What can a German do but a Briton cannot? What can a New Yorker, a Chicagoan and a San Franciscan do, but a Londoner cannot? What can Canadians, Dutch, Portuguese, Chileans, Uruguayans, Maltese all do? The answer is they can legally smoke cannabis. In California there are now courses for cannabis sommeliers. In Britain they would be thrown in jail.
Half a century ago, Britons prided themselves on being in the vanguard of social progress. In such matters as health care, sexuality, abortion, crime and punishment, they considered their country ahead of the times. Now it limps nervously in the rear.
I don’t use illegal drugs, neither am I addicted to nicotine or alcohol or fatty foods. Having sat on two drugs-related committees, I accept that narcotic substances can, in varying degrees, cause harm to their users and, through them, to others. If after half a century of a “war” on drugs, banning had solved or even reduced this harm, I could see the argument for banning. It has not.
Roughly a third of adults in England and Wales aged under 60 have tried cannabis. Almost 8% use it occasionally and 2% regularly. Far fewer use hard drugs. But nearly one in five residents of English and Welsh prisons are estimated to have been jailed for a drug-related offence. Half of all homicides are drugs-related. In many prisons, more than half the inmates use drugs regularly. The authorities turn a blind eye for the sake of peace and quiet.
Successive home secretaries have a terror of even discussing the issue. Tony Blair delegated drugs – as so much of his policy – to the Daily Mail and the Sun. While other countries researched, experimented and piloted innovation, Britain simply shut down debate. When, in 2009, the government’s chief drugs adviser, Prof David Nutt, evaluated the relative harm of different narcotics, he was sacked.
Definitely legalise but ‘learn from texas’ should never be used in anything but a cautionary tale
Uh… recreational cannabis is not legal in Texas yet. Might want to pick another state.
There’s even a state named after one of their queens that they could have gone with as an example of recreational legalization.
Queen Rhode Island?
Her Majesty Kentucky, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland Queen, Defender of the Faith, Empress of India?
Ok, you’ve got me puzzled. What’s a US state named after a UK (or English) queen where cannabis is legal ?
The only female named states I can think of are Georgia, Virginia and Louisiana, none of whom have been Regent.
I’ve enjoyed the other answers but I was thinking of Maryland, named after Queen Henrietta Maria of France, wife of King Charles I. Legal weed since last year.
Virginia is actually named for Elizabeth I, the “Virgin Queen.”
Seems like an open goal in terms of reducing the 22bn “black hole” as well as funding the nhs. The fact the UK is also one of the largest producers makes it make even less sense.
Why won’t they just take the shot?
Why won’t they just take the shot?
Religion. Many people (like Theresa May, whose father was a Christian minister and Gordon Brown, whose father was a Christian minister) see taking drugs as inherently immoral. Many see getting out of your head in any way whatsoever as immoral.
Do they drink?
Alcoholic drinks are the blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
Its only Americans that I see being puritanical as a general rule. There are Christian sects in the UK who are against drinking, but its not the majority.
Jesus handed out wine at parties, and ordered his followers to drink wine.
Pretty sure its only because he didn’t have access a good bitter.
I doubt it’s religion.
Theresa May was all about drug control because her husband is high up in a company that pretty much has a monopoly on medical cannabis export. Relaxing the rules would be bad for his business. Wouldn’t surprise me if that company was a donor to the Tory party.
New labour, in the early 2000s, made moves to be more lenient on cannabis, and they were absolutely hounded by the conservative press for it, which then prompted them to reverse track.
Theresa May was all about drug control because her husband is high up in a company that pretty much has a monopoly on medical cannabis export.
It looks like you’re confusing Theresa May and Victoria Atkins:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lincolnshire-44109060
It’s also worth noting that Theresa May (whose father was a Christian minister) introduced the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016, which criminalises the production or supply of any substance whatsoever that effects the nervous system which was a huge power grab, essentially taking control of and criminalising the deliberate altering of consciousness by human beings. Her concerns were far broader than just cannabis.
New labour, in the early 2000s, made moves to be more lenient on cannabis, and they were absolutely hounded by the conservative press for it, which then prompted them to reverse track.
No. New Labour under Tony Blair didn’t just make moves, they changed they law in 2004 and reclassified cannabis from class B to class C. This was fine and even up until 2006, the Blair government stated that they would not be reclassifying cannabis to class B. Then, after Gordon Brown (whose father was a Christian minister) became prime minister in 2007, his government changed the law again in 2008 and reclassified cannabis back from class C to class B, based on lies which they themselves produced.
I’m not sure where you got the idea that the conservative press had anything to do with it. This was entirely the doing of Gordon Brown (whose father was a Christian minister).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_classification_in_the_United_Kingdom
Did you know the UK is the largest exporter of medicinal cannabis in the world…
https://releaf.co.uk/research/statistic-series-is-uk-medical-cannabis-a-cash-crop
https://releaf.co.uk/education/cannabis-101/statistics/how-much-cannabis-does-the-uk-export
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-44197038
Theresa May‘s husband is/was a major shareholder in GW Pharmaceuticals (now Jazz Pharmaceuticals) who is a large exporter of it. Other MP’s past & likely present also benefit from the industry & yet we still have very dated laws on it. Is it in their interest to keep the status quo to keep competition at bay?
When, in 2009, the government’s chief drugs adviser, Prof David Nutt, evaluated the relative harm of different narcotics, he was sacked.
That struck me as stupid at the time and only gets worse over time as more evidence emerges for the use of cannabis for epileptic kids, the success of prescribing heroin to addicts, using Ecstasy for PTSD, etc all of which have faced a real uphill fight and usually failure. All that before we even get around to decriminalising softer drugs.
Successive home secretaries have a terror of even discussing the issue. Tony Blair delegated drugs – as so much of his policy – to the Daily Mail and the Sun.
The right wing press have pretty much had every government running scared of the subject but their influence is waning. However, I can’t see Starmer doing much except in the edge cases where there is clear medical benefit.
It just surprises me how there seems to be almost no discussion about legalising weed in the UK. It’s really not talked about that much (besides medical use), and I don’t see much push for it either.
I think the government/police are generally happy to ignore it, and smokers are therefore happy to just get on with it.
Would be nice and convenient if I could just buy it from a store though :/
I think the government/police are generally happy to ignore it
I’m not sure where you get that idea from.
The fact that houses stink of weed and police walk straight past. There’s a notorious smoking spot around where I live, they don’t bother with it.
I’ve walked past police officers while I smell like weed, if they were to stop everyone like that they’d have their hands full.
As long as you don’t do it directly in front of them and they’re not looking for a reason to arrest you, they’re not gonna bother.
if they were to stop everyone like that they’d have their hands full
Just because they have to prioritise, doesn’t mean they’re happy about people using cannabis.
Mate, they’re people too. They generally don’t care on a personal level, and as you say they prioritise everything else.
Nobody cares about people smoking weed except pearl clutchers.
they’re people too
This does not accord with my experience.
They generally don’t care on a personal level
Again, this does not accord with my experience.
except pearl clutchers
You mean like mini Hitlers who get nervous when people don’t Follow The Rules? AKA police officers?
lol
I had a security agent at Stansted dig through my carryon, pull out my vape pen, give me a dirty look, and then put it right back where she found it.
give me a dirty look
QED. A dirty look doesn’t convey happiness.
Nothing I would disagree with. Sound thinking and a well written piece. However, this needs to be published in the Telegraph, Daily Mail, Mirror, and the Sun rather than the guardian for it to do any good and change attitudes. Next the guardian will be telling us that champagne tastes nice 😊.
Yea but once or twice every decade in one outlet clearly wasn’t what I meant 😂
True but I found it interesting reading positive drug stories in The Mirror.
Same. Didn’t think it was possible.
It is a wonder how this can go on. I live in London and I, like most people, can have weed delivered, just as you would a pizza flavours and all.
Most people who’ve been on the internet long enough are aware of the CIA flooding the US with crack in the 80s. They thing most people don’t realise is that the CIA have also run the global heroin game since the 1940s too. The crack in the 80s job was neither the first nor the largest time they did it. For anyone interested, Google operation gladio.
Heroin was grown in Myanmar, moved out through Thailand, shipped to France where it either ended up with the mob in the US or flooded into eroupe all under the protection of the CIA. Myanmar was the largest supplier of heroin in the world, right up until Afghanistan took the title in the 2010s.
I know right?
It make no sense at all why the UK wouldn’t legalise weed. Well, that is, it makes no sense at all, right up until the second you stop presuming any kind of good faith. The second you stop, then, as if by magic, everything clicks into place.
Adding, the UK is the world’s largest legal weed exporter. And many politicians are connected with that industry. Directly or via funding through other financial industry means.
The illegality in the UK makes setting up legal grow farms more complex and outside of smaller investors / business startups. So the laws help to keep competition out of the legal export market.
The UK literally wrote the playbook for flooding regions with drugs to manipulate them lol
The difference being that one is well documented history and the one isn’t.
If it wasn’t the CIA, it would probably be someone one. You don’t have to take it as a personal insult, if you don’t want to. Especially as it wasn’t meant as one.
Oh definitely fuck the CIA and everything they stand for, they probably set the US back 50+ years at minimum, longer for other countries, with their bullshit.
