Download Oral Evidence on Drugs: Russell Brand & Chip Somers at Home Affairs Committee, 2012 and more Lecture notes Law of Evidence in PDF only on Docsity!
UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL EVIDENCE To be published as HC 1774-iv
HOUSE OF COMMONS
ORAL EVIDENCE
TAKEN BEFORE THE
HOME AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
DRUGS
TUESDAY 24 APRIL 2012
RUSSELL BRAND and CHIP SOMERS
MARY BRETT, KATHY GYNGELL and PETER HITCHENS
Evidence heard in Public Questions 237 - 294
USE OF THE TRANSCRIPT
- This is an uncorrected transcript of evidence taken in public and reported to the House. The transcript has been placed on the internet on the authority of the Committee, and copies have been made available by the Vote Office for the use of Members and others.
- Any public use of, or reference to, the contents should make clear that neither witnesses nor Members have had the opportunity to correct the record. The transcript is not yet an approved formal record of these proceedings.
- Members who receive this for the purpose of correcting questions addressed by them to witnesses are asked to send corrections to the Committee Assistant.
- Prospective witnesses may receive this in preparation for any written or oral evidence they may in due course give to the Committee.
Oral Evidence
Taken before the Home Affairs Committee
on Tuesday 24 April 2012
Members present:
Keith Vaz (Chair) Nicola Blackwood Michael Ellis Lorraine Fullbrook Dr Julian Huppert Steve McCabe Alun Michael Bridget Phillipson Mark Reckless Mr David Winnick
Examination of Witnesses
Witnesses: Russell Brand , Comedian, Actor, Columnist, Singer, Author, Radio/Television Presenter, and Chip Somers , Chief Executive, Focus 12, gave evidence
Q237 Chair: Good morning, Mr Brand. Russell Brand : Good morning. Chair: Please have a seat. Mr Brand, Mr Somers, thank you for giving evidence to the Committee’s inquiry into drugs. Mr Russell Brand, you gave written evidence to this Committee, which Members of the Committee have read. Could I start with a point about what you say in your evidence that you disagree with the legalisation of drugs because you think that a deterrent effect is necessary, is that right? Russell Brand : I don’t feel entirely qualified to talk about legislation. For me, what is more significant is the way that we socially regard the condition of addiction. It is something that I consider to be an illness and, therefore, more a health matter than a criminal or judicial matter. As I said, I don’t think legalisation is something that I am particularly qualified to get into. In fact, I can see areas where decriminalisation might be considered useful and more efficient in countries, like Portugal or Switzerland, where there have been trials. It seems to have had some efficacy. But for me it is more important that we regard people suffering from addiction with compassion and that there is a pragmatic rather than symbolic approach to treating it. The legislative status of addiction, and the criminalisation of addicts, is kind of symbolic and not really functional. I don’t see how it especially helps, but I am not saying, “Let’s have a wacky free-for-all, let people go around taking drugs”. It didn’t help me much.
Q238 Chair: You are a former heroin addict. Russell Brand : Yes.
Q239 Chair: Briefly, could you tell us how you got on to drugs and then how you managed to come off it, and how many years you were on hard drugs? Russell Brand : I see you have incorporated the word “briefly” now into the question. As you already know, it is my propensity for verbosity. I became a drug addict, I think,
