LITTLE EVIDENCE LEGALISATION WILL HELP

I welcome Julian Critchley's call for the debate on drugs to be
rational and evidence-based ("All the experts admit that we should
legalise drugs", 14 August). But what we get is simply repetition of
evidence-free assertions and myths.

Let's start with the assertion that all experts admit we should
legalise drugs. Well, no. Try the Association of Chief Police
Officers, the Mental Health Nurses Association and the BMA. Then add
Dame Ruth Runciman, who chaired the Police Foundation independent
inquiry which led to the downgrading of the classification of cannabis
(now reversed); she advocated measured liberalisation but not
legalisation.

Drug use has been falling steadily in the UK for the past 10 years,
especially among the young, which rather suggests that the policy is
going in the right direction.

The strongest argument for legalisation would be if it broke the link
between drugs and criminality. Of this, Critchley asserts, there is no
doubt. But he offers no evidence. The harsh reality is that wherever
drugs are bought and sold the links to criminal supply chains remain
stubbornly present.

"Ah, but what about the Netherlands?" will be the predictable cry. The
limited experiment with brown cafes there failed to break the link
between cannabis and crime. The Dutch authorities have been steadily
back-tracking and the number of brown cafes has dropped sharply since
the late 1980s.

CHRIS SAVAGE

London SE3