I have done volunteer work at several homeless shelters-mostly serving/preparing food. I have seen a fair number of long term drug users-and most of hem don’t look too healthy. In talking to people at the shelters, I heard that many long-term drug users are constanly getiing sick-they contract hepatitis (from sharing needles), other infections, which are exacerbated by poor nutrition and bad living onitions. many of them look much older than their actual age-life on the street is tough.
My quesion: a heavily addicted drug user-how long do they actually live?
I reaize there is a big difference in drugs-meth is much worse than heroin. Anybody know how long people survive under these conditions?
William Burroughs was 83 when he died. Bela Lugosi was 74.
I suspect the average is quite a bit lower, though.
Allegedly, much of the decrease in life span is due essentially to the fact that junkies are often social outcasts as a result of their addiction, and thus many live as bums and inject themselves with dubious product in an unsanitary manner. Given a clinical setting with properly sterilized needles and a supply of unadulterated opiates, junkies can (allegedly) live reasonably normal lives - or at least, so I have heard.
Google came up with this:
Though personally saying “losing 15 years of life” is downplaying it a little, the lived for a little over HALF as long as the comparable non-junkies.
Huh? The average age of the group was 27 but their average life expectancy was 18.84? Wouldn’t that mean that most of them were *over *18.84?
And unaddicted males had a life expectancy of only 33.48 years?? 
Was this study done in the middle of a warzone or something?
No, since they weren’t following them from infancy it simply means that they might expect another 18 years of life, so that would see them live to the ripe old age of 45 on average, whereas a non-addict would statistically make it to 60 years, which does seem a bit low to me too but when disease and accidents are taken into account I suppose it’s about right. Of course, we still don’t know for how long they had been addicted when the study started so it doesn’t tell us a whole lot of specifics, but it certainly is a sobering thought.
Life expectancy is additional years.
60 would be very low. Life expectancy at birth is almost 80 in the US, and the older you are the older you’re likely to be when you die.
However, the article states that the study followed addicts and the control group for “over 33 years”. That could explain the 33.48 year average among the control group. But then I don’t see how they would conclude that addicts lose only 15 years.
True, but I’m thinking a control group with similar living standards to addicts may be closer to 60. Besides, we don’t know how large the control group was, for a small enough sample size a single car accident or terminal illness could skew the average life span a decade lower than for a larger group.
“A similar group of unaddicted males”
The control group is probably very close to the same population as the addicts, only controlled for drug addiction. That sounds to me like you’re getting people from the same neighborhood as heroin addicts-- they may not be on drugs, but they’re certainly not going to be paragons of health, either, given the correlation between drug abuse and community health standards.
Which is a long way of saying, as bad as life can get in the bad parts of town, you’ll still live twice as long as the guy over there addicted to smack.
Ah, got it. The expected years they have left in life from when they started the study, not their entire life expectancy.
That would be because your sample isn’t “long term drug abusers”, it’s “long term drug abusers who wind up in a homeless shelter.” If you interview gamblers in homeless shelters you’ll probably also conclude that gambling ruins everyone’s lives.
Keith Richards had a serious heroin habit for a long time, and he’s 67 and still rocking out on stage.
I believe that alcohol, when taken in enough quantity to make you an alcoholic, is more destructive to the body than heroin.
As I understand it with most drugs the quality of the drugs makes a large difference. Someone who can get pure, high quality heroin is going to live longer than someone buying heroin from a street dealer who cuts it with concrete dust. And guys in a homeless shelter aren’t likely to be getting high quality anything.
I have a relative who was a high-functioning opiate addict for years. She made enough money to feed her habit and had a steady supply of clean needles. Her dealer supplied her with good quality product, china white as opposed to black tar.
She was disease-free, kept a good job, maintained a facade, etc. It all did eventually come crashing down, but it was related more to her choice of life-partner than anything else, IMHO.
Her boss and colleagues had no idea. Her family was in the dark for years that this was going on.
I remember reading something somewhere that the damage from injected drug addiction comes more from the circumstances surrounding getting the drugs than from the drugs themselves.
From www.drugtext.org