Media

Regional News Stories:

Please click on a region of the map to view news stories for that area.

These stories have been collated from regional press sources and no responsibility is taken for the accuracy or content of these pieces.

National and International news

Shock report says schools and social services fail to help young homeless exposed to drugs and crime

February 27, 2005

The Observer

Many of the 100,000 children who run away from home in Britain every year end up on the streets simply because hostels do not take teenagers under 16 and there is nowhere else for them to go, according to a new report.

A seven-month investigation by the Children's Society provides the first in-depth picture of life as an underage runaway and warns that an acute lack of hostels places youngsters at risk. Research shows one in four first-time runaways is under 11 and one in seven is physically or sexually assaulted. 'Although there are hostels for homeless people aged over 16, there is very little for children under 16 who run away or are thrown out of home,' said Bob Reitemeier, the society's chief executive.

The shortage of refuges means the runaways often become reliant on others who exploit their vulnerability. 'It is alarming how quickly these children get caught up in dangerous and sometimes illegal situations just because they don't have anywhere safe to stay,' he said.
The Department for Education and Skills provides seven pilot schemes offering emergency accommodation to children under 16, but their funding is due to end next year.

The society's report, which calls for the government to fund a national network of hostels for under-16s, contains a litany of grotesque stories: the child who was abducted and locked up in a drug dealer's flat for four months; the teenager sleeping rough who woke up to find his arm full of puncture marks; Tyrone, who started drinking at seven and was an alcoholic by 11; Chris, aged 14, who woke up one morning to find his mother and sister had walked out of their house, leaving him behind.

Many of the runaways are fleeing abuse at home. Safiya is a typical example. Her stepfather physically and sexually abused her when she was 11, prompting her to leave home for weeks at a time. She was put into a care home but hated it and kept running away. When she hit 13 the daughter of her mother's best friend introduced her to heroin and crack cocaine and she sold her body, and drugs, to fund what became a £500-a-day habit.

'You expect to trust people like that. At 13 I didn't know heroin was as bad as it was,' said Safiya, who is now hoping to go back to college.

Two of the girls Safiya knew when she was a child prostitute became the subjects of murder inquiries. One was found on the North Yorkshire Moors, the other strangled and naked in a supermarket trolley behind a warehouse in Middlesbrough. Two other friends are missing.

But Safiya got out, thanks to staff at a Barnardo's drop-in centre in Middlesbrough who offered her advice, no questions asked, and who helped her forge a new life for herself. She said: 'I realised that if I remained where I was and didn't seek help, I might be the next girl to be found in the gutter.'

Panic buttons should sound when youngsters go missing, but Emilie Smeaton, author of the report, 'Living on the Edge: the Experiences of Detached Young Runaways', said she was surprised how often schools had failed to raise the alarm. 'A number of the runaways had left school before the minimum age, but the schools had not alerted anybody to where they had gone. And in over half the cases there had been no intervention by social services,' said Smeaton.
Without a support network many of the youngsters end up suffering a hand-to-mouth existence.

'They don't have recourse to legitimate means of earning money,' said Smeaton. 'They can't get benefits or get into a refuge so a lot of them survive through stealing. A few end up begging, although that's quite unusual.

'Several young girls I interviewed sold sex, one worked for a roofer, cash in hand; a couple did baby-sitting. Some of the runaways simply got used to a life without money.'
In recent years an increasing number of parents have been kicking their children out when they are deemed old enough to look after themselves.

'Over the past three years it appears more young people are being told to fend for themselves. The parents just feel they can't do anything more for them,' said Smeaton.

'In other cases, children are told not to come back to the family house until 10 in the evening. They're turning up at youth clubs and breakfast clubs not having been fed.'

Carl Hillier, 17, from Weymouth, Dorset, was shown the door by his mother. 'One Sunday night everything came to blows, we had a huge argument and I was told to leave. I grabbed what I could, basically a jumper and a coat, and left. This was around midnight.

'I had the number of a helpline in my wallet but that was closed. It gave me another number, the runaway helpline, but they were unsure what to do. So they put me through to social services in Poole who told me there was nothing they could do,' said Carl.

He has been left shocked and angry by what happened. 'I was left there with nothing. I know from experience that the story is the same for others younger than me, some as young as 12. Something seriously needs to be done to help young people who run away from home.'

Times On line

BRITAIN has become the heroin capital of Europe with the largest number of seizures and one of the highest levels of abuse, says a United Nations report published this week.

The UK accounts for most of the heroin seizures in Europe and, after Luxembourg and Portugal, has the most heroin users. Almost all the heroin seized and consumed in the UK comes from Afghanistan, says the report by the International Narcotics Control Board, a body founded by the UN.

Britain also has the highest level of amphetamine abuse anywhere in Europe and is the third largest consumer of ecstasy (MDMA), after Ireland and the Czech Republic. The study shows that cocaine abuse is on the increase in Britain, although it is stabilising in the rest of western Europe. It says that in the UK at least 10% of those between 15 and 34 have tried the class A drug.

The UK has also become one of the gateways through which about 200 tons of cocaine enter Europe each year. Cocaine accounted for up to 20% of all drug seizures in Britain in 2002. In 2000 up to four tons of cocaine were seized.

The report says that cannabis abuse has been on the increase over the past 10 years, in line with the rest of Europe and links the rise in its use with the increasing public debate over the amount of harm that the drug causes.

The global study notes that Morocco is the largest producer of cannabis, accounting for 60% of seizures across the world.

The report finds that illicit internet pharmacies are becoming an important conduit for smugglers. It says that several billion transactions are made over the internet each year, though some of the drugs that are sold are fake and others are even more dangerous than the actual substances ostensibly for sale.
A spokeswoman from Drugscope, one of Britain' s largest anti-drugs charities, said the study confirmed that Britain has an appalling drug abuse record in Europe. "

The UK traditionally has higher levels of drug use than other European countries. Although the figures are alarming, we have to recognise that drug abuse has stabilised here in the past few years," she said.
Home Office figures show that heroin seizures have been on the increase in the past 10 years reaching a peak in 2001, with 18,260 seizures in the UK. The total weight of heroin seized in 2001 was 3.9 tons and in 2002 2.9 tons.

The report says that the United States is the single largest market despite the huge efforts by law enforcement agencies. The study expresses grave concerns about the large-scale trafficking and manufacture of drugs in the whole North American region.

Primary schools nationwide are clamouring to implement a drugs education programme for six to seven-year-olds that has been successfully piloted in Nottinghamshire.

On Track is designed as eight teacher-led lessons of 45 minutes each and was conceived in November 2000 by Nottinghamshire police, working in partnership with Nottinghamshire city council and two county local education authorities.

Drugs education in primary schools generally begins at age nine, but Nottinghamshire has seen the benefit of beginning earlier.

"There's a view that you can't start too early. It's about life skills. Do we start telling people how to add one and one when then get to nine?" asked Nottinghamshire police's chief inspector, David Gilbert.

"It fills a gap. I don't think there is material for six to seven-year-olds that addresses this need. We want young people to be aware of the benefits and disbenefits. We're in a drug-using world now and the sooner they learn about these things the better," he said.

Ch Insp Gilbert stressed that the lessons examine drugs across the board and do not distinguish between legal and illegal products. Understanding that concept is too difficult for the age group, he said.

"There are drugs in every household. It's not an anti-drugs message. Let's let them know that there are a lot [of drugs], and some of them are good, but even if you take a lot of something good, it can be bad."

The programme was piloted in eight or nine schools. More than 100 of Nottinghamshire's 300 primary schools are now running the programme, and a website and DVD will be launched in the spring.

Credit agency Experian provided £390,000 of funding for the programme, which, among other things, paid for supply teachers while regular teachers were trained in the programme.

"On Track has been exceptionally well received by teachers, parents, children and industry professionals alike," said Experian. "It has been a huge success, as the evaluation process showed that the children retained the relevant information.

"In addition, On Track has been particularly successful working with vulnerable young people, children in referral units and traveller children, often where more traditional education has failed."

Guardian
Thursday February 24, 2005

Michael Howard today called on celebrities to set a positive example for children by condemning drugs and backed the introduction of a minimum seven-year jail sentence for hard drug dealers on their third conviction.

The Tory leader said many parents would have been surprised by the media's coverage of pop star Pete Doherty's scrapes with the law and expressed incredulity that they had been made front-page news.
He made the comments as he set out his party's policy on drugs, and renewed his commitment to move cannabis back to Class B status if elected.

He also gave details of a private member's bill from Tory MP Nigel Evans which would hand drug dealers an automatic seven-year minimum sentence on their third hard drugs conviction.
"Today, more than ever, we need responsible role models for our children: professional athletes prepared to say drugs are wrong, pop stars willing to say drugs aren't cool, actors who make clear that drugs ruin lives," said Mr Howard.

"Because we all know that youngsters are more influenced than ever before by the celebrities they see on TV, the musicians they listen to and who are featured in magazines.
"Some in the media give the impression that drug-taking is cool; is it any wonder that children believe it is?"

He added: "I think many parents will have been rather surprised by the celebrity coverage given to Peter Doherty over the last month.

"Here you have a man who takes drugs and gets locked up, yet ends up on the front pages." Mr Howard said: "I think that people in the music industry can play a role. What we need are responsible role models and good role models."

On Mr Evans's bill, Mr Howard said: "I believe that anyone convicted for a third time of dealing hard drugs should receive an automatic seven-year minimum sentence.

"Drugs are wrong - and if you deal in them there will be a heavy price to pay.

"In recent years, that clear message has become shrouded in political correctness."
If elected, the Tories would also increase the number of residential rehab places for young people from 2,500 to 25,000, their leader said, claiming that would be enough to help 50,000 addicts a year.
"It will allow us over the course of a year to treat every young teenage drug addict in Britain," he said.

Thursday February 17, 2005:

The Guardian

American soldiers traumatised by fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan are to be offered the drug ecstasy to help free them of flashbacks and recurring nightmares.

The US food and drug administration has given the go-ahead for the soldiers to be included in an experiment to see if MDMA, the active ingredient in ecstasy, can treat post-traumatic stress disorder.

Scientists behind the trial in South Carolina think the feelings of emotional closeness reported by those taking the drug could help the soldiers talk about their experiences to therapists. Several victims of rape and sexual abuse with post-traumatic stress disorder, for whom existing treatments are ineffective, have been given MDMA since the research began last year.

Michael Mithoefer, the psychiatrist leading the trial, said: "It's looking very promising. It's too early to draw any conclusions but in these treatment-resistant people so far the results are encouraging.

"People are able to connect more deeply on an emotional level with the fact they are safe now."
He is about to advertise for war veterans who fought in the last five years to join the study.

According to the US national centre for post-traumatic stress disorder, up to 30% of combat veterans suffer from the condition at some point in their lives.

Known as shell shock during the first world war and combat fatigue in the second, the condition is characterised by intrusive memories, panic attacks and the avoidance of situations which might force sufferers to relive their wartime experiences.

Dr Mithoefer said the MDMA helped people discuss traumatic situations without triggering anxiety.
"It appears to act as a catalyst to help people move through whatever's been blocking their success in therapy."

The existing drug-assisted therapy sessions last up to eight hours, during music is played. The patients swallow a capsule containing a placebo or 125mg of MDMA - about the same or a little more than a typical ecstasy tablet.

Psychologists assess the patients before and after the trial to judge whether the drug has helped.
The study has provoked controversy, because significant doubts remain about the long-term risks of ecstasy.

Animal studies suggest that it lowers levels of the brain chemical serotonin, and some politicians and anti-drug campaigners have argued that research into possible medical benefits of illegal drugs presents a falsely reassuring message.

The South Carolina study marks a resurgence of interest in the use of controlled psychedelic and hallucinogenic drugs. Several studies in the US are planned or are under way to investigate whether MDMA, LSD and psilocybin, the active ingredient in magic mushrooms, can treat conditions ranging from obsessive compulsive disorder to anxiety in terminal cancer patients.

Kids and cannabis

Why dope is much more dangerous than you think

Last month the Department of Health acknowledged that cannabis is an "important causal factor" in mental illness. It also announced a review of recent research which suggests that cannabis not only precipitates psychosis in some patients with a predisposition to the illness but can cause mental health problems for people who would otherwise be considered low- or no- risk.

On top of this, the mental health charity Rethink called last week for an inquiry into the links between cannabis use and mental illness. And this week, a new study in the journal Neurology shows that blood flow to the brain remains altered a month after a joint is smoked.

What are parents and teenagers to make of all this news, which must add to the confusion surrounding cannabis since its declassification from a Class B to Class C drug a year ago?

For most people, smoking moderate amounts of cannabis causes no problems, says Professor Robin Murray, a leading researcher in the field. But parents are understandably worried. Cannabis is cheap and easy to get hold of; much of it is stronger than it used to be.

Some strains contain up to 20 per cent THC (the hallucinogenic ingredient that gets people stoned) compared with less than 5 per cent in the bog-standard stuff. Even the notoriously liberal Dutch Government is now reviewing the legality of cannabis containing high levels of THC. However, many health professionals believe that it's not so much strength but frequency and length of use that is the issue.

Thirty-eight per cent of 15 to 16-year-olds in the UK, compared to an average of 21 per cent in the rest of Europe, have tried cannabis, and some start even younger. That is worrying in the light of recent research from the Institute of Psychiatry in South London, which suggests that adolescents may be particularly vulnerable to long-term damage.

Murray, the consultant psychiatrist who coauthored the report, says: "There seems to be consistent evidence that people who start taking cannabis earlier get into more trouble, partly because they are more likely to become dependent. We found that teenagers who were taking cannabis at 15 were 4.5 times more likely to be psychotic by 26, whereas people who started taking it at 18 were only 1.5 times more likely. He adds: " It's upsetting that the people with cannabis-related schizophrenia whom I see in my clinic at the Maudsley Hospital, in London, have often been highly successful children - sociable, sporty and intellectually competent until they got into drug-taking."

Research is also scrutinising the effect that cannabis has on brain development in adolescence. Murray cautions that nothing has been proved yet, but says "There is speculation that if you smoke a lot of cannabis while the dopamine systems in the brain are still forming, as in adolescence, this might be detrimental. Psychosis is linked to excessive levels of dopamine in the parts of the brain concerned with emotion, and cannabis appears to increase these levels."

The temporary effects of cannabis can be equally worrying, not least because there is considerable evidence that it impairs memory; and unlike alcohol it stays in the body for up to three months. Murray says: " One of the reasons why some young people who smoke cannabis start performing badly at school or university is that they are cognitively impaired by the cannabis lingering in their brain. A young person who smokes cannabis every day, or even three times a week, can be in a state of low-grade intoxication most of the time.

However, if you stop, these adverse cognitive effects also stop." As with alcohol, he says, the important thing is to avoid getting stoned every night. It also reduces risk if young people delay smoking until their late teens.

Many health professionals believe that the debate about declassification has blocked the more urgent issue: better education about the risks. At the Royal College of GPs conference last month, Clare Gerada, the head of its substance misuse unit, urged GPs to talk to young people about cannabis. " I am worried about our 15 to 17-year-olds; I feel that we' ve missed the point. OK, they are not taking up smoking, because the Government's campaign is working. But they're getting high on cannabis and alcohol, and the two combined do more short-term damage. We need a public health campaign on reducing the risks of all drugs taken by young people."

Despite the UK's high rates of cannabis consumption, it lags far behind some other countries - notably Australia - in its provision of services to help users. That may be changing. Rethink is developing a health information campaign with the Department of Health. And in December, HIT, a national drugs information and training centre, launched a website (www.knowcannabis.org.uk) and literature for people who want to cut down or quit.

HIT' s director, Andrew Bennett, would like to see other services developed in the style of Australian cannabis quitlines and other cessation services." At relatively low cost we could probably help a lot of people by developing existing tobacco cessation services and briefing GPs and practice nurses," he says. One award-winning drugs project in Shrewsbury, aimed at 13 to 18-year-olds, who range from " middle-class school kids to young people living on the streets" , offers a spliff-count workshop. If it' s a cause for concern, the young person is offered a referral to a specialist team, but only with his or her permission. Haroon Riaz, who runs the project, says: " Young people were confused when the law changed so I had to do my own campaign. Cannabis is not a drug to be faffed around with; we need to get on top of it."

Drug rehab: is it just another addiction?
by Michele Kirsch
A growing number of doctors and addicts believe that drug rehab is a waste of time

Times Online

February 14, 2005

KATE MOSS’s rock star boyfriend, Pete Doherty, should at this moment be facing what has become a rite of passage for any self-respecting party boy: rehab. This is not the first time for the former Libertines frontman. Indeed, he is already something of a veteran.

If you have followed his stumbling trail, you will know that he is quite familiar with the 12-step programme and other programmes. Last May there was the Priory in West London, but he checked out before the rehab was complete. Then it was off to France, where again he didn’t fare well. Finally he was booked into the Thamkrabok monastery in Thailand, where the regime includes emetics and prayers. He lasted three days. So this is attempt number four. Will he make it this time? Who can say, but in all the coverage no one has questioned that rehab is his only hope.

In the last decade or so, it has become a kind of modern heresy to doubt the efficacy of residential rehabilitation, and of the 12-step programme on which it is often based. Nothing else works, we are told.

But does rehab actually rehabilitate? As private individuals and the NHS pour millions into this method, a growing number of addicts and those involved in their treatment are asking if it is really the only way.

“The NHS should get out of it entirely,” says Mike Fitzpatrick, a London doctor. “As a GP, I see people who were involved in drugs years ago and now have stopped. Very rarely has it got anything to do with therapeutic interventions, it is usually down to something that has happened in their life. The drugs lifestyle is so boring, so tedious, that most people come to realise there is something better out there.”

He is not alone in thinking this. In America, there is a vociferous lobby that says people give up drugs and drink because they “grow out it”. They realise that there are more interesting things to do than nurture their addictions. The trouble with 12-step programmes and rehab, say critics, is that they encourage people to build their lives around drugs and alcohol when they are no longer indulging.

Take Kelly Briggs, a 27-year-old who has been in residential rehab four times. As she tells it, the funding, procuring and taking of large amounts of crack cocaine and heroin is a full-time job. But so is not taking crack and heroin. I meet Briggs a month after her last rehab has ended. Her time is spent liaising with her key worker, her probation officer, her drug testing supervisor, and other recovering addicts. There is still a lot of time to kill, a junk-shaped hole to fill, and the few hours a week she spends on a GCSE course doesn’t seem engaging enough to make a life without drugs more stimulating than a life with them.

“It’s good in rehab because you are in a bubble,” she says. “You are not really in society, just in this house, working on your emotions and s**t like that. It’s good because you don’t have feelings when you are on drugs. But after six months you have to go into the real world and that is the hardest part.”

Briggs started smoking crack at 14, taking heroin at 18, and was a daily injecting addict by the time she was 20. In trouble with the law for prostitution, she made her first attempt at detox at a residential rehab centre in London. She stuck it out for two days.

She tried to get clean again in 2002, when she was 25. “They said there would be a doctor 24/7 but all I saw was a nurse.”

Briggs eventually went abroad for implants which make heroin ineffective. She then went to prison, was released on a drugs treatment and testing order (DTTO), and went to a daily centre for meetings with other addicts. That was not a success “We used to use the breaks to plan where we were going to score,” she says.

After four months in a residential rehab, she spent two months in a unit in Hastings. “I just cleaned toilets. It was like slavery. They didn’t help me find a place to live or tell me how to get a job.” (The treatment centre say they work hard on helping clients find a place to live, a course or job to do.)

Just what constitutes good treatment and failure is open to interpretation, but the numbers don’t look good. The National Treatment Outcome Research study, which looked at over 1,000 drug users with long term opiate dependency found that only 38 per cent of them were drug free five years after treatment.

A review of residential detoxification and rehabilitation services presented by the Scottish Executive’s Effective Interventions says that relapse is so common it is not considered a failure. The report defines the goal of residential rehab as “the client’s long term abstinence from illicit and prescribed drugs”. Even with such a limited definition of success some studies showing early drop out or discharge rates as high as 70 per cent.

You could argue that the main reason people drop out of treatment is that taking drugs is still more attractive an option than not taking drugs. So is that the fault of rehab, or a lack of motivation on the part of the addict?

The moderate view is that it depends what addiction philosophy or model the treatment is based upon. Of the 114 residential rehab units in Britain listed on the National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse (NTA), 49 say that they use the 12-step model, which calls for users to admit they are “powerless” and have to call on the help of a “higher power”.

But is telling an addict that he or she is powerless over their condition really such a good thing? To the outsider, the language of the programme suggests a non-denominational form of spirituality that can be off-putting. In the US, where most rehab is based on 12-step and the disease model of addiction, recovering addicts and drug workers are starting to think that there is another way.

One new message is that recovery is a process of growing up best prompted by brief interventions, not by a daily schedule of meetings about emotions. The recovering addict has to look outward at life, not inward at him or herself. Recovery is not sustainable unless the addict gets a life outside drugs and also outside drug recovery programmes.

At the most extreme end of the “get a life” message , Dr Jeffrey Schaler, author of Addiction is a Choice completely rejects the disease model and scorns 12-steps for telling clients that they have to turn their lives over to “a higher being” .“What kind of disease is this for which the best possible treatment is religion?” he says.

Another 12-step dissenter is Dr Stanton Peele, a psychologist who believes that taking drugs is a sign of immaturity and that most people will “mature out” of it. There are some studies to support this, showing that most Vietnam veteran heroin users stopped using it on their own, and that most self-reported alcoholics recover or cut down without the aid of rehab or support groups.

In his book Seven Tools to Beat Addiction, he says that given the right skills to get jobs, housing and relationships, anyone can beat addiction.

This is all very well if you had a good life before addiction took hold, but what if addiction is all you have ever known? “If people have no life skills, what is the incentive to stop taking drugs?” asks Dr Peele. “Addiction treatment is preoccupied with the nature of the substance involvement rather than with the person’s relationship to self, others, and the world.”

So if rehab based on “working on yourself” does not help, what does? Dr Peele cites clinical evidence for techniques such as Brief Interventions, Community Reinforcement Approach and Motivational Interviewing. “These help people deal with the major areas of their lives without resorting to drugs or alcohol. We do this by enhancing the responsibility and self-efficacy of the client.”

But this requires self discipline and restraint, which don’t appear to be part of the addictive mindset. Isn’t it just a glorified version of “Just Say No.”? “Are you asking me if it is easy,” says Dr Peele. “No, this is about fixing a life, not curing a ‘disease’.”

More radical still is the notion that most addicts will “mature out” of their addictions. If this is the case, should we be treating people with addictions at all?

It is becoming increasingly clear that approaches to drug treatment need to be more flexible. Dr Emily Finch, a psychiatrist, says: “It’s not a simple question of one model or one form of treatment fitting all. The focus is on treating the individual, with all their incumbent needs, not just on treating the addiction.”

Doherty, should he make it through this rehab, has a lot more going for him if he manages to stay clean. Supermodel girlfriend, successful band, mass adoration — according to Dr Peele this should increase his chances of permanent recovery. If he can cope with the temptation all credit should go to Doherty — and not to the 12 steps that he might be tempted to throw himself down.

THE 12 STEPS

THE HEART of the Alcoholics Anonymous 12-step guide are the original self-help testimonies of the society’s earliest members. Step one: admit that you have a problem. And when your guard is down, let in the “power greater than ourselves” and “seek through prayer and meditation to improve your conscious contact with God, as you understand Him”.

By step 12 you will not only be stone-cold sober, but also one who turns the other cheek: “Make direct amends to all persons you have harmed”.

Independent

By Sophie Goodchild, Home Affairs Correspondent
13 February 2005

Plans to outlaw magic mushrooms have raised fears of a surge in the use of potentially harmful hallucinogenic herbs and plants. Drugs experts are calling for these legal so-called herbal highs, now widely available on the internet and in high street shops, to carry clear warning labels because inexperienced users mistakenly believe they are safe.

These dried or powdered substances include salvia divinorum, a variety of sage which can be smoked. Salvia is not a controlled drug in Britain but has been banned in Italy, Denmark and Australia because it can leave users disoriented.

At the end of last year, the Government announced that hallucinogenic fungi would be treated as a class A drug such as heroin or cocaine, with harsh penalties for supplying or possessing them.

But these new laws do not extend to herbs such as salvia, which has now become one of the biggest sellers on the legal drugs market and is cheaper than some illegal drugs at between £8 and £25 a packet. Many of these "natural" drugs, now being sold on sites such as eBay, imitate illegal stimulants. For example, kratom resin, which has been banned in Thailand but is again widely available in this country, produces an effect similar to that of opiates.

However, the doses of these "alternatives" are often difficult to judge, resulting in lethal consequences. Angel's trumpet contains the chemical scopolamine which can cause unconsciousness and death. The plant, which grows in parks and gardens, is responsible for several deaths in the US where it is banned.

DrugScope, the harm reduction charity, said the clampdown on magic mushrooms will mean users will instead experiment with unfamiliar alternatives.

A spokeswomen said: "The change will mean people are going to move to herbal solutions. Any information regarding harm and understanding the risks has got to be a lot more effective than using criminal penalties."

One worrying new trend is young people mixing natural drugs with other substances such as amino acids to increase their high but with potentially dangerous side effects such as panic attacks and heart problems. Another concern is that the increasingly lucrative herbal high market may be taken over by gangs who do not care about quantity, dosage or the age of their customers.

Andrea Zangara, an expert in the side effects of drugs, has carried out a study into the use in Europe of legal and natural high-inducing substances and is planning a similar investigation in Britain. "There is a growing interest for a wide range of "smart drugs" [mood enhancing] and "legal highs" which are freely available in trendy shops," said Mr Zangara, a researcher in the Department of Human Cognitive Neuroscience at Northumbria University.

The current government strategy on drugs is targeted at illegal class A drugs. The Home Office said laws had been tightened up on magic mushrooms because its active ingredients are already classified as class A drugs under existing laws. A spokesman said that the Government would legislate on other substances only on the advice of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs.

Additional reporting Jenny Silver

Antony Barnett, public affairs editor
Sunday February 13, 2005
The Observer

A 'boycott cocaine' campaign to shame the middle-classes into shunning the fashionable drug has moved a step closer after the Foreign Office gave its blessing.
Foreign Office Minister Bill Rammell has called for people to reject cocaine in the same way they snubbed South African wine during apartheid. Rammell, whose brief includes Latin America, drugs and international crime, is considering launching a government initiative along with groups such as Oxfam, aimed at exposing the horrors of the cocaine-fuelled conflict in Colombia.

Some 80 per cent of cocaine used in Britain comes from Colombia, where the drug fuels a conflict between left-wing guerrillas and right-wing paramilitaries. Each year thousands of Colombians are murdered in the conflict. Both sides in the struggle use the cocaine trade to finance their arsenals.

Rammell told The Observer : 'During the apartheid era it was socially taboo to serve South African wine. Although the Colombian government does not support the drug industry I believe that anybody offering cocaine should feel equally ostracised. Every year thousands of Colombians are murdered as a result of a brutal conflict fuelled by cocaine.'

Rammell's intervention comes only a week after Sir Ian Blair, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, referred to the 'trail of blood' that leads from a line of cocaine in Britain to thousands of deaths in Colombia. Blair raised the issue of people who insist on fair trade coffee and organic food but are happy to use cocaine.

In the last two years more than 51,000 people have been murdered in Colombia as a result of the conflict - almost 70 a day. More than three million Colombians have been forced to leave their homes, many after members of their families have been murdered.

Last week Blair announced a crackdown on middle-class drug users after senior officers said London and other big cities were in the thrall of a drugs 'epidemic'.

He added: 'People think the price of a wrap of cocaine is 50 quid, but the cost is misery on estates here and a trail of blood back to Colombia. Someone has died to bring it to the dinner party. People who wouldn't dream of having non-organic vegetables don't notice the blood on their fingers.'

Price of cocaine paid with blood

For every gram of coke snorted in Britain, someone in Colombia will have had their life taken away. Antony Barnett in Cartagena finds hard evidence to back up appeals to end Britain's habit

Sunday February 13, 2005
The Observer

Olinda was weeping. Her tears were hard to see through the large sunglasses she wears to shield her blind eyes and facial scars. The Spanish interpreter was trying not to cry as she explained in English what happened to the 19-year-old.
Two years ago Olinda was helping her mother milk one of the family's cows in the Colombian village of Santa Roca. As she ran to round up stray cattle she tripped and fell. The ground exploded beneath her. 'I was dead, I was dead. I kept screaming until my mum came. But everything was dark.'

Olinda's right hand was ripped off her arm, her left hand severed from her wrist, her eyes destroyed and her skin burnt. She had fallen on a crude mine concealed in the soil. Such weapons are known as improvised explosive devices, or IEDs for short.

But Olinda is a victim of a war that begins much closer to home, in the toilets of city bars or across the dinner tables of Britain's 'hip' middle-class. Eighty per cent of cocaine snorted up British noses comes from Colombia. The powder may be cheaper now then ever before, but, as Olinda can testify, hundreds of thousands of innocent Colombians pay a high price for the lines of 'Charlie' increasingly deemed socially respectable. Cocaine feeds a brutal conflict here, fuelling some of the most barbaric violations of human rights on the planet.

This month Britain's top policeman, Sir Ian Blair, referred to the 'trail of blood' that leads from a line of cocaine to the 40-year-old conflict in Colombia. He was not exaggerating. More than 23,000 people were murdered in Colombia last year as a direct result of the drug trade. That was a good year. In 2002 more than 28,000 died - almost 70 a day. Most are not traffickers or smugglers but farmers or peasants caught up in the fighting between Marxist guerrillas, right-wing paramilitaries and the Colombian armed forces. It is a conflict that has seen teachers, trade unionists and human rights activists slaughtered in their hundreds.

Last August in Aurauca three unarmed trade unionists were pulled from their beds and shot in the head by the Colombian military. It was thought - wrongly - they had been giving arms to the guerrillas. In Colombia anybody suspected of siding with one group is a target for the other. Trade union leaders in Bogota drive with armed escorts in armoured cars. As Blair said last week: 'People think the price of a wrap is 50 quid, but someone has died to bring it to the dinner table.'

In some ways Olinda is lucky. She is alive. Many have been massacred in local atrocities, tortured or kidnapped, never to be seen again. Olinda does not know who planted the device that blew away her vision but it was probably one of the Marxist groups that use drug profits to finance their fight against right-wing paramilitaries - who themselves use the cocaine trade to fund their arsenals. When the Medellin and Cali cocaine cartels disbanded in the Nineties it was these two groups that stepped in to control the lucrative trade.

IEDs are used by guerrillas not only to protect their military bases but to secure their cocaine laboratories hidden in the jungle. This is where the coca leaves grown by farmers are turned into paste then mixed with alcohol and acid to create the white powder. When the guerrillas move on, they shut their labs but leave IEDs in the ground. To date, 4,400 people have been victims. Yet this is just a fraction of the human cost of cocaine.

The river Atrato that runs through the Choco province on the northern coast of Colombia is a key supply route for both guerrillas and paramilitaries. Whichever side controls the river controls the lucrative trade in drugs and arms. It is close to Panama and the oceans that offer easy routes to smuggle narcotics to Europe or the US. All along this river are villages whose inhabitants have been decimated by the coke-fuelled conflict. Millions of peasants have been forced to flee their homes. Many who have seen family members murdered end up in slums on the edges of cities like Bogota or Cartagena on the Caribbean coast. They have no work, no money and no hope.

Nelson and his family used to live near the village of Rio Sucio. He drove a boat delivering food and petrol. Four years ago paramilitaries suspected two of his brothers of helping feed the guerrillas and executed them. Scared he would be next, Nelson fled with his family. Worse was to come. In May 2003 his relatives were caught up in fighting between guerrillas and paramilitaries in the dense jungle around the town of Bojaya. As the fighting moved into the town, the mayor gathered the people into the church. There the guerrillas set off a bomb that left 119 dead, including four of Nelson's uncles.

Over the years, brutalities pile on brutalities in a never-ending war to control the cocaine trade. As coke flows in London, so blood flows in Colombia. Last April five peasants were murdered by soldiers. One was a six-month-old baby, three were teenagers. When the bodies were found the head of the mother and child were smashed in. The army had allegedly mistaken them for guerrillas.

On News Year's Eve, when parties in Britain were in full swing and the cocaine in full flow, guerrillas burst into a party outside Tame near the Venezuelan border and opened fire, killing 17 peasants. They claimed villagers had been co-operating with paramilitaries.

In this proud nation that has the longest history of democracy in South America, cocaine is destroying hope. When the war began 40 years ago it was based on Cold War politics. On one side were the left-wing guerrilla groups, principally the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia or fellow rebels the National Liberation Army. The other side was led by right-wing paramilitaries, known as the United Self-Defence Forces of Colombia. Both sides now have more than 15,000 soldiers armed to the teeth with weaponry paid for by cocaine.

The Colombian military, which is supposed to be in the middle, is often accused of collusion with the paramilitaries and involvement in massacres. It is no wonder the UN classifies Colombia as a country suffering a humanitarian crisis. The President, Oxford-educated Alvaro Uribe, is waging an all-out war on the guerrillas and trying to rein in rogue elements of the army. The US government is spending $700 million a year (£395m) in its controversial Plan Colombia, aimed at eradicating the trade by aerial spraying and military support.

Yet experts believe Uribe's efforts will prove futile unless the West's demand for cocaine is diminished. That is why an increasing number of high-profile people are focusing on the ethical costs of cocaine. As Blair asked: how can those who insist on organic food and fair-trade coffee have no qualms about taking cocaine.

Foreign Minister Bill Rammell shares that view. For him it should be as socially taboo as was drinking a bottle of South African wine during apartheid. Rammell was in Colombia last week to offer the British government's backing to Uribe's fight. The UK now provides more than £1m a year in military aid to the Colombian armed forces, mostly in training.

He said: 'I find it hard to believe that anybody who has a conscience could feel at ease taking cocaine. People should be shamed into stopping.' He is considering getting this message across with groups such as Oxfam and Christian Aid.

Alfonso is a lieutenant-commander in the Colombian coastguard on the Caribbean coast. He refuses to give his real name or have his photograph taken. It is not surprising. His job is to intercept the 'go-fast' boats used by cocaine smugglers. He is a target of both guerrillas and paramilitaries. Many of his men have died trying to stop the drug leaving Colombia.

At his base in Cartagena he proudly points out the dozens of vessels his men have stopped. These include two fibreglass submarines put together in jungle factories. Guerrillas loaded them up with cocaine and two crew who spent a week underwater trying to reach Jamaica. Alfonso points to a bullet hole in the windscreen of one boat. 'We aim for the engines, but sometimes we miss,' he smiles.

Last year his team intercepted 20 tonnes of cocaine, but he admits that this is probably one-fifth of what gets past him. Colombia produces 650 tonnes each year - enough to supply the UK cocaine market 13 times over.

Alfonso's boat speeds off, leaving a white trail. Five thousand miles away, someone in Britain is snorting cocaine. And someone in Colombia is being murdered.

PETER MARTELL

Scotland on Sunday
6.2.05

PARENTS worried that their children are taking drugs have turned to £12 do-it-yourself testing kits.

The 10-minute test can detect cannabis up to 14 days after it is taken, but only three to five days after cocaine, amphetamines or opiates are used.

The disposable strip is similar to a pregnancy test and changes colour if positive when dipped into a urine sample.

Up to 370 of the urine tests have been bought in Scotland in the past eight months.

However, anti-drugs charities last night voiced concern.

A spokeswoman for the Scottish Drugs Forum, the non-government drugs policy and information agency, said: "These kits exploit parental concerns about drug use and affect open dialogue. It could drive a wedge between parents and their children about what the children’s problems really are."

Alistair Ramsay, of campaign group Scotland Against Drugs, said: "The relationship between parents and children, particularly during adolescence, can be very difficult. The best relationships develop in an atmosphere of trust, and it is difficult to see how a parent could demonstrate that trust while using scientific programmes to determine whether or not their children are using drugs."

He added: "It is far better for parents to spend time with their children as they are growing and developing, and that way they will notice any change in behaviour, which is a good indicator that something is going on."

While the kits can be bought over the counter in a pharmacy, no chemist is believed to stock them in Scotland, but hundreds of parents have already contacted the manufacturer directly to order.

John Mullee, a spokesman for Irish manufacturer Hunter Diagnostics, claims sales are "steaming ahead", with 5,600 tests sold in the UK since the product was launched last May.

He stressed that the company did not support tests without the consent of the child. "The moment trust is broken is when there is a suspicion. Parents have to put in parameters. Their job is to keep their children healthy, lucid and safe up to the age of 18.

"It is only one part of an overall project, but the key to it is absolute honesty. You have to communicate with the kid.

"Our test is a urine test, and by virtue of that, it means you must communicate. It might not be a very comfortable conversation - it will probably be awkward and difficult - but, as parents, we cannot just keep taking our children on holiday and buying them presents.

"If the result is positive, then the parents and child can get on and address the problem."

A spokeswoman from DrugScope, the drugs information charity, raised concerns about the consequences of a false positive result. "No test is ever always 100% correct," she said.

Neither did the tests focus on the most common problem children faced. She added: "It doesn’t actually cover any of the legal drugs - alcohol, tobacco and solvents - which, for school-age children, are proportionally a much bigger problem."

Glasgow Caledonian University Heroin Study

Study reveals that some heroin users use over long periods of time but do not inevitably end up with multiple problems!

Safe heroin use' study criticised : Guardian: 4.2.05

Campaigners condemned the publication yesterday of research which suggests that heroin can be taken over a long period without destroying people's lives.

Yes, heroin can kill, but the doomsayers' lies are just as dangerous: Times: 5.2.05

SO SOME people can combine a heroin habit with an otherwise normal life? So what else is new?

Heated debate over heroin report : BBC 3.2.05

Research which said it is possible to live normally while regularly taking heroin has prompted a fierce debate.

'Safe heroin use' study criticised

Kirsty Scott
Friday February 4, 2005
The Guardian

Campaigners condemned the publication yesterday of research which suggests that heroin can be taken over a long period without destroying people's lives.

Researchers at Glasgow Caledonian University identified 126 long-term heroin users in the city who were not experiencing the health and social problems normally associated with the drug. Some were in good jobs and well-educated. They included a chef, a computer analyst and a plumber.

The survey, funded by the Scottish executive and published by the British Journal of Health Psychology, prompted a debate on how to tackle drug use. David Shewan, of the university's Centre for the Study of Violence, insisted the study did not play down the risks of the drug. "It is not a study about heroin being safe; it is a very dangerous and addictive drug," he said. "Our report highlights the importance of individual, situational factors leading to addiction."

But Alistair Ramsay of the campaign group Scotland Against Drugs said it was not helpful that the findings were getting so much publicity. Heroin use in Scotland had been declining recently, but there were still about 50,000 users.

"These are people who have a problem with their heroin use - health problems, legal problems, financial problems, domestic problems," he said. "If you have over 50,000 people saying 'I can't handle this', and you have 126 saying 'yes I can', you don't have to do the maths to work out statistically that if you take this it is going to be bad for you.

"The message we would want to put out is that heroin is a very dangerous drug. You don't know where you are going to end up ... they all start out believing they can manage it. The people in the study might be halfway to the stage of bottoming out. We just don't know."

Almost three-quarters of the 94 men and 32 women interviewed for the study, were working, most at the higher end of the employment scale. Only two had lost their jobs because of their drug use.

Nearly two-thirds were educated beyond secondary-school level. Almost half described their health as "good", and by the end of the four-year study only six had begun specialist treatment.

When asked about the executive's funding of the study, Jack McConnell, Scotland's first minister, said it was important to research drug use. But he was vehement in his condemnation of heroin. "I oppose any use of heroin. I condemn it and I want us to take a firm stand and send a very clear signal."

Dr Shewan said the main message was the need for sensible discussion on how to deal with drug problems. "We should be looking at the person involved and the broader social environment. To simply focus on a particular drug, be it heroin or alcohol, is unhelpful in terms of treatment and intervention and criminal justice policy. To make bold statements about the war on drugs helps nobody who actually has a problem."

Yes, heroin can kill, but the doomsayers' lies are just as dangerous
Matthew Parris
Times: 5.2.05


SO SOME people can combine a heroin habit with an otherwise normal life? So what else is new? It is no discredit to Glasgow Caledonian University — but a sharp warning to the purveyors of “responsible” official information — that it takes a team of academics, a sample of 126 heroin users, many months of research, and a bill for £114,000 to the Scottish Executive to establish what anyone with so much as a nodding acquaintance with the problems of drug addiction should know already. So should those who have lived in the Far East. Heroin destroys some people and not others.

I have known this for about thirty years. A couple of friends have for different and extended periods of their lives been addicted to heroin. Neither is addicted now, neither would recommend the drug, but both have told me that for them and for others whom they knew, it proved possible to stabilise their use of heroin at a level that did not destroy their working or domestic lives, or appear to damage their health. The Glasgow research found that among its sample, 70 per cent of those who had used heroin for more than seven years had not experienced serious health problems as a result.

That is not to say they were not addicted. So are serious tobacco smokers and many steady drinkers. They need their daily fix; they would suffer acute withdrawal symptoms if they tried to stop it; and they would find life much less tolerable without it. This is real addiction and it is rife in our society. The list of culpable chemicals includes alcohol, tobacco, antidepressants, cocaine, crack, heroin and (arguably) marijuana, probably in something like that order of prevalence.

Not all are equally addictive and heroin is certainly among the most addictive, though I am not convinced it is more so than nicotine, a really hard drug. I have seen anguished smokers and alcoholics struggle as painfully with their habit as some heroin-users.

Nor are all equally available, which complicates the comparison; as does the fact that the use of drugs such as heroin involves the addict willy-nilly in crime; while the illegality of the drug drives the cost beyond many addicts’ reach, provoking further crime.

Heroin also suppresses hunger, so if the user turns to crime and begins to neglect himself things can spiral out of control. My guess is that loss of self-respect plays a big part, but it is difficult to establish how far this is an effect, or how far a cause, of addiction. The researchers at Glasgow Caledonian would acknowledge that men and women who are managing their habit successfully might be more likely to volunteer their story. David Shewan, the co-author of the report, has rightly said that his findings should be treated with caution.

What is undoubtedly true is that heroin is a dangerous drug, which can wreck lives. What this study shows, however, is that in the direct experience of many people, heroin does not always do so. Both truths seem to me important to know. If we believe in free speech and personal choice we should have no difficulty in agreeing that neither should be suppressed.

Which is why the response of the anti-drug “community” so depresses me. David Pentland, a drug worker, has featured in a number of media reports commenting: “To put this information out into society is totally irresponsible.” Shona Robison, the Scottish National Party’s health spokesman, called the research “a waste of money”. No media outlet I have encountered this week has felt able to publish the finding without appending to its report criticism, not of its accuracy, but of the very act of publishing it. The SNP seem to question even the commissioning of the research.

This is stupid. Official Britain should ask itself why government warnings and media scares are so often ignored, particularly by the young. Why, for instance, do you suppose that nothing any adult says about Ecstasy, no lurid headline the Daily Mail runs about the untold numbers of deaths threatened by this (now fading) drug of clubbers’ choice, seems to be taken seriously in youth culture? The answer is obvious. Because politicians, civil servants and newspapers keep telling lies and peddling distortions about drugs to scare people. Young people’s own direct experience teaches them that death or even collapse from the use of Ecstasy is unusual, and where people do collapse it is almost always because of violent abuse of the drug, dehydration or a polluted supply.

My own generation remember the American films about “reefer madness” and the propaganda we were bombarded with suggesting that one puff of marijuana would turn us into crazed monsters. We tried a puff and nothing happened. Next time we heard an official warning about drugs we took it less seriously.

But this goes beyond heroin, beyond drugs. In every area of life, “safety first” has become a reason for high-minded mendacity, and high-minded mendacity is devaluing official warnings of every kind and widening the credibility gap between authority and the commonality, about which politicians love to bleat.

In 21st-century Europe the cries of the well-intentioned brigade of precaution-mongers have become all too familiar. “Better err on the side of caution!” they parrot; “One-death-is-a-death-too-many!” These people are habitual liars. Leaflets, pamphlets, public service announcements, government advice notes and relentless punditry are their medium; alarm is their message; and whenever there could — just could — be risk to life or limb, accuracy is a secondary consideration. Challenged over their carelessness with the truth, the sanctimony of the precaution-mongers is prodigious. They love the word “responsible”; “if it saves one life . . .” they squawk, casting a reproachful glance in your direction and tut-tutting about “irresponsibility”.

But it is they who are irresponsible. Crying wolf is the greatest irresponsibility of all. Every exaggerated warning, wrongly trusted, erodes all trust; every piece of untruthful advice meant to scare undermines all official advice; every prohibition proved pointless breeds disregard of all prohibition. When our masters really do need our trust, they may find we are no longer listening.

I no longer turn off my mobile phone in aeroplanes; I just switch it to “silent”. For at least the past five years it must have been plain to all regular air passengers that if mobiles really did interfere with the electronics in the cockpit, planes would be dropping out of the sky like pheasants on a January Saturday. I no longer attend to that ritualised modern ballet, the air steward’s safety instructions, because I have never, ever, heard of a single case in which they saved a life.

I no longer divert when I see the sign “road-closed — access only” because most of the time the road is open if you navigate round a sand-heap. I no longer empty my pockets of change as instructed at security checkpoint X-ray machines, because non-ferrous metals do not seem to register. I no longer stop automatically at red traffic lights in Spain because there may be no crossroads: local councils have gained powers to install dummy-lights designed only to slow traffic.

As a pedestrian I ignore those vile galvanised steel barriers at road intersections, now erected regardless of the danger and as a matter of course. So I climb over them as a matter of course. And I have been eating food which has passed its sell-by date for at least as long as the heroin addicts in that Glasgow research have been managing their habit alongside an otherwise normal life. I smell food to decide if it is off.

The more you try to ratchet up public anxiety in hopes of protecting a few by misinforming the many, the more the public’s indifference to official information is ratcheted up in response. Yes, heroin kills; speed kills; carelessness kills. But by robbing warnings of their authority, you rob authority of its power to warn. Drugs do kill; but exaggeration kills too.

Heated debate over heroin report
BBC 3.2.05

Research which said it is possible to live normally while regularly taking heroin has prompted a fierce debate.
The Glasgow Caledonian University study of 126 users of the class A drug found many were holding down normal jobs and relationships and passing exams. The report said heroin could be taken in a controlled way for a period.

But drugs worker Peter Anderson and Alistair Ramsay of Scotland Against Drugs said the research was sending out the wrong messages. Mr Ramsay said: "Anyone reading this who thinks they can take heroin safely would be wrong.

"In Scotland we have 55,800 heroin users who are clearly unable to function as normal so it cannot be assumed that the findings have universal application.

"The chances are the vast majority of those who start taking heroin are not going to be able to function and rather, they will develop major problems which require to be funded by the public purse." However, Lord Victor Adebowale, the chief executive of specialist alcohol and drug organisation Turning Point, said the report was not saying that heroin was safe.

He explained: "It says that if you have a job, if you have a house, an income, are well educated and have a health system to support you, it's possible to survive an addiction to a pretty serious$ substance. "Most people don't have this and have mental health challenges as well as a heroin problem."

At first minister's questions on Thursday, Jack McConnell said the Scottish Executive would do everything to tackle heroin addiction. However, ministers have consistently ruled out the medical prescription of the drug. Ministers also stressed that heroin was an illegal drug which "ruins lives and damages communities".

The report's author, Dr David Shewan, agreed that heroin was not a safe drug. He said the concept of controlled drug use was a "largely unexplored" area of research and warned that the results should be treated with caution.

The doctor added: "However, this study shows that the chemical properties of specific substances, including heroin, should not be assumed to inevitably lead to addictive and destructive patterns of drug use.

"Drug research should incorporate this previously hidden population to more fully inform theory and practice. "Psychological and social factors have to be taken into account when looking at how to deal with any form of addiction, including heroin addiction." Edinburgh-based outreach work Mr Anderson is a former drug addict who said heroin use and heroin injecting in Scotland is an immense problem which is getting worse. He added: "Every day, unfortunately, men and women are dying in the UK from heroin overdoses and that is the context that we cannot forget."

The research has also sparked criticism in the way it was carried out. The drug users were not interviewed personally, only through an intermediary.However, the researchers said it was important to maintain trust and safeguard identities.

The work by Dr Shewan and his colleague Phil Dargarno was funded by the Chief Scientist Office. The 126 people studied in Glasgow had been taking heroin for an average of seven years and were not receiving treatment for their drug use. More than half reported a negative effect on jobs or education. Most of those involved in the study were in a relationship and a third had children.

In contrast to those receiving treatment for heroin use, three quarters of the sample group were employed and a third were placed at the top end of the job sector. Some 64% of those surveyed had continued in education after secondary school, and 11% were in full-time higher education at the time of the research.Unemployed people accounted for 15% of the group, and only 5% had no educational qualifications.

The study found that some heroin users could maintain occupations and achieve educational qualifications which were comparable with the general UK population - and were considerably higher than normally found in heroin research.

In the first phase of the study 30% of those involved reported drug-related health problems, although most did not require medical treatment.

Only a handful o