MEDIA SAVVY
WHO’S BEEN SAYING WHAT..?
I do not know whether this troupe of high-minded MPs has yet
commissioned stationery bearing the screamer ‘the most starfucking
bunch of dullards this side of
OK!
magazine’, but if not, I am happy to
furnish them with the quote. Chaired by the odious Keith Vaz, whose
advance towards the red benches appears to be as ineluctable as it is
sensationally ill-deserved, the committee this week followed up its
decision to call Amy Winehouse’s father to discourse on the cocaine
trade with an invitation to Russell Brand to address them on drug
addiction. To substitute one genuine expert with a tabloid celebrity
may be regarded as unfortunate; to do it twice begins to look like a
clear strategy… Brand is not there because of anything he might say.
He is there because he will get Vaz and friends on the telly.
Marina Hyde,
The Guardian
, 26 April
The fact is that drug use is a risky minority activity that most people do
not have a taste for. It will stay that way as long as it is against the law.
Kathy Gyngell,
Daily Mail
, 24 April
Consumer countries of the developed world have seen whole
communities devastated by epidemics of drugs misuse and crime.
Addicts of drugs such as heroin have been marginalised and
stigmatised and many otherwise law-abiding citizens criminalised
for their consumption choices. But the vulnerable producer and
transit countries of the developing world have paid a far higher price.
Nigel Inkster,
The Sun
, 17 April
The pro-crime lobby who run our injustice system have two fixed
beliefs. One is that criminals are victims. Their misdeeds are not their
fault but the inevitable result of non-existent poverty… The other is
that prisons are a waste of money, an ‘expensive way of making bad
people worse’... They keep the jails we have only because of tiresome
public opinion, and because of newspapers like this one that hold fast
to traditional ideas of right and wrong, justice and punishment. That
is why they deliberately run those prisons very badly – they are
pointless, apologetic warehouses, largely under the control of the
inmates and full of illegal drugs.
Peter Hitchens,
Mail on Sunday
, 15 April
While you witter on about your pet project Mr Cameron, care for
society’s vulnerable is being systematically taken apart. I don’t see
anything Big about that. Big Society... it’s very apt that when reduced
to basics, it’s nothing more than BS.
Fiona Phillips,
Mirror
, 7 April
Recently, researchers from King’s College in the UK have found that
the number of middle aged people who had taken cannabis in the
last year has increased tenfold over the last fourteen years. The
hippie generation are not keen to give up the weed. Some see no
point. They like it and they claim that it is doing them no harm.
Excessive use often damages mood, memory and motivation but
maybe they don't value these attributes.
Dr Robert Lefever,
Daily Mail
, 13 April
May 2012 |
drinkanddrugsnews
| 7
www.drinkanddrugsnews.com
News focus |
Media savvy
literature or best practice within the field of recovery-orientated treatment, and
anyone reading it will remain blissfully unaware of the fact that recovery is an
established approach within mental health services in this country, and that
there’s a body of work there.’
The government’s ‘apparent volte-face’ over the use of ‘recovery’ will mean
‘hundreds of thousands of successfully-in-treatment patients having their lives
turned upside down’, says Alan Joyce, with ‘yet another anxiety added to a
population already mired in stigma. Many of our membership network whose
health, wellbeing, family life and careers are predicated on and sustained by
long-term opioid maintenance or substitution therapy would have their lives,
recovery and continued employment needlessly put at risk.’
Few employers would allow someone six months to a year off to become
abstinent, he adds, ‘and that’s excluding risk of relapse onto street drugs.
Contrary to the belief propagated that drug users in treatment have been force-
fed methadone and parked on it indefinitely, many of our members on OST
have had to fight hard and repeated battles over three to four decades to
obtain and retain a prescribed medication that is essential for them to lead
normal, fulfilled lives.’ The fear is that, once ‘discharged’, many would not seek
treatment again, he continues, preferring to go back to living ‘under the radar,
relying on street drugs and the tenderness of the wolves as best they can’.
The roadmap will also increase rates of HIV transmission and overdose,
warns
Putting public health first
, pointing to the example of Greece, where HIV
transmission rates have rocketed from between nine and 16 annual cases in the
previous five years to 190 in 2011, partly as a result of austerity-related cuts in
prevention and harm reduction services. The roadmap’s bald statement that it
will deliver better value for taxpayers’ money as ‘ultimately payment will be
made for full recovery only’ also trivialises the complex nature of drug
dependence, it continues, with services likely to be tempted to exclude clients
they deem unsuitable, adding that imposing a ‘one-size-fits-all’ abstinence goal
on the diverse population of drug users could well contravene medical ethics.
The government pre-empts the negative responses in the document itself,
stating that, ‘Arguably the greatest challenge is addressing the attitudes and
practice of all parties in the treatment system and in creating a culture that
genuinely embraces change.’ However, a key argument of
Putting public health
first
is that ‘the roadmap bypassed public consultation yet carries logos from
eight government departments’, and the letter to Lord Henley extends an
invitation to discuss the field’s concerns. ‘I’ve yet to meet anyone who’s
actually contributed to the document,’ says Sinclair. ‘What the UKRF and
others are asking for is consultation.’
‘If we are going to completely change our approach to drug treatment, we
need to talk to the people who use it – and their families and carers,’ agrees
Alliance director Ken Stringer. ‘I’d like to know how the risk assessment was
undertaken for this policy – what’s going to be the impact on crime? How will it
affect health – and healthcare?’
It also comes at a time when ‘some commissioners and providers are already
abandoning the evidence base,’ he adds. ‘We’ve got huge changes to our local
and national health services, and some very confused people out there. This isn’t
going to help and I am afraid if we are not careful, we could end up measuring
the impact of this policy in lives lost.’
Indeed,
Putting full recovery first
is a ‘dangerous document’, says Sinclair.
‘In a time of austerity when services a being cut in the community it seems to
be suggesting that through the creation of recovery champions we’ll find
ourselves in a wonderful state of full recovery. The sort of services that would
support recovery in the community are being cut, so I find it difficult to believe
that a government that’s cutting vital support services is at the same time
suggesting that it is supporting recovery.
‘It describes itself as a roadmap, but it gives no directions,’ he continues. ‘I
go around the country and there’s an incredible amount of confusion around
what recovery-orientation is – I encounter very few commissioners or service
managers who’ve had any real guidance. Service users and people delivering
services deserve better. They deserve to get reasonable guidance about what
recovery orientation actually is.’
Putting full recovery first available at www.homeoffice.org.uk
Putting public health first available at www.ukhra.org/putting_public_health_first