feb 2014 #6
Assumptions like yours . . . another_liberal Feb 2014 #7
Can you be a victim of yourself? Boom Sound 416 Feb 2014 #10
One can be a victim of uncaring, greedy pushers . . . another_liberal Feb 2014 #16
On your question Boom Sound 416 Feb 2014 #17
There is a difference, yes. another_liberal Feb 2014 #19
Opiate addicts are victims. Gormy Cuss Feb 2014 #25
im not totally blind to complexity of the human experience Boom Sound 416 Feb 2014 #27
and you've decided (see your posts above) where that line is CreekDog Feb 2014 #32
Take a breather Boom Sound 416 Feb 2014 #34
This message was self-deleted by its author CreekDog Feb 2014 #35
Don't worry, I'm not the one pulling anything CreekDog Feb 2014 #36
You know I get a nickel Boom Sound 416 Feb 2014 #37
It's a label, Boom . . . another_liberal Feb 2014 #42
I'm sorry Boom Sound 416 Feb 2014 #43
A big deal, are you? another_liberal Feb 2014 #49
You asked the question Boom Sound 416 Feb 2014 #52
Discussion points? another_liberal Feb 2014 #54
... Boom Sound 416 Feb 2014 #57
Let's predict Boom Sound 416 Feb 2014 #47
Odd that-- as it seems to have adhered rather effectively. LanternWaste Feb 2014 #71
Well, Boom Sound 416 Feb 2014 #72
oh my God, you are so full of it... Skip Intro Feb 2014 #38
... Boom Sound 416 Feb 2014 #39
so you're saying you don't agree with Democrats on most of the major issues CreekDog Feb 2014 #70
Message auto-removed Name removed Feb 2014 #45
HaHaHa HangOnKids Feb 2014 #9
It says you should keep Boom Sound 416 Feb 2014 #11
Sorry don't take orders from you HangOnKids Feb 2014 #12
And here's your sign Boom Sound 416 Feb 2014 #14
BOOM BOOM BOOM HangOnKids Feb 2014 #15
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
The term reprobate is highly charged and quite offensive HangOnKids Feb 2014 #20
Especially in this context. another_liberal Feb 2014 #21
Sorry I was agreeing with you HangOnKids Feb 2014 #22
My mistake. another_liberal Feb 2014 #24
Sure. Regulated dosage could easily have saved him. Had he known his dose he most likely would not grahamhgreen Feb 2014 #26
sure and someone could have injected for him Boom Sound 416 Feb 2014 #28
Or his doctor. But still the dosage is not marked on the illegal drugs. grahamhgreen Feb 2014 #29
Crazy, right? Boom Sound 416 Feb 2014 #30
you're not the authority on that CreekDog Feb 2014 #31
Their goes my paddle again Boom Sound 416 Feb 2014 #33
YOU are the arbiter of such matters? Heidi Feb 2014 #62
Pardoned Boom Sound 416 Feb 2014 #65
Question Time, video of Brand talking about this very subject Bluenorthwest Feb 2014 #4
Russell Brand 'Heroin the retina of my soul Ichingcarpenter Feb 2014 #8
Victim ?????!!!!!! lol. nt clarice Feb 2014 #23
Philip Seymour Hoffman was....... WillowTree Feb 2014 #40
Are you sure? another_liberal Feb 2014 #41
The heroin ones are Boom Sound 416 Feb 2014 #44
Brand is right . . . another_liberal Feb 2014 #51
Maybe you should check out some places that don't have such neanderthal drug laws SomethingFishy Feb 2014 #68
Good post Boom Sound 416 Feb 2014 #69
Pretty sure. WillowTree Feb 2014 #46
Addiction is a complicated thing. progressoid Feb 2014 #48
It's a big World . . . another_liberal Feb 2014 #50
"You could say the same about smoking, or gambling......." WillowTree Feb 2014 #55
Addiction is not a choice. NYC Liberal Feb 2014 #53
But doing drugs in the first place is. WillowTree Feb 2014 #56
Wrong. Genetics plays a large part in addiction. NYC Liberal Feb 2014 #59
But only if you use the drug(s) at least once. WillowTree Feb 2014 #61
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
I guess you win DU for being so superior. Heidi Feb 2014 #63
Not superior at all. Just being real. WillowTree Feb 2014 #64
Nooooo! We *need* the War on Drugs. Romulox Feb 2014 #60
It's the U.S.A., so it's all about money and control. hunter Feb 2014 #73
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Russell Brand: Philip Sey...