Discover more from REACTION
Canada has become the second country after Uruguay to legalise possession and use of recreational cannabis. With public attitudes changing and current policy failing, it now seems inevitable that recreational cannabis will be legalised in the UK at some point. A YouGov poll released this week shows support for legalisation at 43%, a number that seems likely to increase. The poll also showed more people consider alcohol harmful (83%) than cannabis (62%). Consent for prohibition is diminishing.
Full disclosure, I smoked it daily for ten years. I liked it and still very occasionally partake. However, I kicked it as a habit because of its negative effects. Primarily, I found it detrimental to my mental health. After quitting I felt healthier, happier and my moods became far more balanced. I don’t endorse legalisation through rose tinted spectacles.
Most people who smoke cannabis are harmless and most of the time it’s a fairly benign recreational activity, but it is a powerful psychoactive drug (and it’s not great for the old lungs either). So, why legalise it?
Informal decriminalisation is a bad policy
Cannabis is, for all intents and purposes, practically decriminalised in the UK. It’s informal, but de facto. The police do not consider it a priority and don’t enforce the law. This is a poor halfway house which undermines the rule of law and gets in the way of a better policy approach. If a law is worth having, it is worth enforcing. If the laws are not to be enforced, then they should be repealed. Otherwise people take the law less seriously. A change in approach is needed to either enforce prohibition or repeal it.
The black market is booming
Advocates of continued prohibition worry legalisation will lead to cannabis use increasing and being perceived as socially acceptable. They do not seem to understand the stable door has been open for some time. God knows where that horse is.
In the UK, cannabis is very popular and there is little social stigma about its use. The black market in cannabis is worth around £2.5bn and most of the profits fund organised crime and gangs. This is not a good outcome. A legal market will disempower and defund criminal gangs and will shrink the black market. It will also diminish the gateway effect in which dealers who sell cannabis also go on to offer their customers everything from cocaine and heroin.
To clamp down on the market now and enforce prohibition properly would take a gargantuan police effort. The question which should be asked is whether this futile crackdown would be worthwhile and whether resources would be better directed elsewhere. Cannabis is a very widely used and enjoyed natural product which causes less harm than legally accessible stimulants. The harms caused by cannabis are best addressed with it as a legal product, bought safely from licenced shops and websites.
Safeguarding
In Canada, the safeguarding of young people was one of the main arguments advanced for legalisation. As the recently published Children’s Enquiry paper from VolteFace showed, current UK government policy is failing to adequately safeguard young people from accessing and using cannabis.
The Inquiry found that the majority of young people (45%) who had tried cannabis had bought it aged 15 or under and found it easier to obtain than alcohol. Cannabis is relatively easy for young people to access because it is sold on a thriving black market where there is no age restriction and it tends to be distributed amongst young people via networks of their peers.
In a state regulated market, it becomes easier to keep cannabis away from young people, who are at the greatest risks because of their vulnerability and because their brains are still developing. Police resources can concentrate on safeguarding and impose serious criminal penalties on people who are found to have supplied young people.
Harm Reduction
Legalisation will allow a major reform of government policy to focus on harm reduction. A regulated market will mean that cannabis products can be properly labelled so that consumers know what they are buying.
The discussion on ‘skunk’ always seems to imagine that the emergence of stronger strains of cannabis is a recent development, but it isn’t. Much of the weed of the 60s and 70s gave a light, hazy effect, but stoner horticulturalists worked on increasing the strength of cannabis as if they were working on the cure for cancer. ‘Skunk’ is the name given to these stronger varieties which have a higher THC content. It’s like switching from beer to whisky.
The market is now dominated by skunk and it’s driven by consumer demand for a potent product, but it means consumers who would prefer the choice of a lighter variety lose out and almost everyone is smoking skunk.
Legal cannabis products would be properly labelled, and consumers would know exactly what they are buying. Strong products can come with the necessary cautions and the milder varieties will become more widely available, giving the consumer a choice and reducing the risks. Imagine drinking bootleg liquor with no indication of its potency.
The biggest harm reduction dividend from legalisation will be that vaping products will become widely available, meaning less people will smoke it and mix it with tobacco. This will replicate the benefits seen with e-cigarettes and greatly reduce risks of cancer and other diseases.
Time for a better approach
The current government approach to cannabis is harmful and ineffective. It’s time for a more honest and rational cannabis policy. Open up a safe, regulated market and focus on safeguarding young people and reducing harm. The tax revenue gained can be directed into underfunded mental health services and into educating people about the potential adverse health effects of excessive use. A combination of education, harm reduction polices, and the wider availability of vaping products is likely to decrease use overall and have a net public health benefit.
Subscribe to REACTION
Iain Martin and the team make sense of the news, providing commentary and analysis on the stories that matter in politics, geopolitics, economics and culture.