Live Drug Taking on BNN: "Spuiten & Slikken"

[Yothu]

BBC reported that BNN http://www.bnn.nl/ is going to air a show called "Spuiten & Slikken" in which Show-Moderator Filemon Wesselink will take drugs like LSD or heroin.

[...] The show, due to go out next month, is called Spuiten & Slikken, translated as "shoot up and swallow". [...] It is unclear whether presenter Filemon Wesselink would face prosecution.

Even in the liberal Netherlands, where marijuana is sold and used openly, the proposed action by presenter Filemon is technically illegal.

But Justice Ministry spokesman Ivo Hommes told the Associated Press news agency that while possession of any amount of heroin is illegal in the Netherlands, in practice things can differ. He said police usually do not have resources to chase after people with less than a half a gram of the narcotic.

[...] Wesselink, 26, plans to smoke a heroin pill, said Ingrid Timmer, a spokeswoman for the show's producer BNN.

"It's not our intention to create an outcry. We just want to talk about subjects that are part of young people's lives," said Ms Timmer.

Deutscher Artikel

[Alisima]

Yeah, I read it in the newspaper this morning, hehe, typical Dutch...

Well, I don't think it is going to do much bad. There are already many people here, but also all over the world, who already use drugs. The Netherlands just tend to be less hypocritical and simply show it. Although, the program hasn't been on TV yet, if it ever will.

[Vesko]

Yothu, thank you very much for making us aware of the horrible news. If the show actually airs, it would be extremely negative to people's minds because its message would be that taking drugs is ok and even fun. There would be a considerable number of people who would think that if it were really known to be bad, one would not have been allowed to experiment with it on TV -- after all, learned people with PhDs and great professional experience are managing TV, and it is not easy at all to become a TV journalist, right? People would surely not check the medical research that indicates the extremely harmful effects of drugs, and would feel it is ok go ahead and try it on their own, like they do on TV. And when we consider there are so many children who are like little sponges and imitate anything if it comes from a seeming authority...

"It's not our intention to create an outcry. We just want to talk about subjects that are part of young people's lives," said Ms Timmer.

Oh, you just want to talk? Then just talk, don't take drugs.

"The actual taking of drugs is a health problem, not a criminal act, though it's obviously hard to take drugs without possessing them first," Mr Hommes said.

It happens that earlier today, I have said to a friend that I think that unless the degradation in society is reversed, in the not too far future we are going to see official party formations of drug-takers that are going to seek to legalize both the possession and the taking of drugs.

In other segments of the show, Wesselink plans to go on a drinking binge in a series of pubs. He also plans to take the hallucinogenic drug LSD - on his couch under the supervision of his mother.

Who on Earth called this "supervision"? It is disgusting to even think what that mother would do would be any kind of supervision.

[Vesko]

Unfortunately, people at large are far from realising neither that journalists have similar power to the one of politicians, as it is stated in the book, nor that psychology ought to be much studied by journalists, which is certainly not done at present contrary to the advice in the book.

[Alisima]

It is not the media which makes people take drugs. It are the people themselves. In other words, drugs is not the problem, the people are.

Even if you managed to free our society from drugs, will that solve the cravings?? For instance, I know a guy who stopped smoking marijuana, but now he is back on beer. Much beer I may add.

You see, taking away drugs simply means people will start misusing other things. For the real problem is in these people themselves, not in any drug.

[Vesko]

Do you deny that the media plays some part in the taking of ultimate decisions by the people themselves?

[Lena]

who knows, maybe this show will expose how bad drugs really are. I personally have never been around anyone taking LSD or heroine. maybe it looks bad, or they'll show him throwing up and acting stupid. maybe that will make people not want to do what he is doing. like after watching the real world I vowed never to drink because people on that show get drunk all the time and it's disguisting. but maybe I'm wrong and the show will encourage drug use. I don't know. I agree with what Alisima said.

[Vesko]

Lena, you should make a clear difference between a chat show and a tightly controlled educational programme by medical experts with professional commentary and explanation, so that ignorant TV watchers can be acquainted with all known implications of taking drugs, and not primarily listen to chat, i.e. light informal talk, while being shown sensational pictures. Do not tell me that chat shows are performed under strict scientific control, or anything close to it.

As I said, people working at a TV station are supposed to be experts -- if not, they must go away. If they are experts, they must try to minimize the possibility of the people in the audience harming themselves as much as possible, while maximally informing them about the real world. A chat show undertaking the serious responsibility of showing actual taking of drugs would not be able to achieve that -- the seriousness of the issue and light informal talk are two incompatible things.

Please comment if you think you have a valid argument against what I have said, or you do not understand something.

[bomohwkl]

It happens that earlier today, I have said to a friend that I think that unless the degradation in society is reversed, in the not too far future we are going to see official party formations of drug-takers that are going to seek to legalize both the possession and the taking of drugs.

Let freedom prevails.

As Tom illustrated,

Influencing the Freedom of Choice of those who choose drugs (by making drugs harder to get for example) we just SLOW DOWN (if not sabotage completely) the magnificently designed SELF-CORRECTING mechanism of the Universe.

We should only help people who
1) ASK for help and WANT it
2) are capable of helping THEMSELVES after being given a temporary assistance.

BBC reported that BNN http://www.bnn.nl/ is going to air a show called "Spuiten & Slikken" in which Show-Moderator Filemon Wesselink will take drugs like LSD or heroin

It is unfortunate.

[Vesko]

I am all for freedom, if there were a way to gather all drug takers, exclude them from the rest of society, and give them all the freedom they want, as long as they do not venture close to other people, nor they communicate with them, except through a few professionally selected intermediaries.

But since clearly this is impossible on a mass scale, and they live among us, their negative actions inevitably affect us. We are all in the same boat, remember? So it should be sought to limit their freedom to do harm to others through their drug use.

I have watched interviews with families and relatives of drug takers. Most often they are psychologically and materially devastated, either directly or indirectly. All are severely troubled. If a country gives complete freedom to drug users to take drugs, then that country also gives them freedom to inflict great suffering not only to themselves, but many others.

[Alisima]

Do you deny that the media plays some part in the taking of ultimate decisions by the people themselves?

You cannot blame an event on just one single thing. Everyone and everything is involved in it. I can only guess at the immense cause and effect 'snowball' which ultimately make someone take drugs. Or do anything for that matter.

You could say that the media plays a part in the ultimate decision whether someone takes drugs or not. However, aren't those people's parents also not in some way responsible?? and what about education, or social environment, or there own genes?? (you could blame your great great grandpa for making you do 'bad' things.)

I do not hold anyone, or anything, directly responsible for an event. On the contrary, we, including all flora and fauna, bacteria, weather changes, planets, galaxy's, big bangs, and all their relationships with everything, are all responsible for an event.

So no, the media indeed plays a part in the ultimate decision, however, just as much as everything else.

I am reminded of a curiosity, in order to cope with something, confrontation is needed. In other words, if you keep things out of sight, people will never learn to cope with it, and thus not with live itself. The trick is however, to balance the confrontation and concealing. In the beginning there is complete concealing and at the end full confrontation.

In that part I agree with you, some people should not watch shows like the above mentioned, however, other people must.

That is why I am neither against such shows nor for them. It all depends on the context.

[Vesko]

You cannot blame an event on just one single thing. Everyone and everything is involved in it. I can only guess at the immense cause and effect 'snowball' which ultimately make someone take drugs. Or do anything for that matter.

At a certain level of abstraction, yes -- everything is responsible.

You could say that the media plays a part in the ultimate decision whether someone takes drugs or not. However, aren't those people's parents also not in some way responsible?? and what about education, or social environment, or there own genes?? (you could blame your great great grandpa for making you do 'bad' things.)

They are each responsible to a varying extent.

I do not hold anyone, or anything, directly responsible for an event. On the contrary, we, including all flora and fauna, bacteria, weather changes, planets, galaxy's, big bangs, and all their relationships with everything, are all responsible for an event.

You seem to be missing the point that some things are more responsible than others. You surely do not want to say that some yet undiscovered bacteria on Mars could make people take drugs as much as a chat show showing someone taking heroin?

So no, the media indeed plays a part in the ultimate decision, however, just as much as everything else.

So does the bacteria on Mars play an equal part in the ultimate decision?

I am reminded of a curiosity, in order to cope with something, confrontation is needed. In other words, if you keep things out of sight, people will never learn to cope with it, and thus not with live itself. The trick is however, to balance the confrontation and concealing. In the beginning there is complete concealing and at the end full confrontation.

To help people cope with things as serious as drug taking, you need educational programmes made by professional people who are expert at the problem, not chat shows.

In that part I agree with you, some people should not watch shows like the above mentioned, however, other people must.

Other people must, even if there is a better alternative?

That is why I am neither against such shows nor for them. It all depends on the context.

But this context is known. It consists of a chat show and a topic of showing drug taking. The two are incompatible, for reasons I have explained. That is why I am against the show.

[Alisima]

I do not hold anyone, or anything, directly responsible for an event. On the contrary, we, including all flora and fauna, bacteria, weather changes, planets, galaxy's, big bangs, and all their relationships with everything, are all responsible for an event.

You seem to be missing the point that some things are more responsible than others. You surely do not want to say that some yet undiscovered bacteria on Mars could make people take drugs as much as a chat show showing someone taking heroin?

There is only a difference in direct or indirect responsibility. So no, not directly ofcourse. However, what is the cause of the drug-show?? And the cause of that, and that cause... In other words, what is the cause of the cause, to the infinite. And somewhere along all those causes your undiscovered bacteria comes into play, for it must, because all that exists influences. And a change in behavior of your bacteria will cause much influence on all its sub-causes.

Besides, you must agree with me that there are some people who, even after viewing millions of drug-shows will still not take drugs. And there are people who use drugs without ever seeing such a show, which cleary indicated that drug usage has little to do with drug-shows.

I am reminded of a curiosity, in order to cope with something, confrontation is needed. In other words, if you keep things out of sight, people will never learn to cope with it, and thus not with live itself. The trick is however, to balance the confrontation and concealing. In the beginning there is complete concealing and at the end full confrontation.

To help people cope with things as serious as drug taking, you need educational programmes made by professional people who are expert at the problem, not chat shows.

I wasn't talking about that. Anyhow, do you know that you can make a lesion in a persons brain which stops the cravings towards drugs??

In that part I agree with you, some people should not watch shows like the above mentioned, however, other people must.

Other people must, even if there is a better alternative?

There is no better alternative. In every society there has been, and will be, similar things like drug-shows. There is no alternative. We have to see into the seriousness of the problem and deal with it, until that, things like drug-shows will be a common theme.

That is why I am neither against such shows nor for them. It all depends on the context.

But this context is known. It consists of a chat show and a topic of showing drug taking. The two are incompatible, for reasons I have explained. That is why I am against the show.

No the context isn't entirely known. For starters, the show hasn't yet been on air, we don't who is going to watch. You wrongfully assume that a show like this is going to be bad for all who watch it, I am saying you this, there are people who will benefit from seeing such a show, even if it is going to take them months to figure it out.

One little curious fact which pops in my mind right now. All things on TV, which the exception of perhapse reality TV, are AFTER the facts. Ofcourse this is obvious, first the program has to be 'created', certain authority figure need to give permission, in other words, it takes a lot of time before an idea finally makes it on TV.

From this fact one can easily come to the conclusion that everything on TV is a response to the current situation in the given country. So first there is drug abuse, and then it is on TV, not the other way around. TV only presents the 'problems' we, as a society, are having to deal with. In fact, TV does a remarkable job of showing the current 'level' of our society, like a smooth reflective surface.

So whenever there is an disgusting program on TV, that disgusting program is an actual respresentation of ourselves. And it is not the TV nor the producers which need 'fixing', it is us who need it.

[Vesko]

You seem to be missing the point that some things are more responsible than others. You surely do not want to say that some yet undiscovered bacteria on Mars could make people take drugs as much as a chat show showing someone taking heroin?

There is only a difference in direct or indirect responsibility. So no, not directly ofcourse. However, what is the cause of the drug-show?? And the cause of that, and that cause... In other words, what is the cause of the cause, to the infinite. And somewhere along all those causes your undiscovered bacteria comes into play, for it must, because all that exists influences. And a change in behavior of your bacteria will cause much influence on all its sub-causes.

There is only a difference in direct or indirect responsibility, and there is no difference in the degree of responsibility?? Do you realise that no court of law would be possible to operate if that were true?

Besides, you must agree with me that there are some people who, even after viewing millions of drug-shows will still not take drugs.

I agree with that. Those are people who are already intelligent and knowledgeable enough not to fall for the trap, or people who would not do it out of fear, for example.

And there are people who use drugs without ever seeing such a show, which cleary indicated that drug usage has little to do with drug-shows.

Could you please elaborate how on the basis of the sole observation that there are people who use drugs without ever seeing such a show, you conclude it clearly indicates that drug usage has little to do with such shows?

I am reminded of a curiosity, in order to cope with something, confrontation is needed. In other words, if you keep things out of sight, people will never learn to cope with it, and thus not with live itself. The trick is however, to balance the confrontation and concealing. In the beginning there is complete concealing and at the end full confrontation.

To help people cope with things as serious as drug taking, you need educational programmes made by professional people who are expert at the problem, not chat shows.

I wasn't talking about that. Anyhow, do you know that you can make a lesion in a persons brain which stops the cravings towards drugs??

I think we have been talking about the same things here. I was trying to make a point that educational programmes can provide the confrontation in a better way, presenting all known facts before the audience, unlike confrontation in chat shows that in no way can present all the facts, simply because it is, by definition, a light informal talk show.

I know of similar experiments with the brain to what you have mentioned. Does what you refer to incapacitate the person in some other perceptible way?

In that part I agree with you, some people should not watch shows like the above mentioned, however, other people must.

Other people must, even if there is a better alternative?

There is no better alternative. In every society there has been, and will be, similar things like drug-shows. There is no alternative. We have to see into the seriousness of the problem and deal with it, until that, things like drug-shows will be a common theme.

Can give me an example how do you propose to deal with the problem? I am asking, because one way of dealing with the problem is summoning all the experts who are well acquainted with the undisputable dangers of drugs -- and there are a number of such experts at this moment, and use their expert knowledge to exert control over the TV. At the moment, this is clearly not done sufficiently, and it is a great way to "deal with it".

That is why I am neither against such shows nor for them. It all depends on the context.

But this context is known. It consists of a chat show and a topic of showing drug taking. The two are incompatible, for reasons I have explained. That is why I am against the show.

No the context isn't entirely known. For starters, the show hasn't yet been on air, we don't who is going to watch. You wrongfully assume that a show like this is going to be bad for all who watch it, I am saying you this, there are people who will benefit from seeing such a show, even if it is going to take them months to figure it out.

The context is, of course, not entirely known, but the major parts of it are. We do not know who exactly and what is the exact number of people who are going to watch it, but we know that there is a large TV audience that regularly watches such shows. I have read all of my previous posts -- please point to where I assume that the show, or such shows, are going to be bad for all who watch them. I have done no such thing.

One little curious fact which pops in my mind right now. All things on TV, which the exception of perhapse reality TV, are AFTER the facts. Ofcourse this is obvious, first the program has to be 'created', certain authority figure need to give permission, in other words, it takes a lot of time before an idea finally makes it on TV.

From this fact one can easily come to the conclusion that everything on TV is a response to the current situation in the given country. So first there is drug abuse, and then it is on TV, not the other way around. TV only presents the 'problems' we, as a society, are having to deal with. In fact, TV does a remarkable job of showing the current 'level' of our society, like a smooth reflective surface.

First, there is drug abuse, then it is on TV... and then, can not TV compound the drug abuse by misinforming the public about the real dangers of drugs?

Personally, I would not call TV a smooth reflective surface that does a remarkable job. I would call it a reflective surface (a mirror) that severely distorts an already ugly reality, doing a very poor job.

So whenever there is an disgusting program on TV, that disgusting program is an actual respresentation of ourselves. And it is not the TV nor the producers which need 'fixing', it is us who need it.

So we (us) need fixing, but the producers and the TV they produce do not need fixing? Are not TV producers part of us?

[Alisima]

There is only a difference in direct or indirect responsibility, and there is no difference in the degree of responsibility?? Do you realise that no court of law would be possible to operate if that were true?

Yes, I am fully aware of that. A couple of centuries ago I probably would have been killed for saying such an thing.

Could you please elaborate how on the basis of the sole observation that there are people who use drugs without ever seeing such a show, you conclude it clearly indicates that drug usage has little to do with such shows?

The only thing these shows are doing is presenting people with more posibilities. For instance, by claming how easy it is for someone to buy drugs. However, the final motivation for buying and eventually using drugs lies much deeper. And from my own observations, on myself and people around me, it is due to some desire. Ofcourse the whole thing is very complex and depends on the user, but it generally has to do with the desire for happiness, for acceptence, for existence, for love, for power, for completeness, etc., etc. and usually a mixture of all that. So the thing the show does is bringing up a latent desires in people, and it are those desires which makes us do things. But even without such shows, these desires will come up eventually.

I think we have been talking about the same things here. I was trying to make a point that educational programmes can provide the confrontation in a better way, presenting all known facts before the audience, unlike confrontation in chat shows that in no way can present all the facts, simply because it is, by definition, a light informal talk show.

Yes, an educational program confronts it in a different way. But don't say better. For they have not yet solved the problem. This is due to less interest in these programs, specially by people who in fact have suchs problems. Those people tend to be less acadamic and favor light informal talk shows above intellectual shows. Therein lies the problem, there probably is a solution, but no one is listening.

I know of similar experiments with the brain to what you have mentioned. Does what you refer to incapacitate the person in some other perceptible way?

No, amazingly these people have instantly solved there addiction at the moment the lesion is made. No nasty side-effects or incapabilities (at least, not more then previously.) There was one down side, although I can't quite remember it. I can look it up for you if you wish, or you could just buy the book :p. "Zen and the brain" by "James Austin".

Can give me an example how do you propose to deal with the problem? I am asking, because one way of dealing with the problem is summoning all the experts who are well acquainted with the undisputable dangers of drugs -- and there are a number of such experts at this moment, and use their expert knowledge to exert control over the TV. At the moment, this is clearly not done sufficiently, and it is a great way to "deal with it".

Just like you can't start the problem by TV you can't solve it either. Ohh, you can save a few perhapse, but definitly not all. First you have to understand the cause of the problem before you can solve it. You cannot solve drug abuse if you don't solve the underlying problem (similar to western medicine which only solve the symptoms but not the decease.)

I do not have the time now, nor the willpower, to explain how to deal with drugs. One solution would be for us all to reach enlightenment, but since that is not going to happen,at least not soon, solutions are far, far away.

I suggest you simply accept drugs. Let these people figure it out themselves. It is the best solution.

The context is, of course, not entirely known, but the major parts of it are. We do not know who exactly and what is the exact number of people who are going to watch it, but we know that there is a large TV audience that regularly watches such shows. I have read all of my previous posts -- please point to where I assume that the show, or such shows, are going to be bad for all who watch them. I have done no such thing.

I am sorry for that. My mistake. I only assumed that, due to your vigorous anti-statements :p, you would have such a point of view. Again, my mistake.

First, there is drug abuse, then it is on TV... and then, can not TV compound the drug abuse by misinforming the public about the real dangers of drugs?

No, the TV show, or anything, can only provoke in people what is already there. If you have a desire then I can lure you, however, if you desire none, I cannot lure you.

Personally, I would not call TV a smooth reflective surface that does a remarkable job. I would call it a reflective surface (a mirror) that severely distorts an already ugly reality, doing a very poor job.

Yes, but that distortion is part of the ugly reality.

So whenever there is an disgusting program on TV, that disgusting program is an actual respresentation of ourselves. And it is not the TV nor the producers which need 'fixing', it is us who need it.

So we (us) need fixing, but the producers and the TV they produce do not need fixing? Are not TV producers part of us?

Ahh yes ofcourse, you get what I mean, solve all problems individually and you solve all problems globally.