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

Schools told to warn pupils they can still be jailed for cannabis possession
Independent
By Richard Garner, Education Editor
29 April 2003

Schools are being told to remind pupils that cannabis possession still carries a prison sentence, because of confusion caused by the plans of the Home Secretary, David Blunkett, to reclassify the drug. New guidance on drugs education published by the Department for Education and Skills yesterday urges teachers still to adopt a tough line.

Mr Blunkett proposes to reclassify cannabis from a class B drug to class C, which means most people caught in possession are likely to escape with a caution and confiscation of the drug. They are only likely to be prosecuted for repeat offences.

However, yesterday's guidance, which has gone out to schools for consultation, says: "It is important for schools to reinforce to pupils that cannabis is harmful to health and is still an illegal drug and possession will remain a criminal offence leading to a possible fine or imprisonment.
"Schools should continue to deal with incidents relating to possession or supply of cannabis in line with their school drug policy."

The tough message was underlined by the Education minister Ivan Lewis in a foreword to the document. "Drugs can have a devastating impact on young people's lives ­ even small amounts can ruin their futures," he said. "Drugs can lead to major disruption within schools themselves. Drugs are a menace and we must tackle them head-on."

The policy document also urges schools to be cautious before allowing former drug users to visit schools to talk to pupils. It says: "They may be able to provide a valuable and compelling insight into the consequences of drugs use but schools should be aware that ­ without sensitive handling ­ they may arouse interest in drugs that pupils would otherwise be unlikely to try and may glamourise drug misuse."

The guidance also notes that some schools have introduced urine-testing or the use of police handlers or private companies with sniffer dogs. It says schools wanting to adopt that approach must get written permission either from a parent/carer or a pupil.

Comment: The draft guidance is discussed in more detail in the DRUG NEWS section. Also see the document "Drugs, Dogs and Schools" in the Resources Section.

Vikram Dodd
Monday April 21, 2003
The Guardian

Afro-Caribbean people are more than 27 times more likely than white people to be stopped and searched under a special police power designed to tackle ravers and football hooligans, according to research seen by the Guardian.

The use of the power has increased dramatically, and it has been branded "a new sus law", a reference to hated police powers used in the 1970s to target black people without reason. The power allows stop and searches without an officer having reasonable grounds of suspicion. It is contained under section 60 of the Crime, Justice and Public Order Act 1994, and was introduced by the Tory home secretary, Michael Howard, to tackle noisy ravers and football hooligans, who are mostly white.

As tomorrow's 10th anniversary of the murder of Stephen Lawrence focuses attention on policing and race, a leading academic says the findings show increased police discrimination when officers operate with little legal constraint and do not have to justify their actions. The level of the disproportionate use of section 60 powers against ethnic minority people is even higher than for the more commonly used search powers governed by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (Pace). For the latter, police need to have reasonable suspicion and Afro-Caribbean people are eight times more likely to be stopped under Pace. The section 60 power is supposed to be used in only limited circumstances, and allows police to stop people if they believe there is a serious risk of violence.

According to research by the criminologist Ben Bowling, the power is 18 times more likely to be used against Asians than whites, and 27.5 times more likely to be used against Afro-Caribbeans. The Home Office said it knew of no research into the use of the power.

Professor Bowling, of King's College, London, said his find ings show what police will do when they have the least guidelines and scrutiny. "Wherever officers have the broadest discretion is where you find the greatest disproportionality and discrimination. "Under section 60, police have the widest discretion, using their own beliefs about who is involved in crime, using their own stereotypes about who's worth stopping, that's where the problems in police culture affect the decisions that are taken."

In London, its usage more than doubled between 2000/1 to 2001/2 to 6,000 cases. The Metropolitan police stopped more Asian people than white people, despite there being fewer of them in the population, and nearly as many Afro-Caribbean people as white people. West Midlands police used the power 5,520 times, almost as much as the Met, despite policing a smaller population.

Prof Bowling said: "A power that was intended for narrow purposes is being used much more extensively against black and Asian communities. It's a way of getting around the tougher controls on stop and search introduced after the Macpherson report."

Trevor Phillips, chairman of the commission for racial equality, has already threatened legal action against the police over the disproportionate use against black and Asian people of stops under Pace. Mr Phillips said of section 60: "The disproportionality is astonishing and these figures demand explanation. The police need to be transparent about why these powers are being used in this way. "No one should pretend it's an accident, it's by design. It may have reasons, but they need to be explained."

Lee Jasper, adviser on policing to London mayor Ken Livingstone, said section 60 was fast becoming as abused as the "sus" laws of the 1970s which led to black and Asian people being stopped without suspicion. Scotland Yard did not comment when asked.

The Independent
April 20, 2003
by Jo Dillon, Deputy Political Editor

Valium - dubbed "mother's little helper" - is to be classed in the same category as morphine in moves to tighten controls on anti-anxiety drugs and tranquillisers, campaigners have been told.

The Home Secretary, David Blunkett, who in opposition called the addiction of an estimated one million Britons to benzodiazepines a "national scandal", is to order a review of the way such drugs are handled and prescribed.

Ministers have told campaigners they will reclassify the drugs from Schedule 4 to Schedule 2 to prevent them from being prescribed repeatedly, and to ensure pharmacists keep them locked up.

The drugs in question include diazepam, known under the brand name of Valium, the anti-anxiety drug alprazolam or Xanax, and the fast-acting flunitrazepam, branded as Rohypnol, which has been used in drug-related rapes.

Although doctors are advised to prescribe the drugs only for up to 28 days, many people have stayed on them for years. Addicts complain of side effects including memory loss, aggression and fatigue.

From 1990 to 1996, Home Office figures show that 1,810 deaths were blamed on benzodiazepines - more than the total for heroin and cocaine.

Comment: This story was reported in the Independent and also posted on some benzodiazepine self-help groups. However, we can find no reference to it on the Home Office or other websites. The Home Secretary would be obliged to consult on the proposals. While the overprescribing of benzos remains a substantial problem, a move to reschedule would bring with it substantial problems, especially given the current legal problems related to the storage of controlled drugs.

Home-grown cannabis 'is lesser crime'
(Filed: 14/04/2003) Telegraph
People who grow their own cannabis should escape with a police warning if they only cultivate the drug on a small scale, a think-tank has said.

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation report said 243 people were jailed in 2000 for growing cannabis, but there were wide variations in the way police forces treated the crime.

Some charged growers with production - carrying a mandatory seven-year sentence for a third conviction - while others used the lesser offence of cultivation.

The report said up tp half of all cannabis consumed in Britain might now be home grown and punishments for cultivation needed to be altered when the drug was reclassified as Class C this summer.

Prof Mike Hough, co-author, said: "If small-scale home cultivation attracted an on-the-spot warning rather than a caution or a court conviction, it is likely that more users would switch to growing their own and stop buying from dealers."

Softer drugs law blamed for risk of mental illness as users aim to get heavily 'stoned'

Jo Revill, health editor
Sunday April 6, 2003
The Observer

Stronger cannabis - and users getting stoned to a 'far more debilitating degree' - could lead to a rise in cases of schizophrenia and present the NHS with a much larger bill, a leading drugs expert will warn tomorrow.

Professor John Henry believes that the Government, in its decision to relax the laws on cannabis, has overlooked the burden that greater use puts on health services and on families - as well as the way young people are seeking to heighten the effects of the drug.

Henry, a toxicologist and professor of accident and emergency medicine at Imperial College London, will talk about the medical risks associated with the drug at a conference tomorrow. He fears that several hundred more young people could end up in hospital suffering from schizophrenia, and might need anti-psychotic drugs to deal with their condition.
A year ago the Government announced plans to reduce the classification of cannabis from category B to C, after a recommendation from the Police Federation that it was far less harmful than other drugs. The reclassification takes place this summer, and anyone caught smoking a joint will be much less likely to be arrested or prosecuted for possession.

The policy change follows a controversial scheme in Lambeth, south London, in which the Metropolitan Police decided to focus on hard drug users rather than cannabis smokers. The Met said it achieved great results against hard drug dealers, but some health workers were worried that children in the area felt it was now legal - and safe - to smoke cannabis.

There is mounting concern among psychiatrists about the future impact of the softening of the law. Three million people are thought to smoke cannabis regularly, a quarter of them young adults under the age of 29. It has been shown that more people are growing cannabis for their own consumption.
Some doctors have argued that cannabis can be highly beneficial for patients suffering chronic pain, or those with multiple sclerosis.

However, Henry will warn at the Royal Society of Medicine's conference that there has been a recent, dangerous shift in the way people use cannabis and alcohol. Recreational use has given way to a cultural acceptance of getting stoned regularly to a 'far more debilitating degree', according to Henry. 'Modern cannabis is nearly 10 times the strength the "flower power" generation was used to, and in Amsterdam it is at least twice as strong as in the UK,' he said. 'We know that for those who take the drug there is a fourfold increase in schizophrenia and a fourfold increase in the chances of suffering major depressive illness. Given that we know schizophrenia accounts for some 3 per cent of the total NHS bill, the costs could go up by another 1 per cent. That should be urgently considered by the Government.'

Henry believes there are emerging mental health problems associated with THC, or tetrahydrocannabinol, the main active ingredient of cannabis, which in greater concentrations makes more potent forms of the drug, such as 'skunk'.
To investigate its effects on the brain, a study is about to begin at the Maudsley Hospital in south London. Volunteers will be offered free cannabis, so that researchers can carry out brain scans and conduct memory tests to see how mental activity is affected.

Professor Robin Murray, who is leading the study, said his view of the drug had changed in recent years. He used to be sceptical when cannabis was blamed. 'Relatives would say "It seems to be the cannabis that makes my son or daughter or brother psychotic" and I would say, "Oh, they're being hysterical, they're just trying to look for something to blame". We've come to realise that it does have a significant effect, but it has taken us a long time to wake up to this.'
Others, however, point to the fact that rates of schizophrenia have not risen dramatically in the past 50 years to correspond with increasing use of the drug. There is also a question over whether those who are likely to develop schizophrenia are already predisposed to take cannabis.

Recent guidance on the provision of drugs for schizophrenia by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (Nice) estimated that treatment of schizophrenia in England and Wales was responsible for around 3 per cent of the entire NHS budget - some £1 billion a year.

Cliff Prior, chief executive of Rethink, a charity helping those with mental illness, said: 'The public needs to understand that this danger is real. There is growing evidence that cannabis may trigger schizophrenia in vulnerable people.'
Cannabis 'damages mental health'

An expert on the health effects of cannabis says that there is growing evidence that the drug is responsible for mental health problems.

BBC 04.03

Professor John Henry, a consultant in toxicology from St Mary's Hospital in London, told the BBC that studies from Sweden and elsewhere pointed to an increase in schizophrenia among regular cannabis smokers. The mental health effects of smoking cannabis are a controversial area, with any evidence of harm strongly disputed by some. However, Dr Henry is planning to tell a conference at the Royal Society of Medicine on Monday that it appears likely that some cases of schizophrenia are attributable to the consumption of cannabis, rather than the alternative explanation that patients prone to mental illness are more likely to be drawn to use the drug.

Dr Henry says that the strength of cannabis on sale now far outstrips the strength of the drug sold during the "flower power" era of the 1960s and 1970s. He told the BBC: "There's no government health warning against cannabis but there are all kinds of warnings about tobacco. "People who want to smoke cannabis ought to be aware that it has equal effects to cigarettes on the body and worse effects on the mind. "You've got the fact that regular cannabis smokers develop mental illness. "There's a fourfold increase in schizophrenia and a fourfold increase in major depression. "That is something very very different from what smoking does to you. "There's a lot of epidemiological evidence from as far apart as Sweden and New Zealand that cannabis actually causes these problems."

According to a review carried out by UK drugs information service Drugscope, evidence of long-term mental health effects of cannabis is far from clear-cut. It points to criticism of the Swedish study mentioned by Dr Henry - and says that while cannabis consumption is increasing, the incidence of schizophrenia is not, which would suggest that cannabis may not be to blame. It is possible, says Drugscope, that cannabis precipitates schizophrenia in people who would have developed it anyway.

Currently, the number of cannabis users in the UK is estimated at more than three million. The drug is due to be "downgraded" this summer from a Class "B" to a Class "C" drug by the government. This means that while possession of small quantities of cannabis remains illegal, it is not an "arrestable" offence unless there are aggravating factors, such as use of cannabis near children.

Lesley King-Lewis, chief executive of charity Action on Addiction, said: "This evidence further demonstrates that cannabis use can be dangerous. "The public should be made more aware of the risks involved with using this illicit drug. "As many as one in 10 cannabis users become addicted. Cannabis use is associated with cancers of the mouth, tongue, throat, oesophagus and lung and reductions in fertility, as well as with mental illnesses such as schizophrenia and depression. "Chronic cannabis use clearly involves significant costs to society as well as to the individual user. Many of these problems are shared with alcohol and tobacco. "Therefore more research is needed to provide effective education highlighting the relative dangers of different substances and targeting those most at risk."
'Time bomb'

Chief Executive of the British Lung Foundation (BLF), Dame Helena Shovelton, chief executive of the British Lung Foundation, described smoking cannabis as a "health time bomb". She said: "Over 3 million regular users in the UK could end up with chronic lung failure. "It is vital that the public know the damage smoking cannabis can cause." Dame Helena said a BLF lung consultant recently gave a lung transplant to a young patient who had only ever smoked cannabis. "Unfortunately, cases like this will become more and more common if public awareness of the dangers is not raised."

Belgium to legalise cannabis

Andrew Osborn, Brussels
Saturday March 29, 2003
The Guardian

The Belgian parliament has voted to legalise the personal use of cannabis, within certain guidelines, for anyone over the age of 18.
The move, which has been the subject of fierce debate in Belgium for the last two years, will allow users to smoke small quantities of the drug in private, provided they do not disturb public order.

Its sale will, however, remain illegal and Belgium will not tolerate Dutch-style coffee shops selling cannabis over the counter. Hard drugs will continue to be outlawed.

The possession of up to 5g of cannabis for personal use will no longer be punishable and police officers who find such quantities in routine searches will take no action.

The country's ruling coalition of Liberals, Socialists and Greens said it had been trying to decriminalise use of the soft drug since 2001.

The new law cleared the final hurdle after the Belgian senate voted by a margin of 30 to 19 to adopt it.

Managers unaware of signs of employee drug abuse

HR Gateway Editorial

28/03/2003

Almost half of managers in the UK are unable to recognise the symptoms of drug abuse while only half have put in place drug and alcohol policies, new research reveals.

The Chartered Management Institute/Priory Group research reveals that while 85% of managers are confident that they can spot alcohol misuse in staff, only 54% said the same of drugs.

One in five managers claimed that alcohol misuse had risen in their organisation over the past few years while around one in six claimed that drugs misuse had also increased, however, only half has policies in place.

Launched in the House of Lords yesterday at the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Management, the research also revealed that while six in ten felt employers should educate staff on abuse, only 19% of managers’ organisations did so.

‘The results of this survey show that drugs and alcohol are becoming
increasingly recognised as a major concern in the workplace.

‘But it is very evident that a significant proportion of organisations have not yet put the resources or support in place,’ said Priory Group head, Dr Chai Patel.

Up to 14 million working days are lost each year to alcohol-related problems and 27% of organisations report productivity issues due to employees' misuse of drugs - the estimated annual cost to UK industry is £3.5 billion,

Well over half (55%) of managers said they supported random drugs and alcohol testing, however, a further third claiming that such an action would be an invasion of privacy.

Encouragingly, 71% of the half of organisations with alcohol and drugs policies said that they offered counselling or guidance for abuse victims - half offered referral to either an occupational health practitioner or specialist agency.

27.3.03
The Guardian

A Church of Scientology advert claiming that its programmes had "salvaged" 250,000 people from drug abuse has been censured by the Advertising Standards Authority as unproved, following a complaint by the Church of England.
The ruling related to a poster coinciding with a campaign run two years ago by the church. In effect it claimed that the church had saved all those who had completed its drug programmes.

It did not mention that its definition of drug use included an occasional alcoholic drink or prescription medicine, and exposure to chemical toxins.

The ASA judgment said: "The authority accepted that the ... programmes ... had enabled many people to overcome a dependency on drugs but was concerned that the advertisers had not proved that all those enrolled were dependent on street or prescription drugs at the time of enrolment, or that as many as 250,000 drug users had stopped ... as a direct result of Scientology's intervention."

A Church of England spokesman said: "The truth is Scientology makes claims for their dangerous cult which they can neither prove nor substantiate. Drug users trying to kick the habit are vulnerable. This makes them perfect prey for cults."

Graeme Wilson, the Scientologists' spokesman, said: "The success of the ... programmes to help drug addicts ... has been acknowledged by the ASA following an investigation which lasted longer than a year."

Would you pass a random test at work for drugs or alcohol? You might be about to find out, reports Denis Campbell

Sunday March 23, 2003
The Observer

6.30, Monday morning: Peter doesn't feel too bad, considering. A bit cloudy-headed perhaps, after a weekend with the lads in Barcelona celebrating his mate Jason's 30th, but nothing serious. Maybe that final beer on the flight back last night wasn't a great idea.
9am: after coffee, orange juice and toast, Peter starts perking up. The cobwebs have gone, and just as well. There's a sales pitch to a prospective new client at 2pm, and he's the firm's best talker.

9.30: a tap on the shoulder. It's Derek, head of personnel. 'Morning, Peter. Can I borrow you for a moment?'

Derek takes Peter downstairs to a side-room where a white-coated woman is waiting. 'Peter, this is Caroline, from our health screening company. I saw from the records that you haven't been drug-tested since joining us last year. Everyone's meant to have at least one a year. Won't take long.'

Peter begins worrying. The alcohol will have worn off by now - an hour for every unit consumed, so it shouldn't be a problem - but what about that ecstasy tablet on Saturday night? Sweating slightly now, he hands over his urine sample.

How quickly, he wonders, does E leave the system... 24 hours? Or is it 48? It's a week, actually. Which is why the next day Peter is summoned to his boss's office. 'Sorry, Pete, we love your work but we just don't want drug-users on the staff,' says the managing director in his Stateside drawl. 'Orders from the chiefs in Illinois. Good luck in finding a new job.'

Top salesman or not, Peter is out. When he read his contract he was more interested in what bonuses he'd get and didn't notice that the firm could test anyone during working hours for 'substances of abuse' - and fire without compensation anyone whose sample proved positive.

If Peter's story sounds far- fetched, think again. Random drug and alcohol-testing is well on its way to becoming common practice in British workplaces. An estimated 10 per cent of companies, employing 2.6 million workers, already use them. Scared that the consequences of a mistake made by an employee under the influence of an illicit substance could prove costly, a growing number of firms are insisting that their staff are tested.

Some protest that workers are falling victim to an Orwellian import from America, which is increasingly puritanical and censorious in its attitude to smoking, drinking and drug use, and that civil liberties are being trampled in the process. But that apprehension is doing nothing to halt the drift towards a world where indulgence in your private life could cost you your career.

'It's understandable why more employers are doing this, especially in areas of work where safety is an issue,' says Mike Broad of Personnel Today magazine. 'But it's controversial because they are trying to monitor something that doesn't happen in work time. You may be responsible in your work time, and not drink at lunchtime for example, but this forces you to be responsible in your leisure time as well. These tests are like saying to a member of staff, "on Saturday night you can't smoke a joint or get really trashed or do anything excessive because on Monday morning you may be over the limits set down, fail a test and pay for that with your job".'

Owen Tudor, a health and safety policy officer at the TUC, said: 'It has been quite widespread in the United States since the mid-1980s, but we have noted a trend towards it among both American companies based here and British companies trying to ape their US counterparts.'

British transport company Stagecoach introduced staff drug testing last year after lengthy consultation with its workforce. Now all bus and train drivers can be tested at any time for recent drug or alcohol consumption.

Personnel Today has found that at least one in 10 employers already tests staff like this, and another 30 per cent of British companies are considering following suit.

Pilots, surgeons, air traffic controllers, mechanics, operators of dangerous equipment and those who drive for a living all require mental sharpness, physical dexterity and judgment which could be reduced by the lingering effect of, say, cannabis or cocaine.

Dr Jenny Leeser, clinical director of Bupa's occupational health division, says: 'More and more employers are getting interested in ensuring their employees are in peak condition, and are implementing stricter policies about, for example, alcohol, as a way of ensuring their investment in people is paying off.'

Peter Whittam of Huntingdon-based Mediprotektor UK, which produces diagnostic kits used to detect drug use, says employers' fear at being sued for a blunder by a member of their staff is the main reason for drug testing. 'There's a growing awareness that a firm could be held liable in a court for something an employee has done.' The possible introduction of corporate manslaughter legislation is also concentrating minds.

Random drug testing has become common on the railways since Morris Graham, the driver of a train that crashed at London's Cannon Street station in 1991, killing two people and injuring more than 500, was found to have traces of cannabis in a urine sample he gave after the accident. A Health and Safety Executive inquiry ruled that there was no evidence that Graham failed to apply the brakes properly, but British Rail said the finding of 50 nanograms per millilitre of cannabinoid products would have left him 'unfit for driving duties'.

Two years ago British Airways introduced drug and alcohol spot checks on pilots and cabin crew after a television documentary revealed that pilots were drinking heavily hours before taking charge of aircraft. Doctors and nurses may be next.

Employee drug testing is now one of Britain's boom industries, involving several dozen specialist companies and worth an estimated £200m a year. Medscreen, based in London's Docklands, carries out about 175,000 tests a year at about £65 a time. 'We work with 450 companies, two-thirds of which are in safety-critical sectors like oil, transport and dangerous manufacturing,' says the firm's Lindsay Hadfield. 'We test the obvious people you'd expect, like pilots and air traffic controllers, but also baggage checkers-in and aircraft maintenance crews.'

The tests are mainly intended as a deterrent, but they also identify offenders. 'Around 3-4 per cent of those 175,000 tests come up positive, either for drugs, alcohol or both, and those people are usually the subject of disciplinary action,' said Hadfield.

Rail companies insist that any employee who has a problem should declare it and will receive help. Anyone who fails to do so, and then fails a test, is deemed guilty of gross misconduct and dismissed.

'There are fewer white-collar jobs at the moment where safety issues are as critical, but that's going to change,' said Bupa's Dr Leeser. Bupa conducts 26,000 tests a year and is seeing a 20 per cent year-on-year rise in that figure. 'If you are under the influence, there could be consequences for a whole range of things you do at work,' said Leeser. 'An admin worker, for example, could injure their hand in the office guillotine, be off work as a result, and so cost the company money. People under the influence can easily make errors of judgment because their brain is working too slowly or too quickly, depending on the drug they have taken.'

Random checks will soon become much more common in banking, where a single misplaced computer stroke in a transaction to buy or sell shares could be very costly. 'There's a move towards screening in business-critical and financial-critical jobs, rather than just the traditional safety-critical lines of work,' says Medscreen's Hadfield. Some traders and stockbrokers in the City already undergo such tests.

Workplace drug testing is becoming more common at the same time as the consumption of illegal substances is rising. Numerous studies have shown that smoking a joint or taking an occasional E happens far more often, and is far more socially acceptable.

So far this new testing trend has not produced a test case in the High Court, but it can only be a matter of time before an employee sacked for failing a drug test challenges his dismissal by arguing that what he did and took on Saturday night did not affect his performance at work. Lawyers are divided about what will happen when such a case arises. The consensus is that anyone whose contract allows their employer to compel them to be tested probably wouldn't get very far. But sections of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees a right to respect for private life, may help protect staff who indulge in their leisure time.

The TUC is among those who believe the trend has as much to do with employers' nosiness about what their staff get up to in their spare time as any safety or public liability issues. 'Very often this is just an infringement of people's civil liberties and a way of checking on people's personal habits outside the workplace,' says Tudor.

In the US, companies are used to having much more control over their employees' lives than in Britain. Some American companies' conditions of employment already forbid staff from taking part in risky activities such as skydiving or riding a motorbike. Now we, too, are slowly succumbing to this latest version of the American way of life.

Alan Travis, home affairs editor
Saturday March 22, 2003
The Guardian

The first cannabis-based prescription medicines for more than 30 years will be available in high street chemists this year, the drugs minister, Bob Ainsworth, revealed yesterday.
GW Pharmaceuticals, which was licensed by the Home Office to carry out clinical research trials on cannabis, has submitted "an extremely positive" report to the medicines control agency before final approval.

"We could be in a situation where we are able to make cannabis-derived medicines available before the end of the year," Mr Ainsworth told MPs.

The drug company has been testing an under-the-tongue spray in trials involving about 350 patients. The spray has been useful in treating multiple sclerosis and helps reduce nerve damage pain and sleep disturbance.

Additional trials looking at its effectiveness in treating pain in cancer and spinal cord injury are under way. GW says it is discussing the marketing of its new product with several drugs companies.

The main ingredient in the cannabis-derived medicines does not contain the active substance found in recreational cannabis and so patients taking the new drugs will not become intoxicated. Their prescriptions will not be subject to the international treaties banning the production and sale of cannabis.

Cannabis-based medicines were outlawed in 1968 after legislation banned doctors from prescribing tincture of cannabis which contained a high concentration of the active THC psychotropic ingredient which was popular among some recreational cannabis users. While Mr Ainsworth was able to report "really good progress" to MPs on medicinal cannabis, he was less forthcoming when challenged over new research reported earlier this week in the Guardian, which showed that as much as half the cannabis smoked in Britain may be homegrown.

Mr Ainsworth told the Commons home affairs select committee that the government would not adopt a lenient approach to those who cultivated cannabis for personal use.

"We feel that the courts should deal with that. It is down to the courts to apply their discretion. We have no intention of being more lenient on what is the production of an illegal substance," he told Chris Mullin, chairman of the committee which questioned him on the issue.

"I don't think the courts deal with a serious international drug trafficker in the same way as the people you are talking about," Mr Ainsworth said.

The minister also indicated that plans to prescribe heroin to drug addicts who do not respond to methadone treatment had run into a new problem.

He said that some supermarkets had made it clear that they would be unwilling to allow medicinal heroin to be prescribed in their new pharmacy departments.

Mr Ainsworth said he would raise the matter with the Department of Trade and Industry, which is to rule on an office of fair trading inquiry into the supermarkets' expansion into the pharmacy trade.

New Home Office guidance to doctors on prescribing heroin is to be issued next month. One aim is to boost the number of doctors willing to treat class-A drug addicts.

Monday March 17, 2003
The Guardian

The majority of cannabis now consumed in England and Wales has not been smuggled in but is actually grown here, according to a study to be published next month.
The research for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation reveals that there has been a sharp rise in recent years in domestic cultivation, particularly in home-grown cannabis for personal use.

It appears a new breed of British gardener has emerged. But rather than messing about in the back garden they spend their time in the cupboard under the stairs tending their plants. In their case the answer doesn't lie in the soil but in trays of water under lights as their crop is produced hydroponically, without soil.

It has become such a popular pastime that for the first time domestically cultivated cannabis has overtaken Moroccan hash or resin as the major product in the British cannabis market. At least 3 million people a year now use the drug.

The rise in home-grown British "grass" has led to a thriving legal business in cannabis seed, which is available from UK-based seed companies, and specialist growing equipment which is legally available from gardening outlets, "hydroponic growshops", and over the internet.

The research by South Bank University's criminal policy research unit and the national addiction centre at Kings College, London, is partly based on interviews with 37 home cultivators, mainly men in their 20s and 30s. Most had jobs or were students.

It says that the government's strategy of focusing on the more harmful drugs, such as heroin and cocaine, means there is now a strong case for the law to treat the small-scale cultivation of cannabis for personal use or use by friends in the same way as simple possession, and only attract a fine or warning. The study says this would not clash with Britain's obligations under international drug treaties.

The research identified five types of cannabis growers in Britain, but says many of them did it to ensure quality of product, to save money, or as a way of avoiding contact with dealers. There is a wide variety of growing technique.

There has been a trend to use premium seeds rather than imported cannabis bush seeds, and to grow them under more lights, with an average of 4.5 bulbs generating 1067 watts, compared with two bulbs pumping out 421w four years ago. The types identified were:

· Sole-use growers: cultivate cannabis as a money-saving hobby, for personal use. Have 12 to 24 plants, using natural fertilisers and soil mixtures more often than hydroponics.

· Medical growers: motivated by perceived therapeutic value. All those interviewed were supplying multiple scelerosis sufferers and had been charged by police.

· Social growers: grow to ensure good-quality supply for themselves and their friends. They give it away or charge nominal price. Average two dozen plants.

· Social/commercial growers: grow for profit but restrict sales to social networks. Motivation is to supplement income. Have between two and 100 plants.

· Commercial growers: sell to any customer. Grow their own crops to guarantee high quality to secure supply and premium prices. All use hydroponics. One said he earned £2,500 a month out of it.

The study says police forces differ in how they deal with cultivators. Some are cautioned, some charged with trafficking under the 1971 Misuse of Drugs Act which on third conviction carries a minimum seven year sentence, and others are charged with the lesser offence of cultivation.

The report says there were 1,960 cannabis production offences in the UK in 2000, with just under a quarter dealt with by police caution. The rest went to court, with 240 ending in a prison sentence.

Mike Hough, of South Bank University, said the study showed that if the government treated cultivation for personal use in a similar way to possession, and introduced administrative fines for non-commercial cultivation, it could be done within the limits of UN drug conventions.

Home-grown reform

Protect private cannabis cultivators

Leader
Tuesday March 18, 2003
The Guardian

Even liberal laws can lead to hardline pitfalls. To his credit, the home secretary agreed to the recommendations of the Police Foundation's inquiry into the drug laws to downgrade cannabis from category B to C in line with the risks that the drug poses. It was based on expert evidence that the 30-year-old current law, which is meant to categorise drugs by harmfulness, no longer reflected scientific, medical or sociological findings. There was widespread relief, not just in drug treatment circles, but the police too. About 3 million people use the drug annually, including one-quarter of all young adults (aged 16 to 29). A war on cannabis is a war on young people. But to keep rightwingers happy, David Blunkett balanced his package with a draconian increase in sentences for trafficking in class C drugs - up to 14 years in prison.
New research suggests an increasing proportion of cannabis in the UK is cultivated by users for personal consumption or use by friends. This trend has also be seen on the continent, in states like the Netherlands and Switzerland, which pioneered the sensible policy of separating soft from hard drugs. In the UK, this separation is still not so clear cut. Prosecutors have two options in dealing with cultivators: charging them with production (which is a trafficking offence), or applying the lesser charge of cultivation, which is on a par with possession. Both charges are used for similar offences.

There are sound pragmatic reasons for ensuring users who cultivate their own cannabis are not treated as dealers. Their activities reduce the role of criminal gangs and destabilise the criminalised cannabis market. Private cultivators need promoting, not curbing. It is not too late to protect them. The current criminal justice bill should be amended so that grow-your-own, like possession, is treated as a minor offence. It could even win the home secretary some support. Polls suggest 60% of people believe cannabis should no longer be an offence.

Drug workers cheer government's 'crack house' law rethink

Harsh draft excluded

Alan Travis
Wednesday March 19, 2003
The Guardian

The Home Office has shelved proposed guidance that could have meant social care managers working with recovering drug addicts would face prosecution for allowing substance misuse on the premises.

In the face of an overwhelmingly hostile response from many social care organisations, drugs minister Bob Ainsworth has decided not to proceed with the draft guidance. Instead, ministers will wait to gauge the impact of measures in the antisocial behaviour white paper, published last week.

The guidance was intended to strengthen police powers to prosecute people who run "crack houses", or other "closed" drug markets, but, as Society reported earlier this month, care agencies feared it was so vaguely worded that it would leave those involved in legitimate harm reduction projects facing the possibility of a prison sentence of up to 14 years.

The proposal even led some agencies to consider halting their work with drug addicts, offering the bed spaces in their hostels to less controversial client groups.

For many, the change raised the spectre of the Wintercomfort affair, but on a much larger scale. In that notorious case, two managers of a Cambridge day care centre for homeless people were jailed in 1999 for failing to stop drug dealing taking place on their premises.

A Home Office spokeswoman, confirming the shelving of the guidance, told the Guardian: "We are going to postpone the implementation of the amendment of section 8(d) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 for the time being in the light of the new powers in the white paper on antisocial behaviour.

"The proposed change was designed to stop the proliferation of crack houses and was not intended to impact on providers of treatment and help. The power to close down crack houses in the antisocial behaviour white paper has a wider scope and a sharper focus and will cover all class A drugs."

The antisocial behaviour bill, to be published in three weeks' time, will give the police the power to close down crack houses within 48 hours, and to seal them for six months. It will contain a specific exemption for those who legitimately provide treatment and housing.

The guidance on section 8(d) would have created an offence for the occupier, or the person concerned in the management of the premises, knowingly to permit the use of specified controlled drugs on the premises.

Liz Pritchard, chief executive of Homeless Link, an umbrella body of 700 homelessness agencies, is delighted by the decision. "It would have been unworkable and a large number of homeless drug users would have been back on the streets," she says.

A legal opinion obtained by Homeless Link is believed to have been important in convincing ministers that they needed to act to avoid the unintended consequences of the guidance.

Lord Adebowale, chief executive of charity Turning Point, the largest voluntary provider of substance misuse services, says: "We have campaigned long and hard to get a sensible response. The danger was that I, or our managers, could have been arrested if the police thought that the services we carry out in our premises fell foul of section 8(d)."

Roger Howard, chief executive of charity DrugScope, which represents treatment agencies, says many of his 1,100 member agencies have been extremely concerned. "This decision perhaps is reflective of the government's new approach to drugs, which demonstrates they are listening to people on the ground," he says.

Just two tablets enough to cause long-term health problems, psychologists are told

Jo Revill, health editor
Sunday March 16, 2003
The Observer

Ecstasy, the so-called love drug taken by hundreds of thousands each weekend, can result in crippling depression after just a couple of tablets, a study revealed yesterday.
Experts warned that the changes to the brain brought about by the drug leave a legacy of long-term mental health problems, including memory loss and lack of concentration, although many young people still regard it as harmless.

Psychologists have found that even those who gave up taking the drug several years ago scored higher on a depression rating than people who had never taken it.

But for clubbers who are taking large number of tablets regularly, ecstasy actually appears to tip them into clinical depression, according to Dr Lynn Taurah, researcher at London Metropolitan University.

She looked at the habits of 221 young professionals and studied the differences between frequent and less frequent ecstasy users, also comparing them with former users, people who used cannabis and those who took nothing at all.

'What we found is that, whether you have taken it fewer than 20 times or more than 20 times in the past few years, you are still more likely to be depressed than non-users,' said Taurah.

'But for those who over years have taken thousands of tablets, there is a significant chance of serious depression. It's a weird drug.

'At first it gives you a surge of happiness, but after a day or two, and up to three weeks later, the user will have mood swings and feel low. In theory, it shouldn't have a long-lasting effect, but our study showed that even those people who had stopped taking it had higher scores on the depression rating than those who had never taken it.'

Taurah presented a paper yesterday at the British Psychological Society's annual conference in Bournemouth.

At the conference earlier in the week, Dr Fabrizio Schifano, a leading authority on the drug, revealed new data showing how ecstasy was very often being taken in a cocktail with other drugs. Schifano, a consultant psychiatrist at the addiction centre at St George's Hospital Medical School in south London, said: 'What we know from previous studies is that those who take relatively large amounts of tablets have an eight times higher chance of suffering depression than the lower users.'

He revealed at the conference that, out of the 202 ecstasy deaths recorded in England and Wales between 1997 and April 2002, 85 per cent involved mixing ecstasy with other drugs.

He said that it was common for clubbers to start their evening with a mixture of alcohol and ecstasy and that during the second part of the night - usually between 2am and 3am - they would often re-energise themselves with 'uppers' such as cocaine and amphetamines.

Then at the end of the night, as the 'loved-up' feelings begin to fade and be replaced with irritability - usually between 5am and 6am - it was common to take 'downers' such as alcohol and heroin.

'If you take ecstasy, you tend to have a liberal attitude towards drugs and are more likely to have tried a vast array of other drugs, but even when you allow for the impact of the other chemicals, it is clear that ecstasy is linked to depression and other cognitive disturbances.'

He said that most users were completely unaware of the fact that it might also lead to memory loss and difficulties concentrating.

This has been confirmed by brain-imaging techniques showing that ecstasy affects serotonin neurones - nerve impulses fired when the mood-chemical serotonin hits them.

The cells, which run from the brain stem down to the frontal cortex, are 'pruned' by the chemical, removing cells that affect our response to pain and govern mood and cognitive functions.

'We can no longer conclude that ecstasy is going to be safe. This new study confirms the other research showing that even a small amount has an impact,' said Schifano.

'What no one can predict is what it will mean for the future. These clubbers may be 24 or 25, but how will their minds be affected by the time they are 55 or 60?'

Police policy towards neighbourhood drug dealers is hopelessly inadequate and needs a complete overhaul

Sara Smith
Tuesday March 11, 2003
The Guardian

The oddest thing about living next door to a crack den is how boring it becomes. After a while, the screaming rows, the urine-soaked steps and abuse from users become predictable and depressing rather than disturbing. I was scared when addicts tried to enter my home and wept with frustration when I had to scrape human faeces away from my front door. But I was largely inured to these problems until I turned the corner of my road one morning and saw the Crimestoppers posters.
"Don't let London suffer the side effects of crack," the adverts thunder, urging us to shop dealers. At that point, anger took over.

Well, I have shopped and shopped and shopped, and so have most of my neighbours. We have shopped so enthusiastically we make Elton John look frugal. We have sung like a choir of canaries, offering times, dates and vehicle number plates.

Six months on, the crack house is thriving and pensioners are still scared to go out on their own. Hardly surprising, since crack dealing is associated with aggression, violence and theft. Users spend almost twice as much on their habit as heroin addicts - £478 a month, on average - which might explain why they are so keen to get into our homes.

For all these reasons, I welcome the Home Office's new plans to tackle the problem. Bob Ainsworth, the drugs minister, has promised extra cash for 37 crack-ridden communities, including mine in London; overall, the government will beef up its anti-drugs budget by £500m to £1.5bn by 2005.

It has issued new guidelines for those fighting drugs and has promised to improve policing, tailor services for addicts and support vulnerable young people to stop them falling prey to the drug in the first place. Police forces are targeting markets and officers have closed down three dens in my neighbourhood alone.

All of this sounds terrific, and much of it might help. Perhaps, with luck, "our" crackhouse will be the next to go.

The good news is that crack can still be controlled; it is not (yet) an epidemic. According to last year's British Crime Survey, only 0.2% of 16- to 59-year-olds had taken it in the last year.

Dealing is heavily concentrated in deprived areas like mine. But it is not an inevitable consequence of poverty and there are measures that can - and must - be taken while broader issues are addressed. The question is whether a 34-page plan will succeed where common sense has so far failed. The inadequacies of existing practice are blindingly obvious to anyone who has encountered crack use.

First, we need prompt action. We know that police resources are stretched, but crack must be a priority. I say that not just because it is in my back (or front) yard, but because the longer dealing is allowed to continue, the more entrenched it becomes.

Suppliers and their customers become increasingly brazen; dealers have time to find vulnerable people whose homes they can use when existing crack houses are closed. Worst of all, users become addicts.

Forget the myths. No one gets hooked on crack from a single hit. It takes time to de velop a habit, which is why we need to disrupt that process as soon as possible.

For the same reason, we need to target users as well as suppliers. Dealers are smart enough to sell crack in small quantities so that customers take it at once.

Police say there is no point in "attending" because the evidence has disappeared by the time they arrive. But that can hardly be the case when they are called in the middle of a large delivery.

Second, we need better coordination. Information is not filtering through organisations, never mind reaching other agencies. You can report an immediate problem to police, but that does not mean that their colleagues will know about it the next day or even the next week. They complain about a lack of help but squander what they are given.

Coordination also means thinking about long-term consequences, ensuring that users are rehoused in new areas and are not replaced by vulnerable people who are likely to fall prey to dealers.

Third, action must be sustained. At one point the police camped out on my street for four days, intercepting addicts on their way to the crackhouse. Glorious peace reigned... for four days; the morning after they left, the users returned.

Most of all, we need help for addicts. Users must be offered help at the first opportunity and must continue to be offered support even if - more probably when - they reject it or relapse.

Heroin addicts get methadone; crack users lack even that imperfect substitute, so need treatment such as therapy rather than a drug-based regime.

The government's most important promise is to think creatively, and to ensure early appointments and low waiting times.

That crack addicts are among the drug users most reluctant to seek treatment is more, not less, reason to focus on helping them. My neighbour and his customers are not bad people. They are desperate. So are those of us who have to live with them.

A Police website that informs children that they will not be prosecuted for sniffing glue or smoking cannabis was criticised as "irresponsible" yesterday by parents. The website, set up by Greater Manchester Police to offer advice to pupils aged seven to 16, also says that there is no law against taking the drug amyl nitrite, known as "poppers". It also spells out the circumstances in which children can legally engage in under-age drinking and smoking.

Officers originally defended the website, saying that its aim was to give children a clear understanding of the law and help them to become better citizens. After receiving a barrage of criticism, however, they have admitted that certain aspects of it were a "mistake" and would be changed.

Charities and parents' groups expressed concern about the site last week and condemned the police for ignoring the health risks of drugs and alcohol. Margaret Morrissey, a spokesman for the National Confederation of Parent Teacher Associations, said: "This is sending out entirely the wrong message to children. The police shouldn't be informing children about whether smoking, drinking and taking drugs is illegal or not, but whether it is right or wrong and that it is dangerous.

"What does a parent do if a child is told by the police that it's not illegal to smoke and sniff glue, when the parent is desperately trying to discourage them? "Some children will think they can get away with smoking or drinking because they know they won't get into trouble with the police or have legal action taken against them."

Among the more contentious aspects of the website is an interactive quiz in its "drugs and law" section. This asks children a series of questions, including: whether they believe it is illegal for a nine-year-old to smoke; for a 10-year-old to sit on the wall drinking cider; or for a 14-year-old to smoke cannabis? The children are then informed that they would not be breaking the law if they did any of these things.

In the case of smoking they are told that there is no offence of under-age smoking and that the only offence is for shopkeepers to sell cigarettes to children under 16. The reference to a child drinking cider on a wall is dealt with by informing pupils that it is only an offence for an under-age person to drink in a bar or licensed premises.

The cannabis reply says that it is not illegal to smoke the drug, although it does say that possession of it is against the law.

In another section, children are given case studies about children drinking, smoking and taking drugs and asked whether they are breaking the law. Among the examples cited is that of "Hifsa", a 13-year-old girl, who buys cigarettes in a shop. Game players are informed that this is legal. In another scenario, two boys, "Gary" and "Paul" are sitting in a park sniffing glue when a policeman arrives. The quiz participants are told that the boys are not doing anything illegal.

Turning Point, a charity that campaigns to prevent substance abuse, said that while it welcomed attempts to educate children, the police had to ensure that the dangers of drugs were clearly set out. "People, especially young people, need more than the bald facts about drugs," said a spokesman for the charity. "They must be balanced by information and guidance about health and given clarity about the serious consequences of substance misuse."

Department of Health figures show that glue sniffing and its effects caused the deaths of 27 young people in 2000, the most recent year for which statistics are available.

The website, www.education.ntu.ac.uk/gmp, was built by Nottingham Trent University and funded by a Greater Manchester police trust registered charity, as part of the force's school liaison programme. Greater Manchester Police last night admitted that mistakes had been made with the site. Sgt Trevor Pile, the force's school youth liaison officer, said: "I agree with the concerns that have been raised. "We have just put in the legal side without addressing the health issues and the concerns about young people smoking and taking drugs. We shall look at it and see what amendments need to be made."

Drugs scheme fails criminals

BBC 6/3/03

A flagship scheme to tackle drug abuse among criminals has been beset by problems with huge variations in the way probation officers impose national guidelines, says a report.

Not enough time was allowed for new orders to be introduced, according to the chief inspector of probation, Professor Rod Morgan. Regular drug testing, treatment and supervision for criminals addicted to Class A drugs - like heroin - have been outlined in the Drug Treatment and Testing Orders (DTTOs) since October 2000.
Offenders should be tested for drugs twice a week for the first 13 weeks of the order. But less than a quarter of cases studied for the report achieved this target. Mr Morgan said performance was "extremely uneven" across the UK although there had been some progress by probation officers.

Ministers have admitted 46% of DTTOs have failed. And just 12% have been completed successfully, with the rest ongoing. "It is a case of the Probation Service having come a long way in a short time, but now needing to ensure steady high quality delivery across the country," said Mr Morgan.
A total of 238 cases from eight probation areas showed "a disappointing level of achievement of the DTTO national standard", according to the report. Better monitoring - particularly of women and ethnic minority offenders - and systems to identify the cost of the orders, were recommended.

Home Office minister Hilary Benn said the orders worked although he accepted much more needed to be done. "They can get offenders off drugs, away from a life of crime and in turn relieve communities of the blight drugs cause," he said.
Assistant general secretary of the probation union Napo, Harry Fletcher, said: "We are dealing with an extremely difficult, chaotic group of offenders who are long-term addicts who steal most days to feed their habits." He believes the final completion rate will be 30%.
"If it gets 3,000 people off drugs that's 20,000 fewer crimes a week or a million fewer in a year," he said.

Catherine, 29, 5'6", cropped hair, seriously pretty, with skin that makes you wish you'd been taking your multivitamins, is sipping mineral water and smoking in a West London bar. When she stands up to take a call on her mobile phone her jeans slip to her hips, revealing a flash of bottle-tanned, washboard stomach. The only curves you see are the contours of her muscular, Venus Williams arms.

Catherine's athletic femininity may look like the product of obsessive and punitive work-outs in the gym. In fact, she barely had to sweat for it. Catherine is one of a growing number of women who have taken, or are taking, anabolic steroids in order to lose weight fast. Clenbuterol has been her anabolic steroid of choice, for it comes with a bonus side-effect amid a plethora of detrimental ones: it boosts the libido. More and more women are downing – or even shooting up – clenbuterol for that reason alone.

Catherine was introduced to the Viagra of the gym circuit by her personal trainer. "I was in the same boat as a lot of people," explains Catherine, a researcher in a television production company. "I wanted to lose weight, but could never stick to a diet and it was getting me down. I was about a stone over my ideal weight of eight and felt too unfit for a former aerobics champion. Last January I joined the gym near work and said in my induction session that I wanted to be toned all over with arms like Madonna. I had three months to get rid of it before I went to Australia with my friend. That was my big incentive."

Three weeks later Catherine hired a personal trainer at her local gym to help her get results more quickly. "I was impatient and had really launched myself into the whole fitness thing by then," she says. "When I told the trainer that I needed to be in shape quickly, he just said, 'no problem, but we'll need to look at your diet'. He then asked me if I'd be interested in taking a supplement that would help me replace fat with muscle. He told me it was a steroid substance.

"He skirted around the fact that it was the real thing by telling me it was more of a diet pill and everyone was using them. Anyway, I trusted him. He pointed out this gorgeous-looking woman in the gym who was on them and that was enough for me. 'Get me some of that!' I said." Within days, at a cost of £45, her trainer provided Catherine with six weeks' supply of clenbuterol tablets in 20 microgram doses to be taken in a two-days-on, two-days-off cycle.

"He told me they were the best fat burners around, but they might make me sweat and could affect my sleep patterns. He also said they would increase my libido."

Typical steroid users are no longer bulging-eyed beefcakes such as Canadian sprinter Ben Johnson, banned from sport after testing positive for using the drug Winstrol. Last month, UK Sport announced that due to the emergence of more effective and less easily detected performance enhancers, hardly any professional sports people now use steroids. Gymgoers and amateur sports enthusiasts have taken their place. Last year, the British Medical Association estimated that steroid use was up to 13 per cent in some gyms around the country.

"By far the biggest users of steroids are recreational users, including gay men and young women," says Pat Lenehan, director of the Drugs and Sport Information Service, set up by the NHS, in Merseyside in 1994.

"Improving the way you look is the most significant factor in their use. It is difficult to quantify precisely how many women take them, but the signs are that more are using steroids as a quick fix to drop a dress size," he says.

"One of the side-effects of their use is enlargement of the female clitoris and some research has shown a rise in the number of women using the drug purely to enhance their sex life. Libido enhancement is one reason that steroid use is on the rise in America and may rise here."

In a BMA report published last year, one third of GPs questioned said they had seen patients who either freely admitted taking steroids or confessed when asked about various symptoms spotted by their doctor.

In some parts of the country, as many as half of all GPs have seen steroid users in their surgeries. And, says Pat Lenehan, figures show that more than one third of all new drug users were on steroids: "It is a huge problem."

That's certainly not how the women who whip their figures into shape within weeks see it. Derived from the male sex hormone testosterone, anabolic steroids cause increased muscle mass, although not necessarily bulk, reduce body fat and quicken recovery times from workouts. Users report that they also give a mental boost, mainly through improved sexual confidence and a better body image.

"For starters I felt more enthusiastic about sex because I was generally less tired," says Catherine. "But I also enjoyed the whole sex thing. Me and a girlfriend, who was also taking steroids , talked about how neither of us had ever had such powerful orgasms before. That is one of the real pluses of taking them."

On the website www.anabolicsteroids. com, one of many virtual fanzines for users, dozens of women have posted entries about similar experiences. "My friend and I are using Winstrol V, not a lot of it, but every week, as we both share the same ideas to look good," says 25-year-old Nancy from New York. "We have seen definite improvements to our bodies.

"But along with the growing attention we receive for our appearance since we started taking steroids six months ago, we began to notice something else that wasn't noticeable to anyone else but ourselves and our boyfriends. Our clitorises had enlarged. Sex feels very different and far better and I'll take them for that reason as well as the fact that this summer will be my best, because I am 25 and don't look a year over 18."

Catherine felt similarly elated. Within a month of taking the steroid tablets and continuing her gym programme, Catherine noticed dramatic changes in her body shape. "It was like somebody had put things on fast forward," she says. "People started complimenting me on my weight loss and asking what sort of exercise I was doing. I lost virtually all the weight I had wanted to lose in that first month and came down three cups in my bra size."

Other effects were less welcome. "I am usually calm, but I became very edgy at work and irritable at home. My boyfriend and I were rowing all the time," she says. "At first I didn't put it down to the clenbuterol until I was chatting to a friend at the gym who had tried something similar. She had stopped after it gave her panic attacks and palpitations. Another friend of hers almost lost her job because she began yelling at a colleague at work. In a way those stories comforted me – it seemed like everyone was at it."

Side-effects like these are often the price to pay for long-term steroid use. Hair loss, acne, deepening of the voice, growth of body hair and smaller breasts are as common in women as shrunken testicles and enlarged breasts are in men. Both sexes, say the British Medical Association, are at higher risk of heart disease, liver disease and cancer.

Many remain unperturbed by the dangers: needle exchange centres in the UK are seeing increased numbers of steroid-users among their clients, more and more of whom are young professionals in well-paid jobs. Users are also getting younger both here and in America. The number of American teenage girls who admit to taking steroids has doubled since 1991 to almost 200,000, according to Professor Charles Yesalis, head of exercise and sport science at Pennsylvania State University. "I'd say around 500,000 to 600,000 kids in the US have used these drugs at some time," he says. "Right now steroid use is at an all time high. We've shown use down to 13 and 14-year-olds. It's scary for anyone to use these drugs, but in particular, women and children."

It is a trend likely to be mirrored in the UK. In the most recent survey of 14- to 15-year-olds, conducted by researchers at University of Essex three years ago, steroids were found to