Early drug use problems: Kids, inhalants, and huffing.

April 6th, 2011

22.9 million Americans report trying inhalants at least once in their lives.

When it comes to drug use problems, inhalants are often the first drugs that kids decide to experiment with. The habit is often called huffing. While use of alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, cocaine, ecstasy, and other drugs peaks around the 12th grade, inhalant use peaks in the 8th grade. A study conducted by the National Institute on Drug Abuse found that 17.3% of 8th graders have abused inhalants before.

Why does kids’ drug-use start with inhalants so early in life?

Many kids start inhalant drug use by accident; they like the smell of glue, whiteout, or gasoline, take a long inhale, get high, and keep going. For others, inhalant use is introduced through friends.

Also, attaining drugs can be somewhat of a challenge when you are 13 years old. Inhalants solve this problem. Inhalants are found in a variety of household products including: spray paint, nail polish remover, whiteout, marker, gasoline, glue, keyboard cleaner, shoe polish, and aerosol sprays. These products are easy to buy and relatively inexpensive, even for young kids. They can often be found readily in the house, which also makes them easy to hide.

Inhalants, the brain, and organ damage

Inhalants can be breathed in directly or concentrated in a container such as a plastic bag or cloth and then inhaled. Most inhalants work by depressing the central nervous system. The chemicals are absorbed through the lungs and proceed into the bloodstream, where they quickly reach the brain and other organs. Inhalant intoxication looks very similar to being drunk: Slurred speech, bad coordination, euphoria, dizziness, and drowsiness are all common during inhalant drug use.

The inhalant high only lasts a few minutes, so people often use inhalants repeatedly for several hours. This can have some devastating long-term effects. Brain damage, nerve damage, and organ damage are all possible. Inhalant use can impair vision, hearing, and movement. Inhalant drug-use is also linked with a variety of mental disorders, including antisocial personality disorder and depression. In pregnant animals, inhalant use has been linked to low birth weight, skeletal abnormalities, and delayed development.

Most tragically, even a single session of inhalant use can cause heart failure and consequently, death. The National Inhalant Prevention Coalition reports 100 to 125 inhalant-related deaths per year. This is particularly sad considering the fact that many of these individuals are kids and haven’t even left middle school yet.

Dr. Jaffe talking about huffing and inhalant abuse on Fox News

Citations:

1. Seigial, J.T., Alvaro, E.M., Patel, N., Crano, W.D. (2009) “…you would probably want to do it. Cause that’s what made them popular.” Exploring Perceptions of Inhalant Utility Among Young Adolescent Nonusers and Occasional Users. Substance Use & Misuse. 44(597-615)
2. NIDA. Inhalant Abuse. 2005

Posted in:  Drugs, Education Tags: addiction research, adolescent substance abuse, drug abuse information, drug use, huffing, inhalant, inhalant drug, inhalant drug use, inhalant use, inhalants, kids, statistics drug addiction, use

Conversation with an addiction expert – Chris Evans, opiate master

March 3rd, 2011

Here at A3 we have already armed you with over 400 articles’ worth of knowledge on a wide variety of topics such as sex, gambling, and alcohol addictions. Our articles have in the past been written mostly by the team members at A3 (with a few notable guest pieces) based upon research findings and personal experience. Now we decided to expand our reach and get a different kind of perspective, broadening the knowledge we are able to provide to you and providing you expert opinion on commonly asked questions that the public often has about addiction.

Our first expert is Christopher J. Evans (PhD) who is a professor in the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA. In addition to his work at the school of medicine, Evans is also a part of the UCLA Opioid Research Center, and Shirley and Stefan Hatos Center for Neuropharmacology. Evans is particularly interested in opioid drugs and is currently working on discovering the differential signaling at opioid receptors. Some of his past work has touched on withdrawal and on the theory of opponent processes involved in withdrawal, a counter to the theory that a rebound from over-activation is the whole story in the withdrawal process.

11 answers from an addiction expert

1 ) How did you become interested/specialized in addiction research?

Following my PhD studies in protein chemistry where I studied enkephalins and endorphins – opioids in our brains.

2 ) If you had to sum-up your “take” on substance use disorders in a few sentences, what would those be?

A sad disease where an obsession develops for an abused substance that creates fluctuating hedonic states. Increasingly there is decline to a negative hedonic state that can only be relieved by the abused drug.

3 ) What have been the most meaningful advances in the field in your view over the past decade?

The development of genetic models and imaging to begin to tease out circuits involved in liking a drug, withdrawal from a drug and drug craving.

4 ) What are the biggest barriers the field still needs to overcome?

Resolving the interaction of genetics and environment in creating phenotypes such as depression and anxiety leading to susceptibility to substance abuse.

5 ) What is your current research focused on?

Opioid drugs and the differential signaling at opioid receptors.

6 ) What do you hope to see get more research attention in the near future?

Inhalants and genetic studies aimed at behavioral phenotypes relevant to obsessive substance use .

7 ) How do you think the Health Care reform recently passed will affect addiction treatment?

It appears that there will be more attention paid to substance use disorders.  With increased access to health services the treatment of substance disorders is likely to become more of a focus.

8 ) What is your view regarding the inclusion of behavior/process addictions in the field?

They should be included.  Many of the process addictions have the same co-morbidities with substance use disorders and these are what need to be understood.

9 ) What is your view on the relative importance of Nature Vs. Nurture?

They are intertwined ? the interaction of nature with nurture directs our behaviors so neither should be considered more important than the other.  Either nature or nurture can be a disaster for a life.

10 ) In your view, what are some of the biggest misconceptions that the public still holds about addiction?

That addiction is driven solely by the acute rewarding effects of the drug and not by subsequent adaptations induced by the drug including dysphoria or memories of drug action.

11 ) What is the most common question you get from others (public?) when it comes to addiction?

Is marijuana harmful for you?

And there you go, a set of untouched, unedited answers about addiction and addiction research diretly from one of the masters. We hope you’ve enjoyed this and that you’ll look forward to more as All About Addiction continues a monthly exposure of what addiction research looks like from within.

Posted in:  Education Tags: addiction, addiction expert, addiction research, chris evans, differential signaling opiod receptors, drug, nature nurture, opioid, research, signaling opioid receptors, substance, substance use, substance use disorders, treatment, use disorder

Is marijuana addictive? You can bet your heroin on that!

November 25th, 2010

This is the ultimate question for many people. In fact, when discussing addiction, it is rare that the addiction potential for marijuana doesn’t come up.

Some basic points about marijuana:

The active ingredient in marijuana, THC, binds to cannabinoid receptors in the brain (CB1 and CB2). Since it is a partial agonist, it activates these receptors, though not to their full capacity. The fact that cannabinoid receptors modulate mood, sleep, and appetite to some extent is the reason behind many of marijuana’s effects.

But how is marijuana addictive? What’s the link to heroin?

What most people don’t know is that there is quite a bit of interaction between the cannabinoid receptor system (especially CB1 receptors) and the opioid receptor system in the brain. In fact, research has shown that without the activation of the µ opioid receptor, THC is no longer rewarding.

If the fact that marijuana activates the same receptor system as opiates (like heroin, morphine, oxycontin, etc.) surprises you, you should read on.

The opioid system in turn activates the dopamine reward pathway I’ve discussed in numerous other posts (look here for a start). This is the mechanisms that is assumed to underlie the rewarding, and many of the addictive, properties of essentially all drugs of abuse.

But we’re not done!

Without the activation of the CB1 receptors, it seems that opiates, alcohol, nicotine, and perhaps stimulants (like methamphetamine) lose their rewarding properties. This would mean that drug reward depends much more heavily on the cannabinoid receptor system than had been previously thought. Since this is the main target for THC, it stands to reason that the same would go for marijuana.

So what?! Why is marijuana addictive?

Since there’s a close connection between the targets of THC and the addictive properties of many other drugs, it seems to me that arguing against an addictive potential for marijuana is silly.

Of course, some will read this as my saying that marijuana is always addictive and very dangerous. They would be wrong. My point is that marijuana can not be considered as having no potential for addiction.

As I’ve pointed out many times before, the proportion of drug users that become addicted, or dependent, on drugs is relatively small (10%-15%). This is true for almost all drugs – What I’m saying is that it is likely also true for marijuana (here is a discussion of physical versus psychological addiction and their bogus distinction).

Citation:

Ghozland, Matthes, Simonin, Filliol, L. Kieffer, and Maldonado (2002). Motivational Effects of Cannabinoids Are Mediated by μ-Opioid and κ-Opioid Receptors. Journal of Neuroscience, 22, 1146-1154.

Posted in:  Drugs, Education, Marijuana, Opiates, Tips Tags: about addiction, addiction, addiction research, addictive, addictive properties, Brain, canabinoid receptors, cannabinoid, cannabinoid receptor, CB1, cb1 receptor, cb1 recpetor, dopamine, drug abuse, Drugs, fact, heroin, is marijuana addictive, marijuana, marijuana addictive, neuroscience, opioid, pot, receptor, receptors, THC, weed

Understanding addiction research will require us to argue our corner but be flexible to change corners.

November 8th, 2010

Hello everyone,

My name is Christopher Russell, I am a doctoral student in psychology at the University of Strathclyde in Glasgow, UK. My addiction research interests are wide and varied, but my core interests are in addiction theory (“why people do what they do”), the issue of freedom to control when using drugs, interpretations of addiction research evidence, and the use of licit and illicit drugs in the law.

Respect and rational debate of addiction research

Dr Adi Jaffe has very generously asked me to become a contributor to A3 and after reading about what A3 stood for (the mission and the abbreviation) and what Dr Jaffe is trying to achieve through A3, I am delighted to be a part of A3. Adi noted in a previous post that we do hold some different opinions about the nature and course of addiction. Above our differences, however, I respect that Dr Jaffe and I are able to debate addiction research rationally, respectfully, and vigorously without either of us resorting to ideological proclamations, disrespect for the alternative view, claiming a moral high ground or attacking each other’s moral character, or worst of all, name calling! Such people are hard to find in the academic world! The truth is that I, like Dr Jaffe, am still learning about addiction, and I’m not foolish enough to believe that my way is the way! If addiction research over the past 100 years has shown anything it is that a researcher would be foolish to hang his hat on any interpretation and proclaim it as fact – for example, for the past 200 years, masturbation was considered the most prevalent psychiatric disorder until it was replaced by drug use, and up until 1973, homosexuality was still diagnosed and treated as a form of mental illness! We must be willing to bend with the wind, to accept when addiction research evidence invalidates our beliefs, and to respond to falsifications by constructing models which stand up to our efforts to falsify them.

A3 and the fluid landscape of addiction research

The landscape of addiction research changes by about 50% each decade, as do many scientific ideas, so it is important that we all hold our beliefs about addiction lightly and be willing to consider that some dearly held addiction “truths” may not be as truthful as we had thought, perhaps hoped. Scientists are constantly revising what they thought they knew, changing their approach to measuring and conceptualising the problem, disseminating the latest findings to the public; like any good scientist, those who are involved with addiction, either personally or professionally, should always try to update their model, and sometimes, evidence can arise which causes us to question everything we thought we knew about the nature of a problem. Such evidence may require us to not merely adapt our exisitng models of the problem, but if called for, to abandon them in favour of more potent models which need not necessarily be liked or fully understood.

Hearing what addiction research is telling us, not what we want to hear

However, despite our pledges to be good scientists, our basic ways of thinking tend to get in the way of building better models of a problem. For example, a classic contribution of psychology research has been the finding that people prefer to try to discredit a new piece of evidence about a concept which doesn’t fit with their existing understanding of that concept rather than assimilate the new evidence into our understanding because it is cognitively easier to leave our belief structure as it is. This phenomenon is quite common in the addiction research community; some people just refuse to believe that addiction could be something other than what they had long thought it to be, and no amount of validated, replicable evidence to the contrary will move them to revise their beliefs. It is regrettably common that, for some, beliefs about addiction are based on an unwavering ideology rather than a science-grounded conclusion. Addiction researchers cannot afford to be this pompous, lazy, or inflexible; too many people are counting us to get the right answers to them, no matter who they come from or what form they come in. I know that my contributions to A3 are only useful to the extent to which they help get people from where they are to where they want to be. To achieve this, I must argue my corner but be willing to bend when the wind blows. We all must.

In the hope that I can be both teacher and student of A3, I believe that the value of my arguments will be measured by how well they hold up in the face of your most passionate, insightful criticism. Therefore, I invite all those who read my contributions to criticize, refute or support any of my arguments when you feel it is warranted. I will always try to give an intelligent answer and I swear to never resort to clichéd answers, bumper sticker answers, or the “it just is because it is” answer, which is in effect, no answer. And I will never resort to name calling (except when you really deserve it!).

I look forward to providing you with thought pieces, philosophical contributions, reviews of evidence, and most of all, interacting with you the readers, the lifeblood of A3.

Christopher

Posted in:  Education, Opinions Tags: addiction, addiction research, criticism, debate, education, evidence, rational, research, respect, responsibility, science

Believing in Recovery: Addiction treatment and faith

August 26th, 2010

Sarah Henderson return with another article about addiction treatment and recovery. This time, Sarah gets all philosophical with us and discusses the concept of faith in recovery. Personally, my faith is and always has been very logic-based. I’m not a very spiritual person, and the things that are most important to me are usually right around me – my family, my work, and my new baby boy Kai. I’m not against the concept of a higher power, I just don’t feel a deep need for it and it’s probably the one concept that doesn’t keep me up at night (which is weird now that I think about it). But in the addiction treatment and recovery field, faith is a common word that can take on different connotations so I think it’s important to talk about.

Believing in Recovery: Articles of faith

I have a friend who is researching the history of the Bible. He’s on a bit of a mission, searching for some verifiable proof of certain articles of faith. He and I have lengthy discussions on this, going back and forth on the nature of faith, on whether or not one needs proof to believe. His position is, wouldn’t it completely change everything if we COULD verify the existence of God? My position is, yes it would; proof would make faith irrelevant.

Think about it. If you have proof of the existence of something, then believing in it is no longer faith, is it? It’s not even belief. It’s just actuality. I believe there’s a reason that we as a species have never been given proof of the existence of a higher being. (From here on out, I’m going to refer to this being as God.) I don’t believe that we, with our tiny human brains, have the capacity to understand or conceive of God. I also think part of the wisdom in perpetuating the mystery is that it keeps us engaged, keeps us seeking, keeps us wondering.

The character House, MD (who is an atheist) said on one episode, “I love how people are always so proud of believing in something that isn’t there, like that’s some sort of accomplishment.” Well, actually is IS an accomplishment. Believing in nothing doesn’t take a whole lot of work. But believing in God without any verifiable evidence? That takes effort, takes devotion, takes love. Faith is a difficult path, no matter what you believe in. I also think that in believing in something outside of ourselves teaches us to believe in each other. For instance, when falling in love; you have to hold out your heart with no certainty that this person will not crush it. When forgiving someone; you are risking that they will hurt you again, but trusting that they won’t. When learning something new; you may fall flat on your face, but you have to believe that you can do it. If people never took a chance on each other, no one would ever get married, move away, try a new career, or have kids. Eventually, we all have to have faith in something, even if it’s just our own capabilities.Can you imagine a world without faith? I can’t. It’s what helps us believe in the future, surrender to the moment, look up when the world is falling apart and trust that things will right themselves soon.

When it comes to recovery, faith is essential- and I’m not just talking about God or religion. While attempting to recover from an addiction or other self-destructive behavior, you must have belief. First, you need to believe in yourself. You have to have confidence in your own ability to fight, to know that you have it in you to make it. And when that belief falters, as it inevitably does, you need to have faith in something outside of yourself too. You’ve got to hold on to something- God, a friend, the stars, the color blue- some entity to turn to when your confidence in yourself is flagging. And of course, there will be times when you are overwhelmed and feel like the pain of the transition is going to last forever. You have to be loyal to the concept that if you continue on the path of recovery, eventually you will find peace; that’s the “fake it ’til you make it” part. But it doesn’t happen without faith.

The word “faith” in itself has become so loaded that I think we often lose sight of what it really means; though truthfully, I think we each have to create our own personal definitions. To me, faith mean taking chances. And in recovery, that meant everything from eating when I wasn’t sure if it wold make me gain weight to reaching out to a friend without being sure I would get a response. All of those little risks built on each other until I developed some true self-confidence. With that in hand, I was able to make more proactive choices that have helped me get to the place I am now.

No matter what you believe in or how you define faith, I think we can all agree that recovery is something that cannot be done alone. It requires both external AND internal resources. At some point we all are faced with the fact that it will probably feel worse before it feels better; and in most cases, the only thing that keep us walking across that painful bridge is having faith that we’ll reach the other side.

A final word from Adi about  faith and believing in recovery

As I mentioned above, my faith is centered the things close to me and I don’t dedicate too much time to wondering about the existence of that god everyone is fighting about. Unlike Sarah, I see belief as something different than religious faith. As a scientist, I can believe information and data about addiction without having to make any leap other than in the objectivity of science and the honesty of scientists (which has certainly proven to be wrong at times). However, while I can see why people believe in a god, from the beautiful shafts of light that bounce off an ocean after a storm to the notion that there must be a master plan to make sense of all the pain and suffering in the world, I sometimes wish that I believed in a real higher power.

That’s not to say that I can’t see any power out there as greater than my own – Nature, humanity, my family, and the love I feel for my son are all ideas who’s incredible power is easy for me to grasp. Personally, that’s enough. When it comes to addiction treatment and recovery, I’ve seen the information, I’ve read the research, and I’ve personally experienced and viewed many success stories so belief doesn’t take a leap for me. That’s why I think education is so important and anonymity can be dangerous – By making successful recovery a point-of-fact, we make it easier for active addicts, and their loved ones, to believe that a different life is possible.

Posted in:  Opinions, Tips, Treatment Tags: about addiction, addiction research, anonymity, believe, faith, god, recovery, science, treatment, treatment recovery

About Addiction: DUI, Psychedelics, Smoke, and the Brain!

August 23rd, 2010

You know it and love it – here is our weekly post about addiction research, news, and more interesting tidbits from the wonderful world of the internet. I guarantee you’ll know more about addiction, drugs, and the brain, after reading it!

DUI because you think you’re sober? Check your BAC

Science Daily- A study found that people recover their subjective feeling of sobriety before they recover functions important for driving, showing that the perception of intoxication is a bad indicator of ability to drive. A BAC of 0.02 doubles the relative risk of a motor vehicle crash among 16- to 20-year old males and this increases to nearly 52 times when the BAC is between 0.08 percent and 0.10 percent. It seems that portable BAC monitors might be a good idea to reduce DUI accidents.

Psychedelics and High-Tech Pills

Common Dreams- Scientists are giving psychedelics another look as a possible tool in psychotherapy. Many psychedelics like LSD and MDMA have been used in psychological-treatment settings before and the Swiss apparently think we should be giving them another turn. The researchers there focus on the effects of psychedelics on the brain systems involved in depression mainly. Who knows, maybe you’ll be given a little LSD or MDMA pill before beginning a weekly therapy session in the future. Probably not in the U.S. though…

Magic “smart” pill- How wonderful would it be if there was technology that alerted you as to when you are supposed to take a pill? A “smart pill” which would text individuals when they need to take it is being tested in the UK, so it may be a reality in the future! Just think about it, all those people who have to take some sort of ADHD pill won’t forget now that their pill sends signals to their phone – “Don’t forget to take meeeee!!!”

Cigarette Smoke

Science Daily- According to physician-scientists at New York-Presbyterian Hospital exposure to even low-levels of cigarette smoke, including second hand smoke, may put people at risk for future lung disease such as lung cancer and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). While research showing that second hand smoke is dangerous isn’t new, this new group showed alterations in the genetic functioning of cells in the airway of those exposed. The researchers do point out that the alterations are less pronounced than in heavy smokers but say that even such low levels of smoke exposure can increase disease risk.

Brain Chemistry and regulation of cocaine intake

NIDA-  A regulatory protein, called MeCP2, that is found in the brain and best known for its role in a rare genetic brain disorder may play a critical role in cocaine addiction by regulating cocaine intake and perhaps in determining vulnerability to addiction. The researchers here found a complement to earlier NIDA research showing that as brain miRNA-212 levels increase, cocaine intake decrease. Apparently, it’s the balance between miRNA-212 and MeCP2 that is important.

Posted in:  Education, Links Tags: about addiction, addiction, addiction research, BAC, Brain, cigarette smoke, cocaine, cocaine intake, pill, psychedelics, second hand smoke, smoke

Depression and smoking relapse: Anhedonia doesn’t feel good.

August 17th, 2010

A recent study published in the Journal Nicotine & Tobacco research suggests that a particular aspect of depression, namely anhedonia, a.k.a “inability to feel good,” plays an important part in predicting how quickly smokers will relapse after trying to quit smoking. When it comes to addiction research, you can’t get much clearer than these results.

The researchers specified a number of factors in depression including: negative affect (feeling down), vegetative state (not moving much), and anhedonia, measuring that last one by making participants rate their expected pleasure to hypothetical pleasurable situations they were asked to imagine. They then split up the participants into three different treatment conditions that included slightly different procedures meant to help them quit smoking. All participants quit smoking immediately after attending the one-day assessment and instruction session. Following that day everyone returned to the lab after 24 hrs, 48 hrs, and then weekly for a total of four weeks to assess their smoking using fancy lab equipment.

When the researchers looked at the results, they saw that when separated into “high-anhedonia” and “low-anhedonia” groups, participants in the “high-anhedonia” group relapsed to smoking much more quickly, even when controlling for depression symptoms before quitting. In fact, 20 days after that initial session, more than half of the “low-anhedonia” participants were still not smoking while essentially none of the “high-anhedonia” participants had managed to quit.

As if it is isn’t hard enough to quit smoking, apparently, feeling like $&%@ just makes it harder… Hey, I never said addiction research would always bring good news!

Citation:

Cook, Spring, McChargue, and Doran (2010). Effects of anhedonia on days to relapse among smokers with a history of depression: A brief report. Nicotine & Tobacco Research.

Posted in:  Education, Tobacco Tags: addiction research, anhedonia, depression, quit smoking, smoking