Monthly Archives: September, 2013

Things I’m Going to do after a PhD

In the midst of thesis writing, as my mind yearns for sources of distraction and topics of procrastination, I’m coming up with lots of things that I really ought to do. Now in reality, many of these things aren’t important, they’re just things I’d rather be doing than data analysis. But some of them are important, they’re just not as urgent as this thesis submission. So, this post is going to be the receptacle for these important, but not urgent, things: things I’d like to do, love to do, need to do, want to do, should do…but just not right now. Three to start:

1) Learn about climate change, human impact upon it and what can be done.
2) Help out a particular friend, who’s under a lot of pressure with family commitments, by giving them a break from their duties once per month.
3) Write that article I’ve been meaning to on why Humanists should adopt drug policy and harm reduction as issues as core to their movement and campaigns as right-to-die and reproductive rights are now.

Reducing Harm: The Case for Drug Consumption Rooms in the UK

This article was originally published by YouthRise.

In April 2013, the Independent Drugs Commission for Brighton and Hove published a report[1] that attracted much attention from the national press.[2][3][4][5] Among the recommendations was a call for the local council affiliated public health and order agencies to consider the inclusion of drug consumption rooms (DCRs)a in the city’s harm reduction strategy. Whilst this was not the first report to make similar recommendations nationally,[6][7] support from local politicians[8] and officials[9] has generated confidence that Brighton and Hove, home to around two thousand problem users of heroin and cocaine,[1] will soon host the first DCR in the UK. This essay is an attempt to briefly outline and place into context the current situation, summarise the arguments and evidence for and against DCRs and discuss the way forward.

Drug Consumption Rooms: Concept and Context

DCRs are officially sanctioned healthcare facilities, where people can use pre-obtained drugs under the supervision of trained staff, in a hygienic, safe and non-judgemental environment. They are operated primarily for people with a history of problem drug use, dependency and addiction.[b][10] Most DCRs are physically integrated with other services for people who use drugs (PWUDs), typically providing needle and syringe exchange, drug treatment, advice on safer drug use, general healthcare, counselling and social support.[c] While traditionally most DCRs have focussed on people who inject drugs (PWIDs), an increasing number supervise drug inhalation as well.[6][11][12]

The first officially approved DCR opened in Berne, Switzerland, in 1986.[13] There are now over ninety in Europe (in Switzerland, the Netherlands, Germany, Spain, Norway, Luxemburg and, most recently, Denmark)[14], with a single facility in Sydney, Australia, and another in Vancouver, Canada.[15][16] These sites have been established for a range of stated reasons, with differing rationales reflecting local and national drug-related concerns and priorities. The most commonly cited problems are high rates of fatal drug overdose, prevalence of blood borne viruses (HIV, Hepatitis B (HBV) and C (HCV)) and public harms, such as discarded injecting equipment and anti-social behaviour, including public drug use.[6] How do these issues correlate with the situation in the UK, and what evidence is there that DCRs are able to address them?

Preventing Fatal Drug Overdoses in the UK

In the UK, around 380,000 people are engaged in problem drug use and the number of drug-related deaths, around two thousand per year, is consistently among the highest in the European Union.[17][18] Approximately eight hundred of the fatalities involve heroin or morphine; the majority as a result of overdose.[19][20] Non-fatal overdoses, which are more common, can cause hypoxia-induced brain damage and a host of other injuries.[6]

The doctors, nurses and other trained staff at DCRs are able to respond rapidly to suspected overdoses, for example by the provision of oxygen and/or the opioid antagonist naloxone.[21] The evidence from existing DCRs is unambiguous: they prevent deaths from drug overdose,[12] and have the potential to significantly reduce the harm caused by non-fatal episodes.[21] This is most succinctly demonstrated by the fact that after millions of consumption episodes in DCRs around the world, over almost three decades, not a single overdose death has been recorded.[16]

Introduction of the large DCR in Vancouver has been associated with a 35% reduction in the rate of fatal drug overdose, with a similar decrease in deaths in the subgroup where cocaine use was deemed contributory.[22] This latter result, along with the observation that approximately one third of facility visitations were for injection of cocaine,[23] is potentially significant given the absence of interventions demonstrated to reduce the risk of fatal stimulant overdose.

Tackling Unhygienic and Public Use

Consumption of drugs with shared and reused equipment, often in unhygienic settings, is associated with substantial risks to health, including the transmission of blood borne viruses (BBVs) and contraction of other infections. In the UK, the majority of drug injections are made with used (but not necessarily shared) needles and 17% of PWIDs report to have shared needles or syringes in the past month.[24][25] The prevalence of HIV among PWIDs in the UK, approximately 1.1%, is relatively low compared to other countries with less successfully deployed harm reduction strategies. However, there remains significant regional variation (prevalence in London is almost four times the national average) and other blood borne viral infections are more common and have increased over the past decade. Almost half of PWIDs now have HCV.[18]

DCRs can reduce the prevalence of BBVs and other harms associated with sharing and reuse by providing sterile equipment to facility users, preventing sharing on-site, operating BBV testing and vaccination programmes and offering education and advice on safer drug use practices and sexual health. Bacterial and fungal infections, damage to veins and other health problems can be further reduced as drug use is relocated from public spaces and other unhygienic settings to clean, well lit environments, free of the pressure to rush injections.6 The results are impressive: a 70% reduction in equipment sharing among frequent DCR users,[26][27] reduced injection-related injuries and non-viral infections[21] and widely reported improvements in injection hygiene.[12][16][28]

The reduction in public drug use brought about by DCRs has been repeatedly demonstrated[21][29][30] and is important not only in reducing the private harms mentioned above, including overdose deaths,[31] but also in addressing public harms. These are discussed further below.

A Unique Interface

The primary target population for DCRs are those at greatest risk of fatal overdose, BBVs, poor general health, homelessness and marginalisation.[32] These same people are the most difficult for health and social services to engage with. In this regard, DCRs offer a unique interface through which a traditionally difficult to reach group can access drug treatment, counselling, accommodation, education, health and other social services.[12][16][33] 15-50% of DCR users have never been in drug treatment before and many others are out of contact with treatment services.[6][12] Uptake of provisions, on-site or by referral, is generally high and there is some evidence that DCRs may bring about an increase in participation with drug treatment programs.[34][35]

Clearly, the positive effects of DCRs are not limited to safer practices within the facility. Their utility in engaging difficult to reach PWUDs with a wide range of services and, uniquely, providing tailored education and advice on safer drug use extends their benefits far beyond the site walls. With patient consent, consumption rooms can also facilitate collection of data on drug use patterns and the efficacy of harm reduction strategies, including of DCRs themselves, to inform an evidence-based drug policy.

Fears of Increased Drug Use & High Risk Behaviour

Despite the substantial and growing body of evidence showing DCRs to be effective in the reduction of drug-related harm, they remain controversial compared to more established harm reduction approaches.[15][36] In addition to the reactionary responses given to many pragmatic, evidence-based harm reduction strategies, there are some commonly raised specific concerns and objections to DCRs. These are addressed below.

Critics have argued that DCRs may encourage initiation and continuation of injected drug use.[37][38] To mitigate risk of the former, facilities generally exclude people who would be injecting for the first-time, as well as under-18 year olds. Drug distribution and sharing is prohibited within the facilities and patients and staff are not allowed to directly assist novice users (or indeed anyone else) with injections.[12]

Evidence from existing facilities suggests that the fears of an initiating effect are unfounded.[37] Only 0.5-4.5% of DCR users report first injecting in a facility and it is not known what proportion of this group would have begun injecting in the absence of DCR provision. A typical DCR user is over thirty years of age, has used heroin and/or cocaine for at least ten years and is likely to have a history of public injecting.[6][12][16][39] The European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction has concluded that “[t]here is no evidence that naive users are initiated into injecting as a result of the presence of consumption rooms.”[12]

The evidence also contradicts fears that DCRs could delay entry into treatment and promote continued and high risk use. A study monitoring the impact of the DCR in Vancouver, echoing the results from other sites, found: “no substantial differences in rates of relapse…or stopping injected drug use”.[40] This study also saw no increase in binge use or decrease in methadone use, though encouragingly a small decrease in the rate of relapse to binge use was observed.[37]

In summary, studies from Europe, Canada and Australia have shown no evidence to suggest that DCRs cause increased drug use, nor initiation, relapse, delay to treatment or high risk consumption behaviour.[32] There is however some evidence that DCRs may be associated with a reduction in binge drug use and, as mentioned previously, that they may bring about an increase in use of drug treatment services.[40]

Why do ‘They’ Deserve it? Resources, Cost and Public Harm

Other raised objections relate to the impact of DCRs on society, both in terms of resource diversion and the potential public harms resulting from DCR establishment. The former can manifest as moral disapproval: why do ‘they’ deserve these facilities? With a considered analysis of outcomes, this type of objection is easily addressed.

DCRs not only reduce harm to PWUDs but also to society as a whole. Public using is in itself an anti-social behaviour, and so too is the resultant discarding of used drug administration equipment (including needles and syringes) in parks, public toilets, car parks and residential areas. These are both harms about which the public often express particularly strong feelings,[41] and are both reduced substantially by DCRs.[16][21][29] It should also be noted that the costs involved in operating a DCR are off-set by reduced demand for other services, including ambulance call-outs and hospitalisations due to drug overdose, BBVs and other symptoms of poor health.[42] Costs can be further reduced by integrating DCRs within existing facilities, such as needle and syringe exchange programs, rather than operating stand-alone units.[6]

In any case, the question “why do ‘they’ deserve these facilities?” can also be answered with a simple moral retort. The principle users of DCRs are among the most socio-economically deprived people in society, with low levels of general health (physical and psychological) and a high likelihood of traumatic life experiences and homelessness. Even ignoring the benefits to public health and order, a strong moral case can be made that would-be DCR users are among the most deserving recipients of social support.

Despite fears to the contrary, there is no evidence that DCRs will lead to an increase in net or local crime.[6][16] In fact, with increased interaction between people with problem drug use and treatment and social services, it may be that DCRs will indirectly cause crime rates to fall. Related anxieties about a ‘honey pot effect’ are again largely unfounded. Several studies have shown that DCR users are generally unwilling to travel any significant distance from a drug market to consume drugs. In existing facilities between 63% and 93% of patients are local.[12] It is precisely for this reason that for DCRs to achieve their harm reduction aims, they must be located close to existing drug markets. Surveys of community attitudes have shown that establishment of DCRs can be associated with a decrease in anti-social behaviour and nuisance to local residents.[12][43]

Legal & Political Obstacles

The international legal environment has been discussed elsewhere.[44] In summary, the UN drug conventions emphasise the requirement for “treatment, education…and social integration” of PWUDs as well as control of drugs. It has been interpreted that harm reduction measures, such as DCRs, may be compliant with the conventions.[45] Indeed the UN’s own legal experts agree.[46][d][47] It would seem that there is sufficient scope for interpretation of international laws to proceed with the introduction of DCRs. Countries who have already done so, all of whom are signatories to at least two of the three UN drug conventions, have conducted analyses of the international legal position and found that DCRs do not represent an infringement. Where necessary, national and/or local laws have been amended to protect service users, staff and others from arrest and prosecution. It is likely that, in the UK, the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, among others, may have to undergo such an amendment process.[6] With political will, this is not a barrier to progress.

How to Progress from Here

The arguments and evidence in support of DCRs are compelling. They provide a safer, more hygienic environment for use and have been shown to save and improve lives, by preventing fatalities from drug overdose, reducing infectious disease transmission and providing an interface through which hard-to-reach PWUDs can engage with medical and social support services. Via advice, education and provision of clean consumption equipment, their positive effects extend beyond use within the facilities. By reducing public use and discarding of needles and syringes, DCRs reduce public as well as private harms. Studies from multiple existing sites indicate that these benefits can be achieved without increases in drug use, high risk behaviour or crime.

Despite the case for DCRs appearing to be relatively clear cut among harm reduction advocates, they remain controversial. This is true not least among social conservatives, who are often instinctively averse to harm reduction programs, some preferring an ‘abstinence at all costs’ approach,[48] often in the pursuit of a utopian drug-free society.[49][50][51] Some of these critics have much less concern for the welfare of PWUDs than for reducing the visibility and proximity of anti-social behaviour to the rest of society (sometimes utilising a crude and puritanical cleanliness narrative,[52] such that priority is given to the removal of the behaviour and those engaging in it from the public space, i.e. to getting it/them “off the streets”).[53] Harm reduction advocates should acknowledge the political reality of this diversity in perspective and priority, and seek to achieve broad support for DCRs by emphasising the potential for reductions in public drug use, violence, low-level crime and discarded consumption equipment, as well as the array of benefits to public health.

The Independent Drugs Commission for Brighton and Hove’s report was discussed by the Safe in the City Partnership Board at the end of April, and an announcement on the proposal to include DCRs in the local harm reduction strategy will be made in 2014.[54] Experience from existing sites has shown that success with consumption rooms is most pronounced when coupled with broad popular and political support. Armed with a wealth of literature, harm reduction advocates must now work to foster that support and bring the UK, in this regard at least, towards an evidence based drug policy.


[a] Drug consumption rooms are also known elsewhere as ‘safe(r) consumption sites’, ‘safe(r) injection facilities’, ‘supervised injection facilities’ (SIFs), ‘fixing rooms’ and ‘shooting galleries’. The term ‘drug consumption room’ is used in this article so as to include the growing number of facilities that allow the smoking and inhalation of drugs as well as injection, and to distinguish from unofficial, unsupervised, often unhygienic and high-risk venues for illegal drug use.
[b] Problem drug use is defined by the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction as “injecting drug use or long-duration or regular use of opioids, cocaine or amphetamines”.[10]
[c] Service provisions vary between existing DCRs; whereas a few are stand-alone and routinely refer patients to other sites, some are comprehensive, with on-site services including subsidised catering, showering facilities, laundrettes and social spaces, in addition to the services listed above.
[d] Though the INCB, for whom the advice was prepared, take a contrary and characteristically conservative view.[47]

[1] Independent Drugs Commission for Brighton & Hove, 2013. April 2013 Report. Brighton: Safe in the City. Available from:… [accessed 2013-05-06].
[2] Boffey, D., 2013. Brighton plans safe rooms for addicts to inject drugs [online]. London: The Guardian. Available from:… [accessed 2013-05-06].
[3] BBC, 2013. Brighton considers drug-use rooms in bid to reduce deaths [online]. London: BBC. Available from: [accessed 2013-05-06].
[4] Philby, C., 2013. Brighton’s drug addicts to be given ‘safe haven’ to take heroin [online]. London: The Independent. Available from:… [accessed 2013-05-06].
[5] The Daily Mail, 2013. Brighton could introduce ‘drug consumption rooms’ to try and cut number of fatalities caused by substance misuse [online]. London: Associated Newspapers. Available from:… [accessed 2013-05-06].
[6] Independent Working Group, 2006. The report of the Independent Working Group on Drug Consumption Rooms. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Available from: [accessed 2013-05-06]
[7] Home Affairs Select Committee, 2002. The Government’s Drug Policy: Is It Working? Third Report for Session 2001-2002, HC 318. London: The Stationery Office. Available from:… [accessed 2013-05-06].
[8] Brighton and Hove Green Party Executive, 2013. Drug consumption rooms could save lives and keep users off the streets says Caroline [online]. Brighton: Brighton & Hove Green Party. Available from:… [accessed 2013-05-06]
[9] Brighton & Hove City Council, 2013. Independent drugs commission makes hard-hitting recommendations for Brighton & Hove [online]. Brighton: Brighton & Hove City Council. Available from:… [accessed 2013-05-06].
[10] European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, 2012. 2012 Annual report on the state of the drugs problem in Europe. Lisbon: European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction. Available from: [accessed 2013-05-06].
[11] Hyshka, E., Bubela, T., Wild, T.C., 2013. Prospects for scaling-up supervised injection facilities in Canada: the role of evidence in legal and political decision-making. Addiction. 108(3), pp.468-476. Available from: [accessed 2013-05-06].
[12] Hedrich, D., 2004. European Report on Drug Consumption Rooms. Lisbon, Portugal: European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction. Available from:… [accessed 2013-05-06].
[13] Hämmig, R.B., 1992. The streetcorner agency with shooting room (Fixerstübli). Available from:… [accessed 2013-05-06].
[14] International Drug Policy Consortium, 2012. Danish parliament paves the way towards increased safety and dignity for people who use drugs [online]. London: Release LEADS. Available from:… [accessed 2013-05-06].
[15] Schatz, E. and Nougier, M., 2012. IDPC Briefing Paper – Drug Consumption Rooms: Evidence and Practice. London: International Drug Policy Consortium. Available from: [accessed 2013-05-06].
[16] Hedrich D., Kerr T., Dubois-Arber F., 2010. Drug consumption facilities in Europe and beyond. In: Rhodes T., Hedrich D. eds. Harm Reduction: Evidence, Impacts, and Challenges. Lisbon: European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, pp.306–331. Available from:… [accessed 2013-05-06].
[17] European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, 2005. Annual report 2005: the state of the drugs problem in Europe. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. p.60. Available from: [accessed 2013-05-06].
[18] Reitox National Focal Point, 2011. United Kingdom New Developments, Trends and In-Depth Information on Selected Issues – 2011 NATIONAL REPORT (2010 data). European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction. Available from: [accessed 2013-05-06].
[19] Office for National Statistics, 2012. Statistical Bulletin – Deaths Related to Drug Poisoning in England and Wales, 2011. London: Office for National Statistics. Available from:… [accessed 2013-05-06].
[20] General Register Office for Scotland, 2012. Drug Related Deaths in Scotland in 2011. Edinburgh: National Records of Scotland. Available from:… [accessed 2013-05-06].
[21] National Centre in HIV Epidemiology and Clinical Research, 2007. Sydney Medically Supervised Injecting Centre evaluation report no. 4: evaluation of service operation and overdose-related event. Sydney: National Centre in HIV Epidemiology and Clinical Research, University of New South Wales. Available from:$file/EvalRep4SMSIC.pdf [accessed 2013-05-06]
[22] Marshall, B.D.L, Milloy, M., Wood, E., Montaner, J.S.G., Kerr, T., 2011. Reduction in overdose mortality after the opening of North America’s first medically supervised safer injecting facility: a retrospective population-based study. The Lancet, 377(9775), pp.1429-1437. Available from: [accessed 2013-05-06].
[23] Tyndall, M.W., Kerr, T., Zhang, R., King, E., Montaner, J.G., Wood, E., 2006. Attendance, drug use patterns, and referrals made from North America’s first supervised injection facility. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 83(3), pp.193-198. Available from: [accessed 2013-05-06].
[24] Hickman, M., Higgins, V., Hope, V.D., Bellis, M., Tilling, K., Walker, A. and Henry, J, 2004. Injecting drug use in Brigton, Liverpool and London: best estimates of prevalence and coverage of public health indicator. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, 58, pp.766-71. Available from: [accessed 2013-05-06].
[25] Health Protection Agency, 2012. Shooting Up – Infections among Injecting Drug Users in the United Kingdom 2011, An Update. London: HPA. Available from: [accessed 2013-05-06].
[26] Milloy, M.J. and Wood, E., 2009. Emerging role of supervised injecting facilities in human immunodeficiency virus prevention. Addiction, 104(4), pp620-1. Available from: [accessed 2013-05-06].
[27] Kerr, T., Tyndall, M., Li, K., Montaner, J., Wood, E., 2005. Safer injection facility use and syringe sharing in injection drug users. Lancet, 366(9482), pp.316–318. Available from: [accessed 2013-05-06].
[28] Stoltz, J.A., Wood, E., Small, W., 2007. Changes in injecting practices associated with the use of a medically supervised safter injection facility. Journal of Public Health, 29(1), pp.35-39. Available from: [accessed 2013-05-06].
[29] Wood, E. Tyndall, M.W., Montaner, J.S. and Kerr, T., 2006. Summary of findings from the evaluation of a pilot medically supervised safer injecting facility. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 175(11), pp.1399-1404. Available from: [accessed 2013-05-06].
[30] Kimber, J., Mattick, R.P., Kaldor, J., van Beek, I., Gimour, S., Rance, J.A., 2008. Process and predictors of treatment referral and uptake. Drug and Alcohol Review, 27, pp.602-612. Available from: [accessed 2013-05-06].
[31] Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, 2000. Reducing Drug-Related Deaths. London: The Stationery Office. Available from:… [accessed 2013-05-06].
[32] Hunt, N., 2006. The Evaluation Literature on Drug Consumption Rooms. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Available from: [accessed 2013-05-06].
[33] Small, W., Wood, E., Lloyd-Smith, E., Tyndall, M., Kerr, T., 2008. Accessing care for injection-related infections through a medically supervised injecting facility: a qualitative study. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 98, pp.159–162. Available from: [accessed 2013-05-06].
[34] Wood, E., Tyndall, M.W., Zhang, R., Montaner, J.S.G., Kerr, T., 2007. Rate of detoxification service use and its impact among a cohort of supervised injecting facility users. Addiction, 102(6), pp.916–919. Available from: [accessed 2013-05-06].
[35] Wood E., Tyndall, M.W., Zhang, R., Montana, J.S.G., 2006. Attendance at supervised injecting facilities and use of detoxification services. New England Journal of Medicine, 354, pp.2512–2514. Available from: [accessed 2013-05-06].
[36] Harm Reduction International, 2012. Global State of Harm Reduction 2012. London: Harm Reduction International. Available from: [accessed 2013-05-06].
[37] Kerr, T., Tyndall, M.W., Zhang, R., Lai, C., Montaner, J.S., Wood, E., 2007. Circumstances of first injection among illicit drug users accessing a medically supervised safer injection facility. American Journal of Public Health, 97, pp.1228–1230. Available from: [accessed 2013-05-06].
[38] Gandey, A., 2003. US slams Canada over Vancouver’s new drug injection site. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 169(10), p.1063. Available from: [accessed 2013-05-06].
[39] Van Beek, I., 2007. The Medically Supervised Injecting Centre: the first 7 years, Clinical Activity Data. Available from:… [Accessed 05-06].
[40] Kerr, T., Stoltz, J.A., Tyndall, M., Li, K., Zhang, R., Montana, J., Wood, E., 2006. Impact of a medically supervised safer injection facility on community drug use patterns: a before and after study. British Medical Journal, 332, pp.220–222. Available from: [accessed 2013-05-06].
[41] Taylor, A., Cusick, L., Kimber, J., Rutherford, J., Hickman, M. and Rhodes, T., 2006. The Social Impact of Public Injecting. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Available from: [accessed 2013-05-06].
[42] Bayoumi, A.M. and Zaric, G.S., 2008. The cost-effectiveness of Vancouver’s supervised injection facility. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 179(11), pp.1143–1151. Available from: [accessed 2013-05-06].
[43] Thein, H., Kimber, J., Maher, M., MacDonald, M. and Kaldor, J.M., 2005. Public opinions towards supervised injecting centres and the Sydney Medically Supervised Injecting Centre. International Journal of Drug Policy, 16. pp.275-280. Available from: [accessed 2013-05-06].
[44] Fortson, R., 2006. Setting up a Drug Consumption Room: Legal Issues. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Available from: [accessed 2013-05-06].
[45] Fortson, R., 2006. Harm Reduction and the Law of the United Kingdom. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Available from: [accessed 2013-05-06].
[46] UNDCP, 2002. Flexibility of Treaty Provisions as Regards Harm Reduction Approaches. UNDCP. Available from: [accessed 2013-05-06].
[47] International Narcotics Control Board, 2012. Report of the International Narcotics Control Board 2012. International Narcotics Control Board. Available from:… [accessed 2013-05-06].
[48] Csete, J., 2012. Overhauling Oversight: Human Rights at the INCB. In: Collins, J., ed. Governing the global drug wars. Special report. SR014. London: LSE Ideas. Available from: [accessed 2013-05-06].
[49] Gunning, K.F., 1996. The aim should be a drug free society. British Medical Journal, 312, pp.636-637. Available from: [accessed 2013-05-06].
[50] Shewan, D., Gemmell, M., Davies, J.B., 1994. Drug use and Scottish prisons: summary report. Edinburgh: Scottish Prison Service. Available from: [accessed 2013-05-06].
[51] Stimson, G., 2007. Harm reduction coming of age: A local movement with global impact. International Journal of Drug Policy, 18, pp.67–69. Available from: [accessed 2013-05-06].
[52] Ismaili, K., 2003. Explaining the cultural and symbolic resonance of zero tolerance in contemporary criminal justice. Contemporary Justice Review, 6(3), p255-264. Available from: [accessed 2013-05-06].
[53] Fagge, N., 2010. Police plan to give heroin junkies free needles [Online]. The Daily Express. Available from:… [accessed 2013-05-06].
[54] Lucas, C. (@CarolineLucas), 2013. “@aconfusedape The Safe in the City Partnership are doing a feasibility study – will report next year”. 2013-06-20, 05:49. Tweet. Available from:

Why and When it’s Okay to have Sex with Nine Year Old Girls

I saw a video today of a debate involving charismatic professional Muslim and sugar-coated Islamist, Hamza Tzortzis. In it, Mr Tzortzis kindly explains why and when it’s okay to have sex with nine year old girls. Apparently, it’s okay if she’s “physically fit”, “emotionally” and “mentally ready” and if it’s “socially acceptable”. (The horror starts at 1hr 58 mins.)

Incredibly, I think this would be less disgusting if he’d just said he thought it was sometimes okay to rape children, and left it at that. Somehow though, he’s taken just about the most vile and morally reprehensible statement, and made things even worse by trying to justify it. What on earth does “physically fit” mean? How does one decide how much damage they will do to a nine year old by raping them, before doing so? I can only assume “physically fit” means “they look ready”, which translates to “I want to fuck them”. It’s beyond disgusting.

My skin crawled as I heard the terms “mentally ready” and “emotionally ready”. Ready to be raped by a grown man? What child is “ready” for that? Presumably their readiness too is decided by a grown man, or perhaps a committee of grown men.

And then we have “socially acceptable”. It becomes okay to have sex with a child if it’s “socially acceptable”. Hamza has a problem with the apparently absurd “arbitrary” ages of consent found in “secular law”, but if sex with kids is “socially acceptable”, there’s no problem. As long as grown men are okay with it, that’s the main thing.

Even for Tzortzis, this brazen defence of the indefensible is incredible. Not that a nine year old can consent to sex anyway, but, where in his list of criteria is the little girl’s view on the matter? Pah, that’s irrelevant! Allah, and grown men, know best.

Just to seal the deal, Hamza informs us that not only was it socially acceptable for Mohammad to rape a child, but that “her father” and “tribe” were down with it too, so, I guess it would almost be unethical not to go ahead with it, right? This takes the objectification of young girls to an extreme I don’t think I’ve ever witnessed before.

At least, one might think, this vomit inducing display might cause a degree of cognitive dissonance too great to bare for the audience. Perhaps Hamza’s sugar-coating might taste sufficiently rancid to throw up some objections from his fans in the room. But, wait: where is the scathing condemnation, where is the stunned silence, the revulsion, the protests, the heckles, walk-outs and cries of “shame”? None. Nothing. Instead there are rapturous applause, whoops and takbirs.

What the heck kind of perfect society is this that Hamza and co. are trying to sell, and that vocal young Muslims in the audience seem to want to buy? A society where nine year old girls can be raped by old men, but can’t play with boys, ride a bike, listen to music, dance, or wear what they want?

Hamza Tzortzis is a popular Islamic apologist among young Muslims in the UK. His organisation specifically targets universities and student Islamic societies, and when he justifies old men having sex with nine year-olds, members of his audience clap, cheer and declare that god, and apparently Hamza, are the greatest. I despair.

(H/T The Rationaliser –