Strange how both Hitchens brothers can be be so blinded by bogus 'wars' and yet very insightful on other issues.
@christopherskipp15254 жыл бұрын
Is his brother the famous atheist?
@nigelft3 жыл бұрын
@@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.
@christopherskipp15253 жыл бұрын
@@nigelft Atheism and agnosticism are incompatible positions, logically speaking.
@Mutantcy19923 жыл бұрын
@@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.
@robinsss3 жыл бұрын
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
@danielsnyder14 жыл бұрын
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.
@eighteenfiftynine4 жыл бұрын
Well, a contrarian would say they weren't wouldn't they? 😂
@deepzepp41762 жыл бұрын
Yes, he is a contrarian. I agree. But what do you mean by a “war on people”?
@danielsnyder12 жыл бұрын
@@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.
@robertoswald11124 жыл бұрын
Debates like this remind me why boxing and other combat sports have weight classifications.
@garywycuff19482 жыл бұрын
This guy has no business debating anyone on this subject...
@MrBenbenbenbenny4 жыл бұрын
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.
@MrBenbenbenbenny4 жыл бұрын
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.
@martinploughboy9884 жыл бұрын
@@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.
@MrBenbenbenbenny4 жыл бұрын
@@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.
@ferguswatt28843 жыл бұрын
@@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?
@robinsss3 жыл бұрын
@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
@nicholas33544 жыл бұрын
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.
@nicholas33544 жыл бұрын
@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?
@celebratecrypto36932 жыл бұрын
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
@Mark-hb9xy2 жыл бұрын
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.
@Ax18NY4 жыл бұрын
"I have to go very soon." Why agree to a half hour program then? Peter Hitchens is so pompous.
@user-sw2lv3zp6o4 жыл бұрын
Hitchens is a scholar.
@61shirley4 жыл бұрын
A. Roman he's correct tho
@gerhitchman4 жыл бұрын
@@user-sw2lv3zp6o A scholar of what? With what degree? Publishing in which journals? Hitchens is a pompous contrarian.
@Denis-tg6jw4 жыл бұрын
Perhaps he didn't agree to a half hour.
@goldenboy063 жыл бұрын
@@user-sw2lv3zp6o he’s a jobbing scribbler as he described himself.
@menglin74323 жыл бұрын
Honestly disappointed with the responses that PH gave. Doesn’t sound like as if he knows a lot about the topic.
@ryantogher81053 жыл бұрын
He literally wrote a book on it. read it.
@robinsss3 жыл бұрын
@@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
@ryantogher81053 жыл бұрын
@@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.
@robinsss3 жыл бұрын
@@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
@robinsss2 жыл бұрын
@Rattle you can get 5 years in prison in Japan for having one joint in Japan that's much harsher than America's punishment for the same crime
@mikenf11854 жыл бұрын
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.
@pennyawful8614 жыл бұрын
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.
@mikenf11854 жыл бұрын
@@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.
@mikenf11854 жыл бұрын
@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.
@craiggrocott75594 жыл бұрын
The war on drugs reminds me of the Knight on Monty Python who will never admit he has lost the battle.
@abrahamblankfein50423 жыл бұрын
There has been no war on drugs.
@anon.48403 жыл бұрын
What do you think that sketch was about? British imperialism.
@robinsss3 жыл бұрын
@@abrahamblankfein5042 ok then let's call it the criminalization of drugs that didn't work either
@robinsss2 жыл бұрын
@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
@Forester-10 ай бұрын
Singapore and Japan seem to be winning just fine
@annefagit33054 жыл бұрын
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.
@annefagit33053 жыл бұрын
@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.
@SagaciousFrank Жыл бұрын
"Is it time to end the war on drugs?". Well, in Britain there hasn't been one, so maybe we should give it a try.
@sparkyy00073 жыл бұрын
Emotions are easy, logic and reason is hard...
@stephenkane10744 жыл бұрын
Peter Hitchens - Addiction does not exist but God is real (and I understand him better than most, so Im kind of like God).
@godislove87404 жыл бұрын
He has airs but few graces. True. I still like him though, he's a jealous 'god' type.
@crazyfishmonster4594 жыл бұрын
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.
@BFizzi7194 жыл бұрын
Except if they are arrested and put in jail for small amounts of weed, then we get to pay for it.
@nathanprindler4 жыл бұрын
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.
@ramanchaudhary25184 жыл бұрын
Death Grips nah only in teens and only does damage if you have underlying conditions
@stephanooblus3 жыл бұрын
The UK's Dennis Prager is the best description I've heard to date. The man is stone age and highly naive.
@stephanooblus3 жыл бұрын
@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.
@stephanooblus3 жыл бұрын
@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.
@stephanooblus3 жыл бұрын
@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.
@1oldgit4 жыл бұрын
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.
@13strange673 жыл бұрын
Do the same to Prostititution, you fool !
@1oldgit3 жыл бұрын
You clearly do not understand asshole.
@christopherskipp15254 жыл бұрын
The war on drugs has been a serious failure; in fact it appears the U.S. govt. is one of the greatest drug peddlers on the planet.
@FabledNarrative4 жыл бұрын
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.
@DavidSmith-fs5qj4 жыл бұрын
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.
@nonamecommonsense90894 жыл бұрын
:-)) 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.
@jaydee49884 жыл бұрын
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
@NilsFredrikGjerull4 жыл бұрын
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.
@Prod-234 жыл бұрын
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.
@gillespaling70394 жыл бұрын
@@Prod-23 What irony?, explain it to me.
@gillespaling70394 жыл бұрын
@Sean Tottenham So does ricin, so what?
@Mutantcy19923 жыл бұрын
@@gillespaling7039 The irony is that, according to Christians, God made all the plants.
@willmartin10334 жыл бұрын
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.
@celadrial66844 жыл бұрын
Why is it bad if drug use increases? Purpose of government is to protect property rights. Whose rights are violated by drug use?
@willmartin10334 жыл бұрын
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.
@tsmay45984 жыл бұрын
@@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.
@willmartin10334 жыл бұрын
@@tsmay4598 I think he uses alcohol and tobacco as good examples of how difficult it would be to reverse the legalisation of drugs.
@tsmay45984 жыл бұрын
@@willmartin1033 Why good examples? What would be the difference to those drugs that are already illegal.
@jakeu96234 жыл бұрын
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.
@michaelrichardson94584 жыл бұрын
Drugs ruin peopled lives. Sounds pretty sensible to me.
@jakeu96234 жыл бұрын
@@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.
@michaelrichardson94584 жыл бұрын
@@jakeu9623 it looked more like he was exasperated at the inability of people to understand him I thought. I'm not suprised he gets annoyed.
@bradspitt38964 жыл бұрын
@@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.
@ramanchaudhary25184 жыл бұрын
Michael Richardson prohibition ruins lives
@eighteenfiftynine4 жыл бұрын
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.
@martynbarrett644 жыл бұрын
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.
@abc-qv1pe4 жыл бұрын
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?
@NilsFredrikGjerull4 жыл бұрын
If you choose to destroy your own body, and make life misery for all who love you, why should others try to cure the body you have chosen to destroy?
@eighteenfiftynine4 жыл бұрын
@@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?
@NyalBurns4 жыл бұрын
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.
@1960taylor4 жыл бұрын
I live in Canada...peter is 100% correct.
@nonamecommonsense90894 жыл бұрын
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.
@icystrangers54824 жыл бұрын
*"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)?
@nonamecommonsense90894 жыл бұрын
@@icystrangers5482 Where do junkies get money?
@icystrangers54824 жыл бұрын
@@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)
@somerandom32474 жыл бұрын
The war on drugs is over. Drugs won.
@sosalpha4 жыл бұрын
Never was a drug war in the usa. The drug wars are not winning in countries that use enforcement including as much as the death penalty.
@DuskAndHerEmbrace134 жыл бұрын
That is a popular slogan for drug legalisation. It’s not reflected in fact.
@shamanahaboolist4 жыл бұрын
The war on drugs was only ever an excuse to give certain aspects of law enforcement the money that was being spent on alcohol prohibition.
@shamanahaboolist4 жыл бұрын
@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.
@shamanahaboolist4 жыл бұрын
@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.
@michaelrichardson94584 жыл бұрын
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.
@archieyarr93573 жыл бұрын
That is the result of the drug war not proof of it not existing....
@Salipenter14 жыл бұрын
Christina was great.
@yourrealdad884 жыл бұрын
Sadly Peter doesn't seem to realize that where drugs are available they are there to stay.
@61shirley4 жыл бұрын
Jay Sunny they said that about drunk driving in the UK, when the showed they were serious and started enforcing the law it almost disappeared
@ChrisSchneider10004 жыл бұрын
Japan and South Korea or America: Who is more intolerant of drug abuse? Who has far fewer problems with drug abuse?
@ASP1NALL4 жыл бұрын
Apples and oranges there mate, but I accept your premise
@ChrisSchneider10004 жыл бұрын
@@ASP1NALL Care to explain buddy?
@ChrisSchneider10004 жыл бұрын
@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.
@robinsss3 жыл бұрын
Japan punishes drug possession not drug abuse so your question is not posed properly
@robinsss3 жыл бұрын
@Weapons Of Mass Distraction your last comment has nothing to do with drug policy
@vtbn534 жыл бұрын
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.
@robinsss3 жыл бұрын
there is no evidence that drugs make you lose total control of yourself you can't drug use to murder
@vtbn533 жыл бұрын
@@robinsss bull fucking shit!
@robinsss3 жыл бұрын
@@vtbn53 which statement is BS?
@vtbn533 жыл бұрын
@@robinsss All of it
@robinsss3 жыл бұрын
@@vtbn53 do you have any evidence that the popular illegal drugs make you lose total control of yourself?
@adambrown5503 жыл бұрын
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!
@pietervanleeuwen59874 жыл бұрын
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?
@shamanahaboolist4 жыл бұрын
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.
@ChrisSchneider10004 жыл бұрын
@@shamanahaboolist Brilliant point! "Don't worry about your son's meth use, don't you know there is no victim in the action of using a drug!?"
@shamanahaboolist4 жыл бұрын
@@ChrisSchneider1000 At which point does the use of meth make you a victim?
@ChrisSchneider10004 жыл бұрын
Talk of victimhood is tone deaf. The point is drug abuse creates a cascade of chaos. So don't legalize or normalize them.
@shamanahaboolist4 жыл бұрын
@@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.
@janetbaggibiotelli25563 жыл бұрын
She is after a career position PH is offering a totally normal basis for a healthier society
@benmm82444 жыл бұрын
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.
@mrdavidpollock4 жыл бұрын
Peter doesn't say things I agree with very often. His brother used to make a lot of sense.
@michaelrichardson94584 жыл бұрын
Drugs ruin people's lives.
@Prod-234 жыл бұрын
@@michaelrichardson9458 You spelled Conservative wrong.
@michaelrichardson94584 жыл бұрын
@@Prod-23 well spotted, thank you.
@jammapcb4 жыл бұрын
@@michaelrichardson9458 bad advice does!
@ALocalClown4 жыл бұрын
@@michaelrichardson9458 a bad break up can ruin someone's life, so what. Do you think the war on drugs should include alcohol too?
@Pearlygatesbouncer3 жыл бұрын
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.
@stephanooblus3 жыл бұрын
This. You've put into writing exactly how I've felt about his stance. He's black and white to a fault.
@dogsenseforu3014 жыл бұрын
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.
@psgrenier4 жыл бұрын
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.
@godislove87404 жыл бұрын
Totally agree. I like Hitchens intellect but he is a prick here. Didn't want the debate. There wasn't one.
@CoreyBrass4 жыл бұрын
Hey moderator...do your job! What are you doing?
@chiakum2 жыл бұрын
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.
@RocketKirchner2 жыл бұрын
but it can slow it down . apply your statements to child abuse . do we just ignore it and allow it to happen like abortion ?
@yourmotherisshameful2 жыл бұрын
Mulder is a violent act with a victim, and drugs are completely victimless, no way comparable at all.
@blindlemon94 жыл бұрын
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.
@godislove87404 жыл бұрын
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.
@matthewsands15724 жыл бұрын
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.
@matthewsands15724 жыл бұрын
@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.
@wendywolfman2 жыл бұрын
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.
@matthewsands15722 жыл бұрын
@@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.
@sladehelicoptersgaming31484 жыл бұрын
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
@oliverdesvaux4 жыл бұрын
Intellectually this is the equivalent of a battle between Tyson Fury and a flyweight
@shamanahaboolist4 жыл бұрын
Come on. Hitchens is a bit mad but he's not an intellectual flyweight...
@oliverdesvaux4 жыл бұрын
Lol
@tsmay45984 жыл бұрын
Hitchens is not that weak.
@godislove87404 жыл бұрын
De de de duh! Foutre moi la paix et du cake.
@billaitken29893 жыл бұрын
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.
@ryantogher81053 жыл бұрын
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.
@hackandslash8734 жыл бұрын
"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.
@josephperkins66754 жыл бұрын
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.
@hackandslash8734 жыл бұрын
@@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.
@ramanchaudhary25184 жыл бұрын
Joseph Perkins show me the studies for mental damage
@josephperkins66754 жыл бұрын
@@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.
@hackandslash8734 жыл бұрын
@@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!
@ritawing10644 жыл бұрын
Should never have been started. Richard Davenport Hines: The Pursuit of Oblivion gives an excellent account of the origins of this foolish enterprise.
@brucewallace24 жыл бұрын
Hitchins is completely off beam here but then he is as mad as a hatter.
@tsmay45984 жыл бұрын
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.
@NilsFredrikGjerull4 жыл бұрын
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".
@PigRipperLAW4 жыл бұрын
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:
@savethefamily-savetheworld55394 жыл бұрын
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
@PigRipperLAW4 жыл бұрын
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.
@DuskAndHerEmbrace134 жыл бұрын
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.
@PigRipperLAW4 жыл бұрын
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.
@DuskAndHerEmbrace134 жыл бұрын
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.
@liammccann87634 жыл бұрын
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.
@godislove87404 жыл бұрын
Yes. Tis the long game. Pharma admits holistic by going wasted.
@rubiks64 жыл бұрын
I forgot for a moment that Peter is not Christopher.
@PigRipperLAW4 жыл бұрын
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.
@pennyawful8614 жыл бұрын
All laws are moral laws.
@pennyawful8614 жыл бұрын
Does this include a wall between the church of liberalism and state. Liberalism is the deadliest religion of them all.
@PigRipperLAW4 жыл бұрын
Penny Awful Aww how cute. Did they just let you off the short bus? Oh I’m sorry, I’ll speak slower so you can keep up.
@robinsss3 жыл бұрын
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
@deepzepp41762 жыл бұрын
Great host.
@HomicideHenry4 жыл бұрын
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 😊
@Meta_Myself4 жыл бұрын
What makes a drug strong is the dose... beer can kill.
@bigfan10414 жыл бұрын
Not really, a dose of alcohol that is harmless can be deadly if its one of many other drugs though its the same size dose.
@Meta_Myself4 жыл бұрын
@@bigfan1041 What do you mean the same dose? Drugs aren't all the same. They are different threshold doses.
@HomicideHenry4 жыл бұрын
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.
@blindlemon94 жыл бұрын
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.
@sjwible82294 жыл бұрын
If it's legal how is addiction measured?
@anon.48403 жыл бұрын
Through medical data. Obviously.
@benjamin48944 жыл бұрын
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..?
@RealIllumin4 жыл бұрын
He's always has that contradiction when talking about drugs. He never notices it, which is odd.
@ryantogher81053 жыл бұрын
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.
@RealIllumin2 жыл бұрын
@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.
@robertcarpenter80774 жыл бұрын
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.
@adamm40624 жыл бұрын
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.
@Savantjazzcollective4 жыл бұрын
Are drugs better or worse for the community at whole? Are drugs better or worse for productivity and a nation's economy?
@kingoliever14 жыл бұрын
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.
@ryantogher81053 жыл бұрын
Worse
@themccarthyplan20204 жыл бұрын
Peter is the boss. Come holy spirit.........prison should be secure civilized labour/education institutions.
@godislove87404 жыл бұрын
It couldn't work without radical social reform outside.
@themccarthyplan20204 жыл бұрын
@@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 ❤️
@Meta_Myself4 жыл бұрын
No drug ought to be illegal.
@ic.xc.4 жыл бұрын
Meta Self Tell that to yourself once you start a family .
@Meta_Myself4 жыл бұрын
@@ic.xc. You think all drugs use is abuse?
@tonydumbty70034 жыл бұрын
If anyone needs drugs, it's Peter..
@tsmay45984 жыл бұрын
He does actually like a few glasses of wine. But that doesn't count.
@godislove87404 жыл бұрын
@@tsmay4598 how?
@tonydumbty70034 жыл бұрын
@@godislove8740 didn't you know wine isn't a drug.. Lol
@godislove87404 жыл бұрын
@@tonydumbty7003 correct! (Boos) 🙃
@rODIUMuk4 жыл бұрын
Hitchens great
@Prod-234 жыл бұрын
Christians making a plant illegal ... And the irony is utterly lost on most of them.
@sosalpha4 жыл бұрын
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?
@sosalpha4 жыл бұрын
@@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.
@Denis-tg6jw4 жыл бұрын
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.
@sosalpha4 жыл бұрын
@@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.
@sosalpha4 жыл бұрын
@@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.
@sosalpha4 жыл бұрын
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.
@danmorfy36314 жыл бұрын
Any of the Hypocrites want to open a Smack Heroin House next door to you and your kid's ?? Taught not!
@robinsss3 жыл бұрын
to start explain what s smack house is
@simonkemp1564 жыл бұрын
Wish Peter's brother was still around. He always made a lot more sense to me - not a pompous man and actually had a sense of humour.
@rODIUMuk4 жыл бұрын
Simon Kemp totally disagree . Peter is usually right about everything
@Denis-tg6jw4 жыл бұрын
But Saint Christopher was pig headed and vindictive, particularly with regard to the Iraq war
@sosalpha4 жыл бұрын
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!!
@rODIUMuk4 жыл бұрын
@Marianne Havisham I really don't get why. He is really intelligent and knowledgable, and explains himself clearly and he is fair.
@scottbuchanan94262 жыл бұрын
Christopher Hitchens "not...pompous"?? I love reading Hitchens, but you must be confusing him with someone else.
@steve-bk1qd4 жыл бұрын
I hope not....great band
@Backwardsman954 жыл бұрын
Did this guy just say addiction doesn't exist???
@pennyawful8614 жыл бұрын
Yes, addiction has not been scientifically provin to exist.
@shamanahaboolist4 жыл бұрын
@@pennyawful861 Not true. Addiction do dopamine is extremely well understood. It's just that addiction is an entirely independent concept to drug use.
@robinsss3 жыл бұрын
@@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
@crankyrebate81613 жыл бұрын
In the thumbnail peter looks like he’s peeking on a strong E
@Djur28444 жыл бұрын
When the wise guy points on the moon, the idiot looks at his finger
@abrahamblankfein50423 жыл бұрын
Hitchens once again demolishes the feeble arguments of pleasure seeking bohemians. Bravo!
@Dazza013 жыл бұрын
Bet you're fun at parties. Relax and take a line
@robinsss3 жыл бұрын
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
@godislove87404 жыл бұрын
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?
@nonamecommonsense90894 жыл бұрын
Drug is an illegal addictive substance.
@godislove87404 жыл бұрын
@@nonamecommonsense9089 nope. Think harder for the sake of your mind.
@BFizzi7194 жыл бұрын
@@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.
@stephenransley93774 жыл бұрын
how rude
@andrewmartin64454 жыл бұрын
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.
@DuskAndHerEmbrace134 жыл бұрын
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.
@DavidSmith-fs5qj4 жыл бұрын
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?
@robinsss3 жыл бұрын
@@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
@rjhtrucking54294 жыл бұрын
I'm only 7mins in and already Peter has won it !
@Ripper360684 жыл бұрын
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!!
@matthewsands15724 жыл бұрын
I should be able to sue the government if I get hit by a car because I don't agree that driving cars should be legal. That's how stupid you sound.
@Ripper360684 жыл бұрын
@@matthewsands1572 Get real mate! 🤦♂️
@matthewsands15724 жыл бұрын
@@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.
@Ripper360684 жыл бұрын
@@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!!
@michaelkirby16434 жыл бұрын
Justine, don't like the term "vs" rather Debates! .
@Backwardsman954 жыл бұрын
The war on drugs has done more harm than the drugs themselves.
@johnnyrebel70164 жыл бұрын
This NPC woman really made this debate the worst debate I've ever seen.
@jesuschristislord77544 жыл бұрын
War on drugs should never have been started.
@kenboon14784 жыл бұрын
Peter looks like he's been on drugs for a considerable amount of time !
@Baz634 жыл бұрын
god gave us nothing because it is a man made concept. If you believe in this god then servitude is demanded and critical think has to be abandoned.
@grantfrith95894 жыл бұрын
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.
@NLNC4 жыл бұрын
Three non-Christians on there then!
@icystrangers54824 жыл бұрын
*"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.
@viljakainu15484 жыл бұрын
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.
@SurveyorStudios3 жыл бұрын
It shouldn’t be a criminal act in the first place.
@neuronneuron36454 жыл бұрын
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.
@SC-fu6tk4 жыл бұрын
Enoch Powell was right all along
@PrincipledUncertainty4 жыл бұрын
Addicts are nice when clean, therefore they bear zero responsibility for their actions. I think I am following her correctly.
@wynstone72834 жыл бұрын
Yes DEFINITELY!!! HEMP LIFE
@shamanahaboolist4 жыл бұрын
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.
@DavidSmith-fs5qj4 жыл бұрын
You obviously haven't listened to a word he has said.
@Denis-tg6jw4 жыл бұрын
Paranoia, schizophrenia, cancer all according to Harvard Medical School are strongly linked to cannabis use.
@DavidSmith-fs5qj4 жыл бұрын
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.
@shamanahaboolist3 жыл бұрын
@@Denis-tg6jw Correlation is not causation.
@shamanahaboolist3 жыл бұрын
@@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.
@crazyprayingmantis55964 жыл бұрын
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) ✌️
@pennyawful8614 жыл бұрын
Becasue it doesn't exist.
@NilsFredrikGjerull4 жыл бұрын
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.
@theoneheretosty4 жыл бұрын
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.
@tommym3213 жыл бұрын
Oh please. What a bunch of nonsense.
@theoneheretosty3 жыл бұрын
@@tommym321 Not really an argument . . .
@conradswadling84954 жыл бұрын
for once, hitchens is argueing from authority, and not doing a good job
@61shirley4 жыл бұрын
Conrad Swadling he has challenged her claims with reason and evidence. She hasn't challenged anything he has said