FUTURE HAZY FOR DRUGS

Free heroin prescriptions for addicts, funded by the federal government?
This is what opponents of the war on drugs have dreamed of, but where will
it lead?

Researchers in Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver plan to spend about $8
million on clinical trials that - if approved - would allow addicts to
inject themselves up to three times a day under medical supervision.

The experiment, as outlined by its designers, acknowledges many heroin
addicts simply don't respond well to the "gold standard" of treatment -
methadone.

Methadone is supposed to maintain a fairly constant level of opiate in the
patient, rather than the wild swings associated with heroin use.

But for a variety of reasons, at least 50 per cent of addicts don't respond
to it.

One alternative is to see whether daily doses of prescribed heroin, taken
under supervision, can stabilize these individuals, reduce risky behaviour
and harm and, eventually, permit the addict to get counselling that could
lead to abstinence.

As a method of weaning people off heroin, it looks less like a fork in the
road than a sharp U-turn.

In fact, it's an idea that's long been pushed by those who want an end to
the war on drugs. It's even become mainstream thinking in Parliament.

Last December, a Commons committee endorsed safe injection sites and a
heroin prescription experiment (although its report also called for more
treatment and more law enforcement).

In the U.S., groups such as the Drug Policy Alliance, one of the leading
critics of America's war on drugs, have advocated a policy that focuses on
harm reduction rather than interdiction.

The argument is that society will never be drug-free so, instead of trying
to stamp out drug use, we'd be better off finding how to live with it and
control its effects.

From an ethical perspective, it's hard to argue with harm reduction. An
addict shooting up in a back alley does great harm to herself and others.
She risks contracting HIV or hepatitis C through the use of shared needles.
She may engage in prostitution or crime to feed her habit.

The costs to her and society are considerable.

It would seem wise to get these people off the street, and out of harm's
way.

But implicit in such thinking is that there's nothing much else that can be
done for these people. They've tried and failed to kick the habit with
methadone. Better give them what they need instead.

The question a lot of Canadians will ask is: How do we judge the success or
failure of this experiment? Will victory be declared just because we've
succeeded in getting someone off the street? Will that lead to more heroin
being readily available under federally funded prescription?

A Vancouver doctor on the front lines of the drug war in the city's
notorious, heroin-infested east side was interviewed yesterday by CBC Radio.
He lamented $8 million is being spent on such research when street-front
clinics that treat heroin and cocaine addicts are underfunded. For him, the
initiative sounds like surrender.

Addiction is a complex problem with roots in the psychology and experience
of the individual. But while people may be prone to addictive behaviour, is
supplying them with the tools of the trade the best we can do?