Within Reason - #43 Peter Hitchens Storms Out of My Interview

Episode Date: October 16, 2023

Peter Hitchens is an author, broadcaster, journalist, and commentator. He writes for The Mail on Sunday. He has published numerous books, including The Abolition of Britain, The Rage Against God, The War We Never Fought and The Phoney Victory. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

What you're about to hear is the most bizarre experience that I've ever had in the production of this podcast. Two months ago, I emailed Peter Hitchens, saying, quote, I'm writing to invite you to appear as a guest on the podcast to discuss your work and areas of interest, in particular, issues pertaining to drug decriminalization, whether we are experiencing a moral decline in society and the influence of secularism on this question, and the state of monarchy in the United Kingdom. Before the interview commenced, I reiterated that there are three subjects of interest, things

that he's spoken about or written books about in the past, and that I've also covered on my YouTube channel, and these are drug decriminalization, God and religion, and the monarchy, to which he said, the monarchy's a bit boring, and I said, you know what, I actually agree with you, let's not do the monarchy. He didn't take the opportunity to make a similar comment on either of the other two subjects that I mentioned. Then we sat down, and the camera started rolling, and I asked him if he had a hard out, that is, is there a time that he needs to be done by? He said, what did you have in mind? To which I respond, ideally, these things run for about an hour, but if the conversation is particularly lively, they can be an hour and a half. I've done

podcasts that are three hours long, to which he said, well, we'll see how we do, but three hours might be a bit long. So as far as I was aware, we were about to have an hour or an hour and a half long conversation about two topics, drug decriminalization, and God and religion. I had also on my list the issue of the death penalty, but that was only if we had time. That wasn't something that I'd actually mentioned to him. And then something went disastrous. wrong. I'm really in two minds about posting this because I don't like the idea of posting something that one of my guests isn't happy about. Generally speaking, if a guest tells me that they want to take something out or they're not happy with something for any reason, then I respect

that. The problem is that Mr. Hitchens didn't just tell me that he wasn't happy with the interview, but that he wasn't happy with me personally, and he did that for 15 minutes. He then went on Twitter and made it quite public that he was recovering from an attempted interview with me in which I bought him for almost an hour with unoriginal questions about drugs. Since then, he's been tweeting about me quite a lot, and I think I've earned something of a right of reply.

I figured the best thing that I can do is simply present the full, uncut interview so that you can make your own mind up about what went wrong here. I may, in a future YouTube video, give you my own views about what I think happened and why I think it went wrong,

but for now, I simply give you Peter Hitchens. Peter Hitchens, thanks for being here. Yeah. So far. So good. Suella Braveman last year after the Conservative Party conference was reported to have been considering upgrading cannabis to being a class A drug. And this was amid concerns that it had become a gateway to other harsher substances. Do you think that cannabis is a gateway drug? No, I think it's quite bad enough. It doesn't need to be a gateway to be bad. It's the potential effects. of it on users appear to be, by correlation, to be so serious that it's silly to think of it as a gateway drug to others. It's quite bad as it is. The whole system of classification was

designed as far as I know back in the early 1970s to actually make it seem less threatening than the then-Bogie-Man drugs of heroin and LSD, which is why it had a different classification from them. So do you think that would have been a wise idea, upgrading the class? No, none of these things have any real relevance to all. The current classification, I think, means the maximum sentence for possession is, I think, five years in prison and an unlimited fine. That's quite a severe sentence. And the point about the law at the moment is that it's not enforced. Not the law is not stringent enough on paper, but that nobody enforces it. So upgrading it or making noises about it being a gateway drug won't change that until the police

enforce the law, which is what they're paid to do, then nothing will happen. Yeah, so I sometimes hear you mischaracterized as a person who wants harsher penalties for drugs. People will say things like this. It's actually the harshness of the penalty isn't really the point. The point is that there is a penalty, that it's a realistic penalty, and that it is imposed when people break the law. In general, I'm of the view that with enforcing law, that with first offences, you're pretty

lenient, you don't want to ruin someone's life for one offense. But once the second offense kicks in, I think you have to be serious. And at the moment, we're unsurious about first offenses and equally unsurious about second ones. So there is no deterrence of possession of marijuana, which is the principal offense. And so it continues to grow. And people regard it A as legal and B is not really a drug. Well, describe for me the scene in the UK as you see it. I think people listening to this, particularly American listeners, might not quite understand what it is you're talking about when you say that, at least I've heard you say in the past, that marijuana is effectively already decriminalized in this country. It's not just me who says that. Many prominent police officers have said it. It is evidently the case. But to what extent is this the case? I mean, for example, you know, if I were to just sort of walk up to a police officer and smoke a joint in front of them, presumably they would do something about it.

I doubt it. And every year on the 20th April, there's this 420 administration Hyde Park, which the law is openly mocked and the police just stand around. Unless they're really seriously rubbed up the wrong way, they won't do anything. They'd rather not do anything. It's a nuisance to them. It's for them because the courts are not interested. And the state is not interested.

Police will only enforce laws when they get the strong impression that the government wants them enforced. and they have been getting the strong impression for years that the government doesn't want this one enforced, so you can't be surprised when they don't do it. And in some places, even in the UK, there seems to be not just a sort of inability to enforce this law, apparently, from the police,

but also, I mean, I'm thinking, for example, recently of Scotland and the suggestion of drug-taking rooms or something of this sort of... Oh, all these things. It's like drug testing units at rock festivals and so forth, all these things are designed to mock and call into question the law itself. As a signatory to the Universal Drugs Convention and also as a member of the United Nations

Security Council, Britain cannot legislate, not seriously, to abandon these laws because it's signed international treaties saying it will have them. But what it can do instead, and this has been known to drug decriminalisation campaigns for years is it can just not enforce them and that's what has been going first of all informally and then more and more formally especially since the runciman report and the the london police experiments of the early parts of the century it's just become a de facto legalized drug and anybody who wanders around london will smell it all the time and i guess i'm interested in why this might have become the case i mean there are a lot of people who want drugs to be

officially decriminalized in this country i've made videos in the past on my YouTube channel talking about the subject and I'm broadly in favor of the decriminalization of drugs, although it's a fairly malleable position to me. It's not something that I've thought about a whole lot. I'm wondering, in other words, a lot of people will listen to what you're saying and think to themselves, well, okay, but this is kind of a good thing. Maybe it's a bad thing that the police aren't enforcing the law. These are all people whose children have not started taking marijuana at an early age.

Those who have, well, in many cases, know very well the reason why they should. worry about it because although as I say we have no causal link we have a growing correlation between the use of marijuana particularly at an early age this isn't exclusive but it's strongly so between the use of marijuana and mental illness of an incurable and disastrous kind and that once that's visited a home then people understand that there might be reasons for worrying about it but those who haven't experienced that are influenced by a wholly different set of values. They, particularly the use of marijuana in this country by the, what you might call

the educated elite, became common in the 1960s. It's a very old thing. It also, the smoking of marijuana, the rolling of the joint, the passing round of it, the sharing of it as a sort of ceremonial holy communion, unholy communion, if you like, of the 60s generation. And it's also very much links and referred to in a huge, part of the music which people listen to. It's part of the culture. And many of people who involved in that culture have permitted their children to take drugs at home and they know their children take drugs and they're worried that their careers might be impaired if the law is enforced. So they're against it. That's the crude way of putting it. They themselves don't

believe in the law and they think that their own children should not suffer from it. But surely, I mean, it's conceivable to have a person who is broadly as I am in favor of the decriminalization of drugs, officially speaking, that is. But at the same time, think that we shouldn't be giving drugs to children. I mean, just like with alcohol or smoking, these things are legal in this country, but it's not legal to sell these things to children. No, but they get into the hands of children, and if they were commercially on sale,

if the drug were legalized and said it's been in Canada, so it can be bought in a shop, then it would be more available to children than it is now. I think certainly from Colorado, one of the American states where it's been legalized, there is a certain amount of evidence beginning to pile up of its use among schoolchildren, which has intensified following legalization. I don't think anyone can really claim that if a drug is legalized and put on general sale and ultimately advertised as well, that young people will not use it,

even though it's technically illegal for them to do so. Anybody in their teens can obtain alcohol and they can also obtain cigarettes. These things are on wide sale, in many cases, in smuggled and illicit forms, which are, they're not illegal in themselves, but they are smuggled and in the case of alcohol, illicitly made. So it's absurd to imagine that if you made it easier to get hold of, that more children wouldn't get hold of it, because they will. I'm sort of imagining a situation in which, I guess what I'm asking is, what is the ideal law here? I mean, is there something, when I asked you about the decriminalization of drugs a minute ago, you immediately talked about children, the fact that... Well, I mentioned it because it's the most obvious thing. I refer to anybody who tells me that marijuana is harmless to Patrick Coburn's book, Henry's demons, about the experience of his son Henry.

I've known Patrick for many years, and I've also known Henry, and I have witnessed what happened to him, and it's deeply disturbing and saddening event. in the lives of that whole family, in particular above all of Henry, and it's very hard to resist the conclusion that it's the results of his being introduced to marijuana at his secondary school in Canterbury. So I think this is one way in which it comes home to people. I'm not saying there are no other arguments against it. There are plenty of other arguments against it, which I can make if you want to make this whole interview about why marijuana should remain illegal, indeed, why the law against it should

be enforced. okay. I've written a book about it but I don't I don't take you want to go on and on about it. These arguments are well known and people can look up the book that I've written particularly The War We Never fought on this subject if they want to know what

my detailed arguments are. This isn't really the forum going on and on I do have the book somewhere in this room I should have it here so I could wave it in front of the camera but we'll make sure a link is in the description and show notes to that book. Well I'd love it if you did because it was so it was so badly treated by the review mafia and the publishing industry that it became known

in the publishing industry as the book they never bought. I couldn't get anybody to review it except a couple of abusive reviews into left-wing newspapers. It was almost impossible for people to find out it existed. I remember, well, in a lot of the interviews that I've heard you give on this subject, you often say, look, I've written a book about this. The kind of stuff you're talking about here. I've already written about this. I have the information. You can go and find it. So, you know, I've been reading this book and I suppose what I wanted to do was follow up on some of those threads that I think potentially weren't fully addressed in the book. For example, I mean, you talk about the comparison that's often made between cannabis and alcohol and cigarettes,

but specifically in relation to what we've just been talking about, children, for example, smoking tobacco is still legal in this country and many adults still do it but there's been such a successful almost propagandist re-education campaign about the dangers of smoking that young people, it's falling off the map

young people just don't smoke anymore like they're used to now no they vape instead but I don't think that's that really tells us very much it's not it hasn't just been a propaganda campaign it's been the use of the law people particularly employers

anybody who runs any large building and particularly anybody who runs a pub or a restaurant is very much afraid of the law and of the strong civil law consequences in this case of allowing the smoking of cigarettes on their premises and that's been the real driver of the diminishing of smoking. So I suppose what I'm asking is can't a similar approach

be taken to cannabis? Well, I just said if you use the law then indeed it can. If the fundamental law which enables you to act against the smoking of marijuana is the 1971 misuse of drugs act even in its, which is a very, very fault filled piece of legislation, but it's perfectly applicable and could be applied. In Japan, they have a similar law against possession of marijuana, which they

apply and as a result the, well, certainly, let's not say as a result because no causation is the hardest thing in the world to prove, but there is no doubt that both Japan and South Korea, where its possession is still severely prosecuted and punished, are both societies in which it's much less used. That's true. Although the Abbey Care Group, which is an organisation dedicated to helping people struggling with addiction, cite South Korea as the fourth most alcoholic country by, in terms of males, that is, males with alcoholism, it's the fourth most popular. And I wonder That's as baby. I can't address that. You know, Japan has a problem with

workaholism, for example. I have to say, so what? If you want to go and argue with the South Koreans about their alcohol laws, that's fine by me. I myself would very much favor much more stringent alcohol laws than we have in this country. Yes, that's the ones that we had before

the middle 1980s, before the Thatcher government began to destroy them and the Blair government then totally destroyed them were quite effective. And there was much less drunkenness I think what I'm much less drinking when those laws existed than there is now I'm all in favor of bringing that back and and would do so if I had the power to do so what I'm asking about or I guess what I was implying there was that we sort of trade one problem for another no you don't yes there are there are effective cannabis you can repress them both in South Korea and Japan but it might just be trade one problem for you can repress them both until until the 19th century this country had neither a marijuana problem nor a major drink problem it repressed both in different ways What I was trying to pull together a moment ago was that when I asked you about cannabis and children in particular, you said that the decriminalization of cannabis will cause more children to have access to cannabis.

Well, it will. I mean, it's just a truism, basically. Sure, we can grant that. No point arguing about it. But then we're talking about tobacco, asking about why young people aren't smoking as much. You say it's effective enforcement of the law. And what I'm saying is, can't there be... Partly effective enforcement to the law.

It's partly because they're switched. vaping. Perhaps. No, the vaping is epidemic now. I agree that's, I agree that that's the case, but I don't know if that's exactly the elf bar and the things like that. They're incredibly prevalent. I mean, people were already smoking less before before vapes were on the scene.

I don't know about that. Who was measuring it? Certainly there was still a lot of smoking going on visibly if you, particularly among the less, how should I say, the less advantaged in society where smoking tends to be concentrated these days. What I'm imagining is a situation in which. cannabis is decriminalized for adults, maybe over 21s or something like this, and there is an effective law in place that really clamps down on any attempt to sell, provide, or allow for

the provision of cannabis to children. Yeah, well, okay, in that case, the problems of marijuana for people over 21 will still be a problem, which are considerable. And those problems, primarily for you, seem to be about the effect on one's mental health. Well, I think there is absolutely no doubt at all that there is a strong correlation between the use of marijuana and decline in mental health, even if it's just the decline to the point of view where the person becomes incapable of holding a steady job

or making a conversation or reading a serious book and just becomes impaired in ways which don't actually mean that he or she has technically classified mentally ill or the growing number of people who are detached in the fascinating website. attack a smoke cannabis who undertake really seriously violent criminal acts who are long-term marijuana users and a dangerous not just to themselves but to others it's a it's a drug with many many disadvantages if you want to join the third world then make marijuana legal would

be a simple piece of advice if you really want to have full we have so country members of the third world in this country now if you want to have full out membership of the third world then And then Mario, just imagine, for instance, the implications for almost anybody with a job of any, with any safety implications, whether it be an airline pilot, a surgeon or a school bus driver, we'd simply have to have enormous amounts of testing to make sure people didn't have it in their systems. Probably the same as alcohol. Before we allow them to work. It's not the same alcohol. It's illegal to drink and drive. It's illegal.

To drink and fly an airplane. I mean, again, so what? I mean, I'm not advocating. And I've just said to you, do I waste my time? Do you not listen to what I say? I just said quite clearly, I'm in favor of strong restrictions on alcohol. Have we got that now? I agree with you.

Good. So stop saying to me, well, what about alcohol? Every time I mention that we should do something about marijuana. Marijuana is a drug you could not tolerate in someone who is performing surgery or in a school bus driver or an airline pilot or in many other jobs requiring the strong discipline and a strong. consciousness of what's going on and lack of intoxication. So to say, well, if you then had a society in which it was legal, it would require an enormous amount of testing is my point. The answer to that is not to say, what about alcohol?

The answer to they say, either I don't believe that's so, or yes, I do believe that so. I understand that point, and it's a good point against marijuana, that we would have to have much more testing of formerly free individuals because the danger would be great. But no, you can't see that. Instead of taking the point and listening to what I say, you can only come out with, but what about alcohol? It's banal. It's time wasting. And frankly, I can't be bothered with it.

If all you've got to say, whenever I say introducing a third legal poison into our society would be terrible, is we've already got two disastrous legal poisons in our society, and then I begin to doubt your intellectual capacity. This is not an argument. What I'm asking is... You bring up the subject of marijuana. You ask me why I think it would be a bad idea to make it legal. and when I explain why you say but what about alcohol and tobacco it's apart from anything else

it's incredibly tedious I don't think that's exactly what I was trying to do it least what you repeatedly do every time I offer you a reason why we should not legalize marijuana you come up with a with a counterpoint which involves saying what about tobacco or what about alcohol

it's noticeable anybody who looks at what we've just been saying we'll see this I'm not I don't I have I would cheerfully stamp out the smoking of tobacco. I think it's probably possible now. And as I've said, and I'll say it again, I'm in favour of the tightest restrictions on the sale of alcohol. So what are you saying to me?

That somehow, rather, because of these things exist and other people have made foolish decisions about them, I cannot argue that it's stupid to legalize marijuana. No. Well, in that case, when I say that here is a big disadvantage of marijuana, namely that if you've made it legal, you'd have to be constantly testing people in many jobs who were not necessarily users of it,

thus reducing the freedom of everyone in society. The answer is not, but what about alcohol then? I agree. The answer is either, yeah, okay, I've got that point. Or you could say, actually, I don't believe in testing people. I wouldn't mind having my brain operated on by someone who'd been smoking marijuana in the previous two days. One or the other, but you have to say something intelligent in response

rather than, what about alcohol? Hoping to offer something more like the second, and not quite in those terms. but to say, is this not a problem that can be addressed with something like regular random drug testing for airline pilots? It couldn't be random. No? It couldn't be random.

It would have to be mandatory and regular. Every time anybody of any undertaking any job where, for instance, full control of their muscles in mind was required, would be obliged to be tested for marijuana. You wouldn't want to be told, oh, the school bus carrying your children ran off a bridge, and the driver that, that, that bus had been high on marijuana because that wasn't his day for testing. If we're talking about how to minimize this, I'm imagining that that could be...

That would be how you'd have to minimize it. We'd only take one school bus crash. Quite a strong... For the regulations to become incredibly, incredibly tight. Quite a strong deterrence. No, if... You're not thinking about it. If somebody, if we had serious and severe punishments in place that were actually enforced

for the serious crime of driving under the influence for, example. Certainly when it comes to, I agree that driving is going to be more tricky, but in the case of airline pilots, if it were the case that somebody were caught on a random drug test, they knew that their life was going to go completely down the drain. Don't think that would be enough of a deterrent to stop them from smoking? What I'm saying is, and this is a completely different point, what I'm saying is that if you had legalized marijuana in society, there would have to be a lot more testing, of everybody, not just a marijuana users, but if everybody engaged in that kind of job. People will have to be tested all the time. It will be more

infringements of freedom of everybody because of this change. I wanted to ask you about freedom because this is something that you talk about in the book and you imply that people have gotten sort of the wrong reading of this million general principle that people should be able to be free to do whatever they like. No, they shouldn't be free to do whatever they like. This is something you disagree with. No, I don't think people should be free to do whatever they like. No, obviously there have to be limits. Not whatever they like, whatever they like so long as they're not harming the freedom of other people. Well, that is one, that is, that is, that is one principle on which you can limit freedom. But that's not the only one for you. Well, that's a utilitarian one. I have, I have,

I have a different moral position. There are some things people shouldn't do, whether it harms anybody else or not. So the question I wanted to ask is, do you think people have a right to essentially self-harm, to self-stupefite, to do things that might be at least a risk and possibly an obvious detriment of their own health? Absolutely. Nobody loves or cares about them. And I suppose if they ruin their own lives, the only, on the harm principle, the only reason why they could be restrained would be because of the cost of society that would then lead to, which in the case of people who abuse drugs and become mentally ill or otherwise incapacitated is considerable. And basically they can't in many cases maintain themselves anymore. So the taxpayer has to be mugged to pay for their lives. But it seems to me that that isn't the only reason that you have for wanting these drugs.

It isn't the only reason I have no. I have strong moral objections to self-stupefaction. I think it's throwing a great gift in the face of the God who gave it to you. And it's also throwing an insults in the face of your parents who've brought you up to live a decent and healthy life to deliberately damage yourself and make yourself less likely to be a happy or a successful person. Why would anybody do that? and moral objections, but if you want, as my book makes it clear, there's a whole section in the book, saying if the Holy Ghost doesn't bother you, then maybe John Stuart Mill will sort it out for you. I don't care whether you're a utilitarian or a puritan Christian moralist. The arguments against the abuse of drugs are very powerful. I wanted to draw a

distinction between moral arguments and legal arguments here. That is, I can understand why you might have a moral objection to taking drugs generally, putting aside the societal... But you're treating me as if I'm some kind of actor in society who can have any influence on events. You're saying, if Peter Hitchens says we should have a law, we should enforce the law punishing the possession of marijuana, then the country will enforce the law punishing the possession of marijuana. Nothing of the kind will happen. I have less influence on the actions of this government than that chair over there.

I have no influence whatever. I'm just interested. I say these things because I'm basically I'm writing the history of a country which has destroyed itself. I don't have I did at one point think that I might influence these events I don't influence any events

so I don't I'm writing the obituary of a country which died largely at its own hands that's all I do I'm not here making legislative proposals which you can say are a bad idea

I gave that up long ago but the reason why I think this is important is because if we're talking about decriminalisation then we're talking about you can talk about it then we're talking about I said decriminalisation happened long ago. Then we're talking about the law, right?

It happened. It has taken place. It was a stupid thing to do. It's demonstrably stupid. I can say that it's demonstrably stupid. I've written about how stupid it is many, many times and spoken about it. But the idea that somehow or other, my continued existence in saying these things is a threat to those who long for the country to be a drugs free for all. And therefore, my arguments about the details of law enforcement are important is absurd.

It doesn't matter what I say. It doesn't matter in the slightest I can say it till their cows come home Nobody will pay any attention Our society has already decided On this suicidal course I agree that Legislatively that may be the case

But a lot of people are interested It's not may, it is the case A lot of people are interested in your views I and some friends When the Home Affairs Committee of the House of Commons Looked into drug decriminalisation A few months ago

Put ourselves forward As said maybe you want to hear some evidence from us We went ahead and gave this evidence and they listened politely, but when the report came out, we might as well have stayed at home. Nobody's interested in this stuff. Well, people are interested in what you have to say on that. I mean, I am, and I think our listeners will be...

Only to annoy themselves. They have nobody who knows anything about this country could have any belief for one second that I have any influence on the making a policy by government or the civil service. I have none. I don't think people need to see you as somebody who's going to have an influence on policy.

What does it matter? My only interest in this, my only reason for discussing it is historical, I can tell you this is what happened, this is how it happened. You don't think it would be a good thing, for example, if the listeners of this podcast, there could be, you know, hundreds of thousands of people could hear this conversation that maybe haven't listened to you before. This could be their first introduction to these ideas. And if presented in a way that clicks with them, they could think, you know what, he's right. There are lots of people who have come to this conclusion. It makes no difference. The political parties are immune to thought.

But that's what I'm saying is the truth of the conversation. I'm telling you, the political, I'll go more deeply. The major political parties in this country are immune to thought. They're not interested. Even if everybody who watched this podcast instantly agreed with me and went out and turned to their friends and said, that Hitchens, he's got a point. It wouldn't make any difference. You don't think that would be a worthwhile endeavour to have thousands of people suddenly agree with you that drugs are damaging this country?

There would be many more people in the country who realized they had no power at all over events. And maybe that's good in itself. It may be good in itself, but that's all. The reason that I was asking about this was to get to the question of whether we are in favor of the criminalization of something because of a moralistic objection to it. That is, can't there be things that are immoral, but not illegal? I'm telling you what I think. Yeah, and I have moral objections to it, but I don't care if you don't have moral objections to it because I can also provide you with perfectly good utilitarian non-moral objections to it. I think, I think becoming mentally ill is a bad thing.

thing. Taking a risk which appears to have that likelihood is therefore a bad thing. It doesn't take much argument to get through that. You don't need to have puritanical personal morals to think that. If you want to discuss the basis of my morality, we've got time. I don't think I'm being clear here. I don't think most people will be interested. I have moral objections to it. Like most moral objections, I find, they have good practical reasons beneath them. Maybe my question isn't clear here. The question is granting that it's an immoral practice, granting that it's an moral thing to take part of it. Well, no, I don't want you to grant that, because you obviously don't think so. So it doesn't, I don't care whether you think it's moral or not, because I'm not

trying, I've never in my life tried to persuade anybody to adopt my moral position. We're supposing we weren't even talking about drugs. The question more broadly that I'm using this as a springboard to get out, because I'm interested in your view here, is do you think that something being immoral is sufficient justification for making it illegal? Is that enough alone? No. Some things were immoral which shouldn't be made illegal. The construction of a legal code is to some extent independent of morality. So what is it that would provide that additional justification? We have a practice which is immoral. That's not enough to make it illegal. What is the sufficient condition to make something justifiably criminalised? It's harmful. Sure. So a moment ago, now bringing up the context of drug-de-criminalisation.

But we're not arguing about whether to make something illegal. This is something which is illegal under statute law passed by parliament. But of course, lots of people are talking about... Fifty-two years ago. Lots of people are talking about officially decriminalization. So we're talking about... I'm against... At the very least, keeping the laws on the...

I'm not arguing about making something illegal. I'm arguing about keeping something illegal, which already is. Yes, and there are many people who don't want to do that. You'll be sorry when you're related to law against it. That's all I can tell you. And there are people who don't want to do that. And so the question that I was asking is what the reason is, for these laws on the books and why we should be keeping them and why we should be enforcing them.

And it seemed like you were referring to more than just the societal harms when talking about specifically criminalization. But what I'm seeing is drugs being immoral or it being a bad idea of drugs. I think drug taking is immoral. I think self-stipation is immoral. But that's not a lone reason for it to be criminal. I explained to you why. It's probably not a reason for it to be criminal at all because I couldn't persuade anybody else.

I was that the criminal law is made by an elected parliament. And with a population in this country which is probably about 65% totally irreligious and the rest of it not vary, to advance moral arguments of the making of laws would be futile. I wouldn't bother doing it. Recently the Washington Post did something of an expose on what might have been the most popular argument for the drug decriminalization lobby for decades now, talking about the rise in the taking of drugs in Portugal and you wrote about in the mail on Sunday the failure of this Portuguese experiment

of drug decriminalization. In 2001, they decided to adopt a policy of decriminalizing drugs such that people who were caught with drugs. D-penalization is the technical term for what they did. They would be treated rather than... But what they also did was they actually did was they formalized the policy which they'd been informally following for several years before.

And there were hardly anybody in Portugal in prison for possession of drugs at the time of the change of the law. There was no fundamental change in Portugal. They simply formalized what they'd already been doing. It wasn't the fact that the Washington Post finally caught up with the fact that it hadn't had the miraculous effects claim for it, was not the first time anybody had ever criticized it. So in 2001, Portugal make official something that was essentially, day facto already the case. Oh yeah,

let me do it for years. If that's the case, then why is it that after 2001 drug taking and drug-related harm in Portugal did decline? I don't believe drug-taking declined. I don't know how you would know. There were certain things, I think connected particularly with heroin abuse,

which may have declined, but I think they've, and I haven't got the stuff here. I've written a long, long essay, which is on my blog. Drug use itself. Which is on my blog. Certainly lifetime use of marijuana,

increased since the change. But the, the, I've had a very long blog posting called the Portuguese drug paradise several years ago, which deals in immense detail with the whole thing. So after, if we're talking about drug use, after 2001, use did rise slightly, and then it declined such that in 2012, it was below 2001 levels. And then recently it has increased. A new national survey suggested adults who use illicit drugs increased to 12.8% in 2022 from just 7.8 in 2001, but it's still below European averages as the EU average has risen. I think it

was before, wasn't it? And Portugal's different from, in many ways, from other European countries. In 2001, Portugal's drug deaths and drug use was about the EU average. Since then, the EU averages has risen and Portugal's has declined and it's still below European averages. I was wondering if nothing had really changed in that country. Well, it would be unlikely for a change in the paper law which merely confirmed the existing position to have had much of a change. This is people who look, so for instance, when Colorado formally decriminalized marijuana, legalized marijuana, people said, well, so what are you now going to get a great crime way for people who are becoming more violence?

Of course not. Any law of that kind is always changed after a long period of non-enforcement. So the changes already have happened before you've started measuring, so you will find nothing. So what accounts then for the massive drop in drug-related? deaths. I don't know. Was it a massive drop? I don't know. I wouldn't like to say what it can't have been was the fact that was the Portuguese police suddenly stopped acting against drug abuse because they hadn't been acting against it in the first place. So it doesn't, it really can't have been that. That much I do know. The, you know, the police, it's not like the police

suddenly aren't enforcing this, as you say, but this goes hand in hand with a new policy, a new governmental policy of the treatment of drug addicts differently, you know, officially seen as a medical problem rather than a legal problem, which is kind of the, the, the buzz topic that comes up all the time. But it may be that could explain why it is. And if it's the case that maybe global warming explains it, I don't know. I make no claim to know. You're the one he claims to know or to think that it's caused by a change in the law, which didn't change circumstances. That's up to you. What I'm interested in is, is, you know, if we look at the 2001 usage of drugs and drug deaths and HIV from needle and injections, and then we look after 2001 that it declines, and I think maybe this is just unrelated in the way that maybe, you know, people smoking weed and then developing psychiatric problems is disconnected.

But we look at the correlation of these two things, and we think, is there not a possibility that the legalization of drug or the decriminalization of drugs, the depenalization of drugs in Portugal, did have something to do with the fact that left people were dying? And if that's the case, is this not a policy that's worth this year? possibility but I think you'd stroll to find a causative relationship to the Washington Post talked about a recent increase in drug users and how the local police were talking about increased crime and blaming it and increasing in drug use but the drug use despite increasing and having a spike recently is still below the European averages and I wonder if that might have something to do with the fact that this is the policy that is in place in Portugal at the moment I don't know I wouldn't know but it seems to me that that the reports in the

Washington Post of the misery which has followed this change in the law would put most people of embarking on it now it's not neither is it the case that the that there is any country on the European continent which makes any serious effort to enforce its drug laws so I think it wouldn't it wouldn't be anything particularly distinctive there either you can see how it would seem mysterious to somebody that a policy which supposedly has no difference in in the way that drugs are handled in the country does lead to a a statistical measurable decline or does proceed has been followed it has been followed

it proceeds a measurable decline in drug related harms in across multiple areas drug related deaths also HIV infections and as I say drug use has sort of gone up and down but is now below the European average other possible other possible explanations for these if I known you wanted to talk about the Portuguese use drug paradise I would have come here briefed well we have I didn't so I haven't it's It's, I will just say to you that anybody reading the Washington Post account of this supposed success would hesitate in believing it was success. Hmm. The head of Portugal's National Institute on Drug Use, described by the Washington Post here as the architect of decriminalization, did admit in December, quote, what we have today no longer serves as an example to anyone.

But the Washington Post did point out that rather than folding the policy he folds. a recent change in funding, essentially. Yes, well, they always do that, don't they? It's because they haven't got enough funds. But if you're doing the wrong thing, it doesn't matter how much you spend on doing it, it'll still be the wrong thing. I guess I was picking up when reading your book,

and especially the subject of mental health problems, you were very careful, admirably so, I think, to say, well, look, clearly there's this link between cannabis and things like schizophrenia, especially cannabis. Well, I don't use the chance. schizophrenia. Cannabis in young people. A variety of health problems. And there's also a link between, I mean, you have an entire chapter, which is just a list of newspaper article excerpts

where somebody has run over an innocent child whilst under the influence of cannabis. Much worse than that. And you say, very carefully, look, I'm not going to say that I know that it's because they were smoking cannabis that these things occur. Because I don't. All I can say is that there's this correlation, and I'm saying, look, what's the most reasonable deduction that we can... Well, the correlation that we have is the one that Washington most has discovered, which is that Portugal is a crime-ridden slum in many areas where drug use is high, which I wouldn't recommend to anybody. But then when talking about the fact that Portugal decriminalises drugs,

and although there is still a big drug problem in Portugal, the drug deaths decrease, and the number is still below the European average. How many times are you going to go around this? But because I know that you said a moment ago... Can you formulate the question you want to ask me? I'll try. When I said a moment ago that this might be to do with drugs decriminalization policy, you said... I said it might be.

You said it might be, but, you know, it's just a correlation. It might be. It might be to do with global warming. Is that not the same attitude we should take towards cannabis and mental health problems? If similarly, all we have as a correlation... No, I think the correlation is stronger. I think the claims that were made for the Portuguese drug policy were... were unlikely to be causative.

I think the suggestion that just possibly somebody who takes a powerful psychotropic drug over a long period of time over and over again then becomes mentally ill and that the two might be connected is it's a bit like saying somebody daily takes a tube full of vegetable matter

and lights it and hold it to it and sucks smoke down to his lungs repeatedly and develops problems with his lungs in his cardiovascular system. There might conceivably be a connection between the two. These are correlations where it's sort of not much of a surprise. But to say to encourage people to take drugs which make them less capable of being active and civil members of society and which make them more prone to commit crime. And you then go to society in which there is. more crime and more, what you might call, social decay, as described in the Washington Post,

and that these things are linked, is different? Yeah, I mean, you don't need to encourage drug use here to decriminalize it. In fact, most decriminalization campaigns go hand in hand with something like a re-education I think, I've had this, actually. I think if this is going to be about drug decriminalization, I'm bored. If you want drug decriminalization, good luck. I'll enjoy the society you go as a result, but frankly, I'm sick of the subject, and I'm also sick to death of the people who promoted.

so be it will you be all right you're entitled to use that by the way feel free to do so if you want to but I think you've had me here on false pretenses and if you run this interview I shall say you had me here on false pretenses well that this is just going to be an interview

about several subjects of something like nothing but drugs yeah I mean nothing obsessed with drugs this is the first topic of men you're obsessed with drugs I have planned to I have written about you you've not read what I've written about it

I have read my book I have read your book I have obviously reading it with the lights off you're not aware of anything that I've said I haven't read you haven't read what I've written about Portugal which is easily far I've read that too well again you've shown inside something you don't say

I had it You haven't put to me any of the things that I said in when I didn't have about, it's now, I've been here for an hour and we've discussed nothing but drugs. I had planned to move on to other subjects. I'm sorry. I don't think you're entitled to run this.

If you do run it, I shall say that you've got me here in the false reflexes. I was just interested in reviews. I frankly think it's extremely bad manners. extremely bad than I was a very bad practice we spoke beforehand I said I wanted to talk about drugs and God you didn't say I want to say an hour discussing drugs

including half an hour discussing Portugal I'm sorry if that was too long I really I really had this interview was supposed to be an hour we've practically finished that hour we have not moved from the certain drugs I really had planned to move on the thing that I'm disputing is that there were any false pretences here I asked if we... Okay, so where is it saying your communications with me?

I want to interview you for an hour about drugs. Just before the interview, I said, I want to talk about drugs. I want to talk about God. I want to talk about the monarchy. I came here. You said that's fine, but the monarchy is born. You didn't say we're going to have an hour's discussion about drugs, including half the thing on Portugal. Because if you had done so, then A, I would have said no.

And B, I would have been better brief for this specific question. I thought it was a generalism on a number of subjects. It's really... I think you have acted on false pretenses. I think you have been dishonest with me, and I think you behaved extremely badly. I had planned to talk to you about drugs and God. And if you run this, I shall not hesitate to say so, as widely as I possibly can. I think you behave disgracefully.

I'll say this with me. Why should I bother to come here? I've come across... I've bicycle across London in the heat of suspect to spend... spent time being interviewed by you. And you've abused by, you've abused my good world, you've abused my hospitality. I thought we'd want to see you again,

I thought we'd hear from you again. I thought we'd talk about drugs and we thought about God. Sorry, you've not, you've talked about nothing but drugs. It was the first subject. It talked about nothing but drugs. We'd been here for almost the full hour which we said people were going to have.

You've talked about nothing but drugs. It was the first subject that came up and we were just going back and forth. It came up. I had following, yeah, I brought it up. It didn't come up. I had follow up questions to ask. You didn't come drifting out.

out of the scene. You chose it. I had follow-up questions to ask you. I'm sorry, I'm sorry if that went off too long. You chose it. You're chosen to something for an hour. I don't believe this. I don't believe this was under false pregences. Nothing else. Not a syllable about anything else. I can't accept that this was under false pretense. And also, round in circles too. You don't listen to my answers. Look, I'm... I'm...

I'm... I'm... You don't listen to my answers, so you have to ask everything over and over again. Rude, incompetent and extremely... extremely dishonest I suppose there's nothing more I can say here run it if I like right if you like I'm walking I can't stop you I think people would be interested to see your views

morally I don't think you're entitled to run a word I think people would be interested to hear you're not entitled to run a word of it you just aren't you brought me here on false pretenses you treated me with extreme bad manners and you've done nothing but asked me about drugs you didn't tell me you want an interview about drugs you just did this it's not because you've got the better of me

I agree I know almost nothing about I really I don't think that's a pistol nothing about the subject of drugs and you understand less but I do think that you brought me I do think you brought me here on false pretenses and have been extremely ill-mannered look I would be happy I don't want this to be shown

I don't stop you that I don't want to be sure I would be I would be interested to see if people share your opinion that that's how I behave People know my opinions. No, if people share your opinion that that's how I've behaved today. I think if I run this interview, people will not get that. It is my opinion, and it's the opinion on which I'm facing my decision to get up and leave. I think if this goes out, people will not think that that's how I've treated you.

Well, because you have the proud word, is it? No, I don't edit these things. I don't edit anything out. Nothing goes out. Every single word gets included. Everything. Okay. I still think it's, it's, so I can.

things of ill-mannered, dishonest, false pretenses. So I can post this interview word for word. You're here on false pretenses and I think you should be ashamed of this. So I can post this interview word for word and you think people will... You're being leered here on false pretenses. I think you should be ashamed of yourself, ashamed enough not to write. I'm sorry, I just don't agree. I just don't agree that there were any false pretences.

I bet you don't. I just like... Does that make it better that you're not even aware of what you've done? I'm bemused by this, honestly. I don't doubt it. So many episodes, we just, we talk, we go back and forth. If there are follow-up questions, there are follow-up questions. I don't doubt that the only means.

How long would have been too long to talk about drugs? Like, if we'd have moved on half an hour earlier to talk about things. Personally, one minute was too long to talk about drugs. So why do you? You raised it, so I had the man to talk. They went on and on and on and round. And round, and round, and you didn't have any idea what I think. You haven't read what I'd written, or if you have, you haven't taken it in or understood it.

Before this interview, I asked you if we could talk about drugs. You said, yes, you didn't... It was like I could talk about drugs. I didn't agree to an entire interview about drugs. I think it's a very good example of my powerful self-strength that I haven't actually sworn in you. Anyway, don't, if you've got any sense on manners, don't run that. I want to run this just You're not entitled to run it

You have no moral entitlement to write You brought me here on false pretenses And you behave very badly Just just Just in order that That I can That if that's the case That if I have misfritored you

That I can hear that from someone other than just yourself because I just No no it's my opinion methods on that I don't know what I You persisted with asking me to come I never made any trouble about coming I changed my day to come today

I agreed to come I came on time I was here when it frustrated and then I then I was abused my good nature it wasn't abused I don't like that

I suppose there's nothing I suppose there's nothing more I can say but I must say that this this like, I have to run this. I have to. I have to run this because people, because, like, people know that I've spoken to you. They'll want the interview and they'll... Okay, well, I'll start tweeting now that they put, I regard, as an outrage, you're running it.

No, no, I don't... I'll carry on tweeting it, and I'll go to, there's an outrage of ill manners and bad faith that you're running it at all. If you choose to do so. I was tricked by this one. Wait, once by some. Tricked by somebody else? Yeah, I've had someone else to treat me into drugs by pretending they were interested in general matters.

Listen, I really, I really genuinely... Very uncarnies of that way, at least didn't have the nerves of running. Indeed, I would happily talk to you now about any other subject and not run the drugs apart, just the rest of it, just to prove to you that I'm really not here to trick you into a conversation about drug. That's so much content. about everything else. It's just...

I can talk to you about... If you get on a topic and you get rolling. Genuinely, I was just interested in following it up. I really didn't mean to make this some sudden... Suddenly, we're just going to talk about drugs. Do you know what it is? Do you know what it is? I am so frigging bored

about arguing about drugs with morons who want to legal answer. Well, I'm sorry if it's boring, but that doesn't make... It is so boring. It's so boring. I've wasted years of my life on it. That doesn't mean I'm acting out of malice here. No, but it's, if you knew anything about me, you'd know how sick I was I'm talking about it. Look, I'm...

You couldn't even be bothered to read properly what I've written about it. You claims are ready. I have to, I have to take it as truth when you say... I only wish you would have gotten before the interview. You weren't paying attention, you didn't understand this. I only wish you'd have mentioned this before the interview when I asked if we could talk about drugs. Well, I talk about drugs to people. I mean, so I didn't say I could, I would come across it under for an interview entirely about drugs.

It wasn't supposed to be. It just, look, I had... have other topics that we were about to move on to. But we weren't. I mean that, genuinely. You barely had gone. I'd be Portugal. I can prove it. I can prove it. But you didn't get there, didn't? You chose, you chose to open with this, and then you finished with that.

So what are you offering me? What I'm offering you is, firstly, an explanation as to... I don't want an explanation. Secondly, what I'm offering you is, for example, if you want me to prove to you that I'm not interested in tricking you into a conversation about drugs, if you wanted to sit down and talk about the other subject, for instance, God, that was the next

one on our list and we talked about that instead, just to prove to you that I'm not interested in just talking about drugs to you. That's not what I'm trying to do here. And I mean that. But what happens to this drivel that we've wasted? Well, look, like, people, people know that I'm talking to you. They'll want to see a conversation with you, and I can, they'll expect me to have talked to you about drugs. I can explain to them that we did and that you, that you, that you, that you didn't. I can't talk about it, but I can't talk about it for an hour with you going round and right, so I'm not listening to my answers. Look, I'm, you seem, that the reason that you seem angry at me is, I don't like you.

Okay, that's the reason I really don't like you. That's fine. I really have to cite it in the past hour that I really do not like you at all. That's fine, I had no opinions on you before, now I actively dislike you. That seemed to be based on, on the fact that you're a, you're a propagandist for drug legalization, yes. The fact that I'm somehow tricking you and, no, you're propaganda for drug legalization, and I would regard such persons, I will, sometimes, and occasions I will be in the same room with them because it's necessary for debate. But I do not choose their company. I'm genuinely...

I won't tell you the other occupations with which I can equate them, with whom I also don't wish to spend time, but I don't like you. Look, this isn't, I've spoken about drugs publicly twice. Yes, I don't care what you've done publicly. On this occasion, you've made it clear to me that you are a very strong and drug legalization. That was the purpose of your interview. My job as an interviewer is to challenge my guests regardless of that. I don't care. I am I being challenged?

If I were talking to a, if I had David Nutt on the podcast, who I was supposed to for a long time, my questions would have been in the exact opposite direction. So you say. I would have put his points to you. You can see it on any of my previous interview? What did you say? I don't care. And that's why, that's why I reject that this is false.

I think you're in favor of drug legalization. Yes, well, I am, yes. Are you not? Yeah, well, I am, and I told you that. You're exactly. I think that's what you're in favour of, so I then have to ask myself, why? That's different from being a propagandist. No, it's not. Being a favour of something, is not different from being a propaganda.

It depends on what you do with, what you do as a result, isn't it? Asking questions. And giving questions. To one of the most well-known... obsessively and not listening to the answers. Not doing your, not doing your homework before the interview. The whole purpose of having you here is to counteract that kind of propagandic element of only just talking about drug legalization and having instead one of the most well-known...

You don't want to be the meat in your sandwich. Look, I... The reason why I'm... What I'm trying to say here is you're saying that I have no moral right to run this because you think that I've invited you under false... That I've invited you under false pretences. I just don't think that's the case. I just don't think that's the case.

But then I'm not sure you would even arouse you, so that wouldn't... And so I think I do have to run this interview. I'd have to. I'm sorry to say I feel I feel on principle that In the way that you feel

I've mistreated you By by somehow tricking you Even though I've done no such thing I feel like you're now mistreating me You asked me for an interview On a number of subjects And it turns into an hour long interview About drug utilization

That I I told you we'd talk about drugs Well yes This is one of many stuff And the interview hadn't concluded Well it has now Sure, but we were going to move on Like, of course we haven't talked about other seconds

How much time was left in an hour For the other things you were to discuss? Well, do you remember before we started? And I have it on camera in fact That I said This goes for an hour But if the conversation flows If the conversation goes on

It might go on for an hour and a half Or two hours And you said that that was fine And so the plan was Absolutely didn't flow The plan was an hour The plan was an hour on drugs I've never

I've seldom in life Had a conversation That's been more an enduring test. It did not flow. It was constantly halting what I lost my temple with you at one point earlier. The plan was over your repeating

what about alcohol questions? The plan was an hour The plan was an hour on drugs and then an hour on God. That was the idea. And we just didn't make it that far because you're now leaving. Okay. I'm honestly

I have no power over you at all. I can't stop you I think it would be completely wrong to you, right, but if you, you know, I guess I can't stop you. I think you've behaved, Pauling him. I never have to see what everyone else thinks about that. Well, we'll see what everyone else thinks about that. We'll see. I'm sure all you are all your druggie friends will think it's great, but I don't.

I think even your followers have struggled to think that I've mistreated you here. I really think that... I really think that... I don't have much of the way of followers in the sense that you mean. But I don't care. I just think you behave really badly and I don't see why she put up with it Well it seemed a moment ago when you said

That if I run this you'll you'll be tweeting about Oh it will Absolutely I'll tell people I think you've been I thought that you were all nice By saying please come for this interview Please come for this interview What no I like I changed my class according to me

And I offered you times And then they wouldn't work And then you finally got to do it And tell it to be an hour At that drug to which you didn't listen To any why answer to your question As if you think these people as if you think these people are going to agree with you.

I don't think they will. I'm sorry to say. People don't agree with you about drugs. No, not about drugs. About the fact that I've mistreated you somehow here. The way you say are you going to tweet about this? I know that you know. Well, I suppose that will be all then. No, it is. Yeah. Okay.

I don't want to see you. Okay. I... I'm astonished at your behaviour. I genuinely. It's not. I wish you the best. And I wish you the best. Well, I can't do that, because the only thing you put me on an interview with you again is if you apologize for what you've done. I can't apologize to something that I don't think I've done.

I don't think anybody can do that. It would be an ingenuine apology. What? It would be an ingenuine apology. Exactly, except for me anyway. So I don't think I can apologize, and I think I have to run this interview, and I'm... I just think you've behaved extremely... I'm sorry to say that I think that you are completely mistaken about me.

Well, there you are. And I'm sorry it's gone this way. It's a shame, but I don't think there's anything I can say here to change your mind on that from it. No, I think there is. Because you would be over here for an hour's conversation after all. What was it for me? Lurring is... What was it in for me?

Why would I come? I don't know. I mean, sometimes people... You offered me an interesting conversation. People come for all kinds of reasons. You bore me about your desire to any way. Well, you have a good day. Thank you.

ALEEN.