Wheelbarrows

fShare

Tweet

Highlights

• • Pre-existing mental disorders increases the risk of developing SUD.
• • Prior SUD increases the risk of transitioning from use to use disorder.
• • Highest rates of transition to SUD occurred among stimulant and opioid users.
• • Mood and anxiety disorders increased the risk of transitioning to AUD and CUD.
• • The rapidity of transition to SUD emphasizes the narrow opportunity to intervene.

Conclusion: The relative speed associated with the transition from use to SUD emphasizes the narrow window of time available to intervene, underscoring the urgency of early identification of mental health conditions and the timely provision of appropriate evidence-based interventions, which could potentially prevent the development of secondary SUDs.

For complete article 

fShare

Tweet

“Hold on! Feeling like I'm headed for a breakdown and I don't know why? But I'm not crazy, I'm just a little unwell, I know right now you can't tell…” 

Well, so wrote the band, Matchbox 20, nearly a decade ago. 

The song kind of rings true, in more ways than one, for a growing number of our community struggling with the complexities of 21st century living and some of the attending dysfunctions that our ever burgeoning ‘technocracy’ leads us into.

There are reasons why stress, anxiety and depression present, and some of those sources/origins can be amplified by our obsessive ‘screen culture’; not just content, but mechanism too.

The 20th Century Blues: The Evolution of Despairth Century Blues: The Evolution of Despair was the title of Time Magazine expose on the emerging mental health crisis engulfing the first world west, as far back as 1995. They noted that one of the key drivers for this decline was ‘social isolation’. What’s concerning is that while our ‘screen culture’ gives us greater digital connection, it often diminishes our human one, and this disconnection of healthy and meaningful human interaction is one factor contributing to our mental health decline.  For complete article

Download PDF

fShare

Tweet

Recovery and the ‘Nanny State’ – A note to the ‘right to recreational drug use’ lobby!

When elements of a society (most always from the ‘grown-ups’) say, “I don’t want a nanny state, with laws and regulations keeping me from doing what I want”, then ‘movements’ emerge seeking to mandate the removal of prohibitions and preventions on that risky edge. Of course, this is no more apparent than with the vociferous minority seeking to normalize illicit drug use in our culture.

Of course, the lesser protections there are in place, the greater the incidences of harm will follow, and invariably for the most vulnerable – our young. 

Besides the utter disregard for ‘others’, what is not only incongruent, but breath-takingly hypocritical, is that this decrying of the ‘Nanny State’ interference only works one way for the societal saboteur!  

At the commencement of their campaigns, these egocentric self-indulgers demand to be left alone to do what they want but seem to have no repulsion in lining up quickly for free health care, welfare benefits and tax-payer funded reparations when their hedonism eventually fails them. 

So, if we are to stop being a Nanny State, then that must work at every level and in all directions, right?  Let us permit all drug use, but also permit that only the user pays for both the harm to themselves and others, and without any burden or impost on society they chose to carelessly ignore!

Even the oft quoted anti-nanny state libertarian and 19th Century social commentator, John Stuart Mills insists some lines be drawn in society, and when it comes to drug use, his following statements couldn’t be more relevant or poignant.

“No person is an entirely isolated being; it is impossible for a person to do anything seriously or permanently hurtful to himself without mischief reaching at least to his near connections, and often far beyond them.” And, “If he deteriorates his bodily or mental faculties, he not only brings evil upon all who depended upon him for any portion of their happiness, but disqualifies himself for rendering the services which he owes to his fellow creatures generally, perhaps becomes a burden on their affection or benevolence; and if such conduct were very frequent hardly any offense that is committed would detract more from the general sum of good.

And even (it will be added) if the consequences of misconduct could be confined to the vicious or thoughtless individual, ought society to abandon to their own guidance those who are manifestly unfit for it? If protection against themselves is confessedly due to children and persons under age, is not society equally bound to afford it to persons of mature years who are equally incapable of self-government? If gambling, or drunkenness [we would add drug use, of course]… are as injurious to happiness, and as great a hindrance to improvement, as many or most of the acts prohibited by law, why (it may be asked) should not law, so far as is consistent with practicability and social convenience, endeavor to repress these also? …There is no question here (it may be said) about restricting individuality or impeding the trial of new and original experiments in living. The only things it is sought to prevent are things which have been tried and condemned from the beginning of the world until now; things which experience has shown not to be useful or suitable to any person’s individuality. There must be some length of time and amount of experience, after which a moral or prudential truth may be regarded as established, and it is merely desired to prevent generation after generation from falling over the same precipice which has been fatal to their predecessors.”1

Of course, not all current drug users are of this epicurean ilk, and many are trapped in the tyranny of addiction and need support, care and empowerment to recover. However, make no mistake, the current lobby is all about engagement with illicit drugs for anything but trauma alleviation!

Drug use exiting recovery is best practice for the well-being and restoration of those currently living with the consequences of decisions to enter the world of drug use – motivators/invitations from everything from uninvited trauma, to the careless and reckless decisions ‘to smash as many drugs as I can and party hard!’. This Recovery Month we encourage all in such situations to seek out and at least commence that journey to drug use exiting recovery.

However, the adage remains irrevocably true – “Prevention is ALWAYS better than cure!”  When it comes to illicit drug use, and the misuse of the legal and most damaging drug, Alcohol, please think not only of yourself, but of those nearest to you. The life you enrich may not just be your own!

L’chaim – To life, not instead of it!

Shane Varcoe – The Dalgarno Institute.

1. Mill J.S.  (1859) On Liberty London: Parker & Son, West Strand  Ch 4 Of the limits to the authority of society over the individual:  https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/m/mill/john_stuart/m645o/contents.html

fShare

Tweet

JULY 18, 2018 BY COREY W. HUNTER, MD, FIPP

While opioid medications may be effective for treating pain in the short-term, they have an extremely high propensity for addiction and do nothing to address the underlying cause of the pain.

The good news is that there are many alternatives to opioids that can help alleviate your son or daughter’s pain. Below, we’ve helped to spell them out for you and have provided guidance on how to ask your doctor about these alternatives.

What if My Child Has Chronic Pain?

Chronic pain is defined by the CDC generally as pain that lasts more than three months. It’s a complex issue to manage successfully, but especially so in the case of someone you’re concerned about developing an addiction, or someone in recovery. The CDC actually recommends against opioids as the solution for chronic pain management, as they say the risks from opioids greatly outweigh the benefits for most people. Fortunately, there are several other methods to help manage these chronic issues that you and your child can discuss with a physician.

For more