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

Press Association
Thursday December 29, 2005
The Guardian

A horse tranquilliser the popularity of which is rocketing in the underground club scene is to be made illegal, it was announced yesterday. Ketamine - manufactured for use in animals and humans under the brand name Ketalar - will become a Class C drug from January 1.

Doses of 100mg lead to euphoria and energy rushes. Doses of 200mg or more make users hallucinate.

Home Office minister Paul Goggins said: "Ketamine presents serious health risks and must be subject to strict controls to provide a considerable deterrent to those seeking to import and supply the drug."

Plan for licensed 'red light' zones ditched in favour of zero-tolerance strategy

Alan Travis, home affairs editor and Ben Farmer
Wednesday December 28, 2005
The Guardian

The government will announce plans next month for a national zero tolerance campaign against kerb crawlers and street prostitution after shelving plans to introduce licensed "red light" zones, the Guardian has learned.
The proposals are expected to form a key part of the next phase of Tony Blair's drive against antisocial behaviour. Kerb crawlers will risk having their driving licences confiscated and being named and shamed in local newspapers.

The Home Office minister Fiona Mactaggart told the Guardian that it was wrong to regard those involved in prostitution as sex workers. She said tough measures were needed to tackle the markets for prostitution. "I'm not tolerant of the view that prostitution is the oldest profession in the world and there's nothing we can do to reduce it," she said. "Prostitution blights communities. We will take a zero tolerance approach to kerb crawling. Men who choose to use prostitutes are indirectly supporting drug dealers and abusers. The power to confiscate driving licences already exists. We want the police to use that power more."

The police are expected to be encouraged to set up safe houses and other schemes to help the women involved get out of the trade. Greater efforts will also be made to close brothels masquerading as massage parlours and saunas.
Ministers are expected to rule out overhauling the 50-year-old prostitution laws, a decision that spells the end for plans floated by the previous home secretary, David Blunkett, 18 months ago to give local authorities discretion to set up tolerance zones, small licensed brothels and a register of prostitutes.

Cities such as Liverpool have been pressing hard to be given the power to set up these legal zones. Ms Mactaggart, however, said effective policing rather than an overhaul of the laws was the answer.

The Home Office estimates 80,000 people are involved in the vice trade and 95% of those working on the streets are using heroin or crack. However, the number of women cautioned for soliciting fell from 3,323 in 1993 to 732 in 2000. Middlesbrough is responsible for 25% of all national convictions for kerb crawling, and ministers want to see its zero tolerance campaign replicated.

"Prostitution has been allowed to slip off the agenda somewhat. I want to ensure our good work on trafficking is joined-up with a prostitution strategy that helps women out of prostitution but also deals with the demand for prostitutes," Ms Mactaggart said.

A national plan to tackle trafficking, to be published in the next few weeks, will focus on prevention and providing help to victims as well as prosecution of traffickers. Ministers also want better access for women to health checks, drug treatment and housing and to make them safer from violent attacks.

Niki Adams, a spokeswoman for the English Prostitutes' Collective, said the plans would force women into more dangerous conditions. "It's going to have an absolutely devastating impact. The government is just using the promise of access to more services as a cover for their very repressive policies."

The number of young people admitted to hospital for drink-related diseases continues to rise, with record numbers needing treatment for a range of problems.

Experts say that the binge drinking culture, the relative cheapness of alcohol and longer opening hours have all played their part in the toll that alcohol is taking on the health of the young.

New official figures show that the number admitted to hospital in 2004-05 has risen by 15 per cent since 1996-97, when Labour came to power.

The figures, released to the Liberal Democrats, show that 4,809 people under 18 received in-patient care in 2004-2005 compared with 4,173 eight years before.

The illnesses include alcohol-related liver disease including cirrhosis, mental behaviour disorders and the toxic effects of drinking when teenagers and children have drunk so much that they have poisoned themselves.

At the same time there was a 30 per cent increase in the number of adults admitted to hospital for drink-related disorders, up from 35,740 to 46,299.

Paul Burstow, the Liberal Democrats' health spokesman, said: "'Tis the season to be jolly but, as these figures show, our binge drinking culture is leading to more and more people being admitted to hospital as a result of having too much to drink.

"With the Government now pressing primary care trusts to stop spending in an attempt to plug the hole in NHS deficits, it is vital that preventative measures to tackle the causes of these hospital admissions, such as alcohol treatment services, are not scrapped."

Mr Burstow added: "If the Government forces local heath organisations to divert precious resources away from programmes that tackle the problem drinking culture in our country, they will merely be storing up a huge health bill for future governments to mop up."

Throughout the year reports have illustrated the growing alcohol problem.

In the summer a survey from the NHS showed that the number of children under 15 buying alcohol illegally had doubled in 15 years.

It said that the annual survey of drinking, drug taking and smoking among 11- to 15-year-olds showed that little progress was made last year in stemming damaging habits. It also showed that girls were catching up with boys in their drinking habits.

Researchers found that of those who had alcohol in the previous week, 50 per cent of girls said they had been drunk, compared with 42 per cent of boys.

In October a poll of 2,000 indicated that a quarter of adults, 11 million people, were binge drinking regularly.

More and more criminals are committing further offences within two years of being jailed or punished with community sentences, Home Office figures show.

The statistics also show that the Home Office's much heralded drug treatment and testing orders are failing to stop nine in 10 from committing more crimes.

The Government was accused yesterday of presiding over a prison and justice system that was failing to rehabilitate or deter nearly 60 per cent of adult criminals who passed through it.

Home Office data showed that 58.5 per cent of adults studied in 2002 were convicted of new crimes within two years, compared with 57.6 per cent in 2000. Half committed their first new offence within 12 months. Four in 10 reoffenders went to prison for the fresh offence.

One of the most disturbing findings was that 89 per cent of people on drug treatment and testing orders, a flagship policy of recent years, went on to reoffend.

The number of criminals who committed further offences after being in prison rose by three per cent to 67 per cent. The biggest reoffending group was in theft, at 28 per cent of new crime, following by driving (14 per cent) and crimes of violence (nine per cent). Reoffending by those on community sentences also rose fractionally to 53 per cent.

Mark Oaten, the Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, said: "The Government should be ashamed that after eight years it is still failing to get a grip on the revolving door of reoffending.

"It is clear that our prisons are now in need of a massive overhaul. Proper investment in education and training is desperately needed."

A grandmother who died after being given a controversial and experimental cannabis-based medicine had told her family that she thought the drug was driving her mad.

Rene Anderson, 69, became so paranoid after taking Sativex as part of a drug trial that she believed her family and doctors were trying to kill her.

Just three weeks after beginning the trial for the drug, which is not licensed in Britain, she told her daughter, Jacqui Sadler: "I know this drug is making me stupid. I think it is driving me mad."

Last night Mrs Sadler, 42, said: "It was heartbreaking to see my lovely, caring mother turn into a stranger who laughed uncontrollably, recited nursery rhymes and thought at times we were trying to kill her.

"In my opinion, Sativex contributed to my mother's death and robbed her of her future with her family. I want to see the trial halted and I never, ever, want to see this drug licensed in this country."

Mrs Anderson, from Sheffield, had diabetes and was put on the trial, funded by Diabetes UK, at the Royal Hallamshire Hospital, where she was an outpatient in September 2003.

She suffered extreme pain in her hands and feet caused by diabetes neuropathy and it was thought the drug, developed by the British company GW Pharmaceuticals, might alleviate her condition. But from her first dose, her husband Donald and daughter noticed a marked change in her demeanour.

Although her dosage was reduced within three days, the trial continued and Mrs Anderson, a grandmother of four, became disoriented, agitated and paranoid.

"It was as though my mother were intoxicated all the time," Mrs Sadler said. "She thought there were drugs planted in the house and that we were under surveillance by police helicopters. She would scream at times; at other times she would weep for hours."

Mrs Anderson was admitted to the Royal Hallamshire a month after starting the trial. She developed pneumonia and suffered a heart attack and respiratory problems, before dying of acute kidney failure on March 3, 2004 - a year before she would have celebrated her golden wedding anniversary.

Last week, at an inquest into her death, the coroner ruled that a reaction to the treatment was a "significant contributory factor" in the development of the illness that killed her.

Mrs Anderson's death will again raise questions over the effectiveness of Sativex - the first cannabis-derived medication - which has been licensed in Canada but is subject to further tests in Britain.

It will also highlight concerns in the medical world over the impact of the Government's reclassification of the raw drug.

This week there has been speculation that the Government will reverse its decision to downgrade cannabis to a Class C substance, in response to increasing medical evidence linking the drug to psychosis and schizophrenia.

Explaining why her mother had started taking the drug, Mrs Sadler said: "Though she rarely complained of her neuropathy pain, my mother once told me it was like having boiling water poured on her hands and feet.

"When she told me she was going on the trial I was concerned, but she just said, 'I'm on that thing the young ones take.' But she definitely thought she would be doing some good, helping with research.

"I felt she was being used as a guinea pig. It was almost as if we were watching Mum revert to childhood. While in hospital, she was assessed by a psychiatrist, who told us she had seen these symptoms before in young people who smoked a lot of cannabis.

"GW Pharmaceuticals has made millions from this drug. But we never want another family to see a loved one go through what Mum did.

"Her greatest wish was to see her grandchildren married. She has been robbed of that. She should have been with us for a long time, but she has been taken from us. People should be warned of this drug's dangers."

A spokesman for GW Pharmaceuticals said: "This was a unique case. Whatever the sad cause of Mrs Anderson's death, it does not mean that Sativex is dangerous for patients, even if it may have been one of several factors to have caused Mrs Anderson's initial confusion."

Smokers forfeit legal rights
The Times
December 17, 2005

SMOKERS are legally responsible for their own ill-health because of their negligence in failing to give up, the High Court ruled yesterday.

In a groundbreaking decision, a judge said that those who had smoked since 1971 were guilty of risking their own health because of the clear evidence that had emerged since then about the dangers posed by tobacco.

Lawyers gave warning last night that the decision could also hit compensation claims for ill-health made by other groups, such as heavy drinkers and obese people.

The court’s ruling came as a study published yesterday showed that, for the first time, more women now smoke than men. The Health Survey for England disclosed that 22 per cent of men smoke compared with 23 per cent of women. Overall numbers for both genders fell but the proportion of men giving up was twice as high as that for women.

Smoking was declared a form of negligence by Mr Justice Stanley Burnton as he ruled on a claim for asbestos-related lung cancer made against the Ministry of Defence. The judge concluded that while Reginald Badger’s widow, Beryl, was entitled to compensation for his death the award should be cut by 20 per cent because as a heavy smoker he was guilty of contributory negligence.

Mr Badger had been exposed to asbestos while working as a boilermaker in Gibraltar and at Devonport dockyard from 1954 to 1987. He had been a smoker since the age of 16. Mr Justice Burnton said that no one could blame Mr Badger, who died aged 63, for starting to smoke in 1955 because at the time the risks were not widely known.

From 1971, however, he said that the introduction of health warnings on cigarette packets enabled him to infer that the public were aware of the hazards of smoking.

Lawyers, including the judge, said that the ruling was the first in the High Court to consider the contributory effect of tobacco in negligence claims and would affect similar cases.

The ruling has been seen as a victory for insurance companies that have fought to try to reduce the cash payouts they have to make to victims of negligence. But Adrian Budgen, a personal injury specialist at the solicitors Irwin Mitchell, said: “It’s an unhelpful precedent. It will result in greatly reduced damages in a lot of cases. That’s very sad and unfortunate.”

FALCONER LAUNCHES DEDICATED DRUG COURTS TO STOP HABIT
DCA press release: 14.1205

The next stage in the Government's drive against drug abuse was given a boost today by the launch of a pilot in two dedicated courts aimed at hitting the scourge of drug induced crime.

Leeds and West London magistrates' courts will pilot a new framework for dealing with offenders who carry out quality of life crimes like shoplifting or vehicle crime, often committed to feed a drug habit.

The framework kicks in when an offender is found guilty and is referred to the dedicated drug court (DDC) for sentence. The same magistrates or district judge will sentence the offender and provide continuity and stability in reviews of offenders on drug treatment orders.

International evidence suggests that continuity of sentencer motivates offenders and leads to higher rates of successful completion of drug treatment orders if defendants know they will come before the same people. An increase in the number of completed orders is linked to a decrease in the incidents of drug-related crime.

The offender will also receive support and treatment from probation and the Drugs Interventions Programme.

The 18-month pilot will measure if dedicated drug courts:
* Reduce drug-related offending;
* Reduce drug abuse; and
* Are cost-effective.

The link between magistrates or district judges and the offender will continue until the drug treatment order is completed. If a breach of the order occurs the same magistrates or district judge will re-sentence the offender for their original offence, considering all options including custody.

Visiting West London magistrates' court in Hammersmith, Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer said:

"The dedicated drug court model we announced today aims to change the lives of people caught up in a vicious cycle where they steal to feed their drug habit, get jailed, come out and re-offend.

"Offenders will see the same faces every time they come for reviews of their treatment order, creating a more informal atmosphere where the goals set in the drug treatment order are reviewed.

"This is not a soft option for drug users who commit crimes. We want to get people off drugs and, therefore, off petty crime, by targeting the reason people on drugs offend. Failure to complete the treatment will result in the offenders being brought back before the court."

The model will also strengthen the combined work of the courts, probation officers, police, drug treatment providers and others by improving the exchange of information in relation to the offender and their treatment by using a set format.

Lord Phillips, the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, who also attended the launch, said:

"The pilot announced today provides an opportunity to see if a new, more focused approach will lead to more effective treatment of offenders, in terms of breaking their addiction and preventing reoffending.

"The Home Secretary has emphasised that prison is the place for those who are serious, persistent or dangerous offenders but that for those who are not, and whose offending is not so serious, punishment in the community is more appropriate.

"The aim of these courts is to ensure that those offenders who fall in to the latter category take the first step in turning their lives round, and to help them to get off drugs and lead a productive life."

Notes to Editors

Drugs courts launched

Community Care: 14.12.05

The government has launched dedicated courts offering treatment in the community instead of custody for drug-using offenders.

Leeds and West London magistrates’ courts will pilot the new framework for offenders who commit crimes such as shoplifting or vehicle crime to feed their drug habits.

Offenders found guilty of offences are going to be sent to the dedicated courts for support and treatment from probation and drug interventions programmes. They will be brought back before the court if they fail to complete treatment.

Launching the pilot this week, the Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer said the courts were “not a soft option” for drug-users.

He said: “The pilot provides an opportunity to see if a new, more focussed approach will lead to more effective treatment of offenders, in terms of breaking their addiction and preventing re-offending.

“The Home Secretary has emphasised that prison is the place for those who are serious, persistent or dangerous offenders but for those who are not, and whose offending is not so serious, punishment in the community is more appropriate.”

The pilot will run until July 2007.

Don't jail addicts who shoplift from tempting displays, says chief judge

Telegraph: !412.05

Drug addicts who commit non-violent offences should receive treatment in the community rather than short prison terms, England's most senior judge said yesterday.

Lord Phillips, the Lord Chief Justice, accepted that some people were unconvinced.

But, as he launched a pilot project at West London magistrates' court, Lord Phillips said he was confident that the scheme - and another in Leeds - would demonstrate that drug rehabilitation "really works".

For a "comparatively trivial" offence not involving violence - "helping oneself to somebody else's property, perhaps where that property is temptingly displayed in a self-service store" - the appropriate punishment would not keep the offender out of circulation for very long, if at all, he said.

"The sensible member of the public is likely to be concerned with two other objects of sentencing, the reduction of crime and the reform and rehabilitation of offenders."

Although drug addiction could be treated during a long spell in prison, this was simply not possible if a short sentence was imposed.

"The answer is obvious - or should be," Lord Phillips said. "Give them an appropriate community sentence, which should not be a soft option, and treat their addiction. Many on drugs are keen to get off. They need help."

Last month, Lord Phillips said muggers under 17 should be given community penalties rather than custody if they used only "minimal force" when committing robberies.

The offender's agreement is needed before a "drug rehabilitation requirement" is made part of a community sentence.

What is new is that the magistrates sentencing an offender will monitor his progress and provide continuity.

Lord Falconer, the Lord Chancellor, said at the launch yesterday that offenders would "see the same faces every time they come for reviews of their treatment order, creating a more informal atmosphere where the goals set in the drug treatment order are reviewed".

This was not a soft option, Lord Falconer insisted. "We want to get people off drugs and, therefore, off petty crime by targeting the reason people on drugs offend. Failure to complete the treatment will result in them being brought back before the court."

Turning Point, a charity set up to help people suffering from drug and alcohol problems, mental health issues and learning disabilities, welcomed the scheme.

Its chief executive, Lord Adebowale, said: "Turning Point has long called for the introduction of dedicated drug courts with specialist knowledge and expertise in tackling drug-related offending.

"The creation of drug courts with specialist staff will enable drug misusers access to the right help and treatment for their specific needs."

Guardian: 14.12.05

Deaths related to hepatitis C infection in England have doubled in less than a decade, while the number of people needing hospital treatment who are known to be infected with the virus has tripled, the Health Protection Agency said yesterday.
There has also been a three-fold increase in liver transplants because of the infection, whose rapid growth is mainly put down to the injecting drug culture dating back to the Woodstock generation. Even people who tried drugs briefly 20 to 30 years ago are at risk of developing liver failure or cancer.

The agency is still revising its estimates of how many people are living with hepatitis C since the existing estimate of 200,000, or around 0.5% of the population, is based on studies from the mid-1990s.
The Hepatitis C Trust has estimated that around 500,000 people in Britain have the blood-borne virus, although not all will ever have obvious disease. But experts commissioned by the trust have warned around 200,000 people will die in the next 20 to 30 years unless diagnosis and treatment improves.

Guardian: 14.12.05

Cocaine abuse could increase the risk of developing Parkinson's disease in later life by making the brain more susceptible to toxins in the environment, researchers reported yesterday. Neuroscientists who carried out the study said that pregnant women who take the drug might also be raising the chances that their children will develop the condition.
The warning came after laboratory tests showed that cocaine altered nerve cells in a region of the brain called the substantia nigra, which made the nerves more susceptible to a toxin linked to Parkinson's disease.

The researchers tested the effects of cocaine on nerve cells by injecting a typical crack dose equivalent into lab mice. They found that the cocaine stopped nerve cells mopping up one of the brain's feelgood chemicals, dopamine, which in turn lead to a rise in reactive particles known as free radicals.

Although the high levels of free radicals were not enough on their own to kill off brain cells, the scientists found that once they injected low levels of MPTP - a comtoxin produced as a byproduct of the chemical industry - the nerves began to die. "What seems to be happening is that although each in isolation would not be a big problem, there is a synergistic effect that makes the nerves more susceptible to damage if cocaine has been used," said Richard Smeyne, a neurobiologist at St Jude Children's Research hospital in Memphis, Tennessee.

In view of the rise in cocaine usage that has peaked in the US but is continuing in Britain, the research suggests Parkinson's may become a growing problem in future.

"Based on these findings, it might not be surprising to see a rise in the number of cases of Parkinson's disease in the next 10 or 20 years or so," said Dr Smeyne, whose research appears in the journal Neuroscience.

· Woman, 70, died after medical trial of new drug
· Downgrade of cannabis in law could be reversed

Guardian: 12.12.05

Questions will today be raised about the safety of pain relief medicines based on cannabis, as an inquest opens into the death of a 70-year-old woman who took part in drug trials.
The spotlight on Sativex, the first ever cannabis-derived medication, comes amid rising concern in the medical world over the impact of the government's reclassification of the raw drug. There was speculation at the weekend that the government might reverse its decision to downgrade cannabis to a class C substance, in response to increasing medical evidence linking the drug to psychosis and schizophrenia.

Today's inquest at the medico-legal centre in Sheffield will hear that Rene Anderson, who had diabetes, joined the trials of Sativex at the Royal Hallamshire hospital. Doctors thought the experimental drug might alleviate the nerve pains she had in her hands and feet. Shortly after starting the drug she developed psychosis and went to hospital. The psychosis was not controlled and after 10 weeks in hospital she developed physical problems, including pneumonia and kidney failure. She died on March 3.

"This inquest will explore how and why Mrs Anderson died. It will examine the drug trial, [her] psychiatric illness and physical deterioration that ultimately led to her death," said Richard Starkie, of the solicitors Irwin Mitchell. "If it is found Sativex did play a part in her illness or death, it would clearly raise very important questions [on] the safety of the drug."

Mrs Anderson's daughter, Jackie Sadler, said: "Our mother was a wonderful woman who still had a great deal of life in her. We are still in the dark as to how she became so ill and why she died, and none of the medical experts involved have yet been able to answer our questions."

Sativex, the first available drug made from cannabis extracts, gained a licence in Canada in April for pain relief in cases of multiple sclerosis. The Home Office last month gave permission for the drug to be imported for patients whose doctors believed they would benefit.

Hundreds of patients who took part in the UK trials have been allowed to continue taking the drug.

There have been questions raised over the efficacy of the drug, but, to date, not its safety. People with multiple sclerosis say cannabis eases their symptoms. But some psychiatrists say cannabis should not have been reclassified, and the Home Office asked the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to assess the case for reclassification because of increasing evidence that high-strength cannabis strains could trigger psychosis in regular users. It is understood that though their report believes the existing classification is the right one, it highlights the health risks.

Yesterday an aide said that the home secretary, Charles Clarke, was considering the review.

The Independent on Sunday can reveal that the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) has detailed evidence showing cannabis triggers psychosis in regular users. The findings are expected be used by Mr Blair to overturn the decision made two years ago to downgrade the drug. The reports makes it "an open door" for ministers to change the law, according to one official.

Mr Blair is keen to reverse the controversial decision to downgrade its status from B to C, taken by David Blunkett. His successor as Home Secretary, Charles Clarke, asked the Government's official advisory body to reassess the classification of the drug after a public outcry.

A senior Whitehall aide said: "There is no barrier to reclassification of cannabis on the grounds of political embarrassment. This was David Blunkett's decision, not something agreed by the Cabinet."

Pressure for a U-turn will intensify once the ACMD report is published. It will detail evidence that varieties of "skunk", high-strength strains of cannabis, can cause psychosis in some people and that cannabis can exacerbate the condition of users who are already mentally ill.

The Home Secretary will announce his official decision on the classification next month. Officials say he is "minded" to restore the drug's original B rating. Obstacles to a U-turn remain, however, particularly the attitude of the police. Ministers must overcome police fears that it will reduce their ability to focus on class A drugs such as heroin.

Most senior officers supported the original decision to downgrade because it helped them to focus on class A drugs.

The original decision to drop cannabis's status to C also reflected advice that it carries a lower risk of addiction and health-related problems than other drugs. However, fresh studies have since indicated that there is a strong link between the drug and "psychotic symptoms".

A Danish study published in the British Journal of Psychiatry found that almost half of patients treated for a cannabis-related mental disorder went on to develop a schizophrenic illness. People who had used the drug developed schizophrenia earlier than those with the illness who had not smoked marijuana.

In light of these new warnings, Mr Clarke asked the ACMD in March this year to review the classification of cannabis. The committee took evidence from police, mental health campaigners and drugs education charities. One area of investigation has been the harms of new strains of cannabis known as "skunk", which have high levels of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) - the chemical which gives users a "high".

Although the ACMD does not believe that the health risks justify cannabis being moved back to class B, it does draw attention in its report to the health impacts of a rise in the use of skunk, which has been fuelled by increasing numbers of people growing their own marijuana.

Despite reports that cannabis use is rising, official figures show that use among 16- to 24-year-olds has gradually fallen over the past seven years.

Although it is a class C drug, cannabis possession, production and supply are still illegal, although the penalties have been reduced.

The maximum penalty for possession has been reduced to two years' imprisonment. Most offences of cannabis possession now result in a warning and confiscation of the drug.

Tony Blair is planning a controversial U-turn on cannabis laws and the reintroduction of tough penalties after an official government review found a definitive link between use of the drug and mental illness.

The Independent on Sunday can reveal that the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) has detailed evidence showing cannabis triggers psychosis in regular users. The findings are expected be used by Mr Blair to overturn the decision made two years ago to downgrade the drug. The reports makes it "an open door" for ministers to change the law, according to one official.

Mr Blair is keen to reverse the controversial decision to downgrade its status from B to C, taken by David Blunkett. His successor as Home Secretary, Charles Clarke, asked the Government's official advisory body to reassess the classification of the drug after a public outcry.

A senior Whitehall aide said: "There is no barrier to reclassification of cannabis on the grounds of political embarrassment. This was David Blunkett's decision, not something agreed by the Cabinet."

Pressure for a U-turn will intensify once the ACMD report is published. It will detail evidence that varieties of "skunk", high-strength strains of cannabis, can cause psychosis in some people and that cannabis can exacerbate the condition of users who are already mentally ill.

The Home Secretary will announce his official decision on the classification next month. Officials say he is "minded" to restore the drug's original B rating. Obstacles to a U-turn remain, however, particularly the attitude of the police. Ministers must overcome police fears that it will reduce their ability to focus on class A drugs such as heroin.

Most senior officers supported the original decision to downgrade because it helped them to focus on class A drugs.
The original decision to drop cannabis's status to C also reflected advice that it carries a lower risk of addiction and health-related problems than other drugs. However, fresh studies have since indicated that there is a strong link between the drug and "psychotic symptoms".

A Danish study published in the British Journal of Psychiatry found that almost half of patients treated for a cannabis-related mental disorder went on to develop a schizophrenic illness. People who had used the drug developed schizophrenia earlier than those with the illness who had not smoked marijuana.

In light of these new warnings, Mr Clarke asked the ACMD in March this year to review the classification of cannabis. The committee took evidence from police, mental health campaigners and drugs education charities. One area of investigation has been the harms of new strains of cannabis known as "skunk", which have high levels of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) - the chemical which gives users a "high".

Although the ACMD does not believe that the health risks justify cannabis being moved back to class B, it does draw attention in its report to the health impacts of a rise in the use of skunk, which has been fuelled by increasing numbers of people growing their own marijuana.

Despite reports that cannabis use is rising, official figures show that use among 16- to 24-year-olds has gradually fallen over the past seven years.

Although it is a class C drug, cannabis possession, production and supply are still illegal, although the penalties have been reduced.

The maximum penalty for possession has been reduced to two years' imprisonment. Most offences of cannabis possession now result in a warning and confiscation of the drug.

The Metropolitan Police Commissioner rekindled the row over cannabis policy yesterday when he said the amount that the Government had suggested as the level to determine personal use or dealing was much too high.

Sir Ian Blair said his force had made clear to the Home Office - which last week published proposed guidelines for the "threshold" levels for possession of drugs, above which someone would be assumed to be dealing - that it was surprised by the suggested level for cannabis.

Sir Ian Blair: unhappy at ‘threshold’ levels for possession of drugs
The figure for cannabis was 4oz (113g) for resin or 17.6oz (500g) for leaf. Four ounces of resin would be enough to roll about 500 "light" joints or about 250 strong ones, according to the drugs education charity DrugScope.

Sir Ian, speaking at a meeting of the Metropolitan Police Authority in London, was asked his view on the cannabis threshold.

He said: "We have already made clear to the Home Office we are surprised by the amount being discussed for what would not be for personal use.

It's a great deal higher than we would have expected. Our view is we would need to negotiate that figure a long way down."

His comments came as the Home Office released figures showing that offences involving cocaine - from possession to trafficking - rose by 16 per cent last year to record levels in England and Wales.

The number of Class A "hard drugs" offences dealt with by police reached a new peak of 36,350, up two per cent on 2003.

There were 8,070 cocaine offences, compared with 6,970 the previous year, while the number of crack cocaine offences rose eight per cent to 2,440.

Overall drug offences fell 21 per cent to 105,570, due to the Government's "downwards" reclassification of cannabis from Class B to Class C early last year. Only 49,840 people were found guilty or cautioned by police for drug offences compared with 82,060 in 2003, a fall of 39 per cent.

Critics argue that dealers in cannabis and other drugs will carry just under the threshold to avoid being charged with intent to supply.

However, the Home Office made clear last week that threshold amounts, to be provided for the guidance of courts under the 2005 Drugs Act, would be the trigger limit above which a suspect, or defendant, would be required to prove that the intent was not to supply.

The Home Office and police chiefs stressed that people with lower amounts might still be charged with supply if there was other evidence - such as possession of scales, or sales to undercover officers - to prove intent to supply.

Sir Ian also said that a rise in gun crime was causing "considerable concern". Latest police figures showed gun crime in London was up 11.4 per cent.

The shadow home affairs minister, Cheryl Gillan, said the drugs figures underlined "the Government's failure to get a grip on Class A drug abuse".

The Guardian : 7.12.05

More evidence of the growing popularity of cocaine in Britain came yesterday with the publication of official figures showing that a record 8,070 offenders were dealt with last year for possessing the drug - a rise of 16%.
The annual drug offences figures show the number of people dealt with for class A drug offences by the police reached a new peak of 36,350 - up 2% on 2003 - although this masks significant falls in the numbers dealt with for heroin and ecstasy offences. The official Home Office figures track the rise in the popularity of cocaine, with 1,570 offenders recorded in 1994, 2,880 in 1997 and 8,070 in 2004.

Overall, the number of drug offenders found guilty or formally cautioned by the police fell from 110,400 in 2003 to 89,820 in 2004 as the reclassification of cannabis from a class B to a class C drug was implemented. The change means most of those caught in possession of small amounts of cannabis face confiscation and an informal warning. The number found guilty or given a formal caution for cannabis possession fell from 82,060 in 2003 to 49,840 last year.

A Home Office spokesman claimed that the figures showing a rise in cocaine and other class A offenders were an indication of successful police enforcement activity: "The government's strategy is to focus on the drugs which cause the most harm and deal robustly with those who supply them."

The police force at the centre of a controversial Government drugs initiative has jumped from the bottom of performance tables for solving drugs crime to the top.

It follows the decision that people possessing large amounts of Class A substances should not be prosecuted for dealing.

Official statistics show that in the space of a year Nottinghamshire Police has gone from being the joint second worst of England and Wales's 43 forces for clearing up drugs crime to the best in the country.

But the transformation coincided with the force being used as the testing ground for the new policy for fighting drugs crimes. It means that anyone possessing seven grams of heroin or cocaine or 17 ounces of cannabis - enough for about 2,400 joints - is seen as having them for personal use.

People with such quantities may previously have been prosecuted for dealing but are now charged with lesser offences requiring no further investigation.

The policy was revealed last week and the Home Office now wants to roll it out nationally. Critics say the approach means that most pushers are escaping prosecution, and the Association of Chief Police Officers said that most would end up simply carrying amounts just below the prescribed limits.

A spokesman for Nottinghamshire Police said officers were very pleased at the impact the policy had made on its statistical performance.

But Patrick Mercer, the Tory MP for Newark, said the guidelines were a declaration to street drug dealers to ply their trade.

He said: "The turnaround seems too good to be true to me. I am concerned that police are taking an easy option and concentrating on statistics rather than clearing up crime."

Nottinghamshire's progression up the tables is all the more remarkable because its chief constable, Steve Green, told this newspaper in March that his officers couldn't cope with the number of murders in Nottingham, many related to drug turf wars.

The scheme's effect on the statistics has been startling. In 2003-4 Nottinghamshire police recorded 4,582 drugs offences and claimed a "detection rate" of 89 per cent. The latter figure was well below the national average of 93 per cent and placed on a par with the West Midlands and Bedfordshire forces. Only the Metropolitan Police performed worse.

But when the figures for 2004-5 were compiled, the number of drugs offences had dropped to 3,959 and the detection rate rocketed to 103 per cent.

Associated Press 2.12.05

AMSTERDAM, Netherlands - A broad coalition of political parties unveiled a pilot program Friday to regulate marijuana farming on the model of tobacco, which opponents say would be tantamount to legalizing growing the drug.

Under the test program, to be conducted in the southern city of Maastricht, existing health and safety standards will apply to growers, but they would no longer be the target of police raids or prosecution.

Coffee shops permitted to sell marijuana would be required to provide consumers with information about the health hazards of smoking - similar to tobacco companies - and the chemical content of the marijuana. The shops would also have to say where they bought the marijuana they sell, which proponents say will deter growers from operating dangerous underground greenhouses.

Under current Dutch policy, marijuana and hashish are illegal but police don't prosecute for possession of less than one ounce. Authorities also look the other way regarding the open sale of cannabis in designated coffee shops.

But commercial growing is outlawed, giving rise to a contradictory system in which shop owners have no legal way to purchase their best-selling product.

Dutch mayors along the country's borders have lobbied hardest for the change, which they say would make it more difficult for German and Belgian drug tourists to smuggle large quantities of marijuana out of the country.

"It will be possible to trace where cannabis is grown, and where it's sold," said conservative lawmaker Frans Weekers.

Opponents, however, have argued that regulation could open the door to outright legalization of marijuana in a country that already has some of Europe's most lenient drug laws. Prime Minister Jan-Peter Balkenende and his ruling Christian Democrat Party said regulating marijuana cultivation would set the Netherlands another step apart from the rest of the continent.

"This experiment would be at odds with Dutch law, and there's a legal problem" internationally, as well, Balkenende said.

The Justice Ministry has ordered an investigation into whether the plan would violate international law. The findings are expected within several days.

Weekers said, however, that the current policy is "leading to increasing problems."

"There comes a moment when you say, 'Now we have to take the next step,'" he said. "If this pilot program works, and we can show to everyone that it's an improvement, then you have a good argument to take to foreign governments."

The coalition of parties gave Balkenende until Dec. 14 to implement the testing program, after which lawmakers said they will introduce a bill in parliament to do it. They said about two-thirds of parliament members support the plan

I can only assume that Tony Blair has been passing spliffs around the Cabinet table. Nothing else properly explains the extraordinary confusion of his administration's thinking on drink and drugs. When the Prime Minister came to power, he promised us "joined-up government". Instead, he has come up with a psychedelic mix of policies, sending out conflicting signals that could only make sense to a hippy on his fifth joint.

Imagine the conversation in the Cabinet room at Number 10, as the ministerial reefer passes to the Home Secretary.

Charles Clarke: "Hey, man, isn't it, like, a real bummer that so many kids get smashed out of their brains down the boozer on a Saturday night?"

Tony Blair: "Yeah, Chazza, too right. All that violence and, like, throwing up in the street. What do you say we launch, like, a mega-crackdown on binge drinking?"

CC (taking another puff): "Great idea, Tony. And another thing. Wouldn't it be, like, totally awesome if we let pubs stay open all day and all night? Then kids could get smashed out of their brains and, like, throw up in the street and whaddever at four o'clock in the morning."

TB (giggling inanely as the cannabis takes its effect): "So that's agreed, then. We'll crack down on drinking and keep the pubs open 24 hours a day."

Yesterday, the Transport Secretary added to the confusion when he launched his department's annual crusade against drink-driving. Alistair Darling's sermon for this year, as the pubs are preparing for a Christmas bonanza with their newly extended licences, is that motorists shouldn't drink a single drop of alcohol if they are planning to drive during what used to be the festive season.

He chose to go to a pub, of all places, to launch his campaign - not a real pub, of course, because Labour has become increasingly detached from the real world over the past eight years. The pub he picked was the Rovers Return, on the set of Coronation Street, where he ordered a glass of orange juice from the actress Sally Lindsay. Does he honestly believe that drivers will follow his example over Christmas, and tell each other in the early hours of the morning: "Let's go down to the all-night boozer. I could really murder an orange juice"?

But if the Government is sending out mixed messages about drink, then what about drugs? Nobody has ever managed to explain to me satisfactorily the reasoning behind David Blunkett's extraordinary decision, when he was home secretary last year, to relax the penalties for possessing cannabis, while at the very same moment announcing stiffer sentences for selling it.

I confess that I myself have been in two minds about drugs for many years. The liberal in me says that most of the harm done to innocent third parties by narcotics springs from their illegality. If cannabis, cocaine and the rest were decriminalised, then the price of them would come crashing down. That, in turn, would mean that fewer addicts would be driven to prostitution, mugging or burglary to feed their habit. It would also help to put the murderous gangs who control the trade, in Jamaica and elsewhere, out of business.

But then the father in me says that I couldn't bear it if any of my four sons became hooked on drugs. It is simply not true that drug-abusers harm only themselves. They hurt everyone who loves them, too.

Mr Blunkett's policy satisfied neither the liberal nor the father in me. It struck me as completely bonkers. By relaxing the penalties for possessing cannabis, he stimulated demand for the drug. But at the same time, he suppressed supply by cracking down harder than ever on the people who sold it. You don't need a degree in economics to understand that when you stimulate the demand for any commodity, while suppressing its supply, you drive up its price. That applies as much to cannabis and cocaine as it does to petrol and potatoes. And the higher the price of these drugs, of course, the more likely are their abusers to turn to crime in order to finance their habit.

As if Mr Blunkett's initiative weren't mad enough, his successor has now added another layer of lunacy to the Government's drugs policy. On Wednesday, Mr Clarke announced plans to issue specific guidance on the amount of drugs that anybody may carry before being assumed by the authorities to be a dealer, rather than merely a possessor. For example, anybody caught with less than 4oz of cannabis will be assumed to be carrying it for his own use. He will either be let off with a warning, or charged with the minor crime of possession. More than 4oz, however, and he will be deemed to be a dealer, and almost certainly locked up.

Now, I am no expert in these matters, and I have to rely on the papers to tell me how much cannabis resin is a lot, and how much is a little. According to yesterday's Daily Telegraph, 4oz is enough to roll about 512 "light joints", or 256 "strong" ones. The Daily Mail, on the other hand, estimates that 4oz is enough for 810 joints. All I can deduce from this is that, when it comes to rolling joints, the Telegraph's experts are much more generous with their dope than the Mail's.

What is quite clear, however, is that 4oz is a heck of a lot, with a street price of somewhere between £200 and £440. The price of 17oz of cannabis leaf - the upper limit suggested by Mr Clarke for those who wish to escape a charge of drug-dealing, and enough for more than 2,000 joints - is said to be more than £1,500. Are we really supposed to believe that people carry this much with them for their personal use?

The Government's message, in short, seems to be this: 1) don't worry if you are caught with cannabis for your own use, because that isn't a crime worth bothering about; 2) worry like hell if you are caught selling cannabis, because we will send you to prison for it; but 3) if you really must sell cannabis, don't carry more than a year's supply around with you, so that we can all pretend that you are not really selling it after all.

"Joined-up government?" Jointed up, more like.

The British Medical Journal study was based on 10,748 drivers involved in fatal crashes between 2001 and 2003. All of the drivers had compulsory tests for drugs and alcohol. The researchers found the risk of being responsible for a fatal crash increased as the blood concentration of cannabis increased.While even small amounts of cannabis could double the chance of a driver suffering an accident, larger doses could more than triple the risk. The findings also showed 2.9% of drivers tested positive for both cannabis and alcohol use.

Men were more often involved in crashes than women, and were also more often positive for both cannabis and alcohol. The same was true of young drivers, and users of mopeds and motorcycles. The study showed that the prevalence of cannabis in the driving population at 2.9% was similar to that for alcohol at 2.7%. The researchers estimated that at least 2.5% of fatal crashes were directly attributable to cannabis use. However, alcohol was estimated to be responsible for 28.6%.

Writing in the BMJ, the researchers concluded: "Driving under the influence of cannabis increases the risk of involvement in a crash."Roger Vincent, of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, told the BBC News website public education campaigns were needed. He said: "Research like this proves just how dangerous it is to take drugs, and then get behind the wheel of a car. "It is totally irresponsible, as taking drugs such as cannabis does affect your reactions."

Dr John Heyworth, past president of the British Association of Accident and Emergency Medicine, said increasing numbers of people who had taken various types of drugs were being treated following road traffic accidents, and other incidents. He said few people had taken cannabis alone - often it was combined with alcohol or other types of drugs, such as cocaine or speed. "Sometimes it is difficult to know whether a person's behaviour is linked to their injuries, or to the drugs they have taken," he said.