FDS Insight Newsletter Jul-Sep 2020

11 paracetamol. If we won’t distinguish between more and less dangerous substances and practices, between occasional and heavy use, between having fun and covering up life’s problems, how can we expect our more knowledgeable, independently minded teenagers to pay any attention to what we say? Honest communication that acknowledges both the ill consequences and the pleasures of drug use, as well as the possibility of experimentation gives parents credibility in the conversation and opens the door to discussion of how to reduce the risks of such experimentation. We can do this while making it perfectly clear that we’d rather they didn’t use drugs at all. But, of course, those of us who do this are guilty of ‘sending the wrong message’ and allegedly condoning what is still criminal activity. The government policy is such that parents can’t comply with it. You either take the prohibitionist line or you have a real conversation. You can’t do both. So much for what parents can do to prevent or limit drug use. Where we lose the battle, can the law win the war? The evidence suggests not. Recreational drug use among teenagers and young adults is extraordinarily widespread. It is normal. The law doesn’t deter. And it doesn’t help families after the fact in cases where drug use becomes problematic. Shaking the law in front of your addicted child does no good. They can’t just stop. And how many parents will call in the police anyway? Criminal sanctions deter openness about drug use, not use itself. They overlay an already painful situation with fear and shame. But not only is the policy of prohibition ineffective in achieving its stated aims, it is actively immoral. To see this, let’s consider the bogey man drug, heroin. What is it that parents fear when they think about heroin addiction? It seems pretty obvious. Addiction has serious ill consequences: the risk of overdose, contamination, blood-borne diseases, poverty, malnutrition, homelessness, exclusion and marginalisation, prostitution and criminal activity, police, courts, prison, rape, suicide. Of course we fear it. That is not the kind of life anyone would want for their child. But now let us ask if these bad consequences follow from the drug use itself. Are they inevitable? Suppose you tell me that a medial program is available for my addicted child. Among the benefits listed are these: the treatment stops people ‘hanging out’; it stabilises them so they can lead a normal life, including returning to school and work; it brings about a dramatic reduction in the frequency of theft and other drug- related crime. On the health front, it reduces the risk of blood-borne infection; it removes the risk of contamination; and it helps those treated lead a healthier life, including improved diet and sleep. As a parent I’d be delighted with such substantial benefits. Would my relief and joy be ruined when you also told me that my child would still be addicted to opiates? For the treatment I am talking about is methadone and methadone is an opiate.