Chandler from FRIENDS vs Peter Hitchens

[Tubey]

Seen this the other night on Newsnight. Hitchens is a bell as usual, tougher sentences for drug possession will do nothing to deter addicts but if you want to stop an addiction the addict must take responsibility and I think you definitely need will power as he says.I think its a bit of a kop out to say' I have an addictive personality' or' my brain makes me this way' or whatever as an excuse.

Perry wasn't saying any different though - he clearly says people need to want to stop to stop.

Hitchens is basically 99% wrong, and the 1% he's right on is common sense so doesn't count.

 

[Clint Planet]

Is the media really so troll like these days? This so called debate had no other intention other than to whip up anger. That kind of behaviour would be banned on here. Really poor.

Really? Surely there are two (or more!) views on this issue and by getting two opposites clashing on TV it stimulates debate at home (and the thinking process generally). Funny how "libertarians" want to control the debate when it suits them.

So, who do you side with, BW? Hitchens or Perry?

 

[Clint Planet]

Dependency is scientifically proven, and I am surprised that the doctor didn't state that.

At the end of the day Hitchens is right, but he is ignoring the complexity that surrounds psychological addiction. It is a battle that takes place inside the head, the user does have a choice as to whether they use or not, but you are dealing with drugs that alter brain chemistry, which stimulate the reward pathways that have played a key role in our evolution as human beings.

You can't apply sound logic to addiction (If it's causing you harm then stop bloody doing it) because addiction is illogical, the addict genuinely considers their need for drugs to be of greater importance than their health. The same can be applied to numerous other diagnosable impulse control disorders, like excessively repeated nail biting, hair pulling or skin picking. Just saying "Stop it, your harming yourself" doesn't cut it, addiction is a mental health problem.

So it isn't a matter of "You can stop when you want", it's a matter of re-programming your brain to not want drugs. For some people this will come naturally, but other people need to join cults like AA or NA in order for them to make changes. The reason people say AA is like a cult is because it is one, but it works for many people. CBT also works with the objective of altering the way an individual thinks. But if the individual doesn't want to change the way their brain thinks then it won't work, which is why I am inclined to agree with the doctor when she said that the drug courts have a similar success rate to voluntary treatment.

I'm very skeptical of all that Portugal nonsense, that drug induced harm is being decreased now that it's decriminalised, and that the numbers in treatment have suddenly sky rocketed, and that their experiences are now immensely better than everywhere else. Yeah right. As I've just said, the addict will or will not make changes when they are ready to do so. They will need support to do this, but if they aren't interested then it won't happen.

We already have similar interventions to the US drug courts in the UK. The legislation used within the Drug Intervention Programme makes similar, if not identical, orders to that of a US drugs court. It's just that we don't have a specific court for these issues, and issues regarding children will be dealt with within public law family proceedings.

Very good post. Max rep.

 

[Clint Planet]

Oh cmon, it's popcorn tv. No better than when they had Russell Brand on or when This Morning have Katie Hopkins on. It's shameful stuff to get people wound up.

That Newsnight used to be a decent program merely compounds it.

Newsnight lines up two opposing sides on a certain issue. It's all carried out in a *fairly* civil and intelligent (if you can call Hitchens' contribution that) way.

Just what is your issue, Bruce? Not enough right-wing think tank statistics? The right-wing guy coming across as a div?

I certainly can't accept your stated grumble.

 

[Clint Planet]

and as hitchens said, you do need willpower to change.

...as both the others would happily acknowledge (as if they weren't aware of that!).

The point is, willpower alone is (often) not enough. There needs to be a better view of it than just that if we're to help the addicts. There has to be a support system in place too. It's not that hard to see that that's the case, surely?

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Newsnight lines up two opposing sides on a certain issue. It's all carried out in a *fairly* civil and intelligent (if you can call Hitchens' contribution that) way.

Just what is your issue, Bruce? Not enough right-wing think tank statistics? The right-wing guy coming across as a div?

I certainly can't accept your stated grumble.

I wouldn't have said it was any more intelligent than most of the debates we have on here. *shrug* Just would have expected a bit more, but they had on two complete polar opposites who ended up trading insults with each other. Can't see how that's constructive, and it's resulted in most people talking about the personalities involved and bugger all about the issue itself. I mean this thread has had practically zero debate about drug courts.

As for my personal take on things, whilst I've personally tried most things in my life, I'm now practically tea total, yet find it baffling how governments respond to drugs when the 3rd biggest cause of death in the world is perfectly legal (alcohol). Uruguay have the right approach imo.

There was a substance league table kind of thing produced not so long ago that ranked the danger and cost to society of the various substances, and alcohol and tobacco were above pretty much everything except heroin and cocaine.

All of which is probably off the point, but I know nothing about the process of beating addiction so can't add much to that.