Who Smokes Dope, And How Much?

Marijuana stats skew perceptions of use.

Most statistical surveys of marijuana focus on a single quantitative measurement: How many people are using? But there’s a problem: More marijuana use does not necessarily translate into more marijuana users. And that’s because a clear majority of the consumption, and black market dollars, come from the heaviest smokers.

Drug policy researchers at the RAND corporation decided that frequency of use and amount of consumption were valuable parameters gone missing in most policy discussions. So they put the focus not just on use, but also on “use-days,” and pulled a number of buried tidbits from a very big data pile. If you zero in on consumption, and not just consumers, they insist, you will find a wholly different set of inferences.

For example: “Although daily/near-daily users represented less than one-quarter of past-month cannabis users in 2002 and roughly one-third of past-month users in 2011, they account for the vast majority of use-days and are thus presumably responsible for the majority of consumption,” write Rachel M. Burns and her RAND colleagues in Frontiers of Psychiatry. As with alcohol, the majority of cannabis consumption can be accounted for by a minority of users. The heaviest users, the upper 20 percent, consume 88 percent of the U.S. marijuana supply, say the RAND researchers. “Furthermore, if over time there were no change in the number of cannabis users, but the ratio of light vs. heavy users switched from 80/20 to 20/80, then consumption would increase by 250% even though there was no change whatsoever in the number of users.”

The RAND group used two data sets on cannabis consumption—the National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) in the U.S., and the EU Drugs Markets II (EUMII) in Europe. Data included figures for past-year and past-month use, past-month use days, and past-month purchases.

Other intriguing figures come to light when you study cannabis use, as opposed to cannabis users. The researchers declared that “only 14% of past-year cannabis users [primarily males] meet the criteria for cannabis abuse or dependence, but they account for 26% of past-month days of use and 37% of past-month purchases.”

Happen to smoke blunts? That turns out to be very telling, according to the RAND study. “Perhaps the most striking contrast concerns blunts. Only 27% of past-year cannabis users report using a blunt within the last month, but those individuals account for 73% of cannabis purchases.” Casual users, it seems, don’t do blunts.

Clearly, it takes a lot of casual users to smoke as much marijuana as one heavy user. But exactly how many? The RAND researchers ran the numbers and concluded that, in terms of grams consumed per month, it would take more than 40 casual smokers to equal the intake of a single heavy user. The share of the market represented by daily/near-daily users is clearly the motive force in their analysis.

The study in Frontiers in Psychiatry also found patterns of interest on the buy side. General use took an upswing beginning in 2007. While the probability of arrest per marijuana smoking episode hovers somewhere in the neighborhood of 1 in 3,000, everything changes if you are purchasing cannabis. RAND reported that young people collectively make more purchases per day of reported use than do older users. Therefore, “statistics indicating that the burden of arrest falls disproportionately on youth relative to their share of all users may not be prima facie evidence of discrimination if making more purchases per day of use increases the risk of arrests per year of use.” Once again, those aging Baby Boomer potheads get the best deal. They have more money with which to buy bigger amounts less often, thereby greatly lessening their chances of arrest and prosecution.

This also applies to minority arrests for marijuana offenses. “Non-Hispanic blacks represent 13% of past-year cannabis users vs. 23% of drug arrests reported by those users, but they report making 24% of the buys. Thus, some of their higher arrest rate may be a consequence of purchase patterns… African-Americans may not only make more buys but also make riskier buys (e.g., more likely to buy outdoors).”

The researchers were able to draw some conclusions about the growth in marijuana usage from 2002 through 2011, based on the NSDUH data. Their main conclusion, after exploring the demographics of this 10-year record of use, is that “consumption grew primarily because of an increase in the average frequency of use, not just because of an increase in the overall number of users.”  The driver of consumption turns out to be… greater consumption. And that increased consumption is coming from… older adults. Those older adults, it turns out, are smoking more weed.

The shift is dramatic: “In 2002, there were more than three times as many youth as older adults using cannabis on a daily/near-daily basis; in 2011 there were 2.5 times more older adults than youth using on a daily/near-daily basis.” The record of alcohol and cigarette use over the same period showed no such inversion of use patterns.  And the tweeners? “In 2002, 12-17-year-olds represented 13% of daily/near-daily users; in 2011, that had dwindled to 7%.” These trends are not just the obvious result of an increase in the proportion of older adults in the population at large. Increases in the proportion of older heavy cannabis users were much greater than the general population drift.

Among the questions raised by the RAND analysis:

— Are older marijuana smokers primarily recreational, or medicinal?

—Do increased use days among older, college-educated marijuana smokers indicate greater social acceptance, or something else?

—Are younger people replacing traditional cannabis use with other substances?

—Why did Hispanic use increase more over the study period than other ethnic groups?

Burns R.M., Caulkins J.P., Everingham S.S. & Kilmer B. (2013). Statistics on Cannabis Users Skew Perceptions of Cannabis Use, Frontiers in Psychiatry, 4   DOI: 10.3389/fpsyt.2013.00138

Photo Credit: http://www.sho.com/sho/weeds/home

Holiday Decorating Abuse

America’s tragic seasonal illness.

These victims spend the holiday season awash in replacement bulbs and outdoor extension cords, the sturdy cords in orange or blue, as they monitor their surroundings with pathological hypervigilance.

A forlorn, out-of-control lightscape where a festival of moderate holiday dazzle used to reign. Oh, the humanity.

Oh, sure, the perpetrators can be cited for various misdemeanors, but rarely are the over-displays removed by the appropriate authorities. And rarely can the disordered decoraters stay sober for, say, more than a year at a time….

In the end, sometimes extreme and difficult measures are required to enable the perpetrator to stop and consider the consequences....

Happy Holidays, and here's to responsible outdoor lighting!

What Mark Kleiman Wants You To Know About Drugs

The public policy guru guiding state legalization efforts.

Mark A. R. Kleiman is the Professor of Public Policy at UCLA, editor of the Journal of Drug Policy Analysis, author of many books, and generally regarded as one of the nation’s premier voices on drug policy and criminal justice issues. Mr. Kleiman provides advice to local, state, and national governments on crime control and drug policy. When the state of Washington needed an adviser on the many policy questions they left unanswered with the passage of I-502, which legalized marijuana in that state, they turned to Kleiman.

In the past two years, Kleiman has co-authored to Q and A-style books: Drugs and Drug Policy: What Everyone Needs to Know (2011) with Jonathan P. Caulkins and Angela Hawken; and Marijuana Legalization: What Everyone Needs to Know (2012) with Hawken, Caulkins, and Beau Kilmer.

Here, excerpted from the two books, is a brief sampling of Kleiman and his colleagues on a variety of drug and alcohol issues.

Is marijuana really the nation’s leading cash crop?

“Alas, the facts say otherwise. Analyses purporting to support the claim must contort the numbers, citing the retail price of marijuana but the farmgate price of other products, or pretending that all marijuana consumed in the United States is sinsemilla, or ignoring the fact that most marijuana used in the United States is imported, or simply starting with implausible estimates of U.S. production…. marijuana [is] in the top fifteen, but not the top five, cash crops, ranking somewhere between almonds and hay, and perhaps closest to potatoes and grapes.”

How much drug-related crime, violence, and corruption would marijuana legalization eliminate?

“Not much…. Eighty-nine percent of survey respondents report obtaining marijuana most recently from a friend or relative, and more than half (58 percent) say the obtained it for free. That stands in marked contrast to low-level distribution of heroin and crack which often occurs in violent, place-based markets controlled by armed gangs.”

How much would legal marijuana cost to produce?

“The punch line is that full legalization at the national level—as opposed to only legalizing possession and retail sale—could cut production costs to just 1 percent of current wholesale prices…. This would make legal marijuana far and away the cheapest intoxicant on a per-hour basis.”

How would legalization affect me if I’m a marijuana grower?

“It would almost certainly put you out of business. At first glance, legalization might seem like a great opportunity for you…. But legalization will completely upend your industry, and the skills that made you successful at cultivating illegal crops will not have much value. A few dozen professional farmers could produce enough marijuana to meet U.S. consumption at prices small-scale producers couldn’t possibly match. Hand cultivators would be relegated to niche markets for organic or specialty strains.”

Would marijuana regulations and taxes in practice approach the public health ideal?

“If there is a licit, for-profit marijuana industry, one should expect its product design, pricing, and marketing actions to be designed to promote as much frequent use and addiction as possible. Efforts to tax and regulate in ways that promote public health would have to contend with an industry mobilizing its employees, shareholders, and consumers against any effective restriction. Since the industry profits from problem users, we should expect that lobbying effort to be devoted to blocking policies that would effectively control addiction. The alcohol and tobacco industries provide good examples.”

Can we persuade children not to use drugs?

"Even the best prevention programs have only modest effects on actual behavior, and may programs have no effect at all on drug use…. Anesthesiologists know far more about drugs and drug abuse than could possibly be taught in middle-school prevention programs; nonetheless, they have high rates of substance abuse, in part because they have such easy access.”

Why is there a shortage of drug treatment?

“Some specific categories—especially those in need of residential care, and more especially mothers with children in need of residential care—face chronic shortages. But if we had enough capacity for all those who need treatment, many of those slots would be empty because not all the people who ought to fill them want treatment.”

How much money is involved?

“Most of the numbers about drug abuse and drug trafficking that officials peddle to credulous journalists are little better than fiction. Estimates of hundreds of billions of dollars per year in international drug trade—which would make it comparable to food, oil, and arms—do not have a basis in the real world. The most recent serious estimate of the total retail illicit drug market in the United States—by all accounts the country whose residents spend the most on illicit drugs—puts the figure at about $65 billion.”

When it comes to drugs, why can’t we think calmly and play nice?

“American political analysts talk about ‘wine-track (college-educated) and ‘beer track’ (working-class) voters…. So the politics of drug policy is never very far from identity politics…. The notion that illicit drug taking is largely responsible for the plight of minorities (and of poor people generally) and that income-support programs have the perverse consequence of maintaining drug habits has been a staple of a certain form of American political rhetoric at least since Ronald Reagan.”

Are we stuck with our current alcohol problem?

"By no means…. tripling the tax would raise the price of a drink by 20 percent and reduce the volume of drinking in about the same proportion. Most of the reduced drinking would come from heavy drinkers, both because they dominate the market in volume terms and because their consumption is more price-sensitive…."

Hazelden Offers Companion to the “Big Book”

New guide attempts a modest AA update.

The founders of AA published their book, Alcoholics Anonymous (The Big Book) back in 1939. The world has changed a great deal since then, so it’s not surprising that there have been periodic calls for an update. Barring an official revision, which is unlikely, Hazelden, the Minnesota treatment organization, has published an updated companion volume to the Big Book. (Narcotics Anonymous published their version of the basic text in 1962). “The core principles and practices offered in these basic texts hold strong today,” says Hazelden, “but addiction science and societal norms have changed dramatically since these books were first published decades ago.”

Hazelden’s book, Recovery Now, billed as an easy-to-follow guide to the teachings of Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous, dispenses with the divisive question of medications for withdrawal straightaway. In a foreword by Dr. Marvin D. Seppala, chief medical officer at Hazelden, the doctor makes it clear: “I agree with the majority of treatment professionals who support using these meds to help with cravings when it is appropriate to do so. Addiction is a disease that calls for the best that science has to offer.” The unnamed authors of the “little green book” agree, stating that “for some mental health disorders, medications such as antidepressants are needed. These aren’t addictive chemicals and so professionals, as well as AA and NA, accept that we can take them and still be considered clean and sober (abstinent).” There are now, as well, specific Twelve Step groups for those with both addiction disorders and mental health disorders: Dual Diagnosis Anonymous and Dual Recovery Anonymous among them.

As Seppala points out in the foreword, when some alcoholics and other drug addicts hear about the research showing that addiction is similar to many other mental and physical disorders we call diseases, it reorients their thinking amid the shame, stigma, and negative emotional states associated with active addiction. For some, it opens the door to treatment.

Okay. Hazelden, Betty Ford, and many other major treatment providers are no longer fighting a rear-guard action against a host of medications, from buprenorphine to Zoloft. But two-thirds of the Big Book consists of stories of how people recognized and dealt with their sundry addictions. That’s really about it, which tracks well with AA’s core operating principle: one drunk helping another. AA believes that much of its success stems from the fact that the program is run by the members, without direct rule setting and intervention from organizations, including their own. (All statements hold for NA as well).

What else? Recovery Now takes on another sticking point for many: the fact that “the AA Big Book and other writings include traditional male-focused and religious language, like discussing God as a ‘he.’” And there is the matter of “the realities and stereotypes of the 1930s, which is why it contains a chapter titled ‘To the Wives.’” Hazelden continues the recent tradition of broadening acceptable interpretations of “higher power.” One example given is from Samantha, a young cocaine and alcohol addict: “My higher power is the energy of this group. I call her Zelda.”

The book presents some of the psychological aspects of the AA program as a sort of reverse cognitive behavioral therapy. CBT attempts to teach people how to unkink their thinking and turn harmful thoughts into helpful ones. AA attempts to convince people to first change their behavior—“fake it until you make it”—and helpful thoughts will follow.

Perhaps the genuine sea change lies in this passage, which can be contrasted with the faith and certainty with which the Big Book proclaims that AA will work for all but the most stubbornly self-centered. Even with the myriad of choices of AA groups now available, Hazelden acknowledges that “a group based on the Twelve Steps doesn’t work for all of us. Some of us have found help in recovery groups that offer alternatives to the Twelve Steps, such as SMART Recovery, Women for Sobriety, and Secular Organizations for Sobriety.”  This is a change of heart, given that groups like SMART Recovery don’t necessarily buy the idea of total abstinence, and often structure recovery as an exercise in controlled drinking. Hazelden also suggests that many of “us” have found the necessary ongoing support for recovery at churches, mental health centers, and nonreligious peer support groups.

As for anonymity, Recovery Now states: “While Twelve Step members do not reveal anything about another member of the group, any one of us may choose to go public with our own story.” Another promising development is the proliferation of Twelve Step meetings catering to specific populations—AA meetings for African Americans, Latinos, Native Americans, women, seniors, gays, and drug-specific (Cocaine Anonymous).

In the end, one of the best arguments for attendance at the AA program (free of charge) is that many addicts have “worn out our welcome” with families and friends, “and they have a hard time putting all that behind them and supporting us completely. But at most Twelve Step recovery meetings we can find the support we need.”

Addiction in the Spotlight at Neuroscience 2013

Testing treatments for nicotine, heroin, and gambling addiction.

Several addiction studies were among the highlights at last month’s annual meeting of the Society for Neuroscience (SfN) in San Diego. Studies released at the gathering including therapies for nicotine and heroin addiction, as well as some notions about the nature of gambling addiction.

And now, as they say, for the news:

— Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (rTMS), the controversial technique being tested for everything from depression to dementia, may help some smokers quit or cut down, according to research coming in from Ben Gurion University in Israel. Abraham Zangen and colleagues used repeated high frequency rTMS over the lateral prefrontal cortex and the insula of volunteers. Participants who got the magnetic stimulation quit smoking at six times the rate of the placebo group over a six-month period. Work in this area is limited, but there is some preliminary evidence that some addictions may respond to this form of treatment. azangen@bgu.ac.il

—Speaking of the insula—a site deep in the frontal lobes where neuroscientists believe that self-awareness, cognition, and other acts of consciousness are partially mediated—research now suggests that out-of-control gamblers may be suffering, in part, from an overactive insula. People with damage to the insular region are less prone to both the “near-miss fallacy (where a loss is perceived as “almost” a win) and the “gambler’s fallacy (where a run of luck is “due” to a gambler after a string of losses). The volunteer gamblers played digital gambling games while undergoing functional MRIs. Luke Clark of the University of Cambridge, along with researchers from the University of Iowa and the University of Southern California, uncovered a “specific disruption of both effects” in a study group with insula damage. This ties in with earlier research demonstrating that smokers with insula damage lost interest in their habit. This one remains a puzzler, and further research, that brave cliché’, is needed, especially since disordered, or “pathological” gambling is now classified in the DSM5 as an addiction, not an impulse control disorder.  lc260@cam.ac.uk

—And speaking of stimulation, if you go deep with rat brains, you can stimulate a drug reward area and reduce the motivation for heroin in addicted rats. Deep brain stimulation (DBS), an equally controversial treatment approach, now in use as a treatment for Parkinson’s and other conditions, is a surgical procedure involving the implantation of electrodes in the brain. When Carrie Wade and others at the Scripps Research Institute and Aix-Marseille University in France electrically stimulated the subthalamic nucleus and got addicted rats to take less heroin and become less motivated for the task of bar pressing to receive the drug. Earlier work had demonstrated a similar effect in rats’ motivation for cocaine use. “This research takes a non-drug therapy that is already approved for human use and demonstrates that it may be an option for treating heroin abuse,” Wade said in a prepared statement.  clwade@scripps.edu

—Too much stimulation leads to stress, as we know. And George Koob, recently named the director of the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, discussed his work on the ways in which dysregulated stress responses might act as triggers for increased drug use and addiction. Koob focused on the negative reinforcement of stressful emotional states: “The argument here is that excessive use of drugs leads to negative emotional states that drive such drug seeking by activating the brain stress systems with areas of the brain historically known to mediate emotions and includes the stress/fear-mediating amygdala and reward-mediating basal ganglia.” For Koob, “stress can cause addiction and addiction can cause stress.” gkoob@scripps.edu

—Finally, hardcore gamblers show a boost in reward-sensitive brain areas when they win a cash payout, but less activation when presented with rewards involving food or sex. The study features more volunteers playing games inside fMRI machines, and purports to demonstrated that problem gamblers are less motivated by erotic pictures than by monetary gains, “whereas healthy participants were equally fast for both rewards.” This “blunted sensitivity” in heavy gamblers suggests the possibility of a marker for problem gambling, in the form of a distorted sensitivity to reward, said Guillaume Sescousse of Radboud University in The Netherlands, during a mini-symposium at the conference. “It is as if the brain of gamblers interpreted money as a primary reward…. for its own sake, as if it were intrinsically reinforcing.” g.sescousse@fcdonders.ru.nl

Built-In Advantages Give Big Tobacco an Edge in E-Cigs

The Big Three are now in it to win it. 

If there was ever any doubt that major tobacco companies have designs on the emerging electronic cigarette market, a recent roundup in the Wall Street Journal makes the case with ease, something that eager acolytes of e-cigs are anxious to avoid. No doubt about it, Big Tobacco wants in.

Results from intensive test marketing in Colorado have, like a political primary, provided an early indication of where the popularity lies. Reynolds American, the nation’s 2nd largest tobacco company (Camel), led the, uh, pack with its offering, the Vuse e-cigarette, introduced in July. Vuse racked up a 55% market share in that state. Next in line, with 25%, was Blu, owned by the 3rd largest cigarette maker, Lorillard (Newport). NJOY, an independent company, came in third.  The elephant in the room, Altria Group, the largest U.S. tobacco firm (Marlboro), is still in the test marketing stage with its e-cigarette entry, the MarkTen. Altria began testing the MarkTen in Indiana and Arizona in late summer.

It took Reynolds less than 16 weeks to achieve market dominance in Colorado, and the company made sure that investors heard about it. With 1,800 retail outlets in Colorado, and a database of 12 million tobacco consumers, Reynolds is perfectly poised to benefit from the inherent advantages of being Big Tobacco. The Big Three have three major head starts, the Wall Street Journal reported: “extensive distribution networks, existing customer relationships numbering in the millions, and deep pockets.”

The market for electronic cigarettes has broken a billion dollars, say stock watchers. This magic number seems to have energized the Big Three to take a heavy step into a market that has been around in nascent form since 2006, even though it’s still small change compared to the $100 billion U.S. tobacco market. It was not clear, in the beginning, whether Reynolds, Lorillard, and Altria would attempt to, pardon me, snuff out the competition, or dominate it. That decision now appears to have been made, and the game is on.

Stephanie Cordisco, president of R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company, which markets Vuse, said the marketing tagline in Colorado was: “A perfect puff. First time, every time.” 

So far, e-cigarettes, which heat nicotine-based liquid to create a vaporized mist, have benefitted from the fact that they are not, at present, savagely taxed like regular cigarettes. And e-cigs come in flavors, cherry and pina colada being among the favorites.

In April of 2012, Lorillard broke the e-cig barrier when it acquired Blu Ecigs for $135 million. At the Wall Street Journal, Mike Esterl suggested that the move came “as the Food and Drug Administration weighs a possible crackdown on menthol-flavored cigarettes, which represent about 90% of revenue at Greensboro, N.C.-based Lorillard, owner of the popular Newport brand. The FDA already has banned all other cigarette flavors.”

Reynolds followed Lorillard into the market early in 2013 with Vuse. And the giant Altria Group announced in October that it planned to expand sales of the MarkTen after successful “lead market” sales. It’s too early too say how it will go for the MarkTen, but Altria CEO Marty Barrington said in a conference call reported by the Richmond Times-Dispatch that the company is not overly worried about cannibalizing Marlboro sales: “I can tell you that with respect to who is trying the products in e-vapor generally,” he said, “ we do know that there is dual use. As adult smokers try e-vapor products, we know that some of them are satisfied and others are not. Some of them use [e-cigarettes] situationally.”

That does not sound like an executive rolling out a stop-smoking therapy tool.

Graphics Credit: http://seekingalpha.com

Author’s Debut is a Tough, Lyrical Addiction Memoir

"If we don't change direction soon, we'll end up where we're going."

 –Prof. Irwin Corey

I’ve never made a secret of the fact that I don’t really like addiction memoirs—with notable literary exceptions, from Thomas de Quincey to William S. Burroughs, including worthy modern efforts from James Brown, Jerry Stahl, Sacha Z. Scoblic, and others. Writing well about addiction is a rare gift, and newcomer Jessica Hendry Nelson, in If Only You People Could Follow Directions: A Memoir, comes at the problem elliptically, in some cases deliberately pruned of strong emotion. This works in her favor, as she eschews over-the-top bravado for the facts of life. The book is, heartbreakingly, a book about family—about the power of substance abuse, self-destruction, grief, and remorse to tear away at every connection human beings share.

Childhood: We found his battered truck in a Shop Rite parking lot, the smashed headlights still pulsing lazily into the mist like two dying fireflies. The parking lot was empty except for the truck, a few wayward shopping carts, and the streetlight that had blocked my father’s passage. I wasn’t yet able to distinguish my waking life from my dream life, and so it all felt like fantastic fun.

Childhood’s End:  There were a couple sober years, when Eric and I were in early elementary school. Since then, he’s had at least two DUIs a year, and cycles from jail to rehab to halfway house and back again. Occasionally, he’ll manage a few sober months in a halfway house and occasionally he’ll stay with his mother in anticipation of getting his own place. During those months, there is lots of talk of the future, of our own bedrooms and weekends spent watching movies and skiing at the Pocono Mountains, but it never happens.

The father: Before talk therapy. Before asbestos removal jobs and wrecked cars. Nights so hot and black they burned like a solar eclipse through his insides. Before little league games and parent-teacher conferences. Before he fucked the three-hundred pound housewife next door for a couple of Klonopin. Before she killed herself with the rest.

The author is young, but as my friend James Brown, who wrote the powerful addiction memoir, This River, has put it: “Jessica Hendry Nelson knows the power of clean, sparse prose, and her keen eye for the small, most telling details of character show an insight into the human psyche well beyond her years. Her story is oftentimes a dark one, but Nelson holds strong, knowing that saving those we love may first begin, and end, with saving ourselves. A remarkable debut by a wonderfully talented writer.”

The brother: The first offense is theft, though many others will follow—a wildly colorful rap sheet—but the disease that makes him do such things is just an infant now, just an infant throwing its peas.

The mother: She is sad because Eric has taken to snorting Oxycontin in her bathroom, still lying and stealing and denying in that same fucking straight-faced way as the husband once did, until she feels she’s gone completely nuts. I know how she feels, and yet I am unable to change it.

The family: We are practiced in the art of pretend. We are able to convince ourselves that drinking and smoking are incidental, and not part of the fabric of our family, of the shared anxieties that causes us, each to varying degrees, to feel so dissatisfied with our own brain chemistry. We are trying to return to a place of innocence, to the time before, when Mother could still keep us safe. We keep trying, but morning light is unforgiving.

The book reads like the product of an older, more experienced writer. It's impressive, if somewhat digressive, but Nelson is undeniably talented, working in a terse, slightly distanced style, as if the truth of it all required some detachment for her own sake. Impressionistic, episodic, the book is composed of scenes weaving in and out of chronological time. We don’t get it all put together until the end, but when we do, we see an unbroken spirit standing in front of a long and dismal line of hospitals, police stations, institutions, and halfway houses.

The treatments: My mother picks Eric up from the halfway house in North- east Philly where he’s been staying. It is ten a.m. The halfway house is the right side of a narrow duplex. Houses brick and broken. Next to the halfway house is the crack house. Next to the crack house is the whorehouse. Next to the whorehouse is a family with two adorable little girls.

The cycle: That’s the disease talking, they say, and I try to believe that too. For years, I believed, but all I see, finally, is my brother’s hard familiar face and the illness that my mother continues to try and kiss away with love and money and blunt maternal strength until she, we, are all as sick as Eric—the dead father’s legacy, this disease.....

We bring the bottle. We have learned to just bring the bottle.....

Give it up, let it go, take it back, take control. Say yes. Say no. Say no, no, no. Stick to the script. Step One through Twelve. One through Twelve. Keep coming back. It works if you work it. If only you people could follow directions.

Grab Bag of Addiction Links

Recent reading from around the net.

Can Medical Marijuana and Recreational Marijuana Coexist?

“The Washington State Liquor Control Board released recommendations for what to do with the state's medical marijuana system now that recreational marijuana is legal.” [Atlantic Cities]

Premature claims of a cannabis addiction "cure"

“Have scientists found a ‘cure’ for marijuana addiction? New treatment blocks the kick that users get from the drug,” reports the Mail Online. Based on the evidence presented in the study, which involved animals, the answer to the Mail’s question is 'not yet'. [NHS Choices]

Can Gambling Machines Prevent Addiction?

“Today's digital slot machines and poker screens in casinos and at online gambling sites are capable of amassing a wealth of behavioral data on individual players, and they are on the verge of altering game play on the fly.” [Scientific American Mind]

Food for thought: UF researcher’s book lays out evidence for food addiction

“For some, the famous potato chip slogan “Betcha can't eat just one” isn’t a wager — it’s a promise.” [University of Florida Health]

New Zealand’s bold experiment with regulating recreational drugs

“It’s been nearly a century since the United States began its experiment in prohibiting recreational drugs besides alcohol, caffeine and tobacco — and virtually no one sees the trillion dollar policy as a success.” [Reuters]

More Than 1,000 Meet in Denver to Develop Drug War Exit Strategy

“Which state will be next to legalize marijuana? What do the Obama administration's recent announcements about marijuana legalization and mandatory minimums really mean?” [Huffington Post]

This Is Why Social Media and Drinking Alcohol Don't Mix (Infographic)

“Engaging with peers and customers on social platforms can be dangerous. Doing so while you’re under the influence of alcohol is downright irresponsible. “ [Entrepreneur]

Economists Predict Marijuana Legalization Will Produce "Public-Health Benefits"

“In their 2012 book Marijuana Legalization: What Everyone Needs to Know, Jonathan Caulkins and three other drug policy scholars identify the impact of repealing pot prohibition on alcohol consumption as the most important thing no one knows.” [Forbes]

Photo Credit: http://lifeonthebalcony.com/

Kratom: Mitragynine For Beginners

An organic alternative to methadone?

A disclaimer: Everything I know about kratom, I learned on the Internet and in science journals. I have no real world experience with this opiate-like plant drug, haven’t used it, don’t know very many people who have. Although it comes from a tree indigenous to Thailand and Southeast Asia, and has presumably been around forever, a recent journal article referred to kratom as “an emerging botanical agent with stimulant, analgesic and opioid-like effects.” Which makes it sound like a combination of heroin, amphetamine, and strong weed. In reality, however, it is evidently a fairly mild stimulant with additional sedative effects when the leaf is chewed. If that sounds contradictory, it is, but the overall effect is reported to be more in league with coca leaves than injected morphine. Addictive? Erowid notes that the leaves can vary widely in potency, but yes, potentially addictive. It’s not entirely surprising that kratom has been used in Asia, and increasingly in Europe and the U.S., as a self-managed treatment for pain and for opioid withdrawal. You can find kratom for sale all over the web. You will also find it in smoke shops and herbal outlets. But is any of it legal? And, as with methadone and buprenorphine: Is kratom part of the problem or part of the solution?

According to one web site maintained by kratom aficionados, the legality of kratom can be hard to determine. It is definitely illegal in Australia, Malaysia, Burma (Myanmar), and Thailand. However: “In the United States, access to county, state, and federal laws are often available online and it’s a simple matter of reading through the material (dense as it may be) to determine the actual legality of Mitragyna speciosa…. the only state where kratom is illegal in 2013 is Indiana. That’s not to say other state legislators haven’t tried to get kratom scheduled as an illicit substance. States to keep your eye on, especially if you’re a resident, are: Iowa, Hawaii, Vermont, Virginia, and Arizona. Louisiana hasn’t outright banned kratom, but they don’t allow it to be marketed as ‘for human consumption’ and thus we suggest, if you live in Louisiana, you exercise extra caution in your purchases.” In addition, you may rest assured that kratom is on the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) list of “Drugs and Chemicals of Concern.”

In other countries, kratom is controlled through licensing and prescription, similar in certain respects to the medical marijuana market in the United States. Nations in this category include Finland, Denmark, Romania, Germany, and New Zealand.

Kratom (Mitragyna speciosa) contains several psychoactive ingredients. The plant can be chewed, smoked, brewed into a tea—or made into an extract for sale as capsules or tablets (with accompanying arguments about “full-spectrum” extracts vs. “standardized” extracts).  According to Erowid, it is “unknown how long alkaloids retain their potency after being isolated from kratom leaves,” and furthermore, “many manufacturers are clearly exaggerating the potencies and quantities of whole leaf kratom used in their extracts.”

The leaves contain a plethora of psychoactive alkaloids, but the two primary stimulators of opioid receptors appear to be mitragynine and 7-hydroxymitragynine. These two compounds are considered to be stronger analgesics than euphorics, although users do sometimes report visual effects. Kratom is not considered toxic, but overdoses can be quite unpleasant, Erowid relates. Chronic heavy use reportedly leads to insomnia, dry mouth, constipation, and darkening of the skin.  Importantly, Erowid says they are “not aware of any cases of severe poisoning or death resulting from its use. Animal studies have found even very large doses of mitragynine (920 mg/kg) to be non-lethal.”

Last year, writer David DiSalvo, who blogs at Forbes, turned guinea pig, experimented with kratom, and blogged about the results. DiSalvo purchased an entirely legal supply of kratom—Lucky, Mayan, Nutmeg, and OnlineKratom by brand—and ran the self-experiment for a few weeks.

Here are excerpts from DiSalvo’s report: “My overall takeaway is that kratom has a two-tiered effect. Initially it provides a burst of energy very similar to a strong cup of coffee. Unlike coffee, however, the energy I derived from kratom was longer-lasting and level…. The second-tier effect was relaxing, but fell short of being sedating. I never felt sleepy while taking kratom, but I did experience a level relaxation that was pleasant, and balanced out the initial energy-boosting effects nicely.” Not surprisingly, DiSalvo’s major concern was that “it’s not easy to nail down the specific amount to take.” As for withdrawal, DiSalvo ranked it beneath caffeine withdrawal for severity.

“Having now experienced the product myself for a number of weeks,” he wrote “I can see no reason why it should be banned, or on what basis such a product would be banned if people can walk into a typical coffee shop and buy an enormous cup of an addictive substance that’s arguably more potent than any kratom available anywhere.”

In September, Larry Greenemeier examined the case for kratom legalization in an article for Scientific American that tracks the herb’s “strange journey from home-brewed stimulant to illegal painkiller to, possibly, a withdrawal-free treatment for opioid abuse.” Greenemeier interviewed Edward Boyer, director of medical toxicology at the University of Massachusetts Medical School, who first became familiar with kratom after a software engineer who had been using kratom tea for pain ended up at Massachusetts General Hospital after combining kratom with modafinil and suffering a seizure. (The case was reported in the June 2008 issue of Addiction).

According to Boyer, mitragynine “binds to the same mu-opioid receptor as morphine, which explains why it treats pain. It’s got kappa-opioid receptor activity as well, and it’s also got adrenergic activity so you stay alert throughout the day.” As if that weren’t enough, kratom also binds with serotonin receptors. “Some opioid medicinal chemists would suggest that kratom pharmacology might reduce cravings for opioids while at the same time providing pain relief. I don’t know how realistic that is in humans who take the drug, but that’s what some medicinal chemists would seem to suggest…. So if you want to treat depression, if you want to treat opioid pain, if you want to treat sleepiness, this compound really puts it all together.”

And again, unlike heroin and prescription painkillers, which can lead to respiratory difficulties and death, “in animal studies where rats were given mitragynine, those rats had no respiratory depression,” according to Boyer.

However, Boyer cautions that, like any other opioid, kratom has abuse liability. “Heroin was once marked as a therapeutic product and later was criminalized,” he reminds us. 

Photo Credit: https://hampedia.org/wiki/File:Kratom.jpg

Spiced: Synthetic Cannabis Keeps Getting Stronger

Case reports of seizures in Germany from 2008 to 2011.

I wish I could stop writing blog posts about Spice, as the family of synthetic cannabinoids has become known. I wish young people would stop taking these drugs, and stick to genuine marijuana, which is far safer. I wish that politicians and proponents of the Drug War would lean in a bit and help, by knocking off the testing for marijuana in most circumstances, so the difficulty of detecting Spice products isn’t a significant factor in their favor. I wish synthetic cannabinoids weren’t research chemicals, untested for safety in humans, so that I could avoid having to sound like an alarmist geek on the topic.  I wish I didn’t have to discuss the clinical toxicity of more powerful synthetic cannabinoids like JWH-122 and JWH-210. I wish talented chemists didn’t have to spend precious time and lab resources laboriously characterizing the various metabolic pathways of these drugs, in an effort to understand their clinical consequences. I wish Spice drugs didn’t make regular cannabis look so good by comparison, and serve as an argument in favor of more widespread legalization of organic marijuana.

A German study, published in Addiction, seems to demonstrate that “from 2008 to 2011 a shift to the extremely potent synthetic cannabinoids JWH-122 and JWH-210 occurred…. Symptoms were mostly similar to adverse effects after high-dose cannabis. However, agitation, seizures, hypertension, emesis, and hypokalemia  [low blood potassium] also occurred—symptoms which are usually not seen even after high doses of cannabis.”

The German patients in the study were located through the Poison Information Center, and toxicological analysis was performed in the Institute of Forensic Medicine at the University Medical Center Freiburg. Only two study subjects had appreciable levels of actual THC in their blood. Alcohol and other confounders were factored out. First-time consumers were at elevated risk for unintended overdose consequences, since tolerance to Spice drug side effects does develop, as it does with marijuana.

Clinically, the common symptom was tachycardia, with hearts rates as high as 170 beats per minute. Blurred vision, hallucinations and agitation were also reported, but this cluster of symptoms is also seen in high-dose THC cases that turn up in emergency rooms. The same with nausea, the most common gastrointestinal complaint logged by the researchers.

But in 29 patients in whom the presence of synthetic cannabinoids was verified, some of the symptoms seem unique to the Spice drugs. The synthetic cannabinoids caused, in at least one case, an epileptic seizure. Hypertension and low potassium were also seen more often with the synthetics. After the introduction of the more potent forms, JWH-122 and JWH-210, the symptom set expanded to include “generalized seizures, myocloni [muscle spasms] and muscle pain, elevation of creatine kinase and hypokalemia.” The researchers note that seizures induced by marijuana are almost unheard of. In fact, studies have shown that marijuana has anticonvulsive properties, one of the reason it is popular with cancer patients being treated with radiation therapy.

And there are literally hundreds of other synthetic cannabinoid chemicals waiting in the wings. What is going on? Two things. First, synthetic cannabinoids, unlike THC itself, are full agonists at CB1 receptors. THC is only a partial agonist. What this means is that, because of the greater affinity for cannabinoid receptors, synthetic cannabinoids are, in general, stronger than marijuana—strong enough, in fact, to be toxic, possibly even lethal. Secondly, CB1 receptors are everywhere in the brain and body. The human cannabinoid type-1 receptor is one of the most abundant receptors in the central nervous system and is found in particularly high density in brain areas involving cognition and memory.

The Addiction paper by Maren Hermanns-Clausen and colleagues at the Freiburg University Medical Center in Germany is titled “Acute toxicity due to the confirmed consumption of synthetic cannabinoids,” and is worth quoting at some length:

The central nervous excitation with the symptoms agitation, panic attack, aggressiveness and seizure in our case series is remarkable, and may be typical for these novel synthetic cannabinoids. It is somewhat unlikely that co-consumption of amphetamine-like drugs was responsible for the excitation, because such co-consumption occurred in only two of our cases. The appearance of myocloni and generalized tonic-clonic seizures is worrying. These effects are also unexpected because phytocannabinoids [marijuana] show anticonvulsive actions in humans and in animal models of epilepsy.

The reason for all this may be related to the fact that low potassium was observed “in about one-third of the patients of our case series.” Low potassium levels in the blood can cause muscle spasms, abnormal heart rhythms, and other unpleasant side effects.

One happier possibility that arises from the research is that the fierce affinity of synthetic cannabinoids for CB1 receptors could be used against them. “A selective CB1 receptor antagonist,” Hermanns-Clausen and colleagues write, “for example rimonabant, would immediately reverse the acute toxic effects of the synthetic cannabinoids.”

The total number of cases in the study was low, and we can’t assume that everyone who smokes a Spice joint will suffer from epileptic seizures. But we can say that synthetic cannabinoids in the recreational drug market are becoming stronger, are appearing in ever more baffling combinations, and have made the matter of not taking too much a central issue, unlike marijuana, where taking too much leads to nausea, overeating, and sleep.

(See my post “Spiceophrenia” for a discussion of the less-compelling evidence for synthetic cannabinoids and psychosis).

Hermanns-Clausen M., Kneisel S., Hutter M., Szabo B. & Auwärter V. (2013). Acute intoxication by synthetic cannabinoids - Four case reports, Drug Testing and Analysis,   n/a-n/a. DOI: 10.1002/dta.1483

Graphics Credit: http://www.aacc.org/

State Marijuana Legalization: The Opposing Voices

Repeating Our Alcohol Mistakes?

A recent article in the always insightful Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Weekly, edited by Alison Knopf, concerns itself with the voices speaking out against Attorney General Holder’s announcement that federal authorities would not interfere with state efforts to legalize marijuana. It’s no secret that we here at Addiction Inbox have been longtime advocates for decriminalization along Dutch lines. So it’s high time we heard from some prominent dissenters on this issue.

Kevin A. Sabet, Ph.D., director of Project SAM (Smart Approaches to Marijuana) and former White House advisor on marijuana policy: “It’s the same thing with alcohol:  The marijuana industry is giving lip service, saying that they don’t want kids to use.”

Sue Thau, public policy consultant for Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America (CADCA): “This is the start of Big Marijuana the way we have Big Alcohol and Big Tobacco…. Anyone who cares about addiction has to care about this.”

Rafael Lemaitre, spokesman for the Office of National Drug Control Policy: “We know that marijuana use, particularly long-term, chronic use that began at a young age, can lead to dependence and addiction. Marijuana is not a benign drug, and we continue to oppose marijuana legalization because it runs counter to a public health approach to drug policy.”

Gen. Arthur T. Dean, CEO of Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America (CADCA): "This decision sends a message to our citizens, youth, communities, states, and the international community at large that the enforcement of federal law related to marijuana is not a priority."

The article is entitled “Advocates dismayed as legalization moves forward.”

Here are a few I have come across recently from other sources:

Citizens Against Legalizing Marijuana (CALM): "After decades of study the FDA continues to reaffirm that there is no medical benefit provided by the use of smoked marijuana and that, in fact, considerable harm can be caused by such use. We affirm the 2006 FDA finding and vast scientific evidence that marijuana causes harm. The normalization, expanded use, and increased availability of marijuana in our communities are detrimental to our youth, to public health, and to the safety of our society."

Office of National Drug Control Policy: "The Office of National Drug Control Policy is working to reduce the use of marijuana and other illicit drugs through development of strategies that fully integrate the principles of prevention, treatment, recovery, and effective supply reduction efforts. Proposals such as legalization that would promote marijuana use are inconsistent with this public health and safety approach.... Marijuana use is associated with dependence, respiratory and mental illness, poor motor performance, and impaired cognitive and immune system functioning, among other negative effects."

CNBC: "Contrary to the beliefs of those who advocate the legalization of marijuana, the current balanced, restrictive, and bipartisan drug policies of the United States are working reasonably well and they have contributed to reductions in the rate of marijuana use in our nation.... The rate of current, past 30-day use of marijuana by Americans aged 12 and older in 1979 was 13.2 percent. In 2008 that figure stood at 6.1 percent. This 54-percent reduction in marijuana use over that 29-year period is a major public health triumph, not a failure."


Photo Credit: LARRY MAYER/Billings Gazette Staff

Dr. David Nutt on Alcohol

Rebutting industry myths.

A couple of years ago, the European Alcohol Policy Alliance, known as EuroCare, put together a brochure addressing the common messages the liquor industry attempts to drive home through its heavy spending on advertising. The messages are not just designed to sell product, but also to influence alcohol policy at the political level. According to EuroCare, the “industry”—the alcohol and tobacco companies—“has traditionally worked closely together, sharing information and concerns about regulation. They have used similar arguments to defend their products in order to prevent or delay restrictions being placed on them.”

I wrote a blog post on EuroCare’s list of alcohol untruths called “7 Myths the Alcohol Industry Wants You to Believe." Here they are:

Message 1: Consuming alcohol is normal, common, healthy, and very responsible.

Message 2: The damage done by alcohol is caused by a small group of deviants who cannot handle alcohol.

Message 3: Normal adult non-drinkers do not, in fact, exist

Message 4: Ignore the fact that alcohol is a harmful and addictive chemical substance (ethanol) for the body.

Message 5: Alcohol problems can only be solved when all parties work together.

Message 6: Alcohol marketing is not harmful. It is simply intended to assist the consumer in selecting a certain product or brand.

Message 7: Education about responsible use is the best method to protect society from alcohol problems.

Recently, I ran across a great response to these same 7 myths by Dr. David Nutt, the British psychiatrist perhaps best known in the states as the scientist who got fired a few years ago from his post on the government’s Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. Nutt’s primary sin was to suggest that, on a straightforward calculation of risks and harms, horseback riding was probably a more dangerous activity than taking the drug Ecstasy. The Home Secretary at the time insisted that you couldn’t compare a legal activity to an illegal one, or something like that, and Nutt compounded his sins by suggesting that marijuana was a safer drug than alcohol. British politicians took a serious dislike to him, the more so since most of the published medical science was on his side. After the dust settled, Nutt was one of the primary founders of the Independent Scientific Committee on Drugs (ISCD), formed to offer alternative views on drugs and addiction grounded in science.

Anyway, in his book, Drugs Without the Hot Air, Nutt has his own responses to the 7 Myths, which I excerpt here:

1. Consuming Alcohol is Normal: It’s normal, so long as you have the “normal” high-activity variant of the ALDH2 enzyme. If you don’t have that form of the enzyme, Nutt reminds his readers, as many Asians and Aleuts do not, then alcohol will affect you quite non-normally through the so-called alcohol flush reaction. Moreover, many cultures and societies unfamiliar with its effects “suffer hugely when new types of alcohol appear, particularly if they are aggressively marketed.”

2. Alcohol damage is caused by a small group of deviants: According to Dr. Nutt, statistics show that “millions of people, NOT a tiny minority, suffer harm from their own alcohol consumption, or cause harm to others…. It is the everyday drinking of people who have come to see alcohol as an essential part of life rather than the luxury it used to be, that has created a spike in cancers and stomach problems, and will see liver disease match heart disease as the leading cause of death in the UK by 2020.”

3. Normal adult non-drinkers do not exist: The alcohol industry is forever reminding politicians of how unpopular alcohol restrictions are to the voting populace. “The existence of non-drinkers obviously threatens this portrayal of society, so the industry tends to dismiss them as having something wrong with them. While some teetotalers are recovering alcoholics, many others have made a positive choice not to drink.” And there are others, I would add, often referred to as “sick” teetotalers, who have quit drinking for medical reasons unrelated to alcoholism.

4. Ignore alcohol’s harm to the body: Nutt reminds us that “there is no other drug which is so damaging to so many different organ systems in the body…. Most other drugs cause damage primarily in one or two areas—heart problems from cocaine, or urinary tract problems from ketamine. Alcohol is harmful almost everywhere.”

5. Alcohol problems can be solved when everybody works together: “In practice, what the industry means by ‘working together’ is bring in voluntary codes rather than statutory regulation—solving problems through rules that the industry CHOOSES to comply with, rather than laws which they MUST comply with.”

6. Alcohol marketing is intended to assist consumers in selecting products: Specifically, 800 million British pounds every year for advertising and promotion, according to Nutt. That’s just the kind of civic-minded bunch those alcohol sellers are. The reality, of course is that “marketing communications do have a marked effect on consumption…. All this further entrenches the false division between alcohol and illegal drugs, persuades people that consuming alcohol is safe, and makes realistic discussions of the harm alcohol causes very difficult.”

7. Education about responsible use is the best approach: “It is useful for the drinks industry,” Nutt explains, “to emphasize the value of education, because it takes the focus off regulation…. There is also extensive evidence gathered by the WHO from around the world, showing that merely providing information and education without bringing in other policy measures doesn’t change people’s drinking behavior.”

As I wrote in my original post: Who could be against the promotion of responsible alcohol use? Irresponsible zealots and deviants, that’s who. Why should all of us happy drinkers be made to suffer for the sins of a few rotten apples?

Indeed, all of the messages, overtly or covertly, send the same signal: You should drink more. It’s good for you.

Graphics Credit: http://www.holyrood.com/2011/04/at-what-price/

Do Addicts Benefit From Chronic Care Management?

Controversial JAMA study questions orthodox addiction treatment.

 What is the best way to treat addiction? The conventional wisdom has been to treat it with chronic care management (CCM), the same approach used for various medical and mental illnesses. But a study in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) purports to demonstrate that “persons with alcohol and other drug dependence who received chronic care management (CCM)” were no more likely to become abstinent that those who received nothing beyond a timely appointment with a primary care physician, and a list of addiction treatment resources.

563 patients were divided into a chronic care management group and a primary care group. The chronic care management group received extended care under a primary care physician, plus

“motivational enhancement therapy; relapse prevention counseling; and on-site medical, addiction, and psychiatric treatment, social work assistance, and referrals (to specialty addiction treatment mutual help.)” The primary care group got the aforementioned doctor’s appointment and printed list of treatment resources.

The study by researchers at Boston Medical Center found that “there was no significant difference in abstinence from opioids, stimulants, or heavy drinking between the CCM (44%) and control (42%) groups. No significant differences were found for secondary outcomes of addiction severity, health-related quality of life, or drug problems.”

But there are limitations. To wit:

1) Small sample size. 282 patients in a Boston Hospital’s chronic care management facility, and 281 participants farmed out to a primary care physician, is the total. Given the known failure rates for chronic care management as applied to smoking, diabetes, and mental illness, and variability in the counseling given the control group by individual physicians, 563 people isn’t really a sufficient cohort to be anything but suggestive. And, since many alcoholics and other drug addicts get sober by means of their own efforts, independent of formal medical intervention, percentage comparisons of such small groups are problematic in addiction studies.

2) Hard Core Cases Only. “Most study participants were dependent on both alcohol and other drugs, recruited from a detoxification unit, had substantial mental health symptoms had recently been homeless, and were not necessarily seeking addiction treatment,” according to the JAMA study. Okay, who might the findings not apply to? “Addiction treatment-seeking or less severely affected populations or to populations recruited elsewhere.”

3) Mostly self-reported data. The investigators assessed main outcomes by self-report. “Biological tests are inadequate for detecting substance use, particularly when it is not recent,” they explain. “Substance use problems and health-related quality of life are best assessed by self-report.” Outcomes were also based on self-reported 30-day abstinence.

4) Alcohol abusers did better under CCM. The research documented “a small effect on alcohol problems among those with dependence.” On alcoholics, in other words. “No subgroup effects were found except among those with alcohol dependence, in whom CCM was associated with fewer alcohol problems.” So CCM works, at least to a degree, for alcoholics, even in this study. Nonetheless, the study concludes: “CCM for substance dependence in primary care is not effective, at least not as implemented in this study and population.” (Note the caveats, and see #2 above)

5) Treatment fails for many reasons. One reason might be that the length of treatment was too short. According to the study, the intervention group “had, on average, 6 CCM visits….” Moreover, “the whole group improved over time; the change most likely was due to many participants having been enrolled at a detoxification unit….” The researchers also admit that “assessment effects in treatment trials are inconsistent and poorly understood and often absent in studies of people not seeking treatment.”

It may even be true that chronic care management, which seems so logical and successful an approach for everything from depression to smoking cessation, doesn’t work any better for drug addiction than a simple doctor’s visit and a handful of pamphlets. But this study doesn't clinch the case.

Graphics Credit: http://www.ihi.org

Saitz R. (2013). Chronic Care Management for Dependence on Alcohol and Other Drugs: The AHEAD Randomized Trial, JAMA, 310 (11) 1156. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2013.277609

Researchers Link Alcoholism and Binge Eating Behavior

Addiction and the role of genetic overlap.

More evidence has arrived, courtesy of Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, demonstrating a genetic link between alcoholism and binge eating disorders.

In clinical practice, it is no secret that certain binge eaters and people with bulimia also show high rates of alcoholism. Various reasons have been suggested, but one of the obvious ones is that people prone to alcoholism are also genetically susceptible to certain kinds of eating disorders. A common set of genetic factors may convey these intertwined vulnerabilities to a subset of the population.

In order to examine the matter, Dr. Melissa Munn-Chernoff and coworkers followed the time-honored route: They studied twins, both identical and fraternal, from a database of 6,000 adult twins in Australia. Twin studies have been crucial to medical understanding of comorbid disorders and addiction. In general, while alcoholism and binge/purge disorders were seen as most likely genetic in origin, it was thought that the two disorders were transmitted in families independently. Writing in the Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, the researchers conclude that “in women, some of the genetic risk factors that influenced vulnerability to alcohol dependence also influenced vulnerability to both binge eating and compensatory behaviors [purging, laxatives, diuretics].”

Previous studies cited by the researchers have pegged the individual heritabilities of alcohol dependence (50-64 percent) and bulimia (28-83%). However, the question of genetic overlap had remained relatively underexplored. Munn-Chernoff and colleagues wanted to evaluate the links between alcohol dependence and binge eating behaviors in women. Among the study group, 6 percent of women had been dependent on alcohol at some point in their lives. As for binge eating, 13% of women had experienced problems with it. 14% of women had engaged in purging or laxative abuse.

The researchers judged the genetic correlation between the two disorders to be statistically relevant: “In women, the multivariate twin model suggested that additive genetic and nonshared environmental effects influenced alcohol dependence, binge eating, and compensatory behaviors, with heritability estimates ranging from 38% to 53%.”(For the specific statistical correlations, see the full-text article. The correlation was stronger for women than for men).

In addition, the study did not find any significant shared environmental influences contributing to covariance between alcoholism and binge behaviors.

Limitations of the study include an older age cohort (mean age 44 in women), higher alcoholism rates in the Australian sample compared with the U.S., and the possibility that other comorbidities, such as depression, might influence the association.

“It appears that some genes that influence alcohol dependence also influence binge eating in men and women,” said Melissa Munn-Chernoff, in a prepared statement. “When you go to an eating disorder treatment center, they don’t often ask questions about alcoholism. And when you go for alcoholism treatment, they don’t generally ask questions about eating disorder symptoms. If centers could be aware of that and perhaps treat both problems at the same time, that would be a big help.”

Women who abuse alcohol have it tough for any number of reasons, and this study gets at one of them: “A combination of pressures to adjust to the changing body at puberty, increased access to alcohol via peer networks, and genetic predispositions for eating disorder symptoms and alcohol problems could result in comorbid alcohol dependence and bulimia symptoms."

Munn-Chernoff M.A., Duncan A.E., Grant J.D., Wade T.D., Agrawal A., Bucholz K.K., Madden P.A.F., Martin N.G. & Heath A.C.  A twin study of alcohol dependence, binge eating, and compensatory behaviors., Journal of studies on alcohol and drugs,    PMID: 23948525

Photo credit: https://www.facebook.com/WUSTLmedicine.health?group_id=0