The War We Never Fought: The British Establishment's Surrender to Drugs by Peter Hitchens

The War We Never Fought: The British Establishment's Surrender to Drugs Reviews

• 
  Steve

  Compelling, even if it raises questions about the scope of government legislation. However, it is, in part, a pragmatic argument: why legalise something that is so troublesome?
  Very good on the regress into the 'permissive society.
• 
  George

  As a big fan of Peter Hitchens this book was pretty underwhelming. The main thesis of the book: that the war on drugs in the United Kingdom was never really fought and that drugs have negative consequences, is a thesis that I am very sympathetic towards. Unfortunately, I think that Peter gets a little too lost in the weeds here. I actually think this book would have been better if it was wider in scope rather than narrow. I'm not British, but i did appreciate the history of drug use/abuse in that country and it was interesting to see the parallels. However, I think if he would have taken the legalization of drugs in general to task it would have been a lot better. This book ended up feeling like it has a lot of dead space in it as the history is recounted and Hitchens takes to task certain Prime Ministers and other public figures. Which I don't think helped his argument too much other than to say, "Yes, the British establishment was limp wristed." I think this could have been achieved in a better way if it was woven in with arguments against drug legalization more broadly. It also would have made it more applicable.
  The most interesting part of this book was seeing the parallels between American lack of enforcement on drugs and the similar situation in the United Kingdom. I would agree with Peter and essentially say that the war in the United States has been lost for many of the same reasons that it was lost in the UK. The two chapters that I most appreciated was the chapter on the difference between alcohol legalization and drug legalization, and the chapter on medical marijuania. If the book had been a longer form arguement of both of those chapters I would have loved this book. This book was okay, but in its current state this book won't convince pro-drug people and won't be applicable enough to help the prohibitionists.
• 
  Chris Hall

  While I agree with the general sentiment of the book, I have to say this is not a great presentation of it. It's the first book I've read of Peter Hitchens and if this is typical then it's safe to say that Christopher was the more intellectual of the two brothers ...
  
  One crucial failing is that Hitchens repeatedly says that both the British system of drug classification and the distinction between 'hard' and 'soft' drugs is unworkable because the harm caused by drugs cannot be objectively measured. This may be the case but this is (at least supposedly) also the basis of the distinction between legal and illegal drugs - a distinction central to Hitchens' argument and one for which he offers no alternative definition.
  
  It's also surprising that a book on drug laws doesn't actually contain a definition of the word 'drug' - an umbrella term that can mean different things to different people. The bedrock of any legal system is a precise definition of terminology as is the criticism of it.
  
  I was also surprised that Hitchens doesn't look at any parts of the world where drug laws have been (formally) relaxed - such as Amsterdam - to see the impact the changes have had.
  
  The second part of the book traces the evolution of British drug laws from the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 through to the present day but at no point does Hitchens take into consideration how the drugs available since then have changed. The drugs available in 1971 that the act was intended to deal with were very different.
  
  He does make a few good points though - particularly about the use of the word 'addiction' being used to convert drug users from perpetrators of a crime to victims of a crime (by dealers) and in how drugs break the psychological relationship between effort and reward.
• 
  Lisa

  Peter Hitchens is a better orator than writer. While the premise of the book is engaging as a talk, it comes across as a dry read. Still, if you've been raised on the libertarian fictions of "well if we just got rid of the drugs laws there'd be less CRIME" he is refreshing.
• 
  Colin

  You know what you're getting with a Peter Hitchens book - old-school conservatism that takes no prisoners, is a bit pompous and occasionally stretches the facts a bit further than they warrant. This one mainly focuses on cannabis. The wider context of the world stage isn't considered and other drugs get a nod but they're only background. The US fought the war on drugs harder but seems now to have decided to drug children with ritalin, antidepressants, puberty blockers, and edibles. And then they wonder why, as adults, they end up taking a fuck-ton of opiates. I think looking at their bad example would be useful even though our health system is less broken than theirs.
  There are some surprising omissions relating to the intensive farming of the drug and the increased strength. Actually, that's maybe not so surprising, since acting as though cannabis had always been what it is now increases the righteous indignation against those who advocated its use in the sixties.
  Another seeming weakness of the book is its contradiction of other aspects of PH's wider philosophy. He has written a book called "The Abolition of Liberty" in which he argues for the idea of liberty in general. In this book he is arguing for curbing liberty, which I think is fair in the case of a drug that is definitely harmful. But he doesn't say he wants to curb liberty, he claims that freedom "doesn't include" the right to intoxication. This seems like double-talk. If you're going to curb freedom, just have the balls to say that's what you're doing and stop trying to have it both ways. What he's doing parallels debates about free speech where people claim that blasphemy or "hate speech" are simply not valid speech so they can try and shut people up and still pretend that they are 100% for pro speech. Hitchens is using the same special pleading and it would be a stronger case if he'd just admit that freedom should have its limits.
  
  All in all, I'm glad I read the book, despite the flaws, he makes a strong argument. I hear the case for legalisation all the time, but it's not often someone reminds us that hedonism has its downsides. It is weird, if you think about it, that all around the world there are fewer and fewer people smoking cigarettes but a lot of people seem to have convinced themselves that weed is magically not bad for you so that's on the rise. Years of it being illegal and people saying "well, we should decriminalised it because it doesn't kill as many people as booze" have left people believing that its less harmful than booze. It's not, of course. It kills fewer people because its used less, that's all. It's as bad for your lungs as fags, stinks worse, and seems to be correlated with a lot of mental illness. Nah, mate, get a bit more of this fella's ideas into policy decisions now before it's as common as fags were in the eighties.
• 
  Daniel Hurt

  This book is in part an empirical argument, and in part a moral argument.
  
  The empirical argument is strong - that there has never been a 'war on drugs' in the UK in any meaningful sense. Hitchens has documented in some detail the machinations of government mainly since 1971 to loosen legal restrictions on drugs, and his case is compelling. One need only compare the UK to some countries in the far east to see quite how far we have been from a stringent anti-drug regime.
  
  The moral argument is weaker - that there ought to have been/should be a 'war on drugs' in the UK. Hitchens doesn't spend much space engaging with liberty-based arguments for the state not involving itself in the behaviour of competent adults, and brushes off the arguments most famously put forward by J. S. Mill unconvincingly. His positive case that drug taking is wrong in itself is a mixed bag, but I found his response to 'what about alcohol and tobacco' particularly strong and consistent.
  
  As an aside, I get the sense that Hitchens' worldview has probably not changed a great deal between writing this book and the Covid pandemic. There are apparent parallels between his more tenuous claims that drug taking involves negative externalities/harm to others and (similarly weak) arguments that have been used in support of disproportionate reactions to the pandemic in the UK and abroad (lockdowns and the like) which he has been fiercely critical of himself. It isn't clear what principal Hitchens is using to support the first but reject the latter.
• 
  Tim Pattison

  Listening to Peter Hitchens and reading his books are very similar experiences. That is a tribute to his spoken eloquence, but perhaps less of a tribute to his construction of a book. I like listening to Peter Hitchens as he disrupts the prevailing views of so many so much. I was hoping that the book would go into greater depth than it did to help me understand why I feel attracted to many of its ideas. While Mr Hitchens might say that there are longer, more heavily annotated and referenced texts on drugs policy, I was hoping that more additional reading and references would be provided (there is some, not not enough to satisfy me).
  
  Finally, though it is perhaps not an area where Mr Hitchens felt he had enough expertise, I, as someone who has lived in East Asia, would have liked some comparisons with the prevailing and, I would guess, highly successful counter drugs policy of nations in East Asia.
• 
  Britney

  It's a very surface level rebuke to drugs. I have only learned a bit about Hitchens's politics and that's about it. No description of what a drug is, the British classification of drugs, or much of any standard police procedure. He complains about marijuana being demoted to a soft drug because he thinks all drugs should be treated the same. I appreciate that he held that to alcohol and tobacco. However, there's little mention of psychiatric drugs and no mention of other legal drugs (besides alcohol and tobacco). Hitchens has a rather Puritan approach and no nuisance. There's no explanation of various terms and little statistics. I'm disappointed and finished due to pure spite.
• 
  Colin Hoad

  An interesting look at the arguments against drug liberalisation. I wasn't as taken in by this book as Mr Hitchens' other works, but it was still (as always with his writing) a refreshing and provocative look at an issue that has few serious opponents.
• 
  Our Dear Savior, Jim Pickens

  An eye opening commentary on the facade on 'The War on Drugs'
• 
  Edward

  Interesting reading, even though I disagree with his arguments about drug legislation. It was still a fascinating history of drug laws in the UK and the author's view on how they're enforced.
• 
  Tim Pattison

  If you like his columns, this is an extended version.
• 
  General Kutuzov

  Quite good, although of limited use to Americans.
• 
  Alfred

  "I think it is important for our society to wonder why it has lately become so ready to accept that human woe can be cured or soothed by chemicals. These chemicals do not alter or reform the ills of our civilisation. They adapt the human being to them."
• 
  Charlie

  Peter Hitchens makes his point and makes it well.