Sadiq Khan fordert eine teilweise Entkriminalisierung des Cannabisbesitzes
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/may/28/sadiq-khan-calls-for-partial-decriminalisation-of-cannabis-possession
Von sjw_7
Sadiq Khan fordert eine teilweise Entkriminalisierung des Cannabisbesitzes
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/may/28/sadiq-khan-calls-for-partial-decriminalisation-of-cannabis-possession
Von sjw_7
19 Kommentare
It’s been legal in many US states and Canada for years now. Everything’s going fine with them. Scientists have been pointing out for decades that it’s basically harmless. Certainly much safer than other substances that are legal, namely alcohol. It shouldn’t be too much to ask for Britain to be run based on scientific facts and proven results.
The police pretty much ignore it anyway unless the users are really taking the piss, or they need the in to conduct further inquiries.
We need Nigel Farage to call for it, not Sadiq Khan. Then Starmer will announce plans.
Last para, Home Office says no 🤷♂️
So stupid, but did remind me to place my order, should be here by Friday.
Here come the….“but it’s working well elsewhere“. Yeah, it is, where people might have some respect for other people, but you walk around Stoke on Trent or Skegness and you can’t move 2 steps without smelling and inhaling somebody else’s dirty habit. It’s vile and another erosion of society.
Why not decriminalise it, save all the money for the courts/police and tax the new industry to help the countries finances? Whilst they’re at it, get rid of the punitive job centre and coaches that constantly monitor benefits and save money on all that bureaucracy too and introduce UBI. I know it seems unrealistic but it might be better than Farage’s ideas.
I don’t think The Met should be allowed to smoke weed on shift.
> The Conservatives have rubbished Sir Sadiq’s suggestion, with shadow home secretary Chris Philp saying: „Cannabis is associated with anti-social behaviour and heavy use can lead to serious psychosis and severed mental health problems.
„US and Canadian cities which tried this approach have ended up as crime-ridden ghettos with stupefied addicts on the streets and law-abiding citizens frightened to go there.“
What utter nonsense. Millions of people have been smoking it for years. Where are the stats to show the constant influx of people with serious psychosis and severed mental health problems as a result of them smoking cannabis? And clearly they want to sweep under the carpet all the positive benefits it’s having for people with MS, insomnia, etc.
Those cities in Canada and the US haven’t ended up like that because of cannabis. That hilarious. They were already like it due to an ever growing opioid crisis and them being left by the US to rot.
But alcohol of course is fine with them. No anti-social behaviour, no deaths, no using up valuable space in hospitals due to morons liquored up. Nothing at all to see there is there.
The police will have to find a different reason to search people they suspect are carrying knives and robbing people.
Quote from the BBC article on the same:
„David Raynes, of the National Prevention of Drugs Alliance (NPDA), said any reduction in the legal consequences around cannabis would wrongly send the message that „cannabis was less harmful“.“
ALMOST LIKE IT IS LESS HARMFUL YOU PRAT
I don’t use it but wouldn’t mind it being decriminalised or legalized honestly – large profit gains; alcohol consumption may reduce (bigger issue than weed) + I’d rather see people get it from approved stores.
As long as the implementation is done properly (e.g., like in Netherlands) then it would be fine IMO. Sure it may be abused by some but let’s be cereal, 80% of British people abuse alcohol to a degree more than they can handle and no one complains because „it’s part of the culture“
I’d rather see/talk to someone weeded out of their brains rather than someone who just done 20 shots.
‘David Raynes, of the National Prevention of Drugs Alliance (NPDA), said any reduction in the legal consequences around cannabis would wrongly send the message that „cannabis was less harmful“.
Less harmful that what? Other ‘class B’ drugs like ketamine, amphetamine, GHB… To date, *no one* has died from overdosing on cannabis. I’ve seen what a K addiction can do to someone, countless people have overdosed on amphetamines. Natural marijuans is simply not in the same league as other ‘drugs’ in its class.
Decriminalisation does not solve the problem. Legalisation does along with regulation. You remove a large chunk of criminal revenues and you remove the gateway to harder drugs for a lot of people. All decriminalisation does is give the dealers a free pass because you are no longer arresting people who have bought their product.
This is a god course of action. However one of the authors of the report Lord Charlie Falconer was on LBC this morning.
You’d think he’d have a good grasp of the subject considering the report he’s just put his name to. He referred to skunk as being a synthetic substance and not herbal. God knows how much time he’s spent on this and he still can’t differentiate between Spice and Cannabis. If he can’t get that correct than I’m not hopeful MP’s will have any idea what they’re talking about.
We could do with some more industry making money it should legalised asap. Same restrictions as smoking tobacco, no public places.
Legalise & tax it, deals a blow to gangs, reduces drug related crime, frees up prison space and all that new money coming in could be used to improve public services.
If anything, Cannabis causes less problems than Alcohol does yet alcohol is considered fine for some reason.
David Nutt raised this a long time ago and was sacked for saying it (wonderfully referred to as “Nutt Sack” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Nutt?wprov=sfti1#%22Equasy%22 He did an AMA 10 years ago that may also be of interest https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2235ag/im_professor_david_nutt_sacked_for_telling_the/
The harm that some drugs cause vs the classification of them makes no real sense. Things like alcohol are just accepted because it’s been around for so long but if it was a new addition to society we wouldn’t treat it the same way. (I know cannabis is not new, just pointing out that some things get normalised and others have misconceptions about them).
A tiny, timorous step in the right direction. Cue the Daily Heil, entering from stage far right with some scromiting agitpap…
Never ever forget the role of Alan Johnson MP on this, sacking the scientific advisor for suggesting drugs should be classified based on harm:
[Chief drug adviser David Nutt sacked over cannabis stance | Drugs policy | The Guardian](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/oct/30/david-nutt-drugs-adviser-sacked)
This was following David Nutt’s drug harm [chart](http://2Fwww.ias.org.uk) suggesting (shock) alcohol is more harmful to users/society than cannabis.
This was way back in 2009 when the Labour government moved cannabis from Class C back to Class B – a huge step-backwards and part of the reason we are now in 2025 and only at the early stages of discussing this issue on this „hard drug“.
Just think had Alan Johnson actually listened to the evidence, how many lives might have been saved considering in any given year you have c. 300 drink driving causalities/deaths, and total deaths due to alcohol are c. 10,000 a year. Then factor in suicides or deaths from conditions where cannabis may provide respite (arthritis, epilepsy, MS etc). Then there’s the economic side and the benefits to healthcare/education/care that that money could provide, indirectly saving lives.
In Wales Labour justified changing the road speed structure causing huge upheaval to save 6 lives a year saying this change was „absolutely necessary“ as a result. Surely then if legalising cannabis saved a paltry (scaled up for UK population) 130 lives a year across the UK they’d have to take action? Is it not sheer hypocrisy to not?