logo
   Web Issue 3139 May 12 2008   
spacer
Drugs rehab to be tested on petty offenders
DAVID LEASKJanuary 02 2008
FERGUS EWING: Building on current success of drug treatment orders
FERGUS EWING: Building on current success of drug treatment orders

Petty offenders on drugs will be forced to go clean or face a jail sentence in a new pilot project.

Community Safety Minister Fergus Ewing yesterday announced that drug treatment and testing orders, until now only used for serious criminals, would be imposed on less serious lawbreakers in Lothian and the Borders. If it proves successful, it could be extended nationally.

Mr Ewing said the orders, described as "highly invasive", had already proved a popular and successful alternative to custodial sentences for high-tariff offenders. Almost half of addicts who complete the orders stay out of trouble for the next two years.

He said: "We want to build on the current success of drug treatment and testing orders (DTTOs) which can help move problematic drug users into appropriate treatment and support services.

"DTTOs have a positive impact on drug use and offending. After six months on an order, an addict's expenditure on drugs decreased from an average of £490 per week pre-sentence to an average of £57 per week."

Sheriffs have broadly welcomed DTTOs for high-tariff offenders. Last year, nearly 600 were granted across Scotland, one in six of them in Edinburgh. Offenders who do not comply with the orders face prison.

The orders, Mr Ewing said, would be adapted for less serious offenders, especially younger or newer users. "It's not simply a case of extending DTTOs in their present form - the cost, complexity of delivering the order and the fact it has been targeted at more serious offenders means that a slightly different approach is needed. However, if we are successful in our aim it will mean that this group of offenders will not graduate to more serious offending careers.

"Too many of our young people fall into drug abuse and opt out of life. Extending the family of DTTO options could help us catch more of them before they fall too far."

DTTOs do not come cheap. Offenders on them get intensive support at a cost of around £10,000. The alternative, however, is more expensive and rarely as effective: a year in jail, often with no treatment or drugs counselling, costs £35,000.

The two-year pilot is expected to start in the spring and last two years, offering courts an effective option in dealing with offenders at an earlier stage in their drugs misuse.

The theory underpinning the orders is that offending drug users will not stop breaking the law unless something is done to tackle their underlying addiction. The orders do not work for all addicts - they are designed for users who have already admitted they have a problem.

The SNP previously signalled that DTTOs would be extended last summer after a meeting between First Minister Alex Salmond and opposition leaders. Labour and Conservative politicians are understood to be supportive of the move.

John Lamont, Tory Shadow Minister for Community Safety, said: "DTTOs have a role to play in tackling both drugs abuse and crime - therefore we welcome this pilot scheme, especially the adaptation to use DTTOs with lower-tariff offenders.

"However, there are other measures that could be taken as well. We believe that another step must be comprehensive drug treatment and testing orders of every prisoner as they are admitted to prison and at regular intervals thereafter. Today's announcement again does not go that far - this is an objective we will continue to press for."

The Scottish Government is this year expected to unveil the country's first national strategy on illegal drugs.


© All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Posted by: Bruce, Glasgow on 12:14am Wed 2 Jan 08
SNP off the starting Blocks already, the other parties haven't even tidied up after their new year parties yet.....
Posted by: Politically-incorrec t Man, Glasgow on 12:45am Wed 2 Jan 08
Why do we just not simply accept that drug abuse is a fact of life an decriminalise it and regulate the supply like we do with alcohol and nicotine?
Posted by: doonhamer on 2:44am Wed 2 Jan 08
Politically-incorrect Man wrote:
Why do we just not simply accept that drug abuse is a fact of life an decriminalise it and regulate the supply like we do with alcohol and nicotine?
Andy Kerr, is that you?
Posted by: Seumas on 7:55am Wed 2 Jan 08
A junkie in jail for a year may cost us £35,000, but a junkie out of jail could cost us up to £120,000!

I got this figure from a case study of a junkie criminal. Over the couse of a year this is what his property crimes cost us all.

Anything that reduces the number of drug addicts on the streets is to be welcomed, but persistent thiefs cost us more when they are on the street than when they are in jail.

If drug addicts are sent to jail we must ensure that they do not have access to illicit drugs inside prison.

Posted by: John, Leicester on 8:06am Wed 2 Jan 08
In my humble opinion this won't work and nor will the average taxpayer be happy to fund it.

We should perhaps be listening to people like the Chief Constable of North Wales who believes prohibition doesn't work and cannot be made to work.

The criminal costs are ENTIRELY due to prohibition - the drugs involved are essentially very cheap to produce but very expensive to buy.

I'm not advocating widespread use of heroin/cocaine/whate
ver but the current system doesn't work. Simple as that.
Posted by: politically-incorrec t Man, glasgow on 1:22pm Wed 2 Jan 08
doonhamer wrote:
Politically-incorrect Man wrote:
Why do we just not simply accept that drug abuse is a fact of life an decriminalise it and regulate the supply like we do with alcohol and nicotine?
Andy Kerr, is that you?
Here, I know I'm a w'anker but I'm not that bad!!
Give them all the drugs they want, cheap as chips, easily available then at least they won't have to bash grannies over the heid doon the Vennel just tae get the skunk man.
Posted by: macgilleleabhar, Aberdeenshire on 1:35pm Wed 2 Jan 08
politically-incorrec t Man.

I tend to agree with you. Making drugs illegal serves to inflate the market. Nothing learned from prohibition in the United States. Having said that I dont know what the social cost of a free market in drugs would be in the present day but it would be detrimental to organised crime.
Posted by: politically-incorrec t Man, glasgow on 1:45pm Wed 2 Jan 08
macgilleleabhar wrote:
politically-incorrec t Man.

I tend to agree with you. Making drugs illegal serves to inflate the market. Nothing learned from prohibition in the United States. Having said that I dont know what the social cost of a free market in drugs would be in the present day but it would be detrimental to organised crime.
Get rid of the crime and unnecessary medical complications from contaminated drugs ; you have to allow people to determine their own destiny as long as they know the possible detrimental sequellae of their actions. The current stance on drugs uses the law to force one group's moral values on another who obviously do not accept this.
Posted by: Zenith, USA on 2:11pm Wed 2 Jan 08

Prohibition does not work. America has invested billions in the drug war--and drug use there is unchanged--at times, even worse. This is nothing but a jolly game of "whack-a-mole"--if youo beat down drug use in one form it just pops up in another. People have laways yearned to alter the way they feel, and they always will. The desire to do so in many is VERY strong--strong enough to overcome even dire threats of disaster (jail, job loss, divorce, loss of child custody, etc). Furthermore, once addicted--especially to opiate drugs like Heroin, codeine, morphine, etc--the brain undergoes chemical changes--many times permanent--that make it impossible to function normally when abstinent due to the non-functioning of the endorphin (natural opiate) system.

The answer is legalization, and scientific, factual, MEDICALLY based treatment for those who want and need it.
Posted by: Observer on 2:23pm Wed 2 Jan 08
Decriminalisation is the only answer to the drugs problem. Help for addicts who want off drugs, supervised adminstration of clean drugs for those who are not ready. But of course that is not going to happen because most voters don't agree with that and none of our politicians have the balls to say publicly what most of them will admit in private.
Posted by: mcg on 5:43pm Wed 2 Jan 08
How is legalising the answer? Britain is swimming in cheap alcohol and cigarette's yet there is a huge blackmarket in both which gangsters make plenty from.
The DTTO's sound usefull as long as they are ruthlessly enforced when broken.I agree with the Tory as well. Surely drug testing prisoners and making prisons drug free is not beyond us?
Posted by: macgilleleabhar, Aberdeenshire on 6:11pm Wed 2 Jan 08
mcg.
Good point except that the blackmarket you refer to is caused by Excise Duty which is again the dead hand of the state again. The drugs industry seems to be made up of three sections. They are supply ,consumption and prevention. Each one has a different vested interest.Free drugs would probably kill the industry as well as regretably a few unfortunates.
Posted by: Politically-incorrec t Man, Glasgow on 6:24pm Wed 2 Jan 08
The State will never stop individuals taking drugs, the best it can hope for as in the case of alcohol and cigarettes is to legalise it, get it out into the open and try to control it that way.
There is so much money to be made in the supply of drugs that the dealers will always find a way to circumvent any attempt to interfere with their business.
Legalise it, remove the criminal involvement - make the best of a bad job.
Posted by: Curley Bill, the southwest on 10:30pm Wed 2 Jan 08
Drugs rehab to be tested on petty offenders


Watch out, Wendy!
Posted by: chipshoponmyshoulder, glasgow on 10:33pm Wed 2 Jan 08
Why do the public still think drug users are criminalised on account of the possession or use of illicit substances? The majority of convictions for your average drug user relate to thefts and such like for the purposes of funding their habit and not drug possession. Ask any drug users you know and they should confirm this.

It is an offence in terms of section 5(2) Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 to have in your possession without lawful authority a controlled drug. In the early 80s a conviction for this would regularly result in a custodial sentence. I cannot speak for elsewhere in Scotland or the UK but in Glasgow, few charges of this nature are brought before court and in those circumstances it will often be someone with drug dealing previous convictions who has been caught again with too small an amount to libel a dealing charge. The Procurator Fiscal will seldom proceed on a single 5(2) charge regardless of whether the drug in question is Diamorphine (Heroin), Cocaine, Cannabis, Methyldioxymethamphe
tamine (Ecstasy) or whatever. If you are in any doubt whether or not this is true ask any drug users or cops you know when they last actually went to court in relation to such a charge.

I am not saying this is right or wrong but it I do beleive this to be the case. There is undoubtedly significant room for debate in terms of the legalisation / decriminalisation issue and I for one am neither clever enough nor motivated enough to consider searching for the answer.

I certainly feel that the present system is very much resource wasteful and is not doing anyboidy much good- Charging the odd adolescent for having a microscopic bit of resin in his pocket is a waste of time enough but when most minor drugs charges don't make it to court there is little point in having the legislation at all. Equally sustaining the extremely expensive 100 mls-a-day methadone habit of an abcess ridden, veins collapsing addict with a 15 year habit is doing no-one (including him as many on the programme agree) any good except the pharmaceutical companies.

I don't profess to know the answers here but others who clearly are basing their assumptions on having smoked the odd spliff and seen Trainspotting once or twice as usual are the first in the queue to voice their naive opinion.
Posted by: chipshoponmyshoulder, glasgow on 10:42pm Wed 2 Jan 08
Curley Bill wrote:
Drugs rehab to be tested on petty offenders


Watch out, Wendy!
Good one Curley Bill - Wendy's multiple choice answer:

A - "I did it when I was a student and I now know it was wrong"
B- "Time to draw a line under it and move on"
C- "Lessons have been learned"
D- Any other line from the bumper book of New Labour spin

(I couldn't give a toss of she has or hasn't by the way)
Posted by: Observer on 12:24am Thu 3 Jan 08
Most drug users do not receive custodial sentences for drug possession or indeed supply. They receive them for shop lifting, burglary, mugging, etc etc to fund their habits. But they will continue to do that as long as there is a supply, which there always will be as long as we leave this in the hands of criminals. Most people who support prohibition are unknowingly supporting organised crime.
Posted by: gadgiefaemacduff, er, Macduff!? on 1:04pm Tue 8 Jan 08
I dont understand how it can cost 35 grand a year to hold a prisoner. Does this go towards their TV's, playstations and other things like their legal fees to take the EU to court in protest against 'slopping out'. I bet it dont cost 35 grand a year per person in countries the likes of The Phillapines, Cambodia, Columbia ect. lucky if it costs 135 quid. Treat them like the criminals they are regardless of the crime. Then they might think twice aboot offending. There is no incentive for them to stop offending. I'm pretty sure a nice stint in rehab aint gonna do the trick. But maybe 15 in a cell 24/7, one shower a week (if they're lucky) and a good bummin (if they're not) every night might. This country needs to get tough on all crime and stop feeling sorry for these scumbags. There!
Posted by: Justathought.... on 10:30am Tue 5 Feb 08
The DTTOs may have limited success, but as others have said, the real problem with illegal drug use is the fact that the substances are ILLEGAL. Any drug, legal or otherwise, has the potential to harm the individual user, and by using that drug, the individual accepts that risk. The widespread drug related problems in society however are more often than not created by the behaviour of drug users attempting to fund their illegal habit. I'm not sure that legalising everything is the answer (indeed we only have to look at the two biggest killing substances we have - tobacco and alcohol to see that legalising things doesn't cure all problems), but at least if politicians would be honest about the fact that prohibition causes more problems than it solves, and allowed sensible debate on the subject instead of pressing on with poorly thought out strategies, our streets, and the general population, would be less affected by other peoples' drug use. This would also free up the police to deal with non-drug related crime more effectively, and drug treatment services could deal with those most in need of treatment using a medical model and not a criminal justice one.
Add your comment
Please note: to publish your comment you must be registered on this site. If you are already registered, please enter your details below.
Email:
Password:
spacer
 IN YOUR AREA
 
Herald Appointments - Every Friday
Travel Shop
Airport Parking
Travel Insurance
Copyright © 2008 Newsquest (Herald & Times) Limited. All Rights Reserved   
Sitemap :: Circulation :: Syndication :: Advertising :: About Us :: Terms of Use