CRACK COCAINE
142. Crack cocaine is usually made by mixing cocaine hydrochloride
(cocaine powder) with baking soda, in water. The solution is then
heated gently until white precipitates form. The precipitate is
filtered, washed, dried, and cut or broken into small 'rocks'.
Whereas cocaine powder is usually snorted through the nose, crack
is heated in a pipe and the vapour inhaled. Crack cocaine use
is lower than cocaine use, according to the British Crime Survey:
amongst 16-59 year olds, less than 0.5% had taken it in the last
month, the same proportion in the last year and 1% had ever taken
it. Of 16-29 year olds, less than 05% had taken it in the last
month, 1% had taken it in the last year, and 2% had ever taken
it.[143]
143. Like cocaine, crack is associated with significant risks
to the health of the user, including risks of psychotic episodes,
dangerously high blood pressure and increased risk of heart attack,
as well as risks of damage to the respiratory system because of
the way in which crack crystals are smoked. To a much greater
degree than powder cocaine, however, crack also seems to be associated
with unpredictable and violent behaviour resulting in harm to
other people. Many of those who deal in it have shown a willingness
to resort to extreme violence. Like heroin, crack use is also
associated with property crime. Mr Ainsworth referred to "the
massive damage that [crack] is doing to certain communities and
inner-city areas".[144]
144. Professor John Henry told us that using habits appear
to indicate that crack is more addictive than powder cocaine:
"there is a much larger number of regular crack users than
occasional crack users, whereas there is a much smaller number
of regular cocaine users than occasional users".[145]
145. As with powder cocaine, experience on how to treat addiction
to crack is lacking. The Government, therefore, has asked a panel
of experts to look at the problem of cocaine and crack, and expects
them to report back by the end of 2002:
"we have decided in the absence of published evidence
to bring together a group of people¼who
do treat people who have crack cocaine problems, to explore with
them what they do, what their best practice is, where they have
success and then we shall work with the National Treatment Agency¼in
order to spread around the rest of the treatment sector approaches
which we feel are likely to work better than perhaps we know at
the moment".[146]
146. The lack of research evidence does not mean,
however, that nothing can be done: interventions exist which seem
to help. In addition, Dr Brewer told us that:
"there are several companies working on
a kind of [antibody] for cocaine. In principle you can now make
a blocking agent, an anti-body, an antidote to almost any drug
of abuse...We hope that within a few years we shall actually have
some drugs of this kind".[147]
147. As with cocaine, we recommend that more
treatment places are created for crack users and that resources
are channelled into researching and piloting more effective treatments.
We further recommend that in the meantime efforts are redoubled
to extinguish supply of crack cocaine.
148. Where crack is concerned we see no prospect
for compromise. We note that few of our witnesses argued outright
for legalisation. We leave it to those who do argue for general
legalisation to explain how this could be justified given that,
unlike other illegal drugs, crack can trigger violent and unpredictable
behaviour.
HEROIN
149. The proportion of the population using heroin
is relatively small, but the damage caused to individuals, families
and communities is enormous. The British Crime Survey 2000 found
that 2% of its sample had ever taken heroin, 1% in the last year,
and less than 0.5% in the last month. These proportions were the
same within the 16 to 24 age group.[148]
The number of problematic heroin users in the UK is generally
agreed to be around 200,000.[149]
These figures represent a huge increase on thirty years ago when
the estimated number of known addicts was around 1,000.[150]
150. Between 1973 and 1996 (when the scheme was
discontinued) doctors were required to notify addicts of Class
A drugs to the Home Office, to be recorded in the "Addicts'
Index". While the numbers notified are likely to be serious
understatements, a graph of the data (see overleaf) illustrates
the explosion in numbers of addicts from the 1970s to the 1990s:
116 Q. 1234. Back
117
Home Office Press Notice 070/2002, 14 March 2002. Back
118
QQ. 1237; 1242. Back
119
Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, s. 25 and Sched. 4. Back
120
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, s. 17 and 18. Back
121
Q. 178. Back
122
Estimates of ecstasy-related deaths are based on the number of
death certificates on which ecstasy appears. In 1997 the number
was 12, in 1998 it was 16, in 1999 it was 26, and in 2000 it was
36. (Health Statistics Quarterly, Spring 2002, Office
of National Statistics). Back
123
Q. 496. Back
124
Q. 497. Back
125
Drugs and the Law, p. 48. Back
126
Professor John Henry, Q. 499. Back
127
Professor Henry, Q. 500. Back
128
Professor David Nutt, Q. 470. Back
129
QQ. 401; 405. Back
130
Ev 122. Back
131
Q. 1271. Back
132
QQ. 1268; 1270. Back
133
Q. 208. Back
134
QQ. 301-2. Back
135
Drugs and the Law, p. 48. Back
136
Drug Misuse declared in 2000, pp. 34-5; 74-8. Back
137
Ibid, pp. 36; 45. Back
138
Q. 563. Back
139
Professor Nutt, Q. 484. Back
140
Independent Drug Monitoring Unit, Ev 111. Back
141
Drug Misuse declared in 2000, p. 45. Back
142
National Treatment Agency, Ev 142 Back
143
Drug Misuse declared in 2000, pp. 74-79. Back
144
Q. 1272. Back
145
Q. 488. Back
146
Rosemary Jenkins, Department of Health, Q. 46. Back
147
Q. 613. Back
148
Drug Misuse declared in 2000, pp. 74-81. Back
149
Numbers were calculated as between 162,544 and 243,820 in a recent
study, A comparison of different methods for estimating the
prevalence of systematic drug misuse in Great Britain, M Frischer,
M Hickman, F Mariani, L Kraus and L Wiessing (2001), Addiction
96 1465-1476, quoted in Official Report, 21 November 2001,
353W. Back
150
Drugs and the Law, p. 21. Back
