Mum Loves Drugs Not Me

[saramcgrail]

Given that this was the subject of some discussion earlier on these forums (under the heading Channel 4 documentary) I was wondering how people felt it turned out. I felt it was very much the usual voyeuristic stuff  - and that while the stories were indeed tragic, that they were far from representative. I particularly hate programmes that exploit children in this way and indeed had a long email and face to face dialogue with the producers about what they were doing. Other's mileage may vary and I'd be interested in your comments.

Sara

[mcdermott]

I watched about ten minutes and couldn't watch any more. Spoiled, self-indulgent kid. Stupid, over-indulging mother. Complete cliche from start to ten minutes in.

It completely reinforced all the crap. She was obviously sorted on her methadone dose, but she was whining about being sick because she wanted to score. She had a bed at her parents home, but preferred to sleep on the streets with her homeless boyfriend. He was the kind of twat who burgles his girlfriend's mothers house -- and that stupid, stupid woman excused him! Oh, it was the brown wot made him do it. Poor little dear had no choice.

Well, if it was *that* important to him, he could have sold his arse instead. Nice looking young man like him, living in Brighton, I'm sure he'd have no problems renting his bum to some older man. But instead, he prefers to victimize others in order to pay for his drug supply.

Morons, the lot of them. Did it get any better?

Edit: I might have been talking about a different programme though. This was about the mother and daughter in Brighton? That's the only one that I've watched lately. I find them so infuriating I struggle to watch any of them.

[willow]

i agree with you sara i found it to be sensationalist and playing up to the popular stereotype of what drug users are like. they cam out with statements such as they all put drugs before food they love drugs more than their kids etc. yes it tugged at my heart strings but because i know what i know i know that it was yet another programme to demonise drug users.( as if i dont have a hard enough time doing this to myself).
mcdermott yes i think you were talking about the other programme last week.

[Mark Gilman]

Peter,

Fantastic post! Made me laugh when (both) programmes made me so want to cry.

[will-c]

My mum loved the bingo, not us...

admittedly I didnt watch the programme's as, I find these kinds of documentaries boring and usually anti methadone treatment.

Looking back at my past, the crime came first and the drugs second and if anything, it was my involvement in crime that hindered my drug use...   

[mcdermott]

"Fantastic post!"

Government drugs apparatchik endorses male prostitution. Film at 11.00   

Seriously, nothing winds me up more than that claim 'I didn't have a choice.' People make choices around their use all the time. I accept that a large part of the problem involves getting wrapped up in compulsive behaviour that can hurt yourself and others, but the idea that you don't have choices is just the most self-deluded crap, and to hear the victim buying into her victimizer's bullshit is heartbreaking.

Of course, he *chooses* not to sell his arse because he doesn't fancy the physical and psychological discomfort involved in raising the money to score that way. He'd much rather someone else paid the price for his habit -- and who wouldn't? I think people who do that shit believe that they're being somehow liberal, but my view is that defending that sort of behaviour robs addicts of their ability to act as free moral agents, and my doing so, it makes it all the more easy to impose reprehensible decisions upon us because we're incapable of making moral decisions of our own.

[saramcgrail]

My key concerns beyond the lack of balance and hyperbolic approach to the subject were about the consent of the kids involved (just like with those loathsome programmes about "problem kids" like Supernanny and whatever that bogus psychologist lead one on BBC3 is). I don't think its possible for kids to give informed consent to this type of programme and I don't believe parental consent for this level of exposure is sufficient. In my view shows that directly show children like this should be banned. I found the graphic images of injecting counterpoised with images of the kids manipulative and gratuitous. I thought the show itself misrepresented the experience of the majority of children of people who experience problems with drugs but did not state this. It was also factually inaccurate.

I did in fact have quite a long discussion with the producers of this piece. Kate Blewit who was the main producer was obviously in the market for just this kind of emotive manipulative tawdry broadcast from the moment she set off. She didn't want to know about parents who were doing well, she didn't want to know about the benefits of methadone treatment all she wanted to know was about "how the children suffer". When I raised the issues about consent and the children's welfare she told me a story about how they'd done a similar programme about homelessness and the children involved there had contacted by telephone once a year by the producers, once being allowed to play with the producers children. For one lucky girl this lead to a secretarial work experience placement for a week. Now there's commitment to child welfare!  As you will see from the correspondence below I followed this up, but received the following email from Kate Blewits assistant Tim Lawton

Sara, In all honesty yesterday's meeting was pivotal. It firmly brought into question why we were making this film and what the consequences would be. Both Kate and I left with some real uncertainties and it has become apparent that we could not make ‘that’ film and feel ethically happy. With this in mind we are going to turn our attention elsewhere, to a topic I feel will enlighten people and have far greater positive implications. Therefore I feel there is now no need to contact anyone on our behalf. It remains for me to say thank you for challenging us and I hope that our actions will go someway to convince you that we do take our responsibilities very seriously. Best wishes, Tim

(Note the not contacting anyone on their behalf related to people and services who were good parents and providing good interventions. Not something this shower were even remotely interested in.) Still I took some heart from the fact that they claimed to have given up on the idea. I was therefore very surprised to find them 4 months later tarting their wares around the Drug User Network looking for horror stories. I wrote to them again and got a reply which said that they had taken on board my comments about child welfare and planned to work with extra support in the schools for the children. I do not believe for one minute these self interested individuals considered that it might not be in the children's interest to make this sort of film featuring them close up and as identifiable individuals. It was obvious from the correspondance that although they would make some very minor efforts to mitigate the consequences they intended to make pretty much exactly the kind of show we saw last night - regardless of its impact on the children and families featured and certainly regardless of any need for balance or a wider perspective.

Journalists only want stories. In terms of drug users they want two kinds of stories - those involving victims and those involving villains. By and large, they don't want to know about real lives and real people, just the most hideous and extreme examples. This is fine as long as we understand it, and we don't allow the media to have too much influence on policy making. But we're in an era where our policies around many social issues are made on the hoof, in response to the Daily Mail or people like Kate Hewit whose company said to me in their initial approach "True Vision is an award winning documentary production company with an established track record of making sensitive films about families and children in difficult circumstances. These films have raised the profile of a particular issue; furthermore several have brought about significant changes in policy.." Changes in policy like the Greater Manchester Treatment Provider who now requires all clients coming into a tier two service to sign a contract saying that they will accept a risk assessment home visit from a drugs worker if they have children under five?

What's this drugs worker looking for? well according to what I've been told indications of poor attention to child welfare as indicated via a tick box checklist prepared internally in the drugs service with no reference to children's services. (And what's the problem with this - well its two fold. First of all it means that child welfare is being assessed by someone unqualified to do it, who may well miss signs of neglect of mistreatment, sign off the family circumstances as ok and leave a child in a risky position. Secondly, the point of tier two services is that they are easy access and about engaging people. Signing contracts and making home visits at this stage is counterproductive. There are well worn protocols for alerting children's services to problems with service users children that don't rely on this kind of knee jerk reaction, but its just this kind of knee jerk reaction that results from bad television like this.)

Rant over, time to cheer for Mr Obama

Sara

PS peter, yes you're thinking of the other one. It was actually a much better piece of work in some ways, as the roles of victim and villain were much more ambiguous - they were all pretty much equally intolerable and stupid. Some weird stuff in it though. Like what kind of organisation provides a hostel for injectors without a needle exchange or at least an emergency pack of pins available? (ans: pretty much any housing provider cashing in on Supporting People) What kind of tier four provider allows people to just be dumped there against their wishes? (ans: loads of them who put the heavy sell on parents, families carers and the state to suggest that just getting to residential is the cure ...)


 

[saramcgrail]

GOTCHA! You *are* Theodore Dalrymple and I claim my five pounds ......

S

"Fantastic post!"

Government drugs apparatchik endorses male prostitution. Film at 11.00   

Seriously, nothing winds me up more than that claim 'I didn't have a choice.' People make choices around their use all the time. I accept that a large part of the problem involves getting wrapped up in compulsive behaviour that can hurt yourself and others, but the idea that you don't have choices is just the most self-deluded crap, and to hear the victim buying into her victimizer's bullshit is heartbreaking.

Of course, he *chooses* not to sell his arse because he doesn't fancy the physical and psychological discomfort involved in raising the money to score that way. He'd much rather someone else paid the price for his habit -- and who wouldn't? I think people who do that shit believe that they're being somehow liberal, but my view is that defending that sort of behaviour robs addicts of their ability to act as free moral agents, and my doing so, it makes it all the more easy to impose reprehensible decisions upon us because we're incapable of making moral decisions of our own.

[Jules]

I thought the only good thing highlighted by last night's document was the fact that the grandparents who take over the care of these children receive little or no financial support - as opposed to payment received by foster carers.  How arse about face is that??  However, I also had a problem with kids being shown in this way - if the kids in their schools weren't already aware of their circumstances then they certainly are now.

Jules

[purplehearts]

mcdermott, yeah i know the programme youre on about i could only watch ten minutes of it too, couldnt agree more, whining  over indulged brat.  and i hate the way that on tv they always show people using heroin as an excuse for doing things like burgling their mothers parents houses. at the end of the day if youd have to be a complete twat to do that, hero in habit or not.

it was the same on the programme last night. 'because of heroin i cant be a mum to my daughter'. im on methadone and ive had a drug habit with a child, i would never even consider behaving the way most of these women behaved around their children - injecting in front of them, locking them in their rooms so i could take drugs, selling their christmas presents for heroin. trust me ive been extremely desperate, but the only person ive neglected is myself, and ive always put my kids first no matter what.
heroin doesnt automatically make you an evil person who f**cks over everyone around you. these people just make excuses so  its not on their own conscience.

the people in the programme all fitted in with the media sterotype of 'druggie mothers' and it was so fustrating.
i couldnt agree more sara. i  also found it exploitative to the children involved. and i also think that targeting parents through the drug services is in effect punishing people for seeking treatment. i know personally that unqualified persons, ie drug workers, often use the threat of social services as a punitive measure and this discourages people from seeking help. they feel that once 'in the system' they are likely to have their childrn taken from them.

and why do they never show people on methadone who are stable, doing well, and doing a good job at bringing up their children?? if you believed the media you d think there was no such thing. but people like that (like me) dont make a good 'story' and they dont play up to the 'villian'  steretype that people expect heroin addicts to be portrayed as.

another thing they seem to ignore - people are very sympatheti c towards drug  users children who are neglected but what do they think happens to thse kids when they grow up?
many of them become addicts and all of a sudden theyre the scum of the earth.

[saramcgrail]

I thought the only good thing highlighted by last night's document was the fact that the grandparents who take over the care of these children receive little or no financial support - as opposed to payment received by foster carers.  How arse about face is that?? 

This was in fact one of the focuses of the new strategy. The action plan commits DCSF (The Department for Children, Schools and Families) from April 2008 to:

45. Support kin carers, such as grandparents, who take on caring responsibilities for the children of substance-misusing parents by exploring extensions to the circumstances in which local authorities can make payments to those caring for children classified as ‘in need’, backed up by improved information for carers, and guidance for local authorities, which may include a specific assessment for kin carers

S

[mcdermott]

"GOTCHA! You *are* Theodore Dalrymple and I claim my five pounds ......"

I've never made any secret of my admiration for Theodore's robust brand of Compassionate Crypto-Fascism. Give me him over a bleeding heart drugs worker any day of the week.

I do think it interesting that the John McWhorter, the token black conservative intellectual at the Manhattan Institute -- Dalrymple's NY based think-tank -- is actually a committed legalizer.

McWhorter is endorsing Obama too. An early leader in the Conservatives for Obama movement.

[saramcgrail]

I've never made any secret of my admiration for Theodore's robust brand of Compassionate Crypto-Fascism. Give me him over a bleeding heart drugs worker any day of the week.

And you'd rather try to get your script from ...?

"Many years ago I used to dole out methadone like the best (or the worst) of them. This was before I thought at all deeply about the question of drug addiction and accepted uncritically all that I had been taught about it by doctors senior to me. I began to change my opinion when I worked in prison where it was the clinical policy to give addicts methadone." Hence Dr Dalrymple's radical solution that the only way out of this bind is to close down the drug addiction clinics and restrict medical intervention to such physical complications as abscesses, hepatitis and Aids...'

Still better robust compassionate crypto fascism than weedy liberal do-gooding eh? Shot any wolves from helicopters recently .....? <g>

s

[mcdermott]

And you'd rather try to get your script from ...?

Well, for preference, I'd rather not have to get it from anyone. For preference, I'd rather have control over that stuff myself. The fact that the sole legitimate supply of opiates comes disguised in the form of 'treatment' doesn't mean that we necessarily have to buy into it.

Much of his analysis of that con-trick is bang on the nail, and by separating out the supply of drugs from the treatment of addiction, I believe everybody would gain. People who genuinely want drugs could have as many as they want. People who genuinely want abstinence could pursue that goal, without having to deal with services that are effectively methadone rationing stations. By putting the two together, we introduce all manner of distortions and dishonesty into the system that serves nobody and introduces unhelpful power relations into the therapeutic relationship.

At the moment, I'm forced to depend on a particular set of historical arrangements to get a legitimate supply of opioids. However, if you made me king of the world, I'd legalize tomorrow at a stroke and put the treatment of opiate addiction on exactly the same footing as alcohol addiction. If you want to drink, you can buy it in the boozer. If you want to stop, you can seek treatment for that. What Dalrymple gets exactly right is that it's the control over supply of methadone that keeps a whole load of useless people employed in useless occupations, solely in order to ration out the methadone. Make it available OTC at the proper market rate and you both cut the crime associated with the drug, and you'd get a treatment industry that either did what they claim it's supposed to do -- ie, help people to change behaviour they can't change alone -- or that would go to the wall from disuse.

I don't know if that's crypto-fascist or not, but it's exactly what I've been arguing for the last thirty years or so. So perhaps you should say that Dalrymple is actually really ME!

[saramcgrail]

Oh you know how little I like saying this to you peter, but I totally agree.

I think the difficulty is the pathlogisation of substance use. I think its interesting when you look at the history of addiction in this country how the problems expand as we do two things. First of all, there's the restriction of supply, but secondly and in many ways just as much a problem as the supply issues, there's the medicalisation of drug use. I think its fascinating to look how far these two distinct systems - the system of criminalisation of individual supply and the medicalisation of individual experience work in tandem to maximise problems.