Posts by Russell Brown
-
Hard News: The problems inherent in the system, in reply to BenWilson,
Just like homophobia. Laugh at the queens. It’s the exact same thing at work here. We could be having this argument about the dangers of anal sex, and AIDs, and how some kids might get turned into queers if it’s legal. Which all might even BE real dangers. But so what? What on earth gives us the right to concentrate on anal tearing when the very sexual identity of a segment of humanity is at stake?
Okay, let’s take your analogy and look at what actually happened, rather than the scenario you’re conjuring for the sake of argument. Harm minimisation in response to AIDS was embraced by the gay community. Condom use was normalised and encouraged and remains the basis of AIDS prevention. People didn’t stop having sex.
For exactly the same reason – and on the same reasoning – needle exchanges became a largely uncontroversial public health measure. We didn’t try and prevent the spread of blood-borne diseases by telling people not to inject drugs – we made it safer for them to do so.
In Portugal, all personal drug use and possession has been decriminalised as a means of harm reduction – and drug deaths and other harms have fallen as a consequence. It’s the reason kids can get their pills tested at dance parties in various European countries. It’s the philosophy behind de-stigmatisation campaigns like Nice People Take Drugs, which is the opposite of your scenario.
It’s nonsensical to equate the whole thing with the fuckup around the Psychoactive Substances Act. This is a battle that’s still going on. Read Harm Reduction International’s recent response to the idiotic UN Declaration on Drugs. They might not be pursuing the pure laissez-faire you want, but they’re sure as hell not the enemy.
-
Hard News: Softly, softly, in reply to Craig Ranapia,
That Hitchens column is batshit.
-
Hard News: Softly, softly, in reply to Paul Campbell,
I tried very hard not to godwin the thread on the first post …. but “nazi” would have been the word my friend used (and remember he comes from that part of the Ukraine)
From what I can make out, the term would certainly apply to some of the nationalists, but not the people currently in charge. I think it's quite rational to be afraid of the people who actually are neo-Nazis, who have some power in the new environment. But Putin has given them their chance.
It's easy to forget that these were the people who risked their lives to encourage their Parliament to send Yanukovych packing in February. Depicting the whole thing as a neo-Nazi putsch, as Pilger seems to, is just weird.
-
Hard News: The problems inherent in the system, in reply to Raymond A Francis,
Russell the old joke about statistics and dam lies applies here
It would be nice if you put the different countries numbers per million
Because if they are as stated you do have a powerful argument for more liberal lawsI did! The figure quoted in the post itself is 35.5 drug deaths per million, which is twice the European average.
And, with some annual fluctuation, the raw number of deaths annually has roughly quadrupled since the time the hardline reforms were introduced in the early 90s. That hasn’t happened anywhere else in Europe. Countries with more liberal policies (Spain, for example) are seeing declines, in some cases quite sharply.
We may be seeing some improvement now that they’ve finally allowed some harm-reduction measures like needle exchanges, although they seem determined still to make those hard to operate.
Anyway, I don’t have time to go through all the data, but it’s here.
-
Hard News: Softly, softly, in reply to Ana Simkiss,
This bit from the LRB suggests the real risk is of civil war in Ukraine and that Putin may find it hard to avoid getting involved if that happens.
That makes a bit more sense.
-
-
Hard News: The problems inherent in the system, in reply to BenWilson,
Nah. That’s the question whose only answer is “by making cannabis use as infrequent as possible”.
No, there are lots of other answers to that.
“Try to avoid or minimise use of cannabis until at least the age of 18, thereby hugely reducing the risk of future psychosis,” is one.
“Use a bong or a vapouriser,” is another.
I do get your point about personal rights, and I don’t even disagree, but I don’t see that not ignoring avoidable risks is incompatible with it.
-
Hard News: What rules are these?, in reply to Old Hack,
But let's say you're right and the taking of the bikini pictures was entirely opportunistic, on the part of someone who just happened to be at the same beach at the same time.
Do you see a 17 year-old star and her boyfriend enjoying some time together, away from her months in the international spotlight and think "that's cool - it's nice they can spend some time together"?
Or do you take pictures of her in a swimsuit and sell them to the highest bidder?
-
Hard News: What rules are these?, in reply to Old Hack,
I can tell you that the pictures taken during a bach holiday were taken on a beach crowded with dozens of people. It was not remote. They were next to the bach, next to a busy picnic ground and car park. No one was followed to the bach or the beach. The pictures were taken this year, not last. Lorde was 17, not 16. Those are the straightforward factual errors. As for the “context” of publication being offensive to any reasonable person, I’d be interested to see what you mean, but the pictures themselves, I would suggest, were not offensive at all.
Yep, the date is an error – the pictures were taken in January and my memory was that it was the month before. I’m happy to own that.= and have annoated the original post thus.
I can tell you that the family did believe they had been followed in the way I described and were really upset about it. It’s a bit disingenuous to say that “no one was offended” when they clearly were.
I won’t link to it, but, among others, TMZ’s coverage of the pictures was hideous: a bunch of dudes yukking it up over whether anal sex was legal for under 18s in New Zealand.
I’ve repeatedly said that I don’t want the law to be changed and that the right to take photos in a public place underpins a free press.
I’m saying that telling a teenage girl to suck it up when she explicitly says she’s feeling “extreme fear” is shitty and disingenuous. No one has to behave this way and people who pretend they’re the victims when they’re called on their behaviour don’t impress me.
How would you respond if your 17 year-old daughter said she was scared by the man following her and taking pictures? It doesn’t have to be this way.
-
Hard News: Softly, softly, in reply to Matthew Poole,
but there’s a determined section of the population who are convinced that the Americans are itching to get into a full-scale tanks-vs-tanks hot war with the Russians.
When to all appearances, the opposite seems to be the case.