Study Backs Heroin to Treat Addiction

[phr]

There is no 'cure' for drug addiction.

I don't buy that at all. Addiction in my eyes is the 'compulsive'(abuse would probably be a better word than compulsive) use of drugs, regardless of the consequences. People quit for good and people can learn to use responsibly again. Hard, but possible. I'd call that a cure. The you're "addict for life" mantra is bullshit.

 

[-Guido-]

I don't buy that at all. Addiction in my eyes is the 'compulsive'(abuse would probably be a better word than compulsive) use of drugs, regardless of the consequences. People quit for good and people can learn to use responsibly again. Hard, but possible. I'd call that a cure. The you're "addict for life" mantra is bullshit.

Agreed.

 

[Tchort]

I don't buy that at all. Addiction in my eyes is the 'compulsive'(abuse would probably be a better word than compulsive) use of drugs, regardless of the consequences. People quit for good and people can learn to use responsibly again. Hard, but possible. I'd call that a cure. The you're "addict for life" mantra is bullshit.

I don't think of it as an either/or situation. I definitely don't think that there is such a thing as a 'former addict' until you die. Someone clean for years can face a severe trigger and relapse. It happens all the time. This forum is full of 'ex-addicts' who then post about their new habits. In that sense it is something that is a part of your life, no matter how distant it may seem. I don't care how much clean time someone has accumulated, in and of itself sobriety is not a sign of 'cure'.

More specifically, I was talking about the various treatment modalities out there, from electro-shock, apomorphine, UROD, ibogaine, narconon/purif, buprenorphine assisted detox, methadone assisted detox, etc. No treatment for opioid addiction is a cure- and unfortunately undergoing a treatment regimine of some kind of thought of as a cure in society at large; with the expectation that the person undergoing this treatment is going to come out the other end 'fixed'. Which is a horribly unrealistic portrayel of what actually happens.

 

[chrisinabox]

^ Yeah, I kinda went into a little more detail. Sorry if that offended you. 8)

At first I thought you were talking about a different opioid. I didn't know Diamorphine is the British name for pharmaceutical heroin. (thanks wiki!)

Oh its no big deal.

I don't know what exactly the British name for pharm heroin is, but diamorphine/diacetylmorphine is actually the "chemical" name for heroin. heroin is the original brand name from Bayer for the drug diacetylmorphine, so heroin=diacetylmorphine. Its basically a morphine molecule with 2 acetyl groups added on, which helps the morphine cross the BBB 3 times faster and more efficiently.
You would be surprised just how many people don't know that Heroin and Diacetylmorphine are the same thing. They only know the name Heroin.

 

[phr]

I don't think of it as an either/or situation. I definitely don't think that there is such a thing as a 'former addict' until you die. Someone clean for years can face a severe trigger and relapse. It happens all the time. This forum is full of 'ex-addicts' who then post about their new habits. In that sense it is something that is a part of your life, no matter how distant it may seem. I don't care how much clean time someone has accumulated, in and of itself sobriety is not a sign of 'cure'.

I don't think the potential to get sick again means you haven't been cured.


I don't like using the word cure for addiction because it's such a loaded word. (But I hate the addict for life bullshit more.) I think when most people hear 'cured' they assume that the cured will never go through that condition again. They assume immunity. 8)


Also, I think the word cure is somewhat forced into (erroneous?) use by the addiction is a disease bit. I think if addiction was more commonly called a disorder or mental disorder to be more specific, instead of disease which for most people means it absolves them from personal responsibility, we'd be better off.

 

[Tchort]

I don't think the potential to get sick again means you haven't been cured.


I don't like using the word cure for addiction because it's such a loaded word. (But I hate the addict for life bullshit more.) I think when most people hear 'cured' they assume that the cured will never go through that condition again. They assume immunity. 8)


Also, I think the word cure is somewhat forced into (erroneous?) use by the addiction is a disease bit. I think if addiction was more commonly called a disorder or mental disorder to be more specific, instead of disease which for most people means it absolves them from personal responsibility, we'd be better off.

It's a problem of perception and communication- I don't disagree with most of your explanation, however the entire public discourse on addiction (among other topics) has been hijacked by narrowly defined theories, and 30 second soundbytes: when the subject has a plethora of asterisks and footnotes and indirect connotations that make it impossible to turn such a difficult complex of facts, anecdotes, culture, history and science into something easy to understand and explain.

At the moment, of every model of addiction currently on the table, I do think the disease model offers the best explanation- based on a particular definition of a disease, and with a number of 'buts' attached to it. The biggest 'but' or 'asterisk'/'footnote' to the disease model is personal responsibility.

On the one hand you've got 'addictionologists' and treatment professionals who profess an addict is devoid of responsibility by virtue of having a disease.

I haven't talked to many addicts who believe personal responsibility isn't a factor. I'm against this notion as well; the often destructive force will and choices play in addiction, it is a vital component to understanding the broader implications of addiction.

On the other hand, you've got the moral model of addiction, which basically says addiction is entirely a choice and is maintained by the weak will ,weak or degenerate character of the addict. This idea has spawned the most destructive aspects of addiction- the 'super ego' that constantly berates addicts with unneccessary stress and triggers like anxiety and depression on a daily basis, and the systems of prohibition and institutional ignorance that continue to harm recreational drug users and addicts alike.

When addiction was thought of strictly as a mental disorder, we ended up with lobotomies, electro-shock therapy, and now Naltrexone implants. I don't think it can be argued that addiction is a physiological condition- which makes it much more than a psychological disorder.

 

[muse87]

Thank to all of you for posting this information. Much of the public is misinformed or would rather stick with their biases on addiction treatment facilities. I see the usefullness everyday since I actually work in the field. Maintenance treatment is definitely not a "cure" like others were saying but it is very successful in providing a bridge for addicts who cannot be completely abstinant.

 

[phr]

It's a problem of perception and communication- I don't disagree with most of your explanation, however the entire public discourse on addiction (among other topics) has been hijacked by narrowly defined theories, and 30 second soundbytes: when the subject has a plethora of asterisks and footnotes and indirect connotations that make it impossible to turn such a difficult complex of facts, anecdotes, culture, history and science into something easy to understand and explain.

At the moment, of every model of addiction currently on the table, I do think the disease model offers the best explanation- based on a particular definition of a disease, and with a number of 'buts' attached to it. The biggest 'but' or 'asterisk'/'footnote' to the disease model is personal responsibility.

On the one hand you've got 'addictionologists' and treatment professionals who profess an addict is devoid of responsibility by virtue of having a disease.

I haven't talked to many addicts who believe personal responsibility isn't a factor. I'm against this notion as well; the often destructive force will and choices play in addiction, it is a vital component to understanding the broader implications of addiction.

On the other hand, you've got the moral model of addiction, which basically says addiction is entirely a choice and is maintained by the weak will ,weak or degenerate character of the addict. This idea has spawned the most destructive aspects of addiction- the 'super ego' that constantly berates addicts with unneccessary stress and triggers like anxiety and depression on a daily basis, and the systems of prohibition and institutional ignorance that continue to harm recreational drug users and addicts alike.

When addiction was thought of strictly as a mental disorder, we ended up with lobotomies, electro-shock therapy, and now Naltrexone implants. I don't think it can be argued that addiction is a physiological condition- which makes it much more than a psychological disorder.

Yes.

Also, ime at least, addiction has varying causes. Meaning that broad definitions and standard treatments do no work for everyone, since it is caused by different things in different people. (Also, most treatments strive for complete abstinence. Very unrealistic and it just sets up further failure. But that's a different topic.)

So, there could be a genetic factor at play. There could not be. There could be permanent neurological changes caused by heavy abuse of certain substances, and there could not be. There could be environmental influences, psychological reasons for use, etc.
So, for treatment to be successful you have to find the underlying causes and address them. Seemingly very difficult and time consuming. ( Or just provide substitutes for opiate addicts. %) )

 

[mushmind62]

http://www.dbtechno.com/health/2009/08/20/heroin-proven-to-benefit-recovering-drug-addicts/

I used to live in Vt. @ N.H. I still am in a methedone clinic. I went to one in Manchester N.H. Had to drive 2 hr. one way for 6 months till I could go to one closer. HMI was the name of it. Really nice people there. Diane was in charge. She saved my life. My g/f also. If your from here and are lookin or thinkin of useing the program , do it. If your there now. Tell Diane Shari @ glenn from Vt. said hi, and we had a baby> she'll remember us.