Outside the law?

I read with interest an newspaper article from around a month ago which highlighted the arrest of Hans and Eve Rausing for drugs offences after she was caught trying to smuggle heroin and crack into a function at the American embassy in London. When police searched the couples home in an exclusive part of Chelsea, they found more crack and heroin and nearly £2000 worth of cocaine. Hans is a heir to the multi-billion pound Tetra Pak drinks carton empire and Eve is the daughter of a Pepsi-Cola executive.

But none of this so far is very unusual, well ok, getting caught with class A drugs whilst trying to get into a party at the American Embassy has never happened to me but it's what I read next that bothered me. At a hearing at Westminster Magistrates it was announced that all charges are to be dropped. Yes, dropped! They are to receive conditional cautions. Exactly what this means I'm not sure but it's probable that they will have to attend some kind drug misuse programmes.

Why, just because they're well known socialites, should they be treated any differently? How can the Crown Prosecution Service justify treating this case differently to any other drug possession case? 

What gets me the most about this isn't the fact that they've been 'let off' but that this course of action isn't normally used. Surely it's better to offer the opportunity of good treatment options to those with substance misuse issues? We all know that throwing people in jail doesn't 'cure' addiction! It's obvious from this that when it's one of the middle/upper classes own that's been caught with drugs and admitted they have an addiction; they're treated a lot differently to the working class addict.

If this course of action is the right one for this kind of case why isn't it the course of action taken that is normally taken?

Addiction shouldn't be treated as a criminal issue. It's a health and social issue and therefore the answers to it will come from the health and social field.