About 45 per cent of 16- to 19-year-olds and 35 per cent of 20- to 24-year-olds are sometime drug users. During the six months ending September 2000 almost 300,000 people experienced drugs-related problems, according to the charity DrugScope.The Government’s commitment to treatment is clear – in principle. The national strategy formed in 1998, “Tackling Drugs to Build a Better Britain”, proposed that the amount available should be increased by 7 per cent a year That target has already been exceeded. The cash spent on treatment has gone up by 35 per cent in the last year to £400m.Nevertheless, critics insist more must be done, that the emphasis must shift further so the misuse of drugs is seen as a health issue and policy is led by the Department of Health. In 1997 the new Labour administration was keen to agree with experts who said drugs were a cross-departmental issue, so it placed responsibility in the Cabinet Office. The problem? The Cabinet Office has no spending power and no clout in the hard-fought negotiations for Treasury cash.A move to Health would not close off a voice for drugs funding but, symbolically, it might change the way drug addiction is seen by a public weary of paying the price for drug-induced crime.The Government did appoint a drugs tsar, Keith Hellawell, but he was sacked in 2001 after criticism of his 10-year plan. A National Treatment Agency was then created, and a review of funding and treatment will be completed this summer.For the moment the person in charge of drugs policy is Bob Ainsworth, a Home Office minister.

He’s a busy man, the “Minister of State for crime reduction, policing and community safety with responsibility for action against drugs including development of a coherent drugs and alcohol abuse strategy”. (Oh, and Mr Ainsworth is also responsible for dealing with organised and international crime, European law enforcement and judicial co-operation.)The usual promises are all there: more money on the way, reforms on the way. And yet the balanced “rights and responsibilities” rhetoric of New Labour never betrays which way the scales are tipping. Since their early, long-abandoned, forays into drugs policy in the first term, ministers have grasped the need for drugs to be looked at “in the round”, to borrow another favourite phrase.

Whether that means putting the emphasis of policy where drug users, doctors, teachers, MPs and police are all now pointing remains to be seen The Home Office implies not. “We are not expecting radical changes to the strategy but a refining of the process.”Peter Martin, chief executive officer of Addaction, remains hopeful: “The National Treatment Agency has begun to co-ordinate strategy and research and to drive up standards,” he says. “After a month in the post, the Home Secretary, David Blunkett, announced he would take evi- dence and make decisions on the direction in which drugs policy should go This has not delayed new initiatives being piloted. Ultimately, decisions have to be taken on the basis of evidence presented, but where evidence is patchy, then innovation and risk have also played a part in policy and that has to be applauded.”Nevertheless, there is still a huge difference in the way life looks from the magistrates’ bench, or from behind Mr Ainsworth’s busy desk, and what those who are working with drug addicts are seeing on the streets.”We think government policy needs to change,” says a spokesman for DrugScope. “If it is just going to be based on enforcement it is never going to work. It’s not just about stopping trafficking and policing the ports. We need a policy that is about preventing new users from getting involved; and one that treats existing users, to help them break the cycle that is destroying their own lives and having such an impact on the community around them.” Lisa is 33; 14 months ago, her seven-year-old son was taken into care.After a decade in which life had been dominated by the pursuit of her next fix, she knew it was time to change Her “nightmare” as a crack and heroin addict had to end.