Main Edition
US
FR
July 18, 2024 - 7:00am
The incoming Labour government has reignited an old debate about smoking by choosing to breathe new life into Rishi Sunak’s Tobacco and Vapes Bill. This bill will “progressively increase the age at which people can buy cigarettes and impose limits on the sale and marketing of vapes” in order to create a “smoke-free generation”. The new government’s proposed legislative programme includes other public health measures, not just pertaining to smoking bans but also a renewed focus on mental health by reforming the Mental Health Act.
Conspicuous by its absence was any mention of cannabis — despite the drug being at the centre of health issues related to smoking and mental wellbeing. Cannabis use is associated with a range of deleterious mental health outcomes, including increased risks pertaining to suicide, self-harm, depression, anxiety, mania and psychosis. A study published a few years ago by The Lancet, for example, gave a stark warning that “daily cannabis use was associated with increased odds of psychotic disorder compared with never users […] increasing to nearly five-times increased odds for daily use of high-potency types of cannabis.”
This is reflected by the fact that there is now a cannabis clinic specifically for patients with psychosis in London. But when questioned about his position on the legal status of cannabis, Keir Starmer denied that he had any plans to liberalise access to the drug. Nevertheless, his stance is increasingly at odds with the views of his party and even his own Cabinet.
The wider progressive political movement, of which the Labour Party forms a part, is acting inconsistently on the issue of smoking in general. The Liberal Democrats, for instance, support smoking bans when it comes to tobacco, but legalisation when it comes to cannabis. What explains this clear and obvious inconsistent approach to smoking by progressives?
The answer is ideological. As drug policy experts Keith Humphreys and Wayne Hall explain, in a number of countries cannabis use has traditionally been associated with Left-wing grassroots activism. As such, Left-leaning parties are typically more sympathetic. That is in spite of the fact that, in the United States and Canada, the “industry is run by business executives with law degrees and MBAs who are adopting the business practices of the tobacco and alcohol industries,” they write.
Tobacco is implicitly Right-coded due to its associations with consumerism, advertising, mass marketing, sponsorship, and the unacceptable face of capitalism in the form of Big Tobacco. Cannabis is implicitly Left-coded due to its associations with underdog/outsider groups such as hippies and Rastafarians. The inconsistent approach to smoking taken by progressives — such as Lib Dem Deputy Leader Daisy Cooper — isn’t based on a substantive and objective assessment of harms or a deep understanding of the issues involved.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeIf cannabis was legalised and regulated in order to limit harmful content then it would save money and generate revenue. That us notwithstanding the right if people to ingest what they like. People like you need to mind your own business.
Does the right of people to ingest what they like imply their duty to cover the costs of the consequences, in your theory?
No, because we don’t do that to people who ingest alcohol, sugar, and highly processed foods.
Where does that stop? Do you refuse to treat somebody who has fallen over after 10 beers? Do you refuse to treat somebody who has fallen over after 3 beers? Do you charge the overweight for their treatment, or somebody who breaks their leg playing football?
The health consequences of wider Cannabis use are huge, birth defects, mental illness, testicular and other cancers. Have we learnt nothing from tobacco?
Realistically, Cannabis legalisation in the UK is now dead. The two main parties are broadly agreed, they want to reduce tobacco use even more, in that scenario encouraging increased Cannabis use will not get off the ground.
There wil be a few potheads and dinosaurs who continue with their pointless enthusiasm for the weed but essentially the argument in the UK has been won. Not by the potheads.
The thing that first turned me off Sunak was his absurd Tobacco Bill, and it looks like Starmer doesn’t know idiocy when he sees it. Smoking is already highly restricted. Let’s leave it there. As to cannabis, it should be legalised, like it is in a lot of US States. It doesn’t matter that the industry is run by people with law degrees and MBAs. Full disclosure: I have a law degree and an MBA, but am not a user of cannabis. I do however support the rights of the individual to ingest what they want.
I used to feel the same way. I had a very libertarian perspective on what people can and cannot do with and to their own bodies, especially when it came to drug use because I saw that as having consequences that were restricted to the individual.
However, my opinion on this has changed as I watched cities where I used to live and work prior to immigrating to the UK (ie, Portland, OR and Seattle, WA) pass drug laws that decriminalize drug use. The result has been truly horrific. Drug use is rampant and uncontrolled. The streets are no longer safe, community services are completely overwhelmed, and people are dying.
Decriminalizing drugs in the name of individual liberty works in theory but has negative real world consequences.
America also has decriminalized gun ownership in the name of individual liberty and look how that has worked out.
Not sure that you and Martin are talking about the same thing.
Decriminalisation and legalisation are different proposals. Under the former, you literally decriminalise, but the drug trade remains black market. Under the latter, you set up regulations to allow for a regulated industry while continuing to combat the black market trade.
A third proposal is what’s happened in Canada with marijuana, which was legalized but without any real attempt to combat the black market trade (which continues to flourish). Unfortunately.
But the facts don’t support your assertion. Latest data show that 82% of all cannabis purchased in Canada is through legal channels. This after just six years where there was a deeply entrenched illicit market.
This is a triumph, fully vindicating legalisation.
I used to think like that as well but now I believe that as conservatives, whilst individual choice is important, responsibility for the consequences of that choice doesn’t end with the individual but the implications of having choice need to be considered for society at large.
If I want to enjoy a potentially harmful substance, then the costs incurred by those who cannot do so safely, should be primarily incurred by those who wish to partake. I dislike the liberal attitude of, “ I can enjoy it safely therefore I have no responsibility for those who can’t.” All that does it pass the costs on to society and ultimately to those who don’t choose to partake, which is the very opposite of the personal responsibility often preached by the right.
Why don’t we extend that to harmful activities as well? If you go mountain climbing or hang gliding, and you get injured, why should society bear the cost? If you get lost on a hike in the forest, or end up in the water after your boat capsizes, surely you should pay the full cost of your rescue?
If you did, and insurance based healthcare does take to account participation in high risk activities and general health, then you’d find benefits of exercise far outweigh the costs of the occasional accident and are far less prevalent than those harms from substance abuse. If we were to calculate the cost to the healthcare system of someone who goes hiking vs someone who sits on the couch all day, the hiker will be far less of a burden.
An entirely one-sided view. Cannabis has been shown to have beneficial effects as well. Medical cannabis is now legalised in the UK, yet this opinion piece omits any mention of that. I would prefer to see high quality research into the medical uses of cannabis, and if it is shown to be as good as, or better than, existing medications, then it should be made as available as other medications.
Currently, patients in the UK are paying for private prescriptions of cannabis.
The debate here isn’t about medical use. Medical use is legislated for separately and regulated entirely differently. Nicotine has potential medical uses, more so than cannabis, but, funnily enough, the activists aren’t so interested in this.
The debate here is about the consumer use of a psychoactive substances that are known to cause psychological and physiological harms. On the one hand we have nicotine vapes, for which there is very little evidence of psychological and physiological harm, in the process of being banned. And on the other hand we have cannabis (smoked), for which we have lots of evidence of cancer (the same mechanisms as smoking anything) and psychotic behaviour (quite unique to cannabis), which is effectively being legalised. This doesn’t add up.
I’m a Canadian doc who has experience in public health including having served on a committee on cannabis regulation and its medical uses. There are many decades of research into cannabis. It is not like “other medications”. It’s a plant. Different strains are completely unlike one another (from minimal/no THC to over 20%). It is (generally) smoked (doctors don’t prescribe any other medications that are smoked). There are a raft of known adverse effects from testicular cancer risk to psychosis to cannabis-induced vomiting to increased anxiety.
My conclusion is that, like alcohol, some people like to use cannabis. They like being stoned. Some people like to use it regularly. As a libertarian, I say “fill yer boots”. Just don’t try to tell me that it’s “medical”.
Witty response doc, you miss a big point,its physcoactive properties could indeed in some people -who are heading in that direction anyway- cause psychotic episodes however a lot of users who use it find it’s properties useful in their lives.
I think you are mixing up causal and associative outcomes of use.
In Hillbilly Elegy JD Vance is excoriating about the lack of responsibility of the people he grew up with. He’s now making the point that the opioid crisis is also a function of a rapacious pharmaceutical industry, with all the marketing power at its disposal, being part of the problem.
That seems to me to be sensible. An emphasis on personal responsibility allied with government action to curb some of the excesses of unfettered capitalism, is the sort of nuanced analysis you’d hope for from politicians.
There are no solutions, only trade offs, is worth bearing in mind before taking a tribal, absolutist stance. I think that is the point the article is making. We seem to lack politicians willing to look at an issue objectively and propose a sensible middle ground that isn’t left or right coded.
There was a time when the American Right professed to support freedom and the rights of the individual (although it didn’t always work out that way in practice). Things seem to have changed a bit.
There cannot be a “free” market in general, but not in drugs, or prostitution, or pornography, or unrestricted alcohol, or unrestricted gambling. That is an important part of why there must not be a “free” market in general, which is a political choice, not a law of nature. Enacting and enforcing laws against drugs, prostitution and pornography, and regulating alcohol, tobacco and gambling, are clear examples of State intervention in, and regulation of, the economy. Radical change would be impossible if the workers, the youth and the poor were in a state of stupefaction, and that baleful situation, which has been contrived in the past, is being contrived again today.
We need a single category of illegal drug, including cannabis, with a crackdown on possession, including a mandatory sentence of two years for a first offence, three years for a second offence, four years for a third offence, and so on. I no longer believe in prison sentences that include the possibility of release in less than 12 months; in that case, then your crime was not bad enough to warrant imprisonment, which the possession of drugs is. We need to restore the specific criminal offence of allowing one’s premises to be used for illegal drug purposes. And Peter Hitchens’s The War We Never Fought should be taught in schools, as pro-drugs propaganda is routinely.
Do you propose including alcohol and tobacco in with that?
People must have their vices. Cannabis is a vice, that can have very deleterious effects, but is overwhelmingly safer than alcohol, tobacco – as well as everyday activities such as crossing the road, and wild swimming. There is no need to rehash the risk profile over and over again.
Regulate. Educate. Properly. Be realistic and fair. Use monies raised from taxation to lessen any negative effects.
Do not repeat the mess that the US seems to have sliden into.
point taken. the dangers to young minds. potential of schizo-spectrum disorders. especially among those self medicating.
but would you make apothecary products: oils, lubricants, tolietries etc with nicotine? no i don’t think so. i mean yes but they’re worthless. Cannabis taken externally (through the skin) can also provide deep stimulation to the endocannabinoid system without the psychoactive properties from ingestion (eating/drinking/smoking).
This article is based on a completely false premise, that there are significant health harms associated with cannabis. There aren’t.
Of course, it’s not harmless but then nothing is. Peanuts, energy drinks and ultra processed food have far more health harms than cannabis.
It’s all relative and cannabis does not warrant the present restrictions on it. They cause more harm than they prevent.
According to the University of York’s meta-study, the lifetime risk of a diagnosis of psychosis associated with cannabis use amongst regular users is 1 in 20,000. https://www.york.ac.uk/news-and-events/news/2017/research/psychosis-risk-low-from-cannabis-use/ According to the National Geographic, the lifetime risk of being struck by lightning is 1 in 3,000 https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/flash-facts-about-lightning
By far the greatest harm associated with cannabis is from the criminal market through which it is produced and distributed.
Bad drugs policy is the cause of most crime and violence. Prohibition has created criminal drugs markets which are based on violence, child exploitation and which corrupt our society at all levels.
Demand comes from within our own communities and it is huge with more than 95% of all cannabis use entirely without harm to the consumer or wider society. When the law turns the forces of law enforcement against the communities they are supposed to protect, there starts the breakdown of law, order and society.
https://www.fredhutch.org/en/news/releases/2009/02/marijuana.html
Cannabis and testicular cancer
https://www.bmj.com/content/362/bmj.k3357/rr-0
BMJ Comment on Cannabis teratogenicity (Birth defects)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3927252/
Cannabis and psychosis
Duplicate removed