THE WAR MAY BE OVER, BUT MR BLUNKETT HAS BECOME CONFUSED ABOUT DRUGS

Cannabis is by far the most commonly used illegal recreational drug in
Britain; indeed, it is probably less harmful than tobacco or alcohol. The
grounds for believing it provides a "gateway" to harder drugs are, at best,
anecdotal. There is little evidence that its use is crime-related in the
same way as, say, heroin or crack cocaine. Public opinion seems
increasingly at ease with the idea of liberalising the law. Thoughtful
Conservatives such as Peter Lilley have advocated allowing people the
freedom to use a substance that will do little harm to them and none to
anyone else. Legalising cannabis, in other words, is unlikely to mean the
end of civilisation.

Of course the Government has never shared that view, and during its long
"war on drugs" set its face resolutely against a change in the law. Both
the present Home Secretary, David Blunkett, and his predecessor Jack Straw
relished every chance to act tough on drugs. It was an easy way to ward off
the allegations of liberalism that, sadly, seem to scare this government so
much. The appointment of the absurdly named "drugs tsar", Keith Hellawell,
was the apogee of the authoritarian phase of policy.

Thankfully, Mr Hellawell has now departed, having achieved little during
his tenure. And Mr Blunkett has announced to the House of Commons his
intention to reclassify cannabis from a class B to a class C drug. That is
a welcome start to the modernisation of our approach to drugs. But Mr
Blunkett has sent out a contradictory signal by retaining severe criminal
sanctions for trading in cannabis (a maximum 14-year jail sentence). He
also seems unduly keen on allowing the police virtually all their old
powers of confiscation. So much so, in fact, that special laws will have to
be passed to make blowing dope smoke at a policeman an offence and thus
delaying the changes on cannabis for a year. And by insisting that "all
drugs are harmful", with the clear implication that all drugs are equally
harmful, Mr Blunkett leaves himself open to ridicule.

In a further inconsistency, he has also set his face against declassifying
ecstasy, which must rival cannabis for popularity, and again, with some
tragic and high-profile exceptions, is widely used without harm. Most
regrettable, though, is the Home Secretary's rejection of safe injection
rooms (so-called "shooting galleries") for heroin users, a measure that has
saved many lives where it has been tried, for example in Australia.

Whatever the public made of Mr Blunkett's old policy, at least they knew
where they were; now policy is a total mess. A modern government that felt
more self-confident would seek an approach that balanced personal freedom
with the need to reduce crime and to prevent people using the drugs that
really do screw them up. Harm reduction was alluded to by Mr Blunkett in
his statement, but it is clear that the main focus is still on drugs as a
criminal rather than a health problem. Yet Britain has some of the
strictest laws on drugs in Europe and the worst drugs problem.

Mr Blunkett has chosen to ignore the pleas of many of the charities
dedicated to coping with the effects of drug abuse. No wonder then, that
instead of clarifying the Government's attitude and offering some hope to
the victims of drug abuse and their friends and families, Mr Blunkett has
simply left us confused. The Government's policy on drugs has become more
befuddled than the most dedicated aficionado of skunk.