Regular readers may recall the fairly unusual occurrence of my trailing a future event, to wit last Thursday’s debate on the legalisation of cannabis, held at Waterstones Oxford and occurring between ‘Protestant iconoclast’ Peter Hitchens and ‘the most sophisticated drug dealer in the history of the world’, Howard Marks. I note that, according to his own blog, Mr H himself feels unable to accurately relate what went on, on account of his being a participant. With the big man thus having effectively recused himself – well, what can I say? – here’s how it seemed to me at the time.
I turned up for the event nice and early, while the shop itself was still open, and passed a few pleasant minutes, as usual, browsing the graphic novel shelves. (I note that Neonomicon is still on sale in a non-sealed format which anyone of any age can pick up and look through. Somebody really ought to have a word with the booksellers about this.) I still couldn’t quite justify buying Mega-City Justice – it may end up being another Christmas present to myself – but it did occur to me that Peter Hitchens might share my own sneaking admiration for Judge Dredd’s inflexible moral stance. Who can say.
Anyway people were starting to drift in and I thought it prudent to actually grab a seat. At this point I found myself actively considering the question of what kind of person would go to a personal appearance by Hitchens and Marks for the first time: identifying who was here to support who was not especially difficult, shall we say. At the risk of generalising inappropriately, a goodly portion resembled the solid Tory stock of Mr Hitchens’ natural consituency, while much of the remainder were clearly people who take life very easily indeed. (I myself, of course, was there as a helpless thinker and fascinated long-term Hitchens-watcher.) Some people had even brought their kids, which startled me inordinately, mainly because it seemed to me this could be a highly-charged encounter with passions surging on both sides. Should it all kick off I resolved to go down with the first punch that connected and crawl discreetly to the lift.
Hey ho. Not long after seven we were treated to a highly rigorous security check from the Waterstones staff (‘Can everyone please wave their ticket in the air?’) and then the two men themselves descended from the lofty heights of the bookshop Costa (they’re turning up everywhere) to commence the event.
Things took an unexpected turn as the moderator revealed that the dyed-in-the-wool conservative commentator and the convicted drug dealer are actually great friends with a history of saying very nice things about one another – Hitchens is a ‘courteous and considerate friend’ and a ‘brilliant writer and debater’, according to Marks, while Hitchens has unstintingly praised Marks’ chivalry and decency (as well as other positive qualities) too. This was a surprise.
So the proceedings, as they got underway, are slightly more clubbable than I’d expected, with both speakers provided with comfy armchairs and microphones. Marks spoke first, reading from notes: the gist of what he says – cannabis was only internationally banned by the League of Nations as an afterthought to the banning of opium, the ban has done nothing to reduce demand or supply and is instead only responsible for a vast black market with its devastating attendant evils, and that given that people are always going to smoke weed, having it distributed by criminals is the least desirable option – is probably rather less striking than his method of imparting it. Never having heard Marks speak before, I’d no idea he was Welsh – but he is, and very very Welsh. Delivering his statement in mellifluous Welsh tones with more than a hint of theatricality, seated in his comfy chair throughout, Howard Marks’ opening statement is rather like a very strange episode of Jackanory.
And then Peter Hitchens rises to speak. I must confess to partly being here in order to see what Hitchens is like in person, being much more familiar with his writing and occasional TV appearances. Well, rather to my surprise, Mr H is a much more likeable and charismatic figure than his reputation might suggest – he opens with a gag, which I would never have expected (not a great gag, but as it’s virtually the same as one I used myself on this blog earlier this year there’s a limit to how critical I can honestly be), is generous to his opponent throughout, and he’s good-humoured and thoughtful rather than an inflexible martinet.
Basically, Hitchens’ line is that cannabis is at least as dangerous as heroin or cocaine, two drugs far less socially acceptable, with a documented history of causing serious mental illness in a significant percentage of users. As a result it would be folly to make it easier to acquire, and the only sensible course is to try and drive it out of acceptable society entirely. It’s a lot harder to make things illegal than to legalise them, and so it’s better not to take the chance.
This argument depends heavily on the strength of the evidence as to how dangerous cannabis is – I’m not really qualified to comment on this either way, but I respect Hitchens enough to believe that he hasn’t just invented this stuff out of the air. But, given this is the case, it’s difficult to take issue with Hitchens’ argument.
However, in the Q&A which follows, various people try: most of the questions are for Hitchens, from people taking issue with his views. I’ve already commented that the current system seems a bit inconsistent to me – why make cannabis illegal when alcohol, an equally damaging drug, is free available? And this same point is made to Hitchens. Rather unexpectedly (possibly you should just assume that everything that went down at this event was rather unexpected, as I appear to be typing those words rather a lot), Hitchens’ response is pragmatic: he’d support an alcohol ban with great pleasure, but the fact of the long history of it as a presence in society would make this almost impossible to enact and enforce.
There’s another interesting moment when it’s put to Mr H that the prohibition of cannabis is responsible for tremendous suffering across the developing world, by putting the cannabis trade into the hands of organised criminals, with the result that numerous minor wars and insurgencies are largely funded by the sale of drugs. Needless to say Hitchens disagrees – the market for cannabis which these criminals operate to meet only exists due to the existing drug laws not being enforced with sufficient rigour. This is more questionable ground – can people really be persuaded or cowed into not wanting to get off their heads? – but it’s not obviously incoherent either.
A year ago I would have said that Peter Hitchens and I had nothing in common and would be capable of little interaction other than arguing, but it really does seem to me that he was talking rationally and very persuasively at this event. And his arguments were based not on handed-down moral absolutism but an appeal to a sense of collective responsibility and the value of all members of society. Given the dangers of cannabis, for someone to still argue that it should be widely available is for that person to declare they are indifferent to the lives of all those damaged by the drug – it seems to me this is basically a deeply selfish position, and one I could not personally justify to myself.
These principles – concern for society as a whole, collective responsibility, and so on – are not ones I would traditionally associate with members of the Right. I am increasingly wondering if the whole Left-Right dichotomy isn’t hopelessly simplistic when it comes to breaking down what people actually believe. I’ve always called my own politics left-of-centre but there are a few issues, usually social ones, in which I realise my views are actually quite traditional. My left-of-centreness is mainly based on my dislike of free market economics and unfettered capitalism – but as the economy is the main political issue of our time, that’s the bit that really counts.
Nevertheless it seems to me that, just as certain writers and commentators demonise some ideas in such a way as to discourage people from genuinely thinking about what it is they actually objecting to (the transformation of concepts such as Human Rights, Health and Safety, and Political Correctness into straw-men targets to be reflexively abjured), so the very left-right idea can be a barrier to people with useful and valuable things to say to each other actually communicating. Empty tribalism gets in the way.
I turned up to the event as a Don’t Know, but left in provisional agreement with prohibition. Howard Marks was amusing and memorable but, truth be told, Peter Hitchens was genuinely impressive throughout, not least during his final contribution. Challenged to justify why a potentially harmful drug like cannabis should be banned while two definitely dangerous ones remain on sale legally, Hitchens rose to his feet and for the first time we got some of the passion and force that suffuses most of his columns in the MoS. Again, what he says makes sense: ‘we have two dangerous legal drugs already, so why not add a third?’ is an absurd position to take. ‘You may say there is only a chance that cannabis will cause you harm, but should you be one of the unfortunates whose mental health is damaged by this drug – that would not be a chance, my dear sir, that would be a catastrophe for you and for everyone who loves you!’ It’s an electric moment and at its conclusion Hitchens flops back into his seat, not making eye contact with anyone. It’s the only time he seems genuinely angry all evening.
It’s been a stimulating evening and has caused me to question my own beliefs in some detail – perhaps it’s too easy to hide behind abstract principle when there are issues of people’s real lives to take into account. In the end, feeling it’s only good manners, I pick up a copy of Hitchens’ book and – seeing as I’m there – attach myself to the queue to get Mr H to sign it himself. The queue to have copies of Howard Marks’ Book of Dope Stories autographed is much longer; Marks’ microphone is still live and rumblings and mutterings and excerpts from startling anecdotes are randomly emerging from the speakers.
Nevertheless, Hitchens signs the book and we shake hands. ‘I disagree with you on a lot of things,’ I say, ‘but I’m always interested in hearing what you have to say, and I have a lot of respect for you as a thinker and a writer.’
Peter Hitchens’ eyes widen. Could these words have moved him? Could this be the beginning of the washing away of the old left-right dichotomy? Could we be about to forge a bold new intellectual axis which will reshape British politics for generations to come?
‘I’m sorry,’ he says in the gentlest and mildest of voices, gesturing to the amplifier behind his head. ‘But I couldn’t hear a word you said.’
Oh well, can’t win ’em all. British politics will have to stumble on as before.
Nicely written. Made me think, too. Agree that alcohol is probably more dangerous but I don’t think I could live without decent wine 🙂
Thanks. It’s kept me thinking, to be honest: once you admit the ‘I personally find this enjoyable and harmless but others are damaged by it, therefore the responsible thing is to agree to forgo it’ argument, it’s the thin end of a frankly enormous wedge extending into all areas of society and culture…
As charming as Howard Marks is I can’t help but feel Prof David Nutt would have been a far better opponent
On one level, I agree with you: but then again most of the people turning up to debate were doing so with an eye to taking on Hitchens himself – on some level of the opponent was a bit secondary. I think Waterstones were keen on having someone else whose books might sell there too…
Thing is, you try telling a conservative during the period 1790-1974 that conservatism is all about “right wing economics” which involves “free trade” and minimal state interference in the markets.
They would look at you, sir, as though you were out of your mind, or at least talking out of your hat.
In the 1970s, the governments of Wilson pushed the Labour party towards the “social” or “cultural left”.
In 1979, Thatcher pushed her party to the economic, neoliberal right.
Even as recently as 1953, if you tried telling a voter of these future developments, they would make very little sense indeed.
what I am saying, then, is that I liked everything you said, save
“These principles – concern for society as a whole, collective responsibility, and so on – are not ones I would traditionally associate with members of the Right”
It is precisely and only the modern right to whom these principles would not make sense. Once you see that, the history of British politics begins to make more sense, and the sheer extent of the cultural revolution of the ’70’s and ’80’s becomes more apparent
A fair point, cogently made. (I was born in 1974, just to give you an inkling of my own perspective.) Surely this makes it even harder to put a definite label on what constitutes the quintessential Left or Right? I’d be interested in hearing anyone’s ideas on what lies at the heart of these concepts – or are they just labels which are perpetually redefined in opposition to one another?
The Peter Hitchens Experience?
I always preferred the Jimi Hendrix Experience, myself.
Another very good point! As a 90s teenager I had The Mary Whitehouse Experience at the back of my mind also. (I considered calling the post ‘Peter Hitchens on Drugs’ but decided Mr H’s forebearance about my various writings concerning him might have its limits…)
I would say that I am left leaning economically and a conservative (particularly Hitchens) sympathiser on a range of social and moral issues. However, even on social issues I feel free to take different positions on different issues (and when I do take a conservative position, its not from a Christian perspective) so its really hard to put myself in a box or place myself on a spectrum.
There should at the very least be two separate spectrums for social and economic issues. It seems odd that they are always conflated when there is no *necessary* link between them. You could coherently be a pro-life Christian-right socialist or on the far right economically whilst being a LGBT advocate and for drug legalization etc. In fact, Ron Paul’s wish to legalise drugs and deregulate the economy both come from a conviction in small government, just as socialism and the anti-drug stance are potentially united by the principles of collective responsibility.
Anyway…I wanted to say maybe you should do some research on whether marijuana is harmful and whether it can bring on schizophrenia. I am not informed on this either, but I’ve certainly heard strong claims to the contrary from the pro-legalization people. I’ve read that scientific studies have only shown that cannabis can bring on schizophrenia in people who were prone to it and would have got it anyway (ie it causes early onset). I’ve also read that rates of schizophrenia in America have stayed the same since the 60’s as cannabis use has increased.
I suppose there is also the recent new Zealand longitudinal study which showed an average loss of 8 IQ points for regular users, irreversible for those who started in their teens. And they say the strains of cannabis have got much stronger recently so it could be worse.
Lastly, I wanted to compliment your writing. Consider it complimented.
And your compliment is greatly appreciated, thank you.
I broadly agree with you on the political-spectrum issue. I’m increasingly frustrated by people’s inability to process concepts unless they are put into neat boxes first (you must be one thing or another with no shades of grey permissible).
The response to this piece – which has been phenomenal, by this blog’s standards, has somebody publicised it without telling me? – broadly falls into two groups: people commenting on the Left-Right issue, and people taking issue with Hitchens’ claim that evidence shows cannabis presents a clear and present danger to mental health. I really don’t know enough about this, clearly, but it’s very difficult to be sure of finding an impartial source of information – there’s such scope here for the inclusion of anecdotal evidence (or accusations of the same) or post hoc ergo procter hoc reasoning.
The IQ damage reports are from (I believe) the Dunedin Cohort, which seems to have scientific legitimacy. The threat to intelligence alone would be enough to make me steer clear of the weed; to paraphrase Woody Allen, my brain is my favourite part of my body.
The fundamental flaw in your admiration of Peter H’s argument is that all the scientific evidence shows that, relatively speaking, cannabis is safe,.
I count Peter H as a friend despite being his opponent and he has clearly done a good job of diverting you from the evidence.
Here is my debate with him at the University of Salford last year. We have a re-match at the University of Exeter on 29th November.
Well, I made a point of saying my agreement was provisional and based solely on the evidence Hitchens cited actually standing up – should it not, I reserve the right to amend my position! Apologies if I don’t get a chance to view this film and respond in the very near future; life presses a bit currently.
don,t listen to reynolds b4 you goggle him he does not represent many off us who,d like cannabis legalised,.Also as to your agreeing with hitchens surely folk who have problems? with cannabis or other drugs would be more likely to seek help if they were legal
Hmmm – I think the Hitchensian response would be to say that the number of people who had such problems would massively increase if cannabis were legalised (i.e. more people would take them so even if the percentage of people with problems remained unchanged, in real terms the number would rise) resulting in overworked doctors, etc. Surely the same argument could apply to any drug? Are you in favour of universal legalisation? (I’m not saying that as an accusation or critically, by the way, I’m just curious about your overall position.)
According to the government’s own figures, cannabis appears to have stopped causing metal illness, rather abruptly, towards the end of 2010.
Story: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=453493984673450&set=pb.158293914193460.-2207520000.1351195542
I don’t know enough about those figures to meaningfully comment on them, except to say that – if they’re accurate – *something* has clearly changed. I’ve no idea what that factor would be though.
Cannabis use has increased 20 fold, yet the number of people with psychosis or schizophrenia hasn’t, in fact it seems there is a downward trend in admissions. But cannabis causes mental illness? Well, cannabis produces THC Which is a psychoactive chemical found in the Resin. The second most prevalent chemical is a cannabinoid known as CBD. CBD, is an anti psychotic. It is safe, and non psychoactive. Yet, when prohibited and the control is gifted to criminals, plants sometimes are harvested early due to fear, ignorance or a lack of consideration. Certain strains, mostly Hybrids and Sativa dominates develop most of the CBD during the last few weeks of flowering. An early harvest will stop production in said cannabinoid, leaving an unbalanced cannabinoid profile. Which may cause discomfort in anxiety prone people, such as a ‘racy’ ‘trippy’ feeling, but to go as far as psychosis or schizophrenia is completely false. Baring in mind, many people are not anxiety prone.
There is no credible study that supports the idea that cannabis induces said mental illnesses. In the UK, cannabis is fully prohibited. Yet the golden rule of any dealer is to sell the strongest stuff for more profits. If cannabis users have no choice of different strains, and only High THC no CBD strains available, it may cause problems in certain susceptible individuals and young people when abused heavily. This is a product of prohibition and nothing more. To put things in perspective, alcohol users are 6times more likely to develop psychotic symptoms and psychological problems than cannabis users. I am in no way saying alcohol is guaranteed to cause said psychological problems, but it puts cannabis in perspective. Also, GWpharma who grow thousands of cannabis plants in Kent, sell the worlds most expensive cannabis. Its not cannabis ‘based’ medicine, its pure cannabis oil in tinctures. Its super concentrated. Street weed is 12-18% THC, GWpharma’s Sativex (liquid cannabis) is around 50% THC. MUCH stronger than any herbal cannabis in Holland, let alone the UK. If cannabis caused said mental health problems, wouldnt that be stated in the List of Side effects? The worst side effect from using cannabis? Criminal records and Jail time. Dont forget, if CBD rich strains where available, it would help reverse the effect and ease symptoms of psychosis and schizophrenia. Its not about being afraid of high THC levels, its about being concerned with unbalanced cannabinoid profiles. Dealers and illegal growers dont care, and sell to who ever what ever age. Cannabis isnt meant for kids and developing brains, no substance is. In order to regulate the cannabis market, we have to take the control away from criminals.
I can honestly appreciate how you’ve tried to listen to both sides of the argument here. But the fact that you not only openly reference the fallacy of Hitchens, that ‘cannabis is just as harmful as heroin and cocaine’ but to some extent agree with it, makes me laugh and cry all at once.
This guy has simply no fucking idea what he’s talking about when it comes to drugs. End of. ‘He wouldn’t just pull this information out of his arse would he?’ Of course he bloody would!
Peter is nothing but the repugnant personification of the conservative Christian values that have been holding society back for millennia. And so accordingly, like all other religious zealots; he will defend every ‘moral’ argument that falls under that umbrella.
Nonetheless, thank you for providing coverage of the debate. I really would’ve expected it to be up on youtube by now. Was it being filmed at the time?
As I have to keep saying, my agreement with Hitchens is based on the scientific data he cites standing up: should it not, I reserve the right (of course) to amend my position.
I don’t agree with Hitchens on much but I have to say he deserves to be listened to and debated with with respect as – however misguided he may or may not be – he is clearly an intelligent man who can assemble a rational argument. If you go at him with ad hominem attacks, you’re not going to do anything beyond giving him more evidence that anyone disagreeing with him can’t find the arguments to prove him wrong and so must simply engage in abuse.
I’m not sure what you mean by ‘the conservative Christian values which have been holding society back’. I’m not a believer myself but I have a lot of respect for much of what Christianity stands for and has achieved. Indeed, much of modern society I would say was built on a Christian foundation so I’m not sure how it could be said to have been held back by that same faith.
From my own discussions with Peter Hitchens I would hesitate to describe him as a religious zealot; my understanding is that he became a Christian as a result of measured consideration of the facts and took a conscious decision (which still sounds weird to me butstill not the usual definition of zealotry).
I think there was a camera at the back while the debate was taking place – no idea why no footage has been forthcoming though.
Forgive my confrontational tone, but as somebody who routinely winds up on the receiving end of mainstream society’s misconceptions and down right bigoted views of drugs and their users. I find further perpetuation of such nonsense to be very frustrating to say the least.
I’m not trying to incite a religious debate here but I find it rather naive of you to act so oblivious of the negative effects that organised religion has had on society since it’s inception. But in case you genuinely aren’t aware, then what else if not religion has been standing in the way of:
Womens rights?
Homosexuals rights?
The emancipation of the slaves?
The relinquishment of notions such as ‘witchcraft’ to the realm of fairytales?
Since you’re already a Hitchens fan, why not familiarise yourself with the teachings of his (sane) brother, Christopher? You will undoubtedly find many of his points to be quite inflammatory. But as a former Christian myself, I urge you to look past your ‘offense’ and at least consider that, just as with matters such as the shape of the earth or the nature of matter. The vast majority of humanity has stood to be corrected, time and time again.
Religion and to a lesser extent, people’s opinions of recreational drug use; is nothing but a more fundamentally sentimental facet of this notion.
Funnily enough, I think Hitchens might agree and empathise with your frustration at the treatment handed out to holders of non-consensus views.
I wonder if the distinction between religion and organised religion is significant in this discussion? Certainly many of the attitudes of, to pick the most obvious example, the Church, as a social institution, are not supported by an examination of what’s actually in the Bible. Then again, I’m not entirely sure that’s relevant.
Society as a whole has been dominated by religion for most of its history, so it seems a bit unreasonable to point out injustices or regrettable situation that have existed in the past and say ‘this is religion’s fault’, without also acknowledging that some of the social advances and positive situations that may have occurred also had a religious element to them. It was the Quakers and other religious groups who were amongst the first to condemn slavery. Much of the scientific research of the 19th century was carried out by people with a religious background, too.
I’m not sure, when you talk about ‘the relinquishment of the notion of witchcraft to the realm of fairytales’, if you’re suggesting that mainstream religion has been intolerant of pagan religions like Wicca – in which case I agree, but then religions are generally intolerant of one another, that’s usually the nature of the beast – or whether you’re complaining that it’s stopped people believing in magic.
I’m somewhat familiar with Christopher Hitchens already, thanks. I do tend to agree with him more, but part of my interest in Peter Hitchens is the fact that I can follow his arguments and understand where he’s coming from with great clarity, yet still frequently disagree with his conclusions.
At any given moment in history most people have been wrong in their views about most things, certainly from a scientific standpoint. Then again, given the nature of scientific progress this is surely only to be expected.
“Hitchens’ line is that cannabis is at least as dangerous as heroin or cocaine, two drugs far less socially acceptable, with a documented history of causing serious mental illness in a significant percentage of users.”
Unfortunately, his line is not at all well-supported. The part about cannabis being at least as dangerous as heroin or cocaine is wildly off. Both heroin and cocaine have known LD50s – you can die of an overdose of either of them, whereas there are no medically documented fatal overdoses from cannabis. That alone ought to clinch it. And both heroin and cocaine can be powerfully addictive in a substantial proportion of users. The jury is still out on the addictiveness of cannabis, but whatever it is, there is no good evidence that it is anything like as common (as a proportion of the using population) or as typically damaging to one’s life prospects.
Of course, Hitchens famously doesn’t believe in addiction, taking the view that no matter how much one’s body may scream out for a dose of opiates, all one needs to do is exercise one’s free will and resist the urge. Ironically, as neuroscientists are increasingly beginning to report, it seems that it is more like that free will is an illusion; certainly it is a concept which seems logically impossible to square with a deterministic universe (regardless of whether you believe we have souls), whereas the fact that a substantial minority of people who use opiates come to experience painful physiological states that can only be relieved in the short term by a repeat dose is about as certain a fact as any in medicine.
And as regards mental illness, again the jury is out on that one. So far it is reasonable to believe that there may be a minority of people who are susceptible developing mental illness for whom cannabis is a risk factor, although even then the causality isn’t clear; is it always the case that cannabis causes mental illness, or is it sometimes the case that the mental illness drives the cannabis use to excessive levels? But it is also clear that most people who use cannabis do not appear to develop mental illness of any kind, and therefore any social policy that criminalises all cannabis users is punishing the many to prevent the problems of the few – problems which it is not at all clear are best addressed by coercion in the first place.
It is also notable that there is no overall correlation between severity of enforcement and levels of drug use. Prohibitionists like to point to Sweden as a European country with relatively low levels of drug use, and relatively severe levels of punishment for drug use. But this is cherry-picking. The USA has among the most punitive sets of drug laws among democratic countries, and notably has far higher rates of cannabis use than most comparable countries; certainly far higher than the Netherlands where personal use of cannabis is famously … well, not technically decriminalised, but effectively the police are instructed to ignore the law and treat it as if it were. Hitchens proposes extremely harsh judicial treatment for cannabis users. Given that the differential between lenient treatment and moderately harsh treatment, and between moderately harsh treatment and the harshest we are currently able to point to, does not seem to impact use rates in any consistent pattern, we are entitled to ask why we should expect more repression to achieve what repression has so far failed to achieve … and that’s even before we address the question of whether it is ethically permissible to use harsh state coercion against people whose behaviour is fundamentally unlike most things we normally think of as crimes (i.e. behaviours which deliberately harm others).
It’s also not at all absurd to point to alcohol and tobacco being legal as an argument against cannabis being re-legalized. Firstly, the fact that we don’t punish adults for simple use of alcohol or tobacco (within certain regulatory limits) means that the people who prefer cannabis are entitled to ask: why should I be fined, given a criminal record etc for doing something no more dangerous than what those other people are doing? It is clearly unjust, given that there are no good reasons to think that cannabis is more dangerous than alcohol, to punish cannabis users without at least trying to punish alcohol users with comparable severity. It’s also not absurd because we as a society have clearly decided that,whatever the risks of alcohol and tobacco, we can try to address them using regulation rather than prohibition. Prohibiting alcohol in the USA resulted in a boomtime for organised crime, gargantuan scale corruption of the police and government officials, and, apparently, a modest reduction in the amount of alcohol consumed which was cancelled out by the fact that what alcohol was being consumed was now on average a much more dangerous product. We never got to the point of banning alcohol in the UK, but there’s no reason to think it would have been different here – and there’s no reason to think that the same gains in weakening of organised crime, lessening opportunities for corruption, allowing for safer drug products by regulation of content, allowing for safer drug markets by regulating and licensing vendors and having sensible age restrictions, freeing up of police time to focus on genuinely malicious crimes etc wouldn’t apply in equal force when we cease to criminalise cannabis users.
(I know that Hitchens has objected to the use of the word ‘criminalise’ before, so in case he joins in on this thread, I’ll state it up front: no activity becomes a crime unless some sort of legislative power makes it a crime. Sometimes the origins are lost in prehistory – there is no known society that criminalised murder after it developed or acquired writing, but the prohibition of cannabis use in the UK is a 20th century phenomenon; laws were passed making it a crime to use cannabis, therefore cannabis use (and cannabis users) were criminalised).
The best evidence on cannabis, addiction and mental health is:
1. The prevalence, rate (about 9% among users) and withdrawal symptoms associated with cannabis dependency are similar to or less serious than for caffeine dependence. (Hall et al 2001, Coffey et al 2002, Copeland et al 2004, DSM-IV)
2. Hickman et al, 2009. A review of all published research so, by definition, not cherry picked. It shows that the risk of lifetime cannabis use correlating with a single diagnosis of psychosis is at worst 0.013% and probably less than 0.003%.
3. Hospital Episode Statistics. Count of finished admission episodes (FAE) with a primary diagnosis of mental and behavioural disorders due to use of cannabinoids (ICD10 code F12) and alcohol (ICD10 code F10)
Cannabinoids (F12)
2009-10 713
2010-11 799
Alcohol (F10)
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.
4. 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.
Yowser.
It increasingly seems to me that the main flaw in the debate I attended was that – charming figure though he is – Howard Marks was either unable or unwilling to take Peter Hitchens on with respect to the medical evidence, which is what Hitchens’ argument is fundamentally based on (although I note that in the book, which I haven’t properly got into yet, he starts attacking drug use as being fundamentally immoral, part of the onslaught on Christian values, etc, etc).
Thank you for the information.
The best evidence on alcohol, addiction and mental health is:
1. Peter Reynolds’ entire web output.
troll
Here is a sample of web output from someone who was genuinely mentally ill at the time. Please find another comparison for your opponents if you must but leave the mentally ill out of it in future. If you think you can create similar output by using cannabis or THC as a ‘psychomimetic’ then let’s have your proof!
+++++Begin Sample+++++
18:09
J***** updated his status.
“UP from the depths, 30 stories High! x”
17:55
J***** updated his status.
“Ill Eagle
Evol Current Prescription:
Current name of GOD:(ENG|Beast):Unknown X
Current $hantichrist: (FEX|Medusa) J***** P******, witch is not gay. -M
Name of $$$ 2012: SUPERKALIFAX, or ewe, or maam, or kat. Predator. Lethal.
NAME of GOD 2013: Whatever.
NAME$ of GOD YRn: WAXON or Chitta-Vrrti
NAME$offGOD yrM: WAXOFF or Chitta”
14:00
J***** updated his status.
“thank meek i just found god. Thank dumb sharks for ruining my lovely world. Can some one please order the Queen to Declare war on America for me please? I can’t seem to get my Intentions Straight to the Point.
Anyone got a better idea? Or has a goat eaten your balls? Come on I’m bored. I got paid, I paid bank, therefore I fed my bollox to god because no cunt benefits.”
13:36
J****** updated his status.
“aham
the lion and the tiger
were fighting for the sun
the dragon bombed the lion
and looked up the tiger’s bum
Some gave them judgement
and some gave both a frown
but no-one looked beyond their nose
while panthers used their own
Cheetah”
+++++End Sample+++++
Hi, you wrote
“And his arguments were based not on handed-down moral absolutism but an appeal to a sense of collective responsibility and the value of all members of society. Given the dangers of cannabis, for someone to still argue that it should be widely available is for that person to declare they are indifferent to the lives of all those damaged by the drug – it seems to me this is basically a deeply selfish position, and one I could not personally justify to myself.”
I would like to point out that I know several people (and across the UK there are thousands more) who suffer from serious mental and physical illnesses, for instance MS, and who find that cannabis offers more effective and safer relief than any prescription drug available for their condition. I would advise you to go on Youtube and search for MS medical marijuana users, there are a lot of people who have put their own stories there for people to see and they can be incredibly moving.
There are several studies that support the fact that marijuana has a wider range of treatments than any chemical drug on the market, and is nearly always the safer alternative (hence the support for prohibition by the pharmaceuticals lobby).
The science shows clearly that the number of people who have the potential to be helped by medical marijuana far outweighs the number of people with mental illnesses that may have been aggravated or brought on by heavy marijuana use. Therefore I would hope you might think that actually prohibition is more selfish than legalisation following your own logic?
Under the current system, marijuana is not grown to any standard of safety. The situation under prohibition is equivalent to the EU and every single member country removing all standards of agriculture health and safety, levels of safe pesticide and fertiliser regulation etc, and then the agriculture trade being forced underground such that it ends up being run by the same people involved in people trafficking, robbery and murder. Think about it, our food would literally be poison because it would only be about the profit for those people. Marijuana in the UK is largely grown by gangs (who make a LOT of tax-free money) and unfortunately it is often poison due to unflushed chemical fertilisers, pesticides and worse. These are health risks that would not be there in a regulated market.
Furthermore, in a regulated market, family and friends of a loved one would more easily pick up on any signs of mental addiction or danger to a cannabis user. If you are hiding your use in the first place this is made much harder.
As for the ‘addition of a 3rd dangerous drug to 2 others’, it has been shown repeatedly that cannabis is safer than alcohol. There is more risk of developing mental illness from alcohol use than from marijuana use! This is science! Furthermore, cannabis has been proved to be effective in helping alcoholics give up their drinking, and in lessening the risk of lung cancer in tobacco smokers. That can sound amazing to people who have not read into this issue, because unfortunately it is generally not picked up on by the media, but it is hard science. Do some reading, there is really interesting research going on in the States all the time. Thus, its legalisation would appear to most likely reduce, rather than increase, current health risks to the population.
It is my intention to be informative and I would love to hear your reply, I hope you can see that my post is not an attack from one side but is meant to dispel some of the things that seem to me to have been misunderstood.
All the best,
Billy
Great account! I hope to see Mr. Hitchens up against a certain Mr. Wilkinson in mid November in London.
PS If you haven’t read his other books, I strongly recommend ‘The Broken Compass’ which deals with the meaningless labels of left and right.