The Future of Addiction Treatment

Is there some way out of here?

Addictions are chronic diseases. They may require a lifetime of treatment. After a number of severe episodes of alcohol or drug abuse, the brain may be organically primed for more of the same. Long-term treatment is sometimes, if not always, the most effective way out of this dilemma. (The same is true of unipolar depression.)

We will need to learn a lot more about chemicals—the ones we ingest, and the ones that are produced and stored naturally in our bodies—if we plan to make any serious moves toward more effective treatment. What we have learned about the nature of pleasure and reward is a strong start. The guiding insight behind most of the work is that addiction to different drugs involves reward and pleasure mechanisms common to them all. The effects of the drug—whether it makes you sleepy, stimulated, happy, talkative, or delusional—constitute a secondary phenomenon. A good deal of earlier research was directed at teasing out the customized peculiarities of one drug of abuse compared to another. Now most addiction scientists agree that receptor alterations in response to the artificial stimulation produced by the drugs are the biochemical key, and that recovery occurs when the brain’s remarkable “plastic” abilities go to work at the molecular level, re-regulating and adjusting to the new, drug-free or drug-reduced status quo. An addict beats addiction by ceasing the constant and artificial manipulation of neuronal receptors, to be entirely unromantic for a moment about the nature of recovery.

But in order for that to happen most effectively, you have to stop taking the drugs.

Comparing our reservoir of pleasure chemicals to money in the bank, Dr. George Koob, Chairman of the Committee On The Neurobiology Of Addictive Disorders at the Scripps Institute in La Jolla, California, draws the following analogy:

We can expend that money over the course of a single weekend’s binge on cocaine or we can expend it over a two-week period in the normal pleasures of everyday life. If you spend these pleasure neurochemicals in one lump sum such as a crack binge, you use up your supply of pleasure for a certain period, and so you pay for it later.

Addicts vividly demonstrate a compulsive need to use alcohol and other drugs despite the worst kinds of consequences—arrest, illness, injury, overdose. What kind of euphoria could be worth such psychic pain? Even stranger, why continue when the drug no longers works as well as it once did due to tolerance? What makes these people eat their words, shred their best intentions, break their promises, and starting using or drinking again and again?

There really is no cheating in this game. The system has to self-regulate. Craving and drug-seeking behavior, once set in motion, disrupt an individual’s normal “motivational hierarchy.” How does this motivational express train come about? It happens at the point where casual experimentation is replaced by the pharmacological dictates of active addiction. It happens when the impulse to try it with your friends transforms itself into the drug-hungry monkey on your back.

 Formal medical treatment and intervention can work, but the results are inconsistent and often little better than no formal treatment at all. Most alcoholics and smokers and other drug addicts, it is frequently asserted, become abstinent on their own, going through detoxification, withdrawal, and subsequent cravings without benefit of any formal programs. Our health policy should not only encourage addicts to heal themselves, but must also help equip them with the medical tools they need in treatment. After all, behavioral habits as relatively harmless as nail biting can be all but impossible to break.

 As detailed by Dr. Mary Jeanne Kreek, a professor and senior attending physician at the Laboratory of the Biology of Addictive Diseases at Rockefeller University:

Toxicity, destruction of previously formed synapses, formation of new synapses, enhancement or reduction of cognition and the development of specific memories of the drug of abuse, which are coupled with the conditioned cues for enhancing relapse to drug use, all have a role in addiction. And each of these provides numerous potential targets for pharmacotherapies for the future.

In other words, when an addiction has been active for a sustained period, the first-line treatment of the future is likely to come in the form of a pill. New addiction treatments will come—and in many cases already do come—in the form of drugs to treat drug addiction. Every day, addicts are quitting drugs and alcohol by availing themselves of pharmaceutical treatments that did not exist twenty years ago. Sometimes medications work, and we all need to reacquaint ourselves with that notion. As more of the biological substrate is teased out, the search for effective medications narrows along more fruitful avenues. This is the most promising, and, without doubt, the most controversial development in the history of addiction treatment.

Fighting fire with fire is not without risk, of course. None of this is meant to deny the usefulness of talk therapy as an adjunct to treatment.  However, consider the risks involved in not finding more effective medical treatments. Better addiction treatment is, by almost any measure, a cost-effective proposition.

Photo: http://www.manorhouserehab.com/

Book Review: Writers On The Edge

A compendium of tough prose and poetry about addiction.

Here’s a book I’m delighted to promote unabashedly. I even wrote a jacket blurb for it. I called it an “honest, unflinching book about addiction from a tough group of talented writers. These hard-hitters know whereof they speak, and the language in which they speak can be shocking to the uninitiated—naked prose and poetry about potentially fatal cravings the flesh is heir to—drugs, booze, cutting, overeating, depression, suicide. Not everybody makes it through. Writers On The Edge is about dependency, and the toll it takes, on the guilty and the innocent alike.”

I am happy to stand by that statement, content to note that this collection of prose and poetry on the subject of addiction and dependency by 22 talented writers, with an introduction by Jerry Stahl of “Permanent Midnight” junky fame, includes a number of names familiar to me. That makes it all the easier to recommend this book—I know some of the talent. Take James Brown, a professor in the M.F.A program at Cal State San Bernardino, the book’s co-editor, who offers an excerpt from his excellent memoir, This River.  James is no stranger to the subject, having pulled out of a drug and alcohol-fueled nosedive that would have felled lesser mortals for good. “Even though you’ll always be struggling with your addiction, and may wind up back in rehab,” Brown writes, “at least for now, if only for this day, you are free of the miracle potions, powders and pills. If only for this day, you are not among the walking dead.” Or my friend Anna David, who is an editor at The Fix, an online addiction and recovery magazine to which I frequently contribute, and author of several books, including Party Girl and Falling for Me. Anna poignantly recalls “my shock over the power than booze had… it was the greatest discovery of my life.” And Ruth Fowler, another Fix contributor and author of Girl Undressed, delivers up a brilliantly detached story of her life as an addict on both coasts and just about everywhere else, which begins with the line, “I gravitated to the fucked up writers.”

Then there are the contributors I don’t know but wish I did, like co-editor Diana Raab, a registered nurse and award-winning poet, as well as co-author of Writers and Their Notebooks, who offers a poem to her grandmother: “Your ashen face and blond bob/disheveled upon white sheets/on the stretcher held by paramedics/lightly grasping each end, and tiptoeing.” Or another poet, B. H. Fairchild, author of the marvelous collection, Early Occult Memory Systems of the Lower Midwest: “When I would go into bars in those days/the hard round faces would turn/to speak something like loneliness/but deeper, the rain spilling into gutters/or the sound of a car pulling away/in a moment of sleeplessness just before dawn.”

And more: Frederick Barthelme, author of Double Down: Reflections on Gambling and Loss. Stephen Jay Schwartz, best-selling crime novelist  and former director of development for filmmaker Wolfgang Petersen. Writers Rachel Yoder, Victoria Patterson, David Huddle, and Scott Russell Sanders. Etc. This collection is a rich brew of essay, poetry, and memoir. A tough book, a brutal book, a real heartbreaker with grit. Some people get stronger and rise; some don’t. It is a thoughtful and creative compendium of addiction stories, and some of them will surprise you. All of them are solidly written, laid out with an unrelenting realism.

Here it is, these authors are saying. This is how it plays out. Unforgettable stuff.

Interview with Howard Shaffer of the Division on Addiction at Cambridge Health Alliance

Defining addiction, making research more transparent, and dealing with the DSM-V

(The “Five-Question Interview” series.)

Like many incredibly busy people, Dr. Howard J. Shaffer, associate professor of psychology at Harvard Medical School, is generous with his time. This paradox works to the advantage of Addiction Inbox readers, as Dr. Shaffer, the director of the Division on Addiction at the Cambridge Health Alliance, a Harvard Medical School teaching affiliate, has graciously consented to be the next participant in our “Five-Question Interview” series. In addition to maintaining a private practice, Dr. Shaffer has been a principal or co-principal investigator on a wide variety of research projects related to addiction, including the Harvard Project on Gambling and Health, and a federal research project focusing on psychiatric co-morbidity among multiple DUI offenders. He is the past editor of the Journal of Gambling Studies and the Psychology of Addictive Behaviors.


1. Addiction is not like most medical/mental disorders. If you have cancer or schizophrenia, for example, you can’t recover by abstaining from certain things. What’s your response to those who say that the disease model of addiction is misleading?

We should remember that the concept of disease is difficult to define. This makes deciding whether addiction is a disease most difficult. However, I think most people accept the idea that addiction reflects a kind of dis-ease. Whenever people get into this disease model debate, it’s useful to remember that most models of addiction are misleading, and the disease model is no exception. The map is not the territory, the menu is not the meal, and the diagnosis is not the disorder.

Scientific models are simplified representations of complex phenomena. Models of addiction focus our attention to certain features of addiction and blind us to other potentially important aspects of the disorder.1 For example, the moral model of addiction suggested that bad judgment was the cause and piety was the solution. Some neurobiological models of addiction suggest that molecular activity is the cause and medication is the solution. Both of these views are simplifications.

Rather than trying to fit addiction into a particular box, I prefer to think of addiction as a complex multidimensional syndrome – with interactive biological, psychological, and social causes. In this way addiction is similar to other medical, mental and behavioral disorders than we previously have considered. My colleagues and I have been developing a syndrome model of addiction 2-4 that suggests people are vulnerable because of biological, psychological and social influences. When vulnerable people are exposed to a social context that reliably and robustly shifts their subjective state in a desirable direction, they are at the highest risk for developing addiction. What I like about this kind of model is that it holds the potential to help us determine who is at most risk so that we can predict the development of addiction – just like we can predict who is at risk for cardiovascular and other diseases. This kind of etiological model will help us establish primary and secondary prevention programs that can reduce the onset of addiction.

2. You have a book coming out soon about problem gambling and how it can be managed. Is gambling a legitimate addiction?

Gambling, as well as most other behavior patterns, can become excessive, lead to adverse consequences, and squeeze out many previously important and healthy behavior patterns. 5,6 Some behavior patterns like eating broccoli rarely lead to addiction, but other improbable behaviors like listening to music, or playing video games might.

I don’t think about the idea of a “legitimate” addiction anymore, though I used to. Now I think about addiction as a unitary disorder that has a variety of expressions. For example, AIDS is a syndrome with many different expressions. Syndromes like AIDS and addiction are complex because not all of the signs and symptoms associated with the disorder are present all of the time. Gambling addiction is more rare than alcohol dependence. However, the characteristics of different expressions of addiction and the sequelae across sufferers are more similar than different. Further, the treatments – including the medications – that are effective with one expression of addiction often work with another expression. Scientific evidence suggests that behaviors, such as excessive gambling, and substance use, such as cocaine, have similar effects on the neurocircuitry of reward – how the brain processes information to produce the experience of pleasure.

For a pattern of behavior, whether substance involved or not, to be considered as an addiction, it must reliably and robustly shift subjective experience in a desirable direction, lead to adverse consequences, and be associated with identifiable underlying biological and psychological features, for example, genetic influences and trauma.

3. You host the Transparency Project. What is it and why did you create it?

The Transparency Project is the world’s first data repository for addiction-related industry-funded research. Most people don’t realize that private industry funds the majority of scientific research. This particular funding stream is important. However, tobacco industry funded research properly encouraged people to worry that private funding can adversely influence research. In fact, I think observers should worry about the potential bias that might accompany any research, including research supported by public funding sources. There is no warranty that can assure unbiased research, except sound methods and careful data analysis reflecting sound scientific principles. Furthermore, critics shouldn’t presume that research is biased just because it has a particular kind of funding source. We are encouraging scientists who have received industry funding to send their data to the Transparency Project so that others can download and use their data. This should magnify the value of the data by having others analyze it similarly or differently from the original research. This strategy also should help observers both confirm and question findings, thereby leading to important dialogues about the central issues that are so very important to the advance of scientific knowledge.

4. What’s going on right now at the Division on Addiction that you are particularly excited about?

During 2012, we are celebrating our 20th anniversary at the Division on Addiction. The syndrome model is emerging as an important conceptual guide to our work going forward; we are very excited to see that others are similarly interested in this perspective. Very soon, for example, the American Psychological Association will be releasing another of our new books, the APA Addiction Syndrome Handbook. I am also very excited about our DUI research 7-11 as well as our efforts to develop new technology that will help lay interviewers—those often staffing DUI treatment programs—to assess complex psychiatric disorders and triage patients into the care they so desperately need. This is our Computer Assessment and Referral System or CARS project. Lots of people around the world are expressing interest in coming to the Division to study and conduct research focusing on addiction. For me, it is very satisfying to see young people come to the field of addiction with a sense of curiosity, wonder and scientific rigor that have not always been present in this area of interest.


5. How do you feel about the proposed DSM-V changes regarding addiction?

By now, most people interested in addiction are aware that the American Psychiatric Association has expressed some interest in moving Pathological Gambling from the impulse control disorder category to a new Addiction and Related Disorders category. This would represent the first time that the term “addiction” appears in the DSM. If this happens, it is a big deal and, in my opinion, represents a step forward. In many ways it reflects a syndrome model perspective toward addiction. Although pathological gambling has clinical, epidemiological, etiological, physiological, and treatment commonalities with substance use disorders, my colleague Ryan Martin and I have noted that these similarities also exist among the substance use disorders and a variety of other behavioral expressions of addiction (e.g., excessive shopping). A relatively large literature evidences these commonalities. Consequently, we think that the DSM-V work group should avoid creating a long list of addictions and related disorders/diagnoses organized by the objects of addiction. Instead, the syndrome model of addiction encourages an addiction diagnosis that is independent of the objects of addiction, other than as a clinical feature. Diagnostic systems need to identify the core features of addiction and then illustrate these with substance-related and behavioral expressions of this diagnostic class. Conceptualizing addiction this way avoids the incorrect view that the object causes the addiction and shifts the diagnostic focus more sharply toward patient needs.

References

1. Kuhn TS. The structure of scientific revolutions. Second ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1970.
2. Shaffer HJ, LaPlante DA, LaBrie RA, Kidman RC, Donato AN, Stanton MV. Toward a syndrome model of addiction: multiple expressions, common etiology. Harvard Review of Psychiatry 2004;12:367-74.
3. Shaffer HJ, LaPlante DA, Nelson SE, eds. The APA Addiction Syndrome Handbook. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association Press; in press.
4. Shaffer HJ, LaPlante DA, Nelson SE, eds. The APA Addiction Syndrome Handbook. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association Press; in press.
5. Shaffer HJ, Martin R. Disordered Gambling: Etiology, Trajectory, and Clinical Considerations. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology 2011;7:483-510.
6. Shaffer HJ, Korn DA. Gambling and related mental disorders: a public health analysis. In: Fielding JE, Brownson RC, Starfield B, eds. Annual Review of Public Health. Palo Alto: Annual Reviews, Inc.; 2002:171-212.
7. Albanese MJ, Nelson SE, Peller AJ, Shaffer HJ. Bipolar disorder as a risk factor for repeat DUI behavior. Journal of Affective Disorders in press.
8. LaPlante DA, Nelson SE, Odegaard SS, LaBrie RA, Shaffer HJ. Substance and psychiatric disorders among men and women repeat driving under the influence: offenders who accept a treatment-sentencing option. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs 2008;69:209-17.
9. Nelson SE, Laplante DA, Peller A, Labrie RA, Caro G, Shaffer HJ. Implementation of a Computerized Psychiatric Assessment Tool at a DUI Treatment Facility: A Case Example. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research 2007;34:489-93.
10. Peller AJ, Najavits LM, Nelson SE, LaBrie RA, Shaffer HJ. PTSD Among a Treatment Sample of Repeat DUI Offenders. Journal of Traumatic Stress in press.
11. Shaffer HJ, Nelson SE, Laplante DA, Labrie RA, Albanese M, Caro G. The epidemiology of psychiatric disorders among repeat DUI offenders accepting a treatment-sentencing option. Journal of Clinical and Consulting Psychology 2007;75:795-804.

A Drug for Head Lice and Heartworm Shows Promise Against Alcohol Abuse

Unlikely candidate helps alcohol-dependent mice cut back on the sauce.

Say what you will about glutamate-gated chloride channels in the parasitic nematode Haemonchus contortus—but the one thing you probably wouldn’t say about the cellular channels in parasitic worms is that a drug capable of activating them may prove useful in the treatment of alcoholism and other addictions.

When scientists go looking for drugs to use against addiction, they do not typically begin with a class of drugs that includes a medication for use against head lice and ticks. But that is exactly where the trail led Daryl Davies, co-director of the Alcohol and Brain Research Laboratory at the University of Southern California. Davies and his group were interested in a set of molecules in the brain known as P2X receptors. A subtype of these receptors, involved in ion channel gating, cease to function in the presence of ethanol. The researchers found that if you keep flooding the receptor with alcohol, these ion gates shut down permanently—an example of how alcohol abuse can change the brain.

Another compound that works on the same ion gate is ivermectin, an anti-parasitic medicine used around the world in humans and animals. As it turns out, ivermectin blocks the effect that alcohol has on P2X receptor subtypes. In recent research, the USC team demonstrated that alcohol-dependent mice drank half as much when they were also given ivermectin. This “newly identified alcohol pocket” is a mystery at present. But ivermectin does appear to work primarily on glutamate systems. (See previous post). For now, the researchers can’t say for certain why ivermectin makes mice drink less, but suspect it has something to do with how the brain signals that it’s time to stop drinking. Davies has speculated that a drug like ivermectin could be of use in treatment programs other than “abstinence-based models.” As Suzanne Wu reports in USC Trojan magazine, the team is now at work on other drugs based on ivermectin’s molecular structure. “If there was already a drug that was 95 percent effective, I might not be studying ivermectin,” Davies told the magazine. “I might not even be in the alcohol field. The funding for alcoholism research hasn’t caught up with the magnitude of the consequences of not finding a cure.”

Photo credit: http://www.usapetexpress.com

Heavy Drinking Impairs Serotonin Function More Rapidly in Women

My article on women and alcohol.

There are very real gender differences in the way men and women are affected by alcohol. Here's my summary of the subject in a December 16 article for Scientific American Online:

"Women's Response to Alcohol Suggests Need for Gender-Specific Treatment Programs"

A new study underscores that the physical consequences of alcoholism appear faster and are more severe for women than for men...

Article continues HERE.

End of the Line for Prometa?

Controversial meth treatment program fails in major study.

Prometa—the drug cocktail designed to combat addiction to cocaine and methamphetamine—has fallen flat on its face in a double-blind, placebo-controlled 108-day study just published in the journal Addiction. Dogged all along by a lack of published clinical data as well as major doubts about its success rates, Prometa has been a controversial treatment right from the start. In 2006, marketed heavily by anecdote and personal testimonials, the Prometa campaign included ads featuring the late comedian Chris Farley, who died of a drug overdose.

Hythiam,  the company that markets Prometa, had touted reports that 80% or more of Prometa users experienced “significant clinical benefit.” But MSNBC reported in 2008 that accountants in Pierce County, Washington froze the funding for an $800,000 pilot program, citing irregularities in testing. Investors in Hythiam, which is publicly traded, had been counting on the Pierce program after similar programs in Fulton County, Georgia, and in Idaho had failed to get off the ground. Things only got worse when the Tacoma News Tribune revealed that several county officials who had gotten behind the program also owned Hythiam stock.

Small rural communities that have felt the impact of meth sales and production in their communities are looking for help, and represent a significant market for an anti-addiction medication. However, in the case of Prometa, “The marketing is way ahead of the science,” said Lori Karan of the Drug Dependence Research Laboratory at the University of California-San Francisco. At the same time, Hythiam Executive Vice President Richard Anderson voiced strong objections to the Pierce County decision: “The people who are using it,” he said, “the doctors, patients, administrators, and drug court judges—are seeing an impact with it, so I think the treatment will carry it at the end of the day.”

But the day has ended, and the treatment did not carry it. The study in Addiction by a team of researchers at UCLA found no difference between Prometa and placebo in a group of 120 methamphetamine-addicted adults. The Prometa regimen, which can cost as much as $12,000 to $15,000 a month, “appears to be no more effective than placebo in reducing methamphetamine use, retaining patients in treatment or reducing methamphetamine craving,” the investigators conclude.

Ironically, the study was funded by Hythiam, as a response to complaints from the scientific community about a lack of rigorous testing. When it first launched the treatment, Hythiam was able to skim past the pesky drug approval process by exploiting a loophole in the FDA’s regulatory system that allows combinations of previously approved drugs to be marketed without formal review. Prometa was a blend of three existing medications: Neurontin (gabapentin) for epilepsy, Vistaril (hydrozyzine) for allergies, and Romazicon (flumazenil) for reversing benzodiazepine overdoses.

Ling, W., Shoptaw, S., Hillhouse, M., Bholat, M., Charuvastra, C., Heinzerling, K., Chim, D., Annon, J., Dowling, P., & Doraimani, G. (2011). Double-blind placebo-controlled evaluation of the PROMETA™ protocol for methamphetamine dependence Addiction DOI: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2011.03619.x

Is Addiction Deductible?

You're free to write off the cost of addiction treatment—if you can afford to.

The cost of addiction treatment is a legitimate medical expense, as long as you are talking about drug and alcohol addiction, which the IRS recognizes as a genuine medical disease. If you go to Betty Ford on the advice of your doctor for alcoholism, it’s deductible. If you go to Passages for cocaine addiction, it’s deductible. If you buy nicotine gum and patches and fill a prescription for Chantix, in a stop-smoking effort, it’s deductible. But if you want to write off the cost of a weight-loss clinic, or a gambling cessation program, or treatment for compulsive sexual activity, you’re a bit ahead of the curve.

According to Dave Hutchison, Planned Giving Officer at the Betty Ford Center Foundation: “Generally, medical expenses, including amounts paid for medical treatment, drugs and medicines, nursing care and certain transportation and travel required for medical care, are deductible as an itemized deduction.  Amounts paid for inpatient treatment of alcoholism or drug addiction at a therapeutic center and for meals and lodging furnished as a necessary incident to the treatment are deductible.”

Officially, IRS Topic 502 says that “payments for acupuncture treatments or inpatient treatment at a center for alcohol or drug addiction are also deductible medical expenses.” So just about any loopy treatment is covered, as long as the official diagnosis is alcoholism or drug addiction, including cigarettes.

And while theoretically the IRS is open to the idea of allowing deductions for the “cost of participating in a weight-loss program for a specific disease or diseases, including obesity, diagnosed by a physician,” the tax people aren’t yet persuaded that obesity, per se, is an addictive disease. They don’t allow most deductions for the cost of health food diet items or health club dues, for example, even if health food and gym workouts are doctor’s orders.

So, in theory, the cost of drug and alcohol rehab is a legitimate medical expense. Or at least those expenses over and above 7.5% of your income that haven’t been paid for by medical insurance. In practice, whether you can deduct the cost of drug rehab depends entirely on your total amount of itemized medical expenses. You can write off the cost of addiction treatment—if you can afford to.
Kelly Phillips Erb, who blogs at Forbes as Tax Girl, explains it all:

As a general rule, the costs of rehabilitation for drug and alcohol abuse and addictions are deductible as medical expenses, assuming that you itemize your deductions on Schedule A. Like other medical and dental expenses, rehab and addiction treatment expenses are only deductible to the extent that they exceed 7.5% of your adjusted gross income (AGI). So, for example, if your AGI was $40,000, you can only deduct expenses which exceed $3,000 (7.5% of $40,000). If the total of your expenses, including treatment costs $5,000, then you can deduct $2,000 ($5,000 expenses less the $3,000 threshold).

And that’s after you’ve parsed the IRS definition of qualifying medical care: “The diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease.” According to Tax Girl, that’s it. Other than throwing out a few examples—nursing services, x-rays, ambulance expenses—there is precious little help in defining what counts as a disease. Tax Girl says that the “IRS allows deductions for expenses related to the treatment of alcoholism and drug addiction because it agrees that those behaviors are a disease—even if many taxpayers think differently.” But the IRS won’t allow deductions for the cost of treatment with illegal drugs, thereby making the likelihood of write-offs for medical marijuana and marijuana addiction treatment unlikely, as long as marijuana remains illegal at the federal level. Furthermore, certain promising treatment options are not deductible for the same reason. Tax Girl writes that “despite evidence in Europe that “prescription” heroin taken together with methadone might lessen heroin dependence in addicts, the treatment remains illegal in the U.S. and is, therefore, not be deductible for federal income tax purposes. Methadone on its own, however, is a legal treatment for drug addiction in the U.S.” and is therefore deductible for federal income tax purposes.

Furthermore: “The IRS does not necessarily agree that all behaviors considered to be ‘addictions’ qualify as a disease.” Given the broad net cast across the medical waters in the name of addiction—everything from Internet addiction to cornstarch addiction—it’s probably just as well that the IRS is taking a jaundiced view of the so-called behavioral addictions. But they have taken some heat for being hard-nosed about obesity, while at the same time allowing write-offs for medical expenses associated with sex change operations.

Okay. But what if you’re Charlie Sheen, living on the other end of the income scale, until recently pulling down $2 million dollars per TV episode, starring in a mildly amusing sitcom? He’ll make maybe $40 million this year. How much would Charlie have to spend on rehab to make it tax-deductible? As it happens, there are tax geeks like Kay Bell at MSN Money who wonder about such things. Remember, Charlie can only deduct the amount of qualifying medical expenses that exceed 7.5% of his adjusted gross income. Bell says that Sheen “would have to spend lots of time at a pretty swanky rehab center to run up the more than $3 million required for him to claim the medical expenses deduction. He’s in Los Angeles, so it’s possible, but still, that’s a big recovery bill.”

Photo credit: http://potcouture.com/

The “Broken Bone” Model of Addiction Treatment

A word about chronic illnesses.

It’s not always easy to conceive of addiction as a complex disease—but it’s getting easier. There are certain similarities among chronic diseases. As with diabetes, asthma, and high blood pressure, drug addiction often requires protracted and multi-faceted treatments—treatments that typically do not produce the kinds of dramatic cures and breakthroughs that are associated with recovery from other kinds of medical conditions.

As we become increasingly comfortable with the concept of addictive disease, we risk losing sight of a crucial distinction between acute medical disorders, like infections and broken bones; and chronic disorders with multiple biological, psychological, and social components, like diabetes and addiction.

William L. White of Chestnut Health Systems, and Thomas McClellan, Executive Director of the Treatment Research Institute and until recently the deputy director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) in the White House, co-authored a paper for Counselor Magazine that seeks to make the distinction clear. In “Addiction as a Chronic Disorder,” the two seasoned treatment professionals point out that “chronic care has to be quite different from acute care,” and that all treatments for chronic diseases like diabetes and addiction have three things in common:

1) They reduce symptoms but cannot affect root causes. Such treatments “do not return the affected individual to normal.”

2) They require major changes in lifestyle and behavior for maximum effectiveness. For example, “even if individuals with diabetes regularly take their insulin as prescribed, this will not stop disease progression if they do not also reduce sugar and starch intake, increase exercise and reduce stress levels.”

3) Due to their complex nature, “relapses are likely to occur in all chronic illnesses. Increasingly, family members are being trained to also provide continued monitoring, “ the authors point out.

So far, so good. But chronic care treatment is not what addiction treatment in America is really about. Addiction treatment in both medical and private settings is frequently governed by acute care thinking—the “broken bone” model of treatment. For example:

--“Services are delivered ‘programmatically’ in a uniform series of encapsulated activities (screen admission, a single point-in-time assessment, treatment procedures, discharge, brief ‘aftercare’ followed by termination of the service relationship).”

--“Services transpire over a short (and historically ever-shorter) period of time, usually as a function of pre-arranged, time-limited insurance payments.”

-- “The individual/family/community is given the impression at discharge (‘graduation’) that ‘cure has occurred.’”

-- “Post-treatment relapse and re-admissions are viewed as the failure (non-compliance) of the individual rather than potential flaws in the design or execution of the treatment protocol.”

Some fifteen years ago, the acute care model began to fall under increasing scrutiny as the neurosciences took wing and insights related to chronic diseases of the body and brain began to accumulate. As White and McClellan are at pains to point out, heavy drinking and other forms of drug abuse do not inexorably become chronic disorders. "Many substance use problems are developmental and as such are often outgrown in the successful transition from adolescence into adulthood. Others occur in tandem with major life transitions (e.g., death of a loved one, divorce, job loss) and are resolved by time, natural support, brief professional intervention or peer-based intervention by others in recovery."

It’s the same with high blood pressure: A period of hypertension may or may not lead to a chronic condition, and at present it’s difficult to predict whose high blood pressure is likely to prove resistant to changes in diet, exercise, and weight.

Beyond the matter of treatment, what do chronic diseases like asthma, diabetes, and addiction really have in common?

--They are influenced by both genetic and environmental risk factors.

--They have “a prolonged course that varies from person to person in intensity and pattern.”

--They are accompanied by “risks of profound pathophysiology, disability and premature death.”

--They have effective treatments, and “similar remission rates, but no known cures.”

If substance dependence is like other chronic illnesses, then two important insights follow: 1) “Acute care models of intervention for severe substance dependence may reduce substance use temporarily but those reductions are not likely to sustain once care stops,” and 2) “methods used in the treatment of other chronic illnesses might be effectively adapted to enhance long-term recovery from substance dependence.”

In the end, the authors argue that acute forms of treatment applied to a chronic disorder “offer an explanation of the generally high and rapid rates of relapse following cessation of most available addiction treatments: there is simply no quick fix for the most severe forms of this disorder.”

Graphics Credit:  http://www.mdjunction.com

Treadmill Rehab

The curious connection between exercise and getting high.

A Vanderbilt study published in the journal PLoS ONE has confirmed what readers of Addiction Inbox have known for some time: Exercise often helps to curb cravings for addictive drugs. The Vanderbilt paper is noteworthy for focusing on heavy marijuana smokers (6 joints per day) who had not expressed any interest in quitting. Yet, at the end of a modest two-week exercise regimen, the participants reported less cannabis use.

Last August, I wrote about a growing body of research suggesting that the runner’s high and the cannabis high were more similar than previously imagined. Investigators wired up college students, put them to work in a gym, and found that “exercise of moderate intensity dramatically increased concentrations of anandamide in blood plasma.”

The British Journal of Sports Medicine ran a research review, “Endocannabinoids and exercise,” which seriously disputed the “endorphin hypothesis” assumed to be behind the runner’s high. The primary problem is that the opioid system is responsible for respiratory depression, pinpoint pupils, and other effects distinctly unhelpful to runners and other strenuous exercisers.

Compared to endorphins, the analgesia produced by the endocannabinoid system is much more consistent with the demands of exercise. Very high doses of marijuana tend to have a sedating effect, but low doses tend to induce activity or hyperactivity. There are cannabinoid receptors in muscles, skin, and the lungs. Moreover, “cannabinoids produce neither the respiratory depression, meiosis, or strong inhibition of gastrointestinal motility associated with opiates and opioids,” according to the research review. "This is because there are few CB1 receptors in the brainstem and, apparently, the large intestine.”

In addition, in my 2008 post entitled “Battling Addiction with Exercise,” I highlighted director Nora Volkow’s remarks at a NIDA-sponsored conference on addiction treatment and research. "Exercise has been shown to be beneficial in so many areas of physical and mental health," Volkow said. "This cross-disciplinary meeting is designed to get scientists thinking creatively about its potential role in substance abuse prevention."

At the same conference, Dr. Bess Marcus of Brown University, working on a NIDA-funded study of exercise for smoking cessation, presented the scientific evidence for the addiction/exercise connection. Similarities in the effects on the reward pathways of the brain's limbic system--dopamine activity in particular--may tie the two behaviors together more directly than previously thought. Among the findings:

--Rats in cages with running wheels show less interest in amphetamine infusions than rats without exercise options.

--Baby monkeys who don't roughhouse with their peers have higher levels of impulse control problems and alcohol use when they get older.

--In humans, exercise is known to reduce stress and tension--and anxiety is a well-known side effect of withdrawal, from alcohol and cigarettes to heroin and speed.

--Physical activity may enhance cellular growth in key areas of the brain involved in addiction, thereby aiding the neural changes that take place during detoxification and withdrawal from addictive drugs.

Photo Credit: http://www.livestrong.com/

Multiple Addictions

Why isn’t one drug enough?

The newer views of addiction as an organic brain disorder have cast strong doubt on the longstanding assumption that different kinds of people become addicted to different kinds of drugs. As far back as 1998, the Archives of General Psychiatry flatly stated: “There is no definitive evidence indicating that individuals who habitually and preferentially use one substance are fundamentally different from those who use another.” This quiet but highly influential breakthrough in the addiction paradigm has paid enormous dividends ever since.

The behaviors known as pan-addiction, substitute addiction, multiple addiction, and cross-addiction demonstrate that some addicts are vulnerable in an overall way to other addictive drugs as well. If it was one addiction at a time, that was known as substitute addiction. If it was many addictions simultaneously, researchers called it pan-addiction. The fact that a striking number of alcoholics also had cigarette addictions, and were heavy coffee drinkers, or had been addicted sequentially or simultaneously to various illegal addictive drugs—this was no great secret in the addiction therapy community. Indeed, it was clear that many addicts preferred the mix of two or more addictive drugs. And the phenomenon has serious social and economic ramifications.

Addicts show a remarkable ability to shift addictions, or to multiply them. Many addicts seem to be able to use whatever was readily at hand—alcoholics turning to cough syrup or doctor-prescribed morphine; pill poppers switching to alcohol; cocaine addicts turning to pot. If addiction was really, at bottom, a metabolic tendency rather than a sociological aberration, then it could conceivably express itself as a propensity to become seriously hooked on any drug that afforded enough pleasurable reinforcement to be considered addictive.

One leading school of thought views the metabolic disorder we call addiction as a manifestation of an “impaired reward cascade response.” This fact matters more than the differing details of addictive drugs themselves. This is where and how addiction happens. It is understood that addiction has its cognitive and environmental aspects as well, but the scientific mystery of how normal people become uncontrollable addicts has been substantially explained. Addictive drugs are a way of triggering the reward cascade. Cocaine, cocktails, and carbo-loading were all short-term methods of either supplying artificial amounts of these neurotransmitters, or sensitizing their receptors, in a way that produced short-term contentment in people whose reward pathway did not operate normally.

Naturally, you have to allow for environmental and social factors, but no matter how you add it up, a certain number of people are going to get into trouble with drugs and alcohol—it doesn’t really matter which drugs or what kind of alcohol. And a percentage of that percentage was going to get into trouble very quickly. These were the people who were hard to treat, and seriously prone to relapse. They would get into trouble because drugs did not have the same effect on them that they had on other people. Like a virus infecting a suitable host, drugs—any addictive drug--went to work on those kinds of addicts in a hurry.

Graphics Credit: http://comingcleantogether.wordpress.com/

Searching for Addiction Rehab

The perils of online rehab finders.

CALL NOW FOR HELP, say the sites designed to assist people in locating addiction treatment services in their area. But when you call that 800 number to speak to a “rehab counselor,” chances are you end up getting a sales pitch for a specific for-profit chain of rehab centers, rather than an objective survey of all available resources and how they might fit your personal needs.

Perhaps it’s not surprising that the simple act of reaching out for help, for pertinent resources, is sometimes perilous online. Everybody’s got something to sell, it seems. Few sites offer objective information in detail, without special pleading of one sort or another.  Even Scientology, working under the alias of Narconon, has its own rehab register, featuring the 120 drug and alcohol centers operated according to the principles of that well-known expert on drug and alcohol problems, L. Ron Hubbard.

One workaround is to stick with government sources. The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMSHA) has a decent one HERE.  But even government rehab finding pages are one-size-fits-all affairs, and sometimes suffer from a lack of regular updating.

Recently, the All About Addiction (A3)  website has rolled out a new rehab finder with some nice features that should go a long way toward filling the gap. Adi Jaffe, the site’s director and the motivating force behind the creation of the new rehab finder, is working on his PhD in Psychology at UCLA.  Jaffe’s original idea for a call center gradually morphed into a plan for an online tool. In an interview with Addiction Inbox, Jaffe expanded on the rationale for putting together a rehab finder he believes addresses some of the shortcomings found on other sites:

 “I decided to put together the rehab finder because I thought it was sad that with all the technology we have, the best way to find treatment was either to do a general Google search (cue paid ads by providers that charge a lot and can therefore pay for advertising) that results in lists upon lists of providers, or go the SAMHSA treatment locator, which only searches by location,” Jaffe explained in an email exchange. “I thought we could do better. I believe that if we can make it easier for people to find the right treatment we will increase enrollment in treatment because people will find treatment they can afford, and improve treatment outcomes because the treatment-client fit will improve.”

A further refinement is represented by a 20-question survey.  Questions about gender, employment status, health insurance, and mental health are designed to narrow the field of pertinent recommendations. Detailed questions about drug use, including amount spent per month, are also included. What the new rehab finder does NOT ask for is your name, your phone number, or your e-mail address, as other such sites commonly do. So there is no danger of follow-up sales calls or spam.

“For the most part, we don’t match people based on the treatment approach (CBT, MI, 12 step, or others), that’s been tried and failed – there seems to be little difference and we don’t know how to match there yet,” Jaffe said. “What we do is match on gender, age, insurance, mental health status, specific addiction specialty, and other factors like the need for detox, or specific treatments for specific drugs (like buprenorphine for heroin).”

Jaffe is now seeking funds for a study of the new finder’s effectiveness.  “I’d like to set up a few different versions (including a location-only search like SAMHSA’s) and see if our version works better,” he said. “It also lends itself to constant improvement based on the actual results obtained.”

As the A3 site says: Rehab is hard. Finding it shouldn’t be.

Graphics Credit: http://www.gentiva.com/

Book Review: Thinking Simply About Addiction

Of bicycles, swimming, and drugs.

Back when I first became interested in the science of addiction, I was fascinated by an article in Parabola magazine by Dr. Richard Sandor, a Los Angeles psychiatrist with many years of experience treating alcoholics and other drug addicts. In the article, Sandor suggested that a good deal of addictive behavior could profitably be viewed as a form of dissociation. I quoted from that article in my book about addiction, and now he has published a book of his own.

Thinking Simply About Addiction: A Handbook for Recovery, focuses on the current controversy over Alcoholics Anonymous and its 12-Step variants, and takes a reasoned, thoughtful approach to the so-called spiritual aspects of recovery.

Happily, this is not another southern California feel-good self-help tome, though the author does not shy away from tweaking the neuroscience establishment for “delving deeper and deeper into the biochemistry of the alcoholic and drug-addicted brain, endless promising a ‘cure’ and yet never quite delivering the goods.”

While acknowledging that addiction is “correctly understood as a disease,” Sandor diverges a bit from the mainstream disease theory of addiction, believing that addictions are “diseases of automaticity—automatisms—developments in the central nervous system that cannot be eliminated but can be rendered dormant.”

As examples of simple automatisms, Sandor cites bicycle riding and swimming, two behaviors it is impossible to “unlearn.” Consider swimming: If, for some reason, it became extremely dangerous for you to swim (pollution, a heart condition, sharks), the problem is that “you literally cannot choose not to swim. Your only reliable choice is to stay out of the water, to become abstinent.”

Much of the confusion over addiction, the author maintains, is that “we miss the essential quality that defines addiction as a disease: Something someone has rather than something they’re doing.”

What his addicted patients frequently tell him, Sandor writes, is that “the core experience of being addicted is powerlessness, the experience of having lost control over the use of alcohol or a drug.” As one addiction expert put it, addicts “have lost the freedom to abstain.” Like other forms of rehabilitation, says Sandor, “treatment doesn’t work or not work. The patient works. It seems obvious. If the very nature of addiction is automaticity—the loss of control—then recovery is the restoration of choice, not handing choices over to someone else.”

On controlled drinking, or a return to social drinking, Sandor writes that “studies that have followed reliably diagnosed alcoholics for long enough periods of time reveal what clinicians and AAs have known for a long time: Abstinence is necessary for recovery…. If you follow true alcoholics for years, you discover that those who continue to drink get worse and those who remain abstinent don’t. Presumably, the same is true for all other addictions.”

Problem drinkers who do return to moderate drinking “were people who had had enough problems with drinking to land in treatment but who were never physically addicted and therefore didn’t have to become abstinent in order to stop the progression of the disease.”

Where does the “Higher Power” concept fit into all this? Sandor endorses the wider view taken by many psychologists and thinkers, from Gregory Bateson to C.G. Jung. In line with his theme of keeping it simple, Sandor suggests that thinking about a Higher Power may mean coming to realize that “the body’s capacity to restore itself is part of something much larger than our operations and medications… If you like, it comes from God. If you don’t like, it comes from a Higher Power, from Nature, from five billion years of the evolution of life on Earth, from the created universe, from whatever you want to call it.”

It is the simplest of simple ideas: “We all belong to something beyond ourselves.”

Graphics Credit: www.thesecondroad.org

Addiction Science and the Problem of Perception

Why don’t mental health professionals get it?

Dr. Joanna Moncrieff, identified by the BBC News as a “mental health expert,” gave the world the benefit of her view on the use of drugs for mental disorders in a July 15 article titled “The Myth of the Chemical Cure.”

Joanna Moncreiff’s version goes like this:

“If you've seen a doctor about emotional problems some time over the past 20 years, you may have been told that you had a chemical imbalance, and that you needed tablets to correct it. “

True.

“Magazines, newspapers, patients' organisations and internet sites have all publicised the idea that conditions like depression, anxiety, schizophrenia and bipolar disorder can be treated by drugs that help to rectify an underlying brain problem.”

True.

“People with schizophrenia and other conditions are frequently told that they need to take psychiatric medication for the rest of their lives to stabilise their brain chemicals, just like a diabetic needs to take insulin. The trouble is there is little justification for this view of psychiatric drugs.”

Deeply, undeniably false.

“First, although ideas like the serotonin theory of depression have been widely publicised, scientific research has not detected any reliable abnormalities of the serotonin system in people who are depressed.”

False—but a new and increasingly popular line of attack. None of the major findings about the relationship between serotonin metabolism and clinical unipolar depression has been overturned. The Serotonin hypothesis of unipolar depression is still a fundamentally sound and useful model, as evidence by the stunning success of serotonin-boosting antidepressants.

But wait! The success of SSRIs is proof that serotonin has nothing to do with it! Moncrieff writes: “It is frequently overlooked that drugs used in psychiatry are psychoactive drugs, like alcohol and cannabis. Psychoactive drugs make people feel different; they put people into an altered mental and physical state. They affect everyone, regardless of whether they have a mental disorder or not.”

False—all three statements. A trifecta of untruths. Psychoactive drugs for mental illness are not necessarily chemically akin to alcohol and cannabis, many of the drugs do not “make people feel different” or vault them into an altered mental state, and the drugs do not effect most “normal” people who do not have one of the underlying mental disorders the drugs are designed to treat.

“In my view it remains more plausible that they ‘work’ by producing drug-induced states which suppress or mask emotional problems.’

False—and happily, her view on the matter is not shared by many reputable neurologists. The quotation marks around the word “work” would seem to tell us all we need to know about Ms. Moncrieff’s relationship to modern medicine.

“At the moment people are being encouraged to believe that taking a pill will make them feel better by reversing some defective brain process.”

True--and we should thank our lucky stars that we have progressed out of the dark ages when it comes to the treatment of mental illness.

“If, on the other hand, we gave people a clearer picture, drug treatment might not always be so appealing.”

True—but on another hand, uncounted numbers of addicted people might find the prospect very appealing, if only they could afford it, or were under the care of a health professional who understood what the medication could do for her patients.

Graphics Credit: 1800blogger


addiction drugs

Addiction Touches Almost Everyone

75% of Americans know someone who is addicted.

A new survey by Lake Research Partners, sponsored by George Soros’s Open Society Institute and presented at the June 16 Conference of Mayors meeting in Providence, R.I., reveals that three of every four people surveyed said that they personally knew someone who has been addicted to alcohol or drugs.

More ominously, half of Americans “say they could not afford treatment if they or a family member needed it. They are also concerned that people addicted to alcohol or drugs may not be able to get treatment because of cost or lack of insurance coverage – a concern likely heightened by the current economic recession.” Moreover, financial concerns about treatment are highest among Americans with incomes less than $50,000. 67% of that income group said they would not be able to afford addiction treatment.

Among the survey’s other findings:

--Three‐quarters (75%) of Americans are concerned that people who are addicted to alcohol or drugs may not be able to get treatment because they lack insurance coverage or cannot afford it. Concerns about the affordability of and access to addiction treatment emerge throughout the survey results. Four in ten (41%) are very concerned.

--Nearly three‐quarters (73%) support including alcohol and drug addiction treatment as part of national health care reform to make it more accessible and affordable. This support cuts across all demographic groups. Lake Research Partners notes that this figure is quite high, “given the current economic climate and public concerns about government spending." One‐quarter (26%) oppose increased funding.

--Two‐thirds of Americans (68%) also support increasing federal and state funding for alcohol and drug prevention, treatment, and recovery services.

--Finally, more than nine in ten (96%) support providing specialized prevention, treatment, and recovery support to veterans and military returning from active duty (78% strongly support this effort).

The poll was sponsored by Closing the Addiction Treatment Gap , a program of the Open Society Institute. This program seeks to raise awareness around alcohol and drug addiction and its effects on family and communities. The telephone survey was conducted May 29-June 1, 2009 among a nationally‐representative sample of N = 1,001 adults 18 and older. The margin of sampling error is + 3.1 percentage points.

Graphics Credit: http://naturalpatriot.org/category/education/

addiction drugs

Doctors Still Don’t Understand Addiction

Med schools ignore major health problem.

If there is one thing most workers in the field of addiction treatment can agree upon, it is that doctors are inadequately trained to deal with addicted patients.

Researchers at the Boston Medical Center recently reported that “education on addiction is inadequate during medical training, resulting in suboptimal medical care for those at risk.” In a study published in the Journal of General Internal Medicine, the Boston researchers found that a “Chief Resident Immersion Training” program yielded significant benefits. This “train the trainers” approach “effectively transferred evidence-based addiction knowledge and practice to 64 chief residents in generalist disciplines and more importantly, enhanced the addiction curriculum in 47 residency programs,” according to Daniel P. Alford, associate professor of medicine at Boston University School of Medicine.

The problem is not a new one. In 2003, Howard Markel of the New York Times wrote that the failure of primary care physicians to diagnose substance abuse was due to “insufficient training in the treatment of addiction, doctor’s frustration with afflicted patients, the common perception among doctors that treatment for substance abuse does not work, and a poor rate of insurance reimbursement for such services.” Dr. June E. Osborn of the Josiah Macy Jr. Foundation put it bluntly: “In clinical situations where they don’t know exactly what they are doing, doctors tend to walk away and adopt an attitude of blaming the patient.”

The Times article concluded that “scant formal training on addiction and substance abuse is available in American medical schools. Now, most of them offer only a few hours on these complex subjects and even less is offered during most residency or postgraduate programs.”

Moreover, in actual practice, insurance benefits for substance abuse problems present a difficult reimbursement problem in many cases. Hence doctors may be more reluctant to offer a formal diagnosis of addictive disorder.

Joseph Califano Jr. of Columbia University’s National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse told a conference in October: “Although doctors and nurses have the best opportunity to intervene with alcoholics and substance abusers, our research indicates they are woefully inadequate at even diagnosing someone with this disease." Surveys conducted by the center showed that 90% of primary care doctors fail to offer a diagnosis of addiction even in patients clearly displaying classic hallmarks of the condition.

To redress the current state of affairs, the center recommends formal substance abuse training for med students, residents, and doctors, expanding drug dependency coverage under Medicare, Medicaid and private insurers, and “adding legal accountability” for doctors who fail to diagnose addiction when warranted.

To be fair, however, the plight of doctors in this regard is not to be underestimated. Dr. Catherine D. DeAngelis, editor-in-chief of the Journal of the American Medical Association, told the New York Times that “caring for patients with substance abuse is one of the most difficult things I have ever had to deal with as a doctor.... when the ailment in question carries a substantial behavioral component, like substance abuse, physicians get frustrated and don’t do as well.”

Graphics Credit: Codinghorror.com

Drugs on the Ballot

States to vote on drug policy proposals.

The Drug War Chronicle has done an excellent job of rounding up the various drug policy initiatives that will appear on state ballots in November. The majority of these initiatives concern marijuana decriminalization, medical marijuana, and prison sentencing reform. The Drug War Chronicle reports in its October 3 issue that the pace of drug policy initiatives has slowed, compared to the beginning of the decade, when medical marijuana initiatives were on the ballot in dozens of states.

While California voters will be asked to strengthen their support of medical marijuana and lessen penalties for possession, voters in Michigan and Massachusetts will have the opportunity to follow California’s lead with marijuana decriminalization initiatives of their own. Michigan’s Proposition 1 would legalize the use of marijuana with a doctor’s recommendation, and would also allow a medical necessity defense when marijuana cases are being prosecuted. According to the Chronicle, a recent poll showed that 66 per cent of Michigan voters favored the proposal. In Massachusetts, Question 2 on the ballot would legalize the possession of up to an ounce of marijuana.

California’s Proposition 5 builds on the original work Proposition 36, the 2002 initiative that kicked off the medical marijuana movement in that state. Proposition 5 would divert drug offenders into treatment rather than prison, expand prison rehab programs, and decriminalize possession of an ounce or less.

In Oregon, a medical marijuana initiative is slated for the 2010 election. This year, Ballot Measures 61 and 57 attempt to move things in the opposite direction by imposing stiff mandatory minimum prison sentences for a variety of drug offenses.

There are also some municipal policy initiatives up for a vote this year, including Measure JJ in Berkeley, California. The measure seeks to “broaden and regularize medical marijuana access” through additional dispensaries and uniform operating rules. Fayetteville, Arkansas has a grassroots initiative that would mandate adult marijuana possession as “the lowest law enforcement priority.”

Finally, voters on the Big Island of Hawaii will confront Ballot Question 1, which in essence prohibits law enforcement from spending any money to enforce laws against adult marijuana possession. The Drug War Chronicle says that the initiative was the product of “Project Peaceful Sky, a local grassroots organization whose name alludes to the disruption of tranquility caused by law enforcement helicopters searching for marijuana.”

medical marijuana

McCain on Drugs

Full speed ahead on the Drug War.

One issue largely missing in action during the presidential campaign has been the Drug War, and all the policy implications for addiction treatment that go with it. Our thanks go out to OnTheIssues blog for compiling the admittedly skimpy record of public statements about drug policy by both candidates. In this post, we examine the on-the-record views of Republican candidate John McCain.

In his long career in the U.S. Senate, John McCain’s support for the Drug War has never wavered. Campaigning for president in 2000, McCain’s positions were the most hawkish of the four major candidates, the Boston Globe reported. “He wants to increase penalties for selling drugs, supports the death penalty for drug kingpins, favors tightening security to stop the flow of drugs into the country, and wants to restrict availability of methadone for heroin addicts.”

This latter position was embodied in the “Addiction Free Treatment Act” that McCain introduced in the Senate in 1999, which called for defunding any drug program that used methadone, unless the program followed a restrictive set of guidelines.

McCain has criticized the former Clinton administration for going “AWOL on the war on drugs,” and has pushed tirelessly for greater military assistance to drug-exporting nations like Columbia.

In more recent activity, Senator McCain sponsored a a 2005 bill, “The Clean Sports Act,” mandating drug testing in all major professional sports leagues. And in 2006, McCain signed on to the “Safe Streets Act Amendment,” which called for federal grants to Indian tribes to fight methamphetamine addiction.

This year, “McCain met with Mexican President Felipe Calderon to discuss immigration, trade and the recently passed Merida Initiative, a $400 million U.S. aid package to help Mexico fight an increasingly bloody drug war that has claimed more than 1,800 lives this year.”

“Drugs is a big, big problem in America,” McCain said in a fact-finding trip to Columbia in July. “The continued flow of drugs from Colombia through Mexico into the United States is still one of our major challenges for all Americans.”

McCain’s response last year to a New Hampshire police officer’s question about the failure of the Drug War does not bode well for the prospects of responsible changes in drug awareness and addiction treatment in a McCain administration: “Look, I've heard the comparison between drugs and alcohol. I think most experts would say that in moderation, one or two drinks of alcohol does not have an effect on one's judgment, mental acuity, or their physical abilities. I think most experts would say that the first ingestion of drugs leads to mind-altering and other experiences, other effects, and can lead over time to serious, serious problems."

A search of the McCain-Palin campaign website for the term “drug war” came up empty.

Addiction Treatment: Who is the Client?

The Overselling of Drug Rehab.

Professor David Clark, who runs the Wired In recovery website in the U.K., recently posted several passages from William L. White's "Slaying the Dragon: The History of Addiction Treatment and Recovery in America."

According to Professor Clark, "In highlighting [these quotes] on my Blog, I am not questioning the value of treatment. However, I am providing a word of caution to those who are trying to tell 'society' that the government-led treatment system is successful and is a panacea to some of society's problems."

Among the observations from White's book:

Who is the client?

"Addiction treatment swings back and forth between a technology of personal transformation and a technology of coercion. When the latter dominates, counselors become, not helpers, but behavioral police. The fact that today’s treatment institutions often serve more than one master has created the ethical dilemma of “double agentry,” wherein treatment staff profess allegiance to the interests of the individual client, while those very interests may be compromised by the interests of other parties to whom the institution has pledged its loyalty.’

--White, p. 335.

On blaming

"Harold Hughes, the political Godfather of the modern alcoholism treatment system, often noted that alcoholism was the only disorder in which the patient was blamed when treatment failed.... For decades many addicts have been subjected to treatment interventions that had almost no likelihood of success; and when that success has indeed failed to materialize, the source of that failure has been attributed, not to the intervention, but to the addicts’ recalcitrance and lack of motivation. The issue is, not just that such mismatches do not work, but that such mismatches generate their own iatrogenic effects via increased client passivity, helplessness, hopelessness and dependence."

--White, p. 331.

Historical tendency to oversell what treatment can achieve

"The overselling of the ways in which addiction treatment could benefit the home, the workplace, the school, the criminal justice system, and the broader community during the 1970s and 1980s sparked a subsequent backlash. When time - the ultimate leveller – began to expose the fact that these benefits were not forthcoming at the level promised, a rising pessimism fueled the shift toward increased criminalization of addiction."

--White, p. 338

Photo Credit: Cliffside Malibu

Soros Funds Addiction Initiative

Urges insurance companies to close “treatment gap.”

In a move designed to jump-start a reluctant insurance industry, philanthropist George Soros is pushing an addiction initiative aimed at the estimated 20 million Americans who cannot afford treatment for substance abuse.

Through his New York-based Open Society Institute (OSI), Soros will award $10 million in grants to study “obstacles associated with addiction treatment.” Victor Capoccia, who previously ran community-based drug and alcohol treatment programs for the Boston Department of Health and Hospitals, will serve as director of OSI’s Initiative to Close the Addiction Treatment Gap. Capoccia also directed the addiction prevention effort at the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

Any future system of universal health care should provide coverage of addiction as a medical condition, the group believes. “We’re going to look at the role of the public sector, and ask government to pay for people who lack insurance, not as a replacement for what other insurance should be paying for,” Dr. Capoccia told Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Weekly. “We don’t want public funds subsidizing what should be an insurance responsibility for this health issue.”

Among the issues the initiative will explore are the expansion of Medicaid to cover science-based addiction treatment, an emphasis on early intervention and aftercare, and increased funding of treatment programs from a variety of sources. Backers of the Soros initiative maintain that drug addiction is a health issue that should fall within the general financing of existing health care delivery systems.

“People with a health condition ought to have that condition treated,” Capoccia told the Baltimore Sun in an article by Michael Hill. “They should not be jailed or shunned or put aside until their condition is so acute that they are a hopeless case.”

Capoccia described addiction as a chronic disease like diabetes and hypertension. “Using that chronic disease framework,” he told the Sun, “you realize that this is a condition you have to learn to manage. It is not a case of finding a cure, that it’s here today and gone tomorrow. It is a process of mitigation, of reducing the harmful effects, reducing the behaviors associated with those harmful effects.”

Capoccia pointed to Baltimore and San Francisco as communities where local governments have focused effectively on addiction treatment, and have “helped build a sense of collaboration…between health departments and law enforcement in really positive ways."

Addiction, said Capoccia, “has all these impacts, yet we decide to provide the resources so only one in 10 gets help. It’s laughable.”

Grants will be for $600,000. Specific information about the funding program is available at http://www.soros.org/initiatives/treatmentgap/focus_areas/guidelines

Photo Credit: The Washington Note