There are more serious concerns about the content and quality of the inputs from former users, however. It seems that the most promising approaches to drug education (including prevention and harm reduction) are based on social influencing and normative approaches. In my experience, the use of ex-drug users to give talks about their experiences does not fit with this approach at all. At best they give the impression that the problems with substance misuse are far greater than they really are.

I have been part of a programme for a large secondary school where an ex-user had instilled in the Year 12 and 13 students a belief that they would all use illegal drugs during their life time, that most would suffer addiction and that they would all have serious social and health problems as a result. None of these ‘facts’ are true. However, neither staff nor students were in a position to challenge this, and indeed accepted this information as self evidentently true because of its source. These kinds of inputs just serve to normalise students’ and teachers’ perceptions of drug use, and make those who abstain or use infrequently feel in the minority, which they are not.

If ex -drug users are to become part of an effectivce aproach to universal drug education in our schools and youth provision, they need to understand these complex models of human behaviour and incorporate them into their approach.

So am I against all ex-drug users working in schools? No. But I do think we need a way to incorporate their involvement in a way which ensures both quality and sustaianbility. One possibility is to invite ex users to work with those who understand the most promising approaches and then record their inputs onto dvd in the form of talking heads, so that they can be used to good effect in more schools and on a more sustainable basis. This may not have the immediate ‘impact’ of seeing a real life person pour out their heart to 200 young people in a school hall, but it will fit better with what we know can work, if we have the resources to deliver it.

It would however be a disadvantage if the ex user is merely abstinent, or has in fact achieved sobriety in the sense that he/she have put their ‘own house in order, and become self supporting members of their community. In short, they are now part of the solution, rather than part of the problem.

There is a tendency to judge a persons suitablity for this sort of activity by the length of time they have been absinent. This somewhat arbitary attempt is flawed from the point of view that the road to recovery is an unpredicatable and ongoing process, and is dependent on a number of factors, not the least of which is the extent of the mental, physical and spiritual damage, the individual may have inflicted on himself.

Both AA and NA point out there those too “with grave emotional and mental disorders”, but they also can recover, providing they have the capacity to be self honest. Both groups also urge those with such disorders to seek professional help, as indeed Bill W the cofounder of AA did when he consulted Carl Jung.

Within my own experience I have encountered ex users and alcoholics who with 12 months of abstinence have done considerable work on themselves and have made considerable more progress towards recovery, than others who have been around for several years

If you approach the General Service Offices of AA or NA, they will be able to advise you of any contacts in your area who are willing and able to undertake this type of work, and further advise you on the relevant information sheets available.