UK universities are being urged to ditch a zero-tolerance approach to drug use and focus instead on public health and harm reduction, with drug testing and non-judgmental support for students seeking help.
The warning came as new research found students are less likely to use drugs than those of the same age group in the general population. Of the minority that do, more than two out of five would like to reduce their use.
Experts remain concerned that a zero-tolerance approach still deployed on some campuses, including fines, suspensions and expulsions, does little to reduce drug use and could deter students from coming forward for help.
Almost one in five (18%) out of 4,000 students who took part in a poll for Universities UK (UUK) – the organization that represents 142 higher education providers – told researchers they had used drugs in the past, while one in eight (12%) had used drugs in the past year.
Of those who had ever taken drugs, the most commonly used in the past year were cannabis (53%), cocaine (8%), prescxtion drugs (7%), ketamine (6%) and ecstasy (4%).
Among non-students, almost 18% of 16- to 24-year-olds in England and Wales reported drug use in the year up to March 2023, according to the Office for National Statistics, while in Scotland, 23.5% of the same age group had used drugs in the year prior to being surveyed.
According to UUK, only one in five students who have used drugs in the past 12 months have asked for support from their institution. Of those students who did seek support, nearly half (46%) said their university’s drug policy was a barrier, while more than a third (37%) feared the consequences of coming forward.
Jeni Larmour, 18, of Newtownhamilton in Northern Ireland, died in October 2020 on her first day at Newcastle University after consuming a lethal combination of alcohol and ketamine given to her “by another”, according to a coroner.
Her mother, Sandra Larmour, welcomed the report and said her own views on drug policy had changed. Where once she might have backed zero tolerance, she now favours educating and supporting students, though she said universities should never condone drug use.
“If you tell a bunch of teenagers ‘don’t do something’, you’re on a hiding to nothing. Anybody that’s got children knows that – they’re going to go out and do it,” Larmour said.
“But if you’re doing something in an open and informed manner, that can only help. If you’ve got people there with insight, knowledge and professional experience that can give them guidance on it, and they feel they can come forward, that’s a very positive step.”
The SafeCourse charity, which was set up to promote harm reduction policies on UK campuses, welcomed UUK’s new frxwork for action. Its founder, Hilton Mervis, whose son Daniel died of an accidental overdose, said a zero-tolerance approach may have discouraged him from seeking help because of fear of expulsion.
“Drugs left a hole in my family’s life because Daniel was failed by zero-tolerance policies,” he said, adding that the college now has a “clear harm reduction policy which puts the safety and wellbeing of their students first.
“Yet many universities continue to declare zero tolerance on drugs. In practice, this means zero action. This puts students at risk. The time has come for universities to adopt active, student-led harm reduction approaches.”
The UUK report, Enabling student health and success: tackling supply and demand for drugs and improving harm reduction, published on Tuesday, also calls on universities to promote and inform students of drug checking services. “Students often do not know the contents and strength of illicit drugs at the point of purchase,” it says.
“The consequences of this can be fatal. Drug checking provides an independent service which encourages students to have any substances of concern tested by chemists, and the results discussed during a consultation with a health professional.”
It also suggests a sliding scale of warnings of increasing severity for repeat incidents over an agreed timefrx to ensure a university is not perceived as permissive about the use of drugs.
Larmour urged parents whose children are preparing to go off to university in the autumn to talk to their child. “Make sure that you’re open and honest with them.” To youngsters about to leave home, she said: “Be aware of your surroundings. Be aware of who your friends are. Think before you do anything.
“I miss Jeni every day of my life. I think about her all the time. Everything I do, I do it for one reason. That’s to keep her name alive, to keep her name on people’s lips, to keep her memory alive.”
Bokbreath
I'd like to congratulate drugs for winning the war on drugs
我要祝賀毒品贏得了毒品戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)
SomeShiitakePosterNottinghamshire
It is inevitable. Drugs have existed as long as the human race, what arrogance to think that you will finally be the generation that eliminates them.
WolfCola4
Absolutely - and what arrogance to think that everyone agrees with you that drugs should be eliminated. If everyone thought that, they already would be eliminated. People don't all enjoy the same things, and that's fine.
TheGamblingAddict
There is a theory that drugs played a part in human evolution. Psilocybin mushrooms (magic mushrooms), were believed to have been used by Homo erectus which kickstarted the cognitive revolution which led to Homo sapiens, the exact mushroom in question was believed to be Psilocybe cubensis. This theory was based on studies by a gent named Roland L. Fischer. This is just one theory of many, the stoned ape theory I believe it got called.
Also a quick one, Professor David Nutt, was forced to resign from his job (2009 I believe?) after the Government (UK) had asked him to investigate the damaging effects of LSD, ecstasy and cannabis. Well they didn't like the results, turns out all three of those drugs, are less harmful than legal ones. Alcohol and tobacco ranked higher on the scale. They didn't like that one bit, forced a man to resign for doing the job they asked him too, all because they didn't like the results.
BartlebyFunx
Legalise the fucking lot and control it. Allow it to become dosed and kept in controlled situations. This would deal a massive blow to UK and global crime gangs. It would make the economy extremely strong and would see deaths plummet.
Wardendexe
Yes and the government can tax drug sales too, win win.
是的,政府也可以對(duì)藥品銷售征稅,雙贏。
soulsteela
Look at the American towns that have pulled back from the brink by doing this with weed, suddenly got huge influx of cash, local businesses growing, others selling it, all employing people and paying tax, leading to a general improvement in living and education conditions for an awful lot of people. Better than jail just because they’d rather get wasted on something other than booze. The illegal cannabis industry in the U.K. turns over more than £5 billion that could be invested in your local town instead of disappearing offshore.
___a1b1
Although things went wrong in Oregon when they decriminalised hard drugs for personal consumption.
The trouble is that consumption goes up when something is more easily available/marketed/reliable then that means you end up with rises in things like addiction, and addiction then creates a black economy of it's own (theft, homelessness, prostitution etc) as a percentage of users always fall into that hole, so bring in more users then that results in more people falling into the pit. The notion of spending taxes on treatment is flawed as addicts have to go through a lot before it really actually works for them if it ever does, so that means that they live in that underbelly of society with crime etc, so that might well increase due to more people joining the addict sub-set.
reckless-rogboy
Things went wrong in Oregon and similary in Washington because they stopped dealing with criminal activity by addicts, at all.
The first steps in a sensible legalization strategy are to apply the lessons learned from the booze trade. Licensed premises, controlled hours and restrictions on sales to intoxicated individuals all act as a behavioral nudge to prevent excessive consumption for the majority. Prosecuting crimes committed by users brings problem users into view.
Obviously different substances cause problems in different ways and over different timescales. Identifying appropriate policies and actions to apply to individuals in the ground between starting excess use and full blown medical detox is where the hard part is.
CloneOfKarl
Allow it to become dosed and kept in controlled situations.
It would make the economy extremely strong and would see deaths plummet.
I don't like the idea of making the economy strong bY LEEching off the vulnerable. That money would be coming from their pockets. Such a system should not be incentivised by profits.
How do you define 'controlled situation'? I'm assuming you mean that people can walk in off the street, pay for drugs, and use them there and then, whilst being monitored for sometime afterwards? What are the limits on this? Would someone be able to walk in again an hour later? How would personal tolerance be taken into consideration? Has any other country implemented this?
Don't get me wrong though, I think that any personal possession should be legal, and that people should have access to cheap drug testing services (if practically possible). We should not be criminalising what is effectively a medical condition.
spackysteve
Do universities actually care if students use drugs?
大學(xué)是否真的關(guān)心學(xué)生是否吸毒?
Blue_winged_yoshi
Universities don’t get massively involved in people’s lives outside. What a harm reduction pivot would enable would be a student to go to welfare and say “this is really embarrassing, but my friends and I got into coke and it’s started to impact my studies and I don’t want it to get worse”, and student welfare could then signpost to appropriate support services without any risk of disciplinary action. Zero tolerance prevents this conversation from taking place and that’s a bad thing.
Ok-Comparison6923
Decriminalise drugs and you remove the contact with criminals for users. The gateway has never been the drug itself, it’s the connections and the network.
Also you can control the ingredients and make them safer. You can make them cheaper and tax them.
For people opposed to drugs, do you ever drink? Smoke? If you do, what makes YOUR drug OK but not other people’s?
Firstpoet
Legalise drugs. OK. I don't want to pay for your related health treatments you need because of your choices, though. Compulsory health insurance, or you're on your own. Same with alcohol. Wasting resources in Casualty while a sick child is waiting?
Ok-Buyer2600
Damn maybe if you just not take drugs it's never a problem. Pretty easy to not accidentally snort or inject expensive and illegal substances
I'd like to congratulate drugs for winning the war on drugs
我要祝賀毒品贏得了毒品戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)
It is inevitable. Drugs have existed as long as the human race, what arrogance to think that you will finally be the generation that eliminates them.
這是不可避免的。毒品自人類誕生以來(lái)就存在了,你以為自己終將成為消滅毒品的一代是多么傲慢啊。
Absolutely - and what arrogance to think that everyone agrees with you that drugs should be eliminated. If everyone thought that, they already would be eliminated. People don't all enjoy the same things, and that's fine.
絕對(duì)是這樣——認(rèn)為每個(gè)人都贊同你應(yīng)該消除毒品,這是多么傲慢啊。如果每個(gè)人都這么想,他們?cè)缇捅惶蕴恕H藗儾⒉欢枷矚g同樣的東西,這很好。
There is a theory that drugs played a part in human evolution. Psilocybin mushrooms (magic mushrooms), were believed to have been used by Homo erectus which kickstarted the cognitive revolution which led to Homo sapiens, the exact mushroom in question was believed to be Psilocybe cubensis. This theory was based on studies by a gent named Roland L. Fischer. This is just one theory of many, the stoned ape theory I believe it got called.
Also a quick one, Professor David Nutt, was forced to resign from his job (2009 I believe?) after the Government (UK) had asked him to investigate the damaging effects of LSD, ecstasy and cannabis. Well they didn't like the results, turns out all three of those drugs, are less harmful than legal ones. Alcohol and tobacco ranked higher on the scale. They didn't like that one bit, forced a man to resign for doing the job they asked him too, all because they didn't like the results.
有一種理論認(rèn)為毒品在人類進(jìn)化中起到了一定的作用。裸蓋菇(神奇蘑菇)被認(rèn)為是直立人攝入過(guò)的,他們由此開(kāi)啟了認(rèn)知革命,導(dǎo)致了智人的出現(xiàn),而這種被質(zhì)疑的蘑菇被認(rèn)為是裸蓋菇。這個(gè)理論是基于一個(gè)名叫羅蘭·l·費(fèi)舍爾的人的研究。這只是眾多理論中的一種,我相信它被稱為“醉猴理論”。
還有一個(gè)快速的例子,大衛(wèi)·納特教授,在政府(英國(guó))要求他調(diào)查麥角酸二乙基酰胺、搖頭丸和大麻的破壞性影響后,被迫辭職(我想是2009年吧?)他們不喜歡這個(gè)調(diào)查結(jié)果——這三種藥物比合法藥物的危害更小。酒精和煙草排名更高。他們一點(diǎn)也不喜歡這樣,強(qiáng)迫一個(gè)人辭職,因?yàn)樗隽怂麄円笏龅墓ぷ鳎际且驗(yàn)樗麄儾幌矚g結(jié)果。
Legalise the fucking lot and control it. Allow it to become dosed and kept in controlled situations. This would deal a massive blow to UK and global crime gangs. It would make the economy extremely strong and would see deaths plummet.
把毒品合法化,控制它。允許它成為劑量藥物,并保持在可控的情況下。這將對(duì)英國(guó)和全球犯罪團(tuán)伙造成巨大打擊。它將使經(jīng)濟(jì)極其強(qiáng)勁,并將看到死亡人數(shù)急劇下降。
Yes and the government can tax drug sales too, win win.
是的,政府也可以對(duì)藥品銷售征稅,雙贏。
Look at the American towns that have pulled back from the brink by doing this with weed, suddenly got huge influx of cash, local businesses growing, others selling it, all employing people and paying tax, leading to a general improvement in living and education conditions for an awful lot of people. Better than jail just because they’d rather get wasted on something other than booze. The illegal cannabis industry in the U.K. turns over more than £5 billion that could be invested in your local town instead of disappearing offshore.
看看美國(guó)的一些城鎮(zhèn),他們通過(guò)對(duì)大麻的處理實(shí)現(xiàn)了力挽狂瀾,突然有了大量的現(xiàn)金流入,當(dāng)?shù)氐钠髽I(yè)在發(fā)展,其他人在出售大麻,所有人都雇傭了人,繳納了稅,導(dǎo)致很多人的生活和教育條件得到了普遍改善。總比因?yàn)樗麄儗幵赴彦X浪費(fèi)在酒以外的東西上而坐牢要好。英國(guó)的非法大麻產(chǎn)業(yè)帶來(lái)了超過(guò)50億英鎊的收入,這些錢本可以投資到你當(dāng)?shù)氐某擎?zhèn),而不是消失在海外。
Although things went wrong in Oregon when they decriminalised hard drugs for personal consumption.
The trouble is that consumption goes up when something is more easily available/marketed/reliable then that means you end up with rises in things like addiction, and addiction then creates a black economy of it's own (theft, homelessness, prostitution etc) as a percentage of users always fall into that hole, so bring in more users then that results in more people falling into the pit. The notion of spending taxes on treatment is flawed as addicts have to go through a lot before it really actually works for them if it ever does, so that means that they live in that underbelly of society with crime etc, so that might well increase due to more people joining the addict sub-set.
然而在俄勒岡州,當(dāng)他們將個(gè)人消費(fèi)的烈性毒品合法化時(shí),事情出了問(wèn)題。
問(wèn)題在于,當(dāng)某些東西更容易獲得/銷售/可靠時(shí),消費(fèi)就會(huì)上升,這意味著成癮等事情會(huì)上升,而成癮會(huì)創(chuàng)造出自己的黑色經(jīng)濟(jì)(盜竊、無(wú)家可歸、賣淫等等),因?yàn)橐欢ū壤奈痴呖偸锹淙脒@個(gè)陷阱,所以吸引更多的吸食者,就會(huì)導(dǎo)致更多的人陷入這個(gè)陷阱。將稅收用于治療的想法是有缺陷的,因?yàn)槌砂a者必須經(jīng)歷很多戒毒措施才能真正對(duì)他們起作用(如果戒毒真的起作用的話),這意味著他們生活在犯罪等社會(huì)的底層等等,所以由于越來(lái)越多的人淪為了成癮亞群體,這可能會(huì)繼續(xù)加劇問(wèn)題。
Things went wrong in Oregon and similary in Washington because they stopped dealing with criminal activity by addicts, at all.
The first steps in a sensible legalization strategy are to apply the lessons learned from the booze trade. Licensed premises, controlled hours and restrictions on sales to intoxicated individuals all act as a behavioral nudge to prevent excessive consumption for the majority. Prosecuting crimes committed by users brings problem users into view.
Obviously different substances cause problems in different ways and over different timescales. Identifying appropriate policies and actions to apply to individuals in the ground between starting excess use and full blown medical detox is where the hard part is.
俄勒岡州和華盛頓州的情況都很糟糕,因?yàn)樗麄兏静惶幚戆a君子的犯罪活動(dòng)。
明智的合法化策略的第一步是從酒交易中吸取教訓(xùn)。有執(zhí)照的營(yíng)業(yè)場(chǎng)所、有時(shí)間限制、限制向醉酒的人銷售,這些都是防止大多數(shù)人過(guò)度消費(fèi)的行為推動(dòng)舉措。對(duì)飲酒者犯罪的起訴使問(wèn)題飲酒者得以正視。
顯然,不同的物質(zhì)會(huì)以不同的方式、在不同的時(shí)間尺度上引發(fā)問(wèn)題。對(duì)適用于在開(kāi)始過(guò)量使用和全面的醫(yī)療戒毒之間的個(gè)人確定適當(dāng)?shù)恼吆托袆?dòng),才是困難的部分。
Allow it to become dosed and kept in controlled situations.
It would make the economy extremely strong and would see deaths plummet.
I don't like the idea of making the economy strong bY LEEching off the vulnerable. That money would be coming from their pockets. Such a system should not be incentivised by profits.
How do you define 'controlled situation'? I'm assuming you mean that people can walk in off the street, pay for drugs, and use them there and then, whilst being monitored for sometime afterwards? What are the limits on this? Would someone be able to walk in again an hour later? How would personal tolerance be taken into consideration? Has any other country implemented this?
Don't get me wrong though, I think that any personal possession should be legal, and that people should have access to cheap drug testing services (if practically possible). We should not be criminalising what is effectively a medical condition.
“允許它成為劑量藥物,并保持在可控的情況下。
它將使經(jīng)濟(jì)極其強(qiáng)勁,并將看到死亡人數(shù)急劇下降?!?br /> 我不喜歡靠壓榨弱勢(shì)群體來(lái)增強(qiáng)經(jīng)濟(jì)的想法。這筆錢將來(lái)自他們的口袋。這種制度不應(yīng)受到利潤(rùn)的激勵(lì)。
你如何定義“可控的情況”?我猜你的意思是人們可以在街上隨便走進(jìn)去,付錢買毒品,然后當(dāng)場(chǎng)吸食,之后還要接受一段時(shí)間的監(jiān)控?它的限制是什么?有人能在一小時(shí)后再進(jìn)來(lái)嗎?如何考慮個(gè)人的容忍度?有其他國(guó)家實(shí)施過(guò)嗎?
不要誤解我的意思,我認(rèn)為任何個(gè)人持有毒品都應(yīng)該是合法的,人們應(yīng)該有機(jī)會(huì)獲得廉價(jià)的毒品測(cè)試服務(wù)(如果可能的話)。我們不應(yīng)該將實(shí)際上是一種疾病的行為定為犯罪。
Do universities actually care if students use drugs?
大學(xué)是否真的關(guān)心學(xué)生是否吸毒?
Universities don’t get massively involved in people’s lives outside. What a harm reduction pivot would enable would be a student to go to welfare and say “this is really embarrassing, but my friends and I got into coke and it’s started to impact my studies and I don’t want it to get worse”, and student welfare could then signpost to appropriate support services without any risk of disciplinary action. Zero tolerance prevents this conversation from taking place and that’s a bad thing.
大學(xué)不會(huì)過(guò)多地參與到人們的課外生活中。一個(gè)減少傷害的重點(diǎn)是能讓一個(gè)學(xué)生去福利機(jī)構(gòu)坦白:“這真的很尷尬,但我和我的朋友都吸了可卡因,這開(kāi)始影響我的學(xué)習(xí),我不想讓情況變得更糟”,然后學(xué)生福利機(jī)構(gòu)就可以向他們提供適當(dāng)?shù)闹С址?wù),而不會(huì)有任何紀(jì)律處分的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。(當(dāng)前的)零容忍做法阻止了這種對(duì)話的發(fā)生,這是一件壞事。
pharmaceutical drugs kill more, but you never hear a peep.
藥物致死的人更多,但你從來(lái)沒(méi)有聽(tīng)到一個(gè)(反對(duì)藥品的)聲音。
Decriminalise drugs and you remove the contact with criminals for users. The gateway has never been the drug itself, it’s the connections and the network.
Also you can control the ingredients and make them safer. You can make them cheaper and tax them.
For people opposed to drugs, do you ever drink? Smoke? If you do, what makes YOUR drug OK but not other people’s?
將毒品合法化,你就消除了吸毒者與罪犯的接觸。途徑從來(lái)不是毒品本身,而是連接和網(wǎng)絡(luò)。
你也可以控制毒品成分,使它們更安全。你可以讓它們更便宜,并對(duì)它們征稅。
對(duì)于那些反對(duì)毒品的人,你喝酒嗎?抽煙嗎?如果你是,是什么讓你的“毒品”可以,而別人的就不行呢?
Legalise drugs. OK. I don't want to pay for your related health treatments you need because of your choices, though. Compulsory health insurance, or you're on your own. Same with alcohol. Wasting resources in Casualty while a sick child is waiting?
毒品合法化。好的。但我不想因?yàn)槟愕倪x擇而為你支付相關(guān)的健康治療費(fèi)用。強(qiáng)制醫(yī)療保險(xiǎn),否則你就得靠自己了。酒精也是一樣。當(dāng)一個(gè)生病的孩子在等待時(shí),(因?yàn)榫戎挝菊叨┰诩痹\室浪費(fèi)資源?
Damn maybe if you just not take drugs it's never a problem. Pretty easy to not accidentally snort or inject expensive and illegal substances
該死的,也許只要你不吸毒就不會(huì)有問(wèn)題。避免不小心吸食或注射昂貴的非法毒物是很容易的