It is increasingly clear that the Westminster bubble cannot shield itself from the debate on drug reform much longer.
Most politicians are terrified to express a firm opinion on drug policy reform, judging that breaking ranks and incurring the wrath of the right-wing press is not worth the hassle.
Nick Clegg called this a “conspiracy of silence”, sustained by politicians scared of opening up a controversial debate. Yet this implicit collusion is perfectly demonstrated by the difference between Nick Clegg’s beliefs in Europe and Nick Clegg’s beliefs in Westminster.
As a member of the European Parliament in 2002, Clegg supported a motion calling for the “legal control and regulation of the production, sale and use of currently illegal substances”, including “partially decriminalising the sale of cannabis” and “making heroin available under medical supervision”.
Since becoming an MP, however, he had largely avoided the drugs debate until his call last December for a Royal Commission to examine Britain’s drug laws. Even then, he was cautious and spoke in hints and generalities, avoiding the specific proposals he supported in Europe and straining to avoid mentioning decriminalisation.
There was further Lib Dem activity last Friday when Norman Baker, the Home Office minister responsible for drug policy, suggested that legal highs could be licensed and sold in regulated, blacked-out high street shops.
It is unclear whether the growing Lib Dem interest in drug policy over the past few months signals a move towards a radical 2015 manifesto pledge on drug reform, presumably starting with decriminalising cannabis, or whether drug reform will be just another thwarted Lib Dem ambition.
Both a Royal Commission and licensed legal high shops have been flatly rejected by the Tories, but the Lib Dems still plan to plough ahead with their own review of alternative international drug policies regardless.
Whatever the Lib Dems decide, it is clear that the Westminster bubble cannot shield itself from the debate on drug reform much longer.
First, voters are increasingly receptive to reforming drug laws. A narrow majority (53 per cent) now support legalising or decriminalising cannabis and, revealingly, forty-six percent of Daily Mail readers agree too. The Daily Mail may present itself as a bulwark against the soft, do-gooding liberal Establishment, but a vast chunk of its readers are now in favour of changing the law on drugs. The impact of a ‘tough on drugs’ media backlash is wildly exaggerated.
Second, international factors are favourable to drug reform, especially as alternative approaches emerge. Uruguay declared that the ‘war on drugs’ has failed, and is now the first country to legalise and tightly regulate the production, sale and use of cannabis.
The political impact of British drug policy on the rest of the world is often overshadowed by the widely accepted and widely abused idea that impartial, scientific evidence is sufficient to make good drug policy.
Given the colossal illegal drug industry that cuts across national boundaries, international co-ordination is clearly needed for any reforms to be fully effective. The run-up to the 2016 UN General Assembly Special Session on drug policy, initiated by Latin American states which face the consequences of the rest of the world’s drug laws, is an ideal opportunity and will trigger debate across the world.
Finally, an eclectic mix of experts, celebrities and campaigners in favour of drug reform are getting their message heard and making drug reform a mainstream issue. A petition started by Green MP Caroline Lucas – backed by Russell Brand, Richard Branson and Sting – passed the 100,000 signature mark needed for a debate in Parliament to be considered.
All sides of the debate base their argument on ‘reducing harm’. A truly bold move by any political party could finally allow the debate on how best to achieve this goal – a debate raging outside of Westminster – to break through.
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
13 Responses to “Does Nick Clegg still want to decriminalise cannabis?”
Dave
Both Labour and Tories are authoritarian, but to assert that “Labour is centre-right” is a leftwing fairy tale used to avoid facing the reality that leftist egalitarian politics REQUIRE authority and use of force to put into motion. If Labour were further left like they were in the 70s, they would necessarily be even more authoritarian, not less. They are a centre-left party acting the same way all centre-left social democratic parties act.
I agree that the political spectrum fairly irrelevant on the issue of drugs. Every political persuasion can find their own reasons for ending prohibition, whether it’s on grounds of privacy/personal freedom, responsibility, free trade, social justice, religious freedom, health, economic arguments or any other reason. Though they can also find a wide range of reasons for sustaining it.
Transformdrugs
Brand’s views have evolved since some of his previous statements. He is now making a second documentary on harm reduction http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/08/25/russell-brand-insite_n_3814734.html?just_reloaded=1
Sciamachy
If leftist egalitarian politics require authority, explain the anarchist successes in Barcelona in 1936 or the Makhnovists in the Ukraine 1918-1921. The only authority they had was that derived from a well-informed & mobilised working class, with decisions taken collectively. Anarchism works, which is why authoritarians do their best to crush it the moment it emerges.
Jane Peters
If it was legalized the black market would disappear. And you wouldn’t have to lock people up anymore. That would save a lot of money. It could be taxed and the proceeds could be used on education or anything else that’s needed.
Jocelyn
Drug use is a health issue not a criminal offence. There is an inherent hypocrisy when users are tolerated but it’s a crime to supply. Legal Highs should not be legalised. Cannabis should be legalised, and licensed, and regulated.