Several interesting articles about the upcoming revisions to psychiatry’s diagnostic manual, for the new DSM 5.
How Psychiatrists Make Drugs More Addictive by Jacob Sullum
The next edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, scheduled to be published a year from now, is expected to include a looser definition of addiction that will qualify millions more drinkers, illegal drug users, and participants in other pleasurable activities for psychiatric diagnoses. The upshot will be a lot more spending by taxpayers and private insurers on rarely effective “treatment” for these putative diseases, along with expanded excuses for depriving people of their freedom and relieving them of their responsibility.
DSM 5 Could Mean 40% of College Students Are Alcoholics by Maia Szalavitz
If the change is finalized, anyone whose drinking or drug use creates any problems will essentially be an addict or alcoholic with a â€œmildâ€ case of the disease and presumably, therefore, not someone who can learn control over his habits.
While researchers have been encouraging the widespread adoption of â€œbrief interventionsâ€ and other techniques that donâ€™t require abstinence or a labelâ€” with great successâ€” this change could swing the field in the opposite direction.
And that poses a huge problem, particularly for adolescents and young adults with mild problems who may be pushed to adopt an addict identity and to see themselves as having no way to control their drinking or drug use if they ever â€œrelapse.â€ Rather than empowering those who do have control to use it, these programs essentially tell kids that if they ever have just one drink or puff on a joint, theyâ€™re lost.
The New York Times article points out the self-interest that may be involved…
Addiction Diagnoses May Rise Under Guideline Changes by ian Urbina
â€œThe ties between the D.S.M. panel members and the pharmaceutical industry are so extensive that there is the real risk of corrupting the public health mission of the manual,â€ said Dr. Lisa Cosgrove, a fellow at the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics at Harvard, who published a study in March that said two-thirds of the manualâ€™s advisory task force members reported ties to the pharmaceutical industry or other financial conflicts of interest. […]
Dr. Oâ€™Brien, who led the addiction working group, has been a consultant for several pharmaceutical companies, including Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline and Sanofi-Aventis, all of which make drugs marketed to combat addiction.
He has also worked extensively as a paid consultant for Alkermes, a pharmaceutical company, studying a drug, Vivitrol, that combats alcohol and heroin addiction by preventing craving. He was the driving force behind adding â€œcravingâ€ to the new manualâ€™s list of recognized symptoms of addiction. […]
Seems like such a win-win change to the DSM. The Drug Czar wins because with all these new people “needing treatment” it justifies his emphasis on treatment. The drug companies win because they get to drug people up on drugs for which they get paid. The treatment industry wins because they get a ton of new people “needing treatment” that aren’t difficult cases, and with health care covering much of it, they can just rake in the dough without really having to do anything.
As far as I can tell, the only ones who lose are, well, the people.
You know, when the Church of Scientology starts to sound like it might have a point, we’ve gone deep, deep down the rabbit hole.
I caught an opossum in my squirrel trap last night. Reality appears to be standing on its head. It didn’t even say “thank you” when I let it go, it just waddled away as quickly as it could.
Opossums are one step above mold on the intelligence scale.
It’s always interesting to see which comments generate a thumbs-down. Do you think this one was a fan of opossums or mold? Or maybe they’re offended by the whole notion of quantifying intelligence?
Go figgur. Tha’s jus’ a observation, mind you. Don’t get me wrong, some of my best friends are nocturnal animals who carry their young in pouches. And I’ve stomped on the brakes more than once out here in the country to avoid ’em. But I stand by my statement: they are just mind bogglingly dumb.
I used the DSM-4 as my “playbook” when I filed my PTSD claims. It was a “plug-n-play” experience I’d advise anyone to do.
Hard not to make comparisons to Snezhnevsky and their ilk. Instead of everyone being sluggishly schizophrenic, we now have everyone being a sluggish addict?
The drug warriors are searching for a new method of control through rehab,,without the mental health backing it wouldn’t ever fly,,so the mental health people just want in on the flow of money coming out of DC.
As I said in a recent previous post. This new definition is constructed out of 100% self-interest.
Their addiction to money and conflict of interest is sickening. Their addiction to power over others surely meets some of the most damning portions of their own book. Ironically this is also the case with the Bible.
Iâ€™ve not yet taken the time to write a humor piece on this, but howâ€™s this for â€œcraving?â€ A cereal named â€¦ drum roll please â€¦ KRAVE.
Perhaps this means advertising is about to become illegal or have G/PG/PG-13/etcâ€¦ ratings? So often Iâ€™ve heard them talk about â€œonce you eat one, you have to have more,â€ or â€œtheyâ€™re addicting,â€ etcâ€¦
Sugar to hit your addiction receptors, with a double whammy of “heart healthy whole grains” to hammer your opiod receptors, spike your blood sugar some more, tear holes in your guts and let poo leak out where it doesn’t belong. And all paid for by you, courtesy of billions in agricultural subsidies.
Isn’t this a good excuse to go get high?
I am with you,,rolling onward,,thru the fog,,,,
I was making fun of the prohibitionists. I don’t need an excuse to choose to enjoy cannabis.
No excuses needed. The word you sought was “occasion”.
Well if I had said occasion then I wouldn’t have been making fun of the prohibitionists! Sigh, I guess my post was as obscure as puff, puff, bend was as a headline. I’m sure you’ve seen one of the more genuinely inane memes in posts by assorted prohibitionists which say that we who are advocating the law being changed only support re-legalization because we are looking for an excuse to get high. I’ve banged my head on that particular brick about 5 times in the last two weeks. The really sad thing is that these people actually believe their own bullshit.
“As far as I can tell, the only ones who lose are, well, the people.”
In the last 10-15 years, we can say that about everything done (in the name of “protecting” the people by:
The Federal Government (DEA, ATF, GSF, Secret Service, etc. – scandals everywhere you look)
The Military (Iraq war did not make us “safer”, etc.)
Financial Services Companies
All the above have a vested interest in the status quo – which is a totalitarian state. They always claim to be “protecting” something, but any actual examination shows the opposite effect. Don’t buy their self-serving lies.
Things really have changed since they started this psychiatry thing.
The encroachment of The Therapeutic State in the area of addiction means that the autonomy of an allegedly addicted individual is allocated to coercive authorities and forced drug treatments, and may encompass â€˜unhealthy usersâ€™, as Keith Humphreys puts it. Whether an individual considers themselves healthy or addicted or not is irrelevant if everything is addictive and considered problematic.
Given a broad definition of addiction, and the stigma it entails, an accusation of addiction becomes a weapon in the hands of an opponent. A similar problem existed during the inquisitions of Europe and the Americas. In the bad old days, an accusation of heresy was sufficient to remove a political opponent, a business rival, or an estate holder from their holdings, unless the target of the alleged heresy had sense and money enough to buy protection and pay off the inquisitors or tribunal in advance.
The best way to stop the Therapeutic State, as Iâ€™ve noted before, will be to extend its radicalism to everything. The equal protection of the laws clause of the 14th amendment can be invoked. Once the Therapeutic State is seen as being hypocritical for not forcing people into treatment for addictions to sports and religion, spreading the net of addiction treatment will meet the resistance needed to quash it.
“I saw Goody Osburn with a Doobie! I saw Bridget Bishop with a Doobie!”
Miley Cyrus named her new dog Mary Jane! (no fooling)
Can a psychiatrist go to a chalkboard and draw up a psychology equation? The defense rests your honor.
Sure they can. You just need an advanced degree is psychobabble to understand it. Here’s one below but don’t be deceived, to understand this requires highly technical expertise in the arcana of head shrinking, possibly board certification.
Don’t try to understand that at home boys and girls!
It appears that the cops really do have it in for the canine race:
Police dog survives being shot after mistakenly biting an officer
They even shoot their own dogs. Wow.
Meh. At least with cops shooting their own dogs they at least have the… decency?… to rush the animal to a trauma center right after. You know instead of letting it bleed out on a kitchen floor/sidewalk/driveway/lawn.
I see you never had to take “Psychological Statistics” in college. Re-direct, Your Honor.
This is as much a part of the problem as Anslinger was with his reefer madness.
America becomes the Land Of The Sick and the Home Of The Addicted. By decree of those that know best. Most people will tell you that religion and politics don’t mix. DSM 5 and Government don’t either, obviously.
Are the prohibitionists addicted to those so called “per se” laws? Too bad!
Marijuana DUI standard dies a 3rd time in CO
Not even when the dimwitted Governor declares it an emergency. Who’da thunk it??
Do you think if we drive a stake through its heart it will stay dead this time?
Two articles from down under where they had random stop dui laws enacted last year,,with the aid of the saliva testing machines,,appx costs per ticket for dui from the machines,,$55,ooo per ticket,,numerous faulty and false readings,,really make you want to know if it was the Philip’s tester Karen Tandy is lobbying for.
Now I can’t find them,,hmmm,,more searching to do.
To the Obama Administration: this is not science. This is two self serving interests converging.
I was thrown out of psych’s office 22 years ago when I told her I smoked marijuana and felt better than the crap she was giving me. This was right before Prozac came out. I can’t remember the drug name Pamelor (?) I think. It was awful. The sick care system in this country doesn’t want you to be well. If you are healthy you won’t need labs, pills, procedures and they won’t get paid.
addiction to freedom: the highest crime.
Another one bites the dust -this is what the future holds for all you prohibitionist parasite motherf***ers!!!
‘Prohibitionist parasites’ – I have a strange feeling we’ll be seeing that term everywhere in the near future 🙂
You forgot to mention that Ms Rosenblum kicked Mr. Holton to the curb, 63.1-36.9. Damn, is it Weasel Stomping Day already?
Not only did our candidate win, not only did she stomp Holton’s ass by 2-to-1, but the media narrative made clear that support for Oregon’s medical marijuana law was the decisive issue and a significant percentage of Rosenblum’s campaign funds came from drug policy reform groups. Major tactical and propaganda victory!
Stay tuned for another exciting primary on May 29! Incumbent prohibitionist tool Silvestre Reyes and legalization advocate Beto O’Rourke are going at it for the Democratic nomination in Texas’s 16th congressional district. According to exit polls, O’Rourke holds a slight lead in early voting: http://www.elpasotimes.com/ci_20629574/exit-poll-reyes-orourke-tied-16th-congressional-district?source=most_emailed
I love the North West!
This will probably also induce an effect, desired by many, to make the Affordable Care Act less affordable by pushing people into unnecessary services covered by health insurance.
I also suspect I now know where a lot of these huge estimated numbers of people “needing addiction treatment” that aren’t currently getting it come from that I’ve seen thrown around lately.
Think of all the caffeine addicts from the energy drink craze.
How do these holidays sneak up on you like this? I’m glad I have enough mayonnaise, the grocery store is probably sold out by now.
“Weasel Stomping Day” ~~ Weird Al Yankovic
Humbug. Too many open tabs, I didn’t mean to repeat myself.
OT: From reason.com:
What the hell?! Ron Paul won’t rule out endorsing Romney but has ruled out endorsing Gary Johnson? That is very disturbing, if true. My guess is what this really means is that he won’t endorse anyone this time around, but even that is disappointing.
If it is the Benton I aw on TV,,he is an avid Republican and may have spoken his own mind on not endorsing J/G,,because after a few campaign ads hit the air nationwide,,it may change the entire campaign strategy,,,if the Republicans see a fast enough growth rate in the support for J/G,,fingers crossed,,even RP realizes ending marijuana prohibition is the beginning of the end of the war on drugs,,in more than words.
Politics…what a concept. He’s trying to squeeze Mr. Romney for some movement toward his policies. Best case is that he gets Mitt to give his policies some love and then tells him to get bent. But Mr. Johnson does favor a large number of policies that are antithetical to Dr. Paul’s stated positions. Indeed Mr. Romney is even further afield but Dr. Paul does have a much better chance of actually influencing the body politic into moving toward his policies by offering his support to him than to Mr. Johnson. Like it or not it will be a miracle if Mr. Johnson gets a vote count in excess of 10% of the total on Election Day.
———- ———- ———- ———- ———-
Francis’ Law: “Any time the drug warriors make a claim about cannabis, it will eventually be discovered to be not only false, but the complete opposite of the truth.”
I’d like to propose a minor, semantic revision. Would you consider replacing the phrase “drug warriors” with “prohibitionist parasites”?
I’m thinking 8% would be a good showing. I’m resigned but I’m positive about the whole thing…a declared candidate with a DLR platform. This is the first time in my life I will have the opportunity to vote for a pro-reform candidate. If more people understood it that way, he’d do a lot better.
I hear you, but I think trading his endorsement for some token changes in the platform (and that’s all they would be – token) would be a huge mistake. A Paul endorsement of Romney would also, in my opinion, demoralize the movement. If he really wants to change the direction of the Republican party (and the country), the best thing he could do is endorse Johnson. THAT would get the GOP’s attention in a big way. I think there’s a very good chance it could ensure Romney’s defeat. I see that as a feature, not a bug. When the big-government, corporatist, prohibitionist, pro-war Republican party ceases to be electorally viable, it will change or die. At this point, I’m pretty indifferent as between the two – and I say that as someone who was a Team Red partisan for a long time.
I like the term “prohibitionist parasites,” but are you sure it’s not redundant?
only in our minds Francis because we interchange the terms so frequently we expect them to be listed as synonyms in Websters
“Iâ€™d like to propose a minor, semantic revision. Would you consider replacing the phrase â€œdrug warriorsâ€ with â€œprohibitionist parasitesâ€?”
It does roll ever so nicely off the tongue!
20 million more substance abusers and 40% alcoholics in college. Can’t help but feel this is some kind of ponzi scheme for the prohibitionist parasites.
“At the beginning of the end of prohibition, many prohibitionist parasites lost elections. But very soon after, they were all lined up against a wall, whipped about the head with rotten fish, then slowly strangled with their own intestines.”
– Excerpt from “The Last Dark Days of Prohibition”
Homework assignment for anyone who reads this — use “prohibitionist parasite” (singular or plural) in a sentence, and people, use your imagination! Here, I’ll go first:
Professional prohibitionist parasites prevaricate with pompous, pathetic postulations.
(Note to Francis, the word we’re looking for isn’t redundant, but eloquently reiterative.)
Peter posed pummeling per public passion, parting portions passed to professional prohibitionist parasites perhaps?
Interesting conversation today with my gastroenterologist. Have suffered for decades with IBS, tried everything modern medicine can throw at it without success. Asked him what he thought about medicinal cannabis as a possible solution… he suddenly stiffened and avoided eye contact from then on. Said he knew nothing about it and became very focussed on finding something on my computer record. Ended up proposing the same treatment that never worked before.
Someone remind me of the definition of insanity again…
Kudos to you for bringing it up!
Peter, it sounds like we have the same doctor. Except mine isn’t a GI doc, he’s an internist.
It’s because while nothing truly eliminates them, cannabis is far better at controling them than any remedy pharma can muster. And your Doc KNOWS this. He’d have to live under a rock not to. My IBD is one of my two medical reasons for using it.
Sounds like what my partner has gone through way too many times to count. “We’ve already tried these pills. Twice. They caused painful cramping and nausea.”
The mere mention of the medical use of cannabis turns highly educated grown men and women into fidgeting, child like simpletons.
Pete, one other loser… the insurance companies that have to pay for it… TILL THEY CAN RAISE RATES, that is… OH YEAH!!!
Insurance companies are people too!