Universities UK (UUK) has published guidance for universities on tackling the supply and demand for drugs amongst students.
Enabling student health and success comes two and a half years after the launch of a Drugs and Alcohol Impact pilot – a scheme to help universities and SUs work towards better drug and alcohol practice – and 14 months after launching the guidance at a national conference on the issue.
It’s also been published two days before a General Election at a time in the year when it’s almost certainly too late to influence practice ahead of welcome weeks in September. It’s almost as if Universities UK would rather nobody noticed.
That’s a shame, because there’s a stellar cast of advisors here – Nic Beech, vice chancellor at the University of Salford chaired the taskforce, supported by three special advisors; Carol Black, who led the independent two-part review of drugs, Ed Day, the UK government’s drug Recovery Champion, and Owen Bowden-Jones the Chair of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs.
It also drew on experts in health, psychology, criminology, education, student welfare and accommodation provision, and 4,000 students themselves, 18 per cent of whom had taken drugs – although it is important to bear in mind that this is 18 per cent of students happy to fill in a survey about their drug use.
The timing will almost certainly have been about attempting to minimise coverage like this – even the faintest hint of pragmatism over sex or drugs tends to see universities (and often their SUs) accused of encouraging the conduct and its dangers.
Last year former home secretary Priti Patel accused university leaders of being “penetrated” by a lobbying organisation with access to the highest level – and urged ministers to intervene:
This is an absolute disgrace and poses a lot of questions on what’s going on in our universities. Any parent would be very worried about sending their youngster to university if there is going to be an acceptance that students are going to take drugs.
University vice-chancellors and universities themselves are going to be the ones with blood on their hands to a certain extent with the number of murders that take place with regard to drug crimes.
Those involved in the project and campaigners have been waiting for a very long time for this particular ming vase to be placed on UUK’s mantlepiece. Was it worth the wait?
Zero to hero
The main headline is UUK advocates that universities move away from a zero-tolerance approach – characterised by imposing fines on, suspending, or expelling students caught using or possessing drugs – towards a harm reduction approach.
A harm reduction approach does not condone or seek to normalise the use of drugs. It acknowledges that the safest circumstance is one in which no one takes illicit drugs but acknowledges the evidence that punitive measures for drug possession and use deter those most vulnerable from seeking support because of a fear of punishment.
It is about providing open and direct information on reducing the risk of addiction, overdose, and other harmful consequences of drug-taking.
Importantly, it is about really knowing your students – their lives, contexts, coping mechanisms, recreational habits, and wellbeing – as well as how these interact with race characteristics, class background, and adverse childhood experiences, and formulating individualised, compassionate, supportive responses to drug-use rather than just expelling them (which probably won’t relieve them of drug-use).
Other reputable authorities that endorse harm reduction approaches include big names like European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA), the World Health Organization (WHO), the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), and the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners.
An indicative finding was that of the students who wished to reduce their drug use, only 20 per cent of this minority felt able to seek support from their university.
Of those students who did seek support, nearly half, 46 per cent, reported that their provider’s policy on drugs was a barrier to doing so, with more than a third reporting that they feared the consequences of coming forward.
UUK recommends that there should be no disciplinary consequences for seeking that information and openly demonstrate that they have students’ wellbeing as their primary focus.
Tolerance
One of the most helpful clarifications in the document looks at the legal aspects and responsibilities of institutions.
Universities are nervous about appearing to endorse drug use – but the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 does not require universities to adopt a zero-tolerance approach to student drug use or report drug possession, and in many cases local police forces will not respond to instances of minor possession anyway.
UUK nevertheless advises that institutions do keep records of their actions regarding drug possession/use to show the police that it doesn’t “permit” or “suffer” it to happen (if needed in
the future) – and to have confiscation and safe disposal or surrender systems in place.
This is sensible – because one of the hesitancies institutions often have around approaching any kind of drug policy is inadvertently acting in a criminal manner.
There is a risk of criminal liability where a process exists but is not followed – but universities are within their right to develop their own policies on responding to drug use by students – albeit in partnership with local police – as long as they can show they are taking reasonable steps to prevent the use and supply of drugs.
The fun police
This is all sensible stuff – but there is something I can’t help but think is either being overlooked, or strategically left out.
One of the attempts at heading off criticism sees the report framing “harmful use of alcohol and drugs” as a wellbeing concern – amongst things like financial stress and poor mental health. The scope of the taskforce’s work also includes prescription drugs used without or against clinical advice.
For example, the rise in drugs for ADHD as a study bio-hack) or the use of drugs such as ozempic – used to regulate insulin in patients with diabetes – as an off-label appetite suppressant for weight loss, which worryingly coincided with growing eating disorders among students.
But there is something that universities probably should also acknowledge – most drug consumption – by UUKs own taskforce’s findings here – is for fun. For students who had taken drugs, over half said they did so to have fun. A third reported relaxation, and another third bonding with friends as motivations.
Only 23 per cent reported that they took drugs to cope with emotional distress or uncomfortable feelings.
Framing the entire approach to mental wellbeing seems to run counter to these findings. Overt pathologisation contributes to stigmatisation, and there is a danger that students who are pressured to disengage from drug taking because it has been framed solely as a negative coping mechanism may withdraw altogether to maintain their use.
We know outreach service users can react like this. And the point of this work is to make such behaviour visible and understood.
We know we have to frame harm reduction in a palatable way, in a way that policy-makers think, and in a way that avoids a media frenzy about endorsing drug-use.
But the reality is that a lot of students who take drugs at university go on to lead healthy, successful lives.
Put another way, distributing alcohol measure cups (one example in the report’s case studies) is very effective at preventing accidental intoxication – but not so much if intoxication is the end goal.
Students – outside of the institution’s control – do, always have, and always will take drugs in non-problematic ways. Statistics on a range of sensitive issues – from drug use to sex work – are so often collected from individuals using outreach or support services, so therefore, already vulnerable.
For every student in crisis, hundreds will indulge in their chosen poison and slip by unaffected and unnoticed.
This begs the question: Do we want to avoid the concerns of salacious media coverage? Or do we want students to engage with services, be open about their usage, collect good-quality data, and formulate appropriately reflective frameworks?
If we want the latter, we can’t only frame harm reduction from a pathological perspective. Students won’t engage in services or take up advice if doing so is seen as them “having a problem” – because most don’t see it that way.
Class As
This isn’t just understanding why students take drugs – it’s also about who those students are. Dame Carol Black’s 2019 two-part independent review of drug use noted the growing trend of “cocaine use“ in “young, often well-educated, males”.
The drugs more accessible to conceal tend to be more expensive and more common amongst middle to upper-class user – cocaine, for example, is odourless. Cannabis, more common amongst working-class or marginalised students, has a strong smell and is easier to detect. Universities should be aware of unintentionally embedding classism and racism into disciplinary processes.
This is just about acknowledged in the report. UUK’s literature review identified two key evidence gaps in existing research – the experiences of students with protected characteristics and the effectiveness of interventions to support students in reducing their drug use.
It’s also acknowledged in the recommendations where UUK advise institutions to take careful consideration when working with local police forces, given the perception and differing experiences of police by those from global majority ethnicities, and by international students from countries with differing substance legislation.
Getting into the weed(s) of it
There’s a section on tackling supply, which helpfully widens the lens in which university policy-makers can view “drug dealing”. A drug dealer – in both the document and law, is defined as anyone who passes illicit substances to another person – for financial/commercial gain or not.
This is pretty important to know because the survey found that over half of students who had taken drugs got their drugs from a friend – only one in four got them from a dealer otherwise unknown to them.
As a sector, we have only just got our collective head around the fact many students are regularly taking drugs. Now, we are learning they are dealing with them, too. But it is all part of the same harm-reduction approach.
The UUK advice is to educate students about the risks of being involved in drug supply and the consequences of a criminal record on future employability—especially for courses requiring fitness to practice certification. This is harm reduction.
And, in a cost of living crisis, and with students increasingly turning to informal markets to make money, universities need to understand and address students’ vulnerability to exploitation. This is harm reduction, too.
Where previously dealing drugs would have certainly led to a harsh penalty, UUK recommends that universities treat each situation on an individual basis, with any disciplinary consequences considering context, nature, and impact. This is also harm reduction.
Universities are also encouraged to work with students to collect data on drug supply routes and their supply experiences. This mildly patronisingly overlooks that many students turning to dealing are probably already aware of the harms associated with running drugs for local criminals (more so than their university is!) – and they are engaging with it anyway.
Reporting this to the university would mean losing their income or putting them in further danger of those supplying them with the substances. That advice needs more thought.
There are further recommendations on training and empowering staff (security and residence life staff mainly, but staff in other roles, too) to alert or investigate drug possession. This is recommended through providing non-stigmatising and accessible support tools for staff that align with university policies.
Interestingly, there doesn’t seem to be anything on staff drug use. Obviously, this taskforce was set up to look at student drug use – but if a staff policy means that possession is a sackable offence, this could create a two-tier system of support/penalisation in the learning community, alongside confusion over what policy applies for PhD students.
A line on your wedding day
The irony in the report really concerns communication. UUK recommends universities use every channel available – students’ unions, accommodation providers, and third-sector organisations – to communicate these harm reduction information, principles, and strategies.
But the circumstances surrounding its heavily delayed release and cautious framing seems to go against the very principles it sets out: clear and accessible policies around drug use and harm reduction.
It was only this week that I spoke to a senior leader at a London university about their harm reduction policy. He said they had to quietly change it a few years ago to avoid a fabricated media scandal.
That’s understandable – but UUK’s survey research found that only half of students were aware of their provider’s drug policy. The majority of these students anticipated that the approach would be punitive – even when it wasn’t. What use is a harm reduction policy if it is a secret?
Perhaps I am being cynical. Maybe this approach – whereby UUK’s members quietly receive comprehensive and evidence-led guidance on how to deal with drug use at a time to avoid damaging, salacious, and misrepresenting media coverage – is helpful.
But UUK endorsing harm reduction should be a trailblazing move in the right direction, and should give confidence to its member institutions, many of whom have previously been too nervous to publicly endorse harm reduction on their own.
It’s also right that universities raise awareness of the support available via channels that students frequently use.
But unless UUK openly communicates its work in this space how can it expect the members it represents to have the confidence to do so too?
