The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-08950, in the name of Roseanna Cunningham, on responding to the challenges of new psychoactive substances in Scotland.
The debate is quite tight for time. If Ms Cunningham has fired up her machine, she will have 13 minutes as soon as she is ready to go.
15:06
Thank you, Presiding Officer—my device is charging as I speak.
I remind members that we live in a time when the international drug market is changing profoundly. I think that all members are aware that a huge variety of substances is now available. A growing number of them are not classified in the drugs legislation, so responding to them is problematic.
It is understandable that most of us are increasingly concerned about the growing availability of substances that are sold as legal highs. We are discouraging the use of that term, because—unfortunately—it leads people to assume that they must be safe, when they are not. That is why the motion uses the term “new psychoactive substances”; we could also call them new drugs.
The new drugs are designed to produce similar effects to illegal drugs, such as ecstasy, but they fall outside the control of the United Kingdom Government’s Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. They are often labelled and sold as plant food or bath salts, or marked as not fit for human consumption. Those are all tactics used by sellers to avoid the law.
The substances are easily accessible. They can be bought online and on our high streets in so-called head shops. A survey by DrugScope found that the substances are also sold at petrol stations and in takeaways and newsagents. As new drugs, their health effects are completely unknown. We know that they can be harmful and that there are reports of people being admitted to hospital and sometimes—tragically—dying after taking them. To put it simply, whether or not a substance is controlled, it is impossible to know its content. Dangers are associated with every drug.
We have seen the events last weekend in Glasgow and Ayrshire. The police investigation continues and it would probably be inappropriate for us to discuss those events. I am sure that everybody agrees that our thoughts are with the families who have been affected.
I will put the new drugs into context as we consider the implications for policy and practice. The most commonly used drug in Scotland is still cannabis. There is a legacy of problem opiate use that stretches back decades, with which we are all—sadly—familiar.
Responding to the new drugs, like any other drug, will be an integral part of the overall drugs strategy in “The Road to Recovery”. The strategy is underpinned by a holistic and person-centred approach to treating drug use, regardless of the substances involved. Until now, most of the emphasis has been on opiate use, but we must remember that the strategy covers a great deal more than that.
Members who attended the drugs debate in November will be pleased to hear that my summary of the Government’s achievements will be swift. The rate of drug use among the general adult population has fallen since 2006 and drug use among young people is at its lowest level since 2002. Some of the battles are beginning to be won. We have dramatically reduced waiting times for drug treatment and maintained record investment in front-line drug services and support. We have moved into the third phase of delivering the strategy, which involves driving forward improvements in quality across drug services in Scotland. However, we cannot be complacent. We need to be mindful that different drugs bring different and new challenges.
Evidence from the United Nations and the European Union highlights the increased availability of the new drugs internationally. In 2012, the EU’s early warning system identified 73 new drugs—a number that has risen steadily over recent years. The new drugs present a constantly evolving challenge, not just because of the apparent ease with which they can be produced and subsequently tweaked, but because of their ease of supply and sale online. Technological advances in global communications have created an unregulated and open online marketplace for drugs. According to the EU, the number of online shops is growing, with 693 identified across Europe in 2012—the number will be much higher now—and I am aware that some members have experienced the problem in their constituencies. Across the world, Governments are grappling with the new challenge. Global problems need global solutions, and new psychoactive substances are increasingly on the agenda of international institutions such as the UN.
Although the control of drugs is a reserved issue, the challenges from the new substances are a concern to the Government. Last year, I hosted a national event at which I invited experts from enforcement, health, education, research and the third sector to share information and experiences of how the new substances are affecting Scotland. I was reassured to hear of the considerable knowledge that is available on new psychoactive substances and the valuable work that is already being undertaken across the country. It is clear that no sector can tackle the problem alone and that a collective and co-ordinated response is required.
Last year’s event was the first step towards further action. Informed by those discussions, we have taken action in four areas: tackling supply, preventing demand, enabling our workforce to respond, and understanding the scale of the issue. I will deal first with tackling supply. Aside from the UK Government’s temporary banning order and the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, there is no bespoke legislation available in Scotland to address the supply of new psychoactive substances. Police Scotland has been working with trading standards to explore the powers that are available under civil and criminal law, such as reckless conduct and trading standards powers to seize and test substances and take action against their sale.
We have been working with Police Scotland to review enforcement activity and will continue to explore the range of devolved powers that may be available to tackle the sale of new psychoactive substances, which would include planning and licensing powers. I welcome the Home Office’s announcement in December of a review of the legislative powers that are available to address the supply of the drugs. I have been asked to contribute to the review and will host a workshop for experts in enforcement from the police, trading standards and local government to inform Scotland’s response.
I turn to preventing demand. It is essential that we prevent drug use in the first place or stop its escalation through the timely provision of advice on drugs and their risks to all those who need it. That includes addressing the dangers of polydrug use, which increases the risks even more. Substance misuse education in schools is delivered through the health and wellbeing strand of the curriculum for excellence. Our know the score helpline and website offer free confidential advice on drugs, including new psychoactive substances. The website was refreshed in December to make it more user friendly and accessible by mobile phone. We will produce new leaflets and posters on new psychoactive substances for know the score to support services and to raise awareness of the dangers of the drugs. Starting tomorrow, we will also run Facebook adverts to raise awareness of the dangers of the drugs and to get people to visit the know the score website to get information.
Together with partners, we are providing teachers with resources to respond to the new drugs. Police Scotland receives funding from the Scottish Government to deliver choices for life, a substance misuse education programme for schoolchildren. In 2013, educational resources on the new drugs were developed for high-school children. This year, Crew is developing national educational resources for teachers and youth workers on new psychoactive substances and other stimulant drugs. A range of education work is already taking place.
Responding to any new drug and offering support that is person centred is the approach that underpins our whole drugs strategy. We are, therefore, investing in the development of the workforce to prepare them for the challenges ahead. To develop the capacity of drug and youth workers, since 2010 we have funded Crew to provide training and information on new drug trends to Scotland’s 30 alcohol and drug partnerships, as well as drugs services and other services.
The Scottish Drugs Forum has been commissioned to develop the capacity and quality of interventions around new psychoactive substances and stimulants in, for example, housing and employment services for young people. Last September, I was pleased to open the joint Scottish Drugs Forum and Crew conference on new drug trends in Scotland. I hope that members took time to read the information that the SDF and Crew provided for today’s debate.
The constant challenge of new substances affects the figures that we report. As a direct result of discussions at the event that I hosted last year, we have refreshed our data collection tools to help improve the information on new psychoactive substances, which will help us to further understand their prevalence and impact. The way in which we collect data on new drugs has also been considered in the consultation for the new integrated information system for drug and alcohol treatment and outcomes, which is led by the national health service’s Information Services Division.
In August, the annual drug deaths statistics, which are published by the National Records of Scotland, reported for the first time on drug deaths where new psychoactive substances were found in the body. The figures showed that, in 2012, new psychoactive substances were present in 47 drug deaths. In 32 of those cases, pathologists judged that such substances were directly implicated, and in five cases they were the only substances that were implicated. In the coming months, the next annual report from Scotland’s drug-related deaths database will provide analysis of the circumstances around deaths involving new psychoactive substances to identify risk factors and inform policy and practice.
We have made changes to the 2013 Scottish schools adolescent lifestyle and substance use survey, or SALSUS, which gathers information from schoolchildren on alcohol, drugs and tobacco, as well as to the next sweep of the Scottish crime and justice survey. National data is supplemented by organisations in the third sector, which collect data on drug trends that are observed by services and at music festivals. To strengthen all that work further, I will commission research on the prevalence and use of new psychoactive substances in Scotland.
Can the minister tell us when the fieldwork will start for SALSUS?
I will advise the member separately on precisely when the fieldwork will be done. I think that the survey is done biannually, so probably the fieldwork will be on-going for a period. I will get back to the member on that.
It is clear that new drugs are a challenge not just for Scotland but for the United Kingdom and internationally. The Scottish Government continues to work with the UK Government and other Administrations to gather and share information and to ensure that Scottish interests are represented in reserved matters. The Scottish Government regularly cascades requests for information from the Home Office’s drugs early warning system to ADPs and drug services in Scotland.
In June 2013, the Home Office temporarily banned NBOMe and Benzofury-type substances. Members would find it hair-raising to google those substances and have a look at how they are sold. The Home Office thanked health and enforcement partners in Scotland for their contributions to the drugs early warning system, as their expertise helped those drugs to be banned.
We must look outwards and monitor the approaches that are taken elsewhere to new psychoactive substances. Three types of responses have emerged internationally. Some countries use consumer safety or medicines legislation, some have extended and adapted existing drug control laws and others have created bespoke legislation to tackle new psychoactive substances. No country has yet found a solution. New Zealand got some attention for its product licensing approach, but it is far too early to know whether that will be successful.
I close by restating the need for us all to work together to address the challenges that are presented by changing drug trends. The health implications of new psychoactive substances can be just as serious as those of controlled drugs, so we must challenge the myth that legal equals safe. I wanted to have this debate to ensure that new drugs are placed firmly on the parliamentary agenda. I hope that we will have an informed and productive conversation on the challenges of new psychoactive substances and on how Scotland can best respond. I look forward to hearing members’ views.
I move,
That the Parliament acknowledges that drug markets are changing internationally with the increased global availability of new psychoactive substances (NPS); recognises the challenges that NPS pose to Scotland in the areas of enforcement, public health, prevention and research, challenges that are common to other parts of the UK and internationally, and endorses a collective and co-ordinated approach to responding to NPS in Scotland by all organisations and individuals that have a role to play addressing the supply of these substances through enforcement activity, reducing the demand in their use through prevention, ensuring that services are able to respond and looking at what can be learned from approaches from across the UK and elsewhere.
15:19
I am pleased to take part in the debate, as it is important that we highlight the issue in Parliament. As we know, human beings have always had a propensity for indulging in substances that can change our state of mind to introduce euphoria, hallucination or relaxation. Young people in particular can be tempted by their curiosity to try out new experiences and are often less risk averse than many of the rest of us. Some drugs agency workers have told me that, with substances that are not illegal, there is the added incentive that use or possession of them will not attract a criminal record. Therefore, some people think that the reduction in the use of illegal drugs might be due in part to the increased use of new psychoactive substances.
It is unfortunate that experimentation has become much more dangerous in recent years, due to advances in two areas: chemistry/biochemistry and information technology. When I was a young undergraduate chemistry student, chemists knew that they could mix certain reactants together under particular conditions to produce a pharmaceutical substance, but the exact mechanism through which the reaction took place and how it affected the brain and body and the consequent physiological and psychological effects were not well understood.
Over the past 40 years there has been huge development in knowledge about the mechanisms of chemical reactions, which means that compounds can be tailor made. There is also knowledge about how parts of compounds bind to receptors in the brain, and their effects. That means that whole families of compounds that have particular physiological and psychological effects can be fairly easily produced.
As the minister said, advances in information technology mean that when the substances have been produced they can be sold online to individuals anywhere in the world. Given the use of bitcoins and other alternative forms of payment, it is extremely difficult to control sales.
The exponential development of knowledge therefore makes the control of so-called legal highs very difficult. I very much agree with the minister that the term “legal high” is not in any way helpful and makes substances sound innocuous. People think that something that is legal must be safe. The preferred terminology—new psychoactive substances, or NPS—is far more accurate.
New psychoactive substances have been developed to mimic the effects of illegal drugs. They are marketed in ways that bypass legislation, with no product warnings to consumers about possible side effects as there would be for prescribed medication, and no guarantee of product purity. As the minister said, new psychoactive substances were implicated in the deaths of 47 people in Scotland in 2012 and are thought to have contributed directly in 32 of those cases.
The UK Government has responsibility for banning and classification of illegal drugs and considers drugs on a case-by-case basis. It recently banned the hallucinogenic NBOMe and Benzofury, which are ecstasy-type substances. More than 200 substances have been banned since 2012. However, whenever a substance is banned, a similar substance can be designed and produced to take its place
In December, the Home Office announced that it will undertake a review that could lead to changes in UK legislation. An option that is under investigation is the automatic ban on drugs that are substantially similar in chemical structure to illegal drugs. However, the solution might not be as simple as it sounds, given that some substances that are medically useful might be similar in chemical structure to some illegal drugs. Too strict a definition might constrain research into potentially useful new legal medical drugs. Countries that have adopted such a measure have made exclusions for food, medical and other products. Of course, it is unfortunate that provision for exclusions can create loopholes.
Products are often marketed as something other than new psychoactive substances, such as plant food or bath salts. I understand that the UK Government is looking at legislation in Poland and the Republic of Ireland that attempts to control the internet sale of such products, with regard to their safety and their use as a drug—although how the substance is used ultimately depends on the purchaser rather than the seller.
Whatever legislative proposals come out of the UK review—and none of the suggestions that I mentioned will be easy to implement—education and increasing public awareness will be crucial. A simplistic just-say-no message will not succeed. It has not succeeded in the past and it probably will not succeed with new psychoactive substances.
The purpose of our amendment, which I hope that the Government will accept, is to reinforce the message that anyone who is tempted to indulge in new psychoactive substances needs to be aware of the dangers that are posed by some substances and indeed other substances that might be present, having been produced at the same time.
The term “legal high” is misleading and dangerous. These are not cosy, legitimate products, which make people feel good; they are pharmaceutical compounds that have been deliberately manufactured to bind to receptors in the brain and simulate the effects of illegal drugs. They are as dangerous as those drugs, both psychologically and physically.
The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime produced an informative report, “The challenge of new psychoactive substances”, which goes into a lot of detail, including chemical structural detail. Despite that detail, the report notes that many of the substances contain unfamiliar molecules and that research on most new psychoactive substances is very limited.
I am conscious that the lady did more chemistry than I did, but I know where she did it because I did it at the same place. Surely one of the realities of organic chemistry is that no product is pure; they all come with other bits of functionality that will be there in some proportion. It is not physically possible to get purity in these substances.
That is absolutely correct. There will always be other substances in these products. They might not be active but we do not know that, and because we have no control over them, we have absolutely no idea of what else is in there as well as the active substance.
Synthetic cannabinoids, for example, are functionally similar to the controlled cannabis derivatives, and their side effects can include cardiovascular problems and psychological disorders; some might lead to seizures and irregular heartbeat, and some might be carcinogenic.
Cathinone is a derivative of the khat plant, and it is sometimes called meow meow. I used to wonder why, but I know now. It has a similar effect to amphetamines, but little is known about the mechanism of its action, and its side effects can include agitation ranging from mild to extreme psychosis. It is often marketed as bath salts or plant food.
Ketamine, which has been around since the 1980s, is used as a tranquiliser for horses. If anyone has ever seen a half-tonne horse go down after having taken ketamine, they can imagine what it does to a human being. It can also affect long-term memory.
There are a number of variations on mescaline, which is powerfully hallucinogenic, and some of them can have very long-lasting effects. They can cause agitation, seizures, and liver and renal failure.
Piperazines were developed initially as antidepressants but were later found to have similar properties to amphetamines. They were taken off the market because they were liable to abuse, but they are still being sold as pep or party pills and they have similar effects to amphetamine and methamphetamine.
There are also plant-based substances. People might think that something that is herbal or a plant is okay, but as we know a number of plant-based compounds can contain a cocktail of toxic alkaloids that can have extremely serious psychological and physical effects.
We are debating the issue in the shadow of a terrible event that took place at the weekend when a young woman tragically died after taking a particular type of product. That product—if it is the one that it is thought to be—might have contained para-methoxyamphetamine, which is five times as powerful as ecstasy; as we know, many people have been hospitalised through taking that.
The message that went out before was about the danger of illicit drugs, and the message that needs to go out now is that the so-called legal drugs are just as physically and psychologically dangerous as the illicit drugs that they have been designed to emulate. The user does not know what else they might contain and what dangers are presented by those compounds.
I was very pleased to hear from the minister about the steps that the Scottish Government is taking to spread the message that these are not benign, legal substances. They are hard core and physically and psychologically dangerous, and that message has to go out. Young people who might be tempted to take these substances need to understand the dangers that they might encounter in doing so.
I move amendment S4M-08950.1, to insert at end:
“and promoting public understanding of the dangers of NPS”.
15:28
Although I can claim to have a higher in chemistry, I cannot claim to have the depth of knowledge of Elaine Murray or even Nigel Don, who intervened on her. I will therefore avoid some of the critical issues that have been mentioned previously.
Nevertheless, I take the opportunity to welcome the debate. Although the issue of new psychoactive substances has been subject to question and previous discussion in Parliament, the fact that this is the first Government debate on the subject indicates the importance that the Government attaches to the issue and its determination to deal with the problems that it has raised. I will therefore happily vote for the motion tonight and, of course, for the Labour Party amendment.
The fact that we are dealing with this problem should not be taken in isolation. We have had similar problems in the past when a craze for a substance has led to significant health problems, particularly among young people. Many members will be aware of the problems that existed because of the inhalation of solvents some time ago. That did eventually pass, and we all welcome that it did.
Many of the problems that we are addressing today were addressed in some form at that time. I was delighted to hear from the minister that Police Scotland is looking at the possibility of working with trading standards to ensure that the use of these substances is not unfettered and that planning and licensing laws are being considered as options.
I was aware that there was a problem with new psychoactive substances, but its extent was brought home to me surprisingly quickly during the Christmas recess. I was contacted by a number of people in the Arbroath area who had experienced quite acute problems as a result of the sale of these substances.
In Arbroath, the issue of so-called legal highs remains a grave concern to parents and other residents, because these substances are not sold furtively, as one might expect, but openly from ordinary retail premises. That gives them a facade of acceptability and safety, which they do not have and which, in the opinion of many, they should never have had.
Before the Arbroath against legal highs group was formally founded, I met Arbroath residents and a number of Angus councillors in December, who wished to express their frustration that these products, which were being sold as plant food, research chemicals or, in one case, as incense, were so freely available, without any kind of licensing and that, consequently, the local authority had very little ability to challenge their sale.
The meeting that I attended was a catalyst for forming the group. Its Facebook page attracted hundreds of people within hours of it being set up. The current membership stands at more than 1,800. Substantial interest has been expressed through that route.
The Arbroath campaign has had considerable coverage in the local media. That reflects local concerns, which are exacerbated by the fact that one of the shops selling the substances opened just two doors down from a support centre that helps people with addiction issues. Another has opened directly across the road from the award-winning community alcohol free environment—CAFE—project, which works with vulnerable and marginalised young people.
It is clear to me that everything that can be done to address the issue of the sale of these products must be done. I know that the concerns are not limited to Arbroath; others around Scotland and further afield are rightly protesting at the easy availability of these substances, which can do so much harm to those who take them under the misunderstanding that they are somehow legal.
The reason why the term “legal high” is so dangerous is that if the substances are described as “legal highs” there can be a misunderstanding that they are somehow acceptable or safe. In fact, the problem is that they have not been tested or regulated and we do not know whether they are safe. As a result, some young people in particular take the substances believing that there is some kind of protection associated with the term “legal high” when, in fact, exactly the reverse is the case.
The work of the campaign in Arbroath goes on, and I commend whole-heartedly those who are involved for how they have conducted themselves, often in the face of overt hostility from those in some quarters who wish to see the trade continue. The situation must not be allowed to continue. I urge both Governments, north and south of the border, and all relevant organisations to work together to find a solution to a problem that continues to exercise those who genuinely care for their communities.
In dealing with this problem, we will have to cast the net wide. We have already heard at some length from the minister how she intends to deal with the problem when the opportunity arises. In this age of the internet, it is increasingly dangerous to control these substances. As a consequence, I believe that it is necessary for us to work hard to educate young people in particular that it is not acceptable to use such substances of any kind simply for recreational purposes.
The use of drugs in our society has caused many problems over the years. Some of our biggest problems are associated with drugs that have already been mentioned. I believe that that problem is gradually beginning to become less serious, not least because of the work that has been done by successive Governments to overcome it. It would be such a disappointment if, at the time of a potential victory, we found ourselves facing another wave of substance abuse. That is why we must stamp on this hard now.
15:34
One thing that can be said about the rise of new psychoactive substances is that there is unanimity inside and outwith the Parliament both in the recognition that there is an issue to be tackled and in the desire to come up with an effective solution. Whether it is our colleagues in Westminster or local government, Police Scotland or drug workers in our communities, all of us know that this is a situation that requires an appropriate response.
As we have heard and, I am sure, will continue to hear this afternoon, the problem is just what form that response should take. In the context of the debate, it is important that we acknowledge a fundamental misconception at the heart of the issue, in that new psychoactive substances users believe that legal—as in so-called legal highs—equals safe, when it most definitely does not.
It is also important to put the scale and nature of the problem into context. That is not easy. Neither Police Scotland nor the NHS records new psychoactive substances-related incidents in a manner that readily allows for the formation of an accurate picture. We need a solid information base so that we can begin to understand who is using new psychoactive substances, their age profiles—because it is possibly too simplistic to say that we are dealing only with teenagers here—and the consequences of the substance use.
In accident and emergency, we need better recording of what kids who present may have taken. As I understand it, at present the recording of such cases is done on the basis of reaction suffered and how that has been addressed. All too often, new psychoactive substances overdoses have, to some extent at least, been influenced by the taking of other substances such as alcohol. However, the involvement of new psychoactive substances in such cases surely requires to be mapped in a way that allows us to measure the growing impact of the abuse. It was good, therefore, to hear from the minister of the Scottish Government’s plans.
In 2013, for the first time, the drug-related death statistics contained new psychoactive substances-specific data, but it appears that we are coming up short in pulling together data concerning those who—thankfully—do not suffer fatal consequences from dabbling in new psychoactive substances.
When people present to the NHS with mental health issues, we need to get clarity about whether the use of new psychoactive substances may have been a factor. Again, the undertakings from the minister today are welcome.
Even with improvement in data collection, it would remain difficult to determine the exact scale of the issue because, in reality, the information at our disposal would largely relate to the number of people who have had an immediate or consequent adverse reaction, or, in the case of Police Scotland, have been identified in other circumstances.
When it comes to informing the debate, we have the results of an internet survey of more than 1,000 16 to 24-year-olds throughout the UK, which was carried out on behalf of the Angelus Foundation. The survey found that up to 44 per cent of respondents believe that so-called legal highs are safer than illegal drugs; 58 per cent have friends who have taken new psychoactive substances; 39 per cent know where they could access new psychoactive substances; and 45 per cent have been offered them.
Specific to the area of the country that I represent, an Angus-based drugs worker with a leading young persons charity told me earlier today that well over half of his case load currently involves people using new psychoactive substances and that almost 100 per cent of referrals since Christmas relate to new psychoactive substances and/or cannabis use, indicating a changing trend in drug use.
Interestingly, throughout the county we have three so-called head shops—two in Arbroath and one in Montrose—that sell new psychoactive substances over the counter. I say interestingly because there are only two more in the whole of the rest of Tayside—one in Dundee and one in Perth. My understanding from Police Scotland is that the total number of such premises throughout the country is not into treble figures. Why, then, are there two shops in a rural town the size of Arbroath?
Of course, premises selling so-called legal highs are, strictly speaking, doing nothing illegal. As a parent, though—let alone the local parliamentarian—I find it unsettling that such shops in my constituency have opened close to youth and drug rehab projects. Alex Johnstone mentioned that earlier. I also find it disconcerting to hear of head shops in Scotland issuing loyalty cards and doing buy-one-get-one-free offers over the festive season.
I commend Police Scotland for the way in which it has responded to the rise of new psychoactive substances, and I acknowledge that, as legislators, we need to find a way to equip it with the legitimate powers to really tackle it. Among other things, last year Police Scotland issued instructions to officers that any new psychoactive substances material seized should be sent for analysis. That was prompted by the discovery that around 27 per cent of the substances that had been checked contained traces of controlled drugs.
I wonder whether such evidence, supported by testimony from the purchaser confirming where they bought the new psychoactive substances and what advice they were given regarding usage, could open the door to prosecutions. I am no lawyer, but I understand that there are other potential legal avenues that could be and are being explored.
I believe that section 9A of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 suggests that it can be deemed an offence to trade in apparatus that could be used for consuming drugs. Presumably that would cover bongs, grinders and so on—the kind of equipment that is openly available in head shops, although I recognise that bongs can also be used for the consumption of tobacco.
I am told that, back in the 1980s, successful prosecutions were mounted in the midst of the glue-sniffing epidemic, under the heading “reckless conduct”, which the minister referred to in her opening remarks. I understand that that covered the over-the-counter sale of, say, 30 tubes of glue or of a collection of items that, added together, might be deemed to be a glue-sniffing kit. How might that approach be deployed now?
Let us say someone is sold a bong, a grinder and a couple of bath salts, the bath salts—rather surprisingly—coming with a price tag of £20 to £30. Could it reasonably be assumed that those items are for the purposes of getting high, especially when the product carries a charge that indicates that it is not being used for its legitimate purpose? Given the potential consequences of that, might that be deemed reckless conduct on the part of the seller?
That said, we have to be careful that we do not end up applying a sticking plaster to a wound that requires more considered treatment. My understanding is that, often, what is sold in the shops is more expensive and has less “bang for your buck” than what is available online. Once the knowledge levels of users increase, they will turn to internet sourcing. That may lead to those head shops closing, but it will not remove the issue that those shops have contributed to the creation of.
Head shops stimulate the market, but new psychoactive substances abuse will continue—and in some respects may become even more problematic—even when such shops have vacated our high streets. Indeed, according to the Scottish Drugs Forum, the vast majority of supply is coming through the internet already and discounted bulk buying is feeding localised small-scale networks. We therefore have to look beyond simply removing head shops from our midst—desirable as that would be.
15:40
I am grateful to the minister for outlining the understanding that the Government has developed in relation to new psychoactive substances. I also acknowledge the contribution thus far from members and their understanding of the challenge that we face, in particular Graeme Dey, who has outlined some understanding of the technical difficulties that lie beyond the initial challenge.
The problem was outlined and responded to earlier: 47 families in Scotland suffered a death in 2012 as a direct consequence of the use of new psychoactive substances. Lying behind each of those deaths is an international challenge, because many of the chemicals that are involved in new psychoactive substances are sourced in bulk from China and India.
No legal framework is available to control the development of new psychoactive substances outcomes, as the chemists involved gradually change the formula that lies behind the chemicals, thereby extending their reach outwith criminality. There is a supply chain for class A drugs that is currently used across Europe to deliver new psychoactive substances into the European market. The Netherlands, Belgium and Turkey play a major part as a nexus for that supply chain.
Importantly, from the point of view of those who sell new psychoactive substances this is profit largely without jail and this is profit largely without tax. This is a business that has developed with an amoral approach: although they know full well that those who purchase new psychoactive substances are taking a chance and consuming dangerous drugs, the sellers pretend to all and sundry that the products are not for human consumption. They are kidding no one with that approach, but in the absence of an ability to carry out presumptive tests on all the substances that are available, it is difficult for the authorities to maintain a current understanding of the challenge.
Often, as was referred to earlier, class A drugs are found within the legal high supply. Those legal highs, as they are called by young people, can have a higher strength impact than the class A drug that they seek to replace. The stimulant MDPV, which appeared for the first time in 2008, has been responsible for 100 known deaths across Europe since then and hundreds of incidents in various countries across the world, so it is a problem that affects more than Scotland.
A pattern is developing. The drug is created, introduced to the market and promoted largely on the internet. People consume the drug and its fame is transferred by word by mouth. It is viewed by the authorities and, once it is discovered, it is tested and becomes regulated and the content is made illegal. As a result, the use of the drug falls significantly but, by that time, the chemist has moved on.
We have had the experience of BZP, GBL and other drugs that have gone through that process. Such drugs have been sold as fish food or plant food not for human consumption, and yet their role on the internet is well understood.
What should we do? What do we need to understand in taking things forward? Many aspects have already been covered in earlier speeches. We need to connect our statistical analysis to the database that is maintained by the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction. Statistics held there in relation to Scotland and the UK are poor in the extreme. We should be updating the centre with our information and receiving information about the trends that it identifies.
We should initiate more testing of recoveries in order to identify new substances as they come on to the market. For those substances that are recovered without engagement with an accused, it is important that we identify the detail of what they contain.
Education has been mentioned, and it is clear that young people and their parents have not been educated about the impact of so-called legal highs in our communities. To some extent we have lost ground, as legal highs are well understood by teenagers who react to the sales of such substances in their own communities.
We should engage with HM Revenue and Customs. The people who sell these substances are making substantial profits, and we are entitled to know whether those profits are being declared. If they are not, HMRC should pay attention. That would put pressure on the sales, and we could achieve the desired outcome by a different method.
Members have mentioned trading standards, for which product safety is an issue, and it is clear that they should become involved. We should monitor imminent European legislation that may assist us in dealing with the new psychoactive challenge.
Ireland introduced legislation in 2010 to attack the use of psychoactive substances and their effects. However, the problem is that, once a case arrives at court, it becomes very challenging to produce a prosecution. As the minister indicated, the evidence from New Zealand is in its early days, but it does not look particularly promising in terms of taking us forward to a solution.
Our young people need to know that these drugs are dangerous and should be avoided. We should encourage parents to ensure that our younger generations avoid new psychoactive substances at all costs.
15:46
We should be grateful for that contribution from Graeme Pearson, in which he shared his experience from his former role in the then Scottish Crime and Drug Enforcement Agency.
I am pleased to contribute to the debate to help to raise awareness of the dangers of new psychoactive substances, which appear to be increasingly available not just in Scotland but throughout the world. According to a report in The Guardian last September, the UK has become an international hub for websites selling those substances, with our postal workers operating as unwitting drug mules and delivering to thousands of customers who can buy the stuff easily online.
I tried a Google search last night and the first website that appeared in my hit list was a site offering to sell and deliver to me. I got no further than that, thankfully, because my system blocks the site from being accessed, but that is not the case for every online user.
The Guardian report showed that approximately 670,000 young folk in the UK aged between 15 and 24 claimed to have taken those substances and the numbers will continue to rise unless something is done about the issue.
As several members have said, here in Scotland, 47 deaths were recorded in 2012 in which one or more psychoactive substances were implicated in the cause of death. As the minister said in her opening speech, there is a huge danger to our young people. The term “legal highs” somehow implies that those substances are safe, tested and regulated, but—as Alex Johnstone mentioned—nothing could be further from the truth. They are anything but safe. Only the manufacturers know what is in the packets, and those substances are certainly not regulated or safely controlled in any way. Someone who takes such substances is taking a risk with their life and we must help to alert our young people to the dangers that they face when they are tempted into buying and taking what are potentially killer substances.
Of course, although we probably all agree that action is needed, it is not entirely clear what the most effective action would be. The science works far quicker than the law, and invariably we are playing catch-up. The manufacturers vary the substances slightly to evade whatever legal restrictions can be put in place, and by the time we may get a ban in place, another variant will be on the market.
The only legal weapons that we have are the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and the more recent temporary class drug order from 2011, which are both reserved to the UK, as is the regulation of internet services. I know that the Scottish Government is fully behind all the collaborative efforts to tackle the issue. However, unless jurisdictions around the world can outsmart the producers and peddlers of these substances, I am sure that we will continue to lag behind, which will ultimately put more of our young people at risk.
Methods of tackling the issue vary from country to country. I understand that Ireland has now banned the so-called head shops, which sell the potentially legal substances in question in the high street, and that it has made it a criminal offence to advertise, sell or supply them if they are not specifically controlled under existing legislation. That might be one way of dealing with the science and regaining some control over the rate of production of the drugs. In America, the substances are automatically banned if they are “substantially similar” to the chemical structure of substances that are already illegal, meaning that close chemical variants are also illegal. Portugal maintains a list of the substances that pose a public health risk and prohibits their advertising and distribution, which is punishable by fines and closure of premises.
The minister will be aware of the WEDINOS—Welsh emerging drugs and identification of novel substances—project and website that provides a mechanism for people in Wales to bring in substances that they may have purchased and have them fully tested and analysed. Anyone can check on the website and see what the products contain. The site also offers harm-reduction advice that can be shared in an attempt to give people at least some information that might help them.
There is a variety of attempts at tackling the issue around the world. I understand that the Home Office is reviewing what can be done here and intends to make some announcements in the spring, which I am sure the Scottish Government will be keen to contribute to.
The minister outlined some of the work going on in Scotland to complement other efforts. Last year, the minister organised an event with partners from the police, health service, community and youth organisations to see what could be done here to tackle the problem of new psychoactive substances. It is probably no surprise that those colleagues identified the need to tackle the supply of such substances. I am aware that we are looking at measures involving the police and trading standards officers seizing and testing substances on sale. Whether we can proceed as in Ireland and ban the shops that sell the stuff will depend on the Home Office review findings, but I am certain that the Scottish Government will contribute to the process and support whatever measures are proposed. Colleagues also asked for more help to try to reduce demand and to offer training for our alcohol and drug partnerships. I am glad to see that that is under way.
Two key areas that we need to do some hard thinking about are how to cut off the online route that offers sellers an easy and legitimate outlet to their market and how best to tackle the classification issue, perhaps as in Ireland, so that only named and controlled substances may legally be supplied. I believe that if we can get a firm grip on those two areas, we can make real progress in not only cutting off the supply of the substances to our young people, but overcoming the problem of keeping pace with the speed at which science can be applied in order to thwart the law.
I am happy to support the Government’s motion and I look forward to the rest of the debate.
15:53
I, too, am grateful to the minister for arranging this debate and for providing an update on how the Scottish Government is seeking to confront the challenges posed by new psychoactive substances. Any opportunity to shed a little more light on this shadowy but increasingly prevalent industry is welcome.
A decade ago the creation of new drugs was much rarer, which afforded authorities the opportunity to properly assess the risk. Now, their emergence at a record pace of more than one a week, according to the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, demands greater attention. The centre points out that
“the speed with which new drugs appear means that, as soon as one new psychoactive substance is identified by the authorities and controlled, a replacement is already on the shelves.”
The Scottish Drugs Forum has described the problem as a “moving target”.
Legal variants of existing drug compounds are being manufactured on a commercial scale for sale through so-called head shops, the internet, illicit sellers and reportedly even from convenience stores and petrol stations, as we heard from the minister. The ease with which they can be procured is worrying. Many of them come in professional-looking packaging with branding to make them appear more legitimate; others provide no information at all. However, one thing is certain: consumers do not know what they are buying. The legality, strength, purity and effect of the substances can vary significantly, even among what appears to be the same product.
The experience of the drugs service Crew 2000 suggests that user dependency is becoming more common, that many people underestimate the dosage and that, as we heard, the majority mix new psychoactive substances with other substances such as alcohol, making them more potent.
My colleagues from the north-east Alex Johnstone and Graeme Dey mentioned the two head shops in Arbroath that have been the subject of local controversy and attracted significant local media attention. That is partly because the most recent shop is situated just two doors away from a drop-in centre operated by St Andrew’s church for people who are contending with alcohol or drug addiction. As Alex Johnstone said, local residents have responded by forming the group Arbroath against legal highs.
I understand that such shops represent only a small corner of the market, but they are unmistakable. Given that cigarettes are now hidden from public view, residents are understandably asking whether it is right that such shops are able openly to display and promote new psychoactive substances and drugs paraphernalia. The evidence must lead us to ask how we can best protect the public. How do we ensure that the law is not rendered ineffective by what strikes me as a reckless and unpredictable market?
I turn to the Scottish Government’s approach. The concerted effort to use the term “new psychoactive substances” or “NPS” instead of “legal highs” strikes me as apt. The label “legal highs” gives the substances more credibility than they should have as it suggests that products are acceptable or safe when that is not the reality. Consumers should be under no illusions. Many of the products have not been properly tested. In the absence of dependable information on new drugs, education and early intervention play an increasingly important role in enabling people to identify the dangers and understand for themselves that they are putting their health at serious risk if they do not know what harmful substances the products contain.
I welcome and support the Scottish Government’s commitment to working with its partners, including the know the score campaign and Police Scotland, to raise awareness, particularly among young people. The inclusion of new psychoactive substances in the drug-related death statistics is good a step forward, but it is important that we gather more evidence. We need to understand what draws people to these substances. In the context of Scotland’s problems with drugs and alcohol, it would also be valuable to establish to what extent new psychoactive substances interact with other substances and whether they may be so-called gateway drugs.
The minister mentioned trading standards. It would be helpful for the Scottish Government to follow the UK Government’s example and produce guidance for local authorities on enforcing trading standards legislation with regard to shops that operate in this area.
There is no doubt that it is essential to take a multi-agency approach but, as others have said, neither Scotland nor the UK can deal with the problem in isolation, as the industry transcends national boundaries. We should work closely with our UK and EU partners to share knowledge, anticipate new threats, maximise the authorities’ ability to conduct investigative forensic analysis and research, determine risk and build our capacity to confront the challenge.
The coalition government has already put in place the forensic early warning system and it has banned some 200 substances, but I am pleased that the Liberal Democrat Minister of State for Crime Prevention, Norman Baker, is going further and leading a Home Office review to examine how other countries’ regimes differ from ours. I understand that it will report back later this year, and I am sure that the Scottish Government awaits its findings with interest, as I do. We have a responsibility continually to monitor what is working elsewhere, explore alternatives and consider whether there are more effective ways in which to respond.
The minister’s approach is sound. We should have practical, sustainable policy that is shaped by the advice of professionals, from scientists to youth workers and health professionals to the police, focused on prevention and harm reduction and enhanced through collaboration and innovation, and it must be informed and led by the evidence of what works, not guesswork or populism.
15:59
I thank the minister and fellow members for their speeches, which have been constructive. We all agree that something has to be done about new psychoactive substances. The work that the Scottish Government has done with Police Scotland, the choices for life campaign, outreach support through Crew 2000 and modern technology is welcome. We need to get the message across that new psychoactive substances are dangerous.
I concur with my fellow members who mentioned head shops. There are a number of those shops in my Glasgow Kelvin constituency and the most shocking thing about them, apart from the paraphernalia that they sell, is that tourists and others can unwittingly walk into them because they advertise other supplies besides these substances, which I believe should be banned. Because some people simply wander into these shops without realising what they sell, and given everyone’s concern about the issue, I suggest that these shops be looked at. Like other members, I also think that the use of the term “legal high” should be addressed as it gives out entirely the wrong message.
In recent years, new psychoactive substances have rapidly changed the global drugs market. Substances that are not under international control but which mimic the effects of controlled substances are now pretty much widely available and have the potential to pose a serious risk to public health and safety. As other members have pointed out, despite their being marketed as a legal alternative to controlled substances, users cannot be certain of either the health risks of using them or their legal status.
As has been mentioned, the internet has created a global marketplace, making access to and distribution of these substances easier for people of all ages. It is also important to highlight, as the police have done, the potential for organised criminals to exploit the market for these substances.
Given the quite frightening speed at which that market has developed, given the wide availability of and access to these substances and given the concerns about their increasing use, the issue has become very significant and it is good that we are debating it this afternoon. However, although it is international in nature and requires collective global action, there is still no standard national or international approach to the matter. I know that many countries have adopted broader legislative approaches to controlling new psychoactive substances. New Zealand has already been mentioned, but I note that on 1 January 2012 an act came into force in Austria controlling new psychoactive substances listed in regulation by the Austrian Minister of Health and which are not subject to the 1961 or 1971 UN drugs conventions. Moreover, in Hungary, Government legislation took effect on 3 April 2012 that created a schedule C to existing legislation listing such drugs appearing on the market. In any case, although New Zealand, Ireland and these other countries have put into effect proposals to stop the supply of these substances, we do not yet know how successful they have been.
I was very pleased to read the G8 statement of intent on new psychoactive substances, which was published on 25 June 2013 and commits signatories including the UK, the United States of America, Canada, France, Germany, Italy and many others to putting in place a range of measures to address the challenges posed by such substances, and to sharing intelligence on them, their impact on public health and the various supply routes. As all members have made clear this afternoon, we have to work constructively and collectively on this matter. New psychoactive substances represent a danger to the whole of our society, particularly our young people. Last week’s tragedy in Glasgow has already been mentioned and, of course, my sympathies and everyone else’s go out to the family affected.
We need a global approach to the issue. As members have pointed out, the Scottish Government has been doing a very good job but the availability of these substances on the internet makes things very difficult to police. I know that we are working with the UK Government on this but I wonder whether the minister can give us an update on what has been happening in that respect. In her opening speech, for example, she referred to the latest information that is coming out.
The minister also mentioned the drugs strategy and I hope that we might have a regular debate on it so that we can find out what progress is being made. The issue is certainly important. Certain drugs might be legal—and I hate to use that term in connection with these substances—but they pose a particular threat simply because they can be bought off the internet. As Graeme Dey said, anyone can go into one of these head shops and pay X amount of money for these substances but they are a lot cheaper on the internet. Moreover, criminals can get access to a lot more of them.
There is a lot to be said for this debate. I thank everyone for their good contributions and hope that we can move forward in tackling what is a very serious international situation.
16:05
We live in an increasingly complex world. Global trade and communications have changed so much about the way we live and the nature of the challenges that society has to face, so a response to the growth in the trade and popularity of new psychoactive drugs must address those issues. The combination of legal and illegal substances in new psychoactive substances, the international nature of their production, the fact that sale is on the internet, and the struggle of our knowledge and education to keep pace with growth in availability are all challenges that we face in preparing an appropriate and effective response. The Scottish Drugs Forum briefing states that
“an adequate response will be multifaceted and involve local, national and international initiatives and co-operation.”
This is not an issue that Scotland can address alone.
It is difficult to identify the scale of the problem in Scotland. We have little information on the prevalence of new psychoactive substances, although I recognise the on-going work that the minister outlined in her opening statement.
I recently met Clued Up Project, which is a drug and awareness project in Kirkcaldy that was set up almost 18 years ago. It provides substance misuse support and information to young people under the age of 25, as well as employability services to those over the age of 18. In my discussion with the project about its work, one of the most striking issues was the growth and popularity of legal highs. We discussed the challenge of the growing prominence of new drugs and how organisations such as Clued Up provide services, support and advice. Having worked in alcohol misuse and illegal drug taking for many years, and having, therefore, a lot of knowledge in those areas, I know that the growth of new drugs presents challenges in providing accurate information as well as in identifying appropriate support and health services.
I was interested in the most recent Scottish schools adolescent lifestyle and substance use survey, which suggests that use is not that common among young people and is having little overall impact. That is difficult to establish; this is an area that is developing quickly and the growth in internet sales makes it difficult to establish some figures. Clued Up is carrying out its own survey of young people to try to establish the prevalence of new psychoactive substances in Fife. The survey launched in December and Clued Up has already received more than 200 returns. Initial analysis shows that more 12 to 18-year-olds have heard of what they recognise as legal highs, and have a higher level of knowledge than 19 to 25-year-olds. The problem has the potential to grow, which perhaps gives us an indication of where services need to be focused.
Alcohol and drug partnership budgets are weighted towards pharmacological treatments, with less emphasis on prevention and early intervention work. Although some of the evidence around the use of more commonly problematic illegal drugs suggests that concentrating resources in those areas is appropriate, increasingly evidence is being gathered by those who work in the field that shows that legal highs are a growing problem, in which young people are more engaged and for which they are clearly the target market. That suggests that refocusing of some support services is needed.
Alongside specialist support services, schools play a vital role in educating young people on the issue as well as in supporting young people with the drug issues that they face. We need to reflect on whether there is adequate training and awareness raising among teachers.
We have to ask whether we have appropriate and sufficient services to deal with growing use, and how we should address the perception of acceptability and legitimacy. Figures that Crew 2000 collected over the 2013 festival season suggest that almost 10 per cent of reported drug use was of new drugs. Brighton opened the first legal high clinic to try to raise awareness of the dangers of abusing such substances and to help people to quit their addictions. Leeds now offers a similar service.
From the evidence that was collected by Crew 2000 we see common education challenges. There are difficulties in providing accurate information and advice on new drugs, and there is difficulty in understanding the effects of multiple drug use, in understanding appropriate dosage, and in identifying and addressing dependency issues. The evidence also highlights that new drugs are popular in settings in which there are drug-testing regimes because detection methods cannot keep pace with the production of new substances.
So-called legal highs are just drugs that are not yet regulated by law, often because they are so new that not enough is known about them to decide whether regulation is needed. That makes establishing a public health response to them pretty difficult, but it is important that we challenge the myth that “legal” means safe.
One of the biggest challenges is about how to deal with growth in production and use of new psychoactive substances. To move a substance from a legal class to an illegal class often looks like the solution, but the market is lucrative and innovative. Replacements are soon created, marketed and sold while legislators struggle to keep pace with what is happening. The chemical codes of banned substances can be changed quickly to make them legal again. In 2011, for the third year in a row, a record number of substances—49—were detected for the first time throughout Europe.
The pace of change in, and the variety of, the products means that suppliers maintain the ability to sell them in retail outlets. That is a growth area in Scotland and throughout Europe, as members from Angus highlighted. However, online sales, about which other members spoke, also increase products’ availability and present marketing opportunities that are different from those that are provided by the high street retail sector. In one year, the number of online retailers has doubled to at least 639 online shops.
Online sales are extremely difficult to tackle, and that is not something that the Scottish Government can do alone. We need also to explore how we can close loopholes that allow the products to be sold and marketed in high street shops, particularly in terms of planning and labelling for human consumption. However, online shopping presents a whole other set of challenges, and we should recognise that it is clearly the growth retail area.
The UK Government review is due to report on regulatory and legislative measures in the spring. The continuing culture of and—we must acknowledge it—popularity of illegal drug taking suggest that even if we increase the number of banned substances, the challenges to public health and wellbeing will not go away. Therefore, as a priority, we must support the agencies that work in communities throughout Scotland and which are at the front line of addressing the continuing challenge.
16:11
As other members have said, the issue is complex. It is fair to say that, if there were a simple solution to it, we would probably have arrived at it by now. Nonetheless, I hope to offer some suggestions of how we might tackle new psychoactive substances.
I noted the report that the House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee produced in December, which spoke about there being an epidemic of new psychoactive substances and outlined a range of points on which the select committee wanted the Home Office—because, obviously, it has the powers on drugs law—to take action. I am sure that the Scottish Government will be consulted at all times during that process.
My colleague Graeme Dey mentioned head shops. He was correct to highlight that there is a difficulty in cracking down on such shops, but I recently noted reports in the Aberdeen Evening Express of action that Police Scotland took against at least one of those premises in the city of Aberdeen. There are a number of such premises in Aberdeen, including at least one in my constituency.
As has been identified, the difficulty is that some, but not all, of the substances to which we are referring are often found within, or are predominant components of, items that can be purchased legally in other ways. Therefore, simply to ban the chemical compound would not necessarily solve the problem and may lead to other problems in other areas. It is not quite as simple as banning a certain chemical compound, because that can have a knock-on effect on items that are perfectly legally available already. To come on to where Parliament perhaps has some legislative competence on the issue, we need to consider whether regulation can be put in place, particularly through licensing legislation.
The other aspect, besides the argument about banning chemical compounds, is the paraphernalia that head shops sell. As others have said, although what they sell is probably more commonly associated with use of illegal drugs, it also includes paraphernalia that could—I emphasise “could”—be used for legitimate purposes.
Perhaps considering whether licensing legislation could be applied to such premises or the products that are sold in them might allow greater scrutiny of their operations, much tighter controls by the police and more regular visits by the police and trading standards officers without the need for tip-offs on activity, or other leads to follow. It would be part of the normal licensing renewal regime.
That would also allow the opportunity to consider whether burdens could be placed on the distributors of the products—for example, a requirement to ensure that they are confident that a product that they are selling will be used responsibly. When we license people to sell alcohol, we assume that they will take the necessary steps to ensure that the people who purchase alcohol are of the correct age to purchase alcohol and that they will not distribute that alcohol to people who are underage once they have purchased it. Such elements could be built into legislation. I hope that the minister will consider that.
A more difficult issue is online sales, which my colleague, Willie Coffey, and Claire Baker mentioned. This is not a new issue, nor is it unique to the problem that we are discussing. As Claire Baker and Alison McInnes rightly identified, it will require that work be done locally, around these islands and across the international stage in Europe and beyond.
It is worth taking the opportunity to apply pressure to internet service providers to ensure that they think about how that content is accessed. Willie Coffey spoke about the fact that such websites are blocked on his server. Other servers might not have that safeguard in place, and controls might need to be applied by the user. Again, we need to think about that and determine whether pressure can be applied to internet service providers to ensure that they think about how they regulate the content that is being made available to the people who sign up to their service.
We also need to be cognisant of the impact and role of social media. We must be cognisant not just of the welcome role that they will play in promotion of the Scottish Government’s message or how they have brought together people who are concerned about the issue—as in Arbroath, as was highlighted by Graeme Dey and Alex Johnstone—but of how they are used to promote and share information on new psychoactive substances and where and how they can be obtained. We need to examine how that is being done and think about applying pressure to social media providers to ensure that they are aware that their sites are being used in that way, and to suggest to them that they need to think about how they regulate the content that is being uploaded to their forums.
Work is being done in the north-east with schools, the police and local authorities working together to raise awareness. We have to ensure that we are vigilant throughout the process. There is a fine balance to be struck between raising awareness of the dangers and avoiding raising awareness of the availability. That also needs to be factored in.
There is cross-party consensus on the issue, which is welcome. If we work together, we will reach some form of resolution.
16:17
Drugs policy is very much on my mind at the moment, not least because I am halfway through season 3 of “Breaking Bad”, which I am sure that many members are currently enjoying.
I come to the debate also wearing the hat of the co-convener of the cross-party group on drugs and alcohol. I see that the other co-convener, John Finnie, is also in the chamber. I hope that he will contribute to the debate. The next meeting of the cross-party group is about legal highs, so if members find that they are stimulated by this debate, they can come along and continue the debate there. We are crying out for members, and the group’s future relies on MSPs engaging in the issues. I worry, sometimes, that we do not talk enough about drug and alcohol policy.
I was struck by what Graeme Dey said about the number of head shops in Arbroath. The problems he has with prevalence of the shops in Arbroath strikes me as being similar to the arguments that we have around payday loan shops, in relation to the degree to which we can control the types of retail premises that open up on our high streets and what planning and licensing powers we have to allow us to curtail the types of shops that we do not like. I think that there is probably a wider conversation to be had about the role of planning and licensing in addressing some of the problems that we face in relation to town centre regeneration.
However, I say to Graeme Dey that evidence from the Scottish Drugs Forum suggests that the vast majority of legal highs are bought online. Head shops tend to be where people buy their first legal high, but once they have tried it once or twice, they buy online because, to be quite frank, that is where the better deals are. SDF also tells us that buying online encourages bulk purchasing, which brings into play a problem that has not been talked about today, which is the degree to which online purchasing leads to people who take legal highs becoming dealers themselves. They buy in bulk and sell what they have bought to their mates, with a 20 per cent levy, which means that they can consume what they want to consume for free, because they have profited from their friends. We need to understand the degree to which online sales promote that culture, and we need to understand how we will address that as part of our criminal justice response and the public health response that we need to develop.
I was really pleased to hear Roseanna Cunningham mention the know the score campaign and the further advertising that is in the pipeline. Has she considered doing more social-media targeted advertising? What do I mean by that? It is great that we have had a really good know the score website for a long time, but it relies on people going to it for the information that they are looking for.
Technological advances mean that we can now put adverts in front of people who visit certain websites. The technology exists that allows us to know who has visited legal high websites and, when they next log into their Facebook, Twitter or other social network account, to put in front of them adverts that warn them against using legal highs, or which at least give them the information that they need to take the drugs safely. I encourage the minister to look at the degree to which her social advertising budget is being targeted at people who we know are consuming legal highs regularly.
Who are those people? We know from the SDF that they are a varied group. Some of them would not consider taking illegal drugs but, broadly, the people who take legal highs are ambivalent about the substances’ status in society—they will take the legal highs regardless of that. The people are also ambivalent about what they are taking.
The SDF tells us that many people who take legal highs do so regularly and never face any problems in taking them. I mention that because it is important to remember that a lot of people are consuming legal highs without appreciating some of the side effects that we are talking about. In a sense, the market regulates itself. If a product is bad, people stop taking it and it works itself out of the market. The SDF was keen for those points to be made in the debate.
Throughout the debate, I have heard many people say that we should not use the term “legal highs”, because that suggests that the substances are safe. However, there are plenty of legal things that are not safe, including alcohol and tobacco. That is not a petulant point; we need to be careful about the language that we use in the drugs debate. If we as policy makers and legislators do not talk the language of the people who use the drugs, we will be even further removed from them when we consider the public policy solutions. I am comfortable with the term “legal high”, because that is what the people on the streets, in nightclubs and at home—wherever they use legal highs—call them.
That brings me on to how we monitor use of legal highs. As much as local responses are critical to addressing the issue appropriately, I encourage the minister to consider that we need consistency from one alcohol and drug partnership to the next, so that we have a national picture that we can rely on.
In my final minute, I will put an idea to the minister. Previously, when people took pills—legal or otherwise—in Edinburgh, they used to be able to hand in one of those pills to Crew 2000 on Cockburn Street, which would pass it to the police. The police would pass it to the Scottish Police Services Authority, which would test it. A poster would then be put in Crew’s window to warn people about the drug and let them know what they were taking. That was public health messaging in practice. However, that work is no longer done because of cuts in the Scottish Police Authority.
Is there scope for the minister to consider working with universities? Perhaps universities in the city of Edinburgh could set up a social enterprise to work together with Crew 2000 to allow drugs that are being taken on the streets to be safely handed over to the authorities for assessment. Posters could then be put in Crew’s windows, so that young people and others who are consuming legal highs are better informed about what they are taking and can make the choices that they want to make about the drugs that they consume
I call Dennis Robertson.
16:23
I would have been happy to stay seated and let Kezia Dugdale continue.
The debate has been interesting and consensual. We have heard that we have many more questions and hurdles and that we might not fully realise yet the complexity of what we face.
I was interested to hear Mark McDonald’s speech. He offered the minister some advice, which perhaps had merit.
Kezia Dugdale made the point that the majority of legal highs—new psychoactive substances—that are out there are coming through the internet. Basically, that is what people want and it is how people access such substances. However, we are maybe in danger of stereotyping the users at the moment. I know that surveys have been conducted, but we tend to focus on the young people themselves.
I took part in the debate in November about opioid misuse, in which we looked at how far we had come. We looked at the pathways, the journey and “The Road to Recovery”, and we acknowledged that the numbers are decreasing. However, are they decreasing in that area because we are starting to see an increase in another area? That would be worrying. The worrying thing about the legislative framework is that it cannot work in isolation—it cannot cover just Scotland and the UK. Perhaps it cannot even cover just Europe, as new psychoactive substances are a global problem. Because our young people—I am not sure at what age someone stops being a young person—are mobile, they go on long weekend trips for either hen or stag parties and have holidays in places such as Turkey, where the substances are perhaps more readily available. We must try to ensure that the message gets out there that the substances can be dangerous.
Kezia Dugdale said that the majority of the people who take the substances suffer no ill effects. Regardless of the fact that they do not know what the substances are and the fact that there is nothing on the packet to say whether they should take one or two three times a day, as there is for prescribed drugs, to some extent people enjoy—I use that term very loosely—the fact that they are taking a substance that gives them a high. Personally, I do not understand that and have always found the taking of any drugs, unless they are prescribed drugs, difficult to understand. I have witnessed the impact of people taking drugs, which is death, and I have seen the impact on their families. When we talk about finding solutions, we should be talking about raising awareness.
Many years ago, I was involved in tackling drug, alcohol and solvent misuse among young people. Alex Johnstone made the point that we managed to get around the problem of solvent misuse, but that was because it had very physical signs. The problem that we have with the new substances cannot be resolved in the same way.
The minister said that she has been invited to be part of the Home Office’s review group. I pity the Home Office. I am sure that the minister will make a contribution and ensure that her voice is heard. When we are looking for solutions, we must not be insular but must acknowledge that the new psychoactive substances are a problem not just for Scotland, the UK and Europe, but globally.
How do people become aware of the availability of the substances through the internet and head shops? Kezia Dugdale is right that that happens partly through the social media network. Social media can be used in two ways: to raise awareness of the problems of new psychoactive substances but also to promote them. That is part of the problem that we have in the internet age, and we have seen it happen in other areas—I have spoken before about pro-anorexia websites. We need to get the balance right. Young people use social media, and if we are going to get our message across—as we do in our education system through the curriculum for excellence, which I applaud—we must use all the tools that are available to us, including the ones that our young people will focus on. We must get the message across through social media and through know the score so that people can access, understand and share the information. We can debate the problem here, but I am not sure how many young people listen to what goes on in this chamber.
We need to use the tools that are available to us. I hope that the minister will consider the social media factor in thinking about getting the information out to our young people. There is a huge global problem, and I think that it is beyond what we can measure at the moment. As Claire Baker touched on, we only hear about the people who land up in A and E or in the mortuary. The problem is much bigger and it is beyond the figures that the SDF has provided and perhaps beyond the knowledge of the alcohol and drug partnerships in our communities, but at least we are making a start and there are initiatives out there to try to resolve the problem.
I wish the minister well and I applaud the initiatives that have been taken so far. I sincerely hope that the minister will take on board some of the constructive comments that members have made.
16:30
As many colleagues have said, the issue is complicated, and we are all a bit wiser thanks to the briefings that we have had from a number of organisations. However, certainly on a personal level, I still feel that I have but scratched the surface of the information that is out there. The SDF told us that NPSs—I will just use the shorthand at this stage in the debate—or legal highs are a potential danger to users. I very much enjoyed Kezia Dugdale’s speech and I agree that it is important that we use the terminology of legal highs. As Dennis Robertson said, I do not think that many users of legal highs are likely to be listening to the debate or are likely to view it or read the Official Report subsequently. That issue about information is perhaps one that we have to address.
The key words are “legal” and “high”. I suggest that it is difficult to second guess people. It is the fact that people get high from alcohol or legal drugs that attracts 17-year-olds to taking them, albeit that alcohol is illegal for them to consume. I do not think that the word “legal” necessarily has the attraction that the word “high” has in the scheme of things. However, even that small point shows that we need evidence. It is vital that such evidence comes from the appropriate source. We need a balanced response to the issue and, at the head of that response by a country mile, I would like to see education. The SDF, Crew and the harm reduction teams are clearly involved in that.
The motion talks about law enforcement and the challenges of enforcement. At the risk of being out of kilter with all previous speakers, I point out that there is a debate to be had as to why there should be enforcement on legal issues, and certainly with regard to legal highs. The police’s role in the choices for life scheme is important. Clearly, the police wish to have more powers to deal with the issue, but what are the implications of the law enforcement agency seeking more powers on the issue? Where would that stop? Around the globe, people take a range of substances to stimulate themselves. We need to be cautious that we are approaching this properly.
I asked a couple of young folk about the issue, and they had a totally different attitude from me and perhaps other members. Indeed, the swift response that I got from someone was that we should legalise cannabis. I do not propose that we do that, but we can learn from experience in other jurisdictions, most recently Uruguay, about the implications for new psychoactive substances of that particular act. We must also consider the consequences of turning something that is presently legal into something illegal. We know that law enforcement and legislators struggle to keep up with the pharmaceutical people, but our approach needs to be entirely evidence based.
Drug users are the informed consumers. My colleague Alison McInnes said that consumers do not know what they are buying. Members might think that that is terrible, but some folks think that it is a bit of a lucky dip. They think, “You never know—it might be good or it might be bad.” That is why some folks end up buying dog worming tablets.
Head shops have been talked about a great deal, and there has been collaborative working on that issue. Much has been said about packaging. The Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service is looking at issues of reckless conduct. I was grateful to be invited along to the meeting that the minister talked about. A trading standards officer who was there was puzzling with the thought that, if someone is content with spending £22 on bath salts, how do we approach that?
Kezia Dugdale talked about bulk purchases, and our briefing was helpful in highlighting the free sample issue and self-funding dealerships, which I would describe as pyramid selling—that is capitalism; it works well in that field, just as it works well for Governments as they trade in their drugs of choice, alcohol and tobacco. The SDF briefing also talks about alternative lifestyle choices, and we know how alcohol advertising promotes lifestyle choices. If anyone is listening to the debate, they might therefore get a whiff of hypocrisy from what we are saying.
I heard a lot about quality control, although I do not think that everyone talked about support for testing. The initiative in Wales was mentioned, and I support such an approach. It is hugely important that people can make informed choices about everything that they do.
Injecting is a small part of the picture, we are told. In a previous debate, which has been mentioned, I talked about supervision of injecting, which is a significant way of reducing harm, not just for individuals but for communities.
The SDF tells us that in the vast majority of cases no issues are reported. Labour’s amendment talks about promoting understanding, but will we get all the knowledge or just the downside? If examination of drugs shows that there are no ill effects, does that mean that they are okay?
There are challenges for the police, who at operational level have not always been supportive of approaches to harm reduction such as needle exchanges and searching people as they leave premises. I urge that there be no tokenism or quick publicity-seeking fixes to deal with head shops, which are a small part of a much bigger issue. Let us be pragmatic, not patronising.
16:37
We have heard many excellent speeches. I welcome the debate.
Kezia Dugdale made a good point about the term “legal high”. We do not want to be seen to be advertising; I could not help thinking that we should perhaps talk about “so-called legal highs”.
I commend the work of the Arbroath against legal highs group, which I understand from Alex Johnstone has done excellent work.
I welcomed the UK Government’s announcement in December that it would conduct a review of new psychoactive substances and consider a range of options, including legislation, to enable dangerous substances to be dealt with more speedily and effectively. The Scottish Government’s national event in April, at which it heard from police, the NHS and others, was also welcome. We all know that there are no easy answers, but if we work together, not just in the United Kingdom but worldwide, we might be able to find a way forward.
The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime “World Drug Report 2013” estimated that 8.2 per cent of young people in the United Kingdom have taken a new psychoactive substance. That is the highest rate in the European Union, and we should be concerned about it. No one can underestimate the challenge and the considerable difficulties in that regard.
There are many reports of concerns and police warnings, and the NHS has treated children as young as 12 who have used so-called legal highs. In the region that I represent, there was a death at the Rock Ness festival last year. Many so-called legal highs also contain controlled illegal drugs.
Members talked about the shops—there is one in Nairn. The owners of such shops continue to do business, covering themselves by misusing the word “legal”, which certainly does not mean “safe”, and by marking products “not for consumption”, although they know perfectly well that the products are being purchased for consumption.
It is worrying to hear that people who would not take an illegal drug are taking new psychoactive substances, which are dangerous when taken on their own and have even more serious side effects when they are taken with alcohol.
Kezia Dugdale also mentioned people accessing drugs from high street shops. According to the Scottish Drugs Forum, that can lead them to take the next step of buying in bulk over the internet at cheaper prices, which can lead to higher consumption by the individual. It can also lead them to start selling on the products. With 639 online shops, that would not be difficult.
The Scottish Drugs Forum’s trends survey shows a rise in the use of new psychoactive substances in the past 18 months, and Crew’s analysis of clients at its drop-in service in Edinburgh shows that 38 per cent of its clients seek information on new psychoactive substances. I think we should be concerned about that figure.
More information is needed on presentations at accident and emergency units. According to the Scottish Drugs Forum, there is no means of gathering information about such cases at either the health board level or the national level. Last month, the researcher who works for my colleague Jackson Carlaw sent a freedom of information request to all NHS boards in Scotland on the recording of the use of new psychoactive substances. The response confirmed that only NHS Ayrshire and Arran has been recording the number of patients admitted to accident and emergency units because they had ingested legal highs. In 2009-10, the figure was 14 a year, and in 2013-14, it rose to 46. However, four other NHS boards are now gathering that information. In the remaining nine boards, the information is either not held or not held in a retrievable format, or the board did not record whether the ingested substance was legal or illegal.
There is no doubt about the challenge that is presented to staff as a result of the uncertain and unpredictable nature of the component parts, or, to use Elaine Murray’s language, the molecules of new psychoactive substances. Last year, the National Records of Scotland said that in 47 deaths new psychoactive substances were found in the body, in comparison with 52 in England and Wales. However, the figure could be an underestimate, given the lack of information gathered about presentations at accident and emergency units. On the other hand, the figure could be accurate if all those who died following the ingestion of a new psychoactive substance were, in fact, tested.
Given the age range of the people who are using these substances and the range of symptoms there is no doubt about the difficulty. For example, a 40-year-old or 50-year-old person who presents with cardiac arrest or stroke is unlikely to be tested for a new psychoactive substance, yet we know that people of that age take those drugs. I make this point in a constructive way: the police and the NHS need information and support so that they know best how to treat a person when they are not sure what substance the patient has taken or, indeed, what is in that substance.
I hope that the debate helps to highlight the mental health problems that are related to legal and illegal drug use. Those problems have always been complex, and their causes and effects have often been disputed by patients and professionals.
16:43
This has been a really constructive debate that many members have added to through their expertise and learning. I hope that the minister has found it helpful, especially as she is looking at solutions to the problem and working with the UK Government on it.
It is difficult speak about the debate without mentioning, as many members have, the 47 deaths that have been caused by these new drugs. We extend our sympathies to the families of those who have died and hope that we can do something about the situation before many more die. We also need to pay tribute to the organisations that are doing good work out there. I started taking notes of all the organisations that people mentioned, but it would take up most of my time if I went through them all. Suffice to say that we all appreciate their work, which we hope will inform the debate and how we deal with the situation.
Graeme Pearson pointed out what is behind this: profit and greed, with no regard whatever for the impact on the individuals and their families who suffer as a result.
There was a lot of discussion about the terminology. Do we use the term “legal highs”, the phrase “new drugs” or the unpronounceable “new psychoactive substances”? The latter does not really roll off the tongue and I do not see it getting an awful lot of traction.
Kezia Dugdale suggested—John Finnie emphasised the point—that we use the term “legal highs” because that is what is understood out there. I often wonder whether that term is promoted by those who sell these substances or by the media because it sounds jinglistic. Would the term “new drugs” begin to grow legs and run if we had some help from our friends in the media? Would it become a more descriptive definition?
Graeme Dey, I think, referred to a survey carried out in Arbroath, which found that 44 per cent of those questioned thought that these substances were safer because of the word “legal”, which suggested that they had been legalised, when in fact it is just that they have not been illegalised. We need to give that more thought. The stakeholders and the groups working with the people affected are using the term “new drugs”, so perhaps we should consider that.
A lot of members talked about the dangers of new drugs. It is clear that nobody knows what the side effects are—not the users and not the agencies that try to support users or deal with the consequences. Therefore, it is very difficult for people to pull together a response. Sometimes, such substances are more dangerous than substances that are illegal.
It was interesting to listen to Elaine Murray and Nigel Don discuss chemistry. I have to say that chemistry was not my forte. I do not think that I even got my O grade, far less my higher, in chemistry—it was way over my head. I always thought that a drug was a drug and that people could tell what it was. However, sometimes it is not so clear. If the substance cannot be boiled down—for want of a better phrase—to a chemical compound, it becomes more difficult to assess the side effects. As Alison McInnes said, it is about how the substances interact with other substances—new drugs, alcohol or other drugs.
Sandra White said that the new drugs could pose a greater threat to health because they are so accessible. There is so little information about them out there.
Claire Baker mentioned the Crew 2000 briefing, which said that people are really unsure about what dosage to take. Some new drugs take time to be effective. Someone might try a little, decide that it is not working and then take a bit more and a bit more over a long period, by which time they have overdosed and the drugs are having pretty fearsome impacts on their health. We need to consider that.
Some have said that the drugs are not always dangerous and they do not always have an ill effect. I do not think that we can gauge their long-term effects, such as the impact on mental health, which they interfere with to cause a reaction that is not natural. We do not even know the impact that some legal drugs have on mental health, and exactly the same applies to these new drugs.
A lot of people talked about how we can legislate to make these new drugs illegal. It was quite clear that if we do that, we will just be chasing, because the moment we make one compound illegal, it will be tweaked slightly and will come back as something else. That could have a worse effect, because we would not know the impact of the new combination.
Willie Coffey said that perhaps we should look at the issue the other way round and should sell only drugs that are named and controlled and which people understand. That might be a way of dealing with all this.
A number of speakers, such as Elaine Murray and Dennis Robertson, talked about the decrease in illegal drug taking and the increase in the taking of new drugs, and the question was asked whether the increase in the taking of new drugs was down to people’s fear of getting a criminal record. I think that it was Kezia Dugdale who said that that was not the case, and that the increase might be down to cost. The cost of illegal drugs is much higher. New psychoactive substances are much more accessible—they are available on the internet with buy-one-get-one-free offers or quantity discounts.
A lot of tools have been talked about—I notice that I am running out of time to discuss them. Members discussed the use of social media and the internet. Another issue is the use of licensing, although I wonder whether licensing might give the impression that new psychoactive substances are legal. Perhaps we need to enable councils and the like to ban not only certain payday loan establishments but head shops from the high street.
Graeme Pearson made what was perhaps one of the more useful suggestions, which was about using HM Revenue and Customs. HMRC normally gets whoever it is looking for, so it might be worth exploring that avenue.
We need to consider who uses new psychoactive substances, because it is the same things—poverty, low self-esteem and the like—that cause people to turn to substances that make them feel better.
I call Roseanna Cunningham to wind up. Ms Cunningham, if you could continue until 5 pm I would be obliged.
16:51
I thank members for their valuable contributions this afternoon, which have highlighted the complexity of the issue. Between us we have covered every potential upside and downside of various suggestions. It is useful, though, that we recognise that not all suggestions are without pitfalls.
It is clear that the challenges that Scotland faces from the new drugs are common to other parts of the UK and internationally. If we are to tackle the issue, no one sector can do it alone and no one country can do it alone.
Throughout Scotland, through different initiatives and organisations, a lot of work is taking place to respond to the supply and use of these new drugs. Again, as a country we cannot do that alone.
Following the national event that I hosted last April, I made the new drugs a priority for Scotland’s alcohol and drug partnerships. I asked ADPs to report on any local needs assessments of the impact of new psychoactive substances on local populations, and their responses. It is encouraging that ADPs are delivering local training events to raise awareness among the public and workforce, and gathering data to help inform the development and delivery of local strategies to address the use of the new drugs.
It is also reassuring that local drug trend monitoring groups, comprising representatives from the statutory and third sectors, have been established throughout Scotland, from the Borders and Grampian to greater Glasgow and Clyde. Those networks are vital in sharing information on new drug trends and co-ordinating local responses, including disseminating health alerts and facilitating training. I hope that that good work can continue.
I was delighted to see that two projects—mid-Galloway youth productions’ film “Legal Highs—Don’t Do It!”, and the new drug trend awareness programme in the Scottish Borders—were shortlisted for safer communities awards in 2013. Both projects raise awareness of the dangers of new psychoactive substances, with the Borders project winning the prevention and problem solving category. I know that all members would wish to join me in congratulating them on that.
As I mentioned in my opening remarks, in November, the Parliament discussed the Government’s response to the independent expert review on opioid replacement therapies, including the development of an alcohol and drug quality improvement framework, the principles of which are equally important for those affected by the new drugs.
Claire Baker mentioned visiting an organisation in Kirkcaldy. Yesterday morning, I, too, was in Kirkcaldy, not to visit the same organisation but to visit FIRST—Fife Intensive Rehabilitation & Substance Misuse Team—which provides drug support services in Fife. FIRST told me that people were beginning to present with issues related to the use of the new drugs. It made a strong comment that the use of the drugs is in no way confined to teenagers. One of the difficulties about this debate is that we fall back into the easy assumption that we are talking about an age group, that is, teenagers. We need to remind ourselves that that is not necessarily the case. It is therefore vital that we help the workforce to respond and that we ensure that measures are in place to know when progress in someone’s recovery journey is being made.
I thank Mary Scanlon for reminding us of the huge challenge that this issue is for the NHS. Indeed, clinicians on last year’s working group discussed the issues that confront them when somebody turns up at A and E and they have absolutely no idea what has been taken and no likelihood of knowing it before they have to help deal with the issue there and then. Mary Scanlon has rightly reminded members that if somebody in their 50s or 60s is admitted to A and E, it would probably never occur to anybody at that stage that it might be related to the new drugs.
I reassure Elaine Murray—as I should have at the start—that I am happy to accept the Labour amendment. I had forgotten that she has a very pertinent professional expertise to bring to the debate. She may have lost one or two of us during her remarks, but nevertheless it is helpful to be reminded that members in the chamber have a lot of expertise.
A number of members, including Alex Johnstone, Graeme Dey and Alison McInnes, mentioned the head shops in Arbroath and Montrose and Sandra White flagged up the shops in her constituency, emphasising the in-your-face reality on the high street. More than one member will have grimaced at the idea of loyalty cards and BOGOF offers in that particular market.
Many members mentioned education. As well as the enforcement summit that we will hold, I have outlined the various initiatives that we are promoting to bolster the ability of know the score to help support services and raise public awareness of the dangers of such drugs across Scotland. Of course, the recourse to Facebook is to get information on to a very widely used forum. As with everything pertaining to online activity, there is an upside as well as a downside, as Kezia Dugdale reminded us. That also applies to testing, which will be part of our considerations, including investigating the Welsh initiative. However, testing is a challenge when the product itself is constantly changing, so there is never a simple, straightforward answer.
In response to Kezia Dugdale’s earlier question, I can say that the survey fieldwork for SALSUS started in August. It will be finished at the end of this month and it will be reported on in autumn, so she will be able to look out for that.
Graeme Pearson made an interesting suggestion about the potential involvement of revenue and customs officers, which I will take on board, as well as Alison McInnes’s suggestion about guidance for trading standards officers.
Willie Coffey, Kezia Dugdale and Mark McDonald emphasised the internet traffic—we all know how difficult the internet is to control. I reassure members that everything, including use of the licensing powers, will be explored.
Claire Baker raised the issue of available data. I assure her that we have made significant improvements to our data collection tools. I have also commissioned research to understand more fully the prevalence and use of those new drugs in Scotland. That research will inform future policy and practice on the issue.
I will also be asking our nationally commissioned drugs organisations—the Scottish Drugs Forum, the Scottish Recovery Consortium and Scottish Families Affected by Alcohol and Drugs—to further support and contribute to our response on new psychoactive substances in 2014-15. The issue of those new drugs will also be raised as a challenge to our independent expert stakeholder groups, including the Drugs Strategy Delivery Commission, the national delivery group and the national forum on drug-related deaths.
We all have a responsibility to work together to respond to the huge challenges that new drug trends bring to Scotland; only by working together will we address the supply and use of new psychoactive substances in our country. This afternoon’s debate was an example of how the Parliament can constructively bring to bear its collective understanding and knowledge on an issue on which—as we all recognise—there are no easy answers.
A number of members made constructive suggestions, and I reassure each and every one of them that those suggestions will be examined incredibly carefully. I hope to be able to get back to individual members on any specific issues that arise from the points that they have raised.
I hope that other members in the chamber will feel, as I do, that today’s debate has been an extraordinarily useful two hours. I hope that when we next return to the chamber to discuss the issue, although that may not be very soon, we will all feel that this debate has been a stage along the way in our progress.
Presiding Officer, I wonder whether you really need the extra 15 seconds, and whether or not you wish me to sit down.
You can sit down slowly in the next five seconds.
Thank you very much, Presiding Officer—I hope that the Presiding Officers have enjoyed the debate too. [Applause.]
Ms Cunningham, I am obliged.