|
|
|||||||
|
Drug News |
|
Drug News: (updated 26.9.06) 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 Material dating to before 10/04 has been archived; please go to the Drug News Archives to view this material.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. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Archive 09/03 - 09/04 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Archive 05/02 - 09/03 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| KFx News | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Briefings | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Quick Finder
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Young
People and Drug Testing - an Unstoppable Force? article coming soon... watch this space! |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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. 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. 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. 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: Additional Source Material:
KFx September 2006 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| The
Ice Age is Coming
By 'Delia Venus Wynn' Over the last few months, the media has become increasingly rabid about a 'new' drug arriving on our shores. As always it has been demonized as the beginnings of the worst drug epidemic in history. Methamphetamine (ice) is becoming the new drug bogey man. Much has been written about methamphetamine, a great deal of it inaccurate, some just total fantasy but some is all too true. So what is really going on? With access to major manufacturers, dealers and users I will try to delve below the media froth, and explore the real UK position. This in turn highlights how enforcement and Government Agencies can minimize the risks posed by this new challenge. The United States' Experience of Meth Production: The majority of the US market is supplied by large-scale labs, principally in Mexico, California and, to a lesser extent Texas, but a significant proportion comes from what the DEA term 'Mom & Pop' laboratories. Mom & Pop manufacturers use their garden shed, garage or kitchen to make relatively small batches (between 10 & 50 grams) on a 3-4 day cycle. They won't get rich, but to some it looks like an easier life than getting a McJob! Methamphetamine is not primarily derived from a plant source so unlike heroin or cocaine, it doesn't necessarily require long supply routes. This has in turn made it especially popular in less accessible markets, such as New Zealand, where home grown methamphetamine production is an easier undertaking than importation of, for example cocaine. Unlike many other forms of drug synthesis, methamphetamine is, in reality, relatively straightforward. Critically, precursor chemicals are more readily available than is the case with most street drugs. Your local pharmacist sells over-the-counter cold medication that contains a healthy amount of the precursor (a £3.50 box of tablets is enough to make about ¾ of a gram of pure methamphetamine which could be sold for £50-£80. That isn't to say that production from plant precursors isn't also feasible. South East Asian suppliers obtain Ephedrine from Ephedra Sinica, a hardy shrub which has been used in Chinese herbal medicine for 5000 years. These traditional growers extract the ephedrine which can be easily converted to methamphetamine using very basic chemicals. The relative ease with which precursors can be obtained has been exacerbated by the growth of the Internet, which makes both recipes and sources of precursors easy to find. Key chemicals used in common production processes are available cheaply on-line, although some of these may, in turn, be sting operations run by enforcement agencies. As the chemicals in question are not on watch-lists for precursor chemicals, such companies will be able to act with impunity unless the licensing laws relating to these compounds is changed or it is possible to prove that they are being supplied with the intention of manufacturing a controlled drug. UK methamphetamine is currently imported either from the Far East (Yaba, made from ephedrine extracted from the Ephedra Viridis shrub) or from former Ecstasy manufacturers (mainly based in The Netherlands or Belgium) who have switched from MDMA production to the more profitable methamphetamine. The simple replacement of PMK (piperonyl methyl ketone) for BMK (benzyl methyl ketone) is all that the chemist has to do. The reaction is identical in all other respects, so they are ideally placed to make the switch. It is interesting to note that within The Netherlands the black market price for BMK is now higher than that of PMK. The effects of methamphetamine are similar to amphetamine (speed) but four times stronger weight for weight and with a significantly longer duration of action. In addition, methamphetamine can be smoked like crack and has a similar rush. The difference is that while a crack high lasts for ten minutes or so, the methamphetamine high lasts for eight hours and is qualitatively very similar. This makes it a more economical drug for those looking for a powerful stimulant high. Methamphetamine can be smoked, snorted, swallowed or injected. This makes it a very versatile drug. Whatever method of ingestion a user is familiar with, they can take methamphetamine in the same way. This makes it relatively easy to market. The downside is a much bigger crash, so heavy users seek to repeat dosing to avoid this event, often for days and weeks at a time. The crash from a single dose begins at the 8 hour mark and lasts for a further 8 to 16 hours. With chronic usage, the crash can last a week or more. Meth Trends: Recent reports from the US have shown that methamphetamine is not the national epidemic that the media suggests, but is very prevalent in certain urban areas. For example, in these areas, the proportion of males testing positive for methamphetamine on arrest, according to the DEA newsletter 'Microgram' are as follows: Phoenix 38.3% Nationally, however, just 5 percent of men who had been arrested were found to have methamphetamine in their systems. By contrast, 30 percent tested positive for cocaine and 44 percent for marijuana (although it should be noted that cannaboids will show up in modern drug tests for weeks). These figures seem to indicate that methamphetamine is nowhere as popular as say, crack, probably because of its long duration and horrible crash. Also, as users become tolerant, users are likely to take larger and larger doses to obtain the same high so methamphetamine looks increasingly less like a "cheap" drug. Lessons Learned and Early Interventions: The experience of the US, Australia and elsewhere is certainly that methamphetamine can and does have a massively damaging physical and psychological effect on users, and causes huge collateral damage to users. However, the US experience has not been that the drug became a widespread 'foundation' drug in the same way that heroin has. Instead, it springs up in concentrated, but highly damaging pockets. Indeed, evidence suggests a significant decrease in methamphetamine use in the States with estimates that use has diminished 30% since 2001. Some factors that may have contributed to this include: 1) Heavy ongoing use of methamphetamine
is less feasible than with most other drugs due to the serious physical
and mental health problems that are likely to stem from it and the increase
in tolerance. So use tends to be sporadic and bingeing (similar to a crack
'mission') rather than ongoing for sustained periods of time. Of course, only the heavy users come to light via law enforcement agencies and drug support agencies. There is, no doubt, a large number of users (students, truck drivers and so on) using it to allow them to keep working, rather than for recreational purposes. These users take far less and so decrease risk of detection. It is also worth pointing out that a great many US employers and educational establishments have introduced a mandatory random drug test policy which may have a deterrent effect on many potential users. View from the UK Street: Currently, the market in Manchester, UK, is just starting to see the drug being sold in two specific markets. Firstly, the Gay scene (centered on Canal Street) has a small but expanding market of recreational users who love the energy giving, inhibition losing effects which also boost sexual drive (initially at least). It allows people to make use of the whole weekend from Friday evening until Sunday morning. As with heavy use of other stimulants, afternoons and evenings are for comedowns, typically aided with alcohol or increasingly anxiolytics such as un-prescribed benzodiazepines. The main risk to these users is unprotected sex due to the lack of inhibitions and increased sex drive. If the U.S. experience is any kind of indicator, the rate of STDs amongst these users will increase quite drastically. The second group of users is likely to form the bulk of drug workers' caseload. We are beginning to see a marketing campaign strongly reminiscent of the introduction of crack. Dealers are offering 2 points of brown and 1 of methamphetamine for £20. Now crack is established, with some crack users not using much, if any heroin, the dealers are hoping to use methamphetamine for several reasons. · Methamphetamine is
highly addictive, requiring increasingly larger doses to get the same
high, resulting in larger sales. On a personal note, having tried the drug, it does seem like only hardened drug users would contemplate imbibing this compound regularly. Its extreme physical and mental effects mean that only people who find extremely potent stimulant use pleasurable would enjoy the effects. It is also interesting that within the US, there are still clandestine laboratories producing plain amphetamine, so it seems reasonable to assume that some people, at least, prefer the weaker (safer) compound. The next steps: Uniquely, the UK is in a good position to respond proactively to methamphetamine as we have had fair warning that the drug is likely to start entering the UK in significant quantities or start to be produced here. The decision to move the methamphetamine from Class B to Class A should provide the required impetus to develop effective responses. Given the rapidity that crack cocaine achieved massive market penetration, it seems likely that methamphetamine would follow the same route and achieve a wide market distribution quickly, following the same supply lines and getting in via the heroin market and sex-worker markets. So developing effective responses now is essential. This will require responses from law-enforcement and drugs agencies and would ideally include the following: · Prevention of UK-based
production: this will require reformulation and greater control of OTC
medicines containing precursor chemicals, and more robust licensing to
prevent the sale of additional chemicals used in the production cycle. Conclusions: Methamphetamine does represent a new and significant risk to drug users and the communities in which they live. Drugs agencies, mental health services and the criminal justice system are likely to see users presenting with a collection of drug and health related needs. However, if the experience of other countries, especially the U.S. holds true, methamphetamine is unlikely to become as uniformly widespread as heroin or crack due to the deeply unpleasant side-effects. In the short term, the levels of use are likely to expand rapidly. This expansion could be reduced through effective control and education strategies. Without wishing to be complacent, it may well be that, after reaching a peak within the next five years or so, levels of use will drop off as older users move away from the drug and the next generation reject a drug which perhaps offers too much of a high and too much of a crash. Last edited 28/6/06 Delia Venus Wynn is a pseudonym; the author is a former manufacturer and user of a large range of compounds. Delia is now working towards a professional career in the other side of the drugs field. Edited, and additional material added by Kevin Flemen/KFx
A shorter version of this article was published in Drink and Drug News. Right of Reply/Comment: KFx was contacted
by a senior professional in the Manchester area following publication
of the above article. They made the following comment which we wanted
to post here as it challenges the content of the above article and we
are always keen to maintain balance and debate.: |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Threshold Quantities - Time to say Enough (again.) In December last year, the Home Office published lists of proposed "Threshold Quantities." These were the amounts above which a Judge or Jury were required to assume that a person possessed the drug with the intent to supply it, as stated in the Drugs Act 2005. Section 2 of
the Drugs Act 2005 stipulates that in any proceedings for an offence under
sectionc5(3) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (possession of a controlled
drug with intent to supply it) if it is proved that the accused had an
amount of a controlled drug in his possession which is not less that the
prescribed amount, the court or jury must assume that he had the drug
in his When the "Threshold Quantities" list was originally drafted, the levels set were very high - and to an extent (especially in relation to cannabis) probably meaninglessly so. While a small number of heavy users and bulk-buyers would have been caught out by the new levels, on the whole they were legally objectionable but practiclly not a huge issue. More worrying was the police
and media mis-representation of the figures. They were presented by some
sections of the media as "dealers charter." There was a wide-spread
misaprehension that figures below the "Threshold Levels" would
be considered solely as personal possession meaning that dealers would
be immune from prosecution. Under stinging attack from the police and sections of the media, the Home Office released its new proposed Threshold Levels. With the Home Office under sustained and fierce criticism related to illegal immigrants and prisoner releases, it was never likely that the Home Office would take a considered view. And the new figures exemplify a right wing Home Office drawing up knee-jerk legislation with scant regard for evidence on consultation. The Guardian reported the following levels: http://www.guardian.co.uk/drugs/Story/0,,1791915,00.html Cannabis Ministers propose 5g, or less than 1/5th of ounce - enough for 10-20 joints. This compares with the original proposal of 4ozs or 133g of resin, and 500g or 20 bags of grass. The ACMD has replied that the limit should be set at 28g. Ecstasy Ministers propose 1.5g (equal to 5 tablets, costing £15), compared with an original proposal for 10 tablets. The Home Office says it would be more straightforward to do it by weight than number of tablets, as the drug also comes in powder form. The ACMD said the limit should be 2g or 20 tablets, as that was two days' supply. Amphetamines Ministers have kept the proposed threshold at 14g but dropped an alternative of 10 x 1g wraps, saying dealers would simply change the size of deals to avoid going above the threshold. The ACMD said the threshold should be 10g, and questioned the rationale for a threshold higher than other drugs. Heroin, cocaine and crack cocaine Ministers are "minded to set" a threshold of 2g for possession, compared with the original proposal of 7g. The proposed number of individual wraps - a maximum of 10 in each case - has also been dropped for these class A drugs. If these figures are true,
and we have to await publication of the figures by the Home Office, then
they have massive implications for many drugs users, both recreational
and dependent. Likewise, a heroin user with
a gram a day habit would be on the wrong side of the law if they picked
up enough for a weekend on a Friday - and was stopped with three-grammes
worth. In part, because by creating this arbitary cut off point, more people will get sent to prison for longer. The penalty for supplying cannabis is a maximum of fourteen years. While small scale supply won't attract such a large penalty, it is likely that those found guilty of supply of even small amounts are going to get custodial sentences. So being in possession of a quarter of an ounce could land you in prison - even if you never intended to supply. In practice the situation is worse still; found in possession of a quarter ounce near a school - then this would be considered evidence of 'aggravated supply' and so the court would be required to consider a larger sentence. Such cases would be 'triable either way' so one could elect to go to Crown and plead your case and mitigation. But lose your case at Crown and the risk is a much larger slice of that maximum sentence. What happens next? The proposed Threshold Quantities
will be put before parliament and voted on. If they are passed, then the
new Threshold Quantities will come in to force. How many people will be
affected? The Home Office's Regulatory Impact Assessment estimated that between 150 and 598 additional people would be convicted of intent to supply under the new Legislation. http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/ria-drugs-bill-1204?view=Binary These figures are UTTERLY speculative as, at the time of drafting, the Threshold Limits had not been established. So it is simply not possible to guess how many people would have been affected by the new Thresholds. When MPs vote on the Thresholds, they should know that they do so without a clear model of how many more people will go to prison. We have asked the Home Office, under the Freedom of Information Act, how many people were arrested in the last year for possession of cannabis and the amounts of cannabis involved in each case. This would give a good estimate of how many people will be affected by the revised legislation. We fear that this information will not be forthcoming. In 2003 there were 82,060 cannabis offences in the UK recorded. This was prior ro reclassification. 70% of these offenders were dealt with as possession offences. This means that of a total of 82,060 cannabis offences, 57,442 were for possession. If only 5% of these were convicted under the new Threshold Levels, some 2872 people would be convicted - far higher than the Government's lower estimate under the RIA. Self reporting to the IDMU paints an even more worrying picture. http://www.idmu.co.uk/purchaseprices.htm Using their data as a rough gauge, at least a quarter of people reported purchasing cannabis in quarter-ounce deals. This would put these users above the threshold. Using this 25% figure as a benchmark, and applying it to the 82,060 recorded cannabis offences in 2003, this means that an additional 20,000 people per year would be convicted of supply under the new threshold. How can this process be
challenged? The process is going to be hard to challenge now; the Home Office consulted on the Threshold Quantities and it is likely that they received a small number of responses, many of which would have pushed for low thresholds. So there are limited ways of challenging the Thresholds. 1) Use the FIA: write to your
local police force asking the number of people arrested for possession
of cannabis, heroin, or other drugs. Ask for the quantities found. "I am requesting the following information under the Freedom of Information Act. I would like to know: (a) the total number of people arrested for possession of cannabis in the last year, or the last period for which figures are available. (b) the number of cases in which the amount of cannabis involved was 5gms or more." 2) Write to your MP. It is essential that your MP is briefed on the problems to do with the Threshold Quantities. They should be asked if they will vote against the Threshold Quantities when they become before Parliament. If you have local figures from requests under the FIA , these can be used to demonstrate how many people would be considered suppliers under the new legislation. 3) Write to the Home Office: they need to be advised of the potential problems with the threshold quantities and encouraged to review the Thresholds. They can be emailed at public.enquiries@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk Finally, cut and paste this section, and send it on to everyone else that you think can respond. It is urgent that responses are generated rapidly. If not you, who. If not now, when? |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Cannabis
Reclassification - Where will Clarke go next? May 2002: the Home Affairs
Select Committee recommends moving cannabis from Class B to Class C It's worth stressing some of
the above milestones. The original decision, proposed by the Home Affairs
Select Committee, was arrived at following interviews with experts and
after a period of research. It was a decision supported at the time by
large sections of the drugs field, though greeted with concern by others,including
mental health professionals. While the ACMD deliberated,
various interest groups lobbied from the outside; Release, Transform,
Turning Point, Rethink, Mind and many others offered thoughts on what
should happen next. But the ACMD - after extensive
speculation - did not reach the decision Charles Clarke or Tony Blair
had wanted. They agreed that while use of cannabis could have a negative
impact on mental wellbeing, it was correctly classified in Clause C and
that no reclassification was required. For these reasons I will in the next few weeks publish a consultation paper with suggestions for a review of the drug classification system, on the basis of which I will in due course make proposals. Given Clarke's overall views
on drugs, this probably does not bode well. It suggests that Clarke will
get the outcome that he wants - tougher rules on cannabis - by a new tool:
if the ACMD won't agree to moving it within the existing system, why not
create a complete new system? Ironically, the point where we came in to
all this - the Home Affairs Select Committee - also had worries about
the existing classes of his drugs. That was why they wanted cannabis moved
to Class C and Ecstasy moved to class B. This, they felt, would more accurately
reflect the relative risks of these drugs. So while, for now, cannabis will remain within Class C, change is still in the pipeline. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
From Gillick to Axon - a wake-up call for drugs workers: 7.2.06 In January, the verdict was delivered in the case of Sue Axon, who challenged the legality of Government guidance on contraception advice to under 16s and a parent's "right to know." The case was not widely reported in the drugs field, which was strange as if the case had been found in favour of Ms Axon, it would have had profound implications for drugs work with under 16s, including advice work and needle exchange. Axon challenged guidance that
allowed for contraception to be provided to under 16's without parental
consent provided that the child was considered "Gillick competent."
This framework for working with under 16s has been an integral aspect
of work with under 16s including drugs work, and has been enshrined in
a number of strategy documents including the HAS report on work with young
people, various Drugscope documents and resources from the NTA. However, he added that there were unfortunate situations in which a young person needed advice when they were not prepared to inform their parents." While the case upholds the
concepts that emerged from Gillick, it does bring in to sharp focus the
importance of careful assessment of a young person within the Framework.
On the back of regular training sessions with a large number of wokers,
it is clear that a number of workers in various agencies are unclear about
their obligations to assess against Gillick. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
More
Water? - News on the Water for Injection situation:
7.2.06 The crux of the Guardian article was a restating the changes to the Paraphernalia laws relating to water (see drug news passim or click HERE. This made it lawful to distribute water to distribute ampoules of water for injection of 2ml or less, without prescription. Greater quantities would continue to fall foul of both the Medicines Act (by virtue of being a POM) and/or the Misuse of Drugs Act (as they would not fall within the revised paraphernalia legislation.) But, with the greatest deference to Diane Taylor that the article, while technically accurate, is a little strident and liable to cause confusion and increase concern - possibly unecessarily. The many organisations who have given out 5ml amps without a PGD have always been in breach of the law. They have typically been aware of this, and for most it's been a risk that they have been prepared to take. Thanks to the industrious lobbying of Dericot, Preston et al the desired legislative change to the water legislation has been achieved, rightly making it lawful to distribute 2ml ampoules. It was unlawful to distribute 5ml ampoules without a PGD or similar; it remains unlawful to do so. In this respect the situation has not changed. Granted, the non-availability of a licensed 2ml ampoule had been an issue, but as the Exchange Supplies website makes clear, they are now making available 2ml glass ampoule that is licensed and lawful. So while the Guardian article is technically accurate when it says "But in practice the only plastic ampoules suitable for use by drug users contain 5ml of water," it unhelpfully neglects to mention availability of a glass article. Critics are arguing that the the Medical Regulatory Authority are being overly slow in terms of granting licenses to other products - most notable 1.4ml plastic water ampoules. They are right to stress these concerns. But the way that it has been reported has clearly confused some in the drugs field, which is far from helpful. So if anything the situation
is better now than it was a month ago, which is not clear from the article
at all. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Consultation
on Shipman Recommendations ends The summary document is at:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Welcome
changes to paraphernalia legislation: This became law 1st July 2005, and says: "(2) In the table in Part II of Schedule 5 to the POM Order (Exemptions from the restriction on supply), after paragraph 3, insert the following new paragraph - "3A Persons
employed or engaged in the provision of lawful drug treatment services. 3A Ampoules of sterile water for injection containing not more than 2 mg of sterile water. 3A The supply shall be only in the course of provision of lawful drug treatment services." Effectively, this makes the distributionof ampoules of water for injection legal, subject to the above size restrictions. Only a churl would point out that at present there are no ampoules of Water for Injection of 2mls or less available in the UK, though Exchange Supplies are endeavouring to get their sterile water thus licensed. Congratulations are in order to Jon Dericott and Andrew Preston for their dogged determination in achieving these legislative changes, and all those who supported their endeavours. For more details go to: http://www.exchangesupplies.org/whatsnew.html
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Home Office in Catch 22 on Maximum Quantities December 5th 2005 Section 2 of
the Drugs Act 2005 stipulates that in any proceedings for an offence under
section Heroin: Crack Cocaine The release of the list is for consultation purposes - but it has already caused no small amount of controversy. Many media critics derided the quantities proposed as overly-large, and that it a safeguard to suppliers who would be unlikely to be charged when found in possession of quantities below the threshold. The quantities and formats are quite frankly bizarre. And based on these, it is hard to see how prosecution and defence would interpret the rules. The bulk quantities are clear enough - provided that we define what is meant by "bulk." Is 7 bags of heroin, each weighing a gram "bulk?" What does a "wrap" of crack cocaine mean - is this a single rock weighing 0.1gm. If so someone with ten rocks is automatically considered a supplier. The figures are all so arbitary,
and while the weight thresholds are absolute, the packaging thresholds
are open to interpretation. But in reality, the Home Office is in a no-win situation with this piece of legislation. If the thresholds are set too low, then the outcry from drugs professionals would be too loud to ignore. So the levels had to be high enough to avoid ensnaring heavy users buying in bulk. But conversely, by setting the levels so high, they become meaningless for the purpose that they were intended. More worryingly, most commentators
seem to have fundamentally misunderstood two key aspects of the legislation.
The first is a misconception that people found with quantities below the
threshold are "allowed" to be in possession of this smaller
quantity for personal use or that they can only be charged with possession. As the Home Office letter states: When the threshold levels have been agreed, where anyone found in possession of larger amounts "the court or jury must assume that he had the drug in his possession with the intent to supply it." It will be possible for this assumption to be challenged, if the defendant can raise reasonable doubt. In this case the prosecution must prove intent to supply beyond reasonable doubt. This legislation reverses the burden of proof, making it a requirement of the defence to prove that they did NOT intend to supply, rather than assuming innocence. Herein lies the real problem. And no amount of jigging the thresholds can obscure the erosion of a fundamental legal principal.
The Home Office Letter can
be found at: |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Rough
Estimates on Rough Sleepers Various strategies have allegedly been employed, including the distribution of travel warrants prior to a count, hosing off doorways, running open nights in hostels with food and drink during count times and other such strategies. However, as the numbers get lower, it becomes less feasible to consistently undercount. The numbers in some areas are now so low that even a cursory inspection reveals that people are being routinely missed. But to what extent? Annecdotally, people have told KFx that they are aware of larger numbers of rough sleepers than the figures indicate. But these have not been collated on a national basis. So we could like you to tell us locally what you think is the true level of rough sleeping in your catchment area. We are looking for authoritative information from rough-sleepers, workers and volunteers in the field. If you can tell us with some confidence what you know in terms of numbers of rough sleepers, we will include it in the table below. And if you know about how or why figures were manipulated locally, please tell us. Information will be included on the website, but we will keep all sources confidential.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Why is that Farmer jumping up and down? In October 2005, we wrote to
the Home Office regarding Magic Mushrooms, seeking clarification as to
what rules would be applied where mushrooms were growing on land. There
had been some confusion about this. We also asked how mushrooms
should be destroyed. An ever-helpful Tawa explains: You couldn't make it up, really! |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
DEFRA,
Drug Litter and Section 8 15.12.05 Following an intervention from KFx, DEFRA has agreed to reword the relevant section of the report. Remaining copies of the document are to be pupled, and the document henceforth will only be available as a download. 5.12.05 "I recently read a copy
of the DEFRA publication; "Tackling Drug Literature - Guidance and
Good Practice." I contributed to the preparation of this document
and provided some feedback on an early draft in April 2005. Providing sharps boxes or needles for users in itself does not constitute 'knowingly allowing' under section 8 (d). If a hostel or day centre is allowing other behaviour that involves use or supply of controlled drugs, then it is possible that prosecution could result. However, supplying needles alone cannot constitute grounds for charges being brought unless it were accompanied by other behaviour involving actual use or supply. Letting users inject un-prescribed drugs on the premises is likely to be considered as 'knowingly allowing' under the terms of this section of the law. However, there is no risk of prosecution from simply providing users with sharps nor from providing opportunities to return them safely."
The first above paragraph is accurate. The second paragraph is however hugely inaccurate and massively misleading. You say "If a hostel or day centre is allowing other behaviour that involves use or supply of controlled drugs, then it is possible that prosecution could result." Certainly, if an organisation were allowing supply, prosecution would be feasible under Section 8(b). If smoking of cannabis or prepared opium were taking place, then prosecution would be feasible under section 8(d). But as section 8(d) ONLY covers cannabis or prepared opium, allowing the USE of other drugs (e.g. tolerating the injection of heroin) is NOT prohibited by section 8. Had Section 8 been ammended by Section 38, then it would have been illegal to tolerate use of heroin on site. But as this amendment was never enacted and as it has since been repealed, no offence existsof allowing use on site. So when you say "Letting users inject un-prescribed drugs on the premises is likely to be considered as 'knowingly allowing' under the terms of this section of the law," this is wholly erroneous. "knowing allowing" injecting of heroin is contrary to which section of Section 8? None. Part of the reason why this error is so worrying and so frustrating is that numerous housing providers routinely exclude drug users from provision for allowing using on site. They do so because they labour under the erroneous belief that if they fail to do so they risk prosecution. The amendment to Section 8 was repealed precisely because the Home Office recognised the good work of housing providers and harm reduction services that worked with ongoing users. So it is hugey unhelpful when a Government Department publishes material that misrepresents the legal position and creates further confusion. Clearly, given the scale of this legal error and the prominence that it has been given in the document, some correction is urgently required. I hope to hear from you soon regarding this matter, and ideally reassuring me that the document will be withdrawn while a corrected version is produced. I am sure that you will need to check this with the Home Office and other departments but I would appreciate a rapid response. Due to the seriousness of this error, and the potential ramifications for thousands of housing providers, I'm hoping for rapid action and trust that a formal complaint to DEFRA will not be required at this stage." As of 5th December, DEFRA have
done no more than acknowledge concerns and we will will update as and
when there are further developments. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
No ID - No Methadone? - Proposed changes to Drugs Regulations The Home Office has launched a public consultation on proposals to make changes to the Misuse of Drugs Regulations. These proposed changes follow on from the Fourth Report of the Shipman Inquiry. To read the Proposals in full, please go here The low-key launch of the consultation at the end of July may mean that it escaped the attention of key agencies. We feel that the proposed changes may have some important ramifications for the Drug Treatment and social care field and would urge agencies to respond to the consultation. The proposed changes are intended to improve the prescribing, audit trail, and safe handling of prescribed controlled drugs. They include proposed changes to the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001. The proposals have been drawn up after consultation with the ACMD and a number of other agencies exclusively drawn from medical disciplines. Unfortunately, this list does not appear to include the National Treatment Agency, Drugscope, Homelesslink nor any other agency primarily concerned with the needs of drug users engaging with treatment providers. We are concerned that this has meant that some of the proposals could negatively impact on access and adherence to treatment. We are also disappointed that the Home Office has not used this revision as an opportunity to clarify the legal situation relating to the storage of controlled drugs in non-medical settings. Paragraph 15: Controlled Drug Prescriptions Proposal:
Effectively, this proposal represents a return to a "register" of addicts. Within this proposal, all users prescribed controlled drugs will be recorded and identifiable within a central register. A key concern must relate to homeless and transient patients who do not c | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||