Basic HTML Version
6 –
Daily Update
– DAY THREE – Tuesday 13 May 2008
What motivates drug user activists to stand up in public and
declare their drug use, attracting all kinds of moralistic
judgments and hatred?
The answer, said Milena Naydenova of the International Network of
People Who Use Drugs (INPUD), is that drug users' rights continued
to be violated, despite initially good intentions of the three UN Drugs
Conventions, so there was more need than ever to shout for radical
change. At its most obvious, violation of international human rights
law was demonstrated by the death penalty for drugs-related
offences still existing in more than 30 countries, she said.
But drug policy failure had escalated health problems worldwide,
spreading HIV and hepatitis C among intravenous street users, said
Ms Naydenova. Despite this, drug users were forced to accept that
the treatments they needed were unaccessible to them, because of
insufficient or prohibitively expensive treatment programmes.
'Half a century of permanent failures should be enough to
convince everybody that a radical change is needed,' she said. While
drug user activists understood the risks illegal drugs posed to their
health, she explained, they believed in providing people with the
opportunity to make well-informed decisions on their lives, and
arming them with all possible options to reduce the risks and harms
of using psychoactive substances.
'In this sense, drug user activism is harm reduction,' she said.
'Because even under the current circumstances, we give the right
information to our peers and make everything possible to reduce the
risks of health damage through peer support, advocacy and debates.'
While the first drug user organisations were set up to deal with
immediate health issues and save lives through peer support and
needle exchanges, the movement had matured to campaign for
political changes – the only way to 'bring a real change for all of us'.
A recent survey of drug user organisations conducted by INPUD
showed the scale of work needed to reach those in most need of
support. More than half of organisations that responded were from
Europe, a quarter were from Asia, but there was just one responding
organisation from Africa, one from Australia, and no contact at all
from drug user organisations in South America.
INPUD hoped to increase international networking and since officially
registering the organisation last July, with support and funding from
IHRA, had participated in several high-level consultation meetings.
'We demand to be accepted as equal stakeholders in drug policy
debates and to have our voices heard,' said Ms Naydenova.
'As drug users we demand
to have our voices heard'
‘The belief is that housing is a basic
human right, not a reward for clinical
success,’
professor of psychology at the
University of Washington Alan Marlatt told
delegates about
Housing first
, a project that
provides housing for homeless alcoholics in
Seattle. ‘It’s estimated that there are about
1,000 chronic public inebriates living on the
streets there,’ he said. ‘Average life
expectancy is 47.’
Housing first
is wet housing – the
residents are allowed to drink in their units –
and is staffed 24 hours a day. Co-ordinated
by the Downtown Emergency Services
Center, the scheme was designated as ‘pre-
recovery’ housing for those unwilling or
unable to abstain, he said, and clients were
able to move in directly from the streets. ‘It’s
a harm reduction approach – abstinence is
not mandatory. It offers a home to live in and
in which to get better.
‘It was very controversial, of course,’ he
continued. ‘The press in Seattle were dead
set against it to begin with. There was a small
amount of positive coverage, but mostly it
was negative.’ Most editorials were strongly
opposed and headlines included ‘liberal
lunacy’ and ‘too bad stupidity is legal’.
The project co-ordinators were given a list
of alcoholics living on the streets by the
medical services, and those with the highest
medical costs were prioritised. Most
residents have been men, and primarily
Caucasian and native American. ‘There were
79 offers of housing made to fill 75 places –
only four people turned down a place, and
71 per cent stayed for at least a year.’
All residents completed extensive
interviews, and the results have been
extremely encouraging, he said. There have
been significant drops in shelter and medical
centre visits, emergency medical service calls,
use of ‘sobering centres’ and jail time, along
with the attendant costs of each, while detox
admissions remained roughly the same.
Overall cost savings have added up to $2m.
‘There have been reductions in drinking
even though treatment is not required,’ he told
delegates. ‘This was because they had
housing and didn’t feel the need to drink so
much. Some residents even handed their
alcohol over to staff and asked them to give it
to them a little bit at a time.’ The future focus
would be on a more assertive programme to
reduce alcohol consumption, he said.
‘Things are looking promising,’ he
concluded. ‘People have started to think
“well, if it’s saving taxpayers’ money maybe
it’s a good thing”. Even the press have
started to become more favourable.’
Housing a right, not a reward
'Half a century of permanent
failures should be enough to
convince everybody that a
radical change is needed.’