Sometimes I wonder if I should introduce streaming here, not letting people post on some threads until they had showed themselves capable of a certain level of reason, promoting those who showed that they knew how to argue into higher streams, and bumping slow learners down to the simpler subjects if they demonstrated that they couldn't keep up. Perhaps in that way most of us could get past a couple of rather stupid and annoying arguments, which flop and wallow about in a swamp of self-imposed ignorance and irrationality, and move on to other more exciting topics.
Those who were stuck could accept the need for a bit of remedial coaching before at length catching up. Or they might accept that they weren't cut out for our high standards, and go elsewhere. A fond hope, alas.
Here's one who would struggle to get into the top class, calling himself 'Tony'. He recently wrote: ‘All ten of Hitchens's anti-cannabis points could be applied directly to alcohol. And it just won't do to have Hitchens belittle this point. Alcohol consumption and, indeed, addiction is actively pursued in this country by the large alcoholic drink corporations in much the same way that cigarette addiction was pursued - by presenting alcohol as a fashionable social good. The argument that we shouldn't therefore promote the use of other substances in society is just a red herring as far as I'm concerned. What is Hitchens going to propose be done about alcohol? His view seems to be that we can't do anything about it as it is so ingrained in our culture. But so is supermarket shopping and car ownership. And he actively proposes that the state immediately step in to change those cultures. Why not also with alcohol, then? How about a 1000% increase in alcohol duty with immediate effect?’
On supermarkets and car ownership, the state could have an instant effect by simply ceasing to encourage these things as it encourages them now with all its subsidising, regulating might (though I would myself go further, actively encouraging railways, trams, bicycling, walking, covered markets, farmer's markets and busy high streets).
I have repeatedly said (and I think it would be very hard for any reader here to be unaware of this, unless his unawareness was wilful) that I support strong practicable controls on the sale of alcohol, notably the reintroduction of the 1915 licensing laws so foolishly abolished in the 1980s (and cordially hated by some contributors to this site, who bizarrely imagine I am something called a 'libertarian', when I am in fact something entirely different). Likewise I am on record as supporting strong legal penalties for persons found driving while drunk, and for persons who misbehave while drunk. These are practical and effective measures against an acculturated poison which can (unlike illegal drugs) be used in moderation by the wise, and whose abuse by the unwise can be discouraged and on occasion penalised. I am not convinced that higher alcohol duty would work. Raise duties above a certain point on a product which is still widely desired, and culturally accepted, and large-scale criminal evasion becomes practicable and worthwhile. There has to be a calculation here of practicability (the same one which shows that, in Sweden and come to that in our armed forces, strong enforcement of drug laws means fewer drug takers). In principle, as I have said, I would accept the legal banning of alcohol for myself, if I thought it would work. Anybody who has worked in my trade for as long as I have has seen at first hand the terrible things that alcohol can do to people (and to their friends and families) so I am specially irritated by dim and baseless accusations of complacency on this matter.
But I don't think a total ban would work, so this offer (though genuinely made) has no practical value as a suggestion. The plan I outline above, on the other hand, was shown to be workable when it was in force. It was abandoned not because of public demand but because of subtle and effective lobbying. It would of course make my life less convenient in a number of small ways, and those of others too, but the benefit would be far greater than the loss.
I mention the possibility of a total alcohol ban because it seems to me to be an important difference between me, a person who genuinely wishes to reduce the damage done by alcohol, and the cannabis propagandists, who couldn't in truth care less about this damage but merely hope to weaken the laws against their own selfish pleasure, and so seek to dodge the powerful case for prosecuting cannabis possession, by changing the subject. It is precisely because they don't want to give up their pleasure, and hate and despise those who would deny it to them, that they are so biliously, intolerantly militant on this subject.
These cannabis propagandists almost always, at some point or another, misrepresent my position because to admit the truth about my views would be to open their own flanks to attack. They are, in short, gross hypocrites, pretending a concern they don't really feel, for self-serving political advantage. Thus espousal of a dishonest cause makes them feeble debaters, fit only for the kindergarten stream.
I do, by contrast, think that the still-nascent use of cannabis and some other illegal drugs could be reduced to negligible numbers if possession were penalised.
Likewise I support (having initially opposed) the legal measures being used to discourage smoking in workplaces, restaurants etc. I think the scientific pretext for these bans is pretty thin, and allowed this, plus a sort of sentimentality about the smoky old days of Fleet Street, to distract me from the real point - which is this: cigarette smoking (the real target of these bans) can be quite effectively discouraged; many smokers are themselves helped to reduce and even quit a habit they often dislike and wish they hadn't taken up, by such rules. Unlike the drinking of wine, beer and spirits, the heavy smoking of cigarettes is a relatively recent development, and I suspect it can be marginalised by legal and social disapproval, just as it was spread by clever advertising, wartime misery, and general social approval. I doubt if it can ever be eradicated entirely, or made subject to the criminal law. But it can be made much rarer.
Then I think I need to see Joshua Wooderson after class as well.
He said two things which make me suspect he hasn't been paying attention, or hasn't been doing his homework.
Here's one: 'As for the statement [made by me, P.Hitchens], "I doubt whether many of those involved in the violence of recent weeks are in fact students in any serious meaning of the word", whilst we know that many were in fact hooligans looking for trouble, is there any evidence that the majority of protesters weren't students with a genuine conviction that the fee rise was unfair?’
Careful readers will note a basic logical slippage. I refer to 'many of those involved in the violence'. Mr Wooderson quietly alters this, so that I am assumed to have referred instead to 'the majority of protesters', which I didn't do. As is clear after a moment's reflection, the two are not only not the same, but utterly different, so altering my meaning to the point of misrepresentation. Unless Mr Wooderson believes, as I do not, that the majority of the protestors were involved in the violence, he is attacking me for a sentiment I haven't expressed, and which he must know I haven't expressed, since he has carefully and correctly copied out my exact words. I seem to remember from my long ago studies of logic that J.S. Mill had a fancy name for this slippery trick. But I call it 'bait and switch'. Why do people do this stupid, self-damaging thing?
Mr Wooderson then turns his attention to the bed and breakfast question. ‘What I wonder is whether Mr Hitchens would defend somebody’s right to turn away a black couple on the basis that giving accommodation to other races was against his or her Mormon beliefs (Mormonism was officially a racist church until very recently).’
This is a question to which he must know that the answer is 'no'. He cannot really 'wonder' since he already knows. Thus the inquiry is not what it claims to be, an honest desire for knowledge, but a rather disgusting smear, of which he should be thoroughly ashamed. He won't be, of course, until perhaps years later when he is grown-up enough to realise the sort of game he is playing. I hope for that day.
How does he already know? Well, there are two ways. One, racial bigotry is these days rightly considered such a wicked moral failing that a) to be found guilty of it means more or less total exclusion from reasoned debate, combined with a fair degree of notoriety. The idea that I could have expressed views compatible with the refusal of hotel rooms to a couple on the grounds of skin colour, without it being widely known, is absurd, even for someone who is not a frequent contributor here, as Mr Wooderson is.
My recent discussion with Matthew Parris actually turned upon this exact comparison, often made by sexual revolutionaries to smear their opponents, and I went to some lengths to express a) my abhorrence of racial discrimination and b) my rational explanation for this abhorrence, and my reasons for believing that Christian opinions on sexual morality were not comparable to racial bigotry, and cannot be equated with it by any thinking, knowledgeable person.
Further, I am not now a member of the Mormon cult. Nor was I a member of the Mormon cult during the time when it upheld racial discrimination. Nor have I ever been. I am fairly well known to be a member of the Church of England, which, flexible as it is, debars me from membership of the Mormons, whose texts and doctrines set them apart from Christianity. Before that I was a Marxist atheist, which likewise precluded attendance at the Salt Lake City tabernacle. So there is no reason to suppose that I do now hold, or ever have held, or would wish in any way to defend the views he ascribes to that cult - or felt any wish or need to defend them against just laws prohibiting racial discrimination.
Mr Wooderson later issued this qualification: 'With the racist analogy, I was merely using a reductio ad absurdum, to question whether Mr Hitchens would tolerate racist guesthouse policies. I wasn't in any way comparing racism and homophobia in terms of the genetic component. My view is that they are equally unjustified prejudices, not that race and sexuality necessarily have the same cause.'
Oh, right. That makes it all right then, especially the Latin. Or does it? I suspect that Mr Wooderson would absolutely hate it, were he to be the target of such a 'reductio ad absurdum'.
The deeper, wider arguments, about the distinction between nature and behaviour, between being and doing, are dealt with largely in my book 'The Cameron Delusion', which contains an interesting quotation from the works of one Matthew Parris about the extent to which homosexual behaviour is predetermined.
Mr Parris wrote in 'The Times' of 6th August 2006, 'I think sexuality is a supple as well as subtle thing, and can sometimes be influenced, even promoted; I think that in some people some drives can be discouraged and others encouraged; I think some people can choose.' My thoughts on this can be found on and around page 120 of the book.
Dr Thomas Writes
I'd also like to respond to a couple of other recent postings, whose thoughtfulness demands an answer, and is a refreshing change from yelling and misrepresentation.
The first is from Sean Thomas, who wrote before Christmas (but on a dying thread) as follows.
I've inserted some comments, marked with asterisks thus **
'I’m pleased Mr Hitchens has taken the time to consider my comments. Indeed, I really didn’t expect it. But I appreciate his willingness to engage. Likewise for all other posters (though I can’t engage with all issues for sake of time and economy). First of all, I would like to offer some clarifications, along with some rather honest (and rather shamefaced) apologies. Then I would like to provide some further details about my position on the issue of drugs. I hope I can match the succinct quality I admire in his writing (I doubt I will though).
'I have a PhD in law, and I am currently a Lecturer in Commercial Law at the University of Leicester. The reason I used my title is that I am happy to make my comments in my capacity as a professional academic lawyer (and I agree with Mr Hitchens’s distaste for the prevalence of (essentially) anonymous posting). I could say: ‘Google me Peter!’ But I have the (mis)fortune to share a name with an author who once won the Bad Sex in Fiction award, so looking for ‘Sean Thomas’ on the internet can lead to amusing mistakes of identity. As my job title indicates, my speciality is commercial law, not drugs. Nevertheless, I have a longstanding teaching interest in criminal law, and my research often covers areas of property crimes, so I like to think my interest in this issue is more than that of the “interested observer”. In particular I am interested in lay (as opposed to legal) conceptions of the “moral” in criminal law and policy.
'On to the apologies: I used the term ‘hypocrisy’ in relation to Mr Hitchens’s commentary that (essentially) the pro-drug side are shrill and closed-minded in relation to the position held by Mr Hitchens. I felt that his reaction was as bad, and I thought this looked like hypocrisy. I agree it was a loose use of the term (certainly I was not implying that he was perhaps a Howard Marks in his private life: if this was what was inferred I apologise).’
** I'm grateful for that.**
'I can see now that I perhaps should have considered my language. As for straw man – we all know this is the style of argumentation whereby a real problem is expanded to unreal levels.’
**Is it? I thought it was to misrepresent an opponent's position, to refute, or appear to refute, the misrepresented position and so to claim to have won the argument, while having in fact sidestepped it.**
'Thus I think that the claim that because some people suffer badly from drug consumption, that all drug consumption is bad, is a species of the straw man argument.'
**Whereas I would say that this formulation is in fact a misrepresentation of my position. In my view self-stupefaction is self-evidently morally wrong, in almost all cases opens to the stupefier to criminal or negligent acts which he would otherwise avoid, and ought to be repugnant to any morally literate person. Its consequences are frequently disastrous to the self-stupefier himself and to those around him. Therefore, where morality fails (as it has on this issue for half a century) the law must step in. That is rather different from 'because some people suffer badly from drug consumption, that all drug consumption is bad', a crude oversimplification.**
‘For now, I shall move on from that as I discuss it later in a bit more depth. So yes, the doc does disagree with you, and I should have come out and said it clearly.
**Once again, thank you.**
‘You claimed that the argument that self-stupefaction is not a private matter and that it has effects on people other than the individual drug-taker. I take issue with the first claim, that it is not a private matter. I have some problems with the second claim, that it impacts on others.
'For the first claim (that self-intoxication is not a private matter): Taken in the abstract, there is no moral reason why we should prevent other people doing things to their own body, even if we disagree with those things done. If it is not our body, it is not our choice. Only the individual concerned has that right. This is very much a personal opinion, but it derives primarily from the work of the great legal philosopher HLA Hart (for which, I think his rebuttal in his book “Law, Liberty and Morality”, to Lord Devlin’s claim that morality and law are necessarily linked, was successful).’
**Hart's view was the more *fashionable*, and the one most acceptable to his time and to academic lawyers of his and subsequent generations. I do not think that makes it definitively correct. Hart himself seems to me to have been one of the early apostles of the permissive society, not only in his own life but in what he promoted. He cannot really be a court of appeal, or considered an unbiased oracle.
As for it being a private matter, I suppose that if drug abusers had no families, no friends, no dependents, and managed to maintain themselves in all cases without direct thieving, or without becoming parasites on the welfare state, then this might be a tenable position for an atheist, and indeed this belief that we are our own self-created property is one of the attractions of atheism for the amoral. But this practical state of affairs is very rarely the case. Even very rich heroin users have children, for instance, who suffer less than the children of poor heroin users, but suffer gravely nonetheless. And parents, and lovers, and many other elective and non-elective affinities through which their behaviour is felt and suffered.**
'As for the second claim, that self-intoxication necessarily impacts on others: I think I agree in part. Drug use can cause distress to immediate family, provided the immediate family are in fact distressed. What if the immediate family do not feel distressed? The problem disappears. (On the same point, I personally don’t think family has much to do with it anyway, but I am not pro-family like Mr Hitchens. That is for a different debate though.)'
**Well, that's all right then. Just stop feeling distressed, and all manner of things will be well. And we can cope without families, apparently. Or can we? It isn't, in fact, a different debate. It's the same one, and its main concern is unselfishness versus selfishness.**
'Similarly the other claims, such as decreased competence at work or at education, or on the roads, are correct if those factors actually occur. But it is not the case that intoxication at one point in time necessarily leads to the problems at all times in the future. So if one chooses to get stoned, fine: just sober up before you interact with others. I agree that drugs do ‘stick’ in the body and brain (to varying degrees), but I do not agree that there is any evidence that the intoxicating aspect remains. It will over time dissipate. The presence of metabolites of cannabis does not mean one is still stoned. So my approach would be get drunk, get stoned, get high. Just don’t be a drunk, or a stoner. Sober up afterwards.'
**It is not only intoxication (or stupefaction) during drug abuse or soon afterwards of which we speak, but the permanent damage done to users, most especially of cannabis, the very dangerous drug which the legalisation lobby most dishonestly seeks to whitewash. Dr Thomas must also be lucky never to have met the sort of person who thinks he is sober when he is not. Plenty of drunks are like this, and they drive cars. So, in what I suspect are growing numbers, do drug abusers who genuinely believe that they are not impaired.**
'As for the criminal aspect: I think there are many people out there who commit crimes a) when intoxicated with drugs, and b) to get money to get intoxicated with drugs. But it would be a faulty syllogism to say that all people who get intoxicated then commit crimes over and above the initial criminal act of obtaining the drugs.'
**It might well be. But there is no need to make it. If the first and second propositions are true (and they are), then we already have a problem for which the criminal law is a remedy. The rest is just a matter of undermining the huge public relations campaign mounted for cannabis, and the incessant lie that it is a 'soft' and harmless drug instead of a dangerous poison which can wreck its users' mental health forever.**
'I think this issue then devolves into the issue of whether drugs should be criminalised. I think not, for reasons I have tried to elucidate above.'
**Do please try harder.**
‘As for the worries about narco-lobby, this reminds me of Gladstone’s claim to have lost an election on a torrent of gin and beer! It may be true: the problem though is with the institution of lobbying, not what is the subject matter of the lobby. Governments need spine and guts.'
**This is a useless, complacent statement. Most of my critics on this subject seek not to argue with me but to complain that I am still allowed to say what I say, to abuse me for saying what I say, or to vent their rage on me for daring to say it. Currently the argument is not about the rights or wrongs of the drug laws, but about the right of the opponents of legalisation to be heard at all. Where will governments find the 'spine and guts' if the arguments for employing these things are not made? If the cannabis lobby dominates the media and captures the minds of legislators, why should government try to show courage? The question is, which argument is right and true?**
'Finally, a peace offering: I enjoy reading your work Mr Hitchens. You make me think (after I have calmed any initial rage!). I agree with some of your points, but not all. For instance, I agree with your penal policy: if you want criminal law to work you need severe punishment (though not to the extent of capital punishment). I just disagree that self-intoxication in situations where others are not actually harmed is a valid subject for criminalisation. I agree with you on the pernicious growth of ‘security’ in the name of liberty: I think that governmental intrusion into the personal sphere is unjust. I happen to think that criminalisation of drug usage is a species of the same problem. So although you may not read/reply to this until later, I would like to apologise for my woolly writing earlier. I know I have only covered some of the points raised, but I hope I have clarified my position. If you are ever passing Leicester, please feel free to contact me and I can see if we can arrange a more detailed discussion of these issues. Enjoy your religious celebrations. I shall enjoy my secular version.’
**Thanks so much for the acknowledgement of woolly writing, much appreciated. But no thanks for this patronising good wish. I hope I should find my way to the altar rail at Christmas even if secret policemen tried to stop me, and I don't need Dr Thomas's blessing to do so now. But what exactly is *he* celebrating? He surely doesn't believe that the Gods must be propitiated to ensure that the days lengthen again? Science, based upon Christian belief in an ordered and purposeful - and explicable - universe, long ago exploded that idea. So what has he to make merry about at this season? If he thinks Christmas silly, then why bother?
This is typical. The secularist, or whatever he calls himself, enjoys the civilisation brought about by the birth and resurrection of Christ, but denies or mocks the truth of these events. He doesn't make the connection between the two, because he recognises, deep down, that this would be to admit that he is cheating by doing so. Once everyone agrees with him that Christmas and Christianity are fairytales, then the world will be a violent and selfish chaos in which each deed is measured quite precisely by its immediate effect. Or he will be marking Eid whether he likes it or not. So he rides free - for now.**
Another Doctor Writes
And then there was this from Dr Kevin Law (again, doctor of what, please?) 'Phew – I can’t help but think that sometimes newspaper columnists do seem to have a very high opinion of the importance of their own views on life.
‘And certainly Peter Hitchens would come into this category.
‘First the good bit. I actually admire the way Peter Hitchens has an excellent command of the facts about any subject he comments on. A lot of other newspaper columnists could learn from his methods. He is always fully informed and read on any subject and does his research. I don’t think I have ever read any comments from Peter Hitchens that were not based on genuine facts rather that the sloppy regurgitation of what others have written in the media (a crime other columnist commit regularly). Plus he is consistent. He doesn't change his views depending on the way the current media trends are running. He also mounts powerful and carefully crafted arguments that need thought to disagree with. I have never read Peter Hitchens offer up an opinion he hasn’t thought through. I also have to say that I am in broad, if not total agreement with him over many issues. From the climate change hoax to the duplicity of David Cameron who calls himself a conservative but who is, in reality – just a social democrat. That’s the good bit.
‘The bad is that like other certain columnists (Simon Heffer is another, as is Polly Toynbee) that they offer up indignant criticisms of our present political and social systems plus their “radical” alternatives with a force that suggests should society not undertake such change, then we are all somehow being both blind and deaf to the obvious. However this force majeure is not backed up by actions on their behalf. I'm sure the pen is mightier than the sword but getting paid a rather high salary to propagate these views to us each week like some unsung prophet can be both wearing and a trifle irritating to the reader. Yes, these columnists are entitled to their opinion. And no, as a reader I don’t have to read their work. I can ignore them if I want. But we all have the right to opinions. But most of us don’t get paid to air these opinions every week in media.
‘For me the irritation lies in the fact that these columnists clearly have a very high opinion of the importance of their argument and their own importance in “spreading the good word”. But to the best of my knowledge – apart from being paid to give us the benefit of these views – on very regular basis – do precious little else to bring about the change they desire whilst constantly criticizing and hectoring others who don’t undertake polices and practices which would please the columnist personal prejudices.'
PH replies: Well, I'm grateful once again for the fair-minded tone of this. But I'm not quite sure about all this 'high opinion of myself' stuff. No doubt I'm as vain as the next man and vainer than some. But so what if I'm right? And I can't or won't speak for any other columnist who wishes to defend himself or herself against the accusation of self-importance.
But, as I've explained here time without number, I would enter parliamentary politics next month if it were a practical option (that is to say, if a party existed to which I could in conscience belong, which was capable of winning election to a significant number of seats, and prepared to select me to stand in one of those seats where I had a reasonable prospect of winning). But these conditions don't exist. I've done all that I can to bring them about, and my effort hasn't yet had the desired effect. I'm not sure what else Dr Law would suggest, but I'm interested if he has anything original to say. I stress the word 'original'. I've heard plenty of suggestions based upon ignorance of the political process (Why don't you stand for Parliament? being one of them. Having reported at first hand on many, many by-elections and general elections I know that my personal qualities and views would have almost no bearing on the result), but none based upon knowledge of it, such as I possess.
And that's another thing. Dr Law might look at my curriculum vitae some time. I didn't just spring, fully formed out of nowhere as a 'columnist'. I worked my way through my trade for more than two decades before I was given that singular honour, time during which I found out at first-hand how this country is run, and where it stands in the world. I tend to think not that I'm 'important' but that I have knowledge, wisdom and experience which many others lack, and which I long to apply in the affairs of my country, and cannot, except by stating them in my columns and other writings. What sort of person would I be if, knowing these things and feeling these things, and offered a platform from which to state them, I wrote about allotments, football and au pairs?
If you want to comment on Peter Hitchens, click on Comments and scroll down.
