And so, at last, the day has dawned that some of us thought we might never live to see. Something has finally been done about Britain's antiquated drug laws. Home Secretary David Blunkett has confirmed that cannabis is to be reclassified as a Class C drug,
meaning that possession of a small amount of dope will not be an arrestable offence.

Should you be caught with a spliff on the streets of Britain, the worst that will be likely to happen to you is that you'll get a warning and have your stash confiscated. At worst, you might get a fixed penalty notice, like a parking ticket, unless your offence can
be described as 'aggravated' - unless, for instance, you smoke next to a school playground, or blow smoke in a police officer's face. So sensible smokers are going to have a much easier time of it, although those who sell them their supply will not find life more comfortable. The maximum penalty for supplying Class C drugs is to be increased to
14 years.

On the face of it, this does seem somewhat contradictory. But the Government have an explanation, and in many ways it's a disarmingly frank one. It isn't that Blunkett or Tony Blair have suddenly tuned in, skinned up and chilled out. They have been at pains to emphasise that they still disapprove of dope. In the House of Commons this week, Blunkett declared: 'The message is clear - drugs are dangerous. We will educate, persuade and where necessary, direct young people away from their use. We will not legalise or decriminalise any drugs, nor do we envisage a time when this will be
appropriate... Cannabis possession remains a criminal offence. I am determined that the police are able to control the streets and uphold order.'

However, crucially, he added: 'Police time saved will be refocused on class A drugs'. And that, as Blair has freely admitted, is the main driving force behind this move. Crime committed by addicts desperate to get money to fund heroin and crack habits
has continued to rise, and more and more crack has been getting into Britain. The police simply do not have the manpower to chase after cannabis users and process their cases through the criminal justice system. There are simply too many smokers out there.

A survey in 2000 found that 44 per cent of British 16-29-year-olds had used cannabis at some point in their lives, 22 per cent had used it in the past year, and 14 per cent had used it within the past month. (The proportion of respondents that were smoking as they answered the survey questions and thought the questionnaire was beautiful was not recorded). Pretty clearly, any attempts to stamp out an activity as popular as that has no real chance of success. The logic behind Blunkett's move seems unassailable, and the changes have the backing of the police.

However, that hasn't stopped heavy criticism from some quarters. The Conservative Party remains opposed to any change in the law. Shadow Home Secretary Oliver Letwin claimed that the Government had a 'muddled, dangerous policy,' which would lead to an 'open season for drug peddlers'. More damagingly, the former Government
advisor on drugs, Keith Hellawell, has resigned from his post over the cannabis issue, claiming that the Government was '...giving the wrong messages to parents and children. It [the change of policy] creates a fog. It creates a mire where people don't know which
way to go. How on earth can you justify messages which appear to soften the approach?'

Mr Hellawell is probably right to say that the change of policy will create a fog. It'll be quite a fragrant fog containing lots of very relaxed people, I'd imagine. Beyond that, however, I cannot agree with him. Justifying the new policy is easy. You can justify it
because prosecuting dope smokers was an absurdly wasteful use of limited police resources, and because the ever-increasing popularity of the drug proves that the prohibition of cannabis was patently unsuccessful. So unsuccessful, in fact, that it was making the law look absurd.

Above all, you can justify it by pointing to the amazing results that have emerged from the experiment in Lambeth, south London. There, since July last year, the policy of warning people found with small amounts of cannabis rather than arresting them has already been in force. Critics claimed that the experiment would render the area lawless. In fact, between November 2001 and April 2002, the number of street robberies in Lambeth almost halved. This astonishing statistic is surely not unconnected to another one, which showed that in six months 1,350 hours of police time that might have been spent pursuing dope smokers were saved, and made available for the tackling of serious problems. Now, the Metropolitan Police are reportedly considering extending the policy to cover the whole of the London area, in advance of the formal change in the law.

Personally, I'd support the outright legalisation of cannabis, which would have the great benefit of taking its supply out of the hands of the criminal dealers the Government claims to despise so much. The Government would also gain a valuable new source of tax
revenue. Unfortunately, that seems unlikely to happen for the time being, with the Government already facing so much criticism for supposedly being 'soft on drugs'. But this week's announcement was a very welcome, long overdue step in the direction of sanity - and if the new policy proves to be a as big a success nationally as it was in Lambeth, then who knows what might follow?

In case you're wondering, by the way, I won't be rushing to skin up. For one thing, if you venture into the drug-dealing areas of my home city, the main health hazard is not so much the merchandise as the bullets. For another, I've recently discovered the wonders of aromatherapy, which seems to have a very dope-like effect on me and is thankfully entirely legal. (Honestly, after a session on the lavender oil this lunchtime, I wasn't at all sure that this column was going to get written.) But I am still very pleased about this
week's news, for the sake of all those otherwise law-abiding people who have hitherto been at risk of ending up with a criminal record because of a relatively harmless means of relaxation. I don't often feel like saying this, but - well done, Mr Blunkett.

As regular readers of this column will have gathered, I take a reasonably keen interest in American politics. Considering the extent to which the USA dominates all areas of life on Earth, I reckon that the power games there concern us all. However, this week I came across a story that I found literally incredible. I had to double-check the facts before I could believe it.

It concerned a protest that took place in Washington DC. Members of two pressure groups, DC Vote and DC Rabble dressed up in 18th Century costumes and staged a demonstration outside the British embassy, during which they read a petition to the Queen. The petition asked Her Majesty to grant its 56 signatories British citizenship. The wording of the petition echoed that of the 1776 American Declaration of Independence, and asks for the support of the UK government in gaining 'full democracy' for Washington - or, failing that, consideration for acceptance into the British Commonwealth.

And what prompted all this strange behaviour? The amazing fact that the citizens of America's capital city have no representation in Congress, because the District of Columbia isn't a state. Residents of Washington have been unable to vote in Congressional elections since 1800.

Understandably, many present-day Washingtonians feel that this is hardly fair, particularly since the city's residents pay around $1.4 billion in federal taxes each year, and more people live in Washington than in the entire state of Alaska. Protesters have
adapted a famous slogan from the American War of Independence to describe their situation: 'Taxation Without Representation'. DC Vote are now organising a campaign aimed at persuading Washington's mayor, Anthony Williams, to include the slogan on the city's flag.

I can only wish them well in their campaign to correct what does seem to be a bizarre state of affairs. And if they're at all serious about wanting to become British citizens, perhaps they should come over here and apply for political asylum. Something tells me that American asylum seekers would be treated rather better by the British immigration authorities than those from some other parts of the world.

This week has seen a bitter row over a new cinema ad supporting the campaign against Britain adopting the Euro currency. Much indignation has been generated by the five-second segment featuring comedian Rik Mayall impersonating Hitler, and barking 'Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein euro' - one people, one realm, one euro, a parody of the Nazi slogan 'Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuehrer'.

Many have been seriously upset. A spokesman for the European Commission described the ad as 'crass and offensive' and in 'appallingly bad taste', and said that it pandered to xenophobia. Lord Janner, the chairman of the Holocaust Educational Trust, has described the portrayal as 'crass, distasteful and totally inappropriate,' adding: 'Those responsible should withdraw this offensive advert immediately.'

Personally, I'm quite happy for the ad to be out there, because I'd like Britain to adopt the euro, and I suspect that something as clumsy and stupid as this ad will put people off the message it's delivering. Equating the introduction of a new currency with the horrors of the Third Reich is so patently absurd that people will surely realise how rudely their intelligence is being insulted. In case they don't, Mayall has helpfully explained: 'It's satire. Look, I'm saying what I say because if Hitler tells people to support the euro then surely they won't. That's the point of it.'

Thanks for that, Rik. But it isn't Hitler delivering the message, it's a comedian who hasn't done anything memorable in years. I'm sure that Mayall will have been glad of the publicity the ad has brought him, but I think that he may have damaged the cause he sought to promote. I certainly hope so, anyway.

Ormy's 'Notes' and Other
Scribblings

The definitive collection

Ormondroyd

11.07.02 Front Page

Back Issue Page