CANNABIS AND THE LAW

DAVID BLUNKETT yesterday made his first modest gesture towards
individual freedom since becoming Home Secretary, when he moved to
reclassify cannabis as a Class C drug.

This is like water in the desert. It is disappointing, though, that
the Government's incremental moves towards liberalising the drugs
climate are so timid. Like an earlier, localised initiative in
Brixton, south London, where police were instructed not to arrest
anyone carrying small quantities of cannabis, this proposal is
somewhat contradictory and inadequate.

Under the changes laid out yesterday, cannabis would remain an
illegal drug, but the penalties for possessing it would become so
trivial that it would no longer be an arrestable offence. With
cannabis accounting for more than two thirds of drug arrests, the
reclassification should do wonders for the crime figures, one reason,
perhaps, why the reform has been welcomed by the Metropolitan Police
Commissioner, Sir John Stevens. However, decriminalising cannabis use
in practice but not in law would leave the supply of the drug in the
hands of the criminal gangs that currently enjoy such a lucrative
monopoly.

When The Daily Telegraph in March last year called on the Government
to experiment with the legalisation of cannabis as a means of
challenging the rhetorical fatuities of the "War on Drugs", we knew
we were moving against the controlling instincts of New Labour. We
had to accept, too, that some conservatives would oppose our
position, believing - quite wrongly, as it happens - that we somehow
thought rolling a joint was a good idea. Recategorising cannabis has
the enormous advantage of separating it in the public mind - and
especially in the minds of those between 18 and 25 - from obviously
dangerous drugs such as heroin and cocaine. The separation should
help break down young people's attraction to the wider drugs culture.

Mr Blunkett has now signalled that he believes cannabis to be a
substance no more or less potentially harmful than other Class C
drugs, which include steroids and anti-depressants. The overwhelming
body of medical opinion suggests that this assessment is about right:
reckless or excessive use of any of these substances is certainly
hazardous, while modest use is unlikely to prove unacceptably harmful.

Underpinning our Free Country campaign has been the presumption that
individuals should be allowed to do what they want unless Parliament
can show an overwhelming need to impose laws to control us. Mr
Blunkett is to be congratulated on venturing into this debate on
drugs and the law, territory many of his colleagues have found too
inhospitable to enter. But now he should show he has confidence in
his assessment that cannabis is not an unacceptably dangerous
substance, and have the courage to take the next logical step forward
by legalising the drug for an experimental period.