Heroin Heresy
A study of 126 Glaswegian heroin users finds that it doesn't always completely ruin their lives; researcher David Shewan notes that
"The important thing about the study is that it shows while there are heroin users with problems, there are also heroin users without problems.
"These people are mostly ordinary people - they are not the Keith Richards of the world….Drug research should incorporate this previously hidden population to more fully inform theory and practice"
Unsurprisingly, "The research was condemned by drug addiction organisations. Alistair Ramsay of Scotland Against Drugs warned that the findings could portray the wrong message." Followers of the writings of our own Jacob Sullum wouldn't be surprised though; see his June 2003 Reason feature "H: The Surprising Truth About Heroin and Addiction" -- and of course his excellent book, Saying Yes: In Defense of Drug Use -- for details on how the use of illegal drugs need not equal personal degradation and destruction.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
"The research was condemned by drug addiction organisations. Alistair Ramsay of Scotland Against Drugs warned that the findings could portray the wrong message"
What message? It's just saying that some people aren't total dumbasses and are capable of relatively harmless heroin use, not "Go shoot some smack!"
A spokeswoman from the Scottish Drugs Forum said: "The majority of heavy heroin users go on to develop major problems. However, there will be a small group of people who are able to use heroin in a controlled fashion and live a fairly normal life.
...and then onto a fairly normal prison life.
s.a.m. - only if they're caught!
And never mind what that shite hawk David Shewan say, I'd say I'm a stellar example of using drugs responsibly. I'm still here, ain't I?
Keith,
When you are dead, I want to shoot up your adrenal gland juice and smoke your liver through a 10 man hookah and sell the exhale on Ebay as "Keith Richards Smoked Liver Exhalation." Now thats satisfaction, you bloat!
Just reading that study made me want to go out and cop a fix. Next thing I knew I was smashing up my kitchen with a frying pan (albeit, very sexily).
Thanks a lot, Brian!
Adding to the Hummel collection:
"Dr. William Halsted, the father of American surgery and founder of Johns Hopkins Medical Center, took morphine all his adult life, yet none but his closest friends knew. He died at the age of seventy, having performed his most brilliant operations while an addict."
Andy, you said it right there: "some people...are capable of relatively harmless heroin use..."
That's exactly the "message" that we must not send! Ever!
"Alistair Ramsay of Scotland Against Drugs warned that the findings could portray the wrong message"
I agree. We shouldn't let cold, hard facts get in the way of our close-minded agenda!
This just reinforces the point that the drug warriors don't have a logical leg to stand on---it's all about the agenda. And when facts come out that don't fit their agenda, they call it a "message".
I'm looking out the window right now, and 3 out of 5 people cross the street in the crosswalk. The other 2 crossed safely, but "jaywalked". This is a fact. But we don't want to send the "message" that crossing the street without a crosswalk is ok. So let's supress these factual findings.
Mr Leary:
Like I haven't already sold the rights to do just that years ago to Prince Charles.
It was the easiest money I ever made!
Isn't it true that Carl Sagan was a pot head his whole life, and it only came to light after he died? While pot is not heroin, our freinds at the DEA would make you think so since they are in the same category of drug.
Here's fairly interesting piece by a white-collar professional who is addicted to heroin.
I am addicted to heroines. I prefer the softer, sweeter high (Scarlett O'Hara) over the harsher, faux-masculine buzz ("Tomb Raider").
Here's a fairly interesting piece...
Damn, I hate typos.
I remember rumors to that effect while I was at Cornell, but I never saw Prof. Sagan, nor acquired any hard evidence either way. I.e. there was no "smoking gun".
What I find remarkable is that the study rests all its conclusions on the words of a large number of Glaswegians, since no one outside of the city can possibly understand what a Glaswegian is saying.
I am addicted to heroines. I prefer the softer, sweeter high (Scarlett O'Hara) over the harsher, faux-masculine buzz ("Tomb Raider").
LOL. I prefer something in the middle, like Emma Peel. Sharp and capable, but she also gets tied up a lot and has to be rescued every so often.
I can quit anytime I want to, though.
Mm, Emma Peel. Excuse me, I have to go tap a vein.
Carl Sagan essay on marijuana:
http://www.marijuana-uses.com/essays/002.html
Nothing from Juanita on how this will cause the collapse of Western Civilization and lead to toenail fungus? I guess I'd better do it then:
This is propaganda from the --
Oh, hell, my heart's just not in it. Juanita will have to do it herself.
I remember having an argument with my brother over this very issue.
There was a British study of heroin users where the addicts simply went to a clinic for their fix - just enough to keep them from withdrawal. Most people were then able to keep a job, apartment, etc because they weren't in constant search of a fix and the money to buy it with.
Besides, now that Ronnie's gone, it's the only thing that's kept me going.
Isn't Keith Richards (or Keef Richard) a piss-poor example of a doomed drug fiend? He's one of the richest entertainers on Earth, a beloved songwriter and guitarist, a family man, and a great curator of American music & history. Maybe a quarter century ago he was a poster child for the Elegantly Wasted rock kids, and he sure had a few scrapes with the law way back when (all regarding his personal habits), but if anything Keith Richards is a drug success story. He took his drugs, he makes his art, and he is part of a huge money machine that supports a whole lot of people and brings joy to millions more.
Sounds like a good libertarian and good citizen .... Hell, he's one of the original British tax exiles. That ought earn him a little love around these parts. I don't really care about entertainment people -- unless they make good records -- but it's weird to see a working-class-punk-turned-multi-millionaire free-market pro-drug person such as Keith Richards mocked (even if it's in jest) at Reason Magazine.
I don't have a drug problem, I have a cop problem.
--Keith Richards (as I remember it, at least)