YOUNG OFFENDERS TO BE DRUG TESTED
Related Topics
Phil Stovell p...@stovell.org.uk
Has E now been effectively downgraded to cl*** B?
How can a drug test tell the difference between crack and coke?
http://www.wired-gov.net/WGLaunch.aspx?ARTCL=26004 Date: July 27, 2004 Time: 13:15 YOUNG OFFENDERS TO BE DRUG TESTED Teenagers who are charged with drug-related crimes are to be tested for cl*** A drugs, Home Office Minister Caroline Flint announced today.
As part of the Government's drive to get drug users into treatment and break the links between drugs and crime, the new scheme will be piloted in ten areas from 1 August. Fourteen to seventeen year-olds who are charged for a 'trigger offence', such as burglary, car crime and theft, will be tested for heroin, crack and cocaine. Those testing positive will be referred to specialist youth workers.
Arrest referral schemes dedicated to young people are already in place in these ten areas. These schemes offer support and guidance to all young people who have been arrested. In particular, all those testing positive will be referred to a specialist youth worker, within the local scheme, who will ***ess and help to address their needs.
Drug testing after charge began in selected areas in 2001. As part of the Government's Criminal Justice Interventions Programme drug testing is now in operation in 66 police areas. An independent evaluation report of the first three years, out today, confirms that, whilst drug testing does not on its own reduce cl*** A drug use, it does help identification of drug-using offenders and increases the number of people accessing treatment.
Caroline Flint said: "By testing teenagers who have been charged with offences that are often linked to drugs, we can identify young people at risk of developing serious drug problems early on and get them treatment and support. We know that young offenders are more likely to use drugs than other young people. We need to intervene and stop cl*** A drug abuse as early as possible.
"Drug misuse by young people is often linked to alcohol misuse, family or mental health problems. It is vital we take some new approaches and give these young people the help they need.
"An evaluation of the first three years of drug testing on charge, published today, shows that drug testing is identifying offenders with a drug problem and helping to increase the numbers of people getting treatment.
"From today people charged with begging, handling stolen goods and attempted burglary, in addition to burglary car crime and theft, will be tested on charge.
"Overall crime is falling, but cl*** A drugs are still the cause of many crimes. Drug testing is just one part of the Criminal Justice Interventions Programme, on which we are spending nearly half a billion pounds over three years. By targeting drug-using offenders early, we can get them into treatment and away from a life of crime." Home Office Drugs Minister, Caroline Flint, today visited a young people's drug service and a custody suite in Manchester, which will be taking part in the pilot.
Notes to Editors 1. Drug testing for 14 - 17 year olds will be available from 1 August in custody suites in Liverpool, Manchester, Camden, Southwark, Newham, Middlesbrough, Nottingham, Calderdale, Bradford and Kingston upon Hull. The legislation to enable drug testing for 14-17 year olds was introduced in the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
2. The drug testing pilot programme was introduced in 2001 in three areas before being extended to a further six sites in summer 2002. The police have the power to test persons in police detention aged 18 and over who have been charged with a "trigger offence" (theft, burglary, robbery and other offences under the Theft Act 1968, or drug offences such as possession and supply, if committed in respect of the specified Cl*** A drugs). Those charged with non-trigger offences may also be tested, where a police officer of at least Inspector rank has reasonable grounds to suspect that misuse of any specified cl*** A drug caused or contributed to the offence and authorises the taking of a sample.
3. An "Evaluation of Drug Testing in the Criminal Justice System" was published today in the Home Office website and can be found at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/horspubs1.html 4. The 'Evaluation of drug testing in the criminal justice system in nine pilot areas' by Matrix MHA and Nacro, Home Office Findings 180 was published on March 28 and is available on the Home Office website. This is the second evaluation findings paper, the first is Home Office Research Finding 176 and was published on 24 May 2002.
5. From 27 July, the list of trigger offences set out in Schedule 6 to the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 is being extended to include, handling stolen goods (under section 22 of the Theft Act 1968); "attempted offences" (under section 1(1) of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981, if committed in respect of the offences of theft, robbery, burglary, obtaining property by deception and handling stolen goods; and offences in relation to begging under sections 3 and 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824).
6. The Criminal Justice Interventions Programme (CJIP) targets offenders committing crimes to fund their drug habit. They are identified through drug testing when charged by the police, referred to drug referral workers while in police custody and then guided into treatment. Once in treatment, whether that is in the community or in prison, a caseworker will manage their progress and provide help and advice when it comes to finding a job or a home to help them stay drug and crime-free. CJIP is supported by 151 million in 2004/05, part of a 447 million package over three years.
--
Phil Stovell South Hampshire, UK
Zenobia 7.20.zeno...@spamgourmet.com
On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 19:52:29 +0100, Phil Stovell I suspect anyway that: (a) they're concerned with cutting crime which they believe heroin and cocaine users are likely to cause to fund their habit; (b) they know that they don't have nearly as many drug treatment places as they need so they'd like to put drug-using kids in those schemes before their habits become too firmly entrenched.
They know that E users are no more likely to commit crimes than other youths.
Did you mean how can a government press agent to tell the difference between crack and coke?
Whenever they talk about cl*** A drugs they use it as shorthand for heroin and cocaine. Mushrooms, LSD and E hardly ever figure.
Phil Stovell p...@stovell.org.uk
On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 09:23:09 +0100 in uk.politics.drugs, Zenobia Same penalties, completely different lifestyles.
[They are trying to get cl*** A penalties for mushrooms in plastic bags]
--
Phil Stovell South Hampshire, UK
Zenobia 7.20.zeno...@spamgourmet.com
On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 19:50:30 +0100, Phil Stovell But they're not really worried about mushrooms because they know that only a small minority of people are likely to try them. On the other hand, people like Claude seem to think that nearly everyone would be on coke or heroin if they were legal.
(although, strangely that wouldn't include me, you or Claude himself.) Those mushrooms sold in plastic bags are not native to this country and criminalising them is no dafter than laws again the cannabis plant. Remember how a few years ago they added 50+ cl*** A drugs. Drugs that no one was using and hardly anyone had heard of. How daft was that? A fair few people do mushrooms.
WhoAmI Who...@nowhere.com
<quote> We believe that if you can remove the root cause for crime you can stop the crime from being committed </quote> - Commander Alf Hitchcock, Metropolitan Police <quote> The Home Office hopes the scheme will help break the crime-drugs link.
<quote> Am I missing something here? What are they on about? The crime is using drugs. Testing people and forcibly putting them in treatment is designed to stop them using drugs. I can't see any other way that the "crime-drugs link" can be broken - short of making drugs legal.
When they talk about "crime" are they talking about crimes committed to get funds to buy drugs? Is the actual crime of being in possession of drugs not being referred to as a crime here?
Ideally, can someone who's been to one of their briefings please answer (unless you didn't have the wit to ask the question I'm interested because it seems that the BBC journalists didn't) + + + + + + <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3943259.stm> Teenage drug test projects start A pilot scheme to test offenders as young as 14 for cl*** A drugs, in a bid to give them swift treatment for their habit, begins on Sunday.
Youths in 10 pilot areas across England will be obliged to take part in the testing if charged with offences such as burglary, car theft and begging.
They will be tested for heroin, crack and cocaine and anyone who tests positive will receive specialist help.
The Home Office hopes the scheme will help break the crime-drugs link.
Courts will be able to take test results into account when sentencing.
Drug support groups said in order to succeed the idea needed to be accompanied by appropriate treatment.
The pilot expands an existing scheme introduced three years ago to drug-test adults.
Fourteen to seventeen year-olds who are charged for a "trigger offence" such as burglary, car crime and theft, will be tested.
The Home Office pilot is being run by the Metropolitan Police in three London boroughs - Camden, Newham and Southwark.
Commander Alf Hitchcock, in charge of Criminal Justice for the Met, said: "Drug testing young offenders in these circumstances is an excellent first step in stopping many young people from slipping into what is essentially career criminality.
"We believe that if you can remove the root cause for crime you can stop the crime from being committed." 'Intervene' He said the young people from the three London boroughs who test positive for cl*** A drugs will go onto specialist drug treatment programmes.
In announcing the scheme earlier this week, Home Office Minister Caroline Flint said: "We know that young offenders are more likely to use drugs than other young people.
"We need to intervene and stop cl*** A drug abuse as early as possible." UK drugs information charity Drugscope warned that any testing had to be backed up with investment in prevention and treatment.
Martin Barnes, chief executive, said drug testing could be effective to pinpoint those at risk of future drug misuse, but he warned that the "limits" of using the criminal justice system had to be considered.
Cla ...@aol.com (Claude)
To make it simple.
There is a link between drugs use and crime. (Not always drugs first-crime later, in fact very commonly not) Kids that use drugs are more likely to commit crime (sometimes to fund their habit) Kids that commit crime are more likely to use drugs (the criminal behaviour coming BEFORE the drugs addiction) Catching kids who are using drugs and in danger of being addicted *early*-and getting them into treatment and keeping them drug free, is GOOD for them-health wise.
Catching kids who commit crime *early* and ensuring if they are using drugs they get treatment counselling etc to keep them drug free, will reduce crime later.
That is the theory.
Richard Miller rich...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk
Yes.
No. Using drugs is a crime, unfortunately, unless it happens to be alcohol or tobacco. I personally don't believe that the law should be involved in this aspect of people's lives unless they are impacting adversely on other people. I also believe that the majority of the problems with drugs arise solely from their illegality rather than being inherent.
But in this instance, the police are talking about what they do when someone is arrested for a non-drugs offence, to identify whether drug addiction may be a factor in their criminality which, if addressed, may prevent them from committing further property crimes.
Some people may want treatment, but find it is not available. If this scheme can provide places for those who want them, it will be a major advance in the fight against crime. But you cannot treat people forcibly. If they are not there because they want to be, they will return straight to their drugs as soon as they can.
Yes.
No, because they are talking about people who have been arrested for other offences. If the only evidence of drug taking is traces in the body, I very much doubt the police could make any sort of charge stick.
--
Richard Miller
Zenobia 7.20.Zeno...@spamgourmet.com
That's a tautology. Kids that use drugs are committing a crime by being in possession of drugs.
I can believe that. I think kids that commit crime have fewer moral scruples and are less likely to be scared away from using drugs by being worried about committing that crime.
I can see the government logic here but there's a flaw in the practice. There aren't nearly as many drug treatment places as they need for all the kids who are doing opiates and property crime - so it won't work.
"GEM" webmas...@gemsgallery.org
Depends on what you mean by "work".
If there's a move by Government to make funds quietly available to select friends and relatives who wish to start up Drug Rehabs, then just like here in the west, you too can have a booming rehab industry in just a couple years.
A Perfect Scam always attracts a large number of crooks. The owners of these places need do nothing, save watch the patients get bussed in and the money pile up, all at the taxpayer's expense.
There is no "threshhold of recovery" they need to aim for or achieve - just ply whatever the government witch-doctors say is the current accepted therapy for use on "dopers" and "druggies" (the official cause of all woes on earth) - and they have no need to prove what they do has any beneficial effect at all.
(I always think back to the German national socialist party's medical experiments during world war two whenever I think about drug rehabs.) This lack of accountability means their efforts may do more harm than good and we will never know. In fact, such findings would be buried as a matter of business as usual. Truth is often unprofitable.
As these folks get rich from the forced participation of captured children, they pay off their benefactors with a nice political donation or a secret deposit to an off-shore account.
The one and only purpose of all drug laws is the enrichment of those with the right connections and has nothing whatsoever to do with public safety or health. Prohibition turns a portion of the population into a resource commodity that the rest of society can use for fun and profit.
There are only two kinds of prohibitionists.
The misinformed and profitteers.
Soda pop causes far more "real" harm than all illegal drugs combined, but you'll not see any politicians lathering up over a War on Pop. No profit in it.
That's how its done here in the Wierd West anyways. :) GEM
Zenobia 7.20.Zeno...@spamgourmet.com
On Mon, 2 Aug 2004 02:06:17 -0400, "GEM" I disagree with your conclusion here about the purpose of rehab being to make people rich. I agree with your conclusion that the particular therapy may or may not work.
I think the point is that the government must be SEEN to be doing something. They may even be fooling themselves in to thinking that it will.
Cla ...@aol.com (Claude)
There is in my view, a lot in that, there is a developing industry in "treatment", the people involved mostly seem to want no restrictions at all on sales of anything. Well they would, would they not?
I obviously come into the category of the "misinformed"?
"GEM" webmas...@gemsgallery.org
======== C'est la vie eh.
I suppose then, another hundred years of prohibition are in order.
Every single effort made in the last century was ***-backwards.
Maybe after another century of prohibition, they'll get one thing right, eh.
Almost everyone here in the wierd west also disagrees with my conclusion.
They too prefer to think of their politicians as simply incompetent bumbling fools incapable of resolving the smallest problem without screwing everything up.
To consider differently after all, would mean accepting that our elected officials are criminals at heart and do not have our best interests as their main concern - that their main concern is their own personal enrichment To avoid thinking that fact, we will allow ourselves to believe in nearly any sort of fantasy it seems.
Like -"They may even be fooling themselves into thinking that it will." -
for instance.
And THAT is REALLY why Prohibition is still here and still in full effect and getting stronger every day.
Whether you wish to believe it or not. :) GEM
Zenobia 7.20.Zeno...@spamgourmet.com
On Mon, 2 Aug 2004 10:12:44 -0400, "GEM" If their main concern was their own personal enrichment they would've got jobs doing something that better paid.
"fact" - only a fantasist states facts without any evidence.
If "our elected officials are criminals at heart" and "do not have our best interests" and "their main concern is their own personal enrichment" - then you would have to show that. Where's your evidence. It's your conspiracy theories that are fantasy.
I didn't say that they thought treatment would end drug use. I said that they thought that they could reduce** drug use and ***ociated crime by means of treatment for drug habituates. All the evidence is with me. This is what they talk about. Where is your evidence otherwise?
They believe, like Claude, and 99% of other prohibitionists that the law must be there to stop us using drugs. That widespread drug use will lead to chaos and the breakdown of society. That people are out-of-control and we're incapable of acting in our own best interests. Some of them know that isn't true but are just too cowardly to say so.
Nonsense.
What is your motive and mine in posting to use-net - to make money? People do lots of things for purposes other than making money.
+ + + + + + ** In this context reduce may mean "to lower rate of increase".
"GEM" webmas...@gemsgallery.org
I note you p***ed this over without your usual "You cannot prove that." comment.
Why?
Do you not also claim the above to be false - to be just another aspect of my "conspiracy theory"?
======== ===== Other better paying jobs also include having to do some work on a regular basis and do not include the perks of politics, such as graft, and kickbacks etc., not to mention the free travel and VIP connections available world wide.
===== As you say, so it must be true right!
Even tho it includes no evidence to prove that "only a fantasist states facts without any evidence. :) This must be one of those "I may, but you may not." situations.
====== I see. Once again this is an "I may but you may not" moment.
Your theories are composed on gold and need show no evidence at all because they are popularly accepted.
Oh wait! I forgot.
You have their WORD that they're honestly concerned about your welfare! How silly of me doubting such obvious evidence and irrefutable proof of your golden theories. :) ======= Actually, you said neither. I quoted what you said.
It is still right there - up a few dozen lines.
Here I'll help with a requote.
============ ============ All the evidence is with you??
Like what for example?
That politicians SAY they're honest?
That politicians SAY rehabs work wonderfully?
All the claims are with you - that I'll give you.
My evidence is not allowed to be published yet.
Bad for business as I said.
All of the "conscripted" children who go to these places, do so not because they wish to quit using drugs, but because they have a choice of that or Prison. As soon as they get out they go right back to using their drug of choice.
So, what was the benefit of sending all these kids to rehab?
Ask the owner of the rehab, since he was the one who profitted from the experience.
You wouldn't be thinking of starting up a little Rehab Biz yourself would you?? There'll be some great interest free grants available ya know. :) ========= Damn. You were almost able to admit the truth there for a second.
See. You actually DO know that these people are crooks using prohibition to profit off other people's adversity, but your still afraid to look reality in the eye for long. The thought that people go into politics for the power and wealth it makes available to them is so much less re***uring than "Politicians are honest folks trying to do a hard job." I don't expect you to believe anything I say. Few do. :) I don't expect you to admit these things until they come into your life and play havoc with it, and you actually have to deal with the crooks on a one to one basis.
Even then if you wish to sleep well at night, you'll stay in denial like most of the human race.
I expect this because it is common behaviour.
If it was not common behaviour, prohibition would have been repealed 50 years ago. Because it is common behaviour, Prohibition may never end.
===== Again, no evidence, just your claim.
I really love your double standards. :) I must provide evidence. You merely need to make claims.
Cool rules.
===== What on earth does you and I posting on Usenet have to do with the criminal intent of politicians, and their hired scienticians creating a Rehab Industry for fun and profit at taxpayer's expense??
Denial aint just a river in Egypt.
I'm thinking we have reached full imp***e.
You want me to provide some sort of evidence that the criminals are in power, knowing full well that such evidence would not be allowed into the public's awareness by the criminals. I obviously cannot.
I want you to look around and stop pretending the Emperor is wearing invisible clothes and admit the Emperor is naked. You obviously cannot.
This dialogue ends.
Been nice chattin with ye. :) GEM
Manny Davis notha...@nowhere.com
Evidence for the latter two ***ertions is easy to come by. There is an entire branch of economics devoted to studying such questions. It is called Public Choice Theory. Here is a short summary: http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/PublicChoiceTheory.html Here is a quote from the above link: "Economists who study behavior in the private marketplace ***ume that people are motivated mainly by self-interest. Although most people base some of their actions on their concern for others, the dominant motive in people's actions in the marketplace??”whether they are employers, employees, or consumers??”is a concern for themselves. Public choice economists make the same ***umption??”that although people acting in the political marketplace have some concern for others, their main motive, whether they are voters, politicians, lobbyists, or bureaucrats, is self-
interest. In Buchanan's words the theory "replaces... romantic and illusory... notions about the workings of governments [with]... notions that embody more skepticism." WRT the ***ertion, "our elected officials are criminals at heart", it is, I believe, true. A criminal is a person who has willingly and knowingly violated the rights of another person and nothing on this planet has violated, and continues to violate, more human rights than government.
Dave Lister retsildiva...@hotmail.com
<babbles a lot of crap> People don't get rich in the rehab system, kook. Most of the people are just getting by. You ought to be able to list one or two recovery places outside of regular scams like the the Scientologist's Narcanon where people are "getting rich".
The rest of your post is both misinformed and stupid.
People working in the recovery field are there for two primary reasons: 1. They are recovering people themselves and feel the need to stay close to the system.
2. They really care about people suffering from addiction.
Nobody is there to make money, and the doctors involved usually make much less than what they could make outside of addictionology.
This just isn't a field where there is lots of money to be made unless you cater to Hollywood.
Grow up, GEM, and move beyond your 20 years old fantasies.
--
Un-elect Dubya in 2004 John Kerry for President
Zenobia 7.20.Zeno...@spamgourmet.com
On Mon, 2 Aug 2004 16:03:20 -0400, "GEM" You're most likely right. All the evidence I've seen suggests that rehab schemes plough ahead without reference to any evidence base. We've seen the state close down what it regards as the "wrong kind" of rehab. In the UK, the Tories want all rehab to be abstinence-based. Rehab is a political football -
much like the WoD and druggies in general are.
However, just to contradict you. I think your metaphor of government presenting dopers as the "cause of all woes on earth" is a bit OTT. What about Islamic terrorists?, football hooligans?, etc. The problem with presenting some bunch of people as "the official cause of all woes on earth" is that government just highlights its own impotency unless it is seen to be dealing with the problem. They can p*** specific laws against terrorists and soccer hooligans. What can they do against druggies when they know that the laws won't work? **** all. When politicians go to war on drugs they MUST p*** new laws against druggies. They can't just have a propaganda war. Those new laws against druggies seem to have exhausted themselves in the USA. [eg. rolling back the Rockefeller laws in New York, a more liberal approach to grants for druggie students, the advance of medical marijuana]. Conveniently, the WoT has taken over on the politicians' agenda as THE problem that needs a solution.
When I said "conspiracy theory" it was OTT. I think the problem with your theory is that it is too rigid and not based upon how people actually behave. Politicians are people just like us; they must adapt themselves to the political climate; to the needs and fears of voter.
These perks are not part of the job for most politicians. We had big campaigns in the UK about rooting out such abuses. These campaigns were driven as much by the political cl*** as by the press.
:GEM> To avoid thinking that fact, we will allow ourselves to believe in :GEM> nearly any sort of fantasy it seems.
: :Zenobia> "fact" - only a fantasist states facts without any evidence.
It's important that theory and facts are related in a sensible manner, so that all theory must fit the facts. Theories that contradict facts are harmful, not useful.
By all means, pick me up when I stray too far; as I probably will if I rely on any king of theory that attempts to change with changing facts.
I wouldn't say so. I think political theory needs to adapt to the current situation. Politicians adapt to the world they live in. Once upon a time we had the Cold War, a working-cl*** movement and a definite cl***-war. We don't have those features any more. Once upon a time what a politician did in his private life was kept out of the news by news-paper editors. Nowadays any indiscretion is fair game for the head-line writers. The days when Kennedy could snort coke and have numerous extra-marital affairs yet still be the darling of the catholic church are long gone. The world changes and politicians adapt to those changes. Nowadays the internet gives us unprecedented access to information, making state secrecy laws a bit of a joke.
In the UK, we have an arsenal of legislation aimed at keeping them ethical and newspaper hounds who give them little alternative.
I don't think they're crooks in the sense that we think of crooks. I agree that they're liars. But they see their lies as "white lies", made for our benefit. Much like parents tell lies to their kids, politicians see us as children who need lying to.
At the same time, many of them believe their own propaganda.
They believe in their own morality. Their biggest problem is that they won't look at the evidence. They're like you - putting their world view before the facts.
My own political theories are sometimes part speculation (as I think all political theory must partly be) but I will always ditch theory entirely when that theory is contradicted by fact.
That may not stop me speculating. It's just that the basis for speculation must fit with current facts and the actual state of the world.
In denial of what? Not the facts.
I snipped because I've tried to answer your points above regarding the proper relationship between political theory and fact. As this is the point of dispute between us I feel that the heavy snipping is justified. This was getting very long and everyone else is probably stopped reading.
Cla ...@aol.com (Claude)
Full rehabilitation of addicts (legal or illegal addicts) is, by definition, based on getting the addict to live a drug free life again.
Dave J requ...@freeuk.com
No, it is, by definition, getting them to regain the *ability* to live a normal life. In some cases this may require total abstinence from a particular drug. (In most cases that drug is alcohol and often the substitute is cannabis) Ability to live a normal life despite (or perhaps even because of) the use of 'illegal' drugs is something you need to accept. Many many people do. Only when a habit runs out of control is there anything resembling a victim.
--
Dave Johnson - requ...@freeuk.com
"FUQ" f...@ff.com
I think the category of "thick biased lying irresponsible ****wit" would be a bit more accurate for u dave, along with the rest of the ndpa scum. I mean do u actually believe the bollocks that u and ur mates write, particularly the crap like cannabis making boys "more feminine" etc, on this page http://www.drugprevent.demon.co.uk/cann.html ? How u expect to be taken seriously is beyond me.
Phil Stovell p...@stovell.org.uk
I think a SAE is called for.
--
Phil Stovell South Hampshire, UK
"GEM" webmas...@gemsgallery.org
======= Snipping is only problematic when it is used to remove things from context.
If you'll remember however, my comments were about the West, not about Europe. I know nothing at all of EU politics and business.
Since all of your remarks are about the EU community, I ***ume you thought my comments were ABOUT the EU community.
What I said was: ...that's how we do it here in the Wierd West...
If you were an American, I would have to say you were terribly naive.
Your trust and faith in politics and politicians is almost childlike. I was beginning to suspect that you ARE a politican.
Since your not - an American that is - I have to ***ume that EU politics have not become the tool of the mafia, military and multinational ndustry - yet.
Here in the west however, we have no real statesmen anymore.
Just criminals doing terrible politican impersonations and stealing everything that aint nailed down.
I would have thought you'd have noticed. :) GEM
| To Top |