HELLAWELL REJECTS APPEAL FOR RADICAL CHANGE IN DRUGS LAWS

BRITAIN'S drugs tsar has rejected calls for a radical change in the
law, after a report suggested that jail terms for drug users should be
scrapped.

According to the report by the Police Foundation, penalties for
hard-drug users should be reduced and prison sentences for the
possession of Class B and C drugs should be abolished.

The independent review of Britain's drugs laws called for a shift away
from prosecuting users, towards tackling drug dealers and treating
addicts.

Keith Hellawell, the government's anti-drugs co-ordinator, ruled out
any changes to the law and dismissed suggestions that the police
should make a distinction between dealers and users. "What you get is
a lot of street-level dealers with very small amounts," he said.

"The problem in actually saying, 'Well, this is dealing and this is
personal possession', is where do you draw the line at what is
personal possession?"

The independent inquiry into the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 called for
reforms, including greater confiscation of assets from drug
traffickers. Although there is no suggestion any drugs should be
legalised, it recommends fundamental changes to the way drugs such as
ecstasy are classified. For example, heroin and cocaine would remain
in Class A, but ecstasy and LSD would be downgraded to Class B, the
same category as amphetamines. Similarly, cannabis would move from
Class B to Class C.

The report was criticised by Paul Betts, whose daughter Leah died
after taking ecstasy. He said that, if the Police Foundation's
recommendations are accepted, Britain could end up like Amsterdam.

He said: "In Amsterdam, they turned a blind eye and now they have over
20,000 heroin addicts and they don't know what to do about them. We
have all the laws in place. We don't need to change anything."

Lady Runciman, who chaired the inquiry, said the harm that drugs
caused would not be reduced by imposing "disproportionate penalties"
and criminalising occasional users. She said: "We have concluded that
the most dangerous message of all is the message that all drugs are
equally dangerous.

"When young people know that the advice they are being given is either
exaggerated or untrue in relation to less harmful drugs, there is a
real risk they will discount everything else they are told about the
most hazardous drugs, including heroin and cocaine."

The Police Foundation is an independent research body set up 21 years
ago to allow police chiefs, lawyers and academics to discuss criminal
law and the way it is applied. Its president, the Prince of Wales,
refused to comment on the report.

John Hamilton, the chief constable of Fife and a member of the
committee that reviewed the drugs act, visited Amsterdam last year and
was taken by his Dutch counterparts to one of the cafes where cannabis
is sold openly over the counter.

He said: "This proved to be a real eye-opener. It is nearly 30 years
since the main legislation controlling the misuse of drugs in the
United Kingdom was enacted, and a lot of water has gone under the
bridge since those days. Personally speaking, I felt that such an
opportunity as this has afforded for open and frank debate was indeed
long overdue."

However, Marie Kirk, the mother of Kerry-Ann Kirk, 15, who died last
Boxing Day in Coatbridge, Lanarkshire, after taking the heroin
substitute methadone, condemned the research. She said: "To go soft on
cannabis and ecstasy is a recipe for disaster, because young people
will progress from cannabis on to harder drugs."

Despite the rise in seizures of drugs, yesterday's report found there
was no evidence that drugs had become more expensive or harder to obtain.

Dave Liddell, the director of the Scottish Drugs Forum, welcomed the
report and said changes were necessary to prevent the criminalisation
of thousands of young people.

"We have always said you should target the drugs that do the greatest
harm and make that distinction," he said.