This time, I don’t have a whole lot to say about it. To me, he was the greatest. And surely he was an eagle among functioning addicts, soaring higher and farther than most of us could ever dream. His end is our end. Fly on, Diego.
Showing posts with label In the News. Show all posts
Showing posts with label In the News. Show all posts
Saturday, November 28, 2020
Saturday, July 11, 2020
Opportunity Lost
On Wednesday, July 1, near Marathon, Florida 29 bricks of cocaine with a total weight of 35 kilograms and worth approximately 1 million dollars, simply washed up on the shore. This is not the first time something like this has happened in the world. The town of Bluefields, Nicaragua was enriched beyond all imagination by repeated discoveries of such packages, castoffs from Columbian speedboats fleeing law enforcement. Well informed fisherman of the remote town set aside their cumbersome nets and began fishing for what they called "white lobsters."
What would you do with all that blow? I can only imagine the myriad possibilities and the opportunities that such a find would present. Certainly, death by heart attack is a possible scenario at the end of such a rainbow. But I'd like to think that a small fortune would also possibly come my way, if I handled things just right.
But obviously whomever discovered this once in a lifetime windfall has little in common with me. Because they called the police, who brought in the U.S. Border Control.
Sigh. I mean, really? Some people have no imagination.
Monday, May 25, 2020
Unsung Victims of the Coronavirus
We’ve all become inundated with stories of the myriad victims of the COVID-19 global pandemic. And without a doubt, there is nothing amusing about the millions of people who have contracted the Coronavirus, the hundreds of thousands who have died and the innumerable others who have lost their jobs and any semblance of financial security or stability.
Now enter another sad player to the stage: drug cartels and their minions. It should come as no surprise to hear the news that the massive shutdowns in worldwide economic systems have made life much tougher for our friends in the drug trade.
In the US particularly, lockdown orders have severely cut into the ability of illicit operators to ship and distribute their wares, launder their money and get their product across the southern border.
According to Bill Bodner, special agent in charge of the Los Angeles DEA field office, Cartel “activities are a lot more apparent than they were three months ago.” He pointed out that California’s shelter in place order has made the movements and clandestine activities of the drug professionals more obvious and forced them to take greater risks to get their product on the street.
Of course, this makes perfect sense. If there are less people driving and even walking around, those whose job it is to courier drugs and money from one place to another are going to become more exposed. In the words of Mr. Bodner, “When there’s less hay in the haystack, it’s easier to find the needle.”
Due to breakdowns in distribution systems that include manufacturing centers and legitimate “front” businesses, drug peddlers nationwide have been forced to stockpile larger amounts of drugs and money, whereas during normal times they limit the amount of product or cash in any one location at any given time. This has led to larger seizures coast to coast.
Not surprisingly, this “new normal” has led to a sharp uptick in prices from the top to the bottom of the trade. Bodner reports that the price for a pound of methamphetamine has risen in California from $1,000 to $2,000 a pound. Prices for cocaine, marijuana and heroin have also increased across the nation.
I guess its true what I keep hearing on CNN. We really are all in this thing together. And nobody is immune from the ravages of COVID-19.
Tuesday, May 19, 2020
Nothing to Brag About
This one had me in stitches when
I first heard about it in November of 2019. And since we’re playing catch up a
little bit, I figured I ought to share it here.
The State of
South Dakota paid a whopping $449,000 to a Minneapolis advertising firm for an
anti-methamphetamine campaign which some buffoon decided should be titled, “Meth:
I’m on It.” It features a number of solid-looking rural South Dakotans in film
and photo shoots declaring that they are “on” meth. Obviously, it was meant to
indicate that they are hip to the problem and are vigilant about solving the
scourge of methamphetamine in their community. Just as obviously, they failed
completely in their mission, but did succeed in making a joke out of an entire
state.
The question is
not just: what idiot came up with this campaign, and how did they get hired by
an advertising firm in the first place? But it’s also: 2) how did their
coworkers and boss see this and think it was a good idea? AND 3) get the good
people in state government in South Dakota to agree that, indeed, this was a
thoughtful and intelligent message to get out to the people, instead of a prank
on par with the average intelligence of a high school freshman?
Hey: we’ve all
experimented. And yeah, I’ve used meth, speed, Adderall, mini thins, No-Doz and
yellow biker crank in my day. But as the title of the article suggests: I
certainly wouldn’t be bragging about it. (Or would I?) Well, I definitely would not be dropping half a million
to do so. That's for sure.
Monday, August 30, 2010
Drunks Outlive Abstainers, Study Finds
This story was forwarded to me by Senor Duarte, a wise and learned soul of the FA set. The staff here at The Functioning Addict are eternally grateful for his keen eye and submission. The article was found on yahoo.com. The author is John Cloud.
One of the most contentious issues in the vast literature about alcohol consumption has been the consistent finding that those who don't drink actually tend to die sooner than those who do. The standard Alcoholics Anonymous explanation for this finding is that many of those who show up as abstainers in such research are actually former hard-core drunks who had already incurred health problems associated with drinking.
But a new paper in the journal Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research suggests that - for reasons that aren't entirely clear - abstaining from alcohol does actually tend to increase one's risk of dying even when you exclude former drinkers. The most shocking part? Abstainers' mortality rates are higher than those of heavy drinkers. (See pictures of booze under a microscope.)
Moderate drinking, which is defined as one to three drinks per day, is associated with the lowest mortality rates in alcohol studies. Moderate alcohol use (especially when the beverage of choice is red wine) is thought to improve heart health, circulation and sociability, which can be important because people who are isolated don't have as many family members and friends who can notice and help treat health problems.
But why would abstaining from alcohol lead to a shorter life? It's true that those who abstain from alcohol tend to be from lower socioeconomic classes, since drinking can be expensive. And people of lower socioeconomic status have more life stressors - job and child-care worries that might not only keep them from the bottle but also cause stress-related illnesses over long periods. (They also don't get the stress-reducing benefits of a drink or two after work.)
But even after controlling for nearly all imaginable variables - socioeconomic status, level of physical activity, number of close friends, quality of social support and so on - the researchers (a six-member team led by psychologist Charles Holahan of the University of Texas at Austin) found that over a 20-year period, mortality rates were highest for those who had never been drinkers, second-highest for heavy drinkers and lowest for moderate drinkers. (Watch TIME's Video "Taste Test: Beer With Extra Buzz.")
The sample of those who were studied included individuals between ages 55 and 65 who had had any kind of outpatient care in the previous three years. The 1,824 participants were followed for 20 years. One drawback of the sample: a disproportionate number, 63%, were men. Just over 69% of the never-drinkers died during the 20 years, 60% of the heavy drinkers died and only 41% of moderate drinkers died.
These are remarkable statistics. Even though heavy drinking is associated with higher risk for cirrhosis and several types of cancer (particularly cancers in the mouth and esophagus), heavy drinkers are less likely to die than people who have never drunk. One important reason is that alcohol lubricates so many social interactions, and social interactions are vital for maintaining mental and physical health. As I pointed out last year, nondrinkers show greater signs of depression than those who allow themselves to join the party.
The authors of the new paper are careful to note that even if drinking is associated with longer life, it can be dangerous: it can impair your memory severely and it can lead to nonlethal falls and other mishaps (like, say, cheating on your spouse in a drunken haze) that can screw up your life. There's also the dependency issue: if you become addicted to alcohol, you may spend a long time trying to get off the bottle.
That said, the new study provides the strongest evidence yet that moderate drinking is not only fun but good for you. So make mine a double.
One of the most contentious issues in the vast literature about alcohol consumption has been the consistent finding that those who don't drink actually tend to die sooner than those who do. The standard Alcoholics Anonymous explanation for this finding is that many of those who show up as abstainers in such research are actually former hard-core drunks who had already incurred health problems associated with drinking.
But a new paper in the journal Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research suggests that - for reasons that aren't entirely clear - abstaining from alcohol does actually tend to increase one's risk of dying even when you exclude former drinkers. The most shocking part? Abstainers' mortality rates are higher than those of heavy drinkers. (See pictures of booze under a microscope.)
Moderate drinking, which is defined as one to three drinks per day, is associated with the lowest mortality rates in alcohol studies. Moderate alcohol use (especially when the beverage of choice is red wine) is thought to improve heart health, circulation and sociability, which can be important because people who are isolated don't have as many family members and friends who can notice and help treat health problems.
But why would abstaining from alcohol lead to a shorter life? It's true that those who abstain from alcohol tend to be from lower socioeconomic classes, since drinking can be expensive. And people of lower socioeconomic status have more life stressors - job and child-care worries that might not only keep them from the bottle but also cause stress-related illnesses over long periods. (They also don't get the stress-reducing benefits of a drink or two after work.)
But even after controlling for nearly all imaginable variables - socioeconomic status, level of physical activity, number of close friends, quality of social support and so on - the researchers (a six-member team led by psychologist Charles Holahan of the University of Texas at Austin) found that over a 20-year period, mortality rates were highest for those who had never been drinkers, second-highest for heavy drinkers and lowest for moderate drinkers. (Watch TIME's Video "Taste Test: Beer With Extra Buzz.")
The sample of those who were studied included individuals between ages 55 and 65 who had had any kind of outpatient care in the previous three years. The 1,824 participants were followed for 20 years. One drawback of the sample: a disproportionate number, 63%, were men. Just over 69% of the never-drinkers died during the 20 years, 60% of the heavy drinkers died and only 41% of moderate drinkers died.
These are remarkable statistics. Even though heavy drinking is associated with higher risk for cirrhosis and several types of cancer (particularly cancers in the mouth and esophagus), heavy drinkers are less likely to die than people who have never drunk. One important reason is that alcohol lubricates so many social interactions, and social interactions are vital for maintaining mental and physical health. As I pointed out last year, nondrinkers show greater signs of depression than those who allow themselves to join the party.
The authors of the new paper are careful to note that even if drinking is associated with longer life, it can be dangerous: it can impair your memory severely and it can lead to nonlethal falls and other mishaps (like, say, cheating on your spouse in a drunken haze) that can screw up your life. There's also the dependency issue: if you become addicted to alcohol, you may spend a long time trying to get off the bottle.
That said, the new study provides the strongest evidence yet that moderate drinking is not only fun but good for you. So make mine a double.
Monday, August 2, 2010
Tara Reid Back in the Saddle
After her sixty day stint in rehab, I was saddened to hear the American Pie and Taradise star remark, “'Rehab saved my life. Before, I used to think about tomorrow and I hated it. Now I can't wait…The hardest thing was walking through the door for the first time (and) finally admitting that I had a problem…My focus is to get back in my career and stay sober, and keep on having a better life one day at a time.”
Another legend bites the dust, I thought. I once had a dream that she and I were raging at the Playboy mansion together, but now apparently it was never to be. NOT SO FAST! Last week, the indomitable Ms. Reid was seen partying on consecutive nights in a St Tropez nightclub. On the second of these nights, she was joined by fellow rehab veteran Dennis Rodman. (BTW: great work, Dr. Drew.) In photos taken at the scene, Reid is seen dancing, hugging and kissing the night away. At one point she even plants one on spaceman Buzz Aldrin’s cheek. That old fucker.
Didn’t some dude do a film called “My Date with Drew,” about his ambition to go out with Drew Barrymore? I have a similar goal with Tara. She’s super hot and parties so damned hard. Who could ask for anything more?
What do you say, baby? Gimme a chance. Oh, and could you pay for my flight out to France…and the hotel…and the bottles of Dom…and all our meals? Thanks.
Friday, July 30, 2010
Radnich Celebrates Ignorance
I was listening to syndicated sports radio personality Gary Radnich yesterday. Usually, I enjoy his fairly entertaining program, more for side characters “P-Con” and Dan Dibley than for the host himself, who is an aging curmudgeon who only stays abreast of current trends by utilizing talented youthful underlings. (And for this, I do have to give the man credit.)
The guy has something against gamblers and, I suspect, indulgence in general. I’ve heard him remark negatively more than once on the subject, and it always ruffles my feathers because it seems to me that his opinion comes from a place of complete ignorance. (He played basketball at UNLV, but claims he avoided the casinos almost completely.)
Yesterday, however, his fatuousness and lack of knowledge reached a real zenith. He remarked on his show, “There’s no such thing as a happy gambler,” or something very, very close.
It always fascinates me when someone rails against an activity they never took part in. I dislike golf; but that’s because I’ve tried the sport and found myself to be really terrible at it. Being competitive, I don’t like things I’m bad at, so I can’t stand playing golf, though I admire it as a spectator sport. But somehow, Radnich thinks it’s his place to remark on the personal joy experienced by a whole group of people he obviously looks down upon from his lofty perch atop the intellectually sophisticated world of sports radio. It’s frustrating and insulting to hear this halfwit posit opinions on subjects he has – admittedly – little or no authority to comment upon.
I’ve got news for you, sir: millions of people in the world enjoy gambling. Along with other obvious examples, it is one of the oldest leisure activities known to humanity. It is an exciting pastime which can test and illuminate the quality and makeup of an individual’s intelligence, daring and – believe it or not – character. It enhances meaning by creating a personal stake in events that would otherwise be completely lacking in importance. Just ask your friends at the NFL.
As with almost anything else in life, when taken too far, gambling can create problems. And yes, there are unhappy people in the world in almost every endeavor, including gambling. But don’t further insult those of us who have passion for the activity by broadcasting the notion that we’re all miserable. Just so you are on notice: I’m a gambler as well as a happy person. You really don’t know what you’re talking about.
The guy has something against gamblers and, I suspect, indulgence in general. I’ve heard him remark negatively more than once on the subject, and it always ruffles my feathers because it seems to me that his opinion comes from a place of complete ignorance. (He played basketball at UNLV, but claims he avoided the casinos almost completely.)
Yesterday, however, his fatuousness and lack of knowledge reached a real zenith. He remarked on his show, “There’s no such thing as a happy gambler,” or something very, very close.
It always fascinates me when someone rails against an activity they never took part in. I dislike golf; but that’s because I’ve tried the sport and found myself to be really terrible at it. Being competitive, I don’t like things I’m bad at, so I can’t stand playing golf, though I admire it as a spectator sport. But somehow, Radnich thinks it’s his place to remark on the personal joy experienced by a whole group of people he obviously looks down upon from his lofty perch atop the intellectually sophisticated world of sports radio. It’s frustrating and insulting to hear this halfwit posit opinions on subjects he has – admittedly – little or no authority to comment upon.
I’ve got news for you, sir: millions of people in the world enjoy gambling. Along with other obvious examples, it is one of the oldest leisure activities known to humanity. It is an exciting pastime which can test and illuminate the quality and makeup of an individual’s intelligence, daring and – believe it or not – character. It enhances meaning by creating a personal stake in events that would otherwise be completely lacking in importance. Just ask your friends at the NFL.
As with almost anything else in life, when taken too far, gambling can create problems. And yes, there are unhappy people in the world in almost every endeavor, including gambling. But don’t further insult those of us who have passion for the activity by broadcasting the notion that we’re all miserable. Just so you are on notice: I’m a gambler as well as a happy person. You really don’t know what you’re talking about.
Monday, June 14, 2010
Man Cashes Out, Drives Lambo Across USA
Here's a story that was forwarded to me by Onkel A, about a man, a machine and a dream...
http://jalopnik.com/5559767/i-sold-everything-to-buy-a-lamborghini-and-drive-across-the-country
http://jalopnik.com/5559767/i-sold-everything-to-buy-a-lamborghini-and-drive-across-the-country
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
The Subject of Lindsay Lohan and the Recklessness of Dr. Drew Pinsky
I would guess most of us are probably aware that “notorious party girl” (the words of an ABC News anchor) Lindsay Lohan’s legal troubles continued yesterday in a Los Angeles courtroom, where she was found in violation of her probation for missing a court date and ordered to wear an alcohol detecting ankle bracelet, attend substance abuse classes and remain in Los Angeles, despite the fact she is working on a project in Texas.
Now I have nothing whatsoever to say about the decisions of the court. Ms. Lohan obviously failed to live up to the terms of her probation, a situation that apparently has been going on for some time. That’s her problem and her responsibility.
However, I take umbrage with the dishonorable and uninformed opinions on the subject of Ms. Lohan spouted by Celebrity Rehab’s “Dr. Drew” Pinsky on the Larry King show last night. Mr. Pinsky, along with a representative of the Los Angeles District Attorney’s office and Mark Geragos, overrated attorney extraordinaire, were invited to Mr. King’s show to discuss Ms. Lohan and the recent events surrounding her life.
The attorneys were professional and unremarkable in sharing their legal analysis of her situation. But Mr. Pinsky, who to my knowledge has never personally diagnosed Ms. Lohan, had a number of outrageous opinions to share with America, despite the fact that he has no personal knowledge of the real facts of this woman’s life. In response to some Mr. King’s questions, Mr. Pinsky was heard to remark, “She’s an addict… she’s not thinking clearly. She doesn’t have the usual priorities that the rest of us do… how far down is she going to have to go?”
This isn’t the first time this fraud has shared his opinions on Ms. Lohan’s life. In a famous “warning” he issued in 2009, Mr. Pinsky said:
"I'm convinced that she'll get sober one day. But I'm afraid that between now and then, she may get a nearly mortal wound of some type. I'm really convinced that something horrible is going to have to happen to her before she really gets over it and embraces sobriety. She needs to give it up. And it's going to be a while before she does. I have this image that she's going to lose a limb or something before she does. And it scares me."
Who does this guy think he is? No matter how well intentioned, his opinions are irresponsible, uninformed and slanderous. To go around calling someone you don’t really know an “addict” is the height of recklessness, especially from a person who is supposed to observe the highest ethical standards. Would we tolerate a doctor diagnosing an individual as insane on national television without having ever conducted any kind of medical investigation into this fact? Of course we wouldn’t. But because the subject is addiction and this guy presumably is motivated by a desire to help poor, suffering Lindsay, he gets an incomprehensible pass. (But what are his real motivations? They couldn’t possibly be related to his burgeoning career, could they?) And what in the world is this “image” he had of her losing a limb? Please Doctor Soothsayer, look into your crystal ball and tell me my future. Very scientific, so professional.
The facts of Lindsay Lohan’s life are completely irrelevant, most importantly because none of us really know anything about it. What is at issue here is far more important. Just say no to Doctor Drew Pinsky: quack with a soapbox.
Now I have nothing whatsoever to say about the decisions of the court. Ms. Lohan obviously failed to live up to the terms of her probation, a situation that apparently has been going on for some time. That’s her problem and her responsibility.
However, I take umbrage with the dishonorable and uninformed opinions on the subject of Ms. Lohan spouted by Celebrity Rehab’s “Dr. Drew” Pinsky on the Larry King show last night. Mr. Pinsky, along with a representative of the Los Angeles District Attorney’s office and Mark Geragos, overrated attorney extraordinaire, were invited to Mr. King’s show to discuss Ms. Lohan and the recent events surrounding her life.
The attorneys were professional and unremarkable in sharing their legal analysis of her situation. But Mr. Pinsky, who to my knowledge has never personally diagnosed Ms. Lohan, had a number of outrageous opinions to share with America, despite the fact that he has no personal knowledge of the real facts of this woman’s life. In response to some Mr. King’s questions, Mr. Pinsky was heard to remark, “She’s an addict… she’s not thinking clearly. She doesn’t have the usual priorities that the rest of us do… how far down is she going to have to go?”
This isn’t the first time this fraud has shared his opinions on Ms. Lohan’s life. In a famous “warning” he issued in 2009, Mr. Pinsky said:
"I'm convinced that she'll get sober one day. But I'm afraid that between now and then, she may get a nearly mortal wound of some type. I'm really convinced that something horrible is going to have to happen to her before she really gets over it and embraces sobriety. She needs to give it up. And it's going to be a while before she does. I have this image that she's going to lose a limb or something before she does. And it scares me."
Who does this guy think he is? No matter how well intentioned, his opinions are irresponsible, uninformed and slanderous. To go around calling someone you don’t really know an “addict” is the height of recklessness, especially from a person who is supposed to observe the highest ethical standards. Would we tolerate a doctor diagnosing an individual as insane on national television without having ever conducted any kind of medical investigation into this fact? Of course we wouldn’t. But because the subject is addiction and this guy presumably is motivated by a desire to help poor, suffering Lindsay, he gets an incomprehensible pass. (But what are his real motivations? They couldn’t possibly be related to his burgeoning career, could they?) And what in the world is this “image” he had of her losing a limb? Please Doctor Soothsayer, look into your crystal ball and tell me my future. Very scientific, so professional.
The facts of Lindsay Lohan’s life are completely irrelevant, most importantly because none of us really know anything about it. What is at issue here is far more important. Just say no to Doctor Drew Pinsky: quack with a soapbox.
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Grandma Caught Slingin’ Rock
Here’s a lovely little tidbit I found today. I once smoked weed with my buddy’s seventy-five year old grandmother, (“This is some good shit,” she remarked as she inhaled deeply.) but Ms. Ola Mae really takes the cake. I found the article on about.com. The author is Sean O’Reilly.
PENSACOLA, FL -- An 87-year-old Escambia County woman is out of jail after being arrested for selling crack cocaine.
Ola Mae Agee is charged with one felony count of selling cocaine after deputies say she sold a $20 piece of crack to undercover deputies.
The Sheriff's Office conducted an undercover narcotics investigation over the past month in the area of East Desoto Street and Dr. Martin Luther King Drive in Pensacola.
Investigators say surveillance video shows an undercover officer knocking on the back door of Agee's house located on the 900 block of MLK Drive. Deputies say Agee answered the door and took the officer to a room in her house where she retrieved crack from a couch and exchanged it for money.
Investigators believe Agee wasn't the only person selling crack cocaine from her home. Deputies executed a search warrant at Agee's residence on Thursday in their ongoing county-wide narcotics investigation.
Sgt. Ted Roy, a spokesperson for the Sheriff's Office, said deputies suspect the other people who sold crack at Agee's house also sold cocaine from other homes throughout Escambia County. Detectives anticipate making additional drug-related arrests stemming from this investigation.
Family members took Agee to the Escambia County jail so she could turn herself on an outstanding warrant. Roy said Agee was released on her own recognizance because of her age.
Agee had no criminal record prior to her arrest on Thursday.
Saturday, May 8, 2010
Good News For Smokers
Finally, a reason to be proud, smokers of the world: you think quicker and remember better. This article was forwarded me by Onkel. My thanks. The source is DiscoveryNews. The author is Teresa Shipley.
SMOKING IS GOOD FOR YOU
*Um, not really.
But nicotine does enhance our ability to think, perform and take tests. Thanks to new research, scientists now know it increases our memory function, too.
Up to now, results about nicotine's effects on boosting human performance were mixed. Dr. Stephen Heishman, a scientist with the National Institute on Drug Abuse (part of the National Institutes of Health) said that in the past, researchers kept doing studies on the effects of nicotine and human performance without taking into account the drug's harsh withdrawal effects. Instead, they'd ask subjects to go eight or 12 hours without smoking before testing their brain functions. He says it wasn't surprising that as soon as nicotine was administered in those cases, performance improved.
"Without knowing what their baseline level of performance is, you can't really say whether that increase is a true increase or whether you're just bringing that person back to their baseline," Heishman told Discovery News. "Those early studies didn't provide the pre-deprivation performance, [as in], what's their performance when they're normally smoking?"
So Heishman and his colleagues studied all the literature they could find on nicotine and performance published between 1994 and 2008. In all, they reviewed and coded 41 studies and looked at how nicotine affected everything from fine motor skills to short term memory. Their results were published online in the journal Psychopharmacology.
What they found surprised them. Not only does the drug help with fine motor skills and alertness, it improves short term memory for tasks like remembering a list of items.
"We knew that the effect on attention was well known, but I was somewhat surprised about the effects on memory," Heishman said. "Smokers say that one of the reasons that they smoke is to help them concentrate, focus on tasks and do their work, and obviously a lot of our daily work involves memory. So on the other hand, I guess it shouldn't be too surprising."
Having a better understanding of nicotine's effects, including withdrawal effects, can lead to more effective quitting tactics, Heishman said. If we know that nicotine is the reason why we feel more alert when we smoke, for example, developing medicines that mimic nicotine's role can make quitting seem like less of an impossible task.
SMOKING IS GOOD FOR YOU
*Um, not really.
But nicotine does enhance our ability to think, perform and take tests. Thanks to new research, scientists now know it increases our memory function, too.
Up to now, results about nicotine's effects on boosting human performance were mixed. Dr. Stephen Heishman, a scientist with the National Institute on Drug Abuse (part of the National Institutes of Health) said that in the past, researchers kept doing studies on the effects of nicotine and human performance without taking into account the drug's harsh withdrawal effects. Instead, they'd ask subjects to go eight or 12 hours without smoking before testing their brain functions. He says it wasn't surprising that as soon as nicotine was administered in those cases, performance improved.
"Without knowing what their baseline level of performance is, you can't really say whether that increase is a true increase or whether you're just bringing that person back to their baseline," Heishman told Discovery News. "Those early studies didn't provide the pre-deprivation performance, [as in], what's their performance when they're normally smoking?"
So Heishman and his colleagues studied all the literature they could find on nicotine and performance published between 1994 and 2008. In all, they reviewed and coded 41 studies and looked at how nicotine affected everything from fine motor skills to short term memory. Their results were published online in the journal Psychopharmacology.
What they found surprised them. Not only does the drug help with fine motor skills and alertness, it improves short term memory for tasks like remembering a list of items.
"We knew that the effect on attention was well known, but I was somewhat surprised about the effects on memory," Heishman said. "Smokers say that one of the reasons that they smoke is to help them concentrate, focus on tasks and do their work, and obviously a lot of our daily work involves memory. So on the other hand, I guess it shouldn't be too surprising."
Having a better understanding of nicotine's effects, including withdrawal effects, can lead to more effective quitting tactics, Heishman said. If we know that nicotine is the reason why we feel more alert when we smoke, for example, developing medicines that mimic nicotine's role can make quitting seem like less of an impossible task.
Friday, May 7, 2010
Near Misses Are Like Wins to Problem Gamblers
This is a very interesting article I found on medicalnewstoday.com. I can attest anecdotally to the accuracy of these findings. The article was posted yesterday. The author is Becky Allen of the University of Cambridge.
The brains of problem gamblers react more intensely to near misses than casual gamblers, new research from the University of Cambridge has found. The results could help explain what keeps problem gamblers betting even though they keep losing.
The study involved scanning the brains of 20 gamblers using functional magnetic resonance imaging while they played a computerised slot machine. Participants' gambling habits ranged from regular, social gamblers to those with severe problem gambling.
Dr Luke Clark of the University of Cambridge, who led the study, found that the parts of the brain involved in reward processing - the so-called dopamine centres - were more active in problem gamblers than in social gamblers.
During the experiment, volunteers played a computerised slot machine with two spinning wheels of icons and won 50p when the two icons matched. An icon mismatch was a loss, but when the wheels stopped within one icon of a match, the outcome was considered a "near miss."
Dr Clark found that near misses activated the same brain pathways as wins, even though no reward was given, and that this reaction was stronger in those gamblers who had more symptoms of problem gambling.
In particular, the study found strong responses in the midbrain, an area that is packed with dopamine-releasing brain cells. The dopamine system is associated with addiction and targeted by drugs of abuse. The study also found the near misses were linked with increased activity in a brain region called the ventral striatum, an area associated with reward and learning.
The results help explain why problem gamblers find it hard to give up.
According to Dr Clark: "These findings are exciting because they suggest that near-misses may elicit a dopamine response in the more severe gamblers, despite the fact that no actual reward is delivered. If these bursts of dopamine are driving addictive behaviour, this may help to explain why problem gamblers find it so difficult to quit."
Dopamine, a neurotransmitter, plays an important role in signalling "rewards" such as money and chocolate, and the dopamine system is also targeted by drugs of abuse.
"The results highlight some of the links between problem gambling and drug addiction, and have implications for both psychological and drug treatment for problem gamblers," Dr Clark says.
The findings are published in the new issue of the Journal of Neuroscience.
The brains of problem gamblers react more intensely to near misses than casual gamblers, new research from the University of Cambridge has found. The results could help explain what keeps problem gamblers betting even though they keep losing.
The study involved scanning the brains of 20 gamblers using functional magnetic resonance imaging while they played a computerised slot machine. Participants' gambling habits ranged from regular, social gamblers to those with severe problem gambling.
Dr Luke Clark of the University of Cambridge, who led the study, found that the parts of the brain involved in reward processing - the so-called dopamine centres - were more active in problem gamblers than in social gamblers.
During the experiment, volunteers played a computerised slot machine with two spinning wheels of icons and won 50p when the two icons matched. An icon mismatch was a loss, but when the wheels stopped within one icon of a match, the outcome was considered a "near miss."
Dr Clark found that near misses activated the same brain pathways as wins, even though no reward was given, and that this reaction was stronger in those gamblers who had more symptoms of problem gambling.
In particular, the study found strong responses in the midbrain, an area that is packed with dopamine-releasing brain cells. The dopamine system is associated with addiction and targeted by drugs of abuse. The study also found the near misses were linked with increased activity in a brain region called the ventral striatum, an area associated with reward and learning.
The results help explain why problem gamblers find it hard to give up.
According to Dr Clark: "These findings are exciting because they suggest that near-misses may elicit a dopamine response in the more severe gamblers, despite the fact that no actual reward is delivered. If these bursts of dopamine are driving addictive behaviour, this may help to explain why problem gamblers find it so difficult to quit."
Dopamine, a neurotransmitter, plays an important role in signalling "rewards" such as money and chocolate, and the dopamine system is also targeted by drugs of abuse.
"The results highlight some of the links between problem gambling and drug addiction, and have implications for both psychological and drug treatment for problem gamblers," Dr Clark says.
The findings are published in the new issue of the Journal of Neuroscience.
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Stay Lusty, Lady Love
In a sad piece of news for sex junkies in the fair city of Seattle this week, the Lusty Lady peep show on First Avenue announced that, after twenty-seven years of continuous operation, (That’s twenty four hours a day, three hundred and sixty five days a year) they would be closing their doors forever.This hallowed hall of sexual delight was best known for the slogans it placed on its marquee. Phrases such as, “Happy Nude Year,” “Porn on the Fourth of July,” “Merry XXXMas,” and “Happy Spanksgiving,” adorned the frontispiece of the building for years, annoying prudes and amusing perverts, businessmen and tourists alike.
The ailing economy, local construction and, of course, the internet, were all factors that led to a steep decline in business for the Lady.
I visited this fine establishment once, in 1995, while a junior at the University of Oregon. The selection of performers ranged from fairly attractive to downright skanky, and were very comparable to the quality of girls featured at the San Francisco location. But with a pocketful of quarters and a bottle of booze swishing around in my gut, I enjoyed my experience thoroughly, escaping, for a brief moment, the worries of my undergraduate existence.
Lady, you will not be forgotten.
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Drinking Linked to Less Weight Gain in Middle Aged Women
I found this article on Medical News Today. The author is Catherine Paddock, Phd.
A new study from the US found that normal weight women in their 40s and older who drank a light to moderate amount of alcohol gained less weight and had a lower risk of becoming obese and overweight compared to their non-drinking counterparts.
The researchers, from the Brigham and Women's Hospital, and the Harvard School of Public Health in Boston, Massachusetts, have written about their study in a paper published online in the 8 March issue of Archives of Internal Medicine.
At 7 calories per gram (equivalent to 199 calories per ounce), alcohol is potentially a significant source of dietary calories, and more than half of adult Americans are alcohol drinkers. Meanwhile obesity is approaching epidemic proportions in the US, yet evidence on the extent to which alcohol consumption contributes to this public health crisis is patchy, suggested the authors.
For their prospective cohort study, which was sponsored by grants from the National Institutes of Health, lead author Dr Lu Wang, of Brigham and Women's Hospital, and colleagues examined data from 19,220 women living in the US who were aged 39 and over, had no traces of cardiovascular disease, cancer, or diabetes, and whose body mass index (BMI) was in the range classified as normal (18.5 to less than 25). BMI is calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared.
At the start of the study the women filled in a questionnaire that asked them about their daily alcohol consumption. After that they filled in questionnaires about their weight every year for an average of 13 years.
The results showed that:
At the start of the study, 38.2 per cent reported drinking no alcohol, 32.8 per cent reported drinking less than 5 grams a day, 20.1 per cent reported drinking 5 to less than 15 grams, 5.9 per cent reported drinking 15 to less than 30 grams, and 3 per cent reported drinking 30 or more grams of alcohol a day.
Over the 13 years of follow up, the women's average weight went up steadily.
41.3 per cent of the women became overweight (BMI of 25 or more), and 3.8 per cent became obese (BMI of 30 or more).
After adjusting for potential confounders like baseline BMI, smoking, other calorie sources, exercise, and other lifestyle and dietary factors, there was an inverse association between the amount of daily alcohol the women said they drank in their initial questionnaires and the weight gained over the follow up.
Compared with women who did not drink at all, those who consumed some but less than 40 grams of alcohol a day had a lower risk of becoming overweight or obese.
Women who drank 15 to less than 30 grams of alcohol per day had the lowest risk, which was nearly 30 percent lower than that of their non-drinking counterparts.
The authors also looked at four types of alcoholic beverages and found the links to be the same for all, with perhaps the strongest being for red wine.
They concluded that:
"Compared with nondrinkers, initially normal-weight women who consumed a light to moderate amount of alcohol gained less weight and had a lower risk of becoming overweight and/or obese during 12.9 years of follow-up."
However, the authors stressed that given the potential medical and psychosocial problems of alcohol consumption, recommendations about its use should be made on an individual by individual basis.
They also suggested more studies are needed to find out the biological mechanisms of the role played by alcohol in energy metabolism, and whether any physiological and genetic factors are involved.
A new study from the US found that normal weight women in their 40s and older who drank a light to moderate amount of alcohol gained less weight and had a lower risk of becoming obese and overweight compared to their non-drinking counterparts.
The researchers, from the Brigham and Women's Hospital, and the Harvard School of Public Health in Boston, Massachusetts, have written about their study in a paper published online in the 8 March issue of Archives of Internal Medicine.
At 7 calories per gram (equivalent to 199 calories per ounce), alcohol is potentially a significant source of dietary calories, and more than half of adult Americans are alcohol drinkers. Meanwhile obesity is approaching epidemic proportions in the US, yet evidence on the extent to which alcohol consumption contributes to this public health crisis is patchy, suggested the authors.
For their prospective cohort study, which was sponsored by grants from the National Institutes of Health, lead author Dr Lu Wang, of Brigham and Women's Hospital, and colleagues examined data from 19,220 women living in the US who were aged 39 and over, had no traces of cardiovascular disease, cancer, or diabetes, and whose body mass index (BMI) was in the range classified as normal (18.5 to less than 25). BMI is calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared.
At the start of the study the women filled in a questionnaire that asked them about their daily alcohol consumption. After that they filled in questionnaires about their weight every year for an average of 13 years.
The results showed that:
At the start of the study, 38.2 per cent reported drinking no alcohol, 32.8 per cent reported drinking less than 5 grams a day, 20.1 per cent reported drinking 5 to less than 15 grams, 5.9 per cent reported drinking 15 to less than 30 grams, and 3 per cent reported drinking 30 or more grams of alcohol a day.
Over the 13 years of follow up, the women's average weight went up steadily.
41.3 per cent of the women became overweight (BMI of 25 or more), and 3.8 per cent became obese (BMI of 30 or more).
After adjusting for potential confounders like baseline BMI, smoking, other calorie sources, exercise, and other lifestyle and dietary factors, there was an inverse association between the amount of daily alcohol the women said they drank in their initial questionnaires and the weight gained over the follow up.
Compared with women who did not drink at all, those who consumed some but less than 40 grams of alcohol a day had a lower risk of becoming overweight or obese.
Women who drank 15 to less than 30 grams of alcohol per day had the lowest risk, which was nearly 30 percent lower than that of their non-drinking counterparts.
The authors also looked at four types of alcoholic beverages and found the links to be the same for all, with perhaps the strongest being for red wine.
They concluded that:
"Compared with nondrinkers, initially normal-weight women who consumed a light to moderate amount of alcohol gained less weight and had a lower risk of becoming overweight and/or obese during 12.9 years of follow-up."
However, the authors stressed that given the potential medical and psychosocial problems of alcohol consumption, recommendations about its use should be made on an individual by individual basis.
They also suggested more studies are needed to find out the biological mechanisms of the role played by alcohol in energy metabolism, and whether any physiological and genetic factors are involved.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Anti Drinking Ads May Increase Alcohol Use
This does not come as a surprise to me at all. It is nice to see, however, that the notion of promoting "controlled" drinking is finally gaining some acceptance. The article is from Medical News Today and was posted this morning. The source is Indiana University.
Public service advertising campaigns that use guilt or shame to warn against alcohol abuse can actually have the reverse effect, spurring increased drinking among target audiences, according to new research from the Indiana University Kelley School of Business.
Instead of the intended outcome, researchers in this first-of-its-kind study showed that the ads triggered an innate coping mechanism that enables viewers to distance themselves from the serious consequences of reckless drinking.
Anti- or "responsible" drinking campaigns have long been a mainstay of health departments, nonprofit organizations and even beverage companies. Yet alcohol abuse remains a persistent and growing problem linked to the deaths of approximately 79,000 people in the United States each year.
"The public health and marketing communities expend considerable effort and capital on these campaigns but have long suspected they were less effective than hoped," said Adam Duhachek, a marketing professor and co-author of the study. "But the situation is worse than wasted money or effort. These ads ultimately may do more harm than good because they have the potential to spur more of the behavior they're trying to prevent."
Duhachek's research specifically explores anti-drinking ads that link to the many possible adverse results of alcohol abuse, such as blackouts and car accidents, while eliciting feelings of shame and guilt. Findings show such messages are too difficult to process among viewers already experiencing these emotions -- for example, those who already have alcohol-related transgressions.
To cope, they adopt a defensive mindset that allows them to underestimate their susceptibility to the consequences highlighted in the ads; that is, that the consequences happen only to "other people." The result is they engage in greater amounts of irresponsible drinking, according to respondents.
"Advertisements are capable of bringing forth feelings so unpleasant that we're compelled to eliminate them by whatever means possible," said Duhachek. "This motivation is sufficiently strong to convince us we're immune to certain risks."
The findings are particularly relevant for U.S. universities, where alcohol abuse threatens the well-being of an entire generation, he said. Each year, drinking among college students contributes to an estimated 1,700 student deaths, 600,000 injuries, 700,000 assaults, 90,000 sexual assaults and 474,000 cases of unprotected sex.
The unintended negative impact of employing shame and guilt in these ads has implications for a wider range of health related messaging, from smoking cessation to preventing sexually transmitted diseases. According to Duhachek, shame- and guilt-inducing campaigns that seek to curb these behaviors can have the same unintentional backfire effects.
Duhachek encourages marketers looking to influence drinking and other behaviors to convey dire consequences along with messages of empowerment. For instance, providing strategies to control one's drinking or recalling instances where one resisted the temptation to engage in risky drinking behavior may provide a pathway to reducing these undesirable behaviors more effectively.
"If you're going to communicate a frightening scenario, temper it with the idea that it's avoidable," he said. "It's best to use the carrot along with the stick."
Duhachek developed the study with Nidhi Agrawal at the Kellogg School of Business at Northwestern University. They interviewed more than 1,200 undergraduate students after showing them shame- and guilt-inducing advertisements, which they specifically created for the research. To ensure no biases on the part of respondents, the team opted not to rely on existing campaigns.
The resulting paper, "Emotional Compatibility and the Effectiveness of Anti-Drinking Messages: A Defensive Processing Perspective on Shame and Guilt" is forthcoming in the Journal of Marketing Research.
Public service advertising campaigns that use guilt or shame to warn against alcohol abuse can actually have the reverse effect, spurring increased drinking among target audiences, according to new research from the Indiana University Kelley School of Business.
Instead of the intended outcome, researchers in this first-of-its-kind study showed that the ads triggered an innate coping mechanism that enables viewers to distance themselves from the serious consequences of reckless drinking.
Anti- or "responsible" drinking campaigns have long been a mainstay of health departments, nonprofit organizations and even beverage companies. Yet alcohol abuse remains a persistent and growing problem linked to the deaths of approximately 79,000 people in the United States each year.
"The public health and marketing communities expend considerable effort and capital on these campaigns but have long suspected they were less effective than hoped," said Adam Duhachek, a marketing professor and co-author of the study. "But the situation is worse than wasted money or effort. These ads ultimately may do more harm than good because they have the potential to spur more of the behavior they're trying to prevent."
Duhachek's research specifically explores anti-drinking ads that link to the many possible adverse results of alcohol abuse, such as blackouts and car accidents, while eliciting feelings of shame and guilt. Findings show such messages are too difficult to process among viewers already experiencing these emotions -- for example, those who already have alcohol-related transgressions.
To cope, they adopt a defensive mindset that allows them to underestimate their susceptibility to the consequences highlighted in the ads; that is, that the consequences happen only to "other people." The result is they engage in greater amounts of irresponsible drinking, according to respondents.
"Advertisements are capable of bringing forth feelings so unpleasant that we're compelled to eliminate them by whatever means possible," said Duhachek. "This motivation is sufficiently strong to convince us we're immune to certain risks."
The findings are particularly relevant for U.S. universities, where alcohol abuse threatens the well-being of an entire generation, he said. Each year, drinking among college students contributes to an estimated 1,700 student deaths, 600,000 injuries, 700,000 assaults, 90,000 sexual assaults and 474,000 cases of unprotected sex.
The unintended negative impact of employing shame and guilt in these ads has implications for a wider range of health related messaging, from smoking cessation to preventing sexually transmitted diseases. According to Duhachek, shame- and guilt-inducing campaigns that seek to curb these behaviors can have the same unintentional backfire effects.
Duhachek encourages marketers looking to influence drinking and other behaviors to convey dire consequences along with messages of empowerment. For instance, providing strategies to control one's drinking or recalling instances where one resisted the temptation to engage in risky drinking behavior may provide a pathway to reducing these undesirable behaviors more effectively.
"If you're going to communicate a frightening scenario, temper it with the idea that it's avoidable," he said. "It's best to use the carrot along with the stick."
Duhachek developed the study with Nidhi Agrawal at the Kellogg School of Business at Northwestern University. They interviewed more than 1,200 undergraduate students after showing them shame- and guilt-inducing advertisements, which they specifically created for the research. To ensure no biases on the part of respondents, the team opted not to rely on existing campaigns.
The resulting paper, "Emotional Compatibility and the Effectiveness of Anti-Drinking Messages: A Defensive Processing Perspective on Shame and Guilt" is forthcoming in the Journal of Marketing Research.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Ketamine Big in Canada
I found this article in the Hamilton (Ontario, Canada) Spectator, dated today. The author is Carmelina Prete.
The animal painkiller ketamine is replacing cocaine as a street drug of choice among teens, according to Hamilton police.
Typically sold as a white powder in small vials of about a gram, the drug, also known as Special K, looks like cocaine but costs a third of the price. At about $10 to $20 a vial or a "bump," it's a cheap alternative to the $50 a gram cocaine costs.
"Kids are taking this but it's certainly not just the kids," said Constable Perry Mason, a school resource officer. "It's an emerging problem in the community and schools are just a reflection of the community."
Hamilton police say the street value of cocaine has nearly doubled from $29,000 a kilogram in 2007 to $57,000 to $59,000 a kilogram today.
At the same time, the cost of designer drugs such as ecstasy and Special K dropped. Club prices were about $20 a pill in 2007. Now they're $5, police said.
Today, an ounce of cocaine costs about $1,500 whereas an ounce of ketamine goes for about $450 to $500.
Cocaine, a stimulant, and ketamine, a fast-acting and powerful anesthetic and painkiller used in veterinary and human surgery, produce different highs.
But Sue Kennedy, executive director with Alternatives For Youth, a local counselling service for youths with addictions, said it could be more about experimentation than finding a similar high.
"(It could be) kids are not even making the distinction between ketamine and cocaine. 'Who cares? I'm just going to use something to feel different to get a buzz or get high,'" she said. "Are kids necessarily making the distinction? Depending who's dealing or sharing or using, do they know what they're ingesting? Maybe, maybe not."
Ketamine, also known as K, kitty or kit-kat, is typically snorted, mixed into drinks or smoked with marijuana or tobacco. Effects are usually felt within one to 10 minutes. It can cause a drunk or dizzy feeling and vivid hallucinations.
Also sold as a clear liquid, it's commonly referred to as a date rape drug because it can be easily slipped into drinks.
Police attention was drawn to local ketamine use about a year ago after they arrested a Hamilton teen near a high school. Then they learned about a couple high school students with ketamine addiction.
"From information that the schools received and information we received, we thought this required attention," said Mason.
A two-week probe involving 12 officers, dubbed Project Garfield, led to the arrest of four teenagers who were charged with possession of marijuana. Two of them, both 17, were also charged with possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking.
Although none of the charges related to ketamine, Mason said the investigation led police to learn more about local ketamine use and how it's distributed.
Kennedy said counsellors at Alternatives for Youth are not seeing a marked increase in ketamine use among youths seeking counselling.
According to the 2009 Ontario Student Drug Use and Health, ketamine ranks low in popularity, with only 2.2 per cent of students in Grade 7 to 12 having used it.
The animal painkiller ketamine is replacing cocaine as a street drug of choice among teens, according to Hamilton police.
Typically sold as a white powder in small vials of about a gram, the drug, also known as Special K, looks like cocaine but costs a third of the price. At about $10 to $20 a vial or a "bump," it's a cheap alternative to the $50 a gram cocaine costs.
"Kids are taking this but it's certainly not just the kids," said Constable Perry Mason, a school resource officer. "It's an emerging problem in the community and schools are just a reflection of the community."
Hamilton police say the street value of cocaine has nearly doubled from $29,000 a kilogram in 2007 to $57,000 to $59,000 a kilogram today.
At the same time, the cost of designer drugs such as ecstasy and Special K dropped. Club prices were about $20 a pill in 2007. Now they're $5, police said.
Today, an ounce of cocaine costs about $1,500 whereas an ounce of ketamine goes for about $450 to $500.
Cocaine, a stimulant, and ketamine, a fast-acting and powerful anesthetic and painkiller used in veterinary and human surgery, produce different highs.
But Sue Kennedy, executive director with Alternatives For Youth, a local counselling service for youths with addictions, said it could be more about experimentation than finding a similar high.
"(It could be) kids are not even making the distinction between ketamine and cocaine. 'Who cares? I'm just going to use something to feel different to get a buzz or get high,'" she said. "Are kids necessarily making the distinction? Depending who's dealing or sharing or using, do they know what they're ingesting? Maybe, maybe not."
Ketamine, also known as K, kitty or kit-kat, is typically snorted, mixed into drinks or smoked with marijuana or tobacco. Effects are usually felt within one to 10 minutes. It can cause a drunk or dizzy feeling and vivid hallucinations.
Also sold as a clear liquid, it's commonly referred to as a date rape drug because it can be easily slipped into drinks.
Police attention was drawn to local ketamine use about a year ago after they arrested a Hamilton teen near a high school. Then they learned about a couple high school students with ketamine addiction.
"From information that the schools received and information we received, we thought this required attention," said Mason.
A two-week probe involving 12 officers, dubbed Project Garfield, led to the arrest of four teenagers who were charged with possession of marijuana. Two of them, both 17, were also charged with possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking.
Although none of the charges related to ketamine, Mason said the investigation led police to learn more about local ketamine use and how it's distributed.
Kennedy said counsellors at Alternatives for Youth are not seeing a marked increase in ketamine use among youths seeking counselling.
According to the 2009 Ontario Student Drug Use and Health, ketamine ranks low in popularity, with only 2.2 per cent of students in Grade 7 to 12 having used it.
Friday, January 8, 2010
The Tyranny of Chinese "Drug Treatment"
This article was posted today from the New York Times. Kafkaesque. The author is Andrew Jacobs:
Fu Lixin, emotionally exhausted from caring for her sick mother, needed a little pick-me-up. A friend offered her a "special cigarette" - one laced with methamphetamine - and Fu happily inhaled.
The next day, three policemen showed up at her door.
"They asked me to urinate in a cup," she said. "My friend had been arrested and turned me in. It was a drug test. I failed on the spot."
Although she said it was her first time smoking meth, Fu, 41, was promptly sent to one of China's compulsory drug rehabilitation centers. The minimum stay is two years, and life is an unremitting gantlet of physical abuse and forced labor without any drug treatment, according to former inmates and substance abuse professionals.
"It was a hell I'm still trying to recover from," she said.
According to the United Nations, as many as a half-million Chinese citizens are held at these centers at any given time. Detentions are meted out by the police without trials, judges or appeals. Created in 2008 as part of a reform effort to grapple with the country's growing narcotics problem, the centers, lawyers and drug experts say, have become de facto penal colonies where inmates are sent to factories and farms, fed substandard food and denied basic medical care.
"They call them detoxification centers, but everyone knows that detox takes a few days, not two years," said Joseph Amon, an epidemiologist with Human Rights Watch in New York. "The basic concept is inhumane and flawed."
On Thursday, Human Rights Watch issued a report on the drug rehabilitation system, which replaced the Communist Party's previous approach of sending addicts to labor camps, where they would toil alongside thieves, prostitutes and political dissidents.
The report, titled "Where Darkness Knows No Limits," calls on the government to immediately shut down the detention centers.
Under the Anti-Drug Law of 2008, drug offenders were to be sent to professionally staffed detox facilities and then released to community-based rehabilitation centers for up to four years of therapeutic follow-up.
But substance abuse experts say the system, part of a stated "people centered" approach to dealing with addiction, has simply given the old system a new name. What is worse, they say, is that it expands the six-month compulsory detentions of old into two-year periods that the authorities can extend by five years.
The community-based rehabilitation centers, treatment experts add, have yet to be established.
Wang Xiaoguang, the vice director of Daytop, an American-affiliated drug-treatment residence in Yunnan province, said the government detox centers were little more than business ventures run by the police. Detainees, he said, spend their days working at chicken farms or shoe factories that have contracts with the local police; drug treatment, counseling and vocational training are almost nonexistent.
"I don't think this is the ideal situation for people trying to recover from addiction," Wang said in a phone interview.
The Office of National Narcotics Control Commission did not respond to requests for comment.
Fu Lixin, emotionally exhausted from caring for her sick mother, needed a little pick-me-up. A friend offered her a "special cigarette" - one laced with methamphetamine - and Fu happily inhaled.
The next day, three policemen showed up at her door.
"They asked me to urinate in a cup," she said. "My friend had been arrested and turned me in. It was a drug test. I failed on the spot."
Although she said it was her first time smoking meth, Fu, 41, was promptly sent to one of China's compulsory drug rehabilitation centers. The minimum stay is two years, and life is an unremitting gantlet of physical abuse and forced labor without any drug treatment, according to former inmates and substance abuse professionals.
"It was a hell I'm still trying to recover from," she said.
According to the United Nations, as many as a half-million Chinese citizens are held at these centers at any given time. Detentions are meted out by the police without trials, judges or appeals. Created in 2008 as part of a reform effort to grapple with the country's growing narcotics problem, the centers, lawyers and drug experts say, have become de facto penal colonies where inmates are sent to factories and farms, fed substandard food and denied basic medical care.
"They call them detoxification centers, but everyone knows that detox takes a few days, not two years," said Joseph Amon, an epidemiologist with Human Rights Watch in New York. "The basic concept is inhumane and flawed."
On Thursday, Human Rights Watch issued a report on the drug rehabilitation system, which replaced the Communist Party's previous approach of sending addicts to labor camps, where they would toil alongside thieves, prostitutes and political dissidents.
The report, titled "Where Darkness Knows No Limits," calls on the government to immediately shut down the detention centers.
Under the Anti-Drug Law of 2008, drug offenders were to be sent to professionally staffed detox facilities and then released to community-based rehabilitation centers for up to four years of therapeutic follow-up.
But substance abuse experts say the system, part of a stated "people centered" approach to dealing with addiction, has simply given the old system a new name. What is worse, they say, is that it expands the six-month compulsory detentions of old into two-year periods that the authorities can extend by five years.
The community-based rehabilitation centers, treatment experts add, have yet to be established.
Wang Xiaoguang, the vice director of Daytop, an American-affiliated drug-treatment residence in Yunnan province, said the government detox centers were little more than business ventures run by the police. Detainees, he said, spend their days working at chicken farms or shoe factories that have contracts with the local police; drug treatment, counseling and vocational training are almost nonexistent.
"I don't think this is the ideal situation for people trying to recover from addiction," Wang said in a phone interview.
The Office of National Narcotics Control Commission did not respond to requests for comment.
Thursday, December 24, 2009
Dead Wrong, Alton Brown
I actually like Alton Brown, renowned chef, cookbook author and Food Network host. His show is informative and funny. However, I disagree vehemently with his antiquated and pedestrian views on addiction.
In a recent article in Time, (December 14, 2009, pg. 68, The Toughest Diet) Brown talks about his struggles with overeating, how he lost weight and how he now copes with being surrounded by food constantly. He has completely changed his eating routine, which seems to be working for him, and now, instead of snacking on French fries, enjoys sardines, avocados and almonds. I say bully for him. However, Mr. Brown misses the boat when he says by way of analogy, “You don’t cut back on heroin, you don’t cut back on smoking; you either quit or you don’t.”
This is a really helpful and illustrative quote, an excellent example of the unquestioned, unexamined societal attitude I stand firmly against. And I’m not trying to pick on Mr. Brown. He just has the misfortune of publicly saying what everybody else thinks without challenging the notion on any level: a crime we are all guilty of at one time or another.
You can cut back on heroin. You can cut back on smoking, or drinking, or marijuana or cocaine. You can do anything you set your mind to. Is it easier to just quit completely? Of course it is. But each of us is born with will, with volition. We are the masters of our own destiny – at least within the rat maze which is human existence. For someone to say that a given individual has no control of himself is to bestow the dubious gift of abdication of responsibility. If you want to quit your habits completely, do it! I’m with you all the way. But don’t then turn around and say that, because you had to quit, everybody else does too.
And actually, Mr. Brown is the perfect example of my point. He had a problem over eating. Did he quit eating altogether? Of course not. He found a way to work within the confines of his need to eat and find a healthy plan. Which brings me to my final observation. Do we tell recovering sex addicts to cease having sex altogether? Generally, no. Why? Because sex is seen as indispensable to a happy life, something people don’t want to live without. Obviously the same goes for compulsive eaters – they can’t live without sustenance, so they find a way to eat healthier. The same solution can be true for the drug addict and so-called alcoholic. But most people and our social institutions refuse to concede this point.
In a recent article in Time, (December 14, 2009, pg. 68, The Toughest Diet) Brown talks about his struggles with overeating, how he lost weight and how he now copes with being surrounded by food constantly. He has completely changed his eating routine, which seems to be working for him, and now, instead of snacking on French fries, enjoys sardines, avocados and almonds. I say bully for him. However, Mr. Brown misses the boat when he says by way of analogy, “You don’t cut back on heroin, you don’t cut back on smoking; you either quit or you don’t.”
This is a really helpful and illustrative quote, an excellent example of the unquestioned, unexamined societal attitude I stand firmly against. And I’m not trying to pick on Mr. Brown. He just has the misfortune of publicly saying what everybody else thinks without challenging the notion on any level: a crime we are all guilty of at one time or another.
You can cut back on heroin. You can cut back on smoking, or drinking, or marijuana or cocaine. You can do anything you set your mind to. Is it easier to just quit completely? Of course it is. But each of us is born with will, with volition. We are the masters of our own destiny – at least within the rat maze which is human existence. For someone to say that a given individual has no control of himself is to bestow the dubious gift of abdication of responsibility. If you want to quit your habits completely, do it! I’m with you all the way. But don’t then turn around and say that, because you had to quit, everybody else does too.
And actually, Mr. Brown is the perfect example of my point. He had a problem over eating. Did he quit eating altogether? Of course not. He found a way to work within the confines of his need to eat and find a healthy plan. Which brings me to my final observation. Do we tell recovering sex addicts to cease having sex altogether? Generally, no. Why? Because sex is seen as indispensable to a happy life, something people don’t want to live without. Obviously the same goes for compulsive eaters – they can’t live without sustenance, so they find a way to eat healthier. The same solution can be true for the drug addict and so-called alcoholic. But most people and our social institutions refuse to concede this point.
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Double Duty at Sonic
What is it about the fast food joints? Compare this story with that of the South Carolina McDonalds which ran on this blog on September 27, 2009.
Cape Girardeau, Missouri (first reported by the Southeast Missourian):
Dennie Bratcher has (or perhaps, had) a good job as a shift manager at a local Sonic restaurant, famous for its burgers, dogs and frozen treats. But it seems that his income from managing the store just isn’t enough to cover his other lifestyle choices.
Police were called to the restaurant at 1:57 a.m. on Thursday, December 10 on a report of a possible burglary in progress. When they arrived, they found Dennie cooking in the kitchen. Strange, considering that the restaurant had been closed for hours. What was even more strange was the fact that he was not grilling a burger, but rather was cooking up a fresh batch of methamphetamine. Police arrested him on the spot. He is currently charged with second degree burglary and attempt to manufacture a controlled substance
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
God Bless John Daly
It appears my favorite golfer is back in the limelight. Yahoo! Sports today reports that Daly, “has shed well over 100 pounds in the last year as a result of lap-band surgery, and he's now a slim, trim 185. He's talking about writing a new book, and at a press conference Tuesday prior to the Australian PGA, he noted that he'd also like to see a movie made of the insanity that has been his life, both on and off the course.”
Honestly, I don’t care what the man does from here on out. In my book, his life has already been a huge success. He’s reached the peaks of golfing triumph, he’s been down and out, he’s won and lost millions of dollars golfing and gambling. He’s been a drunk, a degenerate and a champion. He’s been married and divorced four times. That’s enough life for three men. I get so tired listening to the talking heads on ESPN pontificate about what a disaster his life has been, how he’s wasted his potential, how drinking has destroyed his game. They can’t read his mind. They don’t know what interior struggles he’s gone through. They don’t know what he’s chasing.
That being said, I’d love to read his book or see a movie about his life – so long as it comes from or is endorsed by J.D.
Honestly, I don’t care what the man does from here on out. In my book, his life has already been a huge success. He’s reached the peaks of golfing triumph, he’s been down and out, he’s won and lost millions of dollars golfing and gambling. He’s been a drunk, a degenerate and a champion. He’s been married and divorced four times. That’s enough life for three men. I get so tired listening to the talking heads on ESPN pontificate about what a disaster his life has been, how he’s wasted his potential, how drinking has destroyed his game. They can’t read his mind. They don’t know what interior struggles he’s gone through. They don’t know what he’s chasing.
That being said, I’d love to read his book or see a movie about his life – so long as it comes from or is endorsed by J.D.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)