Drugsblogger

Interesting times on Ch 4

2010-08-02T08:20:00.000-07:00

For those interested in the war on drugs and why it's not working, take a look at tonight's documentary on Channel 4 at 8pm. Called 'Our Drugs War'.

Let's remember the government wants ideas on how we might save billions. The drugs war costs £1.5B per year. Quite a bit less than the Iraq and Afghanistan wars - from which we are withdrawing. Should we consider the drugs war in the upcoming comprehensive spending review and consider withdrawing from that war too?

Let's see.

Oh, dearie me, bodybuilders at it again

2010-07-16T07:06:00.000-07:00

Following on from the steroids worry, now it's human growth hormone. Wanna look buffed and ripped? Human growth hormone (HGH) is the stuff for the gym bunnies, steroids are so yesterday. The trouble is, as with steroids, nobody really knows what long-term, high-dose use of HGF will do to you. In the short-term it seems to do the same as steroids, i.e. you can train harder for longer and recover more quickly, thus eventually achieving that coveted look. Huge muscles, little fat and bulging veins so beloved of door operatives like the late Mr Moat. Once again, bodybuilders are proving themselves to be willing human labs, taking the drugs to get the effects they desire before any real research has come out about long-term use and side effects. And, as with other illicit/grey area drugs who is making the stuff and to what standards is unknown. So there are the risks as with steroids of dodgy gear coming out of dodgy labs with little regard for the end user's and the wider public's health. HGH has been implicated in the possible spread of CJD (Mad Cow disease) and as it's injected the usual risks of poor injection hygeine go along with it.

What should we do?

In the short term, don't ban it, regard it as a health not a criminal problem, get researching and if you are using it; make sure you trust your supplier and have a ready access to clean drugs and injecting equipment. Will this happen? Some of it might, guess which though?

BTW - this photo was uploaded from a generic site with no photo credit. No intention to suggest that the guys in the photo are using, have used any drugs.

Sick and Dead

2010-07-12T06:38:00.000-07:00

Well, I was (though it pains me to say it) on the money in my last post, especially about Moat's last post. He's dead, killed by his own hand or that of the police, or a mix of both. We've yet to see what part steroids played in his final week but probably not a very significant one.

But what sickens me about the whole sorry saga is the disgraceful behaviour of so many people. If you want to see what a fairly representative selection of the police thought about it visit police blogs. I like PC Bloggs , she's consistently funny and informative and, despite her sometimes snidey comments about the public/media/crims/colleagues I detect (no pun intended) a deep-seated liberal disposition. She mentions 'The Guardian' a lot. But OMG you should read some of the stuff her colleagues write in response to her pieces. Bigoted, racist, stringing up's too good for them and in some cases nauseating self-pity. Yes, the police have a tough job, yes they put their lives on the line, but so do many other public servants.

I couldn't believe the ghastly TV footage of Moat's last minutes, the ghoulish print pictures and articles and now Moat's family queuing up to slag off the police. Actually, given the circs I thought they (the police) did a reasonable job: a) They found him, b) another Whitehaven did not happen, c) no one else was killed. In all probability Moat did kill himself, Tasered or not he would have done so anyway. It's what sociopaths do, it's the ultimate control-freakery because it denies us all the chance to see him in court and satisfy ourselves that he pays the price for his crimes. Shipman did the same. When they do these things i.e. suicide it's the final act of control, cant control anything else, then they control the manner of their death.

Bit of a rant there, just wanted it off my chest.

Roid Rage

2010-07-08T08:13:00.000-07:00

Raoul Mote is no doubt a very bad man. He has already killed a police officer, wounded another and his former girlfriend. Today he is still at large, well armed and hiding out in a vast tract of Northumbria, England.

The story, awful though it is, is already following a predictable arc in our media. Inevitably he will be caught or killed - then comes the investigation in to what went wrong. In fact it's already started with the usual whining from the media about why the police haven't caught him yet. Mostly the whining is coming from the very same media who want to see massive cuts in public spending, including the police. But I digress.

The drugs angle? Anabolic Steroids. Allegedly Mote was/is a bodybuilding ex-doorman. As those of his ilk often do he apparently used steroids to assist his gym workouts. What steroids do is allow the body to recover more quickly from heavy exercise than might otherwise be possible - thus increasing the amount and frequency of training and so leading to that bulked up look so favoured of bouncers. The downside? Lots of side effects:

Raised blood pressure.
Increased risk of heart and breathing problems.
Risk of blood-borne diseases through poor injecting technique and hygiene.
Tiny testicles.
Mental health problems.

What the media will focus on is 'roid-rage'. Yes, steroids can cause unpredictable mood swings. But what they most likely do is exacerbate pre-existing mental health or emotional conditions. So if you're very angry already, you get angrier still.

We'll see calls for more legislation, a parliament gagging for cheap votes which will support upping the legal costs of using steroids, the inevitable driving underground (further) of steroid use and zero impact on the use of steroids.

So, no change there then huh?

ACMD 2

2010-01-15T07:48:00.000-08:00

The ACMD (UK's Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs) is the government's statutory committee, which as the name suggests advises Ministers on illicit drug matters. It has a long and mostly distinguished history of providing top quality, objective and science-based views on illicit drugs, or on drugs which are thought to be risky and government thinks may need to be legislated against. Arguably its greatest day was its delivery of two reports in the mid-eighties on AIDS and drug misuse. If you can't be bothered to read these landmark reports then all you need to know is that the key point was that AIDS was/is more dangerous to individuals and society than drug misuse. The reports ushered in officially sanctioned harm-reduction measures such as needle exchange schemes, easy and free distribution of condoms and a huge drive to encourage drug users, especially injectors in to contact with specialist services. The result was a tiny rate of HIV infection amongst English and Welsh users (Scotland and NI went their own way) at around 2% compared with rates of up to 70% + in other countries.

But in the latter part of last year it reached a low point when it produced a report on Cannabis arguing that the drug should not be re-upgraded to Class B under the 1971 Misuse of Drugs Act. It had been downgraded to C, the least dangerous category a few years before and use had declined. The ACMD argued that upgrading did not reflect its real risks (low compared to other illicit drugs) and would result in an increased attractiveness to potential users.

Unfortunately, the Prime Minister, a puritan wishing to flash his hard-man credentials and desperate to shore up a sinking premiership decided before the report emerged that it - the drug would be classified as a 'B'. This was a decision almost without precedent; minister(s) deciding on a view and action in advance of their own adviser's consideration. The ACMD disagreed, said 'no' to a regrade. The chairman of the committee was sacked for saying at a scientific lecture that cannabis was not as dangerous as horse-riding. And everyone wondered what the point of all advisory committees might be in the future.

Of course ministers are not obliged to agree with advisory committees' views, they have to take many other issues in to account when deciding on policy. But they chose to disagree about the science saying that Cannabis was a more dangerous drug than the committee thought it was. Had they come out and said, well, it does cause distress to a small number of people so on balance to avoid that we'll upgrade it; most people might not have agreed but would have taken the point. By choosing to argue the science rather than wider issues they shot themselves and the committee in the foot(s).

Now the sacked ACMD chairman, the wonderfully named psychiatrist, Professor David Nutt has set up his own independent ACMD whilst the actual one has a new chairman. The last thing drugs policy needs is yet another committee/pressure group/advisory council and no one will believe that future actual ACMD reports are a) truly independent of government pressure and b) paid any attention to by ministers. A sad decline from the brilliance and bravado of the AIDS reports.

Back again with added Morphine

2010-01-11T09:33:00.000-08:00

I haven't posted for a long time. Mostly because I've been very ill and then recovering for almost a year and was obviously unwell - in retrospect, for some time before acute illness set in. Friends, family and colleagues tell me I look better now than I have done in two years. So that's why I haven't posted for some time. Too toxic and messed up for a year or so before the acute illness and convalescing after.

When I was very ill and in hospital, for reasons I won't go in to I suffered absolutely agonising pain and after 2 shots of pethidine and various oral painkillers which had no effect I requested, and was given intravenous (iv) morphine. The Professor of Surgery looking after me told me that the pain I was feeling was up there equivalent to that suffered during child-birth, heart attack or from kidney stones. Ouch.

Well Sister Morphine's gentle caress did the business. Although the drip ran constantly I could supplement the regular dose with self-administered extra if I needed it - which I did. I didn't find the drug induced euphoria but it did stop me feeling the pain. Although I knew the pain was still there, frankly I didn't care as long as it just stopped hurting. After twenty-four hours the cause of my pain had rested, thanks to Sister M and I only needed one dose of oral morphine after coming off the drip. Then I could cope on ordinary paracetamol-based analgesia.

This was all very interesting from a professional point of view as I had never been on the receiving end of pure pharmaceutical morphine before then. My wife tells me I did blather on for a bit whilst on the drip but subjectively I felt calm and lucid. Also very interesting was the wildly differing attitude of the various nurses taking care of me whilst I was mainlining (in a good way) that fine chemical. One or two of the nurses (all qualified I might add) freaked and kept checking on me every five minutes and ticked me off for self administering. I discovered that despite a limiter I could repeat self-administer after every seven minutes, so I just kept banging away until the pain stopped - much to these nurses' consternation. Other staff were much more relaxed and encouraged me - one even saying that, 'we really need to get on top of this (the pain)'. So from this highly unscientific study it seems that some nurses are terrified of morphine and it being controlled by the patient, whilst others, rightly in my view, see it as the nurses and patients friend.

New Puritans

2008-04-18T08:05:00.000-07:00

O M Gosh. Is it me or are there an astonishing number of stories in our oh-so-clean media about the dangers of alcohol? I can hardly open a paper, switch on the radio or hit a news website without a constant stream of sometimes accurate/sometimes not, stuff leaking out about the horrors - alledged - of the pop. Given that hacks are dedicated boozers as a rule this is interesting.

What's more interesting is does this tell us anything about the current climate re: booze? I think it may do.

Young people drinking too much = binge drinking. Middle classes drinking too much = dinner party. One's ok, the other isn't.
Endless fears about pregnancy, parenthood and alcohol.
More fears about the health/ASB impacts of alcohol.

And so on. And before I get it in the neck from my police chums - I've been to the bars where you drink and the institutional bingeing and in some cases expectation that everyone gets hammered after a shift is/are awesome.

My point is this. We can't take drugs, you can't smoke cigs, now it seems no one is allowed to drink. But as humans we seem programmed for the desire to experience altered states of consciousness, achieved in all sorts of ways be it religious ecstasy, spinning round as kids till we drop, drugs, whatever. And if the New Puritans force people away from drug #1 they'll switch to #2. Here's a lesson. In the 80's and 90's the drug Ecstasy was hugely popular - up to half a million doses taken each Saturday night. But those who took it fore swore alcohol. Ecstasy was judged to be more fun, less violence inducing (difficult to smack someone in the face when you're loved up) and an all-round improvement on booze. But the combination of crackdowns on Ecstasy-fuelled parties and the aggressive advertising and reductions in price of alcohol led people to ditch so much E and go back or on to booze. With the results we see on our streets and in our A+E depts every night. You reap what you sew. Yes there were a few sad E related deaths and injuries but they were/are as nothing compared to the damage caused by alcohol. So what will happen if the current anti-booze campaign continues? People will switch back to something else e.g. Ecstasy. So it goes.

Oh dear, Oh dear

2008-04-14T07:13:00.000-07:00

My chums in the police blogosphere have gotten very exercised by my comments on pcbloggs.blogspot.com in which I merely pointed out that it's quite a good idea to wait for a trial before deciding if someone is guilty or not guilty of an offence. Oh yes and I did say I thought castrating Chavs (I paraphrase but you get the picture, is tantamount to recommending a policy of eugenics). In my business we see this sort of muddled thinking all of the time. The police are just as good at jumping to conclusions as the rest of us and then get upset when this is pointed out to them. Guildford 4, that nice civil servant who got off the 'Belgrano' official secrets charges because the jury wouldn't be swayed by a biased judge and CJS etc. Yes, from time-to-time the police make mistakes and it's right that in a democracy they should be held to account as well as appreciated for the good work they do.

Crash and Burn

2008-04-01T09:53:00.000-07:00

You have to laugh don't you? I went through security on my way out of Philadelphia airport - as you do/must/have to.

I had my, ahem, liquids in two separate clear baggies as per regs. So I thought. Mistake; there were lots of signs up as we got towards the checkpoint and the X-ray machine saying that only one baggie was acceptable. So when I got there I asked a security guy if I could take two bags through. 'No Sir, one only came the reply'. 'I can take one through for you' said the kindly lady behind me. 'Is that ok?' I asked the man. 'Yes' he said. 'Well thank you Mam' from me. We met up after security and I got my Clarins and Clinique gifts for my wife back. Could have been anything but as long as it was in one bag that was OK with security.

Going Home

2008-03-18T13:04:00.000-07:00

Well, that's it for this US trip. As ever it's been astonishing and educational and well, fun. The country is gripped by election fever and watching the Clinton-Obama primaries with awe. Will one win out? Will they fight each other to a standstill and let McCain breeze through? Will the Democrat big-bananas (Gore, Kennedy etc) step in and referee. Who knows, but what I do know is that neither is talking about the country's drug problem and what to do about it. There again that's understandable, doubtless whatever their private views neither Clinton nor Obama is going to risk handing McCain a hostage to fortune by setting out a stall of drug reform before the election.

At dinner last night some US friends asked what people in the UK felt about the US. I said many of us didn't have much time for Bush or his (and Blair's) war but loved the country and its people. On the whole I think the US is a force for good in a naughty world and I can't wait to come back.

Bingeing in the USA

2008-03-17T12:47:00.000-07:00

Don't let anyone tell you that Northern Europe (inc the UK) is the only part of the world where binge drinking and its fallout happens. I went in to downtown Philadelphia PA, USA during the St Patrick's day celebrations on Saturday. OK St P's day is today (Monday) but everyone gets seriously stuck in on the weekend before as the day itself is, strangely, not a national holiday. Given the seriousness with which East Coast USA takes the anniversary I'm surprised at that.

Anyway, we get on the train to Philly at around 11.45 for the 45 minute ride downtown and its absolutely rammed with teenagers all dressed in shamrock green- boys and girls all necking beer like there's no tomorrow. By the time we've walked from the station to our destination we've passed about 10 'Irish' themed bars all of which have customers spilling on to the sidewalk drinking green beer, Guinness or pretty much anything. By the time we walk back a couple of hours later the beer is spilling on to the sidewalk and the punters are absolutely hammered. They're having fun, but there will be noise and naughtiness later on according to my contacts.

Here's a thing though - no surveillance cameras, and they put portaloos outside the pubs which prevents the - inevitable in the UK - peeing in public. What a good idea. No offence and no offences.

Art in The USA

2008-03-16T08:13:00.000-07:00

I went to the Frida Kahlo exhibition at the Philadelphia Museum of Art yesterday. She was an outstanding painter active in the first part of the 20thC, with much of her output, at least on display yesterday dedicated to self-portraits documenting the trials and tribulations as well as some happy times of her life. The works are all striking in their accurate brushwork, beautiful colours and the way in which she puts her emotional life right out there in her work. Neither she nor the viewer is spared as she documents both the breakup of her marriage to Diego Rivera and her lifelong suffering from various illnesses including polio, scoliosis and childlessness.

What's this got to do with drugs? Well as her illnesses, especially the pain from her back became more severe she could only keep going with stronger medication, notably opioids. And this is noticeable in her later works, both in the loss of technique but also in the seemingly heightened appreciation of colour. So the drugs do and don't work. They enabled her to keep going but robbed her of some of her physical ability. In my humble opinion anyway, and I'm no art expert.

She died aged 47.

Drugs in the USA

2008-03-15T07:40:00.000-07:00

I'm here for a week, staying in and around Philadelphia and New Jersey. Here's a couple of observations on drug-type stuff.

#1. Driving down to NJ to see friends, as I got to near their place I could see lots of little signs by the side of the suburban roads declaring the area a 'Drug-free Zone'. These areas are usually around High Schools and so it proved to be. Essentially they mean that anyone caught inside these zones carrying drugs will be assumed to be intent on dealing them to students and so on and faces massive penalties if found guilty. Interestingly there was no mention of alcohol.

Fact - the prison population in the US has just reached one person in one hundred. Mostly non-violent offenders, many for possession of drugs. The drugs problem is as bad as ever.

#2. The writers of a hit and very good US TV show, 'The Wire' which is a police, criminal justice type programme but one of the best of its kind; published a piece in 'Time' magazine decrying the continuing US war on drugs. Amongst other things they argue that the police spend most of their time on small-time drug arrests, so-much-so that murder arrest rates have halved because they go for the easy bust to keep their overall arrest rates up. They (the writers) have come up with an interesting proposition and are urging fellow citizens to consider doing the same as a way of avoiding clogging the jails up. It's this: they suggest that if called to jury service, jurors should not convict for any minor drugs offense unless violence is involved, 'No longer can we collaborate with a government that uses non-violent drug offenses to fill prisons with its poorest, most damaged and most desperate citizens'. They go on to argue that jury nullification has long been a form of American dissent.

I present the above two observations without comment, it's not for me when visiting another country to say if these things are right or wrong. But it is interesting isn't it?

US of A and depression

2008-03-10T07:26:00.000-07:00

I'm off to the the States tomorrow, weather permitting. Apparently, apart from election-fever there is also 'Prozac-doesn't-work' fever too. Just like here. Well, here's a thing. I had a bout of moderate-to-severe depression a few years ago brought on by some very unpleasant events which I won't go in to here. It absolutely worked for me. Precisely two weeks after I started on it my mood began to lighten. Two weeks is the usual time for an anti-depressant to get to sufficient levels in your body to begin to have an effect. It was as if I had gone from a world in which most things were grey to one in which nearly everything was back in glorious technicolour. The remaining grey bits were tackled with the help of some good talking therapies.

Now it's entirely possible that what happened to me was either the placebo effect, i.e. I believed the pills would make me better so they did, or regression to the mean - that is my illness was naturally self-limiting and I was going to get better anyway and started on the tabbos by coincidence at the same time. However, I think there is enough evidence out there to suggest that Prozac and other anti-d's can and do help lots of people with bad depression. So before you decide to stop taking it - consult your physician, don't believe everything in the papers.

New month, new stuff

2008-03-03T09:01:00.000-08:00

Here we go:

1. Government announces that it will close down off-licenses caught selling to underage drinkers. How will this work? Are there enough trading standards officers and police to check on every corner shop which also doubles as an off-license all the time? Will closing the corner shop benefit the elderly and others who rely on it? Will your local Tesco be closed too if caught mis-selling? No.

2. Opposition - Tories - say banging more people up in jail works. Where have we heard this before? Step forward M.Howard. No it does not work for people who are just mad or sad as opposed to bad. Our jails are full of the former.

Oh, I give up.

Fab New Strategy

2008-02-28T03:44:00.000-08:00

There, I tried to jazz up the title but I fear anything with the word strategy in it is likely to sound oh-so-dull.

Anyway, it arrived fresh and squeaky yesterday and is the new national drug strategy. The welcome seemed rather muted though, the press weren't all over it, maybe because there's a lot of other hard news and I haven't spoken to anyone in the field who is desperate to chat about it - not yet anyway.

Good bits:

Roll out of heroin prescribing programme subject to the pilots going OK - for those who just can not clean up their act any other way. Very brave politically.
A call for more innovative treatment.
A surprising (so it seems at first glance) emphasis on treatment, we all thought it would be much more enforcement.
Acceptance of evidence base for treatments which were thought controversial e.g. methadone maintenance.

Not so good bits:

Continuation of emphasis on law'n'order including asset seizing on arrest. Another erosion of basic law i.e. assumption of guilt until proven innocent.

Really awful bit:

Removal or denial of benefits if you don't comply with treatment. What? Are they expecting treatment agencies to grass up clients to the benefits agancies if they miss an appointment? I must read this bit again in detail but it smacks of poor policy development.

Now read on....

Whingein' n Bingein'

2008-02-26T08:25:00.000-08:00

Moral panic time - young people it seems are drinking themselves silly on cheap alcohol in public.

Well it's true - a bit.

We are a nation of bingers - as are most northern European countries. Try spending an interesting couple of hours in Finland at chucking out (and I mean that in many senses of the word) time on a Saturday night.

What to do about it? Well one thing would be to enforce the laws we already have and do it properly. The police should be policing licensed premises and ensuring they are not selling to underage drinkers - trading standards officers too. But it appears they don't have the time despite the bingeing problem being top of the media and public list of 'things to get rid of'.

Here's a new idea. Let 16 year-olds in to pubs and allow them to drink alcohol in moderate amounts. Pubs are safer environments in which to drink than local street corners or rec grounds after glugging down 12 pints of Stella or cheap cider. There is evidence (anecdotal at least) that pubs have become better managed since the reform of the licensing laws. It also means that the right-of-passage in to the pub moves down age-wise, a bit. 16 year olds can be supervised a little better and under 16's might find it a bit harder to get booze on account of looking younger, although I accept that lots of 14 year olds can look older if they try, but hey.

Go aggressively after businesses which sell to underage drinkers and take their licences away.

Why isn't this happening? Answers please.

Ghastly Stuff Happened

2008-02-22T09:46:00.000-08:00

So 'Steve' Wright (why not Steven? Why grant him the dignity of a nickname?) has gone down for a long, long time.

Good.

Why do I care? Well he killed 5 sex workers - at least- and in the most disadainful, self gratifying way. Taking advantage of women who were on the streets to earn a little cash to pay for their big habits. But here's the thing, and yes I am very cross about this - why did it take their deaths to galvanise the drug services, the police and all the rest in to taking care of women who have to take care of business?

It's very simple. Sex workers (I refuse to call them prostitutes; they're women, mothers, daughters too) are still considered to be lowlifes. Not worth bothering about.

Well they are worth bothering about. Why wasn't an easy access methadone or other treatment programme available to them years ago? It was where I worked, althought it's proving hideously difficult to get one going where I work now. Why weren't the police getting stuck in to the 'demand side'? Which idiots in the NHS weren't getting the women in to the STD clinics? Oh, I could go on but why bother? It's Friday night and I'm middle-class, safe and warm at home - and they're not they're dead. And no doubt some of their colleagues will be too in the future.

How to ensure a drug gets used.

2008-02-18T07:45:00.000-08:00

Here are the ground rules.

1. As a government agency put out press releases which ensure maximum prime-time coverage. You could be the police, Home Office, Dept of Health etc.

2. Claim that the drug you are concerned about a) comes from the US thereby conferring mysterious foreign drug status and b) that it is really poky and dangerous stuff.

3. Also claim that you are 'warning' the public not to take it.

4. Make sure you have widely publicised its romantic street name e.g Crystal Meth.

5. Tell us that there isn't much of it around at the moment then helpfully add that details of how to make it can be easily found on the WonderWeb.

6. Try to put up a former user of the drug (FDU) who can report on his or her 'drug hell'. This is especially exciting to the media. But tends to miss the point that the FDU has survived the drug hell to tell the tale which suggests it (the drug) might not be quite as dangerous as everyone thought.

7. Recommend setting up a task-force which will target the drug and do your career no harm at all in the process.

8. Sit back and watch as the drug becomes established on the scene despite all your warnings.

There, easy isn't it?

Huffle Puff

2008-02-08T08:16:00.000-08:00

Cannabis... it's the new coke. Our Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) has been asked to consider upgrading the drug from class C under the Misuse of Drugs Act (MDA) to B. It only got downgraded a few years ago and the MDA is in the business of classifying drugs according to their perceived risks. 2003 - not very risky, plus the police were fed up with the paperwork associated with nicking users of a drug generally considered to be 'mostly harmless' - to coin a Douglas Adams' phrase. 2008 - suddenly it's Devilspawn. Why?

Well there are a number of media outlets which consider any relaxation of drug laws to be the end of civilisation. Two, there is a small but vocal group of concerned others who have had the distressing experience of seeing a loved one succumb to mental illness and to have smoked the weed. Plus we have seen the entry in to the market of a small but significant amout of high-strength Cannabis. All of this has meant that the government - headed up by a puritan-leaning PM, is now considering re-upgrading to class B.

Why this a mistake:

1. When it was a class B drug it did not deter any experimentation or regular use. The European Drugs Monitoring Group reported that the UK market was 'saturated'.

2. A very small number of people experience horrid effects from Cannabis. These include upset/vulnerable teenagers and people who have a pre-disposition to or an actual major mental illness. Admissions to mental health units for Cannabis-related illness run at 14 per week for the whole UK. Too many but not an epidemic.

3. There is an over-hyped fear of new, high-strength Cannabis - skunk. Actually most people who use high-strength puff equate it to alcohol. You might drink a bottle of beer in one evening but you wouldn't drink a bottle of whisky. You'd just have a couple of glasses.

But all this pales to nothing because the government has let it be known that it will upgrade to B no matter what. So too bad ACMD with its thoughtful academics and practioners - plus users and others.

Cannabis use might be driven further underground by reclassification and users would be less likely to come forward for help if they were having troubles in the mental health dept. Why don't we spend the money on enforcement on getting health messages across to the punters instead? For example printing health warnings on the inside of cigarette-paper packs warning of the risks? This approach worked magnificently in the UK's fight against AIDS in the 80's and 90's - plenty of good advice and contact numbers for health education on toilet doors, condom packs and so on.

But no - that's too pragmatic and too easy and not enough to satisfy the press monsters and a fearful PM.

Unleash the dogs of drugs wars - boringly and stupidly in their mean, ignorant, brutish way.

Coke, Columbia and drug courts

2008-01-29T02:06:00.000-08:00

First up, Alex james, he of Blur fame was on the telly last night reporting for Panorama (BBC 1 1/2 hour current affairs programme) on the mess the cocaine trade has made of Columbia. Well not just the trade but the efforts being made to combat it. This was the front line of the 'War on Drugs'. James did a comendably good and brave job as far as this viewer could tell. A good job because he demonstrated the huge structural damage cocaine is doing to Columbia and brave because he found himself in very frightening situations - a coca farm raid; with a dealer - where lots of guns were being waved around by scared and scary people. No flak jacket for him either, just his gentleman farmer's chino's, check shirt and a Panama hat. He even met the President of Columbia. Actually the pres had invited him over to do the programme as a way of trying to inform the drug's consumers in Europe and the States that the trade is doing terrible harm to Columbia and Columbians. As a former consumer of Bolivian marching powder of heroic proportions; James reportedly got through a million pounds in coke and champagne, the president obviously felt that James was the man for the job. And you know what? He was.

If you haven't seen the programme and want to make your own mind up about it try the fabby BBC iPlayer www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer which allows you to watch any BBC programme from the last 7 days online.

Now on to our latest initiative in the War on Drugs. By the way, how long is the war going to go on for? When will we know we've won it? No-one seems to know. Yesterday the government announced the introduction of a pilot drugs court in London. Now, the model in the States as I understand it simply provides for a specialist court in which to try people with addictions who have broken the law, the idea being that the combination of legal coercion and treatment gets results. It's a bit different here in London where the focus is primarily on working with drug-using parents. The principle behind it is that if at all possible drug using parents should be helped to stop and to retain care of their children. This is a good idea in that being put in to care is a fairly sure-fire way of increasing a child's risk of becoming a drug user themselves. Plus, most addicted parents can and do want to look after their kids and to deal with their habit.

I've only heard one authoritative interview on the introduction of these courts which came from the judge who'll be presiding over the court, which did cause a pang of anxiety in me. He was quick to admit that the vast majority of punters brought before him will be women. He then went on to say that the court would use coercion and treatment to get the women to change their ways. So far so good (ish). But then he went on to say - and I paraphrase 'and if these women can't or won't leave violent men then they'll be forced to'. Oh. dear. I do hope his Honour gets on a domestic violence course quickly because on the evidence of that interview he needs to. Any one who comes across domestic violence in their professional lives and has thought about it for a bit, knows that it can be incredibly difficult for women to extract themselves and their children safely from a violent man. Not only is there the obvious risk of injury or death but there are economic and social ties and yes, sometimes even love. Given such violent men's abilities to ignore injunctions and all sorts of other ploys to keep them away from their victims I think the judge was wrong to place the emphasis on women being made to leave. It's the men who should be made to go.

It's a bit of a Blur

2008-01-28T07:06:00.000-08:00

Sorry about the dreadful title here. Blur's bassist and now gentleman farmer in Gloucestshire, Alex James is off to Columbia with Panorama tonight to take a look at the cocaine business. This is mildly ironic as he is also famous for having - by his own guestimate, got through a £1m worth of the Bolivian marching powder and champagne during Blur's peak years. The programme is on tonight (BBC1 8.30p.m.) and to his credit, at least in interviews I've heard earlier, he makes the point that cocaine is not a victimless drug and that in the war-zone that is Columbia it's the farmers and the poor who get it in the neck. They are abused and exploited by the cartels keen to spoon larger amounts of the white stuff in to the ever eager mouths of US and European punters.

Health Warning: The last time I watched a Panorama on a subject I knew a bit about - Methadone, it was complete. inaccurate. rubbish. Just wrong. So this is not an endorsement, but I think James sounds articulate and thoughtful. We shall see.

Girlfriend in a Coma

2008-01-16T06:36:00.000-08:00

The title of this blog post refers to a book of the same name by Douglas Coupland, not my girlfriend who is in fact my wife. I've been meaning to read some of his stuff for years. Finally got round to it after marching in to Waterstones waving my Christmas book token and snaffling a load of books including this one. Why mention it here? Well apart from the fact that it is absolutely excellent it does have an awful lot of drugs 'n' alcohol in it and clearly Coupland knows his stuff or has done his reseach because it's pretty accurate too. I won't go in to the details of the book because you can read the reviews on Amazon or elsewhere but it's a millenium book (published in 1998) which plays on the end of times fears we all experienced to a greater or lesser extent at the time. Remember the millenium bug? End of the world as computers, medical equipment, anything with a silicon chip in it really, was predicted to go in to terminal meltdown. What was that about then?

Anyway I can't recommend the book highly enough.

Elsewhere in drugland it's business as usual. The usual madness with the beauracracy of the NTA, DAAT's and so on. BUT - an interesting development with the release of the new 'Orange Book'. Or rather the new Dept of Health, NICE, NTA Drug Treatment Guidelines. (It seems to be book review week on this blog). http://www.nta.nhs.uk/areas/Clinical_guidance/clinical_guidelines/docs/clinical_guidelines_2007.pdf

This latest version of the guidleines - last updated in 1999 shows marked developments. These include a much more positive view on, amongst other things methadone maintenance. The book argues that there is now plenty of evidence showing the efficacy of maintenance and I couldn't agree more. For those of us who've knocked around the field for a while and are interested in treatment that actually works and has research evidence to show this, it's a real vindication. If you are working in the field, in one where you might come across drug users or just interested have a read.

A Moment of Madness

2007-11-06T06:18:00.000-08:00

Here I am, after another break wondering what one earth is going on. The drug treatment world went mad a couple of weeks ago. This is what happened.

Mark Easton, BBC News Home Affairs editor had been investigating drug treatment services in the UK for Radio 4's today programme - a flagship news-agenda setting show. This was probably because the consultation period on the next government drugs strategy is coming to end and everyone is setting out their stalls. Quite reasonably he asked if we are getting value for the millions being poured in to the treatment (and indeed the enforcement) fields. He interviewed the CEO of the National Treatment Agency (NTA) and skewered him. Firstly he wanted to know if it was ethical to 'reward' drug users for clean urines by giving them drugs and money. Apparently this is a model being used in the States and considered for trialling over here. Cue CEO spluttering and coughing and weaseling around. Then Easton asked if he had read one of his own agency's reports - he had not. Now please remember everyone, this (the CEO) is a man who is quoted in print (Drink and Drug News Feb 2007) as saying that if drugs services were failing the NTA 'would send the boys round'. Nice.

So the picture Easton painted was of an out of touch Chief Executive of a National Treatment Agency, responsible for spending a LOT of public money which didn't seem to be getting results - lots of patients get signed up for treatment at clinics but then never attend appointments and aren't discharged so appear as 'still in treatment' on the stats. Not only that, it was considering bringing in a 'reward' system for users who complied with treatment which appears to use drugs (upping of prescribed drugs for example) as reward for good behaviour) and this is someone who issues threats in print. Hardly an ethical lead one ponders.

Well I and a lot of others can recognise the picture Easton paints. CEO's set the tone for an organisation and true to the NTA CEO's style his 'boys' - there are girls too, are agressive, bullying and contemptuous of treatment services. Often meetings are opened by NTA staff with quite naked threats to funding and assumptions are made about treatment services based on poor quality or out-of-date data. Resistance is futile. Arbitrary targets are set based on little evidence and the threats force services to adopt dubious ways of massaging their data for a quick win instead of getting patiently on with a long job caring for troubled and chaotic people.

Time for a shake up at the NTA dontcha think? Let's get the new drugs strategy underway with a radical review of the NTA and its fitness for purpose. I think it's time for a blog entitled 'NTA Watch'.

So that's what it's all about

2007-06-14T06:19:00.000-07:00

Hmmm - yes, now I see what the fuss is about.

As I said in my last post I have had an op on my shoulder. I had to have a general anaesthetic as it was due to last an hour and likely to be painful (still is actually - 10 days down the line). I had spoken to to the anaesthetist about the whole thing including pain relief and what I would be getting for the anaesthesia. He told me it would be an IV drug whose name escapes me so I decided to try and stay conscious for as long as possible in order to see what it actually felt like.

Now I have never injected drugs in to myself or been addicted to any pills or potions. I do enjoy alcohol in moderation though and especially that nice warm relaxed feeling after your second glass of wine. But it interested me to wonder what a close approximation of 'hitting up' might feel like.

Well, I didn't like the whole prep for the op; the idea that one is handing over one's life to strangers, the indignity of wearing paper underwear and a horrid hospital smock and so on but let that pass. Wheeled in to the anaesthetic room I obediently stuck my arm out for the needle and the damage to be done. The gas man (anaesthetist) got a vein up immediately and had a fairly painless cannula ( a kind of needle) in a in my hand very quickly. I'm not sure why he chose a hand and not an arm but I'm sure there was a good reason for it - he's the man after all. Then in went a pre-med, a benzodiazepine (Valium is a benzo and this was a more sophisticated version of Valium). The gas man said I'd feel a little woozy in a minute or two.

Then it was hallo stars, hallo sky as the drug reached my brain. I could physically feel it arrive, rather like an extended and intense version of the glass of wine. I told the man it was there and managed to chat on for a few seconds, enjoying the sensation......... then oblivion.

And that's the bit I hated, it really was oblivion; no dreams, no thoughts, a little death. Not nice and to my mind not worth the fleeting pleasure just before. But, of course it is both those things that some people crave, the soft sensation followed by oblivion, a mimicking of death - and in some cases actual death. But not me. I'll stick to the glass of wine and the good meal and not to loss of control and nothingness. Too boring really.

And the point is??

2007-06-06T10:58:00.000-07:00

New government alcohol strategy announced.

No money to go with it.

Not surprised.

Short post as recovering from op on shoulder and can't spend much time on pc.

Alcohol - our favourite drug?

2007-05-29T08:18:00.000-07:00

I think I'm starting to share the Nanny State fears recently expressed by the Police amongst others.

Now we have the idea that labelling on alcoholic drinks pointing up the dangers of alcohol will help to reduce the harms caused by alcohol.

There's no doubt alcohol can and does cause harm - but we do know this. It can't have escaped most people's notice that drinking too much causes health and social harms. Get too drunk, too often and you will feel ill. Ditto get in to fights, cause criminal damage and so on.

There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support the idea that big labels on any drug e.g. cigs have done any good. What has changed attitudes to tobacco over the years has been - well, the years. Just look at any episode of 'Life on Mars' - they're all smoking up a storm. What happened to reduce cig consumption was a gradual confirmation that it is definitely bad for you (cancer studies and so on). These were reported in the press and people eventually coupled them with the offensive smelliness of smoking, the cost and its impact on others through passive smoking. All these factors combined to reduce smoking to around 25-30% of the adult population. But there it sticks. And no amount of labelling is going to change that number. Other factors such as peer pressure, fashion etc will continue to lead some people in to the fag trap, from which hopefully more and more will escape, but don't bet on it.

But it takes years for attitudes to a drug change - and you have to ask, if a drug goes out of fashion what's going to replace it? If alcohol goes the same way as tobacco - so that only 30% instead of 98% use it, then what is going to come in instead? Do we really want to sacrifice the pub as a cornerstone of community life by driving down alcohol sales to a noncommercial point? I don't think so. Instead we need to strike a balance. Eat, drink and be merry a few times a week. Besides the advice on the number of units it's safe to consume is in danger of falling in to disrepute. Wine and beers have more alcohol in them now than when the limits were suggested, so the idea you can measure units by the glass is WRONG. Glasses have got bigger too, so a glass of wine in a pub these days probably contains at least two units. Follow the guv's advice and you'll be seriously pissed - a lot. And labels won't help.

I Need Police Help!!

2007-02-02T06:55:00.000-08:00

I've thoroughly enjoyed the comment and discussion with my blogging police colleagues over the last few months/weeks, but now I need your thoughts - and any thoughts of your contacts at home or abroad.

I live in a nice place near a nice town. The view from my bedroom window is shown on this post. It's a recreation field owned by the local Parish Council, which means it's owned very locally. It's incredibly well used (the photo was taken at about 7.a.m recently, just to show its beautiosity). The local kids' football clubs use it for training and matches, dogs get walked, teenagers hang out on it in the summer and yes, a little dope is smoked by them and probably some naughty alcohol drunk too. The latter (teenage kids ((and I own some)) can be a bit of a pain during the summer, a bit noisy late at night - but hell it's better than having them hanging around street corners or joyriding round the streets.

The district council has now decided in its wisdom that this piece of lovelyness could comfortably hold 50 new houses. A greenfield development that not only destroys a vital piece of recreation land but will in my view completely f*** up the local community. And I don't care about house prices, I don't think the price of mine will go down as a result of any build; it just seems so stupid to destroy this land for 50 houses. What's more, I support the idea of building more houses for local essential workers e.g new cops, nurses and other relatively low-paid workers - why shouldn't they live somewhere nice like I do? But if they do build on this piece of land then those very same workers won't have anywhere for their kids to play (did I mention a playpark will go down under the JCB's too?) with the obvious results - hanging around on the streets, frightening the older residents, getting in to trouble..... and oh I can't keep on with this.

So if you - or anyone else can give me ideas about the consequences for law 'n' order this type of development might bring, or even if you think I'm wrong please post your comments.

Class A Stupidity

2007-01-20T03:05:00.000-08:00

With a great fanfare and lots of self-righteous backslapping the government just announced it had decided to upgrade methamphetamine - AKA Crystal Meth to a class A drug under the 1971 Misuse of drugs act. What does this mean we ask ourselves except heavier penalties for possession i.e. up to seven years in the jug? Not to mention dealing, supply and so on which gets you fourteen years.

What this means.

Greater profits for the people who make and distribute the stuff. This is because they increase their margins to take in to account the increased risks or penalties for getting caught.

Uprates the attractiveness of and interest in the drug by potential users. They don't get deterred by the penalties (if they did we wouldn't have anyone using smack). And making it VERY illegal and doing so with burst of publicity is like advertising that this is A DRUG WHICH WORKS in letters of fire 10 feet high. In short it creates a market/demand.

Increases the number of illicit factories making the drug in order to meet the demand. What this in turn does is increase the risks to the emergency services and communities. Not from the users of the drug but from the fact that the drug is made in domestic kitchens from some very iffy precursor chemicals which tend to blow up unexpectedly or leave a dangerous toxic sludge behind once the process is finished.

What it does not do is reduce the risks of illicit drug use or stop supply and possession. Shame really.

Gamble, Gamble, Gamble

2007-01-16T14:02:00.000-08:00

Good grief, it's gambling madness out there. The media have (has?) suddenly woken up to the interesting fact that there is a new gambling act about to come in to play - so to speak. What we are seeing now is a classic addiction issue. An increase in availability of a drug, in this case gambling, inevitably leads to an increase in use of the drug with an inescapable fallout. By that I mean the social and health downside. More family breakdown, jobs lost, debt, crime, homelessness ...... But what the Australian experience of gambling liberalisation tells us is that despite the downside the government (of whatever hue) becomes itself addicted to the mothers' milk of hugely increased tax revenues. And they can't give it up.

Emergency Assistance

2007-01-12T02:45:00.000-08:00

I've just read a couple of police blogs, most recently Totallyunpc http://totallyun-pc.blogspot.com/ which have been thoughtful and insightful pieces about the stresses and strains of police work. They include gripping and moving accounts of life-threatening events in which they were involved. Totallyunpc also had a think about whether or not counselling helps in the aftermath of such distressing circumstances. So I thought I would post today about some of my experiences of working with emergency service staff.

In my time (I used to be a nurse back in the day) I have been involved in emergencies - cutting down someone who had hung himself and walking in to a ward bathroom to find blood up the walls and a dying patient in the bath - slashed wrists. Amazingly we saved both of them but I still dream about them from time-to-time. So I'm not completely ignorant of the horrors that staff in 'extreme' occupations see. However, I have also seen a number of emergency service personnel in my current guise - working in the drugs and alcohol treatment field.

Usually they are self-referrals because naturally they're concerned about confidentiality and I have seen police officers mired in cocaine or alcohol, ambulance bods the same. In almost every case the person can link their drinking or drug taking to a specific and awful incident or series of incidents. Usually they have a history of social drinking or drug use which begins to escalate after attendances at incidents. Often they have also experienced feelings of desperation when unable to help a victim or a colleague who is in dire straits. What confuses people though is that often they don't begin to feel depressed or upset until quite some time after the event(s), by which time they're drinking too much or gobbling down tranquillisers or sometimes street drugs. This usually gets noticed by wives/husbands/girlfriends/boyfriends and they start to feel they are losing it. What also makes it doubly difficult for emergency staff to seek help are complicating factors such as:

Pride - 'it's me that helps people not the other way round'.
Fear: Of losing a job.
Loss of face in front of other colleagues, especially in the stiff upper lip, make a joke of it culture of some services.

and so on. But in fact what is often the case is that they are suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, what used to be called shell-shock by the armed services. PTSD usually appears some months after the event(s) and is often a complete surprise to the victim who had thought they were ok thankyou. By the time they end up with me though they have probably been to the GP and been misdiagnosed or just given pills or wrongly diagnosed as having a drink or drug problem. Where the good work comes in by experienced and thoughtful drug treatment staff is to help the worker understand what has happened to them and why and to give practical help with the drink and drug use. This coupled with quality counselling which helps the worker talk through their distress and upset and maybe some anti-depressants can solve the problem most of the time. Sometimes the person returns to active duty and is fine or sometimes they recognise that time's up and to save their sanity they should do something else.

And sometimes it helps just to write it all down.

Sniffing notes

2007-01-11T12:51:00.000-08:00

In today's news is the useful fact that 100% of Irish Euro notes are contaminated with cocaine powder. It varies in strength from VERY contaminated, i.e. been used for snorting purposes; to only a bit, which suggests the note has been somewhere where cocaine is too.

So here we are, Ireland's famed Guinness drinking habit seems to be on the verge of losing out to a coke (that's cocaine not the other sorts) habit. Or perhaps not, after all cocaine does improve one's appetite for alcohol too. But I think it's just a sign of the times. A successful economy brings with it more spare cash. And one thing which you can spend it on is drugs. So I suspect we will see major job opportunities for people like me in Ireland in the next few years.

Here we see a picture of a famous dog who could be coked up - note the speed and the gritted teeth. Probably heading for Ireland.

I promise not to arrest anyone

2007-01-05T03:44:00.000-08:00

Continuing on my current theme about police blogging. I'm beginning to get a bit obsessed by it/them. Some of them really are very funny as are some of the comments they generate. But when they stray in to commenting on my area of expertise they are often free and easy with inaccurate views and information. A particular hobby horse is the oft-held police view that all drug users are 'slags, chavs, hopeless-criminals-for-whom-treatment-is-a-soft-option-and-anyway-it-doesn't-work' and so on.

I don't pretend to be an expert on the law or even on the police and their work. But I do know a great deal about drugs and drug treatment and I know that treatment works and that there is a huge amount of evidence to show that's the case. I also know that enforcement has by and large failed to reduce drug use despite the huge disparity between what gets spent on drug enforcement (A LOT) and what gets spent on treatment (not very much in comparison) . Yes, we can understand the police's frustration when they arrest yet another person who is using drugs and thieving to support their habit who claims to be in treatment. But this doesn't mean the treatment can't or won't work given the right treatment and the right circumstances. It's just that the police mostly don't know enough about how treatment works or how to get people in to it, this despite the advent of arrest referral schemes, DTTO's (Drug Treatment and Testing Orders) etc.

And this brings me to the nub of my concerns over police commenting on treatment. They're not qualified to do so, but their comments still carry the authority that goes with the uniform and gullible people reading their blogs will believe them without challenge.

So, if I promise not arrest anyone will they hold back on comments about drug treatment and its efficacy? Doubt it but you never know.

Moaning and groaning

2006-12-29T07:11:00.000-08:00

I pointed out to the police blogger mentioned in my recent post that being new to police blogs I had been staggered by the sheer amount of moaning which goes on. If it's not the 'crims, slags, low-lifes' etc who get them going it's the paperwork. PC Bloggs obviously read my comments and responded wittily about 'institutional moaning' in the police service and the need for a commission to look in to it and report.

It got me thinking about moaning in our field - there is certainly a lot of it about paperwork and demands for information from all sides. But I think, at least in my own agency that we try to explain to staff about why information is needed and to give them strategies for easing the burdens of paperwork. I hope we do any way.

However, looking at our intranet there isn't a great deal of moaning and there is a lot of constructive thought and feedback. Hopefully not just because I can access the intranet too.

Back in the jug again

2006-12-20T03:54:00.000-08:00

I've been off for a couple of months i.e. not posting here although active elsewhere. I've also been introduced to the wonderful world of police blogging. I got in to it via Tom Reynolds' excellent 'Random Acts of Reality' http://randomreality.blogware.com blog which details his life as an every day London paramedic. He cites a number of police blogs so a couple of clicks and I was there.

I work a lot with the police in my day job so I think it's legitimate for Drugsblogger to write about them from time-to-time. In fact, reading my last blog I realise I was being a bit unkind. There again, reading some police blogs and their views when they get going about 'slags, civilians, crims, pond-life, low-life scum' and so on my views are positively angelic. However, they are also, in many cases a real insight in to the police's day job and the ups and downs of same. Many of them are also absolutely hilarious, especially PC Bloggs. http://pcbloggs.blogspot.com/

Strangely, or perhaps not, a lot of my staff who are outreach workers feel a real affinity with the plods. Mostly because they and other people whose job is on the street are some of the few professionsals who have the faintest idea of the reality of what goes on in our neighbourhoods day-in, day-out. So there is a kind of camaraderie of the steets if you like, even though we have very different ways of approaching similar problems. As soon as I can work out how to do it, I'll post some links to good police sites.

Please - it's just another drug

2006-10-18T07:04:00.000-07:00

Had a call from the local press this morning - did we know anything about meth-amphetamine as the police are organising a big conference about it? The machine is cranking up. That is the publicity machine and as is often the case it's driven by the police. This happens with every 'new' drug, we get a scare which succeeds in:

Raising interest and curiosity in the drug.
Marketing it.
Frightening Mums and Dads
Increasing calls to treatment agencies from the worried well, the press and so on.

Of course the police would argue that they are putting a vital message out to the public aimed at preventing the spread of the drug's use. Which is very laudable but never, ever works. What it does do though is:

Advance some people's careers as they become the local 'expert' on this new threat to civilisation.
Attracts funding - e.g. specialist anti-meth squads are set up.
Loses sight of the real risks of the drug in a fog of myth-making and error.

In previous blogs I have metioned the risks of meth-amphetamine, but if I hear once more that it - or any drug, is instantly addictive - somebody shoot me and put me out of my misery. The biggest risk associated with it is disinhibition and increased sexual risk-taking which can lead to unpleasant diseases. As can injecting it or any other drug. So let's all sit back and watch the next drug panic lift-off.

You might as well die.

2006-10-13T03:18:00.000-07:00

Bad news today about possible/likely closures of residential rehab beds. There are about 5-600 beds in residential units around the UK for the treatment of people with drug and alcohol problems. They tend to be used as a weapon of last resort by referring agencies – we send people to them when all else in the community has failed or is likely to fail. And research evidence shows that provided clients stay in them for a reasonable time (the longer the better, but three months seems to be the key) then outcomes can be good.

But funding has been getting tighter and tighter. In my own area the bar for getting funding for rehab (from Social Services) has been getting higher and higher, until last year you had to be practically dead before funding was agreed. By doing this it ensured that the budget was not completely spent and therefore this year allowed the budget to be cut back to the amount spent last year. Cunning really as it could then be presented as no cut in funding on last year’s spend but is in fact a cut in the total budget available.
Whilst treatment in the community has got much better there still remain a hardcore of people for whom the only real chance they have is residential rehab. But hey, they’re only junkies so who cares?

Mr Tony - it's goodbye from him.

2006-09-27T07:45:00.000-07:00

Well almost goodbye anyway. I can't resist a comment on our PM as he reaches the gradual end of his career and waves ta-ta to the Labour Party conference. After all it's his government that has been the architect of the most recent 10 year drugs strategy.

Did drugs policy turn to dust in our mouths after New Labour's win in '97. Yes and no. Yes because of the continued and wasteful emphasis on law'n'order as an answer to drug use/dealing/importation etc. We now have more people in prison than ever before, many of them on drug-related offences. We have a miltary presence in Afghanistan at huge cost, without support of NATO (thanks partners) and are impotently overseeing the best Afghan opium harvest in God knows how long. Our Navy operates all around the world on drug interdiction work, notably in the Carribean, but the price of cocaine and crack just keeps on dropping. Despite the government's best efforts new drugs have arrived with a bang and rapidly become established on the scene (crack/cocaine again).

But no, because there have been some good results. More people are in treatment than ever before and are being seen quicker and more effectively. We know a lot more about the importance of retaining people in treatment and, despite some worrying signs we have succeeded in keeping HIV infections amongst IDU's to a relatively low proportion of the injecting community. Contrast this to the US which is seeing near 3rd World rates of infection amongst injectors in some parts of the country.

So two cheers for Mr Tony and his drugs policy.

Am I sorry to see him go? Well there's always the chance he won't. Who knows what might happen between now and his intended gold watch and goodbye kiss time? One can imagine a major event - another 7/7 which forces him to stay on 'for the good of the country because collegaues have prevailed on him to stay'. Or whatever. But presuming he does go I'll miss some of his routines.

He does seem a reasonably paid up member of the human race.
It's been lovely to see 10 Downing St inhabited by a family and kids again.
Great sense of humour.
The minimum wage, devolution of Scotland and Wales and a peace of sorts in Northern Ireland - all good things.

And the rubbish? Iraq. Or rather the hiding of the truth. If he'd said at the beginning that we were going in to get rid of Saddam we might have gone along with it. But the dissembling and half truths about WMD and the slavish following of US policy blotted his copy-book for ever.

Why bother?

2006-09-27T07:18:00.000-07:00

Lots of news reports here about a cannabis 'drought'. The dry patch seems to have been brought on by a series of co-odinated raids by police around the country targeting so-called 'pot farms'. These are indoor house-based growing areas (usually in a loft or basement) where pokey skunk is grown under lights. So some parts of the UK are reporting skunk as being difficult to get hold of.

Actually there's nothing new in indoor cultivation of puff, it's been going on for years. People usually get caught because their domestic consumption of electricity reaches industrial levels on account of the powerful lights needed to force growth. When I worked in Wales growers were much wilier. Those of you who know Wales will remember that much of it is covered in forest. So the growers would go off to a remote forest site and plant a patch of cannabis then go away again, returning occasionally to check on the crop. The only way the site could be spotted was from the air so it was a low risk/high return method of cultivation.

However, interdiction by the enforcement agencies (interdiction? Am I becoming an American?) meant that more growers were forced inside and to make best use of limited room began to turn to stronger, higher yield plants producing skunk. So now instead of smoking bright, breezy, crackly grass everyone gets off on the more powerful skunk. With consequent raised risks of mental health problems or an overwhelming desire to lie down. A lot.

This is what happens when there is a cannabis drought.

1. Some people will turn to whatever's available, i.e. class A's such as heroin or crack.
2. Much more sophiosticated and nastier dealers will step in to meet the demand created by shopping your local neighbourhood social grower/dealer.
3. Everyone gets drunk instead. Alcohol = more violence whereas the oh-be-joyful usually means sitting around stoned and happy.
4. People who self-medicate medical conditions such as MS suffer, especially if there is no medical, prescription cannabis available either.

Need I go on?

What you may ask is the alternative? Well one answer could be manageed dealing zones or coffee shops on the dutch lines. Never happen here though.

Of course there are risks associated with any drug and I'm certainly not advocating the use of this or any other drug - but come on. When will governements and the police do risk assessments on the consequences of their actions?

It's all completely bonkers

2006-09-19T05:13:00.000-07:00

Don’t do drugs – just, just, DON’T!!

Because we say so.

Haven’t blogged for a while again – more bereavement and illness in the family I’m afraid, but I hope to get back to regular blogging soon.

While I’ve been away however things have been afoot.

Pre-pregnancy: Yes it is now possible for women to be classed as ‘pre-pregnant’ i.e. if they are fertile and menstruating then they have the potential to have a baby. Therefore, argue the pre-pregnancy advocates, women have a duty to abstain from drink and drugs at all times in case they get pregnant. Er, can we see some tiny flaws in this argument? Yes we can. A) Contraception, B) Some drugs reduce or prevent menstruation but eggs are still produced. So the user thinks they can’t get pregnant – but they can. What is it with mostly male politicians and opinion formers that they wish to control women’s bodies? Most women who become pregnant give up or radically moderate their drink and drug use all on their own.

Our ACMD has come out in favour of reducing the amount of alcohol young people can consume and drive. This seems quite sensible as most accidents happen to young people. But our transport minister, the wonderfully named Steven Ladyman hit the airwaves, said he hadn’t read the report but ‘would consider it carefully’ and promptly announced that change wouldn’t even be considered.

So it’s all still going on with good sense and thoughts disappearing under the usual waves of stupidity, thought/media control and a sheer inability to cope with the truth.

Still, it all gives me something to write about. Pip! Pip!

Meth Madness?

2006-06-22T03:34:00.000-07:00

Our Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs has advised ministers that it's time for Methamphetamine to be taken seriously and placed in the Class A category - that's the most serious drugs classification carrying the heaviest penalties.

I guess that meth (crystal meth, yabber etc etc) is going to really present a major problem on the enforcement front. It's easy to get the raw materials and it's easy to cook up at home in the kitchen, although having said that it seems that one of the biggest risks is in-house cooking explosions. So enforcement is going to be a real challenge. That means that re-catgorising to a class A is likely to have a negative impact, forcing users away from treatment because they feel they are at greater risk of prosecution if they come forward. It's also likely that with production so easy, many more people will fall in to the user/producer category risking hefty punishment as dealers when in fact they're cooking it up for their own use.

It's the same old story - there are real risks associated with the drug, not least the alleged increase in disinhibition and subsequent unsafe sex plus all the usual harms associated with mental health, injecting and so on. So too, the sludge and crud left behind from the cooking up is horribly toxic and presents a real pollution risk. Thus the governement feels it has to act. But we know full well that class A classification is no deterrent and may have a negative effect.

Watch this space for reports and moral panics from the press. Crystal meth? It's the new crack/cocaine - and look what happened to that.

Is Mr Tony ill?

2006-05-16T08:07:00.000-07:00

Sadly haven’t had much chance to blog recently with death and illness in the family but hey! Time to post.

The Prime Minister has started off on one about the need to reform the criminal justice system – again. Meanwhile everyone in the CJS wants some peace and quiet to let the last set of reforms and re-organisations bed down and made to work. Why is this of concern to Drugsblogger? Well we have – in my day job - a lot to do with the criminal justice system, running projects for it and dealing with offenders – so we get the sharp end i.e. civil servants yelling at us for results.

This call for further reform is a sign perhaps that it’s time for Mr Blair to go – he seems to be falling in to a number of traps:

‘I am hard – wired in to the concerns of the British people’. That he and only he is in touch with the mood of the people – the zeitgeist if you will. This is a common way for PM’s to start feeling after being in the job too long – viz. M. Thatcher. Actually, it’s almost certainly a sign that he’s losing it.
‘More new laws now!!’ This isn’t just confined to the PM, other politicians suffer from it too – a need to legislate or bring in new laws when what’s needed is the refinement and tweaking of existing law or policy to make it work properly. But legislating is what governments and parliaments do, so they have to do more of it to show that they are doing something. For example, the Home Secretary (who is it today by the way?) responded to the release and non-deportation of a large number of people who should have been considered for same by….. more laws. The reality of it is that the existing bureaucracies weren’t working properly together and that’s what needs to change.
‘You’re fired’. Indulging in major cabinet re-shuffles that give the impression of action but sadly look like the deckchairs on the Titanic. George Bush is another example of this problem.
‘We must get the message across’. A conviction that if only the government’s all-round fantasticness could be communicated to the people then the people would be happy and vote the government in again. Wrong, just wrong. Sometimes we do get it and don’t like it and no amount of spin, haranguing or announcements will change that.
I think Tony B has been a good, possibly great PM, but it would be sad if he gets too many of the above symptoms and goes down in flames and tears before bedtime.

ASBO'd Out

2006-03-30T04:49:00.000-08:00

I haven't posted for a while - a death in the family, but I'm back now and feeling excercised about ASBO's. If you don't know what they are ASBO = Anti-Social Behaviour Order. You can be given one for a range of badness - racism, making your neighbour's lives hell (good), shouting and swearing in the street when you have Tourettes (mistake), hitting people when you have autism (just ridiculous) and so on. Although you do not get a criminal record when given an ASBO, you can be sent to jail if you break the conditions. There's no doubt in my mind that if they are thoughtfully applied they can dramatically improve life for people on, for example, estates overrun by loud noisy neighbours or kids yelling racist abiuse at the owner sof the local cornershop. But there's the rub.

My agency recently had a client who was ASBO'd for boozing and fighting in the town - fair enough you might say. Except the client didn't understand the conditions - learning disability. And the ASBO excluded the client from our premises where treatment was available and being given with some success. So the client got arrested for coming to see us. Turned out that the people responsible for the ASBO conditions didn't know the above and hadn't consulted. And this sort of thing is happening all over the place.

Oh dear George

2006-02-28T08:06:00.000-08:00

George Michael's in trouble with the law again, this time in the UK. He was found (allegedly) slumped over his car's steering wheel and in possession of class C drugs. In the UK class C's are usually cannabis, anabolic steroids or drugs like Valium - the latter if they're not prescribed for you.

Local media asked me for a comment and although I couldn't (and wouldn't) talk about Mr M it gave us a chance to try to put right the misconception that cannabis has been legalised in the UK. It hasn't and although it's been downgraded it still carries some risks for some people and still can carry quite unpleasant penalties even for simple possession.

Don't know what's going on withGeorge though, I mean it's a bit of a giveaway falling asleep near London's Hyde Park corner. Poor bloke, hope he's Ok.

2006-01-24T06:46:00.000-08:00

There’s been a really unpleasant murder here in the UK, London to be precise. Happy slapping as it’s become known is a craze amongst some young people involving running up behind strangers, slapping them around the back and filming the whole incident on a mobile (cell) phone. However, this one went far too far with a gang of youngsters killing a guy on London’s south bank and attacking 7 or 8 other people – and filming it all.

Sadly, it looks as if this was all too predictable in the light of what we know about drugs and alcohol use and people who go on to kill. One of the young perpetrators, a teenaged girl, had a history of family drug use – according to newspapers she had to watch her mum inject heroin when she was tiny. She was abandoned at age 3, ended up in care and so on. She went out on slapping expeditions from her care home. We know that people with her kind of history are at a greater risk of problematic drug and alcohol use themselves too and lo and behold the tabloids have been quick to pick up on her cannabis use. She seems to have had, according to the judge a chaotic and fragmented emotional life.

Much of the literature on drug-related deaths – suicides and murders as well as accident or illness suggests that some people who kill and use drugs or alcohol often show indicators like this girl’s in earlier life – which if there is effective intervention can be helped and thus reduce the risk to self or others.

Now I’m not saying she shouldn’t go to jail – her diaries and phone records show that she at least had an idea that what she was doing was wrong. However, the reality of it seems to be that our inability to intervene effectively and early with high risk youngsters can result in this kind of tragedy. One man’s life taken away and a young girl’s brought to a halt.

You aren't what you drink.

2006-01-09T07:51:00.000-08:00

One of our more prominent political leaders, Charles Kennedy of the Liberal Democrats has been hounded out of his job as leader of his party – ostensibly because he has a drink problem.

This has not been an edifying sight although the man himself is receiving treatment and has been dignified throughout the whole sorry mess. What’s been unpleasant has been the sight of his parliamentary colleagues and the massed ranks of the media using his drink problem to lever him out of his job.

Now, whether or not he was unable to do his job isn’t for me to comment on – but what message does this send to the rest of us? That if you have trouble with drink, you’d better keep it quiet or you’ll get the sack? That your employer won’t give you a chance to straighten up and get treatment first? That a personal and intensely private problem can be splattered all over the media and your life messed up by colleagues and journos, plus what is it with this confessional stuff? Why if you have a drink problem must you be expected to fess up in public about it to all and sundry, whether you’re a public figure or not? If alcoholism is an illness, which I for one doubt but let’s for the sake of argument say it is – what other illness requires public humiliation in this way? Yes, by all means admit to yourself you have a problem and tell your nearest and dearest but why must so many people announce themselves as a ‘former alcoholic’ in print or in person? And then expect others to do so too. That’s taking over-identification with a substance to far too extreme a degree.

Did he really do that many drugs?

2006-01-04T08:13:00.000-08:00

I've been a long-term fan of Hunter S Thompson's writings, especially 'Fear and Loathing' and his collected works in 'The Great Shark Hunt'. He was certainly abosolutely right about a lot of stuff, especially when it came to nailing Nixon, long before Watergate. But did he really take the industrial qualtities of drugs and alcohol he claims to have done? And still write? If he did maybe he had a tremendous and patient editor or editors, able to lash his ramblings in to somehting representing sense.

Anyone got any insight in to what he did and indeed how he did it for so long? Or was there a considerable amount of ahem, exaggeration?

Oy!! Copper!!

2005-12-19T07:25:00.000-08:00

It seems that Britain's most enthusiastic police officer has been targeting the easy to arrest. Feted as the most active of all police officers, the cop concerned has been arresting people right, left and centre at more than twice the national average - about 4 arrests a day. But from national press reports and complaints from agencies on his beat, it sounds as if he's been going after the easy nick, turning up at homeless hostels and day centres to arrest people, even those who are in treatment for drug problems.

Now, nobody, least of all me is saying that the police shouldn't arrest any one who is breaking the law - but this has all the halmarks of police going after an easy target without thought for whether there might be different or better ways to deal with criminality, especially if it's a treatable drug problem. I'd be interested to know if his arrest rate (activity) is turning in to convictions (outcomes) and if his arrestees fare better than those in treatment as far as their criminal activity is concerned. I bet we won't be told though.

The needle and the damage done

2005-12-15T05:53:00.000-08:00

Good grief, I feel like a rant about stuff today. It’s just one of those days. Despite some cracking good news about my agency developing a new service with a shed-load of new money (result!) and completing on a deal (another result!) I am in a slough of despond and minor blues.

Why should this be? We do good deeds in a naughty world, or at least we help those individual drug users whose lives are messed up, to find a way through some of their problems. We occasionally manage to influence policy in a good way so that our drug laws don’t descend in to complete madness. But it’s just not working for me today.

I think that sometimes, when you work in this field, one which, let’s be candid here, does involve unpleasantness, sometimes disease and even death coupled with some very stupid local and national politicking – well it can just get you down. It’s grind, grind, grind, occasional joyful success, grind, grind, grind…….. Same as everybody else I suppose.

Good things about working in the drugs field:

Watching some people get back on track.
Getting some new services up and running to do more of the same.
Working with terrific people.
Excellent comedy value.
Like the client group.
Ok, I have some, limited power.

Bad things:

Too much needless death and despair.
Too many idiots sounding off about drugs and drug users when they know so little and understand less.
Trying to balance the need to have a work ethos that’s fun and creative for staff whilst dealing with faceless government departments and overly cautious management.
Avoiding talking about my job outside work because like with supermarkets – everyone’s got a view.
Getting pathetically maudlin and self-pitying as a result.

So next up on this blog – an effort to lighten up.

There's a lot of it about

2005-12-14T08:47:00.000-08:00

A LOT of drugs and alcohol stuff around here in the UK at the moment, here’s a summary.

Headline in my local free sheet – ‘Pubs quiet’. Could have said the same for pretty much the whole of the country as 24 hour opening came and went without the predicted riot.
Pete Doherty – no charges apparently (see my earlier post).
Kate Moss – did go to rehab (see my earlier post).
We need more syringe exchange capacity quick – many more people are injecting crack. It has short half life (length of time it stays active in the body) so if you want to stay up you need to inject more – so need more fresh kit. A government Healthcare Commission October 05 press release says that the number of IDU’s – injecting drug users – infected with HIV has risen from 1 in 100 to 1 in 65. This is very scary.
Cannabis drives you mad – yes or no? Amidst calls for its re-classification – again and upgrading to Class B, we await the deliberations of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. I think:

a) Some cannabis around is genetically modified and much, much stronger than ordinary herbal puff. Any refined drug is more powerful than its herbal equivalent e.g. skunk v herb, heroin v opium, coca leaf v cocaine, so the risks are greater.
b) People with an underlying mental health problem or a pre-existing mental illness risk acute onset of the illness if they use cannabis or any other mind-altering substance.
c) Cannabis is not a drug for the sensitive. Any drug which makes your friend’s teeth hilarious will also exacerbate bad feelings too. So taking it when you’re upset or unhappy will probably result in more unhappiness.
d) Conversely there is anecdotal evidence that some people with mental health problems get some relief from cannabis – but I haven’t seen any literature to support this so my advice is still to keep away from it if you have a mental health problem.
e) Between 2m and 5m people are thought to be active cannabis users in Britain today. The mental health services are not over-run with these people coming down with psychotic episodes. Which does suggest that a causal link i.e. smoking dope makes you mad is not likely except under the above circumstances – see a, b, and c above.
f) There are as yet no reports of people taking the drug for conditions such as MS or other medical reasons are suffering a greater incidence of psychosis. Just goes to show that the set and setting of drug use remains important.You never see members of our esteemed media coughing up to regular, recreational drug use – but they can’t wait to blow the gaff on every one else.