Methadone Theory

During the mid to late 90s, there was a growing epidemic on the eastern seaboard where heroin was leading to skyrocketing numbers of overdose deaths. This called into action members of the U.S. Department of Human Services to both recognize the problem and begin efforts to curb the destruction of the drug, especially on the streets of Harlem. What Harlem and many other cities across the country started to see was the introduction of a drug by the name of methadone. Methadone was widely viewed by many within the treatment industry, as the cure all drug for those struggling with addiction, as it limited the users drug cravings and would not allow the user to get high on regular forms of opiates. This was because the actual active ingredient in methadone is a man-made chemical that still utilizes the brain’s morphine receptor while also blocking the natural receptor from identifying and utilizing natural opiates - the process is referred to as “synapsis.” Because this new drug allowed the policing of the actual neuron where opiates were broken down in the brain, this brought a new cutting edge theory to the process of treating chemical dependency. Just as Beccaria had developed the principle of classical crime theory, methadone had what many believed, created the new norm in treating heroin addiction. One researcher by the name of Sharon Stancliff noted, “with the ability to limit the one known phenomenon of addiction - cravings - it allowed the user to focus on what usually lead them to the addiction in the first place.” (Stancliff 281) What has become of this drug in the early 2000s, is a new drug by the name of buprenorphine. This drug was widely under utilized instead for methadone, being as methadone had been used for far longer with relatively positive results as it relates to harm reduction. Harm reduction is defined as, “a set of practical strategies and ideas aimed at reducing the negative consequences associated with drug use” (Marlatt 592). The theory of harm reduction when discussing methadone, has run into pitfalls because more users have died of methadone overdose than all opiates combined since 2001 (Pualozzi). The difference between burpenorphine and methadone is the fact that methadones half life threshold can be leap frogged, meaning the user can actually jump over the intended effect of the drug that helps stop the user from getting high; where as the opiate antagonist effect found within drugs that use buprenorphine, such as suboxone, it has been scientifically debunked that efforts to overcome the drugs active half life is impossible. Although for nearly a decade, methadone did save lives, but the question still remains - “did the good of the drug actually outweigh all the negative consequences?” Is it true that while offenders used methadone they were 46% less likely to reoffend (Mattick)? The same question can be towed for the reverse seeing as those who used methadone vs. other methods of harm reducing medication such as buprenorphine, but even more telling, than heroin itself, were three times more likely to overdose with methadone (Mégarbane 83). All of these questions and statistics outline why one argument should overrule the other, but even contemporaries in one of Americas fastest growing fellowships - Alcoholics Anonymous, continue to call these drugs “crutches” or say - “these addicts are just trading one high for another.” Regardless of the opinions of those who may or may not be in long term recovery, the reality is recovery looks different for everyone. No one person’s sobriety is an outline on how to stay sober for the rest of your life. There are factors that weigh into who each individual person is, whether it’s sociocultural dynamics, trauma or even heredity. …show more content…
The point of harm reduction was to reduce the risk on both the user and society as a whole. For some, if we take away the medication, whether it be Suboxone or methadone, they will not just continue to use, they will continue to break the law and hurt society by costing John Q tax payer. For some, they must maintain absolute abstinence, because if they are to put a substance, even if it is methadone or suboxone, it would drive them further into using more and different