Here is the news article written in the requested format.

---

Drugs policy approach needs to change, Zack Polanski says

A significant policy schism is widening in the UK over the financial and social costs of current drug laws, with senior Green Party figure Zack Polanski spearheading calls for a radical, health-focused overhaul. The debate centres on the establishment of drug consumption rooms (DCRs), a controversial but evidence-backed harm reduction strategy that pits public health advocates against the government's long-standing legislative stance.

While the UK government has explicitly stated it will not amend the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 to permit these facilities nationwide, it has adopted a "wait and see" approach. A spokesperson confirmed the government would welcome and review any evidence emerging from a landmark three-year pilot program now underway in Glasgow, a project that could fundamentally reshape the national conversation on drug-related mortality and its staggering economic burden.

This positions the Scottish pilot as a critical test case, with its future findings set to become the central battleground for policy reform.

The Glasgow Pilot: A National Test Case

At the heart of the debate is the newly operational facility in Glasgow, run by The Thistle service. It is the first officially sanctioned DCR in the UK, designed to function as a controlled experiment in harm reduction.

The facility provides a supervised, hygienic space for individuals to consume drugs they have already acquired. It is staffed by trained healthcare professionals who can intervene in the event of an overdose, a primary driver of drug-related deaths. The core objective is not to condone drug use, but to mitigate its most dangerous consequences.

The three-year pilot is structured to gather robust data on several key performance indicators.

• Key Objectives: To reduce the number of fatal and non-fatal overdoses, decrease the public health risks associated with street-based drug consumption (such as discarded needles), and lower the transmission rates of blood-borne viruses like HIV and Hepatitis C.
• Service Integration: A crucial function of the room is to act as a gateway to wider support services. Staff will connect vulnerable individuals with addiction counselling, housing support, mental health services, and primary medical care.
• Data Collection: The pilot will meticulously track metrics including overdose reversals, ambulance callouts to the surrounding area, rates of infection, and the number of referrals to recovery programs. This data will form the evidence base presented to the UK government.

The Economic Argument for Reform

Proponents like Mr. Polanski argue that the debate extends far beyond social policy, carrying profound financial implications for the public purse. The current enforcement-led approach, they contend, incurs massive and often hidden costs, while a health-led model could yield significant long-term savings.

The Cost of the Status Quo

The financial burden of the UK's current drug policy is multifaceted. Analysts point to several key areas of expenditure that a harm-reduction model seeks to address.

• Healthcare Expenditure: The NHS bears the immediate cost of drug-related emergencies. This includes expensive ambulance call-outs, emergency room treatments for overdoses, and long-term hospital stays for treating severe infections like sepsis and endocarditis, often stemming from unhygienic injecting practices. The lifetime cost of treating a single case of HIV or Hepatitis C can run into hundreds of thousands of pounds.
• Criminal Justice System: Billions are spent annually on policing, court proceedings, and incarceration for drug-related offences. Critics argue this represents a poor return on investment, as it fails to address the root causes of addiction.
• Societal Costs: The economic impact also includes lost productivity from individuals unable to work due to addiction, as well as the municipal costs associated with cleaning public spaces of drug-related litter.

The Fiscal Case for DCRs

Evidence from over 100 similar facilities operating globally suggests that DCRs are a cost-effective intervention. The economic model is based on preventative spending.

• Return on Investment: A widely cited study on Vancouver's Insite facility found that for every $1 invested in the program, at least $4 were saved in healthcare costs. These savings are primarily generated by preventing costly emergency interventions and reducing the transmission of expensive-to-treat diseases.
• Reduced Healthcare Burden: By preventing overdoses and infections on-site, DCRs directly reduce the number of high-acuity patients entering the emergency care system, freeing up critical resources.
• Pathway to Recovery: By connecting a hard-to-reach population with recovery services, DCRs can increase the number of individuals achieving abstinence and re-entering the workforce, turning a societal cost into a tax-paying contributor.

International Precedent and Legal Hurdles

The UK is a notable outlier among developed nations in its resistance to DCRs. Countries including Canada, Australia, Switzerland, Germany, and France have operated such facilities for years, generating a substantial body of evidence on their effectiveness.

International studies have consistently shown that DCRs:

• Reduce Overdose Deaths: No recorded overdose death has ever occurred within a supervised consumption facility globally.
• Do Not Increase Crime: Contrary to fears, data indicates these facilities do not lead to an increase in local crime rates. In many cases, they are associated with a reduction in public nuisance complaints.
• Improve Public Health: They are proven to reduce the sharing of needles and other paraphernalia, a key vector for disease transmission.

The primary obstacle in the UK remains the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. This legislation makes it an offence for occupiers of a premises to knowingly permit the consumption of controlled substances. The Glasgow pilot was only made possible through a unique legal workaround, wherein Scotland's chief prosecutor, the Lord Advocate, issued a statement declaring it would not be in the "public interest" to prosecute users or staff at the facility. This solution, however, does not provide a legal framework for a national rollout.

The Path Forward

The government's position creates a high-stakes waiting game. For the next three years, all eyes will be on Glasgow.

The evidence generated by The Thistle pilot will be scrutinised by policymakers, healthcare professionals, and law enforcement across the country. Its success or failure to deliver on its public health and economic objectives will be pivotal.

Advocacy groups and politicians like Zack Polanski will continue to exert pressure, armed with a growing portfolio of international data. The central question remains whether the empirical evidence on lives saved and public money conserved will be compelling enough to persuade the government to undertake the complex legislative and political task of reforming a fifty-year-old drug law. The outcome will determine the future of drug policy in the UK for a generation.