NIDA and HBO team up to educate the masses about addiction [Updated 3/13/07]

tambourine-man

tambourine-man

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Jun 14, 2004
Messages
15,968
Location
Australia (formerly UK)
The National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) and the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA), components of the National Institutes of Health, have collaborated with HBO to create an eye-opening documentary, ADDICTION, to air on Thursday, March 15 (9:00-10:30 p.m. ET/PT). The documentary, developed with funding support from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, seeks to help Americans understand addiction as a chronic yet treatable brain disease, and spotlights promising scientific advancements.

With nearly one in ten Americans over the age of 12 classified with substance abuse or dependence, addiction takes an emotional, psychological, and social toll on the country. The economic costs of substance abuse and addiction alone are estimated to exceed a half trillion dollars annually in the United States due to health care expenditures, lost productivity, and crime.

"The National Institutes of Health is proud to be part of this effort to educate Americans about the nature of addiction and its devastating consequences," said NIH Director Dr. Elias A. Zerhouni. "We especially appreciate the opportunity to inform the public about the scientific research that is transforming our understanding and treatment of addictive disorders."

Addiction is now understood to be a brain disease because scientific research has shown that alcohol and other drugs can change brain structure and function. Advances in brain imaging science make it possible to see inside the brain of an addicted person and pinpoint the parts of the brain affected by drugs of abuse - providing knowledge that will enable the development of new approaches to prevention and treatment.

"Addiction is a disease - a treatable disease - that needs to be understood," said Dr. Nora Volkow, Director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, whose work is featured in the documentary. "HBO's ADDICTION project offers us the opportunity to directly acquaint viewers with this disease and thereby help eliminate the stigma associated with it."

Currently, addiction affects 23.2 million Americans - of whom only about 10 percent are receiving the treatment they need. "HBO's Addiction Project directly acquaints viewers with available evidence-based medical and behavioral treatments," said NIAAA Director Dr. Ting-Kai Li. "This is especially important for disorders that for many years were treated outside the medical mainstream."

Consisting of nine segments, the film presents an encouraging look at addiction as a treatable brain disease and the major scientific advances that have helped us better understand and treat it. From emergency rooms to living rooms to research laboratories, the documentary follows the trail of an illness that affects one in four families in the United States.

One segment, "The Adolescent Addict," explains that the adolescent brain differs from the adult brain because it is not yet fully developed. According to NIDA's Dr. Nora Volkow, adolescent brains may be more susceptible to drug abuse and addiction than adult brains. However, because it is still developing, the adolescent brain may also offer an opportunity for greater resilience. Although treatment can yield positive results, many families are unwilling to look outside the home for help due to concerns about stigma.

Medications for use in treating alcoholism also are a focus of the program, including a segment on topiramate, under study by NIH-supported researchers at a clinic in Charlottesville, Virginia. At present, there are three FDA-approved medications available to treat alcohol dependence: the older aversive agent disulfiram, and two newer anti-relapse medications. Naltrexone, available by tablet or monthly injections, interferes with drinking reward and reinforcement, and acamprosate works on multiple brain systems to reduce craving, especially in early sobriety. According to NIAAA's Dr. Mark Willenbring, who is featured in the film, these medications are not addictive and can be helpful adjuncts to treatment.

NIDA and NIAAA have released these new publications to coincide with the launch of ADDICTION.


ADDICTION is directed by an HBO-assembled team of filmmakers including Jon Alpert, Susan Froemke, Eugene Jarecki, Liz Garbus, Barbara Kopple, Albert Maysles and D.A. Pennebaker among others. The documentary is part of a broader HBO Addiction Project that includes a supplementary series of 13 additional short films featuring extended expert interviews and focusing on such subjects as family treatment and drug courts. All films will be offered March 15-18 at no charge by participating cable systems and available on numerous digital platforms including multiplex channels, podcasts, and web streams at www.HBO.com. The Project is being promoted by HBO and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation in collaboration with national groups committed to addiction and recovery support, including Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America, Faces and Voices of Recovery, and Join Together. More information can be found at http://www.addictionaction.org/.

NIH Partners with HBO on Groundbreaking Documentary on Addiction
For Release March 6, 2007
90-minute program set to air on Thursday, March 15 at 9:00 p.m. ET/PT

http://www.drugabuse.gov/newsroom/07/NR3-07.html
 
In related news: The NIDA teams up with the DEA to put people in jail.

Oh, wait...
 
Its like MTV with their hour long anti-drug specials, followed by TRL rap videos about slinging crack.
 
Last edited:
Exactly.

On my local hip hop radio station it is the same way, it is totally hysterical.

"Now for a commercial break...

Yeah boooy, stay in school, don't let the negativity get to ya, we need to stop the violence in the city, get good jobs, be positive y'all!

We are proud black people who can over come this senseless violence, parent meetings will be held tomorrow @ 4PM to discuss the civil rights movement heroes...

Now back to the hip hop bangers, the best rap hits!

Yeah nigga, I'll shoot ya in the head if you look at me wrong bitch, selling keys of coke, selling illegal burners on the street, don't fuck wit my gang!"

Talk about mixed messages.
 
Stupid. Why would they choose to air a program like that on a pay ch. ? I doubt HBO customers have any intrest in that shit.
 
I treat my drug addiction with drugs. Fuck em'.

Fuck rehab, fuck the DEA, fuck interventions, fuck AA, Fuck NA, fuck NIDA, and now fuck HBO too.
 
It seems to me that the whole idea of criminalizing drug addicts is to punish them for making "bad choices," i.e., you will be punished for making the bad choice of taking drugs and this will send a message designed to deter those thinking of making the same bad choice.

However, if NIDA adopts this premise of addiction as a neurological disease, then clearly drug addicts are no longer capable of choice in the matter and thus they are being punished for something beyond their control.

If anything, this could possibly be used to further the cause of drug policy reform and shift the emphasis toward treatment rather than punishment. But who am I kiddin'?
 
So instead of going to prison for drugs, they would put you in a mental institution.

Awesome.
 
^it depends on whether they recognize that you can only be treated if you want to be treated in the first place
 
lurkerguy, I am a big fan of yours but in this case I must point out that neurological condition != mental illness.

And besides, in a mental institution there is at least the possibility of parole. ;)
 
tobala said:
lurkerguy, I am a big fan of yours but in this case I must point out that neurological condition != mental illness.

And besides, in a mental institution there is at least the possibility of parole. ;)
Click to expand...

Most mental conditions have a neurological basis. This doesn't mean that its the governments right or responsibility to handle it. And there are laws set up to hold people in mental institutions "without parole". Thats how they treat pedophiles now in some states, holding them in institutions under the premise that they might commit future crimes.
 
^^^^ Agreed. Though many mental illnesses have physiological etiologies, others result from genetic predispositions and/or a person's response to traumatic life experiences. For example, while many neurophysiological theories abound, in many cases it can't be determined why a certain individual develops schizophrenia.

On the other hand, the NIDA/HBO presentation will attempt to educate the "masses" about the physiological changes that occur in the brain after chronic drug use, and how these changes reinforce the compulsions that are part of what is classically defined as "addiction." For example the brain compensates for excessive dopamine levels in the synaptic clefts of cocaine addicts by reducing the receptors for that neurotransmitter. Thus in the absence of cocaine the addict experiences ahedonia.

The point is, the mechanics of addiction are much more defined than those of mental illness, and as most people would not classify Parkinson's disease as a mental illness, addiction should not be either. And as no reasonable person would punish a Parkinson's patient for spilling the milk, an analogy might be made that the manifestions of addiction should not be punished either, but rather treated.

The comment about being paroled was a half-joke of sorts in light of the 30 and 40 year prison terms given to some drug offenders. If the victims of these sentences are in their late 30's or older, it can effectively be a life sentence. At least in the institution the odds of release are usually not zero.
 
^Thanks for the breakdown.

What really infuriates me is the total lack of integrity the NIDA exhibits. For years they back the DEA with fabricated studies claiming drug use is a personal choice, and should be punished as such.
Now, concepts like down-regulation (as you described above) are accepted as truth. Theres too much evidence to refute. Its now known that addiction has a very real biological component, which is partly responsible for the compulsions of addicts.

So what does the NIDA do with such information? Knowing that users trying to get clean are struggling with neurological conditions beyond their control?

They twist this research until they can use it for their propaganda.

"Drugs will literally alter your brain enough that you'll NEVER be able to get clean! Obviously, something this dangerous should be outlawed and punished"

I honestly used to think that the NIDA was simply misguided and really thought they were helping us. Its becoming more and more obvious that what they're really doing is protecting their self interest, actively contributing to the fear, uncertainty and doubt that keeps their agency necessary, and drug users marginalized by society.

The whole situation is just sad. There are real people who work at the NIDA, with real ethics and morals. I wonder what they use to rationalize a policy they know is dishonest, ruining lives and families, slowly rotting away at our society.
 
NIDA is directly responsible for not allowing researchers access to medical Cannabis.

They used methampthetamine in a study on MDMA and published it without telling anyone, only to admit later the entire study was a sham.

To this day they continue to let the "scientist" who preformed that study do more studies.

They are just the perfect example of junk science.

Controversial research

DAWN, or the Drug Abuse Warning Network, is a program to collect statistics on the frequency of emergency room mentions of use of different types of drugs. This information is widely cited by drug policy officials, who have sometimes confused drug-related episodes—emergency room visits induced by drugs—with drug mentions. The Wisconsin Department of Justice claimed, "In Wisconsin, marijuana overdose visits in emergency rooms equal to heroin or morphine [sic], twice as common as Valium." Common Sense for Drug Policy called this as a distortion, noting, "The federal DAWN report itself notes that reports of marijuana do not mean people are going to the hospital for a marijuana overdose, it only means that people going to the hospital for a drug overdose mention marijuana as a drug they use".[3]

The National Survey on Drug Use and Health is an annual study of American drug use patterns. According to NIDA, "The data collection method is in–person interviews conducted with a sample of individuals at their place of residence. ACASI provides a highly private and confidential means of responding to questions to increase the level of honest reporting of illicit drug use and other sensitive behavior." Sixty-eight thousand people were interviewed in 2003, with a weighted response rate for interviewing of seventy three percent.[4] Like DAWN, the Survey often results in controversy because of how the data is used by drug policy officials. Rob Kampia of Marijuana Policy Project stated in a September 5, 2002 press release,[5]
“ The government reaches that exact same conclusion regardless of whether drug use is going up, down, or staying the same. If use is going up they say, `We're in a drug abuse emergency; we need to crack down harder.' If use is going down, they say, `Our strategy is working; we need to crack down harder.' A cynic might think they had made up their minds before even looking at the data ”

NIDA literature and National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) research frequently contradict each other. For instance, in the 1980s and 1990s, NIMH researchers found that dopamine plays only a marginal role in marijuana's psychoactive effects.[6] Years later, however, NIDA educational materials continued to warn of the danger of dopamine-related marijuana addiction.[7] NIDA appears to be backing off of these dopamine claims, adding disclaimers to its teaching packets that the interaction of THC with the reward system is not fully understood.[8]

[edit] Medical marijuana monopoly

NIDA has a government granted monopoly on the production of medical marijuana for research purposes. In the past, the institute has refused to supply marijuana to researchers who had obtained all other necessary federal permits. Medical marijuana researchers and activists claim that NIDA, which is not supposed to be a regulatory organization, does not have the authority to effectively regulate who does and doesn't get to do research with medical marijuana. Jag Davies of the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies (MAPS) writes in MAPS Bulletin:[9]
“ Currently, the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) has a monopoly on the supply of research-grade marijuana, but no other Schedule I drug, that can be used in FDA-approved research. NIDA uses its monopoly power to obstruct research that conflicts with its vested interests. MAPS had two of its FDA-approved medical marijuana protocols rejected by NIDA, preventing the studies from taking place. MAPS has also been trying without success for almost four years to purchase 10 grams of marijuana from NIDA for research into the constituents of the vapor from marijuana vaporizers, a non-smoking drug delivery method that has already been used in one FDA-approved human study. ”

NIDA administers a contract with the University of Mississippi to grow the nation's only licit cannabis crop for medical and research purposes,[10] including the Compassionate Investigational New Drug program. A Fast Company magazine article pointed out, "Based on the photographic evidence, NIDA's concoction of seeds, stems, and leaves more closely resembles dried cat brier than cannabis".[11] Medical marijuana researchers typically prefer to use high-potency marijuana, but NIDA's National Advisory Council on Drug Abuse has been reluctant to provide cannabis with high THC levels, citing safety concerns:[12]
“ Most clinical studies have been conducted using cannabis cigarettes with a potency of 2-4% THC. However, it is anticipated that there will be requests for cannabis cigarettes with a higher potency or with other mixes of cannabinoids. For example, NIDA has received a request for cigarettes with an 8% potency. The subcommittee notes that very little is known about the clinical pharmacology of this higher potency. Thus, while NIDA research has provided a large body of literature related to the clinical pharmacology of cannabis, research is still needed to establish the safety of new dosage forms and new formulations. ”

Speaking before the National Advisory Council on Drug Abuse, Rob Kampia of the Marijuana Policy Project criticized NIDA for refusing to provide researcher Donald Abrams with marijuana for his studies, stating that "after nine months of delay, Dr. Leshner rejected Dr. Abrams' request for marijuana, on what we believe are political grounds that the FDA-approved protocol is inadequate".[13]

[edit] Ricaurte's monkeys

NIDA continues to provide funding to George Ricaurte, who in 2002 conducted a study that was widely touted as proving that MDMA caused dopaminergic neurotoxicity in monkeys.[14] His paper "Severe Dopaminergic Neurotoxicity in Primates After a Common Recreational Dose Regimen of MDMA ('Ecstasy')" in Science[15] was later retracted after it became clear that the monkeys had in fact been injected not with MDMA, but with methamphetamine.[16] A FOIA request was subsequently filed by MAPS to find out more about the research and NIDA's involvement in it.[17][18]

NIDA and Wikipedia
Treatment Art Card.
Treatment Art Card.

NIDA officials have edited the Wikipedia article about their organization to remove text and links critical of NIDA and add NIDA URLs and text from NIDA literature. The article history shows a single edit in late August 2006 and a number of edits during September 2006 by an anonymous editor with an IP address from within NIH. These edits have been reverted. In January 2007, NIDA spokeswoman Dorie Hightower verified that the editing was done by NIDA officials, and said it was done "to reflect the science."[20] [21]

[edit]
Click to expand...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Institute_on_Drug_Abuse
 
n4k33n said:
...What really infuriates me is the total lack of integrity the NIDA exhibits. For years they back the DEA with fabricated studies claiming drug use is a personal choice, and should be punished as such.
Now, concepts like down-regulation (as you described above) are accepted as truth. Theres too much evidence to refute. Its now known that addiction has a very real biological component, which is partly responsible for the compulsions of addicts.

So what does the NIDA do with such information? Knowing that users trying to get clean are struggling with neurological conditions beyond their control?...
Click to expand...
EXACTLY. So if this HBO presentation wakes a few people up and they start thinking, "If addicts are engaging in antisocial behavior because of changes that have occurred to their brains, why are we throwing them in prison instead or reversing the brain damage?"

And with stunning new treatment options like ibogaine and neuron readaptation-based therapies, the argument becomes even stronger that current drug policies are immoral, counterproductive, and a veritable threat to the public safety they propose to protect.


n4k33n said:
...They twist this research until they can use it for their propaganda.

"Drugs will literally alter your brain enough that you'll NEVER be able to get clean! Obviously, something this dangerous should be outlawed and punished"...
Click to expand...
It's hard to say what effect decriminalization and these new treatment options will have on a young person's decision to try an addictive drug. In the past, one would have said, "I know heroin/cocaine is extremely addictive, but it won't happen to me!"

Someday one might say, "I know heroin/cocaine is extremely addictive, but when I get addicted I'll just get <insert cutting-edge addiction therapy here>."


n4k33n said:
...There are real people who work at the NIDA, with real ethics and morals. I wonder what they use to rationalize a policy they know is dishonest, ruining lives and families, slowly rotting away at our society.
Click to expand...
NIDA is just a tool used to support government and DEA policies. They are dressed up to appear as an institution promoting scientific inquiry, but if the results of that inquiry contradict or threaten current drug policy, it is quietly slipped under the table.

That's why I'm a little surprised that they would even disseminate this information on such a popular network, though it remains to be seen if the program will remain objective. More likely they will twist certain conclusions in such a way that they support current drug policy because they know that Joe Public has absolutely no capacity for critical thinking.
 
At least showtime has:
jillette_lg.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top