HASH ON THE HIGH STREET

David Blunkett Tried to Wrongfoot Libertarians and Authoritarians With
His Drugs Plan. But He's Given Us a Muddle Which Won't Work

Before announcing his new policy on cannabis, David Blunkett should
have remembered the old Yorkshire proverb: "Even though a horse has
four legs it cannot go in two directions at once." Still less can home
secretaries move drugs policy in a more liberal and a more penal
direction simultaneously. Not surprisingly, in trying to do so he fell
flat on his face and, far more serious, may have given us the worst of
all worlds.

He wants to reduce penalties on cannabis use and possession while
increasing penalties for its sale. This will do nothing to discourage
demand but continue to drive cannabis users into the arms of illegal
gangs who also push heroin and cocaine.

There are two coherent approaches to cannabis. One is the Swedish
policy of rigorous prohibition. It has had some success but it
involves mandatory punishment or treatment of users and operates in a
society which is highly restrictive even of alcohol. The reaction when
Ann Widdecombe proposed rather less draconian measures suggests that
approach would not be accepted in this country.

On the other hand there is the Dutch approach, which separates the
supply of cannabis from that of hard drugs by allowing legal but
regulated outlets for cannabis. The result has been a lower level of
cannabis use than in the UK and far fewer people migrating on to hard
drugs. Heroin addicts in Holland are an ageing group with few new recruits.

Sadly Blunkett has opted for neither approach. Above all he has done
nothing to separate the supply of cannabis from the people who push
hard drugs. If anything, increasing the penalty on selling cannabis to
a maximum of 14 years will mean that only the more hardened criminals
- - precisely those who handle hard drugs - will remain in the market.
When I asked him in parliament how he proposed to stop driving
cannabis users into the arms of hard drug pushers he simply ignored
the question.

The problem seems to be that he believed he could wrongfoot both the
libertarians (by reclassifying) and the authoritarians (by announcing
increased penalties). But drugs policy is far too serious an issue to
play political games. We need clarity not confusion.

Sadly he seems to have ignored the lessons of Brixton. Merely relaxing
enforcement of the law on cannabis use has not worked. It has made the
dealers bolder, and made it easier for them to push hard drugs.

The starting point for reform must be that the present policy does not
work. It has proved unenforcable. Over 40% of young people have defied
the law and over a million people used cannabis last month despite
fairly severe penalties. The number of people arrested for cannabis
offences has quadrupled to nearly 100,000 a year, yet the police and
courts enforce the law with diminishing enthusiasm.

The law is indefensible in a society which allows the sale of alcohol
and tobacco. But the attempt to enforce it results in a huge diversion
of resources away from tackling hard drugs; it undermines respect for
the law; it creates friction between police and ethnic minorities; it
enriches the illegal gangs who are given a monopoly of supply; and
above all it drives soft-drugs users into the arms of hard-drugs pushers.

To tackle those problems requires clear thinking, not obfuscation.
Sadly, Blunkett's attempt to have it both ways has just sown confusion.

We are told it is less wrong than it used to be to buy cannabis, but
more wrong to sell it. Users are told they will no longer be arrested
for cannabis possession - but they may be prosecuted. Police are told
they can no longer arrest, but then told yes they can if use threatens
public order. Dealers will hope they can avoid prosecution just for
possession if they are not actually caught in the act of selling.

When I started looking at this issue, I imagined that there might be
some half-way house: reducing penalties or relaxing enforcement. But
on any rational analysis it was clear that they would not resolve the
problems created by the present laws.

As long as cannabis use, sale and cultivation are criminal offences,
diminishing, or rarely enforcing, penalties on use will not restore
respect for the law, release resources to tackle hard drugs, remove
cannabis from enriching gangsterdom and, above all, will not separate
cannabis users from the sources of hard drugs. The only solution is to
license some legal outlets for the sale of cannabis.

To be fair, reclassification may bring two modest benefits. It will
make it clear that there is a marked distinction between cannabis and
hard drugs. All too often the "war on drugs" wilfully confused hard
and soft drugs. The result was that young people were more likely to
dismiss warnings against hard drugs.

More important, now cannabis possession is no longer an arrestable
offence there should be no need to carry out all the 300,000 stop and
searches for drugs. Only 12% of these ever found drugs, but they
caused immense friction between police, the young and ethnic
minorities in particular.

No one pretends that it will be easy to move to a sensible policy on
drugs. It will require courage as well as cunning. I always thought
David Blunkett possessed both. If ever a government was in a position
to take bold action, surely it is this one. It has an overwhelming
parliamentary majority. Most of its MPs do, in their hearts, want to
move towards legalisation of cannabis. Yet it is strangely reluctant
to do what it knows is right if the focus groups and tabloids are not
on their side.

When John Major was struggling to survive with a majority of one he
was derided as being "in office, not in power". Tony Blair has power
but, lacking any purpose, seems strangely reluctant to use it to do
what is right.