HEADSHRINKING THE AMERICAN ADDICT:
Recovery in the 21st Century
by Cletus Nelson-
Special to Drugwar.com
June 27, 2002
No one will ever accuse the National Institute
on Drug Abuse (NIDA)
of having low aspirations. Not content with merely limiting the
use of narcotics, the powerful anti-drug entity wants control
of your mind. As part of a bold scientific venture, the organization
is developing a revolutionary regimen of pharmaceuticals that
will render the brain immune to mind-altering substances. Make
no mistake, researchers are taking part in a profound endeavor
to reshape the human species in accordance with statutory law.
Forget the heavy-handed tactics which have long characterized
the war on drugs, these pioneering medications offer a teeth-chattering
glimpse into the future of social control.
ENDGAME
The primary battleground for this far-flung
expedition is known as the "blood-barrier"---a sort
of internal gatekeeper which prevents toxins from entering the
brain. As narcotics typically interact with the nervous system
on a molecular level, man has long imbibed a rich variety of consciousness-expanding
substances able to traverse this natural screening process. However,
NIDA researchers are hoping to bring this blissful epoch to a
screeching halt by employing a biological treatment that could
forever close the doorways of perception.
The majority of these newly created medications
trigger an immune system reaction within the brain causing the
production of a "drug antibody complex." The antibodies
then adhere to the molecules of a targeted substance thereby
neutralizing its effects. "This represents a different approach
to therapeutic research," remarks a NIDA spokesman in a 1999
press release, "this strategy is aimed at preventing the
drug from reaching the brain."
Stories have already surfaced in Salon,
the Village
Voice, and other alternative publications heralding the creation
of a liberating "cocaine vaccine." One such treatment,
known as TA-CD,
is being developed by Xenova,
a NIDA-affiliated pharmaceutical firm. The anti-addiction agent
allegedly produces anti-cocaine antibodies that obstruct microscopic
coca crystals from penetrating the central nervous system. "When
a person relapses, the high they get from cocaine reinforces the
addiction. The [cocaine] vaccine prevents the high, and therefore
should help people who want to give up," explains a Xenova
spokesman in an interview with Sky News. (April 2, 2002)
Meanwhile Dr. Donald Landry of the Columbia
University College of Physicians and Surgeons in New York City
has created a "cocaine
specific catalytic antibody." The synthetic compound
utilizes features of antibodies which adhere to cocaine molecules
and enzymes that transform the highly potent crystals into "inactive
fragments." Animal studies indicate that Landry’s research
may prove invaluable when treating overdose victims while rats
treated with the compound have shown little interest in self-administering
cocaine.
THE VANISHING STONER
If you believe these wonder drugs will be
strictly limited to what we consider "hard drugs," think
again. Plans are underway to eliminate the psychoactive effects
of marijuana. Despite the herb’s well-documented history
as a medical palliative and notoriously low potential for abuse,
researchers involved with NIDA’s Intramural
Research Program are perfecting an "antagonist"
which paralyzes the brain’s Cannabinoid receptors---thus
eliminating the "high" attributed to the widely-used
recreational drug.
The anti-pot agent (SR141716) was first discovered
by Sanofi-Synthelabo,
a Parisian drug manufacturer working in tandem with NIDA under
a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA). A NIDA
press release circulated last Spring indicates that human
experimentation is already underway. Last year 63 lifestyle smokers
were allowed to get high after being treated with the experimental
vaccine. Test subjects reported a significant reduction in "how
high they felt" and a 38% decline in how "stoned"
they were.
As these experiments continue, NIDA is also
funding attempts to find preventative antidotes for PCP, Methamphetamine,
and Nicotine. Unlike today’ short-lived anti-addiction remedies
such as Naltrexone
and Methadone,
many of these medications have the potential to last a lifetime.
Should these efforts succeed, there is little doubt, the anti-drug
vaccine will emerge as an integral component of the contemporary
"Recovery" process.
SPAWNING THE DISEASE
Obviously this development would signify
a marked sea change in how we treat addiction. However, this attempt
to use biological agents to suppress drug use is strongly rooted
in 12-step ideology. Indeed, as Stanton Peele remarks, "NIDA’s
take on addiction has much in common with the view promoted by
Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) and its imitators" ("Hungry
for the Next Fix," Reason, May 2002).
In fact, the cornerstone of 12-step treatment
is the inherent belief that addictive behavior isn’t so much
a pathology stemming from personal, behavioral, or psychological
problems but a medically-recognized "disease." This
approach forms the primary foundation for NIDA’s anti-drug
vaccines. "Just as medications have been developed for other
chronic diseases, such as hypertension, diabetes, and cancer,"
writes the organization in its Five Year Plan, "drug addiction
is a disease that merits medication for its treatment."
Another AA concept that forms the underlying
basis for these futuristic "peripheral blockers," is
the notion that only through abstinence can those stricken with
the aforementioned "disease" ever achieve sobriety.
While few will deny that many have achieved sobriety by "working
the steps," and swearing off booze or drugs, as we shall
soon see, NIDA’s dogmatic belief in abstinence often collides
with contradictory data.
SPONTANEOUS RECOVERY
For example, how do abstinence proponents
reconcile their beliefs with a study commissioned by the National
Institute on Alcoholism and Alcohol Abuse (NIAAA),
published in 1996, which found that a large majority of persons
deemed "alcohol dependent" were capable of spontaneous
recovery without any form of abstinence-based treatment? In fact,
more than half of those who participated in the organization’s
National
Longitudinal Alcohol Epidemiological Survey (NLAES) and met
the diagnostic criteria for alcoholism were capable of moderating
their alcohol intake without swearing off booze.
Drugs are different? Not so according to
long-term studies of US drug users. Peele reveals that, "Long-term
cocaine users, for example, do not become addicts. And when they
do go through periods of abuse, they typically cut back or quit
on their own." To substantiate this statement the addiction
expert cites statistics from the National Household Survey on
Drug Abuse (NHSDA)
which show that some 3 million Americans have used heroin. Based
on this figure, one would think that we are in the midst of a
crippling pandemic of addiction. However, roughly 5% had used
the drug within the past month. The statistics for cocaine are
similar. As Peele explains, "These findings indicate that
the vast majority of heroin and cocaine users either never become
addicted or, if they do, soon manage to moderate their use or
abstain."
A PROVOCATIVE QUESTION
If the abstinence theories on which NIDA’s
vaccines are based appear largely untenable, one must then ask
a provocative (and in some circles) heretical question: Is addiction
actually a disease? Three decades ago Edward M. Brecher set out
to answer this question. After an exhaustive analysis of all available
scientific literature pertaining to drug abuse, his results were
published in the 1972
Consumers Union Report on Narcotics, Stimulants, Depressants,
Inhalants, Hallucinogens, and Marijuana---Including Caffeine,
Nicotine, and Alcohol.
In his authoritative study, Brecher divided
the prevailing theories of his day into three separate categories.
There where sociological theories which argued that drug use is
strongly rooted in one’s environment, value system, and peer
group. Psychological experts reiterated the popular belief that
addiction was rooted in a "weakness of will" or possibly
some undefined personality defect. Finally there existed the many
"disease model" or "biochemical" theories.
After his extensive analysis, Brecher concluded that the "vast
bulk of the evidence to date…favors the psychological and
sociological theories."
Fast forward three decades and Dr.
Jeffrey A. Schaler has conducted a similar analysis---with
similar results. Although Schlaler concedes that drug and alcohol
abusers exhibit physiological symptoms, he finds no basis that
they suffer from a particular disease. Indeed, he points out that
"abundant and convincing evidence exists to support the view
that illegal drug use has more to do with choice, values, and
expectations than with addiction, compulsion or disease."
(Psychnews International,
"The Drug Policy Problem," March 1997).
A DOUBLED EDGED SWORD
Despite these conflicting views over the
nature of addiction, it is highly likely that this attempt to
"medicalize" substance abuse will continue unabated.
Indeed, with uncontained glee, Dawn MacKeen reports in Salon that
"Medical historians point to the possibility of court-ordered
shots for drug abusers. And the availability of a medical approach
like a vaccine might persuade the public that addiction is actually
a disease, not the mark of bad behavior that should be punished."
("Immunized
Against Addiction, April 26, 2000).
This optimism reflects a growing belief among
many within drug policy circles that substance abuse should be
perceived as a medical issue as opposed to a criminal act. While
it is encouraging to know that many voters and elected officials
are turning away from the largely punitive (and unsuccessful)
strategy of locking up non-violent drug offenders, renegade psychiatrist
Dr. Thomas Szasz
warns that placing drug abuse within the realm of public health
could prove to be a double-edged sword.
"Interventions justified in the name
of health---defined as therapeutic, not punitive---fall outside
the scope of criminal law and are therefore exempt from constitutional
restraints on state coercion," he cautions in a 1998 editorial
("The
Political Legitimation of Quackery," Reason, March 1998).
In light of these cautionary words, can we be assured these powerful
(and possibly permanent) vaccines will be administered in an ethical
and non-coercive manner?
(MIS)INFORMED CONSENT
If current practices within the addiction
treatment milieu are any indication, the answer is an unequivocal
no. On any given day, employers, universities, jails, state licensing
boards, and other powerful institutions use administrative sanctions
ranging from extended jail time to the loss of one’s job
to coerce many into treatment (often against their express wishes).
As author Chaz Bufe reveals, "there
are myriad avenues by which individuals are forced into 12-step
alcohol and drug treatment (Resisting
12-Step Coercion, See
Sharp, 2001). Although exact statistics are unavailable, Bufe
estimates that the total number of Americans forced to attend
treatment exceeds well over 1,000,000. Because our definition
of an "addiction" can often prove to be highly subjective,
sometimes even the most minor transgression can land you in treatment:
"A young man working in a mail room
tested positive for marijuana use in a random drug test. He was
suspended from his job until he completed a drug treatment program.
In the program he was in constant conflict with his counselors
because he refused to acknowledge ---as required by the 12-Step
program---that he was powerless over his drug use: ‘I smoke
grass once a month!’ (Resisting
12-Step Coercion, Bufe et. al, See Sharp Press, 2001)
Although the courts have long recognized
that it is the duty of every healthcare provider to obtain patient
consent prior to beginning any form of medical treatment, the
incident cited above shows how the doctrine of informed consent
is all too often ignored by those charged with treating, employing,
and adjudicating those accused of substance abuse. Should today’s
12-step therapy include mandatory inoculations, there is little
reason to believe these practices will cease.
LEGAL PRECEDENT
One must also keep in mind that the perceived
exigencies of the drug war have become a routine justification
for a supine judiciary to allow a number of repressive measures
ranging from asset forfeiture to "courier profiling."
Obviously there exists a high probability that similar arguments
will be applied in favor of mass vaccinations.
During the Gulf War, Defense Department lawyers
petitioned the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for a waiver
granting military physicians the right to inoculate Desert Storm
Troops against possible biological and chemical toxins. "The
FDA granted the waiver, placing military physician’s in the
awkward position of having to administer an agent without the
recipient’s informed consent," remarks Joel Martin Schofer
of the Hahnemann School of Medicine (Violations
of Informed Consent During War, JAMA, May 5, 1999).
Dr. Peter J. Cohen, a legal scholar who has
written extensively about the vaccines, speculates that there
will be few legal barriers obstructing the application of the
new medications:
"In view of the [potential benefits
of universal immunization], why not institute mandatory immunization
once a cocaine vaccine is available? There is ample legal support
for the state’s application of police power when necessary
to act in the interests of public health. However, just because
society has this power does not mean that such an approach is
ethically justified…"
("Injections of Hope," Letter to Village Voice in Response
to Carla Spartos article "Injecting Big Brother," 7/26/00)
Cohen, an Adjunct professor at Georgetown
law school is also quick to point out that there are also a "number
of persuasive reasons not to initiate mandatory immunization with
a cocaine vaccine." Moreover, the legal-medical expert writes
that "vaccines are still in the earliest stages of experimentation
as the "required FDA studies will not be completed until
well into this decade."
AN UNCERTAIN FUTURE
As the aforementioned passage indicates,
the advent of the anti-drug vaccine remains within the realm of
speculation. Nevertheless, the mere fact that an agency of the
federal government is exploring this disturbing option merits
concern. Indeed this is no small matter. Should we fall victim
to mass inoculations, it will be left to future historians to
record the cognitive landscapes we once possessed within our minds.
In the meantime, the clock is ticking….
###
