Search results

The COVID-19 pandemic has affected many industries, and reports indicate that this includes the illicit drug market. Recent research suggests that the homeless are particularly vulnerable during the pandemic, and the UK Government has acted to house rough sleepers. Research is scarce regarding homeless people’s experiences of the illicit drug market. This study aims to explore homeless people’s experiences of the drug supply in the UK during COVID-19.

Eight homeless people who use illicit drugs, residing in hostels for homeless people in Southampton, participated in semi-structured one-on-one telephone-based interviews.

A thematic analysis revealed five themes: availability of drugs, presence of dealers, quality of drugs, finances and personal experiences. Participants reported varying experiences of the drug supply, with lockdown measures expressed as the main reason for reduced supplies, as users found it difficult to find dealers and generate income for purchasing drugs.

The results may lack generalisability to the wider population, such as rough sleepers and drug dealers, suggesting a need for further research into people’s experiences of the drug supply during COVID-19. Research on this topic could be more in-depth through the use of research methods that are convenient for the homeless population.

Services should invest in harm reduction services and encourage homeless people who use drugs to engage in substitution treatment. Homeless services should provide psychological support for homeless people who use drugs.

The changes in homeless people’s behaviour following the pandemic may have implications for their interactions with the rest of society (e.g. begging in town centres may reduce). These changes in behaviour may also change the way society can best support homeless people.

The results are partially consistent with other research findings about the illicit drug supply; however, they also suggest that some individuals experienced minimal change in the illicit drug supply.

Depression and insomnia are very significant pathologies in cancer patients as they contribute to the patient's overall cure and quality of life. Moreover, untreated depression and ongoing insomnia are associated with decreased immune responses and lower survival rates. With all disease states and especially with cancer, close attention to drug-drug interactions and the potential impact on the efficacy of therapy is paramount. One area of particular interest due to the lack of well-done clinical trials is drug-drug interaction(s) between antidepressants and cancer treatment. Pharmacokinetics of a certain drug allows for prediction of certain drug interactions based on chemical properties of the agents involved. If the agents depend on their metabolites for activity, active drug level will be decreased through this enzyme inhibition. In this paper, we looked at the cytochrome-P450 drug interactions between antidepressants and sleep aids with Selective Estrogen Receptor Modulators (SERM). Newer SERM metabolisms are less influenced by interactions with medications used to treat depression. However, tamoxifen metabolism could be severely altered by several antidepressants. This has direct consequences as patients on tamoxifen and antidepressant can have double the risk of relapse to cancer in two years. We discussed those interactions and made recommendations for clinical use.

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.

The importance of employment as part of the recovery process for problem drug users has been increasingly recognised and the UK government is developing policies to encourage drug users on out‐of‐work benefits to engage with treatment and find work. There is slim evidence to support the use of welfare benefit sanctions for this group, although the government is committed to piloting such programmes and fully evaluating before any national roll‐out. However, more attention needs to be given to addressing employers' concerns about risks associated with hiring recovering drug users and challenging negative stereotypes and stigma if ambitions to get this group back to work are to be realised.

States that management faces a dilemma when it rightly desires to create and maintain a drug‐free work environment. Addresses the need to test employees to ensure a safe and productive workplace while ensuring that the testing procedures are neither demeaning to employees or viewed as an invasion of privacy. Recommends the establishment of a five‐step process. States that asking and answering the right questions before setting policy in this sensitive human resources area is essential. The framework presented is designed to assist management in planning for the development of a drug testing programme, responsive to the needs of the organization and its employees.

Peter French has worked as a police officer and chief inspector for over 30 years. His experience in dealing with drug‐related crimes and a recent visit to the States has convinced him that the UK needs more, not less, criminal justice interventions. Drug Courts, he argues, increase treatment retention and offer greater flexibility to help people stay the course. Though they work for the US, with up to 75% success rates, will they work for the UK? Find out why Peter French thinks they will, with bells on.

In Kyrgyzstan the prevalence of injecting drug behaviour is among the highest found throughout the world. Health promotion training, improved health care and needle/syringe exchange (NSE) programmes have been shown to decrease risk behaviour among injecting drug users. In Kyrgyzstan, an intervention study with training of prison staff and prisoners was performed in one prison. Before and after the training, a random selection of the prisoners answered a questionnaire about drug use, risk behaviour and health care. The survey was carried out in both the intervention prison and in a reference prison. The number of drug users, the use of drugs and risk behaviour were improved significantly within half a year and, especially, the injection and use of drugs decreased in the intervention group. The study clearly shows that increased focus, improved healthcare and training of prisoners and staff on drug use and harm reduction can reduce both use of drugs and risk behaviour.

Ironically, one of the biggest legal hazards under misuse of drugs legislation is one of the least well‐known. Offences such as unlawful production and supply of drugs are well‐established in the public domain, but the occurrence of these crimes, among others, can constitute a separate offence when committed in premises. The specific offence in question is section 8 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, which is designed to compel persons who are the occupiers of premises, or otherwise concerned in their management, to self‐police such places against certain drug activities. This article will examine the main provisions of section 8 and then argue that it is in need of reform in order to bring it more effectively into the 21st century.