Category: Harm Reduction

  • They Fell In Love Helping Drug Users. But Fear Kept Him From Helping Himself.

    Beeler worried that a failed drug test — even if it was for a medication to treat his addiction (like buprenorphine) — would land him in prison.

    She was in medical school. He was just out of prison.

    Sarah Ziegenhorn and Andy Beeler’s romance grew out of a shared passion to do more about the country’s drug overdose crisis.

    Ziegenhorn moved back to her home state of Iowa when she was 26. She had been working in Washington, D.C., where she also volunteered at a needle exchange — where drug users can get clean needles. She was ambitious and driven to help those in her community who were overdosing and dying, including people she had grown up with.

    “Many people were just missing because they were dead,” said Ziegenhorn, now 31. “I couldn’t believe more wasn’t being done.”

    She started doing addiction advocacy in Iowa City while in medical school — lobbying local officials and others to support drug users with social services.

    Beeler had the same conviction, born from his personal experience.

    “He had been a drug user for about half of his life — primarily a longtime opiate user,” Ziegenhorn said.

    Beeler spent years in and out of the criminal justice system for a variety of drug-related crimes, such as burglary and possession. In early 2018, he was released from prison. He was on parole and looking for ways to help drug users in his hometown.

    He found his way to advocacy work and, through that work, found Ziegenhorn. Soon they were dating.

    “He was just this really sweet, no-nonsense person who was committed to justice and equity,” she said. “Even though he was suffering in many ways, he had a very calming presence.”

    People close to Beeler describe him as a “blue-collar guy” who liked motorcycles and home carpentry, someone who was gentle and endlessly curious. Those qualities could sometimes hide his struggle with anxiety and depression. Over the next year, Beeler’s other struggle, with opioid addiction, would flicker around the edges of their life together.

    Eventually, it killed him.

    People on parole and under supervision of the corrections system can face barriers to receiving appropriate treatment for opioid addiction. Ziegenhorn said she believes Beeler’s death is linked to the many obstacles to medical care he experienced while on parole.

    About 4.5 million people are on parole or probation in the U.S., and research shows that those under community supervision are much more likely to have a history of substance use disorder than the general population. Yet rules and practices guiding these agencies can preclude parolees and people on probation from getting evidence-based treatment for their addiction.

    A Shared Passion For Reducing Harm

    From their first meeting, Ziegenhorn said, she and Beeler were in sync, partners and passionate about their work in harm reduction — public health strategies designed to reduce risky behaviors that can hurt health.

    After she moved to Iowa, Ziegenhorn founded a small nonprofit called the Iowa Harm Reduction Coalition. The group distributes the opioid-overdose reversal drug naloxone and other free supplies to drug users, with the goal of keeping them safe from illness and overdose. The group also works to reduce the stigma that can dehumanize and isolate drug users. Beeler served as the group’s coordinator of harm reduction services.

    “In Iowa, there was a feeling that this kind of work was really radical,” Ziegenhorn said. “Andy was just so excited to find out someone was doing it.”

    Meanwhile, Ziegenhorn was busy with medical school. Beeler helped her study. She recalled how they used to take her practice tests together.

    “Andy had a really sophisticated knowledge of science and medicine,” she said. “Most of the time he’d been in prison and jails, he’d spent his time reading and learning.”

    Beeler was trying to stay away from opioids, but Ziegenhorn said he still used heroin sometimes. Twice she was there to save his life when he overdosed. During one episode, a bystander called the police, which led to his parole officer finding out.

    “That was really a period of a lot of terror for him,” Ziegenhorn said.

    Beeler was constantly afraid the next slip — another overdose or a failed drug test — would send him back to prison.

    An Injury, A Search For Relief

    A year into their relationship, a series of events suddenly brought Beeler’s history of opioid use into painful focus.

    It began with a fall on the winter ice. Beeler dislocated his shoulder — the same one he’d had surgery on as a teenager.

    “At the emergency room, they put his shoulder back into place for him,” Ziegenhorn said. “The next day it came out again.”

    She said doctors wouldn’t prescribe him prescription opioids for the pain because Beeler had a history of illegal drug use. His shoulder would dislocate often, sometimes more than once a day.

    “He was living with this daily, really severe constant pain — he started using heroin very regularly,” Ziegenhorn said.

    Beeler knew what precautions to take when using opioids: Keep naloxone on hand, test the drugs first and never use alone. Still, his use was escalating quickly.

    A Painful Dilemma 

    The couple discussed the future and their hope of having a baby together, and eventually Ziegenhorn and Beeler agreed: He had to stop using heroin.

    They thought his best chance was to start on a Food and Drug Administration-approved medication for opioid addiction, such as methadone or buprenorphine. Methadone is an opioid, and buprenorphine engages many of the same opioid receptors in the brain; both drugs can curb opioid cravings and stabilize patients. Studies show daily maintenance therapy with such treatment reduces the risks of overdose and improves health outcomes.

    But Beeler was on parole, and his parole officer drug-tested him for opioids and buprenorphine specifically. Beeler worried that if a test came back positive, the officer might see that as a signal that Beeler had been using drugs illegally.

    Ziegenhorn said Beeler felt trapped: “He could go back to prison or continue trying to obtain opioids off the street and slowly detox himself.”

    He worried that a failed drug test — even if it was for a medication to treat his addiction — would land him in prison. Beeler decided against the medication.

    A few days later, Ziegenhorn woke up early for school. Beeler had worked late and fallen asleep in the living room. Ziegenhorn gave him a kiss and headed out the door. Later that day, she texted him. No reply.

    She started to worry and asked a friend to check on him. Not long afterward, Beeler was found dead, slumped in his chair at his desk. He’d overdosed.

    “He was my partner in thought, and in life and in love,” Ziegenhorn said.

    It’s hard for her not to rewind what happened that day and wonder how it could have been different. But mostly she’s angry that he didn’t have better choices.

    “Andy died because he was too afraid to get treatment,” she said.


    Beeler was services coordinator for the Iowa Harm Reduction Coalition, a group that works to help keep drug users safe. A tribute in Iowa City after his death began, “He died of an overdose, but he’ll be remembered for helping others avoid a similar fate.” (COURTESY OF SARAH ZIEGENHORN)

    How Does Parole Handle Relapse? It Depends

    It’s not clear that Beeler would have gone back to prison for admitting he’d relapsed and was taking treatment. His parole officer did not agree to an interview.

    But Ken Kolthoff, who oversees the parole program that supervised Beeler in Iowa’s First Judicial District Department of Correctional Services, said generally he and his colleagues would not punish someone who sought out treatment because of a relapse.

    “We would see that that would be an example of somebody actually taking an active role in their treatment and getting the help they needed,” said Kolthoff.

    The department doesn’t have rules prohibiting any form of medication for opioid addiction, he said, as long as it’s prescribed by a doctor.

    “We have people relapse every single day under our supervision. And are they being sent to prison? No. Are they being sent to jail? No,” Kolthoff said.

    But Dr. Andrea Weber, an addiction psychiatrist with the University of Iowa, said Beeler’s reluctance to start treatment is not unusual.

    “I think a majority of my patients would tell me they wouldn’t necessarily trust going to their [parole officer],” said Weber, assistant director of addiction medicine at the University of Iowa’s Carver College of Medicine. “The punishment is so high. The consequences can be so great.”

    Weber finds probation and parole officers have “inconsistent” attitudes toward her patients who are on medication-assisted treatment.

    “Treatment providers, especially in our area, are still very much ingrained in an abstinence-only, 12-step mentality, which traditionally has meant no medications,” Weber said. “That perception then invades the entire system.”

    Attitudes And Policies Vary Widely

    Experts say it’s difficult to draw any comprehensive picture about the availability of medication for opioid addiction in the parole and probation system. The limited amount of research suggests that medication-assisted treatment is significantly underused.

    “It’s hard to quantify because there are such a large number of individuals under community supervision in different jurisdictions,” said Michael Gordon, a senior research scientist at the Friends Research Institute, based in Baltimore.

    A national survey published in 2013 found that about half of drug courts did not allow methadone or other evidence-based medications used to treat opioid use disorder.

    A more recent study of probation and parole agencies in Illinois reported that about a third had regulations preventing the use of medications for opioid use disorder. Researchers found the most common barrier for those on probation or parole “was lack of experience by medical personnel.”

    Faye Taxman, a criminology professor at George Mason University, said decisions about how to handle a client’s treatment often boil down to the individual officer’s judgment.

    “We have a long way to go,” she said. “Given that these agencies don’t typically have access to medical care for clients, they are often fumbling in terms of trying to think of the best policies and practices.”

    Increasingly, there is a push to make opioid addiction treatment available within prisons and jails. In 2016, the Rhode Island Department of Corrections started allowing all three FDA-approved medications for opioid addiction. That led to a dramatic decrease in fatal opioid overdoses among those who had been recently incarcerated.

    Massachusetts has taken similar steps. Such efforts have only indirectly affected parole and probation.

    “When you are incarcerated in prison or jail, the institution has a constitutional responsibility to provide medical services,” Taxman said. “In community corrections, that same standard does not exist.”

    Taxman said agencies may be reluctant to offer these medications because it’s one more thing to monitor. Those under supervision are often left to figure out on their own what’s allowed.

    “They don’t want to raise too many issues because their freedom and liberties are attached to the response,” she said.

    Richard Hahn, a researcher at New York University’s Marron Institute of Urban Management who consults on crime and drug policy, said some agencies are shifting their approach.

    “There is a lot of pressure on probation and parole agencies not to violate people just on a dirty urine or for an overdose” said Hahn, who is executive director of the institute’s Crime & Justice Program.

    The federal government’s Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration calls medication-assisted treatment the “gold standard” for treating opioid addiction when used alongside “other psychosocial support.”

    Addiction is considered a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act, said Sally Friedman, vice president of legal advocacy for the Legal Action Center, a nonprofit law firm based in New York City.

    She said disability protections extend to the millions of people on parole or probation. But people under community supervision, Friedman said, often don’t have an attorney who can use this legal argument to advocate for them when they need treatment.

    “Prohibiting people with that disability from taking medication that can keep them alive and well violates the ADA,” she said.

    This story is part of a partnership between NPR and Kaiser Health News.

    View the original article at thefix.com

  • Better is Better: Stories of Alcohol Harm Reduction

    Better is Better: Stories of Alcohol Harm Reduction

    Unlike most recovery groups, abstinence (sobriety) is not a requirement for HAMS. HAMS encourages all positive change, from abstinence to moderation to safer drinking.

    The following is an excerpt from HAMS’ (Harm Reduction, Abstinence and Moderation Support) new book, in which members tell their stories of success and struggles along the way. Find more information about HAMS at the end of this excerpt.

    Jessica’s Story

    I had been a heavy drinker for 10 – 20 years. The increase in my drinking happened gradually, but then one day I became very ill after drinking and realized I could have been going through withdrawal. Yet it didn’t sink in and I continued on my path to destruction.

    I work in drug addiction so I wasn’t oblivious to harm reduction, but the consensus where I live is that it doesn’t work, and everyone pushes AA. I didn’t want to go to AA and felt I couldn’t because I am in a very public position in my career in the addiction field. So I started to Google around and came across the HAMS website, but I didn’t join yet. 

    Then in December of 2016 I took a bad turn. I had been binge-drinking on a public holiday, and I was very sick, but I had to go into work on Monday. That’s when I finally joined HAMS. It was the first time I ever expressed to anyone, even myself, that alcohol had become a problem. Being able to do that in a safe environment was very important to me. There were so many people on so many different paths, including many who had been abstinent for years or moderating successfully, as well as those who had serious problems. 

    I was a member of HAMS for several months before I embarked on a taper. It had its limitations because I work long hours and I don’t drink during work so obviously with the consumption of alcohol I used to have during my hours off work it was very difficult to taper while not drinking for 12 hours a day. But tapering works. I did a long taper – perhaps it was more psychological than physical, but I live alone and I didn’t want to risk DTs.

    I tried moderating, but it didn’t work for me. Once I start to drink, there is no stop button. So I made the decision last year to be alcohol-free. Once I tried moderation again, but drank way too much. It wasn’t even stress or trauma: I just thought I deserved a treat so I tried it again, but once I started I kept going. I contacted a doctor I knew from Facebook who was a specialist in addictions and who I knew would keep my confidence, and he prescribed an at-home detox with Ativan. Unfortunately, I still had to go to work, and I don’t know how I managed but I did. So I came to the conclusion last year that I need to be alcohol free because this moderation thing does not work for me. 

    I found the HAMS Facebook group very helpful because sleeping has always been a problem for me, and it was especially acute when I first stopped drinking. I am in Central Europe, so when I couldn’t sleep at night, everyone in the US was up. When I couldn’t sleep at 2 or 3 am my time, there was always someone in the group I could talk to. I’ve made a lot of good friends in HAMS, and we usually don’t even talk about alcohol. We talk about other things in our lives. My mantra has always been that I am much more than my alcohol problem, so talking with HAMS friends about things other than alcohol keeps me focused on the life I have beyond alcohol. 

    Another thing I like about HAMS is how many members are female. Women have a very different experience with alcohol than men do, and I feel that most treatment is geared to men. Women often have more at stake: a woman I know went to the ER because she was in withdrawal, and they called child protection services on her. I didn’t want to join AA because as a female, I didn’t want to be preyed upon by the men there. Women are so vulnerable, especially when we first stop drinking. I know of many women who have been taken advantage of by men in AA. That doesn’t happen in HAMS. I’ve never felt pounced upon or been contacted in any inappropriate way. 

    The support in HAMS has made it possible for me to become alcohol-free. The fact that it is international, I can get support any time day or night, and I don’t have to worry about my identity being exposed in the country where I work, have all been important. I want us to continue to grow and help people all over the world see that changing your drinking really is possible. With HAMS, no matter who you are or where you live, you are never alone. 

     

    HAMS – Harm Reduction, Abstinence and Moderation Support – is an over 5,000-member group of people worldwide who are working to change their drinking. Unlike most such groups, abstinence (sobriety) is not a requirement for HAMS. HAMS encourages all positive change, from abstinence to moderation to safer drinking. Members are encouraged to set their own goals and make a plan for achieving them. HAMS provides confidential, 24/7 online support through closed Facebook groups, including a 1,000-member group for women only. Members interact with each other from the privacy of their own homes, and no judgement is allowed – just support and encouragement. HAMS provides support for those who want to set their own goals, think for themselves, and improve their drinking.

    HAMS’ original book, a science-based, step-by-step guide to changing your drinking, can be found at How to Change Your Drinking by Kenneth Anderson. HAMS website is https://hams.cc/ and Facebook groups include HAMS: Harm Reduction for Alcohol, HAMS for Women, Alcohol Harm Reduction, and Alcohol Free Hamsters, a group for those who choose abstinence.

    View the original article at thefix.com

  • Overdose Deaths: Not an Epidemic or a Crisis, and Not by Accident

    Overdose Deaths: Not an Epidemic or a Crisis, and Not by Accident

    Overdoses are not mysterious, they result from predictable causes like criminalizing drug use, ineffective policies, poverty, lack of stable housing, and persistent racism.

    Opioid-related overdoses are not a crisis or an epidemic, and should not be described as either. Both words stigmatize the victims of a phenomenon that is not happening by accident. Such overdoses have been steadily increasing throughout the United States and are especially high in Appalachia (where we both work). Yet overdoses are not a natural or mysterious phenomenon. They result primarily not from individual, but from larger structural factors — criminalization of drug use, ineffective social policies, poverty, lack of stable housing, historical and persistent racism, and other forms of systemic oppression — which are all the result of deliberate policy decisions.

    We are told by the media, CDC, and state governments that the region where we live and work is ground zero for a drug “crisis.” Yet those same entities contribute to the problem through policies, funding allocations, and covering-up of underlying systemic causes. We must shift our language to reflect this. Substance use and overdose happen in predictable contexts and disproportionately affect marginalized communities.

    Terms Like “Epidemic” and “Crisis” Cause Alarm and Hysteria, Stigmatizing People Who Deserve Compassion

    More than 67,000 people in the United States died from opioid-related overdose in 2018. Alarmist headlines, even well-intended reports, do not justify an inaccurate framing. We advocate instead for the use of the term impact, or other language that indicates the underlying roots of suffering, instead of epidemic or crisis.

    Epidemic is most accurately used to describe infectious or viral spread of a disease within a population over a short period of time. Substance use, even for the relatively low 18% of people who use “chaotically,” does not meet this criteria. People who overdose or suffer negative consequences of substance use may be more socially or genetically vulnerable to a substance use disorder but in basic epidemiological principles, that does not an epidemic make. Calling structural violence that leads to specific overdose patterns an epidemic or a crisis feeds into a hysteria that marginalizes drug users and their loved ones. Both words take the focus away from the underlying causes of suffering; naturalizing it and leaving the conversation at a surface level without motivating real change. 

    We both work in and study harm reduction and overdose prevention in North Carolina: a microcosm of opioid-related deaths and specific patterns of suffering repeated elsewhere in Appalachia and throughout the country. Daily, we observe the dynamics of economic policies, limited healthcare access, and stigmatization that impact people already at greater risk for substance use and overdose. Later in this essay we discuss how it plays out in North Carolinians’ overdose risks — making it more likely they and their loved ones will be blamed if they do.

    How Misguided Drug Policies Blame the Victims While Ignoring the Causes

    Like the thousands of lives lost to fentanyl poisoning in the context of increased drug use criminalization today, there was nothing natural about the thousands of lives lost to alcohol poisoning during prohibition a century ago; or the increase in deaths and drug-related arrests that ravaged inner-cities during the government-manufactured “crack era” of the 80s and 90s. Consequences of drug use, like mass incarceration, have never been a natural disaster. Instead, policy responses to drug use tend to create systemic storms that rage in vulnerable communities. This is a classic example of blaming the victims of problems while ignoring the causes.

    If a “crisis” is happening to those around you, you may feel bad for them, you may vote for a politician who promises to address it — but you probably won’t ask how the same politicians or political system contributed to creating it, or how arresting and jailing poor and Black and Brown people will fail to fix it. Overdose deaths in the U.S. have always been both a symptom and outcome of discriminatory policies

    Suffering is further exacerbated by punitive policies such as drug-induced homicide laws that increase overdose deaths, weaken Good Samaritan legislation intended to reduce overdose, and criminalize drug users and their loved ones. For example, opioid de-prescribing mandates in 19 states appear to result in an increase in heroin overdose deaths. And, healthcare policy is an oft-overlooked aspect of overdose prevention — states that did not expand Medicaid (which increases coverage of treatment) are disproportionately states with higher overdose and substance use.

    Mainstream media portrays sympathetic stories of the middle-class sons and daughters of urban politicians dying of overdose, while the stigmatized partners and friends of poor Appalachians who disproportionately die of overdose from drugs often laced with fentanyl fear being arrested under ‘drug-induced homicide’ and ‘death by distribution’ laws if they call 911. The ways that drug users are talked about serve political agendas that further contribute to patterns of suffering.*

    We must acknowledge and address what is missing, obscured, and ignored when we promote an inaccurate framing of drug use as a “crisis” or “epidemic,” rather than something caused by policy decisions. Who is disproportionately blamed? Who is left out of the conversation? 

    When we fail to address how a combination of economic, political, biological, behavioral, genetic, and social factors intersect within the lives of drug users and their wider communities, we legitimize the use of simplistic and punitive approaches to complex issues. Where we live and work, North Carolina policy makers used the 2016-2017 increase in drug overdose deaths to justify an argument for harsher punishments despite a wealth of research that shows that such approaches increase the very health consequences they claim to reduce. Further, these approaches do nothing to address economic disparities in North Carolina where 13 of 100 counties have experienced rates of poverty at 20% or higher for the last three decades. They do nothing to address the lack of Medicaid expansion or limited employment and economic growth — all upstream drivers of overdose and suffering.

    Simply put, an increase in overdose deaths is not the result of society’s inability to get tough on crime, or even the need for more biomedical treatment. Rather, overdose deaths persist due to an unwillingness to acknowledge that treatment expansion and more or harsher punishment fail to address gaping social wounds

    Communication: Start Using Language That Reveals the Roots of Unequal Suffering

    As long as policymakers, politicians, and journalists continue to use inaccurate terms like “opioid crisis/epidemic,” opportunities are missed to discuss and address the causes and effects of substance use and overdose. We advocate for talking instead about “opioid impact” or “overdose impact.” A more neutral term like impact is less stigmatizing and hyperbolic, and thus less marginalizing for those directly affected. Impact is also more flexible — not all drug use is harmful, nor leads to substance use disorder, illness, or overdose. Impact is a more accurate and flexible term to allow for discussion of people’s lived experiences with substances.

    Even so, it may not go far enough. As a parallel example, public pressure and justice-oriented advocacy shifted public conversation and journalistic style from talking about human beings as “illegal” to “undocumented.” But referring to these same folks as “economic refugees” would be even more accurate and less stigmatizing. Similarly, impact is a more useful term than “crisis” or “epidemic” when referring to patterns of opioid-related overdose and substance use-related illness. And, terminology that clearly unmasks the deeper roots of unequal suffering would be even better.

    A person using drugs is not a disease vector nor the precipitator of a crisis. What we witness in communities like Philadelphia, Austin, and Asheville are not drug-related epidemics or naturally occurring crises. The harms impacting these communities are symptoms of destructive social policies that ensure the most vulnerable populations remain vulnerable, shamed, and disproportionately suffering from the very problems for which they are blamed. 

    So where do we go from here? We can start by answering this with another question: How might our conversations, and thus policy and response efforts change, if we use language that reveals the structural roots of suffering instead of further contributing to stigma and hysteria that shames the people who are most directly affected?

    View the original article at thefix.com

  • Harm Reduction Educator Who Trained Thousands To Use Narcan Loses Addiction Battle

    Harm Reduction Educator Who Trained Thousands To Use Narcan Loses Addiction Battle

    Kevin Donovan died on September 28 at the age of 40.

    The Syracuse harm reduction community is mourning the loss of advocate and educator Kevin Donovan, who died in late September of an apparent overdose.

    According to his obituary, “He lost his battle with addiction following a long-term recovery.”

    Donovan trained many in his community how to administer Narcan, a brand of naloxone, the opioid overdose-reversing drug.

    Saving Lives

    Will Murtaugh, executive director of ACR Health, said that more than 500 people that were trained by Donovan used their Narcan training. “That means, 500 people’s lives were reversed,” he said, according to WRVO.

    ACR Health is a community health center with a syringe exchange and a Drug User Health Hub which offers a range of prevention and sexual health services to people of all ages. Donovan was also the founder and director of Healing Hearts Collaborative, an opioid overdose prevention program.

    Kevin’s work was informed by his own experience in recovery. “To remove the stigma of the disease, he openly shared his struggles with addiction to educate others of treatment options, and he was a staunch advocate for the use of Narcan,” read his obituary.

    Colleagues Speak Out

    According to Murtaugh, Kevin did not seek help at his time of need despite having a supportive community around him.

    “We’re all hurting a little bit, because he knows we were here for him and he could’ve come to us anytime and got that support,” he said. “This is a typical overdose. We’ve had many of them. People end up using alone, and they die alone, because they don’t have those supports around them that they need. We try, and Kevin did too, to educate everyone. Do not use alone. Do a test shot. Make sure that there is Narcan in the house.”

    ACR Health lost two other staff members in 2016 and 2017.

    The center supports having supervised injection facilities, also known as overdose prevention facilities, to give people a place to use under medical supervision where they can access treatment if they feel ready.

    Safe Consumption Sites

    A federal judge recently ruled that such facilities would not violate federal law, which the current administration tried to argue against in court. An organization in Philadelphia was on the other side of the legal fight. It now has the green light to move forward with plans to establish what would be the first overdose prevention site in the United States.

    In May, Donovan was featured by WRVO for giving the Narcan training that saved a woman’s life. The woman became unresponsive inside a local business and staff members responded by administering Narcan. She was revived by the time EMT arrived.

    “What made me really happy was their willingness to share their story, and to say, this is a positive thing we want to do for our community,” said Donovan at the time. “That’s a life. The stigma is so bad, sometimes this stuff happens, and people don’t want to share it, or want anything to do with it in the public vision.”

    Kevin Donovan died on September 28 at the age of 40. He is survived by his son Rowan, his parents, brother and extended family.

    View the original article at thefix.com

  • We Need Harm Reduction for All Drugs, Not Just Opioids

    We Need Harm Reduction for All Drugs, Not Just Opioids

    While we’ve made great strides with harm reduction for people who use opioids, we’re slow to provide non-abstinence-based treatment for people who use other drugs.

    A quick glance at the news reveals the catastrophic effects of opioids across the nation: around 120 people a day die from opioid-related overdoses. It’s so devastating that the nation is calling it an opioid epidemic. Yet even as we watch this tragedy unfold, we’re missing the point.

    By focusing exclusively on opioids, we’re overlooking the harm caused by other deadly drugs. How can we highlight harm reduction resources if we only focus our efforts on people who use one class of drug?

    The Problem with the Opioid “Epidemic”

    According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, more than 700,000 people died from a drug overdose between 1999 and 2017. Sixty-eight percent of those deaths in 2017 involved an opioid — approximately 70,200. However, that’s not the 100 percent that the “epidemic” coverage would have us believe.

    While I’m not arguing that the opioid-related deaths shouldn’t be covered — they should! — I am saying the problem with zeroing in on the opioid epidemic is that we are focusing too narrowly on the harms caused by one drug and are blinding ourselves to the impact of other deadly drugs. We should be reporting on those, too.

    A more accurate picture of drug-related deaths in 2017, according to the CDC, looks like this:

    • Alcohol was responsible for the deaths of 88,000 people
    • Cocaine misuse killed 13,942 people
    • Benzodiazepine misuse was responsible for 11,537 deaths
    • Psychostimulant misuse, including methamphetamines, was responsible for 10,333 deaths.

    Those aren’t insignificant numbers, so why are they being overlooked? I asked recovery activist Brooke Feldman for her perspective.

    “The sensationalized and narrow focus on opioids fails to account for the fact that people who develop an opioid use disorder typically used other drugs before and alongside opioids,” Feldman said. “So, we really have a polysubstance use situation, not merely an opioid use situation.”

    She continues, “Focusing on opioids only had led to the erection of an opioid-only infrastructure that will be useless for the next great drug binge and is barely relevant to address the deadliest drug used, which is alcohol.”

    The Deadliest Drug: Alcohol

    Alcohol is responsible for more deaths than any other drug. But we overlook it for two reasons: because it’s legal, and because it’s a socially acceptable drug. Not only that, but advertising actively promotes its use — you only have to look on Instagram or Etsy to see how widely excessive use of alcohol is normalized — especially among mothers and millennials. These advertisers have been smart to market alcohol as a means of self-care — encouraging drinking to help unwind from the stresses of the week — and as a means of coping with motherhood

    Social media reinforces the message that alcohol is a tool to cope with stress and something that should be paired with our favorite stress-relieving activities, like yoga. Captions on Instagram read like “Vino and vinyasa,” “Mommy’s medicine,” “Mommy juice,” “It’s wine o’clock,” “Surviving motherhood one bottle at a time,” and “When being an adult starts to get you down, just remember that now you can buy wine whenever you want.”

    Perhaps what is most insidious about alcohol is that it heavily impacts marginalized and oppressed communities. For example, Black women over 45 are the fastest-growing population with alcohol use disorder. And the LGBTQ+ community is 18 percent more likely to have alcohol use disorder than the general population.

    Alcohol aside, looking at the harm done by other drugs, we can see that opioids are no longer the leading cause of drug-related death in some states. In Oregon, statistics show, deaths related to meth outnumber those that involve one of the most common opioids, heroin. In fact, there has been a threefold increase in meth-related deaths over the last ten years, despite the restriction on pseudoephedrine products, which now require a prescription. 

    Similarly, in Missouri, which was ground zero for home-based meth labs 20 years ago, the recent spotlight on opioids has overshadowed an influx of a stronger, purer kind of methamphetamine. Deaths related to the new and improved drug are on the rise.

    Oregon’s state medical examiner Karen Gunson speaks to this disparity of focusing on opioids over other deaths and the damage that those other drugs cause. “Opioids are pretty lethal and can cause death by themselves, but meth is insidious. It kills you in stages and it affects the fabric of society more than opioids. It just doesn’t kill people. It is chaos itself.”

    Abstinence Is Not Attainable for Everyone

    Our approach to recovery has been too one-dimensional, stating that complete abstinence is the goal. But this perspective is outdated. Abstinence isn’t attainable for everyone. If it were, then more people would be in recovery. However, harm reduction is attainable. It reduces deaths, treats medical conditions related to drug use, reduces the transmission of diseases, and provides options for treatment services. In fact, people who use safe injection sites are four times more likely to access treatment.

    “Whether it is with problematic use of alcohol, tobacco, cocaine, methamphetamine, etc. use, centering harm-reduction principles and practices would likely engage more people than an abysmal 1 out of 10 people who could use but do not receive SUD (Substance Use Disorder) treatment,” Feldman explains. “Requiring immediate and total abstinence rather than seeking to address overall well-being and quality of life concerns is a barrier to engagement — and sadly, it is placing the focus more on symptom reduction than it is on what is causing the symptom of chaotic drug use in the first place.”

    Harm Reduction for All Drugs Means Fewer Deaths

    Our focus on the opioid crisis has helped improve harm reduction resources — like the increased availability of naloxone to reverse overdoses, and the more accepted use of pharmacotherapy and medication-assisted treatment (which has now been endorsed as a primary treatment by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration), and some safe injection sites — but it has also meant we aren’t concentrating as much on research, funding, and education devoted to harm reduction practices for other harmful drugs. The result is that we have fewer resources and less awareness when it comes to keeping people who use non-opioid drugs safe.

    We need to look at reducing harm across the spectrum of drug use to reduce all deaths. More safe usage sites, clean tools, safe disposal bins, medical assistance, education, referral to other support services, and access to pharmacotherapy (including drugs to treat or mitigate harms of alcohol use disorder and the development of new medications for help with other substances). Specialized treatment other than abstinence should be accessible for people who use all drugs — not just opioids. 

    View the original article at thefix.com

  • Harm Reduction Nonprofit Sues Facebook Over Censorship

    Harm Reduction Nonprofit Sues Facebook Over Censorship

    “We are fighting for the rights of all users of the Internet to appeal from social media giants’ decisions,” the nonprofit’s rep told The Fix. 

    A Polish non-profit organization is suing Facebook for allegedly censoring its harm reduction content by deleting groups and pages on the social media platform that were related to helping people who use and are addicted to drugs.

    The Civil Society Drug Policy Initiative (Społeczna Inicjatywa Narkopolityki, or SIN) filed the lawsuit in May and received a favorable ruling by the District Court in Warsaw in June, though Facebook can still appeal. 

    The case is ongoing, but the court made an interim ruling prohibiting the social media company from removing any more fan pages, profiles or groups run by SIN on Facebook or Instagram.

    The ruling also requires Facebook to store backups of the pages, profiles and groups it already deleted so that they can be restored should SIN win the overall suit. Facebook can appeal the ruling, but SIN is encouraged by this result.

    The Bigger Issue

    A recent report by Vice outlined the larger problem of Facebook pages, groups, posts, and ads being deleted and accounts being banned for promoting harm reduction principles and products.

    In one case, the social media manager for a nonprofit organization called BunkPolice was banned from placing any ads on the platform after submitting and getting approval for ads promoting fentanyl testing kits.

    The kits are used to test batches of illicit drugs for the extremely potent opioid, fentanyl, which has been responsible for a large percentage of the recent overdose deaths in the U.S. However, they got caught up in Facebook’s efforts to stop drug trafficking on its platform.

    Fighting Censorship

    In response to this problem, SIN has launched a “#blocked” campaign to speak out against what it considers to be a worrying spread of content control by large social media companies and censorship.

    “Online platforms such as Facebook, YouTube and Twitter increasingly control what you can see and say online. Algorithms follow users’ activity, while filters and moderators address alleged breaches of terms of service,” the campaign website reads. “Unfortunately, there has also been a number of instances when legal and valuable content was removed, including historical photos, war photography, publications documenting police brutality and other human rights’ violations, coverage of social protests, works of art and satire.”

    The NGO also published a corresponding video on YouTube the day after filing its lawsuit against Facebook. The video warns about social media giants having too much control over the content that everyday people see, and cautions that “you too could end up on their blacklist.” For SIN, this goes beyond the goal of harm reduction to freedom of speech rights for all internet users.

    “We are fighting for the rights of all users of the Internet to appeal from social media giants’ decisions,” said SIN representative Jerzy Afanasjew in an email to The Fix.

    View the original article at thefix.com