Search This Blog

Loading...

Saturday, 9 July 2011

A Summary For Mr Peter Hitchens

Mr Peter Hitchens has struggled to understand my original post and has requested a brief summary.

Firstly, in reply to Mr Hitchens: He has reiterated that he feels the ‘War on Drugs’ was called off 40 years ago.  I of course grasped this point and included it my junglist reply.  In my original post, I likened Mr Hitchens’ proposal to that of a conspiracy theory, but, I am unsure how to actually prove that the ‘war on drugs’ has indeed been waged.  I don’t believe we should give much mind to this thread of the argument, but I would direct Mr Hitchens to my friends at LEAP (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition).  Those that have been on the front line of this war should perhaps be listened to.  These senior police personnel have lost many colleagues in the line of duty, and have seen such turmoil that they now counter-fight prohibition on both sides of the Atlantic.  To say that we’ve had no war is deeply insensitive.  Or, we can simply cite Mexico, they have gone for total war.  35 000 dead in nearly 5 years suggests that a war is in full effect; the UK is not except from reaping a similar result.

Whether Mr Hitchens believes that we’ve had a war or not, prohibition still accounts for most health troubles that are aligned with cannabis and other substances.  Under prohibition, we have no age checks, a sincere lack of quality control, and no understanding of dosage or potency.  Let’s use alcohol as the obvious example: If we were to strip all potency information from packaging, give no clue to users to if they are using spirits, wine or beer, and then provide a pint-glass as a generic measure, most will be able to understand that ignorance is the enemy of health.  Cannabis is being used under these blind conditions.  On Mr Hitchens’ site, he has even scoffed at the term “Cannabis Indica” - I do question how much he actually knows of the cannabis plant?  Is Mr Hitchens aware of the importance of matured cannabis and to closely monitor the trichomes when approaching harvest?  When Professor Roger Pertwee of GW Pharmaceuticals (leading cannabinoid specialist) has expressed concerns over prohibition, maybe we should take council from experts on the issue.

The main point in which I addressed in my post were that of morals.  Mr Hitchens professes to a moral man and that drugs policy is a moral issue.  I disagreed.  I believe morals to be far too subjective to base policy upon.  To summarise my original points would not further this discussion; I basically disagreed with his set morals and interjected with my own brand.  I guess, with two men taking a differing stance on morals, a stalemate would be the result.  For this reason alone, I once more believe - as mandated per the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 - we should have an ever evolving drugs policy that is based on science and evidence.  Why is this feared?  From the Shafer Report, to the Wootton Report 1969, and successive ACMD reports since, we have never had it reported that we need harsher sentencing or stronger judicial measures.  To peruse this route would provide the final mockery of existing drugs policy, and render its original application redundant.  The harm scale of drugs is supposed to adequately reflect on sentencing.  Of course, we have a drugs policy that is in no way in keeping with this premise.

One point that I will summarise; the war on drugs, in real terms, is a war on people.  With every harsh measure that Peter Hitchens wishes to pursue, he is directly persecuting and causing misery to those around him who he feels he is trying to protect.  It’s not just those who use drugs to feel the strain of current policy.  So while Mr Hitchens is a proponent for the war to continue, he is a direct advocate of the pain and misery to which he has fought against.  I spoke of concept wars akin to the war on drugs; I used the War on Terror as the example, and it is one in which Mr Hitchens has been vocal in the past.  Concept wars are nonsense and only sound good for the sake of a rhetoric.  We cannot fight concepts, we cannot fight ‘drugs’, we can only fight people.


Jason Reed.

17 comments:

  1. I admire you Jason, I really do. You've made things perfectly clear in the first place.

    I would still personally like an answer from Mr Hitchens on why he is trying to battle against medical uses? Why, when we damn well know it has medical benefits, why does he take such a cruel stance on people like myself with M.S, and people like you Jason who have gone through hell with liver and kidney tests due to prescribed meds. How is this man moral? He's not, we know he's not.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Peter Hitchens - I don't understand how you think that criminalising people for problems helps. Unfortunately, we have to deal in dusty and tired arguments now as we've had them all before from all sides. Nothing ever changes though does it. We still have problems, they continue to grow, and the current law just is NOT helping is it!!!

    It has been asked a few times, why do you think it's right to criminalise people for using (what you deem) harmful substances, yet, we don't take such actions with other matters of health. Why do we not take the stick approach to obesity, sugar, pop drinks, fast food, alcohol? Because we spot the lack of logic and humanity in this approach, but due to drugs being in an illicit place, we are allowed no dialogue to alternatives because people like you have the position to shout the loudest.

    Carol from Canterbury

    ReplyDelete
  3. Mr Hitchens,

    My glove is off.

    It is slapped in your face.

    And thrown at your feet.

    Will you pick it up?

    ReplyDelete
  4. A wonderful and eloquent argument Jason.

    On one point I agree with Peter Hitchens though. I do think drugs policy is a moral issue and I think that prohibition is a deeply immoral policy. I'm quite happy to stand toe to toe with Mr Hitchens to explain to him the massive harm that his ideas cause and why his ideas conflict with human nature, physiology and science.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Personally I feel that the stance taken by Mr Hitches is a deeply immoral one. How DARE he consider himself in any way as having the right to condemn a great many people to a life of pain?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Right,

    Hitchens, I've read you, you spout the same old stuff time and again, and you have the nerve to conveniently not understand something that is perfectly fine. You just don't want to argue with a man that you in no way can pull the moral superiority on. So, I want one of two things:

    Oxford Union deabte!

    or

    Television programme with Hitchens living for a week with Jason. THAT I would pay bloody good money for. See how you'd fair then, see how "moral" you'd come across!!

    ReplyDelete
  7. Peter Hitchens is a moron , im not being rude Jason but dont waste your time with him when there are bigger fish to fry . Anyone who wastes their time reading his ill informed propaganda knows he is a liar or hes just too stupid to see the truth . Thats the joy of the internet its easy to look up the facts for yourself after reading what he writes so anyone with a computer can see he is a liar . You will need more than a glove Peter Reynolds may i suggest a base ball bat ? If he hasnt seen sense by now there really is no hope of him changing his mind until he retires that is , then he will be pro cannabis like many other people , policemen , MPs etc . I think doing a uturn on cannabis when you retire is the new way to clear your conscience after being apart of destroying more lives than the drugs do . FACT !!!

    ReplyDelete
  8. There are some very good points in all of Jason's posts that should be addressed by someone like Hitchens. It's funny how no one ever argues with genuine cases of medical use. I fully hold my hands up that California have done no favours for the case for reform, but nevertheless, there should be a full case for reform given the mess we're in.

    Peter, as growers, we know exactly what the issues are with the Joe Shmoe on the street who buys "skunk". Skunk is rubbish, it's media spin. Skunk has its roots in modern day strains, but it's not what it's portrayed to be.
    Take it from me, I would not touch dealer's weed if you paid me. Why? Because it's useless and a hideous product for the most part. THIS is why we need a better system, because kids will take anything they can get their hands on. Glue, solvents, dealer weed, you name it, naughty kids are naughty kids. David Cameron was one, as were most of the commons. So just bite the bullet that we need to make safe where we can, and prevent under age usage, this is vital!

    S

    ReplyDelete
  9. A summary of Mr. Peter Hitchens... An odious man who's chief roll in life is to victimise the innocent and uphold global intolerance & injustice. There are less pleasant ways in which to summarise this alcoholic who feels that his drug is more acceptable than your drug yet that would sink to his level. All I can hope is that one day soon he will feel the pain that he so eagerly preaches his support of.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Leo, it would be ironic if he contracted an illness that was only treatable with raw cannabis.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Mind, I personally wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy so it shouldn't be the only way to make someone as, shall I say blind to reality, as Peter Hitchens see what harm prohibition actually does to people.
    Maybe Peter should volunteer to spend a week with people like Jason here, see what happens when cannabis is not used as a medicine and understand how it can literally change someone's life for the better.

    Jason, get hold of the BBC and convince them to wave a wad of cash at Peter, it would make a great documentary.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Steve Langford: that is a good idea, but as the documentary would inevitably be pro-drug propaganda, it would be better to get somebody who is officially anti-drugs but secretly in favour of legalisation. They could begin the documentary by claiming to espouse Hitchens' views, and conclude by claiming to have changed their mind as a result of the experience.

    There must be any number of suitable candidates for this role: journalists, policemen, judges, retired MPs? All far better for the purpose than Hitchens, who might well ask awkward questions, interview the "wrong" experts, refuse to change his mind, and generally undermine the whole project.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Peter Hitchens11 July 2011 at 14:19

    My views have been clearly and repeatedly stated on my own blog, where anyone may read them (it is indexed). My concerns are confined to this country, where all serious attempts to enforce laws against possession of cannabis were abandoned soon after the passage of the 1971 Misuse of Drugs Act (itself an almost total implementation of the Wootton Report. My forthcoming book will go into more detail) . I am uninterested in public relations campaigns against 'evil dealers' and futile attempts to intrdict supply. What is their point if no steps are atken against consumption, which is in fact treated as a crime? Why are dealers evil if their commodity is not?

    I don't know exactly what sort of debate Mr Reynolds is suggesting.

    It would make a change to attend one on this subject where Mr Reynolds is not incessantly heckling me. I suppsoe if he were speaking, he couldn't do that - or I could do it to him.

    But I have no power to organise such a thing.

    If he has, I'll come. I'm not afraid of him and his nasty manifesto for turning the British people into stupefied serfs of the state.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Peter Hitchens,

    The British people stand a far better chance of being stupefied under the nanny state and prohibitionist state that you advocate! Or, under the Daily Mail's influence!

    ...having said that, your power and influence is negligible, so off you pop to your rag, it is a publicised joke.

    With regards to a programme though, I would certainly love to see Hitchens and Jason take each other on. As said multiple times on here and across social sites, there is no way in hell that Peter H will pull any kind of moral high ground with Jason. I love the analogy of taking a walking stick off a war veteran to beat him with it. This is pretty much what you are doing Hitchens. There has never been a nicer or more genuine person that's fielded this debate, and the media sees that in Jason. By all means, spout your rubbish Mr Hitchens, but do it in the face of a man that the British public like and respect, see where that gets you?

    And one last point, by all means, address this country's drug policy, but don't ignore the rest of the world when our policy is wrapped up and directly affecting of pretty much every part of the world!

    ReplyDelete
  15. I was always anti drugs, I abided by the Peter Hitchens style of thought, it makes sense to a degree. But, I don't know if I'm late in my view or simply keeping up with the times, I now fully agree that we drastically need a change and that a legal framework is no bad thing in controlling and protecting. THIS has the logic to it now, not Mr Hitchens' out dated viewpoint.

    Besides, anything the Daily Mail says, I feel myself going the opposite any how.

    Lauren, Yorks x

    ReplyDelete
  16. Hitchens is beyond contempt now, I fail to understand the rationale of people like him. Let him be, he's on his way out of the public eye anyhow. I think he's used you (Jason) just to get his stock back up. I'm not even going to engage with him, pointless little man.

    Now, his brother, there's a man he wants to be! Long live Christopher, and may he get well soon! Please get well soon and kick your brother's arris once more!

    ReplyDelete
  17. Well, Peter, I think you're arguments are growing ever weaker.

    You have really nothing to add on the subject other than what Harry J Anslinger would say. You really should retire on this subject as your own reputation is taking a hammering.

    Mr T R Arthur of Sussex

    ReplyDelete