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

John Carvel, social affairs editor
Wednesday June 30, 2004
The Guardian

The Department of Transport is working with the medical profession to draw up guidelines on driving under the influence of prescription drugs and narcotics.
They will warn patients that long-term medication to prevent the recurrence of cancer and over-the-counter remedies for hay fever may impair drivers' performance as often as alcohol.

The plan was disclosed yesterday at the British Medical Association's annual conference in Llandudno.

Doctors said the guidelines would replace the information disseminated 10 years ago when many now commonly used remedies were not yet available.

They will include tentative scientific findings about tests to detect whether drivers have taken illegal drugs before getting behind the wheel.

Vivienne Nathanson, the BMA's head of science and ethics, said the tests were not yet sophisticated enough to establish whether the presence of the drug in the blood indicated unfitness to drive.

Dr Nathanson said: "Traditionally we have thought about fitness to drive specifically in terms of alcohol, but here we are now looking at all the medical aspects.

"We are thinking directly about illnesses and indirectly about the drugs that are used to treat illnesses.

"We are also looking at self-medication for simple illnesses like hay fever, whether people who are taking them are fit to drive, how they can assess that, and how they can be helped to understand the law."

The BMA was looking with the department at whether having the active constituents of cannabis in the bloodstream could be regarded as an indicator of unfitness to drive.

The drugs that may have an impact on driving include sleeping pills, sedatives, anti-depressants, hay fever treatments and codeine-based painkillers.

Sandra Haurant
Guardian
Monday June 28, 2004

Drug and alcohol testing at work is set to become more widespread despite inconclusive evidence of its impact on safety and performance, the result of an independent inquiry showed today.
According to the independent inquiry into drug testing at work (IIDTW), which has been investigating the issue for the last 18 months, the practice of testing employees for drugs and alcohol could "increase dramatically and become a fact of everyday working life".

The IIDTW is urging the government to produce clear and definitive guidance on drug testing at work, and said that UK employers were in danger of following in the footsteps of their US counterparts. Between 40% and 50% of US companies already put their employees through drug tests, meaning some 15 million people are tested each year.

A Mori poll conducted for the inquiry revealed that the vast majority of employers, some 78%, would consider putting their employees through tests if they felt that drugs or alcohol were affecting staff productivity. Almost one third (32%) of employers did not believe that drug testing had an impact on human rights.

However, independent report said that drug testing could, at most, have only a "limited impact on safety and performance", and that testing the general workforce was a "costly and divisive" way of managing employees, and was an "inappropriate use of managerial power".

The report said that drug testing could be beneficial in sectors where safety or public trust were an issue, but added that the practice had "no role in the majority of workplaces, and should never be used simply to investigate the private lives of staff."

Ruth Evans, who chaired the inquiry, said: "We know that testing is useful in specific safety critical and sensitive industries, however it is a quantum leap for employers outside of these sectors to advocate drug testing of their staff.

"We are in danger of slipping into a situation where employers are taking on a quasi-policing role with respect to the private lives of their staff." Ms Evans added that drug misuse was a matter of concern throughout society, but said that drug testing was "no panacea".

"The reality is that better management practices are a more worthwhile investment of time and money than drug testing," she said. "This is also about getting the work-life balance right and understanding that unhealthy and stressful work environments contribute to the abuse of drugs and alcohol."

The investigation in testing was undertaken by the policy research and development charity the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, the Network of European Foundations, and facilitated by the advisory group DrugScope.

The TUC, which submitted evidence to the inquiry, welcomed the report. Brendan Barber, TUC general secretary, said: "The increased use of drug testing at work will boost the profits of companies peddling testing regimes but will do nothing for the productivity, safety or profitability of UK companies.

"Drug testing is irrelevant to most employees and companies. The TUC believes that testing is only appropriate for staff in safety critical posts and should be part of a comprehensive safety strategy that includes support for staff who test positive, and the report supports this position."

Alan Travis, home affairs editor
Monday June 28, 2004
The Guardian

Chronic drug users are committing crimes to get themselves arrested and imprisoned simply to get access to treatment in some parts of Britain, according to research published today.
The study, by the social care charity Turning Point, says that the development of drug treatment and testing orders (DTTOs) has proved so effective in parts of the country that they are seen by desperate drug users as the only way to get treatment.

Almost a third of drug-using offenders interviewed in areas where community drug treatment services were poor said they had committed a crime to get help.

The study, Routes into Treatment: Drugs and Crime, says that the Home Office has been successful in enabling the police and the courts to develop a fast track into treatment services for drug abusers convicted of crime.

But it points out that for the first time the government is now spending more money on treatment ordered by the courts and the police than on treatment services in the community for all drug abusers.

The research is to be presented at a conference today to be addressed by the home secretary, David Blunkett.

"I needed to get arrested and imprisoned, as I would eventually have been found dead in a gutter if I had not had the chance of a DTTO," said one drug abuser quoted in the research.

The study claims that almost three quarters of those interviewed had tried to get help before being arrested, with an average of three attempts each. "In areas with strong community treatment services this could have a knock-on effect, improving access to treatment across the board," said a Turning Point spokesman.

"But where community treatment is poor, with excessive waiting times, the police, courts and even a prison sentence can be seen as the only way to get help."

The report finds that DTTOs are effective at getting con victed offenders into treatment and can have significant benefits at reducing reoffending, with 38% fewer being reconvicted compared with other offenders.

But the benefits only apply to those who complete the treatment and testing orders and the research shows that fewer than a third of those sentenced to a DTTO finish it.

Turning Point says that the study shows that fundamental changes are needed in the way that the treatment and testing orders are organised, such as more flexibility to cope with those with mental health problems, and lifting the threat of a prison sentence from those who relapse but have made a serious effort to comply with the order.

"This is not a moral argument about how we should or shouldn't treat drug users," said Lord Adebowale, the chief executive of Turning Point. "There is a strong business case for getting this right. We know that for every £1 spent on treatment we save £3 in other costs to society.

"By improving DTTOs and cutting reoffending we could increase that saving to £4 or even £5 and make huge inroads into tackling drug-related crime."

· Police claim drug dealers openly flout the law
· Officers fear community backlash over arrests

Gaby Hinsliff, chief political correspondent
Sunday June 27, 2004
The Observer

Police are demanding a U-turn over the softening of the law on cannabis, claiming it has brought a 'sense of lawlessness' to the streets as smokers flaunt their habit.
Officers say more people are openly taking and selling cannabis in public, with calculated attempts to provoke retaliation, according to the chair of the Police Federation.

Jan Berry said her members were 'walking on eggshells' amid tensions over whether they treated different groups in their communities differently for smoking in the streets.

Six months after the government downgraded cannabis to a Class C drug, there was still widespread confusion about how to treat blatant smokers who went beyond 'acceptable behaviour' in public, she said.

'If a person insists on doing something to get themselves arrested, you can use your skills to try and calm them,' said Berry, whose organisation represents frontline officers. But 'there will be other people watching how you react, if you react in one way to a group of people and not the same to somebody else. It's very often walking on eggshells.'

The legal change, which means that people can still be arrested for possessing cannabis but are unlikely to be, had left officers confused, Berry said.

Many would not, for example, arrest someone for blowing dope smoke in their faces, but they were torn: 'The government's saying, "It is not really serious, we don't want you to prioritise it." But it is an arrestable offence, and now we get people saying, "Go on, arrest me".'

The Home Office insists the change allows the police to concentrate on more serious offences involving hard drugs and that there is no evidence of higher cannabis consumption. New figures expected to show significant successes in tackling the smuggling of heroin, cocaine and other Class A drugs will be used to justify the policy.

Caroline Flint, the Home Office minister responsible for drugs policy, is monitoring national arrest patterns across the country to see how different forces react.

Danny Kushlick, of the drugs charity Transform, said the reform had made little practical difference: many officers had, in effect, ignored personal use of cannabis before the law changed.

But some forces were still 'being quite heavy' on cannabis offences, while others were letting smokers off without even a caution.

Kushlick said it was 'a hard thing' for officers to operate. 'You effectively have a law that cannot be enforced.' The solution was the complete legalisation of cannabis.

The federation's Berry called for a public debate over the law on soft drugs. 'I think it would be wrong to change the law every six months because it hasn't worked,' she said. 'But I am convinced it is not law enforcement which will make a real different in drugs. It's about properly raising awareness and treatment programmes.'

She is concerned about growing evidence of a link between cannabis smoking and psychotic illness. Labour backbenchers want the government to commission more independent research into the potential health risks.

Although a European Union-wide study found that potency of the drug had changed little between 1979 and 2001, recent British research suggests some versions are now two to three times stronger than average.

John Mann, Labour MP for Bassetlaw, who supported reclassification and believed it was 'highly ignorant' to suggest the change had encouraged dope smoking, also said more action was needed on the health risks.

'There is a difference between drinking a bottle of beer and a bottle of whisky, yet people wouldn't immediately recognise the difference with cannabis,' he said.

Mann wants Britain to follow the example of Queensland in Australia, where dope smokers are cautioned, but sent to a health counsellor to discuss their habit.

Home Office aides retorted yesterday that the Police Federation had always been opposed the reform, and officers could arrest smokers who behaved provocatively.

'This wasn't done at the behest of rank-and-file officers, it was done at the behest of leader of the police services who wanted the operational freedom to spend more of their time tackling Class A drugs,' said a source close to David Blunkett, the Home Secretary.

'And part of the agreement we reached with police was explicitly to give them the power to still arrest people who were effectively winding them up,' the source said.

Evidence on the psychiatric effect of cannabis had already been considered, and ministers had never denied it carried health risks. 'It remains harmful to the user.'

A spokesman for the Association of Chief Police Officers, said it was 'too early' to judge how the law was working. It had issued guidelines on when arrests should be made

Reefer madness

No wonder the police are confused

Leader
Sunday June 27, 2004
The Observer

Not for the first time, the Police Federation is confused. As we report today, the union representing beat officers believes that the downgrading of cannabis from a Class B to a Class C drug has left its members unclear about what to do about the rise in the numbers of people openly smoking marijuana on the street. They say that declassification has led to a casual culture of lawlessness and that police officers are provoked by people smoking joints and believing they are above the law.
The Police Federation has traditionally opposed liberalising reform, insisting it will lead to mayhem on the streets. The move to change the classification of cannabis was backed by senior officers, who believed that it was crucial for police to concentrate their efforts on the deadly trade in harder drugs. Now, though, they should listen to the federation. It is too easy to dismiss the complaints of ordinary officers who face a genuine dilemma in the policing of cannabis misuse.

In opting for the middle way between prohibition and full legalisation, the Home Office has confused all of us. This newspaper has always backed the liberalisation of drug laws, but we have to recognise that declassification has had a perverse effect. The endeavour was designed to free police time for other work, not to provide the means for users to taunt officers who are forced to tolerate what remains an illegal act.

The answer is not, as the federation demands, to return to the status quo ante, but to move towards the licensing of cannabis. This should be accompanied by full trials of the new, stronger strains of the drug available, which research suggests can induce psychosis.

The cannabis debate can fuddle the brain almost as much as the drug itself. What police and public need is a clear head from government on this issue and a clear message on its legality.

Alan Travis, home affairs editor
Saturday June 26, 2004
The Guardian

The effective strength of cannabis consumed in Britain has remained stable for the past 30 years, according to a European Union study published today.
The research says there is no evidence for claims that most cannabis consumed in Britain and the rest of Europe is now 10 times or more stronger than it was in the 70s.

The US drugs "tsar" John Walters and toxicologist John Henry of St Mary's hospital in Paddington, west London, are among those who have warned that the cannabis available now bears little resemblance to that on the market 30 years ago, with serious health dangers for regular users.

The EU study says that the strength of the active ingredient - THC - has remained unchanged at about 6% for most of the cannabis smoked in Britain. It says the amount of cannabis put in the typical British joint has also remained constant for 20 years at about 200mg for marijuana and 150mg for resin.

The results are based on analysis by the Forensic Science Service of cannabis seized by the police between 1995 and 2002. The study acknowledges that there has been an unknown increase in home-grown cannabis, which can be two to three times more potent, but says that more than 70% of the market is taken by the "traditional" imported Moroccan cannabis resin.

Imported resin typically has a strength of 6% THC against 30% in the "skunk" and other super-strong strains that Professor Henry and others have warned against. Sinsemilla, the unpollinated plant which produces a powerful strain, has doubled in potency since 1995, but only from 6% to 12%.

The research, published by the European monitoring centre for drugs and drug addiction, is the first European review of the potency of cannabis. "There has been much speculation on the strength of cannabis available today, but little in the way of hard evidence," said its director, Georges Estievenart. He said the concerns that had been raised were worrying as cannabis was the most commonly used illicit drug in the EU, with many countries reporting that more than 20% of people had used it at some time in their lives.

The study was complicated by the fact that not only do different types of cannabis such as resin or hash have different strengths, but potency also depends on the individual plant and on how and where it was grown.

The vintage can also have an impact on its strength with THC breaking down at a rate of 17% a year if it is kept at room temperature.

The report shows that the effective potency of cannabis in nearly all EU countries, including Britain, has remained at about 6%-8% THC in the last 30 years, with the only exception being the Netherlands, where by two years ago the strength of the average cannabis consumed had reached 16%.

This is mainly due to the increasing availability of intensively produced home-grown cannabis in Holland.

The EU report says that while herbal cannabis is most common in the Netherlands, Austria, Belgium and the Czech Republic, Britain remains in a group with Germany, Ireland and Portugal where the market is still dominated by imported cannabis resin mainly from Morocco.

Tony Thompson
Sunday June 13, 2004
The Observer

Increasing numbers of people are becoming dependent on cannabis, The Observer has learnt.
Department of Health figures show that drug centres are reporting growing numbers coming to them with problems related to the drug. Nine per cent of all those attending clinics cited cannabis as the main reason they were attending, rather than any of the other drugs they were using, twice as many as a decade ago.

With a separate study by the World Health Organisation showing that one in five 15-year-olds in Britain smokes cannabis - more than twice the world average - there is concern that many are becoming addicted to the drug earlier in life.

Although government experts insist cannabis is non-addictive, there is growing evidence suggesting that regular users of high-strength varieties may develop a chronic dependence.

There is also increasing clinical evidence linking cannabis use to mental illness, particularly schizophrenia, psychosis, anxiety and depression. US research shows that 80 per cent of new cases of psychosis in some hospitals have been triggered by cannabis use.

Someone who starts using cannabis aged 15 is at more than four times the risk of developing schizophrenia over the next 11 years than someone starting smoking the drug at 18. And 18-year-olds who have used cannabis at least 50 times have a seven-fold increased risk of developing psychosis in the next 15 years.

Last month The Priory, one of Britain's leading addiction treat ment centres, responded to an increase in inquiries about cannabis dependency by publishing a new leaflet for users and their relatives.

The group's medical director, Michael Rowlands, said: 'There is no doubt that cannabis is addictive and that we are seeing an increase in dependence, especially among the young and those smoking the stronger varieties of cannabis.

'The reason there is still some debate is that most chemical depen dencies have severe withdrawal symptoms. In cannabis they tend to be quite mild. However, all the other indicators of addictiveness are present.'

Ryan, 19, started smoking cannabis with friends at 14. He quickly became a regular user and now smokes four or five joints every evening, spending £70 a week.

'They say it's not addictive but I don't know about that,' he said. 'At the end of the day I'm clucking for a joint. If that doesn't make me addicted, than what does?

'I think if I smoked hash it wouldn't be so bad, but I smoke skunk and that really knocks you out. I'd like to think I could give it up if I wanted to, but the truth is I've never tried and right now I don't want to.

'I've had to go without it a few times and then I find it almost impossible to go to sleep.'

Research from the US shows that cannabis use is the most common reason for 12- to 17-year-olds to be placed in treatment centres, accounting for 60 per cent of reported cases. It found treatment for cannabis dependence or habitual use among youngsters has risen by 142 per cent in a decade.

Experts in the UK say that, if anything, the situation is even more severe here, because general rates of use are higher.

In January cannabis was downgraded from a Class B to a Class C drug, a move designed to allow police to focus their attention on the trade in heroin and cocaine. Many are concerned this gives young people the impression is a safe drug and encourages them to experiment.

Is cannabis addictive?

Alok Jha
Thursday June 17, 2004
The Guardian

There is evidence to suggest that is is psychologically, if not physiologically.
According to the Observer, drug treatment centres are reporting a rise in the number of cannabis cases they are dealing with. Nine per cent of all those attending clinics cited cannabis as the main reason for seeking treatment, twice as many as a decade ago.

Michael Rowlands, medical director at the Priory Farm Place, says cannabis shows all the classic signs of dependency.

"There's a strong desire to use, which overrides other activities, so friends and hobbies and work are neglected," he says. "There's difficulty in controlling the amounts you use. There's a degree of tolerance developed so you need higher doses to have the same effect. And then you persist in using despite the fact it's causing you ill health or debt."

The main thing that separates cannabis from heroin or nicotine is that the physical withdrawal state is not normally as severe.

Almost all addictive drugs stimulate a part of the brain - called the mesolymbic dopamine system - that acts as a reward pathway in the central nervous system. Receptors for the active ingredients in cannabis have been found in this system. Once stimulated, these receptors begin a cycle of reward that can lead people to use more of the drug.

Rowlands says the apparent increase in cases of addiction might be nothing more than a product of the changing attitudes towards cannabis use. "Some of the stigma is going. People are much easier at talking about addiction," he says. "There are vast numbers of people taking cannabis. Some of them, 8 to10%, will get some type of dependency."

More concerning than any apparent rise in addiction is the potential to cause psychoses in heavy users.

Robin Murray, a psychiatrist at King's College London, is one of Britain's leading researchers in this area and his results are worrying. "The conclusion was that, if you took cannabis at age 18, you were about 60% more likely to go psychotic. But if you started by the time you were 15, then the risk was much greater, around 450%," he says.

Heather Stewart
Tuesday June 15, 2004
The Guardian

Drug treatment charities yesterday welcomed the first scientific evidence that a new "vaccine" against cocaine addiction could provide an extra line of defence in fighting drug abuse, helping users to quit by preventing them from getting high.
In early medical trials, the vaccine helped to reduce the likelihood of a relapse in recovering addicts - and made taking the drug less pleasurable for those who succumbed.

Experts believe cocaine use has become far more prevalent in Britain in the last 10 years. A recent survey by the music magazine MixMag suggested it could soon overtake ecstasy as the dance drug of choice in clubs, and Aidan Gray, director of the Conference on Crack and Cocaine (Coca), says existing drug users have been turning to cocaine - instead of heroin, for example - in recent years.

"Britain is becoming much more a stimulant orientated society than opiate orientated, and cocaine's at the head of that," he said. "It's market-led; dealers make a better profit on crack cocaine, and a crack user comes back more quickly than a heroin user."

Despite the common belief that it is a non-addictive, "lifestyle" drug, counsellors say cocaine exerts a strong psychological pull on its regular users, and can also have serious physical withdrawal symptoms.

According to the charity Drugscope, those who try to give up "will very quickly start to feel tired, panicky, exhausted and unable to sleep, often causing extreme emotional and physical distress. This can manifest itself in symptoms such as diarrhoea, vomiting, the shakes, insomnia, anorexia and sweating, which for some can prove unbearable."

Mr Gray said the social effects of regular use could also be very serious. "When a cocaine habit gets really bad, it's as bad as a heroin addict. There are so many health consequences - and it's also what it does to your life: do you keep your job?; does your partner leave you? - it may be affecting your moods and your personality."

Dependency

According to the most recent British Crime Survey figures, for 2001-2, 58,000 people had used the smokable and highly addictive "crack" form of cocaine within the previous 12 months, and 622,000 people had used pure cocaine. In the US, it is estimated that 900,000 people a year present themselves at clinics for treatment for cocaine dependency.

The government published a national plan for "tackling crack" two years ago, but with success rates for drug rehabilitation programmes low, it is hoped that a "vaccine" approach, which attenuates the effect the drug has on the brain, could one day supplement more conventional therapy.

Yesterday's trial results showed that in a small-scale study at Yale Medical School in the US, the cocaine vaccine prevented three-quarters of a group of nine recovering addicts from relapsing into cocaine use. In a second group of 13 regular users, it helped 58% to quit and remain cocaine-free for the 12 weeks of the study.

Perhaps more importantly, among those participants in the trial who relapsed into taking cocaine within six months, most - 88% in one study and 63% in the other - said the euphoric effect had decreased. The vaccine works by stimulating the body to produce antibodies against cocaine, which prevent it passing through the blood-brain barrier and giving users the drug's euphoric kick.

Sanofi-Synthélabo, the French drugs giant which is about to clinch an audacious takeover of its French rival Aventis, has a drug called Rimonabant in development, which it claims can help patients both to quit smoking and to lose weight. Scientists developed the drug by tracing the way cannabis-use creates the hunger pangs popularly known as the "munchies". And a British firm, Phytopharm, which specialises in plant-based medicines, is in the final stages of developing an appetite suppressant based on an African cactus.

With the links between lifestyle and illness - and obesity in particular - high on the public policy agenda, firms which give patients a helping hand in conquering their habits expect to generate healthy sales. Xenova is already developing a nicotine vaccine using a similar approach.

Mr Gray, of Coca, said if the anti-cocaine injection proves successful in larger-scale trials, which will take several years to complete, it could be useful.

"If it works in the way they say it going to work, it could be adopted by drug-treatment centres - but you have to look at all the other things that help someone get off a drug," he said.

It takes many years for a pharmaceutical product to reach the market - Xenova has already begun a much larger study of its cocaine vaccine on 130 patients, which should report in 2006, and it will then have to carry out a third wave of even larger trials, before trying to convince regulators to give their approval to putting the drug on the market. Even then, a spokesman for the charity Drugscope agreed, cautioning against looking for a quick-fix "cure" for any addiction. "It seems this has worked for a number of people, but it's important to make sure you've found out what's going on in that person's life," she said.

How cocaine vaccine blocks the high

Ian Sample, science correspondent
Tuesday June 15, 2004
The Guardian

The idea behind a cocaine vaccine is simple: trick the body into thinking the drug is a threatening disease. If a vaccinated person then takes the drug, their immune system will mop it up before it gets into the brain and its effects take hold. In theory, at least, the hit from the drug never arrives.
Most recreational drugs, including cocaine, heroin and ecstasy, consist of small molecules that can easily slip past the body's immune system and get into the brain. When cocaine enters the brain, it leads to a surge in the feelgood chemical dopamine.

To make a cocaine vaccine, Xenova Group scientists tag a derivative of cocaine to a harmless, but much larger cholera protein.

When the vaccine is injected, the immune system recognises the cholera protein as "foreign" and starts churning out antibodies. While some of these antibodies target the cholera protein, others will attack cocaine.

According to Xenova, after a course of injections spanning from four to six weeks, levels of the antibodies in the blood should be sufficient to block the effects of cocaine.

Once vaccinated, any cocaine that does get into the bloodstream will quickly be covered in antibodies that make the drug too large to pass across a natural filter called the blood-brain barrier that protects the brain.

"The result is, you don't get the high," said Xenova's director of clinical development, Simon Long.

Preventing a drug-induced high could help those who want to stay off the drug, though it will do nothing to ease withdrawal.

Some experts are sceptical that a cocaine vaccine could ever be effective enough. A line or two of cocaine contains around 200mg of drug, a large amount for the immune system to block. "Just working out the maths - you'll need so many of these antibodies to scavenge the cocaine as it flows to your brain, you're going to struggle to make it," said Professor John Henry, an expert in illicit drugs at St Mary's hospital in London.

June 15, 2004

Xenova hits on vaccine to cure heroin addicts
By Ingrid Mansell

Times online

XENOVA, the British biotechnology firm, is looking to develop cures for heroin and Ecstasy addiction after the company said that it was “encouraged” at initial results of a new vaccine for cocaine addiction.

David Oxlade, the chief executive, citing the results of a phase two study of its anticocaine vaccine, said: “We are obviously going to look into whether the treatment can be exploited in other small molecule drugs, such as heroin and amphetamines.”

The vaccine, code-named TA-CD, is designed to prevent cocaine addicts from getting a “high” from the drug. It is believed to be the only product of its type in clinical trials, marking a novel approach to treating cocaine addicts, who usually have to rely on counselling and rehabilitation clinics.

The study showed that 58per cent of patients had been cocaine-free during the 12-week sample period, while 42 per cent had stayed off the drug after six months. Among those who relapsed, 88 per cent in one study and 63 per cent in another reported that they were less stimulated by the effects of cocaine.

The results pushed Xenova shares 6 per cent higher to 9¼p, giving the biotech minnow a market capitalisation of nearly £39 million.

Cocaine, like heroin or nicotine, is a very small molecule which, when in the bloodstream, is able to sidestep the brain’s protective layer, called the blood-brain barrier. Once inside the brain, cocaine interferes with the junctions between nerve cells, producing a high.

Xenova’s vaccine works by alerting an addict’s immune system to the presence of cocaine molecules in the blood. The vaccine stimulates the production of antibodies that bind to the cocaine molecules, making them too big to cross the blood-brain barrier.

Xenova is carrying out a large placebo-controlled trial of TA-CD, involving 130 patients, the results of which are due in 18 months. If successful, the company hopes to win rapid approval and launch the vaccine in 2007 or 2008. Mr Oxlade said that the cocaine addiction treatment market was huge, with sales potentially running into hundreds of millions of pounds a year.

The firm’s anti-smoking vaccine, meantime, is in the phase one stage. Mr Oxlade said that Xenova would wait until it had marketed the vaccines to combat nicotine and cocaine addiction before focusing on treatments for other addictions.

A new drug to treat ADHD - attention deficit hyperactivity disorder - has been licensed for use in the UK.
The launch will reignite the debate about whether it is right to use drugs to control the condition, thought to affect around 5% of children.

The drug, amoxetine, has been welcomed as an alternative treatment if existing drugs do not help. But some experts say diet should be used to manage children's symptoms instead.

Unlike currently available drugs, amoxetine, which will be available on prescription from July, is not a stimulant, and therefore is unlikely to carry a potential for abuse. Children with ADHD have extreme difficulty sitting still, learning or concentrating. Looking after affected children can be exhausting for parents.

Guidelines from the NHS watchdog the National Institute of Clinical Excellence say only the most severely affected should be given drug therapy. Until now, only the methylphenidate class of drugs - which includes Ritalin - have been available to treat ADHD. Some doctors have expressed concern it could lead to depression or be abused by drug-users because of its amphetamine content. It has also been seen as a "chemical cosh" by some parents, teachers and doctors, who say it suppresses, rather than modifies, behaviour.

But experts say drugs like Ritalin are likely to remain the first choice drug therapy for ADHD, with amoxetine as an alternative option if they do not help. There is also agreement that diets can be effective in relieving ADHD symptoms. However, they are often time consuming and expensive for families.

Atomoxetine, which is also known as Strattera, is a non-stimulant and the first new type of medication to be licensed in the UK for 30 years.One dose lasts for 24 hours. Drugs such as Ritalin cause insomnia, so are not taken in the evening, meaning symptoms are not controlled at night or in the early morning. Dr David Coghill, senior lecturer in Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, University of Dundee, said, "Continuous relief from the symptoms of ADHD is something we've not seen before. "It may allow children and their families the opportunity to live a more normal life with respite from the disruption of ADHD."

Professor Peter Hill, a child and adolescent psychiatry who has specialised in ADHD care: "The availability of this drug is a good thing. It is an advance. "However, drugs such as Ritalin (methylphenidates) will remain the drug of choice. "We have been using them for 50 years, and we know how they work. "It the methylphenidate does not work, doctors would probably try another stimulant before moving to amoxetine."But I think amoxetine will remain a second or third choice drug for the foreseeable future."

Andrea Bilbow, chief executive of the National Attention Deficit Disorder Information and Support Service (ALDDISS), said Strattera offered a treatment option for children who did not benefit from drugs such as Ritalin. "It remains to be seen how many children this will help, but its another option for children and parents to look at. "But it's potentially able to give children a normal life."

However Angela Beecroft, a clinical nutritionist at the Cactus Clinic which aims to treat ADHD and related conditions without drug therapies, said: "There is a place for drugs, but only in the short-term, to get the child into a calm state of mind." She said raising levels of minerals such as zinc and magnesium could in themselves relieve ADHD symptoms. "Most of these are missing in the diets of children we see."

Government health and safety websites for young people are ditching the 'gov.uk' domain to boost appeal, says Michael Cross

Wednesday May 26, 2004
The Guardian

In theory, government websites are supposed to identify themselves with the domain name "gov.uk". Yet several more creative government sites, generally aimed at young people, go to some lengths to disguise who runs and funds them.

The official drugs advisory site, www.talktofrank.com, celebrates its first anniversary this week. It has received 1.5m visits over the year, with traffic now running at 40,000 visits a week.

The site is a key part of the "Frank" campaign, a rebranding of the national drugs helpline. The site's core message is: "Drugs are illegal. Talking about them isn't." It attempts to provide facts about drugs in young people's language. "Too much sniffing speed and you're sneezing lumps out of your nose into a hanky," for example.

The site disguises its origins by adopting the ".com" domain rather than ".gov.uk". In the small print it calls itself "an independent government-funded website", but nowhere does it mention the Home Office, which runs the project.

Frank works in parallel with a helpline (0800 776600) and handles more than 3,000 emails a month. A link also appears on the drugs page of the government portal www.direct.gov.uk.

"Frank has gained a credible reputation as the no-nonsense, non-judgmental source of help for young people (and their parents) to talk to about drugs," the Home Office says. This year, Frank's big challenge was to get over the message that cannabis is still illegal following its downgrading. The Home Office claims success: "Ninety-three per cent of 14- to 17-year-olds surveyed are clear that cannabis is illegal."

Frank's coy approach to its origins is similar to that of www.playingsafely.co.uk, funded by the Department of Health to provide information on sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). The site invites people to "play the sex lottery" by picking from a gallery of pictures with captions such as "Who's got an iffy stiffy?" and "Scratch my box". Winners receive a virtual dose of one of 25 STDs. A "hide this site now" panic button is available if colleagues or parents appear.

The teenage sex website, www.ruthinking.co.uk , run by the Stationery Office, is part of the Sexwise campaign, run by the Department of Health.

By contrast, the Department for Transport's road safety website, Hedgehogs, proudly sports its ".gov.uk" domain (www.hedgehogs.gov.uk). However, it does not identify the civil servant who came up with its new lyrics to Stayin' Alive: "Well you can tell by the way I cross the road/That I've learnt all my green cross code."

Enter the dragon

In the early Eighties, the notorious Ford Estate boasted Britain's highest rate of heroin abuse among teenagers. Now, two decades later, Ursula Kenny discovers that many of these youngsters have never escaped the spectre of drugs

Sunday May 30, 2004
The Observer

'The Ford Estate was notorious in the Eighties. I wouldn't have wanted to live there. Always in the papers, always being vandalised, loads of drug use. One of the worst estates in Birkenhead. There was no purpose for those kids, no point, because there were no jobs. Norman Tebbit told us to get on our bikes, but it's quite hard to ride a bike to London on heroin. There was absolutely nothing for them. The services didn't get to them early enough, there was no education then, and now they've been taking drugs for years. They're a lost generation'
- Lynn Clare, Parents Against Drug Abuse, Liverpool

In October 1981, The Observer Magazine published a feature called 'The Writing on the Wall'. The piece featured children from the Ford Estate, a run-down housing estate on the outskirts of Birkenhead, on the Wirral, a peninsula in northwest England separated from Liverpool by the River Mersey. Two 12-year-old girls had won prizes for poetry that eloquently described their bleak surroundings, but the piece also painted a bigger picture of a failed and failing community spiralling into decline.

John McDonald was 16 at the time and remembers The Observer taking his picture. He didn't write poetry, he just happened to be sitting outside that day, on a grass verge, with a handful of mates who had grown up together. Photographer Mike Abrahams snapped them as they sat, smoking cannabis and chatting, providing a backdrop of local colour and context for the article. Twenty-three years later, McDonald wrote to us. He wondered if we were interested in finding out what had happened to him and his friends. He felt their stories needed telling. He'd been looking at the picture, reminiscing - a bunch of Scouse teenagers with their whole lives ahead of them.

What has happened to them is, for the most part, sad and grim. Of the 15 people in the picture, just three are not now using drugs - John McDonald is one. Four are dead. The rest are addicts of one sort or another. To say they never really had a chance is not completely true, but not wildly wide of the mark either. They were working class in an area of mass unemployment and low priority. Traditional local employers such as the car plants were under real pressure and the Cammell Laird shipyard was on its way out. At the same time a new drug to relieve the boredom was on the way in.

In 1985, Howard Parker, then a reader in social work studies at Liverpool University, wrote a book called Living With Heroin: The Impact of a Drugs Epidemic on an English Community. Many of the case studies came from the Ford Estate. Britain's heroin epidemic of the early Eighties, he says, was part of a cycle that began in the US in the Sixties and Seventies. 'The heroin epidemics in America had a natural life of 10 to 15 years. And then demand started to go down. As with any drug epidemic, the next generation won't go near it. They've seen the impact. So the market was finished there, and Afghanistan and all those places needed a new market. They hit Europe. After heroin it was crack in the States and with it the same kind of cycle.'

John McDonald's family moved to the Ford Estate in the Sixties. 'It was new then,' he says. 'We'd been living in downtown Birkenhead, in a place that was pretty bad. This was luxury by comparison. Three bedrooms and our own bathroom.' Family life, he remembers, was pretty unremarkable. His dad worked for the gas board, his mum for Cadbury's, and although things were tough financially, they were a lot better off than some. There was a bit of disruption, but that didn't come until later; he was 21 and had left home by the time his parents divorced. But they were supportive, there for him.

No, trouble started outside the house. 'There was a lot of violence on the estate. Regular violence. There was a pub opposite my school called the Buccaneer and we used to watch them spilling out of there. I've never forgotten one time seeing this really bad fight. It went on for ages and it affected me a lot. I know it affected other kids. I was in a gang, everyone was, we were always fighting and there was always this feeling that this was a hard place to live.' Howard Parker says that the Ford, in the Eighties, was one of the toughest estates on the Wirral. 'We monitored the Multiple Deprivation Index done by Wirral Council, and Ford was right at the top. Unemployment was high, there was a lot of crime, vandalism. There were gangs, tough men. It wasn't a place to mess with. I think that there was quite a lot of dumping of problem families on to Ford. Certainly it got into a mess for a while.'

As far as John McDonald and his friends were concerned, they might as well have been living on a desert island. 'We did everything on the estate. There was never any need to leave.' There was a shopping precinct, a school and grassy areas for play. The estate was built in avenues, like the American system. They were numbered 1 to 8. John's family lived on 1st Avenue - the posh end, if you like; between 7th and 8th was where all the bad stuff happened. John knew the estate like the back of his hand, all the kids did. 'There were lots of alleyways that were used to get away from the police. I was never at home and my parents didn't have a clue what I was up to.'

He started smoking dope at about 11 and was a regular user by 13. 'The older boys would always have weed to sell and a load of us would throw in 25p, and we'd get a £4 or £5 deal. And that would last a few days. We'd do it round the back of school, or round someone's house, a single parent that we knew. Get stoned, put some records on and just laugh. It was all quite innocent.'

As John remembers it, 'the change' happened more or less overnight. Howard Parker says that it took place over about 18 months. 'In the Eighties, heroin hit the social exclusion zones of the Wirral and spread. We call it micro-diffusion - it moves out to other communities and picks up susceptible people. The alienated people, the unhappy people, the people who are already using different drugs. Heroin can be compared to an infectious disease,' says Parker. 'What is extraordinary is the proportion of young adults on that estate who were known heroin users. Nine per cent of 16- to 24-year-olds on the Ford Estate were known to be heroin users. It was the highest rate on the Wirral, and the Wirral in turn was one of the most heroin-affected areas of the country.

All McDonald remembers is that suddenly you couldn't buy dope. 'You couldn't buy cannabis, couldn't buy weed. All you could buy was this cheap brown heroin. Within six months of that photograph the estate was flooded with heroin. Everyone started smoking it.' They thought it was a fad, John says, and that heroin would disappear as quickly as it had arrived. They thought the weed would come back. Inevitably, what actually happened was that 'everyone got strung out, everyone got bad [drug] habits. You need more and more, so you start to resort to crime; dealing or begging, borrowing or stealing from your parents.'

John was 16 or 17 when he started to steal. 'I had a habit. At first you are terrified, but after you've done it a couple times the fear wears off.' Parents Against Drug Abuse (Pada) was started in 1984, by Joan Keogh, who lived on the Ford Estate. She found out that both her children were taking heroin and went to her GP for advice. He said he would pass on her name to other parents with similar concerns. She then went on Radio Merseyside and announced there would be a meeting in a community centre on the Ford Estate for parents of children who were using substances - 250 people turned up. Initially they were a lobbying - rather than a support - group. They lobbied for better drug services on the Wirral, because, as Lynn Clare from Pada puts it: 'Basically, if you wanted treatment then, you had to go to London.' It was only later that Pada began to offer support to families, to the mothers, fathers, brothers and sisters of addicts.

Joan Keogh died three years ago, but Lynn Clare carries on her work. 'We help families to help users in their family, so that they know what to do when the addict in their family decides they are ready for help. We have a national helpline and we provide one-to-one and family counselling, alternative therapies, respite.'

John McDonald came across Parents Against Drug Abuse when he was 19 and on probation. He'd been in borstal for eight months and had come out clean, off drugs for the moment. He had a job as a trainee scaffolder. But then he started sniffing speed and, eventually, using heroin again. 'Still my probation officer thought I was clean, he saw me as a role model, so he asked me to speak to this parents group.' The meeting was, unexpectedly, a turning point in his life. One of the men in the group had a son who was using heroin. He told John about an organisation called Narcotics Anonymous. 'He invited me to a conference in London the following weekend. Said he would pay my fare - the idea was that I would come back and set up an NA branch in the area. Nothing like that existed in Birkenhead at the time.'

It is a warm day at the start of May when photographer Mike Abrahams and I drive on to the Ford Estate. It isn't called the Ford Estate any more - in an effort to divorce itself from its messy past and move on, it has been renamed Beechwood. Money has been spent on improvements and most people agree that it is better these days, or at least not as notorious.

Driving towards it you're struck by the affluence that surrounds it. Moneyed areas such as Bidston, although Lynn Clare says that Pada helps as many parents from those places nowadays. The estate itself is pretty unremarkable to behold - a vast expanse of identikit housing, the size of a small village. Some of the flats have been rebuilt, the new red brick stands out, but not all - apparently, they ran out of money. But what strikes you most is the isolation. Stuck in the middle of nowhere, with its own school, desolate pub and shopping precinct. 'A prison with no walls,' as McDonald puts it. Crack cocaine is the drug of choice nowadays, but there's not much sense of that at the moment, in the sunshine; the place is deserted, apart from us and a mother pushing a pram.

We're here to recreate the picture that appeared in this magazine 23 years ago, as best we can. Five people from the original 15 have been willing and able to turn up. One of them is John McDonald. The others - Julie, Carl, Micky and Louis - have all been on drugs of one sort or another ever since that picture was taken. Heroin for a long time, but mostly the heroin substitute methadone for some years now, regularly topped up with, variously, crack, alcohol, weed. It would be an understatement to say their lives have been difficult. Life has winded them repeatedly, and it shows.

Julie is 40 now and remembers the day the picture was taken. 'I was only using a bit of pot at the time... everyone was on something then... pot and then heroin. I don't know why we did it. I think it was just because we were young. But I haven't used heroin for six years now, I've got me methadone. I just use that now and the odd go on the rocks [crack].'

Julie left the estate 20 years ago. She married and moved to Birkenhead town centre. 'I stopped using at that point.' She smiles ruefully, 'but not for long... not long. I had three children and I started again after the birth of my last child.' Her children, 21, 20 and 19, don't take drugs. 'They've seen what I've been through and they wouldn't touch it.' She is, she says, in a better place these days. 'You should have seen me five, 10 years ago. I've had a few bad patches. I've been on the game, kids have been in care. I've put on weight now, though. I don't do any shoplifting any more and it's just getting the last little bit of coke away. I'm working with the Arch Initiative [a substance-misuse agency on the Wirral].' She thinks times are better for the kids on the estate nowadays. 'I don't think these kids are into what we were into,' she says. 'They can get jobs now, we were all just dossing about. No one would touch us.'

Micky is 37. 'I think we all got ambushed,' he says. 'No one in school said anything to me like, "Now here's a lesson about drugs." None of that. I smoked gear [heroin] every day for four years and I didn't really know what I'd got into until I went to jail.'

He recalls the estate in the Eighties: 'People would come from miles around to score here. From Wales. They'd arrive in a taxi and keep it waiting.' He has never worked, 'never in my life. I've been in and out of jail.' He says, profoundly sadly, that he never really wanted to be anything when he was a kid. 'I got caught robbing me own school uniform and me dad wrote a letter to the court and I got put in a home. Then I got detention centre for robbing a car and I just wanted to leave school, because I loved taking the gear that much.' He pauses and shakes his head. 'We were all angels compared to what's going on now, though. There were some kids trying to sell a crossbow on my way up here.'

Micky doesn't take heroin nowadays. 'Just a few bevvies and the weed.' And the methadone he has taken every day for 14 years. 'Everyone uses methadone and everyone is scared to come off it,' he says. 'You're just too scared to knock it on the head...'

Louis says he's '42 or 43', lives at his mum's, hangs out. He's lived in London and the US, but drugs have always got the better of him. 'I worked on building sites in London, but I got into too much trouble. They put me in prison down there for robbing the bingo. I was off me head.' He came back to Liverpool in 1993 and has been using methadone - 'along with hash and booze' - ever since. He seems the most interested in talking to John about the treatment centre. He says he wants to get clean and he'd like to work with other addicts. 'But I'd have to be clean for about a year. I try and warn people, you know. But it doesn't go in their heads. It's like '82 again here. They're all at the rock now.'

Carl is the only one who still lives on the estate. 'I've tried to get off, and me and my girl were going to move, but she's in hospital now. Never got away from here. Only in jail.' He looks at the picture from 1981; he's 37 now. 'When I was a teenager I wanted to be a footballer,' he says. 'A lot of people said I could have made it as a pro. But it hit me too young. I was 14 when I started taking heroin.' He's been taking drugs ever since. 'You just wish it would disappear, but you know it's not going to happen. Sometimes I go into jail for a break. Just to get myself off the gear, to get myself back up again. And then I come back out and before I know it I'm back at square one.'

John is the one who got away. He won't thank me for saying that, because he worries that his friends from the estate will feel slighted; the ones that didn't get away. 'Still, occasionally, I feel very strange when I'm here because of the intense life I had. It was such a community, you can see from the photograph; despite all the madness, you know there's a real togetherness.' But as is the case for many ex-addicts, moving was crucial. 'I got clean, and to stay clean I knew I had to leave the area.' He has lived in London since he was 21, going to Narcotics Anonymous meetings and living his life the 12-step way. 'The last time I used heroin was the day before I came down [to London]. The last time I smoked dope was on the train down.'

It might not be an exaggeration to say that NA has saved John's life. It has certainly transformed it. He's married now and has a six-year-old son and a private practice as a therapist. He's found his niche. He's been a resident social worker, a clinical manager. He set up a rehabilitation project in a prison in Surrey and was subsequently asked to set up four more. He has worked at the Priory. And the real reason he wants to do this piece is to publicise his latest project. Working with an agency called Sharp (Self-help Addiction Recovery Programme), he is going to open a treatment centre at the end of July in Rodney Street, in Liverpool's city centre. The 12-week day programme will be abstinence based - an approach that he says is missing on Merseyside.

The abstinence issue is part of a much wider debate in the addiction-recovery field about prescribing practices. Methadone is commonly prescribed to long-term addicts to help them break their street-drug habit and stabilise their lives. But it's highly addictive and as Pete Lock, a probation officer in Liverpool, points out, 'A lot of people end up being on high levels of the stuff for years and years, and that's not really what it was intended for. I know people who've used methadone purely and simply for what it was intended for - as a short-term means of detox. It's hard though; it's not a magic bullet and if you're giving someone methadone and they're still using heroin, they end up addicted to both, and getting them to stop is then even harder.'

As we walk away from the estate, talk turns to the others in the picture. Joanne, Julie's best friend, who died in a drink-driving car crash. A boy who hung himself in prison. Another who over-dosed. Another who was murdered, the victim of a gay hate crime. The rest, the ones that lived and aren't in this piece, are still using either drugs or alcohol, all bar two.

Julie asks if we'll come back in another 20 years to find out what has happened to them. Take another photograph. We all smile. As we go our separate ways I ask Carl if he thinks he'll give John's treatment centre a go. He says he'd like to. 'Every day is just sitting in, go out to score, smoke, that'll be it. I'm tired of this. I've been doing it since I was 14.'

Public view of crime surprises Blunkett

Alan Travis, home affairs editor
Saturday May 29, 2004
The Guardian

"Having problems with crack cocaine?" asks a leaflet pinned on the packed advice noticeboard at the Barton community centre in the middle of one of Oxford's satellite council estates.
Upstairs in the bar the home secretary, David Blunkett, is making clear to a packed local audience that the pressure on Britain's prisons will carry on growing until the "people who are behaving abominably" get the message that they will be dealt with toughly.

He promises to clamp down on antisocial behaviour, class A drug-taking and organised crime before outlining his latest ideas for using satellite technology and lie detectors to keep track of released sex offenders.

But he catches himself before he completes his short introduction to add: "At the same time we do need to develop a two-handed approach so we are involved in prevention as well. This is not just a total clampdown on people's behaviour."

It is six months since Tony Blair launched Labour's pre-manifesto consultation exercise known as the Big Conversation, and more than 50 people are prepared to spend their Thursday evening crammed into this Oxfordshire community centre to discuss what should be done about crime.

After his opening speech Mr Blunkett spends some time at each of the five tables of people discussing pre-set questions on specific topics. Each table, with 10 or more people, focuses on a different theme, from preventing crime through policing and sentencing to organised crime and terrorism.

But it quickly becomes apparent that the invited audience, which includes police and probation officers, crime reduction managers, neighbourhood watch people and local residents, are not afraid to criticise or put forward their own ideas.

Over the next hour Mr Blunkett is told that the public is far more civilised about sentencing than the media would have us believe; that it is not really a good idea to take away the welfare benefits of antisocial families; and that excluding unruly young people from school is detrimental to their interests.

The groups are also keen on seeing a lot more "restorative justice" schemes where victims can get some sort of "closure" by meeting the offender; want an end to the short-term funding of youth and community workers, and would like to see more work in schools in laying down the boundaries of acceptable behaviour.

There is also talk of the need for more community beat bobbies - some of them on bicycles - and giving more powers to street wardens to deal with antisocial behaviour, and suggestions for on the spot fines and more drug treatment places. There is also a strong feeling that it is time that sentencers in the courts demonstrated that they knew the victim of the crime was often present in court, "because it doesn't feel like that," as one man says.

What appears to be absent from this gathering is any great thirst for more punitive crackdowns to deal with yob culture, nor much evidence that Labour's latest emphasis on tackling the "binge drinking culture" is that high on the list of priorities in Oxfordshire.

After an hour of listening to detailed suggestions and comments about Labour's crime policies, the home secretary gets up to respond. He tells them they have interesting ideas but adds: "You are all a bit professional, you know, compared to a lot of the Big Conversation events I have been to around the country. I think you understood what a DTTO was, which is a drug testing and treatment order."

He gives a detailed reply on many of the points that are raised and picks up on some issues around antisocial neighbours.

Outside Mr Blunkett says the exercise has taught him just how much variation there is in crime problems around the country. In one small market town they were worried about the impact of their first licensed premises, while in South Wales he learned that a "drinking warehouse" had just opened that can accommodate 10,000 people standing up on its three floors.

"I got a surprise tonight in that I did not hear that drink and drugs were quite so central to their problems," adds the home secretary.

Parents may be to blame for children's drug use

The Times May 26, 2004

PARENTS are often responsible for their children becoming drug users, Britain’s leading parenting charity says.

While some parents blame “getting in with a bad crowd” for their child’s drug use, their own parenting style may be partly responsible, Parentline Plus says in a report. Parents’ failure to set boundaries on their children’s behaviour as they are growing up, as well as their ignorance about drugs, were likely to be crucial influences on whether children turned to drugs.

“Ineffective, or negative parenting, where there is a lack of boundaries for children from an early age and a lack of negotiations about a value base as the child grows up, play a part,” Jan Fry, the report’s author, said. “If children understand from an early age that there have to be boundaries and curtailed behaviour, it will be easier for parents to talk to them about drugs.”

The report found that a significant majority of parents who called its helpline about their children using drugs were so “out of touch” with the drugs scene that they were incapable of talking meaningfully to their children about the dangers of drugs. They were particularly confused about the reclassification of cannabis as a class C drug and could not understand why the Government should tolerate the use of any drug at all.

Many did not understand that “social drug taking” did not automatically lead to a serious addiction to heavy drugs, Ms Fry said. “There is a feeling in the sector that it might be easier for families if parents had a ‘reality zone’ in their attitude towards drugs and accepted that children now start experimenting with drugs earlier in much the same way they might experiment with alcohol earlier.

“I would hope that if it were put in perspective that smoking a joint doesn’t automatically lead to heavy drug use, parents might find it easier to live with the knowledge that their child had tried drugs in the same way that their child had tried alcohol.”

Parents who had used drugs recreationally in their youth were in a much better position to talk to their children about the dangers of drugs. While government initiatives aimed at tackling drugs misuse among young people were welcome, more support for parents was needed. “Our study indicates that parents are still bewildered and ill- informed when faced with evidence of their children’s drug taking, especially when such use is associated with multiple problems,” Ms Fry said.

The report, based on data from 3,000 calls to the charity’s helpline, found strong links between child drug use and levels of family conflict, with parents reporting their children as being in conflict with them, their siblings and their friends.

Researchers also discovered strong links between young people abusing drugs and them being school bullies, suggesting that for some children drug use is part of a wider set of aggressive behavioural problems that is likely to be linked to family conflict.

The report calls for more support for parents before their children leave primary school and before they are likely to come into contact with drugs, enabling them to share that information with their children. As most calls to the charity’s helpline about drugs are from mothers, the report also calls for more work with fathers to help them to become more actively involved in giving their children preventive messages early on.

Vivienne Evans, chief executive of Adfam, which provides a helpline and information leaflets for family and friends of drug users, said: “This compelling report underlines Adfam’s recognition that giving families the tools to talk about drug use and the understanding on how to manage their situation is imperative to address the problems that drug use can create.”

Jo Revill, health editor
Sunday May 23, 2004
The Observer

Soaring levels of cocaine use among young British professionals have led to a record number of deaths, according to new figures obtained by The Observer.
A drastic drop in the price of the drug, coupled with the belief among young people that cocaine is 'safe', led to 87 deaths linked to its use for the first six months of 2003 - double the figure for the same period in 2002.

With a gram of cocaine - enough for up to 20 lines - now costing £40 compared with £70 a few years ago, the rising death toll has been linked to growing evidence that young professionals are now using it as the weekend drug of choice. Figures show more than 640,000 people used the drug last year - triple the number in 1997.

While cocaine has been dubbed the the 'drug without a downside' on account of the lack of a narcotic hangover, doctors warn it can trigger fatal heart attacks and strokes, as well as causing severe long-term depression associated with heavy binges.

Dr Fabrizio Schifano, addiction researcher at St George's medical school in Tooting, south London, said the latest figures showed the tragic and rising cost of recreational drug abuse. He warned that easier availability, falling prices and the growing popularity of cocktails of several drugs are behind the trend.

'The rising toll of fatalities mirrors the increased use of cocaine among wealthy young professionals,' said Schifano. 'People who use drugs after a hard week at work don't consider themselves addicts. They may take a combination of stimulants, which is more often implicated in fatalities. But these drugs can also kill on their own.'

When the drug is taken with drink it is more dangerous because it produces a toxic substance known as cocaethylene, which damages the heart. 'Heavy drinking with the drug really pushes up the level of risk,' said Schifano. 'Most people take it with alcohol, not realising that it increases the chance of having a stroke or a heart attack.'

For years cocaine has enjoyed a high-society image in Britain, where it is associated with pop stars and celebrities. It is not associated with crime in the way heroin is, and someone who can afford it can stay on cocaine for years before finding they have a serious addiction.

Whereas crack cocaine is believed to be immediately addictive and highly dangerous, cocaine snorted through the nose as white powder has less effect because only 30-40 per cent of it enters the bloodstream, compared with nearly 100 per cent absorption when smoked as crack.

Schifano said: 'Typically, we'll see people in our clinic who have become addicted through social habits. They go to a club, they drink a lot, they are offered coke and they take it. Then they crash out on a Sunday, and are back to work again on Monday morning. They will feel depressed and low, but they can get through the week until Friday when they start all over again.

Celebrities Tara Palmer-Tomkinson and Danniella Westbrook are among those who have been treated for add