Pubdate: Fri, 06 Jan 2006
Source: Guardian, The (UK)
Copyright: 2006 Guardian Newspapers Limited
Contact:  http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardian/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/175
Author: Michael White, Political Editor
Cited: Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs 
http://www.drugs.gov.uk/drugs-laws/acmd/
Cited: Home Office http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/drugs/
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?207 (Cannabis - United Kingdom)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/people/Charles+Clarke

CLARKE PAVES WAY FOR U-TURN ON CANNABIS

Government Considers Reclassification of Drug

Home Secretary Attacked From Both Sides of Debate

Charles Clarke, the home secretary, was criticised yesterday from 
both sides of the debate on the misuse of drugs when he publicly 
indicated that he is considering restoring the class B status of 
cannabis in the light of medical evidence.

In what the tabloids labelled a "humiliating climbdown" from the 
decision of his predecessor, David Blunkett, to downgrade the widely 
used drug to class C, Mr Clarke used media interviews to signal his 
approval of an imminent report, which he has already read, from the 
Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs.

Without divulging the report's contents Mr Clarke said he would 
accept one recommendation - to increase education about the dangerous 
effects of cannabis and its legal status, after Mr Blunkett's 
decision two years ago caused anti-drug partisans to claim that the 
drug had been '"decriminalised".

In an interview with the Times the home secretary confirmed what his 
officials have been saying, that new medical evidence has prompted a 
number of people to change their minds. "I'm very struck by the 
advocacy of a number of people who have been proposers of the 
reclassification of cannabis that they were wrong," he said. "I am 
also very worried about the most recent medical evidence on mental 
health. This is a very serious issue."

Under Mr Blunkett's reclassification, designed to free up police time 
to concentrate on dealers of more serious drugs, possession of 
cannabis became a non-arrestable offence in most cases. But it 
remains illegal and sentences range from up to two years' jail for 
possession and 14 years for dealing.

At the beginning of last year, the Home Office said the 
reclassification was paying dividends as cannabis arrests had fallen 
by 33% in the first five months after the move. It claimed that the 
change in the law represented a saving of almost 200,000 
police-officer hours, giving police more time to target dealers of 
class A drugs. However, figures released by the Metropolitan police 
last year showed that the number of people arrested for dealing hard 
drugs in London had fallen steadily since 2001, despite the reclassification.

When asked yesterday if Mr Blunkett's move had helped at all, Mr 
Clarke conceded: "I think it gives a steer to the citizen on more 
serious drug consumption." His tone prompted a positive response from 
his Tory shadow, David Davis, who called for "appropriate action", 
especially with regard to mental health.

But the Liberal Democrat spokesman, Mark Oaten, echoed the warning 
from Dame Ruth Runciman, a prominent expert in the field, in saying 
there should be no change of mind until the evidence for it is very 
strong. "The government should base drug classification on the facts 
and not tabloid pressure," Mr Oaten said. "The advisory body reports 
shortly and we should listen to their findings and not prejudge them. 
The case for treating drugs in different categories remains very 
strong and unless the advisory body make a strong argument to change 
this, the government should resist reclassification."

Dame Ruth, chairwoman of the NHS's Mental Health Trust and a veteran 
of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, also joined the 
debate to protest about ill-informed commentary. Mr Blunkett's 
original announcement had been "mishandled", she conceded on Radio 4, 
leading to ill-judged talk about "semi-legalised" or "decriminalised" 
cannabis. In what she called "the hierarchy of relative harm", no 
such drugs are harmless, she said.

What Mr Blunkett had done was "not radical at all, but sensible", she 
said, in reducing the maximum sentence from five years to two - still 
one of the most stringent regimes in Europe. 
- ---
MAP posted-by: Richard Lake