
HOTLINE BUZZ |  |
Real-time comments on legal news by newsmakers, activists, legal experts and special guests... |
|

 |
|
|

Sunday, December 07, 2008
|

Heroin prescription for addicts is not a viable long-term treatment option
1:48 PM ET

David Raynes [former Assistant Chief Investigation Officer in UK Customs, member of the International Task Force on Strategic Drug Policy]: "Observing from the US, what is happening in relation to drugs policy in Europe must seem truly confusing. Lurid headlines "Swiss legalise Heroin" or similar are half-truths. The reality is different. Prescribing heroin for the most chaotic addicts is nothing new, nor was it invented in Switzerland or the Netherlands, though both those countries do a little of it and the Swiss have just had a referendum on it. The reality is that both systems are only slight adaptations of the "British System."
The UK has had some sort of programme of heroin prescription for some addicts for over fifty years; it was reduced in the 1960s because of significant heroin leakage into the parallel illegal market in two ways, either from addicts selling some of their prescribed supply or through corrupt or incompetent doctors over-supplying. It was concluded that heroin, if prescribed at all, needed to be taken under direct medical supervision. Of the doctors who have special licences to supply heroin to addicts in the UK, very few show any great enthusiasm for it or seem to believe in it for other than the short term. Only very few clinicians have ever shown any enthusiasm for long-term "maintenance heroin" for addicts.
The UK's top academic expert has questioned if prescribing heroin is really "treatment" or if it is "social problem prescribing." Certainly in the UK much of the recent enthusiasm comes from some police officers and even the odd politician, frustrated at the lack of success in dealing with crime associated with drug use. They ignore the reality that criminal careers typically precede drug addiction and, in the UK anyway, much crime now is associated with crack cocaine use. That is certainly not being prescribed. The move in Switzerland is only for a select band of addicts who are a tiny proportion of the whole addicted population. It was driven originally, by a wish to clean up "needle parks," with obvious addict populations dealing and using in specific areas. These initiatives are also subject to heavy criticism.
So lurid headlines have overstated exactly what the Swiss "experiments" have achieved or even what they represent. The realities are that heroin maintenance on a substantial scale is just not possible. The costs have been massively understated. The cost is not just the cost of the drug. Heroin because of its short acting nature, ties an addict to his or her clinic, in a way that longer lasting oral methadone does not. Heroin, through injection, preserves undesirable and risky injecting behaviour. Each small town needs its own clinic with at least two clinicians depending on addict population plus premises, security, nursing staff (minimum two on duty at any time for security, plus other security) and 365 days a year opening. Larger towns and cities would need more than one such clinic, London for example, would need many. Each clinic would need opening hours of early morning to late evening. On this basis the costs and resources mount alarmingly and the illegal market does not disappear.
In addition, if such programs are provided on anything other than a huge scale they will not have much effect on crime. Many addicts would still commit crimes and many are poly-drug users - particularly crack cocaine. The issue is being misinterpreted, sometimes deliberately so, by those who favour legalisation. On any substantial scale it would encourage "drug tourism" across the EU. The arguments against substantial prescription of heroin in the UK are overwhelming. In the UK there is another current debate about to what extent getting users free of addiction is part of the treatment regime. That is what most addicts want.
Heroin prescription should only be considered within carefully controlled conditions and for specially selected long term and chaotic addicts. Heroin needs to be prescribed (if prescribed at all) in the context of a real effort (with other committed support), to get addicts free of addiction. The on-going small scale prescription in a few countries will be misrepresented as something else; because the media loves an argument and legalisation lobbyists think it a route to legalised drugs for all. It is not, of that I am absolutely confident.
We need to keep speaking out about it and explaining the flaws, a process one might call "reality seepage.""
Opinions expressed in JURIST's Hotline are the sole responsibility of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of JURIST's editors, staff, or the University of Pittsburgh.



Link | e-mail post  |
post comment
|
how to subscribe |
© JURIST

Comments:
I'm sorry but David Raynes does not qualify to be objective on the issue of drug treatment or drug policy.
Raynes is a member of the International Task Force on Strategic Drug Policy which is a group of radical and often religious zealots. Their main objective is to achieve a drug free world and will go to any lengths to promote their ideology ... whether it works or not.
The first flaw in Raynes' argument is the assumption that all supporters of Harm Minimisation especially heroin assisted treatment (HAT) have an agenda to legalise drugs. This is simply wrong and nearly all criticism of Harm Minimisation by these zealots usually include this argument. Most supporters of Harm Minimisation do NOT want open markets for drugs but a humane, scientific approach to the drug problem.
Flaw no. 2 is what Raynes has left out. For example, the high costs involved, which Raynes so rigourously points out, are much less than the current strategies of incarceration. Yes, substitution treatment is expensive but about a third of the cost for policing, jail, court, probation etc. Also the references to long term treatment via HAT being "too long" is ridiculous. These long term addicts have no end in sight and because many of them last less than 5 years on the prescription heroin program, it is actually a short term treatment. Perspective please David! And then there's the "drug tourism" from other countries. The fact is Raynes provides no figures on the inflow of addicts looking to HAT because there are none. That's right, no foreigners can be on the program. The other important figures that Raynes left out are the crime statistics. This is easy to explain why because crime HAS dropped as part of the prescription heroin programs in Switzerland and The Netherlands. Raynes only theorises that crime will rise but the fact is the opposite. Shame, David, Shame.
The third flaw and most important is that old scare tactic that Harm Minimisation programs do not strive for addicts to get clean. Another assumption that is completely wrong. HAT is only for hard core, long term addicts who were achieving nothing through other treatments. The goal is always to be free of addiction by using pragmatic and evidence based strategies. Research shows us that forcing addicts to get clean when they are not ready hinders their success to be drug free. David's lot always overlook this fact and instead push their own "abstinence only" views which goes against the vast amount of evidence. Incidentally, substitution treatment that people like Raynes condemns has a higher rate of success to get addicts clean than the abstinence only programs that they push so hard.
If you want to see the types of people who are members of the International Task Force on Strategic Drug Policy, you will find that most of them are either evangelists, Zero Tolerance supporters, proponents for harsher drug laws or just plain loopy.
Leave drug treatment to experts who believe in science, evidence based research and humane treatment of drug users. The alternative is the likes of David Raynes who let their personal ideology override the suffering and deaths of millions of people worldwide.
Drug addiction is not a moral issue based on some group's religious or conservative views but a medical problem needing medical treatment by medical experts.
|
|
|