|
Cannabis Campaigners' Guide News Database result:
|
|
UK: Column: Ministers Deal In Policies, Not Solutions
Peter Riddell The Times
Thursday 11 Jul 2002 THE politics of drugs policy is all about trust. Whose advice do we respect: experts on advisory committees; doctors; policemen; ministers; opposition spokesmen; a drugs czar, like Keith Hellawell; or our own personal day-to-day experience? Iain Duncan Smith put the point starkly in the Commons yesterday: "When the public has to choose between the Home Secretary and your own drugs czar, who do you think they ought to choose?" Of course, it is not nearly as simple as that. The arguments over the legal treatment of cannabis are complicated. David Blunkett, in one of his most robust performances of recent weeks, hardly adopted a soft or permissive attitude in his statement yesterday. He rejected a call from the Home Affairs Select Committee to reclassify ecstasy and to open special centres for heroin users. Nor did Oliver Letwin take an authoritarian stance against cannabis users, as Ann Widdecombe did when she tripped herself up in October 2000. There are practical questions about police priorities in tackling class A drugs and about the broader impact of reclassfying cannabis: and still much dispute in the case of the greater relaxation in Brixton. There are also, as Mr Letwin argued, potential anomalies in the treatment of cannabis users and dealers. In terms of public perception, however, Mr Duncan Smith's question is the pertinent one. Does the public trust Mr Blunkett or Mr Hellawell, a former chief constable? A MORI poll in Feburary showed that, by a two to one margin (about 60 to 30 per cent), the public generally trusts the police to tell the truth. And the figures have been within two or three points of these levels for the past decade. By contrast a mere 20 per cent trust government ministers to tell the truth, with more than 70 per cent not trusting them. This is an improvement on the mid-1990s, but the same level as over the past five years. These figures show more trust than for politicians generally and journalists. Senior police officers are, like politicians, divided on the question of cannabis use. Many agree with Mr Blunkett. Sharp disagreements also exist within the police about the impact of the Brixton experiment of not prosecuting people caught with small amounts of cannabis. In that broader perspective, the fuss over Mr Hellawell's remarks is a side issue. Moreover, Mr Blunkett appears to have judged pretty accurately where the balance of public opinion lies. An ICM poll taken after Mr Blunkett first floated the idea of reclassifying cannabis last October showed that 54 per cent agreed, rising to 65 per cent support among the 25-to-34 age group. The only group opposed is the over-65s. In line with Mr Blunkett rather than the Home Affairs Committee, however, more than four fifths of the public oppose any change in the classification of ecstasy. This argument over the legal position of cannabis use is of more symbolic than practical importance. No one disputes that the main priority remains class A drugs, like heroin and cocaine, and the linked wave of muggings, burglaries and robberies by users seeking cash to finance their purchases. There are plenty of policies, but no solutions.
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!