JOURNEY TO THE CORWIN OF THE EARTH: FREE DRUGS TO ADDICTS?

Anyone who listened to Vancouver Mayor Sam Sullivan's recent "State
of the City" address was probably not surprised to hear that
Vancouver has a drug problem.

What may have surprised some is that the mayor is working on a
"revolutionary new approach to drug addiction." What is this new
approach, you ask? The details have not been free flowing, but in a
nutshell, the mayor wants to provide around 700 cocaine and
amphetamine addicts with substitute drugs so that they will no longer
have to beg, borrow, and steal in order to pay for their habit.

The proposal stems from Vancouver's Four Pillars Approach to drug
addiction, as well as the mayor's promise to clean up the city
outlined in the Civil City Plan, released last November. By providing
drugs to addicts, the mayor seemingly hopes to accomplish two main
things: curve aggressive panhandling and theft; and reduce the harm
that addicts experience while living from one fix to the next. Though
these are both noble goals, I cannot help but question whether
providing drugs to drug addicts is truly the best we can do to help them.

Most research into stimulant maintenance (the scientific name for
what the mayor is proposing) has shown that providing substitute
drugs does stabilise both behavioural and biological cycles of addicts.

Since addicts do not have to obsess about how to get their next high,
they can focus on other things, like breaking their addiction and not stealing.

However, much of the research I read was conducted in a setting where
addicts were already trying to break their addiction and stimulant
maintenance was only part of their larger treatment plan. Stimulant
maintenance used in these clinical settings is a far cry from giving
drugs en masse to 700 addicts -- who may or may not want to kick
their habit -- in an attempt to stop them from committing petty theft.

I am definitely open to the government providing drugs to people who
want to change their lives. Some drugs, such as heroin, can be so
addictive that quitting cold turkey is not an option.

If stimulant maintenance became part of a scientific treatment
strategy, then it may prove beneficial. But stimulant maintenance as
a harm and crime reduction strategy seems very wrong to me. If the
government is going to provide drugs to people without forcing them
into rehabilitation programs, it would deliberately be poisoning its
most vulnerable citizens in order to deal with public nuisance.

Can we not come up with anything better than this to help our addicts?

Why is the government not doing more to ensure that people who have
such debilitating addictions get the treatment they need? Is it not
possible that a better approach to drug addiction would be forced
rehabilitation where people are held in a humane and caring medical
facility until they overcome the worst of their addiction?

A policy along these lines would help reduce both drug-related theft
and harm, but would also ensure that we are doing everything we can
to help the addicts get off drugs.

Most people do not see this as a viable option because of the view
that it is cruel to incarcerate people for no reason.

I agree that incarceration should always be the last resort and no
one should ever be forced to do something for no good reason.

That being said, I think we are now at the point with some people
where forcing them to break their addiction is far more humane than
allowing them to continue living for their next fix.

Of course, the main difficulty with anything like this is that you
cannot force people to change unless they want to. Forcing people
into rehab would not necessarily give them the incentive to stop using drugs.

On the other hand, giving people a free and unlimited stream of drugs
will probably give addicts even less incentive to stop and seek treatment.

If an addict is unwilling to quit now when their entire life is
consumed by trying to get high again, how willing will they be to
quit when a stimulant maintenance program stabilises their addiction
so they can live more comfortably in their dependance?

Frankly, I think some of the harm associated with drugs (within
reason) can lead addicts to desire change. If we reduce harm to the
point where continuing with drugs costs addicts nothing, we may
simply enable them to continue the destructive relationship they have
with their bodies. We, as a society, should aim much higher.