POLICY SCOPE
MEDIA SAVVY
WHO’S BEEN SAYINGWHAT..?
One in five people
(19 per cent) believe that
parental drug and alcohol problems are the main
cause of child poverty in Britain, according to the
latest
British attitudes survey
(and 75 per cent
identify them as a cause of child poverty). This
puts substance misuse at the top of the league
table of ‘main causes’ of child poverty for the
3,000 respondents to this survey. It comes ahead
of ‘their parents do not want to work’ (15 per
cent), ‘their parents lack education’ (10 per cent),
‘their parents’ work doesn’t pay enough’ (9 per
cent), ‘because of inequalities in society’ (5 per cent), parental illness or
disability (3 per cent), experience of discrimination (1 per cent) and lack of
access to affordable housing (1 per cent).
Parental substance misuse can have a serious negative impact on
children, and can contribute to child poverty. But the main reason for
poverty? The latest figure for the number of children living in relative
poverty in the UK is 2.3m (the Institute for Fiscal Studies warns that this
number may increase by 400,000 by 2015). The 2003
Hidden harm
report
concluded that there were 250,000 to 350,000 children of problem drug
users, while observing that ‘problem drug use prospers in circumstances of
poverty and disadvantage, from which the children of problem drug users
are by no means the only ones to suffer’.
Amongst the mishmash of individual and structural factors included in
the
British attitudes survey
, it is genuinely shocking that substance misuse
problems are seen as more fundamental to – and more causally primary for
– poverty compared to things like poor education, lack of opportunity, low
pay, unemployment and inequality, by such a large section of the public.
This is not the place to consider the reasons and significance of all this in
any detail, but two thoughts spring to mind. First, the increasing focus on
‘addiction’ as an issue for the Department of Work and Pensions may be
working at a more subterranean level to shift public perception of the
causes and dynamics of poverty in Britain. Second, that laying the blame for
child poverty at the door of parental addiction will tend to feed the stigma
and discrimination that can keep families locked in poverty.
On the subject of statistics, I was at a meeting recently when a powerpoint
came up that said ‘Every ten addicts not in treatment in 2010-11 committed:
13 robberies and bag snatches, 23 burglaries, 21 car thefts and more than 380
shoplifting thefts’. These figures are being promoted by the NTA as a means
of influencing local commissioners to part with scarce resources. I have no
problems with the promotion of the crime reduction dividends from
treatment to incentivise investment, but is it really helpful to imply that every
‘addict’ not in treatment is committing a load of crime? The aggregate figures
from which these are derived would be impactful enough, a fairer reflection
of the reality and less likely to reinforce stereotypes and feed stigma.
The British attitudes survey 28 available on the NatCen Social Research
site at www.britsocat.com
Marcus Roberts is director of policy and membership at DrugScope,
www.drugscope.org.uk
Media savvy |
Policy scope
August 2012 |
drinkanddrugsnews
| 7
www.drinkanddrugsnews.com
A
Sun
YouGov poll showed six out of ten Brits want to see drug users
escape prosecution and receive better medical treatment instead. Of
course, this type of change only applies to possession and does not
amount to full legalisation, as dealers and traffickers would still be hunted
and jailed by cops. But in the
Sun
poll, 56 per cent of people did say they
would like to see the idea of complete legalisation reviewed – along with
other policy options.
Sun
news story, 11 July
Having failed to understand that drug policy was failing because of the
fundamentally flawed division it created between soft and hard drugs,
users and dealers, Britain under the Labour government increasingly
abandoned law enforcement and set out instead to manage the ill effects
of drug use. But under this strategy of ‘harm reduction’ – a Trojan horse for
legalisation – drug use has rocketed skywards. The legalisers’ arguments
are wrong-headed, historically false and often absurd.
Melanie Phillips,
Mail on Sunday
, 8 July
The
Times
and now even the
Telegraph
have joined with the
Independent
and
Guardian
in giving over column inches to ‘open minded’ but misguided
libertarians. These writers would have us believe that the normalisation
and legalisation of drugs is a solution to the ghastly addiction that [Eva
and Hans Rausing] fell into without check. It is not.
Kathy Gyngell,
Daily Mail
, 13 July
I don’t think charities should take money from people they know are still
using. The message that it sends to the vulnerable is that with enough
cash you can buy your way out of anything.
Janet Street-Porter,
Independent on Sunday
, 15 July
There’s a fine line between mutually supportive drug users and mutually
supportive recovering addicts. The same person can enable a friend to put
down or pick up: flip-flopping between the two is far more common than
12-step groups would like to admit. I don’t believe that addiction is a
‘disease’, but once hard drugs are in your life there's a good chance that
they’ll keep you busy for years – taking them, staying away from them, or
alternating miserably between the two.
Damien Thompson,
Telegraph
, 11 July
The big question is advertising. It is nearly three years since the BMA called
for a total ban – on sponsorship too – as part of a strategy to curb drinking.
The industry says there’s no evidence that it encourages drinking, a
surprising assertion when it has an £800m-a-year budget.
Guardian
editorial, 18 July
Who saw Louise Mensch on
Question Time
, refusing to say which class A
drug once ‘messed with’ her head because she didn't want to ‘glorify’
drugs? It was a wonderful, surreal moment. One could just picture all the
future addicts, lying on dirty mattresses, saying: ‘Yeah, Louise Mensch,
Conservative MP for Corby, got me started – when she talked about her
past drug use on
Question Time
, she just made it all seem so cool.’ In a way,
it's touching that Mensch believes that she exerts such influence over the
nation. Did I say touching? Sorry, I meant risible.
Barbara Ellen,
Observer
, 8 July
Substance misuse is being blamed for child
poverty ahead of the true causes of
inequality, says
Marcus Roberts
FOOD FOR STIGMA