Nothing frustrates the friends and family of an addict like continued substance abuse even in the face of obviously detrimental consequences. University of Melbourne researchers say that the reason for this behavior is not a lack of willpower...but rather the result of brain changes in the frontal cortex that make it a whole lot harder to just say no.
Will power isn’t enough…anyone who has really struggled with addiction can tell you this; and it's hard to explain to people who have never endured the trials of addiction why we can’t simply just choose not to use.
Some new research coming out of the University of Melbourne in Australia is helping somewhat to better explain why this is so.
The university researchers wanted to better understand why drug addicted people, even those in recovery, have such a difficult time controlling drug taking impulses even in the face of adverse consequences to continuing use. The area of the brain that we use to control impulsive behaviors is the frontal cortex, and this is also the area of higher order thinking and problem solving; and this is the area of the brain that Melbourne researchers investigated for its relationship to drug taking behaviors.
The researchers looked at two groups of people, both opiate using and non opiate using participants, and had both groups perform a task in which they had to control an impulsive or instinctive response to a stimulus, and instead perform an alternative response. During the performance of this task the researchers monitored the brain activity within the frontal cortex using brain imaging equipment.
What they found helps to explain why drug addicts have such a tough time resisting the temptations and impulses towards continuing usage behaviors. They found that those people who had been using opiates (heroin in this study) had a much harder time ignoring the impulsive reaction in the test, and had to exert much greater mental effort to override this normal impulsive response. They also found that the brain cells within the frontal cortex of the drug users were working inefficiently, and not performing as well as the brains of the non opiate using group of participants.
The researchers concluded that this likely explains why using and recovering addicts have such a difficult time resisting temptation, and speculate that this newfound knowledge could lead to better pharmacological and psychosocial treatments for addiction recovery.
The researchers acknowledge that they do not yet know whether the drug abuse caused the brain damage, or whether the brain cell deficiencies induced the addiction. If the drugs had caused the brain cell inefficiencies, the researchers also wondered whether the brain cells would recover after a period of abstinence from opiate use.
This study really resonates with me, and perhaps explains a mental process (lack of process?) that I experienced during my period of use. I used to have the best of intentions not to take pills or buy that case of beer…but I would invariably just find myself doing it anyways. It always felt afterwards almost as if I had been doing it instinctively, and without truly thinking it through…as if part of my brain was turned off for the duration of the drug seeking behavior.
Whether this occurred due to transient or permanent damage in my frontal cortex I can’t say for sure, but it was a significant factor in my continuing use and abuse.
Hopefully with better a understanding of the bio chemical and cerebral mechanisms of addiction, more effective and targeted treatments will emerge to the benefit of addicts and society as a whole. Existing psychosocial therapies and treatments are beneficial, and can even help people with lowered impulse control resist the temptations of drugs or alcohol; but I think that to really make a breakthrough in addiction treatments, better medications need to be developed that will allow people the strength of resistance to really make better use of these psychosocial therapies and training.
Recently in News Category
Liquor companies have been quietly targeting alcopops at young drinkers, and teen aged girls have been huge buyers of the drinks. It is estimated that almost half of all the alcopops sold are drank by under age drinkers, and the State of California hopes that by increasing the price, and decreasing the availability, the harm of this insidious liquor company practice can be reduced.
Alcopops, the name sort of says it all, these are not drinks marketed towards adults; and in an effort to lessen the appeal of these alcoholic "pops", California is voting on a bill that will increases the taxation level on these drinks, and by raising the price a couple of dollars on a 6 pack, make them far les appealing to underage drinkers.
Liquor industry lobbyists have been working hard to scuttle the bill that looks set to pass, and it's not surprising that liquor company executives would be concerned by a move set to take away an estimated 49% of sales that are currently coming from underage drinkers.
Alcopops, through massive advertising campaigns in which young and attractive people are shown enjoying the drinks, are perceived to be less harmful and easier to take than other types of alcohol, and the drinks have proven especially appealing to teen aged girls. With research indicating that the younger a person starts drinking, the greater their probability of ultimately developing an addiction to alcohol, the State's move seems to be a great step in the right direction.
Currently taxed under "malted beverages" status, the drinks will soon be taxed more strictly when newly classified as a form of liquor. In addition to the price increases, the drinks will also be on sale at far fewer locations, and supermarkets and convenience stores will no longer be able to carry the drinks.
Addictions experts forecast that the taxation modification will have a huge impact on the alcopop consumption by under aged drinkers, and estimate that the move will save 21 teen aged lives per year, and save the state hundreds of millions of dollars in costs associated with under aged drinking.
I seethe quietly (OK not so quietly!) when I think about alcoholic drinks being target marketed at our kids, and when I consider all the destruction that an addiction to alcohol has cost me, and so many others, I applaud the State of California for taking some steps to regulate the disturbing practice of making alcohol appealing to under aged drinkers.
Smoking in alcohol recovery can reduce cognitive performance, and may increase the risk of relapse. Should alcoholics try to quit smoking at the same time as they try to quit drinking?
Clinical research studies of drinking alcoholics that compared smoking drinkers and non smoking drinkers had previously revealed that those heavy drinkers that also smoked performed more poorly on a host of cognitive tests. Smoking seems to co join with alcohol in the brain in some way and exacerbates the damage done by the alcohol, and as such if you are a heavy drinker you would do well to at least quit smoking, if not quit drinking as well. But no one had ever studied the effects of cigarette smoking on mental recovery during initial sobriety.
Researchers at the University of California at San Francisco decided to change that and did a clinical study comparing mental recovery in both non smoking recovering alcoholics and smoking recovering alcoholics; and they found that the cognitive deficits associated with smoking while drinking seem to continue during recovery, with smokers in recovery performing significantly worse on a battery of cognitive tests during the initial 6 to 9 months of sobriety.
Testing done on higher processing, on spatial performance, on short range memory, and problem solving skills all showed a much slower rate of recovery for the smoking abstinent alcoholics when compared to the non smoking groups.
The study results are especially pertinent to alcohol abuse recovery as estimates put the percentage of heavy drinkers that also smoke at 300% to 500% the national average for tobacco use, and as a result a significant percentage of recovering alcoholics are also smokers, and a significant percentage of these people are having their recovery delayed by their tobacco usage.
The study leaders as a result have called for more testing to be done, and since the mortality rates associated with smoking far exceed the mortality rates of drinking, the leaders of the study propose that smoking cessation should possibly be encouraged as a part of the treatment for an alcohol addiction.
The study leaders stop short of saying that smoking increases the probability of relapse, but the when considering deficits in problem solving and higher order processing; it seems likely that smoking may play a role in the recidivism amongst recovering alcoholics. One of the best ways to minimize the risk of relapse is through cognitive strategies leading away from abuse, and good healthy problem solving skills designed to minimize life stresses that also make abuse more likely. Since the study researchers claim that the mental processing required for the enactment of these strategies is impaired by tobacco usage, it seems probable that smoking reduces the effectiveness of cognitive modification therapy, and leads to a higher percentage of relapse.
Additionally, scientists have discovered that there is in fact a co addiction to nicotine and alcohol together and they suggest that by continuing to use nicotine, you are in fact increasing the mental cravings for the co joined addiction to alcohol.
So it seems pretty clear that drinkers trying to get sober should also quit smoking at the same time… which when you think about it may be a pretty tall order. I mean quitting drinking is really hard, and for most people recovery is the most challenging thing they've ever attempted; and since quitting smoking is also no picnic, then isn't combining these two programs of cessation at the same time asking a bit too much out of the recovering addict?
I am no longer a smoker, but I was a smoker while drinking, and I remained a smoker through the first two years of sobriety, and I guess that my tobacco usage was limiting my cognitive recovery, but I'm not sure if I could have quit these two very addictive habits at the same time. I'm neither a scientist nor an addictions professional, I'm just an addict with a bit of experience on recovery, but it would seem to me that by asking too much you increase the odds of failure.
I would say quit smoking if you can, but worry about the drinking more, and even though quitting smoking seems to improve your recovery, if the stress of the smoking cessation drives you back to alcohol, it seems a pretty pointless exercise.
I'm sorry for the somewhat conflicting information and opinion of this post, but this…like so much else about addiction and recovery, seems to be less than crystal clear. If you can quit smoking, you should do it, and you'll feel better, and recent clinical data indicates that you may even think better; but if you can't and you’re just barely holding on in your battle against alcohol, I'd think you might want to wait a few months before taking on another stressor, and another battle against addiction.
Just my 2 cents worth!
European researchers, in a multi year study involving thousands of participants; have conclusively linked alcohol consumption with an increased risk for often fatal colon cancer. Even the consumption of small amounts daily increases the likelihood of cancer, and when only 2 drinks are consumed each day, the increased probability of cancer is almost 25% higher than for non drinkers. Alcoholics tend to drink huge amounts of alcohol daily, and as such they are at incredible risk for this and other cancers, and this is yet another reason to stop drinking...before it's too late.
A new British study has linked alcohol consumption to an increased risk for colon cancer.
The study found that the consumption of a glass of wine or a pint of beer each day increases your risk for colon cancer by 10%, and two drinks a day increases your risk by as much as 25%; and this is pretty scary stuff since the mortality rate for colon cancer is quite high, with 35 000 Britons each year diagnosed, and 16 000 each year dying from the disease.
I'm not sure what the increased colon cancer risk is when drinking 20 or more beers daily, but I imagine my outlook is not particularly promising. I do have faith in the body's recuperative powers, and I believe that with each passing year of sobriety I minimize the risks of my previously very unhealthy lifestyle.
No one who drinks is under the illusion that they do so for their health, but in addition to the well know health risks like cirrhosis and heart disease, it seems with every passing year clinical researchers unearth more evidence to the damage done by problem drinking.
If you drink to excess you should be aware of the damage you are doing to your body, and think about how long and with how much health you'd like to live. Every day you continue to drink increases your probability of contracting a serious and possibly fatal condition, and the sooner you quit the better your prognosis. If you drink, try to stop, and if you can't, or won’t, try to minimize your consumption. If you drink, or did drink to excess, you should be aware of the increased risks for certain diseases, and make sure that your doctor is also aware of your history of abuse, as to ensure you get the needed prophylactic testing that might just save you life.
I don't know how much damage I did to my body while drinking, but I do know that my GI tract was a mess; and although I now feel fine, I think I may have to speak with my doctor about colon cancer, and determine if any testing may be required.
Just one more reason to be thankful for a life of sobriety.
Although clinical researchers have been aware for some time of the cognitive and psychiatric consequences of heavy and long term ecstasy use, researchers had no idea how much consumption was needed before brain damage started to occur. A new research study has given the answer, and that answer is surprising; it appears that even small and initial doses of ecstasy can cause brain damage and decreases in mental performance.
Ecstasy has now been proven harmful, even when taken in small doses by new users.
While previous clinical studies have proven that usage of MDMA, the serotonergic acting drug commonly called ecstasy, can have profound and lasting implications; Dutch researchers have found that even initial and limited exposure to the drug causes brain damage and leads to decreases in cognitive testing performances.
Heavy ecstasy use can cause depression, insomnia, irritability, confusion, poor cognition and poor memory performance; and this is not entirely surprising since the drug acts through a process of serotonin modification, and serotonin is uniquely important for mood and memory in the brain. Researchers previously however had no idea how much ecstasy use was required to cause these deficits, and how much impact a small amount of the drug would have.
A Dutch research group aimed to change this and undertook a before and after study of 188 volunteers who had never previously tried the drug, but were deemed at a high risk to try the drug in the future. Researchers performed brain scans on the volunteers before exposure to the drug, and additionally performed cognitive and memory testing on the subjects. After 18 months, 59 of these subjects had tried ecstasy, and they had consumed an average of 6 tablets each during this time period. The rest of the volunteers had not. The same scanning and testing was again performed, and researchers were surprised to find that even this small and initial exposure to ecstasy had caused significant impairments in cognitive testing, particularly in verbal memory performance, as well as in blood flow to certain regions of the brain.
The damage was not severe but was significantly evident, and had occurred after the consumption of relatively small amounts of the drug. The research leaders have as a result reported that in their clinical opinion, any exposure to ecstasy is harmful, and people should avoid experimenting with the drug due to the probability of long term brain damage.
A recent survey of American high school seniors indicates that almost 5% had tried the drug, and the usage of the drug seems to be on the rise. There is a mis perception as to the safety of the drug, and the public needs to know that ecstasy is not a safe drug, that long term use can cause serious damage and greatly increases the risk of experienced depression, and additionally that the damage to the brain starts occurring even after only small doses of the drug have been used.
I've never tried ecstasy, I guess I'm a bit of an old timer now, but I have no doubt that I would have tried it were I a teenager today. Ecstasy is perceived as a fairly safe and non addictive drug, and it's unfortunate that this perception is false. The risks of the drug are high, and although I've no doubt that it's a lot of fun; is one night of fun worth the risk of a life time of depression and other cognitive and affective side effects?
If you use ecstasy regularly, get educated as to the health consequences of use, and consider stopping, or at least reducing your usage. Ecstasy can be addictive, and professional treatment may be required in some cases.
Italian researchers testing the efficacy of Chinese sage for the treatment of alcohol abuse have revealed some very exciting and promising results. The researchers gave some pretty hard drinking mice this Chinese sage, and it caused a significant reduction in their alcohol consumption. Human trials are to follow, and I for one am very hopeful on the promise that may be offered by this common herb.
A variety of Chinese sage, long used in traditional Chinese medicine for the treatment of insomnia, heart problems and blood disorders, has been found promising in the treatment of alcoholism by Italian scientists.
Alcohol dependent mice treated with the Chinese sage drank less, and those mice that had been taken off alcohol drank far less than normal when again given access to alcohol after a period of enforced sobriety. The results have excited the Italian researchers, and they are investigating the herb's safety before moving on to possible human trials.
I'm not much of an alternative therapy kind of guy, and I've never had much belief in acupuncture cures and using hypnotism to cure addiction and all that kind of homeopathic stuff; but if clinical testing indicates that a common herb seems to ease the cravings for alcohol, then I can't help but get excited about its potential. Because something is natural of course doesn't mean that it's healthy, (after all, morphine is natural…but I certainly never felt healthy when abusing it!) but a common herb, and an herb that's been used in Chinese medicine for millennia, has a good track record of legitimate safety and is something I would not hesitate to take.
Imagine a natural herbal tea, drank daily, that reduced the urge to drink. That would be very good thing and I for one will be awaiting the next stage of testing eagerly.
Cocaine and meth are powerfully addictive, and the treatment for an addiction to either can be very difficult. Newly developed anti drug vaccines may make things just a little bit easier. These vaccines, administered while the addict is still using, gradually reduce the amount of cocaine or meth that make it to the brain, and as a result gradually reduce the level of dependency and addiction.
I was just reading about a pair of vaccines being developed for the treatment of both cocaine addiction, and addiction to crystal meth. These are two pretty powerfully addictive substances, and if these proposed vaccines can do anything to increase the odds of success, then they would be very welcome additions to the current addictions treatment arsenal.
The way they work is that drug addicts are given a series of injections over three months, with each injection increasing the level of antibodies in the blood stream. These antibodies are designed to recognize, target and attack the drug, preventing it from reaching the brain. As more antibodies are released into the blood through further injections, decreasing amounts of the administered drug (cocaine or meth, each vaccine works for only one specific drug) actually make it to the brain.
The vaccines are given over three months, and levels of the antibodies rise very gradually. The vaccine's effects become noticeable after a month, and by three months, most of any administered drug is destroyed before reaching the brain. Because the process is so gradual, addicts feel little discomfort from the process of getting weaned off of their drug of choice.
Basically what these vaccines accomplish is that they allow addicted people to continue to use their drug, and get gradually less dependent on it through the action of the antibodies on the blood. As less and less of the drug actually makes it to the brain, the level of dependency falls, and it is far easier to ultimately quit using, with minimal or even no withdrawal symptoms experienced.
These vaccines are not designed for prophylactic use across the general population, but are specifically to be used for drug addicts trying to stop using. These drugs are reported to greatly help with the ability to get off a drug, but do nothing to prevent a relapse, and as such they must be combined with other treatments if the individual is to remain drug free over the long term.
I think that these vaccines are really exciting, and if people motivated to stop using could get to rehab already virtually off the drug, they could then really expend all of their energy and focus to the learning needed, and a lot less to the discomfort and anxiety of withdrawal.
These vaccines have one more step of testing to go before being submitted to the FDA for approval, and lets hope that all goes well, and before long meth and cocaine addicts can benefit from this new medical treatment for addiction.
Three executives with Purdue, the company that markets Oxycontin, were found guilty today of intentionally misleading doctors as to the abuse potential of the medication. Oxycontin, which can be crushed and snorted, and is about as addictive as heroin, has caused hundreds of deaths and a lot of heartache, and I'm glad that someone is at long last being held accountable.
I for one was very heartened by yesterday's successful prosecution of Purdue, the company that markets oxycontin, as well as three senior executives with the company. In addition to paying over 600 million dollars in fines, each executive has been ordered to complete 400 hours of community service, and as well sentenced to three years of probation.
The judge found that the company, and the three defendants, were guilty for intentionally misleading doctors and pharmacists as to the addictive potential of oxycontin, and for having made billions of dollars off of this deception.
It didn't take long for people to realize that this reportedly less addictive medication, sold as a 12 hour timed release capsule, could be broken and snorted and created a euphoric high similar to heroin. A lot of kids especially soon found that the easiest high came out of the family medicine cabinet, and because the drug is as addictive as heroin, a lot of lives have been destroyed as a result.
The company had announced that that in response to the abuse potential of the medication, that they were planning on releasing a new version of the timed release medication, but that never appeared, after years of promises.
As a recovering opiate addict, I know just how addictive and destructive a pharmaceutical addiction can become, and the makers of these drugs need to at the very least be forthright and honest about the associated risks to the medications they sell. I'm not saying that these are "bad" drugs, although I do think that they are over prescribed, but if doctors are led to believe that they are being given a safer alternative, and their prescriptions lead to the addiction, tragedy and deaths of many, then who is ultimately responsible?
It's saddening to think that the greed of a few has caused the heartache for so many, and although I'm glad the execs got punished, I wish they had at least received jail time for their deception.
I hope that the sentencing resonates through the pharmaceutical industry and that these companies stand up and take notice of what occurred today. It is wrong to mislead the public to sell more drugs, and it is wrong to under inform doctors about the abuse potential of a medication. I wonder how many lives could have been spared if only they had been honest from the start, and I wonder how these men can sleep at night knowing the destruction they caused for so many.
Scientists have long been aware of dopaminergic changes in the brains of drug addicted patients, but no one really knew whether those brain differences pre dated and increased the likelihood of addiction, or were caused as a result of drug use through addiction. Researchers at the University of Cambridge now have the answer, and their findings are exciting addictions researchers considering the treatment implications of this new data.
Using animal subjects and PET brain scanning, researchers where able to identify statistically significant differences in the brains of animals that were later to prove more susceptible to cocaine addiction. The animals more susceptible to cocaine addiction had fewer dopamine receptors in a certain region of the brain, and this finding is consistent with "after" studies of drug addicted humans who also show this reduction in dopamine receptors.
While research is in the very early stages, scientists say that this discovery could prove ground breaking for the treatment of addiction, and that future recovery techniques may be far more effective and less intrusive than current techniques. Researchers also speculate that these brain changes will be seen not only with drug addiction, but with all sorts of compulsive and unhealthy behaviors, such as gambling and sex addiction as well.
When researchers have a better understanding of the gene expressions that indicate this brain sub set, prophylactic treatments may even be possible, minimizing the possibility of abuse in susceptible individuals before it occurs.
Good news on the horizon for the treatment of drug and alcohol addiction.
