Tolerance is not indulgence

Celebrated Beyond the Fringe sketch in the 1960s satirised the incompetence of army generals. Facing a hopeless situation, an old army type sends more and more young men into battle, explaining that "we need a futile gesture at this point".

Over the last 20 years much of government policy on drugs has had the same feel to it. From "Just say NO" in the 1980s to creating Drug Action Teams with virtually no powers in the early 1990s, futile, if well-intentioned, gestures have characterised government responses to what has seemed a hopeless cause. Happily, recent policies have been more in tune with reality. But, as a large-scale provider of supported housing that deals with clients' drugs problems every day, English Churches Housing Group is worried that we may have to fight this battle with one arm tied behind our back.

Admittedly, on the plus side, attention has moved from punishment and condemnation to prevention and treatment, and recognition that serious drug addiction needs help rather than hype. The government's updated drugs strategy, published on 3 December, marks welcome progress towards a thought-out and properly researched strategy – even if it does still show signs of being drawn up by a combination of serious policy-makers and tabloid headline writers.

No one working in the field would doubt that far and away the biggest problems are around crack cocaine and heroin. Most of the updated strategy recognises this and puts forward practical proposals to deal with it.

Making the most of these improvements depends on whether other bits of government policy deliver; most strategies are only as strong as their weakest link. Where this one looks questionable is not in its commitment to treatment – traditionally there is a depressing wait between capturing users' commitment to seek help, and its provision – but more in gaining the commitment of users to seek treatment in the first place. As supported housing providers, this is where we come in.

In order to move from a chaotic lifestyle of sleeping rough and funding a drug habit by stealing or begging, to making a commitment to treatment, detox and rehabilitation, there has to be a catalyst. For many users this is a place in a supported housing scheme, and the security and support that this provides. The structured approach of assessing and then providing for clients' needs is an essential intermediary step towards seeking a long-term solution to addiction.

This makes all the more worrying a change in the law that could seriously compromise our ability to provide that interim stabilisation phase for drug misusers.

Section 8(d) of the 1971 Misuse of Drugs Act was amended by section 38 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001. The change has yet to be enacted pending consultation on draft guidance. If enacted, though, it potentially puts question marks over our ability to work constructively with drug misusers. Existing legislation prohibits managers of premises

Clamping down on crack houses puts other care work at risk: new drugs strategies draw public attention to support that works best out of the limelight

to "knowingly permit or suffer" the use of "controlled drugs" on the premises. And the new legislation brings the 1971 law up to date by widening the definition of the "use of controlled drugs" and making it illegal to allow the "administering or using of a controlled drug which is unlawfully in any person's possession".

The accompanying guidance tries hard to offer comfort. The legislation was intended to deal with the rise of crack houses, and parliament recognises it could impinge on the legitimate harm reduction activities of those in the care sector. This is reassuring to an extent, but the notes are only guidance, and the advice that "if occupiers and managers suspect drug misuse they should contact their local police at an early stage to prevent it" does not sound as tolerant, nor as specific, as it needs to be. Are we to contact police in respect of every new drug user coming into a scheme? How long will providers have to "prevent" their continued drug misuse?

The problem is that support workers and organisations like ECHG don't feel comfortable with working illegally and being dependent on the varying interpretations of different police forces as to what constitutes cooperation. The rights and wrongs of the Wintercomfort "Cambridge two" case in 2000 continue to be debated, but it's no surprise that providers are wary of relying on the interpretation of ambiguous guidance.

Across the country ECHG runs more than 50 supported housing schemes. In places such as Hull and Oxford we run specific drugs recovery projects that have been recognised for their innovation and commitment to helping clients achieve a drugs-free lifestyle. Increasingly, they will find it difficult to develop that crucial level of contact and confidence that allowed them to succeed where other agencies failed.

Every well-intentioned innovation risks unintended consequences. Clamping down on crack houses puts legitimate care work at risk: new drugs strategies draw public attention to care and support work which perhaps works best out of the limelight.

A number of organisations in the sector, including ECHG, have recently written to the home secretary questioning whether the amendment was necessary. Other sections of the act appear adequate to achieve the desired effect on crack houses. In any case, instead of issuing guidance after the event, is it too much to ask for the legislation itself to be worded to exclude support, care and treatment agencies from its catch-all provisions?