Blind opposition to drug rehab impedes social progress

Drug abuse and drug dependency are endemic in Ireland. For the majority of the community, socialising and drinking alcohol go hand in hand. Indeed, I suspect that a lot of people reading this article will be, to some extent, socially dependent upon alcohol.

For many of us a get-together without drink seems hardly worthwhile, a point of view I share. From the comfortable Irish Times reader to the destitute wino, from Muscadet to meths, we could be classified as a nation of drug-abusers.

While we readily accept that alcoholism is a pitiable disease and that alcoholics deserve every possible assistance in their recovery, we simply refuse to offer the same degree of humanity to those addicted to heroin. Opposition to the establishment of drug-rehabilitation centres has long prevented the effective treatment of heroin abuse in this country.

A couple of weeks ago I wrote here about a letter I received from a woman in my own constituency, a very decent woman indeed, who objected to the establishment of a drug rehabilitation unit in her locality on the grounds that one of her teenage children might meet a drug addict on the bus.

Unfortunately, her attitude is as pervasive as it is blinkered. We deplore the crimes which fund heroin addiction. We deplore the spread of HIV associated with intravenous drug use. We deplore the waste of life and human potential caused by heroin abuse. Yet we refuse to permit the treatment of this awful addiction through the establishment of effective treatment centres.

In south-west Dublin, for example, there is a waiting list of about 300 people who need treatment, who want treatment, but who cannot receive that treatment because local opposition forbids the establishment of a treatment centre.

In a society which accepts and even glorifies the abuse of alcohol, where death by tobacco is commonplace, attitudes towards illicit drug abuse remain unaware and unhelpful to the treatment of this addiction. Successive governments have also failed to provide necessary funding or imagination. Meanwhile, whole communities have suffered, crime has raged and HIV has spread.

Tony Gregory, as a public representative, has shown bravery in tackling the drug-pushers. Journalist Paul Williams has been consistent and courageous in his crusade in this area of abuse. We must also never forget the enormous debt we owe to the many people who work tirelessly on a voluntary basis.

Now enter Eoin Ryan. Eoin is Minister of State with special responsibility for the National Drugs Strategy. His commitment, energy and ability have impressed many on both sides in Leinster House. His brief is as politically unenviable as it is difficult, especially as a first brief: no great multi-million-pound announcements, no jet-setting or high-profile appearances. In fact, the people he aims to help are among those in the State least likely to vote.

Where Eoin Ryan, I think, has been especially effective is in advancing a partnership approach with the communities most affected by heroin addiction and its effects through the Local Drugs Task Forces. He has argued successfully that funding for these task-forces should be greatly increased.

This has facilitated the establishment of local action plans for treatment, rehabilitation, prevention and curbing local heroin supply. These also link up with the efforts being made by the Department of Justice and the Department of Health and Children to combat the drug problem.

Eoin has also stressed time and again that to tackle our heroin problem we must attempt, once and for all, to end the urban blight which affects every single one of the areas where addiction is a significant problem. Successive studies and common sense support this notion. In fact, in every one of these areas early school-leaving and the resulting poverty cycle have exacerbated the heroin problem. The Minister is vociferously backing special arrangements for the 25 worst urban black spots so the National Development Plan can be implemented in three years, rather than the seven envisaged for the rest of the State.

I am not saying that all is rosy in the area of heroin treatment. The first signs are now evident, however, that the problem in this country has stabilised and that the number of addicts is dropping at last. It does appear that the various initiatives led by Eoin Ryan are bringing real improvements.

The methadone-replacement treatment which is favoured here has been, in general terms, a success. Across Europe almost 300,000 drug-users are on the methadone programme and, where supported by services such as counselling and training, it has been shown to work. Indeed, about 40 per cent of those on the methadone programme in the Eastern Regional Health Authority area are now working.

On the wider front more than 350 schools have run drug awareness programmes, the drug courts are up and at it, the pilot Labour Inclusion Programme is helping recovering drug-users to obtain employment, and Special Community Employment places have been designed and provided for users.

There are many more initiatives under way, each aimed at the only worthwhile goal in this area: full rehabilitation and reintegration into society. However, the problem of local opposition persists. It is a terrible impediment to social progress and needs to be resisted.

While opposition to treatment centres and the details of drug-related crime remain newsworthy and while resistance to local and governmental drugs initiatives ignite great talk-radio debates, I suspect many would rather ignore the positive news and hold on to the easy line that people like Eoin Ryan and others are doing nothing. In which case, have a blissful Saturday.