REFORM DRUG LAWS FOR OUR CHILDREN'S SAKE

Drug reformers once had a dream vision. It was the sons of the Prime
Minister, Home Secretary and heir to the throne all caught sharing a
spliff in a pub off the Charing Cross Road. The reformers pleaded:
"Hear the toffs crying, 'Just say no!' and their offspring sneering
back, 'Got an attitude problem, dad? Get a new head'."

It has not come to pass, not quite. But great-and-good parents are
now moving into that dangerous age of 45-55 when their children are
teenagers. This is a stage in life when parents are most vulnerable.
Steely Conservatives are reduced to desperate, tear-stained liberals.
They are at risk to "gateway reform" and seem ready to experiment
with anything, even a change in the drugs laws.

Just as London's public transport would improve overnight if
ministers and media executives lost their limousines, so the drink
and drugs laws are suddenly up for debate now that William Straw,
Euan Blair and Prince Harry are all found in urgent need of parental
"care and attention". Police cautions for drugs offences are all the
rage. Why ruin a bright lad's chances with a criminal record? Why
indeed.

Reform is bursting out all over. After David Blunkett's suggested
reclassification of cannabis, the pressure is on to reclassify
ecstasy, absurdly still a Class A drug. The police are officially
demanding that heroin go back on prescription. In London, the race is
on between Brixton and Camden Lock to host the first cannabis cafe,
with local dealers up in arms, literally, against the idea. Camden
Council has pleaded to the House of Commons drugs inquiry for
licensed premises to help handle London's 8,000 (or far more) hard
drug addicts. The Government has been told it is losing UKP 1 billion
a year in failing to levy cigarette tax on marijuana.

I remain hardline on these drugs. Having served on the recent
Runciman Committee on the Misuse of Drugs Act, I have no doubt that
cannabis is not "harmless", though it is not very harmful. Ecstasy is
too easily adulterated and needs quality control. Cocaine is a
powerful narcotic whose availability must be restricted. Crack is a
physical, mental and social menace and heroin is a killer. No parents
want their children touching these substances.

That is precisely why the present free market in drugs is a scandal
and why it must be reformed and properly regulated. These drugs are
cheaper than ever in recent history. They are freely available. The
chairman of the Association of Chief Police Officers, Kent's Sir
David Phillips, is frank.

"The system has failed. We have an out-of-control drugs industry and
it is time to try a new approach." I used to be a libertarian,
regarding what adults do with their bodies as their own business. But
the danger to young people is now beyond tolerating. Drugs must be
decriminalised and regulated.

The question is simple. Are we proud of London's reputation as the
drugs capital of Europe? Do we want to continue with the present open
market, plagued with violenceand police corruption, or do we want it
restricted by the state? The present market is not just on the
street, outside every school, college and club. It is in every locker
room and pub lavatory. Drugs are sold on the "Tupperware" system,
door-to-door at parties and sleep-overs. Cannabis and ecstasy, the
basis of 90 per cent of London's drugs market, have the most
sophisticated distribution network of any product in the capital.

Reformers should be careful what they do. London's drugs market is a
major source of wealth in the capital's poorest communities,
especially black and immigrant ones. Drug distribution props up
thousands of small businesses, not just pubs and clubs but van
operators and "front" retailers. Many respectable parents are housing
informal "dope dens" in the reasonable belief that their children are
safer there from police and dealers than on the streets. They might
think the present system is the lesser of evils.

Certainly, if cannabis and ecstasy sales outlets can be established
and regulated in an effort to cut out the big dealers, licensing
cannabis cafes might be not worth the hassle. The dope cafes made no
big difference to Dutch consumption, largely because the law makes
little difference to consumption anywhere. What matters is not
cannabis consumption, it is isolating the market in these low-harm
products from, above all, heroin.

This is urgent. The toppling of the Taliban, which America had
successfully bribed to stop growing opium, seems certain to restart
the flood of cheap Afghan heroin onto the European market.

The Home Office is criminally negligent in leaving London children
buying cannabis from the same people as will push this heroin. We
might as well lace baby food with alcohol. This is the true "drugs
gateway", not narcotic but commercial. The argument for legalising
so-called soft drugs is to achieve what the experts call market
separation. It underpins all drugs-reform programmes in Switzerland,
Germany, Spain, Portugal, Belgium and the Netherlands.

I am inclined to think that cannabis and ecstasy are beyond
regulation. All government can hope to do is tax supply and thus
restrict demand. All attention should be at the "top" end of the
market, on cocaine and heroin. I have no doubt about crack houses.
The police are right to regard them as a social evil. They should be
driven off the face of London and their victims swept into
rehabilitation.

But heroin holds the key. London's heroin epidemic is one of the
worst in the world. The authorities must handle it as they might a
killer disease. It is far more dangerous than foot-and-mouth or BSE,
on which billions have been wasted. The police chiefs are right. The
pre-1974 system of legitimate, controlled supply of heroin must be
restored. Dealers must be undercut and driven out of business, and
addicts brought within the scope of detoxification and
rehabilitation. This can only be done by licensed supply. Most of
Europe is now doing this. London must start.

Until that happens, every child is at risk. If you want to know what
I mean, ask the Prince of Wales.