Mismanagement in Methadone Clinics

"State, DEA Probe Mismanagement in Methadone Clinics,"

I am a former addict and up until 1993 was on methadone.
I experienced the different policies in regard to protocol and
treatment both here in California and in London, where I worked as
an assistant at a clinic specializing in the treatment of addiction. I
believe that California has the most archaic, impractical and
conflicting rules and regulations regarding dispensing and treatment
for opiatedependent addicts.
The whole approach to addiction treatment is failing. Under the
current law a person on methadone has to attend his/her clinic every
day. As a jobseeking individual, I quickly found that just getting to
the clinic every day between 5 a.m. and 8 a.m. (clinics can be over
an hour away) became a job. In the event of being late, doses are
withheld.
I suggest a more individualistic approach. If addicts can prove
themselves accountable and sincere about getting help, more options
should be available to them in the dispensing of methadone. It would
help to let physicians practice as they are licensed to do, and
accordingly make choices based on their expert opinions. To let the
DEA dictate what is or is not acceptable is to let crane operators do
brain surgery.
Methadone treatment should be one of many options. The current
"one size fits all" approach does not work.
CLAUS CASTENSKIOLD
Los Angeles

* After 16 years in the California alcohol and drug treatment field,
nothing in your article surprised me. Especially astounding are the
complaints by clinic operators that massive allegations of fraud were
the result of "confusing" state regulations. The California
Organization of Methadone Providers, a powerful and wellfinanced
lobbying group, has provided input into the development of state and
federal methadone regulations for years. For clinics to now claim that
they did not understand the rules is absurd. For industry reps to
posture that some clinics would pay fines over a half million dollars
without clear evidence of wrongdoing is equally absurd.

In addition to forcing this industry to eliminate fraud, many of us
hope that your article will ignite a new debate about the future role of
taxpayerfunded methadone treatment. Should taxpayers continue
paying for an addiction management strategy that substitutes
dependence on one drug for another at the expense of treatment
approaches that foster independence, selfhelp and permanent
drugfree living? As a taxpayer, I think not.
CHARLES "BUD" HAYES
Santa Monica

Copyright Los Angeles Times