Dissertation Nicholas Dolder

Is the New Psychoactive Substances Bill an effective means of dealing with
harms associated with psychoactive substances?
Introduction
Having officially passed into law on January 28th 2016 and due to come into force
later this year, the New Psychoactive Substances Bill1 arguably poses an
overwhelming threat towards efforts to prevent harms incurred with the use of
the ‘psychoactive substances’ it has sought to criminalise. The Bill seems to be a
further expansion in the catchment of substances that are criminal for human
consumption and mirrors a retributive approach towards drug production and
supply that has already been outlined under The Misuse of Drugs Act 19712. This
paper will seek to argue that the direction taken by the UK Government towards
drug policy, explicitly in it’s enactment of the Psychoactive Substances Bill, is one
that will serve only to increase the general harms incurred by users. The harms
we will primarily be focused on are the social harms incurred by users, as many
harms tend to stretch beyond those of purely physical; therefore our focus will
be more on factors like social exclusion and lack of sufficient systems of
rehabilitation for users to aid in their successful reincorporation back into
society. In Chapter 1, we will look at the primary reasoning behind the need to
enact the New Psychoactive Substances Bill and include a brief overview of key
1 Psychoactive Substances Act 2016
http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2015-16/psychoactivesubstances.html
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2015-
2016/0063/en/16063en.pdf
2 Misuse of Drugs Act 1971
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1971/38/contents

events leading up to it’s creation. In Chapter 2, the paper will outline how certain
aspects of the Bill itself, such as the uncertainty of various sections, has the
potential to be a disadvantageous approach when seeking to reduce harms. In
Chapter 3, we will then explore the issue of how the prohibitive style of
regulating drug policy the New Psychoactive Substances Bill seems to portray is
detrimental to the users; as other prohibitive models have shown us,
criminalising these substances only has the effect of pushing the market
underground and into ‘less regulated’ illicit sphere’s of ‘drug dealing’.
Importance should be attached to the term ‘less regulated’ here, as when the
production and sale of drugs begins to transfer from clearly traceable sources
and into the ‘black market’, their purity levels and the rates of more ‘regulated’
sale tend to diminish. Chapter 4 will then proceed to highlight how other models,
that are based more directly on harm reduction rather than prosecution, not only
serve to lower rates of crime related to drugs, but equally have greater benefits
for the health and ergo the rehabilitation of users. Arguments made around
reducing the ‘social harms’ of psychoactive substances will make up the primary
focus of this paper, as it can be argued that reducing these harms will ultimately
allow for the achievement of Governments primary objective- to “protect people
from the risks posed by untested, unknown and potentially harmful drugs”3.
Chapter 1: What is the New Psychoactive Substances Bill and why was it
drafted?
3 Psychoactive Substances Bill Fact sheet: Overview of the Bill
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/fi
le/455574/20150821_-_Fact_sheet_-_Bill_Overview.pdf

Following the Home Offices’ creation of the Forensic Early Warning System4 in
January 2011, government agenda towards drug policy began a focus principally
on resolving the increased levels of harms being caused by ‘legal highs’5. Having
identified 31 entirely new and unrecognized substances between 2011-2013,
combined with the recorded deaths of 60 people in England that were related to
New Psychoactive Substances,6 there was a clear overarching duty for the
government to make attempts to reduce the harms being incurred either directly
from the use of these substances, or related to their use. The inconsistencies
found in drug policy have been a long established issue for the UK Government,
with arguably the first real example of the problems presented by ‘psychoactive
substances’ arising with the criminalization of Mephedrone.7 Mephedrone
entered the market initially as one of the many synthesized, ‘legal high’, party
drugs made to mimic the effects of illegal amphetamines; it was later added to
the list of classified substances under the Misuse of Drugs Act in April, 2010. Its
harmful affects are still widely felt today, particularly within the LGBT
community, it having become a popular drug of choice to aid in various harmful
4 Government Website for the FEWS
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/forensic-early-warning-system-
fews-annual-report
5 Information on NPS
http://www.tdpf.org.uk/blog/nps-legal-highs
6 “PSYCHOACTIVE SUBSTANCES BILL [HL]: EXPLANATORY NOTES”- Ordered by
the House of Commons to be printed, 21 July 2015
2016/0063/en/16063en.pdf
7Drug Wise outline of Mephedrone
http://www.drugwise.org.uk/mephedrone-methedrone-methadrone-and-
methylone/

sexual activities, principally amongst gay men8. Initially however, Mephedrone
was used by vast numbers of young people across the UK and quickly became an
easily accessible and cheap alternative to many popularly consumed stimulants,
like Cocaine. Arguably, Mephedrone was one of the first ‘legal highs’ to be
recognized as having noticeable harmful affects, with only the criminalization of
the former ‘legal high’ GBL/GHB9 pre-dating it; in regions across the UK, there
was a profound realization around concerns that Mephedrone was present
within club and nightlife culture. An article printed in a Newcastle upon Tyne
local newspaper, The Journal10, very strongly asserts that from as early as 2009
the effects of Mephedrone were easily identifiable within youth nightlife. The
manager of The County Durham Drug and Alcohol Action Team11, Darren Archer,
is quoted to have said, “Concerns have been raised via pub and club watch for
local youth”.12 The number of individuals entering drug treatment for the use of
Mephedrone and harms incurred with its use increased from 839 in 2010-11 to
1,630 in 2012-1313. Its criminalization in 2010 signified an ongoing need to
recognize the scale of drugs readily available for purchase, that were free from
criminal liability and posing a significant threat of potential harms available to be
8 Independent Research gathered from a talk at “The European Forum for Chem-
Sex”
9 Gammahydroxybutrate, Drug Wise outline
http://www.drugwise.org.uk/ghb/
10 “‘Legal’ drug Mephedrone could have devastating side effects”- The Journal
00:28, 27 NOV, 2009
http://www.thejournal.co.uk/news/north-east-news/legal-drug-mephedrone-
could-devastating-4470302
11 The CDDAAT online forum
http://www.codurhamdaat.org.uk/
12 supra, n.10
13 Drug statistics from the National Drug Treatment Monitoring System (NDTMS)
1 April 2012 to 31 March 2013 (Public Health England 2013)
https://www.ndtms.net/default.aspx

experienced by users. The question must be addressed as to what exact harms
were being recognized with the consumption of Mephedrone. As with many of
the ‘psychoactive substances’, the problem arising was related to levels of
consumption; due to it’s extremely cheap price and the little information that
was known about the substances itself, the initial harms that were becoming
apparent were physical and tended to be in the form of overdoses. It’s important
to also consider why Mepehdrone emerged so profoundly during this period;
due to a massive ecstasy 'drought' in the UK during 2005-2009 and the fact that
cocaine purity had dipped, their was a clear gap in the market and a desire for an
equally potent drug to become available- it was just an added benefit that it also
happened to be marketed legally and could be delivered in bulk, straight to an
individuals doorstep.
The first point worth addressing here is that the very reason ‘legal highs’ appear
to exist is chiefly due to the demand of people wishing to take drugs, whether
they are looking to avoid criminal prosecution for doing so, or not. Although
many have argued that their creation was also fuelled by the desire of many
people to experiment with a wider spectrum of substances recreationally, for the
vast majority of spectators on the issue the very name ‘legal highs’ indicates a
criminal element being the driving force behind their creation. It must however
be recognized that seeking to alter the chemical balance within the brain is an
innate human instinct, as even in some of the most isolated areas of the globe
free from any social influence, tribes actively use drugs like Ayahuasca14 for
14 Website explaining uses of Ayahuasca
http://www.ayahuasca.com/

recreation or some form of self-enlightenment. As this paper will later address, a
large sample of the UK population actively take drugs today, regardless of their
classification. The link this paper seeks to draw between the New Psychoactive
Substances Bill and drug use within the UK is to ask the question: if there is
overwhelming evidence to support the claim that these groups of ‘psychoactive
substances’ were manufactured purely to avoid criminal liability, what effect
does the government presume will occur when they make no attempts to
address legislation like the Misuse of Drugs Act and simply allow possession of
psychoactive substances to remain legal? This is to say that, if research has
shown that 2.3%15 of people aged 16-25 within the UK, in the years 2014/2015,
consumed the listed substance Cocaine ‘occasionally’, whilst consumption of
‘psychoactive substances’ for the same age group and time scale was measured
at only 0.9%16, what effect does criminalizing the substance actually have on
reducing the level of harms to ‘occasional’ users. To further examine this issue,
we must look more closely to the intentions of Parliament when seeking to enact
the New Psychoactive Substances Bill and attempt to reason whether
Governments motive is realistically not to protect individuals from harm, but
instead to bring its own form of legal consistency to UK drug law through
enacting legislation that allows for a blanket ban on as many ‘substances’ as
possible.
15 Home Office: Drug Misuse Findings from the 2014/15 Crime Survey for
England and Wales
le/447549/drug-misuse-1415-infographic.pdf
16 ibid,

It can be inferred that the intention of Government when they drafted the New
Psychoactive Substances Bill was primarily to cover the legislative gaps left by
the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971; this is outlined in a number of statements made
which pre-dated the proposal of the Bill to Commons. One example of this was a
reoccurring realization by the government that these ‘psychoactive substances’
being identified were “products that were intend to mimic the effects of
traditional drugs … controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.”17 Under
current procedure, the Government can add drugs to the classification system
under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 by making a parliamentary drug control
order. However this approach has exhausted legislators, whom argue that every
time they make a substance illegal for the purposes outlined in the Misuse of
Drugs Act, another substance is simply produced in its place. The Government
therefore argued that in order to effectively reduce the harms associated with
these ‘psychoactive substances’, it needed a ‘catch-all’ piece of legislation- this
would cover all these newly emerging substances in an attempt to restrict
production and supply. We find the authority to support our claim that the
government specifically intended to restrict supply and production, through the
New Psychoactive Substances Bill itself; sections 4-9 of the Psychoactive
Substances Bill [HL]18 explicitly cover offences relating to production and supply
of ‘psychoactive substances’. Yet despite various reports into how measures of
decriminalization may benefit users in their struggles to reduce harms,
17 “PSYCHOACTIVE SUBSTANCES BILL [HL]: EXPLANATORY NOTES”- Ordered
by the House of Commons to be printed, 21 July 2015
2016/0063/en/16063en.pdf
18 Psychoactive Substances Act 2016: see S. 4-9
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2016/2/contents/enacted/data.htm

Government statements from the Home Office claim, "Government has
absolutely no intention of decriminalising drugs. Our drugs strategy is working
and there is a long-term downward trend in drug misuse in the UK.”19 We can
therefore reason that, in the opinion of the government, the best way to tackle
the harms associated with ‘psychoactive substances’, is to further implement
prohibitive measures in an attempt to restrict supply and thus ultimately reduce
consumption of these newly created and little known about substances. The
argument as to whether prohibition works as a form of harm reduction will be
visited at a later stage in this paper, for now it is integral to fully understand if
the Government has effectively classified the harms it seeks to address.
The UKDPC20 report “Refocusing Drug-related Law Enforcement to Address
Harms”21 includes a harm matrix, which illustrates the breadth in the types of
harms that can be discussed in relation to drug policy. It can be agued that the
government has taken a very simplistic approach in respect to what ‘harms’ they
intend to reduce; they mention protecting ‘hard working’ citizens from ‘the risks’
of these substances, yet they don’t further expand on what the ‘risks’ they seek to
minimize actually are. The result of this over simplified focus indicates that the
Government has overlooked just how expansive the harm matrix actually is;
furthermore, the term ‘hard working’ may also indicate to some, that the
19 “THE HOME OFFICE ADMITS IT: TOUGH ENFORCEMENT DOES NOT LOWER
DRUG USE”- Ian Dunt, Thursday, 30 October 2014 8:21 AM
http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2014/10/30/the-home-office-admits-it-tough-
enforcement-does-not-lower-d
20 The United Kingdom Drug Policy Commission
www.ukdpc.org.uk
21 www.ukdpc.org.uk/publication/refocusing-drug-law-to-address-harms/

legislation itself may be exclusionary and result in the neglect of a class of users
whom struggle with problems of substance abuse or reliance. It is because of
these reasons that I have decided to pay focus primarily on whether the New
Psychoactive Substances Bill is effective in reducing the social and
environmental harms to individuals. Although Government believe there is a
possibility that the New Psychoactive Substances Bill may defer a small class of
individuals from consuming ‘psychoactive substances’ and thus a reduced level
of harms, it still neglects to address the wider social issues that occur, such as
rehabilitation of users and reincorporation of addicts back into society.
Nonetheless the importance of physical harms must not be overlooked and it is
still the opinion of this paper that there are shortcomings in the proposed
methods imposed to deal with these also.
Advantages to the reduction of harms found within the Bill
It must be addressed firstly, whether the New Psychoactive Substances Bill has
any advantages towards the effective reduction of harms. Many of the
‘psychoactive substances’ that we can see emerging seem to have rather mixed
levels of harms; yet what we are seeing is nothing entirely new whatsoever. It is
the opinion of this paper that if we are to take a retrospective look into some
‘harmful’ drugs that are in circulation today, there appears to be some
correlative relation between harmful drugs and whether they also happened to
be former ‘legal highs’. The case of Mephedrone has already been addressed

earlier in the paper, yet there are also drugs like Methoxetamine22 or GHB/GBL23
which although is now a class-C drug under the Misuse of Drugs Act, was
introduced to the market as a ‘legal high’. GBL was initially used as an industrial
grade alloy cleaner, before someone in the trade of ‘legal highs’ decided it would
market well as a substance for human consumption. Although GBL has relatively
low rates of deaths resulting from overdosing, with only 13 recorded cases in the
UK between 1995-200524, it was more the issue that people were taking the drug
with alcohol and suffering from severe harms resulting from ‘blacking out’, such
as rape. Organizations like the Terrence Higgins Trust25 have long spoken of the
closely related link between GBL overdosing and sex without valid consent, due
to the victim of a GBL overdose going into a coma like state; as a drug it stands
out for its harms primarily over the fact of its potency to users. Furthermore we
are still seeing the continued production of many legal highs, like ‘Bath Salts’26,
which have been described as a manmade Cathinones27 that are extremely
similar to Mephedrone. It can be argued that the New Psychoactive Substances
Bill brings with it, an end to the constant production of all these extremely
potent and highly concentrated substances, therefore limiting the number of
substances available for circulation and reducing the possibilities of harms.
22 “Know The Score” outline on Methoxetamine
http://knowthescore.info/drugs-a-z/methoxetamine#accordian-6
23 supra, n.9
24 GHB/GBL Online Death Statistics
http://www.projectghb.org/content/ghb-death-statistics
25 http://www.tht.org.uk/friday-monday/Drug-types/GBL-and-GHB
26 A kind of synthetic drug with mood-altering and stimulant properties, typically
in the form of crystals and containing MDPV or Mephedrone
27 European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction profile on
Cathinones
http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/publications/drug-profiles/synthetic-
cathinones

Coupled with this, it cannot be denied that the legislative gap, which is filled
through the inaction of the Bill, could allow the platform for drug policy to be set
for any future advancement the government wishes to take. To further clarify
this point, now there has been an end to the ‘cat and mouse’ style of legislating
on the emergence of new ‘psychoactive substances’, we will no longer see the
appearance of substances able for purchase with as much ease as before. One key
issue with the consumption of many ‘psychoactive substances’ is that their use
seemed to be concentrated in rural areas of the UK28; one plausible explanation
for this is that due to these towns being out the vicinity of ‘city life’ where there
is more access to drug dealing networks; these ‘psychoactive substances’ were
once available for delivery straight to an individuals door. There is therefore a
view shared by some, that a certain level of harms will be reduced once
production and sale of ‘psychoactive substances’ becomes a criminal offence, as
outsourcing to these rather isolated regions of the UK will become increasingly
difficult. One rather more tenuous benefit the New Psychoactive Substances Bill
brings towards the reduction to harms, is the raising of awareness that these
substances, which are presumed to incur little risks to an individual actually
entail the danger of causing significant harms if not taken with caution. Many
individuals did actually have a limited understanding of what ‘legal highs’ were
and the harms incurred with dangerous use of these substances before the Bill
came to fruition; it can be argued that we may assume if a piece of legislation like
the Misuse of Drugs Act, based principally on a harm spectrum determining its
criminal repercussions, that if these substances were not criminal then they
28 House of Commons Home Affairs Committee. Drugs: new psychoactive
substances and prescription drugs. Twelfth Report of Session 2013-14

likely incurred very little harm in their use. Now a simple search in to Google will
more often than not reveal a horrifying portrayal into how an individual
somewhere has died after overdosing from ‘binging’ on these drugs that incur
the same risks as “a game of Russian Roulette.”29 Yet unfortunately, the negative
aspects towards the reduction of harms outweigh the positives in regards to the
New Psychoactive Substances Bill and it is therefore why the remainder of this
paper will focus on the failures of the Bill.
Chapter 2:
Disadvantages to the reduction of harms found within the Bill
Section 1:
Failure to effectively categorize harms
Government officials have argued that the primary purpose for enacting the New
Psychoactive Substances Bill is to protect the general public from encountering
harms that occur through the use of untested substances, with side effects that
are yet to be fully understood. However, academics like Amber Marks30 have
drawn attention to the rather crucial point that the Bill itself seems to neglect the
concept of ‘harm’ entirely. As the explicit focus of this research is on the
29 “Legal highs - 'like playing Russian roulette' says coroner” The Sentinal, April
22, 2016
http://www.stokesentinel.co.uk/Legal-highs-like-playing-Russian-roulette-
says/story-29154078-detail/story.html
30 Amber Marks, Lecturer in Criminal Law and Evidence, Queen Mary, University
of London

effectiveness of reducing harms through the inaction of the New Psychoactive
Substances Bill, it would appear that due to a clearly rushed and ill thought out
style of legislating, Government has neglected integral points of the Bill which
are needed in order for it to function as an effective piece of legislation. Lord
Bates reiterated that the very success of the New Psychoactive Substances Bill
was dependent on “effectively reducing the harms caused by New Psychoactive
Substances”31; as it appears that there is no harm matrix within the Bill itself,
how can Government expect to create awareness over what it intends to
address? When looking for a plausible answer as to why the Bill doesn’t include
any mention of harms, Professor Iverson has argued that including a definition of
harm would detract from the “proactive nature”32 of the New Psychoactive
Substances Bill. Yet it is the opinion of this paper that this statement contradicts
the very purpose of the Bill. If we look to the Misuse of Drugs Act as a point of
reference we can see that a harm matrix, which lists substances in classification
based on the severity of their harm, is the principle reasoning behind the
criminal sanctions that are issued with their use. To simplify my point, the
greater the harm the drug possesses, the more serious the offence at law;
Heroine users are listed higher in the harm matrix than Cannabis users, because
the likelihood of death, serious illness or a failure to function adequately within
society is of greater likelihood. If the New Psychoactive Substance Bill’s foremost
priority was to reduce harms, how does it effectively seek to do this without
31 Letter from Lord Bates to Lord Rosser, 15 June 2015
le/436098/2015-06-12_Lord_Rosser_letter_to_upload.pdf
32Home Affairs Committee First Report on Psychoactive Substances 2015/16
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmselect/cmhaff/361/3
6102.htm

setting out a plan to effectively tackle those ‘psychoactive substances’ that incur
the most harm. The answer is that it cannot do so; under the New Psychoactive
Substances Bill all ‘psychoactive substances’ are treated as equals in reference to
the harms they possess, yet once again this is not a valid finding based on
evidence. One example of a ‘psychoactive substance’, which has been listed in the
Fifth Report of the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee on Psychoactive
Substances, is Alkyl Nitrates or ‘poppers’. The first point that must be addressed
is that under the New Psychoactive Substances Bill drugs like poppers, which
have been proven to incur an extremely low level of harm with their use, are
treated as an equal to other substances such as ‘Spice’, which have been proven
to incur a relatively high level of harm. Furthermore, if we look at the use of
‘poppers’ in particular, the Gay Men’s Health Collective33 have spoken out on
how the use of poppers has become “embedded in the sexual practices of gay
men and gay culture… with 70.1% of gay men regularly using poppers during
sex.”34 In this report, the Gay Men’s Health Collective state that banning a drug
which incurs such a low risk of harm could lead to “increased class A and B drug
use”35 in its place. Some argue however that this logic is flawed; to those reading
the report the counter argument could be raised which states that, if possession
of poppers still remains legal, why would people seek the use of class A and class
B drugs in their place? During an interview with Jonathan and Patriic of the Gay
Men’s Health Collective, it was clarified that although possession would remain
33 The Gay Men’s Health Collective Charity
http://gaymenshealthcollective.co.uk
34 Email received from Gay Men’s Health Collective
35 Page 14 para.43
6107.htm

legal, the supply of the drugs would be shifted into an underground market, ergo
trade in ‘poppers’ would come under the domain of illegal drug dealers rather
than sale through registered ‘head shops’. From their experience and
understanding of the issue, it was suggested that it would be unlikely a drug
dealer would make a delivery simply for a £3.50 bottle of poppers, with most
dealers normally having a higher threshold of price for purchasing any goods
whatsoever. This therefore creates a situation where many users are purchasing
substances that before they would never have considered doing so and this is
how increased class A and B drug use may arise. It can therefore be argued that
when there is a failure to effectively categorize harms, the consequence is that a
substance like Alkyl Nitrate, which as a substance has aided gay men in having
pain-free sex and has been used responsibly, has now had it’s chain of supply
and sale pushed underground into the market of illegal drug dealing.
A similar argument is put forward for the substance Nitrous Oxide36, which was
actually marketed originally for whipped cream dispensers. However, once
individuals realized that the substance could be consumed to produce euphoric
effects, the sale of canisters and dispensers of NOS37 increased hugely; Lambeth
Council in London claimed specifically to be seeing the effects of NOS make its
way into the streets. Unlike the argument given for Alkyl Nitrates, before the NOS
‘craze’ came about, there was no real reliance on the substance by a particular
group in society for any specific purpose; furthermore, there have been very few
reports, if any, of anti-social behavior related to the use of ‘poppers’. NOS
36 Know The Score outline of Nitrous Oxide
http://knowthescore.info/drugs-a-z/nitrous-oxide
37 Abbreviation of Nitrous Oxide

however has been widely used by multiple groups of young people within
society and has lead to what many have described as related acts of anti-social
behavior, such as groups of youths gathering in the streets and consuming NOS
which ultimately leads to noise complaints. There is also the extremely
noticeable problem of many small disposed canisters found littering the streets
once they have been ‘cracked’ for use. Lambeth Council even started a policy of
fining individuals using NOS in public up to one thousand pounds on the spot, a
policy that began in August 201538. Although claiming to once again have
extremely low rates of physical harms incurred with it’s use, NOS is another
substance that will be covered by the New Psychoactive Substances Bill. From
the information given an argument may be put forward that there is the
reduction of social harms through the banning of NOS, as there will be a limit to
the number of individuals being able to purchase Nitrous in such large
quantities. However it feels like once again too much focus is being directed to
these very low harm ‘psychoactive substances’; what should be of more concern
to Lambeth Council is addressing it’s high rates of harmful Crack Cocaine and
Heroin use.39
38“Lambeth Council bans laughing gas as recreational drug” BBC News Online,
17th August 2015
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33955823
39 “Laughing Gas? The Met Should Be More Worried About London's Crack and
Crystal Meth Problems” Max Daly, 14th July 2015
https://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/lambeth-drugs-laughing-gas-crackdown-
police-208

Section 2:
Exclusion of ‘Personal Possession’ offences
The government has argued that in recognition of the debate over the unfairness
to criminalize a user of psychoactive substances, rather than recognize them as a
victim, it has made the decision to exclude possession for personal use from
criminal liability under the Bill. It is therefore crucial to further examine how
effective the decision to leave possession for personal use exempt from the Bill
is, in relation to effectively reducing harms associated with the ‘psychoactive
substances’ themselves. In order to adequately evaluate whether this exclusion
of the possession offence is an effective means of reducing harms, we must draw
attention to the critiques ministers have faced in Commons from drug specialist
organizations, like Release40, and how adequately they have responded. During
the Public Bill Committee discussion in Commons over the New Psychoactive
Substances Bill on the 29th October 2015, Release raised the following valid
critique:“whilst it is welcomed that the Government has decided not to criminalise
possession of New Psychoactive Substances… acknowledging that criminalisation
of possession/use of New Psychoactive Substances would have a negative impact on
young people, the decision to criminalise importation for personal use is at odds
with this position.”41 This point perfectly highlights one key weakness in the
argument that excluding personal possession from criminal liability helps reduce
40 Release Charity
http://www.release.org.uk/
41http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmpublic/psychoactiv
e/memo/psb20.htm

harms; exempting possession for personal use, whilst leaving production and
supply a criminal act, will only terminate the once monitored chain of supply and
create a vacuum to be filled by organized crime. In order for an individual to get
into a position to posses the drug itself one must purchase it, therefore little
change has occurred in reducing the harms of the individual through exempting
possession from criminal liability. It would therefore be fair to say that despite
the obvious attempts to divert criminal liability away from the user, seeing them
more as the ‘victim’ at law, it is strongly suggested that the government has only
proven to further complicate legal certainty over offences related to
psychoactive substances. It appears that in seeking to reduce the harm of
criminal prosecution the individual, the Government has only served to increase
the possibility of physical harms incurred with reduced accountability as to the
chains supply and production of New Psychoactive Substances.
When seeking clarity from Government over this apparent paradox, we can look
to the government’s response during another Public Bill Committee. Sir David
Amess42 comments on the decision to leave possession of psychoactive
substances for personal consumption legal and remarks that Government wants
to “prevent people from taking New Psychoactive Substances, not criminalise them
for doing so, and that means we need a thorough, comprehensive adult education
and awareness campaign to go alongside the Bill.”43 It is clear from the statement
given here, that Amess believes the resolution to this problem is to be found in
42 http://www.davidamess.co.uk/
43Public Bill Committee, Thursday 29 October 2015, [Sir David Amess in the
Chair]
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmpublic/psychoactive
/151029/am/151029s01.htm

accompanying policy objectives that work ‘in lieu’ of the New Psychoactive
Substances Bill; however there seems to have been no further mention by Amess
or any other Government officials as to an outline for any plans for educative
policies to accompany the Bill. This point leads us nicely to critique the argument
that a clear social harm has been reduced; the view expressed by Government is
that if a person is now caught possessing a ‘psychoactive substance’ for their
personal consumption, they will no longer feel the stern hand of criminal law
crashing down upon them and will therefore avoid any possible criminal charges
that may negatively affect their social or professional reputation. Although it is
true that the removal of criminal sanctions for personal possession may serve to
help in cases like this, it would appear that little has been done to ‘prevent’
people from taking the substances themselves. It can be argued that one more
effective way to reduce the number of individuals using such ‘psychoactive
substances’ would be by providing information on the harms that their use may
incur. We have to look beyond merely giving individuals complete legal
immunity for their drug possession and arguably look towards addressing a
more pressing issue, this being to ask the question of what purpose they are
taking these substances for in the first place. As it was stated in the Open Society
Foundations ‘Lessons in Drug Policy' series, the case of Portugal brings forward
the discussion on why the Portuguese Government chose to decriminalize
possession of drugs rather than make them completely legal; it states that “policy
was not about giving the green light to drug use, but rather about reducing harm,
stopping senseless punishment, and achieving better control over the drug
problem.”44 If we consider this statement when looking at the approach the
44 “Drug Policy In Portugal: The Benefits of De-Criminalizing Drug Use”- Artur

United Kingdom has chosen to take, ‘senseless punishment’ may have been
reduced to some extent, yet the long term and most crucial issue of ‘control’ over
drug issues has not been addressed whatsoever under their proposed
methodology.
The question of whether there are any other methods that could more effectively
reduce harms must be asked; in doing this attention must be directed towards
Portugal and its harm reductive stance towards drug policy. In Portugal it is still
an administrative offence to be caught in possession of drugs for personal use,
whereas with ‘psychoactive substances’ in the UK it is completely legal to do so.
One apparent disadvantage that stems from this difference in approach the UK
takes is to not investigate whether users may have a possible drug problem, as
they are suitably able to do in Portugal. The key element that is retained when
decriminalisation, rather than complete legalisation is imposed is that of ‘control’
over the likelihood of harms to those at a greater disposition to experience them.
In Portugal the production and supply of drugs is still illegal, but personal
possession and use are dealt with through the civil system; users who are caught
in possession of drugs for personal use, that are over the threshold set by
legislation, are instructed to sit before the ‘Commissions for the Dissuasion of
Drug Addiction’. They are a body composed of a psychologist, lawyer and
medical professional and it is through their specialist knowledge and expertise
that the options of either: a recommended period of rehabilitation, a payment of
a fine, or a pardon with no further consequences, is suggested to the user in
Domosławski (2011, Open Society Foundations) pg. 28

question. Therefore, in relation to answering the question as to what more
effective approaches may be taken towards reducing the harms experienced by
the users of ‘psychoactive substances’, it would surely be more suitable and
effective for the New Psychoactive Substances Bill to make possession of a
‘psychoactive substance’ for personal use an administrative offence. This is not
to say that users of substances should be penalized; the point being made is that,
in Portugal when users who seem to experience little or no harms incurred from
their personal use of the drug in question are charged with a civil offence, the
result of any further repercussions are practically non-existent. What does
however occur is that if the user is considered to be experiencing severe harms
or whether it is the opinion of the panel that there exists the potential for the
experience of sever harms to be incurred from the substance individuals are
caught in possession of, then the outreach of support to help combat these harms
is afforded to the individual in question. It must be strongly asserted at this point
that rehabilitation or support of any kind is not imposed upon an individual, it is
merely suggested. The approach taken is one of wanting to help an individual,
rather than to hinder them. Furthermore, there is an apparent divergence away
from treating individuals as those who have committed criminal offences and
who need prosecuting, towards treating individuals as suffering from problems
with their health and who may require treatment or support.
If we revisit the statement made by Amess in the previous paragraph, we find
that he states the answer to better aid in the effective reduction of harms would
be found in accompanying educative campaigns that would follow alongside the
Bill; this is sufficient as a means of guiding the public on how to correctly view

Government policy, yet it does little to establish any chain of ‘control’ or
accountability. It can be debated that the key difference in having a more hands
on and ‘personable’ approach when seeking to ‘reach out’ to users eliminates a
certain level of stigmatization and may in fact provoke a different response from
the user in question. To help clarify the point that is being made here, we can
look to what has been suggested by the drug policy researchers Hughes and
Stevens45 and particularly draw focus to their recognition of the fact that
Portugal’s success as a harm reductive model stretches beyond merely
decriminalization. Stevens has claimed that it would be wholly unwise to hold
decriminalization as the only factor that has allowed for the successful rates of
harm reduction in Portugal; he remarks, “the expansion of drug treatments and
the Portuguese welfare state have also played a role, illustrating the importance
of improving social and health policies in addition to decriminalisation.”46 It is
important to also make note of the shift in drug control that took place in
Portugal- there transferal of oversight on issues from the Justice Department to
the Ministry of Health highlights an outlook of drug policy based around
addressing issues as a matter of public health, rather than a criminal offence.
Thus it would be fair to argue that it isn’t simply decriminalization of possession
that is the most effective method when seeking to reduce the social harms
associated with use of psychoactive substances, but more the view that
decriminalization allows for the freeing up of resources and therefore allows for
45 Caitlin Elizabeth Hughes and Alex Stevens, "What Can We Learn from the
Portuguese Decriminalization of Illicit Drugs," British Journal of Criminology 50,
no. 6 (2010): 999-1022
46 “Portuguese drug policy shows that decriminalisation can work, but only
alongside improvements in health and social policies”- Alex Stephens, 10th
December 2012
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2012/12/10/portuguese-drug-policy-alex-stevens/

a more comprehensive system of treatment to take place. This is done so by
diverting the handling of drug offences away from the criminal sphere and into
the realms of healthcare. When this is successfully executed, the focus is then
based upon rehabilitation rather than retribution. The question over feasibility
over this type of model working in the UK will be addressed at a later stage in
this paper.
Ultimately, the very reason this paper seeks to argue that the exemption of
personal possession from criminal liability is detrimental to harms is because
Government has failed to make policy sufficiently based upon evidence. To allow
legal exemption for all individuals possession’s of ‘psychoactive substances’
implies that all users are universal and this is not the case whatsoever. The lack
of criminal reprimands for possession of ‘psychoactive substances’ will result in
less police attention being diverted towards ‘catching’ users and ‘locking them
up’- this obviously means less resources being diverted towards the reprimand
of users who would be listed as ‘small time offenders’ and ergo more money
would be freed up for more harm reductive based action. However it can be
argued still that Government has overlooked the very harm it promised to
minimise and invest its upmost efforts in, this being the reduction of harms to
the individual. Although it can be debated that there is a clear class of ‘non-
serious’ users, whom if caught will now avoid criminal prosecution and therefore
not experience any repercussions to impinge on their personal lives or careers,
there is still a neglected class here and this is the ‘troubled user’.
There appear to be no sign of any ‘evidence based’ methods of dealing with users
as individuals, who use drugs in differing ways, and this in turn leads to a policy

in place that can be exclusionary and therefore result in serious harms to a
certain group of users. An example that can be used here is an occasional drug
user of a drug like ecstasy, who is being targeted as a criminal user; despite the
low-risk way in which they are using the drug, they as a user are of higher
priority than that a user whom is a serious addict of a drug like ‘Go Gain’ or
‘China White’. Under the New Psychoactive Substance Bill, ‘psychoactive
substances’ would remain entirely legal to use, yet some ‘psychoactive
substances’ have been described by medical professionals both as “physically
and as psychologically addictive, as heroin or crack cocaine”47. In laymen’s terms
what is being overlooked here is the case of the troubled ‘psychoactive
substance’ user- the user who will actively go in search of legal highs due to the
fact that during its time as a legal and cheap substance readily available on the
high street, has developed a reliance on a substance. Many medical professionals
have argued these ‘legal highs’ actually pose a greater threat to an individual’s
health than that of the drugs listed in the Misuse of Drugs Act. Take the drug
‘Spice’ as an example, a synthetic cannabinoid that under the current legal
system was able to enter the market as a ‘legal high’. During an expose into the
lives of ‘Spice’ addicts in Manchester, Vice48 found that some strains of the drug
(HU-210)49 were almost one-hundred times more potent in THC content that the
most popular illegal strains of Cannabis found in circulation on the ‘black
market’. What this has produced is the emergence of a new group of addicts not
47“Legal highs 'getting stronger and more addictive'”- Louise Day, 22nd February,
2015
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-31556010
48 Vice News
https://www.vice.com/en_uk/
49 Online Forum Discussing Chemical Properties of HU-210
https://drugs-forum.com/forum/showwiki.php?title=HU-210

yet seen before by society and medical professionals alike, the ‘legal high’
addicts. This increased level of potency found within legal highs is not limited to
synthetic cannabinoids, but is a feature of all the entire class of ‘legal highs’, such
as those previously mention substances before, like ‘China White’ and ‘Go Gain’,
which are intended to mimic the effects of Amphetamines or Stimulants. If we
are to take the statement of Amess, regarding educative policy accompanying the
Bill, it may be beneficial to highlight just how much more potent these
‘synthesized’ drugs actually are. So far however it would appear that resources
like the NHS webpage, only outline the uncertainty of effects experienced as a
potential danger; to quote their information section on their webpage, “Legal
highs are substances that have similar effects to illegal drugs like Cocaine or
Cannabis.”50 We know however than from the primary sources already outlined
above that the toxicity of these substances is more than likely to be a great deal
higher than those of their illegal counterparts. Nevertheless, the information
provided by the channels we (the public) give trust to over their supposed levels
of accuracy and validity, are incorrect or simply insufficient.
When further relating this back to the relevance of excluding legal liability for
possession of New Psychoactive Substances, the question must be asked whether
this move inadvertently promotes the consumption of New Psychoactive
substances over the substances outlined in the Misuse of Drugs Act. A reasonable
person could come to conclude that, if a non-frequent user were looking to take
drugs recreationally, they may prefer to take a ‘psychoactive substance’ instead
50 NHS information on NPS
http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/drugs/Pages/legalhighs.aspx

of a drug like Cocaine or MDMA, due to the legal consequences attached to their
use. It may not be the primary factor in making a decision as to which class of
drugs to take, yet it is a surely a factor which should be considered. If this is in
fact the case, what has debatably occurred is a detrimental move in relation to
the reduction of harms associated with New Psychoactive substances; the
government has given these New Psychoactive Substances a legal power of
‘privilege’ in relation to consumption, whilst the Misuse of Drugs Act remains
unchanged. This suggests that in terms of physical harm to the user, these drugs
that are arguably more potent to the user, are given full legal discretion. One
must ask whether the government is making the right decision here, specifically
in regards to whether their perception of which group of substances causes
greater harm to individuals is correctly informed. There has already been widely
published criticisms of the Governments ability to effectively draft drug policy, in
particular the classification system under the Misuse of Drugs Act; one key
example of this was outlined in the “Drug classification: making a hash of it?”
report, published in 2005-06 by the Science and Technology Committee51. Some
of the opinions voiced in this report criticized the government over its methods
of classifying a reliable harm matrix for controlled drugs. The main criticism in
this case, was that its findings were not sufficiently based on scientific evidence
and following independent research, it was determined that legal substances like
Alcohol and Tobacco had a “high or very high” risks of harm, along side drugs
like Heroin and Crack Cocaine, yet Ecstasy and LSD had significantly “lower”
51 “Drug classification: making a hash of it?” House of Commons Science and
Technology Committee, Fifth Report of Session 2005-06
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmsctech/103
1/1031.pdf

risks. Despite these findings, alcohol and tobacco remain legal, whilst LSD and
Ecstasy remain at “class- A”52 level.
In summarizing this section it can be determined that although on the surface it
may appear that the move by government, to exempt possession of ‘psychoactive
substances’ for personal use from criminal liability, is a beneficial move in
reducing the level of social harms previously placing an individual at risk to
experience, if we in fact dig a little deeper the information outlined above clearly
shows that the pro’s outweigh the con’s. Therefore it is fair to determine that in
regards to this particular feature of the New Psychoactive Substances Bill, there
is clearly evidence to suggest that it does not effectively aid in the reduction of
harms to the individual.
Chapter 3:
The dangers of prohibitive policy
Despite the remarks that can be made regarding the exemption of personal
possession of New Psychoactive Substances from criminal liability, the very fact
the UK has sort the continuation of ‘stomping down on drugs’ by enacting a Bill
aimed at combatting distribution, signifies further steps towards an increased
retributive model of governance over drugs and their use.
52 Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, c.38, Schedule 2.

It seems the case that in attempts to further restrict the use of all drugs in the UK,
Government panicked due to copious amounts of pressure from a number of
specialist drug policy organizations and threw in this exemption of possession as
a last minute adjustment. From an article published in 2014, the BBC writes
about how Downing Street had declared its approach to drug policy was founded
upon evidence-based methods, and was not on track to change in the immediate
future. The report followed to include a quote from government stating: "our
drugs strategy is working… there is a long-term downward trend in drug misuse
in the UK."53 It seems that having initially stood strong on the ‘war against drugs’
approach, government suddenly realised its ‘war on drugs’ approach also
entailed a ‘war against the individual’ rhetoric too and due to a significant
amount of pressure, changed its course of action. It can be further argued that
this change was prompted by various panels of expert opinion, whom when
asked by the Home Office to review legal highs, warned that prosecution for
possession of legal highs may “encourage users to take illegal drugs listed under
the Misuse of Drugs Act.”54To a reasonable observer there aretwo possible
courses of action the government could have taken at this stage. The first is that
it could have criminalised possession for ‘psychoactive substances’, therefore
making all substances, regardless of origin, criminal to: posses, supply and
produce- in other words truly proceeding with a ‘united’ and clear ‘war’ against
drugs. The second possibility was to decriminalize possession for drugs listed
53 “UK drugs policy: What you need to know” BBC News, 30th October, 2014
54 Found in report issued by ‘The New psychoactive substances Review Expert
Panel” September, 2014
le/368583/NPSexpertReviewPanelReport.pdf

under the Misuse of Drugs Act, as well as keeping possession offences for New
Psychoactive Substances exempt from criminal liability too, and set course to
embark on a model similar to Portugal. In the case of the first possible scenario
presented here, it was the belief of the Expert Panel55 that making possession of
New Psychoactive substances an offence under law would only encourage the
use of drugs listed under the Misuse of Drugs Act and ultimately increase harms.
When looking at this reasoning, it has been overlooked entirely that allowing the
possession of New Psychoactive Substances to remain legal, whilst retaining the
criminal offences for possession of substanceslisted under the Misuse of Drugs
Act, has ultimately increased the likelihood of people to use and incur harms
from ‘psychoactive substances’. In relation to how effective the New
Psychoactive Substances Bill is in reducing harms, the information here speaks
for itself- the way in which the Bill is drafted in relation to other existent drug
policy in the UK, promotes use of ‘psychoactive substances’ and most definitely
increases the possibility of harms occasioned by their use. Following this trail of
thought, we can assume for the remainder of this chapter that when presented
with an ideal opportunity to abandon a prohibitive style of policy, the UK made
the decision to instead continue in the pursuit to treat drug use as a criminal
issue, prosecutable by prohibitive policy; this prohibitive style of model serves to
be ineffective in the prevention of harms and we will now begin to look at why
this is the case.
55 Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs
https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/advisory-council-on-the-
misuse-of-drugs

The argument stands firm and is presented by many critics of the Bill, that
prohibition or the continuation of a ‘war on drugs’ style of approach has never,
and will continue never to work. Having frequently mentioned Portugal, as a
potential model of drug policy the UK should seek to draw inspiration from, it is
crucial to further divulge a reason as to why this paper believes Portugal’s model
is more effective for the reduction of harms that what is currently being outlined
by the UK in legislation like the New Psychoactive Substances Bill. The argument
presented here is not that Portugal has decriminalized all offenses related to
drugs, so why doesn’t the UK do this as well, as production and supply remain
criminal in Portugal. What is different however, is how policy is perceived in
Portugal and how relative its legislation is, thus allowing it to resonate with the
objectives of Government more consistently. Bearing this in mind the issue must
be addressed as to why, despite various reports from a number of drug specialist
organizations and charities, which more often that not appear to predate the first
reading56 of the New Psychoactive Substances Bill in the House of Lords, has the
government refused to listen to the advice presented to it. With the final report
published by the UKDPC57, which coincided with the end of its existence as a
body in 2012, it appeared to give an overwhelmingly detailed overview as to
why and how the UK needed a newly thought out approach in regards to drug
policy. Yet this body of research didn’t stand alone as a source of
recommendation towards a change in approach; many specialist organizations
56 28th May, 2015
57 United Kingdom Drug Policy Commission: “A Fresh Approach To Drugs”
(October 2012)
www.ukdpc.org.uk/publication/a-fresh-approach/

have argued that the UK’s drug policy is not harmonious with the safeguarding
from harms to individuals.
As the explicit focus of this research is on the harms caused from the use of New
Psychoactive Substances, attention in this section will be focused on the case of
Ireland and specifically how an increased level of prohibitive legislation, in
relation to New Psychoactive substances, has arguably increased the potential
danger of harms to the user. If we look to the comments made by the House of
Commons Home Affairs Committee in its Fifth Report on ‘psychoactive
substances’, it stated that the New Psychoactive Substances Bill was to be “based
on legislation introduced in Ireland in 2010”; yet the question of how effective
Irelands legislation was in reducing harms must be inspected with greater detail.
What can be said about Ireland is that following the criminalization of ‘legal
highs’ and the closing down of ‘head shops’, production and supply of these
substances merely shifted to an underground market. Research collated by TNS
Political and Social58 showed that New Psychoactive Substance use in Ireland
actually increased from 16% in 2011 to 22% in 2014,59 with use amongst young
people (16-24) the highest in the EU60. Further to this, the “Reitox Poland Report
2013”61 showed that although initially the ban allowed for the reduced rates of
harmful injuries related to the consumption of ‘legal highs’, three years later we
58 Flash Eurobarometer 401- “Young People and Drugs” Report, August, 2014
http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/fl_401_en.pdf
59 supra, n.58
60 supra, n.58
61 2013 NATIONAL REPORT (2012 data) TO THE EMCDDA by the Polish REITOX,
Focal Point, “POLAND”, New Development, Trends and in-depth information on
selected issues - National Bureau for Drug Prevention, Warsaw, Poland, 2013
http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/html.cfm/index228479EN.html

can clearly see these harms have now increased to much above the pre-ban
levels. In relation to the likelihood of this pattern also occurring in the UK model,
Vice62 has produced an interesting investigative article on the already visible
effects taking place in Blackburn, England; the article seem to indicate a similar
situation may take place, as experienced in Ireland. According to the article,
reports from a senior investigator in the region had shown that “the bulk of the
shop's legal high stock was quickly sold off on the cheap, at £1 a bag, to the drug-
dealing outfit, a family notorious in the area for selling a range of drugs including
crack and heroin.”63 It is not only in Blackburn where we can see this mass ‘bulk
buying’ of ‘psychoactive substances’ for re-sale illegally in anticipation of it’s
supply becoming a criminal offence; a newspaper in the UK has recently
reported a mass drug seizure in Spain, where “over 10,000 envelopes which
were sealed and marked with different logotypes to differentiate the nearly 15
kilos of synthetic drugs”64 were bound to arrive in the UK. What can be inferred
from the information provided is that, while Government may declare the
criminalisation of production and supply of substances listed in the New
Psychoactive Substances Bill to be a victorious progression in the ‘war against
psychoactive drugs’, with barriers being imposed on their availability in the
public domain, the reality is that in places like Blackburn, the selling off of legal
highs in bulk to drug dealers has only caused the distribution of ‘psychoactive
62 “How the UK's Legal High Ban Will Harm Users and Help Dealers”- Max Daly,
25th January, 2016
http://www.vice.com/read/blackburn-legal-high-ban-benefit-dealers-929
63 supra, n.62
64 “Police bust ‘Breaking Bad’ drugs lab filled with ‘legal highs' bound for
Britain”- Gerard Couzens, 22nd April, 2016
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/510035/drug-arrest-legal-highs-
spain-britain

substances’ to be transferred away from ‘head shops’ into the hands of the “local
heroin and crack-selling gang.”65 It can therefore be argued that once again, in an
attempt to prohibit the sources of production and supply of psychoactive
substances, through the inaction of the New Psychoactive Substances Bill, all that
has really occurred is a shift in the market to a place that is no longer able to be
as easily monitored or regulated by government.
When analysing the effectiveness of prohibitive drug policy on the reduction of
drug use generally, we can look to how effective the Misuse of Drugs Act has
been in preventing people from using the drugs it has classified as illegal. The
British drug survey, 2014, published by The Guardian66 showed that despite
being listed as a class-B drug, Cannabis with prosecution for possession of the
drug leading to the possibility of anywhere between three months to five years
in prison67, seemed to have next to no affect as a deference to the use of drug by
individuals. Out of the 69% of the public who answered ‘yes’ to the question of
whether they had taken illegal drugs before, 93% of drug of those, which equates
to over 14 million people, have used Cannabis at least once. From results
collected in 2008, these figures actually exhibit an increase in users of around
10%.68 It is not only Cannabis that has seen a rise in overall use; Amphetamines,
like Crystal Meth and Cocaine have also seen increased rates of use. The
65 supra, n.62
66 A National UK Newspaper
http://www.theguardian.com/uk
67 Misuse of Drugs Act, 1971, Schedule 4
68 All this information has been collected from:
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/oct/05/-sp-drug-use-is-rising-in-
the-uk-but-were-not-addicted

European Drug Report of 201469 found that upon testing sewage systems in the
UK, they showed that levels of cocaine traceable in the water supply were the
highest in Europe. The Independent70 reported that the water found in London’s
sewage systems measured “711 mg of benzoylecgonine, the main chemical in
cocaine, per 1,000 people, compared to 393 mg in Amsterdam and 233 mg in
Milan.”71 All this information presented arguably gives us the strong position to
state that in terms of deterring people from using drugs, the Misuse of Drugs Act
fails to serve as a preventative method. What is to say that the New Psychoactive
Substances Bill will fare any differently, especially in relation to the changing
circumstances in society that appear to indicate an increase in the use of drugs
recreationally. The point must be made at this stage, that the research we are
referring to here is primarily focused around recreational users, as opposed to
troubled substance ‘abusers’. Nonetheless it can still be argued that prohibitive
measures have an extremely detrimental result for those users who are
consumed by addictions to both drugs under the Misuse of Drugs Act, as well as
substances listed under The New Psychoactive Substances Bill. The harms we
can pay particular attention to are social harms, such as crimes that are related
to drug use primarily carried out in order to fund usage, such as theft and
prostitution.
69 European Drug Report, 2014
http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/edr2014
70 A National UK Newspaper
http://www.independent.co.uk/
71 “London is the 'cocaine capital of Europe' - and use of the drug peaks on a
Tuesday”- Heather Saul, 28th May, 2014
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/london-is-the-cocaine-
capital-of-europe-and-use-of-the-drug-peaks-on-a-tuesday-9444107.html

When the government chooses to take a ‘speak easy’ approach in relation to drug
use, essentially treating all users in the same way and branding them ‘criminals’,
social harms begin to rear their ugly head. Despite the fact an alcoholic in the UK
is treated by society as an individual suffering from health issues and is afforded
a number of outlets and procedures, often funded by the government, to treat
their recognised illness, a drug user is instead criminally prosecuted for their
addiction and sent to prison where it is has been argued the availability of drugs
is even more readily available. We can however interject here and state that as
mentioned in our previous chapter, under the New Psychoactive Substances Bill
the criminal element for those individuals caught in possession for personal use
is no longer in force. Although, one crucial factor the government has not
appreciated in this situation is that merely exempting criminal liability and
taking no real further steps to help educate social attitudes towards drug users
or to address the ‘taboo’ topic of drug use, serves little in the efforts to effectively
reduce the social harms experienced by these users. It is important to
differentiate this to the social harms outlines in the previous section of this
paper, as we are not here discussing educating individuals on the harms posed
by the use of substances, but instead educating those who are on the outside of
drug use looking in. This is recognised through ways in which the public
recognise harms like criminal behaviour, which is experienced by users in order
to fund their drug use; recently the BBC reported on some crucial findings
gathered by the Home Office, which stated that in 2015, “95% street prostitutes
also identified as being problematic drug users”.72 The neglect of Government to
72 “Should it be illegal to pay for sex in the UK?”- Catrin Nye, 6th May, 2015
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-32539648

address any of the social harms caused by drug use in the UK is overtly apparent
and furthermore it can be argued that the result of prohibition and the creation
of an underground market for drug dealing has began to contribute to these
harms. Regional publications like ‘The Salford Star’73 have begun to pick up on
social harms users are facing through things like public alienation or exclusion-
when these ‘head shops’ begin shutting their doors to customers, the drug
market and all those individuals involved becomes a lot less ‘acceptable’ in the
appearance and the way it is viewed by society. When speaking to local’s within
the community of Salford, the newspaper identified a reoccurring pattern; since
the closing of these locally run head shops there had been an increase in people
on the streets either sleeping rough or becoming involved in ‘petty crime’, in
order to fund their substance use. One must therefore ask the question that, in
relation to the reduction of harms, what is the New Psychoactive Substances Bill
doing in order to combat how the public view drug users as ‘undesirables’, and
possibly reason whether prohibitive policy is the best mechanism to introduce
when seeking to cultivate a supportive public opinion towards reducing harm to
users. It more simple terms, is prohibitive policy ‘dehumanising’ users in the
eyes of the public, therefore making it harder for individuals experiencing harms
like social alienation, to reach out for support from their communities to help
address and resolve them.
If we look closer to what the Government is intending to ‘prohibit’ we see
explicitly that it is the ‘psychoactive substances’ themselves; under s.2(2) of the
73 A Local UK Newspaper
http://www.salfordstar.com/

Bill a psychoactive substance, “produces a psychoactive effect in a person if, by
stimulating or depressing the person’s central nervous system, it affects the
person’s mental functioning or emotional state.”74 This is clearly extremely
vague and those reading the Bill are presented with confusion over not only
what actually constitutes a ‘psychoactive substance’, but furthermore what
constitutes ‘psychoactivity’ as enforceable criminal offence. As stated by Amber
Marks, in her ‘Written Submission to The Home Affairs Committee Short Inquiry
into Psychoactive Substances’, despite the definition of ‘psychoactivity’ being
scientifically sound, in regards to the context of the Bill it leaves the reader, in
this case it would principally be the Police, perplexed as to how to go about
enforcing legislation correctly. Organisations like Transform75 have reported on
troubles arising in the case of Ireland, where prohibitive legislation has already
been enacted in an attempt to deal with the supply and production of
‘psychoactive substances’; due to a lack of clarity over proving ‘psychoactivity’
alongside evidence suggesting that only five cases have reached the courts in
Ireland76, little progress has been made in successfully prosecuting individuals. It
can be said at this stage, surely it would be more appropriate for the reduction of
harms, to look at drug policy ‘holistically’ and re-establish an entirely new harm-
matrix- specifically, one being based on scientifically established harms, rather
than merely on whether a substance stimulates or depresses an individual’s
central nervous system. To clarify, in cases of prohibitive policy it appears to be
74 S.2(2) of the Psychoactive Substances Act
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2016/2/contents/enacted
75 Transform Charity
http://www.tdpf.org.uk/
76 Section 4 of the Home Affairs Committee Report
6102.htm

the case that confusion can be caused when it comes to judicial interpretation
and policing of legislation to be in keeping with the supposed intentions of
Parliament.
An interesting point of debate that was recently raised at the SSDP International
Conference in Washington, D.C77 regarded the issue of New Psychoactive
Substances in relation to ethical drug consumption. This paper has explicitly
focused on the harms incurred by users of psychoactive substances- however it is
also beneficial to briefly pay focus to the harms incurred by those who are involved
in the production of ‘psychoactive substances’. In the production of many
controlled substances, a question of ethical drug consumption by users is raised;
the ‘war on drugs’ has been overwhelmingly detrimental to those who work in the
production of these substances. If we look to South and Central America, we see
issues with criminal sentencing and how the illegal drug trade is extremely
harmful to a number of families involved in the production of controlled
substances. Not only has it lead to a significant proportion of young Latina’s aged
between eighteen and twenty-five in jail for some sort of drug charge,78 it has lead
to mass violence and a significant number of deaths from the ‘cultura narcóticos’ or
‘drug cultre’ of gangland Mexico. The“#EveryLineCounts”79 campaign has already
quite openly demonized recreational users of substances like Cocaine, for their
77 Attending the talk “Ethical Drug Consumption” at the SSDP Washington, D.C
conference
http://ssdp.org/events/ssdp2016/
78 Drug Policy Alliance: Drug War Staistics
http://www.drugpolicy.org/drug-war-statistics
79 “#EveryLineCounts campaign: Cocaine users urged to consider impact”- BBC
News, 2nd December, 2015

participation in the large loss of lives as a result of their involvement in purchasing
these substances. The point can be made that in criminalizing the production of
‘psychoactive substances’, the channels of manufacturing also shifts to
underground sources and more lives become at risk. Not only this but as we are
focusing on social harms, there becomes a huge risk of harms for those cultures
heavily involved in the production side of psychoactive substances. Little is known
about the production of ‘psychoactive substances’, other than currently they are
produced in labs, by scientists as “research chemicals,”80where conditions are
controlled and a certain level of standards are set. It may be worth consideration
that in severing chains of production through prohibitive legislation, who knows
where the line of production may shift to.
Chapter 4:
A complete alternative to the Bill? A case study
Much like the UK, there came a crossroad type situation in Portugal in regards to
legislation governing drug policy; as Portugal’s drug problem had reached rather
extreme heights of harmful behavior during the late 1990’s, the government was
forced to provide a solution to the problem. The decision was made to embark on
an almost ‘maverick’ style of policy, which saw decriminalization measures and
harm reductive policy being enacted. The similarities Portugal had when faced
80 Release: “LEGAL HIGHS', NOVEL PSYCHOACTIVE SUBSTANCES, RESEARCH
CHEMICALS”
http://www.release.org.uk/legal-highs-novel-psychoactive-substances-
research-chemicals

with the process of establishing a new form of drug policy, were undeniably
comparable to the process that is currently taking place in the UK. Just like the
UK has its ‘Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs’81, to whom government
turns to when seeking expert advice on matters relating to relative information
regarding the specifics of drugs, Portugal had too set up its own specialist advice
committee, ‘The Commission for a National Drug Strategy.’82 The responsibilities
of this Committee were more or less the same as the ACMD in the UK with one of
its responsibilities being to publish specialist reports. These reports were based
around medical statists and evidence based research which when put together
contained the most effective way to minimize harmful drug use; this would then
be used by the Government when it would begin to formulate legislation, so that
the policies created would best reflect the relative demands of its general public.
The CNDS published its report, “Comissão para a  Estratégia Nacional de
Combate à  Droga”83 in 1998, which prompted the Portuguese government to
adopt its now implemented policy, in July 2001. The only difference between the
UK and Portuguese model which is existent at this stage, is that Portugal decided
to make the decision to follow the advice of its specialist committee’s
recommendations and enact a harm reduction based policy. It can be argued that
in Portugal a significant amount of push for change in drug policy actually came
81 The ACMD Website
https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/advisory-council-on-the-
misuse-of-drugs
82 Transform Document on ‘The Commission for a National Drug Strategy’
http://www.tdpf.org.uk/blog/drug-decriminalisation-portugal-setting-record-
straight
83 Estratégia Nacional de Luta contra Droga, Comissão para a Estratégia Nacional
de Combate à Droga
http://www.sicad.pt/BK/Publicacoes/Lists/SICAD_PUBLICACOES/Attachments
/48/ENcomissao.pdf

from within government, where there appeared to be a consensus amongst all
the main parties that positive change needed to be implemented. This can be
contrasted with the case of the UK, who’s Government has made the decision to
stick to its prohibitive stance, because to do so is an electorally safe move in
respect to ‘party politics’ and populist governing. We can support the claim made
here by looking to the 2015 electoral manifestos of the six ‘main’ political parties
in the UK. The two dominant parties, Conservative and Labour, both stood strong
on policies based around preventing the distribution and sale of drugs, as well as
an outward lack of sympathy towards drug use in general in efforts to discourage
individuals from using these illicit drugs. The Liberal Democrats were the only
party to propose a model similar to that of Portugal; however as the UK seems to
operate on a ‘two-party politics’ model of electoral success, currently the Liberal
Democrats are not in a strong enough position to effectively influence this
change. The Conservative and Labour Party tend to be the only parties to achieve
electoral success and therefore the push for drug policy reform on their electoral
mandates tends not to feature as an essential point. Therefore in evaluating
whether the UK is in a position politically, to make a similar move to Portugal in
regards to an overhaul of its drug policy, it can be inferred from the information
provided that it would be an unlikely turn of events.
It has been debated amongst Politicians that the decision in Portugal was made
differently to the UK due to the differing severity of the problem in each country.
In Portugal there was an almost ‘epidemic’ atmosphere surrounding the
problems drugs were having upon society, with rates of HIV positive individuals

the highest out of all the European states in 1999.84 Although the levels of harms
are not as severe in the UK as it was in Portugal at the time it made the decision
to change it’s policy, one can strongly argue the converse point that harms
should not be assessed in such a polarized manner. Drug use is not a ‘black or
white’ issue, and the same argument is extended to the harms that follow as a
consequence. It seems a rather ridiculous argument to say that there is little
point in addressing an issue until it becomes an overwhelming problem that is
out of control; why not tackle the issue in its infantile form, when it would
actually be able to prevent many anticipated harms from occurring. Interestingly
however, the Open Society Foundation found that although a EuroBarometer85
survey carried out in 2001 showed that the population of Portugal believed ‘drug
use’ was the third biggest problem that faced its society, drug use in Portugal
was actually amongst the lowest in Europe. This information can be contrasted
with results collected by the British Drug Survey of 201486, which showed that
despite only 3% of the population believing drug use was prevalent enough in
the UK to constitute a debate to changing drug policy through methods like
decriminalization, the UK actually has the highest rates of drug use within
Europe87. In relating this information back to the question of harms related to
‘psychoactive substances’, it is important to further note that ‘psychoactive
84 “Reviewing current practice in drug-substitution treatment in the European
Union”: EMCDDA, November 2000
85 “Drug Policy In Portugal: The Benefits of De-Criminalizing Drug Use”- Artur
Domosławski (2011, Open Society Foundations)
86 “British drugs survey 2014: drug use is rising in the UK – but we're not
addicted” Jim Mann, 5th October, 2014
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/oct/05/-sp-drug-use-is-rising-in-
the-uk-but-were-not-addicted
87 “UK HAS HIGHEST RATES OF DRUG USE IN EUROPE”- Russell Webster, 24th
June, 2015
http://www.russellwebster.com/uk-has-highest-rates-of-drug-use-in-europe/

substance’ use in the UK is also the highest out of all the European states88. The
argument presented here is that, although academics may argue the
circumstances surrounding Portugal differed greatly to the UK, with there being
a more imperative need to implement change in Portugal, the reality of the
situation is that the UK actually has a greater risk of incurring harms than
Portugal ever did. The real difference between the two countries is that the
harms incurred by individuals in Portugal were more easily identified by its
general public and governing bodies; one may even argue that due to the
problems Portugal faced with its failing economy at the time, the awareness of
these problems were amplified. With the UK however, there needs to be a
realization that although the problem of harmful substance use is not entirely
apparent yet, it is the opinion of this paper that we are nearing a point of
extreme vulnerability; if we do not open our eyes to the possibility of harms,
they may suddenly begin to amass into society at an extreme rate.
Having already featured as a point of discussion in the previous chapters, the
model of legislation in practice for drug policy in Portugal is a more favored
approach, when seeking to reduce harms to users, than the current model the UK
has in place. The information provided so far seems to indicate that the current
position the UK Government has taken, in enacting the New Psychoactive
Substances Bill, is not an effective means of reducing harms to users. It is
therefore necessary to consider the case of Portugal in slightly more depth, as it’s
approach has proven to be more effective than prohibitive methods. The
88 UNDOC report into the use of ‘Psychoactive Substances’ in Europe.
https://www.unodc.org/documents/scientific/NPS_Report.pdf

remainder of this chapter will be separated into two spheres of analysis, one
looking at the benefits decriminalization has had for the reduction of harms and
the second looking more progressively to how beneficial it has been to transfer
control over matters of drug policy from criminal oversight into the hands of civil
and health departments of government. The chapter will then summarize to look
at how plausible it would be to implement a similar system for the transferal of
departments in the UK.
Section 1: Decriminalization
It can be argued that the first step Portugal made in establishing a system to
effectively reduce harms, was decriminalizing the personal possession of all
substances. There appears to be a mentality in the UK which differs greatly to
that of Portugal, and one clear social harm decriminalization reduces, is
stigmatization; once the ‘taboo’ nature of talking about drugs is eliminated, then
there is more incentive for people to actively seek help or advice over their use
of substances. There is evidence to support the claim that when individuals are
presented with the fear of criminal sanctions for their drug use, they are
deferred from seeking out advice or help regarding the safest way to use
substances. One example that can be used here is the case of public drug testing
stations, enacted to specifically deal with testing the purity content of drugs at
popular festivals or club nights in the UK; one relative example here is The

Warehouse Project89 in Manchester. In early 2014, The Guardian published an
article90 referring to the time it had spent investigating the results of a drug
testing ‘pilot scheme’; the scheme was launched at an extremely popular club
night called The Warehouse Project, which often takes place in Manchester, and
had been linked to drug users after a drug overdose resulted in the death of an
attendee at a previous event. However parts of the scheme seemed to contradict
the protocol of the actual event; attendees were searched for drugs upon arrival
by sniffer dogs or bodily searches and if they were found to be in possession of
drugs they would be denied entry into the venue. Yet, once within the venue
there was the opportunity for individuals to test the purity level of their drugs on
sight, in order to establish whether there were any unsafe substances contained
within, such as PMA or PMMA91. They also took samples of water from urinals
and toilets to test for the purity level of drugs being consumed in the venue; one
they calculated these statistics, they put them up on the stand so attendees could
attempt to determine the purity levels of the drugs they were taking. However,
when individuals who were genuinely seeking to test the purity content of their
drugs approached the stall, they were apprehended upon arrival and
subsequently removed from the event or charged with possession offences
under the Misuse of Drugs Act. Moves like this inadvertently discourage users
from willingly seeking to reduce their chance of harm through consumption of
89 The Event Website
https://www.thewarehouseproject.com/
90 “Manchester's Warehouse Project club introduces drug testing pilot scheme”-
Helen Pidd, 1st December, 2013
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/dec/01/drug-testing-warehouse-
project-nightclub
91 Know The Score overview on PMA/PMMA
http://knowthescore.info/drugs-a-z/pma

unsafe substances, as there is the fear of being penalized legally for doing so.
There is a clear example given here, in that when individuals were given the
opportunity to actually test the substances they were taking for further
information about their composition, they readily take the chance to do so. Drug
testing has also been proven to reduce the rates of physical harms to individuals
astronomically due to the fact that once an individual is made aware of the purity
of the substance they are taking, they are able to better determine a correct
dosage to take and thus reduce their chances of overdosing. What is therefore
happening, is that social stigma surrounding drug use has acted as a catalyst for
the increase of physical harms to users- individuals fear the legal repercussions
of their drug use so much that they are willing to risk their health to avoid
criminal prosecution. Some may seek to argue that the case of ‘psychoactive
substances’ is not applicable in this situation, as they will remain legal to possess
under current law and are hard to ascertain the purity of due to the fact little is
know about them. Nonetheless this view is restrictive; it may be true that in
leaving possession of ‘psychoactive substances’ legal, the UK has essentially
‘decriminalized’ this group of drugs for possession, yet the same privilege has
not been afforded to production and supply. This view does not take into account
where the sources of these substances are originating from and if there have
been any variations to the purity of the substances during the transitional stages
of supply. If we are to look at the mentality of many drug dealers, they are
essentially looking to make a profit margin on their sale of these substances and
will therefore reduce the purity levels or ‘cut’ drugs with a mixture of other
substances in order to yield a greater return. The problem is that when this
mixing of substances occurs, harmful additives can be present, without the user

knowing. Therefore, the testing of psychoactive substances is still extremely
relevant in regards to ‘drug testing’.
The most apparent stigmatization that has been eliminated in Portugal is the
social harms that occur when an individual is criminally prosecuted for
possession of a drug or drugs. If we look at Portugal, the number of people
arrested and sent to criminal courts for drug offenses declined by more than 60
percent since the decriminalization of all drugs.92 Importantly, the number of
people referred for administrative offenses under the new law has remained
mostly constant, ranging between 6,000 and 8,000 individuals per anum;93 it was
quoted by Portuguese Government officials that these results “indicate no overall
increase in the amount of drug offenders, following changes to the law.”94 The
vast majority, which equates to more than eighty percent of cases, that have come
before Portugal’s ‘Commissions for the Dissuasion of Drug Addiction’ are deemed
to be individuals who are’ non-problematic’ users and they dismissed without
any further consequences. It can be suggested that it is the fact the UK still takes
such a strong prohibitive stance to drugs, principally outlined under the Misuse
of Drugs Act, which explains why the UK leads European countries on having the
largest proportion of users of ‘psychoactive substances’95, as if individuals are
92 Serviço de Intervenção nos Comportamentos e nas Dependências (SICAD),
"Relató rio Anual 2013 – a Situação Do País Em Matéria De Drogas E
Toxicodependências," (2014), 91; Hughes and Stevens, "What Can We Learn
from the Portuguese Decriminalization of Illicit Drugs?," 1008-10.
93 Ibid, 1009.
94 "What Can We Learn from the Portuguese Decriminalization of Illicit Drugs?,"
1009; (SICAD), "Relató rio Anual 2013 – a Situação Do País Em Matéria De Drogas
E Toxicodependências."
95 Drug Misuse: Findings from the 2014/15 Crime Survey for England and Wales,
Second edition, July, 2015

caught possessing ‘psychoactive substances’, they avoid any criminal liability for
doing so. Therefore if the UK Government really wishes to reduce the number of
people using these little know about substances, then it may be more beneficial
for them to decriminalize drugs listed under the Misuse of Drugs Act and thus
remove the fear of criminal prosecution for doing so. This may be why in
Portugal, following its new approach, in 2012 only 0.4% - 0.9% of the public
reported taking ‘psychoactive substances’,96 whereas in the UK during a similar
time frame around 2.8% of the UK identified as having used ‘psychoactive
substances’97.It is the opinion of this paper that giving ‘psychoactive substances’
legal exemption for personal possession, whilst retaining the illegality of
substances under the Misuse of Drugs Act, does not effectively obtain the
objective of Government to reduce use of these substances and ergo the harms
they incur. Therefore, this paper argues that decriminalization of drugs under the
Misuse of Drugs Act would be a more effective means of dealing with harms
associated with New psychoactive substances that enacting the New Psychoactive
Substances Bill. However, this is only the first stage in a two-part scheme to most
effectively reduce harms associated with the use of ‘psychoactive substances’; the
second stage is to transfer the authority overseeing drug policy from the hands of
the criminal law and into the hands of health departments. The next section will
explore the benefits that have occurred in reducing harms, and will summarize
with a proposal as to whether the UK would successfully be able to implement a
similar change if it wished to do so.
le/462885/drug-misuse-1415.pdf
96 EMCDDA- Portugal Overview: A Summary of the National Drug Situation
http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/countries/portugal
97 supra, n.94

Section 2: Transferal of departments
Although it is easy to look at both decriminalization and the transferal of
departments as two separate issues, both work together to serve a greater
purpose; they allow for the transformation of social attitudes and perceptions
towards drug use. In Portugal, the transferal of departments from the Ministry of
Justice to the Ministry of Health has allowed for reduced rates of problematic and
adolescent drug users, with a 2013 survey of European Member Sates showing
Portugal as having lower rates of problematic drug use than countries within the
EU that have punitive policies in place.98 Not only this but statistics show that
following the change more people have been recorded as actually receiving the
drug treatment that best aids them personally in the reduction of the specific
harms they face. During the years of 1998-2011, the number of individuals in
‘successful’ treatment programs showed an increase of more than sixty
percent.99 We use the word ‘successful’ here because we must remember that
drug treatment in Portugal is offered on a voluntary basis, users are not forced to
attend rehabilitation for their substance use problems, therefore the fact so
many users have decided to make the decision to instigate proceeding to reduce
harm, on their own accord, is a success in itself. These treatment programs are
also labeled ‘successful’ due to the results they wield in producing people
98 Mike Vuolo, "National-Level Drug Policy and Young People's Illicit Drug Use: A
Multilevel Analysis of the European Union," Drug and Alcohol Dependence 131,
no. 1-2 (2013): 149-56.
99 Hughes and Stevens, "What Can We Learn from the Portuguese
Decriminalization of Illicit Drugs?," 1015; Instituto da Droga e da
Toxicodependência, "Relató rio Anual 2011 – a Situação Do País Em Matéria De
Drogas E Toxicodependências," (2012)

finishing their programs with reduced levels of harms and having a generally low
rate of relapsed users. One key example of this success is found in Portugal’s
opioid-substitution therapy, which has been held by the Portuguese government
to be one of the most effective treatments that exists globally in reducing opioid
dependence; out of the 38,000 people who receive treatment, around seventy
percent are on this specialized opioid reduction program.100 It is not just the
government however, who have spoken out in appraisal of the decision to
transfer departments, Domoslawski101 a journalist from Poland carried out an
investigate article looking at the changes in society as a result of the transferal of
departments. In his view, Portuguese policymakers were deserving of appraisal,
for in his words “creating the necessary infrastructure and making the required
financial investment to enable the policy to be put into practice,”102 as well as for
eliminating most barriers to accessing vital services. Furthermore, there is not
only appraisal from external sources to Portugal, but praise has come from
within the country too, with Dr. João Goulão103 stating that “there is no doubt
that the phenomenon of addiction is in decline in Portugal as a result of a set of
policies that target reduction of both supply and demand, including measures of
100 Balsa, Vital, and Urbano, "Ao Consumo De Substâncias Psicoativas Na
População Portuguesa, 2012: Relató rio Preliminar; (SICAD), "Relató rio Anual
2013 – a Situação Do País Em Matéria De Drogas E Toxicodependências."
101 Artur Domoslawski: Writer for “Polityka” Magazine
http://www.polityka.pl/TygodnikPolityka
102 Domoslawski, Drug Policy in Portugal: The Benefits of Decriminalizing Drug
Use, 49-50.
103 “Decriminalization and Harm Reduction in Portugal: An Interview with Dr.
João Goulão”- Linnae Ponte, 2015
http://www.maps.org/news/bulletin/articles/387-bulletin-spring-2015/5671-
decriminalization-and-harm-reduction-in-portugal-an-interview-with-dr-
jo%C3%A3o-goul%C3%A3o

prevention, treatment, harm reduction and social reinsertion.” 104 What can
therefore be inferred from the evidence and statements provided is that the
transferal of departments has not only shown more people actively seeking harm
reductive rehabilitation services, but it has also seen attitudes in society towards
drug users change rather positively also. The Portuguese Drug Strategy, 1999,
provides: “The guarantee of access to treatment for all drug addicts who seek
treatment is an absolute priority of this national drug strategy. The humanistic
principle on which the national strategy is based, the awareness that drug
addiction is an illness and respect for the State’s responsibility to satisfy all
citizen’s constitutional right to health, justify this fundamental strategic option
and the consequent mobilization of resources to comply with this right.” It is
suggested that in order for the UK to most effectively reduce harms incurred
from the use of psychoactive substances, a more humanistic approach towards
drug users needs to apply; this stretches beyond merely leaving possession for
personal use legal, it also means addressing individuals as human beings.
If we look at the Machinery of Government Guidance, published by the Cabinet
Office in 2015, we can see that it states in the Ministerial Code that the “Prime
Minister’s approval must be sought where changes are proposed that affect this
allocation and the responsibilities for the discharge of ministerial functions.”105 If
we follow later direction given by the Ministerial code it continues to state that
104 "Portugal Drug Law Show Results Ten Years on, Experts Say," Agence France-
Presse, July 1 2011.
http://www.mayorsinnovation.org/images/uploads/pdf/16_-
_DPA_Fact_Sheet_Portugal_Decriminalization_Feb2014.pdf
105 Ministerial Code s.4(2)
le/468255/Final_draft_ministerial_code_No_AMENDS_14_Oct.pdf

The Prime Minsters approval is sought where changes are sought “between
Ministers in charge of departments unless the changes are de minimis, can be
made administratively and do not justify public announcement.”106 Thus it must
be noted that if the executive wished to do so, it would be entirely able to not
only decriminalize possession of all drugs, but would further be able to transfer
UK drug policy away from the governance of the Home Office and into the
Department of Health.
Conclusion
This paper has sought to answer the question of whether the Psychoactive
Substances Act is an effective mechanism in aiding the reduction of harms
experienced by users; an overwhelming amount of the information provided in
this paper suggests that the answer is in fact, ‘no’. The reasons behind these
views tend to be founded on the fact that the UK government still lacks a
genuinely clear direction in regards to the progression of National drug policy; it
almost seems at ‘limbo’ between its long established ‘war on drugs’ approach
and a new frontier of reducing harms to individuals. Although its intentions to
help aid individuals seem genuine enough, what has occurred following the
drafting of the New Psychoactive Substances Bill is legislative confusion and the
potential to put individuals at even greater risks than either approaches founded
in strictly criminalizing, or strictly decriminalizing drugs would ever have
entailed. Although this paper has explored the rather miniscule amount of
106 ibid, Ministerial Code s.4(3)(a)

advantages the Bill has, such as bringing awareness to issues surrounding the
unknown effects of ‘psychoactive substances’ and raising particular attention in
regards to concerns over their potency, little else has been done to reduce harms
or the likelihood of harms to users. The disadvantages presented in this paper
seem to make up the majority of its content, with attention not only being
directed towards its legal incoherency and various interpretative complications
as a legal document, but also over the subliminal messages it seems to send to
users. One example being that it inadvertently encourages ‘psychoactive
substance’ consumption over the use of all other drugs present within our
society through leaving possession of ‘psychoactive substances’ legal, whilst
retaining the illegality of all other listed substances. We can see that Portugal
offers a perfect example of a model in practice, which is based around principles
of harm reduction, and produces effective results in practice; it is indisputable
that in regards to long-term solutions to addressing harms, the Portuguese
model is a more favorable approach than that taken by the UK. If we take the
statement given by Lord Rosser in his Letter to ACMD on June 15th 2015,
“success would mean reducing the harms caused by New Psychoactive
Substances through tackling their supply and sending the clearest possible
message that these are not safe.”107It would appear that the Government has
been unsuccessful in its attempts to control ‘supply’, with information outlined in
this paper to suggest it has merely shifted to underground sources of illicit drug
dealing. Additionally, it has been proven in this paper that simply telling
107 “NEW PSYCHOACTIVE SUBSTANCES REVIEW, REPORT OF THE EXPERT
PANEL”, September 2014
le/368583/NPSexpertReviewPanelReport.pdf

Dissertation Nicholas Dolder

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (19)

Similar to Dissertation Nicholas Dolder

Similar to Dissertation Nicholas Dolder (9)

Dissertation Nicholas Dolder