LeChevalierMal-Fait, Co-Author of Initial Draft of Drug Reform Bill, Withdraws Support

In the middle of the contentious commons debate over the topic of licensed and unlicensed substances and their role in British society, additional moves were being made behind the scenes.

Mr. Fait contacted the Independent and discussed with us their concerns about the bill as written.

One of their initial proposals had been removed in the editing process since their initial bill, coauthored with Coalition! Lord SapphireWork, was converted into a broader writing process. The relevant timeline stretches back months. The initial draft as drawn up by Mr. Fait and Ms. Work had included lessening restrictions on Cannabis and Khat. All parties involved told the Independent that, subsequent to the initial drafting, Mr. Fait turned over editorial discretion over their bills contents to Ms. Work, who proceeded to engage in the process with Mr. BrexitGlory.

The source of this removal remains unclear. Mr. Glory when asked about the subject said they likely couldn't determine the precise source and time. Ms. Work's recollection was that then Liberal Democrat leader CountBrandenburg had said they needed to see a stronger rationale for loosening those restrictions, at which point assumedly the section was removed. Liberal Democrats have, according to one source, been rethinking support of the bill as the debate over the subject moves into a vote in the coming days.

Mr. Fait made clear that their break from politics during this time left the decision to remove relevant sections as one that other individuals were authorized to take, but still wishes to make it known that they can't support the bill in its current form, telling us "the criminalisation of drug users for the first time since 2015 is deeply regressive and represents a step in the wrong direction." Ms. Work was given a chance to respond to similar claims and told us that concerns over the current drugs being legislated for is "everyone getting up in arms saying they won’t be able to do these substances recreationally."  To them, these arguments are "way off base because they have only ever been available legally via medical or action."