UK hypocrisy on Narcotics Conventions
The UK government continues to block broader recreational use, whilst allowing elites to profit from the cannabis trade via offshore entities in Jersey
While various other countries around the world have relaxed their cannabis laws, in spite of international conventions requiring states to criminalise the cannabis trade, the UK has so far shown few signs of change, other than medical prescriptions for those who can afford to obtain them.
In 2022, the British Overseas Territory of Bermuda attempted to bring in a licensed cannabis scheme similar to places like Canada, i.e. allowing general recreational use on licensed premises and in your own home. The UK possesses a veto over the laws of overseas territories and crown dependencies if the law could conflict with the UK’s international obligations. Vetoing the law, the Bermuda governor, on behalf of the UK government, said:
I have now received an instruction, issued to me on Her Majesty’s behalf, not to assent to the Bill as drafted. The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs concluded that the Bill, as currently drafted, is not consistent with obligations held by the UK and Bermuda under the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs and the 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances.
Similarly, when the British Virgin Islands attempted to pass a law in 2020 that would allow people to self-certify medical or therapeutic need to obtain limited amounts cannabis, the Bill disappeared into the backrooms of the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office, seemingly never to re-emerge, again, with “international obligations“ being cited as the reason.
However, quite a different story emerges when we turn to the Crown Dependency of Jersey. In 2021, the UK Government approved changes to Jersey’s Proceeds of Crime Law that meant Jersey offshore entities can be involved in the cannabis trade in various jurisdictions, provided the cannabis activities are ‘lawful‘ where they occur. Lawful where they occur merely means under the law of that jurisdiction, regardless of whether the activities are in compliance with the international Conventions.
This puts the UK in flagrant breach of the 1988 Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs, which prohibits not just involvement in the cannabis trade in one’s own jurisdiction, but also establishes, under Article 3, commercial offences of the “organisation, management, or financing“ of cannabis activities contrary to the international conventions.
Conventionally, those who are the organisers, managers and financiers of a black market are seen are more morally culpable than those who are engaged in small-time supply or consumption. However, the UK has flipped this convention, giving blessing to elites who wish to profit from the cannabis trade via offshore entities in breach of international law, while blocking efforts to allow recreational use in the UK and its own territories.
In my view, the UK has driven a coach and horses through the international conventions. It can no longer with a straight face claim that blocking recreational use is out of respect for the international conventions.