logo
Sadiq Khan is right: Britain must decriminalise cannabis – or remain in the dark ages

Sadiq Khan is right: Britain must decriminalise cannabis – or remain in the dark ages

The Guardian05-06-2025

Yet another attempt to inject sanity into Britain's archaic drug laws has failed. The mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, last month accepted Lord Falconer's modest proposal to decriminalise the possession of small amounts of cannabis. He was stamped on yet again by that citadel of reaction, the Home Office, and its boss, Yvette Cooper. Falconer's distinguished group of lawyers, doctors and academics did not suggest legalisation. They simply argued that treating people using cannabis as criminals served no purpose. It confused soft drugs with hard, was racially biased in its enforcement, diverted police time from more pressing matters and denied help to those who needed it.
An old game of media interviews is to ask politicians if they have ever taken drugs. Prime ministers from David Cameron and Boris Johnson to Keir Starmer, as well as the deputy prime minister, Angela Rayner, have either admitted to taking them or refused to deny it. Politicians feel that what the middle classes do at university is harmless fun. If it happens on a council estate, however, it is a route to prison.
The reality is that the divide in Britain is not between those 'in favour' of cannabis and those against. It is between those who care about the impact of criminalisation and those who don't, a subset of whom merely want to sound macho. Decriminalisation in one form or another has been proposed for a quarter of a century. In 2000 the Police Foundation committee on drugs, of which I was a member, advised downgrading cannabis from a class B to a class C drug and in effect decriminalising it – but politicians never followed through. This was despite a poll by the Mirror in 1997 showing that almost two-thirds of the public were then in favour of decriminalisation.
In 2004 cannabis was reduced to class C but not decriminalised. Then, in 2009, Gordon Brown played tough and returned it to class B. The then home secretary sacked the government's drug supremo, Prof David Nutt, for even breathing the word reform. By 2010 there were 43,000 convictions a year for drug possession, more than half of them for cannabis. An internal government report recommended decriminalisation in 2016 but was suppressed. The government even denied a freedom of information request, as if national security were at stake.
The more studies and inquiries recommended reform, the more Whitehall dug in. Courts and jails became increasingly clogged and have remained so ever since. The hottest market for cannabis in Britain is now his majesty's jails.
The UK is adrift in the western world in still wasting billions on its 'war on drugs'. Half of US states have legalised and licensed cannabis, including cities such as New York, Los Angeles and San Francisco. In California there are cannabis cafes, cannabis farming estates and even cannabis sommeliers.
Of course there have been problems, not least with hard drugs in libertarian Oregon. New York's licensing system has not worked, with illegal outlets outnumbering legal ones. But no one wants to go back. As it is, more Americans today smoke cannabis than tobacco, including an astonishing five times more among those aged 18 to 34. There has been no noticeable collapse in American people's health. Even Donald Trump favours legalising cannabis for personal use in his home state of Florida.
Other countries, such as Canada and Uruguay, have legalised cannabis. Many more have decriminalised possession, including Portugal, the Netherlands, Italy, Switzerland, Spain and, as of last year, Germany, where individuals can grow and use small quantities.
Plenty of British police forces have also gone down the Falconer route to some degree. There has been de facto decriminalisation in Durham and a number of other forces, as well as a successful but not repeated Metropolitan police trial in Lambeth, south London, in 2001.
Other countries have researched, experimented and innovated. They have found ways to handle cannabis without disaster. Many places, such as Colorado, have taxed it and seen a boost in local revenue. Strong cannabis, or skunk, is bad for you but large numbers of Americans are clearly finding cannabis preferable to tobacco. It is not going away, any more than alcohol or cheeseburgers.
British home secretaries behave like the politics addicts they are. They close their eyes and ears and scream. The real issue in Britain is not drugs. It is the systematic ruining by the state at vast expense of tens of thousands of young lives each year. The damage is done not by cannabis, but by criminalisation, which draws young people into gangs that deal it and from there towards hard drugs and imprisonment.
The result is that society suffers a monster misdirection of police resources. Violent crime in London has increased almost every year for the past decade. There has been a rise in sexual assault, car and phone thefts and petty fraud. Shoplifting in London rose by an extraordinary 54% last year. Imagine how much time the police would have were they not spending so much of it stopping, searching, and testing people for drugs.
Volunteers struggling to combat drug use – defying the government by testing drugs at music festivals, combating Glasgow's drug problem and keeping children out of county lines – have known one thing for the past quarter century. Whatever needs to be done about drugs, the criminal law as enforced in Britain is a useless answer. Police forces and charities have tried to advance decriminalisation against rigid opposition from Whitehall. As for elected mayors and local discretion, forget it. Westminster's contempt for local democracy is unrivalled. The truth is that what is lacking is not more reports or more brains, it is more guts. On drugs, Britain is still in the dark ages.
Simon Jenkins is a Guardian columnist

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Earth doesn't recognise national boundaries – we must collaborate for Net Zero
Earth doesn't recognise national boundaries – we must collaborate for Net Zero

The Independent

time35 minutes ago

  • The Independent

Earth doesn't recognise national boundaries – we must collaborate for Net Zero

Almost sixty years ago, in 1966, I arrived at St John's College, Cambridge, on a scholarship from BP to study physics. This would turn out to be a golden period for the oil and gas industry. Two new frontiers – the North Sea and Alaska – were on the cusp of opening up, and the industry's reputation as a source of innovation, diplomacy and prosperity was strong. How times change – both in obvious and less obvious ways. The North Sea peaked long ago, with Britain sadly ever more reliant on energy imports. A fuller understanding of climate change has laid bare the duality of hydrocarbons, with most energy companies far too late in taking action. The focus in most developed countries is now on how to produce more and more energy from zero-carbon sources. This is all part of what is commonly meant by the 'energy transition', which is essential if we are to save humanity from the uncontrollable and destructive impact of climate change on health, food supplies and migration. But a less obvious energy transition has been taking place, right in front of our eyes. In 1966, the UK consumed more energy than it does today, despite decades during which both the economy and the population have grown. And the UK now no longer consumes any coal to speak of. If someone had told me this as an undergraduate, I would have scarcely believed them. Some of this change is down to deindustrialisation, but much of it can be attributed to steady gains in energy efficiency. The direction of travel is the same in the US, Canada and the EU. This should give cause for great optimism. The energy transition is a serious challenge which will take years to complete, but it is underway, and it is inextricably linked to energy security. The idea that energy security can be based solely on oil and gas is wrong and dangerous. So too is the view that we can achieve an overnight transition simply by setting net zero targets. Countries need a diversity of sources of energy so that when one source is attacked or interrupted, the supply can be made up by another. UK supplies are much more secure when they are domestic and do not rely on long-distance supply chains. Those such as renewable sources and nuclear fission also happen to be carbon-free. To make progress in the energy transition, we need serious and realistic plans, driven forward by a sense of common purpose and supported by the necessary resources. Plans will vary from country to country, but if they are to succeed, they should have four things in common. The first is to start by working out what will be needed in 25 years. It is clear to me that we will need carbon-free flexible electricity from renewables and nuclear power, both fission and perhaps fusion. At present, electricity accounts for about 20 per cent of global total energy demand; by 2050, it could be closer to 50 per cent. We will continue to need liquid fuels to power heavy transportation such as ships, trucks and long-haul flights, but may be able to create them – and other materials – by transforming waste, wood and crops using enzymes created by AI. And we could use the inevitable super-intelligence of AI to become more efficient everywhere. This future of low-carbon and mostly domestic secure energy is very possible if we commit now to the right level of consistent R&D investment in areas of highest potential. But, of course, we cannot afford to wait, so we must deploy the technologies already available and capable of continuous improvement. This is the second pillar of any successful approach. Electricity from wind and solar is already competitive with the lowest-cost hydrocarbon alternative. What is needed is better long-duration storage and the infrastructure to bring supplies to market. The efficiency of energy use can be dramatically improved by deploying more advanced software and strengthening economic incentives. New nuclear power, including the exciting potential of small modular reactors, can be deployed. Greater deployment of EVs reduced oil demand, but because we are still using oil and gas as 70 per cent of the UK's energy and will continue to do so long into the future, we must use them cleanly. Eliminating methane emissions is feasible and commercially viable. Capturing carbon and storing it is possible, but it needs further deployment and improvement before it is economically feasible to do so. Third, it is important to remember that no one country can achieve all these goals on their own. Competition is a good thing, but in a time of tight budgets, it is better to work in collaboration with other willing partners. The Earth's climate does not recognise national boundaries. We cannot wait for everyone to join in or allow ourselves to be forced to work at the pace of the slowest. Those who are able must act. For governments, that means putting in place internationally coordinated regulations and incentives, and directing funds to the necessary research. There is a strong case in the UK for creating a central national direction of the science and engineering required for the necessary breakthroughs, because efforts are currently too fragmented. It is also essential that we get a grip on a malfunctioning electricity market in which prices are too high, for which green energy is wrongly blamed, undermining efforts to secure public support for the energy transition. But it should be obvious that governments cannot do everything. That is why the contribution of the private sector is so important, and is the fourth pillar of any successful approach. Companies can bring the organisational capacity and international reach to take discoveries from the laboratory to the market. They cannot run away from the issue because they are part of society, serving its needs. But their success must also be nurtured, supported and celebrated. History shows that the private sector is the engine of human progress. We forget this at our peril. There is much that can be done, and no reason to despair. A major transformation of the way we live and work will take time. Industrial revolutions are complex processes replacing established embedded systems with something new and better. But in this case, the necessary changes will only come if we have a clear plan and a visible path to a world which is truly Beyond Petroleum.

Rachel Reeves must rethink how tax and spend decisions are made after welfare U-turn
Rachel Reeves must rethink how tax and spend decisions are made after welfare U-turn

The Guardian

time37 minutes ago

  • The Guardian

Rachel Reeves must rethink how tax and spend decisions are made after welfare U-turn

There are many lessons for Labour's bruised leadership from last week's embarrassing U-turn on welfare cuts, but one is surely that how – and when – fiscal policy is set is not working. Binary fiscal rules, a slim margin for error (less than £10bn), and the Office for Budget Responsibility's twice-yearly forecasts, have combined to turn tax and spending decisions into a grim spectator sport. City analysts are constantly second-guessing exactly how Rachel Reeves's hand will be forced next. As the Bank of England governor, Andrew Bailey, put it last week, before the benefits climbdown, 'having the financial markets marking fiscal policy to market on a daily basis is not a good state of affairs'. The chancellor promised to hold only one budget a year, at which tax changes would be announced: a decision aimed at demonstrating stability and strength. However, the Treasury began signalling during the bond market panic in January that she was prepared to use her spring statement to make spending cuts, if higher interest costs set her on course to break her fiscal rules. Some wise heads argued at the time against the idea of hastily drawing up cuts, tailored to close whatever gap the OBR identified in five years' time – the period over which the rules are assessed. As the former Bank deputy governor Charlie Bean put it: 'I think we want to get away from this idea that we continually have to be neurotically changing taxes and spending to try to control this OBR forecast so that it's hitting our target.' In his understated way, Bailey effectively agreed with that this week, arguing: 'There is a danger in overinterpreting a five-year-ahead forecast.' They are right: one result is hasty policy changes driven by cost-cutting targets (although the Treasury lays part of the blame on the Department for Work and Pensions for, it claims, dragging its heels over the reform package). Another consequence is that the debate over economic policy ends up being reduced to a desiccated row over tax and spend. That is especially depressing, given that the contours of an economic strategy are starting to emerge more clearly, a year into Labour's term. The focus last week was meant to be the 'modern industrial strategy' – a hefty document that set out a new approach to nurturing eight strategic sectors, including clean tech, advanced manufacturing and the creative industries. There was much to praise – a senior figure at one business lobby group joked that they would struggle to know what to campaign on next, as so many of their long-running asks had been met. Unions were gratified at the focus on creating jobs and funding additional training – and the promise of workforce strategies for sectors experiencing skills shortages. The government's pragmatic trade strategy, also published last week, was another victim of the overwhelming focus on the welfare row. All this was lost in the Westminster drama of defending the cobbled-together cuts and then negotiating the concessions that already looked inevitable when Reeves insisted on Monday that there would be 'no U-turn'. Her team now have two unenviable tasks ahead of them. First, they will have to start work on a possible package of tax increases to announce in the autumn. As her aides are keen to point out, she could yet strike lucky: growth could bounce back; inflation could ease more rapidly than expected, freeing the Bank of England to crack on with rate cuts; and gilt yields could slide. Treasury officials will be pushing hard over the summer to try to convince the OBR to take into account the growth-friendly nature of some of the government's policies, perhaps nudging forecasts in the right direction. Sign up to Business Today Get set for the working day – we'll point you to all the business news and analysis you need every morning after newsletter promotion However, the majority of independent experts currently believe it is more likely than not that the OBR will downgrade its expectations of productivity – and therefore growth – setting Reeves on course to breach her fiscal rules, even without the £4bn-plus cost of the policy swerves on winter fuel and disability benefits. Reeves could ditch those fiscal rules, of course – but that would be sticking two fingers up at flighty financial markets. Tweaking the rules to allow herself more leeway seems less unthinkable, given how many times previous chancellors rewrote their own rules – but she would have to proceed with caution. While they deny that they are poring over a menu of potential tax rises (although they surely must be), Reeves's allies privately concede that they are thinking about how to avoid another debilitating annual cycle of fevered speculation about fiscal policy. Here they have a number of options, some of which were set out by the International Monetary Fund in its recent report on the UK economy. One is just to build up a bigger buffer against the fiscal forecasts, of course, to reduce the constant sense of jeopardy – but that would probably require an even bigger tax grab. Another would be to commission only one OBR forecast a year instead of two – dodging the spring iteration that prompted the scramble for welfare cuts. This possibility alarms the Treasury, with its echoes of Liz Truss, who saw the OBR as part of the 'anti-growth coalition' and paid the price in the bond markets. A sensible halfway house might be to continue to commission two forecasts but treat the spring one – given there is no budget alongside it – simply as a useful waymarker, for what the chancellor might have to consider in the autumn. Whatever emerges from this rethink, it must allow Reeves to be more flexible in the face of changing economic circumstances because the framework she so carefully constructed to project strength has instead trapped Labour into decisions that ultimately proved untenable.

British Army soldier who sexually assaulted a lesbian colleague while she was asleep has been jailed for seven years
British Army soldier who sexually assaulted a lesbian colleague while she was asleep has been jailed for seven years

Daily Mail​

time38 minutes ago

  • Daily Mail​

British Army soldier who sexually assaulted a lesbian colleague while she was asleep has been jailed for seven years

A British Army soldier has been jailed for seven years after he sexually assaulted a lesbian colleague. Corporal Luke Edwards groped the woman while she was asleep - despite her telling him she was gay. His victim described the assault - which took place while they were deployed abroad - as a 'harrowing, violating experience'. The 26-year-old has now been jailed for seven years after being found guilty of two counts of sexual assault by penetration at Bulford Military Court, Wiltshire. The court martial heard Cpl Edwards, of the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers, had only recently been promoted to the rank of Corporal when the incident took place following an evening of drinking. Lieutenant Colonel Graham Coombes, prosecuting, told the court: 'After an evening of socialising, [the victim] was told by Cpl Edwards that he was locked out of his room and it was agreed that he would stay in her room. '[The victim] told Cpl Edwards 'Well I am gay and you have a girlfriend so nothing is going to happen'. 'The pair kissed and then Cpl Edwards tried putting his hand down her pants and she pulled his hand away. '[The victim] said she removed his hand straight away and made it clear to him that she did not want that to happen. She then went to sleep.' Lt Col Coombes said that as she slept Cpl Edwards assaulted her. He then said: 'As [the victim] was a lesbian and did not have sex with men, she was not sure what was happening. 'She did not respond to him and was still half asleep and was confused about what was going on. 'She then froze and did not know what to do. She remained in a state of shock. 'She then left the room and went to see a friend and told her that she had been sexually assaulted.' A statement read out on behalf of the victim said: 'I was subjected to the most harrowing, violating experience when [Cpl Edwards] sexually assaulted me. 'The isolation gave me plenty of time to ruminate. I felt ashamed and hated myself for a long time. 'This impacted how I saw myself and destroyed my self-confidence, finding it impossible to imagine how I could ever trust anyone enough to be in an intimate sexual relationship. 'For a while my general health declined, I couldn't sleep as I constantly had nightmares and flashbacks when I did. It stole from me a sense of peace, security and self-worth. 'The defendant was supposed to be my colleague and completely betrayed my trust. 'He chose to sexually assault me and instead of showing remorse and admitting what he did, he not only denied these offences but maintained that I instigated sexual contact between us. 'His lack of remorse and integrity had caused a further 18 months of unnecessary, prolonged distress.' James Hay, defending, said: 'The victim accepts that she invited him into her room and into her bed. They also shared a consensual kiss. 'This appears to be a blip in a previously unblemished record. Cpl Edwards will finish his career in the Army today.' Judge Advocate General Alan Large said: 'In this kind of situation dismissal from the armed forces is inevitable. 'It is agreed that you could come into her bed but she made it clear that no further activity was to take place. You were only able to do it because she was asleep. 'Your actions show the highly damaging affects of sexual offences. 'Service personnel have to have a certain bond of trust to effectively serve and sexual offending undermines this bond. 'This type of case is very serious and needs to be dealt with accordingly.' As well as being jailed, Cpl Edwards was dismissed from the Army.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store