David Cameron shows his ignorance about cannabis

Democracy is a great idea, but the problem is it gives us politicians who can be the most dishonest peddlers of misinformation on the planet. David Cameron showed just how badly politicians can mislead when he answered a question about cannabis law reform this week.

First of all, a reality check; In what now seems like a golden age of enlightenment Melanie Philips – herself the antithesis of enlightenment – in typical outraged style quoted David Cameron who said in 2002

Customs and Excise is supposed to keep the drugs out. The police and the courts are supposed to catch and punish users and dealers. It hasn’t worked.

Indeed, David Cameron, the leader of the ConDem government and sadly now our Prime Minister used to understand the futility of prohibition and before he took over the leadership of the Conservatives he was making some pretty intelligent comments about the need for drug law reform. Now he’s in a position to  actually do something about it it seems he’s changed from being a well informed person willing to consider change to a total bigot who justifies his actions on the back of deliberate misinformation.

That David Cameron  bases cannabis policy on total fabrication became clear last week when he answered a question  on Al Jazeera TV (watch it here) sent to him from “Owain R” from Lancashire concerning the legalisation of cannabis. Interestingly this was the second most popular subject people asked questions about so it’s clearly on the political agenda. Owain asked (the question happens at about 10min 40secs):

Why is marijuana illegal when alcohol and tobacco are more addictive and dangerous to our health, but we manage to control them?  Wouldn’t education about drugs from a younger age be better?

There are a lot of ways Cameron could have answered that question, including honestly, but instead he answered:

Well there’s one bit of that question I agree with which I think education about drugs is vital and we should make sure that education programmes are there in our schools and we should make sure that they work. But I don’t really accept the rest of the question. I think if you actually look at the sort of marijuana that is on sale today, it is actually incredibly damaging, very, very toxic and leads to, in many cases, huge mental health problems.  But I think the more fundamental reason for not making these drugs legal is that to make them legal would make them even more prevalent and would increase use levels even more than they are now. So I don’t think it is the right answer.  I think a combination of education, also treatment programmes for drug addicts, I think those are the two most important planks of a proper anti-drug policy.

On the subject of medial cannabis Cameron said

That is a matter for the science and medical authorities to determine and they are free to make independent determinations about that.

And to sum up he said

But the question here about whether illegal drugs should be made legal, my answer is no.

Leaving aside the issue of education – which is after all about learning facts based on the truth, the rest of Cameron’s answer was just so wrong

I think if you actually look at the sort of marijuana that is on sale today, it is actually incredibly damaging,

Cameron seems to be implying that the cannabis on sale these days is different to what used to be sold. This, of course, is the great “skunk scare” we’ve heard so much about; the claims that street cannabis is now “25 fold stronger” than it used to be (Sunday Independent) and that this is leading to all sorts of terrible harms as other gutter press tabloids like the Daily Mail have been claiming.

Of course most of us know these stupid claims made by papers are at best greatly exaggerated and more often just plain wrong, but there might have been a change in the THC/CBD profile of street cannabis leading to higher relative levels of THC. Of course, this change could be put down simply by the move from imported hash to home grown herbal varieties and in all honesty no-one can even be really sure it has actually happened, given the weakness of the data we have.

But Cameron is wrong to say cannabis today is “incredibly damaging”, it may cause problems for a vulnerable section of the population but compared to alcohol or tobacco – let alone many other prohibited drugs – it is a mild pussycat of a drug still. If is is causing harm to a vulnerable group it’s hard to see how treating that vulnerable group as criminals is going to help and it’s also hard to understand how making it impossible to know the strength, purity or strain of the cannabis purchased is supposed to help.

Of course the big twist of logic Cameron seems to be making is that if what he says is true and modern day cannabis is more dangerous than it used to be, his regime has caused that change!

We now have home grown herbal cannabis instead of imported North African hash because of prohibition – the crop eradication efforts and import restrictions we have pursued so enthusiastically have closed off this supply of old style hash and created the twisted market economics that have created the vast and highly profitable “skunk” growing industry. It is odd how prohibition supporters do not seem to understand that claiming cannabis has changed in recent years to become something more dangerous is an argument against prohibition, not in favour of it.

According to Cameron cannabis is

very, very toxic

Well, no it isn’t is the simple comment to that stupid remark. Cannabis has an amazingly low toxicity with virtually no overdose potential, this is not something that is in doubt.

and leads to, in many cases, huge mental health problems.

Oh dear, Cameron plays the reefer madness card. He will be aware of the research carried out by Keele University for the Home Office which found

The study cohort comprised almost 600,000 patients each year, representing approximately 2.3% of the UK population aged 16 to 44. Between 1996 and 2005 the incidence and prevalence of schizophrenia and psychoses were either stable or declining.

If cannabis use did lead to an increased risk of mental illness this result would have been very different. Moreover the study covers the period when the change from imported  resin to home grown herbal took place. He doesn’t seem to understand the complex argument that surrounds cannabis and mental illness, which is far from the “cannabis makes you mad” concept he seems to have.

If there is anything to the mental health debate it’s around the strains of cannabis being sold – high THC/low CBD varieties, its about children getting their hands on it and its about the effect cannabis has on people who are already ill. These issues are either the result of the policy of prohibition or are made much worse by it. Prohibition has abdicated control of the commercial trade to organised crime and is certainly not drug control in any plain English use of the word “control”.

The issue of cannabis and mental health, as with the claims that it has become a more dangerous product, are good arguments for legalisation, not for continuing the cause of the problems which is the present policy of prohibition.

Then we get this old chestnut:

But I think the more fundamental reason for not making these drugs legal is that to make them legal would make them even more prevalent and would increase use levels even more than they are now.

The great claim of prohibition supporters is that their regime produces the lowest level of use and therefore the lowest level of harm. This is a claim with at best no evidence base and indeed much to suggest it is simply wrong, both in the claims it produces the lowest level of use and the lowest level of harm.

For a start, decriminalisation in Portugal and Holland has apparently not increased use, indeed use in those countries  is apparently lower than here or in the home of prohibition the USA. In any case, because prohibition makes sampling the user group in any scientifically valid way impossible, the claims that prohibition does actually reduce use to a minimum can’t ever be tested properly.

But of course a simplistic measure such as the rates of use is largely meaningless, what matters rather more is the nature of that use. Take as an example 100 adults drinking beer in a pub and 10 kids swigging vodka from a bottle in a derelict building; it’s pretty clear that the 10 kids are more of a problem then the 100 adult beer drinkers, but of course they all count as “alcohol users”. Prohibition would prevent the 100 adults drinking beer in the pub, thus greatly reducing the level of alcohol use, but would do nothing to prevent the kids swigging vodka in the derelict building – except that under prohibition the kids would now be swigging moonshine. So although prohibition would create a much lower level of overall use it would make the problem worse.

As regards medical cannabis he seems just as badly informed:

That is a matter for the science and medical authorities to determine and they are free to make independent determinations about that.

Of course he’s simply wrong, it isn’t a matter left to the medical authorities because the government is of the view that herbal cannabis has no medical value and has it placed in category 1 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971

As to his conclusion

But the question here about whether illegal drugs should be made legal, my answer is no.

An answer based on a total lack of knowledge about the subject in hand it would seem. Cameron is determined to criminalise millions of people based on total and utter ignorance, that is something which should be of great concern to us all. This is especially unsettling because he knows from his own personal experience of having used cannabis that the deterrence effect of the law doesn’t work – because it didn’t work with him.

He also chose not to answer a very important part of Owain’s question

Why is marijuana illegal when alcohol and tobacco are more addictive and dangerous to our health, but we manage to control them?

The reason, as the government has now made clear is that alcohol and tobacco are culturally accepted. Now there is no provision for cultural acceptance in the Misuse of Drugs Act, the wording of which is quite clear that any drug which is, or appears to be, capable of misuse should come under the control of the act. The reason alcohol and tobacco are not is because the law makers – the politicians who created this madness – used those drugs themselves and didn’t consider them to be “real” drugs. It is nothing short of hypocrisy, pure and simple.

Owain actually framed his question very well, because he seems to understand that we do control alcohol and tobacco whereas we don’t control prohibited drugs. Understanding such a concept is clearly way beyond Cameron, which again is worrying given this guy is in such a position of power.

As a footnote to all this, an interesting article appeared in the Guardian this week about drug use in the UK – How the British fell out of love with drugs. It seems that since 2002 the levels of cannabis use have been dropping – totally independent of the changing classification and after rising throughout  the 1990’s. What could have happened to bring this about? As cannabis use rose throughout the time it was a class B substance (including failing to prevent David Cameron having a toke), fell when it was moved to C and continues to fall having been moved back to B it would seem the law has very little to do with it.

There are probably two reasons recreational drug use has been dropping since the start of this century. The first is pretty obvious really, the party’s over. For several years running up to the year 2000 it was party time (“party like its 1999” as Prince put it) and for a brief period this country enjoyed itself fuelled by a sort of millennium madness – it was great fun, I was there! But it’s not the millennium any more and the party culture has withered, instead of a vibrant and fun musical scene we’ve had some pathetic role models such as Pete Doherty and Amy Winehouse and and all there is to celebrate these days is the end of the week.

The other big influence has been the tobacco ban. Cannabis in particular was unfortunately entwined with this foul smelling, addictive and carcinogenic drug. In most ways the smoking ban has been literally a breath of fresh air and we are all much better off for it, in all ways apart from one;  socialising type entertianment has suffered badly. This is nowhere more true than in clubs and pubs, which now stink of stale beer and unwashed sweaty bodies. the lights which used to shine colourful beams through the smog you could cut with a knife now just hang like the coloured bulbs they actually are.

If any drug is a “gateway” it’s probably tobacco, it goes with everything and enhances the drug experience of just about all drugs. Without tobacco things just aren’t the same and drug use isn’t so enjoyable. Banning tobacco use in public places has possibly done more to reduce recreational use than the prohibition law could ever hope to do. It’s worth noting that almost all problematical drug users and just about all “cainers” – heavy drug users – smoke tobacco.

The fly in the ointment is that the drug use that’s dropped is in large part the non-problematic social type of drug use, the sort linked to culture and fun. The sort that hasn’t dropped is the damaging sort. As the Guardian article says

Sadly, the decline in the use of drugs has not brought a similar decline in the damage they do. Indeed, hospital admissions for drug-poisoning rose last year by 4.8%, and for mental health problems by 5.7%

Which takes us back to the simplistic concept of the lowest level of use leading to the lowest harm, it just isn’t true. What matters far more is the way drugs are used, the reason they are used and the type of people using them. It will be especially ironic if we now see a huge rise in mental illness amongst young people as cannabis use decreases, when no such increase was seen as it increased, it would be ironic but not perhaps unexpected.


Edit to add you can join a letter writing campaign being organised by the LCA – see Peter Reynold’s blog here


UKCIA is a cannabis law reform site dedicated to ending the prohibition of cannabis. As an illegal drug, cannabis is not a controlled substance - it varies greatly in strength and purity, it's sold by unaccountable people from unknown venues with no over sight by the authorities. There is no recourse to the law for users and the most vulnerable are therefore placed at the greatest risk. There can be no measures such as age limits on sales and no way to properly monitor or study the trade, let alone introduce proper regulation. Cannabis must be legalised, as an illegal substance it is very dangerous to the users and society at large.

24 thoughts on “David Cameron shows his ignorance about cannabis

  1. It really is shocking that the people we vote to represent us can so blatantly lie. This was the 2nd most popular question, if he thinks he has gotten away with this, frankly pathetic response, he is very much mistaken. We can only hope that the current wave of interest in this issue doesn’t wane. Given the changes we are seeing around the world, with Portugal and even various states in the US shifting their positions on prohibition, I can’t help but feel like the winds are starting to blow. Surley the madness can’t continue much longer? At least no longer under the guise of being there to “protect” us. The death blows have been dealt, it’s just a case of waiting for the beast to perish.

  2. I copied it to me MP, (LibDem), together with a link,one of the vest articles I’ve read supporting legalization for years.

    Nice one

  3. I cannot wait for the government’s twisting and turning once the USA legalises. Plenty of recreational use bills being prepared, Washington is next up. The legal battle between federal and state level will be truly fascinating.

    The world won’t implode, nothing will change, and the liars in charge will have one less crutch to rely on.

  4. I believe that when we legalize and regulate the market, consumption and addiction of at-present prohibited substances will actually drop, especially in the countries with the strictest prohibition laws. We saw this happen when alcohol prohibition was lifted so I fail to see why this wouldn’t be repeated with heroin, coke and meth. A very large percentage of those addicted to these substances are forced, because of the way prohibition inflates prices, to become dealers themselves. The grossly inflated prices are also an irresistible magnet to hundreds of thousands of people who would otherwise be living in relative poverty. This pyramidal effect means that there are far more dealers desperately trying to push their wares than there would otherwise be under a sensible regime of legalized regulation.

    The belief that alcohol consumption dropped during America’s failed experiment with alcohol prohibition is patently false and can be verified by studying the Senate hearings of 1926

    Here is part of the testimony of Judge Alfred J Talley:

    “It has made potential drunkards of the youth of the land, not because intoxicating liquor appeals to their taste or disposition, but because it is a forbidden thing, and because it is forbidden makes an irresistible appeal to the unformed and immature.


    And the following paragraphs are from WALTER E. EDGE’s testimony, a Senator from New Jersey:

    “Any law that brings in its wake such wide corruption in the public service, increased alcoholic insanity, and deaths, increased arrests for drunkenness, home barrooms, and development among young boys and young women of the use of the flask never heard of before prohibition can not be successfully defended.”

    “This is not a campaign to bring back intoxicating liquor, as is so often claimed by the fanatical dry. Intoxicating liquor is with us to-day and practically as accessible as it ever was. The difference mainly because of its illegality, is its greater destructive power, as evidenced on every hand. The sincere advocates of prohibition welcome efforts for real temperance rather than a continuation of the present bluff.”


    And here is Julien Codman’s testimony, who was a member of the Massachusetts bar.

    ” ..it has been a pitiable failure; that it as failed to prevent drinking; that it has failed to decrease crime; that, as a matter of fact, it has increased both; that it has promoted bootlegging and smuggling to an extent never known before”


  5. What do you do when somebody errs? You point out the error and ask the person to look at it again and act accordingly.

    What do you do when somebody is ill informed and makes statements that do not bear any resemblance with well established and well known facts? You ask that person to do their homework, to be honest and gather all the relevant information before making any statement.

    What do you do when that somebody is your Prime Minister? Well, he is accountable to each one of us. It is our right to ask him an explanation for his answers. And if they are the result of ignorance and and lack of information, well, he should do his homework. If they are the result of cynical attempts to misinform his constituency, then his ulterior motives must be unmasked.

    Is it not amazing how many public officials, from ministers and secretaries, to U.S. Drug’s Zar Gil Kerlikowske and U.S. State Secretary Hillary Clinton, and now our own Prime Minister, can go away with murder and make the most outrageous and unsubstantiated comments without been properly challenged.

    When are you going to publicly and directly challenge their ill informed opinions?

    Gart Valenc

  6. A couple of points on the statement: “…education – which is after all about learning facts based on the truth”

    1)Too often, eduation about drugs is not factual, but subject to many distortions.

    2) facts alone are not enough – young people need to be able to explore their attitudes to drugs and be helped to develop skills for living in a drug-using soceity.

  7. Let’s not forget the USA’s experience. In the 1960s cannabis use skyrocketed by over 1000%. Through the entire decade every State prosecuted any cannabis offense as a felony and handed out stiff prison terms. The rate kept increasing in the 1970s but no where nearly as significantly. By the end of the ’70s 10 States had decriminalized, and every State except Nevada and Arizona had made at least first offense petty possession a misdemeanor. In the 1980s cannabis use started dropping.

    In order for the threat of force to work it has to be a credible threat. I’ve enjoyed cannabis for more than 33 1/2 years and they’ve managed to arrest me once. It wasn’t the result of good police work, or a police investigation, it was strictly caused by an act of sheer idiocy on my part. We potheads just don’t see the threat against us from the law as a credible threat. It’s more akin to growing man teats or forgetting your baby in the bathtub letting it drown because you’re stoned on merry wanna.

    (the bathtub baby was in a show called “Dragnet” that ran for 4 years in the late ’60/early ’70s. I couldn’t find that clip but here’s Joe talking about merry wanna, heroin and LSD. No food or drink in your mouth while watching if you value your computer.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Twre6ItGEI )

  8. That is a matter for the science and medical authorities to determine and they are free to make independent determinations about that.

    really!!!! so why do they ignore or even sack the medical authorities when they speak truth?
    im surprised you didn’t bring up the nutt acmd saga here.

    the past 15 years ive been toking have robbed me of thousands of pounds in overpriced and often substandard product. i hold the government responsible for this and quite frankly i want my money back.

  9. Personally, I think Mr Cameron has had a toke as a student, whitied out and his friends have ripped it out of him for it, ergo his dislike for the drug 😉


  10. “… But I think the more fundamental reason for not making these drugs legal is that to make them legal would make them even more prevalent and would increase use levels even more than they are now.”

    Derek did a good job of disposing of this fallacy but I would add: the hot burning overdose “joint” vastly increases cannabis “consumption” (i.e. purchase quantity) levels, while wasting so much THC the user gets a bad bargain. And what’s the reason “joints” remain in use? Under Prohibition, they’re easier to hide (including from panicky propagandized parents), less costly to dispose of than a good low-temperature mini-pipe or vapouriser.

    Not only would legalization, by removing the fear and secrecy imperative, reduce wasteful “use levels” by permitting users to use economical harm reduction equipment, but– I guarantee you, once legalized, marketeers and presenters of such equipment will swarm out like Mormons and Witnesses all over the planet, converting every last puffsucker so that $igarette papers will be “history” (or do you say “toast”. For the time being, this is the “problem” behind Cameron’s/Kerlikowske’s lies– THEY KNOW BIG 2WACKGO IS WATCHING THEM. A Trillion Dollar $ndustry (worldwide) doesn’t want its stooge governments to give in on keeping the hot burning overdose (but easy to hide) $igarette FORMAT in the saddle instead of 25-mg.-per-toke midwakhs.

  11. “I think if you actually look at the sort of marijuana that is on sale today,”

    Er wait a minute Cameron…what is on sale today, is unregulated cannabis, of which we have no sodding choice what to get, or even know how strong or not it is until we’ve had the first smoke of it.

    THAT is the problem of it being illegal. His argument is basically saying if alcohol were illegal now, and moonshine were being sold, that THAT would be the reason not to make alcohol of any kind illegal.


    “I think the more fundamental reason for not making these drugs legal is that to make them legal would make them even more prevalent and would increase use levels even more than they are now.”

    Right, so it’s ok for you to go quaffing champagne whenever you like, having one of life’s little pleasure, but for those of us that choose the less dangergous drug of cannabis, we have to be persecuted, and treated like junkies?!

    I work in a job where I’m valued by my company, I pay taxes, and I’m told by Dave that he wants to have less ‘control’ over me, with his ‘big societey. Well I tell you what Dave, why the hell should I bother make any effort with your scam of a big society, when you’re not prepared to treat me like an adult and choose what drug I put in my body, one of my few life pleasures – just like you do with your body and alcohol?

    I’m going to be alive for a tiny TINY amount of time, like any other human, I could die tomorrow, or at maximum, I’ll live a few decades more, hardly any time in this universe, so I’d kind of like the choice of what I intake to be down to me, not down to some hypercrite who himself chooses to indulge in a far more dangerous drug.

    And we know it’s far more dangerous from the amount of violence, direct and indirect deaths from alcohol every single day.

    Funny how it’s ok for sports star Alan Hansen to appear on tv on behalf of Morrisons supermarket to ENCOURAGE us to buy and take the more dangerous drug of alcohol, and yet, people who choose the less dangerous drug of cannabis, are persecuted, and forced to buy whatever unregulated stuff they can, it’s a bloody lottery, a crap lottery at that.

    So I urge everyone to say to Dave Cameron “Dave, if people who smoke weed are worthless junkies, and should be controlled by the state to stop smoking it – then you should do the same with alcohol. Ban it.”

    In fact I would urge Dave Cameron to give up drinking. ENTIRELY. So he can see what it’s like to give up one of his life’s pleasures. I’m sure he’d have no problem going COMPLETELY tee-total, after all, he’s not an alcoholic is he? He doesn’t NEED alcohol? And yes, he may enjoy it…..but many of us enjoy cannabis, and unfortunately, Dave himself would personal take the joints out out mouths and stub them out himself.

    So likewise, how could he logically argue we are wrong to take the champagne out his hand and pour it over his f***ing head?

  12. It’s PERSECUTION. It’s discriminating against a group of people, just because they personally don’t like something about us…something that they have no logical reason to not like about us.

    If it’s meant to be ‘for our own good’, then it’s failed miserably. It makes me miserable that one of my few pleasures, is totally ruined by the inability to buy WHAT I want, WHEN I want.

    If only my body preferred the more dangerous drug of alcohol…..I could wander down the local PETROL STATION and buy some. I could buy it in every other shop.

    It’s actually sick, how things have turned out with alcohol and cannabis legalisation (or lack of).

    It defy’s logic.

  13. We can all take pleasure in the fact that in 50 years David Cameron and his followers will not be remembered like W Churchill , He will be remembered as a biggot , prohibitionist , and a small minded moron who didnt have the brains to even look at the subject of cannabis plus from his latest comments i think he will be remembered more as a LIAR , and from what he said before election and what he did after . Science and the peoples will , will win one day we all just have to have patience . Remember the young adults in uni nowadays have nearly all used cannabis and they are our next leaders , hopefully some of them will use their REAL WORLD experinces to govern our country and not let big business govern the UK for them . Im not getting my hopes up on this happening soon mainly because when proff Nutt came out with his statements on cannabis Edd miliband run like f*ck from the subject aswell . It would be nice to see a leader with a pair of balls or a spine .

  14. “… I think if you actually look at the sort of marijuana that is on sale today, it is actually incredibly damaging, very, very toxic… ”

    Look carefully at the statement, very very toxic as it is;– now the context:

    2/3 of all cannabis users in U&K and some neighboring countries, to this day, are reported to be mixing cannabis with tobacco, #1 killer drug credited with more deaths in the last century (possibly over 200 million) than any other drug in the history of the planet.

    Now the killer link– many of those “mix”-users, especially the young and unwary, are trying to “cut” the strength of some cannabis somebody has warned them is Too Strong.

    It’s true that cannabis unlike tobacco cannot be “cured” (pre-toasted) before use without losing some of the phytonutrient value (in their case nicotine, in our scannabinoids). So it is notably harsher on the draw than standard $igarette tobacco, scaring many victims and making it easy to fall for the myth that the tobacckgo is “milder” than the cannabis and therefore probably less harmful.

    Don’t forget– besides peppermint oil (Newport etc.), the corporations put hundreds of weird mind-numbing pain- and cough-suppressant drugs into the $igarette tobacco to fool youngsters into believing it’s “less dangerous than you think”. (No law anywhere requiring these things be listed on the wrapper– wouldn’t be enough room!)

    So by harping on alleged “strength” of the skunk Mr. Cameron is doing the $igarette Companies the greatest favor– scaring kids who are courageous enough to try the skunk into “protecting” themselves through exposure to the tragic synergy of cannabis and tobacckgo which can lead to lifelong hot burning overdose nicotine slavery and 44% chance of premature death. Possibly this trick using hyperdemonized cannabis as a “trojan horse” to fool kids into inhaling nicotine ranks with binge drinking as one of the top puffsucker recruitment methods keeping $igarette industry profits going until now.

  15. I would like point out…all be it rather sarcastically!

    I am happy buying cannabis off 14 year old kids in the street and when they are busy I go to a local pusher in a doggy estate that offers me crack and other class A’s at a discount, yet has slapped more than 300% on the cost of green since the CONDEMs have been in government.

    I enjoy funding Al-qaeda, criminal gangs and other terrorist organisations.

    I really want glass, silica, grit and other contaminants with my GRASS.

    I think it’s really fair that I am punished for taking medication that cures my ills and make my life easier.

    I love the fact that politicians and political parties can make promises and then blatantly swing once in power cos they are looking after THEMSELVES now they got where THEY WANT TO BE.

    I must be ignorant, I might be stupid but I am going to continue to medicate regardless of the law.

  16. Love everyones comments, thought I was alone in my beleifs that its all a bit mad and unfair. I have been smoking for 18 years, no sign of mental instability yet!!!

    But are we all to stoned to do something about it.
    Wheres the revolution lol!!!!

  17. I will smoke cannabis for the rest of my life because i enjoy it, long after you leave this world i will be sat there with a joint in my mouth. whether you legalise it or not it makes no difference to me. these laws mean nothing to so many different people. So i will take the high road enjoying life smoking my plant while you take the low road giving my tax to people who don’t want to work.

  18. I have this fanciful explanation, which I don’t actually believe.

    Prohibition is a redistributive policy that provides a trade for poor, unemployable members of society who have comparatively less to lose.

    Rich people and their children buy the drugs from the poor, who shoulder the risk of supply.

    In this way, governments do not have to increase the extent of the tax and transfer system (officially) or deal with robbery.

    That’s my very own conspiracy theory, enjoy!

  19. I think the uk government should make cannabis/weed/haze/js/pot/skunk/mary jane/ legal!! at the end of the day! wheter they make it legal or not! there will always be cannabis in te uk available for purchase!! Maybe they should admit that cannabis is less harmful (Not one death recorded because of it) compared to alcohol which takes countless lives on a dailly basis!! MAYBE THE UK GOVERMENT CAN GET OUT OF THIS F***ING FINANCIAL MESS IF THEY MAKE IT LEGAL!! AS THE TAX THAT COULD BE MADE WILL BOOST OUR ECONOMY TO THE HEIGHTS IT WAS ONCE AT!! Pull your fingers out you f***ing suited and booted (MPS) spicks!!

Comments are closed.