Home Office has ‘absolutely no plans’ to legalise cannabis
The US experience should serve as a warning to those arguing for the legalisation of cannabis in Britain
THE head of the NHS and the Home Secretary have both rejected calls to legalise cannabis, warning doing so would “introduce new risks for young people”. Simon Stevens and Sajid Javid firmly rejected calls made by Lord Hague, the former Conservative leader, to look again at the law as the Home Office announced a review of cannabis for medicinal use.
They intervened as a group of Tory MPS, campaigners and academics publicly called in a letter in The Daily Telegraph today for a royal commission to consider legalising the drug amid claims banning it had led to stronger, more damaging forms of the substance.
Rank-and-file police officers also suggested drug laws needed to be rewitten. Simon Kempton, the operational policing lead for the Police Federation, said: “The premise behind them was to stop people taking drugs, full stop. If that is the measure of success we have not succeeded.
“Perhaps it is time to have an open, honest, transparent debate where we look at what works and what does not.”
Earlier in the week ministers gave ground after the mother of 12-year-old Billy Caldwell pleaded for him to be allowed to use cannabis oil to help with his epilepsy.
Yesterday the Home Secretary announced ministers will look at whether to allow prescriptions of medicinal cannabis more broadly, with the results expected within weeks. But he said the Government will not legalise the drug under any circumstances.
Mr Javid added that the current legal position on medicinal cannabis was “not satisfactory for the parents, not satisfactory for the doctors, and not satisfactory for me”. But he insisted: “This step is in no way a first step to the legalisation of cannabis for recreational use. This Government has absolutely no plans to legalise cannabis and the penalties for unauthorised supply and possession will remain unchanged.”
Earlier in the day Theresa May’s spokesman confirmed she had not smoked the drug before, while quotes from Boris Johnson, the Foreign Secretary, came to light showing that he had.
Writing in this newspaper, Lord Hague said yesterday that the war on cannabis was over and it was “deluded” to think it can be banned altogether from British streets, and in a letter to The Telegraph today MPS including Peter Lilley, Michael Fabricant and Crispin Blunt all called for a royal commission to consider legalising the drug.
The letter was also signed by Professor David Nutt, former chairman of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, who was sacked by Alan Johnson, Labour home secretary at the time, for warning the drug was not as dangerous as ministers made out.
Speaking to The Telegraph, Prof Nutt said it was a “great pity” that Lord Hague had not spoken out in favour of legalisation when he was Tory leader.
He added: “The law has been destructive to health. Keeping cannabis illegal has created more harm because the illegality has led to the rise of skunk and that’s really the only form of the drug you can get in Britain at the moment. But Simon Stevens, the chief executive of NHS England, warned that legalising cannabis would “introduce new risks for our young people”.
Anyone with a heart was moved by the story of the Caldwell family. Billy Caldwell, 12, needed a cannabis-based medicine to help control his frightening seizures, but it was confiscated from him at the UK border. Unfortunately, however, proper discussion about the medicinal uses of some parts of the cannabis plant is being seized upon by advocates, politicians, and cannabis industry leaders eyeing a profit as a way to start a broader debate about the full legalisation and commercialisation of cannabis in Britain.
It would be wise to keep these discussions separate – as we in the USA are learning. Here, a wave of new cannabis laws is sweeping across multiple states, and with them have come the cannabis entrepreneurs. Donning suits and clean-cut hairdos (gone are the days of hemp shirts and ponytails), they use stories such as the Caldwells’ to try to cash in – not only trying to make smoking cool again, but adding cannabis jelly babies, biscuits, ice creams and soft drinks to the mix.
It is ironic that something so countercultural is now trying so hard to go mainstream. But the movement to legalise cannabis revolves around one issue and one issue only: the quest for profits. That is why the concentration of cannabis has skyrocketed in recent years. Today’s cannabis is anywhere between five and 30 times more powerful than the drug used a few decades ago. The stronger the high, the more likely to attract heavy users, and thus the better likelihood of big profits.
Though it will take decades to assess the full impact of cannabis legalisation, early indicators in the US are worrisome. Since Colorado and some other states have allowed cannabis sales, past-month use of the drug has continued to rise above the national average among youths aged 12-17 in tt four legalised states and DC. One recent study showed increased use by 14 to 18-year-olds with newer forms of consumption that have become popular such as vaping and edibles. About 62per cent of 11th grade students in Oregon (typically 16-17 years old) have reported “very easy” access to cannabis.
The supposed benefits, meanwhile, are illusory. The illegal market for cannabis is still thriving: a leaked police report revealed that at least 70per cent of marijuana sales in 2016 were on the black market and around three to five times the amount consumed in Oregon leaves the state for illegal sales. Other states have shown similar trends. In Colorado, the number of drivers intoxicated with cannabis and involved in fatal traffic crashes increased almost 90per cent from 2013 to 2015. In Washington state, marijuana-impaired driving fatalities more than doubled following legalisation.
Legalisation is very different from both decriminalisation (which removes penalties for users) and medicalisation. With respect to the latter, we should conduct more research into the components of cannabis that may have medicinal value. Cannabis is a complex plant with hundreds of constituents; each should be studied and formed into a medicine if appropriate. In extreme cases such as the Caldwells’, exemptions for patient use could be issued. But we should not confuse the proper medicinal value of components with the commercialised sale and non-medical use of the whole plant. After all, we would never ask anyone to smoke opium to get the medical effects of morphine. The goals and tactics of the cannabis industry mirror the goals of Big Tobacco. Its most profitable strategy is to convert young, casual users into heavy, more frequent users. Given the number of deaths driven largely by opioids, the rise in popularity of cannabis legalisation policies comes at an especially inopportune time. In the US, for example, the percentage of cannabis users who are using the drug frequently has skyrocketed at precisely the same time more people are using opioids and dying from them. This is unsurprising as research has revealed early cannabis use more than doubles the likelihood of opioid use later in life.
Today’s cannabis has been shown to significantly increase the risk of suicide, schizophrenia, psychosis and the use of other drugs. Cannabis heightens the likelihood of dropping out of school, being absent from work and causing a car crash. Why would we promote the commercialisation of a drug with these very real consequences?