The government has recently introduced legislation making the possession of laughing gas a criminal offence for the first time, placing Nitrous oxide as a Class C drug.
This is in an effort to tighten controls on retailers to prevent the supply of nitrous oxide for use and reduce anti-social behaviour, such as littering and blocking shop doorways.
Nitrous oxide, commonly known as NOS or laughing gas, is a colourless, odourless gas that can be inhaled to produce a short-lived high, often used recreationally at parties and raves. NOS is perceived as a low risk substance, being responsible for 56 deaths in England and Wales over 20 years.
Emerging evidence has recently suggested that nitrous oxide can cause health and wellbeing issues such as neurological harms. However, it is important to highlight that this is linked to the availability of the larger volume canisters that increase persistent and higher usage.
Image source: pexels.com
Instead of banning nitrous oxide, the government could explore approaches to regulate the market, such as controlling the amount of nitrous oxide in a canister. Or perhaps more information and advice should be made available for people to make informed choices and consequently signposting individuals who do experience harm, to support services.
So, how effective is this latest government strategy of banning a substance? Will prohibition work this time, compared to previous occasions? Will banning a drug fix all these problems?
It is also worth asking whether current drug policy prevents the supply of substances for use, and if so, would this be replicated for NOS?
One example we can explore is in 2006, when Ketamine was controlled for the first time as a class C drug (which has now been changed to a class B drug in 2014). Despite being classified under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, ketamine was still the most commonly identified substance in the night-time economy and festivals during the reporting period of 2018-2019. Therefore, despite these extreme policing and policy interventions, it is proven that it has not contained or reduced the prevalence but has increased risks.
For example, an analysis of ketamine testing (January 2023), reported substances sold as ketamine was found to instead contain ‘Alprozolam’, commonly known as Xanax and others such as ‘Phenacetin’, ‘caffeine’ and ‘Etizolam’. Such consequences and dangers are a prime example of an unregulated, illicit market, for drugs. Drug policy that focuses on prohibition has failed to prevent the supply of drugs, and instead, has created a highly profitable industry that fuels violence, exploitation and increased associated harms, such as overdose and the consumption of unknown, unregulated substances.
So how accessible is NOS following the announcement of it being place under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971?
Whilst conducting my own research, I wanted to see how accessible nitrous oxide is, even with it becoming a Class C substance. Using the search ‘nitrous oxide canisters’, I found that buying the canisters seemed straight forward, including via well-known online retailers.
So how can this be effectively controlled when it can still be legally used? A report has suggested that websites selling nitrous oxide for non-medical purposes should be shut down. However, this may be difficult to achieve, as nitrous oxide is also used in catering and other legitimate industries.
It is also worth questioning whether tighter controls reduce anti-social behaviour too?
A publication of ACMD’s review of nitrous oxide stated that the Nitrous oxide should remain under the Psychoactive substance Act 2016, and should not be placed under control of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, so why did the government ignore this?
Within the media, anti-social behaviour, such as the littering of the canisters left on the streets or in parks, has been reported as the main concern from the public and the government. However, the focus on reducing drug use doesn’t translate to reducing harms, so what could have been done?
One approach that could have been reinforced, something that is seen as more effective than legislation or enforcement, is the Nudge Theory.
Nudge theory is based on the idea that by changing the environment, we can influence the likelihood that people will choose one option over another. In 2011, a study was conducted in Copenhagen using nudge theory to encourage better use of street litter bins. Footprints were painted on the ground leading up to the bins and the bins were painted in bright colours. The experiment distributed free sweets before, and after, the footprints installed, leading to coloured bins. The results reported a 46% decrease of litter following the installation of the footprints.
Image source: Pixabay.com
Another approach that could have been introduced is the bottle (canister) return scheme. Quite simply, by attaching a monetary value to a container, in the form of a refundable deposit, we can incentivize consumers to return them for recycling. This will help to reduce litter and keep our environment clean. While this approach has not been directly tested on NOS canisters, worldwide it has proven to be an effective strategy, reducing littering by 83%
What next?
If we continue to go down this road of punitive policy, without providing safe and accessible alternatives, people will continue to be harmed. This is a problem that affects everyone, regardless of their personal views on drug use. In 2022, approximately 1 in 5 adults aged 16-24 years report using drugs. This means that this issue is likely to be affecting someone you know. We need to start analysing and questioning these policies implemented by the government and start conversations about what we can do instead.
Beth Hart-Dyke is currently undertaking a Masters in Clinical Psychology and Mental health in Swansea University. Beth previously worked as a project worker in supported accommodation for individuals with substance use, with Pobl. Beth is currently undertaking an internship within the communications teams at Barod.
