Drug law must align with public opinion

So where do we go from here, in thinking about the law on drugs? Prince Harry's troubles give sharp focus to a debate that's rumbled along for at least two years. The time has come for action.

Prince Charles was apparently horrified at his son's involvement in what is, of course, an illegal activity. But just how horrific is it to smoke cannabis? This lies at the core of the debate. The law is belatedly trying to catch up with what most adults now think. To try to outlaw something that's widely seen as acceptable behaviour brings the law itself into disrepute.

At present, cannabis is categorised as a Class B drug, under the 1971 Misuse of Drugs Act. The penalty at a magistrates' court, merely for possession, can be as high as three months' imprisonment or a £2,500 fine, or both. (At Crown Court, punishment can be far higher.) But, in practice, the law is seldom enforced so ferociously. Opinion research, as reported in the authoritative Runciman inquiry on drugs, two years ago, shows that the vast majority of people rate cannabis possession (as opposed to trafficking) a very petty offence, if an offence at all. Adults see it as the least harmful of all drugs, including tobacco and alcohol.

The Runciman committee didn't recommend straight legalisation. They felt more information was needed on long-term effects. But they did recommend downgrading cannabis from Class B to Class C. It should no longer be an imprisonable offence. Offenders should, in general, be given an informal warning, a police caution, without acquiring a criminal record.

The police took the point faster than the government. Beginning in Lambeth last year, the Met announced that they wouldn't automatically arrest someone found in possession of small amounts of cannabis. It would just be taken off them. The police will spend the time gained, they say, on pursuing worse crimes.

No one would accuse Home Secretary David Blunkett of being a liberal but on the cannabis issue at least, he has shown that he knows when to be flexible. In October he told the Commons home affairs select committee that he intended to ask the official Advisory Committee on the Misuse of Drugs to take soundings on whether the time was now right to follow the Runciman recommendation on cannabis.

He asked for a response by the end of February. The answer has to be Yes. Mr Blunkett can make the change by administrative action, without new legislation. There's no reason why it shouldn't happen before Easter this year.

Laws have to be enforceable. Heroin and cocaine are the drugs that need to be pursued. The "gateway" theory that cannabis inevitably leads on to harder drugs doesn't stand up to close scrutiny. No one, however, denies that sometimes it can. In his report about Prince Harry on yesterday's Breakfast with Frost programme, the BBC's royal reporter, Nicholas Witchell, did mention cocaine, before rapidly backtracking; and the News of the World maintains that this has been on sale at the Rattlebone Inn. So Prince Charles wasn't wrong to be anxious.

But on cannabis, the law has to realign itself with public opinion and public behaviour. And the sooner the better.

Paul Barker is Senior Research Fellow at the Institute of Community Studies