Kenya’s economy continues to search for new growth engines. Unemployment remains high. Public debt keeps rising. Traditional revenue sources face pressure. In this environment, one issue has returned to public debate with renewed force. That issue is the economic potential of bhang, also known as cannabis.
Bhang still remains illegal in Kenya. Yet global attitudes however continue to shift. Court cases remain active while Underground trade persists. These realities raise hard questions about whether prohibition still serves Kenya’s economic interests. The debate has moved beyond morality and public order. It now focuses on jobs, revenue, regulation, and also the cost of maintaining the status quo.
Kenya’s Legal and Policy Reality
Kenya still bans cannabis under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Control Act. The law criminalises possession, cultivation, trafficking, and use. Penalties include heavy fines and long prison terms. Police continue to arrest suspects nationwide. Courts continue to uphold convictions.
Despite this strict framework, cannabis trade persists. Cultivation occurs in several regions. Distribution networks operate quietly. This exposes a clear contradiction. Cannabis already exists as an economic activity. It simply operates outside the law. The state earns no revenue from this trade. Farmers face arrest and prosecution. Criminal networks control supply and pricing. This gap between law and reality fuels also calls for reform. At the policy level, the issue remains unresolved. Parliament has not amended the law. Regulatory agencies still enforce prohibition. Yet public discussion grows louder. Economic pressure continues to mount.
Courts and the Shifting National Debate
The economic debate unfolds alongside an active court case. The Rastafarian Society of Kenya has challenged the constitutionality of cannabis prohibition. The group argues that the ban violates religious freedom and promotes discrimination. The case has remained in court for several years. Recent directions have however renewed interest. Judges have allowed state agencies to join the proceedings. These include bodies responsible for drug control and public health. This signals recognition of the wider policy impact.
The court has declined to suspend arrests during the case. Existing laws still apply. However, judges have acknowledged that the matter raises serious constitutional questions. These include rights, equality, and proportionality of punishment. The pending judgment has widened national discussion. Policymakers now face pressure to engage. Economists analyse costs and benefits. The public debates reform beyond headlines. Courts now sit at the centre of a debate once limited to enforcement.
The Economic Case for Regulation
One of the strongest arguments for reform lies in cost. Prohibition also demands constant enforcement. Police conduct operations. Courts process cases. Prisons hold offenders. Many of these offenders commit non-violent crimes. Taxpayers fund this system. Yet cannabis use and trade continue. Prohibition has not eliminated demand. It has pushed the market underground. Illegal actors capture profits. The state absorbs the cost.
Regulation offers a different approach. It allows controlled production and trade and also creates a taxable framework. Governments can issue licences. Authorities can enforce standards. Revenue can replace enforcement loss. Countries with regulated markets collect income through excise tax, VAT, and licensing fees. Kenya could adopt a similar model. The structure could reflect local realities. National and county governments could both benefit.
Employment would follow regulation. Jobs would emerge across the value chain. Farmers would grow legally. Processors would add value. Retailers would operate under licences. Compliance officers would enforce rules. Youth unemployment also remains a major challenge. A regulated sector could absorb skilled and semi-skilled labour. It could formalise work that already exists informally. Industrial hemp adds another dimension. Hemp contains low psychoactive content. It supports textiles, construction, cosmetics, and paper. These industries align with Kenya’s manufacturing goals.
Agriculture would also benefit. Climate change threatens traditional crops. Input costs continue to rise. Cannabis grows well in several regions. Regulation would unlock financing, insurance, and research support. Farmers would diversify income. Rural economies would strengthen. Research remains another opportunity. Current laws restrict scientific study. Regulation would allow universities and medical institutions to conduct trials. Medical applications already exist globally. Industrial research could support green manufacturing.
Export markets also matter. Africa’s cannabis industry continues to expand. Several countries have adopted regulated systems. Demand grows in global markets. Early movers gain advantage. Kenya holds strategic strengths. It has port access, experience and agricultural expertise. Delay risks leaving Kenya behind regional competitors.
Risks, Public Concerns, and the Way Forward
Economic benefits do not erase risk. Critics mostly raise valid concerns. Youth access remains a major worry. Mental health risks exist. Addiction carries social cost. Weak regulation could worsen harm. These risks demand regulation, not neglect. Age limits must apply. Licensing must remain strict. Advertising must face limits. Public education must remain central.
Tax policy also matters. Excessive taxation can sustain black markets. Weak enforcement can undermine reform. Regulation must strike a balance. It must remain evidence based. Kenya also faces policy choices. Reform does not require instant full legalisation. Some countries begin with decriminalisation. Others start with medical or industrial use. Phased reform allows learning and adjustment. Public opinion will shape outcomes. Many Kenyans still link bhang to crime. Sudden change without education could however trigger backlash. Policymakers must communicate clearly. Regulation is about control, not endorsement. It is about harm reduction and economic order.
Looking Forward
The bhang debate in Kenya has evolved a lot. It now sits at the intersection of economics, law, and social values. Courts actively examine the issue. Global examples continue to grow. Economic pressure also intensifies.
Prohibition has not eliminated cannabis.Also, It has hidden its value. It has transferred profit to illegal networks. It has imposed heavy enforcement costs on the public. Regulation offers an alternative. Moreover, It could formalise an existing economy by creating jobs. and also generating revenue. It could reduce enforcement strain. Legalisation alone will not solve Kenya’s economic problems. But ignoring the issue guarantees continued loss. As courts deliberate and debate deepens, Kenya faces a strategic choice. It can defend prohibition. Or it can explore reform grounded in evidence, regulation, and also national interest.
