PT I Context of the Research
The United Nations recently convened a special assembly recently in
response to the growing criticism of present international drug policy. In
particular the so-called “War on Drugs”
is coming under increasing attack as, at its best, a costly and futile exercise, (Gray 2001; Rolles et al. 2012) and, at its worst, a
sinister machination of bio-political control (Bobo and Thompson 2006).
Internationally
and locally experts are baffled by the growth of what is perceived as a “drug
problem”. An increasing number of countries, institutions and individuals are
exploring and debating a range of
alternatives in reducing the harm that drugs cause, from legalization to policies that are
aimed at harm reduction rather than punishment (GCOD 2011; UKDPC 2012).
In South Africa the National Drug Master Plan commits to a
multi-disciplinary and community-based oriented in what it refers to as a
“bio-psycho-social” model (South
Africa 2012: 30). However according to Howell and Couzyn (2015 : 1) the plan is
“riddled with internal inconsistencies and impractical resolutions” and will
be extremely difficult to implement due to lack of government resources and
co-ordination on one hand, and the lack of non-government facilities on the
other. Furthermore content
analysis by Geyer and Lombard (2014: 342) reveal that
the master plan is still stuck in using the language of criminalisation and
individual pathology, which, they conclude, has the result of absolving the
government of any responsibility.
There is a growing perception that present treatment and policy models
in regard to drug addiction are inadequate to deal with the multitude of
psycho-social, family and community issues emanating from, and leading to,
the ever-increasing abuse of drugs. They tend to pathologise the individual
and overlook the structural and social aspects of the problem (Chetty 2015; Prinsloo and
Ovens 2015) . Further there is little agreement as to what the outcome of the
recovery process should be. Dos Santos claims too that “that the pathways to recovery tend to
be complicated and the variety of possible outcomes is extremely great” (Dos Santos 2012: 54) .
Practically
treatment is inaccessible to the majority of addicted user (Myers and Parry 2005; Dos
Santos, Rataemane and Rataemane 2013).
This is available either through private residential treatment centres, which
are prohibitively expensive and inaccessible to the majority of addicted
users, or available, largely as out-patient treatment centres through
non-profit state or NGO organisations. Access to these centres is limited,
due to lack of funding and resources, and there is usually a three to six
month waiting list. In both private institutions and the NGO/state sector
there is a poor record in achieving sustained recovery. (Jeewa and Kasiram 2008) .
Largely missing from this debate is the voice of addicted user
themselves. As a recovering addicted heroin user myself, I have come to I
have come to believe that it is critical to have such voices heard if a
decent model for dealing with drug use disorders is to be developed and
implemented. Drug users are a highly stigmatised and marginalised community.
Their voices are seldom heard when it comes to policy making and practice
models that are directed at them. Yet their own experiences and journeys into
and out of problematic drug use could provide invaluable insights into the
development of more effective treatment models.
Read pt 2; Research Problems and Aims here: http://davidonymous.blogspot.co.za/2017/02/pathways-to-recovery-from-heroin.html |
No comments:
Post a Comment