Heroin Vice "Functional Heroin Users"

[searchingforthesound]

I watched this Vice documentary on YouTube a while back, and found it a bit appalling. They seemed to make the claim that heroin isn't all that bad, and that the vast majority of heroin users do not become addicts.

I know that heroin itself is a pretty benign substance, and essentially perfectly safe if you don't overdose and don't develop a habit.

However, I've never really heard of the "casual heroin user" who uses a couple times per month and it doesn't become a problem. Similar to someone who has an occasional beer or joint. Do users like this exist?

I have personally never tried heroin and never will, due to all of the lives I've seen ruined by it. I found the vice reporting somewhat irresponsible, but wonder if there's any validity to this concept of the "occasional" dope user.

 

[Jen X]

Never met a casual heroin user

 

[Electrum1]

Mentioned it on here before, but I'm in that however small category. I haven't used any in a long time besides oxy's, but I can if I want and don't get addicted. All opiates are that way for me for some genetic/biological reason

Could do an oxy 80 every day for a month and be just fine when I stop. It's something with the brain and I can't remember if it's 0.9% or 9% of people that are like that, but @Snafu in the Void knew what I was talking about so maybe he remembers

 

[Snafu in the Void]

It's something like 30% of people who use heroin can do it "casually", meaning they can use for a period of time don't become dependent.

 

[Pissed_and_messed]

One just needs to stop soon after beginning to dabble with opioids.

 

[Burnt Offerings]

If you took a snapshot of the using population of just about any drug using subculture, including highly addictive drugs like heroin or methamphetamine, the majority of users aren’t addicts.

 

[chippermonk]

If you took a snapshot of the using population of just about any drug using subculture, including highly addictive drugs like heroin or methamphetamine, the majority of users aren’t addicts.

That obviously applies to alcohol as well, and alcohol is addictive as all hell for many people.
I guess there are people like @Electrum1 who can use H regularly without physical addiction (that genetic ability was news to me! Congrats!) but there are also people who can do it now and again without ever doing it more, just because they like it but it never gets the upper hand. It has always been that way with drugs. Those people mostly fly under the radar without society noticing. But those who do get addicted attract massive attention.
Of course sometimes an on-going casual-use pattern develops into an addiction when the person has had it under control for years. Also, from a harm standpoint, one runs a risk of ODing regardless of frequency of use, especially when they are inexperienced and especially these days of fetty and what not.
Maybe fentanyl creates more addicts than H and other opioids for chemical reasons? Dunno.

 

[nznity]

That docu is whack, the Greek lady definitely is a daily user. Vice is demonic af with their docus, normalizing drig use and encouraging the youth to take em. They used to make really good gonzo style docus and shit, but this past few years they have fallen hard.

 

[chippermonk]

That docu is whack, the Greek lady definitely is a daily user. Vice is demonic af with their docus, normalizing drig use and encouraging the youth to take em. They used to make really good gonzo style docus and shit, but this past few years they have fallen hard.

Off topic, are you from Peru? I've been down there four times, I really enjoy visiting. Not that I've ever done drugs down there, though I'm sure it could be interesting to be so near all that coca. Beautiful mountains, history, people, food. Fucked up governments, though

 

[burn out]

If you took a snapshot of the using population of just about any drug using subculture, including highly addictive drugs like heroin or methamphetamine, the majority of users aren’t addicts.

Forgive me for being skeptical but where are you getting this information and how are you defining "user" and "addict"?

I once heard Dr. Gabor Mate make this claim and when I looked at his data, they were only counting current users as "addicts". So according to Dr. Mate, I would be considered someone who used heroin without becoming addicted despite the fact that I spent several years heavily addicted to it. What about people in jail for using heroin? The vast majority aren't using while in jail, so they count as non addicts I suppose. If you count like that, of course the majority of users aren't addicts.

However, in my personal life I never met a single person who was a regular user of heroin and was not addicted to it. I've known a couple of people who tried it once or twice or maybe used it when they were hanging out with heroin users but they didn't actually buy it for themselves with any regularity. I'm not denying that chippers exist but they are rare.

 

[TheUltimateFixx]

The vast majority of all drug users aren't addicts and never become addicts. And that goes for all classes of drugs.

The reason recreational heroin users in particular fly under the radar to the extent that they do is threefold. For one, there's a HUGE social stigma attached to opiate use, and especially heroin. It has such a disastrous reputation that people with 'respectable' lives and careers cannot afford to be associated with it. These people go to great lengths to hide their use from anyone but a handful of other opiate-using associates.
For another, well, since their use isn't excessive they neither have nor cause problems which would make them visible as users. You won't find them in trouble with law enforcement or in need of detox or therapy. This is also why researchers only ever come across the more extreme users, ie addicts, because the only places they look for study subjects is prisons, street outreach projects and rehab facilities. T Which leads us to the third reason, it's sociology / drug researchers and doctors who drive the public narrative, and both groups have a clinical bias. 'Junkies' are all they see and interact with, so they assume that's the only kind of heroin user that exists. Since problematic users THEMSELVES typically due to their situation only associate with other addicts, that general impression only gets further cemented.

Imagine what sort of scenario we'd have if alcohol consumption was regarded like heroin. Imagine we taught people the idea that it's absolutely impossible to use alcohol responsibly or in moderation, and that EVERYONE who enjoys a pint or two is on an INEVITABLE path to ending up living under a bridge and starting the morning with half a bottle of vodka. Imagine it was totally unacceptable for someone to drink, and being found out would get you shunned from 'polite society' and fired from work etc etc.
I guarantee there'd be a lot more alcoholics (self-fulfilling prophecies are a thing), and the non-problem drinkers would be forced to conceal their habit so well that the very idea of moderate alcohol use would come to be regarded as practically mythical. If it 'can't' / 'shouldn't' exist, then it DOESN'T exist, right? ...

I can recommend two excellent books on the subject. One is a landmark study by Norman E. Zinberg, entitled "Drug, Set & Setting - The Basis for controlled Intoxicant Use", which includes users of all classes of drugs, including heroin. He emphasises that of all the people he interviewed, he had the greatest difficulty getting hold of moderate opiate users as they were so extremely guarded, and generally had to recruit heavy users (with whom casual users have to have some connection in order to get their drugs) to persuade those individuals to be willing to participate.
The other one is heroin-specific, and is called "Occasional & controlled heroin use - Not a problem?" by Hamish Warburton, Paul J. Turnbull and Mike Hough. It is available as a free download from JRF Drug and Alcohol Research Programme. It's very insightful as it includes many direct quotes from the study subjects.


PS I'm one of these casual heroin users, and I used to be an addict.

There is nothing 'irresponsible' about that report, because it merely reflects a fact.
If anything's irresponsible, it's continuing to perpetuate this entirely lopsided image of heroin and heroin users according to which user = junkie and heroin = one-way ticket to personal degradation. That's a distortion of reality and is helpful to no-one.

 

[Jen X]

Mentioned it on here before, but I'm in that however small category. I haven't used any in a long time besides oxy's, but I can if I want and don't get addicted. All opiates are that way for me for some genetic/biological reason

Could do an oxy 80 every day for a month and be just fine when I stop. It's something with the brain and I can't remember if it's 0.9% or 9% of people that are like that, but @Snafu in the Void knew what I was talking about so maybe he remembers

I'm jealous

 

[burn out]

The vast majority of all drug users aren't addicts and never become addicts. And that goes for all classes of drugs.

The reason recreational heroin users in particular fly under the radar to the extent that they do is threefold. For one, there's a HUGE social stigma attached to opiate use, and especially heroin. It has such a disastrous reputation that people with 'respectable' lives and careers cannot afford to be associated with it. These people go to great lengths to hide their use from anyone but a handful of other opiate-using associates.

Yes, it's obvious that people would want to keep the fact that they use heroin under wraps and the less they use it the easier that it is to do. I'm not asking for reasons why recreational users are less visible, I am saying where is the proof that the vast majority of heroin users aren't addicts? How exactly are you reaching that conclusion?

For another, well, since their use isn't excessive they neither have nor cause problems which would make them visible as users. You won't find them in trouble with law enforcement or in need of detox or therapy. This is also why researchers only ever come across the more extreme users, ie addicts, because the only places they look for study subjects is prisons, street outreach projects and rehab facilities. T Which leads us to the third reason, it's sociology / drug researchers and doctors who drive the public narrative, and both groups have a clinical bias. 'Junkies' are all they see and interact with, so they assume that's the only kind of heroin user that exists. Since problematic users THEMSELVES typically due to their situation only associate with other addicts, that general impression only gets further cemented.

Again, it's obvious chippers are going to be a lot less visible than hardcore addicts. That in no way proves that they consist of the majority of the using population. There's no logical reason they can't be both less visible and a minority.

Imagine what sort of scenario we'd have if alcohol consumption was regarded like heroin. Imagine we taught people the idea that it's absolutely impossible to use alcohol responsibly or in moderation, and that EVERYONE who enjoys a pint or two is on an INEVITABLE path to ending up living under a bridge and starting the morning with half a bottle of vodka. Imagine it was totally unacceptable for someone to drink, and being found out would get you shunned from 'polite society' and fired from work etc etc.
I guarantee there'd be a lot more alcoholics (self-fulfilling prophecies are a thing), and the non-problem drinkers would be forced to conceal their habit so well that the very idea of moderate alcohol use would come to be regarded as practically mythical. If it 'can't' / 'shouldn't' exist, then it DOESN'T exist, right? ...

But that's all beside the point. I fully admit that if heroin was legal and non stigmatized (or even just non stigmatized) there would be a lot more casual users. However, I'm speaking about things as they stand currently and I'm asking for real evidence to support your claim the vast majority of users aren't addicts.

I can recommend two excellent books on the subject. One is a landmark study by Norman E. Zinberg, entitled "Drug, Set & Setting - The Basis for controlled Intoxicant Use", which includes users of all classes of drugs, including heroin. He emphasises that of all the people he interviewed, he had the greatest difficulty getting hold of moderate opiate users as they were so extremely guarded, and generally had to recruit heavy users (with whom casual users have to have some connection in order to get their drugs) to persuade those individuals to be willing to participate.
The other one is heroin-specific, and is called "Occasional & controlled heroin use - Not a problem?" by Hamish Warburton, Paul J. Turnbull and Mike Hough. It is available as a free download from JRF Drug and Alcohol Research Programme. It's very insightful as it includes many direct quotes from the study subjects.


PS I'm one of these casual heroin users, and I used to be an addict.

So I downloaded the second book but it doesn't appear to support your claim that the vast majority of heroin users aren't addicts, nor does it even seem to make them claim (I didn't read the whole book so correct me if I'm wrong). Quoting from the book:

"Their heroin-using careers varied. Some reported patterns of mid- or long-term non-dependent use. Others had moved from dependent and problematic use to non-dependent use. A third group maintained patterns of controlled dependence over the mid- to long-term.

So even among this population of non problematic users they looked at, an entire third were physically dependent on heroin and others had been dependent at one time or another. That doesn't really support the notion that the majority of users don't become dependent.

My suspicion is that if we look at the population of people who use heroin regularly, say five times a year or more and we follow them over a few year period, a clear majority will either be dependent or have been dependent sometime over that period even if they no longer are. If anyone can post evidence to prove me wrong I'm interested to see it.

There is nothing 'irresponsible' about that report, because it merely reflects a fact.
If anything's irresponsible, it's continuing to perpetuate this entirely lopsided image of heroin and heroin users according to which user = junkie and heroin = one-way ticket to personal degradation. That's a distortion of reality and is helpful to no-one.

I agree that real information isn't irresponsible.

 

[Skorpio]

This is actually a phenomenon in rodent addiction research. Even with an inbred (therefore genetically identical) rat line, only 10-20% will develop an addiction One way this is qualified in rats by using progressive ratio dosing paradigms, where a rat can press a lever to get an injection, but each injection will make the next one require more lever presses. After some time it is too much work to get high. Addicted rats will put in much more work to get their drugs.

Studies will often preselect these animals to have a cohort that experiences addiction. It is quite interesting how this effect persists despite the lack of genetic variation.

 

[chippermonk]

This is actually a phenomenon in rodent addiction research. Even with an inbred (therefore genetically identical) rat line, only 10-20% will develop an addiction One way this is qualified in rats by using progressive ratio dosing paradigms, where a rat can press a lever to get an injection, but each injection will make the next one require more lever presses. After some time it is too much work to get high. Addicted rats will put in much more work to get their drugs.

Studies will often preselect these animals to have a cohort that experiences addiction. It is quite interesting how this effect persists despite the lack of genetic variation.

Interesting! When you say "genetically identical", I assume you mean in the way siblings are, not like identical twins or clones where they are the exact same
Another study I think is interesting: I have read that during the Vietnam War, a large number of US troops became addicted or otherwise used heroin, but when they came back, most of them quit. I think this was a case where they were in really lousy conditions where it was socially acceptable among many of their peers to do it, plus it was readily available and cheap, so many did. But when they got back, it wasn't easy or cheap, they weren't in the same environment, and society disapproved: like with the rats, the levers were a hell of a lot harder to pull so most of them readily quit (or so I read: it would be interesting to read up on this)
I guess one question is whether some of these newer drugs develop an addiction quicker or stronger. Maybe due to dosage? Is fentanyl more likely to develop into addiction, for example? Certainly the levers are easier to reach than they used to be, in terms of availability.
But as far as availability and easy access to the "levers", you can't beat alcohol: cheap, socially accepted, and everywhere. Yet most people are not addicted.

 

[burn out]

Interesting! When you say "genetically identical", I assume you mean in the way siblings are, not like identical twins or clones where they are the exact same
Another study I think is interesting: I have read that during the Vietnam War, a large number of US troops became addicted or otherwise used heroin, but when they came back, most of them quit. I think this was a case where they were in really lousy conditions where it was socially acceptable among many of their peers to do it, plus it was readily available and cheap, so many did. But when they got back, it wasn't easy or cheap, they weren't in the same environment, and society disapproved: like with the rats, the levers were a hell of a lot harder to pull so most of them readily quit (or so I read: it would be interesting to read up on this)
I guess one question is whether some of these newer drugs develop an addiction quicker or stronger. Maybe due to dosage? Is fentanyl more likely to develop into addiction, for example? Certainly the levers are easier to reach than they used to be, in terms of availability.
But as far as availability and easy access to the "levers", you can't beat alcohol: cheap, socially accepted, and everywhere. Yet most people are not addicted.

I've always been a believer that circumstances affect one's propensity to addiction a great deal, that's why I question teachings that for example separate alcoholics into one category and "normal drinkers" into another. Granted for some severe alcoholics, believing something like that may be helpful to them but I don't think it's really how it works, I think it's a continuum.

As for the levers with alcohol, yeah you can buy it easily but alcohol does have one pretty hard lever to push and that lever is waking up in the morning with a hangover and having to get out of bed and go to work. Then (for a lot of people) get home and deal with the kids wanting your attention, the dog jumping on you, having to make dinner, etc. It takes a special group of people to do all that while maintaining a serious alcohol habit. Of course some people just leave their kids, or choose not to have careers and such so they can devote more time to drinking, but again that's a pretty steep lever to press and most people don't want to do that. I bet that if alcohol didn't cause a hangover, alcoholism rates would sore.

 

[Kingoffrogs]

I suppose it's certainly possible, but likely? That's another question.

 

[Pissed_and_messed]

I agree that one can possibly maintain addiction without getting completely engulfed by it, if one has lots of other stuff in life. Addiction is strong and commonly gets only stronger, but with some ambition, boundaries can be set with, say, hobbies and relationships and work. They are strong behavioural modulators too.

I guess I was sort of alcoholic long before I had any significant average consumption, now I think about it. I had certain tendency to have one beer every now and then, but I rarely got wasted. It took facing the brick wall and losing past life to lose the control.

 

[someguyontheinternet]

Interesting! When you say "genetically identical", I assume you mean in the way siblings are, not like identical twins or clones where they are the exact same

Actually they are closer to identical twins than normal human siblings, that's the point of inbreeding when it comes to animal models. Littermates are bred to each other and bred to parents to maintain the genetic background which usually does not happen in humans. Inbred mouse and rat models have FAR less genetic variation than human siblings

 

[chippermonk]

I've always been a believer that circumstances affect one's propensity to addiction a great deal, that's why I question teachings that for example separate alcoholics into one category and "normal drinkers" into another. Granted for some severe alcoholics, believing something like that may be helpful to them but I don't think it's really how it works, I think it's a continuum.

As for the levers with alcohol, yeah you can buy it easily but alcohol does have one pretty hard lever to push and that lever is waking up in the morning with a hangover and having to get out of bed and go to work. Then (for a lot of people) get home and deal with the kids wanting your attention, the dog jumping on you, having to make dinner, etc. It takes a special group of people to do all that while maintaining a serious alcohol habit. Of course some people just leave their kids, or choose not to have careers and such so they can devote more time to drinking, but again that's a pretty steep lever to press and most people don't want to do that. I bet that if alcohol didn't cause a hangover, alcoholism rates would sore.

True, it's a bad lever, god do I hate an alcohol hangover! But I hate the hangover of too big a dose of most drugs. It definitely tamps down my enthusiasm, fortunately.