Should Heroin Addicts Be Given Heroin?

I don’t have it in front of me now. But I once read a very interesting magazine article (I also saw the story once on a tv special). In Britain, Heroin addicts are given Heroin to deal with their withdrawal symptoms.

I should clarify a little. No, they are not given enough to make them high. Just enough to deal with the horrible cravings. Because it seems, ironically, Heroin remains the best drug to deal with its own drug cravings. And (they said on the tv magazine), not only is it more effective than Methadone, but it (Heroin) ironically has relatively few side effects, in small doses at least.

Well, I can already tell you we probably won’t have this in the US anytime soon (but I could be wrong–I never realized they would legalize recreational marijuana in several states). So my question is simply, should we?

:slight_smile:

If it helps them stay alive and only then for a certain period of time to help them recover. If the withdrawal symptoms are bad enough then give it to them for a reasonable amount of time like a month or a couple months at most but to keep giving it to them for the rest of their lives hell no.

As I understand it, the nastier effects of street heroin are in fact caused by the poor quality and the dangerous stuff it’s cut with. Medical quality heroin outside of being (obviously) highly addictive isn’t all that physically harmful.

If it works, yes. If necessary for the rest of their life if they can’t be weaned off the addiction. Addiction is a medical problem; it’s quite obvious that treating it as a moral failure has done nothing but harm.

Does Britain still have that program?

I recall several reports during the early 1980s about that program and its effectiveness, but had heard that it was cancelled by Thatcher under pressure from the “Just Say No” Reagan administration.

It’s my personal opinion that we should give all drug addicts whatever it is they seek, more or less free. Hardcore addicts such as those addicted to heroin might need housing as well–sort of a homeless shelter for addicts.

This is a practical solution, and I think it would be cheaper than what we do now: criminalize drugs, fight a “war” on them, and imprison a huge segment of our population for dealing in drugs or stealing to get drugs.

My scheme is unlikely to happen, I realize. I’m just saying we should do it. I believe that we should be given control of our own lives. If we decide to waste it just feeling good until we die, then as a society the rest of us should minimize the impact of that sort of member.

Rather than giving heroin, I’d advocate giving opioid addicts drugs like buprenorphine (if we’re going to be giving them opioids at all, that is) since it’s a lot safer, far less sedating, and satisfies the desperate craving for opioids that most active addicts have.

No, they should have to buy it, just like us alkies have to buy our own booze.

This is exactly what methadone programs are about. Daily doses of long-acting opiates that prevent the withdrawal symptoms many addicts use heroin to avoid. Requiring them to come into the clinic daily also lets them keep touch with their social worker, psychologist, etc.

Buprenorphine is a lot safer than methadone, IMHO. And I prescribe both drugs.

Too many inadvertent deaths with methadone. It’s a tricky drug.

Of course, now that buprenorphine is becoming more utilized I’m sure we’ll see more morbidity and mortality from it too.

That’s interesting. I’ve worked in two centres (both in Canada), and buprenorphine is really peripheral, even in pain management. Maybe it’ll make its way north of the border soon.

[sarcasm] I’m a heroin addict… (Never used heroin in my life) FREEEE DRUGSSS!!! [/sarcasm]

Point being: It’s not a very good idea. Maybe if the addiction is life threatening, but beyond that, they should be locked up in a padded room with a straight jacket on until their body recovers. Remember: It’s their stupidity that got them in that spot in the first place. Very rarely are you FORCED to take drugs.

Well, after you’ve detoxed them for the 50th time (and imprisoned them for the 10th time), yet they come back strung out on heroin again, it becomes more cost-effective to just put them on a maintenance drug than spending (?wasting) all the time and effort of cleaning up after their crimes and medical emergencies from their relapses.

I’m all in favor of opioid addicts becoming abstinent long-term (and I know it can be done, I’m a case in point) but pragmatically one needs another effective, low cost option for the ones who continue to relapse and damage themselves as they cost society big bux.

In my state, it costs over $33K/year to incarcerate someone. It’ll cost less than $500/year to keep them on buprenorphine.

You do the math.

Didn’t the Swiss just do that? Allow addicts to continue imbibing, so to speak? I’ve heard stories where people actually live pretty normal lives, even working jobs in some cases.

If the drugs were to be made available by the gov’t, it seems that there would be a significant reduction in the secondary-level crimes committed by those needing to support their habits. These crimes involve prostitution, among others, and an overall reduction in the numbers of addicts spreading communicable diseases seems like it would be a plus.

Yeah, making it legal won’t make it more widespread AT ALL.

This is a giant whosh, right??

Your argument is convincing. Please elaborate.

I work as a physician and I daily have patients resist taking legal, prescribed narcotics because they’re scared of becoming addicted, which is highly unlikely when one takes painkillers for, well, pain.

Boggles the mind really. I just don’t get the attitude of putting them in jail and throwing away the key.

It’s an irrational position to hold, when alternatives would be MORE beneficial to our society (reduction in crime related to addiction - issues with police powers/militarization) and CHEAPER.

The war on drugs costs us a lot more than helping these people would, even after dealing with the ones who are never going to get better.

But f that, right? Let’s punish them instead.

Yes.

The linked report said:

“As the Swiss population supported this drug policy, this medicalisation of opiate dependence changed the image of heroin use as a rebellious act to an illness that needs therapy. Finally, heroin seems to have become a ‘loser drug’, with its attractiveness fading for young people.”

I can completely see that working. You put people up in sad, crappy housing and every day they have to go for their sad government hand out of their drug. How unglamorous can drugs be? I can well imagine it would help deter young people from ever trying.

And yes, far better to hand the stuff out. It completely kills the market, for one thing. It allows people to stop prostituting themselves and stealing car radios to get their fix. It gives them the opportunity to recover and become productive members of society.

You can still throw the dealers in jail.