WHY I'VE NO TIME FOR DRUG ADDICTS

ANOTHER week, another innocent life destroyed by drugs. There is, it
would appear, in Edinburgh and the Lothians, a widely-held belief
that drug addicts are victims. Quite simply, they're not.

The child brought up in squalor because their parent thinks of
nothing but their next hit is a victim; the elderly neighbour who
lives next door to a junkie, and the inherent risks that brings, is a
victim; and citizens, like you and me, whose taxes and National
Insurance contributions are squandered on a methadone programme that
allows addicts to indefinitely substitute one drug with another, are victims.

All of which has been highlighted once again by the death of toddler
Derek Doran, whose parents were allowed to have the methadone he
mistook for a soft drink in the family home.

What I can't get my head around is the fact that anyone could believe
leaving a child to the mercy of the whims of a drug-addicted parent,
or parents, is without danger.

That two-year-old Derek was not even on the "at-risk" register
beggars belief, and smacks of negligence on someone's part.

Surely now, in the light of this case, and those of Michael McGarrity
and Caleb Ness, a lesson must be learned.

The time has come to remove the responsibility of deciding which
child is at risk from support agencies, and instead recognise that
ALL children living with a parent, or parents, known to be heroin
addicts are automatically at risk.

The child must be put first, instead of blindly pursuing a remit to
reform the drug abuser, a mission often undertaken by support
agencies with a fervour akin to that of the battered spouse who stays
with their abusive partner, convinced that their love will change
them. As experience shows, it seldom does.

As for the methadone programme, which lies at the heart of this
latest tragedy, it is nothing short of legalised drug dealing - and,
ironically, as many addicts have testified, kicking methadone is a
damn sight harder than weaning yourself off heroin.

Some MSPs have now called for a change in the law to prevent another
child from accidentally drinking the lethal substance - but it's the
old story of too little too late. The Scottish Executive must surely
have been aware of the practice of permitting the substitute drug to
be taken home. If not, why not?

And if so, then it should have been apparent that there was a
conflict of interests - the "welfare" of the parent versus the danger
to the child. Hopefully a change in the law will be forthcoming.

In the short-term, as GPs' surgeries become satellite hospitals, with
everything from wart to minor surgery clinics becoming community
based, a surgery-run methadone service could easily be accommodated.

In the longer term, it's worth taking on board the call this week
from Edinburgh's drugs tsar, Tom Wood, who has urged the Scottish
Executive to consider prescribing heroin, and not methadone, to
addicts, as research has shown that providing the class A drug to
certain addicts could prove more helpful. It's certainly worth a
thought, as currently there are more than 3000 people a year being
prescribed methadone in Lothian, at a cost of almost UKP2 million.
How better could that money be spent?

Either way, there must be a time limit on the supply.

Drug programmes should not be allowed to become the easy option when
it comes to scoring, and during any programme, parents should have
the responsibility for looking after their children removed. It may
sound callous, but at some stage in their life most junkies made a
choice to negate their social responsibility and escape into a
chemically-induced nirvana; a life changing decision that leaves
their child in danger, and is a drain on society's limited resources.

We all have difficult choices to make, that's what life is about.

However, if addicts don't want to follow the advice of Renton and his
Trainspotting friends and "Choose Life", then why should the rest of
us waste our own caring about what happens to them?