|
|
|||||||
|
Drug |
|
Drug News: updated 27.2.08 You
can also view this as a 'proper' Blog, which allows you to leave comments
and such like by clicking This area contains news and developments on drugs. It will include legislation, policy, strategy and other drugs news. As well as reporting on what is going on this section will also provide some analysis and commentary, looking at the real implications of these developments. The articles are arranged with the most recent at the start, and older material at the bottom. Use the "quick finder" section below to jump to specific areas. Material dating to before 10/04 has been archived; please go to the Drug News Archives to view this material. All information relating to SECTION 8 has been moved to a new section HERE. |
|
| KFx News | |||
| Briefings | |||
|
|
Quick Finder
|
||
|
Brown
v The ACMD - Cannabis is just a sideshow 21.4.08 New
Drug Strategy - what did you expect? 27.2.08
Fixing Crack 11.12.07 The process of injecting crack cocaine has been the source of much confusion and failure to do it "properly" has seen more than a few injectors lose limbs. Thanks to research by Exchange Supplies, we have as close as possible to "definitive guidance" on how to do it. Drug
Testing Times 29.10.07 Can Frank still tell the Truth? 18.10.07 Frank is starting to develop
real problems with the truth. Frank has often been a stranger to accuracy
in the past, but some of Frank's recent pronouncements have seen Frank
drift further from the world of drug facts and into the heady worlds of
drug propaganda. War
Amongst the Angels If
at first you don't succeed- Speaking Frankly 12.7.07 Why FRANK withdrew their Cannabis Update and what lessons need to be Learned First
they came for the crack users...
12.7.07 Searching
Questions: Will
the Government extend the power to close premises - Frankly
Unacceptable: Turkeys
voting for Christmas:
The Independent - shamefully wrong on cannabis: 26 March 2007 No Justice for Youth Justice - anyone but Louise Casey: 13 February 2007 Getting us hooked on Suboxone: 05 February 2007 DOI - Doh! - New drug doing the rounds (again): 05.02.07 Testing Times Consolidation of Drug Testing Companies - profit over privacy? 5.2.07 ACPO
on Cannabis?! 28.1.07 Suffolk Murders - Tragedy, journos and ASBOs: How the media handled death and sex : 30.12. 2006 THC4MS Case Prosecution, Pain and Pharmaceutical Profit : 30.12.06 Off
the Grass and on the Glass: How Police and Home Office Strategy is increasing
cannabis risks to young people: Queens Bench Ruling highlights problems of Cannabis Policy 07 November 2006 Keeping tabs on the Street-count 01 November 2006 Some
very selective hearing....How the Home Office, the ACMD, Science and Technology
Committee and DfES all choose to hear only what they want to... :
1.11.06 The Macho Rev Hargreaves and his Cannabis Campaign : 17.10.06 Drug Thresholds Abandoned! 15 October 2006 |
|||
|
Brown v the ACMD - Cannabis is a side-show 21.4.08 Within the next week, we can expect the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) to publish their recommendations regarding cannabis. They have been asked to consider if, in light of existing research, they feel that it should remain in Class C or if it should be moved back to Class B. Following their report, the Government should make a decision as to whether it will follow or reject the ACMD's recommendations. According to media reports, both the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister have made it clear that they favour a move back from Class B to Class C. And media reports have also suggested that the ACMD is satisfied with cannabis in Class C. The truth of all these media assertions will, doubtless, be resolved very shortly. What the ACMD actually decides is almost, now, a moot point. Thanks to the Home Office's tinkering with the Classes when cannabis was reclassified, there is precious little difference between Class B and Class C anymore. They both carry a maximum sentence of fourteen years for supply (it used to be 14 for Class Bs and 5 for Cs) and possession of either Bs or Cs is an arrestable offence - previously possession of Class Cs was not an arrestable offence. The only significant change with a move from C back to B would be an increase in the maximum penalty for possession increasing from two years to five years. But in practice these larger sentences would not be used for simple possession. Everything else - how cannabis is policed, the awareness raising that accompanies it, the market that produces and supplies it - will remain the same. The production and supply of cannabis can carry a maximum of fourteen years: this penalty will remain the same even if cannabis is reclassified. So there will be no increased deterrent by moving it from C to B as far as production is concerned. In a country now dominated by large-scale organised growers, reclassification will have no impact on the production end. Use of cannabis has not increased in the past four years; indeed there is some evidence that it has declined, and there is no evidence that a move back to B would hasten this decline. But really this is all a side argument. The real question should be whether the Prime Minister will follow the advice of the experts at the ACMD or for one of the handful of times in the past 30 years, he will ignore their advice and follow his own feelings on the matter. In a field currently swamped by lobby and campaign groups with a variety of vested interests, the importance of the ACMD cannot be underestimated. Unlike the rest, this is not merely a lobbying group with a drum to beat. Established by Statute under the Misuse of Drugs Act, the ACMD is intended to provide a neutral, expert and influential body to advise Ministers. The drafters of the MDA clearly recognised that drugs policy was a political and moral hot potato. To avoid it being thrown around in the interests of political expediency, the ACMD provides expertise. Government has no obligation to follow this advice, but if they don't they presume to know better than their own experts. Given the current political climate, it has probably never been more important that there is an independent body to advise on drugs. We have the perfect storm of a party slumping in the polls, days before the local elections, and a leader who is unpopular and indecisive. How Brown must yearn to reclassify cannabis tomorrow - to garner some positive media coverage as a decisive protector of youth. Unfortunately for him and fortunately for us, the ACMD report may only come out at the end of April. This will probably be late in the day for Brown to use any decision therein to bolster Labour's political chances. Not that this will stop the leaks or media briefings that indicate Brown will reclassify regardless of the ACMDs stance. In the run up to the election this could be the ONLY comment emerging from Downing Street. Post election, maybe, just maybe, cooler heads will prevail. Good or bad election result, the reclassifying of cannabis will be a moot point from an electoral point of view (unless the election result triggers a decision to call a snap general election - though this doesn't seem likely.) In such a less fraught environment, Brown can side-step the controversy by following the ACMDs advice. If the Home Secretary decides to disregard the ACMD the reaction of the ACMD is of critical importance. They cannot simply stand by and brief anonymously. There should instead be a whole-scale set of resignations by the Chair, and other members. This should send a clear message to the Government - the ACMD is there for a reason and it must be heeded. Such a decision for mass resignations should not of course be taken lightly, and nor is it anything to do with cannabis. It must be done to highlight that when a Government decides to disregard the evidenced position of their own experts, then those experts should recognise that this Government considers them superfluous. If the Government would rather choose to listen to Daily Mail columnists, parent-activists and pollsters rather than a diverse panel of experts, then those experts should show their disdain for the process by resigning. To carry on without any such complaint would be to provide endorsement to this decision and facilitate the next decisions made in the face of the evidence. In tendering their resignations, the ACMD can demonstrate just how critical it is that decisions on drugs policy are not left to politicians. |
|||
|
New
Drug Strategy - Oh come on, what did you expect?
27.2.08 Equally predictably, the Strategy has received a range of responses, from outright condemnation to mixed welcomes. The response so far has been muted. The responses over the next few weeks will be far more interesting. But let's take a wider view. None of this should come as a surprise. Did anyone truly expect an embracing of true harm reduction, and admission of failures of past strategy, a consideration of wholescale review? Oh come on! Only the truly deluded could have envisaged anything other than more of the same, with bigger sticks and more mealy carrots. Those who have predicted reform, or review of the drugs laws, or new developments have singularly failed to recognise that the "war on drugs" far from being over, is just gearing up for its next phase. Bigger powers, less rights, more enforcement, new weapons. This will only be the start. There will be more punitive measures to come. I don't expect bravery and great things from the Home Office or the machine of Government. They are well past the stage of rational and balanced debate on drug strategy. But what amazes and depresses is the huge range of players who facillitate and legitimise the war on drugs while at the same time decrying its choice of weapons. Take for example the much-derided "consultation" that led up to the new drugs strategy. Look at the energy that went in to it - Drugscope's series of regional events, the contributions from Transform, Release and others. Some of these organisations must have believed that their contributions would be read, evaluated, pored over. Others knew it was a sham. But still they participated. In doing so they legitimised both the consultation and the resultant strategy. Rather than, en masse, boycotting the consultation as the farrago that they surely knew it was, they made their contribution. They had their say. Surely more powerful, more striking for a big group to withdraw from the process? But no. And so the new strategy, flaws and all, gains legitimacy from the consultation. What if? What if as a group Addaction, Turning Point, CRI, Compass, RAPt, Drugscope, EATA, FDAP, Release and Transform had said NO! Said "we won't participate unless we are convinced that the resultant strategy will take real account of our views." They could have done. Once. Now of course it becomes too dangerous for many of these bodies to bite the hand that feeds. Dependent on contracting culture, the good will of the Home Office, they can't and won't speak out significantly. A finacially weak Drugscope, other contract-dependent providers, political access achieved by compliance and silence. Any new measure, punitive or otherwise, demands organisations to implement it. Look at the example of the threat to suspend benefit payments to clients who fail to attend an Assessment. This alone could be scuppered overnight if the big drugs agencies said, as a block, that they would not undertake assessments that were achieved at the threat of benefit suspension. So while we watch to see which agencies make the most show of condemning the measures in print, watch with equal care the number of agencies who refuse to take the contracts. No-one will refuse this dirty work because it pays, and refusal will result in decomissioning. Historically the drug field was diverse, fractured and independent. This did result in a wide variance of provision. But it protected the field from the sort of Stalinist planning and control that we now see. Having stripped away this independence, consolidated and centralised provision, agencies now have little choice but to comply with directives. For drug policy to change the drugs field needs to change, and rediscover its voice and independence. This can only happen from the grass roots. We have ceased to be able to reply on the independence of the ACMD, or the representation of the field, to stem the political excesses of Government strategy. In the war on drugs, we have never, so badly, needed some effective resistance.
|
|||
|
The process of injecting crack cocaine has been the source of much confusion and failure to do it "properly" has seen more than a few injectors lose limbs. Thanks to research by Exchange Supplies, we have as close as possible to "definitive guidance" on how to do it. It should be stressed that attempting to injecting any illicit substance is hazardrous, and crack is especially problematic. The best bet is to avoid using or find another route. REALLY! This summary was written by Jon Dericott of Exchange Supplies and posted on the UKHRA discussion forum "Crack dropped into cold water with citric dissolved straightforwardly if anything, it was easier than using warm water so less citric was used. The cold prep method also worked for speedball preparation. We found that it was possible to prepare a speedball by cold preparing the crack , scrupulously ensuring that all of it had gone into solution and then subsequently adding the heroin, direct heat and a few more grains of citric if required once the crack was properly in solution it tolerated heating fine. These solutions were very stable and were stored for a couple of weeks for pH testing. They stayed perfectly in solution. The ratio of citric to crack needed was consistently about 1 to 2. So, for example 100mg of crack dissolved using around 50mg citric (about half a sachet). Solutions prepared using this ratio ended up between pH 4-5, or to express it another way, less acidic than heroin alone might be when prepared optimally (which should be in the pH 2-3 range). Crack dropped into warm water (or a warm heroin solution) with citric, dissolved without much problem the only difficulty was that it smeared on the bottom of the spoon and took some work to incorporate into solution (increasing the amount of citric seemed to make this a bit easier, but it would still dissolve with smaller amounts). Crack heated alone melted as expected (at 98ºc from memory) and reformed as expected (reforming took only 14 seconds!). The reformed crack would not then go into solution at all, even after adding 5 times as much citric to crack by weight. Heating it past its boiling point had made it insoluble don¹t know why, but that¹s what happens. Crack heated together with citric was also problematic it took on a slushy (wallpaper pastey) look and was similarly insoluble. So, what are the harm reduction lessons from this? Heat & warmth doesn't help crack go into solution, the cooler the solution the better cold prep may also help people to use less acid because it goes into solution more easily. 1 part citric to 2 parts crack will enable it to go into solution (adding more may make it happen a bit quicker, but will also probably result in more likelihood of vein damage). The oily "gloop"that
forms when too much heat is used may well be one source of the idea that
crack is cut with wax. I think it would be good practice when people report
"oil", "wax" or "gloop", to discuss their
prep with them. If they describe using direct heat or a very hot mix,
I'd suggest they try the cold prep method described above." UKHRA |
|||
|
Drug
Testing Times 29.10.07 At the end of September 2007,
AIM listed company Concateno bought the drug testing company Cozart. Since
2006, and following a rapid spending spree, Concateno has acquired most
of the drug-testing companies in the UK, and now controls a portfolio
including Medscreen Ltd, Altrix HealthCare, Euromed, TrichoTech, Marconova,
CPL, and Cozart Bioscience. Part of the rationale for the
acquisition of Cozart was to gain access to the Cozart Rapiscan technology
which allows for portable drug testing in places such as road-side testing. We've already seen the start of this expansion - the random drug testing of school-children, for example. But this is only the start. At the moment, most of the testing technologies are, to a greater or lesser extent, invasive. The exception, and one of the companies not yet owned by Concateno is the Ion Scan. It is this last technology, probably the most controversial of all the drug testing modalities, which is the greatest cause for concern. As the cost of Ion Scan technology has decreased, and as the availability of the equipment increases, we are seeing this technology being used in a range of settings. Alongside the use of Ion-Scanners
in school settings as part of so called "drugs awareness sessions"
they are also increasingly being used in pub and club settings, random
(consensual) testing of motorists and other public arenas. Dr Kay Lumas'
book "Drug Testing in the Workplace - A Pilot study on trace detection
technology is now available. For information and review see here |
|||
|
Can Frank still tell the Truth? 18.10.07 Frank is starting to develop real problems with the truth. Frank has often been a stranger to accuracy in the past, but some of Frank's recent pronouncements have seen Frank drift further from the world of drug facts and into the heady worlds of drug propaganda. Before we go any further we should disabuse ourselves of the manufactured image of Frank being some kind of avuncular character who understands the foibles of youth but was old enough to impart sage advice. Frank is no such thing. Frank is a branding concept, developed by marketing consultants, tested in focus groups, assessed, reviewed, honed. The brief: hip, but not too hip; funny, but serious; accessible to the youth but don't alienate the parents; understanding but not overly tolerant. The evidence is that the marketing consultants succeeded in their aim. Brand Frank was created and supplanted the "National Drugs Helpline" with the Frank logo, website, helpline and campaigns. Frank however, attempts to fulfil two very different roles. On the one hand, Frank is responsible for delivering the phone-service that was once the National Drugs Helpline. The Government has funded Essentia Group to the sum of £1.45 million in 2006-07 for FRANK (drugs), Sexual Health Line, Drinkline and Know The Score, the Scottish helpline on drugs. The Government can't say how much Frank helpline actually costs specifically but estimates the cost at around £800,000 in 06-07. To put this spend in to some sort of context, the previous year the Home Office spent almost twice this amount (£1,588,007) in advertising FRANK http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/cm060911/text/60911w2347.htm According to Government figures, and despite extensive advertising spending, the number of people accessing the Frank Helpline has not increased over the past three years, and the figures for 2006-07 are lower than the previous year, http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmhansrd/cm070719/text/70719w0032.htm Despite spending significant sums on advertising, only 4,444 under sixteens phoned Frank in 2006-07 - despite the fact that more that at least 40% of young people in this age bracket have experimented with drugs. The Ask Frank service can deliver good quality information and does, at times, demonstrate a level of imagination and free-thinking. But, too often, Frank call handlers limit their responses to the on-screen information, referring anything more complicated to local drugs services. Frank really doesn't want to get bogged down on a thirty minute call; Frank's not set up for it. So Frank would rather signpost the caller on, send some information out or bring the call to an end, rather than undertake more open-ended telephone support. Such a limited service would be just about acceptable were the Government still funding other services such as Release to undertake more in-depth, open-ended or longer interventions. Unfortunately the Government is no longer willing to do so. They claim that the funding mechanisms that hitherto supported Release no longer exist - and argue that there is no need to fund two drugs helplines. Either way, the Ask Frank service is now the lynchpin of low-level drugs advice to young people and their families in the UK. But the Frank helpline is just once facet of Frank's many faces. Because Frank also runs campaigns, places advertisements, and has the Ask Frank website. Frank also lends his name to any of a range of information, resources, materials or events produced locally or regionally. Frank (the Helpline) and Frank (the advertising and campaign machine) are two very different beasts. Frank (the Campaign Machine) is effectively a manifestation of the Home Office's drug strategy. Rather than branding resources with the Home Office logo, and making it clear that the information is prepared, vetted and distributed by the Home Office, the illusion is created that it is more independent, more free-thinking, less agenda driven. But raise questions about content on the Frank Website, in adverts or in publications and all enquiries inexorably lead back to the Home Office. Some content has been externally commissioned; others has been drafted in house and then signed off by other bodies such as the Police or the Department of Health. Take as an example the recent Frank Action Update, which focussed on Cannabis but was subsequently withdrawn due to serious factual errors. The legal sections (some of which were incorrect) were meant to have been produced by a senior police officer on Merseyside; the sections on reducing cannabis related harm were referred back to Health Advisors in the Home Office. Ironically, the Frank phone advisors were unaware of the Action Update and, when it was brought their attention, disagreed with the content. Does it matter that Frank has a Home Office run campaign arm? The answer to this should be a resounding "yes!" It is imperative that people who use drugs, especially young people, should have a source of information that is balanced, impartial, non-judgemental, and above all accurate. This may mean giving people information which is politically sensitive, which runs counter to Government policy, or which is in other respects controversial. Such an approach assists the credibility of the information, and the extent to which young people will retain - and act on this information. To do this information should not be slanted to serve a political agenda, or watered down to make it acceptable to Government. The Frank branding exercise are intended to create the illusion of this credible, trustworthy and balanced information source. And certainly some call handlers at the Helpline work towards these standards where they can. But, cynically, having created the illusion of Frank, the Home Office seeks to impart partial truths and untruths about drugs and bolster their credibility by putting Frank's name on it. This is a short-sighted approach and hugely damaging. Because as people become aware that the Frank adverts are simply the Home Office dressing up the Government's messages in yoof clothes, why should anyone trust the Helpline? And if trust in the helpline is diminished, where can young people get this independent and impartial information? Trust - in organisations like Release (for example) was cultivated over a number of years through action and words. Frank has attempted to nurture the same sort of trust in a fraction of the time through branding and image management. Having done so, the Home Office seeks to use this trust to promote anti-drug messages, under the guise of the ersatz-honesty of Frank. Trust in services should be developed over time, through a framework that ensures integrity, accuracy and independence. Trust cannot and should not be manufactured by marketing consultants. Frank hasn't earned out trust, and doesn't have these hallmarks to ensure that further pronouncements reach the high standards of accuracy and impartiality we so badly need. KFX: October 2007 War
Amongst the Angels Caroline Coon launched a wordy and savage attack on Release, through the medium of her website. Entitled "the Plight of Release" she lays in to the organisation that she cofounded, describing it as "irrelevant," and accusing it of simply being an aspect of the "prohibition industry" She argues that the organisation should either close or substantially restructure to become viable and relevant. Having worked for Release and having had contact with Caroline in the past, I certainly can't claim to be objective. But Coon's diatribe is ill-judged and had the potential to be hugely damaging. Release was co-founded by Caroline
Coon, but she has had little engagment with the organisation over the
past couple of decades. It seems strange that she should choose to break
her silence now, and in such a public and damaging way. Over the past
forty years the organisation has had to evolve and change. It ceased to
be a collective, had to fight harder for funding, needed to ensure that
it operated within the contraints of charitable law. Release is increasingly operating in a hostile environment, with Government policy moving further and further away from any revision to the drugs legislation. Funding of helplines has been focussed on Frank, which has become less independent and more a voice of Government strategy. Revision and lobbying on drugs law has become equally competitive. There has been a recent proliferation of bodies lobbying for change. Whilst one would hope that this proliferation would result in more widespread and unified lobbying on legal change this has not happened. Instead, different fiefdoms, keen to garner profile and support, choose not to cooperate and stress difference from their peers, rather than working together. Release has suffered badly within this increasingly crowded field. But (and this is the is a big
but) Release is undoubtedly one of the "good guys." Profile
may have dropped, it may not shout as loudly as it once did. But that
is no reason to spuriously accuse it of being part of Prohibition industry.
Such an accusation is deeply offensive, especially given the history of
Release staffers such as Sebastian Saville and Gary Sutton. If
at first you don't succeed - Gordon Brown announced today
that he intends to review the reclassification of cannabis with a view
to moving it back to Class B. This is purely political. Charles Clarke
sought the same outcome, and referred the matter to the ACMD to do as
he is required to do. The ACMD made their recommendations, which was that
cannabis should remain a class C drug and the Home Secretary complied
with their recommendations. So all Gordon Brown can do is refer the matter
back to the ACMD. Will there be any substantial new evidence for them
to consider? Will they be able to hold their nerve and not be browbeaten
into acceding to the Government. KFx July 18 2007 |
|||
|
At the end of May 2007 FRANK
published their Action Update, "Cannabis Explained." It was
made available as a hard copy, distributed to DATs and drugs services,
and available as a download from the Home Office website. When the Action Update came out, KFx, alongside other organisations such as the UKCIA noticed some rather glaring errors. These are discussed here. Now while we would accept the interpretation put on Frank to be partisan and loaded, we don't expect it to be factually wrong. But on this occasion there were a number of errors and ommissions which were both obvious and serious. So for example, the document misrepresented the law on cannabis as applicable to under 18s; it said that smoking cannabis in a joint was the least hazardrous, and it didn't mention cannabis contamination at all. We, alongside the UKCIA and others made representations to the Home Office about these errors and ommissions. And a long and fairly convoluted process began. For the first couple of weeks, the document remained available on the Home Office website; although serious concerns about its accuracy had been raised, there was not attempt at this stage to suspend distribution while it was reviewed. Given that at least two of the errors were so obvious and so easy to check, this seemed inexcusable. All we got was reassurance that it was being looked at. A phone call to Frank at this time was illuminating: The initial call handler referred the case swiftly to her senior call handler. The senior handler didn't know about the Frank Action Update, and was unaware of its content. He was suprised at what the action update said about spliff smoking and said that was different to the information on his screen. He said I should contact the Home Office to discuss this. Frustrated by lack of action
- and that the Home Office still hadn't retracted the document, we followed
up the initial emails to the Home Office with a phone call. As a nice
factual example of a serious inaccuracy, we used the coverage of under
18s and the legal process in relation to cannabis. This was a fairly charged
discussion, with the contact at the Home Office not understanding the
legislation and explaining that the relevant section had been "signed
off" by a Senior Police officer and so had to be right. Back to the Home Office with
this information, and after a short delay, they came back describing this
information "of concern" and suspending distribution from the
website. But in practice the update could still be found after a quick
Google search. A week later, the person in the Home Office wrote back again; this time, followig feedback from the Department of Health, they said "In the interest of ensuring FRANK provides up-to-date and credible information, DH have recommended that some of the contents of the pack be amended or the issue explored further...As you are aware we have suspended distribution of the pack and removed it from the drugs.gov.uk website. We intend to re-issue the pack later in the year." This was the right decision by Frank, and should be applauded. But it was a slow decision and an unpublicised one. While the LCA issued a press release about the withdrawal FRANK didn't. Unfortunately few agencies picked up on the LCA announcement. Unfortunately the Daily Dose, who now receive sponsorship from Frank, either didn't get it or didn't consider it sufficiently newsworthy. There are a number of things about this story that cause concern. How did this flawed document slip through various proofing stages, why were the Home Office so slow to suspend distribution, and why was the suspension so low key when they did decide the document was flawed? Authorship of the document is not clear; some of it appears to be cut and pasted from other sources. It has the same spellings (and even the same typo at one point) as other FRANK written documents so it suggests that some of the information has merely been recycled from other sources and not been reviewed. One would hope that a final draft of the document would then be passed to others for scrutiny but clearly this didn't happen or if it did, the scrutiny was severely flawed. The information that we have gleaned suggests that the senior police officer would have understood and checked about the new ACPO guidance on cannabis - which was accurate, but wouldn't have checked the sections on Under 18s and processes under the Crime and Disorder Act, which were wrong. But most worrying, we would
hope that Frank would have a rapid and effective method of first suspending
distribution and then informing readers of their errors. They were slow
to do the first; they simply didn't bother to do the second. And let's be clear, this is not the first time that FRANK's content has been found to be wanting. The initial content of the FRANK website was riddled with factual inaccuracies. The revised information still has many items which are of dubious accuracy. So, as one correspondent to KFx noted, if you go to DF118s you get taken to information on Methadone. Different compounds, different information? FRANK urgently needs to review
how it manages content. Remember that the FRANK image includes marketing
and branding "experts" who know nothing about drugs. There's
the call handling service, which knows something about drugs but has a
tendency to regurgitate what is on the screen. And there's the Home Office
and DoH which so far haven't managed to produce the level of accuracy
that users and workers need. Perhaps Frank would be best served bringing together an independent panel which could proof, review and advise on their output. That, and an improved system for responding to serious errors, would go some way to ensuring that they do not spend their million-pound budget distributing factually wrong information. KFx: 12.7.06
|
|||
|
First
they came for the crack users... pt 2 At the time the Bill didn't
get a lot of attention. The section that received the most publicity was
a section relating to prostitution. No-one seemed to mention the proposal
to extend the power to close premises. The Section of the Bill of
most interest to KFx is S.17 which extends closure orders to cover non-drug
related premises. The power can be applied to premises as follows: (1) This section applies
to premises if a police officer not below the rank of superintendent (“the
authorising officer”) or the local authority This bill, if enacted, would hugely undermine existing housing rights and laws. It undercuts licenses, tenancies and centuries of property ownership. It will result in exclusion from housing, increased homelessness and affect many families, including those struggling with drugs, alcohol, mental health problems, children with special needs and so on. It allows for a situation where the behaviour of a child with behaviour problems could see the family removed from their home, even though no offence has been caused. This is hugely loose wording. "antisocial behaviour" is loosely defined, and so will affect numerous people where behaviour could have caused alarm or distress to another person. The words "persistent" will need to be further defined. But the "relevant period" will be activity that has taken place over the preceding three months. Defining significant and persistent nuisance will be a challenge! The net effect of this, as with the Antisocial Behaviour Act (Power to close Premises) is that if the Magistrate's Court is satisfied that antisocial behaviour and nuisance is taking place, a Closure Order can be issued, and any body resident in the property will be required to leave, made homeless or face arrest if they refuse to leave. Despite protestations in the past that this measure was to be used as a "last resort" where other measures had failed, this is not reflected in the legislation. The Magistrate is not required to consider if other measures have been used, or that they have failed. They are only required to consider if they think issuing an order: (c) the making of the order is necessary to prevent the occurrence of such disorder or nuisance for the period specified in the order. This does leave some room to move for a magistrate and is probably a better wording than the one in the Antisocial Behaviour Act. A sensible magistrate could find that it was not "necessary" if there were other measures available which might work. As before, the Closure Order doesn't determine a tenancy - it merely denies access. The Tenant has the choice of surrendering their Tenancy (and risking being found intentionally homeless) or refusing to surrender it, not being eligible for alternative housing, and challenging the order through the courts. And as before, the status of those thus evicted is not clear - in many situations the people evicted will need further housing, and may well be in priority need. So the simple locking out of one house will be a fatuous gesture when the people in question will still need to be housed, probably by the same local authority. When the Antisocial Behaviour
Act was passed, there was hardly a mutter about it because it was aimed
at "crack dens" the new bogey-men of UK society. They were considered
fair-game and unworthy of rights afforded to the rest of society. This
extension may prove more contentious - as people start to realise that
what one person considers a normal lifestyle may, by a neighbour, be considered
"significant and persistent nuisance." Repeated mowing of lawn
in the morning? DIY in the evening? One barbecue too many when smoke blows
over the neighbours fence? To read the full text of the bill click here: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmbills/130/2007130.pdf KFx: 12.7.07 |
|||
|
Teachers gained the "power" to search pupils for weapons when relevant sections of the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006 came in to force at the start of June 2007. Section 45 of the VCRA 2006 allows head-teachers and those authorised by heads, to search pupils whom they suspect may be in possession of weapons, and to use reasonable force to conduct these searches if required. This measure has been widely publicised, partly following a significant number of knife-related incidents in 2007 and as part of a perceived "toughening" of school policy and restoration of teacher's disciplinary powers. In practice however, the powers created under s.45 are something of a poisoned chalice. They create little by way of "new" powers, do not provide teachers with robust statutory protection and expose pupils to increased risk of harm. s.45 states that: (1) A member of the staff
of a school who has reasonable grounds for suspecting that a pupil at
the school may have with him or in his possessions- may search that pupil or his possessions for such articles and weapons.
The legislation dictates how searches must be carried out, specifically that:
On the face of it, this seems like a useful piece of legislation which safeguards teachers and pupils from knife-wielding children. But in practice the legislation doesn't really create a new power at all. And despite the legislation, teachers could still find themselves on the wrong side of the law for applying these powers without great care. Old powers in new cans So a teacher who knew, or had reasonable grounds to suspect that a pupil was in possession of an offensive weapon would have a defence in law if they used reasonable force to remove the weapon, or restrain the person until the police arrived. The "new powers" in the VCRA provides a similar statutory defence - that using force to search a pupil for a weapon will be lawful provided the teacher has reasonable grounds to believe that they are in possession of a weapon. Could teachers still be prosecuted or sued for searching pupils: While the VCRA provides some
defence for teachers, this defence is not absolute. For example, a teacher
could find themselves in legal hot water if:
In any of the above situations, the teacher's defence under the VCRA could be undermined, leaving them at risk of action by a pupil or their parents. How safe are teachers conducting a search? This is probably one of the most hazardous aspects of the legislation. Teachers can only exercise these powers where they have reasonable grounds to think that the pupil is in possession of a bladed weapon, or other offensive weapon. If they don't think that the pupil has a weapon, the VCRA does not authorise a search. So effectively, teachers are authorised to search a pupil they believe is armed. Further, they have the authority to use force to conduct this search! In practice, this is the person teachers should least be searching. Teachers who have a real and genuine belief that a pupil is carrying a weapon should not be using force to take the weapon for them - it puts them at huge risk of injury or worse. Guidance The comprehensive DfES guidance on searching is a lot more sensitive than the legislation, or the way it was presented to the media. It stresses that wherever possible, searches should be consensual, that if there is fear of resistance police should be called and that if it seems likely that force will be required, Police should be involved. The guidance also stresses the need to ensure staff are trained, that schools assess the need for protective clothing, and that staff are insured for claims arising as a result of searches. On balance, the DfES guidance document, combined with guidance to the CPS and Police, would have provided the same outcome in terms of searching children, without the need for the legislation. Drugs The powers created by the VCRA do not extend to searching children for drugs; a search for drugs - using the VCRA as a "cover" would probably be unlawful. But the existing powers under the CLA 1953 would allow such a search to take place. This is another reason why the powers created by the VCRA are not necessarily helpful. Teachers will be left believing that the can lawfully search and remove a knife from a pupil, but not drugs. In practice, a teacher would have a good statutory defence under the CLA 1953, even though the DfES guidance doesn't mention this. Hence it would have been preferable to develop comprehensive guidance covering the prevention of all offending in school under the auspices of the Criminal Law Act 1953, rather than adding 'new legislation for show. Having said that, if a teacher did find drugs during a search for weapons, they would be able to confiscate them, and would be obliged to surrender them to the police. According to answers given in Parliament, in 2005, 32 children under 18 were convicted of having a bladed weapon in school. This is a reassuringly low number, and reinforces the belief that legislative change was not required, either by the scale of the problem, or the legal powers that currently exist to resolve it. On balance the s.45 of the
VCRA adds little new in the way of powers, despite the way that it has
been spun by Ministers. The guidance, however, is a sensible, considered
and balanced document. It's a shame ministers didn't base more of their
comments on this rather than media-friendly headlines. |
|||
|
First
they came for the crack users… pt
1 ….and then they extended it to all other houses associated with Antisocial Behaviour. It at least they will if the Home Office and Number 10 have their way. It's been trailed for a couple of years. But the (soon-to-be-ex) Prime Minister Tony Blair and Home Office ministers have been pushing the proposals to extend the powers to close premises created by the Antisocial Behaviour Act 2003. The proposal was originally mooted in a Home Office statement in January 2006 as part of the Respect Action plan. But a year went by with no further developments or action. But then in May 2007, both Vernon Coaker and John Reid made speeches referring to the proposed new powers. The Guardian, on May 17th 2007 suggested that "the powers would form part of a criminal justice bill to be introduced in the next few weeks, before Tony Blair leaves Downing Street." However, with only days remaining of the Premier's reign left, it seems increasingly unlikely that it will be Herr Blair taking forward this piece of legislation. The future of such a piece of legislation is likely, therefore, to be closely linked to any cabinet reshuffles, the fates of John Reid, Vernon Coaker and of course the head of the Respect Unit, Louise Casey. Certainly, no Bill has been forthcoming; time in which to do so for Blair is running out. John Reid has already announced that he intends to step down from the front bench and resume backbench activities following Brown's ascension. As for Vernon Coaker, it remains to be seen if he will remain at the Home Office after Reid and Blair have gone. He has had limited profile as Minister with responsibility for drugs and he seems to have done little of note since taking up his post. Given that he will have been at the helm when the revised Drug Strategy was being written, it does not bode well for this strategy document. After these political rearrangements
have taken place, we'll have a clearer idea if the Home Office is likely
to bring this legislation forward. For now, we have to be grateful that
this draconian power has not been published. But this is not because anyone
has argued how wrong it is, but because its prime-movers have finally
lost power. |
|||
|
Frank recently published their "Campaign Update" at the end of May 2007 with their 19-page "Cannabis Explained" document. And while we can generally expect publications from Frank to peddle the usual Government line when it comes to drugs and their related risks, this new Update is far worse. It has a number of ommissions and inaccuracies which suggest, at best, some sloppy editing/proof-reading and at worse a worrying lack of drugs awareness amongst those responsible for disseminating drugs information across the UK. From the first photograph on the top of page 3, the Update is a strange affair. This graphic shows a collection of waste, trimmed and browning cannabis leaves, looking quite autumnal but utterly unlike what anyone would use for intoxication. Another image on page 7 shows a collection of crack pipes, rather than cannabis equipment. But it is the "factual" content which is most alarming. The document makes a number of erroneous, unsubstantiated or dubious statements including:
Following criticism of the document from KFx, the UKCIA and other commentators, the Home Office has written back to say that they are reviewing the content of the "Update." However, at the time of writing they haven't chosen to take it off the Home Office website which means that this inaccurate, dangerous and misleading piece of work is still being disseminated around the country. For a copy of the Update - see HERE For a point by point rebuttal of the document by UKCIA go here If you want to see what KFx said to Frank about the document click HERE |
|||
|
Home
Office on Storage - News of Developments: We've been writing to the Home Office since 2000 about the vexed issue of storing controlled drugs in non medical residential settings.. At various points, different Ministers and civil servants have, provided conflicting advice and indication of how they intend to rectify the situation.
On a number of occasions, Home Office officials and ministers simply didn't reply to correspondence. But finally, after a long wait, we have what seems to be the "definitive" response to the legality of storage, and the Home Office's proposed course of action. In a letter to KFx in May 2007,
the Home Office agreed that the regulations as they currently stand did
not provide authority to store controlled drugs in hostels or similar
settings. Home Office legal advice also concurred that the defences of
"conveying" or "administering" were not applicable
in storage situations. The range of organisations
that are affected by the Home Office's revised opinion goes far beyond
Approved Premises. It has ramifications for Children's Homes, Care Homes,
residential drug treament providers, hostels and day centres, and even
schools where substances such as Ritalin may be stored. The Home Office has agreed that changes on the regulations is required, and proposes consulting with the field and the ACMD to decide what form the changes should take. While it will probably be a
year or so for changes to work their way through, this is a welcome and
long overdue development. The KFx guidance document "On Storage" remains valid, though will shortly be updated in light of the Home Office's response; it can be downloaded HERE The KFx letter to the Home Office which resulted in this reply can be read HERE The Home Office response can
be read HERE |
|||
|
Turkeys
voting for Christmas Next year, it will be a decade since Ruth Wyner and John Brock were arrested and charged for offences under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. During and after their case, many organisations and individuals worked long and hard to ensure that their dreadful experience would not result in the mass exclusion of drug users who were homeless from the limited provision available to them. The "˜Wintercomfort"case threw up some difficult challenges. Was it possible to have known drug users on site? To what extent could organisations preserve client confidentiality? Did all known suppliers need to be reported to the police? Was it legitimate to place sharps bins in hostels? In the face of this uncertainty, the response from the Government and other key bodies was pitiful. Senior staff at the Rough Sleepers Unit refused to countenance the use of sharps boxes in hostels. Government advisors would not endorse models of working with ongoing users which would acknowledge use on site. And in 2001 the Government worsened the situation by passing the “Police and Criminal Justice Act†which extended Section 8(d) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. This measure extended the obligation on occupiers and managers to stop the use of all controlled drugs on site rather than just the use of cannabis and opium. In the face of unhelpful bureaucrats, intransigent Government ministers and voluntary sector workers turned Government lackeys, the situation for housing organisations working with drug users looked terrible.
So where's the problem? Given the above battles that have been fought and the success of them, it seems inconceivable that organisations would voluntarily surrender these hard-won gains. Yet they are. The new and worrying development is where region-wide drugs protocols have been put in place. Several areas are in the throes of developing such a protocol. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with doing so. Indeed, such a Protocol can and should provide a safe umbrella under which all providers can legally and safely operate. But at least one of these new Drugs Protocols imposes restrictions not currently required under the law. There is an expectation that local agencies sign up to the protocol. The requirements of the Protocol exceed the legislative requirements. And the Protocol restricts models of provision that other services have implemented lawfully and successfully. A case in point is the Newcastle Temporary Accommodation Drug Management Protocol. Recently rolled out across all temporary housing providers, the protocol makes the following demands of signatories:
None of these requirements are current legal requirements and it is perfectly feasible to implement safe, lawful and effective drugs policy without such rules being in place. If an individual organisation chooses to adopt a strict drugs policy, or exceed the demands of the law in terms of sharing information with the police, that is very much up to them. Some organisations do not wish to adopt more flexible and inclusive policy and that is their right. A good few of these have adopted exclusionary policies because it reflects the needs of their clients. They are seeking to work with people who are now drug free, usually after a period of dependency. Their policy and practice reflect the needs of their clients and rightly so. But this is not always the case. Other organisations have adopted harsh policies out of ignorance, others out of fear or prejudice. But to date it has primarily been on an organisation-by-organisation basis. The idea that a City-wide or County-wide policy should turn its face on the gains of the past few years is deeply depressing. And it makes one wonder have the last few years all been in vain. So it seems now that the Government no longer needs to pass new, restrictive legislation – the turkeys are basting themselves and jumping in to the oven. To view a copy of the Newcastle Temporary Accommodation Drug Management Protocol and supporting documents please click http://www.newcastle.gov.uk/core.nsf/a/nhf_policies and scroll down to the relevant policies. To view a critique of this Protocol by Kevin Flemen/KFx click HERE Coming soon: a model sample drugs policy. Details coming soon. |
|||
|
But, to be fair, their original rationale for legalisation was not especially well-thought out, so their retraction was never likely to be. The Independent's old and new arguments seem to run as follows: ten years ago cannabis was not as dangerous as everyone thought, and so it was stupid that it was illegal. Now it's become more dangerous so it should be illegal. Let's ignore, for now, the shaky evidence base that props up the claims that cannabis is ten, twenty, thirty times stronger than it was a decade, two decades or three decades ago. These arguments are not evidence based, and the relative strengths of available strains of cannabis have historically varied massively. Let's also, for now, side-step the contested evidence that says THC 'causes' severe mental illness and, according to images offered up by the Indie, physical damage to the brain. Even the statistics offered by the Independent on the number of young people "entering treatment" for cannabis are misleading. Yes, a significant proportion of young people "entering treatment" do so for cannabis. But let's not forget that more than a third of these young people are refered in to treatment via Youth Offending Teams. And that any young person receiving a "Final Warning" is referred to a Youth Offending Team. So thousands of children are receiving final warnings for cannabis use - thanks to an iniquitous policing system that means that they cannot receive "cannabis warnings" unlike adults. In turn they are refered to YOTs and then, on to drugs agencies so their cannabis use can be properly addressed. Each of these admissions is dutifully recorded as entering "treatment" for the purpose of the NDTMS, creating an illusion that thousands of young people are developing cannabis problems. But even this isn't the worst aspect of the Independent's volte face. Instead, let's look at the gaping philosophical flaw at the heart of the Indie's argument. The purport to be worried about the risks of 'new' 'strong' strains of cannabis. And these new, strong strains emerged within a period of prohibition. Cannabis they say, got stronger and more dangerous under prohibition. So what do they propose to deal with this? A continuation of prohibition. As with alcohol in America during prohibition, so cannabis has become more hazardrous under prohibition, lacking as it does, any proper regulatory or scrutiny framework. We have ended up with contaminated resins, adulterated herbal cannabis; we have growing arenas which represent fire hazards, and we have cannabis of variable strengths which can be unpredictable. Thanks to enforcement, relatively good quality, balanced compounds such as quality resins have been supplanted by skunk and soapbar. And this is the stupidity of the Independent's new position. They should have continued to argue for legalisation. And probably argued more vociferously than ever before. Not because cannabis is a 'safe drug' which it patently is not. But because the best way to manage the hazards to bring it within a licensed and regulated framework. Concerned about the proliferation of super strength skunk? Then introduce a taxation system structured around potency, as we do with alcohol. Low strength products could be taxed at a lower rate, and higher strength products taxed at a punitively high rate. Suppliers would, as with alcohol sales, have to be trained and licensed. Products would need to be sampled, quality and strength assessed and properly distributed. But the Independent cannot see this. They have abandoned their campaign. Not, to be honest that they had done anything with it in the past five years. In doing so, they have substantially boosted the cause of prohibitionists everywhere -as the comments of Antonia da Costa of the UNODC make all too clear. Never has the phrase "yellow
journalism" been so aposite. The Independent has really shown its
true colours. |
|||
|
No Justice for Youth Justice - anyone but Louise Casey 13 February 2007 The Guardian has reported that Blair fancies Louise Casey to head up the Youth Justice Board - using it as a platform from which to take forward his Antisocial Behaviour Agenda after he is deposed in May. This would be a worrying development - and one that everyonce concerned about youth justice should hope does not come to pass. Louise Casey has led something of a charmed life since leaving the world of the London homelessness sector. While she headed up the rough sleepers strategy, there were repeated, well substantiated allegations that rough sleeper counts were manipulated to 'prove' a reduction in rough sleepers. Approaches such as changing the count criteria, temporary opening of shelters on the nights before counts, food and quiz nights - all these and more were reported as ways of pushing the count down. Unfortunately, few organisations had the confidence or resources to speak out: those that did were threatened with having their funding cut. those that made supportive comments and kept schtum about the manipulated counts were awarded new contracts. Such strategies have endured since she moved on to the Antisocial Behaviour Unit. But rather than trying to reduce homelessness, Casey has done a 180 degree turn and is now endorsing policies that put people out of housing and on to the streets. In moves that would, one would hope, appall old stable mates at Shelter, Casey has taken forward an agenda which has seen people removed from housing and put directly on to the streets. Centuries of property right and hard-wons gains like tenancies have been overturned by new civil powers incorporated in to anti-social behaviour legislation. If past experience is anything to go by, Casey, is appointed to the Youth Justice Board, would put punitive measures to the fore: in a 2004 interview she made her stance clear: "Not to challenge behaviour is a very British thing, and we have at times felt sorry for the minority of perpetrators. We think the way to deal with them is by feeling sorry for them and providing more and more services to them in the hope that maybe then their behaviour becomes checked. What is missing is the community saying we have had enough, we have rights too and we have a right to a decent honest way of life with our kids being able to be brought up in peace." [http://www.together.gov.uk/article.asp?c=32&aid=1093] In the same interview, Casey dismissed concern about ASBOs, saying "I think the criticisms recently have been in the minority. If you read the newspaper coverage of ASBOs, it is immensely positive, and I now find it interesting that even publications like the Guardian are struggling to find holes in them." This attitude sums up both the Government's and Casey's approach - that if it's well received by the media and popularist it should carry on. In practice there are far bigger holes - such as those reported by the Youth Justice Board: "Nearly half of the young people whose case files were reviewed, and the vast majority of young people who were the subjects of in-depth interviews, had been returned to court for failure to comply with their order. The majority had breached their ASBO on more than one occasion. Eighteen young people were sentenced for breach of an ASBO as the sole offence: for one young person,the outcome was a custodial sentence." [http://www.yjb.gov.uk/publications/Scripts/fileDownload.asp?file=ASBO+Summary%2Epdf] One suspects that, should she take over at the Youth Justice Board, such criticism would be a thing of the past. More recently, the Runnymede
trust noted that there had been a failing on the part of those delivering,
enforcing and monitoring ASBOs to monitor ethnicity - as such this is
a failing under the Race Relations Amendment Act and ultimately the responsibility
of the Antisocial Behaviour Unit for failing to instruct that such monitoring
should take place. There has been a growing level of concern about the misuse of ASBOs, and the high breach rate. The Home Office has been reluctant to release accurate figures, despite requests under the Freedom of Information Act from Asboconcern and others. But despite this we know that:
So despite the claims made for Antisocial Behaviour Orders and the Respect Agenda, they have, to date, been a collection of media friendly, populist measures. But the Home Office has obfuscated on the evidence, and failed to look beyond the headlines. It hasn't looked at the level of breaches for people receiving orders. It has stigmatised and criminalised children with mental disorders. It has legitimised "naming and shaming" of children as social policy. It has taken people with dependencies and made them homeless. And it has prohibited vulnerable people from carrying harm reduction equipment such as condoms. Louise Casey has been the leading light and champion of these measures and as such is not fit to lead as essential a body as the Youth Justice Board. |
|||
|
05 February 2007 We at KFx Towers like a good pharmaceutical success story as much as the next person. So the news that Schering Plough received an EU-wide licence for Suboxone before Christmas must have been good news for the good people at said company. Indeed, so happy were they at their success, that they decided to make their new medicine available at knock-down prices, so that more people could start on this new treatment. We understand in some areas that Suboxone is being made available more cheaply than Subutex, which shows how much they care about the little people.... Only the truly and despicably cynical would think anything else, but we've had several emails about Suboxone so we thought an article would be in order. Suboxone is a 'cocktail' of Buprenorphine (Subutex (r)) and naloxone. The idea is that naloxone is badly absorbed sublingually, but the amount reaching the brain is very high if the drug is taken intranasally or injected. 100% bioavailability is achieved if naloxone is injected, and levels as high as 100% are claimed for snorting, but this may not be the same in street settings. If a patient takes their suboxone sublingually, as directed, they should only get the subutex. But if they are tempted to snort or inject the tablets, then they will get the subutex, but also a dose of naloxone. This should, the theory goes, act as an opiate blocker, making it ineffective to inject it. The very pretty Suboxone website explains it thus: "The naloxone component in SUBOXONE is included to help discourage diversion and misuse. Naloxone has very limited bioavailability when administered sublingually, as intended. However, if SUBOXONE is crushed and injected, the naloxone will precipitate opioid withdrawal. In the absence of an opioid, the antagonist has no effect." But if we pause for attention and recap some important facts, the situation is less clear. The NIDA took a leading role
in the development of Suboxone: they reported The US department of Justice goes further, explaining "In fact, Suboxone was designed specifically to meet FDA requirements for a more diversion-proof drug for use in opiate addiction therapy."(2) But ironically the NDIC reports
ongoing abuse of Suboxone, saying Using buprenorphine and heroin in combination does not produce increased effects, but if buprenorphine and methadone are abused together, the effects of both drugs are enhanced. Consequently, diverted buprenorphine may be attractive to patients currently using methadone for opiate addiction therapy." (3) All this talk | |||
