The Fight for a Legal Right to Addiction Treatment in Scotland
Scotland’s Right to Addiction Recovery (Scotland) Bill is a groundbreaking piece of legislation designed to ensure that anyone seeking treatment for addiction has a legal right to access it. With drug-related deaths at crisis levels, the Bill represents a clear, rights-based approach to tackling Scotland’s long-standing failures in addiction treatment.
But as the Scottish Parliament’s Health, Social Care, and Sport Committee reviews the Bill, a troubling trend has emerged. A recent analysis of the official evidence session has uncovered bias, contradictions, and resistance to real change from those tasked with advising on the future of addiction treatment.
The big question is: Are we really being told the full story?
Bias in the Evidence Against the Right to Recovery Bill
Despite the overwhelming need for better access to addiction treatment, some experts giving evidence to the Committee were not supportive of enshrining a legal right to treatment.
What’s Standing in the Way?
🔴 “Unintended Consequences” Without Evidence – Some witnesses warned of negative side effects if the Bill passed but failed to provide real-world examples of such consequences happening elsewhere.
🔴 Ignoring International Success Stories – Countries like Switzerland and Canada have successfully increased investment in treatment services, reduced harm, and improved recovery outcomes by implementing rights-based addiction policies. Yet, some experts claim such an approach is “unworkable” in Scotland.
🔴 Framing Addiction as Just a “Social Problem” – Some social work representatives argued against the Bill on the basis that addiction is primarily a social issue. This contradicts the World Health Organization (WHO), which defines substance use disorder as a medical condition requiring structured treatment.
🔴 Fearmongering About Stigma – The argument was made that granting people with addiction a legal right to treatment could increase stigma. But international evidence shows the opposite—when treatment is recognised as a right, stigma decreases, and more people seek help.
Contradictions with International Best Practices
The Right to Recovery Bill aligns with the United Nations’ position on addiction treatment as a human right. But instead of recognising this alignment, some witnesses opposed enshrining that right in law, claiming it could not be enforced.
The truth? Other countries have successfully implemented treatment rights and recovery-focused systems, with measurable benefits.
✅ Switzerland – Guaranteed medical support and harm reduction strategies led to a 50% reduction in drug-related deaths and a significant decrease in public drug use (Nordt & Stohler, 2006).
✅ Canada – Provinces that have invested in recovery-focused policies have improved access to care and reduced long-term healthcare costs (DeBeck et al., 2017).
✅ Portugal’s Early Approach – While decriminalisation alone has not reduced drug-related deaths over the past decade, the initial success of Portugal’s model was largely driven by increased access to treatment. This highlights the need for a well-funded recovery system, not just decriminalisation (Hughes & Stevens, 2012).
The key takeaway? Treatment access, not just policy changes, is what drives positive outcomes.
So why are some in Scotland saying it can’t be done?
The Voices Supporting the Right to Recovery Bill
Not everyone at the Committee was against the Bill. Some key figures highlighted why it’s needed:
✅ Eleanor Deeming (Scottish Human Rights Commission) – Stated that the Bill supports Scotland’s human rights obligations under European and UN conventions, and that treatment access should be legally protected.
✅ Dr. Tara Shivaji (Public Health Scotland) – Recognised that the Bill could help reduce stigma and increase accountability within Scotland’s fragmented addiction treatment system.
✅ Public Health Scotland – Admitted that addiction treatment currently lacks standardised national outcomes, meaning many people fall through the cracks.
✅ Dr. Williams (Royal College of General Practitioners Scotland) – Acknowledged that the Bill supports a broad range of recovery services, ensuring individual choice.
What Needs to Happen Next?
The resistance to the Right to Recovery Bill is not based on solid evidence—it’s based on institutional reluctance to change the status quo.
Scotland’s addiction crisis is not improving under the current system—it’s getting worse. The Bill guarantees access to treatment and forces the system to be accountable for providing it.
If the Committee wants to ensure a genuine public health approach, MSPs must:
📢 Challenge misleading claims that the Bill is too restrictive or unworkable. It works in other countries, and it can work here.
📢 Push for clear accountability – If services aren’t delivering, people have the right to know why.
📢 Demand Scotland upholds its human rights obligations – Addiction treatment is a right, not a privilege.
📢 Listen to people in recovery – Instead of allowing bureaucratic delays, engage with the people whose lives depend on this Bill.
The Time for Change is Now
Scotland’s addiction crisis has cost too many lives already.
The Right to Recovery Bill is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to ensure that everyone who seeks treatment gets it—no matter where they live or their financial situation.
It’s time to demand that evidence, not bias, determines Scotland’s addiction policy.
📢 Share this. Talk about it. Ask your MSP where they stand.
Because recovery shouldn’t be a privilege—it should be a right.
🔎 For more updates and ways to get involved, follow [FAVOR UK].
Harvard References for Recovery-Oriented Approaches:
- DeBeck, K., Wood, E., Montaner, J. and Kerr, T. (2017). Canada’s supervised injection facilities: reviewing the evidence. Harm Reduction Journal, 14(1), p.13. Available here.
- Hughes, C.E. and Stevens, A. (2012). A resounding success or a disastrous failure: Re-examining the interpretation of evidence on the Portuguese decriminalisation of illicit drugs. Drug and Alcohol Review, 31(1), pp.101-113. Available here.
- Nordt, C. and Stohler, R. (2006). Incidence of heroin use in Zurich, Switzerland: a treatment case register analysis. The Lancet, 367(9525), pp.1830-1834. Available here.
- You can read the official report on the evidence session here
- or download it here
and also down load our briefing document to Ministers here