BLUNKETT'S CANNABIS POLICY IS MUDDLED BUT NOT DANGEROUS

On most political issues, vigorous intellectual clarity is an asset.

But there are certain questions when the imperfections of human life should
not be ignored for the sake of theoretical rigour.

It is not difficult to argue, as Oliver Letwin, the Shadow Home Secretary,
did yesterday, that there are two logical approaches to cannabis — render
it starkly illegal and crack down or legalise entirely and treat it much as
alcohol or tobacco.

By such standards, the reclassification of cannabis from Class B to Class C
makes no sense at all. It is, in effect, a declaration that the Government
considers this drug to be moderately harmful and has opted to render it
moderately illegal. The end result, to the purist, is a confusing set of
messages.

Unfortunately, however, an element of intellectual impurity here is all but
unavoidable. There is a distinction between drugs that are psychologically
addictive and might do some damage over a period of time and others which
are obviously physically addictive and possess the capacity either to kill
or to render those who fall under their sway incapable of cogent decisions
on their own behalf.

The law should recognise that divide.

In practice, police and politicians alike have to take into account whether
young people will accept their case about the threat of a particular
substance — in short, as David Blunkett, the Home Secretary, put it
yesterday, "educational credibility" is vital.

And finally, ministers cannot forget that a market for many drugs exists
and will not be abolished by Whitehall decree.

In these circumstances, the policy compromise of reclassification has
merit. It realigns the law somewhat with the real world with which the
police and those concerned with drugs counselling have to cope. While the
evidence concerning the precise medical effects of cannabis is contested,
controversial and often contradictory, no serious organisation has claimed
that individuals expire after a short exposure to it. It is not an
admirable habit but it should be treated proportionately. It is in the
interests of public and police alike to make a firmer distinction between
those drugs that render people their slaves and others that satisfy a
relatively harmless personal thrill.

The Class C position, which permits the police to confiscate cannabis and
give warnings, is sound.

Mr Blunkett's firm move in a sensible direction has, however, been
tarnished by other steps sideways.

If the market for cannabis is to be separated from that of harder drugs,
both supply and demand need to fall inside the new boundary. His proposal
to raise the maximum sentence for those dealing in any Class C drug to 14
years' imprisonment, the same as that for Class B drugs, looks like an
attempt to cover his back politically. It means, to put it crudely, that
there is no incentive for a dealer to specialise in cannabis and abandon
amphetamines. The best that can be said of the scheme is that no judge will
hand down a 14-year term to someone who has been caught just trading in
cannabis.

This means the Blunkett formula is not entirely inconsistent, merely
hypocritical.

Mr Blunkett would have been better advised to retain the old maximum
sentence for Class C drugs, or even decrease that tariff, while
substantially increasing the different sanctions placed on all those who
retail Class A and Class B narcotics.

That would have created as rational a policy as is possible in this
admittedly awkward territory.

It would not have satisfied the absolutists on either side of the debate,
but it would have struck almost everyone else as possessing a modicum of
common sense.

It would also have left ministers with the option of considering other,
more ambitious, experiments at a later date. Mr Letwin condemned Mr
Blunkett's blueprint yesterday as "muddled and dangerous". It is very
unlikely to be dangerous, but it is quite unnecessarily muddled.