How do you spot a regular cannabis user?

How do you spot a regular cannabis user? Dilated eyes are one clue. So is giggling when there is nothing very obvious to giggle about. At the extreme end, manic and even violent behaviour are signs.

Another indication is the pungent smell of the drug, which can be picked up even in the open air. I’m not sure I could instantly recognise it, but police experienced in these matters can.

So it is baffling that the Inspectorate of Constabulary, which is the official police watchdog, has declared that officers on the beat should stop searching people simply because they stink of cannabis.

PC Plod, on coming across someone in a spaced-out state who is giving off the unmistakeable aroma of ‘weed’, is now expected to step aside and continue on his way as though nothing is awry.

The absurd diktat was partly driven by the desire of senior police officers to reduce the use of stop and search, which is particularly resented by some in the black community. The latest figures show that black people are eight times more likely to be stopped than their white equivalents.

It may surprise some that, according to the same figures, black people are less likely to have drugs on them than white suspects. So maybe they are being unfairly targeted by overzealous police.

But if an individual smells of cannabis, whether that person is white, black or brown, the police should surely stop and search him or her. The reason is that cannabis is an illegal Class B drug, rightly deemed by our lawmakers to be potentially very harmful.

At least five forces in England have announced without apparent shame that they will turn a blind eye to cannabis if it is for personal consumption. (Above: Police arrest a man who refused to hand over cannabis at a rally in Hyde Park in 2014)

This latest pronouncement by the Inspectorate of Constabulary is further proof that many senior police officers are no longer prepared to enforce the law over either the possession or the supply of cannabis. In effect, we have the legalisation of drugs by stealth.

Duty

At least five forces in England have announced without apparent shame that they will turn a blind eye to cannabis if it is for personal consumption. Police in Avon and Somerset, Durham, Derbyshire, Dorset and Surrey are taking this lenient approach, and we can be certain others are doing so less publicly.

Meanwhile, some forces are being almost equally indulgent towards growers of cannabis. Small-scale producers routinely escape prosecution in Durham. Devon and Cornwall Police uncovered 194 cannabis farms in four years but only brought charges against 79 people. The rest were cautioned or given warnings.

All this is thoroughly bad. The police have a duty to uphold the law. If they visibly fail to do so, they are actually encouraging people to break it in the knowledge that even if they are caught they will very likely be let off.

It’s not just true of drugs, of course. By disclosing that they no longer have the time to investigate ‘low-level’ crimes such as burglary, the police are effectively giving thieves a green light. Steal a smartphone by all means, but better not take the Mercedes this time.

And so inveterate consumers of cannabis, and those who grow and supply the stuff on a modest scale, know they are safe even though the maximum sentence for possession is supposedly five years in prison, and a stiff 15 years for selling the stuff. In some countries such as Holland, and American states such as Colorado, they are at least honest enough to have had a public debate before — misguidedly, in my view — decriminalising cannabis. In Britain we are legitimising it on the sly while going through the charade of pretending it remains against the law.

My wager is that if there were a truthful discussion in Parliament and elsewhere, the feeble case for legalising cannabis would be rejected by most of the general public. The arguments against the drug are very strong.

Damage

Only last week it was reported that retired teacher Janie Hamilton is touring schools to warn children about the perils of cannabis. She lost her 36- year-old son to testicular cancer after his drug-induced psychosis led him to refuse chemotherapy. His death was recorded as being partly induced by his mental issues.

The link between cannabis and psychosis has been attested by so many studies that it remains a wonder to me that apparently intelligent people such as Nick Clegg, the former Lib Dem leader, can continue to argue in favour of legalising the drug.

Like many similar investigations over the years, an Israeli report in April concluded that smoking cannabis in adolescence may serve as a catalyst for schizophrenia in individuals susceptible to the disorder.A seven-year study in Australia found that teenagers who used the drug were five times more likely to develop depression or anxiety in later life. Many parents will confirm behavioural and personality changes in children who take cannabis.

The link between cannabis and psychosis has been attested by so many studies that it remains a wonder to me that apparently intelligent people such as Nick Clegg, the former Lib Dem leader, can continue to argue in favour of legalising the drug

The ill-effects need not always impact mental health though they invariably damage the individual. A New Zealand study published earlier this year found that those who smoke cannabis at least four times a week end up in less skilled jobs than members of their family. Regular users experienced more downward social mobility and greater financial problems than non-users.

At the extreme end, there is plenty of evidence that cannabis addicts can become violent. A recent case concerned Mark Loveridge, a paranoid schizophrenic with a long history of cannabis abuse who stabbed lecturer Daniel Young. He was sentenced to at least 15 years in prison in October.

Many Islamic terrorists have a history of smoking cannabis. Zahid Hussain was jailed for life two months ago for planning to set off a bomb on the Birmingham to London rail line.

The Islamic State killer ‘Jihadi John’ was reportedly a heavy cannabis user

Dr Philip Joseph, a consultant psychiatrist, told the court that Hussain’s psychosis was ‘probably connected to his heavy use of cannabis’.

The Islamic State killer ‘Jihadi John’ was reportedly a heavy cannabis user. The so-called shoe bomber Richard Reid smoked cannabis as a youngster, as did the killers of Fusilier Lee Rigby, Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale.

Of course, these are exceptional cases. I don’t deny that regular use in moderation by adults may sometimes be harmless. But there is nonetheless a causal link between heavy use of the drug and violence.

Moreover, legalisation typically increases usage. Earlier this year, the national drugs agency in Portugal released figures which showed that the number of people using cannabis has risen by more than 40 per cent in that country over the 15 years since possession was no longer deemed a crime.

Secret

In Colorado, where the drug was legalised in 2014, there has been a spike in usage. There has also been a higher-than-expected rise in crime, and a dramatic growth in cannabis-related traffic deaths.

So I submit that in increasingly treating the possession and low-level production of this dangerous drug as a non-crime, the police are taking intolerable liberties. It is weak and feeble of the Home Office to let them get away with it.

The excuse that the police haven’t got the time to prosecute miscreants is a mere smokescreen. How long does it take to search someone reeking of cannabis? To be fair to the police, one or two forces such as Merseyside are reportedly resisting this latest nonsense.

Do we want our drugs policy to be determined in secret by senior police officers? Or do we prefer laws passed by our political representatives to be observed? My bet is that the vast majority of people want the latter.