AN ILLOGICAL AND DAMAGING CHANGE IN DRUG LAWS

It is easy to see the thinking behind the claim that the reclassification
of cannabis from class B to class C will be accompanied by a doubling of
sentences for dealers in this drug. So many people are so passionately
against the softening of the law against cannabis that some reassurance for
them is seen as a political necessity. Drugs campaigners have responded by
saying that the contrast between lower penalties for those who use, and
higher penalties for those who supply, will send out a mixed message and
confuse the public. That may well be true. But I, for one, wish a little
confusion was the only consequence of this very dodgy compromise. Sadly,
though, it is not.

The reclassification of cannabis is significant, as it means that there is
no longer any automatic power of arrest for possession of this recreational
drug. Essentially it means that the "Lambeth experiment", whereby police
caution users and confiscate their cannabis rather than arresting them, is
to be rolled out across the nation.

This move effectively annuls one of the most persuasive arguments used by
critics of the Lambeth experiment. They say that the unique position of
Lambeth has made it a Mecca for "drug tourism". Analysis of police records
of the 1,190 cautions given in the year of the Lambeth pilot suggests that
the increase is a myth. But with reclassification the question will be
academic. Lambeth will no longer be unique, so any attraction for
out-of-borough users will end.

But far from cancelling the other great criticism of the Lambeth
experiment, the rolling out will spread fear among those who dread drugs
the most. Parents, as well as some youth workers in Lambeth, say that use
among children has increased during the pilot, as young people now believe
cannabis to be legal. Again, Lambeth police refute this, citing a
questionnaire sent to schools in the area that suggests that use has not
gone up.

According to the area's MP, Kate Hoey, who is against the experiment, this
evidence is disingenuous. "It's absolute nonsense to rely on the
questionnaire because it's not the children in school who are at greatest
risk," she argues. "It is those who are truanting, the children who are not
part of the mainstream that teachers are not in touch with."

What Ms Hoey says is true to a degree, because the children she speaks of
are more vulnerable to absolutely everything, as are the socially excluded
generally. Drugs, good, dirty fun for those with stable lives, wreck havoc
among those whose life chances are narrow. It is this fact that has led to
a notable, and justified, class division in attitudes to cannabis smoking,
not just in Lambeth, but more generally across the inner cities.

The middle classes a " who might have a joint or two to wind down with at
the weekend or at the end of the day a " are far more supportive of
reclassification than those at the sharp end of deprivation, who see
children exploited by drug dealers eager to give them cannabis as part of a
grooming process that can have them addicted to crack or heroin at
pitifully early ages.

Such progressions are at the heart of arguments that point to cannabis as a
"gateway" drug. The link between cannabis and harder drugs is procedural
rather than intrinsic, and much exacerbated by the necessity of the
customer to enter a market just as illegal for cannabis as it is for crack.
By increasing penalties for cannabis dealing, the Government would be
encouraging this problem, rather than intervening against it.

By classifying cannabis dealing alongside violent assault and gun crime, as
the new legislation will, the incentive to stick with cannabis dealing and
stay away from hard-drug dealing will be severely eroded. Cannabis is more
likely than ever to be sold alongside hard drugs by people who consider
themselves to be professional criminals, rather than by soft-drug dealers
who often see themselves as freedom fighters and put-upon campaigners for
civil liberties.

There is some justification for their mildly eccentric view. For while it
is fashionable to rail against all drug dealers as the scum of the earth,
this is not the case. There are such people as moral drug dealers, who
steer clear of drugs they know to be really dangerous. And there are
certainly such people as responsible cannabis dealers.

They are sure, again with some justification, that their illegal business
does no great harm a " no greater harm than the publican or the licensed
shopkeeper. They do not sell on the streets, or indeed to any customers who
have not been introduced to them by another trusted customer. They would
never sell to minors. They stay away from even offering hard drugs, let
alone pushing them in order to increase business by adding spiralling
addiction to the equation.

Now, just as their customers have become less at risk, their own position
has become more perilous. Many may pack up altogether, contemplating the
danger of a 10- instead of a five-year stretch, just when they hoped for a
move towards some liberalisation of their position. The incentive for
dealers to behave responsibly in the future will be hugely eroded by this
draconian move.

The result will be more people heading for areas known to have street
dealers and more people finding it lucrative to push harder drugs alongside
cannabis, because the whole cannabis market will accrue to the unscrupulous
dealers. The vulnerable will be in even more danger, and so, to a lesser
extent, will the middle-class user.

Some of the blame for this deeply unfortunate turn of events must be placed
on the shoulders of those entrepreneurs who have been running ahead of
legislation, and pushing too hard to achieve too much change too quickly.
Colin Davies, the disabled champion of medical cannabis use, is once more
on remand in Strangeways. To campaigners for the legalisation of cannabis,
he is a martyr.

But there is no doubt that he jumped the reclassification gun far too
eagerly by setting up a coffee shop called the Dutch Experience in
Stockport and another one in Bournemouth, as well as promising to open 10
or 12 more branches. Simon Woodroffe, who started the restaurant chain Yo!
Sushi!, must also have frightened the horses with his promise to start a
new chain called Yo! Blow!

But while these men have been pushing too hard at a door only open a chink,
it is their instinct and not the Home Office's that is right. They think
that cannabis import and supply should be regulated and in the hands of
responsible people, so that the link with hard drugs can be hugely weakened.

Likewise the logic behind the select committee's recommendation of
decriminalisation was that cannabis needed to be separated from hard drugs.
But that separation has been undermined by the mixed approach the
Government has decided on. The separation needs to be at the point of
supply, not at the point of consumption.The opposite is happening instead.

The most disheartening aspect of this contradictory change in the law is
that changes in patterns of supply and use of cannabis cannot now be easily
analysed. No one will be able to say whether changes have come about
because of the reclassification or because of the increase in penalties for
dealers. Changes in drug law are best taken one step at a time. No change
at all would have been preferable to this dangerous fudge.