The UK Drug Policy Commission, which carried out the study, has called for a review of how drug services treat minority groups.

The report reviewed studies on illegal drug use in ethnic minority groups, disabled people and the LGBT community.

It found that people who identified as lesbian, gay or bisexual were three times more likely to have taken drugs in their lifetime than heterosexual people.

The review estimated that 75 per cent of LGB people had taken illegal drugs at least once, while between 30 and 50 per cent had taken them in the last year.

Findings from the British Crime Survey estimate that ten per cent of heterosexuals took drugs last year, compared with 33 per cent of gay or bisexual people.

Most of the research relates to gay men and the most popular drugs for this group were cannabis and poppers.

Gay men were found to be most likely to use poppers, while cannabis was the most popular drug for lesbians.

Gay men were also found to be at risk from abusing drugs such as steroids and Viagra and a 2000 study of gay men in London gyms found one in seven had used steroids in the last 12 months.

A number of studies have suggested that Viagra use in particular is linked with sexual risks.

Other drugs commonly taken were cocaine, ecstasy, ketamine, amphetamine and methamphetamine (crystal meth).

The review also found that the LGBT community were most likely to be “early adopters” of new drugs and may experience problems and side effects before the rest of the population.

However, the study authors warned that much of the evidence was “extremely limited and often of poor quality” and although the most comprehensive available, “should be interpreted with caution”.

There was little evidence available on drug abuse in bisexual and trans people.

Health services often focused on heroin and crack cocaine, the report said, meaning that problems with drugs in the LGBT community – which tends not to use these drugs – were often not adequately addressed.

It recommended that a ‘kite mark’ system be developed to mark out mainstream health services which demonstrate good practice in dealing with drug problems in the LGBT community and also suggested different approaches to raising awareness, such as internet sites, new social media campaigns and events at community venues.

Ruth Hunt, Stonewall’s head of policy, said: “We welcome the work of the Home Office and are pleased that the government is looking at how lesbian and gay people can be encouraged to seek help about drug abuse.

“The study confirms what Stonewall has known for some time – that LGB people use drugs more than heterosexual people but don’t feel able to seek advice from the health service.

“The NHS needs to target lesbian and gay people to encourage them to seek advice.”

Ms Hunt added that when LGB people wish to seek advice on drugs, they must first talk about their sexual health. She said this “completely excludes” lesbians.

Pink News UK

University of KwaZulu-Natal post-graduate Jarred Martin investigated the relationship between traditional masculine beliefs, body-image discrepancy and socio-cultural influences on appearance among Indian boys aged 13 to 19.

The study followed an earlier research project into body image among all race groups, in which Indian boys presented with high anxieties about their appearance compared with their black and white counterparts.

It also showed that other race groups perceived Indian boys as having a “softer” masculinity.

Among the latest findings:

• 57% of boys indicated they thought Bollywood films put pressure on males to look muscular;
• 5.5% had used or were using illegal steroids;
• 25% had used only legal supplements or drugs; and
• 79.3% believed that having a muscular frame was tied to enhanced feelings of self-worth.

The study found that steroid use peaked in boys who experienced issues with their body image and thought Bollywood films put pressure on men to look muscular.

Doctors, pharmacists, pedlars at local gyms, veterinary nurses and assistants were the main suppliers of steroids such as deca durabolin, dianabol and equipoise (a horse steroid).

Professor Yoga Coo-poo of the University of the Witwatersrand’s Centre for Exercise Science and Sports Medicine said the use of steroids had a number of ill-effects on young users, including muscle tears and reduced HDL – the high-density cholesterol that helps reduce heart disease.

“The Indian community generally has lower HDL levels, and a further decrease in it with the use of steroids creates greater risk of heart disease as they grow older,” said Coopoo.

Former and present steroid users who took part in the study and spoke to the Sunday Times Extra on condition of anonymity through Martin said they wanted to emulate Bollywood stars.

One said: “You see the guys like Salman Khan. This guy is so popular with girls. I wouldn’t mind looking like Khan.”

Another said: “The only way you can get like that is by using steroids.”

He added that Indian boys were perceived as “softer” because “we have such close families. I think they don’t believe we are independent guys, that we are just mommies’ boys.”

Martin said: “The way in which these cinematic heroes are portrayed is that they always get the girl. They get respect, adoration and envy from other men. It may be that Bollywood cinema, in its portrayal of its action heroes and leading men as muscular Adonises, simply capitalises on the anxieties of young boys about their masculinity and body image.”

Counselling psychologist Rakhi Beekrum said: “The six-pack is portrayed as being favourable and desirable among Bollywood stars – this can be seen in the shift from Amitabh Bachchan and Rishi Kapoor to Salman Khan, Hrithik Roshan, John Abraham and even Shahrukh Khan.”

Clinical psychologist Sherona Rawat said being perceived as “soft” was a “contributing factor in the young Indian male’s decision to use a substance that has been clinically proven to be dangerous and damaging to the body. The pull on South African males of Indian descent to prove themselves masculine in relation to their South African counterparts of other cultures and communities is understandable in this light.”

A Phoenix gym owner, who did not want to be named, agreed that Bollywood actors’ physiques had influenced youngsters to become “muscular and ripped”.

Mark Carter, a 27-year-old policeman from Huddersfield, was charged with two offences of sexual assault on males, one attempted sexual assault, one count of male rape and one count of attempted male rape.

The charges involve four different alleged victims.

He is also accused of possessing Class C drugs, which are thought to be bodybuilding steroids.

Leeds magistrates court heard that the alleged offences took place between December 18th and 19th 2009 at the Etap hotel in Leeds city centre.

Mr Carter has been bailed to appear before Leeds crown court later this month for the sexual assault charges and Leeds magistrates court in August for the drug charge.

He was named Mr Gay UK 2006 and came runner-up in the European contest in 2007.

He came out in 2005 and has served with Huddersfield Police for four years.

He has been suspended from his job as a policeman.

In four days of raids in September, the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) in the United States executed what is known as Operation Raw Deal, which involved the seizure of 56 laboratories in the US, more than 120 arrests, 1.4 million dosages of steroids and 256 kilograms of raw powder.

The DEA told The Times that Raw Deal was possible because of the co-operation from police from a long list of countries, many European, and also including Mexico, China, Colombia, Peru, Israel and Thailand, but that the one country that resisted involvement was the United Kingdom.

“UK law enforcement was not involved in Raw Deal, much to our disappointment,” Rusty Payne, the DEA spokesperson, said. He also said there was evidence to suggest some of the trafficking had come through the UK.

“UK law enforcement had the opportunity,” he said. “When large international sporting events are taking place in a country in the next few years, then it surprises me that they are not interested now. We’ve done good work with the UK in other areas of drugs, but not with steroids.”

This revelation provides further condemning evidence of the esteem with which some of the international sports community view Britain’s approach to doping. Senior figures from the World Anti-Doping Agency (Wada) raised fears in The Times about the ability of the 2012 Olympic hosts to fight doping when, unlike in many countries, possession of steroids is not a crime.

“The steroid laws are very good here in the US,” Payne said. “But from our standpoint, the laws in the UK are quite weak. There are many in the DEA here who think this is a problem. Maybe there isn’t enough teeth in your law. Weak drugs laws basically say: this isn’t a priority. In the US, steroids are only permissible under doctor’s prescription. Otherwise it’s a crime to possess, distribute or manufacture.”

The deaf ear that the UK turned to Raw Deal is a surprise, particularly because of repeated verbal commitments made in this country to involving the police and Revenue & Customs in fighting doping. Until recently, it was believed that more testing would win the war; that policy has been reversed to the extent that one of only two Wada-accredited laboratories in the UK lost its official status because it was not getting enough work. The idea was that funding would go into investigating the web of distributors rather than the urine samples of possible users.

Operation Raw Deal came on the back of Operation Gear Grinder that busted eight companies and 80 laboratories in Mexico. Gear Grinder showed that the Mexicans were producing and selling steroids from raw substances shipped in from China. “With Gear Grinder,” Payne said, “we thought we’d slain the dragon.”

However, the DEA soon realised that the US buyers were instead purchasing directly from China. It also discovered a plethora of amateur laboratories using bathtubs and bathroom sinks to convert raw steroid powders into the finished product using conversion kits purchased on the internet.

“Steroids and all the raw materials needed to make steroids all seem to come from one place, China,” Payne said. “We investigated 37 companies in China and have given that information to the Chinese police. They accepted that information and pledged to address it. I have cautious optimism that they will do.”

Payne is looking for similar co-operation from the UK. It may help that a working group on this subject was set up by Gerry Sutcliffe, the Sports Minister, this month, although this is not the first time that a pledge has been made to a joined-up approach to combating doping in the UK.

“We hope the UK will get involved in the future because this is not something that will go away,” Payne said. “This was not some smash-and-grab thing. This is a global problem and we cannot succeed without international co-operation.”

It must be apparent that I’m taken aback by his admission, so he continues to explain: ‘Everyone does it. You can get a whole year’s supply here and it costs nothing compared to what it costs in the UK – and you don’t even have to see a doctor.’

After he’s done, I tell the pharmacist I have a cold and want something like a day and night tablet. He gives me two lots of pills and assures me they’ll work. I’m not too sure what I’m getting, but it only costs about 50p, so I pay.

I don’t recognise the drug names, so I Google them. One is a decongestant; the other turns out to be Valium. On the back of the packet it says: ‘Schedule H drug. Warning: to be sold by retail on the prescription of a registered medical practitioner only.’

After a blissful sleep, albeit with a slightly groggy wake-up, I decide to get a few more, for such future eventualities as long-distance plane trips. Having suffered insomnia on and off throughout my life, I know how hard it is to get doctors in Britain to prescribe you anything of the sort. I visit maybe five pharmacies around India, and have no problems getting what I ask for.

Along with India, many other countries such as Egypt, Turkey and Mexico have a reputation for a rather relaxed attitude to prescription drugs. But while bypassing the doctor and saving money might seem like a good idea, there are risks involved.

Heidi Wright, head of quality improvement at the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, says that there is a danger that people do not knowing what they are getting. ‘Here, medicines are very well regulated, but when you go abroad you may buy drugs in countries that aren’t so stringent,’ she explains. ‘Counterfeiting statistics are quite high in some countries; there’s a real risk of ending up with something that isn’t what it says on the bottle.’

Although Wright says that in most cases counterfeit drugs are simply ineffective, they can also contain dangerous ingredients, or be the wrong strength.

Harry Shapiro, director of communications and information at Drugscope, a charity that works to reduce drug-related risks in Britain, says people may also be putting themselves at risk of addiction, particularly if they are stocking up on painkillers.

‘Drugs like Vicodin have been identified as drugs that have a high addiction potential,’ he says. ‘Most codeine-based products are now prescription-only simply because of this addiction potential, but when people are buying these drugs abroad, or over the internet, there are no checks and balances.’

Benzodiazepines, like the diazepam (Valium) I purchased, are also known to be addictive, though not to the same degree as codeine-based products. Your medical history and other medications you are taking are also not taken into consideration.

Like the man I met in India, many men buy Viagra overseas because it is cheaper and easier to get hold of. When Boots started an over-the-counter trial of the medicine in Manchester in 2007, patients still had to book a consultation with a pharmacist and paid £50 for four tablets. In India, that would get you hundreds of pills.

Taking Viagra without consulting a doctor or pharmacist can be dangerous, says Naomi Craft, a general practitioner and medical columnist. ‘Cardiac patients in particular should always discuss the use of Viagra to avoid possible side effects. There are particular drugs called nitrates which are commonly given to people with heart conditions that you shouldn’t take Viagra with,’ she says. She says people who have had a stroke recently, low blood pressure, or an angulated erect penis should also not take Viagra.

You only have to look at the some of the more recent celebrity addiction cases to realise that it isn’t only illicit drugs that cause problems. The International Narcotics Control Board’s annual report, released in March 2007, claims the abuse and trafficking of prescription drugs is set to exceed illicit drug abuse. And in July, a group of MPs and peers called the All Party Parliamentary Group on Drug Misuse launched an inquiry into the scale of prescription drug abuses in Britain.

Much of the official concern about prescription drugs is directed at internet pharmacies and people selling drugs illegally, and you’re unlikely to find yourself in trouble for bringing prescription drugs into Britain. It’s not illegal to bring them home, as long as they are for personal use. Even anabolic steroids can be imported for personal use, according to customs officials.

The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) however, will take action if they suspect that people plan to supply medications to others. ‘If you are coming back from a country and bringing in huge quantities of medications, then common sense will dictate that you aren’t going to get through those medications yourself, therefore you must be planning to sell them on,’ says a MHRA spokesperson. ‘The illegality comes in with the illegal sale and supply.’

Other countries have different rules, though, so if you’re travelling via other destinations, it’s wise to assess the situation before you go. For example, in Greece, codeine is banned, so even over-the-counter medications could land you in hot water.

However tempting it may be, stocking up on pills in countries where regulation is minimal is risky. If your doctor at home won’t prescribe the drug you want, there’s probably a good reason and going against their advice could be detrimental to your health. And while foreign drugs may be cheap, they could also be worthless, or even dangerous.

Yet it’s disturbing that an initiative announced yesterday by the UK Anti-Doping agency wants whistle-blowers to report suspected drug cheats.

The launch of a confidential 24-hour hotline encourages anonymous callers – athletes, coaches, support staff, and even concerned parents and friends – to provide tip-offs about those they think might be cheats, or supply and traffic in performance-enhancing substances.

At first sight this may appear sound. More cheats have been outed in the US on the evidence of whistle-blowers than by the tens of millions of dollars invested in anti-doping tests by the Olympic movement and World Anti-Doping Agency.

Informants presented evidence of a designer steroid and testimony about cheats. But in the US, those providing such evidence were all identified and examined individually, usually by the FBI. They did not remain anonymous. Significantly this triggered the Balco affair which exposed a raft of cheats, including multiple Olympic medallist Marion Jones who was jailed. Not for failing an anti-doping control, however (she passed 167 tests) but for lying to the FBI.

That the world’s greatest serial cheat should pass tests developed at a cost of millions explains UKAD’s latest initiative. Drug tests are not cost-effective.

I detest drug cheats with a passion, but it’s self-evident that the anonymous British system will be open to abuse, a charter for envious rivals to make malicious mischief and waste public money by dialing the Report Doping In Sport hotline (0800 032 2332) which will be staffed by Crimestoppers operators with appropriate training.

Evidence will be as suspect as that from underworld informers with an agenda. Any number of law-abiding members of the public can use steroids, beta blockers, or countless other substances which would be judged cheating in the sports arena, but not elsewhere. Some banned substances are legitimately used by athletes holding a valid therapeutic-use exemption certificate. Why would a whistle-blower be aware of who possesses one? Countless meaningless calls are guaranteed. Every athlete using an asthmatic inhaler or taking any kind of medication, TicTac or Parma Violet risks needless – and pointless – invasion of privacy.

Where will it end? Can’t stand that guy who beat me in the squash ladder last week. He’s jolly muscular. Must be on the gear.

UKAD chief executive Andy Parkinson believes clean athletes will be protected from malicious calls, “as we are going to verify that intelligence before we act on it”.

I think he is living in a dream world. Yet UKAD considers this a key tool in protecting the integrity of sport on the run-in to 2012.

It’s almost 20 years since I discussed with former Liberal Democrat leader Sir Menzies Campbell the introduction of legislation to make possession of performance-enhancing drugs a criminal offence.

Sadly, that made as much impact as British Olympic Association chairman Lord Moynihan’s pre-election suggestion that police should raid the 2012 Olympic Village in search of drugs.

A former international sprinter, GB Olympic team captain, and honorary president of scottishathletics, Campbell felt the climate of opinion 20 years ago was insufficient to drive through legislation. It’s different now.

There is no reason why possession of steroids, growth hormone, stimulants, beta blockers and blood-boosting agents without a prescription should not be criminalised. The suggestion that this can’t be put on the legislative agenda in time is a fudge by politicians. Typically they want to be heard making the right noises, but lack the will to act.

If possession were criminalised it would also present an opportunity for sport bodies to deem convicted offenders unselectable by Britain. Though banned from the Olympics, cheats like Dwain Chambers and Carl Myerscough are still routinely chosen by UKA because of fears of legal action on grounds of restraint of trade.

Drink-drivers are barred from driving occupations. Police and lawyers can’t continue in such employment if they have a criminal conviction. Bankrupts can’t sit in the Lords. Precedent exists.

This is an opportunity to clean up sport in Britain for good. It would have more impact than the window-dressing of any hotline.

Herald Scotland