The Brief Addiction Science Information Source (BASIS)

Addiction and the Humanities, Vol. 6 (1) - The evolution of anti-drug ads from Fried Egg to Shoulders

This is your brain. This is drugs. This is your brain on drugs. Any questions? These words, part of a 1987 Partnership for a Drug-Free America (PDFA) public-service announcement, are synonymous with the American anti-drug movement of the 1980’s. Although the PDFA credits Fried Egg with helping to persuade Americans that drugs are dangerous and addictive (The Partnership for a Drug-Free America, 2006), many ridicule the ad because of its overly simplistic, fear-based, and unrealistic tone (Alexander, 2000).

How have anti-drug messages changed during the two decades since Fried Egg? The good news is that producers of anti-drug ads have relied more on social science to develop their message content and delivery. For example, research indicates that fear-based messages like Fried Egg are ineffective unless they are accompanied by a viable means for reducing one’s fears (Job, 1988). As a result, when the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) produced the What’s your Anti-Drug? campaign, part of a $1.4 billion effort that spanned the years 1998-2005, some of the ads showed teenagers engaged in positive alternatives to drug use. But, the campaign also included several ads that exaggerated the potential consequences of smoking marijuana. For example, in one ad, teenage marijuana smokers run over a small child with their car; in another, a pot smoker accidentally shoots his friend in the head.

Sometimes, the effect of anti-drug messages is unintended. For example, results from a multi-wave study indicated that the What’s your Anti-Drug? ads might have done more harm than good. Teenage respondents who had more exposure to the ads were less likely to avoid marijuana and more likely to believe that many of their peers used marijuana (Hornik, Jacobsohn, Orwin, Piesse, & Kalton, 2008). Some observers suggest that the ads might inadvertently have communicated the message that “everyone’s doing it” (Hornik et al., 2008). Another study revealed that teenage survey respondents judged six of the ads from the What’s your Anti-Drug? campaign to be less effective than a control program in reducing drug use (Fishbein, Hall-Jamieson, Zimmer, von Haeften, & Nabi, 2002). The particularly ineffective ads tended to be seen as unrealistic, uninformative, and fear-based—much like Fried Egg (Fishbein et al., 2002).

In 2005, the ONDCP shifted its strategy and, together with the PDFA, launched Above the Influence, a multi-media campaign developed using extensive qualitative and quantitative research with teens (Denniston, 2006). This campaign encourages its target audience to rise “above the influence” of drugs and risky sexual activity (The Partnership for a Drug-Free America, 2005). For instance, the Human Puppet ad shows a teenage girl passed out under the influence of an unknown substance while her friends draw on her face and position her arms as if she were a puppet. The tagline is If you’re not in control, who is? Shoulders takes the message of personal autonomy one step further by poking fun at traditional anti-drug messages. Its protagonist is a teenage boy trying to decide whether to accept a marijuana joint offered to him at a party. A series of pro-drug characters, led by the devil, appears on his left shoulder imploring him to accept the joint. Meanwhile, a series of exaggerated anti-drug characters appears on his right shoulder demanding that he refuse to accept it. These include a stern roll-model astronaut, members of the boy’s basketball team, and even Shakespeare. As the protagonist makes his decision, a voice-over declares, The only voice that matters is yours. Eventually the boy makes his decision to reject the joint, and the message to viewers is that they can still maintain their personal autonomy even if they decide to reject drug use. In this way, the campaign is consistent with research indicating that adolescents place a high value on personal autonomy and often react against prevention messages that seem too “preachy” and directive (Kelly, Comello, & Slater, 2006). Interactive features of the campaign’s website also aim to change normative beliefs about how many adolescents use drugs, perhaps in response to earlier findings.        

The ONDCP ad Shoulders, available at http://www.mediacampaign.org/

Is Above the Influence working? As evidence of their ads’ effectiveness, the ONDCP frequently points to downward national trends in teenage drug use (e.g. Johnston, O'Malley, Bachman, & Schulenberg, 2004). But, Hornik and colleagues (2008) note the existence of larger declines in tobacco and alcohol use by teens, which suggest that there is a broad influence of widespread cultural shifts that goes beyond the ONDCP/PDFA campaigns. During the coming years, the ONDCP plans to collect new data that will allow them to generate more specific conclusions about the campaign’s effects on drug-related attitudes, beliefs, and intentions; they intend to use this information to refine their future messages. Successfully refining the marketing strategy will be a challenge, because it is very difficult to market health information to teens. However, by empirically evaluating outcomes and generating evidence-based messages, the ONDCP is taking a big step forward from This is your brain on drugs.

--Heather Gray

What do you think? Please use the comment link below to provide feedback on this article.

References
Alexander, E. (2000). Famous fried eggs: Students debate effectiveness, accuracy of well-known anti-drug commercial.   Retrieved January 4, 2010, from http://www.cnn.com/fyi/interactive/news/brain/brain.on.drugs.html#%27Good%20persuasive%20information%27

Denniston, R. (2006). From "What's Your Anti-Drug?" to "Above the Influence": Rationale and results from branding research for the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign. Paper presented at the The 134th Meeting of the American Public Health Association, Boston, MA.

Fishbein, M., Hall-Jamieson, K., Zimmer, E., von Haeften, I., & Nabi, R. (2002). Avoiding the boomerang: Testing the relative effectiveness of antidrug public service announcements before a national campaign. American Journal of Public Health, 92, 238-245.

Hornik, R., Jacobsohn, L., Orwin, R., Piesse, A., & Kalton, G. (2008). Effects of the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign on Youths. American Journal of Public Health, 98, 2229-2236.

Job, R. F. S. (1988). Effective and Ineffective Use of Fear in Health Promotion Campaigns. American Journal of Public Health, 78, 163.

Johnston, L. D., O'Malley, P. M., Bachman, J. G., & Schulenberg, J. E. (2004). Monitoring the Future National Survey Results on Drug Use, 1975-2003: Volume 1: Secondary School Students. Bethesda, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse.

Kelly, K. J., Comello, M. L. G., & Slater, M. D. (2006). Development of an aspirational campaign to prevent youth substance use: 'Be under your own influence.' Social Marketing Quarterly, 12, 14-27.

The Partnership for a Drug-Free America. (2005). ONDCP Launches New Teen Brand.   Retrieved January 7, 2010, from http://www.drugfree.org/Portal/About/NewsReleases/ONDCP_Launch 

The Partnership for a Drug-Free America. (2006). The Partnership's "Fried Egg" TV message.   Retrieved January 4, 2010, from http://www.drugfree.org/Portal/About/NewsReleases/Fried_Egg_Message

Addiction & The Humanities, Vol. 5 (10) - Beyond the family secrets in Mackenzie Phillips' High on Arrival

    Several celebrities have recently published “addiction memoirs.” Carrie Fisher, Andre Agassi, and former child stars Jodie Sweetin and Melissa Gilbert have all written candidly about their substance abuse. (We reviewed Fisher’s Wishful Drinking in the last edition of Addiction & the Humanities.) None of their stories has garnered as much attention as Mackenzie Phillips’ revelation of her incestuous affair with her father John Phillips, founder of The Mamas & the Papas, as detailed in her new memoir High on Arrival. Indeed, High on Arrival is replete with stories that illustrate the power of addiction to warp relationships. However, the most compelling aspect of Phillips’ story is not what happened during the depths of her addiction to cocaine and heroin. What is more interesting is her understanding of how she fell into the abyss, and how she got out.
 

        Mackenzie Phillips was born into a world of fame, fortune, and serious drug abuse. She thought her father was distant and irresponsible, and he has admitted that he lived a life of drug-fueled hedonism during this time. As a child, Phillips believed that modeling her father's drug use could help her secure a place for herself in his world. As a result, she was rolling marijuana joints at age ten, bringing cocaine to school while in the sixth grade, and regularly consuming LSD, Quaaludes, and cocaine by age thirteen. She never fit in with non-users; she writes that when around “normal” kids, she felt like an “oddly privileged outsider” (p. 15).
        Although Phillips’ early drug use might shock many readers, she seemed to manage it during her early teenage years without major adverse consequences. She achieved success in the hit sitcom One Day at a Time and attended a high school for the performing arts. However, during her late teenage years, the frequency and quantity of drug use escalated. Drugs quickly became a disruptive force in her life. For example, she lost weight and was constantly late for work. Often, she showed up for work still reeling from the effects of the previous night’s abuses. Her job—what she saw as the most stabilizing force in her life—was in jeopardy. Here again, the drug use isolated her. Of her descent into the life of a drug addict, she writes, “I alone knew that I had crossed a line that people don’t cross, and it made me different. I was a fragment of a person, and my secret isolated me” (p. 168). She coped with her sense of isolation and shame by getting high. She was fired from her job and started injecting cocaine and heroin on a daily basis.
        The bulk of High on Arrival is a graphic description of what happened next. For the next thirty years, over the course of three marriages, several trips to rehab, and the birth and rearing of one child, Phillips and those around her experienced the harmful consequences of her self-described out-of-control drug use. The consequences are innumerable and shocking. There was the incestuous relationship with her father, which she describes as “a series of twisted, blurry memories that I had no desire to see by the light of day” (p. 169). There is also the time that Phillips shot-up in front of her young brother, and the time she brought her own newborn son to a crack house in the middle of the night. Getting and taking drugs became more important than everything else.
        These episodes in Phillips’ life have attracted the most media attention. And yet, for people who want to understand addiction and recovery, what really matters is Phillips’ quest for recovery and redemption. She seems to understand this. She writes that, “… the power of drugs is a given. The real questions are how far an individual goes, and why, and what, if anything, gives her the power to stop” (p. 172). For Phillips, recovery and redemption remain elusive. She attended rehab and attained sobriety for about a decade; during this time, she successfully transitioned into the life of a working actress and mother. But not long after her father’s death, she started to slip back into addiction. Before long she was living with drug dealers, smoking heroin and shooting cocaine. An 2008 arrest compelled her to seek treatment again. In the conclusion of the book Phillips expresses a sense that she has attained long-term sobriety. She remains aware, however, that the “monster” of her addiction might re-awaken at any point. 
        There are many aspects of Phillips’ story that are extraordinary. She counts rock stars and television stars among her friends and family, and her sitcom salary financed her drug addiction. However, many aspects of her story are all too ordinary. For instance, as a child Phillips experienced family discord and a lack of parental supervision. Her family history also suggests she might carry a genetic risk for substance abuse. According to the syndrome model of addiction (Shaffer et al., 2004), these psychosocial and neurobiological risk factors increase the vulnerability to addiction. Because Phillips was exposed to drug use -- as opposed to, for instance, gambling -- and because she found the drug use pleasurable, she was especially susceptible to drug addiction. Some of the expressions of her addiction are specific to drug abuse: these include her track marks and dramatic weight loss. However, many of the consequences she experienced are not specific to drug addiction. For example, in terms of psychosocial consequences, people who experience chemical addiction (like Phillips) and people who experience behavioral addiction (e.g., pathological gambling) are both vulnerable to feelings of shame, guilt, and social isolation (as reviewed by Shaffer et al., 2004). Moreover, like Phillips, people with different types of addiction share a tendency to experience neuroadaptation (e.g., tolerance and withdrawal; Shaffer et al., 2004). During one of Phillips’ early stints in rehab, her counselors did not view addiction as different manifestations of the same underlying syndrome. Because the counselors viewed alcohol addiction as an entirely different disorder, they allowed patients with drug addiction to continue drinking alcohol. As a result, Phillips began to drink excessively. She writes that “the booze helped fill the hole that cocaine… had left. But the hole was deep, so it took a lot of booze to fill it” (p. 146). Now scientists know that it is common for people to “hop” from one addiction to another before successfully recovering from the root of their addiction (Shaffer et al., 2004).

    In the end, the keys to Phillips’ current period of sobriety are probably not extraordinary. She attributes her recovery to the support of her family and friends and, perhaps more importantly, to her own developing awareness of the role that drugs have played in her life. High on Arrival will likely attract readers interested in its celebrity gossip and salacious family secrets. However, there is much in this book that might offer insight and even hope to everyday people struggling with addiction and its various consequences.

--Heather Gray

What do you think?  Please use the comment link below to provide feedback on this article.

References Cited

Phillips, M. (2009). High on arrival: A memoir. New York: Simon Spotlight.

Shaffer, H. J., LaPlante, D. A., LaBrie, R. A., Kidman, R. C., Donato, A., & Stanton, M. V. (2004). Toward a syndrome model of addiction: Multiple manifestations, common etiology. Harvard Review of Psychiatry, 12(6), 367-374.

Addiction & the Humanities, Vol. 5 (9) - “Putting the monster in the box”: Mental illness, substance abuse, and self-medication in Carrie Fisher’s "Wishful Drinking"

Although Carrie Fisher is best known for her iconic portrayal of Princess Leia in the Star Wars films, she is also a successful novelist and screenwriter. In 2008 she published Wishful Drinking, a history of her life, first as the child of celebrities, and then as a celebrity in her own right. In it, she candidly (and comically) details her ongoing struggle with substance abuse and mental illness. In this week’s Addiction and the Humanities, we discuss how Fisher’s thoughtful description of her substance abuse and mental illness brings to life accumulated scientific knowledge related to the tendency for people to self-medicate the symptoms of their mental illness with drugs and alcohol.

Carrie Fisher has bipolar disorder. The disease, she says, makes her highly emotional. Fisher presents this insightful description of her unusual emotional intensity: it “revs up the motor of misery, guns the engine of an unpleasant experience, filling it with rocket fuel and blasting into a place in the stratosphere that is oh-so-near to something like a suicidal tendency—a place where the wish to continue living in this painful place is all but completely absent” (p. 14). Her depressive episodes are offset by bouts of mania, during which she talks non-stop, shows remarkable creativity, and makes poor (and lasting) decisions for herself.

When she was first diagnosed as having bipolar disorder at the age of 24 (five years after she first donned her Princess Leia side-buns), Fisher refused pharmacological treatment. Instead, she controlled her psychological pain—and her emotional intensity—with the help of drugs and, to a lesser extent, alcohol.  She writes that her mood disorder was “at least in part why I ingested chemical waste—it was kind of a desire to abbreviate myself. To present the CliffNotes of the emotional me, as opposed to the twelve-volume read” (p. 117). The drugs were partly successful in suppressing her symptoms; they allowed her to “put the monster in the box” (p. 117).

 
Unfortunately, as generally happens, Fisher built up a tolerance to the “chemical waste,” having to consume more and more to achieve the same psychological state. She accidentally overdosed at age twenty-eight. The overdose convinced her that her drug and alcohol addiction—not her bipolar illness—was her main problem. So, she dedicated herself to achieving and maintaining sobriety. But then her bipolar symptoms re-emerged. She writes that “without the substances I had used to distort and mask my symptoms, it was now all too clear that I was a bone fide, wild-ride manic-depressive” (p. 121). In other words, the monster was back out of the box. After a year of “erratic sobriety” she finally decided to address her bipolar illness head-on. Over the next twenty-plus years, Fisher has relied on a combination of psychotherapy, drug therapy, and electro-convulsive therapy to manage her mental illness. She has had “four or five” episodes of drug-use relapse.

Fisher’s history of suppressing the symptoms of mental illness with substance abuse is consistent with the self-medication hypothesis of substance abuse (Khanztian, 1985, 1997). Khantzian (1985) first developed the self-medication hypothesis on the basis of a long series of conversations with patients struggling with substance use disorders. Khantzian often asked his patients, “What did the drug do for you when you first used it?” He discovered a trend in their responses: one after another, they indicated that they used substances in part to alleviate their psychological suffering. Subsequent research has supported this idea. For instance, there is a strong and consistent association between substance abuse and psychiatric disorders; people who are dependent on drugs or alcohol are disproportionately likely to experience psychiatric conditions (as reviewed by Khantzian, 1997). This is especially true in the case of bipolar disorder (see Weiss et al., 2004). Of course, simple co-occurrence does not indicate whether substance abuse is a cause or a consequence of mental illness. Patients’ retrospective reports of using substance abuse to relieve psychological distress (Weiss et al., 2004) provides support for the notion that, at least in some cases, people use drugs to “put the monster in the box.”

Several other aspects of Fisher’s story coincide with trends identified in the scientific literature. First, the self-medication hypothesis states that people choose the particular classes of drugs that are most successful in ameliorating their painful feelings. Khantzian (1997) specifically predicts that opiates will be the drug of choice for people who seek to attenuate their intense emotions. Consistent with this, Fisher mainly used opiates to calm her moods after experimenting with a range of other drugs.  Second, the self-medication hypothesis predicts that a particular character trait—a tendency to be unable to tolerate discomfort—helps set the stage for substance abuse (Khantzian, 1997). Along these lines, Fisher observes that her “compulsion for comfort ” (p. 105) helped propel her toward drug abuse. She has long struggled to deal with life’s minor setbacks and through therapy she has learned to tolerate discomfort. Finally, Fisher consistently uses humor as a potent coping mechanism. She discusses how finding something humorous about a painful experience takes some of harm out of it. “If my life wasn’t funny,” she writes, “it would just be true, and that is unacceptable” (p. 17). The scientific literature is replete with references to the use of humor to cope adaptively with the stress of negative life events (e.g., McCrae, 1984).

In summary, Carrie Fisher’s Wishful Drinking presents a refreshingly honest and insightful glimpse into the world of an individual struggling with both mental illness and substance abuse. It moves the reader out of the solitary clinical setting and into the rich and complicated life of a single individual. In doing so, it provides an in-depth illustration of the self-medication hypothesis. In the next edition of Addiction and the Humanities, we will explore the themes in another celebrity memoir, Mackenzie Phillip’s High on Arrival, and how they relate to the scientific literature on addiction. 

--Heather Gray

What do you think?  Please use the comment link below to provide feedback on this article.

References:

Fisher, C. (2008). Wishful Drinking. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Khantzian, E. J. (1985). The self-medication hypothesis of addictive disorders: Focus on heroin and cocaine dependence. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 142(11), 1259-1264.

Khantzian, E. J. (1997). The self-medication hypothesis of substance use disorders: A reconsideration and recent applications. Harvard Review of Psychiatry, 4(5), 231-244.

McCrae, R. R. (1984). Situational determinants of coping responses: Loss, threat, and challenge. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(4), 919-928.

Weiss, R. D., Kolodziej, M., Griffin, M. L., Najavits, L. M., Jacobson, L. M., & Greenfield, S. F. (2004). Substance use and perceived symptom improvement among patients with bipolar disorder and substance dependence. Journal of Affective Disorders, 79(1), 279-283.

Addiction & the Humanities, Vol. 5(8) - Addiction recovery as TV drama: A&E’s “The Cleaner”

During recent years, television-based portrayals of mental health problems, particularly addiction, have exploded, both in terms of the number of shows addressing these issues and in their viewership.  Leading the way is the A&E network whose prime time hit, “Intervention,” is a reality program that documents individuals and families struggling with addiction. During the show, protagonists prepare for, and execute, a Vernon Johnson style Intervention method.  Influenced by the early success of this show, A&E now airs the reality programs “Obsessed,” which tracks the lives and treatment of those with anxiety disorders, and “Hoarders,” which follows individuals who obsessively accumulate possessions.  “The Cleaner,” which attracted 1.1 million viewers aged 18-49 during 2008, is the first original scripted drama to appear on the network in many years.  Its plot features the efforts of William Banks, who is in recovery from drug addiction, as he assists others who are dealing with addiction to attain sobriety.  This week’s Addiction & the Humanities examines this show and whether it is representative of the addiction recovery process in popular culture; further, this issue assesses if the portrait of recovery presented in “The Cleaner” is accurate and helpful. 

The Show
The life of the show’s executive producer, Warren Boyd, inspired the development of “The Cleaner”; this fact is displayed at the start of each episode.  The show’s protagonist, Banks, is an “extreme interventionist” willing to secure the sobriety of his charges by any means necessary.  As an episode which aired August 4, 2009 demonstrates, these means include restraining a nurse and prominent surgeon as they experience the withdrawal symptoms associated with sudden termination of amphetamine use.  This pair arrives under the care of Mr. Banks as a result of an ultimatum by the hospital administrator who has hired Banks – get help or lose your job.  Both characters are incredibly ambivalent about change, sometimes extremely resistant, and at other times eager for terminating use.  By the end of the episode, the nurse, having been abducted and forcibly detoxified in a garage, chose to end her relationship with the surgeon, who is once again using amphetamines.  Similar storylines have punctuated the majority of the series. This common storyline highlights Mr. Banks and his team’s attempts to engage their clients in discussions about their addictions, but ultimately they employ secretive, deceptive and coercive means to engage their clients in the detoxification process.

 

The Cleaner and A&E logos are owned by A&E.

Representation of Recovery
Although “The Cleaner” makes for a good television drama, it has a number of fundamental flaws that create unnecessary problems and make for a misleading representation of addiction and the recovery process.  First, the language of each episode is peppered with references to “addicts,” “junkies,” and “getting clean.”  Such language devalues the people referenced in this way and contributes to the stigma associated with addictions, particularly substance abuse.  Even the show’s title is a subtle reinforcement of the idea that those with addiction problems are “dirty” and must “get clean” – a stigmatizing suggestion.  The role of stigma in addiction treatment and recovery is complex and still under investigation; Luoma et al. reported that individuals in treatment for drug and alcohol abuse evidenced high levels of stigma (Luoma et al., 2007). They also found that the shame associated with the stigma of being a substance abuser negatively correlated with measures of quality of life and psychological functioning (Luoma et al., 2007).  Perceived stigma also has been shown to be a barrier that keeps substance abusers from seeking treatment.  In one study, 49.2% of drug abusers and 54.3% of alcohol abusers reported delaying treatment because of stigma (Cunningham, Sobell, Sobell, Agrawal, & Toneatto, 1993).  By consistently using derogatory terms for those with addiction problems, “The Cleaner” contributes to the stigma associated with being a substance abuser. This stigma might discourage individuals from seeking treatment.

The role of William Banks as an extreme interventionist derives from the Johnson Intervention model of motivating – some might argue coercing—those struggling with addictions to enter treatment.  Using this traditional intervention model, friends, family members, and others within the close social network of the individual work with a professional interventionist to encourage and motivate the individual to immediately seek treatment to remediate their addictive behaviors (Fernandez, Begley, & Marlatt, 2006).  Studies of the utility of the Johnson Intervention model have produced mixed results and wide-ranging rates of treatment engagement (Logan, 1983; Miller, Meyers, & Tonigan, 1999).  A number of less confrontational, social network centered intervention approaches have been developed, such as the CRAFT (Community Reinforcement and Family Training). The CRAFT relies on Motivational Interviewing and behavioral techniques employed by the social network to encourage treatment engagement by the individual with addiction problems.  In a randomized control trial that directly compared treatment engagement after utilizing the Johnson Intervention or the CRAFT approach, treatment engagement for Johnson Intervention participants was 23% compared to 64% for CRAFT participants (Miller et al., 1999). 

The interventions presented in “The Cleaner” deviate from both the Johnson Intervention and the CRAFT model in a number of key ways.  Primarily, Banks and his team are often strangers to the clients they are attempting to help, and broad social networks are absent from the process of encouraging individuals to seek help.  Furthermore, the interventions depicted are substantially more confrontational than those that current research would support.  Mr. Banks and his team often strong-arm those “nominated” for their services into accepting on penalty of losing their jobs, their children, or things they are expected to value more than their addictive behavior.   Evidence does not support this aggressive, provoking approach to behavior change. In fact, research indicates that such methods can be deleterious (Allen, Sprenkel, & Vitale, 1994; Miller, Benefield, & Tonigan, 1993).

The most serious flaw in “The Cleaner” is that the individuals targeted by Mr. Banks’ interventions are not the agents of their own recovery.  Flying in the face of the well-established stages of change model for behavioral change, the show seems to imply that individuals can be forced and/or coerced into sobriety through means of deception, threats and even abduction. Once free of thought clouding substances, these newly detoxified people readily will choose to remain sober.  Without the active engagement of those that are addicted, and a fundamental desire to modify the behaviors associated with the addiction (e.g. drug or alcohol use) sustained recovery is unlikely (Shaffer, 1992).  Empirical evidence shows that, for those in substance abuse treatment, the personal motivation for behavior change is a critical component of recovery by (Laudet, Magura, Vogel, & Knight, 2003; Laudet & White, 2008).  Portrayals of recovery that stem from coercion rather than active engagement by those living with addictions are not only misleading, they potentially can be damaging.  A&E advertises the show as being “inspired by actual events”; this illusory representation might provide viewers with the false notion that all individuals can be forced into recovery.  While coercion might work for some, it is not a solution for all.  Additionally, “The Cleaner” provides no room for the possibility that those with addiction issues will abandon their addictive behaviors independently.  Exclamations of “this is your only chance” and similar phrases often are declared. The show ignores the fact that many individuals can, and do, initiate their own recoveries.  By consistently downplaying the role of those with addiction as primary influences in their recovery – such as being passively “cleaned up,” while strapped down to a gurney in a garage – “The Cleaner” presents an inaccurate picture of the recovery process. This image is unlikely to be helpful for the majority of those with addiction issues.  

“The Cleaner” also fails to address the agonizing ambivalence of those with addiction problems (i.e., the conflict between feelings of wanting to continue to engage in addictive behaviors while simultaneously wanting to quit).  This is a key component of the addiction experience that must be managed to more forward with recovery (Shaffer, 1992).  While the show portrays moments of denial and ambivalence, the Cleaner does not address these matters within the current theoretical understanding of addiction recovery.  Rather, ambivalence is portrayed as moments of personal weakness.  While the surgeon in the aforementioned example notes that he uses amphetamines to enhance his performance at his incredibly demanding job, he also expresses the desire to terminate his drug use.  Only the latter is relevant to Mr. Banks.  Although acknowledging and working through this ambivalence is key to a successful recovery for the doctor, here it is largely minimized and ignored.  This portrayal is yet another misrepresentation of recovery perpetuated by “The Cleaner.”

The treatment portrayed ends when the individual has completed the detoxification process with the assistance of Mr. Banks and his team.  There is minimal reference made to continued recovery or relapse prevention once sobriety is achieved; recovery groups, inpatient treatment and sober living are only mentioned marginally throughout the show’s second season.  Given the marginalized role of treatment and recovery beyond the initial detoxification, viewers of the show might infer that addiction recovery is as easy as a single forced episode of sobriety.  In reality, addiction recovery typically is a long-term process punctuated by multiple attempts at treatment and relapses to use (Dennis, Scott, Funk, & Foss, 2005; McLellan, Lewis, O'Brien, & Kleber, 2000).  For many with addiction problems, the path to recovery is long and is made possible by emotional support from social networks, learned stress and temptation reduction strategies and, above all, the motivation to change addictive behaviors (Laudet & White, 2008).  The minimized portrayal of the extended recovery process by “The Cleaner” falsely represents the true experiences of many in recovery from addictions.

Conclusion
Although “The Cleaner” bills itself as based in fact, its portrayal of addiction recovery is pure fiction.  Evidence suggests that social-network based and less confrontational approaches to recovery initiation have greater success rates for treatment engagement than more confrontational approaches. The process of recovery is impossible without the user’s active engagement and desire to disengage from addictive behaviors.  Individuals rarely can be coerced to abandon behaviors with immense biological and psychological components.  Individuals respond most effectively when they can choose to engage in the recovery process.  Additionally, managing ambivalence is a critical component of the stage-change pathway that must occur before recovery can endure.  The propensity of the “The Cleaner” to downplay ambivalence is detrimental to the show’s viewers who might interpret such ambivalence as unusual.  It is unclear why “The Cleaner” takes such a heavy-handed and unrealistic approach to portraying the recovery process.  The show is built on the premise that assisting individuals in engaging in recovery is a good and noble thing.  Why, then, does the show continually refer to those with addiction problems in stigmatizing ways and portray recovery in unrealistic terms?  As a work of dramatic fiction, “The Cleaner” has the potential to entertain audiences, but as an accurate portrayal of recovery, the show misses the mark.  By touting itself as being based in fact, “The Cleaner” does disservice to its viewers.

Editor’s Note:  After the writing of this Addiction & the Humanities article, the A&E network announced that it has cancelled “The Cleaner.”  It is unclear why the network has taken this action, but perhaps audiences reacted to the errors of the show by tuning in less and less.

-Erica Marshall

What do you think?  Please use the comment link below to provide feedback on this article.

References

Allen, D. N., Sprenkel, D. G., & Vitale, P. A. (1994). Reactance theory and alcohol consumption laws: further confirmation among collegiate alcohol consumers. J Stud Alcohol, 55(1), 34-40.

Cunningham, J. A., Sobell, L. C., Sobell, M. B., Agrawal, S., & Toneatto, T. (1993). Barriers to treatment: Why alcohol and drug abusers delay or never seek treatment. Addictive Behaviors, 18(3), 347-353.

Dennis, M. L., Scott, C. K., Funk, R., & Foss, M. A. (2005). The duration and correlates of addiction and treatment careers. J Subst Abuse Treat, 28 Suppl 1, S51-62.

Fernandez, A. C., Begley, E. A., & Marlatt, G. A. (2006). Family and peer interventions for adults: past approaches and future directions. Psychol Addict Behav, 20(2), 207-213.

Laudet, A. B., Magura, S., Vogel, H. S., & Knight, E. L. (2003). Participation in 12-Step-Based Fellowships Among Dually-Diagnosed Persons. Alcohol Treat Q, 21(3), 19-39.

Laudet, A. B., & White, W. L. (2008). Recovery capital as prospective predictor of sustained recovery, life satisfaction, and stress among former poly-substance users. Subst Use Misuse, 43(1), 27-54.

Logan, D. G. (1983). Getting alcoholics to treatment by social network intervention. Hosp Community Psychiatry, 34(4), 360-361.

Luoma, J. B., Twohig, M. P., Waltz, T., Hayes, S. C., Roget, N., Padilla, M., et al. (2007). An investigation of stigma in individuals receiving treatment for substance abuse. Addict Behav, 32(7), 1331-1346.

McLellan, A. T., Lewis, D. C., O'Brien, C. P., & Kleber, H. D. (2000). Drug dependence, a chronic medical illness: implications for treatment, insurance, and outcomes evaluation. Jama, 284(13), 1689-1695.

Miller, W. R., Benefield, R. G., & Tonigan, J. S. (1993). Enhancing motivation for change in problem drinking: a controlled comparison of two therapist styles. J Consult Clin Psychol, 61(3), 455-461.

Miller, W. R., Meyers, R. J., & Tonigan, J. S. (1999). Engaging the unmotivated in treatment for alcohol problems: a comparison of three strategies for intervention through family members. J Consult Clin Psychol, 67(5), 688-697.

Shaffer, H. J. (1992). The psychology of stage change: the transition from addiction to recovery. In J. H. Lowinson, P. Ruiz, R. B. Millman & J. G. Langrod (Eds.), Substance abuse: a comprehensive textbook (Second ed., pp. 100-105). Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins.

 

Addiction & the Humanities, Vol. 5 (7) - Maybe it’s just me: The common relapse experience

Relapse is common for multiple paths of recovery from addiction (e.g., self-guided, treatment assisted, etc.). Various studies have shown that most expressions of addiction  carry a significant chance of relapse. For instance, in one 2003 study, 50% of marijuana smokers fit the criteria for relapse (Moore & Budney, 2003). Two other 2005 studies found high relapse rates among those recovering from alcoholism (i.e., 82% of outpatients and 73% of inpatients) (Marlatt & Witkiewitz, 2005)) and quitting smokers (40% of smokers who successfully abstained for one year and 90-97% of smokers who quit alone, (Shiffman, Kassel, Gwaltney, & McChargue, 2005)). 

Illustrating people’s propensity for relapse, Nic Sheff, author of the addiction and recovery memoir, Tweak, (Addiction & the Humanities Vol. 4 (9) – Addiction is more than just science) suffered two relapses during May and October of 2008; these relapses were 3 and 8 months, respectively, after the publication of Tweak. Sheff explained that his relapse episodes were the result of a difficult personal situation and his attempt to deal with this situation alone. The specific difficulties of relapse that Sheff describes (see Table 1) are similar to those often reported for other addictive behavior: common characteristics of relapse include, negative automatic thoughts, mild depressive thoughts, negative emotions, cravings, and dangerous behavior (Marlatt & Witkiewitz, 2005; McKay, Rutherford, Alterman, Cacciola, & Kaplan, 1995).

Relapse prevention programs, self-management programs intended to facilitate maintained recovery ("Preface," 2005), attempt to account for many of the common difficulties associated with relapse. The foundation of relapse prevention is to encourage and assist treatment seekers as they work towards harm reduction, abstinence and moderation ("Preface," 2005) by focusing on the behaviors and environmental factors that make up each individual’s situation. Relapse prevention falls under the Cognitive Behavior Therapy (CBT) umbrella; its focus on individual factors means that each person’s treatment program should adapt to their learning and progress. Research suggests that relapse prevention is often effective for the treatment of addictive behaviors, including stimulant use disorders (e.g., Sheff’s methamphetamine addiction) (Carroll & Rawson, 2005). Table 1 presents some of the parallels in Sheff’s thoughts and behavior regarding his relapse (Bonifield, 2008; Sheff, 2008), and typical relapse prevention treatment efforts.

Table 1: Parallels between Sheff’s relapse and Relapse Prevention Treatment.

Conclusion
Recovery from substance use disorders is difficult because of the prevalence of relapse and the associated problems that accompany relapse episodes. In our last post about Nic Sheff, we interviewed a high school teacher who stated that reading about Sheff’s more difficult experiences (e.g., detox, AA and NA use, near deaths) was beneficial and made the dangers of drug use more evident to her students. Sheff’s public admission to relapsing twice shows readers that, even with successful periods of abstinence, recovering from substance use and remaining drug-free is a difficult struggle that can take many years to resolve.

- Ingrid Maurice

What do you think?  Please use the comment link below to provide feedback on this article.

References

Bonifield, J. (2008). Relapse a constant threat, 'Tweak' author says, CNNhealth.com: CNN.com.

Carroll, K. M., & Rawson, R. A. (2005). Relapse Prevention for Stimulant Dependence. In G. A. Marlatt & D. M. Donovan (Eds.), Relapse Prevention: Maintenance Strategies in the Treatment of Addictive Behaviors, Second Edition (2 ed., pp. 416). New York: The Guilford Press.

Marlatt, G. A., & Witkiewitz, K. (2005). Relapse Prevention for Alcohol and Drug Problems. In G. A. Marlatt & D. M. Donovan (Eds.), Relapse Prevention: Maintenance Strategies in the Treatment of Addictive Behaviors, Second Edition (2 ed., pp. 416). New York: The Guilford Press.

McKay, J. R., Rutherford, M. J., Alterman, A. I., Cacciola, J. S., & Kaplan, M. R. (1995). An examination of the cocaine relapse process. Drug Alcohol Depend, 38(1), 35-43.

Moore, B. A., & Budney, A. J. (2003). Relapse in outpatient treatment for marijuana dependence. J Subst Abuse Treat, 25(2), 85-89.

Preface. (2005). (2005). In G. A. Marlatt & D. M. Donovan (Eds.), Relapse Prevention: Maintenance Strategies in the Treatment of Addictive Behaviors, Second Edition (pp. 416). New York: The Guilford Press.

Sheff, N. (2008). After relapse come terror, hope, CNNhealth.com: CNN.com.

Shiffman, S., Kassel, J., Gwaltney, C., & McChargue, D. (2005). Relapse Prevention for Smoking. In G. A. Marlatt & D. M. Donovan (Eds.), Relapse Prevention: Maintenance Strategies in the Treatment of Addictive Behaviors, Second Edition (2 ed., pp. 416). New York: The Guilford Press.

Addiction & the Humanities, Vol. 5(6) - Don’t Stop Till You Get Enough: How Media Coverage of Michael Jackson’s Death Might Raise Awareness About the Dangers of Prescription Drug Abuse.

On June 25, 2009 at 5:20 p.m., the celebrity gossip web site TMZ.com posted a story titled “Michael Jackson Dies.” Shortly thereafter, the cable news channels went live with footage of an ambulance taking Jackson’s body to the hospital. For the next few hours, news networks covered countless breaking details without pausing for commercial breaks. The non-stop television coverage coincided with a dramatic spike in Internet activity, particularly on social networking sites. The popular communication site, Twitter, slowed considerably—the result of a surge in Jackson-related “tweets”—up to up 5,000 per minute at peak. This rate of tweets represents the biggest jump since the presidential inauguration.

Before the major news outlets could even confirm that Jackson had died, talk turned to allegations that Jackson had been abusing prescription painkillers. About one-third of the initial stories focused on the potential causes of Jackson’s death, including rumors of drug abuse, according to a report by the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism. Clearly, Jackson’s death momentarily has focused the nation’s attention on the dangers of prescription drug abuse. And past experience tells us that media coverage of celebrity health issues can influence real-life health behaviors. For instance, colonoscopy rates jumped more than 20% after Katie Couric underwent the procedure live on national television.

In this week’s Addiction and the Humanities, we explore whether, and to what extent, the news media used the opportunity of Jackson’s death to highlight the broader issue of prescription drug abuse and its consequences. We are particularly interested in whether news accounts have presented Jackson’s death as an isolated event or as an issue within the larger context of prescription drug abuse.

We conducted an informal analysis of television, print, and on-line stories about Jackson’s death, modeled after a recent analysis of news coverage focusing on celebrity DUI arrests (Smith, Twum, & Gielen, in press). We chose six prominent national sources that together represent a variety of media outlets in terms of media type and intended audience. These include one newspaper (The New York Times), a celebrity news magazine (People Magazine), two primetime cable news shows (Larry King Live and The O’Reilly Factor), one network news website (ABCNews.com), and one National Public Radio program (Talk of the Nation). For each source, we searched published archives for the article or broadcast most relevant to Jackson’s prescription drug abuse. For each article or broadcast we located, we explored the extent to which the writer or host presented a broader public-health perspective by including informative elements, such as facts about prescription painkillers and their health consequences, statistics about prescription drug abuse/dependence, prevention strategies and policy initiatives, and the inclusion of expert perspectives.

There was a wide variety in the tendency to include a public health perspective within articles and broadcasts. The stories produced by The New York Times and The O’Reilly Factor provided no public health elements. The Times article (“Medication is a Focus of Jackson Inquiry,” published on June 27, 2009) focused exclusively on the Los Angeles County coroner’s office efforts to determine the cause of Jackson’s sudden death. In the episode from The O’Reilly Factor airing June 30, 2009, a guest host and two commentators discussed whether Jackson’s race contributed to the media’s focus on his drug abuse and child abuse allegations. The People Magazine story, published on-line the day after Jackson’s death and titled “Drugs and Alcohol: Jackson Family Attempted Vegas Intervention,” detailed a 2006 attempt on the part of Jackson’s siblings to perform an intervention in Las Vegas. Though this story focused mostly on the specifics of Jackson’s case, it included a quote from an unnamed source about “clinically functioning addicts” more broadly: “Michael is a clinically functioning addict and these are the most dangerous…. These are the ones that OD.”

The remaining sources offered several informative elements in their stories. A report published on ABCNews.com the day after Jackson’s death, “Friend Says Michael Jackson Battled Demerol Addiction,” includes expert perspectives, facts about prescription painkillers, and statistics about prescription drug abuse. For instance, a cardiologist was quoted discussing how people build up a tolerance to opiates. Figures from the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration were used to highlight the growing rate of deaths involving prescription pain relievers. During the episode of Larry King Live that aired June 10, 2000 (“Michael Jackson Drug Abuse Details Emerge”), guests included a psychiatrist who specializes in addiction and an anesthesiologist/pain management specialist. These guests provided information about warning signs of prescription drug abuse and the process of tolerance. However, neither of these stories provided as much public-health information as the broadcast of Talk of the Nation that aired on National Public Radio on July 2, 2009. In this broadcast, host Neal Conan used Jackson's death purely as a starting point for a wide-ranging discussion about prescription drug use and abuse. A pain care specialist, a professor of law and health care ethics, and a representative of the Drug Enforcement Administration discussed methods to reduce prescription drug abuse, including efforts on the part of individual physicians as well as state and federal initiatives to limit drug misuse. People with chronic pain enhanced this discussion by calling in to discuss their need for effective pain management.

At this writing, nearly four weeks have passed since Michael Jackson’s death, and many of the major news providers have offered non-stop coverage. A Google search of “Michael Jackson drug abuse” yields over 1.5 million hits. Because of the sheer amount of articles produced by this coverage, it would be nearly impossible to generate a truly representative sample of articles. However, this informal analysis illustrates the potential for news organizations to use the sad occasion of Jackson’s death to inform the public about the dangers of prescription drug abuse. And there is cause for optimism: according to a survey conducted by the American Society of Health Systems Pharmacists, 28% of pharmacists surveyed said their patients are asking more questions about the risks of prescription pain medications since Jackson’s death.

What do you think?  Please use the comment link below to provide feedback on this article.

References

American Society of Health Systems Pharmacists. (2009). Survey Reveals Public's Concerns About Prescription Medication Overdose Risks Following Death of Michael Jackson. Retrieved July 22, 2009, from http://www.ashp.org/import/news/pressreleases/pressrelease.aspx?id=534

Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism. (2009). PEJ News Coverage Index: June 22 - 28, 2009 Media Swing from Protests in Iran to the Passing of the King of Pop. Retrieved July 21, 2009, from http://www.journalism.org/taxonomy/term/96

Smith, K. C., Twum, D., & Gielen, A. C. Media coverage of celebrity DUIs: Teachable moments or problematic social modeling? In press, Alcohol and Alcoholism.

Addiction & the Humanities, Vol. 5(5) – A Possible Resolution: Regulation of Cognitive-Enhancing Drugs

In our past two issues of Addiction and the Humanities, we discussed the debate within the medical and legal communities about whether people should use powerful drugs for cognitive enhancement. This last installment of the series advances the discussion from whether people should use these drugs to a consideration of safety, distribution, and legalization.

Safety
Cognitive-enhancing drugs specifically affect executive function, and anecdotal evidence claims that they also improve focus and memory and reduce the effects of fatigue (Beddington et al., 2008; Morein-Zamir, Turner, & Sahakian, 2007; Turner et al., 2003). Researchers have tested one drug,  Modafinil, in healthy individuals (Turner et al., 2003) but there is little research on the safe use of other cognitive-enhancing drugs among healthy individuals (Lanni et al., 2008). For example, it is unclear what the difference in dosage for increasing focus would be for a healthy person versus a person with ADHD (Turner et al., 2003). Further, some drugs, such as Ritalin, carry the risk of heart problems and dependency (Hibbert, 2007), two issues that would have to be addressed in order to distribute cognitive-enhancing drugs safely and legally. Lastly, like any other drug, there are unsafe black-market versions of cognitive enhancing drugs available to buyers; it is important to alert the public to the dangers of using these unsafe versions that could lead to lethal side effects. 

Distribution
The widespread use of cognitive enhancing drugs for self-improvement also brings up the issue of fairness and equal access (Dekkers & Rikkert, 2007). As more people request to use these drugs, legislators, researchers, and clinicians will have to work together to ensure that groups of people with a greater need will always be given priority access to cognitive enhancing drugs. Furthermore, a discussion about access ought to stimulate discussion about where people should be purchasing cognitive-enhancing drugs (i.e. prescriptions vs. over the counter availability).

Legalization
Although cognitive-enhancing drugs such as Ritalin, Adderall, and Modafinil are legal, there are issues surrounding use, supplier authorization, and possession that will have to be addressed. For example, if cognitive enhancers can only be obtained via prescriptions, then regulations will have to be put in place to determine how much of each substance an individual is allowed to have in their possession. Furthermore, discussion of necessary rules and regulations should encourage discussion about whose responsibility it will be to make these rules (i.e., legislators vs. clinicians)

Conclusion
The use of cognitive enhancing drugs is already fairly common (DeSantis et al., 2008; Greely et al., 2008). In fact, some experts consider these drugs the next logical step in human self-improvement (Greely et al., 2008). However, if we, as a society, are willing to legitimize the use of drugs for cognitive enhancement, then we must also accept the unavoidable changes that they will bring to opportunities for success, academics, and even creativity. In order to manage cognitive-enhancing drug use, there needs to be enough regulation to prevent harm.

- Ingrid Maurice

What do you think? Please use the commen tlink below to provide feedback on this article.

References

Beddington, J., Cooper, C. L., Field, J., Goswami, U., Huppert, F. A., Jenkins, R., et al. (2008). The mental wealth of nations. Nature, 455(7216), 1057-1060.

Dekkers, W., & Rikkert, M. O. (2007). Memory enhancing drugs and Alzheimer's disease: enhancing the self or preventing the loss of it? Med Health Care Philos, 10(2), 141-151.

DeSantis, A. D., Webb, E. M., & Noar, S. M. (2008). Illicit use of prescription ADHD medications on a college campus: a multimethodological approach. J Am Coll Health, 57(3), 315-324.

Greely, H., Sahakian, B., Harris, J., Kessler, R. C., Gazzaniga, M., Campbell, P., et al. (2008). Towards responsible use of cognitive-enhancing drugs by the healthy. Nature, 456(7223), 702-705.

Hibbert, K. (2007, November 8). Ways to make you think better. guardian.co.uk.

Lanni, C., Lenzken, S. C., Pascale, A., Del Vecchio, I., Racchi, M., Pistoia, F., et al. (2008). Cognition enhancers between treating and doping the mind. Pharmacol Res, 57(3), 196-213.

Morein-Zamir, S., Turner, D. C., & Sahakian, B. J. (2007). A review of the effects of modafinil on cognition in schizophrenia. Schizophr Bull, 33(6), 1298-1306.

Turner, D. C., Robbins, T. W., Clark, L., Aron, A. R., Dowson, J., & Sahakian, B. J. (2003). Cognitive enhancing effects of modafinil in healthy volunteers. Psychopharmacology (Berl), 165(3), 260-269.

Addiction & the Humanities, Vol. 5 (4) - On the other hand: An argument against Cognitive Enhancing Drugs

Our last issue of Addiction & the Humanities presented one side of the debate about the use of cognitive-enhancing drugs; Greely and colleagues argued that the use of cognitive-enhancing drugs by healthy individuals is akin to the use of good nutrition and better technology to improve performance and should be accepted by society as part of the next wave of self-improvement methods (Greely et al., 2008). This week we present the other side of this discussion: the argument against the use cognitive-enhancing drugs by healthy individuals.

In a column for the website LiveScience.com, Christopher Wanjek argues that Greely and colleagues do not fully address the potential long-term consequences of using drugs for cognitive enhancement. Table 1 below summarizes their primary opposing arguments. Wanjek’s main point is that there is not enough information about the long-term effects, on healthy individuals, of drugs like Ritalin and Aderall to defend widespread use for cognitive enhancement. These drugs can have serious side effects (e.g, heart problems and chemical dependency, respectively). Further, Wanjek argues, the “reported minimal boost in cognitive ability is anecdotal.” According to Wanjek, use of these drugs by healthy people is a risky decision with little scientific evidence to support the benefits (Wanjek, 2008).

The use of cognitive enhancing drugs raises ethical questions. If these drugs provide substantial long-term enhancement, Wanjek argues, then whose needs should be prioritized? Healthy individuals interested in purchasing cognitive-enhancers for self-improvement would be competing with individuals who need cognitive enhancers as treatment for diagnosed conditions. The principles of supply and demand could spark debate about the importance of treatment needs versus the importance of self-improvement. Wanjek also voices another concern about the use of cognitive enhancers by healthy individuals – the widespread use could yield a society of “genetically manipulated” individuals. Today’s culture, commends minimally enhanced (but diligently practiced) talents and skills; a change in society’s genetic make-up would make it difficult to differentiate between drug-induced and natural creativity.

Conclusion

The debate surrounding cognitive enhancing drugs is intimately tied to public and personal opinions about a variety of values: principles (man-made versus natural enhancers), rules (who should get these drugs and how), and cheating (cognitive-enhancers give an unfair advantage). Previously questioned forms of self-improvement such as vitamins (in pill form), technology, and even some medical procedures are currently mainstream; however, society’s acceptance of general cognitive-enhancing drug distribution would call for an acceptance that many future successes and accomplishments would develop as a consequence of these drugs. Perhaps cognitive enhancers, man–made substances, are simply the next logical step in progressive self-improvement.
If this is the case, how will this discussion, intimately tied to addiction research, change the study of addictions? In the next part of this series about the use of cognitive-enhancing drugs, we will explore the details that associated addiction with the use of cognitive enhancers.

Table 1: Evaluating key arguments for and against general use of cognitive-enhancing drugs.

- Ingrid Maurice

What do you think? Please use the comment link below to provide feedback on this article.

References

Greely, H., Sahakian, B., Harris, J., Kessler, R. C., Gazzaniga, M., Campbell, P., et al. (2008). Towards responsible use of cognitive-enhancing drugs by the healthy. Nature, 456(7223), 702-705.

Hibbert, K. (2007, November 8). Ways to make you think better. guardian.co.uk.

Lanni, C., Lenzken, S. C., Pascale, A., Del Vecchio, I., Racchi, M., Pistoia, F., et al. (2008). Cognition enhancers between treating and doping the mind. Pharmacol Res, 57(3), 196-213.

Morein-Zamir, S., Turner, D. C., & Sahakian, B. J. (2007). A review of the effects of modafinil on cognition in schizophrenia. Schizophr Bull, 33(6), 1298-1306.

Turner, D. C., Robbins, T. W., Clark, L., Aron, A. R., Dowson, J., & Sahakian, B. J. (2003). Cognitive enhancing effects of modafinil in healthy volunteers. Psychopharmacology (Berl), 165(3), 260-269.

Wanjek, C. (2008, December 9). Smart Pills: The Truth About Cognitive-Enhancing Drugs. www.livescience.com.

Addiction & the Humanities, Vol. 5(3) - On the one hand: In support of Cognitive Enhancing Drugs

In an earlier BASIS (STASH 4(11)), we noted the increase in college student use of prescription drugs for cognitive enhancement. This growing trend has not only sparked a debate within the medical and legal communities about drug safety and prescription drug abuse (Greely et al., 2008); it also has raised broader cultural issues about competitiveness, fairness, and what it means to “cheat.” In this issue and the next issue of Addiction and the Humanities, we examine both sides of this debate and hope that you will also weigh in with your opinion. First, we present the Greely and colleagues case for the responsible use of cognitive enhancing drugs by healthy individuals for whom these drugs were not prescribed (Greely et al., 2008).

The drugs most commonly used for cognitive enhancement work by enhancing “executive function,” either by improving the ability to focus (Ritalin and Aderall), remember (Aricept), or avoid fatigue (Provigil) (Greely et al., 2008). Greely and colleagues argue that the use of these drugs for cognitive enhancement is simply a new tool in the persistent human quest for self-improvement, one that requires less effort than more conventional methods of improving brain function such as education, exercise, and proper nutrition.

Greely and colleagues argue that the potential benefits of drug use for cognitive enhancement justify a serious evaluation of the risks and benefits. Among the potential benefits, they suggest, are “improved quality of life and extended work productivity, as well as [the ability to] stave off normal and pathological age-related declines” (Beddington et al., 2008; Greely et al., 2008, p. 705). 

Greely and colleagues dismiss three commonly raised arguments against the use of prescription drugs for cognitive enhancement in otherwise healthy adults (i.e., it is cheating, unnatural, and it amounts to drug abuse). However, due to the risks and benefits of new advances, they believe that the concern for safety, freedom, and fairness of cognitive-enhancing is justified, and suggest some policy methods to control usage and prevent its potential negative impact (i.e. an accelerated research program, the participation of relevant professional organizations to formulate guidelines for use, education to increase the understanding of cognitive enhancement, and legislation that will change with shifting social norms).

Discussion

Greely and colleagues present an argument in favor of drug use for cognitive enhancement and discuss the need for more research about the long-term effects of these drugs. In the next HUMANITIES, we will present an opposing view from dissenters who disagree with the assertion that prescription drugs should be used by otherwise healthy individuals for cognitive enhancement. 

- Ingrid Maurice

What do you think? Please use the comment link below to provide feedback on this article.

References

Beddington, J., Cooper, C. L., Field, J., Goswami, U., Huppert, F. A., Jenkins, R., et al. (2008). The mental wealth of nations. Nature, 455(7216), 1057-1060.

Greely, H., Sahakian, B., Harris, J., Kessler, R. C., Gazzaniga, M., Campbell, P., et al. (2008). Towards responsible use of cognitive-enhancing drugs by the healthy. Nature, 456(7223), 702-705.

Addiction & the Humanities, Vol. 5(2) - Magic Mushrooms in the Media and in Reality

Turn on the television or watch a movie and it will not take you very long to find a depiction of drug use. This issue of Addictions & the Humanities will consider how the media depicted the effects of hallucinogenic mushrooms in a particular instance and how well that depiction portrays the reality of mushrooms’ effects. We will use “Tree Trippers,” an episode of HBO’s popular television series Entourage, as media reference point.

Mushroom Types & Usage
There are hundreds of types of hallucinogenic mushrooms (Cunningham, 2008); some are safe to consume, while others have toxic effects. People can grow hallucinogenic mushrooms in kits and purchase them on the Internet. People also can find them naturally in manure and forested areas around the world (Cunningham, 2008; Diaz, 2005b). Individuals can consume mushrooms raw, cooked, smoked, or used in a tea-like drink (Cunningham, 2008; Diaz, 2005b). Individuals also have reported spending time setting up their environment before consuming mushrooms because the popular wisdom considers that your last thoughts (i.e., positive or negative) and the social setting (e.g., nature or domestic) as a major influence on the “trip” (Riley & Blackman, 2008). One of many risks to individuals is that many mushrooms appear similar (e.g., the Galerina Mushrooms closely resembles some magic mushroom species, but is deadly) (Cunningham, 2008).

Figure 1 illustrates two common hallucinogenic mushrooms: the Fly Agaric and the Liberty Cap. The Fly Agaric is purportedly the stronger of the two types.

Figures 1 and 2: Two Types of Hallucinogenic Mushrooms.

       

Fly Agaric (Amanita Muscaria)                      Liberty Cap (Psilocybe Semilanceata)
 

*Please note that these images are public domain. Fly Agaric- http://www.publicdomainpictures.net/view-image.php?image=163; Liberty Cap- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Libertycap.jpg.

Clinical Effects of Hallucinogenic Mushrooms
Some of the effects of hallucinogenic mushrooms include hyperactivity, hallucinations, deep sleep, diarrhea, ataxia (lack of coordination), mydriatic pupils (dilated pupils), dizziness, vomiting, seizures, laughter, and muscle relaxation (Cunningham, 2008; Riley & Blackman, 2008). Mushroom users also report experiencing altered perspectives including spiritual enlightenment or connectedness to nature and other people, as well as a sense of mental revelation and introspection (Riley & Blackman, 2008). Other effects include reports of flashbacks, impaired memory, tolerance and addiction. Several other more serious reactions include kidney failure, neurotoxic, hepatoxic, allergic and gastrointestinal poisoning, and triggered mental health problems (e.g., psychosis). Deaths from common mushroom species have been reported, although much less frequently compared with other mushroom effects (Cunningham, 2008; Diaz, 2005b; DrugScope, 2005; Riley & Blackman, 2008). Adverse reactions remain infrequent, but the number of reactions is increasing and more research is needed to determine hallucinogenic mushroom poisoning prevalence percentages (Diaz, 2005a).

Mushroom “trips” are dichotomous; users tend to categorize “trips” as good or bad. Users recognize that bad experiences can occur and have developed strategies to cope with a bad trip (e.g., the “ride it out” strategy) (Riley & Blackman, 2008). Experiences vary widely from person to person. Typically the onset of the effects of hallucinogenic mushrooms is between 30 minutes and two hours after ingestion. The clinical effects last between 4 and 12 hours depending on the dose and type of mushroom ingested, tolerance levels, body size, and personal characteristics (expectations, experience, mood) (Cunningham, 2008; DrugScope, 2005; Riley & Blackman, 2008).

Mushroom Representation in the Media: Entourage as a Case Study
The “Tree Trippers” episode depicts hallucinogenic mushroom use when cast members decide to take the drug and then go to the Joshua Tree desert to help Vince, the lead role, make a major career decision. The characters experienced a number of the clinical effects that mushrooms stimulate, as described before. For example, characters demonstrated the commonly held belief that by experiencing mushroom induced heightened introspection and mental revelation they would be able to make a major decision. The difference between good and bad “trips” is also apparent in this portrayal. Characters hallucinated or had altered perspectives (e.g., feeling that one’s hands were really big, feeling that they were being chased by a mythical creature, thinking that your mouth will not speak, and believing they had the telepathic ability to talk with a dog). The characters also experienced anxiety, paranoia, and excessive laughter. The episode portrayed the clinical effects of mushrooms as different for each user. The cast members’ trips” started and ended at different times, they discussed how many mushrooms each person should take based on previous experience, and also were unsure of whether their “trip” was over hours later.

It is important to remember that it is not Entourage’s objective to provide drug education. With that being said, it is fair to assess whether they present a fair and unbiased view of hallucinogenic mushroom use. It is difficult to generalize from this particular representation to the media’s general ability to accurately depict mushroom use without knowing the specific type of mushroom the characters were using. However, this episode was successful in accurately representing many common—albeit mostly positive—clinical effects of hallucinogenic mushrooms. However, the episode failed to take full advantage of the opportunity to include several more common negative effects or any severe negative effects during the depiction of mushroom use1.

Discussion
In this instance, the media portrayed certain aspects of mushroom use well, including good and bad “trips.” However, it missed the opportunity to address the darker side of psychoactive mushroom use. Although this BASIS only considers one episode of a television show into account, other recent media depictions (e.g., Shrooms, Harold and Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay and a scene from Knocked Up) similarly do not  show adverse reactions to ingesting mushrooms (with some exceptions in Shrooms). Some might argue that this is fair because such effects are not very common. However, by avoiding the possibility of adverse consequences, the media paints a simplistic and one-sided picture. 

What do you think? Comments can be addressed to Tasha Chandler.

References
Cunningham, N. (2008). Hallucinogenic plants of abuse. Emergency Medicine Australasia, 20(2), 167-174.

Diaz, J. H. (2005a). Evolving global epidemiology, syndromic classification, general management, and prevention of unknown mushroom poisonings. Critical Care Medicine, 33(2), 419-426.

Diaz, J. H. (2005b). Syndromic diagnosis and management of confirmed mushroom poisonings. Critical Care Medicine, 33(2), 427-436.

DrugScope. (2005). What are Magic Mushrooms?   Retrieved February 25, 2009, from http://www.drugscope.org.uk/resources/drugsearch/drugsearchpages/mushrooms.htm

Riley, S. C. E., & Blackman, G. (2008). Magic mushroom use: Between prohibitions: Patterns and meanings of Magic Mushroom use in the UK. Substance Use & Misuse, 43, 55-71.

Notes

1 Usage patterns also seem to reflect convention reports of mushroom usage.

Popular wisdom for hallucinogenic mushrooms includes planning and setting up an environment before consumption. Popular wisdom cannot be categorized as a clinical effect, but it is clinically useful because it provides supplementary information regarding hallucinogenic mushroom’s psychological effects. In addition to the clinical effects the characters from Entourage experienced (discussed above), popular wisdom surrounding mushrooms is also depicted. Characters set up their environment by traveling to a place where they felt they would be one with nature; this wisdom can be considered to be consistent with clinical accounts of commonly reported altered perspectives. For example, compare the two following statements from a focus group in the (Riley & Blackman, 2008) study with from the Entourage episode, respectively: “It’s a natural drug and it should be done in nature…its all about like becoming one with nature;” and nature “is where we’ll find the answers [because it is where we] lose stresses, not control.”

Additionally, this episode also showed that mushrooms are grown in a variety of ways (e.g. this batch of mushrooms most likely came from manure as one cast member commented on the taste and another responded that it is because of where they are grown) and recognized that there are multiple ways to consume them (e.g. all characters ate them raw except one who had a peanut butter and shroom sandwich, perhaps to alter the taste) (DrugScope, 2005). *This information was included in a footnote because although it cannot be classified as a clinical effect, it does help in supporting why this Entourage episode was categorized as successful in accurately representing common effects of hallucinogenic mushrooms.