To quote him (Peter) in this article
Jane Asher, a beneficiary of a cultured home and a gentle education, blurts out that all drugs ought to be legalised. She says this is 'the only hope'.
This logic-free, fact-free drivel is conventional wisdom among London's liberal elite.
Why? They say that drug crime is caused by anti-drug laws. Well, so it is, in the sense that all crimes are caused by the laws against them.
If we had no laws against theft, or assault, or burglary, or murder, or fraud, the police would be 'freed up' to concentrate on other things, like homophobia.
But what if drug-taking is actually wrong and dangerous, often ruining the lives of those who do it and of all who love them? Well, it is.
I seriously wish he'd ask his brother for an opinion on some of these issues before blundering on like a bigoted bull in a china hop. I imagine that conversation would go something like this:
Peter: But what if drug-taking is actually wrong and dangerous, often ruining the lives of those who do it and of all who love them? Well, it is.
Christopher: But introducing drug laws doesn't change this. Evidently it doesn't change it. Drug use is going up, and the availability of and variety of hard drugs is increasing. These are things that can only happen after drug laws are introduced. So what if drugs ruin the lives of drug users and their families? If that is true then clearly the most important thing to do is to repeal anti drug laws.
If I could paraphrase him well I'd be writing for Vanity Fair myself, though I think I'd struggle to get on board with the Daily Mail. Still, it's a good example of what religion and right-wing bile can do to a person's intelligence; they're probably matched in terms of IQ, but you sure as hell wouldn't know to read their respective works.