ESTABLISHMENT HOOKED ON HYPOCRISY

Mild Drug Use Is Endemic Now Among The Professional Classes - Not To Mention
The Usual Suspects

THE PROHIBITION on cannabis in its present form is more than 20 years old.
So much has changed in every single aspect of our society in that time. We
have seen fit to overhaul completely the laws governing divorce - and are
still doing so - because we saw that modern reality simply didn't fit within
the old system of rules. A phalanx of legislation has been introduced to
reflect the ethnic diversity of our society. The place of women and the
rights of children have all seen legislative advancement. England is even
slowly awakening from its First World War licensing laws.

It takes a mighty leap of faith to conclude that in the sphere of drugs
alone the old law is an adequate model for the 21st century. And yet we are
invited to believe that the present legislation remains an appropriate and
workable legal framework for the use of cannabis.

Maybe it is. But at least let's have the debate. Not the fusty nay-naying of
professional committee-sitters.

The problem is that discussion is stifled by a blanket of hypocrisy and
fear. The politicians are eyeing each other for the first sign of weakness.
The first to go "soft on drugs" has immediately handed his or her political
enemies a free lunch. No sooner are the words out of Charles Kennedy's mouth
than in wades Ann Widdecombe: "Once you start talking about legitimising the
use of cannabis," she says "you are sending a signal to young people which
suggests that it is an OK thing to do."

Let's forget for the moment what sort of an example is set by the alcoholic
excesses and moral turpitude of leading lights in her own party. With her
knee-jerk Punch-and-Judy politics she reminds everyone on the margins of the
debate that if they speak up against the status quo they are political toast.

Similarly the press. The readers of the orangetops are bored with exposes of
celebrity adultery. So exposing celebrity drug-taking is the new sport.
There's nothing remotely surprising that radio DJs, TV presenters, minor
royals, and middle-class children off to Oxford smoke dope. Yet week after
week the same tedious story is retold with a different name and photo. If a
newspaper tries to raise the debate above this level, as the Independent did
under Rosie Boycott, it is pilloried by the rest of the media and mugged by
the Wapping equivalent of the Venerable Widdecombe.

What aggravates most here is the hypocrisy. If something like 40 per cent of
the UK population between 20 and 24 has smoked cannibis I wonder what the
percentage is among the ranks of the media? I'll wager it is more than twice
that. Much of the financial services industry is introducing random
drug-testing. Can we expect this in the offices of the News of the World? I
don't think so. The tabloid editors will dispatch their babes to entrap a
minor celebrity, or even his son. But what happens within their own offices
is nobody's legitimate public interest as long as the copy is filed on time.

Similarly in politics. Once in a blue moon some fool will be caught
smuggling cocaine and a wedge of homosexual pornography. Or exercising his
urge to "take risks" on Clapham Common at midnight. Like Peter Mandelson's
sexuality, these members' peccadillos (perhaps there should be a register of
them) may have been an open secret for years. Known by the party whips who
keep the details in their little books. Known by the gentlemen and women of
the lobby who get the lowdown in Annie's bar or the tearoom. Known by the
editors of Fleet Street but left unpublished until they think a rival is
about to run the story. But upon exposure the ranks of propriety close.
Everyone tut-tuts and express surprise and a certain kind of sadness that
public office has been demeaned again.

This cant is as irksome in New Labour as it was with the party of law and
order. The coterie of thinkers and literati in Islington and Hampstead are
no strangers to recreational drug use. Likewise the Notting Hill set that
Mandelson spends time with. Like Bill, Tony may never have inhaled, but, by
gosh, he knows a lot of people who have. Remember the Camelot parties at
Number 10 just after the election? Some of the leading lights of Cool
Britannia (RIP) must surely have smoked the odd joint (though certainly not
at Number 10).

For how long will the keepers of the public morals maintain this
sanctimonious pretence? Mild drug use is endemic now among the professional
classes. Lawyers. Doctors. Architects. Business people. Not to mention the
usual suspects - advertising executives, academics and those in the arts
world. These are what used to be called the pillars of the Establishment.
Cowed into silence by the strictures of a Victorian code which dictates that
it's OK as long as you don't talk about it or get found out. But at all
costs do nothing to encourage the man in the street that it is acceptable.

The man in the street is not dumb. The Establishment underestimates him. He
is used to the idea of public virtue and private vice. God knows, he has
seen enough of it. However, he may not care.

Another change in our society since the Seventies is the total collapse in
the level of integrity we expect from the great and the good. The result is
the continuation of the web of double standards which ensnares public life
and leaves the truth obscured.

Charles Kennedy won't pursue it. He can't afford to. It got him some
headlines in the wake of his appointment as leader of the Liberal Democrats.
But Tony won't buy into this one. He has already made that clear. It would
take a braver man than him. The threads of hypocrisy are knotted too tightly.

But we should be pleased that Kennedy at least flags up the issue. Death by
a thousand cuts. Each time a public figure either speaks up or is busted the
closer comes the day of a more informed debate.