Heroin Addiction is a Bitch

I hate heroin … I also love it. I love it when I have it but hate it when I don’t. It’s an easy drug to love and an easy drug to hate but since most of us can’t afford to be pinned all the time, there’s probably more hate than love. Yep, using heroin is definitely a love-hate relationship.

Luckily, I’m not currently using heroin everyday as I am on substitution treatment. My heroin use is limited to about once a month, which might sound like a lot to non-users but believe me, it’s nothing compared to the usual 90 or so hits needed each month when you’re an active user. 

But this is where we need to separate the myths from reality. There is a big difference between the public perception of heroin addiction and the actual cycle of heroin-methadone-relapse-heroin-methadone-relapse... etc. For a longer term addict, using heroin is not about the high but something far more alluring … normality. The quest to feel some of those human traits like optimism, happiness, contentment etc. far exceeds the need to get high. Substitution treatments like methadone, buprenorphine and Suboxone might help with withdrawals or be a life changer for many but the stark truth is that they can also help fuel depression and emptiness. I have experienced this first hand and I must admit … I didn’t like it. The methadone blues are not on my wish list for Santa.

When a person is addicted to something they cannot control how they use it, and become dependent on it to cope with daily life.

--Medical News Today

I once experimented with using heroin everyday instead of methadone and surprisingly, I found myself far more productive and level headed than I had been in years. It cost me well over $1500 for the week and I needed to use three times a day, including an afternoon hit at work. Not exactly conducive with leading a normal life.

What if you could use heroin everyday without having to worry about the law and the money to afford it? Is it really any different to the 700mg of Slow Release Oral Morphine (SROM) that I take everyday? Is it any different to a daily dose of methadone? Some countries prescribe heroin (diacetylmorphine) to longer term addicts who don't respond to other treatments and so far, it has been very successful. Unfortunately, Heroin Assisted Treatment (HAT) is not available in Australia so any attempt to self medicate with heroin, must be done illegally and expensively, away from medical supervision.

Methadone remains a pretty good first-line treatment, but either the switch to heroin or using heroin as an adjunct obviously has increased effectiveness for this difficult population.

-- Dr. Martin Schechter: University of British Columbia

Heroin addiction is a bitch. But so are the current alternatives. Those who do not respond well to the available treatments like rehab, detox or substitution treatment, are in a real bind and inevitably turn to crime to fund their addiction. This is a costly outcome for both the user and society, especially when there is a ready solution like Heroin Assisted Treatment (HAT). I often think that if I could just get my hands on enough money, I could stock up on diacetylmorphine(heroin) and start to experience a better quality of life. My depression goes away when medicated on heroin and I start to feel somewhat human again. When dosed with heroin, I don’t look like a junky nor act like one but instead, I am capable of performing in a high pressure job, contributing to my community and living a productive life. The simple truth is that heroin can be an effective anti-depressant for some people.

But the dreaming must stop. After 40 years of anti-drug propaganda and the never ending message that heroin addicts are dysfunctional, dangerous sub-humans, the idea that heroin itself might be an effective treatment is just too much for the public and politicians to grasp. Each year, we churn out more and more opiate addicts and although many will finally kick their habit, many will not. Out of this remaining group will be those who were born with a predisposition for opiate addiction e.g. an imbalance in their brain's chemistry, some of the 66 known genes that promote the need for opiates, a persistent impairment of synaptic plasticity in a key structure of the brain etc. It may be impossible for some people to comprehend but this small group of addicts have a physical problem and are not simply selfish losers with no will power. But try telling that to the powers-that-be or a largely ignorant public.

We have an increasingly clear idea of how genetic and early childhood influences lie at the heart of the development of addiction and how the neurochemistry of the brain renders users unable to simply stop using.

--Charlie Lloyd: Senior Lecturer at York University

In 2010, it’s abysmal that a so called “advanced society”, continues to promote laws that punish these people. At the top end are the addicts that sell drug to other addicts. Amazingly, they are lumped into the same class as child molesters, murderers and rapists. But these small time user/dealers are not doing it for profits or the lifestyle but to self medicate a medical condition. It’s a catch-22 situation where they have 2 options, both of which attract harsh legal penalties and public vindictiveness. When confronted with the choice between crimes that hurt people like stealing, theft, robberies etc. or simply selling drugs to friends or other users, most will choose the latter. But deciding not to inflict any pain on others and instead, choosing a victimless crime like drug dealing, we condemn them with as much venom as possible. 

Many countries even have mandatory drug laws that take away the power for a judge to intervene when there are mitigating circumstances. Incredibly, in 1956, the US passed the first mandatory sentence via an act that made a first time cannabis possession offence a minimum of 2 to 10 years with a fine up to $20,000. It was repealed in 1970. In 1973, New York State introduced mandatory minimum sentences of 15 years to life imprisonment for possession of more than four ounces (112g) of a hard drug. The most famous mandatory sentence is the “3 Strikes and You’re Out” law that has been implemented in many countries since the 1990s. This has caused a huge increase in drug users being jailed for lengthy periods - usually 25 years to life. You know something is greatly amiss when being caught 3 times for drug possession can send you to jail for life or when small time user/dealers are imprisoned for longer than violent criminals.

Dealer Who 'Hated' His Heroin Addiction Jailed

By Staff Reporter

Herald Express

A "SMALL-SCALE" heroin dealer who sold £10 wraps to undercover police officers has been sent to jail for five years and eight months.

John Birchall, 45, of Morgan Avenue, Torquay, "hated" his addiction to heroin but found he could not survive without it, Exeter Crown Court was told.

He pleaded guilty on a previous occasion to five counts of supplying and intending to supply the Class A drug to undercover officers in May.

Judge Barry Cotter said he had no choice but to impose a minimum seven-year term, minus credit for a guilty plea, as it was the third time Birchall had been convicted for a supply offence.

The judge said: "It inevitably has to be a custodial sentence."

Prosecutor Emily Pitts said Birchall had been caught as part of a police sting operation.

Two undercover officers made inquiries on the street about heroin and Birchall, known as "Scouse John", was identified as a man who could "sort them out".

Three wraps containing £10 of heroin were supplied to the officers on separate occasions. Each wrap contained 0.1 grams of the drug.

Three more wraps, weighing 0.5 grams, were sold on another occasion. A further wrap, which turned out to be ibuprofen, was sold in a fifth deal.

Anne Bellchambers, in mitigation, said Birchall has been showing improved signs of dealing with his addiction.

She added: "He says he's been taking drugs since he was 14. He hates it but it leads him back into this sort of offending every time.

"It is small-scale supply with little or no profit — under £200 for these deals."

Judge Cotter said his hands were tied about what sentence to impose considering his past offences.

"The reality of the matter is that after an undercover police operation, you have been convicted of a third drug trafficking offence.

"That means I have to impose a particular sentence."

The judge added: "The brutal reality is that society has taken a view of those that continue to be involved in drug trafficking that if you persistently get involved in such conduct, you face a long custodial sentence."

He said he hoped Birchall would "still have the motivation" to quit drugs when he got out.

The defendant was convicted of three counts of supplying the Class A drug, one of being concerned in its supply and one of offering to supply the drug.

He was given a total sentence of 68 months.

Related Articles

Does A Loss Of Plasticity Of The Brain Lead To Addiction?

Drug Addicts Are Not To Blame For Their Plight

All About Addiction

Bonjour!

Medical Heroin Found Effective for Treatment-Refractory Opioid Addiction

Canada’s Push for Mandatory Sentencing of Drug Crimes

One country that appears to be progressing with rational drug laws is Canada. They have a safe injection clinic like our Medically Supervised Injecting Centre (MSIC). They have just finished a heroin trial and they are often pushing more sensible cannabis laws. But all is not what it seems. Many of these initiatives that appeared under the previous government are aggressively being challenged by the current conservative, Harper administration

Under Canada's proposed new drug laws, an 18-year-old who shares a joint with a 17-year-old friend could end up in jail. Small-time addicts, who are convicted of pushing drugs near schools, parks, malls or any other prospective youth hangouts, would be automatically imprisoned for two years. And growers caught selling even one plant to a friend would also be incarcerated. -Plan For Minimum, Mandatory Drug Sentences Draws Fire - Canwest News Service

Especially disturbing, is a major bill(C-15) reintroduced to parliament by the ruling government that wants to set mandatory minimum sentences for drug crimes. The original bill(C-26) was introduced in 2007 but was dropped prior to the election. This bill effectively removes a judges ability to set an appropriate sentence when faced with extenuating circumstances. As pointed out by several experts, some countries, especially the US, are moving away from mandatory sentencing because it has not proven to be effective in cutting crime. In fact, mandatory sentencing has previously been deemed ineffective by 2 reports commissioned by the government's own Justice Department. This is a worrying trend where governments are commissioning reports then ignoring them if they conflict with their current policies or ideology. There has been much public scrutiny of the proposed mandatory minimum sentences but the government refuses to acknowledge that there is no evidence that the changes will work. In a public hearing, Justice Minister Rob Nicholson continually dodged the question about evidence and in typical form, waffled on until his time was up. This is an old tactic frequently used by conservative politicians who are faced more and more with science and research that rejects their often pseudo-Christian, right wing ideology - Don’t answer the question being asked, answer the question you wished they had asked. Reality, facts and research are a real killjoy sometimes.

Overall Concerns: There is no proof that mandatory minimums are effective and appropriate measures to reduce drug use and crimes related to drugs. Most evidence shows the opposite. C-26 does not address the core issue of why people use drugs. C-26 increases already imbalanced and over-funded enforcement approach to drug use in Canada without reducing crime rates or drug use. Abandons successful measures such as harm reduction and grass roots education programs. Moves toward expensive, failed US style war on drugs that spends tens of billions a year on enforcement and incarceration while crime rates and drug use soar. Leads to greater incarceration rates and greater burden on courts, police, and prisons. The Bill leaves it open for enforcement to go after the low level dealers and marijuana infractions (The selling of one joint or growing one plant could constitute trafficking) . Current waiting lists for drug treatment beds is from months to years, depending on the city and region, Drug Treatment Courts will only serve to put more people on a waiting list. source: Cannabis Facts

Mandatory minimum prison sentences do not work. In this case, it will just fill the prison system with mostly harmless, non violent citizens. The whole idea of enforcing a set term of imprisonment defeats the purpose of going to court and being sentenced appropriately. This type of sentencing is always aimed at the worst type of offender which is usually in the minority and as a result, nets in many people who do not deserve prison. It’s the role of judges to determine sentences, not politicians and this sets a dangerous precedent for the legal system to become a political tool. The lessons from the US should be a stark reminder that mandatory minimum prison sentencing for drug crimes is purely right wing ideology which has been allowed to interfere with a nations legal system.

Plan For Minimum, Mandatory Drug Sentences Draws Fire By Janice Tibbetts Canwest News Service May 2009 OTTAWA — Under Canada's proposed new drug laws, an 18-year-old who shares a joint with a 17-year-old friend could end up in jail. Small-time addicts, who are convicted of pushing drugs near schools, parks, malls or any other prospective youth hangouts, would be automatically imprisoned for two years. And growers caught selling even one plant to a friend would also be incarcerated. The Harper government's bill to impose Canada's first mandatory minimum prison sentences for drug crimes — removing discretion for judges to sentence as they see fit — has come under intense scrutiny in public hearings, which began last week. Several witnesses have warned the House of Commons justice committee the proposed legislation will fill jails with drug addicts rather than drug kingpins, who will continue to thrive while small-time dealers are knocked out of commission. The all-party committee will likely get an earful again Monday when it hears from another half dozen opponents, including Ottawa drug policy analyst Eugene Oscapella. "It's a wonderful gift to organized crime," said Oscapella, a lawyer who teaches at University of Ottawa. "We're going to drive some of the smaller players out of the business and they'll be replaced by people who do not respond to law enforcement initiatives." The Conservative government proposes to automatically jail dealers and growers at a time when several American states, most recently New York, have retreated from mandatory minimum sentences, saying they are a glaring symbol of the failed U.S. war on drugs. "We're going in exactly the opposite direction," said New Democrat Libby Davies, MP for Vancouver East, whose party will vote against the bill. The Bloc Quebecois also opposes the legislation, which was originally introduced in late 2007, but died last September when the federal election was called. The bill would pass in the minority Parliament if the official Opposition Liberals decide to support it — and MP Brian Murphy cautioned that "the jury is still out" for his party. "The aim of the bill is laudable, we have to crack down on organized crime and the cash cow for it seems to be drugs," said Murphy. The Liberals, at this stage, would probably push for amendments to narrow the bill's reach, rather than vote against it, he said. The United States experience in the last 25 years has shown that mandatory minimum sentences have flooded jails, with a disproportionate effect on drug addicts, the poor, the young, blacks and other minorities. The U.S. surpasses every other country by far in incarceration rates and, meanwhile, the drug business has flourished. Justice Minister Rob Nicholson, who appeared at the justice committee to defend his bill, was unable to supply any evidence from other countries that mandatory minimum sentences have made any difference in reducing drug crime. Two studies prepared for the Justice Department, one in 2002 and the other in 2005, say that mandatory minimums do not work. But Nicholson asserted that the proposed legislation is a smart response to a public outcry to crack down on the growing "scourge" of drugs. "I can tell you there is support for this bill from many ordinary Canadians who are quite concerned about drug abuse," said Nicholson, who called for expedited passage of the legislation. Davies has unsuccessfully challenged the government to supply estimates on how many more people would be incarcerated if the law passes, and the anticipated cost for provincial governments, who are responsible for jails housing offenders serving sentences of less than two years. "It's going to clog up the prison system," she warned. Critics also contend the bill is poorly drafted because it is overly broad and unclear. For instance, the proposal to automatically imprison for at least two years anyone caught selling drugs "near a school" or "any other public place usually frequented by persons under the age of 18" could mean virtually anywhere in an urban area, says the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. "Any place other than those where minors are not permitted could fall under that legislation and thus require a two-year minimum sentence be imposed," Graeme Norton, director of the group's public safety project, told the committee. The proposed legislation would impose one-year mandatory jail time for marijuana dealing, when it is linked to organized crime or a weapon is involved. The sentence would be increased to two years for dealing drugs such as cocaine, heroin or methamphetamine to young people, or pushing drugs near a school or other places frequented by youths. The bill would mean minimum six-month sentences for growing one to 200 marijuana plants to sell, and two years for big-time growers of 500 plants or more. There are already more than two dozen minimum prison terms in the Criminal Code, mainly for murder and offences involving firearms. © Copyright (c) Canwest News Service

Related Articles: Study: Mandatory Minimums Don't Work! - The Rand Corporation Justices Restore Judges’ Control Over Sentencing - New York Times Proposed New Mandatory Sentences For Serious Drug Offences - Schedule Ii Drugs (Cannabis And Marijuana)