Has Peter Hitchens Latched On To Something?

[agchristie]

Hitchens has always been outspoken on the issue of drugs but has he identified a trend that should be explored and not ignored/underestimated or is it a coincidence between the links of terrorists and drug use?

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk

[agchristie]

v_e,

I had an idea this thread would, in part, descend into attacking Hitchen's character rather than his argument :-(

Hypo,

Good post, alas, the chemistry is beyond my level!

[vetuste_ennemi]

'Calling Matthew Parris a "Prominent left-wing figure" just about sums the man up. He is either ignorant or more likely writing for effect - like the rest of his trash'.
I can't believer that you have ever read any Parris, or seen him on TV, Ichkeria. Your remarks are an unpleasant libel against a journalist who, in my experience, has always argued well and lucidly, has seemed well-informed and, above all, shown transparent honesty. I was delighted to find that he was a regular contributor to The Spectator when I subscribed to it four years ago. My early memories of Parris are of his taking over from Brian Walden as presenter of Weekend World. Not a role he was very good at: he was no patch on the excellent Walden.. But, a lot later, I read an article he wrote in the Times about the Ron Davies scandal in which he described a cruising adventure of his own on the same common. Others might have seen this as cheap sensationalism - writing "for effect"; I chose to regard it as brave, honest and sympathetic defence of a fellow homosexual.
Here is Paris again, this time embroiled in a famous controversy. It is the only instance I know of the saintly Jeremy Paxman acting basely. But it confirms every prejudice I ever had about the odious Peter Mandelson.
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/the-truth-was-out-and-so-were-the-knives-1088357.html

[humbersloop]

^ except I think you'll find Ichkeria was referring to Hitchens as //ignorant or more likely writing for effect //, not Parris

[jno]

how on earth did Paxman and Mandelson get in here? Are they terrorists or drug abusers or both?

[vetuste_ennemi]

Try to keep up, Jno.

[ichkeria]

I don't think Hitchens scores too well on any -ometer that measures insight or balance. As humbersloop implies it's hard to believe he's of the same stock as Christopher. Maybe its an inferiority complex there that makes him always looks so snarled and angry. I don't know the man so can't comment on his character: all I can go by are his articles and what he says.

I think vetuste has misunderstood my comments concerning Matthew Parris.
I was of course referring to Hitchens not Parris.
I read Matthew Parris a lot and enjoy him. There's more insight and intelligence in his full stops than in an entire volume of the other man I should think.

[ichkeria]

And of yes the question
No I don't. Drugs are nasty and so are terrorists. Some terrorists probably use them. Not sure I can think of much else to say about it

[agchristie]

Without judging Peter's views on anything else or comparing to his brother or anyone else, has he reasonably exposed a link between the use of cannabis and serious criminality on the cases he has highlighted??

I would like to keep to the essence of the OP!!

[agchristie]

Ichkeria - posts crossed, so, he might be right then?!

[ichkeria]

Sorry but guy is just a rent-rant
It's very hard to read more than one line of his diatribes on anything without that thought striking one and knocking one off course. And there are plenty of other pearls of Hitchness in there as well as the "insights" on drug use.
So he thinks there might be a link between drugs making you feel weird and crime? I can't believe he is the first person to have figured that one out.
But he seems to be wetting himself because "liberal, left wing" thinkers (or at least Jon Snow and Matthew Parris) have had weird experiences. And they are the sort of namby pamby hairy types who would normally advocate we all get out of our heads on the stuff aren't they?
It's grotty Sunday rag journalism.

[ichkeria]

" I thought that he was saying that while Parris may have been a Tory MP, he was actually wringing wet, and well deserves being called a left winger. "

That is the barely disguised sub-text. But Matthew Parris, who recently declared the Labour Party incapable of achieving or being deserving of winning power, can hardly be called a "Left winger". If he gets even that wrong it doesn't say much for the rest

[vetuste_ennemi]

Ichkeria, I have re-read your comment and your meaning is now obvious. Am embarrassed by my misinterpretation. My unreserved apologies for my misguided post.

[jno]

to answer the OP, I posted a link suggesting the supposed ever-growing strength of cannabis is tosh. As for demonstrating a link between cannabis and crime - he hasn't. What about all the crimes committed by people who aren't smoking it? Do they show a link between committing crime and being unstoned?

[ichkeria]

No need to apologise v_e. It is very easy to make innocent misunderstandings on forums.
I do it all the time :-)

[vetuste_ennemi]

No, Divebuddy: I genuinely like and admire Parris (inasmuch, of course, as you can judge anyone's true character from what they write and how they may present themselves on TV - or AB, for that matter). There was no sub-text or veiled irony in my post to Ichkeria. I had a comprehension blackout when construing his original remark.

[ichkeria]

When we hear that Matthew Parris has joined IS then I think I will have to admit that Hitchens is right.
For his argument to carry any weight he would need to have some slightly more convincing evidence other than the likelihood that you might do some crime while off your head. I am not even sure what the point of his argument is? He is very anti-cannabis obviously, but looks more like he was trying to find something controversial for his column