@@danieloliver4558 it’s too easy to get and take no matter what the punishment, no point punishing the user, no matter the punishment that won’t stop people trying. Education and prevention which would take the police and policy makers far too long to implement would be better. Stopping it getting into the country first. Stopping the dealers: the king pins, the many many layers of corruption and illegality which eventually leads to and allows one tiny bit of crack/ket/coke/heroin/meth to get into a potential addicts possession. The first time user is at the very very bottom of a huge upside down pyramid of a problem.
sorax space I'd love to put Peter Hitchens on china white heroin for 5 months. He'd be coming to interviews looking dishevelled saying 'we DON"T enforce our laws, the biggest problem is corruption of the substance, what I want to see is clear and pure china white for all involved.'
@@patriceaqa288 Hitchens' entire point is that he has the wherewithal and modicum of willpower required to not use illicit narcotics in the first place. Besides, what would be the point of asking a drug abuser's opinion on the legal status of illicit narcotics? You might as well ask an illegal alien for their opinion on whether everyone who has entered a country illegally should receive amnesty.
@@GTJIGPC This isn't a debate on illicit drugs, it's a debate on 'addiction.' You can be a heroin addict and people say 'the law you never feared enough' or be hopelessly hooked on opiate prescribed pain killers how can you enforce a law on that?? Alcohol kills more people and costs the tax payers more money every year 20 fold than heroin does. Most importantly Hitchens fails to realize usage of class A drugs amongst young people in the UK is declining not increasing. He also doesn't realize that in countries with the death penalty for drugs addiction is rampant. The war on drugs launched by Nixon didn't work anyway it backfired
@@patriceaqa288 Totally agree with you here. Peter is on the side of fear as the only way to keep people away from drugs, whilst ignoring the facts of life that lead to addiction, which are not addressed and, most likely, cannot be resolved. You cannot say that the issue with drugs is that people don't fear them enough, that's not a solution to anything. I can see it as a partisan view of someone that's entitled, someone that did not have to live a life where addiction to drugs was ever a problem. One wonders if Peter is even aware of the UK government programs involving the use of drugs in the military. I would assume that he would be quite at a loss when it comes to the use of drugs in order to enhance the performance of the military in the second world war. We won because of that? Hmmm.
The legality of a drug has no relation to how damaging it is. Peter Hitchens' brother died from cancer caused by a life long addiction to nicotine, which is legal.
Forget the Russell Brand element of this, Peter Hitchens says drug addicts should be sent to prison to deter them and help them recover and then admits that prisons are full of drugs. That makes a lot of sense
I'm not sure if that's what he was saying. To my understanding, Peter is suggesting that proper criminalization will deter drug use and reduce the number of people in prisons. According to him, the current lack of enforcement on this issue undermines this effort. It seems like common sense to me; if you no longer treat a crime as such, then you shouldn't be surprised when its occurrence increases. I'm not quite sure how treating something that's a crime as a crime can be considered uncompassionate. Every functioning society needs its rules, and the law is one such method of upholding the good from the bad.
@@antun88 and yet his solution is to send drug addicts to a place he knows is full of drugs. I don't think he cares about whether the addicts are rehabilitated or not, he's just trying to appeal to a reductive lowest common denominator.
@@robertexley5193 both streets and prisons are full of drugs since the law of possession is not enforced, that is his point. But you are right he cares more about people not getting addicted to drugs in the first place them rehabilitating people who had.
Yeah, he tempts me to do it just because of how utterly heartless and stupid he is. Note: I'm not actually going to take drugs. It would just give this smug git ammunition.
@@Markustajahoyrylaiva he's not a voice of reason. abstinence based recovery has good results, throwing people into prison is just daunting, especially when it's only for the crime of putting a chemical in your own body.
@@gerryfromthevoid8986 "putting a chemical in your own body." can often cause disaster for loved ones or society because when it ruins your live they will have to feed your stupid ass and pay your bills
@@Markustajahoyrylaiva yeah i'm not saying it's good, but there are hundreds of reasons people take that first step, social alienation, personal issues, apathy brought on by depletion of incentive towards positive life goals. loss of hope etc. then even if they regain some of that, they still have a chemical addiction that compels them towards the drugs or alcohol even when they don't want to be, creating a vicious cycle. prison would only serve to worsen the initial issues that led them down that road to begin with
Taking drugs is not a moral issue. Stealing or mugging to fund a drug habit is. I don't particularly care what Brand puts in his veins so long as he doesn't mug my granny to pay for it.
+RossKempOnYourMum01 Yes, there's nothing unethical about taking drugs because the people who produce and supply them are all nice, non-violent people.
Gwasgray The reason the producers and suppliers of drugs are warlords/gangsters is BECAUSE the drug trade is illegal. It's the same as Al Capone during prohibition. There's no moral reason why a tomato farmer in Dorset couldn't produce marijuana instead. The reason is the law.
+RossKempOnYourMum01 That is a very Libertarian view which I respect and agree with. In case, you are looking for a argument against the very use of drugs. There some very good De ontological ones which are a good read.
No idea why anyone would debate someone like this voluntarily, especially with an absentee moderator. He talked over every single person who tried to make a point. Then he had the gall to talk about respectful and reasoned debate.
@@joshoverhoff2402 Christopher had a sense of humour which balanced him out into the most agile and dynamic speaker, he also never let bias or oddly personal vendettas flood his ego like Peter did off the get go.
Rob Smith What do you know of the Venetians, Conte ,Voltaire MI6 and its origins, Newton and the foundations of the British Empire, the Fabian Socialists, Tavistock, the work towards the vote ?.Just another putting his opinion around, using empty phrase.Skilled in the art of the uptake of standpoints on subjects, when your feet are free to giro and expand your scope Turn 90 degrees and you get a different standpoint. Feeble minds revelling in the glory of another souls Oxford education, weeping and gnashing their teeth. Here is some wisdom.Look inside your heart wormwood.You are the words you speak, waxing vicarious death without life, wretch.Realise your potential
sorry but educationis not the answert toward drugs.. if you are stupid enuff to take drugs you are doomed and stupid! tehre is no other way!if you a funing morron you dont desetv to life in long term...nature i nature.. ppl should start to use own mind! education? what education ? did they start to educat ppl about pregnacy in uk?and what it helped?
Hitchens does not debate seriously. He can't help but hijack the conversation and inadvertently make himself and his prejudices the focal point of any discussion he takes part in. He will be possessed by his ego for as long as he has a stiff upper lip...bygone times indeed.
Would love to hear a conversation between Dr Gabor Mate and Peter Hitchens on this matter. From what i've watched so far, no mention of how trauma and pain is rooted in addiction.
This was my experience with addition and many others I spoke who've had similar experiences. In my opinion however, the problem with Peter's argument is that to treat it solely as a criminal issue does not get to the heart of it and so the real help isn't offered but Russell's argument of it being 'a disease' is that it attempts to totally remove the responsibility of the individual in there participation of breaking a known law. I believe the solution is actually a combination of both.
As am I listening to this conversation and as a massive advocate for Dr Gabor Matè I could not agree with you more. The understanding he has of addiction is light years beyond Peter Hitchens.
@@fiftylester Hitchens is like a toddler compared to Gabor in this regard. Also I wonder if his stance has changed with the success of places like Portugal and Uruguay who have taken a much more compassionate and intelligent approach to drug decriminalization. The data shows that Peter is straight up wrong.
Exactly. I don't think anyone psychologically healthy would experiment with hard drugs, such as methamphetamine, fetanol, heroine, and others, needless to say become addicted.
Hitchens seems to overlook the fact that most so-called addicts do get arrested and sent to prison (often for long periods) but they show up statistically as robberies etc.
@@MrDenzal27 I wish you well. I am not disputing your post but I don’t want youngsters to think heroin is less dangerous than alcohol. I’m sure you don’t want that either.
@@jazzman1954 That's not what he said now was it? You don't die from withdrawal, that is not the same as an overdose. You can overdose on anything, even water.
@@Alexlamb442 so you can’t say Brand was calling Hitchens out “for being” a homophobe, as that’s making the assumption that he is. And if one cares to listen to Hitchens, he doesn’t care about the issue enough to hate them.
The biggest thing that Peter misses in his argument is that a lot of the people who engage in drug taking do not buy into the system that he suggests would deter them. I grew up around people who didn’t fear prison because they didn’t value life
@@lifeisajourney268 untrue. It's clandestine and reports manipulated. Many countries with the harshest penalties for drug users have outrageous drug problems
Yes, perhaps it’s too much to expect people who already break the law to stop doing so simply because the drugs have been outlawed. The only way I see now is to stop the drugs from ever being made to begin with... Because once they are produced, the people who are addicted to them and those addicted to their profit will do almost anything for their next fix.
I've been looking for the words to summarize Russell brand, he sounds smart, but he just kindov spins his wheels round and round until the audience either claps or laughs and he's let off the hook.
The problem with Hitchens' idea is that it assumes drug users will act rationally, which of course they won't. No one takes drugs thinking the inevitable adverse consequences will fall on them. If drug users were deterred by consequences they wouldn't be using drugs in the first place.
@valleywoodworker No Peter is saying he believes that prison in a country where that is used as an absolute punishment, would be an effective deterrent, where as consideringphlebas is saying , if it hasnt worked in any country so far ( of which there are many that do enforce they way peter wants it to be and even have capitol punishment) , and the conquences that arise from being addicted including death or poverty aren't enough to detract people from taking drugs then it simply makes no sense to assume it will work now in this country
Hitchens' main fear is that people would become controlled by the drugs, and therefore drugs cannot be part of a free and functional society. I can see his point there, but his conclusions about the means to ending that control are completely self-contradictory. He thinks that the government has not enforced their laws properly, but when asked how we could possibly afford to admit that many drug-possessing convicts (hundreds of thousands of people) to prison, he has no answer other than "Well, you send SOME people to prison to deter everyone else"............ Which is what the government has been doing, by only half-enforcing their laws. I respect Peter Hitchens, but on this issue, he is just arguing circularly, and clearly has some sort of personal issue with drug addicts.
Your attempt at presenting a straw man argument in the place of what he meant has failed. If we have a hundred people, and 1 uses drugs, punish him. If another uses drugs, punish him too. Eventually, the other 98 will not try to use drugs. This is what he meant... If every drug user was actually punished, people would stop taking the risk of being punished.
@@numbers7n How is that a strawman? I just summed his argument up in a few words. An argument he literally makes in this video, and one you just repeated. 'Punish some to deter them all', basically. Which is what the government has been doing. And it isn't working. You honestly think that there are no criminal convictions for drug possessions in this country? Whether it's to punish 2/100, 1/100 or 1/1000 is irrelevant. Laws should always be enforced equally. The Rule of Law can't just be subjugate to petty social concerns, otherwise we lose justice, and with justice goes freedom.
The policies that Russell brand is trying to emphasise here, has been working well in Portugal with lower crime lower deaths less illnesses and had been categorically classed a complete success, so why wouldn't we want to follow suit into something that is quite clearly working?
+Bobishere yes the drug policies here in Britain quite clearly don't work, if we don't change the nappy we will still have the same old shit! It baffles me why the government is scared of change when it's been proven to work in other countries?
+Bobishere I'm unaware of there procedures? although I am aware of human rights problems within China so I'm going to guess they probably enforce the death penalty for certain drug activities & problems? Something I'd be totally against.
Yes - but Peter's purported disengagement with the idea that a comedian might have something of an intrinsically philosophical bent to say, leave son easking what was that in Woody Allen, John Cleese, Lenny Bruce, hell Erasmus, etc ....??
exactly.....started off by implying he has no compassion and is a bigot.....ie. you're the bad guy and by default I'm the good guy and must be right...he's wrong
This clip seems ancient now. The idea that you could jail everyone taking drugs is universally accepted as mental but I like the lively debate. It’s way better having polar opposites debating, it shows the middle ground the best.
Way to miss the point. Hitchens is saying you don't have to jail everyone, you set an example by enforcing the drug laws at zero tolerance which acts as a deterrent against widespread drug taking. Most illicit drug users don't want to go to jail, but if they believe the justice system to be a toothless tiger, which it has become, nobody takes the law seriously. When I took drugs if I thought for one moment I could land a custodial sentence for possession, I'd have been deterred where my own willpower failed me. Funny how deterrence works in countries that use their laws to set an example, and their prisons are less full because of it. It sends out a message, and that is the old saying, crime doesn't pay.
@@VolatileFroggy , hardly a great debate, it's like threw against one, with the main one of those, Russell Brand, behaving like a spoiled child, pulling silly provocative faces.
Newsnight in a nutshell - "The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there's free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate." - Noam Chomsky - Do they ever question the illegitimacy of coercive governance?
Then you are refusing to look outside of that limited spectrum that Chomsky refers to. The BBC is the worst kind of propaganda as it has the majority of people fooled into thinking they are getting an objective assessment of events when they are merely being fed partial information that affirms the perceptions about the inherently corrupt system that we live under. The most effective form of slavery is when people have just enough comfort and autonomy to believe they are genuinely free. Free range slavery if you like. Try not doing what the government demands and see how free you are.
Don't imagine, don't question, don't think for yourself. Who do you think you are, George Orwell? When a news media tows the official political line it's not journalism, it's public relations. I'm afraid you are ignoring the facts that challenge your belief system rather than changing your views to fit the facts. That is a mindset that is impossible to reason with.
Funny how Peter Hitchens accused Russell Brand of "ad-hominem and interruption" when he was the one who immediately launched a personal attack against Russell instead of discussing the actual topic at hand...
@@danbreen6946 ...no, just someone who is skilled in regards to communication, both spoken and unspoken. Russell Brand himself is a master when it comes to communicating ideas and ideologies, which is why he was considered to be one of the smartest and funniest comedians in the world for nearly 20 years. Until he started speaking out against the establishment and its elites, of course...
Peter Hitchens is a brilliant debater even when facts are not on his side. In fairness to Russell there are more addicts now because population has doubled since 40 years ago, the rate of drug addiction in many countries has stayed stable with population growth.
@@goodyeoman4534 _Recovering_ addict. That was uncalled for, considering they acknowledged their own weakness. They agreed with Hitchens that it's a matter of will.
@@goodyeoman4534 It was the "you're just weak and self-indulgent" I was saying was uncalled for, considering the poster had since corrected course. I understand what you're driving at regarding addiction. I agree insofar as conscious people have free will, but the way I see it: at a certain point we're talking about creatures of impulse, people that have effectively relinquished their free will to chase a never-ending high. At that stage they are practically a wild dog. This is why Hitchens' call for deterrents is the proper way to correct course. We don't correct a feral dog's behaviour by comforting it and saying 'it's okay, I forgive you', we apply appropriate deterrents and with time the behaviour corrects itself. Over time they gain greater impulse control and their natural impulses are directed towards more healthy habits.
It's easy not to take drugs if you decide beforehand that you will never do drugs. Many years ago when I was in my early 20s, I drove a local junkie home and his mother assumed I was one of his cronies.. she verbally and almost physically attacked me.. I had to drive away fast as she proceeded to start hitting my car with her fists.. Though I got a chance to speak with her some time later and explain the misunderstanding; she broke into tears speaking about how her son cannot seem to break the habit.. It was that incident that reinforced my will to never even try drugs; witnessing the wreck they cause to people's lives. Perhaps I am just lucky.. I am 40 and to this day I have never considered taking any form of hard substance. I did some weekend drinking as a young man, but even that wasn't really fun once I reached my mid 20s. I sometimes buy some beers for guests and if I don't have someone over for months; those leftover beers will be still there in the fridge.. some have even gone past their expiry date in the past.
No there not. I'm 66 years old and have been through my own drug hell. There are two sides to nearly everything and to make a statement like you did I suspect you have not seen enough of the nasty side of drugs. Having said that neither has PH and I get that as well@@feonor26
***** If you can't figure out what 'rekt' might be an abbreviation of then I'm afraid you won't be able to figure out much else. So, as the generous samaritan that I am, I will help you. 5 months ago you replied to a comment with an ignorant, cheap gutter snipe. Then you got destroyed by the subsequent replies. So much so that I nearly spat out my cereal when reading them. Better luck next time.
***** Reason & empathy are not mutually exclusive, in fact, they're both needed to make the best of any situation. One without the other is pointless. Hitchens' also fails at using reason. "It's against the law, therefore it's wrong"... if that were solid reasoning, then laws would never change. His idea that society would be better if its laws were draconian is demonstrably false.
***** Stop stroking your coveted "reason" ... your hubris and myopia aren't astounding, they are merely a sad example of what's out there. Your opinion of Russell's comedy is noted. It is ONLY your opinion. Others may share it... and it's still an opinion. You don't really "know" anything. ... and by default, neither do I.
I remember watching this at the time and strongly agreeing with Russell. Watching it back now, 10 years later, while I don’t agree with the point that Hitchens is making, I do think Russell damaged his argument by being so obtuse, while Hitchens actually comes across as more reasonable.
I like both but Peter is totally ignorent of various experiences, he literally interrupted Russells time to speak at the start. Peter is rich, relatively, easy to enjoy life when you've money.
Merv van der Swerv addiction is a state of mind. You can become addicted to many things, but as pointed out in the video, it's the harm, cost in life, money and resources. Criminalise drugs effectively and you'd have less people use them. Currently they are ten a penny, easily and result available. But the police do very little except stop cars.
Merv van der Swerv so you're telling me that addiction isn't a state of mind? Because otherwise your saying that an drug addict must have his addiction fed forever otherwise. To stop the addiction as some addicts do it comes down to mental willpower.
Merv van der Swerv my brothers heroin addiction wasn't treated as a medical condition. It was down to him to break the addiction through family support and will power. You can become addicted to anything. To stem the addiction it requires willpower and the mental choice too abstain.
kashmiripunditadkaul Unbeknownst to many who consider themselves mature through the rejection of humour is that humour is an intrinsic part of human nature and as such is an important facet of inter-human relation. Those who are not developed enough to include it are a paradox of their own argument that it is juvenile, because they have simply not matured enough to accept it.
Brent Proctor Apparently, in the Brandian Universe, a rejection of a particularly juvenile attempt at humour equals to a complete rejection of humour and all that is 'natural'. That was not embarrassing for you at all then! :-)
Brent Proctor A quite elegant putdown, sir. Nicely put. kashmiripundi - humour is still humour, irespective of whether you personally find it amusing or not, trying to convince others that they are somehow less sophisticated for laughing at something that you didn't is pointless and silly.
Very possibly because the so called deterrent is laughably lenient with regard to the crimes committed. These days the victims seem to suffer far more than the perpetrators, which is absolute bullshit. Justice for those wronged becomes non-existent. Sad but true and it's getting worse. [ in my opinion ]
Hitchens is speaking from his cosseted position of his ivory tower. He has failed to grasp, or chosen to ignore, the reasons for addiction in the first place, and therefore his argument is entirely flawed. People taking Hitchen's standpoint have left the door wide open for the RBs to come in and dominate this subject. My opinion.
As a former addict, I agree with Peter, deterrence is the best method, trust me. I mean I disagree with Peter's on many other things, but the problem is deterring people from ever trying because that inevitably will lead to addiction.
***** I feel as though that is a defeatist mentality. Because prevention is the best cure for it. Of course deterrence won't work for everyone, but it seems as though prevention is not nearly as stressed as getting rid of it after the fact. If we truly spend more time deterring people from it, it would much more beneficial and effective than trying to solve the problem after it occurs. And I feel as though Brand has almost given up trying to stop people from becoming addicts and focus more on helping them after they become it, which is much more difficult.
***** I never said we should give up on current addicts, but to actually get rid of this problem for good in the future we should be preventing people from ever becoming addicts as the best method. Prevention beats treatment every time.
John Baker But your experience of addiction may not be the same for everyone. I do grant that drugs are a slippery slope but the fact is is that lots of people who do not use "hard"-er drugs like heroin, methamphetamine and prescription stimulants/opiods, don't develop bad habits. Still a few do, I grant, but even close to all.
Beau Jaco Actually I was specifically referring to those hard drugs. I have been in groups who share their experiences on addiction and there was a clear pattern among us all.
Peter has a deep psychological problem being a lesser mortal than his brother. Chris clearly liked a drink and his addiction to booze and fags was probably what killed him. That is the ONE area of life that Peter thinks he had one up on this brother, so he uses his unhinged POV on addiction to attack his brother in his grave.
Hitchens is right in saying that prison should be scary enough that less people commit crimes, although Brand is correct in suggesting that prison itself doesn't necessarily provide good motivation to heal as a person and rehabilitate.
Wow, Peter Hitchens is obnoxious. First attacking russel brand for being a comedian, and therefore having no valid opinion, then complaining about ad hominems... How can you have a brother like Christopher Hitchens and still be so bad at argumenting.
@@topologyrob indeed, my opinion evolved over the 7 years since I wrote that comment 😂 Edit: still think chris was much better at making compelling arguments
But if Peter’s arguments are so robust, and Russell’s so weak, why does he need to resort to trying to disqualify Russell’s involvement in this type of discussion on the basis of him being a “comedian”? Russell is an articulate man with with 1st hand knowledge of addiction and people who are addicts. Peter provides Russell with an invitation to wind him up by being so uptight hence the perculiar child comment and the homophobia bating at the end
Russell Brand is a drug recovering drug addict who has, I suspect, way, way more experience and knowledgable on the subject than our friend Peter. And more than you I'd imagine. I think your criticism is unfounded and unfair.
How could an ex addict know less than P. Hitchens about drugs? Hitchens is being argumentative, but the USA use his recommended approach, and they are drowning in drugs. (Criminalise a person for hurting themselves, way to go, Peter.)
Mark Jones exactly in the USA we can't even keep drugs out of federal prisions or state prisions. Billions are spent on trying to keep people from hurting themselves with a substance but people eat, drink and smoke their way into a early and medicaly expensice grave daily. That's ok though, but if they destroy themselves with a drug it's bad.
@@summercoat To be fair, to the discerning public, isn’t the alleged, lewd, narcissistic garrulous, word salad spewing, satanick Masonick Entertainment Industry enabled, multimillionaire, deceiver, controlled opposition shill-sellout, Brand, ain’t a suitable candidate for any form of logical debate, end off!
@@gerhard7323 The argument that someone being a recovering addict is qualified to talk about drug policy is much like arguing that someone with cancer should have special insight into oncology. Personally, I would rather people who have studied oncology treat me for cancer, rather than someone who has merely suffered from it.
Completely agree. Massive charlatan Every interview/ public appearance is a desperate attempt to put himself forward as a serious thinker. He knows a couple of 'big' words which he spouts constantly but has no overall command of the english language
I would like to remind the audience that this broadcaster is staffed up with recreational drug takers who started at university, and they engage drug taking entertainers.
Hitchens is incredibly wrong here. While I agree that the characterization of addiction as a disease is stretch, he obviously has no true understanding of addiction. Yes, addicts are, on some level, freely doing the drug. But they're are caught is a vicious cycle and in some cases, death can result simply from stopping the drug. It isn't nearly as simple as he's making it out to be. But more to the point, why is it illegal in the first place? Drugs are only a problem if they are a problem. Deal with each individual case. If someone steals for drugs then they should be charged with theft, not drug use. Of drugs were legal use the majority of crime associated with it disappears.
lew johnston I never remotely suggested that addiction wasn't real. I was a smoker for nearly twenty years so I'm well aware of what addiction is. I merely suggested that categorizing addiction as a disease is a bit of a stretch. Hitchens' point was that it's voluntary. Cancer isn't. Doing drugs is as I am keenly aware. While it is very difficult to stop using, drug addiction cannot be categorized in the same way as childhood leukemia, for example. Cancer patients can't choose to stop having cancer. Addicts can choose to stop using. And while I'm aware that it can be incredibly difficult and even dangerous in some instances to stop using, one can make the choice. And that changes everything.
Ed Gloss Stopping cold turkey from alcohol can actually kill you, worse than Heroin and I think you know how bad Heroin withdrawals can be. So at that point of addiction, you can't just stop, you need help (some don't want it) but the humane thing is to try and not just lock them up.
lew johnston Christopher Hitchens wasn't necessarily an addict to smoking. He smoked and drank because he enjoyed it and his philosophy was that if he didn't enjoy himself in life there was no point to continuing to live it.
Well people agree on some things and not on others that’s what happens when you’re a thinking human and not an NPC who parrots the views of your “”side””
Peter's take on drugs is still ridiculous. He would do well to read up on what St Augustine wrote about legislating against vice (spoiler: he was against it), since he's a Christian.
I don't understand how Christopher Hitchens could be such an amazing person and such a logical and well-thought out person who was a joy to watch during religious debates; while his brother Peter is the opposite and someone you wish would just shut up or slap across the face.
indeed and everytime i have seen peter on a program he seems to be incapable of actually looking anyone in the eye - it seems he doesnt really engage in conversation but ijust talks at people and is more intent on discerning immediately any sleight against him - he is in a perpetual state of self-defense - like a lot of outspoken conservatives
boggles the mind. i was/am a big christopher hitchens fan, but didn't know much about his brother and i was excited when i learned of his brother. well, it's safe to say, im disappointed.
one is intelligent, witty, charismatic & liberal, the other is very low-intelligence, monotonous, ignorant and uber-conservative who has a serious chip on his shoulder about his brothers success.
Shane Donaghy Peter is a sad, pathetic individual who can't help himself. His inner sadist got the better of him and he read a biblical passage from St Paul's Epistle to the Philippians at Christophers funeral. I guess the ultimate revenge for a jealous, inferior, religious nutter sibling of a far more famous intellectual avowed atheist brother is to denigrate his life and what he stood for by doing such a thing. The fact religious people act in this way is just one more reminder of how often sad and pathetic religious people can be.
how is that ironic? Peter Hitchens is a Christian - his brother was anything but....go look up the word ironic and then have a think about your use of the word
@@tiarnan76 Christianity doesn't have anything to do with it. 480,000 deaths from tobacco and 100,000 deaths from alcohol every year in the US alone. The war on drugs should be the war on cigarettes and alcohol.
@@tiarnan76 The conversation I thought was about addiction. It seems you have an addiction of your own and are blindsided by it. Irony covers a broad range of usage including the situation @ Jason Landers was obviously refering to. Take it how one will, but Christopher Hitchens will have firmly disagreed with Peter Hitchens on his stance on the issue of drug addiction and quite rightly so!
how is it wrong? if there was 20 year punishments in place for drug takers, you think that wouldnt stop most drug users? if you say no, then I do not think you understand people in general
@@James_36 it wouldn't stop it, if anything it makes the drug users resort down more secretive avenues. None of us understand people as we are all different.
It didn't scare me to go to prison for drugs. Ive been there 4 times. I wasted 7 yrs in state prison here in NJ. I stopped when I had enough running and chasing for the drugs. I was tired of doing the things I had to do for the drugs. Prison was only a big day camp. We get everything there as well. Prison had drugs and plenty of sex so basically prison for me was a place to relax and kick back for a few yrs. This way when I hit the streets again I only needed a little but of drugs to get me high again. My tolerance was low and by the time I built it back up to were I had to do all these crazy things again I would be back in jail. It was a cycle. So no asshole prison isn't scary. It's a day camp. It doesn't stop people. You have to want it. You have to know how to live a normal life again which is what rehab teaches you. You gave to know yourself again. Know what you like and enjoy in life. Prison only teaches you how to get and use drugs better and easier.
Female and male prisons are very different, it might have been a picnic for you, but when it comes to being a man it's more likely a case of aggression and survival of the fittest.
This debate goes nowhere on either side. I know a mixture of people from ALL walks of life that have abused opiates, cannabis, alcohol, cigarettes - you name it. Some of these people can dive in and out of use with long periods of remission, some dabble momentarily and never again, and others don't stop until absolute oblivion. The one thing the latter group all have in common is that they're all performing some form of avoidance and compensation ritual. When someone doesn't know how to handle a traumatic event, a deep rooted inadequacy, depression / chemical imbalances and a host of other psychological issues, drugs remain a reliable tool in coping with such problems. Yes drug abuse IS a disease, but the cure lies in bringing forward the notion that the disease is based in ones psychological make-up, caused by nature and nurture. People in poorer areas have higher rates of substance abuse because their lives aren't fulfilling, we need to help people to be happy and to not need these substances in the first place, that is true drug rehab. Much like the flawed rat in a cage experiment where the rat was given a drip with cocaine and - big surprise - the rat consumed the cocaine until it died, but this doesn't mean that with humans every person who touches these drugs will go the same way. These rats were in cages void of any other stimulus - they later recreated the experiment but gave the rats company, stimulating toys and other things to play with, and no rat prioritised the cocaine over any other activity. Open your eyes people.
Thank you ,you are right the other name for drug use is medicating, people in pain often self medicate regardless of the consequences ,when asked they will say things like : anything is better than the anguish I feel in my normal life ,due to ,say parental child abuse ,loss of a child,partner ill or dying or any of lifes other trials.The methods Mr Brand is advocating hopefully address these trials and methods of surviving them.Punishing someone into compliance,or the threat of it does not work ,if it did we would be governed into ,and by Nazis.Lest we forget..
Rob Earley drug abuse is a crime. drug addiction is a health problem. things which turn people to the drugs can be diseases such as mental disorders. some people just want to get fucked up with the lads however.
'avoidance and compensation ritual' sounds like pseudo-scientific waffle to me. drug users choose to take drugs and break the law. they are not the victims; their families are, the community is, the taxpayer is.
Has Peter ever been to prison. I was on a jury in court once and the overwhelming truth that I came away with was that more people come out of jail addicted to drugs than go in. The idea that jail prevents people from taking drugs is pure fantasy.
He's an experienced old school journalist, he always does his research before pronouncing on matters. There are times, although rare, in interviews where he'll say he can't comment on something because he has no knowledge or care about the subject matter. He's been to numerous British prisons. His approach is more what British justice used to be, firm but fair (don't read 'perfect', there's no such system in history, as humans are fallible), and both Japan and South Korea now, and our history of tougher justice at a more zero tolerance has proven to deter widespread crime, including illicit drug buying and possession - as demand drives supply in any market, punishing the users impacts on the dealers. I think the Americans called it the Broken Window policy, nip crime in the bud early, and it sends out a message of deterrence to would be law breakers. The research shows that sadly many people who eventually land a custodial sentence have become hardened criminals created in part by a lax justice system that has let them off time and again before for numerous lesser offences.
Seeing there combined passion on the subject is perfection This should have been allowed to go on longer The complete confliction of both peoples views allowed it to so perfectly get both points across bloody miss good debates :/
If we use Russell Brand's logic, I think we should also treat burglars, murderers, paedophiles, etc with kindness and compassion and see them as human beings in the hope that they don't do it again....
All those crimes necessarily involve a victim. Someone goes out of their way to harm someone else, which justifies criminal punishment. Taking drugs is necessarily a victimless crime. You're not harming anybody but yourself when you decide to drink a cup of coffee or having a beer, and the same goes for heroin users.
@@stizzylank6684 I in no way agree with the current laws on drugs, and your point has some merit. However, in order for your logic to have merit, you have to break down what we mean by “drugs”, as some drugs are far from victimless crime, and when you mention heroin, you are completely wrong Should individual 1 who goes out on a Saturday night to a club, drops ecstasy with friends, maybe does a line or two, has a great time, taxis home without causing any trouble, smokes some weed on his come down, and then gets up for work Monday morning be treated as a criminal? That’s victimless crime. He didn’t hurt anybody, rob anybody and funded it all himself. I think the law needs changing to decriminalise weekend party people. But individual 1 is currently treated same under the law, or even worse, as a individual 2, the heroin addict who burgles homes, mugs people and steals from shops to fund their addiction. That is in no way victimless, takes up masses of police time, and ruins many many family homes. I know, as it’s happened to me. Far from victimless. Russel Brand wants us to treat these people with compassion and empathy….he’s fucking deluded. These people need to be locked up in solitary, no access to drugs…that will break the habit. Then when they’re off the shit, you’ll find out if they really want to change.
@@oldskoolrools3087 The only reason people resort to petty crime to pay for drugs is because drug prohibition & the toxic supply & increased pricing of drugs created by it directly cause it to happen. A dose of lab made heroin is safer for human consumption than a beer. Illicit heroin is contaminated by drug dealers to contain extremely addictive and potent non-heroin additives. A legal clean safe supply would see this type of behaviour massively decreased. Sure, alcohol is legal & we still see people committing petty crimes to pay for that drug, but if it were illegal we'd see hundreds of thousands more people in this situation. All drugs are equal. There's no such thing as good drugs, bad drugs, harmless drugs or dangerous drugs. Its all relative &, most importantly, it all very heavily depends on legal status. When a drug is illegal, all related harms skyrocket. Prohibition of drugs caused all these issues you brought up, & ending the prohibition of drugs would rectify all of them
@@stizzylank6684 Fair point on the prohibition and effect on pricing. Prohibition simply puts money in the pockets of criminals in my view, and leads to no end of violence. Seems to me there’s a quite a bit of common ground shared here. “All drugs are equal”….I don’t agree with this statement though. For want of a better expression, in my view, there are “good drugs” and “bad drugs”. The good drugs are the ones that people take on a weekend and have a good time. The bad ones are the ones that people take on a daily basis, as they have lost control. Control is the key, and for some people, heroin and the nasty drugs will control them. People will always take drugs. Decriminalize the weekend drugs, and focus resources on education and stopping people taking the nasty drugs....we can all have a good time then....
@@oldskoolrools3087 What constitutes a "bad drug" would you say? Is someone who uses caffeine on a daily basis using a bad drug? Prohibition makes drugs as dangerous as they are. A dose of lab-made non-contaminated heroin is safer to use than a pint of beer. It all comes back to prohibition. During alcohol prohibition, alcohol related deaths skyrocketed as the market was run entirely by the black market, just like the current heroin market. Control is absolutely the key. If all drugs were produced and sold under strict regulation like alcohol and caffeine, then all drugs would necessarily be as safe as can possibly be.
It's amazing that this guy uses the "think of the children" line as (somehow) an argument for super-harsh drug penalties, and refusing to see drug addiction as a health issue. Seriously, Hitchens needs to do some serious deep thinking and research.
This was 11 years ago, and drugs are now worse than ever. I've news for you, in another 11 years they will be a lot worse still. Another strategy is needed.
That is literally the question I've been asking recently. I really want to know; they sounds so alike. I wonder though if I can imagine HG Tudor having these kinds of views. And Peter Hitchens doesn't seem very self aware. I'm tempted to ask HG Tudor to analyse Peter Hitchens...
Dear Peter Hitchens, you may share the eloquence of your brother, but you don't enjoy his wisdom. You're too far up yourself. Did he ever tell you that?
FunForAllTheFamily10 This discussion seems to me to be an open forum to discuss those ideals, maybe not the most appropriate by never the less it is a open discussion in which you are free to express you ideals no matter how sickening people may find them, it is your right in western culture, and on your comment of an "Un-Biased" discussion such a thing does not exist, for every person has an opinion and has the right to voice it, for or against everybody's argument stems from some kind of personal bias, be it the values you were raised with or actions/words that you have encountered during your days. A Computer is un biased as far as to its input from the human user. All humans have opinion making them biased. anyway what are you trying to say? that you are playing devils advocate or you are defending yourself from the majority who view drug addiction as an illness? I say majority only because of the way this discussion is swinging. Please feel free to voice you opinion in any fashion you desire and not fear reprisal.
FunForAllTheFamily10 Wow. That was very dramatic and several notches over the top. Plus, well written except for the usual typos. But really, you can't successfully argue the strength of a notion based on a handful of early adopters versus the masses who still cling to the old notions and ideals. The popularity of an idea or theory does not define it's innate truth, or lack thereof. But then you switch to saying WE'RE the brainwashed "majority". Um, which one is the majority... the first group (them), or the second group (us)? Also, thanks for clearing-up any questions about your religion. Yes, we are all going to hell after the great oppression of your beliefs. Oh, and just a stupid opinion, but there is NO left or right. It's a fabrication. There is only humanity, ill or well.
Ah ... starting at the back, my faith in "what"? would be my first question. Believe, me, I see the evils (and good) that comes from dogma. It is a powerful "force", for sure. Western religions may be folding and erroding, but the rest of the world's religions seem to be going well, non? I'd love to get a deeper description of you inner version of this "wannabe-globalist illusion". What does that look like to you? Agreed, there is a LOT of mindlessness and mental decay evidenced online, all over the place, IRC, facebook, twitter, multiplayer games, minecraft, etc. etc. I do see a LOT more going on than just that, but honestly, unemotional, intelligent dialogue can be a bit of a reach for many people while typing their comments and responses. Thanks for the compliment. While I do have an opinion, and yes a love for Mr. Brand, I also endeavor to type with a bit of humour and very little malice. We're all humans here, having an exchange... it doesn't need to ever get bloody or ridiculous. I know it does a lot of times ... mainly, I challenge all beliefs, not just the olde ones. Regardless, after watching and thinking, I will always have my own innate sense of what's right and what is not so good. But we all do, don't we, regardless of which "good book" we are using, or what verses don't serve us as well as others.
His brother Christopher had a much better and realistic view of drugs. Peter's solution is "Just stop them from taking it". O'RLY Peter?! Nobody have ever thought of that before now have they?!? Cause that has worked SO WELL these last 60 years since Nixon's "War on drugs". The "Just say no" campaign, remember that bullshit?! How well that worked. Ohh...and just put them in prison, cause there's absolutely no drugs in prison, right?!
Nope. Nobody won. Certainly not Hitchens. He is just an opinionated posh megaphone that shouts people down. He doesn't deserve to speak on the subject with no understanding of it whatsoever. He is coming at it from a law perspective, the same perspective that has failed this past 100+ years as 'the war on drugs', he just wants to be 'stronger'. 'cos that'll work.. The current thinking that IS working round the world is treating it as the illness that it is - that people have a mental illness where they are no longer in control of what they are doing (something Hitchens says is impossible, yet all medical journals and experts agree that addiction is a real condition. If it didn't exist, people wouldn't end up on the streets selling themselves, they'd simply stop.) For a Christian he sure doesn't like the idea of love or compassion for people suffering, he wants to lock troubled people up. That's his solution.. when it comes to drugs - more punishment for either the curious or the troubled. What about alcohol? His great solution doesn't cover legal drugs - there is no deterrent for the legal. If you're prone to alcoholism and don't even know it, then drinking is a lottery - or are alcoholics just people without the willpower to stop? He really didn't think it through, just dived in with an opinion and tried to back it up.
Hitchens is right, we should just do what the authorities in countries like Thailand do and use extremely punitive measures to deter people from using drugs in the first place. Just look at their prisons, there's hardly anyone drug users in them......Oh no, wait........... Why is anyone giving this foul little man a place to spout his nonsense!?
06afeher It's not the laws that deter them, there are many reasons but, the biggest reason is the fact that they aren't awash with drugs. Look at Afghanistan, where 90% of the worlds Heroin comes from, look at the drug problem there, it's huge! The West, and a lot of far Eastern countries, are already flooded with drugs and have strongly established drug cultures, if you think more punitive measures will change that, then you really ought to research the subject better!!!
Watching Peter Hitchens and Russell Brand debate each other is joyful. It’s also great watching the last few seconds of the clip as Brand shouts various things out and Hitchens just silently glowers.
Stripes ... he didn’t need to debate, his experience was a case study in addiction. Peter Hitchens didn’t offer anything other than an antiquated view of addiction which is out of step with the overwhelming evidence of comparative drugs policies. His definitions of criminalisation/decriminalisation did not sit within the conversation either. How can you debate a topic when someone comes to a debate with an entirely irrelevant worldview which sits outside the realms of conventional logic. He couldn’t even contend with the idea that we do currently criminalise drug use. The fault of criminalisation is that ‘has’ not reduced drug addiction, and it does not act as a deterrent.
@@eju547 I'm guessing that his idea of criminalising addicts, especially drug addicts, is far more punative in terms of sentencing ... in fact, he may only be two steps away from a certain former Filipino president, whom practically wanted all drug addicts executed ... I doubt Peter Hitchins would go _that_ far, but, in order to make his idea of increasing the punitive nature of drug taking, that means turning Britian into a surveillance state, to the point that everyone lives in almost virtual paranoia, ala '1984' ...
As a foster carer of 30 years Peters attitude was wrong in my opinion…..there is not and never has been enough mental health care in the child care system …..scandalous
Russ Anthony he may never have burgled either. does that mean he's not entitled to an opinion? what state are we in when the only people allowed to comment on bad choices are those who've made those bad choices?
I just think it's situational. If you have been in the throes of addiction you will know it's more like stealing bread to feed your family rather than stealing a car to go joy riding. I agree that a person is responsible for the bad decisions that lead to a drug problem (ignoring any other external causation), but throwing an addict in prison and giving them no other choice than cold turkey is akin to torture. Unless you have felt withdrawals a person will never TRULY understand what they are dealing with. I think peter Hitchens should spend a month on heroin and be thrown in a cell to detox with nothing. Then I will listen to every word he says with devoted attention.
Russ Anthony if it's torture then it will act as a deterrent. you haven't addressed Peters point at all. how do we end up with a society where people don't do these things in the first place?
Well I guess to eliminate the risk of abuse in the first place you have to eliminate physical and mental suffering. Stress anxiety, depression, dysmorphia, physical illnesses of selves and loved ones. No more pain medication for the sick and wounded. Sometimes there doesn't need to be a specific external antagonising factor. I've had problems all my life of restlessness of Both my mind and my body. To the point where I can't sit and watch TV or lay in bed without the incessant compulsion to move my limbs. On top of that my mind can't rest. Not because I'm worried about bills or whatever, it can literally be as trivial as having a song stuck on loop in my mind. But the idea of silencing it is simply unachievable to me. Addiction is a result of medicating a problem or several problems, not because people do it for a few thrills and then "oops, now I can't stop". I've worked full time in a profession since the day I left school. I've been to college, done well academically, worked my way up through some promotions, acquired professional qualifications. Payed tax on every pound I've ever earned, yet I fell. During recovery, I was very ill. When your brain is depleted of the external substances it no longer functions properly, and one of the most dangerous results results is the thoughts of suicide. A way to end an unimaginable suffering. The problems you had before are amplified by a hundred. And the scariest thought of all? Well that is that, after you successfully recover, well, you won't be cured, you'll just be back to square one. It would be nice if we were all a successful creation of whatever god is out there. Filled with contentment for the way things are. The truth though is that we are nowhere near the end of our evolution. Most of us are flawed, broken, faulty, prone to error. Whether it's a probability of developing cancer, or a mental disorder. Throw someone like that into a world filled with hate, conflict, malice, racism, poverty, pain and just expect them to integrate into the repetitive, mundane social norms were all expected to conform to. Just take our shoe laces away from us though. Then we'll be fine.
He is an educated man, not an experienced one on this matter, this doesn't mean he has no valid points... he is not happy with the bull shit no real solutions from the government .... He is also pissed that Russell is doing the show for the BBC and he is not as he thinks he's at the forefront of knowledge on this topic as I think at that time he had put out a book discussing the failed war on drugs... some of his solutions are dated but the man knows what he is talking about, they should be working together. The bbc should really get them to work together this would possibly bare some good result but no the BBC love when the classes are at war!
Hitchens accuses him of ad hominem. Please. Pot calling the kettle. I don't know if Brand is right but he comes off as at least a nice guy. What's the British term for Hitchens that I'm looking for here? Wanker?
@@begshallots Brand isn't right..he is interested in this issue insofar as it relates to how his former life is viewed by his audience... That's the way narcissists work...
Ellis Bell I wonder if I can stand by any comment I made two years ago. Interesting how nothing is totally gone. Interesting and scary. Maybe in two years I won’t find it frightening at all.
Only when in his comfort zone and cheered on by his admirers. here he was fumbling for words and looking for support from the others with his nervous smiles. despite being outnumbered and constantly interrupted and abused, Hitchens made him look a twerp.
Peter Hitchens on Russell Brand... “you’ve got a programme on the BBC and I haven’t”. And that, Mr Hitchens, is why you are so peevish. What a shame you don’t have the debating skills of your late brother! Russell, I for one admire your courage in the unremitting fighting of your addictions.
