Drug Addiction: Let Science Replace Ideology

This post was written by Maggie Mahar and Niko Karvounis

In 1986, Nancy Reagan made it clear that there is “no moral middle ground” when it comes to drug use. You either don’t take drugs—which means you are a “good” person—or you do take drugs, which means you are a “bad” person.”

The Reagan-era outlook on drug addiction has dominated our political culture for nearly three decades, though not without sharp criticism.  In March, for instance, the writers of "The Wire," the critically-acclaimed HBO series that brought the Realpolitik of Baltimore’s war on drugs to the small screen, made it clear what they thought of the Reagan approach: “what once began, perhaps, as a battle against dangerous substances, long ago transformed itself into a venal war on our underclass. Since declaring war on drugs nearly 40 years ago, we've been demonizing our most desperate citizens, isolating and incarcerating them and otherwise denying them a role in the American collective. All to no purpose. The prison population doubles and doubles again; the drugs remain.”

They’re right; we are not winning the war on drugs. But the question remains: what should we do now? Those who view illicit drug use as willful behavior believe that we have no choice but to jail those who choose to continue committing crimes. Others who argue that drug addiction is a disease that weakens the addict’s ability to choose argue that rather than stigmatizing the addict and punishing him, we must find new ways to “treat” the patient.

One could argue about who is right. But rather than engaging in yet another political argument about personal responsibility vs. society’s responsibility to help its poorest citizens, it might be helpful to take a look at what medical science has been learning about drug addiction over the past few decades.

Addiction Treatment: Science and Policy for the Twenty-first Century (Johns Hopkins U. Press, 2007) does just that, and in the process “highlights the amazing discord between scientific knowledge and public perception,” according to a review by Stanford University’s Dr. Alex Macario in the June 4th JAMA.

In this collection of short, incisive essays, the authors don’t always agree on specifics, but they do reach a consensus of sorts: the scientific community needs to educate the public about drug addiction—and our approach to treatment should be based on medical evidence rather than personal ideology.

Today, medical technology allows scientists to observe first-hand what happens inside the brain when it is, in the words of William R. Miller, a psychiatrist at the University of New Mexico, “hijacked by drugs.” Thanks to brain imaging, for example, we know that regular drug use disrupts the frontal cortex, which regulates cognitive activities like decision-making, planning, and memory. In other words, drugs affect an individual’s capacity to make the choices that the Reaganites insist addicts “should” be able to make (Just Say No!). Undoubtedly the drug user could have said “no” the very first time he let desire over-ride good judgment. But after that, Miller notes, “neuroadaptation involves biological changes in response to drug use that increase the likelihood of repetition and escalation, undermining the person’s capacity for volitional control.”  Recent studies have even shown that drug addiction changes our brains at the genetic level, influencing how our DNA is translated into enzymes and proteins.

As a result of this new information, experts are increasingly incorporating the recognition that addiction is, in part, a “brain disease” into their treatment recommendations. This perspective has even made headway in the halls of power. Last year Congress introduced the Recognizing Addiction as a Disease Act, which would institutionalize the disease model by changing into the name of the National Institute on Drug Abuse to the National Institute on Diseases of Addiction and change the name of the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism to the National Institute on Alcohol Disorders and Health.

The text of the act embraces the disease model, noting that “the pejorative term 'abuse' used in connection with diseases of addiction has the adverse effect of increasing social stigma and personal shame, both of which are so often barriers to an individual's decision to seek treatment."

This statement reflects the logic of Alan Leshner, CEO of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and former Director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, who notes in his contribution to Addiction Treatment, that “addiction is…at its core a brain disease,” and that consequently, “addicts cannot simply will themselves to stop using drugs” because they are “in an altered brain state.” If addiction is a disease, than addicts are patients—and they need treatment, just as a cancer patient may need chemo.

Yet putting too much emphasis on the “brain disease” model risks oversimplifying the issue. Addiction is not simply biological; it is psychological. There are treatments that work for some patients that involve behavior modification and decision-making. Consider a promising strategy known as “contingency management,” which provides rewards for reduced drug use. In these treatments, patients leave multiple urine samples with researchers over the course of a week and receive rewards—like vouchers that can be traded in for goods like clothing and theater tickets—for each specimen that tests negative for drugs.

Or consider the successes of drug courts, community-based courts where drug offenders are sentenced to treatment and supervision programs. These programs, like contingency management, offer tantalizing rewards, like the reduction of prison sentences, for adherence to treatment, and the guarantee of punishment (jail time) if a patient fails. Studies show that drug courts are effective. Only 4 percent to 29 percent of drug court graduates relapse, compared to a whopping 48 percent recidivism rate amongst other users. Here we see the limits of thinking about drug addiction only as a disease—that is, as an entirely biological condition. As Sally Satel, a physician at the American Enterprise Institute notes in her contribution to Addiction Treatment, the fact that incentives can change drug behavior shows that there’s more here than simply a biological problem. “Imagine bribing a cancer patient,” she muses, “to keep her tumor from mestasizing or threatening her with jail if her tumor spread.” Crude though this statement may be, Satel has a point: you can’t really reason with disease—yet it seems that sometimes you can reason with addiction.

In the Preface to Addiction Treatment, the authors note that: “When treating most medical conditions, health professionals will explore several treatment options with the patient to determine which is acceptable and effective, whereas with addiction treatment a person is typically offered a single option in a one-size fits all” approach that fails many.

Why are we so niggardly in offering the addict so few options?  There’s little doubt that our inflexibility is tied up with the fact that society has “stigmatized” not just addiction, but the addict himself. “Historically, people have disdained addicts because they thought addicts ‘did it to themselves’ and could just quit if they really wanted to,” notes Leshner in his chapter, “Advancing the Science Base for the Treatment of Addiction.”

As a result, we haven’t been terribly generous in the treatments we offer addicts, even when we have clear medical evidence of what needs to be done.  For example, “it has been established that psychosocial interventions alone do not work well for the majority of opioid-dependent individuals,” points out Dr. H. Westley Clark , Director of the Center for Substance Abuse Treatment. Most need medication in the form of a methadone maintenance program. Yet as Mark W. Parrino, President of the American Association for the Treatment of Opioid Dependence, points out in a later essay, “the stigma that surrounds heroin addiction has interfered with  providing access to care both for the general public and for incarcerated” addicts.

In a study that surveyed how correction staff in a large Southwestern jail felt about methadone maintenance therapy for heroin addiction, researchers found “negative attitudes…that appear to be related  to negative judgments about the clients the program serves. The survey results indicate that people don’t object to methadone treatment per se, but they object to drug users in general, and heroin users in particular, getting any kind of treatment that might to condone their behavior. An unexpected finding was that the older jail staff was much more sympathetic to methadone maintenance treatment than the younger staff.”

This may be because older staff came of age at a time when we were beginning to realize that alcoholism and other drug dependencies were diseases—and not simply signs of a lack of character. Meanwhile, younger staff grew up in the post-Reagan era, when much of the public was led to believe that addiction is a moral crime that should be punished.

Yet, as Parrino notes, “the Rikers Island KEEP program has demonstrated that providing access to methadone treatment for inmates is extremely cost-effective.” Correction facility staff would be better off if addicts received treatment.

And for heroin addicts who are not in jail, “methadone/buprenorphine treatment is a low-cost medical intervention. In most outpatient program, the cost for providing access to this treatment generally amounts to $5,000 per patient per year. This is much lower than the roughly $22,000 per inmate per year cost of incarceration, especially in view of the fact that a large number of methadone patients pay for their own treatment.”

But this does not mean that we want to simply “maintain” the heroin addict with methadone, and leave him on that lonely plateau. With proper incentives, counseling and reinforcement, addicts can still make choices.  Like other patients, they need to be drawn into the treatment process, where they can share in decision-making.

Much of 21st century addiction research focuses understanding the fundamentals of motivation. In Addiction Treatment, the University of London’s  Robert West offers a compelling framework for understanding what drives us,  called the PRIME model.

According to West, responses (“R”) exist at the most basic level of the human motivation. These are basic actions, like starting or stopping an activity. At the next level are our impulses (“I”), which are catalysts for specific action (i.e. hunger impels us to eat). These impulses bridge our actions to higher-order mental states, like motives (“M”), our conscious desire for specific things, and evaluations (“E”), moral perspective on how the world works. At the most complex level lie our plans (“P”), which refers to how we think about and plan for the future.

This model does a good job of linking various dimensions of motivation.  And in a PRIME treatment, says West, “both medication and psychological techniques should be considered.” Patients could be given drugs that help regulate their impulses or reduce the discomfort associated with quitting cold turkey, while psychological techniques can be used to restructure motivations, future plans, and habits. 

PRIME gives you get a real sense of how mind and body interact to trap the addict. As Maxine Stitzer, a professor at Johns Hopkins, suggests in her essay, drug addiction should be thought of not as either as a choice OR as a brain disease, but rather as a “chronic relapsing disorder.”  This is certainly true for some, if not all addictions. Again there is no “one-size-fits-all” model or treatment for a disease that we are only beginning to understand.

Finally, while “society at large may consider injury from addiction to be the ‘just desserts’ of drug abuse, this perspective is not shared by those responsible for the public health,” observes Dr. Curtis Wright . From a public health perspective, the path forward is to recognize that these disorders are a major health problem.”

Yet, ‘for whatever reason,” he writes, today “there are few physicians or medical institutions to speak to the need for addiction treatment. Many of the clinical experts and clinical researchers in this area were trained almost 40 years ago, and relatively few physicians are currently entering the field.”  Most likely, the Reagan-era notion that drug use is a moral problem discouraged many who might otherwise have seen it as a medical problem well-worth exploring.

Meanwhile, Wright reports, “the lack of strong physician advocates has been one of the factors leading to why the FDA treats these disorders as lower priority illnesses than many other diseases.”

This is yet another area that the next FDA commissioner might want to investigate. We are very hopeful that 2009 will mark a re-birth of an agency that plays a major role in setting priorities for the nation’s health.

Comments

[teen addiction treatment]

Drug addiction such as alcohol, heroin, meth, marijuana, prescription drugs or any other substance or addictive item means that the individual is physically, mentally, or both physically and mentally dependent on the item. They will get withdrawal and/or tolerance symptoms when they don't use the substance. Tolerance means that one needs higher quantities of a substance over time to reach the desired effects.thanks for the post.

-mj-

[alcohol addiction treatment]

Drug Addiction is widely considered a pathological state. The disorder of addiction involves the progression of acute drug use to the development of drug-seeking behavior, the vulnerability to relapse, and the decreased, slowed ability to respond to naturally rewarding stimuli. thanks for the post. very informative.

-jomie-

[timada42]

The drug addiction problem becomes bigger everywhere in the world. The problem now is besides the fact that we have to fight illegal drugs, we have to fight the prescription drugs as well. In the last few years prescription drugs have killed more people than cocaine or heroin. Some of those who become addicted to prescription drugs might not even have the chance to get clean in drug rehabilitation. It’s awful.
http://ezinearticles.com/?Drug-Rehab-Really-Does-Work-If-It-Is-Done-Right&id=822396

[Clarity Way - Drug and Alcohol Rehab]

There are many types of facilities that can help a person overcome many types of addiction. The best facilities will create a program just for the individual and work with that individual to carry out the program. This is exactly what our center does.

[addiction help]

Chronic constipation, decreased kidney function and increasing tolerance are some bad affects of heroin addiction. Sweating, depression, nervousness etc are some withdrawal symptoms. There are various online Treatment centers for heroin available.

http://www.addiction-treatments.com/

[Addiction Treatments]

It has been seen that some person think that it is just a matter of having the will to stop drinking but alcoholism is more complicated than that. An alcoholic’s craving for alcohol is so great that it suppresses their ability to stop drinking. The majority of alcoholics need assistance to stop drinking. Alcohol Outpatient Program are very helpful for these types of alcohol addicts.

http://www.addiction-treatments.com/

[treatment for addiction]

Governments also run many free rehabs centers
for general public. They provide free counseling camp for people. Counselor gives information bout the harmful affect of addiction and how can person takes precaution against the use of drugs and alcohol.

http://www.drugrehabscenters.com/

[Addiction Treatments]

Alcohol addictions give several problems such as loss of control over alcohol, dependency on alcohol, less tolerance power, constant downfall in health etc. Extra care should be given to overcome these problems. Alcohol Rehabilitation Centers are providing very effective programs to the communities and they are dedicated to remove these types of addictions from the community.

http://www.addiction-treatments.com/

[Different Drug Rehabs]

According to a result the addiction treatment centers are offering excellent program in addiction treatment to the people greatly affected by the use of substance abuses. On the other hand they have several programs depending on the requirements of individuals and also providing information for awareness of the disease. http://www.edrugrehabs.com/

[angelina]

Mostly teens and kids are having computer addiction which is also very injurious to their health. They use all their time on computer which gives them different types of problems physically and mentally. Treatment centers offer effective therapies to treat computer addicts. http://www.addiction-treatments.com/

[drug rehab treatment]

nicotine is very dangerous for health but now a days people became addict about drug he enjoy with the help of alcohol , some times its become very harsh for all those people who indulging in drug. Drug and alcohol rehab center
can help on this matter.
http://www.drugrehabscenters.com/

[arpan]

Teenagers understand that drug is gift for him but he does not think that some time this type of addiction become very harmful for him as well as for society. Because youth is our future. if youth will take all kind of drug so it is big loss of country.
http://www.drugrehabscenters.com/

[drug addiction]

Drug rehab center provides knowledge for drug addict person. It provides much different type of treatment and counseling to individual. So person who suffering from this problem he can take various types of help from this site.

http://www.drugrehabscenters.com/

[maggiemahar]

Robert--

"BSO"--I like that.

And I couldn't agree more: we need leaders who lead.

As another reader of this blog reminded me recently, it's only when Congressmen "feel the heat that they see the light" (Everett Dirksen said this.)

It would be great to see a march on Washington, demanding that Congressmen stand up to the health care lobbyists.

[robertdfeinman]

Right, which is why those who do understand what the the impediments to change are should spend their time on this aspect and leave the discussion of problems and goals to the less process oriented.

I've been reading quite a few, what I call BSO's (book shaped objects) this political season, and they all fall into the same pattern: nine chapters on why the sky is falling, and one on what the world will look like when it stops.

Even the ones written by those trying to rewrite history and their role in the succession of policy failures follow this pattern.

My biggest disappointment is with those who are the most clear-eyed about such things as environmental threats, but end up by telling people to drive less or buy CFL bulbs.

I haven't read too many health-oriented BSO's but many of the essays I see fall into the pattern. If change is going to take organized public outrage, then that's what the reformers should be preaching, and not just in generalities.

This is the new age of public participation, let's see some leadership.

[maggiemahar]

Robert--

I agree completely: implementation is the bear.

But the problem, I think, is not so much that reformers don't think about implementation (though, certainly, some don't--particularly when it comes to funding),
but that implementation means persuading Congress to vote for a plan.

And there, as you know, you run into Money--a enormous amount of money--
that abosolutely resists change. These are the people who make a fortune on the status quo.

On the other hand, I do believe that as things get worse (more and more people uninsured, including a great many in the middle-class), the pressure on Congress will grow. At some point, that pressure will equal the power that lobbyists have, and Congressmen will find themselves caught between a rock and a hard place.

[robertdfeinman]

Maggie:
My four step program to solving any social problem.
1. Identify the problem.
2. Identify the goal.

That's where 99% of the pundits stop.

3. Identify those who benefit from the status quo (this is not the same as creating scapegoats).

This is where 99.9% of the pundits stop.

4. Identify the implementation steps needed to overcome those in power of those who oppose change. These can be political, technological, moral or (in the case of revolutionaries) forceful.

We have had many discussions over change in the health care sector, but little about implementation. If you try to eliminate, say, insurance companies, how do you counter their influence in congress and the lobbying strength of those employed by this industry?

Perhaps decriminalizing drug use or making treatment via substitute medications might not have the same sort of opposition (I don't think there is a pro-heroin lobby), but someone is resisting change. As with health care comparisons, experiences in other countries seems not to carry much weight in the debate. This indicates, to me, that the scientific issues are not the ones controlling the dynamics of the problem.

My suggestion for those trying to solve social problems in the future:
Spend 10% on defining the problem, 10% on defining the goals and 80% of an implementation plan.

Statements like "getting people to eat less" to battle obesity and diabetes don't count as an implementation plan.

[maggiemahar]

Robert--
Let m qualify what I just said. I don't think that social workers and healthcare workers who are trying to help addicts would be upset to see that they were making headway--even though that might mean that their jobs would disappear.
But our correctional system has taken on a life of its own.

[maggiemahar]

Robert wrote:

"When obviously ineffective programs persist decade after decade you can be sure that someone is making money off the status quo. Justifying ineffective policies by appealing to morality is just a form of propaganda."

Robert--I'm afraid that you are right--at least to a large degree. There is
also an element of genocide here, or at the very least, an element of not caring as long as the majority of the young people incaracerated are non-white.

[robertdfeinman]

The usual camps:

Puritanism expressed as "personal responsibility". (Right wing authoritarians.)

Social inequality - drugs as escape, or due to peer pressure
(social workers and health care providers)

The Underclass - drug trade as a form of local small business (anthropologists and sociologists)

International affairs - economic activity on a national and international scale (Conspiracy theorists, me)

OK, it's only a part conspiracy. There are various forces which like the status quo. This includes the permanent "anti-drug" industry. This supplies employment to police, lawyers, judges, jailers, prison builder and administrators and even heath and social work support services. If the problem is "solved" they are out of work.

But beyond this obvious self-interest with the drug trade there is the use of an underground economy to support political operations which can't be financed otherwise. The FARC in Columbia is now generally seen as less a leftist revolutionary movement and more as part of the international coca cartel.

A similar situation seems to exist in Mexico, and then there is the case of Afghanistan where the US ignored poppy production ramping up while offering farmers no aid to grow legal crops.

The Iran-Contra affair was (allegedly) financed through drug sales. This works both ways, the US supports drug cartels when the money flows into local groups which we hope will destabilize regimes we dislike. The same is true on the other side.

This use of contraband and a black market isn't restricted to just drugs, "blood diamonds" have kept civil wars funded in Africa for decades.

When obviously ineffective programs persist decade after decade you can be sure that someone is making money off the status quo. Justifying ineffective policies by appealing to morality is just a form of propaganda.