Candidate Number: Pen 1309
Sam Baker
Homerton College, University of Cambridge
Supervisor: Dr. Ben Crewe
An Examination of the Reasons that
Prisoners use Spice
(Synthetic Cannabinoids)
Submitted in part fulfillment of the requirements for the Master’s
Degree in Applied Criminology, Penology and Management.
Number of words (excluding references): 16128
January 2015
Abstract
Synthetic cannabinoids, often referred to as ‘spice’, are a type of drug and a subset of the
growing group of new drugs collectively known as ‘New Psychoactive Substances’ or ‘Novel
Psychoactive Substances’ (NPS). While a number of such drugs have now been classified
under the Misuse of Drugs Act, some remain legal in the community and are often seen as a
legal cannabis substitute. Despite their legal status and poor public awareness, there is
mounting concern amongst those working with users over the health risks inherent in the use
of such drugs.
There is also growing concern among those working in prisons over the perceived
proliferation of spice use therein. However, as there is almost no research into the use of such
drugs in prison, very little is known about their true prevalence and the reasons for their use
by prisoners. Practitioners also suggest that there may be factors unique to prisons driving
the use of spice by prisoners, particularly the fact that Mandatory Drug Testing (MDT) does
not currently detect it.
This research examines the prevalence of spice use in one prison (HMP&YOI Rochester) as
well as the prisoner’s reasons for using it. It employs a mixed methods research design,
including a small number of qualitative interviews, with prisoners who report having taken
spice, followed by a wider survey of a sample population of the prison. The research suggests
that spice is now the most prolific drug in the research prison. The findings support the
suggestion that the failure of Mandatory Drug Testing to detect spice encourages its use, but
also suggest that prisoners give comparable weight to a perception that spice use makes time
appear to pass more quickly.
1
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank my supervisor, Dr. Ben Crewe for his advice and support, both in relation
to the course and personally and for his completely unrelated, yet thoroughly enjoyable
discourse on scientific method.
I would also like to acknowledge all of the academic staff at the Institute of Criminology for
their teaching and the administrative staff who made everything on the course run so
smoothly.
There are many colleagues within the National Offender Management Service with whom I
have had discourse that shaped my thinking on this topic. Special credit is due to the
Governor and Deputy Governor of HMP&YOI Rochester, Andy Hudson and Dale Abercrombie
for their continued support and for encouraging me to undertake this study.
Finally, I would like to thank the prisoners who contributed to this study, especially during
the qualitative phase.
Declarations
This thesis is not more than 18,000 words in length (including notes, excluding any relevant
appendices and the bibliography). This thesis has not previously been and is not concurrently being, submitted for any purpose
other than the M.St. examination. Except as indicated by specific references to, or acknowledgements of other sources, this
thesis is my own original work
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1
1.1
1.2
1.3
INTRODUCTION
About spice
Spice in prisons
Research questions
4
5
5
2
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
LITERATURE REVIEW
Literature review introduction
Spice
Risk relating to spice use
Drugs in prisons
Legality
Mandatory Drug Testing (MDT)
7
7
8
9
11
13
3
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
RESEARCH METHODS
Research questions
Research design and methods
Phase 1 – Qualitative interviews
Development of the survey instrument
Phase 2 – Survey
Data analysis
Other considerations
16
16
19
20
22
24
24
4
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
QUALITATIVE RESULTS
Participants
First experiences of spice
Effects of spice
Reasons for use
Addiction and debt
Awareness of risks
The impact of being in custody
27
29
30
33
35
38
39
5
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
QUANTITATIVE RESULTS
General information
Section 2 – Drug use
Section 3 – Using spice in prisons
Section 4 – About spice
Additional comments
41
41
42
44
48
6
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
DISCUSSION
To what extent is spice prevalent in prisons?
Why do prisoners choose to use spice?
Do prisoners understand the potential risks of spice use?
Does being in prison have a bearing on the decision to use spice?
Is spice use supply or demand driven?
52
54
55
56
57
7
CONCLUSIONS
59
8
BIBLIOGRAPHY
61
9
APPENDIX (SURVEY INSTRUMENT)
64
3
1 – INTRODUCTION
1.1 About spice
Synthetic Cannabinoids (often referred to as ‘spice’) are man-made chemical compounds that
interact with the cannabinoid receptors in the human brain. These are the same receptors
that THC (Tetrahydrocannabinol), the active ingredient of cannabis, interacts with. The
chemicals are most often (although not exclusively) sprayed onto dried plant matter and then
smoked, creating a common perception that they are a cannabis substitute. Synthetic
cannabinoids are a subset of the growing group of new drugs collectively known as ‘New
Psychoactive Substances’ or ‘Novel Psychoactive Substances’ (NPS).
Since their creation a number of Synthetic Cannabinoids have been regulated and banned in
the UK, but manufacturers have been able to synthesise new compounds that circumvent the
ban. The products are sold over the Internet or in shops, often under the guise of pot-pouri or
incense. Packaging usually warns against human consumption, despite the product’s clearly
intended use.
‘Spice’ was the brand name of one such product (there is a suggestion that the name may have
been based on a fictional narcotic in the motion picture ‘Dune’). Spice itself is now illegal in
the UK, but the name has become widespread as a collective term encompassing all such
products and is frequently used as such in academic literature. Throughout this paper, unless
otherwise stated, the word ‘spice’ is used as a noun to refer to any product comprised of plant
matter that has been sprayed with synthetic cannabinoid receptor agonists, regardless of the
marketed brand name.
4
1.2 Spice in prisons
Spice is growing in popularity in the community. The number of new substances that have
been detected has increased steadily over the last few years. The United Nations Office on
Drugs and Crime has reported that synthetic cannabinoids made up 40% of the New
Psychoactive Substances reported in Europe. (UNDOC, 2014) They also noted that, in Europe,
“While new psychoactive substances prevalence levels remain low, there may be potential for
rapid increase in its use among certain subpopulations.” (UNODC, 2013 p3). Although prisons
were not one of the subpopulations referred to, they may provide another example of where a
new drug finds particular popularity amongst a niche population. Research into spice use in
the community (Every-Palmer, 2010, 2011, Mir et al, 2011, Lapoint et al, 2011, Pierre, 2011)
is beginning to highlight potential health concerns inherent in spice use and these risks may
transfer into the custodial setting.
There is also a possibility that the custodial setting itself may have a bearing on decisions to
use spice. As previously mentioned, spice is not detected by Mandatory Drug Testing. As it is
also cheap and easy to purchase, often legally, it may also be attractive to those involved in the
trafficking of drugs into prison. In his 2013-2014 annual report, HM Chief Inspector of
Prisons, Nick Hardwick, reported that spice use was cited as a concern in 37% of the adult
male prisons inspected that year. (HMIP, 2014)
1.3 Research questions
The questions that this research aims to answer are ‘To what extent is spice prevalent in
prisons?’ and ‘Why do prisoners choose to use spice?’ It also explores the secondary questions
5
‘Do prisoners understand the potential risks of spice use?’ and ‘Does being in prison have a
bearing on the decision to use spice?
6
2 – LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Literature review introduction
There is a body of literature on the use of drugs in prison, but spice is a relatively new
phenomenon and, while there is emerging literature available on its use in the community, the
same is not true for its use in custody. While there may indeed by some common motivators
for spice use across different settings, there are some factors unique to the custodial setting
that may have a bearing on its use therein. While the evidence base is not yet extensive, there
is mounting evidence that spice use may have significant health risks over and above those
presented by cannabis. In this literature review, I first explore some of the technical literature
regarding spice and its mode of operation as well as some of the reasons for it use and
popularity in the wider community, before exploring literature regarding potential risks
associated with its use. I then explore some literature regarding drugs more generally in
prisons, before looking at the legality of spice and, finally, potential links with drug testing.
2.2 Spice
Spice is sometimes called ‘synthetic cannabis’, but this is not technically correct, as the
psychoactive ingredient is not a copy of Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) found in cannabis.
Instead, spice contains one or more alternative compounds that react with the same
cannabinoid receptors in the brain. Such compounds can be more potent than THC and may
possibly combine with receptors in a different way (Huffman & Padgett, 2005, Atwood et al,
2011). Indeed, there is evidence that whereas THC is a partial agonist of the cannabinoid
receptors, spice compounds are generally full agonists, which means that the effects can be
longer lasting and negative effects more severe (Atwood et al, 2011).
7
Fattore & Fratta (2011) suggest a number of reasons that may explain the growing popularity
of spice in the wider community. Firstly, it produces psychoactive effects that have been
reported as similar to, or stronger than, cannabis (consistent with its higher potency).
Secondly it is legal (although, as explained later, that could be debatable). Thirdly it is easily
available and attractively marketed. Fourthly, it may be perceived by users as safer and,
finally, it is not easily detected in urine and blood tests. Vandrey et al (2012) carried out an
Internet survey, to which 168 spice users responded. The following reasons were given for
use: curiosity (78%), liking effects (58%) and relaxation (48%). 30% of the respondents
endorsed using spice to avoid drug test detection. 14% believed that the fact that the products
are sold in stores must mean they were safe for human use.
2.3 Risks relating to spice use
The potential belief by users that spice is safe is worth exploring here as there is a growing
volume of evidence that suggests that this may not be the case. There are increasing reports of
spice-linked psychosis. For example Every-Palmer (2010) reported the mental states of five
patients significantly worsening after spice use, before carrying out an exploratory study of
fifteen patients (2011). She concluded that “Almost nothing is known about the pharmacology
and toxicology of compounds such as JWH-018, however, it seems that they can cause
psychosis in vulnerable individuals” (Every-Palmer, 2011:156). Similarly, Hurst et al (2011)
reported ten cases of new onset psychosis in patients who had smoked spice. These examples
are also cited alongside five others by Pierre (2011:56) who suggested that “collectively, these
reports suggest that synthetic cannabinoid intoxication is associated with acute psychosis as
well as exacerbations of previously stable psychotic disorders, and also may have a
propensity to trigger a chronic psychotic disorder among vulnerable individuals”.
8
Furthermore, Zuardi et al (2006) noted that, while THC in cannabis can cause anxiety and
psychosis type symptoms, cannabis also contains a substance called cannabidiol, which has an
anti-psychotic effect (indeed this compound is showing promise for the treatment of
schizophrenia). Fattore & Fratta (2011) point out that the absence of cannabidiol in spice
could increase the psychosis risk.
Fattore & Fratta (2011) also summarised evidence of a number of other negative effects of
spice including dependence, emotional alterations and cognitive deficits. In addition to this
they also highlight instances of nausea, as well as extreme pulse rates, blood pressure and
cardiac ischemia, which are potentially fatal. There is further literature that points to a
possible cardiac risk associated with spice use. One report lists three case studies of
otherwise healthy teenage males who presented with myocardial infarction in the days after
using a synthetic cannabinoid. Myocardial infarction is very rare in this age group and a link
with synthetic cannabinoid use is suggested. (Mir et al, 2011) Another report concerns the
case of an adult male who ingested a powder and suffered seizures and supraventricular
tachycardia. The powder was analysed and found to contain a synthetic cannabinoid. (Lapoint
et al, 2011). There have been examples of prisoners being treated in hospital, for example, a
recent news article reported that three prisoners were hospitalised from HMP Dartmoor after
taking a legal high (BBC, 2014).
2.4 Drugs in prisons
Drug use in prisons can differ from use in the community, or at least has some additional
dimensions. The custodial setting can, depending on circumstances, either promote or deter
drug use. Wheatley (2007) summarises various explanatory models for drug use in prison. In
9
the ‘self medication’ model, prisoners may use drugs to deal with various ailments, some of
which (eg depression, sleep deprivation) can be exacerbated by imprisonment.
In the ‘time management’ model, drug use is used to either pass or ‘manage’ time. Cope
(2003) examined the relationship between time and prisoner drug use, exploring the way that
prisoners used drugs as a means to manage time. She argues that custody can change
perceptions of time. Time is normally in the background, but “When the control of time
becomes more overt and oppressive, the experience of time moves from ‘practical’ to
‘discursive’ consciousness and becomes the explicit focus of attention” (p163). Furthermore,
Cope argues that prisoners suspend time – they consider that time spent in prison is not part
of their life which will resume on release. It therefore becomes important to be able to
exercise some control over time in prison and using cannabis was a way to achieve this (by
promoting sleep). She notes the important point that this effectively changes the focus of
users drug use, as outside, cannabis was not primarily used for its sedative qualities.
In the ‘social network’ model, involvement in the networks that are necessary for drug misuse
provide a sense of belonging and connection for prisoners which counters the sense of
isolation inherent in custody. Mjaland (2014) examined relationships between drug users in a
Norwegian prison and reported on a culture of sharing. In effect, prisoners would gift drugs to
each other in the hope of reciprocation and thus drug supply was less market orientated than
has been reported elsewhere (Wheatley, 2007, Crewe, 2005). Such actions served to form
tighter social bonds between users. Mjaland acknowledges that such practice may be unique
to the circumstances in the particular prison studied, but argues it is too simplistic to just
consider it the result of ‘exceptional’ prison conditions.
10
In describing the ‘status’ model, Wheatley (2007) refers to Preble & Casey (1969), who
suggest that drug users gain status and satisfaction from involvement in drug acquisition.
However, this work is exploring drug misuse in the context of the streets of New York, not
prisons. To some extent this appears at odds with Crewe (2005) who, looking at drug use in
prisons specifically, found a more stigmatised view of drug users (although in this context it
was heroin use that was being studied and he did highlight the perceived distinction between
those who believed they controlled their drug use and addicts). Crewe (2005) instead found
status afforded to those who dealt or controlled the drugs (as long as they were well enough
connected to hold onto them)
This leads into the ‘economic’ model, which Wheatley (2007) concedes is more a model to
explain drug supply than drug use in that it describes the power and social status afforded by
the control and financial power inherent in arranging the supply of drugs.
2.5 Legality
Spice or synthetic cannabinoids is one category of substances, which along with a number of
other substances, are often referred to as ‘legal highs’. Some organisations working to
minimise harm or address substance misuse prefer the formal term ‘New (or novel)
Psychoactive Substances’ (NPS) as there is an argument that the term ‘legal highs’ carries
some false suggestion of safety. This said, the concept of legality is worth exploring further.
Griffiths et al (2010) point out the difficulty that these substances present to authorities,
highlighting the “difficult question for policy makers, both practically and morally, of whether
‘Spice’ should be addressed as a consumer protection or drug control issue” (p952) and
noting “That this type of product falls into a grey area between commercial products,
medicines and illicit substances also meant that there was a lack of clarity regarding which
11
agencies should take responsibility for this issue” (p952). Despite these difficulties, attempts
to control spice have been taken in the UK and this legislation combined with some available
research findings provides a challenge to the technical accuracy of the term ‘legal high’.
The Misuse of Drugs Act Amendment Order 2009 classified a number of compounds used in
varieties of spice, as well as any compound structurally derived from them, as class B
controlled drugs. Alternative synthetic cannabinoid receptor agonists that do not meet this
definition are used in spice products that are legally available in the UK. Dargan et al (2011)
analysed a number of spice products, which they purchased both before and after the
legislation change. Of 20 products purchased after the ban, they found that 17 contained a
classified (illegal) agonist. While 7 products contained an unclassified and therefore legal
agonist, all of these also contained classified agonists as well. In 3 products, no agonist was
detected (so arguably they should not be defined as spice).
A similar study by Brandt et al (2010), which focussed on ‘legal highs’ other than spice found
70% of samples still contained illegal agonists. It seems, therefore, that products sold as ‘legal
highs’ may often actually be illegal, although it is certainly possible to produce ‘legal’ spice. It
follows that purchasers of spice products sold in the UK, may not be buying what they
intended to purchase and may, in fact, be committing an offence.
What this really highlights is the extent that different spice products vary and how difficult it
is to determine exactly what products contain and hence their legal status. It also highlights
some of the challenges facing lawmakers as they attempt to regulate these new substances,
which are adapting all the time. Griffiths et al (2010, p953) summarise this succinctly:
The speed and sophistication of innovation in this area is impressive and also serves to
12
highlight the sluggishness and clumsiness of most attempts at control. ‘Spice’ itself may
be a transient product, but it provides an excellent case study of how the globally
connected world in which we now live is challenging existing models of drug control.
2.6 Mandatory Drug Testing (MDT)
Regardless of the legal position of spice outside of prisons, it is an unauthorised article in
prison. As such, being caught in possession of it renders a prisoner liable to punishment under
the prison disciplinary (adjudications) process. However, for most prisoners using drugs, it is
not being caught in possession, but rather the risk of being detected via drug testing that
presents the greatest risk of punitive sanction. Prisoners are subject to mandatory drug
testing (MDT) which includes random as well as suspicion testing of urine. These tests detect
the use of illicit drugs and a positive result leads to disciplinary sanction and punishment.
Spice, and other new substances are not currently detected by MDT testing. Practitioners have
suggested that prisoners may be choosing to use spice, as opposed to cannabis, as MDT does
not detect it. If this is the case, then, combined with the evidence that spice use carries more
risk, current drug reduction strategies may actually be increasing risk of harm.
When mandatory drug testing was first introduced into prisons, there was a suggestion that it
may encourage the use of harder drugs such as heroin as opposed to cannabis. This was
because cannabis use can be detected in urine for considerably longer periods than heroin
and therefore it was argued that heroin use was less likely to result in detection. In a survey of
prisoners Singleton et al (2005) found some prisoners reporting this, although Edgar &
O’Donnell (1998, p39) had previously found that mandatory drug testing had had a significant
13
impact in reducing drug use in prisons and that “this was achieved - against many people’s
expectations- without evidence of a major shift to the use of heroin”.
Of course there are significant differences between the idea that the MDT process encourages
heroin use and the idea that it may encourage spice use. Firstly, Edgar & O’Donnell’s (1998)
finding leaves room for the existence of some “shift” toward heroin, but the significant
reduction in drug use overall countered this. MDT does not detect spice, but does detect
heroin (and other opiates), so there is no deterrence effect at all, as opposed to a reduced one.
Cope (2003) had noted that the risk of MDT and subsequent sanction was a factor that
countered the perceived benefits of drug taking amongst the young offenders she studied. It is
possible that this effect might be removed if the sanctions were absent altogether. Secondly
there is a possibility that users may see spice as more ‘interchangeable’ with cannabis than
heroin (in that it is an apparently herbal substance that often has a similar mode of operation
and is marketed as a cannabis substitute). Perhaps this factor would also render spice use less
stigmatic than Crewe (2005) found heroin use.
There is literature that considers the effect of drug testing on decisions to use spice in the
wider community. Fattore & Fratta (2011) have suggested the fact that spice is not easily
detected as a potential reason for the popularity of spice in the community, but also suggest
that “wherever drug screening is routinely performed to guarantee abstinence from drugs
(i.e., hospital or institutions carrying out detoxification, forensic psychiatric centres), people
can be motivated to substitute cannabis with Spice products” (p4). Perone et al (2013) carried
out a study that included qualitative interviews of twenty five spice users, finding that most
sought a legal cannabis alternative to avoid drug screening and criminal sanctions and, as I
previously mentioned, Vandrey et al (2012) produced findings that showed users endorsing
spice use to evade drug testing. The available literature suggests, therefore, the possibility
14
that the fact that mandatory drug testing does not currently detect spice might encourage
prisoners to use it as an alternative to other drugs.
15
3 – RESEARCH METHODS
3.1 Research questions
The primary questions that this research aims to answer are ‘To what extent is spice
prevalent in prisons?’ and ‘Why do prisoners choose to use spice?’. It also aims to answer
secondary questions including ‘Do prisoners understand the potential risks of spice use?’ and
‘Does being in prison have a bearing on the decision to use spice?’ Given that very little is
known about the use of spice in prisons, it is important to acknowledge the exploratory
nature of this work.
It has already been mentioned that practitioners believe that the lack of detection by
mandatory drug testing is a key reason for the popularity of spice. Research that indirectly
supports this view was presented in the literature review. This did appear to present the
opportunity to form a hypothesis, however this was considered to be inappropriate as it
would focus emphasis on one possible reason for spice use at the possible detriment of the
proper consideration of others. As the work is exploratory, a hypothesis has not been formed.
3.2 Research Design and Methods
Given the exploratory nature of this research, the initial consideration was that a flexible
qualitative research design would be appropriate. The advantage of a qualitative approach is
that it allows exploratory and open questions to be asked of participants, without the need for
presumptions to be made about relatively unknown topics. Bachman & Schutt (2007)
highlight that qualitative research has “a focus on previously unstudied processes and
unanticipated phenomena” (p259). A qualitative approach also allows for more depth as
16
questions can be expanded upon and new ideas and concepts explored, or as Creswell (2003,
p 181) puts it “The research questions may change and be refined as the inquirer learns what
to ask and to whom it should be asked”.
However, while a qualitative approach would have lent itself to exploratory work, it was
considered that in this particular application it would have had a number of key limitations.
Firstly, there would have been a need to identify and secure the participation of enough
individuals to ensure the results had validity. It is likely to have proven difficult to recruit a
suitable number of candidates within the time constraints of the study. Indeed experience in
recruiting participants in the final method established this would have been the case as the
number of prisoners that could be identified as having used spice, who were willing to
participate was barely enough to meet the reduced requirement for that method. In addition,
while a purely qualitative approach may have provided depth, I was also concerned about the
generalizability of findings from the small sample size. Finally, I was concerned that
identifying prisoners who had used spice would limit the sampling to those who had either
been caught in possession of it, or who had suffered ill effects to the extent that prison staff
had become aware of their drug use. This may have limited the sample to those who had a
more negative perception of spice use and exclude those who had positive experiences or who
had suffered no ill effect. While it would have been possible to advertise for participants, the
response rate would have been unpredictable and again, certain groups (such as those whose
spice use had so far been undetected by the prison authorities) might have been underrepresented.
Consideration was also given to a quantitative approach, carrying out a survey of prisoners.
This would have allowed for a much larger sample size to be used, within the available time
constraints, affording greater confidence in the generalizability of results (Bachman & Schutt,
17
2007). Survey research would also allow for the anonymity of respondents, which might make
them more likely to disclose information about illicit drug use. Anonymous surveys are
preferable when asking about threatening topics (Neuman & Wiegand, 2000).
However, the difficultly with this approach, on its own, is that it would have required the
formulation of a suitable survey instrument to research a relatively unknown phenomenon.
While it would be possible to draft a survey instrument, given the exploratory nature of the
work, there would have been a significant risk that there would be factors involved in spice
use that were unknown and therefore not given proper consideration in the survey.
In an attempt to draw on the strengths and mitigate the drawbacks inherent in both
quantitative and qualitative approaches, the method deployed was a mixed methods approach
- specifically an exploratory sequential design (Creswell, 2003, Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007).
In this model an initial qualitative study is used to inform a second quantitative survey phase.
Creswell & Plano Clark (2007, p75) suggest that this model may be appropriate when
“measures or instruments are not available, the variables are unknown, or there is no guiding
framework or theory” and that “this design is particularly useful when a researcher needs to
develop and test an instrument”. Both of these points are particularly applicable and it was
considered that this method provided the best solution for answering the research questions.
It allowed for the initial qualitative phase to probe and establish potential (and, at that point,
unknown) factors and for the results of this phase to inform the survey instrument used. It
therefore allowed for the strengths of both qualitative and quantitative research to be drawn
upon.
18
3.3 Phase 1 – Qualitative Interviews
In the initial qualitative phase, Prisoners who were already known to have used spice in
prison were interviewed. During the course of his occupation the researcher became aware of
these individuals and approached them to seek their participation. It was possible to secure
the participation of four such prisoners. In each case, to ensure fully informed consent was
secured, an information sheet about the research was provided and the researcher also talked
this through with each participant. Participants also signed a consent form prior to their
interview. The interviews were carried out in a private room and in all cases the interviews
were recorded with participant consent.
During the interviews questions were asked in a semi-structured way that focussed on the
key areas of drug use and spice use in particular, but that allowed participants to expand on
answers and add ideas through open discussion. The interviews were transcribed in full.
Some potential reasons for taking spice have previously been identified and mentioned in the
literature review (Fattore & Fratta, 2011), and these were used along with practitioner
knowledge to develop an initial draft of a survey instrument. While, for the reasons previously
mentioned, this was not expected to be fully fit for purpose, the participants of the qualitative
phase were asked to pilot it and comment on its suitability to further inform the final
instrument.
The results of this phase were threefold. Firstly, the potential reasons for spice use were
extracted from the data. Secondly, the pilot survey comments were collated and, thirdly, the
qualitative results were treated as an independent source of relevant data. The first and
second of these will be explored in this chapter as these results formed part of the
19
methodology rather than data intended to answer the research questions. The exploration of
the data in its own right is presented in the results chapter.
3.4 Development of the Survey Instrument
As previously mentioned an initial draft instrument was piloted on the qualitative interview
participants. It included general demographic questions (age and ethnicity) as well as some
background questions on the use of drugs in general, both inside and outside of prison. For
those who reported using spice in prison it explored the importance of a number of factors
(which were developed from the theoretical/hypothetical reasons previously mentioned),
before asking the respondent to identify the single most important factor in choosing to use
spice.
Final questions asked for the respondent’s views on the safety of spice and whether they
would still have chosen to use spice had they not been in prison. This section was designed to
allow for comparison with some existing findings with regards to views on safety from
research of the general population. (Fattore & Fratta, 2011, Vandrey et al, 2012) It also
explored the effect that imprisonment was having on drug use decisions. In the draft survey,
the question that asked about the relative importance of the reasons for using spice presented
them in a table format Likert scale format with the reasons along one axis and relative
importance along the other. Respondents were expected to tick the corresponding box. All
four pilot participants experienced difficulty in understanding this concept. Other than this
point, and the fact that it missed some variables (see below), all four found the survey
straightforward.
From the qualitative phase, three potential reasons for spice use were identified that had not
been considered and included in the draft survey. The first was that it was addictive (this may
20
seem an obvious point, but it had been missed). The second was that spice may be used to
make time pass quicker. Reflection on this concept led to the work of Cope (2003), which is
mentioned in the literature review. Finally, spice was considered to be attractive, compared to
other drugs, as it does not have a strong smell (and is therefore less likely to attract the
attention of prison staff).
The most fundamental question in the survey was the one that asked the relative importance
of each reason for using spice in prison. The three new reasons were added to this question.
Consideration was given to asking this question of all respondents, regardless of whether they
reported using spice or not by asking why ‘prisoners choose to use spice’. This would allow
for subsequent analysis that differentiated between users opinions on why prisoners used
spice as opposed to non-users. The rationale here was that the views of other non-user
prisoners may be well-informed and constitute valuable data. However the data collected
from users would be less credible than if a purer “why do you choose to use spice” question
was asked (including both questions and asking participants to answer one only was
considered too complex). Ultimately the latter “why do you choose to use spice” question was
included and non-users asked to skip to the next section. In response to the pilot feedback, the
structure of the question was changed to remove the table format and present each reason as
a statement (eg I used spice because it is relaxing) with a five point Likert scale next to each.
This question allowed for the relative importance of each reason for spice use to be
determined, but it also allowed for multiple results to be given the same weight. For example,
if the majority feel that the ‘legal’ and ‘cheap’ factors were very important, it may mask the
fact that almost all feel that ‘legal’ is the most important. As a result a second question
presented the reasons again and asked respondents to pick the most important. This second
question was asked of all respondents in the less pure “what is the most important reason for
prisoners using spice”. This allowed for non-users views to be collected, with the assumption
21
that users will give the reason most important to them unless they have good grounds to
think there is a stronger one that applies to ‘prisoners’ in general (in such cases it is argued
this view would likely be well informed).
The section of the survey that focused on safety was also refined. Questions were added to ask
for views on safety comparing spice to heroin and cannabis and also asking respondents for
views on its addictiveness. The qualitative phase revealed prisoners using the term ‘rice
attack’ (rice being an alternative word for spice) to describe having fits and/or loss of
consciousness following spice use. Questions were added that asked whether respondents
were familiar with this term and whether they had witnessed anyone suffer a ‘rice attack’. A
free text box asking if there was anything else respondents would like to say was added at the
end of the survey. Finally a question was added to the general information section asking
about offence type to allow for any correlation between spice use and offence types to be
considered.
3.5 Phase 2 –Survey
The quantitative phase survey was conducted in classrooms and activity areas within the
prison. The survey was distributed to prisoners by teachers/instructors who had been given a
briefing on the research method and aims. This allowed for groups of prisoners to be
addressed in person and given an explanation of what the research was about before asking
for their assistance in completing the survey, help was available from teachers for those who
needed literacy support.
Consideration had been given to seeking a wider sample size, distributing the survey to all
prisoners in the establishment and asking them to return it via the internal mail (akin to a
postal survey). While this method would be less time intensive and the addressed sample
more representative of the establishment population, the expectation was that it would
22
provide a much lower response rate. (Bachman & Schutt, 2011, p238). The chosen method
should still address a broadly representative sample (classes and activities are comprise
prisoners drawn from across the population, with no significant defining characteristics), but
with a much higher response rate (as surveys would be issued in a class setting, with
encouragement to participate and no other concurrent activities to distract participants from
doing so). While both may have provided a similar volume of data, the data from a high
response from a broadly representative method is preferable to a low response from a truly
representative sample. To quote Black (1999:134) “to justify external validity, there will be a
need to counter criticism of non-responses by providing evidence that any non-response has
nothing to do with the research or the instruments”. Given that the subject matter of this
research is a sensitive topic, it is possible that a low response rate would skew the data
significantly (see also Fowler, 2002, Chapter 3). This is why an approach that sought to
maximise the response rate was chosen.
The survey included an information sheet that explained the purpose of the research and that
participation was entirely voluntary. It also provided assurance that the survey was
anonymous and re-assurance on this point was provided by teachers. Despite this, there were
occasions where prisoners voiced concerns that the aim was to identify them via DNA or
finger prints on the surveys and they discouraged others in the class from participating. There
were other prisoners who perceived participation as ‘grassing’ (informing on others) and they
discouraged others too. The influence that such prisoners could exert on their class was found
to be substantial. The survey was made available to approximately 130 prisoners and 67
responses were secured. It was originally hoped that 100 responses would be secured.
Because of this a decision was taken to approach other prisoners outside the classroom
setting who were employed as cleaners and ask them to complete the survey. This group of
prisoners were deemed similarly representative of the population. 34 further responses were
23
secured for a total of 101. To test validity of the sample the two batches were compared to
one another with regard to the numbers of respondents reporting spice use in prison, spice
use in the research prison and current spice use. There was not a significant difference
between the batches.
3.6 Data Analysis
As previously mentioned, the qualitative interview data was analysed to identify any potential
reasons for choosing to use spice and to ensure that these were included in the survey
instrument. The data that was collected by the survey comprised a variety of data types,
including nominal, ordinal and scale data. Some of this data was meaningful when simply
presented as raw percentages and is presented as such in the results section. The data was
also analysed using the SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) software.
Qualitative interview data is also presented in the form of narratives or stories that afford the
opportunity to understand the background and insights of some spice users. Qualitative
results are also referred to in the discussion section where they are relevant to the
quantitative results.
3.7 Other Considerations
The researcher is an operational manager in HM Prison Service, who was in the post of Head
of Residence and Services at HMP/YOI Rochester at the time of the research. The research
was undertaken at HMP/YOI Rochester and the disadvantages of carrying out research in the
prison the researcher was employed in were weighed against the benefits of doing so. The
researcher did not have the authority to authorise research at HMP Rochester - this lay with
the Governor, so there was no conflict of interest in this respect. As a senior manager in the
24
prison, the researcher was known to many of those he was seeking to interview or survey.
There was a risk that it would be difficult for prisoners to disassociate him from his usual role
and that this would make it more difficult for them to trust him. This was more applicable in
the qualitative phase, as it was mitigated in the quantitative phase by using an anonymous
survey. Despite this concern, the interviewees were very open and articulate and keen to tell
their story.
The research model required that the researcher identify and approach known or suspected
users of spice. It may not have been appropriate or permitted for the researcher to access
intelligence systems to do this and he therefore relied on his own local knowledge of
prisoners to identify potential participants for the qualitative phase (something that was best
achieved on an ad-hoc basis as opportunity arose during the researchers duties). Care was
taken to ensure that potential participants understood that there was no obligation to
participate. As the method deployed a survey in activity areas of the prison it required some
support and co-operation from staff to support the logistics of this and, while it would have
been possible to have secured this elsewhere, it was more easily secured at HMP/YOI
Rochester.
Practitioners believe that spice use is quite prevalent at HMP/YOI Rochester. This has both
positive and negative consequences for the research. On the positive side it has influenced the
decision to carry out the study at Rochester as, if this belief is substantiated by the empirical
findings, it increases the probability that the research will collect good quality data on the
reasons for spice use. However, if spice is particularly prevalent in the prison it may be
difficult to draw general conclusions on prevalence in prisons in general. This limitation is
inherent in carrying out the research in one site. Factors such as location and effectiveness of
local security and drug reduction measures may all impact on supply and demand for drugs in
25
individual prisons. By way of example, Edgar & O’Donnell (1998) found significant differences
in levels of drug use between prisons. This could only really be mitigated by carrying out
research on a larger scale, but this is not within the scope of the resources available. With this
limitation aside, the results of the research that relate to the reasons for spice use should be
generalisable to the wider population of the prison estate. The majority of the reasons being
considered are constant across establishments (with the exception of the availability of
supply). It is therefore argued that if the sample is of sufficient size it should be generalisable,
certainly to prisons with similar demographics (however it is worth noting that the sample
will necessarily exclude some key categories of prisoners, such as women for example).
Aside from the standard concerns with regards to informed consent, confidentiality and
anonymity, there is an additional ethical consideration of note. The nature of the research
meant that the data collected would ordinarily be considered security/intelligence material
and this required clarity on how it would be handled. Interview participants were advised in
writing that any information they provide about their use of controlled drugs would not be
disclosed and all such information would be kept confidential and only used in an anonymised
way. It was also made clear that if they disclosed information on crime other than drug use
then this might be disclosed. This was made explicit on the consent form that was used for the
interviews.
This consideration was not so relevant for the quantitative phase as the survey was
anonymous and did not ask questions that were likely to gather collateral information. Drug
use may also be a sensitive topic and it was possible that it might have invoked an emotive
response in participants. Information was provided in writing about avenues of support
available for drug dependence.
26
4 - QUALITATIVE RESULTS
This chapter presents the results of the qualitative interviews. Four prisoners were
interviewed and, while the primary purpose of this phase of the research was to inform the
survey instrument, the interviews did provide an interesting perspective on the spice
phenomenon as well as a source of data that was relevant in its own right.
4.1 Participants
There were four participants. Benny was in his mid-twenties. He had first used cannabis at
age 12 and had progressed to amphetamines and cocaine at 14. He later progressed to crack
and heroin. Benny gave an account of how his drug use had originally been a social activity
where the objective was to feel good and to seek the ‘high’, but that by the age of 18 he was
taking drugs alone and saw this as an escape from reality. He described his low self-esteem
and considered himself to be somewhat weak, but said that drugs made him feel stronger and
he became ‘someone who can look after themselves’:
I mean I’m not afraid of consequences, but when I am sober all I’ve got is consequences
and I don’t care, about looking like a wuss. I’ve done so many things when I’m drunk, I’ve
never been arrested sober or un-intoxicated. But yeah, so I’m two different people, Jekyll
and Hyde. But the lifestyle that I live, typical council estate, drinking and pub brawls sort
of thing, that’s the person I have to be to survive.
Benny was serving his third custodial term and believed that his drug use was a primary
factor in his offending. He said that on previous sentences he had been very successful in
27
abstaining from drugs and “coming out looking a million dollars, ready for the world, with no
habits”.
Stewart was in his late twenties. He had first used cannabis at age 11. By adulthood he was
addicted to heroin and had experience of cocaine, crack cocaine, ecstasy, and amphetamines.
Stewart described a bad upbringing and childhood that he wanted to forget as the main
reason for his use of drugs saying that drugs ‘put a little marker in your head, if you like, to
block out bad stuff and that’. Stewart said that a lack of external support combined with his
drug addiction were the principal reasons for his offending, which was mainly acquisitive
crime. He was two years into his eleventh custodial sentence and had been in a number of
prisons.
Leonard was in his mid-thirties. He had first used cannabis in his early teens and had
progressed to heroin and crack cocaine at 16. He described these as his drugs of choice
outside and recounted how he followed a cycle of addiction and crime to feed his drug use. He
had been in and out of prison since he was 15 and said that each time he came to prison he
was able to get himself off drugs, but that on release he would start using again. Leonard told
how he used drugs to take away the pain of his childhood and to forget about things. Leonard
had extensive experience with drugs including ecstasy, crack cocaine, heroin, cocaine,
Subutex, and Valium.
John was in his early twenties. He described how he had been exposed to drugs at a very
young age and recalled memories of smoking drugs with his father when he was seven or
eight years old. He described how he stopped using drugs when he started secondary school
and that he became a promising athlete before using cannabis at the end of secondary school.
He said ‘gradually, over time like, it lured me in and yeah it’s taken everything away, messing
28
everything up’. John described how he then experimented with most drugs, but always
avoided heroin and crack cocaine as he had seen the harmful effects of these drugs during his
childhood. He described his reason for drug use in general was that it made him ‘feel a little bit
different for a period of time. That difference makes you feel, it’s just enough to break it down a
bit and just take away that reality’ However he also said that at times he took drugs as a ’social
thing’, because he was bored or because he ‘just wanted to’. John was serving his third
custodial sentence and had been seven prisons, three of them on this sentence.
4.2 First experiences of spice
Participants were asked about when they had first come into contact with spice. Despite his
extensive history of drug use, Benny said that had not even heard of spice until he was in
prison on his current sentence. He had some personal issues that were upsetting him and was
in “self-destruct mode” and felt “it don’t show on your MDT, who is going to know, I can afford
this time”.
Stewart had first tried spice at Rochester. Although he had heard of it before, he had been
dissuaded from using it by its legal status:
It just didn’t really appeal to me because I didn’t think it would do nothing to you because
if they are selling it in shops and stuff then surely there’s got to be someway its ok. Like,
coz, I didn’t really think, like it would do much to you, so it didn’t really appeal to me. It
would just be safety cannabis in a way.
Describing his first use of spice, Stewart said it was ‘just there’ and he was offered a free go
and as it is not detected on drug tests he felt there was no reason not to try it.
29
Like Benny, Leonard had also not even heard of spice until he was in prison on his current
sentence where he encountered it at HMP Guys Marsh. He initially took it out of curiosity but
reported an unpleasant initial experience, saying ‘it sent my head do-lally to be honest with
you’.
John had been at Rochester for a couple of years and first came across spice there. He also
reported an initial curiosity being behind his first use.
4.3 Effects of spice
Describing the effects of spice, Benny reported an initial effect of heart racing (tachycardia is a
commonly reported side effect of spice use) and a sense of paranoia, both of which he
described as unpleasant. He described the effects as very intense with a very quick onset.
While the paranoia remained, the other effects would mellow and begin to feel similar to
being ‘stoned’ on cannabis. He also described a sense of losing time:
It’s amazing how quick the time passes when you’re on it. You could have a spliff and all
of a sudden it’s the next morning you’re getting up again
Stewart explained that when he first used spice it had made him paranoid and that ‘it very
nearly drove me insane’. However, he explained that he quickly built a tolerance to the
paranoia effect, but that this tolerance meant the effects only lasted 20 minutes before you
needed to ‘top up’, as opposed to 45 minutes when he first started using it. Stewart also
reported other side-effects such as coughing up blood, memory loss and indigestion. He also
reported occasions where he had been rendered unconscious and that on one of these he had
30
been taken to hospital by ambulance. He explained that, on this occasion, he had taken spice
through a pipe, as he did not have access to tobacco and his next recollection was coming
round in hospital. He explained that this was what prisoners referred to as a ‘rice attack’,
albeit a particularly bad one. He explained that such episodes are fairly common and that he
had experienced a few personally. Stuart explained that these ‘rice attacks’ usually consisted
of fainting and sometimes convulsions, but that that they usually passed in a minute or so.
Stewart also explained that there were positive effects from spice use, including a mellow
feeling and increased sociability.
Despite an initial bad experience, Leonard smoked spice on two other occasions. He described
one of these experiences as follows:
When I’ve smoked spice, it makes my head think silly things. It’s a very weird drug, it can
make you paranoid. I’ve had it before and I’ve laid in the bed and I’m thinking I’m going
to have a heart attack, thinking I can’t breathe and things like that. People think it is a
good thing that you’re smoking it all the time, but I think it’s very dangerous.
Leonard also described how he witnessed a friend using spice:
I got a good friend on another wing and he was smoking it all the time and I’ve walked
into his cell when he has been in there with three, four people and they’re all smoking it
and I’ve looked at them all. He couldn’t even look at me, coz he’s that out of his face and
he is, like, as white a ghost. I’ve just looked at them all in the cell and I’ve just shook my
head at them and thought do you know what, I can’t be doing with all that and just
walked off.
31
John gave a vivid account of the effects of spice use and also described how they can be quite
variable:
The first two minutes can be really intense, but the thing is with spice, there are loads of
different brands but even if you have that one type of spice every time that you smoke, a
joint can just have different effects, do you know what I’m saying? Every time you smoke
a joint it’s getting you high like a way that you have never been high before. When you
smoke it there’s always like that thing that you’re thinking about ‘right, how is this one
going to hit me’, they are all different when you smoke it. It’s always as intense but
they’re different. They do hit you differently. Some of them it’s like an electronic buzz you
can literally feel it in your body like. You can’t move, sometimes it’s like something is
trying to come out of you and you can’t control it, like you literally have no control over
your body. I had a couple a dreg of a little one like, I think.
John was able to give a very vivid account of a bad experience he had using spice:
I had a couple a drags one called Exodus and one called Pandora’s Box but I only had one
tobacco, just one roll up. Normally the amount of spice that I had two drags probably
about, I don’t know 0.1 or 2 grams because it’s really light stuff. But I mixed them both
together with one roll up and I smoked it and then I turned over to go to sleep, but what
must have happened is I must have got up and then looked in the mirror but then I
subconsciously woke up. So when I woke up I woke up looking in the mirror and straight
away as soon as I woke up its like I went crazy, I went mad. I started screaming and
shouting because for the first couple of seconds I didn’t understand why I woke up looking
in the mirror. I didn’t know that I fell asleep it’s only later on when I found out. As soon as
32
I looked in the mirror, I woke up looking in the mirror, I started having black outs and I
was just waking up in different parts of the cell and before I could scream and shout bang
I was gone again. It felt like I was gone for hours, felt like I was missing for hours, I didn’t
know where I was. It’s quite scary and I ended up banging on the wall. I was calling my
next door and I was telling him to press the bell for me because I couldn’t, I couldn’t do
nothing. He managed to do it and I got up and I was like looking in the mirror and I
thought it was someone else. I didn’t know it was me, I thought it was someone else and
it just, it proper messed with my head and I was thinking to myself like I’m going get
sectioned. I didn’t think I was coming back, I was thinking wow this is it, I’m gonna die in
a prison cell. I was just lost and I just forgot who I was and I was scared, I knew the
people around me and I think where I was in the cell I was just closed in like it was just
too much, it was way too much. It felt like an out of body experience but I was awake. It
was really scary you know, for me, I don’t remember the last time I cried apart from when
my mum passed away last Christmas, before then I hadn’t cried in about four or five
years, so I’m quite a strong guy like, it takes a lot to break me, always been very mental
strong through things that I’ve seen. But this one episode it was too much, way too much
like literally didn’t know who I was, didn’t think I was coming back. I’m not the only
person that has felt like that, loads of people always feel like it but the craziest thing
about this spice thing is. It doesn’t stop you from doing it. It just don’t stop you, don’t
matter how bad it can be.
4.4 Reasons for use:
When talking about their reasons for using spice, some common themes emerged.
Benny considered the risk of Mandatory Drug Testing a big deterrent that supported his
previous abstinence from drugs in custody. He cited the fact that spice is not detected by MDT
33
and that it is cheap as his main motivations for using it. Stewart reinforced the importance of
MDT in the decision making process of others: ‘they say spice on this hand, no drug test, no
worries, or weed stinking out the whole landing and MDT in the morning and then extra days.
You’re gonna choose the spice init, so that‘s why people do it.’ Referring to his own use of spice,
Leonard thought that curiosity and peer pressure had been his key motivators, but felt that
for others, ease of purchase, low cost and lack of detection by mandatory drug testing would
be the main reasons for use. John also agreed that lack of detection on MDT had been a factor
in his decision to use it.
Stewart had used spice over a protracted period and explained how it made time go quicker.
‘That’s why I have smoked it for as long as I have, because literally, I don’t even know where my
sentence has gone.’ He said that this was a reason that a lot of prisoners took spice to ‘make
their time hurry up so they don’t notice it’. He said ‘time stays the same, the clock ticks the same,
when you are on that stuff it feels like it don’t, it just jumps and another hours gone and another
hours gone and even in your cell you’d smoke it till you go to sleep and then you wake up and
‘where was yesterday?’’. This concept of time compression was also reported by John who
explained that he chose to use spice as it was as a ‘bird killer’, that is that it made his prison
sentence pass quickly.
Stewart also described the appeal of having something illicit that the authorities could not
stop: ‘it’s basically laughing at the govs [Officers], like they can’t control it, they can’t smell it, so
it’s your own and no-one can take it away from you. It’s something that you have bought, you
possess, its wrong, but nothing in a way can be done about it’. With regards to the availability of
spice he said ‘It’s one of the easiest things to get, it’s easier than a burn to get in here, it’s
literally easier than a roll up’.
34
4.5 Addiction and Debt
Benny explained that, following his initial experiences with spice, he subsequently developed
an addiction to spice:
Once you are stoned you kind of… all you want is more and more. When you feel it
wearing off and you know it’s come to the end you just want to smoke more, you want to
permanently stay under that effect. In terms of drugs, I found it was as addictive as crack
cocaine, which is a very powerful drug for addiction. Because there is a real high, but
then as it starts wearing out you got the come down effect of it, which I believe spice has.
Once you are stoned and you want to remain stoned, you kind of go to any length to get it,
whether you have to steal someone’s tobacco to swap it and it has that sort of impact, you
just want to be stoned, stoned again.”
Benny stated that he had developed some tolerance to spice and needed increasing amounts
to sustain his habit. His addiction also led to him building up considerable debt.
Benny also explained how spice had changed the drug trade in prison: Spice was very easily
available and he had heard that this was the case in other prisons: ‘Its spread rapidly, it’s sort
of like a plague now amongst the prisons’. He explained that in the past ‘you’ve got to know the
people and they’ve got to trust you to get a drug’ whereas now everyone’s got it. Before, there
used to be just one or two people on the wing that had access to drugs, now everyone’s got it and
everyone’s buying bits off each other, big bits like grams and selling on bits to everyone else so
they are all competing against each other’.
35
Stewart had also become addicted to spice. He said ‘If you smoke it for a week, you won’t know
where the weeks gone, then when you haven’t got it it’s like the end of the world’. He considered
it more addictive than heroin and crack cocaine. He was held in the segregation unit for a
period, during which he had no access to spice. His description of this time was as follows:
It felt like a week of it being a hard rattle1, like really hard. I’ve done a rattle off
methadone so I know what a rattle’s like but it felt similar, like, if you know what I’m
saying. It felt really similar to it and I was just like sweating up in a cell and everything.
Stewart explained that the addictiveness of spice caused many people to get into debt. He said
that prisoners would often run up debts they had no capacity to pay, knowing they would be
assaulted as a result, but would still do it anyway as being assaulted was better than not
having the drug. He explained that spice was now the main currency in prison, and that he had
been able to maintain his habit as he had been paid in spice to hold contraband mobile
phones, with bonus payments being made if the phone was found by staff and he ‘took the
rap’ for it. He explained that he was paid £20 worth of spice a night under this arrangement,
but that dealers would have paid £3 for this outside.
Leonard did not use spice more than a few times as he felt vulnerable when using it,
describing how he had a history of self-harm and said ‘I’m a paranoid person anyway and I
think that on top with me could be a dangerous thing, I could end up doing something stupid and
there’s not coming back from that.’ While Leonard was able to avoid addiction to spice, he said
that he had seen people he knew very well get addicted to it and into a lot of debt.
1
‘Rattle’ is a slang term for the effects of withdrawal from a drug
36
Leonard said that spice was in all prisons and said ‘the main thing in prison now is spice. It used
to be heroin and things like that or cannabis, but these last two years spice is running the jails’
Speaking of the harm that spice caused in prisons he said:
If spice was to stop in the prisons, you’d see a lot less people behind the door for debt, a lot
less people going to Seg I suppose, a lot less violence you know what I mean. I think spice
is causing a lot of problems in prison these days
Talking of the cost of spice, John said that £20 would buy you 4 joints in prison, which he
considered to be between 5 and 10 times the outside purchase price. He described spice as
very addictive and explained how people would go to differing lengths to obtain it as a result:
There’s people that haven’t got a lot of money and so they have to pay for it through
canteen, there’s people that can pay for it through bank accounts or there’s people that
have to steal to pay it, there’s people that have no money. Loads of people on it, but
you just have to go different ways of about getting it d’you know what I’m saying?
He also described occasions where those who had no means to pay were offered spice for free
if they were able to smoke it all at once through a ‘bong’ or ‘pipe’ - doing so would be highly
likely to produce adverse effects known as a ‘rice attack’ for the amusement of those
supplying the drug.
37
4.6 Awareness of risks
Although they had limited awareness of what spice actually was and how it was
manufactured, the participants had a fairly good understanding of some of the risks
associated with its use. Benny considered spice to be very dangerous saying:
I mean it’s just as risky as sharing a needle really, coz it can be a bad batch. No one
actually knows what’s going into this. You just see round the wings, so many random
people who have been smoking it still coming up with seizures. I know there is a couple of
cases where people have lost their mind over the stuff. It’s a risky drug and where it’s
legal, and it’s so much cheaper than cannabis.
Benny knew little about how spice was made. He was aware that it was a herbal substance
sprayed with a chemical, but had heard that it included fish tranquilizer resulting in a
nickname of ‘fish food’ (interestingly while spice is often sold under the pretext of being a pot
pourri, some other psychoactive substances are sold under the pretext of being fish food)
Benny explained that seizures relating to spice use were so common that the term ‘rice attack’
was used amongst prisoners to describe them (rice is another street name for spice). He also
explained that smoking spice in a pipe rather than a cigarette increased the risk of a ‘rice
attack’ as the amount required to ensure ignition was more than a safe quantity. As a result,
the preference was to smoke spice in a cigarette, but prisoners would risk the use of pipes
when tobacco was scarce on the wing.
38
Stewart also did not know how spice was manufactured. He had heard it was used to
tranquilize fish so that they are comfortable when transported by air. He felt more
information was needed about it, as while he now understood the risks inherent in spice use,
he did not when he first tried it.
Leonard thought that spice was a very dangerous and claimed that he knew someone in
another prison who had died from a heart attack after using it. He was particularly concerned
for those with mental health problems:
People like me with mental health problems and other mental health people, if they are
smoking spice it is not a good thing. They could do something, seriously and by the time
staff realize what’s going on, it’s game over
John also had no knowledge of how spice was manufactured or what it contained, but agreed
that it was an unsafe drug. He described it as “Not safe at all, simply for the fact that as soon as
you smoke it you don’t know how you’re going to react… it’s definitely more dangerous than
cannabis because of how addictive it is and the chemicals that are obviously in it and what it
does to you mentally. Yeah I think it is a dangerous drug, a very dangerous drug.”
4.7 The impact of being in custody
Exploring the significance of being in custody on drug use choices, Benny stated that he would
probably not have chosen to use spice had he not been in prison and that if he returned to
drug use in the community he would probably use cannabis or cocaine. However, he did
explain that his time on license might be difficult:
39
I mean I’ve got this issue now that I’m going to approved premises where I am going to
get drug tested and alcohol tested every day on entry. So I can’t do anything illegal but
spice isn’t illegal, they can’t stop me from smoking spice if I wanted to go out and smoke
spice, legally I can, they can not stop me because it’s not illegal. I was speaking to
someone in the exercise yard explaining that I was going to this approved premises. Not
even knowing whether I took drugs or not his first thing was ‘oh there’s a spice man,
there’s a shop and next door to him the guy in there sells all the spice there’, so you can
get it straight away. So it’s everywhere, it’s taken over everywhere, it’s not just in prisons
now.
Stewart said that he thought that he would probably have tried spice if he had not been in
custody as he was inquisitive, but also said ‘But I don’t think I would have got on it like I did in
here. I probably wouldn’t have liked it and that would have been enough to suppress it’
When asked if he would use it outside of prison, Leonard said ”No way, not a chance, because if
I done that outside and it made my head go the way it did in prison, there’s no body there staff
wise to do something like in prison to support you and to stop what is going to happen. Outside I
wouldn’t have that support, so it could be a dangerous thing”
John also stated that he definitely would not use spice outside, stating his experiences in with
it in prison would dissuade him. He stated that he was glad he had tried it in prison rather
than the community where he could just buy it in a shop (making it harder to avoid
addiction).
40
5 – QUANTITATIVE RESULTS
This chapter details the results of the quantitative survey phase of the research. 101 survey
responses were collected.
5.1 Section 1 – General Information
Section 1 of the survey asked for general demographic information about age, ethnicity and
offence type. Respondents ranged in age from 18 to 59 years, with a mean age of 32. The
ethnic breakdown of the respondents was 72% White, 6% Asian or Asian British, 12% Black,
Black Caribbean, Black African or Black British, 4% other ethnicity and 6% with mixed or
multiple ethnicity. 30% were convicted of violent offences, 21% robbery offences, 26% drug
offences, 5% motoring offences, 9% acquisitive offences and 16% for other offences.
5.2 Section 2 – Drug Use
Section 2 of the survey asked questions about the respondent’s drug use history, focussing on
the use of Class A drugs, Cannabis and Spice. Respondents were asked whether they had ever
taken any of these types of drugs, whether they had taken any of them in prison, if they taken
any of them in their current prison and whether they currently used any of them. In addition,
they were asked if they were aware of the presence of spice in the research prison, how easy
it was for prisoners to buy spice in the research prison and how expensive it was in
comparison to cannabis.
With regards to Class A drugs, 34% reported that they used at some point, 19% reported they
had used in prison, 9% reported they had used in the research prison and none reported
41
being a current user. With regards to cannabis, 65% reported that they used at some point,
35% reported they had used in prison, 22% reported they had used in the research prison
and 7% reported being a current user. With regards to spice, 43% reported that they used at
some point, 39% reported they had used in prison, 32% reported they had used in the
research prison and 22% reported being a current user.
94% of respondents reported being aware of the presence of spice in the research prison.
44% reported it was ‘very easy’ and 20% ‘fairly easy’ to buy spice in the research prison as
opposed to 2% reporting it was ‘fairly hard’ and 2% ‘very hard’. 33% reported not knowing.
Limiting analysis of this question to the 32 respondents who had actually reported using spice
in the research prison found 66% reporting it was ‘very easy’ and 22% ‘fairly easy’ as opposed
to 3% reporting it was ‘fairly hard’ and 3% ‘very hard’. 6% reported not knowing.
Exploring the cost of spice compared to cannabis found 16% reporting spice was ‘much
cheaper’ and 8% ‘a bit cheaper’ than cannabis. 26% reported they cost about the same, 2%
reported spice as ‘a bit more expensive’ and 3% ‘much more expensive’ than cannabis.
Disregarding the 46% that reported ‘not knowing’ revealed that 29% reported spice as ‘much
cheaper’, 15% ‘a bit cheaper’, 47% ‘about the same’, 4% ‘a bit more expensive’ and 5% ‘much
more expensive’ than cannabis.
Limiting analysis to those who had reported using spice in prison and who did not report ‘not
knowing’ revealed that 25% reported spice as ‘much cheaper’, 9% ‘a bit cheaper’, 50% ‘about
the same’, 6% ‘a bit more expensive’ and 9% ‘much more expensive’ than cannabis.
5.3 Section 3 – Using Spice in Prisons
Section 3 of the survey presented respondents with a number of potential reasons for spice
42
use and asked them to indicate how important the reason was in their decision to use spice in
prison. Each reason was presented with a 5 point Likert scale with ‘Strongly Agree’ ‘Agree’
‘Neither Agree or Disagree’, ‘Disagree’ and ‘Strongly Disagree’ as the available options. A
further question asked respondents if they thought they would have used spice if they had not
been in prison. The permitted responses were ‘Yes I would have used it outside’, ‘ No, I would
have used another drug’, ‘No, I would not have used anything’ and ‘I don’t know’. The
questions in this section were only asked of those who had indicated that they had used spice
in prison (39 respondents).
The following table shows the extent to which respondents that had used spice in prison
agreed with the listed statements (invalid or incomplete answers excluded).
Table 1 – Participants reasons for spice use (n=39)
Reason for spice use
Strongly
Agree
%
I used spice because I was curious
15.4
I used spice because the effects are 10.3
pleasant.
I used spice because the effects are 7.5
better than other drugs.
I used spice because it is relaxing.
17.5
I used spice because it makes time go 27.5
more quickly.
I used spice because it is safer than 0
other drugs.
I used spice because I was addicted to 2.5
it.
I used spice because it was cheaper 10
than other drugs.
I used spice because it was legal 12.5
outside.
I used spice because it is easier to get 12.5
hold of than other drugs.
I used spice because it does not smell. 7.7
I used spice because it is not detected 28.2
by MDT testing.
Agree
%
Neither
%
59
48.7
7.7
15.4
Disagree Strongly
%
Disagree
%
15.4
2.6
12.8
12.8
30
25
22.5
15
50
47.5
12.5
12.5
10
7.5
10
5
2.6
51.3
23.1
23.1
17.5
17.5
25
37.5
10
40
27.5
12.5
30
22.5
22.5
12.5
40
20
15
12.5
25.6
25.6
20.5
20.5
23.1
12.8
23.1
12.8
Of prisoners who had used spice in prison, 21% stated that they would still have used spice
outside. 39% stated that they would have used an alternative drug. 23% stated that they
43
would not have used anything and 18% reported not knowing.
5.4 Section 4 – About Spice
This section of the survey asked respondents for their views on spice, with a particular focus
on safety. Initially they were asked what the single one most important reason for spice use
was (the same reasons as section 3 were presented, but only one answer was permitted. In
addition the answers ‘other’ and ‘don’t know’ were added). The questions in this section were
asked of all respondents, regardless of whether they had used spice in prison.
Respondents were then asked what they thought spice was with the options ‘a natural herbal
substance’, ‘a herbal substance sprayed with chemicals’ (the correct answer), ‘something else’
and ‘don’t know’. They were then asked if they thought that being legal outside prison meant
that spice was safer than controlled drugs, with ‘yes’, ‘no’ and ‘don’t know’ permitted. They
were then asked how safe they thought spice was when compared to both heroin and
cannabis, with ‘safer’, ‘same’, ‘more dangerous’ and ‘don’t know’ options. The next question
asked respondents how addictive they thought spice was. ‘very’, ‘fairly’, ‘slightly’ and ‘not’
addictive options were allowed as was ‘don’t know’. Finally, respondents were asked if they
had heard the term ‘rice attack’ to describe someone fitting or passing out through spice use
and whether they had witnessed anyone do so. ‘yes’, ‘no’ and ‘don’t know’ answers were
permitted.
59 of all respondents gave a valid reason as the most important reason for prisoners using
spice (23 did not know and 19 failed to answer the question correctly). 27 of the 39 who had
reported using spice in prison gave a valid reason (5 did not know and 7 failed to answer the
question correctly). The results are shown in the following table.
44
Table 2 – Most important reason for spice use (n=59)
Most important reason for
prisoners using spice
Curiosity.
Pleasant effects.
All respondents %
6.8
Respondents that have
used spice in prison %
3.7
8.5
3.7
0
0
15.3
22.2
Makes time pass quicker.
22
37
Safer.
0
0
Cheaper.
0
0
Legal outside.
0
0
10.2
7.4
0
0
Not detected by MDT.
32.3
22.2
Other.
5.1
3.7
Better than other drugs.
Relaxing.
Easier to get hold of.
Does not smell.
Respondents’ views on what sort of substance spice is are reflected in the following table. The
results are shown for all respondents and separately for those who have reported having used
spice before.
45
Table 3 – Participants understanding of the physical nature of spice.
What sort of substance do
you think spice is?
A natural herbal substance
All respondents %
1
Respondents that have
used spice before %
2.4
A herbal substance sprayed
with chemicals
Something else
48
71.4
20.4
14.3
Don’t know
30.6
11.9
Respondents were asked if they thought that being legal outside meant spice was safer than
controlled drugs. Responses are shown in the following table.
Table 4 – Participants views on whether legality is indicative of safety
Do you think that being
legal outside means that
spice is safer than other
drugs?
Yes
All respondents %
Respondents that have
used spice before %
8.2
4.9
No
63.9
70.7
Don’t know
27.8
24.4
The next two questions asked respondents how safe they thought spice use was in
comparison to cannabis use and heroin use. The results are shown in the following tables,
again broken down between all respondents and those that have used spice before.
46
Table 5 – Participants views on relative safety of spice use compared to cannabis
Compared to using
cannabis, how safe do you
think using spice is?
Spice is safer than cannabis
All respondents %
Respondents that have
used spice before %
1
2.4
The risk is the same
13.3
19
Spice is more dangerous than
cannabis
Don’t know
55.1
59.5
30.6
19
Table 6 – Participants views on relative safety of spice use compared to heroin
Compared to using heroin,
All respondents %
how safe do you think using
spice is?
Spice is safer than heroin
16.3
Respondents that have
used spice before %
The risk is the same
26.5
35.7
Spice is more dangerous than
heroin
Don’t know
11.2
14.3
45.9
23.8
26.2
The next question asked how addictive respondents thought spice was. Again results are split
between all respondents and those that have used spice before.
Table 7 – Participants views on the addictiveness of spice
How addictive do you think
spice is?
Very Addictive
All respondents %
28.9
Respondents that have
used spice before %
33.3
Fairly Addictive
20.6
23.8
Slightly Addictive
9.3
19
Not Addictive
9.3
9.5
Don’t know
32
14.3
47
The qualitative phase of the research identified the term ‘rice attack’ being used as a new
slang term to refer to fitting or episodes of unconsciousness resulting from spice use.
Respondents were asked they had heard of the term ‘rice attack’ and if they had seen
witnessed somebody suffer from one. 88% of all respondents stated that they had heard of
the term and 58.2% stated that they had witnessed a ‘rice attack’. Examining the responses of
those who had reported using spice in prison found 97% reporting they had heard the term
and 76% reporting having witnessed a ‘rice attack’.
5.5 Additional Comments
A free text box was included in the survey asking ‘Is there anything else you wish to say about
spice use in prison?” The majority of respondents who chose to add a comment held a
negative view of spice as these quotes reflect:
“Don’t do it. It’s not worth doing, people die from it I heard its poison and not worth messing
yourself up or losing your life”
“Prison service has no idea how to stop this problem”
“I don’t see how people can smoke spice in prison”
“I have never taken drugs and don’t agree with them at all. Since I've been in prison I now know
how to grow it, cultivate it, cut and sell it. Never seen so much drugs in one place. Constantly
hear of prisoners having rice attacks. Disgusting. Need to sort it out (security that are in
charge)”
48
“Whoever made the stuff should be put in prison and made to see the effects it has on the people
who take it.”
“Those who use spice, or other drugs, should be segregated to a specific wing to help tackle the
problem. It will make it harder to supply them and they can be monitored.”
“My knowledge of spice is that in prisons worldwide it’s an epidemic”
“It’s out of control and more studies need to be carried out. People need to know the effects it has
on prisoners and people in general, prisoners get very addicted very quickly and into debt”
“Its killing people, get rid ASAP”
“It’s very dangerous, don’t take it”
“It causes untold trouble”
“Its an epidemic!”
“People don’t know the long term effects they think it kills time and makes you relaxed. You can
take it and have a rice attack. It shouldn't be legal as it is dangerous.”
“It’s out of control and something needs to done about it”
“It is obvious to staff when people are under the influence of spice but nothing is done about it. It
should be dealt with more seriously.”
49
“I've witnessed persons suffer psychosis from short term use and hallucination. This drug is
dangerous and a serious problem.”
“Spice causes a lot of problems in a prison.”
“It’s a madness!”
“Start testing for it.”
“Spice has people in a headlock”
“I am appalled at the proliferation of spice in prison and would like to see this, as well as all
other substance abuse, eradicated in prison. Achieving this will have a direct correlation with
violence reduction in prisons.”
Some respondents were positive about spice as reflected in the following quotes:
“Put it in the canteen”
“It is an ideal prison drug because it can’t be detected, doesn’t smell and passes the time.
Downside - it makes you very lazy. I couldn't smoke it outside coz I would get nothing done”
“Spice is banging”
50
“Spice is probably a substitute for other drugs to pass the time quicker and make people more
relaxed.”
“Spice is OK and it chills the prisoners out”
“It is a bird killer and passes time by. It helps relieve stress and anxiety and give you good
dreams. Spice makes your imagination beyond fantasy levels.”
“Spice makes you chill out and forget about life. I use my imagination and get a quick release
from smoking spice”
6 - DISCUSSION
51
This chapter presents discussion on the research findings, arranged thematically around the
research questions. As each topic is examined, any findings from the qualitative phase of the
research are introduced.
6.1 To what extent is spice prevalent in prisons?
As explained in the methods chapter, a key limitation of this research is that its scope was
limited to one prison. It was, therefore, known from the outset that, in the purest sense, the
results could only really measure prevalence of spice at the researched prison. However, as
practitioners have been reporting problems with spice in many prisons, the extent of use in
the research prison may be an interesting indicator of what the extent of the issue may be
elsewhere, even if the findings are not truly generalisable.
As reported in the quantitative results, 43% reported that they used spice at some point, 39%
reported they had used it in prison, 32% reported they had used it in the research prison and
22% reported being a current user. It is important to note that this is the percentage that have
admitted use. Even though the survey was anonymous, it is likely that this figure is lower than
the true number of users. The survey also captured cannabis use in the same form. 35%
admitted cannabis use in prison, 22% in the research prison and 7% were current users
(interestingly all but one of those admitting current cannabis use also reported being a
current spice user).
The data indicates that the number of prisoners who have used spice in prison is comparable
to those that have used cannabis in prison. However, those admitting spice use at the research
prison outnumber those who have used cannabis and there are three times as many admitting
current spice use than cannabis use. This pattern would suggest that spice has become more
52
prevalent in recent times, at least at the research prison and that it is now clearly the drug of
choice. This is a significant point as previous research and literature on drugs in prison has
focussed on heroin and cannabis as the drugs of choice. Crewe (2005, 2012) explores the role
that heroin has in shaping social structure in prisons. The emergence of spice as the drug of
choice could have significant ramifications with regards to how these social structures work.
For example Crewe (2005) explains how control of heroin supply affords considerable
influence and power to those concerned with it. One of the interview participants in this
research, Benny, suggested that spice supply was more fluid and that lots of prisoners were
buying and selling spice rather than there being a couple of people who had access to it. If this
is the case, this may mean that the way power flows amongst prisoners may be shifting too.
The qualitative research also provided some results that gave some indication of the use of
spice in other prisons. One interviewee, Benny said that prisoners were arriving at Rochester
from category B prisons in possession of spice and mentioned a friend of his who was in debt
over spice in HMP Guys Marsh. He said ‘its spread rapidly, it’s sort of a plague now amongst
the prisons’. Another, Stewart, agreed that spice use was now common and had spread
through most prisons. Leonard stated that spice was now the “main thing”in prison. He stated
that it used to be heroin and things like that or cannabis, but that in the last two years, spice
had become the major commodity in jail.
Respondents were asked how easy is was to buy spice (an indicator of ease of supply). 88% of
those who had used spice in the research prison had reported it was ‘very easy’ or ‘easy’ to
buy. Both Benny and Stewart stated that the drug was easily available and abundant in supply.
6.2 Why do prisoners choose to use spice?
53
As explained in the results chapter, those that had used spice in prison were asked to rate the
importance of a number of reasons for use, by means of a Likert scale. In addition, all
respondents were asked to pick the single most important reason for use. Curiosity,
relaxation, better effects and ease of purchasing were all reasons that had similarly positive
Likert scores indicating that they had some bearing on prisoner’s choices to use spice.
However, two reasons produced more significant Likert results, these were that spice makes
time pass quicker and that it is not detected by mandatory drug testing. The question asking
for the single most important reason for spice use found relaxation, time passing quicker and
lack of detection on drug testing as the most important reasons. Interestingly, amongst those
who had used spice in prison, relaxation and lack of detection were the joint second ranking
reason given as the single most important (22%), whilst 37% cited the fact that it made time
pass quicker. These findings were in congruence with the qualitative results where 3 of the 4
interviewees also reported the phenomena of time passing quickly and all cited lack of
detection by drug testing as a principal reason for use. It would seem then that prisoner’s
motivation to use spice is being driven by qualities of the substance itself (that it has relaxing
and time dilatory effects) and by the lack of a current mechanism to detect the drug as part of
the mandatory drug testing (MDT) policy. It is, therefore, possible to conclude that the current
drug testing arrangements might be encouraging prisoners to use spice rather than other
substances such as cannabis. As there is growing evidence to suggest that spice use may carry
higher health risks, this possible undesired consequence of current policy may be of interest
to policy makers.
It is also worth discussing at this point the question of addiction. The qualitative survey
results revealed “I used spice because I was addicted to it” to be the most disagreed with
reason for spice use. Only 20% of those who had used spice in prison agreed or strongly
agreed with this, while 37.5% strongly disagreed and 25% disagreed. This result would
54
indicate that addiction was the least important reason for prisoners choosing to use spice.
There is an interesting contrast with another quantitative finding, which found that 76% of
those who had used spice before considered it addictive to some extent and 33% considered
it very addictive. All 4 interviewees in the qualitative phase of the research described spice as
very addictive and two gave candid accounts of their own addiction to spice, yet did not cite
this as the primary reason for choosing to use spice. It is worth considering the extent to
which substance users are unwilling to acknowledge addiction as a reason for their actions.
This would offer a possible explanation for the qualitative findings, but even those qualitative
interviewees, who were happy to acknowledge the extent of their addiction, did not appear to
consider it a reason for their use of spice (albeit it is acknowledged that this observation is
drawn from a limited qualitative sample size). Issues around prisoners getting into debt
through spice addiction was a theme that was evident in the qualitative results and a number
of survey respondents made comments about debt and the problems associated with it.
Although the findings appear mixed on the subject of addiction, this research does suggest
that, regardless of users perceptions of their own motivation, spice may be highly addictive
and it also suggest it results in increased levels of debt and possibly increases in associated
violence and criminality. This is congruent with practitioner perceptions of the problems
associated with spice and addiction, debt and associated criminality are likely to be a key
operational threat in prisons.
6.3 Do prisoners understand the potential risks of spice use?
As spice is a relatively new phenomena, both in custody and the community, and given the
emerging evidence of health risks associated with its use, this research aimed to measure the
extent to which prisoners are aware of the potential harm. As indicated in the qualitative
findings, prisoners were fairly well aware that spice was not a natural substance, especially
55
those who had used it. There was also a fairly strong view that spice use is more dangerous
than cannabis use and, as has just been mentioned there was a high awareness of its
addictiveness.
Of particular note, is the concept of “rice attacks” a prison slang term for convulsions, fitting
or loss of consciousness resulting from spice use. This concept emerged in the qualitative
phase and 76% of users reported having witnessed a “rice attack” in the survey phase. Much
of the literature on the health risks of spice use is focussed on potential cardiac risks or the
mental health risks such as psychosis. Practitioners are reporting increased instances of
prisoners being hospitalised following events that prisoners might call “rice attacks” similar
to events reported at HMP Dartmoor in March 2014 by the BBC (BBC, 2014). There is scant
evidence regarding these effects of spice use, despite the obvious assumption that such effects
are not limited to the custodial environment. This appears to be indicative of just how little is
known about the effects of spice and it may be that prisoners are, in some ways, more aware
of the risks than anyone. This said, there is still some evidence of misinformation. For
example, two of the interviewees in the qualitative phase thought that spice contained fish
tranquilizer (this is a belief that the researcher has heard others express as well).
6.4 Does being in prison have a bearing on the decision to use spice?
While prison is, in many ways, a microcosm of wider society, it is also a very different
environment with unique factors that may impact on the choices made by those incarcerated
therein. The apparent prevalence of spice in the research prison was much higher than in the
wider community. Although it is difficult to make direct comparisons, 43% of survey
respondents reported having used spice at some point and 22% stated they were a current
user. This contrasts with a wide scale global survey with 14996 respondents, which found
16.8% reporting ever using spice and 6.5% reporting use in the last 12 months. (Winstock &
56
Barratt, 2013). The survey asked respondents if they would still have used spice if not in
custody and only 21% reported that they would, with 39% stating they would have used
another drug and 23% stating they would not have used anything. It appears that being in
prison increases the likelihood of an individual using spice. We have already explored the
issue of drug test detection and the apparent time dilatory effects of spice use. Being in prison
does bring the risk of sanction from drug testing and may make drugs that are not detected
appealing. In addition, as others have found (Cope, 2003), time dilation is appealing to
prisoners. These factors are not normally present in the community so it does appear that the
custodial environment may indeed have a bearing on the decision to use spice (making it
more likely).
6.5 Is spice use supply or demand driven?
This research considers the reasons for spice use from the perspective of users and as such
primarily explores the factors that drive demand for the drug in prison. The scope of this
work does not include full consideration of whether any proliferation of spice in prisons is
supply or demand driven.
There are a number of reasons why spice may be an attractive drug to suppliers and
traffickers. Trafficking into prisons entails a certain amount of loss as some quantity of the
supply will be detected and seized by the authorities. As spice is relatively cheap and easy to
acquire it would lessen the impact of this attrition on the suppliers. The trafficking of drugs
into prisons is a criminal offence under the Prisons Act 1952 as amended by the Offender
Management Act 2007. However, trafficking of legally purchased spice appears not to be
included under this legislation, lessening the risk of criminal sanction upon those engaged in
its supply.
57
The research did give some consideration to the question of supply. 52.5% of survey
respondents agreed or strongly agreed that ease of acquiring spice was a reason for using it
and 7.4% of spice users considered it the most important reason. This provides some
evidence that supply is, at least to some extent, driving the use of spice. This is an important
point as any efforts that focus on reducing demand for the drug may need to be combined
with supply reduction efforts to be effective.
7 - CONCLUSIONS
58
This research aimed to examine the following questions:

To what extent is spice prevalent in prisons?’

‘Why do prisoners choose to use spice?’

‘Do prisoners understand the potential risks of spice use?’

‘Does being in prison have a bearing on the decision to use spice?
While not truly generalizable, the findings showed that spice was prevalent in the research
prison to the extent that it could probably be considered the most used illicit drug amongst
the researched population.
The fact that Mandatory Drug Testing does not currently detect it was a primary factor
driving demand for the drug, but of comparable importance was the drugs effect of making
time appear to dilate. Although users were reluctant to cite it as a reason for use, there was
evidence that spice is highly addictive and this too was likely to be driving demand. Addiction
is a particular concern in the custodial setting as it can lead to debt and associated violence
and criminality.
Prisoners did appear to be relatively well informed as to the risks of spice use, yet still chose
to use it despite the risks. The extent to which this results from a conscious calculation of the
risks and perceived benefits of use or the effect of addiction was beyond the scope of this
research.
The research provided evidence that being in custody does increase the likelihood of spice
use. Respondents indicated that they would be less likely to use the drug outside of prison.
59
This is understandable, as the most significant reasons identified for spice use were not as
applicable in the community.
The use of spice in prisons is a growing concern and, while this is becoming widely
recognised, efforts to formulate a coherent strategy are still in their infancy. An effective
strategy is likely to require a focus on efforts to reduce demand, perhaps including drug
testing for spice and work to increase awareness. There may also be potential for spice abuse
to be more fully prioritized by substance misuse services. Efforts to reduce supply will also be
paramount and there may be potential for legislative changes to have some impact here. It is
hoped that this work is at least of interest, if not practical use to those involved in this work.
8 - BIBLIOGRAPHY
60
Atwood, B., Lee, D., Straiker, A., Widlanski, T. & Mackie, K. (2011), ‘CP47,497-C8
and JWH073, commonly found in ‘Spice’ herbal blends, are potent and efficacious CB1
cannabinoid receptor agonists’ European Journal of Pharmacology, v659, pp 139-145
Bachman, R. & Schutt, R. (2007), The Practice of Research in Criminology and Criminal
Justice, Los Angeles:Sage
BBC (2014), Legal highs hospitalise Dartmoor prisoners, 25th March 2014, retrieved on
27th March from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-26729801
Black, T. (1999), Doing Quantitative Research in the Social Sciences, Los Angeles: Sage
Brandt, S., Sumnall, H., Measham, F. & Cole, J. (2010) ‘Analyses of secondgeneration 'legal highs' in the UK: initial findings.’, Drug testing and analysis, v2, pp
377-382
Cope, N. (2003) 'It's No Time or High Time': Young Offenders' Experiences of Time and Drug
Use in Prison, The Howard Journal, v42, pp 158-175
Creswell, J. (2003), Research Design, Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods
Approaches. Los Angeles: Sage
Creswell, J. & Plano Clark, V. (2007), Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods
Research, Los Angeles: Sage
Crewe, B. (2005) ‘Prisoner society in the era of hard drugs’, Punishment & Society, v7,
pp 457–481
Crewe, B. (2012), The Prisoner Society: Power, Adaptation and Social Life in an English
Prison, London: Clarendon
Dargan, P., Hudson, S., Ramsey, J. & Wood, D. (2011), ‘The impact of changes in UK
classification of the synthetic cannabinoid receptor agonists is ‘Spice’, International
Journal of Drug Policy, v22, pp 274-277
Edgar, K. & O’Donnell, I. (1998), Mandatory drug testing in prisons: The relationships
between MDT and the level and nature of drug misuse, London: Home Office
Every-Palmer, S. (2010), ‘Warning: Legal synthetic cannabinoid-receptor agonists
such as JWH-018 may precipitate psychosis in vulnerable individuals’, Addiction
v105, pp 1859–1860.
Every-Palmer, S. (2011), ‘Synthetic cannabinoid JWH-018 and psychosis: An
explorative study’, Drug and Alcohol Dependance, v117, pp 152–157.
61
Fattore, L. & Fratta, W. (2011), ‘Beyond THC: the new generation of cannabinoid
designer drugs’, Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, v5, Article 60
Fowler, F. (2002), Survey Research Methods, Los Angeles : Sage
Griffiths, P., Sedefov, R., Gallegos, A. & Lopez, D (2010), How globalization and market
innovation challenge how we think about and respond to drug use: ‘Spice’ a case study, Addiction,
v105, pp951-953
HMIP (2014), HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales, Annual Report
2013-14, London:HMIP
Huffman, J. & Padgett, L. (2005), ‘Recent Developments in the Medicinal Chemistry of
Cannabimimetic Indoles, Pyrroles and Indenes', Current Medicinal Chemistry, v12, pp
1395-1411
Hurst, D., Loeffler, G., McLay, R. (2011), ‘Psychosis Associated With Synthetic
Cannabinoid Agonists: A Case Series’, American Journal of Psychiatry, v168, pp1119.
Lapoint, J., James, L., Moran, C., Nelson, L., Hoffman, R. & Moran, J., (2011)
‘Severe Toxicity Following Synthetic Cannabinoid Ingestion’, Clinical Toxicology, v49, pp 760764
Mir, A., Obafemi, A., Young, A. & Kane, C. (2011), ‘Myocardial Infarction Associated With Use
of the Synthetic Cannabinoid K2’, Pediatrics v128 pp1622-1627
Neuman, L. & Wiegand, B. (2000), Criminal Justice Research Methods, Needham
Heights MA:Allyn & Bacon
Perrone, D., Helgesen, R. & Fischer, R. (2013), ‘United States drug prohibition and
legal highs: How drug testing may lead cannabis users to Spice’, Drugs-Education
Prevention and Policy, v20, pp216-224
Pierre, J. (2011), ‘Cannabis, synthetic cannabinoids, and psychosis risk: What the
evidence says’, Current Psychiatry, v10, pp 49-58
Preble, E. & Casey, J. (1969), ‘Taking care of business’, International Journal of the
Addictions, v4, pp1-24
Singleton, N. Pendry, E., Simpson, T., Goddard, E., Farrell, M., Marsden, J. & Taylor,
C. (2005), The impact of mandatory drug testing in prisons, London: Home Office
UNDOC - United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (2013) Global SMART Update
2013, Volume 10. New York: United Nations
UNDOC - United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (2014) 2014 Global Synthetic
Drugs Assessment, New York: United Nations
62
Vandrey, R., Dunn, K., Fry, J. & Girling, E. (2012), ‘A survey study to characterize use
of Spice products (synthetic cannabinoids)’, Drug and Alcohol Dependence, v120,
pp238-241
Wheatley, M. (2007), ‘Drugs in Prison’ in Jewkes, Y. (Ed) Handbook on Prisons, pp399422, Cullompton:Willan Publishing.
Winstock, A. & Barratt, M. (2013), ‘Synthetic cannabis: A comparison of patterns of
use and effect profile with natural cannabis in a large global sample’, Drug and Alcohol
Dependence, v131, pp106-111
Zuardi, A., Crippa, J., Hallak, J., Moreira, F. & Guimarães, F. (2006) ‘Cannabidiol, a
Cannabis sativa constituent, as an antipsychotic drug’, Brazilian Journal of Medical and
Biological Research v39, pp 421-429
‘SPICE’ SURVEY INFORMATION
The information below tells you about this survey.
63
Who is carrying out the survey? I am the Head of Residence at HMP Rochester, but I am also
currently studying for a Masters degree at the University of Cambridge and it is in this capacity, as
a student, that I am carrying out this survey.
What is this study about? As part of my studies I am looking into why some prisoners are
choosing to use ‘spice’ in custody. I have carried out a small number of interviews to get people’s
views on spice use, but would like to get the views and opinions of a larger number of people. This
is why I am asking for your help in completing this survey.
What will participation involve? Participation will involve filling in this survey. This should take
around ten minutes.
Do I have to take part in the survey? Your participation is completely voluntary. If you do not
want to take part, you do not have to, and this will not count against you in any way.
Are there any benefits in taking part? I cannot pay you for taking part in the study, but you may
feel that it is helpful to contribute to our understanding of prison life and your contribution will help
advance knowledge and may help others.
Will what I say be kept confidential? The survey does not ask for your name or other information
that could identify you, it is therefore completely anonymous and your confidentiality assured.
Will my contribution remain anonymous? Yes, there is no way for you to be identified. You do not
have to write your name anywhere on this survey.
How do I take part in the study? To take part, you just need to complete the survey that follows.
What will happen to the results of the study? Your survey may contribute to my thesis, which I
will write about the issues I am studying. The findings may also be discussed in other academic
publications written by me, and in discussions or presentations with members of the Prison Service
or the National Offender Management Service (NOMS), and other university researchers.
The study has been approved by the National Offender Management Service (NOMS) Research
Committee.
Thank you for your time in reading this information. Your contribution to this research
would be valuable and very much appreciated.
Kind Regards
Sam Baker,
MSt Student, Institute of Criminology, University of Cambridge.
Section 1 - General Information
This information helps to identify trends, but cannot be used to identify you personally - this survey
is anonymous.
How old are you?
_________Years
What is your ethnicity?
 White
Caribbean / British
 Other Ethnic Group
 Asian / Asian British
 Black African /
 Mixed / Multiple Ethnicity
What offence type(s) are you currently serving a sentence for?
(Tick all that apply)
 Sexual Offences
 Acquisitive Offences (eg theft)
 Other Offences
 Violent Offences
 Drug Offences
64
 Robbery
 Motoring Offences
Section 2 - Use of Drugs
This section asks about your experience with drugs
Have you ever used any of the following drugs?
 Class A Drugs (eg Heroin, Crack)
cannabinoids)
 None of these
 Cannabis
 Spice (synthetic
Have you ever used any of the following drugs in prison?
 Class A Drugs (eg Heroin, Crack)
cannabinoids)
 None of these
 Cannabis
 Spice (synthetic
Have you ever used any of the following drugs since arriving in this prison?
 Class A Drugs (eg Heroin, Crack)
cannabinoids)
 None of these
 Cannabis
 Spice (synthetic
Do you currently use any of the following drugs?
 Class A Drugs (eg Heroin, Crack)
cannabinoids)
 None of these
 Cannabis
 Spice (synthetic
Are you aware of there Spice being in this prison?
 Yes |  No
How easy is it for prisoners to buy Spice in this prison?
 Very Easy |  Fairly Easy |  Fairly Hard |  Very Hard|  Don’t Know
Compared to cannabis, how much does Spice cost in prison?
 Spice is much cheaper
same
 Spice is a bit more expensive
 Spice is a bit cheaper
 They cost about the
 Spice is much more expensive
 I don’t know
Section 3 – Using Spice in Prisons
If you have used spice in prison, please fill in this section
(if you have not used spice in prison, please skip to the next page)
How much do you agree with these statements?
I used spice because I was curious
 Strongly Agree |  Agree |  Neither Agree or Disagree |  Disagree|  Strongly Disagree
65
I used spice because the effects are pleasant
 Strongly Agree |  Agree |  Neither Agree or Disagree |  Disagree|  Strongly Disagree
I used spice because the effects are better than other drugs
 Strongly Agree |  Agree |  Neither Agree or Disagree |  Disagree|  Strongly Disagree
I used spice because it is relaxing
 Strongly Agree |  Agree |  Neither Agree or Disagree |  Disagree|  Strongly Disagree
I used spice because it makes time go more quickly
 Strongly Agree |  Agree |  Neither Agree or Disagree |  Disagree|  Strongly Disagree
I used spice because it is safer than other drugs
 Strongly Agree |  Agree |  Neither Agree or Disagree |  Disagree|  Strongly Disagree
I used spice because I was addicted to it
 Strongly Agree |  Agree |  Neither Agree or Disagree |  Disagree|  Strongly Disagree
I used spice because it is cheaper than other drugs
 Strongly Agree |  Agree |  Neither Agree or Disagree |  Disagree|  Strongly Disagree
I used spice because it is legal outside
 Strongly Agree |  Agree |  Neither Agree or Disagree |  Disagree|  Strongly Disagree
I used spice because it is easier to get hold of than other drugs
 Strongly Agree |  Agree |  Neither Agree or Disagree |  Disagree|  Strongly Disagree
I used spice because it does not smell
 Strongly Agree |  Agree |  Neither Agree or Disagree |  Disagree|  Strongly Disagree
I used spice because it is not detected by MDT testing
 Strongly Agree |  Agree |  Neither Agree or Disagree |  Disagree|  Strongly Disagree
Do you think that you would have used spice if you were not in prison?
 Yes I would have used it outside
 No, I would have used another drug
 No, I would not have used anything  I don’t know
Section 4 – About Spice
Of these, what is the single most important reason for prisoners using Spice?
(Tick One)
 Curiosity
drugs
 Pleasant Effects
66
 Better than other
 Relaxing
 Makes time pass quicker
 Cheaper
 Legal Outside
 Does not smell
 Not detected by MDT
 Other (Please Specify)______________________________
 Safer
 Easier to get hold of
 Don’t Know
What sort of substance do you think spice is?
 A natural herbal substance
 Don’t know
 A herbal substance sprayed with chemicals  Something else
Do you think that being legal outside means that Spice is safer than controlled drugs?
 Yes |  No |  Don’t Know
Compared to using cannabis how safe do you think using spice is?
 Spice is safer than cannabis |  The risk is the same |  Spice is more dangerous than cannabis| 
Don’t Know
Compared to using heroin how safe do you think using spice is?
 Spice is safer than heroin |  The risk is the same |  Spice is more dangerous than heroin|  Don’t
Know
How addictive do you think spice is?
 Very addictive |  Fairly addictive |  Slightly addictive|  Not addictive|  Don’t Know
Have you ever heard of the term ‘Rice Attack’ to describe someone fitting or passing out on
spice?
 Yes |  No |  Don’t Know
Have you ever seen someone suffer from a ‘Rice Attack’?
 Yes |  No |  Don’t Know
Additional Information
Thank you for your time. Is there anything else you wish to say about spice use in prison?.
67