Psychiatrist and public health official Lloyd Sederer discusses proven solutions to treat and prevent addiction. An opioid epidemic is ravaging the nation, and American families, public health officials and lawmakers are in search of solutions that can both stem the tide of legal and illegal drugs flooding their communities and provide effective, accessible methods to help release those hooked from the grip of addiction.
In his new book, psychiatrist and the chief medical officer of the New York State Office of Mental Health Dr. Lloyd Sederer, describes the scope of the challenges that make addiction so tough to shake, as well as research-tested methods for prevention and treatment. Sederer recently spoke with U.S. News about the path to recovery and why lawmakers should abandon failed policies. Excerpts:
The country is suffering one of its worst drug epidemics in the opioid crisis. How would you rate the Trump administration’s response?
Ineffective strategies have unfortunately had a bit of renaissance in the current administration. I like a quote from Winston Churchill: “You can rely on Americans to do the right thing after they’ve tried everything else.” We have the right things, and we have proof that they work. We’re just not using them because we’re spending so much energy – programmatic energy, policy, money – on two principally failed strategies, one I call control and the other, consequences.
Probably the most glaring example of control is Prohibition, trying to prevent people from getting what they want. Good luck with that; that failed miserably, but it did create an everlasting mafia. Then you fast forward a number of decades and [President Richard] Nixon coins the term “War on Drugs,” and that was carried forward by [President Ronald] Reagan. The idea was that you could actually wage war on substances.
Lately, it’s been – let’s amp up law enforcement to deal with the opioid epidemic, let’s amp up enforcement, let’s give more money to cops to arrest people. The attorney general says ‘let’s use our federal laws that make cannabis illegal, go to states where it’s a legal recreational drug and arrest those people and maximize this sentences.’ This is so dated and useless.
Consequences means scare tactics. ‘This drug’s going to kill you, this drug’s going to fry your brain!’ So this is public service announcements, media ads and sending cops or convicted felons to schools to scare kids. That’s totally ineffective and in fact the irony is when you use scare tactics with teenagers, they’re drawn to it. The teenage brain is neurologically wired towards novelty and risk.
Why do we keep returning to these strategies, if, as you say, they don’t work? Some of it is ideological. Some of it is an example of just how ineffective government has been. There’s not a small number of people who believe, still, addiction is a weakness, it’s a character problem, and you don’t coddle people like that, you throw the hammer on them. The prospect of giving good money to people who didn’t do their share, that’s a very conservative position. Why should we support people who don’t contribute? And in this case, not only don’t contribute but deplete the public treasury, or steal or prostitute themselves, mostly to get a fix so they don’t go into withdrawal.
There are very strong moral forces, and this is a very puritanical country still. So this idea of coming down hard on drug users or drug dealers, execute them, as the president said in some talk not too long ago.
There’s also a touch of racism about this, because when you look at the demographics of people in prisons in the United States – we have the highest rate of imprisonment in the world by far – they’re people of color and poor people, and a good portion of them are there for nonviolent crimes. People don’t realize that the hammer will start to fall on Ohio, and Pennsylvania, and New Hampshire, and Vermont, and southern Massachusetts – epicenters of the opioid epidemic – which are white and middle America.
Many readers may be surprised at your description of why people begin using drugs: “People use drugs for a purpose. They work.” Do you believe the way we as a society views drugs is fundamentally mistaken?
I think that the two principal strategies, control and consequences, that have been used in this country for well over 100 years are indeed mistaken because they’re ineffective, and they’re very costly in terms of human lives and money. So until we move to solutions that are built on understanding the complex relationship between a person and a drug – that person’s biology, that person’s psychology, that person’s social setting and the drug – we’ll be trapped in the ineffective solutions that have gone on a very long time, and there are effective solutions.
What are the treatments that do work to reduce and treat addiction?
One of my activities, successful over the years, has been introducing depression measurement and intervention in primary care settings, an instrument that the patient fills out that quantifies your depression state, and if you have a number that’s in a moderate or very severe range, that goes into the medical record. What we need now is an analog to that for drinking and drug use.
Comprehensive treatment sounds like a slogan, but if you understand the brain in a simple way, there’s a circle in the brain that’s triggered by opioids, by tobacco, by having a baby or being a new mom or new dad, or seeing a rainbow. There’s a reward center in our brain, and that’s like the accelerator pedal for getting the brain going about something that feels good, that’s the pleasure center, and there’s a dopamine spike, and that leads to a cascade of other sections in the brain that are related to motivation, which is about wanting to get more about what made you feel good. And then there are areas of the brain that register memory by cues, smells, taste or vision. Each of those represents a touchstone for intervention. If you just focus on one area, just give people medication, or just give people psychotherapy, or help them with relapse prevention, each one of them helps, but each one of these interventions is additive to the other.
What sorts of broader policy recommendations would you suggest local and federal officials adopt?
When you think about public health – how we’ve made dramatic reductions in infectious diseases in the world, principally through vaccination and sanitation – the same principles of prevention, screening or early detection, early intervention, treatment and certain research apply.
It took a while for [Albert] Sabin to find the polio vaccine. It took a while to figure out how to keep people alive with HIV/AIDS. Good money went into that, and it paid off.
The prevention programs, aimed at elementary school kids, aimed at middle school kids, and their parents have been studied and they’re effective, but we don’t use them. And they’re not actually high cost programs, but they cost. And school budgets more or less can’t afford them, they have no money, they can’t buy supplies for their kids. So there has to be state and federal money to do that, not from bake sales.
This is a complex condition, and there are solutions, but you have to advocate for them. And that advocacy not only for your loved ones but who you vote for, because governments, elected officials, hew to what the voters demand. And that’s what voters have to start demanding, which is not lock them up, but prevent, screen, treat, and then put more money into research.