NAZI SCIENCE IS NO WAY TO REACT TO THE PROBLEM OF DRUG ABUSE IN SCOTLAND

Muriel Gray on a misguided remark and its hidden truths

POOR Duncan McNeil. It's a pretty sure bet that the Labour MSP - who
doesn't appear to be a particularly wicked man - wasn't turning into
a jackbooted fascist when he suggested that contraceptives be added
to methadone to stop drug addicts having children they can't care
for. He was merely responding, albeit in a ludicrous and panicky
fashion, to the growing plight of abused and neglected children of addicts.

His suggestion, of course, is ludicrous. If we decide to prevent
selected individuals in society from breeding in case they duplicate
their experiences in miniature, where will it all end? Perhaps we
should slip contraceptives into the cappuccinos of property
developers and tabloid journalists to stop any more coming into the
world. Actually, come to think of it, that's not at all a bad idea.

Happily, however, forced eugenics is not a topic that merits any
debate, since the Nazis proved that it is not only inhumane and
barbaric, but also that it doesn't work. You can make an educated
guess about what kind of life a child might have to endure when born
into difficult circumstances, but you can never accurately predict
the calibre of human being that child will grow into or predict the
outcome of that life. Some remarkable, wonderful people survived the
most appalling childhoods, and equally some appalling people emerged
from the most privileged backgrounds.

So yes, it might be likely that a drug addict's child will be among
the poorest, most vulnerable and most dependent in society, but it's
by no means certain. We have to accept that while these unfortunate
babies are potentially at risk, they might also bring love, hope and
a future to their hopeless parents - and nobody has the right to deny
somebody that chance.

If we really believe that the most extreme cases that turn our
stomachs - where barely sentient addicts are having sex like animals
and pumping out damaged children - are beyond salvation, then we are
at the brink of losing our humanity. Nobody is beyond salvation, and
it's that collective moral certainty that sets our civilisation apart
from mediaeval savagery.

The issue is surely not one about procreation, but about the state's
treatment and care of our most broken down citizens and their
families, and how their condition impacts not just on helpless
children but on society in general.

We are in a very bad way. Drug abuse figures make for depressing
reading, but even more depressing is our failure to address the core
causes of drug abuse, despite the origins of dependency being better
documented and understood than almost any other social problem one
cares to mention. It seems curious, therefore, that we cannot find a
workable route to lessening this misery.

As long ago as 2002, a Labour-leaning think-tank, the Foreign Policy
Centre, conducted a study on addiction treatment in other countries
and made a series of recommendations on how best to proceed in the
UK. They included nuggets of good sense such as copying the Asian
model of "business incubators", where long-term drug abusers are
trained and employed with a goal of creating 25,000 jobs in 10 years.
This was based on the success of a project in Nai Zindagi in
Pakistan, where treatment was combined with commerce - the report
strongly advised that the same methods could produce equally positive
results over here.

The report also suggested adopting a more holistic approach by
scrapping targets for total cuts in drug use and focusing on reducing
harm, and reforming the benefit system so that drug users taking
training or work placements don't lose housing tenancies or child care support.

But four years after this useful report was published the government
has yet to radically reform any major part of addiction treatment
policies. Its only major contribution was to reclassify cannabis,
which many feel has been at worst a dangerous invitation to new drug
users, and at best an irrelevancy.

There seems to be paralysis at the centre of government when it comes
to facing the problem of drugs. This might partly be a response to
understandable complaints from people in deprived circumstances who
live law-abiding, drug-free lives, and cannot see why addicts should
be given more assistance in housing, employment and counselling when
they have to struggle along in places where their misery, in terms of
crime and social problems, is largely at the hands of these addicts.
They have a point, but a government which responds to short-termist
vote chasing to silence these concerns and fails to formulate a
mature, far-reaching initiative on drug abuse is one that sells these
very same people short.

The government in Westminster obviously has other things on its mind
at the moment - like sex, lying and killing Iraqis - but here in
Scotland, where our politicians tend to behave themselves, we have
opportunities to lead the way on drugs. The Executive's plan to make
it easier to temporarily remove children from addict parents is one
that must be supported - provided it is backed up by resources to
help these parents end their dependency and rebuild a family life.

In the meantime, the side issue of McNeil's headline-grabbing,
emotional comments, which have already been rejected by the
Executive, must not detract from the well-intended if wildly
misguided core of his concern: we must ensure that protecting the
children of addicts is the first priority, but their long-term
protection and wellbeing lies in the rehabilitation of their parents.

We desperately need more births in our fast-depleting Scottish
population. The job in hand is therefore not to prevent babies being
born, but to ensure - regardless of who gives birth to these little
humans, with all their potential to live fulfilling and useful lives
- - that we protect, nourish, cherish and provide for them. If we are
saying that's beyond the ability of this modern, wealthy, educated
and advanced society, then frankly maybe we're all crap and none of
us deserve to breed.