Giulia Federica Zampin, Governance versus Government: Drug Consumption Rooms in Australia and the UK, International Journal of Drug Policy, 28 March 2014.
Both governance and government are useful frameworks in conceptualising the policy process. The governance narrative risks overlooking the importance of traditional government structures. In the case of drug consumption rooms in the UK and Australia, a focus on government is shown to have been crucial in determining whether the intervention was implemented.
Charlie Lloyd, Heino Stöver, Heike Zurhold and Neil Hunt, Similar Problems, Divergent Responses: A Comparative Analysis of Drug Consumption Room Policies in the UK and Germany, Seventh Annual Conference of the International Society for the Study of Drug Policy, Universidad de los Andes, Bogotá, Colombia, May 2013.
Peter James and Mike Trace, Independent Drugs Commission for Brighton & Hove, January 2013.
In the spring of 2012, the Safe In The City Partnership responded to a proposal from Caroline Lucas MP to set up an Independent Drugs Commission to look at the current state of drug problems in the city, and the various efforts to address them. The aim was to take a fresh look at the city's response to the problems associated with drug markets and drug use, and to suggest ways in which the local agencies could be more successful in reducing the drug related problems that mattered to the citizens of Brighton & Hove.
Stephen Parkin PhD and Dr. Ross Coomber, Informal ‘Sorter' Houses: A qualitative insight of the ‘shooting gallery' phenomenon in a UK setting. Health & Place, University of Huddersfield, 2009, 15 (4). pp. 981-98, ISSN 1353-8292.
This paper considers the ‘shooting gallery' phenomenon and presents findings from a sample of injecting drug users with experience of attending such premises in the South-West of England (UK). Due to the reciprocal relationship within these settings, involving the provision of drugs for place, the term Informal Sorter House has been coined by the authors. The social organisation and associative health risks within Informal Sorter Houses were found to have resounding similarities with those previously identified within American settings. However, several differences were also noted. Namely, Informal Sorter Houses appear to be located within a continuum of control that contains regulated, unregulated, and restored injecting environments and accordingly, it is suggested that such environments are in constant flux. A further difference relates to drug-user activism identified within such settings. This involves the establishment of an informal, street-based harm reduction practice that provides potential for future service development.
Charlie Lloyd and Neil Hunt, Drug consumption rooms: An overdue extension to harm reduction policy in the UK? International Journal of Drug Policy 18 (2007) 5–9.
This commentary examines the drug policy context of drug consumption rooms (DCRs) in the UK and describe the conclusions of an Independent Working Group (IWG) that was set up to evaluate the evidence of need in the UK, the international evaluation literature and legal, political and ethical concerns. Having considered this evidence, the IWG produced its report in May 2006, recommending a trial of DCRs in the UK, on the basis that DCRs offer a unique and promising way to work with problematic drug users in order to reduce the risk of overdose, improve their health and lessen the damage and costs to society. However, despite support for the idea from a number of quarters, the UK Government has rejected this recommendation, citing previously deployed arguments that do not appear to be carry much weight in 2007.
Neil Hunt, Charlie Lloyd, Jo Kimber, Charlotte Tompkins, Public injecting and willingness to use a drug consumption room among needle exchange programme attendees in the UK, International Journal of Drug Policy 18 (2007) 62–65.
This study examines the prevalence of public injecting and willingness to use drug consumption rooms (DCRs) among UK needle exchange programme (NEP) attendees. Three hundred and one injecting drug users (IDUs) were surveyed using a brief questionnaire across five NEPs in London and Leeds between April and June 2005. Injection in a public place in the past week was reported by 55% of the sample and 84% reported willingness to use a DCR if it was available. Public injecting was positively associated with insecure housing (AOR= 2.1, CI 1.2–3.5, p = 0.009), unsafe needle and syringe disposal in the past month (AOR= 3.6, CI 1.9–6.9, p < 0.001) and willingness to use DCR (AOR= 2.7, CI 1.3–5.4, p = 0.006). Public injecting was negatively associated with being aged more than 30 years (AOR= 0.4, CI 0.3–0.7, p = 0.003) and living in close proximity (within 0.5 miles/0.8 km) of the usual place of drug purchase (AOR= 0.6, CI 0.3–0.9, p = 0.02). Our findings suggest that recent public injecting is prevalent among UK NEP attendees and the majority would be willing to use DCRs if available. It is also probable that if such services were located close to key drug markets they would engage vulnerable IDU sub-populations such as young people and the insecurely housed and reduce their levels of public injecting and unsafe needle/syringe disposal. Targeted pilot implementation of DCRs in the UK is recommended.