The alternative to decrminalization

The Toronto Board of Health has joined others around Canada in asking for all drugs to be decriminalized. If this occurred we would be join the ranks of countries like Portugal who having done this have cut the number of addicts in half, lowered crime rates and lowered healthcare costs. But, of course, as this nation is afraid of such a “radical” approach it will not happen. In fact, the Trudeau government has said as much. There is another way where we can treat drug addiction as a health issue rather than a criminal one.

We already have mental health diversion courts so why not drug/alcohol diversion courts. The mental health diversion allows people who have committed a crime to have a chance to get better rather than go to jail. There are a lot of rules someone must follow or they forfeit their diversion and go to jail. Rules may include adherence to taking medications as prescribed, going to therapy groups and/or individual therapy, etc. It seems to work and helps keep the already clogged up courts from being more encumbered. Think of the money and time that could be saved if such a diversion system were put in place for people suffering from addiction?

Rather than wasting money on sending people to prison for drug possession, where they get no help and the problem worsens, it could be spent on helping them. Why not put the money into treatment programs, both residential and out-patient? In order for this to work there would have to be enough programs where a person doesn’t have to wait months to get a spot in treatment. There is a very narrow window to get someone into treatment once they decide they want help. It’s the nature of the disease. The only disease that tricks the person into thinking they don’t have it. If the government opens up more treatment centres then people will get the help they need. This will cut down on health care costs, court costs and police costs. Probably save money on social service costs as well. One mode of thinking that would have to change is the government’s perception that 12 Steps is a religion and therefore does not qualify for funding. 12 Step programs are not a religion! But that’s for another blog.

Dave the Dude

Stereotypes, Responsiblity and Treatment Centres

My friend and I have been having a lot of conversations recently about stereotypes people have of other cultures, religions, races, creeds, etc. Being of the Jewish faith/culture I told him that, although it is unfair, I feel that Jewish people have to be extra careful not to do things that perpetuate stereotypes. Now remember what I just said as its relevance will become clear soon.

There is a real issue in Ontario with unregulated alcohol and drug treatment centres. If you have enough money, buy a house/building in the right zone, you can open your own treatment centre. Hire whomever you want, charge whatever you want and do any type of crazy treatment you want. I’ve worked at three really unethical places. These places care little for the clients and even less about their employees. I have a friend who currently works at a treatment centre that fits this description to a tee. These treatment centres are usually opened by people new to recovery who decide it would be cool open one. They know nothing about addiction or mental health but think they can help people. Eventually they just end up wanting to make money.

Now I know my story is anecdotal but three of the four places I’m familiar with are owned by Jewish people. The owners try to get clients to stay longer in treatment by getting counsellors to persuade them to stay longer – a longer stay means more money. They try to get employees to do it even it won’t benefit the client. I remember being told to say the following if any client ever inquired if longer treatment would be helpful: “A longer stay is always beneficial”. I had to say this even if the person was doing well and I was confident they were ready to re-enter the real world (meaning they did well in treatment and had a good recovery plan for when they left). The same owners have a history of bouncing employee cheques, not paying proper vacation pay, not providing pay stubs and other labour law violations. If they’re not called on it they don’t give a crap. One time I was working for this totally unethical place and the head guy (he is Jewish) took all sick pay away. When I asked why he told me it was for my benefit so I would have an incentive to stay healthy. Can you say scumbag?

You’re probably asking, “yo Dave, why don’t you name these places you speak of?” Well due to non-disclosure agreements I was forced to sign I can’t. You see they know they are scum and don’t want it advertised.

So getting back to my original point, as I said three of these four places are owned by Jewish individuals. I really feel they have a responsibility not to act in such an indecent, dare I say it – Trump-like, fashion. The responsibility is to their Jewish brethren as their actions reflect poorly on the rest of us. I know that an overwhelming majority of Jewish people are great people and upstanding citizens. I’m sure if you look at all races, creeds, etc. you’d fine the same percentage of scummy people versus great people. But as a business owner who deals with people these guys should be extra careful and treat people well so that gentiles leave with a feeling that Jewish people are great people to deal with. This is just my humble opinion.

Dave the Dude

Anti-recovery, Anti-therapeutic and Darn mean.

I’ve written before on antiquated treatment centre rules. Now that we’re in the 21^st Century there seems to be a whole new set of rules coming to some centres. The worst is forcing people to quit smoking as a requirement for treatment. Yes, I know, there have been numerous studies that show that it’s easier to quit smoking when you’re quitting everything else but that doesn’t mean you should force someone to do it. And other studies have shown that smoking cigarettes can cause relapse but so can breaking up with someone or a death in the family – you can’t safe guard against everything. I wholeheartedly agree with encouraging someone to quit smoking, providing nicotine patches, Champix, etc. However, penalizing people who smoke seems counterproductive to me.

When I first got sober I was actively drinking alcohol and smoking crack cocaine. I was also a smoker. I’m not sure I would have been successful in treatment if I had been forced to quit tobacco as well. I did eventually quit but it was several years into sobriety. The difference between tobacco and alcohol/drugs is that most people aren’t going to sell all their belongings, steal and/or miss work/commitments because of cigarettes.

I have a buddy who was in treatment and doing well. The treatment centre had adopted a no smoking policy. After a successful time at this treatment centre he had earned an outing. During the outing my friend ended up having a couple cigarettes. Returning to treatment he admitted this to his counsellor (honesty is important in recovery) and the centre counted this as a relapse promptly kicking him out. He didn’t come back to the centre intoxicated. He did not drink alcohol, smoke crack or use opiates on his outing but he broke down and had a couple cigarettes. In my humble opinion kicking someone out of treatment for a “breach” like this only serves to hurt the person and possibly be a catalyst for a relapse into drugs and alcohol. What type of lesson is this? Nicotine is, if not the hardest, than one of the hardest addictions to beat. Penalizing a person for having a cigarette on an outing is anti-recovery, anti-therapeutic and darn mean.

Dave the Dude

 

 

Follow Portugal not the U.S.

Today on the news I heard people on the street being asked their opinions regarding a proposal, by someone in the Trudeau government, to decriminalize all substances. Not surprising many people thought it was the wrong move thinking it would increase and promote drug use. This is just not the case. Our current way with dealing with drug addiction is just not working. Treating a sick person as a criminal not only clogs up our courtrooms, costing millions of dollars; it also doesn’t help the sick person and costs our health care system millions as well.

Canada has to stop following the lead of our neighbours to the south and, rather, look to our European neighbour Portugal. Portugal has decriminalized all substances and the results have been remarkable. The number of addicts has decreased exponentially as well as the number of people dying from overdoses. Instead of wasting millions of dollars prosecuting people for using illegal substances Portugal spends the money on treating them. Canada needs to stop treating the disease of addiction in the justice system and treat it in the health care system (i.e. – treatment). Getting someone recovered from an addiction saves money in the long run for our health care system rather than the current band aid solution.

One misunderstanding I heard on the radio today was that people think decriminalization means drug dealers will not be punished. That is not the case. Portugal does not punish the addict but does prosecute the trafficker. Again I say, Canada needs to follow suit.

As a person in recovery there’s an Einstein quote that is often spoken: Doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result, is the definition of insanity. Our current system is not working and we keep thinking it will. Recent stats have shown that the number of organ donors have gone way up in Vancouver saving many lives. This is a bittersweet statistic as the reason for this rise is that the majority of donors are people who have died due to an opiate overdose.

Opiate addicts, and all the other addicts, are hiding in the wings because we treat them like criminals rather than sick people. I’m not saying that we let addicts off with crimes they have committed as a result of their addiction as making amends for those crimes is part of the recovery process. What I’m saying is that we need to go after the traffickers not the people they are killing.

Dave the Dude

Stick to sharing your experience!!

I recently talked to a guy had lost faith in Alcoholics Anonymous. He shared with me that prior to AA he was drinking a minimum of 26 ounces of booze a day. After joining AA and working the Steps he had over two years of continuous sobriety. Quite an accomplishment!!! He told me his life was so much better because of sobriety and AA. I can totally relate because I drank a 26er of rye a day for a few years prior to sobering up in Alcoholics Anonymous.

Where is this gentleman today? He’s drinking and his quality of life has gone way downhill. So what happened? The gentleman suffers from several mental health issues and is under the care of a doctor who prescribes medication, including benzodiazepines. His “sponsor” told him that he wasn’t sober because of the medications and that all he needed was the 12 Steps. So he stopped going to AA.

I’m not a big fan of benzos; I abused them myself, and consider them highly addictive. However, unlike me, this guy did not abuse them. He followed them as per his doctor’s instructions. His sponsor (and I’ve run into many people like him) made him feel unwelcome in the rooms and so he left. His life is far much worse. I’m not blaming his sponsor for the guy’s relapse but one has to wonder if that guy would have stayed in AA, where he was doing well, if his sponsor wasn’t playing doctor and judge.

I’ve had a sponsee taking benzos, and while I shared my experience of abusing them and the highly addictive nature of the drug, I did not tell him he wasn’t sober and was lying to himself and the Fellowship. His life was much better than it had been prior to joining AA. I’m not a doctor and don’t offer medical advice. This type of thing really irks me. It’s like when an AA member tells a newcomer they are not welcome because they use outside issues when they drink. I’ve run into many people who were turned off the Fellowship by these types of nonsense statements. When it comes down to it I’m the one who decides if my sobriety is compatible to the type of spiritual life I am trying to lead. My sponsor is a guide not a judge.

Dave the Dude 

Reunion, remember when and informing people

I just had a reunion with two guys I roomed with for a year in 1992 when I attended university. It was a great reunion with lots of stories and Remember Whens. It was at university where I laid the foundation for my drinking/using career. Some of the stories we were telling I didn’t even remember doing. Like mouthing off to a skinhead in a pub and getting decked by him. I do remember we used to do some crazy stuff. Part of my addiction was that I always thought I had to do crazier and crazier things. At university my roomies hung me off a 40 story balcony and swung me around. There was the time where I purposely set my hand on fire, thinking it would go out quickly which it did not.

My friends know about my entry into recovery and involvement in the 12 Steps. They had some interesting questions which reminds of me of how little those not in recovery know about the disease of addiction. My one friend asked me if I could ever see myself having one beer and when I replied no asked me why. I explained that I couldn’t predict what would happen if I had that one beer. I said it would probably lead to me having another and another and another and eventually I’d be worse off than I was when I entered recovery in 2005.

As the Big Books states alcohol is cunning, baffling and powerful. Part of that is the fact that while I’ve been sober for over 12 years if I were to take a drink it would be like I had been drinking for those 12 years. My disease would be that far advanced. Science is unable to explain this phenomenon. As Father Martin said, “only God knows why and he ain’t telling us”. I think that’s why many in the scientific community, some addictions counsellors and therapists as well, have such disdain for the 12 Step philosophy. You can’t quantify the effect of a spiritual awakening. All I know is that it worked for me.

Dave the Dude

Acceptance will come with education

Deaths due to opiate overdoses are on the rise in the GTA. As a result the race is on to find a solution. Unfortunately with addiction there is no easy solution. Toronto is building three safe injection sites to try to cut down on overdose deaths. Like most harm reduction interventions many people are criticizing this move saying that it’s enabling addicts and/or helping organized crime.

When I first entered into recovery, from my addictions, I was dead set against any type of harm reduction. I held firm with the belief that it was enabling the addict. From personal experience harm reduction didn’t work for me. Over a decade later after my experience working with addicts my mind has opened to some harm reduction. I’m still of the mind that methadone is terrible but am open to safe needle exchanges and injection sites. Harm reduction works in two ways. It cuts down on the harm the addict faces but it also cuts down on the harm the public faces. With safe needle exchange and injection sites less needles will be discarded along the sidewalks, playgrounds and beaches of our communities.

A lot of the public back lash against safe injection sites comes from a lack of education. I think Toronto would be wise to launch a public information campaign of what these safe sites look like. Even after working in the field for over 10 years I had no idea what one of these sites looked like until a colleague explained it to me. In my mind I had this image of a blocked off area with addicts wandering around stoned throwing needles on the ground. For those fans of New Jack City I imagined it much like the public housing crack areas featured in that movie. My colleague explained to me that it’s very sterile and much like a medical office. I think if the public were able to see this they might warm up to the idea of safe injection sites. Inform the public how there are counsellors and nurses on site to talk to addicts about addiction and promote recovery.

Einstein said the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result. This is what the majority of nations, Canada included, have been doing for decades. We need new, best practices, approach. Safe injection sites are part of this new way to tackle addiction. We must look at it as public health matter not a criminal one. If we really wanted to make changes we would follow in the footsteps of Portugal which has decriminalized all drugs and cut its number of addicts in half as well as lowering the crime rate.

Dave the Dude