(2/2) Matthew Perry / Peter Hitchens drugs debate (BBC Newsnight, 2013.12.16.Mon).
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 16 дек 2013
- (2/2) Matthew Perry / Peter Hitchens drugs debate (BBC Newsnight, 2013.12.16.Mon).
*2/2 is the discussion afterwards: ^here^*
**1/2 is the intro VT (video tape), here: • (1/2) Matthew Perry / ... **
This follows a similar (quite humourous, in places!) discussion a year earlier, involving the comedian Russell Brand & Peter Hitchens on the same issue: • Russell Brand / Peter ...
---------------
Discussion panel:
- Matthew Perry (actor and former addict): en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew...
- Peter Hitchens (journalist and anti-drug campaigner): en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_H...
- Baroness Meacher [Molly Christine Meacher] (chair of the UK All-Party Parliamentary Group on Drug Policy Reform): en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molly_M...
Info:
- topic: Specifically, should we regard users as addicts or criminals, and so-called 'drug courts' expansion?
- source: BBC Two "Newsnight", 2013.12.16.Mon.
- reason added: For open public discourse.
- licence: Under fair use. (issues? contact me.)
Another mildly funny ending, this time with Santa's North Pole ownership up for grabs...yikes!
More pomposity from Peter, and some funny name-calling from Matthew.
I have a British accent so I'm right 110% of the time.
I can't look at Matthew Perry without thinking of Louis CK's Perry 'tipping' story. And I can't look at Peter Hitchens without wishing that his brother were still alive. It's funny - Peter has all the hubris of Christopher, with none the verve, style, wit and cool. He just comes across as arch. This speaks less to Peter's shortcomings and more to Christopher's brilliance.
A lot of people are dependent on drugs prescribed by doctors so should the doctors be sent to prison peter
Every single Peter Hitchens debate ends with him grumbling "One cannot possibly argue seriously..."
What bothers me about watching this, is that there are so many great points that weren't brought up. What about people that have addictions to random things, smelling cheese, their car, whatever? He believes this is will power? That is a mild case of insanity or possibly OCD. Same thing with drugs, they're obsessed to the point where their mentality simply won't allow them to do anything but their addiction. What about people with severe anxiety, using drugs/alcohol to cope? The addiction stems from serious mental issues. Addiction to me has always seemed like a severe mental health issue, hence making it a disease, not some will power thing. It is the same thing with anxiety, you can tell your brain "no" as many times as you want, but your brain will do what your brain is wired to do. It does seem pretty ludacris to write it off as a will power issue. That is small minded and implies some level of superiority. I believe the dude that's suffered from anxiety his entire life over some douche that thinks he knows everything because he's never had to deal with it. You wouldn't listen to a waitress on how to deal with a technical engineering issue, you'd listen to the engineer who's seen it and lived it. Why is this drug-war-selling writer whose never dealt with telling addicts how to solve their problem? Fuck this small-minded, self-centered piece of shit. It's as if he doesn't understand that the brain controls BOTH will power AND their "choice" to use drugs/alcohol. If their mind could tell them NOT to use drugs, couldn't it just as easily tell them to do the exact opposite? You are vulnerable to your brains decisions. As much as we like to think we're in control, some people are at the whim of their minds decisions.
I agree with +GVAjax that Matthew Perry did not present himself well, however, alcoholism is highly addictive due to the opiate created in the brain of alcoholics (and not others) by the name of Tetrahydroisoquinoline (THIQ). Here is a link of compiled data pertaining to THIQ. fedgeno.com/documents/thiq.pdf
Peter Hitchens actually had a couple of valid points. If you aren't around drugs or alcohol then it's a lot easier to avoid becoming addicted. Ultimately it is the persons choice to consume drugs or alcohol and it is a matter of will power to avoid or stop taking drugs. But what he fails to understand is that simply not drinking or not taking drugs anymore is a hell of a lot easier said than done for a lot of people.
Focus needs to be put on educating young people in order to help stop them taking drugs in the first place. Focus needs to be put on the issues in society that lead young people down this path and from a criminal perspective harsher punishments need to be put in place for the people responsible for supply, manufacturing, trafficking ect. Because if somebody is an addict negative reinforcement does very little to solve the issue.
Matt Davis I disagree with Hitchens 95%. The purpose is prison/judicial system is not to act as a deterrent. That's his own POV. It's there to enact justice (to victims if there are any), and to enact punishment. Not saying it's not infallible, just saying it's not there to act as a deterrent. Individuals make that choice for themselves whether they are deterred, not the justice system.
Addiction - He's just one of those people who doesn't get it. Like the Hitchens brothers overall don't really 'Get it' regardless of how _'well-read'_ they are, or their credentials.
8:00 - We don't have many more users because we've treated it as a disease. Again, that's just his POV. My ancient friend (born in 1928) said to me; "Back in my day only film stars and rock stars took drugs."
The reverse in trend isn't because someone thought; _Ah, that film star has a disease!_ That's a nonsense. Will Power is not the answer. No one starts off in life wanting to stick needles in their arm, wanting to rob friends and family, wanting to live like a tramp all for a hit. When I was young I wanted to design cars, or be an involved in art in some way. Nowhere in my Career counseling interview at the age of 15/16 was;
Drug Addict
Gambling Addict
Alcoholic
Sex fiend
etc .... on the list of career choices .... choices!
+utubecomment21 The one thing i disagree with is, he says addiction does not exist. I wonder how his Brother who smoked and drank until the day he died would feel about that?
The fact that yes you can just not do it works for a lot of people, it doesn't for everyone, many things like circumstance or peer pressure can cause anyone to have 1 drink. Now when an addict has one drink, the addiction becomes very very real.
Hitchens might as well be saying "give me proof that dyslexia exists and people are not just stupid" the first thing you would say is "look at the medical evidence"
+Tiger Mask IV He said people who drink and smoke do it because they choose to do it and enjoy it - which is what C.Hitchens said anyway. Also he didn't take drugs which would have been against the law.
mo O yes but people continue to smoke due to addictive chemicals which has been proven a lot of times.
+Matt Davis Well done mate I agree with you a 100%. I have never taken drugs or any form of substance pertaining to drugs. Drugs nowadays is easily available and attainable , as you have mentioned ,I was educated about it when I was young , I have had injuries , frustrations and depression but I have never even thought about it in the long run . I have lost many friends to Drug abuse ,its a scary thing and we need to treat people with compassion rather than call him or her a weak loser, we all have problems and we all deal with it in different ways.
Cheers mate take care.
To be quite honest I'm not too sure which side of the debate I am on for this one, though I tend to disagree with most of what Hitchens says. I am just highly amused by the fact whenever Peter attempted to make a serious point Matthew basically responded with "Well... Your...Your nose is funny sir" I was waiting for Joey and Ross to stagger onto the podium completely coked up.
matthew perry is incoherent. is he on drugs? he could only sling abuse at peter hitchens, he did not give a proper response to hitchens arguements.
His point was, there was no argument. He was failing to acknowledge reality in any way. If someone was arguing that the sky is grass is blue, there isn't much you can say. How can you argue that it's green other than saying "everyone else says it's green". People who ignore reality entirely are impossible to debate, but I agree, he definitely missed out on some great points.
Matthew Perry has been boring people at Hollywood parties about this for so long he didn't realise that he had to present an actual argument to support his claims. He wasn't able to do much more than make lame jokes and...whoops.. he got Hitchslapped.
Oh man, Hitchens so owned Perry.
You think Perry was "owned"? Everybody is in agreement with Perry and nobody against, but Hitchens. Just look at the comments on this thread or the 3 other speakers.