Following Ann Widdecombe’s speech at Conservative Party Conference in 2000, the subsequent (apparently coordinated) confessions by Portillista Shadow Cabinet members to cannabis use, Peter Lilley’s SMF pamphlet and subsequent Telegraph article on the issue in summer of 2001, and Michael Portillo’s raising of the issue during the 2001 leadership election, the Conservative Party had a brief debate on whether it should favour cannabis legalisation. At the time it seemed like the ultimate “moderniser” issue, and Radio 1 DJs, the Telegraph, and the Independent were combined in an unholy alliance of support for the Party. Yet now this view appears to have been abandoned entirely, and even modernisers trumpet their “tough” stance on “drugs” as if these were an undifferentiated class.
I wish to argue that certain forms of cannabis should be legalised for sale, trade, possession, and recreational use. But before I begin, I want to emphasize some things I shall not be arguing.
- I am not of the view that cannabis use is harmless. I believe that cannabis is a dangerous substance, have never tried it myself, and would urge right-thinking people to avoid it. Furthermore, I have great sympathy for the view that, if (against my urging here) it is to remain illegal, then its classification should be raised.
- I am not of the view that cannabis should be decriminalised, or that decriminalisation would be a useful first step. Quite the reverse — I believe that decriminalisation would make the UK’s drug problem worse and would be generally retrograde.
- I am not of the view that legalising cannabis would be a first step to legalising other drugs such as heroin, or that the only coherent intellectual arguments for legalising cannabis would imply legalising these other drugs, also. On the contrary, I shall, below, argue explicitly against the legalisation of Heroin.
What I shall be arguing is that cannabis use and supply should be fully legalised (as opposed to de-criminalised), with its distribution strictly controlled, initially perhaps via a State monopoly. My main points will be:
- that a belief in ordered liberty implies that cannabis should be legalised but Heroin and other such drugs should remain illegal;
- that legalising cannabis would contribute to breaking the link between cannabis and ‘hard’ drugs;
- that legalising cannabis would allow proper regulation of the sorts of cannabis on the market and the elimination of potent forms (such as ‘Skunk’);
- that supplying through a State monopoly initially would facilitate regulation and make it easier to withdraw supply if something went wrong
- that legalisation would create windfall profits to the cannabis supply industry, and that these would be legitimately captured by the State.
The use of certain drugs is controlled or illegal in the UK. For example, morphine can be prescribed for certain medical applications, but its recreational use is forbidden. It is illegal to supply cannabis for any use at all — no alleged medical uses have survived peer-reviewed scrutiny. So-called ‘Libertarians’ regularly argue that all drugs should be legalised, yet the focus on policy has, for nearly forty years, revolved around how to stamp out all drug usage – and this policy has usually garnered widespread public support. The ‘Libertarians’ are, thankfully, unlikely ever to succeed.
Why do I say “thankfully”? Why is it right to control certain drugs? As a Whiggish Conservatives I believe in ordered liberty. If allowing an activity would present a manifest threat to order, that activity should be proscribed. For example, Heroin is a highly addictive, compulsive, and destructive drug, the widespread use of which leads to its users being unable to work, selling all their possessions, engaging in crime to feed their habit, and often to dying of an overdose. A Heroin addict makes no choices and has no liberty. Legalising Heroin would invite the destruction of order and society, and would undermine personal freedom.
In contrast, where an activity does not represent a significant threat to order, it should be permitted, provided that it does not infringe unduly on the liberty of other people and is not itself compulsive and destructive. For example, widespread use of alcohol (though it creates certain problems) manifestly does not represent a significant threat to order, and it should be legal. Sale of alcohol at football matches does represent a threat to order, and is banned. The question of whether, and to what extent, a drug should be controlled can be analysed within this clear framework.
Cannabis use is already extremely widespread (studies vary, but there is a reasonable consensus that about one in four of the adult population admits to having tried it – among young adults the figure is more like 40%) and yet manifestly its use does not represent a significant threat to order. For example, up to 80% of burglaries may be drug-related (a police officers have famously alleged), but the proportion of these that are related to the use of cannabis (as opposed to Heroin or cocaine) is negligible. Similarly, although cannabis use may well be very unhealthy, given the small proportion of addicts among the large proportion of the population that has used cannabis, it seems clear that cannabis use is not destructively compulsive in standard recreational quantities. So we already know what the Whiggish Conservative position on cannabis should be – its use should be legal. And we should also be clear that legalising cannabis would not imply the legalisation of Heroin and cocaine.
It is often argued that cannabis use leads on to Heroin and cocaine use, and hence should not be allowed because of the destructive nature of these other drugs. This ‘gateway’ effect may well be significant (although the number of people who have tried cannabis is far in excess of those who have tried other drugs), but would be removed by legalising cannabis. Cannabis users move on to Heroin and cocaine because:
- Having tried cannabis they have already crossed the psychological barrier into illegality and find that illegal drugs are not as destructive as they felt led to believe. Once people conclude that society has lied and that the drugs laws should not be respected, it is a small step to trying other drugs. (In this way the current law actually undermines order.)
- When they purchase cannabis, people come into contact with shady illegal street dealers, who often can also supply other drugs.
If cannabis were legalised both these effects would be removed. The law would be more respected, and there would be a much greater psychological barrier to trying harder drugs. Furthermore, cannabis users would never come into contact with street dealers. In the Netherlands, where cannabis has now been decriminalised for about twenty-five years, heroin addiction is less prevalent than in the UK and the gateway effect has been almost eliminated.
Another argument often heard is that cannabis use is very unhealthy, and that its users suffer from cancer, sterility, and psychiatric disorders. Although those who advocate legalisation often dispute these health claims, I do not. I merely consider them irrelevant to the issue of prohibition. Within reason, it is not the business of the state to ban things on the grounds that they are unhealthy or dangerous. Otherwise the state would ban red meat, candy bars, hang-gliding, and numerous other commonplace activities. I repeat: once order has been established, the issue becomes liberty. And in this case both order and liberty are promoted by the legalisation of cannabis.
Cannabis, like potatoes, comes in many varieties. But not all potatoes make good chips, and likewise some forms of cannabis are much more unhealthy than others. Where prohibition is inappropriate, regulation may be useful. The cannabis variety called “Skunk” can be hallucinogenic, while “Grass” is much less potent. With the law as it is, it is impossible to regulate what sort of cannabis people take. If cannabis use and supply were legalised, we could ensure that people knew what sorts of cannabis they were taking, and prohibit (or at least highly regulate and highly tax) the more destructive varieties. A good analogy here is with high-tar or high-nicotine cigarettes. Because cigarettes are legal, we have been able to regulate away high-tar and high-nicotine varieties. Selective regulation can be much more effective than blanket prohibition. It makes no more sense to argue that, because “Skunk” should remain illegal, we cannot legalise “Grass”, that it would to argue that because pure ethyl alcohol is illegal as supplied for recreational use, we cannot therefore permit the sale of beer.
If cannabis use is no longer to be prohibited, the question remains how to supply it. To stop cannabis use being a gateway into harder drugs, I have argued that use should not be illegal and that the link with street dealers should be removed. This argues against merely not enforcing possession laws or against permitting use (or perhaps making it merely a civil offence) while leaving supply illegal (so-called ‘decriminalisation’). The famous but complicated Dutch system of decriminalisation involves having a law which is not enforced and so runs contrary to our legal traditions (especially to Conservative views of the law). Furthermore, cannabis is still imported into the Netherlands by illegal international criminal gangs who plough their profits into other crimes such as prostitution, counterfeiting and migrant smuggling. This system would not be appropriate for us in the UK, and might even make matters worse. If cannabis use should be permitted then it should be legal and its supply should be legal.
However, to break the link with the street dealers, it would not be appropriate to legalise supply by this shady network. Possibly supply could be licensed to pharmaceutical or cigarette companies. However, initially it would probably be best to supply cannabis through a State monopoly, with retail through (already) strictly regulated outlets such as chemists or off-licences. This would enable the State straightforwardly to regulate the sorts of cannabis available, and to ensure that the price is set such that the street dealer network is unattractive. Supply of cannabis by anyone other than the State monopoly would count as smuggling and would carry a heavy criminal sentence (probably higher, in practice, than today). If legalising cannabis proved unsuccessful, it would be much more practical to withdraw supply by a State monopoly than from a diffuse network. However, if it proved a success supply could be privatised and licensed after some years.
When cannabis is legalised, it is likely that there would be a spike in demand because almost everyone will want to try it. This would create high profits for a short time. Since these high profits represent a windfall gain arising out of a policy shift, they are legitimately captured by the State. The fiscal aspect of this matter is not unsubstantial (there would be billions of pounds involved), and if a future Conservative government were to legalise cannabis it should include significant cannabis profits (and later cannabis duties) in its budget plans.
Cannabis should be legalised, because as Conservatives we believe in ordered liberty and this is best promoted by legalisation, because legalisation would break the link with hard drugs and reduce the number of hard drug addicts, because legalisation would allow the elimination of destructive varieties of cannabis, and because there are significant fiscal gains to be made for the Government. I hope and anticipate that the Conservative Party will return to debating this issue seriously again very soon.
I can make the same case for handguns. Having them legalised and regulated would be an antidote to the proliferation of guns in the hands of the otherwise criminal.
Permitting regulated ownership among people of good character and standing would show that a free society does not reserve ownership of small arms to the outlaws in society but permits responsible adults to have recreational use of regulated handguns as throughout the history of this country
Posted by: TomTom | September 04, 2007 at 08:39 AM
Good article but I am surprised you don't deal with the negative impact on Britain's relations with countries who will continue to ban it.
Legalising cannabis in Britain will attract their drug dealers and give them a base from which to operate. Not too popular either there or here. Don't know the answer to it because in principle you are absolutely right.
Posted by: Henry Mayhew - Ancram Tory | September 04, 2007 at 08:59 AM
"Otherwise the state would ban red meat, candy bars, hang-gliding, and numerous other commonplace activities."
For god's sake, don't give them ideas...
A well-argued article, lacking in only one area - it is amusing that Peter insists that we appreciate the range of different classes of drgus, but then generalises about all libertarians supposedly supporting the legalisation of all drugs. There are degrees of libertarian, too, Peter - indeed as a Whiggish Conservative that is a scale you find yourself on!
I'm glad ConservativeHome is willing to raise this issue and engage in an intelligent debate on the matter.
Posted by: Mark Wallace | September 04, 2007 at 09:13 AM
When I was a young man I saw another young man lecture a room full of people on the evils of alcohol while at the same time praising the virtues of cannabis. A short while later this very same young man leap across the room and violently kicked a friend because he felt the friend had been staring at him. Those in the room who were enjoying a beer dragged the cannabis smoker off his victim. A friend of the cannabis smoker then told me that the young man smoking always got paranoid when smoking cannabis. Hence the attack. The events of that evening taught me a lot about cannabis. That the drug isn't the passive peace,n,love weed it is claimed to be and that it should in no way be legalized.
Posted by: Tony Makara | September 04, 2007 at 09:25 AM
Good Argument.
Creating government revenue at the expense of criminals should be a no brainer.
Posted by: Serf | September 04, 2007 at 09:38 AM
Mark Wallace@09:13
Actually, my name is Andrew, but thankyou for your kind remarks, anyway.
On your point about libertarians - that seems to me to be a libertarian's way of looking at matters. For example, a classic libertarian idea might be that there is pure Liberty and pure Order, and that all policy positions represent some position on a scale between these, reflecting a trade-off between liberty and order. The Libertarian favours a trade-off with a high degree of individual liberty.
The Whiggish view (at least in its Burkean/Conservative form) denies this. For the Whiggish Conservative , order is not properly contrasted with liberty, but instead with chaos. And there are not, by and large, degrees of order (though there may be degrees of authoritarianism or of tyranny) - it is only a slight exaggeration to say that order exists right up to the moment it collapses into chaos. Order and chaos are not matters of degree - the relationship is, instead, binary.
What increasing liberty may do, however, is to increase the risk of collapse from order into chaos - it may affect the security of order. So what Whiggish Conservatives seek is not high liberty accepting that this comes at the *expense* of high order (as the Libertarian), but instead the maximum degree of liberty compatible with security of order.
I believe that this distinction in analysis is crucial, and means that the Conservative Party can (and should) never be a Libertarian party. So, no. I don't agree that I am some kind of partial libertarian.
Posted by: Andrew Lilico | September 04, 2007 at 09:44 AM
Tony Makara@09:25
I agree that cannabis is not a harmless substance - I am persuaded that it has unpleasant psychological effects, and also enhances the risk of cancer and sterility. But, as I argued above, the fact that something is bad for you is not (within reason) a good ground for banning it. My argument turns crucially on the question of whether, in ordinary recreational quantities, cannabis is addictive (as well as bad for you). If the empirical evidence changed, and I were persuaded that, in fact, even mild forms of cannabis are materially addictive for a reasonable percentage of users at ordinary recreational quantities, I would change my view and oppose its legalisation. To me everything turns on these two points - things like heroin and cigarettes that are both addictive and destructive should be illegal; things like coffee that are addictive but not materially destructive should be legal; and things like cannabis that are destructive but not addictive should also be legal.
Posted by: Andrew Lilico | September 04, 2007 at 09:48 AM
Andrew Lilico, interesting use of semantics you employ. Words can often attach pink ribbons to reality. The fact is cannabis is a drug that causes psychosis and schizophrenia. It is also a gateway drug. I know this from watching friends during my teenage years. They would start on cannabis, before long they got bored with it and moved onto more extreme drugs. I just don't see how the legalization of cannabis has anything to do with the concept of individual freedom. This is more a question of supply creating demand and how we eradicate those that supply this poison.
Posted by: Tony Makara | September 04, 2007 at 09:58 AM
We have the perfect empirical experiment in the effect of criminalising and legalising a substance.
The Prohibition showed how the act of criminalising alcohol created a whole new class of violent criminal, without having any major effect on the demand or supply of the substance. Any sensible approach to the debate on drugs would learn from the evidence.
Posted by: David | September 04, 2007 at 09:59 AM
Tony Makara@09:58
Again, in the article above I explicitly argue that one of the current problems is that cannabis is *indeed*, as you say, a gateway drug. That is one of the reasons it should be legalized - so that it *stops* being a gateway drug.
I also agree that we need to eliminate the network of cannabis dealers. Again, this is a good reason for legalizing cannabis supply - initially, as I argue, through a state monopoly.
Incidentally - responding to Henry's point from earlier: I don't believe that the scheme as I propose it would encourage dealers to come here from abroad. Quite the reverse - Britain would cease to be an attractive location for illegal cannabiz dealers, as the product would be available legally. How many people would buy dirty, unsanitary cannabis that might be laced with heaven-knows-what from a nasty chap in a pub toilet when they would be able to buy it perfectly legally from a respectable outlet?
Posted by: Andrew Lilico | September 04, 2007 at 10:04 AM
Those who have seen people's lives ruined by cannabis will find it impossible to agree.
Nor one suspects will the so-called 'core vote' be thrilled at yet another surrender to the law breakers.
Posted by: The Huntsman | September 04, 2007 at 10:07 AM
Those who have seen people's lives ruined by cannabis will find it impossible to agree.
Nor one suspects will the so-called 'core vote' be thrilled at yet another surrender to the law breakers.
Posted by: The Huntsman | September 04, 2007 at 10:08 AM
Andrew Lilico, I can't see how having legalized pushers is any different from having illegal pushers. The only thing that would happen is that more people would have access to cannabis, more people would get bored with it, leading to more people looking for harder drugs on the black market. There is a great danger that the legalization of cannabis with 'legitimize' the use of other drugs in peoples minds. Paricularly the very young.
Posted by: Tony Makara | September 04, 2007 at 10:13 AM
Typo: Should read.
"There is a great danger that the legalization of cannabis will 'legitimize' the use of other drugs in peoples minds. Paricularly the very young."
Posted by: Tony Makara | September 04, 2007 at 10:16 AM
Andrew- my apologies for getting your name wrong. It's a bit worrying my brain seems to have worn out so early in the day.
Posted by: Mark Wallace | September 04, 2007 at 10:23 AM
I just can't believe some of the above comments that perpetuate some of the moral hysterical propaganda around cannabis.Such myths stop us having a sensible science based discussion about all drugs particuarly cannabis.
First lets destroy the myth that cannabis is a gateway drug..... nonsense.In the USA around 36 million people have tried/use/are using cannabis in the last 12 years yet the estimated users of hard drugs has stayed pretty steady at around 800,000 for the last 12 years.In the UK an estimated 4-6 million have used cannabis yet the number of hard drug users is around 280,000.The fact is that a certain percentage of people are predisposed to addiction and a hard drug user is just as likley to have started on tobacco or alcohol than cannabis.
Cannabis causes sterility another myth refuted by science A recent study by Dr. Robert Block has refuted earlier research suggesting that pot lowers testosterone or other sex hormones in men or women (all of which were fouhnd to be reversible).Alcohol is the greatest cause of impotence.
I must admit to having an interest in this subject having been forced to obtain cannabis off the black market for my wife who has MS for the past 8 years.I too was brainwashed by the anti cannabis propaganda and spent many months researching this issue only to find that there is so much myth and misinformation around this issue.
Whatever your beliefs around cannabis to deny access to the many sufferers of MS,arthritis and cancer is barbaric in this day and age.I would go to prison rather than stop giving my wife this relief.When you talk about dangers first stop and think about the dangers we daily expose our loved ones to many of the pharmaceutical drugs that are prescribed.My wifes liver was nearly destroyed by such prescription drugs.
WHile we sit there sipping our Sauvignon blanc or finest malt pontificating about the dangers of cannabis how hypocritical and blind we have come about this issue of "drugs"
Posted by: Jake | September 04, 2007 at 10:32 AM
"Those who have seen people's lives ruined by cannabis will find it impossible to agree. "
What about those whose lives have been destroyed by alcohol? If they called for the banning of alcohol (addictive, turns people violent, removes judgement faculties, causes damage to the brain and liver), would you support that?
Posted by: David | September 04, 2007 at 10:43 AM
For example, morphine can be prescribed for certain medical applications, but its recreational use is forbidden.
This was something that happened in the 20th century though, in the 18th and 19th centuries the British Empire produced Opium and even fought a war with China because China wouldn't buy it off the British Empire.
Most people who take illegal drugs will taje something for it anyway, many heroin addicts if they can't get heroin might well sniff glue or aerosols instead, so what's the point of trying to ban these things.
Legalisation will bring such things into the scope of taxation and remove necessities for a considerable amount of police activity which can be redirected.
With the price coming down a lot of opportunistic crimes of acquisition will drop significantly because many of these are to obtain money to ban drugs.
It shouldn't though be the way that most of the drugees want it - it should be legalised and taxed; fags are not state subsidised and they are taxed and regulated, and the same should apply to other drugs. A level playing field, strictly enforced and nothing more.
There will have to be maintenance of strict customs control with regard to countries with different rules, the UK has to respect the right of other countries to have different rules on these things including with regard to alcohol and tobacco, tobacco is a very harmful product with apparently no actual benefits yet few people suggest it should be totally banned. John Redwoods recent report proposed abolishing most restrictions on herbal medicines and abolishing many requirements for many medicines only to be available on prescription.
If opium based products were legalised it would also help regenerate places such as Afghanistan - NATO and various Afghan governments have used vast amounts of time and resources destroying Afghanistan's opium crop - the result has been poverty in Afghanistan fuelling civil war and strengthening international terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda.
Posted by: Yet Another Anon | September 04, 2007 at 10:46 AM
A well argued case as always Andrew. As usual though I disagree you.
Posted by: malcolm | September 04, 2007 at 11:09 AM
Why am I wrong this time, malcolm?
Posted by: Andrew Lilico | September 04, 2007 at 11:12 AM
Not keen on this leftie "state monopoly dope supplier" stuff at all. Are there any free marketeers left in the Tory party?
With Afghanistan and opium I wonder how, in an alternative universe, the attack by a combined military force of Muslim nations on the Bordeaux and Margaux regions of France would be interpreted. With vineyard owners arrested and ancient Chateaux raised to the ground. With Muslim political leaders menacingly warning Barley Hop growers in southern England that unless they stopped processing their products into beer, that they would be next...
Posted by: Guido Fawkes | September 04, 2007 at 11:18 AM
We should let people grow pot in their gardens for their own use. The use of hydroponics (and therefore skunks) should be curtailed though licensing grow lamps (for health and safety and carbon emissions reasons). Selling to minors should warrant an automatic custodial sentence. And adults should be allowed to make their own minds up.....
Posted by: Renny | September 04, 2007 at 11:24 AM
Alcohol and tobacco both ruin lives it is true, but those genies have long been out of the bottle.
Why add to them?
On the gateway issue, when representing those indicted for possession of class 'A' drugs I made a point of enquiring what route had taken the offender to commence using them. Almost without exception they had started on cannabis and finding that an insufficient thrill had moved on to class 'A' drugs. All had either been supplied class 'A' drugs by their existing cannabis supplier or that supplier had introduced them to the supplier of Class 'A' drugs. Most dealers in class 'A' drugs usually had other counts on the indictment alleging supply or possession with intent to supply cannabis as well.
We have enough on our plate at the moment in terms of controversial policy so perhaps it might be thought unnecessary to add to them right now.
Posted by: The Huntsman | September 04, 2007 at 11:32 AM
Because Andrew,the psychiatric disorders and other health problems are most certainly not irrelevant to this debate.In my opinion they can hardly be more relevant.How you can argue that the State should in effect sponsor Cannabis use is beyond belief.
Posted by: malcolm | September 04, 2007 at 11:35 AM
"Almost without exception they had started on cannabis and finding that an insufficient thrill had moved on to class 'A' drugs"
Isn't this the tired, old motorcyles/bicycles argument?
Almost all motorcyclists were keen bicycle riders until they progressed to motorbikes,
so bicycles riding must be a gateway to motorcycle riding.
Of course not, it is just that those *people* more-inclined to enjoy motorbikes are likely to have started with bicycles.
The majority of bicycle riders, just enjoy their bicycles and have no interest in the higher 'thrill' of a motorbike.
Posted by: Think about it | September 04, 2007 at 12:00 PM