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.
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.
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.
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.
@@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.
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.
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.
@@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.
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.
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.
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
@@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.
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.
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.
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.
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 ....??
I don’t agree with Hitchens and don’t particularly like his approach to this issue but I love how relentlessly he argues. He has no fear of offending people and doesn’t give an inch that he thinks he shouldn’t.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
@@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.
***** 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.
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
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.
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?
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...
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.
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.
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' ...
***** 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.
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.
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.
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 :/
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.
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.
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.
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?!
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.
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
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.
If we ever debate the effectiveness of euthanasia on society, I'd like to nominate Russell Brand as a test candidate. He cannot even listen to someone else's point of view without trying to shout them down.
I'd time-stamp the individual occasions in this video where Peter constantly interrupted others and then demanded that he finish his own points but It'd take far too long.
I'm not even a fan of Brand, actually quite dislike him, but I almost wonder if @vtrmcs and I were watching the same program (debate is too noble a term to describe the meeting of these low-wattage minds). However, Brand actually seemed quite reserved compared to his usual obnoxious self. Peter Hitchens was WAY more obnoxious in that he's a faux intellectual who has rode the coat tails of his MUCH wiser older brother Christopher (RIP) and is knowingly intellectually dishonest. Also, he was throwing tons of ad hominem at Brand and constantly interrupting Brand whenever Brand was actually trying to make a respectful point. As far as I'm concerned, they're both good candidates for euthanasia (not shocked an obvious fan of a psycho Right Wing turd like like P. Hitchens would have euthanasia on the brain) though as a person who enjoys the finer things in life like the personal freedom to get high occasionally, I have NO use for Peter Hitchens puritanical, neo-fascist idiocy. If one compares Christopher and Peter Hitchens it's quite obvious which brother was the real deal (ahem, Christopher) and which one is just a great poser and pseudo-intellectual (Peter).
@@tylerkasuboski3366 He was reserved because he had no argument in the face of Hitchen's reason and facts. Hence the predictable retreat to the safety of name-calling.
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.
@@laurencosh7690 Exactly what i thought!!. When Brand first appeared on the scene he gave me the creeps!, it seems he may be about to prove my instincts correct!!
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.
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!!!
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
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
Tbh, Peter Hitchens should've been able to keep his cool. Sure Russel has a childlike manner in a way, but how quickly he was able to get Peter down to his level. I wonder what Christopher Hitchens would've responded to this debate :) I can only imagine a great big smile.
Tlevids Not necessarily true. Peter is a very intelligent guy, don't be fooled. But, like most intelligent men, he has weak areas which he cannot accept due to arrogance. His whole credo on drugs is frankly childish and bizarre. I can only imagine he has never come across or recognised addiction in anyone before.
jide1000 I think this is one issue where the two brothers would have been almost allied. I can imagine Christopher baulking at anyone telling him he was addicted and completely powerless over his drinking. Christopher was an old-style leftist and if you want to know what happened to drug addicts in the USSR or the PRC (still), they certainly weren't given much sympathetic treatment.
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!
Peter Hitchens sounds like a pompous baboon. Knife crime is very illegal in the UK and yet it's at an all time heigh. This guy is a literal stuck up moron making the rest of the UK population look like backward Neanderthals. Drug addiction is clearly real and not about free will. Look at his saggy double chin that there is proof that drug addiction is real. He is clearly addicted to the number one drug on the plant... sugar. Clearly he has no free will when it comes to his Cadbury Cream Eggs.
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.
You can't control people through fear, people will always fight back and do what they want. You cant control people, people will take drugs no matter what. Also theres so many reasons people get into drugs and a lot of that is due to their circumstances in life and social background
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.
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
The reality is Peter is just innocent and doesn’t understand the problem. It’s hard for someone who 1. Doesnt have a huge amount of empathy, and 2. Probably hasnt been exposed (especially not at a young age) to the communities this problem effects to understand it. He’s coming up with the best solution he can with the tools he has available to him, he just doesn’t understand the problem.
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.
8:23 " But Russel would you have been better off if you had been sent to Prison".......Hold that thought !
There are more drugs in prison.
Brand was always a no-nothing charlatan as this programme shows
@@beestonbump1106addiction is a disease pretty clear
He won’t be going to prison.
@@MJW238 and how would you know that ?
Glad I watched 'til the end for "was that you, Peter?" 😂
Hahahah
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.
Hitchens and Brand legit need their own program together, the rating would be thru the roof. LMFAO
No it wouldn't.
@@susannamarker2582 hot boxing with Mike Tyson featuring Peter hitchens
@@patriceaqa288 Now you're talking !
brands a dick and he knows it
@@patriceaqa288 🤣😂👍
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.
@@jamesragonesi So to deter drug use you'll send someone somewhere that's full of drugs
Well that's the part of the problem he's complaining about. The law is not enforced in prisons either.
@@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.
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.
And alcohol, a very good point nonetheless
Touché sir, legality has no relation to morality.
Nicotine isn’t illegal
@@smsjmsjsk4575 cool info bro
As Brand said legality was 'at best an inconvience.'
“How does one deal with a person who cannot debate seriously?”
That’s actually a really good question when you think about it.
the answer is you can't. so no sense in trying.
exactly - russell brand is a marxist piece of hypocritical shit
@Detriment Hip Hop agreed. but don't confuse humour with personal attacks
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.
@@comatoast5610 Why do you completely ignore Brand's childish 'debate' style and only focus on PH?
And yet alcohol is worse than them all. Nobody has ever died from herion withdrawals, but people have from alcohol ones.
You kinda forgot to factor in what happens when people over dose! Heroin kills- don’t kid yourself.
@jazzman1954 i know iam a recovering herion addict and allky. My point is u dont die from trying to give it up like u can from drink.
@@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.
@@feonor26 Show me a reliable link to the number of deaths annually in your region from water overdose please.
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.
I thought it would be the other way round.
"You talk about abstinence, that is one way of approaching abstinence" That lady has obviously never been to prison
Jezer1990 so she rolled with the Gambinos for a few years, BBC wiped her sentence from her resume
I prefer Hitchens' early work. He was excellent as Parker in Thunderbirds
:D
Fuck, he looks like like him. Nice one!
Mme..lady !!
marc h
When he had a code.
Yeah but he looks too woody and inhuman these days...
Brand should invite Hitchens back to his podcast
that would be EPIC!! i thinbk both are different persons now.
Why? They would be talking over each other constantly and yud'e not understand a single word spoken 🙄
my son got heroin in prison ... hes now dead
@@bruce8359 sorry for your loss
brands a tosser
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.
rubbish they old get locked up after becoming complete drains on society and the overstreched benefits system
My dealer got sent to prison for 8 years, it was a really hard period in my life
Hitchens doesn't live in the same reality as the rest of us it seems.
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 People still counterfeit alcohol and cigarettes to avoid paying duty.
A tiny % of the overall trade.
Funny how Budweiser, Heineken etc aren't staffed by AK47 wielding psychopaths.
+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.
"Oh my dear chap" hilarious (10:22)
Such classic way to shut down such a tasteless 'joke'
@@Alexlamb442 certainly, but in his mind it was probably hilarious
@@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.
Yeah. Exactly what I would expect from an upper class twit.
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
Look at Dubai not much drug taking there.
@@lifeisajourney268 untrue. It's clandestine and reports manipulated. Many countries with the harshest penalties for drug users have outrageous drug problems
@@patriceaqa288 Untrue. Japan and South Korea have far lower drug taking than US/UK
@@fiddlecastro1453 Prison doesn't come into it when we're considering alcohol
@@patriceaqa288 Why would it? Alcohol isn't illegal
The war on drugs has been a catastrophic failure.
Not for the drugs
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.
@@numbers7n In the US sure. UK hasnt fought it the last 40 years
There hasn't been one. That's Hitchins point.
Not much done on alcohol tho. That’s ok
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.
That isn't the kind of prison Peter Hitchens, or any thinking person advocates and one must wonder how and why prisons got that way.
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.
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.
david bacon
How can you know if that is your only source of information? There is a level of belief involved which isn't the same as knowledge.
How is Russell childlike? He respectfully listens whereas peter interrupts and speaks over everyone
Except he doesnt
It"s hilarious how Hitchens, who is unqualified to talk about drug policy, resents another contributor as being unqualified to talk about drug policy.
100% qualified as a tax paying citizen paying for the enabling and have to be subject to them in society.
Brand losing debate turns too aiming cheap shots at Kitchens which didn't work.
@@Charlieb6308 Here here.
Peter Hitchens is a perfect example of what happens to you if you don't take drugs.
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.
you are all so fucked up that occasional voice of reason sounds funny to you
@@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
As a recovering drug addict I can't stand how Russell Brand has become the poster boy. Peter is right about him and the issue
you're not an 'addict'. you're just weak and self-indulgent.
@@goodyeoman4534 _Recovering_ addict. That was uncalled for, considering they acknowledged their own weakness. They agreed with Hitchens that it's a matter of will.
@@vladivanov5500 I agree - it's a matter of will. Pointing out that 'addiction' does not exist is not uncalled for - you just disagree.
@@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.
Pity 99% arseholes on this thread don't share your correct opinion..
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
Great debate. In the mean time, 11 years later and still sitting on our hands. The world and the people in it, go the way they will.
and while everyone shuffles their feet the country of USA sinks into the hell of societal collapse
"I think you're a Harry Enfield character" 😂
Fact is; someone who is struggling with substance abuse is going to find far more advice & comfort from Brand, than Hitchens.
Comfort is the last thing a drug taker requires. Advice is subjective. Addiction doesn't exist.
What about the wider society?
Addiction doesn’t exist? 😂 🤡
More comfort but less help.
Hitchens wants to stop the problem at source, by having a strong deterrent. He wants to prevent people from even trying drugs in the first place.
“Control people through fear” is Hitchens main point...
Profoundly ironic considering his current views on Covid.
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.
Good call
@@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.
Peter loves to play the victim about not being allowed to speak while he constantly talks over everybody
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.
You should watch his brother destroy him with a smile
Rip the real hitch
@@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.
He literally says "There you go, Ad Hominem and Interrupting", and then proceeds to engage in Ad Hominem and interrupts everyone.
@@jovi9918 a true contrarian
I want to see more of Brand and Hitchens
I would like to see less of Brand!. all i have been hearing about the last 2 weeks!
Brand speaks a lot without actually saying anything of importance. He speaks in platitudes, and deals in idealistic nonsense.
Very true Mark
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.
Kinda like what you're saying
He's a moral narcissist
I don't get why this is such a big deal haven't Portugal already proven that Russell is right!?
''because he has first hand experience'' so does my mate joe doesnt mean he should have a show on the bbc.
come on man, Jimmy Savile had first hand experience with children all his life, thats why the BBC went ahead with "Jim'll Fix It"
Nineteen Eighty loooool
Roy I think your mate joe should have a show with Karl Pilkington
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 ....??
It's like saying I had cancer, therefore I know how to cure it.
I don’t agree with Hitchens and don’t particularly like his approach to this issue but I love how relentlessly he argues. He has no fear of offending people and doesn’t give an inch that he thinks he shouldn’t.
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.
Brand is the epitome of passive aggressive when he suggests Hitches should look upon human. Beings with compassion rather than aggression
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?
+Kyle Duncan And they've been working badly here. Why would you use a less relevant foreign example?
+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 used Portugal as an example as its a good example, why would I use a bad example for us to look at.
Kyle Duncan I agree that its baffling, I suggest the government should look at the examples of China and Korea as opposed to Portugal though.
+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.
The tragedy of life is both Peter and Russel are right.
Correct. Both in their own ways
Peter's views are totally unrealistic and borderline childish!
Only one of them is a rapist though
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
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.
Exactly dude. I think this is a great debate. It shows how narrow minded some people are. Thank god they don't have too much power.
@@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.
11:57 Peter Hitchens with a face as though his ADHD nephew just burst uninvited into his home office
T800System Did you know Peter's youngest child was born when he was pushing 50? Imagine him dealing with the "terrible twos"!
Peter Hitchens has obviously got no idea about the medical diagnosis of addiction.
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.
Toza
And you've no idea about addiction either.
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.
Addiction is a medical condition; requiring medical treatment, not criminalisation.
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.
Peter is spot on if there was serious punishment for drug use most people wouldn't do it
😂
@@FrozenSurf trust me of the punishment for being caught in possession was 3 months in solitary confinement you would soon see usage drop
@@danieloliver4558 this conversation is about addiction, not usage.
@@FrozenSurf but nobody has become addicted without using first lol
@@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.
Brand and Hitchens: best duo cop comedy film idea
Chips Summers, the one guy who appeared to have a complete, relevant and qualified view only spoke once. What a shame.
To Peter Hitchens I'd just have to go with this quote from Martin Luther King:
"We have a moral obligation to disobey unjust laws".
***** & he wouldn't care if he did. That's his problem, complete indifference to other's problems... a total lack of empathy.
***** Empathy is the single most important facet of the human condition that allows us to live together as a society.
***** 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.
Denni Wintyr so we have a moral duty to be a degenerate and a smack-head? I guess this is your mind on drugs.
This is exactly why Brand fails. Thinking that anyone who does not agree in what he is saying is aggression and therefore has no love.
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
Ten years in and the two of them could barely agree more on massive topics such as Covid masks and lockdown. Incredible turn of events.
Russell has probably matured a lot since then.
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.
@@user-ju7ze9to4k I think you mean become power hungry in the pursuit of manipulating right wing nut jobs
@@user-ju7ze9to4k
Er …nope
Russell brand's argument is always reduced to petty and personal insults. He thinks he's an lot more intelligent than he actually is
Samuel Coe Brand is dilettante who has gathered a from a group of headless chickens who know nothing about politics.
pookomoo He's obviously not stupid but he always attacks the man rather than the argument. He can be a rude, closed minded, delusional shit
Samuel Coe He's actually quite a bully too.
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?
11:01 "all crime is caused by law" lol
12:12 was that you Peter? 😂😂
I died. 😆😅😅😅😆😆😆
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...
He's just a Right wing idiot, put on TV to whip the Daily Mail and Telegraph readers into a frenzy with his hateful and bigoted rhetoric.
A Russell Brand Fan Then
@@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...
@@danbreen6946 Excellent comment.
For a 3 year old.
Russell Brand"" A master" give me a break...
laughed my ass off at the end...."was that you Peter?"
Apparently playground juvenile humour is your thing.
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 Very well said.
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.
"Worried about their soft bones getting broken...", Was that you, Peter? xD 12:07
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.
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' ...
Hitchens was right, why was he given a platform? Especially now as it looks like he is a predator.
Peter had a point about drug use increasing over the last 4 decades. That does rather suggest that the current approach isn't working@@eju547
@@eju547 Modern thinking isn't always right or better. Lord knows we should have learned that by now.
Hitchens just shows Brand up for what he is.
***** yes he shows that Peter is a smart, thoughtful and well spoken man
w3baholicX they're both twats
+karatechop123 you got fucking rekt
***** I think you do, and I think you already knew.
***** 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.
for somebody that seems to hate society (peter hitchens) he does seem to absolutely love the laws that society has decided (and are free to amend)
Hes stuck in 1940s bolshevik Russia, he used to be a rebellious commie in his youth.
An absolute plonker who shouldn't be aloud out in public.
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.
Brand is an A1 class PILLOCK how Hitchens had the patience t o debate with this turf shows what a decent chap Peter is
Tell that to the 99% of all other idiots on this thread with the brain cells of a turd.
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.
John Baker Right. Well done on getting through that. I seriously mean that.
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 mentioned that point at the end you didnt listen.
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.
He wants to reform prisons so that they aren’t like that. See his book “The Abolition of Liberty”.
The technical terms for anybody starting to take Class A drugs is "RETARD".
@@SagaciousFrank Summed up nicely I think✌️
Why is no one talking about the dealers? Forget the sad people who take drugs for whatever reason. Eliminate the dealers.
Incredible television.
Russel: Peter I think we want the same thing.
Peter: We don't.
xD
Peter will be understood when it's the norm
To be honest, the pro-compassion drug policys treat addicts like helpless kids, even if they are 6"3 and stab people for drugs.
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 :/
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.
I wonder if anyone has told Peter Hitchens that his ideas have been tried many times before, including for alcohol, and have never worked.
What do you expect he's a Victorian!
Yes, like in Saudi Arabia?
the US has been throwing people in jail for drugs forever now and that shit aint working at all.
It works in Japan and South Korea. Since you cannot deny this provable fact you can only shrug it off as 'cultural differences'.
@@goodyeoman4534 Japan and South Korea are vastly different societies to ours. How's it been working over in the US?
Russell Brand is completely outclassed and out brained here.
happens pretty well all the time
your so thick if you believe that
ozzyfightback well i guess if your comment is anything to take from, hypocrisy is present.
try to make sense...if you can't do it yourself get your keeper to help you. The structure of your response is funny in it's idiocy.
ozzyfightback your insults only make you seem more stupid, so i invite you to keep at it.
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.
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.
My thoughts exactly.
'Peter, did you come here in a time machine'...........says the Hippy
Once again, perfect common sense from Peter Hitchens
Tyranny is the deliberate removal of nuance ;)
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?!
Agreed. Ignore the two idiots who responded so stupidly to you.
The compression on this video is absolutely wild.
Peter Hitchens proves intelligence isn’t passed on to siblings equally.
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.
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.
A mistake
To be fair, Chris was also a contrarian who didn't always argue well.
@@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
"Was that you, Peter?"
Brand doesn't debate by Oxford rules, but he is quick on his feet.
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.
@@begshallots And there you are calling people wankers. You make the elementary mistake of confusing the argument with the person.
Watching this in 2023 and nothing has changed
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.
Except he wasn't wrong.
@@cockoffgewgle4993 Who was wrong, and about what?
If we ever debate the effectiveness of euthanasia on society, I'd like to nominate Russell Brand as a test candidate. He cannot even listen to someone else's point of view without trying to shout them down.
I'd time-stamp the individual occasions in this video where Peter constantly interrupted others and then demanded that he finish his own points but It'd take far too long.
I'm not even a fan of Brand, actually quite dislike him, but I almost wonder if @vtrmcs and I were watching the same program (debate is too noble a term to describe the meeting of these low-wattage minds). However, Brand actually seemed quite reserved compared to his usual obnoxious self. Peter Hitchens was WAY more obnoxious in that he's a faux intellectual who has rode the coat tails of his MUCH wiser older brother Christopher (RIP) and is knowingly intellectually dishonest. Also, he was throwing tons of ad hominem at Brand and constantly interrupting Brand whenever Brand was actually trying to make a respectful point. As far as I'm concerned, they're both good candidates for euthanasia (not shocked an obvious fan of a psycho Right Wing turd like like P. Hitchens would have euthanasia on the brain) though as a person who enjoys the finer things in life like the personal freedom to get high occasionally, I have NO use for Peter Hitchens puritanical, neo-fascist idiocy. If one compares Christopher and Peter Hitchens it's quite obvious which brother was the real deal (ahem, Christopher) and which one is just a great poser and pseudo-intellectual (Peter).
@@tylerkasuboski3366 He was reserved because he had no argument in the face of Hitchen's reason and facts. Hence the predictable retreat to the safety of name-calling.
Brand knows he's in for an intellectual kicking and immediately adopts a childlike tone and simpering body language...Hitchens annihilates him anyway
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.
Peter was the first one to intrupt and personaly insult brand and that's where it just went offside...not sure how you missed that
Oh come on.
@@MOSMASTERINGcan't control what you're doing , you say ? Mmm Brand could do worse than give you a call rather soon sir
“ You are like a Peculiar child Peter “ I
Love it 👍
How ironic that Russel Brand who is the mental age of 14 and has been forever!! Telling someone else he's a child. LOVE IT!!🤣🤣🤣✌️
"You're a rapist and a sexual predator Russ"
Thought I'd update it for you 👍
And yet really Russell is like a peculiar child...
Pot kettle black springs to mind
@@laurencosh7690 Exactly what i thought!!. When Brand first appeared on the scene he gave me the creeps!, it seems he may be about to prove my instincts correct!!
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.
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!?
Because he has name recognition since his brother died?
no but an extreme amount of drug dealers lol
Unfortunately they give harsh sentences to people for possession too!
All Sub-Saharan, Muslim and most Asian countries have punitive laws and very little drug use, you're cherry picking.
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!!!
Interesting to see how Brand behaves when he knows he's out-matched intellectually, basically just spewing childish insults. What a charlatan.
Interesting to see how youtube users behaves when when someone reaffirms his staunche opinion
FuryofTenThousandGods Indeed it is.
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
a pathetic match for either Hitchen
I don't understand why he's so pro-comminism or whatever, he's the last type of person who would survive in that kind of regimented system.
In life
Too easy to be weak .
Harder to be Strong
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
Tbh, Peter Hitchens should've been able to keep his cool. Sure Russel has a childlike manner in a way, but how quickly he was able to get Peter down to his level.
I wonder what Christopher Hitchens would've responded to this debate :) I can only imagine a great big smile.
Peter Hitchens is much weaker than his brother was.
Tlevids Not necessarily true. Peter is a very intelligent guy, don't be fooled. But, like most intelligent men, he has weak areas which he cannot accept due to arrogance. His whole credo on drugs is frankly childish and bizarre. I can only imagine he has never come across or recognised addiction in anyone before.
Maybe a alcohol addiction in his brother?,,,,
But then Christopher Hitchens could hardly be described as anal whereas His brother is a walking personification of the term.
jide1000 I think this is one issue where the two brothers would have been almost allied. I can imagine Christopher baulking at anyone telling him he was addicted and completely powerless over his drinking. Christopher was an old-style leftist and if you want to know what happened to drug addicts in the USSR or the PRC (still), they certainly weren't given much sympathetic treatment.
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.
Yeah it's mad isn't it? Christopher was so erudite and witty, while his brother is an arrogant, ignorant pig. They really grew up in the same house?
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.
Ironically, it was ciggarettes and alcohol that killed his brother and both are legal.
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
'Whaddabout alcohol and cigarettes' argument? Tiresome and predictable.
@@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!
Imagine the Christmas dinner conversations between Peter and Chris. The family would've been like, oh they're at it again, we're out!
Peter Hitchens is impossible to beat in an argument🤣🤣🤣
Joe Briggs George galloway
He may be able to speak well. Doesn't mean he's right.
But he's clearly wrong and out of touch so he's already lost.
He sounds authoritarian. But that's no reason at all to accept those views.
Peter Hitchens sounds like a pompous baboon. Knife crime is very illegal in the UK and yet it's at an all time heigh. This guy is a literal stuck up moron making the rest of the UK population look like backward Neanderthals. Drug addiction is clearly real and not about free will. Look at his saggy double chin that there is proof that drug addiction is real. He is clearly addicted to the number one drug on the plant... sugar. Clearly he has no free will when it comes to his Cadbury Cream Eggs.
Gotta hand it to Brand. Lack of knowledge on a subject is no barrier to him babbling endlessly about it.
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.
curiosofsigns I don't agree with you at all, It's all about the pleasure it gives, otherwise no one would do it,
Russell has first hand experience. wtf are you talking about mate. He lived it. Do yu get that?
Are we really still debating whether or not prohibition works?
You can't control people through fear, people will always fight back and do what they want. You cant control people, people will take drugs no matter what. Also theres so many reasons people get into drugs and a lot of that is due to their circumstances in life and social background
💯
Russell & Peter best mates now that Brand has turned right around the corner.
If you think Russel has turned right you are delusional. Peter is just a hypocrite.
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.
I'm sure the Talibans cut down on drug addiction when the Americans ditched. And I am certain that it had nothing to do with treating it as a disease.
Russell Brand is a huge manipulator. He can't have a normal conversation without trying to play games.
Amazing how that retarded comment got seven thumbs up.
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
The reality is Peter is just innocent and doesn’t understand the problem. It’s hard for someone who 1. Doesnt have a huge amount of empathy, and 2. Probably hasnt been exposed (especially not at a young age) to the communities this problem effects to understand it. He’s coming up with the best solution he can with the tools he has available to him, he just doesn’t understand the problem.
Drug overdoses are now at an all time high (in America). Have we given the power to the wrong people to solve the problem?
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.
why the low volume? A lot of RUclips videos have really low sound now🤷♂️
"Was that you, Peter?"
Wow so cemented in his own point of view, part of what Mckenna coined 'The Dominator Culture''.
brand?
contactkeithstack Why would i use a Terence Mckenna phrase to criticize Russell Brand?
I'm Irish. Try and see past your prejudice. Hitchens is advocating self-discipline and self-respect i.e. don't take drugs in the first place
PeterSellers22 No your from Ireland, im from Ireland, its not who you are though, haha.
"Why would i use a Terence Mckenna phrase to criticize Russell Brand?"
because you were previously a leftist and learned the error of your ways?
With Hitch on this one.
Me too.
The late & great Christopher Hitchens got the charm. His brother seems to have missed out