I stopped cannabis seven years ago and it was the best thing I'd ever done. Always went thinking it was harmless until I stopped an asked myself if this is the best use of my limited time. I'm sure Peter played a role from my viewings of his debates and discussions. I always enjoy listening to what he has to say, even if we disagree as he did with his late brother Christopher on religion.
he ends his speech saying that consuming drugs makes people passive for dictatorships (which is an absurd fallacy), therefore he advocates an authoritarian legislation to prevent that. makes PERFECT sense!
The sole reason why Peter is so hated among the public (and RU-vid threads like this) is because he reminds us of the things we're trying so very desperately to forget: that as long as we live in anything that resembles a society, we do have a responsibility to others, and that our determination to seek drugs causes chaos in countries that supply. Much easier is it to attack the person presenting these arguments, plunging ourselves into total social conformity, ignoring our role in such disasters, than it is to argue against him. That's what I take from this rather sad thread. How babyish we have become.
Actually it's completely consistent. Let's first admit it's impossible to have these debates without proper historical context. The ownership is guns is the basis of the second amendment and is perhaps the last remaining statute guaranteeing the public a viable defence against tyranny (from which the 14 colonies originally broke free). To suggest the ownership of a gun is no different than wrecking your brain with a mind altering drug which could cause mental illness is absurd. One protects you from the state, the other is likely to throw you at the complete mercy of it. As for alcohol, I wish we never made it legal. It's a mistake we're forced to live with and we can't take it back, but to suggest that because we have one legal substance capable of causing devastation is a good reason to legalise another is the argument of a non-thinking moron.
I think it's more to do with the fact that he denies the concept of drug addiction and thinks that very addict is making a choice to do what they do..If this is the case then why does he want strict drug laws? If they're not addictive then people can just choose to not do drugs
Prentice Mathew I love him so much! As a person who works in the most drug filled poverty area in Vancouver bc (downtown Eastside you can look it up) the more I agree with peter and appreciate him speaking on this issue
Having uses cannabis a little and experienced unpleasant effects my opinion is that cannabis releases mental repression, which can open you up to new fascinating experiences but also unlock repressed negative emotions, which if great enough due to a bad childhood, can overwhelm the person's normal mental life and lead to depression and anxiety disorders or entirely overwhelm it and lead to schizophrenia. But cannabis isn't really the cause rather the catalytic agent.
So the potential victim might be attacked when the pot might make them mentally ill and that might manifest itself in violence? That is a dangerous legal precedent to set when we're talking about just possession and use. By that rationale, we shouldn't sell anything that anybody could potentially harm anyone else with, which would be quite a lengthy list... And I find it interesting that the smoking and strength of the weed have both increased, but schizophrenia cases have not- why is that?
If we are to follow Hitchens argument, we must refrain from alcohol and sugar and carbohydrates and denial and so on. Everything we do affects others, so stop driving your car, overheating or cooling your home, and for godsakes stop living in single households. His intent has integrity, but his black or white approach is not applicable. It would behoove him to listen with an open-mind and work towards a productive solution. Smart as he is, he uses bully tactics.
Good ideas to start reforming as opposed to causing more problems. We all agree sugar and alcohol can be dangerous, especially at the levels they're today. Why not have a healthier diet and life? I do think many do want a better transportation system, look at the crowded roads and pollution. I tend to ride a bike or walk. I just do not understand why all the bad examples to poach up more terrible ideas.
xxaleenazxx sorry to say buddy but In most countries, illegal drugs are a big part of society too, the only thing thag separates their role from alcohol is the stigma created by laws
LSD taken by Bell engineers lead to the link that pictures could represent ideas instead of code in computers, thus giving birth to the graphical user interface which allows 'normal' 'everyday' people to use computers. Every great musician you've ever listened to has done what they've done either because they're supremely gifted or (in most cases) through the use of substances that add new objectivity and perspective, allowing them to see the established collective for what it is.
''Although cannabis use increased 10-20 fold over the last 40 years, the number of people with psychosis didn't, indeed, it looks like there might be a downward trend in schizophrenia admissions. If there was a direct link, you might expect to see levels in both either rise or fall together'' - The British Association for Psychopharmacology
My aunt had eaten shellfish her whole life, then one day, POW! Almost killed her. She had no idea- people with acquired allergies often don't. For these people, the food in question is lethal- and indeed, kills hundreds every year. Fast food and soda aren't good for you at all. You can live without them, hell, you'll likely live longer! But people like it, it tastes good. It's fun. And if adults are willing to gamble on being a little unhealthy to have said fun- they should be able to.
How is he a warmonger when he has opposed almost every major Western military intervention in recent history? Do you even know what the term "war monger" means? He also regularly combats and argues against state intervention (though not in matter, obviously, such as drugs).
Because alcohol is MORE dangerous than pot. Also, legalizing a drug removes power from the black market. Would you rather something be sold by unregulated criminals Al's or would you rather it be sold legally and regulated?
"It is wrong to use drugs and that is why they are illegal" "That especially dangerous drug, cannabis" "The purpose of drugs is to befuddle us, to cloud our brains" Idiotic.
Does a person have the right to defecate in the open or is there a moral imperative to use a hygienic toilet if one can be found within a distance to hold on? Obviously in an emergency one has to go in the open and does their best to cover up the mess. Society tolerates a 3 year old peeing on a tree stump. Being a part of a civilised society means obeying laws and norms for the good of that society. The drunken crowds who binge drink and noisily party in town centres 4 nights a week rob other people of their sleep, peace. Drugs are used in nearly all circumstances by selfish people who care about their own pleasure and nothing about the rest of society. They are the same selfish behaviours as those who fly tip, drop litter, cigarette butts etc. Or let their dogs defecate on the sidewalk.
" in the open" Only the most pathetic derelicts do this though, lets admit it. Anyone with any sense of dignity will go against a tree, or over in a corner of a carpark. Even a drunk person doesnt generally just squat and poop on the sidewalk.
Again, Peter Hitchens rises above the bien pensant rubbish by which he is surrounded, and which would stifle any lesser man, to offer a brilliant argument. An articulate man such as is so rarely found in our age of illiteracy.
"its just a symptom of something bugging the person" Whatever the excuse for drinking/drug-taking etc, its a free choice they make-they can control it, and choose not to do it. Addiction is a lie
He's a cunt who agrees that violence should be threatened upon anyone he believes is being 'selfish' to society. People who aren't harming anyone but themselves. Very fucking ethical person indeed.
Absolutely, governments should ban every potential danger humans are facing in this world like alcohol, tobacco, cars, machines, streets, food, pins, sharp corners, kitchen knives, bathtubs, windows, hands, sexuality, bacterias, viruses..etc. Hitchens is so right on everything. What a perfect society would that be, wouldn't it?
"I actually think using drugs made me more open minded and creative " Then I hope you are never EVER in a position of responsibility towards children or young people, or in any position of authority where you might influence them.
It may not be fashionable these days to be anti-drugs, but Peter Hitchens is, as usual, absolutely right in everything he says. We need to grow up as a society and stop trying to justify this irresponsible, dangerous and vile habit.
No JP the argument is one of personal liberty and the roll of government. Mr. Hitchens would have us believe that the government should criminalize behavior which deemed destructive, and harmful , even if only to the person in question. This is fundamentally and unequivocally not the function nor the roll of government. To claim something is morally wrong is reason alone to make it illegal goes against the very fabric of a free society.
Absolutely false , you ignorant , arrogant ass. Moral behavior is a subjective concept, subject to interpretation. Laws are based upon the defined infringement of another citizen's rights and wellbeing. You moron.
Morality is not the criteria by which law should be based. It's not the intended function of government to legislate morality nor should it be. While it is true that laws have been passed doing precisely that , it doesn't alter the fact that it runs counter to the very foundation of personal liberty.
Are you high? You would compare killing someone with smoking marijuana? Personal liberty is not a form of morality but moral choices are guaranteed by personal liberty. What it comes down to is as long as the activity in question does not infringe upon the rights of someone else ,it should be no business of the government regardless of whether you or I think it moral or immoral. Period. You have the right to disagree, and you have the right to be wrong. Good visiting with you.
+quin bagwell you have states the true libertarian positionand I agree with the limits you have proposed but morality is involved in the law making processunfairness by the government and violation of another's rights by anyone is immoral
+robinsss I couldn't agree more, and the key ingredient here is infringement upon another's rights. whether something is considered moral or immortal should have no bearing upon its legality. Only how it effects the rights of others should be the criteria. Morality is a subjective concept, what I consider to be immoral, you may not at all, and either way should be no business of the state. it's a slippery slope when we begin to legislate morality because it becomes morality by who's definition and opens the door to the religions dogmatism of " let them live in freedom, if they live like me " !
“Leaving the drugs market in the hands of criminals causes huge and unnecessary harms to individuals, communities and entire countries, with the poor the hardest hit. We spend billions of pounds without preventing the wide availability of drugs. It is time to replace our failed war on drugs with a strict system of legal regulation, to make the world a safer, healthier place, especially for our children.” - Bob AinsworthMember of UK Parliament & Former Secretary of State for Defence
He's right. The only people who will disagree are sad little children who want to feel like big boys coz they be smokin da spliff man lol Okay there are some decent people out there too who take drugs, but christ, the idea of getting it legalized is so pointless.
Sawed-off Orc It's not pointless. He talks of how the consumption of drugs is in itself inherently immoral and deplorable and yet in our society we have sanctioned drugs like caffeine, alcohol, and nicotine, which - according to completely impartial scientific research - are more addictive and noxious than many of our outlawed ones, be it cannabis or other hallucinogens. So that argument falls flat on its fucking face. Secondly, our outlook and treatment of drug users or addicts is flawed, and this has arisen through the punitive and abusive nature of enforcement. People that are in need of psychological, financial, and educational support are instead shunted into prisons and locked up, on an unprecedented scale. This is just sweeping social issues under the carpet, and is - to be frank - negligence. In America, more blacks are imprisoned in the penitentiary system than there were slaves in 1850. 90% of all drug convicts are black, and yet usage rates have been shown to be negligible between races, so clearly we have a flawed and distorted sense of justice which smacks of racial oppression. To summarise, as human beings we consistently seek to alter our consciousness in many ways. Children even seek the trivial enjoyment of being dizzy from going on a round-about, if only to experience that buzz, which is just subtle proof of our desire to stimulate ourselves in novel and exciting ways. To deprive a rational, functioning adult of the ability to do this is an infringement and encroachment of our liberties, and is in itself unnatural, cruel, and unjustifiable. Let us not also forget of the potential of these substances to mend depression and ameliorate many other mental diseases, much contrary to the unfounded claims of societal sedation spouted by this bigoted fool. He pales in comparison to his superior older brother, who similarly would have shut him down in his articulate and erudite manner. Peter is a disgrace to the Hitchens name.
OhMyScot Semantics are irrelevant. He's talking about mind & behaviour altering drugs that cannot be taken in moderation. Prevention has ALWAYS been better than cure. If we can prevent drug use, we don't need to cure it do we? We don't lock nearly enough drug takers up or drug takers would simply not exist-at least nowhere near on this scale. Deterrence. We already know America has a messed up criminal justice system appears to be discriminatory to black/ethnic minorities and it definitely needs to be reformed. This has no relevance to the drug debate however. Ha, dizziness is an unpleasant and unwanted side-affect of the thrill of risk-taking. And either way, I hardly think a child's play-time has ANY relevance to the harmful abuse of substances that damage one's psychology, impairs one's vision and seriously affects one's health. Please don't play the "cures and medication" card. You are not asking for regulated medicinal legalization. You are asking for legalization in general therefore you are moving the goalposts. Amazing how you act as if it is a human right in our civilized society to consume such substances. What kind of depraved individual believes such a thing?
+Sawed-off Orc Look up the portugal experiment. Once all drugs are legalized, crime goes down, addiction rates go down. This is no cool man spliff argument its basic fact. The people who are gonna take drugs are gonna take em anyways even if they arent legal, you might as well ensure that those drugs are government approved.
It is minute- everything I've seen about this study indicates that not only are they talking about heavy use- but heavy use at a young age and becoming ill in early adulthood (Like Cockburn). "Although most young people use cannabis without harm, a vulnerable minority experience harmful outcomes... Our findings suggest that cannabis use among psychologically vulnerable adolescents should be strongly discouraged..." -Robin Murray I believe the best way to do that in the US is to regulate it.
Peter's not totally wrong here; but incarceration for pot use is just absurd. I could get on board with a decriminalization as opposed to legalization plan, but unfortunately it appears to be too late for that. We were *so* irrational with pot for *so* long, that now we have a Legalization backlash that will likely succeed in the USA.
Neither did the drunk-driver or the porn viewer. But they must still be punished to deter this behaviour, thus reducing the number of potential victims
Basically the arguments in the comments section against Peter boil down to "But what about MT pleasure? What about MY fun? Forget about society! What about MEEEE?!?!?" Such selfish and childish people. No wonder so many young people are becoming more and more depressed and suicidal.
***** By using drugs, you have already demonstrated that you are not responsible. There's nothing tyrannical about keeping dangerous drugs off the streets. Don't forget that in Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World", the tyrannical government was able to keep its population passive, dumb and free of dissent by giving them all the drugs and sex they wanted. Be very careful what you wish for. You just might get it.
***** Willingly putting yourself in a position that leaves you susceptible to addiction is irresponsible. Now, as far as preventing crime is concerned, the more ethical thing to do is to rehabilitate the addicted and weed out the dealers, which in my opinion, ought to be tried as bio-terrorists.
***** What about those? I already said in the line you quoted from me. It's not a question of not being allowed to enjoy something. It's about not knowing when enough is enough, or willingly crossing the line knowing full well that there will be negative consequences. If you aren't sure whether it's wrong, or if you know something is wrong, but you do it anyway, then you are not being responsible.
+Listenability Because direct violence is the only that tears down society, HA! Newsflash: a useless, drugged-up, coach potato does the same amount of harm to society by omission that a school shooter does by commission.
+Listenability Hitchens is against drink and tobacco. His argument is not that it's addictive (as addiction doesn't exist, if you disagree with me please provide an objective way of diagnosing addiction within the human body), his argument is that cannabis is a drug which causes massive psychological damage, destroying the minds of the young, forcing individuals who take the drug to live a miserable life', while also sodding the lives of the victims family. The rest of your comment is babble, I'm surprised you managed to get 5 likes, perhaps it's reflective of the intellect of the pro-drugs lobby. Playing video games kills people??? Please provide evidence?
The point you're missing is that a lot of people aren't intelligent or educated enough to really know the extent of the harm some of these drugs can do to you. They aren't in a position to make an informed choice themselves, because a) they don't know the possible dangers of their actions, and/or b) they selfishly don't care to think about them. It would be wonderful if we could trust humanity to always make sensible, rational decisions, but unfortunately we can't. Hence why we have laws.
My point about rapists/burglars was that we dont call being arrested a punishment in itself, because it isnt. Punishment takes place after conviction. The pot smoker has broken a law which is there to protect him from other potential psychotics just as its there to protect others from him.
The ethical argument being espoused here is repugnantly fatuous and, in my view, oppressive. If it is inherently immoral to utilise a pharmacological compound due to injury to the self and through that emotional injury to others, the individual's liberty is greatly mitigated by the state. Any activity frequently engendering serious injury can be justified as warranting prohibition, extreme sports immediately spring to mind. The ethical concern should be the predisposition drugs beget in violation of the harm principle, which I suppose Peter later alludes to.
Cockburn (in his latest Independent article)quotes all the scizophrenia specialists concurring that almost all their worst schizophrenia patients are or were heavy cannabis users. Its a universal pattern. Professor Murray found schizophrenia rates recently doubled in south London alone from cannabis use...he has begged for a national study but grants have been repeatedly rejected. We know money only goes into researching things that suit Big Pharma
(3) no one would argue against the fact that alcohol abuse causes many problems in society. This does not mean that alcohol should be made illegal, and it's an extremely weak argument against cannabis legalization as there are far fewer related incidences of violent or other crime than are related to alcohol abuse. Addiction should be treated as any other mental illness, not criminalised; the criminalisation of drug use only inflates the detrimental effects on society caused by drug addiction.
"if people dont want to be helped" But they also dont want to go to prison.So that can help them stop Whereas, if therapy is purely voluntary, many simply wont do it. Many drug addicts dont want to give up at first, but when they get forced to, they later thank the people who forced them, and realise that it helped them because they werent thinking clearly when they were on drugs. Crucially, if addiction is real, we MUST deter people from ever trying drugs before they can become addicts!
It was based on the moral principle that the state should take a stand against drugs which take away our free will and send us permanently insane "protect people from themselves" Peter Hitchens addressed that failed argument in this video; people are not just an "island"detached from others, when people take drugs it impacts on the taxpayer who has to pay for their psychiatric treatment, or for their jail cell when they assault someone, and their family who have to suffer as they go psychotic
The legalisation and criminalisation of drug use is not what prevents addicts from seeking help. It is the methods that the law enforcement agencies use that are causing the problems. The purpose of criminalising drug use is to send out a message to our society that it is harmful and wrong. The one important statistic that we ignore is that there are a lot of people who are deterred from first-time drug use because drugs are illegal. It is the methods that we need to change not the policy.
Dr Paul Morrison, a psychiatrist specialising in cannabis research, says: "Pretty well all the studies have been consistent in linking the use of cannabis and having a chronic [mental] disorder." A study of 50,000 Swedish conscripts found cannabis users are six times more likely than non-consumers to be diagnosed with schizophrenia over the next 15 years. Almost all the studies show that this stuff if pure poison. The article lists all the top specialists in the field saying the same thing
I'll tell you what makes me a realist- An American gets arrested for pot every 42 SECONDS. Arrests have tripled in the last 20 years. So many tarnished lives, and for what? Has use gone down? Not one bit. Certainly, some people will over do it. That happens when you assume adults will be responsible- a few will not. I still don't believe it poses a major risk to public safety for adults to smoke pot. And I don't think the harsh punishments needed for effective prohibition are reasonable.
Frisher et al 2009. The ACMD commissioned a study by Keele University into the trends in schizophrenia specifically to test the claims in the media of a link between it and cannabis. It looked at almost 600,000 patients and concluded that “..the incidence and prevalence of schizophrenia and psychoses were either stable or declining” despite alleged increased use of allegedly more potent cannabis.
...friend of mine) because both her her parents died from the results of excessive smoking - heart disease and lung cancer repectively - within two years of each other, we can see firsthand the consequences of this selfish society we live in, when we repeatedly choose to believe that we are 'sovereign over our own bodies' and our personal wants trump all others. How unbelieveably inconsiderate, juvenile and selfish. This is why these laws are in place, and should remain so.
The obvious answer is that the person watching the porn did not personally victimise anyone-just like the drunk-driver who didnt crash into anyone did not have any direct victims. But, like weed, these acts (drinking alcohol before driving, or viewing child porn) must still be illegal, because the law has to deter people from doing things that will, if they carry on, cause harm to others,even though the act itself did not harm anyone A drunk driver who did not crash did NOT harm anyone
(1) If I've understood your stance correctly I think we both believe that while drug addicts should not be criminalised, they should be legally detainable for treatment of their addiction. However, we differ on our stances regarding personal liberty, the nature of drug use and the societal impact of drug use. I don't see any issue with individuals of sound mind taking drugs that may harm them; that is their choice and they are capable of making that choice and understanding the consequences.
"the vast majority of adult smokers are harmless" No scientist with any credibility would ever make such a sweeping statement, about something that is still yet to be properly researched. What the studies show is that cannabis is very dangerous for mental health and no comparably dangerous drug would be sold in a chemist If the laws, border controls etc need to be overhauled, then do it, rather than giving in to the pot legalisers. If it works in Japan and Sweden, it can work in the US.
This does nothing to help your case at all. Professor Murray has rightly explained that cannabis not only sends people violently insane, but that we dont know, in advance, who it may affect, until its too late! This means one very simple thing. Every single cannabis user is a disgusting, selfish and vile excuse for a person, who is risking the lives of his dependents, his family, his children, his friends and his community (whom he may harm) by risking his own sanity
Drug charges on your record is no good, it is a worse and longer lasting punishment than jail, and most Americans know this. Nothing has ever deterred pot use. "14 year olds starting daily cannabis use do not agonise over its exact classification; many do not even think it is a drug and few have any knowledge of its hazards...what we need is a major educational campaign to inform the public about the risks associated with heavy use of cannabis particularly in early adolescence." -Robin Murray
Comparing skateboarding with drug use is so daft and childish. The use of skateboarding is not harmful. It is the 'misuse' or 'wrong-use' of it that is harmful. But in the case of drugs, the use of it is itself harmful not only for the individual but for the general public. If something harmful is not illegal then why are certain things illegal? Were they created illegal? You dont make any logical sense. Murder, theft, fraud....all these are ILLEGAL because they are HARMFUL and IMMORAL..
their lives. Incarcerating people or threatening to send them to prison can merely contain the problem, not solve it, and a democratic society should have laws that allow people to be taught and treated with respect and dignity. Therefore, the best deterrence against drug taking is educating people on how dangerous and malicious it can be to their lives, as opposed to threatening them with a punishment. It is, in my view, a non-democratic way of going around the issue.
If our law does not have anything to do with objective morality then why is murder illegal? It is illegal because it is profoundly immoral. When we say drug-use is illegal we are sending out a message that it is wrong and harmful to use drugs.So, drug users must be punished. But where I differ from Hitchens is on what type of punishment they deserve. I think they should be send to hospitals rather than prisons once they are caught and should serve their sentence there.
Can you cite specific points in his argument from this clip alone? I don't see anything wrong with what he said. I've seen firsthand the effects of drug abuse, and what they do to young adults [who are the main market of drugs] and how it fucks up not only their lives, but their families lives as well.
I suppose you were technically correct, but my overall point was the fact that Prohibition never works and is unfairly tilted against the poor. And you will never, NEVER "crack down" on demand. People want to get high, and they always will. And they'll find ways to. What you have to do is not lie to people and say "You'll go CRAZY if you smoke pot" and other such BS- but explain that there are better uses of your time and money- and it's a bad habit. And that's it. Scare tactics never work.
And if you are self-indulgent (whether by taking drugs or riding a motorbike too fast or whatever) you suffer the consequences. Why should drugs be a special case?
I'm quite offended you say we have in the Netherlands a massive drug problem, which is entirely not true. I live in the Netherlands and I can say that we do have fewer people addicted to hard drugs than countries like the USA. The only problem there is in the Netherlands is that the production of cannabis is not legalized, because of international treaties with the USA. And only the production is a problem in the Netherlands, the only way to solve it a regulated market for its production
The fact that the number of users has skyrocketed, so all of the health issues, and social problems related to drugs have skyrocketed as well. Colleges and Universities certainly haven't benefited from the binge drinking, and rampant use of psychoactive drugs.
Taxpayers pay for locking the non-criminals up, the court time it took to lock them up and let them out, and the police time it took to arrest them and send them to court. And some federal judges spend literally HALF their time on non-violent drug offenses, despite the harsh penalties. Obesity is a huge societal problem- I don't know how it is over there, but we have a lot of fat kids here in the US. If you prohibited junk food you'd save many lives and improve health, no doubt about it.
Sure, the NHS's official figures say hospitalisations rose 50% in a year. Theyre widely-quoted in the press here. The UK Drug Policy Commission is a notorious paid-up lobbyist for legalisation funded by all sorts of nasty interests. I can go into detail on it, if you like. The UK and Portugal have exactly the same policy...decriminilisation of cannabis. Thats why we have so many problems.
Cannabinoids -2009-10 713 2010-11 799 Alcohol -2009-10 47,402 2010-11 47,287 Source: Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), The NHS Information Centre for health and social care. There are three million regular users of cannabis (Atha et al 2011) and 31 million regular users of alcohol (NHS Information Centre 2009). Therefore alcohol use is six times more likely to result in admission for mental and behavioural disorders.
The only reason we drink, eat and sleep, is because it feels good to do it. That's why addicts tend to starve because their drives have been messed up. The drive that leads you to the satisfaction of eating is the very same drive that leads you to smoke. Humans will always find ways to satisfy themselves with whatever means they have. That's both the human curse as well as the blessing. It is true, it is arrogant and egotistical, but those are human values you can't get around (continued)
No, it is NOT inevitable that ANYONE will go insane. It is possible. There's an increased RISK, thus it is an assumption. You're also assuming legalization will increase the number of users. I'm of the belief that A) most who want to smoke already do, and B) that if you take it off the street and regulate it through stores, it will be HARDER for kids to get a hold of. Adults meanwhile need to be free to make their own decisions with their own lives, and occasionally make an unhealthy choice.
Dr. Murray is one psychiatrist. His opinions are not unanimously shared in the psychiatric community. Lester Grinspoon has studied pot since the 1960s, convinced it WAS dangerous- only to conclude it wasn't. I've personally NEVER seen anyone go nuts- and believe me, I've been around a lot of pot. It's not even that Murray's conclusions are fully unreasonable- it's just that it seems that genetics is the biggest factor. Also, it seems many of the examples, like Cockburn, smoked heavily as teens.
I presented the findings. Schizophrenia rates doubled in a few years in south London alone, due to cannabis use. Hospitalisations soared 50% within 12 months of cannabis being downgraded to Class C. 50 years agao is far more recent than alcohol...and cannabis is still nowhere near as widespread as alcohol. The British pot laws go back longer too, and they prove that widespread cannabis is VERY recent, because only ONE user was arrested for possession in the whole UK in 1947!
"THEORIZE" Professor Sir Robin Murray is one of the greatest psychiatrists and in the worlds top 3 schizophrenia experts. and he has testified many times that cannabis is increasing schizophrenia among young people. DO YOU NOT CARE??? "crack and meth carry vastly different sentences" Well, the sentences should be made equally tough for both. I hope I have your support in that case.
Well think about it... What ailments do people tend to suffer from in the time leading up to a breakdown? Depression, insomnia, restlessness, irritability, anxiety, stress, anger, etc. Cannabis is helpful with almost everything I listed(not so much anxiety. Alcohol, tends to be the go to intoxicant for people dealing with excessive anxiety.) So it makes sense that people who end up in the psych ward had, at one time or another, used cannabis extensively to ease their symptoms.
I said people who have "addictions" are presumed to have no free will, hence theyre thought to be deserving of taxpayer-funded 'treatment' rather than punishment for breaking the law and buying illegal drugs
Grinspoon has studied pot for half a century- he's no slouch. His credentials are also impressive. /watch?v=4KPB7fCth6U Even Dr. Murray notes that ABUSE, not use, is the key. And that genetics, environment, upbringing, etc. are equally important. "Cannabis taken regularly, several joints a day, over a period of years, will in fact increase one's RISK... Some people have a greater liability... Whereas other people seem to be able smoke without coming to any great harm at all." -Dr. Murray
"the war on drugs will fuck your life" This is just student union sloganeering, not intellectual discussion. We have more than enough police to do what Japan and Singapore do with far less money-simply punish users, thereby reducing use. Tourists are warned before travelling to these places not take drugs with them-and you know, it works-very few tourists do.
this whole drugs debate is ridiculous. drugs will be just as accessible for anyone whether theyre illegal or legal. the only thing that matters is when they are illegal criminals are making money, but if theyre legal the government controls them.
If pot were off the street and in a licensed shop, it too would be labeled- obviously. Peanut allergies kill about 100 annually in the US. Usually people are simply unaware of the allergy, or it manifests later in life. I have an aunt who acquired a shellfish allergy in her 50s. Moderation is indeed the key. We'll have some people with predispositions who can't handle certain things- but we must assume people will be responsible with their own lives. Wrecking their lives for them does nothing.
Excuse ME, I live here, and in certain parts of the country, pot is just as prevalent as alcohol. Remember, we have Mexico on one side and Canada on the other. And It IS a victimless crime- I understand your point, but the fact is there are no direct victims of one simply holding or using pot. Many things can *potentially* happen, but that's true of anything. If someone becomes addicted, it's unfortunate but it's not a crime. And not everyone GETS addicted- most people do not in fact.
"It is crystal clear that people with schizophrenia use more cannabis than the general population... The question is whether the use of cannabis contributes to the onset of psychosis including schizophrenia in a causal manner." -Dr. Murray That is indeed the critical remaining question. And Dr. Han, without even trying mind you, may have found the link. Han was seeking to find only a genetic basis for cannabis dependence- only to find a gene with an established link to heritable schizophrenia.
"CITE it" You can find it online-Google "NHS cannabis hospitalisations 50%". Kids smoke pot BECAUSE THE LAW IS NOT ENFORCED. They will be much more likely to give into peer pressure to smoke it, if the threat of prison is removed-thus removing their excuse to say no to peer pressure!! The numbers demonstrate nothing-most people don't get sent to jail just for cannabis possession. So the law isnt enforced.
It wasnt prohibition in the US, so your point was wrong. What the US did with alcohol is what Portugal is doing now with drugs; banning their sale but not banning consumption If we properly crack down on consumption, as Sweden and Japan and Singapore have so successfully done, then we'll reduce drug abuse and gangsterism over night! Look how beautiful and clean and crime-free Singapore is (I've been there twice) because they have tough laws against drugs.
Therapists should be frustrated with their patient, not the lack of ability to prosecute them. If people don't want to be helped, then there is no helping them. I don't see how throwing them in a prison cell helps them regardless. I don't see the inherent, criminal immorality of smoking pot. What makes something immoral?
I said it was POPULARISED after the 1960's. You just proved my point! It was only used as medicine for very rich people before that. Its a foreign drug which was never used here. The stats show there was just ONE arrest in the whole of Britain for cannabis possession in 1947. Yet there are now hundreds of thousands each year. Alcohol was popular throughout our history. Crack, heroin, weed etc were certainly not.They are still not as widespread,we can get rid of them by cracking down on them
''Although cannabis use increased 10-20 fold over the last 40 years, the number of people with psychosis didn't, indeed, it looks like there might be a downward trend in schizophrenia admissions. If there was a direct link, you might expect to see levels in both either rise or fall together.'' - The British Association for Psychopharmacology The risk of lifetime cannabis use correlating with a single diagnosis of psychosis is at worst 0.013% and probably less than 0.003%. Alcohol is much worse
Peter has never smoked a joint if he thinks smoking cannabis makes you fodder for a dictator. It actually helps you take a step back from all the political BS and look at things in an objective - freedom orientated- mindset. If you're permanently stoned, that may be a different matter, but who really is going to be permanently stoned just because it is legal?
What Peter claims is wrong on so many levels! "Taking drugs is morally wrong." In America we have a constitutional right to practice whatever religion we want and that should also encompass our right to moral freedom; so long as we do not cross anyone else’s civil liberties. Our supreme court has failed greatly to recognize this. Therefore, forcing someone to not take drugs because it is ‘morally wrong’ is as evil as forcing someone to practice a religion they do not believe in.
Its not punishment, otherwise we'd just arrest burglars, rapists etc then let them go and say "you've had your punishment" dont be so silly. Punishment is a short, sharp term in an austere, drug-free, disciplined prison where they are made to work. It should be 2 strikes followed by a short term in a tough, austere jail working in a chain-gang. That wouldnt ruin any lives and would work wonders in reducing drug use.
Hitchens got insulted, booed and slandered throughout this discussion. His brother would have been proud of him, standing alone against the booing sheep who represent the thoughtless majority.
Right now, everyone has equal access to pot. And the reality is, most people who want to smoke already do, certainly those smoking heavily already do. You will never, ever eradicate pot in North America- it's a Pipe dream. And throwing people in jail when "The overall weight of evidence is that occasional use of cannabis has few harmful effects overall, and the drug is less likely to be used regularly and cause dependence than nicotine" is unreasonable. We must assume adults will be responsible.
I'm glad to see that the Republican Party has some sensible people in it, who oppose this insanity. Maybe Obama's hoping people will be mad/stoned enough to keep voting Democrat if he legalises pot.
I'm not sure how many times I can say this- but the US has the harshest penalties in the industrialized world- We have mandatory minimum sentences for certain drug offenses. There's nothing to suggest it's worked here. Judges spend half their day punishing drug offenders. On average, drug cases take up 29% of the docket in federal courts. More in district courts. The respective prison populations for non-violent drug offenders is the about the same. They comprise about 25% of all inmates.
Just because something can be harmful doesn't mean it should be illegal. By that criterion skateboarding should be illegal. I don't think people should smoke either but I don't want to criminalise them, that's outrageous. I don't think people understand the implications of criminalisation, they think the law should be our moral compass and anything we don't like should be "banned" by making it illegal. The law is not a moral arbiter, it exists to protect the public not to judge them.
Prohibitionism? I live in an area where there is nothing resembling Prohibitionism and drugs are as readily available as a bag of chips to anyone who wants them. And no *users* are jailed unless they are serial offenders.I'm not getting in an argument with you about the pros and cons of legalization, but my point is that most of those who so angrily argue for absolute legalization are hypocrites who live in nice, suburban areas where they have no experience of drugs destroying lives.
The only problem is that prohibition isnt enforced. Until we punish drug USERS not just dealers, we wont get anywhere; we have to reduce demand before we can reduce supply. Legalising drugs is not "pro-liberty"; drugs are the enemy of freedom and a toolf of control; pimps use drugs to control their prostitutes; slave-owners use them to hold slaves in eternal debt;the British Empire forced the Chinese to legalise drugs so they cold enslave them and rob their resources (read about The Opium Wars)
