Pubdate: Sun, 15 Jan 2006
Source: Observer, The (UK)
Copyright: 2006 The Observer
Contact:  http://www.observer.co.uk/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/315
Author: Mark Townsend and Gaby Hinsliff, The Observer
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/Brian+Paddick
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/people/David+Blunkett
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/people/Charles+Clarke

POLICE CHIEF STEPS INTO CANNABIS ROW

As a Decision Looms on Reclassifying the Drug, Brian Paddick Says 'I
Didn't Want It Downgraded'

The senior police officer who was said to have inspired the
government's controversial reclassification of cannabis has revealed
for the first time that he has always opposed downgrading the drug.

The then Home Secretary, David Blunkett, credited the liberal policing
policies of Brian Paddick, now the Deputy Assistant Commissioner of
the Metropolitan Police, in the decision to reclassify cannabis.
However, Paddick said that the Home Office never asked for his views
on the issue and added that he has always believed the move was
'unnecessary' and would cause more damage than good.

Charles Clarke, the Home Secretary, will decide within days whether to
order a U-turn on the relaxation of cannabis laws in January 2004,
because of fears over its link to mental illness. Clarke also faces a
parliamentary inquiry into the way drugs are classified in Britain.
The investigation - which could open the way for a much wider shake-up
of drugs laws - will examine not only the evidence surrounding
cannabis and its effect on mental health but that on other substances,
including cocaine.

The chair of the all-party Commons science and technology committee,
Phil Willis, a Liberal Democrat MP, said: 'What we want to know is why
did Charles Clarke say Blunkett was wrong, and what's the basis of the
evidence he's putting forward to support that. My private reading in
discussion with a number of experts is that nothing has changed.
There's significantly more evidence to say that alcohol has more of a
deleterious effect on the brain than cannabis.'

His inquiry will call as witnesses both Clarke and the Advisory
Council on Misuse of Drugs (ACMD), a panel of scientists which
assesses drugs for the Home Office and whose latest report concludes
that the evidence linking cannabis to psychotic symptoms cannot be
considered definitive. The advisory council does not support
reclassification of cannabis to Class B and members of the panel have
threatened to resign should Clarke ignore their recommendations.

Blunkett had asked the ACMD to investigate the reclassification of
cannabis in 2001 in a request interpreted as a direct response to
Paddick's cannabis policy in Lambeth, south London. Paddick, who was
then commander of Lambeth, had introduced a pilot scheme which allowed
officers to give people found carrying a small amount of cannabis a
verbal warning. The initiative was designed to allow police officers
to tackle harder Class A drugs such as crack cocaine, but contrary to
the Home Secretary's belief reclassifying cannabis was never part of
Paddick's agenda.

Paddick, 47, said: 'I never discussed the Lambeth pilot with the Home
Office. For people to say that it was my idea that led to the
reclassification of cannabis ... well, I never spoke to the Home
Office at all about it. I don't think cannabis should have been
downgraded. All that should have been done was guidance from Home
Office to chief police officers saying that you should consider
allowing officers to seize and warn or arrest depending on the
circumstances. Reclassification was unnecessary.'

Although Paddick's 'softly, softly' scheme in Lambeth was motivated by
the need to liberate more officers for targeting Class A dealers, he
claims a Home Office decision may dissuade officers from concentrating
on tackling crack cocaine and heroin suppliers.

'The idea of diverting police resources away from cannabis to more
serious offences has now become further confused because cannabis
warnings count the same as a conviction for rape or murder under
figures for the number of offences brought to justice,' he said.

'Effectively, it means that a cannabis warning on the street is one of
the quickest and easiest ways of achieving targets that police forces
are under increasing pressure to meet,' said Paddick, who believes
ministers should concentrate on reminding users that cannabis is
illegal. 'With a maximum of two years in prison it probably means that
there are sufficient powers to deal with problems relating to cannabis.' 
- ---
MAP posted-by: Richard Lake