Comfy liberals might avoid the disasters of cannabis legalisation, but the working classes won’t

Since the Wilson Ministry in the late-1960s, British liberals have worked relentlessly to create a society in which they would flourish. In doing so, they have selfishly discounted, or remained solipsistically unaware of, the effects these policies would have on those who are much less fortunate.

On 31 May, The Guardian published yet another opinion editorial supporting the legalisation of cannabis.  This one suggested that what was needed to break through ‘the largely stalled debate’ in Britain was political action from below – which adds an entirely new spin on the meaning of ‘grassroots campaigning’.

The ‘largely stalled’ drugs debate is a textbook example of how the post-1960s defeat of 'small c' conservatives in the battle for policy-making primacy has been a disaster for working-class Britons.

The affluent, metropolitan liberals who most influence policy in the United Kingdom enjoy taking drugs and would rather they did not have to break the law, or be seen as sinful, when doing so. They view drug taking as harmless because they have interesting, exciting jobs that give their lives structure, and if they do happen to start over using their narcotic of choice, they have strong networks to cushion their fall and to pick them back up.

The working classes also take drugs, but for them the consequences can be far graver. The modern economy has already consigned them to insecure, often crushingly dull, jobs and evermore atomised and crime-ridden neighbourhoods. In such circumstances, any type of habitual drug use can carry ruinous penalties. 

While Allegra from Kensington might be able to rely on an Uncle Roland to find her a job at a PR firm after emerging from drug use, Angie from Kenton certainly cannot.

The bridge to living a good and productive life is precariously narrow for much of the working class, and those who fall off do so into a canyon of often inescapable depth. Yet instead of doing all they can to help them cross this thin and rickety bridge, Britain’s ruling elites have for sixty years busied themselves with removing the handrails.

In policy area after policy area, comfortably middle class, left-wing liberals have sought to dissolve any restriction on their ability to do as they fancy, and so have made things more difficult for those who live in much less secure circumstances.

Encouraging women to eschew their traditional roles as mothers and what the Americans call ‘homemakers’ is a wonderful thing for those ladies who can afford to employ professional nannies and for whom going out to work promises an intellectually stimulating and well-remunerated job. It is less so for those who can expect to work long hours at a call centre (or as a cleaner or babysitter for a richer working lady) in exchange for wages that barely cover travel and basic childcare.

Untrammelled immigration of unskilled labour might be wonderful for those who like excitingly cosmopolitan neighbourhoods to pass through, lots of ethnic restaurants, and inexpensive labour. It is less so for those who have to compete for the same jobs and must live cheek by jowl with folks from alien cultures whom they cannot yet trust.

Weakening the institution of marriage is a decent trade-off if the consequences involve only a small period of emotional difficulty. It is a much worse deal if being single can lead to chronic poverty during periods of unemployment, sickness or parenthood. And it is a disaster for the children who most need consistent adult presence, from both mother and father, in the household.

Since the Wilson Ministry in the late-1960s, British liberals have worked relentlessly to create a society in which they would flourish. In doing so, they have selfishly discounted, or remained solipsistically unaware of, the effects these policies would have on those who are much less fortunate.

‘Stalled' is the correct word for the drug debate, because while cannabis possession is still de jure illegal, the liberal capture of the police, the judiciary, and the leadership of the two main political parties has allowed them to make it de facto legal. 

Their frustration shows just how used to victory they are.