Telling teachers about drugs

Press, Volume CXI, Issue 32566, 27 March 1971, Page 12

Telling teachers about drugs

(By

MIKE FEARN)

LONDON. The subject of drugs is never given a moment’s rest on radio, television or in the press. Yet ignorance about the types and effects of drugs is as widespread as ever. And as the age of drug experimentation gets younger and younger, so attempts are being made to stop the rot. This is where 31-year-old Derek Rutherford comes in. He is the director of the Teachers’ Advisory Council on Drug Education. “The average age of the council is in the 30s. It’s better to have younger people because the children are more likely to accept what they say. Then it does not appear to be a question of them and us.” Since the council was set up 18 months ago it has arranged conferences for teachers and. talks for senior schoolchildren. Mr Rutherford has spoken to over 13,000 fourth, fifth and sixth formers about the dangers of drugs since the beginning of the year. “We could really do with a few more full-timers. Our aim is to provide training courses for teachers who are bound to know very little about the drug problems which didn’t exist when they were at college and university.” Big problems But despite scare stories to the contrary, the problem of drug dependence in schools is very small. This, however, has not stopped a large number of teachers from finding out about that subject. “Only a very few educationists bury their heads in the sand and think that everything is all right,” said Mr Rutherford, a former teacher of religious education. It is the accepted drugs, nicotine and alcohol, which are the big problems. But it should be remembered that a school is very lucky indeed if it has only one or two pupils who take amphetamines.

And one of the reasons why young people take drugs is the hypocrisy of their parents and elders. "They see adults condemning them for taking drugs while they themselves are holding a glass of sherry. There are more toxic substances in a glass of sherry than in a reefer,” said Mr Rutherford. “We condemn the young for trying cannabis but one of the real problems of the country is the middle-aged alcoholic which affects British industry to a large degree. We must not be too condemnatory of the young.” But who is most likely to take drugs? It seems that there is no particular drugprone personality. “There’s no set type before drug abuse. But then the personality changes when you’ve, been taking drugs. Some individuals are more susceptible than others, but it is difficult to see who they are.” Many causes The only firm figures about drug addiction are for the number of drug addicts. This stands at 2782 for 1968, but there are at least three times this number which go unregistered. What causes people to take drugs is a question which can have no simple answer. “Sixty or 70 per cent of hard drug cases come from bad homes. There’s unrest of some sort in the home; there’s an unhappy relationship between the parents. But what is a bad home? It’s impossible to define. It means, really, no basic security. “I can’t say I will create the environment for my daughter in which she won’t become a ding addict, because I don’t know what that environment is. “Many of the problems of adolescents are due to lack of discipline. -The young need some discipline to kick against. If they don’t get it they find something else to kick against. “The basic cause of young people taking drugs is experimentation. They want to kick against authority. We have so often preached the catchword of freedom. We, in our sophisticated way, said get ria of petty rules. Now the young are kicking against more dangerous rules. It’s a conformist world. If you’re a teen-ager you feel you’ve lost your individuality. “Society has become more

complex but the young people still want to rebel. But they realise in their heart of hearts that they are not going to succeed because of the more complex problems. They look to violence, even if they don’t take drugs. But drugs don’t help this situation. “Today’s violence is often started by people who are high on drugs. The mob will easily follow. If you get someone shouting “Kill the pigs” other people will follow. We are all barbarians underneath.” Drug addicts come from no one class or section of society. They are of all academic levels. There have been three main surveys of addicts. Two taken at drug addiction centres show that most addicts come from the lower social class. But another survey taken outside the centres showed that a great number of the subjects had a good academic background. Some had even proceeded to college and university. They were not registered because they are more articulate and can get along without the unit, but with the help of friends. It is the less articulate who need the help of the centres. Added Mr Rutherford: “When it comes to the question of legalising pot and non-addictive drugs, I have spoken to 20 hard drug addicts and all but one said that drugs should not be legalised. Pushers the menace ■ "There’s no such thing as a soft drug. They are softeners for the hard. Once the soft drugs have lost their stimulus then the temptation is to move on to hard drugs. A survey has proved that between 7.5 and 15 per cent of soft drug takers move on. “But you cannot say that all soft drug takers will start taking hard drugs. Someone who hasn’t can say look at me. And you will have created a myth which can be easily disproved. “When it comes to drug pushers nothing is too severe. They are the menace. I don’t believe in capital punishment, but when I think of this my emotions take over. I would string somebody up if they were a ‘pusher’.” Meanwhile as the problem of drug addiction increases year by year Mr Rutherford continues on his travels round the country. “I go everywhere from Plymouth to Newcastle to Kent."