GOOD SENSE IN ENGLAND

JULY 16, 2002 -- The decision in Great Britain to change the laws on
cannabis, or marijuana, almost to the point of decriminalizing simple
possession of the plant by an adult is not as drastic as some news stories
have suggested - and may, in fact, be so modest as not to achieve some of
the hoped-for benefits of decriminalization.

Nonetheless it is an important step that will create a record U.S.
officials should study.

As Roger Howard, chief executive of DrugScope, Great Britain's leading
nonprofit organization dealing with drug policy issues, explained, the 1971
Misuse of Drugs Act includes three categories: Class A includes heroin,
cocaine, ecstasy and other "hard drugs," Class B includes methamphetamines
and (until now) cannabis, while Class C includes benzodiazepine and other
tranquilizers.

The policy change announced by Home Secretary David Blunkett will move
cannabis to Class C. While retaining the option of arrest in certain cases,
it will ensure that for most adults simple possession of cannabis will not
mean arrest, though they may face a fine or civil penalty.

In the United States, under the 1970 Controlled Substances Act, there are
five "schedules" for controlled drugs. Schedule I, which prohibits any use,
even under medical supervision, includes heroin, LSD and marijuana. Drugs
on the other schedules (methadone, morphine, methamphetamine and cocaine
are on Schedule II) can be prescribed under limited but increasingly
liberal circumstances.

Based on science and relative dangers, marijuana has no business being on
Schedule I, but for political reasons it remains there.

Why has Great Britain decided to institute policies guided more by science
than political expediency? Peter Lilley, a Conservative member of
Parliament who served in the cabinets of both Margaret Thatcher and John
Major, noted that three years ago the House of Lords approved a report
recommending decriminalization of marijuana. That got the debate started.

"I had no particular interest in the issue until I talked more intensively
with my constituents," Lilley said. "They convinced me that the current law
was unenforceable and, after some research, I concluded that the arguments
for maintaining the status quo simply could not be defended."

Lilley wrote a pamphlet arguing that the legal status of marijuana should
be changed so as to break the link with dealers in hard drugs.

Because the new policy, while it relieves some people of the fear of jail,
does not set up legal channels for distribution of marijuana, he fears that
it might not have that beneficial effect. Nonetheless, he is pleased to see
this much of a move toward common sense.

The main difference between Great Britain and the United States seems to be
that some British officials have paid attention to official scientific
reports. Maybe U.S. citizens should require politicians, Drug Enforcement
Administration honcho Asa Hutchinson and other officials to read and pass a
test on the 1999 Institute of Medicine report and the 1972 Shafer
Commission Report before discussing marijuana again in public.