MEMORANDUM 33
Submitted by Islington Drug & Alcohol
Action Team
1.1 INTRODUCTION
The Select Committee has asked local Drug Action
Teams and other stakeholders whether the existing drugs policy
works. A sweeping response to this statement is impossible. There
is little doubt that the priority given to drug misuse as a result
of the 1995 and 1998 drug strategies has resulted in real progress
on most fronts. The boost for treatment, the attempts to improve
services to offenders, the emphasis on engaging with young people
are to be welcomed. Likewise, the "Communities Against Drugs"
scheme offers an excellent opportunity to deliver real improvements
at local level and build local partnerships.
However, we believe that the current debate
around overall policy direction, including issues around the legal
status of drugs, is one that needs to be had. Any decision to
relax current laws should be taken in the context of the available
evidence, and should take an honest look at prevalence and patterns
of drug use, harm minimisation and criminalisation, and whether
current laws prevent the development of innovative treatment approaches.
2. KEY AREAS
2.1 Drugs strategy or substance misuse strategy?
Alcohol needs to be taken seriously by Government.
North Islington Primary Care Group and Camden and Islington Health
Authority, as well as local providers, have emphasised the need
to develop a funded national alcohol strategy. The National Treatment
Outcome Research Study (longitudinal research into patterns of
substance misuse) has noted that increased drinking often follows
reduced drug use. Likewise, it seems odd that newly developed
Arrest Referral Schemes, Drug Treatment and Testing Order services
and the CARAT teams in prisons are unable to work with problem
drinkers. The Office of National Statistics survey of psychiatric
morbidity (1998) estimated that 6,530 people in Islington were
alcohol-dependent, compared to 4,250 drug-dependent. The lack
of a properly funded strategy makes it hard for us to meet the
needs of these people, who number over 5 per cent of our total
population.
2.2 Drugs services in prisons
Prison drugs care is another area of concern,
and we believe it should come under the auspices of the Drug Action
Teams. This would enable us to better co-ordinate post release
services and work together with different DAT's to ensure any
services that are developed meet the strategic objectives of the
DAT plans.
2.3 Need to continue increases in treatment
funding and address capacity
Treatment funding has been boosted through the
Comprehensive Spending Reviews. However, the historic underfunding
of drug services has left the field under resourced in terms of
staffing and building capacity. The National Treatment Agency
must begin to address this, delivering a national strategy to
recruit, train and retain drugs staff.
2.4 Need to look at wider definitions of treatment
Islington DAAT believes that treatment services
should offer a real choice to problem drug users. Appropriate
services are needed for young people, families, black and minority
ethnic groups and people who choose to continue their drug use.
Services should also address the wider problems of social exclusion,
and improve their interface with the regeneration agenda. This
means that aftercare and support should be provided for drug users
leaving treatment. It also means that services should work towards
ensuring that the housing, employment and training needs of former
users are taken seriously. This is especially pertinent in Inner
London, when the good work of residential treatment providers
(cost to social services £350-450 per week) is often undone
for the want of safe social housing on return to the community
(cost in rent of £50-60 per week).
3. Decriminalisation and the legal status
of different drugs
We are aware that a main consideration of this
review concerns the impact of changes in the legal status of drugs.
Islington DAAT encompasses a range of different views on this
issue. However, as a general consensus we believe that:
— A decision on whether to continue
with the status quo, or change the laws, should be made on the
best available evidence. This should seriously consider whether
issues around health, offending behaviour and treatment are best
served by existing laws.
— The legal status of cannabis and
dance drugs such as ecstasy is not something that the DAAT has
given extensive consideration. This is a result of the serious
problems we face with crack cocaine and heroin dealing/use. However,
we cannot fail to note that users of these drugs are a very small
minority of people attending treatment services and coming to
the attention of police as drug-related offenders. Consideration
should be given to dealing with users of these drugs in ways which
do not bring them into contact with the criminal justice system,
or which minimise the chances of them risking employment or educational
opportunities.
— At the same time, we also believe
that young people and others should be realistically informed
of the risks associated with taking any substances, including
alcohol, and that harm minimisation advice should be readily available
in pubs, clubs, schools and on the internet.
— We believe that the law should be
flexible enough to cope with different drug-related demands whatever
the legal status of the particular substances. For example, we
have problems in the Kings Cross area with discarded needles and
public drug use. If we were able to develop a facility where users
could inject in safety and offer primary care support at the same
time we would reduce the nuisance created by street use as well
as being able to better engage with our most chaotic users.
— The bottom line must surely be to
reduce the harm done to users and wider society, and we must take
a serious look at how we engage with drug users and community
groups. Over the last twenty years we have seen rising health,
community safety and criminal justice problems arising from increased
use of Class "A" drugs. It was highlighted at the recent
London Drug Policy Forum "availability" conference that
the never ending supply of dealers hampers the attempts of Police/Customs
and Excise to deal with the "middle market" and affects
supply routes. Though there are cultural differences that impact
on different national drugs policies, we do need to study models
of policing and treatment services in other European countries
so as to benefit from good practice and address an issue that
seems likely to be with us for some time yet.
September 2001
|
