Category Archives: Addiction

Media needs to address the issues pf drug policy and legalization.

I was reading Mike Archer’s comments in Abbotsford Today about how the old media (newspapers, television news) needs to learn “how to simply tell it straight” on important issues such as drug legalization which lead to the following commentary by me:

I wrote and submitted several letters/commentaries during our recent blitz of hand wringing and “the sky is falling” reporting that took place during the weeks when gang warfare filled the pages or airtime in the best “if it bleeds it leads” traditional media practices.

I pointed out that if you want to “lock ‘em up” you need a place to incarcerate them which we lack as our prison system is currently full and overflowing. Thus in order to carry out a program of long prison sentences would require an investment of billions of dollars in new prisons and more millions of dollars on a yearly basis to operate the prisons.

It was pointed out that arresting all the drug dealers in BC would have only a transitory effect since within a matter of days new people would have stepped in to reap the lucrative rewards that our policy choices have pumped into the illegal drug trade.

An exploration was made about the manner in which our greed based society, with its economic and cultural inequities, lack of options/opportunities and emphasis on greed, self-centeredness and ME, ensures a steady and ready supply of people willing to be employed in the illegal drug trade with its high material rewards.

Economic analysis revealed that what are termed “successes” by law enforcement pump more money into the illegal drug business providing the illegal business with more funds to spend to import/export/distribute the product (drugs) and increase the economic rewards to those employed in the illegal drug business.

Economic analysis also revealed how important the illegal drug business is in cushioning the effects of the worldwide economic meltdown on the BC economy and the other positive effects on the BC economy of having a major billion dollar agricultural export crop that is recession proof. Even in good times the large cash flow created by the illegal drug business is a major positive factor in the BC economy; whether from the illegal drug business or from the law enforcement employment resulting from keeping these drugs illegal.

The fact that calling it a “drug war” was inaccurate and misleading was examined since the war is not on drugs but on the addicts who use drugs. The victims of illegal drugs are further victimized by the war being waged against them by society and its agencies.

Supply/demand capitalist theory makes clear that the only way to successfully reduce the illegal drug trade is to reduce demand, to stop waging war on the addicts and instead render to them the aid they need to get into recovery and out of addiction. That our policy must focus on putting in place the infrastructure and supports to successfully get addicts into recovery and wellness.

The falseness of the argument that legalizing drugs would lead to increased drug use was revealed by the fact that anyone anywhere can find the illegal drug of their choice. Thus those who would turn to drugs have, leaving no flood of new addiction to occur since those who would be addicts are already addicts.

The insanity of continuing to do the same thing over and over decade after decade was noted.

All this leads to the conclusion that we need a major change in policy to legalize drugs in the same manner prohibition was repealed. Especially in light of the reality that alcohol is the most abused drug, abused more than all illegal drugs combined.

With the economic reality Canada and the world faces we as a society cannot continue to waste resources on ineffectual policies. We no longer can afford the luxury of pursuing a costly and failing policy simply because we are emotionally and ideologically attached to the policy.

We need to have a rational national discussion on legalization.

Yet the traditional media did not print even one letter that questions the intelligence of our current policy.

In their arguments that there should be an internet tax with the monies raised going to support newspapers, newspapers and staff cited newspapers being “important to our democracy”.

How can newspapers and other traditional media claim to be important to democracy when they refuse to examine the reality of the issue of our policies on illegal drugs?

Obviously they can’t.

Which is why you are correct when stating “If it is to survive at all, the old media has to learn, once again, how to simply tell it straight.”

Not to mention being willing to address issues of national importance even if such an examination is not considered “politically correct.”

Mike Archer’s comments:

A story broke in the Vancouver Sun April 15, that read more the like the screenplay to a Burt Reynolds movie about rum-running in the 1920’s than it did a major drug bust in 2009.

The story was about an Abbotsford man who was caught transporting 150 kilos of pot across the border. Every newspaper story I read on the subject called him a farm boy and ran with photos of what looked like three good ‘ole boys who had made a bad business decision.

The Vancouver Sun editors even went so far as to include s sub-head over the story that said: “Jansen basically a ‘law-abiding’ citizen, lawyer says.”

The connections between this story and the stories about gang violence and death, about which we’ve been so concerned, don’t much enter into the whole impression a reader might get from the packaging. If these were good kids who made a bad mistake then I guess the much-demonized Bacon Brothers are just good kids who made worse mistakes.

They’ve both been playing the same game. Why are the two stories treated so differently?

How does ‘basically law-abiding’ go together with ‘trucking 158 kilos of pot across the border’?

These are either drug dealers or folk heros. Let’s make up our minds.

We’re staring a depression in the face as bad as The Great Depression and we can’t seem to get our stories straight about the world we live in. Everyone acknowledges that prohibition didn’t work; in fact it created crime and violence. Our modern version of prohibition isn’t faring any better, nor do we seem to remember how they worked it out nearly a century ago when they faced the same situation.

If ever there was a time for straight talk it is now. The old media has forgotten how to do that. The media (including the new media) is always playing to its perceived audience. Right now the traditional media is wandering blind in a dark cave where none of its tools will shed any light on the situation or tell it where its audience has gone.

Self-censorship is a cardinal sin for a journalist and yet we have reached a point where the old media seems more like packaged information looking for an audience, prepared to be repackaged in an instant depending on the audience.

But consumers of information have become more savvy and more impatient. Today, content matters more than the packaging and an industry that has concentrated on nothing else for decades can’t remember how to do it. The new media has yet to find its place but it will be on the right track if it dares to tell the truth. Abbotsford Today’s Vince Dimanno said as much in his column The Truth Politicians know the media game better than those in the media and are very successful at manipulating it to serve their own ends. If it is to survive at all, the old media has to learn, once again, how to simply tell it straight.

For those who don’t remember how it all got worked out a century ago; the guys who made bad decisions became folk heros, the guys who made worse decisions went to jail or got killed and, oh yeah, they ended prohibition and legalized booze because the ‘war on booze’ just didn’t work.

Bacons and the drug war.

Listening to the news coverage of the arrest and murder charges against a Bacon brother I was left shaking my head.

What had me shaking my head was the implication and statements in the report that this was somehow a major success in the drug war in the lower mainland – it wasn’t.

It was a success the legal system and the family of the innocent people killed in that Surrey condo. An extremely expensive “success” that requires millions of dollars more to carry through and attain convictions.

Leaving one to ponder just how many more of these multi-millions of dollars “successes” we can afford and how are we going to pay for them?

But in terms of the drug war in the lower mainland the only real effect it will have is to change some of the players. Reality: even if the police went out and arrested and jailed everyone in the illegal drug business in the lower mainland right now, in a matter of hours people would be stepping in to take advantage of the lucrative employment opportunities in the drug business, in days the business would be flourishing again with a new cast of characters and be back to “fully staffed” in short order thereafter.

The drug trade sings its siren song of impossible promises of pleasure in the same manner as politicians and governments make impossible promises and when reality turns out to be something quite different it is the victims of the promises who suffer the consequences. When circumstances intervene to remove players through arrests or election losses the players are simply replaced by others.

As is the case in government we will have no effect on changing behaviours in the drug business until such time as citizens accept the reality of these businesses and choose to change our behaviours in order to bring about changes that will produce the positive outcomes we want – good government and taking the billion dollar profits and violence out of the drug trade.

Until such time we as citizens are willing to change our behaviours, rather than continuing to make the same choices and employ the same behaviours hoping that this time things will turn out differently (which is insane), we are going to keep on getting the same pointless and unacceptable results.

The difference at this point in history, as opposed to our past, is that Canada can no longer afford this type of behaviour. Economic, environmental and social systems no longer have any slack or fat in the systems. Every dollar wasted in programs and policies that do not achieve positive outcomes inflicts damage, pain, suffering and negative consequences on a wide range of Canadians and Canadian society.

Government or the illegal drug business: Canada cannot any longer afford to merely change the cast of characters. We have to think, think, and think. Then make the difficult choices that, while we may wish we did not have to make them, reflect the real world we live in and will affect positive results and a bright future for all Canadians – not just the privileged few.

We have squandered our easy choices on ineffective behaviour and as a result have left ourselves having to make hard choices if we want to remain Canadians and a Canada that makes us proud to declare “I AM Canadian.”

Ban Cigarettes?

Before commenting on the Posts call for banning cigarettes we need to clear up one major point: does the Post in anyway have financial interests (potential profits) in the nicotine replacement industry?

Cigarettes are merely the most widely used method to feed the addiction to nicotine of nicotine addicts. Unless nicotine is added to the illegal substances list along side crack, heroin, meth etc. most addicts will merely switch from cigarettes to an alternative, legal, method of feeding their addiction. Perhaps becoming patrons of safe injections sites in Vancouver?

Should the Post’s call for making illegal cigarettes and not nicotine (the additctor) be merely an oversight, I am willing to support the Post’s call for adding nicotine to the list of illegal substances and for a prohibition on alcohol.

Not because I think that prohibition or illegalization are good ideas or effective ways to deal with addiction. Rather I think it would prove very salient and educational to the public about, our current policies on addiction and illegalization of those drugs we choose to name as illegal.

I want to urge the Post to stand solidly behind its call for prohibition of alcohol and illegalization of nicotine. Assuming its position is not merely a veiled attempt to get in on the profits, political points and bucks to be made out of the illegalization of drugs.

The post’s original opinion Friday March 21, 2008

The provincial government is continuing its attack on smoking, second-hand cigarette smoke and the people who continue to puff – all in the name of improving health and by extrapolation, reducing healthcare costs and Workers’ Compensation Board claims.

Yet the senior governments won’t do the one thing that would ultimately be the best thing for all accounts – make smoking illegal.

The provincial government ads proclaiming “improvements to B.C.’s tobacco control laws” will “protect the health of all British Columbians and their communities” but doesn’t say what the law’s all about … spin doctors proclaiming a government’s dedication to health in time for the Olympics while costing pub patrons their entertainment and pub owners their profits.

So what about smoking rooms and cigar stores? And what about drinking? It’s unhealthy too. Will the government tell us all how to live?

Smoking is legal.

A Tale of Two Addicts

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times.

The opening lines of Dickens “A tale of two cities” came to mind the other day, following encounters I had with two members of the homeless community I have known for several years. After years of addiction both men had found the desire and strength to go into treatment.

The first gentleman was fresh out of treatment, looking fat and sassy, full of life, humour and joy. Bright-eyed and full of plans he spoke of going to UCFV.

The second gentleman had also been full of life and plans when he was fresh out of treatment several months ago. This day found him looking thin and tired, slipping back into addiction.

The true tragedy here is not the second gentleman losing his way and his life to addiction once again, the true tragedy is this is “business as usual”.

People struggle to find the will and strength to get into treatment to get clean and sober. In treatment they are provided shelter and plenty of food, programs and support in dealing with their need, their addiction.

One to three months later they are released to homelessness. Just reaching the point where they are capable of getting solidly on the road to recovery they are abandoned. We forsake them, failing to provide the programs and support to continue on the journey of recovery.

Three months later and they are again losing their lives to addiction again. This is the cycle for all but a miniscule percentage of those dumped back onto the streets from treatment. A painful, wasteful cycle that we choose to allow to happen; I say choose because we know what needs to be done to be far more successful.

Personal experience has taught me how much time, hard work, and sheer strength it takes to get and stay on the path to recovery and mental health. I have experienced how important having the appropriate, the needed resources and support is to recovery

With the advantage of hindsight I can see how lucky I was, not only to find the programs (VOICE, WRAP etc.) and support I needed, but once having found what was needed there were resources available so that I could receive support essential to my continued recovery.

I see, unacceptably often, what happens to people who do not find what they need or worse – find what they need but there is no space, no resources, to meet their needs.

Those who find the programs, the resources, the support, prosper. Those who don’t find a way to fill these needs end up in the misery of homelessness and often addiction.

This is also the reality for those struggling with addiction. Not really surprising given that at least 50% are estimated to suffer from the concurrent disorders of mental illness and addiction.

One or even three months does not “treat” or “cure” addiction, even if we label facilities and programs as “treatment”.

Recovery is a continual journey of learning, self knowledge, personal growth and change. During the first year(s) of this journey one needs programs and resources to guide and promote this learning and growth, with support not only through the rough patches, but from day to day.

We can keep doing what we have been doing, hoping for a different outcome. Which as anyone familiar with Alcoholics Anonymous can tell you is the definition of insanity.

Or we can change our behaviour, put in place the programs, resources and support that research, current knowledge and experience tell us is needed to reclaim lives from the scourge of addiction.

We can continue to waste millions, hundreds of millions, of dollars to achieve little success. Or we can choose to spend our money wisely, saving hundreds of millions, even billions of dollars, and starting to reclaim lives by intelligently addressing the affliction and torment that is addiction.

Lao Tsa in his “ART OF War” writes: “Life is a series of natural and spontaneous changes. Don’t resist them – that only creates sorrow. Let reality be reality. Let things flow naturally forward in whatever way they like.”

Reality is that recovery from addiction is, like recovery from mental illness, a demanding and arduous years long journey, not a quick easy fix.

To deny this reality, to resist the changes needed only creates more sorrow. Let reality be reality and provide the resources we know are needed for people to flow forward into recovery.

Asking in order to evaluate or creat recovery based programs

When I was looking to find a new mechanic I asked 4 or 5 people for their recommendations. It turned out there was one garage they all recommended and that was where I went. It has proved a very good choice and when asked about where I go to have my auto cared for I do not hesitate to recommend them myself.

When I wanted to know about mechanics I asked those who used them; for who better to make judgments about the capability of the mechanics? An intelligent approach that is applicable to evaluate effectiveness in a variety of applications and circumstances.

Why is then, that the government does not ask for the input of those who use the programs and services?

This question came to mind recently as I offered to write (and wrote) a letter to those involved in making the decision about continuing funding to a mental health program. I wrote in the context of someone who had been a client of the program and knew how important the program was in my continuing journey of recovery.

This is an important point because it is my experience that a substantial barrier to recovery is that often those making the funding decisions and judging the programs do not seek the opinions or input of the people in the best position to judge program efficacy – those using the programs in their personal recovery.

This is of particular importance with programs such as this one where the most important, and to often overlooked or not appreciated, benefits to the clients are not easily or at all quantifiable. This is an employment oriented program but my experience, and that of other clients (users) of the program, was that the support offered to people by the program was far more important and useful in recovery than the “job” side was.

It is easy to come up with numbers for the “job” side of the program, but how do you quantify the support provided by the program? And yet … my personal experience and observation is that without support recovery is not possible and that lack of support leads to relapse. Indeed there is no doubt in my mind that had I not been fortunate enough to find the program I would not have made the progress I have.

The program provided support at a time when I was most vulnerable and in need of support. I wrote in support of the program to ensure that those in need of support would be able to find the support to find their path to recovery.

Yet it is only by asking those such as me that someone evaluating the program would be aware of this aspect of the program and how important it is.

Asking also needs to apply in awarding contracts to provide services. I have seen and experienced, on several different occasions, the fallout of the current process the government uses for awarding contracts. And while in some cases the contract needed to be awarded elsewhere, in others it turned a useful resource/program into something that was of benefit only to those awarded the contract.

Auditors general have a term of reference involving “value for money”, as in are we getting our monies worth? That is the question that should be poised when making contract awards. And you make that judgment by asking the people who use the programs and services. I mean ask directly. I have been involved with programs where client feedback was part of the program, through the contractor. Fox guarding the henhouse.

This concept of asking clients or users what they think is also needed in establishing new programs. It is through experience that one learns what the real needs are, which are often different from what would appear to be or theoretically be the needs.

It is easy to “sell” the concept of an employment program, much harder to convince someone that a program offering support is truly needed if those needing this support are to every have an opportunity to be employed. Yet support is a fundament or key concept in recovery.

It is a major frustration that so many politicians, experts and others “know” what needs to be done for a variety of problems that require some form of recovery, without ever asking the people who need and or are seeking recovery. This “knowledge” leads to programs that are pointless, that fail to provide what is truly needed for recovery, that fail to provide what is their stated purpose to provide and waste millions of taxpayer $$$.

Yes we need ideas from as wide a source as possible, for having lots of ideas is the best way to ensure having good ideas. But to evaluate what is a good idea, what is needed, what programs are effective or which providers do an excellent job we need to ask and listen to those who need and /or use the programs.

If our goal is to provide the programs and services needed for people to move into and follow the path to recovery we need to be sure that we ask those whose life experience has provided them with understanding and insight into recovery and what is needed for recovery for their input. Then listen and pay attention to what those in recovery or in need of recovery say, and be willing to act on their input.

Homelessness, mental illness, addiction, poverty are all issues we face, but can address if we so choose. Part of that choice is choosing to ask for input and listen to the answers – even if they are answers we did not expect or want to hear.