Addict Minded

Install wordpress

2012-05-16T07:18:00.001-07:00

Quitting Smoking: Why Willpower Isn't Enough

2011-12-06T14:53:00.000-08:00

In rain or snow, they are castigated to standing outdoors in designated smoking areas. Still, they are resilient. They puff and puff, in the face of their chronic cough. Ineligible for many jobs, and confronted with patronizing lectures every doctor visit, they smoke on, in spite of each mounting societal pressure to quit.

Smokers these days have every reason to stop. In fact, two-thirds of smokers want to quit, and more than half have tried before. So, why do smokers subject themselves to preventable forms of cancer and heart disease, and perpetuate such a terrible practice?

There’s a simple explanation for the smoker’s paradox: most smokers today light up because are addicts.

“Smoking is more than a habit. It is a true addiction and we need to acknowledge it as such,” said Veda Peters from the British Columbia Lung Association.

Public health campaigns labeling smoking as a choice or habit can be credited drastically cut cigarette use. In 1965, 42 percent of Americans smoked. In 2010, the CDC reported that more than half that number (about 20 percent) still smoked, after decades of insurmountable evidence that smoking kills.

Those who can quit easily have done so already, making federal and social policies to curb smoking (like higher taxes and further restrictions) less effective now. Research demonstrates that smokers are more likely to get treatment and stay tobacco-free once they view smoking as an addiction rather than a matter of willpower.

Doctors at the University of Minnesota at Minneapolis found that smokers who underwent a yearlong cessation intervention that incorporated the probability of relapse were 75 percent more likely to stop smoking than those undergoing a traditional eight-week intervention.

"Cigarette addiction is a chronic relapsing disorder, and a chronic disease management approach should also become the standard of care for its treatment," wrote the authors of the study.

A policy shift is necessary to incite any meaningful change in tobacco consumption. Very few Americans are still unaware that smoking is bad for their health. Perhaps the federal government should consider diverting money from anti-smoking campaigns focusing on higher taxes and splashy advertisement to fund more timely initiatives, like medication and counseling.

Most smokers choose to smoke no more than an alcoholic chooses to drink, or an addict chooses to depend on heroin. Alcoholics and drug addicts are never truly recovered, but stay clean and sober by working on their recovery for the rest of their lives through 12-step meetings, meditation, and/or counseling. Why not for the recovering smoker?

Fortunately, there is still hope for the two-thirds of smokers who want to quit:

· With the help of a doctor, look into smoking cessation medications (e.g. Chantix, Zyban, etc.) and nicotine replacement products (gum, patches, and inhalers).

· Attend 12-step meetings, like Nicotine Anonymous.

· Deconstruct the psychological addiction through cognitive therapy.

· Explore smoking cessation options with insurance providers and employers. Many workplaces will even financially reward healthy employees.

· Set a quit date, tell friends and family about plans to quit, and remove all tobacco products from the home, car, and work.

As prohibition and the failed war on drugs in the United States can attest, people will find a way to abuse substances regardless of how expensive or illegal the government tries to make them. People never choose to become addicts, and will continue to smoke themselves to death until less antiquated cessation methods become commonplace.

Taking Chances with Narcotic Painkillers

2011-11-24T10:17:00.001-08:00

A recovering addict must avoid taking narcotic painkillers to treat chronic pain (if they wish to stay in recovery). However, what about the non-addict? Better yet, what about a person who is not an addict, but has the potential to become one?

For many recovering addicts, the idea of surgery causes a heightened sense of anxiety.

Aside from the slicing, bleeding and unique set of risks associated with any surgery, addicts have to wonder about the ensuing pain of going under the knife---and debate whether taking prescribed narcotic painkillers will affect their sobriety or bring about a relapse.

Narcotic painkillers serve a very useful purpose. A non-addict can and often should take narcotics like Oxycontin and Vicodin when they are prescribed by a doctor, especially if he or she will endure extreme pain following the procedure. Rather than lying in bed in misery, a person can pop a narcotic painkiller to make life bearable, even if it means sleeping or nursing banana popsicles until they can be semi-functional (and lucid again).

For the recovering addict, though, narcotics are rarely ever a viable option. Treatment centers (e.g. Ridgeview Institute) teach people that narcotics of any kind threaten an addict’s sobriety---and simply being prescribed something for pain is not reason enough to take it.

“Earth people” (as non-addicts are called in recovery circles) have the ability to take narcotics responsibly. After a knee surgery, many (if not most) people can simply take pills to relieve pain, as prescribed, and stop taking them when the medicine is rendered unnecessary. A non-addict will normally complain that the medicine makes them feel loopy or tired, and will stop taking them as soon as possible.

But for a recovering addict, pills like Oxycontin and Valium are the very drugs that threatened to bring them to premature deaths, prison, or suicide. An addict has difficulty comprehending why someone would complain about the buzz they might feel from a painkiller [Isn’t that the point?]. Narcotics can make an addict feel invincible, relaxed, and at peace again. Narcotics---while just another occasional drug for an Earth person to deal with---can get an addict high, and can compromise his or her very sanity and health.

After exhausting all other alternatives, some people in recovery will inevitably have to take a narcotic painkiller. Still, there are ways of managing the consumption to avoid relapse. A sponsor or trusted family member can secure the medicine, and administer it as prescribed.

An addict should tell a therapist, a doctor, and/or a substance abuse disorder specialist about the predicament, to ensure that his or her sobriety is not compromised by the intake of drugs to deal with temporary pain. Also, there are 12-step meetings to deal with pain, and many other options to feel better without narcotics, like physical therapy and holistic medicine. Not to mention, there are plenty of extremely powerful non-narcotic pain relievers on the market today.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Narcotics simply aren’t an option for an addict dealing with chronic-pain. Once an addict, always an addict, and it’s just unrealistic (if not delusional) to expect an addict to be able to responsibly manage narcotics to cope with pain in the long-term. But what about the non-addict?

Narcotic painkillers are some of the most commonly used drugs in the United States, with as many as 244 million prescriptions dispensed in 2010. The potent drugs help ease pain for millions of people each year, and most of these people’s lives are not derailed by the drugs. The non-addict can take the medicine as medicine, and appreciate it for its pain-relieving qualities---and that’s all.

Still, most people become addicts by accident; they took drugs as prescribed and ended up getting physically and psychologically hooked. The only way a person can truly know that they are a drug addict, unfortunately, is to become an addict themselves.

Some prominent doctors are questioning the use of narcotics to treat chronic pain, alluding to a lack of evidence for the practice and serious problems associated with abuse.

A recent study conducted by NPR and Thompson Reuters Health Poll asked Americans about their experience with narcotic painkillers and their views about drugs. About half of the respondents had been prescribed a narcotic painkiller. More than three-quarters said the drugs are linked to addiction.

More than a third of respondents who have used prescription narcotics said they had concerns about them. The top fears were side effects (45 percent) and fear of addiction (27 percent).

Roughly 30 percent of those who said they had not used painkillers said they had concerns about them. Fear of addiction was the top worry at 38 percent, while 31 percent of people claimed to have refused or questioned a doctor’s recommendation of painkillers.

Prescription narcotics have sparked a fierce debate since their inception. Dr. Gregory Terman (Professor of anesthesiology at the University Of Washington School Of Medicine) told NPR that people are normally split into two radically different ways of thinking about painkillers: one is terrified of narcotics, while the other sees them as a panacea.

He told NPR that while addiction is a legitimate concern, it is a side effect that affects only a small percentage of people who have a predisposition for abuse or who take a liking to recreational drug use. He stressed that doctors must keep the “medications in the hand of patients who are doing better” to minimize the diversion of the drugs for misuse and abuse.

How exactly is a doctor supposed to determine a patient who is “doing better?” Also, that “small percentage” of people with a predisposition for abuse is quite high; some experts estimate it’s as high as one in ten American with a substance abuse disorder.

Dr. Terman’s ambivalence about drug addiction is frightening, but extremely commonplace in the medical community. Despite being highly educated and respected, many doctors are willfully ignorant of the realities of drug addiction. Thus, those in recovery must research and question everything that they are prescribed, especially narcotics.

Alas, a person can only know that they are drug addict after the fact. There’s no correct way to avoid becoming an addict, but by only taking narcotics as prescribed (and needed), a non-addict is significantly less likely to wind up a drug addict.

Gambling Nun Condemned to Life of Solitary Confinement

2011-11-15T14:07:00.000-08:00

Sister Marie Thornton had a serious gambling problem. So serious, she stole nearly $1 million from Iona College to fund her habit, where she served as a trusted financial officer.

A judge spared Sister Suzie (as she is known by the Order of St. Joseph) three years in federal prison after she pleaded guilty to one count of embezzlement. The church was not so lenient, though. If she stays with the convent, Sister Suzie will likely spend the rest of her life in solitary confinement, rarely allowed out of her small Philadelphia dorm room.

According to court records, the church forbids her from leaving the convent to see family or friends or being seen in public whatsoever. She can only leave the convent to go to therapy. She can’t take meals with fellow sisters, nor can she work in the Mother house doing clerical jobs.

“She can’t even go the store and get milk,” a source told the New York Post. “My belief is she will never have contact with people again.” The source said that the order will never allow her to teach again. Thornton holds a doctorate in education and served as an assistant school superintendent for the Archdiocese of Newark. She served in the convent 48 years prior to the criminal conviction.

Thornton should be punished. To be honest, she ought to have gone to jail for several years. Her actions were inexcusable, notwithstanding her inability to control the urge to gamble. She stole from a small college that trusted her, and threw away valuable (and limited) funds that were meant to educate students.

She selfishly traveled to casinos throughout the east coast with this money, using the college’s corporate credit card to pay for chips, blowing as much as $5000 each visit. She would submit false vendor invoices for reimbursement to Iona College to cover for her reckless spending.

Iona College got a $500,000 insurance payment for the theft. The college did not seek restitution from Sister Suzie, and since nuns take a vow of poverty, practically the entirety of her salary ($180,000) went to her religious order. She must do 2,000 hours of community service and three years of probation to avoid prison time.

Sister Suzie has lived in isolation and shame for the past 2 ½ years since confessing to the crime. She committed a terrible crime, and should face severe consequences. She must take the steps necessary to recover from her gambling addiction, and prove to her convent that she is worthy of being trusted again.

However, what does the church hope to accomplish by keeping her permanently isolated? What is the incentive for her to even recover, if she is going to be treated like a pariah until the day she dies?

Sister Suzie is a woman of God, and like any human being, she is capable of sinning. She’s not a bad person, but a sick person, who coped with the trauma of horrific childhood abuse by gambling.

By recovering, Sister Suzie will be able to better service the church and members of the community, especially those who are addicted to gambling. Forcing her to live a life of shame is cruel, and makes the church look extremely hypocritical. Where was this kind of harsh punishment when priests were implicated in horrible crimes against children?

Christianity stresses the importance of forgiveness for sinners. Unfortunately, Sister Suzie is learning that the Catholic Church isn’t quite so compassionate---especially to recovering gambling addicts.

Related: Twisted Sister in Nun Jail

White Kids Really Like Drugs, Says Study

2011-11-10T16:07:00.000-08:00

The nation’s racists were shocked this week to learn that white adolescents are more likely to use drugs or alcohol than their black or Asian counterparts.

The annual National Survey on Drug Use and Health found that about 39% of white teens between the ages of 12 and 17 admitted to using substances in the past year, compared to just 32% of blacks and 24% of Asians. White kids were almost twice more likely to have substance abuse disorders than black participants.

The findings contradict prevailing public perceptions about drug and alcohol users.

Surely, this will put unfair stereotypes about drugs and alcohol to rest in America!

No, but seriously, if you’ve seen any PSAs lately, you’d probably think that drug and alcohol abuse is a much bigger problem for black than white youth. Take for example, this commercial:

Or, how about this one? Exhibit B:

With these findings, perhaps “Above the Influence” should target a new demographic? Maybe there’s a drug problem outside of major urban (and black) areas? Perhaps in rural and predominantly white places, like West Virginia?

“There is certainly still a myth out there that black kids are more likely to have problems with drugs than white kids, and this documents as clearly as any study we’re aware of that the rate of…substance-related disorders among African-American youths is significantly lower,” said Dan Blazer of Duke’s Medical Center, a chief author of the study, to Raleigh News & Observer.

Also significant in this study is the shift in kinds of drugs that teens are using. Aside from marijuana, prescription painkillers like OxyContin and Vicodin were more popular than inhalants.

Heroin is still the drug most closely related to addiction, and 13% of teens reported using marijuana in the last year.

A whopping 48% of Native American adolescents claimed to have used drugs or alcohol in the past year. The researchers cited a lack of cultural competence as a major barrier to treating and retaining Native Americans, calling for efforts to “identify and expand prevention measures that are culturally effective and address the quality and acceptability of treatment for adolescents with substance use problems.”

Understandably, many people question the point of combating adolescent substance use. Kids will be kids, and no amount of money for campaigns or treatments will completely eradicate some teens’ efforts to get high or drunk.

True, but numerous studies, including a study released in June by the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University, show that 90% of Americans who are current substance abusers started using drugs and alcohol before they turned 18.

And since public health issues, social services, public safety and lost productivity linked to drug and alcohol abuse cost society approximately $465 billion last year, combating the problem sooner rather than later makes sense, even to the most fiscal of conservatives. And racists, let’s not forget about the racists.

In the meantime, check out this retro (and not racist in the slightest ad) from 1991:

Alcohol Killed Amy Winehouse

2011-10-26T18:06:00.000-07:00

The London coroner confirmed today that Amy Winehouse died from alcohol intoxication. This is awful news. There’s not a lot more to say. After much speculation about her cause of death on July 23, rumors can finally be put to rest.

So, could the world please come to a collective agreement to stop coining jokes about how Amy Winehouse “should have gone to rehab”? The jokes are tired. This type of commentary does not make anyone edgy, original, or brutally honest. The jokes are as distasteful as they are trite.

Winehouse was an irreplaceable musical great. Her lyrics screamed of heartbreak and self-loathing that only a truly depressed person could express. Winehouse had the ability to harness crippling emotion into sultry and extraordinarily sung ballads, winning her five Grammy Awards.

She now joins the ranks of Kurt Cobain, Janis Joplin, Jimi Hendrix, and Jim Morrison to meet the same untimely death at age 27 due to drug and alcohol addiction.

America’s Dirty Little Secret No More: Sex Addiction Goes Mainstream

2011-10-25T12:51:00.000-07:00

When Tiger Woods first found himself in the media spotlight in 1996, he was America’s golden boy: prodigal golfer, Stanford-educated, and a welcome splash of color to the world of professional golf. Nearly 13 years later, the public was shocked to hear of his numerous extramarital affairs and lewd phone messages (with a porn star, no less). Did this make Tiger Woods a sex addict, if such a thing exists, or a wealthy athlete who indulged too much—and got caught?

Almost suddenly, America got a crash course in sexual addiction. But sex addiction has been part of the public consciousness for years—and the media illustrates the addiction at an increasing frequency.

……………………………………………………….

As humans, we love to love, and we love to be loved. It’s our evolutionary duty to conceive offspring, so we breed now, and breed often. Acting on our primal urges makes sex exciting—and can make for out-of-breath, out-of-body, can’t-believe-this-is-happening sex. Simply put, sex is healthy and normal.

But how exactly does a person become a sex addict, and how is that even treatable? People can abstain from drugs, but a married man or woman can’t be expected to give up sex forever. And why now, in 2011, do people claim to be sex addicts, when just 20 years ago they would be labeled libertines whose lifestyles caught up with them?

What makes sex addiction an addiction is the cyclical pattern of thinking and behavior that persists in spite of harmful consequences for the addict, and in some cases, other people. A sex addict uses sex as a coping mechanism for life’s stresses. Like other addictions, there’s a repetitive pattern of behavior, a feeling of euphoria from engaging in such behavior, a routine way of planning and acting out the behavior, followed by a period of withdrawal and repeated cravings.

There are many different types of sexual behaviors that a person can get addicted to, ranging from the benign to criminal. These include pornography, extramarital affairs, prostitution, risky sex, and more. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders currently does not acknowledge sex addiction. Still, treatment does exist. Most notably, therapy in combination with 12-step support groups (Sex Addicts Anonymous).

…………………………………………………………………………………………………….........

Plenty of regular people are sex addicts, but it’s the “outed” celebrities who have made the most headlines, bringing sex addiction to the mainstream. In 2008, David Duchovny announced that he attended a sex rehab clinic. Life was imitating art; his character on the aptly-named Californication, Hank Moody, was also a sex addict.

In 2010, Tiger Woods entered into a sex rehab program in Mississippi. Russell Brand, a noted alcoholic and drug addict, wrote in a 2007 autobiography (My Booky Wook) that he went to a Philadelphia sex rehab after the addiction threatened to ruin his career. Brand regularly had sex with five different partners a day during the peak of his addiction.

Gerald Ford revealed in an embargoed interview in 2004 that he urged Bill Clinton to seek help for sex addiction during the impeachment scandal of 1998. His wife, Betty, who founded a pioneering drug and alcohol treatment center after her own battle with addiction, agreed. Kanye West, Michael Douglas, Billy Bob Thornton, and Tom Sizemore have also admitted to being sex addicts in recent years.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………...............

No stranger to Hollywood, sex addiction often appears on the big and small screens.

Critics are abuzz about Shame, an upcoming drama about regular people dealing with sex addiction. Directed by Steve McQueen, Shame tells the story of Brandon, a successful businessman played by Michael Fassbender, who is simultaneously sated and beleaguered by his compulsion to have sex with strangers in public. When his suicidal sister, played by Carey Mulligan, pleads to live with him, it throws his carefully cultivated public life out of whack. The movie is rumored to feature Fassbender fully nude and having lots of sex, but the UK trailer mostly reveals Brandon’s psyche and the pain of addiction. Rather than overly sensationalizing sex addiction, the movie appears to give a realistic portrayal of the problem. See the trailer for yourself:

In Thanks for Sharing, Gwyneth Paltrow joins Mark Ruffalo and Tim Robbins in a film about sex addicts working to break the habit through a 12-step recovery program. The movie is based on a screenplay by Stuart Blumberg, who scored an Oscar nomination for The Kids are All Right. Paltrow will play a businesswoman who falls for Ruffalo’s character. The film is currently in production.

Numerous television shows have depicted sex addiction. Decades ago, Sam Malone got the diagnosis on Cheers, although it was clear then that a real definition was lacking. Julian McMahon played a sex-addicted doctor on FX’s Nip/Tuck; he even met the mother of this child at a Sex Addicts Anonymous meeting. Reality television also depicts the plight of sex addicts. In 2009, Sex Rehab with Dr. Drew debuted on VH1. The programs Intervention, Addicted, and Taboo feature sex addicts occasionally.

It’s obvious that sex addiction is becoming a popular subject in entertainment. Although many of these films and television programs are profiting off of the shock-factor of sex addiction, they are making the commonly misunderstood illness slightly less taboo.

Famous recovering sex addicts make a huge difference in bringing attention to the illness, and help make it more socially acceptable for others to seek help. These celebrities serve as role-models, and show that there is a way to deal with sexual addiction.

Overall, the media’s portrayal of sex addiction pales in comparison to its take on drug and alcohol addiction. It will take many years for sex addiction to become a commonly accepted mental disorder. Fortunately, both news and entertainment can bring understanding to the problem until then.

Should States Require Drug Tests for Benefits Recipients?

2011-10-14T11:24:00.000-07:00

Nariah, age 3, eats a fruit cup for dinner
without electricity. Her mother may soon have to pass
a drug test to receive aid in Missouri. [NY Times]

Dozens of states are proposing mandatory drug tests for applicants to qualify for state benefits, making it tougher for people to receive welfare, unemployment assistance, and job training. Arizona, Florida, Indiana, and Missouri have already passed such laws.

Drug testing would ensure that tax dollars are not used to subsidize a person’s drug use. If the state is giving out money that is ultimately being spent on drugs, the state is, albeit indirectly, enabling the recipients. However, there are holes in this line of thinking.

This type of law will unfairly harm dependents (most of whom are children) who can’t stop other people from abusing drugs. Simply cutting a drug-user off will only exacerbate the problem, especially if people have to turn to crime (e.g. drug dealing) to survive. If a person tests positive, shouldn’t they have the opportunity to receive free or state-subsidized treatment? Drug testing, without any plan of action to get off drugs, seems pointless.

Florida has already passed a law requiring drug tests to qualify for state assistance. Only 1-2 percent of applicants tested positive, which is quite a bit less than about 8 percent of the general population. While the results are still to be determined, data show that applications have dropped since the law passed.

In Florida, individuals who test positive are refused aid for six months. If they fail a second time, they are banned for two years. Applicants pay for the tests themselves, but are reimbursed if they test negative. Parents who test positive can name a guardian (who must also pass the drug test) for the state to give money to provide for the children.

Great! Poor people shouldn’t do drugs, right? They’re poor! They don’t have any money, certainly not enough money to buy drugs. If we just stop paying them, surely they will stop. People will stop doing drugs so they can get their benefits back!

Unfortunately, this is not how addiction works. People barely able to feed themselves or their family probably aren’t abusing substances for the heck of it. They can’t stop, even if they want to, not at least by sheer willpower. Certain people will continue to use, with or without government assistance. Not feeding or housing them isn’t going to magically make the problem disappear.

If a person qualifies for government assistance, they probably aren’t able to afford substance abuse treatment. Even for the most fiscally conservative voters, treating these people (regardless of societal obligations) makes sense. It’s going to save taxpayers money by lessening drug-related crime, and healthcare costs caused by drug use. Help the people stay off drugs, or your whole drug testing program is an oxymoron.

Drug tests are political capital that most voters will favor. Drug tests might help politicians grandstand and garner headlines, but unless the state wants to subsidize substance abuse treatment, it’s not going to save taxpayers any money in the long-term, and it’s certainly not going to make illicit drug use go away.

Related:

States Consider Drug Testing Requirement for Benefits http://www.npr.org/2011/10/11/141240653/states-consider-drug-test-requirement-for-benefits

Vilifying, Drug Testing the Poor is Wrong: http://www.kansascity.com/2011/10/16/3207134/commentary-vilifying-drug-testing.html

Film Festival Showcases Horrors of Addiction, Gift of Recovery

2011-10-14T11:16:00.000-07:00

Recovery is getting “reel” this weekend, or real that is, as the Los Angeles-based group, Writers in Treatment, hosts the annual Reel Recovery Film Festival.

The festival aims to bring recovery out of the closet in Hollywood. This year’s films include the “The Secret World of Recovery,” the 2011 documentary that follows novelist Leslie Glass and her screenwriter daughter Lindsey as they travel the country reporting on changes in addiction treatment.

The film will also feature a film made at the 2010 AA World Convention in Austin, the 1996 film “Trainspotting,” 2004’s “Down to the Bone” and the 1956 film “On the Bowery.” Robert Downey Sr. will discuss the making of “Bowery.” The event closes with “A Musical Journey through the Steps” and a “schmooze without booze” party.

Too bad I’m stuck on the east coast, at least for now. Art is not only an outlet for the artist; it also makes addiction part of the public consciousness. Luckily, I can still check out many of the films at home or in local indie cinemas.

Learn more about the festival, and the different films here (scroll down the home page of WIT):

http://www.writersintreatment.org

Alternatives to Methadone Maintenance Likely

2011-10-13T11:44:00.001-07:00

A man takes his daily dose of methadone to taper off opiates.

Heroin addicts might soon have an alternative to conventional methadone or abstinence-based treatments, if a clinical trial in Vancouver proves to be effective.

The Canadian federal government recently approved the study that will test the effectiveness of the prescription pain reliever Dilaudid or injectable heroin on the treatment of 322 heroin addicts.

An earlier study showed that hard-to-treat heroin addicts responded much better to medically prescribed heroin than methadone. After 12 months, 88 percent of the subjects prescribed heroin were still in treatment, as opposed to 54 percent who received methadone. Researchers were surprised to see that a small group prescribed Dilaudid was just as likely to stay in treatment as the heroin group, though the Dilaudid group was not large enough to present significant scientific conclusions.

The new study might open a new door for treatment if it shows Dilaudid to be as effective on hardcore addicts as prescribed heroin. If successful, Dilaudid could be used as a second line of treatment for addicts, if methadone maintenance fails.

In America, medical providers would probably experience less regulatory hurdles and political baggage in prescribing Delaudid than heroin as a methadone alternative. In the U.S. and Canada, providers cannot administer heroin to addicts who benefit from the therapy. Delaudid might be the best substitute for heroin, if this clinical trial is effective.

Related:

Drug trial probes pain reliever's potential to treat addicts http://www.vancouversun.com/health/Drug+trial+probe+pain+reliever+potential+treat+addicts/5543129/story.html

Real Housewives or Real Train Wrecks? Alcoholism Rears its Ugly Head on Reality TV

2011-10-12T18:56:00.000-07:00

Take several bored rich ladies, give them a sense of entitlement, the glimmer of celebrity, and mix with alcohol. Pick a city. Repeat.

This, in all its trashy glory, essentially sums up Bravo’s hit reality franchise, the Real Housewives. Each series focuses on the “housewives” of Orange County, New York, D.C., Atlanta, Beverly Hills, and Miami. For many Americans, it’s a glance at the bizarre life of a former homecoming queen or quasi-socialite. Entertaining, trivial, and ridiculous, the series center around arguments fueled by alcohol, resentment, and jealousy.

Similar models for reality television have existed for decades. Before her tragic death by overdose in 2007, Anna Nicole Smith was just your quirky girl-next-door on the Anna Nicole Show, who obsessed over pickles and whined about her sex life (or lack thereof). MTV casted Jason Wahler as a womanizing bad boy, who played Lauren Conrad’s love interest on Laguna Beach and the Hills from 2005-2007. Seven stays in rehab and six alcohol-related arrests later, Wahler blames his bout with alcoholism on the pressures of being on reality television.

While watching reality television, it’s easy to forget that these are actual people. Often cast as eccentric, neurotic, or wild, many of these “stars” really suffer from mental illness. Although entertaining, reality television often seems to target, and subsequently exploits, those suffering or prone to addiction.

The Real Housewives franchise largely capitalizes off of women abusing alcohol and acting out while intoxicated. While some of the women can drink responsibly and don’t seem to have issues with alcoholism, I find it difficult to watch some of the women self-destruct for Bravo’s profit and the American public’s viewing pleasure.

Fans of the Real Housewives Beverly Hills were likely unsurprised to hear that Kim Richards checked into rehab this year. On the finale of the first season, Kim showed up to a party barely lucid, barely able to stand. She threw a tantrum in a limo, prompting her sister to scream, “You’re an alcoholic! That's right. Everyone knows now. I said it!” Tabloids report that she is currently taking methamphetamines.

Let's take a look at some other examples of Bravo's exploitation of substance abuse and/or mental illness on Housewives:

Sonja Morgan, of the Real Housewives of New York, appears under the influence of drugs or alcohol more often than not. She repeatedly flashes the camera, slurs her words, and starts drunken fights. The New York Post reported this summer that a crew member supplies her with prescription painkillers in exchange for sex. She was arrested in 2010 for drunk driving in the Hamptons.

Lynne Curtin, of Real Housewives of Orange County notoriety, was evicted from her home, as documented on the show. She continued to spend thousands of dollars on luxury vacations, dinners, and clothes, all while drinking in excess. One episode, she got stumbling drunk at a weekday luncheon, after which other cast members forbade her from driving home. Her pupils always seemed dilated during confessionals, and she allowed her teenage daughters to drink and party under her supervision, all on camera.

Kim Zolciak, of Real Housewives of Atlanta fame, is constantly shown chugging wine and puffing on cigarettes in the series. She has been known to bring a flask to early morning yard sales, drink glasses of wine while driving, and stop for a beer during a jog.

Kelly Bensimon, again of the New York series. Bravo aired one of Bensimon's frightening emotional breakdowns last year. Bensimon alleged that other housewives were plotting to kill her, which was clearly not the case. Bensimon was arrested in 2009 for assaulting a boyfriend.

Michaele Salahi, of the D.C. version of the series, is infamous for crashing the White House's 2009 state dinner. The crew filmed all the events leading up to the dinner, including her limo ride to the White House, and her delusions of grandeur relating to her and her husband's precarious finances.

Reality shows are meant to be reflect real people, and document how they live their daily lives, raw and unfiltered. Regular people have drinking and drug problems, so it’s inevitable that addiction will appear at least on some programs. However, at what point will networks, producers, and advertisers demand that cast members get help? Profiting off of mocking another person’s disease seems cruel and unethical. After a week in rehab, Kim Richards should not have been invited back to film the second season of the series. Sadly, moral decency does not seem to be a consideration for Bravo's programming decisions. Note, this list only scratches the surface of alcoholism, drug addiction, and mental illness on the Housewives. I completely left out Ramona Singer, who pretty clearly seems to be a raging alcoholic.

Fortunately, there are many reality television programs that center around fighting addiction. Intervention demonstrates that there is hope for addicts, even at rock-bottom. The show educates the public about addiction, and how to attain help for oneself or loved ones.

Scientist Closer to Creating Addiction Vaccine

2011-10-11T11:03:00.001-07:00

Dr. Kim Janda, pictured, is a visionary in addictionology.

A shot to stop measles, the flu, Chicken Pox, HPV, Hepatitis B, Tetanus…and drug addiction?

Twenty-five years of intensive research and over 200 million dollars in clinical studies later, Dr. Kim Janda is slightly closer to having a vaccine to curb drug addiction.

Although it’s uncertain if or when a vaccine will be a viable option for addicts, Janda, a professor at the Scripps Research Institute, has made considerable breakthroughs in helping people stay clean off illicit drugs. This July, Dr. Janda’s lab announced that it produced a vaccine that dulled the effects of heroin on rats. Rodents given the vaccine didn’t get high from heroin, so they stopped using the drug, in contrast to the rats that helped themselves to heroin after experiencing its pain-deadening effects.

Still, Dr. Janda has a long way to go before the vaccine becomes a reality in the fight against drug addiction. Janda’s phase 2 trial for a nicotine vaccine was declared a failure after people who were administered the vaccine stopped smoking no faster than those given a placebo. Dr. Janda’s vaccines have yet to meet approval by the Food and Drug Administration.

Like vaccines against disease, the vaccines introduce small amounts of foreign substances into the bloodstream, enabling the immune system to create antibodies that will attack the substance the next time it appears. However, drug molecules tend to be tiny, much smaller than disease molecules, so immune systems have difficulty detecting them. So, Dr. Janda attaches the drug to a larger protein to act as a platform. (So far, vaccines have been ineffective against marijuana and alcohol. With alcohol, the molecules are too small to attach to a protein, and THC (the main ingredient generating the high in marijuana) is too well concealed in the body.)

Unlike current anti-opiates used to treat addiction like Suboxone and methadone, Janda’s addiction vaccine does not mess with brain chemistry or create a mild high.

Despite disappointments, experts expect Dr. Janda to eventually succeed. Dr. Nora Yolkov, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, calls him a “visionary” for seeing the potential to treat addiction with medicine decades before others. The institute is a primary source of funding for Dr. Janda’s research.

Other scientists are also working on vaccines to treat addiction to narcotics, including vaccines for cocaine and methamphetamines. Finding interest—and funding—have been hard to come by. Big Pharma tends to be weary of associating itself with a highly stigmatized and “criminal” disease.

If Janda's vaccine is one day approved by the FDA, it will still not solve the key psychological problems causing addiction. Ideally, the vaccine would inhibit effects of narcotics, making addicts less likely to use the drugs. However, this would lead some addicts to just take more of the drug to feel an effect, possibly overdosing. Also, there’s no guarantee that an addict wouldn’t switch to another drug (e.g. a Heroin addict switching to meth) to get high. The vaccine also can’t cure the underlying psychological reasons an addict uses.

Although the vaccine wouldn’t be a cure for drug addiction per se, any scientific progress in treating addiction is welcome. Addiction is a deadly disease, and it's promising that medical tools, however blunt, are beginning to emerge in the multi-front battle against it.

Scripps scientist devotes himself to finding the perfect addiction vax: http://www.fiercebiotech.com/story/scripps-scientist-devotes-himself-finding-perfect-addiction-vax/2011-10-04

An Addiction Vaccine, Tantalizingly Close: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/04/health/04vaccine.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

Alcoholism: No Longer a Disease?

2011-10-10T16:11:00.000-07:00

Well, not exactly.

The American Medical Association (AMA) calls alcoholism a disease, and people have been framing alcoholism as a disease for more than a 100 years. Now, one psychologist argues that the disease model can impede the diagnosis, treatment, and understanding of alcoholism.

Lance Brendan Young is a postdoctoral research fellow with the Department of Veterans Affairs’ Center for Comprehensive Access & Delivery Research and Evaluation in Iowa City, Iowa. He claims that thinking of alcoholism as a disease increases the stigma of abnormality (of being permanently deviant in body and mind).

.....................................................................

While the disease model may be useful for treating people who consider themselves alcoholics, it may be harmful to people trying to determine whether their drinking is problematic, Young said. To be diagnosed with alcoholism means a person has to give up their identity as a "normal" person, and take on the identity of someone with a disease, Young said. "Individuals are faced with this identity-threatening choice they have to make," Young said. As a consequence, some people change their behavior so they can continue to think of themselves as normal. For instance, a person might believe "alcoholics" only drink alone, so he will try to get his friends to go drinking with him frequently. This way, he can continue consume alcohol excessively without needing to believe he is an "alcoholic," or seeking treatment. [MSNBC.com]

.......................................................................

Isn't any deviation away from the disease model distracting? Yes, it is difficult to admit to not being a “normal” person…But an alcoholic is not a normal person. They cannot drink like other people, and if they do drink alcohol, the result will be physical, mental, and social problems, and probably problems with work and relationships. It’s a tough reality, but it's the truth.

Expert: Don’t call alcoholism a disease: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44639148/ns/health-addictions/t/expert-dont-call-alcoholism-disease/

Substance Abuse among Seniors to Worsen

2011-10-10T13:41:00.000-07:00

The need for drug and alcohol treatment for older Americans is expected to double by 2020, experts estimate.

With more people living longer, more people are abusing drugs (including prescription medicine) and alcohol later in life. Nearly 35 million people in the United States are 65 years or older. Approximately 17 percent of this population abuse substances.

Baby boomers have had more exposure to alcohol and illegal drugs than their parents, and they are more prone to use substances to alleviate with medical problems. Leading addiction treatment providers, like the Hanley Center, expect a much higher number of older adults in treatment in the future.

..................................................................................

"As Baby Boomers enter a transitional stage in their lives, new stressors, such as financial strain, grieving the loss of a parent or age-related health issues, make them more prone to depression and anxiety," said Dr. Barbara Krantz, CEO of Hanley Center, a Florida drug and alcohol treatment and recovery center set to be acquired by Caron Treatment Centers in Fall 2011.

"As a generation that grew up in a time when recreational drug use was widely accepted, Boomers are reverting to substance abuse as a way to cope with stress and change." [Hazelden]
.................................................................................

Substance abuse can occur for a variety of reasons later in life. Many seniors drink or use to ease their loneliness or feeling of loss after the death of a loved one. Also, they are prescribed more medications, making it increasingly problematic to identify prescription drug abuse. In addition, Boomers are more accepting of prescription drug use and often view it as a necessary part of life.

Health care providers often overlook substance abuse among older adults because they don’t know what to look for, or they think that they cannot successfully treat older adults. Also, family members may not want to confront an elder, or attribute symptoms of substance abuse to dementia or senility.

Studies show that older adults do as well as young people in substance abuse treatment, and often do somewhat better. Seniors can recognize numerous benefits from treatment, including greater independence, direct health benefits, and improved cognition.

Substance abuse among the elderly: A growing problem: http://www.hazelden.org/web/public/ade60220.page

Substance abuse by elderly addressed: http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1994-06-14/news/1994165140_1_substance-abuse-substance-abuse-drug-abuse

Substance Abuse on the Rise Among Baby Boomers: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/substance-abuse-on-the-rise-among-baby-boomers-131132528.html

Famous Surfer Fights Jail Time for Meth Charges

2011-10-09T19:59:00.000-07:00

Should significant clean time and good behavior prevent a person from going to prison for selling drugs?

Anthony Ruffo, former pro-surfer, thinks so.

Mr. Ruffo has been clean from methamphetamines for nearly a year. He continues to participate in drug rehabilitation. He now works with other recovering addicts, even hosting a weekly support meeting in the house where he once dealt drugs for one of California’s most violent street gangs.

Former professional surfer and legend of the Santa Cruz surfing community, Ruffo had the life many surfers only dream of: lucrative corporate sponsorships, photo shoots, beautiful women, and opportunities to surf around the globe. Yet, his accomplishments as a professional surfer have been marred by a 15-year addiction to meth and numerous run-ins with the law.

A recent New York Times story features Ruffo’s fall from grace, and attempt to regain his life:

.......................................................................................

Mr. Ruffo, 48, admits he once sold meth in partnership with a violent Latino street gang, the Norteños. His story illuminates meth’s destructive march through Santa Cruz in recent years, reaching into a surfing community associated more with vitality and communion with the natural world than with drugs. [Continued...]

In 2005, Mr. Ruffo was convicted of possession of drugs for sale and sentenced to probation and a 12-step treatment program. He said he stopped dealing after getting out of rehab but was unable to shake his addiction. In July 2010, the police raided his home and found an ounce of nearly pure meth with a street value of about $3,000. Mr. Ruffo said the drugs did not belong to him.

Mr. Ruffo still possesses the lithe, deeply tanned body of a professional surfer. His bright blue eyes flashed as he described his recovery, which is being chronicled in a documentary. Citing his sobriety of 11 months, and his work aiding other addicts, he is seeking a plea agreement that will keep him out of prison. [New York Times]
......................................................................................

Understandably, much of the public doubts Ruffo’s commitment to staying clean. He avoided prison time before, and relapsed. This could easily be a PR scam to stay out of jail. Moreover, his time in recovery and service to other addicts does not excuse his past behavior. No amount of clean time or work with addicts will fully lessen the severity of his previous actions as a drug dealer. Not only did he help a violent gang prosper, he contributed to a terrible drug problem plaguing Santa Cruz. He should be held accountable for past crimes.

Still, wouldn’t incarcerating Ruffo (and so many others in recovery in similar predicaments) be counterproductive?

Ruffo is now a useful (and sober) member of society. It also appears that legitimate medical professionals believe that he is capable of maintaining sobriety. Ruffo will not be able to help others or get real treatment while behind bars. Perhaps the courts could consider alternatives to prison that hold Ruffo accountable, but still allow for the positive change in his life to continue.

These alternatives include, but are not limited to, long-term rigorous treatment, routine drug tests, monetary restitution, and community service. Even if all these options are used, it will be of much less cost to taxpayers than incarceration. Justice and rehabilitation do not have to be mutually exclusive.

A Surfing Legend Conquers Addiction, but Prison May Lie Ahead: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/07/us/a-surfing-legend-conquers-addiction-but-prison-may-lie-ahead.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&sq=addiction&st=cse&scp=1&adxnnlx=1318205394-w57xtN9qIVPaL2wsZL7IZQ

Rock bottom and back: http://espn.go.com/action/surfing/news/story?page=anthony-ruffo-rock-bottom-and-back