A CHARTER FOR THE DEALERS

Campaigners who have pressed for the relaxation of laws governing the
possession and use of cannabis will no doubt welcome Home Secretary David
Blunkett's proposal to re-classify it from a class "B" to a class "C" drug.

His stated aims - to free the police to concentrate on harder drugs, and
improve the current laws to "make more senses" to people on the street -
seem logical as far as they go, but what practical difference will
reclassification make, other than to signal that smoking dope is OK?

But is it? What do we know about its physiological effects? How many
joints will make it unsafe to drive? In current reality, arrests for
cannabis possession have been few and far between in recent times. Even
under Mr Blunkett's proposals, possession will remain a criminal offence,
theoretically punishable by a two-year jail term.

While we welcome the likelihood of licensing cannabis use for medical
conditions like multiple sclerosis, what the Home Secretary appears to be
suggesting in the rest of his plan is that cannabis should remain illegal,
but its use will be tolerated by the authorities turning a blind eye.

This is a worst-case scenario; an invitation to flout the law with the
police losing the power to arrest.

Moreover its supply - certainly the large-scale importation of the drug -
will remain within the domain of organised crime. Put simply, to smoke
cannabis, a user must buy it and ultimately, somewhere along the line the
supply chain, there will be major criminal activity.

One of the key arguments advanced for the legalisation of cannabis has been
that it would divorce the "soft" drug's supply from that of dangerous
narcotics like heroin and crack cocaine. Mr Blunkett's proposals
altogether fail to address this point, leaving an unsatisfactory half-way
house and, in the words of former Conservative home office minister Ann
Widdecombe, "a dealers charter".