WHY ARE WE FORCING DRUGS ON ADDICTS?

With all the problems we have in our all-too-sick society, you'd have
thought our government would be tripping over itself helping addicts kick
their hard-drug habits.

Instead, it's pushing drugs at them, at your expense. Then, it's punishing
those who don't go along with the program, using a bunch of bafflegab.

The B.C. Health Ministry, for example, recently cut off annual funding of
$18,500 to a Langley drug recovery home that helps addicts get clean and
sober in a drug-free environment -- and get off highly addictive substances
like methadone.

The home is run by the Wagner Hills Farm Society, a Christian organization
housing 22 addicts on a working farm owned by retired contractor Wes Wagner.

With 18 hectares, buckets of fresh air and a welcome emphasis on
spirituality, it's exactly the kind of place you'd have thought our Liberal
government would be promoting as a model of care for those emerging from
the living hell of drug addiction.

"I either wanted to die or something had to change," noted former resident
Jason Roberts, 29, who told me he gave up his addiction to a cocktail of
drugs within days of arriving at Wagner Hills five years ago.

Wagner Hills had received a Health Ministry grant for 15 years. But early
last year, the government -- then under New Democratic Party rule -- came
up with a new medications policy. This required the home to allow the
addicts it treats to remain on taxpayer-funded methadone, a potentially
lethal but legal alternative to street heroin.

"They were making us into a drug pusher," said Wagner Hills executive
director Helmut Boehm. "We see methadone as an addictive, harmful substance
that people want to get free from. They were, in a sense, saying you can't
bring freedom to people on methadone. We aren't preventing people who have
been on methadone from coming here. But our approach would be to bring them
into abstinence."

Ask any addict: Withdrawal from methadone can be worse than from heroin.
It's not so much a drug as a life sentence. Which is why it makes little
sense to have it on any government medications list.

Despite this, and despite a year of "dialogue and protest," the ministry
gave Wagner Hills an ultimatum to agree to the pro-methadone policy or lose
its government contract. Effective May 16, the contract was terminated.

But the government bafflegab continued. This July, Premier Gordon Campbell
wrote to Wes Wagner that the new policy was actually intended to improve
access to addiction services: "Although some service providers may be
concerned that treatment will be compromised due to combining patients
taking prescribed medication and those not, there is no evidence published
in the scientific addiction literature to support these concerns."

No scientific evidence? How about some common sense? I mean, if a program
is supposed to help addicts kick a dangerous drug habit, does it make any
sense to have one that lets them remain on dangerous drugs, any more than
having one for hookers that lets them keep turning tricks?

Instead of listening to reason, however, the ministry is going after a
second abstinence-based centre. The Turning Point Recovery Society, which
runs homes in Vancouver and Richmond, has been warned it too could lose its
annual grant of $67,000, if it doesn't knuckle under.

"Abstinence is at the core of our operating philosophy," explains executive
director Viki Engdahl, "and is consistent with the recovery model put
forward by the best treatment facilities in the field, such as the Betty
Ford Clinic in California and the Hazelden treatment centre in Minnesota."

Boehm, meanwhile, says society continues to fuel the B.C. drug trade with
its misguided welfare and drug policies. He believes so-called
safe-injection sites, as supported by all three mayoralty candidates in the
Vancouver civic election, will only make matters worse.

I agree with him.

DEAR JON:

Faith Burr of Chilliwack chafed at my column advocating abstinence for drug
addicts. Here are excerpts from our e-mail exchange:

FAITH: "Wow, Jon. You really and honestly don't get it, do you? 'Enforced
Abstinence?' For how long? A year? Two years? Where would we put them all?
I think there are many people out there who view their choice to be obese
as 'offensive.' Dammit! Force them to lose weight! And those smokers? Force
them to quit! And, if you ever get a chance, take some classes about the
cycle of addiction."

JON: "I don't think you get it. Feeding the addiction doesn't work. Just
look at what has happened to the Downtown Eastside over the years. The
suffering has got worse and worse and worse. And, yes, tough love does
work. Just look at how the army helps directionless young men turn their
lives around and regain their self-respect."

FAITH: "I mean, look at how successful the 'tough love' has worked in the
U.S. Drug War. Have you ever talked to recovered and active addicts? There
are a lot of experiences out there, and I agree that tough love may be very
successful in some cases. What of the ones that don't succeed?"

JON: "I am glad you concede that tough love may be very successful in some
cases. With safe injection sites, failure seems guaranteed."