tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7976093824276931409.post4123383336061703234..comments2023-10-18T17:03:47.698+01:00Comments on Surely some mistake?: Reefer Madness - the evidenceTim Wilkinsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15237522140184882034noreply@blogger.comBlogger17125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7976093824276931409.post-89817490200228140012011-07-24T10:05:32.964+01:002011-07-24T10:05:32.964+01:00@The Rabbit and jasonpilley - thank you for saving...@The Rabbit and jasonpilley - thank you for saving me the trouble!Angushttp://thescythian.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7976093824276931409.post-53830193852596289942011-07-20T04:35:09.374+01:002011-07-20T04:35:09.374+01:00I should thank Peter Hitchens for laying out with ...I should thank Peter Hitchens for laying out with such alacrity the pitiful case against drug legalisation.<br /><br />Disposing of all empirical evidence with regard to cannabis, PH promotes the "moral argument" above all else.<br /><br />PH insists that humans must not alter their consciousness but live "truthfully according to our senses". This is plainly a nonsense. The ingestion of a single cup of coffee or a half-pint of beer would flout this absurd moralistic stricture and under PH's system of fascism would be 'against nature'.<br /><br />Presumably the use of painkillers would also fall foul of this injunction. One could argue the factual case of animal self-medication and self-inebriation in the wild, let alone the personal choices inherent to humans in any society's understanding of freedom. To ascribe, as PH does, drug use as "a threat to freedom" is absurd moral inversion of the highest order. Seeking to control others' decisions and choices through moralistic force and cloaking it in "liberty for all" is quite astonishing. Blaming cannabis for the downfall of society tops it off.<br /><br />The situation is clear: criminalise and demonize people for consuming a largely harmless drug because of "beliefs" - whilst hypocritically promoting other equally or more harmful drugs such as alcohol and ignoring commonplace drugs such as coffee - or allow people the freedom to behave as rational human beings.<br /><br />Forcing one's beliefs upon others by denying them the freedom to consume cannabis based on spurious medical claims and arrogant moralistic reasoning whilst denying empirical evidence is palpably fascistic and in no way comparable to liberating people from a "subservient" life.The Rabbitnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7976093824276931409.post-81728452636273664532011-07-19T22:32:22.911+01:002011-07-19T22:32:22.911+01:00The above link rather a good read, I thought.The above link rather a good read, I thought.Tim Wilkinsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15237522140184882034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7976093824276931409.post-14622483806746266102011-07-19T17:39:14.075+01:002011-07-19T17:39:14.075+01:00"There *are* strong moral arguments against t..."There *are* strong moral arguments against the legalising of stupefying drugs, which I happen to think are over-riding.We should live our lives truthfully according to our senses, and not seek to hide from the truth by blurring those senses. Nor shoudl we cheat our brains into rewarding us with artificial joy, when we have done nothing to deserve it."<br /><br />These aren't moral arguments, these are opinions. And you're welcome to them, but, for integrity's sake, please refrain from using words in the future (save for those words that are not man-made, of course.)<br /><br />"I also happen to think that the bad consequences of drug-taking for those who do so are a predictable result of taking an action which is plainly morally debarred."<br /><br />And the good consequences of drug-taking? The lives positively transformed by the wise employment of psychedelics? Please be consistent.<br /><br />"We are more passive, less free, more subservient. more conformist and less critical than we used to be."<br /><br />Speak for yourself, sunshine.<br /><br />"We are more passive, less free, more subservient. more conformist and less critical than we used to be."<br /><br />And the remedy for this is to lock more and more people in cages for committing the crime of enjoying certain plants and fungi.<br /><br />"Alas, moral arguments only work with people who have morals."<br /> <br />Where "morality" is defined as "believing that which Peter Hitchens believes." <br /><br />"And only people who care about liberty are bothered by the threat to freedom."<br /><br />A sick Orwellian joke. If she drowns she's innocent, if she floats she's a witch!<br /><br />http://jasonpilley.wordpress.com/2011/06/23/can/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7976093824276931409.post-22010333973257221342011-07-18T21:03:49.934+01:002011-07-18T21:03:49.934+01:00If legalisation could, in some possible world, be ...If legalisation could, in some possible world, be shown definitively to reduce cannabis consumption would Peter Hitchens be in favour of it. If not, what would be the basis of his objection to legalisation. Also, would Tim Wilkinson regard a decline in cannabis reduction, either by prohibition or legalisation as a desirable social goal.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7976093824276931409.post-25499970660991567932011-07-18T13:38:04.226+01:002011-07-18T13:38:04.226+01:00Thank you for some figures - I'd echo the ques...Thank you for some figures - I'd echo the question about the conclusions, rather than showing any deterrent in these pre-1971 laws you often cite, what we see is rising use around the 60s - a conclusion is then made that these penalties would have worked better had they remained<br /><br />I would be quite keen to accompany any mention of the 1971 'legalisation' with these figures, for all the other commentators to consider<br /><br />My apologies if it was not intended to be snide remark about Ms Farmer, I took the reflections on her nationality as such, and still find the comment rather bizarre - in that light I saw the 'thank you' for admitting you may not be stupid as a backhanderTarquinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7976093824276931409.post-46365115614326199582011-07-18T10:14:23.595+01:002011-07-18T10:14:23.595+01:00The conclusion that I draw is that interdiction of...The conclusion that I draw is that interdiction of demand was abandoned just as cannabis use, promoted largely by the rock music explosion, was taking off in this country. And that as a result we have far more cannabis use than we otherwise would. <br /><br />There seems to be evidence from Sweden( which u-turned on this matter some years ago, having initially followed a liberal policy) that interdiction of demand is efefctive in reducing use, even in a country with open land borders with neighbours who operate more libral policies. The British authorities are uninterested in this (the dismissive attitude of the House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee to a government witness from Sweden, during its inquiry into drugs, has to be read to be believed).<br /><br />By the way, I'm not sure in what way I am supposed to have been snide about Jayelle Farmer, nor belittled her, as 'Tarquin' says I did. I praised her calm and reasoned politeness, by contrast with the angry and intolerant rudeness of so many on the pro-dope side.Peter Hitchensnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7976093824276931409.post-74546311599979387392011-07-17T19:31:32.203+01:002011-07-17T19:31:32.203+01:00PH - But what conclusions are we to draw from all ...PH - But what conclusions are we to draw from all this?Tim Wilkinsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15237522140184882034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7976093824276931409.post-11875685472844098212011-07-17T19:23:46.280+01:002011-07-17T19:23:46.280+01:00A brief reply to 'Tarquin' (extracted from...A brief reply to 'Tarquin' (extracted from the current draft of my planned book, and using statistics compiled by Stephen Abrams, a noted campaigner for the relaxation of the cannabis laws dueing the 1960s: 'As recently as 1951, there had been only 127 convictions for cannabis use or trafficking (the two crimes were then not treated as separate by the law) in the entire United Kingdom, rising to 185 in 1959. According to Mr Abrams its use then rose till ‘ a plateau of about 600 convictions was reached in 1962, and not exceeded until 1966, when a figure of 1,119 was reached.’ Something important was plainly changing by then, for in 1967 convictions doubled again to 2,393, with 600 lbs of the drug seized. These figures would certainly have seemed alarming to law enforcement officials then. But they were as nothing to what would soon happen. 30 years later, cannabis seizures had increased 500-fold to more than 300,000 lbs seized in a single year (comparisons of arrests and prosecutions were, as we shall see, not so easy to make).'<br /><br />I have no pre-1951 figures. I imagine they were negligible. The point here is that cannabis use was beginning to grow sharply in the late 1960s, largely under cultural influences linked to rock music. The authorities had to choose whether to continue using the criminal law in an exemplary way to discourage this, or to relax the law. They relaxed the law, as advised by |Baroness Wootton's interesting committee.Peter Hitchensnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7976093824276931409.post-50199130167510340952011-07-17T14:34:59.019+01:002011-07-17T14:34:59.019+01:00Peter Hitchens said...
Does 'Tarquin'...Peter Hitchens said...<br /><br /> Does 'Tarquin' think I won't read his comments here?<br /><br />Of course I didn't - you commented on the last thread<br /><br />Why even ask the question? There's those tactics I mentioned<br /><br />As regards your point - yes you are perfectly entitled to bring in your moral arguments, but they have little weight with me and will only serve to push people like me away, you think calling people wicked will achieve something then knock yourself out, I'd just remember that sort of argument could have more of a negative effect on those you wish to convince, but your choice, of course<br /><br />As for bringing in Facebook groups - I appreciate that you are drawing attention to them (and I'm also referring to the 'dope lobbyists' of Legalise Cannabis International - maybe I was being a bit too vague on that), but you didn't just point out that clearly biased campaigners are now flooding the comments, but made snide remarks about Jayelle Farmer and belittled her - these are soft targets and engaging with them has no relevance to the debate - as I said before, makes good reading, but not good debate<br /><br />While I've got you, I'd like to repeat my request for some details about the period when you say cannabis was really criminalised - 1928-71, the penalties were indeed harder but what was the effectiveness of such measures?Tarquinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7976093824276931409.post-21071631614981323942011-07-17T00:26:03.912+01:002011-07-17T00:26:03.912+01:00"Nor shoudl we cheat our brains into rewardin..."Nor shoudl we cheat our brains into rewarding us with artificial joy, when we have done nothing to deserve it."<br />Does this term 'artificial joy' apply to coffee or fine wine and if not what are the relevant distinguishing factors? Actually, I'm sympathetic to Hitchens on this - I presume that Wilkinson wil be returning to the Peter Geach points from the first post.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7976093824276931409.post-19993887017475640942011-07-16T18:26:29.197+01:002011-07-16T18:26:29.197+01:00Peter Hitchens writes, "Alas, moral arguments...Peter Hitchens writes, "Alas, moral arguments only work with people who have morals. And only people who care about liberty are bothered by the threat to freedom."<br />Isn't Tim Wilkinson supposed to be addressing these kinds of arguments in part 3?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7976093824276931409.post-50877256741873675572011-07-16T16:18:49.478+01:002011-07-16T16:18:49.478+01:00'We should live our lives truthfully according...'We should live our lives truthfully according to our senses, and not seek to hide from the truth by blurring those senses. Nor shoudl we cheat our brains into rewarding us with artificial joy, when we have done nothing to deserve it.'<br /><br />I tried to address Mr. Hitchens' moral arguments on his blog a while ago, on the first page of the 'Think it Possible' thread, if he cares to look. <br /><br />To reiterate what I said there, I just don't see self-stupefaction as a moral issue in itself, and can't understand why someone would. I see moral issues as concerning harm towards others, and perhaps oneself. Self-stupefaction doesn't necessarily do either.<br /><br />Nor do I understand why gaining unearned pleasure from cannabis is wrong. What does one have to do to, say, deserve the pleasure of eating an apple pie, or smoking cannabis for that matter?<br /><br />Perhaps these arguments make more sense to someone who believes that we're subject to divine law, and that we can infer from our natural capabilities that God didn't intend for us to take drugs. Obviously I don't believe this. <br /><br />But even if I did, I might argue that God wouldn't have created the cannabis plant had he not wanted it to be used, as one poster on Mr. Hitchens' blog has in fact argued. <br /><br />'We are more passive, less free, more subservient. more conformist and less critical than we used to be.'<br /><br />Really? History seems to suggest that people were often easily swept up in populist movements and trends. Nationalism in foreign policy was used until well into the 20th century as a way of diverting attention from problems at home. Mindless obedience to King, country and God was far more common.<br /><br />I suspect too that ready access to information online has made people more politically aware, and the proliferation of sites like this, which seems partial to a conspiracy theory or two, has bred whole communities of people who are more likely to mistrust the powers that be. <br /><br />Of course, they might not be any more analytical than they were, but nonetheless I don't think people are more subservient. <br /><br />All this is probably academic, anyway, since the evidence suggests that legalisation would lead to the same number of or fewer users of drugs.Joshua Woodersonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7976093824276931409.post-1348644554213737072011-07-16T14:13:51.968+01:002011-07-16T14:13:51.968+01:00previous just released from the spam trapprevious just released from the spam trapTim Wilkinsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15237522140184882034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7976093824276931409.post-5284681072872266472011-07-16T10:57:41.183+01:002011-07-16T10:57:41.183+01:00Does 'Tarquin' think I won't read his ...Does 'Tarquin' think I won't read his comments here?<br /><br />There *are* strong moral arguments against the legalising of stupefying drugs, which I happen to think are over-riding.We should live our lives truthfully according to our senses, and not seek to hide from the truth by blurring those senses. Nor shoudl we cheat our brains into rewarding us with artificial joy, when we have done nothing to deserve it.<br /><br />I also happen to think that the bad consequences of drug-taking for those who do so are a predictable result of taking an action which is plainly morally debarred.<br /><br />There are also strong political arguments, as can I think be shown by the baleful effects on our society of their having been in effect legalised in 1971. We are more passive, less free, more subservient. more conformist and less critical than we used to be.<br /><br />The self-drugging of what were once the responsible educated classes has played its part in this (so have many other factors, but the drugs are not unimportant). So has the stupefaction of so many of the poor.<br /><br />Alas, moral arguments only work with people who have morals. And only people who care about liberty are bothered by the threat to freedom.<br /><br />For the rest, there is utilitarianism, which must of course lay great weight on the actual and potential dangers of the drug, which would of course be made far more prevalent if its sale were formally legalised and became a source of private profit ans government revenue. What we see now is just a whispered warning of what is to come.<br /><br />I don't mind fighting on all these fronts. It would be irresponsibleto igore any legitimate route to success .<br /><br /> But I think it foolish to criticise me for using any legitimate argument to achieve my desired objective. <br /><br />Oh, and I haven't 'taken to bringing in pro-legalsation groups from Facebook'. I have rather sarcastically welcomed the new contributors who have reached me thanks to these groups, so as to let regular readers know that these waves of new contributors, all of one mind, have not come to my weblog by accident, and did not necessarily arrive with open minds.Peter Hitchensnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7976093824276931409.post-25169459684062418802011-07-15T18:08:48.794+01:002011-07-15T18:08:48.794+01:00http://www.cannabisscience.com/news-a-media/press-...http://www.cannabisscience.com/news-a-media/press-releases/229-cbis-announces-critical-canacer-patient-cured.html<br /><br />weak! "Cannabis - harms and dangers" have you been phoning frank to get your insight ? lol<br /><br />prohibition is the poison and not the cure, but then why cure when you can string out more expenciv treatments while holding the key to the cure locker!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7976093824276931409.post-90364459128197331462011-07-15T13:59:56.461+01:002011-07-15T13:59:56.461+01:00Nice work - it will be interesting to see how he r...Nice work - it will be interesting to see how he responds to your use of empirical data, I'm betting he will stick to rhetoric, as usual, for the simple reason that it makes better reading<br /><br />Nice to see you address harm, unfortunately Hitchens likes to base his arguments on the assumption that people say it is harmless - ergo if it can be shown to cause harm, it should be illegal<br /><br />Of course, that's a nonsense - risk is all that matters, the best policy is the one that has the best result, the only point I've ever tried to make with him - and that's when we start getting moral arguments and people being called 'wicked'<br /><br />I gave up with him ages ago, now I just monitor the tactics deployed - aside from turning down his usual alley of 'you have to be either wicked or stupid' he is currently taking to bringing in pro-legalisation groups from facebookTarquinnoreply@blogger.com