On June 5, I attended a
four-hour Nicotine Dependence Treatment Training organized by the Alameda
County Alcohol, Tobacco and Other Drug (ATOD) Network. Approximately 40
people filled a fifth-floor conference room at the beautiful new Alameda
County Behavioral Services Center at 2000 Embarcadero on the Oakland
waterfront.
All the participants
except myself were employed as treatment providers with substance abuse or
mental health treatment programs. Continuing Education Credits were
offered. I met several friends there, including staff from the 14th
Street detox facility where Marylou B. and I had presented LifeRing last
month. I also met a Kaiser counselor from the San Francisco CDRP who
conducts quit-smoking work there. I met the medical director and a staff
member from the Haight-Ashbury Free Clinic. Perhaps a dozen treatment
programs were represented. I had copies of the LifeRing meeting schedule
with me, and handed them out on the slightest provocation. They met with
ready acceptance; one counselor from a clinic connected with Highland
Hospital asked for a handful of extras.
The purpose of the
workshop was to train providers to include nicotine cessation treatment in
their substance abuse and mental health treatment programs. The main
presenter was Dr. Cathy McDonald, who spearheaded the process of building
nicotine cessation into the program of Thunder Road, a 50-bed substance
abuse treatment program for teenagers.
Also among the speakers
were physicians from Garfield Neurobehavioral Center, a long-term
inpatient facility for patients disabled by severe mental disease. They
described the process of changing patients’ “smoke breaks” into “patio
breaks” and gradually detoxing patients from nicotine.
The written materials
included numerous stories of chemical dependency and mental health
treatment programs that had gone through the process of broadening their
services to include treatment for nicotine addiction in their offerings.
In this county, it appears that the major CD and MH programs are in the
process of integrating nicotine cessation into their programs, so that
nicotine addiction is treated on a par with other substance addictions. A
number of the most well known institutions have already done so. There was
the sense of a growing nationwide initiative in this direction.
The presentation offered
some material that was familiar to me, such as the fact that tobacco is by
far the deadliest of all the addictive drugs. Tobacco kills more people
in the US each year than alcohol, cocaine, crack, heroin, homicide,
suicide, car crashes, fires, and AIDS combined: about 450,000
deaths per year.
Tobacco takes a
particularly heavy toll among alcoholics. In a study at the Mayo Clinic,
about half of all alcoholics who had taken part in an alcoholism treatment
program eventually died of causes related to smoking. The average
age at death was substantially less than normal life expectancy.
The presenters and
materials also did a good job rounding up in one place the research
showing that people can quit smoking and drinking at the same time.
Quitting smoking not only does not harm recovery from drinking, it
improves it: studies show that people who quit smoking when they quit
drinking end up having fewer relapses and enjoying a longer sobriety.
I also learned some
things that were completely new to me, namely that smoking substantially
reduces the effectiveness of many psychoactive medications used in the
treatment of mental illness, so that dosages for smokers must be increased
to compensate, and lowered again when the patients quit.
Workshop participants and
materials emphasized several reasons why treatment programs in the
chemical dependency and mental health area were motivated to include
nicotine cessation in their program. One factor was patient demand. Even
among severely disabled mental patients the general reaction against
tobacco in this country over the past 20 years has found an echo, and the
physicians at the Garfield facility reported that a number of patients
approached them to ask for a smoke-free treatment environment. A similar
pattern obtained at Thunder Road: the clients were generally supportive of
the move to a smoke-free program, and the main resistance came from some
tobacco-using staff members and from parents. About one third of patients
in a hospital study, reported in the materials, spontaneously wanted to
work on quitting nicotine along with their other drugs, and this portion
doubled once the facility itself became smoke-free.
Another important
motivating factor for many providers was the feeling that the failure to
address nicotine addiction undermines and sabotages their abstinence
message to the patients. Providers put major effort into trying to teach
patients to abstain from drugs that provide immediate gratification but
create long-term harm. To stand silent in the face of nicotine use,
providers felt, is hypocritical and lowers the credibility of the whole
treatment rhetoric.
Providers also observed
that smoking in treatment programs puts former smokers at risk of nicotine
relapse and in some cases leads people to commence habitual nicotine use.
Garfield physicians described instances in which staff actually held
cigarettes for severely disabled patients so that they could smoke, and
purchased cigarettes for patients out of the agency budget. It took them
a while to ask “what’s wrong with this picture?"
Providers in the
substance abuse treatment setting also became aware over time that smoking
cessation did not bring with it the feared rash of additional relapses.
Studies at first found no discernible difference in outcomes for patients
who quit smoking as well as drinking. Then as more different facilities
assessed and reported their outcomes, studies began to show that quitting
smoking actually conveys a recovery advantage: drinkers who quit smoking
do better at staying off the drink than those who keep puffing.
Many providers are also
concerned by the heavy tobacco mortality rate among recovering alcoholics
and drug users. It seems less than compassionate and ultimately
demoralizing for staff to devote their lives to treating addiction to
certain substances that kill their patients, only to watch the patients
fall victim to another far more deadly addictive substance that treatment
ignored. The example of Bill W. and Dr. Bob, the co-founders of AA, is
cited in the written workshop materials. Bill W., long a chain-smoker of
cigarettes, spent his last years in a wheelchair hooked up to an oxygen
tank, and died of emphysema. Dr. Bob, a cigar smoker, died of throat
cancer.
The written materials at
the workshop contain several referrals to Nicotine Anonymous, but the
presenters and participants showed little overt enthusiasm for this
approach. Historically, AA and NA have missed the boat on smoking, and
the 12-Step approach to nicotine dependence has not caught on, at least
not in this area. Segregating nicotine cessation from other substance
addictions also misses the main point that the presenters were trying to
get across: that nicotine cessation needs to be integrated into substance
abuse and mental health treatment efforts.
Interest and enthusiasm
in this roomful of providers was mainly for methods that used behavioral
and motivational enhancement techniques in combination with
pharmacological aids such as the patch and bupropion (wellbutrin, Zyban).
Of course, this segment of the treatment profession is not the Old Guard.
There were some gray heads, but the average age must have been less than
30. These people are at the cutting edge, defining the shape of things to
come. One got a sense of purpose and movement from these people, not the
mood of drift and demoralization that I have felt among other gatherings
of treatment providers.
Among the most
interesting points in the material were the stories of the pioneers who
initiated the movement toward nicotine education in the substance abuse
treatment settings, such as Dr. John Slade of New Jersey. In almost every
instance, these initiatives met at first with considerable hostility and
misunderstanding. But perseverance pays off: New Jersey today leads the
nation in requiring smoking cessation and smoke-free facilities in all
residential chemical dependency treatment facilities in the state.
As one of the authors in
the written materials noted, the cultural legacy of the 12-Step movement
exerts a heavy drag on progress in this area. Many substance abuse
treatment staff, as we all know, are products of the 12-step recovery
culture, which in many cases means that they are active nicotine addicts
in the pre-contemplation stage. If it was good enough for Bill W. and Dr.
Bob, it’s good enough for them. At so-called model 12-step treatment
programs, such as the one described in the recent Beyond the Influence
by Ketcham (reviewed at
http://www.unhooked.com/booktalk/beyond_the_influence.htm), tobacco
awareness consists of admonishing patients to pick up their cigarette
butts.
The modern pioneers of
the smoke-free movement in the substance abuse treatment industry faced
and still face enormously difficult challenges in opening the door to
scientific knowledge regarding nicotine addiction. Among these nicotine
challengers are the natural allies of science-based, secular alternatives
to the 12-Step approach in recovery generally. If these treatment
providers are open to secular methods for smoking cessation – and this
crowd appeared overwhelmingly so -- they’re already halfway to acceptance
that the same methods have validity for alcohol and other drug cessation.
It isn’t news to them that their patients need other choices in addition
to 12-Step.
Hockey great Wayne
Gretzky summed up the secret of his scoring success on the ice this way:
“Skate to where the puck is going next.” In substance addiction and
mental health treatment, it looks like nicotine cessation is where the
puck is headed. It’s true that these professions are lagging perhaps 10
or 20 years behind other healing professions and behind public tobacco
consciousness generally. But, better late than never.
-- Marty N. 6/11/02