Education

Looking at the state of cannabis regulation in the UK today, you&rsquo;d be forgiven for thinking that this plant was ever accepted, let alone utilised.

But of course, it was. Extensively.

Right up until it was first made illegal in the U.K in 1928, along with hemp, cannabis was readily used by just about everyone in society: in medicines, as food and for industrial fibre &ndash; just as it had been for at least 4,000 years. Cannabis has always been (and always will be, regardless of legality) a vital part of human evolution.

Given that it has now been nearly a full century since we the people retained our human right to use cannabis as a medicine and in spiritual practice, as well as the freedom for adults to consume whatever drugs they wish, many people just accept that there must have been good reason for making it illegal. But the truth is, there never was. Not a humane one, at least.

Understanding the basis for prohibition then, and still now, provides us all with the groundwork from which we can educate ourselves and others on the absurdity and criminality of cannabis prohibition in the U.K.

Supporting cannabis prohibition is racist 

This may seem like a strong statement, but it&rsquo;s absolutely true.

By allowing the outlawing of cannabis to continue, and not fighting for policy reform, we indirectly support the racism on which its prohibition was founded. If you don&rsquo;t like being a racist, read on!

As we know, cannabis has immense therapeutic value and a great safety profile. This was acknowledged simply through anecdotal evidence and visible results for thousands of years. Today, and since the 1960s, we have the science to back it up &ndash; although given its current Class B, Schedule 1 status which means it is not conventionally used for medical purposes (despite cannabis based medications being *sort of* available on the NHS and cannabis flower and oils on private prescription) you&rsquo;d never guess it.

So, although regulators and the U.K government now use &lsquo;lack of evidence for safety and efficacy&rsquo; as a totally ludicrous excuse, back in the day they just went with the connection between cannabis and indigenous cultures.

Basically, whatever might scare (white) middle and upper classes most seems to work.

An official inquiry in 1894 proved no link between cannabis and mental health or anti-social behaviour (this has since been demonstrated over and over again), but links to the BAME population were strong, thanks to the widespread cultural and sacred significance of cannabis all over the world.

In 2019 a group of UN experts on people of African descent said that &ldquo;<a href="https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=24332&amp;LangID=E" style="color:blue; text-decoration:underline" target="_blank">the war on drugs has operated more effectively as a system of racial control than as a mechanism for combating the use and trafficking of narcotics</a>&rdquo; and they were absolutely right.

Cannabis as a substance of abuse was only really brought to the attention of the British government when Conservative U.K. MP Sir Mark John MacTaggart-Stewart put fear into the heart of their line-toeing citizens in 1891, by asking the Under-Secretary of State for India if he was aware that cannabis &ldquo;is far more harmful than opium&rsquo; and that &ldquo;the lunatic asylums of India are filled with ganja smokers&rdquo;.

In the US, the government built up strong anti-cannabis propaganda focused heavily on the risk of black men taking advantage of white women while under the influence of the devil&rsquo;s lettuce. This only increased over time and proved to be a great argument for the &lsquo;war on drugs&rsquo; in general, at a time BAME citizens were already routinely dehumanised and demonised by society. As were free-thinking, peace-loving people who opposed the Vietnam war.

Honestly, it wasn&rsquo;t even that big of a secret.

John Ehrlichman, Nixon&rsquo;s Assistant for Domestic Affairs openly admitted this gross tactic in 1994, saying: 
&ldquo;The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the anti-war left and black people. You understand what I&rsquo;m saying? We knew we couldn&rsquo;t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.&rdquo;

The U.K followed suit, making a lot of money in the process (which we&rsquo;ll cover next), and that&rsquo;s basically it in a nutshell.

Today, the racism persists. BAME people in England and Wales in 2019-20 were&nbsp;<a href="https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/crime-justice-and-the-law/policing/stop-and-search/latest" style="color:blue; text-decoration:underline">4.1 times more likely to be stopped and searched than White people,</a>&nbsp;with the figure soaring to 8.9 for those identifying as Black and Black British; this is despite BAME people being no more likely to use drugs.&nbsp;In 2017, Black people in England and Wales were convicted of cannabis possession at 11.8 times the rate of white people.&nbsp;

Follow the money

But, what was the drive behind the scaremongering racist propaganda? There lies the deeper cause for prohibition &ndash; profit.

There was (and still is) a lot of money to be made from cannabis. Billions. There&rsquo;s now also billions to be lost if cannabis replaced even 25% of pharmaceutical medications, but that&rsquo;s another story. There&rsquo;s a lot to be made from opium too, and the coca plant &ndash; most of which were owned and cultivated by indigenous people. Back in 1842, the British won the Opium War which allowed for the unrestricted export of opium from British-India to China. Then, the British (and the US) wanted more.

In 1930, the infamous Harry Anslinger was appointed head of America&rsquo;s new Federal Bureau of Narcotics, following his role as assistant commissioner in the United States&#39;&nbsp;<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_the_Treasury" style="color:blue; text-decoration:underline" title="United States Department of the Treasury">Treasury Department</a>&#39;s&nbsp;<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bureau_of_Prohibition" style="color:blue; text-decoration:underline" title="Bureau of Prohibition">Bureau of Prohibition</a> (for alcohol).

Once alcohol and tobacco moved into well-regulated and taxed territory, as the favoured substances by the elite white men who made all the decisions, Anslinger had a new focus. He collected stories of cannabis causing crime and violence, and ignored evidence to the contrary.

There&rsquo;s a well-documented theory that the eventual control of cannabis was always designed to protect the petro-chemical and pharmaceutical industries &ndash; something that is still believed by many to be happening today. The new illegal status of cannabis also brought in much-needed post-war revenue, thanks to the imposed $20,000 fines for possession of cannabis, and a free slave trade through incarcerating cannabis users for up to 10 years. But, Anslinger needed international support to reach his goals, which is possibly why he attended more UN sessions than anyone else during his unprecedented 32 year run as commissioner.

There, he proceeded to chat up global leaders and policy makers, which was apparently very well received by U.K officials. Britain went from stating that &ldquo;cannabis is not a drug of addiction, and that cannabis use in the U.K was insignificant to banning cannabis possession, cultivation and use just 3 years later, under the &lsquo;Dangerous Drugs Act&rsquo; of 1964.

Sadly, these racist roots, corporate greed, elite monopolies became entrenched and they persist. Thousands of individuals remain incarcerated for non-violent cannabis offences, independent farmers are pushed out of the market, patients suffer, while huge businesses profit.

Regardless of what we&rsquo;re told by the powers that be, cannabis prohibition was never about our safety &ndash; and it still isn&rsquo;t.

History of U.K Cannabis Prohibition: Why is cannabis illegal?

Ruby Deevoy

Find your new favourite cultivar