The problem is Peter on numerous occasions has displayed zero empathy for anyone with an addiction. He is a very intelligent man and I agree with most of what he say's , but some people have experienced a lot of trauma in their life and find it very difficult to cope.
Yes he did. Smoked and drunk a lot of Scotch. I think it was Oesophageal cancer which is linked quite heavily to over use of those two drugs. @@erictalbert4633
"When you want to help people, you tell them the truth. When you want to help yourself, you tell them what they want to hear". In a nutshell, that is the addiction industry.
Telling people you have no power over your addiction is what is said in the early stages of treatment. Addicts are often consumed with guilt for their actions. Talking about their addiction as beyond their control helps defuse that guilt. It helps the addict take the first steps in recovery. It is the spoonful of sugar that helps the bad medicine go down. However in a 12 Step recovery programme such as AA, the middle section of the programme addresses that guilt head on. The addict (now sober for some time) has to take sole responsibility for their past actions and find ways to make amends to all those around them who have been hurt by their actions. Of course, many people are strong enough to simply quit smoking or drinking with will power alone. But I do hope Hitchens does not think schizophrenia can be cured with thinking alone. Basically, learning better thinking is what Therapy is, but it requires medicines to support it. It is possible that Addiction lies in some grey area between “sloppy” thinking and a physical / mental illness. That Hitchens has the mental capacity to avoid it, but he might also lack the inherited biology/thinking that makes him venerable to it. It should not be forgotten that since 1956 the AMA has defined Alcoholism as a disease. This is no woke fad. It has causes, symptoms and a predictable pathway. It is also hereditary. Remember, Alcohol is not actually an addictive substance; it’s not an opiate. All major medical associations around the world including the BMA agree with the AMA definition. Hitchens is not entirely wrong, but he’s not entirely right either. Matthew Perry RIP - A very sad sad loss.
Very lucid. But I do think if we separate out disease from disorder, one being actually physical the other psychological, a lot of the confusion around this topic would go away, for addicts themselves as much as anyone else. Therefore, saying someone can stop being an alcoholic by sheer will power alone would be as non-sensical as saying a person can stop being depressed by the same means. Unless Hitchens entirely disbelieves in the existence of the unconscious mind, those parts of our psyche outside of conscious control, then his position is untenable.
Alcohol Use Disorder is a neurological brain disorder which is entirely treatable and effectively curable today. It has nothing to do with a moral or spiritual failing and is no more the persons "fault", than is cancer. AA and all other abstinence based programs/treatments have a 90-95% failure rate. This is because they fail to deal with the cause of relapse, which is craving brought on by the Alcohol Deprivation Effect. Research "The Sinclair Method" which doesnt not required instant abstinence or detox. The Sinclair Method has a clinically proven success rate of 78%, backed by over 30 years of research and 120 clinical trials. It's not the 1930's anymore, abstinence is NOT the only way.
I will just emphasize a fact: There's a neural circuit, named "Papez Circuit" wich is responsible for every learning process we have during life. Basically, addiction is a disorder on this circuit, in wich you learn that a plesurable behavior, despite its consequences, should be practiced, no matter the costs. Pornography, drugs, alcohol, tobacco, e principally cell phones and social media, uses this circuit as a baseline in their intrinsic working. Everyone who deny this assumption, should prove the opposite; otherwise, it is not science.
@@zootsoot2006... Absolutely. The language of addiction treatment does seem to be muddled. The path to recovery, as the nicotine patches have printed on the side of the box, "requires willpower."
Geez none of you have No clue what real addiction is...if you've never experienced it. People who have addiction are the most loving, good hearted individuals, but are on deep pain, And sadness, some had childhood traumas, like being neglected by parents, being beaten up, molested or raped by family and friends, never feeling like your enough, deep depression, being kicked out of your home for being gay or running away from abuse. Bipolar or mental illness can leads to addiction too. They drink and get high to stop the hurt and pain and to feel some type of release and comfort. They just need someone to care and love them, hug them, hold them, tell them everything will be okay. The only thing I agree with you about is they need to be ready when they are ready...you can't force them to get help or constantly nag them and lecture them that leads them into a deeper hole of despair... unfortunately if they have severe depression or bipolar, they might never come out of it without there medication because eventually they will take their own life...but some will...those that will, will just have enough and get tired of going through that struggle of darkness and get the help. Just love them from afar and pray for them because the depression and pain they are dealing with is something no one can comprehend and understand unless you deal with it yourself. People that deal with addiction are verity of reasons, It's a very complex....they seem happy and normal to everyone else but are dying deep down. Lack of love, lack of acceptance, lack of feeling like you don't belong, rape, husband, Wives leaves you for someone else, divorce, molestion, physical abuse, verbal abuse, being treated badly and shund by family & so called friends...fakery surrounds you. Loneliness, so much horrific termoil in your head...you lose the Will to live..you have no interest anymore of the physical world and you are ready to be at peace 🕊️ and live in a place of love and acceptance, and pure tranquility...where all your illnesses, and pain, hurt goes away and you go back to your Innocence. I should Know I suffer from deep depression and it's horrific. Hard for people that don't endure to process the pain. I'm also a clairvoyant and empath...so there is a reason I haven't left this earth. I have a bigger mission to help others and show compassion and love to this world that is full of hate and bigotry and cruelty and unempathic humans... I'll be that little light that they need. My work here is not over. And my heart hurts for Matthew Perry because I know what he went through when he is alone when the fame and lime light goes away...when people only like you and love you because you are a star and rich, and you are only loved because of the characters you play but they don't know the real authentic you and would never waste there time knowing you or talking to you if you were a normal citizen, living middle class or poor life, working a normal 9 to 5 job...would they get this kinda love? He was a very humble and down to earth man and wasn't a Hollywood type, he just wanted to help others and be normal.
Social media is such a miserable place when it comes to people "speaking their mind" and lashing out at people. Some can only feel grief if they have someone to beat up over it.
I’d give almost anything to have Christopher back. He always had an original opinion on matters that was reasoned and he could discuss almost any subject with charm and wit.
Addiction is all in the mind for me.I was a smoker ,cocaine user ,and drank alcohol for 30 years...then I just quit .Got bored of cocaine..started to detest the smell and taste of tobacco and weed ..and eventually tired of the grogginess and hangovers from drinking..Ive been sober for 10 years now and don't miss it at all..wished id given it up sooner...definitely feel better for it
Of course addiction is “all in the mind”, where else in the body would you suggest it could possibly come from? 😂 However that doesn’t mean that vast amounts of medical and scientific research that points to addiction being serious health condition rather than a choice is just false because you anecdotally think most people could just “think” their way out of it.
Peter Hitchens: 'addiction isn't a disease just because you say so' Also Peter Hitchens: 'The entire American Medical Association is wrong just because I say so'
@@TheMusic29Lover the brilliant brother who supported the Iraq WMD fiasco and who by his own admission drank and smoked so much that he probably contributed to his early death.
@@stephenglasse2743 brilliant doesn't mean always right neither doing everything perfectly. Regarding adiction, i would invite you to get to know people who actually have been through those experiences. It might help you the actually understand the nature of addiction.
I didn’t know who Peter Hitchens was when I saw this on News Night, and I disagreed with him, but I had been categorised as a ‘high functioning alcoholic’ most of my professional life because I liked being drunk of a night time and what Peter had said during that interview lay dormant with me for some time! …..one day I decided to stop drinking without help, as of the 04/10/2018, after my doctor told me I had the highest liver count she has ever seen; five years sober! I am now an avid follower of Peter Hutchins!
Well done. Truly. The fear of death was your driver. It takes that in some cases. I’d like to think it takes to people that actually have decent lives outside of the addiction.
@@chexcollects it starts with accountability; all I used to hear from professional in regards to those living with addiction was ‘it’s not they’re fault’! …..the truth is, I was in self denial because I liked being drunk, socially, after work but 2018 was my wake-up call; partying in Tenerife, Ibiza, Benidorm and Marbella in the space of eight months and in my 40’s had took its toll! So in my humble opinion, Peter Hitchens was exactly right; the only downside is that you loose certain friends in certain circles!💯🦾
Christopher Hitchens was a great hero of mine years before he died and i couldn't help but notice that he was almost always drinking alcohol and smoking cigarettes during interviews and conversations. I truly believe it's what caused his early demise. I think that Christopher was an alcoholic / addict and the fact that his brother Peter Hitchens is completely opposed to the idea is quite baffling to me.
christopher hitchens specifically said he wasnt an addict and that he could stop whenever he wanted to. which is of course nonsense and sad, because regardless of whether or not he "could" he didnt, and it killed him. to say thats not addiction is an absurdly narrow and silly definition of addiction. i have a certain appreciation for christopher hitchens, but his actual grasp on "reason", logic, the truth, etc (not easy things to pin down of course) was often outstripped by his skill for rhetorical flourish. often the reason and rhetoric aligned, but sometimes they didnt, and while none of us are perfect or always right, he had a certain hubris to him that always seemed linked to some much deeper pathology to me.
We never truly know someone's struggle but Matthew decided to share his in his book. His pain was indescribable but I hope he can rest now. I'm speechless and so sad for his suffering when he brought so much laughter and light to other people. He reached true enlightenment and self-awareness here and I'm glad of that. He came full circle but I'm also dismayed that his story ended like this. He truly made it his mission to understand his disease and the affliction he was so tortured by.
People struggle with things they dont choose to opt in to, poverty, starvation, slavery, war, etc.....I don't have any sympathy left for drug addicts. If you have sympathy for drug addicts go read about what happens to small innocent children around the world every day. Feeling sympathy for drug addicts is a sign that you've lived a soft, entitled life and dont understand the harsh lives of billions. No human has unlimited sympathy, if you have sympathy for addicts its a sign you dont know much about real suffering.
@@jasonthomas9319Then you really are stupid and make Peter Hitchens look like a genius. So you know all about how Matthew Perry had barbiturates prescribed by a doctor and introduced into his system when he was less than ONE MONTH OLD. That’s 30 days, so one day for school braincell you have. You don’t have any fucking clue. Prick.
"I AM A VICTIM, I HAVE A DISEASE, YOU ARE OPPRESSING ME, I AM HELPLESS, I AM NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR MY OWN ACTIONS, IT IS ALL SOMEBODY ELSE'S FAULT!!!" If 2023 had a tagline, this would be it...
I can only assume you haven't watched someone slowly die from alcoholim. All people take drink and drugs because they enjoy them initially, but sadly some then go on to develop addiction issues and many die. George Best didn't die owing to lack of willpower, he died because he had developed a mental obsession, (not disimilar to something like severe OCD), that meant the logical part of his brain was being overridden by his mental obsession to drink. @@Paggerd
Peter Hitchens was embarrassingly ignorant on his Newsnight appearance with Matthew Perry. He kept asking for the ‘physical objective proof’ of addiction as a health condition, some kind of blood test or similar. That is not a relevant approach, and he should leave it to the actual health professionals or at least informed logical thinkers. There is no objective physical test for many diseases, but a cluster of signs that occurs in multiple people is clearly identifiable. Schizophrenia for example has no test….is that also therefore a choice Peter?
I think it's ridiculous that Peter seems to be almost romanticising over his talk with Matthew Perry. If you watch the whole talk, Peter was quite rude and unempathetic and Matthew clearly thought he was a complete prick. So I don't know why Peter is acting like he has some kind of admiration for Matthew aside from the fact he just died.
Because most people in the states believes it’s rude to disagree. He comes from a place of debate and thicker skin then the weak safe space Americans. A back and forth argument between two people DOES NOT mean hatred only weak people only can tolerate people that agree with them. People can argue two points without personal ill will. I find most people unable to defend what they believe and if they do it usually goes down some bitter pathetic safe space path.
@@45eno I wouldn't know, I'm not in the states and I've never been. I'm English actually. And I don't suggest Peter was rude because he was disagreeable . I think what made him rude was his rudeness. A back and forth is fine, I don't think there was any hatred for the mere back and forth of a debate. But I'd say it was pretty obvious that Matthew Perry thought he was kind of an ass. And I would agree.
@@bihan1429 from what I saw Perry was the one acting rude and hitchens was simply trying to get a strong response instead of what perry was bringing. I think hitchens direct approach of calling them out instead of making excuses naturally will offend. His style was no different then when he called out bad arguments from any other panel discussion and even with his late brother.
@@bihan1429 Whether Perry thought he was an ass is irrelevant to whether he was empathetic. Do you think Peter should have lied about his views to make Matthew more pleased with him? People perceive the world how they perceive the world.
@@Jorbz150 To be honest, all of this is irrelevant. My point was really about how Peter is romanticising over it now when it was plain to see that neither really appreciated each other's views at the time of the talk. And Peter even made a little dig at Matthew for not taking the debate seriously but now he's acting like there was some kind of admiration for his wit and humour.
There are actual alterations to the brain. Drink enough and your brain changes and receptors crave it. Same with smoking. I gave up smoking and it took at least a year for my brain receptors to settle down. Physical & Mental cravings last and lay in wait. 7 years later I still wish I smoked now and then.
The fact that there are "Actual alterations to the brain" is pretty trivial. How does that distinguish it from anything else in life? There are also changes in the brain of people who learn to play a musical instrument, or lose a loved one.
@@Jorbz150 there are predictable and persistent alterations in brain regions responsible for impulse control, reward sensitivity, executive functioning, etc in a manner that perpetuates the condition. these are all bad things, hence the term disease. The changes that come from learning an instrument or losing a loved one are generally not maladaptive and they don't lead to progressive deterioration of the condition without intervention.
@@MrPancakelizard consider 2 people that are heroin addicts with the same physiological brain changes as a result of their drug use. One of them quits heroin and one of them continues to use it. This is categorically different from an actual disease (e.g. cancer) where we can establish objective ways to diagnose it, and you can’t just cure yourself through your choices.
That doesn't make it a disease though, that makes it learned behaviour. A maladaption essentially. But the key is that in principle it can be unlearned again, as many people demonstrate - their brain will change again. Bottom line: not a disease. Just because some people can't manage this, doesn't mean they have a disease.
Being an alcoholic does not make you less of a human. Peter suggests people whom don’t have that level of will power are somehow less. This is wrong. It’s an addiction that needs addressing at its base. It’s that first drink, even after a period of abstinence, that controls.
I don't think he suggests that at all that people like that are weak minded it's a choice if he had no alcohol he couldn't drink could he ?just don't do it I agree with him it's a choice.
@@christenedoering7720 he's wrong, and you are wrong. If you were to sit and smoke heroin once, do you think you could just decide to never take it again? Murder is a choice, rape is a choice, and we constantly conflate the justifications for murder and rape with mental illnesses and trauma. What is so different about addiction? These people destroy themselves and can't help it either. If you believe that every single person on earth can just go through the horrible trek that is the battle of life without feeling helpless and needing an out, you are naïve, arrogant, and have not experienced life in the slightest. "lol it's bad, just don't do it" yeah, congratulations genius, you figured it out, the world would be a much better place if people didn't do things that are bad.
@@loafofaids1835 why in the hell would I make an idiotic choice to do that in the first place silly thing to say the choice is no way choices mate that's what it's about to say no-one has ever seen life only you?yeh people do bad things but touching drugs is dumber it's not bad it's stupid.
@@christenedoering7720 then let me correct your statement for you. "Drugs are stupid, don't do them, problem solved" Yes, again, congratulations for solving the problem. The world would be a better place if people didn't do stupid things. And if i had wheels, I'd be a bike. What exactly is your solution to this problem? Throw them in jail until they rot? Waste more jail space instead of putting away the real criminals? please tell me your hail Mary since you clearly understand the ins and outs of addiction and the repercussions of not receiving proper mental health care. Trust me, everything is not so black and white, mental health is real and some people struggle greatly. Some people live with it, some people do drugs, some people drink, some people are addicted to sex, some people are addicted to eating, some people are addicted to power, and it changes the way they think forever. Your ability to dumb all of that down to a statement as baseless as "That's a dumb choice, i don't do it so i don't understand why other people do". people live different lives than you do. And the best way to live life is to have empathy for other people instead of shutting them down for living differently and making different choices than you do. So please, indulge me.
I’ve been in sobriety for 13 years. I agree with Peter Hitchens and I’m grateful that my family, friends and workplace showed little empathy. It helped me take responsibility and be accountable. After the first drink history has always shown I’d be lost to the bottle but I do have agency in whether or not I take that first drink, just as Matthew Perry says. So I’m grateful to both Peter Hitchens and Matthew Perry for their contribution to the subject of addiction.
If you believe you agree with Hitchens, you simply haven't been paying attention to what he says. He believes the solution to the drug problem is to give addicts harder sentences and throw them in prison. He's an absolute dumbass on this topic.
People look at the addiction instead of treating the cause for addiction which is generally mental health issues or lack of parental guidance in life. Iv been addicted to painkillers on and off for 15 years. I needed them to get me through yhe day at school and later in life to continue working to pay the bills. Only around 3 years ago, eventually after a having a breakdown and i was diagnosed with borderline personality disorder, PTSD and im waiting for a bipolar diagnosis. If i had been diagnosed earlier in life i may not have ever touched painkillers in order to cope. Yes it was my choice to start taking them but in my mind it was either take some painkillers to numb myself and manage intrusive thoughts or go out and buy a rope. The problem with the UK health service is that theres no prevention of anything, you literally have to be on deaths door or in my case need 80 stitches in your arms before any help is available. Prevention is better than cure but our health professionals oddly dont seem to understand that. Either way RIP Matt
First, I'm glad Peter said polite things about Matthew at the beginning of this; I was afraid it was going to be the opposite. However, it's disappointing that Peter is still avoiding any responsibility for the way he spoke (first, mind you) to Matthew back in 2013 during that interview. When it began, Matthew spoke in a very polite, calm, and professional manner. Peter, however, started off on the wrong foot immediately, speaking dismissively and stating "what you're saying is, you're seeking to fail" (and the host, BTW, was the first out of all of them to audibly express shock/surprise at what Peter was saying). Matthew then asked Peter very calmly, "I'm not understanding your point; your point is to stop drugs and alcoholism by just, people never starting?" He asked this question politely and not in a sarcastic or combative way. Peter, however, ignored Matthew's question and instead threw down the gauntlet, going off on both Matthew and Baroness Meacher: "You two believe in this fantasy of addiction..." My jaw fell through the floor. Bad enough to be making claims that had no basis in medicine or science; to have the nerve to tell an addict to their face that their addiction is a "fantasy" - in an accusatory, disdainful and haughty manner, no less - it was beyond galling. Matthew, quite justifiably, found this very insulting. (To her credit, Meacher was just as appalled, calling Peter out continuously for speaking against well-known medical knowledge and science). Yes, Matthew could have held back a bit on the insults, but if I'd been in that situation, expecting to have a professional discussion and then having someone who doesn't even have a medical license say those things to me, I probably would have used a few choice insults myself. Peter went in there with a chip on his shoulder and lost all credibility the moment he said the word "fantasy," and I couldn't have cared less about anything he said after that. And then to accuse Matthew Perry of treating the subject with "immense levity," and act all put out because Matthew "mostly responded by calling me names" - was cowardly. (BTW, I know Matthew said in his book that the host was a "cranky guy" who was "famous for being rude to guests," but in this particular interview, I thought the host did a decent job of staying out of it while trying to let each guest have equal chances to speak.) Having said all this, I don't think there's much point in raking Peter over the coals in social media today, or in giving his thoughts the time of day. He's obviously not widely supported in his beliefs, and I think the less opportunity he's given to speak on any sort of national platform, the better.
Exactly. If you see the entire debate you can understand why Perry was a little angry here... when Perry started to talk, Peter was making faces like you do when you are 6 and are fighting with your 4 year old brother.
No, he was perfectly reasonable back then as well. He still has the same views as he had back then. Made quite some good points, that’s why Matthew started getting personal
@@A_walk_in_the_parkThat's simply not true. Hitchens said addiction is a fantasy. After that statement, Perry got agitated and started throwing in sarcastic remarks that had Paxman and the other lady chuckling nonstop. Point is, Hitchen devolved the discussion with his silly insensitive remark, as per.
@@censedfear yes as you have stated, Perry got triggered while Hitchens simply stated his view. If you can get triggered that much by one simple remark, then maybe your arguments aren’t as strong as you think.
@@A_walk_in_the_park He got agitated, hardly 'triggered'. If you want to see triggered go watch Peter's interview with the UA-camr Cosmicskeptic. He had an absolute meltdown and acted like a complete manchild. He got triggered, I guess his arguments are weak? No. It's not that simple. Perry maintained incredible composure given Peter invalidated his problems and life experiences. The man said addiction is a fantasy. He's a tool.
Mathew Perry, did stop his alcohol and drug addiction at the time of the interview of his own free will, but still identified himself as an addict. Surely that was his point? And the presenter equating him stopping smoking cigarettes with someone addicted to drugs and alcohol is frankly an insult! RIP Mathew: thank you for the laughter...
But Peter is right. The addiction, both mentally and physically must be overwhelming for some. But the drinks are not being forced upon anyone. It’s a decision to give in because, for whatever reason, you can’t fight it and say no.
It's a medical condition not a moral choice. Just like any other DSM-6 disorder. The physiology and genetics of addiction are pretty obvious and any condition where vaccines are being developed is not a mental disorder but a physical one.
It is quite possible to cross from social drinking,to heavy drinking then suddenly that becomes Alcoholism before one becomes aware of it. You can die from sudden Alcohol withdrawal. It's only second to Barbiturate withdrawal. It can be extremely dangerous without help. Valium can aid in this process.
Yes, but it is the subconscious mind that is in the driving seat. The conscious mind might bleat and plead not to reach for that drink, but the subconscious is more powerful. To try and understand what I mean consider something sad has happened, and you feel the desire to cry, but you would be severely embarrassed in the situation if you blub like a baby. But you can't help it. The desire to cry is overwhelming and you just can't stop it. That is what addiction feels like to the addict. That is why addicts often depict addiction as a demon talking to them - it's their own damaged subconscious that is reaching for the drink.
Addicts need to be helped to find, within themselves, a reason to stop that is more powerful and compelling than the cravings of their addiction. In my case, after many years of heavy smoking since my teens, my lungs developed severe bronchitis every time I caught a cold - it was awful, and scary. This was my incentive to stop - it took three attempts over some years but I finally got there..... haven't even looked at another cigarette in over 20 yrs because I'm always reminded of how thar bronchitis made me feel.
That's not completely true either becos the medical authorities tell us that that smoking, drinking, being overweight and eating too much red meat will increase chances of getting cancer.
My son who is adopted, is an addict, his birth parents were both addicts. He grew up with us in a home where there was very little drinking, no smoking and zero drugs. Studies suggest that addiction has at least a 50 to 60% genetic component. Peter Hitchens is moralistic and unempathic. He does not know wherof he speaks.
Jane, hon.. God bless you. i think people that don't live in america are not aware of crack babies of the 80s. a good example is the rapper Ol dirty bastard's son who was born an addict because his own parents were addicts themselves. I remember working in an orphan home where they were plenty of crack babies. its a sad thing to see tbh.
i do agree with you to the extent that genetics are a major component of ones affinity to addiction, i do believe however that addicts dont have to become addicts if subjected at an early age with clear, strict and empathetic education and unfortunately luck to have the right friends growing up, to find the right social and economical structures around oneself and to be interested and aware enough of the dangers that addiction affiliated objects/goods come with. In a nutshell whilst not all people have the same probability to be addiction-candidates and it is too far fetched to expect parents to be aware of and proactive towards the extent of hereditary tendencies of ones child (especially an adopted one) it therefore essential that education and a healthy social Environment is present at all others aspects of ones childhood and life in order to ensure awareness and respect when dealing with potentially harmful drugs. It is always tragic to see one close to you fall into addiction (forn whatever reason) but for some reason i refuse to believe that an addictiln prown individual is helpless and their path is already predetermined, the question of whether or not is therefore preventable is another matter entirely and probably subject to many other influences be it culture,age, country of origin and even the time of ones upbringing. Im so sorry about your story, empathy is always crucial when dealing with loved ones in hardship, i wish all the best to you and your family! Happy easter❤
@@warrennicholsony.fernando4513thats the thing even if the condition of addiction should turn out to be predetermined it is ultimately you who has to turn your life around, and i think it is dangerous to nor consider yourself empowowered to do exactly that especially when looking at an average in the world and not the tragic extreme cases like crack babies and the such
Matthew Perry's last line in his debate with Peter Hitchens was a kill shot: HITCHENS: "How do you know what you're saying is true?" PERRY: "Because I've read something other than your books."
´The mob is always wrong´. Ummm, no actually. If ´the mob´ is the majority, then no, the majority is not always wrong. Peter Hitchens seems to have made a career out of disagreeing with the majority. Nothing wrong with disagreeing with the majority view or with any view, but you have to have a basis for your view. Just saying, because I think so, is not good enough! When it comes to something like addiction, there is a lot of knowledge now about the science and biology of addiction and that cannot just be disregarded or dismissed.
Appeal to majority opinion is a logical fallacy.. For example throughout most of history, the majority believed the earth if flat, it didn't make it flat.. The majority believed slavery was okay , didn't make it okay.. The majority is almost always wrong.
Not true that the majority is almost always wrong. The majority is often right when they are well-informed and have understood the complexity of a matter. The majority can be wrong about certain things because they have not taken into account all the relevant factors, either because they are not aware of them, because they have been misled/have or have been provided with inacccurate information either deliberately or accidentally, or because they are choosing not to take into account certain factors, or because they have not realized the importance of certain factors. @@aadiskywalker
@@LaChicaconSuerte-1111 You just proved my point, whatever reasons you said are literally irrelevant, the point is the majority are almost often wrong on damn near everything and the contrarians are more often right because they dig deeper/question the narrative instead of blindly believing everything.. I've told why "appeal to majority" is a logical fallacy too and said a few examples.
"Drug addiction is a choice" - says the person with no personal experience of addiction. If addiction isn't real, how do you explain the fact that if and addict stops drinking or taking drugs cold turkey, they can literally *DIE?*
What he's saying is, if you are fully aware a substance you want to take is illicit and can have an addictive effect, then you alone are responsible for the consequences.
@@lauraj8429 he says it all the time. Maybe not in these exact same words which I'm using, but that is essentially his argument. He has written a whole book claiming social catastrophe owing to both drugs and alcohol liberalisation laws in the UK and across Europe. When laws were a lot stricter, there was far less incentive to be enticed to either buy or take dangerous substances.
@@markeedeep I don’t agree with that view but at least it’s a coherent argument. If that’s what he really means he should say so explicitly rather than claiming that addiction isn’t real and that people just choose to habitually use drugs. That is literally what he said to Matthew Perry.
Never heard of a addiction to , smoking,chocolate, cream cakes, computer game ? Free will, and choice exists in every human being. Bottom line is self discipline, or lack of it.
Find Big Baby Hitchens an absolute embarrassment after his rant, toys out the pram and storming off episode. Hitchens has absolutely no understanding of addiction, his argument is extremely disingenuous. I can barely stand his mumbling and tripping as he waffles his way through his points of no interest.
No-one is debating the existence of and the power of willpower, but they're talking about circumstances in which willpower can be diminished, or overwhelmed, and an approach that returns people's ability to resist via willpower. It's not a contradiction.
I was never a drinker and never touched drugs but I think Peter goes overboard in thinking addicts are weak and they should do time, End of story. I think Perry probably leaned too much into this is a disease and I'm not in control but I don't support writing people off which has become too much of a thing in America. I lean towards what Perry and what that woman were saying but I think the truth is somewhere in the middle.
The guy is correct people have free will. But the consequences of stopping can be incredibly painful. And it seems to alter people where they are forever connected to it. Even if they stop. He has a lack of knowledge because he's never suffered from it.
I knew a girl who was a terrible alcoholic. Tried to help her. I would say, 'you have a strong compulsion to drink, but ultimately you control your own actions. you decide to put on your shoes, open the door, and walk down the road to buy a bottle of wine each day.' She was furious and told me that because she's an alcoholic, she has no control over her actions. It simply isn't true. After many failed attempts to help her out of a downward spiral, we stopped speaking. I wouldn't be surprised if she had drank herself to death by now. The saddest part? she lived off state benefits so the UK government essentially paid this poor girl to binge drink every day.
@@theverystones2643 if you have evidence that the scientists were paid off by "vested interests" then I'll buy what your selling. Also "vested interests" don't always make sense. I found it odd that the pharmaceutical industry discouraged the use of Ivermectin for COVID even though they produce & sell Ivermectin 🤔
The mindset of “I’m an addict and I can’t do anything” is defeating and clearly illogical. Anyone who says this has already sealed their own fate. That’s why while Hitchens doesn’t actually delve deeply in how to overcome addiction, he’s right. It’s not a matter of willpower, but conflicting wills. One part wants the addiction because we perceive the thing helps us in some way, the other part rejects it because we know it’s bad for us and brings nothing good. One must reprogram their own beliefs first and align those beliefs to their desired will to defeat an addiction.
If only he had explained his case for why he doesn't believe in addiction in this way to Matthew Perry, it might have helped Matthew better to understand where Peter Hitchens was coming from. I've heard him say this about addiction a few times but I have never heard him explain why quite like this. I agree with Mike Graham , better to meet somewhere in the middle about this. Some struggle to resist their addiction/temptation, others have a stronger will to resist it while some of the more unfortunate people suffering with this don't resist it at all (of their own choosing or a perceived lack of choice, whatever the case may be).
Hitchens sunk his own flawed argument about will power when he admitted that not everybody can quit using will power. 9:16 The man is nothing more than a facetious, boorish contrarian.
@@bobcprimus if someone is under the delusion that they don't have a choice, especially if a society is telling people that for some it can be beyond their control, then by definition not all people can give up their addiction. That still doesn't negate the fact that they have the capacity to choose not to do it as is Peter Hitchen's belief and its his belief whether they can give up their addiction or they can't, they do have a choice. They are choosing to give into their addiction even if they are under the delusion that they don't have free will in the grip of their addiction. I think if drug addiction with certain drugs does effect the mind and body in certain ways, where you get withdrawal symptoms for not taking a particular substance and some people through their own will give it up, then it means there is a choice. The only difference is, either through delusion, or simply a decision not to give it up they have chosen to continue with it. You can't refute that as Peter Hitchens is saying. But he is aware that some people don't, which is why he said some people can't. He should have said won't but its obvious what he meant.
@@bobcprimusyour points are true, peters beliefs are far more rooted in deep pain, specifically for his brother, I’ve seen him leave debates because he refused to debate the subject around addiction, even tho he has written a book on the subject, in reality he’s to afraid to confront his very personal fears around addiction to change his views
Being a contrarian can often feel like you're the only one telling the truth. When you're right, it confirms that belief. But it's the inability to see how often you're wrong that makes it a dangerous belief system. He's demonstrably wrong about alcoholism and to holdfast to his beliefs about it being entirely choice while having never had to deal with it in his own life blows my mind.
I watched many, many episodes over the decades. It’s a clever show. My son and daughter-in-law started watching it recently. They love it and I think the show has aged well. Whoever said it has no plot has gotten that very wrong. There are episodic themes, recurring themes and overarching plots that carry it along nicely.
So…not agree with you, daughter and son in law means ‘wrong’🤣🤣🤣 It is called personal opinion…experience…education…maturity…many other things or simply-‘happily NOT your in-law family!!’
To give yourself the title “addict” you abrogate responsibility for yourself and instantly become a “victim”. This seems to be a badge of honour in today’s society.
I think Peter haas a rather narrow view on it he is saying people have a choice. Well I have no argument with that if someone chooses to take a line of cocaine or chase heroine. If they then become addicted, they more than likely knew that this is what could happen. What if, for example, Peter were were stricken with an awful illness or had an accident that left him in constant pain day and night. The only thing that would give him some kind of relief were very strong painkillers. Now he, like most of us, he would probably also be aware of the danger of becoming addicted to them. But he found that the only way he could lead some kind of normal life and get some sleep and relief from mind numbing pain was to continue taking them. So he eventually becomes addicted, because he cant function without them. Would Peter deem himself to be someone that chose addiction in that instance.
The cases of addiction due to illness or injury are still so few compared to the general, overwhelming number of cases that are entirely self inflicted, for purely hedonistic reasons.
@@markeedeep If you want to make a comparison of the 2 then that is probably true. Don’t underestimate the also overwhelming number of addicts on prescribed medication, who are probably not considered as addicts but most definitely are. I was addressing the, I think, narrow claim that Hitchens makes that people make the choice to become an addict. Hence the example I gave.
@@VAPIDISM that's true, I used to be on those. Because like countless others, I was led to believe my emotional problems in adolescence and teenage years were an indication of a medical problem (which I stopped believing in many years ago already).
@@markeedeep Yea, there is a lot of focus on recreational drugs in terms of addictions u really the big pharma companies are not that much different from street drug peddlers. I think methadone is a good example to look at in terms of dodgy practices. Supposedly it was to be used to help heroin addicts come off heroin. Yet it is a substance that people can become addicted to and often do. My cyclical or realist take on that is that it’s a clear case of the drug companies wanting a slice of the profits that heroine dealers have benn/are getting. I mean methadone certainly doesnt appear to help people. Prescribing an addictive substance in order to help people off an addictive substance makes no sense. UNless you are in the business of making money from pharmaceuticals. Good on you that you managed to not rely on what you were made t believe young needed to help you.
I don't think he did .. it's funny but everytime I express a view similar to Peter about addiction, addicts and people who fully buy into that ideology accuse me of not knowing anything / being ignorant etc. It's like I just want to say to them .. "no you really don't know anything about ME or what I'VE learnt, stop making assumptions .. I just have a different view." Maybe what I'm saying is stirring discomfort in you and that's the easiest way for you to dismiss anything I said .
Addiction is a dilemma, where the user finds themselves self-medicating with a substance, that seduces them into forgetting their perceived 'internalised pain' ...but the medication itself then becomes the impediment. They would rather face the metaphorically innocuous 'suffering' of the medication, than facing the real object of their torment.
I would say that Peter has softened his stance from the original interview though, and qualifying it by saying 'it depends on how you see addiction'. Not many would ever claim that it cannot be beaten, and I found the argument that when he clearly said 'addiction doesn't exist, ridiculous'. I do agree that to suggest it cannot be beaten would in no way be helpful. Another matter that I can personally attest to is I had a relation who was a Heroin addict for 20 years and when she wanted to finally kick the habit, totally qualifying Peter's point of free will, she had to be weaned off as going cold Turkey would have literally killed, her so you could argue that her free will did not exist unless she was willing to die. The whole debate about free will is nuanced and a philosophical one as Peter points out. I am on the side of free will being a myth and would say, as an example Peter's views, beliefs would be totally driven by his relationships and interactions with infinite factors in his life and could be wildly different with a tiny variation in just one of those factors. You could say we are born with free will and lose it the moment we see, hear or feel anything and even then could genetics play a part. Peter is a smart man but can sometimes come across a wilful contrarian and hypocrite, as he is self confessed Christian which like all religion is anti-free will by definition, with the belief of a omnipotent creator, I know they skirt this by very the notion of 'free will' but it is a ultimately a square peg in a round hole.
@@erikcarey6568I fully understand the philosophical definition of free will as an atheist do not recognise the religious definition. In fact religion is a perfect example of the counter of free will. People in nearly all circumstances will follow the religion their environment influences. Indians are mainly Hindu, Pakistani Muslim, Thai. Buddhist etc etc. Further people generally follow the religion of their parents and even convert due to marriage etc. I believe every decision we make is effected consciously or even more sub consciously by external influences social and maybe even genetic. You think you decided to follow your God with an entire free thought but my belief was that the decision was created by external forces
@@leecourtney1225 Regardless of whether you choose to acknowledge the religious definition of free will, it does exist and its an incredibly important part of Christianity. By your logic, growing up in a secular culture which routinely degrades and marginalizes Christianity, I should be an atheist. The lack of belief in free will is a coping mechanism to avoid taking responsibility for your actions.
Addiction is not beaten by the actions of the conscious mind but by tricks that have to be played on the sub conscious mind where the problem originates. A great example is to get an alcoholic to take a pill prior to each drink that makes the drink taste awful. In time the sub conscious is tricked into "thinking" that alcohol is no longer a substance from which it can gain pleasure. The conscious person does nothing except sit back and follow the procedures. No sweat.
Drug and alcohol abuse is a choice. No disease. Cancer is a disease that you do not choose. There are lots of people who stop drinking and doing drugs. There is no one who has chosen to stop having cancer.
They chose to get treatment after feeling enough symptoms, if they didn't persevere with the treatment they wouldn't survive. For some the best treatment doesn't work. They're very similar.
Nasty people who wish to hurt Peter Hitchens say “the wrong brother died”. But this isn’t correct. The right brother died. One burnt the lining of his throat with alcohol and then blasted it with carcinogenic smoke and took no exercise beyond having sex and eventually got the almost inevitable oesophageal cancer. The other brother drinks in moderation if at all, has never smoked and exercises daily. And I say this as someone who has read nearly all of Christopher’s work and miss him dearly.
Chris had no choice in the matter as, of course, being a determinist and atheist, he couldn’t believe in free will, even if he ‘wanted’ to. He seemed though to have sufficient free will not to bring attention to this ‘belief’ in his diatribe.
@@vincentmcnabb939 Did you ever listen to Christopher on the issue of freewill? Once asked if he believed in freewill his reply was; “I have no choice”.
Friends: Foolish goofy lads & frivolous lost lassies. They kiss each other and believe that as long as they stay in the ‘gang’, they will be fine. They essentially laugh at sin and promote immaturity endlessly. And it is funny. Like every drug, it can be addictive. Just watch 02 or 03 episodes and leave it. Take a good book, instead. That’s the best gift for yourself.
@jonah9861 It’s just a comedy it’s not meant to be read into that deeply, stop preaching like everybody should think exactly the same as you do. Typical ideologue
@@JackSmith-kp2vs "It's just": typical child who has the entertainment as his false god. Keep being entertained by bullshit and you'll see your life becoming exactly the same. It's your decision in life to feed yourself with poop when there is good food in the table. Good luck with this "it's just".
I am really confused. This man had a whole go at Alex O’Connor for discussing drugs and even said “even talking about drugs for two minutes would be too much” but now he’s right back in the media discussing addiction?
Advocacy of absenteeism as a route to freedom makes a lot of sense. Whether it is nicotine, alcohol, THC, meat protein ( which is not addictive ), added sugar, etc... One can choose "net zero".
Telling people they have a disease does not make them not want to stop. The addiction and chemical dependence is what makes them not want to stop. Why does he deny that science? I’m guessing he’s lost someone to addiction and it has stuck with him.
It was relevant to the story he was telling about newsnight and don't act like it wasn't, it's obviously very relevant that Peter hasn't seen friends because he didn't know who Matthew was.
hitchens just saw another possibility to insult perry. he thinks nothing of him and everybody needs to know it. pretty low behaviour, hitchens. but unfortunately pretty typical for these high horse folks.
I have no idea who this guy is, as I can barely understand what they're saying. However, I understood enough to know that this man has a very misguided viewpoint of what addiction is. I always find it unimaginable when "experts" think they know about something than someone who actually lives with it on a daily basis. Unless someone has "lived" something like addiction and has experienced it first hand, maybe they should keep their flapping gums shut for once. Silence is golden!
We all live with damaging propensities and cupidity. Hitchens is right in describing the real issue as the philosophical question over free will. He could certainly show more empathy, though…providing, of course, he has the free will to choose so.
If you were to actually watch the entire original clip, you'd see Peter was the first to break down to a playground level of attitude, as he so regularly does. I do miss his brother.
Of course he hasn't. Peter hasn't watched television since the coronation (the Queen's in 1953). He does tune into the wireless and turn on his gramophone occasionally.
If you actually read his blog he reviews brand new TV shows on a regular basis. You're probably the type of fart smelling lefty weirdo that makes lame jokes about the wrong Hitchens brother dying
The truth seems in between. It's your body, you have agency over it and what you put into it. At the same time there are some people who get an intense high from drugs, alcohol, more so than the average person. Those people should not pick up the first drink. As a heavy drinker myself, whose had some alcohol related problems over the years, I don't like the characterization as a "disease" or having no control over it, kind of sets one up for failure.
The worst thing for most people who drink a lot to do is stop 'suddenly' 'bang' 'just like that' that can easily kill you or do serious damage... it's not the same as suddenly stopping smoking at all.
@@noneyabizz8337 Wrong! Addiction is classified as a disease of the brain, although can be manageable for some. But as far a we currently know it cannot be cured. If Hitchens could try to put aside his deeply held prejudices, then maybe he would be able to manage his self-righteousness. Suggest he gives that a try.
@@noneyabizz8337 I am an alcoholic and I agree. Too many people use the disease concept to keep drinking. I would describe myself as having a disorder, not a disease. Something that cannot be seen under a microscope but affects me physically and mentally. none the less
@@noneyabizz8337 here here. It may be classified as a disease, but that doesn't actually make it so. It's not in the same class as cancer. Over 90% of "addicts" get over their problem and successfully abstain or moderate as they get older. With cancer it doesn't work like that.
This is simplistic nonsense - it suggests some people just woke up one day and became addicts apparently at random. What about choices? One's moral framework and philosophy on life? All these factors are hugely important in whether one chooses tan addictive lifestyle or not.
We are only our brain chemistry. Ask Peter Hitchens to stop eating FOOD for 3 months and watch him spend his whole time thinking about food, feeling tired, feeling anxious, constant hunger, insomnia, unable to function, constant nausea, throwing up, constantly being dizzy, withdrawing from mates, cold sweats, then hot sweats, even Peter will end up sneaking off to get some food on the quiet. Food sustains us. An alcoholic's brain chemistry is sustained by alcohol. It craves alcohol to function day to day, to think, to live, to cope with everyday pressure and it gets worse, its a disease. Peter Hitchens believes there's a big invisible man in the sky who created him (and you and me) and so he is 'special' and hes going to prove his obedience to the invisible man, just like when he was a kid, he was the teachers pet. Behind the scenes, Peter Hitchen's opinions and views are driven by insecurity of his brother CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS. No one can match his brothers intellect and legacy, and Peter is way too affected by it. Even as kids if Christopher went left at a street corner, Peter's insecurity meant he deliberately went right. RIP Matthew Perry.
The choice not to drink comes before alcoholism, not after it. Matthew Parry must have realised that he was drinking far too much long before, it got to the stage when he had no control over it. He made the choice to continue to drink, and it cost him his life.
Peter comes across as being quite cold and dispassionate. He has his beliefs and he is entitled to express them but I can understand Perry’s response and to a lesser extent his experience. And to state free will is either absolute or not is a bit silly imo. There may be times when we have free will and other times we don’t. And I would say drugs and other behaviours diminish free will. So I can’t agree with Hitchens. He seems to think it’s all or nothing
I fully agree - I’ve just watched the full “debate” and Peter seemed so in love with himself and NOT willing to take any arguments and get into an actual discussion (instead of a monologue) that I fully understand Matthew’s reaction to his opinionated statements. It’s hard to even call it a debate. Regarding the matter in question, I agree it’s way more complicated than “all or nothing” approach Peter presented. In a way, it is about a choice to be made, but let’s think about what all the attempts to penalize use of substances have led to so far…the very idea it could actually be followed through (successfully) is really utopian, in my opinion.
Also, absolute free will simply CANNOT exist because so many things are decided for us before we even come into this world and ALL of those things influence our decisions. So the idea of absolute free will is the actual myth.
He's caricaturing and misrepresenting the treatment model. It isn't a contradiction to say that people can't resist it, but then they can. They can't resist it at a certain level of the extremity of the underlying causes that lead them to it, but, with treatment and positive engagement from others, particularly health professionals of course, they can be led into a state where they can resist it. It's saying that addiction is a state where you can't resist it, but that people can be led via that understanding and how it informs how to work with the problem, into a state of mind where they can resist; i.e. are no longer addicted, or at least can avoid the first trigger of addictive behaviour, which is effectively not addicted. He is being too simplistic, meaning he's being too sure of himself.
Also, HItchens’ characterization of what people mean when they say addiction and a disease is simply wrong. People don’t mean something they can’t give up or overcome. That was the whole point of his discussion with Perry. They were discussing the best way to treat people with addiction so they can overcome it. I guarantee you that jail is that the best answer.
You have a choice. But if your brain is wired to be depleted of dopamine and serotonin (which literally dictate your motivation and happiness) and your main source of finding that is alcohol or drugs (and your brain has been wired to believe that) then that choice is incredibly incredibly hard. People who aren’t wired in that way will never ever understand the absolute pull that alcohol and drugs have for people who’s brains are wired in that way. And to stay sober is an incredible feat that non addicts will never understand.
I am a recovering alcholic. Matthew Perry is right. I agree with Peter Hitchens on many things, but on addiction he is wrong. Yes it can be fought. Yes it is possible to stop but free will is not absolute. It is limited and addiction is not a simple choice.
That's exactly what I was wondering too. I hope that the autopsy reveals if Mathew had miocarditis or another form of heart related injury from "the thing" because it's seeming very convenient for everyone to be saying "oh he was an addict". But there have been many addict's who live far beyond 54. Just saying
I fully agree with Peter but I wouldnt say that addiction doesnt exist, addiction is 100% something you can resist and anyone saying otherwise is just plain wrong. The clearest cut case of addiction is where you become chemically dependent on a substance for instance, 100% you can resist it its just hard. So if someone says "I committed such and such crime, please let me off I am an addict so couldn't help myself" its just an excuse, it may be harder for them but they still made the choice to give in and do x crime so should be punished the same as anyone else.
That interview caused a huge debate in my household.. a family member, who’s a drug addict used it to support his argument (that what he has is an illness he can’t help). Everyone else including myself agreed that it is something he could give up if he really wanted to. Fast forward years later, he tore the family apart, we put all our energy, love, care and money into helping him.. he only gave us false hope and is still an addict. So I can’t help but agree with Peter on this one, I don’t think MP’s view is helpful and it gives addicts an excuse. Nevertheless I love Mathew and I hope he rests in peace.
I bet not one of your family members had any qualification to even speak on such a subject. Perhaps listen to psychologists rather than your auntie Nora. You didn’t help the addict, you persecuted him.
I don't drink and I never touched drugs but I can't fully agree with Peter basically saying f@@@ them and lets punish them like criminals. America throwing people away has become a bad habit and it hasn't improved our society.
I really respected Peter’s views during Covid but since then he’s shown his true colours. His views on drugs are frankly ridiculous but his recent appearance on the Alex O’Connor podcast was just embarrassing. He walked out and accused Alex of deceiving him into a discussion on the legalisation of drugs when it was nothing of the sort. Peter really didn’t come out of this well, he was petulant and childish, finally resorting to ad hominem attacks. Pathetic.
Like a lot of American sitcoms, they milked that series for all it was worth. It should've ended after season five or six before wives and children were introduced, that's always the kiss of death for a sitcom.
Oh, no, no, no, please see the whole debate. Peter starts to be disrepectful since minute one, and making faces while Matthew talks. If you only see this video, of course you thing Peter is behaving normal. But if you see the whole debate, you will find out why Matthew was a little angry
I disagree with Hitchens on addiction but kudos for his graciousness about Perry (who couldn't really articulate an argument); I sense he didn't particularly like the guy but was being polite because of his death...
Have you ever watched Friends?
Yes. I quite like this series then, but now I see how it is against my christian morals.
never ever
I was watching it these last few weeks on Hbo Max :(( I never watched it from beginning to end, although it is my favourite show.
Stopped watching anything American in the late 70's when I grew up.
Is the pope catholic? 😅
The problem is Peter on numerous occasions has displayed zero empathy for anyone with an addiction. He is a very intelligent man and I agree with most of what he say's , but some people have experienced a lot of trauma in their life and find it very difficult to cope.
Agreed. That said, he seems to be mellowing the older he gets.
I don't agree with hate mob rounding on him, just wished he could reflect and have a bit more sympathy @@emmab2136-o3v
Didn’t his brother die do to his own addictions?? Seems hypocritical not to mention him.
Yes he did. Smoked and drunk a lot of Scotch. I think it was Oesophageal cancer which is linked quite heavily to over use of those two drugs. @@erictalbert4633
I believe so@@erictalbert4633
"When you want to help people, you tell them the truth. When you want to help yourself, you tell them what they want to hear".
In a nutshell, that is the addiction industry.
That's all industry.
Tell that to the guy, lying in his own sick on the side of the street
@@cathalbutlerwould the guy listen though?
This guy denied that addiction was real. He had no interest in helping anyone.
Oh please this hateful bigot denied addiction and used to say it never existed.
Little Runts like him flip flop like weather.
Telling people you have no power over your addiction is what is said in the early stages of treatment. Addicts are often consumed with guilt for their actions. Talking about their addiction as beyond their control helps defuse that guilt. It helps the addict take the first steps in recovery. It is the spoonful of sugar that helps the bad medicine go down.
However in a 12 Step recovery programme such as AA, the middle section of the programme addresses that guilt head on. The addict (now sober for some time) has to take sole responsibility for their past actions and find ways to make amends to all those around them who have been hurt by their actions.
Of course, many people are strong enough to simply quit smoking or drinking with will power alone. But I do hope Hitchens does not think schizophrenia can be cured with thinking alone. Basically, learning better thinking is what Therapy is, but it requires medicines to support it.
It is possible that Addiction lies in some grey area between “sloppy” thinking and a physical / mental illness. That Hitchens has the mental capacity to avoid it, but he might also lack the inherited biology/thinking that makes him venerable to it.
It should not be forgotten that since 1956 the AMA has defined Alcoholism as a disease. This is no woke fad. It has causes, symptoms and a predictable pathway. It is also hereditary. Remember, Alcohol is not actually an addictive substance; it’s not an opiate. All major medical associations around the world including the BMA agree with the AMA definition.
Hitchens is not entirely wrong, but he’s not entirely right either.
Matthew Perry RIP - A very sad sad loss.
Very lucid. But I do think if we separate out disease from disorder, one being actually physical the other psychological, a lot of the confusion around this topic would go away, for addicts themselves as much as anyone else. Therefore, saying someone can stop being an alcoholic by sheer will power alone would be as non-sensical as saying a person can stop being depressed by the same means. Unless Hitchens entirely disbelieves in the existence of the unconscious mind, those parts of our psyche outside of conscious control, then his position is untenable.
Alcohol Use Disorder is a neurological brain disorder which is entirely treatable and effectively curable today.
It has nothing to do with a moral or spiritual failing and is no more the persons "fault", than is cancer.
AA and all other abstinence based programs/treatments have a 90-95% failure rate. This is because they fail to deal with the cause of relapse, which is craving brought on by the Alcohol Deprivation Effect.
Research "The Sinclair Method" which doesnt not required instant abstinence or detox. The Sinclair Method has a clinically proven success rate of 78%, backed by over 30 years of research and 120 clinical trials.
It's not the 1930's anymore, abstinence is NOT the only way.
I will just emphasize a fact: There's a neural circuit, named "Papez Circuit" wich is responsible for every learning process we have during life. Basically, addiction is a disorder on this circuit, in wich you learn that a plesurable behavior, despite its consequences, should be practiced, no matter the costs. Pornography, drugs, alcohol, tobacco, e principally cell phones and social media, uses this circuit as a baseline in their intrinsic working. Everyone who deny this assumption, should prove the opposite; otherwise, it is not science.
@@zootsoot2006... Absolutely. The language of addiction treatment does seem to be muddled. The path to recovery, as the nicotine patches have printed on the side of the box, "requires willpower."
Geez none of you have No clue what real addiction is...if you've never experienced it.
People who have addiction are the most loving, good hearted individuals, but are on deep pain, And sadness, some had childhood traumas, like being neglected by parents, being beaten up, molested or raped by family and friends, never feeling like your enough, deep depression, being kicked out of your home for being gay or running away from abuse.
Bipolar or mental illness can leads to addiction too.
They drink and get high to stop the hurt and pain and to feel some type of release and comfort.
They just need someone to care and love them, hug them, hold them, tell them everything will be okay.
The only thing I agree with you about is they need to be ready when they are ready...you can't force them to get help or constantly nag them and lecture them that leads them into a deeper hole of despair... unfortunately if they have severe depression or bipolar, they might never come out of it without there medication because eventually they will take their own life...but some will...those that will, will just have enough and get tired of going through that struggle of darkness and get the help.
Just love them from afar and pray for them because the depression and pain they are dealing with is something no one can comprehend and understand unless you deal with it yourself.
People that deal with addiction are verity of reasons, It's a very complex....they seem happy and normal to everyone else but are dying deep down.
Lack of love, lack of acceptance, lack of feeling like you don't belong, rape, husband, Wives leaves you for someone else, divorce, molestion, physical abuse, verbal abuse, being treated badly and shund by family & so called friends...fakery surrounds you. Loneliness, so much horrific termoil in your head...you lose the Will to live..you have no interest anymore of the physical world and you are ready to be at peace 🕊️ and live in a place of love and acceptance, and pure tranquility...where all your illnesses, and pain, hurt goes away and you go back to your Innocence.
I should Know I suffer from deep depression and it's horrific.
Hard for people that don't endure to process the pain.
I'm also a clairvoyant and empath...so there is a reason I haven't left this earth. I have a bigger mission to help others and show compassion and love to this world that is full of hate and bigotry and cruelty and unempathic humans... I'll be that little light that they need.
My work here is not over.
And my heart hurts for Matthew Perry because I know what he went through when he is alone when the fame and lime light goes away...when people only like you and love you because you are a star and rich, and you are only loved because of the characters you play but they don't know the real authentic you and would never waste there time knowing you or talking to you if you were a normal citizen, living middle class or poor life, working a normal 9 to 5 job...would they get this kinda love? He was a very humble and down to earth man and wasn't a Hollywood type, he just wanted to help others and be normal.
Social media is such a miserable place when it comes to people "speaking their mind" and lashing out at people. Some can only feel grief if they have someone to beat up over it.
Janette , this is the reason why you should not be on there. The lethal toxicity.
@@PHlophe I don't involve myself with it. I just observed it.
If you cannot cope with social media and the fact that not everyone will agree with you, then leave it.
@@stephenguppy7882 I cope perfectly. But many do not. It's the playground of the ignorant, immature and angry who lash out anonymously for kicks. Sad.
Your last sentence is a very astute observation
I’m surprised that no-one mentioned Peter’s own brother who died young due to years of chain smoking and heavy drinking.
I’d give almost anything to have Christopher back. He always had an original opinion on matters that was reasoned and he could discuss almost any subject with charm and wit.
That’s why it seems hypocritical for him to have this opinion. Especially not to bring up his own Brother as an example
meh chris was a boring old racist, not some stellar intellect, good riddance to the old tory fart
@LuceliaBergeragreed!!
@Kohanman You obviously know nothing of Christopher Hitchens if you think he was a Conservative. That's the most laughable thing I've heard all day.
Addiction is all in the mind for me.I was a smoker ,cocaine user ,and drank alcohol for 30 years...then I just quit .Got bored of cocaine..started to detest the smell and taste of tobacco and weed ..and eventually tired of the grogginess and hangovers from drinking..Ive been sober for 10 years now and don't miss it at all..wished id given it up sooner...definitely feel better for it
TRY AUTISM YOU WILL BE HOOKED FOR LIFE
Then you aren’t an alcoholic. Count your blessings.
@@-SarahElizabeth- Facts. That's all choice.
Liar
Of course addiction is “all in the mind”, where else in the body would you suggest it could possibly come from? 😂
However that doesn’t mean that vast amounts of medical and scientific research that points to addiction being serious health condition rather than a choice is just false because you anecdotally think most people could just “think” their way out of it.
Peter Hitchens: 'addiction isn't a disease just because you say so'
Also Peter Hitchens: 'The entire American Medical Association is wrong just because I say so'
Very different from his brilliant brother
What is the meant by "The entire American Medical Association"?
@@TheMusic29Lover the brilliant brother who supported the Iraq WMD fiasco and who by his own admission drank and smoked so much that he probably contributed to his early death.
well clearly addiction isn't a disease
@@stephenglasse2743 brilliant doesn't mean always right neither doing everything perfectly. Regarding adiction, i would invite you to get to know people who actually have been through those experiences. It might help you the actually understand the nature of addiction.
I didn’t know who Peter Hitchens was when I saw this on News Night, and I disagreed with him, but I had been categorised as a ‘high functioning alcoholic’ most of my professional life because I liked being drunk of a night time and what Peter had said during that interview lay dormant with me for some time! …..one day I decided to stop drinking without help, as of the 04/10/2018, after my doctor told me I had the highest liver count she has ever seen; five years sober!
I am now an avid follower of Peter Hutchins!
@dominionphilosophy3698 ironically, stoicism played a massive part in reclaiming my self control!💯🦾
Well done. Truly. The fear of death was your driver. It takes that in some cases. I’d like to think it takes to people that actually have decent lives outside of the addiction.
@@chexcollects it starts with accountability; all I used to hear from professional in regards to those living with addiction was ‘it’s not they’re fault’! …..the truth is, I was in self denial because I liked being drunk, socially, after work but 2018 was my wake-up call; partying in Tenerife, Ibiza, Benidorm and Marbella in the space of eight months and in my 40’s had took its toll!
So in my humble opinion, Peter Hitchens was exactly right; the only downside is that you loose certain friends in certain circles!💯🦾
Christopher Hitchens was a great hero of mine years before he died and i couldn't help but notice that he was almost always drinking alcohol and smoking cigarettes during interviews and conversations.
I truly believe it's what caused his early demise.
I think that Christopher was an alcoholic / addict and the fact that his brother Peter Hitchens is completely opposed to the idea is quite baffling to me.
christopher hitchens specifically said he wasnt an addict and that he could stop whenever he wanted to. which is of course nonsense and sad, because regardless of whether or not he "could" he didnt, and it killed him. to say thats not addiction is an absurdly narrow and silly definition of addiction.
i have a certain appreciation for christopher hitchens, but his actual grasp on "reason", logic, the truth, etc (not easy things to pin down of course) was often outstripped by his skill for rhetorical flourish. often the reason and rhetoric aligned, but sometimes they didnt, and while none of us are perfect or always right, he had a certain hubris to him that always seemed linked to some much deeper pathology to me.
Of course it was.
We never truly know someone's struggle but Matthew decided to share his in his book. His pain was indescribable but I hope he can rest now. I'm speechless and so sad for his suffering when he brought so much laughter and light to other people. He reached true enlightenment and self-awareness here and I'm glad of that. He came full circle but I'm also dismayed that his story ended like this. He truly made it his mission to understand his disease and the affliction he was so tortured by.
People struggle with things they dont choose to opt in to, poverty, starvation, slavery, war, etc.....I don't have any sympathy left for drug addicts. If you have sympathy for drug addicts go read about what happens to small innocent children around the world every day. Feeling sympathy for drug addicts is a sign that you've lived a soft, entitled life and dont understand the harsh lives of billions. No human has unlimited sympathy, if you have sympathy for addicts its a sign you dont know much about real suffering.
@@jasonthomas9319Then you really are stupid and make Peter Hitchens look like a genius. So you know all about how Matthew Perry had barbiturates prescribed by a doctor and introduced into his system when he was less than ONE MONTH OLD. That’s 30 days, so one day for school braincell you have. You don’t have any fucking clue. Prick.
He was a weak, pathetic man, unfortunately.
Strangely - Peter didn't storm out of this interview and screamed at Perry : "I actively dislike you."
He's a pompous baby 😂
Don't think Perry asked him the same question for 45 mins
Was thinking the same. As roy Keane would say……” he’s a big baby, he’s a big baby, big baby”
@@alwoo5645 he's still a pompous baby
@@gumusluk05 you sound like a bit of a baby too don't know how pompous😂
The way an addict beats an addiction is that they choose to.
Absolutely right - no addict ever beat their addiction against their will.
"I AM A VICTIM, I HAVE A DISEASE, YOU ARE OPPRESSING ME, I AM HELPLESS, I AM NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR MY OWN ACTIONS, IT IS ALL SOMEBODY ELSE'S FAULT!!!"
If 2023 had a tagline, this would be it...
Couldn’t agree more, well said. People smoke, drink and take drugs because they like it. It’s a lack of willpower not addiction.
So people die from alcoholism for attention do they?
I can only assume you haven't watched someone slowly die from alcoholim. All people take drink and drugs because they enjoy them initially, but sadly some then go on to develop addiction issues and many die. George Best didn't die owing to lack of willpower, he died because he had developed a mental obsession, (not disimilar to something like severe OCD), that meant the logical part of his brain was being overridden by his mental obsession to drink. @@Paggerd
@@Paggerdwhat a clueless comment
@@redskyatnight123 What a baseless assumption.
Peter Hitchens was embarrassingly ignorant on his Newsnight appearance with Matthew Perry. He kept asking for the ‘physical objective proof’ of addiction as a health condition, some kind of blood test or similar. That is not a relevant approach, and he should leave it to the actual health professionals or at least informed logical thinkers. There is no objective physical test for many diseases, but a cluster of signs that occurs in multiple people is clearly identifiable. Schizophrenia for example has no test….is that also therefore a choice Peter?
Exactly. Schizophrenics have very little control over their symptoms. They don't choose to hallucinate
I think it's ridiculous that Peter seems to be almost romanticising over his talk with Matthew Perry. If you watch the whole talk, Peter was quite rude and unempathetic and Matthew clearly thought he was a complete prick. So I don't know why Peter is acting like he has some kind of admiration for Matthew aside from the fact he just died.
Because most people in the states believes it’s rude to disagree. He comes from a place of debate and thicker skin then the weak safe space Americans. A back and forth argument between two people DOES NOT mean hatred only weak people only can tolerate people that agree with them. People can argue two points without personal ill will. I find most people unable to defend what they believe and if they do it usually goes down some bitter pathetic safe space path.
@@45eno I wouldn't know, I'm not in the states and I've never been. I'm English actually. And I don't suggest Peter was rude because he was disagreeable . I think what made him rude was his rudeness. A back and forth is fine, I don't think there was any hatred for the mere back and forth of a debate. But I'd say it was pretty obvious that Matthew Perry thought he was kind of an ass. And I would agree.
@@bihan1429 from what I saw Perry was the one acting rude and hitchens was simply trying to get a strong response instead of what perry was bringing. I think hitchens direct approach of calling them out instead of making excuses naturally will offend. His style was no different then when he called out bad arguments from any other panel discussion and even with his late brother.
@@bihan1429 Whether Perry thought he was an ass is irrelevant to whether he was empathetic. Do you think Peter should have lied about his views to make Matthew more pleased with him?
People perceive the world how they perceive the world.
@@Jorbz150 To be honest, all of this is irrelevant. My point was really about how Peter is romanticising over it now when it was plain to see that neither really appreciated each other's views at the time of the talk. And Peter even made a little dig at Matthew for not taking the debate seriously but now he's acting like there was some kind of admiration for his wit and humour.
There are actual alterations to the brain. Drink enough and your brain changes and receptors crave it. Same with smoking. I gave up smoking and it took at least a year for my brain receptors to settle down. Physical & Mental cravings last and lay in wait. 7 years later I still wish I smoked now and then.
The fact that there are "Actual alterations to the brain" is pretty trivial. How does that distinguish it from anything else in life? There are also changes in the brain of people who learn to play a musical instrument, or lose a loved one.
@@Jorbz150 there are predictable and persistent alterations in brain regions responsible for impulse control, reward sensitivity, executive functioning, etc in a manner that perpetuates the condition. these are all bad things, hence the term disease. The changes that come from learning an instrument or losing a loved one are generally not maladaptive and they don't lead to progressive deterioration of the condition without intervention.
@@MrPancakelizard consider 2 people that are heroin addicts with the same physiological brain changes as a result of their drug use. One of them quits heroin and one of them continues to use it.
This is categorically different from an actual disease (e.g. cancer) where we can establish objective ways to diagnose it, and you can’t just cure yourself through your choices.
@@MrPancakelizardbravo. Well said.
That doesn't make it a disease though, that makes it learned behaviour. A maladaption essentially. But the key is that in principle it can be unlearned again, as many people demonstrate - their brain will change again. Bottom line: not a disease. Just because some people can't manage this, doesn't mean they have a disease.
Being an alcoholic does not make you less of a human. Peter suggests people whom don’t have that level of will power are somehow less. This is wrong. It’s an addiction that needs addressing at its base. It’s that first drink, even after a period of abstinence, that controls.
I don't think he suggests that at all that people like that are weak minded it's a choice if he had no alcohol he couldn't drink could he ?just don't do it I agree with him it's a choice.
No, he doesn't do that at all in fact. He says it's a choice to drink. It's not a disease. Just because it's a choice doesn't make people worse!
@@christenedoering7720 he's wrong, and you are wrong. If you were to sit and smoke heroin once, do you think you could just decide to never take it again? Murder is a choice, rape is a choice, and we constantly conflate the justifications for murder and rape with mental illnesses and trauma. What is so different about addiction? These people destroy themselves and can't help it either. If you believe that every single person on earth can just go through the horrible trek that is the battle of life without feeling helpless and needing an out, you are naïve, arrogant, and have not experienced life in the slightest. "lol it's bad, just don't do it" yeah, congratulations genius, you figured it out, the world would be a much better place if people didn't do things that are bad.
@@loafofaids1835 why in the hell would I make an idiotic choice to do that in the first place silly thing to say the choice is no way choices mate that's what it's about to say no-one has ever seen life only you?yeh people do bad things but touching drugs is dumber it's not bad it's stupid.
@@christenedoering7720 then let me correct your statement for you. "Drugs are stupid, don't do them, problem solved" Yes, again, congratulations for solving the problem. The world would be a better place if people didn't do stupid things. And if i had wheels, I'd be a bike. What exactly is your solution to this problem? Throw them in jail until they rot? Waste more jail space instead of putting away the real criminals? please tell me your hail Mary since you clearly understand the ins and outs of addiction and the repercussions of not receiving proper mental health care. Trust me, everything is not so black and white, mental health is real and some people struggle greatly. Some people live with it, some people do drugs, some people drink, some people are addicted to sex, some people are addicted to eating, some people are addicted to power, and it changes the way they think forever. Your ability to dumb all of that down to a statement as baseless as "That's a dumb choice, i don't do it so i don't understand why other people do". people live different lives than you do. And the best way to live life is to have empathy for other people instead of shutting them down for living differently and making different choices than you do. So please, indulge me.
I’ve been in sobriety for 13 years. I agree with Peter Hitchens and I’m grateful that my family, friends and workplace showed little empathy. It helped me take responsibility and be accountable.
After the first drink history has always shown I’d be lost to the bottle but I do have agency in whether or not I take that first drink, just as Matthew Perry says.
So I’m grateful to both Peter Hitchens and Matthew Perry for their contribution to the subject of addiction.
If you believe you agree with Hitchens, you simply haven't been paying attention to what he says. He believes the solution to the drug problem is to give addicts harder sentences and throw them in prison. He's an absolute dumbass on this topic.
@@jemimallahwhen he said it's not a choice. If you can't choose, then there is of course no responsibility.
It is not a choice
I think we have free will at the beginning but that strength of will gets eroded over time with habit and addiction.
You still have free will, and it’s all you’ve ever got. Yes your will may become weaker.
@@RichardABWyou just repeated what he said but in a worse way
It's called agreeing.@@NoName-fo7mz
People look at the addiction instead of treating the cause for addiction which is generally mental health issues or lack of parental guidance in life. Iv been addicted to painkillers on and off for 15 years. I needed them to get me through yhe day at school and later in life to continue working to pay the bills. Only around 3 years ago, eventually after a having a breakdown and i was diagnosed with borderline personality disorder, PTSD and im waiting for a bipolar diagnosis. If i had been diagnosed earlier in life i may not have ever touched painkillers in order to cope. Yes it was my choice to start taking them but in my mind it was either take some painkillers to numb myself and manage intrusive thoughts or go out and buy a rope.
The problem with the UK health service is that theres no prevention of anything, you literally have to be on deaths door or in my case need 80 stitches in your arms before any help is available. Prevention is better than cure but our health professionals oddly dont seem to understand that.
Either way RIP Matt
Sending you love
I hope you find peace and healing
Addiction doesn't discriminate. Tons of people who come from good families end up with an addiction.
@@jamk2668 some could argue what "appear" to be from good families. I would be confident that most addiction issues stem from some form of trauma.
Clearly, this guy knows NOTHING about addiction. It has not touched his life. Bully for you Bud.
First, I'm glad Peter said polite things about Matthew at the beginning of this; I was afraid it was going to be the opposite. However, it's disappointing that Peter is still avoiding any responsibility for the way he spoke (first, mind you) to Matthew back in 2013 during that interview. When it began, Matthew spoke in a very polite, calm, and professional manner. Peter, however, started off on the wrong foot immediately, speaking dismissively and stating "what you're saying is, you're seeking to fail" (and the host, BTW, was the first out of all of them to audibly express shock/surprise at what Peter was saying). Matthew then asked Peter very calmly, "I'm not understanding your point; your point is to stop drugs and alcoholism by just, people never starting?" He asked this question politely and not in a sarcastic or combative way. Peter, however, ignored Matthew's question and instead threw down the gauntlet, going off on both Matthew and Baroness Meacher: "You two believe in this fantasy of addiction..." My jaw fell through the floor. Bad enough to be making claims that had no basis in medicine or science; to have the nerve to tell an addict to their face that their addiction is a "fantasy" - in an accusatory, disdainful and haughty manner, no less - it was beyond galling. Matthew, quite justifiably, found this very insulting. (To her credit, Meacher was just as appalled, calling Peter out continuously for speaking against well-known medical knowledge and science).
Yes, Matthew could have held back a bit on the insults, but if I'd been in that situation, expecting to have a professional discussion and then having someone who doesn't even have a medical license say those things to me, I probably would have used a few choice insults myself. Peter went in there with a chip on his shoulder and lost all credibility the moment he said the word "fantasy," and I couldn't have cared less about anything he said after that. And then to accuse Matthew Perry of treating the subject with "immense levity," and act all put out because Matthew "mostly responded by calling me names" - was cowardly. (BTW, I know Matthew said in his book that the host was a "cranky guy" who was "famous for being rude to guests," but in this particular interview, I thought the host did a decent job of staying out of it while trying to let each guest have equal chances to speak.) Having said all this, I don't think there's much point in raking Peter over the coals in social media today, or in giving his thoughts the time of day. He's obviously not widely supported in his beliefs, and I think the less opportunity he's given to speak on any sort of national platform, the better.
Nothing said about whether what Peter said is true. Fantastic insight into the female 🧠
In the original discussion Peter Hitchens comes off as callous, unempathetic and bigoted in his beliefs.
Exactly. If you see the entire debate you can understand why Perry was a little angry here... when Perry started to talk, Peter was making faces like you do when you are 6 and are fighting with your 4 year old brother.
Hitchens is a lot more reasonable here than with Matthew Perry
No, he was perfectly reasonable back then as well. He still has the same views as he had back then. Made quite some good points, that’s why Matthew started getting personal
@@A_walk_in_the_parkThat's simply not true. Hitchens said addiction is a fantasy. After that statement, Perry got agitated and started throwing in sarcastic remarks that had Paxman and the other lady chuckling nonstop. Point is, Hitchen devolved the discussion with his silly insensitive remark, as per.
@@censedfear yes as you have stated, Perry got triggered while Hitchens simply stated his view. If you can get triggered that much by one simple remark, then maybe your arguments aren’t as strong as you think.
@@A_walk_in_the_park He got agitated, hardly 'triggered'. If you want to see triggered go watch Peter's interview with the UA-camr Cosmicskeptic. He had an absolute meltdown and acted like a complete manchild. He got triggered, I guess his arguments are weak? No. It's not that simple. Perry maintained incredible composure given Peter invalidated his problems and life experiences. The man said addiction is a fantasy. He's a tool.
Mathew Perry, did stop his alcohol and drug addiction at the time of the interview of his own free will, but still identified himself as an addict. Surely that was his point? And the presenter equating him stopping smoking cigarettes with someone addicted to drugs and alcohol is frankly an insult!
RIP Mathew: thank you for the laughter...
But Peter is right. The addiction, both mentally and physically must be overwhelming for some. But the drinks are not being forced upon anyone. It’s a decision to give in because, for whatever reason, you can’t fight it and say no.
It's a medical condition not a moral choice. Just like any other DSM-6 disorder. The physiology and genetics of addiction are pretty obvious and any condition where vaccines are being developed is not a mental disorder but a physical one.
It is quite possible to cross from social drinking,to heavy drinking then suddenly that becomes Alcoholism before one becomes aware of it. You can die from sudden Alcohol withdrawal. It's only second to Barbiturate withdrawal. It can be extremely dangerous without help. Valium can aid in this process.
@@redpilledpict2747
Valium can be highly addictive too
Yes, but it is the subconscious mind that is in the driving seat. The conscious mind might bleat and plead not to reach for that drink, but the subconscious is more powerful. To try and understand what I mean consider something sad has happened, and you feel the desire to cry, but you would be severely embarrassed in the situation if you blub like a baby. But you can't help it. The desire to cry is overwhelming and you just can't stop it. That is what addiction feels like to the addict. That is why addicts often depict addiction as a demon talking to them - it's their own damaged subconscious that is reaching for the drink.
Addicts need to be helped to find, within themselves, a reason to stop that is more powerful and compelling than the cravings of their addiction.
In my case, after many years of heavy smoking since my teens, my lungs developed severe bronchitis every time I caught a cold - it was awful, and scary.
This was my incentive to stop - it took three attempts over some years but I finally got there..... haven't even looked at another cigarette in over 20 yrs because I'm always reminded of how thar bronchitis made me feel.
Addiction is a choice.
Cancer is NOT.
That's not completely true either becos the medical authorities tell us that that smoking, drinking, being overweight and eating too much red meat will increase chances of getting cancer.
Substance abuse always comes with massive denial. Calling alcoholism a "disease" is just another facet of that denial.
TRUTH ! It's a Bitch for Sure though !
Trust me I know !
Yes, it’s not a disease. It’s unpleasant; it’s a condition, but it’s not a disease
My son who is adopted, is an addict, his birth parents were both addicts. He grew up with us in a home where there was very little drinking, no smoking and zero drugs. Studies suggest that addiction has at least a 50 to 60% genetic component. Peter Hitchens is moralistic and unempathic. He does not know wherof he speaks.
Jane, hon.. God bless you. i think people that don't live in america are not aware of crack babies of the 80s. a good example is the rapper Ol dirty bastard's son who was born an addict because his own parents were addicts themselves.
I remember working in an orphan home where they were plenty of crack babies.
its a sad thing to see tbh.
Hear hear. Every word that came out of his mouth in that 2013 interview was beyond appalling.
@@PHlopheIt can also be tough love on Hichens' part. In the end, you make the choice and must have a will to back it up.
i do agree with you to the extent that genetics are a major component of ones affinity to addiction, i do believe however that addicts dont have to become addicts if subjected at an early age with clear, strict and empathetic education and unfortunately luck to have the right friends growing up, to find the right social and economical structures around oneself and to be interested and aware enough of the dangers that addiction affiliated objects/goods come with.
In a nutshell whilst not all people have the same probability to be addiction-candidates and it is too far fetched to expect parents to be aware of and proactive towards the extent of hereditary tendencies of ones child (especially an adopted one) it therefore essential that education and a healthy social Environment is present at all others aspects of ones childhood and life in order to ensure awareness and respect when dealing with potentially harmful drugs.
It is always tragic to see one close to you fall into addiction (forn whatever reason) but for some reason i refuse to believe that an addictiln prown individual is helpless and their path is already predetermined, the question of whether or not is therefore preventable is another matter entirely and probably subject to many other influences be it culture,age, country of origin and even the time of ones upbringing.
Im so sorry about your story, empathy is always crucial when dealing with loved ones in hardship, i wish all the best to you and your family! Happy easter❤
@@warrennicholsony.fernando4513thats the thing even if the condition of addiction should turn out to be predetermined it is ultimately you who has to turn your life around, and i think it is dangerous to nor consider yourself empowowered to do exactly that especially when looking at an average in the world and not the tragic extreme cases like crack babies and the such
Matthew Perry's last line in his debate with Peter Hitchens was a kill shot:
HITCHENS: "How do you know what you're saying is true?"
PERRY: "Because I've read something other than your books."
Close, but that's not quite right. Watch it again.
Hitchens looks older back then than he does now 😂😂
´The mob is always wrong´. Ummm, no actually. If ´the mob´ is the majority, then no, the majority is not always wrong. Peter Hitchens seems to have made a career out of disagreeing with the majority. Nothing wrong with disagreeing with the majority view or with any view, but you have to have a basis for your view. Just saying, because I think so, is not good enough! When it comes to something like addiction, there is a lot of knowledge now about the science and biology of addiction and that cannot just be disregarded or dismissed.
Appeal to majority opinion is a logical fallacy.. For example throughout most of history, the majority believed the earth if flat, it didn't make it flat.. The majority believed slavery was okay , didn't make it okay.. The majority is almost always wrong.
Not true that the majority is almost always wrong. The majority is often right when they are well-informed and have understood the complexity of a matter. The majority can be wrong about certain things because they have not taken into account all the relevant factors, either because they are not aware of them, because they have been misled/have or have been provided with inacccurate information either deliberately or accidentally, or because they are choosing not to take into account certain factors, or because they have not realized the importance of certain factors. @@aadiskywalker
@@LaChicaconSuerte-1111 You just proved my point, whatever reasons you said are literally irrelevant, the point is the majority are almost often wrong on damn near everything and the contrarians are more often right because they dig deeper/question the narrative instead of blindly believing everything.. I've told why "appeal to majority" is a logical fallacy too and said a few examples.
Mike slipping back in to his old habbits on interrupting his guests before they have finished speaking
"Drug addiction is a choice" - says the person with no personal experience of addiction.
If addiction isn't real, how do you explain the fact that if and addict stops drinking or taking drugs cold turkey, they can literally *DIE?*
What he's saying is, if you are fully aware a substance you want to take is illicit and can have an addictive effect, then you alone are responsible for the consequences.
@@markeedeep at what point does he say that? Thank you
@@lauraj8429 he says it all the time. Maybe not in these exact same words which I'm using, but that is essentially his argument. He has written a whole book claiming social catastrophe owing to both drugs and alcohol liberalisation laws in the UK and across Europe. When laws were a lot stricter, there was far less incentive to be enticed to either buy or take dangerous substances.
@@markeedeep I don’t agree with that view but at least it’s a coherent argument. If that’s what he really means he should say so explicitly rather than claiming that addiction isn’t real and that people just choose to habitually use drugs. That is literally what he said to Matthew Perry.
Never heard of a addiction to , smoking,chocolate, cream cakes, computer game ?
Free will, and choice exists in every human being.
Bottom line is self discipline, or lack of it.
Find Big Baby Hitchens an absolute embarrassment after his rant, toys out the pram and storming off episode. Hitchens has absolutely no understanding of addiction, his argument is extremely disingenuous. I can barely stand his mumbling and tripping as he waffles his way through his points of no interest.
No-one is debating the existence of and the power of willpower, but they're talking about circumstances in which willpower can be diminished, or overwhelmed, and an approach that returns people's ability to resist via willpower. It's not a contradiction.
I was never a drinker and never touched drugs but I think Peter goes overboard in thinking addicts are weak and they should do time, End of story. I think Perry probably leaned too much into this is a disease and I'm not in control but I don't support writing people off which has become too much of a thing in America. I lean towards what Perry and what that woman were saying but I think the truth is somewhere in the middle.
The guy is correct people have free will. But the consequences of stopping can be incredibly painful. And it seems to alter people where they are forever connected to it. Even if they stop. He has a lack of knowledge because he's never suffered from it.
Am I the only person in the world who has never seen an episode of Friends and have no plans to do so
And?
It's just a sitcom. It was decent for its time but we've moved past that sort of show.
@@noneyabizz8337 and to what? Wall to wall reality guff?
@@MrThecarebear sitcoms today are less cheesy.
@@Whiskey0880 and it just a very average sitcom with all that American canned laughter in other words rubbish for the brain dead
I knew a girl who was a terrible alcoholic. Tried to help her. I would say, 'you have a strong compulsion to drink, but ultimately you control your own actions. you decide to put on your shoes, open the door, and walk down the road to buy a bottle of wine each day.' She was furious and told me that because she's an alcoholic, she has no control over her actions. It simply isn't true. After many failed attempts to help her out of a downward spiral, we stopped speaking. I wouldn't be surprised if she had drank herself to death by now. The saddest part? she lived off state benefits so the UK government essentially paid this poor girl to binge drink every day.
Is she dead?
Peter bases his beliefs on morality & philosophy. Perry bases his beliefs on proven science that he also experienced personally.
“Science” written by vested interests
@@theverystones2643 yes, but they line up with anecdotal evidence and personal experience.
@@theverystones2643 if you have evidence that the scientists were paid off by "vested interests" then I'll buy what your selling. Also "vested interests" don't always make sense. I found it odd that the pharmaceutical industry discouraged the use of Ivermectin for COVID even though they produce & sell Ivermectin 🤔
The mindset of “I’m an addict and I can’t do anything” is defeating and clearly illogical. Anyone who says this has already sealed their own fate. That’s why while Hitchens doesn’t actually delve deeply in how to overcome addiction, he’s right. It’s not a matter of willpower, but conflicting wills. One part wants the addiction because we perceive the thing helps us in some way, the other part rejects it because we know it’s bad for us and brings nothing good.
One must reprogram their own beliefs first and align those beliefs to their desired will to defeat an addiction.
If only he had explained his case for why he doesn't believe in addiction in this way to Matthew Perry, it might have helped Matthew better to understand where Peter Hitchens was coming from. I've heard him say this about addiction a few times but I have never heard him explain why quite like this. I agree with Mike Graham , better to meet somewhere in the middle about this. Some struggle to resist their addiction/temptation, others have a stronger will to resist it while some of the more unfortunate people suffering with this don't resist it at all (of their own choosing or a perceived lack of choice, whatever the case may be).
I get the impression peter thinks we all have the same ability resist and I feel Perry felt the same way about Peter.
Hitchens sunk his own flawed argument about will power when he admitted that not everybody can quit using will power. 9:16
The man is nothing more than a facetious, boorish contrarian.
@@bobcprimus if someone is under the delusion that they don't have a choice, especially if a society is telling people that for some it can be beyond their control, then by definition not all people can give up their addiction. That still doesn't negate the fact that they have the capacity to choose not to do it as is Peter Hitchen's belief and its his belief whether they can give up their addiction or they can't, they do have a choice. They are choosing to give into their addiction even if they are under the delusion that they don't have free will in the grip of their addiction. I think if drug addiction with certain drugs does effect the mind and body in certain ways, where you get withdrawal symptoms for not taking a particular substance and some people through their own will give it up, then it means there is a choice. The only difference is, either through delusion, or simply a decision not to give it up they have chosen to continue with it. You can't refute that as Peter Hitchens is saying. But he is aware that some people don't, which is why he said some people can't. He should have said won't but its obvious what he meant.
@@bobcprimusyour points are true, peters beliefs are far more rooted in deep pain, specifically for his brother, I’ve seen him leave debates because he refused to debate the subject around addiction, even tho he has written a book on the subject, in reality he’s to afraid to confront his very personal fears around addiction to change his views
Being a contrarian can often feel like you're the only one telling the truth. When you're right, it confirms that belief. But it's the inability to see how often you're wrong that makes it a dangerous belief system. He's demonstrably wrong about alcoholism and to holdfast to his beliefs about it being entirely choice while having never had to deal with it in his own life blows my mind.
I watched many, many episodes over the decades. It’s a clever show. My son and daughter-in-law started watching it recently. They love it and I think the show has aged well.
Whoever said it has no plot has gotten that very wrong. There are episodic themes, recurring themes and overarching plots that carry it along nicely.
Eww
So…not agree with you, daughter and son in law means ‘wrong’🤣🤣🤣 It is called personal opinion…experience…education…maturity…many other things or simply-‘happily NOT your in-law family!!’
To give yourself the title “addict” you abrogate responsibility for yourself and instantly become a “victim”. This seems to be a badge of honour in today’s society.
Hitchens believes in sky unicorns. His opinion is invalid.
Agree. We now live in a society where its always someone else's fault.
It’s not a badge of Hindi but rather a badge of hopelessness. They accept they r a victim and therefore stop trying to get themselves out of the hole
You need a bag of coke and a hot chick. Instead, you're having braising steak with a sexless heiffer called Janet.
@@kathyleigh5178No
Hitchens was right all along.
As usual
I think Peter haas a rather narrow view on it he is saying people have a choice. Well I have no argument with that if someone chooses to take a line of cocaine or chase heroine. If they then become addicted, they more than likely knew that this is what could happen. What if, for example, Peter were were stricken with an awful illness or had an accident that left him in constant pain day and night. The only thing that would give him some kind of relief were very strong painkillers. Now he, like most of us, he would probably also be aware of the danger of becoming addicted to them. But he found that the only way he could lead some kind of normal life and get some sleep and relief from mind numbing pain was to continue taking them. So he eventually becomes addicted, because he cant function without them. Would Peter deem himself to be someone that chose addiction in that instance.
The cases of addiction due to illness or injury are still so few compared to the general, overwhelming number of cases that are entirely self inflicted, for purely hedonistic reasons.
@@markeedeep If you want to make a comparison of the 2 then that is probably true. Don’t underestimate the also overwhelming number of addicts on prescribed medication, who are probably not considered as addicts but most definitely are. I was addressing the, I think, narrow claim that Hitchens makes that people make the choice to become an addict. Hence the example I gave.
@@VAPIDISM that's true, I used to be on those. Because like countless others, I was led to believe my emotional problems in adolescence and teenage years were an indication of a medical problem (which I stopped believing in many years ago already).
@@markeedeep Yea, there is a lot of focus on recreational drugs in terms of addictions u really the big pharma companies are not that much different from street drug peddlers.
I think methadone is a good example to look at in terms of dodgy practices. Supposedly it was to be used to help heroin addicts come off heroin. Yet it is a substance that people can become addicted to and often do. My cyclical or realist take on that is that it’s a clear case of the drug companies wanting a slice of the profits that heroine dealers have benn/are getting. I mean methadone certainly doesnt appear to help people. Prescribing an addictive substance in order to help people off an addictive substance makes no sense. UNless you are in the business of making money from pharmaceuticals. Good on you that you managed to not rely on what you were made t believe young needed to help you.
I vaguely remember when this happened and while I do like Peter, I dunno he came off a bit ignorant in that discussion
He's still ignorant today.
Well of course. Everyone is a bit ignorant.
Are you all-knowing?
@@Jorbz150If you are asking me - yes I am all-knowing.
I don't think he did .. it's funny but everytime I express a view similar to Peter about addiction, addicts and people who fully buy into that ideology accuse me of not knowing anything / being ignorant etc. It's like I just want to say to them .. "no you really don't know anything about ME or what I'VE learnt, stop making assumptions .. I just have a different view." Maybe what I'm saying is stirring discomfort in you and that's the easiest way for you to dismiss anything I said .
Addiction is a dilemma, where the user finds themselves self-medicating with a substance,
that seduces them into forgetting their perceived 'internalised pain' ...but the medication itself then becomes the impediment.
They would rather face the metaphorically innocuous 'suffering' of the medication, than facing the real object of their torment.
Agreed.
I would say that Peter has softened his stance from the original interview though, and qualifying it by saying 'it depends on how you see addiction'. Not many would ever claim that it cannot be beaten, and I found the argument that when he clearly said 'addiction doesn't exist, ridiculous'. I do agree that to suggest it cannot be beaten would in no way be helpful. Another matter that I can personally attest to is I had a relation who was a Heroin addict for 20 years and when she wanted to finally kick the habit, totally qualifying Peter's point of free will, she had to be weaned off as going cold Turkey would have literally killed, her so you could argue that her free will did not exist unless she was willing to die. The whole debate about free will is nuanced and a philosophical one as Peter points out. I am on the side of free will being a myth and would say, as an example Peter's views, beliefs would be totally driven by his relationships and interactions with infinite factors in his life and could be wildly different with a tiny variation in just one of those factors. You could say we are born with free will and lose it the moment we see, hear or feel anything and even then could genetics play a part. Peter is a smart man but can sometimes come across a wilful contrarian and hypocrite, as he is self confessed Christian which like all religion is anti-free will by definition, with the belief of a omnipotent creator, I know they skirt this by very the notion of 'free will' but it is a ultimately a square peg in a round hole.
Man has free will either to accept or reject the grace of God. I don't think you understand Christianity very well.
@@erikcarey6568I fully understand the philosophical definition of free will as an atheist do not recognise the religious definition. In fact religion is a perfect example of the counter of free will. People in nearly all circumstances will follow the religion their environment influences. Indians are mainly Hindu, Pakistani Muslim, Thai. Buddhist etc etc. Further people generally follow the religion of their parents and even convert due to marriage etc. I believe every decision we make is effected consciously or even more sub consciously by external influences social and maybe even genetic. You think you decided to follow your God with an entire free thought but my belief was that the decision was created by external forces
@@leecourtney1225 Regardless of whether you choose to acknowledge the religious definition of free will, it does exist and its an incredibly important part of Christianity. By your logic, growing up in a secular culture which routinely degrades and marginalizes Christianity, I should be an atheist. The lack of belief in free will is a coping mechanism to avoid taking responsibility for your actions.
Addiction is not beaten by the actions of the conscious mind but by tricks that have to be played on the sub conscious mind where the problem originates. A great example is to get an alcoholic to take a pill prior to each drink that makes the drink taste awful. In time the sub conscious is tricked into "thinking" that alcohol is no longer a substance from which it can gain pleasure. The conscious person does nothing except sit back and follow the procedures. No sweat.
Drug and alcohol abuse is a choice. No disease. Cancer is a disease that you do not choose. There are lots of people who stop drinking and doing drugs. There is no one who has chosen to stop having cancer.
They chose to get treatment after feeling enough symptoms, if they didn't persevere with the treatment they wouldn't survive. For some the best treatment doesn't work. They're very similar.
Nasty people who wish to hurt Peter Hitchens say “the wrong brother died”.
But this isn’t correct.
The right brother died.
One burnt the lining of his throat with alcohol and then blasted it with carcinogenic smoke and took no exercise beyond having sex and eventually got the almost inevitable oesophageal cancer.
The other brother drinks in moderation if at all, has never smoked and exercises daily.
And I say this as someone who has read nearly all of Christopher’s work and miss him dearly.
Chris had no choice in the matter as, of course, being a determinist and atheist, he couldn’t believe in free will, even if he ‘wanted’ to. He seemed though to have sufficient free will not to bring attention to this ‘belief’ in his diatribe.
@@vincentmcnabb939
Did you ever listen to Christopher on the issue of freewill?
Once asked if he believed in freewill his reply was;
“I have no choice”.
Friends: Foolish goofy lads & frivolous lost lassies. They kiss each other and believe that as long as they stay in the ‘gang’, they will be fine. They essentially laugh at sin and promote immaturity endlessly. And it is funny. Like every drug, it can be addictive. Just watch 02 or 03 episodes and leave it. Take a good book, instead. That’s the best gift for yourself.
Na I'll stick with friends thanks, while reading a book. Some of us can multi task.
@@Whiskey0880 Yeah, keep using drugs while working seriously. Only the mature people can see the outcomes in the long run. Good luck with that.
@jonah9861
It’s just a comedy it’s not meant to be read into that deeply, stop preaching like everybody should think exactly the same as you do. Typical ideologue
@@JackSmith-kp2vs "It's just": typical child who has the entertainment as his false god. Keep being entertained by bullshit and you'll see your life becoming exactly the same. It's your decision in life to feed yourself with poop when there is good food in the table. Good luck with this "it's just".
And Hitchens has the free will to NOT be an obnoxious gimp but he CHOOSES to be one. How immoral!
Absolutely- met him once and it’s no act . Miserable g£t .
There’s no one more up his own butt than Peter Hitchens.
I am really confused. This man had a whole go at Alex O’Connor for discussing drugs and even said “even talking about drugs for two minutes would be too much” but now he’s right back in the media discussing addiction?
@@CCave-wj6xy Couldn't have put it better myself.
Hitchens believes in sky unicorns but doesn't believe in alcoholism.
Not exactly what he's saying. His principle is you can choose not to drink.......and he's correct.
@@Ligerpride100%
@@Ligerpride He's a prick.
Advocacy of absenteeism as a route to freedom makes a lot of sense.
Whether it is nicotine, alcohol, THC, meat protein ( which is not addictive ), added sugar, etc... One can choose "net zero".
@@themsmloveswar3985
Nor is meat protein harmful.
Telling people they have a disease does not make them not want to stop. The addiction and chemical dependence is what makes them not want to stop. Why does he deny that science? I’m guessing he’s lost someone to addiction and it has stuck with him.
He didn’t need to say he hasn’t watched friends it’s irrelevant
Are you telling people what to say?
he only had to say rip
It was relevant to the story he was telling about newsnight and don't act like it wasn't, it's obviously very relevant that Peter hasn't seen friends because he didn't know who Matthew was.
@@Trippeak lol
hitchens just saw another possibility to insult perry. he thinks nothing of him and everybody needs to know it. pretty low behaviour, hitchens. but unfortunately pretty typical for these high horse folks.
I have no idea who this guy is, as I can barely understand what they're saying. However, I understood enough to know that this man has a very misguided viewpoint of what addiction is. I always find it unimaginable when "experts" think they know about something than someone who actually lives with it on a daily basis. Unless someone has "lived" something like addiction and has experienced it first hand, maybe they should keep their flapping gums shut for once. Silence is golden!
Domenico, OMG mane, tell us how you feel.
We all live with damaging propensities and cupidity. Hitchens is right in describing the real issue as the philosophical question over free will. He could certainly show more empathy, though…providing, of course, he has the free will to choose so.
If you were to actually watch the entire original clip, you'd see Peter was the first to break down to a playground level of attitude, as he so regularly does. I do miss his brother.
Died of alcoholic related problems. How ironic!
His brother straw manned, mocked and ridiculed to a tabloid level.
Of course he hasn't. Peter hasn't watched television since the coronation (the Queen's in 1953). He does tune into the wireless and turn on his gramophone occasionally.
😂
If you actually read his blog he reviews brand new TV shows on a regular basis. You're probably the type of fart smelling lefty weirdo that makes lame jokes about the wrong Hitchens brother dying
Nothing on this planet is addictive that’s a fact addiction is nothing more then self hate / narcissistic behaviour form of self loathing.
The truth seems in between. It's your body, you have agency over it and what you put into it. At the same time there are some people who get an intense high from drugs, alcohol, more so than the average person. Those people should not pick up the first drink. As a heavy drinker myself, whose had some alcohol related problems over the years, I don't like the characterization as a "disease" or having no control over it, kind of sets one up for failure.
Such a crass headline. Hitchens vs a dead man? Unbelievable.
Don't ask Hitchens about drugs he'll storm off.
The worst thing for most people who drink a lot to do is stop 'suddenly' 'bang' 'just like that' that can easily kill you or do serious damage... it's not the same as suddenly stopping smoking at all.
Addiction is most definitely a real thing. Hitchens is addicted to self-righteousness.
Nobody is saying it's not real, it's just not a disease and addicts need to take more accountability.
@@noneyabizz8337 Wrong! Addiction is classified as a disease of the brain, although can be manageable for some. But as far a we currently know it cannot be cured. If Hitchens could try to put aside his deeply held prejudices, then maybe he would be able to manage his self-righteousness. Suggest he gives that a try.
@@paulwood3460 because nothing is ever classified incorrectly, and that totally wasn't done to sell drugs.
@@noneyabizz8337 I am an alcoholic and I agree. Too many people use the disease concept to keep drinking. I would describe myself as having a disorder, not a disease. Something that cannot be seen under a microscope but affects me physically and mentally. none the less
@@noneyabizz8337 here here. It may be classified as a disease, but that doesn't actually make it so. It's not in the same class as cancer. Over 90% of "addicts" get over their problem and successfully abstain or moderate as they get older. With cancer it doesn't work like that.
It all depends on how much one enjoys smoking and or drinking and caffeine. Are they addictions or things that help you enjoy reading/learning?
Being a professional ignoramus is a choice. Addiction is a combination of genetics and environment.
This is simplistic nonsense - it suggests some people just woke up one day and became addicts apparently at random. What about choices? One's moral framework and philosophy on life? All these factors are hugely important in whether one chooses tan addictive lifestyle or not.
If you are allergic to peanuts,you dont eat them.
👍👍
I love Peter and I watched his debate with Mathew Perry. At the time, I felt Peter was very rude to Mathew
Putting Matthew up against Peter was a waste of everyone's time.
We are only our brain chemistry. Ask Peter Hitchens to stop eating FOOD for 3 months and watch him spend his whole time thinking about food, feeling tired, feeling anxious, constant hunger, insomnia, unable to function, constant nausea, throwing up, constantly being dizzy, withdrawing from mates, cold sweats, then hot sweats, even Peter will end up sneaking off to get some food on the quiet.
Food sustains us. An alcoholic's brain chemistry is sustained by alcohol. It craves alcohol to function day to day, to think, to live, to cope with everyday pressure and it gets worse, its a disease.
Peter Hitchens believes there's a big invisible man in the sky who created him (and you and me) and so he is 'special' and hes going to prove his obedience to the invisible man, just like when he was a kid, he was the teachers pet. Behind the scenes, Peter Hitchen's opinions and views are driven by insecurity of his brother CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS. No one can match his brothers intellect and legacy, and Peter is way too affected by it. Even as kids if Christopher went left at a street corner, Peter's insecurity meant he deliberately went right. RIP Matthew Perry.
You mention the same point about food I was thinking of.
The choice not to drink comes before alcoholism, not after it. Matthew Parry must have realised that he was drinking far too much long before, it got to the stage when he had no control over it. He made the choice to continue to drink, and it cost him his life.
Worth watching the Newsnight interview.
Matthew Perry was superb in it.
R.I.P.
According to Peter Hitchens, we all have free will. I used my free will and stopped listening to his crap.
Peter comes across as being quite cold and dispassionate. He has his beliefs and he is entitled to express them but I can understand Perry’s response and to a lesser extent his experience. And to state free will is either absolute or not is a bit silly imo. There may be times when we have free will and other times we don’t. And I would say drugs and other behaviours diminish free will. So I can’t agree with Hitchens. He seems to think it’s all or nothing
I fully agree - I’ve just watched the full “debate” and Peter seemed so in love with himself and NOT willing to take any arguments and get into an actual discussion (instead of a monologue) that I fully understand Matthew’s reaction to his opinionated statements. It’s hard to even call it a debate. Regarding the matter in question, I agree it’s way more complicated than “all or nothing” approach Peter presented. In a way, it is about a choice to be made, but let’s think about what all the attempts to penalize use of substances have led to so far…the very idea it could actually be followed through (successfully) is really utopian, in my opinion.
Alcoholism is not a disease,it is human weakness,and we are all weak.
Usually a host interrupts the guest constantly. Here arrogantly peter just talks over host and waffles on.
Also, absolute free will simply CANNOT exist because so many things are decided for us before we even come into this world and ALL of those things influence our decisions. So the idea of absolute free will is the actual myth.
Never watched friends and have no plans to watch it
And that’s relevant how?
Let us all know if you change your plans please!
I'm sure the cast and crew of Friends will have trouble sleeping tonight.
I can sleep tonight knowing this, thank you for sharing.
He's caricaturing and misrepresenting the treatment model. It isn't a contradiction to say that people can't resist it, but then they can. They can't resist it at a certain level of the extremity of the underlying causes that lead them to it, but, with treatment and positive engagement from others, particularly health professionals of course, they can be led into a state where they can resist it. It's saying that addiction is a state where you can't resist it, but that people can be led via that understanding and how it informs how to work with the problem, into a state of mind where they can resist; i.e. are no longer addicted, or at least can avoid the first trigger of addictive behaviour, which is effectively not addicted. He is being too simplistic, meaning he's being too sure of himself.
I agree we have freewill and choice, no matter how bad life gets - addiction is a shapeshifter.
I choose the occasional gm of coke, cheers😁👍
There's no evidence for free will at all
Also, HItchens’ characterization of what people mean when they say addiction and a disease is simply wrong. People don’t mean something they can’t give up or overcome. That was the whole point of his discussion with Perry. They were discussing the best way to treat people with addiction so they can overcome it. I guarantee you that jail is that the best answer.
Hitchens is correct. End of story.
I agree with Peter
We have a choice, I’ve got sympathy with anyone who is fighting addiction
But you do have a choice
You have a choice. But if your brain is wired to be depleted of dopamine and serotonin (which literally dictate your motivation and happiness) and your main source of finding that is alcohol or drugs (and your brain has been wired to believe that) then that choice is incredibly incredibly hard. People who aren’t wired in that way will never ever understand the absolute pull that alcohol and drugs have for people who’s brains are wired in that way. And to stay sober is an incredible feat that non addicts will never understand.
I am a recovering alcholic. Matthew Perry is right. I agree with Peter Hitchens on many things, but on addiction he is wrong. Yes it can be fought. Yes it is possible to stop but free will is not absolute. It is limited and addiction is not a simple choice.
People popping off in their prime has now become normal. But shhh, don't mention a certain thing
Baffled here...
That's exactly what I was wondering too. I hope that the autopsy reveals if Mathew had miocarditis or another form of heart related injury from "the thing" because it's seeming very convenient for everyone to be saying "oh he was an addict". But there have been many addict's who live far beyond 54. Just saying
Perry never had a prime.
The very thing he pushed
I fully agree with Peter but I wouldnt say that addiction doesnt exist, addiction is 100% something you can resist and anyone saying otherwise is just plain wrong.
The clearest cut case of addiction is where you become chemically dependent on a substance for instance, 100% you can resist it its just hard. So if someone says "I committed such and such crime, please let me off I am an addict so couldn't help myself" its just an excuse, it may be harder for them but they still made the choice to give in and do x crime so should be punished the same as anyone else.
How has Peter not stormed out after this relentless discussion of drugs! Such patience
So people who watched Friends (1994-2004) are going to be radicalised?
That interview caused a huge debate in my household.. a family member, who’s a drug addict used it to support his argument (that what he has is an illness he can’t help). Everyone else including myself agreed that it is something he could give up if he really wanted to. Fast forward years later, he tore the family apart, we put all our energy, love, care and money into helping him.. he only gave us false hope and is still an addict. So I can’t help but agree with Peter on this one, I don’t think MP’s view is helpful and it gives addicts an excuse. Nevertheless I love Mathew and I hope he rests in peace.
I bet not one of your family members had any qualification to even speak on such a subject. Perhaps listen to psychologists rather than your auntie Nora. You didn’t help the addict, you persecuted him.
@@leemartell7086ok whatever you say Lee
Sometimes you gotta turn your back on someone, let them hit bottom, hope for the best.
I don't drink and I never touched drugs but I can't fully agree with Peter basically saying f@@@ them and lets punish them like criminals. America throwing people away has become a bad habit and it hasn't improved our society.
@@leemartell7086Hideous accusation to make based on one paragraph.
I really respected Peter’s views during Covid but since then he’s shown his true colours. His views on drugs are frankly ridiculous but his recent appearance on the Alex O’Connor podcast was just embarrassing. He walked out and accused Alex of deceiving him into a discussion on the legalisation of drugs when it was nothing of the sort. Peter really didn’t come out of this well, he was petulant and childish, finally resorting to ad hominem attacks. Pathetic.
Like a lot of American sitcoms, they milked that series for all it was worth. It should've ended after season five or six before wives and children were introduced, that's always the kiss of death for a sitcom.
Peter was very respectful of Matthew Perry while maintaining his position during this interview. Well done.
Oh, no, no, no, please see the whole debate. Peter starts to be disrepectful since minute one, and making faces while Matthew talks. If you only see this video, of course you thing Peter is behaving normal. But if you see the whole debate, you will find out why Matthew was a little angry
@@Monicuxiable1 I mean in this interview after Matthew has passed.
@@Sloimer oh, yes in this video he is
Mike thinks he's anti authoritarian 😁😄😅😂🤣
I clocked that one and laughed too!
I disagree with Hitchens on addiction but kudos for his graciousness about Perry (who couldn't really articulate an argument); I sense he didn't particularly like the guy but was being polite because of his death...