July 1, 2025 • 60 mins
Dr. Charles Smith brings critical insights about addiction as a legitimate medical disease requiring scientific understanding and treatment approaches that match its complexity and timeline.
• Addiction is a brain disease affecting the dopamine reward system, comparable to diabetes or heart disease
• Approximately 1 in 10 people have vulnerable dopamine systems predisposing them to addiction
• Risk factors include genetic predisposition, early age of first use, childhood trauma, high substance tolerance, and co-occurring mental disorders
• Full brain healing from addiction typically requires 1-2 years, making 30-day rehab models inadequate
• Dr. Smith shares his personal journey from practicing physician to addiction patient following DEA intervention
• Ending stigma requires treating addiction like other medical conditions while maintaining accountability
• The fentanyl crisis represents a national security threat with unprecedented overdose deaths
• Recovery success requires long-term monitoring, support networks, and avoiding all mind-altering substances
• Physician monitoring programs achieve 90% success rates through comprehensive care and accountability
Understanding Addiction: Know Science, No Stigma by Dr. Charles Smith and Dr. Jason Hunt is available on Amazon and provides thorough education on addiction science.
The Fatal Facts of Fentanyl podcast is dedicated to raising Awareness to the illicit FENTANYL crisis hitting the USA.
The goal is to SAVE LIVES and families from this travesty.
Awareness and Education are the Key.
Knowledge is Power!
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
Understanding Addiction.
Know Science, which is K-N-O-W,and Know Stigma, which is N-O.
Let's end stigma surroundingaddiction in this country.
Stigma is our biggest killer.
I have today as my guest DrCharles Smith.
(00:26):
He and his colleague Dr JasonHunt are the authors of their
book Understanding Addiction noScience, no Stigma.
They bring a unique andimportant perspective to the
subject of addiction.
An expert in this field, DrSmith, has a personal, firsthand
(00:49):
experience with the shame andhumiliation that accompanies
substance use disorder.
Addiction is a disease, no lessso than diabetes or heart
disease, and it needs to betreated as such.
Hi, Charles, Welcome.
I hope you don't mind mecalling you Charles, but first
(01:11):
let's clarify that statement forour audience.
Addiction is a disease.
Tell me what you know aboutthat and let's begin with the
science behind that statement.
Speaker 2 (01:22):
Well, my interest in that particular phrase happened
when I went to treatment myselfin 2009.
I had been a family practicephysician in West Virginia and
Kentucky for 26 years and in2009, due to a series of
interventions that I describe inthe book, I went to treatment
(01:45):
myself.
But when I got there and spokewith the addiction medicine
physician and the counselors andthe therapists, they told me
you have a disease.
And I said wait a minute, Idrank too much, okay, and you
know I got hooked on those pills, but that can happen to anyone,
(02:05):
because I had a sample cabinetfull of them and that was my
knowledge and my mindset at thatpoint.
And, of course, that was almost13 years ago now.
Since then, I have learned thatit is a disease just like
diabetes, just like heartdisease, just like hypertension,
(02:27):
and it can be identifiedthrough a particular area of the
brain and a particular systemof the brain the dopamine reward
system and the dopamine rewardsystem's effect on the
prefrontal cortex and ourdecision making.
And that's really what promptedme to write the book.
I check in patients at the twodetoxes that I work here in
(02:57):
South Florida daily and I goover this with them that
certainly they did have some badbehaviors, but I think those
bad behaviors can be explaineddue to the fact that he had a
vulnerable dopamine rewardsystem.
Speaker 1 (03:10):
I read your book, by the way, thank you, and I
actually learned a lot from it.
I wish I knew then what I knownow that I've learned more about
addiction.
Can you explain to our audienceabout what you mean about the
dopamine receptors, because alot of us parents or people who
(03:33):
have a loved one who has anaddiction, especially an opioid
addiction, we can neverunderstand why can't they just
stop, like you know?
Explain that to us.
I mean, I found it veryinteresting about that part of
the brain.
Speaker 2 (03:50):
Well, you know, I always start out by using that
little example.
The newborn infant you have anewborn infant in the nursery
goes through the trauma ofchildbirth.
Then you know a couple of hourshe's going to be laying under
the incubator and he's going tostart crying.
So I always pull my audience.
(04:12):
Why does this baby start crying?
And people will say all sorts ofthings he's cold, he's wet, the
lights are too bright, hemisses his mother.
But the bottom line answer ishe's hungry.
So his dopamine reward systemsignals him that there's stress
(04:33):
and trauma and if he doesn't getsome carbohydrates he's going
to die, which is the fact.
So when that infant getscarbohydrates, his dopamine
reaches up to near top, what Icall top normal levels.
It goes up to almost 200 in themidbrain.
When that happens, the infant'scalm and serene, his restless,
(04:57):
irritable, discontent goes awayand he's comfortable.
That system continues to operateon through life, with dopamine
being released for eating whenyou're hungry, drinking fluids
when you're thirsty, escapingdanger.
Even sex gives normal dopaminereleases which start to modify
(05:20):
our behaviors because we havethat inherent desire to sustain
life.
Ben enters mind-alteringsubstances and that's anything
that releases dopamine higherthan 200, alcohol, opiates,
benzodiazepines, cannabis,amphetamines, and when those are
(05:42):
released at that much higherlevel, it's a little bit like
noise exposure hearing loss.
If you go to a rock concert,what can you hear the next day?
Not very much, just ringing inyour ears.
So those massive releases ofdopamine are what dysregulate
(06:02):
the system, and of particularimportance here is that about 9
out of 10 people cannot acceptthose massive releases of
dopamine the 1 in 10 people inthe general population that can
have a vulnerable dopaminereward system, and they're the
ones that are very much at riskfor the disease of addiction.
Speaker 1 (06:28):
I find it so fascinating because we all know
people that can drink or dopills or whatever, and it
doesn't affect them, they caneasily walk away from it.
They can easily walk away fromit.
And then we also have peoplethat can drink or do pills and
(06:49):
they become highly addicted tothem.
So I guess are you saying thatsome people's dopamine levels,
that's what happens to the brain, why they just can't stop that
population that I'm describing?
That actually, that you had youknow that exactly.
Speaker 2 (07:13):
Is that right?
Yes, that's exactly what I had.
I had many of the risk factorsthat set me up to be able to
accept that reward when thatlarge rewards release, and
primarily that's due to dopaminesubtype receptors.
But there are also otherfactors involved as far as
amounts of dopamine released,the ability to accept that
dopamine.
(07:33):
It isn't quite as simple asthat.
I can simply accept the reward,but there's many other social
factors involved.
But the bottom line I use thisas an example with patients many
times of what I call anaddiction stress test.
And if I go up to anyone at arestaurant maybe they're having
(07:54):
a margarita and I say well, youknow what, it's your lucky day,
you get five more margaritas onthe house.
Nine out of 10 people willdecline those and when you ask
them why, they're going to sayvery simply I don't like the way
five make me feel.
None of us at risk for thedisease of addiction are going
(08:15):
to say that Now we may declinethat extra five if we still have
the ability to make gooddecisions.
Maybe we know we're driving,maybe we don't have to work the
next day, but for the most partwe want them.
So that's my stress test foraddiction.
Now, it may not be that alcoholis the drug of choice, maybe it
(08:37):
was obvious, maybe it'scannabis, maybe it's cocaine,
maybe it's amphetamines, but thebottom line is nine out of 10
people simply don't enjoy or areable to receive that reward
from those massive amounts ofdopamine.
Speaker 1 (08:54):
That makes sense when you explained it.
What are some of the riskfactors?
Speaker 2 (09:02):
Well, the risk factors, the number one is the
genetic predisposition.
If you have a first or secondorder relative who has had
problems with alcohol or drugsor has the disease of addiction,
you have at least a 50% chanceof having that yourself simply
by being exposed to thosesubstances, and that makes it
(09:24):
very rare that you wouldn't bedisposed.
It's exposed, I mean.
It's somewhere around 87% ofpeople in the United States are
exposed to alcohol at some pointin their life.
There are a few religioussubsets that don't drink and
some very health-consciouspeople just never drink alcohol.
(09:44):
But that's very unusual.
So genetic predisposition isone.
Age of early use is another.
Many of the patients I admitstarted their substance use 9,
10, 11, very young.
This dopamine reward systemdoesn't mature until ages 24 or
(10:05):
25.
So it's a very vulnerable timeto have that massive release of
dopamine.
Another is adverse childhoodexperiences.
Someone who's experienced abuse, trauma physical, emotional,
sexual as a child also makesthem very predisposed to this
(10:29):
High tolerance to substance.
If you're one of the teenagerswho could drink 12, 16 cans of
beer or a whole bottle of wine,it simply exposes you to more
chemical and more milligrams ofthe substance.
Another would be dual diagnosisPatients who have anxiety,
(10:53):
depression, bipolar disorder,even schizoaffective disorder.
All these also give you muchhigher risk of having a
vulnerable dopamine rewardsystem.
Speaker 1 (11:05):
Yes, sir, and from what I read in your book, it's
not like a person has to haveall of these risk factors.
They can have simply one ofthem, right?
Yes?
Speaker 2 (11:18):
Is that true?
Yes, that's true, and you know.
Also, when patients tell me,you know I don't have any family
members, you know, I always saywell, you know, when I look at
your DNA, simply by your knownfamily history.
That's a little bit like askingyou what a Harrison Ford movie
(11:40):
is about.
Simply by showing a snapshot ofhim, you wouldn't know if it's
Star Wars, indiana Jones or whatthe movie was about.
So I'm still a big proponent ofthe genetic predisposition
being the main risk factor.
Speaker 1 (11:56):
Yes, I agree on that, and it's just like when you go
to the doctor and they go well,what's your history of diabetes
or cancer or heart disease inyour family?
It's like they don't ask youabout addiction, but they ask
you about, like, what you'repredisposed to.
And it makes perfect sense ifwe're going to treat addiction
(12:17):
as a disease, because you knowit can be like a grandparent, it
can be uncles, it can be likesomewhere down your you know
generational lineage, so tospeak.
It doesn't necessarily have tobe first generation, we can all
go back somewhere down thebloodline.
Is that correct in saying that?
Speaker 2 (12:46):
you say that physicians don't take that
history.
There's many reasons they don't.
One may have to have to be thatmaybe they don't have the
training to ask the question.
The other is maybe it'suncomfortable for them to ask
the question.
But University of Florida,where I did my addiction
medicine fellowship, was thefirst university to require a
mandatory rotation for medicalstudents in addiction.
(13:06):
So during my two years there werotated one or two medical
students through each month andreinforced to them the reason
they should ask the familyhistory pertinent to addiction.
Speaker 1 (13:20):
That's awesome because I'm sure medical schools
in the past did not traindoctors about addiction and as
prevalent as it is in oursociety now, I'm sure there's a
bigger and greater need for thatnow.
(13:41):
So are you saying that they'restarting to do that?
Implement that into trainingfor our doctors and medical
personnel.
Speaker 2 (13:51):
As far as I know now all medical schools do include
addiction.
It's very much to the forefrontin continuing education.
You know the whole prescribingof opioids has been revamped in
the last few years so thatphysicians take that history
(14:11):
that we just talked about familyhistory of addiction and also
that they monitor more closelythe supply of opiates they give.
You know, for example, say 30years ago you had your
gallbladder out.
You may have got sent home with30 Percocets.
Today, when you havelaparoscopic gallbladder surgery
, you get sent home with, say,five, five milligram oxycodone
(14:36):
and if you have more pain orrequire more, it's going to
involve another physicianinteraction to get more, going
to involve another physicianinteraction to get more.
So those sample cabinets allthrough the country at home that
may have 25 or 30 Percocetvenom simply not there anymore
due to the physicians beingeducated and simply not
overprescribing.
Speaker 1 (14:58):
Right, it's more regulated.
Is that correct in saying that?
Yes, it is regulated?
Is that correct in saying?
Speaker 2 (15:02):
that.
Speaker 1 (15:09):
Yes, it is Dr Charles .
I'm going to ask you somepersonal questions, or I
probably don't even have to askyou, but I find your history
very, very interesting and Iread your book and I learned so
much about yourself and yourcolleague.
But do you mind telling ouraudience about your history and
(15:32):
what happened?
Speaker 2 (15:34):
No, I don't mind at all.
I was born in West Virginia,went to medical school West
Virginia School of OsteopathicMedicine and had a pretty
inconsequential college careerand medical school career.
One thing was very important mygrandfather on my father's side
(15:55):
died of the town drunk in thisvery small town that I was
raised in in southern WestVirginia 5,000 people.
I only met the man twice and mymother would simply say that's
your dad's dad and he's a badman, he's an alcoholic.
So I only met the man twice andhe died a street alcoholic and
(16:16):
was never able to obtaintreatment.
So even with binge drinking incollege, it didn't continue for
me until my early 30s when I wasfaced with a lot of stress.
I had work stress, I hadfinancial stress, I had marital
stress and I already knew that Icould drink a pretty good lot.
(16:42):
I had a high tolerance, prettypretty good lot.
I had high tolerance and mydrinking picked up to the point
that by my mid-30s I was cominginto work with alcohol poisoning
, just so sick I couldn't putone foot in front of the other.
And that was late 80s and aboutthe time Vicodin and Lortab and
(17:03):
Xanax were being sampled toprimary care physicians.
So I went to my sample cabinet,looked at it and said I wonder
if a few of these would help.
And after that, the next 20years, it's somewhat of a blur.
I got my pills many differentmechanisms from ordering them
wholesale to finally writingfraudulent prescriptions which,
(17:28):
in 2009, resulted in myintervention by the DEA and got
me to treatment and subsequentlysaved my life.
Speaker 1 (17:37):
Wow.
Well, you know the movie, youknow the series.
Dope Sick is very popular nowand it kind of is describing a
little bit what your experiencewas.
Just like Michael Keaton, youknow, the doctor in Dope Sick
went through with his patientsand then apparently he had a I
(18:03):
don't know.
He started on it because ofpain and it was in.
That's how easy what you justdescribed about yourself.
That's how easy and innocent itcan start.
Is that correct in saying it'slike no one is bored or no one,
I believe, says Okay, I'm goingto be an addict when I grow up,
(18:26):
or I'm going to be an alcoholic,or I'm going to do this and
that, and then it just startsinnocently and it just continues
in this downward spiral.
Is that how you felt at times?
Speaker 2 (18:42):
Yes, you know, you're exactly right.
In second grade, on career day,no one holds their hands up and
says you know, I want to be analcoholic or I want to be an
opiate addict, so you're exactlyright.
But once that door was open andmy alcohol consumption
increased, it was really just apath of least resistance, of
(19:06):
what I could do to stayfunctional and what I could do
to survive.
So I don't want to make itsound like I didn't have a
choice.
It was just that ease of accessI had to those pills made it
the easiest route of choice forme.
I had to.
Those pills made it the easiestroute of choice for me.
Speaker 1 (19:21):
Right, which happens, you know, with a lot of people
that I've interviewed and peoplethat I've known that to have
some sort of substance usedisorder.
I call it substance usedisorder.
Let's talk about that.
How can we as a society breakthe stigma of this so people do
(19:44):
not feel ashamed or guilty andthere's a thin line behold,
holding someone accountable forthe behavior of the addiction.
But I feel like to understandthe addiction, like you said,
like the science behind it.
It will give people, or oursociety, a little bit more
(20:05):
compassion and not judge peopleso harshly.
But yet some of the behaviorthat is displayed, I feel like
people need to be accountable.
Do you kind of see where I'mgoing with this?
It's kind of like a catch-22situation.
How do you feel about some ofthose statements I just made?
(20:26):
How can we end the stigma first?
Speaker 2 (20:29):
Well, I think by sticking with current and even
more progressive scientificliterature is exactly the way to
go.
You know, it would be real easyto put out stigma-related
statements for diabetes, foroverweight, for lung disease,
(20:50):
because many diseases patientsplay a part in that disease,
coming along by their behavior,by their behavior.
So with addiction, you know theword alcoholic, the word addict
, junkie, abuser tend to have anegative connotation.
(21:15):
Words are hurtful.
It's much better when wedescribe them for just what they
are Substance use disorder,habitual use, substance use
disorder, habitual use,overtaking of substances I mean
if it's done thoroughly, yetcompassionately, is the best
word.
You know I was thinking.
(21:35):
One of the things is whenever wego to do interventions, or
whether I see a patient withintervention, I don't look at
this any different than if I sawa skin cancer or a suspicious
skin cancer on your face.
I approach it with that samevigor and intensity.
(21:56):
Person or the family has donethe screening tools that we can
talk about and they have it.
I tell them not to give up anymore than they would if they
said, oh, I think that's amalignant melanoma on his
shoulder.
Well, you wouldn't just sweepit under the rug and say, no,
maybe it's a freckle you wouldget professional evaluation, so
(22:19):
this is no different.
We really advocate that peopleget professional evaluation.
Then maybe it turns out thatthey are just a light social
drinker and it was all a bighubbub, but that's not very
likely or the family wouldn'thave noticed the changes.
Speaker 1 (22:37):
Right.
What do you do when you want tocall in an interventionist and
you want to call in an addictionspecialist?
This is for someone that youlove very, very much and you see
the person struggling and yousee the daily fight, like moment
to moment, with an addiction,and I'm talking now an opioid
(23:01):
addiction, which I think is sostrongly, highly potent, whether
they're prescription or illicitdrugs.
But how can you encourage andlove that person through this
without enabling them?
And then also, how can you leada horse to water if they don't
(23:25):
want to drink, so to speak?
Speaker 2 (23:27):
Well, I understand exactly what you're saying.
In my years out of medicine Idid get trained in interventions
and did professionalinterventions for a few years.
It is difficult.
Once again, I take them back tothat same medical scenario.
If you had a patient who youwere suspicious, say you had a
(23:48):
sister who had a breast lump,you're suspicious of breast
cancer, but she just simply says, well, I'm not going, you
wouldn't give up on her.
That's what you have to do with, say, the opioid-addicted
patient.
You can't give up on them.
Where most families would failis that ultimately it may mean
(24:08):
loving, detachment or, you know,used to be called tough love.
But you said, how do you do itwithout supporting them?
You may have to say, well, youknow, if you choose, for example
, to keep this cancer and notseek medical care, then we're
going to have a break in ourrelationship and most people
(24:30):
have difficulty with that.
Obviously they love them.
You know, one of thedefinitions of codependency is
love, because that's what is theroot of it.
Codependency is love becausethat's what, that's what is the
root of it.
Speaker 1 (24:41):
Yeah, there's a there's a thin line between
codependency and interdependencyin all relationships actually,
and you do have to love andencourage him through it and not
be judgmental.
But then ultimately it seemsthat it's up to the person to
(25:02):
take that step and seek medicaldetox because I feel that's
what's needed and I'm sure youfeel that's what's needed, and
rehab and long term treatmentcenters, and let's talk about
that.
How long does it take if aperson who goes through all
(25:28):
those steps as far as to get outof active addiction into active
recovery, how long does it takefor the brain to heal if they
follow all those steps?
Is there a number of yearsattached to that or is there
like variables in there?
Speaker 2 (25:46):
Well, there are some variables, but you can find very
consistent that it's one to twoyears before this dopamine
reward system is going to heal,and primarily the prefrontal
cortex or the decision-makingportion of our brain.
One to two years.
So you know that old Minnesotamodel of 30 days rehab is
(26:10):
basically archaic.
If you just go for 30 days andyou go home and you expect to be
recovered, that would be nodifferent than putting a cast on
a broken leg for two weeks andsay you know what, we're going
to take this off and you go.
Well, that won't work, doctor,because it's going to take the
bone six to eight weeks to heal.
This is the same thing.
We need that sort of intensivetreatment for addiction for one
(26:35):
to two years.
Now, that doesn't mean we keepthem out of their home, but once
they do return to their home,we we still have cognitive
behavioral therapy, 12-stepmutual aid and possibly the most
important factor here is wehave random testing so that we
keep mind-altering substancesout of the body.
And that's the biggest failurewe see with laypeople treatment
(26:59):
in the United States.
We've figured that out when itcomes to doctors, nurses and
airline pilots, because that'sthe type of programs that we're
put in and we have 90% successrate.
But for the general publicthat's simply not in place yet.
Speaker 1 (27:17):
Do you feel like I know through the years that I
watched my loved one?
I feel like each year it'sgetting better and better.
There's more education aboutthis.
There's more awareness aboutthis.
The programs are getting better.
I still think there's a major,big need in this country, but do
(27:42):
you have hope about this?
I know you work in a treatmentcenter yourself and medical
detox with your patients.
Do you see a growing awarenessof this in our country that
people are starting to open upand there's more our country
(28:06):
that people are starting to openup and there's more avenues for
people and their families toseek this?
Do you see that or am I naiveabout it.
Speaker 2 (28:12):
No, I actually do see it and, to tell you the truth,
it mirrors almost any otherdisease that we've seen
progression in.
It mirrors almost any otherdisease that we've seen
progression in, you know, sinceI graduated medical school in
1982, that was right at thebeginning of the HIV AIDS crisis
, so I saw all the stigmaassociated with that.
(28:32):
Then, basically, the opening upof that to get more funding for
research made it a moremainstream disease and
ultimately we're at where we aretoday, which there's excellent
treatment and it doesn't shortenlives.
Today, that same type vigor andenthusiasm is starting in
(28:56):
addiction.
It's not there yet but, as yousaid, there's many, many avenues
now that are pursuing moreintense education, early
education and also advocacy fortreatment.
It's more understood by mostmajor companies now that this is
a disease and that, onceproperly treated, they can have
(29:19):
a better employee than they hadbefore.
Speaker 1 (29:23):
Yes, sir, as far as recovery treatment, what do you
feel like the components or theimportant components for someone
to have a high success rate?
Because, from what I understandand correct me if I'm wrong
there's a very high incidence ofrelapse and during recovery,
(29:45):
during active recovery.
So, with your experience, whatare the components that someone
has to follow through with inorder to have that high success
rate, and is this something thatthey live with every day of
their life?
Like you said, a lot of peopleI think falsely leave treatment
(30:08):
centers or recovery centers andthink, oh, I'm cured,
Everything's going to be fine, Ican go back to that lifestyle.
I can be doing this and I havefound personally in my loved
one's that wasn't the case.
So can you kind of elaborate onthat for my audience please?
Speaker 2 (30:27):
Yes, and you know the perfect analogy that I use with
patients is the treatment ofhigh blood pressure, treatment
of hypertension.
I did family medicine for 26years.
It was not unusual at all forme to see a patient diagnose
them with hypertension, startthe medication, ask them to come
back in a month and see them.
(30:48):
They came back in a month.
Pressure's good.
I say okay, any questions?
Here's your six-month refillson your medication.
Come back and see me in sixmonths.
Patient comes back in sixmonths.
Blood pressure sky high, I go.
(31:10):
What happened?
He goes.
You know, I just didn't think Ineeded that.
Addiction is actually nodifferent.
It's very important thatinitially they get a good
professional evaluation so thatthey can see what level of care
they go in.
Maybe they don't need detox,maybe they don't have enough
comorbidities to requireresidential treatment, maybe
they don't need sober living.
But the big thing is they'vegot to have treatment for two
(31:33):
years.
We've got to keep mind-alteringsubstances out of them and
that's the advantage tomonitoring when you're
monitoring one slip, even ifit's not their drug of choice.
Maybe they were opiate addictedand they smoked cannabis.
Maybe they were methamphetamine, they drank some beer.
We still need to know itbecause then we can intervene at
(31:57):
a much less intense level ofcare.
So, always with patientsparallel to hypertension,
because hypertension, still inthe United States today, is very
difficult to treat because itrequires so much patient
compliance.
That's what addiction treatmentrequires patient compliance.
But you know, most of the timewith this 30-day model of
(32:20):
treatment and then send you toyour local AA group is not
enough accountability.
Speaker 1 (32:27):
No, I agree with that .
That's why I highly recommendyour book, so people can
understand the science behindthis.
I assume do you consider this abrain disease.
Speaker 2 (32:41):
Oh, absolutely.
You know.
No different than the dopaminereward system is dysregulated.
No different than the glucoseinsulin system and diabetes, the
renin-angiotensin system andhypertension.
This is a bodily system thatbecomes dysregulated, results in
a disease.
However, with appropriatetreatment and management, the
(33:05):
disease can go into remission.
Now I never want patients toget confused.
Remission does that mean I cango over here and drink some beer
now?
No, it doesn't.
It means my brain's healedenough now that I actually make
good decisions and know that.
I'm one of the one in 10 peoplein the world it's not a good
idea to drink and drug.
I'm one of the one in 10 peoplein the world it's not a good
(33:28):
idea to drink and drug.
Speaker 1 (33:35):
Yet I did it for 30 years because I was making poor
decisions because of my braindisease.
Speaker 2 (33:41):
Well, I don't think there's anyone on this planet
that has not made a bad decisionin their life.
No-transcript.
Speaker 1 (34:03):
It is impossible.
And I'm going to throwsomething else at you, since you
brought that up.
I think this is one thing thatneeds to change in this country.
Say, for instance and thishappened firsthand with with my
son he overdosed and we use theword overdosed and he was taken
to an.
First he was shot with four orfive shots of Narcan, brought
(34:24):
him back to life.
First, he was shot with four orfive shots of Narcan, brought
him back to life.
The sheriff told me that, takento an emergency room.
I'm thinking, oh my goodness,okay, he's in the hospital now.
They're going to take care ofhim.
They're going to know that hehas a highly addictive you know
he's highly addicted to theseopioids and heroin at the time
(34:45):
and you know whatever else andso they left the decision up to
him.
They left this hardcoredecision up to him.
They did not offer himtreatment, they just talked to
him, where me, as a mother,thought, oh my goodness, they're
going to do something now orthey're going to help him or
(35:06):
offer something.
But they left this harddecision up to him and he walked
out of that emergency room.
He refused any sort of help andtreatment.
So I know that's because of theHIPAA laws, but is that
something that can that you feelneeds to be changed in this
country, because the loved oneshave their hands tied and
(35:30):
they're leaving this importantdecision up to somebody who
isn't capable of making thisdecision to save their life?
Do you understand what I'mtrying to convey?
Speaker 2 (35:40):
Yes, I do and most states have some sort of legal
alternatives to follow.
Here In Florida it's called theMarchman Act, other states it
may be called something else,but anyway it's a substance use
disorder, involuntary treatment.
Now it results to start withjust an involuntary evaluation.
(36:03):
But see, that would be thestart of the treatment anyway.
So I always told family youknow, should I pursue that?
And I said of course you should.
You know, I still remember oneintervention I did back in
Alabama.
A gentleman was drinking.
His sisters actually called mein to do the intervention and he
(36:23):
was drinking significantly.
He had alcoholic cardiomyopathy, so severe drinking and his
life really depended on it.
He refused.
He refused to go.
After the family intervention,after the letters, after all the
loving pleading, he still toldthem no.
They asked me what our nextstep is and I said you need to
(36:45):
call law enforcement.
He just left here to drive homeand he's intoxicated and they
said, oh no, we can't do that.
He'll never speak to us again.
I told them pretty soon he'snot going to speak to you again
anyway.
Speaker 1 (36:59):
Well, I want to let you know something.
I was going to do that and Iwas going to go to the county,
the sheriff's department, and Ispoke to them and they told me
about what needed to be done.
They had to go, arrest my sonand then take him to the
hospital and talk to apsychiatrist, an interventionist
(37:22):
, a medical doctor, be evaluated, and they would hold him for 72
hours.
But then I was told if he couldstill walk after 72 hours.
So actually, when I spoke tothe sheriff's department here
locally, they kind of talked meout of doing that to be quite
(37:42):
honest with you, out of doingthat to be quite honest with you
, because they said, well,they're going to let him go
anyway.
So do you understand what I'msaying?
That's what happened in mystate.
I don't know if they've changedit in the last four years, but
that's what happened.
Speaker 2 (37:58):
It needs perfected in every state.
But even three years ago, inthe two years I spent at the
University of Florida, wemarksman acted many patients and
kept them for 90 days.
The judge had that ability oncewe showed evidence.
Now patients can have a show,cause hearing and go up in front
(38:18):
of the judge where both sidespresent their cases.
But we kept many patients for90 days, which in itself wasn't
still enough, but it was surebetter than 72 hours you're
talking about.
Yes, sir, and yes, and I knowwhat you're saying having them
arrested, go through that trauma, go through that embarrassment
(38:41):
of being involuntary andcommitted.
It does seem like a horriblething.
I understand that, but whenwe're talking about a deadly
illness, it's necessary.
Speaker 1 (38:53):
Well, I would have done it in a heartbeat if I knew
that they would have kept himand they still left the decision
up to him to walk.
You know what I mean.
Speaker 2 (39:02):
Yeah, but see the true involuntary commitment.
For substance use disorder isthe decision to leave not left
up to the patient, it's left upto the addiction professional.
Speaker 1 (39:15):
Well, I hope they've changed that here in the state
that I live in Because, like Isaid, this was four years ago
and yes, sir, I knew all aboutit.
I was ready to do it and theytalked me out of not doing it
because they said that he wouldwalk.
They couldn't keep him againsthis will.
That was what was told to me.
(39:35):
But anyway, let me ask yousomething.
You know my podcast deals withthe fatal facts of fentanyl.
So, in your experience as adoctor, tell me what you feel
about illicit fentanyl.
Are you seeing a rise in this?
Has illicit fentanyl beenaround?
From what I understand, it'sbeen around at least four years
(39:56):
and people are highly addictedto it.
Tell me your experience aboutillicit fentanyl and how you
think about this or what youthink about it.
Speaker 2 (40:07):
It certainly was just a game changer For at least the
last couple of years.
Most of my opiate patients thatI've admitted to detox or to
residential rehab did not evenknow that it was fentanyl they
were getting.
They were buying these pressedpills that they thought were
oxycodone 30s or they thoughtthey were Xanax bars.
(40:29):
They did not even know theywere fentanyl.
The degree of strength of thatfentanyl just varies on how much
it was cut.
It may be thousands of timesstronger than morphine or heroin
, or it may not be.
Simply, there's no qualitycontrol among the illicit drug
world.
With the massive escalation inoverdose deaths that we've had
(40:54):
93,000 in the US, and that's alow number, because many died
that we don't know why and itprobably was opiate overdose
we're starting to get some moreattention to the illicit pills.
The DEA sent out several emailsand newsletters focused on
(41:16):
these pressed pills, as theycall them that.
They look like the prescriptionpills, but they're not.
They're fentanyl.
So the fentanyl entering themarket has been a game changer
and we certainly saw a lot ofoverdose deaths with OxyContin,
with Oxycodone and Xanax, andthen mixtures with alcohol also,
(41:39):
but nothing like we're seeingnow.
Speaker 1 (41:42):
Yes, sir, it seems like the illicit fentanyl has
changed the paradigm of drug usein this country.
The way I look at it, I'vetalked to several experts about
this and also people who havelost loved ones to this it seems
like there are three kind ofscenarios for this, and you can
correct me if I'm wrong or addanother scenario if you know of
(42:05):
one.
But it seems like we've got theseasoned.
I call them the seasoned users,the people that do knowingly
know that they are buyingfentanyl and they are ingesting
fentanyl, and there's differentways to ingest it, of course.
And then you've got the peopleyou said that feel like maybe
(42:25):
they're buying an oxy cotton, Iguess roxy's, is that what
they're called?
M30s?
Whatever, is that what they'recalled?
yeah, yeah okay, there's so much, so many terminologies, but, um
, or they might be thinkingthey're buying cocaine, or do it
buying a xanax or heroin, eveneven even though I've read and
(42:47):
heard that heroin is the mostobsolete now because of the
fentanyl.
But anyway, they kind of aredeceived.
All of a sudden they're dyingfrom ingesting straight fentanyl
instead of like thinkingthey're doing a line of cocaine.
And then you've got, like yousaid, the press counterfeit
pills.
Now, this, all of it, breaks myheart.
But the press counterfeit pillsthink they're buying Percocet
(43:12):
or Aroxi or something, andthey're almost being groomed by
(43:35):
known dealers on Snapchat let'sjust say Snapchat and they are
sold or given something and allof a sudden they're dying.
I mean, it's crazy in thiscountry.
Do you know of any otherscenario that I'm forgetting?
Speaker 2 (43:52):
or not mentioning.
That's actually a very goodsynopsis that you said.
We have the severely addictedsubstance use disorder patient
who intended on fentanyl, hashigh tolerance, injects fentanyl
, smokes it or snorts it.
They have a large physicaldependence.
They get very sick If theydon't take it.
(44:13):
That would be the first levelyou described.
And also heroin simply isn'tavailable anymore.
Most of the patients, I admit,here in South Florida don't test
positive for heroin or opiate,they test positive for fentanyl.
The second level would, as yousaid, maybe they just intended
to party some but they've usedenough opiates.
(44:36):
They may have withdrawal andthey thought they were getting a
Percocet or Xanax or some pillthat came from the pharmacy but
it's not.
And then, even as you said, thescariest level to me is the
bachelorette party or thebachelor party where maybe they
took a Xanax when they were incollege or something and
(45:01):
celebrating this weekend theythought they were going to do
some cocaine and take a Xanaxand you know they have no
tolerance for this very powerfulopiate and they die on the spot
.
Speaker 1 (45:15):
So, with all that being said, do you feel that
these should be?
These deaths should bedescribed as overdoses or
poisoning.
Speaker 2 (45:30):
You know that's excellent to even bring it up in
that light.
I had just read today that thisshould be looked at as a
national security issue.
You know, no different thansomeone were attacking our
country with chemical warfare.
Speaker 1 (45:47):
Exactly, it does seem to be that way chemical warfare
, and it's like you said.
I think the numbers I believelast year, in 2020, were 94,000.
And I don't know how many ofthat is illicit fentanyl.
I've read so many differentthings 50, 60, 70, 80 percent
(46:08):
but I think the numbers are alot higher and I think in 2021,
they're going to be a lot higher.
I don't know how accurate theinformation is, but I just feel
like it's going to escalate andkeep escalating.
Is that how you think, or feel?
Speaker 2 (46:21):
Yes, you know, I think it has to be approached as
any national security problem.
When you think or feel, yes,you know, I think it has to be
approached as any nationalsecurity problem.
Would you know?
I think back on how we'veapproached terrorism.
So we both did more screeningat the sites.
We've done more screening atthe borders.
I think addiction hasparticularly the fentanyl
(46:43):
problem, the opioid crisis hasto be addressed.
The same way, we need toenhance our abilities so it
doesn't get into the country,but at the same time, don't
overlook its marketplace.
These patients who have avulnerable dopamine reward
system, no matter where they fitin that spectrum of people who
(47:04):
are going to use them we justdescribed all those three
scenarios need treatment andwe've got to make that treatment
available and offer you know, Iwon't say necessarily pay these
people to do it, but offer arewarding lifestyle that they
can see.
They need some incentive for it.
Speaker 1 (47:24):
Yes, I see that.
And the road, the journey withaddiction and the stigma
attached to it, a lot of peoplecannot get jobs.
So, yeah, they do need to berewarded, they need some
incentive to work towards tobetter their life, to better
themselves, to better their life, to better themselves.
Not necessarily all thepunishment, or I think you know
(47:50):
what I'm saying because you livethis yourself.
Speaker 2 (47:54):
You live this yourself, yeah, and I advocate
for a term called contingencymanagement.
It's that all of these fruitsof my recovery don't continue if
I don't have negative drugscreen tests.
So you know, instead of that ohmy God, you know what Mom's
driving me crazy?
She's making me give urinespecimens four times a year,
(48:18):
next year or something.
But those come with a rewardthat, yeah, not only that, but
your car insurance is cheaper,your college tuition is cheaper,
your college tuition is cheaper, but all of the fruits that go
with that mind-alteringsubstance free become more
readily apparent to them.
And that the testing is notlooked at as a penalty, which is
(48:40):
what it's looked at now.
Speaker 1 (48:43):
Yes, it is Well.
You have come a long way.
I just I don't want to give toomuch about your book because I
really want people to buy it.
I bought mine on Amazon I'mgoing to put plug in there about
Amazon but I really learned somuch from your book and it
really opened my eyes.
I loved reading about yourfirsthand experience with this
(49:06):
yourself and what was involved,and also your colleague Dr Hunt.
Is that correct?
Speaker 2 (49:13):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (49:14):
That's Jason Hunt, and you both were medical
doctors and you both sufferedwith this for years and it
changed your life and you had todo some really soul searching
and hard work to get your lifeback.
You both lost your medicallicenses over this.
Is that correct?
Speaker 2 (49:34):
Yes, it is.
Speaker 1 (49:36):
And then you worked and did what you had to do and
got it back.
My goodness, god bless you both.
I mean, I used to tell my sonyou're like the strongest person
I know Because I saw his battle.
You know every day with thisand this is something that you
live with the rest of your lifeand it is a battle.
(49:59):
Is that correct?
Speaker 2 (50:01):
Well, additionally, yes, it is, but it actually with
appropriate and proper care andcompliance of the patient, most
of us believe this day, thedisease goes into remission.
I look at it no different thanI use the example of a breast
cancer patient.
Quite often I have a breastcancer patient.
(50:22):
They have a lumpectomy, aradiation chemotherapy and 15
years later they're good.
Now that doesn't mean they stopdoing mammograms.
That doesn't mean they stopdoing breast exams.
That doesn't mean they startsmoking cigarettes.
That means they start drinkingalcohol, they start going to the
tan and bed anything that wouldbe increased risk factor for
(50:43):
cancer.
So the same now.
I'm sure my disease is inremission today, but I go to a
wedding, I make plans.
I don't drink champagne.
You know if I go to the sportsbar for Buffalo Wings, you know
I have Diet Coke.
I have a lemonade.
You know Mexican restaurant,you know it's frozen lemonade,
(51:10):
not a margarita.
And that doesn't happen byaccident.
That happened by goodscientific medical care and,
importantly, compliance withtreatment.
I have to have that frompatients.
So that's why I need thefamilies involved, because it's
not them nagging them, it's justhelping me ensure compliance.
Speaker 1 (51:30):
Exactly Right.
Nagging doesn't help anything.
Speaker 2 (51:36):
But help.
You know they call that theirsober support network.
Their sober support network,you know, would be involved.
And when you're going out withthese 10 guys that you went to
high school with and all you allever did was drink and smoke
pot, what do you think you'regoing to do with those guys
tonight?
What would you possibly have incommon with them?
And if you say, well, I do haveto meet them, et cetera, then
(52:00):
I'm going to take a sober friend, I'm going to have extra
accountability and even say youknow what?
You get a pee in this cup whenyou get home too.
Speaker 1 (52:11):
And if they say no to that, that's a problem.
So you're more aware,definitely, and more conscious
about all of this, and that'swhat it takes right.
Speaker 2 (52:21):
Education is the pathway out of this one.
Speaker 1 (52:24):
Yes, sir, I believe education is the pathway out of
this one.
Yes, sir, I believe educationis power.
Speaker 2 (52:27):
What seems to be a voluntary disease is actually
not because of all the socialpressures.
You know I had that phrase inmy book that in this country
alcohol is not just sociallyacceptable, it's socially
expected.
You're right that has to change.
Speaker 1 (52:43):
You're right, yeah, it does has to change.
Speaker 2 (52:46):
You're right.
Yeah, it does have to change.
Teens get peer pressure bulliedinto alcohol and cannabis.
Speaker 1 (52:52):
Most definitely Peer pressure is a major thing, and
now nowadays it's pill parties.
They're pressured into takingpills.
It's just not.
I mean, it used to be justsmoking cigarettes or drinking a
couple beers.
That has changed a long timeago.
Peer pressure has a lot to dowith it.
Yes, sir, well gosh, charles, Icould talk to you all night and
(53:15):
you're just a wealth ofinformation and I just want to
thank you for being sotransparent with your own story
about your journey and I wantyou to know that you are so
loved and appreciated in doingso and in also helping to make a
difference with others withtheir continued battle with this
.
And if you are my audience, ifyou or a loved one is struggling
(53:38):
with addiction, you'll findhelp in Dr Smith and Dr Hunt's
book, and it is called again,understanding Addiction, no
Science, which is K-N-O-W, andto no Stigma.
Let's end the stigma.
It's up to us as individuals toend the stigma in this country,
and when one understands thescience behind addiction, one
(54:00):
can begin to move forward,because beyond stigma, there's
always hope.
There still lies hope, andthank you, charles, I really do
appreciate it.
I hope we can possibly interviewsome time again in the future.
Okay, okay, it's been apleasure, thank you.
Speaker 2 (54:20):
Take care.
Speaker 1 (54:20):
Bye, thank you.
Understanding Addiction.
Know Science, which is K-N-O-W,and Know Stigma, which is N-O.
Let's end stigma surroundingaddiction in this country.
Stigma is our biggest killer.
I have today as my guest DrCharles Smith.
(00:26):
He and his colleague Dr JasonHunt are the authors of their
book Understanding Addiction noScience, no Stigma.
They bring a unique andimportant perspective to the
subject of addiction.
An expert in this field, DrSmith, has a personal, firsthand
(00:49):
experience with the shame andhumiliation that accompanies
substance use disorder.
Addiction is a disease, no lessso than diabetes or heart
disease, and it needs to betreated as such.
Hi, Charles, Welcome.
I hope you don't mind mecalling you Charles, but first
(01:11):
let's clarify that statement forour audience.
Addiction is a disease.
Tell me what you know aboutthat and let's begin with the
science behind that statement.
Speaker 2 (01:22):
Well, my interest in that particular phrase happened
when I went to treatment myselfin 2009.
I had been a family practicephysician in West Virginia and
Kentucky for 26 years and in2009, due to a series of
interventions that I describe inthe book, I went to treatment
(01:45):
myself.
But when I got there and spokewith the addiction medicine
physician and the counselors andthe therapists, they told me
you have a disease.
And I said wait a minute, Idrank too much, okay, and you
know I got hooked on those pills, but that can happen to anyone,
(02:05):
because I had a sample cabinetfull of them and that was my
knowledge and my mindset at thatpoint.
And, of course, that was almost13 years ago now.
Since then, I have learned thatit is a disease just like
diabetes, just like heartdisease, just like hypertension,
(02:27):
and it can be identifiedthrough a particular area of the
brain and a particular systemof the brain the dopamine reward
system and the dopamine rewardsystem's effect on the
prefrontal cortex and ourdecision making.
And that's really what promptedme to write the book.
I check in patients at the twodetoxes that I work here in
(02:57):
South Florida daily and I goover this with them that
certainly they did have some badbehaviors, but I think those
bad behaviors can be explaineddue to the fact that he had a
vulnerable dopamine rewardsystem.
Speaker 1 (03:10):
I read your book, by the way, thank you, and I
actually learned a lot from it.
I wish I knew then what I knownow that I've learned more about
addiction.
Can you explain to our audienceabout what you mean about the
dopamine receptors, because alot of us parents or people who
(03:33):
have a loved one who has anaddiction, especially an opioid
addiction, we can neverunderstand why can't they just
stop, like you know?
Explain that to us.
I mean, I found it veryinteresting about that part of
the brain.
Speaker 2 (03:50):
Well, you know, I always start out by using that
little example.
The newborn infant you have anewborn infant in the nursery
goes through the trauma ofchildbirth.
Then you know a couple of hourshe's going to be laying under
the incubator and he's going tostart crying.
So I always pull my audience.
(04:12):
Why does this baby start crying?
And people will say all sorts ofthings he's cold, he's wet, the
lights are too bright, hemisses his mother.
But the bottom line answer ishe's hungry.
So his dopamine reward systemsignals him that there's stress
(04:33):
and trauma and if he doesn't getsome carbohydrates he's going
to die, which is the fact.
So when that infant getscarbohydrates, his dopamine
reaches up to near top, what Icall top normal levels.
It goes up to almost 200 in themidbrain.
When that happens, the infant'scalm and serene, his restless,
(04:57):
irritable, discontent goes awayand he's comfortable.
That system continues to operateon through life, with dopamine
being released for eating whenyou're hungry, drinking fluids
when you're thirsty, escapingdanger.
Even sex gives normal dopaminereleases which start to modify
(05:20):
our behaviors because we havethat inherent desire to sustain
life.
Ben enters mind-alteringsubstances and that's anything
that releases dopamine higherthan 200, alcohol, opiates,
benzodiazepines, cannabis,amphetamines, and when those are
(05:42):
released at that much higherlevel, it's a little bit like
noise exposure hearing loss.
If you go to a rock concert,what can you hear the next day?
Not very much, just ringing inyour ears.
So those massive releases ofdopamine are what dysregulate
(06:02):
the system, and of particularimportance here is that about 9
out of 10 people cannot acceptthose massive releases of
dopamine the 1 in 10 people inthe general population that can
have a vulnerable dopaminereward system, and they're the
ones that are very much at riskfor the disease of addiction.
Speaker 1 (06:28):
I find it so fascinating because we all know
people that can drink or dopills or whatever, and it
doesn't affect them, they caneasily walk away from it.
They can easily walk away fromit.
And then we also have peoplethat can drink or do pills and
(06:49):
they become highly addicted tothem.
So I guess are you saying thatsome people's dopamine levels,
that's what happens to the brain, why they just can't stop that
population that I'm describing?
That actually, that you had youknow that exactly.
Speaker 2 (07:13):
Is that right?
Yes, that's exactly what I had.
I had many of the risk factorsthat set me up to be able to
accept that reward when thatlarge rewards release, and
primarily that's due to dopaminesubtype receptors.
But there are also otherfactors involved as far as
amounts of dopamine released,the ability to accept that
dopamine.
(07:33):
It isn't quite as simple asthat.
I can simply accept the reward,but there's many other social
factors involved.
But the bottom line I use thisas an example with patients many
times of what I call anaddiction stress test.
And if I go up to anyone at arestaurant maybe they're having
(07:54):
a margarita and I say well, youknow what, it's your lucky day,
you get five more margaritas onthe house.
Nine out of 10 people willdecline those and when you ask
them why, they're going to sayvery simply I don't like the way
five make me feel.
None of us at risk for thedisease of addiction are going
(08:15):
to say that Now we may declinethat extra five if we still have
the ability to make gooddecisions.
Maybe we know we're driving,maybe we don't have to work the
next day, but for the most partwe want them.
So that's my stress test foraddiction.
Now, it may not be that alcoholis the drug of choice, maybe it
(08:37):
was obvious, maybe it'scannabis, maybe it's cocaine,
maybe it's amphetamines, but thebottom line is nine out of 10
people simply don't enjoy or areable to receive that reward
from those massive amounts ofdopamine.
Speaker 1 (08:54):
That makes sense when you explained it.
What are some of the riskfactors?
Speaker 2 (09:02):
Well, the risk factors, the number one is the
genetic predisposition.
If you have a first or secondorder relative who has had
problems with alcohol or drugsor has the disease of addiction,
you have at least a 50% chanceof having that yourself simply
by being exposed to thosesubstances, and that makes it
(09:24):
very rare that you wouldn't bedisposed.
It's exposed, I mean.
It's somewhere around 87% ofpeople in the United States are
exposed to alcohol at some pointin their life.
There are a few religioussubsets that don't drink and
some very health-consciouspeople just never drink alcohol.
(09:44):
But that's very unusual.
So genetic predisposition isone.
Age of early use is another.
Many of the patients I admitstarted their substance use 9,
10, 11, very young.
This dopamine reward systemdoesn't mature until ages 24 or
(10:05):
25.
So it's a very vulnerable timeto have that massive release of
dopamine.
Another is adverse childhoodexperiences.
Someone who's experienced abuse, trauma physical, emotional,
sexual as a child also makesthem very predisposed to this
(10:29):
High tolerance to substance.
If you're one of the teenagerswho could drink 12, 16 cans of
beer or a whole bottle of wine,it simply exposes you to more
chemical and more milligrams ofthe substance.
Another would be dual diagnosisPatients who have anxiety,
(10:53):
depression, bipolar disorder,even schizoaffective disorder.
All these also give you muchhigher risk of having a
vulnerable dopamine rewardsystem.
Speaker 1 (11:05):
Yes, sir, and from what I read in your book, it's
not like a person has to haveall of these risk factors.
They can have simply one ofthem, right?
Yes?
Speaker 2 (11:18):
Is that true?
Yes, that's true, and you know.
Also, when patients tell me,you know I don't have any family
members, you know, I always saywell, you know, when I look at
your DNA, simply by your knownfamily history.
That's a little bit like askingyou what a Harrison Ford movie
(11:40):
is about.
Simply by showing a snapshot ofhim, you wouldn't know if it's
Star Wars, indiana Jones or whatthe movie was about.
So I'm still a big proponent ofthe genetic predisposition
being the main risk factor.
Speaker 1 (11:56):
Yes, I agree on that, and it's just like when you go
to the doctor and they go well,what's your history of diabetes
or cancer or heart disease inyour family?
It's like they don't ask youabout addiction, but they ask
you about, like, what you'repredisposed to.
And it makes perfect sense ifwe're going to treat addiction
(12:17):
as a disease, because you knowit can be like a grandparent, it
can be uncles, it can be likesomewhere down your you know
generational lineage, so tospeak.
It doesn't necessarily have tobe first generation, we can all
go back somewhere down thebloodline.
Is that correct in saying that?
Speaker 2 (12:46):
you say that physicians don't take that
history.
There's many reasons they don't.
One may have to have to be thatmaybe they don't have the
training to ask the question.
The other is maybe it'suncomfortable for them to ask
the question.
But University of Florida,where I did my addiction
medicine fellowship, was thefirst university to require a
mandatory rotation for medicalstudents in addiction.
(13:06):
So during my two years there werotated one or two medical
students through each month andreinforced to them the reason
they should ask the familyhistory pertinent to addiction.
Speaker 1 (13:20):
That's awesome because I'm sure medical schools
in the past did not traindoctors about addiction and as
prevalent as it is in oursociety now, I'm sure there's a
bigger and greater need for thatnow.
(13:41):
So are you saying that they'restarting to do that?
Implement that into trainingfor our doctors and medical
personnel.
Speaker 2 (13:51):
As far as I know now all medical schools do include
addiction.
It's very much to the forefrontin continuing education.
You know the whole prescribingof opioids has been revamped in
the last few years so thatphysicians take that history
(14:11):
that we just talked about familyhistory of addiction and also
that they monitor more closelythe supply of opiates they give.
You know, for example, say 30years ago you had your
gallbladder out.
You may have got sent home with30 Percocets.
Today, when you havelaparoscopic gallbladder surgery
, you get sent home with, say,five, five milligram oxycodone
(14:36):
and if you have more pain orrequire more, it's going to
involve another physicianinteraction to get more, going
to involve another physicianinteraction to get more.
So those sample cabinets allthrough the country at home that
may have 25 or 30 Percocetvenom simply not there anymore
due to the physicians beingeducated and simply not
overprescribing.
Speaker 1 (14:58):
Right, it's more regulated.
Is that correct in saying that?
Yes, it is regulated?
Is that correct in saying?
Speaker 2 (15:02):
that.
Speaker 1 (15:09):
Yes, it is Dr Charles .
I'm going to ask you somepersonal questions, or I
probably don't even have to askyou, but I find your history
very, very interesting and Iread your book and I learned so
much about yourself and yourcolleague.
But do you mind telling ouraudience about your history and
(15:32):
what happened?
Speaker 2 (15:34):
No, I don't mind at all.
I was born in West Virginia,went to medical school West
Virginia School of OsteopathicMedicine and had a pretty
inconsequential college careerand medical school career.
One thing was very important mygrandfather on my father's side
(15:55):
died of the town drunk in thisvery small town that I was
raised in in southern WestVirginia 5,000 people.
I only met the man twice and mymother would simply say that's
your dad's dad and he's a badman, he's an alcoholic.
So I only met the man twice andhe died a street alcoholic and
(16:16):
was never able to obtaintreatment.
So even with binge drinking incollege, it didn't continue for
me until my early 30s when I wasfaced with a lot of stress.
I had work stress, I hadfinancial stress, I had marital
stress and I already knew that Icould drink a pretty good lot.
(16:42):
I had a high tolerance, prettypretty good lot.
I had high tolerance and mydrinking picked up to the point
that by my mid-30s I was cominginto work with alcohol poisoning
, just so sick I couldn't putone foot in front of the other.
And that was late 80s and aboutthe time Vicodin and Lortab and
(17:03):
Xanax were being sampled toprimary care physicians.
So I went to my sample cabinet,looked at it and said I wonder
if a few of these would help.
And after that, the next 20years, it's somewhat of a blur.
I got my pills many differentmechanisms from ordering them
wholesale to finally writingfraudulent prescriptions which,
(17:28):
in 2009, resulted in myintervention by the DEA and got
me to treatment and subsequentlysaved my life.
Speaker 1 (17:37):
Wow.
Well, you know the movie, youknow the series.
Dope Sick is very popular nowand it kind of is describing a
little bit what your experiencewas.
Just like Michael Keaton, youknow, the doctor in Dope Sick
went through with his patientsand then apparently he had a I
(18:03):
don't know.
He started on it because ofpain and it was in.
That's how easy what you justdescribed about yourself.
That's how easy and innocent itcan start.
Is that correct in saying it'slike no one is bored or no one,
I believe, says Okay, I'm goingto be an addict when I grow up,
(18:26):
or I'm going to be an alcoholic,or I'm going to do this and
that, and then it just startsinnocently and it just continues
in this downward spiral.
Is that how you felt at times?
Speaker 2 (18:42):
Yes, you know, you're exactly right.
In second grade, on career day,no one holds their hands up and
says you know, I want to be analcoholic or I want to be an
opiate addict, so you're exactlyright.
But once that door was open andmy alcohol consumption
increased, it was really just apath of least resistance, of
(19:06):
what I could do to stayfunctional and what I could do
to survive.
So I don't want to make itsound like I didn't have a
choice.
It was just that ease of accessI had to those pills made it
the easiest route of choice forme.
I had to.
Those pills made it the easiestroute of choice for me.
Speaker 1 (19:21):
Right, which happens, you know, with a lot of people
that I've interviewed and peoplethat I've known that to have
some sort of substance usedisorder.
I call it substance usedisorder.
Let's talk about that.
How can we as a society breakthe stigma of this so people do
(19:44):
not feel ashamed or guilty andthere's a thin line behold,
holding someone accountable forthe behavior of the addiction.
But I feel like to understandthe addiction, like you said,
like the science behind it.
It will give people, or oursociety, a little bit more
(20:05):
compassion and not judge peopleso harshly.
But yet some of the behaviorthat is displayed, I feel like
people need to be accountable.
Do you kind of see where I'mgoing with this?
It's kind of like a catch-22situation.
How do you feel about some ofthose statements I just made?
(20:26):
How can we end the stigma first?
Speaker 2 (20:29):
Well, I think by sticking with current and even
more progressive scientificliterature is exactly the way to
go.
You know, it would be real easyto put out stigma-related
statements for diabetes, foroverweight, for lung disease,
(20:50):
because many diseases patientsplay a part in that disease,
coming along by their behavior,by their behavior.
So with addiction, you know theword alcoholic, the word addict
, junkie, abuser tend to have anegative connotation.
(21:15):
Words are hurtful.
It's much better when wedescribe them for just what they
are Substance use disorder,habitual use, substance use
disorder, habitual use,overtaking of substances I mean
if it's done thoroughly, yetcompassionately, is the best
word.
You know I was thinking.
(21:35):
One of the things is whenever wego to do interventions, or
whether I see a patient withintervention, I don't look at
this any different than if I sawa skin cancer or a suspicious
skin cancer on your face.
I approach it with that samevigor and intensity.
(21:56):
Person or the family has donethe screening tools that we can
talk about and they have it.
I tell them not to give up anymore than they would if they
said, oh, I think that's amalignant melanoma on his
shoulder.
Well, you wouldn't just sweepit under the rug and say, no,
maybe it's a freckle you wouldget professional evaluation, so
(22:19):
this is no different.
We really advocate that peopleget professional evaluation.
Then maybe it turns out thatthey are just a light social
drinker and it was all a bighubbub, but that's not very
likely or the family wouldn'thave noticed the changes.
Speaker 1 (22:37):
Right.
What do you do when you want tocall in an interventionist and
you want to call in an addictionspecialist?
This is for someone that youlove very, very much and you see
the person struggling and yousee the daily fight, like moment
to moment, with an addiction,and I'm talking now an opioid
(23:01):
addiction, which I think is sostrongly, highly potent, whether
they're prescription or illicitdrugs.
But how can you encourage andlove that person through this
without enabling them?
And then also, how can you leada horse to water if they don't
(23:25):
want to drink, so to speak?
Speaker 2 (23:27):
Well, I understand exactly what you're saying.
In my years out of medicine Idid get trained in interventions
and did professionalinterventions for a few years.
It is difficult.
Once again, I take them back tothat same medical scenario.
If you had a patient who youwere suspicious, say you had a
(23:48):
sister who had a breast lump,you're suspicious of breast
cancer, but she just simply says, well, I'm not going, you
wouldn't give up on her.
That's what you have to do with, say, the opioid-addicted
patient.
You can't give up on them.
Where most families would failis that ultimately it may mean
(24:08):
loving, detachment or, you know,used to be called tough love.
But you said, how do you do itwithout supporting them?
You may have to say, well, youknow, if you choose, for example
, to keep this cancer and notseek medical care, then we're
going to have a break in ourrelationship and most people
(24:30):
have difficulty with that.
Obviously they love them.
You know, one of thedefinitions of codependency is
love, because that's what is theroot of it.
Codependency is love becausethat's what, that's what is the
root of it.
Speaker 1 (24:41):
Yeah, there's a there's a thin line between
codependency and interdependencyin all relationships actually,
and you do have to love andencourage him through it and not
be judgmental.
But then ultimately it seemsthat it's up to the person to
(25:02):
take that step and seek medicaldetox because I feel that's
what's needed and I'm sure youfeel that's what's needed, and
rehab and long term treatmentcenters, and let's talk about
that.
How long does it take if aperson who goes through all
(25:28):
those steps as far as to get outof active addiction into active
recovery, how long does it takefor the brain to heal if they
follow all those steps?
Is there a number of yearsattached to that or is there
like variables in there?
Speaker 2 (25:46):
Well, there are some variables, but you can find very
consistent that it's one to twoyears before this dopamine
reward system is going to heal,and primarily the prefrontal
cortex or the decision-makingportion of our brain.
One to two years.
So you know that old Minnesotamodel of 30 days rehab is
(26:10):
basically archaic.
If you just go for 30 days andyou go home and you expect to be
recovered, that would be nodifferent than putting a cast on
a broken leg for two weeks andsay you know what, we're going
to take this off and you go.
Well, that won't work, doctor,because it's going to take the
bone six to eight weeks to heal.
This is the same thing.
We need that sort of intensivetreatment for addiction for one
(26:35):
to two years.
Now, that doesn't mean we keepthem out of their home, but once
they do return to their home,we we still have cognitive
behavioral therapy, 12-stepmutual aid and possibly the most
important factor here is wehave random testing so that we
keep mind-altering substancesout of the body.
And that's the biggest failurewe see with laypeople treatment
(26:59):
in the United States.
We've figured that out when itcomes to doctors, nurses and
airline pilots, because that'sthe type of programs that we're
put in and we have 90% successrate.
But for the general publicthat's simply not in place yet.
Speaker 1 (27:17):
Do you feel like I know through the years that I
watched my loved one?
I feel like each year it'sgetting better and better.
There's more education aboutthis.
There's more awareness aboutthis.
The programs are getting better.
I still think there's a major,big need in this country, but do
(27:42):
you have hope about this?
I know you work in a treatmentcenter yourself and medical
detox with your patients.
Do you see a growing awarenessof this in our country that
people are starting to open upand there's more our country
(28:06):
that people are starting to openup and there's more avenues for
people and their families toseek this?
Do you see that or am I naiveabout it.
Speaker 2 (28:12):
No, I actually do see it and, to tell you the truth,
it mirrors almost any otherdisease that we've seen
progression in.
It mirrors almost any otherdisease that we've seen
progression in, you know, sinceI graduated medical school in
1982, that was right at thebeginning of the HIV AIDS crisis
, so I saw all the stigmaassociated with that.
(28:32):
Then, basically, the opening upof that to get more funding for
research made it a moremainstream disease and
ultimately we're at where we aretoday, which there's excellent
treatment and it doesn't shortenlives.
Today, that same type vigor andenthusiasm is starting in
(28:56):
addiction.
It's not there yet but, as yousaid, there's many, many avenues
now that are pursuing moreintense education, early
education and also advocacy fortreatment.
It's more understood by mostmajor companies now that this is
a disease and that, onceproperly treated, they can have
(29:19):
a better employee than they hadbefore.
Speaker 1 (29:23):
Yes, sir, as far as recovery treatment, what do you
feel like the components or theimportant components for someone
to have a high success rate?
Because, from what I understandand correct me if I'm wrong
there's a very high incidence ofrelapse and during recovery,
(29:45):
during active recovery.
So, with your experience, whatare the components that someone
has to follow through with inorder to have that high success
rate, and is this something thatthey live with every day of
their life?
Like you said, a lot of peopleI think falsely leave treatment
(30:08):
centers or recovery centers andthink, oh, I'm cured,
Everything's going to be fine, Ican go back to that lifestyle.
I can be doing this and I havefound personally in my loved
one's that wasn't the case.
So can you kind of elaborate onthat for my audience please?
Speaker 2 (30:27):
Yes, and you know the perfect analogy that I use with
patients is the treatment ofhigh blood pressure, treatment
of hypertension.
I did family medicine for 26years.
It was not unusual at all forme to see a patient diagnose
them with hypertension, startthe medication, ask them to come
back in a month and see them.
(30:48):
They came back in a month.
Pressure's good.
I say okay, any questions?
Here's your six-month refillson your medication.
Come back and see me in sixmonths.
Patient comes back in sixmonths.
Blood pressure sky high, I go.
(31:10):
What happened?
He goes.
You know, I just didn't think Ineeded that.
Addiction is actually nodifferent.
It's very important thatinitially they get a good
professional evaluation so thatthey can see what level of care
they go in.
Maybe they don't need detox,maybe they don't have enough
comorbidities to requireresidential treatment, maybe
they don't need sober living.
But the big thing is they'vegot to have treatment for two
(31:33):
years.
We've got to keep mind-alteringsubstances out of them and
that's the advantage tomonitoring when you're
monitoring one slip, even ifit's not their drug of choice.
Maybe they were opiate addictedand they smoked cannabis.
Maybe they were methamphetamine, they drank some beer.
We still need to know itbecause then we can intervene at
(31:57):
a much less intense level ofcare.
So, always with patientsparallel to hypertension,
because hypertension, still inthe United States today, is very
difficult to treat because itrequires so much patient
compliance.
That's what addiction treatmentrequires patient compliance.
But you know, most of the timewith this 30-day model of
(32:20):
treatment and then send you toyour local AA group is not
enough accountability.
Speaker 1 (32:27):
No, I agree with that .
That's why I highly recommendyour book, so people can
understand the science behindthis.
I assume do you consider this abrain disease.
Speaker 2 (32:41):
Oh, absolutely.
You know.
No different than the dopaminereward system is dysregulated.
No different than the glucoseinsulin system and diabetes, the
renin-angiotensin system andhypertension.
This is a bodily system thatbecomes dysregulated, results in
a disease.
However, with appropriatetreatment and management, the
(33:05):
disease can go into remission.
Now I never want patients toget confused.
Remission does that mean I cango over here and drink some beer
now?
No, it doesn't.
It means my brain's healedenough now that I actually make
good decisions and know that.
I'm one of the one in 10 peoplein the world it's not a good
idea to drink and drug.
I'm one of the one in 10 peoplein the world it's not a good
(33:28):
idea to drink and drug.
Speaker 1 (33:35):
Yet I did it for 30 years because I was making poor
decisions because of my braindisease.
Speaker 2 (33:41):
Well, I don't think there's anyone on this planet
that has not made a bad decisionin their life.
No-transcript.
Speaker 1 (34:03):
It is impossible.
And I'm going to throwsomething else at you, since you
brought that up.
I think this is one thing thatneeds to change in this country.
Say, for instance and thishappened firsthand with with my
son he overdosed and we use theword overdosed and he was taken
to an.
First he was shot with four orfive shots of Narcan, brought
(34:24):
him back to life.
First, he was shot with four orfive shots of Narcan, brought
him back to life.
The sheriff told me that, takento an emergency room.
I'm thinking, oh my goodness,okay, he's in the hospital now.
They're going to take care ofhim.
They're going to know that hehas a highly addictive you know
he's highly addicted to theseopioids and heroin at the time
(34:45):
and you know whatever else andso they left the decision up to
him.
They left this hardcoredecision up to him.
They did not offer himtreatment, they just talked to
him, where me, as a mother,thought, oh my goodness, they're
going to do something now orthey're going to help him or
(35:06):
offer something.
But they left this harddecision up to him and he walked
out of that emergency room.
He refused any sort of help andtreatment.
So I know that's because of theHIPAA laws, but is that
something that can that you feelneeds to be changed in this
country, because the loved oneshave their hands tied and
(35:30):
they're leaving this importantdecision up to somebody who
isn't capable of making thisdecision to save their life?
Do you understand what I'mtrying to convey?
Speaker 2 (35:40):
Yes, I do and most states have some sort of legal
alternatives to follow.
Here In Florida it's called theMarchman Act, other states it
may be called something else,but anyway it's a substance use
disorder, involuntary treatment.
Now it results to start withjust an involuntary evaluation.
(36:03):
But see, that would be thestart of the treatment anyway.
So I always told family youknow, should I pursue that?
And I said of course you should.
You know, I still remember oneintervention I did back in
Alabama.
A gentleman was drinking.
His sisters actually called mein to do the intervention and he
(36:23):
was drinking significantly.
He had alcoholic cardiomyopathy, so severe drinking and his
life really depended on it.
He refused.
He refused to go.
After the family intervention,after the letters, after all the
loving pleading, he still toldthem no.
They asked me what our nextstep is and I said you need to
(36:45):
call law enforcement.
He just left here to drive homeand he's intoxicated and they
said, oh no, we can't do that.
He'll never speak to us again.
I told them pretty soon he'snot going to speak to you again
anyway.
Speaker 1 (36:59):
Well, I want to let you know something.
I was going to do that and Iwas going to go to the county,
the sheriff's department, and Ispoke to them and they told me
about what needed to be done.
They had to go, arrest my sonand then take him to the
hospital and talk to apsychiatrist, an interventionist
(37:22):
, a medical doctor, be evaluated, and they would hold him for 72
hours.
But then I was told if he couldstill walk after 72 hours.
So actually, when I spoke tothe sheriff's department here
locally, they kind of talked meout of doing that to be quite
(37:42):
honest with you, out of doingthat to be quite honest with you
, because they said, well,they're going to let him go
anyway.
So do you understand what I'msaying?
That's what happened in mystate.
I don't know if they've changedit in the last four years, but
that's what happened.
Speaker 2 (37:58):
It needs perfected in every state.
But even three years ago, inthe two years I spent at the
University of Florida, wemarksman acted many patients and
kept them for 90 days.
The judge had that ability oncewe showed evidence.
Now patients can have a show,cause hearing and go up in front
(38:18):
of the judge where both sidespresent their cases.
But we kept many patients for90 days, which in itself wasn't
still enough, but it was surebetter than 72 hours you're
talking about.
Yes, sir, and yes, and I knowwhat you're saying having them
arrested, go through that trauma, go through that embarrassment
(38:41):
of being involuntary andcommitted.
It does seem like a horriblething.
I understand that, but whenwe're talking about a deadly
illness, it's necessary.
Speaker 1 (38:53):
Well, I would have done it in a heartbeat if I knew
that they would have kept himand they still left the decision
up to him to walk.
You know what I mean.
Speaker 2 (39:02):
Yeah, but see the true involuntary commitment.
For substance use disorder isthe decision to leave not left
up to the patient, it's left upto the addiction professional.
Speaker 1 (39:15):
Well, I hope they've changed that here in the state
that I live in Because, like Isaid, this was four years ago
and yes, sir, I knew all aboutit.
I was ready to do it and theytalked me out of not doing it
because they said that he wouldwalk.
They couldn't keep him againsthis will.
That was what was told to me.
(39:35):
But anyway, let me ask yousomething.
You know my podcast deals withthe fatal facts of fentanyl.
So, in your experience as adoctor, tell me what you feel
about illicit fentanyl.
Are you seeing a rise in this?
Has illicit fentanyl beenaround?
From what I understand, it'sbeen around at least four years
(39:56):
and people are highly addictedto it.
Tell me your experience aboutillicit fentanyl and how you
think about this or what youthink about it.
Speaker 2 (40:07):
It certainly was just a game changer For at least the
last couple of years.
Most of my opiate patients thatI've admitted to detox or to
residential rehab did not evenknow that it was fentanyl they
were getting.
They were buying these pressedpills that they thought were
oxycodone 30s or they thoughtthey were Xanax bars.
(40:29):
They did not even know theywere fentanyl.
The degree of strength of thatfentanyl just varies on how much
it was cut.
It may be thousands of timesstronger than morphine or heroin
, or it may not be.
Simply, there's no qualitycontrol among the illicit drug
world.
With the massive escalation inoverdose deaths that we've had
(40:54):
93,000 in the US, and that's alow number, because many died
that we don't know why and itprobably was opiate overdose
we're starting to get some moreattention to the illicit pills.
The DEA sent out several emailsand newsletters focused on
(41:16):
these pressed pills, as theycall them that.
They look like the prescriptionpills, but they're not.
They're fentanyl.
So the fentanyl entering themarket has been a game changer
and we certainly saw a lot ofoverdose deaths with OxyContin,
with Oxycodone and Xanax, andthen mixtures with alcohol also,
(41:39):
but nothing like we're seeingnow.
Speaker 1 (41:42):
Yes, sir, it seems like the illicit fentanyl has
changed the paradigm of drug usein this country.
The way I look at it, I'vetalked to several experts about
this and also people who havelost loved ones to this it seems
like there are three kind ofscenarios for this, and you can
correct me if I'm wrong or addanother scenario if you know of
(42:05):
one.
But it seems like we've got theseasoned.
I call them the seasoned users,the people that do knowingly
know that they are buyingfentanyl and they are ingesting
fentanyl, and there's differentways to ingest it, of course.
And then you've got the peopleyou said that feel like maybe
(42:25):
they're buying an oxy cotton, Iguess roxy's, is that what
they're called?
M30s?
Whatever, is that what they'recalled?
yeah, yeah okay, there's so much, so many terminologies, but, um
, or they might be thinkingthey're buying cocaine, or do it
buying a xanax or heroin, eveneven even though I've read and
(42:47):
heard that heroin is the mostobsolete now because of the
fentanyl.
But anyway, they kind of aredeceived.
All of a sudden they're dyingfrom ingesting straight fentanyl
instead of like thinkingthey're doing a line of cocaine.
And then you've got, like yousaid, the press counterfeit
pills.
Now, this, all of it, breaks myheart.
But the press counterfeit pillsthink they're buying Percocet
(43:12):
or Aroxi or something, andthey're almost being groomed by
(43:35):
known dealers on Snapchat let'sjust say Snapchat and they are
sold or given something and allof a sudden they're dying.
I mean, it's crazy in thiscountry.
Do you know of any otherscenario that I'm forgetting?
Speaker 2 (43:52):
or not mentioning.
That's actually a very goodsynopsis that you said.
We have the severely addictedsubstance use disorder patient
who intended on fentanyl, hashigh tolerance, injects fentanyl
, smokes it or snorts it.
They have a large physicaldependence.
They get very sick If theydon't take it.
(44:13):
That would be the first levelyou described.
And also heroin simply isn'tavailable anymore.
Most of the patients, I admit,here in South Florida don't test
positive for heroin or opiate,they test positive for fentanyl.
The second level would, as yousaid, maybe they just intended
to party some but they've usedenough opiates.
(44:36):
They may have withdrawal andthey thought they were getting a
Percocet or Xanax or some pillthat came from the pharmacy but
it's not.
And then, even as you said, thescariest level to me is the
bachelorette party or thebachelor party where maybe they
took a Xanax when they were incollege or something and
(45:01):
celebrating this weekend theythought they were going to do
some cocaine and take a Xanaxand you know they have no
tolerance for this very powerfulopiate and they die on the spot
.
Speaker 1 (45:15):
So, with all that being said, do you feel that
these should be?
These deaths should bedescribed as overdoses or
poisoning.
Speaker 2 (45:30):
You know that's excellent to even bring it up in
that light.
I had just read today that thisshould be looked at as a
national security issue.
You know, no different thansomeone were attacking our
country with chemical warfare.
Speaker 1 (45:47):
Exactly, it does seem to be that way chemical warfare
, and it's like you said.
I think the numbers I believelast year, in 2020, were 94,000.
And I don't know how many ofthat is illicit fentanyl.
I've read so many differentthings 50, 60, 70, 80 percent
(46:08):
but I think the numbers are alot higher and I think in 2021,
they're going to be a lot higher.
I don't know how accurate theinformation is, but I just feel
like it's going to escalate andkeep escalating.
Is that how you think, or feel?
Speaker 2 (46:21):
Yes, you know, I think it has to be approached as
any national security problem.
When you think or feel, yes,you know, I think it has to be
approached as any nationalsecurity problem.
Would you know?
I think back on how we'veapproached terrorism.
So we both did more screeningat the sites.
We've done more screening atthe borders.
I think addiction hasparticularly the fentanyl
(46:43):
problem, the opioid crisis hasto be addressed.
The same way, we need toenhance our abilities so it
doesn't get into the country,but at the same time, don't
overlook its marketplace.
These patients who have avulnerable dopamine reward
system, no matter where they fitin that spectrum of people who
(47:04):
are going to use them we justdescribed all those three
scenarios need treatment andwe've got to make that treatment
available and offer you know, Iwon't say necessarily pay these
people to do it, but offer arewarding lifestyle that they
can see.
They need some incentive for it.
Speaker 1 (47:24):
Yes, I see that.
And the road, the journey withaddiction and the stigma
attached to it, a lot of peoplecannot get jobs.
So, yeah, they do need to berewarded, they need some
incentive to work towards tobetter their life, to better
themselves, to better their life, to better themselves.
Not necessarily all thepunishment, or I think you know
(47:50):
what I'm saying because you livethis yourself.
Speaker 2 (47:54):
You live this yourself, yeah, and I advocate
for a term called contingencymanagement.
It's that all of these fruitsof my recovery don't continue if
I don't have negative drugscreen tests.
So you know, instead of that ohmy God, you know what Mom's
driving me crazy?
She's making me give urinespecimens four times a year,
(48:18):
next year or something.
But those come with a rewardthat, yeah, not only that, but
your car insurance is cheaper,your college tuition is cheaper,
your college tuition is cheaper, but all of the fruits that go
with that mind-alteringsubstance free become more
readily apparent to them.
And that the testing is notlooked at as a penalty, which is
(48:40):
what it's looked at now.
Speaker 1 (48:43):
Yes, it is Well.
You have come a long way.
I just I don't want to give toomuch about your book because I
really want people to buy it.
I bought mine on Amazon I'mgoing to put plug in there about
Amazon but I really learned somuch from your book and it
really opened my eyes.
I loved reading about yourfirsthand experience with this
(49:06):
yourself and what was involved,and also your colleague Dr Hunt.
Is that correct?
Speaker 2 (49:13):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (49:14):
That's Jason Hunt, and you both were medical
doctors and you both sufferedwith this for years and it
changed your life and you had todo some really soul searching
and hard work to get your lifeback.
You both lost your medicallicenses over this.
Is that correct?
Speaker 2 (49:34):
Yes, it is.
Speaker 1 (49:36):
And then you worked and did what you had to do and
got it back.
My goodness, god bless you both.
I mean, I used to tell my sonyou're like the strongest person
I know Because I saw his battle.
You know every day with thisand this is something that you
live with the rest of your lifeand it is a battle.
(49:59):
Is that correct?
Speaker 2 (50:01):
Well, additionally, yes, it is, but it actually with
appropriate and proper care andcompliance of the patient, most
of us believe this day, thedisease goes into remission.
I look at it no different thanI use the example of a breast
cancer patient.
Quite often I have a breastcancer patient.
(50:22):
They have a lumpectomy, aradiation chemotherapy and 15
years later they're good.
Now that doesn't mean they stopdoing mammograms.
That doesn't mean they stopdoing breast exams.
That doesn't mean they startsmoking cigarettes.
That means they start drinkingalcohol, they start going to the
tan and bed anything that wouldbe increased risk factor for
(50:43):
cancer.
So the same now.
I'm sure my disease is inremission today, but I go to a
wedding, I make plans.
I don't drink champagne.
You know if I go to the sportsbar for Buffalo Wings, you know
I have Diet Coke.
I have a lemonade.
You know Mexican restaurant,you know it's frozen lemonade,
(51:10):
not a margarita.
And that doesn't happen byaccident.
That happened by goodscientific medical care and,
importantly, compliance withtreatment.
I have to have that frompatients.
So that's why I need thefamilies involved, because it's
not them nagging them, it's justhelping me ensure compliance.
Speaker 1 (51:30):
Exactly Right.
Nagging doesn't help anything.
Speaker 2 (51:36):
But help.
You know they call that theirsober support network.
Their sober support network,you know, would be involved.
And when you're going out withthese 10 guys that you went to
high school with and all you allever did was drink and smoke
pot, what do you think you'regoing to do with those guys
tonight?
What would you possibly have incommon with them?
And if you say, well, I do haveto meet them, et cetera, then
(52:00):
I'm going to take a sober friend, I'm going to have extra
accountability and even say youknow what?
You get a pee in this cup whenyou get home too.
Speaker 1 (52:11):
And if they say no to that, that's a problem.
So you're more aware,definitely, and more conscious
about all of this, and that'swhat it takes right.
Speaker 2 (52:21):
Education is the pathway out of this one.
Speaker 1 (52:24):
Yes, sir, I believe education is the pathway out of
this one.
Yes, sir, I believe educationis power.
Speaker 2 (52:27):
What seems to be a voluntary disease is actually
not because of all the socialpressures.
You know I had that phrase inmy book that in this country
alcohol is not just sociallyacceptable, it's socially
expected.
You're right that has to change.
Speaker 1 (52:43):
You're right, yeah, it does has to change.
Speaker 2 (52:46):
You're right.
Yeah, it does have to change.
Teens get peer pressure bulliedinto alcohol and cannabis.
Speaker 1 (52:52):
Most definitely Peer pressure is a major thing, and
now nowadays it's pill parties.
They're pressured into takingpills.
It's just not.
I mean, it used to be justsmoking cigarettes or drinking a
couple beers.
That has changed a long timeago.
Peer pressure has a lot to dowith it.
Yes, sir, well gosh, charles, Icould talk to you all night and
(53:15):
you're just a wealth ofinformation and I just want to
thank you for being sotransparent with your own story
about your journey and I wantyou to know that you are so
loved and appreciated in doingso and in also helping to make a
difference with others withtheir continued battle with this
.
And if you are my audience, ifyou or a loved one is struggling
(53:38):
with addiction, you'll findhelp in Dr Smith and Dr Hunt's
book, and it is called again,understanding Addiction, no
Science, which is K-N-O-W, andto no Stigma.
Let's end the stigma.
It's up to us as individuals toend the stigma in this country,
and when one understands thescience behind addiction, one
(54:00):
can begin to move forward,because beyond stigma, there's
always hope.
There still lies hope, andthank you, charles, I really do
appreciate it.
I hope we can possibly interviewsome time again in the future.
Okay, okay, it's been apleasure, thank you.
Speaker 2 (54:20):
Take care.
Speaker 1 (54:20):
Bye, thank you.
Popular Podcasts
United States of Kennedy
United States of Kennedy is a podcast about our cultural fascination with the Kennedy dynasty. Every week, hosts Lyra Smith and George Civeris go into one aspect of the Kennedy story.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com