The war may be over, but Mr Blunkett has become confused about drugs

Independent

Leader

11 July 2002

Cannabis is by far the most commonly used illegal recreational drug in Britain; indeed, it is probably less harmful than tobacco or alcohol. The grounds for believing it provides a “gateway” to harder drugs are, at best, anecdotal. There is little evidence that its use is crime-related in the same way as, say, heroin or crack cocaine. Public opinion seems increasingly at ease with the idea of liberalising the law. Thoughtful Conservatives such as Peter Lilley have advocated allowing people the freedom to use a substance that will do little harm to them and none to anyone else. Legalising cannabis, in other words, is unlikely to mean the end of civilisation.

Of course the Government has never shared that view, and during its long “war on drugs” set its face resolutely against a change in the law. Both the present Home Secretary, David Blunkett, and his predecessor Jack Straw relished every chance to act tough on drugs. It was an easy way to ward off the allegations of liberalism that, sadly, seem to scare this government so much. The appointment of the absurdly named “drugs tsar”, Keith Hellawell, was the apogee of the authoritarian phase of policy.

Thankfully, Mr Hellawell has now departed, having achieved little during his tenure. And Mr Blunkett has announced to the House of Commons his intention to reclassify cannabis from a class B to a class C drug. That is a welcome start to the modernisation of our approach to drugs. But Mr Blunkett has sent out a contradictory signal by retaining severe criminal sanctions for trading in cannabis (a maximum 14-year jail sentence). He also seems unduly keen on allowing the police virtually all their old powers of confiscation. So much so, in fact, that special laws will have to be passed to make blowing dope smoke at a policeman an offence and thus delaying the changes on cannabis for a year. And by insisting that “all drugs are harmful”, with the clear implication that all drugs are equally harmful, Mr Blunkett leaves himself open to ridicule.

In a further inconsistency, he has also set his face against declassifying ecstasy, which must rival cannabis for popularity, and again, with some tragic and high-profile exceptions, is widely used without harm. Most regrettable, though, is the Home Secretary’s rejection of safe injection rooms (so-called “shooting galleries”) for heroin users, a measure that has saved many lives where it has been tried, for example in Australia.

Whatever the public made of Mr Blunkett’s old policy, at least they knew where they were; now policy is a total mess. A modern government that felt more self-confident would seek an approach that balanced personal freedom with the need to reduce crime and to prevent people using the drugs that really do screw them up. Harm reduction was alluded to by Mr Blunkett in his statement, but it is clear that the main focus is still on drugs as a criminal rather than a health problem. Yet Britain has some of the strictest laws on drugs in Europe and the worst drugs problem.

Mr Blunkett has chosen to ignore the pleas of many of the charities dedicated to coping with the effects of drug abuse. No wonder then, that instead of clarifying the Government’s attitude and offering some hope to the victims of drug abuse and their friends and families, Mr Blunkett has simply left us confused. The Government’s policy on drugs has become more befuddled than the most dedicated aficionado of skunk.

http://argument.independent.co.uk/leading_articles/story.jsp?story=313952