needle and the damage done

It is safe to say that of all the women in our society those who are drug addicts and the severely mentally ill are perceived to be the lowest common denominators. When one considers how these two groups are represented in the tabloid media then there are some parallels that can be drawn between them:

• reliance upon the public purse and cost to the tax payer
• threat to the lives of the typical British citizen be it drug addicts stealing purses or the mentally ill causing violence
• that they are unfit to raise a family and intervention from social work is required

I personally think that those with addictions fair the worst in the media, partly because there are precious few organisations campaigning on their behalf. (at least for us nutters there are a plethora of anti stigma campaigns) According to Action On Addiction, one of the few registered charities dealing with substance abusers, addiction affects 1 in 3 people at any given time. I found this surprising as unlike mental health, where the 1 in 4 statistic has been well publicised, addiction is both more common place (even with many drug users having mental health issues as a co morbidity) and much less discussed.

Unlike mental health (where I am well versed as a service user) I know very little about drug addiction beyond the negative slant that is reported in the newspapers. Addiction is a powerful force that breaks up families, damages communities and ruins lives. How can I know so little about it? Firstly there is not much in the way of balanced reporting – I am well aware that addicts steal, contract diseases and cost the taxpayer millions each year. However as a liberal feminist I want to go beyond the headlines, I want to know what factors led to these women making this horrible choice. I want to know the true statistics of cost and crime. I also want to know what the hell the government is doing to help them and their families.

First of all we need to address what inspires people to abuse? In amongst the tabloid bile, it must be remembered that no drug user sets out to become an addict. People start using drugs for reasons such as to escape problems they are having in their lives, to fit in amongst their peers and simple curiosity regarding their effects. Women today face major issues such as sexual exportation, reduced earnings and the bulk of parental responsibility. All of which are majorly stressful and can be implicated in the use of drugs.

Women, in the past, faced special stigmatization in regards to receiving treatment for their addictions. According to research from America until the 1970s drug therapy was designed with mainly men in mind and little in the way of studies concerned women's issues. Whilst drug treatment has now mainly caught up between the genders: women are still unique in that their relationship with drugs is linked to experiences such as domestic violence and the raising of children. Drug using women who fall pregnant are demonised to an extent never felt by a man. Such is the rights of the unborn child placed over the mother, an angle the media are often only too happy to take.

This follows onto the reproductive rights row. In October last year the BBC reported that Project Prevention (an American charity) was offering £200 to addicts in exchange for their sterilisation. Personally I find this move horrifying and that discouraging the less desirable members of our society from bearing children amounts to little more than eugenics. I find that the offering of a cash reward is exploitative and with many drug addicts desperate for cash many may be led down this route without having the freedom to consider the implications of their actions. Whilst I believe that no-one wants a child to be brought up by drug addicted parents I am also of the firm opinion that humans should not be selectively bred like cattle.

In regards to what might make life a little easier for drug affected families scrapping the illegality of drugs is an option. Prohibition does not work, prohibition has never worked. We only have to look to America at the start of the last century and the Volstead act to see this. Many parallels can be drawn between society's attitude to alcohol back then and to illegal drugs just now. The anti saloon league who heralded in the changes saw alcohol has a destructive force for families and marriages. When the ban first came in it appeared to work at first arrests for drunken disorder fell but it was not to last. The illegal production and distribution of alcohol rose and was in the hands of often violent criminals from organised crime. Sound familiar?

Releasing drugs from the hands of organised gangs would prevent exposure to the vast criminal underworld by drug users – saving them from harm. Prescribing drugs to addicts would decrease demand from the streets, effectively putting drug pushers out of business. It would also decrease prostitution as women would no longer have to sell their bodies to finance their addiction. It would encourage them to be better parents as they would no longer be prowling the streets after their next fix. Prescribing drugs with clean needles could also lower rates of blood transmitted infections and thus save the NHS thousands each year. A pilot study by King's college found that :

“Of 127 users involved in the pilots, three-quarters "substantially reduced" their use of street drugs, while their spending on drugs fell from £300 to £50 a week. The number of crimes they committed fell from 1,731 in three months to 547 in six months.”

It also revealed a financial saving, where the project cost £15,000 per addict per year compared to prison costs of £44,000. This does not go anywhere near solving all the issues connected to drugs but as stated by Julian Critchley (former director of the UK Anti-Drug Co-Ordination Unit) :

“Ultimately, people will make choices which harm themselves, whether they involve diet, smoking, drinking, lack of exercise, sexual activity or pursuit of extreme sports. In all these instances, the Government rightly takes the line that if these activities are to be pursued, society will ensure that those who pursue them have access to accurate information about the risks; can access assistance to change their harmful habits should they so wish; are protected by a legal standards regime; are taxed accordingly; and – crucially – do not harm other people. Only in the field of drugs does the Government take a different line”

To further prove the point the government like to run their drug policy to appease the average tabloid reader, though as can be seen even the tabloids are now moving with the times, the government are now looking to cut benefits from addicts who refuse treatment. The Daily Mail, whilst they are at pains to point out that “£1.2billion of taxpayers’ money “ is spent on addicts annually they also report in the article that cutting benefits from addicts will drive the market further underground, result in an increase in crime and prostitution as individuals finance their supply. Making the situation worse for drug abuser and non drug abuser alike. I find this a very positive line of reporting from a tabloid newspaper. The article goes on to quote Professor Sir Ian Gilmore, former president of the Royal College of Physicians who believes that there is a strong case for putting a regulatory framework around illicit drugs, rather than the current blanket ban. Only when the government admits that the “war on drugs” is making things worse and listen to the gathering voices of experts in the field will much needed reform take place. Until then our most vulnerable women will roam the streets risking murder and rape to fuel their addictions. Steff xxx