Cannabis

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Monday 12th October 2015 Westminster Hall

[Paul Flynn]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I have a host of stories going back to the ’80s and early ’90s, when we first had demonstrations in support of medicinal cannabis. It is a sad story. I have looked into the eyes of so many people who have said, “This is the only thing that gives me relief. Why on earth can’t I take it?”.

Cannabis is the oldest medicine in the world. It has been trialled and tested by tens of millions of people over 5,000 years. If there were any problems with natural cannabis, that would have been apparent a long time ago. However, all we have is this wall of denial by Governments who are afraid of the subject, afraid of becoming unpopular and afraid of it being said that they are going to pot.

I am not unrealistic, and I do not expect the Government to make a volte-face on recreational cannabis, but they should explain their position and realise what is going on. However, the case for medical cannabis, including in its natural form, is overwhelming. We can have it in Sativex, but there are problems with the drug, which is of limited value. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence does not like it, because the cost is very high.

Medical cannabis can now be used in 23 states in America. The best form is one produced in the Netherlands, which can be used in about a dozen countries in Europe. A change has to come. It is barbaric to deny people their medicine of choice. There can be no justification for doing that.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. Does he agree that the biggest scandal is that this Government, like successive Governments, have set their face against the evidence? If we look at an evidence-based approach, there is absolutely no correlation between a drug’s legal status and the amount it gets used. In other words, prohibition simply does not work.

[Paul Flynn]

I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s intervention. We look at the United States with incredulity because it does not accept the evidence on gun possession. We can all see the evidence; it has been shown over and over again that the more guns there are in society, the more deaths and murders take place. However, the United States will not accept that. We are in a similar state of denial on cannabis. Many places in the world now recognise that prohibition has been a continuing disaster—a disaster more serious than the prohibition of alcohol in the United States—yet we refuse to recognise the fact.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans, and a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb)—I think I completely agree with everything he said. I thank the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) for securing the debate and all the people who signed the petition, which raised the profile of this important issue.

I shall start with a few quotations:

“Drugs policy has been failing for decades.”

We need

“fresh thinking and a new approach.”

Not my words, but those of the Prime Minister, David Cameron, back in 2005 when he was a contender for leadership of the Conservative party. At that time, he also said that it would be “disappointing” if radical options on the law on cannabis were not looked at. Since then, he has reversed his position almost 180^° and done what, sadly, all too many politicians do once they have secured power—ignored the evidence and, in the face of what can be a hostile media environment, retreated to the status quo.

My position, which I have set out repeatedly in the House, is that we should be guided by the evidence. We need an urgent review of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 to determine whether the legislation has been effective and to consider whether alternative approaches might better reduce drug-related harms. That other countries and some US states have been more committed to following the evidence on cannabis than the UK has been creates an opportunity for us to learn from their experiences, whether they be of decriminalisation or some form of regulation.

There are clear and compelling grounds to legalise cannabis for medical use in particular and, having studied the evidence, I am fully persuaded that we need to do just that. Not because it is popular—although it is, with 53% of the UK public backing the legalisation or decriminalisation of cannabis for medical and non-medical use, according to an Ipsos MORI poll from last year. Not because many of those who already use cannabis-based medicines testify to the positive effects—although they do, with many claiming benefits for chronic pain, including that caused by neuropathy, fibromyalgia and rheumatoid arthritis, and others, such as MS sufferers, citing its benefits. Not because the UK lags behind other nations when it comes to recognising the therapeutic value of cannabis—although it does, with 20 US states, Canada, the Netherlands, the Czech Republic and Israel, among others, legalising the production and supply of cannabis for medical use. I am fully persuaded, because a strong evidence base justifies looking in much more detail at exactly how we should regulate the production and supply of cannabis for medicinal purposes.

We owe it to people like my constituent, Charlotte, a 34-year-old mother living with a palliative cancer diagnosis. She told me:

“When you are faced with such a diagnosis, you either accept it and let the rot set in or you look outside the box!”

She believes that cannabis oil is saving her life and allowing her to live well:

“I would be dead or very, very ill if not for cannabis oil.”

She goes on to say that

“the Government is shooting itself in the foot, if it supported cannabis and proper evidence based trials were properly funded it would have a huge impact on the cancer costs.”

We owe it to Charlotte, and the many people like her who use or want to use cannabis medically, to stop our ideological opposition and start gathering, and then listening, to the evidence.

Trials of the regulation of medical-based cannabis could, for example, answer questions about how we differentiate types of use and how to avoid the potential for leakage into non-medical supply. They could facilitate research that might otherwise be hindered and, if successful, they could provide a potential stepping stone for regulated legal production and supply of cannabis more widely.

[Mrs Cheryl Gillan in the Chair]

It is important to note that in those countries where medical cannabis is already regulated, implementation and practice has varied enormously. Some models have successfully demonstrated what effective, controlled production and responsible prescribing or retailing can look like. Elsewhere, regulation has been inadequate, leading to over-commercialisation and irresponsible sales practices and promotions. All that and more must be looked at within an agreed framework of what might be achieved through regulation, so that any proposals brought forward in the UK have learned from and built on existing good practice. That principle applies not just to medical cannabis; we have an opportunity to learn from countries such as the Netherlands and Denmark and US states that have introduced various regulated models for the sale of cannabis for recreational use too.

Colorado, which in 2012 became the first jurisdiction in the world to legalise cannabis, demonstrates the benefits of ending the criminalisation of users and putting the Government in control of the trade. Despite dire predictions, early evidence suggests that legalisation in Colorado has had the following positive outcomes: no spike in cannabis use among young people; thousands no longer receiving criminal records; no increase in road fatalities; and a significant reduction in the size of the criminal market, as the state now controls 60% of supply.

In these times of austerity, it is also interesting to note that in Colorado, for example, legal marijuana tax revenues have been breaking records. Through the first seven months of this year, Colorado has brought in nearly $73.5 million, putting the state on track to collect more than $125 million for the year, with $40 million of that allocated for school building programmes. If that kind of benefit can be properly balanced with a regulatory regime that minimises individual and social harm, which theoretically Governments are supposed to do for the production, sale and use of alcohol, why does it not make sense to be open to alternatives to prohibition? There is growing pressure to learn from what is being tried in other countries. The Select Committee on Home Affairs concluded that Government action is needed “now, more than ever” to learn from the models adopted in, for example, Portugal.

We should also pay attention to the evidence from closer to home. When in 2004 cannabis was declassified from a class B to a class C drug in the UK, most estimates suggest that there was a decline in cannabis consumption or no change. A study from Newcastle University Business School also concluded that there is generally no evidence for an increase in the consumption of any other drugs by young people, in particular heroin, cocaine, crack, amphetamines, ecstasy, acid or glue, or for an increase in the consumption of any class A drug.

There is also no evidence for an increase in various forms of criminal behaviour, including drug production and distribution, with the possible exception of a small increase in property crime among 15 to 17-year-olds relative to those under 15. Finally, there is no evidence for an increase in antisocial behaviour, victimisation or any other types of risky or antisocial behaviour.

In other words, and this is borne out by looking at long-term trends across drugs and other different classification regimes, illegality or otherwise has very little effect on whether people use drugs.

[Paul Flynn]

Does the hon. Lady recall a very spiky example here of one of the scare stories about cannabis? It was said that cannabis users were on the slippery slope and that if they started with cannabis they would end in a life of degradation in the gutter. It was followed up by Ann Widdecombe, who wanted to introduce some new punitive laws, until half the shadow Cabinet declared that they had taken cannabis as young people. They ended up on the slippery slope to a form of degradation on the Tory Front Bench, but one that is not illegal yet.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Lucas]

I thank the hon. Gentleman very much for his recollection. It is of a time before I was in this House, but he has made a very eloquent testament to the fact that cannabis does not act as a gateway drug; it does not drive people to crime or to act antisocially.

Successive Governments have used carefully calibrated snapshots in time in an attempt to illustrate that the laws are working to reduce drug use, but if one looks at overall trends over time the only thing that is really certain is that there is no link between illegality and use. For example, cannabis use has been in decline since 2000 and that trend was completely unaffected by the drug being downgraded in 2004 and subsequently upgraded again in 2009. In other words, the relative illegality of cannabis does not appear by itself to act as a deterrent.

That conclusion is also reached in research published in the Journal of Substance Use, for example, which corroborates previous studies that found that whether or not a drug is illegal has very little bearing on people’s decision to use it. One study compared Norway, which has a relatively liberal regime, with Sweden, where strict controls are in place, and both countries have similar levels of drug use. Again, that undermines any correlation between levels of punishment and levels of drug taking.

However, there is powerful evidence that the so-called war on drugs is actually making things an awful lot worse. Far from being neutral, in many cases the current model pushes users towards more harmful products, behaviours and environments. I know that many of us are concerned about the long-term effects of newer and stronger forms of skunk, for example, and prohibition makes it incredibly difficult to monitor or test new drugs, to evaluate their impact or to provide users with health information. On the other hand, regulation would allow individuals to make more informed choices and to reduce many of the risks associated with illegal consumption.

Therefore, it is crucial to differentiate the suffering caused by drugs and the suffering caused by drugs policy. The scandal is that it is the latter problems—those caused by drugs policy—that are the more serious, and they are the things that we could make a difference to if we could just garner sufficient political will and courage in this House. The vast majority of drug-related offending takes place not because people take drugs but because of drugs policy; users are driven to burglary and theft to buy drugs at vastly inflated prices in an unregulated market. There is enormous potential to reduce crime and its impact on our communities significantly if we were to adopt a different, regulated system.

Cannabis is a good place to start with that, so that we can introduce change gradually and safely, monitor the effects on individuals and wider society, and ensure that we have a model that minimises harms and does not encourage so-called drug tourism but instead educates users and—critically—removes the trade from the hands of the criminals and the gangs. This is a chance to take the best of what has been tried elsewhere and reject the worst, finding a legal, regulated model for the production, sale and use of cannabis.

This week, we will be giving the Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill its Second Reading, and I will argue that if the Government were serious about devolution they would also allow local authorities far greater scope to pursue drug policies that are shown to work locally, even if local priorities are at odds with national policy or legislation. Such an approach would be in keeping with the advice from the Global Commission on Drug Policy, which has recommended that national Governments allow local initiatives to experiment with locally designed policies that are, as the commission puts it:

“designed to undermine the power of organised crime and safeguard the health and security of their citizens.”

That is exactly what we tried to do in Brighton and Hove, the city that I represent here, because when I was first elected in Brighton, Pavilion, our constituency had the much unwanted title of the drugs death capital of the UK; at that time, more people were dying of heroin overdoses in Brighton than anywhere else in the UK. As a result, a group of us got together and set up a commission on drugs, and we looked at what we could do to try to make a difference, based on evidence. Although we made big strides forward, I have to say that the national policy framework was a real obstacle to our going as far as we would have liked to, in terms of some of the measures that we wanted to pursue.

None the less, by looking at the evidence, we have managed to achieve a 17% increase in the number of people leaving treatment successfully, compared with a national average of 7%; we have actively tackled concerns about whether people were too easily left on maintenance programmes, so that almost half the people leaving treatment services now do so in a drugs-free way, compared with 35% at the end of 2010-11; we have rolled out training to administer naloxone and reverse heroin or methadone overdoses, and we have reduced benzodiazepine prescribing rates; and the number of drug-related deaths in the city has also fallen, at a time of massive Government-imposed spending cuts and massive upheavals for the NHS and police services in particular.

In conclusion, the call contained in this petition that so many of our constituents have signed—930 in my own constituency alone—is an opportunity for the Government to demonstrate their commitment to the evidence, to genuine devolution and, indeed, to fiscal responsibility, and I hope that the Minister will be able to offer us reassurances on all those fronts.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Lucas]

Brighton, Pavilion.

[Mike Penning]

I apologise. She is the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas)—my civil servants will be told off later for the notes I was given. I say to her: do not believe everything that Ipsos MORI or any other pollster says. I was supposed to have lost my seat in 2010, but I returned with a majority of 13,000. Pollsters get it wrong; it is about the questioner.

[Caroline Lucas]

indicated dissent.

[Mike Penning]

The hon. Lady can shake her head, but it is a fact that we were not predicted to win the election, yet we did. There are different views about what pollsters say and can measure, but our job is to protect our constituents.

[Caroline Lucas]

I was shaking my head only because the polls are one tiny part of the overall case that I and colleagues have been making. Our case has been about looking at the evidence. I find it shocking to hear from both the Minister and, sadly, the shadow Minister no real interest in looking at the evidence. Yes, we have heard two medically qualified people speak, but there is plenty of medical evidence out there that suggests that, for example, freeing up cannabis for medicinal use is a positive thing to do. Will the Minister undertake to look at the evidence?

[Mike Penning]

I am not certain that the hon. Lady was listening to what I said, but I suggest she read Hansard tomorrow morning. We have cross-party agreement that we will look at research and see how we can help people. I am committed to that, as is the shadow Minister. We will try to do that, but I cannot do it at the Home Office alone; it has to be done across the board. That is the most important thing that can come out of this debate. It is not about who is right and wrong; let us try to work out what can help individuals.