"The fantasy of addiction" - Peter Htichens

[BadFish]

Matthew Perry hardly covering himself in glory here. But does anyone agree with Hitchens that addiction is a fantasy used by people who want to keep talking drugs and drinking.



Sorry if there is already a thread about this.

 

[Beach Hut]

Hitchens is nearly as vile as Will Self

 

[Spider]

Hitchins is a knob but these kind of clips always annoy me. BBC wheels him on to have an argument with a popular celebrity on an issue that they know will make him look like a dinosaur, but both Russell Brand and now Matthew Perry failed to contribute anything worthwhile to put him right. Best bit of the clip is Hitchins asking Perry to provide objective evidence, Perry's response...'myself.'

 

[Sam Ovett]

No, I think that's a pretty dismissive and insulting thing to suggest

 

[BadFish]

Hitchins is a knob but these kind of clips always annoy me. BBC wheels him on to have an argument with a popular celebrity on an issue that they know will make him look like a dinosaur, but both Russell Brand and now Matthew Perry failed to contribute anything worthwhile to put him right. Best bit of the clip is Hitchins asking Perry to provide objective evidence, Perry's response...'myself.'

I agree, what really this debate really needed was an scientific expert on addiction to refute the points that he was making. Trouble was the debate was supposed to be about drug courts but his assertion about the fantasy of addiction dragged it of into a completely different area. Maybe it is a tactic of his to say something outrageous and derail the debate to get some publicity (I fell for it!).

 

[Spider]

I think Hitchins point has always been that making punishments for drug charges far more severe would act as a deterrent. Whether that is right or wrong (I somewhat doubt it), it is never adequately proved to be so by a celebrity who has had a relatively easy route out of their problem and is now willing to share their own experiences as representative of the normal drug addict. I'm sure Perry's addiction is as real as any other, but I don't doubt that his recovery is made easier by the millions in the bank, the limitless free time, and the many interested parties who have presumably helped to get him here.

 

[BadFish]

I think Hitchins point has always been that making punishments for drug charges far more severe would act as a deterrent. Whether that is right or wrong (I somewhat doubt it), it is never adequately proved to be so by a celebrity who has had a relatively easy route out of their problem and is now willing to share their own experiences as representative of the normal drug addict. I'm sure Perry's addiction is as real as any other, but I don't doubt that his recovery is made easier by the millions in the bank, the limitless free time, and the many interested parties who have presumably helped to get him here.

It says much about the nature of celebrity that Newsnight decide that the best person to debate a serious point with Hitchens is a third rate actor and ex addict (who seems to still think he is Chandler) rather than a possibly less glitzy expert in the field of addiction. Like you say why should Perry be held up as a representative for all addicts and an expert on all addiction just because he has suffered with it. From the preamble though it seems he was there to talk about his work with the drug courts and not the nature of addiction it's self which Hitchens turn the discussion to rather expertly.

 

[The Merry Prankster]

I'm a recovering addict and can assure Hitchins ( the pale and wretched shadow of his brother, a fact that will make his life a misery unto the grave) that whilst heavier sentencing may affect the moderate or social user it would have had absolutely no deterrent effect on me whatsoever. And that is a huge part of what defines an addict.

 

[Guinness Boy]

I'm a recovering addict and can assure Hitchins ( the pale and wretched shadow of his brother, a fact that will make his life a misery unto the grave)

The wrong brother really did go first. I know that's not a pleasant thing to write but it's what I think.

 

[happypig]

I've some experience of dealing with drug addicts when the enter the criminal justice system. In my opinion what Hitchens says is (like most of what he says) rubbish with a tinge of truth round the edges. Quite often when people get into drugs it is a lifestyle choice at first and for some it remains a recreational pursuit and they never enter the CJS. However, for a proportion of them, their personality and psyche means that they get hooked and become dependant (there's plenty of evidence that there is a proven physical dependency on certain substances).
Once they become involved, quite often they get involved in low-level crime such as shoplifting and get a criminal record. At first they will get fines/discharges but as their offending continues they will move into the area of Community Penalties and that's where Drug Rehabilitation Requirements are imposed. To be put on a DRR, though, they have to convince the court that it's not just a waste of time and that they want to try and get clean. They will have regular reviews and testing and it's not uncommon for the tests to be positive, however we're looking at the overall progress they are making. It's also not uncommon for them to offend whilst doing the DRR Order as for many offending comes as naturally as breathing.
Some people will take 2, 3 or even 4 orders before they get clean but I can tell you one thing, seeing someone having a final review and saying they have been clean for several month is always uplifting.

 

[Marxo]

Peter Htichens is one of the most obnoxious people that I can think of, luckily he's not in a position of real power. Just imagine if he made decisions about education!

 

[Notters]

Surely the best evidence that some drugs are addictive is that there is a scale of addictiveness, from very addictive to not addictive, and it doesn't mirror the pleasure associated with them. Some prescription drugs are addictive even with no recreational use.

 

[spring hall convert]

Hitchens is a fantastic troll, I used to get angry with him. He makes me laugh now, I kind of admire his refusal to care in the slightest what other people think about him to be honest.

He's in the perfect job for him.

 

[brightonrock]

I'm a recovering addict and can assure Hitchins ( the pale and wretched shadow of his brother, a fact that will make his life a misery unto the grave) that whilst heavier sentencing may affect the moderate or social user it would have had absolutely no deterrent effect on me whatsoever. And that is a huge part of what defines an addict.

This was also Russell Brand's point. An addict doesn't care whether the drug their body craves is legal or not. One way or another they will find a way to get it, to feed the cravings. Hitchens is an absolutely vile man who, like Katie Hopkins, only exists and has any publicity by making incendiary remarks like this. He makes no differentiation between the addict and the casual drug user. I would have some level of agreement with his point if he were advocating harsher penalties for drug dealers rather than users, but to deny the existence of the concept of addiction is a transparent attempt to maintain his reputation as a professional wind-up merchant. Inevitably, some equally vile DM-types will pipe up in agreement with him.

 

[Questions]

What chance does this country have when our government sacks its top drug advisor and expert because it doesn't adhere to the position adopted by that same said government. Why ask for advice from an expert in the first place. David Nutt knows more about these matters than twats like Hitchens so why are the BBC inviting him on to spew out his usual vile drivel instead of people who know what they are talking about.
The more you criminalise as Hitchens seems to prefer the more you create a climate akin to the USA's prohibition era with everything that entailed. All the serious studies around the world are slowly indicating that the addictions can be treated as a medical matter and that in itself helps both with recovery and later with the reductions in crime that addicts contribute to.

 

[The Truth]

Hitchens wouldn't even know the standard price of a loaf of bread let alone why people turn to drugs. Hitchens is a little kid trapped in a mans body who hasn't yet learnt what empathy is. Why is he given the opportunity to discuss scenarios he's not experienced or understands?. It's the equivalent to getting Warren Aspinall to question David Cameron on his foreign affairs.

 

[User removed 4]

This was also Russell Brand's point. An addict doesn't care whether the drug their body craves is legal or not. One way or another they will find a way to get it, to feed the cravings. Hitchens is an absolutely vile man who, like Katie Hopkins, only exists and has any publicity by making incendiary remarks like this. He makes no differentiation between the addict and the casual drug user. I would have some level of agreement with his point if he were advocating harsher penalties for drug dealers rather than users, but to deny the existence of the concept of addiction is a transparent attempt to maintain his reputation as a professional wind-up merchant. Inevitably, some equally vile DM-types will pipe up in agreement with him.

Are there any casual heroin users ? I know a few heroin users, none of them casual , they may start that way , but it doesnt last, they either end up as functioning addicts with a poor quality of life , or the wretched individuals who's life is one never ending search for the next fix, quite why ANYONE , with the level of information that is available would take heroin i dont know, that is why i have very little sympathy for heroin addicts ,its a choice to start, do they REALLY think they will be the one person to not end up as a filthy, skanky skaghead ?

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

What chance does this country have when our government sacks its top drug advisor and expert because it doesn't adhere to the position adopted by that same said government. Why ask for advice from an expert in the first place. David Nutt knows more about these matters than twats like Hitchens so why are the BBC inviting him on to spew out his usual vile drivel instead of people who know what they are talking about.
The more you criminalise as Hitchens seems to prefer the more you create a climate akin to the USA's prohibition era with everything that entailed. All the serious studies around the world are slowly indicating that the addictions can be treated as a medical matter and that in itself helps both with recovery and later with the reductions in crime that addicts contribute to.

Totally agree with this. Nutt's removal was totally politically motivated and utterly crazy.

 

[Uncle C]

I'm a recovering addict and can assure Hitchins ( the pale and wretched shadow of his brother, a fact that will make his life a misery unto the grave) that whilst heavier sentencing may affect the moderate or social user it would have had absolutely no deterrent effect on me whatsoever. And that is a huge part of what defines an addict.

Surely heavy sentencing would stop people taking drugs in prison and give them a chance to get clean.

 

[MattBackHome]

Hitchens is nearly as vile as Will Self

I sat next to Will Self on theBakerloo line a few weeks ago and his jacket smelt CUPBOARDY.