ONE sagacious piece of advice is that when you are in a hole, stop digging. But it is too much to expect Home Secretary David Blunkett to heed that tip as he steps up the Government's stuttering war on drugs.

The Queen's Speech included a Drugs Bill to give police the power to prosecute someone for drug possesion when they are arrested - even if the drugs are only in their bloodstream.

Legislation would introduce a new definition of possession of an illegal

drug, making it an offence to have a certain amount in the bloodstream -

controversial because traces of narcotics can remain for weeks.

Presently, police officers can only insist on a drug test when a person has been formally charged, so this change could double the number of tests in police stations.

Similarly controversial would be the introduction of drug testing for people subject to an anti-social behaviour order - sure to fall foul of the growing army of human rights lawyers.

Ministers are determined to increase the number of heroin and cocaine users entering treatment in the worst-affected areas from 1,500 per month to 1,000 each week by 2008.

And who could possibly think that is a bad idea?

Well, the Downing Street strategy unit for a start. Thanks to a leak to a national newspaper, we know that none other than the Prime Minister's own advisers oppose the plan.

Its unpublished report says this new war on addicts will have "no impact" on drug-related crime, such as burglary and robbery. In fact, they reckon it will force street prices up - forcing users to steal more to fund their habits.

Instead, the report calls for heroin to be available on prescription, which would mean supply controlled by GPs, rather than a £4 billion criminal market.

This tallied with a report by the Scottish Drugs Forum which called for GPs to prescribe heroin because it would help cut drug-related crime and nuisance.

Readers with long memories might remember Mr Blunkett himself once proposed the idea, at the same time as he decided to downgrade cannabis. Nothing came of the plan, as the government instead faced a firestorm for the cannabis law change. The idea of prescribing heroin is now officially "shelved".

The biggest difference between now and then is, of course, that a General Election is only six months away. It's no time to risk being seen as "soft on drugs".

So addicts will instead be forced into treatment, despite the overwhelming evidence that treatment only works for those who want it.

Earlier this year, it was revealed that in some towns and cities 70 per cent of treatment programmes for addicts had to be abandoned because they failed to turn up, or committed further crimes.

And, all the while, the drug the government most wants to stamp out - heroin - is harmless if prescribed by a GP to wean someone off their addiction. The only side-effects linked to its use are nausea and constipation.

Yes, black market heroin kills hundreds every year. But those deaths are caused by the drain cleaner, sand, talcum powder, brick dust and other filth mixed into it by the dealers.

There are some other sane voices around. Adair Turner, the former CBI boss, has demanded an end to prohobition, rather than "unwinn-able wars". And Lord Adebowale, of the drugs charity Turning Point, condemned the "pre-election pantomine, trying to prove who's toughest on drugs". But Mr Blunkett would rather keep digging.

Updated: 11:21 Friday, November 26, 2004