"DANGEROUS DRUGS" - HOUSE OF COMMONS DEBATES RECLASSIFICATION

MR. OLIVER LETWIN (WEST DORSET) The motion is, in practice, only part of
the jigsaw that the Government have constructed. The purpose of the jigsaw
is clear to get to the point at which there is crypto-legalisation of
cannabis, in the sense that most young people will be only marginally
deterred from taking it. They may be arrested, and they will be warned-and
the warning will be that if they are subsequently arrested they will be
warned. At the same time, the Government intend to strengthen the
prohibition on the sale of cannabis, or rather to retain its present
strength. The Minister made it clear that that is the admitted effect of
the policies that she announced today.

I recognise the force of the arguments of my right hon. Friend the Member
for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley). We may hear the same thing from the
Liberal Democrat Benches in a moment. It is perfectly plausible to argue
that there could be a significant beneficial impact by doing what my hon.
Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) referred to a moment ago,
namely, taking cannabis outside the field of drug dealing by hard drug
dealers, legitimising it properly and allowing people to buy it under
regulated conditions. I do not favour that policy, but I understand the
rationale for it. It is also possible to argue that we should try to
prevent young people from taking cannabis by doing what is done in
Sweden-trying to take more effective measures to deter young people from
taking it.

The policy that the Minister announced today is neither of those two
things. It will have a clear effect, which relates to the questions about
the gateway. I am not making an argument about whether cannabis as a
substance, in any of its forms, is in principle a gateway drug. I accept
the Minister's point; my experience, too, is that people with addictive
personalities, who are on heroin, crack or cocaine, have typically moved
through a cocktail that began with tobacco and alcohol and went on through
cannabis, amphetamines and many other things. I am not making the argument
that cannabis as a substance is more of a gateway than any of those other
drugs but, and this is the critical flaw in the Minister's logic, there can
be no doubt at all that if the only legal way to obtain cannabis in England
is through buying it from a person who is, ipso facto, a very serious
criminal-the Minister is ensuring that anybody selling the substance is
exposed to a maximum sentence of 14 years, making the crime equivalent in
its severity to some of the worst crimes currently committed-the Minister
is putting young people in touch with very serious criminals-[Hon. Members
"No."] She is. If the Minister makes it the case that young people believe
that she is crypto-legalising the substance and that they cannot obtain it
except from a serious criminal, she is taking steps that irresponsibly
ensure that a larger rather than a smaller number of young people will be
in touch with serious criminals.

JOHN MANN (BASSETLAW) Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

MR. LETWIN I will in a moment, but not until I have finished the logic.

The purpose of those serious criminals will be to drag those vulnerable
young people upwards from cannabis to the hard drugs in which the money can
be made-[Interruption.] Yes, it will. The hon. Lady for some part of
Lambeth-[Hon. Members "Vauxhall."] Forgive me. The hon. Member for Vauxhall
(Kate Hoey)-I am her constituent so I should know-was right to point out
that the evidence of the Lambeth experiment was that serious criminals
moved into the area in an effort to drug people up from cannabis into hard
drugs. There is no escape from that reality.

JOHN MANN Is not the right hon. Gentleman living in the past? There has
been an increase in hydroponically grown cannabis. Estimates made in
Australia by Hemp Embassy, major protagonists of the legalisation of
cannabis, are that 80 per cent. of cannabis is hydroponically grown, and
that the vast majority of that is grown by people in their homes for their
own supply. Health is the issue for the vast majority of people, rather
than the buying of cannabis from so-called drug dealers.

MR. LETWIN I fear that the person living in an unreal world is the hon.
Gentleman. I know that he shares my passion about hard drugs, and if he
were to go to our inner cities-[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Rhondda
(Mr. Bryant) says that he does not know what I mean. I mean that the hon.
Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) shares my passion to do something to get
off hard drugs the many young people whose lives, and the lives of those
around them, are being destroyed by them. We share that ambition, but the
hon. Gentleman is living in a fool's paradise if he believes that it is not
the case that large numbers of very serious criminals-made very serious
criminals by the Government's legislation-want to sell cannabis to people
in order to lead them into the hard drug world. That is a fact which cannot
be denied.

The House's purpose should be not to deny that fact, but to argue about
whether the Government's policy makes sense, and it certainly cannot make
sense to let young people be led in that direction. I do not know by how
much the legislation will do that, and nor does the Minister. We do not
know how far the guidelines and their effects on police behaviour will lead
young people to take more rather than less of that substance, but we know
that that must be the direction and that much of the cannabis will be sold
by serious criminals who are engaged in hard drug dealing. The tendency,
therefore, will be for more rather than fewer young people to be led into
hard drugs.

John Mann rose-

MR. LETWIN I will take the hon. Gentleman's intervention, although there is
still another step in my logic.

JOHN MANN The right hon. Gentleman suggested that we should go to the inner
cities. I have not done that, but I have visited my own community. I have
spoken to 16-year-olds in all the schools in my constituency and I have
talked to at least half of the current heroin users. They outline a
straightforward position five years ago, and before, people bought cannabis
and heroin from the same dealer, but now they do not. People do not buy
cannabis from heroin dealers or pushers but from different people. Indeed,
on health issues, a great deal of cannabis is not even being sold-it is
being given away. Many young people are producing it at home and giving it
to their friends.

MR. LETWIN I think that the hon. Gentleman knows that he is not describing
the only pattern of activity. The fact remains that hard drug dealers are
still in the business of selling cannabis. Even if his suggestion were
right, he would have to explain how it could be rational that the young
people he has just described would be subject to a maximum term of
imprisonment of 14 years for that activity. The Government are turning
those young people into very serious criminals. The hon. Gentleman cannot
escape that fact. The Government's policy is a dreadful muddle.

Why have the Government introduced this policy? Do they deny the logic that
I have described? Before the debate, I thought that might be possible, but
the Minister has told us that legalisation would increase use. How, then,
can she suppose that crypto-legalisation will not, to some degree, also
increase use? Before the debate, I thought that the Minister would take the
view that, under the proposals, people would not feel that they were
routinely breaking the law. However, she has told us that young people are
routinely breaking the law at present and that she intends cannabis to
remain an illegal substance. She is saying that she is legislating in such
a way that when young people buy, possess or take cannabis they will know
that they are acting illegally. She knows that she is turning the people
who sell the drug to them into serious criminals. She does not deny a
single step of my logic, so what is the point of the policy? Why do not the
Government introduce either proper legalisation of, or a proper clampdown
on, cannabis? Why this muddled middle?

I do not specialise in saying such things about my political opponents, but
in this case I think that the Home Secretary-who has chosen not to attend
the debate for reasons that only he can tell-is seeking spurious,
short-term popularity.

The polling evidence shows that the Home Secretary is on to a winner and
that this policy is popular. Considerable numbers of our fellow citizens
believe that selling the stuff should be highly illegal and almost equal
numbers believe that not too much should be done about people who are
buying the stuff. The Home Secretary is in line with current public
opinion, and I think it is for that reason-I can find no other
explanation-that he has chosen to adopt this tactic. That is not a
responsible way to conduct the government of this country. We should not
have, in a country like ours, a Government who adopt a policy about a
matter like this on the basis of seeking spurious short-term popularity. We
should consider the fate of our young people.