Alan Lodge's Blog

The Bloggers Manifesto

1. Life is uncensored.

2. You have no right to judge me.

3. If you don’t like what you see, look elsewhere.

4. I love talking about my life.

5. I love writing about other people’s lives.

6. I will post whenever I feel like posting.

7. I don’t have to blog every memory.

8. You don’t have to agree with everything I say.

9. I egosurf Daypop, Google, and Blogdex nightly.

10. I share what I want to share.

11. I like linking to folks with concerns.

12. Blogging is theraputic.

13. Pictures of myself are not obligatory.

14. I visit every site in my blog regularly.

15. I won’t post for the sake of posting.

16. I have a life outside of blogging.

17. I have ambition to learn more blogging tools.

18. I may criticize other bloggers, not harass them.

19. I have the right to revise a post.

20. When blogging becomes a chore, I’ll quit doing it.

21. I’ve given something back to the blogging community.

22. If I want to complain about something, I will.

23. If I want to praise something, I will.

24. I am not the best blogger on the planet.

25. I don’t have to explain myself to you.

Where do I sign?

After 30 years of campaigning, and general stress. The Home Sec has finally announced the re-classification of Cannabis from B to C. A classification, invented under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1972. This will enable the police to ‘do’ less to the individual.

Oh god! the fight continues ………

Police retain discretion over arrest for cannabis use

Cannabis is reclassified, but the Home Secretary refuses to introduce reforms to the regulations on heroin and ecstasy

By Ian Burrell, Home Affairs Correspondent

Independent

11 July 2002

Dopesmokers who had rolled a celebratory joint in honour of the Home Secretary finally relaxing Britain’s cannabis laws may have spluttered in frustration yesterday when David Blunkett decided possession of the drug should remain an arrestable offence.

Although the Home Secretary went ahead as expected with his proposal to reclassify cannabis from Class B to Class C, he appeared to have reacted to criticisms that he was “going soft on drugs”.

And so instead of implementing a blanket policy treating marijuana possession as a non-arrestable offence, he announced a hybrid system, under which police could hold some people caught with the drug, in certain circumstances.

Those who smoke cannabis near a school or repeatedly light up in a public place where other people object to their drug use could still find themselves being marched to the police station.

The caveats will please police officers who have complained of having joints waved defiantly in their faces by drug users in Brixton, south London, where the Metropolitan Police has been piloting a softer stance on cannabis.

But they will also allow police to retain a considerable degree of discretion in dealing with cannabis users. Welcoming Mr Blunkett’s announcement yesterday, the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) said: “The retention of the police power of arrest will enable the police to have greater flexibility in dealing with incidents on the street.”

Such powers will worry supporters of cannabis decriminalisation, who would point to a recent study by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation that appeared to show a minority of officers were already pursuing something of a personal crusade against marijuana.

The study found that 3 per cent of police were responsible for 20 per cent of cannabis possession arrests and that some police saw it as their duty to help rid society of all drugs.

Mr Blunkett said yesterday Acpo would soon issue national guidelines to police forces, explaining the definition of the “aggravating circumstances” that would make cannabis possession arrestable.

Drugs agencies hope the guidance will help to create a level playing field and end the “postcode lottery” that results from different approaches being taken to the drug in neighbouring police divisions. Mr Blunkett said the guidelines would “ensure that in the vast majority of cases officers will confiscate the drug and issue a warning”.

If this is the case, the changes will have a noticeable effect on the policing of cannabis, which in the year 2000 led to 75,000 arrests for possession, with some offenders being fined and a small minority imprisoned.

Last night Roger Howard, chief executive of the charity DrugScope, pointed out that even after reclassification people could face being sent to jail for up to two years for “simple possession”.

He also voiced concerns over Mr Blunkett’s proposals for tougher measures against those involved in the supply of cannabis. Mr Blunkett said he would consider a new offence of supplying the drug to children and would retain a maximum sentence of up to 14 years for dealing, even after downgrading the drug to Class C.

Mr Howard said people who supplied the drug to friends or grew cannabis plants may find themselves facing a custodial sentence.

Yesterday in Brixton, where police have piloted the idea of relaxing the laws on cannabis, there were mixed views on the project’s success.

An unnamed police officer claimed the project had not worked and said that school children who were smoking cannabis with impunity were no longer being arrested and referred to drug workers.

But Bashir Ahmed, who runs a carpet shop, said the change in the law would cut crime. He called for legalised cannabis cafés to end the street dealing.

Other commentators warned that the reclassification of cannabis should not disguise the potential dangers of the drug.

David Hart, general secretary of the National Association of Head Teachers, said the softening of the law should “not make a blind bit of difference to school drug policies”.

The changes to the cannabis laws were accompanied by a refusal to introduce reform of the regulations on heroin and ecstasy. In spite of recommendations to the contrary by the House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee, Mr Blunkett refused to reclassify ecstasy as a class B drug and rejected the idea of controlled “shooting galleries” for injecting drug users.

Although it was overshadowed by the cannabis reforms, the refusal to provide safe injecting rooms will be a severe disappointment to drug treatment professionals.

The introduction of such a scheme in Australia reportedly led to 17 drug users being resuscitated after overdosing in the first month of the project’s operation. Supporters of the scheme claim that without such supervised facilities such people might have died.

Drug experts were also angry that Mr Blunkett, as a politician, chose to dismiss the reclassification of ecstasy [which was also backed by a review of drugs laws by the independent Police Foundation] rather than allow a decision to be taken by the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs.

Narcotics: how they are classified

Class A: (The most harmful category). Includes heroin, cocaine, ecstasy, LSD, and amphetamines (speed) if prepared for injection. Maximum sentence for dealing is life and seven years for possession.

Class B: (An intermediate category). Includes amphetamines and barbiturates. The maximum sentence for dealing is 14 years in prison plus a fine, and for possession it is five years plus fine.

Class C: (Least harmful). Includes anabolic steroids, anti-depressants and growth hormones. In July next year this will be joined by cannabis and cannabis resin, which are currently Class B. Maximum sentences for dealing in Class C substances are to be upped from five years to 14. The maximum term for possession is two years in jail.

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/story.jsp?story=313981

Decline and fall of ‘tsar’ stripped of his power

By Ian Burrell

Independent

11 July 2002

When David Blunkett was appointed Home Secretary in May last year, one of his first decisions was to axe the role of drugs tsar.

Keith Hellawell, the first and probably last incumbent in the post, had been appointed with a fanfare by Tony Blair in 1997 but found himself unceremoniously dumped. To Mr Blunkett, the cross-departmental role of the “UK Anti-Drugs Co-ordinator” had served its purpose. The Home Secretary wanted the Home Office to take back responsibility for drugs so he could pursue his own plans for reform of the laws. Mr Hellawell, who was retained in a part-time international advisory role, claiming that he no longer wanted a full-time position, was marginalised.

Commenting on the former drugs tsar’s resignation yesterday, Roger Howard, chief executive of the influential charity DrugScope, and Simon Hughes, the Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, described Mr Hellawell as “out of touch”.

It was a sad indictment of a man who had laid the building blocks of the Government’s drugs policy.

The former chief constable of West Yorkshire was responsible for drawing up a 10-year drugs strategy, the first real attempt to take a long-term view of the problem.

The radical approach was responsible for focusing public attention on the subject of drugs and raising its profile within the political arena.

Mr Hellawell, who reported directly to the Prime Minister and earned £106,000 a year, won admirers within the drugs prevention industry as he lobbied hard for extra resources for treatment centres and information programmes.

His most important legacy was in helping to drive forward a big increase in drugs education in British schools, aimed at reducing long-term demand for illicit substances.

But the long-term approach did little to endear him to government political strategists, who despaired at the lack of tangible success. Stories began appearing, suggesting that unnamed ministers believed that the drugs tsar should be deposed.

When Mr Blunkett arrived at the Home Office, he switched Mr Hellawell to a two-days-a-week advisory role on international drugs issues. Drugs experts have been at a loss to explain his achievements in this role.

An exasperated Mr Hellawell tendered his resignation at the end of last month, apparently asking for the decision to be kept secret. But yesterday he exacted his revenge on Mr Blunkett in a piece of news management that must have impressed even New Labour’s spin doctors.

He revealed his resignation on national radio hours before the Home Secretary was to make his most important pronouncement on drugs policy.

Mr Hellawell said Mr Blunkett’s new policy would “virtually be decriminalisation of cannabis and this is giving out the wrong message”. He continued: “Cannabis is simply not a sensible substance for people to take. There are strains of cannabis that are extremely powerful, hallucinogenic and very dangerous. It’s moving further towards decriminalisation than any other country in the world.”

Iain Duncan Smith said Mr Hellawell’s departure was “a personal blow for the Prime Minister and punches a huge hole in the Government’s drugs policies”.

But Danny Kushlick, director of pro-legalisation campaign group Transform, said he was “delighted to see the back of Mr Hellawell” and added: “His statement that the UK has gone further in decriminalising drugs than anywhere else in the world shows just how ignorant he is of what is happening outside his office. In fact, half a dozen European countries have decriminalised possession of all drugs.”

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=313980

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

Drug culture has invaded Middle England

Now I’m expecting my neighbours to come round and ask to borrow a cup of speed

By Mark Steel

Independent

11 July 2002

Now that Keith Hellawell has resigned, he’ll need looking after for a while. You must be extremely sensitive when coming down from a five-year-long trip in which you were so removed from reality that you believed you were a tsar. Like most of the people raging against the lowering of dope to a class C drug, he suffers from the hallucination that he’s an expert on the effects of this substance he’s proud never to have taken, whereas the millions who have taken it know nothing about it. Then he wonders why no one took him seriously.

If you’re going to have a drugs tsar, surely it should be someone who could give useful advice, such as “I wouldn’t touch that skunk knocking around south London at the moment. Wait till the weekend and there’ll be some cracking grass round at Dave’s house by Saturday.”

Nothing could be more hopeless than his strategy of trying to tell everyone not to take drugs on account of the misery they cause. The reason people smoke dope is because it’s enjoyable. If it only caused misery, you wouldn’t need a tsar to warn you off it. You don’t need an official to warn everyone not to stick their head in a nest of wasps because no one feels the urge to do it. So his message wasn’t listened to because it was “Don’t try anything that you’ve heard might be enjoyable. There’s no need to seek pleasure, as you can get just as much enjoyment from boredom as you can from fun. When your friends come home ‘stoned’ they might look as if they’ve had a good time, but there’s nothing like the satisfaction of completing a giant dot-to-dot puzzle or tracing a picture of a cathedral. After all, who do you want to identify with: drug-taking musicians and DJs, or clean-living icons such as Michael Buerk and quizmaster Robert Robertson?”

One expert on yesterday’s news claimed the new policy was dangerous because although dope isn’t addictive, it “can be a gateway drug for people with addictive personalities”. In other words, the fact it isn’t addictive is what’s wrong with it. If only it was addictive people would stick with it, but because it isn’t, these addictive types will seek something else. And you could say the same about lettuce, a frighteningly accessible “gateway salad item”.

Dope is so widespread now that if you’re under 60, you can’t believe the sort of stories you used to get, that “apparently, there was a boy in Dartford, he smoked a puff of that marijooana and now he thinks he’s an apple and they can’t get him down from his uncle’s tree.”

Recently, my proper middle-aged neighbours had a party. I prepared to be on my best behaviour but within five minutes the garden was barely visible through a cloud of dope smoke. The nice woman over the road with an alarmingly tidy fish pond told me: “The thing is, darling, we were brought up in the Sixties – with all the stuff we took, it’s a wonder we’re still alive. Especially my husband – he was a roadie for Led Zeppelin.” Now I’m expecting them to come and ask to borrow a cup of speed, “only until my normal delivery comes on Thursday”. Someone will go around giving away home-made marmalade, asking: “Which one would you like, dear? I’ve done some with orange, some with ginger, and some with Lebanese hash oil.”

Across Middle England, people are hanging out their washing and telling their neighbours: “We had a quiet weekend, Brian washed the car and mowed the lawn while I got a traditional Sunday lunch of a take-away curry and then we all got ripped on this gear Uncle Norman brought back from Denmark.”

Those people objecting to the new dope classification desperately argue that they’re concerned for our health. But convincing people to respond to health warnings depends on them being believable – snarling that “dope turns you crazy and leads to crack” is so obviously untrue it’s destined to have the same impact as parents who say “finish that bit of carrot or I’m cancelling our holiday”. And once someone knows you’re talking rubbish about one drug, why should they listen to anything you say about the others? It’s as dishonest as fox-hunters who claim hunting helps preserve foxes, or anti-abortionists who say their main concern is for the mental welfare of women. Because hardly anyone objects to all drugs. The problem comes when they’re not just taken to ease discomfort but to make people a little happier when there’s no initial pain. The disdain is driven almost by a spiritual objection to unearned pleasure.

But these people are fighting a losing battle, as by the time we’re one-year-old we’re introduced to drug culture, not only stuffed with Calpol but sat in front of four bears who always hug each other, have to hear everything twice before understanding what’s been said, wander around a field full of rabbits admiring clouds and end up with the munchies, devouring Tubbytoast.

http://argument.independent.co.uk/regular_columnists/mark_steel/story.jsp?story=313948

The Guardian asks

Has Blunkett Made A Hash Of It?

Thursday July 11, 2002

The papers are full of joints today. But is it safe to smoke them now that David Blunkett has announced his intention to downgrade cannabis to a class C drug next July? No one is quite sure, it seems – least of all the police.

“Don’t do it,” advises the Metropolitan police. “It’s too early not to get arrested for smoking it.” The Kent force described it as an “arrestable offence”, but Avon and Somerset said offenders would only be cautioned if they were carrying a small amount. “Any arrest is still subject to discretion,” South Wales police told the Times.

A number of the papers point out that cannabis dealers will receive longer sentences under the home secretary’s plans. “Why should it be a serious offence to sell cannabis if it is all right to smoke it?” asks the Mail. The Telegraph says the inconsistency is “not just illogical. It could prove disastrous.” The Times says that while there is no incentive for a dealer to specialise in cannabis and abandon class A drugs, “the Blunkett formula is not entirely inconsistent, just hypocritical”.

Boris Johnson agrees. “People smoking dope are spine-cracking bores; and I am told by experts that dope is no longer the innocent substance of the 1970s,” he writes in the Telegraph. But “the stuff is either legal or it isn’t”.

Several reporters take the tube to Brixton to confirm that it is indeed very easy to obtain illegal substances there. Police have already stopped arresting people found carrying cannabis in the south London borough of Lambeth – an experiment the Met considers a success, but which one policeman on the beat deplores. “[Brixton’s drug problem]’s got worse, an absolute failure,” he tells the Times. “They’ll tell you different,” he added, nodding towards the police HQ.

“I walked down bustling Brixton High Street to the cries of ‘skunk’ and ‘dope’ as traders peddled their wares,” says an appalled Sun reporter. “Drug users, dealers, cops and deadbeats … just a typical day in Brixton.” Dealers made GBP100 from the Mail’s reporter alone.

“Policy is a total mess,” complains a “confused” Independent. Mr Blunkett was wrong to reject “shooting galleries” – where heroin addicts can inject safely – and wrong not to downgrade ecstasy to a class B drug, it says. At least Keith Hellawell, the former “drugs tsar” who resigned yesterday in protest at the reforms, has gone, the paper adds.

The Mirror and Guardian both welcome the reforms. “Spliffing,” says the Mirror’s Paul Routledge. “Long overdue”, says the Guardian.

Downgrading hash enables Blunkett to focus on cutting supply of lethal class A substances like heroin and crack, and on treating addicts

Alan Travis, home affairs editor

Thursday July 11, 2002

The Guardian

David Blunkett yesterday made clear that the decision to reclassify cannabis means that the focus of government drugs policy will be tackling class A drugs that kill, including heroin and crack, with a big expansion in the treatment of the 250,000 problem drug users in Britain. The policy was outlined yesterday in the home secretary’s response to the Commons home affairs select committee report, The Government’s Drugs Policy: Is It Working? It says:

Cannabis

Harm: It is vital that young people be told “open, honest and credible” messages on drugs. Heroin, cocaine, and ecstasy are harmful and do kill. The advisory council on misuse of drugs has ruled that cannabis is potentially harmful and should remain illegal, but is not a drug that kills. This was “scientifically justified and educationally sensible”. Class C will put cannabis in same “harm group” as antidepressants and steroids.

Penalties: Maximum penalty for possession will go down from five years to two years, in line with current sentencing practice. Legislation will be introduced so that, by July 2003, police will retain the power of arrest for the possession of cannabis – but it will only be used where there are aggravating factors such as protection of children, or where it is linked to public disorder or “flagrant disregard” of the law. In the majority of cases police will “seize and warn”.

Dealing: The maximum penalty for supplying and trafficking in class C drugs will be increased from five years to 14 years, so the courts can impose “substantial sentences for serious dealing offences involving cannabis”. Ministers are to consider a specific offence of dealing to children of 16 and under, with heavier sentences. Mr Blunkett has rejected calls for a lesser offence of “social dealing” on a not for profit basis between friends.

Gateway and education: According to Mr Blunkett, the concept of cannabis as a “gateway drug” is unproven. While most class A drug users used cannabis previously, most cannabis users do not go on to use other drugs regularly. A campaign is to educate young people that all drugs remain illegal and harmful. It will also stress health issues in smoking and cannabis. Mr Blunkett rejects complaints from MPs that use of “shock videos” in drugs education is counter productive.

Lambeth: The Home Office says that there was a 19% increase in arrests for class A dealers in the first six months to December 2001. Polls show 83% of residents supported scheme and 1,350 hours of police time has been saved. A survey of headteachers found the experiment had not increased cannabis use or truancy.

Ecstasy

Harm: The call from MPs for ecstasy to be downgraded from class A is rejected. “Ecstasy can, and does, kill unpredictably. There is no such thing as ‘a safe dose’.”

Treatment: An extra £183m is to be spent expanding treatment and harm minimisation services over the next three years. More treatment places in particular are to be created, to meet the rapid rise in cocaine use and crack cocaine use, and cut the long waiting times for treatment.

Heroin

Prescribing: Doctors are to be encouraged to prescribe heroin “in appropriate cases based on clinical judgment”. The government says it will “ensure all those who could benefit from heroin on prescription will have access to it in the future”.

Shooting galleries: Addicts who receive heroin on prescription will be able to inject on the doctor’s premises, by provision of “safe, medically, supervised areas with clean needles for the administration of heroin prescribed as part of a package of measures for treating heroin addicts”.

Mr Blunkett rejects the MPs’ recommendation for safe injecting houses or “shooting galleries” to be used by any heroin addict. Only a small proportion of the 200,000 will get heroin on prescription. But the home secretary did leave the door open, saying “we are not persuaded that shooting galleries would, at this moment, be helpful”.

Drug driving

Police are to be trained in testing suspect drivers for drug-related impairment.

Paraphernalia

The ban on selling drug “paraphernalia” that help to reduce harm is to be lifted. This includes citric and ascorbic acids, swabs, tourniquets, and filters that can make drug use safer. The exemption for hypodermics would continue.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/drugs/Story/0,2763,753118,00.html

Main points

Thursday July 11, 2002

The Guardian

· “Seize and warn” policy for simple cannabis possession

· Police keep power of arrest in aggravated cases

· Maximum sentence for cannabis dealing to remain at 14 years

· £183m expansion of drug treatment programme

· Expansion in heroin prescription

· No “safe injecting rooms”

Blunkett the brave

A long overdue drugs law reform

Leader

Thursday July 11, 2002

The Guardian

David Blunkett’s statement to the Commons yesterday was far more than just a reclassification of cannabis. But it will be the downgrading of pot to a less harmful category that will hit the headlines. Tens of thousands of young people across all classes will benefit from this change. We have the most stringent drug laws in Europe, but we have the highest number of young users. An estimated 2.5 million people smoke cannabis every year. The current law has not deterred these young people, only criminalised them – as well as wasting huge amounts of police time. Reform of the law was long overdue.

Currently, some 90% of all drug offences are for possession and just 10% are for dealing. About 75% of possession offences involve cannabis, some 90,000 cases a year. Each arrest takes up to five hours of police time to administer. What happens to the offender remains a lottery; the caution rate ranges from 22% to 72% of cases depending on the police service. None of this has the approval of the public or the police. Opinion polls show almost 60% of the public think possession should not be a criminal offence and 99% want it at the bottom of police priorities. Senior police officers have been pressing for change, to give them more time to deal with hard drugs.

In future, people who are caught in possession of cannabis will in normal circumstances lose the drug but will not be arrested. The drug has rightly been reclassified within category C, the least harmful class. But, bending to noisy opponents, the home secretary will make provision for arrest in certain circumstances, such as when children are involved or when users provocatively puff cannabis fumes into a police officer’s face. Few people get sent to prison now for possession, but even fewer will do so in future; it should have been made a non-imprisonable offence. Dealers will remain liable to a category B sentence (14 years); this is too high, and could endanger students who share the weed.

Keith Hellawell, the former drug tsar, opposed the changes yesterday but made a fool of himself in doing so, claiming not to know where the reclassification advice had come from. Is he that out of touch? The Police Foundation’s national commission, which brought together two chief constables, leading lawyers and drugs advisers, recommended the change two years ago, before Mr Hellawell was deposed. Their view has subsequently been supported by the advisory council on drug misuse and the Commons home affairs select committee. It has been piloted in Brixton with such success (more dealers of hard and soft drugs arrested) that the Metropolitan police were already planning to roll it out across the capital even before yesterday’s moves. The Association of Chief Police Officers endorsed the change yesterday, leaving the Conservatives, who opposed it, somewhat flat-footed.

There are two other attractive parts of the new policy: an increase in treatment facilities and an expanded heroin prescribing programme, moving the addiction from a criminal offence to a medical need, an old and sensible approach. Traditionally, our drug policy has been hopelessly lopsided, spending 75% on enforcement (which does not work) and only 13% on treatment (which does). Since 1998, treatment numbers have increased by 8% a year, but there are still far too few places. Now a further £183m over three years will be invested. The balance will still not be right, but the move is in the right direction. The minister has declined to downgrade ecstasy from categories A to B, as reformers wanted, but Mr Blunkett has made a good start.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/drugs/Story/0,2763,753100,00.html

‘Hash is a part of student life’

Gerard Seenan

Thursday July 11, 2002

The Guardian

There is nothing like the presence of proud parents to make the average student reticent on the subject of drugs, but for some of Glasgow University’s new graduates cannabis is not a real drug anyway.

“It’s a part of student life,” said Tom yesterday. “You don’t need to seek it out; and, also, you would have to have lived a sheltered existence to have never come across hash at some point during your four years here. It’s a drug, in the way a pint or a fag is a drug, but not in the way smack is.”

For Tom – who did not want to give his second name, in case his opinions marred his parents’ joy at the degree scroll he was carrying – the home secretary’s plan to lower the classification of cannabis from class B to class C is not sensible.

“It’s just a cop out, isn’t it?” he said. “The police are not going to lift you at a party for having a half Q [eighth of an ounce] just now, so what difference will this make? It would make far more sense to legalise it completely.”

His friend, Graeme, agreed, while also being reticent about his surname. “Playing about with the classification is just tinkering around the edges. Why doesn’t he just admit you can’t do anything about people smoking blow, and there’s no point in trying? At least if you decriminalised cannabis you could concentrate resources more on the others.”

Student Nazir Ahmed was not impressed with the move either, though for different reasons. “There are loads of students who spend half their lives sitting around smoking and never doing anything. Cannabis is an easy drug to get into, and it can be destructive because of that.”

Michael O’Donnell was a bit confused about what the reclassification actually meant.

“It’s difficult to know what they’ll mean now, about ‘intent to supply’,” he said. “If, say, me and my mates all chipped in for an ounce, because it’s cheaper, and I went and got it, then I would be technically supplying – which is just nonsense. They won’t be treated as criminals for smoking it, but I would be for going to get it.”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/drugs/Story/0,2763,753129,00.html

Blunkett gambleswith our children

The Sun 11 July 02

by george pascoe-watson

Deputy Political Editor

DAVID Blunkett last night admitted he is taking a giant gamble with Britain’s children by effectively legalising cannabis.

The Home Secretary ruled dope smokers WON’T be arrested.

They will be merely ticked off and have their drugs confiscated.

Mr Blunkett is downgrading cannabis to a Class C substance so police have more time to combat heroin and crack. The worry is more kids will turn to pot.

Furious Labour MP Kate Hoey accused him of risking the future of the nation’s youth, saying: In ten or 20 years’ time, are you certain that you will not look back on this day as the one when you got it wrong?

Mr Blunkett conceded the change was a gamble during stormy Commons exchanges. He said: There are no certainties when dealing with drugs policies. If there were, we would have found them by now.

He decided to reclassify cannabis as Class C despite fierce opposition from the Government’s own drugs czar Keith Hellawell.

Ex-chief constable Mr Hellawell made his feelings clear hours earlier by announcing he had quit.

Under historic changes, police will hand out fixed-penalty tickets to persistent dope users.

People caught smoking the drug in the street will effectively be let off with a caution.

An experiment in Kate Hoey’s constituency in Lambeth, South London, where officers turn a blind eye to cannabis, will be expanded across the capital within weeks.

The new approach will be nationwide by October. Miss Hoey said drug dealing and cannabis use had shot up since the Lambeth experiment began.

She fumed: The message going out to families across the country is very stark and uncomfortable.

Shadow Home Secretary Oliver Letwin said: This is a muddled and dangerous policy. Why, if he is effectively decriminalising cannabis, does he still want people to buy their cannabis from criminals?

And Tory MP Andrew Lansley said: There will be more opportunity for dealers interested in moving people from cannabis to harder drugs.

Home Office officials insisted Mr Blunkett was NOT going soft.

They said seven out of ten drugs convictions were for dope and that police should concentrate on hard Class A substances.

A new offence of peddling outside schools will be brought in. And the maximum sentence for dealing in cannabis will be increased from five years to 14.

A cop in drug-plagued Brixton said: We see a lot of kids smoking pot. Before, we could arrest them and get them to speak to a referral worker now we can’t.

Dope trade

in the open air

By SARA NATHAN

On the streets of Brixton

A TRIO of men sat huddled together in the pouring rain looking furtively about as they passed around a sodden joint. It was only ten in the morning and the air was ripe with the smell of cannabis.

Nervous mums hurriedly walked past the small leafy square with their tots in pushchairs.

This was the scene in Brixton, South London, yesterday a few hours before David Blunkett announced the downgrading of cannabis.

I walked down bustling Brixton High Street to the cries of skunk and dope as traders peddled their wares.

Outside KFC where the toilets are locked to stop people injecting drugs a youth of 18 strolled up.

Dressed in a yellow string vest and black baggy trousers, he grinned broadly and said loudly: Skunk man, the finest.

Just yards away police officers, clad in black bullet proof vests, were patrolling.

Opposite Lambeth Town Hall, deadbeats sipped cans of lager and beer.

Tim Summers, 54, lit up a joint as I stood by. He is secretary of Cannabis Action London and smokes up to 40 joints a week.

He said: There’s so much weed around here that they’d have to get a special cannabis squad to stop it being sold.

Mum Nic Elborn, 32, walked past with her three-year-old-daughter Holly.

Nic, of neighbouring Herne Hill, said: I don’t want my little girl anywhere near drugs.

It’s a big problem and I don’t see how downgrading cannabis will solve it.

Back on the green, police were questioning a suspect. As I watched, a man sidled up and tried to sell drugs to me.

Drug users, dealers, cops and deadbeats … just a typical day in Brixton.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2002311821,00.html

Blow me: it’s another crackpot Blunkett plan

By Boris Johnson

Telegraph 11/07/2002

You remember the Harry Enfield sketch about the two gay Dutch policemen. They pull up in their patrol car and one announces, with a smirk: “You know, here in Omsterdom we have had great success in reducing crime.” The other one preens his moustache. “Yes,” he says, “we have legalised burglary.”

That, pretty much, is the strategy that seems to have been pursued in Brixton, under the leadership of the visionary Commander Crackpot, alias Brian Paddick. They stopped arresting people for possession of cannabis, and lo, the police found their jobs a good sight easier.

It doesn’t matter if the whole population of Brixton reeks of ganja. The police no longer have to go through the rigmarole of nicking them, interviewing them, reading them their rights, cautioning them and then, inevitably, letting them go again. It is estimated that 1,350 police man hours have been saved, equivalent to the annual labours of 1.8 full-time officers.

It would be an exaggeration, however, to say that the policy has been an unqualified success. Friends who live there say that every street corner in Brixton is now occupied by someone well thugged up (ie wearing a cowled sweatshirt) and hissing “skunk” or “weed”. Trafficking and other drug offences have soared, and, in the words of local spokesperson Ros Griffiths: “This is not a drug or race issue. This is about a breakdown of law and order.” Kate Hoey, the Labour MP for Vauxhall, is very worked up about the proliferation of dealers on the council estates, and one can see why. Commander Crackpot’s scheme hasn’t worked as he intended, for two reasons.

Brixton has been turned into an island of liberalism in a sea of repression. It has become the dope haven of England. On a hot day, one imagines that a vast aromatic hempen pall hangs over the whole of south London. He might as well have stuck big smiley faces all around the perimeter, with a legend saying – “Twinned with Amsterdam and Kingston, Jamaica”. If you wanted to get stoned or if you wanted to deal in drugs, Brixton was the place to go.

The second and more fundamental reason why Crackpot’s scheme didn’t work was that, even in Brixton itself, the policy was confused. It was neither legalisation nor a ban. It was puzzling to the populace. And that objection applies, in spades, to the measures announced suddenly, yesterday, by David Blunkett, who seems to have decided to turn Britain into a giant Brixton.

Pity poor Keith Hellawell, the late “drugs tsar”. It’s Ekaterinburg for him. He was there to wield the drugs knout over the drugs mouzhiks. And what happened? Revolution. Blunkett yesterday announced the declassification of cannabis from a Class B to a Class C drug, and Crackdown has given way to Crackpot. Labour is suddenly pro-cannabis. Labour is soft on the weed. Isn’t it?

It is impossible to tell quite what Labour intends – and that is the central problem. There is a sound and intellectually defensible case for a complete legalisation of cannabis. My own view is that drugs are no good for you, and often very bad for you; people smoking dope are spine-cracking bores; and I am told by experts that dope is no longer the innocent substance of the 1970s. This stuff skunk, grown by special hydroponic West Indian sunlamps, is apparently so powerful that it can fry your brains as effectively as any Class A drug.

There is, nevertheless, the argument for legalisation, which you will have heard so many times that I will repeat it only very briefly. Yes, it is true that cannabis is medically dangerous – but then so is alcohol. Legalisation would rid the streets of the pushers of soft drugs, and it would leave the police free to pursue the dealers in heroin and crack. It is not at all clear that legalising soft drugs would encourage people to move on to hard drugs. Only one per cent of dope-smokers try Class A drugs; and if you could buy cannabis legally, you would not come into contact with the nasty characters who push heroin. That is the case for legalisation, and it is good as far as it goes.

There is also a coherent and robust case, as Hellawell seems to have argued, for being utterly ruthless and enforcing the law. You could make it clear, once and for all, that cannabis is an illegal substance, and that anyone caught dealing it or using it will feel the full force of the fuzz. That might galvanise the police, give them a clear and consistent objective, and scare the spliff-smoking population into suddenly flushing their little brown pellets into the water supply, so zonking out the fish.

Of course, this policy would not be popular with the police, since they would be called on to feel the collars of the 50 per cent of young people who have used cannabis, including the 20 per cent of 19- to 24-year-olds who have used it in the past month. To anyone walking around London, where you will catch daily whiffs of a smell that would have been exceptional 10 years ago, it is clear that proper enforcement would be a huge job. But it could, just, be done, and it has, like legalisation, the merit of consistency.

What you cannot do is continue to ban cannabis and maintain stiff theoretical sentences for dealing (10 years), while sending out a signal to young people that it is now OK to smoke it. That’s no way to get rid of the dealers, or the crime. The stuff is either legal or it isn’t.

Mr Blunkett is an ideological version of one of those hermaphroditic parrotfish. One day he feels the jackboot forming invisibly round his shins; the next day he seems to want to freak out and wear flowers in his hair. Labour can’t work out whether it is libertarian, authoritarian, vegetarian or Rotarian. There is no Third Way with cannabis. You can’t suck and blow at the same time – with or without inhaling.

Boris Johnson is MP for Henley and editor of The Spectator

http://www.opinion.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2002/07/11/do1102.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2002/07/11/ixopinion.html

Cannabis laws eased by Blunkett

BBC News Thursday, 11 July, 2002, 00:34 GMT 01:34 UK

Cannabis is to be reclassified as a less dangerous drug to free-up police resources to fight hard drugs such as heroin and cocaine, Home Secretary David Blunkett has announced.

He unveiled the controversial measure in the House of Commons just hours after the government’s former “drugs czar” Keith Hellawell said he had quit his role as a government adviser in protest.

It came shortly after Tony Blair defended the move during prime minister’s question time.

Mr Blunkett also announced that the controversial cannabis experiment, currently under way in London’s Brixton, would be extended across London.

The decision to reclassify cannabis was in response to a report by MPs arguing that drugs policy should focus on tackling the problems caused by heroin addicts.

‘Drugs are dangerous’

The change will put cannabis on a par with anti-depressants and steroids. Possession of small amounts would no longer be considered an arrestable offence.

Mr Blunkett countered suggestions that he was going “soft on drugs” by saying police would retain the power to arrest marijuana users in certain “aggravated” cases, such as when the drug is smoked near children.

We will not legalise or decriminalise any drugs, nor do we envisage a time when this will be appropriate

David Blunkett

He raised the maximum sentence for dealers of class B and C drugs from five years to 14 years

An education campaign will be launched, targeted at young people and emphasising that “all drugs are harmful and class A drugs are killers”.

“There will be an increasing focus on class A drugs,” the home secretary said.

No legalisation

“The message is clear – drugs are dangerous. We will educate, persuade and where necessary, direct young people away from their use.

“We will not legalise or decriminalise any drugs, nor do we envisage a time when this will be appropriate.”

Mr Blunkett placed heavy emphasis on the importance of drug treatment.

The committee recommended moving Ecstasy from class A to B, but Mr Blunkett rejected this, stressing: “It kills”.

‘Muddled, dangerous policy’

“Cannabis possession remains a criminal offence. I am determined that the police are able to control the streets and uphold order,” he said.

But shadow home secretary Oliver Letwin criticised the reclassification, warning that Mr Blunkett was handing control of cannabis to dealers.

The idea proposed by Mr Blunkett was a “muddled, dangerous policy” and would lead to an “open season for drug peddlers”, he said.

Roger Howard, chief executive of DrugScope, welcomed the measure but warned that the arrest powers in “aggravated” cases might “sow confusion in people’s minds”.

Mr Blunkett said the Association of Chief Police Officers would shortly issue national guidance that in the vast majority of cases “officers will confiscate the drugs and use warnings”.

Shooting galleries

He stressed: “Police time saved will be refocused on class A drugs.”

The government signalled its intention to downgrade cannabis last October.

Mr Hellawell has fallen out with the home secretary

Since then, the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, comprising medical experts, and the all-party select committee have both backed the idea.

On other drugs Mr Blunkett said he accepted that expansion of “managed” prescriptions for heroin users will be necessary.

But he was not persuaded by the argument for “shooting galleries” – places where people take hard drugs in a safe environment.

‘Damage communities’

“We will clamp down on the dealers who prey on the young,” he said.

Earlier, former “drugs czar” Keith Hellawell said he handed in his notice in protest at plans to move cannabis to a lower category.

He launched a stinging attack on the proposals, which he claims will damage communities and lead to more drug use.

But the Home Office insisted Mr Hellawell supported the move when it was first floated last year.

Mr Hellawell, meanwhile, says he had made his reservations known to Mr Blunkett at a meeting last autumn.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk_politics/newsid_2120000/2120116.stm

Britain Eases Laws on Use of Cannabis

Reuters

Wednesday, July 10 2002 20:09:13 MST

LONDON (Reuters) – Britons, among the heaviest users of cannabis in Europe, will soon be able to smoke dope without fear of arrest after the government relaxed its laws on the drug in the face of a dramatic rise in its use.

Home Secretary David Blunkett told parliament Wednesday he would reclassify cannabis as a low risk, category C drug from July next year, making discreet possession of small amounts of it or smoking it in private a non-arrestable offence.

The downgrade will put cannabis in the same category as anabolic steroids and growth hormones.

But in a statement aimed directly at critics who accuse the government of “going soft” on drugs, Blunkett stressed that cannabis would remain illegal.

“We will not legalese or decriminalize any drug, nor do we envisage a time when this would be appropriate,” he said. “The message is clear. Drugs are dangerous. We will educate, persuade and where necessary direct young people away from their use.”

He rejected calls for the clubbers’ drug ecstasy to be downgraded from the Class A highest risk category and slammed ecstasy, crack and heroin as “the scourge of our time.”

“We are not persuaded that ecstasy should be downgraded. It can kill,” he said.

Despite Blunkett’s efforts to deliver a tough message, his move on cannabis prompted outrage on both sides of the political debate and sparked the resignation of the government’s own so-called former “Drugs Czar” and part-time advisor.

Keith Hellawell said Wednesday he had left his job because he could not agree with Blunkett’s decision on cannabis. “It’s moving further toward decriminalization than any other country in the world,” he said.

Opposition Conservative home affairs spokesman Oliver Letwin told parliament the downgrade would send “deeply confusing mixed messages” to cannabis users and would “give control over cannabis to the drugs dealers with the police turning away.”

HUGE INCREASE IN DRUG USE

A report published late last year showed cannabis is the most commonly used illicit drug in the European Union ( news – web sites), with at least one in 10 adults in the 15-nation group having used it.

The proportion of adults who had used cannabis ranged from 10 percent in Finland to 20-25 percent in Britain, Denmark, France, Ireland, the Netherlands and Spain.

An estimated five million people in Britain regularly use cannabis and government data show its use has risen sharply over the past two decades.

But Blunkett was keen to focus the majority of his statement on so-called hard drugs like crack and heroin.

“Over the last 30 years, the huge increase in the use of drugs, particularly hard drugs, has caused untold damage to the health, life chances and wellbeing of individuals,” he said.

The social and economic costs of drug abuse were “well in excess of 10 billion pounds ($15.5 billion) a year,” he added.

Britain tops the European Union league table on drug-related deaths and official estimates say it has around 250,000 so-called “problematic” drug abusers — mainly heroin addicts.

By Kate Kelland

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=586&ncid=586&e=6&u=/nm/20020710/wl_nm/britain_cannabis_dc

Top drugs adviser quits over cannabis plans

Guardian

Wednesday July 10, 2002

Government drugs adviser Keith Hellawell today announced his resignation in protest at the home secretary’s proposal to reclassify cannabis from class B to class C.

Mr Hellawell, the former drug tsar who is now a part-time adviser, also attacked as “spin” the government’s relaunching of its 10-year drugs strategy.

He said he had written to David Blunkett to inform him of his resignation.

He told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: “It’s moving further towards decriminalisation than any other country in the world.

“I have resigned over this issue and over the issue of spin.”

Mr Hellawell, who was a chief constable before the prime minister, Tony Blair, appointed him to address international drugs issues, added: “I’m against it because of the message it gives. It’s actually a technical adjustment which in the reality of the law doesn’t make a great deal of difference.

“But it’s been bandied about by people as a softening of the law. It is a softening of the law and it’s giving the wrong message.

“It’s a personal initiative of David Blunkett. I don’t know where he got his advice from, he certainly didn’t get it from me.

He added: “But there is no evidence at all to indicate that there is any change in the system.

“Even his own committee says that cannabis is a dangerous substance, there’s an increase in use among young people, there’s an increase in people who are seeking treatment for the drug, and even in that report it does recognise that there is a link between cannabis and harder drugs.

“So why on earth, when there are these problems, we change our message and give a softer message, I do not know.”

A spokesman for the home secretary hit back at Mr Hellawell’s criticism, claiming his stance on cannabis appeared to have changed since a meeting last year.

“Keith Hellawell said to the home secretary in a meeting last autumn that he was fully supportive of the home secretary’s proposal to reclassify cannabis,” said the spokesman.

“This was a meeting before the home secretary made his announcement to the home affairs select committee [revealing he planned to reclassify the drug].

“He tendered his resignation last month to take effect in August but the Home Office kept this private at his request.

“The home secretary’s drug strategy to be announced this afternoon is not an alternative strategy but one that will build on the achievements of the first term while focusing on the challenges ahead,” he added.

Downing Street said today that officials were “bemused” by Mr Hellawell’s comments.

“He has had three meetings with (drugs minister) Bob Ainsworth and hasn’t indicated any concerns on this front,” said the spokesman for the prime minister, Tony Blair.

Mr Hellawell responded that he was puzzled why officials were claiming he had given his approval to Mr Blunkett’s reclassification plan.

“I only had one meeting with him which was quite short and covered a range of topics including policing and other matters. I expressed reservations about reclassification,” he said.

Also criticising what he called government spin, Mr Hellawell said: “Also today I understand, although I’ve been kept out of the discussions on this, there’s going to be a re-launch of the [drugs] strategy.”

He said he had become more concerned that the government was not addressing the strategy, adding: “There is just a sort of a re-packaging, a re-spinning of the issue to appear as if something has been done, and this is causing a great deal of problems on the streets, it’s causing a great deal of problems for parents who just don’t know where they are.

“Drugs are so important to all our families in this country, the politicians should not make political play out of it and should not take advantage by making political statements.”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/drugs/Story/0,2763,752643,00.html

House of Commons Home Affairs – Third Report

9 May 2002.

Here you can browse the report together with the Proceedings of the Committee. The published report was ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 9 May 2002.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200102/cmselect/cmhaff/318/31802.htm

Lambeth Cop Says He’s Being Hounded By Homophobic Colleagues

Guardian

Monday March 25, 2002 6:52 AM

Lambeth police chief Brian Paddick claims he may be the victim of his “softly, softly” approach to cannabis.

Commander Paddick was last week removed from his duties after allegations about his private life emerged in a Sunday newspaper.

Mr Paddick and his supporters have condemned his treatment as a “witchhunt” from a small number of homophobic colleagues because of his sexuality.

He said: “They can’t attack my police record. They also found it difficult to criticise my approach to drugs because recent independent reports have backed me.

“So the only thing left to undermine me is my private life.”

Mr Paddick, Britain’s highest-ranking openly-gay police officer, says he feels he is being targeted because of his introduction of new ideas and ways of policing – and insists he has no regrets.

“In any war you get casualties,” he told The Mirror. “I’m a casualty in a bigger war.”

Commander Paddick told the paper he is not “soft” on drugs and insists that cannabis was still illegal and harmful.

His policy arose out of logistical concerns about the number of officers in the borough and the need to prioritise by clamping down on harder drugs like heroin and crack cocaine.

“If I was a commander for another borough that didn’t have the difficulties Lambeth has, or if I had another 250 extra officers, then I’d probably not have suggested the cannabis policy.

“It is about the effective use of scarce police resources.”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/story/0,1271,-1610808,00.html

Public back cannabis trial

BBC News

Thursday, 21 March, 2002, 08:11 GMT

The pro-cannabis lobby has grown in recent years

A survey of residents is expected to back the “softly, softly” approach to possession of cannabis in the south London borough of Lambeth.

The experiment, pioneered by controversial Metropolitan Police Commander Brian Paddick, is thought to have saved many hours of police time.

Scotland Yard’s own review will show crime figures in the area have fallen, while arrests for more serious drugs offences have risen.

Commander Paddick was moved from his post in Lambeth earlier this week while accusations about his private life are investigated, but many in the borough believe he should return.

Since July 2001, people caught with cannabis in the borough have been dealt with informally rather than arrested.

People found in possession of small quantities are let off with a formal warning rather than being arrested or cautioned.

And the independent survey of the borough’s residents is expected to show broad-based support for this new approach.

Street robbery

Mayoral policing adviser Lee Jasper told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme both reports showed the scheme had worked effectively.

“By-products of relaxation in relation to cannabis [laws] have been proven to lead to crime reduction – certainly in street robbery – and had a huge impact in relation to dealing with class A hard drugs particularly crack cocaine.”

Mr Jasper said the “sensible attitude” had “freed up tremendous police resources”, as well as offering research for a wider debate.

There’s really only one answer and that’s treat it in the same way we treat tobacco

Francis Wilkinson

Ex-chief constable

“The government should be seriously thinking about decriminalising cannabis.”

The scheme is taking place in the context of government signals that it wishes to re-classify cannabis from a class ‘B’ to a class ‘C’ drug.

But Home Secretary David Blunkett has emphasised that although he wants to reclassify cannabis he does not intend to legalise or decriminalise it.

Praise for scheme

Cannabis possession and supply would remain a criminal offence, attracting maximum sentences of five years for supply and two years for possession.

But rather than arresting people caught with cannabis, police will be more likely to issue a warning, a caution or a court summons.

Francis Wilkinson, former chief constable of Gwent and patron of drugs charity Transform, told Today the Lambeth scheme was only “fine as an experiment”.

“It has had a positive local effect, but it’s not a responsible line for national policy.

“A government can’t seriously say we will allow the stuff to be used… but we are still going to target the people who import it.

Reinstatement call

“There’s really only one answer and that’s treat it in the same way we treat tobacco, legalise it root-and-branch.”

Last November, a home office minister praised the relaxed cannabis laws being piloted in Lambeth.

Bob Ainsworth, on a visit to the area, said the introduction of a trial project in the London borough had so far been a success.

Supporters of Commander Paddick are planning to call for his reinstatement at a meeting of the Metropolitan Police Authority.

Lambeth residents who support him are attending a scheduled full meeting of the authority on Thursday where they will be supported by members of the London Assembly Green Group who sit on the authority.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/england/newsid_1884000/1884686.stm

He’s our kind of cop

Decca Aitkenhead

Monday March 18, 2002

The Guardian

What are the qualities we would all look for in a senior police officer? The list could go on for ever, but fairly high up it would come determination to keep the public safe. Ingenuity and a willingness to find out what works would probably also feature near the top. A good policeman is seldom thought to be one who hopes that his uniform, combined with the size of his boots, will inspire sufficient respect to do his job for him.

A more imaginative police force isn’t merely the ambition of some liberal minority. The Sun’s white van man can usually be relied on to express the view that police should “live in the real world”, and nothing winds most people up more than an encounter with a pedantic police officer. The letter of the law, when applied to one’s own circumstances, suddenly becomes not so much a sacred principle as a nuisance; the virtues of discretion and common sense, on the other hand, are much admired on such occasions. By almost universal account, what we want are bright officers who can think for themselves. Few these days would disagree – just as few would call for a force that glaringly failed to reflect the population we pay it to police.

So what amazing good fortune for us, you would think, to have a man such as Commander Brian Paddick in the job. Here’s an officer so dedicated to his work, so engaged with the “real world”, that in his free time he offered his most experimental thoughts about policing and anarchy to a website. He introduced a pragmatic pilot scheme regarding cannabis possession, and risked his reputation to tell candid truths about the policing priorities of different drugs. He is openly gay.

And now, we learn, he put his own money where his mouth was. Finding himself in love with a cannabis smoker, Paddick didn’t arrest his boyfriend or kick him out to protect himself. He admits he did what every police officer I have ever known opts to do – which is, very sensibly, nothing. A triumph, then, of the sort of approach we admire.

Apparently not. “Gay supercop drugs and sex shame”, according to yesterday’s Sunday People. The Mail on Sunday called for his resignation. Both papers published a stream of other allegations, made by the painfully embittered ex-boyfriend, ranging from casual sex on the Gatwick Express, to having a puff himself. Paddick denies them all. Apart from the last, most would be irrelevant anyway – and yet the Mail may now be horribly right to think his position has become “untenable”. There is a credible risk that Paddick could lose his job – precisely for personifying the ideal police officer we all claim to want.

If Paddick goes, it will officially be for breaking the law by letting someone smoke cannabis in his home. That, in theory, is the media’s only objection. But the weekend’s headlines all started with the word “gay”, and his “extravagant promiscuity” – not to mention his taste for Clinique – enjoyed just as much attention as any criminal allegations. Like pragmatic policing, homosexuality as an idea may have become acceptable, and homophobia disgraceful as an idea . But what we say in public turns out not to be entirely reliable in real life.

Yesterday’s News of the World was brimming with letters congratulating Pop Idol Will Young – and, by extension, the News of the World – for coming out to the tabloid the previous week. Modern mainstream culture wouldn’t dream of holding it against the lovely young lad. And yet Frank Skinner and David Baddiel (who would consider themselves closer to Ben Elton than Bernard Manning) felt it was fine to snigger and crack strange, puerile jokes on their show last week.

Respectable comedians no longer wish to look homophobic. They couldn’t afford to, even if they thought that’s what they were, and they would be more likely to find the very suggestion absurd. And yet, Skinner wondered aloud whether being gay made Will a hypocrite, and would cause “a problem”. Like, would fans be all right about him singing “I love you girl”, when … well, obviously he didn’t?

If Will got a nasty surprise hearing that, it would be nothing to the shock Gavyn Davies received for stating an innocuous and self-evident opinion that is universally shared. That the BBC is dominated by the interests of the white, middle class and middle aged, etc, is perfectly obvious. Who would disagree? That it should serve all its licence payers is similarly unarguable. But when Gavyn Davies simply said as much, the statement was taken to expose him as a self-loathing, posturing hypocrite.

What all three men did was tell truths we claim to believe in. How curious that they, rather than we, should be the ones charged with hypocrisy.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article/0,2763,669261,00.html