Peter Hitchens debates Rod Liddle on drugs, terrorism and mental health | SpectatorTV
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 31 ต.ค. 2021
- In his column for the Spectator last week, Rod Liddle said the media reacts differently to terrorist attacks once it realises that they have been committed by an Islamist. This week, on the Spectator online, Peter Hitchens disagrees, and says we need to focus on the primary problem of mental health and drug-induced psychosis. They debated the subject this week on The Week in 60 Minutes.
// SUBSCRIBE TO THE SPECTATOR
Get 12 issues for £12, plus a free £20 Amazon voucher
www.spectator.co.uk/tvoffer
// FOLLOW US
/ spectator
/ officialspectator
/ the-spectator
/ spectator1828
Without taking a side, its refreshing to see two intelligent people with different opinions having a civil discussion
What's not refreshing is the fact that people keep saying this exact same thing, commenting it on debates. It's getting tiring now. Find something better to comment.
What a meaningless and vapid comment
@@EmeraldPixelGamingEPG But it bears repeating! The general level of discourse assumes malice, not disagreement, so sadly it is now abnormal to hear passionate, informed but opposing voices.
Cut the virtue signalling
Peter is the only person able to piss off both liberals and conservative. It doesn't matter if you are right wing or left wing or libertarian, Peter is his own wing XD.
But he is making a valid point about substances that are ally only in social use for the last 60 years and with only wide spread use in the last 20 years.
@@bighands69 Yeah he flip flops all over the place, his only consistency is that he knows best.
@@jfinn3575 Yup, that’s Hitchens. He knows best.
"Peter is his own wing." Indeed! :))
Some of the Islamic attackers were mental health cases no doubt about that but several were purely ideological in nature and nothing to do with mental health.
Some of the terrorist acts involved complex planning and training and were most certainly not mental health.
Not to mention all of those radical Christianist, and Sikhist, and Buddhist atta- oh wait, hang on.........
@@MrBannystar are they, as an aside, violent or inclined to act on homicidal thoughts..?
@GrapeSkoda yes I realise.. sadly these so called moral 'heavyweights' will dance with the dexterity of a 17 yr old breakdancer, to avoid the facts! With this in mind what contribution to establishing paths to truth do these commentators actually make!?
@GrapeSkoda which people are afflicted with that? Very interesting if true…and somewhat disturbing.
I respect the delicacy of your phrasing but those destroying Northern Nigeria, Mali , Burkina Faso, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Paris, New York...the list is too long to complete. When politics goes wrong it's ideological, not lots of mentally ill people getting together to further the cause of lunacy. Unwell people may be used by malicious actors to pursue their goals, but the orchestrators know exactly what they wish to achieve. It's rational, global and utterly terrifying, nothing to do with mental illness which is usually a personal tragedy.
I suppose drug use accounts for grooming gangs too?
Yes exactly. People in the media will always make excuses for these scumbags.
It's also strange how these drug inspired violent episodes target people of a different race.
@@grottythumber6226 No it isn't.
You mean prostitution rings. Call it by its name. The phrase 'grooming gangs' is an alt‐right term.
The grooming gangs are part of criminal networks that involve drug trafficking as well.
I support both these guys, peter and Rod both speak sense.
Love and blessings to Peter Hitchens......from Sydney Australia.
Where I differ with Peter on this, he gives the impression that crime/violence committed by drug users is the fault of the drug, wherever it may be. But he continually fails to recognise that there are circumstances common to all of these people _before_ the crime is committed. Focus on that and you solve the problem.
True, you could blame spouse abuse on alcohol... but the alcohol is merely the catalyst for manifesting violence when the underling issues existed prior
@Atlas Rising 'Peter doesn't give that impression at all.' Maybe not to you, but we all have opinions. I've been reading Hitchens for years and he's always given me that impression. So I fundamentally disagree with you, because you are missing the point. Pretty much like Peter
Jason - These people ?
Well after working for 15 years in the prison service I’m with Peter
The terrible damage Skunk Cannabis is doing is horrendous
@@seanmoran6510 You're missing the point like others who have commented. What led to their drug use? Sort that out and you won't be dealing with them in your work because they won't use. Banning stuff has never solved anything. Look at prohibition in the US in the 1920's. It didnt stop people using alcohol.
@@seanmoran6510 why are you irritated by the term 'these people' ?
Peter is entirely wrong on this one. He refuses to adress the elephant in the room because it is happening in every single European country with the exception of eastern Europe. Why ? Drugs ? really ?
Some of the islamic terrorist attacks are cases are mental health. Several were not and were ideological in nature and involved complex planning.
So while Peter is making a good point he then is trying to use that to cover everything. Rod point is more about the media and the direction of that media.
Where do you draw the distinction between mental illness and religious fundamentalism?
What do you expect, he's a religious nut himself!
@@jfinn3575 🙄
@@FatAlan_ the god delusion
Turns out Cain was under the influence of organic Apple's when he killed Abel... 🙄
Yep, they had started to ferment, blame the cider, after all alcohol is the worst drug of all and I'll bet Hitchens has a tipple but people like him don't see the wood because the trees are in the way.
A defence lawyers fall back position 😒
That's quite a good point Peter brings to the table about detecting the effects of drugs on the mind when there's a serious offence committed.
...all money generated by the strict sales of legalised drugs, should then be ploughed back into mental health support and any other problems concerning drug use. Ie..it would cover the costs like free needles and medical care.
We are never going to win the war on drugs.
But, we can make it as safe as it can possibly be. For the user's and the further comunities.
There are arguments for Legalisation from folk that are users. Mainly because of just that.
I'm unfortunately one of those 10% that it makes very unwell. So my argument is from the other side of the fence. I know the effects it can have on people. But, managed in the correct way, Legalisation can be beneficial to all of society.
The biggest problem with all of these killings of recent time is not just drugs it’s social media. We are beginning to realise how awful am effect it has had on the vulnerable of this work but there is much work to be done.
Narcissism is the ultimate drug. All these terrorists, serial killers, school shooters want to be watch or cause the world around them to burn, drugs being just one frequent part of that. I'm surprised as a religious man Peter doesn't seem to get that, it's the heart of darkness that lies in all of us to a lesser or greater degree.
I from Poland and since Peter Hitchens' book "The War We Never Fought" probably never will be published here, I bought its English version. I hope that one day I can join his crusade against drug abuse.
Peter Hitchens didn't seem to me to be on drugs when debating with Rod Liddle.
lol
The theme music always makes me think of a Christmas cookery programme. Don't forget the brandy butter.
Haha I agree, it doesn’t fit!
It’s facetious AF
When a sane person tries to adapt themselves to fit into a lie-accepting society, this is how 'madness' spreads.
Isn’t alcohol responsible for about 50% of violence in the West? I’ve seen Hitchens having a pint before. Surely he thinks we should ban booze then?
After he bans spliff his next target will be muff diving
The context is different here. Drunks kill people more by accident than design, whereas terrorist attacks and assassinations are more like hunting expeditions. That's my understanding as to why alcohol isn't included in this debate.
@@robinmorritt7493 so all domestic violence murders are irrelevant because they may not be deliberate? You’re wild Morritt 😂 It’s surely down to, deaths due to drink, drugs or even steroids?
@@robinmorritt7493 Alcohol is a drug, fact. It's also responsible for far more violence and murder than all other drugs put together. Hitchens wants to stop me smoking a joint but still wants to drink alcohol because it suits him. He's a raging hypocrite, that's another fact right there.
Alcohol is not responsible for 50% of violence. What is happening is that 50% of the violent incidents involve a person who has consumed alcohol and it is an excuse for people to be violent.
Most people that are violent and consume alcohol do have behavioral issues outside of the consumption.
They seem to be in broad agreement that insanity/psychosis, drug-induced or otherwise, is downplayed in the aftermath of these atrocities in order to fit a particular political or social justice narrative. Thats the key takeaway for me.
True, also interesting how the social justice plea for "mental health awareness' goes out the window when a more dominant narrative comes into play.
I always trust a man who keeps a pen in his top pocket.
"Peter Hitchens debates Rod Liddle on drugs"
🤣👍
If only you understood the depth of your comment!! Lol. Screams so much about you!
Its your compartmentalised cognitive dissonance on display!! Well funny!!
I'm sure I saw replies to this comment that now seem to have disappeared. Great comment btw
@@Boylieboyle and another showing the properties of a mass psychosis!! . Funny stuff!
@@Self-reflection-academy Honestly, I checked thoroughly. The replies are back now btw.
Surely, oftentimes, these extreme acts are a product of the trinity of undersocialized personalities, ideology, and habitual drug use. No single thing can be held up as the sole cause.
You are missing a fourth, core component, that is those with political agendas who seek out and lure those with mental deficiency/drug dependency and groom them to perform heinous acts. Sadly when you research those who do this grooming, you may discover them to be working for those whom we pay to protect our society.
Very good points.
Peter doesn't seem to understand the difference between correlation and causation. As for drugs only becoming a problem in the 1960s, he should see what Robert Hooke used to take. As for his comment about marijuana being advertised everywhere, we don't have ads for alcohol or tobacco so why should we for drugs? He loses all rationality when discussing drugs and would hate the state controlling all aspects of our personal choice.
You flat out liar, theres advertising for alcohol and smoking everywhere. Vodka and such regularly on tv, regularly used on tv which is an advertisement in and off itself.
@@Durram258 We used to in the 70s! There are severe restrictions on how alcohol can be advertised and cigarettes can't even be seen behind a counter. If something is shown on TV it doesn't mean it's being advertised, if it did the last episode of Columbo I watched was advertising murder. PS I might be wrong but expressing an opinion doesn't make someone a liar!
@@barryday9107 Expressing a lying opinion is lying.....when you see vodka adverts on TV and then claim "alcohol isn't advertised on tv" is lying.....
Oh and yes, company's use the use of their products as a form of advertisement......how are you that ignorant. Look at marvel films, they have whats called "Product placements" everywhere, it's a paid advertisement for companies like coke, smirnoff etc.
@@Durram258 I'm not sure it's possible to have a 'lying opinion'. You could have a mistaken opinion as you are demonstrating, but not a lying one.
I tend to agree with your first point, he is so generic when talking about drugs.
So good to find a video where Peter has a clear microphone. Many of his recent ones are a bit blurred and too quiet. I never want to miss a word he utters.
I'm with Peter on the drugs but I'd not cite drugs to exonerate Islam of its excesses, either.
I've never found fault in Mr Hitchens opinions, logic, or arguments, and I have always taken time to listen to Mr Little, but have found from time to time wide gaps in his arguments.
Liddle.
Both are sound in respect of their general reasoning.
People who disagree tend to do so from cognitive dissonance.
@@hittitecharioteer Had to search the meaning of cognitive dissonance, interesting. I see your point. You know when people ask about your guests at a dinner party, Peter would definitely be sitting close to me. I left school at fifteen and have half killed myself building a home and feel the things I hold dear torn down day after day.
I don't think Isis had access to steroids in the deserts of Syria...!?
Nor did bin Laden when he planned 9/11.....
@@nautilus1872 A lot of us are feeling the same way. I don't know why, but there are a lot of people who appear to refuse to see what is blatantly happening before their eyes. We are being betrayed in real time, and the economy crashed and sacrificed for "a greater good" (if you believe the lying bastards). All I can see is a world run by oligarchs, feudalism for the masses…and if what the more cynical believe about the emergency-use gene therapies, the death of billions globally as part of their agenda to depopulate the planet. I wouldn't put it past them listening to our shit of a PM ( th-cam.com/video/JwsQcthaOQE/w-d-xo.html ).
@@hittitecharioteer its a compartmentalised cognitive dissonance. A mass psychosis!!
A designed Russian roulette!!
Peter for pm!!!
"drug induced psychosis" Oh you mean the labor party?
As usual Rid talks good horse sense 👍
horse something...
Pharmaceutical companies continue to rule the world and for some very odd reason ths is allowed??!!
Is it perhaps that steroid users tend to be more narcissistic and insecure and these are traits often found in spree killers/terrorists? This might explain the correlation rather than steroid use actually causing psychological changes that turn people into killers.
Steroids make you more aggressive.
No more needs to be said.
I love a good debate between brilliant minds. We have to navigate a world rife with wackadoodle ideas.... in the workplace, institutions, schools and increasingly among friends and family. Hearing great arguments for both sides allows you to arm yourself with at least verbal armor. The pendulum is still swinging left and once the madness gets to great it will swing the other way. Hang on, the ride will be rough.
She fails to realise that a lot of the people who have had the jab are against her too , for being forced into it !
In reference to Jacinda Ardern?
Rod “paid handsomely to moan about how terrible everything is” Liddle. Nice work if you can get it….
Rod dumped his missus on their honeymoon. Nice.
Drugs. Ever know anyone who quit smoking cigarettes? More important are the environmental conditions they live in.
There is not much difference between illegal and legal drugs, so once you find out that drugs are causing terrorist acts you will find yourself trying to regulate pharma. Good luck with that.
As for Rob is it that his head is dropping from his shoulders or is that his office chair ? 🤔
Sometimes nutters take drugs, sometimes they don't. Sometimes nutters drink alcohol, sometimes they don't. Sometimes nutters are religious, sometimes they are not. Sorry Peter, but on this subject you don't have a clue.
Whether this is true or not what is written in the scriptures does not help one bit. If we look at it as a whole no other religion or group/sect is carrying out terrorism on a daily basis across literally the whole world.
Peter is a miserable sock but right
Steroids aren't the same thing as recreational drugs.
Excellent choice of gladiators... 👍🏻
Self soothing by addiction the new fragrance from if it smells like a rat
I do wish someone would ask Rod to look at the camera during broadcasts. His connection is poor quality too and makes his link second rate.
There's a reason for him looking second rate when compared to Peter Hitchins....
I was bugged about these issues of spontaneous psychosis, and so agreed that when my son had a frontal lobe you could land light aircraft on, he can do what he likes, men can build things and destroy them, it's perfectly within their rights, edit: he's just invited me to a gathering in an African desert for a mushroom dinner and constellation awareness, bless him
Volume! 🎚️
Rod Liddle sounds more like Roy Hattersley than Roy Hattersley did.
This discussion missed the major and fundamental factor behind the increasing problem of substance use. This outlines the historical problem of an underserved mental health care system. Until this issue is understood and addressed it is unlikely that anything discussed during this 15 mins will change. No there is no “winning the debate” when clearly the problem is not understood.
Think Peter's on to something here. Not that it will help unfortunately. Good debate between two of my favourite debaters.
R. D. Laing the late Scottish Psychologist, existentialist and counter cultural figure argued; Schizophrenia is a theory not a fact.
I always thought this a rather dangerous idea; we can see in the post asylum era and adoption of care in the community the dangers that have arisen.
Yes, the asylum system was a centre of human suffering, where undoubted human rights abuses transpired.
So shutting them down was not inherently bad. But today we must rely upon the competency of the individual or their supervisors to engage properly with their medication programmes.
If for what ever reason, the competency is compromised in the administration of that medication, then you face a potentially serious problem.
How many times have we heard of individuals engaging in random acts of violence, indiscriminate killings, only to find out those responsible are paranoid schizophrenics.
The desire to not stigmatise those with such disorders may be noble, but remember, these people can be extremely dangerous to themselves or to other people.
That is after all why, once upon a time, they were removed permanently from society.
Why is a respected intellectual like Peter debating people while on drugs??
The mere fact that mariuana is smoked means its not good.
Cannabis is a wonder drug, my friends elderly parents smoke it every day as its the only thing that can help their pain.
Diamorphine is another wonder drug. I would guess that Mr Hitchens would not be against exploring the use of cannabis as a controlled substance for medical purposes (indeed someone should ask him about his position on this). In particular it has a strong body of evidence for assistance with epilepsy and aiding patients through chemotherapy.
Diamorphine is regularly used in medicine as a painkiller, it is has been used to offer pain relief to women in labour. On the street it is known as heroin and generally seen as a huge societal problem.
We just need to fight the bad drugs (a war on drugs ...if you like) and make people take the happy drugs and then tell people to behave themselves after they have drank 8 pints in 2 hours. Maybe a tv or radio campaign to tell people that drugs may be bad for them and that alcohol in large quanities can get rid of important inhibitions and so lead some people to act in a slightly unsocial way. problem solved
Pro or anti; for or against?
Peter Hitchens seemed think he was having a debate whereas Rod Lidde just keep agreeing with everything.
I didn't know Anders Brevik took steroids
Is Peter in some sort of requisitioned Country House by the Spectator?
To blame Is lamic attacks on drugs is a lie.
Prohibition demonstrably never works but regulation may be the solution, it would extinguish the criminal market & legislate for 'safer' thc concentrations
You are aware that counties with strict drug laws exist and those laws do work?
@@antun88 I'll assume you mean countries, however it's still quite the oxymoron tbh, if you take Thailand for example who executed over 2,000 people on their war on drugs would indicate it does not work.
Anytime something is prohibited drugs, alcohol, prostitution, gambling etc a black market fills the vacuum & as the sanctions become more punitive the illicit market goes more underground more dangerous, more costly financially & otherwise
A very interesting discussion and the moderator was quiet which was nice so that the guests could speak but then he had to bring up a red herring which was Cannabis . I realize Hitchens has an attitude or a belief regarding cannabis but it wasn't pertinent to this discussion in the sense that cannabis does not induce violence. THAT has been known for a very very long time.
NOW back to what the two men were discussing which was that drug-induced violence is being ignored by the courts which began in the sixties with the relaxation of the public's attitudes to drugs. I will add their own taking of drugs induced this change. ALL people that I know are either on prescription drugs or illegal drugs.
I think it's profound what has been said by these two men. I remember being out of the country and traveling for years and years and then I came back but I didn't have a TVm and then finally I was in a place that had a TV and everything on the commercials was drugs drugs drugs. THEN I began to notice in the magazines there were just drugs drugs drugs being advertised and I was shocked. I was literally appalled. I felt like I had gone from a world of sunshine and rainbows to a world of drugs and only drugs-- a drug ghetto in some inner-city-- and yet here it was on the TV & in the magazines in the suburbs of America .
I don't know what can be done because people are addicted or it's a habit BUT they can't get off their drugs.
And those who abuse them and are mentally unstable already and then perhaps belong to a group-- either political or religious-- that encourages violence results in them going off the cliff.
Although right now I don't see a solution, I think this is the problem that needs to be discussed by people from all disciplines & varying views who are willing to think out-of-the-box to finally get a solution to what's happening right in front of us.
How many more violent and terrorist acts has Canada seen since they legalised Cannabis in 2018?
Ron Liddle really needs to read up on the side effects of steroids.....if you want to meet people whose substance use has caused or exacerbated criminal behaviour, just pop down to the local magistrate's court or prison.....including cannabis-induced psychosis....and the substance that causes the most damage, alcohol. Then pop into the children's court and watch the passing parade of young people appearing in court without a single adult relative to support them.
Peter is so on the money with this, one of a few if not the only voice that wants to tackle this evil i suggest to peter that if it does turn out that casual drug taking is linked to these acts of violence then the drug policy would require a massive rethink by the goverment and that could mean prosecuting those who attend public schools the very sort of people who go on to be leaders of our country and who get appointed in the house of frauds.
The central problem with Hitchen’s attitude to drugs is that it is simplistic. Drugs are bad, therefore ban them, job done. However anabolic steroids are illegal and available. Ditto heroin, cocaine etc. Portugal has shown that a more enlightened approach including legalisation of cannabis can reduce the harm associated with drugs. I oppose the use of cannabis and other drugs, but criminalisation does not work. As for the idea that anabolic steroids cause terrorism, and other crimes, that is not for the police to investigate, they don’t have the skills to determine causality or association. He is right to raise the idea, and perhaps research is needed. We know cannabis can cause psychosis, it is rare, but happens.
Peter is completely right about the connection between drugs and phycosis.
Personally I believe the Legalisation is the best way forward.
Atleast then, the problem can be kind of managed.
Make sure all pharmacies that supply the cannabis, have regular sit downs with the user about how they feel and any side effects.
Those picked up can get much needed help there and then, instead of there mental health worsening through more substance abuse.
Alot probly are not aware that the thing they love doing is actually making them very sick.
There is also the point about taking away both the violence around the drug trade that it brings and stopping these drug lords making billions. Not to mention poisoning the world's rivers with all sorts of chemicals it takes to produce some of these substances.
So in other words, you basically don't agree with him at all. The man isn't even remotely in favour of legalising cannabis let alone other drugs.
Peter Hitchens should try some drugs. Seriously. He's very passionate about the subject but he's trying to describe a place he's never been.
Real cookie cook. He needs to watch some Terrence McKenna videos on drugs. I thought he was educated, alas no.
He should try Ayhuasca!
When I read or hear Peter Hitchens, I am amazed about his some of his fantasies, as well as his bigotry and incitement and the lack of facts, balance and objectivity. He should perhaps think about his own mental health before talking about that of others.
You could look upon them both as two miserable old men however I do like listening intently to both and reading their columns
If anyone had the level of knowledge Peter Hitchens has, theyd be miserable and likely old to. It's a symptom of his despair for the country that he actually loves to bits.
It's a bit of a reach to suggest a link with steroid use, to be honest.
Why do they so often turn out to be on anabolic steroids then? London bridge attacker, Anders Breivik, Eliot Rodger, Jake Davidson etc.
Can't decide who is the better of the two fools. Chris Hitchens bless his soul, would have had both of them for breakfast
Christopher and these two arent far off here
Not one of you has remarked on the fact that our entertainments are - and have been for generations - saturated in crime, Mafia sagas, violence and cruelty. 🤔(From Green Fire, UK ) 🌈🦉
But it's a chicken or egg situation. A lot (most?) people today who are seriously mentally unstable, ALSO take drugs. And often the illicit drugs they take interact with whatever medication they may be on. I've seen this so many times. So is the primal cause of the egregious actions the fact that they are a nutter, or is it the drugs or is it both? I say mental illness is the driving factor because mental illness is very often associated with compulsive behaviour. If all drug users were prone to be extremely violent, half the world would be dead by now.
You will find that a lot of them probably watch violence on TV and also probably are already in the mental health system.
Most issues probably start in childhood and are not addressed early enough.
Rod is so much more likable than Peter.
Well done 👏
Awwwwwwwwww he’s likeable so he must be right 🙄
Rod in this interview, looks like a cross between Mr Toad and Boris Nonsense.
@@KW-qq7nu Haha I can see that, he clearly gives zero fucks about his appearance.
No doubt drugs do play a role in crime, but to claim they are the most significant factor is exaggeration.
Im from the north of Ireland. I want to know why the murders of Christians by Islamists is never described as sectarian.
I'm from Scotland. I want to know why An assault on a local man by 3 Polish chaps, did not make it in to the local paper. But an assault on a Polish chap by 3 local lads later than month made local and national newspaper headlines for days, and was no doubt recorded as a hate crime ?
@@drybokes7055 Well I suspect you know the answer to that (as we here know it.) We as a people (indigenous ) have been conditioned over the past 20 years to 'accept'all immigrants into this country irespective of their own 'cultures 'etc.and how they will never assimulate into 'our' culture.We have been made to feel guilty if anyone dared to question the possibilty of things going wrong.Well here we are now.A subjected people forced to become second class citizens in certain parts of the country all in the name of 'diversity'.
More nonsense ... the vast majority of crime involves alcohol abuse. Not the sort of drugs that Hitchens is obsessed with!
His argument against this is generally that alcohol is too engrained within society and is a deeply embedded part of the culture. I agree with your position though, his failure to acknowledge that there is a clear link between irresponsible alcohol use and mental illness, violence, the issues he has with other psychotropic drugs, does severely weaken his position. As does his defence of alcohol, like it or not cannabis and other recreational drugs are now engrained in the culture, and it may produce better health outcomes by regulating over banning. Though I think he is too married to his position to consider the alternatives.
It appears to be a combination of : Islamists ,mental health and drugs that causes a deadly scenario !
It's a Brave New World alright.
There is a lot of craziness among steroid users. Not thr vast majority of course. But if you’re already a little unhinged then steroids will amplify those characteristics. Thats what steroids do, they amplify good and bad qualities, whichever you have.
Source:
I know a-lot of roid users and ive been to a lot of gyms.
Been offered a lot of roids too.
Ron Liddle is comically vile.
Discuss brit terrorism inflicted on defenceless men and women and children in Libya,Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Ireland and supporting terrorism inflicted on Palestinians.
So extremist ideology + drugs = psycho killer.
Just reading "Selfish, whining monkeys by Liddle. It's a great book, too true for today's snowflakes
Is Rod wearing lippy?
Drugs and Alcohol should be much harder to obtain
We are going to need more diversity barriers.
interesting combination, hitchens vs hitchens... hitchens, intellectual tour de force, and rob piddled liddle- hitchens with a brain hemorage .
It's amazing how many Peter Hutchins is the world leading expert in... I mean thinks he's the world leading expert in, silly me.
If I was to take the horrendous decision to do the same as the criminals that pre-meditated to kill. I would load up on all drugs, I could find (note not taken any) to give me the courage to do that evil outcome. Get real chaps?!
There is a very strong chance that if you did consume those drugs that you still could not commit those acts of extreme violence. No matter how much I drink I could never be violent.
bighand69 Fair comment, I abhor animal cruelty so could not even imagine doing such a heinous crime. Get annoyed when they pull out the mental health reason or drugs. Plain evil, pure and simple.
debate requires a winner and a loser
Gas lighter in chief rod liddle chatting wham again...work in a forensic mental health unit for a month rod and come back to me
I like Hitchens but his naivety on drugs is childlike. To complain that people assume drugs aren't a factor without evidence and therefore we should tighten drug laws without evidence they were a factor is illogical in a way he should be wise enough to see. These attacks happening more since the 60s is due to the nature of the media and television etc.
I think Peter is making an important point about the use of drugs and commiting crimes.
God bless Peter Hitchens 🙏
I profoundly disagree with Peter Hitchens on a great many things, but I bloody respect the man. Rod Liddle, on the other hand, is a morally bankrupt disgrace to journalism.
Can you explain why you think this about Rod Liddle please?
Ultimately, every drug taker had a choice and broke the law. Which i think is Peter Hitchens main arguement. In defence, Drug use isnt the problem, its abuse thats the problem. I know people who smoke cannabis evenings and weekends, predominantly in private, and never drives under the influence it doesn't affect their job and they can easily afford it. So as a libatarian i feel they should be able to do that freely without compromising their freedom. No contact no crime. The term bad and mad that Rod used is a jimmy savile quote from a question and answer session in the 70s. The kids then were so intelligent in comparison to today, i urge you to source it out for yourself on here...
Our laws are not some divine doctrine handed down from the heavens, it was concocted by men with outdated opinions, and look who had the kost influence on drug laws, Richard Nixon, hardly a shining beacon of morality.
In England they used to imprison and chemically castrate homosexuals, laws change over time as our collective intelligence improves.
My experience with drug addiction is limited, I was addicted to cannabis for half a year, it went from recreational to addiction when I was at a very vulnerable point, I was depressed, did not know what I was going to do career wise, and the cherry on top was when I confided in my mother that I had been having suicidal thoughts, I told her this after having had a recreational joint, and out of her anger towards that she told me to go kill myself and she wouldnt care if I did. At that point my self worth lowered enough that my rational desire to not use cannabis regularly gave way, and over time the cannabis brainwashed me to not care about the fact that I was addicted, so drugs are actually self reinforcing over an extended period, you cant rationally decide to stop because the longerlasting haze impedes your ability to think rationally.
What i think is shit, is that instead of treating drugs as a health problem, we criminalise people for the crime of wanting to feel not shit, or to feel something similar to what emotionally healthy people feel when they go to the opera or go rockclimbing. Propaganda has brainwashed people to think that when people resort to an exogenous source to fill an empty space in their ability to feel saitsfaction its some osrt of terrible immoral act.
The worst part of this is, when I went to rehab, which btw worked, it was filled with people who had endured terrible things, especially girls who had been sexually abused as children eho ended up becoming addicted to Xanax. How cruel is this, that we are kicking the wounded animals of society and destroying whats left of them by criminalising them. Its like when people make the mistake of turning to something to ease the pain when they cant bare it, people forget whatever horribke things those people have been through. "You're a sex abuse victim, oh jo you're not you're a drug addict so lets punish you even more"
It's crazy.
As a former stoner I will say that psychosis from cannabis is underappreciated, part of the reason being that cannabis has been genetically bred to almosy totally favour THC (a pro-psychotic chemical) over CBD (an anti psychotic chemical) and these two usually balance each other out and ironically the best way to counter this as opposed to Peter's vision is to legalise it and regulate its production and have a maximum thc and minium cbd content for all legal weed, having said that, Peter is hopelessly and utterlerly clueless on drug issues, he is hellbent on his simplistic narrative that is uninformed by any empirical or scientific evidence whatsoever, and he has remained uninterested in hearing anything to the contrary to his opinion, whether evidenced or not.
For decades, he is only interested in blowing his own trumpet and reinforcing his own cloistered opinion, or to more accurately define it, his neurotic opinionated ideology.
And thats without even touching on his recent ridiculous inclination to attribute all manner of social and political societal maladies to drugs, at this point its a scapegoat he uses in order to promote his agenda about drugs and arguably is not even interested in these other topics presented in the video.
I postulate, without any intent to defame or project ad hominem or perpetuate reputation destruction, that Peter has genuinely become senile, its a medical symptom that as people become elderly their brain becomes less and less able to have communication across different parts of the brain and increasingly fire more and more down already established connections to the prefrontal cortex, manifesting as stubborness, closed mindedness, and inability to learn new things or alter established perspectives, hence why our grandparents tend to become more argumentative and stubborn in their old age.
It's sad to see such a highly educated man mentally decaying, but after many years of hoping Peter could delineate from his highly opinionated and uninformed rants on this topic, I regret to say I've lost faith in his propensity for reasoning.
All street drugs should be regulated. People that are addicted to drugs are victims. NOT criminals.
Then more will take drugs and we will have more victims
Peter Hitchens needles whalloper Liddle
poeple abuse things like Weed, so even light users are included in the scary stats and harm suffered from overdoing it... ...I'm sure he likes the odd beer or wine...
I live in America and am morally against the use of both automatic weapons and recreational drugs. Hitchens is right that arguments from gun control advocates over here have sometimes overridden the arguments from drug control proponents, but we should ask ourselves why, in my opinion. If a person becomes mentally unstable through smoking marijuana, he or she is a horrible nuisance and burden to themselves, their family and the neighbourhood where they live. These people often end up unemployed and homeless, and are more prone to violence than sober and mentally people because the area of their brains which control rational thinking have been damaged. But what happens if you also give these people access to guns? They are walking time bombs, extremely dangerous, and likely to kill of injure themselves or others with no provocation. Without access to guns, drug takers therefore are slightly less of a danger to the community than with guns. Ask yourselves, what would have happened to the Columbine Shooting perpetrators (Dylan Klebold and friends) if they had not had access to guns? Many school shooting perpetrators have been shown to have had a history of being prescribed pharmaceutical psychiatric medications like anti-depressants, and/or a history of smoking marijuana. Without the guns, however, these mentally unstable teenagers would not have been able to kill so many people. They might have tried to use a knife - and this would still have been a horrible act of violence, but it would not have caused so much bloodshed as having access to a gun.
Both gun ownership and Voting should be regarded as earned privileges, both require a track record of responsibility.
The right to own a Gun should have similar criteria to being eligible to join the Franchise.
Universal Suffrage (a feature in the West only since 1920's) carries a greater danger than universal Gun ownership.
Automatic weapons have nothing to do with morality. A hunting rifle could just be as dangerous as could a motor vehicle.
@@bighands69 A hunting knife is made to be used to kill animals, hopefully for food, not spite, in a non-urban natural environment. Why anyone living in city would want to own a hunting knife I don't know. Cars are built primarily to transport people between destinations, but misuse of them can lead to death, which is punishable by the legal system. A gun is built for one purpose - to kill or injure others or oneself, and automatic weapons have the purpose of killing multiple people. Again, outside their use by the military in a war, it is hard to understand why citizens would want to own them. They are not built primarily as a "deterrent"as some Americans claim, because if that were true, they would be made out of wood and have no bullets. You just have to look at the statistics, for example at Nationmaster.com, and compare the Per Capita gun homicide/suicide figures in USA compared to other democracies, like UK, Australia, Canada. All this btw, is not meant to detract from both Hitchens' and Liddle's criticism of drugs.
@@sierrawhiskey5155I don't think that people with a history of serious mental illness (psychosis or schizophenia) should be allowed to own a gun, and the system of background checks needs to be enforced. There is strong evidence that marijuana causes psychosis in young people from Kings College London 2015/Robin Murray, which the UK gov has paid attention to. However the US forces of profit have let the marijuana industry go ahead and promote their brain-harming product with 20% THC to all.
@@summerofplums I would agree.
My point is that if you're not fit to own a gun, you're probably not fit to vote.
I believe the disabled and elderly should be able to defend their private property with a firearm.
He took the Jab , sold OUT !
Peter on DMT when?