CHARLES KENNEDY: I DON'T. BUT WHY SHOULDN'T THEY?

Since the election we have truly seen politics on the move. Labour has
advocated more radical private involvement in public services than
even the most ardent Thatcherite would have dared. Michael Portillo
has emerged as the "liberal" candidate for the Conservative
leadership. To cap it all, Peter Lilley has called for the
legalisation of cannabis.

It is all a far cry from nearly two years ago when, in one of my first
interviews as the newly elected Liberal Democrat leader, I confirmed
my support for long-standing party policy on drugs - namely, that a
royal commission should be established to examine all aspects of the
issue. This led to loud headlines and an even louder condemnation from
one Ann Widdecombe.

The Lilley conversion marks a watershed since then and, with the new
Home Secretary calling for an "adult, intelligent debate", we may be
on the verge of rationality. But if David Blunkett really wants such a
debate, there needs to be an authoritative forum. A standing royal
commission or similar is surely the best. Although for the moment the
new Secretary of State may say he has ruled this out, there is time
for reconsideration - particularly if this issue is still on the
agenda of the Conservative Party after their leadership election is
over.

Mr Blunkett seems to prefer a bottom-up approach, with the police
trying out different tactics where and when they can. That's a useful
strategy, but it's only part of the answer. It leaves Parliament
outside the debate. It leaves experts out in the cold. And it leaves
the country with a sense of drift.

But above all, it leaves those of us who want a debate on drugs with a
duty to promote one, and to advance our own proposals. That's one
reason why the Liberal Democrats have already started our own
far-reaching inquiry, which will take evidence from a wide range of
people and organisations, and report for a decision by our party early
next year. Inevitably, this will have a substantial focus on cannabis,
on which the public appears to have a much more liberal attitude than
many politicians.

Millions of people have used the drug - 25 per cent of 16- to
59-year-olds according to the 1998 British Crime Survey - yet the law
currently makes those people criminals. That seems not only to be an
unenforceable position, but also, quite frankly, an insult to many
decent people throughout the land. Is an 18-year-old who smokes a
joint at a campus party really in the same category as a dealer in
crack cocaine?

I believe the present situation has become untenable. For a start,
cannabis should be legalised for medical use. It has proven benefits
for sufferers of, for example, multiple sclerosis, and it is callous
to deny them relief from their condition. Occasional court rulings
have already reflected this compassionate view.

The Police Foundation's Runciman committee proposes moving towards the
decriminalisation of cannabis for recreational users, and it is my
view that this should happen. So let's be clear about what the Police
Foundation's recommendations would and would not mean. It would not
mean government pretending that cannabis was harmless, or allowing it
to be available freely on street corners. It would not mean that the
dangers of cannabis as a "gateway" to harder drugs were overlooked.
The courts would still be able to use fines to discourage people from
using the drug, to send the signal that it is harmful. And, most
importantly, the traffickers, who use cannabis to move people on to
harder drugs, would still face prison.

Implementation of the recommendations would, however, mean cannabis
became a Class C drug, instead of Class B, so people would no longer
find themselves in prison for possessing it for personal use. If
prosecution for possession were the exception, we would no longer be
criminalising millions of people just for use of cannabis, which stops
them visiting countries such as the US and harms their job prospects.
This cannot be an appropriate response to such a widespread activity.

But changing the usual consequences of using cannabis is only the
start of reassessing drugs policy. As a "problem", cannabis is a
sideshow compared to hard drugs. Cocaine is powerfully addictive,
leading to serious psychological and medical problems. Heroin is just
as bad. And with both drugs, there are the dangers caused by the
criminal nature of suppliers: impure drugs which have dreadful
consequences, the ability of dealers to up the price once somebody is
addicted, and the crimes to which people are driven to feed their habit.

The dangers of hard drugs mean that it is hard to apply the same civil
liberties arguments as to cannabis. But we have to recognise that the
current system for dealing with hard drugs is not working either. It
is too lucrative for too many people, and it is becoming too
widespread for many things that the police can do to make a major difference.

That means we have to find better methods of undercutting the
criminals. There are many ways of doing this. Perhaps the best option,
one that a royal commission could investigate seriously, is to allow
doctors broader powers to prescribe drugs or appropriate substitutes
to addicts. That might not stop people taking the drugs in the first
place, but it may mean that we can more effectively remove them from
the cycle of addiction and crime that befalls them. Of course, any
such scheme should be aimed at getting people off drugs entirely, but
people will have a clear choice. Continue to take drugs from
criminals, or visit your GP and join a programme that will allow you
to kick the habit.

Under the regulations made in 1985 under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971,
there is already a system which allows the Home Secretary to license
doctors to prescribe some of the most dangerous drugs, aside from drug
alternatives such as methadone. But there needs to be a clearer
understanding of which kinds of treatments work. There is now a
growing body of evidence from the UK, the US and elsewhere that could
inform a royal commission.

But we won't be able to move forward unless we have the kind of
sustained analysis of the evidence that a body a royal commission
could provide. The kind of debate that is necessary can never take
place as long as the broad issue of drugs is shrouded in fear. Nobody
has a monopoly on wisdom. That's why the advice of a royal commission
on drugs would be so useful if there is in the near future to be any
widely agreed change in the law, and coherent strategies aimed at
preventing misuse of drugs. This is the best approach to provide the
country with the constructive debate it deserves - a debate in which
the public and politicians engage with the experts, and the yah-boo of
party politics is relegated to the place it deserves.