Dear Editor,
I am an addict who has been in recovery for a number of years having benefited from the treatment programme run by the Salvation Army. Fortunately for me I was one of the few drug addicts whose family could have afforded the cost of putting me through the programme more than once.
Just recently in the month of April I learnt that President Jagdeo had publicly committed the government to a contribution of five million dollars to the rehabilitation programme of the Salvation Army.
This was some time in November 2007. Knowing that such contributions would allow persons to access the programme free of any cost to them, I went to the facility to make enquiries because I know someone who has expressed a desire to stop using drugs but cannot afford the financial cost attached to rehabilitation, and being an addict myself I am aware of the difficulty of abstinence prior to treatment in a controlled environment. I was informed by the Administ-rator of the procedure and criteria that an active addict is being asked to meet to access the government funded programme.
The addict has to present himself along with a support person to the office of the Salvation Army for an interview where an assessment would be made by the Administrator and the clinical staff as to the readiness of the addict for recovery. Information regarding his name, address and a contact number is left at the office and the addict is sent away to await word from the Ministry of Health through the Salvation Army. The addict must be between the ages of 18-35 years.
The disease of addiction does not discriminate by age. Any addict, regardless of age should be given an equal opportunity at recovery. There should also be no discrimination on the grounds of race, sexual identity and religion.
The criteria require that the addict must not have been in a rehabilitation centre before.
Anyone who has shown the desire to stop using drugs should be given the opportunity to do so, even if they have had treatment in a facility before but may have suffered a relapse. Being given another opportunity to recover in a controlled environment could be just what the person needs to restart his walk on the road to recovery. His chances of doing so successfully are increased as against the person whose first time it is in treatment. Having said that I must also state that there are quite a few persons who remained abstinent after the first try.
Anyone with the knowledge of the symptoms and the very nature of the disease of addiction would recognize the difficult position that the government’s approach puts the active addict in. I am aware that in times past the British High Commission had made several contributions to the Salvation Army’s Rehab Programme. Basically, this is how it was done. The BHC would hand over a cheque to the Salvation Army and allow them to handle the induction of clients into treatment. There are a number of recovering addicts who have benefited from this.
I would expect that at a specified time a report is submitted to the donor about the money spent and the success of the programme. I see no reason why the Guyana government has chosen to adopt the method they have. Don’t they trust the Salvation Army?
Drug addiction in our society has been left squarely on the shoulders of the loved ones of those afflicted with the disease, very much unlike the HIV/AIDS situation. What may not have been taken into consideration is the fact that HIV/AIDS is prevalent and spreading among drug addicts and even to normal persons who see them as a cheap means of sexual satisfaction.
Drug use also contributes to the spread of tuberculosis through the exchanging and lending of the pipe (stem), a utensil used for the smoking of crack cocaine. The rehabilitation of drug users would not only reduce the spread of the disease but would increase the number of young men becoming productive member of society.
I have been reliably informed that between the years 2005-2007, fifty-seven persons completed treatment. I place emphasis on the word complete, for there are those who have abandoned the treatment programme and went back to addiction. Of that fifty-seven, twenty-seven have remained abstinent, two have migrated, three are deceased, seventeen have relapsed to active drug use and for eight there is no information.
This is a statement of success when one understands the nature of the disease of addiction.
Yours faithfully,
AG Roberts
