Tuesday, 2 June 2009

Journalist's Shame


What sort of headline is Heroin Addicts Shame and what are the authors, Laurie Nowell and Evonne Barry trying to imply? It appears to be a dig at how much drug treatment for heroin addiction is costing the tax payer. The big question is why? Why criticise the number of addicts seeking treatment?

They point out that the number of prescriptions for methadone, buprenorphine and Suboxone nearly tripled from about 2.4 million in 1992 to almost seven million in 2007. Isn’t this a good trend? It appears not. The article throws around a lot of damning figures and statistics that can be interpreted several ways. The most obvious factor to me is that all attempts to stop drug use have failed. Another interpretation is that heroin use is on the rise after a lull preceded by a high that followed a low taking over from an increase from a previous dip. In other words, heroin use went up and down. I think the intention is more sinister though. Most of these figures have been reported on previously but it’s the blurring of heroin and other illicit drugs that make this article confusing. Is it really about the increase of heroin users or just a stab at all drug users. Then there’s this beauty:
Experts say Victoria's "social time bomb" will have costly effects during the next decade.
No self respecting, hysterical reporter writing about drugs would leave out a potential apocalyptic future. In what seems like an afterthought, the above line was slotted in with no reference to anything else. It just appears in a separate paragraph below some statistics on drug driving (excluding heroin) and a line stating an increase in heroin overdoses. Who are the “experts” mentioned and what is the reference point? The answer lies in a previous article by one of the authors back in August 2008, Drugs Leading Victoria To Crisis by Laurie Nowell. Maybe he assumes we read all of his articles? What it does uncover though is that Laurie Nowell has a knack for sensational stories.

For an article that is meant to shame heroin addicts, it’s strange that the authors include this quote from a pharmacist who dispenses methadone.
We have a lot of professional people . . . teachers, lawyers. It's a very wide spectrum of people. A lot of them are very decent people who have just made bad decisions and have an illness -- and addiction is an illness.
- Darryl Bason: inner-city pharmacist
Why include a comment that contradicts the headline and doesn’t support the idea that heroin addicts deserve contempt? That’s just one of several questions that needs an answer. Like, why criticise addicts seeking treatment? Why include other drugs that are declining in use? Why use drug-driving statistics that don’t include heroin? Lets use our imagination for a minute. The article was either drafted first with no idea what the point was or the authors didn’t have enough material so they added in what ever they could find or the headline was added later by a supervisor because it wasn’t going to be published or Laurie Nowell has been designated the job of sensationalising heroin. Maybe all of the above?

In an attempt to rescue a pointless article, the authors, Laurie Nowell and Evonne Barry have cruelly and publicly degraded a small section of the community who already suffer ignominy and alienation. But it seems that Laurie Nowell has a reputation for being “creative” in his reporting especially with sensitive issues. Here are some examples:
Clearly reporter Laurie Nowell made no effort to research the Mufti or didn’t care about the points listed below

I hope there is a way for Laurie Nowell to read your account and be informed. It is insulting for him to spread his tripe - does he honestly think that readers will believe his Pollyanna account of Fehmi's creed and actions. I thought journalists were supposed to look under the surface of events - he has just seen the dust on the elephant, but not described the the elephant.

Laurie Nowell should be reprimanded by the Herald Sun for his sloppy journalism.
and
Laurie Powell didn't even get that part right. Stories like this, don't help the mens rights and they certainly don't help Laurie Powell who doesn't mind telling a few lies to get published.
[...]
Then there was this garbage which contained lies yet again by Laurie Nowell.
and
How can an article with no names, dates that don’t make sense and is the most read article on the day, ever get past your editors or the authorities for that matter. Laurie Nowell might as well be making up the news.
-Comment by Reader about a Laurie Nowell article - So The False Claims Worked
and
LOL at "coma in a bottle", these journo's have no idea, constantly making up these bullshit slang names just to help illustrate the purpose of their shitty, shitty articles. I bet if it weren't for articles like this, half the people currently importing GBL wouldn't even know about it.
-Comment by Reader about a Laurie Nowell article - Blue Light
and
May I add to Barge of Brisbane's comment ... where the bloody hell does Laurie Nowell live? He obviously doesn't write from a national perspective. I reside in Denmark WA. My two 13500 litre house water tanks and about to overflow after an abundance of wet weather recently (its raining as I write) In fact much of WA has benefited from wide spread rain. Ditto Queensland and northern NSW. So did the journalist sitting in his Melbourne media headquarters just fake his story after a quick phone around? Is Nowell part of the Global Warming scare story that will benefit a few at the expense of many? A familiar pattern is developing, instill fear into the electorate that will allow Penny Wong and her ministry to institute drastic measures while pointing to questionable media items such as Nowell's to justify their actions. Is it any wonder Australians are sceptical of stories put on them by journalists and politicians ?
Laurie Nowell was even dragged into court for his “creative” reporting - Newspaper Criticised For Heroin Ship Stories

I’m not sure what input Evonne Barry contributed to the article and it may just be that since she is a health reporter for News Ltd, her name was added automatically. Maybe she provided some of the statistics or research? Either way, adding her name to such a ridiculous article will not help her credibility.

Laurie Nowell likes exciting stories as shown by his headlines. And like most Murdoch reporters, he has a job to do and papers to sell. Whether the articles are accurate or unbiased is secondary at the News Ltd money making factory. Do these headlines ring a bell?:


Maybe “Heroin Addicts Shame” is his best yet. It’s sure to resonate with HeraldSun readers and keep the public hostile towards drug addicts and users. But that’s not his problem, drug addicts are shameful remember and those seeking help are a burden on the government’s finances. He has done his job and all is good at the HeraldSun.

What ever did happened to media responsibility? What ever happened to a journalist’s integrity? Are there so many second rate media outlets now that sloppy journalist can always find a job? You can thank John Howard for our disgraceful media ownership laws where someone like Murdoch can own major newspapers in every state. It appears that infotainment is here to stay and one person’s political bias or social views can be pushed into every corner of Australia. Worst still, is the acceptance of trash media in our lives and shoddy journalists like Laurie Nowell are the source of information for millions of people. No wonder the anti-drug propaganda that started decades ago is still accepted as fact when the media continues to publish articles like “Heroin Addicts Shame”.

Heroin Addicts Shame
By Laurie Nowell and Evonne Barry
May 2009

AUSTRALIA'S escalating heroin epidemic is now costing the taxpayer $100 million a year.

There are now almost 50,000 heroin addicts receiving taxpayer-funded treatment in Australia as the illicit drug epidemic returns to a scale not seen since the 1980s.

Victoria has recorded the greatest increase in addicts of any state, with almost 12,000 - a number that has more than doubled since 1998 - and now costs the taxpayer more than $22 million for treatments.

An analysis released this week of PBS data has found the number of prescriptions for methadone and other heroin recovery drugs in Australia almost tripled from about 2.4 million in 1992 to almost seven million in 2007.

In June last year there were more than 41,000 drug addicts receiving treatment and that figure is estimated to have risen since then.

A dose of methadone costs, on average, $5 and with almost 50,000 addicts receiving one a day, the cost to the nation's health system has doubled in a decade.

The increase in addicts has accelerated since 2000, according to the study by Sydney's Drug Health Service at Royal Prince Alfred Hospital and the University of New South Wales.

Report author Amber Jefferson said about 27,500 - or about two-thirds of addicts being treated -- were male.

She said about 65 per cent of addicts received treatment drugs from private prescribers -- 85 per cent of them in pharmacies.

But the reality of heroin addiction did not fit the stereotype, inner-city pharmacist Darryl Bason said.

"We have a lot of professional people . . . teachers, lawyers. It's a very wide spectrum of people," Mr Bason said. "A lot of them are very decent people who have just made bad decisions and have an illness -- and addiction is an illness."

Mr Bason said about 130 people were being treated for heroin addiction at his pharmacy.

About 70 per cent of addicts were receiving methadone and the remainder the more expensive buprenorphine or buprenorphine/naloxone.

Data from the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine released late last year showed Melbourne had become the nation's drug capital.

Results from the state's world-first drug-drive testing program showed an increase in drivers affected by amphetamines and cannabis.

Of drivers killed in road accidents, 15 per cent tested positive to cannabis and about 8 per cent to stimulants such as amphetamines and pseudoephedrine - figures that have tripled since 2003.

Recent tests showed one in 50 drivers randomly tested were found to have illegal drugs in their system.

And heroin overdose deaths have increased, with about 90 last year.

Experts say Victoria's "social time bomb" will have costly effects during the next decade.

Another study, comparing key police lock-ups across the country, found more than half those detained in Footscray were heroin users.

The Australian Institute of Criminology study found the next highest rate of heroin use was 15 per cent in Brisbane, then 12 per cent at Parramatta and Adelaide.

The study also found more than 73 per cent of detainees at Footscray tested positive to an illicit drug - mostly heroin or benzodiazepines (tranquillisers).

All those arrested for robbery, car theft, possession of drugs or as a result of a warrant tested positive to illegal drugs. And 80 per cent of those arrested for selling drugs were users.


Saturday, 30 May 2009

Germany Passes Prescription Heroin into Law

For years Germany has endured criticism and warnings about their heroin trials from the outdated International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) and the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) Yesterday, the German parliament essentially snubbed the warnings and voted to include heroin assisted treatment (HAT) as part of their official drug policy. Since the INCB condemns drug addiction and expressly forbids HAT, Germany had to previously conduct their heroin trials using a special clause for scientific research. Article 4 of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs “requires nations to limit use and possession of drugs to medicinal and scientific purposes”. It’s the same clause that the Sydney Medically Supervised Injecting Centre (MSIC) has had to operate under for the last 10 years. All of the countries conducting heroin trials or with MSIC programs have come under relentless criticism from UNODC and the INCB including threats. Australia backed out of a heroin trial after US diplomats and the INCB threatened the Tasmania poppy industry. Luckily for many European countries, the UN/US do not have any bargaining chips to threaten them with. Recently, Switzerland and Denmark both ignored the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs and passed HAT into law. Now Germany has joined them.

Is this the beginning of the end for the US/UN dominance over worldwide drug policies? Will this lead to Canada and Spain - who had very successful heroin trials - to establish HAT at the risk of upsetting the US/UN? What about Australia? What about the UK who already have the capacity to prescribe heroin to addicts and are currently finishing off a very successful heroin trial? Will common sense, evidence based research and this growing trend finally tip over the various governments who have considered HAT? With HAT now showing more success than abstinence only treatment, methadone, buprenorphine and Suboxone for long term users, it’s going to be hard for governments to reject. That’s the theory anyway.

German Addicts To Get Synthetic Heroin As Prescription Drug

Earth News

May 2009

Berlin - Long-term drug addicts in Germany will soon be able to obtain synthetic heroin on prescription, under a new law approved by parliament on Thursday. Thousands of addicts are expected to benefit from the legislation reclassifying diamorphine as a legally prescribed controlled drug.

Under the terms of the law, addicts aged 23 or older will be able to obtain diamorphine on prescription at special centres and take it under the supervision of trained personnel.

The programme will apply only to people addicted to opiates for more than 5 years who have unsuccessfully taken parts in rehab programmes at least twice.

The legislation follows a pilot project conducted on more than 1,000 addicts in seven German cities between 2002-2006.

The study showed the health of addicts who took diamorphine improved more frequently than it did for those treated with the heroin substitute methadone.

A spokesman for Chancellor Angela Merkel's conservative, who opposed the legislation, warned that up to 80,000 addicts could take advantage of the new scheme, while drug experts put the figure at 2,000 to 3,000.

Related Articles:

What Does Prescription Heroin Really Mean for Junkies?

Another Successful Heroin Trial - Canada

Prescribed Heroin Project 'Promising'

Heroin Assisted Treatment Winning Approval in Europe

Denmark - More Prescription Heroin Programs for Addicts

Who Supports a Heroin Trial?

All articles on prescription heroin

Thursday, 28 May 2009

Miranda Devine Vs. Reality

Miranda Devine Going Ape Shit
What is it with Miranda Devine and reality? Is she really that far detached from the real world? Every time the Sydney Morning Herald publishes her ramblings about illicit drugs, the more obvious the answer becomes. Every drug related article by Devine that I have read reeks of ultra conservative ideology and is hellbent on pushing the "War on Drugs" mentality. This is not some concerned citizen nobly defending society from drug crazed junkies but a hardcore zealot using deceit and the media to pursue her ultra right wing views. Most worrying is that she is free to proselytise her flimsy views via a national platform like the Sydney Morning Herald. Considering her conservative, apocryphal articles and the quality of her information, it’s surprising that that her rants are not under the corporate umbrella of News Ltd.


And where does she get her information from? In her latest article, Addicts Say Abstinence Sets Them Free, Devine once again, takes deceit to a whole new level. The assumptions are brain chilling and much of her information is simply wrong. For example, Cabramatta police turning a blind eye to drug dealers? Very few options for addicts apart from Opiate Substitution Treatment (OST) like methadone? Abstinence is a dirty word in the AOD treatment industry? The biggest advocates for drug prohibition are former addicts? An addict’s last hope is naltrexone implants? The “methadone industry” benefits greatly from a large number of patients? Nearly every point Devine makes is a fantasy dreamt up to support the “drug free world” illusion. This is not worthy of publication in Mad Magazine let alone the Sydney Morning Herald.
Devine argues that Opiate Substitution Treatment (OST) like methadone is evil and abstinence only programs are unfairly being ignored by a greedy, self serving “methadone industry”. The attack includes her old favourites, Harm Minimisation and the NSW government whilst flying the flag for the "War on Drugs". It’s standard fare for Miranda Devine.
But abstinence has no place in the curiously monocultural drug and alcohol world of NSW
-Addicts Say Abstinence Sets Them Free by Miranda Devine - Sydney Morning Herald
So what is the basis for Devine's article? Believe it or not, it’s a few recovering drug addicts who disagree with the mainstream. Three out of hundreds of thousands who have benefited from OST, declare they were not happy being on methadone and buprenorphine. I know first hand that methadone or buprenorphine is not for everyone but that’s not unusual for any medication or treatment. But the facts speak for themselves. Opiate Substitution Treatment (OST) is the most successful treatment we have readily available for opiate addiction. That’s not to say that abstinence only treatment doesn’t have a place in recovery but unless an addict is 100% ready to quit, it’s pointless. Devine's solution is naltrexone implants. Whilst implanting naltrexone is fine for some, pushing patients into this treatment has shown to have dire consequences including death. Devine and co. feel that being totally drug free should be the only goal of drug treatment including programs like the Narcotics Anonymous(NA) 12 steps program, drug free detox centres and of course naltrexone implants. But this model of abstinence only treatment has really only been mainstream since prohibition where before that, the actual drug of addiction was prescribed to the addict until they were ready to quit. It seemed to work very well until the conservative, religious loonies got involved. Now many decades on and with a world where abstinence treatments compete heavily for the this lucrative market, addiction rates remain as they were a hundred years ago when they first stared recording these statistics. The big difference is the number of relapsing patients thanks to abstinence only programs.
Reuben, too, was prescribed methadone when he sought help for his addiction. He was given no other option but to accept addiction for life, a slave every day to the methadone clinic he hated.
-Addicts Say Abstinence Sets Them Free by Miranda Devine - Sydney Morning Herald
It’s difficult to examine the example addicts in Devine's article without knowing more details. The story of Sam being put on buprenorphine appears inappropriate but ironically, once out of jail he was back on heroin. Both Sam and Rueben have only been clean for less than 8 months which is way too early to examine their success. The real danger comes when their naltrexone implants stop working and they relapse. With no tolerance to opiates, even a tiny dose of heroin will kill them. But that’s not important. What counts to Devine and co. is that these addicts are now clean and whether they relapse and die doesn’t matter.
Methadone
Three grumpy, recovering heroin addicts does not compete with the success of OST. Methadone Maintenance Treatment(MMT) was never meant to be a cure for heroin addiction but a way to stabilise a patient’s life. It removed the insatiable need to feed their addiction every day which often involved crime. It allows time to re access priorities and slide back into society giving addicts the chance to work and function like everyone else. Using methadone as a holding treatment until the patient is ready to start a decline in dose wasn’t the standard practice until the last few decades. This has lead to a popular belief that those who don’t completely stop methadone are not successful. And that’s where Miranda Devine’s article fails once again. To ignorant, moral conservatives like Devine, abstinence should be the only goal and methadone is seen as some sort of excuse that just keeps a patient addicted. She is either unwilling to allow medical facts and logic to overcome her conservative views or she’s just thick. The other option is she doesn’t really care and is simply a dickhead.
Devine uses psychologist Ross Colquhoun to back up her argument against methadone. Colquhoun makes some remarkable statements and assumptions that plainly show how wrong Devine is.
The Government does not have an exit strategy for people on methadone, who they are prepared to leave addicted for ever
-Dr. Ross Colquhoun
This is simply a lie but it’s not uncommon for anti-Harm Minimisation zealots to take myths and declare they are facts. It’s only recently that doctors have started to rethink their strategy for some methadone patients. Nearly all patients were weaned off their dose over a period of time but doctors have started to concentrate on keeping some patients stable and maintaining a steady dose. Contrary to Colquhoun’s claim, most MMT patients still have a reducing dose with the goal of abstinence.
Methadone has a place in treatment in the short term but many people grow out of it and want to get on with their lives
-Dr. Ross Colquhoun
Methadone was never meant to be a short term treatment but with pressure from anti-drug groups and tossers like Colquhoun, the push was on to produce results. For naive governments and abstinence only supporters, success meant addicts being totally clean. There was no room to count rehabilitation whilst on MMT as a success as it only muddied their results. This lead to pushing addicts thorough the system quicker. Being on treatment wasn’t enough, they wanted clean, fully recovered patients regardless of relapse. You probably have heard it before from politicians who call methadone, "liquid handcuffs" or claim addicts are just swapping one addiction for another. A recent announcement from Scotland said that they were considering the removal of MMT and replacing it with abstinence only programs. The reason was of course that too many addicts were still on methadone. Bronwyn Bishop and John Howard have made a point of it, Fred Nile raised it in parliament, John McCain tried to introduce a similar bill in the US and several UK politicians have pushed for it. All of these attempts are based on ignorance and winning popularity. The fact is, OST has helped millions of people worldwide and is accepted by addiction specialists as the best solution currently available.
Naltrexone
I have experienced Rapid Opiate Detoxification (ROD) and naltrexone first hand. Luckily for me, the naltrexone was administered by taking a pill each day because after 3 days, I had a bad reaction and had to stop taking it. If it was an implant, I probably would have taken the same course of action like many others and cut it out myself with a razor blade. The ROD was the worst experience of my life which left me almost comatose for 2 months. So what was the problem? Apart from being on a high dose of methadone, naltrexone didn’t agree with me. Those pushed into naltrexone implants don’t have the easy option to simply stop taking a pill and must request that it be removed surgically. Fat chance of that. The main problem with naltrexone implants is the risk of overdose. If the patient does cut it out or the implant ceases to work, they are left with no tolerance to opiates which means their next hit of heroin might be their last. There are dozens of cases of death from overdose after naltrexone treatment and usually from those who were coerced into receiving the implants. 
What most people don’t know is that naltrexone implants have not been approved by the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA).  For 10 years, the biggest clinic in WA which is funded by the government, still has to get a special permit to operate because the implants have not been approved yet. The clinic, Fresh Start is using a clause in health legislation that allows experimental treatments for life-threatening conditions. There have been many articles and reports criticising the practice but the faithful continue to praise the treatment as the only way forward for opiate addiction. The push for naltrexone implants comes from several dedicated anti-Harm Minimisation warriors including Drug Free Australia (DFA), Bronwyn Bishop, Dr. Stuart Reece and Dr. George O’Neil. The latter two being owners of addiction treatment centres who specialise in these implants. Reece was once charged with the deaths of 25 patients and was investigated for treating a pregnant addict although naltrexone implants were never cleared for use during pregnancy. Both Reece and O’Neil are opponents of needle exchanges, OST and even promoting condoms for safe sex. They frequently use quotes from the bible and other religious symbolism in their quest for abstinence only treatments and Reece even went as far as saying that “Jesus cures addiction". These 2 doctors are the basis for the promotion of naltrexone implants. Not because they offer some magic formula for curing opiate addiction but because it is an alternative to OST and Harm Minimisation. Naltrexone implants stop the effects of heroin and force the patient into total abstinence which is the key to it’s popularity amongst the religious right, moral crusaders and prohibitionists. Damn the results, the deaths and the relapses. Who cares if someone is not suited to an implant ... it’s not Harm Minimisation!

Zealot
What drives Miranda Devine to repeatedly push myths and misinformation onto the public? What does she have to gain except criticism from those who are more knowledgeable than her? Every time she writes about drug related issues, dozens of people expose the flaws and fallacies in her article which would be enough to force most writers to re-examine their views. It would at least prompt most writers to double check their facts. 
Devine despises Harm Minimisation and believes that drug use is an issue of law and order. She is a self confessed supporter of the "War on Drugs" and will go to great lengths to discredit any opposition.  Devine has no ability to accept modern medicine and scientific research if it steps on her ideology. It feels remarkably like someone who believe in creationism and who will do anything to prove science wrong for their convictions. These are not the traits of an intelligent, rational adult but a fanatic, obsessed by misguided dogma, fighting their own fears. Ignoring facts and evidence are the traits of a zealot - a person who is fanatical and uncompromising in pursuit of their religious, political, or other ideals, someone who considers their own views more important than those of experts, someone who believes their own bullshit. Having an opinion is one thing but misleading and deceiving nearly a million readers is bordering on the edge of lunacy. 
Addicts Say Abstinence Sets Them Free
By Miranda Devine
May 23, 2009
When it comes to drug prohibition, the biggest advocates are former addicts, if you can find any in NSW, where abstinence is a dirty word and the state requires its heroin users to be sedated on methadone for the rest of their lives. 
Just ask addicts what they thought of the harm minimisation experiments of the 1990s, when police were instructed to turn a blind eye to drug use in Cabramatta, Australia's heroin capital.
"While it's so easily available its always a problem," says Reuben, 28, a former heroin and methadone addict who has been drug-free for four months. In the mid-1990s, he was smoking marijuana every day, when he and his friends started riding the train to Cabramatta to get heroin.
"I avoided it for a little while but it was so good, so pure, so easy to get. Police never told the dealers to back off. A 13, 14, 15-year-old kid doesn't know right from wrong.
"You use it because it's there and because the people around you use it."
Sam, a 30-year-old former heroin addict, is still angry when he talks about Cabramatta. "You couldn't ride on the train without people asking you 50 times [if you wanted to buy heroin]. Why did the government stop police from arresting [dealers]? There were no police whatsoever. It was a safe haven for heroin dealers. It isn't good for us … We need prohibition."
Sam ended up in jail, where he took the opportunity to go cold turkey. He spent three days in a dry-out cell, enduring the nausea, diarrhoea, hot and cold flushes, insomnia, pain and stomach cramps. He spent the rest of his three-year sentence drug-free - or he would have. Three months before he was due to be released he was told that, as a heroin user at risk of relapse, he would have to start taking a highly addictive synthetic opiate, buprenorphine, or "bupe", a methadone substitute, or he would not get parole.
"I didn't want another habit," Sam says. "I kicked the habit when I got locked up. [But] you've got no option." He describes bupe and methadone as "liquid handcuffs". He left jail a buprenorphine addict, and was soon back on heroin.
Reuben, too, was prescribed methadone when he sought help for his addiction. He was given no other option but to accept addiction for life, a slave every day to the methadone clinic he hated.
The harm minimisation industry philosophy that holds sway in NSW is that once you're an addict, you are always an addict. But, for those who don't want to spend their life as a drug-addicted zombie, there are few options.
One of their last hopes is the psychologist Ross Colquhoun's addiction clinic in Ultimo, the only place in NSW to perform rapid detoxification on addicts using implants of the non-addictive drug naltrexone, which blocks the effects of opiates on the brain for about three months.
This morning two addicts will undergo the rapid detox, sedated and under the supervision of a doctor and two registered nurses. Their physical cravings gone, they will need counselling and further implants but, like thousands before them, their chances are good, Colquhoun says, of freeing themselves from addiction.
But abstinence has no place in the curiously monocultural drug and alcohol world of NSW. And so Colquhoun's naltrexone clinic has been under heavy fire for 10 years, with 10 complaints to the Health Care Complaints Commission - all cleared - withdrawal of a federal grant, and general bad-mouthing, to the point where one staffer says: "We are being treated like a backyard abortion clinic in the 1950s."
Two weeks ago came the latest blow that may prove to be the killer, when the NSW Department of Health's Pharmaceutical Services Branch withdrew permission for the clinic to use a morphine drug (MS Contin) as a "bridge" for detoxing methadone addicts. Because methadone is so addictive and causes such terrible withdrawal problems, addicts must abstain for at least five days before detox. Switching to MC Contin stops cravings and is easier to detox.
Critics regard naltrexone as a tool of "coercive abstinence". They say it causes deaths because, when the implant effect wears off, an addict's previous resistance to heroin is gone and they can overdose.
But what is the alternative?
"The Government does not have an exit strategy for people on methadone, who they are prepared to leave addicted for ever," Colquhoun says. "Methadone has a place in treatment in the short term but many people grow out of it and want to get on with their lives."
The methadone industry is booming. Figures from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare this week showed the number of people on methadone has almost doubled since 1998, up from 24,600 to 41,300 last year, with the majority of doses dispensed privately. No wonder the methadone industry is defensive.
Colquhoun regards methadone as an instrument of "social control".
"They want to keep you nice and happy and sedated and drugged," says Jodde, who managed to wean herself off a massive 120-milligram daily dose of methadone three years ago.
"I was like a vegetable … The doctors, the police, they're all working to keep you in a shithole.
"Once you're a methadone addict, you're public property. You're a piece of crap; you have no rights. It's degrading. You go to seek help and that's what happens."
Sam and Reuben have overcome their addictions so far with the help of naltrexone. Sam has reunited with his family, and has not taken drugs for eight months.
Reuben is at TAFE studying adult literacy. "I've only just started enjoying being straight. It's a dramatic change from not being able to do anything.
"I feel productive for the first time in my life. I haven't ever really felt that."
You need a good reason to deny Reuben that chance.
Related Articles:

Friday, 22 May 2009

Myth - Cannabis Makes You Lazy and Unmotivated

Myth - Cannabis Makes You Lazy and Unmotivated

You know it, your friends know it, the government advertises it, the media publishes it, the religious preach it, politicians promise it, comedians satirise it, current affairs hosts warn about it, moral crusaders lie about it and some drug treatment centres teach it ... if you smoke too much dope, you loose interest in life and can’t be motivated anymore to do the things you once loved doing. It has a name - Amotivational Syndrome.

Amotivational Syndrome: A pattern of behaviour characterised by a lack of motivation, energy and initiative 

You know, the stoner on the couch eating Burger Rings and watching TV instead of going to football training. That guy who used to play cricket so well but stopped turning up for games after half a season of below average performances. That girl who stopped going out with her best friends and now stays at home on Saturday nights. It's simple ... smoking dope makes you lazy and less motivated.

Australian National Drugs Campaign

www.drugs.health.gov.au

[...]

Marijuana (Cannabis)

Potential problems: Mood swings, memory impairment, weight gain, chronic bronchitis, increased risk of respiratory diseases associated with smoking including cancer, panic attacks, anxiety, depression, paranoid thinking, decreased motivation, interference with reproductive function, learning difficulties, psychological dependence, suicidal thoughts, risk of psychosis and psychotic symptoms. Marijuana serves as a barrier against self-awareness and may interfere with a young person’s development including possible interference with reproductive function.

This common problem is one of the most identifiable traits of a pothead. We see it regularly on TV and at the movies where scruffy looking dropouts are portrayed as speaking slowly and often lounging around on a couch saying “dude” and other stoner type comments. We hear about it in every anti-cannabis commercial. Like the kid who can’t keep up at football practice and sits at home alone smoking weed whilst his friends go out and have fun. We are even reminded regularly by politicians.

Research on frequent, long-term and heavy use of cannabis shows that it can have serious psychological, physiological and social effects. People using cannabis under these circumstances can have problems relating to lack of motivation and may no longer engage in employment or social activities.

The Hon. John Della Bosca - Legislative Council 

or

Many clients experienced depression. They also attributed things such as problems with concentration and memory, isolating themselves from others and lack of motivation, to their cannabis use. 

The Hon. Peter Foss - WA Parliament. Quoting from a report by Dr Jan Copeland and Dr Wendy Swift

Do we all know a slacker when we see one? I’m sure we all know someone with Amotivational Syndrome or at least know of someone who knows someone who is affected this way. In 2006, a report titled, National Drugs Campaign: Evaluation of Phase Two, showed that 86%-92% of teenagers were clearly aware that cannabis made you lazy and lethargic.

The broad campaign messages retained by young people appeared to be in line with the campaign objectives. Message recall focused on the negative consequences of using illegal drugs and abstaining from drug use. Most (87%) were able to identify at least one of the three drugs targeted by the campaign and message take-out relevant to each drug reflected content differences between the three ‘Youth’ television commercials. Specifically:

• Mental health problems (including ‘makes you lazy and tired’) were associated with marijuana 

• Aggression, other mental health effects and unknown composition were associated with speed, while 

• Depression, unknown composition and perceptions of being a dangerous drug were associated with ecstasy

-National Drugs Campaign: Evaluation of Phase Two

Even our friends at Drug Free Australia (DFA) have just released a report into the harms of cannabis and had this to say about Amotivational Syndrome:

Thirdly, cannabis use can induce amotivational syndrome, a mental state characterised by apathy, an inability to carry out plans, deal with frustration or concentrate for any length of time (Cohen, 1982). While equivocal, amotivational syndrome strikes a chord in that it aptly describes the ‘personality’ of a chronic cannabis smoker and is supported by numerous studies (Newcomb & Bentler, 1988; Tunving, 1987; Cohen, 1982). Musty & Kaback (1995) maintain that amotivational syndrome exists and is a manifestation of depression.

-Cannabis – Suicide, Schizophrenia And Other Ill-Effects - Drug Free Australia (DFA) -(March 2009)

Just a Myth

Amotivational Syndrome is a myth. But a myth believed by most of the public. It goes to show how powerful and misleading that persistent, anti-drug propaganda can really be. And it should make you angry. Angry at the lies and deceit that have been pushed down your throat from so called trusted people. The evidence that it doesn’t exist has been readily available for decades but governments, the media and anti-drug zealots have been happy to play along with this lie. What else do they lie about?

Only a few months ago, Olympic gold medalist, Michael Phelps was pictured smoking cannabis(right) which is weird considering pot smokers were supposed to be lazy and unmotivated. Holy cow, if anyone is a symbol of motivation, it is Phelps who has 14 Olympic gold medals and 7 world records for swimming. Add to this list a few US presidents, some Nobel prize winners and the countless entertainers who tour constantly. So who says dope smokers are unmotivated?

The few reports that support Amotivational Syndrome are usually commissioned by the US government in a bid to support their zero tolerance drug polices or by other dubious anti-drug zealots. Like the research referenced by DFA above, they set out to demonise cannabis and voila! Amotivational Syndrome is everywhere. It’s a convenient excuse maintained by those who are willingly to lie for their cause which is standard practice in the murky world of anti-drug propaganda. The vast majority of respectable research debunks Amotivational Syndrome as not having any evidence to back it up. Some of the reports that claim it might exist, also state that it is extremely rare. A far cry from being one of the main symptoms of cannabis use.

In this study, participants who used cannabis seven days a week demonstrated no difference from non-cannabis users on indices of motivation. These findings refute hypothesized associations between heavy cannabis use and low motivation.

-University Of Southern California - Department Of Psychology

What does the Australian government have to say about lazy stoners? They seem to be a bit muddled up, caught between lying to the public and supplying scientific research. The National Drugs Campaign: Evaluation of Phase Two report emphasises that cannabis causes laziness and a lack of motivation but the Commonwealth Department of Health and Aged Care who administer our drug policy acknowledge that Amotivational Syndrome is dodgy, albeit reluctantly:

The evidence for an amotivational syndrome among adults is, at best, equivocal. The positive evidence largely consists of case histories, and observational reports. The small number of controlled field and laboratory studies have not found compelling evidence for such a syndrome, although their evidential value is limited by the small sample sizes and limited sociodemographic characteristics of the field studies, by the short periods of drug use, and the youthful good health and minimal demands made of the volunteers observed in the laboratory studies. It nonetheless is reasonable to conclude that if there is such a syndrome, it is a relatively rare occurrence, even among heavy, chronic cannabis users.

-Illicit Drug Use In Australia: Epidemiology, Use Patterns And Associated Harm - Commonwealth Department of Health and Aged Care

This report may give a more conclusive answer.

There is no compelling evidence for an amotivational syndrome among chronic cannabis users. Some heavy users do complain of impaired motivation but this pattern of behaviour is better explained as a symptom of chronic intoxication among persons who are cannabis dependent.

-The Health And Psychological Effects Of Cannabis Use - The Commonwealth Government 

Not convinced? Maybe we should look to our own Australian Medical Association(AMA) for a more recent explanation.

Consumption of large quantities of cannabis on almost every day of the week is likely to lead to the neglect of some other important priorities such as relationships, parenting, careers and community responsibilities. However there is currently a lack of robust evidence for an amotivational syndrome (characterized by a loss of motivation, energy and initiative) associated with the use of cannabis.

-Australian Medical Association 

Some of those who like to push the idea of cannabis making users lazy and stupid, try to blame limited research techniques as to why Amotivational Syndrome has not been proven. If the sample size or limited sociodemographic characteristics are reasons to doubt existing research, it might be wise to look at more recent research that aims to end the debate. Ironically, it’s the US government’s own National Institutes of Health that finally clears up the myth.

Cannabis, Motivation, And Life Satisfaction In An Internet Sample

Although little evidence supports cannabis-induced amotivational syndrome, sources continue to assert that the drug saps motivation [1], which may guide current prohibitions. Few studies report low motivation in chronic users; another reveals that they have higher subjective wellbeing. To assess differences in motivation and subjective wellbeing, we used a large sample (N = 487) and strict definitions of cannabis use (7 days/week) and abstinence (never). Standard statistical techniques showed no differences. Robust statistical methods controlling for heteroscedasticity, non-normality and extreme values found no differences in motivation but a small difference in subjective wellbeing. Medical users of cannabis reporting health problems tended to account for a significant portion of subjective wellbeing differences, suggesting that illness decreased wellbeing. All p-values were above p = .05. Thus, daily use of cannabis does not impair motivation. Its impact on subjective wellbeing is small and may actually reflect lower wellbeing due to medical symptoms rather than actual consumption of the plant.

The link between cannabis use and low motivation is a source of extensive debate. Anecdotal information describes the cannabis user as listless and incapable. Subsets of cannabis users demonstrating low motivation receive considerable attention in the media and among proponents of marijuana prohibition. Decades ago, researchers adopted the phrase "amotivational" to describe lethargic cannabis users. Amotivational syndrome ranks among key problems associated with the drug, and strengthens policy arguments regarding the public harm that the drug introduces. The US Department of Health and Human Services warns parents that youth cannabis use may result in amotivational symptoms such as an apathetic approach to life, fatigue, and poor academic and work performance. Other studies suggest that cannabis induces general apathy and an inability to progress through life successfully. Yet empirical research on the effects of cannabis on users' motivation suggests a low incidence of these negative outcomes and numerous alternative explanations for their appearance.

-U.S. National Institutes of Health

To top it all off, the report makes an important observation. Something that all lying, anti-drug zealots should take notice of. The report states that misleading information will more likely have a negative effect on preventing substance abuse. That old scenario arises again where if the target group thinks that they are being lied to about one issue, then what stops the messenger lying about other issues.

The absence of any link between motivation and cannabis use also has important implications for preventing substance abuse. Research informs parents and children that cannabis saps motivation. It is possible that individuals' own experiences and the experiences of users they know may belie this information, leading them to question the veracity of other material presented in these programs. Thus, emphasizing a cannabis-induced amotivational syndrome in drug prevention does not have empirical support and could harm the credibility of our efforts at prevention. Honest information about the negative consequences of cannabis has the potential to improve the prevention of drug problems. Dropping references to amotivational syndrome may have considerable benefit.

-U.S. National Institutes of Health

When is it going to stop? When are those who are responsible for educating the public about the dangers of drug use going to be held accountable? Pushing myths and spreading misinformation has been shown over and over to be dangerous especially to young people, our children. How does the government get away with it? Why are shifty, myopic organisations like DFA funded by the tax payers only to lie to us? Why are the experts routinely ignored? Doesn’t the health of the public have any bearing on this? Is political expediency allowed to override the truth that these myths are actually harming our children? 

Thus, emphasizing a cannabis-induced amotivational syndrome in drug prevention does not have empirical support and could harm the credibility of our efforts at prevention

-U.S. National Institutes of Health

This goes to the very core of a government endorsed process that has been proven to be counter-productive in preventing drug use. The fact is, these misleading claims are forcing our kids to question other government warnings. Warnings that should be taken seriously but with the constant exaggeration and lies that don’t reflect the real world, why would they believe them? I’m sure these people have read the classic story about The Boy Who Cried Wolf?

The two big question now are: Will they stop lying about Amotivational Syndrome? And what else are they lying about?