This is the remarkable row between Maajid Nawaz and Peter Hitchens.

thought about what I've just said how I've introduced it and some of the remarks from their words completely biased and actually fantastically fundamentally and profoundly ignorant what's meant to be its opinion PETA wasn't meant to be ignorant I'm sure what is meant to be by so many so many people you are a victim of billionaire propaganda of one of the most successful lobbies that has ever taken place for the poor for what will be if it succeeds one of the biggest businesses in the world the stupefaction of millions for money and the ruining of many many thousands of lives probably hundreds of thousands of lives possibly millions as a result and you will then be among those responsible for those ruined lives the trusted City Council increasing correlation yes tell us then tell us then uninterrupted yeah seven minutes of diatribe about this I've spoken for about 20 seconds and you've begun to interrupt me I was about to ask you a question I might have enough time to say anything or are you going to have a completely and totally biased program without any intent can I ask you a question about you can I ask you a question about you interrupting me then let me finish what I'm saying but no interrupting in the middle of a sentence for goodness sake after seven minutes of diatribe Peter yourself Peter Peter there's no point in my being on this program no no I I understand that but I would ask you a question what I'm trying to say that instead of interrupting me every breath I take all right okay I TV for that now I see what finish finished that then let me ask you a question gone little and finish let me make my point go for it go for it the point is quite simply this apart from the fact that marijuana or cannabis depending on which jurisdiction you're in is is a drug increasingly correlated with irreversible severe mental illness just at the time when it is it is becoming fashionable to say it should it should be it should be made legal the other point is this that we have done since 1971 in this country the biggest decriminalization experimenting drugs in any major country in the world what happened under the 1971 misuse of drugs that was a possession was progressively decriminalized to the point now where the police barely bother to arrest or charge people for possession of cannabis particularly but of the other drugs as well so possession which is which is the which creates the market possession which allows millions of selfish kids all over the Western world to poor their dollars euros and pans and yen they're less though in Japan because they're they have serious drug laws to pull all this money into the drug trade the source of all these billions the real mr. big in the drug trade is all these selfish Western kids buying the drugs about whom we do nothing and we concentrate entirely and your guest has been concentrating entirely on one end of the of the trade and only one end leaving the other end untouched to do nothing about demand and concentrate entirely on supply is a complete waste of time and has been so do we have your permission now to have a response from Neil there we need to have a response though don't we flying's were in 1994 John O'Connor said cannabis was a decriminalized drug in this country now to say it to say that we're in some way criminalizing persecuting prohibiting this drug is absurd for decades in this country we have allowed it to be sold and consumed pretty much openly and we only persecute or prosecute some of the suppliers it's been a failure because it's it's it's only one half of the job and it cannot conceivably succeed to make out of that an argument for legalizing a drug against which evidence of serious danger is now piling up in every conceivable area of research it's so irresponsible it takes my breath away and this is the this is the fruit of an enormous leap our four billionaire campaign and it really is a billionaire okay so you're very clearly a very PETA people you're very angry about this I can see but allow me to ask you a question Peter Hitchens Peter Hitchens please let's be slightly less accusatory and have a conversation about this I'm not helping anything I'm giving I'm a pining on a subject I have no power I can assure you you probably have a louder voice as a columnist on this subject who's written a book about it then I do I may have a voice but not on drugs so I'm a pining on a subject so allow me to ask you a question please right so the question I have is there are health risks of course to all forms of intoxicants in your opinion how do you distinguish the health risks that are related to alcohol and the social costs of alcohol consumption versus marijuana and I just want your opinion on this I'm not making any accusation Peter so in your view why is alcohol exempt here's a simple point which you need to absorb once a drug is legalized and in general widespread use you cannot ban it if we if alcohol are being introduced now as Mario honorees into our society nobody sane would be pursuing its legalization if we knew if we knew what alcohol did before it was legalized we would have stopped it being legalized it is a it is a catastrophe for our society but it is the argument of a moral to suggest that having one or two dangerous legal poisons in society justifies having a third and how can that possibly make it sir you or any substances this morning you seem incredibly angry extreme extreme anger the way in which this debate is conducted totally one side one question in getting a word in edgeways to make to make the serious point which which needs to be made that people need to be protected from this very dangerous drug and you have just used your responsible position broadcasting to propagandize for misery the the ruined lives if you if you could see that the ruin which comes on on the families of people who take this drug and actually witness it you would simply not say the things that you've been saying this afternoon it's unbelievable to hear it being said on a major broadcasting channels such as yours so I should in said censor my thoughts and just allow you to speed at empty find out something about the subject about what you plan you know very little indeed that would be a good start thank you can I ask you some more questions because I you know I genuinely am trying to learn from you but it doesn't help if you're insulting me like this pizza people have to know that what you're saying is irresponsible and wrong good right and moronic and all the other things you said however let's ask you another question so that pragmatic argument you used to say that because alcohol is already out there we can't remove it I agree with right so and you're saying that any only a moron would take the approach that we can't now just take something away that it's there because it's consumed by almost a majority in at least in this country is an argument for introducing another legal poison yes right so my I suspect that that pregnant art pragmatic argument you just given would would lead you to take the the to the conclusion that if we'd were to become as popular and I suspect it has been that surely pragmatically it makes sense now to regulate the thing no I mean first of all it hasn't become anything like as popular and there's nothing like as widespread in use as alcohol and as soon as as soon as it is legalized it will become so because it will then be promoted it will be sold on the internet it will be sold in high street shops it will be advertised it will be everywhere and it will it will be almost impossible to stop very powerful very very powerful vested interests very big businesses will move in and as indeed the the tobacco industry which which is an example of the regulation of which you speak will cynically and we're told constantly what about all these gangsters sure there are gangsters selling drugs but are gangsters in any way seriously worse than cynical businessmen who actually have access come on Peter cynical businessman make money they don't kidnap people they don't kill people you know that's an absurd thing you've just said and now it's my turn to tell you that you've said something moronic businessmen may be nasty they may be immoral they don't kidnap people they don't slay people they don't shoot people they don't torture people yes gangsters are worse than businessmen you're sounding like a communist PETA etchings you're sounding like a communist no it's my turn to speak no no no petitions it's my turn to speak and then we're going no no hold on a minute you cannot say that businessmen are worse than gangsters that's like I had a corner on the other day who tried to convince me that politicians are worse than Isis all this hyperbole is absolutely ridiculous Portugal has had an experience with a decriminalization of drugs and crime went down yes some businessmen may have made profit but crime went down some US states have had an experience with a decriminalization of marijuana and they found that the regulation has led to wonderful benefits for their states the economy has gone up and they've raised millions thousands in tax revenue that they can put towards their health service they can put towards a treating some of that addiction you seem to be so concerned about yet only are interested in swearing and insulting people so peace a chance thank you for joining me on my show but I must say that we have to have a reasonable conversation about this and not just hurl abuse at people

9 thoughts on “Peter Hitchens vs Majid Nawaz – Heated debate over Marijuana Legalization.

  1. 8 minutes of angry old man rant, for more of this speak to the grumpy guy in the corner from f the village pub who's never lived on council estate or if they did sold their ex council house for 1/2 a million quid and talks about how they earned every penny they got.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *