Recently finished reading Peter Hitchens' "The War We Never Fought" on UK drug policy.
He’s totally convincing on the title, sets out thoroughly how UK drugs policy has been diluted and showing the parties who stood to gain from this. He goes on to show pretty well how it served all concerned to continue the myth that drugs legislation here was draconian, and that anti-drug enforcement was rigorous. He’s convincing that neither were true.
Moral points are made heavily – including, it is morally unacceptable for politicians to mislead their voters. More widely, it is morally unacceptable for people to take stupefying substances merely for the purposes of pleasure and stupefaction. It is morally unacceptable for politicians to decriminalise intake of substances which have potentially very serious adverse health effects. In fact, its morally unacceptable to take any drugs.
His arguments showing US alcohol prohibition to be irrelevant are good, his case that medicinal benefits of cannabis are no argument for legalisation is rationally put. He makes a good parallel between the legalise cannabis campaigners and the pro-tobacco lobby of past decades – urging against making the same mistake twice. He does well to ridicule the political and unscientific classification system of drugs.
Its a work of philosophy by a philosopher, intended for the mass market, so its light on scientific detail of health effects, drug usage etc., but there’s also the point that this information is hard to come by as it appears to not interest the establishment in illuminating the truth – which has to be a worry, regardless of your personal views on the issue. Self-serving politicians come in for most scorn, which seems a safe tactic.
The book will confirm opinions but is unlikely to change anyone’s mind about the key question. It might make some surprising comments about the moral elasticity of certain politicians.