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

by Peter Hitchens

Peter Hitchens demolishes the arguments for liberalising legislation on drugs and offers a brilliant critique of the cannabis lobby and its intellectual and moral shallowness.

Genres: Politics, Nonfiction, Drugs, History, Audiobook, Current Affairs, Sociology

256 pages, Hardcover

First published November 29, 2012

About the author

Peter Jonathan Hitchens (born 28 October 1951) is an English journalist and author. He was educated at The Leys School Cambridge, Oxford College of Further Education and the University of York. He has published six books, including The Abolition of Britain, The Rage Against God, and The War We Never Fought. He is a frequent critic of political correctness and describes himself as an Anglican Christian and Burkean conservative.

Reviews

[George · Rating 2 out of 5]

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 · Rating 3 out of 5]

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.

[Steve · Rating 4 out of 5]

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.

[Carleton Raisbeck · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is an informative book on the recent history of British drug legislation. Citing many passages from reports and relevant accounts, Hitchens outlines how we came to create and become satisfied with ineffective drug laws, with a special focus on cannabis.

The main theme of this book is the de facto decriminalisation of cannabis in the UK. He argues that over the years liberal, 'self-serving' politicians, with their 'softly, softly' approach to legislation, have gradually undermined the usefulness of the law; the one useful tool the state has in deterring us from further descent into drug crime. First, we created liberal and lax drug laws, then we were content to have them enforced with equal laxity. My attempt to boil down his arguments, however, does not do adequate service to the book. But to cut a long story short, British drug laws are a joke.

Maybe, unlike me, you already knew the extent to which our drug laws are not enforced. If that's the case then this book can tell you how and why they got that way. I could have guessed they were lax because I have lived most of my life in a town that has a reputation for being rife with drugs, and I have come into close contact with more than a few dealers and many, many users. This book told me what dealers and users seem to know already: that they need not be particularly bothered about being caught and punished given the current state of law enforcement.

Hitchens also talks about the difference in sentences for users and dealers —why is possession more worthy of punishment for the dealer than the user? His argument for why it isn't is very convincing.

I have concluded from what Hitchens writes that the gradual changes in legislation, from bad to worse, and the increasing disinterest of the police in enforcing laws effectively means the state authorities aren't that bothered about tackling the drug abuse that pervades so many people's lives. His arguments seem well researched and logical, and I see no reason to doubt many of his claims.

I am however uncertain about his claim that punishment is a useful deterrent, given the mainstream rhetoric about 'addiction' and the chemical reactions in the brain one so often hears about in pop psychology articles and the like (I've seen his Newsnight debates with Russell Brand and Matthew Perry and I'm still not sure what to think). Fortunately for me I have a copy of Hitchens' 'A Brief History of Crime' on my shelf where I hope to gain the knowledge to develop my opinion on the matter.

[Briar · Rating 1 out of 5]

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.

[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.

[Brian · Rating 2 out of 5]

Hitchens' book "The War We Never Fought" rests on two main points.
1: The UK has slowly loosened its stance on drugs, mostly marijuana, to the point where it's unofficially decriminalized.
2: This is a very bad thing, mostly due to mental health and societal decay.

The first point I grant as valid. I'm American and therefore can't observe how hands off the UK is with marijuana, but this didn't strike me as bizarre and brief research does confirm UK Police departments have been shifting to unofficial decriminalizing. Hitchens provides a good history of the process, and some details to back up the claim. It's the second point, that this is bad for society, where Hitchens falls badly flat.

Deeper review, analysis, and spoilers ahead.

First, Hitchens rejects the notion of personal liberty on this issue. He makes no qualms about that. His stance is Puritanical, which he is "increasingly ready to accept with pride" so fair enough, I won't get into personal liberty. A moral stance, which Hitchens is entitled to, won't sway people however. What does Hitchens provide to back up his claim? Not much. Very little evidence, data, or medical opinion is provided to support his stance that marijuana is bad for you, especially mental health. He says this frequently, but provides little to back it up. From what I understand there are potential risks with marijuana use especially among youth and mental health, but this is not defended in any substantive way, he simply says it as if it's fact. Even weaker is his claim of societal decay, (that we will become lazy, dumb, impatient, loser burnouts etc) I am not sure how one could really back this up and his attempts are poor.

He cites a story from 1920s Egypt where students were "stupefied" and "inert" from smoking marijuana. I don't find this very rigorous. He provides a description from Allan Bloom of the permanent negative impacts of drug addiction upon those who recover. No doubt there, but this is one example and it's too broad. Along those lines, he talks of cocaine and heroin and their damages. Again no disagreement there, but he lumps all drugs together. He disagrees, but marijuana just isn't heroin. Even if one grants they are all bad, it's not reasonable to make no distinction. Hitchens himself states correctly that all drugs carry some impact even caffeine, but does any reasonable person treat caffeine like heroin? This isn't hyperbolic, it's one conclusion one could take from his "no distinction" stance.

Hitchens also doesn't believe in "addiction" which he feels is just a way to shift responsibility off the person, that it's a "myth" addiction is near insuperable and a "psdueo medical condition" which can't be accurately diagnosed or understood. This struck me as odd, and brief research indicates it can be diagnosed and has clear signs a medical professional would note. He cites a prison physician for his backup. This is cherry picked and biased. Their experience is valid, but this is a small data set that is skewed by the fact the sample are all criminals. "Ah but drugs caused that!" What about non crime committing drug users? He throws a few crime figures, but without addressing the complex larger factors behind crime this is opinion, not fact. What about people who used marijuana heavily and go on to have jobs, families, be fully functioning members of society? These people exist. We all know them. The "marijuana will ruin our society" theory is frankly silly and unrealistic.

The biggest hole in his book is when Hitchens states, "How can a former drug taker measure the harm he has done to himself? That is surely up to others, who see us more clearly than we see ourselves" So, if society is moving in the direction of marijuana tolerance, does this not mean people have been observing others and concluded "Maybe weed isnt so bad"? Even if one personally objects, have we as a society not made that decision based on decades of clear observation of others? As Hitchens said, we can more clearly see others than ourselves.

Ultimately, Hitchens makes a moral case. He feels drug use, itself, is wrong. He holds certain views of what a society should be and feels that what some call social progress is actually decay. While drugs is the main focus he does seem to harbor anxiety over stuff like liberalized sexuality, drinking alcohol and smoking tobacco, different academic standards, and rock and roll music. He feels drug use is a cause, not result, of this. This is fine. If he stuck to a moralistic, Christian/traditionalist argument I'd have little to say besides "agree to disagree" but stating claims as fact with such gusto and little substance, is where I feel he runs afoul.

This is not to say there aren't good points made at times. Hitchens touches upon how all drugs are to some degree regulated even anti biotics and medications, so should marijuana be. I don't disagree in principle, especially as an American we should keep in mind the opioid crisis, one brought by unregulated companies and their reckless behavior in search of profit. He makes a fascinating observation that the loss of political and economic freedom coincides with gains in personal freedom, (to drink, do drugs, have lots of sex, listen to rock etc.) perhaps to numb us to those losses. He even notes the change in leftist politics from more "traditional" concerns of labor to embracing personal freedom. Hitchens speaks of how Thatcher (like US Conservatives) embraced fervent economic liberalism, (I share his view this is a negative) and that the Labour Party has abandoned its roots of labor unions and economic regulation to help the working class. I feel pro-labor policy can be compatible with social freedoms, and the erosion of the former may not be due to the latter but forced by the capitalist class. That said it's an interesting observation. This is all very complex with much to be said, and I'd be fascinated to see that discussion, unfortunately these themes are not explored.

He agrees in a way with the liberal argument that we treat marijuana and other drugs different from alcohol and tobacco, which are legal, bad for us, and heavily advertised. Instead of the liberal conclusion, loosen drug laws, he takes the counter that alcohol and tobacco should also be harshly regulated and curbed. While one can disagree with this stance, it is ideologically consistent, and he makes the good point that tobacco was once widely accepted, heavily promoted and its dangers suppressed. It took a lot of effort to reverse this and faced pushback along lines of personal freedom and "its not that bad". Hitchens uses this very example to back up his anxiety about marijuana tolerance. While many would disagree with his concern this is by far his most compelling point.

His second most compelling is that of the social contract. That we are not islands and our actions have impact on others, he especially cites the distress caused to loved ones. Fair, but again rigidity is the issue here. Will a parent who busts their kid smoking marijuana be distressed? Quite possibly, though it is silly to compare this to heroin. More compelling: is danger posed to others as well from smoking weed? Possibly, but again just like how we don't allow drinking and driving we won't allow being high and driving. We can't stop a pilot or surgeon from performing intoxicated, the only recourse would be severe punishment. Same with marijuana. Perhaps it's anxiety inducing to have trust in others but we do this daily. Adding marijuana to the list changes nothing, and frankly I bet you're far more likely to be killed by a bad driver on your way to work than a pilot coming into work high.

To conclude, Hitchens' book rests largely on moralistic claims. He doesn't shy away from this. His final chapter is "The Demoralization of Britain" and laments the demoralizing of the conservative establishment. This would be fine if he did not claim it as fact that decriminalizing marijuana will cause widespread mental illness and societal decline, while providing minimal, flimsy evidence for said claims. In his attempt for broader appeal he's weakened his argument, (that drug use is morally wrong and only a strong deterrence via policing and punishment is best drug policy) and his sensationalism also hurts. He uses "third world country" far too often, "decriminalize marijuana and we'll be a third world country" and his claims come off as laughable and often hysterical. That said, while I find it detestable, I give him credit for at least having a fairly consistent outlook, even if he stumbles in trying to broaden it, and making some insightful points. Perhaps these points would warrant more credence if we weren't being shouted at about how we need a return to actual Puritanism.

Two Stars

[Philip Brown · Rating 4 out of 5]

I knew going into this I'd feel pulled in two directions. On the one hand, I really enjoy Peter Hitchens' writing, but on the other, I'm squeamish about the idea of the state having the authority to make this decision for people. While I'm opposed to the use of marijuana, I think it sets bad precedent for a society to use the state to stamp out everything their neighbours do that they don't like. Surely this kind of thinking is how we get unbearably big governments making all manner of decisions for us? Hitchens regards this line of thought as a category error, saying that it's not analogous to free speech issues, for example. I'd love to hear him tease that out more.

For sure, he does document well that laws against the distribution and use of weed have not been enforced since the early 1970s, and so to speak of a "failing war on drugs" as the reason to drop the "ineffective laws" is completely circular. He also documents many of the societal factors (some of them incredibly cynical) that have led to this current scenario.

Possibly most interesting to someone like me who has libertarian leanings on this issue is the case that there are externalities to the use of weed. Some of these externalities don't necessarily sway me, as I think there is enough societal incentive to convince people to not destroy their own lives and become a burden on their families (or the tax payer). But I could be convinced by a good case that weed use has serious links to mental health problems (apparently schizophrenia?). Hitchens does argue this way, and I'd be interested to see more research over time connecting the two.

A thought provoking read.

[Daniel Hurt · Rating 4 out of 5]

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 · Rating 4 out of 5]

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.

[Gareth Powell · Rating 5 out of 5]

Good book from someone who cares about society and its people

Thank you Peter Hitchens for being a staunch supporter and defender of a drug-free society. People think it’s cool doing drugs but I too have witnesses the not-so-cool side effects: death, divorce, jail time, poor health and severe stress to the drug-takers family. There are probably more negative side effects but these spring to my mind. I like the fact Peter Hitchens researches very thoroughly and is actually trying to help people, not the opposite but I worry he is fighting a losing battle for reasons I cannot understand. It’s fashionable to be a selfish druggie rather than a moral upright person. Good book. Dense at times as very reference heavy but you can appreciate the amount of work that went into it. Recommend and thank you.

[Dan Cohen · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very good book - with a few shortfalls. Hitchens entire argument is premised on the fact that the known effects of marijuana are murky at best. His fantastic takedown of gov. legislation and policy is based on the fact that they take this to mean it is (at least relatively) safe to use; for him to sporadically argue as if it is the worst drug based on this lack of evidence and anecdotes seems disingenuous. Similarly, drugs are evidently one small jigsaw in a much larger puzzle (the liberal bourgeoise bureaucracy). It seems he sometimes takes his critique of drugs and aims it at problems that fall outside their scope. Regardless it is a very good and necessary polemic aimed at Britain's rotting core.

[Oli Turner]

#thewarweneverfought by #peterhitchens
published in 2012. I have no dog in this fight or any experience with #drugs and Hitchens puts forward a very compelling argument but I suspect the people that disagree with him are likely to casually partake themselves and would not wish to stop or experience strict enforcement of the law. I doubt there would be the political will to try to put the genie back in the bottle.

[Bradley Endsor · Rating 4 out of 5]

Hitchens demonstrates how actually there has not been a war on drugs. Whilst you may differ with Hitchens on his plans to deal with the problem you can’t deny his general thesis that the war on drugs is a myth that has allowed the establishment to not make it’s actions match it’s narrative!

[Colin Hoad · Rating 3 out of 5]

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 · Rating 5 out of 5]

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

[Edward · Rating 4 out of 5]

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 · Rating 4 out of 5]

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

[General Kutuzov · Rating 4 out of 5]

Quite good, although of limited use to Americans.

[Peter Warren · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good book on a War we talk about but in the UK never really fought...

[Jean Applegath · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent book. Well written. Hitchens tells the truth..he doesn't pull any punches. Highly recommend this book.

[Colin · Rating 4 out of 5]

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.

[Ryan · Rating 5 out of 5]

A compelling book which will if not persuade you of the folly of legalisation of drugs, at least dispell in your mind the myth that in Britain there is such a thing as a 'war on drugs'.

The evidence is compelling and irrespective of whether your political views are similar or different from that of the authors its hard to deny this point. With this goes one of the foundations of the legalisers/decriminaliser arguments that prohibition has failed as we can see there has been de facto decriminalisation in Britain since the 1970s to varying degrees and it has lead to its increasing prevalence of drugs in all aspects of society.

[Alfred · Rating 3 out of 5]

"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 · Rating 4 out of 5]

Peter Hitchens makes his point and makes it well.