CANNABIS DEBATE GIVES EVERYONE A HEADACHE

THE day when you can pop down to the corner shop for 20 Red Leb Lites and a
packet of Swan Vestas may not be approaching quite yet.

As the cannabis debate continues, however, increasing numbers of people in
government, law enforcement and business are considering the implications -
and the mechanics - of legalisation.

Some in favour of legal reform argue that simple decriminalisation would be
sufficient, perhaps reclassifying the drug as a Class C rather than class B
substance, and lifting penalties for its possession.

Others such as Peter Lilley, former deputy leader of the Conservative
Party, argue that the best way to sever the link between cannabis users and
serious crime would be to legalise the drug, which could then be sold at
special off-licences.

Under the Lilley plan, magistrates would grant licences to "fit and proper
people" to open shops at which cannabis, but not tobacco or alcohol, was
sold to customers aged 18 or over. These outlets would be supplied by
commercial growers in Britain, and any shortfall could be met by licensed
imports. Cannabis would be clearly marked with a government health warning.
Taxation would be minimal at first - to ensure that the new, legal trade
was able to undercut the illicit suppliers - but would rise steadily as the
off-licences became established.

Cannabis is categorised under the 1971 Misuse of Drugs Act as a Class B
drug, along with amphetamines. Possession of a Class B drug can carry a
five-year prison sentence, while possession with intent to supply carries a
potential 14-year sentence.

Class A comprises the hard drugs such as heroin and cocaine, as well as LSD
and Ecstasy. Class C includes prescription drugs such as tranquilisers and
mild painkillers. Suppliers and even users of black-market cannabis would
still face criminal charges.

The legalisation of cannabis would not necessarily increase demand in what
is already estimated to be a A?4 billion-a-year business, if the Dutch
experience is anything to go by. The Netherlands Institute of Mental Health
and Addiction found that although 41 per cent of 15-year-olds in Britain
had tried cannabis, with 24 per cent using the drug in the previous month,
in Holland 29 per cent had tried the drug while 15 per cent had used it in
the previous month. Beyond that, however, Britain would be entering
uncharted waters after the end of prohibition. The Home Office says that it
has produced no research into possible means of legalisation or the likely
effects.

Most of the major tobacco companies are reluctant to say whether or not
they would become involved in the trade. A spokesman for British American
Tobacco said that Britain was such a small market for a global corporation
that legalisation here would be unlikely to result in a significant shift
in the companya TMs policy. But he added: "You can never say never."

It is possible that cannabis could be sold in a form other than for
smoking. Clive Bates, director of Action on Smoking and Health, who says he
finds the arguments for legalisation "persuasive", would like to see it
sold as a tablet, vapour spray, tea or patch, rather than in rolling form
or in ready-made "joints".

Such products could encourage pharmaceutical companies to take an interest.
GW Pharmaceuticals, the only UK company licensed to produce cannabis a "
for medical purposes a " has recently raised A?25 million with a share
placement that was six times oversubscribed. Other pharmaceutical companies
cannot have failed to take note.

It could be that when it comes to licensing people to sell cannabis, those
involved in the illegal trade might be at an advantage. When the 1961
Betting and Gaming Act legalised off-course gambling, many of the licences
went to men and women who had been the mainstay of the illegal trade.

Marketing would be strictly controlled. Release, a drug welfare charity
that has been campaigning for a reform of the law since 1967, and Mr
Lilley, a recent convert to the cause, are agreed that advertising of
cannabis should be banned outside the off-licences.

"I want society to permit cannabis, not endorse it," Mr Lilley said. Mike
Goodman, director of Release, added: "Because there are health risks
associated with cannabis, we would not want to see it on billboards or
football shirts."

And how would the law and the police deter the use of cannabis by
motorists? "Drug-driving" tests are not as precise as those for
drink-driving. Because cannabis remains detectable in the body for 30 days,
they reveal whether a person has used the drug, but not whether their
performance is impaired. Unless new tests are devised, police may be forced
to fall back on imprecise tests such as asking drivers to stand on one leg,
or to recite the alphabet backwards.

Most of those involved in the debate agree that an end to prohibition would
involve a large number of regulations covering licensing, taxation,
importation, advertising, health warnings, driving and health and safety at
work.

Mr Lilley agrees that his blueprint for legalisation would entail
continuing penalties for anyone involved in the unlicensed trade, and said
that he hoped that greater regulation may even help to reduce demand.

"Nothing dampens an industry more than regulation and taxation," he said.
Furthermore, the very legality of cannabis could undermine demand. "It will
have lost any allure that it had by being naughty. Instead, it would become
simply boring."