Arguing about the Wicked Weed - and Another Evening with Howard Marks

I think I have almost finished my round of debates about the problem of illegal drugs.  Apart from an encounter at the University of  Exeter on 29th November, I have one other planned meeting, in London, for which a limited number of tickets (from the sale of which I do not benefit) are still available. It will be on Wednesday 14th November at a venue near Oxford Circus.  My opponent will be Tim Wilkinson, who discussed this matter with me here some time ago.  Booking details can be found at

http://surelysomemistake.blogspot.co.uk/

 

This gives me the opportunity to say a few words about Monday evening’s second debate with Howard Marks. This was different in many ways from the discussion we had in Oxford. So far, I have seen no independent account of it, and I won’t try to give a full description as it would be both patchy and hopelessly biased. I nearly didn’t get there at all, having woken on Monday morning feeling so ill that I had to force myself to set off for the station, shuffling thither like an ancient. I assumed that everyone at the Guardian had spent the weekend sticking pins into the wax doll of me that they keep in a secret attic at Guardian HQ.

 

I had recovered a bit by the time I reached Bristol, and was able to present Howard with his own inscribed copy of my book . This was superfluous, as he’d already bought his own, and here’s the thing, read it carefully and thoughtfully.

 

I know this because his opening speech was clearly a detailed riposte to what the book says, and many of his debating points arose from a careful study of my arguments.

 

It is such a pleasure, and so educational, to be doing battle against an opponent who actually bothers to find out what the other side thinks, and seeks to combat it with facts and logic. Howard has many admirers, but I wonder how many of them understand what sort of person it is they worship. He is not like them.  He has a genuinely inquiring mind, trained in the scientific method and in logic, and the more I meet him the more I think that he’s a loss to the country, which ought to have found some way of using his considerable talents.

 

He scored some good points, causing me to ponder and pause, and to refine my own arguments in future. And I like to think I scored a few too.  I may possibly have changed a few minds, though if so not many – but on the other hand, most people hate to change their minds and are very reluctant to do so, so it would have been absurd to hope that 90 minutes of civilised but tough argument would convert an entire hall.

 

What I once again stress about this is that everybody gains by civilised discourse. I’ve much hope that someone will point out my review of Jonathan Ree’s review to Mr Ree himself, as it was written much more in sorrow than in anger, and I just think he got it wrong because he assumed that he was free to say pretty much what he liked, in those pages and to that audience.

 

(And by the way a note to ‘Mikebarnes’ :  Why should I care if he finds such material unpalatable? He doesn’t have to pay to read it, he has no need to visit this site if he doesn’t want to. The implication that this is some sort of score-settling is also dull and unresponsive. The fact is that the Internet gives authors the chance, which they did not have before, to respond to their critics.  I think this is entirely healthy and plan to take full advantage of it in future. Why should critics, especially where they are factually mistaken, be free from criticism themselves?  They opine on works which have taken the author years of work. Their reviews can dismiss and perhaps destroy such a  book. There is no court of appeal against what they say.  The readers of reviews often place great confidence in the reviewers’ verdicts. Sometimes this is justified. Sometimes it is not).

 

I’m also moaned at for writing about a James Bond film, as if such things were not important. Surely, a film that will be seen by many millions of people is among the most important cultural events of our time? If it contains implicit messages about life, morality or politics they will be absorbed,  often unconsciously, by those who watch it.  I think I’d be foolish to miss the opportunity to say a few words about it. I’d also add that it’s quite possible to enjoy such a  film while being critical of it. in fact, my ability to publish my criticisms of it almost certainly made it more enjoyable.