Running a marathon has been a lifelong ambition. Guess what I will be doing on Sunday ….

One of my lifelong ambitions has been to run a marathon.  As a young man, many, many years ago, I was a keen runner but never managed a marathon.  This Sunday is the Brighton Marathon, and guess what?  I will be cheering from the sidelines in support of James Danks who is running on behalf of BHT.

James is a recovering addict who just one year ago to the day started a detox programme that has changed his life.

James said: “It is amazing to think how far I have come. Just one year ago I was drinking a litre of vodka every day and spending £40 a day on heroin. I was in such a bad way and I knew that things had to change quickly or I could die and leave my sons without their father. I couldn’t let that happen and it was that thought that gave me the strength to get clean and to change my life for good.

“I was offered a place at BHT’s Detox Support Project, something that I thank my lucky stars for every day. I truly believe they saved my life. They have been so supportive and have helped me to deal with some deep rooted issues that have helped me with my recovery and are helping me every day to live a life of abstinence.”

James is not new to running events having completed the Brighton Half Marathon in February of this year in memory of his late wife Zoe and to raise money for BHT.

For the first time since his teenage years, James has a new found hope and plans for the future.

He said: “Exercise and keeping fit has played a huge part in my recovery so it is really nice to be able to combine my new found love for fitness with raising money for BHT. It’s great to feel like I am giving something back.

“I feel confident about the run on Sunday although I know it is going to be tough. Every step of the way I will be thinking about how far I have come in the last year and all of my new and exciting plans for the future.”

Anyone who would like to sponsor James can do so by clicking this link or by contacting Liz Davies on (01273) 645425.

Success by London homelessness charity to protect homeless people from cheap, super-strength alcohol

Congratulations to Jeremy Swain from London homelessness charity, Thames Link, for his successful campaign to increase the tax on super-strength beers.  Jeremy has campaigned relentlessly over the past five years to raise awareness of the problems caused by super-strength lagers and ciders. The new government plans for super strength drinks will mean a four pack of Tennent’s Super lager will increase in price by £1.50.

He said: “It’s a progressive move to increase tax on super-strength beers above 7.5 per cent in strength which will help save the lives of homeless and marginalised people addicted to these cheap and dangerous drinks. Scientific studies consistently prove that people’s drinking behaviour is affected by price and our experience is that people with serious alcohol addictions move over to weaker, cheaper lagers and ciders when their access to super-strength drinks is curtailed. From there, it is much easier to help them take further steps towards abstinence and recovery”

Jeremy is now calling on the Government to increase taxes on these dangerous drinks which have become the biggest killer of homeless people in the UK, responsible for more deaths amongst the rough sleeping population than crack cocaine or heroin according to the latest figures.

Drug deaths in Brighton and the harrowing report from ChildLine government policy for abstinence-based treatment

Today’s Brighton Argus has three items about alcohol and drugs. The first is that, yet again, Brighton and Hove has the highest rate of drug-related deaths in the country.  For 5 years in the late 1990′s I carried out research into drug-related deaths in the City and am aware that behind the grim headline are the tragic deaths of individual men and women who have died before their time due to addiction.  Each was someone’s son or daughter, perhaps a brother or a sister, even a parent.  Each one mourned and missed.  When these figures are published it doubles my resolve that we all must do more to help people come off and stay off drugs.

The second story, one that breaks my heart to read, is a report by the excellent ChildLine, into the effect of parental alcohol and drug use on children.  ChildLine’s deputy director, Joelle Leader, who lives in Brighton, said: “The fallout from parental drug and alcohol abuse is a ticking time bomb in many children’s lives.  It’s vital these children are helped before lasting damage occurs.  Children living with parental alcohol and drug problems are more at risk of harm and we need to find ways of helping sooner.  Some children told ChildLine about their parents’ severe mood swings, episodes of violence and emotional instability.  Some said their parents were regularly sick and that caring for them had affected their schooling or prevented them forming friendships with other children.  They often end up caring for their siblings and even their own parents by themselves”.

One ten year old girl told ChildLine that her parent “drinks all the time.  She leaves me alone lots of the time. I feel scared and lonely. I look after mum when she drinks and put her to bed.  She shouts and hits me. I don’t want to feel pain. I want to die”.

Finally, there is a letter contributing to the debate about what should happen to offenders committing drug-related crimes.  What is the right balance between punishment and the need for treatment?

All three items, in just one edition of the Argus, demonstrate that the issue of alcohol drug misuse and addiction is one of the most pressing issues of our time, the “ticking time bomb in many children’s lives” as ChildLine describes it.  The new government’s policy, a change from that of the previous government, is to require all services to “champion abstinence”.  I personally endorse this policy and think it is long overdue.  The challenge now is to promote this change in approach amongst all services and in all parts of the country.

Why I don’t support the decriminalisation of drugs

The outgoing president of the Royal College of Physicians, Sir Ian Gilmore, has said the laws on misuse of drugs should be reviewed and that their supply should be regulated. 

While there are many superficial benefits, I have never supported decriminalisation because there are a number of basic questions that have not been properly thought through.

For example, from what age do you decriminalise drugs?  Should it be 18, as with alcohol?  Then what about the 14, 15, 16 year olds in our towns and cities who are using?  Do you leave under 18s in the hands of “violent gangsters”?  Or do we say there is no minimum age?  There can be nobody in their right mind who would advocate drug use amongst children.

Would we place restrictions on users? For example, would we require users to forfeit their driving licences since some drugs stay in the system for 4 weeks and influence reaction time and other performance?

Would we say that users should be allowed to have custody and responsibility for children?  We know that incidents of domestic violence and child abuse increase due to alcohol use.  Are we certain that by giving respectability to drug use that there will not be similar increases in neglect?

Do we really want to write off hundreds of thousands to a life of worklessness and benefit dependency?  I wouldn’t employ someone who is drunk at work, nor would I employ someone who is under the influence of drugs.  Most employers want clear minded, focused employees.

Alcohol use is closely related to availability. Things have become so much worse since the last government liberalised alcohol availability.  It seems shear lunacy to go down the same road with drugs and expect to arrive at a different destination.

Research by Exeter University identified its illegal status as the main reason why the majority of 15 year olds don’t experiment with cannabis

I support the policy changes being introduced by the coalition government to champion abstinence. Policy for the last 25 years has often resulted in addicts being supported to stay on drugs. I welcome the government’s greater ambition to commit itself to helping people to come off, and stay off, drugs.

A spokesperson for the Home Office said: “Drugs such as heroin, cocaine and cannabis are extremely harmful and can cause misery to communities across the country.  The government does not believe that decriminalisation is the right approach. Our priorities are clear; we want to reduce drug use, crack down on drug-related crime and disorder and help addicts come off drugs for good.”

I think the government has got it just right.

It is time for an adult debate on drugs policy; let’s start it on May 7th!

There was an interesting article in yesterday’s Times regarding the use of the heroin substitute, methadone, as the primary treatment for addiction. It was followed by a strong leader article “The Drugs Don’t Work” which argued that prescribing methadone as a solution for heroin addiction comes at a heavy price. It is well worth a read.

The leader article concludes that “methadone is an admission of failure. It offers no cure beyond lulling people into an ambitiousless state of numbness. It should not be allowed to have the same effect on the debate that it has on users. If methadone is the only solution on offer, we are not asking the right question”.

Any debate around drugs tends to polarise people from the outset, so I strongly endorse the sentiment that any debate on methadone should not be killed at birth.  It is time for an adult debate around drugs policy.  However, it may be sensible to defer the debate until after the general election, say May 7th?

Next week I am meeting with the Shadow Home Secretary, Chris Grayling, who will be visiting BHT’s Recovery Project, a service that sees that recovery from addiction is possible and helps people to build a drug-free future.  He will meet with residents who will share with him the despair and sense of hopelessness they experienced when in active addiction, and the hope they now have for their future.

I anticipate that after the general election there may well be a fundamental change in public policy regarding drug addiction. The only shame is that any change is likely to be driven by financial considerations rather than the well-being of individuals. But if the change results in more people becoming drug free, I will welcome it.

Criminal convictions and Board membership

We have recently completed a PQQ.  What on earth is a PQQ?  A Pre Qualification Questionnaire proceeds bids for funding, usually to public bodies.  The idea is that those wishing to contract with government bodies are fit and proper organisations and, frankly, not a bunch of crooks!  A PQQ submission can run to many hundreds of pages of information, copies of policies and procedures, financial histories, and information about the management and governance of the organisation.

In this particular PQQ we were asked whether any of our Board members had any unspent criminal convictions.  As it happens, they are a bunch of fine, upstanding individuals and we were quite easily able to provide the assurances being sought.

But it got me thinking about service user involvement. It is true that some of our current and former service users may have committed offences in the past.  One of the loveliest person I have ever met had spent almost 20 years in prison having been found guilty of importation of Class A drugs (heroin, in this case).  For the last ten years or more he has been in recovery, alcohol and drug free, in full time employment, and ‘making amends’ for the harm he caused when using.

He is honest, hardworking, has great insight in social issues, and has a strong commitment to making society a better place.  I would be delighted if he was a member of the BHT Board of Management as he would bring specific expertise. I have no idea if his convictions are ‘spent’, but if not, and if he was a member of our Board, would BHT be seen as an unsafe organisation, one where questions would be asked because a PQQ revealed that a Board member has a criminal record?

It would probably be fine and we could explain the situation more than satisfactorily, but it could also lead to a situation where charities hold back from appointing current and former service users to their Boards, no matter how qualified and talented they might be.