Dangerous Drugs

Questions whether the amendment is merely tinkering with an outdated Act that does not adequately address health harms. Suggests a need for a wider review to combat drug-related organised crime and provide compassionate treatment for those struggling with addiction.

Welcomes the amendment dealing specifically with nitrous oxide but expresses a desire for more stringent drug controls. Clarifies that legitimate users such as dentists will be exempted from the new restrictions, while acknowledging the need for the law.

Challenges the comparison with Portland by noting that decriminalisation was coupled with drastic cuts in support services and a fentanyl crisis. Emphasises not undermining the positive aspects of drug policies while addressing nitrous oxide misuse.

Acknowledges the havoc that nitrous oxide is causing, particularly in coastal communities with an increased availability of larger canisters. Highlights the substantial confiscations by Southend police and appreciates the Minister's engagement on this issue.

Notes that campaigners like Dr David Nicholl, a neurosurgeon from Bromsgrove, played a crucial role in highlighting the severe neurological harm caused by nitrous oxide to young people. Emphasises that many colleagues have been raising concerns about this issue.

Questions whether moving nitrous oxide away from psychoactive substances regulations will limit its use in medicinal and industrial settings, including consultations with the medical sector and commercial users. Also corrects that alcohol causes more neurological harm than many street drugs.

Seeks clarity on the interaction of two statutory instruments, expressing concern about potential illegitimacy during a transitional period and whether additional uses were identified necessitating the new SI.

Questions how many tonnes of beer cans were collected from Notting Hill carnival in comparison to nitrous oxide canisters.

Nitrous oxide causes significant problems in communities, especially among young people. The Psychoactive Substances Act 2016 already covers nitrous oxide production and supply but does not criminalise possession outside custody. Alex Norris supports the proposed changes but raises concerns about unintended consequences and asks for clarity on legitimate use of nitrous oxide, follow-up statutory instruments, and how the change will impact antisocial behaviour enforcement. He also criticises government cuts to neighbourhood policing.

Asked whether Labour would welcome a review of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, noting that it is outdated and has adverse consequences. This intervention was made in response to Alex Norris's speech.

Welcomed Alex Norris's contribution to the debate but pointed out that there are record numbers of police officers in England and Wales, contradicting Labour's claims about cuts to policing. This intervention was made in response to Alex Norris's speech.

Acknowledged the impact of nitrous oxide on communities but raised concerns about potential unintended consequences, such as a shift towards other harmful substances like glue. He also questioned the readiness and capacity of the criminal justice system to handle enforcement and highlighted the need for swift action following implementation.

She disputes the classification of nitrous oxide as a dangerous drug, pointing out that non-legitimate use is already controlled under the Psychoactive Substances Act. She questions why the Minister has ignored expert advisers and expresses concern about evidence-based policy. Alison highlights the public nuisance issue but also points to similar issues with other substances that are not regulated in this manner by the Government. She raises concerns over enforcement, lack of prosecution for illegal supply under current rules, and the need for government action against social media advertising of nitrous oxide sales. She argues for focusing on supplier regulation rather than criminalising users, emphasising public health approaches as recommended by the ACMD report.

I do not disagree with much of what the SNP spokesperson said, but I believe that the Government will achieve very little through these measures except perhaps to cause considerable disruption to industry and medicinal use. The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs suggested that this was not the appropriate legislative vehicle to deal with nitrous oxide, as we already have the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016 for illegitimate sale and supply and other laws can be used to address littering issues. I will vote against the measure due to lack of proper impact assessment on legitimate uses and proportionality of sanctions.

Nitrous oxide presents a significant challenge, with current regulations failing to address the ease of acquisition and use by young people. The Psychoactive Substances Act 2016 has not been effective in curbing its misuse. There are concerns about criminalising users without tackling supply issues effectively.

Supports regulation due to the environmental and health impacts of nitrous oxide use, despite concerns over enforcement. Legitimate questions have been raised regarding how the legislation will be enforced by local police forces.

Mr Cowan argued against the reclassification, stating it would lead to unnecessary arrests, stigmatisation, and long-term personal damage. He highlighted that there is little evidence suggesting criminalisation will address drug use issues effectively.

Ms Stevenson intervened to express scepticism about the portrayal of nitrous oxide as a serious problem. She argued that many young people who use it are not hardened drug users and do not realise the risks involved, suggesting that criminalisation might prevent them from engaging with harder drugs.

Mr Garnier thanked the Minister for taking action after a Westminster Hall debate. He cited medical evidence highlighting the severe health implications of nitrous oxide use and argued that criminalisation would act as a deterrent, even if only a small number of people were affected.

Expresses scepticism about the proposed measure, arguing that the 1971 Act is flawed and does not work in reducing drug use or deaths. He cites evidence from Portugal and other countries suggesting that criminalising drugs increases harm rather than reduces it. Russell-Moyle argues that the slight moral panic over nitrous oxide is misplaced as its harms do not rank among the top issues affecting young people, and most usage is recreational and harmless. He criticises the measure for targeting poor, young, and ethnic minority communities disproportionately. Additionally, he warns that criminalising nitrous oxide will drive trade underground, increase profits for criminal gangs, and exacerbate social problems such as antisocial behaviour caused by lack of youth services rather than drug use itself.

Defends the proposed measure, thanking the shadow Minister for his support in principle. He outlines plans for enforcement and resources dedicated to tackling nitrous oxide abuse, including £43 million funding for antisocial behaviour hotspot patrols across England and Wales from April next year. Philp confirms that the Government expects this measure to have a significant deterrent effect on drug consumption, leading to reduced supply and prison sentences as well. He praises his colleague’s work on the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016 which led to many retailers stopping sales and prosecutions of psychoactive substances including nitrous oxide. Philp acknowledges concerns raised about legitimate use but clarifies that such use does not involve inhalation by humans, allowing for medical purposes under supervision.