See here
An AA member has been kind enough to forward some background to the above piece. It would seem that the event to which we referred is “a presentation by AA”, and which is “hosted” annually by an MP from one of the “main political parties”. Moreover Alcoholics Anonymous apparently “rotate the political party hosting the event” each year. The preliminaries included – or so we are told - the usual statements relating to AA's singleness of purpose together with reference to non-affiliation etc. (The rationale incidentally for the whole exercise is that it forms part of AA's public information strategy ie. to better inform politicians (presumably) about our endeavours). Finally the organisers were unaware (also apparently) that Iain Duncan Smith (Secretary of State for the Department for Work and Pensions) was going to use this platform to make his policy announcement ie. possible referral of benefit claimants thought to have an alcohol problem to AA, and who, if they fail to comply, may have their benefits suspended.
[We
refer you here to two articles relating to the above subject matter:-
The Guardian - Iain Duncan Smith's plan for 'suspected' alcoholics won't work
and;
The
Guardian - Is addiction a moral defect or a mental illness?]
From these we would suggest that IDS has succeeded in opening not only one can of worms but a whole shelf load. Typically, or at least when it comes to the latest spate of Tory initiatives (has anyone seen the LibDems recently?), this is as ill conceived and doomed to failure as the rest. Apart from the entirely questionable ethical implications involved in this 'bright idea' what it boils down to finally is letting the government off the hook by obtaining access to alcohol/drug treatment on the cheap (and you can't get much cheaper than free!) whilst potentially cutting down on the benefits bill. So anyone who has even the appearance of being slightly under the weather can be diagnosed and then promptly 'whipped off' (Ahhhh.... how we miss those balmy days in Eton!) to an AA or NA meeting under pain of financial penalty.
So there you have it! AA's name is now inextricably (and prominently) linked with a government policy that is almost universally condemned, and indeed lambasted from every side. Nobody but NOBODY apart from IDS likes the idea. Well we think it's time to look for someone to BLAME. This whole mess is someone's fault and someone needs to be well and truly CHASTISED if not thoroughly flogged! (Ahhhh... those were the days! Fagging …. being roasted over hot coals (Tom Brown's Schooldays).......). Well what about IDS as a candidate? He's the one who spilt the coffee on the carpet again! Well he IS a politician but then what do politicians do..... (apart from pad expense accounts, lie invariably to the electorate, cosy up to CERTAIN media magnates, feather their own nests, make pointless speeches, collude with bankers (no we haven't forgotten you!), U turn manically like some delinquent teenager on a joy ride, make promises they can't keep, start illegal wars, demonstrate a capacity for incompetence which in any other profession (?) would get them fired but is usually rewarded in this country with elevation to the House of Lords ….. ad infinitum!)..... Well they.... politick! So should we really be surprised that when a politician gets the opportunity to make a speech, a policy announcement or just fly a kite, they do just that! Is this really such a shock? So when Alcoholics Anonymous hosts, presents (whatever) an event at the Houses of Parliament at which politicians are present (and which they apparently address), who then can really be so naïve as to suppose that they will not seize the opportunity to MAKE A SPEECH which WILL BE reported in the PRESS? Can anyone really believe that a government minister would attend such an occasion and address his remarks ONLY to the immediate audience? So no …. it doesn't look like we can blame IDS. He's JUST a politician. But what about the press.... nope... don't even need to go there! Ethics and journalism... hmmmm.... let's see? Ah yes. Another oxymoron! So that leaves …. US. Where does the buck stop? Who is responsible? US. “So our troubles, we think, are basically of our own making. They arise out of ourselves....” (BB. p. 62, online version). Again – US! But we have a set of traditions don't we? And if we choose not to abide by them then what do we really expect to happen? Have you heard the one about the guy who kept on making the same mistake but thinking this ONE time it would work out differently …. but it didn't? They had to lock him up for his own good eventually. So why exactly is AA participating in these events, and what precisely is so important about politicians that we need to raise their awareness about what we do? Are we looking for funding from them? No. Do we want or need their endorsement? No. Are we seeking to influence policy? No ….. and we shouldn't be! So why are we seeking to operate on a national stage when the whole effectiveness of AA relies on contact at grass roots level? Communication, one alcoholic with another, is the entire basis of what we do - and so it should remain. Personal relationships NOT press releases are what count! Do we really want to see people forced to attend AA meetings under financial duress (and policed by the benefits system) who may not even have a drink problem or indeed may not even be ready or able to stop? The chit system (court mandated attendance at AA meetings) was and IS a massive mistake (again another breach of AA traditions) so the idea that it could be extended to include this grouping just beggars belief. Politicians, journalists, media people generally should be kept well at arm's length. We cooperate only – we do not promote.
But then if you want to dance with the devil don't be surprised if you get your fingers burnt!
Cheerio
The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)
PS Our thanks for the background info
PPS From a research report conducted for and published by the DWP (under Conclusions and Recommendations):
“6.4.3
Mandation to treatment
Findings
regarding the merits of linking benefit receipt to engagement with
treatment were varied. We identified a small amount of relevant
evidence on this issue from the literature, all of it from the US.
What this literature tells us is that firstly, the receipt of
benefits does not encourage or increase alcohol dependency
(Stevenson, 2002). Alcohol misuse can cause unemployment which may
result in being on benefits, but it is not the benefit receipt in
itself that causes or escalates alcohol misuse. Secondly, the US
experience suggests that when treatment is a mandated part of welfare
receipt, more adults with substance misuse problems do engage with it
than would otherwise be the case (Schwartz et
al.,
2004). However, termination of benefits for those who fail to comply
with a treatment regime can have negative consequences (in terms of
health and homelessness, for example) particularly in the short term
(Schwartz et
al.,
2004).
Findings
from our qualitative research suggest that mandating treatment as a
condition of benefit receipt may be counterproductive.
The professionals we interviewed stated that the threat or actual
loss of benefits (i.e. moving from one benefit to another, appealing
a decision about eligibility) was a trigger to relapse for some of
their clients. They and clients felt that compulsion was likely to be
counterproductive. Individuals need to be motivated to engage with
services and motivation is an important determinant of successfully
completing treatment. In our view, therefore, there is inadequate
evidence from either the literature or qualitative research to
support the view that making treatment a condition of benefit receipt
would improve treatment outcomes for clients or result in more
alcohol misusers re-entering employment.”
(our
emphases)
Source:
Alcohol misusers’ experiences of employment and the benefit system.
Research report No. 718 DWP
