What's the minimum amount of heroin needed to stave off withdrawl?

Of course, this is not a question intended to support my non-existant heroin addiction. It came up in a discussion of the television show Lost, wherein a character is stranded on an island with a heroin addiction. He has about 4 or 5 tablespoons of powder in a little plastic bag, and we were just wondering how long 'till he starts feeling really bad. He’s rubbing it onto his teeth and gums, not snorting or shooting it.

Let’s assume he’s not a total idiot, and he’s stretching it out by using only the minimum he needs to keep away withdrawal symptoms. How long does he have? If it matters, he’s not a big guy. He’s 5’7" and maybe 150 pounds.

(I haven’t watched the last episode, please don’t spoil anything for me. I’m more interested in the question in general than the show and what the writers decide to do with the situation plot-wise. This is why I’m posting in GQ and not Cafe Society. If it must be moved, so be it, but I’m hoping to get a doctor or addict’s input first.)

It all depends on the addict and how much they’re accustomed to using.

Back when I worked with addicts at a methodone clinic the “stave off withdrawal” dose varied from 10 or 20 mg a day to 120 a day… and had nothing to do with size of the person or age or much of anything beyond how much tolerance they had built up. The dosages for heroin would be likewise - some used a little, some used a lot.

A smart addict (there are some - addiction is no respecter of intelligence) might find something with which to dilute his supply further than it already has been. Sugar, maybe, if he’s “rubbing it on his gums”. It would help eek the supply out a few more days.

So, really a few days is plausible, but not more than that. But there’s no “right” answer, at least in the form of a particular number of days.

As a follow-up question: suppose a heroin addict was stranded on a desert island and had to go completely cold turkey for a period of time. Say, 2 years.

Once he gets back to civilization, is he going to go straight to his dealer to try to score some smack? Or can we confidently say that he’s cured (I know you’re never “cured” of a drug addiction; work with me here), now that he’s had 2 years of doing without?

IOW, can the pure absence of the drug for a specified period of time cause the addict to kick his habit? Or do they still need counseling, support, etc.?

Kicking a heroin addiction is part physical addiction and part mental addiction. If an addict went 2 years without heroin, his/her physical addiction will be gone. The mental addiction may be weakened or not depending on the person. There would be no need for any further support to cure the addiction unless the person felt that they needed the help.

I’ve always wondered why heroin addicts don’t just wean off rather than go through all the withdrawals. Is this what methadone is for? I’ve heard of people going on methadone that stay on it for the rest of their lives. Why not wean off?

Depends entirely on the person. I know people who have gone more or less immediately right back to a heroin addiction (or other kind of addiction) after an extended period without it while incarcerated, and I know other people who have kicked a heroin addiction without counseling or support groups after nothing more than waking up one day and realizing being a heroin addict wasnt really for them.

For a lot of people, methadone just replaces the previous habit, and people don’t wean themselves off for some of the same reasons they didn’t want to quit heroin in the first place: they’re physically (and often psychologically) addicted to methadone, weaning themselves off of it is uncomfortable, and they just plain don’t want to.

Additionally, methadone blocks the effects of heroin, and some users feel that if it were otherwise they’d go back to using. I know some folks who’ve been on methadone for years who firmly believe that if they were to wean off of it they would go back to heroin.

I’ve read, at least, that while methadone doesn’t give you a “rush”, and thus isn’t as much of a risk for abuse or escalating dosages, it’s actually far more addictive than heroin. It’s tougher to get off of it and it has far more unpleasant withdrawl symptoms.

Opiates are also, apparently, not really physically harmful in themselves; almost all of the damage is secondary to the addiction: doing stupid things to get your fix, not knowing the purity of the heroin you’re purchasing, etc. A simple maintenance dose of an opiate just isn’t all that bad for you.

“Weaning off” as in gradually decreasing your dosage to reduce effects, like many people do with cigarrettes, doesn’t work with heroin. (Heck, it’s questionable whether or not it works with cigarrettes!) There’s a dose that works, and any less and you have withdrawal. (At least according to my junkie ex-roommate.) In my OP, I was just wondering what that dose was. Apparently, it depends on the user. Thanks for your great response, Broomstick.

A bit more on addiction:

If an addict was “clean” for 2 years (the deserted isle scenario) and went back to civilization it would, in my mind, be a toss up whether they’d go straight back to a dealer or not. As pointed out, addiction is more than just the physical. You can throw anyone in a rubber room and detox them physically, but that’s not a cure. Mentally, they’re still an addict.

Methadone does not have “worse” withdrawal… it has a longer withdrawal than heroin for the simple reason it leaves the body at a slower rate. Going cold-turkey off either isn’t pleasent, but with heroin the process is over with significantly quicker.

In theory, the idea with methadone is to get the addict “stabilized” - niether high nor in withdrawal - with a single daily dose that does not involved the rituals of shooting up (the ritual itself can become reinforcing - also, methadone maintenance was started in the US back when needles were the method of choice, unlike the snorting and what not that can occur these days). Then you do the mental work of unraveling the reasons for addictions and mentally preparing the person for giving up the drug of choice for good. Then you take them off it slowly, to minimize the unpleasentness. And when I say slowly I mean it might take a year or two to taper the dose down to nothing. That dose has to come down that slowly or yes, a person could wind up in withdrawal and you want to avoid that, because it can re-trigger the urge to use. Done properly, with a cooperative/motivated patient and a good support system it can work.

In reality there are a LOT of bad methadone clinics that are essentially warehouses for addicts. They dose 'em (maybe a little too heavily) and don’t provide counseling and are willing to string these folks along for years or a lifetime – it’s essentially legalized drug dealing. Some clinics are outright cruel the way they treat people, and make things worse. Yeah, a lot of the bad stories are true, unfortunately.

Where I worked we actually did try to do things the way we were supposed to, but since it was an outpatient clinic there were sharp limits to what we could do. Really, the only folks we could actually help were the self-motivated ones who wanted to quit and were sincerely looking for help to do so. The addicts that were there because the alternative was jail or having their kids taken away… they did just enough and no more to avoid that dreaded alternative. And a lot of folks showed up, stayed for a month or two (or a week or two) and then left. Well, that’s reality. We helped some people. Some got worse. Most were much the same. That’s what happens in drug rehab programs, and it can get very depressing.

Fact is, methadone is going to help only a small percentage of addicts - but that’s true of ANY method you name. If you have a 15-20% long-term success rate you are doing extremely well. 4 out of 5 are just not going to succeed at any given program at any given time. A number of those will succeed if they keep trying - no one method works for everyone.

And yes, pure opiates are not as toxic as people think. They’re not wonderful, they do have side effects, and they can kill you if you OD, but most of the folks we saw had far more medical problems generated from the crap used to dilute the heroin/whatever than from the opiate itself. Among other things - kidney and liver damage were fairly common. Liver damage from hepatitis in needle users, as well as infections of the tissue around the heart, came from less-than-sterile injections (and the diabetic addicts almost never had hep or pericarditits because they could easily obtain clean, sterile syringes) Which is the whole point around needle exchange programs - it’s not to cure addiction, it’s to limit the spread of disease from unsafe needle practices. (It also has the side effect that where needle exchanges take place you will find no used needles on the ground anywhere.)

We also did a study with the pregnant addicts (and, boy, howdy, was that a hot potato!) where we were able to show that 1) the earlier in pregnancy you got an addict into treatment the better than chances of having a healthy child and 2) it really was the street drugs/high-withdrawal cycles that were doing the damage to the kids, not the opiates themselves. When we got the moms into the program in the first trimester and the moms were cooperative (always a big question with addicts) we were seeing full-term births, normal weight kids (though on the low end of normal), and no more problems than with comparable, non-addicted women. Get 'em late in the pregnancy and/or noncompliant you had all sorts of horrible things go wrong.

Working with pregnant addicts is really tough - they generate all sorts of very mixed feelings. And Bad Things can happen to the kids.