A resounding cry for help from an anonymous and despairing mother has been read by many hundreds of thousands on news Ytring in recent days. She talks about a child with escalating drug problems, who will not accept help, and she asks whether children should have the right to drug themselves to death. And what on earth are we to do when despair becomes all-encompassing and the child slips into an unmanageable and seemingly closed sphere, with great danger that the worst imaginable can happen? Those of us who write here have our own experiences of extensive substance abuse challenges, both through youth and parts of adult life. We have both been in treatment for several years. We recognize the despair and the desire for a quick solution to a desperate situation. Punishment, control, coercion and sanctions have until now been the bedrock of society’s reactions to the use of illegal drugs. In the best sense, of course. In recent times, meeting drug users with recognition, respect and a desire for destigmatisation has started to gain ground. We are in a turning point in drug policy. The police are no longer allowed to carry out their unrestricted practice of coercive measures to stop drug use. Uncertainty has arisen as to whether the police’s investigative efforts are appropriate at all, or whether social workers should take over the investigative efforts. Drug addicts, understood as adults with long-term and complex conditions, have been de facto decriminalized by the Supreme Court. Forced follow-up in case of failure to prosecute, such as drug contracts, is in the process of being discontinued because it is considered a disproportionate reaction to drug use. A recent report from the Norwegian Institute for Human Rights shows that those with substance abuse problems are not given good enough health care, and that there is also no system that protects them against discrimination. Among their main recommendations is that the government must ensure that children who use drugs have a support service that safeguards their rights. An investigation by the National Audit Office shows that children with concurrent mental disorders and substance abuse problems are often left without a real treatment offer, because both the municipal sector and the specialist health service lack competence and resources. In the shift from punishment and sanctions to more rehabilitative forms of response, there has been a sharp shift in thinking around the use of coercion. There are difficult dilemmas that arise in this terrain. It has long been considered a premise that one must do something invasive. If not, the young people with drug problems will perish. In reality, it is far more nuanced. We still have the tragedy in Spydeberg fresh in our minds. Two twin sisters were found dead, and a third 16-year-old ended up in hospital after taking narcotic drugs. They were all under measures through child protection, at a treatment institution with strong drug expertise. Being placed in an institution with interdisciplinary specialized treatment is no guarantee that things will go well. There are also no guarantees that coercive measures lead to interdisciplinary specialized treatment. It can also lead to measures without substance abuse expertise. In addition, the drug challenges can escalate after the end of the stay. The risk of overdose is particularly high in the period after treatment. We propose to reconsider some established truths about young people with substance abuse problems. Especially the one about not being in a position to help without the use of coercion or other interventionist means. We must dare to ask ourselves if this could be about how we approach drug-using youth. Are we the ones standing in the way of getting in a lucky position vis-a-vis them? Could it be those around us who have the greatest and most important potential for change? Until now, it has been difficult for young people to be open about the use of illegal drugs. Expulsion from schools, forced urine tests at the doctor’s office, unpleasant encounters with the police, social ostracism and despairing and disappointed parents are among the consequences one risks. In addition, young people are often treated as if there is something wrong with them. Even intoxication can rather be a natural reaction to bad life challenges. When what the youth see as their solution is our biggest problem, we may not expect to achieve a constructive dialogue. It is natural that they avoid contact with both parents and support services, when they fear all the reprisals we try to protect them with. Getting into a position to help young people with substance abuse challenges is demanding, but nevertheless it is entirely possible. At the same time, it can be particularly difficult for those who are closest to the young person, and who are gripped by fear and powerlessness. This is where the public sector should see its responsibility and step in with competent professionals who can form constructive relationships. Little is known about what the government’s announced prevention and treatment reform will entail, but Health and Care Minister Ingvild Kjerkol gave a hint on news Ytring when she pointed out that: “There are many challenges with forced use, including that it can increase the risk of rights violations and identity violations that can create distrust in the services that are there to help.” It will require substantial strengthening of both the municipal sector and the specialist health service, in order to create an up-to-date aid measure that young people can actually benefit from and have confidence in. Young people deserve that we meet them at eye level and that they are curious and willing to learn. If we put aside the pointing finger mentality, it is likely that the youth will open up and let us in. FOLLOW THE DEBATE:
ttn-69
We don’t need more coercion now – Statement
