Craig Charles the Crack Addict?

Status
Not open for further replies.
nero120 said:
My view on the whole drug thing is simply that it does not make you any better. You don't need it to live, it does not create anything despite what Mr Hicks might say (people actually CAN create great art and music while not on drugs, in fact, the idea that drugs get credit for creating art ******* me right off).

you're right, you don't need drugs to live...but by that, you don't need your car, your PC, your DVD collection...none of it. however, for some people, they make life more enjoyable, as do PCs, cars and DVD collections.

again, you're right, people can create art without drugs...but the artists Mr Hicks refers to were on drugs, which is why he made that statement. he then goes on to point out (if memory serves) how boring music that is made without drugs is, and gives references of some crappy christian music, or such like; i really can't remember finer details...but don't forget, Bill Hicks is a comedian, and this gets laughs. drugs don't get credit for creation...he's simply saying that people who hate drugs should take a look at their record/video/book collections to see how drug-fuelled their entertainment might be.
 
Sic said:
you're right, you don't need drugs to live...but by that, you don't need your car, your PC, your DVD collection...none of it. however, for some people, they make life more enjoyable, as do PCs, cars and DVD collections.

True, but arguably drugs do not count as culture in the same way art, music, literature do. We do not need these things to live but they make life richer for all humans, without exception. Drugs are not the same in that only a small section of society use them enough to count them as part of their lives.

again, you're right, people can create art without drugs...but the artists Mr Hicks refers to were on drugs, which is why he made that statement. he then goes on to point out (if memory serves) how boring music that is made without drugs is, and gives references of some crappy christian music, or such like; i really can't remember finer details...but don't forget, Bill Hicks is a comedian, and this gets laughs. drugs don't get credit for creation...he's simply saying that people who hate drugs should take a look at their record/video/book collections to see how drug-fuelled their entertainment might be.

But whose to say those songs were written at the exact point when someone was high, and not inbetween? Could those songs not have come mostly out of states when their minds where relatively normal? The way hicks says it as though it was because of the drugs that those songs were written - i.e. without drugs those songs wouldnt be around, which may be true or false depending on your perpective. I would think it more accurate to say those songs were the result of people who were drug users, as oppose to saying those songs were the result of doing drugs.

It wouldnt be unfair to say that 95% of all culture ever created was done so not in a drug-induced state of mind. Therefore, Hicks just sounds like he's trying to give drugs credit for 'cool' stuff. It makes it sound cheap, like if we ban drugs no good culture will ever be created - which is ludicrous! Drugs or no, good culture will always be around and drugs cannot take credit for that, so in my mind it is not a part of the debate really.

Drugs are a personal choice and I don't think one should try and associate good things with them tio justify it to others. I think a person knows whether they are in control of their mind, or whether some substance is in control and that (to me) is at the center of what sentience and being human (as opposed to being an animal - which is true of many humans!) is all about.
 
nero120 said:
But whose to say those songs were written at the exact point when someone was high, and not inbetween? Could those songs not have come mostly out of states when their minds where relatively normal? The way hicks says it as though it was because of the drugs that those songs were written - i.e. without drugs those songs wouldnt be around, which may be true or false depending on your perpective. I would think it more accurate to say those songs were the result of people who were drug users, as oppose to saying those songs were the result of doing drugs.

if you're a drug user (and some may argue with me on this), you're not only affected by them whilst you're on a trip. an inhibition alter-erer-er-erer will, after prolonged use, lower your inhibitions whilst not on drugs; they may have an adverse effect. although it's an extreme case, take the music that John Frusciante was creating when he was coming off heroin. it's terrible; but it's so raw, and there's so much pain there...because he's still battling with the effects of it. drugs can open your eyes to the sort of person that you really are, and change the way you perceive everyday events, when you're not under the influence. that's why i'd be inclined to say that if you're a regular drug user, you're always under the influence, to a certain extent. i can't really give too subjective an opinion, because i don't want this thread to descend into a "omgz, check out the drugs i've done" thread...but you'll just have to take my word for it. it's not a case that you change to someone who's always after their next hit, but you do change.

nero120 said:
It wouldnt be unfair to say that 95% of all culture ever created was done so not in a drug-induced state of mind. Therefore, Hicks just sounds like he's trying to give drugs credit for 'cool' stuff. It makes it sound cheap, like if we ban drugs no good culture will ever be created - which is ludicrous! Drugs or no, good culture will always be around and drugs cannot take credit for that, so in my mind it is not a part of the debate really.
this debate has really gone quite off topic, but it's still quite interesting to read your viewpoints (and you're not getting arsey with me, which is nice) so i'd quite like to continue it, til it gets closed! :p

i dont think Hicks is trying to give credit to drugs for anything; personally i think you're reading too much into it (please don't think that i'm being condescending with this, as i'm really not, but) as you've (presumably) never used drugs, you don't see the side to them that Hicks is talking about. they're not as malevolent as you think - that's all he's trying to say. not trying to glorify them at all, in my opinion.

nero120 said:
Drugs are a personal choice and I don't think one should try and associate good things with them tio justify it to others. I think a person knows whether they are in control of their mind, or whether some substance is in control and that (to me) is at the center of what sentience and being human (as opposed to being an animal - which is true of many humans!) is all about.
"good" is a little too subjective for my liking here. drugs aren't bad. they aren't good either, but you can't do what half of the people in this thread are doing, and completely change your opinion on someone/something because of an involvement with drugs. if you got the chance to talk to your favourite artists, and they were truly being honest, i'd say that a lot of them would tell you that drugs played (at least) a part in the production/inspiration of their music/film/paintings/books, whatever.

if you're using drugs regularly, i honestly believe that the drug changes you, and they do have long term side effects. you're not not in control of your mind/thoughts, but you are a different person. not necessarily negatively, but you are.
 
Sic said:
if you're a drug user (and some may argue with me on this), you're not only affected by them whilst you're on a trip. an inhibition alter-erer-er-erer will, after prolonged use, lower your inhibitions whilst not on drugs; they may have an adverse effect. although it's an extreme case, take the music that John Frusciante was creating when he was coming off heroin. it's terrible; but it's so raw, and there's so much pain there...because he's still battling with the effects of it. drugs can open your eyes to the sort of person that you really are, and change the way you perceive everyday events, when you're not under the influence. that's why i'd be inclined to say that if you're a regular drug user, you're always under the influence, to a certain extent. i can't really give too subjective an opinion, because i don't want this thread to descend into a "omgz, check out the drugs i've done" thread...but you'll just have to take my word for it. it's not a case that you change to someone who's always after their next hit, but you do change.

See thats what I have trouble with - the idea that drugs help you figure stuff out. I spent a lot of my teenage time "looking inwards", listening to mind and trying to figure out the person I am. I did a lot of self development during that time, and it was spurned out of an interest to simply figure myself out. Drugs didnt play a part, though 90% of my friends at the time were doing them regularly. I really find it hard to believe that to figure yourself out you have to do drugs. Though, without having done them i have no evidence for this so I guess I'll take your word for it. However, I woul suggest to anyone thinking of doing drugs to find themselves, that it is completely unnecessary and more likely to warp your opinions than give you truth.

This debate has really gone quite off topic, but it's still quite interesting to read your viewpoints (and you're not getting arsey with me, which is nice) so i'd quite like to continue it, til it gets closed! :p

I wouldnt get arsey with you at all. You have one view, and I another. Drugs is (and always has been) an itneresting topic to me, especially with regards to their effects being positive or negative to the mind as well as the body.

i dont think Hicks is trying to give credit to drugs for anything; personally i think you're reading too much into it (please don't think that i'm being condescending with this, as i'm really not, but) as you've (presumably) never used drugs, you don't see the side to them that Hicks is talking about. they're not as malevolent as you think - that's all he's trying to say. not trying to glorify them at all, in my opinion.

Fair enough. I guess he is a comedian, so what he says is not gospel. but I guess my view is more in response to how people typically try to glorify drugs by quotng Hicks, though thats no fault of his.

"good" is a little too subjective for my liking here. drugs aren't bad. they aren't good either, but you can't do what half of the people in this thread are doing, and completely change your opinion on someone/something because of an involvement with drugs. if you got the chance to talk to your favourite artists, and they were truly being honest, i'd say that a lot of them would tell you that drugs played (at least) a part in the production/inspiration of their music/film/paintings/books, whatever.

Id agree with this, but again I think its more the fact that drugs + alcohol were part of the scene, than the artist(s) taking drugs in order to create their masterpieces. It would be akin to saying alcohol is responsible for most great modern creative works, as Im pretty sure most artists (of one sort or another) will drink alcohol regularly. Though, alcohol usually doesnt get as much credit for creativeness than drugs do!

if you're using drugs regularly, i honestly believe that the drug changes you, and they do have long term side effects. you're not not in control of your mind/thoughts, but you are a different person. not necessarily negatively, but you are.

From my experience of seeing a lot of my friends as regular drug users (cannabis, nothing heavy, well, not that regularly anyway!), I can agree with that too. Though, I always prefered them when they werent doing drugs! Some people it just makes strange, as one particular friend is. i guess a lot of it has do to with my own personal philosophy, in that I will always naturally prefer people if they arent addicted to anything - i just see it as a negative from experience. It doesnt mean I think that person is a bad person, just that I wont respect them as much as someone who chooses to stay in control of their own mind and body and ride lifes highs and lows in the natural state! Each to their own I guess.
 
daz said:
This crack is pretty more-ish.

Safe Hands ;)

Whilst I used to be a great advocate of drug taking in many forms, I've had my day in the sun. And whilst I don't regret a minute of it, I certainly wouldn't do many of the things I've done in the past again.

At the end of the day, his celebrity status is the only reason this is anyone's business. I'm pro-choice, do whatever the hell you want as long as it doesn't affect anyone around you. It's your life.

Ant :cool:
 
nero120 said:
It doesnt mean I think that person is a bad person, just that I wont respect them as much as someone who chooses to stay in control of their own mind and body and ride lifes highs and lows in the natural state! Each to their own I guess.

I'm not offended by this, although I am a little baffled. You have no frame of reference, no personal experience, if taking drugs makes me less worthy of your respect, then I don't really want it in the first place. I am a good, articulate and intelligent person. I live a great life, I have fantastic friends and none of that is either down to, or despite drugs. If what I choose to do with my own time, or what I decide to ingest, is the basis upon which you form an opinion of who I am, then you are both short-sighted and unfortunately, pretty close-minded.

As to the glorification of drugs, what?! Do you talk enthusiastically of a dish you enjoy? A particular band? A person you've just met? How is that any different, except that there is a massive stereotype that if you take drugs, you're going to die, or do yourself irreprable damage, or that you're a loser, a bum, or a crook.

if you're using drugs regularly, i honestly believe that the drug changes you, and they do have long term side effects. you're not not in control of your mind/thoughts, but you are a different person. not necessarily negatively, but you are.

For the most part, very wrong. The long time side effects have been (albeit rather poorly) documented, you should do some research. And as for not being in control of your mind or thoughts, I don't see how it's any difference to caffeine, alchohol or many of the other 'accepted' drugs. Have you seen what excessive caffeine does to a person over time. What someones like on too much caffeine?

I'm of a belief that you're NEVER completely in control of your mind or thoughts. And you know what, that's half the ****ing fun.

EDIT: This conversation occurs EVERY time a thread like this is posted, and EVERY time the thread gets closed. Everyone please try to stick to discussion, as opposed to promotion, particular personal experience or plain rule breaking. Nice one :D

Ant :cool:
 
Last edited:
WantoN said:
I'm not offended by this, although I am a little baffled. You have no frame of reference, no personal experience, if taking drugs makes me less worthy of your respect, then I don't really want it in the first place. I am a good, articulate and intelligent person. I live a great life, I have fantastic friends and none of that is either down to, or despite drugs. If what I choose to do with my own time, or what I decide to ingest, is the basis upon which you form an opinion of who I am, then you are both short-sighted and unfortunately, pretty close-minded.

Did you read my post, or were you too quick to pigeon hole me in your figured-out universe? Ive been around regular drug users for most of my life. Im pretty sure I can form reasonable opinions on it based on my observations - remember, Im the one NOT out of my head. And if you're addicted to something, there is no "choice" in it, is there? And I have a right to form my own opinions, and Im pretty sure you judge people when you meet them based on your initial reactions, so get off your tower hypocrite.

As to the glorification of drugs, what?! Do you talk enthusiastically of a dish you enjoy? A particular band? A person you've just met? How is that any different, except that there is a massive stereotype that if you take drugs, you're going to die, or do yourself irreprable damage, or that you're a loser, a bum, or a crook.

Not at all, there are far more positive views on drugs nowadays than 10 years ago. I think society has accepted it for the most part. My reaction was simply against people who like to quote Bill Hicks too much as trying to say that drugs are responsible for all the best music, which of course we can both agree is complete ********.

For the most part, very wrong. The long time side effects have been (albeit rather poorly) documented, you should do some research. And as for not being in control of your mind or thoughts, I don't see how it's any difference to caffeine, alchohol or many of the other 'accepted' drugs. Have you seen what excessive caffeine does to a person over time. What someones like on too much caffeine?

Thats because you are trying to justify your habits to others by describing it as comparable to other more accepted substances. Alcohol yes, but caffeine no! Most people who drink a coffee a day are not doing it for the "escape" but the taste. Its not addictive in the most part and the likely hood of someone developing schizophrenia from drinking too much coffee is slim. You know there is a huge gap between caffeine and hard drugs, so why pretend there isn't? One could argue that people drink coffee for the "kick", but this differs from person to person. Caffeine has never had a stimulant effect on me (even pro plus had no effect!). I drink lattes cos they taste good!

I'm of a belief that you're NEVER completely in control of your mind or thoughts. And you know what, that's half the ****ing fun.

Thats your choice of course, and everyone accepts that. What I object to is people who try to glorify what they do. If you enjoy it, great! But having a spliff and drinking a cup of coffee are not the same thing no matter how much you would like it to be!!

EDIT: This conversation occurs EVERY time a thread like this is posted, and EVERY time the thread gets closed. Everyone please try to stick to discussion, as opposed to promotion, particular personal experience or plain rule breaking. Nice one :D

This is a devisive topic, so I can understand it. You do drugs, so can speak from your own personal experience of the effects. But I have been around drug users for a long time, so I can speak of the visible effects of it on people, and to be honest Ive had far more fun sober with drunk people than with stoned/wasted/tripping people - and that is an unbiased opinion.
 
Last edited:
'During the nightmare trip he interrupted his frenzied drug-taking only to flick through the pages of a stack of pornographic magazines.'

sounds like a right 'nightmare' :D

'Charles loads more rocks of crack on to the can. But the drug is already fuelling his paranoia and he peers nervously out of the car window to see if he is being observed.


Satisfied he is safe, he lights the drug and again inhales'

yeh really safe, how did this story come about then, did someone make it up?


is the guy who gave the story one of his mates or something? Someone did well to spot he had exactly 60 hits and the graphic description of his house :confused:
 
wozzizname said:
It's one thing to experiment with drugs when you're young and have no responsibilities - it's quite another to allow yourself to become a crack addict when you have a family to support.

Well as long as hes doing it somewhere away and is stable the rest of the time I dont see an issue. I have a family but still hit the pub one night a week, I don't believe it makes me a bad farther, id be dam mental if I was always doing the right thing.
 
nero120 said:
Did you read my post, or were you too quick to pigeon hole me in your figured-out universe? Ive been around regular drug users for most of my life. Im pretty sure I can form reasonable opinions on it based on my observations - remember, Im the one NOT out of my head. And if you're addicted to something, there is no "choice" in it, is there? And I have a right to form my own opinions, and Im pretty sure you judge people when you meet them based on your initial reactions, so get off your tower hypocrite.

Firstly, I'll accept some of your post, so please don't think I'm being to aggressive. However, you have NO scope, nor ANY true understanding of addiction (This is assumined from your posts) and so let's not go there. Of course I base someone on my initial reaction to their personality, but that's it. Just because I strongly disagree with something they do, doesn't mean I'll respect them less. Frankly I'll respect them more for defending their right to do whatever the hell it is that takes their fancy.

nero120 said:
Not at all, there are far more positive views on drugs nowadays than 10 years ago. I think society has accepted it for the most part. My reaction was simply against people who like to quote Bill Hicks too much as trying to say that drugs are responsible for all the best music, which of course we can both agree is complete ********.

On this I'll happily agree. However, you're doing a little pigeon-holing yourself there, I don't like violent, stupid chavs, that doesn't mean I'll paint everyone who wears burberry as a head-kicking, car-stealing scumbag. My point being that, in your original post, you threw a pretty broad blanket over the whole 'pro-drugs' attitude being a glorification.

nero120 said:
Thats because you are trying to justify your habits to others by describing it as comparable to other more accepted substances. Alcohol yes, but caffeine no! Most people who drink a coffee a day are not doing it for the "escape" but the taste. Its not addictive in the most part and the likely hood of someone developing schizophrenia from drinking too much coffee is slim. You know there is a huge gap between caffeine and hard drugs, so why pretend there isn't? One could argue that people drink coffee for the "kick", but this differs from person to person. Caffeine has never had a stimulant effect on me (even pro plus had no effect!). I drink lattes cos they taste good!

Justify? I justify my previous experiences with drugs as nothing but a celebration of my freedom of choice. I did and occassionally do these things, and I bloody well enjoyed them. I knew the inherent risks, and if someone had a conversation regarding them, I'd tell them exactly what I thought. I think they're a positive experience for many people, and something others, reasonably, would never try. However, because I've made those choices, I do these things, that makes me less worthy of your respect than someone who hasn't?

What the hell is this suggestion that all drug use is for escape. (as an aside, everyone escapes somehow, the effect that these affect your body in a chemically-enhanced way is the only difference). People, for the most part, do drugs because they ENJOY them, they enjoy the feeling of them, the experiences they have on them. Yes there are risks, but caffeine will raise your blood pressure, constrict your blood vessels and make your heart race more than a spliff! 100 units of coffee in a 24 hour period can be a fatal dose. no one to this date has every died as a result of marijuana ingestion. I suggest your read up on the actual physical affects of drugs before you throw these opinions down, for instance, take a look into the damages and effects of say, smoking heroin, and tell me what you find.

nero120 said:
Thats your choice of course, and everyone accepts that. What I object to is people who try to glorify what they do. If you enjoy it, great! But having a spliff and drinking a cup of coffee are not the same thing no matter how much you would like it to be!!

I don't glorify what I do or did, but I certainly celebrate it. Actually, they really aren't that far off. You can read all the hype about smoking, and canabis as much as you want, but the fact is, if you've say, been smoking for ten years and give up for ten years, you're at a no higher risk of lung desease, heart desease and many other related illnesses, as someone who's never smoked. As for cannabis, severe, long term use can apparently cause some brain damage, but not as much as alchohol abuse. And you can throw your 'scyzophrenia's around as much as you like, do some research into documented, conclusive cases of mental health issues as a direct result of cannabis use, and see what you find.

nero120 said:
You do drugs, so can speak from your own personal experience of the effects. But I have been around drug users for a long time, so I can speak of the visible effects of it on people, and to be honest Ive had far more fun sober with drunk people than with stoned/wasted/tripping people - and that is an unbiased opinion.

I find it hard to believe that if people are on completely different wavelengths they'll ever get on. As to the visual effects, hmmm. We take risks in many forms, do ourselves harm in all manners of ways. As I've said, do some research into the abuse of drugs, compare it to alchohol abuse, abuse from say, over-eating, the air we breath. There are risks inherent in everything, and if people take those risks in full knowledge of the possible consequences, then really, you have no right to condem them, and proclaim them unworthy of respect.

At the end of the day, I can respect and accept a difference of opinion. What I won't stand is the statement that I, or other who take drugs 'responsibly' are unworthy of respect. And, as I said, addiction is a COMPLETELY different kettle of fish, it comes in many forms, a great deal of which aren't related to illegal drugs. Just because someone is an addict, don't pretend to know their story, or even to understand what being an addict means. Not many of them fall into that stereotype of hoody-wearing theives with a crack addiction and no morals, as comfortable as that likes to make people.

Ant :cool:
 
wozzizname said:
It's one thing to experiment with drugs when you're young and have no responsibilities - it's quite another to allow yourself to become a crack addict when you have a family to support.

And it's opinions like this that get me so wound up I could scream. Read my post, I won't open this kettle of fish. And might I point out that your lovely crack-addict stereotype doesn't seem to fit the man who's capable of acting on screen and living a life with a wife and child.

Ant :cool:
 
geeza said:
is the guy who gave the story one of his mates or something? Someone did well to spot he had exactly 60 hits and the graphic description of his house :confused:

According to the latest story from the Mirror it was the driver who gave them the story.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom