Options
Peter Hitchens Speaks Out Against Cannabis (again) A quality column
Jefferson
Posts: 3,736 Forum Member
✭✭✭
http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/
The Hitch isn't one to follow the pack - it's probably why when Nicky Campbell pours over the Sunday papers he goes to his column first.
With more and more "thinking people" getting softer and softer on cannabis use it's good, I think, someone is still holding the line.
But what do YOU say (apart from you hate him)? Keep to the issue in hand please.
The Hitch isn't one to follow the pack - it's probably why when Nicky Campbell pours over the Sunday papers he goes to his column first.
With more and more "thinking people" getting softer and softer on cannabis use it's good, I think, someone is still holding the line.
But what do YOU say (apart from you hate him)? Keep to the issue in hand please.
0
Comments
The government of cause did not like those finding and went against there own experts findings and went with their own personal opinion and went the other way and moved cannabis back to a Class B substance. This left there experts having to resign from their government position as I recall.
For or against cannabis (personally I'm fairly neutral) what is clear to most that cannabis causes next to no harm or deaths on a per user basis against what alcohol and tobacco does. Yet both those substances are legal, far more harmful and far more addictive. Yet cannabis is classed as a drug and alcohol and tobacco are not?.
"Thinking people" have (by definition) ignored public fashion or consensus, and focus on facts. Scientists in particular try to see the big picture, and consider the evidence, rather than the hype. This is why 'thinking people' have rejected notions like 'holding the line' or being 'soft' or 'hard' on drugs, which are all meaningless statements.
The legal approach to cannabis in this country is completely out of kilter with the medical evidence, and counter-productive to general public health protection.
The recent news about 'skunk' being bad for you is a case in point. Certain newspapers tried to lump skunk in with regular cannabis to create dramatic, on message, headlines. We don't presume that absinthe, or meths, is representative of wine or beer!
In fact, it has been argued that the very presence of an artificial product like skunk on the market is an artefact of the prohibition of the regular sort.
That's not to say that cannabis is entirely safe, but so long as there are people acting as is all cannabis is akin to heroin, or talk about cannabis when they really mean skunk, it undermines attempts to communicate balanced public health advice.
My view is that there needs to be a proper rethink on cannabis policy, which should be honest, and practical. If people want to use cannabis, they should be able to get the safe stuff without risking getting the dodgy stuff.
People in this country don't need to resort to making home-made vodka, and risking going blind, because they can buy stuff in the super-market that has been fully regulated, and made by people who have demonstrated it doesn't contain methanol.
What about all the other people who, apart from using cannabis, have never committed and offence in their life?
Oh well, I expected nothing less from the likes of Peter Hitchens.
Personally, I think we should move to decriminalise and possibly legalise cannabis. I don't think anyone doubts that prolonged use can have adverse effects on your mental well being or that the strong stuff is particularly bad, but on balance the regular form of cannabis is far safer than, say, alcohol, which is not only legal, but used by most people on a very regular basis.
There's nothing wrong with alcohol in moderation, just as with most things, and I don't think there's any evidence to suggest that the same doesn't apply to cannabis.
I should probably add, that I personally have no intention of ever taking it, just as I have no intention of ever getting intoxicated by alcohol. My problem is with the double standards people seem to show when it comes to alcohol and cannabis.
Then you would struggle to find the brilliant libertarian that is Littlejohn. His excellent column appears on Tuesday and Friday in The Daily Mail.
And no one seems to think it's a good idea to discourage young people from getting high in the first place - it's all about getting them off it once the damage is done.
Well if you think a 60 year old conservative sounding bloke in the daily mail mouthing off will persuade people not to smoke weed you are deluded. More likely the opposite.
A more tolerated and carefully regulated and controlled use of decriminalisation and availability might solve some issues as well as free up police resources and raise taxes for public services etc.
I didn't say that.
What makes you think young people read the Daily Mail?
Is anyone actually surprised a conservative like Hitchens would be against it?
Personally, I'd still not use the stuff even if it were legal.
If you admire Littlejohn for being libertarian why are you for the illegalisation of drugs?
This has always been the conservative paradox: anti-government intrusion yet pro-authoritarian.
Spot on, Christopher is much missed.
See this (the BiB) worries me. As does these quotes from the responses above: "the dodgy stuff", "Skunk is indeed a dangerous drug", "the strong stuff is particularly bad". Well I and billyloons of others have sought the stronger variety in our search for spiritual enlightenment. Traditionally; we'd guide you with our psychotic minds and get you believing the wackiest thing we can think up, while all the while calling you all sheep(le). Some prophets didn't even need drugs!
Not sure about that.
I'd say that scientists usually look at things from a scientific POV (who knew, right?) rather than considering the legal, moral or social aspects of the subject.
You can apply the scientific method to all manner of things, and when you apply it to social situations, it's known as social science. Ever heard of epidemiology?
Remember, science isn't about a collection of facts, it's all about how people evaluate facts, and asking the right questions, and how to find answers etc.
The impact of certain legal decisions can be studied and evaluated.
Of course, morality doesn't have a role in the scientific study of how bad certain drugs are for us, and in what form. That comes afterwards, and scientists are entitled to a moral POV as much as the next person. Even if that moral POV is to treat cannabis the same as any other public health issue.