Pubdate: October 5, 1997
Source: Independent on Sunday, London, UK
Contact: Pot, politics and prejudice  For 70 years cannabis has been demonised, with
disastrous results

By Graham Ball

Labour would like to decriminilise cannabis for personal use but does not dare.
That was the message from senior ministers in private at the party's conference
last week.

Despite the very scornful opposition from the Home Secretary, Jack Straw, in his
main platform speech, behind the scenes senior members of his party applauded
the Independent on Sunday campaign. One very senior minister spoke of the need
to overcome the "prejudice of the British people". He, personally had no
objection but he was fearful of the reaction from middle England. Another said
she was sure decriminilisation would come. Still another indicated that if the
police came out in favour of relaxation, then Mr Straw might bend.

Not for the first time, on cannabis, ministers are saying one thing in public
and something quite different in private.

Until 1928 and the Dangerous Drug Act, cannabis could be freely bought in
Britain. But in that year it was linked with the harmful heroin and opium, and
outlawed.

Cannabis did not become an issue until 1967 when the "summer of love" saw the
first demonstration in support of legalisation. Then, as now, a Labour was in
power, And then, as now, a Labour Home Secretary tried to sweep the issue under
the carpet.

In response to public concern about the way the drug laws were operating, Harold
Wilson set up an inquiry under Baroness Wootton.  Her report recommended the
creation of clear legal distinctions between cannabis and dangerous drugs. The
committee felt that the longterm consumption of cannabis in moderate amounts
had no harmful effects. However, James Callaghan, the Home Secretary, distanced
himself from the report's findings.

Drug law reform faded from the political arena and did not return until 1971,
when the Conservative Heath government, in a sweeping crackdown, updated the
Misuse of Drugs Act. Cannabis was bracketed as a Class B drug, along with
amphetamine and barbiturate, and penalties for its possession were increased.

Apart from an amendment in 1985, that 26yearold law remains the main weapon
for combating Britain's escalating drugs trade. Last week Mr Straw peddled
rhetoric that little has changed down the years, that decriminilisation would
increase drug use and make the drugs barons richer.

But that is to miss the point, that is to fail to distinguish cannabis, a
nonharmful, nonaddictive drug, from the dangerously addictive other banned
substances such as heroin and cocaine. At about the same time that Britain
lumped all drugs together, the Dutch were embarking on a more enlightened path.
Their legislation drew a distinction between "soft" and "hard" drugs. Soft drugs
such as cannabis were decriminilised, hard drugs such as heroin were not.

In Holland, licensed "Coffee Houses" serve cannabis but no alcohol to customers
over 16. Each Coffee House is regulated and inspected by the local council. No
advertising other than at the point of sale is allowed, and cannabis is offered
in edible form, in cakes, as well as for smoking.

A recent Dutch government report says: "Evidence of the success of the
seperation of the markets is to be found in the fact that only a very few of the
young people in the Netherlands who use soft drugs take to using hard drugs. The
decriminilisation of the possession of soft drugs has not led to a rise in their
use." Dutch government officials also point out that as a result of contolled
drug use, in their country potentially lethal solvent abuse and glue sniffing
among teenagers are virtually unheard of.

Here the Home Office attitude is that cannabis is a "gateway" drug, a first step
on the deadly path to hard drug addiction. Reformers argue the reverse. In
Holland hard drug use actually fell after the decriminilisation of cannabis and
no causal link has ever been established between the two.

Drug law reform was not an issue at the last general election. Only the Liberal
Democrats have argued the need for a fresh approach: their spokesman Alex
Carlile QC said earlier this year that his party was pledged to a royal
commission on the misuse of drugs.

Under the Thatcher and Major governments the policy, exemplified by Michael
Howard, the last Tory home secretary, was "tough on crime, tough on drugs".

In 26 years more than 500,000 UK citizens have been convicted of cannabis
possession and acquired criminal records or cautions. Labour's current
prescription is more of the same: lumping people who use cannabis together with
those who use heroin.

The leading medical journal, the Lancet, wrote in an editorial: "Cannabis has
become a political football and one that governments continually duck. Like
footballs, however, it bounces back. Sooner or later, politicians will have to
stop running scared and address the evidence: cannabis per se is not a hazard to
society but driving it further underground may well be."