POLICE FORCE URGES LEGALISATION

Cleveland has become the first police force to warn the government
that the war on drugs is not being won and to say it is time to
consider the "only serious alternative - the legalisation and
regulation of some or all drugs".

The report from Cleveland's chief constable, Barry Shaw, which has been
endorsed by the force's Labour-led police authority, is the first time that
senior serving police officers have declared that Britain's drug laws are
not working
and endorsed the call for a royal commission to reconsider the legal
position. The only police figures who have, up until now, voiced their
support for a serious debate on legalisation have been retired
officers. The most senior officers in the Cleveland force, which
covers the Redcar constituency of Mo Mowlam, the cabinet minister
responsible for drugs police, said they strongly supported Tony
Blair's 10-year strategy to combat drug abuse because it stressed the
need to treat drug users as victims as much as offenders. But they
said that underlying it all was a prohibition style approach which
relied upon bans and enforcement to restrict availability.

"We have to consider whether this is realistic," said the report
written by Cleveland's former assistant chief constable, Richard
Brunstrom, and endorsed by Mr Shaw.

"There is overwhelming evidence to show that the prohibition based
policy in place in this country since 1971 has not been effective in
controlling the availability of or use of prescribed drugs.

"If there is indeed a 'war on drugs' it is not being won; drugs are
demonstrably cheaper and more easily available than ever before. The
same picture can be seen in the USA and elsewhere."

The report added that there was no logic in making alcohol and
nicotine freely available despite very clear evidence of their harmful
effects while the ban on cannabis was being enforced with severe
penalties, despite being seen as less harmful by many medical scientists.

It said this approach was based on little more than historical
accident and led many young people to level the charge of hypocrisy, a
view which was very difficult to counter.

The force argued that Britain had yet to learn the lessons of 1920s
alcohol prohibition in the United States, Gandhi's civil disobedience
campaign in India in the 1940s, or from the campaign against the poll
tax in Britain in the 1980s. "If a sufficiently large, and apparently
growing, part of the population chooses to ignore the law for whatever
reason, then that law becomes unenforceable. A modern western
democracy, based on policing by consent and the rule of law may find
itself powerless to prevent illegal activity - in this case the
importation and use of controlled drugs."

The Cleveland police said there was a strong link between crime and drugs
but added that was a product of prices remaining high because drugs are
illegal. A serious heroin user needed to find ?50 in cash each day and so
turned to
crime, mainly shoplifting, selling drugs and burglary. The report
noted that nationally about a third of all crime was geared to the
purchase of heroin, cocaine or crack.

The officers insisted that most drug users did not commit significant
amounts of crime and their only offence was to choose to use a drug
which was technically illegal.

"The best example of this is cannabis - the UK has the highest rate of
cannabis use in Europe, higher even than in the Netherlands which has
a tolerance policy."

The Cleveland police policy paper said that overwhelming health
reasons added to the reasons for considering changes in legalisation.
It said the illegal nature of the trade caused further unnecessary
risk to drug users because of uncertainty over the quality and purity.
Heroin might be cut with additives as wide ranging as chalk dust,
quinine, lactose, boric acid and talcum powder.

"Legalisation and regulation of currently banned drugs has never been
tried properly anywhere in the world so there is little hard evidence
available," it said, adding that the experiment in Netherlands in
tolerating the personal use of cannabis had resulted in a lower rate
of use than in the UK.

Some European cities, such as Geneva, were
experimenting with issuing heroin under prescription to addicts with
results showing some startling reductions in crime. It concluded by
saying that the evidence strongly suggested that prohibition had not
been effective in reducing availability of, or demand for, controlled
drugs, and might even be counter-productive. "If prohibition does not
work, then either the consequences of this have to be accepted, or an
alternative approach must be found," said the report. "The most
obvious alternative approach is the legalisation and subsequent
regulation of some or all drugs."

Ken Walker, the chairman of Cleveland police authority, which endorsed
the report, said it was a serious, sensible and constructive approach.
"No one wants to rush into legalising some or all of the drugs
proscribed because there are so many serious and complex social
implications. But we have to face reality and open up the debate about
all the options."

Battles The Law Won
1998 drug seizures and offender statistics
Total number of drug seizures increased by 8% to 149,000;
76% involved cannabis.

Cannabis seizures increased by 7%, but the
quantities seized dropped by 28%.

The number of heroin seizures went
up by 19%, but quantity seized fell by 40%.

Number and quantity of cocaine (including crack)
seizures increased, by 36% and 25% respectively.

Quantities of ecstasy type drugs went up by 9%; the number of
seizures fell by 7%.

Drug offenders up by 13% to 127,900; 90% possession cases, mainly
cannabis.

Cocaine offenders up 32% (excluding crack); a 30% rise in
heroin offenders; and a rise of 13% in cannabis offenders.

47% of offenders were cautioned, 23% were fined and 8% sentenced to
immediate custody