It's a No Knock Raid

Canadian musician Lindy Vopnfjord, with Reason TV, has produced this music video for his song No Knock Raid. Some of the images are disturbing. It does show the violence that armed gangs of police impose on non-violent people routinely in the United States. As the song points out, don't worry if they raid the wrong house, they still get their kicks anyway.

We don't need a war on drugs. We need a war on SWAT. This sort of thing has to stop. And, if government ever does anything right, it would close down these paramilitary actions. But folks, think about it, what "civil rights" loving Democrats are out there fighting to end this sort of militaristic violence against the American people? What advocates for "small government" in the Republican Party are actively campaigning to end this big government violence?

MYOB isn't always the best policy.

One of the problems with platitudes about life is that life is more complex than they allow. Consider one that is popular with libertarian types: MYOB or Mind Your Own Business.

It’s not a bad rule if it is properly understood. But often I think it is misunderstood. There are most certainly times when you should NOT mind your own business.

Think about the obvious ones: you see an adult physically assaulting a child. Clearly you don’t want to mind your own business. You need to do something to stop the assault on the child. You have to judge how you do that, but minding your business would be monstrous under these circumstances. Perhaps you merely wish to call the police. Or, perhaps, you feel you have to intervene immediately.

Similarly there are times you ought not intervene.

One of the more interesting television shows is the reality show What Would You Do? It is interesting because the show sets up moral dilemmas for unsuspecting members of the public and then watches how they react.

Often people are heroes who make a stand for what is right. Too often there are just nasty, unpleasant people who turn a blind eye. Worse, some condone the cruelties they witness.

Often the show sets up scenarios where the moral imperative is to intervene. For instance, a teenage boy is seen screaming at his girlfriend in public, she is crying and he is threatening to hit her if she doesn’t obey him. People do step in. Sometimes they watch for a second, some just immediately call the police. But others immediately intervene.

I faced this dilemma once while in New York City. I was at NYU for a seminar and had taken a lunch break and was walking through Washington Square with its famed arch. A boy of about 13 was practicing tennis against the arch. His father was standing there pouring out the most abusive, screaming, tirades I had ever heard directed at a child. The whole reason was that the boy wasn’t perfect with his tennis strokes.

I first heard the shouting from a distance and looked around to see what was happening. I could see the boy cowering from this bully of a father, trying to make him happy. But this jerk kept screaming at the frightened boy. People were close to them. Some were only a few yards away. They all tried to pretend that nothing was happening. Maybe they thought they were minding their own business.

I was furious and when I get furious I rush in first, think later. I came barreling down on this bully and unleashed an equally vituperative volley of verbal assaults on him. As I got closer and closer he started backing away—typically cowardly of bullies like him. I truly felt like slapping this asshole across the face with a 2 x 4. The poor boy was terrified and like so many abused kids starting apologizing for his father and telling me that he, the boy, was the one at fault.

The poor kid wanted to blame himself for the monster that he witnessed in his father. I turned to the boy and said: “Don’t ever say that. It’s not your fault. It’s his fault!” I pointed at the trembling bully when I said it. People in the park watched the whole incident.

I walk away and not two minutes later I heard this jerk of a father starting over again. I turned back; ready to pounce on the jerk. Then I saw a man who had previous witnessed my altercation with the man heading it that direction. He immediately started telling off the father. He acted because my actions gave him moral permission to do so.

But in an episode of What Would You Do? the situation was turned around, sort of. When shouldn’t you intervene?

In this case they had a woman in a wheelchair with a physical handicap. An actress would play a customer who wouldn’t leave the woman alone, always wanting to “help” her. She was insisting on helping even when the woman was telling her to please stop. They then showed how other shoppers responded to this “well-intentioned” woman who wouldn’t mind her own business. The woman in the wheelchair neither needed, nor wanted the help being offered.

There is a lesson in that as well. Yes, we ought intervene when someone is being attacked by others. But, when they are doing fine on their own, and they don’t want you help then MYOB is quite appropriate.

This is what government can’t understand. They seem unable to make that sort of distinction. This is why government is such a pathetic problem-solver, often doing more harm than the problem it attempts to solve.

They see a girl being raped and they intervene. But they define her voluntary relationship with her boyfriend as rape and intervene even when she begs them not to do so. Politicians see individuals who exploited children to make pornography and ban it. But then they equally punish teens who take nude photos of themselves and punish them like rapists.

The obvious difference is helping people against their will. Government has trouble operating with moral nuances. It kills flies with sledgehammers. Now, there may be times to swing a sledgehammer at a problem, but often there are times when that is not wise. Government views life as black and white, not the multiple shades of gray that actually exist. So it is constantly swinging a sledgehammer that does far more harm than good.

Consider the young boy in Colorado with anger issues. His therapist told the boy to draw a picture expressing his anger, to release the anger. The boy got pissed at his teacher—given the state of government schools that is often a justified emotion. He few a picture of a stick figure with a gun and wrote: “teacher must die.” Remember, there was NO indication that he would, or even could do anything to carry this out. He finished the drawing, felt better and was throwing it away.

The teacher took the drawing from him. She talked to the parents and the therapist even confirmed the situation. Everyone was fine, and then the police stuck their nose into things. The child was then arrested and jailed while the parents scrambled to get him out. Police in particular seem to find it difficult to make moral judgments. They rush in, fists flying, when often a simple word or two would solve the problem. Now that government schools are acting more like cops than educators they are adopting the same “zero tolerance” mentality that infects the police.

Take the situation of another student, 15 year-old Nick Stuban. Stuban was suspended for buying one capsule of a synthetic compound that supposedly mimics pot. The product was legal, by the way. No laws were broken.

School officials had heard rumors of illegal drugs and investigated, not finding those they did discover that Stuban had purchased this legal substance and then questioned him, and had him sign a statement, without his parent’s present. This, by the way, is one of the most evil and dangerous features of government schools. The schools act as if they are police officers, but without any of the legal restraints that cops would have. They are doing a policing end-run around the Constitution. All employees at government schools are government employees or agents of the government. But the courts pretend they are not.

A teacher takes a cell phone from a 17-year-old girl and searches it without a warrant or probably cause. The courts say the teacher doesn’t need them. Teacher discovers a photo of the girl topless and shrieks “child porn” and calls in the police officer that is now often routinely stationed in schools to arrest children. The police officer looks at the photo and arrests the girl as a child pornographer and her life is ruined, as she is place on a sex offender list for the rest of her earthly existence.

Stuban was active in Boy Scouts, active on the football team, but these activities took place on campus. With a signed “confession” the school instantly suspended for 10 days and said they would suspend him completely. The appeal process took weeks. The 10 days turned into 20 days. Nick felt increasingly isolated from his friends.

The “zero tolerance” sledgehammer convinced many of Nick’s peers that something far worse had to have happened, otherwise the school wouldn’t act this way—a naïve view of government education. The education bureaucrats who have the kids and parents by the throat say they are merely “helping” the kids. An attorney who has worked with such cases said that the people being “helped” “feel very often that they are in the middle of criminal prosecution.”

The pressure built up for Nick. His mother was on a ventilator suffering from ALS. She struggled to stay alive telling her family she did it because she wanted to live long enough to see Nick graduate high school. The school bureaucrats and their sledgehammer made it appear that Nick would never graduate. Nick’s father, Steve, was confused. The school said they had no idea what the substance was that they were prosecuting Nick over. Steve said, “You have an infraction, you don’t know what the substance is and you arbitrarily apply the harshest standard to it.” Yes, that is the government sledgehammer.

A disciplinary hearing was held and school bureaucrats warned the family against bringing an attorney by the bureaucrats. They foolishly listened. Steve says the hearing turned accusatory and vicious. Sandy Stuban started crying in her wheelchair. Nick started crying. The school officials, no doubt, were proud of their sledgehammer.

Two more weeks dragged on before the bureaucrats told the family anything. Nick would be assigned to another school, where he couldn’t be with any of his friends. The bureaucrats thought they were being lenient. Steve told Nick, “There’s no way to win.” Depressed the teen actually did turn to drugs, something that wasn’t the case before. He was trying to find a way to ease the depression and pain he was suffering. The boy texted a friend that he wanted to take his life. The family took him to a psychiatric hospital where he diagnosed as clinically depressed. They treated him and advised counseling, which Nick started.

Nick took his own life, describing how much pain he was in and how unfair life was. Nick didn’t understand. Life is neither fair nor unfair, it merely is. People are fair, or unfair. In this case the government officials who pretend to be educators were the ones who were unfair. They used the sledgehammer.

They were morally and intellectually incapable of telling when help is needed and when it is intrusive. But that is how government is.

In summation: Peter Hitchens vs. this blog.

Peter Hitchens is still not pleased with my reply to his comments. The first article regarding Mr. Hitchens and his views on marijuana is here. His reply to that, along with my rebuttal is here. Below, in red, are his most recent comments with my reply in black. I fear that this will need to be the last such public discussion as I do not wish to make the blog “Peter Hitchens, every day, all day.” There are many other issues to address and too much time on one makes Jack, or Peter, a dull boy.

On the question of the enforcement of laws against cannabis possession, the crucial information is not the number of arrests, but the sanctions applied to those convicted, and the number of cases actually proceeded against in the courts. In England, the great majority of persons arrested for cannabis possession are given an informal 'cannabis warning' which entails no penalty and no record of any kind, and has no legal status. (I can supply figures on request and recently published them on my blog in an item about Professor David Nutt and accuracy) In effect, the English authorities have abandoned attempts to prosecute or punish the possession of cannabis.

I do not claim to know the situation in every state or jurisdiction of the USA. We do know that Loughner, found by police in a car stinking of marijuana and in possession of drug paraphernalia, was merely sent on a 'diversion programme'. We also know that 'medical marijuana' is about to be permitted in Arizona. I think this gives a pretty clear picture of the real state of affairs. Laws can exist which are not enforced, and are in effect dead.

I addressed this in both my previous replies. Mr. Hitchens ignores the actual statistics about imprisonment in the US for marijuana use and continues to pretend the laws “are not enforced, and are in effect dead.” I wish that were the case. Even after I pointed out that 47% of the 1.8 million people arrested for drugs were arrested on pot charges, Mr. Hitchens continues to claim that the laws are not enforced. After I pointed out that a person is arrested for marijuana in the US every 38 seconds, Mr. Hitchens continues to say the law is, “in effect dead.” I wrote that in 1992 there were 342,000 people arrested for marijuana in the US and that by 2007 it had increased to almost 830,000. Approximately 12% of all federal prisoners are in prison on pot charges, 88% for mere possession. The evidence shows the law is enforced and that Mr. Hitchens’ assertion that it is not enforced is grossly in error.

The list of events provided at the end of my critic's post is not referenced, the events are not dated, and I have no idea of the detailed circumstances involved. It is at least open to question as to whether they give an accurate picture of law enforcement in the US in general, in respect of cannabis possession.

The events listed, which were of people killed in raids by the Drug Warriors, did have some links included. But, most importantly, it gave the names of the victims of the Drug Warriors. A simply Google search would turn up the news stories outlining the circumstances. Mr. Hitchens could find any one of those stories in a matter of seconds were he inclined to do so. I suspect he is not inclined to do so because it is best to selectively ignore evidence that contradicts one’s own views.

I mentioned my critic's error over my newspaper (which is in itself unimportant) to make the point that errors such as mine (over the confusion between Pima County and the town of Pima) are easy to make at a distance. My critic does not understand the way newspapers operate in Britain. I mistook a county for a city of the same name in the same state. These are comparable errors. I admit mine and regret it. He tries to argue that his (equally minor) error wasn't an error. This is significant, as we shall see, for my critic ( who also doesn't seem to have withdrawn his early and self-serving rush to judgement on this site that the politically incoherent Loughner was 'right-wing') is a little less rigorous about accuracy when it comes to himself, than he is with others.

His critic, me, does understand how papers work in the UK. He seems unaware that I did live in the UK for some time, along with other Commonwealth nations. Mr. Hitchens did more than confuse the town of Pima with the county of Pima. He also wrote that the shootings took place in the town of Pima and labeled the town council of Pima as “liberal” for passing an ordinance they were required to pass by law.

Second, I did not make an error regarding The Daily Mail and The Mail on Sunday. Mr. Hitchens is adamant that they are separate newspapers; I insist they are two editions of the same paper. I listed the reasons for this including they are both called “The Mail,” both owned by the same individual, both run out of the same building, and share numerous staff members with each other (though editorial staff is separate) and are found on the same web page with no distinction between which is which.. That some staff is separate doesn’t mean other staff is not shared. One is the weekly edition of the Mail and the other is the Sunday edition of the Mail.

If you wish to check this out for yourself go to Dailymail.co.uk and do a search on "Peter Hitchens." The Daily Mail includes all of Mr. Hitchen's columns on their site. They only do this for the Daily Mail and the Mail on Sunday. Clearly the Mail on Sunday is not an entirely separate newspaper but is seen by the Daily Mail as another edition of what they publish, just one distributed on Sunday. It should be also noted that the Daily Mail website, when it shows you articles by Mr. Hitchens makes no clear distinction that they were published in Mail on Sunday. They don't seem to think the difference is very significant, neither do I.

And nowhere have I “withdrawn” my “early and self-serving rush to judgment” on Loughner holding right-wing views. I see no reason to do that. My position was explained in detail for those caring to read it, both in my main blog posts and in comments. I said that Loughner’s views, as he himself explained them in his rambling tirades, were right wing. I also said that it was schizophrenia, not politics that caused him to kill. That is not retreating from saying his views were right wing. I never said his politics inspired the shootings, only that his politics, in his own writings, were right wing.

One difference between what I what I wrote and what others have written, is that I am absolutely convinced Loughner killed because he’s crazy, not because he’s right wing, or because he smoked pot. Others are looking for a scapegoat, in order to further their own political agendas. I am not. I do not think marijuana is to blame, as Mr. Hitchens does, nor do I think Loughner killed because of his politics, as many on the Left have claimed. Loughner killed because he’s crazy.

Why do I object to the way in which he portrayed my article?

Let's look at what he said:

"Hitchens argued ... that the cause of the shooting was marijuana."

No. I said it might be.

My words: "From this, and from many other things we already know about this man, it seems likely that he has lost his reason. Why and how? The most likely cause is Loughner’s daily cannabis-smoking habit. "

There is a bit of bait-and-switch in Mr. Hitchens’ reply. He says the argued that marijuana “might” be the cause, not that it is the cause. First, when you say something “might” happen you are stating a very high degree of uncertainty. The term “most likely,” on the contrary, means one of very strong certainty. Mr. Hitchens writes using terms that convey very, very strong certainty as to his theory.

Mr. Hitchens claimed the link between marijuana and “serious mental illness grows clearer every day,” and then calls libertarians supporting legalization “wicked” for denying this. I address the evidence that no such link exists; Mr. Hitchens ignores what I said on those matters. Hitchens said, with no equivocation, that “Loughner is a marijuana victim.” What does that mean, in this context, if not that Loughner is where he is today because of marijuana? He didn’t say Loughner “might” be a marijuana victim, nor did he use the stronger term “’most likely’ a victim of marijuana.” He said he “is” a victim, a term of absolute certainly.

And victim can only refer to the present state of affairs for Mr. Loughner if it is to have any meaning whatsoever. To say he is a “victim” merely because he smoked pot, with no connection to the current situation, is to strip the term “victim” of meaning. Hitchens meant to imply, and did, that Loughner is a “victim” because marijuana put him the situation he is in today.

Another expression of certainty, that marijuana causes mental illness, is Hitchens calling pot “the little packets of madness on sale in every school.” He didn’t say that these “might” be packets of madness, or are “most likely” packets of madness. There was no equivocation in his writing. He made similar statements as facts, which are not facts. For instance, he said that it is new that America “now has legal dope as well.” First, America does not have legal dope now. That is a gross exaggeration of the facts. And, if it did, it would NOT be new. The first regulation on marijuana came in 1906 in Washington, DC. The first state prohibition was in California in 1913. The first federal attempt to regulate drugs was the Harrison Act of 1914, but it was the Narcotic Act of 1925 that really put prohibitionist policies into effect. Prior to these regulations there was pretty much laissez faire regarding marijuana. Marijuana might be relegalized someday, but contrary to Mr. Hitchens’ claim it is not now legal nor would relegalization be the “first time” in American history for pot to be legal.

The difference between an assertion of proven fact, and a suggestion that something is likely is important to me, even if it is not to my critic.It is at least partly important because my critic assails me for (amongs other things) ' poor reasoning, 'hysteria' and 'paranoia'.

Mr. Hitchens again uses terms of great uncertainty to describe what he said; yet his original article did NOT express such uncertainty. Hitchens said the “most likely” cause of Loughner’s act was marijuana and that the evidence is mounting to prove a connection between pot and mental illness. He didn’t just suggest that might be possible but said it was the "most likely" reason: thus the reason at the top of the list, ahead of all others, including the one that Loughner might have been destined for schizophrenia all along, whether he smoked pot of not.

Similarly, while purporting to quote from what I said, my critic wrote suggesting that I had said the following :' the smiling indicates "he has lost his reason." '

What I actually said was :"Look at the strange picture of the alleged killer Jared Loughner. He has just been arrested for a crime for which he could be put to death, if convicted. And he is smiling. From this, and from many other things we already know about this man, it seems likely that he has lost his reason."

My critic once again makes my conclusions harder, and my reasoning less cautious, than is in fact the case.Note, again, the conditional nature of the statement, the words 'it seems likely'. All my thoughts on this subject are expressed in this way. All my critic's summaries of them suggest a certainty which I did not express. Why? Because if he had reproduced what I actually said, his accusations of 'paranoia', 'hysteria', etc would have looked a little slender. Why cannot he just say that he disagrees with me, and explain why?

I did say I disagree with him and explained why. Oddly, it is the areas where I explained why I think Mr. Hitchens is wrong, that he completely ignores. I outlined why I think he is wrong that pot is all but legal in America. I explained why the evidence shows that there is no link between schizophrenia and pot use. Yet, in his replies, Mr. Hitchens never addresses those rebuttals. Apparently explaining why I disagree with him has no effect on him. His replies have not, to this point, addressed any of my explanations as to why he is wrong. He instead “pounds the table” and concentrates on minor points and not the substance of my rebuttal.

I agree that my critic doesn't directly state that my article was plagiarised. He manages, however, to suggest that it may be, being willing to wound but afraid to strike. Since he is such a stickler for accuracy in others, I urge him not to adopt this unlovely technique. The insinuation is without foundation, and an ad hominem trick which has no place in a serious discussion.

I said Mr. Hitchens borrowed an argument, not that he plagiarized. Kincaid’s article appeared first and used the same arguments. Kincaid, unlike Hitchens, actually tried to make more substantive claims about the link between pot and schizophrenia. I then replied to Kincaid’s piece and not to Hitchens, at that point in my article. I am not suggesting plagiarism, which would mean he borrowed Kincaid’s actual writing. I merely said he borrowed the argument. Similarly when it comes to business cycle theory I borrow Hayek’s insights, when it comes to guns I borrow the insights of John Lott, when it comes to religion, I borrow the insights of Mr. Hitchens’ brother, Christopher. We all borrow arguments and there is nothing wrong with that. Borrowing other people’s writing is plagiarism and a quite different.

He also attempts to attribute to me a claim made by someone else in a newspaper for which ( as it happens) I have never written . This is where it is slightly more important for readers to understand that the 'Mail on Sunday' has a separate staff and a different editor from the 'Daily Mail'. In this it is quite unlike the Sunday editions of North American daily newspapers. In any case, I am not responsible for, and cannot reasonably have attributed to me, claims made or opinions expressed by other writers in other newspapers. Or indeed by other writers in the same newspaper, if my critic wishes to persist in his mistaken belief.

He quotes as follows :"Hitchens' paper, the Daily Mail, has pushed this hysteria before. They previously said "a single joint of cannabis raises the risk of schizophrenia by more than 40 per cent." By the way the "more than 40 per cent" means 41 per cent. Why they couldn't say 41 per cent I don't know, other than the term they used sounds scarier. Percentages are funny things. For instance, if 50% of the population was going to die from cancer, and if going to Sunday School increased that risk by 41% it would mean that out of 100 people, instead of 50 dying then 70 to 71 would die. That is a huge increase. It is huge because the percentage is based on a large base."

I addressed this matter above. The Mail has a daily edition and a Sunday edition and has some staff that are different and some that are the same. They are two editions of the same paper. But, oddly Hitchens argues that he is not “responsible” for the other article in the Daily Mail. That’s fine and dandy, but then I never said he was responsible. Nor did I say he wrote the article, or wrote for that edition of the Mail. What I said was that the Mail “has pushed this hysteria before” and then linked to an article where the newspaper did precisely that. It is just to false to claim I tried "to attribute" to Hitchens a claim someone else made. I attributed the newspaper as the source, not Mr. Hitchens.

I should note that the Mail is a really sleazy newspaper, in my opinion. It mostly focuses on hysterical stories and celebrity gossip. It shouldn’t qualify as journalism. Its history is as pathetic as its current style. The publication was one of the few to openly praise Hitler and Mussolini and was sympathetic to the British Union of Fascists. Lord Rothermere said BUF leader, Oswald Mosley should be prime minister because he "is willing to act with the same directness of purpose and energy of method as Mussolini and Hitler have displayed." Science writer Ben Goldacre calls it “the home of the scare story.” Hitchens' piece on Loughner is a good example of such a scare story. Another example from the Mail was their distortion of the “sun rise” incident in Greenland, which I discussed yesterday. Light refraction caused it to appear as if there were some sun rise in Greenland two days earlier than normal. The Mail, contrary to the evidence, announced “the most likely” explanation was that the horizon was lower due to melting ice global warming. It was not the most likely one at all, but one of the least likely, and one that evidence easily disproved.

Or, get this “scare story” from the Mail Online. “World’s youngest pole dancer: Two-year-old boy’s shocking performance in New York park – under his mother’s proud gaze.” In typical sleaze fashion the Mail Online, which does publish Mr. Hitchens, describes the incident thus: “He grips the pole, gyrates his body then lies on the floor with his legs apart — all under the approving gaze of his mother.”

You would think he was doing a “pole dance,” as in a strip club. In reality there was a pole fitness exhibition in the park. People now use similar poles as a form of exercise and it has nothing to do with sex. The paper claims the boy “slides up and against it on his groin.” Video of the incident shows something that isn’t quite the way the Mail Online describes. As for it being “shocking:” shocking to whom? The audience in the park was laughing as this child tried to mimic the adults using the pole to work out. I suggest the video is not shocking, only that the Mail Online wants its readers to think it is shocking. The Mail Online implies this is “sexualizing” children. (See the video yourself below.) This is an indication of the kind of scare stories that is the currency of the Mail. I dare say that Mr. Hitchens original piece fits the genre perfectly.

As it happens I make no such claim. I refer only to the work of the noted British psychiatrist, Robin Murray, whose research on this matter is easily accessible to anyone interested. I recommend that my critic looks at what Professor Murray has to say.

In his most recent article my critic continues to suggest that I have made this claim about Schizophrenia, thus :'The question in the Loughner case is whether pot smoking caused him to become schizophrenic. There has been no evidence offered to show that to be the case, only wishful thinking on the part of the Drug Warriors enablers, such as Mr. Hitchens and Mr. Kincaid." And thus :'Even by his own theory, which I think is wrong, he says [ it is not clear in this passage who 'he' is, but it seems possible that it is meant to be me] that pot use doubles the risk of schizophrenia, that is from 1 to 2. He then equates that risk with the risk of lung cancer from smoking, which is actually 20 to 30 times higher. That is a tad bit dishonest. He doesn't give the actual numbers, he just implies they are equivalents. Why did he give that false impression?'(This passage also repeats a mistaken claim, explored below, about my comparison between the dangers of tobacco and cannabis).

My critic also manages to suggest that I posit that the risk of mental illness to cannabis smokers is equal to the risk of lung cancer for cigarette smokers. He asks "And are the risks equal as Hitchens implies?"

What did I actually say? This :'Not all cannabis-smokers lose their minds. And not all cigarette-smokers get cancer. But in both cases the risk is enough to cause concern.' It seems to me that nothing in these words 'implies' , let alone explicitly states that the risks are equal. It states that there is a risk. It makes precisely no claim about the size of it. In my view one person losing his reason because of cannabis use is cause for concern. I am not sure what my critic thinks, or how many people he is prepared to sacrifice on the alter of cannabis decriminalisation.

Odd, that when I list people killed by Drug Warriors, Hitchens dismisses it because it wasn’t linked, even if the names of people were listed and could be Googled. Yet, he never linked to an article by Murray, he merely says it exists. And I dealt with the argument Murray makes by noting that there has been no rise in rates of schizophrenia, even as pot smoking increased. Neither do rates of schizophrenia differ from nation to nation, regardless of the individual consumption of marijuana in those nations. The failure to see a rise in the rate of schizophrenia, over the last fifty years, in spite of greater consumption of pot, disproves the theory.

Mr. Hitchens doesn’t know who the “he” is that said pot use doubles the chances of schizophrenia. I should have been clearer there, but my original article said, “Kincaid claims “People who smoke marijuana are twice as likely to develop schizophrenia as those who do not smoke.” Remember that a good portion of my first article was not about Mr. Hitchens, but also include Mr. Kincaid’s similar claims. Oddly Mr. Kincaid also likes to cite Robin Murray as evidence for his attacks on the “drug lobby,” just as does Mr. Hitchens. However, numerous conservative anti-pot articles make the same claims as Hitchens and many claim the doubling. So, the reference is to the theory in general, more than to what Mr. Hitchens may think the increase is. Whether he thinks it is .4 or 1 he can explain himself. That is actually rather immaterial since no increase of any size has been detected.

Now, since my critic's attack is largely based on the suggestion that my article is unreasonable, short on logic and (he uses the expression twice, once in the headline and once in the text) 'paranoid' it seems quite important to me that my words, when examined are in fact cautious, conditional and reasonable. Yes, I know he made the link available, but as he well knows, there will always be plenty of people who will be happy to accept the poster's version of the article without checking the link. As for the use of the word 'paranoid', is my critic a qualified psychiatrist? Has he ever met me? Or must we conclude that the word was employed as cheap, ad hominem abuse?

In conclusion, Mr. Hitchens seems upset that my readers may not actually read his article, in spite of my linking to it. Well, that is not something I can do anything about. What I did do was give his rebuttal prominent display on my blog, twice. And in the original article I wrote I also added a link to his rebuttal. I dare say that is more than Mr. Hitchens does for his critics, but I could be wrong.

I also note that describing his arguments as hysterical and paranoid is NOT an ad hominem argument. I describe the arguments, not him. As I said, I don’t know him and don’t pass judgment on him as a person, only on his writing. Since I explicitly said I was not addressing him as a person, and since ad hominem quite literally means ‘to the man,’ a description of his writing cannot be an ad hominem attack.

Ad hominem is a form of argumentation that says you can’t believe someone because of who they are, or something personal about them. To say that their arguments are paranoid, hysterical, wrong, mistaken, in error, etc., is not the same thing. I laid out precisely why I think Mr. Hitchens was wrong. In other words, I did discuss the evidence, but in his rebuttals he oddly avoids all that material, as if it were never said. There is the maxim: “If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither on your side, pound the table.” I pounded on the facts, Mr. Hitchens pounded on the table.

We are now at the end of Mr. Hitchens’ second rebuttal to my reply to his original article. At the end of my reply to his first rebuttal I outlined several questions of fact that I thought he needed to address. They still need addressing. The most important is addressing why there has been no increase in rates of schizophrenia even as pot use increased. Such an increase should be apparent if the theory that Mr. Hitchens is promoting is correct. The absence of such evidence is a major hole in the theory. Mr. Hitchens has avoided that topic completely, in both his rebuttals. Similarly he has offered nothing to indicate that the “most likely” reason Loughner had mental problems was because he smoked pot. The links simply have not been produced and instead addressing factual issues, we got lots of table pounding.

While I do not feel that more space on the front page of the blog for this issue is warranted, Mr. Hitchens is free, like other readers, to post in the comments section. Or, he is most welcome to take the debate to the DailyMail.co.uk website, where his articles appear regularly. But, this blog has to move on to new issues, in order to avoid being tedious.

PS: In the comment section Mr. Hitchens left a reply suggesting that I should publish his comments without any reply on my part. That is a very odd way to have dialogue. He also says his comments are "still not posted on the thread concerned." The original post I made regarding Hitchens has a link to his comments which are published in full on the same blog. Mr. Hitchens complained that the blog only allows 5,000 characters in comments. That is true, and is the highest limit I can set, beyond that is out of my control. So he was being forced to send in multiple comments per reply. I gave his comments more prominence by putting them on the front page with all the comment in one post instead of three posts. He's still not happy. Well, he was given more space on my blog than I was given on his (zero), but still he complains. However, the idea that he should be allowed to say anything he wants, without a reply, is ludicrous, if not downright Stalinist.

Peter Hitchens is Not Happy

Peter Hitchens, the less reasonable writer in the Hitchens family, is not happy with my discussion of his badly done article in the Mail. I have posted his comments in the comment section, but will do so here as well, along with a reply. His material will be color coded and indented so you know it is Mr. Hitchens speaking, not I. None of his comments will be deleted or edited by me.

This account misrepresents my position in a number of ways. Those open-minded persons wishing to see how it does so should follow the link to the original article (which was published in the Mail on Sunday, a separate newspaper from the Daily Mail, though we share a website, a library and a switchboard).

This blog, of course, provided a direct link for the very purpose of encouraging people to check out the source. I don't think they will be any more impressed than I was, and judging from comments posted on the Mail website, it appears many readers of the article share my lack of enthusiasm.

As for the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday being separate papers, that is only true in that different people work on the editions. No staff at a paper can do the work 7 days per week. So many newspapers have a Sunday edition which is put out using other staffers. Mr. Hitchens says they are separate but "share a website, a library and a switchboard." True, they do share those things. They also share the same mailing address, implying the same office building and are also owned by the exact same company. I haven't investigated it, but I would suspect the two are printed in the same place, distributed through the same network, using the same trucks. Certainly the Mail website says that if you wish to place an ad in the paper you have to contact the same address for both as well. In addition subscriptions can be placed for both editions together. The only real difference is that different people work on the different editions and the one is called The Daily Mail and the other the The Mail on Sunday. That the Sunday paper is called "The Mail on Sunday" is meant, by the owners, to convey that it is a different edition of the same newspaper.

I concede and regret the error over Pima the city versus Pima, the county.

My point was that Mr. Hitchens should have fact-checked his article BEFORE publishing it. He clearly did not, otherwise such an obvious error should have been noticed. Given that everyone was speaking of the "Tuscon shooting" it is hard to comprehend how he could think that the shooting took place in the town of Pima. And his point was that "Pima" passed this ordinance on medical marijuana. But Pima County did not. So that entire point is factually wrong. Mr. Hitchens did not reply regarding why he accused the town of Pima of being "liberal" when they passed an ordinance which they were obliged to pass because of the voters of the state. You can't ascribe motive (being liberal) when one is required to perform in a certain way. That's like saying that all taxpayers approve of Obama because they pay taxes—the state doesn't give them a choice. And given the number of prominent conservatives who have favored legalization of marijuana it is a gross stereotype to suppose such a move is automatically liberal.

My point, that the USA's law enforcement authorities (like those in Britain) no longer take cannabis possession seriously is not invalidated.

I have to wonder if Mr. Hitchens actually read my article. At the end I reported on numerous people who had their homes violently attacked by gangs of cops using military gear, as if they were invading some hostile nation. For what reason? Marijuana possession. I'm sorry, but when SWAT teams attack homes, shoot family pets, "accidentally" kill innocent people, all in the name of stamping out marijuana use, that is about as SERIOUS as one can get. Yes, my article means that Hitchens' point is "invalidated." But here are some other numbers that invalidate his claims.

The Department of Justice says, that in 2007, 1,841,182 people were arrested for drugs. Of those marijuana arrests were 47.4% of the total. That is approximately 829,600 people. To put that in perspective, this is 1.6 people every minute of every hour or every day of every day of the year including holidays. Some 2,200 people per day are arrested for marijuana, or one person every 38 seconds, and Hitchens claims that law enforcement "no longer take cannabis possession seriously." Between 12 and 13 percent of all federal prisoners are incarcerated for marijuana, at a cost of over $1 billion per year. That doesn't include the cost of trials, prosecutions and law enforcement. American spends more per year to wipe out marijuana use than some countries have in their entire budget. Of those arrested some 88% were charged only with possession, not distribution.

So, we have people killed in marijuana raids, we have hundreds of thousands of people arrested each year for marijuana and hundreds of thousands imprisoned for it, and Mr. Hitchens wants to pretend that is not a serious attempt to stamp out marijuana. If armed SWAT teams, Drug Warriors killing non violent people, and the arrest and imprisonment of hundreds of thousands of people, is not an "serious" attempt, what would be? I cringe to think of the answer

Arizona's medical marijuana vote was not a sudden leap from iron-jawed prohibition to total liberalism, but part of a long incremental change, and it was during that period of change that Loughner was raised. The Arizona authorities effectively let him off with a 'diversion programme' after catching him in circumstances which would once have led to prosecution. This is not disputed.

Public opinion has shifted regarding marijuana use, that is clear. But the number of arrests for marijuana possession have followed a fairly steady line, increasing on average from year to year. In 1992 there were 342,000 such arrests, by 1997 it was 695,000, by 2001 it was 724,000, by 2007 it was almost 830,000. Notice a trend? Mr. Hitchens doesn't. In fact, he thinks the trend is going in the opposite direction than the actual arrest records would indicate.

Mr. Hitchens also seems to have problems telling the difference between correlation and causation. He never offers one shred of evidence that Loughner went insane because he had smoked pot. That Loughner was "raised" during a period when public attitudes toward pot changed means nothing unless conclusive proof is offered that Loughner killed because he smoked pot. So far, other than wishing it to be the case, Mr. Hitchens, and those using the same argument, have not offered any evidence for that claim. The only "evidence" for this case is the assertion that Loughner is grinning, so clearly his mind is not working ,and obviously pot must be the reason. I would lay a bet it is the schizophrenia that is the problem, not the pot.

Given the paranoid delusions of schizophrenics—and I should note I was once friends with someone who was seriously schizo and was called by his wife when he went off his meds, to try to help him—there is no indication that imprisoning Loughner for a year or two on pot charges would have prevented his attack. Loughner believed the government was out to get him (which is not necessarily a sign of insanity given what governments do). Having government agents arrest him, take him to a government court, and imprison him in a government jail, would not exactly dissuade Loughner of his belief. If anything it would have fed his paranoia. Certainly arresting a schizophrenic for pot use does absolutely nothing to treat his schizophrenia, which is the real underlying cause of the attack, in my opinion.

Yes, Loughner was raised during a period when attitudes toward pot changed. He was also raised during a period when attitudes towards gay marriage has shifted even more dramatically. That doesn't mean gay marriage caused him to kill.

The accusation of plagiarism is mistaken ( I had never heard of the person whose idea I am alleged to have stolen until today. It is not hard to see how anyone, on viewing the photograph of Loughner smiling after he had allegedly perpetrated a mass murder and as he faced the prospect of execution, might have concluded that he had lost his reason).

Actually I was careful to NOT make a accusation of plagiarism. I noted that Hitchens' article "seems to be a rewrite of someone else's article on the same topic." The grin phrase was not the only similarity. Whether that is coincidence is not something I can judge. But the arguments and logic are the same and I addressed both of them for that reason. Given Kincaid printed his article on a major Right-wing website, it is fair to think the arguments might have been borrowed but I never used the term plagiarism, which implied more than borrowing arguments. If not borrowed it just goes to prove that bad minds think alike.

The expression' cannabis victim' refers to my belief that many young people are given a false idea of the dangers of this substance, thanks to the powerful propaganda of the pro-dope lobby (which ranges from rock music lyricis, and the behaviour of rock stars, to making light of the breaking of the anti-cannabis , in movies such as 'It's Complicated', 'medical marijuana' (described by Keith Stroup of NORML as a 'red herring to get Pot a good name') , to sites such as this ).

That is a minor point actually, given the major points I did raise, but I'll address it. The cult of victimology uses the term "victim" loosely and imprecisely. It is a tool of political manipulation meant to exonerate individuals of responsibility and typically blame an inanimate object or something like "society" for the actions. A rapist can be called a "victim of pornography" by people who want to ban porn. A criminal tries to claim he was a victim of racism and thus had to act violently. A killer can be called a "victim of the gun culture." As for the "false idea of the dangers" of marijuana that is pretty much nonsense. The physical dangers are low, especially when compared to alcohol. Second, even if the physical danger were high individuals ought to be sovereign over their own bodies and be allowed to take whatever risks they wish. Given that I think individuals have the right to take their own life (though I would not necessarily agree with their choice) then anything else they do with their body is pretty much none of my business or Mr. Hitchens' business either.

I don't believe Mr. Hitchens was hired to be Nanny. The problem with statists like Nanny Hitchens is that, unlike real nannies, they use violence to get their way. The policies Mr. Hitchens wants in place, against people who are mostly peaceful, non-violent and who haven't violated the rights of others, requires that very violent action be taken. Armed SWAT teams assaulting private homes are the result of the nanny statism that Mr. Hitchens espouses.

I do not think marijuana is totally harmless. I personally believe that anything that impairs one's ability to think clearly and rationally, is a bad idea. I value reason. I have never used marijuana and never will. I have also never used any substance to get high including alcohol. When it comes to booze I can leave it, and almost always do. I've had one sip of beer in my life and disliked it. I had wine at dinners—usually when no other drink was offered. I had maybe three gin and tonics in my entire life, but never finished a whole one in one sitting, and that's it. I am not a prohibitionist and abstain for two reasons: one is that I dislike anything that might interfere with thinking and the other is that I don't think alcohol tastes good.

Mr. Hitchens prefers booze. I don't. He argues that drug should be legal because it "can be consumed safely with no harm to the person or others (except in the case of driving)." Pot can be consumed with no harm to the person or others. And driving is not the only way alcohol use can harm others. I hesitate to say it, because it is so deeply personal and disturbing, but as a child I witnessed the drunken fists of my father knocking my mother around the house. I experienced those fist myself as just a small boy. Sober he seemed apologetic, though he never apologized. I have the mental wounds to this day. And I saw the exact same thing with my grandfather. The idea that, other than driving, alcohol has no impact is absurd. People over-consume alcohol all the time and they act badly when they do. Domestic violence and alcohol consumption are strongly linked. I still wouldn't prohibit alcohol use per se.

Harm done to the self is no one else's business, harm done to others is. I believe that anyone who uses a substance that disrupts their thinking should be held fully liable for any actions they commit in that state. Being drunk or high should not be a mitigating circumstance.

And there is something seriously wrong with Mr. Hitchens' policy considering that the "solution" to pot use is worse than the problem itself. Yes, there are dangers to pot use, albeit minor ones in my opinion. But there are greater dangers in the war on drugs. I'd rather have six potheads on my front lawn than six Drug Warriors any day. I'd be a lot safer.

They do themselves grave and irreversible damage as a result. They are therefore victims to some extent, and readers of this site may wish to ponder on who, in that case, are the perpetrators.

Asserting "grave and irreversible damage" does not prove "grave and irreversible damage." Given the prevalence of pot use in society we all have known large numbers of people who smoked pot. That is the problem the Drug Warriors have. Because we have known so many people who have used the drug, we also have seen the impact. And for most, the impact is minimal and unapparent. Marijuana use jumped into the news when I was in grade school and I've watched the effects for several decades. The "damage" has bfar less than the damage caused by the war on drugs. A solution is only a solution if it improves the situation, not if it makes things worse.

While these victims can of course be blamed for breaking the law, it is a conspicuously unenforced law, and much of modern culture (see above) suggests that cannabis is harmless and acceptable. Indeed, places such as this site irresponsibly mock the warnings of people such as myself.

Repeating that the law is "conspicuously unenforced" doesn't make it so. See my above remarks to this false claim. He is merely repeating what he said earlier and it was false the first time, so repeating it doesn't make it any less false.

I responsibly mock people such as Mr. Hitchens, in spite of what respect I have for his brother (despite differences of opinion on many issues. I can say that I certainly enjoy conversations with Christopher more than correspondence with Peter). But mocking the hysterical, exaggerated fear-mongering that dominates so many causes is actually responsible and necessary. Liberty is under assault and the weapon of choice by statists of the Left and the Right is to exaggerate risk and induce fear. Whether it is the "planet is dying," "stranger danger," vaccines, or any other panic d'jour, these tactucs need to be exposed. Mr. Hitchens realizes the threat of fear-mongering when it comes to security, yet he indulges in the same tactic on issues that concern him.

Unscrupulous politicians and lobby groups use fear to try to stampede the public into making rash decisions. The results are almost always bad. When people exaggerate dangers to comedic levels, such as Mr. Hitchens does with marijuana, then laughter or ridicule is appropriate. Just because one is inadvertently funny doesn't mean the audience shouldn't laugh.

Yet cases of young people descending into lifelong mental illness after youthful cannabis use are increasingly common (a particularly sad case of this is known to me personally) , and it is as irresponsible to ignore these correlations as it was of Big Tobacco, and of smokers, to likewise ignore the early research of Richard Doll into the connection between cigarettes and lung cancer.

I addressed the issue of whether there is evidence that young people are "descending into lifelong mental illness," something coincidentally claimed by both Kincaid and Hitchens. The evidence is scant and trends seem to indicate the contrary. Let's run with the tobacco/cancer analogy. As tobacco use increased the incidence of lung cancer increased as well, rather substantially in fact. Increased use of tobacco did lead to increased incidents of lung cancer. But, with the pot/schizophrenia claim no such trend has been seen. Pot use has increased dramatically in the last fifty years, but the number of schizophrenics, as a percentage of the population, has NOT increased, it has either remained steady or slightly declined.

Another indication that the link is non-existent is provided by schizophrenia.com. They note that the percentage of people inflicted "is about .5% to 1 percent of the population." And they also note that these rates "are generally similar from country to country." That should not be the case if there is a link between marijuana consumption of schizophrenia. The rates should be higher in countries with higher levels of pot consumption and lower in countries with lower levels of pot consumption. That there is no difference implies, yet again, that the link between pot and schizophrenia does not exist.

What evidence there is shows a dramatically increased risk of schizophrenia related to genetics. The most the prohibitionists claim is that pot use doubles the risk. Yet, being the nephew of a schizophrenic quadruples your risk, being the brother of one increases you chances nine fold, being the twin brother increases it 17 fold, and being an identical twin increased it 48 fold. The evidence is strong that genetics, not marijuana, is behind schizophrenia.

Those who insisted that correlation did not mean causation in that case (as they did) look pretty foolish now. Those who currently preach complacency on this subject might ask if they are being responsible, and if they have taken enough trouble to inform themselves.

That is actually immaterial. That people said correlation was not causation in one incident, and were wrong, doesn't invalidate the principle. Correlation is NOT causation. The principle that correlation is not causation doesn't mean that there is never causation which matches correlation, but that you can't automatically assume it is, as Mr. Hitchens appears to be doing. Many things correlate with other things, yet are not the cause of them, even if sometimes they are. Each case has be proven on a case by case basis.

As for tobacco use, when I was a boy cigarettes were often called "coffin nails" and the common wisdom was that "smoking is bad for you." I heard that from smokers and non-smokers alike. People knew the risks when I was a boy and that was before the war on tobacco took off. The question is not whether there are risks in something, as there are risks in everything. The question is who should make the decision regarding the risk taking: is it the risk taker or the Nanny State. Mr. Hitchens wants the Nanny State and I prefer individual risk takers to make their own decisions. That, at the core, is the prime difference between a free society and an unfree one.

In Britain, the noted pyschiatrist Robin Murray says that many of his patients do not even believe marijuana is a drug, so successful has its portrayal as a 'soft' substance been.

It is not relevant to this case whether Loughner's use of marijuana was specially recent. Murray's work suggests that the dangers arise from use at an early age. Damage, where it takes place, seems to be permanent and irreversible.

This is a repeat of his central theme already addressed above. The question in the Loughner case is whether pot smoking caused him to become schizophrenic. There has been no evidence offered to show that to be the case, only wishful thinking on the part of the Drug Warriors enablers, such as Mr. Hitchens and Mr. Kincaid. That the levels of schizophrenia found among people has remained steady, while a substantial number of people have used marijuana, indicates that pot use does not increase schizophrenia. If it did both trend lines should go in the same direction, as happens with tobacco and lung cancer.

Those are the matters which Mr. Hitchens addressed. Let us focus for a second on what he ignored, which is also important.

• We still have no evidence that Loughner went insane from using pot. Loughner exhibited the classic signs of schizophrenia and did so pretty much on schedule for males. The average age for it showing up in males is 19.

• Mr. Hitchens did not address the accusation that the town of Pima was run by liberals. He made the claim and has nothing to support it, so he avoids addressing it in his reply.

• Mr. Hitchens admits he got the town of Pima confused with Tucson, being in Pima Country. He doesn't explain why he didn't check his facts before publishing his article.

• If there is a causation between schizophrenia and marijuana use Mr. Hitchens needs to explain why increased use of pot did not increase the rates of schizophrenia. That is central to the debate and he doesn't address it. Similarly he will have to explain the constant rates of schizophrenia from country to country, regardless of their policies toward pot.

ª Even by his own theory, which I think is wrong, he says that pot use doubles the risk of schizophrenia, that is from 1 to 2. He then equates that risk with the risk of lung cancer from smoking, which is actually 20 to 30 times higher. That is a tad bit dishonest. He doesn't give the actual numbers, he just implies they are equivalents. Why did he give that false impression?

• Mr. Hitchens completely ignores the point I made about the violence associated with the war on drugs. He focuses on the one violent act of Loughner, claims it is associated with pot, and then condemns pot use for that reason. Yet the war on drugs leads to about 100 armed assaults on people's homes per day. People have been killed by Drug Warriors. That harm is evaded by Mr. Hitchens. Even if one grants that drugs are not good that doesn't mean the war on drugs is the way to go. Whatever risks may be associated with smoking pot, turning smokers into criminals doesn't help them, and doesn't reduce their risks. It does, in fact, make them substantially worse off.