@@christopherskipp1525 Was ... sadly, the elder Hitchens died from cancer, a while back ... But to answer your question, yes Christopher Hitchens was an atheist, and possibly an agnostic atheist, too.
@@christopherskipp1525 depends on how you use them. Within the atheist community, there is often the distinction of agnostic atheist ("I don't believe in God, but I don't know for certain that no such being exists") and a gnostic atheist ("I am absolutely certain that there is no god"). Because agnostic alone is usually used as a bit of a middle ground between atheism and theism, the term "agnostic atheist" can be useful to distinguish.
i agree the war on drugs has confused him Japan has been effective in reducing illegal drug use and sales what Peter doesn't understand is that the reason Japan's efforts have been successful is not just because they enforce their laws but because their laws are so harsh so for Britain's anti drug effort to be as successful as Japan's effort Britain HAS to make the punishment for possession of drugs much more severe if Britain doesn't do that their anti drug effort will not work the truth is that punishments as harsh as Japan's for drug possession are outside of British culture and most of the people of Britain would be against it when we say that the criminalization of marijuana and cocaine is like the prohibition of alcohol we don't mean it's exactly like the prohibition of alcohol we mean it's similar in at least one important way and that way is that production and sale of marijuana and cocaine are illegal like the production and sale of alcohol were illegal during prohibition and the criminality of those two things are what create a violent black market like the 20's lastly ,the presence of mental addiction is a scientific reality that can be proven with brain scans on the pictures of brain scans a viewer can see areas of dopamine depletion this is proof of mental addiction Hitchens was wrong on all three points
About the only thing Peter was correct about in this debate was his statement that "we don't have a war on drugs, that's a lie" ... he's right... it's actually a war on people. Oh and despite his resistance to the label he is absolutely a contrarian.
@@deepzepp4176 criminalizing "DRUGS" is a façade. We are criminalizing people for their personal choices. People are FREE to drink the drug alcohol (in most places)... why can't they be free to choose to use other drugs? Govt. is controlling people's choices... not the substances. Making (some) drugs illegal is an arbitrary decision... research the history of US drug laws. Chasing the Scream is a great read by Johann Hari.
I usually like listening to Peter, but he was excessively, and I would say unnecessarily rough in this conversation. To the point where the debate/conversation loses it's constructiveness.
Then again... as I get to the end and hear Peter's friend's son, these are not just mere ideas and that some ideas are dangerous to entertain. Guess that may be why this is so heated from him.
@@MrBenbenbenbenny He at least had a coherent argument. The idea that you stop suffering by not punishing for drug use is simple folly & ignores the extreme suffering drug use itself causes.
@@martinploughboy988 Got it. Did you see my response before to my own comment? I basically said what you were saying. My main point was simply to say the manner in which he approached her did not help his case. I stand by that comment. I like most of his stuff, but he just seemed obnoxious in this debate.
@@martinploughboy988 but countrie$ th@t h@ve becrimin@lizeb brug$ h@ve f@r f@r better outcome$ th@n countrie$ th@t bo. how fucking bumb c@n you be? brug$ c@n be h@rmful, but for mo$t people they @rent. countrie$ which puni$h their problem brug u$er$ h@ve much more perm@nent brug u$er$, muhc kle$$ he@lthy brug u$er$, the periob$ of problem u$e @re longer. bo you believe th@t @lcohol prohibition workeb?
@Stalin Japan has been effective in reducing illegal drug use and sales what Peter doesn't understand is that the reason Japan's efforts have been successful is not just because they enforce their laws but because their laws are so harsh so for Britain's anti drug effort to be as successful as Japan's effort Britain HAS to make the punishment for possession of drugs much more severe if Britain doesn't do that their anti drug effort will not work the truth is that punishments as harsh as Japan's for drug possession are outside of British culture and most of the people of Britain would be against it when we say that the criminalization of marijuana and cocaine is like the prohibition of alcohol we don't mean it's exactly like the prohibition of alcohol we mean it's similar in at least one important way and that way is that production and sale of marijuana and cocaine are illegal like the production and sale of alcohol were illegal during prohibition and the criminality of those two things are what create a violent black market like the 20's lastly ,the presence of mental addiction is a scientific reality that can be proven with brain scans on the pictures of brain scans a viewer can see areas of dopamine depletion this is proof of mental addiction Hitchens was wrong on all three points
When I was a teenager, here in CA, the street market for marijuana made it very easy to get and commonly present. Now that it's only in regulated shops, it's clear that teenagers do not have the same ready access. Only one detail, but it's a very clear and straightforward detail. Peter Hitchens seems not quite honest, pretending the considerations are totally one sided, and often describing his conclusions and less often discussing reasons. On the other hand, I do agree, based on experience, that marijuana more harmful than most acknowledge; but the prison system is extremely harmful also, self perpetuating, and so it's important to only imprison people when it's necessary. It's not ok for governments to legalize hard drugs, that would be law which does not adhere to Truth; but I think short incarceration in specialized sobriety facilities coupled with pro-active forms of probation is a much better response. When I was in jail it was very harsh and such conditions do not empower one to repent and change direction to a better way of life, people experience forced sobriety temporarily but that opportunity is absolutely squandered.
@Mark Smith Well, that wasn't really me. Messiah saved me from being that person, I died with Him on the Cross and He made me new. Not that I was the criminal type, even as the old-person, but they really threw the book at him for a minor domestic infraction, and he was in jail 45 days, yes. I really don't know what you are getting at. Are you Christian? Do you understand redemption by the blood of Messiah? As reality?
Drugs are readily available in any city in america or Europe so keeping it illegal only keeps it in the hands of criminals and criminalizes users and sellers legalizing drugs is the only right thing to do to have safe drugs and make the health of society better and stop all over doses with safe using sites anyone who wants a war on drugs is uneducated looking at drugs like the boogie man not realizing they are all around you anyway while being illegal
Where Peter is right, is the argument that the drugs market is demand led, not supply led. The conclusion to be taken from this is that attacking the supply will only have limited impact; even it drives up the price, then there is more incentive for new suppliers to enter the market. In other words, to reduce consumption, you would need to enforce laws against users. But herein lies the problem; the police, the CPS, the courts and the prisons are already overwhelmed. Therefore to wage such a massive legal war against users would mean taking taking priority away from other crimes such as burglaries, fraud and child abuse. So this route is basically a non -starter. The only real solution, at least for drugs such as Cannabis, is to allow adults to buy it in the same way as tobacco i.e. without advertising or promotion, but from legal outlets and according to standardised quality controls and strengths. Also, government campaigns to warn against the dangers, such as with tobacco. But at the end of the day, there does come a point where the individual needs to take responsibility for their actions; the nanny state only serves to erode this.
@@ryantogher8105 anyone can right a book Japan has been effective in reducing illegal drug use and sales what Peter doesn't understand is that the reason Japan's efforts have been successful is not just because they enforce their laws but because their laws are so harsh so for Britain's anti drug effort to be as successful as Japan's effort Britain HAS to make the punishment for possession of drugs much more severe if Britain doesn't do that their anti drug effort will not work the truth is that punishments as harsh as Japan's for drug possession are outside of British culture and most of the people of Britain would be against it when we say that the criminalization of marijuana and cocaine is like the prohibition of alcohol we don't mean it's exactly like the prohibition of alcohol we mean it's similar in at least one important way and that way is that production and sale of marijuana and cocaine are illegal like the production and sale of alcohol were illegal during prohibition and the criminality of those two things are what create a violent black market like the 20's lastly ,the presence of mental addiction is a scientific reality that can be proven with brain scans on the pictures of brain scans a viewer can see areas of dopamine depletion this is proof of mental addiction Hitchens was wrong on all three points
@@robinsss I am very much in favour of harsh drug laws on possession. It may not be massively popular but I would say that the majority of Britain's see the justice system as too soft, not too harsh. As to what you say regarding dopamine, it works as reward behaving chemical that motivates behaviour. In fact surely one would say that given the impact dopamine has in creating negative behaviours we ought to enforce laws that discourage people from ever consider trying them. Its a bit like the argument for punitive vs rehabilitative justice. For the latter the argument lies that we ought to have less punishments from criminal in order that they will not reoffend. Regarding punitive justice most people see it as punishing bad criminals. However it acts to discourage other peoples from doing similar, out of fear of punishment. Personally the way I see it is that while the World is imperfect and there will be people who inevitably become criminals (i.e. sub 70 IQ), that can't justify the absence of proper law and order.
@@ryantogher8105 ''''''''but I would say that the majority of Britain's see the justice system as too soft, not too harsh. '''''' the subject is not Britain's entire criminal justice system just punishment for drug possession you have admitted that most British voters probably wouldn't support harsher punishments for drug possession then the war on drugs can't work in the UK
It seemed to me that Peter Hitchens made some quite bombastic generalizations and quoted one professor who had changed his viewpoint in support of his statements. I get the feeling this was not a debate but rather a platform for him to state his point of view. I know from experience that a substantial number of Chief Constables of police forces in the UK see pursuing cannabis users as a waste of resources. Which seems to be what Peter wants. A big headache for police forces is the so called county lines drugs gangs. The gangs do it because of the profits to be made. Regulate drugs rather than criminalize it and you take the profits away. It worked in Washington DC, I know because I talked to a drug squad officer there in August 2016 and that is what he said from his position in the front line of the drugs war.
Coming from the same police that arrest people for Transgender "hate remarks" on Twitter. The reason why the police don't want to enforce drugs laws Is because the police work for the government who themselvessels work for their corperate masters who see potential profits in the sale of these drugs.
@@pennyawful861 it's not they don't want to enforce drugs laws but that they want to have the resources to target the drugs that cause most harm like heroin etc. and so called legal highs. Cannabis grown naturally in a plant pot and taken in moderation is less harmful than alcohol or chocolate. Not my words but those of a number of forensic pharmacists worldwide. It is only when it is force grown, under lights or hydroponiclly that the TCH (the psychoactive component) levels rise. Take the profits away from that side of the drugs trade and you release the police to pursue the drugs trade that deal in lethal drugs. In the last month in the force area I work for they have found 2 massive 'grows'. One was literally across the road from one of our facilities and they had even illegally tapped into our electricity supply. The man hours that will go into dismantling the 'grows', storing the evidence, building the case files for court and then going to court will run to the hundreds at least and will take months to complete. That is a lot of time that could be better spent. And for something that could be dealt with outside the legal framework meant for drugs that can and do kill.
@Death Grips In how many cases of all those taking Cannabis or Marijuana has this happened. I am not trying to be insulting here but look it up. It's very small. But in the cases where mental health issues occurred was Marijuana the cause or was there other things going on? As a data engineer I am very well aware of identifying the exact cause or causes of a problem and not just jumping to the most obvious answer. Unfortunately the hysteria that surrounds the arguments to legalize certain drugs has led to a lot of conclusions, stated as fact, that do not stand up to more detailed examination. And clinical trial. Before dismissing police chief constables and clinical pharmacists as leftwing cowards backed dodgy millionaires perhaps it might be well to reflect on the hysteria that came at Copernicus and Galileo for daring to suggest that the sun, moon and other planets did not revolve around the Earth. There is a wealth of data that supports the idea that idea that legalizing some drugs does have benefit for society. Yes it has to be done carefully to protect those who might be vulnerable to exposure to them. But there is a lot to be gained and that merits serious investigation at least.
@Rattle that's true it did work until thee 70's that's because once the boomers discovered marijuana and a few discovered heroin , the black market of drugs exploded making that market much more lucrative the larger amount of money available resulted in gangs fighting over it increasing violence in the cities our leaders should have anticipated the possibility that the marijuana and heroin markets could explode and lead to gang violence over the profits
This debate is muddled, they fail to clearly distinguish between LEGALIZATION & DECRIMINALIZATION. Decriminalization means you just stop punishing people for drug related activity - whether that's buying, using, selling, etc Its absurd. It means there are just as many scum bags & junkies and no real benefit other than to free up police time. Legalization would mean forcing the illegal drug trade to comply with standards and regulations so that their drugs are uncontaminated. It would mean they can't rely so much on violence and other criminal aspects to do their business. And taxes, it would generate lots of taxes (although certainly enough to counterbalance the health consequences). Note: I don't care personally that it would make things cleaner, safer & cheaper for the drug users, but there's that too. The choice should not be legalization vs decriminalization. It should be legalization vs a mercilessly authoritarian implementation of drug law like that have in Dubai & Singapore.
@TFEA that's a touch naive mate. You aren't entirely wrong, the street level dealers would hold out and keep doing business as long as they could. However the producers, traffickers and distributors would much rather do businesses legally given the choice, and as they were be absorbed into the legal market street level dealing would evaporate.
Legalise all drugs and allow people to sign a waiver for NHS treatment of addiction. If they want to ruin their lives, they should bear their own costs.
I usually like listening to Peter but damn... The future is now old man. It seems the arrogance is a Hitchens thing. He doesn't differentiate at all between physical dependency and mental addiction, nor does he seem to care about the underlying problems that lead to addiction. I'm starting to get the feeling that Peter Hitchens is the UK's Dennis Prager.
@TFEA easy to he pragmatic as an outsider who has never has barely ever had to experience said hardship in his life. It's Ben Shapiro "brush yourself down and get on with it" frame of reference and it has no basis in reality. You know.. actual real life.
@TFEA His philosophy on the drug war is regressive and demonstrably the same, if not, very similar to Ben Shapiro's. What Peter Hitchens is vouching for are regressive policies that have been and are failing spectacularly in the US. To deny this is to stick your head in the sand and ignore the reality of drug abuse. It is a health matter. Unless you're a violent druglord, it is simply not a criminal matter.
@TFEA and Shapiro is a dumb conservative. But I understand that calling yourself a libertarians I often a copout for "I'm a conservative". Reagan made that particularly clear.
Simply legalise the use and tax it this removes all costs and provides an income stream. The majority that don't use this crap will no longer be forced to have their money taken to deal with drug crime. The minority that decide to buy theses drugs will at least be contributing for the health costs such as tobacco users..... presumably many will die of overdose but that is of no concern whatsoever and over time drugs will have few if any users..... problem solved.
Drugs should be as legal as people are proportionate responsible for their consumption. Meaning, you can consume whatever you want...but why must be responsible for your actions. Freedom and rights come with that 'annoying' thing called, responsibility.
I have come across numerous individuals, in a variety of different circumstances, smoking "weed", and i can assure you, that none of them could even spell responsibility, let alone understand the concept.
:-)) Politicians have poor meaning of people, even referendums didn´t end up according to politicians wishes. Individual responsibility is a far-right term as unwanted as patriotism.
Everything back to normal, I finally heard something out peter mouth I disagree with, medical marijuana is not a fantasy. You just have to watch a journey of a young girl called Charlotte with severe epilepsy
Medications are made from opioids. The fantasy is that regular smoking of marijuana is a medicine. If you can remove the side effects of "getting high" and "going insane" from marijuana, of cause you can use it as an ingredient in some kind of medicine.
Also the irony of a Christian making a plant illegal ... I mean ... how do these people's brains not short circuit with the insanity of conflicting thoughts.
The "horrendous death rate" in Portugal before decriminalization, that Christina Dent mentions, amounted to 81 per year. The only reason drug use increased in that country was because they had already gone through a period of failing to enforce law, just as Peter Hitchens describes.
Upholding the rule of law is a perfectly legitimate role of government, and I think Hitchens does a good job in the video of explaining why increasing drug use is very bad.
@@willmartin1033 However, he does make an exception with alcohol. And he does like a few. You can decide yourself whether these two statements may be related or not.
I used to quite like Peter Hitchens even though I disagreed with much of what he said. Although recently he really has started to lose what little charm he might have had and is beginning to look and sound like more of an arse. A pity really.
@@michaelrichardson9458 and its quite reasonable to hold that point of view. All I said was that Peter Hitchens comes across like an arse, nothing about the substance of his argument.
@@jakeu9623 There's nothing wrong with polemics, our phenomenalogical zeitgeist hates it though because it always demands "more nuance." Well some things need to be stomped out.
How can Hitchens argue against the state imposed restrictions on personal liberty in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic, whilst at the same time arguing in favour of state imposed restrictions on what substances one can place into one's own body? Dent is correct, this is not a criminal justice issue, it is one of personal liberty.
But would you permit people to put any substance within their body knowing that it would do harm, mentally or physically? It is also actually illegal to commit bodily harm upon yourself in the UK.
On the coronavirus situation, I think he is to some extent playing the devil's advocate and is correct regarding the lack of evidence supporting the proportionality of response we are currently experiencing. I think the key word is evidence and although I have not looked at it regarding the drug situation, whatever policy would produce the best outcome for society at large should surely be enacted regardless of whether it infringed on your personal liberty. What is personal liberty anyway? Freedom inside of law? Or some abstract notion? Surely we should be using our critical thinking abilities to decide what the best policies are in different spheres rather than using sweeping notions like personal liberty?
@@NilsFredrikGjerull I would suggest (as did a government commissioned report some years back) that taxation on these substances would pay for it. Although, are we to understand from your comment that you don't believe that attempted suicides or other behaviours through which individuals endanger themselves should exempt them from any medial treatment?
Because your sacrificing different things. Sacrificing liberty for health wellbeing and a having a civil society is good (to an extent). Sacrificing the right to roam free and earn money within your own country while destroying the economy and therefore getting rid of any adequate funding for health services. Is bad. And he’s right to be against what is going on. You can’t use the same rough answer for every question, that will be stupid.
Cigarette smokers are discriminated and persecuted all over. I have never seen a cigarette smoker attacking an old lady due to nicking money for cigarettes. Smokers go to work and pay taxes. What do they get back except criminalization? Why flight companies do not point out using drugs is banned on board but we always hear about non-smoking flights on and on.
*"I have never seen a cigarette smoker attacking an old lady due to nicking money for cigarettes"* How do you "see" whether muggers are attacking people for money to buy cigarettes (or any other drug)?
@@nonamecommonsense9089 Same as the demographic at large, I would think. "Junky" is a loaded term that perpetuates the myth that drug addicts come from a particular class.
@TFEA You've clearly not been made aware of the "/sarc" text. It means "sarcasm". Even so, I thought the sarcasm here would have been obvious. Hitchens drank copious amounts of distilled spirits. He was, in fact, what one could consider a booze-sponge. Ultimately, the constant exposure to the juice contributed to his death (from cancer of the pharynx, I believe)
@Papa Smurf Yeah there's less work for the police and less reasons to fill American prisons where inmates are used for labour. American prisons are full for the same reason Stalin filled the gulags. It also happens that a large way that the CIA and Mi6 makes their black funds is through selling drugs. Both "cleanly" like by having shares in selling opiates through the legal drug system, things like morphine and other opiate based painkillers, but also through black market sales of cocaine. The other benefit of making key drugs illegal is that you, as an internationally operating secret service, can enforce on market chains which compete with you and ignore those which make you money.
@Papa Smurf Exactly. I never meant to say getting a bag of heroin was legal. I am just saying a lot of people who get an opiate hug do so because of a prescription that ends with little supporting effort to help those who can't control themselves because of the dopamine deprivation they experience when they come off the prescriptions. The bourgeois elites have been making a fortune off this for centuries. England went to war with China to make sure they kept on buying our opium. It's the kind of money at stake which empires are built off and, as modern secret service activities demonstrate, are maintained.
They haven't fought a war on drugs, they are everywhere every town and city in the country is afflicted with drug addiction no exaggeration. Dealers basically have free reign the police catch a few here and there but they are replaced immediately, these dealers make so much money they are often not that bothered by a few years inside.
@Dmitry Terek You are right about Asians. But this is just proof of concept. The question then is why intolerance works with Asians but would (allegedly) not prove effective in White countries like the U.K.
Instead of the criminalisation of illicit drugs substitute theft, rape or murder, her argument is completely destroyed. The obviously factious argument that taking drugs doesn't harm any one but themselves is completely fallacious as one is no longer in control of their faculties.
Really enjoy most episodes of this podcast, but I was done with this one when Peter responded to Christina's point with "Well, I DID cover all this about 10 mins ago!" - It's a debate, that's what happens - people don't just agree with you because you spoke. His demeanour really wasn't helpful on this episode, which could have been a great one!
Why is it that policies CAUSE harm and not users and gangs? Should we say that the policy/law against homicide CAUSES harm because it turns killers into criminals?
Because people using drugs aren't causing harm. Make it all legal and keep the drugs official and clean and there is no victim in the action of using a drug.
@@ChrisSchneider1000 But your assertion is false. At no point does the use of a drug cause a "cascade of chaos". Why wouldn't you legalize or normalize them? Just because some people believe lies they are told and imagine that, as facilitated by their personal ignorance, that drugs have effects they don't, doesn't mean everyone else who knows the truth has to be subject to another person's reactionary delusion.
Peter Hitchens is generally against authoritarian policies. I dont know why he chooses not to be on this issue. Principles and practicalities aside, the loss to medical progress alone shows how wrong our drugs policy is.
Hitchens is absolutely clueless, he’s not a dumb fella either. It’s clear his ego just cannot handle being completely off the mark so it just reinforces it’s stances even stronger.
Portuguese people (largely Christian) r majority behind de-criminalisation. A single mayor in Portugal does not a policy prove. Also Hitchens only really knows wealthier people who basically have the opportunity of rehab and -honestly there r a number of self-indulgent twits. However, living in crap conditions with no legal way out encourages escape the way Hitchens goes abroad and sits in a nice home after an education costing upwards of $50K US per yr from age 8 - until free University (now WAY pricier)! Re schizophrenia - the % of those who have tried cannabis who get the disease vs those who get it without is pretty close to identical.
Am a huge fan of Peter Hitchens, find him almost invariably sensible. But I found this debate performance frustrating and not wholly convincing. Mr. Hitchens does not adequately respond to the reality that, in the U.S. at least, sentencing guidelines are wildly disproportionate and ruin countless lives far worse than the, admittedly real harms caused by such drugs as marijuana, among others. What is needed, though difficult to pull off, is to back away from the extreme cruelty of the U.S. current policy, without falling into a new type of misery based on a marketing bonanza for drugs, as if they were a social good, which they are not. Our problem is that in our legal systems, as in our culture, we have little capability for the category: not criminal, but also not at all good.
So does legalization abortion stop abortions? Does legalization of killings stop killings? Legalization of drugs won't stop the issues that she has brought up, but will further worsen the situation.
Thanks for taking on this topic. Despite decades of discussion and often contentious argument, Western society seems unable to even approach a satisfactory solution to this vexing problem. But we must continue to confront the issue headlong.
It's never been head on. Vested interests remove heads. The solution is vexing. It now too late I think. Big problems coming. Really big and very small teens in government.
Peter Hitchens seems intelligent when speaking on other subjects (whether I agree with him or not) but when it comes to drug laws he just comes across as the most idiotic and dishonest hypocrite you could possibly imagine. It seriously amazes me how he fails to recognize both the counter productive nature of the drug war AND the inherent immorality of it. He whines about liberty being violated by government in other areas (like the lockdown) but doesn't have a problem with the government criminalizing peaceful people over what they put in their own body. It is insane and pathetically stupid and it is a depressing indictment of the absolutely insanity that seems to infect otherwise intelligent people.
@Jeremy Horne Everything he says about drugs, drug users and drug laws is either insane, evil, stupid or just plain false. It takes a high level of both stupidity and immorality to support drug laws.
The reason why you think he’s intelligent but not on this subject is because you disagree with him. You like to smoke weed and therefore want it legal and will not listen to objections to it.
@@wendywolfman I don't think he's intelligent. I said he SEEMS intelligent when speaking on other subject (whether I agree with him or not) but when he speaks on drug laws and cannabis in particular he reveals himself to be a dishonest moron. You don't need to smoke weed to see the insanity and immorality of criminalizing it. You just need a functioning brain capable of simple logic and reason, which I'm guessing both you and he lack.
Well like anything if what you have now doesn't work try something new like legalisation ? this is coming from someone who has never taken anything fyi
Hitchens; 'The fantasy of medical marijuana'. A 'fantasy' that improved the condition of epileptic children Alfie Dingley and Billy Caldwell, to cite just two examples.
Two examples isn't exactly a stunning rebuttal. If doctors are happy to over prescribe opioids from corporate influences why wouldn't they do the same for medical marijuana.
"Fantasy of medical marijuana"? - Tell that to the many millions of patients and parents that have seen a positive reality. Drastically reduce the criminal aspects and pour some of the saved resources into tackling the illnesses.
Cannabis makes people feel better, but not actually better. This is not the point however. Medical marijuana has always been a red-herring to give cannabis a good name. This was even admitted by Keith Stroup, a campaigner for the legalisation of cannabis. Besides a drug is only as good as its side effects. It may generally help some people, but if one of it's side effects is irreversible mental damage then it should be cast aside. Just as thalidomide was an excellent cure for morning sickness, it had a horrible side effect of babies being born with deformities.
@@josephperkins6675 Didn't think I'd need to elaborate on the medicinal value. But here's my take on it, and a bit more if you can tolerate my rambling. As an ex high THC marijuana abuser I can see from personal experience how disruptive and harmful it can be, from induced psychosis to reliance for sleep and even "normal" functioning. I was addicted, psychologically and physically - though imagine it mild compared to other substances, alcohol included. There's a LOT of circumstantial evidence that points to the 60's counter culture being created and promoted by the establishment. More than likely entrapping and smearing civil rights and anti war movements by design. There was then and is now much for ideological young adults to rebel against as they begin to grasp how corrupted society and politics are. Drug experimentation and the associated anti establishment themed arts have become an expression of that rebellion, also largely by design. Not going to get much done sitting around getting high all day. From the opium wars in China to the cocaine with Iran Contra - and the ensuing black ghetto crack epidemic. Heroin from Afghanistan and The Golden Triangle during Vietnam. Deep state black market politics profit from the illegality of drugs, as does the industrial prison complex, weapons manufacturers and the legal system. Drugs are powerful political chess pieces and the moves they make in society change as history goes marching on. There's much, much more to exploit when they're illegal. Regarding their use it's important to distinguish that honestly from misuse and abuse. There's so much trauma and dysfunction within society these days it's no wonder self medicating is so prolific. I can understand why some see drugs as the major scourge in society. Drug misuse/abuse is often, however, symptomatic of a deeper wide array of underlying issues. More a symptom than a cause. From a therapeutic viewpoint it's extremely damaging to view misuse/abuse as an act of crime rather than offering support for an illness. Decriminalisation would surely free up more than adequate revenue for this, as well as MASSIVELY reducing crime and all the exploitation that profits from it. You mention side effects caused by marijuana - irreversible side effects. I'm more concerned about the side effects (irreversible?) caused by legal pharmaceuticals. If marijuana was legal, taxed and controlled, accurately stated properties within the plant could be used medicinally with confidence, rather than the super high THC psychosis inducing levels found in street weed. Have you heard about the anti psychosis cannabinoid called CBD and homeostasis? This is where much but not all of the medicinal traits of the plant come into play. Some people and children suffering with cerebral palsy, MS, autism and epilepsy are alive today and coping with their conditions thanks to medical marijuana. Experiencing far more medicinal value and far less side effects than with what Big Pharma offers. The pressure from parents of afflicted children has ultimately opened the door to an ongoing paradigm change about the medicinal value of cannabis. Sure, a big threat to BigPharma which is why they are all over the plant at the moment trying to synthesise this and that. So far they haven't mimicked the complexities from the plants Entourage effects and doubt they will. Anyway, what's the point? All that from just a hardy, pretty and aromatic weed you can grow in your garden. With an ancient history of medicinal use. Research is still in it's infancy relatively speaking owing to The War on Drugs. But times are a changing, and fast! Sure, like you say there can be dangers and side effects, but there are massive benefits also to be had. This is why regulation, education, decriminalisation and legalisation is, in my mind, a far better approach and less damaging as a holistic model moving forwards. Strong opiate based pain killers serve a good medicinal purpose given the right context. These are far more dangerous than the dreaded weed. Of which CBD has already been embraced as beneficial, safe and legal around most of the world. I'm certain as research continues other cannabinoids like CBG will be found to have value, and even THC in whatever percentage is compatible with an individuals biology and personal mental health. Homeostasis and education thereof. I think it's good time governments treated society more like adults on the topic, and maybe get more adults in return. It's worth a try. Other, more harmful drugs are generally also very cheap to produce. The black market profits substantially from there illegality as well as from cutting in harmful impurities. Drop in use clinics with "clean" cheap controlled in house substances would decimate crime syndicates the world over and provide a safer situation for the user. Support counselling funded by the revenue saved, moving forwards as a more humane compassionate society, helping more with misuse/abuse illnesses and the underlying causes, rather than exacerbating them. I know plenty of other people that have struggled with cannabis, but the pro's of decriminalisation/legalisation far outweigh the cons. Prohibition of alcohol didn't work, crime and corruption ran amok. No medicinal value apart from being a crude pain killer with severe side effects. Some people use alcohol recreation-ally despite the dangers of misuse and abuse, far worse than those associated with cannabis. Time to include marijuana. I don't drink alcohol these days either. I don't like it's effects and generally find people obnoxious after they've had a bit too much. Up to them.
@@ramanchaudhary2518 Lets go one step further and conduct the experiment ourselves. I assume you would be a willing guinea pig as a cannabis supporter. So begin smoking weed all day for several years. Then, if you start roaming the streets and spouting giberish or wind up an institution you can admit I was right. Assuming you still have just enough mental capacity to do so.
@@josephperkins6675 Would be in a really sorry state if you was doing the same with alcohol. I'd also say it would depends on the individual. And such an extreme argument anyway, all day for several years? Keep your hair on mate!
Hitchens uses his usual bullying tactics to try to discredit his "opponent". But he spends little time in adressing the content of her statements and, in turn, makes a number of claims, but does not provide much evidence.
There is no time to go through evidence in this format. If you want to investigate the supporting foundations for Peter Hitchens' claims you can check out his blog and the book "The War We Never Fought".
There is a lot of good and useful space between sobriety and drug abuse. There is such a thing as drug use without abuse. 🍺 💨 Hitchens did not make a convincing argument and he was demonstrably wrong in many parts of his argument. Worse he used fallacy after fallacy such as “no true Scotsman” . Dent made a small dent in the argument for drugs but the argument for legalization can be made much stronger than she did here. Clearly the harm is in drug criminalization rather than drug use:
What you espouse is utter drivel. Man is nothing more than a slave to his passions. Canonical precepts, precepts without tyranny control humam behaviour for benevolent well-being. You are tone deaf in relation to the state of nature
pro ton 🤣 That’s rich. A person who believes in magical super daddies thinks I have a problem with understanding nature. Wow you are so lost. Why do you think people say your religion is a poison, it makes you say and think silly and terrible things about humanity/nature for no good reason whatsoever.
There is such a thing as drug use without abuse; as there is gun use without abuse. We don’t make laws based on that but in order to minimise the social damage from widespread use. If alcohol were to be invented today, knowing what we now know about it’s devastating ability to ruin lives, it would not be legal. As it has been in widespread use and so much culture and industry has been built up around it, it is practically impossible to prohibit it. This is not the case with less-used drugs. Hence the distinction in the law. Legalising a drug is like squeezing toothpaste out of a tube: once it’s out there, you can’t put it back. As there is growing evidence to suggest the harm potential of drugs such as cannabis, the onus of proof is on the legalisers to prove that the drug is safe for consumption and will not result in harm, just like ANY drug. There is an army of people poised to grab cannabis the moment it is legalised and industrialise it’s production so they can squeeze all the profit they can out of it. That’s what you’re committing yourself to with legalisation.
SelfReferencingName Hhhmmm You have a predicable poor outlook on humanity and individual autonomy. Actually we don’t limit liberty based on any level of potential risk. Everything is risky and potentially dangerous. 🍺 doesn’t ruin lives. Alcohol more often than not enhances life because most people DO NOT abuse it during the course of normal use. Firearms are likewise a useful tool with, like anything, can be abused but we don’t infringe on the right to keep and bare arms for a NARROW sense of safety because when taking all interests into account, the lack of an armed population causes FAR MORE HARM than a few 🥜/idiots. Alcohol is legal for racist/religious/cultural reasons and somewhat the reasons you said. The commonality of use does not equal legal: cannabis, cocaine, mushrooms, acid, ecstasy, opiates.... Laws change all the time. You can change it. Not like toothpaste at all. 🚫🦷 The abuse is harmful. The use is not. Stop the lies. The potential harm is irrelevant. In a free society adults should have the right to choose for themselves. You think they are harmful so you will choose to not use it. Why take the choice away? Yes, industry poisons it’s customers... do you read? That’s hella dumb. The illegal drugs on the unregulated markets are dangerous compared to regulated markets. You need drugs to straighten your mind out. You’re so confused about how this all works. Bet you’re religious too.
matthewweaverworks I really enjoyed reading that comment. But no I’m not religious. I appreciate your argument that we can all be treated like adults and make our own choices. But I do have a more pessimistic view of people. People do abuse drugs. The only thing you can do is make sure they don’t start in the first place. That means sacrificing my ability to choose whether or not to take drugs because I know humans are vulnerable and we need laws in place to protect us from ourselves. It’s not much of a loss. Yes weed is fun if you do it and happen to be one of the ones who is not affected negatively by it, and it is a sacrifice to criminalise it, but if you genuinely need drugs in order to live a fulfilled life, then that’s pretty sad. Start by fixing that.
Well done to all involved in this piece, you have shown great courage to debate a subject that is fraught with difficulty. The current economic mode, of the free market, dictates that in time investors & shareholders in big-pharma will use their influence to push for regulation. The ground is already being laid by governments as they now endorse treatment programs that focus on harm reduction rather than abstinence, History also shows us that cultural shifts normally take circa fifty years, big-pharma and governments know this.
Legalize drugs. 🗽 In a free country, you can not force your personal morality beliefs on the rest of us. 🇺🇸 Build up that wall between Church and Government.
he's right though all laws revolve around morality and enforce morality you have to adjust your statement i think i understand your point but your wording is missing the mark
Although I describe myself as a Libertarian-Conservative, and I will sometimes remark that my great grandfather had more freedom and choice than I have as an American... I am strongly against strong drugs. I have zero issue with alcohol and marijuana, though I will point out that alcohol has caused more problems for families than maybe anything else in the history of the world, but I have seen what heroin and crack and cocaine and other drugs has done to people and it's a cancer. This idea that it's a disease rather than a choice, and creating all these false alternatives to combat the addiction, has done nothing but make the problem all the more worse than ever before. Jesus Christ Almighty God bless you all 😊
Really, I ought to emphasize that ALCOHOLISM has probably caused more harm to families than anything else in history. Not alcohol in and of itself, although it's true a mixture of alcohol and drugs can be fatal. True, one can point out drunk driving causes more unnecessary deaths or permanent injury than other kinds of impaired driving, but I argue we simply don't have enough data as to driving while high, etc.
HomicideHenry . Your comments are logically incoherent. You claim to have “zero issue with alcohol”, and, in the next breath, you acknowledge that alcohol has led to more problems with families than “anything else in the world”. Then you attempt to parse a false distinction between alcohol and alcoholism, while implying that other drugs (since ethanol IS a drug) do not present an analogous substance versus addiction dichotomy. Perhaps you just like to see your own words in the comments section, so you don’t care if they are self-refuting.
Hitchens repeatedly argues that we must prevent the legalization of criminal drugs because we risk their widespread use while simultaneously arguing that these substances are already in de facto widespread use..?
His argument is that once you take something that is widespread and legal its impossible to then remove it from society. Marijuana is in wide use and its quasi-legal. His argument is that with proper enforcement it can be reduced. Its a bit like tobacco. We use to think it was good, it was widespread and legal and now we know how horrible it is and we spend billions every year trying to promote people quitting and its slowly working but has taken 30 years and probably take another 30 years.
@Rattle Not necessarily, alcohol isn't advertised on UK TV, nor is smoking. If other substances are made legal, I doubt they'd be advertised on TV as well.
Hitchens is quite reasonable and insightful on many things, utterly hopeless on others. Drug criminalization is of extremely recent origins - for the simple reason that it is a socialist concept not a free society one. For the American founders and framers the paramount concern was safeguarding the individual liberty from the threat of the mob. Socialism inverts that formula. For socialists like Hitchens, the individual represents a threat or potential threat to 'society'. A vast surveillance apparatus, police state, and penitentiary is necessary to defend society. It must be deployed against the disobedient who are to be spied on, identified, apprehended and disposed of. It is difficult to understand how Hitchens has managed to confuse himself into believing such a deployment constitutes doing the Lords will. And of course right up until the very end of the Christian medieval era, justice meant the public resolution of a private dispute, replacing the 'joust', private physical combat to settle a dispute with the peaceful public mediated resolution. Christian justice sought to REDUCE conflict where socialism and in particular the socialist drug warfare projects has incited conflict on an unimaginably vast scale. Medieval Christian society sought to cultivate the civil, spiritual, and civilized society. Socialism rejects such cultivation. It seeks by contrast to possess and control the body.
Addiction is actually medically classed as a disease . This was not an arbitrary labelling, Mr Hitchens clearly has no expertise in this field at all. One can physically see that the neuroscientific changes that the brain undergoes physically some temporary some permanent are beyond dispute. Peter (I suspect) does not actually understand The subject matter he is asserting. A disease can be self-inflicted this notion has been around for years. One of the more common forms of self-inflicted disease is diabetes type 2. Early onset diabetes can be reversed, but much like addiction or brain disease one cannot engage in that behavior again or the disease will rapidly onset and progress. I mean the neuroscientific evidence is huge and common. It's quite cringeworthy to have a complete novice sit quite arrogantly and disrespectfully presume to know more than the neuroscientific and neuropsychological peers who have dedicated in some cases their lives to studying the nature I'm progressive on set of disease.
Deeding on your morals, in my Utilitarian view when they make people more happy they are good. While i also don´t think you can make a general statement like if they are good or bad for economy because we are talking about wildly different things and applications, for example stimulating drugs like amphetamine have military use to be able to push some more hours out of pilots and amphetamine was used until 2017 by the US military besides the pretty infamous Nazi meth story´s. Coffin for example for sure has a positive influence and has a important historical role in replacing alcohol for water preservation because people realized you can sterilize water by boiling it, alcohol had before a important role in history and was kinda a requirement to even wage war to not be depended on local water sources. Besides in my opinion the way more important question is how to handle them in relation to your questions, they will just always be there as the last decade showed so the question becomes in reality about harm reduction and at the moment we just push people into organized crime to pay for the increased prices by law enforcement. In Germany we are kinda on the right way i think whit substitution where we threat it as a chronic diseases so we give them the drugs but require therapy so they can go back to work. If you want to give them out for the general population is a different question and i am really not sure it would deepening in my opinion on the data how much harm they really cause especially when we are talking about some kind of special pharmacy´s where they just get handed out in limited quantities whit proper instructions about side effects i think this would work whiteout to many issues. Especially when you related it to Alcohol i don´t think Hard drugs are nearly as bad as people think they because here just 1000 people each year die here in Germany from them. Think there is somewhere a healthy middle ground we need to find for each substance and at the moment it seems to me more honestly like old superstitions and fear mongering, i just tried i think every different sort of drug from Oxycodon, coke, speed, mushrooms and quite some other exotic ones and yeah they are all kinda nice but there is no reason why you would see them as something fundmeantly different from alcohol. I would even say the high from alcohol is stronger than what you get from Opioids or Coke but is´s mostly the terrible side effect´s why i don´t like it and rather take other stuff besides also being the most damaging to the body.
@@godislove8740 correct. Ethno Nationalism for all peoples of the world, protected by all peoples of the world. Well behaved foreign tourists and temporary essential guestworkers are always welcome. Isolate the warmongers, secret societies and criminal's. Any better ideas? We're all in this together ❤️
Finally! Someone against mind altering drugs that has slowed down our schools and dulled the minds of many, myself included when I was a user in grade school. In the USA there never has been a drug war, if so, do we treat Iraq and Afghanistan the same during war?
@@gordonthefreeman I've heard of him and many other scientists. Just because a few named scientists did so, doesnt mean their discoveries wouldnt have been found later. Or dare I say the many unnamed scientists who had their ideas stolen, even a named mad scientist Nikola. When discussing various subjects in space we are left with theories, nothing objective. We can't even confirm HOW the universe started, just THEORIES. As we speak, the USA is struggling in scientific fields, we rely heavily on eastern allies. We have what the Christian lady and you want, we see the effects, a stupid complacent irresponsible society. I prefer better schools without people destroying their brains and the society in which they live. Look at South Korea and Japan, far more advanced. We created S Korea and they surpassed us, embarrassing but its why I say the USA needs a HARD RESET. Bigoted is a word I refuse to use, a person who takes an opposite view. Worrying for the health of many, including the future is something any civilized person should, much like Francis Collins who mapped the Human Genome without Marijuana, and he is very much against it, he is the director of the NIH.
GordonFreeman you are extrapolating a position from one individual. Harvard Medical School suggest a very strong correlation between cannabis use and paranoid schizophrenia, cancer and suicide.
@@gordonthefreeman You simply cannot debate. "keep producing the likes of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot." Why is it every year someone is compared to these people? No such resemblance. There are no gulags, no mass murder of jews, gypsies, polish etc. No invasion of Europe. Why do people always compare person X to some old tyrant. It's stale and non comparable. Don't beg questions, such as who gave me permission. Nobody did, it's not an action I am taking, but it's a thought based upon our culture's lack of responsibility that harms this country and others. As an ex marijuana and drug user during my teenage years, I know first hand experience and it's why I don't associate with those old "friends" nor would I promote such rubbish. I do drink coffee once in awhile, it doesn't impact my driving, it doesn't slow my thought process down and I can digest what I am reading whilst fact checking.If you want to bring alcohol in the debate, I am very much in favor of lowering the alcohol contents, the same worries and concerns Increase Mather had. ""It is an unhappy thing that in later years a kind of drink called Rum has been common among us. They that are poor, and wicked too, can for a penny or two-pence make themselves drunk." I do worry about my children, family, neighbors, their kids and the health of this country. If I expect a healthy better world for myself, I certainly want it for the future, which you and the past generations have been destroying. So I won't be passive or a defeatist nor will I shut up. The problems in the Western societies including America certainly is influenced by the demand of junkies and druggies. The demand drives the supply. I've lost a brother in law from heroin, my own brother steals from his children so he can take illegal drugs. I had a gun pointed at my head for defending them. If you don't believe me, I got references via Maryland Case Search. You'll find a long list of drug offenses and they're loose, still wrecking their children and stealing from anyone. Abuse and lies. We're not arguing Francis Collin's religion. He could be an atheist for all it matters. His scientific work is posted, peer reviewed and objective tests (not faith based) are published.
@@gordonthefreeman You neglected every point I made. You didn't bother to check those case searches/references with the names and events. You don't give a damn except for your terrible agenda. You don't give a toss about the opposition, their reviews, the doctors and scientists who disagree with you. (they have 50 years of tests.) You neglect the abuse, thievery and violence that I stated. The most intelligent thing you said is "No point in wasting time". I gave you the benefit of the doubt more than once, more fool me.
If you show no care or research into these cases, not even asking names, it shows how neglectful you have taken this. I am hoping if there's any shred of decency, you will actually want to find out of I am telling the truth and have some merit or lying. But damnit, fact check and try to care. These are kids and the future, much bigger than us.
Yes.... blow up and attack countries for alleged WMD and smoke cigs. Christopher's son went to the bottle, drove recklessly in Maryland.... oh yes, more of that!!
@@pennyawful861 the presence of mental addiction is a scientific reality that can be proven with brain scans on the pictures of brain scans a viewer can see areas of dopamine depletion this is proof of mental addiction vomiting is a physical withdrawal symptom that proves opioid addiction is real
Japan has been effective in reducing illegal drug use and sales what Peter doesn't understand is that the reason Japan's efforts have been successful is not just because they enforce their laws but because their laws are so harsh so for Britain's anti drug effort to be as successful as Japan's effort Britain HAS to make the punishment for possession of drugs much more severe if Britain doesn't do that their anti drug effort will not work the truth is that punishments as harsh as Japan's for drug possession are outside of British culture and most of the people of Britain would be against it when we say that the criminalization of marijuana and cocaine is like the prohibition of alcohol we don't mean it's exactly like the prohibition of alcohol we mean it's similar in at least one important way and that way is that production and sale of marijuana and cocaine are illegal like the production and sale of alcohol were illegal during prohibition and the criminality of those two things are what create a violent black market like the 20's lastly ,the presence of mental addiction is a scientific reality that can be proven with brain scans on the pictures of brain scans a viewer can see areas of dopamine depletion this is proof of mental addiction Hitchens was wrong on all three points
I like Hitchens. I dislike charismatic Christianity. However this whole argument is based on a false premise that only Hitchens alludes to at the start. What is a drug?
@@nonamecommonsense9089 Drug: _A medicine or other substance which has a physiological effect when ingested or otherwise introduced into the body._ It doesn't have to be illegal or addictive. Nicotine and caffeine are legal, they two of the most widely used drugs in the world. Nicotine is highly addictive, caffeine is not addictive, but users can easily develop a dependence.
Peter's view on cannabis is silly and he is arrogant and dismissive when discussing this subject. There is a very big customer base for cannabis which isn't going to disappear and I think on balance it is much better to have the sale of it legally controlled rather than in the hands of violent criminal gangs. I have no interest in taking any recreational drug myself.
Andrew Martin Two problems with that argument. 1. Markets for substances are extremely variable and can range from being huge to pretty much nothing. They can and do change radically. Simply ignoring how much you can influence that is blindness. 2. Legalising a substance does not ‘take it out of the hands’ of criminals. They’re criminals who have their own networks regardless of what is or isn’t illegal. If the legal status of a substance affected this, then how do you explain the largest black market being legal cigarettes? Or if your point is that the government can tax this new weed, then you’ve just created an expensive legal weed for rich people, leaving the old cheap market exactly intact.
Peters view on cannabis is the result of detailed research into the effects of cannabis on users mental health issues, why is he silly and arrogant for holding a view based on his personal convictions?
@@DavidSmith-fs5qj Japan has been effective in reducing illegal drug use and sales what Peter doesn't understand is that the reason Japan's efforts have been successful is not just because they enforce their laws but because their laws are so harsh so for Britain's anti drug effort to be as successful as Japan's effort Britain HAS to make the punishment for possession of drugs much more severe if Britain doesn't do that their anti drug effort will not work the truth is that punishments as harsh as Japan's for drug possession are outside of British culture and most of the people of Britain would be against it when we say that the criminalization of marijuana and cocaine is like the prohibition of alcohol we don't mean it's exactly like the prohibition of alcohol we mean it's similar in at least one important way and that way is that production and sale of marijuana and cocaine are illegal like the production and sale of alcohol were illegal during prohibition and the criminality of those two things are what create a violent black market like the 20's lastly ,the presence of mental addiction is a scientific reality that can be proven with brain scans on the pictures of brain scans a viewer can see areas of dopamine depletion this is proof of mental addiction Hitchens was wrong on all three points
Yea decriminalise it! Then if I'm ever attacked by a drug addled loony then the government must pay me £ Millions in compensation as I do not actually agree with decriminalization!!
@@Ripper36068 I am real. Drug laws are immoral and idiotic. Criminalizing someone for what they put in their own body is insane. If someone attacks you then THAT is a crime, regardless of whether they are on drugs. If someone uses drugs without harming others then that should not be deemed a crime.
@@matthewsands1572 In that case then lets decriminalise Burglary, muggings, Shoplifting, etc! Afterall this is how a lot of them fund their pathetic addiction! Your argument is pathetic! If I had the choice it would be the death sentence for trafficking and use!!
I've heard this argument before but it hasn't ever resonated with me. I come from a religious background. I've tried a fundamentalist cult in my youth but have been an athiest for over ten years and this argument to my way of thinking at every point in my life is a strawman. It simply does not represent how I thought of truth, science or the state of reality. I'm simply too passionate for the discoveries of science to abandon logical truth for the figurative language of religion. I do concede however that this is not true for everyone and your observation may be a fair one in many cases. I don't think it is that simple an observation though. I mean every single one of us interacts with the universe as if someone is watching. We often don't think too deeply what that means but we'll often dismiss it as our conscience. This may be true, whatever that means, but anyone who delves into their subconscious with any care finds themselves much less sure of our ability to live a life of purpose without an appreciation of how much the subconscious rules us. So the "idea" of a perfect deity can have the consequence of giving an individual a healthy relationship with the unknown. If we trust that truth is to be revealed by something that is greater than us we can be more open to our own flaws. This gives us an opportunity to trust in the unknown and work with others on a simmilar journey. It may be why we have civilization according to a wide variety of thinkers. If I understand the warnings of Nietzsche correctly the death of God takes away the "idea" of a path to perfection and creates a psychological environment that leads to confirmation bias and group preference... The religious types have the story of the Tower of Babel to warn them of this, and it's painfully relevant if you're watching closely to what is going on in the western world right now. I've seen it convincingly argued that Intersectionality as a consequence has become the "religion" of the times, showing all of us that this pattern is repeating itself and that just because we say we are not religious doesn't mean we don't act religious anyway. That's my flawed take on it. My apologies if this isn't very clear. It's something I'm trying to articulate as it's been bothering me for some time as I see very disturbing trends in the culture.
*"I'm interested in people, and that's why I am interested in this.."* She is interested in herself. She was hard-line UNTIL, as she put it, she met an addict whom she found to be "just like herself". Her attitude to other people was a dismissive, "lock them up". Only when she saw a bit of *herself* in the other person did she believe that they deserved consideration. Very self-centered, but a start, I suppose.
She *feels* in her *feeling place* that it would have been terrible if the person responsible for committing a criminal act had actually been made to bear the legal consequences of said act because the offender is a woman like her. That's no way to run a criminal justice system.
It's frustrating that we have two Christians with no reference to the redemptive power of Christ to restore a person to their true self. On one hand we have belief in the authority of science and the other authority of the state. God is sovereign. We live morally in accordance with his authority. The lady also employs this fashionable postmodern idea of my story vs your story. This moral relativism of I don't do drugs but you can. When Christ is the foundational narrative for all people to relate to themselves. Without this the Christian narrative is worthless.
I honestly don't know why Hitchens has such a mental block on this. There is no logical, successful moral argument against the use of drugs. Not even when using biblical premises.
Why do you describe Peters stance as a mental block? Peter has researched this issue for years, and holds these veiws based on not only his moral beleifs, but based on evidence gathered over decades. You say that there is no logical , successful moral argument against the use of drugs. I would say with that veiw, it is you who have a mental block, and no amount of constructive argument, disscusion or evidence will change your mind.
@@DavidSmith-fs5qj "You say that there is no logical , successful moral argument against the use of drugs. I would say with that veiw, it is you who have a mental block, and no amount of constructive argument, disscusion or evidence will change your mind." False. If you have a logical argument then present it. You won't because you don't. I have exhausted this subject. There are no successful arguments.
Didn't know there was a debate, we already know that the war on drugs didn't work. (Great band though, Lost in a dream, great album, smoke a bit of the devil's lettuce, turn the lights off, light a single candle, lay on your back on the floor and listen deeply) ✌️
Looks like arguments from emotions against arguments from facts. It is a grave mistake to create a policy that affects millions from a set of emotional stories. Most of the tragic stories that is a result of the current situation, and will be a result from a change in policy, we will never hear. Christina Dent argues with fact about problems with the current situation, but do not demonstrate how legalisation will make it better. A lot of changes can be made in how law enforcement deal with drugs without legalising it. Ones it is legalised there is no way back, and the damage from that mistake will last for generations.
I think PH made more sense here, especially for Christians. How can we say mind altering drugs should be tolerated when the most important commandment as said by Jesus is to love our father with MIND, body and strength? Dazzling your mind doesnt help.
