Sadiq Khan's plan to decriminalise cannabis is dangerously divisive
Sadiq Khan, the Mayor of London, says he believes the police should stop arresting people for possessing cannabis. Frankly, I'm shocked.
Mainly because I didn't know the police were arresting people for it in the first place.
It certainly doesn't smell like it. These days, practically all our towns and cities – including the one run by Mr Khan – stink of weed. Which suggests that a very large number of people now feel able to smoke it with absolutely no fear of getting arrested. Whether this is because the police can no longer be bothered to enforce the law, or they're too busy carrying out dawn raids on the bookshelves of Spectator readers, I don't know. But either way, it hardly seems worth clamouring for decriminalisation, when in effect we've already got it.
Even so, Mr Khan has backed calls to change the law. And these calls seem to have something to do with race.
According to an independent commission, set up by the Mayor, the policing of cannabis use is shamefully unjust to people who aren't white. In a new report, the commission says: 'The law with respect to cannabis possession is experienced disproportionately by those from ethnic minority (excluding white minority) groups, particularly London's black communities. While more likely to be stopped and searched by police on suspicion of cannabis possession than white people, black Londoners are no more likely to be found carrying the drug.'
If so, that plainly is unfair. But it's not an argument for decriminalisation. It's an argument for stopping and searching greater numbers of white people. Which, of course, would be completely fine. Go right ahead. Even if today's over-anxious police chiefs would probably misunderstand such an edict, and tell their officers: 'When investigating crime, we must never treat any community with more suspicion than any other. Which is why, this afternoon, I'm sending you all to a WI jumble sale, to search little old ladies for machetes.'
None the less, the report maintains that the way forward is to decriminalise possession. At the same time, though, it says producing and dealing should remain illegal. Which is odd, because it implies that the blame for the trade lies solely with the people doing the latter. But if it weren't for all the people wishing to possess the drug, no one would produce or deal it. Ultimately, therefore, it's their fault.
Anyway, if possession does get decriminalised, you can bet there'll soon be calls to loosen the law further. Which would be even more unwise. Just look at what's happened to New York, which in 2021 decided not only that people should be allowed to smoke cannabis, but that shops should be granted licences to sell it. Has this put criminals out of business, while raising lots of lovely extra cash through tax?
Funnily enough, no. Illegal vendors simply undercut the legal ones. Kathy Hochul, who is New York's governor (and a Democrat, rather than some stereotypically stuffy Republican), has called it 'a disaster'. Even The New Yorker, proud tribune of liberal America, ran a dismayed article asking: 'What happened?'
All the same, the Mayor of London insists that his commission's report makes a 'compelling' case. I don't think it does. And I especially think we could have done without the irrelevant wittering about ethnicity. We've got quite enough 'community tensions' in this country as it is. So we certainly don't want people thinking: 'What? They want to allow possession of a dangerous drug, just because they think it will improve 'police relations' with 'black communities'? That sounds awfully like special treatment. Mind you, I suppose they need to free up the cells, to make more space for middle-aged women who post problematic opinions on the internet.'
This, in short, is why Mr Khan's plan for cannabis isn't just naive. It's dangerously divisive.
I note, incidentally, that the Mayor has just proposed a 20 per cent rise in London's congestion charge. But don't worry. I've prepared a report arguing that the charge is unjust, because it's experienced disproportionately by the motoring community, while the cycling and walking communities get off scot-free. So the whole thing should be scrapped.
Join Michael Deacon in the comments from 6pm
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.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
Nassau DA warns of Albany push to approve early parole for violent convicts
The Democratic-run New York state legislature could rush through a series of bills to give convicts early parole and prevent law enforcement from keeping dangerous criminals off the streets, Nassau County District Attorney Anne Donnelly warned Sunday. In recent years, Democrats clawed back controversial cashless bail and discovery laws after serial criminals were let loose, triggering massive political blowback. 'These bills undercut everything we work for every day — building strong cases, securing convictions, and ensuring justice is served,' Donnelly, a Republican up for re-election this fall, told The Post. Advertisement 3 Nassau County District Attorney Anne Donnelly. Brigitte Stelzer 'When prosecutors do the hard work of putting violent offenders behind bars, we should be backed by laws that protect that progress — not laws that allow those same criminals to return to our communities years before their sentences are complete,' added Donnelly, who is holding a press conference Monday announcing her opposition to the bills. Among the bills drawing concern is the Elder Parole bill — which would require inmates aged 55 and older who have served at least 15 years of their sentence to be considered for early release, regardless of the seriousness of the crime committed. Advertisement The measure is sponsored by Sen. Brad Hoylman-Sigal (D-Manhattan) and Assemblywoman Maritza Davila (D-Brooklyn). Another bill, the Earned Time Act, would make most violent felons eligible for time allowance credits, potentially slashing their prison sentences in half, Donnelly said. The earned time bill is sponsored by Sen. Jeremy Cooney (D-Rochester) and Assemblywoman Anna Kelles (D-Ithaca). 3 Madeline Brame's son, Hason Correa, was murdered in a scuffle outside a Harlem apartment building seven years ago. Steven Hirsch Advertisement A third bill — the Second Look Act — would permit prisoners to petition the courts for a sentence reduction after serving 10 years, including inmates convicted of violent crimes. The legislation is promoted by Sen. Julia Salazar (D-Brooklyn) and Assemblywoman Latrice Walker (D-Brooklyn). GOP Long Island lawmakers oppose the early parole bills, including Assemblyman Edward Ra and Sen. Jack Martins. 3 The New York State Capitol building. Hans Pennink for the NY Post Advertisement Crime victims' advocate Madeline Brame, whose Army Sergeant son Hason Correa was murdered in a scuffle outside a Harlem apartment building seven years ago, expressed outrage at the proposals to give violent cons a break. 'These proposals completely disregard the pain and effort that go into holding criminals accountable,' she said. 'We need to help prosecutors put violent offenders behind bars — not give criminals new ways to get out early.' Gov. Kathy Hochul toyed with early release proposals in April as a way to try to alleviate the prison population amid an illegal prison guard strike and a staffing shortage. She was forced to bring in the National Guard to staff the prisons. She proposed opening eligibility for merit time in the state budget, then backed down after it was revealed doing so could lead to people who were in for violent crimes to be released early. Donnelly was among those who raised the alarm. Inmate advocates have pushed for early parole and other reforms after prisoners were allegedly killed at the hands of guards over the past year.
Black America Web
an hour ago
- Black America Web
Redistricting: Majority Black Voting Maps Rejected In Louisiana
Source: Mario Tama / Getty One of the most innocuous yet insidious ways voter suppression rears its head is through redistricting, a process by which a state legislature draws up voting maps along political lines. Despite a federal judge finding that their current legislative map violates the Voting Rights Act, Louisiana lawmakers have rejected a new map that would've included eight new, majority Black districts. The Louisiana Illuminator reports that Bill 487 and Bill 488, which would've redrawn the legislative maps for the Senate and House of Representatives, respectively, were struck down in a 9-6 and 9-5 vote that fell along party lines. The current maps were drawn in 2022 and utilized census data from 2010, despite the fact that the state's Black population has only increased over the last decade. Black voters make up a third of Louisiana's population, but the current voting maps only have one majority Black district. Rep. Edmond Jordan (D-Baton Rouge), ithe chairman of the Louisiana Legislative Black Caucus, authored both bills. He explained the changes were necessary to address a ruling by a federal judge last year that found the current map disenfranchised Black voters. 'By us not upholding our obligation and redrawing these maps … I think it sends a signal that we are unwilling to do so,' Jordan told his fellow legislators. 'Rather than wait on the court to come up with a decision, I think it's incumbent upon us to get ahead of that and maybe draw these maps and show the court that we're willing to comply with Section 2' of the Voting Rights Act. The Republican opposition explained that they didn't feel the need to update the maps as the ruling is currently under appeal, and they believe that the courts will rule in their favor. They also brought up concerns that the new district lines would require current elected officials to move in order to still represent their district or possibly have to run against another incumbent to maintain their seat in the legislature. Jordan understood those concerns but stated his priority was giving Black voters an equal voice in determining who represents them. 'What we're trying to do is attempt to unpack and uncrack these districts so that they would comply with Section 2,' Jordan said. Source: Juan Silva / Getty From the Louisiana Illuminator: Packing is a type of gerrymandering that forces a large number of voters from one group into a single or small number of districts to weaken their power in other districts. Cracking dilutes the power of those voters into many districts. Jordan's plan would have added new majority Black House districts in Natchitoches, Lake Charles, Shreveport and Baton Rouge, and Black Senate districts in Baton Rouge, Shreveport and Jefferson Parish. In what can only be described as saying the quiet part out loud, state Republicans added that they found Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act to be outdated. For clarity, Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act prevents any voting law or measure 'which results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color.' Considering that they're actively using legislative districts to curb the power of Black votes, it's clear Section 2 is still a necessity to maintain voting rights within majority Black communities. Redistricting is always a partisan affair, with the legislative map being drawn by whatever party has power. Far too often, though, the redistricting efforts by state Republicans are largely built around minimizing Black voting power to keep Republicans in office. This isn't only an issue in Louisiana, as several states have drawn legislative maps that explicitly undermine Black votes. Redistricting plans in the state of Texas are also facing legal challenges due to allegations of racism. There's an ongoing fight in Texas's Tarrant County over redistricting plans that several state legislators believe violate the Voting Rights Act, and there's currently a federal case underway against the Texas state government over its 2021 voting map that was believed to have 'diluted the power of minority voters.' One of the worst offenders is Alabama, whose redistricting efforts have been deemed racist by federal judges several times. State Republicans have said that if they don't receive a favorable ruling in their appeal on the decision, they won't update the voting map until 2030 to avoid federal oversight. There is nothing more on brand for the modern GOP than having a temper tantrum when being told to be less racist. If anything, this is a reminder that in America, the boring, procedural racism is often the worst kind. SEE ALSO: Poll Shows Companies Maintaing DEI Intiatives Have Better Reputations MIT Becomes Latest University To Back Away From DEI Initiatives SEE ALSO Redistricting: Majority Black Voting Maps Rejected In Louisiana was originally published on Black America Web Featured Video CLOSE
USA Today
2 hours ago
- USA Today
These are the safest places in America for gay and transgender people
These are the safest places in America for gay and transgender people Which states are the best and worst for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer Americans to live and work? More and more, it's a question of partisan politics. Here's why. Show Caption Hide Caption See as rock climbers hang Transgender Pride flag in Yosemite Rock climbers unfurled a large Transgender Pride flag on El Capitan in Yosemite National Park. The National Park Service has since removed it. As Oklahoman legislators push to restrict trans rights and overturn the 2015 Supreme Court decision legalizing gay marriage, Zane Eaves says his identity as a transgender man has put a target on his back in his home state. One of 18,900 trans adults in Oklahoma, Eaves has received death threats as has his wife of 10 years and their two children. 'All the hatred and political stuff going on' are driving this Oklahoma lifer from the place he was born and raised, Eaves, 35, said. He has only crossed the state line three times in his life, but in recent weeks, he made the difficult decision to move his family to North Carolina to be closer to friends and allies. 'I am just trying to stay alive and keep my marriage,' Eaves said. Oklahoma ranks 44th in the nation on a list released Monday of the most and least welcoming states for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer Americans. More and more, the question of where LGBTQ+ people feel safe is one of blue vs. red, according to advocacy group Out Leadership. LGBTQ+ equality fell across the board for the third straight year, according to Out Leadership's State LGBTQ+ Business Climate Index shared exclusively with USA TODAY. But the sharpest declines came in Republican-led states. While progressive strongholds championed supportive policies and protections, conservative states elected a slate of leaders who openly oppose gay and trans rights and sponsored an unprecedented wave of anti-LGBTQ+ legislation, Out Leadership CEO and founder Todd Sears said. So-called 'Don't Say Gay' bills, religious exemptions and other legislation tanked the rankings of 19 red states in the Out Leadership index, according to Sears. Today, the divide between states that roll out the welcome mat and less hospitable parts of the country is wider than ever, he said. The least and most welcoming LGBTQ+ states Each year for the last seven, Out Leadership has released the State LGBTQ+ Business Climate Index to gauge the overall climate for gay and transgender people state by state, mapping out where they will face the most and the least discrimination and hardship. Out Leadership's index measures the impact of state government policies and prevalent attitudes about the LGBTQ+ community, weighing factors such as support for young people and families, health access and safety, political and religious attitudes, work environment and employment and nondiscrimination protections. The Northeast had six of the 10 highest-ranked states, while the Southeast had six of the lowest-ranked. Massachusetts, led by the nation's first openly lesbian governor, Democrat Maura Healey and New York, which guaranteed gender-affirming care and LGBTQ+ refugee protections, tied for first place in this year's index, with Connecticut and New Jersey close behind. The least LGBTQ+ friendly state was Arkansas, which ranked last for the third straight year. South Carolina, Louisiana, South Dakota and Alabama also received low scores. The states that had the largest gains in the index were Kentucky and Michigan, which Out Leadership attributed to 'pro-equality' leadership from governors Andy Beshear and Gretchen Whitmer, both Democrats. The steepest declines were in Ohio, Florida and Utah, all led by Republican governors. Where are the safest places to live? The Out Leadership index was created as a LGBTQ+ inclusion reference guide for business leaders. But gay and trans people soon began using it to figure out where they should – and should not – live and work, never more so than now as rights rollbacks from the Trump administration and red statehouses hit close to home. Opposition to transgender rights was a central plank in Trump's presidential campaign and since taking office he has signed a series of executive orders recognizing only male and female genders, keeping trans athletes out of women's sports, banning trans people from serving in the military and restricting federal funding for gender-affirming care for trans people under age 19. Even states seen as safer for LGBTQ+ people have been navigating these edicts around trans athletes. Trump threatened to cut federal funding to California if a trans girl competed in a state track and field event held Saturday. AB Hernandez, a junior from Jurupa Valley High School in Riverside County, shared first place in the high jump and triple jump and second in the long jump. She shared the awards podium with her cisgender competitors under a new rule drafted by state athletics officials days before the event to mollify critics. Republican-led states have been in the vanguard of anti-trans legislation, causing greater geographic polarization and prompting fears among LGBTQ+ residents, even those who live in liberal cities. Jordan McGuire, a 27-year-old gay man in North Dakota, said the years he spent living in the Deep South taught him about the repressive discrimination routinely faced by gay and genderqueer people. At the same time, socially progressive cities in conservative states like Fargo and Grand Forks are no longer the safe havens they once were, he said. Now that his fiancee is transitioning to female, the couple is exploring a move to a 'sanctuary' state that will be safer for them. 'It feels like five or 10 years ago, trans people were not under the same microscope they are now and that has definitely influenced our move,' McGuire said. 'Yeah, people were prejudiced but it wasn't a witch hunt. They weren't looking for people in bathrooms and schools. But now things are so polarized.' That rising anxiety was captured in a post-election survey from UCLA's Williams Institute which found that nearly half of transgender people had already fled unsupportive communities and nearly 1 in 4 were considering uprooting their lives. The most frequently cited reasons for wanting to move were concerns about LGBTQ+ rights – 76% – the sociopolitical climate – 71% – anti-trans rhetoric and climate – 60% – and anti-trans laws and policies – 47%. LGBTQ+ Americans on the move Interest in relocating to friendlier states is even higher today than it was after Trump's reelection, say nonprofit workers who aid trans and gender-diverse people relocate to more liberal states with broader protections. So far in 2025, Rainbow Railroad in Canada has received more than 3,000 requests from LGBTQ+ people living in the United States, up more than 1,000% from the same time last year, according to communications director Timothy Chan. Nearly all requested international relocation support. For now, Rainbow Railroad can't aid Americans with resettlement services because of immigration restrictions, Chan said. TRACTION has heard from a record number of people from states as far away as Texas, Oklahoma and Arkansas with many of them reporting being threatened or feeling unsafe in their homes and neighborhoods, said Michael Woodward, the executive director of the trans-led organization in Washington state. Trans and gender-diverse people historically face financial hardship due to systemic oppression and discrimination, and need assistance finding jobs and housing as well as with interstate moving expenses that can run tens of thousands, Woodward said. TRACTION used to get a few applications a week until Trump won a second term. In the two weeks following the election, 'we received as many requests for assistance as we'd received in the entire life of the project thus far,' he said. After the inauguration, TRACTION started getting three to five applications every day. With one employee and a handful of volunteers, his organization is struggling to keep up with demand, Woodward said.
