
The War We Never Fought
The British Establishment's Surrender to Drugs
Failed to add items
Add to basket failed.
Add to wishlist failed.
Remove from wishlist failed.
Adding to library failed
Follow podcast failed
Unfollow podcast failed
3 months free
Buy Now for £14.99
No valid payment method on file.
We are sorry. We are not allowed to sell this product with the selected payment method
-
Narrated by:
-
Peter Hitchens
-
By:
-
Peter Hitchens
About this listen
Again and again British politicians, commentators, and celebrities intone that "the war on drugs has failed". They then say this is an argument for abandoning all attempts to reduce drug use through the criminal law. Peter Hitchens shows that in Britain, there has been no serious war on drugs since 1971, when a Tory government adopted a Labour plan to implement the revolutionary Wootton report. This gave cannabis, the most widely used illegal substance, a special legal status as a supposedly "soft" drug (in fact, Hitchens argues, it is at least as dangerous as heroin and cocaine because of the threat it poses to mental health). It began a progressive reduction of penalties for possession and effectively disarmed the police. This process still continues behind a screen of falsely tough rhetoric from politicians.
Far from there being a war on drugs, there has been a covert surrender to drugs, concealed behind an official obeisance to international treaty obligations. For all intents and purposes, cannabis is legal in Britain, and other major drugs are not far behind. In The War We Never Fought, Hitchens uncovers the secret history of the government's true attitude and the increasing recruitment of the police and courts to covert decriminalization initiatives and contrasts it with the rhetoric. Whatever and whoever is to blame for the undoubted mess of Britain's drug policy, it is not prohibition or a war on drugs, for neither exists.
©2012 Peter Hitchens (P)2015 Audible Inc.As London nears the legalization of Cannabis, imagine a world where drugs may be legalized simply because we refuse to do good policing. Hitchens takes a few jabs at the Wire, but what the TV Show got right is that drug policing is leading to worse streets. Drugs should be dealt with sharply, but Police should delegate this to community officers. We have far too many serious crimes.
Hitchens lays out a fantastic thesis for not only drug regulation but a review into SSRI, SNRI, and NaSSa drugs and Big Pharma.
As a former pain killer and anxiety sufferer, I welcome such sober and insightful study by Hitchens. As one who wallowed in pity for many years, I can attest to what Peter says. I had many Dr.s (MDs) prescribe me more and more Sedatives for anxiety. You can't take pills to escape the world. I think I just misquoted the receptionist from Psycho (1960). Anyway, to you there reading, a few passages are quite harsh and dated, but overall the substance of the book is very valuable and correct. Doctors are kowtowing to aggressive, non-compliant addicts. Cannabis needs to be chased down, and all supply routes stopped. We must go towards large fines: £1,000 or more. I recommend this book highly. Content: 5/5, Research: 5/5 (amazing), Narration: 5/5 (Superb speaker); Political Correctness: 3/5 :)
Must read(listen) for the youth
Something went wrong. Please try again in a few minutes.
A non typical approach, well worth reading
Something went wrong. Please try again in a few minutes.
Cracking book
Something went wrong. Please try again in a few minutes.
educational and enlightening
Something went wrong. Please try again in a few minutes.
important but very sad
Something went wrong. Please try again in a few minutes.
Devastating
Something went wrong. Please try again in a few minutes.
plough that furrow.
Against the consensus
Something went wrong. Please try again in a few minutes.
This is not to say that you will agree with every word uttered, but that is the point: To be open to ALL perspectives.
As someone who appreciates both Christopher Hitchens and Peter, I do not understand those who chose only to listen to one. To do so is like choosing to have only half an education. Here we have two brothers, both with brilliant minds, with polar opposite views, but who approach them with the same passion and integrity.
My only criticism would be that I would have liked a little more objectivity. For example, he criticises pop musicians for those occasions in which they have advocated drugs, but at no point does he acknowledge those occasions in which they have spoken out against them.
One gets the feeling that, to Peter, anyone who has taken so much as an aspirin in their lives, is a weak fool unworthy of being listened to and whose brain is no longer fit for purpose.
While the threat of prison may be a deterrent for some, surely the best way to to put people off drugs, is for them to see for themselves the damage long term use has done to so many. Therefore, the example set by rock stars is important. John Lennon for example, the dynamic force whose energy was at the forefront of getting The Beatles into the world's consciousness, was rendered a weak-minded, paranoid and subservient fool by drug use, often spouting rubbish that, in his heart, he did not really believe in. He later admitted to being embarrassed by his activism, and had become more conservative towards the end of his life - Again, something Hitchens has never acknowledged. Possibly because he doesn't know, and possibly because he does not care to know, as to do so would not fit the bias he has against such a person).
The book never takes into account the benefit of hindsight that Peter has. When The Beatles and The Rolling Stones condoned the legalisation of cannabis in the sixties for example, they were speaking out of the ignorant assumption that it was harmless (as Peter rightly said, those who are using it are in the worst position to judge this), but can Peter be so sure that he would not have been just as ignorant in 1967? It is very easy to criticise people fifty years ago, but no one was ever educated simply by others calling them idiots.
Still, this book is intelligent and thought provoking and definitely worth reading.
A Worthwhile Perspective
Something went wrong. Please try again in a few minutes.
The sexist author describes a female’s physical appearance as a means of belittling her, yet none of the males mentioned have their appearance scrutinised.
This book is how I imagine GB need to be, highly opinionated and sneering.
If you want a one sided, self righteous and sexist authors opinion this book is for you!
Something went wrong. Please try again in a few minutes.
Using several examples of serious crime involving cannabis and under his breath adding, the criminal was also high on alcohol or other drugs.
He is quite right in asserting people use drugs as an escape from the mundanity of an oppressive society but the rest is ‘I don’t like it so no one should be allowed it’
If he campaigned for better understanding and quality control, like alcohol, it would have come across better.
He clearly doesn’t want a lefty nanny state but proceeds to condone that government should take control and clamp down on personal freedom. Which is it?
Get the study done and have some facts before writing more on how you think it must be bad.
Gambling and alcohol are far more destructive in society and war mongering governments ruin and end far more lives than any drug.
Maybe he should have a joint and contemplate a solution to these questions!
Dull monologue highly opinionated
Something went wrong. Please try again in a few minutes.