Coke, Columbia and drug courts

First up, Alex james, he of Blur fame was on the telly last night reporting for Panorama (BBC 1 1/2 hour current affairs programme) on the mess the cocaine trade has made of Columbia. Well not just the trade but the efforts being made to combat it. This was the front line of the 'War on Drugs'. James did a comendably good and brave job as far as this viewer could tell. A good job because he demonstrated the huge structural damage cocaine is doing to Columbia and brave because he found himself in very frightening situations - a coca farm raid; with a dealer - where lots of guns were being waved around by scared and scary people. No flak jacket for him either, just his gentleman farmer's chino's, check shirt and a Panama hat. He even met the President of Columbia. Actually the pres had invited him over to do the programme as a way of trying to inform the drug's consumers in Europe and the States that the trade is doing terrible harm to Columbia and Columbians. As a former consumer of Bolivian marching powder of heroic proportions; James reportedly got through a million pounds in coke and champagne, the president obviously felt that James was the man for the job. And you know what? He was.

If you haven't seen the programme and want to make your own mind up about it try the fabby BBC iPlayer www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer which allows you to watch any BBC programme from the last 7 days online.

Now on to our latest initiative in the War on Drugs. By the way, how long is the war going to go on for? When will we know we've won it? No-one seems to know. Yesterday the government announced the introduction of a pilot drugs court in London. Now, the model in the States as I understand it simply provides for a specialist court in which to try people with addictions who have broken the law, the idea being that the combination of legal coercion and treatment gets results. It's a bit different here in London where the focus is primarily on working with drug-using parents. The principle behind it is that if at all possible drug using parents should be helped to stop and to retain care of their children. This is a good idea in that being put in to care is a fairly sure-fire way of increasing a child's risk of becoming a drug user themselves. Plus, most addicted parents can and do want to look after their kids and to deal with their habit.

I've only heard one authoritative interview on the introduction of these courts which came from the judge who'll be presiding over the court, which did cause a pang of anxiety in me. He was quick to admit that the vast majority of punters brought before him will be women. He then went on to say that the court would use coercion and treatment to get the women to change their ways. So far so good (ish). But then he went on to say - and I paraphrase 'and if these women can't or won't leave violent men then they'll be forced to'. Oh. dear. I do hope his Honour gets on a domestic violence course quickly because on the evidence of that interview he needs to. Any one who comes across domestic violence in their professional lives and has thought about it for a bit, knows that it can be incredibly difficult for women to extract themselves and their children safely from a violent man. Not only is there the obvious risk of injury or death but there are economic and social ties and yes, sometimes even love. Given such violent men's abilities to ignore injunctions and all sorts of other ploys to keep them away from their victims I think the judge was wrong to place the emphasis on women being made to leave. It's the men who should be made to go.