War on Drugs

“Despite the £10 billion spent on the War on Drugs, the numbers emerging from government treatment programmes are at the same level as if there had been no treatment programme at all”, said Miss Gyngell in her report.

The report is critical of NICE stating, 'for NICE effective treatment interventions are limited to those treatments which have been subject to randomized controlled experimentation and are clinically based. This automatically limits the knowledge or treatments they can drawn on'.

The report is equally critical of Frank, the Government's drugs information service for young people, which recently hit the headlines when advisers were caught telling 13-year-olds that cannabis is less harmful than alcohol.

The report calls for the Government to “abandon the harm reduction approach”, “develop treatment support aimed at abstinence and rehabilitation” and “include a far tougher, better-funded enforcement programme to reduce the supply of drugs”.

The report states that more than £1.5 billion a year is spent by the Government in attempts to combat the drugs problem, and more than £800 million of that is spent on ineffective treatment programmes.

'It is time to abandon our failed drugs policy. We should develop proper treatment support aimed at abstinence and rehabilitation'.

"During a decade of Labour drugs strategy, policy itself has become an intrinsic part of the problem. It has been a costly investment in failure. The combination of centralised targets and a ‘medical management' approach to treatment has further entrenched addiction, adding to intergenerational cycles of substance dependency".

We have been campaigning for the last 4 years for our treatments to the used for the treatment of addiction and dependency, now this report confirms our findings and experience when dealing with the addiction services, they are 'dismal and ineffective'.

Please click on the reports below to read more about the scale of the problem.

Breaking the Habit by Kathy Gyngell Published June 2011	The Phoney War on Drugs by Kathy Gyngell Published May 2009	Breakdown Britain Addictions 2006

Tackling Problem Drug Use Report 2010
A Report by the National Audit office confirms 'The Government is spending £1.2 billion in 2009-10 with the objective of bringing down the costs to society of problem drug use of £15 billion a year. But there is no framework in place for evaluating the achievements of the 2008 Strategy which limits Departments' understanding of the overall value for money achieved and where future resources should be prioritised. Without an evaluative framework for the Strategy as a whole we are not able to conclude positively on value for money'.

Critics say 'this is ridiculous, they [Labour] are spending £1.2bn a year on their drug treatment strategy but have no idea of whether or not it is successful. The lack of a 'evaluative framework' is either, intentional so the NTA can hide their dismal success rate, which was a questionable 4.3% in 2009 or gross incompetence'.

Addiction Today
For other facts about NTA treatment options see the Addiction Today website here.

How do the NHS commission local alcohol services?
Very badly. Critics say 'the Department of Health refer treatment services to the local PCT's who then refer these enquires to the local DAT's but they do not have the initiative to commission new treatments and so refer them back to the DoH, this failure illustrates both: - the absurdity and lack of leadership within the NHS and: - the DAT's reluctance to 'embrace innovation and change'. A report by the National Audit Office says 'The Department of Health and NHS organisations are both guilty of passing the buck on responsibility for dealing with addiction problems. The Department of Health has completely handed over the task of addressing alcohol abuse to the primary care trusts. And the trusts have in turn looked to another set of bodies (DAT's) to take the lead in commissioning services but they have failed to do so. The DoH does not provide enough leadership to primary care trusts, meaning local services to tackle addiction are not well-planned. Around a quarter of PCTs have not fully assessed the extent of alcohol problems in their areas, and many cannot even say how much money they are devoting to reducing addiction. Instead, PCTs leave everything to local 'Drug and Alcohol action Teams - DAT' - who do nothing. 'It's very clear the public are being let down again by the services which are meant to be serving them'. Critics say 'it's clear the state are not the best resource to help with alcohol problems and this area should be handed over to the private sector who achieve much better results', the government has said 'there's a once-in-a-generation chance to examine what services the government should provide and whether there are ways to do it more efficiently involving the private and voluntary sectors.'

Who is to blame for the current failure of NHS treatments?
It is widely acknowledged there is a culture of inertia and inefficiency that is rife throughout the public sector. In the public sector there is no competitive edge; no incentive to cuts costs or improve efficiency. We have said since 2006 the blame lies with the 'monolithic bureaucracy' and 'monumental incompetence' by those who were responsible for commissioning new treatments and a Health Committee of MPs agree 'the trusts' perceptions of how they were performing were often removed from reality', and 'it was concerned about ‘complacency' among NHS managers, accusing PCTs of having ‘misplaced confidence' in their own ability, the committee have returned a damning verdict on the standard of NHS commissioning, as they should be taking the lead and introducing better treatment methods but are failing to do so as ex-health secretary Andy Burnham stated last autumn [2009] that 'in-house NHS bodies should be the "preferred provider" for existing [alcohol] services'. This decision was referred to the OFT for a ruling as being unfair. In practice, this is irrespective of whether it can supply the required services, or to the required standards, which of course they can not. Stephen Dunn, director of strategy for the East of England Health Authority says the complete opposite, 'We need the best provider and this is the only way forward. Only a private company, he says, will get 'real innovation and efficiency' into the NHS process'. As the DoH/NHS could not agree amongst themselves, nothing was done and so they carried on with the same 'failing methods' hence why alcohol problems did not get any better and did in fact, get worse every year with alcohol related deaths up 40% in the last 10 years and liver disease trebled. The CBI agree that policy actually restricts innovation and change rather than utilising it and 'public procurement should be a driver, not a blocker, of innovation'. Kathy Gyngell the chair of addiction policy at the Center for Policy Studies said 'My plea for policy makers to draw on the real life, non laboratory, experience of those who have recovered from addiction and those who successfully help others to do so...' Alcohol problems will continue to escalate as current NHS treatment methods do not work and private treatments are blocked.

The £1billion Non-Treatment Disaster
The truth is, despite spending over £10bn on 'treatment' over the last 10years the NHS has the worst success rates in treating addiction and dependency problems. The Centre for Policy Studies report on addiction policy confirmed 'Labour was squandering billions on ineffective treatment' and 'costly treatment programmes which do not work'. Critics agree 'the new government need to act and end this systemic failure which is unacceptable and a waste of public funds as over £1billion per annum is spent on ineffective and outdated methods of treating addiction, which do not work and have no real success rate or measurable value'. Critics say the situation is deplorable, 'how can one expect treatment outcomes to improve if they continue with the same failed treatment methods? It's a classic definition of 'madness' expecting better results while using the same failed treatment methods which have been proven 'ineffective' for the last 40 years, in effect, continue doing the same thing but expecting better results'. A Report by the National Audit office confirms 'The NHS is spending £1.2 billion in 2009-10. But there was no framework in place for evaluating the achievements of the 2008 Drug & Alcohol Strategy which limited the Departments' understanding of the overall value for money achieved and where future resources should be prioritised. Critics say 'this is ridiculous, they were spending £1.2bn a year on their treatment strategy but had no idea of whether or not it was successful. The lack of a 'evaluative framework' was either, intentional so the NTA can hide their dismal success rate or it was gross incompetence'. The Tory's have said they will abandon Labours failed 'harm reduction' policy and focus on 'abstinence' rather than 'addiction maintenance as 'we think what really matters, is whether you are better after your treatment', a Conservative spokesman said. But the BMA are already trying to strangle the reforms to prevent patient choice, improve efficiency and reduce NHS costs.

How long does it take to gain NHS recognition?
Usually the NHS takes around 8 to 10 years to recognise a different treatment process, which critics say is 'excessive and unnecessary'. We can draw a direct comparison between our 'frequency' treatment for addiction and dependency and a 'laser' cancer treatment called Photodynamic therapy or PDT. Very few people have even heard about PDT yet it is an approved NHS treatment and avoids the risks of surgery, cuts the use of hospital beds and removes the need for repeated hospital visits required by chemo and radiotherapy and could save the healthcare system up to £2billion pounds a year, according to estimates by cancer specialists at University College Hospital, London. But just 300 cancer patients out of more than 300,000 were referred for treatment last year, which is just 0.1%. Many patients have never even told about PDT or they are told (incorrectly) that it is experimental and doesn't work. However after 10 years, cancer experts have now called for more NHS patients to be given this 'pioneering' (even though it is 10 years old) laser treatment as an alternative to surgery, chemotherapy and radiotherapy. As you can see, the NHS is very slow to respond to change regardless of how successful a non-pharmaceutical treatment is, indeed experts have warned about the NHS being left behind due to its slow-tech approach. Sir David Frost explains how he is 'astonished and deeply troubled' and how it is 'impossible to understand the lack of or non existent support' the NHS shows for breakthrough treatments. The same apathy applies to our breakthrough treatment for addiction and dependency. We will continue with our efforts to gain NHS recognition for our 'frequency' alcohol treatment.

Does the NHS really embrace non-pharmaceutical treatments?
Not at the moment. A report by the NHS Confederation predicts the health service is facing a £15billion shortfall in funding and says a 'solution to this crisis lies in NHS leaders embracing innovation, change and improving efficiency' however a seperate report confirms the NHS is heading for business failure. 'Critics emphasize 'the NHS is ranked 17th for healthcare in Europe mostly due to their inability to 'embrace innovation and change' and the dogmatic reliance on pharmaceutical medication for every condition. In fact, there is a co-ordinated campaign to derail non-pharmaceutical treatments on the NHS which was first reported in The Independent on Sunday in 2007. The campaign dates back to 2005, Dr Fisher said, 'The pharmaceutical industry is worried for its future, as public opinion is shifting towards complementary and alternative therapies (CAM)' and this is the real threat to the pharmaceutical industry as 84% of patients linked an improvement in their health and wellbeing directly to their CAM treatment compared to only 30 to 50 per cent of people who gain any benefit from their medication and 94% of patients said they would recommend CAM to another patient with their condition but very few people [5%] said they would recommend their drugs to other patients due to their side-effects.

How do drug companies influence NHS treatment decisions?
MP Paul Flynn says 'the main concern is that the drugs companies have their tentacles in every area where decisions are taken  -  that includes the WHO, governments, civil service, and even charities'. The drug companies have enormous influence over which treatments patients receive on the NHS and they make sure it's their products patients are using. The NHS currently spend £11billion on drugs, click here to see how this works in practice. Professor Christopher McCabe from the University of Leeds has criticised scientific advisory group reporting to the Government, saying they are not independent, 'the manufacturers, patient groups, clinicians, and the Department of Health are represented on the scientific advisory group,' he wrote. 'All these bodies have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo'. The budget holders, who pay for these drugs, with responsibility for the health of populations served by the NHS, are not represented on the scientific advisory group, and as a result there is no countervailing influence on the group's decision making'. Most people don't know the medical profession is heavily influenced by the drug companies which creates a conflict of interest 'the pharmaceutical industry operates in a way that puts profits before public health and the regulatory authorities, which are meant to ensure the safety of drugs and protect the public, collude with the industry'. Critics say 'just as MP's have been held accountable for their poor behavior, it's time the medical profession were also placed under the same kind of scrutiny and transparency as they are not independent and therefore 'they should not have the responsibility to authorise which treatments are available on the NHS through NICE'. They are in effect 'using their power to block non-pharmaceutical treatments from becoming mainstream quickly'. Critics argue 'the process is not independent, not fair and needs urgent review. It is in the public interest and already established by independent monitoring committees that it would be 'unethical' to deprive patients of successful treatment'. But now the new government has confirmed their support for non-pharmaceutical treatments to increase patient choice in their treatment options.

Have you contacted the addiction service about how you can help?
Yes, the addiction services have been criticised by the Tory's as being 'not fit for purpose' as they do not use any form of treatment which actually stops dependency, they only use 'replacement' drugs such as Librium, Antabuse or Naltrexone and employ services like doctor's appointments, medicals and counselling sessions but use nothing which actually stops the problem of dependency or can help stop the addiction problem, as a result the only people who get clean are the ones who would have quit anyway and are known as the 'natural rate of remission' which in 2008 was just 3.6%. A report by the Centre for Policy Studies confirmed our findings 'the numbers emerging for government treatment programs are at the same levels as if there had been no treatment program at all'. Dominic Grieve, the then shadow home secretary said 'the Government only seek to manage people's addiction as opposed to ending it' he added 'we would abandon Labour's failing policy and replace it with an abstinence-based approach. This will have the objective of actually getting people off drugs/alcohol for good'. The LibDem health spokesman Norman Lamb said 'The Government is losing the fight against addiction. There needs to be a National Audit Office investigation into the cost effectiveness of the £800m for treatment. The current record of failure is disastrous both for those in treatment and the wider community'. Critics also argue ‘the addiction services are in denial and continue with the same failing ‘addiction model' despite clear evidence it doesn't actually work or achieve anything'. There are plenty of people coming into treatment but not enough are leaving at the other end, just 4.3% in 2009, as they lack a final stage detox process which our treatment can provide. The Health Minister Andrew Lansley has now scrapped the NTA.

Doctors, Lies And The Addiction Bureaucracy
A leading doctor and author of 'Doctors, Lies And The Addiction Bureaucracy', Dr Dalrymple explains why: 'addiction services have grown so massively they have developed a survival instinct and are not looking for a cure, in short, the bureaucracy of addiction needs clients far more than clients need the bureaucracy of addiction. As a result, 'a self-serving, self-perpetuating and completely useless alcohol/drug bureaucracy has built up to deal with the problem' which is apparent by their low remission rate of just 3.6%, click here to read his full article.