Labels: political, rehab, television
-------- AUTHOR: Romie DATE: 4/13/2007 11:00:00 AM ----- BODY: Under the state of California’s Proposition 36, anyone convicted of drug possession has three chances to complete a drug and/or alcohol rehabilitation program before they are sent to prison to serve time for their offenses. According to a recent article released by the San Francisco Chronicle, an assessment of California’s Proposition 36 has just been done and shows that half of those sentenced to drug rehab never completed a program and a quarter never showed up. And even those that complete most treatment programs often do not end up staying off drugs long term as many programs offered have a permanent recovery rate of 3-10%. In fact, I spoke to a former addict who told me that while in a program he was told that only 1 out of 10 would complete it and out of those, one would stay off drugs. Currently in California, the governor demanded that judges be allowed to put those in jail who do not complete treatment and/or who continue to use drugs. But, statistics show that jailing drug addicts also does not solve the problem. There are a few drug rehab programs offered that have over 70% success rates for recovery but why are these not offered to those required to do treatment so that they have a very good chance for permanent recovery from addiction? Why would the government not fund or provide financing for those programs that achieve very good results? Are we setting drug addicts up for failure by allowing them to go to programs with low success rates? Article by Eric Digg It | Reddit | Newsvine Seed Add to your bookmarks in: del.icio.us | Yahoo! | Google | Furl | ma.gnolia | SpurlLabels: detox, political, rehab
-------- AUTHOR: Romie DATE: 4/11/2007 10:19:00 AM ----- BODY: Presently, the Russian government is considering passing a bill that would require all child drug addicts to get into treatment. The bill would require all children under the age of 16 to attend treatment after going through a judicial procedure. Parents’ consent would be required for those legally living with parents but for all other children, who are orphans and whose parents are out of the picture, treatment would be determined by school administrators. In the country of Russia, this is a very controversial topic that has human rights activists in an uproar and specialists in the drug treatment field skeptical. According to the Federal Drug Control Service of Russia, between 80,000 and 100,000 people die annually in the country from overdoses and problems related to the use of dangerous drugs. Most are under the age of 30. At least 1.8 million Russians (more than 1 percent of the country’s 143 million citizens) are officially listed as drug addicts by the organization. Experts say the real figure could be many times that. A further 6 million are said to have had experience using these drugs, and 15 million Russians admitted having tried them at least once. Currently in the United States, there are over 20 million people suffering through drug and/or alcohol addiction and rehabilitation is usually not a requirement unless the individual is court ordered into treatment. This covers a very small percentage of drug addicts. Some make the decision to get help on their own while others are given ultimatums by loved ones’ or family members. A large percent of those addicted to drugs never make the decision to get help and end up in prison, or worse. Should the United States require all drug addicts to get into treatment? Should there be a bill in our country that even requires minors (with parents consent) to get help if they are addicted? Article by Eric Digg It | Reddit | Newsvine Seed Add to your bookmarks in: del.icio.us | Yahoo! | Google | Furl | ma.gnolia | SpurlLabels: political, rehab, world
-------- AUTHOR: Romie DATE: 4/04/2007 09:08:00 AM ----- BODY: On Monday the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy released figures on prescription drug abuse in New Jersey. National studies have shown that 3% of residents have abused prescription drugs in the past year with 6% of those in the 18-25 age bracket reporting misusing prescription drugs. Those numbers are even higher in New Jersey where recent reports show the numbers for young adults in the 18-25 category at 11% while statewide 4% of residents reported they abused prescription drugs in the past year. The White House report also stated that admissions to drug and alcohol rehab programs for pain killers have increased 217% from 1999-2005 for New Jersey. Deputy US Drug Czar Scott Burns said, “Prescription drug abuse is a serious problem in New Jersey.” Officials partly blame the practice of “doctor shopping” where people go from doctor to doctor obtaining multiple prescriptions and have them filled at different pharmacies, a practice which is on the rise nationwide. New Jersey is one of 16 states that still don’t have a drug-monitoring program in place that would allow doctors and pharmacies to receive up to date and accurate information about the patients drug history. Does your state have a drug monitoring program available? Do you think this should be implemented on a federal level? Let us know what you think. Digg It | Reddit | Newsvine Seed Add to your bookmarks in: del.icio.us | Yahoo! | Google | Furl | ma.gnolia | SpurlLabels: political, prescription
-------- AUTHOR: Romie DATE: 3/27/2007 11:54:00 AM ----- BODY: There are many drugs in existence today, both legal and illegal, that are called “non-addictive.” In fact, pharmaceutical companies have come out with “non-narcotic” forms of pain relief like Ultram and Ambien that are “safe if used as directed and non-addictive” yet the incidents of people becoming addicted to these drugs continues to increase. This is not something new. In the 1850’s when opium addiction first became an epidemic in the United States, morphine was used as a non-addictive substitute until it was later outlawed in the 1920’s because of its’ addictive properties. There have even been statements that the illegal drugs marijuana is a “non-addictive” and “non-harmful” drug, yet it continues to be one of the most abused drug in the country. Another drug said to be “non-addictive” is LSD which is in fact one of the most harmful drugs out there, causing long-term damage to users. Not only does LSD cause flashbacks, where certain aspects of their LSD experience reoccur, but it also can cause long-lasting psychoses, and drug tolerance - where the user needs more and more of the drug to achieve the desired effect. After experiencing their first high on LSD, many users take this drug over and over again, even with the negative effects associated with the drug. The fact remains that drugs alter the senses and perceptions. Drugs produce a high in the user and the user continues taking the drugs to achieve the desired effect and in many cases takes more and more of the drug. This is true of everything from LSD to marijuana, to those legal prescription drugs and replacement drug therapies that are so heavily promoted on a day to day basis. Calling these drugs “non-addictive” is not only a false statement but easily proven untrue, not only with illegal drugs like marijuana and LSD but also with “legal” drugs like prescription pain pills, anti-depressants and replacement drug therapies. If these drugs are so non-addictive, why does the number of people becoming addicted to them continue to increase? You do the math and you’ll see that “non-addictive” drugs really don’t exist. Article by Eric Digg It | Reddit | Newsvine Seed Add to your bookmarks in: del.icio.us | Yahoo! | Google | Furl | ma.gnolia | SpurlLabels: general-drugs, political, prescription
-------- COMMENT-AUTHOR: COMMENT-DATE:Mar 28, 2007 3:38:00 PM COMMENT-BODY:Drug use and addiction are two very different things. -------- AUTHOR: Romie DATE: 3/24/2007 09:22:00 AM ----- BODY: Earlier we discussed the notion that LSD and other hallucinogens were possibly the most harmful drugs, simply for what they do to a person’s mind. Well, a new ranking system of drugs has been recommended and was recently printed in The Lancet medical journal in the UK. This new system devised harm scores for drugs, examining the damage caused by each drug not just to an individual or how addictive it was, but also by the damage it caused to families and society as a whole. Topping the list were heroin and cocaine, but an article in The Guardian seemed surprised that alcohol was placed fifth on the list. Although it is the world’s most consumed addictive substance and is legal, it actually costs more to the population in terms of damage caused by its use. This includes deaths from drinking and driving, as well as domestic violence, assault and battery, and lost productivity at work. Also mentioned in the article was that marijuana was ranked as being more harmful that Ecstasy, LSD and GHB. Does this classification system make sense? These British research scientists seemed to think so. What do you think? Article by Eric Digg It | Reddit | Newsvine Seed Add to your bookmarks in: del.icio.us | Yahoo! | Google | Furl | ma.gnolia | SpurlLabels: political, prescription
-------- AUTHOR: Romie DATE: 2/22/2007 12:13:00 PM ----- BODY: Afghanistan supplies up to 90% of the world’s opium cultivation, according to some estimates, despite being illegal. Recently there have been some advocates trying to get it legalized and subsidized in the country. The U.S. State Department issued a release this week saying, "In recent months, we have seen several articles and reports advocating the legalization of opium in Afghanistan ... The governments of Afghanistan, the United Kingdom, and the United States are all opposed to the legalization of opium in Afghanistan, as are the relevant technical agencies of the United Nations." For the 2006 growing season, farmers participating in India's licit market were paid anywhere from $16 to $49 per-kilogram of opium gum (the lower end of this price range being far more typical). In contrast, a trafficker in Afghanistan was willing to pay $138 per-kilogram of opium gum on average in 2005 and $125 on average in 2006. According to the United States Economic & Social Commission for Western Asia, opium poppy is a profitable crop that is produced with cheap labor (women, children and refugees). In 2002, gross income from the opium poppy crops in Afghanistan rose to $1.2 billion. Afghan farmers were offered $1,250 per hectare (about 2.5 acres) by the government to destroy their crops, but they are expected to receive $16,000 per hectare in profits from drug processors and traffickers for growing the poppies. A report from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime last September showed the area under opium cultivation in Afghanistan reached a record 165,000 hectares in 2006 compared with 104,000 in 2005 (an increase of 59 percent overall). In the southern province of Helmand, where Taliban insurgents have scaled up their attacks on Afghan government and international forces, cultivation soared 162 percent to 69,324 hectares. Unfortunately, in the Afghan economy, the financial gain outweighs the devastation caused by the pain-killing drugs the opium poppy is used for, such as heroin. Officials say that roughly 80 percent of the heroin found in Europe comes from Afghanistan as well as nearly all of the supply in Russia. However, an increasing amount continues to find its way to the U.S. Article by Eric MitchellLabels: opium, political, world
-------- AUTHOR: Romie DATE: 2/14/2007 02:24:00 PM ----- BODY: I was reading an article today about Mike Tyson, the former boxing heavyweight champion, and how he has just entered a rehab center for addiction. I was very interested in the article because Tyson, although very successful as a professional athlete, has struggled with substance abuse for years and subsequently has been in legal trouble off and on for several years. This is an area that I think should really be looked at... criminal behavior associated with substance abuse. Many people who struggle with drug and/or alcohol addiction often get into trouble legally, and rather than sending these guys to jail where they just await their release so that they can get out and fall right back into the same routine; I would love to see more cases where it is recognized that these people probably will not start living better lives until their addictions are successfully handled. As a former drug addict, I have experienced this in my own life. When I was addicted to drugs, I did things that I would have never dreamed of doing when I was clean and sober. I myself got into legal trouble, and fortunately for me, I was given the opportunity to seek help for my drug problem rather than being tossed in jail. For the last 10 years, I have been living a great life and have been able to help thousands of people get involved in effective drug and alcohol treatment programs, and the majority of the people I have helped have had legal problems associated with their addictions. I am not saying that there should be no repercussions for an addict that breaks the law, but let’s figure out how to turn these people into productive members of society rather than filling prisons with wasted lives... what do you say? Article by Eric -------- AUTHOR: Romie DATE: 2/13/2007 12:16:00 PM ----- BODY: The White House budget proposal for 2008 has a few ups and downs for the substance abuse treatment and prevention field. While some areas are marked for decent increases, such as the Drug-Free Communities Act and the National Anti-Drug Media Campaign, others weren’t quite so fortunate. The Centers for Substance Abuse Treatment and Prevention were targeted for a combined cut of nearly $84 million. One area that is also looking at being cut is the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas program, by almost $5 million. For many in the treatment and prevention field this would be a good thing, if it meant that there was more money being made available for rehabilitation and education programs, but the cuts to those areas as well are leaving people scratching their heads. Are there other areas or new programs being planned that are taking some of this funding? If there is a lack of performance from programs that have received funding in the past, then instead of just cutting it outright, maybe advocates and lawmakers could help fund those that do work. What areas do you think should get more or less funding when it comes to making a dent in the supply and demand of harmful substances in the country? Since prescription drug abuse continues to out-pace other drugs, perhaps a good start would also be to funnel more money into revising the FDA drug approval line, removing pharmaceutical company influence in medical schools, reduce direct-to-consumer prescription drug advertising and beef up the prescription drug monitoring programs in every state. Article by Eric MitchellLabels: political
-------- AUTHOR: Eric DATE: 2/09/2007 02:10:00 PM ----- BODY: Originally posted on Monday, February 5, 2007 As if health insurance plans weren't difficult enough to understand, with in-network and out-of-network benefits, co-pays, deductibles and lifetime maximums, the area of substance abuse is especially varied. People looking for quality drug addiction treatment centers who do have insurance often assume that their coverage is good for any program - but this is not the case. There is no set standard for drug and alcohol rehabilitation coverage in the insurance industry. Mental health and substance abuse advocates have been trying to get equal coverage for those ailments as physical problems - this has been dubbed "parity", but the sound of that term soon started to ring like a four-letter word in the ears of many insurance companies and businesses. Currently the fight for adequate coverage for substance abuse and mental health is gearing up for another strong push since the left side of the isle is a little more full, only now the movement has been re-named "equity." U.S. Reps. Patrick Kennedy (D-R.I.) and Jim Ramstad (R-Minn.) are hosting a series of public hearings on parity insurance coverage for addiction and mental health and say they plan to reintroduce legislation to require group health plans to cover these conditions on par with other health problems. Kennedy and Ramstad said they will soon reintroduce the Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act, which would bar health plans with 50 or more members from setting different reimbursement, copays, deductibles and limits for mental illnesses than for physical illnesses. There is possibly more than one argument both for and against the availability and mandating of such benefits. On one hand, people trying to overcome addiction should receive effective help, preferably by those rehabilitation centers that actually get results and help people become stably drug-free. On the other hand, there has never been a clear-cut definition, diagnostic tool, or for that matter hard evidence for any mental illness, let alone a workable treatment. Therefore, many groups are split as to what should be covered and what shouldn't be. Another argument is that including equal benefits for substance abuse and mental health coverage would cause and increase in costs to society, yet successful treatment reduces other burdens created by issues such as drug addiction. It is also an issue that prescription drug prices have driven premiums up, so more focus could be put on the pharmaceutical end of this than the organizational treatment side. Recent scheduled hearings on the parity bill include Jan. 29 in Rockville, Md. More are coming, like on Feb. 10 in Los Angeles, and Feb. 17 in Vancouver, Wash. Local members of Congress who have signed onto the parity measure will coordinate the regional hearings. Regardless of what side of the isle you are on, it is generally agreeable that people who are fortunate enough in this country to have insurance, whether paid for by themselves or their employers, should be able to get help for health-related problems. If it never gets mandated by Congress, then maybe those who want and can afford that particular coverage could use an insurance company that provides it, because they are out there. Article by Eric MitchellLabels: political
-------- AUTHOR: Eric DATE: 2/09/2007 02:10:00 PM ----- BODY: Originally posted on Monday, February 5, 2007 Pendulums are supposed to swing back and forth, and on the issue of rehabilitating non-violent drug offenders instead of locking them up, that swing sometimes is a political one. In the past, Conservatives have been heavier on law enforcement and punishment while Liberals have offered a lot of sympathy and supported treatment. The problem is that each one swings a little too far in their direction, and to solve the dilemma it would have to rest somewhere in between, with just a little room for movement depending on the situation. In the year 2000 the United States surged ahead to have the highest incarceration rate in the world. With more than two million persons incarcerated, the United States has about 25% of the world's prisoners, despite making up only 5% of the global population. Aside from the humanity factor of just locking someone up, it costs taxpayers a ton of money to keep building prisons to house more and more inmates. The average price tag per prisoner is estimated to be somewhere around $20,000 per year, depending on the state and type of facility. Six years ago it cost us almost $26 billion to keep 1.3 million non-violent offenders behind bars. That was almost $10 billion more than we spent on social services programs for about 8.5 million people. Sixty percent of the growth in the federal prison population over the last twenty years has been due to drug offenders. The actual number of crimes that arose from the use of drugs or alcohol and land individuals in behind bars are more in the range of 80%, which is a staggering number. Yes, people need to be held accountable for their actions. No, it is not an excusable offense to plead "but I'm an addict" and be forgiven for crimes. However, punishment should fit the crime, and it would behoove most Americans to have more rehabilitation programs for non-violent drug offenders, either diverted to treatment centers or to have services provided in the jails and prisons, than to continue paying through the nose to have good, salvagable people locked up and giving lucrative contracts to private prison builders. There is a catch though, the programs need to prove that they work in order to get any funding, and those receiving services can't continue to commit crimes. Let's turn them into productive, law-abiding, tax-paying citizens. We happen to know a lot of people who once had problems with substance abuse and now are very valuable members of society who pull more than their own weight. So, which way do you think the pendulum should swing? Article by Eric MitchellLabels: political
--------