Making cannabis legal would help fight crime says ex Tory councillor and health chief
The debate over decriminalising cannabis is back on the agenda following a report by the London Drugs Commission, which is says that possessing small amounts of the drug should not be illegal. Chaired by Lord Charlie Falconer, the LDC found current laws are 'disproportionate to the harms it can pose'. Former Conservative county councillor for Stonehouse Nick Housden, who also served as cabinet member for public health, has strong views on the issue. Here he argues that the Class B drugs should be legalised
IF I told you there was one policy that could save the UK billions, help the police do their job, destroy criminal drug networks, raise enough in tax to fund real public services, and even make cannabis use safer, you'd probably think I'd lost the plot.
Or, depending on your tabloid of choice, you might think I was stoned.
But here I am - entirely sober - telling you that legalising cannabis is not only sensible, it's long overdue.
And frankly, it's madness that we're still talking about it like it's some radical idea.
Because right now, the UK government is spending billions fighting a war on cannabis that it's already lost - and was never going to win.
You're not just witnessing failure, you're paying for it.
Let's start with the numbers.
The UK burns through about £1.6 billion a year on drug law enforcement, a huge portion of which is devoted to cannabis.
Even more frightening is the £5.5 billion wasted in our courts addressing these 'crimes'.
So that's actually £7.1 billion total every year.
That's police time, court costs, prison space — all to chase down people who, let's be honest, are often just trying to relax without pouring alcohol down their neck.
And it's not like we're getting results.
Cannabis is widely available in every town and city in the UK.
The only difference is that, under our current system, it's sold by dealers — not regulated businesses — and users have no idea what they're buying or what's actually in it.
It is easier for our schoolchildren to get stoned than it is to buy cans of cider, something I partook in occasionally myself!
Meanwhile, our government is penny-pinching on PIP, winter fuel payments, and other vital lifelines for working families.
Ministers are happy to claw back £300 from a vulnerable pensioner, but think nothing of blowing £10 billion on giving away the Chagos Islands, only to rent them back like mugs at a dodgy timeshare seminar.
Imagine if we flipped the script: legalise cannabis, tax it sensibly, and use the revenue to fund the services we keep being told we 'can't afford.'
In the US, states like Colorado and California have brought in billions in cannabis tax — money used for healthcare, education, even addiction services.
It is no surprise that in the Netherlands their strategy towards legalisation of cannabis has seen relatively low hard drug use compared to other countries, because they can actually focus resources on stopping it instead of wasting their time on cannabis enforcement.
We could be doing the same.
Instead, we're locking people up and letting the proceeds of Britain's booming weed market go straight to criminal gangs.
Because that makes sense.
Every year, tens of thousands of people in the UK are criminalised for cannabis possession.
That's more than a third of all drug offences.
These aren't kingpins or cartel members — they're often young, working-class people trying to unwind on a Friday night.
And they end up with criminal records that can mess up jobs, travel, even relationships.
Meanwhile, the real crooks - the organised networks trafficking cocaine and meth, laundering money and exploiting people - are laughing all the way to the bank.
Our police forces are forced to juggle the impossible: low resources, shrinking headcounts, and a rising tide of serious crime.
As someone who spent years working with police and health officials as a councillor and later as cabinet member for public health in Gloucestershire (a short tenure, but I lasted longer than Liz!) I saw how bad the pressure is.
Officers are constantly being pulled in all directions, dealing with mental health crises, missing persons, knife crime - and yes, cannabis users too.
If we took cannabis off their plate, they could actually focus on what matters.
That's not radical - it's just common sense.
A legal cannabis market would deal a massive blow to the criminal gangs who control the UK's supply.
You want to undercut a black market - beat it on quality, price and convenience.
It worked for tobacco and alcohol and it would work for cannabis.
At the same time, we'd bring in huge tax revenue.
Experts estimate the UK could rake in over £1 billion a year from legal cannabis - even before you count the savings from not enforcing pointless laws.
That's money we could use to reverse police cuts, fund mental health services and fix potholes.
This isn't about encouraging drug use it's about recognising reality.
Estimates show we have over 2.5 million active cannabis users in the UK.
The question is do we want them to get it from a gang leader in a hoodie, or a licensed, regulated shop with a receipt?
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Without a Badenoch/Farage pact, the Left will rule Scotland for decades to come
Did Zia Yusuf's dramatic (and as it turns out, temporary) resignation on the day of the Hamilton by-election cost Reform the seat? Of course not. The idea that chaos in Reform puts off its voters is based on a misunderstanding of what motivates those voters. Reform exists because the older parties failed. You might argue that not all of that failure was their fault. Some of the issues that enrage the electorate – poor public services, high taxes, rising prices, dwindling social capital – are the products of a lockdown that 93 per cent of the country demanded. Others are products of our demographic decline: nations with elderly populations are bound to be less dynamic. Equally, though, there have been unforced errors and broken promises, above all on immigration. Reform is a howl of protest against those betrayals. It is an essentially negative vote, and I say that in no slighting spirit. Every party attracts negative votes. I used to get lots of them as a Conservative MEP when people wanted to punish Labour governments. Negative votes can take you, Trump-like, to the very top. I simply make the point that Reform's supporters show scant interest in their party's policies, let alone its personnel. Reform came from nowhere in the Hamilton by-election despite not having a leader in Scotland. It is hard to imagine the famously resilient electors of Lanarkshire determining their vote on the basis of an unelected party official resigning in London. If we want to play 'what if', the thing that might have given Reform the extra 1,471 votes it needed was the backing of the local Conservatives. Not every Tory would vote for Reform in the absence of a Conservative candidate, of course. Still, the electoral system used for Holyrood argues strongly for a deal at next year's Scottish Parliament election. Just as the SNP and the Scottish Greens used to maximise their representation by focusing respectively on the constituencies and the top-up list, so Reform and the Tories should do the same in 11 months' time. In Scotland, as in England and Wales, the parties have similar policies but different electorates. The Scottish Conservatives are strong in the Borders and the north-east, Reform in the more populous Central Belt. An understanding between them would leave both with more MSPs next May. Such a deal in Wales might have put Reform into office had the principality not just ditched that voting system and adopted EU-style proportional representation, but that's another story. How many Tory and Reform voters would co-operate? Although the two manifestos are compatible – lower taxes, strong defence, less wokery, secure borders, growth over greenery – tonal and aesthetic differences remain. Some Reform supporters will never vote Conservative, either because they can't forgive the tax rises and immigration failures of the last administration or, conversely, because they are former Labour voters who would never back the party of Margaret Thatcher. Some Conservatives – a smaller number – recoil from a party they see as a Trumpian personality cult. One way to express the difference is this. The Tories, after three and a half centuries, have a sense of the trade-offs and complexities involved in holding office. Reform is in the happy position of being able to claim that it is simply a question of willpower. Consider the issue of immigration. On Friday, Kemi Badenoch embarked on a major overhaul of the Blairite juridical state. She asked her shadow law officers to look at all treaties and domestic laws that hinder elected ministers from fulfilling their promises, and set five tests by which to measure success. Will we be able to deport people who should not be here, protect our veterans from 'lawfare', prioritise British citizens in housing and welfare, keep malefactors in prison, and get things built? Meeting all five tests is hard, but not impossible. Badenoch wants to take her time and get it right. But, to some, it will come across as equivocation. 'Why can't you just say now that you would leave the European Convention on Human Rights?', they ask. I have no doubt that that is where she will end up. But we need policies, not slogans. Leaving the ECHR is not a skeleton key that unlocks every door. Our problems go far deeper. Outside the ECHR, we would be constrained by numerous other international accords: the UN Refugee Convention; the Paris Agreement on climate change (under which our Australia Free Trade Agreement is being challenged in court); the Aarhus Convention, which caps costs for activist groups bringing eco-challenges. Even the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child has been used both to challenge deportation orders and to block welfare reforms. All these things need to be looked at, calmly and thoroughly. Nor is it just foreign treaties. The last Labour government passed a series of domestic statutes that constrained its successors: the Human Rights Act, the Climate Change Act, the Equality Act and a dozen more. We need to tackle these, too. What, if anything, should replace the ECHR? Do we update our own 1689 Bill of Rights? Do we offer a CANZUK version? Do we rely on pure majoritarianism? Even if all the obnoxious laws were swept away, what would we do about Left-wing activists who become judges rather than go to the bother of getting themselves elected to anything, and who legislate from the bench? Can we return to the pre-Blair arrangements where the lord chancellor is in charge? My point is that all this requires patience, detail and nuance. But a lot of voters are understandably impatient, and regard nuance as the sign of a havering milksop – a nuancy-boy, so to speak. They see not a Conservative Party determined to repair the broken state machine so that it can deliver on its manifesto, but a bunch of vacillating wets shying away from simple solutions. This worries me. Suppose that Nigel Farage were to form the next government and leave the ECHR, only to find that illegal immigrants continued to arrive, that judges continued to apply the rules asymmetrically, and that every one of his statutes ended up being snarled up in the courts? What would be the impact on our democracy? I pick the example of immigration because it is the most salient, but much the same applies across government. Reducing spending involves trade-offs, and anyone who pretends that there are huge savings to be made by scrapping DEI programmes or cutting waste has not looked at the figures. The same is true of reducing welfare claims, scrapping quangos, reforming the NHS and raising school standards. The diagnosis may be easy, but the treatment will be long and difficult, and will require more than willpower. In his response to Yusuf's resignation, Farage reminded us why he is a successful politician. He blamed Islamophobic trolls for making his party chairman's life impossible, thereby both anticipating the 'no one can work with Nigel' charge and reinforcing his non-racist credentials. The same calculation led him to condemn Tommy Robinson, and played a part in his falling-out with Rupert Lowe. Farage knows that there are hundreds of thousands of disenfranchised Muslims, many of whom, like his white supporters, are former Labour voters in decaying northern towns. Unnoticed by the national media, Farage has been reaching out to these communities. Imagine Farage's political nous and personal energy allied to the detailed policy work that the Tories are undertaking. Imagine his reach, whether in Hamilton or in some of those Muslim-dominated old industrial towns, complementing the traditional Conservative appeal to property-owners. 'Tis a consummation devoutly to be wished. Next year's Scottish elections will be the first test of whether figures on the British Right are prepared to put country before party. A possible by-election in Jacob Rees-Mogg's old seat may be another. But one thing is already clear. If the two parties are taking lumps out of each other all the way to the next general election, they will lose – and they will deserve to. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Councils fly flags to support Ukraine – but block defence spending
Councils are flying flags for Ukraine from their town halls while blocking investment in the British defence industry. At least a dozen English councils have passed motions to 'divest' from defence companies because of the war in Gaza, or have taken steps to reduce their holdings in arms companies. A report by two Labour MPs has found that defence companies have missed out on at least £30 million in investment because of action taken by local councils to focus their pension funds on 'ethical' firms. Despite this, several of the councils have displayed the Ukrainian flag from their town halls in solidarity against Russia. The MPs, Luke Charters and Alex Baker, said there was 'untapped potential' in local government pensions that could be used to boost investment in the defence sector, which often struggles to access finance. They argued that supporting British defence companies would help Ukraine, which has received more than £18 billion in military and humanitarian support from the UK. The MPs said there was a 'concerning trend among UK councils to divest from defence, with at least a dozen authorities implementing partial or full exclusion policies since 2022'. The MPs did not name the councils, but The Telegraph has found evidence of town halls in London, Bristol, Somerset, Oxford and Dudley where motions have been passed banning defence investment in support of Palestine. Dudley council, which is under no single party's overall control, passed a motion to divest from defence companies with the support of Labour and Liberal Democrat councillors. The council has flown the Ukrainian flag several times since the Russian invasion in February 2022, and lit up its town hall in blue and yellow. Labour-run Manchester city council, which voted to pressure its pension provider to abandon weapons manufacturers in November last year, has celebrated Ukrainian independence day and spent £50,000 to support Ukrainian refugees arriving in the city. The motion noted that councillors 'recognise the inextricable link between war, climate destruction, and human suffering' and that 'armed conflicts not only result in loss of life, including civilians and children, but also lead to intense environmental destruction'. Labour-run Waltham Forest Council, which announced plans to sell all defence investments in August last year, has hosted events for Ukrainian residents affected by the 'crisis' in their home country. Mr Charters told The Telegraph: 'With war on our continent, this is not the moment for councils to pull back from investing in UK defence. 'Firms and financiers have been clear when we have engaged with them: barriers like weak demand signals, short-term contracts, divestment, and regulatory uncertainty are holding the sector back. 'Our report calls for urgent engagement with local government pension schemes – and sets out 12 reforms to help unlock the capital and credit our defence sector needs to grow. 'Financing sovereign defence isn't optional – it's vital to our security and economic future.' The report's findings also include an apparent admission from the parliamentary pension scheme for MPs that their savings are often deliberately not invested in defence. A letter to the MPs from the chair of the fund said that while there was no specific ban on defence investments, 'environmental, social, governance and climate change issues tend to be more pronounced in some defence companies'. Mr Charters and Ms Baker said: 'There needs to be a holistic review by officials to understand how public investment vehicles are performing when it comes to defence sector investment. 'The UK cannot afford to miss this moment due to outdated ethical aversions. 'Defence investments represent not only a financial opportunity, but also an ethical obligation to secure the nation's future amidst an increasingly volatile geopolitical landscape.' Dudley council, Manchester city council and Waltham Forest council have all been approached for comment. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Dawn French apologises for 'mocking tone' in video about Israel-Hamas conflict
Dawn French has apologised and taken down a video she posted about the war in Gaza after facing backlash. The popular actress and comedian said she apologised "unreservedly" after posting a video in a "mocking tone". In the original 40-second clip, the Vicar of Dibley star said: "Complicated, no, but nuanced. But bottom line is no." Then, using a different tone, she went on: "Yeah, but you know they did a bad thing to us, yeah but no. "But we want that land... and we have history... No. "Those people aren't really even people, are they really? No." On Saturday afternoon, she issued an apology, saying that in an effort to convey "an important message" she had "clumsily used a mocking tone". "My intention was NEVER to mock, or dismiss, or diminish the horror of what happened on 7 October 2023," she posted on X and Instagram. She said her intention was to "point the finger of shame at the behaviour of the cruel leader on ALL sides of this atrocious war". French faced criticised after her initial post. Actress Tracy-Ann Oberman said she was "saddened" by it. She said: "This mocking voice 'bad thing' of October 7 that Dawn (who I revere by the way) appears ro [sic] be mocking involved the most horrific terrorist attack." Read more from Sky News: MP Rosie Duffield responded to Oberman's post, saying: "One can, and should hate what is happening in Gaza and also condemn the hideous events of October 7th. "It is agonising to see events unfold, and requires extremely careful, measured and well-considered comments and actions. This is not that." Some social media users tried to pressure M&S, who French voices adverts for, over the incident. In October 2023, Hamas led other militant groups in a cross-border attack, killing around 1,200 people and taking about 250 people hostage. Since then, Israel has launched a number of large-scale campaigns in the region, including in Gaza where over 54,000 people have been killed, according to the Hamas-run health ministry in the enclave. Many of these are said to be women and children. Israel claims to be targeting militants and blames collateral deaths on Hamas fighters positioning themselves in densely populated areas.
