First they came for the terrorists…

The news that Police Officers in Enfield have been suspended while investigations take place in to allegations of assault, ‘torture’ and misappropriation of property has been widely reported in the press. Coming on the back of reported Police excesses at the G20 protests, it is all too likely that it will get dismissed as just another local example of poor policing, an ‘isolated incident,’ rather than viewed as more of a systemic problem.

Because there is a bigger problem here. It’s one that organisations such as Liberty constantly warn us about, but is too often dismissed as liberal softness. It’s the risk that when ill-treatment, brutality or a suspension of Human Rights is suspended in one context, it starts the process of legitimising the same abuses further away from the original case. So behaviour that has become increasingly acceptable to some in the “war” on “terror” seeps, inexorably into the “war” on “drugs.”

Of course, the constant demonisation of drug users by politicians and the media has contributed to this process. Legislation has eroded the legal rights of drugs users to a greater extent than any other group in society, apart, possibly, from terrorists. While the police have largely balked from setting up Itemisers at the door of McDonald’s to search for people who have had contact with explosives, there’s no such hesitation at setting up such testing points at pubs and clubs. Thanks to the power of Closure Orders, a person can be evicted from a house associated with nuisance and Class A drug activity although they have not personally used any drugs or convicted of any offences.

In a world where “Rat on a Rat” is an acceptable police campaign to encourage reporting drug suppliers, it can come as little surprise that some Police officers will reduce the rights of suppliers to a similar level.

There may also be another parallel here with the way that torture crept in to the war on terror. Commentators have highlighted how fictional torture (in, for example 24) may have inspired, legitimised and promoted the use of torture in extreme situations, justifying the ends against the means. Perhaps, in a similar way, fiction such as the Shield and, closer to home, Ashes to Ashes has inspired (or created nostalgia) for the torturing of suspects and profiting from the seizure of goods.

But in practice this is neither a nostalgic throwback to smoke-filled basements and giving the suspect a good going over, nor is it turning over the Armenian money-train. This what happens when the Government and successive mayors in London sanction brutality against protestors, strikers, demonstrators and suspected terrorists, and the media and politicians create a folk devil out of drugs and those who use them. You reap a whirlwind.

You wait for ages for a Drugs News service and then three come along at once!

The strange saga of Daily Dose and DS Daily...

It’s been a funny few months for drug news services. For a long time the Daily Dose, established by David Clark, was the first daily Drugs News bulletin. Compiled by the industrious and diligent Jim Young, it built up a significant number of subscribers.

But, in April 2009, Jim Young left the Daily Dose. Editorials on the Daily Dose website suggested that attempts by the NTA to interfere with editorial content was the cause of this, a claim refuted by the NTA. The Daily Dose was briefly suspended, before reappearing with a new format at the end of April.All this must have been manna to Drink and Drug News who launched their own email Drug News service at the end of March. This subscription service (at http://www.drinkanddrugsnews.com/Register.aspx) is a relatively slim affair compared to Daily Dose, focussing as it does mainly on UK news services.

As if all this wasn’t enough, Drugscope then launched their own news service DS Daily – (http://www.dsdaily.org.uk/) in May 2009. Previously, their news had come from their regular Members Briefings but the DS Daily represented a new development, currently not dependent on Drugscope membership. But the biggest surprise of the launch was that Jim Young had moved across to Drugscope and was editing/running the DS Daily. First impressions of DS Daily is that it looks to be an excellent service, well-edited, and covering important stories. It is also much tidier and not overly cluttered either by advertising or by op-ed pieces.The launch of DS Daily, and the re-emergence of Mr Young within the Drugscope team, suggests an interesting back-story. The website name was only registered on the 7th May 2009, and the website was up and running a couple of weeks later. This all suggests some nimble footwork on the part of Harry S at Drugscope and some fast work by Jim. As an aside, site admin appears to have been done by Ash Whitney of Wired Up Wales, who had previously been the webmaster for Daily Dose!

However, three similar news aggregators would seem to be too many to be sustained. Few people are going to want to receive all bulletins as they will contain much duplication. Some will lose subscribers. This probably won’t be fatal. The bigger challenge will be funding, and which provider can garner sufficient funds and clout to survive.At present, Daily Dose has a far higher profile than DS Daily. But then it has been around since 2001, and so has a major headstart over the Drugscope upstart. And even if there is a drop off in subscriptions, the number of organisations linked to Daily Dose assures it a high search-engine rating for the foreseeable future. But it isn’t all about traffic. The funding is crucial and here, Daily Dose has probably shot itself in the foot.

Following their contre-temps with the NTA, Daily Dose decided to decline further funding from the NTA. We don’t know how much this was scheduled to be; in the year 07/08 it appears to be £50,000. For a charity that reported sponsorship of only £80,000 in financial year ending May ’08, such a drop off in funding could be catastrophic. Ominously, the NTA email hinted at the role that other could play, saying “However, the shut-down provoked some people to start asking questions, and others to suggest that they could step into the breach to provide an alternative”

Drugscope’s sponsorship of Daily Dose was scheduled to end anyway; the NTA’s has now gone, and it will be interesting to see how long sponsorship from the Home Office (which results in the FRANK logo and Tackling Drugs Changing Lives) remains.

It may well be that we end up with three distinct ‘products:’ the Wired-In community site which ends up primarily promoting a recovery model, Drink and Drug News bulletins, which includes some news stories and importantly recruitment opportunities and field-specific developments, and DS Daily, which will concentrate on the dissemination of news and bulletins. We will have to wait and see.The only thing that also remains unclear is what really went on behind the scenes in late April at Wired-In resulting in Jim’s departure and rapid reappearance at Drugscope. While the NTA’s email may have been significant, the developments point strongly to internal issues at Wired-In and the direction in which Daily Dose was going. But, as with which of the drug news services will survive this year, only time will tell.

Last twist of cannabis reclassification travesty

In the last post on cannabis reclassification it appeared that there would be a delay before Penalty Notice Orders (PNDs) for cannabis possession were introduced.

The Statutory Instrument that would have brought PNDs in for a variety of offences had been scheduled for introduction on the 26th January 2009 but, faced with a rising chorus of opposition from bodies such as the Magistrates Association, the introduction was suspended.

This was to allow the Ministry of Justice to undertake a proper consultation with stakeholders about the offences covered, something that, up until this stage hadn't happened.

However, in their desire to introduce PNDs for Cannabis Possession, the Government then decided that consultaton on this specific PND was not actually required and asked the House of Lords to pass a motion introducing PNDs for Cannabis possession.

After a mere fifteen minute discussion on the subject (most of which was of little value) the Motion was passed and, it seems PNDs for cannabis came in to force. The passing of the Lords motion took place on the 26th January 2008 between 7.55 and 8.20pm. Two Lords spoke. The Motion was then passed. This it seems was all that was required to bring the PND in to force.

The record of the debate is here

Ironically, Lord Bach, proposing the Motion for the Ministry of Justice had the temerity to assert "The proposal that cannabis possession should be added to the penalty notice for disorder scheme was made public last October. We believe that there has been plenty of opportunity for people to comment on it."

This is a laughable assertion. There was no formal consultation on the subject despite the fact that Home Office had previously assured that there would be a consultation. There was a complete failure to consult. We asked the Ministry of Justice in November 2008 when the consultation would take place. In January 2009, two weeks before the motion was passed we finally received a reply from the Ministry of Justice, letting us know that no formal consultation would be taking place.

If Lord Bach therefore truly believes that this represented "plenty of opportunity for people to comment on it," then there is something truly rotten within the MoJ.

Further it seems that while other less serious offences being considered for PNDs are now on hold, pending consultation, one of the most serious, cannabis use, is not considered worthy of consultation or proper debate and has been fast-tracked for political expediency.

While it seems almost certain that PNDs for cannabis have come in to force, we are double checking this; while ACPO and the Home Office have released guidance, information and resources which state that PNDs can now be issued, there may still be some confusion. Certainly two days after the Lords Motion on the subject, Maria Eagle MP, providing a written answer said "When, penalty notices for disorder become available for the offence of possessing cannabis, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will issue guidance under section 6 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 about their issue." (ref)
Which certainly gives the impression that either the Parliamentary Secretary for the Government Equalities Office (!) doesn't have a clue what she is answering questions about OR further action needs to be taken before the PNDs come in to force.

Frankly, who knows? Maybe FRANK does? But in an interesting departure the new information leaflet on cannabis reclassification comes not with FRANK's usual happy banter and warm graphics. Instead there's a formal HM Government/ACPO document (see here) which explains the changes in fairly formal terms.

Given the millions being spent on Frank it seems a little strange that the vehicle for publicising the change would be such a utilitarian one. It could be that given that the move to reclassify cannabis is not popular with young people, there is an attempt to "insulate" Frank from negative associations by creating the illusion that this is something that the Government is doing and nothing to do with avuncular, independent Frank. Alternatively it could be that in the current financial climate there wasn't enough time or money for a swarm of designers to make the document look hip.

All this confusion should come as no suprise. It's the tail end of the actions of a home secretary who first decided to ignore the guidance of the ACMD and push ahead with reclassification, who decided to pursue PNDs for cannabis possession without consulting, and then decided to push through the required legislation by sidestepping the elected houe and getting the Lords to do it late in to the evening. So much for evidence based policy. So much for consultation. So much for democracy.

The ACPO guidance is here

The Home Office FAQs are here

To B or not to B - the chaos of Cannabis Re-reclassification

Cannabis moves back to B while everyone tries to work out how policing will now work

On the 26/1/09 Cannabis moved back to Class B. To accompany this move, new policing strategy and guidelines should have also come in to force, which included a series of escalating penalties for cannabis possession. This should have included the introduction of Penalty Notice for Disorder (PNDs) for second offences of Cannabis Possession.

However, as with every other aspect of cannabis policy, the reclassification has ended in farce, confusion and recrimination.

As we previously reported, the proposal to introduce PNDs has had to be postponed as the spectrum of offences to be covered by PNDs has met with the disapproval of the Magistrates Association, amongst others.

So PNDs will not now be introduced until the Ministry of Justice has undertaken a proper consultation on the subject, something that as early as last week they maintained was neither required or possible.

As a result of this, PNDs for cannabis possession will not now come in to force at the same time as cannabis moves back to Class B.

At present, neither ACPO nor the Home Office has indicated how cannabis should be policed in the meantime. It is likely that the existing regime - of two cannabis warnings at most followed by arrest - is the most likely course of action. This would mean that, in the short term at least, the move back to Class B would have no meaningful impact on cannabis possession.

The media coverage of the reclassfication today has been as confused as the reclassification itself. Interviewed on the Today programme, John Fassenfelt of the Magistrates Association railed against the way reclassification had been conducted. He argued that cannabis was, illogically, being treated differently to other class B drugs and that the power of magistrates to look at cases was being circumvented by the decision to allow PNDs for cannabis possession. He somewhat undermined his case by being unable to think of another Class B drug, but the principle remains.

However, the most poor performance came from the woefully underprepared Home Office Minister Alan Campbell. He was challlenged on why cannabis should be treated differently to other Class B drugs - and be the subject of PNDs when other drugs weren't. One of the reasons he offered was that each drugs really should be treated on its own merits and that, even within Classes drugs should not be treated the same. Which, when you think about it, is a pretty damning indictment of the current classification system.

However, the most laughable suggestion as to why cannabis should be policed and treated differently was that cannabis was easier to identify in the street (unlike other Class B drugs such as Amphetamine) and so could be handled differently as nothing needed to be sent off for analysis. Presumably, the same bizarre logic could be applied to a host of other drugs, such as Magic Mushrooms.

Unfortunately, Campbell wasn't pushed as to why the Home Office and MoJ had botched the introduction of PNDs quite so badly. So instead he spent a lot of time stressing that the first option available to Police Officers was to arrest and charge, and that they had the discretion to use other interventions.

This was somewhat disingenuous as ACPO guidance on cannabis to date has stressed a presumption against arrest. Further, the onus has been on the police to demonstrate that an arrest was warranted as opposed to it being an approved intervention in all cases.

So at present, cannabis has moved from Class C to B, with no guidance to explain how it will be policed in the short term, and uncertainty as to how the rollout of PNDs will take place now. Now that's what you could call sending out clear messages about cannabis!

PNDs for Cannabis on Hold

Cannabis back to Class B but PNDs will have to follow later

Hot on the heels of the last post, lamenting the Government's failure to consult properly on the introduction of PNDs, there has been a change of heart at the Ministry of Justice and there will now be a period of consultation.

However, this is not a cause for jubilation. Nor does it appear to be directly related to cannabis. Instead it seems to be a result of Magistrates raising objections to the PNDs on the grounds that many of the offences were considered by Magistrates too serious to be handled with PNDs. Their focus (according to the Daily Mail) was the addition of unlicensed cabs to the list of offences which could receive a PND.


As a result, the Ministry of Justice has now said "the government has listened to concerns about certain aspects of extending the penalty-notice-for-disorder-scheme and has decided to consult more widely on the new offences to be included."


So last week, according to the Ministry of Justice, a consultation had taken place, (albeit of a limited nature) and there was no scope for wider consultation, and a week later, a wider consultation is required.

Now, hopefully, this will be a proper, open, public consultation. Then again, who knows what will happen next week.




http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7838928.stm

Cannabis Fines - Home Office Misleads regarding Consultation

No Consultation on PNDs for Cannabis Possession despite Home Office Assurance.

In October 2008, in their press release entitled "Tougher Action on Cannabis" the Home Office said that prior to Penalty Notices For Disorder (PNDs) being introduced, consultation would take place.

They said "Under penalty notice for disorder proposals, on which the Ministry of Justice (new window) will shortly run a consultation."

We wrote to the Ministry of Justice in November asking when this consultation would be taking place. A long period of silence followed.

Last week we finally received a reply from the MoJ saying that no consultation would take place, and suggesting that responsibilty for this lay with the Home Office. They said:

"Possession of cannabis is included on a list of proposed new offences drawn from a longer list on which we consulted stakeholders in 2006. The Government decided that the PND should be available to officers, subject to Parliamentary approval, on re-classification of the drug to Class B on 26 January 2009. In the light of this decision, it has not been possible to carry out a full consultation."

This response is astonishing. The Home Office clearly stated a consultation would take place. This would have been an opportune time to explore how impractical the introduction of PNDs would be, what safeguards would need to be in place, and give stakeholders a chance to comment and critique the proposal.

In 2006, a small scale MoJ consultation looked at adding certain offences to those which could be dealt with by PNDs. However, this consultation was restricted to ACPO, Justices and Magistrates Associations but not the public.

In the Explanatory Notes which accompanied the Criminal Justice and Police Act Ammendment (2009) which included adding cannabis to the list of PND offences the MoJ said:

"More recently, Departments with substantive policy responsibility for the various offences now being added have conducted consultations with their own stakeholders Therefore, although
there has been no formal public consultation, all those most involved and affected have had ample opportunity to make their views known." http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2009/draft/em/ukdsiem_9780111471876_en.pdf

So in effect the MoJ are saying that, as far as they are concerned, the Home Office consulted their Stakeholders regarding PNDs for Cannabis. And the Home Office said the MoJ would consult.

More worryingly, these proposals were never debated in Parliament. The Statement made by the Home Secretary on the 7th May 2008 made no mention of PNDs. They were mentioned in Written Answers in October 2008, and again they were mentioned in the Lord's Debate on the subject in November 2008.

Th upshot of this has been the introduction of PNDs never taken before the House of Commons, and no public consultation on the subject - just a RIA which was not available when the proposal went before the Commons.

Conspiracy or confusion? Who knows. The end result is the same.

January 2009

Eyes Wide Open Housing - Awards Not Courts

Ten years after the first Eyes Wide Open housing was trialled in the UK, a hostel working with ongoing users has received national awards. It is long overdue. And now there can be no excuse for others not to follow suit

We are immensely pleased to report that the King Georges Hostel in London, part of ECHG, were the recipients of two awards at the Chartered Institute of Housing/Inside Housing Awards for Outstanding Achievement In Housing (England) and Meeting the Needs of Vulnerable People. King Georges are one of the growing number of housing providers who have adopted and adapted the “eyes wide open model” of housing provision that has been pioneered here for a number of years.

The Gateway Programme at King Georges Hostel is a pioneering initiative to provide housing, drugs education and harm reduction interventions to some of the most vulnerable dependent drug users in housing need.

The Programme takes in dependent drug users in housing need, provides housing in attend education and awareness sessions on injecting, overdose, and blood borne viruses. Despite the low level of obligations at admission, residents have been engaging with a wide range of initiatives, including Turning-Point provided drug treatment, nutrition and cooking programmes, outdoors fitness sessions and football clubs. The take up of interventions such as Hep b vaccinations is exemplary and despite the high-risk client group drug deaths have been prevented.

King Georges has made use of the resources, policies and guidance produced on the KFx website to help shape and develop this provision and we are pleased to have contributed in this small way to the establishment of the project.

Whilst offering King Georges staff and residents our congratulations for their win, this award is pleasing as it is, at last, recognition for a model of work which has been increasingly widely adopted or considered but has lacked the imprimatur of “official” recognition.

Ten years ago, Single Homeless Project (SHP) in London became the first housing provider in the UK to deliver inclusive housing to active drug users, where drug use was not only fully acknowledged, but fully engaged with, including access to sharps boxes, needle exchange, harm reduction services, and treatment modalities.

Whereas previously organisations had turned a blind eye or prevented drug use, SHP were early adopters of an “eyes wide open” model which they have used successfully used in their housing provision in several London Boroughs.

Since then a growing number of Housing Providers across the UK have been working within an “eyes wide open model.” Many have found marked benefits from this approach – better engagement, more openness, increased referral to treatment, reduction in public drug use, reduction in overdoses and drug deaths.

These agencies, including Brighton and Hove Housing Trust, Thamesreach, Look Ahead, Society of St James, Wallich Clifford Community, Manchester Methodist Housing Group, Foundation Housing, St Mungos and a number of others were courageous early adopters of such an approach.

It should be remembered that at this stage there was no official endorsement of such a model of work. Ten years ago, at a conference, it wasn’t even possible to get Ian Brady, then of the Rough Sleepers Unit, to publicly endorse the placing of sharps boxes in hostels! The Home Office was pursuing a policy of extending the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 which would have made such provision illegal. And the repercussions of the Wintercomfort case made many housing providers wary of pursuing such an approach.

Since then there has been moderate progress. Norfolk DAAT embraced and endorsed an eyes wide open model in their superb document The Spectrum of Possibility. Research from Shelter demonstrated the benefits of the model in “Safe as Houses.” Papers from Cymforth Cymru reinforced the message that full spectrum, eyes wide open housing was a safe, lawful inclusive model of working with housing drug users.

Unfortunately, official recognition has been slow in coming. In 2006, an agency receiving a Housing Corporation Gold Award for Homelessness Strategies was pursuing a policy where suspicion of use (including drowsy symptoms or paraphernalia) was grounds for eviction – and this from an agency purporting to work with ongoing users.

But despite the absence of official endorsement, support or sanction, the work has crept on.

Even amongst organisations working in this way, all too often it has felt like a “dirty secret” where organsisations don’t explicitly acknowledge that they house ongoing users and manage use on site. All too often, the same organisations starting to undertake the work have to battle not just NIMBYism, public and political barriers but also too often their own organisational policy and hierarchies.

The decision by the DCLG to (quietly) endorse the “eyes wide open” model in their paper Improving Practice in Housing Drug Users was of course highly welcome, albeit that the paper fell short of an unequivocal statement acknowledging the importance of managed use on site.

So the presentation of two awards to King Georges Hostel is hugely welcome. It is not just an important acknowledgement of their work, and the progress that they have made in working with drug users.

It is also an endorsement of a model of work developed and pioneered here. From the early days, developing a model after leaving the Big Issue, through the time working and promoting it at Release, and over the past five years working with the growing number of organisations who took the work forwards, it has been a decade of change, innovation and progress.

For agencies thinking about adopting ‘eyes wide open’ models, the award to King Georges should provide the impetus to move from contemplation to decision. The resources on this site and the Drugs and Housing website provide some of the tools that such agencies will require to take this work forwards.

Eyes Wide Open housing has been a rare step change in the provision of services to drug users. In its own way it has proved as significant as the provision of needle exchange in representing a brave break with orthodoxy and the provision of pragmatic, life saving and life changing interventions.

One of the managers at King Georges got in touch a while after putting in place a lot of the changes and expressing thanks for the support and inspiration. He described what he’d got from here as “lighting the touch paper a few years ago that made me realise it could and should be done.” I am immensely pleased, proud and gratified that after ten years of work the “eyes wide open” approach is gaining acceptance and endorsement.

For myself, the drive to establish a new, inclusive model of housing which would take people who still used drugs and move them in to appropriate, supported housing began because of the tragic, senseless deaths of two young men on the streets of London, Chris Crowther and Chris Readman (aka Cockney Chris and Geordie Chris). They were murdered on Berwick St, London, on the 24th June 1997. Then, appropriate, suitable housing didn’t exist. They’d been routinely excluded from housing because of their drug use. They could and should have been housed in the right housing with the right support. There wasn’t anywhere for them then. Now there is. It’s a legacy worthy of them. And I wanted to make sure that amongst the awards, the professional congratulations and the backslapping, the small, personal tragedy that was the spark that lit the touchpaper is not forgotten.

More Hash Fudge!?

As Jacqui Smith blunders on with her re-reclassification of cannabis we look at how she's managed to end up with a position which fails to meet the expectations of everyone with an interest in cannabis.

On the 7th May 2008, the Home Secretary, Jacquie Smith, acceded to the demands of the tabloid media and reactionary drug prohibitionists such as Talking About Cannabis. Despite recommendations from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD), Smith decided to move cannabis from Class C back to Class B.

Five months later, Jacquie Smith release more details as to proposed policy and policing changes that would accompany this reclassification. These proposals added yet another layer of confusion and fudge to the ongoing mess of cannabis reclassification.

The Home Secretary faced something of a challenge. On the one hand, to satiate the media's demand for action, the decision was made to move cannabis back to Class B. This decision was reached despite the fact that the ACMD, whose opinion had been sought by the Home Office, recommended that cannabis should not be moved back to Class B. It was also despite a documented decline in cannabis use amongst young people, and no new evidence that cannabis was responsible for an increase in mental health problems.

Undaunted by an absence of evidence, she instead drew on various other evidence sources, saying "In reaching my decision, I have also taken into account the views of others, particularly those responsible for enforcing the law, and the public-58 per cent. of whom, according to a survey carried out for the council, favour upgrading cannabis from class C."
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmhansrd/cm080507/debtext/80507-0004.htm

The ACMD commissioned a small piece of research to inform it's report. Amongst other things, the research showed how hopelessly confused and ill-informed about cannabis and the law respondents were.

Of those polled, 80% were aware that cannabis was an illegal drug, 4% thought it was legal and 16% "did not know".

Of those who knew that cannabis was illegal, 12% thought it was in Class A, 31% in Class B and 52% in Class C.
[Cannabis: Classification and Public Health: ACMD: 2008: p26]

So, of the sample of a thousand, only some 400 knew the current legal status of cannabis.

When asked about in what class cannabis ought to be,
32% considered that it should be in Class A, 26% Class B and 18% Class C, while 13% stated that they "did not know".

However, when they were asked to consider what penalties ought to be applied for possession, 11% considered seven years' imprisonment (equivalent to Class A), 13% five years (equivalent to Class B) and 41% two years (equivalent to Class C), and 27% considered that there should be no penalty [ibid: p27]

So while the ACMD's public survey did show that the majority thought cannabis should go up in class, the vast majority felt that the penalties should stay the same or go down.

Interestingly these results are the opposite of the Home Office's consultation on drugs which took place prior to the launch of the new Drug Strategy. This was also quoted in the ACMD report, which noted "Of the 639 individuals and organisations responding to these questions, 44% wished cannabis to remain Class C; 19% wished it to become a Class B substance; and 19% wished it to be legalised. One hundred and sixteen respondents were undecided." [ibid: p26]

It's a fine example of the selective use of consultations and research. The Home Office public consultation, which came down against cannabis reclassification, was disregarded, along with the ACMD's recommendation. The small sample of confused respondents which supported the Home Office's opinion is cited to bolster the Government's position.

Jacqui Smith went on to say "My decision takes into account issues such as public perception and the needs and consequences for policing priorities. There is a compelling case for us to act now rather than risk the future health of young people. Where there is a clear and serious problem, but doubt about the potential harm that will be caused, we must err on the side of caution and protect the public. I make no apology for that. I am not prepared to wait and see".
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmhansrd/cm080507/debtext/80507-0004.htm

Jacqui Smith goes on in her statement to outline how keen she is to see police enforcement increased, saying "To reflect the more serious status of cannabis as class B, I am clear that a strengthened enforcement approach for possession is required."

Five months later, the Home Office issued a Press Release "Next steps for tougher action on cannabis" http://nds.coi.gov.uk/Content/Detail.asp?ReleaseID=381162&NewsAreaID=2 which detailed the proposed enforcement measures that the Home Office wished to take forwards.

This included the introduction of Penalty Notices for Disorder for second offences. The press release proposed "those caught with cannabis on a first occasion could still get a cannabis warning, but on a second occasion are likely face a fine of £80 and arrest if caught for a third time."

The main body of the Press Release fails to mention (though it is included in the footnotes) that the policing situation for under 18s remains unchanged, with them being subject to the reprimand/final warning/charge system incorporated in the Crime And Disorder Act.

The idea of PNDs appealed to the Police because they allowed for enforcement action without the time consuming processes of arrest, charge, courts and suchlike. The appeal for the Home Office was that they provided an escalation after an initial warning, thus saving police time and ramping up the sanctions.

On the Home Office website the message was a bit bolder "Once that change takes effect, anyone caught in possession of cannabis will receive a penalty notice. If they're caught in possession on more than one occasion they could face an on-the-spot fine of £80. Those who are caught a third time, could go to jail." http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/about-us/news/tougher-action-cannabis
It's not really clear what this reference to a "penalty notice" means. Presumably it is a "cannabis warning" renamed to make it sound stricter. Then there's the fine. The last bit is certainly true in theory, but as the full press release makes much clearer, a third time would mean arrest, followed by a range of outcomes including "release without charge, caution, conditional caution or prosecution."

Depending on their stance and their intelligence, various media outlets interpreted the news in different ways. Some (e.g the Telegraph) interpreted this as meaning that users couldn't be arrested until a third offence. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/3191025/Cannabis-users-will-have-to-be-caught-three-times-before-they-are-arrested.html

The Daily Mail, who had lobbied consistently for a reclassification of Cannabis, once again displayed their unerring love of a headline and failure to understand the law with their banner "Cannabis users face 'three strikes and you're jailed' http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/article-1077254/Cannabis-users-face-strikes-youre-jailed.html

But as both the Mail and later the Times noted, there was a gaping problem with the Home Office's proposals.

The Times said "The approach was undermined immediately, however, when the Home Office said that warnings for a first offence would not be placed on the police national computer. This would make it difficult for police to check whether someone found with the drug was a first or second-time offender, particularly if the cannabis user was caught in a different police force area from where he or she lived." http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article4938527.ece
The proposals were that a first offence would only receive a reprimand but, unless this were recorded nationally, on the PNC, it would not be possible to implement a system of PNDs for second offences. If a PND could only be issued for a second offence, the Police would have to be certain that the person had previously received a cannabis caution.

At present, cannabis cautions are only recorded locally, not on the PNC and there is no requirement to verify the person's true identity or address.

The Home Office has said that it will look in to this issue, but it alone is unlikely to prevent the implementation of the proposed tiered sanctions sought by ACPO and the Home Secretary. However, in one of the rare glimmers of good news in the whole sorry proceedings, there should a be a consultation period at the Ministry of Justice on the implementation of PNDs for cannabis and this may allow a chance for saner heads to prevail.

It is hard to get a good sense of how many people would be affected by PNDs. The National Criminal Justice Board publishes figures as to how many people received PNDs and cannabis warnings over the past two years.

In the year ending March 2008, 102,467 cannabis warnings were issued. http://lcjb.cjsonline.gov.uk/ncjb/perfStats/pnd_formal-warnings.html

It is not clear how many of these warnings were for first or second cannabis offences, but based on these figures it's reasonable to assume some 50,000 people per year would receive these PNDs for cannabis. Outside of London, the police force issuing the greatest number of Cannabis Warnings was Merseyside, issuing some 7000 warnings. This is a little worrying, especially as the newly appointed Cannabis Coordinator was formerly a chief Superintendent on Merseyside, and one of the ACPO leads on cannabis.

It's also worth noting that an £80 PND cost £91 pounds to administer, and less than half of PNDs are paid in the required 21 day window - meaning that many still end up in arrest and court action. So if these procedures are followed we can expect more police and court time being tied up chasing up PNDs for cannabis.

In reality, the proposals surrounding the reclassification of cannabis are, once again pleasing no-one and Jacqui Smith must be questioning the wisdom of this fresh bodge job. In practice, little will change, and Smith has not received the plaudits that she must have hoped for in reclassifying cannabis.

In the list below, we highlight how very little will change when cannabis goes back to Class B. (click on the image to view at full size)



In practice, although cannabis will exist back in Class B, it will effectively be in a class of its own. The penalties and policing of cannabis will be unlike other class B drugs (such as amphetamines) or Class C drugs (such as benzodiazepines).

One could argue that as such, the Home Office is partly moving away from the Classification of system, designing a set of legal and policing responses on a drug by drug basis rather than on the widely discredited Classes of drugs. However, the Government has not had the courage to break fully from the sytem introduced in 1971.

In the meantime, adulterated, unmanaged cannabis will continue to be widely available in the UK and unfortunately, the latest Government fudge will only create more confusion, frustration and bafflement with this unworkable system.

“No-one Written Off” – The Perils of the DWP Green Paper

First they came for the crack users…(part 4)

A long time ago, I used to work with the homeless people in Central London, back in the days of the “Cardboard Box City.” The vast majority of people with whom I worked had a range of factors that contributed to their exclusion: drug and alcohol dependency, mental health problems, basic skills needs, long offending histories and so on.

However, the initial biggest obstacle to helping these people re-integrate with any services, including housing, was the need for some identification and the need to start a claim.

For some clients, this initial hurdle was massive: a person had to regain their identity: their full name, date of birth, NI number and an address. For younger people this was easier, but for older people, and those with the most enduring health problems, this was a massive issue.

Many people needed some initial help to get a copy of their birth certificate, then support and encouragement to put in a first claim for benefit. This step was critical for so many reasons. Without it, securing stable housing was impossible. But it also represented a stepping stone away from begging, away from the street culture. For some people it also might mean “facing up” to the past. It might mean surrendering to an arrest warrant, to previous debts, or to previous failures.

Having secured the holistic trinity of ID, benefit and housing, the next step – access to treatment – became more realistic. Over the past ten years, there are only a very small number of people who are cut adrift – the massive visible street population has dwindled and the vast majority of people who are drug dependent are in some sort of housing, and have a greater level of stability than was hitherto the case.

The Department of Work and Pensions, with their Green Paper “No-one Written Off,” seems determined to reverse this process. They appear to believe, based on this paper, that mandatory referral and engagement with treatment, and the threat of benefit-related sanctions will act as a spur away from drugs and in to work. What it will do for most problematic drug users is push them away from benefits (as desired) but back to street-existences instead. The prospects of going full circle, back to the cardboard box cities of last century, are all too real.

The DWP Green Paper is a long document but the section related to drugs is in Chapter 2 The report claims that 75% of problematic drug users are in receipt of benefit (some 240,000 people) and of these some 100,000 are not currently engaged in treatment.

The report explores a number of proposals. The least tendentious of these is investing and promoting better joined up working between drugs services, benefit agencies, housing and employment. This would be a welcome development, and experience elsewhere shows that this can have a positive impact.

But the Paper doesn’t stop there and with a rallying cry of “we must go further” the report proceeds to outline the draconian sticks to get problem drug users off benefit.

These proposals include:
• Where claimants are identified as having a drug problem, they will be referred to a drug treatment provider. Failure to meet that provider could result in a benefit sanction.

This proposal is featured in the 2008 Drug Strategy and does not appear to be a “consultation item” but a firm Government commitment.

This proposal is very ambiguous in the paper. At some points the paper says that there should be a requirement to “meet that provider.” However, only a couple of lines later the paper goes further and says “where drug treatment is available and considered appropriate, then there should be an obligation that individuals will take it up.”

These two proposals are radically different: one requires a person to attend a meeting or an assessment; the other obliges the person to take up a treatment package, even if a local provider offered a limited range of treatment modalities.

In response to an article in the HSJ Paul Hayes wrote a letter (reposted in full on the NTA website here) that describes as misleading the assertion that the Government “intends to force people in to treatment.” It is hard to see how the line from the paper that “there should be an obligation that individuals will take [treatment] up” can be viewed as anything other than forcing people in to treatment.

The Paper then go further outlining how Job Centre Plus will be able to identify problematic drug users before imposing treatment requirements. Several approaches are mooted:

• A requirement to make all applicants for benefits declare whether they are “addicted to heroin or cocaine” and face sanctions or prosecution for a failure to disclose.

This wording deserves close attention. A willingness to admit to a drug problem is a huge problem for people with a drug dependency who are not engaged with treatment. As a group, they are one who are most likely to be unable to admit to having a drug problem. This problem or reticence is likely to be compounded in a Job Centre interview setting where the client has not had a chance to build up a trusting relationship with their interviewer yet is expected to disclose personal information of a deeply personal and illegal nature. The majority of Job Centre staff are still ill-trained to deal with problem drug users.

This proposal also becomes embroiled in a semantic argument about the definition of addiction, and the substances involved. If a person views themselves as being in control of their substance use, would it be feasible for them to be sanctioned for “misleading” the Job Centre if their assessor felt otherwise?

• Job Centre Plus to be notified of all cases where person has tested positive for heroin or cocaine and been referred for a Required Assessment, those who have agreed to a Drug Rehabilitation Requirement and those leaving prison who have an identified drug problem.

To make these information sharing schemes work, legislation would be required. While the DWP already leads the way in behind-the-scenes information sharing, substantial expansion of the existing databases would be required to store and process the 200,000 plus notifications per year that such a scheme would generate.

Before even contemplating the practicalities of such a scheme, it’s worth stressing the extension of State power and information sharing that this represents. At present, a positive drug test triggers a Required Assessment; it does not mandate an engagement with treatment. Only 35% of people tested received a Care Plan following an assessment within two months, and of those receiving a care plan 47% of people attending enter a treatment plan. (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/horr02b.pdf) The green paper claims that “those who test positive (there are around 80,000 positive tests a year) are referred for a Required Assessment by a drugs worker which in nearly half of cases leads to an agreement to engage with drugs treatment and support.” This assertion is not evidence based and probably misinterprets the facts. The Paper purports that some 40,000 of the 80,000 positive tests engage with drug treatment. In fact it would probably be closer to 15,000, although no comprehensive assessment of Tough Choices is currently available to the public.

In this respect the Green Paper goes further than Tough Choices; a Required Assessment merely requires attendance at an assessment, not engagement. The Green Paper threatens benefit sanctions for a failure to engage with treatment.

The Paper makes no bones about this: it says “in return for this access to drug treatment and specialist employment support, there will be an obligation on individuals to take it up. Failure to do so without good cause would result in a referral back to Job Centre Plus and a potential benefits sanction.”

At present the proposals relate only to opiates and crack cocaine. While most of the text refers to heroin, the later reference to opiates could have implications for people who are dependent on prescription opiates. This is unclear. However, the paper ominously concludes that “over time we will consider the case for extending this approach to others – for example, those dependent on cannabis, powder cocaine, or dependent on alcohol.”

But ultimately, why stop there? Hampered from re-entering work by a weight problem? Why not sanction people who fail to join a dieting club and cut off benefit. Smoking-related respiratory problems contributing to worklessness? Get those nicotine patches on or lose benefit! This is a wonderfully clear example of “first they came for the crack users…”

Without any evidence, the authors of the paper seem to think that the threatened sanction of benefit removal will act as a spur to engaging with treatment. But as those who have had extensive contact with problem drug users will attest, the stick, all too often doesn’t work as hoped. Rather than driving people towards treatment it is more likely to drive people away from benefits. And while this may have some statistical appeal to the DWP it will bring with it a slew of attendant problems; increased homelessness, further distancing from treatment and increased offending. It is to be hoped that wiser heads and evidence will prevail in the face of these measures. But given the Home Office’s resistance to listening to the experts when reclassifying cannabis, one has little hope that they will do so in this case.

The green paper No-one Written Off is a consultation document and comments are invited until the 22nd October 2008. The body of the text invites comments on specific questions. It does not ask the question “should benefits be removed from people with drug problems who are not engaged with treatment?” Respondents will want to answer questions and pose challenges which are not currently invited by the (limited, specific) questions in the Paper.

The Paper can be viewed here. http://www.dwp.gov.uk/welfarereform/noonewrittenoff/

Playing House!

A lukewarm welcome for new Paper on Housing Drug Users
August 2008

It can't have been easy for Gregory Green and Martin Nugent to write a paper on housing drug users which would satisfy the Home Office Drugs Intervention Project, Communities and Local Government, NOMS, The Housing Corporation, NTA and others. Nor can it have been easy to write the report with a single reference to the Misuse of Drugs Act, or Section 8 of the act. But in the 200 odd pagesof Improving Practice in Housing for Drug Users, there's not a mention of this legislation, or the antisocial behaviour act. In short, in this sprawling piece of work, there's not a single line that stresses the legality of working with use on site.


The paper is built around a series of case studies. These include a number of agencies working inclusively with ongoing drug use and injectors, including SHP, In Partnership Project, Norfolk Drug and Alcohol Partnership, New Steine Mews Brighton, and Thamesreach. These are fine projects, each doing innovative work with ongoing users, and who have done so for a number of years. It is highly welcome that there work is finally receiving a level of official recognition and endorsement. It is long overdue; these projects have developed and emerged despite a lack of Governmental backing or endorsement. Remember, this was a Government that sought to expand Section 8 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 which would have ended this type of housing in the projects listed. As Deputy of the Rough Sleepers Unit, Ian Brady repeatedly refused to officially endorse the use of Sharps Boxes in hostel settings. So the Government embracing an "eyes wide open" model is to be welcomed.

Except that the Government doesn't appear to be embracing the report and its presentation and release seem intent on keeping the report out of sight. On the "Tackling Drugs Changing Lives" website, the report isn't mentioned on the "News and Events" sections, and even after going in to the DIP section there's no obvious link through to the paper. It is mentioned in the DIP August 2008 E-Bulletin which also mentions the National Seminar that took place the month before. The previous e-bulletins hadn't mentioned this seminar, making it rather difficult to know that it had happened. But, if you missed this E-bulletin, there's no other direct link to the Papers. The Papers themselves don't represent Government policy and there is a footnote disclaimer in the document to this effect.

The Paper itself is slanted heavily towards an organisational and strategic perspective. It stresses the need for a mult-disciplinary partnership approach, with key players involved and proper assessment of need, provision and outcomes. Search for the word "strategic" in the Paper and you get more than 100 uses of the word; look for references to "injector" and there's not a single use of the word. The report does stress the need, too, for a full spectrum of housing provision covering the full spectrum of drug use. The need for housing for ongoing users as well as for those in treatment, and those now abstinent is well made and welcome

What the Paper does not do is provide a clear vision or endorsement of how work with ongoing users on site can take place. This area feels fudged, and as it is the area which causes the most concern and confusion to providers, the police and commissioners, the lack of clarity here is damaging. Nor does it offset some of the concerns or direction that has been established by other, contrary, Governmental initiatives - most notably the Respect Standard for Housing Management. This model locates substance misuse firmly within a context of anti-social behaviour and primarily promotes an enforcement response to it, through use of demoted tenancies, ASBOs and injunctions, whilst paying lip-service to support and treatment interventions. Similarly, no mention is made in the Paper of the Antisocial Behaiour Act (Power to Close Premises) or its impact on housing drug users.

What there is, within the case studies is reference to "proactive harm reduction approach to managing drug use within premises that they manage." How you do this is not addressed by the paper, and the level of detail provided by the case studies is inadequate and vague. For example, the report says "the case studies have demonstrated that improving understanding, knowledge and skills of workers and service users were important elements of capacity building. This includes awareness and understanding of...drugs, housing and the law."

Ironically, despite asserting that this is an important element, the Paper does not make a single reference in all its pages to where this information could be obtained. No mention of the legislative framework, no mention of the resources available on this site or www.drugsandhousing.co.uk regarding lawful, safe, eyes wide open working. No mention of the Sample Drugs Policy or associated resources. This is not mere sour grapes. Of the projects mentioned in the report, nearly all the service providers mentioned drew significantly on the models that were outlined in Room for Drugs and the Sample Drugs Policy. Certainly, they have developed and evolved their own character, policy and practice since. But the kernel of these initiatives was built on working in an "eyes wide open" model as outlined in these and related papers. The decision by the report authors not to mention this, or to reference these resources is inexplicable.

One of the stragegic documents mentioned in the report is the "Safe Newcastle Policy on Drug Use Within Accommodation." This document has been reviewed previously (see Blog passim) and is at odds with a harm-reduction approach. It requires all known episodes of possession to be reported to the police, requires the removal of drugs and paraphernalia found in resident's rooms, and requires warnings to be issues for all suspected use on site. It would be interesting to know if one of the projects cited as a case-study, Tyneside Cyrenians, follows the Policy as written, because it would be hard to see how on-going use on site were managed in a harm-reduction manner where known use was automatically reported to the police, and rooms were searched on "strong suspicion of drug being used."

After a long wait for a Governmental report which embraced and endorsed full-spectrum, eyes wide open housing models for drug users, the Paper goes some way to fulfilling this need. On balance though, the Paper delivers a few crumbs of welcome recogntion for these models of housing. But buried as they are beneath reams of strategic vision, and obscured by a lack of clear illustration and clarity, it seems that we must wait longer for the report we had hoped for to arrive.

The complete set of papers for Improving Practice in Housing Drug Users - A Partnership Approach can be found here.

The complete Seminar notes are here.

Shelter have organised a Seminar on the back of the publication and details are here.

Cannabis Reclassification - a pawn in the Prohibition war?

Back in May, we looked at how the reclassification of cannabis had become a political pawn. We reflected on how a Government under attack and with plummeting popularity used the decision to move cannabis back to Class B as a political tool in the face of expert evidence.

But above and beyond the UK Government, numerous other interest and lobby groups were promoting their viewpoints. And so while cannabis had become a pawn in the battleground of UK politics, it had also become a key piece in a conflict between the polarised camps of prohibitionists and legalisers.

When cannabis had been initially moved from Class B to Class C, it had been heralded by some as a first step in the liberalisation and reform of the drug laws. Given that it was the first time a drug had been reclassified down, it is understandable that some would view this as a sign of things to come.

Conversely, the move was viewed less positively by a range of prohibitionists. From the International Narcotics Control Board down through to the various pressure and lobbying groups such as Europe Against Drugs and the Drug Prevention Alliance, the downgrading of cannabis represented one of the biggest setbacks that they had experienced, and elicited howls of outrage.

So when the discussion about cannabis resumed and the Government contemplated a move back to Class B, the prohibitionists went to battle with a furore which had less to do with the case for cannabis per se but more to reassert the prominence of the prohibitionists’ message.

The final decision to move cannabis back from C to B was therefore welcomed by prohibitionist groups, less because of the fears about cannabis safety and more because it put (they believe) a prohibition tendency back in the ascendancy.

Unfortunately, truth was once again the first casualty of this drugs war, and the nuanced evidence and arguments relating to cannabis were lost within a slew of hyperbole, claims and counter-claims. Individual experience and small studies were cited as evidence of greater harm. The tabloid press, especially the Daily Mail, ran headline after headline citing the increased risks of strong cannabis.

Key progenitors of these hyperbolic arguments included Europe Against Drugs (EURAD) who have been vocal in their demands for cannabis to be reclassified. Key amongst these was Mary Brett, a former secondary school teacher from Amersham who now spends her time culling journals for negative cannabis stories, and promoting these as “facts” to support the prohibitionist arguments.

Her document, “Cannabis – The Facts” is in turn used by Debra Bell of “Talking About Cannabis.” TAC was initially set up by Bell, a journalist, as a way of exploring and discussing her family’s experience of cannabis. This role morphed in to a lobbying group demanding that cannabis be moved back to Class B and in an amazingly short time, TAC had face time with the ACMD and were being routinely cited by the media. TAC say that they are “currently preparing educational packs for schools with a strong prevention message, written by drug experts.” Presumably, with contributions by Brett, and following the line established by EURAD.

TAC are now members of EURAD, and as such presumably endorse EURAD’s other articles of faith, which include the abolition of needle exchange, and other harm reduction approaches.

Also beavering away at the cannabis issue, though less prominently than TAC, was the Drug Prevention Alliance, led by Peter Stoker with the assistance of former customs officer David “Claude” Raynes. Interestingly, these two well-established prohibitionists are now very active within the Foundation for a Drug Free Europe – a Scientology-derived campaign group which promotes Narconon treatment models and is staunchly prohibitionist. They are joined here by regular Drink and Drug News magazine contributor and long-standing Scientologist, Ken Eckersley.

Following the Home Office’s announcement regarding cannabis reclassification, a congratulatory letter in the Times was co-signed by, amongst others Bell, Brett, Raynes and Stoker, bringing together an alliance of Prohibitionists whose primary interest is not in Cannabis, but in wider prohibition.

The irony of all this is that it has been that cannabis has flourished and increased in potency under a regime of prohibition. Despite the fact that production and supply has consistently carried a maximum sentence of fourteen years in the UK since 1971, the sentence has not prevented first importation and then home-growing in the UK.

Cannabis became stronger and less safe within a prohibited, unregulated under-researched market. Just as under alcohol prohibition people were at risk through stronger, impure bootleg drink, so people were put at risk through illicit cannabis in the same way.

Producer countries such as Morocco and Algeria, who had historically produced cannabis resins with a good mix of THC and CBD saw home production curtailed to meet the demands of the INCB. Rather than risk importation, home-growing became the more profitable, lower risk alternative. And the end-product – high THC/low CBD herbal cannabis was the net result.

All this happened under prohibition – the stronger, imbalanced strains of cannabis that dominate the market were a result of an unlicensed, un-regulated market. The process of prohibition contributed to the increase in cannabis-related mental health problems.

It is only now, through legal research under Home Office licence, that researchers are becoming aware of how important the ratio of THC to CBD in cannabis is, and how CBD may cushion or protect against some of the negative effects of high THC levels in cannabis.

Left to an illicit market, the safety of a product will tend to take a secondary position to other factors such as potency or ease of production. Given a legitimate framework, it is feasible to produce a product with a lower risk profile.

Given, for example, licensing and regulation, it would be feasible to specify minimum CDB contents, maximum THC contents, and impose higher levels of excise duty on stronger strains.

By clear product labelling and allied information campaigns, the product available (age-restricted and licensed) would be the least hazardous option that could be made available.

By opposing this approach, and pushing the Government away from such a model, the Prohibitionists have ensured that the cannabis on the street will remain as unsafe as it can be, and exposed to risk the very young people that they claim so passionately to want to protect.

Brown v the ACMD - cannabis is the side show

Within the next week, we can expect the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) to publish their recommendations regarding cannabis. They have been asked to consider if, in light of existing research, they feel that it should remain in Class C or if it should be moved back to Class B. Following their report, the Government should make a decision as to whether it will follow or reject the ACMD’s recommendations.

According to media reports, both the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister have made it clear that they favour a move back from Class B to Class C. And media reports have also suggested that the ACMD is satisfied with cannabis in Class C. The truth of all these media assertions will, doubtless, be resolved very shortly.

What the ACMD actually decides is almost, now, a moot point. Thanks to the Home Office’s tinkering with the Classes when cannabis was reclassified, there is precious little difference between Class B and Class C anymore. They both carry a maximum sentence of fourteen years for supply (it used to be 14 for Class Bs and 5 for Cs) and possession of either Bs or Cs is an arrestable offence – previously possession of Class Cs was not an arrestable offence.

The only significant change with a move from C back to B would be an increase in the maximum penalty for possession increasing from two years to five years. But in practice these larger sentences would not be used for simple possession.

Everything else – how cannabis is policed, the awareness raising that accompanies it, the market that produces and supplies it – will remain the same.

The production and supply of cannabis can carry a maximum of fourteen years: this penalty will remain the same even if cannabis is reclassified. So there will be no increased deterrent by moving it from C to B as far as production is concerned. In a country now dominated by large-scale organised growers, reclassification will have no impact on the production end.

Use of cannabis has not increased in the past four years; indeed there is some evidence that it has declined, and there is no evidence that a move back to B would hasten this decline.

But really this is all a side argument. The real question should be whether the Prime Minister will follow the advice of the experts at the ACMD or for one of the handful of times in the past 30 years, he will ignore their advice and follow his own feelings on the matter.

In a field currently swamped by lobby and campaign groups with a variety of vested interests, the importance of the ACMD cannot be underestimated. Unlike the rest, this is not merely a lobbying group with a drum to beat. Established by Statute under the Misuse of Drugs Act, the ACMD is intended to provide a neutral, expert and influential body to advise Ministers. The drafters of the MDA clearly recognised that drugs policy was a political and moral hot potato. To avoid it being thrown around in the interests of political expediency, the ACMD provides expertise. Government has no obligation to follow this advice, but if they don’t they presume to know better than their own experts.

Given the current political climate, it has probably never been more important that there is an independent body to advise on drugs. We have the perfect storm of a party slumping in the polls, days before the local elections, and a leader who is unpopular and indecisive. How Brown must yearn to reclassify cannabis tomorrow – to garner some positive media coverage as a decisive protector of youth.

Unfortunately for him and fortunately for us, the ACMD report may only come out at the end of April. This will probably be late in the day for Brown to use any decision therein to bolster Labour’s political chances. Not that this will stop the leaks or media briefings that indicate Brown will reclassify regardless of the ACMDs stance. In the run up to the election this could be the ONLY comment emerging from Downing Street.

Post election, maybe, just maybe, cooler heads will prevail. Good or bad election result, the reclassifying of cannabis will be a moot point from an electoral point of view (unless the election result triggers a decision to call a snap general election – though this doesn’t seem likely.) In such a less fraught environment, Brown can side-step the controversy by following the ACMDs advice.

If the Home Secretary decides to disregard the ACMD the reaction of the ACMD is of critical importance. They cannot simply stand by and brief anonymously. There should instead be a whole-scale set of resignations by the Chair, and other members. This should send a clear message to the Government – the ACMD is there for a reason and it must be heeded.

Such a decision for mass resignations should not of course be taken lightly, and nor is it anything to do with cannabis. It must be done to highlight that when a Government decides to disregard the evidenced position of their own experts, then those experts should recognise that this Government considers them superfluous. If the Government would rather choose to listen to Daily Mail columnists, parent-activists and pollsters rather than a diverse panel of experts, then those experts should show their disdain for the process by resigning. To carry on without any such complaint would be to provide endorsement to this decision and facilitate the next decisions made in the face of the evidence.

In tendering their resignations, the ACMD can demonstrate just how critical it is that decisions on drugs policy are not left to politicians.

New Drug Strategy - Oh come on, what did you expect?

We saw the launch today (27.2.08) of the new Ten Year Strategy. Predictably, there has been a sharp swing towards enforcement strategies including much touted proposals to increase confiscation powers, and coerce engagement with treatment via the benefit system.

Equally predictably, the Strategy has received a range of responses, from outright condemnation to mixed welcomes. The response so far has been muted. The responses over the next few weeks will be far more interesting.

But let's take a wider view. None of this should come as a surprise. Did anyone truly expect an embracing of true harm reduction, and admission of failures of past strategy, a consideration of wholescale review? Oh come on! Only the truly deluded could have envisaged anything other than more of the same, with bigger sticks and more mealy carrots.

Those who have predicted reform, or review of the drugs laws, or new developments have singularly failed to recognise that the "war on drugs" far from being over, is just gearing up for its next phase. Bigger powers, less rights, more enforcement, new weapons. This will only be the start. There will be more punitive measures to come.

I don't expect bravery and great things from the Home Office or the machine of Government. They are well past the stage of rational and balanced debate on drug strategy. But what amazes and depresses is the huge range of players who facillitate and legitimise the war on drugs while at the same time decrying its choice of weapons.

Take for example the much-derided "consultation" that led up to the new drugs strategy. Look at the energy that went in to it - Drugscope's series of regional events, the contributions from Transform, Release and others. Some of these organisations must have believed that their contributions would be read, evaluated, pored over. Others knew it was a sham. But still they participated.

In doing so they legitimised both the consultation and the resultant strategy. Rather than, en masse, boycotting the consultation as the farrago that they surely knew it was, they made their contribution. They had their say. Surely more powerful, more striking for a big group to withdraw from the process? But no. And so the new strategy, flaws and all, gains legitimacy from the consultation.

What if? What if as a group Addaction, Turning Point, CRI, Compass, RAPt, Drugscope, EATA, FDAP, Release and Transform had said NO! Said "we won't participate unless we are convinced that the resultant strategy will take real account of our views." They could have done. Once.

Now of course it becomes too dangerous for many of these bodies to bite the hand that feeds. Dependent on contracting culture, the good will of the Home Office, they can't and won't speak out significantly. A finacially weak Drugscope, other contract-dependent providers, political access achieved by compliance and silence.

Any new measure, punitive or otherwise, demands organisations to implement it. Look at the example of the threat to suspend benefit payments to clients who fail to attend an Assessment. This alone could be scuppered overnight if the big drugs agencies said, as a block, that they would not undertake assessments that were achieved at the threat of benefit suspension. So while we watch to see which agencies make the most show of condemning the measures in print, watch with equal care the number of agencies who refuse to take the contracts. No-one will refuse this dirty work because it pays, and refusal will result in decomissioning.

Historically the drug field was diverse, fractured and independent. This did result in a wide variance of provision. But it protected the field from the sort of Stalinist planning and control that we now see.

Having stripped away this independence, consolidated and centralised provision, agencies now have little choice but to comply with directives.

For drug policy to change the drugs field needs to change, and rediscover its voice and independence. This can only happen from the grass roots. We have ceased to be able to reply on the independence of the ACMD, or the representation of the field, to stem the political excesses of Government strategy. In the war on drugs, we have never, so badly, needed some effective resistance.

alcohol - short term memory loss?

The BBC reported that the Government proposes to introduce new police powers to confiscate alcohol from young people found drinking in public.


Media, Police and groups such as Alcohol Concern all welcomed the measure.

Which is strange because, as far as we can see, the Home office is simply re-announcing a power created more than a decade ago, with the Confiscation of Alcohol (young Persons) Act 1997:
This empowers police to require under 18-s to hand over alcohol in a public place. Failure to do so (without reasonable cause) and to give a name and address when requested summary offence and carries power of arrest.


The Act was slightly amended in 2001 but, to our knowledge remains in force.

We are slightly concerned that Alcohol Concern's spokesman, who had done the media rounds the day before welcoming the new legislation was unaware of the old one. But we were far more concerned that the Home Office seems to have experienced total short term memory loss as to what legislation has already been enacted. Alternatively they may be hoping that the UK population is so stewed that they simply won't spot this blatant attempt at legislative recycling!

Drug Testing Times

29.10.07

Another big merger in the drug testing market - and testing spreads in to more arenas. Is it time for clear legislation and policy to regulate this growing market?

At the end of September 2007, AIM listed company Concateno bought the drug testing company Cozart. Since 2006, and following a rapid spending spree, Concateno has acquired most of the drug-testing companies in the UK, and now controls a portfolio including Medscreen Ltd, Altrix HealthCare, Euromed, TrichoTech, Marconova, CPL, and Cozart Bioscience.

Part of the rationale for the acquisition of Cozart was to gain access to the Cozart Rapiscan technology which allows for portable drug testing in places such as road-side testing.

Concateno is now a hugely powerful player in the international drug-testing field, covering most aspects of testing (except Ion Scan technology). Having gained control over the key testing companies, logic suggests that we will now see an increase in lobbying to expand drug testing in a variety of settings. At present drug testing has been focussed on safety critical, criminal justice and drug treatment settings. The next expansion is likely to be in non-critical settings - general workplace, education and social settings.


We've already seen the start of this expansion - the random drug testing of school-children, for example. But this is only the start. At the moment, most of the testing technologies are, to a greater or lesser extent, invasive. The exception, and one of the companies not yet owned by Concateno is the Ion Scan.

It is this last technology, probably the most controversial of all the drug testing modalities, which is the greatest cause for concern. As the cost of Ion Scan technology has decreased, and as the availability of the equipment increases, we are seeing this technology being used in a range of settings.

Alongside the use of Ion-Scanners in school settings as part of so called "drugs awareness sessions" they are also increasingly being used in pub and club settings, random (consensual) testing of motorists and other public arenas.

Some police forces have even approached and 'encouraged' hostels and direct access services to allow the use of testing equipment on residents.

All this leads to a couple of inexorable conclusions: the first is that the use of the Ion Scan technology is going to increase and the second is that there is insufficient regulation or protection in place as to how and when it can be used. Given that results from Ion Trace technology are especially prone to generating "false positives" due to extraneous contamination, the unmoderated and unverified use of this technology has to be a cause for concern.

At present there is no obligation to consent to scanning with an Ion Trace detector in a public place. However, there is less clarity as to whether or not refusal to consent to a trace should be reasonable grounds for a stop and search. PACE needs to be amended to make it clear that refusal to be Scanned should not, of itself, be considered grounds for a search.

Likewise, to date much of the testing has taken place in semi-voluntary settings such as pubs and clubs. But its imposition in involuntary settings such as schools, or essential services such as hostels changes this dynamic. In these settings the 'choice' to be tested or not is severely restricted.

Finally, the status of Ion Scan test results are not well established in the UK. But given the rise and rise of this testing technology, we are long overdue legislation and guidance to manage this burgeoning technology.

Dr Kay Lumas' book "Drug Testing in the Workplace - A Pilot study on trace detection technology is now available. For information and review see here

Concateno buys Cozart: http://www.hemscott.com/news/latest-news/item.do?newsId=51002736731140

Can Frank still tell the Truth? - our lying drugs propaganda service

Frank is starting to develop real problems with the truth. Frank has often been a stranger to accuracy in the past, but some of Frank’s recent pronouncements have seen Frank drift further from the world of drug facts and into the heady worlds of drug propaganda.

Before we go any further we should disabuse ourselves of the manufactured image of Frank being some kind of avuncular character who understands the foibles of youth but was old enough to impart sage advice. Frank is no such thing. Frank is a branding concept, developed by marketing consultants, tested in focus groups, assessed, reviewed, honed. The brief: hip, but not too hip; funny, but serious; accessible to the youth but don’t alienate the parents; understanding but not overly tolerant.

The evidence is that the marketing consultants succeeded in their aim. Brand Frank was created and supplanted the “National Drugs Helpline” with the Frank logo, website, helpline and campaigns.

Frank however, attempts to fulfil two very different roles. On the one hand, Frank is responsible for delivering the phone-service that was once the National Drugs Helpline. The Government has funded Essentia Group to the sum of £1.45 million in 2006-07 for FRANK (drugs), Sexual Health Line, Drinkline and Know The Score, the Scottish helpline on drugs. The Government can’t say how much Frank helpline actually costs specifically but estimates the cost at around £800,000 in 06-07. To put this spend in to some sort of context, the previous year the Home Office spent almost twice this amount (£1,588,007) in advertising FRANK http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/cm060911/text/60911w2347.htm

According to Government figures, and despite extensive advertising spending, the number of people accessing the Frank Helpline has not increased over the past three years, and the figures for 2006-07 are lower than the previous year, http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmhansrd/cm070719/text/70719w0032.htm

Despite spending significant sums on advertising, only 4,444 under sixteens phoned Frank in 2006-07 – despite the fact that more that at least 40% of young people in this age bracket have experimented with drugs.

The Ask Frank service can deliver good quality information and does, at times, demonstrate a level of imagination and free-thinking. But, too often, Frank call handlers limit their responses to the on-screen information, referring anything more complicated to local drugs services. Frank really doesn’t want to get bogged down on a thirty minute call; Frank’s not set up for it. So Frank would rather signpost the caller on, send some information out or bring the call to an end, rather than undertake more open-ended telephone support.

Such a limited service would be just about acceptable were the Government still funding other services such as Release to undertake more in-depth, open-ended or longer interventions. Unfortunately the Government is no longer willing to do so. They claim that the funding mechanisms that hitherto supported Release no longer exist – and argue that there is no need to fund two drugs helplines. Either way, the Ask Frank service is now the lynchpin of low-level drugs advice to young people and their families in the UK.

But the Frank helpline is just once facet of Frank’s many faces. Because Frank also runs campaigns, places advertisements, and has the Ask Frank website. Frank also lends his name to any of a range of information, resources, materials or events produced locally or regionally.

Frank (the Helpline) and Frank (the advertising and campaign machine) are two very different beasts. Frank (the Campaign Machine) is effectively a manifestation of the Home Office’s drug strategy. Rather than branding resources with the Home Office logo, and making it clear that the information is prepared, vetted and distributed by the Home Office, the illusion is created that it is more independent, more free-thinking, less agenda driven.

But raise questions about content on the Frank Website, in adverts or in publications and all enquiries inexorably lead back to the Home Office. Some content has been externally commissioned; others has been drafted in house and then signed off by other bodies such as the Police or the Department of Health.

Take as an example the recent Frank Action Update, which focussed on Cannabis but was subsequently withdrawn due to serious factual errors. The legal sections (some of which were incorrect) were meant to have been produced by a senior police officer on Merseyside; the sections on reducing cannabis related harm were referred back to Health Advisors in the Home Office.

Ironically, the Frank phone advisors were unaware of the Action Update and, when it was brought their attention, disagreed with the content.

Does it matter that Frank has a Home Office run campaign arm? The answer to this should be a resounding “yes!” It is imperative that people who use drugs, especially young people, should have a source of information that is balanced, impartial, non-judgemental, and above all accurate. This may mean giving people information which is politically sensitive, which runs counter to Government policy, or which is in other respects controversial. Such an approach assists the credibility of the information, and the extent to which young people will retain – and act on this information. To do this information should not be slanted to serve a political agenda, or watered down to make it acceptable to Government.

The Frank branding exercise are intended to create the illusion of this credible, trustworthy and balanced information source. And certainly some call handlers at the Helpline work towards these standards where they can.

But, cynically, having created the illusion of Frank, the Home Office seeks to impart partial truths and untruths about drugs and bolster their credibility by putting Frank’s name on it.

This is a short-sighted approach and hugely damaging. Because as people become aware that the Frank adverts are simply the Home Office dressing up the Government’s messages in yoof clothes, why should anyone trust the Helpline? And if trust in the helpline is diminished, where can young people get this independent and impartial information?

Trust – in organisations like Release (for example) was cultivated over a number of years through action and words. Frank has attempted to nurture the same sort of trust in a fraction of the time through branding and image management.

Having done so, the Home Office seeks to use this trust to promote anti-drug messages, under the guise of the ersatz-honesty of Frank.

Trust in services should be developed over time, through a framework that ensures integrity, accuracy and independence. Trust cannot and should not be manufactured by marketing consultants. Frank hasn’t earned out trust, and doesn’t have these hallmarks to ensure that further pronouncements reach the high standards of accuracy and impartiality we so badly need.

KFx: October 2007

War Amongst the Angels: How Caroline Coon's attack on Release is ill-judged and ill timed

Caroline Coon launched a wordy and savage attack on Release, through the medium of her website. Entitled "the Plight of Release" she lays in to the organisation that she cofounded, describing it as "irrelevant," and accusing it of simply being an aspect of the "prohibition industry" She argues that the organisation should either close or substantially restructure to become viable and relevant.

Having worked for Release and having had contact with Caroline in the past, I certainly can't claim to be objective. But Coon's diatribe is ill-judged and had the potential to be hugely damaging.

Release was co-founded by Caroline Coon, but she has had little engagment with the organisation over the past couple of decades. It seems strange that she should choose to break her silence now, and in such a public and damaging way. Over the past forty years the organisation has had to evolve and change. It ceased to be a collective, had to fight harder for funding, needed to ensure that it operated within the contraints of charitable law.

Coon rails at the "ludicrously unambitious Directors" but her bile would have been better directed at previous Trustees, who undermined and hounded out former Director Mike Goodman, obstructed and hampered the refocussing of the organisation and, without discussion with existing staff imposed the ill-fated "Forward Thinking on Drugs" project on the organisation. Coon's opinion was that these Trustees operated with "wise discernment in the interests of the organisation." Nothing at this point could have been further from the truth.

Release is increasingly operating in a hostile environment, with Government policy moving further and further away from any revision to the drugs legislation. Funding of helplines has been focussed on Frank, which has become less independent and more a voice of Government strategy.

Revision and lobbying on drugs law has become equally competitive. There has been a recent proliferation of bodies lobbying for change. Whilst one would hope that this proliferation would result in more widespread and unified lobbying on legal change this has not happened. Instead, different fiefdoms, keen to garner profile and support, choose not to cooperate and stress difference from their peers, rather than working together. Release has suffered badly within this increasingly crowded field.

But (and this is the is a big but) Release is undoubtedly one of the "good guys." Profile may have dropped, it may not shout as loudly as it once did. But that is no reason to spuriously accuse it of being part of Prohibition industry. Such an accusation is deeply offensive, especially given the history of Release staffers such as Sebastian Saville and Gary Sutton.

Something has prompted Coon to think that Release should now be taken down. Perhaps it stems from conversations with Release staff. maybe she has been the subject of external pressure. Possibly, she thinks she is doing the best thing. She is not stupid. She may think that her contribution could be a needed kick up the behind. She should also be aware that it could be the knife in the back. If she is indeed trying to kill off the organisation that she co-founded, then she does the field a huge disservice.

If at first you don't succeed - have another go at cannabis reclassification until you get the result you want

Gordon Brown announced today that he intends to review the reclassification of cannabis with a view to moving it back to Class B. This is purely political. Charles Clarke sought the same outcome, and referred the matter to the ACMD to do as he is required to do. The ACMD made their recommendations, which was that cannabis should remain a class C drug and the Home Secretary complied with their recommendations. So all Gordon Brown can do is refer the matter back to the ACMD. Will there be any substantial new evidence for them to consider? Will they be able to hold their nerve and not be browbeaten into acceding to the Government.

No suprise this; there's the draft drug strategy due out soon. But why wait on public consultation. Make policy on the hoof! Or as seems more likely make policy as a direct response to the conservatives newly published "Breakthrough Britain" strategy document. They wanted reclassification and by reviewing the issue again, the Government seeks to steal their thunder.

All this does not bode well for drug strategy. It looks like the issue will be as political and reactionary as ever.

KFx July 18 2007

First They came for the crack users..pt 2: Closure orders extension

First they came for the crack users... pt 2

Brown announces intention to proceed with Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill 2007 - Measures to extend Closure Orders Proposed

Right at the very end, just before the demise of the old Goverment, the pulication of the Criminal Justice Bill 2007 was announced. Then the people behind it, John Reid at the Home Office and Tony Blair, stood down. Leaving the bill behind.

At the time the Bill didn't get a lot of attention. The section that received the most publicity was a section relating to prostitution. No-one seemed to mention the proposal to extend the power to close premises.

Any hope that Brown would drop the Bill was dashed on the 11th July when, in a speech describing the Government's business for the coming term, the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill was included in the list.

The Section of the Bill of most interest to KFx is S.17 which extends closure orders to cover non-drug related premises.

The proposal is not dissimilar to the existing powers for closing houses associated with Class A drug activity.

A first striking difference is that the power to issue a Closure Notice and apply for a Closure Order is not limited to Police; it has been extended to Local Authorities too. This is a substantial change and should be the source of some concern. Given in many situations the Local Authority will be the Landlord, and the person seeking the Closure Order, this is likely to represent a conflict of interest for the Local Authority. Likewise, it means that the same workers who are providing support may also end up in court providing evidence of nuisance or disorder.

The power can be applied to premises as follows:

(1) This section applies to premises if a police officer not below the rank of superintendent (“the authorising officer”) or the local authority
has reasonable grounds for believing—
(a) that at any time during the relevant period a person has engaged in anti-social behaviour on the premises, and
(b) that the use of the premises is associated with significant and persistent disorder or persistent serious nuisance to members of the public

This bill, if enacted, would hugely undermine existing housing rights and laws. It undercuts licenses, tenancies and centuries of property ownership. It will result in exclusion from housing, increased homelessness and affect many families, including those struggling with drugs, alcohol, mental health problems, children with special needs and so on. It allows for a situation where the behaviour of a child with behaviour problems could see the family removed from their home, even though no offence has been caused.

This is hugely loose wording. "antisocial behaviour" is loosely defined, and so will affect numerous people where behaviour could have caused alarm or distress to another person. The words "persistent" will need to be further defined. But the "relevant period" will be activity that has taken place over the preceding three months. Defining significant and persistent nuisance will be a challenge!

The net effect of this, as with the Antisocial Behaviour Act (Power to close Premises) is that if the Magistrate's Court is satisfied that antisocial behaviour and nuisance is taking place, a Closure Order can be issued, and any body resident in the property will be required to leave, made homeless or face arrest if they refuse to leave.

Despite protestations in the past that this measure was to be used as a "last resort" where other measures had failed, this is not reflected in the legislation. The Magistrate is not required to consider if other measures have been used, or that they have failed. They are only required to consider if they think issuing an order: (c) the making of the order is necessary to prevent the occurrence of such disorder or nuisance for the period specified in the order.

This does leave some room to move for a magistrate and is probably a better wording than the one in the Antisocial Behaviour Act. A sensible magistrate could find that it was not "necessary" if there were other measures available which might work.

As before, the Closure Order doesn't determine a tenancy - it merely denies access. The Tenant has the choice of surrendering their Tenancy (and risking being found intentionally homeless) or refusing to surrender it, not being eligible for alternative housing, and challenging the order through the courts.

And as before, the status of those thus evicted is not clear - in many situations the people evicted will need further housing, and may well be in priority need. So the simple locking out of one house will be a fatuous gesture when the people in question will still need to be housed, probably by the same local authority.

When the Antisocial Behaviour Act was passed, there was hardly a mutter about it because it was aimed at "crack dens" the new bogey-men of UK society. They were considered fair-game and unworthy of rights afforded to the rest of society. This extension may prove more contentious - as people start to realise that what one person considers a normal lifestyle may, by a neighbour, be considered "significant and persistent nuisance." Repeated mowing of lawn in the morning? DIY in the evening? One barbecue too many when smoke blows over the neighbours fence?

This is an illiberal, draconian piece of law, and as before with the Antisocial Behaviour Act removes important protections from individuals and places huge powers in the hands of the State. This time, the legislation must be challenged and concerted lobbying by all agencies will be required to prevent the passage of this Bill. In theory and in practice it is too important to stay silent on this Bill.

To read the full text of the bill click here: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmbills/130/2007130.pdf

Speaking Frankly! - frank confused on cannabis

At the end of May 2007 FRANK published their Action Update, "Cannabis Explained." It was made available as a hard copy, distributed to DATs and drugs services, and available as a download from the Home Office website.

At the end of June, a month later, the document was withdrawn from print and off the Government websites. This withdrawal was not accompanied by any notification or official explanation. Indeed, if you didn't know that the document existed, one might not have known that it had ever been there. But the short life of the "Action Update" and the tale of how it came to be removed from circulation raises some important questions about Quality Standards and accountability at Frank.

When the Action Update came out, KFx, alongside other organisations such as the UKCIA noticed some rather glaring errors. These are discussed here. Now while we would accept the interpretation put on Frank to be partisan and loaded, we don't expect it to be factually wrong. But on this occasion there were a number of errors and ommissions which were both obvious and serious. So for example, the document misrepresented the law on cannabis as applicable to under 18s; it said that smoking cannabis in a joint was the least hazardrous, and it didn't mention cannabis contamination at all.

We, alongside the UKCIA and others made representations to the Home Office about these errors and ommissions. And a long and fairly convoluted process began.

For the first couple of weeks, the document remained available on the Home Office website; although serious concerns about its accuracy had been raised, there was not attempt at this stage to suspend distribution while it was reviewed. Given that at least two of the errors were so obvious and so easy to check, this seemed inexcusable. All we got was reassurance that it was being looked at.

A phone call to Frank at this time was illuminating: The initial call handler referred the case swiftly to her senior call handler. The senior handler didn't know about the Frank Action Update, and was unaware of its content. He was suprised at what the action update said about spliff smoking and said that was different to the information on his screen. He said I should contact the Home Office to discuss this.

Frustrated by lack of action - and that the Home Office still hadn't retracted the document, we followed up the initial emails to the Home Office with a phone call. As a nice factual example of a serious inaccuracy, we used the coverage of under 18s and the legal process in relation to cannabis. This was a fairly charged discussion, with the contact at the Home Office not understanding the legislation and explaining that the relevant section had been "signed off" by a Senior Police officer and so had to be right.

Undaunted, emailed to the PA of the senior police officer in question; this email was forwarded to several officers in the relevant force until a helpful Officer emailed me back. after a couple of to-and-fro emails he emailed me back, confirming that he thought the position in the Frank document was wrong.

Back to the Home Office with this information, and after a short delay, they came back describing this information "of concern" and suspending distribution from the website. But in practice the update could still be found after a quick Google search.


A week later, the person in the Home Office wrote back again; this time, followig feedback from the Department of Health, they said

"In the interest of ensuring FRANK provides up-to-date and credible information, DH have recommended that some of the contents of the pack be amended or the issue explored further...As you are aware we have suspended distribution of the pack and removed it from the drugs.gov.uk website. We intend to re-issue the pack later in the year."

This was the right decision by Frank, and should be applauded. But it was a slow decision and an unpublicised one. While the LCA issued a press release about the withdrawal FRANK didn't. Unfortunately few agencies picked up on the LCA announcement. Unfortunately the Daily Dose, who now receive sponsorship from Frank, either didn't get it or didn't consider it sufficiently newsworthy.

There are a number of things about this story that cause concern. How did this flawed document slip through various proofing stages, why were the Home Office so slow to suspend distribution, and why was the suspension so low key when they did decide the document was flawed?

Authorship of the document is not clear; some of it appears to be cut and pasted from other sources. It has the same spellings (and even the same typo at one point) as other FRANK written documents so it suggests that some of the information has merely been recycled from other sources and not been reviewed.

One would hope that a final draft of the document would then be passed to others for scrutiny but clearly this didn't happen or if it did, the scrutiny was severely flawed. The information that we have gleaned suggests that the senior police officer would have understood and checked about the new ACPO guidance on cannabis - which was accurate, but wouldn't have checked the sections on Under 18s and processes under the Crime and Disorder Act, which were wrong.

But most worrying, we would hope that Frank would have a rapid and effective method of first suspending distribution and then informing readers of their errors. They were slow to do the first; they simply didn't bother to do the second.

Despite the branding and publicity material, FRANK is merely a vehicle to distribute drugs information. This epidode has demonstrated that the arbiters of this content are the Home Office. And on this occasion the Home Office have demonstrated their difficulty in commissioning and distributing accurate copy on an important subject.

And let's be clear, this is not the first time that FRANK's content has been found to be wanting. The initial content of the FRANK website was riddled with factual inaccuracies. The revised information still has many items which are of dubious accuracy. So, as one correspondent to KFx noted, if you go to DF118s you get taken to information on Methadone. Different compounds, different information?

FRANK urgently needs to review how it manages content. Remember that the FRANK image includes marketing and branding "experts" who know nothing about drugs. There's the call handling service, which knows something about drugs but has a tendency to regurgitate what is on the screen. And there's the Home Office and DoH which so far haven't managed to produce the level of accuracy that users and workers need.


Perhaps Frank would be best served bringing together an independent panel which could proof, review and advise on their output. That, and an improved system for responding to serious errors, would go some way to ensuring that they do not spend their million-pound budget distributing factually wrong information.

KFx: 12.7.06

Turkeys voting for Christmas

How Region Wide Drugs Protocols are exceeding the law - and abandoning the gains of the past ten years.

Next year, it will be a decade since Ruth Wyner and John Brock were arrested and charged for offences under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.

During and after their case, many organisations and individuals worked long and hard to ensure that their dreadful experience would not result in the mass exclusion of drug users who were homeless from the limited provision available to them.

The ‘Wintercomfort’ case threw up some difficult challenges. Was it possible to have known drug users on site? To what extent could organisations preserve client confidentiality? Did all known suppliers need to be reported to the police? Was it legitimate to place sharps bins in hostels?

In the face of this uncertainty, the response from the Government and other key bodies was pitiful. Senior staff at the Rough Sleepers Unit refused to countenance the use of sharps boxes in hostels. Government advisors would not endorse models of working with ongoing users which would acknowledge use on site. And in 2001 the Government worsened the situation by passing the “Police and Criminal Justice Act” which extended Section 8(d) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. This measure extended the obligation on occupiers and managers to stop the use of all controlled drugs on site rather than just the use of cannabis and opium.

In the face of unhelpful bureaucrats, intransigent Government ministers and voluntary sector workers turned Government lackeys, the situation for housing organisations working with drug users looked terrible.

But thanks to effective networking, proactive lobbying and dedication on the part of a small number of organisations, the legal and practice situation was salvaged,

• Thanks to campaigns of lobbying and letter writing, the amendment to Section 8 was suspended and ultimately repealed. It never came in to force;

• Thanks to the brave and innovative provision developed by a number of housing providers, a model of provision working in a “Eyes Wide Open” manner with active drug users;

• Thanks to resource development and training provision, a huge number of housing providers are aware of what they can and can’t legally do.

• Organisations can and have been able to work with ongoing drug users, whilst maintaining client confidentiality and maintaining good relationships with service users, the local community and the Police.

So where’s the problem?

Given the above battles that have been fought and the success of them, it seems inconceivable that organisations would voluntarily surrender these hard-won gains.

Yet they are.

The new and worrying development is where region-wide drugs protocols have been put in place. Several areas are in the throes of developing such a protocol. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with doing so. Indeed, such a Protocol can and should provide a safe umbrella under which all providers can legally and safely operate.

But at least one of these new Drugs Protocols imposes restrictions not currently required under the law. There is an expectation that local agencies sign up to the protocol. The requirements of the Protocol exceed the legislative requirements. And the Protocol restricts models of provision that other services have implemented lawfully and successfully.

A case in point is the Newcastle Temporary Accommodation Drug Management Protocol. Recently rolled out across all temporary housing providers, the protocol makes the following demands of signatories:

• Reporting all episodes of people possessing illicit drugs on site to the police;
• Confiscation and reporting of all paraphernalia to the police;
• Reporting any suspicion of supply to the police;
• Report use of any class A drugs to the Police

None of these requirements are current legal requirements and it is perfectly feasible to implement safe, lawful and effective drugs policy without such rules being in place.

If an individual organisation chooses to adopt a strict drugs policy, or exceed the demands of the law in terms of sharing information with the police, that is very much up to them. Some organisations do not wish to adopt more flexible and inclusive policy and that is their right. A good few of these have adopted exclusionary policies because it reflects the needs of their clients. They are seeking to work with people who are now drug free, usually after a period of dependency. Their policy and practice reflect the needs of their clients and rightly so. But this is not always the case. Other organisations have adopted harsh policies out of ignorance, others out of fear or prejudice. But to date it has primarily been on an organisation-by-organisation basis.

The idea that a City-wide or County-wide policy should turn its face on the gains of the past few years is deeply depressing. And it makes one wonder have the last few years all been in vain. So it seems now that the Government no longer needs to pass new, restrictive legislation – the turkeys are basting themselves and jumping in to the oven.

To view a copy of the Newcastle Temporary Accommodation Drug Management Protocol and supporting documents please click HERE.

To view a critique of this Protocol by Kevin Flemen/KFx click HERE and scroll down to the relevant policies.

Coming soon: a model sample drugs policy…details coming soon.

The Independent - shamefully wrong on cannabis

The Independent is ill-informed, publicity hungry or utterly craven. Nothing else can explain their decision to abandon their ten-year campaign to legalise cannabis.

But, to be fair, their original rationale for legalisation was not especially well-thought out, so their retraction was never likely to be.

The Independent's old and new arguments seem to run as follows: ten years ago cannabis was not as dangerous as everyone thought, and so it was stupid that it was illegal. Now it's become more dangerous so it should be illegal.

Let's ignore, for now, the shaky evidence base that props up the claims that cannabis is ten, twenty, thirty times stronger than it was a decade, two decades or three decades ago. These arguments are not evidence based, and the relative strengths of available strains of cannabis have historically varied massively.

Let's also, for now, side-step the contested evidence that says THC 'causes' severe mental illness and, according to images offered up by the Indie, physical damage to the brain.

Even the statistics offered by the Independent on the number of young people "entering treatment" for cannabis are misleading. Yes, a significant proportion of young people "entering treatment" do so for cannabis. But let's not forget that more than a third of these young people are refered in to treatment via Youth Offending Teams. And that any young person receiving a "Final Warning" is referred to a Youth Offending Team. So thousands of children are receiving final warnings for cannabis use - thanks to an iniquitous policing system that means that they cannot receive "cannabis warnings" unlike adults. In turn they are refered to YOTs and then, on to drugs agencies so their cannabis use can be properly addressed. Each of these admissions is dutifully recorded as entering "treatment" for the purpose of the NDTMS, creating an illusion that thousands of young people are developing cannabis problems.

But even this isn't the worst aspect of the Independent's volte face.

Instead, let's look at the gaping philosophical flaw at the heart of the Indie's argument. The purport to be worried about the risks of 'new' 'strong' strains of cannabis. And these new, strong strains emerged within a period of prohibition. Cannabis they say, got stronger and more dangerous under prohibition. So what do they propose to deal with this? A continuation of prohibition.

As with alcohol in America during prohibition, so cannabis has become more hazardrous under prohibition, lacking as it does, any proper regulatory or scrutiny framework. We have ended up with contaminated resins, adulterated herbal cannabis; we have growing arenas which represent fire hazards, and we have cannabis of variable strengths which can be unpredictable.

Thanks to enforcement, relatively good quality, balanced compounds such as quality resins have been supplanted by skunk and soapbar.

And this is the stupidity of the Independent's new position. They should have continued to argue for legalisation. And probably argued more vociferously than ever before. Not because cannabis is a 'safe drug' which it patently is not. But because the best way to manage the hazards to bring it within a licensed and regulated framework. Concerned about the proliferation of super strength skunk? Then introduce a taxation system structured around potency, as we do with alcohol. Low strength products could be taxed at a lower rate, and higher strength products taxed at a punitively high rate. Suppliers would, as with alcohol sales, have to be trained and licensed. Products would need to be sampled, quality and strength assessed and properly distributed.

But the Independent cannot see this. They have abandoned their campaign. Not, to be honest that they had done anything with it in the past five years. In doing so, they have substantially boosted the cause of prohibitionists everywhere -as the comments of Antonia da Costa of the UNODC make all too clear.

Never has the phrase "yellow journalism" been so aposite. The Independent has really shown its true colours.

KFx March 2007

No Justice for Youth Justice - anyone but Louise Casey

The Guardian has reported that Blair fancies Louise Casey to head up the Youth Justice Board - using it as a platform from which to take forward his Antisocial Behaviour Agenda after he is deposed in May.

This would be a worrying development - and one that everyonce concerned about youth justice should hope does not come to pass. Louise Casey has led something of a charmed life since leaving the world of the London homelessness sector. While she headed up the rough sleepers strategy, there were repeated, well substantiated allegations that rough sleeper counts were manipulated to 'prove' a reduction in rough sleepers. Approaches such as changing the count criteria, temporary opening of shelters on the nights before counts, food and quiz nights - all these and more were reported as ways of pushing the count down.

Unfortunately, few organisations had the confidence or resources to speak out: those that did were threatened with having their funding cut. those that made supportive comments and kept schtum about the manipulated counts were awarded new contracts.

Such strategies have endured since she moved on to the Antisocial Behaviour Unit. But rather than trying to reduce homelessness, Casey has done a 180 degree turn and is now endorsing policies that put people out of housing and on to the streets. In moves that would, one would hope, appall old stable mates at Shelter, Casey has taken forward an agenda which has seen people removed from housing and put directly on to the streets. Centuries of property right and hard-wons gains like tenancies have been overturned by new civil powers incorporated in to anti-social behaviour legislation.

If past experience is anything to go by, Casey, is appointed to the Youth Justice Board, would put punitive measures to the fore: in a 2004 interview she made her stance clear: "Not to challenge behaviour is a very British thing, and we have at times felt sorry for the minority of perpetrators. We think the way to deal with them is by feeling sorry for them and providing more and more services to them in the hope that maybe then their behaviour becomes checked. What is missing is the community saying we have had enough, we have rights too and we have a right to a decent honest way of life with our kids being able to be brought up in peace." [http://www.together.gov.uk/article.asp?c=32&aid=1093]

In the same interview, Casey dismissed concern about ASBOs, saying "I think the criticisms recently have been in the minority. If you read the newspaper coverage of ASBOs, it is immensely positive, and I now find it interesting that even publications like the Guardian are struggling to find holes in them."

This attitude sums up both the Government's and Casey's approach - that if it's well received by the media and popularist it should carry on. In practice there are far bigger holes - such as those reported by the Youth Justice Board:

"Nearly half of the young people whose case files were reviewed, and the vast majority of young people who were the subjects of
in-depth interviews, had been returned to court for failure to comply with their order. The majority had ‘breached’ their ASBO
on more than one occasion. Eighteen young people were sentenced for breach of an ASBO as the sole offence: for one young person,
the outcome was a custodial sentence." [http://www.yjb.gov.uk/publications/Scripts/fileDownload.asp?file=ASBO+Summary%2Epdf]

One suspects that, should she take over at the Youth Justice Board, such criticism would be a thing of the past.

More recently, the Runnymede trust noted that there had been a failing on the part of those delivering, enforcing and monitoring ASBOs to monitor ethnicity - as such this is a failing under the Race Relations Amendment Act and ultimately the responsibility of the Antisocial Behaviour Unit for failing to instruct that such monitoring should take place.
[ http://www.runnymedetrust.org/publications/pdfs/Final%20Report%20Equal%20Respect.pdf]

There has been a growing level of concern about the misuse of ASBOs, and the high breach rate. The Home Office has been reluctant to release accurate figures, despite requests under the Freedom of Information Act from Asboconcern and others.

But despite this we know that:

British Institute for Brain Injured Children (BIBIC) found that up to 35 percent of asbos imposed on young people are given to children with a diagnosed mental disorder or accepted learning difficulty. This represents approximately 1100 cases since asbos were introduced.


As at October 2006, the Home Office had still refused to release breach rates for ASBOs despite repeat requests. Figures up to the end of December 2004 showed a breach rate of 40%.

But reports from some councils (e.g. Westminster) showed a breach rate of 60%.

So despite the claims made for Antisocial Behaviour Orders and the Respect Agenda, they have, to date, been a collection of media friendly, populist measures. But the Home Office has obfuscated on the evidence, and failed to look beyond the headlines. It hasn't looked at the level of breaches for people receiving orders. It has stigmatised and criminalised children with mental disorders. It has legitimised "naming and shaming" of children as social policy. It has taken people with dependencies and made them homeless. And it has prohibited vulnerable people from carrying harm reduction equipment such as condoms.

Louise Casey has been the leading light and champion of these measures and as such is not fit to lead as essential a body as the Youth Justice Board.

Getting us hooked on Suboxone

We at KFx Towers like a good pharmaceutical success story as much as the next person. So the news that Schering Plough received an EU-wide licence for Suboxone before Christmas must have been good news for the good people at said company. Indeed, so happy were they at their success, that they decided to make their new medicine available at knock-down prices, so that more people could start on this new treatment. We understand in some areas that Suboxone is being made available more cheaply than Subutex, which shows how much they care about the little people....

Only the truly and despicably cynical would think anything else, but we've had several emails about Suboxone so we thought an article would be in order.

Suboxone is a 'cocktail' of Buprenorphine (Subutex (r)) and Naloxone. The idea is that Naloxone is badly absorbed sublingually, but the amount reaching the brain is very high if the drug is taken intranasally or injected. 100% bioavailability is achieved if Naloxone is injected, and levels as high as 100% are claimed for snorting, but this may not be the same in street settings.

If a patient takes their suboxone sublingually, as directed, they should only get the subutex. But if they are tempted to snort or inject the tablets, then they will get the subutex, but also a dose of Naloxone. This should, the theory goes, act as an opiate blocker, making it ineffective to inject it.

The very pretty Suboxone website explains it thus:

"The naloxone component in SUBOXONE is included to help discourage diversion and misuse. Naloxone has very limited bioavailability when administered sublingually, as intended. However, if SUBOXONE is crushed and injected, the naloxone will precipitate opioid withdrawal. In the absence of an opioid, the antagonist has no effect."

But if we pause for attention and recap some important facts, the situation is less clear.

The NIDA took a leading role in the development of Suboxone: they reported
"the medication buprenorphine/naloxone (marketed as Suboxone), developed by NIDA in collaboration with the pharmaceutical industry for the treatment of opioid addiction..."1
1)

The US department of Justice goes further, explaining "In fact, Suboxone was designed specifically to meet FDA requirements for a more diversion-proof drug for use in opiate addiction therapy."2

But ironically the NDIC reports ongoing abuse of Suboxone, saying
"Suboxone also can be diverted and abused; however, it is more likely to be abused by individuals who are addicted to low doses of opiates since it can precipitate withdrawal symptoms in high doses. The naloxone in Suboxone guards against abuse by causing withdrawal symptoms in abusers who crush and either inject or snort the drug; however, law enforcement and pharmacist reporting indicates that Suboxone is being abused successfully when snorted.

Using buprenorphine and heroin in combination does not produce increased effects, but if buprenorphine and methadone are abused together, the effects of both drugs are enhanced. Consequently, diverted buprenorphine may be attractive to patients currently using methadone for opiate addiction therapy."3

All this talk of precipitating withdrawals can get confusing. So what's really going on?

1) the ratio of buprenorphine to Naloxone is 4:1 - a very low level of Naloxone.

2) Buprenorphine is a partial opiate antagonist - it will block heroin from reaching opiate receptors reasonably well. But it is a less effective antagonist than, for example, Naloxone

3) Buprenorphine can and does cause respiratory suppression; especially when injected in large doses, and especially if mixed with benzodiazepines.

4) If a user has heroin in their system, and they use a dose of buprenorphine, this may produce withdrawal symptoms. The severity of these symptoms will depend on the levels of heroin in the system, the amount of buprenorphine used and the quantity of buprenorphine used.

5) but if a person has no opiates in their system (i.e. in withdrawal) and they take buprenorphine, they will get the opiate agonist effects of the buprenorphine, as in relief from withdrawal and mild opiate effects.

6) Naloxone is less effective at blocking or reversing buprenorphine than it is heroin. The literature says that a higher dose of Naloxone will be required, and attention given to maintaining breathing as Naloxone alone might be inadequate.

7) the amount of buprenorphine reaching the brain via snorting is around 49% compared with 29% sublingually, meaning that if someone were titrated and tolerant to a sublingual dose, they would be getting almost a 1/5th more drug by snorting. The time to reach peak levels would also drop from around 200 mins sublingually, to 30mins nasally, according to sources at Schering Plough.

So let's put all these pieces together.

If crushed and snorted, the subutex in suboxone is reportedly still effective. It is possible that the low doses of Naloxone, combined with the higher effective dose of burprenorphine and the relative poor blockading of Naloxone against burprenorphine make snorting the drug effective.

Schering Plough say "Currently no studies have been carried out looking at the effects of nasal snorting of Suboxone tablets." So it would be curious for them to claim that it cannot be effectively snorted.

If injected then all the subutex and all the Naloxone reaches the brain. If the user has heroin still in the system this will precipitate rapid and marked withdrawal symptoms. In fairness, this is likely to have happened even if the naloxone was not present, as the buprenorphine alone would have precipitated withdrawal.

But if the user has no other opiates in their system and inject crushed suboxone, what happens? Well it won't precipitate withdrawal if there's no opiates in place, that's for sure. So for someone not dependent or already in withdrawal, there won't be a sudden reversal into unpleasant symptoms.

It may be that nothing will happen - the naltrexone component will block the buprenorphine from working.

What could also happen is that the nNaloxone partially blocks the subutex - but not wholly. And so by taking a large dose of suboxone by injection, the person could still overdose, as the low dose of Naloxone would be a poor antagonist in such an overdose.7

The risk of buprenorphine-induced overdose would go up if use were taking place alongside benzo use.

So suboxone appears to be of limited value in preventing snorting, and of questionable benefit in preventing injecting. It will still be good for preventing use on top - but then if used properly no better than Subutex alone.

In which case why the big sell on Suboxone? If it isn't being driven by its clinical superiority, what's the appeal?

Firstly, this drug was developed to meet the demands of the US drug treatment and enforcement bodies. By complying with their demands, Schering Plough have a drugs which is the only one to receive federal approval for the treatment of heroin addiction - which is a huge cash-cow however you look at it;

But it should also be noted that away from the US, the patent period for Subutex has expired 4 leaving the way open for cheaper competitors.

To get an idea of the impact of this, the NHS pricing tariffs demonstrate the difference in costs between generic methadone, generic buprenorphine, and branded Subutex:

buprenorphine: 50x 20mg sublingual tablets £5.33
subutex 7 x 2mg £6.72
methadone 1 x 50mls 75p
5

Given these price differences it would be imperative that Schering Plough get a newer Patented product on the market and quickly - and the advent of Suboxone appears to meet that need.

Thanks to EU wide approval 6
Suboxone is now in a privileged position to become the prescribed drug of choice, regardless of cost or relative effectiveness. And by providing subsidised early "trials" which won't be randomised or controlled, Schering Plough can accrue claims to effectiveness which wouldn't survive rigorous academic scrutiny.

So on balance, and until we have independent and rigorous evidence to the contrary, Suboxone is more expensive than generic buprenorphine, can still be snorted, and won't induce withdrawal when injected unless the person already has opiates in their system. Further, it will still leave people at risk of overdose when injected, as the Naloxone won't effectively or fully reverse the buprenorphine.

Now why exactly is your rep pushing your patients on to Suboxone???
Don't you think you should ask?
Let us know what they say.


KFx 2007
[thanks to Kate for getting me started on this one]

DOI - Doh!

New drug doing the rounds (again)

While the media was frothing over the reclassification of methamphetamine, four people were admitted to hospital in Bedfordshire following ingestion of an unknown substance.

The Media were quick to report this as being due to a "new drug" called DOI or D09.

The Beds police were a little more cautious saying "Speaking to other party-goers at the scene, officers were told that the two men may have taken a drug called DO1, DOI or DO9."

Importantly, it has not been verified that the people in question had indeed taken DOI, or what they believed to be DOI. No independent toxicology reports have been made available at this time, so the suggestion that the substance involved is DOI is highly speculative.

Having said that, other sources have noted some availability of DOI - especially amongst communities with a keen interest in hallucinogens and stimulants. These sources suggest that there is at least a batch of DOI doing the rounds. This, they speculate, may have been a UK based chemist who has cooked up this batch, or an imported batch from an overseas chemist. This would seem more credible than DOI becoming more popular as a rave drug.

DOI is short for 2,5-dimethoxy-4-iodoamphetamine

It was one of a number of compounds developed by Alexander Shulgin and listed in Pikhal. It binds strongly to various serotonin receptors and has been widely used as a research chemical to help identify the location of these receptors.

It is a powerful and long-lasting hallucinogen. Sources suggest periods of effect as long as sixteen hours, with a similar level of hallucinatory effect to LSD, but with the user also feeling more active.

It has not proved hugely popular as the hallucinogenic effects last a long time, and are not that good compared to other, shorter acting, more readily available compounds.

Dose ranges are small - 1-3mg. People undertaking experimental use in controlled conditions have typically had it in refined, powder form for carefull self-administration - e.g. snorting.

Generally such low-demand research chemicals would be in pure powder form for the user to dose at their own level, knowing exactly how much they were taking.

A source from Milton Keynes says that the DOI taken at these events was in tablet form,as E's would be.

no literature is clear on risks and none mention risk of convulsions, though, as this is an amphetamine-type compound this risk is not inconceivable. This would be especially hazardrous at high doses.

Suspicion is at this time that it could be (a) real DOI and some users have taken massive doses, not knowing its strength or (b) it's poorly made DOI with some additives of unknown type/action or (c) it's not really DOI at all but some unknown compound knocked up and flogged to users at a rave (d) it's MDMA or another E-type compound with DOI or something similar in their too, to increase the trippiness...

If you have anything to add please email so we can keep people informed...

Beds Police
BBC
Wikipedia on DOI
LEDA on DOI

[thanks to Carly for bringing this one to my attention]

Testing Times

Consolidation of Drug Testing Companies - profit over privacy?

There's been a flurry of shopping activity in the world of Drug Testing - and it's not for testing on arrest!

Concateno PLC, an AIM listed company with no history in the field of Substance Misuse, has been buying up a motley collection of Drug testing companies. This has included Medscreen (November 2006) Altrix (January 2007) Trichotech (February 2007) effectively meaning that one company now owns the major urine, mouth swabbing and hair testing companies in the UK. Concateno PLC is a cash-shell company, headed by Keith Tozzi, former Group Technical Director of Southern Water, CEO of the British Standards Institute and former Chairman of Mid Kent Water...

Why does this matter? The risk is that, in a profit-driven market, the ethics of drug testing will gradually be eroded. To date, most UK testing companies have taken a responsible approach to drug testing by parents and carers. But the worry is that, as the need to create greater shareholder value grows, so the push towards large sales, more widespread testing and more frequent testing grows too.

Any one selling drug testing products has a vested interest in seeing them routinely rolled out in schools, the workplace, and other non-criminal justice settings. This is where the big money lies.

This is something Altrix has been especially keen on. They "passionately believe..." drug and alcohol misuse...are reaching epidemic proportions," and as such drug testing should be embraced to confront these "threats in society." Hence their willingness, enthusiasm and support for such initiatives as the Drug testing in schools rolled out in Kent. No evidence that it reduces use of course, but massive profits for companies.

It will be interesting to see how well these smaller companies can maintain any kind of ethical stance as they become just another part of a larger company.

As there is virtually a monopoly now on drug testing in the UK, it must surely be time for a review of these last purchases and ensure that they continue to act in the interest of the market and consumers.

BBC coverage of Tricho-tech buyout here

ACPO on Cannabis?!

The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) drew up new guidelines on the policing of cannabis in November 2006 which saw the light of day at the end of January.

This guidance was published following an ACPO review of cannabis policing. Hopefully it was also influenced by the recent JRF review of cannabis policing, but this is not necessarily borne out by the content of the revised guidance.

And if people were confused by the policing of cannabis before the review, the new guidance will convince people that they have toked on something especially potent.

One of the key changes is that the new guidance instructs a very clear "three strikes" policy. All 'cannabis warnings' issued are meant to be recorded on a force-wide basis. If a person has already received two 'cannabis warnings,' the ACPO guidance says that a third warning should not be given, but more formal action such as arrest and charge should be undertaken.

This change will be heavily dependent on accurate record keeping, and will require expenditure on record keeping. It will also mean that, unless police are able to verify a person's identity, it will a hit-and-miss process to enforce.

The other key change affects Under-18s. In the previous guidance, police had been instructed to arrest under-18s for cannabis possession. But in the revised guidance, this position has been reversed - police are now instructed NOT to arrest young people for cannabis offences unless there are other aggravating factors.

While, on the face of it, this represents a liberalisation of policing, it is in reality a cosmetic change. Young people will still be dealt with under the Crime and Disorder Legislation, resulting in a reprimand, warning or charge. This processing must take place at a Police Station so while the young person may not initially be arrested, subsquent action will take place in a Police Station.

It is essential that under 18s realise that while they will probably no longer be arrested, they will still end up engaged with the criminal justice system, and liable to getting a criminal record.

The release of the ACPO guidance coincides with publication of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation report on policing cannabis.

This piece of work reviewed the impact of cannabis reclassification on police and users.

It highlights that significant numbers of people are still being arrested for cannabis and that the policing of cannabis was variable - with street warning been used for betwen 22% and 42% of cannabis incidents. Given that the presumption should be against arrest, it is clear that arresting users is still the norm, not the exception.

The JRF report also notes that Black and other Minority Ethnic groups were more often given street warnings. This suggests that racial profiling plays a role both in who is searched, and also who is warned.

The report notes that almost half of police officers interviewed wanted to be able to give street warnings to Under-18s when the situation warranted it.

And finally the report notes that, as cannabis warnings could be counted as "sanction detections," there was evidence that senior police officers may use "street warnings" as a quick and easy way of bumping up detection figures.

The new ACPO guidance does address some of these concerns. Under 18s will not automatically be arrested, but they will still be criminalised; police officers are reminded not to arrest unless it is necessary, but this will still be at the discretion of officers; and police forces can count these as sanctions detected, although of course no force would be so craven as to use this as a way of improving crime figures for Home Office statistics.

Would they!

ACPO Guidance at:
http://www.acpo.police.uk/asp/policies/Data/ACPO%20Cannabis%20Guidelines.doc
JRF Report at:
http://www.jrf.org.uk/knowledge/findings/socialpolicy/1998.asp

Glass and Grass - The Sequel

Back in November 2006 KFx reported that an increasing number of people were finding herbal cannabis which was being adulterated with glass. This adulteration came on the back of the ongoing police clampdown on cannabis-growing in the UK.

Two months later, the Daily Dose, Department of Health and Drugscope have also started to report this contamination - better late than never.

It was cannabis activists - not the Home Office or DoH that took a proactive lead, getting cannabis samples analysed by a friendly toxicologist. These reports were publicised by activists including UKCIA and Cannaprag

This supported the increasingly well-founded assertion that cannabis was being contaminated - probably by some sort of reflective glass beads in a solvent - based spray. It looks like this:



Belatedly, Department of Health realised that this was an issue and on the 16.1.07 released a bulletin. This was circulated to PCTs and others.

Unfortunatley, while this Bulletin highlighted the risk, it didn't see fit to propose suggest any harm reduction interventions.

Frank, the Government-run helpline recycles the same information and also fails to offer any harm reduction information.

So the outcome so far has been ACPO create a shortage of cannabis through operation Keymer. Growing and supply has been concentrated in the hands of a smaller number of illegal suppliers and, in turn they have started to bulk up supplies with contaminants, passing off lower grades of grass as being high in THC with adulterants.

This is a fine example of prohibition and its impact on health. So just as alcohol prohibition results in people choosing to drink toxic alcohol concoctions, so cannabis prohibition has resulted in an unregulated market and the increased availability of highly contaminated soap bar and now contaminated herbal cannabis.

For people left with contaminated cannabis to smoke, here's the choices:

- don't smoke or eat any contaminated drugs at all;
- if you really feel you have to, don't smoke in a straight spliff - use a water pipe, fine gauzes, filtered pipe or another method of smoking;
- don't take large lungfulls from any unfiltered sources such as chillums, pipes without filters, or spliffs;
- take more shallow puffs, don't such to hard - it increases the chance of glass being take deeper in to lungs.

and above all, remember that this situation arose out of prohibition...

Suffolk Murders - Tragedy, journos and ASBOs

How the media handled death and sex
The tragic deaths of initially one woman, then a second were largely disregarded by the media. But as the number of deaths rose, so the media interest increased until Suffolk became the eye of a media storm.

The coverage of the media was, on the whole, insensitive, crass and at times downright offensive. In the face of the multiple strands of drugs, sex and death, many journalists used lurid, salacious and titillating coverage. Having sent so many journalists to Southwark, valuable police time was wasted feeding the media, even if there was no news to report.

As time went on, some media outlets started to revise their coverage, highlighting that the murdered women were, foremost, people - with families and friends who loved them and grieve for them. Some media commentators found themselves unable to do this, and could not get past the drugs and the sex-industry aspects of it. It was left to the commentators to explore the subject in more detail and to look at causes and solutions.

Inevitably, much of the editorial comment looked at how policy on drugs and/or prostitution could have made a difference. Some looked to greater prescribing of substitutes as a solution; others looked at the liberalisation of policy towards prostitution as a panacea.

In practice, there are no simple answers. As we see an increase in dual use of heroin and crack, the delivery of substitute prescribing practices is only a partial solution. Without high-quality, intensive interventions for stimulant users, many people will still find themselves engaged in dangerous activities like sex-work to fund habits.

Likewise, models of legalisation will aid those people engaged in sex work who can go 'legit.' This will primarily be those with minimal drug habits, and those in the UK legitimately. Those with the most complex problems - with violent or controlling pimps, those who have been traficked, and those with big habits, are as likely to be excluded from models of legalisation as they are now. So models of legalisation that create two-tier models cannot provide adequate protection.

There are severeal strands that need to be addressed simultanueosly. And fundamentally it requires rethinking not just of laws on drugs and prostitution, but the way we deal with perceived antisocial behaviour.

For it is the approaches to Antisocial Behaviour, as much as the dependency on drugs, that has increased the risk to people who undertake sex work. The way that the Antisocial Behaviour Act has been used effectively criminalised people engaged in prostitution - and mved people in to less visible, less safe arenas as a result.

The older prohibitions, for example on what could be considered a 'brothel' condemned people to working alone - or discretely in twos or threes.

Likewise, the restriction on the placing of cards in phone-boxes made it harder for people to advertise. Westminster council doing their bit to force people further in to the shadows!

But the provisions of the Antisocial Behaviour Act have had the most serious and far-reaching consequences. Prohibiting people from certain areas (e.g. known red-light areas) or times (e.g. after dark) or places (e.g. entering a car) or carrying items (e.g. a condom) has effectively made the trading of sex an imprisonable offence.

So the much touted Respect agenda has shown preciousl little respect for the vulnerable who are driven from the streets, away from lit areas, and in to greater risk.

For any intervention to work, we need a multi-stranded approach. Liberalisation of the laws on brothel-keeping and sex work to make small, well-run brothels wholly legal; increased tolerance of those who can't operate in such settings, to ensure that they are not further excluded and criminalised. And a full range of outreach and support services to address the multiple factors that have marginalised these people, so they can, if they wish, leave this hazardrous profession.

KFx
Dec 2006

THC4MS Case

Prosecution, Pain and Pharmaceutical Profit

There is something obscene about the prosecution of Mark and Lezley Gibson, and their associate Marcus Davies. They are being prosecuted for supply of cannabis, supplied on a not-for-profit basis, in a therapeutic form, to people suffering from symptoms of MS.

Medical trials have demonstrated that a significant number of MS sufferers derive benefit from the use of cannabis. However, there is still no easy way for people to access a legitimate preparation containing cannabis. A small number of people have been able to receive Sativex, although this is not yet licensed in the UK. The rest must endure pain, use prescribed compounds which may be physically addictive or bring unpleasant side-effects, or break the law.

While there is a clear need for a legitimate product, this seems to be slow in coming. There is a growing sense that Pharmaceutical companies see a need to get a product on to the market - but one that they can control and profit from. Rather than allow any tolerance of self-produced cannabis for medical use, anyone seeking to use cannabis will be obliged to purchase it from drug monopolies.

So the defendants from THC4MS are on the wrong end of a tale of history and capitalism which, tragically, is likely to see them sent to prison. Cannabis was accepted as having a medical use for three millenia, and it is within the last century that it has fallen from favour. To be replaced, ironically, by new, 'safer' antibiotics, sedatives and analgesics - barbiturates, benzodiazepines, chlorpromazine et al. Shortly, new forms of the drug will be patented, marketed and controlled. But those who facillitated the process - medical users who were forced to break the law in the face of state and medical intransigence - will be rewarded by imprisonment, rather than the acknowledgement they deserve.

To find out more, or if you want to make your own views known on the THC4MS case you can use the following links:
http://www.thc4ms.org/ home page
http://www.lca-uk.org/

Off the Grass and on the Glass

How Police and Home Office Strategy is increasing cannabis risks to young people

The ongoing police Operation Keymer has seen availability of homegrown cannabis drop to an unheard-of low. And there is growing evidence that this reduction in availability has meant new and potentially dangerous adulterants being used to bulk out dwindling stocks of herbal cannabis.

Cannabis users on UKCIA, and other young people are reporting cannabis being adulterated with bulking agents to either make low grade cannabis look like THC-rich skunk, or alternatively to increase weight.

Adulterants have included relatively low risk substances like sugar solution, or sand. But recent reports suggest an increased use of adulterants such as water-retention polymers - which may take the form of small yellow beads or (more frequently) white crystals.

Most worryingly, some users are reporting cannabis is being coated with ground glass, or sprayed with glass fibre. At this point, such rumours are apocryphal and cannot be substantiated. But there is good evidence that cannabis stocks are dropping in qualiy, prices are going up, and remaining stocks are being more widely adulterated.

Neither the Police nor Frank have raised awareness of these problems, leaving young people at high risk.

We would suggest the following harm reduction advice:

crunch test: if it's crunchy it's got adulterants such as sand or glass in it: put a small bit between teeth; if it's crunch spit it out;
rub test: rub a bit between fingers; if it's got a gritty feel - it's adulterated;
best thing to do, probably chuck it but as this isn't likely for most young people, we need to look at other strategies such as:

use in a water pipe
use pipes with screens
use a filter in place of a roach

Queens Bench Ruling highlights problems of Cannabis Policy

The policing and policy towards cannabis received another blow when the Queens Bench Divisional Court refused a judicial review of a man cautioned for possession of cannabis in his own home. Norville Mondelly (The Times reported) was found in possession of cannabis when the police attended his property by mistake>

Although the aggravating factors that would normally have resulted in arrest were absence, the police initially decided to arrest under Section 8(d) (allowing premises to be used for smoking cannabis) before deciding that there was insufficient evidence to charge for this, and settling instead for a caution at the police station.

Mondelly sought to challenge this, as being contrary to the ACPO policy and guidance. But the court did not find in his favour, stressing that if the policy did constrain police action or make arrest or prosecution impossible, then such a policy would be unlawful.

The case really highlights the worthlessness of the current guidance, providing as it does no protection for individuals, who may believe that they would not be arrested for personal possession in their own home, as that is what the guidance led them to believe.

For the full Times coverage, click here

Keeping tabs on the Street-count

The time for the annual street-count draws nearer. We have received emails from a number of workers with first hand experience of the count which provide evidence that local provision is adjusted on the run up to counts, to ensure numbers on the night of the count are kept low.

We are aware of one count area where the number of rough sleepers was brought down on the night of the count by the temporary opening of a shelter for a week; a rough sleeper count was brought down from fourteen to one, for the duration of the count.
Several workers are stressing that as more people are removed from city centres, or have ASBOs that restrict their access to City centres, more people are sleeping rough away from main count areas; they are certainly sleeping rough - but not necesarilly visible in street settings.

And there is a growing awareness of the number of economic migrants, and people seeking Asylum who may have had claims rejected who are now sleeping rough too. We are very aware that these groups, caught in a catch 22 where they cannot get benefit or access to many hostels, are especially vulnerable and are likely to be at risk during what looks like being a very cold winter.

If you are aware of any measures that have been used in your locality to push down the count in your locality, please write in and let us know; this may include sudden purges of rough sleepers the night of the count, emergency accommodation being opened.

We will make sure contributions are kept anonymous.

Some very selective hearing....How the Home Office, the ACMD, Science and Technology Committee and DfES all choose to hear only what they want to...

A couple of years ago, the Home Affairs Select Committee recomended that cannabis be moved from Class to Class C. The Home Office rejected many of the Home Affairs Select Committee's recomendations, such as the unequivocal "injecting rooms should be piloted without hesitation."

But, perhaps sensing youth votes or for other reasons, the Home Secretary proceeded to move
cannabis to Class C.

However, daunted by the barrage of criticism from the police and the media, David Blunkett fudged the process of reclassification, changing PACE to make posssession of Class C drugs an arrestable offence and increasing the penalties for supplying Class Cs.

In effect, although Cannabis was reclassified, all the rules about class C drugs were so altered as to make the reclassification virtually meaningless. This confusion was then reinforced by the ill-advised and unevenly ACPO guidance on policing cannabis, soon to be the subject of judicial review.

Blunkett and subsequent Home Secretaries have since come under intense pressure to revise the classification of Cannabis.

Charles Clarke was asked to consider moving cannabis back to Class B. Although his personal opinion was apparently that it should be moved back, he instead put the matter in the hands of the ACMD, and asked if, in light of 'new' research evidence of its impact on mental health, cannabis should be moved back to class B.

If he hoped that the ACMD would give him the answer that he wanted, Clarke was to be dissappointed as the ACMD said that cannabis should remain as a Class C drug. In a clear shot across the bows of the Home Secretary, members of the ACMD made it known that there could be high profile resignations from the ACMD if the Home Secretary simply disregarded their recommendations.

Faced with this, Charles Clarke followed the ACMD's lead, and left cannabis in Class C, but decided that there should be a review of the whole classification system, to ensure that the penalties and restrictions were appropriate and commensurate with risk.

This review was undertaken, as instructed, by the Science and Technology Committee. It reported in October this year, in a report which was highly critical of both the drug classification system and the ACMD. It concluded that the current classification system was not 'fit for purpose' and castigated the ACMD for its failure to highlight the inadequacies of the system to successive ministers.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the Home office and the ACMD didn't respond favourably to "Making a Hash of It." The Home Office rejected virtually all their recommendations; the ACMD issues a short, terse response using some very pointed language.

This spat reveals the very real problem at the heart of the UK's drugs policy. It lacks cohesion, direction or an evidence base. It is being pulled in different directions by various parties, rather than having the intellectual and policy foundations shaped by expertise and evidence.

The ACMD should be making recomendations to Ministers, and these should be put before Parliament. It is not for the Home Secretary to pick and choose what measures are, or are not taken forward. The ACMD for example said they recomended against the use of Sniffer Dogs or drug testing in schools. Yet the DfES are continuing to take forward a drug testing pilot in Kent - in direct contradiction of the ACMDs response.

Likewise, in their report on Drug Deaths, the ACMD called for a pilot for drug consumption rooms, a call echoed by the Home Affairs Select Committe and more recently by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

But despite evidence and recomendations from these respected bodies, the Home Office rejected these calls on the most cursory of grounds.

If we are truly to have an evidence-based drugs policy, we should be listening more closely to the ACMD. But in turn the independence of the ACMD should be more carefully protected. We grow more and more concerned that its composition will be more closely controlled and vetted by the Government of the day, and therefore more likely to produce "Government-friendly recommendations." This would be a disaster for policy and practice.

Making A Hash of It - report
ACMD response
Home Office Response

Heroin Chic: Kate Moss, Jane Henderson and Topshop

It's not often that KFx dips it's toe into the heady world of fashion. But having had an insight into why former Topshop's fashion director recently quit, we felt obliged to share it.

As fashion followers will know, model Kate Moss was appointed as a fashion designer by the head of Topshop. This we learn was not the final straw for Ms Henderson.

What was, we understand, was that her initial offerings appeared to be some fairly 'distressed' clothes, which were somewhat ragged and (dare we say it) dirty.

We understand that being offered these as a design offering were a bridge too far, and this resulted in Ms Henderson's departure.

The only thing that remains unanswered is...were these products in fact Pete Doherty's unwashed clothes? We wait to learn more, avidly.

In the meantime, thoroughly ashamed of ourselves for running such superficial twaddle, we now resume normal service!

The Macho Rev Hargreaves and his Cannabis Campaign

After the tragic stabbing of Stevens Nyembo-Ya-Muteba in Hackney in October, you could not avoid seeing or hearing George Hargreaves in the media afterwards.

It was widely alleged in the media that the boys who stabbed Mr. Muteba had been smoking cannabis before the attack. Hargreaves used this as the catalyst to launch a broadside against cannabis and to announce that thanks to an 'anonymous donor' he was going to court for a judicial review of the ACPO policy in relation to cannabis policing.

Hargreaves says that an anonymous donor has given him the required money to launch his High Court challenge. But in practice he could probably fund ths himself being a wealhy man. He earns, it is estimated, some £10k per month - from record royalties.

For the anti-Gay Hargreaves also wrote the Gay club anthem "So Macho," sung by Sinitta.

We discuss the review of policing cannabis in a separate article (see above.) Here, we want to set the record straight on Hargreaves and his campaign.

In the local press and on the Radio 4's Today programme, Hargreaves represented himself as a local pastor, dismayed at seeing 'his' community in Dalston torn apart by cannabis, and watching young people's mental health deteriorating.

In fact, the Reverend Hargreaves is a Christian Fundamentalist who established Operation Christian Vote and has parliamentary ambitions. He sees the purpose of Government "the purpose of government is the maintenance of freedom and justice solely in accordance with biblical principles."

He adds cannabis to his list of 'anti's' most notably anti-abortion and anti-gay. He believes that people should be arrested and charged for even small amounts of cannabis. Presumably he believes this would have a deterrent effect, or that a short spell in detention would correct wayward young people, rather than merely criminalising them at an early age.

In the sad case of Mr. Muteba, he didn't mention the lack of recreational facilities in Dalston for young people, the growth of gang culture, the lack of community policing on the Holly Estate. All he focussed on was cannabis.

And, like the Daily Mail and the other campaigners, Hargreaves likes to string together unproven and often incorrect statements to support his condemnation of cannabis.

He claims that use of cannabis has escalated; research shows that use of cannabis amongst 11-15 year olds, and 16-25 year olds has actually declined since 2003 [BCS, DoH].

He claims that use of skunk has escalated since reclassification; the widespread use and availability of skunk had been increasing over the past decade, and is not a reflection of reclassification. Indeed, the evidence is that a licensed and regulated market would ensure a wider range of strengths, rather than our current reliance on strong homegrown skunk'

he repeats the argument that cannabis causes schizophrenia, an assertion not borne out by the evidence. While there is clearly a relationship between cannabis and mental health, this has not be shown to be a causative link. It's tragic that anyone would want to exploit the tragic death of a person, to promote their own moral and political agenda. Something that the Reverend Hargreaves has no compunction about doing.

(17.10.06)

The End of the Road for the Cannabis Policing 'experiment?

It seems likely that before the end of the year, the current cannabis policing policy will come to a grinding halt. Given a combination of factors, it seems almost inevitable that the current policy will be abandoned. This will not, unfortunately, be due to evidence that the policy has 'failed,' but rather due to a combination of media pressure, political ineptitude and circumstances.

The political climate:

The political demise of David Blunkett leaves the way clear for John Reid to change the way cannabis is policed. That Blunkett has now revealed the extent to which his performance was impaired by his social problems means that his decision making is now easy for others to question and overturn.

Likewise, Charles Clarke's decision to follow the ACMDs recomendations was a close run thing; it was made whilst the Home Secretary simultaneously promised a review of the whole classification system.

The Home Office's rejection of the review undertaken by the Science and Technology committee, which looked at the drugs classification system, suggests that the Home Office will not reclassify cannabis to B, but will also not change the overall classification system.

Media Pressure:

The media have frothed themselves in to a righteous indignation about cannabis and currently sense blood. The murder of Steven Nyembo-Ya-Muteba, the killing of Paul Butterworth in St Albans by Laurie Draper, the ongoing campaign against 'skunk farms' run by 'Vietnamese Gangs,' have all contributed to a febrile atmosphere and intense pressure on an underperforming Home Office. The Government needs a way out, and the media knows that they are kicking against a door which is ready to swing open.

Police Review:

ACPO is currently reviewing the policing of cannabis including the current guidance; this review (it is claimed) had been planned for a while and is not a response to current political or media pressure. But given current criticism pressure is going to be intense for a change to the current police guidance. Certainly, the outcome to date has been a lottery of enforcement and this has meant huge variation as to how cannabis has been policed.

Legal Review:

The Judicial Review, which has been sought by Christian fundamentalist George Hargreaves, is set to challenge the current ACPO guidance. He is not seeking (we understand) to review the reclassification of cannabis, rather the ACPO policing guidance. It has to be said that such a review may well find against the ACPO guidance, suggesting that the decision not to enforce the law as a matter of policy is ultra vires but this will remain to be seen. But it also increases the chances that ACPO and/or the Home Office may decide to change policy prior to a court result to avoid the embarassment of a court result going against ACPO.

In conclusion:

When cannabis was originally to be reclassified, it should have simply moved to class C, and as such the power of arrest would have been removed. Blunkett, in a furious backpedal under media and police pressure, had PACE amended to make sure that the power of arrest for cannabis was retained, and tried to fudge this decision by getting ACPO to draft guidance to ensure a presumption against arrest. This fudge, which was an inelegant and ill-considered approach, is now under review with ACPO, under sustained media pressure and the subject of judicial review. Blair, Reid, Clarke and others have already indicated that they would like to to see the reclassification reversed.

In light of this, it seems almost inevitable that the current policing arrangement will be ended. However, we do not think that cannabis will move back to Class B. To do so would be for the Home Office to reject outright the advice of the ACMD. This would be a huge step. But the need to re-reclassify would largely be irrelevant if the current policing policy were to be abandoned.

(17.10.06)

Drug Thresholds Abandoned!

In a low-key announcement, buried at the end of a low key report launch, the Government has abandoned it's efforts to introduce "threshold quantities." These, you will remember, were to be introduced as part of the Drugs Act 2005. The aim was to introduce "prescribed amounts" of drugs, above which there would be a presumption of intent to supply, and a reverse evidentiary burden on the defendant to disprove the assertion.

The measure was widely reported in the media at the time, and trumpeted by the Home Office as a measure that would see many more people successfully prosecuted for supply.
Many in the drugs field, including KFx, were opposed to the measure. We disapproved of the legal change, and argued that, as well as the law being ill-considered, the defining of threshold amounts would prove impossible.

We were also concerned that, despite the figures that the Government published in the RIA that accompanied the bill, it became clear that the Home Office had no idea how many people would be affected by the change. When asked, for example, how many people were found to be in possession of specific amounts of cannabis, the Home Office acknowledged that they didn't store this information, and so couldn't say how many people would be charged with supply under the new rules.

Only 36 organisations responded to the consultation, mostly police forces. Fortunately, critical comments were received from many, including KFx, Transform, Release, Turning Point and others. It is was saddening to see that some very vocal groups, including Reform, Kaleidescope, Drugscope and Liberty did not contribute.

Having said that, the Home Office, having received serious structured criticism decided once again to abandon ill-considered legislation. As with the proposal to change Section 8 of the MDA, the Home Office has been found to make policy on the hoof, and be forced in to backing down when challenged in a serious and consistent way.

For the full Home Office response to the consultation click here
(17.10.06)

Cannabis Drought - and a new War on Weed

- 26.9.06

Cannabis users in the UK have been aware for at least the last two months that there was a serious shortage of cannabis in the UK. Discussions on the drug strand of the Urban 75 website had been discussing the shortage in early August, and it was raised as a concern by harm reductionists at UKHRA in early September.

What had initially appeared to be a localised problem - which seemed to be affecting Liverpool , Cheshire, and some parts of Scotland, rapidly escalated and most parts of the UK were reporting shortages of cannabis within a few weeks.

At this point, various theories were being posited for this shortage, which was mainly having an impact on herbal cannabis. Some London-based commentators suggested (in August) that supplies were being held in reserve for the Notting Hill Carnival, and other sources suggested that growers had somehow formed a cartel, and were sitting on stockpiles to force costs up.

In practice, it seems more likely that a series of police actions across various parts of the UK had impacted on availability of home-grown herbal cannabis in the UK.

In May, Kent police raided a large production site. On August 10th, the BBC reported further raids in Faversham, Kent. The Guardian (August 29 2006) reported that police in Hertfordshire had closed 24 'factories' in the preceding four months and made a number of arrests.

Raids have also been reported in Wiltshire (July 2006) Catford, South London (August 2006), Swindon (July 2006), Lewes Sussex - september 2006, Clitheroe (July 2006), L.B. Barnet (July 2006), Ealing (August 2006), and a number of other areas.

Now at this stage, no 'formal' or coordinated action had been declared either by the Home Office or the Police. So in theory, this action was all uncoordinated, local activity.

But it seems that the net result of this has put a huge amount of pressure on other areas, forcing people to travel to secure cannabis in other cities, and in turn causing the shortage to increase.

The net result so far has been to force the prices up, and also to drive people towards the use of less safe substances.

For some cannabis users this has meant smoking imported, low grade cannabis resin, such as Soap. But with increased port and airport security, displaced demand and a domestic reliance on home-grown cannabis, shortage of resin is also being reported.

Drugs workers are concerned that the shortage of homegrown cannabis is increasing the risk of lapse amongst former opiate users. Several drugs workers have spoken to KFx highlighting clients who had previously been abstinent from opiates, but had kept themselves calm through their use of cannabis. The drought has resulted in a number of these clients returning to opiate use.

Any hope that the drought would come to an end will have been dashed by the announcement on the 25th September 2006 that the Police intended to launch a concerted campaign, involving 19 police forces and to run for the next two weeks (at least). The initiative, dubbed Operation Keymer, will include police forces in Cambridgeshire, Essex, Greater Manchester, Hampshire, Hertfordshire, Humberside, Kent, Merseyside, Metropolitan, Norfolk, Northumbria, North Yorkshire, Nottinghamshire, South Wales, South Yorkshire, Surrey, Sussex, West Yorkshire and Wiltshire.

Vernon Coaker, speaking for the Home Office, endorsed this campaign the same day. The Minister, who has declared he has sampled the drug in the past, said ""We fully support this crackdown, which sends out a powerful message that growing and dealing in cannabis will not be tolerated." [BBC].

What is not clear from the Police announcement or the Home Office comment is what inititiated this action, and this announcement at this time. It is fairly obvious that concerted (if not coordinated) action against cannabis cultivation has been taking place since at least July, and that this action has at least in part contributed to the current drought.

So the present announcement does not seem to be a "new" drive - more a formal announcement and extension of the current police action. But a credulous media happily reprinted the news story, provided by ACPO, complete with the helpful "How to Spot a Cannabis Farm" lists supplied by the Police.

Only the truly cynical would link the current drive, and the timing of the announcement, with any sort of Home Office involvement. It is of course impossible that the Home office would have initiated such a drive, using the closure of cannabis farms as a way to achieve 'rapid gains' on the back of recent criticism of the UK drug strategy by the ACMD, increased levels of young suppliers and the ongoing criticism by the right-wing press of cannabis reclassification.

And only the truly paranoid would look for the hand of Dr John Reid, who certainly has no interest in pitching for being Labour leader, overseeing such a campaign during the Labour Party Conference.

Either way, at the end of this 'Operation,' a number of producers will undoubtedly be removed from the production cycle. But the risk is that the end product will be production consolidated in the hands of a smaller number of more ruthless producers, moving in to replace the smaller local producers removed by this operation.

Sources:
ACPO Press Release:
http://www.acpo.police.uk/pressrelease.asp?PR_GUID={8ADB07A1-0FB9-41EA-8C52-75DBC865708A}

Media Reporting:
http://www.acpo.police.uk/pressrelease.asp?PR_GUID={8ADB07A1-0FB9-41EA-8C52-75DBC865708A}
http://www.guardian.co.uk/drugs/Story/0,,1860305,00.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/wiltshire/5222248.stm
http://www.kent.police.uk/News/Latest_News/Archived%20news/Cannabis%20farm%20archive.html
http://www.lse.co.uk/ShowStory.asp?story=US1528092N&news_headline=
police_raid_south_london_cannabis_factory
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/wiltshire/5219490.stm#
http://www.lewestoday.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=511&ArticleID=1218014
http://www.ealing-life.co.uk/modules/news/article.php?storyid=187
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/5376698.stm

The Ice Age is Coming

By 'Delia Venus Wynn'

Over the last few months, the media has become increasingly rabid about a 'new' drug arriving on our shores. As always it has been demonized as the beginnings of the worst drug epidemic in history. Methamphetamine (ice) is becoming the new drug bogey man.

Much has been written about methamphetamine, a great deal of it inaccurate, some just total fantasy but some is all too true.

So what is really going on? With access to major manufacturers, dealers and users I will try to delve below the media froth, and explore the real UK position. This in turn highlights how enforcement and Government Agencies can minimize the risks posed by this new challenge.

The United States' Experience of Meth Production:

The majority of the US market is supplied by large-scale labs, principally in Mexico, California and, to a lesser extent Texas, but a significant proportion comes from what the DEA term 'Mom & Pop' laboratories. Mom & Pop manufacturers use their garden shed, garage or kitchen to make relatively small batches (between 10 & 50 grams) on a 3-4 day cycle. They won't get rich, but to some it looks like an easier life than getting a McJob!

Methamphetamine is not primarily derived from a plant source so unlike heroin or cocaine, it doesn't necessarily require long supply routes. This has in turn made it especially popular in less accessible markets, such as New Zealand, where home grown methamphetamine production is an easier undertaking than importation of, for example cocaine.

Unlike many other forms of drug synthesis, methamphetamine is, in reality, relatively straightforward. Critically, precursor chemicals are more readily available than is the case with most street drugs. Your local pharmacist sells over-the-counter cold medication that contains a healthy amount of the precursor (a £3.50 box of tablets is enough to make about ¾ of a gram of pure methamphetamine which could be sold for £50-£80.

That isn't to say that production from plant precursors isn't also feasible. South East Asian suppliers obtain Ephedrine from Ephedra Sinica, a hardy shrub which has been used in Chinese herbal medicine for 5000 years. These traditional growers extract the ephedrine which can be easily converted to methamphetamine using very basic chemicals.

The relative ease with which precursors can be obtained has been exacerbated by the growth of the Internet, which makes both recipes and sources of precursors easy to find. Key chemicals used in common production processes are available cheaply on-line, although some of these may, in turn, be sting operations run by enforcement agencies.

As the chemicals in question are not on watch-lists for precursor chemicals, such companies will be able to act with impunity unless the licensing laws relating to these compounds is changed or it is possible to prove that they are being supplied with the intention of manufacturing a controlled drug.

UK methamphetamine is currently imported either from the Far East (Yaba, made from ephedrine extracted from the Ephedra Viridis shrub) or from former Ecstasy manufacturers (mainly based in The Netherlands or Belgium) who have switched from MDMA production to the more profitable methamphetamine.

The simple replacement of PMK (piperonyl methyl ketone) for BMK (benzyl methyl ketone) is all that the chemist has to do. The reaction is identical in all other respects, so they are ideally placed to make the switch.

It is interesting to note that within The Netherlands the black market price for BMK is now higher than that of PMK.

The effects of methamphetamine are similar to amphetamine (speed) but four times stronger weight for weight and with a significantly longer duration of action. In addition, methamphetamine can be smoked like crack and has a similar rush. The difference is that while a crack high lasts for ten minutes or so, the methamphetamine high lasts for eight hours and is qualitatively very similar.

This makes it a more economical drug for those looking for a powerful stimulant high.

Methamphetamine can be smoked, snorted, swallowed or injected. This makes it a very versatile drug. Whatever method of ingestion a user is familiar with, they can take methamphetamine in the same way. This makes it relatively easy to market. The downside is a much bigger crash, so heavy users seek to repeat dosing to avoid this event, often for days and weeks at a time. The crash from a single dose begins at the 8 hour mark and lasts for a further 8 to 16 hours. With chronic usage, the crash can last a week or more.

Meth Trends:

Recent reports from the US have shown that methamphetamine is not the national epidemic that the media suggests, but is very prevalent in certain urban areas. For example, in these areas, the proportion of males testing positive for methamphetamine on arrest, according to the DEA newsletter 'Microgram' are as follows:

Phoenix 38.3%
Los Angeles, 28.7%
Portland, Oregon 25.4%
San Diego 36.2%
San Jose, California 36.9%.

Nationally, however, just 5 percent of men who had been arrested were found to have methamphetamine in their systems. By contrast, 30 percent tested positive for cocaine and 44 percent for marijuana (although it should be noted that cannaboids will show up in modern drug tests for weeks).

These figures seem to indicate that methamphetamine is nowhere as popular as say, crack, probably because of its long duration and horrible crash. Also, as users become tolerant, users are likely to take larger and larger doses to obtain the same high so methamphetamine looks increasingly less like a "cheap" drug.

Lessons Learned and Early Interventions:

The experience of the US, Australia and elsewhere is certainly that methamphetamine can and does have a massively damaging physical and psychological effect on users, and causes huge collateral damage to users.

However, the US experience has not been that the drug became a widespread 'foundation' drug in the same way that heroin has. Instead, it springs up in concentrated, but highly damaging pockets.

Indeed, evidence suggests a significant decrease in methamphetamine use in the States with estimates that use has diminished 30% since 2001.

Some factors that may have contributed to this include:

1) Heavy ongoing use of methamphetamine is less feasible than with most other drugs due to the serious physical and mental health problems that are likely to stem from it and the increase in tolerance. So use tends to be sporadic and bingeing (similar to a crack 'mission') rather than ongoing for sustained periods of time.
2) Many areas of the US are only supplied irregularly (mom & pop producers are frequently caught) so finding a steady supply remains difficult.
3) With a longer time-frame of problematic use, education and awareness messages in the US and elsewhere are more widespread. With families and friends of users having direct experience of the effects of the drug, and in turn with these being translated in to education, there is a higher level of awareness, and in turn resistance, than in the UK. The extent to which mainstream US TV shows such as CSI and ER routinely feature methamphetamine story-lines highlights the extent to which awareness of the drug (but in turn the 'glamour' too) has been absorbed by the media.
4) Efforts to clamp down on precursor chemicals, including decongestants, have had significant impact on areas where supply was reliant on local production rather than imports.

Of course, only the heavy users come to light via law enforcement agencies and drug support agencies. There is, no doubt, a large number of users (students, truck drivers and so on) using it to allow them to keep working, rather than for recreational purposes. These users take far less and so decrease risk of detection. It is also worth pointing out that a great many US employers and educational establishments have introduced a mandatory random drug test policy which may have a deterrent effect on many potential users.



View from the UK Street:

Currently, the market in Manchester, UK, is just starting to see the drug being sold in two specific markets. Firstly, the Gay scene (centered on Canal Street) has a small but expanding market of recreational users who love the energy giving, inhibition losing effects which also boost sexual drive (initially at least). It allows people to make use of the whole weekend from Friday evening until Sunday morning. As with heavy use of other stimulants, afternoons and evenings are for comedowns, typically aided with alcohol or increasingly anxiolytics such as un-prescribed benzodiazepines. The main risk to these users is unprotected sex due to the lack of inhibitions and increased sex drive. If the U.S. experience is any kind of indicator, the rate of STDs amongst these users will increase quite drastically.

The second group of users is likely to form the bulk of drug workers' caseload. We are beginning to see a marketing campaign strongly reminiscent of the introduction of crack. Dealers are offering 2 points of brown and 1 of methamphetamine for £20. Now crack is established, with some crack users not using much, if any heroin, the dealers are hoping to use methamphetamine for several reasons.

· Methamphetamine is highly addictive, requiring increasingly larger doses to get the same high, resulting in larger sales.
· The over stimulation caused by methamphetamine over long periods mean that instead of needing 1 point of heroin to balance 1 point of crack, a user is likely to find that they need two or three points of brown to balance 1 point of methamphetamine.
· Users who have not taken heroin may also be tempted to indulge to offset the comedown.
· Dealers are also likely to sell increasingly large amounts of tranquillizers. With Valium & Xanax available on the internet for pence rather pounds per pill and currently being imported from Eastern Europe in large quantities, the dealers are able to sell them at increasingly high prices to 'tweaked' users desperate for something to help them unwind.

On a personal note, having tried the drug, it does seem like only hardened drug users would contemplate imbibing this compound regularly. Its extreme physical and mental effects mean that only people who find extremely potent stimulant use pleasurable would enjoy the effects. It is also interesting that within the US, there are still clandestine laboratories producing plain amphetamine, so it seems reasonable to assume that some people, at least, prefer the weaker (safer) compound.

The next steps:

Uniquely, the UK is in a good position to respond proactively to methamphetamine as we have had fair warning that the drug is likely to start entering the UK in significant quantities or start to be produced here.

The decision to move the methamphetamine from Class B to Class A should provide the required impetus to develop effective responses. Given the rapidity that crack cocaine achieved massive market penetration, it seems likely that methamphetamine would follow the same route and achieve a wide market distribution quickly, following the same supply lines and getting in via the heroin market and sex-worker markets. So developing effective responses now is essential.

This will require responses from law-enforcement and drugs agencies and would ideally include the following:

· Prevention of UK-based production: this will require reformulation and greater control of OTC medicines containing precursor chemicals, and more robust licensing to prevent the sale of additional chemicals used in the production cycle.
· Effective monitoring of importation routes.
· Targeted education messages to high risk populations, especially clubbers, the gay scene, and heroin or crack users being targeted by suppliers.
· Effective training of drugs workers to be aware of methamphetamine and the role of therapies such as CBT in working with methamphetamine users
· Local monitoring of methamphetamine trends to provide early warning of increased use.
· Closer examination of the experience of other countries' models of control and treatment, especially those with extensive experience of responding to methamphetamine.

Conclusions:

Methamphetamine does represent a new and significant risk to drug users and the communities in which they live. Drugs agencies, mental health services and the criminal justice system are likely to see users presenting with a collection of drug and health related needs.

However, if the experience of other countries, especially the U.S. holds true, methamphetamine is unlikely to become as uniformly widespread as heroin or crack due to the deeply unpleasant side-effects. In the short term, the levels of use are likely to expand rapidly. This expansion could be reduced through effective control and education strategies.

Without wishing to be complacent, it may well be that, after reaching a peak within the next five years or so, levels of use will drop off as older users move away from the drug and the next generation reject a drug which perhaps offers too much of a high and too much of a crash.

Last edited 28/6/06

Delia Venus Wynn is a pseudonym; the author is a former manufacturer and user of a large range of compounds. Delia is now working towards a professional career in the other side of the drugs field.

Edited, and additional material added by Kevin Flemen/KFx

A shorter version of this article was published in Drink and Drug News.

Right of Reply/Comment:

KFx was contacted by a senior professional in the Manchester area following publication of the above article. They made the following comment which we wanted to post here as it challenges the content of the above article and we are always keen to maintain balance and debate.:

>>>>"I've been asking around with our sources (very reliable) and as yet there appears to be virtually no methamphetamine available in Greater Manchester. This would apply to both the scene around Canal St. and amongst users at our needle exchanges. There was one arrest earlier this year but as far as we are aware of no evidence of an organised market.." [comment received 28.9.06]

Cannabis Reclassification - Where will Clarke go next?

After months of rumours and posturing, we finally got a decision relating to Cannabis. As the process had taken such a long time, it's worth recapping the sequence of events that led to this decision:

May 2002: the Home Affairs Select Committee recommends moving cannabis from Class B to Class C
July 2002: David Blunkett says he will follow the HASC recommendation relating to cannabis
November 2003: Legislation to reclassify cannabis finally passed
January 2004: Cannabis reclassified
December 2004: Mr. Blunkett leaves the Government
March 2005: Charles Clarke refers the cannabis issue back to the ACMD
January 2006: ACMD comes down against changing cannabis classification again
January 2006: Charles Clarke abides by the ACMD recommendation but proposes review of classification system

It's worth stressing some of the above milestones. The original decision, proposed by the Home Affairs Select Committee, was arrived at following interviews with experts and after a period of research. It was a decision supported at the time by large sections of the drugs field, though greeted with concern by others,including mental health professionals.

But in practice, the reclassification was bodged, with Blunkett coming under serious pressure from media and lobbying bodies. This included the change to the powers of arrest relating to cannabis and the penalties for supplying class C drugs.

Shortly after Blunkett's ignominious departure from the Home Office, Charles Clarke moved in to the recently vacated seat. He, no fan of cannabis reclassification, agreed to requests to review the reclassification and, quite properly, passed the matter to the ACMD. While his own views on the matter have been the subject of record, such decisions should be taken under the advisement of the ACMD, and a decision on Clarke's part to disregard their views would be unprecedented.

While the ACMD deliberated, various interest groups lobbied from the outside; Release, Transform, Turning Point, Rethink, Mind and many others offered thoughts on what should happen next.

The ACMD considered - and according to some sources came under pressure from ministers to reach an acceptable decision. The ACMD were firmly directed to review the reclassification in the light of "new" cannabis research related to the links between cannabis and mental illness.

But the ACMD - after extensive speculation - did not reach the decision Charles Clarke or Tony Blair had wanted. They agreed that while use of cannabis could have a negative impact on mental wellbeing, it was correctly classified in Clause C and that no reclassification was required.

This put Charles Clarke in an awkward position. While clearly personally favouring a move to Class B, this would have meant disregarding a recommendation by the ACMD - and an opinion that the Home Office had specifically sought. This would have been a hugely controversial move - to go against the stated opinion of the ACMD risked antagonising them and the possibility of resignations. According to some media reporting, key figures on the ACMD were prepared to consider their positions if the Home Secretary ignored their opinions.

In the end, Charles Clarke acceded to the wishes of the ACMD, and left cannabis where it was. As a sop to those who had lobbied so hard to see it reclassified to B, Clarke promised an awareness campaign to reinforce messages about cannabis risks and legal status.

But more worryingly Clarke also said that he intended to revise the whole system of classification. In his statement to the Commons he said:

The more that I have considered these matters the more concerned I have become about the limitations of our current system. Decisions on classification often address different or conflicting purposes and too often send strong but confused signals to users and others about the harms and consequences of using a particular drug and there is often disagreement over the meaning of different classifications. For example many people wrongly interpreted the reclassification of cannabis to mean that cannabis was not harmful and that its use was acceptable and even legal.

For these reasons I will in the next few weeks publish a consultation paper with suggestions for a review of the drug classification system, on the basis of which I will in due course make proposals.

Given Clarke's overall views on drugs, this probably does not bode well. It suggests that Clarke will get the outcome that he wants - tougher rules on cannabis - by a new tool: if the ACMD won't agree to moving it within the existing system, why not create a complete new system? Ironically, the point where we came in to all this - the Home Affairs Select Committee - also had worries about the existing classes of his drugs. That was why they wanted cannabis moved to Class C and Ecstasy moved to class B. This, they felt, would more accurately reflect the relative risks of these drugs.

So now Clarke is planning to review the legislation and possible revise the classifications. We must await his proposals with some trepidation.

But there is another way that Clarke, or his successor, will get their way. They can stack the ACMD in their favour. This, perhaps, has already started to happen. While new members can be proposed by existing ones, they are interviewed by Home Office officials before being offered their positions. And each is up for renewal every two years. By careful nomination and selection it becomes relatively easy to stack the ACMD to reflect Government Policy. So it is possible that this will be the last time that the ACMD reaches a decision that diametrically opposes the Home Secretary's own wishes. Both Clarke, and future Home Secretaries, will have noted this and be considering how they can avoid future repetition.

So while, for now, cannabis will remain within Class C, change is still in the pipeline.

From Gillick to Axon - a wake-up call for drugs workers:

7.2.06

In January, the verdict was delivered in the case of Sue Axon, who challenged the legality of Government guidance on contraception advice to under 16s and a parent's "right to know." The case was not widely reported in the drugs field, which was strange as if the case had been found in favour of Ms Axon, it would have had profound implications for drugs work with under 16s, including advice work and needle exchange.

Axon challenged guidance that allowed for contraception to be provided to under 16's without parental consent provided that the child was considered "Gillick competent." This framework for working with under 16s has been an integral aspect of work with under 16s including drugs work, and has been enshrined in a number of strategy documents including the HAS report on work with young people, various Drugscope documents and resources from the NTA.

In the event, the court did not find in Ms Axon's favour, and so did not overturn the framework established in Gillick. Mr Justice Silber said: "Everybody involved in this case is agreed that a young person should be encouraged to involve his or her parents on any decision on sexual matters."

However, he added that there were unfortunate situations in which a young person needed advice when they were not prepared to inform their parents."

While the case upholds the concepts that emerged from Gillick, it does bring in to sharp focus the importance of careful assessment of a young person within the Framework. On the back of regular training sessions with a large number of wokers, it is clear that a number of workers in various agencies are unclear about their obligations to assess against Gillick.

All agencies working with under-16s must ensure that they have good assessment protocols to establish competence and effective procedures in place to assess when and how parents should be involved. The Axon case has reinforced the importance of dilligent assessment; workers must be able to demonstrate that they have made effort to encourage or facillitate disclosure to parents or carers, and they must be able to demonstrate how competence has been established. Failure to do could see future challenges to this important precedent eroded or worse, overturned.

More Water? - News on the Water for Injection situation:

7.2.06

We received a flurry of emails from concerned Needle Exchanges who were confused by apparently contradictory messages from different sources. On the one hand, Exchange Supplies mailed out their new brochure. It included promotional material relating to their 2ml ampoules of water - licensed for injection and conforming to the revised paraphernalia legislation.

But at the same time, the Guardian ran a big story saying that Needle Exchange workers were being threatened with prison for giving out too much water. Worried workers, in the throes of purchasing water, became worried that they were facing a new clampdown. So what's the reality of this situation.

The crux of the Guardian article was a restating the changes to the Paraphernalia laws relating to water (see drug news passim or click HERE. This made it lawful to distribute water to distribute ampoules of water for injection of 2ml or less, without prescription. Greater quantities would continue to fall foul of both the Medicines Act (by virtue of being a POM) and/or the Misuse of Drugs Act (as they would not fall within the revised paraphernalia legislation.)

But, with the greatest deference to Diane Taylor that the article, while technically accurate, is a little strident and liable to cause confusion and increase concern - possibly unecessarily.

The many organisations who have given out 5ml amps without a PGD have always been in breach of the law. They have typically been aware of this, and for most it's been a risk that they have been prepared to take.

Thanks to the industrious lobbying of Dericot, Preston et al the desired legislative change to the water legislation has been achieved, rightly making it lawful to distribute 2ml ampoules. It was unlawful to distribute 5ml ampoules without a PGD or similar; it remains unlawful to do so. In this respect the situation has not changed.

Granted, the non-availability of a licensed 2ml ampoule had been an issue, but as the Exchange Supplies website makes clear, they are now making available 2ml glass ampoule that is licensed and lawful.

So while the Guardian article is technically accurate when it says "But in practice the only plastic ampoules suitable for use by drug users contain 5ml of water," it unhelpfully neglects to mention availability of a glass article. Critics are arguing that the the Medical Regulatory Authority are being overly slow in terms of granting licenses to other products - most notable 1.4ml plastic water ampoules. They are right to stress these concerns. But the way that it has been reported has clearly confused some in the drugs field, which is far from helpful.

So if anything the situation is better now than it was a month ago, which is not clear from the article at all.

DEFRA, Drug Litter and Section 8

15.12.05 Following an intervention from KFx, DEFRA has agreed to reword the relevant section of the report. Remaining copies of the document are to be pupled, and the document henceforth will only be available as a download.

5.12.05

DEFRA produced a generally superb document about Drug Litter, but then messed it up by mis-stating the legal situation regarding Section 8. KFx had contributed to an early draft of the report, but had not seen the final version before it went to print. We welcome lots of the recomendations of the report, especially its rejection of blue lights and support for public sharps bins. But we have taken issue with the Section 8 part. We wrote to DEFRA as follows:
"I recently read a copy of the DEFRA publication; "Tackling Drug Literature - Guidance and Good Practice." I contributed to the preparation of this document and provided some feedback on an early draft in April 2005.

On looking through the final print version (which I wasn' asked to review,) I was suprised and extremely concerned to read the following boxed section on page Seven:
"The Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and housing services Section 8(d) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 was amended by Section 38 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 to extend its scope beyond cannabis and opium to all controlled drugs. However, the amendment was never actually brought into force. During the consultation exercise it was clear that professionals working in the treatment and harm reduction sector felt that the amendment might leave them open to prosecution. The Drugs Act 2005 included a repeal of s.38 . The repeal commenced in the summer of 2005. In effect section 8 (d) has remained unaltered.

Providing sharps boxes or needles for users in itself does not constitute 'knowingly allowing' under section 8 (d). If a hostel or day centre is allowing other behaviour that involves use or supply of controlled drugs, then it is possible that prosecution could result. However, supplying needles alone cannot constitute grounds for charges being brought unless it were accompanied by other behaviour involving actual use or supply. Letting users inject un-prescribed drugs on the premises is likely to be considered as 'knowingly allowing' under the terms of this section of the law. However, there is no risk of prosecution from simply providing users with sharps nor from providing opportunities to return them safely."

The first above paragraph is accurate. The second paragraph is however hugely inaccurate and massively misleading. You say "If a hostel or day centre is allowing other behaviour that involves use or supply of controlled drugs, then it is possible that prosecution could result." Certainly, if an organisation were allowing supply, prosecution would be feasible under Section 8(b). If smoking of cannabis or prepared opium were taking place, then prosecution would be feasible under section 8(d). But as section 8(d) ONLY covers cannabis or prepared opium, allowing the USE of other drugs (e.g. tolerating the injection of heroin) is NOT prohibited by section 8.

Had Section 8 been ammended by Section 38, then it would have been illegal to tolerate use of heroin on site. But as this amendment was never enacted and as it has since been repealed, no offence existsof allowing use on site.

So when you say "Letting users inject un-prescribed drugs on the premises is likely to be considered as 'knowingly allowing' under the terms of this section of the law," this is wholly erroneous. "knowing allowing" injecting of heroin is contrary to which section of Section 8? None.

Part of the reason why this error is so worrying and so frustrating is that numerous housing providers routinely exclude drug users from provision for allowing using on site. They do so because they labour under the erroneous belief that if they fail to do so they risk prosecution. The amendment to Section 8 was repealed precisely because the Home Office recognised the good work of housing providers and harm reduction services that worked with ongoing users.
So it is hugey unhelpful when a Government Department publishes material that misrepresents the legal position and creates further confusion.

Clearly, given the scale of this legal error and the prominence that it has been given in the document, some correction is urgently required. I hope to hear from you soon regarding this matter, and ideally reassuring me that the document will be withdrawn while a corrected version is produced. I am sure that you will need to check this with the Home Office and other departments but I would appreciate a rapid response. Due to the seriousness of this error, and the potential ramifications for thousands of housing providers, I'm hoping for rapid action and trust that a formal complaint to DEFRA will not be required at this stage."

As of 5th December, DEFRA have done no more than acknowledge concerns and we will will update as and when there are further developments.

The DRUG LITTER report is at:
http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/
localenv/litter/pdf/drugrelatedlitter.pdf

Threshold Quantities - Time to say Enough (again.)

In December last year, the Home Office published lists of proposed "Threshold Quantities." These were the amounts above which a Judge or Jury were required to assume that a person possessed the drug with the intent to supply it, as stated in the Drugs Act 2005.

Section 2 of the Drugs Act 2005 stipulates that in any proceedings for an offence under sectionc5(3) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (possession of a controlled drug with intent to supply it) if it is proved that the accused had an amount of a controlled drug in his possession which is not less that the prescribed amount, the court or jury must assume that he had the drug in his
possession with the intent to supply it.

When the "Threshold Quantities" list was originally drafted, the levels set were very high - and to an extent (especially in relation to cannabis) probably meaninglessly so. While a small number of heavy users and bulk-buyers would have been caught out by the new levels, on the whole they were legally objectionable but practiclly not a huge issue.

More worrying was the police and media mis-representation of the figures. They were presented by some sections of the media as "dealers charter." There was a wide-spread misaprehension that figures below the "Threshold Levels" would be considered solely as personal possession meaning that dealers would be immune from prosecution.

This of course was not the case. Below threshold levels, users could be charged with possession or supply as the situation and evidence suggested. The change was that once the person exceeded the threshold, it would generally result in a supply charge unless there was evidence to refute such a charge.

Under stinging attack from the police and sections of the media, the Home Office released its new proposed Threshold Levels. With the Home Office under sustained and fierce criticism related to illegal immigrants and prisoner releases, it was never likely that the Home Office would take a considered view. And the new figures exemplify a right wing Home Office drawing up knee-jerk legislation with scant regard for evidence on consultation.

The Guardian reported the following levels: http://www.guardian.co.uk/drugs/Story/0,,1791915,00.html

Cannabis

Ministers propose 5g, or less than 1/5th of ounce - enough for 10-20 joints. This compares with the original proposal of 4ozs or 133g of resin, and 500g or 20 bags of grass. The ACMD has replied that the limit should be set at 28g.

Ecstasy

Ministers propose 1.5g (equal to 5 tablets, costing £15), compared with an original proposal for 10 tablets. The Home Office says it would be more straightforward to do it by weight than number of tablets, as the drug also comes in powder form. The ACMD said the limit should be 2g or 20 tablets, as that was two days' supply.

Amphetamines

Ministers have kept the proposed threshold at 14g but dropped an alternative of 10 x 1g wraps, saying dealers would simply change the size of deals to avoid going above the threshold. The ACMD said the threshold should be 10g, and questioned the rationale for a threshold higher than other drugs.

Heroin, cocaine and crack cocaine

Ministers are "minded to set" a threshold of 2g for possession, compared with the original proposal of 7g. The proposed number of individual wraps - a maximum of 10 in each case - has also been dropped for these class A drugs.

If these figures are true, and we have to await publication of the figures by the Home Office, then they have massive implications for many drugs users, both recreational and dependent.

Obviously, the figures with cannabis are going to attract the most attention; but the figures for other drugs - especially heroin, are in practice worryingly low. Many cannabis users will have been in possession of a quarter of an ounce at some time; such a quantity would tip the balance for a court, and would, if passed, automatically considered a supply matter.

Likewise, a heroin user with a gram a day habit would be on the wrong side of the law if they picked up enough for a weekend on a Friday - and was stopped with three-grammes worth.

Why is this so important?

In part, because by creating this arbitary cut off point, more people will get sent to prison for longer. The penalty for supplying cannabis is a maximum of fourteen years. While small scale supply won't attract such a large penalty, it is likely that those found guilty of supply of even small amounts are going to get custodial sentences. So being in possession of a quarter of an ounce could land you in prison - even if you never intended to supply.

In practice the situation is worse still; found in possession of a quarter ounce near a school - then this would be considered evidence of 'aggravated supply' and so the court would be required to consider a larger sentence.

Such cases would be 'triable either way' so one could elect to go to Crown and plead your case and mitigation. But lose your case at Crown and the risk is a much larger slice of that maximum sentence.

What happens next?

The proposed Threshold Quantities will be put before parliament and voted on. If they are passed, then the new Threshold Quantities will come in to force.


How many people will be affected?


The Home Office's Regulatory Impact Assessment estimated that between 150 and 598 additional people would be convicted of intent to supply under the new Legislation. http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/ria-drugs-bill-1204?view=Binary

These figures are UTTERLY speculative as, at the time of drafting, the Threshold Limits had not been established. So it is simply not possible to guess how many people would have been affected by the new Thresholds. When MPs vote on the Thresholds, they should know that they do so without a clear model of how many more people will go to prison.

We have asked the Home Office, under the Freedom of Information Act, how many people were arrested in the last year for possession of cannabis and the amounts of cannabis involved in each case. This would give a good estimate of how many people will be affected by the revised legislation. We fear that this information will not be forthcoming.

In 2003 there were 82,060 cannabis offences in the UK recorded. This was prior ro reclassification. 70% of these offenders were dealt with as possession offences. This means that of a total of 82,060 cannabis offences, 57,442 were for possession. If only 5% of these were convicted under the new Threshold Levels, some 2872 people would be convicted - far higher than the Government's lower estimate under the RIA.

Self reporting to the IDMU paints an even more worrying picture. http://www.idmu.co.uk/purchaseprices.htm Using their data as a rough gauge, at least a quarter of people reported purchasing cannabis in quarter-ounce deals. This would put these users above the threshold. Using this 25% figure as a benchmark, and applying it to the 82,060 recorded cannabis offences in 2003, this means that an additional 20,000 people per year would be convicted of supply under the new threshold.

How can this process be challenged?


The process is going to be hard to challenge now; the Home Office consulted on the Threshold Quantities and it is likely that they received a small number of responses, many of which would have pushed for low thresholds. So there are limited ways of challenging the Thresholds.

1) Use the FIA: write to your local police force asking the number of people arrested for possession of cannabis, heroin, or other drugs. Ask for the quantities found.

You could use the following form of words:

"I am requesting the following information under the Freedom of Information Act.

I would like to know:

(a) the total number of people arrested for possession of cannabis in the last year, or the last period for which figures are available.

(b) the number of cases in which the amount of cannabis involved was 5gms or more."

2) Write to your MP. It is essential that your MP is briefed on the problems to do with the Threshold Quantities. They should be asked if they will vote against the Threshold Quantities when they become before Parliament. If you have local figures from requests under the FIA , these can be used to demonstrate how many people would be considered suppliers under the new legislation.

3) Write to the Home Office: they need to be advised of the potential problems with the threshold quantities and encouraged to review the Thresholds. They can be emailed at public.enquiries@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk

Finally, cut and paste this section, and send it on to everyone else that you think can respond. It is urgent that responses are generated rapidly. If not you, who. If not now, when?

Welcome changes to paraphernalia legislation:

Thanks to the dogged work of Exchange Supplies and other activists, two problematic areas of the paraphernalia legislation have been amended. On the 12th October, Statutory Instrument SI 2005 (2846) - added ascorbic acid (VitC) to the list of items that it is legal for services to supply.

This follows on from the changes to the legislation regarding Water for Injection which we, lamentably, failed to report at the time. This was done under Statutory Instrument: SI 2005 No.1507 The Medicines for Human Use (Prescribing) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Order 2005.

This became law 1st July 2005, and says:

• "(2) In the table in Part II of Schedule 5 to the POM Order (Exemptions from the restriction on supply), after paragraph 3, insert the following new paragraph -
• "3A Persons employed or engaged in the provision of lawful drug treatment services.
• 3A Ampoules of sterile water for injection containing not more than 2 mg of sterile water.
• 3A The supply shall be only in the course of provision of lawful drug treatment services."
  

Effectively, this makes the distributionof ampoules of water for injection legal, subject to the above size restrictions. Only a churl would point out that at present there are no ampoules of

Water for Injection of 2mls or less available in the UK, though Exchange Supplies are endeavouring to get their sterile water thus licensed.

Congratulations are in order to Jon Dericott and Andrew Preston for their dogged determination in achieving these legislative changes, and all those who supported their endeavours.

For more details go to: http://www.exchangesupplies.org/whatsnew.html

Why is that Farmer jumping up and down?

In October 2005, we wrote to the Home Office regarding Magic Mushrooms, seeking clarification as to what rules would be applied where mushrooms were growing on land. There had been some confusion about this.

The rather sweet response from Tawa Bishi makes all things clear.
Thanks to the wording of "Misuse of Drugs (amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2005, the prohibition against mushrooms does not apply if the fungus "is growing uncultivated." So if the mushroom is merely growing and the landowner does nothing to promote this process, then the presence of the mushroom is not illegal.

Further, Tawa Bishi assures us that "there is no obligation on landowners to remove psilocybe mushrooms which are growing uncultivated on their land."

We also asked how mushrooms should be destroyed. An ever-helpful Tawa explains:
"There is no set method of destruction...The mushrooms can be burnt, stamped upon and crushed, or allowed to decompose."

You couldn't make it up, really!

No ID - No Methadone? - Proposed changes to Drugs Regulations

The Home Office has launched a public consultation on proposals to make changes to the Misuse of Drugs Regulations. These proposed changes follow on from the Fourth Report of the Shipman Inquiry.

To read the Proposals in full, please go here

The low-key launch of the consultation at the end of July may mean that it escaped the attention of key agencies. We feel that the proposed changes may have some important ramifications for the Drug Treatment and social care field and would urge agencies to respond to the consultation.

The proposed changes are intended to improve the prescribing, audit trail, and safe handling of prescribed controlled drugs. They include proposed changes to the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001.

The proposals have been drawn up after consultation with the ACMD and a number of other agencies exclusively drawn from medical disciplines. Unfortunately, this list does not appear to include the National Treatment Agency, Drugscope, Homelesslink nor any other agency primarily concerned with the needs of drug users engaging with treatment providers.

We are concerned that this has meant that some of the proposals could negatively impact on access and adherence to treatment. We are also disappointed that the Home Office has not used this revision as an opportunity to clarify the legal situation relating to the storage of controlled drugs in non-medical settings.

Paragraph 15: Controlled Drug Prescriptions

Proposal:

Prescriptions for controlled drugs to carry a unique identification number so prescriber can be identified

All prescriptions for controlled drugs to carry a patient identifier number (NHS Number) to identify double scripting



Effectively, this proposal represents a return to a "register" of addicts. Within this proposal, all users prescribed controlled drugs will be recorded and identifiable within a central register.

A key concern must relate to homeless and transient patients who do not currently have, or do not know their NHS numbers. The proposals note a need to consider the "obligations on prescribers and dispensers faced with patients who are unable or unwilling to supply their NHS number."

We would go further than this and propose that given the risk of further excluding people who are dependent on drugs from treatment, those engaged in the treatment of drug dependency should be exempted from this requirement.
We would suggest that this exemption should be time-limited as follows:

"Prescribers treating people for dependency on controlled drugs will need to ensure reasonable efforts are taken to ascertain an NHS number. However, in order to ensure access and continuity of treatment, obtaining such a number need not happen prior to commencing treatment but should take place within the first three months of treatment."

Paragraph 22: Dispensing controlled drugs:

Proposal: requirement for dispenser to ask for the name, address and some form of personal identification of people collecting Schedule 2 controlled drugs.

This proposal is mediated by a proposal to ensure that Pharmacists still have discretion to dispense where a person has no form of identification.

We are concerned that this proposal needs more careful attention to ensure that people being treated for drug dependency, especially those who are homeless or transient, are not unfairly treated by this proposal. Many such patients will have no formal documentation to prove identity, and those who are homeless or in temporary accommodation may struggle to prove their address.

In order to facilitate dispensing to such patients, we would propose the following:

Patients attending agencies for drug treatment to be issued with an ID card which includes patient ID number and photograph, which will be an agreed form of identification at local pharmacists. This will be made available at no cost to people attending treatment. Such a system would be extended to patients receiving treatment from GPs within a shared-care scheme.

Paragraph 27: Controlled Drugs in the Community

We have contacted the Home Office on previous occasions requesting clarification of the regulations relating to the storage of prescribed controlled drugs in non-medical settings. It has been our ongoing concern that the storage of prescribed controlled drugs by hostels, day centres and other allied professionals is not robustly legal. We have brought these concerns to the attention of successive Home Secretaries and have been assured that the issue would be addressed when parliamentary time allowed.

We have documented our concerns relating to the current legal position in detail in the KFx guidance document "On Storage." We have appended this to our submission to the Home Office.

In order to enhance the safe handling of controlled drugs in the community we would like to make the following proposals:

" That hostels and day centres be given the authority under the Misuse of Drugs Regulations to store prescribed controlled drugs on behalf of Service Users, and return such drugs to the named patient.
" That while such services should be given this authority, they would not be obliged to store such prescribed drugs for service users or residents.
" Organisations who wish to store controlled drugs would be required to demonstrate that they can operate to agreed standards including:

Storage facilities

Record keeping

Staff references

Joint working with prescribers



The provision would be audited by the Pharmacy Inspectorate who would furnish a Certificate of Compliance, authorising the storage of such controlled drugs.

Conclusion:

Whilst it is essential that there are effective strategies in place to monitor the use of prescribed controlled drugs, it is essential that such measures do not have a disproportionately negative impact on patient care.

Where the patients in question are receiving their controlled drugs as part of a package of treatment for drug dependency, it is imperative that access and continuity of treatment is not reduced as a consequence of changes to the Misuse of Drugs Regulations.

We hope that this submission highlights these concerns and that they will receive serious consideration as part of the consultation process.


Kevin Flemen
KFx
September 2005