Category: Addiction News

  • My "Beautiful Boy": David Sheff on Bringing His Family’s Story to the Big Screen

    My "Beautiful Boy": David Sheff on Bringing His Family’s Story to the Big Screen

    While watching the film, I would look over at Nic sitting next to me and get so emotional. I would start to cry and I feel like I’m about to start crying right now because I came so close to losing him.

    In “The David Sheff Solution,” The Fix interviewed the National Book Award-winning author of Beautiful Boy about his struggles as the father of a child with a substance use disorder. Now David Sheff’s story is about to be vaulted to the next level of national prominence. On Friday, Amazon Studios released the feature film Beautiful Boy, starring Steve Carrell as David Sheff and Timothée Chalamet as Nic Sheff.

    As opposed to being intimidated by this move into the public eye, David Sheff is excited. Since helping his son Nic find the path of long-term recovery, Sheff has dedicated his time and energy to raising awareness and continuing his efforts to reduce –and ultimately remove—the stigma surrounding addiction. Without stigma, Sheff knows from firsthand experience, prevention efforts will improve and treatment will become more accessible. Indeed, Sheff’s ultimate goal in allowing his story to be brought to the big screen is to bring greater compassion and understanding for this disease. Given our similar focus at The Fix, we are thrilled to again speak with David Sheff.

    The Fix: Beautiful Boy is a rare combination of both your most deeply personal work as a human being and your most successful book as an author. Was it hard to decide to expose such a story to the world, particularly in a visual format that lacks the distance of the written word? Was it difficult to let go and give director/writer Felix Van Groeningen the space to tell your story?

    The direct answer is yes. It was hard. Even from the beginning, exposing our family to potential criticism in a public forum was worrying. It has been worrying from the very beginning when I first decided to write about what was happening to my family for The New York Times Magazine. I remember asking a friend of mine to read the manuscript after I first wrote it. She was an editor, and I respected her opinions. I must admit today that her response surprised me. She told me, “You can’t publish this. There is all this stigma against addiction, and your family will be judged harshly.” As you can tell, she really counseled against moving forward.

    At that point, I already had made the commitment. I had talked with everyone involved, including Nic, and we decided to move forward. When it came out, there were no negative consequences at all. In fact, it was the opposite. I heard over and over again from people who had been impacted by addiction. It was all about sharing stories, and people seemed relieved to be able to share. They had kept their experiences quiet because these were their deep, dark secrets. They also had felt that they would be judged. It was so positive that the article and then the book led to the creation of such an open dialogue in a variety of ways from in-person to on the phone to online messages in emails plus on Facebook and Twitter.

    It’s important to note that every word in that book I scrutinized. I wanted to make sure that I said what I wanted to say while also protecting everyone involved. It ends up being really complicated. I felt everybody had suffered enough, and I didn’t want to increase anyone’s suffering. As a writer, I tried to be as meticulous as I knew how to be. The idea of allowing someone else to tell our story was scary in a different way: I knew I would not have that kind of control.

    Before it happened, the idea of doing a movie had never really occurred to me. To begin with, the writing started as a way to get through the night. The writing was a way of expurgating this deep, dark turmoil that I was experiencing. When we were approached about doing a movie, the first guy turned out to be the right guy. We were approached by Jeremy Kleiner, one of the principals at Plan B Entertainment, and he was sincerely moved by both of our books. He cared deeply about this issue because he had been through it with friends while also being deeply affected by the Dad’s perspective and the family story. He felt it made it different from the vast majority of addiction memoirs. The key point he made was that addiction was not portrayed in either of our books in a simplistic or clichéd way. He made the commitment to make a movie that would show the complexity of addiction, the fact that there are no easy answers.

    Although Jeremy was just starting out at this time, we believed in him and in Dede Gardner, his partner at Plan B, along with Brad Pitt, who is the CEO and started the company. It seemed obvious to make the decision to make the movie with them. Since then, they have won Academy-Awards for making 12 Years a Slave and Moonlight, but this was before they experienced such incredible success. When they brought on Felix Van Groeningen, the director of the movie, I was even more convinced. He’s a genius, and I was incredibly impressed and moved by his past films. Like the producers, he was connected and committed to the material. I knew we were in good hands, and I knew they would tell our story in all of its complexity.

    Steve Carrell is an American comic icon. In movies like The Office and The Forty-Year-Old Virgin, he has made us laugh (although he showed dramatic chops in Foxcatcher). What do you think of his portrayal of you in this film?

    There is no doubt that he’s a comic genius, but he’s so much more as well. Steve is an astounding actor, and I knew that long before this movie. Indeed, Nic and I remember so clearly the experience of seeing him in Little Miss Sunshine together. He was heartbreaking in that movie in such a beautiful way, and it was a moving experience for us to see that film together when it first came out in the theaters.

    When I met Steve, he was so sincere, warm, and committed to telling the story right. The other thing I realized was that he connected to the story as a father. It was not the drug experiences that drew him to the story, but the opportunity as a father to play a father desperately trying to help a child. He understood the deep desire as a parent to do anything we can to protect our kids. He expressed how badly he wanted to play that role because of the emotional component of the story.

    I must admit, however, that when I saw the movie, I still couldn’t imagine anyone playing me. It just seemed too weird. It really is disconcerting when you think about it, and, as a writer, I tend to think about things. When I finally saw the movie from beginning to end, I feel like he nailed it. He captured how hard it is and how hard it was for me to go through this period in my life. He captured what it’s like to be a parent of an addicted child, somebody you love more than anything and all you want to do is save them, but you keep running into obstacles like the denial and the horror of addiction. He captured that difficulty of helping someone who is angry and rebellious and lashing out at you as you try to save their life. I lived through that anguish, and that anguish is in every nuance of his performance and his expression and in his acting. I really was blown away and felt that he got it. Before I saw him do it, I honestly doubted whether anyone could do what he has accomplished in this film. You see his optimism and his crushing defeat, then you see him become optimistic again and then his desperation as his son keeps relapsing. The up and down and up and down is so powerful, but even more powerful is the through-line of his love for his son.

    How did you and Nic decide to move forward with the movie project? Did you both feel from the beginning that your book and his book should be turned into a combined film? How did you decide to combine the Beautiful Boy story with Nic’s Tweak, or was this choice made by the filmmakers?

    The choice was completely made by the filmmakers. It was inconceivable at first that they would be able to pull off two such different takes on the same story in a single film. However, I had heard how valuable it was for other parents to read Nic’s book and develop a new perspective on what their addicted son or daughter was going through. At the same time, it was really valuable for a lot of kids to read Beautiful Boy to get a sense of what their parents were going through, both from the perspective of the how much they suffered and the depth of their love. Many kids don’t realize how much a parent’s love is a constant in the process of trying to help their child recover.

    Still, each story had been told in book form with over three-hundred pages dedicated to each story. The idea that somebody could pull it all together in a two-hour movie was hard for me to imagine. It was not at all our choice, and it felt like they were jumping into the deep end of a stormy ocean without a life vest. Also, there was no precedent for it. I can’t think of a movie that was ever based on two different memories; one from the parent’s perspective and the other from the child’s perspective. I wasn’t sure that it could be done.

    However, you really got the emotional journey through the parent and the kid. I knew it was going to be challenging, but, once they made the decision, they never looked back. Over the two years that it took to make the movie, they kept to the course, and I feel they did it masterfully. It was a hard choice to make in the beginning, and it definitely was the decision of the filmmakers.

    As an aside, Nic did amazing in his interview. I was so impressed by the depth of his compassion and the veracity of his gratitude.

    He’s an extraordinary example of recovery in practice. All the time, I hear from people who are so discouraged because they’ve been through years of watching a child’s descent into addiction. I hear it about other family members and friends as well. They just don’t feel like recovery is possible.

    We are so lucky that Nic made it. Any parent is lucky that has a child who makes it. Nic’s drug use was so extreme, and the combination of drugs that he was doing was truly dangerous. He put himself into so many life-threatening situations during those dark days. There were so many times when it could have ended up differently. Tragically—and I feel so deeply for them because I could have been there— so many parents now experience the unforgiving horror of that outcome where they lose a child. Given Nick’s recovery now, we were very lucky.

    My experience seeing Nic go through this process has been incredible. People that go through recovery and come out the other end don’t just survive. Because of all the hard work that needs to be done, because of all the suffering, because of all the self-examination required to get sober and then stay sober, they become some of the most extraordinary people that you’ll ever meet. In fact, John, you are a case in point, and that journey from addiction to recovery, as you know from your own experience, can be inspiring to other people that you meet along the way. People that come out the other side can have the most rewarding and fulfilling lives afterward.

    I hear from so many families that are close to losing hope or have lost hope. Their relationships have been shattered, and they can’t imagine them ever being put back together. My experience with Nic has shown that families that do explode; [families that] feel—amidst the ruins—that it’s almost inconceivable that they will survive it—they do survive it, and they can survive. Recovery is still a possibility. If they do the hard work and give it time, they can be closer than ever. I believe we can say that about our family.

    Nic and David Shef
    Image Credit: Reed Hutchinson for UCLA Friends of Semel

    If this movie could accomplish one goal, what would you want that goal to be? What do you believe can be achieved?

    I feel the biggest impediment moving forward to end addiction, to face this disease in all its difficulty, to prevent people from becoming addicted and to treat people that do become addicted, is the ongoing stigma. Too many people keep their problem hidden because they are judged. People don’t go get treatment because they are hiding the reality of their addiction. When people start to get treatment, if they have the normal challenges of the usual ups and downs, if they relapse, they are judged very harshly. Being judged in such a way is the last thing needed by somebody who is addicted. They already feel terrible about themselves. They are caught in a cycle that’s like a vise, and they don’t want to be doing the terrible things that they do to themselves and to their families.

    I hope the movie can show people that addiction is not about choice. It’s not about a young person going out and doing these things just because they want to have fun and party and get high. It might be about that a little in the beginning, but it quickly shifts. Essentially, it is about pain and suffering and a desperate attempt to find some sense of peace within themselves. Addicted people talk about this hole inside them that they are trying to fill. The hole can be anything from an undiagnosed psychiatric problem like depression or anxiety to untreated childhood abuse and trauma. Whatever it is, I have come to see that it is about a pain that the person is trying to self-medicate.

    If this film can help with anything, I hope it opens the door to greater compassion and understanding for this disease. Without the burden of the stigma, we can move forward and actually help the people that need our help. We need to help people by overcoming stigma by focusing on effective prevention and treatment. People who are addicted are not weak. They are ill, and they deserve our compassion.

    At the Colorado Health Symposium in August, you start your keynote address after watching the film’s trailer by saying, “I’ve only seen that once, and it’s hard to watch.” What parts exactly were so hard to watch? Was it a combination of Nic’s descent into addiction and your inability to stop it? Did you have any PTSD-like reactions to the film, or was it a cathartic experience that freed you from the lingering demons of the past?

    Wow! That’s a good question. I guess the answer is both. It brought it all back, and it’s not like I had forgotten. However, when we get past traumatic experiences in our lives, we do put them in a place that we can live with. I feel like I had done that to some degree, and it made watching the film challenging. The experience of seeing it again opened up the whole thing again, meaning it opened up the old wounds. I just remembered how hard it was and how hard it was to watch Nic suffer. I felt again how hard it was for all of us to survive as a family.

    At the same time, it was amazingly cathartic to process what we had been through as a family. It was another version of writing the book, which had been really cathartic as well. It also was an affirmation of the hard work Nic has done to get sober and to stay sober. It was a reminder of how lucky we are to have come out the other side. While watching the film, I would look over at Nic sitting next to me and get so emotional. I would start to cry and I feel like I’m about to start crying right now because I came so close to losing him. It was a reminder of how close I came to losing him.

    In another sense, it was cathartic because I felt like it mirrored the experience of so many other people. It was a reminder of how many of us are in this together. When Beautiful Boy first came out in 2008, I thought it couldn’t get worse in terms of the number of people that were dying from addiction. The number then was about 36,000, and that doesn’t include people dying from alcohol-related causes. Of course, we know that in 2017, it was 72,000 dying from addiction-related causes alone, twice the original number. Things have gotten so much worse, and that’s why I feel that this movie is coming out at just the right time. So many people are suffering, and I hope this movie can help bring us all together and make us feel that we are not alone.

    You talk about how hard the disease of addiction is on families. Should families see this film together? Should parents take their teenagers? If they do, how should they prepare both themselves and their kids for the film and what should they do afterwards?

    Wow! That’s another good question. I guess what I would say is that every family is different. A reality that many of us would prefer not to face is that every kid is going to encounter drugs as they are growing up. It’s a prevalent reality in the world. Many parents ask me if it’s too early to start talking about drugs with their child if they are a freshman in high school. The clear answer is no. It’s not too early to start talking about drugs to your young, young child. Drugs are pervasive in our culture, and kids are curious by nature. They are confused, and it’s our responsibility to provide them with quality information to help lift that confusion. It’s our responsibility to shed light.

    Still, every family and every parent has to determine what’s appropriate for their own child. When it comes to seeing this film, that decision needs to be made for each family. In general, if your child is mature enough to see explicit and disturbing scenes of drug use, then I think this film could provide an amazing way to start that conversation in a family. What does it mean to use drugs? Why do people use drugs? What are the potential consequences to using drugs? These are crucial questions. Before watching the film, there should be a conversation that provides some education. In other words, a conversation that opens the door to a conversation. The best part of such a conversation is if parents can get their kids to talk.

    It reminds me of this recent work I’ve been doing with Jarvis Masters, a California inmate at San Quentin on death row. I’ve spent a lot of time in the prison, and I recently sat in with a group of inmates in the program as they talked about their experiences and their lives. They are trying to face the consequences of their actions by doing restorative justice. When I was leaving, I happened to be going to talk to a group of teenagers that night. I asked these men: “I’m going to talk to these kids tonight. Is there anything I should tell them? Is there anything anyone would have said to you that would have helped you growing up so you could have made better decisions later on? Maybe you would not have fallen into addiction and fallen into crime?”

    A lot of the men had really interesting things to say. At the end, there was this one guy who has been super quiet the whole time. He said something under his breath, and I couldn’t hear him. I asked him to say what he had said again. He looked up at me and said, “When you talk to these kids tonight, don’t say anything. Just listen to them.”

    I thought that was incredibly powerful, and that’s the message I would give to parents. Try to engage your kids in conversation and really figure out who they are and what’s going on in their lives. Then, it’s super important to continue the conversation after the movie. Keep talking and, more importantly, keep listening.

    Finally, people in early recovery should be careful when deciding whether or not to see this film. Given the explicit drug use and the unvarnished reality of addiction presented in the film, it may not be the best choice so they should talk it through with their counselors, therapists, sponsors or whomever they are working with to maintain their recovery. The research tells us that such scenes of drug use can be triggering, and that’s the last thing we want to do with this movie. Part of the reason the movie is so powerful is because the filmmakers committed to telling the truth, and that truth is that drug use is not glamorous in the slightest, but rather horrifying to watch.

    View the original article at thefix.com

  • Does Tech Addiction Play A Role In Workplace Mental Health Issues?

    Does Tech Addiction Play A Role In Workplace Mental Health Issues?

    Mental health in the workplace is an evolving issue that needs to be addressed.

    While technology is largely helpful in today’s professional world, it can also be somewhat hindering for mental health, according to Mike Serbinis, the founder and CEO of Canada-based employee benefits platform League. 

    “If people feel like they always have to be on, it’s stressful and hard to relax and get the downtime and rest your brain needs,” Serbinis tells Forbes.

    Mental health in the workplace is an evolving issue that needs to be addressed. In fact, mental illness is now the greatest cause of disability in the world, according to the World Health Organization. 

    It’s an issue close to home for Serbinis too; 44% of employees in his country of Canada have faced a mental health issue in their place of work. 

    “We see it among our data [at League] too,” Serbinis tells Forbes. “Between one-third to one-half of all employees using us are checking in or accessing a service that has to do with helping them manage stress, anxiety, depression, and so on.”

    In the United States, similar statistics demonstrate that one in five U.S. adults are living with mental health issues of some sort, though the number is likely higher due to lack of reporting. 

    According to Serbinis, it’s important to distinguish between the types of mental health issues. He says two of the biggest are depression and anxiety. “There’s a range of different conditions and illnesses,” Serbinis tells Forbes. “People speaking about mental health as one sort of general category almost doesn’t do it justice.”

    When it comes to struggling with mental health in the workplace, Serbinis says “tech addiction” likely plays a large role.

    “What’s happening is that people are getting conditioned to see those signals or numbers and feel like they have to go back and check constantly,” Serbinis says. “And that triggers this fight or flight response. Which jacks up adrenaline, which jacks blood pressure, which can lead to cardiovascular issues, which leads to anxiety… it’s a whole cascade of events that really emanates from this constant interruption.”

    One solution is to expand employee benefits to cover mental health, Serbinis says. 

    Forbes says that in addition to covering mental health services, some companies are also taking time for mental health “office hours,” during which a therapist may visit a workplace. Or, as an alternative, companies are covering subscriptions for online tools such as Talkspace

    Another recommendation is to not encourage employees to constantly check work-related notifications during non-working hours. “We suggest that people to turn off their notifications at home, and dedicate time for messaging and emails at work that’s separate from your other tasks,” Serbinis tells Forbes.

    When it comes down to it, Serbinis says, workplaces need to change their approach to mental health. 

    “The current way of doing things is not sustainable,” he said. “Employers need to see employee health and wellness as a core part of their strategy to build a top company.”

    View the original article at thefix.com

  • Woman Uses Creative Writing To Help Ex-Offenders In Recovery

    Woman Uses Creative Writing To Help Ex-Offenders In Recovery

    “I learned how to live again, how to feel comfortable in my own skin. She’s a Godsend,” says one of Rebecca Conviser’s students.

    It was a cancer diagnosis that first got Rebecca Conviser interested in the power of words. If the Morristown, New Jersey woman didn’t make it through, she wanted to leave behind words for her husband and children. 

    But Conviser did make it through, and now she is using the power of words for something else—helping those in recovery from substance use disorder. 

    According to NJ.com, for the past six years, 79-year-old Conviser as has been volunteering her time by teaching the “Creative Positive Expression Program” to ex-offenders. Rather than jail time, these individuals have been recommended to the drug court programs in Morris and Sussex counties in New Jersey. 

    Thomas Brodhecker, 27, of Sussex County, has been in the program for two years. Since he first entered the program, his opinion of the role of writing in recovery has changed drastically. He says that through writing he has been able to peel back emotional aspects of his life that played into his use of drugs. 

    “I learned how to live again, how to feel comfortable in my own skin,” Brodhecker said. “She’s a Godsend.”

    Conviser fell into her role teaching the writing course after overhearing a conversation at a local coffee shop about the obstacles ex-offenders face when trying to find employment.

    She engaged with the group, which led to her meeting Charles Johnson Jr., the drug court director of Morris County. Johnson thought the writing program would be beneficial for ex-offenders when it came to writing resumes and cover letters. 

    However, the program goes beyond writing employment materials. For Anthony Justo, 27, of Morristown, Conviser’s passion for the program led him to be more accepting of his past. 

    “She presented these assignments with a fiery passion,” Justo told NJ.com. “She was lit up about helping people become better writers and better people.”

    In addition to the writing course, Conviser has helped ex-offenders with public speaking and telling their stories. She has headed up a jail cell presentation, in which school students stand in a 4×6 area designed to resemble a jail cell for 90 seconds to get a taste of what confinement is like for inmates. 

    Conviser says that when it comes to helping people change their lives, persistence is key. “I’m not one of these people who say, ‘oh well, it didn’t work.’ My feeling is well, it didn’t work, we have to move on,” she said.

    Despite her own personal challenges, including two cancer diagnoses and a recent Parkinson’s diagnosis, Conviser says she plans to continue to volunteer, though she has had to slow down a bit. 

    “I’m a person who gives back,” Conviser said. “As long as I can help people, I’m going to continue to do this.”

    View the original article at thefix.com

  • Tackling Addiction In The Orthodox Jewish Community

    Tackling Addiction In The Orthodox Jewish Community

    “It went from everything being hush-hush under the carpet to people finally saying, ‘This is real. Let’s get people the help that they need,’” said one rabbi.

    A few brave individuals are breaking down the taboo of substance use disorder in the famously insular Orthodox Jewish community.

    Rabbi Zvi Gluck is at the forefront of these efforts. As the founder of Amudim, a crisis support organization, the rabbi regularly meets people in the Jewish community who are struggling with substance use disorder. While the Orthodox Jewish community “likes to remain in their bubble,” Gluck says, these days, things are changing, especially among the younger generation of spiritual leaders.

    “It went from everything being hush-hush under the carpet to people finally saying, ‘This is real. Let’s get people the help that they need,’” the rabbi told NBC News.

    Amudim has helped over 5,000 people from the Jewish community, ranging in age from 13 to 71 years old. “At the end of the day, every time we lose somebody, no matter how old or young, you’re not just losing that person. If we can even just save one life, as the Talmud says, you’ve saved an entire world,” said Gluck.

    Amudim’s awareness events draw standing room-only crowds. At a recent event in Bergen County, New Jersey, the Forman family shared their story.

    Elana “Ellie” Forman was raised Orthodox Jewish in Teaneck, New Jersey, but as a young woman she said she “felt no connection” to the traditions, which “felt constricting to me.”

    She turned to drugs and alcohol to cope. “I was looking for whatever else there was in this life that would fill that hole that I felt,” she said.

    Eliie went from her insular upbringing in Teaneck to ending up in Palm Beach, Florida, where she hit “rock bottom.”

    More than a year-and-a-half later, Ellie has become a vocal advocate within the orthodox community, helping raise awareness of substance use disorder with the help of her parents.

    “I think inadvertently we’ve become the face of parents dealing with somebody suffering from addiction,” said Lianne Forman, Ellie’s mother. The family says the community has had a positive reaction to their message, which has encouraged more people to feel less ashamed of their own situations.

    Drugs are “not something that really coincides at all with the picture of what a Jewish Orthodox person should look like,” says Ellie. “So it’s not something that’s talked about in the community because people shouldn’t be struggling with it.”

    View the original article at thefix.com

  • "The Conners" Producer Discusses Roseanne's Overdose Death

    "The Conners" Producer Discusses Roseanne's Overdose Death

    “We could’ve gone down other avenues, but we felt it was the right thing for the character. As you know, it’s a crisis in this country.”

    The return of Roseanne was one of the biggest comeback stories of the year—until Roseanne Barr got fired for posting inflammatory tweets this May.

    The show has since been rebooted without her as The Conners, and as rumored, her character dies of an opioid overdose.

    Before Barr was fired, her character was keeping “secret bottles” of Vicodin stashed in her home because the family couldn’t afford an operation and she was trying to deal with chronic pain in her knee.

    Like many who suffer from chronic pain, Roseanne Conner got her meds illegally, buying them through her neighbor Marcy (played by Mary Steenburgen).

    Through Steenburgen, Dan Conner (John Goodman) realizes that many in the neighborhood are getting their meds this way.

    “We thought we’d include issues such as a lack of proper healthcare and the prohibitive costs of medications that many face,” said executive producer Tom Werner to Forbes. “I think the conversation between Marcy and Dan made the story quite affecting because, obviously it was an accident, but an accident that seems to be happening frequently. Their conversation became part of a larger issue of people in a community passing along drugs either not being prescribed them by a doctor, or drugs being too expensive and unaffordable. This is part of a bigger issue in this country.”

    In making the decision to kill off Roseanne, Werner added, “Obviously, it is important for us to do the show respectfully. We could’ve gone down other avenues, but we felt it was the right thing for the character. As you know, it’s a crisis in this country.”

    Bruce Helford, who is the showrunner of The Conners, told The Hollywood Reporter, “There was a lot of chatter in the ether about how we should explain Roseanne’s absence: Should she have a heart attack, a mental breakdown or go off into the sunset on a boat with her son? But we firmly decided against anything cowardly or far-fetched, anything that would make the fierce matriarch of the Conners seem pathetic or debased.

    “I wanted a respectful sendoff for her,” Helford continued. “One that was relevant and could inspire discussion for the greater good about the American working class, whose authentic problems are often ignored by broadcast television.” 

    View the original article at thefix.com

  • "Fox & Friends" Pundit Blames Legal Pot For Teen Drug Use, Homelessness

    "Fox & Friends" Pundit Blames Legal Pot For Teen Drug Use, Homelessness

    Studies regarding marijuana’s impact on social concerns do not appear to support all of Joe Peters’ claims.

    A guest on the popular Fox & Friends morning news and opinion program appeared to lay the blame for a host of social ills, from increased drug use among teens to emergency room visits and even homelessness, on marijuana legalization during a recent appearance.

    Joe Peters, a former Pennsylvania police officer, federal prosecutor and White House Drug Czar official, suggested that efforts to legalize marijuana in the United States like the recent legislation in Canada would send numbers for the aforementioned issues, as well as impaired driving, to stratospheric levels.

    However, as High Times reported, studies regarding marijuana’s impact on these and other concerns did not appear to support all of Peters’ claims.

    Peters, who is a current Congressional candidate for Pennsylvania’s 11th District, was a guest on an October 19, 2018 broadcast of Fox & Friends which examined possible outcomes for marijuana legalization in the U.S. Co-host Steve Doocy put forward the question about whether such a move would be beneficial for the country, which prompted Peters to point to alleged troubles in the state of Colorado as evidence for the dangers of legalization.

    “By every metric, it was a failure, in my view,” said Peters. “Teen drug use is the highest in the country. Drug driving is off the charts, doubled with marijuana impaired driving. Homelessness is up. Emergency room admissions. And the black market is flourishing. Black market arrests – remember the whole notion was we legalize it, we can control it. Black market arrests are up almost 400%.”

    Some of Peters’ assessments are, in part, correct. Federal and local law enforcement have both noted an increase in instances of trafficking in the Centennial State, but the majority of these cases involve the distribution of marijuana to other states like Florida and Texas, where legalization efforts have not taken root.

    Trafficking on the local level has also continued due to dispensary prices – taxes, which range from municipality, can reach 23.15% – which local dealers can easily undercut.

    Statistics have also shown an increase in Colorado traffic fatalities involving marijuana, but again, these results are conflicting: while the number of fatal vehicular accidents who tested positive for marijuana has risen from 75 in 2014 to 139 in 2017, the number of those fatalities in which the active THC level in the driver’s system could be considered at the level of legal impairment dropped from 52 in 2016 to 35 in 2017. 

    But as High Times pointed out, Peters’ other allegations lack concrete evidence. Studies have shown that while cannabis consumption among teenagers inched up 1.3% between 2016 and 2017, the increase in marijuana dispensaries in states like Colorado has had no impact on teenagers’ use.

    Legal marijuana also appears to have had no effect on rates of homelessness in Colorado; a 2016 study of residents in the city of Pueblo, Colorado found that disconnected utilities, not legal marijuana, was the leading cause of homelessness there.

    View the original article at thefix.com

  • "The Connors" Producer Discusses Roseanne's Overdose Death

    "The Connors" Producer Discusses Roseanne's Overdose Death

    “We could’ve gone down other avenues, but we felt it was the right thing for the character. As you know, it’s a crisis in this country.”

    The return of Roseanne was one of the biggest comeback stories of the year until Roseanne Barr got fired for posting inflammatory tweets this May.

    The show has since been rebooted without her as The Conners, and as rumored, her character dies of an opioid overdose.

    Before Barr was fired, her character was keeping “secret bottles” of Vicodin stashed in her home because the family couldn’t afford an operation and she was trying to deal with chronic pain in her knee.

    Like many who suffer from chronic pain, Roseanne Conner got her meds on the black market, buying them through her neighbor Marcy, played by Mary Steenburgen.

    Through Steenburgen, Dan Conner (John Goodman) realizes that many in the neighborhood are getting their meds this way.

    The show’s executive producer, Tom Werner, told Forbes, “We thought we’d include issues such as a lack of proper healthcare and the prohibitive costs of medications that many face. I think the conversation between Marcy and Dan made the story quite affecting because, obviously it was an accident, but an accident that seems to be happening frequently. Their conversation became part of a larger issue of people in a community passing along drugs either not being prescribed them by a doctor, or drugs being too expensive and unaffordable. This is part of a bigger issue in this country.”

    In making the decision to kill off Roseanne, Werner added, “Obviously, it is important for us to do the show respectfully. We could’ve gone down other avenues, but we felt it was the right thing for the character. As you know, it’s a crisis in this country.”

    Bruce Helford, who is the showrunner of The Conners, told The Hollywood Reporter, “There was a lot of chatter in the ether about how we should explain Roseanne’s absence: Should she have a heart attack, a mental breakdown or go off into the sunset on a boat with her son? But we firmly decided against anything cowardly or far-fetched, anything that would make the fierce matriarch of the Conners seem pathetic or debased.

    “I wanted a respectful sendoff for her,” Helford continued. “One that was relevant and could inspire discussion for the greater good about the American working class, whose authentic problems are often ignored by broadcast television.” 

    View the original article at thefix.com

  • Joe Walsh, Ringo Starr Take Stage At Recovery Gala

    Joe Walsh, Ringo Starr Take Stage At Recovery Gala

    “My higher power became vodka and cocaine. Nobody wanted to work with me…I turned into this godless, hateful thing,” Walsh said in his speech.

    Eagles guitarist Joe Walsh and his wife Marjorie were honored this month for their work in advancing the cause of addiction recovery.

    The rock ’n’ roll couple, whose recovery advocacy spans more than 20 years, were presented with the Adele C. Smithers Humanitarian Award by friend and former Beatle Ringo Starr at the 74th annual gala for Facing Addiction with NCADD on Oct. 8.

    “I was one of those really nice pass out/black-out drunks,” Ringo Starr said before presenting the award, next to his wife Barbara Bach Starkey. “I came to one night, out of a black-out the next day, and I’d done a lot of damage. I was about to lose the love of my life, Barbara, and everything else.” That’s when Starr finally got help.

    While receiving the award, Marjorie Bach Walsh, who is Barbara’s sister, addressed her own recovery. “My son who is here this evening, and who does incredible work for addiction, had suffered for a long time before this woman got sober. And for that, Christian, I am beyond sorry. My life is a living amends to you,” she said.

    Joe Walsh has been sober for 25 years. As a kid growing up in the 1950s, he felt different, and thus isolated, from other children. “In my late teenage years I tried to play guitar in front of some people and I couldn’t do it. I hyperventilated. I started shaking. I started crying.”

    But after a “couple of beers” he was able to play. “That planted the seed. I thought alcohol was a winner.” This gave him the courage to make music, and early on he attributed his success to alcohol.

    “My higher power became vodka and cocaine.” But his substance use reached a tipping point. “I burned all the bridges. Nobody wanted to work with me. I was angry… I turned into this godless, hateful thing.”

    He turned to Alcoholics Anonymous, where he met some old-timers. “Gradually they showed me that I’m not a unique individual, one-of-a-kind person. I’m just an alcoholic, and for the first time in my life I felt like I was somewhere where I belonged.”

    “I don’t know why I’m alive. I should not be alive. I hadn’t planned on living this long, I don’t know what to do,” Walsh said to laughter.

    “I decided to drop my anonymity because most of the world knew I was a mess anyway, and go public, and speak out and try and help other alcoholics because that’s what we do.”

    View the original article at thefix.com

  • Post-Kavanaugh, Women’s Self-Care Needs to Lose the Alcohol

    Post-Kavanaugh, Women’s Self-Care Needs to Lose the Alcohol

    Alcohol, when construed as the first or best line of self-care, actually renders us less effective in resisting an exploitive system that makes legal space for our bodies to be legislated, controlled, and raped.

    “Should we get some wine?” I asked him, pushing a bit of sweet potato around on my plate. I felt my cheeks flush and a weird half smile launch across my lips, the way it always does when I feel embarrassed or awkward or sad or anything really. Whenever I’m feeling anything too much. My partner looked startled.

    “What? Why?” he set his own fork and knife down, leaned back in his chair. “I mean, an IPA sounds really good right now. But I guess, just, what’s the motivation behind it?”

    It had been 62 days since either of us had had anything to drink, thanks to a self-imposed sobriety challenge after I’d watched my already heavy alcohol consumption creep up and up and eventually become overwhelming in the years since Trump’s election, post-Access Hollywood tape, post-everything. Two months was a long time, I reasoned now. A quality effort. And in all likelihood, an accused sexual predator would sit on the Supreme Court when we woke up the next morning. If there was ever a good reason to nurse a nice bottle of beer to ease some of the anxiety, fear, anger and hopelessness I was feeling, both as a woman and a victim of past sexual abuse, now was it.

    Wasn’t it?

    “I mean, would this be about escaping things?” he continued, gently, pushing, asking the question I had begged him, at the start of our not-drinking, to raise when I inevitably said I wanted back off the wagon. Because the answer was, is, will always be: Of course.

    Of course. I have made a lifestyle out of escaping things, of turning away from what’s hard and ugly and painful. Either that or confronting darkness only when I was a couple of drinks in or after I’d settled beneath the protective blanket of Klonopin or during the rush of false energy following a purge, all the food I’d consumed vomited up and flushed quietly away. In a very real way, I can trace my life as a ping-pong game of silences and rages, each assisted along by some substance or behavior I’ve begun to describe as “not me,” in that they’ve all been designed to take me out myself and, as a result, out of proper caring—for this world, its injustices, its humanness, its pain.

    There’s a lot of rhetoric around the usefulness of women’s rage right now, but what keeps getting left out is how, so often, we (middle-class, white women) use anger to stand in for or erase action. How, so often, anger becomes the justification for harm. And for me—and the rising number of American women turning to alcohol to deal with stress, trauma, and its aftereffects—that often takes the shape of self-sabotage in a bottle to numb out, ease anxiety, filter boredom, help us slip into apathy dressed up as protection and self-care. Let me be clear, and I speak from experience: Drowning your sorrows is the opposite of self-care.

    Wine will not heal your wounds, will not even tend to them, no matter what the patriarchal messaging around alcohol promises you. And I say patriarchal because it’s true: Our American culture of binge-drinking and heavy alcohol consumption is directly and implicitly tied to the capitalist, racist, structural misogyny upon which our country is founded—and through which marginalized groups are subjugated, oppressed, and continually, insistently Othered. We only have to look to history to see the ways in which alcohol was used to keep said groups under the heel of white men in power: White Europeans, for example, notorious for their “extreme drinking” on the frontier, encouraged both alcohol trade and excessive consumption among Native populations, later weaponizing the stereotype of the “drunk Indian” against them. Years later, slave masters on Southern plantations developed strategies to carefully control slaves’ access to alcohol during the week, only to encourage them to drink heavily on Saturday evenings and special holidays. Frederick Douglass later castigated the so-called controlled promotion of drunkenness as a means of keeping black men and women in “a state of perpetual stupidity” that reduced the risks of rebellion. More recently, increased experiences of racism have been explicitly, causally linked to riskier drinking among black women on college campuses. Meanwhile, growing wealth, educational, employment, housing and health disparities between minorities and white Americans have led to a much greater increase in alcohol consumption among those communities between 2002 and 2013, a study published in JAMA Psychiatry suggests (although it’s not much of a stretch to say that increase is significantly greater in our Post-Trump world of racist nationalism, its cruel policies, and resulting demoralization among the people affected the most).

    Alcohol, too, has become the primary coping mechanism for women in America, regardless of race or ethnicity: Overall, female alcohol use disorder in the United States has increased by 83.7 percent, according to that same study. High risk drinking among women, defined as more than seven drinks in a week or three drinks in a day, has increased by 58 percent. We only have to look at mommy or work wine culture to see the ways in which alcohol is used to keep women quiet, dulled, apathetic and convinced they need booze to survive motherhood or employment or both. So perhaps it is no surprise the contemporary rhetoric of white feminism is rife with messages that draw a supposedly intuitive connection from anger to self-care, which is inevitably linked to drinking. We get tired? We pop open a bottle. We get scared? We fill a glass. We get angry? We rage over shots or cocktails or champagne. None of this helps us. In fact, all of this renders us less effective in resisting an exploitive system that makes legal space for our bodies to be legislated, controlled, and raped.

    “The master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house,” Audre Lorde famously said in her 1984 call to and critique of the internalized patriarchy of white Western women. Alcohol, when construed as the first or best line of self-care, I’d argue, is one of the master’s tools. We indulge in the drinks that American culture (and American feminism) says we deserve, and we get raped while the men who were drinking alongside us get off and then get nominated to the Supreme Court. It’s a double bind—one that bears calling attention to, however hard it is to look at. We should be able to say that it’s absolutely, undeniably immoral for a man to abuse a woman’s body while she is drunk (or sober or somewhere in between). That rape or abuse is never a woman’s fault because of what she was drinking (or wearing or saying or where she walking or what time of night it was, etc., etc., forever, etc.). And we should also be able to challenge the messages that encourage a woman to relax or to rage or to start a revolution only after she has a glass of wine in her hand. 

    Alcohol is a depressant. It anesthetizes our pain and our power, our minds and our bodies, and we will need all of ourselves to fight what will come in the next weeks, months and years as those same bodies become the battleground upon which men’s petty force and overwhelming self-hatred wage war. Look, I’m barely nine weeks sober. I never hit the rock bottom people describe in AA or alcohol recovery programs. I don’t know if I plan on a lifetime of sobriety or if I’ll have a celebratory beer after I finish grading all of my students’ papers over fall break. What I do know? I spent years using alcohol to avoid the work I knew I should be doing. The healing I knew should be seeking. I know many women who don’t drink, who don’t turn to alcohol to deal with exhaustion and fear and heartbreak. I know many, many more who do. I’m not advocating for prohibition or teetotalism. But I am asking women—white women in particular—to take a hard look at what they mean when they say self-care, and what they’re hoping to accomplish by drinking their way through.

    We certainly don’t need #BeersforBrett, the hashtag that surfaced among white, wealthy men celebrating Kavanaugh’s confirmation Saturday. But we definitely don’t need feminist cocktails, either, as I saw recently championed on a Facebook group for women scholars and rhetoricians. Jessa Crispin has warned white women against misconstruing the philosophy of self-care that Audre Lorde conceived of as way for activist women of color to ease some of the burden of dismantling racism and misogyny while living at the very intersection of such oppression. “Now it’s applied to, I don’t know, getting a blowout,” Crispin writes. “And pedicures. Even if your pedicurist is basically a slave.” Especially if you’ve got a glass of champagne to assist you along in ignoring that reality. So, no. We don’t need rage if we’re going to use it as an excuse to drink, to sink into dispassion.

    We need real action. We need true healing. I didn’t need wine on Friday night, and the community of women I want to support through this troubling time didn’t need me buzzed or drunk or hollowly chill. We need the opposite of that. In our activism and in our downtime, we need a clear-eyed, hangover-free commitment to dismantling absolutely everything that violates us—whether through false comfort or force, apathy or abuse.

    View the original article at thefix.com

  • Are Diabetics More Likely To Die From Alcoholism?

    Are Diabetics More Likely To Die From Alcoholism?

    Alcohol-related deaths, specifically cirrhosis of the liver, were as much as 10 times higher for those with diabetes, according to a new study.

    A Finnish study concluded that diabetes sufferers are at significantly higher risk than the non-diabetic population of death from alcohol-related issues or suicide, due to the strain on their mental health while managing the disease.

    However, once the numbers of the study are parsed, it’s clear that the risk in the diabetic community is relatively small overall.

    Studies have already proven that diabetes—especially diabetes that is not well-controlled—puts a person at higher risk for various serious health issues such as certain cancers and heart disease.

    However, the new Finnish research, published in the European Journal of Endocrinology, shows that because of the strain of managing diabetes, those with the disease are at higher risk of psychological issues and resulting death.

    Specifically, The Independent reported that the study showed that alcohol-related deaths, particularly caused by cirrhosis of the liver, were as much as 10 times higher in the diabetic community versus those without the disease. Death by suicide was increased by a staggering 110%. The more severe the disease (requiring more insulin injections and medical interventions) the bigger the risk of death.

    The lead researcher on the study, Professor Leo Niskanen of the University of Helsinki, said, “We know that living with diabetes can lead to a mental health strain.”

    A diagnosis of diabetes is either Type 1 or Type 2. Both variations disrupt the way your body regulates blood sugar, also known as glucose. Insulin allows glucose to enter the body’s cells. In Type 1 diabetes, the body is not producing insulin, while in Type 2, the cells are not responding as well as they should be to insulin.

    During the timeframe of the Finnish study, there were 2,832 deaths related to alcohol and 853 deaths by suicide. Patients taking insulin saw a 6.9% increase in deaths from alcohol-related conditions for diabetic men, and 10.6 times higher for women. Patients taking oral medication—who were able to control their condition with diet and exercise—saw an increased risk of death but at a much lower percentile.

    Professor Niskanen says, “The low absolute suicidal rates make the risk ratios look very high—even small increase in risk may thus have higher risk ratios… However, they are highly [statistically] significant anyway. This study has highlighted that there is a need for effective psychological support for people with diabetes. If [diabetes patients] feel like they are under a heavy mental burden or consider that their use of alcohol is excessive, they should not hesitate to discuss these issues with their primary care physician.”

    View the original article at thefix.com