A defence lawyer has branded the law on drug possession and supply as "completely unrealistic".

Charles Richardson claims addicts caught with relatively small amounts of drugs are being treated as dealers under tough amendments to the law introduced in 2005.

The law deems anyone with more than a gram of heroin or cocaine, more than 20 grams of cannabis or more than four ecstasy tablets, to be an alleged dealer unless they can prove otherwise. Being convicted of dealing carries harsher penalties than simply possessing drugs.

Mr. Richardson believes the threshold amounts of drugs in the dealing provisions are too low which means addicts are being incarcerated as criminals rather than offered rehabilitation. He believes this was because law-enforcers were consulted before the new provisions were brought in but not counsellors familiar with addicts who know the amount of drugs they can get through.

"I think what should have happened, and it didn't, is that the treatment community, those in touch with what people use, should have been consulted before the dealing provisions were set," he said.

"People with more than one gram are being labelled as dealers and not users. We are classifying people they would rather treat. The law has to be applied sensibly and fairly and these dealing provisions don't seem to take account of practical reality."

Mr. Richardson spoke out after one of his clients, Court Street businessman Raymond "Yankee Boy" Rawlins, was jailed for four-and-a-half months earlier this week. Rawlins, 47, was charged with possession of 11.76 grams of crack cocaine with intent to supply after Police stopped him for a traffic violation and found the crack.

Prosecutors argued that the amount of drugs plus $255 in cash found on him was among the evidence indicating he was selling cocaine. Rawlins admitted possessing the drugs but insisted they were for his personal use due to his drug addiction at the time of the offence last March. Giving evidence in his own defence, Rawlins told Magistrate Juan Wolffe he paid $900 for the crack. "My intentions was to let that last me the next couple of days. It was just three balls, three rocks, it wasn't much. I know I could have smoked that in a night but I would not have done that. I work days," he explained.

Mr. Richardson called Sinclair Simmons, a recovering addict who works as a counsellor for the Department for National Drug Control, as a witness for the defence. Mr. Simmons was accepted by the Magistrate to be an expert in the use, sale, distribution and packaging of drugs. He told the court an addict could get through a gram of cocaine "in 15, 20 minutes, easy." And, he said, even a casual user could get through 11.76 grams of cocaine in a day.

On Monday, the Magistrate ruled that Rawlins was not guilty to the charge of possession with intent to supply, but guilty of possession. However, Rawlins would have faced a much stiffer sentence if he'd been convicted of possession with intent.

Speaking afterwards, Mr. Richardson said the Rawlins case proves the law brought in 2005 is too harsh. "Before these provisions came in there was no set specific amount over which the courts would automatically draw the assumption of intent to supply. It was taken on a case-by-case basis, depending on how it was packaged, how it was being sold and whether there was any money," he explained.

"The problem with the dealing provision of one gram for cocaine is it was completely unrealistic. It was ludicrous. It makes you wonder who did they consult before they set the dealing provision at one gram."

Mr. Richardson believes the Rawlins case is the first where evidence of the kind given by Mr. Simmons has been called to rebut allegations of dealing.

Larry Mussenden, who was Attorney General when the dealing provisions were passed, said he could not comment on an individual case. However, he said that before the law was amended there were "a wide ranging series of meetings with the participants in the criminal justice system. The defence lawyers, the prosecutors, the Magistrates and the Judges. Then the Government-level forums".

He continued: "The Justice Minister then made the decision to amend the legislation then take it to Parliament where the amendments were debated. Not everybody got what they wanted but we struck the middle line to ensure fairness among all the parties."

Mr. Mussenden added that such legislation is then tested through the appeals process to the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals, which give further guidance through ruling on individual cases. However, he could not remember if members of the treatment community were consulted.

The current Attorney General, Kim Wilson, said: "As I understand it, there was consultation prior to the setting of the limits outlined in the schedule. I am not minded to consider raising the tariff. Further it is still for the defendant to prove to the satisfaction of the court that he would use the amount of drug in question, namely for personal use as opposed to for intent to supply."

She said she was not sure if treatment providers were consulted over the amendments, but the Department for National Drug Control was.