Pubdate: Mon, 16 Feb 2015
Source: Daily Telegraph (UK)
Copyright: 2015 Telegraph Media Group Limited
Contact:  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/114
Author: Max Pemberton

THE MENACE FROM LEGAL HIGHS IS JUST A CLICK AWAY

As far as futile activities go, the fight against legal highs is a 
textbook example. According to figures released last week, police 
incidents involving legal highs  substances sold in high street shops 
and on the internet, including products for the home such as "plant 
food", but which contain psychoactive elements that mimic the effects 
of cannabis, amphetamine and heroin  have more than doubled in a year,

The web enables ever quicker and easier access to these substances. 
Their cheapness and the veneer of respectability  because they are 
nominally "legal" means that more people are eschewing illicit drugs 
in favour of taking the alternative.

It is placing tremendous pressure on resources, with police forces 
reporting a surge in incidents, in some areas an increase more than 
100 times the level seen just three years ago. From my own experience 
of working in A&E, the number of people we see who are victims of 
legal highs is growing exponentially.

The Government is in an impossible position, because the traditional 
response to drugs - ban them - doesn't work. Every time one is 
outlawed, another takes its place within weeks. Not only has the web 
made it easy for anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of chemistry to 
identify the structure of a banned compound and alter it sufficiently 
so that it can be classed as legal, it also enables the production 
and distribution. Enterprising individuals can locate small chemical 
plants, usually in China, where labour and materials are cheap, and 
go into business. And there's not a thing we can do about it.

I have, for many years, worked with addicts and I do not take drug 
use lightly. I certainly don't advocate decriminalising them. In an 
ideal world, people wouldn't feel the need to take intoxicants, but 
the fact is that many prefer a stimulant to a depressant such as 
alcohol. From a pragmatic perspective, then, our main priority should 
be ensuring that children and teenagers do not have ready access to 
these substances.

In many ways, I think legal highs are more worrying than illegal 
drugs. We have long experience of this latter group and most aren't 
nearly as physically harmful as socially sanctioned substances such 
as tobacco or alcohol. The effects they have on the body are 
wellknown. Legal highs, in contrast, are entirely unknown. Every 
person who takes them is a guinea pig. Each time a new one hits the 
market, it's Russian roulette as to the consequences. We certainly 
have no idea what the long-term effects will be.

But, worst of all, is the fact that anyone with an internet 
connection can get hold of them. While you wouldn't want your 
teenager hanging out with known drug dealers on a street corner, they 
can, in effect, do precisely this every time they log on.

As I see it, there are two options, neither of which is ideal. The 
first is to introduce legislation similar to the Analogue Act in the 
United States. This rules that substances similar to those that are 
already subject to control are banned automatically. In theory, this 
would prevent the cat-and-mouse game between the authorities and 
illicit drug manufacturers. In reality, of course, it can't prevent 
their use; it will just stop them being available in shops.

The US legislation was introduced in 1986, long before the dawn of 
the internet, and despite its existence, new psychoactive substances 
continue to be widely available there because they can be ordered 
online. It doesn't stop them being taken, and it isn't sufficient a 
measure to protect minors.

The alternative is that you accept that some people will always seek 
out psychoactive substances and so allow these to remain legal, but 
license them while we investigate the longterm effects. They could be 
sold in pharmacies rather than in corner shops or late-night garages 
as they are currently. Age restrictions could be applied, too. This 
would go a long way to limiting the access.

It's an imperfect solution, but the current policy of banning and 
criminalising simply doesn't work and doesn't protect our children. 
We banned mephedrone in 2010 - the first legal high to hit the 
headlines - and yet it's everywhere and it has spawned a hundred imitators.

It is time for a rethink.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom