Stay Informed

Sign up for news & alerts

Already signed up?
Login here

take action
For every $1 states spend dollar sign on substance misuse and addiction, 94 cents go to shovel up the consequences instead of for treatment and prevention. TELL YOUR LEGISLATORS

What Can I Do?



Continuing Education
Free online courses for addiction counselors LEARN ONLINE

Get Help
Need alcohol or drug help for yourself or someone else? GET HELP

 

Study Finds No Link Between Medical Heroin and Crime
February 24, 2009

Share Share Email
Email
Print
Print
SubscribeSubscribe
News Summary

A researcher studying the effect of supervised injection sites on Montreal and Vancouver communities found no relation between providing heroin to drug addicts at medically supervised clinics and neighborhood crime, the Montreal Gazette reported Feb. 18.

Serge Brochu from the University of Montreal's School of Criminology studied neighborhoods in Montreal and Vancouver that hosted the North American Opiate Medication Initiative (NAOMI) -- a Canadian study in which participants received heroin under the supervision of nurses, doctors, psychiatrists and social workers.

"There's always this 'not in my back yard' attitude," said Brochu, the study's author. "It's good for the patient, but if it's not good for the community, (then) we have a problem."

Brochu and his team conducted repeat site visits, studied crime data, and interviewed residents, merchants, social workers and security guards to ascertain the effect of the NAOMI study on the neighboring community. They reported neither an increase in crime in the neighborhood nor deterioration in the neighboring community.

"This program should live and the government should continue to fund it," Brochu said, citing the beneficial effect on the health of the drug user and the lack of negative neighborhood impact.

Researchers have been advocating for continued funding for the clinic for nearly two years, but the office of Quebec's minister for social services said the final NAOMI report has yet to be analyzed.

COMMENTS ON THIS ARTICLE:

Posted by John from Oceanside on 25 Feb 09 11:46 AM EST
Let's just give up and condem the addict to a slow death, instead of getting them to treatment and a productive life. Give me numbers of individuals this program has referred to treatment. Of course the only number we get is OD data, not how they helped the addict change there life.

Posted by John fron Oceanside on 25 Feb 09 01:28 PM EST
One more thought, What the HECK is Medical Heroin next thing we will hear is a Wino with their Medical Merlot.

Posted by SisterCrystal on 26 Feb 09 04:58 AM EST
You mean the data that shows conclusively that harm reduction techniques including supervised injection sites REDUCE OD deaths in the addict population? How do you propose we 'change the lives' of dead addicts? I encourage John to reexamine his understanding of 'the data' and the many factors that affect both the accessibility and the effectiveness of the currently available treatment options, since I am sure he is not implying that addicts should otherwise be condemned to a QUICK death.

Posted by John from Oceanside on 26 Feb 09 01:25 PM EST
Dear Sis again how many addicts have been referred to treatment? I have worked for an agency that has Harm Reduction Programs for 6 years, and when I began I informed them that I have the ability to get them intervention beds at no cost to their clients. In the six years they have used two beds. The problem with Harm Reduction is that you don't believe that an addict can get and stay clean so you don't access treatment for your clients. That's what I mean a slow death because drug treatment is very very low on the priority list.

Posted by SisterCrystal on 27 Feb 09 07:15 PM EST
You seem to be saying that the introduction of harm reduction options in a given addict population will result in fewer admissions to treatment with a correspondingly higher mortality rate. Available data does not support this assertion. Harm reduction is not meant to be a substitute for treatment, or an alternative to recovery. Its aim is to help addicts that, for whatever reason, are not currently able or willing to enter treatment. The success of these programs is not measured by the number of referrals they produce. Their benefits are a healthier addict population, fewer drug related deaths, and a reduction in the economic and social costs of addiction. Harm reduction does not divert people away from treatment. Addicts that have access to harm reduction programs in addition to other treatment options have better odds of surviving and recovering from their illness.

Posted by John from Oceanside on 03 Mar 09 10:44 AM EST
Dear SIS you prove my point your last last last last option is drug treatment.

Posted by blacksuit on 30 Aug 09 06:24 PM EDT
I have long noticed that some of the strongest resistance to harm reduction(HR) comes from those involved in the treatment industry and 12 step "recovery". As the comments above by "John" demonstate, there is an almost willful ignorance of the purpose of HR, which is simply to keep an addict- and by extension his/her community- healthy and alive until they are ready to deal with their problem. I have personally known at least a dozen people who have died as a result of this puritanical mentality towards drug addiction espoused by mainstream "recovery". These people had been told by all recovering addicts at the 12step meetings they were attending that HR strategies like methadone maintenance were "worse than heroin" and "not a good option". Sadly, they believed this and ended up ODing and dying after relapsing the umpteenth time. All because they were told-and believed- that there's only one "right" way to deal with their addiction...

SUBMIT A COMMENT:

Note: Comments are now held for moderator approval. More info

Name:

Comment:
(limit 250
words)

Enter this word
(help):
Change

GUIDELINES: 
Please keep comments on-topic, courteous, clean, non-commercial, and within the word limit.
Read the complete guidelines