This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It will not be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/uk/7557708.stm

The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Tough-on-drugs policy 'pointless' Tough-on-drugs policy 'pointless'
(40 minutes later)
A former civil servant, who once ran the anti-drugs unit in the Cabinet Office, says Britain's policy of being tough on drugs is "pointless". Britain's policy of being tough on drugs is "pointless", says a former civil servant who once ran the Cabinet's anti-drugs unit.
Julian Critchley now believes the best way to reduce the harm to society from drugs would be to legalise them.Julian Critchley now believes the best way to reduce the harm to society from drugs would be to legalise them.
Mr Critchley, who worked with former Labour drug tsar Keith Hellawell, said many colleagues felt the same. Mr Critchley, who worked with ex-Labour drug tsar Keith Hellawell, said many he had worked alongside felt the same.
They publicly backed government policy but privately believed it was not doing any good, he said.They publicly backed government policy but privately believed it was not doing any good, he said.
War on drugsWar on drugs
Ten years ago, the Cabinet Office's anti-drug unit was at the heart of the war on drugs in the UK, co-ordinating policy across all government departments. Ten years ago, the Cabinet Office's Anti-Drug Co-ordination Unit was at the heart of the war on drugs in the UK, co-ordinating policy across all government departments.
Mr Hellawell, the controversial former police chief who went on to accuse Labour ministers of "closing their eyes" to the drugs problem, was appointed in 1998 as the public face of the government's war on dugs. Mr Hellawell, the controversial former police chief who went on to accuse Labour ministers of "closing their eyes" to the drugs problem, was appointed in 1998 as the public face of the government's war on dugs. The idea that many people are holding back solely because of a law which they know is already unenforceable is simply ridiculous Julian CritchleyFormer senior civil servant
Mr Critchley worked behind the scenes as the unit's director.Mr Critchley worked behind the scenes as the unit's director.
He said although when he joined the unit he did not favour decriminalisation, as time went on he changed his mind. In a response to an entry about drugs on BBC home editor Mark Easton's blog, the former senior civil servant wrote that when he started work in the field he did not favour decriminalisation, but as time went on he changed his mind.
He now describes enforcing current laws as "pointless" and believes it is the illegality of drugs that harms society most. "I joined the unit more or less agnostic on drugs policy, being personally opposed to drug use, but open-minded about the best way to deal with the problem. I was certainly not inclined to decriminalise," he said.
Legalising them would produce a dramatic fall in crime, he said. But he soon came to the view that enforcement of the law was "largely pointless" and had "no significant, lasting impact on the availability, affordability or use of drugs", he said.
Market 'saturated'
Mr Critchley went on to argue that wishing drug use away was "folly" and that there was "no doubt" there would be a fall in crime as a result of legalisation.
"The argument always put forward against this is that there would be a commensurate increase in drug use as a result of legalisation," he said.
"This, it seems to me, is a bogus point: tobacco is a legal drug, whose use is declining, and precisely because it is legal, its users are far more amenable to government control, education programmes and taxation than they would be were it illegal."
Studies showed the market was already almost saturated with drugs, he said, and anyone who wished to purchase the drug of their choice could already do so.
"The idea that many people are holding back solely because of a law which they know is already unenforceable is simply ridiculous," he said.
He also said the "overwhelming majority of professionals" he met, including those from the police, the health service, government and voluntary sectors, held the same view.
"Yet publicly, all those intelligent, knowledgeable people were forced to repeat the nonsensical mantra that the government would be 'tough on drugs', even though they all knew that the government's policy was actually causing harm."