HIGH TIME TO ACT ON DRUGS

Kennedy's Right, We Need A New Approach

At last a major party leader has asked for a review of our drug laws.
For far too long, the leaders of both major parties have been
petrified of being seen to be soft on drugs. Rather than listen to the
police, drug researchers and youth workers, both major parties have
preferred to meekly follow the glib "war-on-all-drugs" line of the
tabloid press.

Yesterday Charles Kennedy, the new leader of the third party, the
Liberal Democrats, broke rank and called for a royal commission on the
use of drugs. Standby for some ritual voices of protest. Ann
Widdecombe, the Tory spokeswoman, was quick to air her opposition,
while a government spokesman could see no value in a royal commission
because the prime minister was against the legalisation of cannabis.
But the challenge is much bigger than that narrow issue.

Our current law - the misuse of drugs act - was enacted 28 years ago.
Since then the scene has been totally transformed. There have been
huge shifts in behaviour, social attitudes and drug use. National
surveys show one out of four young people has used at least one
illegal drug. Some regional surveys have doubled these figures.
Millions have tried cannabis. Drug researchers have shown that most
young people who use illicit drugs are sociable, sensible and in total
control of their recreational use. But a minority have a serious
addiction problem, which is posing a serious challenge to society.

One-fifth of all people arrested in Britain are now on heroin. A
typical addict requires pounds 10,000 a year to finance the habit.
There are an estimated 300,000 heroin addicts in the country. Crack
costs twice as much, but has much fewer addicts for the moment. A new
report this week from Nacro (the National Association for the Care and
Rehabilitation of Offenders) will suggest one-third of all property
crime now involves drugs.

Thank goodness Kennedy spoke up. A new young leader, anxious to
reconnect non-voters with the political system, is sensibly talking
about issues which are raised everyday in schools, homes and pubs.
Where he went wrong was in his call for a royal commission. An
independent national commission has been examining current procedures
and their legal framework for two years and is due to report early in
the new year. It has pulled together experts from a wide field -
police, law, psychiatry, pharmacology, mental and social welfare,
criminology, moral philosophy and the media. Hopefully we will not
need a royal commission.

Attitudes are already shifting. People are more aware of the complex
nature of the problem and the futility of demonising all drugs. Why
waste police time on soft drugs when hard drugs are so much more
serious? The police helped pioneer this shift and would have gone even
further but for being stopped by Michael Howard, who as home secretary
opted for a hardline but ineffective political response. So what is
not working? First the law. It is too blunt and unsophisticated. Until
Howard intervened, police cautions for soft drugs had increased
tenfold in a decade, but because we do not have a national policy,
arbitrary justice was the result. It depended on where you were caught
and who was on the bench. The new drugs czar is putting more emphasis
on treatment and prevention, but needs more political support if a
serious redistribution of resources is to be achieved. We have long
argued for Britain to adopt the Dutch approach: decriminalise rather
than legalise soft drugs. It is time for action, but even a serious
debate would be progress.