The Rapid Reaction Unit writes...

I've placed answers to postings by Mr Charles, Mr 'Craze' and Mr Everett in the appropriate threads. I'll make responses to some other comments here.

If Mr Puhse thinks I am 'out of my depth' with cannabis, whatever that means, can he explain in what way? Otherwise I shall just conclude that he disagrees with me but is not prepared - or able - to state the grounds on which he does so.

'Malcolm' from behind a name which does not actually identify him, claims that Robin Murray, a noted professor, has been 'discredited'. This is a serious allegation. Can he please tell me when and where and by whom this alleged discrediting was done? Or I shall conclude that what he means is that he does not like what Professor Murray says. Which is not the same thing.

Doctor (of what?) Sean Thomas says: 'I am fed up with Peter Hitchens' hypocrisy (in terms of using false argumentation and sophistry), and I have a particular distaste for his use of the straw-man. He states: "The contention that self-stupefaction is a private matter with no effect beyond the individual (false in a hundred ways) is directly negated by this furious, hate-filled pressure group, which almost invariably prefers misrepresentation to debate, and abuse to argument." Just one point for now: how is the contention (that self-stupefaction is a private matter...) "false in a hundred ways"? Since I'm feeling generous, I'm happy to give you the opportunity to provide ten distinct reasons. But 100 is nonsensical hyperbole, and deserves retraction (or at the very least, modification).'

I had not heard this definition of hypocrisy before. I thought it consisted of publicly preaching one form of behaviour while privately practising another.

If his use of language is this imprecise, one has to wonder about his doctorate in whatever it is.

Nor is the example he cites an example of the straw man, so far as I can see.

What he means is that he disagrees with me. Presumably he does not wish to say this, as he will then need to explain why. And he does not wish to do so, or is unable to do so. Easier by far to attack me instead, eh, doc?

Here are several ways in which the user of illegal drugs might have an effect on lives beyond his own.

1.Personal distress to his immediate family (I will list this as one, though it encompasses so many different griefs, disappointments, miseries and pains, from despair and loss to actual theft and violence that it really counts as dozens)
2.Disadvantage to work colleagues who have to cover for his decreased competence and diligence (accompanied by his invariable inability to recognise that they *are* decreased)
2.Disadvantage to those who suffer from the crimes he is more likely to commit, especially theft
4.Disadvantage to those who will suffer from his inattention, sloth or incompetence on the roads
5.Disadvantage to those who might suffer from the above in his workplace
6.Disruption of the education of those who are at the same educational establishment
7.Costs to society in general of his damaged health, wrecked education and diminished productivity
8. Cost to society in general in the increased need for drug testing and surveillance as drug abuse becomes more prevalent
9. Increased level of crime caused by the demoralisation of each individual who seeks stupefaction through drugs
10. Decreased liberty of law-abiding individual in areas where drug users congregate

All these factors radiate outwards in dozens of different ways into any society which tolerates drug abuse. Two other effects are the growing vociferousness and power of self-serving lobbies demanding that society be made worse to suit their greasy pleasures. Ultimately, if they are successful, we could see political parties and governments subsidised by the makers and sellers of narcotics, and find ourselves, openly or covertly, living in a corrupt narco-state. I doubt whether any of these is enough for Doctor Thomas. I wonder why that would be.

Tarquin states: 'It's a pity that you cannot prove what you say about crime figures. It may well be true, figures are fiddled, crimes are unrecorded, but without any sort of evidence aside from selective horror stories found usually in this dear publication, we have no way of knowing how bad crime is.'

I don't know about 'selective horror stories'. They are only selective in so far as they are a small minority of the huge catalogue of crimes of which newspapers are aware, which have to be increasingly horrifying and spectacular to attract the notice of national media at all. I sometimes see murder reports in my local paper so full of grisly violence that they would once have been national newspaper front page leads, but are now so commonplace that they are relegated to inside pages in provincial weeklies.

My case is that those who claim that official figures 'prove' that crime is falling are both naive and wilfully self-deluding. They misunderstand the nature of official statistics, which are not gathered or presented in a neutral fashion or with neutral purposes. And they ignore my clearly reasoned point, that by their nature they do not record a great deal which the public regard as crime.

I have also pointed out one of the major flaws in the BCS, which 'Tarquin' simply ignores.

What seems clear to me is that the experience of most people is that they are less safe in their homes or in the streets than they used to be, and that disorder of the kind I describe, which is regarded as important by its victims and as trivial by the authorities, is growing and uncontrolled.

'Tarquin' suggests: 'How about bringing a solution to the table so we can actually find out how bad it really is?'
I'd reply that we know all too clearly how bad it is. The immediate solutions are the restoration of preventive police foot patrolling and the restoration of the principle of punishment in the justice system, backed up by a long-term restoration of the married family and parental authority in childhood. I do like that word 'restoration'. Yes, you can turn the clock back.

I refer William MacDougall to my chapter on cars and railways in 'The Cameron Delusion'.

If you want to comment on Peter Hitchens, click on Comments and scroll down.