RIGHT TO RECOGNISE THE REALITY OF DRUGS

Sir, - I applaud Mr Peter Lilley's comments regarding the legalisation
of cannabis.

Reading his views, I am delighted to see that he has had the guts and
gumption to go out and check the reality of the situation for himself
rather than following the political herd and viewing reality as our
leaders might like it to be.

In 1971, Parliament chose to ignore the recommendations of the Royal
Commission on Drugs and abandoned the "English system" of drugs control.

Pre-1971, a drug addict could obtain a clean supply of hard drugs from
the NHS through his GP and local chemist. Only the thickest of smugglers
would smuggle expensive illicit drugs into a country where the state
provided that drug on the NHS.

Since 1971, the problems of hard drug abuse have escalated year on year
leaving us in the position of being the "druggiest" country in Europe.

The last 30 years have demonstrated that the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971
(as amended) has had the opposite effect to what was intended. The
effect of the Act has been to increase the quantities of drugs available
by creating a profitable black market.

I would recommend anyone with an interest in the subject to visit
Holland and see for themselves. The Dutch coffee shop system ensures
that the cannabis supply is kept quite separate from other illicit drugs
and that people who wish to take cannabis have an appropriate place in
which to do so.

The Misuse of Drugs Act defines cannabis as a class B drug. It also
classifies it as a class A drug (the active ingredient THC is class A)
... not that it matters as the maximum sentence for class A and class B
drugs is life imprisonment.

When it comes to enforcement the offender may not be charged at all, may
be cautioned, may be charged with a class B or with a class A offence
depending on the postcode, the whim of the police, and on whether the
Crown Prosecution Service happens to be busy.

A recent case in Ipswich demonstrated that a cannabis cultivator, who
admitted his cultivations, could still be found not guilty of
cultivation by a jury of his peers. Where is the sanity or justice in a
law like that?

Mr Clarke describes Holland as having "an alternative, slightly druggy
lifestyle." I wonder how he would describe parts of Ipswich late on a
Friday night?

We have a choice of ignoring the problems and continuing with the
current legal and financial absurdity, or of doing something
constructive about it.

I hope that Mr Lilley's conclusions will make our leaders think
seriously about the problem instead of continuing to trot out the same
old platitudes.

Patrick Mcdonnell, Little Farm, Coddenham Green