There is a constructive way to be 'anti-drugs'

Bereaved parents only get the Government's ear when they endorse the popular, ignorant retributive line

Of all the people who gave their time and expertise in appearing before the Home Affairs Select Committee on drugs, surely three of the most remarkable must be Fulton Gillespie, Hope Humphreys and Tina Williams. Mr Gillespie's son died a heroin addict; Mrs Humphreys' son was sentenced to two and a half years for possessing around 50 tabs of ecstasy to be used by him and his chums, and Mrs Williams, whose son is now clean, went on the streets to buy him heroin at the time when his addiction gripped him most intently.

All three of these parents, before drugs blighted their children, were "anti-drugs" in the conventional way. They are still "anti-drugs", but their experiences have led them to seek informed, realistic, and forgiving solutions, rather than hysterical endorsement of attitudes and policies that have failed their families. All three went before the committee petitioning for the law to be changed, and all, to some slight degree, have found their concerns reflected in the recommendations of the report.

Their children have not become well-known names, like Leah Betts or Lorna Spinks or Rachel Whitear. That, in part, is because two out of three of these young children have lives still to get on with. But it is also because their parents have controversial truths to offer, that are unpalatable to the majority, but that would nevertheless help tremendously other parents who may find themselves in the same situations.

Such truths do not lend themselves well to the modern practice of electing a face to represent a legal position or a social policy. And neither, by the way, do sons. It's a nasty indictment of society's values that males have to be very young indeed before their deaths will tug at the national heartstrings. That's why the war on drugs most often has a female face, and likes to advertise itself in a similar way to the bottom end of the cosmetics industry – with pretty, transformed girls. The only difference is that anti-drugs advertising reverses the before-and-after tradition.

Anti-drugs campaigns like to offer something simple – a cautionary tale shared with the nation in the cause of upholding the status quo. Rachel Whitear's family have, with the film they made of their daughter's life, gone furthest down this road. The Government loves them for it, and seems to love the film so much that it's considering showing it to nine-year-olds.

It is worth noting, though, that a fact-finding trip to the Netherlands has persuaded the parents that "shooting galleries" for addicts may be a sensible idea. The establishment of such premises is one of the select committee's recommendations that David Blunkett has already indicated will not be on his reform agenda. Bereaved parents appear to get the ear of government only when they're asking for nothing more than the chance to endorse the popular, ignorant, retributive line.

With this in mind, it has been no surprise to see Mrs Betts wheeled out once again, reminding us all of Mr Blair's promise to her that ecstasy will never be reclassified. Mr Blunkett has taken up that promise too, and is assuring the nation that, again despite this committee's recommendations, and those of the Runciman report two years ago, ecstasy will remain a Class A drug, bracketed alongside heroin and cocaine.

Maybe the Government should have thought about the "evils" of ecstasy before they rented the Dome out to the Ministry of Sound – a clubbing corporation whose magazine Ministry has in the past extolled the virtues of "drug sex" and advised its readers on how to avoid police detection. Neither heroin nor cocaine is as closely associated with a particular youth culture as ecstasy is with clubbing, but that doesn't stop politicians from failing against all odds to make the connection, and taking the money anyway.

Failing to make connections, in fact, seems to be a primary characteristic on the war on drugs. Mrs Betts, for example, has been welcomed to the cause with open arms for her seemingly uncritical endorsement of the party line. Here's a woman whose teenage stepdaughter died after taking an unregulated drug in unregulated circumstances, and who spent years insisting that anything less than a complete refusal to regulate ecstasy will appease her.

How can a person work so hard to uphold so staunchly a situation that failed to avoid the loss of a loved one? How can a person suffer such loss, and come to the conclusion that her child's face and name will be used to ensure that nothing will change? Mrs Betts no doubt believes strongly that Leah's example can stop people from using ecstasy.

But since young people easily find copious examples of living, breathing people who have taken ecstasy and suffered nothing more than a fabulous time, her sad message is nothing more than a drop in an ocean of enthusiastic word-of-mouth. All Mrs Betts ends up offering is a frisson of Russian roulette with a great big gun that holds many, many millions of highly seductive blanks.

And something else as well, of course: a mockery of the truth. When exaggerating the dangers of ecstasy the law and the drug educators are inviting people to draw the conclusion that the dangers of other drugs are being exaggerated just as much. This is the principal reason why two committees have called for the reclassification of ecstasy, and it is utterly sound.

In fact, even cocaine in powdered form needs to be separated from crack and heroin to reflect the difference in the level of addictiveness. Cocaine may be a nasty, dangerous, old drug, but heroin and crack really are in a class of their own. What a shame the law is still so far from reflecting this.

Meanwhile, the phoney war goes on. Yesterday the Daily Mail was again making heavy use of hard drugs in the name of flogging papers, of course. With a big picture of Angus Deayton on the front page, the paper ran a huge sell line saying: "By salivating over the prospect of increased ratings for 'cocaine' Deayton's TV show, the BBC is effectively endorsing hard drug use."

But actually, if it had been left to the BBC, no one would be any the wiser about this prurient, sordid little tale. The News of the World has drummed up this irresponsible publicity, and the Daily Mail has picked it up and run with it.

Young people will see the same man on TV tonight that they have seen for years. But now they'll all know that he's wealthy, successful, famous, in possession of two nostrils, and a cocaine user.

The same papers that insist most vociferously that they hate drugs just can't leave them alone. They continually pump out the message that the worst thing about taking drugs is being caught doing them. They've used the same trick so many times now that all that's left for them to do is become mad with rage that their exposés aren't being taken seriously any more. They're like crack addicts and just as out of control.

The editors of these newspapers would be better off doing what the select committee they're so keen to denigrate did. They should meet and listen carefully to Mr Gillespie, Mrs Humphreys and Mrs Williams. It is the parents of this country who fear drugs the most. These parents have been confronted with the reality of those fears. By hearing what they have to say about the horrors that have befallen their children, other parents can learn some of the things that they did. But the easy way, not the hard way.

d.orr@independent.co.uk