MY DRUGS POLICY IS WORKING

A String Of Myths Is Being Used To Rubbish The Lambeth Experiment

In 1982, I was a sergeant in charge of a "front line" community policing
team in Brixton. The locals actively helped us when we were chasing
robbers, but we had doors slammed in our faces when chasing cannabis smokers.

Different communities tolerate different types and levels of criminality.
If you want community support for policing, you must concentrate on the
crimes at the top of the community's list. In Lambeth, crack cocaine,
heroin and street robbery were at the top; cannabis was nowhere to be seen.
Some even saw cannabis as an excuse for officers to stop, search and
criminalise young people. Everyone saw the difference between "hard" and
"soft" drugs in terms of policing priorities.

A month before I arrived in Lambeth, Brixton Constable Ross Callaghan
failed a targeted "integrity test" set by the Metropolitan police's
department for professional standards. He threw away cannabis left in a car
rather than booking it in at the police station. He was charged with
misfeasance in a public office and sent for trial at the Old Bailey. His
team insisted they would no longer turn a blind eye to cannabis or put it
"down the drain". They were going to arrest everyone they found with cannabis.

We had a problem. What would be the effect on a community already
suspicious of police motives if there was a massive increase in arrests for
even the smallest amount of cannabis? The only solution was a formal,
officially sanctioned policy for dealing with cannabis informally.

I discussed the idea with my boss, local people and a trusted journalist,
who ran the story in the London Evening Standard in March 2001. The ensuing
debate came out positively: even sceptics at Scotland Yard could not escape
the futility of arresting people for small amounts of cannabis. The Met
commissioner, Sir John Stevens, officially sanctioned a pilot scheme in
Lambeth to run from July.

The only significant voice of dissent came from a local Conservative
councillor who ultimately objected only because it was not being extended
across London. A Mori poll showed only 7% of white residents, 10% of black
and 7% of Asian residents interviewed opposed the pilot. Street crime in
Lambeth has halved and burglary has continued to fall while it is rising in
other parts of London, so why all the fuss? Could it be that a number of
myths have taken hold?

"It has made children more vulnerable to drugs." The Met has surveyed all
primary and secondary head teachers in Lambeth. Primary heads report no
instances of intoxicated pupils and secondary heads report, if anything, a
fall in drugs incidents. If there seem to be more children smoking, perhaps
they are being more blatant about it, or people are more aware of what has
been happening in Lambeth for years. The Mori poll showed more than 80% in
favour of the way the pilot deals with young people. No one wants their
child to get a criminal record over cannabis. Children at risk may be a
perception rather than a reality.

"It has attracted more drug users and dealers into Lambeth." The Met has
looked at the addresses of all those arrested for drugs offences during the
pilot. This shows a decreasing percentage of people from outside Lambeth
being arrested. Cannabis and other drugs are so easily available in all
parts of London, who would want to come to Brixton for them? Particularly
when you consider the way Brixton is portrayed in the media as some kind of
dangerous, lawless wasteland (another gross exaggeration). Drug tourism
appears to be the expectation rather than the reality.

"No matter where they come from, there have been more drugs arrests since
the pilot began." Thank goodness! The increased arrests must be for class A
drugs like heroin and crack cocaine, or for dealing. An increase in drugs
arrests is more likely to be the result of more police effort, focusing on
class A possession and drug dealing, rather than more drug users.

"Whatever the results, people think cannabis is legal." We tried to explain
that the pilot was not a change in the law but a change that allowed
officers to use their discretion. We tried to explain that cannabis was
more likely to be confiscated than before. We tried to explain that dealing
cannabis was not part of the scheme. So why is there so much confusion?

The home secretary is minded to reclassify cannabis from a class B to a
class C drug. All the responsible agencies say it is in the wrong category
in terms of the harm that it causes. If cannabis were reclassified, people
could still be prosecuted for possession and receive a maximum two-year
sentence. Dealing in the drug would carry a five-year maximum term. Yet
even on Sunday a broadsheet newspaper announced: "Cannabis to be
'legalised' within year." No wonder people are confused.

Brian Paddick has been moved from his post as Lambeth commander to Scotland
Yard pending the outcome of an inquiry into allegations about his private life.