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

A controversial drug which can keep people awake for days has been tested by the UK military, MPs have been told.
Modafinil pills - known on the drugs scene as "zombies" - are used to treat the rare sleeping disorder narcolepsy.

The Ministry of Defence reportedly stockpiled bought thousands of pills ahead of the Iraq war but they have never been given to combat personnel. Defence contractor Qinetiq told the commons' science committee the drug had recently been tested for military use. Qinetiq scientist Dr Anna Casey told the Science and Technology Committee the MoD funded research into stimulant and performance-enhancing drugs and dietary supplements.

"One is always looking for something that would give military personnel an extra edge," she told the committee which is investigating the use of such drugs in sport.

She said the military was not under the same constraints as the International Olympic Committee, which had banned Modafinil and another stimulant, Ephedrine, which she said had also been tested by the MoD. But Erythropoietin, or EPO, which is used by athletics drug cheats to boost the production of red blood cells had been ruled out due to "safety concerns". She stressed that no illegal substances were being researched by the MoD.

But she said Modafinil had been "shown to enhance physical and mental performance". "There is still research going on into things like that. It doesn't mean they are being used. We are keeping an open mind," she told the MPs.

Modafinil has also been trialled by the US and French military but its use remains controversial. It works by "turning off" a person's need to sleep, and allowing them to remain mentally awake for days on end. Its makers say there are no side effects, but experts are worried about the drug being abused. In the US, where it is easier to get hold of, revising students and clubbers are known to use it to keep going.

Speaking after Wednesday's hearing in Westminster, Dr Casey said Modafinil had recently been tested by Qinetiq, formerly known as the Defence Research Agency. It had not yet been approved for use by British soldiers but Qinetiq had asked the MoD for funds to carry out further tests, she said. "It is worthy of further research," she told the BBC News website.

Ephedrine, which is similar in effect to amphetamine or "speed", had so far been ruled out for use by British combat personnel due to its side effects, which included anxiety. But caffeine was "something we may well end up using in the future," she added. She said the MoD was also funding research into "human science", including the enhancement of the physical and mental performance of combat personnel.

Among other things, scientists are investigating new dietary supplements and remote monitoring technology, allowing soldiers' physical performance to be tracked in the field.

The consortium will also be looking at ways of improving the performance of combat personnel in hot climates such as Iraq, to cut down the amount of time, currently about a week, needed for them to acclimatise. There has long been a demand for reliable stimulants for use by special forces, who may be expected to go 48 hours or more without sleep, and pilots on long flights. The issue came under the spotlight in April 2002, when two US military pilots mistakenly bombed a Canadian infantry unit in Afghanistan, killing four. During the ensuing legal arguments, the pilots' lawyers said they had felt under pressure to take amphetamines before the mission.

Additional information:
http://www.modafinil.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modafinil

The Guardian : 21.10.06

It is a generally known fact that George Michael likes a spliff - but soon viewers can watch him in action, eulogising cannabis for keeping him sane and happy since he first came across it 20 years ago.
Michael, who has been in the papers for all the wrong reasons this year, has chosen Melvyn Bragg and The South Bank Show to pour out his heart on his career, being gay, the cultural contradictions between his life and work, marijuana and Rupert Murdoch. He openly smokes a joint on camera before a performance in Madrid, admitting: "If I'd drunk as much as I'd smoked - my God I'd look like Keith Richards.

"This stuff keeps me sane and happy. I could write without it ... if I were sane and happy. I'd say it's a great drug - but obviously it's not very healthy. You can't afford to smoke it if you've got anything else to do."

The millionaire singer is careful not to go too far in his praise, cautioning: "It can be a terrible, terrible drug. You've got to be in the right position to take it. You've got to have achieved most of your ambitions because it chills you out to such a degree that you could lose your ambitions."

An ITV spokeswoman was quick to point out Michael was filmed in Madrid, where she said it was legal to smoke. Michael is also keen to deny that the two occasions this year when police have found him slumped at the wheel of his car were drug-related. Viewers of the programme, to be shown on October 31, will see the message: "George Michael wishes to inform viewers that he has never tested positive for drink or drugs whilst driving."

Cannabis was also not involved when the News of the World snapped Michael after he had been cruising on Hampstead Heath at 2am, hooking up with an unemployed van driver from Brighton.

None of these incidents suggest he is losing it, the star insists. "I feel good. I live in the house of my dreams with the man of my dreams. I'm happy with the music I'm making and I'm still loaded."

Charities took a dimmer view. William Butler, a spokesman for Addaction, said: "We are concerned about the message this can send out to young people, especially when there is such confusion about the legality of cannabis. Cannabis is illegal because it can be harmful, as can all drugs."

Paul Corry, of mental health charity Rethink, said: "As a huge international star any public comments will draw enormous attention. His comments are stupid and naive ... cannabis is not a risk-free drug. For a significant minority of people it is a trigger for developing a severe long-term mental illness like schizophrenia."

The dangers of cannabis use by young people have been evident for several years. Growing numbers of teenagers are encountering mental health problems and their distressed families, searching for answers, are discovering an unwelcome truth: that everywhere circumstantial links exist between heavy cannabis use and various forms of psychosis. Most painfully of all, these families are realising that there is no way back; that the damage is done.

This is the common pattern. A bright child with no obvious psychological problems reaches his mid-teens (it tends to be boys rather than girls) when suddenly his school work starts to deteriorate. He seems to have trouble thinking clearly; he starts to miss lessons and becomes isolated from friends. He complains that people are talking about him behind this back.

The teenager may get to university, but then starts to suffer depression and psychosis. At some point, the parents learn their child has been a heavy cannabis user for years. He may drop out, and find it difficult to get a job. In severe cases, he will become overwhelmed with paranoid fears. The workers at the National Schizophrenia Fellowship (now called Rethink) hear this heartbreaking story again and again from parents.

No-one can say for sure there are causal links between heavy cannabis use on developing brains and psychiatric disorder. The fact that X follows Y does not prove that X was the cause of Y. But for many professionals in the field - such as Neil McKeganey, professor of drug misuse research at Glasgow University, who says he is now contacted frequently about people in their late teens running into difficulty in this way - there is a conviction that smoking cannabis may, indeed, be desperately harmful for predisposed youngsters.

We are deficient in knowledge about the most common street drug (after alcohol). Concerned academics find it deeply disconcerting how little research there is on cannabis. They point to the fact that the government is preoccupied with heroin and cocaine, and as a result has devoted little money to a drug that has traditionally been regarded as a low-level problem.

You do not have to look far to see why. The fact that in 2004 the government downgraded cannabis, moving it from a class B to class C drug, means ministers are most unlikely to commission research that would be likely to have a deeply embarrassing result, ie that the reclassification was foolish. Nobody willingly likes egg on their face; even fewer want to pay for it.

What evidence exists is hard to ignore. In 1997, the British Journal of Psychiatry reported the adverse effects of the drug, especially for adolescents. These included: developmental problems, permanent cognitive impairment, psychosis, chronic apathy (usually permanent) and an impact on the frontal lobe function of the brain which can trigger schizophrenia and manic depression.

A Swedish study in the 1980s found heavy users of cannabis at the age of 18 were six times more likely to develop schizophrenia in later life. Two recent studies in Holland have found that the incidence of psychosis in cannabis users was almost three times higher. Depression was also three times more common in cannabis users. In areas of south London, the incidence of schizophrenia has doubled in 30 years.

Robin Murray, professor of psychiatry at the Institute of Psychiatry, and a consultant at the Maudsley Hospital, is one of the few UK experts studying cannabis. For years, he has been warning about the harm the drug can cause, pointing out that cannabis is the common reason for relapses in psychiatric patients. The same relapse was evident at Yale medical school when volunteers were given THC, the major active ingredient of cannabis, by injection.

Professor Murray said recently: "Five years ago, 95% of psychiatrists would have said cannabis does not cause psychosis. Now I would say that 95% say it does. It is a quiet epidemic."

His was among research gathered for the Conservative Party's social justice policy review this week. The report cited Professor Peter Jones of Cambridge University, who found that eight out of 10 cases of initial psychiatric disorders occurred in those who were heavy users of cannabis. He said: "I work in a first-contact schizophrenia service and it might as well be a cannabis dependency unit." He estimates that children who start smoking cannabis at 10 or 11 treble their risk of developing schizophrenia.

Mary Brett, the researcher who prepared the report for the Tories, has criticised the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (who reviewed the evidence in 2002 and advised the government to downgrade cannabis) because not one single expert on cannabis, psychosis or schizophrenia was a member.

The issue, it's clear, will be there to battle over at the next General Election. It's a gloomy prospect. I can think of nothing worse, or more unhelpful, than an unctuous fight on old right/left lines over cannabis. We'll regress to a polarity between the liberal baby-boomers who smoked grass 30 years ago, with their nostalgic posturing, versus the traditional hang-'em-and-flog-'em brigade. It is crazy, for what was an argument about social freedoms is now a medical argument about the risk of permanent brain damage. But lost in the wilderness will be common sense, and damaged families will be left to spin in the wind.

You don't need to be a reactionary to be deeply worried about cannabis . You just need to be a parent of a teenager, or know a young person, as I do, whose life is now blighted by mental ill health, most probably as a result of excessive cannabis use. We need to remove this debate from the political arena and put it into the hands of the scientists. Times have changed. We are talking about a different drug, one which under the umbrella name of skunk is massively more powerful than the grass of 30 years ago, which was equivalent to two pints of beer. Nowadays the relatively mild form of the drug is almost unobtainable. It has been overtaken by artificially produced skunk, grown hydroponically in people's houses. This form of the drug can be up to 20 times as powerful as the natural product and one joint can have the effect of more than 10 pints.

Small wonder that thousands of young people who smoke it regularly lay themselves open to developing psychosis, or that experts, given its widespread use, now view cannabis as more dangerous than heroin.

In their submission to the House of Commons select committee on science and technology in July 2006, Rethink, representing the parents, made the case that the government has not contributed to the evidence base on cannabis, and has failed to reflect the evidence that already exists. Damningly, the organisation said that to its knowledge, the government has never attempted to communicate the mental health risks of cannabis to the wider public and to school-age children.

More than 25 years ago, in a report on cannabis, the World Health Organisation said: "To provide rigid proof of causality in such investigations is logically and theoretically impossible, and to demand it is unreasonable." Surely we have more evidence now about this quiet epidemic than was ever thought possible, and it is time to warn teenagers of the dangers they face.

Don’t exaggerate the dangers of cannabis

Your letters October 21 2006

Not that cannabis is a safe drug, because there is no such thing, but it is not "more dangerous than heroin" (Melanie Reid, October 19). We assert that even though one of us has published work showing heroin not to be as dangerous as commonly thought. It is not even true that cannabis is more dangerous than alcohol.

The evidence, misrepresented in the article, is that starting to use cannabis under 15 makes subsequent psychotic symptoms and schizophrenia more likely among people susceptible to such problems. There may be a genetic component. Robin Murray has made a substantial and sophisticated contribution to the relevant research that deserves better coverage than given here. One recent paper that Murray co-authored concluded: "Although the regular use of cannabis may increase risk of psychotic symptoms, most of those who use cannabis regularly do not develop psychosis and most cases of psychosis are not attributable to cannabis."

Schizophrenia is, thankfully, rare, while cannabis use is very common, so the increase in risk, while statistically significant, is very small in the general population. In one key study, cannabis use before age 15 was associated with three additional cases of schizophrenia in 759 people. Links between alcohol and mental and physical health are much stronger.

A different issue is that cannabis also poses a problem for people with mental health problems, as it can interact badly with medicine, worsen symptoms or contribute to them ceasing to take medication. Many people with mental health problems do take cannabis, but to feel better, reduce boredom and because their peers do; there is no cause and effect. To date there is no evidence that somebody who begins to use cannabis older than 15 and who is not predisposed to mental illness will suffer any mental health effects. It is important not to muddle psychotic symptoms (such as seeing things that are not there) and schizophrenia. Psychotic symptoms can occur without mental illness or current drug use, in bereavement for example.

Melanie Reid's article makes it seem that any young person who uses cannabis is at risk of becoming mentally ill. This is untrue. Some 40% of people under 35 have taken it at some point, as well as older people, including some politicians (who usually did not enjoy it or inhale), and many other respectable and largely untroubled people. The only accurate part of the article is that there is not enough research on cannabis, given that it is so widespread and popular.

There is a need to reduce drinking, smoking and drug use among the under-16s. This is not helped by scare stories. Remember that cannabis is considered beneficial for a range of medical conditions and is licensed for medical use in 11 US states.

Richard Hammersley, Professor of Health Psychology; David Shewan, Department of Psychology, Glasgow Caledonian University

Europeans are abandoning cannabis but turning to cocaine and drink, new figures from French customs reveal.
According to a report by the Central Narcotics Office, after more than a decade of rapid growth, seizures of cannabis resin in Europe dropped by a fifth last year, to 831 tonnes. At the same time, seizures of cocaine grew by 15 per cent.

The apparent trend is reinforced by British figures which show that the popularity of cannabis in the UK has plummeted, with 600,000 fewer people smoking or eating marijuana than three years ago. The Home Office statistics, released last week, also show that consumption of cocaine in Britain has risen.

The figures will help the British government and other European nations with more liberal drug laws such as Holland and Switzerland rebut claims that their approach to cannabis leads to increased use of the drug. The growing cocaine use will, however, worry European anti-narcotics police and many politicians.

'Seizures in Europe have increased over the last several years, confirming the maturing of the cocaine market in western Europe,' said Interpol, the transnational police agency. 'Recent reports, particularly from northern [European] countries, suggest young adults are increasingly using cocaine rather than amphetamine-type stimulants. This change is likely to be the result of the increased availability and lower price of cocaine, as well as government campaigns against amphetamines.'

Despite apparent success by police - Bernard Petit, head of France's anti-Narcotics squad claimed last week that 90 of the 250 tonnes of cocaine imported onto the continent were seized - the price of the drug is lower than it has ever been.

'Drugs gangs know where the profits are and can afford to lose most of their shipments,' said one former senior British customs officer. 'They are focusing more and more on cocaine. No one serious traffics or deals cannabis any more.'

Possible explanations for the decrease in cannabis use include the growing awareness that cannabis can cause mental health problems, and the fact that in the UK and France marijuana abuse is being replaced by binge-drinking.

In France, cannabis use has levelled out while heavy drinking sessions have become more common, with almost half of all teenagers in a study this summer saying that they had had more than five drinks in one evening in the last month.

'This consumption pattern corresponds to the phenomenon of "binge-drinking" seen in Britain and America,' said Jean-Michel Costes, of the National Observatory of Drugs and Addicts.

Frederic Rouillon, a French drug expert, told Le Monde last week that ideas that Americans used stimulants whereas Europeans used sedatives were outdated. 'The fashion for cocaine has eroded that distinction,' he said.

The Guardian: 14.10.06

Plans to overhaul the 30-year-old scheme for classifying illegal drugs were ditched by the government yesterday, drawing condemnation from MPs and drugs charities. The scheme, which attaches higher penalties to class A drugs such as cocaine and heroin than less dangerous substances such as cannabis, a class C drug, was savaged in July in a report by MPs, who denounced it as "ad hoc", "not fit for purpose" and "riddled with anomalies".
The report particularly criticised the classification of the dance drug ecstasy, quoting research by the thinktank Rand that the drug was several thousand times less dangerous than heroin, yet both are categorised as class A.

Professor Colin Blakemore, director of the Medical Research Council, advised the committee that the scientific evidence suggested ecstasy "should not be a class A drug".

The former home secretary, Charles Clarke, ordered a review of the classification system in January to ensure that decisions were based on the drugs' wider harm to society and not just a health assessment of the clinical evidence.

In its official response to the MPs' report, the government announced it was reclassifying the highly-addictive club drug crystal methamphetamine from class B to class A, but dropping its commitment to review the scheme. Plans to set thresholds for possession, above which a person would be considered a dealer, were also abandoned.

The Home Office minister, Vernon Coaker, said: "I have spent the past few months meeting police, victims of crime, drug addicts and others involved in the criminal justice system. None of them have raised [with me] the classification system as a concern that affects them."

The MPs' report, by the parliamentary science and technology select committee and entitled Drug Classification: Making a Hash of It, found no evidence that the sliding scale of drug classification deterred users from taking more harmful drugs and claimed it was not based on sufficiently rigorous scientific knowledge of the harm different drugs can cause.

Phil Willis, chairman of the committee, said the government had accepted only half the report's recommendations. "It is extremely regrettable that not only have they rejected our suggestion of a more rational scale of harm to inform policy, but the home secretary has reversed existing government policy of reviewing the system of drugs classification. This is very shortsighted," he said.

Home Office figures released yesterday revealed use of class A drugs among 16- to 59-year-olds has increased since 1998. Overall drug use, in particular cannabis, has decreased in the same period. Mr Coaker said the government would continue to focus on tackling drug supplies, getting users into treatment and educating young people about the dangers.

Drug classes A, B and C to remain
BBC 13.10.6

Drugs will continue to be designated as class A, B or C, despite MPs claiming the system was "not fit for purpose".
A review of the classes to reflect the harm caused, suggested by MPs in July, could have seen alcohol and tobacco ranked alongside heroin and cannabis.

But the Home Office is to stick with the system, disappointing those who felt it was out of date. It has also begun moves to reclassify the highly-addictive club drug crystal meth from class B to class A. Ministers were responding to the Commons Science Committee's report that the designation of drug classes should be changed. The commitee said it would be better to classify drugs in terms of harm caused rather than the level of penalties they attracted.

One system considered by former Home Secretary Charles Clarke had rated some illegal drugs as less harmful than alcohol and tobacco. But Home Office minister Vernon Coaker said they would be keeping the old system.

"It is important that there is a coherent system in place to categorise drugs and determine the penalties for their manufacture, possession and supply," he said. "I believe that the existing classification system does this effectively, allowing for clear and meaningful distinctions to be made between drugs."

The chief executive of the charity Drugscope, Martin Barnes, said he was "extremely disappointed" the system would not be reviewed. "It was introduced 35 years ago and during that time we've seen levels of drug use increase significantly [and] levels of drug-related harm increase. "I don't think there's a silver bullet. There's no ideal system, but let's look at whether or not - to use the Home Office phrase - it's still fit for purpose."

For the Conservatives, David Davis welcomed the decision not to revise the classification system, but said it was "just the latest twist and turn in the government's drug policy".

But Nick Clegg of the Lib Dems said an overhaul of the classification system was "sorely needed".

The British Crime Survey has already estimated that 750,000 people took cocaine powder last year, with a slight increases in all age ranges between 16 to 44. But it found overall class A drug use remained stable and the use of all drugs declined in 2005-6.

Government plans to introduce a threshold for the amount of drugs for which people could be prosecuted for dealing have been abandoned - because no-one could agree on what the limit should be.

The government also tabled orders in Parliament to reclassify crystal meth as one of the UK's most dangerous drugs. It means amending the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 following debates in the Commons and the Lords.

Anyone caught with it will then face an unlimited fine or up to seven years in jail.

JOHN REID is dropping plans to set levels for the quantities of drugs a person can carry before being charged with possession with intent to supply, The Times has learnt.

Today’s move comes after the controversy caused by thresholds put forward by Charles Clarke, the former Home Secretary, which suggested that a person could carry enough cannabis to make 500 joints and claim that it was for personal use.

Mr Reid has decided to abandon his predecessor’s approach of setting the amount a person can claim is for personal use, because of the confusion caused by the proposal. He will now leave it to the discretion of the police and the Crown Prosecution Service to decide when a person caught with drugs should be prosecuted for possession or the more serious offence of possession with intent to supply.

The Home Secretary is also expected to announce that the Home Office will not go ahead with an immediate overhaul of the 30-year-old system for classifying illegal drugs.

Mr Clarke and the Commons Science and Technology Committee believed that the existing system was outdated and needed to be updated. Mr Reid, however, has decided that the focus of the Government’s drug strategy should be on enforcement, tackling the use of the most-harmful drugs, treatment programmes and education on the dangers of drug misuse.

Figures published today reveal that drug use is broadly stable, with a fall in the use of cannabis by young people. A record 181,300 people contacted drug treatment services in 2005-06, with 140,000 receiving treatment.

The Home Office has decided that setting a threshold for the amount of drugs that would suggest supplying is confusing to the public and too rigid a guideline for officers policing drugs. Mr Clarke’s suggestion last year that drug users caught with enough cannabis to make 500 joints would be able to claim that it was for personal use provoked uproar.

Revised regulations drawn up by the Home Office this year could have resulted in drug users caught with as few as five Ecstasy tablets or five grams of cannabis, enough for about ten joints, being prosecuted as dealers. But the lower levels also caused concern and the Government’s experts, the Advisory Committee on the Misuse of Drugs, said that they could cause policing problems.

The threshold policy was widely misunderstood, with the public believing that it was a rigid level dividing whether a drug user would be prosecuted for possession or the more serious charge of intent to supply, which in the case of cannabis carries a 14-year jail term.

While some police officers supported the idea of thresholds, others feared that it would limit their discretion to take into account the circumstances in which a person was found with drugs.

A Home Office spokesman said: “Our drug strategy focuses on the most dangerous users. This strategy is working. Increasing quantities of drugs are being seized, organised crime groups and dealers disrupted, record numbers are entering and staying in treatment and drug-related crime is falling.”

Today’s announcement will be welcomed by police and drugs agencies for the decision to drop thresholds. But the drugs agencies will be disappointed that there is not be an immediate overhaul of the way in which drugs are classified. Martin Barnes, chief executive of the charity Drugscope, said: “Abandoning the thresholds would be the right thing to do."

NEW BROOMS SWEEP CLEAN

David Blunkett, Home Secretary 2001-04, referring to his predecessor, Jack Straw (1997-2001):

“God alone knows what Jack did for four years.” Drops Mr Straw’s target to remove 30,000 failed asylum-seekers and dependants. Abandons system of giving asylum-seekers vouchers for food

Charles Clarke: 2004-2006:

Privately raised his eyebrows at some of the things he found on arrival at Home Office after Blunkett’s resignation. Scraps David Blunkett’s 80,000 cap on prison numbers. System of three permanent secretaries introduced under Mr Blunkett ended

John Reid: 2006-:

Scathing about what he found on arrival after Mr Clarke’s dismissal. Described immigration and nationality directorate as not fit for purpose. Abandons Charles Clarke’s proposals for police mergers. Drops Mr Clarke’s proposals for drug thresholds

Dutch Conservatives Crack Down on Coffee Shops

By Dara Colwell, AlterNet. Posted October 12, 2006.

Is the Dutch government wrecking Amsterdam's reputation as Europe's most liberal, "anything goes" destination?

For international travelers, Amsterdam has long served as a kind of nirvana. Considered a forward-thinking capital light years ahead of the rest of the world, much of the city's exceptional status is due its coffee shops -- essentially marijuana bars -- where smoking pot is perfectly legal. Coupled with other liberal sex and drug laws that have ensured a level of tolerance no European city can rival, Amsterdam has acted for many as a role model of what an enlightened 21st-century city should be.

But things aren't always what they seem. In recent years the Netherlands, like many countries around the world, has witnessed a rise in conservative power and with that, a corresponding tightening of its once-famous looseness. The legendary Dutch credo "anything goes" is increasingly becoming a thing of the past, and nowhere is this more apparent than in its coffee shops.

The signs began to appear back in 2004, when the Dutch government consented to ban smoking in public -- a measure fiercely resisted by coffee shops fearing they'd take the biggest hit. The government quickly U-turned, bowing to pressure from the hotel and catering industry, and lifted the ban "indefinitely," giving the industry time to exhale. Marijuana retailers, always considered a separate sector, were quickly made exempt, and within days it was back to lighting up as usual.

While the uproar settled and coffee shops seemingly avoided extinction, their existence continues to be silently and systematically stubbed out. Those who flock to the Netherlands seeking its unique tourist niche may not know it, but new coffee shop licenses are rarely issued, and strict regulations have further curbed existing numbers. Closed shops go unreplaced, and the overall number continues to dwindle, dropping from 1,500 nationwide to roughly 737 today. Amsterdam, once the Wild West of the European drug trade, has 250 shops where it once had 800.

"You have to think three times about everything you do. It's getting worse every year," says Ferry Hansen, owner of Get A Life coffee shop in Amsterdam. Hansen, who has been in the business for 14 years, has seen government policies tighten as once vague laws, set in place for years, have become rigorously enforced. "The government is trying to control more and more. If you follow the law, they can't say anything, but in the long run, they'll probably get what they want."

Much of the push towards more stringent control can be attributed to the Christian Democrats (CDA), the most powerful party in the Dutch coalition government, which went on the offensive as soon as it won elections in 2002. Headed by Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende, a devout Christian who blamed growing juvenile drug use on the cannabis industry -- even though the minimum legal age to enter a coffee shop is 18 -- the CDA immediately promoted a "zero option" on tolerance. "This is not a battle we're going to win overnight," Marcel Maer, a CDA spokesman told Britain's Sunday Times just days after the election. "But we will chip away at the coffee shops, greatly reducing their number over the next two years until hopefully we can get rid of them altogether."

Many of the regulations the government now enforces were actually established in 1996 in an effort to standardize the industry, which had developed from being reasonably discreet in the late 1970s to unrestrained in the late 1980s. It was then, at the height of ecstasy consumption, that a number of coffee shops peddled both hard and soft drugs, bucking the division of markets they purported to support. Bowing to international pressure, the Netherlands began restricting coffee shop numbers, working in tandem with the Bond van Cannabis Detaillisten, a union of organized coffee shop owners who agreed -- much to their commercial advantage -- that their numbers should be halved and remaining licenses be made nontransferable.

But it wasn't until the CDA tried to reign in coffee shops that these laws were heavily enforced. They include making it illegal to label lighters, rolling papers or display cannabis leaves -- all considered active advertising, limiting businesses to 500 grams of inventory, capping customer purchases to 5 grams per day, and banning businesses within 500 meters of a school. So if a new school pops up, the coffee shop can be closed without warning.

Additionally, in 2003 the BIBOB (an Act for the Promotion of Integrity Evaluations by Public Government) laws were introduced, targeting the entire service industry (including prostitutes) to prevent organized crime from getting involved. A special task force was created to enforce the laws by making random raids on coffee shops, "usually busting in like a bunch of cowboys," notes Hansen, to search staff and customers, and verify all of the required paperwork -- license, fire inspection records, chamber of commerce registration, rental contract, photocopied staff identification, and more. "If one side of this ID isn't photocopied, that's a fine and you're closed for a week," says Hansen, fingering an ID while flipping through a white folder as thick a telephone directory. "Make a second mistake, you're closed for two weeks. Make a third mistake, and you're closed permanently."

But while some owners balk at the government muscling in, others like Henry Dekker, owner of Republiek, Siberie and de Supermarkt coffee shops in Amsterdam, thinks regulations have formalized the market positively. "The government wants to clean it up so only the best businesses stay. This is a competitive market -- so if you're not good, no business," he says, rolling a hash joint as he speaks.

Dekker has been in the business for 20 years and believes owners influence policy more than politicians: By earning a record of professional behavior, they actually increase their bargaining rights. In Dekker's case, this has panned out. He's opening a new coffee shop in neighboring Mijdrecht, a conservative community that advertised for one to help settle their problems with drug trafficking on the street. "We're normalizing the trade, selling herbs just like we did in the Golden Age," says Dekker. "We're a normal business with a quality product, and we've been acknowledged for doing our job and doing it well."

But job appreciation is not something doled out equally. "I'm more negative," says another coffee shop owner, who wishes to remain anonymous and whose business has been in the family since the early 1980s. "It's a lot more aggressive. For a few weeks after a raid, we're left shocked and intimidated. We're just doing our job, but everything is sealed off, we're treated like criminals and told to put our arms up. We follow the rules, there's no reason to come in this way," the owner says. "At times I feel like quitting, so I won't have to be a part of this ridiculousness. Whether you're a smoker or not, this is a relaxing place and 60 percent of what we sell isn't weed -- it's bread or sandwiches. We shouldn't be treated this way."

No matter how responsible they are, coffee shop owners are marginalized because their industry has never gained full legal status. While liberal Dutch drug policy makes a distinction between marijuana and hard drugs (like heroin and cocaine), all drugs are considered illegal -- even though, paradoxically, using them is not. As a result, inconsistent law forbids owners from bringing marijuana through the back door -- they could be arrested buying their inventory, even though they are allowed to sell it through the front door.

"If you get into trouble, the bottom line is it's a prohibited, unregulated product associated with the drug industry," says Kristie Szalanski, a staff member at Amsterdam's Cannabis College, a nonprofit foundation devoted to educating the public on weed. She notes that pubs where alcohol is sold are never raided. "This means that technically, coffee shop owners are criminals." An oversight the government makes, of course, when collecting taxes.

Due to this paradox, over the last few years the CDA itself has taken a confusing position on weed legislation. In 2003, the government legalized medical marijuana sold at pharmacies, yet backtracked two years later when the system fell into financial chaos -- mostly because patients preferred buying their stash at coffee shops. Then in 2004, Justice Minister Piet Hein Donner urged the government to ban local marijuana, claiming THC levels were too potent. Donner further suggested banning coffee shops from serving foreigners -- a move tantamount to saying only Brits can enter British pubs -- which quickly provoked international outrage. The politician continued taking a hard line on soft drugs, attempting to bring Dutch drug policy in line with the European Union, until he resigned a few weeks ago due to a damning report that pointed to his responsibility in the deaths of 11 refugees in a fire while being detained at Schiphol Airport.

While Donner may no longer be on the scene, the Dutch government's desire to subdue coffee shops has much to do with appeasing folks like Jacques Chirac, whose country, according to a survey by the French Observatory of Drugs and Drug Use, boasts the largest number of teenage cannabis consumers in Europe. Sweden, too, has taken the hard line, and of course there's America, which seeks to impose prohibition on the rest of the world through its war on drugs. But maybe it should start at home. According to the 2001 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, 36.9 percent of Americans have tried cannabis versus 17 percent in the Netherlands.

For the foreseeable future, coffee shops will continue to exist, but are likely to keep diminishing in number. "The way Dutch policy works, it would take at least 60 years or more before they disappeared," jokes Dekker. Most owners would agree it's a slow-moving boat that would face an arduous fight with popular sentiment. "In Holland, the population knows the system's working," he says. Still, for now, the CDA, which chose not to respond to this reporter's questions, keeps pushing for lower numbers. "With every election it's an issue. You don't know how politicians are going to react," cautions Hansen. With upcoming Dutch elections in November, the next majority party, however conservative, might choose to take a softer line. Or things could change overnight -- much as they did in the United States when the Patriot Act was passed curtailing free speech, a right that had been fought for and claimed for over two centuries.

"I don't know how long [my shop] will exist," says Hansen. "I could be in business for five years or 25 years. But I really don't know for sure."

Dara Colwell is a freelance writer based in Brooklyn.

Taggart could not begin to do it justice. Over the past few days 500 police officers have battered down doors and snatched drug dealers from houses all over Renfrewshire and Inverclyde. More than 100 arrests have been made, thousands of pounds worth of drugs seized and a vast pile of cash confiscated in what is being described as the biggest operation of its kind mounted by the Strathclyde force.

Conventionally, after a huge police effort like this, the response is to thank the officers for their brave work, and sit back in one's armchair happy in the knowledge that the streets have been cleared of an evil scourge that ruins lives. Good has triumphed over evil. Credits roll.

Except that real life doesn't always work that way. Evil hasn't been defeated nor the streets cleared, and even as I write this, the thousands of heroin addicts who live in the area between Greenock and Paisley may be out, knocking furtively on windows, making desperate phone calls and sending their children out to find a dealer who escaped capture and can sell them a tenner bag.

Drug raids, to put it bluntly, don't tend to work in isolation. They look good on telly and help senior police officers reach targets; they reassure the public. They may stop a few clubbers enjoying ecstasy this coming weekend. There the benefits end, unless there is a massive input of drug rehabilitation resources to coincide with the raids (and there almost never is). Without that, undoubtedly successful police operations leave communities ultimately worse off, with more crime, more misery and more death.

Here's how it works. There will always be someone left in the area with heroin for sale, and that person, reacting to the age-old laws of supply and demand, will put the price up dramatically. He or she will take their tenner bags - usually 30% diamorphine - and dilute, or cut, the component of the drug down to 10%; or in some cases nothing. These they will sell to needy customers.

Several bad outcomes result. For a start, the safest part of the tenner bag is the diamorphine; it's the other component, the "bash" (talc, brick dust, codeine, even Polyfilla), that does the damage by clogging arteries. The more there is of it, the more unintended thrombosis there will be.

Secondly, whereas an addict might have spent £30 a day to satisfy their need, now they will have to spend £60 buying twice as much to achieve the same effect. To get the money, they have to shoplift harder. Therefore, in the short term, petty crime doubles and the number of people being imprisoned rises steeply.

Another consequence of weaker heroin is that it lowers users' tolerance to the drug. When new dealers move in with a new supply - as they surely will, under the rule that nature abhors a vacuum - they will cynically sell extra-strong heroin to people accustomed to weaker stuff. Inevitably there are overdoses and deaths.

Within a few months, things tend to revert to the old pattern. This is apparent if one examines what has happened in Dumfries. Over the past year, in the police operation Round Up, two major drug supply networks in the south-west were cut off and more than 100 drug dealers imprisoned. In the three months or so since, how much has changed? Has the town been rescued? Is there a template here for Renfrewshire and Inverclyde?

Sadly, Mark Falkland, the drugs education manager at the First Base agency in Dumfries, believes things are back to where they were before the raids. He estimates that the drugs industry in Dumfries - with 1000 users, and heroin sales of £30,000 to £40,000 a day - is still the biggest commercial turnover in the town, with the possible exception of Tesco.

His belief is that when the heroin dried up, 300 to 400 addicts were scared enough of the drought and the risks of overdose that they would have gone on a NHS methadone programme - had such places been freely available. Of those, maybe half would have been successful, a potentially great outcome. But in the south-west the wait to get on the methodone treatment programme can take more than a year, and the opportunity was lost.

When, in 2003, Stranraer was targeted in the police operation Emperor - snaring 64 dealers and four major drugs barons - the action coincided with the opening in the town of Turning Point, a drugs agency. In two months, Turning Point had 300 clients who went on to methadone; while a similar number migrated to Dumfries to get their supply. The market was therefore removed and Stranraer's heroin problem remains much improved. The key to success, it was shown, was to provide an alternative to users when the supply was cut off, otherwise what came in to take its place might be far worse.

The police are coming round to the realisation that however good they are, they cannot succeed without a multi-agency approach. The problem is, as another drugs worker said sadly, that the police are simply miles ahead of the treatment services.

It is now three years since Richard Brunstrom, the chief constable of North Wales, gave a lecture at the Royal Society of Edinburgh in which he told the story of how, as a younger officer, he had run the first major operation to clean up drugs in Mosside, Manchester. It had been hugely successful: large numbers of officers had put through dozens of doors and cleaned up the streets. Brunstrom said he patted himself on the back for the superb intelligence, and regarded it as a job well done. Almost immediately, though, the price of heroin went up, and much heavier gangs, attracted by the money to be made, moved in with machine guns. The guns have been there ever since. Brunstrom said he still had a sense of personal responsibility for the gun crime in Mosside. After this experience, he is one of the few chief constables openly in favour of the legalisation of heroin.

The evidence poses a dilemma, though. Should police just sit on their hands until sufficient drug rehabilitation treatments are ready and waiting? Logic says they should. But logic also tells us sufficient rehabilitation resources will never be put in place. Logic also says the legalisation of heroin, soon to be laid before parliament in a bill by Rosemary Byrne of the SSP, is a long way off.

Meantime, should ordinary members of blighted communities have to endure strutting drug dealers driving flash cars, who post their prices on the door bells - without fear of retribution? Duncan McNeil, MSP for Greenock and Inverclyde, last night expressed a sense of quiet satisfaction on behalf of his electorate - "they're pleased, the demoralised members of the community who have had to look down at their boots when they passed the drug dealers, who in the hierarchy are kings". These good people, he said, might be offended by the way drug abuse programmes operated and aware that a lot more needed to be done, but last night they were simply delighted. One understands the sentiment, but one also hopes their pleasure is not too short-lived.

bbc : 13.10.06

Drug action teams in England are not referring enough addicts to residential treatment schemes, it has been claimed. The Association of Directors of Social Services is warning of an impending crisis, and says some providers could close down altogether. It is thought addicts are instead being referred to cheaper community-based schemes, leaving some centres half empty and others having to close beds.

However, the National Treatment Agency said there was no crisis. BBC home affairs correspondent Danny Shaw said live-in centres with detoxification facilities and counselling are widely thought to be the most effective way of dealing with the most hardened addicts. Community-based programmes, while up to 20 times cheaper, are considered less effective than residential treatments.

It is thought drug action teams are sending more addicts to community-based schemes in an effort to save money and meet government targets. At least half of the main providers of residential drug treatment services in England are reporting severe financial problems because not enough addicts are being referred to them.

But National Treatment Agency chief executive Paul Hayes disputed the claims. He said occupancy figures provided by rehab and detox centres showed bed occupancy, monitored weekly, was at 80% this year compared with 85% last year.

"We would expect to run at 85% or thereabouts. You would expect some empty beds because people drop out, or there are delays in admissions." He told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that there was a "real problem", but the agency did not think it was as widespread or significant as implied. "We particularly don't see it as being caused by spending decisions being taken locally in order to spend money on treatments that are less effective but cheaper," he said. "The spending plans that local drug action teams put in place for this year actually showed a 50% increase in the amount they were planning to spend on residential treatments."

Spending is set to increase from £48m to £72m, bringing residential treatment to 12% from 9% of the treatment spend, he said. Last month a watchdog said drug users seeking help to quit their habit faced a "postcode lottery" of care.

The Healthcare Commission and the National Treatment Agency for substance misuse reviewed the services provided across England.

· Paratrooper smoked pipes with victim before attack
· Case may stir debate over downgrading to Class C

Guardian: 10.10.06

A soldier who killed his friend's father with a pair of garden shears during a psychotic attack induced by cannabis was jailed for 10 years last night.

Laurie Draper, 31, a paratrooper who had served in Iraq, plunged the tree croppers into the head and body of his victim, 53-year-old Paul Butterworth, in March after smoking homegrown cannabis given to him by his victim.

He was sentenced at St Albans crown court yesterday after admitting manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility. A charge of murder was dropped after medical evidence proved that Draper was suffering from hypomania - a condition which can be triggered by drug-taking - when he lunged at Mr Butterworth at the teacher's home in Hoddesdon, Hertfordshire.

The sentence is likely to stir further debate over the reclassification of cannabis, which was downgraded from a Class B to a Class C drug in 2004. The former home secretary Charles Clarke resisted calls to overturn his predecessor's decision to reclassify the drug after fresh concerns emerged about its side effects.

The soldier also admitted assaulting Mr Butterworth's son Ashley, a lifelong friend, at the same time.

Ann Evans, prosecuting, said Draper initially seemed "euphoric" after smoking a pipe with the two men. But after a second pipe packed with a larger dose of the drug, he stripped naked, threw his clothes into the fire and began "frantically" washing himself in the kitchen.

He punched Mr Butterworth several times in the face as he tried to restrain him. "Draper then grabbed hold of some long-handled tree loppers that were lying against a chair in the hallway. He took hold of them and lifted them above his head and struck downward at a 45 degree angle towards Paul Butterworth's head." She added: "Ashley described the defendant as psychotic and frenzied, his face was blank. Throughout this time the defendant had never said a word, his eyes staring 'as if he wasn't there', as Ashley describes it."

Sentencing Draper, originally from Leicester but based at the Colchester garrison, Judge Findlay Baker QC told him: "Your conduct became at first strange, then alarming, then delusional. Resisting attempts to calm you down, you attacked Paul Butterworth."

He added that Mr Butterworth's son was forced to flee for his life. "He did what he could to protect his father - no one could have expected him to do more," he said. "Some of the blows landed on him and fearing for his life he desisted, leaving you to beat the brains out of his unfortunate father and eventually to drag his body, mutilated and barely recognisable, to the living room sofa.

"This was an appalling attack of extreme and persistent violence. And I have no doubt it would not have happened if you had not consumed cannabis. Anyone who unlawfully takes a dangerous mind-altering controlled drug and who then finds that his mind is altered in unexpected and undesired ways must take responsibility for his subsequent actions."

Review of cannabis laws as drug-fuelled violence spirals

Daily Mail: 5.10.06

Rev George Hargreaves is demanding a U-turn on 'soft' cannabis laws

Controversial rules which tell police not to arrest cannabis smokers could be torn-up, it emerged last night. The re-think comes after the 'softly, softly' approach was blamed for a senseless murder and an increase in hard drug abuse. The Government and police chiefs have steadfastly defended the decision to downgrade the drug from Class B to Class C in January 2004.

But the Association of Chief Police Officers has now begun an official review of guidelines which state there should be a 'presumption against arrest' of users. It is under enormous pressure to change its position, not least from the threat of a High Court challenge.

Reverend George Hargreaves has lodged papers at the High Court today demanding a U-turn. The senior church figure, an advisor to the Metropolitan Police, is backed by a £30,000 fighting fund and has vowed to secure victory. Acpo officials said no decision had been reached, and new guidance would not be produced until later this year. But campaigners, led by Rev Hargreaves, hope the court threat will prove decisive. He will be backed by evidence linking strong skunk forms of the drug to schizophrenia.

Earlier this week, the pastor blamed skunk for the mindless murder of Nyembo-Ya-Muteba by a gang of thugs. He believes they were driven to kill the 40-year-old father of two after smoking skunk for most of the day last Sunday.

Acpo's Cannabis Enforcement Guidance, issued in September 2003 ahead of the law changing in January 2004, said there should be 'a presumption against arrest' for those found in possession of the drug. It said in most cases a police warning and confiscation would be sufficient.

Rev Hargreaves, who sits on two Metropolitan police panels, said this approach had led to a surge in youths smoking strong skunk cannabis that was turning many into dangerous 'schizophrenics.'

He added: 'This guidance must be reversed. The only way to crackdown on the problem is to return to arresting and prosecuting people carrying even small amount of cannabis.' 'At the moment most dealers will only carry enough for personal use, so that they are not arrested or charged if caught by a police officer. They keep the stash hidden at home or elsewhere.'

'This court action not just some publicity stunt. I have spoken to the lawyers and they believe we have a very strong case.The police cannot simply chose not to enforce the law.' He said a private sponsor, who wants to remain anonymous, has provided around £30,000 for the legal challenge, although this could go up to £100,000.

There is no suggestion of cannabis being re-classified back to class B, after the Government ruled out such a move.

But Acpo has it in its power to advise police officers on how to interpret this change. It could say that, despite cannabis being Class C, the presumption should now once again be in favour of an arrest being made.

Mary Brett, a spokesman for the Europe Against Drugs, said Acpo's review should return cannabis to an arrestable crime. She added: 'What are the police waiting for? Since they talked about downgrading cannabis, admissions to mental health units have increased by forty per cent.' 'There has also been an increase in the number of users, despite the Government's denials, and there is also the awful violence.' 'People smoking the drug can very quickly become psychotic. The police should get on and make the decision now.'

Prior to re-classification, critics warned it would lead to a surge in drug abuse by sending out the message taking illegal substances was OK.

This has since been confirmed by a leaked report by the Downing Street strategy unit, which said: 'Recent changes to the law have increased the number of people taking cannabis. 'The amount of hard-drug abuse has also increased. Although more research is needed, it appears the two rises are connected.'

A Met Police document, released last month, laid bare the extent of the police's reluctance under the current Acpo guidelines to take firm action against cannabis users. Only 15 per cent of people caught with the drug are being charged with a crime since the January 2004 law change. The rest were given either a caution or - in a staggering 67 per cent of cases - a simple warning. The Met's report declared the soft policy a 'success.' In an astonishing admission, it said letting-off more than 30,000 drug takers with a warning was good for 'police/public relations.' By not bothering to arrest the criminals, officers were having a 'positive effect in reducing friction between young people and the police.'

A spokesman for Acpo said the review followed a change in the law earlier this year, which makes all crimes - from litter dropping to murder - an arrestable crime. Police have discretion over who to arrest. Acpo said its guidelines needed revising in light of this law change. He added officers already have discretion over how to act, and are told to take firm action against 'vulnerable' users, such as young people.

Pastor hits out at soft drug policy

Cautions send out wrong message

Hackney Gazette: 12.10.06

A PASTOR is taking on the some of the most senior police officers in Britain in a bid to get stricter penalties imposed on those found in possession of cannabis.

The Rev George Hargreaves, from the Hephzibah Christian Centre in Beechwood Road, Dalston, says that a soft approach on cannabis has led to "general lawlessness" and has asked for a judicial review to be carried out at the Royal Courts of
Justice into the behaviour of the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO).

Mr Hargreaves, who has received £30,000 from a secret sponsor to take the case to court, is arguing that ACPO has broken the law by issuing guidelines to police officers stating that arrests for possession of cannabis should be replaced with warnings or cautions. "I believe this relaxation of laws on cannabis has a major impact in the rise in gun crime and general lawlessness," said Mr Hargreaves.

"Youngsters receive only a warning or caution now despite the fact it remains an arrestable offence to be caught with cannabis. "Take the George Michael case. He was slumped in his car and only got a caution. This sends a message to kids saying if's okay to smoke cannabis, nothing is going to happen to you, even if you are caught."

ACPO issued the new guidelines to police officers following the reclassification of cannabis from a class B to a class C drug by the Home Office in January, 2004. The guidelines say there should be a presumption against arrest for possession of the drug, which means the majority of people now found with cannabis will get a warning and have the drug confiscated. Mr Hargreaves says' ACPO has misinterpreted what was intended by the reclassification; "The police can't decide not to police," said Mr Hargreaves. "The only way you kill off a business is not by turning off the supply. It's by turning off the demand. "That's why it's important that this aspect gets dealt with." A spokesman for ACPO says the guidelines are under review, but this is not as a result of Mr Hargreaves's campaign. "The rules are under review because of a change in police powers of arrest and new guidelines should be available to police officers next month," he said.

But, because me hearing is a civil matter, people will not have a criminal record. Ministers said yesterday the move would help ensure drug users got the help they needed.

However, civil rights groups said they had serious concerns, adding that as even council-approved landlords could apply for them, there were not enough safeguards in place.

The new orders will apply to adults only and can be applied for by the police, local authorities, housing associations, registered social landlords, transport Authorities, and the Environment Agency.

A Home Office spokeswoman said: 'It's not as if the order gives power to any landlord to force somebody on to drug programme for malicious reasons. The safeguard is that you still have to go through the court and still have to convince a judge. They are like Asbos but are specifically targeted at drug users.'

But a spokeswoman for human rights watchdog Liberty said: 'We have serious concerns about these new laws. They look to be just like drug Asbos.'

For Home Office publicity on Intervention Orders go HERE

Mind-altering drugs: does legal mean safe?
29.9.06
New Scientist