Youre nicked or are you?

“You’re nicked, sunshine” (23 July, page 30) states that “the law obliges housing staff to prevent any illegal use of controlled drugs on their premises”. This is inaccurate and gives a wrong message to service providers.

Section 8 of the 1971 Misuse of Drugs Act explicitly forbids “knowingly permitting or suffering the production, supply or distribution of controlled drugs on premises” but accommodation providers are only forbidden to permit the consumption of cannabis or opium. This law does not forbid the consumption of any other controlled substances on premises.

This means hostel residents can consume heroin on the premises with no legal problem for the managers. Legally, the worst that could happen if hostel residents use (but not supply) heroin, cocaine or crack is that they are arrested for possession. If they were engaging in production, distribution or supply and the person responsible for the premises knowingly permitted it to occur, this would be a major problem (it is what happened to the Cambridge Two).

Joanne Easterbrook may advise zero tolerance but this is only her opinion, not action listed in the legislation.

A large number of rough sleepers are addicted to drugs. By misrepresenting the law the article may dissuade social housing providers from accommodating people known to take drugs.

Hostel staff can work constructively with residents to address drug use. If managers erroneously believe this would force them to break the law it will deny accommodation to many vulnerable people and work against the successful reduction of the number of rough sleepers on the streets.

Joanne Easterbrook replies: The article was a thumbnail sketch of areas of risk but you are right to make a distinction between the use of cannabis and opium and other drugs on the basis of the 1971 Misuse of Drugs Act. Such distinctions only serve, however, to highlight the risks for the general provider.