Russel Brand - Genuis or Fool

[Rowan]

Instead of massing a wall of text , I will instead give a very brief description of what Is going on and then embed the only 2 videos I believe you need to see to be able to make your judgements. Russel Brand is mostly known for being a comedian and for appearing in several comedy films such as 'Forgetting Sarah Marshal' and 'Get him to the Greek' as Aldus Snow. But what you may not know is that Russel Brand was an aggressive drug addict who is currently striving for reforms in the way addicts are not only viewed, but treated. He also detests our current form of government and blames the government for the way addicts end up. Russel Brand is a profoundly exceptional speaker and I do give him great kudos for his quick reponses and his articulation with words, but In my opinion, like many I have seen in various debates before, Russel brand is an expert at speaking without actually saying anything. His views are skewed. He sugguests the current government be abolished and that he wants a revolution. All the while whilst never actually sugguesting a system to replace our current form of government, thus leading to anarchy. I dont doubt his sincerity, he is obviously very passionate about what he is talking about, but it seems his emotions are fueling his desires and that what he is sugguesting is dysfunctional. He is also very rude to his hosts.







This interview is also quite interesting. Peter hitchens is a respected journalist and has a difficult time dealing with Russels lack of integrity.




Does Russel Brand have what it takes to start a revolution? Or is he a man without a plan. You be the judge.


edit: wow, I mispelled genius. Kill me now.

[Pete]

I don't think that he really has what it takes to a, start a revolution or b, really cause a rally for any real change in how things are done. I'm sure a lot of his backers are more fans of his and people who are using drugs. Therapies cost money. Why should we as taxpayers, pay even more to pay for people who have essentially screwed up and gotten addicted to drugs? I'm looking at this as a fairly libertarian American, where I think that a person who has made their bed should lie in it, and that quite frankly, by choosing to not do drugs, as I think the fair majority of people have, why should we have to pay for those who have decided to get wrapped up in that?

I understand the humanitarian aspect of it all, and the wanting to help my fellow man, but there's an inherent difference between the factory worker who had gotten laid off and needs some government assistance to feed his family, and the drug addict who might get better when it suits him. And yes, I totally understand that addicts need support in quitting and what not, but there are plenty of privately funded or free services, like AA and NA, where people can go to seek support for their addictions. I also understand that certain addictions can literally kill if they're stopped cold turkey, but why make the taxpayers responsible for a government regulated dealer?

And yes, I understand the perils of addiction and I understand how certain drugs, whether it be alcohol, tobacco or opiates can be tough to wrestle with, but I still think that it shouldn't be up to the state to deal with. No, I don't want my streets littered with addicts, and I don't want the crime that comes with such things, but I really don't want to foot the bill for it either.

Brand is very passionate and very good at citing numerical facts. However, as a comedian, he is essentially trained in being quick witted and fast with a response. I'm glad that he's been able to get free of the clutches of drugs, and I'm also glad that he's been able to do something for other addicts. I'm not denouncing his sincerity in the issue either. I'm sure he wants the reform and genuinely wants to help people to get over addiction.

However, I agree with the newscasters more in the second video, but their logic and the logic of their ideology is flawed. You can deter people all you want from doing something, but the addiction lies in the idea that a person who wants to get high on illegal drugs will find ways to do it. We don't have a scarlet letter system, where people who do x drug are branded with some mark that means they should just be locked up because they're on something. Yes, better enforcement of drug policies helps, but for someone who is addicted and unwilling to quit, another source is always available.

Long story short, addicts will be addicts until they themselves decide that they are done. Interventions can work, prison can work, law enforcement can work, but at the end of the day, it takes the addict themself to make the decision to quit.

I respect Brand for his opinion and desire to help addicts become clean, but at the same time, I don't think that a complete overhaul is what's going to do it. It's not right for the taxpayers who would be forced to foot the bill, and it's not going to solve the ultimate problem of removing drugs from the streets.

[Alpha]

He's a genius. He's an expert at getting people to listen to him no matter what he says. Not necessarily agreeing with him, just listening to him. And here we are, listening to him. Mission accomplished. Genius.

If you're asking if I agree with him, then yeah I do on some issues. Addiction is an illness, not a choice. By definition, an addiction is an involuntary compulsion. Doing something despite not really wanting to do it. A confusion between short term irrational preferences and medium- and long-term preferences/consequences. Addicts need help to make the rational choices that they want to make. Their addiction takes away their rational selves. I sincerely believe that a libertarian should find it sensible to support collectively-funded addiction programmes, due to their belief that the greatest good comes from individual people making the decisions which they know are best for themselves.

If that's even what he wants... I watched these videos some time ago now. (But I have seen them.)

[Rowan]

He's a genius. He's an expert at getting people to listen to him no matter what he says. Not necessarily agreeing with him, just listening to him. And here we are, listening to him. Mission accomplished. Genius.

If you're asking if I agree with him, then yeah I do on some issues. Addiction is an illness, not a choice. By definition, an addiction is an involuntary compulsion. Doing something despite not really wanting to do it. A confusion between short term irrational preferences and medium- and long-term preferences/consequences.

The thing is Alpha, Noone forces someone to become addicted. Addiction is the result of self infliction. I hate describing addiction as an illness because its just how Peter Hitchens says it, you are assuming the person has no free will. How is it that alcoholics and drug users stop using drugs? Its because they had the will power and they wanted too. If someone doesnt stop , its because they dont want too and I dont want to read people making excuses for them because frankly, it pisses me off. Do you know how many ambulances and doctors are being used treating people from these self inflicted obsessions? The same abulances and doctors that are too busy to help those who have had unfair things happen to them, all because someone wanted to get some pleasure. Brand's solution is to be compassionate and loving to these people? Its an insult to everyone else who needs urgent medical treatment but cant get it because medical attention is being wasted on low lives with self inflicted injuries all in the name of selfish pleasure. You might not like my train of thought but it stems from a line of reasoning which sugguests that even if addiction was classed as an illness, regardless that illness is self inflicted.

Addicts need help to make the rational choices that they want to make. Their addiction takes away their rational selves. I sincerely believe that a libertarian should find it sensible to support collectively-funded addiction programmes, due to their belief that the greatest good comes from individual people making the decisions which they know are best for themselves.

The best way to help an addict is to stop them from ever becoming an addict in the first place. A strong detterant to enforce the harsh realities of what will happen to you if you decide to take the dangerous risk of getting involved in such substances. The end result being "its your own goddamn fault". The real argument being made here is that its not worth taxpayer dollars to fund a system that has been proven NOT to work, in the many years it has already been in motion for. We dont even need harsher penalties for drug users, we just need to enforce them isntead of slapping people on their track marked wrists and letting them go.

[Pete]

I agree with Rowan here. Nobody is born with a needle in their arm or a bottle in their hand. Well, aside from babies born addicted to crack, but that's a whole other story.

Drug enforcement is really the way to go, but unfortunately, there will always be a way to smuggle that shit in, or if one drug source dries up, there will be some other means or methods for scumbags to try to get people high. Now you have chemically altered heroin, which has been dropping people left and right.

Enhanced drug enforcement efforts also lead to tons of other problems, whether it be based on profiling or segregating people, or the the idea of Californias three strike law, where a misdemeanor (such as possessing something like weed) can be turned into a third strike and yield up to a 25 year to life sentence. Now, it seems ludicrous to throw someone in jail for life for a dime bag. New York City is in a legal fight over stop and frisk, where police officers can stop and search people when they feel they have reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. This has led to several lawsuits where people thought they were stopped for racial reasons (being black in a wealthy "white" neighborhood).

I think proper drug education in schools and also stiff punishments for dealers is really the way to go. Punishing the users works, but what usually happens is that most people don't want to deal with junkies (between arresting them and locking them up), and it's more of a pain in the ass for the legal system to process cases about a guy who was caught smoking a joint.

Obviously, there is a lot more to examine with this, but the differences in legal and healthcare systems are so varied that there's no real way to come up with a gloabal system.