Has Gordon been Smoking Something?

It certainly seems that the logic of both parties is hazy. Firstly the move toward re-reclassification means that Brown and Home Secretary Jacqui Smith will have to reject the opinion of the Advisory Council for the Misuse of Drugs, who have expressed the view previously reported that there remains insufficient evidence to justify re-categorisation of cannabis from its current class C to a more serious class B status (a U-turn is unnecessary)

Bearing in mind that the advisory board comprises of an array of experts, appointed for their knowledge of the subject, it seems extraordinarily arrogant that Brown would see fit to overrule them (but then again, he has some previous when it comes to marching on irrespective of evidence). Yet his arrogance is made even more striking by the fact that the Labour Government has never before over-ruled the 23-member council. That is probably because they have a lot that is useful to contribute. The advisory council, to be clear, consists of scientists and other medical experts plus representatives of Drug charities and social care organisation, and Senior Police Officers. They know a lot about the classification of drugs and make decisions based upon evidence, not on a biased slanted morality.

Whether re-classification is likely to have any impact whatsoever is debateable. I can barely believe that the majority of police officers will, in practice, peruse the casual cannabis smoker more ardently then they currently do. The upgrading of the law will doubtless mean that for some users who are unfortunate enough to be in the wrong place at the wrong time will face arrest rather than verbal warning, and on occasion people will end up in court. However, I am not convinced that the day to day practices of the police will likely change all that much, having got used to dealing with users fairly informally, I assume they will continue the current policy (unless arrest performance figures demand a boost).

But we need to remember why such the move for was downgrading classification was made in the first place. Cannabis was downgraded to free police time to tackle harder drugs, which, unlike cannabis are easy to link to serious crime. Cannabis, in contrast is not, and while that is not to say that there are people that commit serous offences while under the influence, there are a swell of cannabis smokers who use recreationally and do not steal, harm and murder as a consequence of use.

As a Class B rather than a Class C drug the maximum penalty for cannabis possession will rise from two to five years, (the maximum prison term for possession with intent to supply will rise as well), conceivably (if the police do target users and dealers) placing a greater burden on the criminal justice system. But is it really necessary or a sensible move? Does cannabis constitute a real social menace as Brown has suggested? Is it really the case that even though cannabis is now being grown in stronger forms it constitutes more pernicious and damaging drug? The advisory council say no.

I should make clear that I am not naïve to the fact that stronger forms of cannabis are being smoked by young people, or that it can do harm. I have seen the harm it can do first hand, and lost a close friend to a suicide that I have no doubt was linked to the drug. But drug policy should be based on evidence and expertise. The police and criminal justice system should be dealing with serious crime, and they know it. Seemingly only Brown and his minions don't.

What makes all this more ironic is that the cannabis debate re-surfaces on the day that a report into the murder of Richard Whelan was published. For those who are unaware of the report or the tragic case that generated it I will recount in brief detail here. The report, as widely commented on in the press highlighted a 'culture of complacency' in the criminal justice system that puts members of the public at risk.

Whelan, a young man who was noble and brave enough to came to his girlfriends defence when Anthony Joseph, (a Schizophrenic criminal who should have been remanded in custody, but was instead freed to walk the streets) through chips at her on a night bus. His reward for his bold actions in confronting Joseph was that he ended up dead (stabbed through the heart).

The report into the killing cites a catalogue of failures which, if avoided, could have prevented his death. It concluded that the system 'accepts' that those who are released will commit further offences. It also demonstrated a 'lackadaisical or nonchalant' attitude to many aspects of the case.

The 'great cannabis debate' it seems, still has the power to hide under a cloud of smoke, far more pressing problems facing criminal justice agencies.

If Mr Brown wants to take up a 'moral crusade' on behalf of the public then there are better places to start. Cannabis can no-doubt contributes to social ills, but should cannabis reclassification really be amongst Browns priorities? Or was it an easy cannabis reclassification is a way to look 'tough on crime' when headlines are full of bad news for criminal justice agencies and Labours management and oversight of them?