Search results

After discovering that the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, in their 38 years of public service, had not sought, nor been provided, independent legal advice regarding the breadth and scope of their statutory remit under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (HM Government, 1971), Casey Hardison wrote the following letter to the Council chair addressing this failure.

Reviews the response of Government and drug agencies to the problem of volatile substance abuse (VSA). Describes how VSA has, in the past, been treated differently to abuse of other drugs, both legal and illegal, but that most agencies now believe it should be dealt with alongside other drugs. Reviews the main findings of a report on volatile substances from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, and the Government’s response to it. Describes the measure put in place in the UK to help control the supply of sniffable substances, and the need for education campaigns for parents and young people. Concludes there are no grounds for optimism, as the latest figures on deaths due to VSA show a rise. Gives recommendations for professionals who wish to seek further help for those involved with VSA.

This article considers the recent public debate in the UK on drug classification and the role of the Advisory Council of the Misuse of Drugs, particularly following David Nutt's departure as Chair of the ACMD. It suggests that there have been flaws in the arguments on both sides, and considers some of the implications for wider debate on regulation and control.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the content of the strategy and assess its claims to be evidence based.

This study is a close-reading of the text with commentary on specific content and reference to wider contexts.

The strategy makes use of evidence in its sections on treatment. Much evidence, including that of the UK ACMD, is dismissed or ignored. The issue of funding in times of austerity is not considered in the strategy. The range and complexity of drug use and users are not fully considered.

The strategy can be seen as an idealised ambition with little basis in reality without funding to support its aims.

There is no consideration of the impact of macro-economic policy on the extent of drug misuse.

Other commentaries on the strategy are emerging. This paper is a more extensive consideration than has so far appeared.

The purpose of this paper is to illustrate the history of relevant legislation before and after the 1971 Misuse of Drugs Act (MDA).

A chronological narrative of laws and reports with concluding discussion.

That UK legislators have not made use of the evidence base available to them and have favoured enforcement rather than treatment approaches. That current UK practice has exacerbated not contain the use of and harms caused by illegal drugs.

The paper does not cover all relevant documents, especially those from non-governmental sources.

The practical implications centre on the failure of consecutive governments to reflect on and review the impact of current legislation, especially on people who use drugs.

That the situations of people who use drugs are currently ignored by the government and those proven responses which save lives and reduce harm are rejected.

The paper attempts to show the historical contexts of control and dangerousness of which the MDA is one instrument.

The purpose of this paper is to review the ongoing failure of contemporary government, and indeed its agencies, to provide basic, let alone adequate, factual information about most chemical legal highs, despite permitting their unregulated sale, and having the resources to do so.

The paper provides a working definition of legal highs, briefly describes how the market works, investigates government information services such as Talk to FRANK, analyse government policy towards legal highs, and finally posit cost effective interim solutions to fill the information gap for “Generation Meph”, the teenagers and students who are the main consumers of legal highs.

Despite permitting synthetic research chemicals to be sold as any other consumer product, the government consistently fails to provide meaningful information about them and instead emulates the tabloids by adopting a policy of covert quasi‐criminalisation through non‐approval. This raises questions not simply about government competence, but also the suitability of the 1971 Misuse of Drugs Act, and indeed the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, 40 years on. It is preferable that “Generation Meph” have access to some form of evidence‐based information about what they consume rather than to none.

The paper suggests a survey system to provide consumers with information about legal highs, which would counterbalance the scaremongering among the tabloid press.

This paper considers parents who misuse substances. The potential impacts of their substance misuse on their ability to parent effectively and safely (parenting capacity) are explored, as are some of the barriers many parents face when attempting to seek treatment for problematic substance misuse. The terms ‘use’ and ‘misuse’ are used interchangeably in this paper and ‘substances’ refers to alcohol, illicit drugs and overuse of prescribed medicines. It is important to make the distinction between parents whose use of substances does not constitute dependency and might be best described as ‘recreational or hazardous’. Such individuals might not seek treatment and estimates of prevalence rates of use among this cohort are difficult as they remain hidden from services. Parents who might already be in treatment services or who might be seeking treatment might be described as ‘problematic or dependent’ although presentation at services is neither necessary nor sufficient to assume that the individual's misuse of substances is problematic or indicative of a dependency. The use of substances is associated with numerous harms to the individual: psychologically, socially, interpersonally and physically, and is a risk factor towards negative parenting practices. The use of substances in itself is not an indication of neglectful or harmful parenting, as many parents who use substances have adequate parenting skills, however, it is more frequently associated as a risk rather than a protective factor when considering potential harms. Most of the research refers to mothers although we are aware that some fathers may have sole parenting responsibility for their children. Parents, in particular mothers, face many barriers when trying to access substance misuse treatment services. When they are in treatment, services often lack the skills and experiences to be able to balance managing child protection issues and engaging the parent in treatment. A full review of the issues associated with parenting and substance misuse is beyond the scope of this paper and the reader is referred to Fowler (2003), Cleaver et al (1999), Velleman and Templeton (2007) and Day and George (2005) and the British Psychological Society's Child Protection Portfolio (2007) for further discussion.

Under New Labour, there was no area of public policy that reflected the imprint of media influence more vividly than the issue of drugs. The sacking of Professor David Nutt, the banning of mephedrone, and arguments about the harm classification of ecstasy and cannabis have all demonstrated a government in thrall to the views of the Daily Mail and The Sun. This paper traces the contours of the media‐government relationship on drugs through content and framing analysis and interviews with former members of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD), former Home Secretary, Alan Johnson, and a leading newspaper columnist. It concludes that science was trumped by fears stoked by the media.

This is the second part of a three‐part series in which Casey Hardison investigates current UK drug policy and calls for a paradigm shift.