Legalisation: Has The War On Drugs Failed? (Neil Woods, ex-police officer)

22:37Whereas there is a good chance if you were to just give her methadone she would still be open to that exploitation. So these tools are there if we use them wisely and we need to see this way beyond just the patient in front of someone. You have to see it in the context of the power of organised crime in our communities.

22:56Jenny Kleeman:There will be some people listening to this who just think it is morally wrong for the government, particularly through doctors, to enable people to be using harmful drugs. What would you say to that position? Yeah, I'm glad you've asked that question on morality because, you know, I debate this all over the world. And often it just comes down to the moral question. This is immoral, so we must fight as hard as we can against it. But the drug law reform movement is now claiming that moral argument because for 13 years in the UK, we've had record drug deaths every year. and it is immoral not to use the best evidence to save those lives.

23:43Clearly, what greater morality is there than the preservation of life? And we are failing in that preservation of life in the UK from the policies that we are using and there is very clear evidence of better ways of doing it. The countries, I know I reference Switzerland a lot, but any country which takes a more health-based approach, they have less deaths and the evidence is very clear as to why. Harm reduction works, prohibition doesn't.

24:13Jenny Kleeman:It is the case that we've had record numbers of drug deaths over the past 13 years, but the official crime statistics show that the number of young people using drugs that has actually been falling over the past decade or so. So is it completely right to say that prohibition has failed? Well, you can't claim any reduction in any drug use to be the successive prohibition. The drug use amongst the population, including young people, tends to ebb and flow for other reasons, whether it's social reasons. I think probably the use of social media has actually been the thing that's reduced drug use within young people because they have something else to push their dopamine buttons.

24:55but there are still a lot of people using drugs and they could be using them safer if they had better information and they had better guidance but of course it's very hard to educate people properly about something where the rule is just you know you're not allowed to do that

25:14Jenny Kleeman:Get more with BBC Podcasts wherever you listen Be the first to listen to your favourite shows like Evil Genius, Good Bad Billionaire and You're Dead to Me with a subscription to BBC Podcasts Premium on Apple Podcasts. You can also enjoy a range of our podcasts ad-free with an Amazon Music subscription.

25:42Jenny Kleeman:I hope you're enjoying my conversation with Neil Woods. Don't forget you can subscribe to this podcast on BBC Sound so you always know about future episodes. and make sure you've got push notifications turned on. That way you'll get an alert whenever we publish a new episode so you'll never miss out. Now, back to Neil Woods.

26:04Jenny Kleeman:Let's talk about other drugs then. Let's talk about cannabis. What would your approach to cannabis be? I mean, we have examples now of where it's been done and we can learn from other people's mistakes and I'm very keen to do that. If you look at Canada, in some ways the Canadian legal regulation is quite good, but they made many mistakes. It's too commercial, there's too much marketing. I see this through a public health lens, and many of my drug law reform comrades on perhaps more of the right of the political spectrum see the value in a commercial version of a cannabis market. but you know we should learn the lesson from alcohol advertising and the history of uh tobacco advertising we shouldn't allow branding we just need a public health approach but then where would you buy it from i mean in practical terms would there be age limits would they be limits on potency on the amount that you can buy is it a question of going into a news agent and buying it i mean how in practical terms i mean we know what you don't want what do you want well i would go for multiple methods of sales so there's cannabis social clubs where people can go it's like a bit like a pub it's very good for harm reduction because it's a sort of social setting the cannabis social clubs in malta are a really good example of that the way that they've regulated but i would also go for shops which are i would prefer government monopoly uh government completely controlling it so you would have these these outlets but the important thing is you know if if drug policy should be about nothing else it should be about the protection of our young And right now, our young people can get hold of cannabis, MDMA and cocaine much easier than they can alcohol and tobacco.

27:46Seriously, a lot easier. Because dealers don't ask for ID. Once you've taken control of the cannabis market, you can check ID. So you would check, there would be an age limit. Oh, absolutely. Absolutely. And there is an interesting debate about what age that should be for young people.

28:03Jenny Kleeman:If there was an age limit, though, wouldn't there still be a black market? Because if, as you say, younger teenagers or kids are trying to buy cannabis, wouldn't they continue to do so? Wouldn't there still be a black market for them? But it becomes harder because you have to have your ID. Now, in Canada, one of the mistakes they made is the price of cannabis was twice as much as the illicit market, which was a foolish policy decision because it took them a lot longer to take control. Cannabis doesn't come without harms. I've written about people, young people who've developed psychosis that they're living with for years as a consequence of having had bad experience with cannabis.

28:44Jenny Kleeman:How could we make sure that we were protecting people's mental health if the government was supplying cannabis to people? Yeah, absolutely. It has potential harms. All drugs have some potential harms. But those harms that you're referring to and those young people, that harm has come to them under prohibition. the average strength in terms of the the amount of thc in cannabis has grown there's some fascinating data from greater manchester police which shows the increase per seizures over 15 years it's a frightening increase so cannabis has become more dangerous as a result of prohibition but that is what happens with all drugs it's called the iron law of prohibition that once you make something prohibited the drug becomes stronger and more dangerous because it's much more cost effective to smuggle something which is very high strength.

29:32It's like with alcohol prohibition in the United States, within a few weeks no one could get beer anymore, they could only get spirits because who's going to smuggle beer? I'm not saying necessarily that we should completely prohibit high strength THC cannabis, but there is also surveys which show that the majority of cannabis consumers prefer a mild product. It's like the majority of alcohol consumers prefer a mild product. Most people drink a pint of beer or cider than they do a double whiskey. But you can also use a public health approach to pricing so the high strength products can be more expensive as well.

30:10I mean there's an interesting discussion here because for many people who use cannabis medicinally, particularly for things like MS, it's the very very high strength THC which is important to them but they are a minority.

30:23Jenny Kleeman:So you wouldn't even prohibit those higher strength there were certain conditions where you would you would be happy for the government to be supplying i think we should strength we should follow the best scientific evidence and we should consider the regulatory mechanisms to make the market as safe as possible that puts big responsibility on the people who are selling it though and the idea of cannabis clubs if they're selling this very strong stuff that could give people psychosis that's a that's a big ask of people running those clubs well there are ways of mitigating the psychosis but by balancing with the CBD in the product.

30:54But you need to put this into context. There is a psychosis risk with alcohol, but we don't talk about that. But it's not as much as with cannabis. No, but we can reduce those risks by taking control. Regulatory control reduces the risks.

31:09Jenny Kleeman:What about MDMA or cocaine? How would it work? Well, for drugs like MDMA, you need a licensed pharmacy where people can buy them in a regulated dose, perhaps a packet of MDMA tablets, there would be a limit in the amount of tablets. One regulatory suggestion is that each tablet would be 40 milligrams. Two of those would be quite a standard adult dose, perhaps. Some people would prefer three. The thing is about MDMA is when you look at the deaths that have happened, they have almost entirely been as a result of the lack of regulation. So they've been tablets which are four times too strong, or they've had PMA, much more dangerous drugs in them, or they've been adulterated with cathinones or whatever the dangerous substances they've been adulterated with.

31:58So for a drug which has a pretty good safety profile, once it's pure in its pure form, regulation makes it safer. And if you buy it from a licensed pharmacy, you can get the correct advice and you have a limit of how many you can buy at that time. Same for the psychedelics.

32:14Jenny Kleeman:What's to stop people stockpiling it and taking huge amounts? in a way that would really cause damage to their health, no matter how pure it is. Well, I don't think there is a great deal you can do about that. Just a risk you're prepared to take, that this would be a byproduct of the system. This would be safer than prohibition. People can stockpile drugs now, but they are less likely to if you've got a regulated market where you've got a limit as to how many you can buy in one go. So, yeah, I mean, there are going to be risks because drugs are risky things. there's also the question of normalizing what can be very dangerous drugs because cocaine even in a pure form even when it's not adulterated has huge risks to health cardiovascular health in particular do you worry that we would be normalizing quite dangerous activity by legalizing a drug like cocaine cocaine is normalized now it's the second most illicit drug used in this country the estimates are extraordinary in fact there's a the most recent sewage tests of various cities in the uk suggest that even our estimates of the amount of cocaine use could be too low cocaine is everywhere and it concerns me a great deal because especially in the uk and the rest of northern europe the consumption of cocaine is completely linked to the consumption of alcohol which makes it substantially more dangerous because if you mix cocaine and alcohol the liver makes cocoa ethylene a third drug which is cardiovascularly more dangerous it's a much more dangerous drug and we are not getting the harm reduction advice out there we are not getting the message out there that this is dangerous and this is going to cause long-term public health problems and and cost to the national health service as well can't you get the harm reduction message out there without making cocaine legally available i mean couldn't there be public health campaigns about the dangers of mixing cocaine and alcohol?

34:13You could, but it'd be much more effective if you've got regulatory control over those products. You can also stop the acceleration that organised crime is managing to do in terms of the growth of the cocaine market. We need to get a grip of this. And like I've just said, that there is evidence that people prefer a less strong product of any drug. If you actually take control of the cocaine market, you can have much milder products you can have much milder ways of using this drug which will be enough for most people you know because you've got prohibition of this drug you've only got the strongest forms of it and it's got stronger and stronger now cocaine has got so strong most of the time even a single one gram deal is is above 75 and quite often it's 100 at the moment the data

35:03Jenny Kleeman:you drew on to do with levels of cocaine in sewage, they demonstrate that there is a higher level of cocaine, but that doesn't necessarily mean that there's a greater trend, a greater number of people taking cocaine. It could be that people are just taking higher quantities. And the British Crime Survey, looking at the use of all class A drugs, it actually suggests that the trend is pretty stable of the number of people taking class A drugs. It depends what statistics you look at. And I would suggest that the methodology, if you look at it, for the analysis, is more accurate testing sewage than it is for the estimates for the crime survey.

35:41Because the failures of crime survey is you're relying on people to admit to what they're doing. But to answer your point, and it's a good point, that it could be the numbers of people using cocaine more problematically. And of course, that is a feature of prohibition, where people are more likely to use drugs problematically. It's one of the causes, one of the things that prohibition causes. You know, people talk about the most important figure being the numbers of people using drugs. But the numbers of people using drugs aren't necessarily the number we should be concerned about. The number we should be worried about is the number of people using drugs problematically.

36:16And of course, if you have different options for our society, for example, MDMA, you know, we're sold this idea that MDMA is so dangerous. And tragically, people have died like Leah Betts, and that's awful. but Leah Betts died from poor advice drinking too much water you know from the wrong harm reduction advice and most of the deaths have been because it's not regulated a very close friend of mine Anne-Marie Coburn she lost her 15 year old daughter to an accidental overdose of MDMA she took enough for several people because it wasn't a regulated dose so once you get a regulatory control of MDMA, the deaths would be tiny.

36:58Jenny Kleeman:You talk about MDMA and the risks associated with adulterated supply or people drinking too much water or alcohol alongside, but there are other risks too. A 2006 article in the British Journal of Anesthesia said that the immediate effects of ecstasy vary from almost universal minor symptoms to those that are rare but potentially life-threatening. And among severe effects, one of them is possible sudden death. So for some people taking them, even in a pure form, even not in huge quantities, it's extremely dangerous. Yes, that's right. But it's a tiny risk compared to the risks that are happening now.

37:38So with many things about drug policy, it's taking the least worst option. Will there still be deaths? Yes, because drugs are dangerous. There will still be alcohol deaths. We could cut our alcohol deaths in half, but it's reluctant to use best evidence is a moral failure, especially when the opposition say that it's a moral judgment.

38:01Jenny Kleeman:I should say that we have a statement from the Home Office. A government spokesperson said, there are no plans to change UK drug laws or legalised controlled drugs. We remain on high alert to emerging drug threats, working closely with health services and policing partners to stay ahead of criminals, prevent drug use in children and young people and educate them on the risks. We're also tackling the root of the problem by stopping drugs entering the UK in the first place. A record number of illegal drugs were seized by police and border force in the year ending March 2025 with 150 tonnes with a street value of£2.6 billion stopped entering our streets.

38:40I'm so glad you read that part of the quote because the journalistic presentation of this which of course is fed from government and police is we have a record seizure of drugs we have record arrests but the most regular headline is we have this record seizure and there's always either Royal Navy or Customs have had a record seizure it's always the biggest seizure since the last one and until the next one but this isn't evidence of success it's just further evidence of failure because a large seizure is only evidence of the size of the growing market and the evidence internationally is clear like i've said that the markets have grown greater than the size of populations these markets are growing larger seizures are merely evidence of that and organized crime have become so efficient, so effective, that these are just normal business losses.

39:37Jenny Kleeman:But when we're talking about organised crime and criminal gangs, they're not going to go away if we go for the approach that you're advocating. They will still be there in the background with cheaper prices, selling to people who wouldn't qualify because they're not the right age, stronger strains. They would still be there, wouldn't they? the national crime agency produced a brilliant document called the strategic assessment into organized crime it's a really great document sometimes it's quite surprising the detail that they'll publish in that quite often in that document they've made the point that the profits from the illicit drug markets are routinely reinvested into other forms of organized criminality another way of phrasing that is that the the value in the illicit drug market is like the investment bank.

40:25It's what makes other forms of criminality possible. It's the investment bank for people trafficking. It's the investment bank for counterfeiting. So if you take the illicit drug markets away from organised crime, or as much of a percentage of them as you can through regulation, you cripple organised crime twice.

40:46Jenny Kleeman:Shouldn't we, instead of looking at countries where they have legalised or decriminalised drugs, shouldn't we be looking at countries like Japan that have very low levels of drug taking and see why that's worked there? I mean, shouldn't we be looking at the reasons why people want to take drugs in the first place and counteracting that? Absolutely. We should look at the examples of everywhere. And in fact, that's what the government did. So there's a report published in 2014. It's called the Comparators Report, which did just that. It looked at the various models of different countries all around the world.

41:19And Japan was actually highlighted as an outlier, which didn't seem to quite have the same level of problems that most prohibition regimes do. However, Japan has a significantly higher amphetamine problem, methamphetamine problem, than we do in the UK. They don't have the same cannabis problem, but they still have problems with prohibition and organised crime. So yeah, we should look at these things. But in that comparators report, the best outcomes were all of the countries that had the most health-based approach.

41:54Jenny Kleeman:There are some practical issues with all of this, though, aren't there? Where are you going to get these legal drugs from? I mean, if we're talking about cocaine, is the government going to be doing business with cartels? How would it work? Well, if we wanted to, we could manufacture cocaine. We could do a lab version of it. But ideally, we have a responsibility in the Northern Hemisphere to the harm that prohibition has caused in the South, the global South, especially. Ideally, we should have an international regulatory system where those countries in Latin America can take control of their own resources and we could trade with them.

42:35Another reason why that is absolutely crucial is that the international regime of drug prohibition that we have, I know that we probably don't have time to go into this in depth, But the international regime of prohibition is also a significant barrier to climate action. You've got Albanian organised crime buying up wood trading companies in Ecuador to better launder drug money through deforestation. So this is urgent that we try and make this an international movement and an international decision.

43:06Jenny Kleeman:But it's going to take decades to have sort of international agreement on all of this. And meanwhile, these cartels are not going to want it to happen. And we know the misery these cartels will cause targeting people who are threatening their power, including people like you, who might be advocating, you know, taking away the source of their millions. It would be an incredibly difficult process, wouldn't it? I'm glad you've acknowledged that, that the cartels don't want this change. And the closer we get to change, the closer we get to taking control and having regulatory mechanisms, the pushback from the cartels will be more severe.

43:46so you know if there becomes strong advocates you know higher profile and louder and more persuasive than I am you know those people are going to be targets but that's not a reason to not try.

44:02Jenny Kleeman:But won't criminal gangs cartels be constantly synthesizing new drugs we know that they're developing new drugs all the time and as soon as there are legal routes for the drugs that they produce, aren't they constantly going to be inventing to keep themselves in business? The drive to create new drugs is a feature of prohibition, not legal regulation. The constant drive to produce drugs which beat the laws, beat the treaties, or are a cheaper high, or a more efficient way of selling a product, that's been generated by the market drive of prohibition, not regulation as soon as you have legally regulated mdma that people can buy that's not adulterated with anything that's produced in a lab less of a hangover because less impurities that will kill off so much how can you know this though i mean how much of that is your hunch or the kind of the logical conclusion to your thinking and how much of it is actually based in evidence well a lot of it is hunch but i speak i mean i speak to people involved in drug policy all of the world and there is evidence that people prefer a purer product and a safer product but you know even just look at the logic of it why would someone go to a backstreet dealer for for an mdma tablet which might be caught with pma when you can buy one that's pure and made in a lab it defies logic who buys backstreet whiskey now you know in in places where there's been prohibited alcohol people don't they can get it licensed and it's safe it hasn't got methylated spirits in it that might make them blind.

45:37Jenny Kleeman:After doing this campaigning for years, you have only recently been open about your own use of illegal drugs. Why did it take you so long? It took me so long because I came out of the police to become active. I was having a mental health crisis I had to deal with. And when I went public, I was acutely aware of the fact that I needed to stay credible and that by admitting the drug use that I had I could be dismissed as just or you just want to make drug legal drugs legal for yourself which wasn't the case because I decided I realized that the work I was doing working undercover was only causing harm to society and individuals long before I'd actually self-medicated to try and deal with my mental health.

46:26But earlier this year, how many people say this? They had a revelation whilst at a retreat. But, you know, it's a trope now, isn't it? But I did. One of the revelations I had was that I now have a duty to be honest about my own drug use because the drugs I've used have made me well. Now, I know.

46:48Jenny Kleeman:How can you know that they've made you well, Neil? That's a huge claim. I know. It's the ultimate subjective comment, isn't it? But thankfully, the evidence backs me up. So I am diagnosed with complex PTSD and moral injury. I developed those mental illnesses as a result of my police work working undercover. What is moral injury? moral injury so it manifests with me for me as a profound sense of guilt and guilt and worthlessness because i knew i was causing harm to vulnerable people i realized that when i got to know them i weaponized empathy in order to better manipulate them causing harm to those people was contrary to my ethical and moral centre, contrary to who I am.

47:44And yet I still continue to do so for the sake of the cause, because I believed at the time that it was going to be beneficial. Eventually I realised I was causing harm. Now, and even though I can rationalise it, it's what I believed to be right at the time, I'm still injured because there's no harsher judge of oneself than oneself.

48:05Jenny Kleeman:So you took psychedelic drugs and you're saying that they helped you? Well I've had suicidal ideation such as the extent of my emotional pain. Now I've been on sertraline, metazapine, various benzodiazepines, I've had CBT, all sorts of different therapies, I've seen three psychiatrists, multiple psychiatric nurses. None of it really helped apart from the occasional conversation with a psychiatric nurse one dose and i learned so much about my own condition and my own brain in that one experience more than anything i'd done more than any conversation i'd had and i instantly felt better and i felt better for months um now the evidence supports this?

48:57Jenny Kleeman:You say the evidence supports this, but this is still an early field, an emerging field. There's a lot of trials going on. I've been having a look at the kind of official responses in the UK and the US. The impartial parliamentary office of science and technology says to understand the safety and efficacy more accurately, psychedelics need to be investigated with larger and longer clinical trials. John Hopkins Centre for Psychedelics and Consciousness basically says the same it's too early to know for sure about psychedelics so the evidence isn't quite there yet and it's quite a big thing to be advocating this in such a big way particularly when they are illegal at the moment and you know you don't want people self-medicating do you well i'm not advocating for it but i but i have to be honest about what what has happened for me um and i've had years of gradually healing myself by the use of psychedelics and i'm i mean again And, you know, it's subjective.

49:48It's just me, but it has worked for me.

49:50Jenny Kleeman:But you of all people know about the dangers of the pipeline when you're taking illegal drugs. Did you not wrestle with that when you were talking about drugs for your own use? I mean, yes, anyone involved in it is a criminal. But are they doing something which is ethically wrong? I don't necessarily believe that. the psychedelic market tends to be much nicer and less risky than than some of the other drugs uh it's just that there's not such the size of the market people who do it traditionally tend to be the sort of um the intellectual types or the people like to party in a certain way um you know it's a different group of people there's a great risk when talking about psychedelics that to let some kind of exceptionalism creep in because I believe it's my right to try and heal myself with psychedelics, but I wouldn't put that right above anybody's right to self-medicate with their drug of choice, whatever that might be.

50:52And also people who are self-medicating for childhood trauma with heroin, they do not deserve to be criminalised any more than I deserve to be criminalised for the use of psychedelics. So, you know, be careful not to adopt the psychedelic exceptionalism which seems to be creeping in at the moment.

51:12Jenny Kleeman:If we were to do this, to adopt the measures that you suggest and find out that they didn't work, that drug deaths didn't go down, drug harms weren't reduced, could we go back? Isn't it a big risk to take to try these measures? I would say it's a big risk to leave it too long. I think that legal regulation will come eventually as the only last ditch option when we realise that having children dealing heroin and crack cocaine is not sustainable and we must do something different to stop it. You know, eventually it's inevitable that risk is taking too long because organised crime is becoming more and more embedded.

51:53And once we have regulatory control of these substances, we can tweak that regulatory control. We can work out how better to control these substances. And for some substances, that will mean that we will drastically reduce, over time, drastically reduce the consumption of them like heroin. Heroin consumption will go down. We know that from Switzerland and we know it from the Netherlands. For some drugs, consumption might go up. Consumption of MDMA might go up. But do I care if someone wants to take an ecstasy pill and dance in a field for a few hours? Do I really care about that? I care about whether they survive it and whether they stay safe.

52:33Jenny Kleeman:Can we trust that people will take drugs responsibly? Can we trust that they will take drugs and not drive, for example, or take drugs and not be looking after kids? How can we know? Remember, there are people using illicit drugs now and driving. Yes. And that will still be illegal once those drugs are legally controlled. But if you're making it much easier to get hold of intoxicating substances, and there's a much greater variety of things you can take to become intoxicated. But we won't be making it easier to get hold of. Well, if you're making it legal and you're talking about cannabis cafes or places like that, it will be less complicated to go and less controversial, certainly, and more normalised to be taking these drugs.

53:24Jenny Kleeman:Wouldn't there be a greater risk of not taking them in a responsible way? No, I mean, it's easy now. It's incredibly easy for people to get the drugs that they want now. And in fact, with the merging of the drug markets, you can have young people who might start buying cannabis from a dealer. Then it's the same dealer for cocaine. And that's how they get introduced to these things. So by separating the markets and taking regulatory control, you know who's buying it, you need to show ID for the appropriate age, it's taking control of it. You also then start to control the narrative, because at the moment a lot of people get advice about how much to take and when from a dealer.

54:06regulatory control will make these things safer and it allows for more detailed and evidence-based public health campaigns and the right information that people need.

54:19Jenny Kleeman:Morally and culturally Neil do you think the UK really is the country to do this because we're still having debates about assisted dying that lots of other countries have have made legal a long time ago. Are we too conservative when it comes to things like drugs to actually be at the forefront of this? I'm not sure. I mean, the debate is shifting. And I say it's shifted because the argument that I'm having, the debate I'm having around the world is not should we or shouldn't we? It's how we should do it. Should we do it through the lens of this political philosophy or another. So we are getting there in terms of the debate and it could shift quickly.

55:02It could. There has to be a tipping point where people realise the acute harms we are doing to society. Maybe we need a shift in our style of democracy here. I don't know, to something perhaps a bit more Swiss. Maybe it's the democratic method that's the key. So maybe that should be the conversation. But, you know, I think we could in this country renew our traditional commitment to evidence, to pragmatic thinking, and we could get that swing here.

55:33Jenny Kleeman:Neil Woods, thank you so much for joining us. Thank you.

55:43Jenny Kleeman:It was a real privilege to get to talk in such depth with someone who's done such a 180 in their lives to go from pursuing drug dealers to trying to make the business of selling drugs legal and regulated by the government. He's clearly so passionate about this. It's something that Neil really deeply believes, but it's such a complex issue. And when he spells out all the different ways that he would be approaching things for all the different drugs, you realise how thorny it is. The issue of supply is still a very sticky one for me. Are we really going to be able to get ethical sources of all of these drugs?

56:28Jenny Kleeman:Is there no way that the cartels would be involved? And also to hear Neil concede that some children will still take drugs and that some people will still die from reactions to drugs. And we're just going to have to factor this in as the lesser of two evils, that this approach is better compared to children using drugs under prohibition or people dying under prohibition. That was a really harsh thing to hear. Neil might think that what he's proposing is common sense, but hearing it expressed in that way, it sounded pretty radical to me. That's it for this episode. A quick note before we go that details of organisations offering information and support about drug addiction and suicide are available at bbc.co.uk slash actionline.

57:18Jenny Kleeman:To make sure you don't miss future conversations, you can subscribe to Radical on BBC Sounds. We'll be back on Monday with the Radical questions that you put to Neil Woods, so look out for that too. That's it from me, but there'll be another episode of Radical coming very soon. Goodbye. I'm Jenny Kleeman, And for the new series of The Gift from BBC Radio 4, I'm back with six more remarkable tales of truths that unravel when people take at-home DNA tests. Things just swirling around my head going, oh my God, oh my God, oh my God, am I really the product of this? We all find ourselves really fascinating, don't we?

57:58Jenny Kleeman:Oh, absolutely. Except that I really am. In the end, the truth will come out. And DNA helps the truth to come out. Right, yeah. Listen to the new series of The Gift, now on BBC Sounds.

58:38Thank you.