The Guardian and the Sun agree about drugs policy. I think I'd better write that again before I feel faint: the Guardian and the Sun agree about drugs policy.
In truth, I may be over-stating that agreement just a tad. But consider their coverage today following the publication of the groundbreaking Home Office evidence-based study which reveals that the relaxing of drugs laws does not increase the numbers of addicts.
The Sun's attitude is evident in both its news report headline, "Is it high time for a change?" and its leading article, "Drugs re-think":
"Whether or not drugs laws should be relaxed, one thing is now clear. A vast majority — 71% — think the war on drugs has failed. That means we can't just carry on with the status quo.
Some say we don't properly enforce the laws. Others say their whole basis is misconceived. Something has to change."
The Sun's poll, incidentally, is interesting. YouGov asked 3,794 adults (triple the usual sample size): do you think the war on drugs has been successful in reducing drug use?
No, said 71%. Yes, said 15%. And there were 14% don't knows. Some 83% believe Britain has a serious substance abuse problem, and two-thirds back a government review of drug policy options, including a relaxation of the law.
The Guardian's leader, far longer than the Sun's, argued that the "comparative study of different regimes of drug control, should make all politicians think again." It continued:
"As defeat is quietly admitted in the war on drugs in one country after another, UK policy is becoming damagingly out of touch.
Drug abuse in Britain is a big and expensive problem... The issue is not whether or not drug abuse is harmful. It is how best to minimise the harm it causes...
There is enough evidence in this report alone to advocate reform. It is time listen to the experts."
The Guardian (Punitive drug laws are failing, says minister), the Independent (Drug abuse: is Britain ready to grow up?) and the Daily Telegraph (Coalition conflict on drug laws) thought the report important enough to warrant front page status.
And the Indy also weighed in with a leading article, "Addicted to ignorance on drug abuse", in which it contended that "our political classes" serve us badly in terms of drugs policy.
"There is very little incentive for any politician even to suggest a rational approach to the problem," it said, adding:
"If the press doesn't finish off your career, then your political opponents, usually hypocritically, will use the supposedly maverick suggestion as a golden opportunity to smear and discredit you."
But "the press" - meaning, of course, the popular newspapers - does not appear quite as exercised as used to be the case. (Witness above the Sun's openness to a change in policy).
The Telegraph's news report states that the "highly controversial" study has "triggered a major row in the coalition" between home secretary Theresa May, and the Lib-Dem home office minister Norman Baker.
If so, perhaps May and prime minister David Cameron should look again at that Sun poll.
Note also that the Daily Mail, which carried a page 2 lead, "Punishing drug users is pointless, says Home Office report", did not editorialise on the subject.
Perhaps it will do so tomorrow, following today's debate, but I do detect a change of attitude in the air. Translating that into a change in policy is an entirely different matter.
