[Keith Vaz, 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 d**. 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 d** 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 compa**ion 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 d**”. It didn't help me much.
[Chair]
You are a former h**n addict.
[Russell Brand]
Yes.
[Chair]
Briefly, could you tell us how you got on to d** and then how you managed to come off it, and how many years you were on hard d**.
[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, because of emotional difficulties, psychological difficulties and perhaps a spiritual malady. For me, taking d** and excessive drinking were the result of a psychological, spiritual or mental condition, so they are symptomatic. I was sad, lonely, unhappy and detached, and d** and alcohol for me seemed like a solution to that problem. Once I dealt with the emotional, spiritual, mental impetus, I no longer felt the need to take d** or use d**. Actually, I got clean at Chip Somers' facility, Focus 12, which is abstinence-based recovery. That is what we essentially believe in: if you have the disease or the illness of addiction or alcoholism, the best way to tackle it is to not use d** in any form, whether it is state-sponsored opiates, like methadone or illegal street d**, or a legal substance like alcohol. We see no distinction between these substances. What we believe in is that abstinence-based recovery is the best solution, for people suffering from this condition, and that support structures exist to get people to maintain recovery—abstinence-based recovery. What we want is more research and funding into abstinence-based recovery and to be able to filter people towards this new lifestyle where, actually, criminalisation becomes less of an issue, in my view, because it takes people that have to indulge in criminal activity to fund their habits and gets them into being valuable members of society. Was that brief enough?
[Chair]
Very brief, thank you. You were arrested, roughly, 12 times-
[Russell Brand]
It was rough, yes.
[Chair]
-by the police and the justice system. Do you think that when you were arrested that you had the kind of support that you needed, and people like you who were arrested, being involved in d**, the rehabilitation and the support that was needed to get you off d**? How did the criminal justice system react to you after your arrests?
[Russell Brand]
From my experience, speaking to people in the criminal justice system, and from my own personal experience being arrested, there is some confusion and ignorance around addiction. That is quite understandable because a lot of drug addicts—speaking personally—are anti-social. They are a strain on society. They necessarily engage in criminal activity. They are a public nuisance in many ways.I felt when I was arrested that the police were doing a necessary job of enforcing the laws of this country, and that they were doing what they had to do. It wasn't until I had access to abstinence-based recovery that I was able to change my behaviour and significantly reduce—all but obliterate—my criminal activity, apart from the occasional skirmish.
[Chair]
The final question from me on this section is the issue of legal highs. We have been very concerned in the evidence that we have received about the number of legal highs that are available, and young people who seem to be able to take legal highs. Whenever they are banned or proposed to be banned a new legal high emerges. Do you think this is something that does affect young people? Is this now the drug of choice for young people?
[Russell Brand]
I don't know because I am not young enough anymore. I know that young people will always want to get high, and I think that what we need is a pragmatic approach to this. For me, in a way—as I said before, Keith—it is not significant the substance they are using, whether it is alcohol or illegal street d**. The legal status of a drug is irrelevant to a drug addict. If you are a drug addict, you are getting d**, that's it, you are going to get them. So in a way it is probably best to make it simple.
As for legal highs, what I think we need to do is address the social, mental and spiritual problems that are leading young people, or people of all ages, into taking d**. So I think what we need is research into abstinence-based recovery and more awareness around it.
[Chair]
We will come on to some of those points with other questions.
[Bridget Phillipson]
You are currently working on a programme about addiction and how it is viewed in society. What messages are you hoping to get across in that programme?
[Russell Brand]
The messages that we are hoping to get across in this programme is that maintenance of drug addiction, through state-sponsored substances, like methadone, should only be deployed as part of a reduction, with the ultimate aim of abstinence-based recovery; that we need to start regarding addiction, in all its forms, as a health issue, as opposed to a judicial and criminal issue; that we need to change the laws in this country; that we need to have more compa**ionate, altruistic, loving attitudes to the people with the disease of addiction and recognise that these people, with the proper help and access to the proper treatment, can become active and helpful members of society, like myself—some would argue that point—or perhaps, more obviously, Chip Somers, a man with a criminal record as long as your arm, who now runs a treatment centre and has been clean for 27 years. That is the message: that we don't want to discard people; we don't want to life them off on methadone and leave them on the sidelines. We need to bring them into society, offer them treatment and, once again, neutralise the toxic, social threat that they offer as criminals, because they have to fund their habit, or even if it is a legal drug, like alcohol, they are clattering into things, driving drunk, pain in the arse people. We need to offer them treatment and activate them and incorporate them into our society. So the message is ultimately one of pragmatism, altruism and compa**ion in all areas of the condition.
[Chair]
Thank you. Mr Somers, we will have specific questions for you, but if you want to chip in—if I may put it like that—at any stage, please feel free to do so. Is there anything you want to add to what you have heard so far?
[Chip Somers, Chief Executive, Focus 12]
I think he is doing splendidly.
[Russell Brand]
Thanks, Chip. Chip runs the treatment centre where I got clean so—
[Chair]
Yes, we are coming on to him in a minute, Mr Brand.
[Russell Brand]
He is already the puppeteer behind each and every articulation.
[Chair]
Thank you, Mr Brand.
[Michael Ellis]
Mr Brand, you have said that addiction is an illness.
[Russell Brand]
Yes.
[Michael Ellis]
Would you say that it is also fair to characterise it as self-induced, to a large extent, unlike many other illnesses?
[Russell Brand]
Not really.
[Michael Ellis]
Also, that it does carry with it victims. Many people who are on d** commit offences against other people, do they not? So it differs in that respect as well, doesn't it? When one is looking at the criminal justice system, doesn't one also have to have some compa**ion and consideration for the victims of crime, where those crimes are committed by people under the influence of d**?
[Russell Brand]
Michael, I am very glad you have asked me that question. It is a very important question and it is one that we need to address. Of course, the victims of acquisitive drug-related crimes are important and need to be taken care of. We were with Chief Superintendent Graham Bartlett of Suss** Police the other day, a wonderful man, a good civic minded gentleman. It is his belief that by regarding addiction as an illness, by offering treatment instead of a more punitive approach, we can prevent people from committing crimes. Just personally, I was a criminal when I was drug addict, by virtue of my addiction, and the ways that I had to acquire money to get d**. Anecdotally, Chip was an armed robber, in and out of nick all the time—I hope you don't mind me telling them this—and other people I have met, you know, criminality is a necessary component. Of course we are not saying forget the victims, but I am saying it is better to address the social situation pragmatically. I think we all know this. By prescribing methadone to people, most people on methadone are using illegal d** to supplement their habit. They are not addressing the root problems. We need to approach the victims with respect. Where there has been criminal behaviour it needs to be dealt with correctly, but perhaps within the penal system itself we can offer treatment to addicts, like the brilliant work that is done by RAPt in various institutions and prisons.
[Michael Ellis]
You would say there needs to be carrot and stick, would you?
[Russell Brand]
I don't think there needs to be a carrot or a stick. Both of those things are like bizarre metaphors. What there needs to be is love and compa**ion for everybody involved. If people are committing criminal behaviour then it needs to be dealt with legally, but you need to offer them treatment, not simply out of some airy fairy, “let's hold hands and hug” liberalism, but because it deals with the problem and it prevents further crimes being committed. Addicts that get clean one day at a time, through abstinence-based recovery, generally speaking, stop committing crimes. That is better for victims. It is better for the addicts. It is better for society.
[Michael Ellis]
The role that celebrities play in society is not insignificant. I want to ask you whether—
[Russell Brand]
I would argue that it is insignificant, and that is why they play that role.
[Michael Ellis]
Perhaps it should be more than it is, but what I want to know from you, Mr. Brand, is whether, having got out of the cycle of addiction, and I congratulate you for that—
[Russell Brand]
Thank you.
[Michael Ellis]
—you would like to position yourself as a role model in society for those who might look to you as an example?
[Russell Brand]
As the great 2Pac Shakur said, “role is something people play, model is something that people make. Both of those things are fake.” What I want to offer people is truth and authenticity in the treatment of this illness, in our regard to the criminal components of it, in a**isting victims and in the way we legislate and organise our society. As you know, I can't be responsible—you lot hold committees all the time about the reprehensible behaviour of our media—what the cipher of my image is used to represent in the media, I have no control over.
[Michael Ellis]
You do. Forgive me, you do because your behaviour is some aspect of what is portrayed about you, isn't it?
[Russell Brand]
Yes, of course, but how is this going to be written up? This could be written up as, “Michael Ellis is sprawled on a pin there by the wit of Brand” or they could say, “recalcitrant former drug addict rambled on.” If you read it in The Telegraph it is going to say one thing; if you read it in the Socialist Worker it is going to say another thing.
[Michael Ellis]
It probably will be a combination.
[Russell Brand]
Of course the objective behaviour has components, but I am saying that what I want to offer people is truth and authenticity. Celebrity, as we all know, is a vapid, vacuous, toxic concept used to distract people from what is actually important, and in this case that is the treatment of people with the disease of addiction.
[Chair]
Yes, Mr Somers.
[Chip Somers]
As far as we were concerned, those people who are brave enough, who are both celebrities and recovering addicts, have a profound effect on the number of people who seek treatment because it gives out a very positive message that recovery is possible. When Russell Brand's book came out the number of referrals to our treatment centre was just hugely exaggerated because people suddenly discovered that treatment was possible, help was possible and people could get better, and it made a profound difference. I would hope that actually more people in the public eye—well, I suppose, being celebrities they are in the public eye—will come forward and have the bravery to do so, because it does encourage people.
[Michael Ellis]
So celebrities can be a very positive role model?
[Chip Somers]
Absolutely. Of course, then it can backfire as well when people make a big fuss about being in recovery and then relapse. That is unfortunate. But we are fortunate with Russell that he is maintaining a good recovery, and that continues to be a good role model.
[Chair]
Mr Brand, do you think more people need to know about things, like c**aine production and where c**aine comes from? The Committee went to Colombia to look at the effects that the harvesting of c**aine was having on the people of Colombia, who are extraordinarily poor and were forced to be involved in this kind of activity. Do you think if there were more focus on where it all came from, and how it affected communities, that would help to stop people getting involved?
[Russell Brand
No, Keith. No more than the industrial consequences of oil production affect people using their cars. People don't care about industry. People care about getting the resource that they require. The illegality makes no difference, the consequences in the nation of origin make no difference. What we need is to address the emotional, mental and spiritual problems that lead to addiction. Of course, any illegal industry, or the c**aine manufacture in South American nations, or wherever, has a negative consequence for their nations but I don't think that that is something that individual drug addicts are going to be affected by, to be honest, because they are normally on d**.
[Lorraine Fullbrook]
I would like to ask a question to Mr Somers. Focus 12 has three high profile patrons: Mr. Brand, Davina McCall and Boy George. That is something that was probably unthinkable about 50 years ago. Do you think that has led to the destigmatisation of addiction, or do you think it has led to a wider acceptance of drug use in society generally?
[Chip Somers]
I don't think it has encouraged people to use d**. I think there have been some people who have made a positive—
[Russell Brand]
This lady has to get by. Sorry, love.
[Chip Somers]
I was right in the middle of my answer then.
[Russell Brand]
Still a good speech. There were just some ladies going by.
[Chair]
I think the public is fine. Yes, Mr Somers.
[Chip Somers]
Do you know I have completely forgotten where I was.
[Russell Brand]
That is because he was flirting with them two.
[Lorraine Fullbrook]
It was about high profile patrons and de-stigmatisation or does it lead to a wider acceptance?
[Chip Somers]
Yes. There are certain celebrities who have made a positive message about drug use. It has not helped the situation at all. Most people who get better from drug addiction are a very positive influence. But obviously there are some celebrities who have probably contributed to people using d**, because they make it look glamorous, they make it look interesting, and I don't suppose that helps. While they are using they will tend to do that, but if they stop using then they obviously become a very positive role model. I do think there are some celebrities who have made the matter worse. I don't think on a national scale it has made a huge difference. There are one or two people who are influenced by that, but I don't think it is a—
[Russell Brand]
No. Who cares about bloody celebrities?
[Lorraine Fullbrook]
As the Chief Executive of Focus, how do you pick your celebrities?
[Chip Somers]
The ones that get clean, I will grab them.
Chair: Thank you, very helpful.
[Nicola Blackwood
Firstly, I would like to congratulate you on your work on abstinence-based work. I think that it is very effective and I share your suspicion about longterm methadone maintenance. But I was struck by your comments about the problems of highlighting drug use in communities. Do you think that we are doing enough, or do you think that there is a risk that our harm reduction-based approaches to d** education are giving a false impression that there are some d** that are safe if they are used correctly?
[Chip Somers]
We are not doing anything like enough to give an honest answer to the problems of d**, and I think we are giving a rather clouded message about drug use. There is a lot more that we could be doing about honestly educating people about d**. I don't think we address it or take it on board properly enough.Yes, I feel that we should be doing much more. Especially at an education level, we should be giving honest education and I don't think there are many schools that are giving honest education to young people. We have been educating young people now for 15 years and it has not had a major influence on the number of drug users. We need to change how we are doing the education of young people, particularly.
[Nicola Blackwood]
How?
[Chip Somers]
By giving more honest information. It is no good just going into schools and saying, “d** are bad. Stop it”. Because in each of those schools there will be people who are using cannabis, who are using ketamine, who are using ecstasy. Not all the schools but some of them will be. If you don't give people both the good and the bad of drug use they will not listen to you. There are lots of people in schools who are smoking cannabis and not dropping dead. You have to give both the positive and the negative side of it, and I don't think we are doing that. We are giving too much of the negative side of it and not giving honest
information. People won't listen unless it is honest.
[Dr. Huppert]
Mr Somers, you are an advocate for abstinence-based approaches.
[Chip Somers]
Very much so.
[Dr. Huppert]
You presumably know there has been work by Professor Strang, published in The Lancet—
[Chip Somers]
Yes.
[Dr. Huppert]
—which showed that there was good evidence for methadone maintenance and very high cost effectiveness, fairly good for h**n maintenance, and a lack of evidence for abstinence. Do you think that abstinence is the answer for everybody or are you arguing that there are people for whom it is a very good option?
[Chip Somers]
I think it is an admirable aim for everybody. Not everybody can achieve it. Not everybody can give up smoking. I think there is a really good purpose for methadone usage at a certain stage. But just to park people on methadone for four to seven years and more, it is criminal, really, just to keep people locked into that addiction because methadone usage is a dependency, you are totally dependent. It has a role but I think it gets overused and we just tend to use it as a response to everything, and we don't do enough to intervene. It would be an admirable aim for everybody. I don't think methadone usage is a good thing. I see very few people on methadone who are leading good, stable lives. Most of the people who are using methadone are also using other d** on top. If I saw it producing good stability I would be much more in favour of it. I don't see that. What I do see is that people who are abstinent lead good, clean and decent lives, but obviously not everybody can achieve it.
[Dr. Huppert]
I think that suggests further research is needed to check the results.
[Chip Somers]
Yes.
[Dr. Huppert]
Can I also ask both of you. Obviously, we have finite resources to spend. If we are going to spend more money on treatment, and if we are going to spend more money on education, money has to be taken from somewhere. One possible suggestion is that we spend less money on doing the policing of possession, for example. Is that something that you would support or would you see things in a different way?
[Russell Brand]
I think that is a brilliant idea, as a matter of fact, and I think there are people within the criminal justice services that share that view. Yes, you have to appropriate these resources from somewhere, and—as has already been brought up in here, mate—penalising people for the possession of d** is costly and expensive. A good number of the times I was arrested was simply for possession, and the administrative costs of that, yes, would be better spent on education and treatment. I think that would be a very, very sensible use of those redirected funds.
[Chair]
Mr Somers.
[Chip Somers]
I feel like I am at school now because I have forgotten the question.
[Russell Brand]
Like, do you think instead of nicking people for possession they should stick it into treatment and d** education?
[Chair]
Thank you for that translation, Mr Brand. Mr Somers.
[Chip Somers]
There is an awful lot of money wasted on small time possession of small amounts of d**, which are just part and parcel of the daily hustle and bustle of using. There is an awful lot of police time wasted on that. I am not saying that we should legalise it or anything, but I think if we could get rid of some of that because that sort of minor possession is part of the everyday life of being an addict. I certainly think there is a ma**ive difference between decriminalising and legalising. It is good to treat it as a health issue, rather than a criminal issue but I am not in favour of legalising things. I think we do waste a lot of money, unfortunately, on minor possession.
[Russell Brand
You spent quite a lot of time in prison on account of possession.
[Chip Somers]
I did. Yes, I did.
[Russell Brand]
But also armed robbery to get—
[Chip Somers]
Other d**.
[Nicola Blackwood]
There is quite a gap between education and full blown addiction and treatment for abstinence. In that gap you have first use and so on, and what you need is intervention during that period to prevent addiction. Some of that prevention is perhaps first arrest for prevention and diversion programmes. Are you suggesting that we should be removing all spending on those intermediate steps in the d** policy?
[Chip Somers]
No, I think we should do it better.
[Lorraine Fullbrook]
I would like to ask both gentlemen, what are your views on decriminalisation or legalisation of d**?
[Russell Brand]
Chip has already been pretty clear on the subject. I am not a legal expert but I am saying that to a drug addict the legal status is irrelevant. It is at best an inconvenience. If you need to get d** because you are a drug addict you are going to get d**, regardless of their legal status, so the more money you waste in administering and controlling that, you know I think there is a futility to it.
[Lorraine Fullbrook]
So would you be in favour or not?
[Russell Brand]
To tell you the truth, yes, I would. I think there is a degree of cowardice and wilful ignorance around this condition. A good many people here—if you think about it—we all know someone who is affected by alcoholism or addiction, and it is something we increasingly need to handle compa**ionately and pragmatically. The criminal and legal status sends the wrong message. But, as I said before, I wouldn't start banging a drum to make d** legal, because myself I don't take any d** and I don't drink because for me they are bad. I just think we need to recognise the distinction that certain people have a condition, or a tendency, so that d** and alcohol are going ruin their lives. We need to identify those people and offer them the correct treatment.
[Lorraine Fullbrook]
Mr. Somers, do you agree with decriminalisation or legalisation?
[Chip Somers]
There is a real argument for decriminalising it so that it gets treated like a health issue rather than a legal issue. However, I think there is a ma**ive difference between that and legalising d**. You will find it very difficult to justify the legal use of a lot of d**. You can't really justify the legal use of h**n, crack c**aine or any of those d**. There is no medical or legal reason why people should be able to use those d**, so I think you would be hard pressed to—
[Chair]
What about cannabis?
[Chip Somers]
Cannabis is probably the one you could make an argument for.
[Chair]
But you would not support the legalisation of cannabis?
[Chip Somers]
It is the one that you have a chance of actually putting forward an argument of justification for it. I don't think there is any justification for the legalization—
[Lorraine Fullbrook]
If you legalise or decriminalise cannabis, you are not taking away the problem. We have seen the other end, where there is a serious organized crime issue and a narco-terrorism issue, which ruins people's lives; I mean murders peopleand causes conflict in countries, so we are looking at the other side of this.
[Chip Somers]
I am not advocating the legalisation of cannabis. I am just saying if there was any drug at all that you could put forward an argument for legalising, cannabis is the one you have the best chance with. But how on earth do you justify the usage of h**n or crack c**aine, or anything like that at all?
[Russell Brand]
Making it illegal is not working anyway, Chip. I just think that there needs to be honesty and authenticity around this issue so that people in Parliament don't look like they are out of touch. It is really good that you are holding this Committee, but some of this information is already accessible.
[Chair]
Thank you, final question from Mr Ellis.
[Michael Ellis]
You both referred to a preference for ignoring what you described as the more minor offending in relation to d**. Can I suggest to you that a lot of the more minor offending leads to some of the more major offending, and that actually what one is doing, if one was to ignore those types of offences, would be to make the matter worse, both for society who is suffering under the increased levels of crime, but also for the offender who would be less likely to learn the lessons of having been arrested and be more likely to get worse.
[Chair]
Mr. Somers.
[Russell Brand]
Can I just interrupt for a bit, because otherwise it is like they are telling us what to do. Being arrested isn't a lesson. It is just an administrative blip. You need to demonstrate an awareness of the situation. Yes, of course, in many ways the disease or the condition of addiction does exacerbate, and if you start taking d** it is likely you will take worse d**, and if you are taking expensive d** you will end up committing crime. But again, mate, what we need to identify is a degree of authenticity and compa**ion in the way we deal with this problem, otherwise you just seem like you don't know what you are talking about.
[Michael Ellis]
What about the victims of the crime?
[Russell Brand]
We talked about them. You can tell what party they are in from their questions, can't you, “what about the victims of the crime?”
[Michael Ellis]
I think all parties are interested in victims of crime.
[Russell Brand]
Of course we are. That is what we are saying. We are not saying, “let's ignore victims."
[Chair]
I think we are running out of time. I have a final question about—
[Russell Brand]
Time is infinite. We cannot run out of time.
[Chair]
It is. But for this Committee, I am afraid—
[Russell Brand
Who is next? Theresa May? She may not show up. Check she knows what day it is.
[Chair]
Mr. Brand, I have a final question for you.
[Mr. Winnick]
It is not quite a variety show, Mr Brand.
[Russell Brand]
You are providing a little bit of variety, though. You are making it more like Dad's Army.
[Chair]
Mr. Brand, you have 4.5 million Twitter followers—
[Russell Brand]
Oh yes.
[Chair]
—and 1.5 Facebook followers. Having gone through addiction and then rehabilitation, what is your message to young people who want to get involved in d**? What would you say to them about the effects that it has?
[Russell Brand]
My message isn't for young people. My message is for people that have this condition of addiction. If you have the condition of addiction there is help available for you, and I recommend abstinence-based recovery. Some people can safely take d**, I think they can. As long as it doesn't turn them into criminals, or harm their health, then I don't feel like it is any of my business. I am not here to do some “Just Say No” stuff. The kids that sung that “Just Say No” were all taking d** in the White House when they were visiting Nancy Reagan. It is a further demonstration of the disjunct between reality and authenticity. Let's have an authentic, truthful, honest debate and some funding for abstinencebased recovery.
[Chair]
Mr. Somers, do you have anything to add to that with the excellent work you are doing in your charity?
[Chip Somers]
I get very muddled in all the kind of legalisation and decriminalization. What I tend to do is deal with the problem when it exists. I agree completely that when those people come in for treatment they have damaged a lot of people in the public. They are harming at least four or five other people in their families, who are significantly distressed by that behaviour. I try and prevent that, and I think the best way of preventing that on a longterm basis is ultimately abstinence treatment. That is when you stop causing harm to families, stop causing harm to the public. That is your best chance, because at the moment I see people who are not in abstinence programmes still continuing to cause distress to families and the public.
[Chair]
Mr. Somers, Mr. Brand, thank you very much.
[Russell Brand]
Thanks for having us.
[Chip Somers]
Thank you.
[Chair]
We are most grateful, and thank you for your written evidence.