Victoria Borwick calls for intolerance of cannabis after Boris Johnson objects to heavy policing of the drug

In an interview for 18DoughtyStreet.com Boris Johnson said this about cannabis:

“I don't want the police wasting their time rifling though the sock draws of every student in London in the hope of finding a little rabbit dropping of cannabis. You know, I just think it’s a waste of their time. On the other hand I don't want a too great a tolerance of a drug taking culture, because I think that it’s profoundly bad. Because as you say it is a gateway drug.”

Such a statement will remind some of Brian Paddick's softly, softly approach to the policing of cannabis when he oversaw the Lambeth experiment.  Paddick may be the LibDems' mayoral candidate.  ConservativeHome readers will have an opportunity to put questions to Boris Johnson tomorrow and this may be an issue you may would like to raise with him.  On a previous occasion Boris Johnson had described himself as "illiberal" on cannabis.

Boris Johnson's remarks about cannabis brought this statement from Victoria Borwick:

"I believe we need clarity over law enforcement and over drugs laws. The Government has done great damage by downgrading the importance of cannabis and by giving the impression to young people that cannabis is legal.  It is not legal. As Mayor, I want the law enforced, without fear or favour.

I support the recommendation from the policy group chaired by Iain Duncan Smith - that cannabis should be reinstated as a Class B drug.  I also agree with the Breakthrough Britain report when it says: "The Government should be giving out a clear message that cannabis use is regarded as a serious matter - one that should be actively discouraged and certainly not seen as something that is rather a fruitless waste of police time."

Comments

[ceidwadwyr]

Legalize it and let people make their own minds up. Time to get rid of Nanny.

[Henry Mayhew]

Good dynamism from Victoria.

[Machiavelli's Understudy]

A shame Bozza isn't willing to allow common sense to prevail entirely on the matter- it seems he has to shroud it in tokenistic language for the benefit of the loony authoritian fringe. Never mind.

Sheer hypocrisy that 'they' are allowed to enjoy it, but can't be seen to be honest about their experiences.

[IRJMilne]

The police have better things to do than focus on cannabis laws, but the Law of the state has to be enforced enough for it to be respected.

Liberalism on drug issues, as on many other issues, works for the upper/upper middle classes, and has calamitous consequences on the poor.

Mr Johnson is quite right. I think the liberalism of his statement is easily exaggerated.

[Moral minority]

Absolutely spliffing!

Sorry, couldn't resist it.

[Sarkis Zeronian]

Are we to take it from the way you have framed her response that Borwick DOES want police wasting their time rifling though the sock draws of every student in London in the hope of finding a little rabbit dropping of cannabis? If so that's my vote for Boris.

[Richard]

"Liberalism on drug issues, as on many other issues, works for the upper/upper middle classes, and has calamitous consequences on the poor."

So because a minority can't control their drug habbit the Nanny state has to ban everyone. Personally I find drug-taking distasteful but I don't feel the need to enforce my lifestyle choices on everyone else.

[IRJMilne]

re: Richard's post.

I don't feel a deep instinctive impulse to impose a lifestyle on other people, per se. But perhaps I don't believe in the (now not so) New Hedonism. Perhaps I think my "lifestyle choices" (to put it that way) might influence people other than myself. Alas, this is not the attitude common in modern society, which is utterly selfish (thanks not to the estimable Baroness Thatcher but to men like Roy Jenkins). Britain needs to re-learn what civilization was. My object is renewed Victorian paternalism. A very attractive and promising society laid low by the menace of socialism.

I am inclined to be in favour of legislation which will manifestly benefit the poor without particularly damaging anyone else, directly or indirectly. Anti-drug laws fall into this category.

Drugs cause crime. Crime is perpetrated on people like me, who are non-drug taking and middle class, as much as anyone else. I believe in Law and Order, unfashionable as this is. I would like to abolish practices quite liable to cause me to be attacked on a High Street by a drug crazed wreck with a breadknife.

There are numerous other arguments I could bring up here. Anti-drug legislation is not an example of "the nanny state". If it is, I'm in favour of the damned nanny state. Her Majesty and her government are meant to protect British citizens, from malicious internal elements as much as from foreign invaders. A government should help the people to liberty by outlawing the prison of the mind that is drug addiction (I presume in all this that if you want cannabis legalized, you think the same of other presently illegal drugs?).

I can only suppose that you think legislation against pornography is another example of "the nanny state".

Legalizing cannabis would be utterly reprehensible. It is in any case manifestly a Liberal, rather than a Conservative, policy. A failing I once suffered from, many seem to think the Conservative Party represents a capitalist libertarian version of Rousseau. It does not, has not, and, I think, will not.

[Matthew]

So does the Mayor have control over drug policy and policing these days?

[John Moss]

Mr Johnson should try telling that to the parents of Tim Robinson, the Battersea eatate agent murdered by a cannabis addict for the pleasure of a couple of hours joy-riding in his car, or the parents and families of the 18 teenagers murdered in London in the last 9 months, mostly due to gang struggles over drug-dealing turf, or the everyday folk who see the lawlessness and utter disrespect in those children whose brains have been addled by the effects of this truly evil weed.

Yet another example of why the man is out of touch with what is happening on the very mean streets he seeks to represent and not the right man to be our Candidate for London Mayor

[IRJMilne]

Regarding John Moss' comment: as I said in my first post above, I think people will read more liberalism into this quote than it contains. It is only a question of prioritising police resources here, not legalisation or down/upgrading of cannabis.

Presuming Mr Johnson would have much control over crime policy in London if elected, maybe he might like to focus more attention on tackling gun crime, as the new Home Secretary is evidently worthless and has no ideas at all, other than another "gun amnesty" (where people who don't intend to use their guns give them up, and those who do keep them).

[Richard]

"Drugs cause crime."

And prohibiting them doesn't?!

"A government should help the people to liberty by outlawing the prison of the mind that is drug addiction"

If people need the government to "help" them to liberty then they don't have any.

"I can only suppose that you think legislation against pornography is another example of "the nanny state"."

To be honest I regret the use of the term "nanny state". When it comes to issues such as drugs and pornography I prefer the term "grandaddy state" (which I have somewhat more sympathy towards because I'm socially conservative, even if I don't believe in using statew power to back my beliefs). I used to be of the opinion that drugs and pornography ought to be outlawed but as I increasingly became sick of interfering policiticans telling everybody how to run their lives and taxing them so that they can't spend their own money, I began to realise the inconsistency of my position. Regarding pornography, I presume you are referring to restrictions on availability. Well thanks to the internet any restrictions are effectively useless ands a lot of local shops sell hardcore porn so I'm not sure what you're thinking of.