SPLIFF DECISION

Setting Limits On How Much Cannabis People Can Carry Has Led To
Accusations That The Government's Policy On Drugs Is Too Soft. What
Do The Experts Think?

Interviews by Mary O'Hara

Peter Stoker Director, National Drug Prevention Alliance Government
policy is hardly uniformly soft. It's more like jelly with nuts:
fatalistic on illegal drugs, but questioning cannabis classification;
gung-ho on tobacco, but intoxicated by 24-hour alcohol. Ignoring far
higher quantities than the average user would ever carry massages
crime figures, but even the Met's top cop is worried by this. The
potential for societal damage with this proposal, coupled with supine
interdiction processes, is greater than any relaxing on cannabis
alone. Government has been persuaded to take what was, even five
years ago, a broadly sound, all-party supported approach, and then
unravel it into libertarianism disguised as expediency.

The ability to intervene with early-stage users and divert them to
healthier avenues is lost; treatment is more about maintaining use
than ending it, despite addicts calling for the latter; education has
been subverted into telling you how to use; prevention has been
vaporised. Broadcast that use is inevitable, and what happens? More
people use. Great news if you're a dealer, but terrible if you're a
parent trying to raise healthy children. What is needed is a rational
extension of government's still-retained goal for treatment:
abstinence. This is not a pious ideal. Evidence-based prevention,
education, law and order, intervention and treatment should have
avoidance of drug use as the core goal.

Rosie Brocklehurst Director of communications, Addaction

The government has been very tenacious and pragmatic in the way it
has steered drugs policy. Those for whom criticism of government
comes easy should realise that this is an evolving field and even the
experts are learning all the time about how to make treatment better.
Treatment and prevention not only help individuals but also benefit
the family, the community and the wider society. I think in this
respect the government has been patient, even visionary, while
remaining grounded in realpolitik.

Deep understanding is what makes all the difference, and I think that
work we do on the frontline has to be where we go further. So don't
cut the money on the frontline - find it elsewhere. Trust the sector
and free us up to deliver. Expect and encourage more mergers of
treatment agencies, and recognise that, as we deal with one
generation of users, a new generation is arriving, and new drugs are
on the horizon - for example, crystal meth.

Vivienne Evans Chief executive, Adfam

We estimate that problematic drug and alcohol use within the family
has a negative impact on more than 3 million people. The disparity
between need and availability of support highlights the difficulties
facing families battling the isolation and social stigma that goes
with drug problems. Families are usually the first victims of the
crime, abuse and stress that can often accompany substance misuse.
Unprecedented resources are being provided by government to deal with
the drug problems that the country faces.

However, families remain a relatively marginalised group within the
government's drug and alcohol strategy. Services set up to meet the
needs of families are patchy at best. But engaging families in the
process can be pivotal in achieving successful outcomes, turning the
government's investment into real life-changing results for
problematic drug users and their families. It is hoped the next drug
strategy will incorporate dedicated resources and services to meet
families' needs.

Martin Barnes Chief executive, DrugScope

The government is serious about reducing problem drug use and its
many harms. There is no room for complacency, but the progress being
made, particularly on drug treatment, is probably one of the
government's best-kept secrets. There is record spending on drug
treatment, with a 40% increase next year. The target of doubling
numbers in treatment may be met two years ahead of schedule, but much
more needs to be done to improve treatment quality and effectiveness.

The upward trend in drug use has stabilised, with promising signs of
falling use among children and young people, particularly for
cannabis and some class A drugs. The government has introduced
restrictions on bail for drug-related offences, compulsory drug
testing on arrest and, should the test be positive, a requirement to
undergo an assessment. The aim is to get more offenders, or potential
offenders, into treatment. Cannabis reclassification was not a "soft"
response, but based on evidence of its relative harm and the strategy
to concentrate on even more harmful drugs such as heroin, cocaine and
crack. The predicted increase in cannabis use has not happened.
Indeed, the reverse has happened.

Danny Kushlick Director, Transform

On page six of the UK updated Drug Strategy 2002 it says: "We will
maintain prohibition. . ." In 2003, the prime minister's strategy
unit produced a report for the cabinet that showed that, far from
tackling drugs, its policy of enforcing the drug laws was actually
creating many of our drug problems. As a result of supply-side drug
law enforcement, heroin and cocaine are worth more than their weight
in gold and, consequently, organised criminals run the market. We
have some of the toughest drug laws in Europe, the highest levels of
drug use in Europe, the highest per capita prison population in
Europe. Nearly a fifth of UK prisoners are drug law offenders, and
more than half are there as a result of committing acquisitive crime
to support a habit.

The crime costs associated with prohibition are estimated at UKP16bn
a year. Prohibition creates crime and criminal opportunities,
increases public ill-health and drug-related dangers (especially for
young people), wastes billions of pounds, contributes to political
instability in producer countries, and infringes human rights. We
should plan an exit strategy from the global "war on drugs" and
replace it with a more effective system of legal control and regulation.

Edward Garnier Shadow home affairs minister

I sit as a part-time judge and most of the people that come in front
of me are there, one way or another, because of drugs. Drugs are the
single biggest factor behind urban crime. Legalisation is often put
forward as a solution, but it is not as simple as that. The people
who suffer the consequences of drug abuse would suffer it whether
drugs were legal or not. Unless every country in the world legalised
drugs, decriminalisation in this country alone would make things worse.

Finding solutions to drug abuse requires more serious action than
changing classifications. We need to get to grips with why people
turn to drugs. Helplessness, boredom, the breakdown of the family and
of communities are all contributory factors. A considered and mature
review of our drugs policy should be uppermost in our plans for the
future of the Conservative party. If we want a government that really
will cut crime and the causes of crime, getting a grip on drug abuse
and addiction is absolutely crucial.