TIME TO GET REAL ON DRUGS, AND POLITICS

WE ARE A NATION of hypocrites. Ten million Britons concede they have
used drugs. One in five men and women in England and Wales between 16
and 59 have experimented with cannabis. According to 'Social Trends',
published by the Government, 35 per cent of 16 to 19-year-olds and
more than 40 per cent of 20-to 24-year-olds have used the drug.. Yet
any politician who urges that we look ourselves squarely in the eye
and confront the patterns of our drug use is met with a collective
raspberry. Our collective delusion over drugs is little short of
astonishing.

Now Charles Kennedy has grasped the nettle. The Liberal Democrat
leadership has long been embarrassed by its party conference
commitment to establish a Royal Commission to examine the
decriminalisation of some drugs. However, Mr Kennedy, in place as the
Lib Dem's new leader for less than a week, has decided that this is a
policy he should embrace. He is right.

Britain's approach to drug use is failing. The use of drugs such as
cannabis, cocaine and softer amphetamines has risen because our
collective 30-year experience of these drugs suggests that, while all
have risks associated with their use, the dangers of addiction or
serious ill-health are no greater than with cigarettes or alcohol. For
all the efforts at confiscation and prevention, the supply of drugs is
becoming more rather than less efficient. Yet because the supply and
use of drugs remains criminal, there can be no policing of their
chemical content which can be lethal, as the deaths from Ecstasy bear
witness.

Worse, the criminalisation of the drug chain is itself an incentive to
crime. At least a third of all property theft is by people stealing to
pay for drugs; and the production and distribution of drugs has
created international criminal drug organisations that are as violent
and powerful as they are efficient. Laundering drug money has become
big international financial business, and underwrites the existence of
off-shore tax havens. Indeed, the loss of tax on what is becoming a
major component of consumer spending and economic activity is another
good reason for decriminalisation. Given the persistence, and growing
acceptance of a sizeable market in drugs, why should bad people make
all the money from it, when the Government could raise serious revenue
for good works? In short, the issue needs to pulled out into the open.

The Observer has long argued that soft drug use should be
decriminalised and made a civil disorder on a par with traffic
offences. At the very least the penalties for drug use need to be
standardised. We have to make a choice. Either we believe that certain
drugs are too dangerous and harmful to be legal, and actually enforce
the law, or stop the charade and change the law to allow for the use
of soft drugs.

Of course, serious issues would need to be addressed before adopting
the latter course. In particular, the danger that a soft drug can be a
'gateway' to harder drugs needs to be properly assessed. Public health
implications must be evaluated. There are also a host of practical and
legal considerations. The purpose of a Royal Commission is to consider
such matters as part of an informed debate and Mr Kennedy's initiative
is therefore to be welcomed.

It is also an astute political move. In one step he has established
himself as a leader with powerful liberal sympathies, re-created the
Lib Dems as a party that takes policy risks, and appealed to the
young. Mr Kennedy may also find that the policy ideals less risky than
some of his critics think. Britain is moving on, and there is a
substantial progressive constituency that even right-of-centre
newspapers need to nurture. At the very least, the debate over
cannabis legalisation will be a litmus test of the nation's
liberalism. Whatever they say publicly, the buttoned-up leaders of the
two main parties are certain to be monitoring reaction closely.

Kennedy's calculated risk will also give us some idea of the kind of
politics people want. Do we want 'real' people like him at the
pinnacle of politics; people who drink, smoke, swear; eat badly and
confront us with hard truths? Or do we want machine politicians,
technocratic, clean-living, masters of the soundbite? Perhaps we are
about to find out. By poking his head above the parapet on drugs,
Kennedy has already done progressive politics a service. Let us hope
for more of the same.