Forum: Don’t dismiss potential for controlled supply of drugs

By Ann Morgan / Herald Forum

I want to counter Herald columnist Todd Welch’s prejudicial portrayal of the state’s proposal to provide addicts with drug support to counteract their addictions (“A plan to supply drugs to addicts is a dangerous dance,” The Herald, July 9).

The one proposed by a state panel has been used successfully in Switzerland, as detailed in Johann Hari’s book “Chasing the Scream,” as well as in other places.

First and foremost: Welch advocates that a successful approach “should double down on prevention, treatment and enforcement strategies.” However, this has not, as even he claims, “been proven to reduce drug use and crime.” By his own admission, drug overdose deaths (and accompanying crime) have risen precipitously, despite many of these of efforts. More solutions are needed.

He is correct that many treatment options can, and do, successfully curb addiction, like cognitive behavior therapy, treatment, group work, and supplements like suboxone and methadone. More recently GLP-1 drugs and other formulations show great promise in addiction treatment. But when one is on the street, broke and in the depths of addiction, these are expensive options, and not commonly available, even if people want them. Just making it to an appointment without transportation or sobriety, is challenging. Serious withdrawal symptoms come on quickly, and make it difficult to think of anything more important than finding that next drug hit.

In Switzerland, when addicts were simply given their drugs, they chose to quickly — voluntarily — ramp dosages down. Without the necessity of constantly hustling for their next dose, they had more time, and needed more income. They started to get jobs, make social connections and find decent housing, settling in to a more normal life. By their third year in this program, 80 percent had gone through treatment voluntarily, and quit using drugs all together. About 10 percent never completely stopped using, but they did so through the program at minimal dosage levels, and were living normal lives, with jobs, spouses and children.

Overall, it’s cheaper to supply addicts safe, pharmaceutically approved drugs and support to quit altogether, then to police, arrest, confine, convict and incarcerate them multiple times. Providing clinically certified drugs eliminates fatal overdoses, helps prevent exposure to other harmful chemicals in street drugs, and reduces the spread of diseases like Hepatitis.

One thing this proposal also does right, is to undercut the influence of the cartels by providing free drugs in measured doses. This is what attacks the root of the addiction problem. Cartel-affiliated gangs are the ones who recruit disaffected adolescents in our schools, provide them with stolen guns, and send them out to shoot and kill rivals, deal drugs, steal cars and organize the theft rings that overwhelm retailers, stealing thousands in merchandise.

Once a an addict is arrested and incarcerated, these gangs offer them protection in prison to cement their allegiance. Our prisons are the main recruitment and training ground for gang members. Upon release, job and income prospects are very limited for convicted felons. So they often find employment and protection by working for the gangs again. They are employed to steal, deal drugs, run the chop shops for stolen cars, become prostitutes, traffic stolen guns and fence other stolen goods, doing all the necessary tasks that help the cartels manage their operations and launder their profits.

Contrary to Welch’s claim, this is why offering job training and apprenticeships to addicts is critical to the health of our communities. This is not “coddling”; it is giving addicts a legitimate and economically viable path forward: a big motivator to avoid the opportunities and pitfalls of continued gang affiliation, drug use and crime.

Welch’s attitude towards addicts and addiction mirrors that of many in our communities; one of contempt, demonization, and prejudice. However, addicts are human beings who, like most of us, have made bad choices, which often have been driven by the demands of addiction itself.

Addiction is an illness; not a moral failure. Compassion is simply recognizing and accepting addicts physical needs and rendering treatment — which may include drugs — without judgement or denial. As in Switzerland, this affirmation of their humanity and offer of support, helps them to embrace sobriety. Demonizing them as career criminals, morally corrupt, and incapable of change, undercuts their recovery and our communities health. Above all, they need acceptance for any willingness they show to embrace sobriety.

Unless we can see those who suffer from addiction as humans who are struggling with a deadly disease, and need help to overcome it, addiction and its human consequences will continue to rule our streets and degrade our communities. So, why not try a different approach? What have we got to lose?

Ann Morgan lives in Everett.