Drug Interventions Programme

-Bath Salts user's intervention.

Loyal wife calls Wits End Intervention for help with her husband who is becoming psychotic due to his use of Bath Salts. She says, "my husband has to go to treatment and he has to go now." I asked if he wanted help. She reports that he has just disclosed his long term plan in intricate detail, saying to his wife "I don't know what you are going to do' but I am going to use small controlled amounts of bath salts upon awakening and through out the day while I am at work teaching, then increase my dosage to what ever I need to be inspired in the evenings after work." A part of his plan included continued daily use of Blue Berry, a synthetic marijuana. He said he can happily live his creative life this way from now on and she needed to decide what her life plan is knowing this fact about him. This husband was very invested in issue of Bath Salts & Blue Blue berry being legally obtained from the local smoke shop in Los Angeles. His professional career required that he broke no laws and live as a upstanding, respectable member of the community. I am Loriann Witte, I've been doing interventions for a couple of decades. I love the work. What an honor to be in the position to receive this dear girls call & actually have the power to do something to make a difference.

     We made all of the financial arrangements picked out the rehab we planed to use, got them running the insurance, then swung into action.  I sent her some recorded information I have on a "go to meeting" formate that she and her intervention party could listen to getting prepared for our pre-intervention meeting.  We talked about who would help us in this event.  She then disclosed that she had moved out of her home because it was getting too dangerous for her to stay there with her husband.  He was talking suicide, staying up all night, going on & on about a top secret government conspiracy that he had accidentally became involved with from receiving personal messages over his computer.  He was intent on telling her and everybody who would listen that he was beta testing Apple's new cloud.  He claimed with intensity and increasing fear that as he became more involved with the beta testing instructions and use his computer morphed into it's own privet internet connection that began to show him the twist & turns of this dastardly intricate plot between Obama, Google, Apple, & Wikipedia.  This had become a dangerous terrifying reality for him.
         The use of street drugs or the excessive use of alcohol is harmful to the physical and mental health of all people; however, the risks associated with drug use are even greater for people who have experienced psychosis.

Bath Salts like amphetamines & marijuana is known to be a Psychosis-inducing drug.

Psychosis can be induced by drugs or can be "drug assisted". Some stimulating drugs, like amphetamines, can cause psychosis, while other drugs, including marijuana, can trigger the onset of psychosis in someone who is already at increased risk because they have "vulnerability". It turns out that our high functioning, mesa level, educated husband in this case has had life long drug abuse issues starting at age 14 using psychedelics and more with his father while he was growing up.

It is also believed that some drugs such as amphetamines, cocaine and now Bath Salts can cause a condition known as a drug-induced psychosis. This psychosis can last up to a few days, and is often characterized by hallucinations, delusions, memory loss and confusion. This usually results from prolonged or heavy street-drug use; and it responds well to treatment.

     Bath Salts and smoking Blue Berry, a synthetic pot. He is buying both of these drugs legally in a local "smoke shop"  This took place in early Oct. 2011, one day before the law came into effect that it is illegal to sale bath salts in Los Angeles.  Loriann Witte Wits   End Interventions 949-292-2000

-Lwitte1 (talk) 04:43, 17 October 2011 (UTC)The Drug Interventions Programme is a key part of the United Kingdom's strategy for tackling drug abuse. It aims to engage drug-misusing offenders involved in the Criminal Justice system in formal addiction treatment and other support, thereby reducing drug related harm and reducing offending behaviour . Introduced in 2003, it formed a part of both of New Labour's '10 year' drug strategies. In their 2010 Drug Strategy, the Conservative / Liberal Democrat coalition state their continued intention to support DIP.

Overview

The Drug Interventions Programme (DIP) is the UK's main Criminal Justice initiative aimed at engaging substance misusing offenders in drug treatment. It does this through a variety of methods, some coercive, such as the Tough Choices program, and some relying on voluntary engagement. Class A drug-misusing offenders are identified on their journey through the CJS and steered towards treatment and wraparound support. Key points of intervention include following a positive drugs test in police custody, and following release from prison.

DIP's key partners include police, the probation service, prisons, courts and other criminal justice agencies, as well as the National Treatment Agency and the Department of Health. It is hard to discern the precise cost of DIP. Whilst DIP Key Messages (of February 2009) identified that 'over £600 million has been invested in DIP,' , DIP's Operational Handbook (also 2009) put the figure at 'over £900m'.

Some evidence has been taken to suggest that DIP has been effective in achieving its aims, though a serious shortfall in methodologically rigorous evaluations makes such claims problematic. Nonetheless, in his foreword to the 2008 Drug Strategy the Home Secretary claimed that DIP coercion and case management have 'contributed to a fall in recorded acquisitive crime of around 20 per cent'. A short while later, DIP Key Messages made rather grander claims: 'since 2003, acquisitive crime (which is strongly associated with class A substance misuse) has fallen by 32 per cent in England and Wales. In areas with more intensive DIP activity, early evaluation showed crime falling faster in those areas than areas with less intensive DIPs.

Tough Choices

In December 2005, aspects of the Drugs Act 2005 were piloted at various DIPs around the country. Under the heading "Tough Choices", this included a "Test on Arrest" procedure, a "Required Assessment" process and an extension of the "Restrictions on Bail" scheme, which was legislated for under Section 19 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Since April 2006, Tough Choices has been phased in across England and Wales.

Test on Arrest

Under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984(PACE), it had been possible for police to drug test Detained Prisoners since 1984. The Drugs Act 2005 introduced, at selected "intensive DIP area" police stations, a mandatory drug test for every individual who had been arrested for a specified list of "trigger offences." Trigger offences were first set out in the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000, and constitute a list of offences known have a clear link to substance misuse (such as Theft). Arrestees may also be tested for 'non-trigger' offences (including, for example, those related to prostitution) with the authority of a police inspector. Individuals who refused to take this test, a "non-intimate saliva sample", could face up to three months in custody and a £2,500 fine. Individuals who tested positive were then compelled to undergo a two-part "Required Assessment" with a drug worker from their local DIP.

Required Assessment

Individuals who tested positive under the "Test on Arrest" scheme were required to see a drug worker for a single appointment. Although the Drugs Act 2005 had introduced a contingency for a "Follow-up Required Assessment" process, this measure was not implemented until March 2007. Individuals who failed to attend either of these appointments could face up to three months in prison or a £2,500 fine.

Restrictions on Bail

Restrictions on Bail had been introduced under the Criminal Justice Act 2003. This piece of legislation amended the Bail Act 1976 by reversing the presumption of bail to anyone who had tested positive to a class A drug, unless they agreed to undergo assessment and treatment with their local DIP for the duration of their court bail. This effectively obliged courts to implement a bail condition compelling such persons to attend their local DIP. The stated aim of this was to "prevent offending on bail". Failure to abide by this condition could result in the denial of further court bail. Restrictions on Bail was initially piloted in a number of areas but now operates across England and Wales

Non-Intensive DIPs

All "Drug and Alcohol Action Team" (DAAT) areas in the UK had created a DIP prior to the introduction of Tough Choices. Some of these DIPs, where drug-related crime was perceived to be lower, were labelled "Non-Intensive". Non-Intensive areas were different in one way - local police stations could not legally drug test. However, a Required Assessment and a Restrictions on Bail condition could still be given to people from these areas.

Prolific and Other Priority Offenders Scheme and DIP

In 2004, the Prolific and Other Priority Offenders (PPO) Scheme was set up. A crime reduction initiative, it aims to identify a hard-core of individuals considered responsible for large amounts of crime, and manage them through either rehabilitation or conviction. There are currently 10,000 offenders in the UK who are involved in the PPO scheme, a significant proportion of whom have drug dependency issues. The Home Office encourages DIPs and PPO schemes to work closely together in such cases to ensure effective case management of offenders.

Controversy

Release, a UK charity which advises professionals and the public on criminal justice and drugs matters, strongly opposed the Test-on-Arrest and Required Assessment measures brought in by the Drugs Act 2005. They stated that mandatory drug testing was possibly in contravention with Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998, and that the possibility of false positives could lead to mandatory assessments for non-drug using Detained Prisoners. They also queried the Required Assessment process, calling into question the ethics and efficacy of coerced addiction treatment, and highlighting the possible re-direction of resources away from the voluntary treatment sector.

See also

• National Probation Service
• Drug addiction
• Police
• Her Majesty's Prison Service
• Substance dependence
• Lancashire Probation Trust