Fair play to Peter Hitchens

Robroy36

Was anyone else watching Newsnight last night? Peter Hitchens and Matthew Perry had a tête-à-tête over, among other things, the current trend in society to absolve addicts of all responsibility by classing them as "ill" or "disabled". This particular line really struck a cord with me - certainly last week the debate about "addicts" terrorising people on the LUAS is one aspect of the sickening decline that we see on our own shores.

What do you think After Hours - is Hitchens right? Are we too quick to look past the person and classify any poor decisions people make in life as part of some sort of nebulous medical condition?

http://www.eveningtelegraph.co.uk/life/celebrity-life/matthew-perry-in-heated-newsnight-drugs-debate-1.166399

What's Chandler Bing doing talking about the Luas?

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

hitchens is a conservative, therefore has nothing worthwhile to say about anything and it can be safely assumed the opposite of what he says is the truth


also mother of ****, why is anybody listening to matthew perry about anything. he was only ever worthwhile when he was on coke.

Robroy36

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

hitchens is a conservative, therefore has nothing worthwhile to say about anything and it can be safely assumed the opposite of what he says is the truth

Very ignorant statement, to be honest I would treat anything you say in the same regard.

bootybouncer

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

hitchens is a conservative, therefore has nothing worthwhile to say about anything and it can be safely assumed the opposite of what he says is the truth


also mother of ****, why is anybody listening to matthew perry about anything. he was only ever worthwhile when he was on coke.

Harsh.......................he seems to have come through the worst part of his addictions

Nobody is worthwhile on coke ...............................

Dravokivich

Addiction is not an illness or a disability. There may be some sort of stumbling block that someone can't get through and they fall back into it. But their issue is they need support, not excuses for their inabilities.

SEPT 23 1989

I think the drug courts are an excellent idea

sbsquarepants

I have absolutely no idea who either of these people are, but for my 2 cents worth addicts of all description are responsible for their own actions, end of argument really.

Hande hoche!

Chandler Bing was my favourite of the friends. Their was that horror movie where he tuned into Justin Bieber.

Trevor Cortez Zambrano

In my opinion, Peter Hitchens is a most unlikable c*nt.

120_Minutes

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I have absolutely no idea who either of these people are, but for my 2 cents worth addicts of all description are responsible for their own actions, end of argument really.

Really? matthew perry? aka Chandler from friends? aka Benny from Fallout: New Vegas? Ryan from Go on?

Could you be any more of a piss taker?

Seaneh

Hitchens is a ****ing idiot.

He's arguing that further criminalising non-violent drug takers and throwing them in jail is good idea.

He has all the bollockology and say things to be controversial characteristics of his brother, who was also a ****ing prick and none of his intelligence.

Hande hoche!

I'm astonished that they are still making Calafornication.

Sir Humphrey Appleby

Robroy36 wrote: »

Very ignorant statement, to be honest I would treat anything you say in the same regard.

Making you equally as ignorant?

Robroy36

Bah Feckin Humbug! wrote: »

Making you equally as ignorant?

No, how do you come to that conclusion?

If you find someone to be ignorant / violent / repulsive, does ignoring and avoiding them make you equally ignorant / violent / repulsive?

sbsquarepants

120_Minutes wrote: »

Really? matthew perry? aka Chandler from friends? aka Benny from Fallout: New Vegas? Ryan from Go on?

Could you be any more of a piss taker?

Ha ha:D
I actually thought it was just someone with the same name:o:o Yea, I know Chandler alright, never heard of fall out or go on though!

Da Shins Kelly

Peter Hitchens is a gob****e. He's advocating the further criminalization of drug users, as if that's working so well as it is. :rolleyes: His arrogance and complete lack of understanding is astounding.

A big issue surrounding drug and alcohol problems is mental health. Throwing more people in jail is short-sighted, costly and ineffective, because it's not getting to the root of the problem. Telling people to simply have more willpower or just "get over it" is ludicrous, and frankly offensive.

Baroness Meacher spoke the most sense out of the lot of them. I think she could have taken Hitchens down single-handedly.

wretcheddomain

I advocate lethal injection as a punishment for drug abusers. That'll stop them!

Agricola

Listening to that guy, its as if Hitch rose from the dead and came back as an ultra conservative toolbag!


- minus the wit and humour.

Hande hoche!

Agricola wrote: »

Listening to that guy, its as if Hitch rose from the dead and came back as an ultra conservative toolbag!


- minus the wit and humour.

I must admit I thought Peter Hitchens was dead.

renegademaster

Robroy36 wrote: »

Was anyone else watching Newsnight last night? Peter Hitchens and Matthew Perry had a tête-à-tête over, among other things, the current trend in society to absolve addicts of all responsibility by classing them as "ill" or "disabled". This particular line really struck a cord with me - certainly last week the debate about "addicts" terrorising people on the LUAS is one aspect of the sickening decline that we see on our own shores.

What do you think After Hours - is Hitchens right? Are we too quick to look past the person and classify any poor decisions people make in life as part of some sort of nebulous medical condition?

http://www.eveningtelegraph.co.uk/life/celebrity-life/matthew-perry-in-heated-newsnight-drugs-debate-1.166399

not all drug users are addicts and likewise not all addicts are scummy cnuts like those on the Luas

it's funny when i read the same story as you this morn i though fair play to Matt Perry

Soft Falling Rain

Maybe Hitchens should go meet a few people currently in addiction and ask them if they enjoy their life. I'm not talking about celebrities enjoying the excesses of their infamy, I'm talking about addicts who have destroyed their own lives as well as those around them. The kind of people who have no-one and nothing to live for other than to feed their addiction.

Addiction is not a choice, in fact, it's a pretty idiotic idea. Why would anyone in their right mind choose what I've outlined above?

Agricola

Hande hoche! wrote: »

I must admit I thought Peter Hitchens was dead.

Greatest proof on non existence of God - Hitch dies of cancer at 60 odd. This eegit is here, hail and hearty.

old hippy

renegademaster wrote: »

not all drug users are addicts and likewise not all addicts are scummy cnuts like those on the Luas

it's funny when i read the same story as you this morn i though fair play to Matt Perry

Addiction has no barriers in the social strata.

Manach

I find Mr. Hitchens both an excellent writer of books and blogs that chronicle the disintegration of Western society into a fractured and impoverished backwater. He skewers both the radicalised individualisation that has undermined social bonds and well and the growth of the PC Nanny state whose reach now emcompasses more power to interfere with familiy life that is unprecedented and shows no sign of waning.

Daqster

Manach wrote: »

I find Mr. Hitchens both an excellent writer of books and blogs that chronicle the disintegration of Western society into a fractured and impoverished backwater. He skewers both the radicalised individualisation that has undermined social bonds and well and the growth of the PC Nanny state whose reach now emcompasses more power to interfere with familiy life that is unprecedented and shows no sign of waning.

But sure he wants to give the PC Nanny State more power with one hand and take it away with the other.

The guy is a shining example of someone with fcuk load of intelligence but not enough common sense to harness it.

RDM_83 again

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

A big issue surrounding drug and alcohol problems is mental health. Throwing more people in jail is short-sighted, costly and ineffective, because it's not getting to the root of the problem. Telling people to simply have more willpower or just "get over it" is ludicrous, and frankly offensive.

A question, while I agree completely with what your saying and it could probably be applied to a lot of crime rather than just crime in general. Once these vulnerable people are out of residential care (which remember is f"cking expensive), how do we protect them? We can say its a stupid idea criminalizing drug crime but if they go back to their former environment and they are surrounded by dealers,pushers and current addicts that are more open and visible because of reduced penalties for drug crime aren't we making their path to recovery harder.

Another thing is that if addiction is considered as something that can excuse responsibility for actions due to diminshed capacity, this diminshed capacity should be taken into account in situations where the addict is not facing imminint charges e.g in terms of mandating treatment or social care.
Its hypocritical and non sensical to do otherwise.

PS before the Portugal comparison is used consider how bad Portugal was in terms of its response before it brought in those changes, Ireland even Ireland in 90's was not comparable so the changes in rates may not happen here at all with a Portuguese response.

biko

As in most things a Conservative will stress the responsibility of the individual and a Liberal will stress the responsibility of the society.
The right way (imo) is usually somewhere in between.

Individuals have rights yes but also obligations, something often overlooked.

steddyeddy

Amazing that conservatives like hitchens preach rights, responsibilities and the hard work of the individual while coming from a privileged background. My problem with a lot of conservatives like Boris Johnson and Hitchens is that they have these ideas about individual responsibility and hard work while coming from a background where they didn't have to.

Robroy36

steddyeddy wrote: »

Amazing that conservatives like hitchens preach rights, responsibilities and the hard work of the individual while coming from a privileged background. My problem with a lot of conservatives like Boris Johnson and Hitchens is that they have these ideas about individual responsibility and hard work while coming from a background where they didn't have to.

They did have to work hard, you do not become a successful politician or journalist by hocus pocus or wizzardry. Just because both those men suceeded on different part meritocratic spectrum than the average person does not mean the work they put in should be disregarded.

RDM_83 again

steddyeddy wrote: »

Amazing that conservatives like hitchens preach rights, responsibilities and the hard work of the individual while coming from a privileged background. My problem with a lot of conservatives like Boris Johnson and Hitchens is that they have these ideas about individual responsibility and hard work while coming from a background where they didn't have to.

Interestingly the very well off are actually probably less responsible towards wider society, this makes a certain logical sense when we consider that a lot of interaction is driven by a give and take.
An ordinary person is highly dependent on wider society while a significant amount of wealth insulates and grants independence.

http://phys.org/news/2012-02-upper-class-people.html

Wopp

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

hitchens is a conservative, therefore has nothing worthwhile to say about anything and it can be safely assumed the opposite of what he says is the truth


also mother of ****, why is anybody listening to matthew perry about anything. he was only ever worthwhile when he was on coke.

Second comment in and I would consider the debate finished with that haha.

I honestly don't know why people give Peter Hitchens any platform to spread his vile idology. Let him say what he thinks, freedom of speech and all that, but giving him a platform makes it sound like he has something constructive and valuable to say.

sbsquarepants

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Interestingly the very well off are actually probably less responsible towards wider society,

That's an interesting point, I was listening to George Hook last night on the way home from work, Michael Graham was on from Boston about a case in the US (Florida, I think) where a young man from a really rich family had killed 4 people drink driving. His lawyer argued, successfully too by the way, that it wasn't really his fault because he suffered from "affluenza" - in other words his rich upbringing had basically distanced him from ever having to consider the consequences his actions had on others.
Now there was some suggestion that the judge was swayed more by Daddy's cheque book than the lawyers argument, but it's an interesting point nonetheless.

judge_dredd

Manach wrote: »

I find Mr. Hitchens both an excellent writer of books and blogs that chronicle the disintegration of Western society into a fractured and impoverished backwater. He skewers both the radicalised individualisation that has undermined social bonds and well and the growth of the PC Nanny state whose reach now emcompasses more power to interfere with familiy life that is unprecedented and shows no sign of waning.

i loved christopher hitchens and i like his brother peter aswel , its refreshing to hear the view of a traditional conservative thee odd time , peter hitchens was opposed to britains role in iraq and afghanistan , he,s like the british version of pat buchannan who is also always worth listening to

i dont believe addiction is a disease myself , i do feel sorry for addicts however but i dont think labelling their problem as an addiction helps them

--Kaiser--

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

hitchens is a conservative, therefore has nothing worthwhile to say about anything

Wow.....this is the stupidest statement I have encountered in a long, long time

old hippy

Manach wrote: »

the growth of the PC Nanny state whose reach now emcompasses more power to interfere with familiy life that is unprecedented and shows no sign of waning.

How does this PC Nanny interfere with family life, specificaly?

Nodin

Manach wrote: »

I find Mr. Hitchens both an excellent writer of books and blogs that chronicle the disintegration of Western society into a fractured and impoverished backwater. ..........

Hehehe. Go to rural India, Egypt, the Congo, Guatamala Columbia and the like, get a good idea of "impoverished" and "fractured" and get back to me.

kunst nugget

judge_dredd wrote: »

i dont believe addiction is a disease myself , i do feel sorry for addicts however but i dont think labelling their problem as an addiction helps them

I presume you meant labelling their problem as a disease.

I think the problem is that labelling it as a disease has connotations for people of addicts fobbing off responsibility of their behaviour by having the excuse of being helpless against a disease. I tend not to think of alcoholism or addiction as a disease but rather as a mental disorder similar to depression and one that often involves intervention and hospitalisation when it progressed to a severe enough state. It might be a tomayto-tomahto scenario for many but I do think there is a distinction.

I think for Hitchens to talk about 'the fantasy of addiction' is completely dunderheaded and we need to have a clean slate look at how we approach drug policy in the west. I think the ideas behind the drug courts are interesting and something that should be given time to see if they are effective in helping people out of their addictions before dismissing them out of hand. The current system doesn't seem to be doing anything positive at the moment.

Corkfeen

old hippy wrote: »

How does this PC Nanny interfere with family life, specificaly?

I think this may be a hit and run and you're unlikely to get a response. :pac:

Soft Falling Rain

Soft Falling Rain wrote: »

Maybe Hitchens should go meet a few people currently in addiction and ask them if they enjoy their life. I'm not talking about celebrities enjoying the excesses of their infamy, I'm talking about addicts who have destroyed their own lives as well as those around them. The kind of people who have no-one and nothing to live for other than to feed their addiction.

Addiction is not a choice, in fact, it's a pretty idiotic idea. Why would anyone in their right mind choose what I've outlined above?

While I would agree, in most cases, it was their own choice to take up the substances that they are addicted to.

old hippy

Corkfeen wrote: »

I think this may be a hit and run and you're unlikely to get a response. :pac:

Damn those drive by postings. Destroying the very fabric of family life etc etc...

Soft Falling Rain

Deleted User wrote: »

While I would agree, in most cases, it was their own choice to take up the substances that they are addicted to.

You're correct, and I personally believe in empowering the person to "own" their decisions again (once they have been given the tools to cope in their recovery that is).

However, it's not called drug dependency for nothing. In most cases, when it comes to substance misuse, drugs are being used as a coping mechanism for whatever is going on in that individual person's life. Their drug use is no longer a matter of choice but rather a matter of surviving.

I am pie

Who is more likely to be right here, some conservative ideologue shooting from the hip with a clumsy point to prove around personal freedom or qualified medical professionals trained in addiction management and recovery?

Mammanabammana

There seems to be this widespread perception that addiction is a get out clause for anything an addict does under the influence of whatever the substance might be. The substance abuse may explain the behaviour since the person's thinking and behaviour has usually been completely distorted by the substance. However, this shouldn't absolve the offender of any responsibility. If you get drunk and commit a crime, you should still pay the penalty, irrespective of whether you're on a night out and have one too many or whether you're an alcoholic destroyed by drink. Same thing goes for drug addicts or any substance abusers. Being out of your head is not an excuse, and it shouldn't for one second stop you from paying the penalty.

old hippy

Mammanabammana wrote: »

There seems to be this widespread perception that addiction is a get out clause for anything an addict does under the influence of whatever the substance might be. .

Is there? I haven't noticed that. I'd be more inclined to say mitigating circumstances surrounding the individual case.

Mammanabammana

old hippy wrote: »

Is there? I haven't noticed that. I'd be more inclined to say mitigating circumstances surrounding the individual case.

Mitigating circumstances in what respect? Do you mean as in being drunk or stoned should be considered mitigating circumstances?

Soft Falling Rain

Mammanabammana wrote: »

There seems to be this widespread perception that addiction is a get out clause for anything an addict does under the influence of whatever the substance might be. The substance abuse may explain the behaviour since the person's thinking and behaviour has usually been completely distorted by the substance. However, this shouldn't absolve the offender of any responsibility. If you get drunk and commit a crime, you should still pay the penalty, irrespective of whether you're on a night out and have one too many or whether you're an alcoholic destroyed by drink. Same thing goes for drug addicts or any substance abusers. Being out of your head is not an excuse, and it shouldn't for one second stop you from paying the penalty.

Goes without saying, and I think the law generally agrees with you......that is, unless, you have the good fortune of being from the right post code.

old hippy

Mammanabammana wrote: »

Mitigating circumstances in what respect? Do you mean as in being drunk or stoned should be considered mitigating circumstances?

Depends on what led up to the crime, the nature of the crime, the background to the person who committed the crime etc.

Mammanabammana

old hippy wrote: »

Depends on what led up to the crime, the nature of the crime, the background to the person who committed the crime etc.

That's a different situation though. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I'm speaking specifically about people who commit a crime while not in control of themselves as a result of being under the influence of a substance and then try to use being under that influence as a reason not to have to pay a fine, go to jail or whatever. To take a fairly simple example, if you wouldn't normally smash the windows of a car in and you do so when you're hammered, you should still have to pay for the windows.

old hippy

Mammanabammana wrote: »

That's a different situation though. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I'm speaking specifically about people who commit a crime while not in control of themselves as a result of being under the influence of a substance and then try to use being under that influence as a reason not to have to pay a fine, go to jail or whatever. To take a fairly simple example, if you wouldn't normally smash the windows of a car in and you do so when you're hammered, you should still have to pay for the windows.

Of course, I don't condone crimes committed under the influence.

Wattle

It's a tricky one. On one hand I think that some people have addictive tendencies handed down to them and it is a very complex problem requiring intervention, treatment and sometimes group therapy like AA. On the other if you have continuing evidence that you have a substance abuse problem and it's causing chaos in your life and the life of others you have a responsibility to actively do something to address it. A friend of mine is an alcoholic and for a long time I tried to talk him out of his drinking but he's still the same and nothing changed. You can't save people from addiction they've got to want to do it themselves.

I think if you commit a crime while intoxicated you should have to pay for that crime but I think criminalising the act of taking drugs is wrong in cases where it's a victimless crime.