Do celeb drug-takers get off too lightly?
By Alexandra Fouché
BBC News
The United Nations drugs watchdog says the UK and other countries respond too leniently to the drug-taking antics of celebrities, and that this sends out the wrong message to young people.
"Celebrities are often involved in illicit drug trafficking or in illicit drug use and this is glamorised," said Philip Emafo, president of the International Narcotics Control Board (INCB), which released the report.
"If, indeed, they have committed offences they should be dealt with."
The UK is also cited in the UN report as one of the countries with the highest cocaine use in the European Union, along with Italy and Spain.
Allegations of drug-taking against celebrities such as Amy Winehouse, Pete Doherty or Kate Moss have abounded. Even where they have apparently been caught in the act, the stars seem to suffer little consequence.
Last month, Grammy award-winning singer Winehouse was questioned - but not arrested - by police in connection with a video which appeared to show her smoking crack cocaine.
Last October, she was arrested in Norway for possession of cannabis. She received a fine, against which she is planning to appeal.
In 2005, top model Kate Moss faced allegations she had been taking cocaine, but the Crown Prosecution Service announced the following year that she would not be charged over the claims.
And although a furore ensued following the allegations, with leading fashion houses announcing they were dropping her as the face of their campaigns or planning not to use her in the future, Ms Moss was reported last year to be in the top 100 women list with wealth put at £45m.
Her former boyfriend, Pete Doherty, has been prosecuted for drug-taking, but was given light sentences - short-term prison or suspended sentences - or ordered to go into rehab.
'Simplistic'
Criminal law solicitor Julian Young says even when charges are successfully brought, courts in the UK will always try to go for the rehabilitation option rather than a custodial sentence.
Custody is seen as a last resort, and even then, such sentences are fairly short-term with up to six months per offence, and less if the offender pleads guilty.
And it would be unpractical to jail everyone who was convicted of a drug offence, he adds.
The UN is being somewhat simplistic in their view of how offenders should be dealt with in this country
Julian Young
Criminal law solicitor
Fines, which in magistrates' court are a maximum of £5,000 for a drug offence, do not have an impact on celebrities who are multimillionaires, he adds.
There is also the option of community service, but it is not as targeted or as imaginative as community service has been in the US.
Across the Atlantic, celebrities can be placed on probation for years, or community service can be more specific than in the UK, making the sentence more effective.
There for example, it is not unknown for the courts to order stars to organise a music concert and donate the proceeds to drug rehabilitation charities to make amend for their offences.
If that were to be done in the UK, "it would link celebrity with misconduct and consequences", Mr Young says.
For repeat offenders however here, the chances of getting community sentences are "remarkably slim".
Another issue is that the UK has a more open media and press than some other countries. Privacy laws in France, for instance, mean it is much harder to delve into people's personal lives.
Ultimately, says Mr Young, "the UN is being somewhat simplistic in their view of how offenders should be dealt with in this country. They're not looking at real people trying to deal with real problems".
Martin Barnes, the Chief Executive of DrugScope, an independent UK drugs charity, adds that celebrity drug-use can in any event be a double-edged sword.
"Young people are quite alert these days to messages in the media and sometimes the images are quite contradictory. Yes, they're celebrities, they're famous, but images of them looking tired, spotty, chaotic lifestyles, that can also have quite a powerful impact as well.
"In the UN's report today, the UN is highlighting the need for more high-level activity around tackling drugs supply across international borders, but the fact that we're going from big issues about where these drugs are produced and transported, right through to celebrity drug use, highlights the fact that we're talking about a fundamentally quite complex issue."
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.u...ope/7278943.stm
Published: 2008/03/05 14:08:55 GMT
© BBC MMVIII
Do celeb drug-takers get off too lightly?
Started by
Guest_blakmamba76_*
, Mar 05 2008 04:58 PM
102 replies to this topic
#4
ILLEGALL
-
- Members
-
- 4,703 posts
ergo sum of illuminati
Posted 05 March 2008 - 05:39 PM
ive noticed that every so often an article like this surfaces and points out people, amy being one featured in the past few
i think its just for them to show to people who are 'kicking up a fuss', "look we know what's going on, and we're on top of it"
but they really should have bigger fish to to fry, like afghanistan being responsible for over 90% of the worlds opium in circulation
i think its just for them to show to people who are 'kicking up a fuss', "look we know what's going on, and we're on top of it"
but they really should have bigger fish to to fry, like afghanistan being responsible for over 90% of the worlds opium in circulation
#5
Guest_blakmamba76_*
Guest_blakmamba76_*
-
- Guests
Posted 05 March 2008 - 05:42 PM
How very true...and that is why they have the brits and the yanks defending it, because there is money to be made. This is all a magicians/illusionist trick, the slight of the hand to draw away from the real issues, like opiates are used in most pharmaceutical medicines prescribed...
#6
malaroda
-
- Members
-
- 1,150 posts
Never miss a night
Posted 05 March 2008 - 05:42 PM
Well, you know, if Amy and Pete and Kate stop using drugs, the problem would disappear, I mean they are responsible that other, non-celebrity people and teenagers are using, not the dealers who can come within few meters of school and sell to children; or all those people who are manufacturing drugs, smuglling them, and so on...
Celebrity drug use is the biggest problem our society has now. (very sarcastic)
Celebrity drug use is the biggest problem our society has now. (very sarcastic)
#7
Wino
-
- Founders
-
- 4,341 posts
Shuffle A Dream
Posted 05 March 2008 - 06:23 PM
Yes. Although I support Amy and love her music I don't think she should be a role model to anyone. Nor should Kate Moss, Pete Doherty, Peaches/Pixie Geldof (whichever one does drugs - probably both). I think it's absolute bullshit that celebrities can take all these hard drugs but still get loads of media coverage and pages in magazines dedicated to them. And then in some cases it gives their career a boost - look at Kate Moss for example.Do celeb drug-takers get off too lightly?
#8
Guest_blakmamba76_*
Guest_blakmamba76_*
-
- Guests
Posted 05 March 2008 - 06:53 PM
Did you agree with Natalie Cole saying that Amy should not have won the Grammy's because of her drug abuse history?
I don't think that they should dedicated time that could be spent on more tangible issues than on this subject, this is more of a modern societal issue and less of a world issue ( I know that drug abuse take place all over). I don't know about the rest of the folks you mentioned but Amy is on covers first because of her music, second for her drug abuse.
Any way this sums up the article for me :"the UN is being somewhat simplistic in their view of how offenders should be dealt with in this country. They're not looking at real people trying to deal with real problems." Criminalizing drug abuse gets no one anywhere, once hooked on a drug it becomes a physical and psychological problem. However, I do contend that if someone(anyone) is found with drug abuse problems they should be remanded to a treatment facility sliding scale fees, so if you are a celeb, you pay the full cost and have the majority of your assets frozen until you have satisfied the folks in charge that you are clean if you mess up again.
With that being said. The government and big business should also decrease their use of habit forming drugs. This only reason, in the US, we have 'a war on drugs' which should be a war on street drugs, if to promote pharmaceutical drugs, we have the same effect. What is Xanax? Chemical marijuana. Just my take on this...
I don't think that they should dedicated time that could be spent on more tangible issues than on this subject, this is more of a modern societal issue and less of a world issue ( I know that drug abuse take place all over). I don't know about the rest of the folks you mentioned but Amy is on covers first because of her music, second for her drug abuse.
Any way this sums up the article for me :"the UN is being somewhat simplistic in their view of how offenders should be dealt with in this country. They're not looking at real people trying to deal with real problems." Criminalizing drug abuse gets no one anywhere, once hooked on a drug it becomes a physical and psychological problem. However, I do contend that if someone(anyone) is found with drug abuse problems they should be remanded to a treatment facility sliding scale fees, so if you are a celeb, you pay the full cost and have the majority of your assets frozen until you have satisfied the folks in charge that you are clean if you mess up again.
With that being said. The government and big business should also decrease their use of habit forming drugs. This only reason, in the US, we have 'a war on drugs' which should be a war on street drugs, if to promote pharmaceutical drugs, we have the same effect. What is Xanax? Chemical marijuana. Just my take on this...
#10
Alfredo_t
-
- Members
-
- 286 posts
You Know I'm No Good
Posted 05 March 2008 - 08:26 PM
Well, you know, if Amy and Pete and Kate stop using drugs, the problem would disappear...
Hah-hah-hah!
I love how these guys think! The real reason that young people experiment with drugs is to be more like Amy Winehouse. This is too funny.Seriously, I would hope that young people take the entire Winehouse story in context: it is possible to recover drug and alcohol addictions, but it is best to avoid drug addiction and alcoholism in the first place....And if you chain smoke, this will happen to you: :smokerscough:
#11
Mike from NY
-
- Members
-
- 644 posts
My alcoholic logic
Posted 05 March 2008 - 09:43 PM
Music and drugs have gone together for decades at this point. I am not condoning it but what Amy and other singers with drug problems are doing is nothing new. I bet all these people using Amy as the new scapegpat have albums from drug users in their collection. It seems like another chance to find an easy scapegoat rather than working on real problems.
#13
Mike from NY
-
- Members
-
- 644 posts
My alcoholic logic
Posted 06 March 2008 - 04:21 AM
That's what I think, why work on real things when you can blame Amy, Kate or Britney for all the problems we've got, yeah whatever...
That's what politicians do especially if their poll numbers are low are an election is coming up. With the US election I fully expect a lot of scapegoats to come up. I guess British politicians are no different.
#14
lexiconman
-
- Members
-
- 22 posts
infrequent poster
Posted 06 March 2008 - 10:26 AM
there is a lot that is f**ed up about this drug blame situation & it really makes me want to talk about it. please skip this post if you're not interested in global relations (no one will know!).
i really found that the book "saying yes" by jacob sullum made historical sense of the US policies on drugs, most of which were made illegal around the time prohibition kicked in. US drug policy is a throwback to this era, & we exert considerable world influence to force other countries to align with us. most nations with the resources to challenge us are more or less discredited or otherwise damaged by the 20th century wars. nevermind that certain US intelligence sectors more or less regulate the amount that comes into the US -- and of course where it comes from.
in fact, if drugs were legal, then large distribution syndicates & the government agencies that allow them to do business would pay a lot more, & consumers would pay a lot less. but it's necessary, because drugs make you lose control (picture of amy winehouse) -- and then this part of the story is more or less nasty towards some visible, usually stressed-out & thus substance-abuse-vulnerable segment of society, like celebrities or some minorities.
in fact, US drug laws are not only enforced in different proportions, but also written to make the drugs that mostly only minorities & the poor take more illegal than similar drugs that everybody takes. this is why it's disgusting to see UK cops justifying what they know is crappy damaging & wasteful policy by saying essentially, "celebrities should do more" -- look how great the US is.
highlighting the ridiculousness of this whole thing is the concept of medication. highlighting the ethical danger is the similarity between the profit margin of keeping a massive global trade on the black market & the profit margin of slavery. looked at globally, this is a continuation of a problem with unregulated labor practice that the US has always had, from slavery to factories & farms employing immigrants.
given that the UN is the only organization that even remotely has the status to broach this subject and that the US funds a lot of it, it makes a lot of sense that the UN would denounce Amy twice in less than a year (the last time if i remember right was sometime since her OD/seizure/whatever in late summer). they are particularly harsh on her, way more so than dozens of equally famous addicts -- maybe because she & her music are so essentially global.
we celebrate how alcohol, coffee, & medications bring the world together, but if we talk about illegal drugs, they have to be pulling the world apart to justify current UN policy. they ARE pulling Amy's world apart, so she gets a dyshonorable mention & they get millions more people reading "drugs are very bad" bc they read amy winehouse news but not UN news. that combined with her thoroughly global influences & the current british drug scene she's part of makes her not so much a scapegoat as a a falsely relevant point-of-focus, & like the rest of us, a subject & victim of a global conspiracy with local conspirators & no leader.
it's the 17th-19th centuries in another dimension. the bullshit & the waste are just as real but harder to identify.
just one person's opinion...
i really found that the book "saying yes" by jacob sullum made historical sense of the US policies on drugs, most of which were made illegal around the time prohibition kicked in. US drug policy is a throwback to this era, & we exert considerable world influence to force other countries to align with us. most nations with the resources to challenge us are more or less discredited or otherwise damaged by the 20th century wars. nevermind that certain US intelligence sectors more or less regulate the amount that comes into the US -- and of course where it comes from.
in fact, if drugs were legal, then large distribution syndicates & the government agencies that allow them to do business would pay a lot more, & consumers would pay a lot less. but it's necessary, because drugs make you lose control (picture of amy winehouse) -- and then this part of the story is more or less nasty towards some visible, usually stressed-out & thus substance-abuse-vulnerable segment of society, like celebrities or some minorities.
in fact, US drug laws are not only enforced in different proportions, but also written to make the drugs that mostly only minorities & the poor take more illegal than similar drugs that everybody takes. this is why it's disgusting to see UK cops justifying what they know is crappy damaging & wasteful policy by saying essentially, "celebrities should do more" -- look how great the US is.
highlighting the ridiculousness of this whole thing is the concept of medication. highlighting the ethical danger is the similarity between the profit margin of keeping a massive global trade on the black market & the profit margin of slavery. looked at globally, this is a continuation of a problem with unregulated labor practice that the US has always had, from slavery to factories & farms employing immigrants.
given that the UN is the only organization that even remotely has the status to broach this subject and that the US funds a lot of it, it makes a lot of sense that the UN would denounce Amy twice in less than a year (the last time if i remember right was sometime since her OD/seizure/whatever in late summer). they are particularly harsh on her, way more so than dozens of equally famous addicts -- maybe because she & her music are so essentially global.
we celebrate how alcohol, coffee, & medications bring the world together, but if we talk about illegal drugs, they have to be pulling the world apart to justify current UN policy. they ARE pulling Amy's world apart, so she gets a dyshonorable mention & they get millions more people reading "drugs are very bad" bc they read amy winehouse news but not UN news. that combined with her thoroughly global influences & the current british drug scene she's part of makes her not so much a scapegoat as a a falsely relevant point-of-focus, & like the rest of us, a subject & victim of a global conspiracy with local conspirators & no leader.
it's the 17th-19th centuries in another dimension. the bullshit & the waste are just as real but harder to identify.
just one person's opinion...
lexiconman
you can only get so much from someone else (help yourself)
you can only get so much from someone else (help yourself)
#15
Guest_blakmamba76_*
Guest_blakmamba76_*
-
- Guests
Posted 06 March 2008 - 03:56 PM
That's what politicians do especially if their poll numbers are low are an election is coming up. With the US election I fully expect a lot of scapegoats to come up. I guess British politicians are no different.
For sure!!!! Nope the Brits are not any different, after all Blair made the mistake of teaming up with Bush which set Britain back by decades. An educated man following an uneducated- war mongering idiot for the promise of cheaper oil. So now that the promise wasn't made good let focus on celebs and blame them for all the problems while they try to figure out a good PR strategy.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
