It always makes my day when I discover something of Hitchens I haven't seen before (Thanks LibertyPen). Arguably the greatest American of the last decade.
Luke Clarke British-born, but an American citizen. As We Tocqueville knew America better than most Americans, so too did Hitchens, in my opinion. Most Americans couldn't--for instance--write a biography on Thomas Jefferson, let alone champion the enlightenment values he and other founding fathers enshrined in our eroding but still-standing Constitution.
+Christopher Robertson I think that branding Hitchens as an american would be correct, nationality is by the french view of seeing it a part of your citizenship. And therefore Hitchens would probably call him self an american by nationality.
"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." - Christopher Hitchens. The only thing accomplished by the drug war has been to effectively suppress individual liberty and to deliver damaging blows to the principle of self-ownership.
Read "Dark Alliance" (1992) by Gary Webb. He detailed how the US govt facilitated the American crack cocaine epidemic in the 1980's at the same time that President Reagan's wife was telling children: "Just say NO to drugs !!!" If you look beneath the surface, you'll soon discover that the American govt doesn't want to legalize drugs because the American govt is the biggest drug pusher of them all. Legalizing drugs would put them out of business too !!! ... jkulik919@gmail.com
@Joseph Henderson Fail. Did you even listen to the points made in the video? I will assume you are interested in doing the action that is best for society and individuals - Before Nixon started his war on drugs, was the US falling apart with drug use? Has the resulting actions of policies to that effect, for example, putting people in cages for doing drugs, resulted in a benefit or a detriment to society? I submit to you, that if you bother to honestly look into it your position will change at the very least to decriminalization.
Jim this was a great video thank you for sharing it. I had a phase when i was watching non stop Hitchens and the new atheist. I didn't know Hitchens believed this about the war on drugs. Awesome.
in this case they were basically talking about legalization. Frum was proposing corporations take over the trade so that there are not drug dealers on the street shooting each other, and Hitchens agreed and was like "if it's legal they can take it home and do it in privacy and leave me alone". If it was only decriminalized you still could not sell it at a store and people would still have to deal it on the streets.
Portugal decriminalized all drugs and began using money to reintroduce addicts into meaningful positions in society rather than incarcerate them, the results have honestly been amazing.
Usually when Hitchens was on C-SPAN the other guest's perspectives of important matters are polar opposite, so this took me by surprise completely. A brilliant response from David Frum, and despite that the "war" continues to this day, it gives me a glimmer of hope that more people share the same feelings on the matter and that we're much closer to ending it than we think.
The federal government has the authority to regulate trade under the commerce clause. Anytime US currency changes hands; US government can regulate- which includes prohibition. Growing, using, and bartering for pot should be legal.
Frum is one of the most entertaining and contrarian conservatives around. Great writer. I disagree with him, but recognize that he gives the most intellectual conservative arguments out there.
These guys were onto it, they made perfect sense on the subject & to Quote Hitch " It's appalling that one should have to wait that long." These words were said ten years ago.
Miss the great Hitchens..! We've had legal marijuana in seattle for several years now and teen use is down, no changes in crime, fantastic tax revenues.. even Crying John Boehner has seen the light as he passes the joint..
I agree with them. I just can't see how it can be helpful to illegalize drug use or abuse - except to the illegal drug industry, of course. However, it is also important to make rehabilitation available to people who want to be free from addiction, and not all Western countries do well in that department.
What if we examine every drug law under light of reason and rationality with this question: Is there more harm keeping a drug illegal than legalizing the drug? Reverse the question if you please: Is there more gain by legalizing a drug than to keep it illegal? Tally every murder, rape, kidnapping, beating, arson, extortion and on and on because of a drug... I mean to exactly remove moralizing and ideology in this regard. This is not difficult to figure out. The problem is people who think they know the moral end of every damn thing. They remind me of those nearly ubiquitous who somehow know the mind of god.
I'm sorry but what exactly is your position, it's a bit unclear? If you are attempting to imply that drug use naturally leads to all those aweful crimes your going to have to examine the situation a bit more. I would argue that it is the criminal minds and gangs drug use forces you to keep company with. If you wish to claim that it is the addictiveness of the substances then you must explain why we don't attribute all those crimes to smokers. If you think it's the mind altering effects of drugs then you must explain why alcoholism may create more violent individuals but murders, rapist and extortionist are not the most common amongst the alcoholic community. Along with this you would have to explain how the mellowing effects of weed lead to extortion, rape or murder. Another explanation owed on your part would be for the wealthy business men and women whom are able to abuse drugs in their safe clean environment without the fear of becoming so morally warped as to not seem dissimilar to Hannibal lector. All of this must be accounted for before you claim that the government should make laws based on how much it gains, rather than what is best for those it serves , and where you get off punishing people for what they put in their bodies.
On many issues I agree, but not this one. The fact remains that the drugs that kill the most are the ones that are legal, smoking and alcohol. Why does he believe that mind altering drugs use poses him no risk. OK then let a pilot, surgeon, legally take class A drugs in their personal life and continue to carry out their profession. Your brother is right on this issue.
They could get drunk legally and be incapacitated as a result of that. Presumably pilots and surgeons are drug tested as drivers are breathalysed. If a pilot wanted to fly under the influence the legal status of what they've taken wouldn't stop them.
"Put it in the hands of respectful companies" LOL. I don't know any "respectful" companies. Nor would legalizing mind altering poisons be "respectful". I have enough problems with drunk drivers and people who fry their brain daily via sports.
Both nice to see but also disheartening to hear both of these guys make the exact same argument me and all of the “new” and online political commentators I listen to make nearly a quarter a century ago….and little progress has been made
Heard Hitchens give various reasons for supporting the war but not WMD. Isn't it odd, how it seems as though the entire war is Hitchens' fault. What about the millions of Americans and Europeans that thought it was a good idea
@Chait Singh Agreed America is a criminal state to some degree but are you aware Saddam was and did manage to enrich uranium? Saddam's scientists managed to work out how to design and build a working centrifuge and whilst his nuclear programme had been dismantled the detailed plans and instructions on how to rebuild the centrifuge was buried in the back garden of the lead scientist. The lead scientist wrote a book about how the regime worked, the nuclear programme and how it came to be hidden in his garden. books.google.co.uk/books/about/The_Bomb_in_My_Garden.html?id=HCRlEUAyvvAC&source=kp_book_description&redir_esc=y
@Chait Singh *"...so what if he did..."* Saddam with a nuke, what could possibly go wrong? You're so astute. *"...who made you the world's fkn police?..."* If you don't want your views challenged don't put them on a public forum or is that too difficult for you to work out? *"...white supremacist..."* Here we go, playing the *victim* card by screaming racist/supremacist rather than refute whatever it is you don't like. Whatever will you call me next, an infidel perhaps? *"...You (America)..."* I'm not an American. Your entire rant is based on your false assumptions, fuelled by rage, bound by a construct of poor analytical skills and as a consequence of your stupidity, you ended up posting a ream of piffle. You seem rather pissed about the Americans and that invasion but I bet you haven't bothered to check how many died as a result of it and compared it to how many died at the hands of ISIS. *"...all you've stolen...watch it roll..."* Meanwhile, you continue to enjoy and reap the benefits of Western technology, science and medicine. We are done, based on your response, I rather suspect there is nothing fruitful to be gained from any kind of exchange with you. Have a good life.
Decriminalize tax control. Everyone did not become an alcoholic as those opposed to alcohol demanded when they opposed it. The war on drugs costs american lifes. The DEa is a complete failure. They kill people and they get killed. This is complete non sense. Yes there will be more drug use and more addicts,but that is part of society. Look at food we are at 60% fat americans becuase people make soda and pizza and ice cream. Legalize and tax and control stop the carnage.
We know what happens when you make a drug illegal. Alcohol is a drug by definition, and we had the prohibition. It didn't work out. And now we know what happens when a country decriminalizes all drugs - Portugal over the last 15 years. It worked out. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Portugal
@Joseph Henderson Dude, you should really take a closer look at alcohol, the damage it causes and whether or not it alters one's state of mind. It's a drug any way you cut it.
@Joseph Henderson Cocaine is natural. It's in the leaves of the coca plant. Heroin is natural. It's in the bulbs of poppies. Weed is natural. You just pick the flowers and smoke them. The fact that something is natural does not make it healthy or unhealthy. All venoms are 100% natural. Also, you can use most drugs without causing any damage to yourself, it just takes self-control. It's kind of like alcohol. If you binge and keep binging, you'll off yourself. But that's true for literally everything else. At the same time, if you let druglords control the drug market, you make sure they're filthy rich. On the other hand, if you let the State regulate the market, like it does with alcohol, you make sure druglords don't get shit and instead the State gets richer. Portugal decriminalized all drugs almost two decades ago. As a result, consumption of drugs gradually went down, prices went down and quality went up. I could use exactly the same arguments for banning drugs to ban tobacco or alcohol. Which is kind of what they did in the prohibition. Sorry for the long post.
@@jmakes3745 well, okay, lets say you decriminalize them, first, the drug dealers will just sell harder drugs, then the legal usage of drugs will only help the ones who are good off allready, we allready have alcohol as an addictive substance, I dont think adding drugs is productive. Then, you would have, especially in Europa ti pump um the costs for Universal health care, etc. Its easy to just be for decriminalization, but I found nobody speaking about the effects ir would have on a society, we at this time have a hard time finding men for the military, so it is also a matzer of national security... However, weed should be legalized, but not all drugs in general, that is just absurd.
@Chait Singh so crystal meth should be sold next to your kinder garden? Weed, should be legal, anything else, is not so easy, look through the addicts first, before you act as if adding another roll of addictive substances is a smart thing. Lives have been destroyed because of drugs, I love it how people act as if that is not the case, we have no problem admiting it when it comes to alcohol, but "drugs"? Oh no, crack cocaine will dk just fine.
What they didn't mention is that decriminalizing drugs also makes it less risky to check yourself in for rehabilitation. I don't think addiction will go up.
George Cataloni It will go down because by normalizing the behavior you remove the stigma and so allow people to be treated the same way people with other illnesses are. Anyone who's known addicts knows that so many of them have this hopelessness to their existence, often self inflicted, but with a proper system that can interact with them regularly they can be helped, perhaps only enough to get them clean and not dying in the street on a gurney, but help nonetheless.
Even if addiction rates were to increase (though I agree that they probably wouldn't), the amount of money we spend on keeping drugs illegal is far greater than the cost of treating addiction. It makes no sense whatsoever to maintain the drug war, and quite frankly it pisses me off that in the year 2016 we're still being told what we can and cannot put into our bodies by the government...
George Cataloni By that I just mean in the early 70s we gave up our rights to personal autonomy and self-sovereignty, but almost 50 years later we still haven't managed to reclaim them.
The sale of drugs is an awful thing, however, doing drugs should NOT be a crime. Use prison budgets for rehabilitation for people who want to stop using. stop putting "drug users" in jail.
+Jimmy Pegg Look up the decriminalization of all drugs in Portugal and I bet you'll change your mind. No country has ever had such success in combating addiction in such a short timeframe.
Maria Little The only way to make things better is to legalize all drugs, not just "decriminalize". If drugs were legalized and controlled then drugs like heroin wouldn't be laced with things like fentanyl and the strength wouldn't differ from batch to batch. way less people would die if the drugs were pure and not laced with God knows what, and you didn't have to buy it on the black market from some shady dealer.
My respect has increased for Christopher Hitchens has gone through the roof I was thinking I hope he has open liberal and non prejudice view on the drugs issue unlike his brother I might add
Of course I don’t know Peter, but as I live in the U.K. I’ve been exposed to him quite a lot, and he really does come across as a truly repugnant individual. Incidentally I get the feeling from him that he has gone in the direction he has in part as a reaction against his older, more talented, vastly more charismatic brother and the attention and accolades he accumulated
Peter Hitchens (i.e. Christopher's brother) is insufferable on this subject. He even denies the concept of addiction, which given that Christopher's death was likely accelerated (by his own admission) by an addiction to cigarettes and alcohol (legal), is both stupid and tragic. There is a huge irony that psychedelic's are likely to revolutionize the treatment of many mental health disorders (PTSD, depression) in the coming years, and cost the pharmaceutical industry billions.
peter hitchens shouldn't be allowed to smell Christopher's deceased socks. He of course is a deeply religious person, for whom it's ok when Jesus turns water into wine but god forbid some other stuff that befuddles you, like wine or religion.
People talk war on drugs as a national issue when drugs, but the US Constitution is pretty absent regarding such things. It’s a state issue not a federal issue. The US is huge and ideologically diverse.
The war on drugs has done absolutely no good whatsoever and caused a vast amount of harm. On the up side privately owned prisons made a fortune. Of course most people aren’t in the for profit prison business.
I think one of the key reasons people are so reluctant to support full-on decriminalisation is because as a population we seem quite averse to going through short periods of "pain" in order to attain a more desirable outcome. Decriminalising drugs would indeed demand a period of adjustment and it may seem like hell on earth in some places. But we must not be so blind to rule out the lesser of evils just because one or two of the problems associated with drug use will be exacerbated for a relatively short period. What about all the other problems that will be alleviated for good? When there is no clean fix, the lesser of evils must prevail.
Hitchens got this one right, like a broken clock. However, he is a bit off on some of his facts. Nixon is generally-credited with being the godfather of the war on drugs, but there's this entity called Congress (or at least it should be involved because it is the lawmaker) that has to pass laws first. e.g. the mandatory minimums were signed into law by Reagan & passed by Congress. FDR was also a drug warrior to a lesser extent. Ted Kennedy was a huge (pun intended) advocate of those mandatory minimums. He didn't like folks being able to legally smoke pot, but he loved to drink.
Unfortunately drug addiction often is more powerful than person's will. Great minds like Hitchens are still susceptible to tobacco and alcohol addiction and the consequences of these addictions apply to these people too. Hitchens died early from eosaphagal cancer which is linked to his long history of smoking and drinking. I personally don't support drug legalization. I would support education about effects of drug addiction.
Years old comment I'm responding to but: I think people already know that drugs can be harmful to your health, and often ARE when used in excess or during adolescence... The issue here is whether or not we should allow the state to arrest people, put them in cages, take their money and freedom and give them criminal records; or if the problem of true drug abuse (as opposed to responsible use) should be handled in some other way.
stevenator0281 So you just admitted that you allow your ability to parse reasoned arguments to be overridden by a prejudice based on a label or the association with an altogether unrelated point of view.
stevenator0281 You should always consider whether an argument is reasonable or not based on its merits. To do otherwise is to fail to be a critical thinking person and therefore no better than the religious fanatics he spent much of his time decrying. Its hard to do of course and its easy to be lost in the erudite charm of someone like Hitch, but his charm is reason all the more to be deliberately critical. If we aren't always doubting and questioning everything everyone says, including ourselves, we're being poor students and we should all always be students for life. You should also be open to his thoughts on Trotsky. A default response to anything painted in Soviet Red is dangerous because our culture has a more than half century worth of propagandized history deeply affecting our interpretation of that period.
BollocksUtwat Ultimately it is not he that I am questioning, but me. I agree with him here in toto. if I can be in agreement with a Trotskyite (assuming he retains those core beliefs) when I have been philosophically and consistently an Anarcho-Capitalist for forty years I am wondering if I could be wrong.
+stevenator0281 really loved this comment. These days it's refreshing to see anyone on any subject willing to question not only themselves but beliefs rooted in decades of affirmation bias. There may be hope for us yet.
Hitchens also argued that charity is simply a 'whim' and should not be relied upon to provide healthcare to those that cannot afford it. His argument was not backed by any evidence and I am sure if someone had pointed out that charities are more efficient at getting money and help to the people who actually need it vs. a bloated bureaucracy moonlighting as a jobs program, he would dismiss that argument. He was perfectly fine with government pointing guns at people to pay for social programs that he agreed with. He seemingly did what many atheists do which is simply replace god with the state. The same arguments used by the religious to support the existence of whichever god or gods they believe in are used by statists to defend the state. It is remarkable that so many atheists so easily close their minds when presented with the same logic against their god the state. Their faith in the state is just as strong as any religious person.
Wow did you ever think for a sec that your whole comment was an ad hominem before typing that up? and btw, stop conflating atheism with Marxism. Marxists require atheism to worship the state and leaders but how many Western atheists are Marxists? Atheists make up a large portion of the libertarian movement you know. Plus, national socialists and other fascists were deeply religious, and all theocracies have very strong controlled, centrally planned economies so you're wrong on this dichotomy between state worship/god worship.
cb4allstar4 "your whole comment was an ad hominem" Please demonstrate that what I said was an ad hominem. You like throwing around logical fallacies, how about you look up the straw man. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man "stop conflating atheism with Marxism" Where did I do this? I said that many atheists seem to have replaced god with the state. They use the same arguments to defend the state that the religious use to defend the existence of god. This is not in any way combining marxism with atheism. "Marxists require atheism to worship the state" I challenge that this is true. First, I never claimed that atheists worship the state. I said that atheists seemingly replace their faith in god with faith in the state. Second, Marxism has nothing to do with worshiping the state. Please provide evidence to support your claim. You could start with a definition of Marxism that isn't totally false. Yes, there are marxists who are atheists. Try not to commit the correlation-causation fallacy. I could just as easily claim that it requires atheism to be a democrat. I would be, just as you are, stupidly incorrect. "Atheists make up a large portion of the libertarian movement" This is completely irrelevant to what I am saying. "you're wrong on this dichotomy between state worship/god worship" I said, again, that atheists who support the state use the same arguments that the religious use to support their belief in god. This, to me, seems like atheists have replaced god with their love of the state. When you argue using faulty logic to support your beliefs, it is synonymous with believing something for which there is no evidence. When you ignore evidence contrary to what you believe, like most statists do regardless of religious affiliation, you are acting like a religious person being told about evolution. These are similarities in cherished dogmas, not actual worship of god vs. state, you fucking moron.
jimlovesgina yes it was an ad hominem. It was an attack on Hitchen's views that have nothing to do with his views on drug decriminalization. It's an attack on his character rather than an answer to to the contentions made. and you call me a fucking moron, fucking moron
Even though one shouldn’t exactly expect an alcoholic to possess a balanced view on a topic of this nature, Hitchens’ view regarding narcotics displayed a staggering underlying naivete.
@@tdb517 Aside from the fact that no ”war” was actually ever waged on drugs (what would it even look like?), the part about the supposed harmlessness of drug addicts comes across as especially infantile.
@@JesseBrown-qf6zpif there never was then where did the slogan "war on dr*gs" come from I wonder? A dr*g addict harms others when he can't afford his fix and has to steal/rob for it. Legalization will mean availability of pure and cheap dr*gs, addicts can afford easily and then no more crimes by addicts. There you go, problem solved!
It always makes my day when I discover something of Hitchens I haven't seen before (Thanks LibertyPen). Arguably the greatest American of the last decade.
John Doe I'm sure Hitch wouldn't have it any other way
Christopher Robertson especially arguable as he is British
Luke Clarke British-born, but an American citizen. As We Tocqueville knew America better than most Americans, so too did Hitchens, in my opinion. Most Americans couldn't--for instance--write a biography on Thomas Jefferson, let alone champion the enlightenment values he and other founding fathers enshrined in our eroding but still-standing Constitution.
Christopher Robertson Same here! I agree with you on that.
+Christopher Robertson I think that branding Hitchens as an american would be correct, nationality is by the french view of seeing it a part of your citizenship. And therefore Hitchens would probably call him self an american by nationality.
"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." - Christopher Hitchens. The only thing accomplished by the drug war has been to effectively suppress individual liberty and to deliver damaging blows to the principle of self-ownership.
Read "Dark Alliance" (1992) by Gary Webb. He detailed how the US govt facilitated the American crack cocaine epidemic in the 1980's at the same time that President Reagan's wife was telling children: "Just say NO to drugs !!!" If you look beneath the surface, you'll soon discover that the American govt doesn't want to legalize drugs because the American govt is the biggest drug pusher of them all. Legalizing drugs would put them out of business too !!! ... jkulik919@gmail.com
@Joseph Henderson Fail. Did you even listen to the points made in the video?
I will assume you are interested in doing the action that is best for society and individuals - Before Nixon started his war on drugs, was the US falling apart with drug use? Has the resulting actions of policies to that effect, for example, putting people in cages for doing drugs, resulted in a benefit or a detriment to society? I submit to you, that if you bother to honestly look into it your position will change at the very least to decriminalization.
Jim this was a great video thank you for sharing it. I had a phase when i was watching non stop Hitchens and the new atheist. I didn't know Hitchens believed this about the war on drugs. Awesome.
Remember people that decriminalization and legalization is not the same thing.
Go on
in this case they were basically talking about legalization. Frum was proposing corporations take over the trade so that there are not drug dealers on the street shooting each other, and Hitchens agreed and was like "if it's legal they can take it home and do it in privacy and leave me alone". If it was only decriminalized you still could not sell it at a store and people would still have to deal it on the streets.
@@auturgicflosculator2183 So we watched different videos or you failed to pay attention. 2:25 in for your edification.
Portugal decriminalized all drugs and began using money to reintroduce addicts into meaningful positions in society rather than incarcerate them, the results have honestly been amazing.
Usually when Hitchens was on C-SPAN the other guest's perspectives of important matters are polar opposite, so this took me by surprise completely. A brilliant response from David Frum, and despite that the "war" continues to this day, it gives me a glimmer of hope that more people share the same feelings on the matter and that we're much closer to ending it than we think.
The federal government has the authority to regulate trade under the commerce clause. Anytime US currency changes hands; US government can regulate- which includes prohibition. Growing, using, and bartering for pot should be legal.
Frum is one of the most entertaining and contrarian conservatives around. Great writer. I disagree with him, but recognize that he gives the most intellectual conservative arguments out there.
Can't believe this shit is still ongoing!
3:15 absolutely correct, it is NOT the average user causing conflict. It is the shootout over illegal competition that causes that.
Aaaaaand 20 years later we’ve got the same bullshit still going on.
I thought "wars" were suppose to end?
Not when your losing.
2019 and we're still fighting tricky Dick's legislation.....Ugh
Hitchens always!
Anyone else here after seeing Hitch's brother lose his shit on LBC over this topic?
Yup, and I'm going to steal a Facebook comment I saw. It appears the wrong Hitchens died.
Nice.
@@razor5clbrilliant 👌
These guys were onto it, they made perfect sense on the subject & to Quote Hitch " It's appalling that one should have to wait that long." These words were said ten years ago.
+MDC DiGiPiCs (MDC DiGiPiCs) The video is from 1996, so twenty years ago. Even more appalling.
+wagrram ah a late night post & exceptionally poor arithmetic. 😵😵😉
Miss the great Hitchens..! We've had legal marijuana in seattle for several years now and teen use is down, no changes in crime, fantastic tax revenues.. even Crying John Boehner has seen the light as he passes the joint..
Two reasonable people. Nice to see.
2020.... still waiting....
Damn I miss Hitchens....
I agree with them. I just can't see how it can be helpful to illegalize drug use or abuse - except to the illegal drug industry, of course. However, it is also important to make rehabilitation available to people who want to be free from addiction, and not all Western countries do well in that department.
What if we examine every drug law under light of reason and rationality with this question: Is there more harm keeping a drug illegal than legalizing the drug? Reverse the question if you please: Is there more gain by legalizing a drug than to keep it illegal?
Tally every murder, rape, kidnapping, beating, arson, extortion and on and on because of a drug...
I mean to exactly remove moralizing and ideology in this regard.
This is not difficult to figure out. The problem is people who think they know the moral end of every damn thing. They remind me of those nearly ubiquitous who somehow know the mind of god.
I'm sorry but what exactly is your position, it's a bit unclear? If you are attempting to imply that drug use naturally leads to all those aweful crimes your going to have to examine the situation a bit more.
I would argue that it is the criminal minds and gangs drug use forces you to keep company with. If you wish to claim that it is the addictiveness of the substances then you must explain why we don't attribute all those crimes to smokers. If you think it's the mind altering effects of drugs then you must explain why alcoholism may create more violent individuals but murders, rapist and extortionist are not the most common amongst the alcoholic community. Along with this you would have to explain how the mellowing effects of weed lead to extortion, rape or murder. Another explanation owed on your part would be for the wealthy business men and women whom are able to abuse drugs in their safe clean environment without the fear of becoming so morally warped as to not seem dissimilar to Hannibal lector.
All of this must be accounted for before you claim that the government should make laws based on how much it gains, rather than what is best for those it serves , and where you get off punishing people for what they put in their bodies.
Now Frum is staunchly anti-decriminalization, which is weird.
"Respectable companies" 😂😂😂
On many issues I agree, but not this one. The fact remains that the drugs that kill the most are the ones that are legal, smoking and alcohol. Why does he believe that mind altering drugs use poses him no risk. OK then let a pilot, surgeon, legally take class A drugs in their personal life and continue to carry out their profession. Your brother is right on this issue.
They could get drunk legally and be incapacitated as a result of that. Presumably pilots and surgeons are drug tested as drivers are breathalysed. If a pilot wanted to fly under the influence the legal status of what they've taken wouldn't stop them.
The money America could make by decriminalization would solve s hell of a lot of problems!
"Put it in the hands of respectful companies" LOL. I don't know any "respectful" companies. Nor would legalizing mind altering poisons be "respectful".
I have enough problems with drunk drivers and people who fry their brain daily via sports.
Both nice to see but also disheartening to hear both of these guys make the exact same argument me and all of the “new” and online political commentators I listen to make nearly a quarter a century ago….and little progress has been made
Hich wasn't perfect by any means, he believed that there were wmd's in Iraq for example.
He also considered it a moot point as toppling Saddam was more important for the region.
Heard Hitchens give various reasons for supporting the war but not WMD. Isn't it odd, how it seems as though the entire war is Hitchens' fault. What about the millions of Americans and Europeans that thought it was a good idea
@Chait Singh Agreed America is a criminal state to some degree but are you aware Saddam was and did manage to enrich uranium? Saddam's scientists managed to work out how to design and build a working centrifuge and whilst his nuclear programme had been dismantled the detailed plans and instructions on how to rebuild the centrifuge was buried in the back garden of the lead scientist.
The lead scientist wrote a book about how the regime worked, the nuclear programme and how it came to be hidden in his garden.
books.google.co.uk/books/about/The_Bomb_in_My_Garden.html?id=HCRlEUAyvvAC&source=kp_book_description&redir_esc=y
@Chait Singh
*"...so what if he did..."*
Saddam with a nuke, what could possibly go wrong? You're so astute.
*"...who made you the world's fkn police?..."*
If you don't want your views challenged don't put them on a public forum or is that too difficult for you to work out?
*"...white supremacist..."*
Here we go, playing the *victim* card by screaming racist/supremacist rather than refute whatever it is you don't like. Whatever will you call me next, an infidel perhaps?
*"...You (America)..."*
I'm not an American. Your entire rant is based on your false assumptions, fuelled by rage, bound by a construct of poor analytical skills and as a consequence of your stupidity, you ended up posting a ream of piffle.
You seem rather pissed about the Americans and that invasion but I bet you haven't bothered to check how many died as a result of it and compared it to how many died at the hands of ISIS.
*"...all you've stolen...watch it roll..."*
Meanwhile, you continue to enjoy and reap the benefits of Western technology, science and medicine.
We are done, based on your response, I rather suspect there is nothing fruitful to be gained from any kind of exchange with you.
Have a good life.
Decriminalize tax control. Everyone did not become an alcoholic as those opposed to alcohol demanded when they opposed it. The war on drugs costs american lifes. The DEa is a complete failure. They kill people and they get killed. This is complete non sense. Yes there will be more drug use and more addicts,but that is part of society. Look at food we are at 60% fat americans becuase people make soda and pizza and ice cream. Legalize and tax and control stop the carnage.
We know what happens when you make a drug illegal. Alcohol is a drug by definition, and we had the prohibition. It didn't work out. And now we know what happens when a country decriminalizes all drugs - Portugal over the last 15 years. It worked out.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Portugal
@Joseph Henderson Dude, you should really take a closer look at alcohol, the damage it causes and whether or not it alters one's state of mind. It's a drug any way you cut it.
@Joseph Henderson Cocaine is natural. It's in the leaves of the coca plant. Heroin is natural. It's in the bulbs of poppies. Weed is natural. You just pick the flowers and smoke them. The fact that something is natural does not make it healthy or unhealthy. All venoms are 100% natural.
Also, you can use most drugs without causing any damage to yourself, it just takes self-control. It's kind of like alcohol. If you binge and keep binging, you'll off yourself. But that's true for literally everything else.
At the same time, if you let druglords control the drug market, you make sure they're filthy rich. On the other hand, if you let the State regulate the market, like it does with alcohol, you make sure druglords don't get shit and instead the State gets richer. Portugal decriminalized all drugs almost two decades ago. As a result, consumption of drugs gradually went down, prices went down and quality went up.
I could use exactly the same arguments for banning drugs to ban tobacco or alcohol. Which is kind of what they did in the prohibition.
Sorry for the long post.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This is the part where I disagree with the Hitch.
why?
@@jmakes3745 well, okay, lets say you decriminalize them, first, the drug dealers will just sell harder drugs, then the legal usage of drugs will only help the ones who are good off allready, we allready have alcohol as an addictive substance, I dont think adding drugs is productive. Then, you would have, especially in Europa ti pump um the costs for Universal health care, etc.
Its easy to just be for decriminalization, but I found nobody speaking about the effects ir would have on a society, we at this time have a hard time finding men for the military, so it is also a matzer of national security... However, weed should be legalized, but not all drugs in general, that is just absurd.
@Chait Singh so crystal meth should be sold next to your kinder garden? Weed, should be legal, anything else, is not so easy, look through the addicts first, before you act as if adding another roll of addictive substances is a smart thing. Lives have been destroyed because of drugs, I love it how people act as if that is not the case, we have no problem admiting it when it comes to alcohol, but "drugs"? Oh no, crack cocaine will dk just fine.
@Chait Singh hahahahhaha, lol. Good buy dude haha
Prohibition never worked.
Thanks god. I watched his brother talking about the issue and it appaled me. Glad Hitchens is as pragmatic on this issue as he is on others
What they didn't mention is that decriminalizing drugs also makes it less risky to check yourself in for rehabilitation. I don't think addiction will go up.
George Cataloni It will go down because by normalizing the behavior you remove the stigma and so allow people to be treated the same way people with other illnesses are. Anyone who's known addicts knows that so many of them have this hopelessness to their existence, often self inflicted, but with a proper system that can interact with them regularly they can be helped, perhaps only enough to get them clean and not dying in the street on a gurney, but help nonetheless.
George Cataloni I mean if Heroin is being legalized tomorrow , who would srsly consider consuming it ?
I mean in terms of first time usage.
Even if addiction rates were to increase (though I agree that they probably wouldn't), the amount of money we spend on keeping drugs illegal is far greater than the cost of treating addiction. It makes no sense whatsoever to maintain the drug war, and quite frankly it pisses me off that in the year 2016 we're still being told what we can and cannot put into our bodies by the government...
***** It's not about the year, it's about the actual reasons you stated.
George Cataloni By that I just mean in the early 70s we gave up our rights to personal autonomy and self-sovereignty, but almost 50 years later we still haven't managed to reclaim them.
You would think that after the prohibition of alcohol failed miserably in the 1920's that society would have learned from that mistake.
My love for Hitch and his logic here goes without saying, so instead I want to show respect for David Frum for his shared logic. Legalise it.
@sabbracadabra 5 years? lol try 25! that interview was in 96 🤣
Genius to the utmost extend. RIP Christopher Hitchens
+Cody Rogers extent
lol bless.
Thank you very much for this video. I always wanted to hear Hitch on record regarding drug prohibition.
The sale of drugs is an awful thing, however, doing drugs should NOT be a crime. Use prison budgets for rehabilitation for people who want to stop using. stop putting "drug users" in jail.
The above makes absolutely no sense. The sale is awful but the use is not? Can't have your cake and eat it pal.
+Jimmy Pegg Look up the decriminalization of all drugs in Portugal and I bet you'll change your mind. No country has ever had such success in combating addiction in such a short timeframe.
+Mingo Mania It won't change my mind. Some people are addicts, yeah but you cant completely absolve the consumer of choice.
+Jimmy Pegg and free will. They aren't zombies...
Maria Little The only way to make things better is to legalize all drugs, not just "decriminalize". If drugs were legalized and controlled then drugs like heroin wouldn't be laced with things like fentanyl and the strength wouldn't differ from batch to batch. way less people would die if the drugs were pure and not laced with God knows what, and you didn't have to buy it on the black market from some shady dealer.
My respect has increased for Christopher Hitchens has gone through the roof I was thinking I hope he has open liberal and non prejudice view on the drugs issue unlike his brother I might add
Of course I don’t know Peter, but as I live in the U.K. I’ve been exposed to him quite a lot, and he really does come across as a truly repugnant individual. Incidentally I get the feeling from him that he has gone in the direction he has in part as a reaction against his older, more talented, vastly more charismatic brother and the attention and accolades he accumulated
Peter Hitchens (i.e. Christopher's brother) is insufferable on this subject. He even denies the concept of addiction, which given that Christopher's death was likely accelerated (by his own admission) by an addiction to cigarettes and alcohol (legal), is both stupid and tragic.
There is a huge irony that psychedelic's are likely to revolutionize the treatment of many mental health disorders (PTSD, depression) in the coming years, and cost the pharmaceutical industry billions.
peter hitchens shouldn't be allowed to smell Christopher's deceased socks. He of course is a deeply religious person, for whom it's ok when Jesus turns water into wine but god forbid some other stuff that befuddles you, like wine or religion.
REST IN RIP
Gonna laugh until I rest in RIP.
Truly embarrassing slip up, I suggest you edit this comment as ASAP as possible.
Prophetic.
People talk war on drugs as a national issue when drugs, but the US Constitution is pretty absent regarding such things. It’s a state issue not a federal issue. The US is huge and ideologically diverse.
Its a shame his(Christopher Hitchens) brother does not share his views.
Drugs are a plague in the world and cannot be stopped. Cartels will never stop. "If stopped", they will move into other crimes.
The war on drugs has done absolutely no good whatsoever and caused a vast amount of harm. On the up side privately owned prisons made a fortune. Of course most people aren’t in the for profit prison business.
2/3rds of the people agreed. Is this a democracy?
What a shame he knew nothing about the terrible effects of marijuana, causing so much mental illness and violence on the streets.
Damn Hitchens should have been president...
I think one of the key reasons people are so reluctant to support full-on decriminalisation is because as a population we seem quite averse to going through short periods of "pain" in order to attain a more desirable outcome. Decriminalising drugs would indeed demand a period of adjustment and it may seem like hell on earth in some places. But we must not be so blind to rule out the lesser of evils just because one or two of the problems associated with drug use will be exacerbated for a relatively short period. What about all the other problems that will be alleviated for good?
When there is no clean fix, the lesser of evils must prevail.
Or you could properly enforce the law and arrest people for procession.
Anybody who wants to do drugs is already doing drugs. All this will do is end putting people in jail for hurting nobody but themselves.
Hitchens got this one right, like a broken clock. However, he is a bit off on some of his facts. Nixon is generally-credited with being the godfather of the war on drugs, but there's this entity called Congress (or at least it should be involved because it is the lawmaker) that has to pass laws first. e.g. the mandatory minimums were signed into law by Reagan & passed by Congress.
FDR was also a drug warrior to a lesser extent. Ted Kennedy was a huge (pun intended) advocate of those mandatory minimums. He didn't like folks being able to legally smoke pot, but he loved to drink.
And the first people given rights to sell legal weed should be the communities who were criminalised for decades for doing so.
The marijuana was decriminalized in Brazil
possibly the only sane thing David Frum has ever said
The war on drugs is the war on us
"Put it in the hands of respectable companies"? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Name me one corporation that is "respectable".
@Richard Dixon Nope. But I am in one of Putin's puppet countries Dick.
@@kristopherloviska9042 your country is called DIck. Fascinating.
Im for useful remedies that marijuana promises. But there is a flip side to the coin either way. That is what wasn't considered.
Unfortunately drug addiction often is more powerful than person's will. Great minds like Hitchens are still susceptible to tobacco and alcohol addiction and the consequences of these addictions apply to these people too. Hitchens died early from eosaphagal cancer which is linked to his long history of smoking and drinking. I personally don't support drug legalization. I would support education about effects of drug addiction.
Years old comment I'm responding to but:
I think people already know that drugs can be harmful to your health, and often ARE when used in excess or during adolescence...
The issue here is whether or not we should allow the state to arrest people, put them in cages, take their money and freedom and give them criminal records; or if the problem of true drug abuse (as opposed to responsible use) should be handled in some other way.
I could take him a bit more seriously if he weren't a Trotskyite.
stevenator0281 So you just admitted that you allow your ability to parse reasoned arguments to be overridden by a prejudice based on a label or the association with an altogether unrelated point of view.
BollocksUtwat It gives me cause to consider that his argument is not so reasoned as there is a history of unreasonable argumentation.
stevenator0281 You should always consider whether an argument is reasonable or not based on its merits. To do otherwise is to fail to be a critical thinking person and therefore no better than the religious fanatics he spent much of his time decrying.
Its hard to do of course and its easy to be lost in the erudite charm of someone like Hitch, but his charm is reason all the more to be deliberately critical. If we aren't always doubting and questioning everything everyone says, including ourselves, we're being poor students and we should all always be students for life.
You should also be open to his thoughts on Trotsky. A default response to anything painted in Soviet Red is dangerous because our culture has a more than half century worth of propagandized history deeply affecting our interpretation of that period.
BollocksUtwat Ultimately it is not he that I am questioning, but me. I agree with him here in toto. if I can be in agreement with a Trotskyite (assuming he retains those core beliefs) when I have been philosophically and consistently an Anarcho-Capitalist for forty years I am wondering if I could be wrong.
+stevenator0281 really loved this comment. These days it's refreshing to see anyone on any subject willing to question not only themselves but beliefs rooted in decades of affirmation bias.
There may be hope for us yet.
Shame his brother is spouting the complete opposite to this day - he recently blamed the london bridge attack on cannabis -.-
Yes. His brother is an absolute twat, especially on this issue.
Christopher's brother - Peter - has a far more rational and informed perspective on the drug issue.
Because "ban it all" is a more informed perspective. Goodness me.
Three isn't a single rational argument against drugs decriminalization change my mind
Hitchens also argued that charity is simply a 'whim' and should not be relied upon to provide healthcare to those that cannot afford it. His argument was not backed by any evidence and I am sure if someone had pointed out that charities are more efficient at getting money and help to the people who actually need it vs. a bloated bureaucracy moonlighting as a jobs program, he would dismiss that argument. He was perfectly fine with government pointing guns at people to pay for social programs that he agreed with. He seemingly did what many atheists do which is simply replace god with the state. The same arguments used by the religious to support the existence of whichever god or gods they believe in are used by statists to defend the state. It is remarkable that so many atheists so easily close their minds when presented with the same logic against their god the state. Their faith in the state is just as strong as any religious person.
Wow did you ever think for a sec that your whole comment was an ad hominem before typing that up? and btw, stop conflating atheism with Marxism. Marxists require atheism to worship the state and leaders but how many Western atheists are Marxists? Atheists make up a large portion of the libertarian movement you know. Plus, national socialists and other fascists were deeply religious, and all theocracies have very strong controlled, centrally planned economies so you're wrong on this dichotomy between state worship/god worship.
cb4allstar4
"your whole comment was an ad hominem"
Please demonstrate that what I said was an ad hominem. You like throwing around logical fallacies, how about you look up the straw man.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
"stop conflating atheism with Marxism"
Where did I do this? I said that many atheists seem to have replaced god with the state. They use the same arguments to defend the state that the religious use to defend the existence of god. This is not in any way combining marxism with atheism.
"Marxists require atheism to worship the state"
I challenge that this is true. First, I never claimed that atheists worship the state. I said that atheists seemingly replace their faith in god with faith in the state. Second, Marxism has nothing to do with worshiping the state. Please provide evidence to support your claim. You could start with a definition of Marxism that isn't totally false. Yes, there are marxists who are atheists. Try not to commit the correlation-causation fallacy. I could just as easily claim that it requires atheism to be a democrat. I would be, just as you are, stupidly incorrect.
"Atheists make up a large portion of the libertarian movement"
This is completely irrelevant to what I am saying.
"you're wrong on this dichotomy between state worship/god worship"
I said, again, that atheists who support the state use the same arguments that the religious use to support their belief in god. This, to me, seems like atheists have replaced god with their love of the state. When you argue using faulty logic to support your beliefs, it is synonymous with believing something for which there is no evidence. When you ignore evidence contrary to what you believe, like most statists do regardless of religious affiliation, you are acting like a religious person being told about evolution. These are similarities in cherished dogmas, not actual worship of god vs. state, you fucking moron.
jimlovesgina yes it was an ad hominem. It was an attack on Hitchen's views that have nothing to do with his views on drug decriminalization. It's an attack on his character rather than an answer to to the contentions made. and you call me a fucking moron, fucking moron
jimlovesgina *HAITI got less than 0.1% of all aid sent*
jimlovesgina why are you on a page about drug decrimnilisation then you imbacile, find a relevent video.
Even though one shouldn’t exactly expect an alcoholic to possess a balanced view on a topic of this nature, Hitchens’ view regarding narcotics displayed a staggering underlying naivete.
Explain
@@tdb517 Aside from the fact that no ”war” was actually ever waged on drugs (what would it even look like?), the part about the supposed harmlessness of drug addicts comes across as especially infantile.
@@JesseBrown-qf6zpif there never was then where did the slogan "war on dr*gs" come from I wonder?
A dr*g addict harms others when he can't afford his fix and has to steal/rob for it. Legalization will mean availability of pure and cheap dr*gs, addicts can afford easily and then no more crimes by addicts. There you go, problem solved!