Hansard

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.