PITFALLS TO LIFTING DRUGS PROHIBITION

Debate grows on legalisation, as campaigners spell out the difficulties

Ending prohibition has been politically unthinkable for so long that few
politicians have contemplated what licensing framework or health safeguards
would be required to legalise different classes of controlled drugs.

But amid signs that a public debate is beginning - Sir Keith Morris, former
British ambassador to Colombia calls in the Guardian today for cocaine to
be legalised - organisations are putting forward proposals for alternative
regimes.

The problems are legion. Who would sell the drugs and how? Should there,
for example, be more stringent testing to prevent pilots flying after
taking cocaine? Would additional checks be needed to detect drug users
driving under the influence of hallucinogens?

Inevitably, in a world committed to stamping out the drugs trade, the
situation would become more complicated if Britain were alone in attempting
to decriminalise or legalise drugs.

The Netherlands, which has permitted the sale of cannabis since 1976, has
recently experienced an even greater influx of drug buying by people
crossing over from neighbouring Germany at the weekend.

Earlier this summer Dutch officials unveiled plans to open two licensed
drive-through coffee shops selling to tourists on the outskirts of the
border town of Venlo: all of the Netherlands' 1,500 coffee shops have been
selling their soft drugs to hemp fans with time on their hands.

Transform, a Bristol organisation leading the campaign for drug
legalisation, accepts the need for change "within a regulated control
framework". Different drugs, it says, would require different regimes; the
more dangerous the drug, the more controlled the outlet.

Steve Rolles, campaign coordinator for Transform, said: "There are various
models in place already. There's licensed retailing in pubs or tobaccanists
which enforce age restrictions, there are over-the-counter sales by trained
pharmacists who give health advice, and there are doctors' prescriptions.

"Something like heroin or cocaine might be available on prescription.
Heroin is already a legal medical drug, and regulatory frameworks exist for
licensed drugs and medicines which allow control over production, price,
quality and packaging. Is there any benefit to giving monopoly control of
this lucrative, dangerous market to organised crime and unregulated dealers?"

Providing drugs education would be necessary. "Taboos around illegal drugs
have meant education programmes have been misleading and ineffective. An
expansion of drugs in formation services with a more balanced approach
could address the shortcomings."

Britain is a signatory to the 1988 United Nations' conventions against
illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, Mr Rolles
pointed out. This treaty limits the potential for legalising certain
chemicals, and though there is leeway for relaxation, the convention may
have to be challenged.

The treaty requires countries to make possession, purchase or cultivation
of illicit drugs for personal consumption a criminal offence, but it does
not specify the penalty. Many countries have found room for manoeuvre
within the convention. In Italy it is not a criminal offence to share drugs
with others with no payment involved.

In terms of controlling anti-social behaviour, British traffic laws already
make it illegal to drive "when unfit through drink or drugs". According to
the Home Office, there were 92,486 successful prosecutions in 1999; of
those, only 1,800 were against drivers found to be unfit through drugs.

The question of who profits would also have to be addressed. If drugs
earnings were taxed, would the government earmark the income for the health
service? Could producers advertise? Should there be tighter restrictions
than those imposed on advertising tobacco and alcohol products?

Release, the drugs advice charity, has long advocated a royal commission to
examine drugs laws. "There couldn't be a legislative shift until the
population at large appreciate that someone who is on heroin, for example,
should not be scapegoated," said Grainne Whalley, of the charity.

Last year, the Runciman committee examined the case for overhauling the
main instrument for control, the 1971 Misuse of Drugs Act. Among the
committee's 80 recommendations were proposals to move cannabis from
category B to C, making possession a non-arrestable offence. It also
suggested ecstasy should drop a category, from being a class A drug, to a
class B. It recommended neither decriminalisation nor legalisation.

Australia showed how hard it is to shift opinion. This year its first legal
heroin-injecting room, the largest "shooting gallery" in the world, opened
in Sydney's red-light district. This 18-month trial hopes to cut drug
overdose deaths, which soared from six in 1964 to 958 in 1999. But the
scheme took two years to establish and had to overcome criticism from both
the Australian prime minister and the Pope.