Fair play to Peter Hitchens

old hippy

Mr.David wrote: »

No excuse in Ireland regarding education.

Its so easy to blame 'society' for everything, ignoring personal responsibility and choice.

It's so easy to bandy about words like "choice" and "responsibility" when it comes to addiction. Not so easy when you're an actual addict though.

Mr.David

old hippy wrote: »

It's so easy to bandy about words like "choice" and "responsibility" when it comes to addiction. Not so easy when you're an actual addict though.

Of coiurse yeah, but tell me, how do you become an addict in the first place?

Surely by making a choice to take drugs?

Nodin

Mr.David wrote: »

Of coiurse yeah, but tell me, how do you become an addict in the first place?

Surely by making a choice to take drugs?

Simplistic crap.

jank

joseph brand wrote: »

"Oh he's depressed?" "Why doesn't he just cop on and get on with his life?" "Bloody spongers." Every conservative ever.

Yes, and we all know all blacks are lazy, all Irish are drunks and all Nigerians are scammers…...:rolleyes:

Robroy36

Nodin wrote: »

Simplistic crap.

Quite a temper on you Nodin.

Addicts have to make a concerted, selfish, self centered decision to abuse drugs. Simple fact, plenty of people with vested intrests will tell you otherswise but they are liars.

Call Me Jimmy

Mr.David wrote: »

Of coiurse yeah, but tell me, how do you become an addict in the first place?

Surely by making a choice to take drugs?

The thing about you and Peter Hitchens is you are basically saying not to rescue someone in a well because they 'should have been more careful'. This attitude reflects a more serious problem in the person holding it.

Nodin

Robroy36 wrote: »

Quite a temper on you Nodin.

Addicts have to make a concerted, selfish, self centered decision to abuse drugs. Simple fact, plenty of people with vested intrests will tell you otherswise but they are liars.

No pre-judging there.

You never got back to me on this.....
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=88051294&postcount=58

jank

old hippy wrote: »

It's so easy to bandy about words like "choice" and "responsibility" when it comes to addiction. Not so easy when you're an actual addict though.

Yes, because drugs magically find their way into peoples bodies…
Tell me how does that work?

Drumpot

Mr.David wrote: »

Of coiurse yeah, but tell me, how do you become an addict in the first place?

Surely by making a choice to take drugs?

I wont bother responding to anybody who has the stupidity to state that people who take drugs are bad . . (I know that wasn't you, just refuse to repost them).

A person is born with certain traits or psychological wiring that they cant control. Depending on the environment they live, these traits can remain dormant or they can play a huge role in their lives. If you think about most cancers, most people can relate to the idea that if you catch cancer early, you stand a better chance of overcoming the disease. The same can be said of mental illness's.

People don't like the concept of "handicapped" people being used in the same context of addiction mainly because they have this misguided view that one has a choice, the other simply chooses to make their lives tough. It stems from the empathetic feeling many of us get when we see somebody in a wheelchair or in obvious physical suffering. Its not the same when the person looks physically fine, but the trouble is going on in their head.

What is funny is that the word handicapped means: (of a person) having a condition that markedly restricts their ability to function physically, mentally, or socially. But some of the people attacking "addiction" are only focusing on the physical action of the addict, without any understanding (or care) of the social/mental aspects of the condition.

Its like when some people think that people who suffer from depression should just snap out of it and pull themselves together. Its the self absorbed or self centred nature of people to only connect or understand something they can physically see or that they themselves experience.

Incidentally, people can be addicted to sex, computer games or other things. These people would be potentially just as susceptible to drugs and alcohol if the rights conditions arose.

Mr.David

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

The thing about you and Peter Hitchens is you are basically saying not to rescue someone in a well because they 'should have been more careful'. This attitude reflects a more serious problem in the person holding it.

Please, show me where I said or supported that view?! My point is that its easy to deflect blame from the individual to society as a whole. I NEVER said that someone suffering from addiction should not be helped.

Wattle

Mr.David wrote: »

No excuse in Ireland regarding education.

Its so easy to blame 'society' for everything, ignoring personal responsibility and choice.

I'm not saying it's impossible for someone from a poor background to succeed but the odds are stacked against them much more than people from higher income brackets.

Without proper supports a lot of children living with disadvantage simply don’t have the resources they need to get an adequate education.

If you live in a disadvantaged area your choices are limited. Unemployment is highest in disadvantaged areas. It's that much harder to climb out of these traps if you live in a certain postcode. Into this void comes criminality and drug abuse.

Frank Lee Midere

Wattle wrote: »

I'm not saying it's impossible for someone from a poor background to succeed but the odds are stacked against them much more than people from higher income brackets.

Without proper supports a lot of children living with disadvantage simply don’t have the resources they need to get an adequate education.

If you live in a disadvantaged area your choices are limited. Unemployment is highest in disadvantaged areas. It's that much harder to climb out of these traps if you live in a certain postcode. Into this void comes criminality and drug abuse.

Why did unemployment stay high during our 2 decade boom?

Mr.David

Drumpot wrote: »

A person is born with certain traits or psychological wiring that they cant control. Depending on the environment they live, these traits can remain dormant or they can play a huge role in their lives.

I agree with you in that people can have a genetic predisposition to addiction, which is hugely unfortunate of course. However, no-one is actually addicted to heroin until they choose to use the drug.

You cannot compare heroin addiction to being addicted to something like food/sex/internet etc as each of those are usually non destructive activities that can become an addiction for someone with that predisposition.

Heroin however is not a non destructive substance and anyone that takes it has made a choice and should have accepted the risks involved. But hey, thats not very warm and cuddly is it so lets just blame some nameless/faceless group called 'society'.

Mr.David

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

Why did unemployment stay high during our 2 decade boom?

It didnt

Wattle

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

Why did unemployment stay high during our 2 decade boom?

Because the boom never reached the type of areas I'm talking about. If we have another boom it still won't.

Robroy36

Nodin wrote: »

No pre-judging there.

You never got back to me on this.....
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=88051294&postcount=58

The Dublin accent is no more linked to ignorance than Wolf Club originally insinuated Tories are detached from reality.

Frank Lee Midere

Mr.David wrote: »

It didnt

I was quoting somebody who said it did in "disadvantaged areas".

Nodin

Robroy36 wrote: »

The Dublin accent is no more linked to ignorance than Wolf Club originally insinuated Tories are detached from reality.

Then why did you use that phrasing? What were you trying to convey?

Drumpot

Mr.David wrote: »

I agree with you in that people can have a genetic predisposition to addiction, which is hugely unfortunate of course. However, no-one is actually addicted to heroin until they choose to use the drug.

You cannot compare heroin addiction to being addicted to something like food/sex/internet etc as each of those are usually non destructive activities that can become an addiction for someone with that predisposition.

Heroin however is not a non destructive substance and anyone that takes it has made a choice and should have accepted the risks involved. But hey, thats not very warm and cuddly is it so lets just blame some nameless/faceless group called 'society'.

I wasn't speaking of heroin abuse, I was speaking purely about addiction. In saying that, I don't really care what the addiction is, its just different levels of destruction and the only thing people who don't suffer this trait worry about is how this destruction might impact them.

People may have differing opinions or sympathy to certain addicts depending on how it might effect them personally. But they are all savage compulsions to do something harmful to that person, compulsions that the average person doesn't get.

old hippy

Mr.David wrote: »

Of coiurse yeah, but tell me, how do you become an addict in the first place?

Surely by making a choice to take drugs?

There can be a number of factors leading to the taking of drugs, depression, abuse, peer pressure, socially disadvantages and so forth. Nobody actually sits down and goes "hey, I think I'll become a drug addict today!"

Wolf Club

Robroy36 wrote: »

The Dublin accent is no more linked to ignorance than Wolf Club originally insinuated Tories are detached from reality.

I wasn't referring to all Tories, I was referring to Hitchens specifically. Anyone can get wrapped up in a political and social ideology and completely refuse to accept any other school of thought and, in my opinion, Hitchens is a perfect example of this. Call me ignorant if you want but the rhetoric you've been spouting about all addicts being selfish and completely to blame for their own situation will make me pay little heed.

mikom

How I yearn for the days when a left handed ciatog was beaten by the headmaster until he learned to use his right hand.....................

"There's something wrong with you, boy, so I'll punish you until you are cured"
.
.
.

Corkfeen

old hippy wrote: »

There can be a number of factors leading to the taking of drugs, depression, abuse, peer pressure, socially disadvantages and so forth. Nobody actually sits down and goes "hey, I think I'll become a drug addict today!"

Indeed, only a few years back I veered in the direction of drinking excessively during one of my stints of depression. Luckily it didn't in the end but it could have very easily became a major problem. It wouldn't have been out of the question for me to turn to other drugs to numb my mind if an offer arose or if I came from a slightly different background.

jank

Corkfeen wrote: »

Indeed, only a few years back I veered in the direction of drinking excessively during one of my stints of depression. Luckily it didn't in the end but it could have very easily became a major problem. It wouldn't have been out of the question for me to turn to other drugs to numb my mind if an offer arose or if I came from a slightly different background.

So in essence you agree with Hitchens in that drugs that are harmful should be deterred in society. If people have no free will when it comes to this stuff then such things should be banned, right? I think people are arguing both ways here without even realising it.

Corkfeen

jank wrote: »

So in essence you agree with Hitchens in that drugs that are harmful should be deterred in society. If people have no free will when it comes to this stuff then such things should be banned, right? I think people are arguing both ways here without even realising it.

Criminalization doesn't work though. I wouldn't want alcohol banned even if it can be harmful to society because the only thing you would do is push it underground. Once it goes underground, it makes it a hell of a lot more unlikely for addicts to seek treatment or assistance.

jank

Corkfeen wrote: »

Criminalization doesn't work though. I wouldn't want alcohol banned even if it can be harmful to society because the only thing you would do is push it underground. Once it goes underground, it makes it a hell of a lot more unlikely for addicts to seek treatment or assistance.

Again you are arguing two sides of the same coin. Even in your post you admit that if drugs were 'offered' to you, then you would have felt due to your depression unable to resist the temptation* to numb your mind further. Surely that alone is an arguement to keep drugs illegal and away from mass public consumption?

*I don’t really agree with the total abdication of free will either or that addiction is a disease in the same sense as cancer or aids. Addiction is mental issue rather than a physiological issue

Nodin

jank wrote: »

Again you are arguing two sides of the same coin. Even in your post you admit that if drugs were 'offered' to you, then you would have felt due to your depression unable to resist the temptation* to numb your mind further. Surely that alone is an arguement to keep drugs illegal and away from mass public consumption?

Is the majority of the public subject to depression and unable to resist a similar temptation?

jank

Nodin wrote: »

Is the majority of the public subject to depression and unable to resist a similar temptation?

Do the majority of drug users and abusers suffer from depression?

Nodin

jank wrote: »

Do the majority of drug users and abusers suffer from depression?

I'd be unable to comment on that. However, a large number do seem to be effectively "self medicating" for something and seem to do so from an early age. As a result, it's safe to say there are drives towards addiction rather than it being a simple issue of addictive subtsances and a weak willed populace.

stpaddy99

Corkfeen wrote: »

Criminalization doesn't work though. I wouldn't want alcohol banned even if it can be harmful to society because the only thing you would do is push it underground. Once it goes underground, it makes it a hell of a lot more unlikely for addicts to seek treatment or assistance.

It does work better in America by light years...their drug abuse rates are 326 times lower than ours.
yes have some rehabilitation but repeat users who commit crimes must be locked away, then why not have more rehabilitation help in prisons? better there and get them off the streets to make the public safe

Soft Falling Rain

jank wrote: »

Do the majority of drug users and abusers suffer from depression?

For those that drugs have become destructive in their lives, I would argue a sizable amount have a mental illness. For example, most homeless are suffering from addiction; they also would have been diagnosed with a mental illness.

jank

Nodin wrote: »

I'd be unable to comment on that. However, a large number do seem to be effectively "self medicating" for something and seem to do so from an early age. As a result, it's safe to say there are drives towards addiction rather than it being a simple issue of addictive subtsances and a weak willed populace.

So that would be a no then. I take it you are therefore in the Sam Harris camp of there being no free will.

jank

Soft Falling Rain wrote: »

For those that drugs have become destructive in their lives, I would argue a sizable amount have a mental illness. For example, most homeless are suffering from addiction; they also would have been diagnosed with a mental illness.

I suppose this is a chicken and egg scenario. Did they end up like that because of mental illness or did the abuse of drugs and drive to poverty/ill health lead to mental illness.

Soft Falling Rain

jank wrote: »

I suppose this is a chicken and egg scenario. Did they end up like that because of mental illness or did the abuse of drugs and drive to poverty/ill health lead to mental illness.

It can vary. Some who end up on the street did not end up there because of addiction, but will likely develop one to cope with the harsh realities of their situation.

Not everyone ends up homeless either because of mental health issues and contrary to popular belief, through no fault of their own.

mikom

stpaddy99 wrote: »

It does work better in America by light years...their drug abuse rates are 326 times lower than ours.
yes have some rehabilitation but repeat users who commit crimes must be locked away, then why not have more rehabilitation help in prisons? better there and get them off the streets to make the public safe

Will you ever go away with your bollox facts and figures...........

Despite tough anti-drug laws, a new survey shows the U.S. has the highest level of illegal drug use in the world.

The World Health Organization's survey of legal and illegal drug use in 17 countries, including the Netherlands and other countries with less stringent drug laws, shows Americans report the highest level of cocaine and marijuana use.

For example, Americans were four times more likely to report using cocaine in their lifetime than the next closest country, New Zealand (16% vs. 4%), (16% vs. 4%),

Marijuana use was more widely reported worldwide, and the U.S. also had the highest rate of use at 42.4% compared with 41.9% of New Zealanders.

In contrast, in the Netherlands, which has more liberal drug policies than the U.S., only 1.9% of people reported cocaine use and 19.8% reported marijuana use.

"Globally, drug use is not distributed evenly and is not simply related to drug policy, since countries with stringent user-level illegal drug policies did not have lower levels of use than countries with liberal ones," researcher Louisa Degenhardt of the University of New South Wales, Australia, and colleagues write in PLoS Medicine.


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-leads-the-world-in-illegal-drug-use/

Drumpot

jank wrote: »

I suppose this is a chicken and egg scenario. Did they end up like that because of mental illness or did the abuse of drugs and drive to poverty/ill health lead to mental illness.

Could be a bit of both, some people are more vulnerable to becoming addicts. Different things can happen during their lives that make these addictions less or more prominent in their lives.

I don't think its a simple case of saying "well if they don't have drugs, they wont have an addiction problem". For some people, having access to drugs or alcohol has actually saved their lives (until they have been able to get the help they needed).
Think about it this way. Imagine you are getting little or no sleep. You are constantly thinking of things that upset or scare or just keep driving you mad. You cannot "switch" off or relax. Even when you do get a holiday from work you feel more pressure to relax that you find you just cant.

You have grown up around alcohol and/or "recreational" drugs and took them for leisure at times. But you realise that when you take them, you actually get some comfort and some sort of peace from the madness in your head every other time.
At that stage, you begun using drugs/alcohol for the same reason most other people do, just for fun and for a bit of crack. But then you find that when you are not taking one of these drugs your life feels hopeless. You feel alone because you spend so much time in your own head, thinking of things that upset you so much, but nobody else knows or understands what you are going through.

You realise that this drug is causing you more problems and its beginning to change the person you are, but the thought of not getting this relief (through drugs) is more worrying then the thought of life without the drug.
You begin to pull away from social events and find yourself asked to less events with your friends. Some of them just don't want to be around you and anyways, you are convinced they are better off without you because you are so full of self loathing as a result of the person you are becoming.


You find that your closer friends and family are losing patience with you so you become defencive. They say you are rude, you are just frustrated that they don't understand how horrible and lonely you feel. This makes you feel more isolated, if the ones closest to you don't understand you, how can you feel comfortable talking to them? The only time you get some relief from the pain of it all is when you take this drug. It doesn't make your life perfect, but it takes away the pain of life, the pain of isolation and gives you something to look forward to in life.

Now, its easy to say that the drugs have just made the persons life worse and eventually that is very true. However, if the person felt this way and didn't have any relief at all, there is a good chance that they might commit suicide before anybody ever knew there was a problem. I am not advocating the use of drugs , I am simply saying that this is not as simplistic as saying "take away the drugs and the problem doesn't exist".

I could go on, but I think the point is clear. People do not just "become a junky/bum". There are so many different ways people can lose themselves to drugs (including alcohol) and in some cases its that they are more susceptible and others it might be their environment (or both).

Nodin

jank wrote: »

So that would be a no then. I take it you are therefore in the Sam Harris camp of there being no free will.

Don't please try to simplify my answers to make them fit your limited view.

Wotsername

This is such a complex issue. There are lots of subjective opinions based on experience, academia, statistics, the odd article/book read and points of view coming from every aspect of society (each equally deserving of consideration) being thrown into one debate here.

How can we debate the best way for the judicial system to deal with a problem without defining what it is? Define addiction?
Then try to differentiate between addicts and junkies, ie: He/She is a scumbag drug user who not also uses addiction to deal with life but also as an excuse and has been caught again. And, He/She is a decent functioning drug user, who has been using drugs in order to deal with life for many years, (and still manages to maintain their job/dignity/family/self.

Not to mention all those who fall somewhere in between.
I personally have met and known many of all the above.

Apologies for bad spelling, punctuation and formatting. I wasn't in that day (Your Honor)

jank

Nodin wrote: »

Don't please try to simplify my answers to make them fit your limited view.

If you don't believe in free will than say so.

Wotsername

jank wrote: »

If you don't believe in free will than say so.

Yes agreed.
So how do we start teaching children an alternative way to deal with life, and how our brains/minds are wired to deal with it?

Nodin

jank wrote: »

If you don't believe in free will than say so.

Of course there's free will in certain situations, but in others - due to social and psychological factors - its much reduced.

Soft Falling Rain

jank wrote: »

If you don't believe in free will than say so.

The world would be a much better place if we all could own our choices. But that's not the world we live in.

DrumSteve

Not as good as his brother.

stpaddy99

Weve tried the liberal approach and our drug use is 326 times worse that America
I REPEAT OUR DRUG USE IS 326 TIMES WORSE THAN AMERICA, A FACT MANY HERE IGNORE

Nodin

stpaddy99 wrote: »

Weve tried the liberal approach and our drug use is 326 times worse that America
I REPEAT OUR DRUG USE IS 326 TIMES WORSE THAN AMERICA, A FACT MANY HERE IGNORE

You can use the caps lock all day long. You'll still be wrong at the end of it.


When did we try the "liberal approach"?

Pug160

Peter doesn't have any of the charm or charisma that his brother had, but that doesn't mean he's not intelligent.

ElvisChrist6

God, I love when toffee-nosed scumbag cúnts who have no idea about addictions or addicts like Hitchens can tell an addict objectively that they are wrong about drugs and their addiction.

I honestly can't believe he can be so boorish and pig headed that he KNOWS he is right about this when he has no experience either with addicts or addiction more importantly. How can he honestly think he's the all knowing oracle of this? A brutish moron, just like his brother.

Wattle

ElvisChrist6 wrote: »

God, I love when toffee-nosed scumbag cúnts who have no idea about addictions or addicts like Hitchens can tell an addict objectively that they are wrong about drugs and their addiction.

I honestly can't believe he can be so boorish and pig headed that he KNOWS he is right about this when he has no experience either with addicts or addiction more importantly. How can he honestly think he's the all knowing oracle of this? A brutish moron, just like his brother.

Ah here now. I disagree completely with Peter Hitchens on this but his brother although controversial was spot on about a lot of things.

ElvisChrist6

Wattle wrote: »

Ah here now. I disagree completely with Peter Hitchens on this but his brother although controversial was spot on about a lot of things.

I agree he had a lot of things right, along with a lot of things wrong; in my opinion, a lot more things. However, what I can't abide is the lack of humility to ever consider he might not be the most genius person on the planet. Having said that, I am a fan of Richard Dawkins who can appear that way, though moreso his works on evolutionary biology and philosophy than the God Delusion stuff. I feel like Hitchens was a little too trusting of his belief that he was fantastic and always right.

stpaddy99

ElvisChrist6 wrote: »

God, I love when toffee-nosed scumbag cúnts who have no idea about addictions or addicts like Hitchens can tell an addict objectively that they are wrong about drugs and their addiction.

I honestly can't believe he can be so boorish and pig headed that he KNOWS he is right about this when he has no experience either with addicts or addiction more importantly. How can he honestly think he's the all knowing oracle of this? A brutish moron, just like his brother.

you call him boorish pig headed scumbag C*nt but the only one being abusive is you...Good own goal pal