ASNet Discussion Forum Re-opened for Comments

11/20/13 | by the professor [mail] | Categories: Announcements

Link: http://www.AddictionScience.net

We are (at least temporarily) re-opening the ASNet Discussion Forum for reader comments. Although we sincerely appreciate the feedback and other comments, the high volume of spam postings had forced us to shutdown our site to postings from nonmembers. We are again trying this on an experimental basis for the next few weeks and will determine if the spammers have lost our 'address' or if this continues to be a problem. Meanwhile, please feel free to post your comments and to initiate new threads on topics of interest. Note that postings will be screened/reviewed to eliminate spam but not for content, except for the prohibited commercial postings that have plagued us in the past; most postings should appear within 24 hours of submission. Also note that because we do not exercise editorial control over outside content, we may or may not agree with such content. We believe that an open, unmoderated discussion forum is the optimal vehicle for the free and honest exchange of ideas and for the discussion of controversial topics. "Write-on!"

Addendum

Within minutes of re-opening our discussion forum for postings from nonmembers we received our first spam postings from:

alvodireto.com
safehomesecuritytexas.com
sanstoragedirect.com (SanStorageDirect)
Tcicustomhomes.com (Cheap UGGs)

We have blacklisted these companies and suggest others boycott their products and services as sell to send a strong message to spam marketers.

About the Addiction Science Network (ASNet)
Our work involves topics related to drug abuse, drug addiction, drug dependence, and other related topics in psychopharmacology including the biological basis of severe mental disorders. The ASNet Discussion Forum serves our primary missions of disseminating unbiased scientific information about drug addiction and advocacy of better harm-reduction strategies and science-based, rationale drug-regulation policies. We also have a podcast channel and a website that support these missions which is primarily aimed at academic and professional audiences. The free use and distribution (for noncommercial purposes) of the content of our resources is permitted as long as reference is made to the original source (minimum acknowledgement "Addiction Science Network;" preferably a direct link to the original source). We are always pleased to accept donations for our work, but donations do not qualify as charitable contributions according to IRS rules because of our advocacy policy. The limited advertisements we accept are clearly distinguishable from our content by their placement on the top and/or bottom of individual webpages and by the fact that all off-site content should open a new browser window; a small payment is received on a pay-per-click basis without our readers incurring any expense (no purchase of goods or services necessary). Sponsors who make financial or in-kind contributions to support our work are acknowledged on our homepage and sometimes elsewhere on our website. Neither sponsors nor advertisers have any influence on the published content of this website.

Permalink

KISS-Version: Distinguishing among addiction, abuse, and dependence

Link: http://addictionscience.net/ASNabuseAddiction.htm

It is perhaps ironic that the first KISS-version of one of our commentaries actually comes from an off-site source that has summarized our viewpoint regarding the important distinctions among the terms "addiction," "abuse," and "dependence" perhaps even better for a general audience than our original commentaries. Ms. Jacqueline Marshall recently presented a concise, well-written synopsis that presents our viewpoint on this topic extremely well and in a very readable style. Visit MyAddiction.com to read her excellent commentary. Thank you, Jacqueline, for your excellent presentation! :)

Our original posts:
Why Distinguishing between Drug Dependence and Drug Addiction is Important
Why Distinguishing between Drug Abuse and Drug Addiction is Important
Distinguishing Drug Abuse from Drug Addiction

Permalink

"Press the lever:" Support our work! (please)

11/16/13 | by the professor [mail] | Categories: General, Announcements, Sponsorship & Advertising Policy

Link: http://AddictionScience.net

Want to support our work? A quick, easy, and free(!) way to support our work at the Addiction Science Network is to simply click-on one or more of the advertisements displayed on the top or bottom of some of our webpages. We receive a small pay-per-click commission for each viewer who visits one of the advertisements found on our website. You don’t need to purchase anything! Just take a moment to ‘click’ if you find our resources useful and wish to support our work. More clicks = more support and are interpreted by us (and by our sponsors/advertisers :D) as a ‘thanks’ for the information and other resources we provide. Of course actually purchasing merchandise and services through these links increases the competitiveness of this 'prime' advertising space and results ultimately in higher pay-per-click commission rates, so if the items fit your needs, “buy away.”

Please note that we do NOT accept embedded link/spoofed advertising (i.e., hyperlinks on key terms such as "best addiction treatment" that lead to websites selling their services). This is the most lucrative mode of Internet advertising, and we repeatedly decline very profitable offers that could generate considerable revenue by this business model. All links to off-site webpages should open a separate webpage (as do some of our own links where we feel it appropriate to keep the reader 'anchored' on the referring page) to serve as a 'flag' that the information may be coming from a source other than the Addiction Science Network. Furthermore, we restrict advertising space to the immediate top and/or bottom of our webpages to maintain a 'clean' browsing/reading experience and to help distinguish paid advertising from our own content.

And an apology . . .
:oops: Sorry that the first new posting in over a year is a solicitation for (indirect) financial support and for the moral boost knowing that we have supporters willing to take a moment out of their busy schedules to indicate continued support in a tangible form, but the reality of the situation is that limited financial support severely limits the time and resources available to continue development of our website -- both are a zero-sum game with never enough to fulfill all of our needs and good intentions. We plan on posting additional podcasts and new commentaries very soon, but the loss of our main computer used for this work along with the primary backup copies of the podcasts already completed and the availability of only outdated software resources have hampered moving forward when we now must spend time to tool-back-up for this work.

About the Addiction Science Network (ASNet)
Our work involves topics related to drug abuse, drug addiction, drug dependence, and other related topics in psychopharmacology including the biological basis of severe mental disorders. The ASNet Discussion Forum serves our primary missions of disseminating unbiased scientific information about drug addiction and advocacy of better harm-reduction strategies and science-based, rationale drug-regulation policies. We also have a podcast channel and a website that support these missions which is primarily aimed at academic and professional audiences. The free use and distribution (for noncommercial purposes) of the content of our resources is permitted as long as reference is made to the original source (minimum acknowledgement "Addiction Science Network;" preferably a direct link to the original source). We are always pleased to accept donations for our work, but donations do not qualify as charitable contributions according to IRS rules because of our advocacy policy. The limited advertisements we accept are clearly distinguishable from our content by their placement on the top and/or bottom of individual webpages and by the fact that all off-site content should open a new browser window; a small payment is received on a pay-per-click basis without our readers incurring any expense (no purchase of goods or services necessary). Sponsors who make financial or in-kind contributions to support our work are acknowledged on our homepage and sometimes elsewhere on our website. Neither sponsors nor advertisers have any influence on the published content of this website.

Permalink

The KISS Version Revealed

10/28/12 | by the professor [mail] | Categories: Announcements, Kiss Versions (short reposts)

Link: http://addictionscience.net/ASNdiscussion.html

Some commentaries that receive sufficient interest to merit revision will be reissued as a succinct statement that incorporates highlights from the subsequent discussion and/or follow-up commentaries (i.e., highlights of related commentaries). These new summaries are designed to summarize the main discussion in a simple, concise manner. The Keep It Simple Stupid approach is affectionately referred to as the "KISS version" and will include a trackback to the original commentary or commentaries and any relevant discussion for those who would like to read the full version or retrace the original discussion(s). The KISS versions are provided as a convenience to those who don't wish to read through the entire original posting(s) and subsequent replies that generated the proverbial 'bottom line.' This should be especially useful for the 'speed surfers' who peruse a lot of material, very quickly on the Internet and help viewers to determine which commentaries merit slowing down to ponder the discussion. Some commentaries that address interrelated topics (often interspersed with unrelated commentaries) will be consolidated into a single KISS version as will select commentaries that have later podcasts appended.

Criteria for generating a KISS version include:

  1. sufficient interest as evidenced by the number of viewers and/or replies to the posting,
  2. significant revision to the original posting, either changes in actual content or simply an easier, more concise way of conveying the primary information,
  3. KISS version consolidates several interrelated commentaries addressing a common theme (e.g., provides an integrative overview) with the original commentaries left to explore the individual topics in more depth, and
  4. time to accomplish the task of revision.

Perhaps this KISS announcement will merit a KISS itself. ;)

Permalink

ASNet Update 12J19

Link: http://AddictionScience.net

This update lists new material on the Addiction Science Network (ASNet) website including the ASNet Discussion Forum. Beginning with “Theories of Addiction,” podcasts will be available only as downloads for playing on your mp3 player. We thank Podomatic.com for providing storage for the earlier streaming audios which remain available from their website. Click on the links below for direct feed to the new material.

New commentaries added to the ASNet Discussion Forum:

Addiction is an Equal Opportunity Affliction

Why marijuana is unlikely to ever be approved for medicinal use in the United States

There’s No Excuse for Overdose Deaths from Opioid-Based Medications

What will be Obama’s New Policies on Marijuana and Other Illicit Drugs during His Second Term as U.S. President?

New presentations available from the ASNet Podcast Channel:

A Primer on Psychopharmacology (part-3): CSA/DEA drug regulations & “medicinal” marijuana

A Primer on Psychopharmacology (part-4): LMA, dopamine, mood & affect

A Primer on Psychopharmacology (part-5): tolerance, dependence, and withdrawal reactions

A Primer on Psychopharmacology (part-6): characterization of sensitization and its proposed role in drug addiction

A Primer on Psychopharmacology (part-7): using translational research to estimate the period of increased vulnerability for relapse to cocaine addiction

A Primer on Psychopharmacology (part-8: importance of conditioning effects)

Theories of Addiction (part-1: introduction & overview) [download only]

Theories of Addiction (part-2: personality-disorder through tension reduction models) [download only]

This concludes update ASNet12J10.

Permalink

What will be Obama’s New Policies on Marijuana and Other Illicit Drugs during His Second Term as U.S. President?

Link: http://AddictionScience.net

There are a lot of speculations floating around Washington and the country regarding likely changes in America’s drug-regulation policies during a second term for President Obama. In fact, there’s talk even outside the U.S. boarders on how highly anticipated changes in America’s traditional hard-line, zero-tolerance anti-drug rhetoric may affect international relations. Those following the depth of the international political scene will recall that the U.S. entered into what threatened to be an all-out trade war with our friends and neighbors in the north over their apparent relaxed attitude regarding marijuana regulations and their progressive harm-reduction strategies in major Canadian cities such as Toronto and Vancouver. For many Americans this was a surprise—Canadians having such independent thought on a topic long dominated by America’s political views—and a wake-up message regarding Canada’s potential status as America’s 51st state. Why, isn’t Canada just a little (albeit geographically MUCH larger) U.S.? For those that don’t get out much, they’re even on metric, eh! ;)

Anybody notice how both candidates are ducking the issue of reformed drug laws? Drug regulation or more aptly de-regulation is not a popular topic for anybody in politics, and either party reformulating a new national policy is slated to be the looser. Of course there is a growing grass-roots movement for medicinal marijuana and even decriminalization which would condone modest “recreational” use (presumably for “adults”), but no one running for office seems to be talking about abandoning “America’s (failed?) War on Drugs.” In fact, the Replications have suggested that they will step it up. What exactly does that mean? :roll: We invaded Afghanistan and now (i.e., post our military invasion) they’re the number one producer of heroin in the world. Estimates are that up to three-quarters of the entire world’s supply of heroin is coming from that region now ostensibly ‘under U.S. control.’ How much more could the Republications “step it up” (this merits repeating: we invaded Afghanistan militarily and look at the INCREASE in drug trafficking from that region now :no:)?

There are some new players on the block, probably too poorly organized to make a significant impact in this presidential election but growing fast enough to perhaps enter into mid-term reelections and likely players in the NEXT presidential election. I’m referring, of course, to the baby-boomers who are now dealing with the increasing aches and pains of older, sometimes well-worn bodies as they move into their 60’s and beyond. Recent changes in prescribing guidelines for opioid-based medications are placing further, often harsh restrictions on people in need of this important pain-relieving medication. There is even some evidence that some are being driven to the illicit drug market (the very market the new restrictions are designed to better control) to acquire the drugs which help them endure the unrelenting pains of living with increasing medical ills. Eventually, as the numbers grow even larger with aging baby-boomers, this group is going to push back and push back hard. But that’s probably not until another presidential election or two.

One of the first acts of President Obama’s new administration was to issue orders that relaxed enforcement of marijuana laws by federal prosecutors and provided a de facto green light to medical marijuana for states that have passed such laws. The medical marijuana and the decriminalization lobbies (not always the same ultimate goal) both resonated with optimism on the progressive outlook of our new president, one in the new model needed for a New Millennium. According to many reports this wasn’t to last: federal prosecutors began resuming their prosecution of what would be deemed “medical marijuana” cases even in states which had voted legislature recognizing medicinal marijuana—so much for the short-lived progress.

For those who have read this far eagerly awaiting some prognostications, it seems only right to make a few predictions even if on such thin air as to be about as meaningful as those made by high-priced political analysts around the country. :lalala: During President Obama’s second term in office, he will probably:

  • Decriminalize possession and sale of small amounts of marijuana.
  • Instruct the FDA to re-evaluate the evidence pro and con the medical marijuana argument with the possibility of developing a new national policy.
  • If the FDA maintains its current position, then President Obama is likely to allow individual states the right to decide this issue for themselves without federal interference beyond interstate trafficking and importation.
  • The medicinal marijuana would necessarily be mostly a local-grown product, thus having secondary benefits of boosting America’s economy. Perhaps this is just the economic boost America needs or maybe people just wouldn’t care so much about the floundering economy if they had cheap ‘dope.’ XX(
  • Possibly congress (under the President’s leadership) would even codify the recognition of medical marijuana with individual states acquiring jurisdiction in such cases. This would signal an unprecedented relinquishing of federal power for states’ rights, a very Republican move indeed.

There does seem an interesting Supreme Court issue here: what constitutional right does the federal government have to regulate the medical practices of individual states? This is especially perplexing in an era where medical prescriptions are filled next to displays selling copper and magnetic bracelets and various medicinal elixirs reminiscent of the patent medicine era.

  • Unlikely to relax the laws regarding selling marijuana or other drugs nearby schools.
  • May specifically introduce new legislature protecting minors from marijuana-related incidences (relaxing the laws that restrict the availability of marijuana demands additional, explicit safeguards that this increased access doesn’t affect our children).
  • Reinstitute the distinction between hard and soft drugs. Reinforcing this dividing line without condoning recreational drug use but reminding people there is a line that some cross which puts them at considerably more risk than “normal” risk when experimenting with psychoactive substances.
  • Revise the minimum mandatory sentencing guidelines to less draconian measures, reserving the currently harshest penalties for extreme cases involving homicide, organized crime, and situations involving minors, drugs, and possibly sexual exploitation.
  • Maintain security at our national boarders which combines America’s anti-terrorism efforts with interdiction of illicit drugs and reductions in the influx of illegal immigrants: a triple payoff from a single effort.
  • Generally maintain law enforcement budgets but shift the emphasis to controlling violent crime and other pre- “War on Drugs” priorities.
  • Increase the availability of drug rehabilitation resources around the country and expand the “treatment option” in drug courts.
  • Maintain the R & D budget for basic research into drug addiction and the effects of psychoactive compounds, albeit under the newly organized institute combining the former National Institute on Drug Abuse with the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (We believe this reorganization of these institutes to be a big mistake, but it’s already a done deal before the election.)

So there it is, our “predictions,” or is it our “want list,” things we hope that our President will push once he’s done running for a second term? Yes, he’s likely to want an active post-presidency life and we wish him the best (see below), but he’ll be free soon to really start pushing some agendas that he has his heart in and which he (and hopefully, we too) fully support. Our “want list” is based on what we believe is demanded by the scientific evidence, and our “predictions” are based on our confidence that our President will strive to do ‘the right thing.’

Our list of predictions is sufficiently long as to increase the chances that we'll hit on at least one or two, and then we can use the epidemiologists logic of claiming cause-and-effect post hoc and brag about our influence on national drug-regulation policy. Of course we did slant our "predictions" (AKA "want list") towards a more rational drug-regulation policy and if we really wanted to ensure a few 'predicted' changes under the new administration we would cover both sides predicting a few more stringent measures too.

Anyone who has read through our predictions this far is probably wondering whether we blatantly and shamelessly exploited the name “Obama” and the keywords “presidential election” to receive more traffic on the ASNet Discussion Forum. Yes, we did! :oops: But it’s not as self-centered as it may seem. We noticed that our brief comment on Obama’s shift in marijuana policy was getting a lot of hits (surprise, surprise, it must be election time) and decided that we should exploit this opportunity to increase awareness and debate on the important issues outlined above. Do we have any more insight than the next person on President Obama’s likely changes in drug-regulation policies? Of course we don’t, but that doesn’t stop any number of would-be “expert analysts” from capitalizing on the presidential elections to promote their personal and financial interests (e.g., “look at me, I’m a big-time lobbyist,” “I was on national television”). And we sincerely hope that we effectively add another voice or two to a mandate to develop rational drug-regulation policies based on unbiased scientific evidence not begging-the-question science instructed a priori what to “discover” in the course of “scientific” research directed by some hidden agenda.

President Obama is energetic and driven by his youthful idealism. If he can survive the rigors of another 4 years without the stress-induced aging typical of young men leaving the White House as old men (check the hair colors for before and after photographs of Presidents Bush, Clinton, and yes, even Barack after his first term; there’s a definite aging effect of being president), he is most likely to remain visibly active in world politics in some important way. Perhaps like former President Jimmy Carter he will form an institute and take up a specific cause or two, supporting the rights of the disadvantaged and marginalized people around the world. It’s unlikely he’ll rest on his laurels as former President Clinton appears to have done, nor will he retire quietly to a ranch in Texas out of public life as has former President Bush. He has a long life and his youthful zeal and intellect just won’t let him stop. With this in mind, he has to be somewhat conservative in his reform of America’s drug policies and mindful of the retaliatory action of others once he’s lost the power afforded by the Presidency. Therefore, it’s unlike that we’ll see the ‘real’ Barack even after he’s elected to a second term. But then, hey, you never know; he might just take this last opportunity to try to change things from the top down and let the reformed policies ‘rock-n-roll’ into place (metaphor is to ‘going for it,’ pursuing a course of action with zeal, not to implied open season on recreational drugs in America).

For those expecting something other than a pure conjecture op ed, we recommend a recent article from the Huffington Post and offer their analysis of likely upcoming policy changes for a second-term Obama administration.

Despite our President’s popular portrayal as someone who has substantial soft-drug experience and knows how to party well,B) he’s a responsible parent and above that a very, very bright person. He is likely to temper his youthful experiences with the concern of a parent balanced by a careful, well-thought-out (and hopefully well advised) course of action. We can only hope that his source of “scientific” information is truly credible and not from the usual “zero-tolerance” camp of agency scientists. President Obama knows how to think and work outside the box of usual Washington politics, and we are optimistic that he will apply his talent and skills to addressing America’s drug problem with an intelligent, coherent plan of action after election to a second term in office.

Now Rock the Vote!

Related posts:

Position statement on hard and soft drugs
Position statement on medical marijuana (commentary)
and also here (webpage)
President Obama follows our advice on medical marijuana

Permalink

There’s No Excuse for Overdose Deaths from Opioid-Based Medications

Link: http://AddictionScience.net

Most of the adverse effects associated with overdose from opioid-based medications could easily be prevented or rectified by simply making naloxone more widely available. It seems as if the medical establish is afraid that letting people know that their overdose can be quickly and effectively reversed will give patients a green light to abuse their opioid medication. Undoubtedly it will for some, but for most it should not. And there is no doubt that it would save thousands of lives!

Naloxone hydrochloride (Narcan) is a selective narcotic antagonist that rapidly and effectively reverses the effects of opioids including those associated with overdose (e.g., respiratory depression). As long as the circulatory system has not collapsed and the naloxone is able to reach the brain, it binds preferentially to opiate receptors blocking the effects of heroin, morphine, oxycodone, methadone, hydromorphone, fentanyl, opium, L-alpha-acetylmethadol, well, you get the idea, opioids.

Naloxone has no effects in people not receiving opioids. It simply blocks the effects of licit and illicit opioids regardless of who or why the drug was administered. (Yes, I know about endogenous opioid peptides [EOPs], wrote a paper or two involving those neuromodulators myself, but the effects of disrupting the EOPs are disappointing for we neuroscientists who were hoping back in the 1980s they would hold the key to everything from overeating to some forms of mental illness.) Naloxone is virtually unnoticeable in someone who has not been receiving opioids and has a very wide margin of safety for dosing in humans.

It’s shame on the medical establishment for withholding this critical information from the public. Should the medical establish and individual physicians be held responsible for these needless deaths? Is it THEIR decision to make, who will live or die based on the availability of this life-saving drug? Why aren’t patient-advocacy groups confronting the medical establishment, lobbying more strongly and unrelentingly for take-home Narcan?

Naloxone has been around for a long time. In fact, my first research using this compound was in 1975 and my first publication with it was in 1977 when I (along with Prof. Larry D. Reid) demonstrated that naloxone hydrochloride effectively and rapidly blocked morphine’s facilitatory action on electrical brain stimulation reward. I continued using naloxone in many of my experiments for the next two decades.

There are certain precautions that must be exercised when using naloxone, and proper medical training is strongly advised. (Self-instruction cards are included in some naloxone rescue kits so that more people can be reached with this life-saving treatment, although professional training is always advisable.) Two of the most important areas for concern involve the precipitation of intense withdrawal reactions and the short half-life of naloxone.

  • Naloxone administered to a person physically dependent on an opioid can precipitate immediate and intense withdrawal reactions. What is normally an unpleasant but relatively safe experience can quickly become a medical emergency, even fatal. The usual procedure is to give the naloxone in graded amounts, increasing the dosage if the overdose victim does not respond within a few minutes. The lowest effective dose of naloxone is desired because it minimizes the adverse effects of precipitated withdrawal.
  • Naloxone’s half-life, which determines its duration of action, is much shorter than that of most opioids. Because naloxone only blocks the opioid’s occupancy of the opiate receptor and does not eliminate it from the body, when the naloxone antagonism wears off there may be sufficient amounts of opioid remaining in the system to cause the victim to relapse back into a coma and die. For this reason, hospitalization and careful monitoring even of patients that seem normal and who feel totally revived (they actually are, until the naloxone effect wears off) is essential for the well-being of the overdose victim. One of the realistic fears that healthcare workers have is that if people are revived without the aid of trained medical personnel they will simply ignore the warning to seek proper medical attention once revived. It is the responsibility of those with the overdose victim to insure that proper medical attention is sought (dial 911 immediately).

On-site resuscitation with naloxone (Narcan) is not an excuse to avoid immediate professional medical attention. For those who are concerned about getting into ‘trouble’ for their heroin overdose, consider how much trouble you or your friend will be in if you’re dead! Furthermore, naloxone is not a CSA/DEA controlled substance nor is having an illicit drug in your bloodstream an illegal act to the best of my knowledge (but then, I’m not an attorney, so I’ll “rest my case” with the first ‘argument’ :roll: – you’d be in more trouble if you’re dead).


While trying to quickly locate information online about New York State’s naloxone rescue kit program, I found a well-written, very informative article from Pain-Topics.org. Please refer to that excellent article for much more detail and discussion regarding this important topic.

New York State is to be commended for being among about a dozen U.S. states and several European and Asian countries where naloxone rescue kits are legally available. Unfortunately, while trying to 'fly-under-the-radar' of possible adverse public opinion, New York and other states make it difficult to find information about this important program. The public needs better education about the nature of drug addiction (and while we're at it, so do America's physicians!), and politicians need the proverbial fire lit beneath their butts to get them moving and starting to change attitudes about harm reduction. It's ironic perhaps to some people that the "rescue kits" are available mostly to illicit drug users, and the aging baby-boomers being increasingly prescribed opioid-based medications do not usually have access to this program. Well, at least it seems somewhat ironic to this baby-boomer (e.g., we are the least likely to "abuse" the "kits" in any sense of the word).

I have been advocating take-home naloxone for years as part of a harm-reduction strategy for illicit opioid users, but now there's a whole new group (and generation) that could benefit from this policy as well -- patients prescribed opioid-based medication who are sometimes overdose victims. This commentary is focused on this 'new' group, although my position on naloxone as part of a comprehensive harm-reduction strategy remains ever strong. Perhaps there should be a warning to politicians regarding this issue like the warnings that appear on the opioid medication bottles -- caution: prescription opioid-users vote!

Finally, I just have to state the obvious because I know that this is going to escape the attention of too many people. It's not just about accidental overdose in the person prescribed the opioid-based medication; it's also about the grandchildren who despite ones best efforts find and play with the pills and about the little puppies who quickly grab and devour anything accidentally spilled on the floor by fumbling old hands as if it were a tasty treat. THESE are the other potential victims, perhaps even more deserving of our concern!

This information is not intended as medical advice nor is it a substitute for proper medical training. It is strictly intended to bring this topic to the forefront of discussion and to argue for the widespread availability of take-home naloxone. Write your state and federal representatives in support of this program and acquire and learn to properly use naloxone rescue kits whenever practical (cost estimated under $10).

Click here if you would like to listen to the podcast of this commentary
(length: 9 minutes). Click here for our podcast directory.

Permalink

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 >>

July 2014
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
 << <   > >>
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31    

An open, unmoderated discussion forum for the Addiction Science Network, promoting free and open exchange of evidence-based information and promoting scientific analysis of drug addiction and related topics.

Search

Addiction Science Network

blogging tool