|
|
|||||||
|
Drug |
|
Drug News: [updates ceased as of 16.11.09] This
section is no longer updated in this format; all new articles are on the
proper Blog , which allows you to leave comments and such like. To enter
the blog go here The older archives are not included and are only accessible from the links above. 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 Material dating to before 10/04 has been archived; please go to the Drug News Archives to view this material.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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Eyes Wide Open Housing for Drug Users - Awards at Last 16.11.08 Ten years after the first Eyes Wide Open housing was trialled in the UK, a hostel working with ongoing users has received national awards. It is long overdue. And now there can be no excuse for others not to follow suit. More
Hash Fudge? November 11, 2008 Playing
House!
August 2008 Cannabis
Reclassification - a pawn in the Prohibition war?
August 2008 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 |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Eyes Wide Open Housing for Drug Users - Awards at Last 16.11.08 Ten years after the first Eyes Wide Open housing was trialled in the UK, a hostel working with ongoing users has received national awards. It is long overdue. And now there can be no excuse for others not to follow suit. We are immensely pleased to report that the King Georges Hostel in London, part of ECHG, were the recipients of two awards at the Chartered Institute of Housing/Inside Housing Awards for Outstanding Achievement In Housing (England) and Meeting the Needs of Vulnerable People. King Georges are one of the growing number of housing providers who have adopted and adapted the “eyes wide open model” of housing provision that has been pioneered here for a number of years. The Gateway Programme at King Georges Hostel is a pioneering initiative to provide housing, drugs education and harm reduction interventions to some of the most vulnerable dependent drug users in housing need. The Programme takes in dependent drug users in housing need, provides housing in attend education and awareness sessions on injecting, overdose, and blood borne viruses. Despite the low level of obligations at admission, residents have been engaging with a wide range of initiatives, including Turning-Point provided drug treatment, nutrition and cooking programmes, outdoors fitness sessions and football clubs. The take up of interventions such as Hep b vaccinations is exemplary and despite the high-risk client group drug deaths have been prevented. King Georges has made use of the resources, policies and guidance produced on the KFx website to help shape and develop this provision and we are pleased to have contributed in this small way to the establishment of the project. Whilst offering King Georges staff and residents our congratulations for their win, this award is pleasing as it is, at last, recognition for a model of work which has been increasingly widely adopted or considered but has lacked the imprimatur of “official” recognition. Ten years ago, Single Homeless Project (SHP) in London became the first housing provider in the UK to deliver inclusive housing to active drug users, where drug use was not only fully acknowledged, but fully engaged with, including access to sharps boxes, needle exchange, harm reduction services, and treatment modalities. Whereas previously organisations had turned a blind eye or prevented drug use, SHP were early adopters of an “eyes wide open” model which they have used successfully used in their housing provision in several London Boroughs. Since then a growing number of Housing Providers across the UK have been working within an “eyes wide open model.” Many have found marked benefits from this approach – better engagement, more openness, increased referral to treatment, reduction in public drug use, reduction in overdoses and drug deaths. These agencies, including Brighton and Hove Housing Trust, Thamesreach, Look Ahead, Society of St James, Wallich Clifford Community, Manchester Methodist Housing Group, Foundation Housing, St Mungos and a number of others were courageous early adopters of such an approach. It should be remembered that at this stage there was no official endorsement of such a model of work. Ten years ago, at a conference, it wasn’t even possible to get Ian Brady, then of the Rough Sleepers Unit, to publicly endorse the placing of sharps boxes in hostels! The Home Office was pursuing a policy of extending the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 which would have made such provision illegal. And the repercussions of the Wintercomfort case made many housing providers wary of pursuing such an approach. Since then there has been moderate progress. Norfolk DAAT embraced and endorsed an eyes wide open model in their superb document The Spectrum of Possibility. Research from Shelter demonstrated the benefits of the model in Safe as Houses. Papers from Cymforth Cymru reinforced the message that full spectrum, eyes wide open housing was a safe, lawful inclusive model of working with housing drug users. Unfortunately, official recognition has been slow in coming. In 2006, an agency receiving a Housing Corporation Gold Award for Homelessness Strategies was pursuing a policy where suspicion of use (including drowsy symptoms or paraphernalia) was grounds for eviction – and this from an agency purporting to work with ongoing users. But despite the absence of official endorsement, support or sanction, the work has crept on. Even amongst organisations working in this way, all too often it has felt like a “dirty secret” where organsisations don’t explicitly acknowledge that they house ongoing users and manage use on site. All too often, the same organisations starting to undertake the work have to battle not just NIMBYism, public and political barriers but also too often their own organisational policy and hierarchies. The decision by the DCLG to (quietly) endorse the “eyes wide open” model in their paper Improving Practice in Housing Drug Users was of course highly welcome, albeit that the paper fell short of an unequivocal statement acknowledging the importance of managed use on site. So the presentation of two awards to King Georges Hostel is hugely welcome. It is not just an important acknowledgement of their work, and the progress that they have made in working with drug users. It is also an endorsement of a model of work developed and pioneered here. From the early days, developing a model after leaving the Big Issue, through the time working and promoting it at Release, and over the past five years working with the growing number of organisations who took the work forwards, it has been a decade of change, innovation and progress. For agencies thinking about adopting ‘eyes wide open’ models, the award to King Georges should provide the impetus to move from contemplation to decision. The resources on this site and the Drugs and Housing website provide some of the tools that such agencies will require to take this work forwards. Eyes Wide Open housing has been a rare step change in the provision of services to drug users. In its own way it has proved as significant as the provision of needle exchange in representing a brave break with orthodoxy and the provision of pragmatic, life saving and life changing interventions. One of the managers at King Georges got in touch a while after putting in place a lot of the changes and expressing thanks for the support and inspiration. He described what he’d got from here as “lighting the touch paper a few years ago that made me realise it could and should be done.” I am immensely pleased, proud and gratified that after ten years of work the “eyes wide open” approach is gaining acceptance and endorsement. For myself, the drive to establish a new, inclusive model of housing which would take people who still used drugs and move them in to appropriate, supported housing began because of the tragic, senseless deaths of two young men on the streets of London, Chris Crowther and Chris Readman (aka Cockney Chris and Geordie Chris). They were murdered on Berwick St, London, on the 24th June 1997. Then, appropriate, suitable housing didn’t exist. They’d been routinely excluded from housing because of their drug use. They could and should have been housed in the right housing with the right support. There wasn’t anywhere for them then. Now there is. It’s a legacy worthy of them. And I want to wanted to make sure that amongst the awards, the professional congratulations and the backslapping, the small, personal tragedy that was the spark that lit the touchpaper is not forgotten. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
| More
Hash Fudge!?
On the 7th May 2008, the Home Secretary, Jacquie Smith, acceded to the demands of the tabloid media and reactionary drug prohibitionists such as Talking About Cannabis. Despite recommendations from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD), Smith decided to move cannabis from Class C back to Class B. Five months later, Jacquie Smith release more details as to proposed policy and policing changes that would accompany this reclassification. These proposals added yet another layer of confusion and fudge to the ongoing mess of cannabis reclassification. The Home Secretary faced something of a challenge. On the one hand, to satiate the media's demand for action, the decision was made to move cannabis back to Class B. This decision was reached despite the fact that the ACMD, whose opinion had been sought by the Home Office, recommended that cannabis should not be moved back to Class B. It was also despite a documented decline in cannabis use amongst young people, and no new evidence that cannabis was responsible for an increase in mental health problems. Undaunted by an absence of
evidence, she instead drew on various other evidence sources, saying "In
reaching my decision, I have also taken into account the views of others,
particularly those responsible for enforcing the law, and the public-58
per cent. of whom, according to a survey carried out for the council,
favour upgrading cannabis from class C." The ACMD commissioned a small piece of research to inform it's report. Amongst other things, the research showed how hopelessly confused and ill-informed about cannabis and the law respondents were.
So, of the sample of a thousand, only some 400 knew the current legal status of cannabis. When asked about in what class
cannabis ought to be, So while the ACMD's public survey did show that the majority thought cannabis should go up in class, the vast majority felt that the penalties should stay the same or go down. Interestingly these results are the opposite of the Home Office's consultation on drugs which took place prior to the launch of the new Drug Strategy. This was also quoted in the ACMD report, which noted "Of the 639 individuals and organisations responding to these questions, 44% wished cannabis to remain Class C; 19% wished it to become a Class B substance; and 19% wished it to be legalised. One hundred and sixteen respondents were undecided." [ibid: p26] It's a fine example of the selective use of consultations and research. The Home Office public consultation, which came down against cannabis reclassification, was disregarded, along with the ACMD's recommendation. The small sample of confused respondents which supported the Home Office's opinion is cited to bolster the Government's position. Jacqui Smith went on to say
"My decision takes into account issues such
as public perception and the needs and consequences for policing priorities.
There is a compelling case for us to act now rather than risk the future
health of young people. Where there is a clear and serious problem, but
doubt about the potential harm that will be caused, we must err on the
side of caution and protect the public. I make no apology for that. I
am not prepared to wait and see". Jacqui Smith goes on in her statement to outline how keen she is to see police enforcement increased, saying "To reflect the more serious status of cannabis as class B, I am clear that a strengthened enforcement approach for possession is required." Five months later, the Home Office issued a Press Release "Next steps for tougher action on cannabis" http://nds.coi.gov.uk/Content/Detail.asp?ReleaseID=381162&NewsAreaID=2 which detailed the proposed enforcement measures that the Home Office wished to take forwards. This included the introduction of Penalty Notices for Disorder for second offences. The press release proposed "those caught with cannabis on a first occasion could still get a cannabis warning, but on a second occasion are likely face a fine of £80 and arrest if caught for a third time." The main body of the Press Release fails to mention (though it is included in the footnotes) that the policing situation for under 18s remains unchanged, with them being subject to the reprimand/final warning/charge system incorporated in the Crime And Disorder Act. The idea of PNDs appealed to
the Police because they allowed for enforcement action without the time
consuming processes of arrest, charge, courts and suchlike. The appeal
for the Home Office was that they provided an escalation after an initial
warning, thus saving police time and ramping up the sanctions. It's not really clear what
this reference to a "penalty notice" means. Presumably it is
a "cannabis warning" renamed to make it sound stricter. Then
there's the fine. The last bit is certainly true in theory, but as the
full press release makes much clearer, a third time would mean arrest,
followed by a range of outcomes including "release without charge,
caution, conditional caution or prosecution." In the year ending March 2008,
102,467 cannabis warnings were issued. http://lcjb.cjsonline.gov.uk/ncjb/perfStats/pnd_formal-warnings.html
In the list below, we highlight how very little will change when cannabis goes back to Class B.
In practice, although cannabis
will exist back in Class B, it will effectively be in a class of its own.
The penalties and policing of cannabis will be unlike other class B drugs
(such as amphetamines) or Class C drugs (such as benzodiazepines). |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A lukewarm welcome for new Paper on Housing Drug Users It can't have been easy for
Gregory Green and Martin Nugent to write a paper on housing drug users
which would satisfy the Home Office Drugs Intervention Project, Communities
and Local Government, NOMS, The Housing Corporation, NTA and others. Nor
can it have been easy to write the report with a single reference to the
Misuse of Drugs Act, or Section 8 of the act. But in the 200 odd pagesof
Improving
Practice in Housing for Drug Users, there's not a mention of this
legislation, or the antisocial behaviour act. In short, in this sprawling
piece of work, there's not a single line that stresses the legality of
working with use on site. The paper is built around a
series of case studies. These include a number of agencies working inclusively
with ongoing drug use and injectors, including SHP, In Partnership Project,
Norfolk Drug and Alcohol Partnership, New Steine Mews Brighton, and Thamesreach.
These are fine projects, each doing innovative work with ongoing users,
and who have done so for a number of years. It is highly welcome that
there work is finally receiving a level of official recognition and endorsement.
It is long overdue; these projects have developed and emerged despite
a lack of Governmental backing or endorsement. Remember, this was a Government
that sought to expand Section 8 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 which
would have ended this type of housing in the projects listed. As Deputy
of the Rough Sleepers Unit, Ian Brady repeatedly refused to officially
endorse the use of Sharps Boxes in hostel settings. So the Government
embracing an "eyes wide open" model is to be welcomed. The Paper itself is slanted heavily towards an organisational and strategic perspective. It stresses the need for a mult-disciplinary partnership approach, with key players involved and proper assessment of need, provision and outcomes. Search for the word "strategic" in the Paper and you get more than 100 uses of the word; look for references to "injector" and there's not a single use of the word. The report does stress the need, too, for a full spectrum of housing provision covering the full spectrum of drug use. The need for housing for ongoing users as well as for those in treatment, and those now abstinent is well made and welcome What the Paper does not do is provide a clear vision or endorsement of how work with ongoing users on site can take place. This area feels fudged, and as it is the area which causes the most concern and confusion to providers, the police and commissioners, the lack of clarity here is damaging. Nor does it offset some of the concerns or direction that has been established by other, contrary, Governmental initiatives - most notably the Respect Standard for Housing Management. This model locates substance misuse firmly within a context of anti-social behaviour and primarily promotes an enforcement response to it, through use of demoted tenancies, ASBOs and injunctions, whilst paying lip-service to support and treatment interventions. Similarly, no mention is made in the Paper of the Antisocial Behaiour Act (Power to Close Premises) or its impact on housing drug users. What there is, within the case
studies is reference to "proactive harm reduction approach to
managing drug use within premises that they manage." How
you do this is not addressed by the paper, and the level of detail provided
by the case studies is inadequate and vague. For example, the report says
"the case studies have demonstrated that improving understanding,
knowledge and skills of workers and service users were important elements
of capacity building. This includes awareness and understanding of...drugs,
housing and the law." One of the stragegic documents mentioned in the report is the "Safe Newcastle Policy on Drug Use Within Accommodation." This document has been reviewed previously (see Blog passim here) and is at odds with a harm-reduction approach. It requires all known episodes of possession to be reported to the police, requires the removal of drugs and paraphernalia found in resident's rooms, and requires warnings to be issues for all suspected use on site. It would be interesting to know if one of the projects cited as a case-study, Tyneside Cyrenians, follows the Policy as written, because it would be hard to see how on-going use on site were managed in a harm-reduction manner where known use was automatically reported to the police, and rooms were searched on "strong suspicion of drug being used." After a long wait for a Governmental report which embraced and endorsed full-spectrum, eyes wide open housing models for drug users, the Paper goes some way to fulfilling this need. On balance though, the Paper delivers a few crumbs of welcome recogntion for these models of housing. But buried as they are beneath reams of strategic vision, and obscured by a lack of clear illustration and clarity, it seems that we must wait longer for the report we had hoped for to arrive. The complete set of papers for Improving Practice in Housing Drug Users - A Partnership Approach can be found here. The complete Seminar notes are here. Shelter have organised a Seminar on the back of the publication and details are here. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Cannabis
Reclassification - a pawn in the Prohibition war?
August 2008 But above and beyond the UK Government, numerous other interest and lobby groups were promoting their viewpoints. And so while cannabis had become a pawn in the battleground of UK politics, it had also become a key piece in a conflict between the polarised camps of prohibitionists and legalisers. When cannabis had been initially moved from Class B to Class C, it had been heralded by some as a first step in the liberalisation and reform of the drug laws. Given that it was the first time a drug had been reclassified down, it is understandable that some would view this as a sign of things to come. Conversely, the move was viewed less positively by a range of prohibitionists. From the International Narcotics Control Board down through to the various pressure and lobbying groups such as Europe Against Drugs and the Drug Prevention Alliance, the downgrading of cannabis represented one of the biggest setbacks that they had experienced, and elicited howls of outrage. So when the discussion about cannabis resumed and the Government contemplated a move back to Class B, the prohibitionists went to battle with a furore which had less to do with the case for cannabis per se but more to reassert the prominence of the prohibitionists’ message. The final decision to move cannabis back from C to B was therefore welcomed by prohibitionist groups, less because of the fears about cannabis safety and more because it put (they believe) a prohibition tendency back in the ascendancy. Unfortunately, truth was once again the first casualty of this drugs war, and the nuanced evidence and arguments relating to cannabis were lost within a slew of hyperbole, claims and counter-claims. Individual experience and small studies were cited as evidence of greater harm. The tabloid press, especially the Daily Mail, ran headline after headline citing the increased risks of strong cannabis. Key progenitors of these hyperbolic arguments included Europe Against Drugs (EURAD) who have been vocal in their demands for cannabis to be reclassified. Key amongst these was Mary Brett, a former secondary school teacher from Amersham who now spends her time culling journals for negative cannabis stories, and promoting these as “facts” to support the prohibitionist arguments. Her document, “Cannabis – The Facts” is in turn used by Debra Bell of “Talking About Cannabis.” TAC was initially set up by Bell, a journalist, as a way of exploring and discussing her family’s experience of cannabis. This role morphed in to a lobbying group demanding that cannabis be moved back to Class B and in an amazingly short time, TAC had face time with the ACMD and were being routinely cited by the media. TAC say that they are “currently preparing educational packs for schools with a strong prevention message, written by drug experts.” Presumably, with contributions by Brett, and following the line established by EURAD. TAC are now members of EURAD, and as such presumably endorse EURAD’s other articles of faith, which include the abolition of needle exchange, and other harm reduction approaches. Also beavering away at the cannabis issue, though less prominently than TAC, was the Drug Prevention Alliance, led by Peter Stoker with the assistance of former customs officer David “Claude” Raynes. Interestingly, these two well-established prohibitionists are now very active within the Foundation for a Drug Free Europe – a Scientology-derived campaign group which promotes Narconon treatment models and is staunchly prohibitionist. They are joined here by regular Drink and Drug News magazine contributor and long-standing Scientologist, Ken Eckersley. Following the Home Office’s announcement regarding cannabis reclassification, a congratulatory letter in the Times was co-signed by, amongst others Bell, Brett, Raynes and Stoker, bringing together an alliance of Prohibitionists whose primary interest is not in Cannabis, but in wider prohibition. The irony of all this is that it has been that cannabis has flourished and increased in potency under a regime of prohibition. Despite the fact that production and supply has consistently carried a maximum sentence of fourteen years in the UK since 1971, the sentence has not prevented first importation and then home-growing in the UK. Cannabis became stronger and less safe within a prohibited, unregulated under-researched market. Just as under alcohol prohibition people were at risk through stronger, impure bootleg drink, so people were put at risk through illicit cannabis in the same way. Producer countries such as Morocco and Algeria, who had historically produced cannabis resins with a good mix of THC and CBD saw home production curtailed to meet the demands of the INCB. Rather than risk importation, home-growing became the more profitable, lower risk alternative. And the end-product – high THC/low CBD herbal cannabis was the net result. All this happened under prohibition – the stronger, imbalanced strains of cannabis that dominate the market were a result of an unlicensed, un-regulated market. The process of prohibition contributed to the increase in cannabis-related mental health problems. It is only now, through legal research under Home Office licence, that researchers are becoming aware of how important the ratio of THC to CBD in cannabis is, and how CBD may cushion or protect against some of the negative effects of high THC levels in cannabis. Left to an illicit market, the safety of a product will tend to take a secondary position to other factors such as potency or ease of production. Given a legitimate framework, it is feasible to produce a product with a lower risk profile. Given, for example, licensing and regulation, it would be feasible to specify minimum CDB contents, maximum THC contents, and impose higher levels of excise duty on stronger strains. By clear product labelling and allied information campaigns, the product available (age-restricted and licensed) would be the least hazardous option that could be made available. By opposing this approach, and pushing the Government away from such a model, the Prohibitionists have ensured that the cannabis on the street will remain as unsafe as it can be, and exposed to risk the very young people that they claim so passionately to want to protect. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Brown v the ACMD - Cannabis is 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 of precipitating withdrawals can get confusing. So what's really going on? 1) the ratio of buprenorphine to naloxone is 4:1 - a very low level of naloxone. 2) Buprenorphine is a partial opiate antagonist - it will block heroin from reaching opiate receptors reasonably well. But it is a less effective antagonist than, for example, naltrexone 3) Buprenorphine can and does cause respiratory suppression; especially when injected in large doses, and especially if mixed with benzodiazepines. 4) If a user has heroin in their system, and they use a dose of buprenorphine, this may produce withdrawal symptoms. The severity of these symptoms will depend on the levels of heroin in the system, the amount of buprenorphine used and the quantity of buprenorphine used. 5) but if a person has no opiates in their system (i.e. in withdrawal) and they take buprenorphine, they will get the opiate agonist effects of the buprenorphine, as in relief from withdrawal and mild opiate effects. 6) naloxone is less effective at blocking or reversing buprenorphine than it is heroin. The literature says that a higher dose of naloxone will be required, and attention given to maintaining breathing as naloxone alone might be inadequate. 7) the amount of buprenorphine reaching the brain via snorting is around 49% compared with 29% sublingually, meaning that if someone were titrated and tolerant to a sublingual dose, they would be getting almost a 1/5th more drug by snorting. The time to reach peak levels would also drop from around 200 mins sublingually, to 30mins nasally, according to sources at Schering Plough. So let's put all these pieces together. If crushed and snorted, the subutex in suboxone is reportedly still effective. It is possible that the low doses of naloxone, combined with the higher effective dose of burprenorphine and the relative poor blockading of naloxone against burprenorphine make snorting the drug effective. Schering Plough say "Currently no studies have been carried out looking at the effects of nasal snorting of Suboxone tablets." So it would be curious for them to claim that it cannot be effectively snorted. If injected then all the subutex and all the naloxone reaches the brain. If the user has heroin still in the system this will precipitate rapid and marked withdrawal symptoms. In fairness, this is likely to have happened even if the naloxone was not present, as the buprenorphine alone would have precipitated withdrawal. But if the user has no other opiates in their system and inject crushed suboxone, what happens? Well it won't precipitate withdrawal if there's no opiates in place, that's for sure. So for someone not dependent or already in withdrawal, there won't be a sudden reversal into unpleasant symptoms. It may be that nothing will happen - the naloxone component will block the buprenorphine from working. What could also happen is that the naloxone partially blocks the subutex - but not wholly. And so by taking a large dose of suboxone by injection, the person could still overdose, as the low dose of naloxone would be a poor antagonist in such an overdose. (4) The risk of buprenorphine-induced overdose would go up if use were taking place alongside benzo use. So suboxone appears to be of limited value in preventing snorting, and of questionable benefit in preventing injecting. It will still be good for preventing use on top - but then if used properly no better than Subutex alone. In which case why the big sell on Suboxone? If it isn't being driven by its clinical superiority, what's the appeal? Firstly, this drug was developed to meet the demands of the US drug treatment and enforcement bodies. By complying with their demands, Schering Plough have a drugs which is the only one to receive federal approval for the treatment of heroin addiction - which is a huge cash-cow however you look at it; But it should also be noted that away from the US, the patent period for Subutex has expired (5) leaving the way open for cheaper competitors. To get an idea of the impact of this, the NHS pricing tariffs demonstrate the difference in costs between generic methadone, generic buprenorphine, and branded Subutex: buprenorphine: 50x 20mg sublingual
tablets = £5.33 Given these price differences it would be imperative that Schering Plough get a newer Patented product on the market and quickly - and the advent of Suboxone appears to meet that need. Thanks to EU wide approval (7) Suboxone is now in a privileged position to become the prescribed drug of choice, regardless of cost or relative effectiveness. And by providing subsidised early "trials" which won't be randomised or controlled, Schering Plough can accrue claims to effectiveness which wouldn't survive rigorous academic scrutiny. So on balance, and until we have independent and rigorous evidence to the contrary, Suboxone is more expensive than generic buprenorphine, can still be snorted, and won't induce withdrawal when injected unless the person already has opiates in their system. Further, it will still leave people at risk of overdose when injected, as the naloxone won't effectively or fully reverse the buprenorphine. Now why exactly is your rep
pushing your patients on to Suboxone???
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
DOI
- Doh! While the media was frothing over the reclassification of methamphetamine, four people were admitted to hospital in Bedfordshire following ingestion of an unknown substance. The Media were quick to report this as being due to a "new drug" called DOI or D09. The Beds police were a little more cautious saying "Speaking to other party-goers at the scene, officers were told that the two men may have taken a drug called DO1, DOI or DO9." Importantly, it has not been verified that the people in question had indeed taken DOI, or what they believed to be DOI. No independent toxicology reports have been made available at this time, so the suggestion that the substance involved is DOI is highly speculative. Having said that, other sources have noted some availability of DOI - especially amongst communities with a keen interest in hallucinogens and stimulants. These sources suggest that there is at least a batch of DOI doing the rounds. This, they speculate, may have been a UK based chemist who has cooked up this batch, or an imported batch from an overseas chemist. This would seem more credible than DOI becoming more popular as a rave drug. DOI is short for 2,5-dimethoxy-4-iodoamphetamine It was one of a number of compounds developed by Alexander Shulgin and listed in Pikhal. It binds strongly to various serotonin receptors and has been widely used as a research chemical to help identify the location of these receptors. It is a powerful and long-lasting hallucinogen. Sources suggest periods of effect as long as sixteen hours, with a similar level of hallucinatory effect to LSD, but with the user also feeling more active. It has not proved hugely popular as the hallucinogenic effects last a long time, and are not that good compared to other, shorter acting, more readily available compounds. Dose ranges are small - 1-3mg. People undertaking experimental use in controlled conditions have typically had it in refined, powder form for carefull self-administration - e.g. snorting. Generally such low-demand research chemicals would be in pure powder form for the user to dose at their own level, knowing exactly how much they were taking. A source from Milton Keynes says that the DOI taken at these events was in tablet form,as E's would be. no literature is clear on risks and none mention risk of convulsions, though, as this is an amphetamine-type compound this risk is not inconceivable. This would be especially hazardrous at high doses. Suspicion is at this time that it could be (a) real DOI and some users have taken massive doses, not knowing its strength or (b) it's poorly made DOI with some additives of unknown type/action or (c) it's not really DOI at all but some unknown compound knocked up and flogged to users at a rave (d) it's MDMA or another E-type compound with DOI or something similar in their too, to increase the trippiness... If you have anything to add please email so we can keep people informed... Beds Police: http://www.bedfordshire.police.uk/News/newsItems/news.php?news_id=1170062390 BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/beds/bucks/herts/6308895.stm [thanks to Carly for bringing this one to my attention] |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Testing
Times There's been a flurry of shopping activity in the world of Drug Testing - and it's not for testing on arrest! Concateno PLC, an AIM listed company with no history in the field of Substance Misuse, has been buying up a motley collection of Drug testing companies. This has included Medscreen (November 2006) Altrix (January 2007) Trichotech (February 2007) effectively meaning that one company now owns the major urine, mouth swabbing and hair testing companies in the UK. Concateno PLC is a cash-shell company, headed by Keith Tozzi, former Group Technical Director of Southern Water, CEO of the British Standards Institute and former Chairman of Mid Kent Water... Why does this matter? The risk is that, in a profit-driven market, the ethics of drug testing will gradually be eroded. To date, most UK testing companies have taken a responsible approach to drug testing by parents and carers. But the worry is that, as the need to create greater shareholder value grows, so the push towards large sales, more widespread testing and more frequent testing grows too. Any one selling drug testing products has a vested interest in seeing them routinely rolled out in schools, the workplace, and other non-criminal justice settings. This is where the big money lies. This is something Altrix has been especially keen on. They "passionately believe..." drug and alcohol misuse...are reaching epidemic proportions," and as such drug testing should be embraced to confront these "threats in society." Hence their willingness, enthusiasm and support for such initiatives as the Drug testing in schools rolled out in Kent. No evidence that it reduces use of course, but massive profits for companies. It will be interesting to see how well these smaller companies can maintain any kind of ethical stance as they become just another part of a larger company. As there is virtually a monopoly now on drug testing in the UK, it must surely be time for a review of these last purchases and ensure that they continue to act in the interest of the market and consumers. BBC coverage of Tricho-tech buyout here |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
ACPO
on Cannabis?! This guidance was published following an ACPO review of cannabis policing. Hopefully it was also influenced by the recent JRF review of cannabis policing, but this is not necessarily borne out by the content of the revised guidance. And if people were confused by the policing of cannabis before the review, the new guidance will convince people that they have toked on something especially potent. One of the key changes is that the new guidance instructs a very clear "three strikes" policy. All 'cannabis warnings' issued are meant to be recorded on a force-wide basis. If a person has already received two 'cannabis warnings,' the ACPO guidance says that a third warning should not be given, but more formal action such as arrest and charge should be undertaken. This change will be heavily dependent on accurate record keeping, and will require expenditure on record keeping. It will also mean that, unless police are able to verify a person's identity, it will a hit-and-miss process to enforce. The other key change affects Under-18s. In the previous guidance, police had been instructed to arrest under-18s for cannabis possession. But in the revised guidance, this position has been reversed - police are now instructed NOT to arrest young people for cannabis offences unless there are other aggravating factors. While, on the face of it, this represents a liberalisation of policing, it is in reality a cosmetic change. Young people will still be dealt with under the Crime and Disorder Legislation, resulting in a reprimand, warning or charge. This processing must take place at a Police Station so while the young person may not initially be arrested, subsquent action will take place in a Police Station. It is essential that under 18s realise that while they will probably no longer be arrested, they will still end up engaged with the criminal justice system, and liable to getting a criminal record. The release of the ACPO guidance coincides with publication of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation report on policing cannabis. This piece of work reviewed the impact of cannabis reclassification on police and users. It highlights that significant numbers of people are still being arrested for cannabis and that the policing of cannabis was variable - with street warning been used for betwen 22% and 42% of cannabis incidents. Given that the presumption should be against arrest, it is clear that arresting users is still the norm, not the exception. The JRF report also notes that Black and other Minority Ethnic groups were more often given street warnings. This suggests that racial profiling plays a role both in who is searched, and also who is warned. The report notes that almost half of police officers interviewed wanted to be able to give street warnings to Under-18s when the situation warranted it. And finally the report notes that, as cannabis warnings could be counted as "sanction detections," there was evidence that senior police officers may use "street warnings" as a quick and easy way of bumping up detection figures. The new ACPO guidance does address some of these concerns. Under 18s will not automatically be arrested, but they will still be criminalised; police officers are reminded not to arrest unless it is necessary, but this will still be at the discretion of officers; and police forces can count these as sanctions detected, although of course no force would be so craven as to use this as a way of improving crime figures for Home Office statistics. Would they! ACPO
Guidance at:
http://www.acpo.police.uk/asp/policies/Data/ACPO%20Cannabis%20Guidelines.doc |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
21 January 2007 Back in November 2006 KFx reported that an increasing number of people were finding herbal cannabis which was being adulterated with glass. This adulteration came on the back of the ongoing police clampdown on cannabis-growing in the UK. Two months later, the Daily Dose, Department of Health and Drugscope have also started to report this contamination - better late than never. It was cannabis activists - not the Home Office or DoH that took a proactive lead, getting cannabis samples analysed by a friendly toxicologist. These reports were publicised by activists including UKCIA and Cannaprag This supported the increasingly
well-founded assertion that cannabis was being contaminated - probably
by some sort of reflective glass beads in a solvent - based spray. It
looks like this: Belatedly, Department of Health realised that this was an issue and on the 16.1.07 released a bulletin. This was circulated to PCTs and others. Unfortunatley, while this Bulletin highlighted the risk, it didn't see fit to propose suggest any harm reduction interventions. Frank, the Government-run helpline recycles the same information and also fails to offer any harm reduction information. So the outcome so far has been ACPO create a shortage of cannabis through operation Keymer. Growing and supply has been concentrated in the hands of a smaller number of illegal suppliers and, in turn they have started to bulk up supplies with contaminants, passing off lower grades of grass as being high in THC with adulterants. This is a fine example of prohibition and its impact on health. So just as alcohol prohibition results in people choosing to drink toxic alcohol concoctions, so cannabis prohibition has resulted in an unregulated market and the increased availability of highly contaminated soap bar and now contaminated herbal cannabis. For people left with contaminated cannabis to smoke, here's the choices: - don't smoke or eat any contaminated
drugs at all; and above all, remember that this situation arose out of prohibition... |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Suffolk
Murders - Tragedy, journos and ASBOs 30 December 2006 The tragic deaths of initially one woman, then a second were largely disregarded by the media. But as the number of deaths rose, so the media interest increased until Suffolk became the eye of a media storm. The coverage of the media was, on the whole, insensitive, crass and at times downright offensive. In the face of the multiple strands of drugs, sex and death, many journalists used lurid, salacious and titillating coverage. Having sent so many journalists to Southwark, valuable police time was wasted feeding the media, even if there was no news to report. As time went on, some media outlets started to revise their coverage, highlighting that the murdered women were, foremost, people - with families and friends who loved them and grieve for them. Some media commentators found themselves unable to do this, and could not get past the drugs and the sex-industry aspects of it. It was left to the commentators to explore the subject in more detail and to look at causes and solutions. Inevitably, much of the editorial comment looked at how policy on drugs and/or prostitution could have made a difference. Some looked to greater prescribing of substitutes as a solution; others looked at the liberalisation of policy towards prostitution as a panacea. In practice, there are no simple answers. As we see an increase in dual use of heroin and crack, the delivery of substitute prescribing practices is only a partial solution. Without high-quality, intensive interventions for stimulant users, many people will still find themselves engaged in dangerous activities like sex-work to fund habits. Likewise, models of legalisation will aid those people engaged in sex work who can go 'legit.' This will primarily be those with minimal drug habits, and those in the UK legitimately. Those with the most complex problems - with violent or controlling pimps, those who have been traficked, and those with big habits, are as likely to be excluded from models of legalisation as they are now. So models of legalisation that create two-tier models cannot provide adequate protection. There are severeal strands that need to be addressed simultanueosly. And fundamentally it requires rethinking not just of laws on drugs and prostitution, but the way we deal with perceived antisocial behaviour. For it is the approaches to Antisocial Behaviour, as much as the dependency on drugs, that has increased the risk to people who undertake sex work. The way that the Antisocial Behaviour Act has been used effectively criminalised people engaged in prostitution - and mved people in to less visible, less safe arenas as a result. The older prohibitions, for example on what could be considered a 'brothel' condemned people to working alone - or discretely in twos or threes. Likewise, the restriction on the placing of cards in phone-boxes made it harder for people to advertise. Westminster council doing their bit to force people further in to the shadows! But the provisions of the Antisocial Behaviour Act have had the most serious and far-reaching consequences. Prohibiting people from certain areas (e.g. known red-light areas) or times (e.g. after dark) or places (e.g. entering a car) or carrying items (e.g. a condom) has effectively made the trading of sex an imprisonable offence. So the much touted Respect agenda has shown preciousl little respect for the vulnerable who are driven from the streets, away from lit areas, and in to greater risk. For any intervention to work, we need a multi-stranded approach. Liberalisation of the laws on brothel-keeping and sex work to make small, well-run brothels wholly legal; increased tolerance of those who can't operate in such settings, to ensure that they are not further excluded and criminalised. And a full range of outreach and support services to address the multiple factors that have marginalised these people, so they can, if they wish, leave this hazardrous profession. KFx |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
THC4MS
Case 30.12.06 There is something obscene about the prosecution of Mark and Lezley Gibson, and their associate Marcus Davies. They are being prosecuted for supply of cannabis, supplied on a not-for-profit basis, in a therapeutic form, to people suffering from symptoms of MS. Medical trials have demonstrated that a significant number of MS sufferers derive benefit from the use of cannabis. However, there is still no easy way for people to access a legitimate preparation containing cannabis. A small number of people have been able to receive Sativex, although this is not yet licensed in the UK. The rest must endure pain, use prescribed compounds which may be physically addictive or bring unpleasant side-effects, or break the law. While there is a clear need for a legitimate product, this seems to be slow in coming. There is a growing sense that Pharmaceutical companies see a need to get a product on to the market - but one that they can control and profit from. Rather than allow any tolerance of self-produced cannabis for medical use, anyone seeking to use cannabis will be obliged to purchase it from drug monopolies. So the defendants from THC4MS are on the wrong end of a tale of history and capitalism which, tragically, is likely to see them sent to prison. Cannabis was accepted as having a medical use for three millenia, and it is within the last century that it has fallen from favour. To be replaced, ironically, by new, 'safer' antibiotics, sedatives and analgesics - barbiturates, benzodiazepines, chlorpromazine et al. Shortly, new forms of the drug will be patented, marketed and controlled. But those who facillitated the process - medical users who were forced to break the law in the face of state and medical intransigence - will be rewarded by imprisonment, rather than the acknowledgement they deserve. To find out more, or if you
want to make your own views known on the THC4MS case you can use the following
links: |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Off
the Grass and on the Glass: 16 November 2006 The ongoing police Operation Keymer has seen availability of homegrown cannabis drop to an unheard-of low. And there is growing evidence that this reduction in availability has meant new and potentially dangerous adulterants being used to bulk out dwindling stocks of herbal cannabis. Cannabis users on UKCIA, and other young people are reporting cannabis being adulterated with bulking agents to either make low grade cannabis look like THC-rich skunk, or alternatively to increase weight. Adulterants have included relatively low risk substances like sugar solution, or sand. But recent reports suggest an increased use of adulterants such as water-retention polymers - which may take the form of small yellow beads or (more frequently) white crystals. Most worryingly, some users are reporting cannabis is being coated with ground glass, or sprayed with glass fibre. At this point, such rumours are apocryphal and cannot be substantiated. But there is good evidence that cannabis stocks are dropping in qualiy, prices are going up, and remaining stocks are being more widely adulterated. Neither the Police nor Frank have raised awareness of these problems, leaving young people at high risk. We would suggest the following harm reduction advice:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Queens Bench Ruling highlights problems of Cannabis Policy 07 November 2006 The policing and policy towards cannabis received another blow when the Queens Bench Divisional Court refused a judicial review of a man cautioned for possession of cannabis in his own home. Norville Mondelly (The Times reported) was found in possession of cannabis when the police attended his property by mistake> Although the aggravating factors that would normally have resulted in arrest were absence, the police initially decided to arrest under Section 8(d) (allowing premises to be used for smoking cannabis) before deciding that there was insufficient evidence to charge for this, and settling instead for a caution at the police station. Mondelly sought to challenge this, as being contrary to the ACPO policy and guidance. But the court did not find in his favour, stressing that if the policy did constrain police action or make arrest or prosecution impossible, then such a policy would be unlawful. The case really highlights the worthlessness of the current guidance, providing as it does no protection for individuals, who may believe that they would not be arrested for personal possession in their own home, as that is what the guidance led them to believe. For the full Times coverage, click here |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Keeping tabs on the Street-count 01 November 2006 We are aware of one count area
where the number of rough sleepers was brought down on the night of the
count by the temporary opening of a shelter for a week; a rough sleeper
count was brought down from fourteen to one, for the duration of the count. And there is a growing awareness of the number of economic migrants, and people seeking Asylum who may have had claims rejected who are now sleeping rough too. We are very aware that these groups, caught in a catch 22 where they cannot get benefit or access to many hostels, are especially vulnerable and are likely to be at risk during what looks like being a very cold winter. If you are aware of any measures that have been used in your locality to push down the count in your locality, please write in and let us know; this may include sudden purges of rough sleepers the night of the count, emergency accommodation being opened. We will make sure contributions are kept anonymous. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
| Some
very selective hearing....How the Home Office, the ACMD, Science and Technology
Committee and DfES all choose to hear only what they want to... 1.11.06 A couple of years ago, the Home Affairs Select Committee recomended that cannabis be moved from Class to Class C. The Home Office rejected many of the Home Affairs Select Committee's recomendations, such as the unequivocal "injecting rooms should be piloted without hesitation." But, perhaps sensing youth
votes or for other reasons, the Home Secretary proceeded to move However, daunted by the barrage of criticism from the police and the media, David Blunkett fudged the process of reclassification, changing PACE to make posssession of Class C drugs an arrestable offence and increasing the penalties for supplying Class Cs. In effect, although Cannabis was reclassified, all the rules about class C drugs were so altered as to make the reclassification virtually meaningless. This confusion was then reinforced by the ill-advised and unevenly ACPO guidance on policing cannabis, soon to be the subject of judicial review. Blunkett and subsequent Home Secretaries have since come under intense pressure to revise the classification of Cannabis. Charles Clarke was asked to consider moving cannabis back to Class B. Although his personal opinion was apparently that it should be moved back, he instead put the matter in the hands of the ACMD, and asked if, in light of 'new' research evidence of its impact on mental health, cannabis should be moved back to class B. If he hoped that the ACMD would give him the answer that he wanted, Clarke was to be dissappointed as the ACMD said that cannabis should remain as a Class C drug. In a clear shot across the bows of the Home Secretary, members of the ACMD made it known that there could be high profile resignations from the ACMD if the Home Secretary simply disregarded their recommendations. Faced with this, Charles Clarke followed the ACMD's lead, and left cannabis in Class C, but decided that there should be a review of the whole classification system, to ensure that the penalties and restrictions were appropriate and commensurate with risk. This review was undertaken, as instructed, by the Science and Technology Committee. It reported in October this year, in a report which was highly critical of both the drug classification system and the ACMD. It concluded that the current classification system was not 'fit for purpose' and castigated the ACMD for its failure to highlight the inadequacies of the system to successive ministers. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the Home office and the ACMD didn't respond favourably to "Making a Hash of It." The Home Office rejected virtually all their recommendations; the ACMD issues a short, terse response using some very pointed language. This spat reveals the very real problem at the heart of the UK's drugs policy. It lacks cohesion, direction or an evidence base. It is being pulled in different directions by various parties, rather than having the intellectual and policy foundations shaped by expertise and evidence. The ACMD should be making recomendations to Ministers, and these should be put before Parliament. It is not for the Home Secretary to pick and choose what measures are, or are not taken forward. The ACMD for example said they recomended against the use of Sniffer Dogs or drug testing in schools. Yet the DfES are continuing to take forward a drug testing pilot in Kent - in direct contradiction of the ACMDs response. Likewise, in their report on Drug Deaths, the ACMD called for a pilot for drug consumption rooms, a call echoed by the Home Affairs Select Committe and more recently by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. But despite evidence and recomendations from these respected bodies, the Home Office rejected these calls on the most cursory of grounds. If we are truly to have an evidence-based drugs policy, we should be listening more closely to the ACMD. But in turn the independence of the ACMD should be more carefully protected. We grow more and more concerned that its composition will be more closely controlled and vetted by the Government of the day, and therefore more likely to produce "Government-friendly recommendations." This would be a disaster for policy and practice. Making A
Hash of It - report:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmsctech/1031/1031.pdf |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
23 October 2006 It's not often that KFx dips it's toe into the heady world of fashion. But having had an insight into why former Topshop's fashion director recently quit, we felt obliged to share it. As fashion followers will know, model Kate Moss was appointed as a fashion designer by the head of Topshop. This we learn was not the final straw for Ms Henderson. What was, we understand, was that her initial offerings appeared to be some fairly 'distressed' clothes, which were somewhat ragged and (dare we say it) dirty. We understand that being offered these as a design offering were a bridge too far, and this resulted in Ms Henderson's departure. The only thing that remains unanswered is...were these products in fact Pete Doherty's unwashed clothes? We wait to learn more, avidly. In the meantime, thoroughly ashamed of ourselves for running such superficial twaddle, we now resume normal service! |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The
Macho Rev Hargreaves and his Cannabis Campaign After the tragic stabbing of Stevens Nyembo-Ya-Muteba in Hackney in October, you could not avoid seeing or hearing George Hargreaves in the media afterwards. It was widely alleged in the media that the boys who stabbed Mr. Muteba had been smoking cannabis before the attack. Hargreaves used this as the catalyst to launch a broadside against cannabis and to announce that thanks to an 'anonymous donor' he was going to court for a judicial review of the ACPO policy in relation to cannabis policing. Hargreaves says that an anonymous donor has given him the required money to launch his High Court challenge. But in practice he could probably fund ths himself being a wealhy man. He earns, it is estimated, some £10k per month - from record royalties. For the anti-Gay Hargreaves also wrote the Gay club anthem "So Macho," sung by Sinitta. We discuss the review of policing cannabis in a separate article (see above.) Here, we want to set the record straight on Hargreaves and his campaign. In the local press and on the Radio 4's Today programme, Hargreaves represented himself as a local pastor, dismayed at seeing 'his' community in Dalston torn apart by cannabis, and watching young people's mental health deteriorating. In fact, the Reverend Hargreaves is a Christian Fundamentalist who established Operation Christian Vote and has parliamentary ambitions. He sees the purpose of Government "the purpose of government is the maintenance of freedom and justice solely in accordance with biblical principles." He adds cannabis to his list of 'anti's' most notably anti-abortion and anti-gay. He believes that people should be arrested and charged for even small amounts of cannabis. Presumably he believes this would have a deterrent effect, or that a short spell in detention would correct wayward young people, rather than merely criminalising them at an early age. In the sad case of Mr. Muteba, he didn't mention the lack of recreational facilities in Dalston for young people, the growth of gang culture, the lack of community policing on the Holly Estate. All he focussed on was cannabis. And, like the Daily Mail and the other campaigners, Hargreaves likes to string together unproven and often incorrect statements to support his condemnation of cannabis. He claims that use of cannabis has escalated; research shows that use of cannabis amongst 11-15 year olds, and 16-25 year olds has actually declined since 2003 [BCS, DoH]. He claims that use of skunk has escalated since reclassification; the widespread use and availability of skunk had been increasing over the past decade, and is not a reflection of reclassification. Indeed, the evidence is that a licensed and regulated market would ensure a wider range of strengths, rather than our current reliance on strong homegrown skunk' he repeats the argument that cannabis causes schizophrenia, an assertion not borne out by the evidence. While there is clearly a relationship between cannabis and mental health, this has not be shown to be a causative link. It's tragic that anyone would want to exploit the tragic death of a person, to promote their own moral and political agenda. Something that the Reverend Hargreaves has no compunction about doing. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
15 October 2006 The measure was widely reported
in the media at the time, and trumpeted by the Home Office as a measure
that would see many more people successfully prosecuted for supply. We were also concerned that, despite the figures that the Government published in the RIA that accompanied the bill, it became clear that the Home Office had no idea how many people would be affected by the change. When asked, for example, how many people were found to be in possession of specific amounts of cannabis, the Home Office acknowledged that they didn't store this information, and so couldn't say how many people would be charged with supply under the new rules. Only 36 organisations responded to the consultation, mostly police forces. Fortunately, critical comments were received from many, including KFx, Transform, Release, Turning Point and others. It is was saddening to see that some very vocal groups, including Reform, Kaleidescope, Drugscope and Liberty did not contribute. Having said that, the Home Office, having received serious structured criticism decided once again to abandon ill-considered legislation. As with the proposal to change Section 8 of the MDA, the Home Office has been found to make policy on the hoof, and be forced in to backing down when challenged in a serious and consistent way. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
| Cannabis
Drought - and a new War on Weed - 26.9.06 Cannabis users in the UK have been aware for at least the last two months that there was a serious shortage of cannabis in the UK. Discussions on the drug strand of the Urban 75 website had been discussing the shortage in early August, and it was raised as a concern by harm reductionists at UKHRA in early September. What had initially appeared to be a localised problem - which seemed to be affecting Liverpool , Cheshire, and some parts of Scotland, rapidly escalated and most parts of the UK were reporting shortages of cannabis within a few weeks. At this point, various theories were being posited for this shortage, which was mainly having an impact on herbal cannabis. Some London-based commentators suggested (in August) that supplies were being held in reserve for the Notting Hill Carnival, and other sources suggested that growers had somehow formed a cartel, and were sitting on stockpiles to force costs up. In practice, it seems more likely that a series of police actions across various parts of the UK had impacted on availability of home-grown herbal cannabis in the UK. In May, Kent police raided a large production site. On August 10th, the BBC reported further raids in Faversham, Kent. The Guardian (August 29 2006) reported that police in Hertfordshire had closed 24 'factories' in the preceding four months and made a number of arrests. Raids have also been reported in Wiltshire (July 2006) Catford, South London (August 2006), Swindon (July 2006), Lewes Sussex - september 2006, Clitheroe (July 2006), L.B. Barnet (July 2006), Ealing (August 2006), and a number of other areas. Now at this stage, no 'formal' or coordinated action had been declared either by the Home Office or the Police. So in theory, this action was all uncoordinated, local activity. But it seems that the net result of this has put a huge amount of pressure on other areas, forcing people to travel to secure cannabis in other cities, and in turn causing the shortage to increase. The net result so far has been to force the prices up, and also to drive people towards the use of less safe substances. For some cannabis users this has meant smoking imported, low grade cannabis resin, such as Soap. But with increased port and airport security, displaced demand and a domestic reliance on home-grown cannabis, shortage of resin is also being reported. Drugs workers are concerned that the shortage of homegrown cannabis is increasing the risk of lapse amongst former opiate users. Several drugs workers have spoken to KFx highlighting clients who had previously been abstinent from opiates, but had kept themselves calm through their use of cannabis. The drought has resulted in a number of these clients returning to opiate use. Any hope that the drought would come to an end will have been dashed by the announcement on the 25th September 2006 that the Police intended to launch a concerted campaign, involving 19 police forces and to run for the next two weeks (at least). The initiative, dubbed Operation Keymer, will include police forces in Cambridgeshire, Essex, Greater Manchester, Hampshire, Hertfordshire, Humberside, Kent, Merseyside, Metropolitan, Norfolk, Northumbria, North Yorkshire, Nottinghamshire, South Wales, South Yorkshire, Surrey, Sussex, West Yorkshire and Wiltshire. Vernon Coaker, speaking for the Home Office, endorsed this campaign the same day. The Minister, who has declared he has sampled the drug in the past, said ""We fully support this crackdown, which sends out a powerful message that growing and dealing in cannabis will not be tolerated." [BBC]. What is not clear from the Police announcement or the Home Office comment is what inititiated this action, and this announcement at this time. It is fairly obvious that concerted (if not coordinated) action against cannabis cultivation has been taking place since at least July, and that this action has at least in part contributed to the current drought. So the present announcement does not seem to be a "new" drive - more a formal announcement and extension of the current police action. But a credulous media happily reprinted the news story, provided by ACPO, complete with the helpful "How to Spot a Cannabis Farm" lists supplied by the Police. Only the truly cynical would link the current drive, and the timing of the announcement, with any sort of Home Office involvement. It is of course impossible that the Home office would have initiated such a drive, using the closure of cannabis farms as a way to achieve 'rapid gains' on the back of recent criticism of the UK drug strategy by the ACMD, increased levels of young suppliers and the ongoing criticism by the right-wing press of cannabis reclassification. And only the truly paranoid would look for the hand of Dr John Reid, who certainly has no interest in pitching for being Labour leader, overseeing such a campaign during the Labour Party Conference. Either way, at the end of this 'Operation,' a number of producers will undoubtedly be removed from the production cycle. But the risk is that the end product will be production consolidated in the hands of a smaller number of more ruthless producers, moving in to replace the smaller local producers removed by this operation. Sources: Media Reporting: |
||||||||||||||||||||||
