Post-Brexit trade negotiations have ignored one very important multibillion-pound market – illicit drugs

The Tory manifesto pledged to ‘take a new approach’ to drug policy. With a chance to raise much-needed revenue, now is the best time to do so, writes Ian Hamilton

Physical borders are fast becoming irrelevant, with supply and distribution of drugs by post flourishing as orders are increasingly placed on the dark web (EPA)

On the face of it, excluding an illegal market from Brexit trade negotiations appears sensible, but the story is far more complex when it comes to one particular industry: the ever buoyant, multibillion-pound trade in illicit drugs.

As a nation, we are a net importer of drugs. Although domestic cannabis farms have sprung up in recent years, we still rely on South America to meet our need for cocaine and Afghanistan for opiates. Demand for drugs shows no signs of slowing with an estimated 3.2 million people reporting drug use. The Home Office estimates the market contributes £5.3bn to the economy but the overall cost is over double that when elements like policing and health are factored in.

As long as the mantra of “taking back our borders” is used in the context of immigration, rather than stemming imports of drugs like heroin and cocaine, the illicit drug market will be indirectly affected by Brexit negotiations. Increased attention on border control, irrespective of the aim, could disrupt the drugs trade. As an island, we have extremely porous borders. Despite the periodic trumpeting of drug seizures by the police or customs, most of the trade in drugs continues uninterrupted.

Physical borders are fast becoming irrelevant, with supply and distribution of drugs by post flourishing as orders are increasingly placed on the dark web. Contributing to this growth is the popularity of prescription drugs which are harder to source via conventional sources but are relatively easy to source online. Home Office drugs misuse surveys also show an increase in people reporting that sourcing drugs is becoming easier, no doubt due to internet trading. Any attempt to increase drug checks on our borders will only serve to increase postal trade, which is relatively safe and discrete.

The United Kingdom has relied on relationships with European agencies such as Europol for drug-related intelligence. Last week the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction warned policymakers about the growing European drug market which is becoming increasingly violent as well as digitally advanced. Severing links with these agencies puts the UK population at risk as early warnings about new synthetic drugs, such as opioids, might not be passed on to our public health bodies.

With 50 new types of psychoactive drugs identified annually, this critical intelligence leaves our domestic agencies disadvantaged. The National Crime Agency has expressed concern about drugs such as Fentanyl, Carfentanil and emerging derivatives. It also recognises the interconnected nature of drug markets with gangs, human trafficking, firearms and violence.

As long as drugs have been prohibited, there has been a cat and mouse game between dealers and enforcement agencies. The illicit drug market has proven time and again how resourceful and innovative it can be, in stark contrast to the traditional policy response, which leaves governments in a state of paralysis. Contrary to popular belief, the drug trade is mostly unorganised and opportunistic, rather than an organised, mafia-style business operation. With that in mind, it’s clear why governmental “war on drugs” campaigns often fail to be half as effective as they should be.

Brexit is an opportunity to rethink drug policy; Boris Johnson and Dominic Cummings have shown they are open to new ideas. Although they are unlikely to abandon prohibition entirely, they might be attracted to the economics and popularity of changing policy towards our favourite illegal drug: cannabis.

Successive polling suggests growing support among voters. Although decriminalising recreational use wouldn’t create any tax revenue, it could be a tentative but significant first step towards the regulated supply and distribution of cannabis. A move like that alone has the potential to raise £3.5bn, which might be too good an opportunity to ignore for a government already desperate for ways of raising much-needed revenue.

As it stands, the government is a passive observer with little if any control over the fast-moving, profitable and innovative drug market. This is not a benign business; the priority of the government is protecting its population, and continuing with failing policy amplifies the harm that drugs have the potential to do on their own.

In their manifesto, the Conservatives pledged to “take a new approach to treatment so we can reduce drug deaths and break the cycle of crime linked to addiction”. This might not signal an intention to liberalise drug policy; it could be the opposite. But strengthening prohibition moves policy even further away from the evidence of how to reduce harm, demonstrating not just a lack of value for evidence but worse, a lack of empathy for those affected by outdated drug policy.