Are oral versions of "hard drugs" the safest way to avoid addiction and withdrawls?

[cowardescent]

I've been using drugs for a few years ever since I was 18 and during that time I've made friends with people who use moderate to hard drugs. The drugs of choice are mainly benzos, opiates, and stimulants. It seems that of the 5 I know that tried meth, heroin and xanax, 2 have lost their job and home and 3 are still afloat. The latter seemed to have not engaged in polydrug use (using at the same time) but probably more importantly didn't inject, smoke, or snort their drugs.

The high is definitely diminished by the reduced BA but could we go a step further and say it's safer to use? Is this why patients in pain prescribed diamorphine and narcoleptics/adhd kids precsribed meth hcl in tablet form are said not to develop addiction compared to intravenous users of black market heroin?

I'll be getting €300 next month and wondering if this idea is true enough that I could try it.

 

[Vastness]

It's undoubtedly the case that methods of administration with a slower onset are less reinforcing, and therefore less likely to lead to addiction. There is scientific evidence to prove this. Typically the oral route is the safest also as the gut provides a pretty solid barrier against impurities, compared to even the nasal cavity, and is not associated with other dangers such as in smoking. IV is obviously the extreme other end of the scale in terms of safety, and is never going to be as safe as oral no matter how meticulously careful you are.

However the majority of people who develop destructive habits with substances do not develop these because one day, on a whim, they chose to IV. Most people get addicted while using "safer" methods of administration, and then choose to IV somewhere further down the road when their habit has spiralled somewhat out of their control. Not always, of course, but I would be very surprised if the overwhelming trend was not in this direction.

The route of administration is a factor, for sure, but I would advise against putting too much weight on this when considering the dangers of any given substance. For another good example, just look at how many people become alcoholics - a drug that is only ever administered orally.

Is this why patients in pain prescribed diamorphine and narcoleptics/adhd kids precsribed meth hcl in tablet form are said not to develop addiction compared to intravenous users of black market heroin?

I'm not sure who exactly is saying this, but whoever they are they are woefully misinformed. People get addicted to prescribed medications ALL THE TIME. Some of them eventually progress to using IV street drugs, some not, but even if they never do it doesn't make the addiction any less dangerous.

 

[sekio]

You cab still develop dependance on drugs with oral use (methadone maintenance therapy is given orally...) but it is also true that more rapidly-peaking routes of administration (smoked, IV, snorted, plugged) tend to produce subjectively more intense effects and also more intense withdrawal.

Also, you have no idea what goes on behind closed doors - after all people can lie about only doing drugs orally.