After the Election: What now for UK cannabis policy?

Meanwhile, here in Scotland, the once all powerful Labour party are utterly decimated in the polls (one seat!), along with the Social Democrats (one seat!). The Conservatives, who for the past 25 years or more have been as popular as syphilis in Scotland, also retain - you've guessed it - one seat. Enter the Scottish National Party, with 56 out of a possible 59 seats. One odd thing here is that it's crystal clear that more people voted for the SNP in the election than voted for their Scottish Independence referendum last year.

It is probably going to be immediately clear to most people what this will mean as far as cannabis policy in the UK goes, which is to say, absolutely no change whatsoever and business very much as usual. The thing that needs to be kept in mind at all times regarding the Conservatives, is that, basically, as a party they represent the interests of the rich (in fact, more and more it appears that they represent the interests of the obscenely rich) at the expense of everyone else. The Conservatives have rather painted themselves into a corner with the whole cannabis issue; they've taken this whole "Tough on Drugs" line, meaning there's little they can do without looking like they're doing a U-turn on the matter, leading to what they no doubt see as a sure fire vote loser. On the other hand, there are the interests of big business and the 3% or whatever it is of the population who have most of the wealth in the country; clearly these people are not happy with the idea of cannabis legalisation. Obviously, they've not yet figured out an effective way of creaming off the bulk of any profits from a legal cannabis market for themselves.

Either way, for the Conservative government, it's a can of worms best left unopened, at least until the big business interests tell them otherwise.

And that is pretty much it as far as UK wide cannabis policy goes. However, there are other possibilities at play here, arguably the most important of which comes as a consequence of the failed independence referendum of last year.

There has been some talk of devolved government to the English cities, and certainly people in Scotland have made their feelings quite clear regarding being run by Westminster. A possible outcome of all of this could well be a something rather like they have in America, which is to say a federal system, so a union of self-governing states (or in the case of the UK, regions and at least one country: we can't speak for Wales).

You'd have to have been living in a cave on the moon not to know what's been happening in a number of American states over the past 18 months or so. The populations of four states were given a straightforward "first past the post" vote on whether or not they wanted weed legalised, and now it's legal in each of these. Needless to say, some factions of the "big" government are far from happy about this, and I imagine that the booze industry, the pharmaceutical industry and - in all likelihood - the industry that's sprung up around keeping people in prison harbour similar feelings. But there seems to be nothing much they can do about it.

Here in the UK, even the suggestion of easing up on the cannabis laws usually result in a barrage of stock answers: "the EU won't allow it", or "there are UN treaties in force that absolutely prevent it". All of this seems to be largely nonsense. The EU have said in the past that, should member states wish to look at and implement alternatives to current drug policy, then they wouldn't stand in the way. As far as the UN treaties go, Colorado, Washington State, Oregon and Alaska don't seem to have been bothered by them too much.

So could it happen here? Well, it really depends on a number of things. First, of course, federalism needs to happen, but this may now not be as farfetched as it might have seemed a year ago. Secondly, cannabis legislation is probably quite far down the agenda, and this situation needs to be changed. Thirdly, compelling reasons for a change need to be presented, both to the (possibly fearful) non-using public as well as to the (definitely fearful) political classes. The big problem will be convincing people, many of whom may well have lost loved ones to drugs, that cannabis doesn't lead inexorably to heroin, and that legalization will bring with it many benefits.

There are a number of very legitimate grounds for a change in the law: from a public health perspective - medical benefits of cannabis apart - synthetic "legal" cannabis is responsible for far more hospitalisations and mental health problems than "traditional" (read "real") weed. Legalize "real" cannabis and the market for potentially dangerous synthetic variants disappears. From a criminal justice angle, police time is freed up to deal with serious crime, and the cartels immediately lose a big part of their income. And the overarching reason, of course, is the economic one: legitimate jobs created, tax income generated, tourism getting a boost; friends in Washington State and Oregon tell me that their tourism sector is booming, with new hotels and all the rest of it being built to meet the demand. Real benefits to more than just the usual tiny group of money grabbers.

I think that, for the moment, all that can really be said is "watch this space".

And that's a thought I for one find intolerable.

Dr Dee