Pubdate: Tue, 03 Jul 2001
Source: Rutland Herald (VT)
Copyright: 2001 Rutland Herald
Contact:  http://rutlandherald.nybor.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/892

COLD TURKEY

The story of Keith Griggs's brief stay in jail says much about the 
inconsistent, complicated, Kafkaesque world of drug treatment.

Griggs is a heroin addict who lives in Putney and who is serving a sentence 
in the custody of the Vermont Department of Corrections for a 1999 forgery 
conviction. He is serving his sentence outside prison as part of a 
Corrections Department drug treatment program. A condition of participation 
is that Griggs receive methadone, a heroin substitute he obtains through a 
Massachusetts clinic.

Methadone has been the subject of considerable controversy in Vermont. The 
Legislature has approved methadone treatment in the state but only at 
hospitals. Supporters of methadone say it is the best way to help addicts 
gain control over their lives and to stay free of heroin. Opponents say it 
merely substitutes one drug for another and does not cure the user's addiction.

Both are right, as Griggs's ordeal would show.

His latest troubles began with parole violations that landed him in the 
Woodstock Regional Correctional Facility for a 15-day sentence. Superior 
Judge Alan Cheever ordered that, while Griggs was in jail, the Corrections 
Department should continue his methadone treatment.

The trouble was that the law states methadone shall be dispensed only in 
hospitals. John Gorczyk, commissioner of corrections, pointed out that, in 
ordering Corrections to give Griggs methadone, the judge was ordering the 
department to break the law.

Gorczyk raised another valid concern: If addicts knew jails were a source 
for methadone, they might seek incarceration, even though the department 
tries to handle non-violent offenders outside prison walls.

Meanwhile, Griggs was going through heroin withdrawal in the Woodstock 
jail. His lawyers appealed to the Supreme Court, hoping to force the 
Corrections Department to continue Griggs's methadone treatment. Justice 
Marilyn Skoglund upheld Cheever's ruling, and the department was threatened 
with a fine if it didn't give Griggs his methadone.

So the Corrections Department released Griggs from jail, allowing him to 
return to the treatment program that had provided him with the methadone he 
needed.

Opponents of methadone might argue that Griggs would have been better off 
if he had stuck it out through withdrawal, confronting and defeating his 
addiction once and for all. For some addicts, the cold turkey approach works.

But each patient is different, and for others, medical personnel prescribe 
methadone, as they had for Griggs. Judges and jail keepers are not the 
people best-qualified to make those decisions.

Gorczyk is right to promote treatment programs outside prison. But 
treatment should also be available inside prisons for violent offenders who 
cannot be released into the community. Gorczyk's worry that methadone in 
prison would attract inmates might be eased if methadone were available 
outside prison for those who need it.

Griggs's experience with methadone shows its usefulness and its 
limitations. It apparently has allowed him to function in the community and 
to hold a job, without having to deal in drugs and live the destructive, 
criminal life of a heroin addict.

But he remains tied to his clinic and his regular dose of methadone. 
Methadone has not freed him. It has stabilized him. Yet that is a plus that 
both judges in the case saw to be important enough for them to order the 
Corrections Department to bend the rules.

As the state of Vermont puts together a comprehensive drug strategy, it 
ought to recognize both the uses and limitations of methadone in combating 
the deadly grip of heroin addiction.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Larry Stevens