MINISTERS DEAL IN POLICIES, NOT SOLUTIONS

THE politics of drugs policy is all about trust. Whose advice do we
respect: experts on advisory committees; doctors; policemen; ministers;
opposition spokesmen; a drugs czar, like Keith Hellawell; or our own
personal day-to-day experience?

Iain Duncan Smith put the point starkly in the Commons yesterday: "When the
public has to choose between the Home Secretary and your own drugs czar,
who do you think they ought to choose?" Of course, it is not nearly as
simple as that. The arguments over the legal treatment of cannabis are
complicated. David Blunkett, in one of his most robust performances of
recent weeks, hardly adopted a soft or permissive attitude in his statement
yesterday. He rejected a call from the Home Affairs Select Committee to
reclassify ecstasy and to open special centres for heroin users. Nor did
Oliver Letwin take an authoritarian stance against cannabis users, as Ann
Widdecombe did when she tripped herself up in October 2000.

There are practical questions about police priorities in tackling class A
drugs and about the broader impact of reclassfying cannabis: and still much
dispute in the case of the greater relaxation in Brixton. There are also,
as Mr Letwin argued, potential anomalies in the treatment of cannabis users
and dealers. In terms of public perception, however, Mr Duncan Smith's
question is the pertinent one. Does the public trust Mr Blunkett or Mr
Hellawell, a former chief constable? A MORI poll in Feburary showed that,
by a two to one margin (about 60 to 30 per cent), the public generally
trusts the police to tell the truth. And the figures have been within two
or three points of these levels for the past decade.

By contrast a mere 20 per cent trust government ministers to tell the
truth, with more than 70 per cent not trusting them. This is an improvement
on the mid-1990s, but the same level as over the past five years. These
figures show more trust than for politicians generally and journalists.

Senior police officers are, like politicians, divided on the question of
cannabis use. Many agree with Mr Blunkett. Sharp disagreements also exist
within the police about the impact of the Brixton experiment of not
prosecuting people caught with small amounts of cannabis. In that broader
perspective, the fuss over Mr Hellawell's remarks is a side issue.

Moreover, Mr Blunkett appears to have judged pretty accurately where the
balance of public opinion lies. An ICM poll taken after Mr Blunkett first
floated the idea of reclassifying cannabis last October showed that 54 per
cent agreed, rising to 65 per cent support among the 25-to-34 age group.
The only group opposed is the over-65s. In line with Mr Blunkett rather
than the Home Affairs Committee, however, more than four fifths of the
public oppose any change in the classification of ecstasy.

This argument over the legal position of cannabis use is of more symbolic
than practical importance. No one disputes that the main priority remains
class A drugs, like heroin and cocaine, and the linked wave of muggings,
burglaries and robberies by users seeking cash to finance their purchases.
There are plenty of policies, but no solutions.