Problems of Debate

 

I bother with Mr Wooderson because I think he is not wholly beyond reason.  But the points I tried to make to him in an intervention yesterday don’t seem to have had the required effect.

I wrote: “Why is Mr Wooderson so anxious to die in the last ditch for such a rotten cause? He writes : 'evidence of the danger cannabis allegedly poses to mental health isn't growing, is it? With the exception of the recent study showing that long-term use by teenagers can reduce IQ, which is hardly a remarkable finding, quite the opposite is true.' I am really not sure how he can make this assertion. There is a huge number of studies suggesting that cannabis use may be linked to mental problems of one kind or another, not least the South London longitudinal study. Then there is what people such as him dismiss as 'anecdotal' evidence, but which seems to be enough to persuade eminent figures such as Professor Sir Robin Murray (a distinguished psychiatrist) and my friend Patrick Cockburn, a distinguished and experienced journalist of great probity and scrupulousness, that something significant is going on. I really cannot see how Mr Wooderson's blithe and breezy complacency cancels out such assessments, in a controversy in which there is ( as I repeatedly explain) an unavoidable and probably insuperable absence of exact, measurable knowledge). Sometimes humans have to act without certainty, using reasonable doubt (for instance) as a basis on which to act. What we have is not an absolute certainty but a reasonable doubt supported by so many 'anecdotes' that they simply cannot be dismissed as isolated events of no significance. In the reasoning mind, there must surely be more than one way-station between total ignorance and perfect knowledge. In an argument among normal civilised human beings, in which one side concedes to the other that he has not achieved perfect knowledge, and does not claim to be totally sure, the other side recognises this concession for what it is - an honest admission by a truthful person, made so as not to bring dishonesty or false claims in to the debate.. In this argument the pro-drug liberationists are so gripped by their dogma that each man rules his own body in total sovereignty, that they treat reasonable caution, and wise concession, as weakness. Thus their debating technique lacks all generosity, and they never learn anything from their opponents, or advance one inch beyond the position they held at the start of the discussion. I give an example of this below, from Mr Wooderson's pen: "Of course, if 'mental illness is not exactly or objectively defined', then the claim that cannabis is responsible for it is unfalsifiable, and thus scientifically worthless. There can be no evidence for it, growing or otherwise. Ironically, Mr. Hitchens elsewhere uses the fact that dyslexia as a condition is ill-defined as proof that it doesn't exist – so presumably we can infer from this that mental illness doesn't exist, and therefore that cannabis is harmless?' No, we cannot. Mental illness is a condition of far greater breadth and depth than the alleged condition dyslexia'. Nor, unlike the problems faced by those allegedly suffering from 'dyslexia'(whose difficulties invariably arise from bad teaching of reading, and can be corrected by good teaching of reading) can the problems of the mentally ill be explained by other factors, or resolved by other means. Mr Wooderson plainly has a brain. I do wish he would use it, rather than submitting it to dogma and so closing down his thinking.”

He replied : “Mr Hitchens writes, 'There is a huge number of studies suggesting that cannabis use may be linked to mental problems of one kind or another' I'm not sure about a 'huge number', but there are certainly a number of studies suggesting this. My point, though, is that their claims have become increasingly modest, to the extent that one might reasonably suspect the initial spate of alarmist findings to have been misleading. Robin Murray, however distinguished, is just one man, and the frequency with which his name crops up in connection with anti-cannabis studies hints very strongly at an agenda on his part. In any case, Mr Hitchens's deference to Murray's expertise clearly doesn't extend to accepting his policy recommendations, as I believe he advocates some form of legalisation. If we're to accept anecdotal evidence as relevant, then we should at least be consistent about it, and admit that those who claim to have smoked the drug for years without suffering any serious harm may have a point. Of course, anecdotes like Patrick Cockburn's tell us little about whether cannabis was actually responsible for his son's fate or whether the connection can be explained in some other way – an issue that Mr. Hitchens is quick to dismiss as merely obfuscation by the cannabis lobby. It seems to me to be just as irresponsible to disregard such doubts when advocating imprisoning a large section of society as it would be to dismiss any evidence that cannabis may be harmful.”

And further : “Mr. Hitchens continues, 'Sometimes humans have to act without certainty, using reasonable doubt (for instance) as a basis on which to act.' This precautionary principle might be reasonable enough if we were talking about allowing the sale of a newly produced pharmaceutical drug, but we're not. Rather we're discussing the most widely used illegal drug in the world, the demand for which is allowing violent drug cartels to devastate South America, after years pursuing an approach for whose effectiveness there is little concrete evidence. Personally, I'd rather a small number of cannabis smokers took a chance with their mental health than that innocent Mexicans continue to die because of a vague hope on our part that an aggressive war on drugs might put a stop to it. 'Mental illness is a condition of far greater breadth and depth than… dyslexia'.' But isn't it the 'breadth and depth' of the symptoms of dyslexia that prompt Mr. Hitchens to doubt its existence? I don't see what 'breadth and depth' have to do with it anyway.’

**I respond here:  No, it is not the ‘breadth and depth’ of the symptoms of dyslexia which ccause me to doubt its existence. It has no ‘symptoms’ as it is not a disease.  It is the ready availability of a good alternative explanation for these supposed ‘symptoms’ , which merely consist of an inability to read, plus the fact that it can be ‘cured’ by proper teaching of reading.

Mr Wooderson continues : ‘ Either mental illness and schizophrenia are so ill-defined that we can make no claims as to whether cannabis is responsible for them (and Robin Murray's work is therefore junk science), or they're well-defined enough for the lack of any increase in the rate of schizophrenia to be of interest. ‘

I respond. Professor Murray is a Psychiatrist, a follower of an inexact science. I forgive him for this because he is also a qualified doctor, trained in exact sciences.  I also forgive him for it because he sees, frequently, people whose minds are clearly not functioning normally. If he finds the categories of ‘psychosis’ and ‘schizophrenia’ useful to describe them, who am I to object?   He chooses to use such terms as ‘psychosis’ and ‘schizophrenia’. I would question the boundaries and definitions of these complaints. But I would not question his medical opinion that the people involved are in some way ill.  I have repeatedly answered the point about the lack of increase in the ‘rate of schizophrenia. I’d be grateful if Mr Wooderson would address that, rather than ( yet again) repeating what he and his allies said before I answered it, * as if I had never answered it *

Mr Wooderson then quotes me 'unlike the problems faced by those allegedly suffering from 'dyslexia'... can the problems of the mentally ill be explained by other factors' .

He says : ’They can, though, which is the crux of the debate about correlation and causation.’

I reply ‘Oh, really, And how can they be explained?’

 'I do wish he would use it, rather than submitting it to dogma and so closing down his thinking.' And I do wish Mr. Hitchens would accept that it's possible to disagree with him without being in the allegedly all-encompassing grip of the cannabis lobby.’

I reply. ‘It may well be possible. But Mr Wooderson has yet to show that it is possible in anything he has said. His arguments are identical to those used by the cannabis lobby. I have no idea why he wishes to support them, except perhaps because he is some sort of show-off. But if he wishes to expose unknown numbers of young people to the needless ruin of their lives *without* having any ulterior motive, then doesn’t he see that makes his moral position even worse?’

There are several points I’d make, all linked to the problem of debating in a civilised fashion. The crucial thing here is that you actually deal with your opponents’ points First, what does he mean by suggesting that Professor Murray has an ‘agenda’? As he rightly points out, the professor does not share my view about the law (then again, that’s not his area of expertise. I might possibly know more than him about the nature and operation of British drug law) . So what might that ‘agenda’ be? As far as I can tell from his writings ( I don’t know him) Sir Robin’s concern is over the strong apparent connection between cannabis and the large number of distressing cases he sees in his practice as a psychiatrist in a part of London where drug use is, how shall I say, unrestrained. The word ‘agenda’ seems to me to suggest a hidden self-interest. Given that Mr Wooderson objects to my criticism of him, that he is at the very least the unwitting tool of powerful commercial and moral forces, it’s a bit cheeky of him to hint darkly that one of this country’s most distinguished psychiatrists has an ‘agenda’.

I’ll leave it to others to refer to the many studies linking cannabis with mental illness. I don’t myself think it’s in doubt. Neither do I doubt the existence of many studies claiming therapeutic properties for cannabis. The difficulty (for both arguments) lies in the establishment of a causal link so objectively demonstrable that all are compelled to accept it . The widespread acceptance of IQ measurement as an objective science has, for once, made this possible in the case of the recent study. Generally, it isn’t.

I don’t myself rule out the possibility that some ingredients of cannabis may conceivably have some therapeutic properties, though I will not take these claims seriously until those who make them separate themselves from the general campaign for legalisation. How can a serious campaign for the licensing of a medicine have anything to do with one for the legalisation of a pleasure? The question is also whether these supposed benefits outweigh its grave ill-effects enough to justify its treatment as a medicine. Thalidomide was, I believe, highly effective against morning sickness. But the side-effects rather cancelled that out as a recommendation. Is permanent damage to the intelligence serious enough? I should have thought so. Is a general deterioration in mental wellbeing, almost impossible to measure, varying from person to person, a strong enough case against?  I should have thought so. Insisting on definitive objective proof of a link between cannabis and mental conditions whose own limits are not objectively defined is not an argument, but a trick played on the ill-informed.

By the way, when Richard Doll and his colleagues made their initial studies which *appeared* to show a link between cigarettes and lung cancer, they all immediately gave up smoking. Qualified scientists, versed in the language of laboratories and peer review, did not insist on total certainty before taking action. This was perfectly reasonable behaviour. Maintaining, and strengthening the legal barriers against widespread use of cannabis, especially by the young, is similarly reasonable.

Then let me dissect this section of Mr Wooderson’s response: ‘ If we're to accept anecdotal evidence as relevant, then we should at least be consistent about it, and admit that those who claim to have smoked the drug for years without suffering any serious harm may have a point?’

I have addressed this alleged ‘point’  many, many times. I would be grateful if just one spokesman for the legalisation side would respond to my rebuttal, rather than just saying the same thing over and over again. One of the reasons why this discussion is so frustrating is that the pro-drug [partisans are so utterly confident in their closed  world of smug mutual support that they never even try to respond. Thus we remain always in the same place,

But Mr Wooderson has the chance to break out of this dull circle. Let him answer this, if he is as serious as he claims.  1. People are unaware of their own deterioration, not just in this matter but in all others. It would be the carefully recorded observation of teachers, close family and work colleagues (preferably themselves drug-free) which would be valuable in this case. Without that, these claims are doubly discredited, first by being necessarily partial, second by lacking any objective confirmation.
2. These people may be all the things they say they are(though their anonymity prevents us from checking their credentials as rocket-scientists,  brain-surgeons, world-class business successes, aircraft designers etc)  How can we know what they would have been like if they had not used the drug ( save by conducting experiments of extreme ruthlessness on identical twins, impermissible under any moral code that I can think of)? Answer, we cannot. If they are as great as they say, what if they would have been greater still without the drug? Isn’t that a loss?

Mr Wooderson continues: ‘Of course, anecdotes like Patrick Cockburn's tell us little about whether cannabis was actually responsible for his son's fate or whether the connection can be explained in some other way – an issue that Mr. Hitchens is quick to dismiss as merely obfuscation by the cannabis lobby.’

Well, Patrick Cockburn and I have discussed this, and he (and remember here that Patrick and I do not share a world-view and would be on opposite or differing sides on many of the great issues of our time) is astonished at the number of men if his generation who – once he tells them of his experience – confide in him that similar things have happened to their sons, or to young men of that generation, personally known to them. I think  Patrick will not mind if I say that he is exasperated by the dismissal of this widespread experience as ‘anecdote’ by smug persons who have not encountered it directly.

What other explanation does Mr Wooderson offer for the troubles suffered by Henry Cockburn? Aren’t his symptoms in fact rather typical of those experienced by young men ( it mainly is young men) who have used cannabis,- except that in Henry’s case they have been specially intense? Would Mr Wooderson care to offer me some alternatives, which I will then pass on to Patrick and his wife Jan, so that they can marvel at Mr Wooderson’s ability to see further than they can into a problem which they have experienced, intensely and personally?  I can think of nothing which the cannabis lobby offer which is remotely comparable to the testimony of the Cockburns. And I regard it as callow and close to personally insulting (to them) to dismiss their experience, which they have rather bravely shared with outsiders, as ‘obfuscation’.

Mr Wooderson finishes with this :’It seems to me to be just as irresponsible to disregard such doubts when advocating imprisoning a large section of society as it would be to dismiss any evidence that cannabis may be harmful.’

Once again, he knows perfectly well that I have no desire to imprison anybody, and that the decisive enforcement of law is not intended to lock up large numbers of people - nor does it generally have this effect, or the jails would be full (as they are not) of drunk drivers and non-seat-belt wearers, and the civil courts crowded (as they are not) with martyred pub landlords who allowed smoking in their bars.  The reason why the drug lobby hate my proposal is that they rightly fear that it would scare them into changing their behaviour. And because they value their selfish pleasure above the good of others, and indeed are prepared for other people's sons and brothers to go mad and wreck their intelligence so that these arrogant persons can enjoy their dope, they scream and shout about mass jailings. I have made this point many times before.

Mr Wooderson deals with my argument by ignoring it completely.  This must be his last chance to debate seriously. If he will not, then he can join the other contributors to this blog whom I have abandoned as hopeless cases, incapable of serious debate,  and relegated to the role of tedious, tolerated background noise.