We’ve all probably noticed that politicians of all political flags are now constantly ‘talking up’ their particular solution to what they (somewhat hysterically, I think) label as Scotland’s “..appallingly high..” drug death figure.
Catch a Grip—the figure is what it is; it just needs—unemotional—addressing.
Meanwhile. . .
Relevant Bills towards becoming law are currently being considered by the Scottish Parliament. (and see Buildup to a showdown..; Conflict over Draft Right to Recovery Bill)
However…seems to me… .
That we might have a problem, because:
currently, seems that (and perhaps—indeed probably, even if the above-cited Bills make it to law) the arguable passivity of ‘patientised’ ‘treatment’ toward ‘recovery‘ is ‘the only game in town’.
But are all problematic drug users willing to become ‘patients; whose arguable passivity might actually impede them from fully taking their route out of problematic drug use–thus, potentially exposing them to greater risk than need be, of becoming a drug death statistic as a result of staying longer in ‘treatment’?
(I’m making the assumption that longer time in ‘treatment’=greater risk of drug death…typically via drug overdose..because the ‘treatment’ regime is, arguably, not too dissimilar to the full addiction environment ‘waiting in the wings’.)
Then again, everything depends on how well ‘patients’ stick-with-the-‘treatment’ regime.
‘Treatment’.
The term ‘treatment’ is a throwback to the mindset of the old days when problematic to addictive drug users were seen as moving towards the ‘disease’ of addiction, for which they needed to seek ‘treatment’ towards ‘recovery’ as ‘patients’.
This kind of thinking was in thrall to the idea that drugs could overpower us: that recreational use of drugs—hardly, if at all, thinking about alcohol and tobacco—inevitably leads to problems..
This is the largely medicalised view of people’s drug problems—which still survives today, though not I think, in such absolutist form, with what I see as increasing recognition that factors such as environment have a role in drug use problems.
At the same time.. .
We are constantly informed by the ‘experts’ that some drug users, especially addicts, do indeed have serious psychological conditions for which they require ‘treatment’ as ‘patients’ toward ‘recovery’.
Ok…let’s take that as true…but.. .
ALL drug users?
Surely not.
Hence, I speculate that the ‘treatment’ route needs a complement for those (and there could be a lot of them) who, plausibly might be ‘put off’ by the thought of ‘going into treatment’—instead, they just want support, but don’t want (or need to be) ‘patients’.
Complementing the ‘treatment’ thing.
It is posited by some that the various disciplines within academia don’t really ‘talk to each other’ all that much; that there is little cross-fertilisation of ideas towards ‘really getting a handle on things’.
And I see an instance of this in the ‘double-handling’ creation of ‘recovery’ in the more medicalised disciplines dealing with drug use problems, and the conceptualisation of desistance from offending, within criminology—essentially the same concept as recovery. with the same offered process toward quitting, as outlined briefly earlier—but, arguably, coming from a different environment, not so ‘touchy-feely’; less, or un-emotional.
Just what’s needed to support some folks—I think.
Indeed, if I was looking for problematic drug use support, don’t think becoming a ‘patient’ would be for me.
Snap!.
Both problematic drug use, and offending, have been found broadly similar, in that problematic drug use, for various reasons, has early onset and eventual maturing-out—-and so has offending.
Therefore, is it really a surprise that criminology has come up with a formulation potentially enabling clients to eventually leave offending behind—in essence, supported recovery from problematic drug use and addiction as offered by practitioners dealing with that—but, seems to me, because coming from a different environment (that dealing with offenders), likely to be less emotionalised.
Sampling the research.
One of the most prominent researchers on recovery/desistance is Professor David Best who notes the shared assumptions of both: identity change within social relations toward client access to better lifestyle opportunities.
And.
Also, the ‘experts’ now inform us that when it comes to supporting people from problematic drug use, there is no ‘one size fits all’ because different people will respond best to different formulations of support.
And I agree, thus suggesting that while problematic drug use support in ‘patientising’ mode may initially be best for the few—may even have to be prolonged for them—speculatively, for the many, mirror support, coming from, seems to me, the less emotive environment of criminology, as support towards desistance from problematic drug use is the way to go, because I don’t think that all problematic drug users seeking support, necessarily want to be ‘patients’ but rather, clients or customers of the service.
Indeed.. .
In my ‘leaving the field’ interview with the manager of the street-level problematic drug use support agency where I carried out my Master’s research, he informed me that the terms customers and/or clients were vying in his mind in preference to patients.
So now we’ve got here—after some relatively hefty backgrounding.
Catch a Grip— as I see it, not all problematic drug users seeking support to quit, necessarily want to be ‘patients’ in ‘treatment’ towards ‘recovery’; so the more successful route with them, might be to address their need to practice desistance, as clients or customers of the service.
Now I’m done.
Catch a Grip 