Posts Tagged ‘legalisation’
The London Drugs Commission. Off Target and Misleading.
If anyone thinks it will achieve anything to publish a report on cannabis policy that runs to over 300 pages with 42 recommendations, you can spend an hour or so reading it here.
Of course, the recommendation for decriminalisation is correct. Criminalising people for personal possession of any drug, or for growing a few cannabis plants, achieves nothing. We know from multiple studies across the world, including from the Home Office, that the level of enforcement and the severity of penalties makes no difference at all to levels of use or harm, except the harm caused by giving someone a criminal record. Enforcing these laws also takes huge amounts of police time and resource. Their disproportionate enforcement among ethnic minorities also damages community relations. It’s a ridiculous policy. Yet another example of how detached from reality and public opinion are our political leaders.
But the report fails to address the real issue. By far the most harm around cannabis and all drugs is from the markets through which they are produced and sold. Both the Home Office and the National Crime Agency acknowledge that most crime and violence is caused by criminal drugs markets. These markets exist to meet the unstoppable demand for drugs. Our political leaders like to pretend that they can reduce this demand but the evidence over more than 50 years proves them wrong. The cannabis market is by far the biggest and it is organised crime’s single largest source of daily cashflow. It provides the funding for every other sort of criminal activity imaginable. There is no other solution to stopping this catastrophic harm except to offer a legal alternative where consumers can purchase cannabis from licensed retailers that has been produced to quality standards by licensed producers.
All sort of other benefits would flow from this sensible change of policy. Thousands of new jobs would be created. Taxing the products would deliver vast amounts of cash for the health service, housing, social care, other public services and this is after paying for the costs of running the regulatory system. Huge amounts of police time would be freed up to start focusing on real crime that causes people harm. We know that this can work from the experience in other places. In Canada, six years after legalisation, 80% of all cannabis purchases are now made through legal channels. More than $2 billion is collected each year in local and federal taxes after deduction of expenses. This in a country with half the population of UK.
The report makes weak excuses for failing to recommend legal regulation of the cannabis market, excuses which are not supported by evidence and in many instances are directly contradicted. It says that legalisation has not been a “panacea”, “risks remain”, “it by no means abolishes the illicit cannabis market” and there are “too many unknowns, particularly those relating to public health”.
These excuses are disingenuous at best, deceitful at worst. They take no account of the very large body of evidence over more than 10 years from the USA and Canada, of the benefits of the coffeshop system in the Netherlands over 50 years and more recent experience in several European countries. It is wilful ignorance or, I suggest, political cowardice. I attended the Commission on two occasions to give evidence and after several hours in discussions, I am convinced that Lord Falconer and his colleagues fully understand that imperative for legal regulation and the evidence that supports it. The conclusion I draw is that they felt recommending legalisation would be politically unacceptable and would likely lead to the report being rejected. In truth the report was always going to be rejected, as it has been, so there was no benefit in holding back from the obvious recommendations it should have made.
Reading between the lines, my judgement is that this is all down to the near-hysteria about cannabis and its ‘links to mental illness’ which is pretty much unique to UK and Ireland. Nowhere else in the world comes close to the wildly unbalanced narrative that predominates here. It’s based on decades of systematic misinformation from the Home Office and ruthless exploitation by the tabloid media. The ‘one puff and you’re psychotic’ mythology has sold millions of newspapers and in recent years generated billions of clicks. It’s false. The facts are that the risk of a psychotic episode associated with cannabis use is 1 in 20,000, with alcohol use 1 in 2,000, with a life threatening reaction to peanuts 1 in 100 or shellfish 1 in 25. Hysteria perhaps doesn’t put it strongly enough!
Reform will come eventually to the UK but it’s hard to predict when. The legalisation of medical access came suddenly and unexpectedly and only because the government was shamed in the media by its appalling treatment of two epileptic boys who were forced overseas for life saving cannabis medicine. Media embarrassment seems to be the only thing that makes British politicians act and I think the powers that be think the move on medical access has gone quite far enough to keep the plebs in order.
The sheer stupidity, stubborness and inertia of the political establishment on drugs policy is extraordinary. We have no option but to keep fighting the good fight in the knowledge that eventually we will prevail.
Voting at the Citizens’ Assembly on Drugs Use was Rigged
Just a few hands raised to support the voting process
With discontent growing in the room, the chair Paul Reid called for a vote to confirm that the process had been clearly explained. About five hands were raised in agreement. A majority of about 94% were against. Reid did nothing about this. He moved on and continued to force through an increasingly complicated series of votes. Some were by a simple majority. Some were by a single transferable vote. Few people understood what was going on.
To begin with the voting had started with a simple majority vote where over 95% had voted against maintaining the status quo in drugs policy. By the end of the voting, Reid had effectively reversed that vote and the end result is a recommendation barely any different from the health diversion policy that is already supposed to have been in place for five years but which the government has failed to legislate for.
Contrary to widespread misreporting in the media, the recommendations which Reid has manipulated through do not decriminalise anything. Even personal possession of small amounts of drugs would remain a criminal offence.
The confusion started when Reid presented a series of options to vote on which had never been seen before. They were certainly not prepared by or with the support of the Assembly. They were ambiguous, contradictory, confusing and clearly designed to split the vote on measures for decriminalisation or legalisation.
Throughout the Assembly’s meetings, there has been dreadful bias in the selection of presentations and evidence. Apart from government departments and government-funded organisations, not a single expert on drugs policy was allowed to give evidence. Despite the strong interest in regulation from the members, out of 200 hours of evidence, just seven minutes was allowed for a presentation on regulation of cannabis. Nothing was permitted on regulation of any other drug.
Neither have any of the 800 submissions to the Assembly been published. A statistical summary of their content was published, showing well over 90% argued for substantial reform. They were supposed to have been published as part of the Assembly process but they have been kept secret and the meetings are now over.
Discontent and protest continued to grow in the room but Reid would have none of it. There were suspicions from the very beginning as to why an establishment figure, closely associated with the drugs policy failures of the past, had been appointed as chair. These appear to be confirmed. It seems that Reid has done as instructed and manipulated a conclusion that maintains the status quo.
A Cautionary Tale On Cannabis
This New York Times article is causing ructions throughout the industry in USA but I have sympathy with some of what it says (although it does dip into ‘reefer madness’ tropes as well). For instance “THC concentrates are as close to the cannabis plant as strawberries are to frosted strawberry pop tarts”. This seems pretty fair to me and while I love concentrates when I can get hold of them, I’m an old timer. The idea of those under 25 having easy, regular access to unlimited quantities does concern me. I’m not advocating prohibition, of course but there doesn’t seem to be an understanding of how potent these are compared to flower.
It has always been the case that younger brains need to be more careful with cannabis. Of course, although state-legal almost everywhere, cannabis is still federally prohibited, so there is no chance for a nationwide understanding that you don’t swig absinthe all day like you might beer. This is certainly something we must be careful about as legalisation comes to UK and Ireland
Politicians Who Want To Keep Cannabis Banned are on the Same Side as the Gangsters and Drug Lords.
This article was published in the Daily Express on 8th April 2021 as ‘Legalising cannabis will slash drug crime and levy taxes, it’s nuts not to’
Sadiq Khan has suggested, timidly, a ‘drugs commission’ to look specifically at the legalisation of cannabis. No.10 has hit back saying that a review is waste of time and it has no plans to change the law because “illicit drugs destroy lives and cannabis is a harmful substance”.
I agree. A review would be a waste of time. We already have all the evidence we need from around the world and it is clear that legalisation would reduce all harm, undermine the gangsters, cut street dealing and violence, protect children and families.
I also agree that “illicit drugs destroy lives” but it’s not the drugs that do that, it’s the fact that they’re illicit. The law against cannabis causes far more harm than cannabis itself.
Yes, cannabis can be harmful but we have wealth of evidence showing that it is much less harmful than alcohol, tobacco, energy drinks, traffic pollution and many things we consume regularly. Peanuts and shellfish cause far more health harms than cannabis.
But even if you believe the hysteria and exaggeration about the dangers of cannabis, does it make sense to allow gangsters to control the market? If it’s so dangerous, to protect children and the vulnerable, our government should take responsibility and take control of the market. Look what has happened in many other places, legal regulation of cannabis takes it off the streets and into licensed retailers who have to obey age limits, label their products so adults know what they are buying and pay taxes, which in the USA are raising millions of dollars which are spent on schools, healthcare, drugs education and other community projects.
In Britain we spend £6 billion every year on cannabis and on top of that hundreds of thousands of people grow their own. No one pays any taxes on it and all the profits are used by organised crime to fund other criminal activity.
It’s the criminal cannabis market that provides the funding for county lines. Young people are groomed into delivering hard drugs by being offered “a bit of weed’. The epidemic of knife crime is driven largely by the gangs and they are funded by their trade in cannabis. It funds prostitution, modern slavery, people trafficking, it’s where all the gangsters’ money comes from and the very last thing they want is for it to be legalised.
The alternative can be seen in reality in the USA, Canada, Uruguay and other places. In Canada, after just two years of legalisation, already more than half of all cannabis is bought through licensed retailers. In the USA, where cannabis is legalised, underage use has gone down.
The most important thing is that in these places there is now some real control over cannabis. Crime has been reduced. Gangsters don’t rule the streets anymore. There’s no problem with ‘Spice’ because why would anyone buy that dangerous synthetic when they can get the legal, top quality, much safer real thing?
In the USA there are now 350,000 new jobs in the legal cannabis industry. That’s equivalent to 50,000 new jobs in Britain and those are jobs that have been taken away from criminals. All those workers now pay taxes too. It’s a win-win solution
Today it seems that the main opposition to legalising cannabis comes from the organised crime gangsters and from our politicians. Why? All they ever do is come out with the same non-explanations as Boris Johnson has. They don’t seem to want to discuss the subject at all and most of them, including Boris, have said they have used cannabis themselves!
In fact, in a video that is widely available on social media, in the year 2000 Boris Johnson asks why his “respectable neighbours who roll up a spliff and quietly smoke it together” are “in breach of the law”? And he says “I think there is a danger that the government is becoming out-of-touch with what people are actually doing”.
The truth is that legalisation is inevitable. Every day that our politicians put it off they cause more harm. Another child is sold highly potent, so-called ‘skunk’ on the street. Another young girl is groomed into using hard drugs by being offered some new clothes and a ‘bit of weed’. Another young man is stabbed to death in some stupid dispute over territory, the sort of argument that is dealt with by normal business methods in places where cannabis is legally regulated.
So next time you hear a politician being ‘tough on drugs’, realise that its not drugs he’s being tough on, it’s the people in your community. Banning cannabis hasn’t worked, there is more of it consumed across the world than ever before. There is a choice, let the gangsters keep running it, terrorising our streets and communities or get tough on them!
Take away the cannabis trade from organised crime and take responsibility for it. Control it. Reduce its harms. Benefit from safer streets, increased tax revenue, more jobs, less crime. Ask your MP, whose side are you on? Are you on our side, looking after us properly, or are you on the same side as the gangsters?
Boris To Back Cannabis?
I believe the stars are aligned. The time is right. Cannabis law reform has become a political opportunity instead of a problem and Boris Johnson is the politician who could exploit it for his personal advantage but also for great benefit to the whole nation.
Public opinion is now clearly onside. According to the latest poll, twice as many people (48%) support legalisation as oppose it, an overwhelming 77% support legal access to cannabis as medicine and 22% support legalising ‘grow-your-own’.
Remarkably this poll was commissioned by the newly-formed Conservative Drug Policy Reform Group, a development which itself shows how dramatically opinion has changed, even amongst the party of government.
The headlines around Michael Gove’s past use of cocaine led to an outpouring of confessions from politicians of all parties and those who admitted to consuming cannabis brushed it aside as of little consequence.
The evidence coming from Colorado, which legalised five years ago, is very clear that legalisation works and there have been no significant negative consequences. In Canada and California, which legalised more recently, aside from teething troubles, everything is looking good.
The economic case for legalisation is very strong with estimates predicting at least £1 billion up to as much as £7 billion net gain from additional tax revenue and reduced law enforcement costs.
The thunderous clamour from international business is becoming deafening. If the UK doesn’t catch up with the fast-moving pace of reform it is going to lose out very significantly.
It’s clear the police have absolutely no interest, nor the resources, to enforce the laws against personal possession, consumption or low-level cultivation of cannabis.
I hear from a very close and reliable source who works in the criminal courts every day, that throughout the system, judges, barristers, solicitors, police officers, probation workers, everyone thinks that there is no point in enforcing these laws anymore and they do more harm than good.
So, if next week Boris Johnson becomes PM, then probably on 31st October, if not very shortly afterwards, we will leave the EU. Then we will have a General Election because he cannot miss the opportunity while the Labour Party is in its present state of self-destruction.
A new Boris Johnson government will be radical. He will want to assert his credentials as a liberal and a supporter of business and free markets. He will also want to support the police and do something to tackle knife crime which is almost entirely driven by the failed drugs policy of prohibition. It will be a no brainer for Boris to back cannabis.
CLEAR Statement Concerning Cannabis Legalisation Measures In US Election.
“This is marvellous news for liberty, health and human rights. The USA, unlike Britain, has a functioning democracy where the will of the people prevails rather than the bigotry and self-interest of politicians. It is wonderful to see that truth, justice and evidence is winning out over the lies and misinformation we have been fed about cannabis for almost 100 years.
In 1971, the British government abdicated all responsibility on cannabis and abandoned our communities and our children to criminal gangs. Since then all the harms have multiplied exponentially. The laws against cannabis fund organised crime, promote dangerous hidden farms which are fire risks, the destruction of rental property, selling to children, contaminated ‘moonshine’ cannabis, gang violence, lives ruined by criminal records and the cruel denial of safe, effective medicine that can relieve pain, suffering and disability.
Donald Trump has supported access to medicinal cannabis all along. Many British politicians who consider him to be an unreasonable person should now look to themselves and ask whether they are being reasonable by supporting prohibition, even for medical use.
It is time for Theresa May, Amber Rudd and the UK government to take responsibility for the £6 billion pa cannabis market. The tide of legalisation is now unstoppable and it would be deeply irresponsible for them to fail to act. They must grasp this nettle now!”
Peter Reynolds, president of CLEAR Cannabis Law Reform
Even The Guardian Is Now On The ‘Skunk Scaremongering’ Bandwagon.
Read The Guardian’s Editorial Here
In the last couple of years, even the Daily Mail has shifted its stance on cannabis as it sees opportunities to sensationalise ‘miracle cures’ from medicinal use – the epileptic child now smiling, the cancer patient whose tumour has disappeared. Truth and balance are irrelevant when a dramatic headline is all you’re after.
The Daily Telegraph has become the new home of ‘reefer madness’ with bad science, nasty prejudice and booze-fuelled fear of a safer recreational drug threatening the massive profits of the alcohol industry.
Now, even the Guardian jumps on the ‘skunk scaremongering’ bandwagon with the exaggerated claim that “the risks of heavy teenage cannabis consumption should frighten all of us”. In a backhanded editorial it suggests legalisation because cannabis is dangerous. It claims the consequences of cannabis “abuse are devastating. Psychotic breakdowns smash up lives and can lead to full-blown schizophrenia.” There is little evidence to support such hysteria. In reality, such effects are so rare as to be virtually unheard of and it’s impossible to prove they are caused by cannabis.
Of course we must protect young people, particularly from the high-THC/low-CBD ‘moonshine’ varieties that are a direct result of government policy. However, we cannot compromise facts and evidence for the illusory belief that buying into scare stories will somehow reduce harm. The only way to protect children is by legal regulation with mandatory age limits.
The Guardian makes much of Public Health England’s (PHE) figure that “there are more than 13,000 under-18s in treatment for the consequences of heavy cannabis use in England”. It neglects to mention that PHE also publishes more than 69% are referred by the criminal justice, education and social care systems while only 17% are referred from healthcare and just 11% by themselves or their family. Thus, more than two-thirds are receiving coercive treatment and only 11% actually consider they have a problem.
It is government propaganda that thousands of young people are suffering from mental health problems due to cannabis. Why is The Guardian promoting this myth? Last year, in answer to a Parliamentary question, Jane Ellison MP, minister of state at the Department of Health, revealed there have been average of just over 28 ‘finished admission episodes’ (FAE) for ‘cannabis-induced psychosis’ in young people for each of the past five years.
Of course, each of these 28 cases is a tragedy for the people involved and nothing must distract from that but it clearly shows that in public health terms, ‘cannabis psychosis’ is of negligible significance. To put it into perspective, there are an estimated 3,000 FAEs for peanut allergy each year but we don’t waste £500 million pa on futile law enforcement efforts to ban peanuts!
For 50 years, the Home Office has systematically misled and misinformed the British people about cannabis. Successive generations of young people know they have been lied to. Such dishonest health information is counterproductive. As a result, many children may think that heroin or crack are not as harmful as they have been told.
Cannabis is not harmless but neither is it ‘dangerous’. If you apply that description to it you also have to apply it to energy drinks, over-the-counter painkillers and hay fever remedies. Similarly, whatever scaremongering there is about ‘addiction’, the scientific evidence is that dependency amongst regular cannabis users is slightly less than caffeine dependency amongst regular coffee drinkers – and withdrawal symptoms are similar in nature and intensity.
What we need is evidence-based policy. Government needs to take responsibility for the £6 billion pa cannabis market instead of abandoning our young people and communities to street dealers and criminal gangs. The benefits to be gained from cannabis law reform are reduced health and social harms, massive public expenditure savings, increased tax revenue and proper protection for the vulnerable, including children.
References
Young people’s statistics from the National Drug Treatment Monitoring System (NDTMS), Public Health England, December 2015
Drugs: Young People. Department of Health written question – answered on 20th March 2015.
Relative Addictiveness of Drugs, Dr. Jack E. Henningfield, NIDA and Dr. Neal L. Benowitz, UCLA, 1994
Fast Moving Consumer Goods.
Commercialisation Is The Only Sustainable Route To Legalisation.
This Is How The UK Government Lies To Its Citizens About Cannabis.
The preposterous response from the UK government to the massive petition for the legalisation of cannabis is a pack of lies.
Systematic Misinformation, Deception And Dishonesty
Yes. Lies. Not a word it’s wise to use unless it’s accurate but in this case it is. The Home Office is disgraced on so many aspects of its work but it has been systematically misleading, misinforming and promoting untruths about cannabis since 1971. Individual Home Secretaries are fully complicit in this dishonesty, most notably James Callaghan, Merlyn Rees, William Whitelaw, Leon Brittan, Douglas Hurd, Michael Howard, Jack Straw, Jacqui Smith, Alan Johnson and the incumbent, Theresa May.
Certainly in the last 20 years there can be no excuse at all. The balance of scientific evidence has been quite clear for at least that long that although a very small number of people may be vulnerable, for 99% of people cannabis is almost completely benign and often beneficial.
The dishonesty of these disgraced ministers brings shame on both the Conservative and Labour parties and the civil service officials in the Home Office. They all know full well that they have lied to the public and they continue to do so, undoubtedly because of corrupt influence from vested interests, principally the tabloid editors, press barons and the alcohol industry. Their lies have resulted in the unnecessary criminalisation of over one million people, the frittering away of tens of billions in futile law enforcement costs and lost tax revenue. Most dreadful of all, the denial of access to medicinal cannabis by those in pain, suffering and disability.
The basis for the government’s dismissal of the petition is given as the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) 2008 report ‘Cannabis: Classification and Public Health’.
In the covering letter to the report, the then chair of the ACMD does say “… the use of cannabis is a significant public health issue. Cannabis can unquestionably cause harm to individuals and society.”
Judge for yourself whether the evidence in the report supports the idea that cannabis is a “significant public health issue”. I don’t think it does and nowhere in the report is such an unequivocal statement made except in the covering letter. Of course it is true that cannabis can cause harm to individuals, just as digestive biscuits, chips and sugary drinks can, so that’s pretty meaningless. There is no evidence in the report at all of cannabis causing harm to society.
But the covering letter then makes the point very strongly that “strategies designed to minimise its use and adverse effects must be predominantly public health ones. Criminal justice measures – irrespective of classification – will have only a limited effect on usage.”
The report recommends that cannabis remain in class C of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 but the government of the day, led by Gordon ‘Skunk is Lethal’ Brown, ignored that and increased it to class B.
Read the report yourself. Compare it with the government’s response to the petition. To claim that the report supports present policy is false. It directly contradicts present policy. There is also now a host of high quality evidence on the reality of decriminalised or regulated cannabis markets from the Netherlands, Portugal, Colorado and Washington. This shows beyond any doubt that the government’s suggestions of “drug dependence… misery… increased misuse” have no basis in evidence at all. Furthermore the idea that new tax revenue would be outweighed by new costs is directly contradicted by every study on the subject. I repeat, the government’s response is a pack of lies
Sadly, the United Kingdom is a country where government ministers are prepared to lie, mislead, distort evidence and deceive the British people in order to maintain policies based on prejudice and the corrupt influence of vested interests.
Peter Reynolds 