Peter Krykant spoke from Scotland to the world – but work isn't done
Peter Krykant stepped into that void.
Peter first caught my attention when he openly dared to break the law by opening a safe consumption space. I was working to end the drug war in the United States at the time, lobbying Congress and the White House, and Peter's actions were galvanising.
'How a Man With a Van Is Challenging UK Drug Policy' was how the New York Times described Peter in a 2020 article. His actions were inspiring. I was reminded of the civil disobedience of the racial justice movement of the 1960s, of the ability to make the law – this seemingly entrenched part of society – look cruel, unjust, and stupid.
Peter Krykant in his safe consumption van"I obviously don't want to be arrested, but I'm willing to put myself in that position and I think it'll only reflect badly on the government if that happens," he told the BBC. His bravery was enlivening.
It was not just his boldness that caught my attention; it was also the other aspects that drove him. Peter never chose to work on drug policy. He had lived experience. He knew first-hand the stigma that comes with using drugs, where terms like 'junkie' or 'fiend' are common parlance, even in the media. His battle was not just with politicians; but with society itself.
He showed us all the value of centring people with lived experience when it comes to changing policy.
In a social media post a week ago discussing overdose death, Peter lamented: 'I lost my first family member when I was 15, my uncle. Then my cousin around 17 years ago. Another cousin December 2018, my aunt and uncle's only child, then in September 2021 the youngest death, my cousin who left a 5-year-old daughter.
'I carried his coffin. His daughter standing over the grave asking when daddy would be back, it doesn't get any easier.'
(Image: Twitter/Peter Krykant) The politicians feared him because he did not cower. Invites to meet with the first minister or calls with other leaders, attention from the media, a rise in profile, these things can often make someone play the political game of access, plaudits, and incremental change. Not Peter. He continued to speak truth to power and call them out for inaction. He didn't care who he offended or if an invite was rescinded. His was a crusade to save his friends and family.
When I started to write about Scottish drug policy, I felt a sense of imposter syndrome, as someone who was not living in Scotland. A good friend connected me with Peter, who was then always there to help guide me.
I asked him about what impacted people were asking for, what policy changes he wanted, and included them in my articles. When we finally met at the International Drug Policy Reform Conference in Arizona in October 2023, he was warm, full of banter and good chat, reminding me of friends I miss from back home.
READ MORE: Peter Krykant: Scotland must act on drug deaths even if the UK won't
Peter and I were not especially close, but in recent months, his social media posts revealed someone who was struggling and there is now guilt that I could have reached out to connect again amid his challenges. I am sure those closer to him feel similar.
His legacy is centring impacted voices in the drug policy debate and advancing a saner drug policy in Scotland, notably the opening of a legal safe consumption room in Glasgow. But his fight goes on.
Drug deaths are astronomical – and the day after he died one Scottish newspaper led its front page with the headline 'Safe drugs room sparks 175 complaints on needles litter'. Peter would have torn this newspaper apart for its NIMBYism, the stigma, and the desire to lambast a life-saving intervention because of litter complaints when drug deaths have just risen by a third.
Peter's legacy is strong, and he will be sorely missed across the globe, but the hard work remains.
Michael Collins is a native Glaswegian who lives in Atlanta. He is the former director for national affairs at Drug Policy Alliance.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
41 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
Do the Scottish Conservatives have any reason to exist?
Before dismissing this prospect out of hand, consider the point that political parties are manufactured, not innate. They are coalitions of the more or less willing, designed to provide a vaguely coherent offer to the electorate in order to secure power and effect change. Consequently, they have no guaranteed right to exist. Anyone remember the squadrone volante? In the old, pre-Union Scots Parliament, they steered a cautious middle way between the Court and Country parties, before eventually sinking into oblivion. OK, so that is an obscure recollection. Consider this instead. In the 19th century, the Liberals were utterly dominant in Scottish politics. Their role was largely usurped by the Labour Party. The Tories battled on. They secured, in 1955, the only popular majority ever achieved by any party in Scotland since universal suffrage. But that was a Unionist vote. As times changed, and the SNP rose, the Tories struggled again, eventually losing every Scottish Westminster seat in 1997. They were only rescued as a party by the advent of devolution and by proportional representation. Two developments they had steadfastly opposed. And more recently? They flourished to a degree under Ruth Davidson's leadership. She contrived to corral pro-Union votes to her side by depicting her party as the most reliable bulwark for that Union. And now? Two points. Indyref2 seems relatively distant, meaning that the political focus is elsewhere. The Davidson bulwark has less clout. Read more from Brian Taylor: Secondly, there is an alternative on the Right, in the shape of Reform, explicitly promising to supplant the Tories before going for the other parties. The Tories have endured defections. To Reform. And MSP Jamie Greene who switched to the Liberal Democrats. His verdict on his erstwhile party? He reckons folk are 'completely scunnered' with the Scots Tories. Nodding towards the Tories' Westminster leader, he summons up a vision of 'Kemi-geddon.' Not, I would suggest, the most felicitous phrase. But you take his point. Ms Badenoch has scarcely inspired confidence since taking over. Her own view, delivered this week during exchanges with the Prime Minister, was that she gets better every week, while Keir Starmer gets worse. Again, less than uplifting. Trying hard. Getting better. It is all a bit like a school report delivered to a struggling pupil by a kind and supportive teacher. However, is it entirely her fault? I would suggest not. She might well get better. Except she is burdened by voter memories of her predecessors. Rishi Sunak might be exculpated somewhat. But not Boris Johnson and certainly not Liz Truss. Lest there is any danger of the voters forgetting, Labour constantly summons up the spectre of the unfunded Truss budget which so spooked the markets that she had to quit. Only this week, the Chancellor referred repeatedly to Ms Truss, as she set out her own spending plans. The Prime Minister taunted Kemi Badenoch, saying reflections of Liz Truss would continue to haunt the Tories. Yes, Kemi Badenoch has had a troubled start to her leadership. But, as one close observer noted to me, Winston Churchill would struggle to lead the Conservatives right now, given the degree of entrenched voter anger at governance past. While noting that, I would add that Tory problems are exacerbated by the presence of an alternative offer on the Right. The Tories previously dismissed UKIP. Reform appears more challenging. Is Russell Findlay happy in his role as Scottish Conservative leader? (Image: PA) And what of Holyrood? I noted recently that Russell Findlay does not seem entirely content in his role. Perhaps, one suggested to me, he was happier in his previous job as an inquisitive, investigative journalist. However, a senior insider dismisses that prospect. I was told that Mr Findlay is determined to set out a clear direction for the Scottish Tories – by differentiating them sharply from their main rivals. He will not, I was told, be 'knocked off course' by Reform. He believes that the SNP, in particular, talked up the challenge of Reform in the recent Hamilton by-election, only to witness a set-back for their own party as Labour won. The big Scottish Tory offer? Lower taxes in Scotland, including the removal of lower bands. Amounting, they say, to a substantial saving for every worker. In the past, the Scots Tories have been somewhat reluctant to pursue this route. They feared it would not be seen as credible, that they would be challenged on spending cuts. Ideologically, they fretted over departing from a UK fiscal pattern. No longer. They say they will fund tax cuts by civil service efficiency savings, an approach also backed by the Chancellor. And by cuts to Scotland's benefits bill. Read more: In response to which, John Swinney sharpens the knife he has already honed for UK Labour – and turns it upon the Scottish Conservatives, accusing both of seeking to gain electorally from enhancing poverty. Both his rivals demur. But there is more from Mr Findlay. In conference this weekend, he is projecting what he calls 'common sense' policies. Reflecting, as one insider noted to me, the 'real priorities of the Scottish people, stopping the nonsense of the political bubble.' So potholes, rather than gender reform. An end to the North Sea windfall tax. An understandable move, in keeping with Tory instincts. Except that John Swinney has already shifted ground to focus on fundamentals. And Labour's Anas Sarwar talks without ceasing about popular concerns such as the NHS. And Reform? Both UK and Scottish Tory leaders will hope to sideline them. That might prove difficult, especially given the options offered by list voting. Other factors. Reform themselves may be subject to closer scrutiny. As the Holyrood election approaches, people may turn their attention to big choices. Who forms the new devolved government which will set their taxes and control their public services? The Tories hope they can bring a distinctive perspective to that choice. They know they are down. They can only hope – and believe – they are not yet out. Brian Taylor is a former political editor for BBC Scotland and a columnist for The Herald. He cherishes his family, the theatre - and Dundee United FC
The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
No more Edinburgh Book Festival for me – where did it all go wrong?
One other event at the book festival I recall, for different reasons, was a session with the writer Yasmin Alibhai-Brown. I can't remember why I went to see her now because she's the sort of harrumphing lefty who sets off my allergies, but perhaps I figured it's good to listen to a range of views, which it is. I certainly remember being irritated when she laid into Ukip as an English not a Scottish problem even though the party had just done well in Scotland at the European elections. The same sort of flawed reasoning persists now with Reform. But the audience seemed to like it. They applauded at the end, and shuffled out for tea and biscuits. I mention the Alibhai-Brown event in particular because even then, ten years ago, the problems with the Edinburgh Book Festival were starting to become obvious. The lack of diversity on the stage and in the audience, by which I particularly mean diversity of class. The weak, and sometimes execrable, chairing of events that fails to challenge or properly explore the writer's opinions and assumptions. And most important of all, the tendency to platform writers like Alibhai-Brown and unplatform or ignore writers of a different or more conservative persuasion. In the end, it meant the festival became a place I enjoyed less and less, and eventually I just stopped going. But, you know, it really is good to listen to a range of views and I'm a hopeful sort of person on the whole, so this year, like every year, I looked at the line-up on the festival website to see if there was something good and if things had changed, and I scrolled and scrolled and saw that the answer was no. Things appear to be just as bad as ever, worse in fact, and the worry is that the problems at the book festival may have started to rot it from the inside. You start to wonder: how long will it last? The most obvious symptom of the problems is the lack of diversity on stage, which is worse than ever. One of the biggest stories of the last year – and the focus of one of the biggest-selling books of the year – was the trans debate and the Supreme Court ruling on the definition of 'woman', and yet you will not find a trace of it on the festival line-up. The book in question, The Women Who Wouldn't Wheest, was edited by Susan Dalgety and Lucy Hunter Blackburn, so why haven't they been invited? Is it because – unlike one of the big guests of the festival Nicola Sturgeon – they are seen to be on the wrong side of the debate? Yes, of course it is. Read more The chairman of the festival, Alan Little, rather gave the game away when he said the festival should be 'a place where progressive and nuanced discussion can happen in a safe and respectful space'. He's spot on with nuanced – we need it badly – but why only progressive? Why not traditionalist or conservative as well? And what's with 'safe'? It's become one of those words certain activists use to ratchet up the pressure, to hystericalise, but would the festival be unsafe because the line-up included Susan Dalgety or Lucy Hunter Blackburn? The only thing that would be unsafe would be the consensus that's dominated the festival and still does. The organisers would probably say in their defence that there would be a threat of disruption from activists – indeed, that was reason they gave for dropping Baillie Gifford as one of their sponsors. A number of activists, you will remember, a very small number, demanded the investment company be dropped on the grounds it invests in fossil fuels and sad to say, the organisers caved. They said they could not be expected to deliver a festival that was safe – there's that word again – because there was a threat of disruption from activists and so they ended their relationship with Baillie Gifford but more importantly they ended their relationship with Baillie Gifford's money. But it didn't have to be that way. First of all, if everyone buckled as quickly as the festival did over the threat of disruption to the free expression of views, we'd be in a very unpleasant place indeed; their weakness is pathetic. They could also have borrowed some of the stoicism of the Fringe which faced similar pressure over Baillie Gifford from the same sort of activists, but stood firm and it all came to nothing. To put it another way, everyone was perfectly safe. The Edinburgh Book Festival (Image: Newsquest) The organisers of the book festival also appear to be guilty of a kind of economic and practical idiocy that now threatens their future. There are some people who object to corporate sponsorship of arts events – so what: the only alternative is an increase in public money and that ain't happenin'. Baillie Gifford also invests in fossil fuels – so what: it invests far more in clean energy, and the objections of the activists led to the cancellation of a million pounds in money for the arts. The danger here is that the arts world ends up, in the words of the director of the Science Museum Ian Blatchford, eaten alive by its own piety. And the risks are particularly high for book festivals aren't they? We saw what happened to Aye Write in Glasgow when it failed to get funding from Creative Scotland; it only went ahead after a donation from the charity set up by the Lottery winner Colin Weir. The Edinburgh book festival is also going ahead this year thanks largely to a donation from Ian Rankin. But how long before the activists start digging into the personal views of the philanthropists writing cheques? And is this what they want: the arts funded by a few wealthy individuals? It doesn't sound all that progressive to me. Better, I think, to try to build more robust festivals that have a chance of lasting and that must mean some changes. First, encourage a broad diversity of views and opinions at the festival that will attract a broader and more diverse audience. Secondly, drop the piety and encourage corporate sponsorship because public money is not coming to save you. And thirdly, be robust when the activists rock up and shout 'unsafe!' They only have power because you give it to them. Reject them. Ignore them. And carry on. Mark Smith is a Herald features writer and opinion writer
Scotsman
an hour ago
- Scotsman
Scots pay half billion in subsidies while China build the buses
Alexander Dennis has announced it plans to close down its Falkirk area operations to relocate to one single base in Scarborough (Picture: Michael Gillen, National World) Ministers should have been using their leverage over the big operators to keep Falkirk afloat Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... One way and another, the Scottish Government subsidises bus services by more than half a billion pounds a year. There would hardly be a bus on a Scottish road without subsidy which accounts for well over half of total revenue. There has been another £150 million for the ScotZEB programme 'to deliver zero-emission buses to Scotland's roads', the latest in a series of capital funds without which there would be precious few new or refurbished buses on our highways and by-ways. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Put these two facts together and the prospective loss of a bus manufacturing industry in Scotland borders on the incomprehensible. Beyond buses, if a 'procure in Scotland' strategy cannot be applied in this case, what hope is there of enforcing local content provisions in other sectors, notably renewable energy? Without political backbone, it won't happen. Ensuring the survival of Scotland's bus network is a good use of public funds. Equally, for any government to invest this kind of money and then claim it has no leverage over where it is spent is preposterous – and that should be the starting point in addressing the future of Alexander Dennis Ltd and maintaining a proud, skilled industry. While the Scottish Government pours money into our bus network, of more than 250 buses ordered under ScotZEB, 44 will be built in Falkirk. In the second phase of this scheme, two thirds of orders went to a single Chinese company where Scotland is doubtless the boardroom toast. There is something far, far wrong – and avoidable - about that outcome. I saw a sound-bite from Kate Forbes, the deputy first minister, in which her priority was to transfer political responsibility. Her own administration, she said sweetly, was unable to specify 'local content' because of UK legislation and, she claimed, the Scottish Government's pleas for relief from this constraint had been in vain. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Even by SNP standards, it sounded a rather premature piece of blame shifting since every sinew of current effort should surely be devoted to saving these 400 jobs in Falkirk and Larbert, not explaining them away. Ms Forbes' attempt at self-exoneration also failed the credibility test on multiple grounds. Most obviously, the publicly owned Greater Manchester Bees Network has purchased 160 state of the art buses from Falkirk and is delighted with the product. Somehow, the office of Andy Burnham found a way through challenges which Ms Forbes portrays as show-stoppers. Did she or her civil servants ever pick up the phone to Manchester? In the last few days, in an effort to head off redundancies, the Secretary of State for Scotland, Ian Murray, has written to all the Metro Mayors in England, who will soon be ordering buses, asking them to follow Manchester's example. Meanwhile, the Scottish Government claims to be helpless while the orders it funds flow out to China. The legislation which supposedly presents such an obstacle to the Scottish Government is the Subsidy Control Act of 2022 which replaced what existed pre-Brexit. It was needed to keep the UK inside the terms and conditions of the World Trade Organisation and the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (GATT). Dry but necessary stuff. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad It is disputed whether the ScotZEB scheme counts as subsidy for the purposes of the Act. Even if it does, the job of Ministers and civil servants in these circumstances should be to put together a case, based on exemptions available, which allows direct awards to be made. At the same time, Ministers should have been using their leverage over the big operators to keep Falkirk afloat. Neither is it true to claim that this is something which has crept up on the Scottish Government without prior notice. Last September, the company started a consultation process about 160 redundancies for exactly the same reasons they are now citing. They needed more buses to build. At that point, every stop should have been pulled out to ensure the ScotZEB orders were going to Falkirk and not to China. Any Minister worth his or her salt looks for deals to make in these circumstances which are not necessarily underpinned by formal agreements. I did it back in my own Ministerial days in not dissimilar circumstances but this is not party political. I have no doubt Michael Forsyth knew how to apply a bit of friendly pressure and I am absolutely certain Alex Salmond would have told a couple of bus operators exactly what was expected from them, or else. If the Scottish Government cannot use its leverage to fight for jobs, it is entirely due to the absence of competence or creativity within its current ranks. John Swinney's plaintive plea that he 'cannot act in a fashion outwith the provisions of the law' is the language of a bureaucrat whose obligation is to find a rationalisation for inactivity. The possibility always exists, of course, that a company has decided on a course of action for its own reasons and has no interest in being dissuaded from it. The only way to find that out is to make an offer which they would, if goodwill exists, be unlikely to refuse. In this case, a decent order for buses, underwritten by the Scottish Government, might, for example, be enough to buy a stay of execution – and would certainly test the bona fides of the Canadian owners. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad
