Basic HTML Version
Legal line |
Letters
CLEAR SIGHTED
I was very heartened to read the
interview with Alliance founder Bill
Nelles (
DDN
, September, p10). The
story of setting up The Alliance is an
inspiring one of genuine user activism,
and of making a huge difference and
saving lives. For the past few years we
have had a good system in this
country with medication available, and
I think it can be sometimes forgotten
that this was not always the case.
There is much talk of patient choice
and the oft-heard discussion of ‘an
individual recovery journey’. However in
the current climate individuals on a
script are often left feeling stigmatised
and in constant fear of having their
medication removed. The situation in
the UK 30 years ago, and the current
lack of methadone prescribing in parts
of Canada, provide a stark reminder of
how many lives have been lost by the
blinkered pursuit of abstinence as the
sole treatment option
Despite this, Nelles states how
open he is to abstinence and how he
‘wants people to get the treatment
they want’ and sees his role to protect
people’s choices. Coming from him,
talk of ‘individual recovery journeys’
does not sound hollow at all.
Someone with a vast knowledge of
the UK treatment system gained
through professional and personal
experience, coupled with his current
situation as someone removed, have
given Nelles a unique perspective. I
look forward to hearing more from him.
Colin Reed, by email
MEDICATIONS
IN RECOVERY
Professor Strang tells us that
overcoming drug dependence is often
difficult, and reports that not everyone
who comes into treatment will succeed
(
DDN
, August, p14).
As he indicates, research and
experience demonstrate that opioid
substitution therapy (OST) succeeds in
helping bring heroin addicts to abstin-
ence (but only in 3 per cent of cases).
We also know that 12-steps
succeeds in 20 to 30 per cent of
cases and that, while other recovery
programmes have consistently brought
55 to 70 per cent of addicts on
various substances to lasting
abstinence, there are still 25 to 30 per
cent who, for well-known reasons, are
fundamentally incurable and for whom
therefore OST or the prescribing of
diamorphine appears a realistic
management of their addiction.
That leaves 70-plus per cent who
have not quit, who have tried hard to
do so on numerous occasions (often
daily), who have failed just as often,
but who still want to escape their
addiction – including wanting to quit
their methadone dependency.
In other words, the essential
difference between the ‘incurables’ and
the 70 to 75 per cent who still want to
escape their addiction is willingness,
with the larger group unfortunately
lacking in knowledge of how to get
themselves back into the natural state
of abstinence into which 99 per cent of
them were born, and the smaller group
utterly resistant to quitting.
So why for one moment consider
putting the majority of heroin addicts
on OST, when the majority are both
able and willing to quit, and have not
done so only because they have not
been offered the opportunity to be
trained in the effective addiction
recovery techniques which are currently
practised at 169 centres (including
prison units) in 49 countries and which
have been helping hundreds of
thousands of addicts of all types to
cure themselves since 1966.
Regrettably, it appears that effective
self-help training in do-it-for-yourself
addiction recovery techniques is ignored
and/or defamed because it does not
entail the daily usage at any stage of
psycho-pharmaceutical medications.
Along with addiction prevention
training, the government’s goal of
reduced demand is achieved by
recovering existing addicts to relaxed
lasting abstinence, without prescribing
any other addictive substances.
Kenneth Eckersley, CEO, Addiction
Recovery Training Services (ARTS)
We welcome your letters...
Please email them to the editor, claire@cjwellings.com or post them
to the address on page 3. Letters may be edited for space or clarity –
please limit submissions to 350 words.
10 |
drinkanddrugsnews
| October 2012
www.drinkanddrugsnews.com
LETTERS
READER’S QUESTION:
Last year I was violently attacked on my way home from work. I
had to have a number of operations on my face and still have
visible scars. I amalso psychologically affected – I can’t work, only
leave the house if I have to, and suffer from nightmares. I made a
criminal injuries application but have been refused because I
have criminal convictions. It doesn’t seem fair that I can’t get any
compensation because of things I’ve done in my past.
KIRSTIE SAYS:
This must have been a very distressing
experience, and obviously continues to be so. You
were right to make an application to the
Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA).
In assessing a claim, CICA consider a number
of different factors about the incident itself and
the person applying for compensation.
Unfortunately one of the things they are able to
take into account is the character of the
applicant, with reference to previous criminal
convictions. This does not seem fair, and CICA do
not offer any explanation about why they do
this. Legal challenges to this have failed in the past. However, they cannot
simply make a blanket refusal based on the fact that someone has criminal
convictions, and they can only have regard to unspent convictions. Each case
must be looked at on its own merits.
CICA operate a penalty point system which allocates a specified number of
points to a conviction according to what sentence was given and the time that
has passed between the date of sentence and the date of the application. The
total number of penalty points is then used to reduce an award by between 10
per cent (1 point) and 100 per cent (10 points). Sentences of 30 months or
more in prison will never become spent and attract 10 points. Tactically it is
sometimes possible to delay an application to minimise the reduction applied,
especially as there is a two-year period to apply from the incident date.
You should check the guidance in relation to this – at bit.ly/SlUNuT – and
make sure that the calculations have been made correctly. If not, then you
should request a review of the decision not to make any award because it was
reached incorrectly. Even if the calculation is correct, you can still request a
review on the basis that there are exceptional circumstances present in your
case and discretion should be exercised to make an award (even if that is
reduced in some way). If you are still unhappy with the decision after review,
you can appeal the decision to the Tribunal Service – they are completely
independent of CICA. Unfortunately it is often difficult to find free
representation for these sorts of cases, though you may be able to get some
assistance from a local law centre or Citizens Advice Bureau.
Will you share your issue with other readers? Kirstie will answer your legal
questions relating to any aspect of drugs, the law and your rights through
this column. Please email your queries to claire@cjwellings.com and we will
pass them on.
For more information about this issue please contact the Release legal
helpline on 0845 4500 215.
Release solicitor
Kirstie Douse
answers
your legal questions in her regular column
LEGAL LINE
SHOULD AN OLD CONVICTION
COUNT AGAINST MY CRIMINAL
INJURIES APPLICATION?