Legalisation of Cannabis in the UK - Essay Example

Legalisation of Cannabis in the UK and Introduction To legalise or not to legalise the use ofcannabis is one of the oldest drug policy debates in the UK (Meredith, 2013). The UK government has generally been against legalisation of the use of Cannabis (Dean, 2000). However, the recent legislation in Uruguay that legalized the use of Cannabis has rekindled the debate in the UK. Many lobbying agencies have come out strongly to support its legalisation citing many reasons why it would be in the best interest of the country to do so. These organizations include CLEAR (Cannabis Law Reform), YouGov and Transform Drug Policy Foundation (Doherty, 2014). According to these lobbying groups, the reasons advanced for banning the use of Cannabis do not outweigh the benefits legalisation could have. This paper deliberates on this debate on whether Cannabis should be legalized in the UK just like in Uruguay. In order to establish this, the paper starts by giving the background of the debate in the UK and then goes ahead to explicate the pros and cons of legalisation. The Legalisation Debate Research studies indicate that the UK population is one of the highest consumers of Cannabis in the world (Dean, 2000). According to Meredith (2013), its market is estimated to be worth 6 billion UK pounds. The UK population is also said to be consuming more than 3 tonnes of Cannabis daily (Chowdrey, 2014). As a result, many activists have suggested that the government has failed on its war on drugs. Their argument is rooted on the fact that the drug will always be there in the society and it is virtually impossible to prohibit people from using it either for medical or recreational purposes (Meredith, 2014). The debate on whether to legalise the cultivation, sale and consumption of Cannabis has been ongoing for decades in the UK. Subsequent governments have been considering the possibility of adopting a regulatory approach as opposed to a prohibitory one to advance its war on drugs. David Cameron, the Prime Minister, has been staunch in his stand against legalisation of cannabis and has on several occasions rejected the calls to form a royal commission that would look at the possibility of legalising Cannabis (Dailymail.co.uk, 2014). However, his opinion, evidently, is not held by all the stakeholders in the government. For instance, the Crime Prevention Minister Mr. Norman Baker took a different approach to this matter acknowledging that the level of harm that Cannabis posses to patrons is the same as that of alcohol or tobacco (Doherty, 2014). According to him, the resources and time that are used to fight the use of Cannabis could be directed at fighting harder drugs with more effectiveness. The calls to legalise Cannabis have especially increased now that Uruguay has legalized it, in the process becoming the first country to ever legalise the cultivation, sale and consumption of Cannabis. In Uruguay, a person is required to register on the national database before being allowed to purchase Cannabis for personal use (Meredith, 2013). All sale of Cannabis is done through the pharmacies which should have accreditation from the government. There is a cap on the amount of Cannabis one can purchase in a day which stands at 40g. Additionally, the adults are permitted to cultivate their own Cannabis plants for their personal use which should not exceed 8 plants (Meredith, 2014). The Uruguayan Government, through its National Drug Board, has set a system in place to regulate the market effectively killing the black market. This apparent success in Uruguay, coupled by more than 20 states in America that have already legalised its use, at least for medical purposes, have increased the calls for legalisation of cannabis. The argument is that if it can work elsewhere in the world, there is no reason why it could not work in the UK. While most of the proponents do not necessarily want a system similar to that employed in Uruguay, they would be contented with the Amsterdam-like Cannabis cafes (Meredith, 2014). Transform Drug Policy Foundation, for instance, supports the set up of such cafes. Transform proposes that these cafes could be licensed by the local authorities to sell cannabis at specific places and to a specific target audience (Chowdrey, 2014). A cap would be placed on individual’s consumption and the drug would also carry a health disclaimer just like alcohols and tobacco cigarettes. The following are some of the arguments that have been advanced for and against the legalisation of cannabis in the UK. Arguments for Legalisation of Cannabis The first, and major, argument is that Cannabis is not as harmful as it is portrayed by the media or the government (Doherty, 2014). According to researchers, alcohol and tobacco are even more harmful that Cannabis (Stevenson, 2014). While the studies on the harmfulness of Cannabis have been inconclusive at best because of conflicting results, the studies of harm posed by continued use of alcohol and tobacco have clear answers. Both of these drugs aid in the killing of brain cells, a fact that is yet to be proved in the case of Cannabis (ACMD, 2008). Research indicates that there are more that 26.000 deaths around the globe that is caused by alcohol and tobacco abuse (Stevenson, 2014). These deaths are solely and primarily caused by alcohol and tobacco abuse, for example, people who die of sclerosis or lung cancer and not from car accidents caused by driving under the influence of alcohol. The deaths caused by using or abusing Cannabis, on the other hand, are insignificant. One has to consume more than 20,000 marijuana cigarettes in less than a quarter of an hour for there to be an overdose that would cause death (Roffman and Stephens, 2006). This is virtually impossible. With regards to the level of harm posed by the use of Cannabis, the proponents for legalisation maintain that if it is used in moderation then there will be no harm at all. It would only be harmful when it is abused, and this hurdle can be managed through public education (Chowdrey, 2014). The proponents further argue that even coffee or pizza is harmful to one’s health if abused. They wonder why the government is not limiting or prohibiting their use while it is public knowledge that they are harmful (Balancedpolitics.org, 2014). They, further, ask whether the general public would be comfortable with the government legislating, for example on whether they should consume tea, coffee, tobacco or alcohol. If the government do not regulate these caffeine-containing drugs, which are more addictive that cannabis, it should not have any business prohibiting or capping the use of cannabis. Secondly, prohibition of the use of cannabis is tantamount to intrusion on one’s privacy, and to avoid this, the use of cannabis should be legalised (Kilmer, 2012). One of the basic human rights is the right to self-determination. This is the right a person reserves to choose what is best for him or her; to choose what harms him or her (Meredith, 2013). The lobbying groups are, especially, singling out the conservatives who believe in freedom and personal responsibility to support this quest. Even if the government wants to protect its population, it should not be to the extent of directing them on what they can consume and what they cannot (Dailymail.co.uk, 2014). The proponents further argue that cannabis use is, at best, a “victimless crime” in that it is only the person who is using the substance that becomes adversely affected, if at all there are negative effects (Coomber, 2000). It is sensible that a person who wants to harm himself be allowed to do so as long as he does not harm others in the process. It is, however, important to note that the claim that cannabis use is a victimless crime has been disputed as a fact. According to the proponents of legalisation, the issue of cannabis use should be an issue of morality, not legality. And as such, the government should not legislate on issues of morality because morality is relative and hard to define (McCrystal and Winning, 2009). What one considers as moral may not be the case for another. The third argument for legalisation of cannabis is that it has numerous medical benefits (Kilmer, 2012). Research indicates that there are more than a thousand medical products that could be manufactured from cannabis and its products (Doherty, 2014). Cannabis is a strong painkiller; it is also less harmful and addictive than most of the strong painkillers being used in hospitals which are opiates. It is asserted that Cannabis is extremely helpful in treating people with mental health conditions especially depression and memory loss (Roffman and Stephens, 2006). It is taunted to be cure cancer as it contains components that are found in the antibodies tasked with killing cancer cells (Meredith, 2013). If only they can be outsourced from the plant, a big step towards treatment of cancer will have been made. There would be no need for chemotherapy which, in most instances, has adverse effects on the health of the cancer patient even though it kills cancer cells (Dean, 2000). Other medical conditions that Cannabis is said to be treating include bladder control, inflammation and high blood pressure. Legalising the cultivation, sale and consumption of Cannabis will also reduce the amount of drug related crimes (Balancedpolitics.org, 2014). The use of Cannabis and drug-related crimes are intertwined. People need money to purchase Cannabis, and since it is an illegal drug it is sold expensively. If people do not have this amount of money to satisfy their cravings they resort to crimes such as robbery and mugging to get the cash (Coomber, 2000). The high prices of illegal drugs such as Cannabis are usually attributed to the risks that come with their cultivation, sale and transportation (Roffma and Stephens, 2006). It is actually the cost of risk that accounts for the larger percentage of the pricing figure. Legalising the use of Cannabis will reduce the risk cost and considerably reduce the total cost of production and pricing. Patrons will get the product at relatively lower prices and the rate of crimes would reduce since the commodity will be available at affordable prices. Legalising the cultivation, sale and consumption of Cannabis will also reduce street justice that result from misunderstandings and disputes over drugs (Acevedo, 2007). Presently, there is no recourse in courts when there is a Cannabis-related dispute, for instance, when one fails to pay for credit sale on time or when a Cannabis cargo on transit gets busted (Balancedpolitics.org, 2014). The owner of the drug has to recover the value of the item on his own and, more often than not, it results to the use of force. A self-perpetuating cycle of retaliatory violence is ultimately created. It is estimated that nearly 5,000 people are killed in Britain as a direct result of street justice related to illegal drugs (Stevenson, 2014). The drug lords have their own gangs of enforcers to take care of this. However, these deaths could be avoided if the use of cannabis is made legal such that any dispute can be forwarded to the relevant authorities and the matter addressed in a civil manner amicably. Another major argument for the legalisation of the sale and use of cannabis is that it can be a major source of additional tax revenues (Reinarman, 2009). Every country could do with more revenue. Instead of trying to control something that is virtually impossible to control, it would be better to regulate it and, in the process, turn it into an economic product that earns the country extra income. Currently, substantive amount of money is collected as tobacco cigarettes and alcohol tax in the UK, cannabis too can act as a source of income tax (Stevenson, 2014). Given that the Britons consume more cannabis that even the countries that have permitted its use, the revenues that are to be generated from it as an economic good shall be significant. For instance, in the Netherlands, nearly 3% of its GDP income comes from cannabis trade (Doherty, 2014). If only proper regulatory structures are put in place and the necessary laws legislated, an appropriate economic atmosphere can be cultivated where the cultivation, sale and consumption of the economic good can prosper for the economic benefit of the country. Another economic reason for legalising the use of cannabis is that it presents a platform for employment opportunity creation (Kilmer, 2012). Currently, nearly 15% of the population is unemployed (Stevenson, 2014). Allowing the cultivation, sale and consumption of cannabis to be done openly means that more people will indulge in these activities. With this increased activity, the demand for more labour and expertise will increase and more people will be sourced to fill these employment opportunities. The unemployment rate would decrease and so would the crime rates which are directly linked to the unemployment rates. The goodwill towards the government would also increase as a result of the decrease in unemployment rates (ACMD, 2008). Furthermore, the goodwill is bound to increase once the government directs its resources on the tasks that the citizens view as worthwhile. The war on drugs has consumed a lot of resources, in form of money and time. A significant number of police officers are involved in drug busts every now and then; a lot of public lawyers spend their time defending criminals who are charged with possessing and selling illegal drugs such as cannabis and many judges spend time hearing and determining Cannabis-related cases. All these resources could be used to address the increased robbery, rape and murder cases (Balancedpolitics.org, 2014). Additionally, legalising the cultivation, sale and consumption of cannabis will lead to production and consumption of quality and safe cannabis (Acevedo, 2007). Currently, there is no government agency that oversees the quality of cannabis that is being sold in the black market. As a result, many people are consuming poorly prepared drugs which are harmful to their health. Legalisation will increase responsibility and product liability. It will also provide a basis for suing for product liability if a product becomes harmful in a manner not envisaged by quality controls (Balancedpolitics.org, 2014). Legalising Cannabis use may also lead to the collapse of the drug dealers’ businesses which are hugely reliant on the black market for their profitability (Doherty, 2014). More often than not, these drug lords double up as terrorists. If their revenues and businesses collapse, their terrorist activities will be under-funded and will decrease. It would not be a surprise to find out that the majority of the people who are against legalising of Cannabis are the drug lords themselves (Chowdrey, 2014). This is because they know that selling products on the black market fetches them more money than selling the same in a liberalised market because there is less competition. Reduced competition changes the market structure from a perfect competition market to an oligopoly or monopoly where the drug sellers arbitrarily set the prices, most of the time charging exorbitantly to make abnormal profits (Reinarman, 2009). If the market is liberalised these drug cartels will lose the control they have over the market and lose their money some of which is used to facilitate criminal activities. There is also the argument that Cannabis is just a guilty pleasure substance just like sex or alcohol is to some people (Coomber, 2000). As such, the user derives pleasure from using it and sometimes makes life worth living for the user (Balancedpolitics.org, 2014). This pleasure should not be curtailed just because its use is potentially hazardous. Lastly, drugs busts have had negative effects on the youths by turning them into lifelong criminals. The argument here is that, it is the young people who are used to sale and transport Cannabis in the streets partly because they are harder to suspect and they need the money for their survival. When they are caught, the faulty justice system puts them away in prisons where they meet other hardcore criminals and learn the tricks of trade which they later on use when they are released. This may be because they cannot continue with their education anymore or that they cannot secure employment opportunities because of their criminal records. Legalising the sale and consumption of Cannabis would reduce the number of youths who turn into lifelong criminals. Arguments against Legalising The major argument against legalisation of the cultivation, sale and consumption of Cannabis is that it may be used as a stepping stone by most people to move to the use of harder drugs (McCrystal and Winning, 2009). Cannabis is rated as a Class B drug. Class A drugs include hard drugs like cocaine and heroin. Research indicates that most of the people who are abusing hard drugs started from the soft ones (Dean, 2000). One starts smoking tobacco cigarettes, then moves to Cannabis and finally graduates to using LSD, cocaine and heroin. If, presently, there is a high transition rate from Class B drugs to Class A drugs, what would happen when it is legalised hence increasing the number of prospective Cannabis users? The increased number of Cannabis users means that the probability of the users being emboldened to try harder drugs would also increase and this would be harmful to the society in the long run as crime activities and drug peddling will increase (Kilmer, 2012). Secondly, the legalisation of the drug will increase its chances of falling into the wrong hands, especially kids (Acevedo, 2007). It generally follows that anytime a substance is decriminalised the probability that children would access it increases (McCrystal and Winning, 2009). If the government is already struggling controlling children from accessing legal drugs such as tobacco cigarettes and alcohol, how will it be able to control their access to Cannabis which is more dangerous than the other two? It would be an exercise in futility (Chowdrey, 2014). The proponents against legalisation of Cannabis first wishes that the government demonstrates that they can have control over other drugs before convincing them that their regulatory instruments for cannabis would be functional and effective (Meredith, 2014). The regulatory environment has to be perfect for the children’s sake because they are more susceptible to the negative effects of the drugs as their bodies, unlike adults’, are not suited to. They have brains that are still young and developing and can easily be destroyed by Cannabis. They also do not have the same reasoning standards or the sense of responsibility as an adult and may not know when to stop or realize when they have overdosed themselves (Roffman and Stephens, 2006). It is, therefore, crucial that the drug is not legalised at least until the necessary regulatory instruments are put in place and prove to be effective. The third major argument against Cannabis legalisation is that it may be used as a basis to legalise other hard drugs (Balancedpolitiics.org, 2014). Cultural shifts are brought about by the set precedents. If a country starts by legalising one drug people would start to demand for the legalisation of others too because they may not be able to understand the rationale behind banning others and decreminalising the rest. To stay on the safer side and avoid confusion, it is essential that no hard drugs are legalised lest the “anything goes” mentality is adopted by the society (ACMD, 2008). The mentality is extremely dangerous as anything can be introduced into the society; things that were once immoral or illegal gradually gain acceptance become the norm. In fact, this is the mentality and approach that those who are seeking for the drug to be decriminalised are using at the moment. They are advancing the argument that Cannabis use is similar to alcohol and tobacco use and that there should be no reason why Cannabis use should be a criminal act whereas that of alcohol and tobacco are not (Dailymail.co.uk, 2014). Once the Cannabis use is legalised, the same argument will be used to advocate and agitate for the legalisation of heroin, cocaine, amphetamines and other hard drugs (Stevenson, 2014). The use of Cannabis is harmful to one’s health (Kilmer, 2012). The claim that the drug is harmless is untrue and is meant to mislead the public. Continued use of Cannabis can lead to brain damage, lung damage and even cancer (Balancedpolitics.org, 2014). It can also lead to depression and even death of the user. Hardcore users of Cannabis do suffer from memory loss and find it problematic to make cogent conversation and lose their problem solving skills. It is the duty of the government to protect its citizens from harmful products and as such decriminalising would be detrimental to the government’s efforts to protect its citizen’s wellbeing (ACMD, 2008). Contrary to popular belief that Cannabis use is a “victimless crime”, it actually is not (Acevedo, 2007). There are many people who do undesirable things when under its influence, just like a person under the influence of alcohol. Currently, the government has not been able to manage and deter driving vehicles under the influence of alcohol, how will it manage to control driving under the influence of Cannabis? Whereas detecting a drunk driver is somewhat easy because of alcohol smell, detecting a driver who has smoked marijuana may be tricky unless the driver has been smoking in the car (Balacedpolitics.org, 2014). If the traffic officers fail to flag down a driver who has smoked Cannabis, the chances of a road accident as a result are increased because the driver’s judgment has been compromised. Apart from road accidents, a person under the influence of Cannabis is also likely to commit other crimes such as murder and rape because they are not in their right state of mind because of the intoxication (Kilmer, 2012). The society will be better off without these potential hazards. Additionally, most of the people in the society consider smoking bhang to be immoral (Dailymail.co.uk, 2014). If the majority is of that view then making it illegal should be the next step in order to enforce this morality among the dissenting few. A survey conducted by YouGov indicated that 47% of the citizens would not want it to be legalised, 45% would want it legalised while 8% did not care about the decision (Stevenson, 2014). Cannabis is an intoxicating substance, most of the major religions in the world including Islam, Christianity, Hindu, Buddhism and many others are against the intoxication of the body. Therefore, it is fitting that it is not legalised. The legalisation of Cannabis use will increase the level of criminal activities in the country (Kilmer, 2012). The chances that the drug lords who have been used to controlling their own markets will adhere to the set regulations in a liberalised market are nearly nonexistent. These drug lords will still peddle Cannabis in a black market or abandon it for other hard drugs that increase the potential for optimal profitability. The level of criminal activity, therefore, does not reduce but just gets shifted from one plane of operation to another (Coomber, 2000). Additionally, as long as peddling Cannabis remains illegal, more and more criminals will continue being put behind bars. There are a lot of instances where a suspect for grave crimes such as murder and rape is caught in possession of drugs such as Cannabis. Even if this suspect is not convicted for the rape, robbery or murder charges may be because of insufficient evidence they are still put behind bars for drug possession and sale (Balancedpolitics.org, 2014; ACMD; 2008). The streets become a better place all the same while the drug dealers are in custody as they cannot commit the other crimes they are accused of. Lastly, if the use of Cannabis is legalised secondhand smoking will also increase (McCrystal and Winning, 2009). Research indicates that secondhand smoking is more harmful than primary smoking especially in the case of tobacco (Kilmer, 2012). The dangers posed to secondhand smokers are grave as there is no filter to sieve out harmful commodities. Legalising the use of Cannabis will increase the number of people exposed to secondhand smoke. Patrons in the bars or passengers and bystanders would be greatly inconvenienced by the people smoking Cannabis. Eventually, the hazardous effects of Cannabis will be spread exponentially (Dean, 2000). In conclusion, it is clear that the debate on whether to legalise or not has been ongoing for quite some time. However, despite the increased calls to legalise the cultivation, sale and consumption of Cannabis, the official government position is that it is not about to decriminalize it any time soon (Dailymail.co.uk, 2014; Dean, 2000). Uruguay has made history as the first country to legalise its sale and use. Before legalising it, however, the country did put in place the necessary mechanisms to regulate Cannabis consumption. These mechanisms are not in place in the UK, yet the failure of the war on drugs has necessitated lobbyists to agitate for Cannabis legalisation. Some of the major arguments for legalising Cannabis include the economic benefits the country stands to benefit from in the form of increased tax income and increased economic products sourced from Cannabis (Meredith, 2013). Legalisation of Cannabis is also bound to aid in advancement in the medical sector as more drugs can be developed and also frees up police and judges to deal with harder crimes such as rape, murder and armed robbery. However, those who are against the legalisation state that there is a huge risk that Cannabis may be used as a stepping stone drug by the population to graduate to harder drugs (Stevenson, 2014). Also, there is a growing fear that if Cannabis is legalised the push to legalise other illegal drugs, some harder than Cannabis, would also grow which is not healthy for the country. It is, therefore, evident that the proponents for legalisation have advanced more arguments than those against legalisation of Cannabis; however, the final decision rests with the government as legalisation can only be allowed once the appropriate regulatory environment has been established. References Acevedo, B., 2007. Creating the cannabis user: A post-structuralist analysis of the re-classification of cannabis in the UK (2004-2005). International Journal of Drug Policy, 18, pp.177-186. Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD), 2008. Cannabis: Classification and public health. London: Home Office. Balancedpolitics.org, 2014. Should marijuana be legalised under any circumstances? Balancedpolitics.org, [Online] Available at: [Accessed 4th May 2014] Chowdrey, N., 2014. How legalising weed will save Britain billions. Vice.com, [Online] Available at: [Accessed on 3rd May 2014] Coomber, R., 2000. How the media do drugs: Quality control and the reporting of drugs issues in the UK print media. International Journal of Drug Policy, 11, pp.217-225. Dailymail.co.uk, 2014. Lilley’s call to legalise cannabis welcomed. Mail Online, [Online] Available at: [Accessed 4th May 2014] Dean, M., 2000. UK government reject advice to update drug laws. Lancet, 355(9212), p.1341. Doherty, L., 2014. Legalise marijuana and hempUK. Change.org, [Online] Available at: [Accessed 3rd May 2014] Kilmer, B., 2012. Marijuana legalisation: What everyone needs to know. Oxford: Oxford University Press. McCrystal, P., and Winning, K., 2009. Cannabis reclassification: What is the message to the next generation of cannabis users? Child Care in Practice, 15, pp.57-73. Meredith, C., 2013. Legalising cannabis in the Britain, like Uruguay, “would save millions”. The Huffington Post UK, [Online] Available at: [Accessed 3rd May 2014] Meredith, C., 2014. Cannabis legalisation in the UK called for as Amsterdam-style café plan is proposed. The Huffington UK, [Online] Available at: [Accessed 3rd May 2014] Reinarman, C., 2009. Cannabis policies and user practices: Market separation, price, potency, and accessibility in Amsterdam and San Francisco. International Journal of Drug Policy, 20, pp. 28-37. Roffman, R., and Stephens, R., 2006. Cannabis dependence: Its nature, consequences and treatment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Stevenson, C., 2012. Cannabis use: What’s the law got to do with it? Perceptions and knowledge of cannabis policy from the user perspective in Northern Ireland. Drugs. Education, Prevention and Policy, 19(2), pp. 129-136. Read More