PETER HITCHENS: Evil terrorists? No, they're just solitary drug-crazed losers

Author: 

Close all schools forever, Imagine, Jerry Scott , Simon Stephenson, Calum Smith,  John Read, CaliforniaBill 

Date: 
Thursday, July 2, 2020 - 00:15
Article link: 

 

But Boris wants us to send our kids back to school? So do we send them back if a second wave is predicted?

The future is A.I

...

>it is a perfectly sensible line of argument to state that legalising cannabis would prevent drugs falling into the hands of young and vulnerable teenagers whose brains have not yet fully developed.***PH remarks. No it is not, as the argument (which has many other flaws) falsely assumes above all that legalised marijuana would supplant and finish the supply of illegal marijuana. This is not the case, as can be shown by experience in at least two jurisdictions where marijuana *has* been legalised, Colorado and Canada. In both, the illegal market continues to flourish. Do not be taken in by what was always a fraud and is now an actual lie.***

This is Ned Flanders tier

Rob Martin resurrects the tired 'wot about alcohol den ey' argument which has been refuted by our host

...

It's good to see that you haven't been muzzled yet Peter. Although I agree with you that
skunk frazzles brains unfortunately there are people in the world who
hate and want to kill. Whether that hate results from frazzled brains or wicked ideology
it is difficult to say. Most people in this country do not abuse drugs thank God. It is not fashionable to believe in the power of light and darkness but evil does exist. 
We witness evil every time someone full of hate tries to kill many people. 
Our new culture talks about mental health as if it is unavoidable without talking about the causes. Will our children witness more and more hate filled stabbings
and more drugged induced drivers. I think so. 

...

 

James Edward Shaw : 28 June at 1.13 AM

***it is a perfectly sensible line of argument to state that legalising cannabis would prevent drugs falling into the hands of young and vulnerable teenagers whose brains have not yet fully developed.***

Who's suggesting that such an argument cannot be made? But surely if you are going to take such a consequentialist approach you will need to examine the potentially negative consequences of decriminalisation as well as the potentially positive ones.

There's actually little that I would like better than to feel that I lived in a society which was knowledgeable and grown-up enough to be able competently to self-police via individual autonomy, as opposed to having do's and don't imposed on it and enforced from on high.

Wouldn't it be great if it was felt that criminalising cannabis usage was wrong not because of any direct consequences it was felt it would lead to, but because it encroached too far into the hands-off approach that was believed to be the best way to allow society to flourish?

But this is the opposite of where we are, because we live in an age when it has seemingly become unthinkable that there could be a way to social flourishing that depends upon there being less authoritarian control-freakery, not more of it.

...

Although I do think that there is a distinction to be made between habitual and recreational cannabis use, I agree with most of what you say.

The use of taxpayers' money upon 'decorating' this government aeroplane is crass and a slap in the face at a time of impending deep austerity for most of us. It shows up the arrogance and hubris of the Prime Minister.

In terms of the face nappies, I intend to follow your example and wear a very fetching novelty gas mask next time I board public transport. Indeed, I am rather looking forward to it - it might cheer a few people up and is a great way of discrediting the nonsense.

I hate these muzzles. They are next to useless, look hideous and are frankly very scary to look at. They symbolise people who have unquestioningly submitted to the government's propaganda, no matter the extent of it. Surely restricting the absorption of oxygen and the expelling of carbon dioxide can't be good for your health? I also fear deeply for the social consequences of wearing those things. They will surely make us a more socially distant society, potentially for the long term. A socially distant society is one where tyranny can brew up far more easily, as collective dissent becomes far more difficult. That's why I will continue to campaign against this idiotic lockdown and 'social distancing', including coerced muzzle wearing, at every turn.

...

Peter, Ref, drugs and violent crime.

It would be a very powerful statement if, for one week, you gave over your entire Sunday column to a list of violent crimes and the drugs used by the culprits.
All of the gun massacres in the USA in recent years. The knife crimes blamed on terrorism. The murders attributed to mental illness. etc.
Whether the drugs are illegal - cannabis, or prescribed - anti depressants, steroids, seems to be irrelevant. They have dangerous effects.
If you could do this it would finally be impossible for politicians to ignore the problem. 
But you might need more than one page.

Thanks for being a brave voice standing out against the 'herd mentality.'

John Read.

...

Tom makes a good point when he writes; "Of course someone who has smoked weed all day every day for 10 years is going to be mentally unstable. That is the ‘stoner’ lifestyle many live, picking it up at 15 and smoking vast quantities all through their developing early adult years.....To draw parallels with alcohol, you are essentially arguing it should be illegal for responsible adults to drink a glass of wine on a Friday evening because of violent street alcoholics."

However, the fundamental contention many of us have is the denial by the pot lobby that ANY such mental harms might occur from marijuana abuse. Especially harms that may lead to mass violence.

Why not have an open-minded and honest discussion about the pros and cons at the national level? Unfortunately, the ubiquitous pot lobby deniers within the media and academia will have nothing to do with any such debate because they love this drug at all costs.

 

 

 

Own comment: 

It has become clear that virtually all terrorist attacks in Western countries are, if not aided, at the very least hoped for by governments. They certainly never lose the chance to infringe on more of our rapidly diminishing rights as a result of them.

The real causes are never even investigated. Virtually all of the perpetrators are on drugs - legal or illegal - and this is hardly ever mentioned, and if they are Islamists, then the link between Western intelligence agencies and the Islamists they support in their proxy wars are never mentioned or re-examined.

In other words, they want this carnage and count on it occuring occasionally so as to keep the population in fear, divert attention from their own thefts, failures and policies, and impose ever more draconian laws.