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

Nicholas Watt, political correspondent
Thursday July 3, 2003
The Guardian

The Tory leadership yesterday distanced itself from one of Margaret Thatcher's key policies by pledging to place the rehabilitation of drug users ahead of the war against international traffickers.
In a major departure from Tory policy of the 1980s, the shadow home secretary, Oliver Letwin, pledged to focus his efforts on helping young users because the odds were so "heavily stacked against" authorities in the war on drugs.

"I have never used the words 'war on drugs'," said Mr Letwin. "When I talk about fighting the menace I talk about rehabilitation. The crux of the problem is not supply but demand. We should not give up on trying to impede supply. But it is an enormous international business and the odds are very heavily stacked against us."

His remarks came on the eve of today's launch by Iain Duncan Smith of the Tories' plans for helping drug users. In a visit to the Chapeltown area of Leeds, which has been blighted by drugs, the Tory leader will pledge to increase the number of drug rehabilitation places from 3,000 to well over 20,000.

"That means we'll have enough places in rehab for every young hard drug addict in Britain," Mr Duncan Smith will say. "It's a battle we must win because these young people are victims. They deserve to start adult life with a clean slate and clean from drugs."

His remarks will be seen as a sign of how he is determined to move the Tories away from the "no such thing as society" legacy of the Thatcher era. Mr Duncan Smith, who has been criticised for lurching to the right after initially promising to champion Britain's vulnerable people, wants today's visit to show that he has not abandoned his pledge as he attempts to woo middle Britain.

The new Tory policy is modelled on schemes in the Netherlands and Sweden where intensive rehabilitation schemes have led to a dramatic decline in the use of heroin among young people. Mr Letwin made clear that rehabilitation would be tough because drug users would have to abstain.

"This is not detox [which] is easy and... is broadly useless," he said. "It is performed every day in prisons in Britain. This is like dieting but times 1000. It can't be done when people are not abstaining." Mr Letwin rejected the idea of prescribing hard drugs on the NHS to help drug users abandon their habit.

"If you have maintained addicts you will have a permanent dependent population paid for by hard-working people. That is intolerable," he said. The dramatic increase in the number of rehabilitation places will be part of a two-pronged strategy for fighting drugs, which will also include the recruitment of an extra 40,000 police officers. They would tackle drugs users, but would also help to reclaim the "ghettoes" which push young people into drugs.

Mr Duncan Smith will say: "We'll have enough police to tackle not only serious crime - the shooting, the robberies, the assaults - but also the offences we've been forced to accept as part of everyday life. The anti-social behaviour, the vandalism, the petty crime, the things that chip away at our confidence and turn our neighbourhoods into ghettoes."

Q&A: drug rehab and the new Tory policy

The Times On Line
July 03, 2003

Iain Duncan Smith said today that a Tory government would provide rehabilitation to Britain's 20,000 drug addicts to help to reduce crime. Nick Barton, chief executive of the rehabilitation charity Clouds, explains what's involved and whether it will work.

Is the Tory plan a sensible one?

Making treatment more readily available for young people has to be welcomed as long as it is of good quality and appropriate to their current situation. There is the danger of simply warehousing youngsters to get them off the streets. This could well exacerbate problems. Coercive treatment can be effective but brings with it its own challenges. It is better than slinging them in prison.

Is there enough funding for rehabilitation at the moment?

More public money has gone into the system but there is doubt about how much has actually found its way through to providers. A new bureaucracy has burgeoned and some areas have used the new money as a smokescreen under cover of which to withdraw existing funding. There is also tremendous pressure for providers to improve quality and effectiveness without an appreciation of what those improvements cost.

Is the link between drugs and crime accepted?

The link is accepted because it is evident. However a large proportion of treatment providers are charitable organisations whose purpose is to relieve suffering rather than to reduce crime.

A recent study showed that a significant reduction in crime is a by-product of treatment. Some, such as methadone prescription, are more immediately geared towards reducing specific harm (including crime) in the short-term than those that focus on restoring the whole person.

What is the typical procedure for people admitted to rehab?

It depends on the stage of treatment. In the first stage the focus will be on stabilising health, managing physical withdrawal and then helping the process of psychological withdrawal.

At its base it is very simple. If you do not pick up a drink or drug you will not suffer the consequences of doing so. The treatment is about reducing the compulsion to pick up and about finding alternative behaviours when it surfaces. Those who involve their families in the treatment process do better. The more social support you have and the more people you have supporting your recovery the better. That's why the anonymous fellowships are so helpful.

How many patients relapse?

Relapse is typical of the condition and some people need more than one bite of the cherry. The risks of it becoming a revolving door are greater if detox is provided without psychological treatment. It is also vital to have continuing support available in the community after treatment.

Who is eligible for publicly funded treatment?

Essentially everyone who decides not to pay for themselves and who is assessed as having a real need. What type of treatment will depend on a variety of factors including local policy, local budgets, quality of assessment, availability etc.

Nick Barton is a board member of the European Association for the Treatment of Addiction. He is an adviser to the National Treatment Agency.


Tory vow to tackle drugs 'crisis'
BBC 3/7/03

Drug addiction is the "biggest crisis to face Britain", Iain Duncan Smith has warned as he unveiled Tory plans to offer treatment to every crack and heroin addict in the UK. He said his party "has to win the battle against drugs and crime", because it is "hollowing society out from the inside".

Mr Duncan Smith said under a Tory government the numbers of residential rehabilitation places for hard drug addicts will be increased from under 2,000 to 20,000. But Roger Howard, chief executive of the charity DrugScope, argued that the plans may prove prohibitively expensive. He told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "Any investment in residential rehabilitation for drug treatment is expensive - increasing it to 20,000 is a massive increase."

The Tories have already said they would be willing to take almost half a billion pounds every year out of health spending to help young drug addicts beat their habits. On Thursday, Mr Duncan Smith used the launch of the party's new crime strategy in Leeds to make a firm commitment on the numbers. He said drug offences rose by 16% last year, with violent crime up by a fifth and gun crimes up by 35%.

After looking at crime fighting on the streets of New York and other places, a Tory administration would implement plans outlined last year to provide 40,000 more police officers, he said. "We want to give people a fair deal on the streets of Britain ... " he told the BBC. "On the other hand, we have to cut the demand which fuels that violent crime through drugs and that is to give young people a way out - a tough choice - so rehabilitation, as we have seen in Sweden and many other countries, where they have reduced addiction, cut the levels of crime. We are going to copy that."

Mr Duncan Smith said his policy had been inspired by a visit to Gallowgate in Glasgow where he met many families whose children had died as a result of drug overdoses. He said they had told him that nobody had offered these people "a way out", yet their streets were "amongst the most violent, the most crime ridden" places where "drive by gun crimes on a Friday night are a regular occurrence".

"There are so many families that I know of ... whose lives are blighted because one member of that family or more has got themselves involved in drugs," said Mr Duncan Smith. "Everybody suffers as a result of this addiction, so what I am saying to people is: 'Look, this is the biggest crisis to face Britain."

His shadow home secretary Oliver Letwin has already unveiled plans to give young drug addicts a choice between getting treatment or facing court action. Home Secretary David Blunkett said he welcomed the Tory "conversion" to his focus on Class A drug users. But he argued: "This latest relaunch of the same Tory drugs policy raises more questions than Mastermind... "Plucking figures out of the air to make attractive-sounding promises doesn't fool anyone." Former government drugs czar Keith Hellawell welcomed support for treatment but said only the fine details of the policy would show whether it was more than "just spin". Mr Hellawell told BBC News Online the efforts he had begun to have 100% of hard addicts in treatment by 2008 were on target to be met. He questioned whether residential places were the best option. "I found that people were isolated from their families and the community and having come back to the community they were extremely vulnerable. "So we tended to favour community based treatment with parents and other people involved."

Drugs help charity Adfam praised the Tories for consulting the people best placed to give advice - families and groups working with drug users. Chief executive Vivienne Evans said: "We welcome any pledge to underpin drug treatment programmes with consistent, guaranteed funding but only where the figures are realistic. "The Conservatives must do more to substantiate the costs of the rehab they have used."

Danny Kushlick, director of drugs charity Transform, accused the Tories of "missing the point" as he argued enforcement of drugs laws had failed. He told BBC News Online: "Treatment is not the issue. The major problem. The major problem for drug misusers, be they young or old, is prohibition."

Sweden takes lead on drug laws

Independent
By Paul Waugh
04 July 2003

Despite its liberal image, Sweden has some of the toughest drug policies in the world.

Its zero-tolerance approach began more than 35 years ago precisely because the country realised that a more relaxed attitude had failed. In the 1960s, amphetamines were decriminalised, enabling doctors to prescribe them to addicts. Drug use soared from a couple of hundred addicts to 2,000-3,000 within a couple of years. The Government decided in 1966 to treat all drugs equally, from cannabis to heroin, under a single law. Stop and search laws were introduced to allow police to stop people they suspected of consuming drugs and officers could enforce compulsory urine and blood tests.

But while the means of catching users is severe, its treatment of them emphasises rehabilitation rather than inprisonment as a solution. Persistent offenders are sent for mandatory treatment and drug education for schoolchildren is compulsory.

The Tories have been most impressed by recent figures which reveal a mere 9 per cent of Swedes had tried drugs, compared with 34 per cent who had tried them in the UK. However, the party's emphasis on residential-based treatment, with addicts sent to specialist clinics run by community groups and charities, is not in line with the Swedish experience, critics claim.

John Mann, Labour MP for Bassetlaw, said the Swedes concentrate instead on treating heroin addicts with a drug substitute at their GPs' surgery and they are then given rehabilitation help in the community to get them back into work.

Mr Mann, who published a report into drugs in his mining constituency last year, also said he discovered that many residential units for young people in Sweden were closing down because they are deemed not to be cost effective.

"Mr Duncan Smith is talking nonsense. He has gone to Sweden and heard them talk about rehabilitation and assumed that means residential centres but it does not," he said.

"The idea of sending young people to centres in the country is an old, old idea. It is not the way to treat heroin addiction for a start."

Sarah Boseley, health editor
Thursday July 3, 2003
The Guardian

Very heavy use of cannabis could be a cause of psychosis, according to a leading psychiatrist who believes that society should think carefully about the potential consequences of its increasing use.
Robin Murray, professor of psychiatry at the Institute of Psychiatry and consultant psychiatrist at the Maudsley hospital in London, says that in the last 18 months, there has been increasing evidence that cannabis causes serious mental illness. In particular, a Dutch study of 4,000 people from the general population found that those taking large amounts of cannabis were almost seven times more likely to have psychotic symptoms three years later.

"This research must not be ignored," said Prof Murray, speaking at the annual general meeting of the Royal College of Psychiatrists in Edinburgh.

Writing in the Guardian last August, Prof Murray said he had been surprised that the discussion around cannabis had skirted around the issue of psychosis.

Psychiatrists had known for 150 years that very heavy consumption of cannabis could cause hallucinations and delusions.

"This was thought to be very rare and transient until the 1980s when, as cannabis consumption rose across Europe and the USA, it became apparent that people with chronic psychotic illnesses were more likely to be regular daily consumers of cannabis than the general population."

In the UK, he said, people with schizophrenia are about twice as likely to smoke cannabis. The reason appears to be the effect that the drugs have on chemicals in the brain. "In schizophrenia, the hallucinations and delusions result from an excess of a brain chemical called dopamine. All the drugs which are known to cause psychosis - amphetamine, cocaine and cannabis -increase the release of dopamine in the brain."

Cannabis had been the downfall of many a promising student, he suggested. "Like any practising psychiatrist, I have often listened to the distraught parents of a young man diagnosed with schizophrenia tell me that as a child their son was very bright and had no obvious psychological problems. Then in his mid-teens his grades began falling. He started complaining that his friends were against him and that people were talking about him behind his back.

"After several years of increasingly bizarre behaviour, he dropped out of school, job or university; he was admitted to a psychiatric unit overwhelmed by paranoid fears and persecution by voices. The parents tell me that, at some point, their son was heavily dependent on cannabis."

It used to be thought that the high numbers of psychotic patients taking cannabis could be explained because they used it to alleviate their symptoms. The recent studies, however, have looked at large populations without mental illness and studied the numbers of cannabis takers within them who have developed psychosis.

How dangerous is GHB?

Alok Jha
Thursday July 3, 2003
The Guardian

Gamma hydroxybutyrate itself is nowhere near as dangerous as recent reports have made out. But like any drug, misuse can have harmful consequences. It has been implicated in several cases of date rape, and it was because of this that the drug was banned earlier this week.
"My impression is that, in modest amounts, it's not that dangerous," says Mike Farrell, senior lecturer at the National Addiction Centre in London. "It's been around on the market for 10 or 15 years. I don't know of a single record of a GHB death."

GHB is a naturally occurring carbohydrate - it's classed as a nutrient - present in virtually every cell of the human body. It has a low toxicity and, if ingested, normally breaks down into carbon dioxide and water after about four hours. Doctors use it as a general anaesthetic, for insomnia, and as a treatment for alcoholism. It is considered so safe, in fact, that the drug is also used as an aid in childbirth. Body builders use GHB because it stimulates the release of growth hormone.

It has been used widely as a recreational drug and, in small doses, acts as a stimulant - hence the nickname "liquid ecstasy". Increase the dose and it will knock you out, however. Until now, possession of GHB has not been an offence but supplying it has required a licence.

The real problem with GHB is that, as it is tasteless and odourless, it is virtually undetectable if slipped into an unsuspecting person's drink. Given a high enough dose, the victim could become unconscious within half an hour and would remain so until the drug had passed out of their system. Farrell adds that, since the effects of GHB are similar to those of alcohol, mixing the two could have undesirable effects. "Remember, alcohol in high doses is also a nasty drug," he says.

Outlawing the drug is unlikely to stop people using it, though. "Banning is always the act of the desperate where you're responding to public outcry," Farrell warns. "Will we have less problems than we had five years ago? Probably not."

'Liquid ecstasy' to be banned as date rapes and deaths soar

Supply and possession of GHB, used by rapists to spike their victims' drinks, will bring up to five years in jail

Kamal Ahmed, political editor
Sunday June 29, 2003
The Observer

The date-rape drug GHB is to be made illegal after concern over the soaring number of women attacked after the chemical was slipped into their drinks.
Possession of the drug, gamma hydroxybutyrate, without a medical prescription will be punishable by a prison sentence of up to two years. Supplying the drug will bring a maximum penalty of five years in jail.

The Home Office agreed to reclassify the drug to Class C status after evidence that its use by men in rape attacks was increasing. The colourless, odourless liquid is a powerful anaesthetic which effectively 'knocks out' victims and leaves them with no knowledge of what has happened. Because it is difficult to detect in the blood, prosecutions are difficult.

Clubbers also use the drug, also known as 'liquid ecstasy', to create a 'high'. In small quantities it acts as an anti-depressant but has been linked to a number of deaths. Leading stars, including Nick Nolte, have admitted to taking it.

'It is a very dangerous drug,' said one Home Office official. 'It can be fatal when mixed with alcohol and has been closely linked to two forms of misuse, both by clubbers and in the area of drug-assisted rape. We consider it to be very harmful.'

In a move that will be welcomed by both the police and drug charities, GHB will be illegal from next month. Police will be expected to step up investigations into a growing black market in the drug, which can be made in home-based labs using solvents and caustic soda.

The Government will also announce that a number of anabolic steroids used by body-builders and athletes will be banned. The four steroids in the androstene family, which are already prohibited by the International Olympic Committee, are used to build 'body bulk' and increase stamina.

Three other drugs used in hospitals will also be made illegal outside the medical environment.

GHB, which is also known colloquially as GBH because of the damaging effect it can have on the body, came to public attention in the Nineties, when it first entered the club scene. A close relative, Rohypnol, which has also been connected to date rape, is already banned.

A 1999 survey by Mixmag , the music magazine, found that 3 per cent of clubbers said they had tried GHB. That figure rose to 26 per cent in the 2000 survey. Last year Davina McCall, the Big Brother presenter, led a campaign to dissuade people from taking the drug, which is sold in clubs and sex shops for about £10 a phial.

The first deaths from taking the drug were reported in the mid-Nineties, and last year the Office of National Statistics said four deaths had been directly linked to it. Earlier this year, the rising rock star Lee Pennington, drummer with the band Squeezebox, died aged 21 after taking a mixture of ecstasy and GHB.

Clubbers travelling to Ibiza were warned last year of dealers peddling GHB. Dr Francisco Mueles, head of the casualty department at the Can Misses Hospital on the island, said it was a 'new and dangerous holiday phenomenon'.

'It worries us a lot because we don't understand how the drug works, and much less so when it is taken with other toxic substances like alcohol and cocaine,' he said.

One of the most notorious cases of the use of the drug against women came in a trial in America last year. The heir to the Max Factor fortune, Andrew Luster, was sentenced to 120 years in prison after being found guilty of drugging and raping three students under the influence of GHB.

Luster, who fled from America during the trial and was last week said to have been discovered by a bounty-hunter in Mexico, videotaped himself having sex with the three women. He was seen proclaiming: 'That's exactly what I like in my room: a passed-out beautiful girl.'

In Britain there have been a number of high-profile cases involving the drug. Earlier this year David Meachen of Camarthen in west Wales was sentenced to 10 years in prison after meeting a stranger in a bar and spiking her drink with GHB. He then raped her.

Lea Shakespeare, a serial rapist, was given 10 life sentences after a series of offences between 2000 and 2001 using the drug. Speaking after the trial of Shakespeare, aged 30, at Lincoln Crown Court, Detective Superintendent Russell Wate of Cambridgeshire Police demanded that the drug be made illegal.

In another case a 25-year-old woman said she had pulled out 18 of her own teeth with pliers after hallucinating under the influence of the drug. Samantha Court, from Bolton, was found by paramedics covered in blood with the extracted teeth scattered around her. She said she was addicted to the drug.

Women who have suffered date rape have told of the trauma it creates. Janet Noakes, interviewed by the London Evening Standard last year, said many women never believe it will happen to them. 'It was an evil and diabolical thing for him to have done,' she said after she was raped by a man she had met for a drink. Her drink was spiked and she lost consciousness for a number of hours. It was only on waking that she realised she had been attacked.

Last night the charity DrugScope welcomed the Government's move but said the Home Office should now consider reclassifying other drugs so that they better reflected their danger.

'We would also now like the Government to review the advice that it has already been given on the classification of ecstasy as less harmful than other Class A drugs,' said Frank Warburton, the director of service development at the charity.

GHB: Unpredictable club drug

By Duncan Walker
BBC News Online

Since it first appeared in the UK in the mid 90s, GHB has earned an unenviable reputation rivalling that of many drugs long since banned by the government. It is widely known as a 'date rape' drug because of its use to knock victims unconscious in a string of sexual assaults. But GHB's most common use by far is in Britain's clubs, where the soon to be illegal drug is also causing great concern for its sometimes profound effects on users.

Frank Warburton, director of drugs information charity DrugScope, said GHB's danger lies in its unpredictability and ability to send users into a coma or, in extreme cases, to kill them. As one user succinctly described its effects to Plymouth University researchers:"(I) felt like I was drifting away in my own little bubble of consciousness, but my friends said I was puking and out of it."

GHB was developed as the anaesthetic gammahydroxybutrate, but it quickly became popular in clubs where 'liquid ecstasy' is the most popular among dozens of names for the drug. It is also available as a powder and a pill and in extreme cases has been injected. I think there's the feeling among clubbers that it does not have quite the same effect as ecstasy, but it's easy to get hold of "It's pleasant and it slows down body activity, if you take a small amount. It's not unlike a few drinks of alcohol."

He says it is difficult to know just how widespread its use in clubs actually is, although anecdotal evidence suggests its popularity has grown steadily in recent years. Until now it has been readily and legally available for around £15 in many sex and drugs paraphernalia shops, helping it to divert some of the money that would otherwise be spent on ecstasy.

"I think there's the feeling among clubbers that it does not have quite the same effect as ecstasy, but it's easy to get hold of," Mr Warburton said. It is GHB's unpredictable effects and the fact it is "easy to make and easy to make badly" that has led DrugScope to back the decision to reclassify it as a Class C drug. "Its results can be very unpredictable, with different people and it seems to be particularly problematic when taken with other drugs. "The way it mixes with alcohol is particularly unpredictable."

The recipe for GHB has been on the internet for years, raising further fears about its safety. At higher doses it can cause sleepiness, nausea, vomiting, muscle stiffness and confusion. Very high doses can lead to convulsions, coma and respiratory collapse. Last year a BBC investigation on Ibiza found that as many as two British clubbers a night were ending up in hospital in a coma after taking GHB. So far in the UK, only a handful of deaths caused by the drug have been reported every year. But DrugScope believes many more go unnoticed because the victim will have combined it with other drugs.

The decision to make GHB illegal could see its popularity among clubbers fall, DrugScope believes. "The big question is whether making a drug illegal really stops the problem," Mr Warburton said. "I think what it will mean is that its use relative to ecstasy will change." The charity also warns that if GHB actually does start to disappear it will not mark an end to the popularity of new synthesised drugs and the need to continue providing accurate information. "The situation is that the technology is changing all the time, people are trying things out all the time and new drugs are coming along all the time," Mr Warburton said.

Date-rape drug banned
by JO BUTLER, Daily Mail
30th June 2003

The date-rape drug GHB will be outlawed from 1 July 2003. It is thought to be used in hundreds of sexual assaults against women every year. Tasteless and odourless, the anaesthetic is virtually undetectable after it has been slipped into a drink. It takes effect within just 20 minutes, rendering victims unconscious for up to six hours. They are unable to fend off unwanted sexual advances and wake with little recollection of what has happened to them. Traces of the drug are quickly passed out of the body, making it difficult to gather evidence to secure a prosecution. It is sold over the Internet, in sex shops and in nightclubs for as little as £5 a bottle. It has been dubbed "Liquid Ecstasy" because it has a similar effect to the dance drug when used in small doses. It has also been marketed as an aphrodisiac, diet aid and sleeping drug, and has even been used by body-builders.

The ban means that police will be able to act against anyone caught possessing the drug. Penalties will be up to two years in jail for possession, and up to five years for dealers. Home Office minister Caroline Flint said there was scientific and medical evidence to support the ban. She said: "It's very important that we get the message across that this is a dangerous drug. "People can pass out after just a few drops in an alcoholic drink, and an overdose could result in a coma." GHB, or gammahydroxybutrate, was used by Max Factor heir Andrew Luster to carry out multiple rapes in America. Luster, 39, the great-grandson of the man who founded the cosmetics empire was jailed for 124 years in California after being convicted of dosing three women with the drug before raping them. He was recaptured by a bounty hunter in Mexico this month after going on the run during his trial. Pressure for a ban has mounted following the death of Geraldine Greeney, 32, at her home in Polbeth, West Lothian. She had overdosed on the drug which can be lethal mixed with alcohol.

The use of such drugs is the fastest growing crime against women in Britain, although police fear only a fraction of incidents are reported. Graham Rhodes of the Roofie Foundation, which campaigns on behalf of date-rape victims, said that GHB was increasingly used as the drug of choice by attackers. Seven other drugs are also joining the list of banned substances, including four anabolic steroids.

Change to penalties depends on passage of crime bill

Alan Travis, home affairs editor
Monday June 23, 2003
The Guardian

Changes to the cannabis laws due this summer will not come into effect until January next year at the earliest, the Home Office has confirmed. When the home secretary, David Blunkett, announced his decision to relax the drug laws 12 months ago he said that he would "seek to reclassify cannabis" by this July.

The Home Office now says that revised penalties for cannabis possession can only come into force after the criminal justice bill reaches the statute book. The bill is now facing a stormy passage through the House of Lords.

MPs have also yet to vote on a separate resolution under the 1971 Misuse of Drugs Act that will downgrade cannabis from a class B drug (alongside amphetamines and barbiturates) to class C, with anabolic steroids and tranquillisers.

The change will mean that police will lose the power of arrest in possession cases, except where there are aggravating factors. The maximum penalty for possession will be cut from five years to two.

[Except that the Criminal Justice Bill also contains changes to create a new power of arrest within the same bill for possession of Class C drugs...]

A Home Office spokesman said the delay was because the new penalties are included in the criminal justice bill: "This is a long and complex bill and the priority has been to ensure full discussion of its many provisions," he said. Reclassification will take effect when the new penalties for cannabis possession are in force, which is likely to be in January."

Andy Hayman, who chairs the drugs committee of the Association of Chief Police Officers, is at present finalising the official guidance to police officers on operation of the new law.

There have been growing fears that the police will use the new guidance to restore their discretion to arrest somebody found in possession of cannabis. But the Home Office insists that, when the change does come into effect, most of the 80,000 or more adults fined each year for cannabis possession will henceforth face a warning and confiscation of the drug.

"There will be a presumption against arrest, except where public order is at risk or where children are vulnerable," a Home Office spokesman said. "The police will also ensure that those who repeatedly flout the law are arrested and dealt with. Young people found in possession of cannabis will receive a formal warning at a police station."

The police guidance is to be agreed at a meeting of chief constables next month, although some forces have argued that they must be allowed to decide when to make arrests.

The government insists that the reclassification of cannabis does not amount to legalisation or decriminalisation. Indeed the penalties for dealing in and importing class C drugs are to be increased to a maximum of 14 years, so that there is no change to the penalties faced by dealers.

The decision follows a report from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs which says cannabis is not harmless but is less harmful than other class B drugs. But it is still expected that the first cannabis medicines to be available for more than 30 years will be licensed by the end of the year.

The government's latest drugs information campaign, talktofrank.com, launched last month, says casual smokers are unlikely to get hooked on cannabis and are more likely to become addicted to the nicotine in tobacco used to roll joints. But it does warn that regular heavy use may be more harmful than tobacco because "it has a higher concentration of chemical nasties that cause cancer".

The Home Office said yesterday that it would adopt a proposal floated by Mr Blunkett this month to extend police powers to close down crack houses, cannabis cafes and the homes of cannabis users if they pose a serious nuisance to the neighbourhood. Leaked papers show that the proposal met opposition from health and housing ministers.

[Emphasis added: this adds to the confusion described below: it suggests that the BBC story below is no longer accurate....More as it comes up.]

Plan to seize drug homes halted
BBC 22.6.03

Plans to seize the homes of cannabis users considered a "serious nuisance" have been dropped despite a push from Home Secretary David Blunkett. Health and housing ministers reportedly warned against plans to extend powers under the anti-social behaviour bill to close down premises associated with class A hard drugs to include class B and C drugs.

They said extending the powers would divert attention from tackling hard drugs and cause problems for councils who would have to house the people made homeless, according to the Sunday Times. A Home Office spokeswoman said: "It was explored, it was looked at and it was decided not to, having consulted with the police, drugs charities and ministerial colleagues".

But a leaked letter from Mr Blunkett to Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott, obtained by the paper suggested that as recently as 4 June the home secretary wanted to press ahead with the plan. It would see police being given the power to close and seal premises associated with such drugs for up to three months.

Mr Blunkett told Mr Prescott, the chairman of the Cabinet domestic affairs committee, he was "minded" to strengthen the powers in the bill "to include all classes of illegal drugs". "This would ensure that where such premises are associated with serious nuisance related to class B or C drugs they could be effectively controlled using these powers," he reportedly wrote.

"I have become convinced that such an extension also offers an appropriate additional control to premises used for illegal drug supply, such as `cannabis cafes'."

Chief constables are refusing to sanction new proposals that reduce police powers of arrest against cannabis smokers in a rebellion against the Government. The hardline approach by members of the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) is expected to lead to huge differences in how cannabis is policed in Britain. It will also cause a schism between regional police forces and the Metropolitan Police, which intends to back plans by David Blunkett, the Home Secretary, for officers to arrest cannabis users only in exceptional circumstances.

Last year, Mr Blunkett announced that he planned to downgrade cannabis from a class B to a class C drug, effectively allowing it to be smoked for personal use. He took the decision in part to ensure that police forces targeted their overstretched resources towards hard drugs.

But the Home Secretary was forced into partial retreat. After fierce lobbying by senior police officers, he announced new laws enabling police to retain the power of arrest for cannabis possession as well as a 14-year sentence for dealers. These new powers are contained in the Criminal Justice Bill, which is likely to gain Royal Assent later this year.

Andy Hayman, chairman of Acpo's drugs committee and the Chief Constable of Norfolk, battled to persuade other chief constables to accept a three-strikes-and-you're-out policy, but this was rejected on the grounds that it would be too difficult for officers to monitor users.

At a meeting of chief constables next month he will attempt to push through a watered-down strategy proposing arrest in specific circumstances, for example where users have been found in possession outside schools. But chief constables of individual forces have argued they must be allowed to decide when to make arrests. A police insider said that the different approaches in policing towards cannabis will send "all sorts of mixed messages" to users.

"Chief constables have said that Parliament or the Government cannot tell a constable when and why they exercise their discretion. It's a matter for the officer concerned," the source said.

An Independent on Sunday survey of half of British police forces on how they treated cannabis users over the last financial year shows remarkable discrepancies and indicates that the system is in chaos. The number of people cautioned by Cleveland Police for possessing class B drugs, for example, increased from 117 in 2001 to 186 in 2002. This compares with Essex Police where there was a much smaller rise - from 411 in 2001 to 441 in 2002.

"There is major confusion going on," said Roger Howard, chief executive of drugs charity Drugscope. "Our advice would be for the police to let go of this issue and to let the Home Secretary do what he intended in the first place and not have arrestability."

Labour is not going soft on drug users, Ministers insist, as the police gain new search-and-arrest powers

Tony Thompson and Martin Bright
Sunday June 22, 2003
The Observer

People who allow cannabis to be smoked at parties at their homes could face a 14-year jail sentence under new laws designed to show that the Government is not going soft on drugs.

This isn't a new law: it's the existing Law, as applied by Section 8(d) of the MDA. If and when cannabis is reclassified, then the sentences for premises offences relating to class C drug will increase to 14 years.

Ministers have delayed the controversial reclassification of cannabis from Class B to Class C until the end of the year to coincide with the introduction of the harsh new penalties. The move was originally planned for next month, but was postponed after lobbying by police and anti-drug groups, who feared that the Government was sending out the wrong message.

The tougher sentences will also affect universities which fail to stop students supplying each other with drugs at halls of residence, voluntary organisations working with drug users and even parents who tolerate the casual use of soft drugs by their children and friends.

The penalties have always applied to such settings.

The measure to increase the maximum sentence for production, supply and possession with intent to supply from five to 14 years is contained in the new Criminal Justice Bill, which is expected to receive the royal assent in November. The legislation will apply to all property owners and tenants. The crime of 'supply' need not involve money changing hands so, in theory, householders who allow a joint of cannabis to be handed over at a dinner party face the new sentence.

The controversial penalties are primarily aimed at crack houses, which have become a police priority, but could equally be applied to domestic homes and other private premises.

The measures were also designed to target dealers to prevent an explosion in the cannabis market as a result of its change of status, but drug campaigners last night described the measures as draconian. They say that individuals and organisations who fail to take action against casual drug use will face exactly the same sentences as the members of organised criminal gangs involved in trafficking lorryloads of cannabis.

Roger Howard, chief executive of the drugs reform charity Drugscope, called for a thorough sentence review of drug offences. 'This is a retrograde step that goes against all the evidence and advice the Government has been given by the Advisory Council for the Misuse of Drugs, which has said that cannabis is not as harmful as other drugs,' he said.

As a Class C drug, cannabis will remain illegal, but there will be an assumption against arrest for simple possession. The power of arrest would be used only in 'aggravating' circumstances, although these have yet to be defined. The change is intended to allow police to focus their efforts on Class A drugs, chiefly cocaine and heroin.

This may become part of guidance to the police but is not enshrined in law.

The cannabis market in the UK is worth more than £1 billion a year and supplies around three million regular users. Many of those involved in high-level trafficking are also involved in other drugs and other serious forms of organised crime. Dozens of murders and shootings have been directly linked to the trade in cannabis.

The delay has been partially caused by the need to rethink the original proposals, which would have meant that those trafficking in large quantities of cannabis would have faced a lower maximum penalty than those smuggling tobacco or alcohol. It would also have meant that police would have been unable to arrest anyone for smoking a joint or search to see if they were carrying large quantities of drugs.

This is not strictly true; the power to search on suspicion of possessing drugs would remain.

Both these issues have now been addressed by one leading drug charity, which said that the Government had amended the law so much that the effect of the reclassification would be minimal.

But anti-drugs campaigners say the amendments are necessary to prevent massive growth in the market. David Raynes of the National Drugs Prevention Alliance said there was already anecdotal evidence that cannabis use had risen since the announcement of reclassification.

'There is a lot of confusion out there. There are lots of 12- and 13-year-old kids who now think that cannabis is legal. Based on the experiences of other places such as Holland, South Australia and Alaska, it is likely that the market is going to go up significantly. Our view has always been that the Government should do nothing, say nothing and change nothing that might encourage drug-taking. But this is just what they have done.'

The new law stops short of full decriminalisation. Officers will be able to arrest and search a suspect if they are deemed guilty of 'aggravated possession' involving public disorder or children, or if the offenders refuse to hand over their drugs.

A study published last year on policing and cannabis showed that 69 per cent of police officers already dealt with cannabis possession in an informal way, often throwing the drugs down the nearest drain rather than arresting the offender.

Uproar over plan to seize drug homes

The Sunday Times - Britain
June 22, 2003

In a letter to cabinet colleagues, the home secretary says he has been "convinced" of the need to extend the powers to class B and C drugs, which include amphetamines, barbiturates, anabolic steroids and some tranquillisers.

The documents reveal that his plans have encountered opposition from the health and housing departments. They have warned that the plans would send out "confusing messages" to youngsters, alienate black people and mean having to find new accommodation for those whose homes have been seized. Blunkett's move also appears to fly in the face of his pledge to downgrade cannabis from class B to C, which some have interpreted as an easing of the law on "recreational" use.

Last night the Home Office appeared to backtrack after the plans were leaked to The Sunday Times. A spokesman said they were something the home secretary had been "looking at" but was unlikely to take forward. But in a letter to John Prescott, chairman of the cabinet domestic affairs committee, dated June 4, Blunkett admitted that parliament was split on the issue but said he has been persuaded to widen police powers. "Reflecting on this debate I am minded to make a government amendment to the bill to strengthen its powers to include all classes of illegal drugs," he wrote. "This would ensure that where such premises are associated with serious nuisance related to class B or C drugs they could be effectively controlled using these powers. "I have become convinced that such an extension also offers an appropriate additional control to premises used for illegal drug supply, such as 'cannabis cafes'.

"Where the production, sale or use of class B or C drugs is associated with serious nuisance, these premises could then be closed, as with premises where class A drugs are involved. The intent of the power remains the same — to rid communities of serious nuisance and protect them from the dangers of drugs. Where there is serious nuisance it should be irrelevant what class of drugs is causing it."

Melanie Johnson, the new public health minister, expressed doubts about the plans. "I have serious concerns about the possible impact that the extension of these powers to class B and C drugs may have, as suggested," she wrote last Monday.

"The main objective of the national drug strategy is class A drugs, ie cocaine, crack, heroin and ecstasy. Focusing on a wider range of drugs could divert priorities and funds away from the tackling of class A drugs, which evidence shows costs the greatest amount of harm. It could also send confusing messages to young people about which drugs cause the greatest dangers and harms.

"Young people or members of black and ethnic minority communities in particular may react very negatively if they believe the premises they use are targeted by these new powers. This may result in hostility towards wider local action on drugs, to public order issues or towards local drug prevention or treatment services."

A further salvo has been fired by Lord Rooker, the housing minister. In his response, dated June 12, he wrote: "Class B and C drug use is less often associated with problems of serious nuisance. In order for the power to remain properly targeted there must be no weakening of this serious nuisance criterion.

"How many additional properties do you estimate will be subject to closure in this wider power? There will also be a possible requirement to house people made homeless and for temporary management of property during this period."

Yesterday Blunkett's plan was criticised by race campaigners. Lee Jasper, race adviser to Ken Livingstone, the mayor of London, said: "This sounds like a gimmick. The sheer scale of class C drug use would mean huge amounts of people could effectively be evicted. But this is not only an ethnic minority issue as class C drug use is widespread across all communities.

"At the same time the government is declassifying cannabis, it is introducing draconian levels of punishment for possession. This approach is completely inconsistent."

In July 2002 Blunkett announced cannabis would be reclassified from class B to C after senior police officers complained of the time wasted by officers in dealing with comparatively minor users of the drug. The changes are still going through parliament and are likely to take effect later this summer.

Instead of a blanket downgrading of the offence of possession, police will still be able to arrest drug users in circumstances such as refusing to hand over the cannabis, threatening violence or smoking it in plain sight of children. The reclassification means police can issue on-the-spot warnings as opposed to formal cautions, thus freeing up resources for combating more serious drug use.

The leaked correspondence between the ministers

David Blunkett, home secretary, June 4
"The intent of the power remains the same - to rid communities of serious nuisance and protect them from the dangers of drugs. Where there is serious nuisance it should be irrelevant what class of drugs is causing it."

Lord Rooker, housing minister, June 12
"There will also be a possible requirement to house people made homeless."

Melanie Johnson, public health minister, June 16
"I have serious concerns...members of black and ethnic minority communities in particular may react very negatively if they believe the premises they use are targeted."

David Brindle
Wednesday June 18, 2003
The Guardian

Tight restrictions have been set in the first official guidance on prescription of injectable heroin and methadone for hard-core drug users.

The potentially controversial guidance was issued by the national treatment agency (NTA) last Friday, as the government reshuffle dominated news agendas. But the guidelines - for specialist doctors - are worded with painstaking care and stress repeatedly the limited nature of their application.

"The message for specialist clinicians is that, yes, injectable heroin and injectable methadone have a role to play in the treatment of drug misuse - but it's a limited role and one that needs to be developed very carefully," says John Strang, chair of the NTA's heroin expert group and head of the National Addiction Centre.

The guidance was foreshadowed last month by David Blunkett, home secretary, who accepted that "radical thinking" was needed to engage hardened drug takers. But he said he expected no dramatic increase in the number of patients prescribed heroin - currently just 440.

Although heroin prescription for oral use "is and will remain" the most clinically appropriate form, the NTA asserts, injectable medication "may be appropriate for a minority who fail to benefit from oral maintenance programmes".

Injectable medication is "potentially more risky both for the patient and the public and should only be considered by a specialist and if there are adequate services in place, including supervised consumption of medication until the patient has stabilised", the NTA says.

The guidance lays down eight principles to be observed in connection with any prescription of injectable heroin or methadone. These include provision of an integrated care package for patients, so that injection is not sanctioned in isolation, and that other options are explored fully. Priority should be given to improving the effectiveness of prescription for oral use, the guidelines say.

On monitoring of injection, the guidance states: "Injectable drugs may present more risk of overdose than oral preparations, and have a greater street value on illicit markets, and hence may require greater levels of supervision."

Paul Hayes, NTA chief executive, says the guidance represents only part of an overall strategy to improve treatment for drug users. "Treatment is not just about prescribing a substitute drug. It's about the full range of services - including counselling, in-patient care, prescribing and aftercare."

Roger Howard, chief executive of charity Drugscope, says: "We welcome the NTA guidelines on heroin prescription and hope that they will lead to the situation found in other countries where, when other treatments have failed, there is an increase in users potentially being prescribed heroin."

See analysis in the Drug News section.

Guardian
George Wright
Tuesday June 10, 2003

Urgent action is needed to tackle the "huge social problem" of drug-related deaths in police custody, a senior researcher at the Police Complaints Authority (PCA) said today. The call came as the PCA published a new study, based on a survey of 43 such cases from 1997 to 2002. It shows that many of the deaths "may have been prevented" by better medical support and training to help officers identify signs that a suspect has taken drugs.

Of the 43 cases looked at, 14 were still under investigation by the PCA. Of the remaining 29, 12 have resulted in disciplinary charges, mostly over "failures in duty", against 27 officers. Dr David Best, the authority's head of research, and senior lecturer on addiction at the Institute of Psychology, told Guardian Unlimited that he was "shocked" by the lack of national guidelines for police forces on dealing with suspected drug dealers and users.

"It's an issue that is only going to grow in importance," he said. "Drug use is becoming so widespread that up to two-thirds of people detained by police are likely to be on drugs. "It is critical that national policies are drawn up to deal with such suspects. We suggest that the ACPO (the association of chief police officers) takes the lead in providing guidance to forces across the country."

Dr Best also expressed frustration that previous research on deaths in custody was "not getting through" to rank and file officers, who were more likely to rely on anecdotal evidence or previous experience when dealing with drug-related arrests. He was particularly concerned over the five cases (12%) in which officers had delayed calling for medical support because they assumed the suspect was faking illness. Dr Best said: "The officers may well be right in 99 cases out of 100, but what if they get it wrong and the 100th person dies?"

In 17 cases (40%), the report finds "clear evidence" that the victim had died after swallowing a package of drugs in an attempt to hide them. In six cases, evidence suggested that the drugs were taken to attempt "self-harm or suicide".

However, Dr Best said that only five of 31 police forces contacted during the survey had a policy on how officers should respond to "drug swallowing". The study, written by Dr Best and his research assistant, Siobhan Havis, concludes: "Many of these deaths may have been prevented by earlier recognition of consumption or drug effects, by more rapid assessing of medical support and by the immediate provision of resuscitation. All of these areas can be improved."

It recommends the introduction of new initiatives such as the use of nurses in custody suites, and suggests that suspected package swallowing be treated "as a medical emergency that requires urgent hospitalisation". Police should get more training to be able to identify these risks and to give first aid, including resuscitation, while waiting for emergency medics to arrive.

Seroxat, Britain's most popular antidepressant, can trigger suicidal thoughts in teenagers and should not be prescribed to anyone under the age of 18, Government advisers said yesterday.

The new advice follows a study of more than 1,000 children and adolescents in which the drug doubled the risk of self harm.

However, there is no evidence that it is harmful for adults, the medicines and health care products regulatory agency (MHRA) said. The agency warned people not to stop taking Seroxat, also known as paroxetine, without consulting their doctor. Coming off the drug quickly without medical supervision can trigger unpleasant and potentially dangerous side effects.

Seroxat is part of a family of drugs called selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors, or SSRIs, which include Prozac. It has been available in Britain for 13 years and was taken by about 800,000 people last year.

Although it is only licensed for adults, doctors prescribe it "off label" to about 8,000 children and teenagers suffering serious depression. Some patients have complained that it is addictive. Others have reported suicidal thoughts.

A Government panel reviewing the safety of Seroxat and other SSRIs is due to report later this year.

The new warning came after GlaxoSmithKline, which makes Seroxat, passed on results from nine clinical studies involving children.

Prof Alasdair Breckenridge, the MHRA chairman, said the data had been reviewed by an SSRI expert group and the Committee on Safety of Medicines. It showed Seroxat was not effective at treating depression in under-18s and that children on Seroxat were twice as likely to have suicidal thoughts or to harm themselves than children with similar mental health problems not taking the drug.

The MHRA recommended that Seroxat was not used to treat children or teenagers, he said.

'The benefits of Seroxat are well established in the adult group and it's important that adults taking Seroxat are not alarmed. They should not stop taking medication."

From next month the MHRA will inspect drug companies to check their management of safety data. It confirmed it would considered including GlaxoSmithKline. Dr Alastair Benbow, of GSK, said the decision by the MHRA was concerned only with children and teenagers. "It is not related to the use of Seroxat by adults where this treatment has proven effective and has helped millions of people."

The Royal College of Psychiatrists said it had been concerned for many years about the prescribing of anti-depressants for under 18s and had raised the matter with the Department of Health.

A Brecon coroner called for an inquiry last March after a retired head teacher, Colin Whitfield, 56, committed suicide by cutting his wrists after taking Seroxat for two weeks.

James Meikle, health correspondent
Friday June 6, 2003
The Guardian

Up to 350,000 children in Britain have at least one parent who is a problem drug user, government advisers said yesterday.
Many are suffering "hidden harm" from poverty, abuse, poor health and disrupted education. The children often fend for themselves and look after their parents and siblings.

The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD), conducted this first official attempt to quantify the offspring of addicts. It hopes the results, which paint a "depressing but not unexpected" picture, will jolt mainstream health, social, education and child protection services, as well as specialist drug services.

The inquiry suggested that its estimate of 2%-3% of all children under 16 being affected in England and Wales was "conservative". Better methods of collating evidence in Scotland, where a slightly higher number of children were born to drug users, accounted for a 4%-6% estimate there.

Laurence Gruer, who chaired the working group responsible for the inquiry report, said: "Babies can be harmed during pregnancy by the drugs used by their mothers. From birth onwards their parents' drug problems can endanger their health in many ways and cause a great deal of emotional and psychological damage that often goes unnoticed.

"Out of shame or fear, or simply because they are too young, such children are rarely able to speak to anyone about their experiences and can become isolated and excluded from society.

"Reducing the harm to these children should be a main aim of government drug policy, and services such as child protection agencies, GPs and education bodies need to work in a joined up way so signs are not overlooked and these children's voices are heard."

Dr Gruer, a consultant in public health medicine based in Glasgow, said: "The possibility that a child will stumble down the same path as his or her parents is very real. We found more than a third of mothers, two-thirds of fathers, were not living with their child and the more severe the drug problem the less likely it was for children to be living with parents."

Of those who were not, only about 5% were in care, the rest living with relatives such as grandparents or aunts. More research was needed in this area. The council made 48 recommendations to government, public and voluntary services.

The Home Office minister Bob Ainsworth said the government was investing record amounts on its drug strategy, £1.2bn this year, but recognised that services needed to be expanded.

Drugs and alcohol: the issue explained

While the government has launched a welter of programmes on drug treatment, education and prevention, a strategy on tackling Britain's bringe-drinking culture has been subject to countless delays, writes David Batty

Guardian:Thursday May 29, 2003

According to the British crime survey, every year about four million people in the UK use an illicit drug, with three million of them cannabis smokers.

Although Labour initially took a traditional hardline stance towards drugs, more recently it has softened its stance towards cannabis and adopted a policy of "tough love" towards hard drug users, offering addicts a choice of prison or treatment.
Last year ministers unveiled a revised drugs strategy aimed at doubling the number of drug testing and treatment orders (DTTOs) made by the courts for offenders who test positive for class A drugs, such as heroin and cocaine, when they are arrested. The courts were also given the power to order compulsory drug treatment as part of a community sentence.

But there is growing evidence that the strategy is under threat from red tape and poor management. Independent auditors have found wide variations in the quality of services provided by the 149 drug action teams (DATs) despite the creation of the national treatment agency in 2001, which monitors their work. Complex funding arrangements mean funds are being spent on staff and management rather than treatment, while many courts are proving reluctant to issue DTTOs.
Some revisions to the drugs strategy were seen as a climbdown by the government. The home secretary, David Blunkett, abandoned the target set in 1998 by the former drugs tsar, Keith Hellawell, to cut the amount of class A drug abuse in Britain by 25% by this year, admitting it was "not credible".

The target was replaced by vague promises to reduce the supply and consumption of class A drugs and to cut the amount of drug-related crime.

More GPs will be licensed to prescribe heroin to addicts who fail to respond to other forms of treatment but the government has ruled out introducing "shooting galleries" for addicts to inject their own illegally obtained heroin.
Meanwhile, the home secretary, David Blunkett, is to take the final steps towards reclassifying cannabis from class B to class C this July - meaning that possession will only be an arrestable offence in extreme circumstances. But ministers still oppose decriminalising the drug.

Although the government spends £500m a year on drugs programmes, alcohol services only receive £95m - despite increasing evidence of drink-related health problems, public disorder and antisocial behaviour.
Ministers have pledged to introduce a national alcohol harm reduction strategy next year. A consultation paper setting out the initiatives aims was published last year.

The strategy will tackle issues such as hazardous drinking by underage drinkers and the adverse effects of alcohol abuse, from accidents and injuries to serious chronic conditions, such as cirrhosis. This should reduce the cost of alcohol misuse to the NHS - currently £3bn a year.

Government bows to pressure over Prozac and Seroxat

Jo Revill, health editor
Sunday May 25, 2003
The Observer

The following correction was printed in The Observer's For The Record column, Sunday June 1, 2003
The below article described Valium and Ativan as antidepressants, yet these drugs are tranquillisers, and are unsuitable for the treatment of depression. The article was also incorrect to refer to serotonin as a hormone; it is a neurotransmitter and the below article has been amended

--------------------
A major inquiry is to be launched into the safety of widely prescribed antidepressant drugs, including Seroxat and Prozac, following a spate of suicides and reports of severe withdrawal reactions.

The Government's medical advisers have caved in to pressure to hold a fully independent assessment of the risks associated with the antidepressants known as SSRIs, or selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors.
Recently, there have been reports of suicides among patients taking the medication, as well as users describing nightmares, tremors and feelings of violence.

An expert group of the Committee on the Safety of Medicines has been set up to look at withdrawal reactions suffered by users, who may spend months trying to come off the drugs. The group will listen to first-hand experiences, and investigate reports of suicidal behaviour.

Seroxat, the most widely prescribed antidepressant, was hailed a wonder drug 10 years ago when it came on the market. Along with Prozac, it was dubbed a 'happy pill', as both relieved crippling states of anxiety or depression.
It is now prescribed to hundreds of thousands of British patients, and is earning its manufacturer, GlaxoSmith-Kline, more than £100 million a year in UK sales alone. The news about the investigation into SSRIs will come as a blow to the pharmaceutical industry, which has marketed the drugs as safe and effective. For GSK, it comes in the wake of the humiliation of its shareholders' rebellion, which defeated an attempt to give its chief executive, Jean-Pierre Garnier, a £15m pay-off were he to lose his job.

Last year, more than 22 million prescriptions for antidepressants were written out for British patients, most of them for SSRIs. These drugs work by allowing the neurotransmitter serotonin to act properly in the brain, controlling mood swings and levels of consciousness.

Although they lift many people out of depression and do not carry the debilitating side-effects of older tranquillisers such as Valium and Ativan, concerns have grown that some are left with a legacy of problems.

A BBC Panorama report last year led to thousands of calls from families worried that their relatives were being harmed. It revealed that there had been 16 cases of suicides that bereaved families said were linked to the drugs, 47 attempted suicides and 92 cases of patients who had thought of harming themselves or others. Seroxat recently topped the list of drugs reported to have produced serious side-effects.

The Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Authority, which oversees drug safety, has been criticised for not holding a proper investigation into SSRIs. An earlier expert group had to be disbanded last year after it emerged that some members were shareholders in the companies involved.

But this weekend, Professor Alasdair Breckenridge, MHRA chair, announced that it was setting up an expert group of the Committee on Safety of Medicines to carry out a fully independent scientific assessment, which would, for the first time, take into account patient reports. The group, chaired by Professor Ian Weller of the Royal Free and University College London Medical School, will include patients and the results will be made public.

Breckenridge