Pain medications are often prescribed for chronic pain related to other medical conditions, such as cancer or an injury that results in ongoing pain. In all cases, the prescription of a pain medication to relieve pain must be weighed against the potential negative consequences of using such a medication, including not only side effects but also the risk of addiction.

In addition, the pain is best managed when there are follow-ups to the prescription that include assessments of pain levels and examination of co morbid conditions. In a recent study, researchers led by Leslie R.M. Hausmann, PhD of the Veterans Affairs Pittsburgh Healthcare System and Assistant Professor of Medicine at the University of Pittsburgh discovered that there are significant disparities between races in how pain management is executed.

The researchers found that the differences are present in the monitoring of opiods and in the follow-up routines. The recommended guidelines include assessing patients for the effectiveness of the medication, as well as screening them for evidence of drug abuse. The study’s findings appear in a recent issue of the journal PAIN.

The study’s focus included several measurements of pain management defectiveness, including the physicians’ implementation of an opioid agreement, measurement of pain levels at follow-up exams, inclusion of urine screenings for drugs and referrals for pain clinics and substance abuse treatment.

The retrospective design incorporated health records representing 1,646 white patients and 253 black patients. The data was taken from electronic health records that met certain criteria. The patients were all prescribed opioids for pain not related to cancer at the Veterans Affairs Pittsburgh Healthcare System pharmacy and used the medication for at least 90 days. The records were all from October 2007 to September 2009.

The researchers also assessed data about prescription painkiller follow-up and monitoring practices for the 12 months following the prescription period, to form a complete profile of the pain treatment.

The patients were 94 percent male and 22 percent were over the age of 65. Forty-five percent were married or living with a partner, and were most commonly treated for joint or back pain. Approximately one half of the patients had a co morbid mental or physical health condition, and one-third of the patients had a past of substance abuse.

When comparing the patients, the black patients were younger, less liable to have pain in their back, and had more physical co morbidity and higher pain levels recorded. The black and white patients were similar in history of drug abuse.

However, major racial differences were discovered as pertained to monitoring of pain prescription use and the effectiveness of the medication. Black patients seemed less likely to be monitored for pain levels during medical exams and among those patients given a urinalysis, black patients were tested more often, and particularly if they were prescribed a higher dose of medication.

Black patients also were less liable to receive a referral to a specialist for pain treatment and were more likely referred to a substance abuse treatment facility after taking prescription opioids.

The findings indicate that when black patients are prescribed opioid medications for pain treatment, they may not be receiving similar follow-up and monitoring practices that may maximize the benefit of their pain management treatment.

Read more about Dispelling Racial and Socioeconomic Myths About Drug Users

When people are afraid to get on an airplane, friends may comfort them by saying that many more people die in motor vehicle accidents than in airplane crashes. It seems incomprehensible to think that someone could say, “And even more people die by suicide.”  But according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), that is, in fact, the case.

In a recent issue of the CDCs Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, the number of people who died in motor vehicle accidents in 2010 was listed at 33,687, while the number of people who committed suicide was 38,364. Researchers noted that the majority of Americans taking their own lives were in the baby boomer generation. Economic problems, easier accessibility to opioids and stresses caused by care-giving are just some of the suspected causes of the suicide increase in this generation.

Suicide rates climbed most alarmingly in the baby boomer generation. In the 10-year study period, women in their 60s had a 60 percent increase in suicides (eight per 100,000) while men in their 50s had a 50 percent increase (27 per 100,000).

Researchers speculate on multiple reasons for the spike in the suicide rate. Baby boomers are arriving at reflective ages where some of them are not satisfied with where they are in their life. Life’s pressures and problems seem to prove too much for some.

Multiple problems and pressures may be pushing the American suicide rate higher. Financial loss or strain is just one possible reason for a feeling of hopelessness that may lead to suicide. Researchers believe that other problems may be caused by the overuse and easy accessibility of prescription painkillers. Opioid addiction is also rising in this country.

Being a caregiver for an aging parent while also taking care of a child who has returned home after college can also take a toll on boomer parents. While that age group is supporting family both older and younger than themselves, who is supporting them?

CDC representatives stress that the suicide rate may decline if more prevention programs and support is offered to those at risk for suicide. Sometimes it is not just one of the above mentioned problems or pressures—it is a combination. These complex reasons can be better sorted out with the guidance of professionals

Not only should at-risk individuals be helped, but so should those who have lost a loved one to suicide. Support groups to help those survivors can help the next generation learn to live through the pain and not give up hope in their own lives.

Read More About Opioid Abuse And Suicide Risks

If you are like me, you have probably wondered why so many former child television, movie, and music stars have ended up addicted to drugs and alcohol, and just in general are living lives marked by excessive levels of melodrama and notoriety.

From Judy Garland in Hollywood’s Golden Age to contemporary figures such as Michael Jackson, Macaulay Culkin, Britney Spears, and Lindsay Lohan, there are innumerable case histories of individuals who found success on the stage, screen, and in the recording studio at tender ages only to be plagued by bouts with substance abuse and mental and emotional breakdown as they advanced into adulthood. Given how frequent and awful the stories of tragedy have been, it would be difficult not to draw the conclusion that there is something inherently traumatic about great success in the entertainment industry that causes talented young people who make it to the big time to eventually lose their way.

This is indeed an easy conclusion to draw, but that does not make it the correct one. There is no question that what young people who reach stardom at early ages experience is something far removed from normal or routine, and it may very well be that so much public scrutiny and attention so early in life does have an impact on impressionable minds that is not altogether positive. But for the sake of balance and perspective, it must be acknowledged that there have been scores of people who found success in the entertainment business who grow up to be happy, normal, successful and extremely well-adjusted people.

So for example, while Judy Garland’s experiences with substance abuse have received much attention over the decades, we would be remiss if we did not note that the life of her contemporary, (and the most famous child star the world has ever seen), Shirley Temple, went in an entirely different direction. Temple eventually left the motion picture business and entered the world of international politics, where she helped blaze trails for women everywhere by securing appointments as a U.N. representative and the U.S. ambassador to Ghana and Czechoslovakia. And what is one to make of the career of Ron Howard, who began working steadily as an actor at the age of 6 and went on to become one of the most successful directors in the business and by all accounts a completely sober and level-headed guy? And what about all the formerly young stars who rose to prominence right alongside the notorious guys and gals we have all grown to know so well (Lindsay, Britney, Charlie Sheen, etc.)  whose names have never once appeared in the tabloid press because they were busted for a DUI or forced to enter a rehab center?

There are countless examples of former child television, movie, or music stars who have gone on to lead admirable and entirely sane lives. And even among those who have run into trouble, there are many like Drew Barrymore who have been able to bounce back and apparently recover from their substance abuse issues. If we were to take a comprehensive survey, we would most likely discover that these stories of normalcy and triumph outnumber the scandalous tales and stunted life histories of Hollywood’s irredeemable bad boys and girls by a significant margin, but of course people aren’t really interested in hearing about all of the child stars who didn’t end up dead, addicted, or on the skids as adults.

This is not to suggest that there is no problem here. Insiders agree that the drug culture is alive and well in both Hollywood and the music industry and that levels of drug abuse and alcohol consumption are higher among celebrities than among the general public. But just because a certain type of temptation exists does not mean that all who are exposed to it will succumb even if they have been involved with those cultures from an early age, and the fact that so many don’t would tend to suggest that when grown child stars end up addicted and corrupted, there is a lot more going on than meets the eye.

When Parents Don’t Parent, Kids Don’t Grow Up

Rather than blaming the entertainment industry, we need to take a much closer look at the parents of these lost souls, who chose to expose their kids to the public eye during a potentially fragile stage of their lives. Many of the stars who have had the most trouble were actually pushed into the industry by moms and dads who were in it for the money or who wanted to bask in the glory of having famous sons or daughters. Judy Garland, Lindsay Lohan, Gary Coleman, Tatum O’Neal and Michael Jackson are just a few examples of troubled former child stars whose parents seem to have been more interested in fame and fortune than they were in the welfare of their children. In fact, it is quite rare to find former child stars who became addicted to drugs or alcohol later in life who would testify that they came from safe, secure and loving homes. On the other hand, young entertainers who grew up in stable homes with parents who always watched out for their interests and never pushed them to do anything they weren’t ready for are the ones who, for the most part, have seemed to do just fine after reaching maturity.

And that is the key word – maturity. So many of the child stars who have struggled as adults (Michael Jackson is the most obvious example here) never really grew up. Because their lives were so abnormal and distorted, they were never able to make the transition from adolescence to adulthood, and this “failure to launch,” to use a colloquial term, is what left them vulnerable to the dangerous temptations that the entertainment culture offers so readily. Immaturity and insecurity go hand-in-hand, which explains why Hollywood and the music industry attract so many people who lust after fame and fortune because they believe that getting people to pay attention to them and notice them is the one and only thing that can fill up the empty spaces in their souls. And what makes the situation so difficult for many former child stars is that they were taught to think and feel this way from an early age by parents who were projecting their own immaturity onto their helpless offspring.

Lights, Camera, Destruction!

Behind the glitz, glamour, and money, Hollywood and the music industry share a dark side, and intensive involvement in this world may not be good for the minds, bodies, and spirits of vulnerable people who are in no position emotionally or psychologically to avoid all the potential pitfalls. The former child stars whose moms and dads pushed them toward the bright lights instead of allowing them to find their own passions undoubtedly carry many scars, and the bouts with substance abuse that so many have experienced is a direct reflection of this parental neglect and abandonment (lets call it what it is, kids forced to live out their parents’ dreams were most assuredly neglected and abandoned).

Celebrity itself is not to blame for the problem behavior of famous people, but the fact that so many seek fame with such hunger and desperation, as if it were the only thing that mattered, is a sign of deep-seated psychological and emotional immaturity. Child stars all too often are the victims of such misguided ambitions, rooted in the subconscious of their caregivers, and this is why it is hardly surprising that so many eventually fall into the greedy, grasping clutches of drugs and alcohol. Fame and fortune cannot replace parental love and support, and those who attain the former without the latter are almost inevitably headed for disaster—and the cameras will be right there to capture every moment of the action once it finally arrives.

More Hollywood News about Addiction: Colin Farrell: On Overcoming Addiction To Booze And Drugs

An article in the Australian Business Review Weekly tells the story of “Ruth,” a high finance worker in Sydney who left her job because she wanted to stop snorting cocaine. According to her story—which was told to an Australian rehabilitation worker—substance abuse was a 24-hour habit in her business, with executives constantly sneaking off to the bathroom for a pick-me-up.

Substance abuse specialist Josette Freeman argues that it isn’t unusual in that sort of industry, claiming that meetings over wine and dinner with clients often descend into cocaine-taking, and even that the high stress and production-focused businesses essentially reward drug abuse by ignoring the issue if it benefits them. In the United States, it’s estimated that business owners lose $100 billion per year as a result of drug abuse—and the facts about its impacts don’t paint the sort of picture these businesses might imagine.

“Benefits” for Businesses

According to the US Department of Health and Human Services, in 2009 77 percent of illegal drug users had either part time or full time jobs. Given the high rates of substance abuse amongst lawyers, it seems reasonable to assume that other high-level professions will also be affected.

If you place yourself into the shoes of a business-owner or other employer (with a limited capacity for foresight), you can see that there are several superficial benefits to a drug-using workforce. Most drugs don’t even have these, but stimulants like cocaine generally increase alertness, help people stay awake, improve mental performance and reduce appetite. If you think coldly and callously, as if you’re only interested in making a profit, these effects are big plus-points for stimulant use in the workplace. You feel like you’ll get an active, focused and dedicated work-force, willing to pull long hours and with an almost constantly positive morale.

According to Josette Freeman—whose work for drug rehabilitation group SMART has put her in contact with many white-collar addicts—“there are a lot of workplaces where they don’t care too much about the workers if they are producing.” This is at least echoed in the legal profession in the US, where the problem is often ignored and allowed to continue.

Risk Factors for Workplace Drug Abuse

There are numerous different elements which can make workplace substance abuse more likely. A particularly important one is stress (which will be addressed in detail later) but many other factors such as long or irregular shifts, tiredness, repetitive duties, isolation, ease of access to substances, lack of supervision and low job satisfaction are also notable risk factors. Some of these (such as stress, tiredness and long hours) would typically be more likely to affect higher-level workers, but others (such as repetitive duties and low job satisfaction) are a particular concern for blue-collar workers. Regardless of the specific risk factors, most jobs evidently carry some inherent risk of substance abuse.

The Importance of Stress

Stress is a key factor when it comes to any type of substance abuse, and this is particularly relevant for high-level professions that carry a lot of responsibility. The mechanism by which stress contributes to addictive behavior has also been studied, but it’s important to understand that stress only creates a susceptibility to addiction. It all depends on how individuals deal with the stresses of the workplace. Healthy coping mechanisms that don’t rely on substances enable most workers to manage stress without relying on substances as a mood-elevator. However, not everybody has these coping mechanisms.

For individuals with less healthy stress management strategies, a high-stress job in the financial or legal industries can easily lead them down the road to substance abuse. As mentioned in the previous section, this is particularly likely if there is easy access to substances in the workplace. This means that if there is a “culture” of drug abuse in the office, anybody exposed to high levels of stress is especially likely to get sucked in. To truly combat the issue of workplace substance abuse, employees have to be taught healthy coping mechanisms and about the long-term effects of drug abuse in the workplace.

The Truth of the Matter

As you may expect, workplace drug abuse—which may have an initial appeal to some employers and employees—ultimately reduces productivity, increases the number of absences, and makes regular changes in employer even more likely. Even stimulants, which initially seem like productivity-drugs, can cause panic, aggression, suicidal thoughts, paranoia, and hallucinations in chronic (long-term) users. On top of this, stimulant users ordinarily binge and then “crash” in a period of little activity characterized by depression, anxiety, and cravings.

Workplaces need to remain vigilant against drug abuse, and it’s advisable to have a policy in place for dealing with workplace substance abuse. In addition to educational programs to increase awareness, it’s important for employers to provide access to treatment and support. Businesses should also be clear about testing protocols and commit to disciplinary action where required. It’s a problem that spans all workplaces, and all businesses must take steps to protect against it.

Read more about The Dangers of Recreational Drug Use Here

The problem of inhalant abuse has surfaced again in a recent story from California, where nitrous oxide abuse is linked to the death of a college student. According to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), over 1 million Americans abuse inhalants each year, and they’re keen to point out that the problem is far from confined to adolescents. In the wake of the incident, law-makers in California are looking at implementing new legislation and raising awareness to reduce the numbers of needless deaths from inhalant abuse. However, the strategy appears to be geared toward young people, when national research has shown that the majority of inhalant admissions are actually from adults.

The Recent Death

Nineteen-year-old Claremont McKenna College student Ali Mirza was found with nitrous oxide canisters, or “whippets,” in his dorm room when he died. He was rushed to Pomona Valley Hospital Medical Centre, after paramedics failed to revive him at the scene of the incident last month. He was pronounced dead at 2am on May 17th, and his funeral is scheduled for the June 15th. His family and friends will mourn his untimely passing, but the increased efforts of police officers and law officials to combat inhalant abuse may prove to have positive consequences for LA’s youth.

The Dangers of Inhalants

“Inhalants” is actually a fairly broad term to describe drugs that are “huffed” by users and many different substances could fall under the group. These include paint, marker pens, glue, air freshener, butane and substances like nitrous oxide. Despite the large number of substances used, most of them have similar effects to anesthetics and carry numerous potential risks. The most widespread (being a possibility with all inhalants) is sudden sniffing death syndrome, which basically results from a disturbance to the heart’s natural rhythm and is often fatal. Inhalants can also cause brain cell death, lung damage, short-term memory loss, and liver and kidney damage.

Nitrous oxide balloons (commonly known as “laughing gas”), in particular, pose a problem because the effect of a single “high” only lasts for five minutes or less. This means that users will generally repeat doses in a single evening of use, and this multiplies the potential for damage. When the user is “huffing,” he is depriving himself of oxygen, and repeated oxygen deprivation can lead to unconsciousness or—over time—brain damage.

The Response

The problem of inhalant abuse has been on the rise among California youths, according to Veronica De Alba (a deputy city attorney in LA), and this has led her to push for increased legislation to protect California adolescents. Police in the area are working on an ongoing 15-month investigation – entitled “Operation No Laughing Matter” – to curb the usage and availability of nitrous oxide. This has dramatically reduced the supply of the drug in the LA County area, but a continued effort is evidently required to prevent resurgence in usage down the line.

Not Just Teens

Research from SAMHSA has shown that adults actually make up the majority of admissions to treatment facilities for inhalant abuse. The study showed that out of all admissions to treatment facilities for inhalant abuse, 54 percent were from people aged 18 or over in 2008. Admittedly, the majority of these admissions (52 percent) were from those in the 18 to 29 age group, but it still calls the adolescent focus of recent efforts into question.

While there is obviously a problem with inhalant abuse among teens, the problem is far from confined to them, and any public health-focused responses should take this into account. The sad truth is that inhalant abuse, like all drug abuse, may be commonly associated with troublesome youths, but it’s actually common in people from all walks of life. Some similar assumptions, which may be made about the race of inhalant abusers, were also addressed by the study and the results showed that the majority of the admissions were white males.

Broadening the Scope of Prevention and Education

Public awareness of the dangers of huffing will undoubtedly be improved by the recent story, but it’s important that you don’t mentally file it way as something that only really affects young people. The negative health impacts of huffing don’t discriminate based on age—they can affect any user—and research seems to show that adults are actually more likely to be heavy huffers. Broadening the scope of inhalant awareness campaigns to also appeal to adults initially seems like an unnecessary step, but statistics tell us that it’s just as vital as targeting teens and young adults.

Many conditions and situations carry an unfortunate stigma: poverty, mental illness, addiction and going to prison are not least among them. Those who have not experienced these situations or who have no relationship to anyone plagued by the disease of addiction are often quick to judge. Addiction, in particular, carries a stigma associated with weakness, poor moral character and a lack of willpower. Couple that with the fact that many addicts end up in prison for drug-related crimes and you have a double whammy of judgment and stigma. Anyone who has been to prison, regardless of the reason, must carry that burden forever.

Stigma is a terrible thing to cope with; all addicts understand this. They can describe how people look at them differently, that others fail to trust them for no other reason than their disease, and they know that many people look on them as being deeply flawed. Dealing with that stigma makes it difficult to get into recovery, to admit to having a problem, and to find the courage to get help. Coming out of prison only makes this worse. If you have served time and you face a battle with addiction, there are steps you can take to cope with the unavoidable stigma.

1. Get treatment. This point cannot be overstated. The only way you will conquer your addiction is to get professional help. If you have already received treatment, maybe while incarcerated, that does not mean you are at the end of the road. The pressure of the stigma placed upon you by others is a powerful force and one that may contribute to a relapse. Keep up with treatment, even if it means just attending an occasional support group meeting. If you are really struggling, see a trained drug counselor or therapist for some sessions. When you are fully in recovery, the stigma will start to seem less important and will be less damaging.
2. Fight feelings of shame and doubt. This may be easier said than done, but it is crucial that you do not let yourself feel the things that represent how others view you. Just because the public at large thinks you are lazy, weak-willed, morally bankrupt, and shameful does not mean that you are. You are what you want to be. You must create the person you want to be, regardless of what others say and think. Always remember that addiction is a disease; it is not a personal weakness or flaw.
3. Socialize. It may be tempting to hide away after getting out of prison. Fear of what others will think and what they will say about you is enough to make you want to stay inside and lock the doors, but this is not good for you or your recovery. Isolation will only increase your negative feelings. Be brave and get back out there. Go out with sober friends, go to church and participate in Bible study, get involved in social groups, and consider doing volunteer work. All of these things will take you out of yourself and your dark thoughts and put your energy into more positive activities.
4. Join a support group. If you are not already a member of a support group for addicts, join one now. Attending the meetings is a powerful way to stay clean and to take comfort from others who understand your experiences. You may even meet some addicts who have also spent time in prison. Seeing that you are not alone is helpful, because carrying the stigma of addiction as well as one for incarceration can make you feel like you are the only one. If you are new to sobriety or newly out of prison, you will also be able to find inspiration from others at these meetings. People who are years sober still attend meetings and can give you a guide and a model for how to live your life.
5. Work on your relationships. In your former life as an addict, you probably did some serious damage to your personal relationships. Going to prison certainly did not help. Now is the time to rebuild those relationships and to regain the trust of the ones you love. When you have them fully back on your side, you can face down any stigma.

Methamphetamine is known for its ability to damage normal brain function in its users. Unfortunately, some of the damage done by the drug increases the likelihood that recovering addicts will experience a relapse and return to active methamphetamine abuse. At one time, doctors and researchers believed that meth addicts were incapable of regaining the mental function required to significantly decrease any relapse risks. However, current evidence indicates that many of the brain deficits that can lead to relapse will gradually fade away if people addicted to the drug can remain in recovery for an initial, crucial period of time.

Read More

Methamphetamine and cocaine are two illegal drugs that belong to a class of substances called stimulants. Virtually all substances in this class produce significant changes in mental and physical function by altering normal rates of activity in both the central nervous system and a network of involuntary nerves known as the sympathetic nervous system. Despite their basic similarities as stimulant drugs of abuse, methamphetamine and cocaine differ from each other in important ways, including the degree of change they produce in the central nervous system, their duration of activity within the brain and body, and their ability to trigger a drug overdose.

Read More