FIGHTING DRUG ABUSE

In his time as inaugural head of the Scottish Crime and Drug
Enforcement Agency (SCDEA), Graeme Pearson has shown he is not
backward at coming forward when confronting activities that, left
unchecked, would threaten this country's economic and social wellbeing.

He will address two at the annual drugs conference of the Association
of Chief Police Officers in Scotland (Acpos) later this week. Given
the theme of the conference, one is to do with drugs, specifically cannabis.

The other concerns further potential sanctions against convicted
offenders, British citizens of foreign origin, who have served a
sentence for serious organised crime.

Mr Pearson suggests effectively deporting them because many
subsequently travel around Europe with a British passport to organise
more crime.

Denying them citizenship is a hugely problematic area that would be
open to legitimate challenge in the courts.

Even if we wanted to create a non-class of British citizen, could the
Home Office, with all its problems with foreign prisoners and vetting
Britons convicted of crimes abroad, be trusted to manage its numbers?

Would it really curb organised crime?

This subject appears tangential compared with the future management
of illegal drugs.

As The Herald reveals today, Mr Pearson wants the system of
classifying drugs in different categories, with different punishments
depending on the substance involved and the law contravened, scrapped.

Whether the distinction between soft and hard drugs should be
maintained, discontinued or even extended to the extent of
decriminalising cannabis, as has been advocated, has become the
subject of heated debate.

When David Blunkett was Home Secretary and reclassified cannabis as a
class-C drug there were warnings that this would lead more people to
take the drug and at a younger age, perhaps because of a misguided
impression that it was no longer illegal or harmful.

There is evidence to show that more powerful strains of cannabis are
being cultivated and that taking the drug over a long period can
increase the risk of psychosis, depression and schizophrenia. Against
that backdrop, the debate under way is important, as is Mr Pearson's
contribution. Far from regulating cannabis use in the manner of
alcohol, as suggested by the supporters of decriminalisation, the
SCDEA chief advocates taking a tough message to children and young
teenagers about the dangers in binge drinking.

This is because he believes that heavy drinking at these ages can
lead on to cannabis and other drug abuse.

As with those in the decriminalisation camp, Mr Pearson sees a link
between alcohol consumption and cannabis use, but it is one he wants
to break to prevent one leading on to the other and worse. To be fair
to the other camp, the link it wants to make is a regulatory one to
do with consumption at a legally-defined age. Given recent figures
about Scotland's drink problem, and how it is swamping both genders
and seeping down to a much younger age group, the regulatory link is
not one that can be sustained at this stage.

Mr Pearson argues that Scotland needs to look to the example set in
Sweden, where a zero tolerance strategy which comes down hard on all
drugs but is bolstered by education programmes, to establish if there
are lessons to learn.

The Swedish model has been successful (the country has nearly twice
the population of Scotland but half the number of serious drug users)
so it is worthy of serious examination, especially as under the
present confusing UK law on reclassification, this country has a
tougher regime on possessing cannabis than England. But it is still not working.