[Contents]
[Chapter 12][Chapter
14]
There are a range of attitudes towards drug use. At one
extreme there is the view still widely held in the USA that all
drugs (although, inexplicably, alcohol is excluded) cause
enormous damage to young people, and must be stamped out by tough
use of the law and campaigns such as "Just Say No"
rather than genuine education. The view is that drugs are evil in
themselves and that no sane person would choose to take any
illicit drug unless he or she had a perverse or inadequate
personality. Drug dealers are seen as ruthless criminals who have
no respect for their customers, and "give the kids free
samples, because they know full well that today's young innocent
faces will be tomorrow's clientele." These were the
satirical words of Tom Lehrer some 40 years ago, but there are
some people who still believe in this view, including police in
the drug squad.(89)
At the other end is the Dutch government. Although members of the
United Nations and therefore signatories to the Convention on
Psychotropic Substances(15),
the Dutch have decided not to prosecute people found in
possession of drugs for their own use, without actually changing
the law. Instead of trying to prevent people from taking drugs,
the authorities in Holland give drug users help and information
so they can choose for themselves. To this end they employ people
to buy samples of drugs sold on the street which are then
analysed and the results published. Occasionally there are
warnings about particular pills that are very strong or are
adulterated: in one case 'Ecstasy' that turned out to be
Ketamine. Holland also has a "safe house" policy. This
means that certain drug agencies have assurances from the police
and authorities that visitors will not be raided or stopped on
their way in or out. This provides a link between the authorities
and the dealers. The pact gives dealers an opportunity to talk
about their side of the trade and to have samples of their wares
tested, while it provides the authorities with detailed (although
anonymous) information about what is going on.
One might say that Britain is in between. My impression is that
the Establishment and police favour the official American view,
while workers in the field sympathise more with the Dutch. In
researching this book, I have come into contact with a number of
people who are paid by the government including social workers,
teachers, doctors, psychiatrists and researchers in the field of
drug use. Many of them cannot afford to say openly what they
believe, but off the record have told me they believe that
Ecstasy has done more good than harm; several have admitted
trying the drug for themselves. At one drug prevention agency I
was surprised to hear the staff speak positively about Ecstasy
just after their head had told me of the importance of warning
users about its dangers. The discrepancy was later explained by
the need to raise funds for the organisation.
There are signs of attitudes softening. In Britain, the
Independent and Economist have launched a crusade to legalise
drugs on the grounds that prohibition is the route cause of about
half the crime, and that present policies simply do not work - a
view also voiced by Commander John Grieve of the Metropolitan
Police.(164) In
America, the Just Say No campaign is losing credibility and is
being challenged by more and more critics including the mayor of
San Francisco. In Europe, Holland has been leading the way
towards liberalisation but faces pressure from other EC countries
to tighten up. A Dutch committee has also recommended that MDMA
be reclassified to the same class as cannabis.
In June 1993, a paper called 'X at the Crossroads' predicted
that E had a high growth potential in the USA, and that public
attitude to the drug will change from its present disinterest to
either 'marijuana-like acceptance' or 'LSD-like rejection'. Which
way it goes will probably depend on chance rather than common
sense, since the public are more influenced by media horror
stories than statistics.(151,
154)
In Britain, use has been steadily increasing while media coverage
has declined. This is partly due to far fewer casualties
resulting from successful harm reduction campaigns, but also
media burnout. With polls showing that nearly half the population
favour decriminalisation of cannabis, and some serious discussion
of legalisation of all drugs, it seems likely that attitudes will
soften.(151, 164)
On the other hand, there has been concern that "Jobs in
traditional leisure industries are being jeopardised by the huge
growth in raves which have mushroomed into a #2 billion-a-year
industry".(159)
The powerful brewery lobby in Britain is likely to put pressure
on the government to clamp down on raves.
Harm reduction policies(116,
117) are based on the
idea that it is of greater benefit to society to put effort into
reducing the harm caused by drug taking than to prevent drugs
being consumed at all. This was first applied to opiate (heroin)
users in response to the AIDS scare by supplying free syringes to
prevent HIV being spread through sharing needles.
In relation to Ecstasy use, harm reduction has recently been
adopted as a policy by Manchester City Council(118) in the form of a
Safer Dancing campaign. Before this, venues were being closed
when the police found illicit drugs, with the result that the
clientele moved on to other venues - often unlicensed premises.
People suffered from heatstroke as a result of taking Ecstasy in
badly ventilated venues where water to the wash basins had been
cut off, forcing them to buy drinking water at exorbitant prices.
At the illegal raves there are frequently other risks too, such
as small or locked exit doors and poor fire access.
Instead of closing clubs where drugs are being used, 'harm
reduction' policies accept that people are going to take drugs,
and that what is important is to reduce the risk of harm. Dr.
Newcombe of Manchester University has been one of the main
protagonists of this idea, and the policy is now widely accepted
by many people working in the field. Dr. Newcombe offers courses
on harm reduction including one related to Ecstasy use(119); under the name The
Rave Research Bureau, he offers a consultancy service to club
owners who wish to have their premises monitored.(120) Many club owners are
becoming more responsible(40)
and some even employ people to look after ravers who have
problems.(118, 121) However, at one
event I attended in 1993 in London the water had been cut off to
all the wash basins in the toilets and tap water was being sold
at #2.50 a bottle; at another, an illegal rave under a railway
arch, there was only one unlocked narrow exit for over a thousand
people.
In Manchester, however, evidence of sharp practices on the
part of a number of night clubs has triggered the beginnings of a
consensus that harm-reduction is the way forward. Tony Cross,
press officer for Manchester City Council, said: "We had
confidential information that a number of clubs were turning off
the cold water supply; charging #1.50p for a glass of water;
turning up the heating and switching off the air conditioning. A
couple of clubs were doing it every weekend". In
neighbouring Bolton, a club called the Pleasure Dome which
deliberately switched off its water supply on rave nights
achieved notoriety when the local paper reported that "drug
crazed" girls had been seen drinking from toilets and was
forced to close in 1992.
Local authorities have responsibility under the law for issuing
and withdrawing clubs' entertainment licenses and ensuring that
their premises are safe. Manchester's response, following advice
from Dr. Russell Newcombe, of Manchester University's department
of social policy and social work, was to introduce a code of
conduct which clubs have to conform to as a condition of
retaining their licences. A minimum code of conduct, announced in
December 1992 with the launch of the "Safer Dancing
Campaign", will be followed in 1993 by more detailed
requirements.
The minimum code requires clubs to do the following:
1. monitor air temperature and air quality at regular intervals
throughout their premises and improve methods of ventilation if
necessary;
2. provide adequate facilities for "chilling out" such
as a room with a quieter and cooler atmosphere and comfortable
seating;
3. ensure that cold tap water is available in toilets and provide
free water at bars;
4. provide customers with up-to-date information about the risk
of drug use; how to avoid overheating and where confidential
advice and help can be obtained;
5. employ outreach workers to operate on site offering
confidential advice, first aid, and a referral service for
customers.
There are about seven clubs in Manchester involved in the rave
scene and the council is concentrating on these in promoting and
following up the new policy. It met with the club owners in March
1993 to discuss the implications of the minimum code and, in
conjunction with the non-statutory drug agency Lifeline, it has
produced a series of educational posters about E that have been
sent to all Manchester nightclubs. By February 1993, one club had
been found - by a Lifeline volunteer - to have broken the code by
switching off its water. "An enforcement officer will visit
that club to review the situation; we will threaten to revoke
their entertainment licence and we could then do so," Mr.
Cross said. However, Lifeline researchers say that other clubs,
notably The Pier in Wigan and The Hacienda in Manchester, have
been exemplary in introducing a wider range of safety measures
than required by the code. Meanwhile new clubs such as The
Parliament in Manchester provide even better facilities than the
code demands.
The council is also taking advice from Dr. Newcombe on what to
include in the extended code of conduct. He has suggested more
stringent steps such as requiring all clubs to cooperate fully
with police drug squads and assist with surveillance operations
and intelligence; stationing security staff in areas where drug
dealing takes place; altering the internal structure of clubs to
aid surveillance and keeping a log of all incidents of violence,
drug use, drug dealing and other criminal acts.
The policy has aroused great interest from other authorities,
private individuals around Britain reporting similar sharp
practices and the Institute of Environmental Health Officers. It
is likely to become the model for authorities covering other
centres of the rave scene.
[Contents]
[Chapter 12][Chapter
14]
E for Ecstasy by Nicholas Saunders
HTMLized by Lamont Granquist (lamontg@u.washington.edu)