CHANGE OF TONE ON THE QUESTION OF CANNABIS

For too long debate about the decriminalisation of cannabis has been
conducted as a screaming match between fundamentalists. On one side,
the prophets of doom have maintained their insistence that cannabis
use is the first step towards inevitable addiction and ruin. Their
opponents have adopted the comparably absurd stance that cannabis is
almost entirely harmless and should be legalised.

While this dialogue of the deaf has continued, ministers who have used
cannabis without suffering any obviously damaging consequences have
been appointed to senior offices. Millions of young adults in Britain
and abroad have adopted marijuana as their stimulant of choice.

The case for change in a law now so widely flouted that it is utterly
unenforceable has grown. But politicians have behaved like cowards -
too terrified to acknowledge the evidence that illegality has done
little to restrict use of a drug which is now easily obtained in every
community.

Now, at last, that stubborn denial of reality appears to be changing.
The Home Secretary's language is subtle - a change of emphasis, not a
declaration of intent. Mr Straw accepts that cannabis use may not lead
to the use of harder drugs. He acknowledges that there is a case for
the legalisation of cannabis.

In recent weeks, senior police officers across Britain have expressed
similar views. A government-funded study by the Police Foundation
called for changes in the law. Those who once insisted that any
liberalisation of Britain's drug laws would be intolerable are now
competing to identify a solution short of outright
legalisation.

Jack Straw has not gone that far. In his article in yesterday's News
of the World he advanced the arguments for legalisation only to
dismiss them as logical but wrong. But the Home Secretary did more
than simply repeat the case against change. He admitted that while the
government's approach to drugs policy will remain cautious it will not
necessarily remain unchanged.

If government-appointed experts recommend it, then cannabis will be
made available on prescription for the relief of pain. That is right.

There was also an important change of tone. Ministers remain concerned
about the consequences, but they appear to want to hear a coherent
scheme whereby decriminalisation can be given real
consideration.

The Scotsman encourages this approach. There is nothing to be gained
by turning Britain into a haven for soft-drug use. Cannabis is no more
desirable than alcohol abuse or nicotine addiction, but it is
increasingly obvious that, to a large minority of otherwise
law-abiding citizens, it is no less desirable either. It is not beyond
the bounds of reasonable hope that the Royal Commission this newspaper
has repeatedly recommended might identify a legal framework capable of
protecting the vulnerable while avoiding the stigmatisation as
criminals of millions of people who simply do not believe that the
drug they use ought to be categorised alongside killers such as heroin.

In the next few months, private member's legislation will be
introduced at Westminster. It is unlikely to pass, but we are entitled
to hope that the debate may convince ministers that their assumption
is right. There is a mood in the country which is willing to tolerate
mature contemplation of the law on recreational use of cannabis. With
good will and common sense on both sides it can assist the process of
change.