[arista]

Youtube video

Now even if you do not like the way Hitchens speaks
he is Right.



Which side are you taking?

[smudgie]

Originally Posted by arista

Youtube video

Now even if you do not like the way Hitchens speaks
he is Right.



Which side are you taking?

Having seen addiction first hand, I think he is wrong.

I watched the interview at the time and did not expect any different from him.
He is rather an ignorant man.

[Pete.]

Is that Chandler

[arista]

Originally Posted by Petemitch123

Is that Chandler

Yes

[Toy Soldier]

I haven't watched the video so I don't know what they have to say, but I'm on Chandler's side.

Because Chandler.

[the truth]

both sides have some valid points but thie debate got a little childish especially from chandler.
id also add chandlers point that after 1 drink he is powerless to stop because of a drinking allergy is total bulloney
get drug pushers and drug takers off the streets....first time drug users maybe warnings and some rehabilitation...beyond that get rehabilitation in the prisons....
first rule is protect the public......drug users often end up selling to try and afford their own fix....especially as most buy baking powder for a fortune

[arista]

Originally Posted by the truth

both sides have some valid points but the debate got a little childish especially from chandler.
id also add chandlers point that after 1 drink he is powerless to stop because of a drinking allergy is total bulloney
get drug pushers and drug takers off the streets....first time drug users maybe warnings and some rehabilitation...beyond that get rehabilitation in the prisons....
first rule is protect the public......drug users often end up selling to try and afford their own fix....especially as most buy baking powder for a fortune

Yes he was child like

[Nemo123]

I think they were both wrong. But Hitchins? Makes you wonder what kind of parents they had.

[Nemo123]

The Hitchin brothers are so incredibly arrogant. Peter is the duller of the two, obviously.

[arista]

Originally Posted by Nemo123

I think they were both wrong. But Hitchins? Makes you wonder what kind of parents they had.

Strict

Originally Posted by Nemo123

The Hitchin brothers are so incredibly arrogant. Peter is the duller of the two, obviously.

Christopher was a great writer though. Peter is just a right wing shrill.

[the truth]

Originally Posted by Jesus.

Christopher was a great writer though. Peter is just a right wing shrill.

No he wasn't

[Toy Soldier]

Ok so I've actually watched it now. And whilst Chandler's allergy argument is ... Questionable ... It is true that some people are more prone to chemical addiction than others (e.g. some people can smoke socially for years and never crave one at any other time, others get hooked on nicotine after just a few times and gave physical withdrawal) but an allergy? Hmmm... Not convinced. The issue is mainly psychological.

The other guy is talking such nonsense it's not even funny. His idea of ramping up the criminal element would simply not decrease levels of drug addiction, at all. He really believes that these people will not take drugs in the first place / stop taking drugs because "its illegal"? ... Really? They don't give a **** whether or not its legal. All his idea would do is place even more pressure on a criminal justice and prison system that's bursting at the seams and costing an absolute fortune as it is. Or worse: taking kids who are dabbling with small time drugs and would stop in their early 20s anyway, slapping them with a criminal record, and all but ensuring that their life will slide downhill INTO unemployment and addiction when they would otherwise have grown up eventually. Utterly ridiculous. Typical toff nonsense. "if daddy is clear that it's naughty then they'll just have to bloody well stop old chap!"

[the truth]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Ok so I've actually watched it now. And whilst Chandler's allergy argument is ... Questionable ... It is true that some people are more prone to chemical addiction than others (e.g. some people can smoke socially for years and never crave one at any other time, others get hooked on nicotine after just a few times and gave physical withdrawal) but an allergy? Hmmm... Not convinced. The issue is mainly psychological.

The other guy is talking such nonsense it's not even funny. His idea of ramping up the criminal element would simply not decrease levels of drug addiction, at all. He really believes that these people will not take drugs in the first place / stop taking drugs because "its illegal"? ... Really? They don't give a **** whether or not its legal. All his idea would do is place even more pressure on a criminal justice and prison system that's bursting at the seams and costing an absolute fortune as it is. Or worse: taking kids who are dabbling with small time drugs and would stop in their early 20s anyway, slapping them with a criminal record, and all but ensuring that their life will slide downhill INTO unemployment and addiction when they would otherwise have grown up eventually. Utterly ridiculous. Typical toff nonsense. "if daddy is clear that it's naughty then they'll just have to bloody well stop old chap!"

SOME people would avoid drugs if they felt the cops were taking it seriously....everyone knows theyre not, people tak edrugs round here in public view like drinking a can of pepsi....so hitchens argument did hold some water....the middle ground is simply to offer more rehabilitation to people whilst in prison....another area never discussed is the number of people high on drugs whilst driving....is there a proper test?

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by the truth

SOME people would avoid drugs if they felt the cops were taking it seriously....everyone knows theyre not, people tak edrugs round here in public view like drinking a can of pepsi....so hitchens argument did hold some water....the middle ground is simply to offer more rehabilitation to people whilst in prison....another area never discussed is the number of people high on drugs whilst driving....is there a proper test?

The only people who would avoid taking drugs for fear of the authorities are the people who aren't problem drug-takers in the first place. The reason that pockets of drug abusers are a problem is not the fact that the people are on drugs; it's the fact that it comes hand-in-hand with other antisocial (and already illegal) behaviors such as petty theft and minor assaults (usually against each other). The illegality of these actions doesn't deter them currently, so why would drugs being illegal deter them from that? The only people who it would deter are your "minor", generally law-abiding, drug takers (for example, cannabis-smoking University students). Should be noted that these are also the people most likely to have their futures (needlessly, in my opinion) cut short by a criminal charge.

In short; I think it would be an expensive waste of time. The court system is expensive, the prison system is even more expensive, and it wouldn't deter the problem drug-takers... who are already committing various minor crimes on a daily basis anyway.