MEMORANDUM 39
Submitted by the London Borough of
Camden
1. BACKGROUND
1.1 In the London Borough of Camden we have
three major open drug markets: in the West End, Kings Cross and
Camden Town. Research undertaken in the West End market shows
that the market has national and international elements, and we
have no reason to assume that this is not the case in the other
drug markets within the borough. Camden Police achieve a higher
than average rate of judicial disposals for supply and possession
of Class A drugs as a proportion of all drugs offences (44 per
cent compared to 30 per cent). Camden has a higher than average
proportion of its population in drug treatment services (10.32
per 1000 compared to a national average of 2.63)[9].
It is clear that, in Camden, we are at the "sharp end"
of the country's drug problem, and we submit our views to the
Committee from a position of experience in dealing with the problem
over many years.
1.2 Before considering whether existing
drug policy works, it is important to be clear about its aims.
We have reached broad agreement that there are three key policy
aims:
1.2.1 to reduce drug-related crime;
1.2.2 to improve the quality of life for
our communities (including drug users);
1.2.3 to protect vulnerable young people.
1.3 It is also important to recognise the
absolute dominance of the criminalised market as the underlying
barrier to achieving these aims, and the seeming impossibility
of making an impact on the market in the current policy framework.
A recent London Drug Policy Forum conference on Availability heard
presentations from HM Customs and Excise, the National Crime Intelligence
Service, the Regional Crime Squad and the Drugs Directorate of
the Metropolitan Police. Each speaker carried the same message:
having increased the sophistication of their operations and the
resources expended, there was still no evidence of any impact
on our national drug markets; rather there was, perhaps, an unsupported
assumption that, in the absence of such enforcement activity,
drugs may have been more widely available at cheaper prices.
1.4 This experience is mirrored at the local
level. Camden police are exceedingly good at, and are widely recognised
for, the high quality of their partnership working at both a strategic
and an operational level. Project Lilac has allowed us to focus
£2 million of Targeted Policing Initiative funding on an
area of approximately two square miles in the West End to pilot
methods for permanently disrupting drug markets. Highly developed
partnership working across agencies and across boroughs (in particular
with the City of Westminster), has produced a greater understanding
of the components of the drug market, some impact on the quality
of life issues for West End communities, an impressive number
of judicial disposals for drug supply crimes, and no discernible
impact on the market.
1.5 Similarly Operation Welwyn in Kings
Cross, which has run for eight years, has found that test-purchase
operations, which are both resource-intensive and dangerous, followed
by mass arrest phases, have made no discernible difference to
drug supply in the Kings Cross area. Indeed, open drug dealing
continues in prominent locations.
1.6 Finally, research demonstrates that
problematic, dependent drug and alcohol use is usually a symptom
of more complex and entrenched social problems, a form of self-medication
for the ills experienced by those who are socially excluded: truants
and pupils excluded from school, the homeless, people who have
spent time in the care or protection of social services. It is
important to recognise that the demand side of the drugs market
will not be undermined until a significant impact is made on these
issues.
1.7 The criminal nature of the market has
serious adverse effects on our objectives:
— Generates large cash profits for
criminals;
— Creates negative role model for young
people of financial self-advancement by criminal activity;
— Trade is carried on in streets followed
by early injection or smoking of drugs and dumping of drugs detritus,
including needles, all regarded by our residents as highly anti-social;
— Trade is also carried on from domestic
premises, particularly on social housing estates, causing fear
and concern to other residents;
— Seeking cash for drugs generates
aggressive begging and petty theft.
2. RECOMMENDATIONS
2.1 Having agreed the aims of drug policy,
it is clear that some aspects of it are irrelevant to Camden's
situation. Policies relating to the legal status of cannabis,
for example, or the reclassification of ecstasy have no effect
on the drug problems experienced within Camden. We are aware that
cannabis use is widespread among our communities (recent school
surveys show that at least one third of Camden schoolchildren
have used cannabis by the age of 15), and we are clear that any
efforts to reduce this use will not make any significant contribution
to our agreed policy aims. The protection of vulnerable young
people is more likely to be achieved through preventing social
exclusion, than through the continuation of policies around recreational
drugs that are largely ignored and almost impossible to enforce.
We support the National Drug Strategy's focus on the drugs that
do most harm, and targeted police activity in Camden is almost
exclusively aimed at the heroin and crack markets. We recommend
that drug policy is brought in line with what is, in practice,
the "decriminalisation" of recreational drug use. A
regulated legal market in these drugs would eliminate criminal
profits in these areas and reduce the risk of injury or death
from badly formulated or wrongly self-administered ecstasy, although
easier availability could increase usage, and the Committee should
consider carefully the balance of advantage.
2.2 Similarly, police targets that concentrate
on the number of judicial disposals achieved for drug offences
are not helpful. We have concrete evidence that increasing judicial
disposals for drug supply, which usually involves expensive test-purchase
operations, has no discernible impact on the market at borough
level. The quality of life for communities affected by drug markets
can be significantly improved by high-visibility community policing
which, at the least, discourages open public drug dealing and
drug use. We strongly recommend that police targets be reviewed
to promote enforcement activity that supports the aims of drug
policy.
2.3 Given the failure over several years,
and across numerous agencies and countries, to have any significant
effect on the supply side of the drug market, we feel it is time
to consider seriously the option of undercutting the illicit market
with a regulated legal market. However, we recognise the political
difficulties in achieving this, particularly as benefits would
only be realised if this were achieved on an international level.
We therefore recommend the alternative route of managing the market
by ensuring that a legal supply of injectable drugs is provided
through the health service, with the provision of indoor space
in which drugs, both legal and illegal, can be injected safely,
and where trained professionals can offer access to appropriate
and effective health and social care services. This should be
backed up by more pro-active police efforts to discourage street
dealing and linked anti-social street behaviour. While we feel
that this will only "tinker with the edges" of the supply
side, it will serve to reduce drug related crime significantly
as well as improving the quality of life of both drug using and
non-drug-using members of our communities.
2.4 Finally, any policies that reduce social
exclusion will help to address the demand side of the market and
will support stated policy aims both in terms of protecting vulnerable
young people and in improving the quality of life for those already
involved in problematic drug use. To this end, we support the
recent investment in schemes designed to minimise the effects
of social exclusion in early life (eg SureStart, Connexions and
the development and resourcing of Young People's Substance Misuse
Plans). We also recommend that the forward strategy of the Rough
Sleepers Unit focus on the street population as a whole (rather
than just those sleeping on the streets), who are involved in
both the demand and supply side of drug markets, and are in need
of support to improve their health and general quality of life
as well as clear discouragement of the anti-social nature of their
behaviour.
3. FURTHER EVIDENCE
3.1 The Council would be pleased to provide
the opportunity for members of the Committee to observe first
hand the nature and extent of the problems confronted by the local
community and visitors either by means of a visit to (say) the
Kings Cross area or by viewing videotapes provided by CCTV.
3.2 The Council would welcome the opportunity
to provide further evidence orally to the Committee.
September 2001
9 Home Office Drug Prevention Advisory Service comparisons
based on the analysis of Drug Action Teams Annual Reports 2000-2001. Back
|
