You'd think they'd have got the message by now wouldn't you? That after nearly thirty years of fighting the so-called War on Drugs, with the only result being the near doubling of the inmate populations across North and South America and no decrease in the number of people using, they might be taking the wrong approach.
But it doesn't appear to have sunk into the thick skulls of the Conservative Party of Canada who are about to release their vaunted drug policy next week. They've already scrapped plans for decriminalizing simple possession of marijuana that had been on the table before the last election, and they've been making noises about a "Get Tough On Drugs" platform.
How you can get any tougher on illicit drug use then we already are in this country, where simple possession of marijuana can see you put away for up to ten years in jail, I don't know, but that's what they're saying. It doesn't seem to matter that this policy has shown itself to be totally ineffective in dealing with any sort of drug problem that we have in Canada, it's just all part of the right wing get tough on crime attitude.
Now there's no denying that there is a problem with drug addiction in Canada. According to a study released by the Canadian Centre On Substance Abuse the cost to the public, including treatment, disability, and missed work, from alcohol, tobacco, and illicit drug use is $40 billion a year.
Yet as a country we have no national treatment system with which to set standards for the treatment of addictions. We have a hodgepodge of programs that range from overnight stays in a detoxification centre to six-week hospital in patient programs. According to Patrick Smith, head of addiction psychiatry at the University of British Columbia, most Canadians with a substance abuse problem don't get help even if they want it.
Dr. Smith is part of a group of addiction workers from across Canada who are working towards a March 2008 deadline to draft a framework for a treatment model. They have gathered together a group of policy advisors, treatment specialists, and lawmakers to be involved in the process and hope to receive government funding to implement it.
The object would be to provide frontline caregivers, like family doctors, who are the first to deal with addicts in most cases, a means for helping them find the treatment their clients need. Right now if a person goes to their family doctor seeking treatment for an addiction to an illicit drug, there is no means of assessing what type of treatment the patient needs.
Article comments
1 - Scot Fetherston
Couldn't agree more. The country's ready for a national program. Check out this freely accessible, full-length smoking cessation program at www.stopsmokingforgood.com
2 - gar
It is time for another election the Liberal party can not get it through their head that they are now opposition and the next election that position will be filled by the NDP. Dion and that bunch seems to think we have the same short memories as they do
3 - Peter O'Loughlin
Richard Marcus has some interesting comments, but there are a couple of points that might be worth remembering.
First misuse of addictive psycho-active drugs,(APAP) including alcohol and addiction arising therefrom are classified as mental disorders by both the World Health Organisation and The American Psychiatric Association. The essential differences between the two is that addicts have lost the ability to control their consumption, and that addiction, commonly and inacurately referred to as dependence, is not reversible, misuse is. it is also important to note that neither frequency, or quantity is relevant to the criteria for addiction, what is relevant is the extent of the adverse effects on the persons life.
In cases of addiction, so called harm reduction methods that focus on seeking to reduce intake, without a specific goal of abstinence are in the long term ineffective. There is no empirical evidence that is able to confirm that any reduction in use is sustainable
Due to the effects of alcohol and APAP drugs on the brain, the thought processes of addicts, and for that matter, some substance users are to say the least distorted, their principle concern is focused on obtaining sufficient quantities of their drug(s) of choice to avoid the unpleasant effects of withdrawel.
The treatment of addiction is further complicated by the common presence of comorbidity, a condition where two or more psychiatric disorders are co-occurring. In some cases it is the effect of the drugs, that induces the secondary mental disorder, in others the latter may have been a pre-existing condition, that is aggravated by APAP.
Notwithstanding any of the foregoing, recovery, rooted in abstinence is possible, with a combination of the talking therapies and in some cases pharmacotherapy; however it needs to be clearly understood that whilst the latter can alleviate the physical cravings experienced by addicts,pharmacotherapy cannot control the thought processes. In addition there is considerable objective evidence to conclude that regular and continued attendance at 12 step recovery programmes, both during and after treatment is more likely to sustain abstinence. It follows that any treatment strategy should actively encourage such attendance.
No doubt effective treatment policies are desperately needed, but that is easier said than achieved. However any treatment strategy that in the case of addiction is not abstinence focused will fail, as is evidenced by the current situation, where the softer option of seeking to persuade addicts to cut down is miserably failing not only in Canada, but also here in the UK.