Russell Brand Talks About Addiction: Does Criminalizing Drugs Prevent Use?

You have a point there but you need to go back further into history and learn to understand there was a time ( and not so long ago) when the governments did not have any controls and or serious restrictions on the supply and selling and consumption of many addictive intoxicating substances.
The result was widespread intoxication and addiction perpetrated by suppliers and consumers and it was not a pretty picture in many aspects and it was not only the government that recognised that the various intoxicating and known to be detrimental substances needed to be controlled or curbed or at least regulated.
The public welcomed the new laws but of course the substance consumers did not.
The law makers were not stupid to try to enforce the new laws and rules but it turned out they did make many incorrect assumptions that... ..well we all know the rest of that part of history.
So now the powers that be deem a number of substances detrimental and they try to stop the people from consuming them because when the intoxication and the addiction gets out of hand it is the government people ( law enforcement included) that are expected to resolve the problems as that is what they are elected to do.
In this case the efforts to curb the consumption are causing a number of significant problems and the citizens want those problems to be addressed by their governments.
When new and unforseen problems evolve from the legal consumption of the drugs and the many intoxicants that are ( legally ) allowed to be consumed then many of the people will still be screaming bloody murder and demanding that the government solve the problems of drug consumption and intoxication. When they attempt to do so then many other people will scream bloody murder that their rights and civil liberties are being infringed upon and when the governments consider the rights of those people to legally consume the drugs then there are plenty of problems that evolve in various other ways. Then the other people scream bloody murder about all the other problems that have evolved because of the wide spread drug consumption and the wide spread intoxication
So who is at fault here??? The people that consume the problematic substances or the government people that are trying to resolve the problems associated with the consumption of the detrimental intoxicating and addicting substances that a percent of the citizens insist on consuming.

If all the laws are removed would it be better in the long run while letting the citizens have liberal access to substances that are proven to be problematic and detrimental in a variety of ways.
What would the citizens have to say if the government simply ignored the supply and consumption of the drugs and did not apply any restrictions at all to the supply and consumption of the drugs.
Would that be the answer to avoid any legal problems and or negative ramifications of the laws applied to selling and consuming the various addicting and detrimental substances.
It is well proven that any laws applied to the drugs and their consumption are causing grief in numerous ways so which aspects of the drug consumption should take precendent and or supersede the other in importance.
Allow wide spread consumption and intoxication and addiction to the satisfaction of the drug users or should the government try to prevent the consumption of problematic substance to avoid the known problems.

Either way there are plenty of problems ..so which is the lesser of the problematic paths to choose????

Good questions there. I say let governments regulate trade (e.g. licencing as is done for alcohol; setting standards for purity and dosage), regulate advertising to ensure it isn't false or excessive or targeted at youth etc (and perhaps require warnings based on good research), define age and some other restrictions to protect children and others incapable of making informed choices as adults, regulate against any forced or unconsenting drug administration, provide scientific information and treatment programmes funded through adequate taxation on the industry.

Only a few illegalized drugs caused major problems in the past. Most were made illegal mainly due to lobbying by influential figures who sought to impose their views and control on the population. Copious propaganda frightened (and continues to frighten) many people into supporting such control.

I know many people who have enjoyed various recreational drugs responsibly and also succeeded in gaining good qualifications, establishing and maintaining successful professional careers or businesses. Their drug use has never led them to harm others or commit real crimes. Many recreational drugs are not inherently destructive to good living or social contribution. Like most foods and activities they will entail some degree of wear and tear on the user but a balance between this and what they add to quality of life (such that life is enhanced overall) can be achieved through moderating frequency, dosage and circumstances of use. The same applies, for example, to many sports that almost inevitably result in injuries, later-life arthritis etc. Surely principles of freedom of choice, personal rights and responsibility should be applied consistently rather than discarding such principles only when it comes to drugs.

Also, times have changed since opiates were legally available and Coca Cola contained cocaine but people were unaware of the risks of addiction etc. Modern communication technology means that information can be disseminated rapidly and adults can be informed enough to make informed choices. With the exception of the Opium Wars through deliberate state manipulation, I'm not sure the problems in the pre-prohibition era were so great anyway. Sigmund Freud and many other major contributors to society merrily used opiates or cocaine or tobacco or snuff, but would probably choose not to nowadays given our improved knowledge.

Yes that is the way it will have to be done and we have all learned our lessons from the mistakes eveyone involved has made.
I just like to razz the druggies becaue they talk some really abnoxious rehtoric that really only defends their drug consuming agendas while ignoring many other issues concerning intoxicating and often addicting drug consumption.
Basically it is a numbers game while trying to minimise the collateral damage.
I want the drugs to be legalised ( although many would think I do not by way of my submissions) because I want to see what develops and I want to see just how much responsibility and liability is actually practised when the drug(s) are finally legalised..or at least marijuana which is the least threatening of all the intoxicants out there.
But on the other hand the druggies have to accept the fact that most people are not keen to be around people who practice intoxication on an habitual basis.
Drinking has become more or less accepted as a regular social practice and drunkards and drunk people (at any given time ) are more or less tolerated but at the same time more or less loathed by other people that just can not comprehend how so many people allow themselves to sink that low into alcoholism.
For that percent of marijauna users who do sink that low into habitual intoxication and the often bizarre personalities that develope by way of habitual intoxication on marijuana ( you know, the classic Pot Head ) that maybe other pot heads find amusing but the rest of the people do not then that percent of drug consuming people are going to make it very difficult for the rest of the nation to accept the legal drug consumption when it is practiced around them.
I know well that the nation would be better off if every drinker turned to pot ( but lots of people try it and reject it and would rather drink alcohol and enjoy the alcohol buzz)
The nation is just going to have to absorb a lot of the ramifications resultant of the drug consumption culture that has taken hold of the nation and a significant percent of the people.
Those that are wary and reluctant to allow the drug consumption to become common practice by an ever growing percent will have to adjust their comfort zones and learn to live amongst the drug users and the problems that come with the drug consumption.
They will have to step up and help resolve the problems if and when they can some how, some way
I seriously think there should be a drug consumers society or union that makes drug users "swear by oath" to be well behaved and seriously think about their conduct and behaviour while intoxicated and their drug consumption practices.
If you get out of hand you will be banished from the brother hood...LOL..but something that make the users all the more responsible for their intoxication.

I also suggested before that I think they should have to be registered and licensed to consume the drugs and when they violate the rules, so to speak, they are penalised in some significant way.
You wonder if the government told the nation they will allow the drugs to be sold and consumed but there are conditions and it included the licensed right to consume the drugs and you have to pay for that license every year and you swear to abide by the laws and it included awards for good behaviour and penalties for bad behaviour.
Maybe it would have to include liability insurance attached to the licence.......just like a car insurance program.
If everyone was happy, happy and not causing any problems for any one else then what is there to complain about.
Something that makes the drug consumer a model citizen...LOL
Maybe drug testing is the answer based on not allowing access to many products or services if you are a drug consumer.
For example: The drug users are restricted from working at many companies because they refuse to hire drug consumers and they have all the right in the world to shut them out of the work place.
No goverment jobs if you are a drug user.
You dont get social assistance or welfare if you are a drug user.
You dont get numerous government services if you are a drug user.
Insurance companies require regular drug testing for motor vehicle insurance and motor vehicle licensing.
There could be Many creative ways to curb the consumption and basically make it a pain in the ass for the drug consumers as long as they insist on continuing to consume the drugs and basically "ostricise" them and make it very unpopular to consume the drugs..but they are available if you want them.
If the druggies claim it is discrimination then it can be legaly argued that is not the case, based on the drug consumers personal choice to partake or not partake.
Based on everyones freedom of choice ( as argued by the druggies themselves) then that choice to consume comes with notable and persuasive disadvantages.
Nothing to do with laws or regulations or breaking any laws or regulations.
It will become a matter of not telling you what to do..rather a matter of what you will not recieve if you are a drug consumer verses what you will recieve if you are not a drug consumer.
And why not have creative incentives...... for being a citizen not partaking in drug consumption and not participating in risky behaviour versus penalties for being a citizen that is involved in risky behaviour and problematic activities.
Just suggestions that could be applied but of course not at all well received by the drug users as would be expected of anything that impedes their drug consumption agenda.
After it is legalised it will become a matter of drug consumption decorm praticed by all the drug consumers while witnessed, for the record, by the non consumers who are ready to criticize them immediately and surely the citizens will be demanding reprimands to be enforced.

We are witnessing a change in the attitudes of law enforcement and there will come a time that law enforcement itself will simply refuse to police the drug consumption and focus only on the supply end of the equation and enforce the laws of legal supply.
Meantime the consumers are free ( more or less) to consume but if they do violate other drug related laws while intoxicated there will have to be some creative reprimands to seriously make them think about what they did while intoxicated.
Dont send them to jail..make them sweep the streets or clean the sewers or get really creative in how they are penalised..anything to make them well behaved drug consumers that inflict the least amount of pain on the nation.
Make them pay some serious fines that has them working their asses off to pay back the fines...or make them listen to Justine Beiber music for 1 month straight everyday for 16 hours a day ...I dont know .....but people can be pretty creative if need be to resolve problems.
We will see, we will see.

Yes, I agree that harming, abusing, stealing from others is appropriately punished whether an offender is intoxicated or not. Repeated offences attract increasing punishment and if addiction or use of a substance appears to be contributing to those offences then it is appropriate to coerce the offender into rehab concerning that substance. However, I dispute your implication that drug use generally causes people to become offenders, otherwise undesirable or a risk in most occupations. That depends on the drug and few cause greater impairment than alcohol (which has a specific action on the myelin sheath around axons thereby slowing down neural signal transmission).

Most workplace drug testing is based on superstition fueled by false propaganda and poor science, and it's usually more part of the general war against drugs by conservative employers than any realistic safety measure. To discriminate against employees on the basis of what they choose to do in their private time would for me be unacceptable, a big step back towards enslavement in which an employer owns the whole life of an employee but doesn't pay for it. Fair enough though for an employer to undertake random performance testing of employees relevant to their jobs. This would identify employees who are truly not safe at work due to delayed reaction times, perceptual disturbances, impairment of memory, judgement etc. Such problems can be caused by current intoxication from certain substances, or by emotional distress, sleep deprivation, heart conditions, diabetes, psychiatric illness and many other factors, but are seldom caused by having smoked a joint last weekend that will still show up in drug testing days or weeks later.

you keep proving my point. the bible discourages EXCESS. If you have done something to the point you are addicted to it, you have done it in excess. No where does it proclaim any mind or mood altering substance "evil". If you are imbibing a substance because you cannot handle life, its your life that is the problem, not the substance. I don't imbibe anything to make my problems go away, i imbibe for enjoyment, the same reason i may read a good fiction book, watch a movie or listen to music. As part of a celebration, such as a birthday, wedding or other event. Even just as part of socializing with friends are all socially and as far as I can tell biblicaly acceptable.

I do not drink often (3-4 times a year?) and even then i rarely drink to the point of inebriation. One big reason is that for me it is quite a chore to drink enough alcohol to get drunk and then keep drinking to stay there. A secondary it is expensive for me to even try and there are other things i would rather spend my money on. Even then, being a type II diabetic I am not supposed to drink very much if at all anyway due to my medications. As far as a joint, i prefer some xylitol cookies or brownies made with rendered butter or a vaporizer. .If i am visiting a friend i will not refuse their preferred method of partaking if offered. Even then, I would say i probably consume less in the course of a year then the average person who socially drinks and might have a few beers during a ball game or outdoor BBQ. In short, i have nothing to condone.

Enough about me, let get to you. Your holier then thou attitude, warped personal interpretation of biblical word and assuming that you know the mind of g-d has led you to the grievous sin of vehemently judging your fellow man. Even the pursuit of a religious experience if done to excess can negatively affect your life and be considered an addiction and "drug" People have literally ran themselves into near crippling conditions just to get an endorphin high from running. Step back, realize that maybe g-d would not have created a plant that has health benefits, brain chemistry balancing effects, less harmful and addictive then alcohol. If he would be against someone using it. Your steadfast "hatred" without logic and fact to back it up is very typical of the American Christian. You place more stock in what your favorite pastor tells you then what you yourself glean from the holy book. I also find your anti semantic comments disgusting, but again very typical of the American Christian attitude. Reread your bible, read the Laws of Noah, The 10 Commandments and your New Testiment and tell me where g-d has said what mind altering substances if any are forbidden and then come back and show me where he gave you the insight into his will to determine what those are for your fellow man and to judge them accordingly. As far as acknowledging that Jesus may have lived? Yes, even the Muslims will admit that, but they, as the Jews see him as a Prophet, nothing more. I believe Gandhi said it best in "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians." Most American Christians are so far removed from the teachings of Christ that i believe they would have been whipped right out of the temple as he did the money changers and the Pharasies.

As far as legislation, which is what the question was based, not theology, I do believe education and treatment will do far more then any jail cell in assisting those who may or have already fallen victim to a life pattern of over indulgence of any addictive behavior, may it be chemical or otherwise. NA, AA and other self help groups have had far greater success then any penal system in helping people stop their own abusive cycles.

Put your dogmatic hatred aside and approach the world with love as you were told to do, and teach through example not bible pounding before you lose sight of your masters face completely, and likewise he forgets yours.