Craig Charles the Crack Addict?

Sic · 20 Jun 2006 at 13:30

grahamjenks said:
There's more to drugs crime that the person taking it at the end of line - where did the drugs come from - how did they get here - who suffered previously. Yes taking it in itself is only damaging him and his family - but that isnt the only thing to consider!

doesn't that kinda put the legislation in a catch 22 position, though?

if drugs were legal, they could be produced ethically, picked by a (very lucky!!!one) legitimate, salaried workforce and distributed so that NO-ONE is hurt in the process. as it is, it all has to be done in an underhand way, where there's chances that people might get hurt along the way. realistically, the only people getting hurt might be the kids that are forced to pick it for 1p a week, but if they weren't picking weed/opium/whatever, they'd probably be picking something else that's legal.

G|mp · 20 Jun 2006 at 13:32

Tackeshi's castle would turn anyone to crack tbh

matt100 · 20 Jun 2006 at 13:33

He sounds like a bit of an idiot but if that isn't a first class example of sensaionalist journalism I don't know what is..

It certainly sounded more like a novel, the BBC would dispatch that in about 3 lines not 5 or 6 paragraphs. All highly emotive laguage too, how about just the facts?

Bah.. this is why even at the tender age of 29 I can't bear any reporting other than radio 4 and newsnight..

paradigm · 20 Jun 2006 at 13:35

Sic said:
doesn't that kinda put the legislation in a catch 22 position, though?

if drugs were legal, they could be produced ethically, picked by a (very lucky!!!one) legitimate, salaried workforce and distributed so that NO-ONE is hurt in the process. as it is, it all has to be done in an underhand way, where there's chances that people might get hurt along the way. realistically, the only people getting hurt might be the kids that are forced to pick it for 1p a week, but if they weren't picking weed/opium/whatever, they'd probably be picking something else that's legal.

That isn't 100% accurate. A lot of drug habits are fueled with money obtained through crime. That is on OUR streets, not just where the drug is harvested.

Dave M · 20 Jun 2006 at 13:35

grahamjenks said:
There's more to drugs crime that the person taking it at the end of line - where did the drugs come from - how did they get here - who suffered previously. Yes taking it in itself is only damaging him and his family - but that isnt the only thing to consider!

Nike trainers?

I don't personally think the news paper has the right to do what it has done - it will destroy his family and lose him his job.

Any normal person would get arrested, charged maybe, depending on circumstances he may stay out of jail, keep his job and his family won't be nearly so badly hurt by it.

the way the news papers report on celebrities makes sure maximum damage is inflicted.

I bet his wife is looking forward to going shopping at the weekend and I'm sure his kids aren't going to get any giref at school / college over this.

And why? For your amusement? To sell a few papers that'll be in the bin before dark?

Sic · 20 Jun 2006 at 13:37

paradigm said:
That isn't 100% accurate. A lot of drug habits are fueled with money obtained through crime. That is on OUR streets, not just where the drug is harvested.

yeah, a LOT are. but then, a lot of crime is a subsequence of drinking habits. drinking illegal, is it? you going to tar everyone with that big brush, are you? i don't see "millionnaire" Craig Charles robbing grannies and knocking over cornershops to fund his habit. if you're committing crimes to fund a habit, you aren't dropping £600s worth in a night.

grahamjenks · 20 Jun 2006 at 13:37

Sic said:
doesn't that kinda put the legislation in a catch 22 position, though?

if drugs were legal, they could be produced ethically, picked by a (very lucky!!!one) legitimate, salaried workforce and distributed so that NO-ONE is hurt in the process. as it is, it all has to be done in an underhand way, where there's chances that people might get hurt along the way. realistically, the only people getting hurt might be the kids that are forced to pick it for 1p a week, but if they weren't picking weed/opium/whatever, they'd probably be picking something else that's legal.

I agree that yeah we legalise them production could be safer - but you risk more accessible drugs - so more users - so more people addicted - so more people to care for and more lives destroyed.

cleanbluesky · 20 Jun 2006 at 13:38

Anyone who has a family and smokes crack is a coward...

Chronos-X · 20 Jun 2006 at 13:39

cleanbluesky said:
Anyone who has a family and smokes crack is a coward...

Source?

Sic · 20 Jun 2006 at 13:40

grahamjenks said:
I agree that yeah we legalise them production could be safer - but you risk more accessible drugs - so more users - so more people addicted - so more people to care for and more lives destroyed.

how accessible is alcohol? how many more users are there? how many lives destroyed by alcohol? why is it not as bad as crack? because the government says so?

cbs said:
Anyone who has a family and smokes crack is a coward...

Chronos-X said:
Source?

personal opinion? i do believe you don't have to justify that.

Simian · 20 Jun 2006 at 13:40

How'd thay get soo much detail about his flat if....

Blinds are drawn across the front windows and green-painted door of the flat to ensure passers-by get no glimpse of the sordid world within.

I doubt his Driver would know that much about the interior of his Flat!

If it is true (I'm not passing jugement yet till I hear it on the TV/Radio News!!) then its probly because he was at his peak!... Red Dwarf (Class Program!) and Robot Wars... Both Cult Shows.. Only for the Beeb to Axe both of em! (and Robot Wars has now been axed from Satellite!), Then the Finance Debarcle with the Red Dwarf Movie!... Only to settle for working in Eastenders for a few episodes then (horror of horrors) Corronation Street

Its just all gone down the pan!!...

paradigm · 20 Jun 2006 at 13:40

Sic said:
yeah, a LOT are. but then, a lot of crime is a subsequence of drinking habits. i don't see you moaning about that.

No, because it isn't relevant in this thread. You really should get off your high-horse once in a while. Sure you have "great" keyboard warrior skills, but that doesn't make you right all the time.

cleanbluesky · 20 Jun 2006 at 13:41

Sic said:
doesn't that kinda put the legislation in a catch 22 position, though?

if drugs were legal, they could be produced ethically, picked by a (very lucky!!!one) legitimate, salaried workforce and distributed so that NO-ONE is hurt in the process. as it is, it all has to be done in an underhand way, where there's chances that people might get hurt along the way. realistically, the only people getting hurt might be the kids that are forced to pick it for 1p a week, but if they weren't picking weed/opium/whatever, they'd probably be picking something else that's legal.

Very nice idea, but I think it wouldn't tranlslate into real life that way...

1) There would be heavily addicted people who still need to steal to buy, because... (see point 2)

2) Nothing that people would pay a lot for is going to be cheap. Even if it were run by the government, within a decade it would be privatised and the price would be on the rise...

3) There may be more addicts. If it was legalised, it may be promoted or become more acceptable. Especially if it could be taxed.

grahamjenks · 20 Jun 2006 at 13:41

Sic said:
how accessible is alcohol? how many more users are there? how many lives destroyed by alcohol? why is it not as bad as crack? because the government says so?

I agree - never said i didn't! But alcolhol has been part of our culture (and many others) for such a long time its almost impossible to ban - whereas these drugs werent so widespread and so easier to control.

cleanbluesky · 20 Jun 2006 at 13:41

Chronos-X said:
Source?

CBS, and you can stick it in your sig if you like...

Sic · 20 Jun 2006 at 13:43

paradigm said:
No, because it isn't relevant in this thread. You really should get off your high-horse once in a while. Sure you have "great" keyboard warrior skills, but that doesn't make you right all the time.

if you actually check, i edited because what i'd said was out of order. so, i won't be apologising. and surprise surprise, you don't have a decent response, other than to start calling me a keyboard warrior because your arguments won't stand up. i'll not be wasting my time on you if you're just going to spout crap.

cleanbluesky said:
Very nice idea, but I think it wouldn't tranlslate into real life that way...

1) There would be heavily addicted people who still need to steal to buy, because... (see point 2)

2) Nothing that people would pay a lot for is going to be cheap. Even if it were run by the government, within a decade it would be privatised and the price would be on the rise...

3) There may be more addicts. If it was legalised, it may be promoted or become more acceptable. Especially if it could be taxed.

1) because of taxation etc, dont you think there'd be better treatment facilities to handle those who are addicted, and don't want to be? as with alcohol, there's people that cause crime either to fund it, or as a direct result of it...but this isn't so much of an issue...because it's legal?

2) how expensive's alcohol getting? cigarettes? people moan about this constantly, and the same people go out and get hammered every weekend.

3)like alcohol/cigarettes. the government has this "we pretend to care about your health, but really don't give a crap because we're taxing your asses everytime you spend money on these products. we'll hike up the price, KNOWING that this won't stop you using these things, because you're already addicted/like it too much" mentality. how many people do you know who quit smoking because it was too expensive? isn't it always a perk of it?

don't get me wrong, i don't think it'd work either, but that's because i think the current situation with alcohol and cigarettes (alcohol in particular) is abhorrent.

fatiain · 20 Jun 2006 at 13:45

grahamjenks said:
I agree - never said i didn't! But alcolhol has been part of our culture (and many others) for such a long time its almost impossible to ban - whereas these drugs werent so widespread and so easier to control.

Marijuana was only banned in the 20s, LSD in the 70s, MDMA in the 80s iirc.

AJUK · 20 Jun 2006 at 13:45

They have just said on the radio news that Lister has been suspended from the cast of Coronation Street.

[/Al Murray voice] Oh dear, what a pity, never mind. [/Al Murray voice end]

cleanbluesky · 20 Jun 2006 at 13:47

fatiain said:
Marijuana was only banned in the 20s, LSD in the 70s, MDMA in the 80s iirc.

Yes, as their effects were discovered - whereas alcohol has had known effects for a LONG, LONG time

cleanbluesky · 20 Jun 2006 at 13:48

AJUK said:
They have just said on the radio news that Lister has been suspended from the cast of Coronation Street.

[/Al Murray voice] Oh dear, what a pity, never mind. [/Al Murray voice end]

If he is to be punished for being a crack addict, can we also punish him for his part involvement in the last couple of series of Red Dwarf?