WE'VE SAID IT ONCE. WE SAY IT AGAIN: LEGALISE CANNABIS

According to the poll we publish today nearly half the population is
in favour of legalising cannabis or is willing to consider such a
move. This is a significant shift in opinion since The Independent on
Sunday launched its campaign for the legalisation of cannabis four
years ago. The newspaper made waves at the time, a lonely voice
urging a radical change in policy. Now it is becoming more
fashionable with senior figures across the political spectrum calling
for the ban on cannabis to be lifted.

The dramatic change in the national mood is not reflected in the
Government's attitude.

Ministers are being simultaneously stubborn and cautious. The
timidity is reflected in their silent response to Peter Lilley's
pamphlet, published on Friday, calling for the legalisation of
cannabis. No minister has so far engaged in the debate with Lilley.
If the Government had been surer of its case ministers would be
lining up to dismiss the Conservatives' former deputy leader.

Yet in spite of the meek ministerial silence, the Government is
stubborn in its refusal to countenance change.

This obstinacy comes at a time when the relevant laws are not even
being rigorously enforced.

The decision of the police in the London Borough of Lambeth not to
arrest those caught with cannabis is a recent example.

The situation is absurd.

Smoke a joint in Brixton and you will not face arrest.

Smoke a joint in Blackburn or Bourne-mouth and you can expect a swift
trip down to your local police station.

The Governmen it is defending laws that are becoming discredited on
the ground, placing the law as a whole in disrepute.

New Labour is looking old-fashioned. The Conservatives are showing
signs of a more radical approach - in the rebellious response of the
Shadow Cabinet last October to Ann Widdecombe's call for even more
Draconian measures against cannabis users and in Michael Portillo's
suggestion that legalisation would be part of a policy review.

Charles Kennedy deserves credit in calling for a commission to
consider the legalisation of cannabis when he first became leader of
the Liberal Democrats. But even these relatively bold politicians are
too cautious.

A commission is a convenient way of throwing the issue into the distance.

The main obstacle to the legalisation of cannabis appears to be that
it would provide a gateway to harder drugs.

But our poll suggests that the vast majority of people make a
distinction between smoking cannabis and taking harder drugs.

Nearly all those supporting the legalisation of cannabis still want
hard drugs to be banned.

Indeed, nearly all cannabis users support a ban on hard drugs.

In reality, legalising cannabis would make a descent into hard drugs
much less likely.

As Lilley argues in his pamphlet, the current situation "brings the
soft-drug user into contact with the hard-drug pusher". A key
objective of reforming the cannabis laws would be to break the
contact between soft-drug users and the criminals who push drugs.

For this reason Lilley is right to propose that cannabis is available
in licensed premises. This is a preferable alternative to ad hoc
police activities or the reduced penalties suggested in Lady
Runciman's report last year. In either of these cases cannabis
seekers would still come into contact with those selling harder drugs.

Under Lilley's proposal they would come into contact with the owner
of an off licence.

Public opinion has shifted towards this newspaper's position over the
past four years.

Almost certainly, that trend will continue.

Our poll finds that support for legalisation is strongest among those
groups that have used cannabis or who know cannabis users.

They tend to be the young and middle-aged. Soon the Sixties'
generation will be pensioners. At that point the young and not so
young will be united in their acquaintance with cannabis. Over the
next two decades the pressure for the lifting of the ban will be
overwhelming.

In the more immediate future, the Government might be tempted to use
a royal commission on cannabis as an excuse for doing nothing.

The establishment of a commission would look radical without
necessarily changing anything - a combination that Tony Blair has
found appealing in the past. Mr Blair should also resist an
alternative third way of legalising cannabis for medicinal purposes.

That is another convenient diversion. It is time for political
leaders to face up to reality.

Cannabis is used for recreational purposes.

While the war on hard drugs should be intensified, the Government
must lift the ban on cannabis.