Showing posts with label Prescription Heroin. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Prescription Heroin. Show all posts

Sunday, 12 September 2010

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.

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.

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.

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

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

Sunday, 20 June 2010

Norway Considers Prescription Heroin

As the reported success of Heroin Assisted Treatment (HAT) gains coverage, more and more countries are starting to re-evaluate their own drug treatment strategies. Each year, it’s becoming more difficult to deny the benefits of HAT and the mounting evidence is growing. 

It may have taken a while to sink in but with many decades of little success treating long term heroin addiction and the failure of punitive drug laws, HAT promises to offer far better results for both the community and those addicts on the program. 


Government Commission Suggests Giving Out Free Heroin
June 2010
by Michael Sandelson.

A government commission headed by Thorvald Stoltenberg, Labour (Ap) Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg’s father, has suggested prescribing free heroin.

Mixed reactions
The commission, comprising police and several politicians, amongst others, was established as part of government efforts to improve treatment methods for heavy drug users.

Today, Stoltenberg senior presented the panel’s 22-point findings to Anne-Grethe Strøm-Eriksen, Labour’s Minister of Health and Care Services.

Stoltenberg says they decided in favour of a pilot programme, but with strict admission requirements. Reactions from experts, politicians, and the Salvation Army were mixed.

“Heroin-assisted treatment, and I underline meaning treatment with follow-ups, is something we need in this country for those who haven’t benefitted from other therapies,” deputy leader of the Liberal Party (V) Ola Elvestuen tells NRK.

The Salvation Army says it regards the offer as meaningless, arguing systematised heroin distribution is more a comfort for the community than the addicts.

Strange
Stoltenberg’s daughter is herself a former drug addict. Psychiatrist Dag Furuholmen criticises him for leading the commission, alleging he has a conflict of interests.

“I find it extremely odd that a professional person such as him doesn’t understand that. He’s mixing private circumstances with a public issue about treating substance abusers,” Furuholmen tells NRK.

Stoltenberg says he’s never considered his position, as living with her situation has inspired him.

“I do have tremendous self-interests, yes, having become acquainted with them through getting my daughter help. I’m not embarrassed about this.”

Undignified
Furuholmen also says he considers the commission’s suggestion to be short-sighted and unworthy.

“It’s not a dignified life having to go to the same place to inject oneself three times a day, come rain or shine. Every dependant drug abuser has only one wish, logically speaking: more drugs, more heroin and thus apparently no problems.

Meanwhile Minister of Justice Knut Storberget welcomes the move.

“My attitude to new initiatives for those struggling with substance abuse, is that you must dare to think differently. Over 60 percent of those sitting in Norwegian jails are struggling with significant drug problems, and it shows us we must find alternative ways than just punishment or imprisonment for this group,” he says.

Related Articles

Tuesday, 1 June 2010

UK Push for Expanding Heroin Assisted Treatment

A recent article in the medical journal, The Lancet has once again highlighted the need for Heroin Assisted Treatment (HAT) to be expanded in the UK.

Although the article draws upon previously released research results, it was still important enough to catch the media’s attention.

A Google News search found 182 related articles including from The Press Association, The Associated Press, TopNews, Pharmacy News, Reuters, BusinessWeek, BBC News, CBC, The Northern Echo, Irish Independent etc. but not a single mention from any major media outlet in Australia.

The only Australian article I found was in the hard copy edition of the Townsville Bulletin.


Heroin Therapy Call for 'Chronic Addicts'
By Emma Wilkinson - Health Reporter
May 2010

Injectable "medical" grade heroin should be offered under supervision to the most hardened addicts, say UK researchers.

A trial in 127 addicts who had persistently failed to quit the drug showed a significant drop in use of "street" heroin after six months.

Writing in The Lancet, the researchers said the "robust evidence" supports wider provision of heroin treatment.

A spokesman for the government said it would consider the findings.

Around 5-10% of heroin addicts fail to quit despite use of conventional treatments, such as methadone.

Those who took part in the trial had been using the drug for an average of 17 years and had been in treatment for 10 years.

When they took part in the programme they were on methadone treatment but were still taking street heroin on a regular basis.

The researchers - working at clinics in south London, Brighton and Darlington - found that those offered injectable heroin under the supervision of a nurse were significantly more likely to cut down their use of street heroin than those receiving oral or injectable methadone.

Improvements were seen within six weeks of starting the programme, they reported.

In further analysis yet to be published, it was noted that the benefits remained after two years and some patients were able to stop use of the drug altogether.

Treatable
Study leader, Professor John Strang, from the National Addiction Centre at King's College London, said the supervised heroin programme enables patients to start thinking about employment, re-engaging with their families and taking responsibility for their lives.

"This is a treatment for a severe group of heroin addicts that ordinary treatments have failed with and the question we're answering is 'are these patients untreatable?'."

"The very good news is that you can get these people on a constructive trajectory."

He said the latest study plus a series of other trials now provide clear evidence that this type of treatment should be offered more widely.

It was outlined in the UK government's 2008 Drug Strategy, subject to the results from this trial.

He added that although more expensive than conventional treatments, heroin therapy is considerably cheaper than imprisonment.

A Department of Health spokesman said any approach that gets people off drugs for good should be explored.

"We will look at evidence and both the clinical and cost effectiveness of these treatments.

"However, it is vital that we do all we can to prevent people using drugs in the first place."

Dr Roy Robertson a reader in the Department of Community Health Sciences at Edinburgh University, said whilst none of the outcomes are close to achieving abstinence, treatment with supervised injectable heroin "seems to be our best option".

"This is the intensive care for those heroin users who have failed after all sorts of other available treatments and continue to inject."

DrugScope chief executive Martin Barnes added that there is no "magic bullet" and several treatment interventions may be needed before someone becomes drug free or cuts down their drug use.

"On the basis of the outcomes described, there is a strong case for extending heroin prescribing as a carefully targeted and closely supervised form of treatment for chronic addiction."


Related Articles

Thursday, 13 May 2010

Will The UK Lead the World on Drug Law Reform?

The recent change of government in Britain is certainly entertaining to say the least. A new conservative government after 13 years of what many would describe as another conservative government. Labour leader, Gordon Brown taking one for the party and resigning. A coalition of the left and right … the first coalition in 75 years.  A third party shaking up the old establishment. What a hoot.

With all the talk of election and banking reform, a new type of politics and a brighter future for Britain, there’s one major issue that is being overlooked - drug policy. With Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg strongly supporting drug law reform and the public backlash from the sacking of professor David Nutt, the UK might actually be the first major nation to introduce significant changes to their drug laws. If the UK takes up even part of what Clegg wants, it should kick start the drug reform avalanche started by The Netherlands, Switzerland, Portugal, Mexico, The Czech Republic, Poland etc.

The best way to reduce the harm drugs cause to society is to base policy on facts

The burning question though is whether Tory’s leader, David Cameron and a coalition government will give in to demands from Nick Clegg to reform drug policy … and will Clegg follow through with his demands? Cameron says he is prepared to work with Nick Clegg and said they "want to put aside party differences and work hard for the common good and for the national interest". Luckily for Nick Clegg, David Cameron is one of the few Conservatives who may be open to drug law reform. Cameron is not the typical Tory but is open to gay rights, climate change and other so called lefty views. He has also admitted to taking drugs in his youth. 

Prescription Heroin
The UK is the only country to have never stopped prescription heroin and cocaine for addicts although it rarely happens these days. Unlike most countries that outlawed heroin under pressure from the UN/US, the UK kept prescribing heroin to addicts up until the 1960s. There was virtually no black market for heroin and drug crime was almost unheard of. In 1960, there were less than 100 heroin addicts and fewer than 500 abusers of all drugs, a stark difference to the US that had thousands of heroin addicts and ten times as many drug abusers. The UK drug problem was non existent in politics as addiction was a medical issue treated by doctors.

Between 1979 and 1984, seizures of illegal drugs went up tenfold, incarcerated drug offenders went up fourfold, and the consumption of heroin increased by 350 percent—but heroin prices decreased by 20 percent.

The growing drug culture of the 1960s and several rouge doctors who prescribed massive amounts of heroin, cocaine and other drugs started to get the attention of the government and police. This led to changes in the prescribing of maintenance drugs and methadone became the preferred treatment. Doctors now had to have special licences to prescribe heroin for addicts.

The UK has just finished a scientific trial to analyse the benefits of prescribing heroin and cocaine to long term addicts. The final results reflected the success of other trials overseas and gave legitimacy to the “British System” that has been operating since 1920. It is becoming clearer why giving long term addicts their drug of addiction, kept their drug problem in the 1960s at a fraction of what it was overseas and what it is today.

Prescription heroin for addicts has proved highly successful in every trial to date, is much more accepted than what it once was and doesn’t require the UK parliament to pass any special new laws. With pressure from Nick Clegg, it will most probably become part of the UK’s drug policy.

Future Drug Policies
The Liberal Democrats also favour the Dutch system of cannabis coffee shops. With the growing evidence that today’s extra strong, hydroponic “Skunk” is lacking the balance of cannabinoids and THC, a regulated system would bring back the less dangerous strains of cannabis. Anti-cannabis pundits keep overlooking the fact that prohibition is responsible for drug dealers producing stronger and more profitable dope.

Nick Clegg might also push for decriminalisation or legalisation of all drugs for personal use. Radical changes like this might prove a tad too much for conservatives but it is a growing trend worldwide. Germany, Italy, Spain, The Czech Republic, The Netherlands, Mexico and Portugal have all decriminalised or altered drug policies to let those caught with small amounts of all drugs to avoid jail or even arrest. There are many more countries on the verge of implementing similar policies including Poland, Brazil, Argentina etc.

The Government should either listen to its experts or save money by appointing a committee of tabloid newspaper editors instead.

The most important reform supported by Nick Clegg is the revamping of the drug scheduling system. The sacking of Prof. David Nutt from the The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) for simply telling the truth and suggesting a change to drug scheduling has attracted much public and academic debate about the role of science in government policy decisions. An overhaul of the scheduling system would see drugs analysed by evidence rather than the media and public drug hysteria. This will have a profound impact on the world as it brings into question the existing schedules for other countries which are not based on science or evidence but political posturing, the media and moral crusaders.

Base drugs policy on scientific evidence. 
The Liberal Democrats will always base drugs policy on the independent scientific advice of experts. This will involve making the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) completely independent of Government. We will also spend less police and court time on the unnecessary prosecution of users and addicts, with a focus instead on getting addicts the treatment they need. Police attention should focus on drug pushers, who will be made easier to prosecute by the introduction a new offence of “drug dealing”.



Related Articles


Saturday, 1 May 2010

UK Royal College of Nursing Calls for Free Heroin

The call for heroin assisted treatment (HAT) around the world is growing stronger every year. As more and more evidence is brought forward showing the clear advantages for longer term addicts, the more that it becomes accepted. Even the public are warming to the idea. Of course, the big question is whether Australia will follow the lead from other successful countries or continue with it's nondescript anti-drug campaign.

If you're listening Kev and Nic ... it's time to follow the evidence.


Prescribe Heroin on NHS, says Royal College of Nursing leader
By David Rose, Health Correspondent
April 26, 2010

Heroin should be routinely prescribed on the NHS as a way of weaning drug users off their addiction, the head of the country’s top nursing union has said.

Peter Carter, the general secretary of the Royal College of Nursing (RCN), also said he was in favour of “drug consumption rooms” to enable addicts to take drugs safely under medical supervision, and to cut rates of drug-related crime.

Nurses gathering at the RCN’s annual congress in Bournemouth had earlier discussed providing heroin to addicts where other attempts at treatment have failed.

Results of pilot studies in London, Brighton and Darlington suggest that allowing users to inject themselves with the Class A drug under medical supervision can cut local crime rates by two-thirds over six months. Aberdeen has been considered as a potential future pilot location in Scotland.

But some experts are concerned at the prospect of providing legitimate “shooting galleries” in publically-funded clinics, despite the increasing use of methadone, the heroin-subsitute, and a lack of abstinence-based programmes.

Amid controversy over how to treat chronic drug users, members of the RCN, the country’s largest nursing union, discussed the possibility of providing heroin on the NHS today but did not hold a vote for or against the move.

Speaking in a personal capacity after the debate, Dr Carter, the former head of Central and North West London Mental Health NHS Trust, said that he believed in providing drugs, needle exchanges and locations for users to inject substances safely.

“The fact is heroin is very addictive,” he said. “People who are addicted so often resort to crime, to steal to buy the heroin. It obviates the need for them to steal.

“It might take a few years but I think people will understand that if you are going to get people off heroin then in the initial stages we have to have proper heroin prescribing services.” Dr Carter added that more research was needed into consumption rooms, which have been tested in Sydney and Amsterdam.

Experts found the programme stopped users injecting in school playgrounds and stairwells.

“Critics say you are encouraging drug addiction but the reality is that these people are addicts and they are going to do it anyway,” he added.

Radical proposals for the most chronic drug users were first advocated in 2002 by the then Home Secretary David Blunkett. The gave rise to pilot programmes in England in which users inject themselves with pharmaceutical diamorphine imported from Switzerland, under medical supervision.

Preliminary results suggest that of 127 users involved in the pilots, three-quarters “substantially reduced” their use of street drugs, while their spending on drugs fell from £300 to £50 a week. The number of crimes they committed also fell from 1,731 in three months to 547 in six months.

Delegates at the RCN congress Claire Topham-Brown, a nurse from Cambridgeshire proposed the motion for today’s debate, saying that that medical heroin could be provided as a means of “harm-reduction” which despite initial resistance by health professionals, “has now become an accepted model of practice”.

But some nurses disagreed. Gayle Brooks, of the union’s UK safety representatives committee, said: “Where would this stop, cannabis, cocaine, crack cocaine and other illicit substances? If we do this for heroin, do we have to do this for other substances, and can the NHS afford this?”

All three main political parties in Britain have stressed the importance of alternative treatments for long-term drug addicts in the run-up to the election.

While the number of heroin addicts needing treatment has decreased in recent years, almost 200,000 people receive methadone each year.

Recent guidance from the Department of Health made clear that prisoners serving sentences of more than six months should be encouraged to become “drug-free” — of prescribed and illegal substances — while in jail.

The Times has highlighted concerns about numbers who may emerge from the criminal justice system with an addiction to methadone; almost 20,000 inmates were put on the drug last year, a rise of 57 per cent since 2008.

Harry Shapiro, a spokesman for the charity Drugscope, said it would support moves towards “a balanced treatment system, with a range of different treatment options”, including providing heroin for a minority of users who met strict criteria for treatment.

“These are people who have been using for a long time and where previous attempts including rehabilitation had failed,” he added. “The results can be encouraging in that this can help people engage in treatment and control their chaotic lives.”

Doctors could regularly prescribe reduced heroin and cocaine to recovering drug addicts until 1968, when the practise required a Home Office license.

Dr Neil McKechnie, of Glasgow University, said any national programme to increase heroin provision on the NHS was “an extraordinary risky proposal”. “Where it is tightly controlled and prescribed to a very small group of addicts — 1 per cent of users — there may be some who can benefit, but we should be wary of a creeping extension of this, as happened with methadone.

“The vast majority of people on methadone are continuing to use illegal drugs, and by definition they are failing on their treatment.

“Most people would say that treatment for drug addiction is about getting people off drugs rather than giving them easy access to drugs.”

Full results from the pilots, overseen by the National Addiction Centre at King’s College London, will be published with the next couple of months.

Sunday, 18 April 2010

Giving Free Drugs to Addicts

What is more important? Stopping; violent crime, theft, robberies, drug overdoses, thousands being murdered in drug wars, the spread of HIV and HCV etc. or trying to stop drug addicts getting high? History has revealed 2 things - you can’t have both and trying to stop society from using drugs simply does not work. So, which would you choose? ... stopping associated crime and violence or stopping users getting high?

I’m sure most rational people would prefer to cut out nasty social ills like robberies, HIV, HCV, violence and murder but I am just as sure that some muffins would be so anti-drug that they would refuse to answer or try to change the question. 

Most informed people already know that prohibition causes crime and violence whilst not having much success at lowering drug use but how about the public? Do they know this or do they simply find it difficult to acknowledge due to decades of misinformation from the authorities? Is legalisation or handing out free drugs to addicts just too radical for the everyday citizen even if it cut crime rates by half and changes society dramatically for the better? According to a recent survey by McNair Ingenuity Research, 66% of Australians think people would be more likely to try or use drugs if legalised but only 5% confess that they would indulge. 

One of the survey’s most interesting results concerned what people thought would happen if illegal drugs were decriminalized. Although only 3% of people said they would personally use drugs more often, 62% said they thought other people would. The results were similar when we asked whether you’d be more likely to try drugs at all (only 5% said they would, but 66% thought others would).

It seems we define the people who can’t be trusted with drugs as everyone but ourselves.

-Kirsten Drysdale - Hungry Beast. ABC TV

Giving drugs to drug addicts is not new. Most western countries supply highly addictive opioids like methadone, buprenorphine and suboxone to heroin addicts. Other countries give out Slow Release Oral Morphine (SROM) and even free heroin. These programs are heavily regulated and restricted to opiate abuse like heroin because opioids are basically non toxic. The most success has come from supplying heroin to long term addicts who have failed repeatedly in other treatment programs. The success or prescription heroin has prompted a growing trend for drug experts to push this strategy. 

The main problem is that many addicts don’t qualify for the program because of the strict guidelines and heroin is the only targeted drug (a limited number of cocaine addicts were also given their drug of choice in the latest UK scientific trial). What about those who missed out on the trials or those who are just not “hard core” enough to make it to a permanent program? What about users of cocaine, methamphetamines and prescription medications? Once again it seems that politics and ideology are robbing addicts of valuable treatment options. 

As an addict in Vancouver for 38 years I was certain I would have no problem attending the program. It seems they only took Downtown addicts which gave them a very limited demographic and my calls went from wait to forget it. You could contact the NAOMI people if you want info but you'll be searching through an unpublished project.I hope you discuss parameters as most trials make getting off of heroin a prerequisite, which kills the project as you may well imagine. Harm reduction and working and happy clients should be the goal.Don't let them set you up to fail. 
-Comment by Terry McKinney. Vancouver BC (28/05/2008) - The Australian Heroin Diaries

How imbecilic can we be when we know that most established addicts will use street drugs everyday but the idea of government supplying safe and free drugs is simply out of the question. Up will come that old argument that dishing out illicit drugs is dangerous to their health and we should be trying to get people off drugs, not encouraging them. These reasons might be fine in prohibition utopia where drugs can be eliminated but not in the harsh realms of reality. And that’s the problem. The people who make these important decisions aspire to a “Drug-Free World” which has more chance of being a Disneyland theme park than materialising on planet earth.

I was in Canberra when the trial was set to happen. Now a decade later, failed relationships, failed uni attempt, lost employment and still raging habit, i often wonder where i'd be now if it had've gone ahead. damn howard! i wrote to chief minister stanhope last year at 3am, hanging out, begging for him to think about another try. 6 wks later he replied (shock horror) and said he was 100% behind it, but couldnt do anything til howard was gone. well hes gone.......Methinks its time i start emailing again :) 
-Comment by plzHoldSteady (22/01/2008) - The Australian Heroin Diaries

I always wonder how many lives we could have saved and how many addicts would now be clean if the proposed ACT heroin trials weren’t poo-pooed by Howard. Given the success from every heroin trial overseas, it must be quite a few. Imagine how many lives we could save or change for the better if skipped the strict criteria for candidates of prescription heroin. What if we simply opened it up to anyone who has been on methadone for more than a year or had attended a rehabilitation program and failed? And what if we supplied all dangerous drugs like ice, cocaine, heroin etc. and even ecstasy and other drugs that can be contaminated with filler products? What is the real downfall of this idea compared to the benefits? The same groups would continue to use the same drugs and those who don’t use drugs would continue to abstain. The sky would not fall in and societal chaos would not engulf mankind. Some dedicated users might increase their intake but many more will take advantage of extra treatment options and quit using drugs. 

I don’t think the public has correctly been told what would happen to their surroundings if illicit drugs were distributed by the government or legalised. The most obvious effect is that crime would drop by about half and several billion dollars would be saved every year. This are not just a slight decrease in costs or small improvements but massive, unparalleled changes to crime rates and government spending. Whole police departments used to fighting drug crimes would be relocated to other, understaffed divisions ... including more cops on the street. The back log in courts would eliminated. Huge percentage drops in overdoses and deaths. Organised crime losing their most profitable source of illegal income. Prison populations dropping so much that not only won’t new jails be required in the near future but some actually might shut down. Dangerous meth labs would almost cease to exist. You would be able to buy flu tablets with pseudoephedrine again without having to produce your passport, a personal reference from an astronaut or leaving your first born as collateral. Convenience store workers, pharmacy staff and train travellers  won’t have to worry about desperate junkies robbing them anymore as they will cease to exist. The CourierMail, Adelaide Advertiser, Daily Telegraph etc. will have to expand their subject matter or lose 8-10 pages. The quality of drug education will improve ten fold. Young adults will no longer be so susceptible to a permanent criminal record. Teen drug use will drop as the mystique of drugs will be gone as well as unscrupulous drug dealers who don’t ask for age ID. The problem of alcohol will be addressed more rigourously and classed as a dangerous drug. And so on...

Ironically, easier access to drugs will improve life for users and addicts. Their health will greatly improve and many of them will be able to work once again. They will be able to re-establish relationships with their families and no longer run the risk of being imprisoned. Many of the health issues for drug addicts are the result of prohibition, especially for heroin users. Opiates including heroin are basically non toxic and can taken for decades with very few physical problems. Haven’t you ever wondered why street junkies on heroin look sick but those on pain medication look normal? They are both taking the same sort of drug but the most visible heroin addicts in society often don’t eat very healthily, sleep where ever they can, have very few clean clothes and are more focussed on dodging the police and paying for their next hit. Take away the high cost and the stigma attached to drug addiction and they get to live much more productive lives. In the countries where heroin is prescribed to addicts, there has been substantial improvements in their health and personal lives. Most of them cease any criminal activities and many find work. 

The big question is - why are other countries looking into evidence based strategies like heroin assisted treatment and related programs while Australia keeps regurgitating tired, old drug policies that fail every year?



New Approach To Drugs Seeks Footing In Costa Rica
April 2010

The drug debate in Latin America has started to shift.

For decades, possession and addiction in the Americas have been treated with a zero tolerance policy. Efforts to slow drug use have largely centered on arresting and punishing users.

But packed jails, overburdened court systems, and a growing consensus that the war on drugs is failing are transforming the discussion.

In August, 2009, Argentina's Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional to prosecute people for possession of drugs for personal use. One month later, Colombia's high court issued a similar ruling.

In Peru and Bolivia, there are now small clinics that give cocoa leaves to crack addicts in order to manage and lessen their addiction. Bolivia's President, Evo Morales, has asked the United Nations to eliminate the narcotics label on the coca plant.

Now, in Costa Rica, high-ranking officials are joining the tolerance dialogue.

In March, Costa Rica's Chief Prosecutor, Francisco Dall'Anese, proposed offering free drugs to addicts as a way to compete with dealers. Squeezing in between the addict and the supplier to offer a cheap alternative would “break” the finances of drug pushers and “reduce demand,” he told the Spanish–language daily La NaciĂ³n.

“Here, what we would do is preempt the business of drug dealing,” he said.

The reasoning behind the proposal is fairly simple. By stopping the flow of income to drug dealers and eradicating the addict's need to steal in order to buy another fix, crime rates should drop.

This idea is not revolutionary. Countries in North America and Europe have used harm reduction techniques such as methadone clinics for years to treat heroin addiction.

These efforts have been regarded as successful in reducing crime and curving addiction by medical journals.

Dall'Anese's proposal, though, does represent a fundamental shift in Costa Rican drug policy, as providing addicts with free, chemical substitutes would take the drug addiction problem out of the hands of law enforcement and place it at the doorstep of public health officials.


Related Articles

Tuesday, 23 February 2010

Heroin Clinic Opens In Denmark

Great news from Europe as Denmark finally opens the doors for their heroin assisted treatment (HAT) program. There was rumour of takeaway doses being allowed for the first time but it seems that again, political pressure from the right was too much. Patients diverting their heroin doses has been a concern for all HAT programs worldwide but logic is just too difficult for some when it comes to drugs. The simple truth is that, unlike methadone, patients have no incentive to sell their takeaway dose. Those who sell their methadone or buprenorphine, do so to buy heroin but why would a HAT patient sell their pharmaceutical quality heroin only to buy back street grade drugs? And it’s not like someone can bluff their way into a place on the program who doesn’t really need their daily heroin dose so they can on-sell it. I would dare say that takeaway doses of heroin would be guarded more carefully than the patient’s spouse.

It’s time the Australian government looked into HAT again now that John Howard has been banish to the great halls of shame. Whether Kevin Rudd also has deluded personal views on HAT should now be irrelevant as the verdict is in and two decades of mostly excellent results has shown this program to be highly successful. Even a trial is unnecessary. There is no longer any reasonable unknowns to argue against introducing a HAT program into Australia without sounding like John Howard and Bronwyn Bishop’s spotty faced love child. 


First Free Heroin Clinic Opens In Denmark
February 2010

COPENHAGEN — After years of contention, Denmark on Monday opened its first clinic equipped to distribute free heroin under medical supervision to people heavily addicted to the drug.

The Scandinavian country joins a number of countries like Switzerland, the Netherlands and Germany to allow prescriptions for medicinal heroin, or diamorphine, to be written out to a small group of addicts so hooked on the substance that more traditional substitutes like methadone have no effect.

The clinic is set to serve only 120 of some 300 hard-core heroin addicts, or only about one percent of all drug addicts in the country.

"Our objective is not to cure heroin addicts, but to help those who are not satisfied by methadone by providing them with clean heroin, allowing them to avoid disease and the temptation of criminal acts to obtain the drug," a doctor and head of the clinic Inger Nielsen told AFP.

Only addicts who have been referred from a methadone centre for treatment and who voluntarily request to enter the clinic will be permitted to participate in the programme, Nielsen said.

They will be treated with methadone for the first 14 days "so we can determine how much heroin to prescribe," she added.

The Danish parliament passed a law legalising the distribution of medicinal heroin in 2008, but the opening of the clinic was delayed until the city of Copenhagen agreed to house the programme.

The User Association, a group representing drug addicts, remains critical, blasting that patients are required to go to the clinic twice a day, seven days a week, to receive their doses.

"This means living like a zombie, without being able to hold down a job or study or have hobbies," head of the association Joergen Kjaer told reporters.


Related Articles