HEAVY DUTY "DON'T USE DRUGS" VIDEO

TREATMENT WORKS - HUGE NEWS FROM THE U.K.

Many thanks to Darcy Ulmer of Baldy Hughes Therapeutic Community for passing on this study of SUCCESS IN TREATMENT from the U.K.

The next time some quasi-scientist wants to tell folks that treatment does not work, you might quote this study.

National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse

“Long-term results for those who have been treated in one year found that nearly half who leave neither need further treatment nor were found to be involved in drug related off ending”

A LONG-TERM STUDY

OF THE OUTCOMES OF

DRUG USERS LEAVING

TREATMENT

SEPTEMBER 2010

EFFECTIVE TREATMENT CHANGING LIVES

www.nta.nhs.uk

NTA 2010 NTA 2010

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Around 200,000 people get help for drug dependency in

England every year. Most are addicted to heroin or crack

cocaine, or both. They will have been using their drug or

drugs of dependency for eight years on average before

they seek treatment.

Given their typical circumstances – heavily addicted,

in poor health and of low self-esteem, often at a peak

of criminal activity before coming into treatment - the

prospects for long-term recovery from drug addiction

can seem bleak. The medical consensus is that heroin

and crack cocaine users take several years to overcome

addiction, and spend repeated attempts in treatment

before they do.

Against this background, the annual statistical reports of

numbers in drug treatment can present a distorted picture

of a treatment system that is subject to a steady ebb and

fl ow of clients over a longer time frame. However the

National Drug Treatment Monitoring System (NDTMS)

database is now extensive enough to enable us to follow

the treatment careers of individuals over successive years.

Consequently the National Treatment Agency for

Substance Misuse (NTA) has analysed the long-term

results for those who have been treated in one year, and

found that nearly half (46%) of those who leave neither

need further treatment, nor were they found to be

involved in drug related offending.

In close co-operation with the Home Office, the NTA

matched four years’ worth of NDTMS data with Drug

Test Records (DTR) and the Drug Interventions Programme

(DIP) data to evaluate the long-term outcomes of drug

treatment for 41,475 clients who left drug treatment in

England in the financial year 2005-06. It includes both

those who left treatment in a planned way, and those

who dropped out.

This is the first time a study of this kind has been possible.

Although there is no international long-term equivalent

study based on live client data, the results compare

favourably with longitudinal studies about the prospects

of individuals’ recovery from even the most entrenched

addiction.

As a treatment programme for addiction usually takes

longer than a year to complete, these findings provide a

more meaningful assessment of treatment effectiveness

than an annual snapshot. It enhances our understanding

of what success means: for example, it was found that

many of those who ‘drop out’ do not seem to need

further treatment. Most importantly, it shows to users

and all the people and agencies who work with them to

bring about positive change that recovery from addiction

is possible.

KEY FINDINGS:

.Strong evidence that suggests sustained recovery from

addiction was found for almost half of all the clients

discharged from treatment during 2005-06. Around

46% neither came back into treatment, nor had a

drug-related contact with the criminal justice system

in the following four years. (A criminal justice contact

could be with either the Drug Interventions Programme

in the community or prison, or a positive DIP drug test

for cocaine or opiates following arrest for offences such

as burglary, robbery and theft). 

.The majority (55%) of all clients who left treatment

during 2005-06 did not return to treatment in the

subsequent four years.

. Of those who left treatment but subsequently re-

offended using drugs, 65% went back into treatment.

. As might be expected, clients who successfully

completed a course of treatment were less likely to

need treatment in later years.

. However, a high rate of those who were originally

categorized as ‘dropping out’ (43%) did not return to

either treatment or drug interventions in the criminal

justice system.

. Those treated for the most addictive substances were

the hardest to treat and more likely to relapse. Problem

drug users addicted to both heroin and crack cocaine in

combination had the poorest long term outcomes.

. Conversely, those leaving treatment for cannabis

and powder cocaine did best with 69% and 64%

respectively not returning during the follow-up period

or being identified as re-offending using drugs.

. Whether someone was discharged from treatment

free of all illegal drugs or free of dependency made

little difference to how likely they were to need further

treatment or commit drug-related crimes.

. Comparison between 2005-06 and 2006-07 treatment

exits with re-presentations measured over three years

showed significant similarity in the long term outcomes

of both cohorts.

2

NTA 2010 NTA 2010

1.1 INTRODUCTION

This paper presents the results of a study to follow up

individuals after leaving structured drug treatment services

in the financial year 2005-06 to see whether in the four

years after leaving, they re-present to drug treatment

again and/or they have a drug related contact with the

criminal justice system, after being arrested for offences

such as burglary, theft and shoplifting.

All findings are based on the analysis of collated

information from drug treatment providers through the

National Drug Treatment Monitoring System (NDTMS),

data collected from the Drug Interventions Programme

through the Drug Interventions Monitoring Information

System (DIMIS) and Drug Test Records (DTR) from

individuals who are arrested. The datasets have been

matched to create a pathway or journey map for a

cohort of individuals exiting treatment and examined to

determine whether there has been further contact with

treatment and/or drug interventions through criminal

justice agencies.

In the context of this report, contact with the Criminal

Justice Service (CJS) refers specifi cally to contacts recorded

in one of these datasets. It should be noted that while

these are the most common datasets that drug users will

appear in, some clients will have had other CJS contacts

not covered by this data: for example, arrests for a

non-drug related offence for which drug testing is not

standard practice or arrests in areas where drug testing

is not in place and where the client is not otherwise

identified as a drug user.

Individuals were excluded from the study for the following

reasons: that they were in prison at the time of leaving

treatment, that they had been recorded as dying while

in contact with treatment and if they shared attributors

(initials, date of birth and gender) with another individual.

This report cannot categorically assert that all individuals

who do not return to treatment or DIP are leading entirely

drug free lives as to do so would require each of the

40,000+ clients in the study to be personally contacted

and interviewed. Rather it uses the available datasets to

demonstrate with the best possible evidence whether an

individual’s drug use has become problematic enough

that they require treatment again or have come to the

attention of the criminal justice system and the Drug

Interventions Programme incurring the associated costs

when they do so.

Further analysis to enhance our understanding of

treatment and criminal justice journeys of drug using

offenders is currently being undertaken through the

Home Offi ce Drug Data Warehouse.

1.2 CLIENT PROFILE

A sample of 41,475 clients was identified who had left

the treatment system in 2005-06 as defined by not

being in contact at the end of the year. Two thirds of the

cohort (67%) were problem drug users (PDUs), i.e. were

recorded as presenting for treatment for opiates and/or

crack cocaine.

Over two fifths of all clients presented with ‘opiates only’

(42%) at the beginning of their latest treatment journey.

Powder cocaine presentations were fairly evenly split

between those in the 18-24 and 25-29 age bracket (28%

and 24% respectively).

Almost one-quarter of treatment exits were planned

(24%) – defi ned either as ‘treatment completed’ or

‘treatment completed – no drug use’, both denoting the

clients had completed treatment successfully, leaving free

of dependency.

The cohort was selected from the 54,000 adults

discharged from structured drug treatment in 2005-06.

Individuals were excluded from the study if they were

in prison at the time of leaving as they will have been

incarcerated for part or all of the study and also as many

will have continued receiving treatment during and

directly after custody. In addition, as individuals were

identifi ed by only attributors (initials, date of birth and

gender) rather than names and addresses, any duplicate

attributors were excluded.

Once the cohort of treatment leavers in 2005-06 was

selected, it was then necessary to be able to determine

if they had subsequently either returned to treatment or

had shown up in any of these criminal justice datasets.

This was ascertained by bringing together data from

the NDTMS and DIP including that collected through

mandatory drug testing of arrestees covering the period

2006-07 to 2009-10. Once this dataset was assembled it

was then possible to see if any of the 41,475 clients had

turned up again in the following four years.

3

NTA 2010 NTA 2010

TREATMENT

LEAVERS

2005-06

2006-2010

NDTMS

DIR

PRISON & COMMUNITY

DRUG TEST

2006-2010

2006-2010

The datasets that have been used here are the most

common that people that are using drugs problematically

will turn up in. Therefore an individual not subsequently

appearing in any of them after leaving drug treatment

would indicate a likelihood of sustained recovery from

dependency. However, as noted previously, they may

have presented to other criminal justice agencies having

committed offences triggered by their drug use and they

will not be identified within this piece of work.

There will sadly be a small number of clients who died

after they left treatment during the four year follow up

period and due to the methodology used it has not been

possible to exclude them from the study. It is recognised

that their inclusion will marginally over estimate the

numbers who are in ongoing recovery. Clients recorded as

having died in treatment were, however, excluded from

analysis at the outset.

Conversely, because the attributors and not the full

names of clients have been used in the analysis, there is a

chance that when an individual is later found in a dataset

it is not in fact the same person as in the original sample,

but instead someone sharing their initials, date of birth

and gender. Although steps have been taken to limit

false-matching it has not been possible to entirely avoid

this, nor the effect that this will have in over estimating by

a small amount the numbers who re-present.

A detailed explanation of the methodology used can be

found in appendix A.

4

NTA 2010 NTA 2010

2 THE RESULTS OF THE STUDY

The analysis of matched data revealed that 46% of clients

in the study did not return either to drug treatment or

to drug interventions within the criminal justice system

(CJS) within four years. The 22,428 re-presentations to

drug treatment or to the criminal justice system mostly

comprised of individuals who returned directly back to

structured treatment; however, a sizable proportion had

their first subsequent contact at the custody suite and in

prison following their initial discharge in 2005/06. The

diagram below demonstrates the fi rst subsequent event

of the 41,475 clients in the four years following their

discharge from drug treatment.

TREATMENT EXIT 2005-06

(N=41,475)

NO SUBSEQUENT EVENT OF TREATMENT OR

DRUG-RELATED CRIMINAL JUSTICE CONTACT

N=19,047 (46%)

SUBSEQUENT EVENT

N= 22,428 (54%)

TOTAL THAT RETURN TO

TREATMENT

N= 18,666 (45%)

n=11,641 (52%)

n=3,417 (15%)

RE-PRESENT TO DTR

n=5,571 (25%)

RE-PRESENT TO PRISON

n=1,799 (8%)

RE-PRESENT TO

COMMUNITY DIP

TOTAL THAT HAVE INITIAL SUBSEQUENT DRUG-RELATED

EVENT IN CJS N=10,787

n=7,025 (65%)

5

NTA 2010 NTA 2010

Just under half of the clients discharged returned to

treatment 18,666 (45%), with 11,641 re-presenting

straight to treatment and a further 7,025 having a drug-

related criminal justice contact fi rst and then receiving

structured drug treatment afterwards. The remaining

3,762 clients had a subsequent drug-related contact with

the CJS but then didn’t have a further drug treatment

contact.

As would be expected, clients who left treatment

successfully were less likely to need further treatment

than those who dropped out, with 57% of clients having

a planned discharge either not returning to treatment or

to drug interventions within the CJS. As can be seen from

the table below, there was little discernible difference

in outcomes between the two recorded categories of

successful discharge: either ‘treatment completed’ or

‘treatment completed – no drug use’, both of which

denote the client has left free of dependency.

Perhaps more surprising was the re-presentation rates

of those who dropped out of treatment: more than two

fifths of those clients with an unplanned exit (43%) did

not re-present at any time in the subsequent four years,

suggesting that many had already received what they

needed to overcome their dependency before choosing

to leave. This corroborates what some practitioners

have argued: that although drop-out is usually signalled

by relapse, a proportion of those in treatment simply

walk away once it has met their clinical needs without

engaging with the formal administrative discharge

process required by NDTMS.

Analysis of the time elapsed between initial discharge

and re-engagement with services indicated no discernible

difference between planned and unplanned exits.

The proportion of clients readmitted to treatment or drug

interventions in the criminal justice system within the

four-year window varied greatly between drug groups,

with 64% of clients using either crack cocaine, opiates

or both returning, compared with only 33% of clients

using other drugs. Those who presented originally with

combined opiate and crack cocaine use were more likely

to reappear than those with sole use of either drug (63%

opiate only, 51% crack only and 72% opiate and crack

in combination). This is consistent with previous studies,

which have identifi ed worse outcomes associated with

poly drug users.

The probability of not returning to treatment or drug

interventions in the CJS was notably higher for cannabis

and powder cocaine users, with 69% and 64% not representing

to either.

Reason for leavingtreatmentNumber ofindividuals leavingtreatment 2005/06Number notreturning totreatment / CJSPercentage notreturning

Completed -

no drug use

3353 1886 56

Completed 6417 3650 57

Unplanned 31705 13511 43

6

NTA 2010 NTA 2010

Differing rates of re-presentation were observed between

the age groups, with those aged 40+ being least likely to

return (43%), followed by 18-24 year olds (54%). Those

aged 25-29 were the most likely to reappear, with 60%

having done so.

RATES OF RE-PRESENTATION TO

TREATMENT/CJS BY SUBSTANCE

OPIATES ONLY

CRACK COCAINE ONLY

OPIATES AND CRACK COCAINE

COCAINE POWDER

CANNABIS

OTHER

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

RATES OF RE-PRESENTATION TO

TREATMENT/CJS BY AGE GROUP

40+

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

7

NTA 2010 NTA 2010

However, the relationship between age group and

readmission rates was not uniform across presenting

substances. The lower incidence of readmission in the top

age band was clearly visible among opiate only users, but

there was no discernible relationship between age and

readmission rates for crack cocaine only users.

PROPORTION OF READMISSIONS FOR ALL 2005-06

EXITS (N=41,475)

18-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40+

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

ALL

OPIATES ONLY

CRACK COCAINE ONLY

CANNABIS

TIME TO RE-PRESENT (N=22,428)

AGE GROUP

LESS THAN A YEAR

1 TO 2 YEARS

Fifty-seven percent of individuals who returned did so in

the first year and the number of re-presentations roughly

halved between each year after that. Many of those

whose fi rst subsequent contact was with the CJS were

later re-engaged in treatment. At 12 months following

discharge, 30% of those appearing first in CJS data

had also re-started treatment; after four years, 65% of

everyone with a subsequent CJS contact also had further

treatment.

2 TO 3 YEARS

3 TO 4 YEARS

The analysis also demonstrated that those who had an

unplanned exit (categorised as ‘dropped out’) and a

subsequent event, came back quicker than those who

had a planned exit, with 59% of subsequent contacts

occurring within a year compared with 47%.

Further analysis has been carried out to compare the representation

rates of clients leaving structured treatment

services in 2006-07 with those found in 2005-06, to see

if similar rates and profi les of those not returning were

found. In most cases they were and the results of this

work can be found in appendix B.

8

18-24 25-29 30-34

AGE GROUP

35-39 40+

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

NTA 2010 NTA 2010

3 CONCLUSION

The NTA has completed an evaluation of the outcomes

of people leaving drug treatment using an initial cohort

of 41,475 clients leaving structured treatment during

2005-06 and seeing if they subsequently came back

to treatment or turned up in drug interventions in the

criminal justice system (CJS).

Examination of all clients exiting in 2005-06 revealed

that 46% didn’t return to drug treatment nor had a drug

related contact with the CJS in the following four years.

This would suggest the majority of these individuals

are managing to sustain their recovery from addiction

though it is not possible to confirm this from the analysis

presented in this report.

There were significant variations in the rates of representations

depending on the substances that the

clients had presented with, demonstrating the difficulty

of achieving long term recovery when using both opiates

and crack cocaine.

Successfully completing a treatment episode was the

best predictor of long term outcomes, but there were

also a significant proportion of those clients who were

not recorded as completing their course of treatment,

who appeared to have taken the benefits from the

interventions they received and overcome dependency in

the four years of this study.

AT LAST - A RAY OF HOPE!

 

PLEASE READ BOTH SECTIONS OF THIS ITEM. HERE IS SOMEONE COMPLETELY IN SYNC WITH OUR GOALS.

 

Police officer Wes Fung spurs debate over Downtown Eastside addicts’ civil liberties

Publish Date: June 28, 2012

A cop for 27 years, Wes Fung has seen a lot of things. But there’s one incident that he distinctly recalls. It concerns a young man in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside. He lost his battle against addiction and mental illness.

He hanged himself.

“I remember we cut him down, and as I was helping bring his body down, it felt hard, cold—like a piece of wood,” Fung told the Georgia Straight. “I’m thinking, ‘My daughters aren’t much younger than this boy here.’ ”

Fung said it was this man’s despair that partly explains why he’s now talking publicly about his thoughts regarding the neighbourhood, like his idea of forcing addicts to get treatment.

Fung is the Vancouver Police Department’s liaison officer in Chinatown and Gastown, a post he has held since 2009. Inside his office at a community policing centre on Keefer Street, the 50-year-old constable vented his frustration over the “hypocrisy” about the Downtown Eastside.

“For mainstream society, as long as the ‘garbage’ is centralized down here, not in my back yard, not in Kits, not in Shaughnessy, or wherever else, no one cares,” the Vancouver-born police officer said. “So there’s no will to really do what it takes to actually solve the problems down here.”

He suggested that the province should amend its Mental Health Act to allow police to apprehend drug users deemed a threat to themselves and others. They could then be taken to rehabilitation centres and also provided with after-treatment supports such as transition housing and counselling programs.

“People say that unless someone wants to get clean, you can’t force them,” Fung said. “We try to apply logic to an illogical act. Anybody who is of a sane mind, would they want to be addicted? No! Even the addicted don’t want to be addicted. These people, they’re so obsessed at trying to chase after the next fix. Common sense doesn’t apply. So sometimes the government has to step in as the big brother to force treatment on them.”

He’s not a fan of harm reduction, which involves practices like giving out clean needles and crack pipes.
“I call it harm reproduction,” Fung said. “I understand the rationale of harm reduction, because on a short-term basis, you know, you want to stop the spread of disease and stop people from overdosing on drugs. But, unfortunately, all you’re doing is enabling the status quo…You’re only prolonging the misery.”

Vancouver city councillor Kerry Jang understands where Fung is coming from.

“The whole point is getting them [addicts] to somebody who can do something, whether you commit them or send them to a place where they can be properly triaged,” Jang, a UBC professor of psychiatry, told the Straight in a phone interview.

That’s why the VPD has been calling for an urgent-response centre where officers can drop off people with addictions and mental-health issues, according to Jang. He noted that health authorities and many nonprofits support this measure.

He acknowledged that forced treatment will invite questions about civil liberties. “However, again, it’s a definition of addiction,” Jang said. “Are they [addicts] able to make a judgment?”

Dr. Evan Wood is an expert on issues related to addiction. He’s a principal investigator with the Urban Health Research Initiative, a program of the B.C. Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS.

“I wholeheartedly agree we need to dramatically expand access to addiction treatment,” Wood told the Straight in a phone interview. “But we clearly need to ensure we are investing limited tax dollars into evidence-based interventions rather than approaches that are proven ineffective and increasingly being condemned by international bodies.”

Wood was referring to a joint statement made by 12 United Nations entities in March against compulsory drug detention and rehabilitation. “The deprivation of liberty without due process is an unacceptable violation of internationally recognised human-rights standards,” the statement reads in part.
Downtown Eastside activist Ann Livingston doesn’t buy Fung’s idea. The long-time volunteer with the Vancouver Area Network of Drug Users noted that there aren’t sufficient spaces for people who want to go in for treatment in the first place.

“If the only way you can get to treatment is to get arrested because there simply isn’t enough voluntary treatment anyway, that is bizarre,” Livingston told the Straight by phone.

Fung admitted that some people might be offended by his ideas, but he said his goal is to provoke a discussion.


He even suggested that society is “complicit” about the cycle of addiction in the Downtown Eastside. “We have a guilty conscience,” he said. “Why do you think so many people come down here during Christmas to give out sandwiches to all the poor homeless? They’re not making their lives any better, but they’re making themselves feel better. So who are you helping? You or them?”

Const. Wes Fung: The Downtown Eastside show

Publish Date: June 28, 2012

One reason for the continuing tragedy that is the Downtown Eastside is because we don’t care enough to find truly meaningful solutions. Our community has allowed the scourge of drug addiction and mental illness to be socially and politically palatable because no one wants to acknowledge the truth: that as long as the society’s “garbage” is down there and NIMBY, it’s tolerable.

Police officer Wes Fung spurs debate over Downtown Eastside addicts’ civil liberties

We appease our guilt by hosting extravagant charity fundraisers and give money to panhandlers, and some will even make the trek into the neighbourhood during Christmas time to give out free food and clothing. These acts of goodwill are well intentioned but misguided, doing nothing to address the problems in the Downtown Eastside but instead enabling the status quo. It’s false compassion: we fool ourselves into believing our deeds are doing some good, but the primary motive is to cleanse our conscience.

The citizens residing in the neighbourhood are at times viewed as circus sideshow freaks. Families from all over the Lower Mainland will dare to drive into the area to show their kids what will happen if they use drugs. The people of the DTES are probably the most photographed, interviewed, and filmed to ostensibly bring more focus to their plight. The writers, photographers, filmmakers, and politicians go on to reap their rewards of recognition while the subjects of their work are once again relegated to mere footnotes, left to wallow in wretched obscurity until the arrival of the next hack or politico.

There is also a financial motive for the ongoing crisis. There are numerous institutions with their respective bureaucracies competing for limited government funding to deliver a variety of social services to the residents. It has been suggested that about one million dollars a day is expended, that much of it is wasted because of bureaucratic redundancies and a lack of accountability. Though this may be somewhat exaggerated, it is evident a lot of money is poured into the community as though it were a third world country. Throwing money at problems without the necessary checks and balances make any initiatives vulnerable to inefficiencies and corruption.

This creates a catch-22 situation whereby all these services are created to seemingly help the people, but by doing so we foster a prey/predator culture of dealers-addicts, pimps-prostitutes, sociopaths, and a cycle of violence where today’s victim is tomorrow’s offender. An atmosphere of entitlement develops because the boundaries defining social etiquette are blurred. Behaviours and actions deemed inappropriate in “normal” neighbourhoods are excused because the actors suffer from varying degrees of addiction and mental illness. The lack of consequences emboldens those who are not drug addicted nor mentally ill but feed on those that are.

This dysfunctional dynamic is used to justify the survival of all the bureaucracies, and society buys into it because it’s an easy cop out. The more programs and treatment centres that open the more we delude ourselves into believing it’s the best fix under hopeless circumstances.

Because these programs are centralized in the DTES, it’s very easy to be drawn into the maelstrom but almost impossible to leave due to the dearth of support elsewhere. Establishing treatment centres in the neighbourhood is akin to holding AA meetings in liquor stores. It’s doomed to failure when one has to fight temptation to navigate around the phalanx of luring dealers skulking nearby on a daily basis. Truth is, many of the dealers are gang affiliated, live in the suburbs, and are from middle-class backgrounds as are many of their customers. They make regular forays into the DTES to supply and lord over their subsistence-level minions who do the street-level transactions and run the risk of arrest.

Harm reduction strategies of providing free needles and crack-pipes to curb the spread of disease and overdose deaths are an understandable knee jerk response to the misery but do very little to address the problem in the long term. It will take a tough approach to deal with an ugly situation.
The concept of forced treatment is intensely controversial because it means the suspension of an individual’s right of choice, the foundation of democracy. There is also the argument that a person has to make their own decision to get clean and any coercive methods to compel treatment will fail. This premise is based on the notion a “junkie” is still able to make rational choices. We try to apply logic to an illogical act when in reality, the user is so thoroughly consumed with seeking their next fix that common sense does not apply.

This is not to suggest forced treatment is a panacea for all the ills haunting the DTES, because there are no perfect solutions—some people are beyond help and will die. However, if carried out methodically and with compassion, a person has a better chance to reclaim their dignity and self-respect, to give back rather than take. Forced treatment offers the one thing harm “reproduction” cannot—hope.

Amend the Mental Health Act to include addiction and divert some of the money flowing into the DTES into building medical centres located away from the area and staffed by qualified personnel. Instead of administering narcotic substitutes, the patient goes “cold turkey” and is closely monitored.

Next is a psychological assessment for mental fitness to determine the appropriate follow-up measures that include counseling, nutrition and exercise, hygiene, education upgrade, work force re-entry, and family participation.

Individuals deemed profoundly unstable and a safety threat would be transferred to an institution like Riverview for a more structured environment. Sadly, for many it is a life sentence. Those making good progress would earn the privilege of graduating to transition homes to continue their re-integration into the community. The houses would be located in neighbourhoods throughout Greater Vancouver and the neighbours would be made aware of the initiative, the entire process transparent.

Ideally, forced treatment and transition homes would be accepted as meaningful solutions to deal with addiction and mental health issues in the Downtown Eastside. In reality, the idea alone would cause such public uproar that no politician would dare champion the cause.

Compounding the problem are the self-proclaimed advocates for the marginalized whose sole purpose is to perpetuate the veil of suspicion and mistrust of the police. They descend into the DTES and cloak their agenda in self-righteous propaganda to brainwash the residents into believing they are the true defenders, but the only thing being defended is the status quo and, therefore, their relevance. Many of these groups and individuals know the “hot potato” issues in the DTES and use them as political launching pads to polarize the citizenry, reinforcing an “us versus them” mentality. Public pandering and social guilt has given these people too loud a voice and like Dr. Frankenstein, we have come to fear our own creation. Before riding too high on our moral horse we should all take a hard look in the mirror, though we may not like the image because the problem and the solution is staring right back at us.

Addendum

Contrary to public perception not everyone in the DTES is drug addicted, mentally ill, or a dangerous felon. Having worked the area for the past three years I have come to know many of the long-time residents. There are a lot of good people who are passionate about the neighbourhood because it’s home. Their frustration is palpable because they know the community can be much more than what it is. I can also sense the vibrancy returning: the new funky shops and eateries opening up and the cautious optimism of the people moving back into the area.

There are those who believe this “gentrification” of the DTES is a threat to the disadvantaged, low-income residents: that the resulting rise in property values would make rents unaffordable thereby throwing these people onto the streets.

I believe if the government were to adopt a more assertive tact to deal with the fiscal inefficiencies and redundancies, the money could be redirected to attract reputable landlords and building owners with fair subsidies relative to property tax increases. This would be an incentive to provide a higher standard of housing for low-income residents who must earn the privilege of living in the upgraded homes.

I also believe that if people are surrounded by positive stimuli they will be inspired to try harder to be better, call it the “Broken Window Theory” of human behaviour. For far too long, the DTES has been enveloped in a smothering cloud of negativity, but the shroud is slowly lifting. This renaissance is being lead by new entrepreneurs, developers, and young families who are aware of the challenges faced by the residents and want their participation to help make the neighbourhood a better place.

These two groups can coexist quite comfortably, but much of this is predicated on the political courage that will be required to make difficult decisions to deal with the problems. Until that happens, the present situation will ensure job security for a lot of folks—cops included.

Const. Wes Fung is a Chinatown-Gastown neighbourhood police officer with the Vancouver Police Department. Fung has been a member of the department for 27 years, serving as the liaison for several SRO hotels in the Downtown Eastside over the past three years. The opinions expressed in this article are the writer’s and do not represent the views of the department.

CHILDREN OF THE STREET FUNdraiser

Just CLICK on this image above to get all the details and join in and support one of our best prevention programs in the Lower Mainland!

You can get more details and BUY TICKETS at the CHILDREN OF THE STREET website.

SO MANY PEOPLE REALLY GET IT

By now, most of you have read Pete McMartin's column in today's Vancouver Sun about Harm Reduction.


You might also be encouraged by these two comments that were emailed to me:

Comments: Re: Article “Can David Berner reduce Harm Reduction”

Addiction is Hell and Harm Reduction is an invitation to extend your stay in that Hell

I am familiar with that hell and I am incredibly grateful that my family and my workplace did not believe in “harm reduction” or I would not be writing this letter today. Many on the east side do not have families or workplaces to pressure them into treatment but funding a guaranteed hell is no answer when that money could go to providing greater access to detox and treatment.
Harm reduction uses the taxpayer’s money to keep the addict sick!! This method also perpetuates the notion that the addict doesn’t need to change – but we do!!  I had blamed those around me for my own addiction and all the problems that came with it – if everyone else would change my life would be fine! Maybe they should have reduced the speed limits on my street to protect me when I was in addiction!!
 To offer the addict anything but the truth is a disservice to him and robs him of the hope of recovery. The truth is that he is gravely ill and there is no “middle of the road” solution. Treatment Centers or facilities that offer a spiritual answer help an addict to take responsibility for where he is while offering him a doorway out of hell to a life that is incredibly more wonderful than he could ever imagine.

Barb R

                                                                               *   *   *

Comments: I just read the article,"McMartin: Can David Berner reduce harm reduction?" posted in the Vancouver Sun. I couldn't agree with you more, David.
It's so true that, "politicians and academics haven’t been grounded in the dirty practicalities of addiction".
I was once brainwashed and seduced by the arguments for 'Harm Reduction' and then I started working in the DTES. It wasn't long before I realized Harm Reduction didn't work and that all we were doing was helping people stay stuck.
I soon put it together that there were organizations out there that supported Harm Reduction because if people were all of a sudden getting clean, they would be out of business. And that is exactly what Harm Reduction has become: a business. It's starting to make me sick.
Ironically, this article came out just as I was preaching to others about how futile Harm Reduction is.

Health Policy? Let us Now Pray...

It is clear that our Provincial Health Officer doesn't spend much time around addiction recovery centres.

How else to explain Dr. Perry Kendall's latest inflammatory public declaration?

Pure ecstasy can be ‘safe’ if consumed responsibly: B.C. health officer

As reported across the country in the last few hours, our leading bureaucrat has thrown all good sense out the window. 

We hope that one day he will leave his office and meet the parents, partners, friends and family members of the ecstasy-afflicted. Then, he might want to drop by the many prevention and treatment programs that are on the front lines of this madness every day - that includes weekends and evenings.

Following are comments from Al Arsenault and Toby Hinton of the Odd Squad:

  Yah, prohibition does all the harm...that's why there were no drug problems in the late 1800's when everything was legal...the Narcotics Control Act was passed because it was an ideal world of all drug legalization...Al

 

 

 Does not surprise me at all. When Through A Blue Lens came out, he went on TV and bemoaned that this type of programming did nothing for education. When we talked to him about this later, he admitted he had not even watched it before giving his interview. He is pro-legalization for everything, and why he is our prov. health officer is beyond me. MDMA - even in its pure form - is linked to depression/seratonin depletion/and other developmental issues.

Toby

We welcome your comments. From this writer's point of view, the Harm Reduction movement and philosophy have found a great ally in Dr. Kendall and the result is policy that makes the word "irresponsible" seem inadequate.

NECESSARY STORIES

The video shown below was contributed by DPNC board member Al Arsenault.