Pubdate: Fri, 23 Jan 2004
Source: Daily Telegraph (UK)
Copyright: 2004 Telegraph Group Limited
Contact:  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/114
Author: Philip Johnston, Home affairs editor

WHY DRUG USERS ARE IN SUCH A HAZY STATE

If there is widespread confusion about the change in cannabis laws next 
week then David Blunkett has only himself to blame.

When the Home Secretary announced plans to downgrade the drug from a Class 
B to a Class C substance in October 2001, the reason for the move - though 
controversial - was straightforward enough.

At that stage, possession of Class C drugs, while illegal, was not an 
arrestable offence. The police, therefore, would be able to issue cautions 
and confiscate cannabis when it was found but would avoid the 
time-consuming work that goes with an arrest. This would allow them to 
focus more directly on hard drugs, such as cocaine and heroin.

However, Mr Blunkett did not stick with this strategy. After the 
legislation to reclassify cannabis went through parliament, he used another 
Bill to make possession of Class C drugs an arrestable offence for the 
first time. Thus, it will still be possible for the police to arrest 
someone for possessing cannabis even after the re-classification next Thursday.

But since the aim is to free up police time to concentrate on Class A 
drugs, guidelines have been issued to officers recommending a "softly, 
softly" approach to the possession of small amounts.

For adults, this means there will be a presumption against arrest. They 
would receive a verbal reminder that cannabis remained illegal and the drug 
would be confiscated.

But for young people under 18 - the most likely users of the drug - an 
arrest would be automatic. For a first offence, they would probably receive 
a reprimand or formal warning. For subsequent offences, they would receive 
a final warning, go to court and be referred to young offender teams.

Adults could also be arrested if there are "aggravating factors", such as 
smoking regularly in public. Mr Blunkett said yesterday that someone using 
the drug in a park could be cautioned one day and arrested the next if they 
were caught again.

This will inevitably lead to some forces taking a tougher line than others. 
It will be possible that an adult smoking cannabis in one county will get 
off with a warning while someone elsewhere will be arrested and gain a 
criminal record.

One reason that Mr Blunkett decided to keep possession an arrestable 
offence was that the police feared they would be unable to control supply 
unless they had this power. There was also concern that the Government was 
sending out a signal that cannabis was safe.

He has also increased the maximum penalty for supplying all Class C drugs 
to 14 years - the same as for Class B. However, the maximum penalty for 
possession of cannabis will be reduced from five to two years in prison.

Mr Blunkett has sought to give the impression that he decided to reclassify 
cannabis in response to recommendations from the independent Advisory 
Council on the Misuse of Drugs. But this is not the case.

The Home Secretary announced his policy to a select committee in October 
2001 and said he was minded to proceed provided the council had no objections.

Mr Blunkett said at the time: "I shall be putting to the advisory council a 
proposal that we should recategorise cannabis to C rather than B . . . If 
they see fit to do so, I think that will make sense to many people."

This marked a complete reversal of policy from the previous year when the 
Government rejected a similar proposal from a Police Foundation inquiry 
chaired by Dame Ruth Runciman. The change of heart seemed to signal that 
Labour wanted to adopt a softer line in response to an an experiment in the 
south London borough of Lambeth, where Brian Paddick, the police commander, 
decided there was no longer any point trying to stop a practice that was 
now widespread.

Penalising users was proving a huge drain on police resources at a time 
when most people wanted more officers on the beat.

A typical case of minor possession can take officers off the streets for 
five hours, cost UKP10,000 to bring to court and lead to an average fine of 
UKP45.

Yet under the change that comes into force next Thursday the police will 
still be required to arrest young users - defeating the original object of 
the change and causing total confusion among users of the drug.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom