David Frank

Background Opioid withdrawal is a regular occurrence among many people who use illicit opioids (PWUIO) that has also been shown to increase their willingness to engage in risk-involved behavior. The proliferation of fentanyl in the illicit opioid market may have amplified this relationship, potentially putting PWUIO at greater risk of negative health outcomes. Understanding the relationship between withdrawal and risk-involved behavior may also have important implications for the ways that problematic drug use is conceptualized, particularly in disease models of addiction, which position risk behavior as evidence of pathology that helps to justify ontological distinctions between addicts and non-addicts. Examining withdrawal, and its role in PWUIO's willingness to engage in risk, may aid in the development of alternative theories of risk involvement and create discursive spaces for de-medicalizing and de-othering people who use illegal drugs.
Methods This article is based on 32 semi-structured interviews with PWUIO in the New York City area who also reported recent withdrawal experience. Interviews were conducted remotely between April and August 2022 and recorded for later transcription. Data were then coded and analyzed based on a combination of inductive and deductive coding strategies and informed by the literature.
Results Participants described a strong relationship between withdrawal and their willingness to engage in risk-involved behavior that was exacerbated by the proliferation of fentanyl. Yet, their descriptions did not align with narratives of risk as a product of bad decisions made by individuals. Rather, data demonstrated the substantial role of social and structural context, particularly drug policies like prohibition and criminalization, in the kinds of risks that PWUIO faced and their ability to respond to them.
Conclusions Withdrawal should be taken more seriously both from an ethical perspective and as an important catalyst of risk behavior. However, theories that position activities taken to avoid withdrawal as irrational and as evidence of pathology are poorly aligned with the complexity of PWUIO's actual lives. We recommend the use of less deterministic and less medicalized theories of risk that better account for differences between how people view the world, and for the role of socio-structural forces in the production of risk.

While methadone is the most effective treatment legally available for those diagnosed with opioid use disorder (OUD) it is the most stigmatized and the most heavily regulated. Methadone significantly reduces the risk of overdose, HIV and HCV infection, and is the only safe supply available to people who use drugs (PWUD) in the United States. Over 1.6 million people meet the criteria for OUD in the U.S. and less than a quarter receive methadone treatment. Even during an adulterant and overdose crisis combined with a  COVID-19 pandemic, we continue to experience barriers which keep PWUD from accessing treatment. We are traumatized as we try and access treatment because many people believe we are simply substituting one drug for another. This results in shame and stigma in practices and in the recovery community. We are watching our loved ones die and our community decimated. Our trauma demands this collaborative living document detail the culture of cruelty that continues to shame, stigmatize, and kill. Throughout this document, we go over the failings of the current system and outline specific steps clinics can take to improve without major policy changes. Our next project will be the design of a model methadone clinic in this regulatory context because we know we need immediate and drastic reform. 


The manifesto highlights human rights violations such as punitive responses to urine drug screenings;  useless, time-consuming, mandated counseling; high barriers to take-home dose provision; stringent admission criteria and arduous intake processes; dose capping; onerous and rising clinic costs and exploitative charging practices; transportation difficulties; lockbox requirements; limited dosing hours; accelerated tapering schedules for administrative discharge; and lack of patient autonomy in determining treatment plans.


We talk about the problems we have faced as disabled people, sex workers, houseless people, pregnant and parenting people, people of color, and members of the LGBTQ community. 


We also discuss the pandemic. COVID-19 hit and the world economy closed. Businesses scrambled to develop safer policies allowing them to remain open and provide essential health services. Unsurprisingly, methadone clinics behaved as if nothing had changed. Our group shared stories from around the country confirming that we were forced to choose between withdrawal and COVID-19 infection risk. We were being forced to fill waiting rooms and wait unmasked for our doses. Many PWUD were already confused about the reality of COVID-19, and clinics were reinforcing their confusion. The clinics acted in line with their corporate model that reduced our treatment to a profit motive---we are nothing but a commodity to them.

Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is a medication that prevents HIV acquisition, yet PrEP uptake has been low among people who inject drugs. Stigma has been identified as a fundamental driver of population health and may be a significant barrier to PrEP care engagement among PWID. However, there has been limited research on how stigma operates in rural and urban settings in relation to PrEP. Using in-depth semi-structured qualitative interviews (n = 57) we explore PrEP continuum engagement among people actively injecting drugs in rural and urban settings. Urban participants had more awareness and knowledge. Willingness to use PrEP was similar in both settings. However, no participant was currently using PrEP. Stigmas against drug use, HIV, and sexualities were identified as barriers to PrEP uptake, particularly in the rural setting. Syringe service programs in the urban setting were highlighted as a welcoming space where PWID could socialize and therefore mitigate stigma and foster information sharing.

Background: Methadone Maintenance Treatment (MMT) is widely recognized as one of the most effective ways of reducing risk of overdose, arrest, and transmission of blood-borne viruses like HIV and HCV among people that use opioids. Yet, MMT's use of restrictive take-home dose policies that force most patients to attend their clinic on a daily, or near-daily, basis may be unpopular with many patients and lead to low rates of treatment uptake and retention. In response, this article examines how clinics' take-home dosing policies have affected patients' experiences of treatment and lives in general. Methods: This article is based on semi-structured, qualitative interviews with a variety of stakeholders in MMT. Interviews explored: reasons for engaging with, or not engaging with MMT; how MMT is conceptualized by patients and treatment providers (e.g., as harm reduction or route to abstinence and/or recovery); experiences with MMT; perception of barriers to MMT (e.g., organizational/regulatory, social) and how MMT might be improved to support peoples' substance use treatment needs and goals. Results: Nearly all of the patients with past or present MMT use were highly critical of the limited access to takehome doses and consequent need for daily or near daily clinic attendance. Participants described how the use of restrictive take-home dose policies negatively impacted their ability to meet day-today responsibilities and also cited the need for daily attendance as a reason for quitting or avoiding OAT. Responses also demonstrate how such policies contribute to an environment of cruelty and stigma within many clinics that exposes this already-stigmatized population to additional trauma. Conclusions: Take-home dose policies in MMT are not working for a substantial number of patients and are reasonably seen by participants as degrading and dehumanizing. Revision of MMT regulations and policies regarding take home doses are essential to improve patient satisfaction and the quality and effectiveness of MMT as a key evidence-based treatment and harm reduction strategy.

Methadone maintenance treatment (MMT) in the United States, and particularly the clinic system of distribution, is often criticized as punitive, over-regulated, and misaligned to the needs of many patients. However, changes to the regulations that COVID-19 caused may have provided an opportunity for improving service. This commentary
uses literature and my own experience to provide a brief description of how MMT programs responded to the threat of Covid-19 and how such responses fit into the larger context of attempts to reform treatment. It
discusses, in particular, opportunities for liberalizing “take-home” doses and implementing office-based MMT.

The current overdose crisis in the United States emphasizes the importance of providing substance use treatment programs that are not only effective but tailored to meet the specific needs of the populations they serve. While Methadone Maintenance Treatment (MMT) is considered to be among the best strategies for reducing rates of opioid-involved overdose, its ability to attract and maintain patients may be hindered by a recent focus on policing the non-opioid substance use of people on the program. This paper uses interview data from treatment providers to examine how clinicians conceptualize and organize MMT in regards to patients' use of non-opioid drugs. Responses demonstrate that some treatment providers are increasingly monitoring their patients' use of non-opioid substances and punishing them for infractions, up to and including discharge from treatment. This approach will likely result in increasing rates of patient dropout and a lack of new admissions among people who use non-opioid substances. This article argues that including non-opioid substances in MMT's mandate restricts its ability to improve public health, including by preventing overdoses, and recommends instead that MMT adopt a more individualized approach, shaped by the needs and goals of the patient rather than those of the clinician. ARTICLE HISTORY

The claim that methadone maintenance treatment (MMT) is 'just swapping one drug for another' has typically been used to de-legitimize the treatment and attack those who use it. However, this commentary re-positions that argument as a way of bringing analytic focus to the role of structural forces, like criminalization and the war on drugs, in the treatment decisions of people who use illegal drugs. Specifically, I use my experience as a qualitative sociologist who studies MMT as well as my own experience on MMT to demonstrate how crim-inalization functions as source of harm in the lives of people who use illegal drugs, that drives them towards the legal, and thus comparatively safer, style of substance use made available by MMT. Moreover, I argue that the dominance of individually-focused theories based on addiction and recovery to understand MMT is related to its punitive organizational structure and lack of popularity among people who use illegal opioids. Ultimately, I argue for a paradigm shift, both in policy and scholarship, that acknowledges the pragmatic value of MMT within the structural context of criminalization. From a recent conversation between the author and others at the methadone maintenance clinic he attends in The Bronx, New York.

Methadone Maintenance Treatment (MMT) in the United States has recently adopted an approach based on the principles of the Recovery movement-a view of treatment informed by addiction-as-disease models but also incorporating social, psychological, and spiritual components. Although organizations that administer drug treatment services claim that the shift represents a more client-centered, individualistic approach, it may not meet the needs of the many individuals who use MMT to reduce the harms of drug use, like overdose, rather than as a way to become abstinent. In this article, I use interview data from treatment providers to argue against institutional claims of Recovery as an individualistic model. My research demonstrates how, despite the wide variety of treatment goals among people on MMT, the Recovery discourse positions and organizes treatment strictly as abstinence-based, self-help. Moreover, I show how the Recovery model serves as the justification for an expansion of clinics' ability to surveil and intervene in aspects of peoples' lives which had previously been seen as outside of MMT's purview, including nutrition, public service, and spirituality. In conclusion, I argue that Recovery restricts MMT's ability to reduce harms, like overdose, in the lives of people who use drugs, and recommend that MMT adopt a more open-ended, low-threshold approach to treatment.

Background: Methadone Maintenance Treatment (MMT) in the United States (U.S.) has been undergoing a shift towards conceptualizing the program as recovery-based treatment. Although recovery is seen by some as a means to restore MMT to its rightful position as a medically-based treatment for addiction, it may not represent the experiences, or meet the needs of people who use drugs (PWUD), many of whom who use the program as a pragmatic means of reducing harms associated with criminalization. Objectives: To examine alternative constructions of MMT in order to produce a richer, more contextualized picture of the program and the reasons PWUD employ its services. Methods: This paper uses semi-structured interviews with 23 people on MMT (either currently or within the previous two years). Results: Most participants linked their use of MMT to the structural-legal context of prohibition/criminalization rather than through the narrative of the recovery model. Responses suggested the recovery model functions in part to obscure the role of criminalization in the harms PWUD experience in favor of a model based on individual pathology. Conclusions/Importance: In contrast to the recovery model, MMT cannot be understood outside of the structural context of criminalization and the War on Drugs which shape illegal drug use as a difficult and dangerous activity, and consequently position MMT as a way to moderate or escape from those harms.

Since its development in the 1960s, researchers have extensively scrutinized methadone maintenance treatment (MMT) as a medical response to heroin addiction. Studies consistently find that MMT is more successful than other treatment models in the reduction of opiate/opioid misuse, the transmission of diseases like HIV/AIDS and hepatitis C, and criminal arrest and conviction rates. Nonetheless, a significant portion of active and former heroin addicts view MMT negatively and—perhaps as a result—MMT is vastly underused. This study examines the effects of 12-Step discourses on the opinions and treatment decisions of active heroin addicts, addicts in MMT, and addicts in 12-Step treatment programs. The study finds the abstinence/morality based discourse of drug addiction and treatment is pervasive among addicts and their non-drug using relations and peers alike; moreover, addicts have internalized this narrative, oftentimes despite their own knowledge of MMT's success and positive personal experiences. The findings suggest that the dominance of abstinence/morality narratives contributes to MMT's poor reputation among, and low use rate by current and former heroin addicts and that the power of the dominant discourse is such that it produces a desire to buy into its values and tenets even when it is against the individual's interests to do so.