October 20, 2021 - 1:00pm
Up and down the country, university students are reporting a terrifying new phenomenon: spiking by injection. Students from Glasgow, Dundee, Leeds, Durham and Nottingham have all reported similar experiences happening to them on a night out: feeling a sharp scratch, discovering a pin prick, blacking out and even being taken to hospital. So far one man in Nottingham has been arrested for possession of drugs “with intention to injure and aggrieve” and two other men have been arrested in Bristol after a video circulated on social media of a woman being spiked.
Spiking has been on the rise over recent years; according to a Freedom of Information request there has been a 108% increase in the number of police reports that include both the words ‘drink’, ‘spiking’ or ‘lacing’ since 2015. Although there were more than 2600 reported incidents in England and Wales between 2015 and 2019, it’s difficult to tell the full scale of the problem. Many victims cannot remember what happened, or do not report it for fear they will not be believed or will somehow be blamed.
It’s easy to see why. Over the past couple of weeks there have been five cases of spiking at University College, Durham, and five at Hild and Bede College. The university has responded by launching a campaign with the slogan “Don’t Get Spiked”, prefacing the ad with a (since deleted) tweet that said, “Drink Spiking is dangerous and something that you can prevent from happening to you and your friends.”
Understandably, many students have accused the university of victim-blaming, citing it is as yet another example of emphasising how women need to protect themselves from danger, rather than focusing on those who are dangerous. Women are already hyper-vigilant in many aspects of their behaviour; there are currently stories circulating on social media of female students even wearing denim jackets to stop themselves from being injected.
Students have responded with a nationwide Girls Night In Campaign, which plans to boycott nightclubs and bars in over 30 towns and cities on the 27th of October. The aims of this boycott varies; Girls Night In Bristol said that “ideally our end goal is to change the class of date rape drugs from class C so there are more consequences for offenders,” while others are hoping for more stringent entry searches. A recent petition to make thorough searches a legal requirement for nightclubs has already gained over 122,000 signatures.
It’s easy to be cynical about the efficacy of this campaign; young women not attending clubs on one Wednesday is hardly going to be a devastating blow to the industry. However, in some respects clubs seem to be listening to student pressure; Woo Cambridge is offering to cover students’ drinks with cling film if asked, and Pryzm in Nottingham said that they planned to make anti-spiking bottle stoppers, protective drink covers and drug-testing kits freely available.
However, I can’t help but feel that the campaign could be even more effective with a slightly different approach. Firstly, the name excludes men, who we need to collaborate with if we want to effect real change and stop it from just being a “woman’s problem.” Secondly, it once again puts the onus on women to remove themselves from dangerous situations and modify their behaviour; women shouldn’t have to stay at home to reduce their risk of violence. The boycott is a worthy attempt to raise attention to this issue, but hopefully it will be more than just a symbolic gesture.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeTeach Men Not To R@pe type campaigns are always pointless – you just end up finger-wagging at people who would never harm you anyway.
Those who would do such things don’t care what women think. They cannot be nagged into better behaviour.
Exactly
Always assuming, of course, that the purpose of such campaigns is to actually achieve their supposed aims. Rather than to demonise men or masculinity in general, and make ideological hay out of a situation that requires practical action and good advice.
The whole point of teaching boys to be chivalrous was to prevent them being nasty to women when they were men. Chivalry can be defined as bravery, courtesy, honesty and a readyness to help those who are weak and women. It is the duty of the Father to teach the sons and if he is dead or overseas, then the male relatives.
If the parents are wise, they teach their children to handle alcohol.
I think this perhaps addresses some forms of poor male behaviour. But does it really address serious issues like rape, violence, drink spiking etc. Was there really less rape and violence back in the “age of chivalry”.
We have a divergence. Pre 1960s many boys played sport: boxing rugby, football . cricket and rowed producing a healthy athletic physique. Many left school at 14 to 16 years of age and worked alongside men. They grew up and shouldered responsibility.Those working in mines, trawlers, steel works, construction sites worked in dangerous and dirty environments; they toughened up. In order to get a girl they had to be responsible, work hard and save money. They learnt discipline. They knew they could be turned down by girl and if misbehaved would have to answer to girls relatives.
Violence towards women is basically an undisciplined man’s and one with an inferiority complex, revenge for saying no to him. They cannot cope with rejection. A tough athletic competent man is more likely to have the confidence to cope with rejection. Also noone starts a fight if they think they will receive a beating.
Would Weinstein acted as he did if he was a tough athletic and competent man rather than a fat ugly slob ? David Niven, the actor and Commando Officer had many affairs and none of the women accused him of rape or mistreating them.
From 1300 one can study Coroners Report and in one of Steve Pinkers lectures the mirder rate for England was about half of that for The Low Countries and about a quarter of that of Italy. Historically the murder and theft rate in England has been very low compared to other countries.Wellington said our greatest asset was our honesty compared to other countries.
I understand the point, but the problem is that we know who the potential victims are (women on a night out) but unless they are actually caught, we don’t know who the perpetrators are. All of us have to take actions to protect ourselves from risk.
In this case, unless women protecting themselves is seen as an alternative to catching perpetrators (I don’t think it is) then anything that reduces your risk makes sense.
And always report anything suspicious to security staff.
I agree thjat one always has to protect oneself in these situations, but I’m at a lose as to how one does this when someone come up behind you and sticks a needle in you. Perhaps aways be with someone; but what if you need the lavatory, or go up to the bar. This is a difficult one.
I’m in no way denying how serious the situation is, or how difficult it is to protect yourself. But without an easy way of identifying the perpetrators before they act, I’m not sure what else we can do but offer advice on risk reduction.
I agree. It’s just that the risk reduction options are very limited in these cases.
It is unfortunate that “spiked” is used to describe two different phenomena. One can be combatted by keeping an eye on one’s drink or devising some means of making it harder to introduce any other substance.
The other can only be combatted by wearing impenetrable garments and keeping well away from suspicious strangers which is not really practical in a hot Night Club, and indeed rather defeats the object of going out for a good night.
In a CIS New York TV drama some clever methods of analysing the drug used an d tracing it to its source and the perpetrator would be the answer. Unfortunately we don’t live in a TV drama world where the cops always get the bad guy.
A bit dated now, but:
For instance, one Australian study of 97 men and women who’d been admitted to an emergency room and claimed their drinks had been spiked found only 9 “plausible” cases. Forensic evidence supported none of those claims; for the most part, the complainants were simply drunk.
https://freakonomics.com/2009/11/24/the-spiked-drink-myth/
Do we know for certain that this isn’t another moral panic, with little basis in fact? How strong is the evidence?
Yes, it is always easier to claim your drink has been spiked than admit you drank far too much. The trouble is it generates greater paranoia than the real instances of spiking probably warrant. Although nobody wants to be the one who actually suffers a spiked drink.
The report in the Times today ” Three women who feared they were spiked with a needle were not drugged, police have said to give the women “peace of.mind ” This was 4 cases in Exeter.
Is this another step along the road of stranger danger for women myth making by the media? Its seems like a handful of cases in Nottingham have suddenly become a national panic with danger in any nightclub/party bar.
I think it was on every news bulletin yesterday.
Watching and reading activists on this always comes down to difficult practicalities. When questioned we get a bland vagueness. Vague comments like ‘changing behaviour’ are useless. More CCTV surveillance as one young woman suggested on R4? Exactly what youngsters would rightly then protest about. Body search every man at the door? Hmm. Other privacy issues emerge. Oppressive state surveillance of data to pick up offenders before they act? Then we have the ‘educate males’ line. Cue absurd lecturing of young boys in schools about how toxic they are. Poor or dangerous behaviour is to be decried and punished but careful what you wish for. China’s attempt to use technology to control freedom is a warning. Boycotting nightclubs at the moment with a rise in Covid is, however, a short term measure I approve of.
I am always puzzled when universities are expected to ‘do something’ about serious criminal behaviour. Other than an awareness campaign how are they supposed to stop this behaviour?
make thorough searches a legal requirement for nightclubs
I’m slightly baffled as to why this would make any difference, because surely the source of the problem of drug distribution in nightclubs has always been the nightclub doormen themselves.
The whole acid house raves-in-fields things in the 1980s started because drug dealers needed crowds of young people to sell their wares to. For the most part they weren’t the kind of people with the capital or the credibility to get a late license and thus run a nightclub. So they organised events in fields instead.
You don’t need bouncers at gyms, McDonalds, school fetes or other gatherings of youngsters. The doormen at nightclubs aren’t there to protect the patrons from each other. They are there largely to keep out unapproved drug dealers and to protect the approved drug dealers from any unapproved ones who might get in. The doormen and the dealers are all the same people. Leah Betts was killed by drugs sold to her by associates of the doormen at the nightclub she was in. The thugs in the door in dinner jackets weren’t there for her safety.