Mentally ill, addicted and tobacco: Public views change slowly as clinicians start taking responsibility for smoking cessation

The new frontier in the war against tobacco is special populations, particularly people with

Outdated views on smoking among the mentally ill and addicted need to be changed.

mental disorders, including addiction. Unfortunately, an uninformed, paternalistic public view prevails about smokers with schizophrenia or alcoholism, and it goes like this: “Oh, those poor people. Why don’t you just leave them alone and let them smoke? God knows they’ve got enough problems.”

That presumes, at best, that people with behavioral conditions don’t want to quit smoking or, at worst, that their lives aren’t worth saving. Fortunately, this blindness to the problem of smoking among people with mental illnesses is beginning to clear as reality dawns:

Smoking rate in the general US population is about 20%, although it's as low as 12% in California

• People with psychiatric diagnoses have much higher rates of smoking and smoke more cigarettes than the general populations. In the United States, 44% of cigarettes are consumed by people with mental illnesses, including substance use disorders. People with serious mental illnesses die on average 25 years earlier than the general population, usually from tobacco-related disorders such as heart and lung disease.

• Alcoholics are three times more likely to smoke than the general population.  Alcoholics are more likely to die from tobacco than from alcohol.

In the past, psychiatrists, drug treatment counselors and other clinicians believed that patient smoking wasn’t their problem. Many still believe that. But a growing number are changing their minds. Drug counselors – many of whom are themselves recovering addicts who smoke – are facing up to the findings that quitting smoking during treatment doesn’t harm recovery and, in fact, may help it. A belief-change is growing among psychiatrists and other clinicians in behavioral health that confronting smoking among patients is part of their job. An editorial in the September 2011 edition of the American Journal of Psychiatry concluded that when a psychiatrist is faced with a patient who smokes, “doing nothing is now unacceptable.”

The editorial categorically rejects those unthinking assumptions that have cost the lives of countless people with mental illnesses:

“These patients do not want to quit.” In fact, they do, and at rates (70%–80%) comparable to those in the general population.

“They are not able to quit.” But many do, and with only slightly less success than the general population.

“If they quit, their mental health or substance abuse conditions will worsen.” Mental health conditions can be stable or even improve, alcoholics who stop smoking are more likely to stay sober, and hospital wards that go smoke-free have fewer aggressive incidents and more staff time freed up for therapeutic encounters.

Excellent support exists for clinicians who want to help patients quit smoking: http://smokingcessationleadership.ucsf.edu/BehavioralHealth.htm

The Smoking Cessation Leadership Center at University of California San Francisco launched a comprehensive effort to train and support behavioral health clinicians in how to help patients quit smoking, including through a good series of newsletters that anybody can subscribe to. Clinicians who are tired of watching their behavioral health patients kill themselves with cigarettes should check it out.

Posted in Big Tobacco, Smoking, Tobacco, Tobacco cessation | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

After legalization, the powerful marijuana lobby would kill marijuana taxes. Just ask the San Diego City Council…

Would NORML fight for high taxes against the rest of the MJ lobby? Not very likely...

Advocates for legal marijuana promise that we could tax the heck out of it to pay for any costs it might create, such as the costs of treating the increased number of people addicted to marijuana.

But something happened in San Diego that should make you wonder about such claims. The City of San Diego recently voted for minor regulations on medical marijuana dispensaries to limit them to commercial and industrial zones and keep them at least 600 feet from schools, playgrounds, libraries, child care facilities, parks and churches. Sounds reasonable, right?

Not to the pro-marijuana folks. They quickly got up 46,000 signatures to reverse the regulations and put them on the ballot instead. Citizens for Patient Rights, the Patient Care Association of California and the California Cannabis Coalition raised nearly $150,000 to hire a professional signature-gathering firm. But the City Council says it probably won’t spend the necessary $3 million for an election over these restrictions, not when the city is practically bankrupt. So instead, restrictions on medical marijuana dispensaries will likely be rescinded.

Moneyed special interests always have their own way in California, and marijuana already is a moneyed special interest. It will become an extremely wealthy and powerful industry if marijuana is legalized. Marijuana taxes would be killed by the marijuana industry, just like alcohol and tobacco taxes have always been killed by the powerful alcohol and tobacco industries. Marijuana legalization advocates promise they will support high taxes on marijuana. But San Diego couldn’t even restrict pot dispensaries from opening up near schools without a deadly backlash from the marijuana lobby. What chance would marijuana taxes have?

Posted in Addiction, Marijuana, Marijuana legalization, Medical marijuana, MJ lobby, Recovery, Substance abuse | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 5 Comments

Ignition interlock for all DUIs: A idea whose time has come

We know how to prevent drunk driving crashes, we just don't do it...

Ignition interlock is an affront to many Americans for who believe that their car is an extension of their individual rights. Adding a device that stops people from driving whenever they want to seems downright sacrilegious. The truth, of course, is that driving a car isn’t a right at all but a privilege that can be taken away whenever the state deems necessary. The state of Kansas just took another step toward demanding responsibility of its drivers by mandating ignition interlock for all DUI offenders, including first-timers.

Ignition interlock is a tube that you breathe through before you can start your car. If you’ve been drinking, you can’t start your car. And then, at random times when you are driving, the device demands you breathe through the tube again. If you don’t, or if you’ve started drinking after you started your car, the flashers and car alarms go on until you pull over and stop the car. Research has shown conclusively that ignition interlock works very well to reduce DUI.

Ignition interlock is a simple concept that can save lives, including hers

But many states and many judges are reluctant to use ignition interlock as a deterrence, instead only seeing it as a punishment for chronic offenders who have been caught driving drunk several times or have very high blood alcohol content. This never made any sense to me. Shouldn’t we try to prevent people from driving drunk, the most common violent crime in America, rather than just punishing them after they do it?

Recent research in New Mexico shows that first-time DUI offenders are five times more likely to get arrested for drunk driving within three years compared to people who have never been arrested for DUI. One major study by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration shows that first-time DUI offenders who get interlock on their car have a 61 percent lower recidivism rate compared to non-interlock offenders. We can stop a lot of people from being repeat DUI offenders, and save lots of lives, by mandating ignition interlock for first-time DUI offenders, and leaving the device on their cars for many years.

First-timers are five times more likely to drive drunk again compared to people who have never been arrested for DUI.

People who don’t read research argue that drunk drivers who are intent on driving will just find another car to drive. If that were true, then research wouldn’t show that interlock works. The truth is that it’s not so easy to find another car to drive than the one you own. Some people could, but not many. How often do any of us drive cars that are not ours?

So far, about a dozen states use interlock for first-time DUI offenders. Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) is pushing for all states to mandate the device for all first-time offenders (check out good FAQ here).

Really, there’s no good reason not to do this. The only thing stopping it is the phantom belief that driving a car is linked to sanctified personal freedoms. Many state legislatures and judges actually believe that.

Posted in Alcohol, Alcohol abuse, Binge drinking, Drunk driving, Recovery | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Some bad news from California: We’re not a smoke-free state

WRONG! South Dakota can make this claim, but not the Golden State

Not too long ago, I was bragging on California in this blog because we have one of the lowest smoking rates in the country, lower than some other states by half. I said that was because California had gone smoke-free nearly 20 years ago. But now I learn that isn’t true, that California isn’t officially smoke-free and never has been.

According to the US Centers for Disease Control, 24 states have enacted complete smoking bans in workplaces, restaurants and bars, and California isn’t one of them. The reason why is because the groundbreaking California Smoke-free Workplace Act, passed in 1994 and never updated, today has too many holes in it that leave too many people exposed to second-hand smoke.

Now, there’s legislation afoot that will once again allow California to lead the nation in anti-tobacco action (but more importantly will help protect workers and other people from secondhand smoke). Senate Bill 575by Sen. Mark DeSaulnier, D-Walnut Creek, is wending its way through the state legislative process this spring and summer; the bill will remove exemptions that allow indoor smoking in certain workplaces and restrict indoor tobacco smoking in owner-operated businesses. The latter is important because there’s a proliferation of hookah bars in California operating in a grey area of the law because they are supposedly owner-operated and have five or fewer employees. The new law would define owner-operated as businesses having no employees, independent contractors or

Hookah bars are very trendy in California right now. Young people believe that if you smoke tobacco through water, it's not so bad for you. Then again, some people still believe that cigarettes with filters are better for you. Closing the loopholes in California's law will mean the end of hookah bars.

volunteers – just the owner as the only worker. Under current law, it’s OK to threaten the health of your employees if you have only five or less of them. So, if this law passes, no more indoor hookah bars, popular with young people who falsely believe hookah smoking isn’t dangerous, and no more cigar lounges in tobacco stores.

This legislation is fiercely opposed by tobacco stores, and especially cigar stores, which have no shame about the fact that they’re selling a product that kills half the people who use it as directed. Also opposing the bill, strangely enough, is the California Association of Health Facilities, which represents long-term care providers. It argues that smoking is one of the last activities that some patients can enjoy, and so they should be allowed to do it inside care facilities. To me, this is a terribly paternalistic argument; sounds like they’re saying that these poor little people are going to die anyway, so why not let them smoke? It ignores that everybody in long-term care will be physically harmed by breathing tobacco smoke, including all the workers. I’ve never understood the idea of allowing smoking in health facilities anyway.

California’s supposed smoke-free law still allows smoking, under certain conditions, in hotel lobbies, hotel and motel guest rooms, banquet facilities, small businesses, break rooms, owner-operated businesses, tobacco shops and private smokers’ lounges, warehouses, company vehicles, long-term health care facilities, volunteer-operated facilities, theatrical productions and medical research or treatment sites.  When California’s smoke-free law was passed, we didn’t know what we know today about the dangers of second-hand smoke. Since then, the US Surgeon General has stated unequivocally that separate smoking rooms and ventilation systems do not eliminate exposure to secondhand smoke, and there is no safe exposure to tobacco smoke. Now we know that secondhand smoke causes heart disease and lung cancer in nonsmoking adults and a number of health conditions, including sudden infant death syndrome and respiratory infections, in children. Smoke-free places not only protect us from secondhand smoke, but they also encourage smokers to quit.

Yet, Iowa, Maine, Kansas, South Dakota, Montana, even Arizona among other states have tougher smoke-free laws than California. Turkey, Bhutan and Uruguay have tougher smoke-free laws than California. When California became the first state to make bars and restaurants smoke-free, people said it would never work. Now, the rest of the world is starting to surpass the Golden State. California needs to show a little pride, pass SB 575 and become truly smoke-free.

Posted in Addiction, Big Tobacco, Cigarette warning labels, Recovery, Second-hand smoke, Smoke-free, Smoking, Substance abuse, Tobacco, Tobacco and kids | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Free will doesn’t work with addiction, and science shows why

A lot of people stigmatize addiction by talking about bad choices and free will. Folks in recovery and addiction treatment professionals have known for decades that free will can’t help an addict choose not to drink or drug, and now science shows why.

An excellent article published in 2009 in the journal Addiction entitled “The 10 most

Nucleus accumbens in a primative part of the brain kicks off the craving for drugs and alcohol. The first conscious thought comes later in the prefrontal cortex.

important things known about addiction” tells how the decision to take the first drink or drug is actually pre-conscious in the addict’s brain, and exists well before the idea pops into conscious thought. Doug Sellman, professor of psychiatry and addiction medicine at the National Addiction Centre in New Zealand, talks about how drug-seeking behavior is launched in the nucleus accumbens, located in an evolutionary primitive region of the brain. This is the pleasure center that kicks off the craving of a drug (and alcohol is a drug), lighting up with a surge of electrochemical activity. This decision-making center is in a pre-conscious part of the brain, in the same area where hunger and thirst come from. It cues the conscious parts of the brain in the prefrontal cortex to start thinking about how taking a drink or smoking some crack might be a good idea. Usually, an impulse from the pre-conscious part of the brain takes place a half-second before the conscious thought. But in the addict’s brain, the lag time between pre-conscious impulse and conscious thought can take longer when it comes to drugs, and the impulse can be a lot more powerful.  Sellman writes:

“…The usual disconnected human state of living consciously half a second behind what has already been ‘decided’ is exaggerated in people with addiction, because the initiation of drug-seeking behavior is engaging a well-worn pattern of learned compulsive behavior, overriding the ability to alter course when anticipated negative consequences are finally realized.”

In other words, an addict can have a ton of good intentions about not picking up the first drink or drug, but it won’t do any good. This same idea, by the way, was written in the book Alcoholics Anonymous in 1935. The alcoholic, it says, “will be absolutely unable to stop drinking on the basis of self-knowledge.” And in another place: “The alcoholic at certain times has no effective mental defense against the first drink.” Now we know why. The craving for a drink or a drug comes from a place deep down in the addict’s brain. By the time the addict starts consciously thinking about picking up a drink or drug, it may already be too late to stop it.

Posted in Addiction, Alcohol, Alcohol abuse, Drug abuse, Recovery, Tobacco | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Medical marijuana in the Wild West: Montana vs. New Mexico

One out of every 19 households in Montana has a medical marijuana card...and that number is growing. Sure are a lot of sick people in that state.

Montana may repeal its medical marijuana law. The Treasure State took a Wild West, anything goes approach to medical marijuana, much like Colorado and California, and people there are fairly shocked by what happened. Marijuana purveyors popped up all over the place with high-powered marketing and outreach, a statewide pot industry quickly grew up, and today there are more than 28,000 registered users in a state with less than 1 million people. And, a third of them are under 30, which is really silly because young people are generally very healthy and don’t much use medical services.

Here’s what a recent Associated Press article said happened in Montana:

Advocates and distributors figured out they could sign up thousands of people who claim to suffer from “chronic pain” — a vague term covering everything from creaky knees to sore backs to persistent headaches.

They started caravans, going from town to town to register patients by the thousands…

The state board of medical examiners fined one doctor who saw a new patient every six minutes during one of the traveling clinics — not enough time to provide adequate care.

Even the medical marijuana advocates in Montana now want the government to impose a bit stricter regulations. Might I suggest that Montanans emulate another Wild West state? New Mexico took a much more common-sense approach, never allowing marijuana advocates to hijack its state law, or at least not yet. The entire state of New Mexico only has about a dozen licensed medical marijuana purveyors (there are that many within a few blocks in downtown Boulder, Colorado), and getting a permit to use marijuana remains restrictive, as is usually the case with medicine. New Mexico, a state of about 2 million people, has about 2,500 licensed medical marijuana users, which is more reasonable considering that the drug only has limited uses for the very sick.

This from an FAQ on New Mexico’s Department of Health website:

Q: How do I apply for the Medical Cannabis Program?
A: Your physician must certify that you have an eligible condition, that the condition is debilitating and can not be helped by standard treatments, and that the benefits of medical cannabis usage outweigh the detriments. For post traumatic stress disorder, a psychiatrist’s diagnosis must be included. For glaucoma, an ophthalmologist must provide the diagnosis. For chronic pain, you need objective proof of severe chronic pain (X-rays, CT scans, MRIs) and receive two recommendations, one from your primary care physician and one from a specialist consulting on your case. The program has 30 days to review your application starting from when the program receives your complete application. If the Medical Director approves your application, the program will issue you a registry ID card.

In many states, medical marijuana has made a mockery of the medical practice. But in New Mexico, medical marijuana more closely mirrors real therapeutic care. Montana would do well to emulate it, and so would other states.

Posted in Addiction, Marijuana, Marijuana legalization, Medical marijuana, MJ lobby, Recovery, Substance abuse | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

ATODblog:2010 in review

Wish I had more time to devote to this blog… Anybody else who thinks the same way I do about alcohol, tobacco and other drugs want to submit a post? Anyway, here’s the figures on readership for last year, courtesy of WordPress… not half bad:

Featured image

A Boeing 747-400 passenger jet can hold 416 passengers. This blog was viewed about 7,100 times in 2010. That’s about 17 full 747s.

In 2010, there were 27 new posts, not bad for the first year! There were 92 pictures uploaded, taking up a total of 4mb. That’s about 2 pictures per week.

The busiest day of the year was August 2nd with 250 views. The most popular post that day was About atodblog.com.

Where did they come from?

The top referring sites in 2010 were jointogether.org, facebook.com, mail.yahoo.com, msnbc.msn.com, and mail.live.com.

Some visitors came searching, mostly for atod blog, hookah bar, cigarette pack warnings, chewing tobacco, and floatopia santa barbara.

Attractions in 2010

These are the posts and pages that got the most views in 2010.

1

About atodblog.com July 2010
4 comments

2

Marijuana addiction: MJ lobby vs. science August 2010
12 comments

3

Local governments ignore laws against hookah lounges in California (not to mention their public health threat) November 2010
5 comments and 1 Like on WordPress.com,

4

Medical associations coming out against medical marijuana as the reality of state pot laws gets silly October 2010
11 comments

5

UK media fall for alcohol industry press release September 2010
2 comments

Posted in Addiction, Alcohol, Alcohol abuse, Alcohol taxes, Big Tobacco, Binge drinking, Cigarette warning labels, College drinking, Drug abuse, Healthcare reform, Integrated treatment, Marijuana, Marijuana legalization, Medical marijuana, MJ lobby, Painkiller abuse, Parity, Pot doc, Poverty, Prevention, Recovery, SBI, Second-hand smoke, Smoke-free, Smokeless tobacco, Social host, Substance abuse, Substance use disorder treatment, Tobacco, Tobacco and kids, Tobacco marketing, Treatment, Treatment until recovery, Underage drinking, Underage drinking parties | 2 Comments