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

And here's your new Drugs Act

In the dying days of the Parliament, the Drugs Bill, which was being debated in the Lords, was rushed through the last stages of the 'democratic' process and received Royal Assent, passing on to the Statute Book.

The process was a travesty of democratic process. The Drugs Bill had been widely criticised for its inadequacies. It had been castigated on human rights grounds and the Joint Parliamentary Human Rights Committee was particularly scathing in their criticism. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200405/jtselect/jtrights/47/4702.htm

The Conservatives were broadly supportive of the legislation. Predictably the primary changes they wanted to see made were tougher sanctions and penalties, and so, given Conservative support and Labour backing, it seemed likely that the Bill would be passed.

As time ran short, the Bill could well have foundered before the dissolution of Parliament, especially if the Lords had done their job and given the bill the scrutiny it deserved.

However, with the sort of backroom deals that typify contemporary politics, the Bill was passed in the so-called 'wash-up' period. The Tories had been keen to see the Drugs Bill ammended to include moving cannabis from Class C back to B. This is something that Charles Clarke is privately keen to see, but publicly would be tantamount to a labour party policy U-turn. In order to stall such a U-turn whilst pacifying the Tories and securing the passage of the Drugs Bill, Clarke agreed to refer the reclassfication of cannabis back to the ACMD and seek their advice on the subject.

This face-saving formula placated the Tories, secured the passage of the Drugs Bill and, possibly, leaves the way forward for Clarke to reclassify cannabis if the ACMD makes such a recomendation.

Much of the Drugs Act 2005 cannot come in to force straight away, as it requires subsequent legislation, guidance or changes to regulations. The following sections will not be instantly available:

Mushrooms containing psilocin: these will all become Class A drugs, whether prepared or not. However, additional guidance or wording is required to ensure that landowners who merely have mushrooms growing on their land are not committing an offence. This clause will not come in to force until such a wording is agreed.

Initial assessments and follow-up assessments: this new power means that the police can require any arrestee who tests positive for Class A drugs to attend an initial assesment and, where required, a follow-up assessment. However, these new developments cannot take place until funding is released to pay for the assessors and these will need to be recruited.

It seems likely that this development will curtail, if not spell the end of arrest referal schemes as they are supplanted by these mandatory assessments.

Given their vocal opposition to the Drugs Bill, we assume that Turning Point will refuse to bid for any of the new contracts to undertake assessment and would not be so hypocritical as to condemn the Bill whilst actually receiving funds to deliver aspects of it.

Presumption of intent to supply: This section will mean that people found in possession of quantities of drugs exceeding the "proscribed amount" will automatically be considered to be intending to supply those drugs. These quantities have yet to be decided and need to be approved by parliament. This section cannot come in to force until then.

The only shiny jewel in all this sewage is that the amendment to Section 8 by Section 38 of the Police and Criminal Justice Act is repealed by the Drugs Act 2005. So a piece of legislation that Charles Clarke saw fit to pass to garner votes in the last election is repealed by a piece of legislation to garner votes in this one...plus ca change.

When Crackdown goes OTT

Amidst much fanfare and column inches, the Home Office launched Crackdown on 12th January 2005. The Home Office press release said

"Operation Crackdown is being co-ordinated by ACPO and the Home Office. It will involve 32 police forces in England and Wales, focusing on closing drug dens, disrupting local drug markets, seizing illegal firearms and bringing dealers to justice. A key part of the campaign will be working closely with communities."

 

The Home Office appeared to hope that such a high profile campaign, on the run up to a general election, would provide much needed media coverage and reinforce the impression of a Home Office tough on crime and tough on drugs.

However, we have been hearing worrying tales of excess, especially in the closure of so called "drug dens." The word from the Home Office has clearly been that they expect the Police to use the new powers provided by the Antisocial Behaviour Act to close premises. But in some areas, where crack houses are few and far between, the Police appear to have struggled to find proper drug dens. So increasingly any drug user is finding themselves at risk of a closure order - even if they are not "drug dens." So squats are being emptied using these powers and people who are drug dependent and living with their families are being warned that they may be summarily removed from their properties.

We have received independent information from Wiltshire and from Hackney of such misuse of these powers, and it seems likely that such occurrences are taking place else where.

Drugs and housing advisors concerned about misuse of the powers should advise concerned service users of the following:
the property in question must be associated with Class A drug use AND nuisance or disorder; there must be evidence of both. If the property is not associated with nuisance or disorder it should be possible to challenge an application for a Closure order.

 

The property MUST be the subject of a properly-issued Closure Notice. If a closure notice has not been served properly, a closure order cannot be issued. Increasingly the police will want to serve a closure notice on an individual; otherwise it will be posted to the house and affixed to a door.

 

The Closure Notice will specify the Date, Time and Place of the Court Hearing that will determine if a Closure Notice will be issued. You will have to act very quickly.

 

If the occupier or tenant wished to challenge a closure order they will need to attend court and should get legal representation as soon as possible. It is essential that this is done very rapidly as from the point of Closure Notice, a Closure Order will be sought and issued within 24 hours.

 

With legal representation, the occupier or tenant should attend court and apply for an adjournment; this should be allow for proper submissions to be prepared and submitted. The court can grant a period of adjournment for up to 14 days.

 

The occupier and legal team should return to court and provide grounds to challenge the application for a closure order. This could include:

• demonstration that the property is not associated with Class A drug use. This could be supported by evidence of drugs workers, housing support workers, evidence from drug treatment projects etc
• evidence that the property is not associated with disorder or nuisance: this could come from supporting evidence from other neighbours, evidence from Housing Support workers, diary to demonstrate that nuisance is caused by others, etc
• proposals that other approaches will resolve the nuisance or disorder: this include a willingness to attend treatment, agreement to exclude visitors who cause nuisance, or willingness to change behaviour that is causing nuisance.
• other submissions that support the contention that the issuing of a closure order is not an appropriate response.

If a Property is closed, the person will be homeless. It is ESSENTIAL at this point that they do NOT surrender their tenancy at this point as they may be considered intentionally homeless. They should continue to seek legal advice, and make a decision as to whether they wish to take further action.

 

They can apply to the court for the Closure Order to be discharged, but would have to demonstrate to the court's satisfaction that the nuisance or disorder would not recur.

 

Given sufficient legal back-up and a strong case, there may be scope to mount a legal challenge to a closure order, but this will require extensive legal support and resources.

 

If you are squatting remember, these powers were intended to close properties associated with Class A drug use and serious nuisance. Squatters who are using drugs recreationally and are not causing disorder or serious nuisance should NOT be on the receiving end of such closure orders. It is important that efforts are made to challenge misuse of such powers in the courts.

 

Remember: ACT QUICKLY: GET LEGAL ADVICE: GET AN ADJOURNMENT: PREPARE A CASE

The Decline and Fall of David Blunkett

We had been in the process of writing a piece about David Blunkett and the vendetta against perceived antisocial behaviour.

However, overtaken by events, his removal from power has come, not from pursuing a series of draconian and punitive measures against refugees, asylum seekers, economic migrants, people suspected of terrorism, drug users and young people.

Instead it came from the hubris of believing that, while the state had every right to stick its nose in to the private lives of its citizens, he was entitled to privacy while he conducted illicit trysts.

Mr Blunkett has overseen a Home Office that has eroded civil liberties to a greater extent than any other peace-time Government. Traditional rights - including property rights, right to free assembly, freedom of speech and freedom of movement have all been stripped away. Not because of someone's offending behaviour - but because of unproven allegations that behaviour could be considered "antisocial."

Other rights, including Habeas Corpus have been ignored and as his last act before resigning, he has introduced the prospect of ID cards on spurious , anti-terrorist grounds.

While we do not hold out massive hope that any successor will adopt a more even handed approach, we are not in the least saddened to see the back of Mr Blunkett, one of the few people to make Michael Howard look relatively liberal!

Spinning Wheel Blues

Inconsistent policies on drugs and gambling demonstrate Government confusion on both habits.

Amidst all the sound and fury regarding the Government's plans to reform gambling, few commentators have spotted the obvious comparison between Government's approach to gambling and to drugs.

Simon Jenkins, writing in the Evening Standard, was one of the few. He noted "If any law is in urgent need of reform, it is the thus ineffective 1971 Misuse of Drugs Act. It does far more harm to minors than do fruit machines. Yet Ms Jowell and her colleagues will touch it."

Looking at the arguments put forward by the Government in support of it's reforms of gambling, one would be hard put to fault exactly the same arguments if put forward for drugs reform.

In an article, again in the Standard, Tessa jowell defended her bill thus:
"if adults nake the rational informed decision to gamble, they should be allowed to do so. They should be encouraged to do it in places tha are crime free and properly regulated. Above all else, children should be protected from the temptation to gamble."

A key thrust of the Govenment's thinking is that a lack of control has created greater risk to young people. The arrival of high-prize gaming machines in venues used by young people exposes them, the argument goes, to temptation and risk. A licensed and regulated market would remove these machies from these arenas, and limit them to venues where only adults would access them.

If one substitutes "use drugs" for "gambling" in Jowell's argument, the argument is all but identical to the arguments put forward by drug policy reformers.

Fear has been expressed, both in terms of drugs and in terms of gambling that proposals to change the law will result in an increase in problem gambling and gambling addiction.

Here, Jowell offers a different analysis, and again one that is wholly appliable to the drugs field. She argues:
"to judge an entire industry by the people who can be addicted by its product is similar to closing down every pub in the country because of the lif story of an alcoholic. It is not possible to close down an industry and prohibit people from what they consider a pleasure because of the tragedy of a few."

Again, these are sentiments that most drug reformers would recognise and applaud.

After this, however, the Government's approach to gambling and the vision of the drugs reform lobby go in sharply different directions. While the current spin put on the gambling reform is one of "protection through regulation," the other is one of "profit through expansion." The licensing and development of larger casinos, the facillitation of local authority licensing and the projected profits for local and state profits are aspects which demand an increase in the number of gamblers and, by association the number of problem gamblers.

This is where the approach to gamblig and to drugs part company. Drug reform proposes control and safety through license and regulations. A key model is distribution through medical routes for some drugs and controlled and regulated markets for others, notably cannabis. Most drug reformers would abhor an approach which saw big corporations take over this market and actively recruit new users.

The Government is, on the one hand, right to think that regulation is safer than a absence of safeguards. This applies to drugs as much as gambling. But to then actively promote and expand such a market would be indefensible to both too.

The Met ain't so pretty either:

The new metropolitan Police campaign that uses the images of drug-dependent women to highlight the dangers of drug use is grotesque.

The images themselves are disturbing and distressing, but they are not new. They have been circulating on the internet, and the Nimby-wesbsite "Crack Cocaine in Camden" has had a link to the images for a couple of years.

Pictures of three women are used; Roseanne Holland, Melissa Collara and Penny Wood. Holland is believed to be dead, Collara was not contactable and Wood is in treatment.

So the Met are exploiting the images of three tragic women. Depersonalised and exposed to the shocked looks of public they disintegrate before our eyes. UK arrest pictures could not have been used as it would breach confideniality. But the Met have no such qualms about scooping images off the net and using them. They are exploitative, breach decency and ultimately they are ineffective.

The images are as much a condemnation of the US war on drugs, and the failure of the US penal and treatment system as they are of the drugs themselves. Collara was arrested 18 times in three years. Where were the interventions, the opportuities to engage with both harm reduction and with treatment. Holland was arrested at least five times in eight years.

Collara had (according to the Daily Mirror) been sexually abused and had lost her mother at an early age. She was engaged in drug use and prostitution. But despite repeated arrests, the help she so badly needed was clearly slow in coming. Ultimately it was not that the "system" got it right for her but one police officer who viewed her as a person needing help rather than a criminal.

The failure of the war on drugs is manifest. The failure of the criminal justice system that failed these women is written across each face. And the failure of a policy that makes needle exchange illegal and fails to offer adequate education past "just say no" is etched across these billboards.

In the good old days of drugs education, the police used to use the gore fest "Better off dead" to scare would-be users away with footage of autopsy - again of a dead female user. Thirty years later they are using the same approach - but with new images. But where do they go next? More shocking images? More gore? As any body with any media-awareness knows, this process is ultimately self-defeating. We become inured to horror, harder to shock. We cease to care or even notice and the images cannot touch us.

The effects of crack can be extremely damaging; but ill-considered advertising can damage us too. And this damage is so much less obvious

Drug Testing in Schools

An example of a drug strategy now just gesture-politics.

The widely-reported announcement that the Government was to endorse random drug-testing in schools came as a surprise to many.
The mystery of the DfES Guidance Document:
Certainly it seems to have come as a surprise to Drugscope, to the teaching unions and associations and to other Drug charities. It will also come as a surprise to the DfES who published their "Drugs - Guidance for Schools" this month.

This Guidance Document, for headteachers, Governors and LEAs covers all aspects of drugs education and prevention in school settings. The Guidance Document was put together by Drugscope, Alcohol Concern and the DfES, and is endorsed by Stephen Twigg, the Undersecretary of State.

The Guidance document makes little reference to sniffer dogs or drug testing. The report "Headteachers are within their rights to invite the police or private companies to bring sniffer dogs onto school premises or employ drug testing."

However, the report does not advocate such an approach, and does not go in to detail about how to implement such a strategy.

What the report does stress is the need to ensure that any enforcement measures such as sniffer dogs or drug testing are "consistent with the pastoral responsibility of the school to create a supportive environment," and that "A headteacher requesting the use of sniffer dogs [and/or drug testing] solely as a deterrent,where there are no reasonable grounds for suspicion and where prior consent has not been sought, will need to consider possible challenges by parents and pupils under the Human Rights Act."

The announcement made by Blair go far beyond the guidance reccomended by the Guidance document and put a greater weight on sniffer dogs and drug testing than have ever been discussed before.

Blair and the Cult of the Sparkly New Idea

So why should Tony Blair use an interview with the News of The World as an opportunity to announce that the Government is to put its weight behind random drug testing in school settings.

The actual comments made by the PM are not in themselves earthshattering. All he has actually said is 'If heads believe they have a problem in their school then they should be able to do random drug testing,' he told the News of the World. 'Guidance will be given to headteachers next month which is going to give them specifically the power to do random drug testing within their schools.'

But since his announcements, a range of ministers have spoken on the subject and elucidated on the subject and, it seems, added a range of meanings to the PMs comments.

So Ivan Lewis (Education Minister) spoke on Channel 4 news as a process of identifying people early so they could be refered for treatment and counselling. He went further on the Today programme on Monday, arguing that schools could use it as a part of the school policy and pupils or parents who refused to accede could be rejected from the school. He stated that the Government "expected schools to take all appropriate measures [to prevent drug abuse]" suggesting that the Government expected schools to introduce drug testing. But Lewis was clearly under-prepared and under briefed for this interview, saying that he thought most headteachers wanted this power, but unable to say what consultation had taken place, and what the outcome was. John Prescott spoke about testing being a deterrent. And Downing Street added commentary, saying that the aim would not be to see pupils expelled from school.

Who leads on drugs?
But the implication was the same: Blair had produced a "policy" from nowhere, in contradiction to what the DFES was saying and without reference to the drugs or education field. ANd on the back of Blair's statements, a range of other Government heads were wheeled out to speak on the subject. But not, crucially, Caroline Flint or Blunkett. So is this a strategy that has been approved by them or is it Blair's alone.

There are potentially a number of driving forces behind Blair's statement. One has to note that Blair's direction here mirrors (once again) that of George Bush. Just as Blair seems willing to follow Bush into a war on Iraw without a robust evidence base, so it seems that he is prepared to pursue Bush's campaign of schools drug testing, even though the worth of such an approach is not proven.

Similarly, Blair was visited by Sweden's PM may have influenced Blair's view of drug policy. The Swedish drugs policy is credited in some quarters as having reduced the extent of problematic drug use in Sweden and is held up by critics of liberal drug policy as a viable alternative.

But alongside the obvious influence of Bush and the possible influence of other European countries, we must look at influences much closer to home. Either actively or tacitly, we are in to the initial stages of an election campaign. And as predicted elsewhere on this website, drugs are going to form a core aspect of this campaign.

Blunkett and Blair seem to be lurching to outdo Michael Howard and Letwin. But without any loud, effective voices to challenge this drift, there is little scope for stopping it. With most major drugs charities now wholly or partly tied to Government funding, there are fewer and fewer with the independence and scope to get their voices heard.

And let us also not lose sight of how some of the research in to school drug testing was funded. The most recent study in Scotland was funded by Euromed - one of the leading manufactures of drug testing products. Not necesarily the most objective of sources. Yet this report is now being cited as grounds for the expansion of school drug testing.

A resounding 'NO' to random drug-testing in schools:
The proposals to endorse or encourage drug testing in schools is ill-thought, unworkable and counter productive.

School Drug Testing:

• Cannot take place without the consent of the young person in question in school settings: to do so otherwise is likely to be assault
• Is a poor indicator of substance use; most drugs have a very short window of detection
• Breaks down trusting therapeutic relationships between schools and pupils
• Cannot differentiate between use that has taken place in leisure time and that which has taken place in school time
• Is likely to result in more school exclusion and truancy to the most at-risk
• Will not deter those who use drugs
• Is unworkable in practice and
• Is contrary to all good policy and practice on the subject

Cannabis: Discussion deteriorates and Home Office produces its leaflets

Under increasing pressure from the media, drugs professionals, users and the medical profession, Blunkett came out of his bunker with all guns blazing. After he had put both feet in, many in Government may have wished that he had kept quiet and let the more-capable Caroline Flint try and deal with the flack.

On the Today programme, Blunkett said that the cannabis policy that he had implemented would be "transparent, non-variable and understandable." Given that the policy being rolled out is the exact opposite of this, it is hard to fathom if Blunkett is just utterly in denial or is simply unaware of the amount of confusion.

Given a policy that is being interpreted in a different way by individual forces, where ultimate decisions are left to an officer's discretion and has confused everyone, it is hard to see how Blunkett can think that the policy has achieved Blunkett's aims.

But, even more astonishingly, he has already concluded that his approach is right, saying that he is "not prepared to consider reversing it." So no matter what the evidence base, Blunkett has decided that this is the correct approach and he will not be changing it.

It may be indicative of the Home Secretaries increasing inability to grasp these points that, rather than continue to engage with the debate in a meaningful way, he instead launched an astonishing attack on Michael Howard, and asking him to confirm or deny if he had ever smoked cannabis, a question that Michael Howard refused to answer.

This undignified spat put Blunkett and Downing street on the back-foot. Downing Street dismissed it as 'political knockabout,' but others held this up as evidence that the Home Secretary is becoming increasingly gaffe-prone.

Certainly in a week when the Home Secretary was keen to see his Anti-Social Behaviour Act take pride of place in the media, he will not have been pleased to see it knocked into the inside pages while cannabis dominated all the papers.

In this flurry of media coverage, sniping and counter sniping, the Home Office produced its series of leaflets which, according to Caroline Flint, have been extensively piloted.

The leaflets are very poor: the one aimed at children makes no reference to school exclusion; it fails to make it clear that for young people on their second or third offence, they will be refered to the YOT and go to court. And the emphasis is primarily on the good jobs that cannabis could spoil or the holiday abroad. Certainly not the two things that are going to put off young people in Hackney from smoking!

The second leaflet, aimed at adults is, if anything worse. It oversimplifies, contains misleading legal points and forgets to mention things like allowing use on premises. Worse still, although FRANK is branded all over the leaflets, when you phone him he hasn't seen them, and doesn't know what they say.

The war on drugs: who calls the shots in the looming policy war: Blair, Blunkett or Johnson?

On Friday the 25th January the Independent, along with other papers, ran a news piece about some of the recommendations spilling out from the Forward Strategy Unit in Downing Street. One of the ideas to make the news was that a new offence of using drugs should be created and a conviction for use should act as a trigger either for enforced treatment or for imprisonment.

The news article was not new; rather it first ran in the Independent at the end of last year, under the banner "PMs drug report shifts focus to high harm users."

The ideas described in both articles have emerged from work coordinated by the Forward Strategy Unit; this Unit within 10 Downing Street is headed up by civil servant Geoff Mulgan, former head of DEMOS. Work is undertaken by a number of advisors, most famously John Birt.

The report prepared by the FSU concerning drugs has not been published, and is supposed to be a confidential document within Downing St. The 'Birt report on drugs' supposedly looks at a greater emphasis on enforced treatment, and looking at a regime that orders imprisonment or treatment for anyone testing positive for heroin. Other measures in the report are said to include increased monitoring of identified users through a register of addicts.

The measures proposed in the report are alarming and would result in many more people being unjustly targeted, criminalized or forced inappropriately in to prison. Yet the report is supposed to be the result of a year's research and presumably involved input from various 'experts' in the field.

Unfortunately, the report has not been published, so the researchers involved and the authorities consulted are, at present unknown. The research is, according to the Independent "too sensitive to publish," and Downing Street has described the research as a private piece of work.

The report, its contents and its status within Government throw up some intriguing questions.

Why, for example has this private report been cited, twice now, in the Independent. Given that the Indy ran it at the end of December, it suggests that it was intentionally leaked from Downing St or by someone within another department attempting to expose the proposals in the report.

The fact that the news story reappears again in the Indy this week is probably more to do with the Indy trying to tag an old story on to the current controversy surrounding cannabis. If it isn't it would perhaps suggest that parties unknown are leaking the story again, presumably also to fuel controversy around cannabis. Either way, the timing would seem to be either to distract from the Home Secretaries fumblings with cannabis, or to let the public know that he means to deal with other drugs robustly.

But more importantly, the issue of the report indicates deeper and more worrying concerns. Because all the indications are that three or four departments are now tugging in different directions when addressing drugs; instead of a joined-up strategy, different factions are fighting, presumably over both resources and profile.

The Home Office has been primus inter pares for a while now. While its status was somewhat reduced during the brief reign of the drugs czar, the mantle for drugs has been firmly taken back into the Home Office since Blunkett moved.

However, this position of pre-eminence is being gently eroded on several sides; the ODPM is taking a lead on some aspects, most notably efforts to move rough sleepers and other street populations into hostels and treatment. Given the associations between substance use and antisocial behaviour, the Antisocial Behaviour Unit, under Casey and Brady, is effectively directing a substantial swathe of drugs policy and money.

Similarly, the role of the Prime Minister's office (and the Forward Strategy Unit) suggests that Blair is interested in playing a more active role in directing drugs policy. The article in the Independent talks about Home Office sources expressing unhappiness about how policy is being shaped, and questioning the nature and reasons behind the PMs involvement.

The almost unheard voice in all this is that of Melanie Johnson. As the undersecretary in the Department of Health whose brief includes drugs, one would expect to hear more from her, nor her departmental boss John Reid.

Aside from a single written response regarding links between cannabis and schizphrenia, little can be found of her thoughts in Hansard. A better glimpse is provided in a newspaper report at the time when Blunkett was seeking to extend the Closure powers in the Antisocial Behaviour Act to cover class B and C drugs too. Johnson was quoted at the time as saying ""I have serious concerns about the possible impact that the extension of these powers to class B and C drugs may have, as suggested." Whilst hardly conclusive, it would suggest that she was sufficiently unhappy with the Home Secretaroes stance that she was prepared to disagree and do so publicly.

Unfortunately it is very clear at this stage that the Home Office, the ODPM and the Prime Ministers office are taking a lead and also perhaps wrangling for the upper hand somewhat. In the meantime, the DoH, who should be taking a strategic lead, are left languishing. And as it does so the health agenda is still further subsumed by the other three Departments.

This situation will only get worse as the General Election draws closer. The latest that this could be is June 2006. But if this an earlier date was preferred, then key policy areas like drugs will become a political battle ground. A contest for the drugs vote is not likely to offer many favours to harm reductionists or policy reformers. And if the ground is to be fought out between Blunkett and Michael Howard, we should be very worried indeed.

Media furore over cannabis legislation

With the reclassification of cannabis only a fortnight away, all sections of the media were running cannabis stories like they were going out of fashion. Indeed, the number of hacks that were walking the streets purchasing cannabis samples either for their own use or for testing must have seen them tripping over each other.

The coverage in the press has been generally critical of the Government's stance. The criticisms are varied according to the political leanings of the source, but primary concerns include:

• the confusion relating to how under 18s will be treated. The Evening Standard highlighted widespread confusion amongst young people and teachers who were receiving the erroneous impression that cannabis was now legal, and the reality that according to the ACPO guidance they should be arrested under all circumstances;
• the ongoing debate regarding the relationship between cannabis use and mental well-being. With ongoing research exploring how cannabis impacts on mental wellbeing, many papers concluded (without a robust evidence base) that reclassification would result in an increase in mental illness amongst young people;
• the fact that police nationally are not sure how the law should be implemented despite the ACPO guidance. The Metropolitan Police have produced their own guidance, described by the Independent as being 'subtly at variance' with the ACPO guidance. Sources within the Met were quoted in the Indy, saying:" Senior Met sources have flagged significant differences between the wording of the recommendations and those issued by the Met to its borough commanders. "The Met guidelines say there is a presumption against arrest. It is urging officers not to make arrests."

A number of high profile figures have started to criticise the way that the reclassification has been pursued. Ruth Runciman is quoted in the Standard as saying "We recommended that the position on cannabis should be that it is no longer an arrestable offence. What Mr. Blunkett has done is to take specific steps to maintain its arrestability. We still have some of the most punitive laws on cannabis in Europe. It is a very confusing situation."

With high levels of criticism of the strategy across the media, it was left to Caroline Flint MP to defend the strategy to the media. Blunkett remained strangely silent throughout. She is by and large in the right; she has inherited a muddle created by Mr. Blunkett and, barring a cabinet reshuffle post-Hutton, it is unlikely that Blunkett will accede to a change in direction now.

With the reclassificatio due on the 29th January, the Government insisted that publiciy material was being prepared by the Mentor Foundation and would be distributed in good time for the reclassification. The Mentor Foundation is avowedly an organisation that pursues a Prevention agenda; as part of the justification for this stance, the Mentor Foundation cites sources including the UN, stating "Drugs destroy lives and communities, undermine sustainable human development and generate crime. " No analysis is included to consider how international prohibition contributes to drug-related crime and harm.

Having looked at the content of the drug-specific information on the website, there is a great deal of inaccurate, value laden and sensationalist information which reinforces myths and misconceptions. Much of this is US-based and not relevant to the UK drug scene.

Quite why the Mentor Foundation should have been chosen to prepare literature for the reclassification is unclear. One of its trustees, the pro-hunting Tory Peer lord Mancroft, has come out against the use of criminal justice sanctions for cannabis use, saying "The use by successive governments of the criminal justice system in dealing with cannabis - "a health and social problem" - had produced "no results" and had led to "a massive increase in drug use." [BBC:18.10.2000]

To compound the above problems and confusion, the Observer [19.1.04] reports that, due to funding problems, a large number of Drugs Advisor posts are to be cut in April. These posts, who help schools to develop policy and practice in schools-based drugs education, support and responding to incidents, will come to an end as core funding is removed. While some LEAs will continue to fund the posts, others say they cannot afford to. WIth the piloting and role-out of Blueprint in the pipeline, this seems like a short-sited response.

In short, with the reclassification less than ten days away, we have an inconsistent and unworkable policy on cannabis which increases risk, increases confusion and utterly fails to increase the credibility of the drug laws. One person is responsible for this: Mr. Blunkett. The reclassification was a simple process and it is astonishing that he has been allowed to meddle with it with such disastrous results.

'Poverty' Chief takes up top job at Drugscope

Martin Barnes, currently Director of the Child Poverty Action Group, takes up the post of Chief Executive of Drugscope in the New Year. The move came following Roger Howard's move from Drugscope to Crime Concern.

Barnes has been Director of CPAG for 11 years. In this time, CPAG had expanded with a threefold increase in expenditure from the late 90's to the present. However, his departure from CPAG coincides with a period of internal disgareement at CPAG. The charity made the news as staff walked out on strike following management decisions to reduce terms and conditions of employment for new starters. While there has been no indication that the move to Drugscope was related to these internal issues at CPAG, it is to be hoped that Barnes' arrival at Drugscope will only be a boost to staff morale, rather than a portent of less good things.

CPAG has described itself as a "critical friend to Government" and traditionally CPAG has occupied a close position to Government in briefing on how economic strategy is liable to impact on poverty. It would be fair to describe CPAG as a strong campaigning body with good access to Government. They have however, had minimal contact with drugs.

It will be interesting to see if Barnes' arrival at Drugscope heralds a shift of focus. Over the past few years, Drugscope has embraced the Government's "drugs and crime" agenda; it is to be hoped that Martin Barnes will bring a shift instead to the "drugs and social exclusion" nexus instead. A focus that lifts people and communities out of poverty, and an agenda that looks at opportunity and involvement rather than punishment would be welcome.

The drugs field urgently needs strong,confident and informed voices to lobby and campaign for urgently needed reforms to policy and law. We hope that Martin Barnes can provide this voice and remains a critical friend of government.

http://society.guardian.co.uk/charitymanagement/story/0,8150,1043799,00.html
http://society.guardian.co.uk/charitymanagement/story/0,8150,1048094,00.html
http://www.cpag.org.uk/

Water, water everywhere and not a drop to fix:

Confusion has become apparent with the changes to the Paraphernalia Legislation initiated this summer. The changes to the legislation were discussed below.

At the time we highlighted these concerns and it has become obvious that these were well-founded.

A big concern was the lack of additional budget to fund these additional costs. The Government has effectively acknowledged the health benefits of revising the paraphernalia laws, but has not matched these with funds to purchase the resources. As a consequence, around the UK, exchanges are restricting what they give out because of the funding issue. These concerns were highlighted by Druglink and have been extensively discussed by UKHRA.

The second concern relates to the ongoing situation with water for injection/sterile water. The phrasing of the amendment, restricting water distribution to "water for injection" within the terms of the Medicine Act has resulted in a number of services feeling hampered in their distribution of water. This has been an especially big problem in areas where the local exchange is not linked to the NHS and so finds it more difficult to secure prescribed 'Water for Injection.'

Exchange Supplies have been working extensively to circumvent this problem, and are producing a guidance sheet to outline the current position.

Similarly, the arbitary stupidity of the decision to make citric lawful for distribution, but not ascorbic is just daft.

The other area of concern is a lack of clarity within the DLEU about what the law actually means. When asked to clarify what "utensils for the preparation" meant, the DLEU replied to us that they were not in a position to define this as it would be for a court to decide. They did however say that the terms was open and not resctricted to the examples cited.

However, others who have contacted the DLEU have received different answers, being told that some items were forbidden. Such lack of clarity in the DLEU, combined with the inadequate drafting of the legislation need to be addressed and further revision is now essential.

ACPO and Cannabis

Reclassification: all smoke and mirrors?

The proposal to reclassify cannabis from Class B to Class C comes a step closer with the publication of the ACPO guidance to police on how to process cannabis-related offences.

In reality, the proposals from ACPO are a mixed blessing. On the one hand, the number of people put before the courts (approximately 80,000 per year) for cannabis offences will undoubtedly be reduced. Less prosecutions, less criminal records, and less resultant long term consequences: these are welcome and long overdue developments.

On the other hand, there are serious and substantial flaws within the way the cannabis reclassification has been handled and these are reflected in the ACPO guidance. Unfortunately, ACPO has not seen fit to place the guidance on their website, and it has yet to appear on the Home Office Website. We are therefore relying on information from the media to understand what is in the guidance. A selection of links is included at the end of the article.

The draft legislation currently passing through Parliament makes possession of Class C drugs an arrestable offence. There is nothing in law to shape or restrict under what circumstances this power of arrest should be utilised. This has been left to the guidance prepared by ACPO.

In an ideal world, the Home Secretary would have had the courage to simply reclassify cannabis, and possession of it would have ceased to be arrestable offence. Instead, under pressure from senior police officers, Blunkett appears to have acquiesced to a compromise that sees cannabis reclassified but leaves power of arrest wholly at discretion of the police.

The guidance produced by ACPO does state that there should be a "presumption against arrest" for possession of cannabis, unless the possession is aggravated by one of a number of factors:

· Smoking cannabis in public:
· Repeat offenders: Where an officer is aware of a person repeatedly dealt with for possession of cannabis, he or she may arrest him or her.
· Local policing problem: Where a fear of public disorder is associated with cannabis use, the police may arrest rather than warn.
· Young people: Those aged 17 and under will be dealt with under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, and not the guidelines - they will be arrested.
· Adults with cannabis inside or near schools or premises used by young people

However, these "aggravated" situations are solely guidance and the decision whether or not to arrest is solely at the discretion of the police officer.

The net outcome of the ACPO guidance is a regional lottery that means different police forces can choose to adhere to - or disregard the guidance as they see fit. Further, individual officers can choose to arrest or confiscate and caution at their discretion. Such an approach is wholly inconsistent. The risk is that certain groups in society - young people, especially from black and other ethnic groups - will be disproportionately arrested. Others will be happy recipients of a confiscation and a caution.

Such an approach leaves too much discretion in the hands of the police. Even though an individual may feel that they have been treated unfairly - that they should have simply received a warning, there is no legal recourse available to them. This is the problem when guidance is used in place of robust legal protection.

Juveniles remain especially disadvantaged by the proposed legislative changes, Thanks to confusing messages from the media and from Government, many young people already believe that cannabis has been reclassified and effectively depenalised,. Few are aware that post-reclassification, they will still be arrested and, unlike older users, will not simply receive an informal warning, Instead, depending on previous offending histories, they will end up before Youth Offending Teams or before the courts, and liable to receive criminal records.

As with other recent changes to drugs legislation the Government has taken a momentous step - in this case to reclassify cannabis. But as with changes to Section 8 and to paraphernalia legislation the Government has then wavered in their resolve and turned the changes into a poor, misguided compromise that will cause confusion and inconsistency.

Paraphernalia Legislation- Welcome changes marred by restrictive drafting:

The Government has amended the legislation relating to drugs paraphernalia. The changes increase the range of equipment that can be given out by drugs workers and allied professionals. The legislation ameliorates the situation created by Section 9a of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, which made it unlawful to distribute equipment other than hypodermic syringes and needles for the administration of controlled drugs unlawfully held.

The changes to the legislation are contained in Statutory Instrument Number 1653, and follow recommendations made by the Police Foundation review and the ACMD. It also follows extensive lobbying by harm reduction groups including The Exchange, UKHRA, Lifeline and others.

The changes and their ramifications are considered in detail in the revised KFx publication "Injecting Equipment And Sharps Bins - Legal and Practice Issues (September 2003.)" The key changes are that certain professionals can distribute certain equipment as detailed below:

Clearly, there is much to welcome here. The Government has recognized that the legislation impeded effective harm reduction work. Further, it recognizes that it is unacceptable that workers should be obliged to work on the wrong side of the law, even if prosecution is unlikely. The various groups and individuals who have lobbied, provided the evidence base and stuck their necks out to achieve this change deserve praise for facilitating this change.

However, as with many other recent changes or developments within the drugs field, the amendments to the paraphernalia legislation have been marred by an overweening desire to maintain 'control' on the part of Government. This tendency has been apparent through the proposals to amend Section 8(d) of the MDA, the reclassification of cannabis, and now the present example. In each case, rather than choose a simple revision or rescinding of the relevant legislation, the Government has chosen a response that on the one hand changes or relaxes the legislation but which simultaneously introduces new restrictions and ambiguities.

The revisions to the paraphernalia legislation are a case in point. Rather than removing the existing restrictions entirely, the amendment makes provision for a handful of additional items to be made lawful for distribution by a limited range of professionals.

The outcome of this is an inconsistent piece of legislation, which results in the following:

· It is lawful for doctors, vets, pharmacists and others undertaking "lawful" drugs treatment work to give out specified paraphernalia. However peer supply of this paraphernalia remains illegal. So on the one hand a drugs worker commits no offence by giving citric acid to an injector but the injector would commit an offence if they passed some of that citric on to a partner. To compound this confusion it is not illegal for a peer to distribute on needles and syringes to peers, but it is illegal for them to pass on other paraphernalia such as citric or utensils.
· The list of items that can be distributed is at some points inclusive and at other points exclusive. The legislation specifies that it is now lawful to distribute citric acid. However, it remains illegal to distribute other acidifiers such as ascorbic acid.
· Conversely, the list of 'utensils for preparation' designated in the legislation gives a few examples but is not an exhaustive list. It mentions 'spoons, bowl, etc,' but this does not exclude other equipment being distributed. However, by specifying utensils for 'preparation' this would appear to mean that the distribution of items for consumption (other than syringes and needles) remains illegal. This means that the distribution of foil, pipes etc remains illegal.
· The Government has not seen fit to amend the Medicines Act, and so water for injection remains a prescription only medicine. This impedes the ability of some agencies, especially those working outside the NHS, to secure satisfactory arrangements for its legitimate distribution.

The paraphernalia legislation, like much of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, has become a hindrance to harm reduction work whilst having a diminishing benefit in terms of law enforcement. Across the country, innumerable shops and market stall sell drug paraphernalia with virtual impunity. The only bodies that are substantially impeded by the legislation are those seeking to undertake harm reduction work.

In reality, the paraphernalia legislation has never been an effective piece of legislation and is routinely flouted. But rather than accept this and rescind the legislation, the Government has instead tinkered with it, as it has tried to tinker with Section 8 of the Act, and with cannabis reclassification.

The resultant legislation continues to restrict practice, and throws up new ambiguities. It is unclear exactly who it applies to. The Drugs Legislation Enforcement Unit within the Home Office is unclear itself as to who the legislation applies too. They intend that it should extent to all parties engaged in drugs work, even if not directly employed as drugs workers. So it is intended that the legislation should also apply to housing workers, police or others engaged in drug treatment initiatives. However, the DLEU also acknowledge that this is not explicit within the legislation and the exact interpretation of bodies authorized to distribute equipment under the legislation would need to be decided by a court. Similarly, the DLEU were not in a position to determine the scope of the term 'utensils,' and this too would be open for interpretation by a court..

In further worrying comments since the amendment was passed, it has become apparent through discussions on the UKHRA board, that serious concerns are being raised regarding the resources available to ensure adequate distribution of equipment. Some commentators have noted that distribution of equipment is hampered less by law than by fiscal concerns.

Unless the relaxation of the law is matched by additional ring-fenced funds to purchase equipment and ensure that it is distributed effectively alongside informed harm-reduction information, then the changes to the law will remain a cosmetic exercise.
While the changes to the paraphernalia legislation are to be welcomed, and represent a step on the incremental process of legislative change, this welcome is tempered by unhappiness that the changes remain restrictive, in terms both of the equipment and the groups covered. It enfranchises professionals while excluding users themselves. It allows for some equipment but forbids others. And neither it nor the accompanying guidance places any onus on services or those commissioning them to ensure that this extended provision is made available across the UK.

Ian Duncan Smith and Oliver Letwin on drugs

At the start of July, Letwin and IDS launched the Conservative's strategy on drugs, and there was substantial media coverage as a result. While the Tories are hopefully still unelectable, the strategies that they are outlining are the source of great concern. Not least because, if drugs become a political hot potato on the run-up to an election, it seems likely that the ever-flexible David Blunkett could find himself dragged off down an increasingly reactionary drug strategy dead-end.

The media reporting on the Tory strategy highlights the extent to which it has not been effectively thought out or priced. Unfortunately, rather more commentators commented on the latter aspects ("how will it be paid for?") than the former ("is it a viable way forward?")

Letwin and IDS have clearly been influenced by the Swedish model, and are seeking to copy this:
"... rehabilitation, as we have seen in Sweden and many other countries, where they have reduced addiction, cut the levels of crime. We are going to copy that."

Rather than just focussing on the issue of Class A drugs, the model used in Sweden is robus against all substances including cannabis. Possession or use of cannabis amongst young people is a trigger offence which means that young people are required to accept treatment.

Given that levels of cannabis use in the UK are variously estimated between 16% and 40%, this would mean creating capacity for some 3 million young cannabis users. At various points, Letwin and IDS have said that they want to model policy on both Swedish and Dutch models. These two models are mutually exclusive and demonstrate more about Letwin and IDS's fundamental lack of grasp as to how the systems work. The Netherlands adopt an approach that creates a clear seperation between cannabis and other drugs. No such seperation is made within the Swedish approach. Dutch treatment options are varied but do include high-dose methadone maintenance and experimental use of Diamorphine. Engagement and harm reduction through needle exchange and consumption rooms is also part of the provision, along with a high level of user and activist involvement.

The Swedish Government has vigorously opposed such developments and has been lobbied extensively by bodies such as HNN Sweden, who in turn were largely responsible for obstructing moves within the European Parliament and at the UN convention in Vienna to embrace such harm reduction principals.

Mr Letwin rejected the idea of prescribing hard drugs on the NHS to help drug users abandon their habit. "If you have maintained addicts you will have a permanent dependent population paid for by hard-working people. That is intolerable,"

This appears to suggest that Letwin rejects the international evidence that supports the prescribing of Class A drugs such as Diamorphine or Methadone either on a reduction or maintenance basis. It suggests that he is pursuing a forceful detoxification regime followed by a period of enforced rehabiliitation.

Finally, the proposals are substantially under-costed, as discussed in the media. But far more worrying than this is the huge shift in thinking that IDS and Letwin's approach would suggest. Many of the gains made over the past fifteen years would be eroded by such as a policy, and while not billed as such, this is still a war on drugs.