Pubdate: Sun, 06 Feb 2005
Source: Sunday Herald, The (UK)
Copyright: 2005 Sunday Herald
Contact:  http://www.sundayherald.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/873
Author: Helena Kennedy
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/heroin.htm (Heroin)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?131 (Heroin Maintenance)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/topics/Glasgow+Caledonian+University

KEPT IN THE DARK:

Rather Than Ignoring Last Week's Controversial Heroin Study, We Should
Use It to Trigger Real Debate

EVIDENCE that a few people seem able to use heroin for lengthy periods
without devastating consequences could have sparked a rational
discussion about the drug, and how it might be controlled. Instead,
publication of research by Dr David Shewan and Phil Dalgarno of
Glasgow Caledonian University was met with a knee-jerk response of
shock and horror.

It was claimed that the information would encourage experimental use
and that hesitant users would feel less restraint. Allegations of
"irresponsibility" filled the air, despite the fact both academics
emphasised that heroin is a dangerous drug carrying very serious
risks. Yet the study was funded by the Chief Scientist Office
precisely because it might improve understanding of addiction and lead
to better treatment and interventions.

Like every parent, I have a horror of hard drugs and my experience in
the courts has filled in the parts of the picture many people do not
see. I have witnessed my emaciated clients climbing the walls for a
fix. I have had a client rushed to hospital and die from an overdose
while the jury were deliberating on their verdict. I have seen the
track marks on defendants' arms and the horrible physical consequences
caused by the muck with which heroin is cut (chalk or chemical cleaner
or icing sugar) to increase dealers' profits. Yet as the Caledonian
study shows, while the lives of most users fall apart
catastrophically, there are a small number of heroin users who can
hold down jobs, care for families and achieve educational
qualifications. What makes the difference?

The easy answer is that the same drug has different effects on
different people. For a small minority, heroin may not create the
cravings normally associated with regular use. The research suggests
that the effects of drugs can also be modified by other factors.

The study focused on 126 carefully recruited long-term heroin users
who had, on average, been using the drug for seven years and could
take it or leave it. The bottom line, according to the research, is
that the chemical properties of specific substances, including heroin,
should not be assumed to lead inevitably to addictive and destructive
patterns of behaviour.

Roger Houchin, former governor of Barlinnie Prison, believes this
research is important because it enhances under standing of the
subject, showing that the propensity to addiction may vary depending
on personal physiology, social circumstances and psychological
vulnerability. Prison drug programmes have demonstrated to Houchin
that once drug counselling began there was an unleashing of horrifying
ghosts from the prisoners' pasts, which often explained narcotics use
as a form of anaesthetic to deal with emotional pain. Houchin saw
drugs rehabilitation fail because what was really needed was much more
intensive psychotherapy to deal with problems embedded in the
prisoners' upbringing.

Extensive research suggests most women offenders have been victims of
abuse (often sexual) and childhood neglect, and their addictive
behaviour in adulthood is inextricably linked to this kind of
ill-treatment earlier on. The emotional and physical abuse of boys
brought up in macho communities, meanwhile, leaves them with mental
health problems which become submerged in drug use , though getting
them to talk about their feelings of rejection and hurt is difficult,
particularly within a prison culture of "hard men". Perhaps we should
be ensuring that rehabilitation programmes address under lying
problems, with the right expertise available and proper resources.

Dr Shewan points out that research on those who seem able to control
their drug use is a relatively unexplored area. Advising caution with
the study's results, he nevertheless believes there is much to be
learned from this previously "hidden" population of users who don't
appear to be addicted. Further research may show, for instance, that
some people are physiologically more likely to become addicted while
others have genetic factors which "protect" them against it. Another
explanation may be that leaving sufficient time gaps between drug use
prevents a chemical interaction that causes craving.

Undoubtedly, the results challenge current orthodoxy and throw open
whole new avenues for research. A substantial amount of crime is the
consequence of drug abuse. Yet, by simply declaring war on drugs and
refusing to examine all the issues, we close down public debate.

The reaction to these research findings was not unlike debates that
have raged over sex education in schools. The fear that knowledge
corrupts rather than educates is obviously still alive and kicking.
Young people talk about drugs and sex and exchange information
readily, so it is far better that they do so with all the facts. But
there are still those who think the public are too stupid to be
included in these conversations, convinced that complex information
will be misconstrued. The secrecy around research into genetically
modified food was based precisely on this premise: that the public
could not be told because it would excite fears unjustifiably. If
anything excites fears, it is not being told. The distrust in science
and government that was sown as a result of the GM food fiasco will
remain for a long time to come.

As well as identifying an interesting scientific and sociological
aspect of heroin use, the new research has done something even more
important. It has highlighted society's continuing difficulty in
addressing ideas that challenge its behavioural norms. Our
opinion-formers still seem confident that the way to handle these
disturbing matters is to suppress rather than encourage debate,
despite much evidence that the provision of accurate information
usually leads to people making mature and sensible decisions about
their actions. Aren't we supposed to be reducing secrecy and
encouraging openness? I have always explained with pride that the
Scottish education system was built around the idea of creating "the
democratic intellect", which meant pupils were instilled with the
sense to enquire and question. They expected to be fully informed so
they could make wise judgements. Perhaps it is time we reclaimed the
right to proper public debate - real consultation based on real
information - and to insist we are not patronised.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Richard Lake