BRING DEBATE ON DRUG USE INTO THE OPEN

Justice Minister Simon Power is not shy of dismissing recommendations
out of hand, no matter their source.

Last year, he summarily rejected the concept of "executive amnesties",
which was advanced by the Chief Justice, Dame Sian Elias, as a means
of reducing prison overcrowding. This week, he was at it again,
instantly banishing to Coventry a Law Commission report that called
for a softening of the drug laws relating to personal use.

"There's not a single, solitary chance that as long as I'm the
Minister of Justice we'll be relaxing drug laws," he thundered. On
both occasions, his response to new, albeit controversial, approaches
to long-standing problems was unfortunate.

Mr Power's problem with the Law Commission recommendations seems to
stem from from the Prime Minister's declared war on methamphetamine
and drugs. Any relaxation would be perceived as contrary to that. It
could also be argued, as John Key did yesterday, that softening the
law on the possession of drugs for personal use would send the wrong
message to youngsters.

Given such political reality, there was a strong whiff of naivety in
the commission's suggestions. There was also, however, a solid strain
of reason and rationality.

The commission, for example, is right to note that "while the harms
and costs associated with alcohol are understated and misunderstood,
those associated with illegal drugs are often generalised and
overblown". There is also much to say that drug policy should focus on
dealing with problematic drug-users, rather than the many people whose
drug use poses no serious threat to their own well-being or others.

This, says the commission, does not mean there should not be vigorous
law enforcement on commercial drug dealers. That would remain
important, and there would be more emphasis on delivering effective
treatment to addicts, rather than punishment for personal possession
and use.

The point of reference for such an approach is Portugal, which in 2001
decriminalised all drugs, including cocaine and heroin. Nightmare
scenarios, including Lisbon becoming a haven for drug tourists, were
advanced by critics. In the event, drug-use rates have remained much
the same, and enhanced treatment programmes have reduced the number of
drug-related deaths.

The commission's recommendations may seem radical to a Government in
the midst of a war on drugs. They should not, however, be overstated.
Many European nations have developed forms of de facto
decriminalisation, whereby drugs deemed to be less problematic, such
as cannabis, rarely lead to criminal prosecution.

New Zealand has begun to steer that way. Currently, the courts operate
under a presumption that class-C cannabis offenders will not be sent
to jail. The commission says that presumption should be extended to
possession for personal use for all drug types.

Its report was sought by the previous Government. Predictably, it has
received a better reception from that quarter. The Labour Party's
justice spokeswoman, Lianne Dalziel, said the paper identified "a
range of issues that demand wide debate, including resourcing of
treatment and assessment options for people facing drug
dependence".

Pointedly, she did not voice support for possible decriminalisation of
some drug use. Given the damage wrought by P, that would surely be too
radical for a Labour government.

Ms Dalziel is, however, right to say the report raises issues that
warrant debate. Current policies have proved only spasmodically
successful, and there is a disconnect between the law on drugs and
those for alcohol and tobacco. Mr Power should not be effectively
shutting down that debate before it has even begun.