U.K. Expands Production of Homegrown Opium

Meanwhile, British soldiers destroy poppy fields in Afghanistan.

The British government has been quietly recruiting growers for a program of licensed cultivation of poppies for morphine in an effort to stem shortages of the drug at the National Health Service.
This summer, various British newspapers have confirmed that more than 6,400 acres of cropland on a dozen different farms in Hampshire, Lincolnshire and Hertfordshire have been converted to opium production.

The result, according to the London Daily Mail, is "an increasingly visible crop in the British countryside." According to the London Times, the British government had been hoping to keep a low profile on the project, with the poppies being grown at undisclosed locations.

A spokesperson for Macfarlan Smith told the Times the effort was undertaken "to maintain the reliability of supply."

Meanwhile, British troops have sustained casualties in an attempt to combat the soaring opium harvest in Afghanistan, and the attendant violence and corruption. So far this year, British troops have destroyed more than 64,000 acres of poppies in the Afghan fields. The fact that the same crop being grown in Great Britain is also being systematically destroyed in Afghanistan has sparked discussions about buying opium directly from Afghan farmers. However, as the Times reports: "With the illegal Afghan crop providing 90 per cent of the heroin trade in Britain alone, the possibility of medical uses for it has never been viewed as practical or realistic."

The first trial programs to plant opium poppies with Home Office approval began in 2003. Macfarlan Smith, a drug concern located in Edinburgh, is the official processor. A spokesman for Macfarlan's parent company, Johnson Matthey, told the U.K. Herald that his company was "the only company processing poppies in this way in the U.K. The same crop is grown in Afghanistan, India and Turkey for illegitimate reasons."

"If you are interested in growing poppies," says Macfarlan Smith on its web site, "you must have free-draining soil, have a pH over seven and have an on-floor drying system." A farmer in Oxfordshire told the Daily Mail: "It is worthwhile from a farmer's point of view and it's an expanding market."

It is legal for anyone to grow opium poppies (papaver somniferum) without a license, but "the people who work to produce the drugs have to be licensed," a spokesperson for the Home Office said.

Photo Credit: deviantart.com

Drug for Cocaine Addicts Causes Weight Loss

Is Vigabatrin the next big diet pill?

The U.S. Department of Energy's Brookhaven National Laboratory announced that obese rats lost weight on the experimental anti-cocaine drug vigabatrin, reinforcing the idea that certain forms of obesity--particularly binge eating--result from the same kinds of neurotransmitter disturbances that underlie vulnerability to addictive drugs like cocaine.

Amy DeMarco, lead author of the study, said in a press release from Brookhaven that the results "appear to demonstrate that vigabatrin induced satiety in these animals."

Earlier, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had given Fast Track designation to vigabatrin, an anticonvulsant, for evaluation as an anti-craving drug for cocaine and methamphetamine addiction. If successful, it would be the first medication ever approved for the treatment of addiction to stimulants. The FDA has yet to approve the drug for use in the U.S., citing concerns about reports of retinal damage in patients overseas.

First synthesized as a drug treatment for epilepsy in 1974, vigabatrin increases brain levels of the neurotransmitter GABA, an inhibitory compound also implicated in alcoholism. According to a press release from Ovation Pharmaceuticals, a marketer of the drug under the trade name Sabril, “Sabril may block the euphoria associated with cocaine administration in humans and may suppress craving by increasing brain levels of gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA).” Increased brain levels of GABA, an inhibitory transmitter, result in higher levels of dopamine and serotonin. Catalyst Pharmaceutical Partners is also testing a version of vigabatrin called CPP-109.

The weight loss study involved 50 genetically obese lab animals, and 50 normal animals. Each of the animals was given doses of vigabatrin or placebo for forty days. At the end of that period, the obese animals had lost 19 per cent of their body weight, while the non-obese animals lost from 12 to 20 per cent of their weight.

Brookhaven senior scientist Stephen Dewey, who did much of the early work on vigabatrin, said: "The fact that these results occurred in genetically obese animals offers hope that this drug could potentially treat severe obesity." In the lab press release, Dewey also observed that "This would appear to be true even if the obesity results from binge eating, as this disorder is characterized by eating patterns that are similar to drug-taking patterns in those with cocaine dependency."

Perhaps. But ten years ago, the research community was just as enthusiastic when a serotonin-boosting diet pill called Redux (dexfenfluramine) won full FDA approval in 1996. Redux was the first drug ever approved in the U.S. for the long-term treatment of obesity. But the euphoria didn’t last long. By the time Redux made the cover of Time, researchers were already rumbling about continued reports of high toxicity and hypertension in rat studies. Concerns about pulmonary hypertension arose, and in August, 1997, doctors at the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota reported serious heart valve abnormalities in 24 women taking the "phen-fen" combination.

A month later, at the FDA’s request, phen-fen and Redux were permanently pulled off the market.

Graphics Credit: SheKnows.com

Quitting When You're High

Active smokers underestimate rigors of withdrawal.

An alcoholic wraps his car around a tree in a drunken haze. He has "hit bottom" and vows never to drink again.

A meth tweaker gets so high he becomes unruly and disoriented and is arrested. In jail, cranked to the gills on speed, she pledges to go sober, starting right now.

A cigarette smoker stumbles to bed after a typical two-pack day, coughing, throat burning, reeking of tobacco, and swears that upon waking, his remaining cigarettes will go out with the trash and his life as a human ashtray is over.

Each of these addicts has started off on exactly the wrong foot, and will very likely fail quickly in their quitting attempts, according to recent research on smoking cessation from the University of Pittsburgh and Carnegie Mellon University. It is easy to say you're going to quit while you're high, sailing along on a comfortable level of nicotine in the bloodstream. Once that available nicotine is flushed out, you are going to have some serious second thoughts about the whole enterprise of abstinence. The smoker is likely to wake up the next morning, fumbling for a smokeable butt, muttering to himself: "What in the world was I thinking of last night? No way am I quitting today."

In a study to be published in the September issue of Psychological Science, researchers showed that cigarettes smokers who are not actively craving a cigarette when they vow to quit will likely not succeed, because they inevitably underestimate the rigors of the upcoming withdrawal, and the fierce intensity of their future desire to smoke.

According to lead investigator and professor of psychology Michael Sayette, "this lack of insight while not craving may lead them to make decisions--such as choosing to attend a party where there will be lots of smoking--that they may come to regret."

In the study, titled "Exploring the Cold-to-Hot Empathy Gap in Smokers," the researchers write: "In contrast to smokers in a hot (craving) state, those in a cold (noncraving) state underpredicted the value of smoking during a future session when they would be craving.... Failing to anticipate the motivational strength of cigarette craving, nonsmokers may not appreciate how easy it is to become addicted and how difficult it is to quit once addicted."

George Loewenstein, professor of economics and psychology at Carnegie Mellon and a co-author of the study, said that the research implications for non-smokers were crucial: "If smokers can't appreciate the intensity of their need to smoke when they aren't currently craving, what's the likelihood that people who have never smoked can do so?"

As further evidence of this psychological mismatch, the researchers cite earlier work performed by the University of Michigan’s Monitoring the Future longitudinal study of 1993, "which found that although only 15% of respondents who were occasional smokers (less than one cigarette per day) predicted that they might be smoking in 5 years, 43% of them were, in fact, smoking 5 years later."

All things considered, it's better to make the quitting decision when you're hurting, not when you're high.

Graphic Credit: Florida State University

2008 Marijuana Sourcebook

Feds back gateway theory, say no to medical marijuana.



Attention marijuana users: The President’s Office of National Drug Control Policy thinks it has a pretty good idea of where you live. Last month, the office released its 2008 Marijuana Sourcebook (PDF), which includes the map to the right. (Dark green equals low use, yellow equals moderate use, and red stands for high use.)

Prime marijuana territory, according to the estimates, includes Northern California, upstate New York and New England, Alaska, Northern Florida, Northern Arizona, and Western Montana. Areas showing little interest in pot include Texas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Iowa, and Utah.

The Marijuana Sourcebook also features the controversial gateway hypothesis: “For younger users, the risk of marijuana abuse or dependency exceeds that for alcohol or tobacco. Recent research supports the ‘gateway’ dimension of marijuana — that its use creates greater risk of abuse or dependency on other drugs, such as heroin and cocaine.”

Many addiction researchers consider the gateway hypothesis to be outmoded at best. In a 2006 article in the America Journal of Psychiatry, researchers at the University of Pittsburgh Medical School could find no evidence that teenage marijuana use is predictive of drug and alcohol abuse in later life. According to Ralph E. Tarter, professor of pharmaceutical sciences at the University of Pittsburgh School of Pharmacy and lead author of the study, “the reverse pattern is just as accurate for predicting who might be at risk for developing a drug dependence disorder.”

The Sourcebook also concludes that “smoked marijuana is not medicine,” and reminds readers that the FDA has not approved the use of cannabis for anything, at any time. The Office of National Drug Control Policy has always held that the medical marijuana movement is nothing but a front for increased drug trafficking. The report puts the case in terms nobody is likely to misconstrue: “The FDA, along with the Drug Enforcement Administration and the Office of National Drug Control Policy, do not support the use of smoked marijuana for medical purposes.”

Even our friendly neighbors to the North come in for a bashing. “Canada is a consumer as well as a producer of marijuana,” the Sourcebook says, claiming that Canadian use has doubled since 1994.

In addition, under the heading, “Marijuana Growers Present Environmental Hazards,” the Sourcebook estimates that one marijuana garden can generate “up to 53 30-gallon garbage bags of trash.”

Nothing Beats Booze

Annual survey ranks alcohol as #1 problem.

Drugs may make headlines, but alcohol is the elephant sitting in the corner of the room, according to Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America (CADCA), a non-profit organization that conducts an annual survey of community anti-drug service groups. CADCA, sponsored in part by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, found that 68 percent of community anti-drug coalitions ranked alcohol as “the number one problem facing their community.”

The group said that marijuana was in second place, listed by 60 percent of communities as one of the major problems in their areas. Tobacco was a close third.

“It’s no surprise that our members are seeing big problems with youth alcohol use in their communities,” said Arthur T. Dean, CADCA chairman and CEO. 700 community anti-drug coalitions took part in the 2007 survey. Community anti-drug coalitions rely on strategies including media outreach, advertisements, educational events and community forums.

Asked to name the major partners helping them tackle community drug problems, 88 percent of survey respondents listed “law enforcement.” That was slightly ahead of the number of respondents listing “parents” (86 percent).

While the results cannot be considered a surprise, it is disheartening to discover that an earlier CADCA survey found that the “alcohol stigma” is alive and well: 63 percent of Americans still believe alcoholism is a moral weakness. Only 34 percent of respondents labelled it a disease. The earlier survey also reported that two out of every five Americans reported that they have encouraged a loved one to seek help for an alcohol problem.

Moreover, a group of Britain’s most prominent drug researchers published a report in the Lancet last year calling for the U.K. to scrap its current drug classification scheme in favor of one that “more honestly reflects the harm caused by alcohol and tobacco,” according to an article in the U.K Guardian by science correspondent James Randerson.

The study team “asked 29 consultant psychiatrists who specialise in addiction to rate [20 drugs of abuse] in nine categories. Three of these related to physical harm, three to the likelihood of addiction and three to social harms such as healthcare costs,” writes Randerson. In the final rankings, heroin and cocaine were ranked as the most dangerous. Alcohol placed 5th, well ahead of marijuana (11th), LSD (14th), and Ecstasy (18th).

Predictably, howls of outrage and shock were heard from dozens of U.K. politicians and anti-drug crusaders after the report was published.

Photo Credit: LiveJournal

alcoholics anonymous

Clinical LSD

“Psychedelic psychotherapy” makes a comeback.



“Take a tab of Sunshine and call me in the morning.”

No, we haven’t reached that point yet. But there is a growing movement among research scientists to take another look at powerfully psychoactive drugs like LSD, psilocybin, MDMA and ibogaine as treatments for a variety of illnesses.

In June, the first clinical trial of LSD since the 1970s began in Switzerland, according to the U.K. Guardian. While LSD has sparked renewed interest as a potential treatment for everything from depression to cluster headaches to post-traumatic stress disorder, the Swiss trial will focus on administering LSD in varying doses to eight terminally ill subjects. “During the course of therapy,” the Guardian reported, “researchers will assess the patients’ anxiety levels, quality of life and pain levels.”

“The working hypothesis is that if psilocybin or LSD can occasion these experiences of great personal meaning and spiritual significance,” said Professor Roland Griffiths of the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine in Baltimore, “then it would allow [terminal patients] hopefully to face their own demise completely differently—to restructure some of the psychological angst that so often occurs concurrently with severe disease.”

Griffiths recently conducted a study of the effects of psilocybin on 36 health adult volunteers, the results of which were published in the British Journal of Psychopharmacology. “When administered under supportive conditions,” Griffiths concluded, “psilocybin occasioned experiences similar to spontaneously occurring mystical experiences that, at 14-month follow-up, were considered by volunteers to be among the most personally meaningful and spiritually significant of their lives.”

Griffiths told the Guardian that drugs classed as hallucinogenic had become thoroughly demonized after the excesses of the 1960s. “As a culture we just decided clinical research shouldn’t be done with this class of compounds,” he commented. “This was partly the federal regulatory authorities, it was partly the funding agencies and it was partly the academics themselves—Leary had so discredited a scientific approach to studying these compounds that anyone who expressed an interest in doing so was automatically discredited.”

The Journal of Psychopharmacology recently published a training manual for the use of investigators who are currently studying the effects of such drugs. According to the manual, psychedelic drugs are relatively safe when administered at the proper dose by a trained medical professional. The drugs are non-toxic, non-addictive, and, except in rare cases, do not cause long-lasting psychoses.

A paper in the same journal by B. Sessa of the Psychopharmacology Unit, Bristol University, concluded:

“There are similarities between the typical traits of creative people and the subjective psychological characteristics of the psychedelic (hallucinogenic) drug experience. This phenomenon was studied in a number of small trials and case studies in the 1960s. Results were inconclusive, and the quality of these studies – by modern research standards – was merely anecdotal. Nevertheless, with today’s current renaissance in psychedelic drug research and the growing interest in cognitive enhancing drugs, now may be the time to re-visit these studies with contemporary research methods.”

In the U.S., psychology professor Charles Grob of the Harbor-UCLA Medical Centre also recently completed a clinical trial using psilocybin to treat terminally ill cancer patients.

Graphics Credit: www.rsc.org

Why Don't They Just Say No?

Are addicts at fault for refusing to get well?

It often seems as if alcoholics and other drug addicts are at fault for perversely refusing to get well. Rarely do the treatment methods, or lack of them, come under question. The traditional view of the addict as an immature and irresponsible person, short on will power, low on self-esteem, and forever at the mercy of his or her “addictive personality,” works at cross-purposes with the goal of helping addicts recognize the need for treatment. Addicts have traditionally been taught to think of themselves the way Franz Kafka thought of himself in relation to his tuberculosis: “Secretly I don’t believe this illness to be tuberculosis, at least not primarily tuberculosis, but rather a sign of my general bankruptcy.”

Who is really at fault here—the patients, or the healers? Most of our current medical, legal, and psychiatric approaches to the prevention and treatment of drug addiction have failed—and are continuing to fail. As Susan Sontag has written: “Psychological theories of illness are a powerful means of placing the blame on the ill. Patients who are instructed that they have, unwittingly, caused their disease are also being made to feel that they have deserved it.”

In Samuel Butler’s classic utopian satire, Erewhon, sick people are thrown in prison, under a statute that makes it a crime to be ill. Is that our current approach to addiction? Does the drug problem belong in the Attorney General’s office, as it now stands, or in the Surgeon General’s office, where a growing number of researchers say it belongs? In light of new medical findings about addictive disorders, what is enlightened public policy, and what is not?

Recent research in neurophysiology, cell biology, and molecular genetics, coupled with breakthroughs in the science of brain imaging, have made it possible, for the first time, to venture a solid assault on the basic mysteries of addiction. The past fifteen years have been exhilarating times for biomedical researchers in general; a time when basic breakthroughs in the biomedical sciences have changed the way science approaches a variety of human afflictions. We have been used to thinking of such conditions as alcoholism, drug addiction, depression, and suicide in terms of causes rooted firmly in the environment. What events in a person’s life, what outside social factors, led to the problem? However, the new medicine is telling us that we have been looking in all the wrong places for causality.

When I first began following the scientific research on addiction and alcoholism, the field was small, the insights tentative, and the overall enterprise woefully underfunded. Today, more than a decade later, an interlocking maze of biomedical and psychiatric sub-specialties make up the world of addiction science. I can only hope to impart a sense of the important work being done in addiction science. What I had originally viewed as a series of potential breakthroughs in addiction research very rapidly became the tip of an enormous iceberg: brain science, and the revolutionary new directions represented by modern biological psychiatry. The brave new sciences strongly suggest that, when it comes to addiction, the place to look is inside the brain itself.

Photo Credit: Conversations on the Fringe