Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Amendment) Order 2009

My Lords, if this order is approved it will come into force on 23 December 2009 and will bring a number of substances, many of them known as "legal highs", under the control of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. The substances concerned are GBL and 1,4-BD; 1-benzylpiperazine—BZP—and a group of other substituted piperazines; synthetic cannabinoid receptor agonists, which I shall refer to as synthetic cannabinoids for short—that shows what a complex issue this is—15 anabolic steroids, two non-steroidal growth-promoting agents and oripavine. As is required by the Act, the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs has been consulted and agrees with the proposals. On 25 August, following the completion of a 12-week public consultation, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary announced that the Government had decided to control a range of "legal high" drugs to protect the health of the public, especially young people. These "legal highs" carry varied but significant health risks. Young people in particular may often equate "legal" with "safe" and do not always understand that the drugs carry risks. By banning the drugs we will send a clear public health message to users and sellers. New legislation is only part of the work that we are doing to tackle the emerging threat. We have also launched an information campaign to educate young people on the dangers of these substances, particularly when they are mixed with alcohol. As with all FRANK campaigns, ours is targeted to ensure that the message reaches the people most at risk of using the substances, and we have worked with leading experts in the field to develop the campaign. We are also targeting people looking to purchase the drugs online with key risk messages that will appear while they are searching the internet. We must be prepared to adapt our drug legislation to tackle emerging threats to health. We propose to introduce generic definitions for a number of these drugs to capture closely associated chemical compounds that otherwise might be misused instead. This is not a new approach—we have used it for other synthetic drugs—and again we are taking the opportunity to future-proof our drug legislation, responding to current and foreseeable trends to ensure that we keep one step ahead of the unscrupulous manufacturers of illicit substances. Gamma-butyrolactone—GBL—is perhaps the best known of the drugs that we propose to control with noble Lords’ approval. Noble Lords may recollect that much concern has been expressed about the dangers of misusing GBL following the tragic death of Hester Stewart, a young woman with a bright future ahead of her. It is important that we impose suitable controls on the drug’s availability to help to ensure that other families do not suffer a similar loss. When ingested, GBL and a similar chemical, 1,4-BD, are rapidly converted to GHB, which is already controlled as a class C drug. The effects and risks associated with the misuse of GBL and 1,4-BD are unconsciousness, a dependence syndrome if used regularly and a risk of death by intoxication. However, unlike GHB, GBL and 1,4-BD have a wide range of legitimate industrial uses. For example, they are used in the manufacture of cleaning agents, paints and nail polish. Our recent public consultation focused on ensuring that a control option for GBL and 1,4-BD was chosen that provides the best protection to the public from the harms that these drugs can cause while taking fully into account the uses of these chemicals for legitimate business purposes. We intend to amend the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001 so that the prohibitions relating to GBL and 1,4-BD as class C drugs, and the consequential offences, will apply only when the substances are intended for human ingestion. The amending regulations to allow the legitimate use of GBL and 1,4-BD are subject to the negative resolution procedure. They will be laid shortly, to come into force on 23 December at the same time as the Order in Council if it is approved. The Government accepted the advisory council’s advice on the class C classification of GBL. Current evidence, especially in relation to societal harm, suggests that GBL, like the related GHB which has been a class C drug since July 2003, is less harmful than current class B drugs. The health risks, including the risk of death, are increased when the drug is combined with alcohol or other depressant or stimulant substances, but classification of any drug under the 1971 Act does not, and should not, depend on whether it is used with other substances. The control of BZP is the Government’s response to the European Council’s decision to require all EU members to subject BZP to "control measures and criminal provisions". The decision states that, ""due to its stimulant properties, risk to health, the lack of medical benefits and following the precautionary principle, there is a need to control BZP"," through measures, ""appropriate to the relatively low risks of the substance"." The advisory council advised a class C classification for the drug, but also recommended that controls be levied on the related group of substituted piperazines, not just BZP, using a generic definition, as BZP is only one of several substituted piperazines that have been found in the United Kingdom and are, or are capable of, being misused, with the same or very similar harms. For the very reasons I gave at the start of my remarks on the need for durable legislation, the Government support this recommendation. For similar reasons, we have proposed generic definitions to deal with synthetic cannabinoids—the man-made chemicals that mimic the psychoactive effects of the active ingredient in cannabis and can be sprayed on herbal smoking products such as Spice. After consideration of the available evidence, the advisory council concluded that the harms of synthetic cannabinoids are broadly commensurate with those of cannabis and that they should be classified accordingly under the 1971 Act. Cannabis was reclassified as a class B drug, with effect from 26 January 2009, and it is logical that synthetic cannabinoids should also be controlled as class B drugs. Controlling the potential range of synthetic cannabinoid substances that are or could be used in these herbal smoking products presents a challenge. As with piperazines, the council calls for the wider legislative control obtained by using generic definitions. By using the scientifically elegant definitions provided by the advisory council, our controls will capture a range of synthetic cannabinoids and therefore address current and foreseeable trends. Bringing 15 anabolic steroids and two non-steroidal substances, which are growth promoters, under the control of the 1971 Act brings UK legislation into line with the World Anti-Doping Agency’s prohibited list. As class C drugs, they will join more than 50 anabolic steroids. The original group of steroids that came under the control of the 1971 Act as class C drugs in 1996 was identified by reference to the International Olympic Committee’s prohibited list. It is therefore appropriate for the Government to update the control of such drugs by reference to its successor, the World Anti-Doping Agency’s prohibited list. We must have this legislation in place to underpin the anti-doping work that is being led by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, particularly in the run-up to the London Olympics in 2012. The control of oripavine under the 1971 Act meets the United Kingdom’s obligation to control the substance following its international control under the UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs 1961. Oripavine is an alkaloid that is found in the poppy straw of the opium poppy. It can be converted into thebaine, which is controlled under the 1971 Act as a class A drug and is used in the production of semi-synthetic opiates such as hydrocodone and oxycodone. I apologise for all these different names. They are quite mind boggling, I know, but there is no way of getting around them, I am afraid. There is currently no evidence of oripavine’s misuse in the UK, nor of its illicit conversion in the UK to thebaine and other opioids. For these reasons, the advisory council concluded that its potential harm is more commensurate with class C drugs such as the opioid, buprenorphine. The Government have accepted this recommendation. If the order is approved, the Government will publicise the law changes through a Home Office circular and through the Talk to FRANK and drugs.gov.uk websites. Reference to the law change and health risks relating to the drugs will be included in future government materials for young people. The order will ensure that we have up-to-date and durable legislation for these dangerous or otherwise harmful drugs to enable us to respond to current and foreseeable trends. I commend the controls proposed in the order. I beg to move.