THE TORY AND THE TOKE

The Conservative MP for North Norfolk has enjoyed a joint or two in his
time - and wonders why the practice is still illegal. By DAVID PRIOR

I associate my experience with drugs (soft ones) not with Mick Jagger or
Aldous Huxley but with passing my law degree and working in a bank. You can
wear a pin-stripe suit, be utterly conventional, and still roll a joint.
And Yes, I did inhale. But that was a long time ago. I stopped sometime in
my late 20s and took up alcohol instead.

It has always seemed rather odd to me that you can have an abortion
virtually on demand (and that does raise a moral issue); smoke as many
cigarettes a day as you like, knowing that they will probably kill you
slowly; get drunk regularly and also kill yourself slowly, and possibly
others in a car accident; have heterosexual sex and no doubt soon
homosexual sex with anyone over the age of 16; but you can't smoke a joint.

This is not just odd. It is also hypocritical and dishonest. It is
interesting to note that in 1993 52 per cent of drug offenders were
cautioned by the police, while only 5 per cent were cautioned in 1983. It
would seem a certain amount of de facto decriminalisation has already taken
place. The present law is clearly no longer being consistently enforced and
is widely ignored, reflecting a typically British dislike of hypocrisy,
dishonesty and humbug.

So why the taboo? Why is intelligent discussion about the subject off
limits? I suspect it is the connection in people's minds between soft drugs
and hard drugs, especially heroin and crack. You picture your daughter as a
wretched junkie, clutching a dirty syringe, exploited by a violent,
criminal pusher. End of discussion.

I don't believe, however, that the connection is a valid one. In my own
experience, soft drugs did not lead to hard drugs. But it is true that the
same criminal dealer will supply both - he is the connection. The dealer
starts supplying you with cannabis, and gradually leads you on to something
worse, something more addictive. His livelihood depends upon your addiction.

At the moment, drugs are controlled by criminals. That should frighten
every parent in Britain at least as much as the drugs themselves. Poor
little five-year-old Dillon Hull didn't die from taking drugs - he was shot
because his step-father sold drugs and was caught up in the criminal
culture that surrounds them.

So if your daughter or granddaughter is on drugs of any kind, you are right
to be worried because not only is she a criminal but she may well be
meeting a very clever, rich, violent and persuasive dealer with a huge
interest in securing her addiction. And, there is no quality control in
this unregulated market. No guarantee that what she buys won't be impure or
adulterated, and what she uses won't be consumed by insanitary methods.

The crime surrounding drugs should not be underestimated. Worldwide, the
illicit drugs trade generates revenues estimated at some £240bn and has
some 400 million users. Its tentacles stretch even into a place like rural
north Norfolk where well over half of all property-related crime is drug
related. Overall, the Home Office estimates that £2bn worth of property is
stolen annually by drug-users.

The drugs trade would appear to be out of control and beyond the powers
even of a super power like the US. This is despite the appointment of a
Drugs Czar and a crackdown on drugs which has resulted in over 60 per cent
of federal prison inmates being inside for violating drugs laws. Illegal
drugs criminalise neighbourhoods, corrupt criminal justice systems and some
Third World governments, infect many schools and finance gangsterism and
organised crime. It is similar but worse than Prohibition - because the
stakes are higher and the trade is global.

And the hidden costs are enormous. The police, Customs and Excise and the
court systems are overwhelmed by the consequences of illegal drugs. Would
it not be better to channel some of these resources into rehabilitation and
education about drugs?

I am not part of any campaign to legalise or even decriminalise drugs, be
they hard or soft. I don't know the arguments well enough to come to a firm
decision, especially those relating to the effect of drugs on physical and
mental health. I suspect that the decriminalisation of cannabis would not
materially increase consumption, and my gut feeling is that the gains from
bringing it within the control of the law might well outweigh the
disadvantages. Certainly, there is evidence from Holland and parts of the
US to support that view.

My judgement would be a pragmatic one; it would not be philosophical or
moral. The shifting sands between John Stuart Mill and those who see the
state as the protector and arbiter of morality provide for an interesting
debate but no clear answer. My view would be based on what is best, not
what is right in some abstract libertarian sense. It would accept the
reality that drugs are with us for keeps and we can't wish them away. We
should not underestimate the problems posed by drugs for a democracy like
ours. An authoritarian approach such as that imposed by the old Soviet
Union or some Middle Eastern countries is not available to us. Nor is a
libertarian approach legalising all drugs and accepting a likely rise in
heroin addiction going to be easily acceptable to the public. But we can at
least have an open debate and bring an end to a taboo that has so clearly
failed. Closing our eyes in the hope that an evil will go away is really
not good enough. That is why I am in favour of a royal commission to look
at all the issues in a detached, informed and objective way.