Real people 2 - Suffolk
22 February, 2008
The heartbreaking story of the murders of 5 young women in Suffolk highlights the importance of what we’re doing working in drug prevention. There’s a common theme - these young women would not have died, had they not been addicted to drugs. They would not have become addicted to drugs, and at such an early age, had something not gone wrong in their families, their communities, their schools, with their peers. They would not have been despised and rejected by “mainstream” society, including the “respectable” men who used them as objects to relieve their frustrations and lust. What happened to these young women at such a young age and how could it have been prevented? Why was the blankness and darkness which the drugs gave them better - or more accessible - than exploring life’s opportunities? Treatment is too late for these 5 young women. Moreover, for a lot of the media and the public, they’re just the latest “prostitute” victims; in death as in life the drugs have dehumanised and devalued them.
Reading the account in today’s “Guardian” of Tracey Russell, who narrowly escaped being number 6 just brings home to me the strength of the connections - “We were worried, but when you are on drugs, you think if you can open a car door…you would know it is the murderer.” Also,
“Their life, she said was “horrible”. “You learn to blank it out over the years, and because you are on drugs, you just think of something else. I know that sounds odd, but you do. ‘Cos you get used to it and it’s over within seconds. Hopefully.”
When I worked in a street drugs agency, with a lot of women sex workers as clients, I sometimes heard the same types of comments - not often though, their situation was ongoing so they had to, as Tracey puts it, “think of something else”. I believe that almost all our clients wished they had never got into taking drugs and that they would be the best advocates for prevention. (As this was not their situation of course, my staff worked with great respect for them to give them support and to try to help them improve their lives; no more than one human being should do for another.)
I referred in my last blog to my frustration with the politicising of the drugs debate. Regardless of the legal situation - and there are perfectly reasonable arguments on either side - our focus must be on trying to stop children and adolescents getting into misusing drugs in the first place - offering them protection, support, discipline and opportunities, also letting them know that these drugs that they come into contact have huge risks. I often hear the argument that if drugs were legalised and regulated we would be more able to support drug users and protect them from harm. Although I agree that throwing people into jail is not the answer, I have to say that I’m not convinced that, legal or illegal, Tracey wouldn’t have still got into Steve Wright’s car - nor poor Annette, Paula, Gemma, Anneli and Tania.
24 February, 2008 at 10:05 am
Yes, we must do what we can to prevent people slipping into destitution, poverty, drugs, the sex trade, homelessness and so on. I agree totally, without reservation.
Sadly though, it has always happened and I dare say will always happen. Prostitution is called the “oldest profession” for a reason, it’s always been with us.
What we also have to do - and this is not against the points you make Eric - is to protect these people at the bottom of the heap from any further exploitation. At the moment, we’re doing the exact opposite.
By making heroin illegal and only obtainable through an illegal supply side run by and for the benefit of organised crime, these girls face not only drug addiction, but the very difficult job of raising the vast sums of money needed to fund it. So they are utterly at the mercy of some ruthless people providing a product which is at best uncertain, at worst it’s downright filth.
Add to this the fact that all our efforts to fight this are designed to make their plight worse by increasing the street price of the drugs and making the supply even less reliable. Not, of course, that our efforts actually work.
So in addition to you points I would also add that we need to end the criminality of their drug habit as a matter of urgency. This is hard nosed economics, the law of supply and demand. The way to fight it is to undercut the dealer, to take the profit away.
And please, don’t say “methadone” or “abstinence”, not as a first step anyway.
The war on drugs is a war against these people more than anyone. If you support prohibition, then I’m afraid these people are just collateral damage, a part of the price we have to pay.
24 February, 2008 at 11:15 am
Derek,thanks for these thoughtful points. My problem is that I’m not as certain as you that the law creates the main problems or offers the solutions. It used to break my heart in my last job seeing these tiny little women who were being abused every day on the streets in Kings Cross being abused again by the system by being thrown in prison. I agree that this is a market and reducing demand is the key. Whatever the case, it must be all about addressing inequality and social exclusion, not just the drugs.When we did work with grandparents who were caring for their grandchildren because their children had overdosed we produced a set of polocy recommendations. They were about housing, welfare benefits etc;, there was clearly no point giving out drugs information if you didn’t give people what they need to survive.