COLD TURKEY

The story of Keith Griggs's brief stay in jail says much about the
inconsistent, complicated, Kafkaesque world of drug treatment.

Griggs is a heroin addict who lives in Putney and who is serving a sentence
in the custody of the Vermont Department of Corrections for a 1999 forgery
conviction. He is serving his sentence outside prison as part of a
Corrections Department drug treatment program. A condition of participation
is that Griggs receive methadone, a heroin substitute he obtains through a
Massachusetts clinic.

Methadone has been the subject of considerable controversy in Vermont. The
Legislature has approved methadone treatment in the state but only at
hospitals. Supporters of methadone say it is the best way to help addicts
gain control over their lives and to stay free of heroin. Opponents say it
merely substitutes one drug for another and does not cure the user's addiction.

Both are right, as Griggs's ordeal would show.

His latest troubles began with parole violations that landed him in the
Woodstock Regional Correctional Facility for a 15-day sentence. Superior
Judge Alan Cheever ordered that, while Griggs was in jail, the Corrections
Department should continue his methadone treatment.

The trouble was that the law states methadone shall be dispensed only in
hospitals. John Gorczyk, commissioner of corrections, pointed out that, in
ordering Corrections to give Griggs methadone, the judge was ordering the
department to break the law.

Gorczyk raised another valid concern: If addicts knew jails were a source
for methadone, they might seek incarceration, even though the department
tries to handle non-violent offenders outside prison walls.

Meanwhile, Griggs was going through heroin withdrawal in the Woodstock
jail. His lawyers appealed to the Supreme Court, hoping to force the
Corrections Department to continue Griggs's methadone treatment. Justice
Marilyn Skoglund upheld Cheever's ruling, and the department was threatened
with a fine if it didn't give Griggs his methadone.

So the Corrections Department released Griggs from jail, allowing him to
return to the treatment program that had provided him with the methadone he
needed.

Opponents of methadone might argue that Griggs would have been better off
if he had stuck it out through withdrawal, confronting and defeating his
addiction once and for all. For some addicts, the cold turkey approach works.

But each patient is different, and for others, medical personnel prescribe
methadone, as they had for Griggs. Judges and jail keepers are not the
people best-qualified to make those decisions.

Gorczyk is right to promote treatment programs outside prison. But
treatment should also be available inside prisons for violent offenders who
cannot be released into the community. Gorczyk's worry that methadone in
prison would attract inmates might be eased if methadone were available
outside prison for those who need it.

Griggs's experience with methadone shows its usefulness and its
limitations. It apparently has allowed him to function in the community and
to hold a job, without having to deal in drugs and live the destructive,
criminal life of a heroin addict.

But he remains tied to his clinic and his regular dose of methadone.
Methadone has not freed him. It has stabilized him. Yet that is a plus that
both judges in the case saw to be important enough for them to order the
Corrections Department to bend the rules.

As the state of Vermont puts together a comprehensive drug strategy, it
ought to recognize both the uses and limitations of methadone in combating
the deadly grip of heroin addiction.