Hansard

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.