OUR CRIMINAL IGNORANCE OF CANNABIS

When The Independent on Sunday campaigned for the decriminalisation of
cannabis, we reflected the common view among informed opinion that the
drug was less dangerous than either tobacco or alcohol. So widespread
did that view become that our editorial line was followed within a few
years by The Daily Telegraph. No wonder people were confused.

Now that confusion, which was perhaps inevitable as changes in public
opinion, government policy and scientific research interacted, has
become a real problem.

The Government responded slowly to the liberalisation of attitudes, in
which our campaign played a part. In 2001 David Blunkett, then Home
Secretary, asked the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs whether
cannabis should be downgraded from class B to the least serious
category of illegal drugs, class C. The council said it should,
although the change did not take place until January 2004. The delay
in implementing the change meant that for some time the formal legal
position was out of line with police practice.

To add to that mixed message, the Government failed to grasp the
difficulty of saying in the same breath that cannabis would be taken
less seriously by the police, but that it was still illegal. Mr
Blunkett promised "an innovative public awareness campaign on drugs
aimed at young people". His successor, Charles Clarke, promised "a
massive programme of public education to convey the danger of cannabis
use". Maybe they happened. Perhaps millions of pounds of taxpayers'
money was spent on them. But this is a tough communications
challenges: to get an honest and therefore complex message across to
an unreceptive audience.

Meanwhile, the evidence of a link between cannabis and psychosis among
a minority of users was growing stronger. That meant that no sooner
had cannabis been downgraded in the eyes of the law than most credible
authorities began to warn it was considerably more dangerous than
previously thought. That evidence led this newspaper, in March, to
renounce its campaign to decriminalise cannabis. We felt the evidence
forced us to choose between our campaigns for better understanding of
mental health issues and our liberal instinct.

At that time, we said that we thought the existing law was about
right. But that cannot be the end of the matter. For most people,
cannabis is not as dangerous as amphetamines (class B) or heroin
(class A); the trouble is that you cannot be sure who is susceptible
to the risk of serious psychological harm. For those people, cannabis
can be as destructive of personality as any other illegal drug.
Unfortunately, although we reported in May the development of a simple
test that could identify vulnerability to cannabis-induced psychosis,
it will not be generally available for several years. Until then, it
makes sense for everyone to treat cannabis as potentially harmful.

Today, we report a further complication. One of the arguments for
reclassifying cannabis as less serious was that users did not tend to
steal to pay for their habit. But disturbing new research suggests
otherwise. Our own investigations suggest cannabis use is high and
rising among young offenders, and an academic study in Sheffield
suggests one in four young offenders has stolen to pay for cannabis.

All the evidence suggests that, even if the present legal framework is
right, it is not working. As we also report today, many young people
think that cannabis is legal and harmless. They are not aware that,
according to Home Office guidelines, under-18s should be arrested for
possession of cannabis and taken to a police station for a reprimand.
Again, there is confusion, because the rules for adults are different:
they are "unlikely" to be arrested for a first offence.

There are no magic ways of bringing clarity to this muddle. Public
information campaigns may have a role to play, although they have not
succeeded so far. The simpler the message, the better, and the
simplest is that cannabis is dangerous and illegal.

Consistent policing is also important. It is not clear that most
police forces have a zero-tolerance approach to smoking cannabis in
public places, which is essential to reinforce the message that the
drug is illegal.

Finally, the Government needs to continue to put more money into drug
treatment. It would be counterproductive to put more people in prison
for using cannabis or any other illegal drug. As Professor Rod Morgan
writes on page 38, criminalising young people is no answer. The best
way to get across information about the health risks of cannabis is to
make it a medical or mental health issue rather than one of criminal
justice.

In July, Jacqui Smith, the new Home Secretary, began the third big
review of government policy towards illegal drugs in recent years. Let
us hope she achieves the clarity, the effective policing and the
priority for treatment that eluded her predecessors.