My response to David Oliver on Home Office blog – Drug Education

The Home Office have been piloting a blog asking for comments on the new Drug Strategy.

David Oliver has asked for comments on drug education and I have posted my own response which has now actually been published on it. The link is here http://drugstrategyblog.homeoffice.gov.uk/?p=5 or you can read my comments below…..

Stacey Smith said

March 15 2011 10.20

I have been involved in delivering both drug education and treatment to young people over the last eleven years. The main points I wish to share are as follows:

Inconsistency

Without a statutory framework I see it as an injustice to our young people that they aren’t given consistent approaches to something that could affect their lives so adversely. This is more difficult when the messages we receive generally in society are also so inconsistent and confusing. E.g Take this pill to change how you’re feeling but not that one, these drugs are bad and they’re illegal, some of these drugs are worse but they are legal. I’ve seen teachers giving completely biased and inaccurate information which discredits any actual messages that are delivered thereafter.

Drug education needs to be delivered and linked tightly with emotional literacy and lifeskills as within the SEAL approach. If young people are better supported with their emotional health then this decreases the risk factors associated with drugs including alcohol.

Willingness and competency

Whilst some teachers are very competent, the majority either do not want to deliver what they feel to be a difficult taboo subject or they have limited time and training opportunities to do so. We wouldn’t put an untrained Maths teacher in front of a class so why are we allowing teachers to deliver a subject they know nothing about?

Credibility

As well as for mainstream pupils but in particularly for those considered ’disaffected’ or ’vulnerable’ the information given by a teacher is not going to be absorbed (if they are there!) It is not going to be real to them.

I also believe there is a lot more value in informal drug education within youth settings and giving parents more access to attend sessions about drugs including alcohol.

Lack of targetted information

The generic FRANK campaign is not targetting the most vulnerable young people. Telling a 16 year old that Cannabis makes you sick when he has been smoking it since he was 12 isn’t helpful. There is great literature being produced out there (Lifeline, HIT) but often the agencies I work with would not have the funding to be able to purchase them.

A combination of teacher training, outside speakers, parents and most importantly a statutory framework for ALL schools would help.

Let’s give our future generations a better chance to succeed by crediting them with honest information and support.

My response to the David Cameron interview on Drugs & Legalisation

I felt the need to get a few things of my chest having just viewed the following video of our great leader David Cameron.

 

Please note in some ways I have been a fence sitter regarding the pros and cons of legalising Cannabis. I try and see both sides of the argument. However, his comments today in response to the questions he was asked are dimissive and make me very angry.

Point 1) Alcohol and Tobacco are more addictive. FACT. Alcohol damages the body far more and has far far far less medicinal benefit. Tobacco (Nicotine) is more addictive. FACT. You’re not answering the question Mr Cameron! Yes I believe Cannabis can lead to a psychological dependency for some people but if you are legally allowing people to make a choice to use Tobacco and Alcohol then why not Cannabis too? If you are so concerned about people’s physical and mental health why not ban them all?? We all know the answer to that.

Point 2) Hoorah, he agrees education in schools is vital. So provide us with a statutory framework compulsory in ALL schools, train teachers to give out credible information, fund programmes and services (coughs) that can deliver the goods. Redivert FRANK money so that those that are the most vulnerable get the information and support they need rather than basic, ill targetted and sometimes factually incorrect propaganda.

Point 3) IF

‘Marijuana’ is incredibly damaging and leads to HUGE mental health problems’

then it is BECAUSE of the fact it’s illegal and not properly regulated or controlled. It is in the hands of criminals. If higher THC levels in Cannabis contribute to an increased risk to mental health then if he really wanted to help people he would find a way to regulate. He allows Alcohol to continue to be legal which actually does contribute to HUGE mental health problems so on this basis, make Alcohol a Class B too!

Point 4) Dismissing a question about the medical use of Cannabis is quite bloody offensive. It had been proven countless times that it is much more beneficial and less addictive than drugs that the pharmaceutical companies he would advocate and probably has a vested interest in dish out. Thousands of people in our country are in pain and suffering and his policies criminalise them for wanting to be able to legally choose a drug that could help them a great deal to lead more fulfilling lives. It’ s not all just about stoners wanting to get high!

Point 5) Making drugs legal will make them more prevalent? Really?You know that? If policies to date have not worked why not try something different? Why not listen to the people that know what they are talking about? How about pulling your head out of your arse and seeing how dangerous and harmful your policies are? How about realising you have the power to really reduce the harm that ALL drugs can cause but politically you nor many politicians have the balls to make the radical changes that are so badly needed?

And so on and on and on and on.

Rant over. . .for now.