Historian Virginia Berridge has recently completed her term as a deputy chair of the London Drugs Commission, which published its report, The Cannabis Conundrum, in May of this year.
Established by the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, the commission investigated implications of the non-medical use of cannabis in the capital and the impact of the current laws which govern it.
Virginia, who is Professor of History and Health Policy at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, brought a historian’s perspective to an investigation otherwise dominated by legal specialists. To be a historian in this environment was rewarding, challenging and revealing.
In this post, Virginia explains how her expertise in histories of public health policy helped shape the enquiry, and how — and in what ways — others engage with history when it comes to present-day policy formation.
As Virginia shows, understanding how academic history is regarded by non-specialists is key to ensuring the centrality and informed use of our discipline in the policy sphere.
About two or more years ago, I received a rather strange email. Would I be able to have a phone conversation with Lord Falconer about the possibility of becoming deputy chair of the London Drugs Commission, established by the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan?
Initially I thought this was someone’s idea of a joke or a scam. Eventually I did indeed have the conversation with Lord Falconer, who was chair of the Commission. I also had a conversation with the head of secretariat, Jenny Cann, who was on secondment to MOPAC (the Mayor’s Office for Police and Crime) from the Home Office. Reassured by her statement that it would involve maybe a meeting once a month for less than a year, and by an assurance that the Commission’s findings were not predetermined, I took the plunge.
Of course, the Commission’s hearings took up far more time than once a month and the report — ‘The Cannabis Conundrum: the way forward for London’ — was not done and dusted in a year. It has just been published in May 2025.
Despite the call on my time, the experience of being on the Commission was fascinating and one of the most interesting of my career.
The Commission had very wide terms of reference and was able to take oral and written evidence, both internationally and nationally, on the harms of cannabis, the best methods of prevention, the most effective approaches of the criminal justice system, and the public health benefits of different responses.
We took evidence from MPs, chief executives and leaders of London boroughs, heads of criminal justice agencies, leading police bodies and commissioners, the education field, health clinicians and academics, and the wealth of relevant voluntary organisations.
As a historian who has used oral history a fair amount, having leading people in the field agree readily to be interviewed with note taking and transcription all on tap, was indeed a bonus.
A major part of our work was gathering international evidence, from, for example, Canada, which had legalised cannabis under the Trudeau government and which was carrying out a five year review; as well as from Colorado, Portugal and Malta which, among other countries, had either legalised or were in the throes of changing legislation. Our interviewees ranged from Helen Clark — a commissioner of the Global Commission on Drug Policy, and former Prime Minister of New Zealand — to Sir Mark Rowley, Metropolitan Police Commissioner.
I grew very familiar with Lord Falconer’s legal offices, where most of our evidence sessions were held. As a historian who has used oral history a fair amount, having leading people in the field agree readily to be interviewed with note taking and transcription all on tap, was indeed a bonus.
Visits were also part of the brief. These included to the London-wide youth committee; the HQ of Celadon Pharmaceuticals, a licensed producer of cannabis; a meeting with the private sector providers of medical cannabis; and the International Society for the Study of Drug Policy annual meeting in Leuven, Belgium, to speak to international drugs researchers.
Legalisation was not on the cards … It did not dispose of the black market.
So what did we conclude? Legalisation was not on the cards. The international evidence showed that that tactic did not have the impact often assumed. It did not dispose of the black market. The commercial model adopted in some jurisdictions had meant simply that ‘Big Tobacco’ was replaced by ‘Big Cannabis’, which was not a desirable outcome.
We recommended instead moving the drug from its current place in the Misuse of Drugs Act (MDA) to a different act, the Psychoactive Substances Act, a more recent piece of legislation, passed to control substances such as ‘legal highs’ which were already widely used in society. This would make it possible to continue to police the production and supply of cannabis while not penalising its possession.
This was a novel recommendation — distinctive in not being the movement from one class to another in the MDA as recommended by previous committees. It could be achieved by an Order in Council rather than a lengthy parliamentary process. We paid regard to cannabis-educators, youth workers, medical practitioners and to the police. who deal with the adverse effects of cannabis use, and who urged us not to worsen the situation of those whose use is problematic and potentially increase their number. Our recommendation about legal change would however have gone some way to deal with the racial disproportionality in the operation of stop and search, which particularly affects London’s black communities.
It’s highly unusual for a historian to be placed in this type of role.
So, you may be asking, what role did a historian play in this work? Certainly it’s highly unusual for a historian to be placed in this type of role.
My academic work has been on drug policy and I’ve worked on recent policy history. I therefore have a good knowledge of the contemporary scene and the academics who work in it. The Commission’s chair, Lord Falconer and my co-deputy chair, Janet Hills, both came from the criminal justice side of things, as did the secretariat. Charlie Falconer is a former Lord Chancellor and was Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs during the second Blair Labour government. Janet is a retired detective sergeant from the Met and both past chair and President of the Black Police Association.
My role on the Commission also gave me insight into how non-historians engage with academic history in policy reviews of this kind.
I was representing health as much as history. But history did come into the Commission’s work. I ensured we took evidence from historians who have worked on this subject area. The final report includes a chapter on the history of cannabis regulation in the UK, from the 1920s to the present. As this makes clear ‘the legal pathways taken by drugs of all types have been historically determined’, being shaped by prevailing political, economic, activist and diplomatic interests as well as shifting concepts of the cultural legitimacy of selected substances.
Other work I had published — on approaches to smoking and on e-cigarettes — enabled me to draw out connections with tobacco policy which figured quite centrally in the report.
My role on the Commission also gave me insight into how non-historians engage with academic history in policy reviews of this kind. Some work, including commissioned position papers, predated my appointment and it was evident that mainstream history in the area didn’t always make it into these position paper reviews. There was also a tendency to use what I would call ‘social science history’, often in article rather than book format, preferring these to the key works which an historian would have seen as essential.
In addition, there was an inability to understand quite what historians were arguing. The control history of cannabis is complex. It came under international control (the basis of all subsequent UK legislation) in the 1920s, not because there was a problem in the UK but as part of colonial power politics in Egypt. An Egyptian politician raised the control of cannabis at an international drug control meeting specifically to embarrass the British, the former colonial rulers of the country. The British actually opposed his demands for control, which went on to be enshrined in international legislation.
What suited present-day policy arguments predetermined the way in which the history was initially presented: a problem … historians would do well to ponder.
The non-historical readers of this sequence of events consistently failed to get the point. They produced analyses which put the blame on anti-drug sentiment and ignored the colonial context. What suited present-day policy arguments predetermined the way in which the history was initially presented (I did change all of this!). It’s a problem I have also identified in other policy areas and which historians would do well to ponder. How can we ensure our published work is seen as central and that our arguments, often complex and contradicting received opinion, are actually understood?
The Commission’s report — ‘The Cannabis Conundrum’ — has now seen the light of day.
Our neat solution to the policy problem has won no favour with central government, although it did win the support of the Mayor. In addition to its central recommendation, there is much more in the report. With nearly 800 references, it is a goldmine for researchers. Its London-focused recommendations — for diversion out of the criminal justice court system, more nuanced education and health services — may have more traction in the capital. Meanwhile, I am considering a comparative conference paper drawing on the experience. Back to the historical fold.
About the author
Virginia Berridge is Professor of History and Health Policy at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.
A former Director of the Centre for History in Public Health, her areas of specialist interest include illicit drugs; smoking; alcohol; HIV/AIDS; the history of public health, and the relationship between evidence and policy.
Virginia’s publications include Demons: Our Changing Attitudes to Alcohol, Tobacco and Drugs (OUP, 2013), Public Health. A Very Short Introduction (OUP, 2016), and — as co-author — E-Cigarettes and the Comparative Politics of Harm Reduction History, Evidence, and Policy.
HEADER IMAGE: iStock, Credit:BardoczPeter
