BLUNKETT'S NEW STEPS IN THE DRUGS DANCE

THE decision to reclassify cannabis as a Class C drug is cosmetic and
hardly such a momentous event as to justify the rather self-serving
resignation of the former "drugs czar", Keith Hellawell. The latter claims
he has quit his current role as a government adviser - his official post as
"czar" disappeared a year ago - in protest at a supposed softening by the
Home Secretary, David Blunkett, on drug taking. Since Mr Blunkett also
raised the maximum sentence for dealers in class B and C drugs from five
years to 14 years, this charge hardly rings true.

If anything, Mr Blunkett continues to exhibit the perennial dance of
British politicians around the drugs issue. This usually involves one step
forward towards recognising the widespread use of drugs in society. And two
steps back, guarding against opening the government up to hysterical
political attacks by the likes of Mr Hellawell - witness the almost
gratuitous increase in jail terms for dealing in cannabis.

Yesterday's step forward is Mr Blunkett's signal that henceforth the
government will concentrate medical, social and police resources on
combating the drugs that cause most of the personal damage and criminal
activity - heroin and crack cocaine.

The welcome reclassification of cannabis keeps it a controlled substance
but puts it on a par with anti-depressants and steroids - nowhere near the
same threat to society as heroin and crack. The police will therefore
retain the power to arrest cannabis users in certain "aggravated" cases,
such as when the drug is smoked near children. So the real policy change -
Mr Hellawell to the contrary - has less to do with cannabis and more to do
with the focusing of priorities on hard drugs.

If truth were told, Mr Hellawell had become a political dinosaur and his
well-timed resignation was his way of revenge. He cites one of his reasons
for resigning as his growing aversion to the government spin. But the whole
concept of a drugs czar was spin incarnated. This was invented in the
government's early days when it was trying to deflect charges of liberalism
on drug matters. Result: Mr Hellawell was hired to preach the "just say no"
message and imply an implacable war against drug taking in any form. Alas,
Mr Hellawell had no great impact on social behaviour, especially that of
the young. In fact, his bombastic demeanour could well have had a negative
result.

Last year, Mr Blunkett found the courage to pursue a more realistic policy
direction and Mr Hellawell was quietly sidelined. The lesson is that
gimmicks such as drugs czars are usually a diversion, unless they truly
represent someone with executive powers and a serious budget, neither of
which Mr Hellawell possessed.

Meantime, can the government now co-ordinate the right mix of social,
economic and police tactics in the war against hard drugs? This needs a
combination of consistent micro interventions and subtle propaganda, not
the political chimera of one simple fix. Something of this kind of policy
is already emerging in Scotland with the "Know the Score" campaign, the
creation of the Scottish Drugs Enforcement Agency, and the welcoming of the
reclassification of cannabis by the Scottish Executive. In this sensible
context, Mr Hellawell's criticism is an unwelcome and irrelevant diversion.