What If My Child Isn’t Motivated to Get Treatment for Addiction?
Suggesting Treatment to a Loved One
Intervention – a Starting Point
Drug Use, Stigma, and the Proactive Contagions to Reduce Both
- Details
- Hits: 16
Author links open overlay panel
(Note, it is NOT Cannabis – only one cannabinoid applied under therapeutic oversight that can aid in treating methamphetamine addiction)
Abstract: Cannabidiol (CBD), a non-psychoactive cannabinoid, shows great promise in treating methamphetamine (METH) addiction. Nonetheless, the molecular target and the mechanism through which CBD treats METH addiction remain unexplored. Herein, CBD was shown to counteract METH-induced locomotor sensitization and conditioned place preference. Additionally, CBD mitigated the adverse effects of METH, such as cristae loss, a decline in ATP content, and a reduction in membrane potential. Employing an activity-based protein profiling approach, a target fishing strategy was used to uncover CBD's direct target. ATP5A1, a subunit of ATP synthase, was identified and validated as a CBD target. Moreover, CBD demonstrated the ability to ameliorate METH-induced ubiquitination of ATP5A1 via the D376 residue, thereby reversing the METH-induced reduction of ATP5A1 and promoting the assembly of ATP synthase. Pharmacological inhibition of the ATP efflux channel pannexin 1, blockade of ATP hydrolysis by a CD39 inhibitor, and blocking the adenosine A1 receptor (A1R) all attenuated the therapeutic benefits of CBD in mitigating METH-induced behavioral sensitization and CPP. Moreover, the RNA interference of ATP5A1 in the ventral tegmental area resulted in the reversal of CBD's therapeutic efficacy against METH addiction. Collectively, these data show that ATP5A1 is a target for CBD to inhibit METH-induced addiction behaviors through the ADO–A1R signaling pathway.
- Details
- Hits: 84
When New York Mayor Eric Adams proposed forcing addicted individuals into treatment if they posed risks to themselves or others, the backlash was immediate. One activist called the plan “horrific.” Another said it “sends a chill up my spine.” Yet this visceral opposition may overlook a crucial reality: mandated drug treatment, when properly executed, can transform lives and restore communities.
The debate over compulsory care has intensified as cities grapple with unprecedented drug crises. With the most lethal illicit drug supply in American history flooding streets, the question is no longer whether intervention is necessary, but what form it should take.
The debate over compulsory care has intensified as cities grapple with unprecedented drug crises. With the most lethal illicit drug supply in American history flooding streets, the question is no longer whether intervention is necessary, but what form it should take.
The Legal Framework for Mandated Drug Treatment
Civil commitment for mental health treatment has existed for a century in the United States. All 50 states have laws governing the practice, typically requiring evidence that individuals are gravely disabled or pose threats to their communities. The underlying principle remains consistent: governments can provide care to seriously ill people even against their wishes.
However, New York is amongst the minority of states that do not consider addiction alone sufficient legal foundation to mandate care. This distinction matters because the alternative to mandated drug treatment in cities like New York often isn’t voluntary treatment, but no treatment at all. For many, it means life on the street with fentanyl and other deadly substances.
What Research Reveals About Compulsory Treatment
One of the largest long-term studies examining mandated drug treatment followed 2,095 addicted patients. The findings challenge common assumptions: one year after treatment, patients who received mandated care are slightly more likely to avoid drug use than those who entered treatment voluntarily. Moreover, mandated patients are less likely to face rearrest than peers who voluntarily sought treatment within the justice system.
Other studies have produced mixed results, with some finding mandated patients do somewhat worse or the same as voluntary patients. A recent review of 22 studies found “a lack of high-quality evidence” either supporting or opposing involuntary treatment for addiction.
Yet these studies share a critical limitation: none compared involuntary treatment results with receiving no treatment whatsoever, the most relevant comparison for policy decisions. (Complete article WRD News)
Revolutionary Tobacco-Free Addiction Treatment Shows 25% Higher Recovery Rates, New Research Reveals
- Details
- Hits: 155
Groundbreaking Research Challenges Traditional Addiction Treatment
A groundbreaking monograph by addiction specialist Brian Coon is challenging the traditional approach to substance use disorder treatment, advocating for a comprehensive tobacco-free addiction treatment model that could dramatically improve recovery outcomes.
The research presents compelling evidence that smoke-free recovery programmes deliver significantly better results than conventional methods. According to the findings, when addiction treatment centres adopt tobacco-free protocols, recovery rates increase by an average of 25% – a statistic that could transform thousands of lives annually.
- Details
- Hits: 170
Aim: To explore the influence of gender and time in addiction recovery on engagement in meaningful activities and the reduction of harmful behaviours among the recovery population in Sweden.
Methods: Participants were recruited through social media, recovery and treatment services, and snowballing, resulting in a sample of 110 individuals who consider themselves in addiction recovery for more than 3 months. Bivariate analyses were used to explore gender differences in relation to personal characteristics and current utilization of recovery support. The relationship with time in recovery was examined for three recovery stages (early (5 years)) in relation to meaningful engagement and detrimental activities. The Strengths and Barriers Recovery Scale (SABRS) was used to calculate changes in recovery-related well-being. Specifically, we assessed the overall difference between reported strengths and barriers - referred to as the “SABRS change score” - and compared these by gender and stage of recovery.
Results: The data indicate variations in recovery experiences across genders and stages of recovery, with women reporting more strengths in recovery and a greater change in recovery strengths from active addiction to recovery. The findings affirm the progressive character of recovery, illustrating how prolonged periods in recovery correlate with decreased negative activities (barriers) and increased meaningful activities (recovery strengths).
Conclusions: These findings provide significant insights into recovery pathways in Sweden. As well as providing empirical support for defining addiction recovery as a process over time that is associated with enhanced well-being and increased (community) engagement and citizenship, recovery support services that sustain recovery in the long-term will result in reduced harmful behaviours and increases in meaningful activities.
(Complete Research: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/14550725251357221)
- Details
- Hits: 99
As Alcoholics Anonymous celebrates its 90th anniversary this year, questions surrounding the effectiveness of AA continue to shape discussions about alcohol recovery methods. Since its founding in Ohio in 1935, the fellowship has grown into a worldwide movement with millions of active members, yet its approach remains both influential and controversial in modern addiction treatment.
The Foundation of Alcoholics Anonymous
Alcoholics Anonymous operates on the principle that members must self-identify as “alcoholics” and commit to total abstinence from alcohol. The programme centres around the famous 12 steps, which guide participants through a journey of acceptance and personal transformation. All meetings are guided by AA’s 12 traditions and texts such as the “Big Book”, encouraging self-awareness, spiritual growth, and connection with fellow members.
The fundamental anonymity principle that defines AA makes it impossible to quantify exact recovery rates, creating ongoing debates about the effectiveness of AA in scientific and medical communities.
Contrasting Approaches: Alcoholism vs Alcohol Use Disorder
One of the most significant tensions surrounding Alcoholics Anonymous relates to how it conceptualises drinking problems. AA’s approach treats “alcoholism” as a lifelong condition affecting people who are categorically different from other drinkers. As the Big Book states, “the delusion that we are like other people, or presently may be, has to be smashed.”
This perspective contrasts sharply with contemporary scientific understanding. Modern medical classifications use terms like “alcohol use disorder,” recognising drinking problems as existing on a continuum rather than as distinct categories. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5-TR) distinguishes between mild, moderate, and severe alcohol use disorders, acknowledging that many people with drinking issues fall far from traditional “alcoholic” stereotypes.
The Powerlessness Principle and Its Implications
Central to Alcoholics Anonymous is the first step: “We admitted we were powerless over alcohol — that our lives had become unmanageable.” This concept of powerlessness defines AA’s approach but conflicts with contemporary addiction science, which recognises that control over alcohol consumption can vary significantly depending on context, environment, and circumstances.
Modern treatment approaches, particularly motivational interviewing, regard ambivalence about change as normal rather than viewing reluctance to accept powerlessness as “denial.” This represents a fundamental difference in how the effectiveness of AA is measured against evidence-based therapeutic interventions.
The Abstinence Debate
Perhaps the most contentious aspect of Alcoholics Anonymous is its unwavering commitment to total abstinence. Whilst lifelong sobriety remains AA’s cornerstone, decades of research demonstrate that many people achieve recovery through controlled drinking approaches. This evidence challenges the universal applicability of AA’s methods and raises questions about the effectiveness of AA for individuals with less severe drinking problems.
Studies consistently show that controlled drinking can be a viable outcome for many people, particularly those with milder alcohol use disorders. However, widespread scepticism towards this approach persists, largely attributed to the long-standing dominance of “alcoholism” models promoted by organisations like Alcoholics Anonymous.
Identity and Stigma: The Double-Edged Sword
The requirement for members to identify as “alcoholics” creates complex dynamics around stigma and self-perception. Whilst some AA members successfully challenge stigma by fostering an “alcoholic identity” as a mark of strength and recovery commitment, this experience isn’t universal. Research indicates that mandatory self-labelling can become a barrier for some individuals, questioning the effectiveness of AA for diverse populations.
The broader concern relates to people who may never consider themselves “alcoholics” despite having significant drinking problems. This particularly affects individuals whose alcohol use doesn’t match common stereotypes of “alcoholism,” potentially preventing them from recognising problems or seeking appropriate help.
Scientific Evidence on Alcoholics Anonymous Effectiveness
The most comprehensive analysis of Alcoholics Anonymous came from a 2020 Cochrane review examining 27 studies involving 10,565 participants. The review compared 12-step facilitation treatment and AA engagement against other therapeutic approaches, finding that AA “may be at least as effective as other treatments” for most outcomes.
Notably, the review found that 12-step facilitation was associated with higher rates of continuous abstinence (periods of uninterrupted sobriety). However, this didn’t necessarily translate to more total abstinent days over 12-month follow-up periods, raising questions about the effectiveness of AA beyond its primary abstinence-focused metrics.
Critics, including addiction researchers Stanton Peele and Professor Nick Heather, challenged both the study’s limitations and interpretations. They suggested that the focus on continuous abstinence might be problematic, potentially contributing to the “abstinence violation effect,” where belief in necessary total abstinence can trigger heavier drinking following any alcohol consumption.
How Alcoholics Anonymous Works When It Does
Research into the mechanisms behind Alcoholics Anonymous success identifies several factors that align with broader recovery principles. These include the development of recovery capital through social, personal, and cultural resources, which enhance motivation and self-efficacy whilst forming new social networks and recovery-focused identity.
Alcoholics Anonymous effectively helps members transition from social networks that may have facilitated drinking to ones explicitly focused on sobriety. The fellowship provides meaning and purpose conducive to psychological wellbeing, with some members benefiting specifically from spirituality-based aspects of the programme.
Social network transformation represents a critical factor in recovery success, and Alcoholics Anonymous membership offers one pathway to achieve this, though not the only one.
Modern Challenges and Limitations
Ninety years on, Alcoholics Anonymous remains a dominant force in recovery landscapes, significantly shaping public understanding of alcohol problems through its “alcoholism” paradigm. However, its approach clearly isn’t suitable for everyone, particularly those with less severe issues, individuals uninterested in abstinence, or those uncomfortable with spiritual elements or self-labelling requirements.
The effectiveness of AA becomes questionable when considering the broader spectrum of alcohol problems. Many heavy drinkers use “alcoholism” stereotypes to contrast against their own drinking patterns, potentially preventing problem recognition through a process called “othering.”
Future Considerations
Questions arise about whether Alcoholics Anonymous bears responsibility for considering these broader implications. AA’s tenth tradition states: “Alcoholics Anonymous has no opinion on outside issues; hence the AA name ought never be drawn into public controversy.” This suggests that responsibility for addressing limitations of “alcoholism” models may lie with professionals, policymakers, and media rather than AA itself.
Alcoholics Anonymous highlights one valuable recovery route for a subset of people experiencing alcohol-related harm, but alternatives are essential. Alcohol problems extend well beyond those fitting within the “alcoholism” paradigm, requiring diverse approaches to meet varied needs.
Conclusion
As Alcoholics Anonymous marks its 90th anniversary, its influence on addiction recovery remains undeniable. Whilst research supports the effectiveness of AA for many members, particularly in achieving continuous abstinence, significant questions remain about its universal applicability.
The tension between AA’s “alcoholism” model and contemporary alcohol use disorder concepts reflects broader challenges in addiction treatment. Recognising these limitations shouldn’t be considered criticism of Alcoholics Anonymous but acknowledgement that comprehensive alcohol problem addressing requires multiple approaches.
For individuals whose needs align with AA’s philosophy and methods, the fellowship continues providing valuable support and community. However, expanding understanding of recovery options ensures that people across the spectrum of alcohol problems can access appropriate, evidence-based support tailored to their specific circumstances and goals. (Source: WRD NEWS)