
Why the smell of cannabis is everywhere and no one does anything
Then a young hoodied couple arrive, wreathed in plumes of cannabis smoke. The idyll is broken.
'It was the boldness of them that got me,' says Hannaford*, 64. 'The lad even came up and started chatting to me, spliff in his hand, about whether the fish were biting. I could have been a policeman or anyone — they just couldn't care.'
• Legalisation of cannabis in US driving soaring rates at UK border
From genteel parts of the Peak District to the dingiest squares in central Manchester, the acrid smell of cannabis smoke is increasingly hard to avoid.
In an alarming admission to The Sunday Times last month, Sir Andy Marsh, a chief constable and head of the College of Policing, said: 'I smell it in communities I would never have smelt it in before, from little villages to towns. We should be prepared to do something about it.'
Yet most of the time, overstretched police do nothing about it. In their absence, some councils, receiving increasing numbers of complaints from residents, are trialling their own interventions to tackle nuisance cannabis smoke.
Experts say that smoking of the drug in public has increased notably since the Covid lockdowns.
• Angela Rayner: I've taken all sorts — but we won't legalise cannabis
'There's definitely more [cannabis] smoking in public and it's for two reasons,' says Simon Harding, professor of criminology and sociology at St Mary's University in Twickenham. 'First, it's a provocation: 'what are you gonna do about it?'
'The other part is just a nonchalance. It's so much part of everyday life at home that they no longer have the boundaries between their private social space and their public space. You see it on the bus, where people think it's fine to have loud music or videos on their phones.'
Non-smokers are becoming increasingly frustrated. An Ipsos poll of 1,081 adults conducted for The Sunday Times found 64 per cent bothered by the smell of cannabis smoke in their area. Forty-three per cent said it had become more prevalent in the past year.
Nor is this just an urban issue. Nearly a third (31 per cent) of people living in rural areas had smelt cannabis smoke near their homes in the previous month, compared with 45 per cent of city dwellers. In fact, cannabis smoke was in the top five gripes about modern British life, beaten only by littering/fly-tipping, phone theft, shoplifting and badly parked e-bikes.
To get a better sense of how and why cannabis has become so prevalent, we visited and conducted interviews in West Yorkshire, Berkshire, London and East Anglia, regularly encountering its distinctive waft, and finding a nation caught between tolerance and mounting frustration.
According to the Office for National Statistics, 6.8 per cent of people in England and Wales reported using cannabis in 2023-24, which is about 2.3 million people. Surprisingly, given the apparent increase in public smoking, that marked a 200,000 decline in overall use.
The picture is mixed. In Hebden Bridge, the artsy Pennines town, cannabis use is remarkably public and commonplace. In a late afternoon audit of the town centre on a Thursday last month, we came across eight groups of people or individuals who appeared to be smoking it, and one apparent cannabis deal taking place in broad daylight in the town square. We saw no police.
On a bench in Calder Holmes Park, we met Jahan, 27-years-old, with a long, black ponytail, who was smoking a joint with his mother. 'There are loads of pubs here who allow people to smoke cannabis in their beer gardens,' said Jahan. 'Locals round here don't care.'
Not everyone in the town is so relaxed. Michael Hylands, 75, retired and with neatly cropped white hair, angrily described it as an 'epidemic', pointing out that this is not just a crime and disorder issue. The strength of high-grade skunk being smoked today doesn't just smell more pungent, but is having a major psychological impact on users.
• Legalisation of cannabis in US driving soaring rates at UK border
'Everywhere you go, it's really bad,' he said. 'The young ones here are really struggling with it psychologically. The weed's so strong today, and it's everywhere. You'd think it was legal.'
When asked about our findings, Hebden Bridge's local police inspector, Craig Collins, said his officers were carrying out 'proactive policing operations' and had made six stop-and-searches in the past month, resulting in one arrest and some 'community resolutions'.
The authorities are certainly supposed to police cannabis use; the drug retains a class B classification, with those caught in possession facing up to five years in prison, a fine or both. But in reality, many cannabis smokers operate with something close to impunity.
Police resources are mostly devoted elsewhere. In December, a survey of 253 police officers conducted by Opinium for the Centre for Social Justice think tank found that 66 per cent believed the drug has, in practice, been fully, partially or mostly decriminalised. An even greater number said the state's approach doesn't work:
One experienced policeman based in Camden, north London, told us it was impractical to expect them to do any more, particularly with the paperwork involved in arresting and processing offenders. 'When an average officer might have 15 or 20 cases on their hands for assaults and other more serious stuff, they're just not going to go around arresting people for smoking a joint,' they said.
• Gen Z drink far less than their parents but want drugs decriminalised
More effort goes into pursuing the cultivation of the drug, but police are overwhelmed with the number of new 'grows' — cannabis farms — setting up across the country. From vacant rooms above shops to flats, houses and industrial estates, gangs have been setting up grows to supply their local markets, says Harding.
In recent years cannabis farming has been dominated by Albanians who have aggressively expanded their operations across the country. The drug is now also widely available online, with advertisements stuck to lampposts and advertising posted on social media.
Is there more that can be done? Councils across the UK have been receiving increasing numbers of complaints from residents about public cannabis smoking. In Ipswich, councillor John Cook's environmental health team saw a particular spike in concern from residents whose neighbour's smoke was persistently wafting into their property.
His team launched a pilot programme where, rather than treating public cannabis smoking as a crime for the police to handle, they treated it as a nuisance, like loud music or regular bonfire smoke, meaning council officers could intervene more easily.
A hotline was set up last year for residents. Council officials would start off by monitoring the property, then knock on the door to tell the offending smoker of the complaint. If that did not work, they would follow up with formal warning letters and, finally, sterner mediation.
This had a significant impact. Some 80 per cent of the cases were resolved with the initial 'words of advice', with three quarters of the remainder ceasing after receiving the letter. Only a minority required further mediation.
'I was sceptical at first, but it's been a great success,' says Cook. The nine-month pilot has been made permanent, and complaints have slowed down to a dozen or so a month. Other councils are now looking at launching similar 'cannabis odour' projects.
Simon Harding's fear is that antisocial behaviour such as public cannabis smoking is sending wealthier people to live, work and play in privately managed and well-policed housing, office and retail developments, leaving everyone else stuck in crime-infested high streets and housing estates.
But even in glossy, privately owned public spaces, the authorities' attitudes to cannabis smoking seem relaxed. Canada Water is a 53-acre expanse of shiny new shops, bars, offices and apartments being developed in what was once a tough area of southeast London.
A handful of uniformed security staff employed by British Land, which owns and manages the development, keep watch over the shiny new development.
As we began interviewing British Land's operations director Mark Evans about his cannabis policy, we were engulfed in a cloud of smoke. A twentysomething man in sunglasses and a bandana had lit himself a long, pungent joint. On the bench next to him, a father and his young son gazed out over the lake eating ice creams. Nobody said a word.
'I don't see any harm,' Evans explained as we watched the scene. 'Nobody seems bothered and if no one's being affected, and no one's complained, we'd probably let it ride. We don't want to go looking for trouble unnecessarily.'
It was similar near the neatly clipped playing fields of Eton College in Berkshire, where we met Dave*, a 50-year-old music teacher and father of two.
An advocate of legalisation, he said he usually smokes cannabis twice a week. But he also believes it should be done away from other members of the public.
• Sadiq Khan calls for cannabis to be decriminalised
As we walked on a footpath through the grounds, by a cricket match being played by boys from the famous school, a man cycled past smoking a joint. Dave tutted in irritation. We had already seen three people smoking cannabis in busy areas on the 20-minute walk from the train station.
'It's just inconsiderate,' he said. 'Most people don't want to smell it or see it, particularly when there's children around. I don't see why they can't just smoke somewhere more private.'
He headed into wild grassland lining a lazy River Thames where he found an isolated bench in view of Windsor Castle. 'Beautiful,' he said, producing a neatly rolled joint, which he lit, inhaling deeply. 'And I'm not bothering anyone.'
*Some names have been changed
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Independent
23 minutes ago
- The Independent
Foreign aid cuts could lead to millions more dying from superbug infections by 2050, study warns
The growing global health crisis of superbug infections could undo decades of progress in medicine, according to a new report, which warns that foreign aid cuts could lead to millions more dying worldwide by 2050. Without collective global action, growing cases of infections caused by such antimicrobial-resistant (AMR) microbes could cost the global economy nearly $2trillion, the UK government-funded research says. The research forecasts the future impact of AMR on global economies under different scenarios of interventions across regions, income groups, and countries. Bacteria have been evolving resistance to the antibiotics used by doctors to kill them in recent years, causing even what used to be the simplest-to-treat infections to become potentially life-threatening. With scientists locked in a race to create and improve access to a 'new generation' of drugs capable of defeating even the most resistant of such superbugs, global research funding cuts risk stalling progress. If the superbug spread continued at the same trend as seen since 1990 in a 'business-as-usual' scenario, it could lead to nearly 39 million deaths between 2025 and 2050, a growing body of studies suggests. However, if there is improved access to antibiotics against such bacterial infections, it could avert 90 million deaths over this period, the latest report estimates. Better access to antibiotics could lead to a $19bn annual reduction in healthcare costs by 2050, they say. 'This scenario would increase global GDP by $269bn over the business-as-usual scenario. The health benefits from this intervention would be worth half a billion dollars if disability-adjusted life years are valued at the GDP per capita of a given country,' scientists noted. In comparison, the worst-case scenario of an accelerated rise in AMR at the rate of the bottom 15 per cent of countries could lead to an additional 6.7 million people dying from infections, they warn. The report comes following the UK government's Thursday announcement that it was axing the Fleming Fund – a major £265m British programme combating AMR in developing countries. 'Without effective interventions, health care costs could increase by $176bn per year by 2050, and global output could be $1.7trillion lower than in the business-as-usual scenario,' the report noted. Previous research suggests that combating superbugs would require 6 to 15 new drugs developed for treatment per decade. Scientists estimate this could require an annual additional research and development cost of $2.2bn. 'If all high-income countries funded this research and development in proportion to their GDP, it would cost them 0.0036 per cent of GDP in 2025,' they wrote. 'For these new drugs to provide the promised health benefits, people across the world must have access to them. We estimate that it would cost $59bn to ensure that all countries have outcomes for bacterial infections that match the quality of treatment currently available in the 85th percentile of countries,' researchers noted. Considering these economic and health benefits, scientists say there would be 'excellent value for money' offered by these global interventions.


The Independent
23 minutes ago
- The Independent
Bluetongue has been detected in England. Here's what you should know
A tiny midge, no bigger than a pinhead, is bringing UK farming to its knees. The culprit? A strain of the bluetongue virus that's never been seen before. As of July 1, the whole of England has been classed as an 'infected area' due to bluetongue virus serotype 3 (BTV-3). There are movement restrictions and testing in place in Scotland, Wales and the island of Ireland. No animals from England – or that have passed through England – are allowed to attend this year's Royal Welsh Show on July 21-24, for example. The virus, which causes illness and death in sheep, cattle, goats and other ruminants, is spread by biting midges. Although it poses no risk to humans and can't be transmitted from one animal to another, the latest outbreak is more severe than previous ones. And it could cause lasting damage to UK farming. Bluetongue isn't new to the UK, however. A different strain, BTV-8 was detected in 2007 and contained. But BTV-3 is a different story. First detected in the Netherlands in late 2023, it was quickly spotted in the UK, where an early containment effort initially appeared successful. But the virus made a comeback in autumn 2024 – and this time it spread. On its second attempt, the virus was able to circulate and caused an outbreak. With little existing immunity, BTV-3 has now established itself, prompting concerns about animal welfare, food production and farming livelihoods. What does the disease do? Sheep tend to be the most severely affected, though all ruminants are at risk. Clinical signs are species-specific but can include swelling of the face, congestion, nasal discharge, ulcers in the mouth and nose, difficulty breathing and abortion or birth deformities. Bluetongue can cause the animal's tongue to swell. It can also turn blue from a lack of blood flow – although this is somewhat rare. Bluetongue disease causes suffering in animals, and while there is a vaccine, there is no treatment for the disease once it's contracted. BTV-3 appears to be more lethal than earlier strains. In the Netherlands, vets report that BTV-3 is causing more severe symptoms than BTV-8 did. Vets in England reported that in some herds 25-40% of cows failed to get pregnant, and there was a high rate of birth defects and stillborn calves. One farm in Suffolk started the calving season with 25% of their cows not pregnant and ended with just 48 calves from 97 cows. Belgium has seen a fall in calf births, reduced milk deliveries and higher mortality in small ruminants compared to the previous three years. How is it spread? Bluetongue virus is transmitted by midges from the Culicoides genus. These are tiny, biting insects that thrive in mild, wet conditions. Multiple midges can bite the same animal, and it only takes one of them to carry BTV before that animal becomes a host for further transmission. When animals are transported long distances, infected individuals can be bitten again and introduce the virus to previously uninfected midge populations. Climate change is making outbreaks like this more likely. Milder winters and cooler, wetter summers are ideal for midges, increasing both their numbers and their biting activity. While there's no danger to human health, the consequences of BTV-3 are far-reaching. Limitations on movement, exports and imports are being imposed to help prevent the spread of the disease, but this could also hamper farming practices and trade. The disease and its associated restrictions pose another source of stress for farmers, 95% of whom have ranked mental health as the biggest hidden problem in farming. Genetic pick and mix One of the reasons bluetongue is so tricky to manage is its ability to evolve. It has a segmented genome, meaning its genetic material, in this case RNA, is split into ten segments. This characteristic is exclusive to 'reassortment viruses' and means that they can easily exchange segments of RNA. It's like a genetic pick and mix with ten different types of sweets that come in an unlimited number of flavours. This allows BTV to create new, genetically distinct 'serotypes', which may have a selective advantage or a disadvantage. Those with an advantage will emerge and spread successfully, while those with a disadvantage will not emerge at all. This process, known as 'reassortment', is partly responsible for the numerous influenza pandemics throughout history and has even allowed diseases to jump the species barrier. Although bluetongue doesn't affect humans directly, its spread poses a growing threat to the UK's livestock sector and food supply. It's important to learn from other countries that are further along in the BTV-3 outbreak so that the likely effects can be anticipated in the UK.


Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Britain must stop subsidising pensioners to save the NHS
The Government recently produced a paper on the NHS entitled 'Fit for the Future – The 10 Year Health Plan for England'. It included many radical ideas and didn't pull its punches in regard to the need for reform. It said: 'The choice is stark: reform or die'. And, if nothing is done, it said, the NHS could become 'a poor service for poor people'. Despite its radical tone and many good ideas, this report did not go far enough. In particular, it accepted the continuation of the current system of funding whereby just about the whole cost of the Service is borne by the taxpayer. In a report published last week by Policy Exchange entitled 'The NHS – a Suitable Case for Treatment?', I and two co-authors went much further and called for an end to the system of predominantly taxpayer funding which has been the model since the NHS was founded in 1948. In the mid-1950s the government spent about 3pc of its GDP on healthcare. Today the figure is 9pc (excluding the private sector), amounting to almost a fifth of all government spending. If nothing is done, by 2070 we could end up spending more than a fifth of our GDP on the NHS. This is unacceptable. If we allowed this to happen, other sorts of public spending would have to be squeezed and/or taxes would have to be raised to eye-watering levels. This would have a devastating effect on incentives and therefore a materially depressing effect on the economy. The funding system is the first of the NHS's major problems. The second is inadequate quality. Many British people think that the NHS delivers a first-class service. Yet, it is clear that the NHS offers neither the best nor the worst healthcare in the world. Admittedly, at its best, it is superb, but the standard is hit and miss, and at its worst, it is pretty bad. Among a group of countries of comparable economic development (Australia, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Singapore, Switzerland and the US), on both life expectancy and healthy life expectancy the UK comes in second to last. Only the US scores worse. On preventable and treatable mortality, the UK again comes in second to last, ahead of only the US. On the proportion of patients waiting over a year to see a specialist, the UK is the highest in the group. We also perform badly on the ease of securing an appointment with a GP and access to GPs out of hours. What is to be done? Whenever someone criticises the NHS and suggests that we need to move to a different model, a chorus of voices loudly proclaims that we must not become like America. Indeed not. The US health system pulls off a remarkable double whammy. Although some of the best healthcare in the world is to be found in the United States, average health outcomes for the population as a whole are simply dire. Meanwhile, the system is about the most expensive in the world. However bad the NHS may seem, it is infinitely preferable to the American system. Under no circumstances should we consider copying the US. But we don't have to. There are many countries in the world which operate a different system for funding healthcare and enjoy better average health outcomes than the UK. The essence of their approach is to combine charging and co-payments with a system of social insurance. That is to say, compulsory purchasing of medical insurance, covering everyone in the population, with concessionary rates or even full reimbursement available for poor people. The state remains involved as both a partial funder, co-ordinator and regulator of the system. But governments spend much less on healthcare in these countries than we do, and thereby place a much smaller burden on their taxpayers. Countries that run such a system include Australia, Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Singapore and Switzerland. The most outstandingly successful of these is Singapore. It spends only about 5pc of its GDP on healthcare and of that, not much more than a half comes from government. Meanwhile, Singapore achieves just about the best health outcomes in our comparator group. Yet Singapore is a very special case, with a particular political and social model. For an example that would serve the UK well, we should probably look closer to home. The obvious place to look is the Netherlands, not least because it underwent a radical reform of its health system in 2006. It delivers high standards of healthcare yet the government spends only 1pc of GDP on health. Some people will argue that we already have a system of insurance to pay for healthcare, namely National Insurance. Despite its name, however, this is not really a system of insurance. It is rather another form of tax. The amount of money the state pays for healthcare is not restricted by the amount of National Insurance contributions coming into the Treasury. Moreover, unlike pensions, where eligibility is connected with National Insurance contributions, a person's ability to access the NHS is not circumscribed by their NI contribution record. Moving from a system of funding through taxation to one based largely on social insurance is going to be a tough ask. It cannot be completed overnight. The place to start a programme to reform the financing of the NHS is with the introduction of a small charge for GP appointments and an end to the automatic entitlement to free prescriptions for pensioners, regardless of their financial circumstances. Doubtless many people will say that these proposals destroy the essence of the NHS as it was established in 1948. But the provision of healthcare in this country cannot be treated as a sort of museum exhibit. We can adhere to the spirit of the NHS in creating a system that delivers excellent healthcare for all within a funding framework that is right for the 21 st century.