When I worked in the addiction recovery field whilst living in the UK from 2000-2008, I was not a fan of government strategy and workings in helping people overcome substance use problems. I wrote and talked about my concerns about these matters. Near the end of that time, I received a call from someone who had a friend working in the National Treatment Agency (NTA), the government agency overseeing the drug strategy, saying that the NTA had named me as a ‘public enemy’.
So what does Tim Leighton think of that strategy, and later strategies and workings, of the government? Here are three films and summaries relating to this issue.
Government Strategies & Failures: Tim Leighton [3 films, 6’41”]
The UK’s first drug strategy, Tackling Drugs to Build a Better Britain, was based on an attack on drug-related crime. Drug problems were treated as a criminal justice, rather than a health, issue. Huge numbers of people were put on opioid substitution (mainly methadone) treatment.
This may have led to a reduction in crime, but created a new problem, in that most of these people were not provided with a pathway out of this treatment of a powerful sedative [and addictive] substance. ‘Family members would complain, ‘Look, my addicted son has been sat on the couch for ten years and nothing is happening.’
David Cameron’s Coalition government’s strategy for helping people recover from drug problems was a failure. They thought people shouldn’t be on methadone; they should be abstinent. Once they heard of the success of NA and AA, they thought we’d get everyone into that and the best thing is that it would be free! Needless to say, that didn’t work.
Alcohol was entirely neglected until the government developed AHRSE, ‘that was a ridiculous non-strategy with no resources attached to it…’
The huge promise of Dame Carol Black’s two recent reports on drug treatment, prevention and recovery has been squandered by government. Much funding is being wasted, or put towards traditional services who have a tendency to provide what is often called ‘spray-on recovery’. He describes some large organisations hoovering up funding by bidding at unrealistically low levels, and often then sub-contracting to organisations who can’t possibly help people with the money provided.
Here is a paragraph from Dame Carol Black’s report:
‘The findings have been disturbing, even shocking. Funding cuts have left treatment and recovery services on their knees. Commissioning has been fragmented, with little accountability for outcomes. And partnerships between local authorities, health, housing, employment support and criminal justice agencies have deteriorated. The workforce is depleted, especially of professionally qualified people, and demoralised. Vital services have been cut back, particularly inpatient detoxification, residential rehabilitation, specialist services for young people, and treatment for cannabis and stimulant users.’