When London Mayor, Sadiq Khan announced in 2021 that he would commission a report exploring the effectiveness of cannabis legislation and policing in the capital, there were ripples of cautious optimism among drug policy reform advocates. The assembled London Drugs Commission (LDC), chaired by Labour politician Lord Charlie Falconer KC, deliberated for four years. After multiple rounds of evidence from hundreds of cannabis health and policy experts as well as impacted individuals, its final report was published in May 2025. It made 42 recommendations to improve the policing of cannabis and reduce harms caused by its problematic use.
Its key recommendation which garnered the most media attention was that the current criminalisation of cannabis possession was not “fit for purpose”, and recommended the decriminalisation of its possession and use. In practice, this would mean moving it from a controlled substance under the Misuse of Drug Act 1971 to the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016: this would allow for its possession, yet keep its supply and production criminalised. While this change has been described as a “modest” reform, it would be a significant milestone for the way cannabis is controlled in the UK.
Alongside decriminalisation, the report recommended ways to improve access and quality of public services related to cannabis treatment and problematic use, improved reporting on stop and search data and improved education on cannabis use and effects.
Cautious suggestions and a big omission
Despite the LDC’s suggestion for decriminalisation, it fell short of recommending the regulation of cannabis’ production and supply. Instead, the report edged on the side of caution: it stated that current global experiments with cannabis legalisation have not produced enough evidence of its public health benefits. Concerns about problematic use of cannabis remain, with specific reference to youth cannabis use and its links to mental health problems. It questioned whether full regulation of production and supply could actually shrink the illicit market, questioning examples from Canada, the US and Uruguay. Like many reports which don’t wish to make suggestions that are too “radical”, the LDC called for more research to be done into the hypothetical impacts of cannabis legalisation in the UK.
Many of the concerns raised by the LDC about implementing a new drug control model are valid; however, given their critique of the existing model and its faults, they feel minor if the proposed alternative is to simply maintain the status quo of prohibition. The current model fails to address how funds from large-scale illegal cannabis sales can fund other criminal activities and human exploitation, or how unregulated products of unknown potency can drive other health harms. Even the research commissioned by the LDC highlighted any decriminalisation should involve regulation. The fact the LDC failed to acknowledge the weight of the harms of maintaining cannabis’ prohibition, or their decision to call for more information gathering, feels disappointing and troubling.
“Cowardly and negligent”
Speaking to TalkingDrugs, Steve Rolles, Senior Drug Policy Analyst at Transform Drug Policy Foundation recognised that legal regulation may create some sub-optimal outcomes, “but policy development is an evolutionary process and one of the things you can do with a legal market is adapt your model in response to evidence. Something that is obviously impossible when the market is controlled by organised crime groups and unregulated market actors”.
The report’s recommendation to solely decriminalise cannabis while keeping its market criminalised was seen as a major shortfall. Rolles describes it as a:
“cowardly and negligent decision to endorse the perpetuation of a multi-billion-pound illegal trade that fuels crime, violence and exploitation and makes risks associated with cannabis greater, as well as forfeiting the possibility of billions in tax revenue and criminal justice savings that reform so clearly offers”.
Even though the report’s recommendations were not radical in any way, they were overshadowed by their immediate rejection by the Government: Housing Minister Matthew Pennycock stated: “The government position on cannabis classification remains unchanged”. Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner echoed this, ruling out any law change for cannabis. We are yet to see a more formal response from the Government or Prime Minister Keir Starmer to the LDC’s 41 other recommendations.
Aside from decriminalisation, the report’s recommendations sought to improve and work with the current prohibitionist system, like establishing better terms of police engagement and improving pathways to treatment. However, the silence from the Government on any of the report’s findings sends a clear message that it’s likely to just be ignored. This silence around acknowledging the need for change has increasingly become a characteristic of British drug policymaking, where some of the harms of a broken model are resolved, while its core issues – namely, the total lack of control of an illegal market – remain totally unaddressed.
Labour silence
When Labour took office in July 2024, there was some cautious optimism for progress – especially after nearly two decades of Conservative rule. Although Keir Starmer had stated he has “no intention of changing UK drug laws”, often steering clear from the debate, his Foreign Secretary, David Lammy was actually engaged in cannabis reform. Before Labour was in Government, Lammy had authored an article in 2019 advocating for cannabis regulation due to its public health advantages and potential to fix the racial disparities within cannabis policing, which disproportionately targets ethnic minorities. He even claimed that cannabis could be legal by 2024. His advocacy for cannabis policy has, sadly, disappeared since becoming Foreign Minister.
Lagging behind the public
Labour’s prohibitionist approach to cannabis does not seem ideological: from David Lammy to the Government Whip, Jeff Smith, there are several sitting labour MPs that have professed their support for reform at some point in the past. Their resistance to change possibly stems from their fear of appearing ‘soft’ on crime by right-wing media. This has created a situation where MPs are more resistant to cannabis legalisation than the general public: in polling from January 2025, 45% of British adults supported cannabis legalisation, as opposed to 39% of MPs.
As Rolles aptly stated: “The government don’t seem to have realised that support for cannabis reform is now a political asset rather than a political liability. They are stuck way behind the curve and seemingly too lazy and cowardly to develop and roll out a strong reform message – even though public support for change has only grown where it has been implemented”.
The LDC’s recommendations, including the call for decriminalisation, is welcome, as it could address the disproportionate impact of its policing on ethnic minorities. The decision to remain firm on the criminalisation of its production and supply, however, is insufficient and negligent, given the harms of maintaining the status quo. While the cannabis market remains uncontrolled, public health and criminal justice concerns around its use, sale and production will remain totally unresolved. The Government’s near-instant rejection of the report’s recommendations is an insult to the extensive evidence gathering process undertaken by the LDC. The door is open for Labour to change the status quo; cannabis reform can be an anti-crime, pro-public health initiative with added incentives of taxation revenue. So, what exactly are they waiting for?
