AlonzoMourning23
07-09-2006, 02:29 PM
DRUG addicts face having to sign an agreement not to have children to qualify for treatment under plans being considered by Labour.
Hard drug users would have to sign a “social contract” agreeing to remain childless in order to continue receiving free methadone and housing payments.
The idea, which has been fed into Scottish Labour’s manifesto discussions for next year’s Holyrood election, is the brainchild of Duncan McNeil, convenor of Labour’s 50-strong parliamentary group.
The MSP for Greenock and Inverclyde sparked controversy earlier this year by suggesting that contraceptives should be put in methadone to prevent addicts from reproducing.
McNeil believes the current system of treatment is too heavily focused on the rights of drug users and does not spell out their responsibilities.
His policy paper states: “These responsibilities are either non-existent or entirely unknown to those supposedly subject to them.”
As part of his proposal the social contract would also oblige addicts to attend a drug cessation programme, with a strict timetable set out to help each individual become drug-free. “There comes a time when we have to challenge addicts’ behaviour,” he said. “I can’t see that we are asking for any commitment at all from them. Addicts just turn up and the support is automatic. We need to do better than harm reduction.”
A Labour insider said: “Duncan is on the extreme end of the debate but there is a lot of sympathy for his position. The party will go some way toward the areas he is talking about.”
The proposal was welcomed by Annabel Goldie, leader of the Scottish Conservatives, who said: “At long last someone from the Labour party has woken up to the spiralling drugs problem.”
However it was criticised by social workers and other opposition politicians.
Stewart Stevenson, drugs spokesman for the SNP, said: “These proposals are totally unacceptable. What we must be focussing on is helping addicts get free of their addictions, not dictating to them, which might make them more reluctant to turn to their only source of help in the first place.”
Ruth Stark, spokeswoman for the British Association of Social Workers in Scotland, said: “One is reminded of some of the ghastly things that have happened in terms of ethnic cleansing — are we talking about ethnic cleansing of people who are drug addicts?” A spokesman for the Scottish Drugs Forum said: “There is a vicious tenor to these proposals. What is proposed dehumanises people who are in need of help and support simply because their problems are seen as too difficult and complex for society to deal with.”
A Scottish Labour spokesman said: “Drugs have scarred so many communities in Scotland, and Labour have shown they are prepared to take the tough decisions to tackle drugs and the associated crime where necessary, while providing support for addicts to recover and play a fuller role in society.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2090-2262773,00.html
The intentions are good, though I disagree for two reasons. One, the less restrictive the treatment, the more likely the addicts will eventually "get it". The moment they're ready, treatment is there as an option. If they repeatedly fail to improve, or are uncooperative, and you cut them off, you leave them with little to no chance of ever improving and leaving their legacy to the country as medical bills (more than drug treatment would have cost) that the hospital and state will likely end up paying for. Countries that have policies like I suggested (ie. Sweden) have better success rate.
Second, this proposal makes no sense. Help the drug abusers who don't have kids, but if they have kids just screw them? Isn't it better to attempt to rehab someone for their children, as opposed to either taking the kids or having the kid live on and off the street with their drug addicted parent? This is an attempt to help children, but for those who end up having kids it would make it worse.
Policies like this may have good intentions, but they have no history of working.
Hard drug users would have to sign a “social contract” agreeing to remain childless in order to continue receiving free methadone and housing payments.
The idea, which has been fed into Scottish Labour’s manifesto discussions for next year’s Holyrood election, is the brainchild of Duncan McNeil, convenor of Labour’s 50-strong parliamentary group.
The MSP for Greenock and Inverclyde sparked controversy earlier this year by suggesting that contraceptives should be put in methadone to prevent addicts from reproducing.
McNeil believes the current system of treatment is too heavily focused on the rights of drug users and does not spell out their responsibilities.
His policy paper states: “These responsibilities are either non-existent or entirely unknown to those supposedly subject to them.”
As part of his proposal the social contract would also oblige addicts to attend a drug cessation programme, with a strict timetable set out to help each individual become drug-free. “There comes a time when we have to challenge addicts’ behaviour,” he said. “I can’t see that we are asking for any commitment at all from them. Addicts just turn up and the support is automatic. We need to do better than harm reduction.”
A Labour insider said: “Duncan is on the extreme end of the debate but there is a lot of sympathy for his position. The party will go some way toward the areas he is talking about.”
The proposal was welcomed by Annabel Goldie, leader of the Scottish Conservatives, who said: “At long last someone from the Labour party has woken up to the spiralling drugs problem.”
However it was criticised by social workers and other opposition politicians.
Stewart Stevenson, drugs spokesman for the SNP, said: “These proposals are totally unacceptable. What we must be focussing on is helping addicts get free of their addictions, not dictating to them, which might make them more reluctant to turn to their only source of help in the first place.”
Ruth Stark, spokeswoman for the British Association of Social Workers in Scotland, said: “One is reminded of some of the ghastly things that have happened in terms of ethnic cleansing — are we talking about ethnic cleansing of people who are drug addicts?” A spokesman for the Scottish Drugs Forum said: “There is a vicious tenor to these proposals. What is proposed dehumanises people who are in need of help and support simply because their problems are seen as too difficult and complex for society to deal with.”
A Scottish Labour spokesman said: “Drugs have scarred so many communities in Scotland, and Labour have shown they are prepared to take the tough decisions to tackle drugs and the associated crime where necessary, while providing support for addicts to recover and play a fuller role in society.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2090-2262773,00.html
The intentions are good, though I disagree for two reasons. One, the less restrictive the treatment, the more likely the addicts will eventually "get it". The moment they're ready, treatment is there as an option. If they repeatedly fail to improve, or are uncooperative, and you cut them off, you leave them with little to no chance of ever improving and leaving their legacy to the country as medical bills (more than drug treatment would have cost) that the hospital and state will likely end up paying for. Countries that have policies like I suggested (ie. Sweden) have better success rate.
Second, this proposal makes no sense. Help the drug abusers who don't have kids, but if they have kids just screw them? Isn't it better to attempt to rehab someone for their children, as opposed to either taking the kids or having the kid live on and off the street with their drug addicted parent? This is an attempt to help children, but for those who end up having kids it would make it worse.
Policies like this may have good intentions, but they have no history of working.