Famous Journalist Storms Out of Interview | "I Actively Dislike You"

what you're about to hear is the most bizarre experience that I've ever had in the production of this podcast two months ago I emailed Peter Hitchens saying quote I'm writing to invite you to appear as a guest on the podcast to discuss your work and areas of interest in particular issues pertaining to drug decriminalization whether we are experiencing a moral decline in society and the influence of secularism on this question and the state of monarchy in the United Kingdom before the interview commenced I reiterated that there are three subjects of Interest things that he's spoken about or written books about in the past and that I've also covered on my YouTube channel and these are drug decriminalization God and religion and the monarchy to which he said the monchy's a bit boring and I said you know what I actually agree with you let's not do the monarchy he didn't take the opportunity to make a similar comment on either of the other two subjects that I mentioned then we sat down and the camera started rolling and I asked him if he had a hard out that is is there a time that he needs to be done by he said what did you have in mind to which I respond ideally these things run for about an an hour but if the conversation is particularly Lively they can be an hour and a half I've done podcasts that are 3 hours long to which he said well we'll see how we do but 3 hours might be a bit long so as far as I was aware we were about to have an hour or an hour and a half long conversation about two topics drug decriminalization and God and religion I had also on my list the issue of the death penalty uh but that was only if we had time that wasn't something that I'd actually mentioned to him and then something went disastrously wrong I'm really in two minds about posting this because I don't like the idea of posting something that one of my guests isn't happy about generally speaking if a guest tells me that they want to take something out or they're not happy with something for any reason then I respect that the problem is that Mr Hitchens didn't just tell me that he wasn't happy with the interview but that he wasn't happy with me personally and he did that for 15 minutes he then went on Twitter and made it quite public that he was recovering from an attempted interview with me in which I bought him for almost an hour with unoriginal questions about drugs since then he's been tweeting about me quite a lot and I think I've earned something of a right of reply I figured the best thing that I can do is simply present the full uncut interview so that you can make your own mind up about what went wrong here I may in a future YouTube video give you my own views about what I think happened and why I think it went wrong but for now I simply give you Peter Hitchens Peter Hitchens thanks for being here so far so good Suella braveman last year after the Conservative Party Conference was reported to have been considering upgrading cannabis to being a Class A drug and this was amid concerns that it had become a gateway to other harsher substances do you think that cannabis is a gateway drug no I think it's quite bad enough itself doesn't need to be gateway to be bad it's the the potential effects of it on users appear to be by correlation uh to be so serious that it's silly to think of it is a gateway drug to others it's it's quite bad as it is the whole system of classification was designed as far as I know back in the early 197s uh to actually make it seem less threatening than the then bogeyman drugs of heran and LSD which is why it had a different classification from them so do you think that would have been a wise idea upgrading the class no none of these things have any real relevance at all the current classification I think uh means the maximum sentence for possession is I think 5 years is in prison and an unlimited fine that's quite a severe sentence and the point about the the law at the moment is that it's not enforced not the law is not is not stringent enough on paper but that nobody enforces it so upgrading it or making noises about it being Gateway Dr won't change that until the police enforce the law which is what they're paid to do then nothing will happen yes so sometimes here you mischaracterize as a person who wants harsher penalties for for drugs people will say things like this it's actually the harshness of the penalty isn't really the point the point is that there is a penalty that it's a realistic penalty and that it is imposed when people break the law I in general I'm of the view that with enforcing law that with first offenses you're pretty lenient you don't want to ruin someone's life for one offense but once the second offense kicks in I think he ought to be serious and the moment where unserious about first offenses and equally unserious about second ones so there is no deterrence of possession of marijuana which is the principal offense and so it continues to grow and people regard it a as legal and B is not really a drug well describe for me the the scene in the UK as you see it I think people listening to this particularly American listeners might not quite understand what it is you're talking about when you say that at least I've heard you say in the past that that marijuana is effectively already decriminalized in this country it's not just me who says that many prominent police officers have said it it is evidently the case but to to what extent is this the case I mean for example you know if I were to just walk up to a police officer and smoke a joint in front of them presumably they would do something about it I doubt it every every year on the 20th of April they this this 420 of course Administration hide Park which the law is openly mocked and the police just stand around unless they're really seriously rubbed up the wrong way they won't do anything they'd rather not do anything it's a nuisance to them it's for them because the courts are not interested uh the and the state is not interested police will only enforce laws when they get the strong impression that the this the government wants them enforced and they have been getting the strong impression for years that the government doesn't want this one enforced so you can't be surprised when they don't do it and in some places even in the UK there seems to be not just a uh sort of inability to enforce this law apparently from the from the police but also I I mean I'm thinking for example recently of Scotland and the suggestion of drug taking rooms or something of this sort I oh this is all all these things is like like drug testing uh units at Rock festivals and so forth all these things are designed to Mock and call into question the law itself as a signatory to the to to the universal drugs convention and also so as a member of the United Nations security Council Britain cannot legislate not not not seriously to abandon these laws because it signed International treaties saying it will have them but what it can do instead and this has been known to to drug decriminalization campaigns for years is it can just not enforce them and that's what has been going on first of all informally and then more and more formally especially since the runman report and the the London Police experiments of the early parts of the century it's just become a de facto legalized drug and anybody who wanders around London will smell it all the time and I I guess I'm interested in in why this might have become the case I mean there are a lot of people who want drugs to be officially decriminalized in this country I've made uh videos in the past on my YouTube channel talking about the subject and I'm broadly in favor of the decriminalization of drugs although it's it's a fairly malleable position to me it's not something that I've thought about a whole lot um I'm wondering in other words a lot of people Willen listen to what you're saying and think to themselves well okay but this is this is kind of a good thing maybe it's a bad thing that the police aren't enforcing people whose children have not uh started taking marijuana at an early age uh those who have will in many cases know very well the reason why they should worry about it because although as I say we have no causal link we have a growing correlation between the use of marijuana particularly at an early age this isn't exclusive but it's strongly so between the use of marijuana and mental illness of an incurable and disastrous kind and that once that's visited a home then people understand that there might be reasons for worrying about it but those who haven't experienced that are influenced by a wholly different set of values they particularly the the use of marijuana in this country by the what you might call the educated Elite became common in the 1960s it's a very old thing it also the smoking of marijuana the the rolling of the joint the passing round of it the sharing of it as a sort of uh sort of ceremonial Holy Communion Unholy communion if you like of the sixth generation and it's also very much linked and referred to in a huge part of the music which people listen to it's part of the culture and many of people who were involved in that culture permitted their children to take drugs at home and they know their children take drugs and they're worried that their careers might be impaired if the law is enforced so they're against it that's the crude way of putting it they they themselves don't believe in the law and they think that they're in children should not suffer from it but surely I mean it's conceivable to have a person who is broadly as I am in favor of the the decriminalization of drugs officially speaking that is uh but at the same time think that we shouldn't be giving drugs to children I mean just like with alcohol or smoking these things are legal in this country but it's not legal to sell these things to children they are they get into the hands of children and if they were commercially on sale if if the drug were legalized to say it's been in Canada so it can be bought in a shop uh then it would be more available to Children than it is now I think uh certainly from Colorado one of the American states where it's been legalized there is a certain amount of evidence beginning to pile up of its use among school children which is intensified following legalization I don't think anyone can really claim that if a drug is legalized and put on General sale and ultimately advertise as well that that young people will not use it even though it's technically illegal for them to do so anybody in their teens can obtain alcohol and they can also obtain cigarettes and these things are on wide sale in many cases in in smuggled and illicit forms which are they're not illegal in themselves but they are they are smuggled and in the case of alcohol illicitly made so it's it's absurd to imagine if you made it easier to get hold of that more children wouldn't get a hold of it CU they will I'm I'm sort of imagining a situation in which I guess what I'm asking is what is the ideal law here I mean is is there something when I asked you about the decriminalization of drugs a moment ago you immediately talked about children the fact that well I mentioned it because it is it's the most obvious thing I I refer to any anybody who tells me that marijuana is harmless to Patrick Coburn's book Henry's demons about the experience of his son Henry I've known Patrick for many years and I also known Henry and I have witnessed what happened to him and it's it's deeply disturbing and saddening event in in the the lives of that whole family in particular above W of of Henry and it's very hard to resist the conclusion that it's the result of his of his being introduced to marijuana at his Secondary School in Canterbury so I think this is one way in which it comes home to people I'm not saying there are no other arguments against it there are plenty of arguments against it which I can make if you want to make this whole interview about why marijuana should remain illegal indeed why the law against it should be enforced okay I've written a book about it uh but I don't um I don't particularly want to go on and on about it these arguments are well known if and people can look up uh the the book that I've written particularly the war we never fought on this subject if they want to know what my detailed arguments are this isn't really the Forum going on and on about I do have the book somewhere in this room I should have it here so I could wave it in front of the camera but we'll make sure link is in the in the description and show notes to that to that book well I'd love it if you did because it was so um it was it was so badly treated by the review Mafia and the publishing industry that it became known uh in the publishing industry as the book they never bought I couldn't get anybody to review it except a couple of abusive reviews into two leftwing newspapers uh the it was it was it was almost impossible for people to find out it existed I remember well in in a lot of the interviews that I've heard you on this subject you often say look I've written a book about this the kind of stuff you're talking about here I've already written about this I have the information you can go and find it so you know I I've been reading this book and I suppose what I wanted to do was was follow up on on some of those those threads that I think potentially weren't uh fully addressed in the book for example uh I mean you talk about the comparison that's often made between cannabis and alcohol and and cigarettes but specifically in relation to what we've just been talking about children for example smoking tobacco is still legal in this country and many adults still do it but there's been such a successful almost propagandist re-education campaign about the dangers of smoking that young people it's it's it's it's falling off the map you young people just don't smoke anymore like they used to now no they Vape instead but I don't think that's that really tells us very much it's not it hasn't just been the propaganda campaign it's been the use of the law uh people particularly employers anybody who runs any large building and particularly anybody who runs a pub or a restaurant is very much afraid of the law uh and of the strong civil law consequences in this case of allowing the smoking of cigarettes on their premises and that's been the real driver of the of the diminishing of smoking so suppose what I'm asking is can't a similar approach be taken to cannabis well I just said if you if you use the law then then then indeed it can if there were the fundamental law which enables you to act against the smoking marijuana is the 1971 misuse of drugs act even in it's which is a very very fault filled uh piece of legislation but it it's perfectly applicable and could be applied in Japan they have a similar law against possession of marijuana which they apply and as a result the well certainly let's not say as a result because no causation is the hardest thing in the world to prove but there is no doubt that both Japan and South Korea where it's possession is still severely prosecuted and punished uh are both Societies in which is much less used that that's true although I the the Abare group um which is uh an organization dedicated to helping people struggling with addiction uh site South Korea as the fourth most alcoholic country by in terms of males that is males with alcoholism it's the fourth most popular I wonder that's maybe I can't I can't address thatan has a has a has a problem with alism say so what uh if then if you want to go and argue with the South Koreans about their alcohol laws that's fine by me I myself would very much favor much more stringent alcohol laws than we have in this country yes the ones the ones that we had before the middle 1980s before the that government began to destroy them and the Blair government then totally destroyed them were quite effective and there was much less drunkenness I think much less drinking when those laws existed than there is now I'm all in favor of bringing that back and and and would do so if if I had the power to do so what I'm asking about or I guess what I was implying there was that we sort of trade one problem for another yes there there are effective cannabis you can them both and Japan but this might just be trade one problem for no you can repress them both until until the 1970s this country had neither a marijuana problem nor a major drink problem it repressed both in different ways what I was trying to pull together a moment ago was that when I asked you about uh cannabis and children in particular you said that the decriminalization of cannabis will uh will will cause more children to have access to cannabis it will I mean it's just truism basically sure we can we can we can grant that we can grant that no point arguing about it but then when're talking about tobacco asking about why young people aren't smoking as much say it's it's effective enforcement of the law and what I'm saying is can't there be partly effective enforcement of the law it's partly because they switched to vaping perhaps I mean no The Vaping is vaping is epidemic now I I I agree that agree the case I don't know that's the bar and the things like that incredibly prevalent I mean people were already smoking less before before Vapes were on the scene I don't know about that who who was measuring it I certainly there was still a lot of smoking going on visibly if you particularly among the less um how should I say the less advantaged in society where smoking turns to be concentrated these days what I'm what I'm imagining is a situation in which cannabis is decriminalized for adults maybe over 21s or something like this and there is an effective law in place that that really clamps down on any attempt to uh sell provide or or allow for the provision of cannabis to Children yeah well okay in that case the problems of of of marijuana for people over 21 will still be a problem which are considerable and those problems primarily for you seem to be about the effect on one's mental health well I think there is absolutely no doubt at all that there is a strong correlation between the use of marijuana and and decline in mental health even if it's if it's just the CLI of the point of view where the person becomes incapable of holding a steady job or making a conversation or or or or reading a serious book and just becomes uh impaired in ways which don't actually mean that that he's or she is technically classified mentally ill or the the growing uh number of people who are detected uh in in in the fascinating website attack of smoke cannabis who's uh who under take really seriously violent criminal acts who are longterm marijuana uses in a dangerous not just to themselves but to others it's a it's a it's a drug with many many disadvantages if you want to join the third world then make marijuana legal would be a simple piece of advice if you really want to have full we have S country membership of the third world in this country now if you want to have full out membership third world then then Mar just imagine for instance the implications for almost anybody with a job of any uh with any safety implications whether it be an airline pilot or a surgeon or a school bus driver we'd simply have to have enormous amounts of testing to make sure people didn't have it in their systems we allow them to work the same as the illegal to to drink and drive it's ilal again to drink and a I mean again so what I mean I'm not advocating and I've just said to you and why do I waste my time do do you not listen to what I say I just said quite clearly I'm in favor of strong restrictions on alcohol have we got that now I I agree with you good so stop saying to me well what about alcohol every time I mention that we should do something about marijuana marijuana is is is a drug you could not tolerate in someone who is performing surgery or in a school bus driver or in an airline pilot or in many other jobs requiring requiring the the the uh strong discipline and a strong consciousness of what's going on a lack of intoxication so to say well if you then had a society in which it was legal it would require an enormous amount of testing is my point the answer to that is not to say what about alcohol the answer that say either I don't believe that so or yes I do believe that so I understand that point and it's a good point against marijuana that we would have to have much more testing of formerly free individuals because the danger would be great but now you can't see that instead of taking the point and listening to what I say you can only come up with but what about alcohol it's benal it's time wasting and frankly I can't be bothered with it if all you've got to say whenever I say introducing a third legal poison into our societ would be terrible is we've already got two disastrous legal poisons in our society and that I begin to doubt your intellectual capacity this is not an argument what I'm asking is you bring up the subject of marijuana you ask me why I think it would be a bad idea to make it legal and when I explain why you say but what about alcohol and and tobacco it's it's apart from anything else it's incredibly tedious that's I I I'm I don't think that's exactly what I was trying to do it's what you repeatedly do every time I every time I offer you a reason why we should not legalize marijuana you come up with a with a with a Counterpoint which involves saying what about tobacco or what about alcohol it's noticeable anybody who looks at what we've just been saying will see this I'm not I I have no I would I would cheerfully Stamp Out The Smoking of of of of tobacco I think it's probably possible now and I as as I've said and I'll say it again I'm in favor of the tightest restrictions on the sale of alcohol so what what are you saying to me that I can't that that that that somehow or other because these things exist and other people have made foolish decisions about them I cannot argue that it's stupid to legalize marijuana no well then in that case when I say that here is a big disadvantage of marijuana namely that if you made it legal you'd have to be constantly testing people in many jobs who were not necessarily users of it thus reducing the freedom of everyone in society the answer is not but what about alcohol then I agree the answer is either yeah okay um I I've got that point or you could say actually I don't believe testing people I wouldn't mind having my brain operated on by someone who'd been smoking marijuana in the previous two days well I all the other but you have to say something intelligent in response rather than what about alcohol hoping to off something more like the second and not quite in those terms but to say is this not a problem that can be addressed with something like regular random drug testing for air it couldn't be random no it couldn't be random it would have to be have to be mandatory and regular every time anybody of any undertaking any job where for instance full control of their of of their muscles in mind was required would be would be obliged to be tested for marijuana you wouldn't you wouldn't want to be told oh this the school bus carrying your children ran off a bridge uh and the the the driver that that that bus had been high on marijuana cuz that wasn't his day for testing if we're talking about how to minimize this I'm imagining that that could be that would be how you'd have to minimize it only take one school bus crash for the for the for the regulations to become incredibly uh incredibly tight quite a strong no if you're not thinking about it if somebody if if we had serious and and severe punishments in place that were actually enforced for the serious crime of driving Under the Influence for example certainly when it comes to I I agree that driving is going to be more tricky but in the in the case of airline pilots if it were the case that somebody were caught on a random drug test they knew that their life was going to go completely down the drain don't think that would be enough of a deterrent to stop from smoking what I'm saying is uh and this is a completely different point what I'm saying is that if you had legalized marijuana in society there would have to be a lot more testing that of everybody not just of marijuana users but of everybody engaged in that kind of job people will have to be tested all the time it will be more infringements of freedom of everybody because of this change I wanted to ask you about freedom because this is something that you talk about in the book and you you imply that people have gotten sort of the wrong reading of this million uh General principle that people should be able to be free to do whatever they like as should do whatever they like this is something you disagree with no I don't think people should be free to do whatever they like no obviously there have to be limits on not whatever they like whatever they like so long as they're not harming the freedom of other people well that is one that that that is one principle on which you can limit freedom but that's not the only one for you well that's a utilitarian one I have I have I have a different moral position there's some people shouldn't do whether it harms anybody else or not so the question I wanted to ask is do you think people have a right right to essentially self harm to self Stupify to do things that might be at least a risk and possibly an obvious detriment for their own health absolutely nobody loves or cares about them then I suppose if they ruin their own lives the only the only on the harm principle the only reason why they they could be restrained would be because of the the cost of society that would then lead to which which in the case of people who abuse drugs and become mentally ill or otherwise incapacitated is considerable they basically they can't in many cases maintain themselves anymore so the the taxpayer has to be mugged to pay for their lives but it seems to me that that isn't the only reason that you have for wanting these drugs isn't the only reason I have no I have I have I have strong moral objections to to self staction I think it's uh it's it's throwing a great gift in the face of of of the of the God who gave it to you and it's also uh throwing a an insult in the face of your parents who brought you up to live a a a a decent and healthy life to deliberately damage yourself and and and make and make yourself less likely to be a happy or a successful person why would anybody do that these are moral objections but if you want you as as my book makes it clear as a whole as a whole section the book uh saying if you if uh if the Holy Ghost doesn't bother you then maybe John Stewart Mill will sort it out for you I if I don't care whether you're a utilitarian or a purist and Christian moralist the arguments against the abuse of drugs very powerful I wanted to draw a distinction between moral arguments and legal arguments here that is I I can understand why you might have a moral objection to taking drugs generally uh putting aside the societal but you're treating me as if I'm some kind of actor in society who can have any influence on events you're saying oh if Peter Hitchin says we should we should have a law we should we should enforce the law uh punishing the possession of marijuana then then the country will enforce the law punishing possession of marijuana nothing of the kind will happen I have less influence on the ACT this government than that chair over there I have no influence whatever I say these things because I basically I'm writing the history of a country which has destroyed itself I don't I don't have I I did at one point think that I might influence these events I don't influence any events so I don't I'm I'm writing the obituary of a country which died largely by it own largely at its own hands that's all I do I'm not I'm not here making legislative proposals uh which you can say are a bad idea I gave that up long ago but the the reason why I think this is important is because if we're talking about decriminalization then we're talking you can talk about it we're talking I I I say decriminalization happened long ago about the law right and it happened it's it it has taken place it was a stupid thing to do it's demonstrably stupid I can say that it's demonst stupid I've written about how stupid it is uh many many times and spoken about it but the idea that somehow or other my continued existence and saying these things is a threat to those who long for the country to be a drugs free for all and therefore my argu arguments about the details of law enforcement are important is absurd it doesn't matter what I say my doesn't matter in the slightest I can I can say I can say it till the cows come home nobody will pay any attention our society has already decided on this suicidal cause I agree that legislatively that that may be the case but a lot of people areed may it is the case a lot of people are interested I some I and some friends when the the home Affairs Committee of the House of Commons looked into drug decriminalization a few months ago put ourselves forward as said maybe you want to hear some evidence from us we went ahead and and gave them some evidence and they listened politely but when the report came out we might as we might as well have stayed at home nobody's interested in this stuff well people are interested in what you have to say on no I mean I and I think I think our listen only to only to annoy themselves they have they have no nobody who knows anything about this country could have any belief for one second that I have any influence on the on the making a policy by by by government or the Civil Service I have none I don't think people need to see you as somebody who's going to have an influence on policy it matter my only my only interest in this my only reason for discussing it is historical I can tell you this is what happened this is how it happened you don't think it would be a good thing for example if if the listeners of this podcast there could be you know hundreds of thousands of people could hear this conversation that maybe haven't listened to you before this could be their first introduction to these ideas and if presented in a way that clicks with them they could think you know what he's right drug there lots of people have come to this conclusion it makes no difference the political parties are immune to thought but that's what I'm saying is keep telling you the political I'll I'll go I'll go more deeply the the major political parties in this country are immune to thought they're not interested even even if everybody who who who watched this podcast instantly agreed with me and went out and turned to their friends and said that hit he's got a point it wouldn't make any difference you don't think that would be a worthwhile Endeavor to have thousands of people suddenly agree with you that there would be many more people in the country who realized they had no power at all over events that maybe good in itself it it may be good in itself but that's all the reason that I was asking about this was to was to get to the question of whether we are in favor of the criminalization of something because of a moralistic objection to it that is can't there be things that are immoral I don't care what I'm telling you what I think I have moral objections to it but I don't care if you don't have moral objections to it because I can also provide you with perfectly good utilitarian non-moral objections to it I I think I I think becoming mentally is a Bad Thing taking a risk which which has which appears to have that likelihood is therefore a bad thing it doesn't take much argument to get through that you don't need to have puritanical personal morals to think that I I don't I don't if you want to discuss the basis of my morality we've got time I don't think I don't think you do I don't think most people will be interested I I have moral objections to it like most moral objections I find they have good practical reasons beneath them maybe my question isn't clear here uh the question is granting that it's an immoral practice granting that it's an immoral thing to I don't want you to grant that cuz you obviously don't think so so it doesn't I I don't care whether you think it's moral or not because I'm not trying I I've never in my life tried to persuade anybody to adopt my moral position supposing we weren't even talking about drugs the question more broadly that I'm using this as a springboard to to get at because I'm interested in your view here is do you think that something being immoral is sufficient justification for making it illegal is that enough alone no some things are immoral shouldn't be made illegal the construction of of of a legal code is to some an independent of morality so so what is it that would provide that additional justification we have a practice which is immoral that's not enough to make it illegal what is the sufficient condition to make something justifiably criminalized it's harmful sure and so so a moment ago now bringing up the context of drug but we're not arguing about whether to make something illegal this is something which is illegal under statute law passed by parliament but of course lots of people are talking 52 years ago lots of people are talking about officially decriminalizing I'm against at the very least keeping the laws on the B I'm not arguing about I'm not arguing about making something illegal I'm arguing about about keeping something illegal which already is yes and and and there are many people it should be kept illegal you'll be sorry when you when you abolish the law against it that's all I can tell you and there are people who don't want to do that and so the question that I was asking is what the reason is for these laws on the books and why we should be keeping them and why we should be enforcing them and it seemed like you were you were referring to more than just the societal harms when talking about specifically criminalization but what I'm seeing is drugs being immoral or it being a bad idea to I I think drug is immoral I think self- stupid action is immoral that's not reason for it to Beal explained to you why it's probably not a reason for it to be criminal at all because I couldn't persuade anybody else over the criminal law is made by an elected Parliament and with a with a population in this country which which is probably about 65% totally irreligious and the rest of it not very to advance moral Arguments for the making laws would be futile I wouldn't bother doing it recently The Washington Post uh did something of an expose on what might have been the most popular argument for the drug decriminalization Lobby for decades now uh talking about the rise and The Taking of drugs in Portugal and and and you wrote about in the mail on Sunday the the failure of this Portuguese experiment of drug decriminalization in 2001 they decided to adopt a policy of uh decriminalizing drugs such as people who were CAU with drugs depenalization is the technical term for what they did but yeah they would be treated rather than but what they also did was they what they actually did was they formalized the policy which they'v been informally following for several years before hand there hardly hardly anybody in Portugal in prison for possession of of drugs at the time of the change of the law they didn't there was no fundamental change in Portugal they simply formalized what they'd already been doing it wasn't the fact the Washington Post finally caught up with the fact that it hadn't had the miraculous effects claim for it was not the first time anybody had ever criticized it so in 2001 Portugal make official something that was essentially de facto already the case oh yeah they' be do it for years if that's the case then why is it that after 2001 drug taking and Drug rated harm in Portugal did decline I don't believe drug taking declined I don't know how how you would know um there was there were certain things I think connected particularly with with heroin abuse which which may have declined but I think they've and I haven't got the stuff here I've written a long long essay which is on my blog drug use which is on my blog certainly lifetime use of marijuana has increased since the change um but the the I read a very long blow poting called the Portuguese drug Paradise several years ago uh which deals in immense detail with the whole thing so uh after if we're talking about drug use after 2001 uh use did rise slightly and then it declined such that in 2012 it was below 2001 levels and then recently it has increased a new National survey suggested adults who used illicit drugs increase to 12.8% in 2022 from just 7.8 in 2001 but it's still below European averages as the EU average I think it was before wasn't it and Portugal's different from 200 different in many ways from other other European countries but in 2001 Portugal's uh drug deaths and drug use was about the the EU average since then the EU average has has has risen and Portugal has declined and it's still below European averages I was wondering if if nothing had really changed in that country it would be unlikely for for for for for a change in the in the in the in the paper law which merely confirmed the existing position to have had much of a change this is people who look so for instance when Colorado formerly decriminalized marijuana legalized marijuana people said well so what you're now going to get a g great crime wave for people becoming more violence of course not any law uh of that kind is always changed after a long period of non- enforcement so the changes will already happened before You' started measuring so you will find nothing so so what accounts then for the the massive drop in drug related deaths I don't was it a massive drop I don't know I could would I wouldn't like to say what it can't have been was the fact that was was that the Portuguese police suddenly stopped uh acting against drug abuse because they hadn't been acting against it in the first place so it doesn't it it really can't have been that well well this went that much I that much I do know the the you know the police it's not like the police suddenly aren't enforcing this as you say but this goes hand inand with a new policy a new governmental policy of the treatment of drug addicts differently you know officially seen as as a medical problem rather than a legal problem which is kind of the the the yeah it's amazing the buzz topic that comes up all the time but it it maybe that could explain why it is could and and if it's the case that maybe maybe global warming explains it I don't know I I make no claim to know you're the one who claims to to know or to think that it's it's it's caused by a change in the law which didn't change circumstances that's up to you what I'm interested in is is you know if we look at the 2001 usage of drugs and drug deaths and HIV from uh from needle injections and then we look after 2001 that it that it declines and I think maybe this is just unrelated in the way that maybe you know people smoking weed and then developing psychiatric problems is is disconnected but we we look at the the correlation of these two things and we think is there not a possibility that the legalization of drugs or the decriminalization of drugs the depenalization of drugs in Portugal did have something to do with the fact that less people were dying and if that's the case is this not a policy that's worth pursuing possibility but I I I think you'd strug to find a causitive relationship between the two The Washington Post talked about uh a recent increase in drug use users and how the local police were talking about uh increased crime and blaming increasing drug use but the drug use despite increasing and having having a spike recently is still below the European averages and I wonder if that might have something to do with the fact that this is the policy that that is in place in Portugal at the moment I don't know I wouldn't know but it seems to me that that uh the reports in the Washington Post of the misery which is uh which has followed this changeing the law would put most people of embarking on it no I mean it's not neither is it the case that the that there is any country on the European continent which makes any serious effort to enforce its drug laws so I think it wouldn't it wouldn't be anything particularly distinctive there either you can see how it would seem mysterious to somebody that a policy which supposedly has no difference in in the way that drugs are handled in the country does lead to a statistic measurable decline or does pred has been follow has been followed it preds a measurable decline in drug related Harms in across multiple areas drug related deaths also HIV infections um and as I say drug use has sort of gone up and down but is now below the European aage other possible other possible explanations for these if I had known you wanted to talk about the Portuguese drug Paradise I would have come here briefed well we I hav I I didn't so I I I haven't I it's it's I will just say to you that anybody reading the Washington Post account of this supposed success uh would hesitate uh in leing it was success H the the head of Portugal's National Institute on drug use um described by The Washington Post here as the architect of decriminalization uh did admit uh in December quote what we have today no longer serves as an example to anyone uh but the Washington Post did point out that rather than folding the policy he folded a recent change in funding essentially yes well they always do that don't they it's because they haven't got enough funds but if you're doing the wrong thing it doesn't matter how much you spend on doing it it'll still be the wrong wrong thing I I guess I I was picking up when when reading your book and especially the the subject of of mental health problems um you were you were very careful admir admirably so I think to to say well look clearly there's this this link between cannabis and things like schizophrenia especially Canabis well I don't use the term schizophrenia cannabis in in in young people a variety of of health problems and there's also a link between I mean you have an entire chapter which is just a list of newspaper article uh excerpts where somebody has run over an innocent child whilst under the influence of cannabis much worse than that and and you say very carefully look I I'm not going to say that I know that it's because they were smoking cannabis that that these things occur because I don't all I can say is that there's this there's this correlation and I'm I'm saying look what's the most reasonable deduction that we can well the correlation that we have is the one that washhington PO has discovered which is that is that Portugal is a crime ridden slum uh in many areas where where drug use is high uh which I wouldn't recommend to anybody but then when talking about the fact that Portugal decriminalizes drugs and although there is still a big drug problem in Portugal the drug deaths decrease and the number is is still below how many times are we going to go around this but because I I know you you formulate the question you want to ask me I'll I'll try when I said a moment ago that this might be to do with drugs decriminalization policy you said I said it might be you said you said it might be but you know it's just a COR might might be to do with global Waring might be is that not the same attitude we should take towards cannabis and mental health problems if similarly all we have is a correlation no I think the correlation is stronger I think I think I think the claims that were made for the Portuguese drug policy were uh were were unlikely to be causative I think the the the suggestion that just possibly somebody who takes a powerful psychotropic drug over a long period of time over and over again uh then becomes mentally ill and that the two might be connected is it's a bit like saying somebody daily um takes a tube full of uh of vegetable matter and lights it and holds it to his lips and sucks smoke down to his lungs repeatedly and develops problems with his uh with his lungs and his cardiovascular system there might conceivably be a connection between the two the these are these are correlations where it's sort of not much of a surprise but to say to encourage people to to take drugs which make them less capable of being active and and uh and civil members of society and which make them more prone to commit crime and you then go to society in which there is more crime and more what you might call social Decay as described in the Washington Post and that these things are linked is different yeah you don't I mean you don't need to encourage drug use here to do it in fact most decriminalization campaigns go hand in hand with something like a re-education I've this actually I think I think if this is going to be about drug decriminalization I'm bored if you want drug decriminalization good luck um and enjoy the society you get as a result but frankly I'm sick of the subject and I'm also sick to death of the people who promoted soia will you be you're entitled to use that by the way feel free to do if you want to but I think you've had me here on false pretenses and if you run this interview I shall say you had me here on false I'm sorry which which false pretenses well that this is just this is going to be an interview about several subjects you know nothing but drugs yeah I mean nothing obsessed with drugs this is this is the F this is the first topic of many you're obsessed with drugs this is I I I had sorry I think that I had plan to whole thing I I I have I I've written about it you you've not read what I've written about it I have you hav you haven't read my book I have read your book well you well you reading it with your with with the lights off you you've not aware of anything that I've said I have a number you Haven read you haven't read what I've written about Portugal which is easily found I've read that too well again you show no signs El sir I I had you haven't put to me any of the things that I said in what I that portug it's now I've been here for an hour and we've discussed nothing but drugs well I had plan to move on to other subjects I'm I'm sorry I I don't think you're entitled to run this I I was if you do run it I shall say I don't you're that that you got me here F I was just I was just interested in I I frankly think it's extremely bad maners I I I extremely bad M very bad we spoke beforehand I said I wanted to talk about drugs and God you didn't say I want to spend an hour discussing drugs including half an hour discussing Portugal I'm sorry if that was too long I really I really this this interview was supposed to be an hour we've practically finished that hour and we have not moved from the site of drugs I really had planned to move on drugs the thing that I'm disputing is that there were any false pretenses here I I asked if okay so where where is it saying your Communications with me I want to interview you for an hour about drugs just before the interview I said I want to talk about drugs I want to talk about God I want to talk about the monchy I came here you said that's fine but the monoss London you didn't say we we're going to have an hour's discussion about drugs including half the thing on Portugal cuz if you had done so uh then then a I would have said no and B I I would I would have been better brief with these specific questions I thought it was a general interview on a number of subjects I think you have acted on false pretenses I think you have been dishonest with me and I think You' behaved extremely badly I had planned to talk to you about drugs and God you run and if you run this I shall not hesitate to say so as widely as I possibly can I think you behave disgracefully what's in this for me why should I bother to come here I've come across I've bicycled across London in the heat to to spent to spend time being interviewed by you and you've abused my you've abused my good my good willll and you've abused my Hospitality I thought we talk about want to see you again from you again I thought we talk about drugs and I'm sorry you not you've talked about nothing but drugs it was the first talked about nothing but drugs we've been here for for almost the full hour which we said we were going to have You' talked about nothing but drugs it the first subject that came up and we were just going back and forth but it came up I had following yeah I brought it up I I had followup questions to ask didn't come drifting our out of the scene you chose it I had follow-up questions to ask you I'm sorry I'm sorry if that went on too long it was your chosen subject for an hour I don't believe this I don't believe this was really else not a syllable about anything else I can't accept that this was under false pre also round in circles too you don't listen to ansers look I'm I'm such an incompetent interview you don't you don't listen to my an so you you have to ask everything over and over again rude incompetent and extremely uh dishonest if you like I suppose there's nothing more I can say here run it run it if I like well sure run if you like I'm working I can't stop you I think people would be interested to see your views morally I don't think you're entitled to run a word I think people would be interested you're not entitled to run a word of it you just aren't you brought me here false pretenses you treated me with extreme Bad Manners and and you and you you've done nothing but but ask me about drugs you didn't tell me you want to interview about drugs you just did [Music] this I don't this isn't because you've got the better of me you know almost nothing about almost nothing about the S of drugs and you understand less but I do think that you brought me I do think you brought me here on false pretenses and have been extremely ill mannered look I would be happy I don't want this to be shown stop I don't want to sh I would be I would be interested to see if people share your opinion that that's how I behave people know my opinions no if people share your opinion that that's how I behave today I think if I run this I think if I run this interview people people will not get it is my opinion and it's the opinion on which I'm basing my decision to get up and leave I think if this goes out people people will will will not think that that's how I've treated you well because you have the power to edit it no I I I don't edit these things I don't edit anything out nothing goes out every single word gets included everything I don't care I still think it's so I think Illman dishonest false pretenses so I can post this into word for word you're here on false pretenses and I think you should be asham so I can post this interview word for word and you think I've been lured here on false pretenses I think you should be ashamed of yourself ashamed enough not to write I'm sorry I just I just don't agree I I just don't agree that there were any false pretenses how you did I I just that does that make it better that you're not even aware of what you've done I'm I'm amused by this honestly I I i' I don't doubt it so many episodes we just we just doubt it we talk we go back and forth if there are follow-up questions there are follow-up question start that you'll be amused how how long would have been too long to talk about drugs like if we'd have moved on half an hour earlier to talk about Dr personally one minute was too long to talk about drugs so why I don't don't you raised so I I I I I I had man went on and on and on and round and round and round and you didn't have any idea what I think you hadn't read what I'd written or if you had you hadn't taken it in or understood it before this interview I asked you if we could talk about drugs you said yes you didn't you yes I can talk about drugs I didn't I didn't agree to an entire interview about drugs I think it's very good example of my of my power self- restraint that I haven't actually sworn in you anyway don't if you've got any sense or manners don't run that Mr H I want to run this just you have you're not entitled to run it you have no moral entitlement to run it you you brought me here on false pretentions and you behave very badly just just if you do I should say so just in order that that I can that if that's the case that if I have mistreated you that I can that I can hear that from someone other than just yourself because I just no no no it's my it's my it's my opinion that matters on that I I I don't know what you persisted with asking me to come I never made any trouble about coming I I changed my day to come today I agreed to come I came on time I was here when requested and then I and then then I was abused my my my my good nature was abused I I don't like that I suppose there's nothing you to I suppose there's nothing more I can say but I I I must say that this this like I I I I have to run this I have to why I have to run this because because like people know that I've spoken to you they'll want the interview and and they'll okay well I'll start tweeting now regard ra yourone no no I I don't you carry on tweeting it and is an outrage ill of ill manners and bad faith that you're running it at all if you choose to do so I was tricked by this way on some some tricked by somebody else yeah I've had someone else try to trick me into into interv about drugs by pretending they were interested in general matters listen I I really I really genuinely very to that they at least didn't have the nerve to run it indeed I would happily talk to you now about any other subject and not run the drugs part just the rest of it just to prove to you that I'm really not here to trick you into a conversation about drugs has so much content about everything else it's just I can talk to you about always go like this if you get on a topic and you get rolling genuinely I was just interested in in following it up I really didn't mean to make this some some sudden suddenly we're just going to talk about drugs do you know what it is do you know what it is I am so freaking bored about arguing about drugs with mors who want to legalize them well I'm sorry if it's boring but that doesn't Bor that Doan so boring I've wasted years of my life on it that doesn't mean I'm acting out of malice here no but it's if you knew anything about me you'd know how sick I was I'm talking about it look I'm couldn't even be bothered to read properly what I've written about it you claim to read it I have I have to I have to I have to take it as truth I only wish you you weren't paying attention you didn't understand I only wish You' have mentioned this before the interview and I asked if we could talk about drugs well I I talk about drugs to people and I so I didn't say I I was I would come across for interview entirely about drugs it wasn't supposed to be it it just look I have other topics that we were about to move on to but we weren I mean that genuine you barely could G on BL Portugal I I I can prove Pro but you didn't get there didn't you chose you chose to with with this and then you finish with that so what are you offering me what I'm what I'm offering you is firstly an explanation as to I don't want an explanation secondly what I'm offering you is for example if if you want me to prove to you that I'm I'm not interested in tricking you into a conversation about drugs if you wanted to sit down and talk about the other subject for instance God that was the next one on our list and we talked about that instead just to prove to you that I'm I'm not interested in just talking about drugs to you that's not what I'm trying to do here I and I mean that but what happens to this this driil that we've wased look like people people know that I'm talking to you they'll want to see a conversation with you and I can they they'll expect me to have talked to you about drugs I can explain to them that we did and that you that you that you didn't I can talk about it but I can't talk about it for an hour with you going round and round in circles not listening to my answers look I I'm you seem the the reason that you seem angry at me is I don't like you is okay that's the reason I really don't like you that's fine I really have decided in the past hour that I really do not like you at all I had no opinions on you before now I actively dislike you that seemed to be based on on the fact that you're a you're a propagandist for drug legalization yes the fact that I'm somehow tricking you into no you're a propagandist for drug legalization and I regard such persons I I will sometimes and occasions I will be in the same room with them because it's necessary for debate but I do not choose their company I I I'm genuinely I won't tell you that the the other occupations with which I with which I equate them with whom I also don't wish to spend time but I don't like you look this isn't I've spoken about drugs publicly twice I don't care what you done publicly on this on this occasion You' made it clear to me that you are a a very strong per Dr legalization and that was been the purpose of your interview my my job as an interviewer is to challenge my guests regardless of I don't care I don't mind being challenged if I were talking if I were talking to a to a if I had David nut on the podcast who I was supposed to for a long time my my questions would have been in the exact opposite direction so you say I would have put his points to you you can see it on any of my previous whatever you say I don't care and that's why that's why I reject I think I think you're in favor of drug legalization yes well I am yes are you not yeah when I I am and I told you exactly I think that's what you're in favor of so I Then I then have to ask myself why that's different from being a propagandist no it's not being in favor of something is not different from being a propag it depends on what you do with what you do as a result isn't it asking questions asking questions and then noten listen to the answers asking question obsessively and not listening to the answers not doing your not doing your homework before the interview the whole purpose of having you here is to is is so is to is to counteract that kind of propaga GIC element of only just talking about drug legalization and having inste one of the most wellknown I don't want to be the me in your sandwich look I I the reason why I I'm what what I'm trying to say here is you're saying that I have no moral right to to to run this because you think that I've invited you under false that I've invited you under false pretenses you owe me a long letter of apology I I I just don't think that's the case I I just don't think but I'm not sure you in real so that would so I I think I think I do have to run this interview youd have to I'm sorry to say I like I I feel I feel on principle that what principle in in the way that you feel I've mistreated You by by somehow tricking you even though I've done no such thing I feel like you're now mistreating me have you trick me you asked me an interview on on a number of subjects and it turns into an hour an hour long interview about drug legalization that I I I told you we'd talk about drugs well yes but it's one of many subject and the interview hadn't concluded well it has not oh sure but we were going to move on like of course we haven't talked about other how much time was left in an hour for for the other things you would have just got well do you remember before we started and I have it on camera in fact that that I said this goes for an hour but if the conversation flows if the conversation goes on it might go go on for an hour and a half or 2 hours it absolutely didn't and you said that that was fine and so the plan was absolutely didn't flow the plan was an hour didn't flow the plan was an hour on drugs I've never I've s in life had a conversation that's been more of an endurance test did not flow it was constantly halting while I I I want I lost my temple with you at one point over your repeating uh what about alcohol questions the plan was an hour the plan was an hour on drugs and then an hour on God that that was the idea and and we just didn't make it that far because because you're now leaving okay I honestly I just say I have no power over you to you you I can't stop you running it I think it would be completely wrong for you to right but if you know I I can't stop you I think you behaved ping you I never ever want to see you again well we'll have to see what everyone else thinks about that well we'll see what everyone else thinks about that we'll see I I'm sure all all your all your druggy friends will think it's great but I I I I I don't I I think even your followers have struggled to think that I've mistreated you here I really think that I really think that I don't I don't have much in the way of followers in the sense that you mean but I don't care I just think you behave really badly and I didn't see why she put out me there well it seemed a moment ago when you said that if I run this you'll you'll be tweeting about I will I will absolutely I'll tell people that think you I you you you were all nice and Pie saying please come for this interview please come for this interview what I I changed my plans according me and I often knew times and then they wouldn't work and then we finally got to do it and turn out to be an hour that drugs in which you didn't listen to any of my any answer to your question as if you think these people as if you think these people are going to agree with you I don't think they will I'm sorry to people don't agree with me about drugs no not about drugs about the fact that I've mistreated you somehow here well the way you say are you're going to Tweet about this age or not I know that you well I I suppose that will be all then is okay I don't want to see again okay I I I I'm astonished that you beh I'm genuinely astonished I I wish you the best and I wish you the best well I can't do that because I um because I the only thing put me on even K with you again is if you apologize for what you've done I can't apologize to something that I don't think I've done I don't think I don't think anybody can do that I can't it would be an ingenuine apology what it would be an ingenuine apology exactly so me any I so I don't think I can apologize and I think I have to run this interview and I'm I'm just think you've behaved extremely I'm sorry to say that I think that you are you are completely mistaken about me well and I'm I'm sorry it's gone this way it's it's a shame but uh I don't think there's anything I can say here to change your mind that no I know CU you know you L me over here for an hour's conversation after I what was it for me luring is what was in it for me why did I come I I don't know I mean some you tell you know you offered me interesting conversation people come for all kinds of reasons you bore me about your Des anyway well you have a good day

Channel: Alex O'Connor

Views: 2,270,322

Keywords: Alex O'Connor, cosmic, skeptic, cosmicskeptic, atheism, within reason, podcast, within reason podcast, religion, debate, Alex J O'Connor

Id: VyMhZhwe3gc

Length: 59min 23sec (3563 seconds)

Published: Wed Oct 11 2023