POLICE RETAIN DISCRETION OVER ARREST FOR CANNABIS USE

Cannabis Is Reclassified, But The Home Secretary Refuses To Introduce
Reforms To The Regulations On Heroin And Ecstasy

Dope smokers who had rolled a celebratory joint in honour of the Home
Secretary finally relaxing Britain's cannabis laws may have spluttered in
frustration yesterday when David Blunkett decided possession of the drug
should remain an arrestable offence.

Although the Home Secretary went ahead as expected with his proposal to
reclassify cannabis from Class B to Class C, he appeared to have reacted to
criticisms that he was "going soft on drugs".

And so instead of implementing a blanket policy treating marijuana
possession as a non-arrestable offence, he announced a hybrid system, under
which police could hold some people caught with the drug, in certain
circumstances.

Those who smoke cannabis near a school or repeatedly light up in a public
place where other people object to their drug use could still find
themselves being marched to the police station.

The caveats will please police officers who have complained of having joints
waved defiantly in their faces by drug users in Brixton, south London, where
the Metropolitan Police has been piloting a softer stance on cannabis.

But they will also allow police to retain a considerable degree of
discretion in dealing with cannabis users. Welcoming Mr Blunkett's
announcement yesterday, the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo)
said: "The retention of the police power of arrest will enable the police to
have greater flexibility in dealing with incidents on the street."

Such powers will worry supporters of cannabis decriminalisation, who would
point to a recent study by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation that appeared to
show a minority of officers were already pursuing something of a personal
crusade against marijuana.

The study found that 3 per cent of police were responsible for 20 per cent
of cannabis possession arrests and that some police saw it as their duty to
help rid society of all drugs.

Mr Blunkett said yesterday Acpo would soon issue national guidelines to
police forces, explaining the definition of the "aggravating circumstances"
that would make cannabis possession arrestable.

Drugs agencies hope the guidance will help to create a level playing field
and end the "postcode lottery" that results from different approaches being
taken to the drug in neighbouring police divisions. Mr Blunkett said the
guidelines would "ensure that in the vast majority of cases officers will
confiscate the drug and issue a warning".

If this is the case, the changes will have a noticeable effect on the
policing of cannabis, which in the year 2000 led to 75,000 arrests for
possession, with some offenders being fined and a small minority imprisoned.

Last night Roger Howard, chief executive of the charity DrugScope, pointed
out that even after reclassification people could face being sent to jail
for up to two years for "simple possession".

He also voiced concerns over Mr Blunkett's proposals for tougher measures
against those involved in the supply of cannabis. Mr Blunkett said he would
consider a new offence of supplying the drug to children and would retain a
maximum sentence of up to 14 years for dealing, even after downgrading the
drug to Class C.

Mr Howard said people who supplied the drug to friends or grew cannabis
plants may find themselves facing a custodial sentence.

Yesterday in Brixton, where police have piloted the idea of relaxing the
laws on cannabis, there were mixed views on the project's success.

An unnamed police officer claimed the project had not worked and said that
school children who were smoking cannabis with impunity were no longer being
arrested and referred to drug workers.

But Bashir Ahmed, who runs a carpet shop, said the change in the law would
cut crime. He called for legalised cannabis cafés to end the street dealing.

Other commentators warned that the reclassification of cannabis should not
disguise the potential dangers of the drug.

David Hart, general secretary of the National Association of Head Teachers,
said the softening of the law should "not make a blind bit of difference to
school drug policies".

The changes to the cannabis laws were accompanied by a refusal to introduce
reform of the regulations on heroin and ecstasy. In spite of recommendations
to the contrary by the House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee, Mr
Blunkett refused to reclassify ecstasy as a class B drug and rejected the
idea of controlled "shooting galleries" for injecting drug users.

Although it was overshadowed by the cannabis reforms, the refusal to provide
safe injecting rooms will be a severe disappointment to drug treatment
professionals.

The introduction of such a scheme in Australia reportedly led to 17 drug
users being resuscitated after overdosing in the first month of the
project's operation. Supporters of the scheme claim that without such
supervised facilities such people might have died.

Drug experts were also angry that Mr Blunkett, as a politician, chose to
dismiss the reclassification of ecstasy [which was also backed by a review
of drugs laws by the independent Police Foundation] rather than allow a
decision to be taken by the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs.

Narcotics: how they are classified Class A: (The most harmful category).
Includes heroin, cocaine, ecstasy, LSD, and amphetamines (speed) if prepared
for injection. Maximum sentence for dealing is life and seven years for
possession.

Class B: (An intermediate category). Includes amphetamines and barbiturates.
The maximum sentence for dealing is 14 years in prison plus a fine, and for
possession it is five years plus fine.

Class C: (Least harmful). Includes anabolic steroids, anti-depressants and
growth hormones. In July next year this will be joined by cannabis and
cannabis resin, which are currently Class B. Maximum sentences for dealing
in Class C substances are to be upped from five years to 14. The maximum
term for possession is two years in jail.

<