Craig Charles the Crack Addict?

[robmiller]

I can guarantee it's true, you don't print a story like that without it being 100%.

If the probable increase in circulation generates a revenue higher than the probable fine/settlement, the print away! It's all profit!

 

[SnipaMasta]

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.

Production isn't the issue with drugs, it's the method of obtaining them and the risks with them. If someone does crack and damages them self somehow, it's the health service's problem to deal with it. It's not just affecting them, because if someone who has a natural problem is on the waiting list, they might have to wait longer. Plus, if it were legal the use would increase so it would be even worse. Not to mention the crime already involved when junkies cannot afford the drugs - if shops supplied drugs they would be constantly broken into by desperate addicts.

 

[Violent-J]

Sic I'm all for legalizing Cannabis mate but crack is a totally different thing. It should definetely remain illegal.

 

[Sic]

Sic I'm all for legalizing Cannabis mate but crack is a totally different thing. It should definetely remain illegal.

why though? because the government classes it differently? they call it a class A, so it's more illegal? if you're going to legalise it, there's a chance that it won't be seen as so rebellious anymore, or so interesting.

i'm aware that the effects of crack are different to those of weed, but if you get it from a reliable source, and it's not been cut with poisonous substances, then it's just as safe as smoking weed...in moderation.

the only thing i couldn't advocate legalising is heroin, because it's my understanding that it's incredibly addictive, and i don't think that the average person would be able to control their own consumption of it; i just don't know enough about this drug to make a comment either way.

Production isn't the issue with drugs, it's the method of obtaining them and the risks with them. If someone does crack and damages them self somehow, it's the health service's problem to deal with it. It's not just affecting them, because if someone who has a natural problem is on the waiting list, they might have to wait longer. Plus, if it were legal the use would increase so it would be even worse. Not to mention the crime already involved when junkies cannot afford the drugs - if shops supplied drugs they would be constantly broken into by desperate addicts.

so, you're saying that if a disease is self inflicted, the sufferer doesn't deserve to be treated? i'm certain you'd be whistling a different tune if a smoker in your family developed lung/mouth/finger/eyelash cancer and wasn't going to be treated because it was smoking-related. what about alcohol-related liver-failure? do they not get treated in your fantasy health system?

everytime we have a thread like this, i always get caught out by the debate route i choose. if i choose the changes in the cultivation, someone pulls me on the trafficking of it...if i choose trafficking, people go on about the cultivation; i should really start covering all angles, but what're you going to do?

edit: and props to penski for the Hicks quotes

 

[benneh]

i'm aware that the effects of crack are different to those of weed, but if you get it from a reliable source, and it's not been cut with poisonous substances, then it's just as safe as smoking weed...in moderation.

<snip>

but what're you going to do?

edit: and props to penski for the Hicks quotes

Crack is far more addictive than heroine bro, it's on a whole other level of scary really. But again as you said, when used in moderation it's fine (fine meaning all good and healthy, experimental and aiding in the development of oneself).

Sic for prez tbh.

 

[Chunky]

not suprised about this story tbh, he hardly has a clean cut image. I'm just suprised that some people are shocked by the news.

 

[Sic]

Crack is far more addictive than heroine bro, it's on a whole other level of scary really. But again as you said, when used in moderation it's fine (fine meaning all good and healthy, experimental and aiding in the development of oneself).

Sic for prez tbh.

heh, that just shows my lack of knowledge on crack, specifically (i could google it, but i dont want it showing on my works web usage logs!!), i just assume that it's as "dangerous" as straight coke, but i'm obviously mistaken.

benneh for "brains behind prez", tbh

 

[thelankymatt]

not suprised about this story tbh, he hardly has a clean cut image. I'm just suprised that some people are shocked by the news.

Yep, everyone seems to be ignoring the drugs and rape charges Craig Charles received in the 90's. He was jailed for a couple of months!

And respect to the prophet Bill Hicks (RIP)

 

[Meridian]

Crack is far more addictive than heroine bro, it's on a whole other level of scary really. But again as you said, when used in moderation it's fine (fine meaning all good and healthy, experimental and aiding in the development of oneself).

The catch is that almost no-one used crack in moderation, precisely because it is so addictive. It's generally agreed to be by far the most addictive drug out there.

M

 

[Jay]

Firstly, an awful lot of wealthy people neither have the desire nor need for drugs.
You seem to forget, drugs, in the main is an escape in the eyes of many users. "Taking the edge off life" is one way I'd describe it.

Its more likely a fair percentage of the poor whom will be the unfortunate ones in such a need for such an escape.

Wealth and the work thats achieved it is a far more addictive drug, I assure you.

He's made an example of as he's a celebrity, whatever the hell one of those is defined as! as a celeb, in the public eye, he has to consider he has fans, young ones at that.

He's made an example of as people in his position, in an ideal world, should set the example.

Mugging old ladies? may as well do so. Drugs and the money thats involved in the trade is a cancer on our society.

Pro rata, more kids die to drugs than OAP's to muggers.

Do some research into the drugs trade and whats behind it, speak to the families who've lost loved ones to drugs.

Go on, give it some real consideration.


Perhaps, you'll then "understand what the big shock about it is" won't you?

Again, you fail to see my point. Please point out where you think i condone the use of Class A drugs? I really want to know where i do that.

I was merely pointing out the fact Class A drug use is rife within the sector of rich people, and if you can't see that then i cant be bothered to explain further.

I feel sorry for Craig. He is a good actor and just because of what he does on his "naughty friday" has probably landed him on the dole.

Don't lecture me about people who have lost friends to drugs, I lost a very good friend to Cocaine 2 years ago. He was only 20 years old. I know exactly the consequences of drugs and their use, so please dont try and talk down to me on this.

Edit - When i said i don't know what the big deal is, i meant the big deal with another celeb taking drugs, not the acutal class A drug taking on a whole.

 

[ben_j_davis]

The catch is that almost no-one used crack in moderation, precisely because it is so addictive. It's generally agreed to be by far the most addictive drug out there.

M

Apart from maybe crystal meth, I mean Hitler took meth's from 1942 and he turned out ok (add sarcasm)

 

[hogfather]

that article is SO badly written, full of grammar mistakes and general typos. DO THEY NOT HAVE EDITORS??!


Say it ain't so, Craig

 

[Hedge]

Yep, everyone seems to be ignoring the drugs and rape charges Craig Charles received in the 90's. He was jailed for a couple of months!

And respect to the prophet Bill Hicks (RIP)

u sure he was jailed?

 

[thelankymatt]

u sure he was jailed?

Yes, he was detained in 1994 for a month or so but released on bail after an inmate attacked him with a homemade knife. He was jailed for the 'claimed' rape charges which were later dropped. He has never denied taking drugs.

edit: I'll have a hunt around for a source

linky

In 1994, Charles and an unknown male were accused of rape and indecent assault. Over three months later, after and attack by a fellow inmate with a makeshift knife, he was released on bail. At the trial in February 1995, Charles and fellow defendant John Peploe were claered of all charges, no forensic evidence having been offered that a rape took place. Although during the procceding he admited taking illegal drugs.

 

[SpicyDuck]

Sometimes, people mix up the words illegal and wrong.

Taking drugs is illegal, but it most certainly is not entirely wrong. Now I know someone will come along and say something along the lines of "So it's ok to be a paedophile because it's just illegal, not wrong", and I will tell them that such examples are a different thing entirely. When something is illegal or wrong, they are not all put into one draw and judged the same, because there are certain reasons as to why something is wrong or illegal.

This is why there are differences in court sentences and punishments.

In my opinion, all drugs should be legal, but Government controlled; keeping the "class" system as a system of Government Guidance. Class A is more addictive, more long-term side effects. Class C is less addictive yet still might have some long term side effects, etc. Yet, even then, it entirely depends on each and every individual.

In which case, a government testing or monitoring program could be put in place in order to suit each and every person who so wishes or chooses to put drugs into their bodies.

IIRC, in the 1800s and even the early 1900s, some over-the-counter drugs used to contain the same chemicals and have the same effects as todays Cocaine, Cannabis and Heroin. A nice little sip of Opium was a quick and effective way to ease a little pain.

But this stopped of course, and why? Well I'm not entirely sure, but I would bet that in 100 or so years a few bad cases were the cause of an eventual government crack-down. Something a modern "Screening clinic" would definitely avoid if it was implemented properly.

Hey, maybe the guys working in Cuba would benefit from all the extra trade and western influence. Maybe people like Craig Charles would still have a job, a steady relationship and kids who don't see him any differently. Not as a monster that the press has turned him into and no doubt turned his entire life, personal and professional, upside down. And why? Because maybe he wanted some stress-relief or simply to just chill out on a boring 4-hour car journey.

Is that so terrible?

Some countries have different laws on drugs, prostituion, etc. So before making an opinion, ask yourself whether you've grown to be brainwashed by the view of your government, or whether you're stating your own, individual opinion.

We're all just born here, but we're not born free anymore. I suppose it depends on your views and opinions as to exactly how free you wish to live.

... and that's just my view and opinion on this subject.

 

[nin9abadga]

IIRC, in the 1800s and even the early 1900s, some over-the-counter drugs used to contain the same chemicals and have the same effects as todays Cocaine, Cannabis and Heroin. A nice little sip of Opium was a quick and effective way to ease a little pain.

indeed, even coca cola used to contain traces of cocaine back in the day.

nin9a

 

[thelankymatt]

indeed, even coca cola used to contain traces of cocaine back in the day.

nin9a

Hence the name coke!

In my opinion drugs are as dangerous and addictive as the person who takes them. Everyone has their own threshold of what they can tollerate and some people just dont have any will power or self control. Be it alcohol, tobacco, pain killers (and other nice 'clean' taxable substances) and of course illegal substances.

I'd rather Mr Charles went on a drugs bender in the privacy of his own flat away from the general public on a friday rather than head down the pub, get tanked up, start a fight, damage private property and generally make a nuisance of himself. But of course thats 'acceptable' behaviour seeing as he is using the government approved legal drugs!

 

[Jay]

Sometimes, people mix up the words illegal and wrong.

Taking drugs is illegal, but it most certainly is not entirely wrong. Now I know someone will come along and say something along the lines of "So it's ok to be a paedophile because it's just illegal, not wrong", and I will tell them that such examples are a different thing entirely. When something is illegal or wrong, they are not all put into one draw and judged the same, because there are certain reasons as to why something is wrong or illegal.

This is why there are differences in court sentences and punishments.

In my opinion, all drugs should be legal, but Government controlled; keeping the "class" system as a system of Government Guidance. Class A is more addictive, more long-term side effects. Class C is less addictive yet still might have some long term side effects, etc. Yet, even then, it entirely depends on each and every individual.

In which case, a government testing or monitoring program could be put in place in order to suit each and every person who so wishes or chooses to put drugs into their bodies.

IIRC, in the 1800s and even the early 1900s, some over-the-counter drugs used to contain the same chemicals and have the same effects as todays Cocaine, Cannabis and Heroin. A nice little sip of Opium was a quick and effective way to ease a little pain.

But this stopped of course, and why? Well I'm not entirely sure, but I would bet that in 100 or so years a few bad cases were the cause of an eventual government crack-down. Something a modern "Screening clinic" would definitely avoid if it was implemented properly.

Hey, maybe the guys working in Cuba would benefit from all the extra trade and western influence. Maybe people like Craig Charles would still have a job, a steady relationship and kids who don't see him any differently. Not as a monster that the press has turned him into and no doubt turned his entire life, personal and professional, upside down. And why? Because maybe he wanted some stress-relief or simply to just chill out on a boring 4-hour car journey.

Is that so terrible?

Some countries have different laws on drugs, prostituion, etc. So before making an opinion, ask yourself whether you've grown to be brainwashed by the view of your government, or whether you're stating your own, individual opinion.

We're all just born here, but we're not born free anymore. I suppose it depends on your views and opinions as to exactly how free you wish to live.

... and that's just my view and opinion on this subject.

Thats a great post mate.. Just what i was thinking but was not sure how to explain myself.

 

[Sutters]

/doherty mode on

Just give me a bat and 5 minutes alone in a dark room with this guy.

He should be ashamed, think of all the impressionable red dwarf/geek show fans that are now clearly going to inject crack into their eyeballs.

 

[nero120]

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). If someone wants to do it fine, but any addiction to ANYTHING sygnifies a weakness of mind and lack of self control. So for that you get a nice negative opinion from me okay?

Its the difference between drinking to be social and drinking to get drunk or out of an addiction to alcohol. Everything in moderation is fine, but that does not mean that drinking/taking drugs makes a person any better - in fact it takes away from them a little in my view. I drink socially but I don't view myself as any better than someone who does not drink. Good for them I say. However, I would never do fags or drugs. Fags are the worst because you are inflicting your crap/stink/damage on others.

As for the article, it makes a good read! Dont know how much it has been dramatised though. I loved red dwarf, but who gives a crap if lister is a crack addict - he wasnt my best mate or any kind of role model any way.