I can’t help but like Peter Hitchens for his eclectic views, with one major exception. And it’s a bad one. He still defends the war on drugs; a war, in fact, he believes we aren’t actually fighting and have never fought. Though, he says, we ought to, and do so strongly. The government, we are told, should move forwards by starting a serious crackdown (no pun intended) on drugs, especially on cannabis. I’m not here (exactly) to argue the case for decriminalisation, but to show that what Hitchens calls the stupidest argument in the world, is actually the best as he doesn’t understand it.
There are plenty of arguments on both sides of the legalisation/decriminalisation debate, a lot of bad arguments in fact. Most of these arguments are based on consequences of drug policy. You hear cries of ‘look at Portugal’ or ‘prohibition didn’t work’ or ‘this new study links cannabis with mental illness’. These types of arguments are unfortunately far far too common. But it seems to me that he who lives by empirical arguments will die by them. That’s how he comes off fairly well in the many debates he has had over the years about drugs. Any side can find some empirical evidence that supports their said so it becomes a game of studies . This is why I am writing this. I need to respond to what I think is the argument in the debate. The one it all depends upon, in my humble opinion.
It is what Hitchens calls the stupidest argument in the world. This supposed monumentally stupid argument is one that challenges the opponent of decriminalisation on his inconsistency and hypocrisy. Why should alcohol and tobacco be legal but other drugs not be? Are you not a hypocrite if you consume either yet oppose decriminalisation, of other drugs? Surely you are. Of course, Hitchens thinks not. He makes a fatal admission however.
He admits to occasionally drinking wine, beer and spirits. He then says;
There is no hypocrisy in this. My opponents use an illegal drug and campaign for its legalisation to suit themselves. I do nothing of the kind.
But do his opponents only do so to suit themselves? I think not. There is no reason to think that proponents of the decriminalisation of victimless crimes, believe what they do to suit themselves. Why assume the motives of all who oppose you. It seems far more likely that they believe it is an overreach of government power to police what individuals put in their bodies. Interestingly enough, Hitchens shows that you can be for the decriminalisation/legalisation of something without yourself wanting to use or own that thing. Here, in a debate on gun control, he admits to being against government regulation of guns, whilst admitting that he has no desire to own one himself. In any case, his derision of the decriminalisers makes little sense, as, when he admits to using alcohol he is in fact admitting to being a drug user himself. Yes, the pro-drug war Peter Hitchens is a drug user.
He then goes on to say about alcohol, that…
…I favour the tightest legal limitations on its sale which are achievable.
If he can allow this standard for legal drugs then why not illegal? This is seriously inconsistent and his reasons for it are extremely poor. He says that to ban alcohol, something that has been…
…legal for many centuries and also in mass use (including TV advertising and open sale in high streets) is impracticable.
But this line of reasoning is also far from consistent. Cannabis, for example, has been used, not just for centuries but millennia, across many diverse cultures and for many different reasons. A historical case probably can’t be made as strong as one for alcohol, but still, given his own claim of many centuries, that point still falls down. His claim of mass use is also rather odd. Tobacco was also widely used and was advertised (including on TV) and openly sold in shops and yet we managed to stop (or slow down) both of those. You can’t advertise tobacco on TV and in shops it must be hidden away. So why can’t we apply the same logic to illegal drugs too? We all know drugs are dangerous and no one could possibly dispute that, so why can’t we agree to apply the same standards to both legal and illegal drugs?
Where his argument really collapses is his claim to not be a hypocrite. This can be shown by asking him one simple question. Why should you, Mr Hitchens be allowed to relax by taking a mind altering, addictive and physically damaging drug of your choice (alcohol), but someone who chooses to relax with a different mind altering, addictive and physically damaging drug of their choice not be allowed and in fact be locked up? To be consistent you must pick a side. Either allow people the freedom over their own minds and bodies, or bring the full force of the law against them all, including alcohol users such as yourself.
So, far from being the stupidest argument in the world, if Mr Hitchens fully understood the point of the argument, he’d quickly realise it is in fact the most powerful one against his position.
Stuff everyone else is wrong about. 