SMOKE SIGNAL

Police in London's gritty Brixton neighborhood are losing the war on
drugs, so the police chief is experimenting with not enforcing
cannabis laws.

Aug. 2, 2001 - LONDON -- When they kick at your front door in
Brixton, chances are it won't be for drugs.

Earlier this month, police in the south London borough of Lambeth,
where Brixton is located, began a six-month experiment in which they
are supposed to ignore minor marijuana offenses.

In one of the most serious attacks yet on Britain's harsh drug laws,
Brian Paddick, the local police commander, has instructed his force
to turn a blind eye to citizens caught with pot. His success or
failure will be a key factor in the growing national debate over the
future of the country's war on drugs.

Britain has some of Europe's harshest drug laws -- a minor marijuana
bust can bring up to six months in jail, with a fine of 5,000 pounds
(about $7,000). But according to an exhaustive report on U.K. drug
policy published last year by the Police Foundation, a think tank
partly funded by the government, this policy has largely failed.
Meanwhile, Britain has developed Europe's biggest drug problem.

Moreover, as many police officers will readily admit, enforcement is
a mess. About 90 percent of drug arrests are for possession, and of
those, around 75 percent are for possession of cannabis.

Yet with the exception of Lambeth's experimental program, there is no
efficient way to handle simple possession cases.

Drug arrests in Britain are a bureaucratic nightmare for police,
requiring up to five hours of paperwork and other red tape to process
a suspect -- time that many believe could be better spent on the
streets fighting more serious crime. And officers who choose to go
against policy and not make arrests are thereby eroding the authority
of the police.

The result is a system that is plugged with minor drug crimes and a
population that increasingly thinks the drug laws are inappropriately
harsh. As has happened in the United States, police in the U.K. have
come under fire for their stop-and-search policies and profiling of
potential drug users and dealers.

Such tactics have drawn especially strong criticism in ethnically
mixed neighborhoods such as Brixton. Stop and search "has done little
to engender good relations between community and police," says Danny
Kushlick, director of Transform, an organization that campaigns for
reform of drug laws. The Lambeth initiative "will help in that
regard," he believes.

Under the new rules, the police in Lambeth may confiscate your joint,
but the most that will happen to you otherwise is a solid scolding,
formally called a caution.

A caution involves about the same level of bureaucracy as a traffic
ticket: The officer seizes the drug, and the person who is busted
must sign the warning.

That's the most lenient punishment police can issue after an arrest.

But despite its toothless name, a caution bites.

It still requires a hefty dose of desk time for cops -- and it can
create legal problems for the recipient because it requires an
admission of guilt.

Worse, a caution shows up on a person's permanent police record,
which must often be revealed, for example, to potential employers.

And a caution can cause real trouble for anybody working in fields
such as child care and healthcare, or anybody seeking a visa to live
abroad.

Still, the initiative is the first step in a long journey for a
country that has recently begun to show a willingness to experiment
with alternatives to the strict enforcement of drug laws. Scotland,
which enjoys a certain degree of autonomous rule, has gone possibly
the farthest by developing a range of penalties for drug use or
possession -- including warning letters and fines -- that require
neither reams of paperwork by the police nor admission of guilt by
the person they've collared.

Most of the experiments involve treatment of hardcore addicts
following a bust. There is a growing interest in alternatives to
incarceration for hard-drug users in the U.K., including a pilot
program that supplies pharmaceutical-grade heroin to junkies and then
slowly reduces their dosage until they are no longer addicted.

Judges increasingly seek to get addicts into rehabilitation programs
instead of prisons.

Yet most of these solutions deal with hard drugs, not cannabis, and
occur only after an arrest has taken place, not before.

It's not surprising, then, that politicians and policy experts are
keenly interested in the Lambeth experiment. Seldom does police
pragmatism square so neatly with the will of drug-law-reform
activists, and the 65 percent of voters who, according to a recent
survey by the left-leaning Guardian newspaper, think cannabis
possession should be the lowest priority for police.

And nowhere has reform become more symbolic than in Brixton, a rough
corner of Lambeth known for its great night life, serious crime and
bad drug problem.

No matter what eventually comes of the Lambeth trial, Britain is
still in the Stone Age with regard to drug law reform in Europe. Most
Americans are aware of the Netherlands' lenient approach to pot; the
host of the annual "Cannabis Cup" dope degustation has
decriminalized, but not outright legalized, possession and
distribution of small quantities of marijuana, thus giving rise to
Amsterdam's famous coffee shops.

Other European countries aren't far behind.

Belgium recently decriminalized possession of small quantities of
marijuana for any person over age 18, and both Italy and Spain have
dropped criminal charges for possession of small amounts while
retaining administrative penalties and fines.

And in 1994, under a challenge made to German law, the nation's
Constitutional Court ruled that turning minor cannabis offenders into
criminals was unconstitutional. Although anti-cannabis laws remain on
the books in Germany, almost no charges for possession have been
brought since then.

The police may have been concocting the Lambeth scheme for ages, but
it would never have come into existence without at least the tacit
support of the government. Credit Tony Blair's Labor government with
creating an environment in which the experiment could take place.
David Blunkett, the new home secretary, has been in office only a few
weeks but has already made his mark on the drug debate: first by
firing the ineffectual drug czar and eliminating the office, and then
by allowing the Lambeth experiment to move forward.

Blunkett has even called for an "adult, intelligent debate" on drugs.

Some members of the Conservative Party have gone even further.

Peter Lilley, who as former deputy leader of the Tories has solid
right-wing credentials, has responded to the hubbub surrounding the
Lambeth experiment with a call for full-scale legalization of
marijuana. Although some party members consider the proposal
outrageous, Lilley has some influential backers, including Charles
Moore, editor of the conservative Daily Telegraph. Lilley also has an
ideology: Because the Tories are a party of free choice and the
current drug laws infringe on such freedom, the party should not
support them.

Despite the progressive Lambeth experiment, and the apparent
political support for it, there is little evidence that Britain's
politicians are preparing to follow their neighbors across the
English Channel down the path of decriminalization. Debate there may
be. Equally likely are committees and studies and reports and
recommendations ad infinitum. Yet, as Transform's Kushlick points
out, there are few issues on which politicians are so far out of sync
with the public as the war on drugs. "The climate for change is
here," he says, "but the political will is not."

The Labor government is cursed by its left-wing history and is
unlikely to risk being called soft on crime by pushing for all-out
change. And despite Lilley's position, the Conservatives never have
been -- and still aren't -- a true libertarian party with leanings
toward greater personal liberties.

Ann Widdecombe, a leading hard-line Conservative and critic of the
Lambeth initiative, presses a completely different line. Widdecombe
recently told a Sunday Independent reporter: "The Conservative Party
is opposed to legalization and, indeed, decriminalization. If we
legalize cannabis, it is very unlikely that the drug barons would
just go home."

Still, the experiment has catalyzed public debate over the country's
drug laws. As a compromise between extant legislation and the reality
of enforcement police routinely confront, it may well point the way
toward decriminalization by default -- a situation similar to
Germany's, where the laws remain on the books but are seldom used.

Just days after Paddick announced the launch of the pilot program,
British police and customs officials came back with a noteworthy
rejoinder, saying they would no longer hunt down marijuana smugglers.
If officers stumble across marijuana in their ongoing pursuit of
heroin and cocaine smugglers, they will confiscate it and make
arrests. But they won't target pot. The war on marijuana, blared the
tabloids, is over.

That is, of course, an exaggeration. Growing, dealing or possessing
cannabis is still a crime in the U.K., and the penalties are, by and
large, still enforced.

A recent court case, modeled after the 1994 constitutional challenge
in Germany, unsuccessfully argued that the country's cannabis
possession laws contravened the European Convention on Human Rights.

However, for the next six months at least, Brixton will remain a safe
haven. And what is happening there is both remarkable and ordinary:
People are going about their lives as before, the smell of pot floats
in the air no more frequently than before and the drug dealers hustle
as they always have. Except for one thing: Now a dreadlocked man has
positioned himself at the exit to the Brixton Underground station,
wedging himself between a bootleg-CD seller and a proselytizer.

As the station disgorges commuters, he calls out in his thick
Jamaican accent: "Ganja! Sinsemilla! Don't be afraid to smoke in
Brixton!"