“Head Shops” - commercial premises that specialise in drug paraphernalia and legal highs.
Never heard that one before. In case you weren’t aware, much concern has been raised in the media over mephedrone, a member of a class of previously legal psychoactive substances that can - I am told – when taken in sufficient quantities lead one to an experience that might best be described as “tripping balls”.
From 16th April 2010, Mephedrone and other Cathinone derivatives joined this list of banned New Psychoactive Substances, controlled as Class B drugs under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.
Since cathinone and its derivatives are the primary active substance in Khat, I presume the local trade – popular in the Somali community - will now be interdicted by the police.
And I wonder whether any of this is really a productive use of Police time, and the more general argument for Drug Prohibition. A couple of years ago, the “Letter from a Tory” blog criticised a Conservative spokesperson for a perceived weakening of the party’s anti-drugs message. My comment at the time was:
On the one hand, my instinct for supporting personal liberty tells me that adults should be allowed to choose their own poison, and that they must accept the consequences of their decisions.
And yet…the drug users whose addiction most affects me are those who commit violent and acquisitive crime, rather than the middle-classes knocking back vicodin. Let’s say that we did legalise the whole spectrum of pharmaceuticals for consenting adults and concentrated on policing those attempting to sell to children. Would all the “socially deprived” drug abusers suddenly smarten up, get a shave, a side parting and a steady job? I think not. They’d continue their self-destructive behaviours, just without inconveniencing me so much.
I’d still be cautious going down to the centre of Bristol on a Friday night because of those under the influence of alcohol, but at least I’d be less likely to be burgled while I’m out to support someone’s heroin addiction.
So in some ways, legalisation is an act of selfishness, in that although us boring, normal people may see some improvement in the quality of our lives from a reduction in acquisitive crime, we would be placing the burden of stepping up to society’s norms on those who seem least capable of doing so.
Now I read this again, it seems patronising. I wonder whether I’d respond well to someone talking down to me like that. [Actually, I don’t need to wonder. When Jamie Oliver did it, I didn’t respond well at all]
One troubling section of the ACPO guidance was the following, entitled “Alternative Legislation”:
Head shops may be found to be selling products that are not controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. In those circumstances there is legislation enforced by Trading Standards that could provide opportunities for prosecution if offences are disclosed. Whilst not an exhaustive list, possible alternatives include:
My reading of this section is “if you can’t have them for selling illegal substances, try some lateral thinking and get them on something else” which doesn’t sound like a very British approach to policing; certainly not in keeping with the Peelian Principles. Mind you, it worked for Bureau of Prohibition Agent Elliot Ness when he successfully prosecuted Bootlegger [i.e. drug dealer] Al Capone for tax evasion.
As an exercise for the reader, you might ponder whether the sale of tobacco or alcohol could fall foul of any of these legal instruments. I reckon the former is clearly at risk.
I’m in the wrong game; I should have been a web designer.
Herewith, yet another web site promoting a vaguely worthy intervention by a partnership of local authority and government funded organisations:
Opening Doors is the new umbrella name for specialist substance misuse services for young people in Bristol.
It is part of the wider youth offer in the city forming part of the ‘Someone To Talk To’ services. The service involves the joining together of services commissioned by Safer Bristol from:
Youth Offending Team
Child & Adolescent Mental Health Services
NHS Bristol
Voluntary Sector
The aim of Opening Doors is to deliver a more joined up service to the most vulnerable young people across the city. Reaching out to young people in the settings and communities where they live.
One of the “Service Users” dictated the following:
When I was 11 I started smoking cannabis with my friends. I loved smoking and used to smoke it everyday. I have also tried ecstasy a couple of times but it made me feel really ill and I stayed in bed for days. At about the same time I had other problems going on and I got help from D&YPP (Drugs & Young People’s Project), BASE (Barnardoes Against Sexual Exploitation) and YOT (Youth Offending Team).
The workers at the services have helped me because they have stuck by me and they are there for you when you need a chat. One worker talked to me about the risks of using harder drugs and it made me think that I didn’t want to do anything like that. As I got older I realised that I needed to pretty much stop using cannabis as it made me lazy and I lost the plot!
I helped decide on the new ‘Opening Doors’ name. Me and other kids had to choose between lots of names and we all liked ‘Opening Doors’. I now go to the feedback group where we chat about the ‘Opening Doors’ service and we do fun activities like canoeing. It’s good to be part of the group cos everyone gets along.
Current Service User in Bristol, Aged 17
If one is relaunching a service that purports to reduce the incidence of drug abuse by young people, why would one use an exemplary story from someone who was first “engaged” (collared?) by the local authority at aged 11, and yet six years later still appears to be a regular drug user? But at least he’s had a go at canoeing.
