THE UNCOMFORTABLE TRUTH

Gordon Brown presents cannabis as an ethical question. New in No 10
last year, he raised the question of "whether it was right" to
increase the penalties. This week he suggested cracking down was "the
right thing to do". Fortunately, the drugs law framework means there
can be no change until the experts have had their say. Unfortunately,
the direction of the prime ministerial moral compass can override
that advice. A leak yesterday revealed the Advisory Council on the
Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) has judged the current law as adequate, yet Mr
Brown seems bent on pressing on regardless.

The ACMD's verdict is no surprise - it has already been delivered
three times. It first recommended reducing the harsh penalties in
1978, by shifting cannabis from class B to class C. Ministers paid no
attention for a quarter of a century, a hardline stance that proved
an unmitigated failure: over the 80s and 90s the proportion of young
adults who had used the drug quadrupled, to reach 40% by 2000. In
2001, as home secretary, David Blunkett accepted it was absurd to be
threatening so many people with a five-year prison term. He asked the
ACMD for advice, and in 2004 he implemented its fresh recommendation
for a shift to class C. Faced with Tory jibes about going soft, Tony
Blair ordered another review to neutralise the issue in the 2005
election. It concluded class C was appropriate. Last year Mr Brown
asked the Council to think yet again, and the conclusion, it seems,
is class C once more.

The ACMD may be starting to resemble a stuck record, but that is not
because of stubborness. Its members display a consistent concern with
reducing the harm cannabis does. They include medics and academics
who, unlike most journalists and politicians, actually read the
evolving research on the dangers. For a few users these dangers
include life-destroying psychosis, a threat that a new government
advertisement rightly highlights. But, despite the (real, if
overhyped) increase in the prevalence of strong strains, research
presented to the council suggests such risks remain relatively small.
If stiff penalties reduced smoking that would be an advantage, though
not one that could justify imprisoning people who have harmed no one
but themselves.

The unfortunate truth for Mr Brown is that reclassification has
worked. The police caution more users - as the new rules make the
process less cumbersome - and use is tailing off. Mr Brown is in a
trap of his own making, forced to choose between disregarding the
evidence and backing down on his plans. Sticking with a policy that
works would be the ethical thing to do. Trying to look tough by
ditching it would represent a triumph of moralising over morality.