BALANCE ON CANNABIS

Major Barrier In Drugs War Has Been Removed

The current official position on cannabis, particularly in relation to its
use as a pain-killer by those with serious medical conditions, is
unsustainable. That has been obvious for some time, although Tony Blair's
determination in the summer that the law on cannabis should not be changed
was undermined by the more realistic attitude of David Blunkett, his home
secretary. At that time Mr Blunkett insisted that there should be an adult
and intelligent debate on cannabis, while retaining severe doubts about any
use of mind-altering substances. That was the sensible position and Mr
Blunkett is now confident enough in what he has heard to propose, together
with Jim Wallace in Scotland, what will effectively lead to the
decriminalisation of the drug. Decriminalisation is denied, of course, for
cannabis will remain illegal.

That point is underlined by the fact that there will be no need for the
Scottish Parliament to legislate.

The change proposed is to drugs policy, which is a UK policy, rather than
to the national legal systems.

But the re-classification of the drug, which is what Mr Blunkett and Mr
Wallace propose, will lead in effect to a situation where those who use
small quantities of cannabis recreationally are unlikely to face any legal
sanctions.

There will be mixed feelings about this decision.

That cannabis is harmful if taken over a lengthy period is undeniable. It
is true that society's most popular drug of choice, which is alcohol, does
far greater damage than cannabis. But that is not of itself a good enough
argument for softening the restrictions on any other mind-altering drug.
There are also fears that cannabis can be a "gateway" drug, exposing its
users to the danger of progression to harder and much nastier drugs such as
heroin and cocaine. There is no clear advice on this issue as yet. Some
research from New Zealand suggests that cannabis does lead to the taking of
harder drugs by some young people.

Other work disputes this and points to the effect of different social
elements in that dangerous progression. Whatever the truth (and more
research must continue to be undertaken on that issue), it is still a
reasonable argument to doubt the wisdom of taking any drug, be it "soft" or
"hard".

Yet it is clear that a drugs policy which is to stand any chance of working
must have credibility with the public at large.

Drug-taking remains a serious issue in Britain. To that extent, official
policy on drugs has failed. The lumping together of cannabis with the more
dangerous drugs such as heroin and cocaine merely devalued the anti-drugs
message.

Young people knew perfectly well which drugs were the more dangerous and
rightly regarded their equation in the eyes of the law as ridiculous.

Although the police are also likely to have some doubts about a relaxing of
procedures against cannabis, they should welcome a re-focusing of the war
against other drugs.

In England and Wales, nearly seven out of 10 drugs arrests involve cannabis.

It will be good to see police resources freed from the pursuit of a
relatively harmless drug if their activities are successfully targeted on
highly dangerous substances. The greatest relief will be felt by those
suffering medical conditions, such as multiple sclerosis, who use cannabis
to relieve pain and muscle spasms.

The evidence for its medical efficacy is mounting and will likely be
sanctioned officially with the provision of new cannabis-based drugs by
2004. There should be no need, now, for the homes of sufferers to be raided
by police. On balance, Mr Blunkett's proposals are sensible and mature.

Any changes must be monitored, but a major barrier in the fight against
hard drugs has now been removed.