University of Toronto researcher, Bo Zang wanted to investigate the role discretionary spending money played in teen smoking behaviors – and the answer, not terribly surprisingly, is that teens with more money to spend tend to smoke more.
Using data from the Ontario Student Drug Use Survey, of students from grades 7 to 12, Zang found that:
Zang is quick to point out that the study does not prove that giving teens spending money causes smoking behaviors, merely that there is a correlation between increased pocket money, and heavier smoking.
She recommends tobacco price increases as a way to limit teen smoking.
The National Drug Intelligence Center, in its 2007 drug threat assessment on the abuse of prescription drugs, reported a number of findings…and none of them can be considered positive.
Firstly, the organization asses that the availability and supply of illegitimate (not taken or acquired in a medically prescribed manner) prescription pharmaceuticals is high and increasing.
Secondly, the organization asserts that demand and use has remained stable over the last year despite law enforcement efforts at reducing supply.
Thirdly, the organization reports that in some States, where strict pharmaceutical chain of custody regulations have diminished the availability of diverted pharmaceuticals for illegitimate usage, there has been a significant increase in heroin usage.
So there are lots of drugs around, the numbers of people using them has not decreased despite the best efforts of law enforcement, and in those areas where stringent regulations have limited local supply, addicts have been forced into even more damaging and dangerous practices such as heroin usage…hardly good news all around.
The challenges of regulating a product that does have a legitimate purpose, but that can so easily be abused, and that can be easily purchased through any of thousands of out of country illegal on line pharmacies is enormous; and increasing availability throughout most of the country indicates that law enforcement has so far been unable to really effect change. But when we consider that in those few areas where regulations have limited access, all that has occurred is a migration to even more dangerous and socially destructive usage of heroin or other illicit drugs, maybe we should question the philosophical motivation behind attempting to reduce the flow.
Enforcement and prohibition of psychotropic substance has an abysmal track record throughout recorded history, and the desperate realities of opiate addiction means that people will do whatever it takes to avoid the pains of opiate withdrawal. You cannot simply solve the problem by decreasing the supply, and when you consider the increased infectious disease rates, overdose risks, and criminal issues associated with the use of illicit drugs such as heroin, nor should we be striving to push people into even greater desperation.
My opinions are a bit contradictory in nature, and I feel that we need to both loosen availability as we tighten access???
We firstly need to stop creating ever increasing generations of addicts, and prescribing practices within the health care community need to change to reflect the dangers these drugs present to society. Extremely potent medicines, these drugs do serve a needed therapeutic function for some, but we as a nation consume far too many, and doctor's need to prescribe these dangerous drugs with greater judiciousness. We should also continue with legislations that have proven effective at limiting the supply of diverted pharmaceuticals into the community.
Secondly, we need to give those people that have developed addictions the drugs that they need. You can’t stop an opiate addict from taking drugs, and they will do whatever it takes to get a substance that both makes them feel good, and keeps away a very uncomfortable and scary period of detox sickness. Instead of making these people acquire the drugs illegitimately, or even worse, forcing them onto the even greater dangers of illicit drugs such as heroin; we should open clinics akin to methadone clinics, where addicts can get the drugs they need, safely, and without undue hassle.
Addicts participating in these subsidized programs would only be given enough for a day's usage and they would be required to pay for them at standard market prices. Governmental subsidies would fund corresponding and mandatory therapeutic involvement that would be a prerequisite to access into the program.
We can’t stop it, and we can’t even seem to control the flow of drugs, so instead of increasingly criminalizing the issue, why don’t we control the administration of drugs to those that need them, and while we're at it try to effect change through offered therapies, medical care and treatment.
Drug abuse is a disease and health care issue, and any attempts at criminal justice control always prove ineffective.
Durham North Carolina police got a dangerous offender off the streets this week…93 year old William C. Tinnen, arrested on cocaine trafficking charges, and held under $200 000 bond in jail awaiting trial. Also this week, repeat drunken driving stars Lindsay Lohan and Nicole Ritchie served a collective one day and 86 minutes in jail for a total of four DUI arrests.
What is going on???
Firstly, in defense of the justice system, the 93 year old arrestee did also have firearms in the house, and he may well have been the meanest predator in the neighborhood, I just don’t know; and secondly, although people have been quick to blast prosecutors for preferential treatment in the DUI offences of the young Hollywood starlets, legal professionals assure the public that the sentences as issued were very much in line with customary sentencing for DUI's within the county's overworked justice system.
Both the police and the courts have by all accounts acted within the confines of the laws and the realities of the overcrowded jail and justice system, and you can't fault them for following the laws they’re sworn to uphold; but when you compare the punishments meted out, it seems as though those at greatest risk to do harm to others are free, and the man hard to see as a threat lingers behind bars.
I've known a lot of drug dealers in my time, and these guys were all small time, dealing primarily as a means to support their own habits…not a great risk to anyone but themselves; and arresting and locking up these small fry dealers certainly does nothing to curtail the flow of drugs into the community. I've also seen first hand the devastation and despair of a drunken driving accident fatality, and I can tell you in no uncertain terms that the pain of that DUI far eclipsed the combined efforts of all the drug dealers I've ever known.
Why is a 93 year old man living in a slum and dealing cocaine? Doesn’t sound like he was saving up for a mansion on the hill or a new yacht; and shouldn't we take a better look at how we in the richest nation in the world can allow for environments that force a very desperate very senior citizen to sell drugs, and to now reside behind bars where any sentence is almost certainly a life sentence?
Drug enforcement is an abysmal failure by any measures of social betterment, and all we seem to be doing is enriching rarely arrested criminal leaders, fueling inner city violence, and imprisoning those lowly and desperate souls all to often suffering the dual despair of addiction themselves.
Take every dollar away from enforcement and imprisonment of non violent drug offenders and build hundreds of rehab facilities. Get those people that need it help, and send those people who repeatedly break DUI laws to 90 day or greater rehabs (not Hollywood resort facilities…real honest rehabs).
Change the climate that allows 93 year old seniors to remain behind bars and drunken repeat offenders loosed to endanger the streets again.
Completely preventable and tragic, fetal alcohol syndrome is the leading cause of mental retardation in America today. The term fetal alcohol syndrome (FAS) is an umbrella term describing the facial and physical deformities, the cerebral deficits and the emotional and behavioral legacy of children born to women who drank during pregnancy. A less severe syndrome know as fetal alcohol effects (FAE), affects many thousands more children each year; and because at birth the characteristic facial deformities are not always recognizable, experts estimate that the prevalence rate of FAS and FAE is actually far greater then reported.
Between 4000 and 12000 children are born each year with FAS, and FAE effects tens of thousands more. The disorder plagues the development and potential of children for life, and although the facial characteristics of the disorder may become reduced in severity after puberty, the emotional, cognitive and behavioral deficits actually become more pronounced with adulthood.
There is no uniform set of symptoms associated with the disorder, but very often FAS will cause characteristic facial structure deformities, including a smaller than normal head and a flattened mid face, cognitive and developmental delays or retardation and life long behavioral and emotional adaptation issues. Un coordination, impulsivity and speech and hearing impairments also characterize symptoms of the disorder.
A late 90's study of alcohol consumption during pregnancy reports that almost 20% of women continue to drink some amount of alcohol during pregnancy, heedless of warnings to the contrary; and women with lower incomes and with less prenatal care are far more likely to drink heavily while pregnant.
The Surgeon General recommends complete abstainment from alcohol during pregnancy, as no one is sure at what level alcohol consumption may be safe. If pregnant women drink very heavily, especially during the last trimester, newborn infants may endure dangerous alcohol withdrawal symptoms such as tremens, abnormal muscular activity, an inability to sleep and extreme and inconsolable crying.
The societal economic costs of FAS and FAE run into the billions each year, but the individual and life long costs are far more tragic than any increased bill to the State.
And all of this devastation is completely and 100% preventable. If a woman does not drink during pregnancy, there is no possibility of FAS or FAE.
While all involved despair over the tragedy of FAS, there is little consensus about what proactive steps should be taken to reduce the incidence rate. Some States aim to protect unborn children by enforcing treatment on pregnant women who exhibit signs of substance abuse and others argue that by essentially criminalizing the issue, you deter far more women from treatment than you help.
Another problem is that alcoholic women wishing to curtail their drinking during pregnancy often have a hard time finding a treatment facility capable of admitting a pregnant woman, and also offering needed prenatal care.
Every dollar spent towards substance abuse prevention and treatment yields a massive dividend in societal savings, and surely this is also the case with FAS. If FAS cost's billions in increased health care, education and eventual incarceration costs each year, perhaps we should spend bit more now in the hopes of reducing the FAS societal bill down the road.
More spent on education and prenatal outreach, more spent on subsidized treatment beds for pregnant women wanting to change, and more spent on awareness campaigns…there will always be some who ignore all the warnings and attempts to help, but every person saved would be a huge and celebratory victory.
A lot of people don’t consider that drinking beer is as serious or as harmful as drinking hard liquor, and this perception in reinforced by governmental legislation that allows for more intensive marketing of beer, for favorable taxation and for less regulation over its sale.
Of course beer is simply alcohol just like any other form of alcohol, and if you drink 7 beers, or have 7 cocktails…you will be just as drunk; and if you drink a number of beers with regularity, you are just as at risk for addiction as you would be if you drank only bourbon or vodka.
In fact, studies of binge drinking in America show that beer is the favored binge drink of choice, and because binge drinking creates such societal problems (drunk driving, violence, domestic abuse) and because binge drinking is a necessary stepping stone to dependency, it seems that beer is in fact the most dangerous alcoholic beverage consumed in America today.
The breakdown of binge drinking has beer accounting for 67% of all binge drinks consumed, with liquor a very distant second at 22%. The survey study, conducted by the National center for Disease Control and Prevention, illustrates how dichotomous liquor/beer laws are confusing the drinking public about the relative safety of beer drinking, and researchers conclude that preferential laws favoring beer make absolutely no sense from a public health viewpoint.
Researchers call for tougher beer control laws and increased taxation. They call for a limit on points of sale, and a reduction in marketing…particularly marketing directed at younger people.
I was a beer drunk, and I know first hand that the damage done by a case of beer sure seems a lot like the damage down by a bottle of whiskey; and it's too bad that a lingering misperception of the dangers of beer remains a part of out National consciousness.
Beer is alcohol, and it needs to be regulated in a similar manner to all other forms of alcohol. Why can we buy beer at a convenience store but not whiskey, when studies show that the people most likely to drink to excess, drive drunk, and have problems with the law or most probably going to have been drinking beer?
Why can Budweiser sponsor a Super Bowl halftime show, when a great many football fans watching the game are very likely drinking beer, and when Super Bowl game day is one of the riskiest days of the year for alcohol fueled domestic assault?
Prohibition is never the answer, and I don’t think that we can or even should deny responsible adults the right to purchase and consume beer or any other alcohol in a moderate and reasonable manner. But giving preferential legislative treatment to beer simply because it enjoys a misperception of safety (huge lobbying dollars???) is damaging and nonsensical.
It's well known that because of a reduced body weight and a reduced volume of water in the body to dilute the concentration of alcohol, women get drunk quicker than men, and are more at risk for the acute effects of binge drinking, including the risk of fatal overdose; but the dangers to women drinkers a not only acute in nature, and alcoholic women are at greater risk for a number of health disorders than are alcoholic men.
Heavy drinking women are more susceptible to developing addictions, and they also seem predisposed to start feeling the negative effects of chronic alcohol abuse faster than men.
A greater percentage of alcoholic women than alcoholic men will develop often fatal cirrhosis of the liver, and women are also more at risk for malnutrition, anemia and high blood pressure, particularly during very heavy drinking. Women alcoholics also suffer more cardiac damage than do men with equivalent drinking histories.
Women alcoholics suffer proportionally more brain damage and memory loss as a result of drinking behaviors as well, and a recent study comparing men and women with similar histories and durations of use saw women exhibit 11% more "brain shrinkage" (a sign of brain cell death) than men.
Heavy drinking greatly increases the gastro intestinal cancer risk in both men and women, but alcoholic women also suffer a hugely elevated risk for breast cancer; and Women who drink heavily are almost 50% more likely to get breast cancer.
The likelihood of developing alcohol related problems increases later in life, and more women develop drinking problems in late adulthood than do men, at a time when they are a greatest risk to suffer the consequences of their dependency.
Alcohol is physically devastating to all, but women are unfairly susceptible to some of its most dangerous effects; and any woman struggling with alcohol use and dependency needs to consider professional treatment help to lessen the risks of a great many serious and possibly fatal disorders.
Our sisters our mothers and our friends need and deserve intervention and treatment, and because each continuing day of abuse increases the risks of so many serious or even lethal disorders, intervention needs to occur as soon as is possible.
There are few things as poorly understood as the remarkable complexity of the human brain, and addiction as a function of the brain is only very minimally understood at the neuronal level. Thankfully continuing research initiatives continue to uncover ever increasing pieces of this complicated puzzle, but for now, existing pharmacological interventions for addictions recovery remain imperfect.
Three of the most commonly used medications in the treatment of alcohol addiction, are disulfiram, naltrexone, and the newest medication, acamprosate.
Disulfiram works by making recovering alcoholics very ill if they consume alcohol concurrently with the medication, and naltrexone works by reducing the pleasurable rewards of drinking. Acamprosate works by stabilizing brain activity altered by abuse, and reducing the compulsions to abuse.
Acamprosate has its mechanism of action within the GABA neurotransmitter systems of the brain, and it is this damaged GABA system that results in dangerous tremors or convulsions during acute alcohol withdrawal, and also seems to continue to influence cravings to abuse. Alcohol is a natural GABA inhibitor and acamprosate also inhibits the neurotransmitter, allowing brain activity levels to stabilize naturally and slowly over time, with less experienced discomfort, or cravings back to abuse.
Acamprosate is no magic solution, and a significant percentage of people treated with acamprosate during the initial months of alcohol recovery will relapse back to drinking, but it does work significantly better than nothing, and some research indicates that when the drugs acamprosate and naltrexone are combined, the greatest possible efficacy is achieved.
Acamprosate can reduce some of the anxiety associated with the initial period of abstinence, and also seems to help people sleep better during initial recovery, which is important as insomnia during initial recovery is a significant predictor of relapse and further abuse. Acamprosate also seems to diminish the strength of cravings, at least in the very initial few months of recovery; allowing recovering alcoholics enough time of sobriety to regulate brain activity naturally, and develop natural motivations and strategies to continued relapse avoidance.
Acamprosate also gives addictions professionals another drug in the arsenal against relapse, particularly for alcoholics suffering liver damage, as since it is not significantly metabolized in the liver; it is safe even for cirrhotic patients.
The drug seems to be very well tolerated, and side effects most commonly experienced are headache or nausea. The drug is not intended to be used as a stand alone treatment to alcoholism, but as a part of a comprehensive drug treatment program, including significant psychosocial and behavioral components.
This is a prescription medication, and there some people who cannot take it. As with any prescription drug, you should only take the medication on a doctor's advice, and under professional care and supervision.
Although acamprosate doesn’t cure alcoholism, it does offer some efficacy during the very tough initial few months of sobriety, and can make those few months just a little more comfortable for people suffering from a legacy of addiction, and resultant brain deficits. The risks of use seem very low when compared with the possible benefits; and when acamprosate is combined therapeutically with naltrexone, it seems to offer significant protection against relapse.
Alcoholism is a serious, stubborn and lasting disease, and while acamprosate certainly won't cure it; anything that helps to improve the odds of recovery is to my mind a very good thing. If you are struggling with sobriety, speak with your doctor about the risks and benefits of adding acamprosate, or acamprosate and naltrexone, to your medication regimen.
We need to use everything at our disposal to give people the best chance of beating addictions, and living better lives of sobriety.
Grandparents want to play with, enjoy and spoil their young grandkids, and they never want to be concerned about the stability of the home environment or worried about the safety of their young grandchildren. But with so many kids growing up in homes with alcoholic or drug abusing parents, too many kids, and by extension grandparents, have a lot more than normal to worry about.
About a million and a half kids in America are being raised by grandparents…and substance abuse and addiction is a major casual factor for grandparents assuming the role of primary caregiver; and while grandparents surely never wished for the responsibility of parenting again, the stress and concern of leaving kids in questionable or dangerous environments can be even worse.
The pains of addiction resonate through the family, and extend beyond the borders of the immediate family home, and nothing is worse than a feeling of impotence to effect change for the better and constant worry for the welfare of beloved grandchildren.
Getting help
The obvious solution to the problem is to convince abusing parents of the need to change behaviors, and to attend needed drug or alcohol treatments; if only for the good of the children. An organized family intervention with pre arranged and ready treatment can be extremely effective at convincing even unwilling and denying addicts of the need to concede to treatment. Nagging, shaming and lecturing don’t work, and can even exacerbate the level of abuse; and neither does pretending that all is well do anything to improve the situation. Proactive and constructive actions are needed, and an intervention is a great place to start.
If an intervention does not convince of a need for treatment, grandparents need to take other proactive steps to ensure the safety of the children in the home. The behaviors of addiction can be painful to bear, and although taking extreme measures to protect the children is never easy, acting out of concern for the welfare of the children is always appropriate, no matter how emotionally complex and difficult the decision to intervene may be.
According to the National Association for Children of Alcoholics, there are three concrete things that grandparents need to do when children remain in an abusive household.
1 Get informed
To really affect daily realities, grandparents need to understand the nature of addiction and abuse, and understand the real risks to the children in the home. Information can be sourced from print and web resources, from professional organizations, and through peer support groups such as al anon, or other grandparents groups.
2 Know your options
No grandparent ever wants to call child protection services on their children, but if the situation becomes desperate enough, it may be required. Grandparents need to get educated as to the legal and community organizations offering support, and know what their legal and community options are in case of extreme eventualities.
3 Be a source of stability and comfort
Children of alcoholics or drug abusers crave stability and comfort, and grandparents can offer sanctuary and a needed place of emotional and physical escape to children suffering in abusive homes. Grandparents can be sure that children understand that addiction is a disease, and that the behaviors of addiction are all a part of the disease; and make sure especially that children understand that they are in no way at fault, that they didn’t cause the situation, and they are not responsible to change it.
Kids always want to love their parents, so grandparents should also strive to accentuate anything positive about the parent child relationship, and never to needlessly degrade the abusing parent.
Grandparents can do a lot to help kids in homes with substance abuse
Grandparents should never need to worry about the safety of their grandchildren, but too many kids are growing up in very negative environments and suffering the alcohol or drug abuse of one or both parents. Grandparents can help, and they need to get involved, try to enact change, look out for the safety and well being of their grandkids, and always be ready to offer needed comfort and stability.