POLICE FORCE URGES LEGALISATION

Drugs In Britain: Special Report

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 A350 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.