|
Cannabis Campaigners' Guide News Database result:
|
|
UK: Editorial: Blunkett's Cannabis Policy Is Muddled But Not
The Times
Thursday 11 Jul 2002 On most political issues, vigorous intellectual clarity is an asset. But there are certain questions when the imperfections of human life should not be ignored for the sake of theoretical rigour. It is not difficult to argue, as Oliver Letwin, the Shadow Home Secretary, did yesterday, that there are two logical approaches to cannabis render it starkly illegal and crack down or legalise entirely and treat it much as alcohol or tobacco. By such standards, the reclassification of cannabis from Class B to Class C makes no sense at all. It is, in effect, a declaration that the Government considers this drug to be moderately harmful and has opted to render it moderately illegal. The end result, to the purist, is a confusing set of messages. Unfortunately, however, an element of intellectual impurity here is all but unavoidable. There is a distinction between drugs that are psychologically addictive and might do some damage over a period of time and others which are obviously physically addictive and possess the capacity either to kill or to render those who fall under their sway incapable of cogent decisions on their own behalf. The law should recognise that divide. In practice, police and politicians alike have to take into account whether young people will accept their case about the threat of a particular substance in short, as David Blunkett, the Home Secretary, put it yesterday, "educational credibility" is vital. And finally, ministers cannot forget that a market for many drugs exists and will not be abolished by Whitehall decree. In these circumstances, the policy compromise of reclassification has merit. It realigns the law somewhat with the real world with which the police and those concerned with drugs counselling have to cope. While the evidence concerning the precise medical effects of cannabis is contested, controversial and often contradictory, no serious organisation has claimed that individuals expire after a short exposure to it. It is not an admirable habit but it should be treated proportionately. It is in the interests of public and police alike to make a firmer distinction between those drugs that render people their slaves and others that satisfy a relatively harmless personal thrill. The Class C position, which permits the police to confiscate cannabis and give warnings, is sound. Mr Blunkett's firm move in a sensible direction has, however, been tarnished by other steps sideways. If the market for cannabis is to be separated from that of harder drugs, both supply and demand need to fall inside the new boundary. His proposal to raise the maximum sentence for those dealing in any Class C drug to 14 years' imprisonment, the same as that for Class B drugs, looks like an attempt to cover his back politically. It means, to put it crudely, that there is no incentive for a dealer to specialise in cannabis and abandon amphetamines. The best that can be said of the scheme is that no judge will hand down a 14-year term to someone who has been caught just trading in cannabis. This means the Blunkett formula is not entirely inconsistent, merely hypocritical. Mr Blunkett would have been better advised to retain the old maximum sentence for Class C drugs, or even decrease that tariff, while substantially increasing the different sanctions placed on all those who retail Class A and Class B narcotics. That would have created as rational a policy as is possible in this admittedly awkward territory. It would not have satisfied the absolutists on either side of the debate, but it would have struck almost everyone else as possessing a modicum of common sense. It would also have left ministers with the option of considering other, more ambitious, experiments at a later date. Mr Letwin condemned Mr Blunkett's blueprint yesterday as "muddled and dangerous". It is very unlikely to be dangerous, but it is quite unnecessarily muddled.
After you have finished reading this article you can click here to go back.
|
This page was created by the Cannabis Campaigners' Guide.
Feel free to link to this page!