Some Progress on Campus

I happened to be visiting Ramapo College in New Jersey the other evening and, in a hallway outside a counseling office, passed this display of literature aimed at reducing college drinking.  Didn't have a chance to meet the counselor or ask questions, but it looked like a big step forward from my college days (eons ago).  The bulletin board display points out that a large majority of students think that college students are heavy drinkers, whereas in fact, most students drink lightly.  The false expectation likely promotes heavy drinking behavior and the accurate survey tends to put on the brakes.  The display also includes handouts on alcohol and related issues. If material of this kind, backed by a proactive counseling staff and supported by the administration, had been available in my day, I might (might) have been spared three decades of alcoholic drinking.  

Empowering Your Sober Self -- the Class

As I noted here earlier, Prof. Arthur McCullough in Belfast announced a class on Empowering People Against Addictions at Queens University's Open Learning Centre. Now Prof. McCullough kindly sent me an email with a short report on how the session went:

Dear Martin,

The course Empowering People Against Addictions - 5 weekly two-hour sessions at Queen’s University Belfast Open Learning Centre – was completed last night. Its main inspiration is its recommended text Empowering Your Sober Self.  ...

As described in the Open Learning Programme, for Spring  2010: OLE1097 -  “This course is about how and why people get into addictions, and about how to get out of them. It covers major areas of addiction such as alcohol, drugs, gambling, sex; and related ones, such as isolation, suicide, physical and mental illness. Discussions involve perspectives in science, culture and society, and will focus on the recovery model.

There were 16 students mostly community, care and social work professionals or semi-professionals. About a quarter had had addictions. It’s been an exciting and interesting course, with LifeRing a point of departure all along. Two of the students say they are interested in a LifeRing in Belfast, and are in touch with Dennis Stefan (Dublin), who is interested and very willing to help. I think it could be very valuable here.  Every member of the course thinks so. ...

I thank Prof. McCullough, who appends this short bio:

Arthur McCullough was a Researcher in Organizational Studies at the University of Bradford, and Bradford Management Centre. He was Senior Lecturer at the University of Ulster, and later Head of its Department of Sociology and Social Anthropology. He is currently an Open Learning Tutor at Queen’s University Belfast providing courses on World Cinema, Tribal Art, Irish Art, Sacred Places Objects and Art in the Province of Ulster, and Empowering People against Addictions.

Needless perhaps to add, I hope that other educators find a place for Empowering Your Sober Self in their addiction-related classes.

Nice short book review

A tip of the hat to James in Ireland who posted a review of Empowering Your Sober Self on the goodreads.com website, here.

Catch me on Audrey's Show

Last August I had the privilege of being a guest on the Audrey Chapman show; see my blog post about it.  Today I had the honor of being invited back for a second appearance.  We recorded it today, and it'll air on Saturday, April 24 at 8 a.m. Eastern Standard Time, on WHUR-FM at 96.3 -- heard up and down the East Coast from Florida to New Jersey -- and via the Internet at http://www.whur.com.
Audrey has a great touch.  I've not had the pleasure to meet her in person, but if I were looking for a counselor to tell my troubles to, Audrey would be high on my list.  She's empathetic, she's widely read and well informed, and she has a knack for getting to the core of an issue in a heartbeat.  Try and catch the program; it'll run about 45 minutes, and it's focused on my new book, Empowering Your Sober Self. 

Ireland Leads the Way

A number of people have told me that my new book, Empowering Your Sober Self, would make a good classroom text in addiction recovery, but no one has done it  -- until now.  The pioneer is Arthur McCullough, BSc, BSSc, MA, at the Queen's University in Belfast.  The University has announced a new class beginning April 28, as follows:

Empowering People Against Addictions [OLE1097]

Arthur McCullough, BSc, BSSc, MA 5 weekly sessions on Wednesdays 7.00 pm to 9.00 pm, starting 28 April This course is about how and why people get into addictions, and about how they can get out of them. It covers major areas of addiction such as alcohol, drugs, gambling, sex; and related ones, such as isolation, suicide, physical and mental illness. Discussions involve perspectives in science, culture and society, and will focus on the recovery model. Recommended Textbook: Empowering your Sober Self, Martin Nicolaus, (Jossey-Bass. A Wiley Imprint). 5 CATS Points (Level 1) (concession rate £19.00) Full Price: £30.00

Here's the link if you want to sign up.  I'm grateful to Dennis S., LifeRing area convenor for Ireland, for spotting this web item and alerting me to it.

New criteria for addiction

The DSM -- Diagnostic and Statistical Manual -- defines the disorders that the psychiatric profession officially recognizes.  Where a patient has insurance coverage, the treatment professional needs to fit the client's issues into one of the recognized categories in order to obtain payment.  Thus the DSM is much like a statement of the law, which is why the making of each new edition of the DSM has been compared to the making of laws and sausages -- the less you see, the more you'll have respect. A participant in the making of the current edition, years ago, told me that it was like a smoke-filled room in old Chicago, with the loudest egos battering each other into submission. This year, the creators of the DSM-V have broken with that sordid tradition by opening a public window into the current state of the draft.  Dr. Nora Volkow, the director of the National Institute of Drug Abuse (NIDA) recently sent an email blast to just about everyone concerned with addiction to publicize the current draft and solicit comment.
I have been tied up with other work and have not had a chance to review the material.  Fortunately, LifeRing convenor Lloyd E. has stepped into the breach, and has composed the following comment, for which I am grateful to him:

Diagnostic criteria for the medical conditions commonly known as alcoholism and addiction will be significantly changed in the new DSM-5.  The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders  is produced by the American Psychiatric Association and is the standard diagnostic tool used by doctors and insurance companies.

The DSM-5 Substance-Use Disorders Workgroup is recommending that the currently separate categories of substance abuse and dependence be dropped in favor of a single disorder of graded clinical severity.

The DSM-4 used the terms “abuse” and “dependence” in an attempt to blunt the stigma of addiction, but they have proved untenable and misleading.  The term “dependence” is problematic because it encourages people to associate addiction to withdrawal symptoms rather than the obsessive nature of drug cravings.   And it is difficult to see why the word should be used for the ongoing condition of someone who is having success in recovery.  The term “abuse” has been criticized because it is a moral, not a medical, term.  And really, it is the addicted person who is abused, not the drug.  The new criteria will suggest a single continuum, instead of two discrete conditions.

The distinct diagnoses of substance dependence and abuse will be replaced by a single Substance-Use Disorder  with varying severity.   The disorder will have a subcategory for each of the popular drugs such as Alcohol-Use Disorder or Amphetamine-Use Disorder.

It is important to remember that the DSM is only a diagnostic tool.  It is not concerned with the biology or etiology of addiction. It does not preclude that specific biological changes may occur in the brain, but it bases diagnosis on behavioral criteria because the biology of the brain is not well enough understood and is not accessible to clinicians.

DSM-5 will identify Substance-Use Disorder as “a maladaptive pattern of substance use leading to clinically significant impairment or distress.”  The lists of manifestations previously given for abuse and dependence will be combined into one list.  If a person manifests two or three items, a diagnosis of “moderate” Substance-Use Disorder is given.  For four or more, the disorder qualifies as “severe.”  The presence of cravings, or strong desires use a specific substance, is proposed as an additional manifestation not present in DSM-4.  For those in recovery the disorder is characterized as being in various stages of remission from Early-partial to Sustained-Full remission.

The APA is soliciting comments until April 20, 2010.  The DSM-5 will be published in May 2013.

Substance-Use Disorder:

A.  A maladaptive pattern of substance use leading to clinically significant impairment or distress, as manifested by 2 (or more) of the following, occurring within a 12-month period: 

1. recurrent substance use resulting in a failure to fulfill major role obligations at work, school, or home (e.g., repeated absences or poor work performance related to substance use; substance-related absences, suspensions, or expulsions from school; neglect of children or household) 

2. recurrent substance use in situations in which it is physically hazardous (e.g., driving an automobile or operating a machine when impaired by substance use) 

3. continued substance use despite having persistent or recurrent social or interpersonal problems caused or exacerbated by the effects of the substance (e.g., arguments with spouse about consequences of intoxication, physical fights)

4. tolerance, as defined by either of the following: 

a.   a need for markedly increased amounts of the substance to achieve intoxication or desired effect 

b.   markedly diminished effect with continued use of the same amount of the substance

(Note: Tolerance is not counted for those taking medications under medical supervision such as analgesics, antidepressants, ant-anxiety medications or beta-blockers.)

5. withdrawal, as manifested by either of the following: 

a.   the characteristic withdrawal syndrome for the substance (refer to Criteria A and B of the criteria sets for Withdrawal from the specific substances) 

b.   the same (or a closely related) substance is taken to relieve or avoid withdrawal symptoms

(Note: Withdrawal is not counted for those taking medications under medical supervision such as analgesics, antidepressants, anti-anxiety medications or beta-blockers.)

6. the substance is often taken in larger amounts or over a longer period than was intended 

7. there is a persistent desire or unsuccessful efforts to cut down or control substance use 

8. a great deal of time is spent in activities necessary to obtain the substance, use the substance, or recover from its effects 

9. important social, occupational, or recreational activities are given up or reduced because of substance use 

10. the substance use is continued despite knowledge of having a persistent or recurrent physical or psychological problem that is likely to have been caused or exacerbated by the substance 

11. Craving or a strong desire or urge to use a specific substance.

Severity specifiers:

Moderate:  2-3 criteria positive

Severe:  4 or more criteria positive

Specify if:

With Physiological Dependence:  evidence of tolerance or withdrawal (i.e., either Item 4 or 5 is present)

Without Physiological Dependence:  no evidence of tolerance or withdrawal (i.e., neither Item 4 nor 5 is present) 

Course specifiers (see text for definitions):

Early Full Remission

Early Partial Remission

Sustained Full Remission

Sustained Partial Remission

On Agonist Therapy 

In a Controlled Environment

 For more details, click to the APA Call for Comments site.

Treatment Journal Reviews Empowering Your Sober Self

The current issue of Alcoholism Treatment Quarterly contains a review of my book Empowering Your Sober Self.  The reviewer, who is none other than the distinguished scholar William L. White (Slaying the Dragon and other works), writes, in conclusion:

In Empower Your Sober Self, Nicolaus has created an engaging text for individuals seeking recovery and for service professionals wanting a greater understanding of LifeRing’s core ideas and recovery support strategies. Empower Your Sober Self also includes the voices of many LifeRing members whose personal stories illustrate key points in the book.

 The discussions in this book include some of the more controversial issues in the addictions field. Nicolaus outlines positions on these issues clearly and forcefully and in ways that help distinguish LifeRing Secular Recovery from 12-step programs and from other 12-step alternatives. This book is intended to inform rather than convert. Not everyone will agree with the ideas and approaches set forth here, but for the past decade, individuals and families have used LifeRing Secular Recovery as an effective framework to initiate and maintain long-term recovery from life-impairing addictions. Those recoveries are cause for celebration, and this book details how they did it. Those seeking a solution to alcohol and other drug problems and professionals assisting people with such problems will find great value in Empower Your Sober Self.

This strikes me as a fair and even-handed assessment and I'm grateful to the writer.  It's also a good sign that the journal, which goes to the more research-minded echelons of the treatment profession and to academics, has taken note of this book.  Hopefully, the review -- and the book, for those who will read it -- will persuade a larger number of treatment professionals to include LifeRing meetings in their referral pool.

For a PDF copy of the complete review, click here.

P.S.  I've cross-posted this item in my LifeRing Convenor Blog.

Private Outpatient for Opiates, Done Right

Prescription drug abuse, especially by young people, is on the rise, and opiates like Vicodin and Oxycontin rank high on the list.  People with chronic pain all too often end up addicted to their medications.  People who got into  heroin or other opiates for recreational use or to self-medicate some psychic hurt frequently find themselves in deeper waters than they ever intended.  We meet all these people, among others, in LifeRing meetings, and one of the big concerns for them is anti-addiction medications.  In the past, the most common medication to treat opiate addiction was methadone.  Methadone continues in use, but buprenorphine (byou-pruh-NOR-feen) is the new kid on the block, and both physicians and patients are picking up on it because it's easier to administer, has fewer side effects, and less potential for abuse than methadone.  Buprenorphine is being used both to detox the person addicted to opiates and in some instances as a maintenance regime.

It isn't easy for the person who wants to address an opiate addiction to find proper care.  Apart from a few outstanding practitioners like Dr. Howard Kornfeld in Mill Valley, the patient who is without Kaiser coverage may not find any place to go.

That's slowly changing, as both physicians and patients become educated about new addiction pharmacology.  One of the bright signs of change in the field is the opening of Reliance Center in San Francisco.  Located on the third floor of the beautiful old 450 Sutter Street building, a block north of Union Square, this new outpatient clinic brings together a very high powered medical and counseling staff in a comfortable, almost living room atmosphere.

Putting physician and counselor on the same team tells me that these folks really "get it."  You need both the medical doctor and the empathetic psychological advisor to deal with an addiction.  I had the opportunity to meet and to look up the resumes of the key staff.  Dr. Carrie Schuman, Medical Director, has treated people with opiate dependence for more than 25 years.  She's a leading member of the California Society of Addiction Medicine and a member of the national addiction medicine group.  This physician knows what she's talking about when it comes to opiate addiction, and she also projects a warm, caring, nonjudgmental attitude.  On the counseling side, there's Lubov Smith, a Licensed Marriage and Family Therapist, who comes to the Reliance Center from years as Executive Director of the Henry Ohloff Centers, one of the oldest addiction treatment programs in the area.  She's bright, funny, and very knowing.  If I had an opiate addiction issue, I'd put myself into the hands of this team without hesitation.  Check them out at http://reliancecenter.com.

Professionals who include pharmacological tools in their recovery approach are often pleasantly surprised to learn that abstinence support groups exist that are open to patients who are taking these medications.  More than ten years ago, the medical director of a local treatment facility complained to me about the "G**damn 12-step sponsors who interfere with my treatment plans."  Although AA co-founder Bill W. was personally very positive about anti-addiction medications, the organization he founded contains a strong streak of anti-medication Luddites, who in many instances tell the recovering person to throw away their anti-depressants and other prescription drugs, or they're not really considered "sober."  That hasn't changed in the past ten years, judging by recent stories I've heard.  And so, when a support group like LifeRing comes along, with a more evidence-based approach, physicians' interest perks up.

In the past few years, LifeRing has mounted exhibit tables at conferences of addiction counselor groups such as NAADAC and CAADAC and at APA events (American Psychological Association).  If we can raise the money -- it costs at least $1000 to exhibit at one of these events -- we hope to exhibit next year also at ASAM and CSAM -- the American and California Societies of Addiction Medicine.  With our evidence-based supportive approach to anti-addiction pharmacology, LifeRing should get a positive reception from these professional groupings.

Goodbye Genetics, Hello Epigenetics

For the first time in history, science now has tools that can definitively answer long-standing questions about the role of genetics as the cause of diseases.  So far, the results have been devastating for believers in genetic causality.  The better we can see, the less genetic causality we find.

I've previously summarized the minimalist findings of modern genetics research for a number of psychiatric disorders, including addiction, here and here in this blog, and in my book, Empowering Your Sober Self.

Now comes another blockbuster study, this time of schizophrenia, a disease commonly believed to have a strong genetic component.  According to the November issue of Scientific American, summarizing a recent report in Nature, "three crack teams of investigators pooled genomic data from 8,000 schizophrenics of European ancestry but could lay claim to only a handful of weak genetic risk markers."

By contrast, says the same article, epidemiologists have been able to find significant correlations between schizophrenia and environmental and cultural conditions.  Growing up as an immigrant or as a racial minority in a big city, particularly in densely populated and troubled neighborhoods, is a significant risk factor for the disease.

These studies have given a boost to the field of epigenetics -- the study of how environmental conditions evoke or overwrite genetic predispositions.  The primitive notion that our DNA is our destiny is giving way to the understanding that our genes do nothing until they are activated.  Environmental conditions (including not only the chemicals that enter our body but also the decisions we make, the people we hang with, and the stress we undergo) determine whether a gene gets turned on or off.  Our genetic array is like a keyboard, and our interaction with the world governs what melody gets played on it.

By coincidence, a recent issue of Counselor, the magazine for addiction professionals, features an article, "Epigenetics Has Come to the Addiction Field," by Mike Taleff, Ph.D.  Taleff's main point is that it's not genetics that makes a person an alcoholic or other addict.  It is the repeated consumption of alcohol and other drugs that programs a person's genetic material to crave the drug and prioritize its consumption.

This epigenetic understanding, says Taleff, can help a recovering person shed some common myths, such as the belief that "they are somehow morally, bad, defective, or otherwise flawed.  Often, this kind of thinking gets in the way of recovery."  Epigenetics teaches, by contrast, that becoming addicted "has little to do with your moral character."  Addiction is a result of the programming that addictive substances perform on your brain.

Many questions remain to be settled before science can claim that we have a comprehensive understanding of the causes of addiction.  But progress is being made.  For decades, addictionology was stuck in the belief that the alcoholic/addict's disorder was genetically programmed. Thanks to the enormous strides made by genetic science in the past decades, with the deciphering of the human genome and the subsequent advances, we can now say with considerable certainty that genetics supplies only a weak explanation at best. Now we need to turn our eyes toward the epigenetic factors:  environment, culture, and above all the neurochemical properties of the addictive substances themselves.

Cover story

The cover of my new book -- Empowering Your Sober Self -- is going to appear as a prop in the forthcoming made-for-TV movie "Sins of the Mother."  According to the synopsis, the heroine, Kim, postpones writing her Ph.D. thesis to go live with her mother, a recovering alcoholic.  To establish the mother's character, the camera scans the books on her coffee table, and lingers on "Empowering Your Sober Self."

Just so you know, this is not a paid product placement.  A member of the film staff ran across the book in a bookstore and asked my publisher for permission to feature it as a prop.  The movie will air on Lifetime Television. Date not yet known.  The producer is Mother Road Productions Ltd in Vancouver BC.

Oh, and a review of my book, by William L. White, will appear in the next issue of Alcoholism Treatment Quarterly.  White also wrote the preface for my book, and it is expected that the review will closely track the preface.  It will not mention the cover.

What If There Were LifeRing Treatment?

[I'm cross-posting this item both here and in my LifeRing Convenor blog. Lately I've been posting a lot more to the convenor blog than here.] 

Quite a few recovering people in various treatment programs have expressed the wish that LifeRing filled more than an hour in their week.  The desire for "more LifeRing" is especially strongly felt in programs where the other hours consist of heavy-duty 12-step lectures and meetings.

Of course, there is no such thing as a LifeRing treatment program, and there probably oughtn't to be.  We are a peer-to-peer support group, and should always remain that.  So much of our fundamental approach is premised on horizontal support dynamics that the introduction of vertical relationships -- inevitable in today's insurance-dominated treatment settings -- would bring about wrenching distortions.  Still, wouldn't it be liberating if today's treatment professionals saw their role as not only facilitating 12-step involvement but also facilitating LifeRing involvement?  Whatever works best for the client?

For treatment professionals in Northern California, an opportunity to learn the basics of LifeRing is coming on Saturday, Sept. 19.  Thanks to sponsorship by CAADAC, the California association of addiction professionals, I'll be presenting an all-day workshop at the LifeRing Service Center in downtown Oakland.  I'll be selecting material from Empowering Your Sober Self (my new book), from the Recovery by Choice workbook, from How Was Your Week (our convenor handbook) and from other sources.  This six-hour program is aimed at treatment professionals, and six hours of Continuing Education credit, plus an hour of Professional Development credit, are offered.  However, space permitting, any interested person, including of course any LifeRing participant, is welcome to take part.  It only costs $10.

Here's a page with details about the venue, parking, meals, etc.  Hope to see you there!

On the Air with Audrey Chapman

It was my great pleasure this morning to appear via telephone on the Audrey Chapman show, broadcast in the Washington DC area on WHUR-FM at 96.3 and via the Internet at http://www.whur.com. Audrey is a relationship specialist who has written several books on love and its problems. She's active as a writer and speaker and also maintains a busy counseling practice. She talks with radio listeners every Saturday morning from 8 - 10 am (5 -7 a.m. my time), and her show is said to have a huge morning audience up and down the East Coast.

From the first words, you can see why Audrey has such a following. She's calm, she's clear, she's relaxed; she projects empathy without judgment. You immediately feel comfortable talking to her, telling her your problems. She also sees right to the heart of an issue. She couldn't have had much time to read my new book, but she clearly understood the main points. Her questions were relevant and moved the conversation forward.

Audrey thrives on the freshness and urgency of listener calls. And her callers didn't disappoint. In just a few conversations, much of the huge panorama of addiction problems in the society was laid out before us. A grown up woman was concerned with the drinking of the auntie who raised her. A mother was troubled by her teenage son's drinking. A father worried that his own drinking was leading his son into alcoholism. And so on. Addiction is an enormous problem, and there are people everywhere struggling with it.

We don't yet have LifeRing meetings in the D.C. area, but I had the opportunity to tell listeners about www.lifering.org, our website. I was pleased that Audrey asked me to stay on into the second hour of her show. There was still much more that could have been said, and I had to bite my tongue once or twice when callers pushed concepts and solutions that have very limited utility. But I loved the live interaction, and I could see myself engaged in a longer and very interesting conversation with Audrey on some other occasion. She's smart and she has an open mind and a great way with people.

Check out her website at audreychapman.com.

Empowering Your Sober Self: The LifeRing Approach to Addiction Recovery

Jacqueline Foreman (right) interviews me on Your Mental Health Talk Radio about my new book, here:

Empowering Your Sober Self: The LifeRing Approach to Addiction Recovery

The program aired July 7 2009 at 5 pm Pacific Time.

Treatment promo research results

From the treatmentgap.org website:

Most Americans know someone personally who is addicted to alcohol or drugs and they are worried about access people have to affordable treatment. And, most people support including treatment in national health care reform. These opinions are shared across the board—regardless of race, age, income and geographic location.

Results of a new national poll conducted by Lake Research Partners for the Closing the Addiction Treatment Gap initiative confirm what we suspected: Most Americans know someone personally who is addicted to alcohol or drugs and they are worried about access people have to affordable treatment. And, most people support including treatment in national health care reform. These opinions are shared across the board—regardless of race, age, income and geographic location.

Among the key findings of the national poll, conducted by Lake Research Partners:

• Three-quarters of Americans (76%) know someone personally who has been addicted to alcohol or drugs. Personal experience with addiction spans all demographic groups.

• Half of Americans (49%) do not think they would be able to afford the costs of treatment if they or a family member needed it. This concern about affordability is highest among Americans with incomes under $50,000 (67% say they would not be able to afford treatment).

• Three-quarters (75%) of Americans are concerned that people who are addicted to alcohol or drugs may not be able to get treatment because they lack insurance coverage or cannot afford it.

• Nearly three-quarters (73%) support including alcohol and drug addition treatment as part of national health care reform to make it more accessible and affordable. This support cuts across all demographic groups.

• Two-thirds of Americans (68%) also support increasing federal and state funding for alcohol and drug prevention, treatment, and recovery services.

The finding that three quarters of Americans know someone personally who has been addicted to alcohol or drugs confirms what many recovering people find through personal experience: when you broach the subject, practically every person you talk to has a story about someone who is or was addicted.

Not researched in this study, which was funded by treatment industry interests, is how many Americans know someone for whom addiction treatment did not work. The industry not only has an affordability gap, it has a credibility gap.

They laughed at him

A little while ago, a gentleman -- let's call him "Guy" -- phoned to say that he had just read my book and wanted to start a LifeRing meeting. Guy said he is more than 20 years clean and sober in AA, and is one of the better known AA speakers in his region.

He happened to go to his favorite recovery bookstore, and this title, Empowering Your Sober Self, "jumped out at me." He bought it and over the next 24 hours read it straight through. He said he had been reading recovery literature for nearly 30 years and nothing had resonated with him enough to pick up the phone and call the author, until this book.

He said he liked AA enormously but after more than 20 years, he felt it was always the same thing, and it wasn't going anywhere, and he wanted the challenge of moving forward. The LifeRing concept really spoke to him.

He wanted to start a LifeRing meeting in his area, and he outlined a plan to go speak with some head people at a number of treatment programs with which he was familiar, having often spoken there, in order to get a room and referrals. Of course, I encouraged him, but at the same time I cautioned him that his enthusiasm might not be shared by some of his AA friends.

And so it was. At the first program where he spoke with the chief, he was told that the facility's board of directors was unlikely to go with anything other than 12 step.

He then took the book to his home group, and presented a share about the "A" and the "S" -- the addict self and the sober self. He said, "They laughed at me." They agreed about the "A" but they couldn't wrap their minds around the concept that there was an "S" -- a sober self -- inside the alcoholic's head. His talk met with sarcasm and ridicule.

It reminds me of Gandhi's famous saying:

"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win."

To his everlasting credit, Guy wasn't intimidated. He's going to speak to other treatment professionals. I shared with him that a number of senior people in 12-step programs have been expressing interest in the LifeRing option. He's now reading How Was Your Week in order to prepare for the convenor role. He's making plans to come visit Northern California in September so he can see LifeRing meetings first hand.

A Reader Writes With More Reading

One of the readers of this blog was kind enough to email me with the following information, which I pass on as received:

mr. nicolaus,

i'm a regular reader (& sometime commenter) of your "new recovery" blog. i'm writing to draw your attention to a few items i think might be of interest to you:

1 - the april/may 2009 issue of "Free Inquiry" magazine ran a great piece by Steven Mohr entitled "Exposing The Myth of Alcoholics Anonymous"; "Free Inquiry" is the first American publication to take AA head-on in a long, long time & the article is thorough & even-handed (unfortunately, you have to pick up a hard copy as the contents aren't available online)

2 - Dr. Harriet Hall (www.sciencebasedmedicine.org, www.skepdoc.info) ran a blog post on the above article & gave an MD's view of the article & the organization (http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=490); i thought that might be of interest as well

3 - at my request, Dr. Hall visited & commented on a blog post at www.mentalhelp.net (http://www.mentalhelp.net/poc/view_doc.php?type=weblog&id=700&wlid=5&cn=14); the "editorial comment" to her post was -- putting it mildly -- elusive & openly condescending to any lay critique of AA; again, i was hoping this might be of interest of to you & that you might want to lend your voice to the discussion.

in any case, i thank you for your time & wish you all the best with your book. i'll be visiting the blog & www.unhooked.com regularly.

warmest regards,

peter [Name withheld]

donewithaa.wordpress.com

Choice Theory Conference

It was my privilege yesterday to attend the Choice Theory Education Conference at the Hilton in Sacramento. I staffed a LifeRing literature table there, met with LifeRing convenors and future convenors, attended some of the sessions, and met some of the leading figures in the choice movement.

Georgellen Hofine, one of the oldest students of Choice Theory founder Dr. William Glasser (photo), personally welcomed me to the gathering. LifeRing keynote speaker and DVD author Dr. B. J. Davis was the closing speaker on the conference program, and I much enjoyed listening to his presentation and chatting with him informally.

Choice Theory advocates Resa Stendel Brown and Jack Harnden spoke about the application of Choice Theory in education. Author Mike Rice gave a talk on addiction. B. J. Davis, in addition to his own discussion of Choice Theory in addiction treatment settings, introduced a DVD showing how Reality Therapy (an earlier name for Choice Theory) was applied in a prison setting.

I took time out to meet and chat with convenors of the LifeRing meetings in Placerville and one of the Sacramento locations. One of the conference participants expressed determination to start a LifeRing meeting in Lodi. Two of the treatment professionals in attendance spoke of plans to start LifeRing meetings at their centers in the Sacramento area.

It was a very positive crowd, including quite a few people with an interest in addiction recovery, and I should have brought more books, as Empowering Your Sober Self sold out by noon.

The only shadow over the event was the news that Dr. Glasser himself, who had been scheduled as keynote speaker, had been admitted to the hospital with a cardiac issue. There is as of this writing no further news on his condition.

LifeRing in New Living (NY)

An excerpt adapted from Chapter 2 of my new book (Empowering Your Sober Self) appears in the April issue of New Living, a free 20-p health and wellness newspaper published in Stony Brook NY and distributed in the New York City area and Long Island.

This chapter from my book contains a set of tips and exercises designed to help the person who wants to stop using addictive substances to move across the gap from contemplation to action. They include visualization, laughter, self-forgiveness, reframing, exercise, and other attitude-builders. I wrote a 900-word excerpt for the paper.

The editors took some minor liberties with the chapter. They took the sentence, "Becoming drug or alcohol-free can exhilarate you and enable you to accomplish great things in life," and added the phrase "... and perhaps, more importantly, give you gratitude and humility, two spiritual qualities hard to find in most people."

OK, I may not be the most original writer in the world. But I try not to stoop to moth-eaten cliches like "gratitude and humility." But it's good to have the article in the paper, with a plug for the book, and a plug for the two LifeRing meetings in Long Island; and I guess there's a small price to pay for that. I am humbly grateful.

Class war in California counseling

In California you need a license to fix cars, cut hair, paint fingernails, give massages, and much else. But not to provide addiction treatment. You can be a high school dropout with a history of petty crime and mental hospital stays, and you may find work as a counselor treating people who suffer from addiction. There are in fact a substantial number of high school dropouts working as front-line counselors in the field today.

Yet, at the same time, the addiction counseling industry insists, almost with one voice, that addiction is a disease. Just like diabetes, atherosclerosis, hypertension, and the rest. Now, if addiction is a disease, then addiction treatment must be a branch of medicine. No?

How many other branches of medicine do you know where the front-line treatment providers -- the physicians and RNs who hold the patient's recovery in their hands -- are high school dropouts? Or high school graduates, without more? Or have junior college degrees, only? There are none. Addiction treatment is way out of line, far, far below the standard of the rest of medicine -- if in fact it deserves the name "medicine" at all.

To be sure, there are quality treatment programs where addiction professionals are held to the same high standard as other providers. At the Kaiser Chemical Dependency Recovery Programs, for example, there is supervision by an MD, and each of the counselors has a professional license or certification as a Licensed Clinical Social Worker, Marriage and Family Therapist, Registered Nurse, or a similar qualification that requires graduate level education and thousands of hours of supervised training. But these islands of quality are, unfortunately, just islands.

Several organizations in California have been trying for years to pass legislation that would require standards of training, education, licensure and certification for addiction counselors comparable to those in other clinical professions. The current effort is Senate Bill 707. It is a complex piece of legislation and I won't try to analyze it here in detail. What's most interesting about it, really, is the controversy that surrounds it.

On the one hand, there are voices crying that it doesn't go far enough. Today's email, for example, brings a post from Dennis W., a member of the board of one of the counselors' organizations, complaining that the draft bill is so watered down as to be useless. It puts counselors with a GED and 350 hours of counseling experience on the same level as those who have a master's degree in addiction studies. He says that the bill in this form "will continue to keep the addiction service profession in California the sub-standard field that all other states in the US look down upon."

On the other hand, the bill has been the target of a barrage of attacks charging that it goes too far. If it passes, say these voices, program costs will rise, programs will go out of business, and counselors by the thousands will be out of jobs. What's that about?

The current newsletter of one of the other addiction professionals' organizations explains:

Simply put, associations representing program owners are attempting to defeat the measure by “scaring” counselors from supporting it. The truth is, they’ve opposed every bill put forward to recognize your professionalism. More than half of the states have licensure and none of their treatment systems were shut down due to licensure or certification. Standards for counselors improves salaries, raises treatment outcomes and reduces the strains on public sector treatment as addicts seek treatment from private practitioners.

So there you have it. It's class war. On one side, the counselors who aspire to professional status and to the salaries, benefits, and respect that come with it. On the other side, associations representing owners of treatment programs whose profit rate depends on filling their staff rosters with people who have little education, training, or other claims to professional advancement.

Now you can begin to understand a little more clearly why much of the addiction industry is so heavily invested in the 12-step approach. The 12-step approach does not require much in the way of professional education. If you've done the steps and you can repeat a basic set of slogans for any occasion, you're qualified to "carry the message" to others. Of course, you're not supposed to be getting paid for doing that, but you're being paid so little as a counselor that you might as well be doing it for free. If Karl Marx were looking at this, he might say that the 12-step organizations continuously generate a "reserve army of labor" for the treatment industry -- a flood of workers willing to work for substandard wages and under substandard conditions. And this "reserve army" necessarily depresses the wages and conditions of the whole labor force. No wonder, then, that the owners' associations oppose the counselors' campaign to pass laws that would upgrade professional standards.

Don't drink that marshmallow

The marshamallow experiments are famous by now, thanks in large part to Daniel Goleman's Emotional Intelligence books, and their relevance to addiction seems obvious.  In 1968, Stanford psychology prof Walter Mischel presented four-year olds with a marshmallow and the choice: Eat it now, or wait 15 minutes and get two.  The kids who could delay the gratification ended up, a decade and more later, with higher SAT scores, higher graduation rates, better jobs -- in short, twice as many of the marshmallows life had to offer.  

It was often believed that the kids who could delay gratification did so thanks to more "will power."  Mischel -- according to a helpful and informative summary in this week's New Yorker, by Jonah Lehrer -- analyzed what this "will power" really consisted of.  He paid very careful attention to what went through the delaying kids' minds as they resisted the bait.  They succeeded because they had methods of distracting their minds from the lure.  They covered their eyes, or played hide-and-seek under the desk, or sang songs.  "Their desire wasn't defeated -- it was merely forgotten."  The key, Mischel found, was not to resist the marshmallow -- that didn't work --- but to avoid thinking about it.  

In further experiments, Mischel found that children could be taught cognitive tricks that helped them distract themselves.  Even reducing the intensity of the temptation by pretending that the marshmallow was only a picture of a marshmallow or that the marshmallow was really a cloud worked for some children.   

Mischel and other researchers Lehrer quotes are skeptical of finding a genetic basis for the ability to delay gratification.  Too many genes are involved in even the simplest aspects of personality.  The cutting edge of research lies in classroom curricula that teach self-distraction, and in educating parents to cultivate simple cognitive skills in children.  Says Mischel:

"We should give mashmallows to every kindergartner... We should say, 'You see this marshmallow"  You don't have to eat it.  You can wait.  Here's how.'"

No Such Thing as a Bad Person Addicted to Alcohol

Had the pleasure today to hear and meet Charles D. Appelstein, author of No Such Thing as a Bad Kid and other works expounding the strength-based approach to working with at-risk youth.  

Charlie was keynoter  at the 12th annual Northern California Tobacco, Alcohol, Drug Educator and Youth Development Conference at UC Berkeley, where I staffed a LifeRing exhibit table.  He's a fun speaker, gets the audience laughing, chanting, and singing, all the time delivering key points of a message that is in many respects revolutionary.  

When a teacher or counselor begins work with troubled kids -- also "trouble kids" -- the key thing is attitude, Charlie began.  The successful attitude, he said, is "I believe in you.  You are a great kid.  You can do great things."  This attitude transfers to the kid; it makes the kids feel good about themselves, it gives them hope, and it inspires them to change for the better.

Afterward we chatted about addiction treatment, and I told him that LifeRing was one of the strength-based approaches in this field.  He expressed great interest.  We also exchanged books; he gave me his and I gave him mine.  

I also had the opportunity to chat with Tom Herman of the State Department of Education, Dr. Alex Stalcup of the New Leaf Treatment Center, Ralph Cantor of the local County Office of Education, and a number of substance abuse program administrators, teachers, cops, and others in and around K-12 education who are concerned with the drug issue.  The message that there's a secular, strength-based addiction recovery support network out there was welcome news to many ears.  

First call

Had the first telephone call today from an arms-length reader of Empowering Your Sober Self, my new book.  A counselor in San Diego called on the 800 line to say he had a number of clients who were not responding to 12-step and this looked like just the right approach for them.  Wanted to know were there local meetings (not yet) and how they could connect with us (online).  "Very glad to see you exist.  This is much needed."

Seattle police chief tapped as 'Drug Czar'

Rumors last month that Rep. Jim Ramstad was headed for the post of 'Drug Czar' proved unfounded, as Pres. Obama has reportedly nominated Seattle Police Chief Gil Kerlikowske for the post, instead.  Kerlikowske has earned generally positive reviews, but it's too early to say, if he's confirmed by the Senate, what he's likely to do as top commander of the 'war on drugs.'  Obama is on record that this 'war' has been a colossal failure.  There's grounds for hope that Kerlikowski will redirect the mission of this cabinet-level office more toward treatment, prevention, and a public health approach, rather than the nightstick-and-prison medicine that has prevailed.  For an eloquent statement advocating such a change in mission, read Victor Capoccia's op-ed in the Baltimore press, here.  Capoccia is head of the Closing the Addiction Treatment Gap initiative.  

Well said, in Washington

The Bush years, by wide consensus, were a dismal era for science.  But by a strange paradox, some bright stars emerged in what is normally a dismal field under any administration: addiction science.  

One is the brilliant Nora Volkow, who brings a rare mix of research experience, clear thinking, and leadership ability to the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA).  

Another is Mark Willenbring, Director of the Division of Treatment and Recovery Research at the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA).  In a letter to the current New Yorker (the one with the cartoon of Obama as George Washington on the cover), Willenbring precisely skewers a piece that this normally astute mag published in its December 1 issue.  The article, titled "Special Treatment," by Amanda Fortini, featured a Los Angeles area deluxe treatment facility.  

After a string of well-worn 12-step platitudes about addiction and the difficulties of recovery, the owners of the facility claimed that in essence treatment could make no difference, everything depended on the addicted person's motivation.  So why bill the client for clinical services on top of the normal cost of luxury room and board? 

Willenbring's letter goes directly for the jugular.  He writes that the piece:

... shows the irony that paying more does not guarantee access to the most current therapies... The program that Fortini describes appears to base its services on a treatment model that is more than thirty years old .... Although clients may or may not receive some benefit, they are vulnerable to unnecessary relapse risk if more contemporary treatments are not also made available.  For example, research funded by the National Institutes of Health has identified several medications that reduce relapse in early recovery from alcohol dependence.  Newer behavioral approaches, such as cognitive-behavior therapy and motivational interviewing, also increase recovery and provide alternatives to the traditional Twelve Step approach (which in updated form is also effective).  This menu of services makes possible truly individualized treament and  increases client choice and engagement, but only if people have access to it.

The treatment program Fortini described in her article was so clinically clueless and bereft of ideas that the piece might have been a subliminal parody.  It isn't often that I get to cheer somebody in Washington for saying the right stuff.  Could this be the beginning of a change we can believe in?  

Congratulations to Barack Obama

As a college student at Wesleyan in '61 (or was it '62?) I joined with other white students to team with groups of black students from Howard University in an effort to integrate lunch counters in Glen Burnie, a suburb of Baltimore.  In some places we sat indefinitely without being served; in one, we were served coffee with salt in it; at another they locked the doors as we approached.  When we picketed the segregated local movie theatre, a mob of white men surrounded us as sheriffs watched.  A providential cloudburst scattered the crowd and allowed us to escape.  

On the night of election day in 1964, I arrived at the civil rights movement headquarters in Jackson, Mississippi, to begin a few months of volunteer work.  Nearly everyone was glued to the TV set to see whether the Democratic Party would seat the elected black delegates running under the banner of the Freedom Democratic Party.  The answer was, no.  

These and other memories came upwelling as I watched the inauguration of Barack Obama.   The party that wouldn't seat elected black delegates had nominated a black man for president.  A man whose father would not have been served at DC area restaurants 60 years ago was taking the oath of office.   Indeed, there has been some changes.

This morning's San Francisco Chronicle editorializes that Obama's new approach is "grounded in sobriety and hard work."  The "sobriety" that's meant here is, I assume, the metaphorical kind -- a pragmatic, realistic attitude -- and not the literal kind, meaning abstinence from alcoholic drink.  Yet there's a connection to reflect on, here.  

For me, personally, my time of active engagement in the civil rights movement was largely a time when my alcoholism (acquired in my freshman year in college) was in remission.  Engagement in life-changing work was hugely more interesting than drink.  My drinking habit only bloomed large during the years of reaction that followed, when it seemed that everything we had done was being undone.  Pessimism, despair, lack of hope were the atmosphere in which this illness flourished.  And I'm not the only one.  Is it an accident that the drug problem grew larger in rough proportion as conditions for the poor and middle class in America stagnated and deteriorated?  

Barack Obama's own history with alcohol and other drugs offers a refreshing contrast to that of his predecessor in office.  Obama has freely and openly admitted experimenting with drugs as a youth, but then stopped; he is trying to quit, or has quit, smoking.  What a contrast to the history of "W," whose claimed mid-life alcohol salvation story is widely believed to be a sham that covered up more than it revealed, notably a long history of cocaine use, some say.  

I've not yet seen anything in the way of Obama's statements so far that gives a clue to his specific policies on alcoholism and other addictions.  The federal government has many levers to pull and many dollars to spend in this area.  On general principles, I assume that Obama will support the recent extension of parity in the treatment of mental health and addiction treatment.  I assume that the federal agencies in this area will continue to be funded.  

The open questions in my mind are (a)  War on Drugs, and (b) Federal excise taxes on spirits and tobacco.  We need "change we can believe in" in the "war on drugs," a criminal exercise in hypocrisy and racial/economic persecution that is long overdue for radical reform.  An even more telling mark of Obama's mettle will be whether he supports Congressional action to raise the excise taxes on liquor and tobacco.  Public health advocates have long maintained that raising these taxes is the single most effective measure to reduce the social impact of these two most murderous addictive drugs.  Needless to say, the pillars of corporate greed stand deeply dug in on this issue.

The largest opening in the clouds under this new administration will be in the area of improving living standards and reducing inequities for the poor and middle class.  If the real and emotional environment of ordinary people in this country becomes infused with progress and hope, the problems of alcohol and other drugs will recede as if of their own accord.  It will take some time, but if the new administration succeeds in this largest and most difficult of goals, we will, in fact, see a new era of "sobriety" in both senses of the word.

Congratulations to President Barack Obama, and best wishes for the future.

P.S.  To date, the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy remains under an interim head, Patrick Ward, a Bush appointee who has held the post a bit over a year.  Obama's choice of Rep. Jim Ramstad to become the new Drug Czar has run into heavy fire for Ramstad's ties to abusive "faith-based" programs, his policy positions on prevention, and his ties to a massive investor fraud.  Read Maia Szalavitz's blog blast and the Drug Policy Alliance editorial.  Ramstad is not change, he's MOTSOS.  

End Stage

Is nothing sacred? Michael Shermer, Scientific American's Skeptic columnist, reports in the November issue that one of the icons of psychology, the five stages of grief, has been debunked.

Launched by Elizabeth Kubler-Ross in her book On Death and Dying (1969), the model of denial-anger-bargaining-depression-acceptance is one of the most widely known paradigms in modern psychology. But, according to Shermer's sources, there appears to be no evidence that most people most of the time go through most of those stages in that order, or any other order.

The five stages of grief, along with similar "stage" theories, Shermer says, satisfy people's craving for simplicity and predictability. Unfortunately, the scientific basis for them is just not there. And they can also impose feelings of guilt and shame on people who are not feeling what they think they should. And, in today's world, people who follow the simple "stages" narrative are the exception, while diversity and individual variation are the rule.

Good grief! What's next? Are we going to learn that there is no evidence that most people recovering from addiction go through a certain well known set of steps?

Genetics of mental illnesses: More is Less

Genetic research into psychiatic disorders appears to be undergoing a systemic deflation not unlike that in the financial markets. As I posted a couple of weeks ago, a survey article in the then-current Scientific American showed that genetic studies of human intelligence had labored mountainously and brought forth a 0.4 per cent mouse. Today comes a special issue of Nature Neuroscience dedicated to the neuropsychiatric diseases, and it's the same story. The initial radiant hope that today's mega-billion dollar genetic research apparatus would nail the culprit genes responsible for schizophrenia, autism, bipolar disorder, or depression, has dimmed to a faint glimmer. The more we can see, the less we find.

In the roundup article, Steven Hyman (Department of Neurobiology, Harvard) works hard at sounding upbeat, but has little to work with. Family studies, rich in anecdotal material, suggest that autism, schizophrenia, bipolar illness, and major depression must have major genetic components. Therefore it should be a simple matter to find the genes, and then to develop medications that target those genes.

Over the past two decades, however, efforts to identify risk-conferring alleles for the common forms of neuropsychiatric disorder have largely been unrewarding. Despite the significant role for genes highlighted by aggregate measures of their influence (Table 1), the underlying genetics of common neuropsychiatric disorders has proved highly complex, as attested by unpredictable patterns of segregation in families, lack of Mendelian ratios in twin studies and serious difficulties in replicating genetic linkage studies.

Anecdotes notwithstanding, the given illness frequently appears in people without the suspected genetic traits, fails to appear in people with the traits, and appears in people with other traits believed to be associated with an entirely disparate disorder. Current technology can easily identify "highly penetrant" genetic variations that cause a narrow subset of disorders, such as some types of Alzheimer's disease and macular degeneration, but the candidate genes involved with the most common psychiatric disorders make only a very slight dent in the etiology. It doesn't help that the clinical definitions of the psychiatric disorders tend to lack objective physiological markers, so that diagnosis rests ultimately on clinicians' opinions, which may vary widely.

Neither Hyman's article nor the remaining items in the special issue of Nature Neuroscience focus on addictive substance abuse, but you could substitute "alcoholism" into the paragraphs just quoted and come out with the same result. I've summarized the research on that topic in my forthcoming book. By April, when the book comes out, it should be amply clear that the deflation of the genetic myth in alcoholism is only part of a larger panorama of reassessment. The better our genetic research tools become, the more clearly we can see, the more obvious it becomes that we cannot blame our genes for our disorders, nor can we hope for a magic pill to set us right. It's just not going to be that easy.

Genetics: The more we see, the less there is

In the concluding chapter of my forthcoming book (link), I look at the evidence for an alcoholism gene.  My research showed that the more powerful our tools become, the less we find in the way of genetic causality.  Modern genetic research has wiped away any basis for the idea that alcoholism is a genetically transmitted disease.  The most that can be said is that some people appear to inherit a lower responsiveness to alcohol, so that if they drink, they must drink more to get the same high.  For details, see my book, due out in April.  

Now comes an article in Scientific American, by science journalist Carl Zimmer,  reporting on modern research into the genetics of intelligence.  Here too, the conventional wisdom has been that genes play a major role.  But when the most powerful computer-assisted research tools are turned on the human genome, the supposed genetic factor all but evaporates.  Intelligence turns out to depend very weakly on a diversity of genes. The most influential of these genes contributes just 0.4 per cent (less than one half of one per cent), and this gene is believed to influence also a variety of other cell functions -- so that it is not specific to intelligence as such.  

Much of the myth of genetic causality rests on twin studies.  This is true both in alcoholism and in intelligence research, as well as in other fields (for example, autism).   Zimmer cites research showing that twin studies involving affluent families show a strong apparent genetic influence, while similar studies involving twins from poorer families show virtually no genetic factor at work.  The modern molecular genetic studies suggest that the apparent genetic influence reported in some twin studies may be a chimera due to false methodological assumptions.   Twin studies have been severely criticized, and some scientists consider them junk.  The SciAm article is in the October 2008 issue at p. 68; a link is (temporarily) here.

Spirituality strikes out

Two controlled trials of the effect of spirituality on addiction recovery showed no improvement for the patients given spiritual guidance as part of the usual treatment regimen, either in their addiction recovery or in their spiritual practices.  In fact, in one trial, the patients provided with spiritual guidance made less progress in overcoming depression and anxiety than the patients not given spiritual treatment.

Details are in the Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, July 25 2008.  The abstract is here.  Thanks to David Kaiser Ph.D. for flagging the item.  

Invitation to Guest Authors

Guest authors are invited to contribute to this blog. I have to take another break until the end of June. I'm working on a book with a June 30 deadline.

Confrontation Therapy, R.I.P.

Two of my favorite scholars have combined to write a powerhouse of an article that everyone interested in addiction treatment will want to read. William R. Miller, co-author of the Handbook of Alcoholism Treatment Approaches (reviewed here), and William L. White, author of the monumental history Slaying the Dragon (reviewed here), have written what hopefully will be an obituary for an era, entitled "Confrontation in Addiction Treatment." It's in Counselor Magazine. Here are a few snippets from this substantial, strongly researched and comprehensive treatment:

The use of confrontational strategies in individual, group and family substance abuse counseling emerged through a confluence of cultural factors in U.S. history, pre-dating the development of methods for reliably evaluating the effects of such treatment. Originally practiced within voluntary peer-based communities, confrontational approaches soon extended to authority-based professional relationships where the potential for abuse and harm greatly increased. Four decades of research have failed to yield a single clinical trial showing efficacy of confrontational counseling, whereas a number have documented harmful effects, particularly for more vulnerable populations. There are now numerous evidence-based alternatives to confrontational counseling, and clinical studies show that more effective substance abuse counselors are those who practice with an empathic, supportive style. It is time to accept that the harsh confrontational practices of the past are generally ineffective, potentially harmful, and professionally inappropriate.

....

Early claims of the superior effectiveness of confrontation and counterclaims that it was ineffective and potentially harmful relied primarily on statement of opinion buttressed by anecdotes. With the emergence of more science-grounded treatment approaches in the 1980s and 1990s came studies that began to tip the scales of this debate. Two recent reports, however, suggest that confrontation still has its proponents. A 2001 study on staff attitudes toward addiction treatment found that 46 percent of those surveyed agreed that “confrontation should be used more” (Forman, Bavasso & Woody, 2001); and a 2004 ethnographic survey of adolescent addiction treatment in the United States commonly encountered programs that were “explicitly designed to demean and humiliate” (Currie, 2004).

...

There never has been a scientific basis for believing that people with substance use disorders, let alone their family members, possess a unique personality or character disorder. Quite to the contrary, research on virtually any measure reflects wide diversity of personal characteristics among people with addictions, who are about as diverse as the general population, or as snowflakes. Studies of defense mechanisms among people in alcohol treatment have found no characteristic defensive structure, and higher denial was specifically found in a clinical sample to be associated not with worse, but with better treatment retention and outcomes (Donovan, Hague & O’Leary, 1975).

...

Reviewing four decades of treatment outcome research, we found no persuasive evidence for a therapeutic effect of confrontational interventions with substance use disorders. This was not for lack of studies. A large body of trials found no therapeutic effect relative to control or comparison treatment conditions, often contrary to the researchers’ expectations. Several have reported harmful effects including increased drop-out, elevated and more rapid relapse, and higher DWI recidivism. This pattern is consistent across a variety of confrontational techniques tested. In sum, there is not and never has been a scientific evidence base for the use of confrontational therapies.

If you've ever been exposed to confrontation therapy, or have a confrontational counselor now, by all means read this article, sure to be reprinted in textbooks and to become a classic.

If there's one defect in it, it's in glossing over the confrontational therapy element in AA itself. Dr. Harry Tiebout, whose psychiatric theorizing framed the confrontational approach, was hugely influential on Bill Wilson, and he was not alone. Dr. Silkworth echoed the theme, with his advice to Wilson to "give them the medical business, and give it to them hard." The "medical business" meant to convince the alcoholic that he was suffering from an incurable fatal illness. This revelation was designed to attack and to "shatter" the alcoholic's defenses, to "deflate" his ego, and render him hopelessly dependent on his "physician." The very first clause of step one, the foundation of the whole edifice, "powerless over alcohol," expresses a confrontational strategy, as thousands of counselors have found out in practice. To be fair, this is not the only element in AA; there are other strands that tend to counterbalance it. But the article is certainly wrong in claiming, as it does, that there is no attack therapy strand in AA at all. -- This cavil aside, the article is a masterful piece of work, by two giants in the field. Highly recommended.

Abstinence leads to rapid brain repair

Abstinence leads to rapid repair of gross brain damage seen in alcohol dependent persons, according to a review of neuroimaging studies by a group of Japanese researchers.

In uncomplicated alcoholic patients, a high incidence of cortical shrinkage and ventricular dilatation were reported using brain CT scans. In older alcoholics, prefrontal gray matter deficits were especially marked when compared with younger alcoholics. Reversibility of brain shrinkage is a common neuroimaging finding in patients with alcohol dependence.

Regrowth of shrunken brain areas was particularly vigorous during the first month of abstinence, the scans showed. Besides the gray matter, areas "with significantly greater recovery in abstainers were the temporal lobes, thalamus, brainstem, cerebellum, corpus callosum, anterior cingulate, insula, and subcortical white matter." Follow-up studies showed that the regrowth was not simply due to rehydration.

The study appeared in the Dec. 2007 issue of the Japanese Journal of Alcohol Studies and Drug Dependence. The abstract is here.

Brazil study: Does AA really work?

"Do Alcoholics Anonymous groups really work? Factors of adherence in a Brazilian sample of hospitalized alcohol dependents." -- That's the title of a study in the current issue of the American Journal of Addiction, published by a American Academy of Psychiatrists in Alcoholism and Addiction. A team of researchers headed by M.B. Terra followed 300 alcoholics committed to three hospitals in Puerto Allegre, Brazil. Results (from the abstract):

AA adherence was below 20%. The main factors reported by patients as reasons for non-adherence to AA were relapse, lack of identification with the method, lack of need, and lack of credibility. The factors reported by patients as reasons for adherence were identification with the method and a way to avoid relapse. Although AA is considered an effective intervention for alcoholism, its adherence rate was excessively low. The identification of these nonadherence factors could help health professionals in referring certain alcoholic patients to therapeutic interventions other than AA.

The result of this study is unsurprising; essentially the same finding was made in a meta-analysis almost two years ago reported in the Cochran Report (Source) What's noteworthy here is that patients were asked their reasons. It would be useful if the various threads in the responses (objections to the 12-step approach on the one hand, denial on the other) were explored in more depth and an attempt made to untangle them.

2007 Darwin Award Nominee: Alcohol Division

Michael was an alcoholic. And not an ordinary alcoholic, but an alcoholic who liked to take his liquor... well, rectally. His wife said he was "addicted to enemas" and often used alcohol in this manner. The result was the same: inebriation.

The machine shop owner couldn't imbibe alcohol by mouth due to a painful throat ailment, so he elected to receive his favourite beverage via enema. And tonight, Michael was in for one hell of a party. Two 1.5 litre bottles of sherry, more than 100 fluid ounces, right up the old address!

When the rest of us have had enough, we either stop drinking or pass out. When Michael had had enough (and subsequently passed out) the alcohol remaining in his rectal cavity continued to be absorbed. The next morning, Michael was dead.

The 58-year-old did a pretty good job of embalming himself. According to toxicology reports, his blood alcohol level was 0.47%.

In order to qualify for a Darwin Award, a person must remove himself from the gene pool via an "astounding misapplication of judgment." Three litres of sherry up the butt can only be described as astounding. Unsurprisingly, his neighbors said they were surprised to learn of the incident. Source. Thanks, John C. (Goathouse) for the item.

Humility R Us [NOT]

It's been six years since AA Trustee Dr. George Vaillant's article in the AA Grapevine, saying that "It doesn't hurt at the level of the GSO for AA to have humility and understand that 60 per cent do it without AA." Source. He was talking about the research finding that 60 per cent of alcoholics who achieve at least five years of abstinence do it without using AA.

It's been six years, and Vaillant's plea for humility has either not been heard or already forgotten. In this months' issue of Addiction Professional, columnist Carlton Erickson reports that "fourteen experts" recently met at a "consensus conference" in Rancho Mirage CA to define "recovery," and came up with a definition that includes an implied endorsement for "peer support groups such as AA and practices consistent with the 12 Steps and 12 Traditions."

In other words, judging by Erickson's column, if you're part of the majority that are staying sober without AA you're not considered in recovery. But if you're a chain-smoking Big-Book thumper whose entire social, moral, and intellectual life is wrapped up in AA meetings, then you're a model of recovery. The mind boggles.

The panel's full report, published in the Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, is considerably more balanced than Erickson's column makes it seem. The report says that "the founders of AA recognized that there were many paths to the same position ... and did not suggest that their specific methods were the only means to attain the overall goal." (Thanks Jason Schwartz for forwarding the full article.) The panel considered but expressly rejected the definition of recovery as "abstinence attained through adherence to 12-step principles."

That's progress. But the plug for AA and the 12 steps is highlighted in the report, and Erickson's column picked up on that highlight, as most hurried readers will.

This endorsement is completely gratuitous. It comes in the absence of any evidence cited in the report showing either (a) superior efficacy of 12-step over other paths in reaching long-term sobriety, or (b) a positive association between long-term participation in 12-step groups and measures of "personal health and citizenship."

The report admits that no validated instrument for measuring "personal health and citizenship" exists. Then what scientific ground is there for making the claim?

The implied beneficial effect of AA participation on "personal health" is indefensible given the notorious prevalence of nicotine addiction among AA members. The report takes note of the nicotine problem, including "significant rates of emphysema, cancer, and other terminal health conditions associated with these products among those otherwise in recovery" (read: in AA). But come to the bottom line, the panel tucked tail between legs and "considered it best to remain silent on tobacco use within the sobriety component of the recovery definition."

The next line is lovely: "It is admitted that there is no clinical justification for this position."

The claim that long-term AA participation enhances "citizenship" is equally dubious. The cited ground for it is the AA homilies for doing service, "giving back." But this "service," to the limited extent people actually do it, is in the nature of recruiting for the AA organization. AA has no outward-directed community service component on the order of the Masons, Shriners, Rotarians, and many other groups. So where does "citizenship" come in?

Trying to come up with a definition of recovery is a laudable project. The panel notes that recovery science (as distinct from addiction science) is a poorly developed field, and that the lack of a validated definition of 'recovery' is a significant obstacle. But when you enter the gates of science, the motto is "lasciare ogni sospetto" -- here drop all hesitation, abandon all fear. So long as recovery scientists keep genuflecting to the sacred cow in the room, little progress and considerable dung is to be expected.

Alcohol Killed 'The Prophet'

The excellent New Yorker continues its literary war on the alcohol-as-muse delusion. In the Jan. 7 issue is a thumbnail bio of Kahlil Gibran, author of the huge bestseller, The Prophet. After the success of this book, Gibran took to drinking heavily. Eight years after The Prophet, having produced nothing further of note, he died of cirrhosis of the liver, at age 48.

Bankrupt Tobacco Firm Floats Whiskey-Flavored Cigs

Whiskey-flavored cigarettes and cigarette papers dosed with vanilla to disguise the stink of the smoke are among the "new technology" being marketed now in Quebec by JTI MacDonald, a Japan-based cigarette company that is in bankruptcy proceedings.

Public health advocates are up in arms. Read more here. Thanks, Michael W., for the item.

If liquor doesn't get you, nicotine will

Last week's New Yorker had a bio of Malcolm Lowry, a lauded writer whose alcoholism claimed him at age 47; see my blog note, "Alcoholocaust," below. This week's mag covers iconic short story writer Raymond Carver (What We Talk About When We Talk About Love), also an alcoholic, but one who got sober in 1977, and stayed that way. But he kept smoking. He once said that he was only "a cigarette with a body attached to it." Lung cancer claimed him at age 50.

The mag's Lowry story took the author down a notch or two by suggesting that his wife was actually responsible for much of the greatness in Under the Volcano. The mag continues on its debunking tear by demonstrating beyond reasonable doubt that the savage blue pencil of Carver's editor Gordon Lish was responsible for creating the terse, minimalist style that made Carver famous.

Score: New Yorker 2, theory that alcohol helps the creative juices flow, 0.

Oh, and don't miss the cartoon on p. 68. A bar patron drinking coffee to a neighbor with a cocktail: "Been there, drunk that." I'd copy it here but I worry about overstretching the boundaries of the "fair use" doctrine.

Let them drink Grand Marnier!

A proposal out of Tacoma to "treat" chronic street alcoholics by banning the sale of cheap wine caught the fancy of S.F. Chronicle columnist C.W. Nevius last week. The scheme is simple: in a defined "alcohol impact zone," stores are banned from stocking Thunderbird, Boone's Farm, Royal Gate, Takaa, and similar cheap rotgut.

If the homeless alkies want to buy Cabernet Sauvignon or Grey Goose, that's ok.

Public health authorities in Tacoma laud the idea, citing reduced emergency room admissions and other medical costs. That's not surprising. The same thing happened nationwide during Prohibition.

The logic by which Nevius calls this simple class-based Prohibition scheme "treatment" escapes me. It's just one more aspect of the ubiquitous economic bias that Prof. Merrill Singer describes so vividly in his recent book, "Drugging the Poor," reviewed here.

Back from Iraq with a monkey on their back

Jon Marshall's News Gems website writes:

"ABC News' investigative team, led by Brian Ross, worked with six graduate journalism students to discover whether troops returning home after serving in Iraq are facing the same battles with drug addiction as soldiers did when they came back from Vietnam. For their series, "Coming Home: Soldiers and Drugs," the students traveled across the country from Fort Carson in Colorado to Fort Bragg in North Carolina to examine the accuracy of the Army's assurances that drug abuse among ex-combatants isn't growing. Their findings:

Many of this country's bravest men and women who volunteered to defend America in a time of war have come home wounded -- physically and mentally -- and are turning to illicit drugs as they adjust to normal life, according to soldiers, health experts and advocates." Source.

The five programs are available online here.