ONE TRAGEDY IS ENOUGH

ANDREW Woodlock died after taking ecstasy tablets found by a friend. His
death was a tragedy. It could easily have created another. If Andrew's
foolish young supplier had been detained in a secure unit or young
offenders institution the misery and horror of his death would have been
compounded by an act of senseless retribution. The calm sense of one judge
and the dead boy's mother ensured that did not happen. Lord Kirkwood and
Phyllis Woodlock deserve our gratitude.

Rather than entering the corrupting environment of secure accommodation,
the unidentified 14-year-old source of the lethal ecstasy dose will be
placed under the supervision of the social work department. While he will
never forget the consequences of his reckless decision to distribute the
drugs he stumbled across, his life will not be destroyed by the stigma of
incarceration. Nor will his youthful stupidity become a burden that defines
the rest of his life.

Phyllis Woodlock showed admirable decency and intelligence by opposing the
culpable homicide charge against her dead son's friend. Her comments to the
young man at the conclusion of the case yesterday added profound compassion
to the mix. This was a case in which the interests of justice and those of
the victim's family were both well served.

It could easily have been different as it was only weeks ago when
17-year-old Angela Harkins, pregnant, enrolled on a college course and
engaged to be married, was sentenced to 27 months at Glasgow Sheriff Court.
Angela's offence was another example of youthful stupidity, though
fortunately it did not result in a death. She was granted interim
liberation last Friday. If the High Court fails to uphold her appeal she
will be returned to Cornton Vale.

We commented at the time that the sentence on Miss Harkins was capricious
and wrong. We maintain that view while acknowledging that Lord Kirkwood's
disposal of the prosecutions arising from the death of Andrew Woodlock are
as wise as the decision in the Harkins case was absurd.

Recreational drugs such as ecstasy and cannabis are available almost
everywhere young people congregate. In clubs and at parties they are often
distributed from friend to friend. Technically that routine sharing is a
serious criminal offence, but that is not how it is regarded by the
thousands of young people who do it every week.

These young drug users are wrong. They are taking horrendous risks with
their own health. Should they also be taking risks with their liberty?
There is no evidence that the fear of incarceration has any effect on drug
use. Chemical halucinogens and intoxicants are as commonly used among young
people as alcohol is by their parents. The stigma which courts attach to
drug use seems meaningless to those who consume them. Peer group pressure
to experiment remains a more powerful force than the remote risk of
prosecution.

If the police and the courts are to do useful service in the campaign to
restrict drug use they must focus their energies. The organised criminal
gangs who manufacture and import narcotics deserve the harshest sentences
available. So do the local pushers who sell drugs for profit.

Lord Kirkwood may not have intended to reflect thse views when he sentenced
the original owner of the drugs that killed Andrew Woodlock to six years in
prison. He was right, though. Andrew Macfarlane had stored drugs which were
clearly destined for sale. That is serious criminal conduct. The offences
committed by Andrew Woodlock's anonymous friend and by Angela Harkins are
qualitatively different. The courts must learn the distinction.

Checked-by: Richard Lake