Last week, Home
Secretary Teresa May decided to ban khat, a stimulant herb used by the Somali
and Yemeni community. It will now be classified as a Class C drug,
alongside the likes of ketamine and diazepam (better known as Valium). As highs
go, khat is apparently hard work for your hit. Users must sit chewing mouthfuls
of green leaves for several hours, before the active ingredient cathinone is
released in sufficient doses into the mucous membranes. Its effects are mild
euphoria, alertness and loss of appetite; think strong coffee with a dash of
speed instead of hazelnut-flavoured syrup.
Khat has never inspired
gangster films, as cocaine did in the eighties thanks to its obvious
limitations. Scarface’s bloody finale
would not carry the same punch on khat. Tony Montana buries his face into a
mound of hedge clippings, to rise up like a hyperactive giraffe, one cheek
massively distended by his herb bolus.
Given that khat is an
acquired taste which most people decline to acquire, why then did Teresa May spend precious departmental time and political capital banning it? I wondered what calculations she made to prioritise the
prohibition of a mildly intoxicating shrub over, for example, the prevention of terrorism.
Moreover, no other drug
is as exclusively associated with such a narrow sub-section of the population.
When the Home Secretary bans khat, she is guaranteeing that her hideously white
police force will be arresting only black men from the Horn of Africa. Therefore
the prohibtion only makes rational sense if Ms May received expert advice from
scientists and doctors about the terrible impact of khat on its users and the
wider community. Wrong.
Britain's leading
medical journal, The Lancet, produced a table ranking various substances for
harm and likelihood of addiction. Khat scored the lowest of all.
Khat is not completely
harmless, but neither is my preferred hangover cure, a venti capuccino with an
extra shot. And yes, to any barrista that asks me again, I am aware it equates
to four shots of espresso. That is the point.
The Advisory Committee
on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD), published in 2013, with the catchy title “Khat:
A Review of its potential harms to the individual communities in the UK.” Their
conclusions were:
“On the basis of the
available evidence, the overwhelming majority of Council members consider that
khat should not be controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. In summary
the reason for this is that, save for the issue of liver toxicity, although
there may be a correlation or association between the use of khat and various
negative social indicators, it is not possible to conclude that there is any
causal link. The ACMD considers that the evidence of harms associated with the
use of khat is insufficient to justify control and it would be inappropriate
and disproportionate to classify khat under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.”
Yet Teresa May banned it
anyway. Possession of khat for personal use will now carry a two year maximum
sentence. Thus our Home Secretary believes a Somali man who possesses a bag of
khat which he chews for his own enjoyment is committing a crime as a serious
as:
- Attempted incest by a
man with a girl over the age of 13 years
- Racially aggravated
common order assault
- Unlawful marketing of
combat knives
Now it is worth
mentioning that the sentencing guidelines for possession offences under the
Misuse of Drugs Act are much more lenient than any other category of offence.
The courts, in essence, are very reluctant to send people to prison for possession
of controlled substances. I suppose because courts are in the main,
administered by sane, rational people.
The same leniency does
not hold true, however, for the khat supplier. Previously he was importing a
legal herb. If he continues to trade khat, he mutates into a drug dealer. Possession
with intent to supply carries a maximum sentence of up to 14 years which Teresa May
considers as serious a crime as:
- Placing explosives
with the intent to cause bodily injury
- Causing or inciting
child prostitution or pornography
- Causing death by
serious driving
Those penalties seem
proportionate to the harms caused by shrub-trafficking.
Not.
You would think our Home
Secretary had better things to do.
