A Brief Response to Mr Monkton

A Mr Monkton writes :' Yet again we have Peter Hitchens trying to find a scapegoat for the
action of people in inanimate substances.
We've had Anders Breivik's mass murder blamed on steroids, sudafed and
caffeine, despite the fact that Breivik had begun to plan his atrocities
long before he took those drugs.
Then we had speculation that Adam Lanza's horrendous school killings may
be the result of brain damage caused by unspecified drugs of which no
trace was found in his body.
Now a terrorist attack explained lucidly by the perpetrator as motivated
by political and religious ideology is apparently really caused by some
cannabis smoked years prior.
It's not just wisdom Hitchens is challenging here, but facts and logic
too.'

 

I am not trying to find a 'scapegoat', but to open a reasoned discussion of the principal cause, so that public policy can respond intelligently.

 

On Anders Breivik, the point remains that his actual atrocity *followed* his ingestion of mind-altering drugs. Many people have grisly fantasies of this kind (the ghastly film 'If', from the 1960s contains a fantasy scene of a school massacre that was taken lightly at the time but would cause grave controversy if made or released today). It is when they put them into effect that they matter. Breivik killed *after* he had begun taking drugs which are known to have mind-altering properties. Judging by his deportment since capture and trial, Breivik is still far from sane.  His actions were not those of a sane or reasonable person.  I remain amazed that Breivik's use of steroids (and Raoul Moat's) have attracted so little attention.

 

On Lanza, I answered at the time and now repeat (and would ask that my critic addresses and acknowledges this simple point rather than repeating this argument as if it had not been answered)  that many of those who develop mental health problems after youthful cannabis use are irreversibly damaged. They do not need to take it again to be irrational.  The absence of drugs from their bodies at the time of the crime does not therefore acquit the drug. As for the alleged use of cannabis by the suspects in the Woolwich atrocity, the same point might well apply. But we do not know (At least I do not. Does my critic? If so, how?) that their alleged cannabis use was restricted to 'years prior'.

 

Facts and logic at work. That's how it's done. Read and mark.