Last week brought a new twist to the myth that law enforcement – hyperbolically designated as ‘prohibition’ by the pro drugs lobby – rather than drug use itself is the root of the country’s drug problem.

Tom Feiling, an advocate of legitimising of cocaine, a drug which pretty much he alone rates as neither dangerous nor addictive, started off the week’s drug debate. Plugging his new book, the equally hyperbolically titled, ‘The Candy Machine: how cocaine took over the world’, he pushed the view that pro drugs activists want us to buy - that you can’t stop people using drugs so don’t try. Conveniently bypassed was the fact that cocaine has only ‘taken over’ those countries where enforcement is weak and penalties and asset stripping are rarely or ineffectively imposed. He did not point out that the UK, far from being draconian in anything other than its imposition of methadone, is one such country - hence its rates of cocaine use 2 to 3 times higher than nearly every other country in Europe.

Not everyone bought into Tom’s take on the subject, Stuart Holmes, a medical student, for one. Expressing his horror at the impact of cocaine ‘on swathes of the population to whom the NHS directs so many of its resources’ he found ‘Tom Feiling’s tirade against the illegality of cocaine and other hard drugs a little galling.’ Instead of the balanced exposition of cocaine use in this country, discussion of the source of cocaine and the legal framework surrounding the drug here that he had expected, he found ‘a thinly veiled manifesto for the legalisation of hard drugs.’

Nor, did former Police Commander, Brian Paddick, he who infamously instigated the Brixton experiment of warning rather than arresting people found with cannabis (and many of the negative consequences that followed). Forcefully dissociating himself from Feiling on Sky News he stressed the total unacceptability of both cocaine and crack cocaine, outlining the violence and destruction of lives its use has led and does lead to, quite apart from that involved in its trafficking. He should know.

Nor, clearly, did he think much of the UK Drug Policy Commission’s (UKDPC) contribution to the debate also published this week disingenuously titled “Moving towards Real Impact Drug Enforcement”. When confronted with their innovatory contribution that some drug dealers but not others – the less violent ones - should officially be tolerated because (according to the UKDPC) arresting them ‘can increase violent crime’, he made clear this approach was both impracticable and wrong. His scepticism and his call for nothing less that a total change of social attitudes to a non acceptance of drug use – something singularly missing from any of the UKDPC reports – was an unexpected breath of fresh air. If we can change attitudes to smoking in a generation we can change them to drug use, he declared.

So where have the UKDPC’s ideas come from? They are premised on a variant of the discredited policy idea that only some drug use is harmful which, in this wishful two world view of drug use, can be isolated. That this lobby should make the tactical switch of applying their ideas to enforcement now their preferred but ethically dubious policy of applying liquid handcuffs to so called HHCU’s (high harm causing users) to stop their acquisitive crime has so categorically failed, is perhaps not surprising. After all if you believe that most drug use is non harmful then you are bound to have to think that most dealing is not harmful either - or only if the strong arm of the law comes down on it.

Unbelievably this is the gist of the UKDPC’s Alice in Wonderland view of the illicit drug trade – that the violence that ensues is a function of police actions/enforcement not of the trade – so good dealers can be tolerated while only bad (i.e. violent) dealers will be targeted. Well that’s all right then – all dealers can no doubt be ‘good’ if no one gets in their way. But heaven protect the children, families and communities exposed to the plying of a sanction less trade on their doorsteps with no police to support or protect them. To say nothing of how such a policy would make the UK an even softer target, turn us into an even larger market and encourage more use and incremental damage.

This is political correctness or liberalism taken too far. Will we be blaming the police action as opposed to inaction for murder and robbery next?

Yet startlingly in all the prime time coverage respectfully devoted by the BBC’s Today programme to the report – summaries thoughout the morning each with Home Affairs Editor Mark Easton’s imprimatur - none of these points were raised. The premise of the report was uncritically accepted. Yet as well as being numbingly illogical the report is nothing less than a formula for the backdoor legalisation of drugs' trafficking - ‘a harm reduction stepping stone to legalisation’, as drugs policy expert, Professor Neil McKeganey, has called it.

According to McKeganey, “the form of policing UKDPC are advocating would in reality give rise to the creation of areas of our cities and our rural communities in which drug use had effectively become legalised. Such a policy raises the frankly idiotic scenario in which we are punishing drug users in some areas and accepting them in others (hardly a sound basis for English law).”

For my own part I would like to see Roger Howard (CEO of the UKDPC) or Dame Ruth Runciman (its Chairman) going to those communities they would designate as suffering minimal harm from drug dealing and which, as a result of their counsel, would be forced to accept the existence of local drug markets. My guess is that these are unlikely be the ones in which they themselves reside.

To judge by the reported comments of Bill Hughes, the agency director of SOCA, following the report’s publication, the thinking of some of those currently involved in senior drug enforcement positions may be equally muddled. He, it would seem, accepts the idea that the report asserts that we focus too much on seizures and arrests, has abdicated the idea of vigorous enforcement and is misguidedly advocating this implausible approach. The UK’s already declining drug seizures and arrests, seen in this context, are even more revealing (see my report, The Phoney War on Drugs) not least by contrast with Holland's rising cocaine seizures and drug arrests.

The need for smarter enforcement is undeniable. But not of the UKDPC’s interpretation of the concept. Nothing less than a top to bottom rethink - a new, committed and well resourced national strategy with local action to protect our borders, to hit middle and local markets, keeping operations flexible, adaptable and most importantly ongoing – is called for.

This, not the UKDPC’s policy of quasi legalisation, will protect Antonia Senior’s daughter as she grows up; and not her mother’s appallingly ill thought ideas in the Times second ‘legalising’ article in 5 days; the one which brought this particular week’s drug debate offerings to an exhausting end.