UCI researchers identify a connection between early life adversity and opioid addiction:
[Note: UCI is the University of California, Irvine. --Ed.]
Published in Molecular Psychiatry, the study titled, "On the early life origins of vulnerability to opioid addiction," examines how early adversities interact with factors such as increased access to opioids to directly influence brain development and function, causing a higher potential for opioid addiction.
"We already know that genetics plays a major role in addiction vulnerability. But, this factor alone cannot account for the recent exponential rise in opioid abuse," said Tallie Z. Baram, MD, PhD, the Danette Shepard Chair in Neurological Sciences at the UCI School of Medicine and one of the senior researchers for the study. "Our team was determined to find out if environmental factors, like early life adversity, were contributing."
Until now, it was unclear whether alterations of the maturation and function of pleasure/reward circuits in the brain, resulting from ELA, actually caused individuals to be more vulnerable to opioid use disorder.
[...] For this study, researchers simulated ELA in rats by limiting bedding and nesting materials during a short, postnatal period of time. In female rats, this led to striking opioid addiction-like characteristics including an increased relapse-like behavior. Remarkably, as observed in addicted humans, the rats were willing to work very hard (pay a very high price) to obtain the drug.
"Our study provided novel insights into potential origins and nature of a reward circuit malfunction in the brain," said Baram. "Ultimately, we found that conditions during sensitive developmental periods can lead to vulnerability to the addictive effects of opioid drugs, especially in females, which is consistent with the prevalence of ELA in heroin addicted women."
Journal Reference:
Sophia C. Levis, Brandon S. Bentzley, Jenny Molet, Jessica L. Bolton, Christina R. Perrone, Tallie Z. Baram, Stephen V. Mahler. On the early life origins of vulnerability to opioid addiction. Molecular Psychiatry, 2019; DOI: 10.1038/s41380-019-0628-5
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 28 2020, @04:16PM (3 children)
explaining why poor people are more hooked on drugs in general?
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 28 2020, @06:20PM (2 children)
Not really - why would adversity only affect poor people? I've known many people that died from heroin overdoses and came from wealthy but broken homes. The only poor kids that could afford drugs when I was at school were the ones selling them to the rich kids.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday January 28 2020, @06:47PM (1 child)
> only
Steady on - argue the point made, not an exageration of it.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 29 2020, @01:37AM
I went to a private school and had stopped taking drugs by the age most poor kids were starting. My first (anorexic) girlfriend died of a heroine overdose, no thanks to her wife-beating, coke-snorting, sun glasses adorned, sports car driving father - psychopath! Abuse knows no class.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 28 2020, @04:31PM (15 children)
The U.S. always seems breathlessly amazed when piles upon piles of research sort out that maybe raising the floor of just how shitty life should be for millions of people might, perhaps, alleviate most of the social ills that seem to disproportionately plague this country more than others that aren’t complete hopeless shitholes.
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 28 2020, @06:01PM
No. A shit-stained junkie is going to be a shit-stained junkie and that's all there is to it. There are plenty of places in the world that are so bad they make Detroit or Baltimore slums look like an amusement park. Oddly, those terrible places aren't 100% junkies.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Immerman on Tuesday January 28 2020, @06:02PM (13 children)
Of course we are! Unrestrained Capitalism is the best of all possible economic systems. So sayeth the almighty Dollar from It's throne on high. You're not one of the heretics are you? Perhaps you've heard we got religious freedom here? You're free to worship The Dollar and the glory of the Divine Superiortiy of the Rich in any way you please. But every once in a while "scientists" like these start trying to claim there might be negative consequences to The Divine Order. Obvious they have fallen to the darkness, and it's always shocking to see such depravity from otherwise intelligent people.
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 28 2020, @06:11PM (12 children)
If our economic system were anything resembling "unrestrained capitalism", the banks would have been allowed to fail in 2008 instead of being bailed out by the government.
(Score: 5, Touché) by FatPhil on Tuesday January 28 2020, @06:49PM (11 children)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 28 2020, @07:14PM (5 children)
So a central banking system that effectively can't fail because of protection from a centralized federal government is a feature of unrestrained capitalism, a system of finance which emphasizes as little government interference in the economy as possible.
Makes perfect sense.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday January 28 2020, @08:57PM (4 children)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 28 2020, @09:08PM (3 children)
The Federal Reserve is a central bank, the fact that the federal government has ceded its constitutional authority to issue money to a non-government entity has nothing to do with whether or not it's a central bank.
You still haven't addressed how the government providing economic assurance to private players is compatible with a philosophy that emphasizes government non-intervention in the economy. You know that "invisible hand" Adam Smith kept talking about? Ponder for a second on what the word "invisible" means in this context.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 29 2020, @12:54AM
Not what you think it means, for starts. Smith wasn’t a bloody anarcho-capitalist nitwit.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by sjames on Wednesday January 29 2020, @09:48AM
Ponder that Smith cautioned against handing out corporate charters except in the most extreme circumstances and advised that then the crarter corporation be kept on a very short leash and held strictly to it's charter. Ponder also that he advised that markets would need significant regulation to keep them working.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Friday January 31 2020, @10:07AM
... something that I wasn't even attempting to address. Read my post and what it's a response to.
Stop attempting to drag me into an irrelevant argument of your own making, troll.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by Arik on Tuesday January 28 2020, @07:23PM (4 children)
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2, Interesting) by FatPhil on Tuesday January 28 2020, @09:01PM (3 children)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 28 2020, @09:15PM (2 children)
So when issues are caused by lack of government intervention, that's capitalism. When issues are caused by improper government intervention, that's also capitalism. When big business has too much power: capitalism. When government has too much power: capitalism. Hell, I guess the USSR's Gosbank and FDR's National Recovery Administration were great forces of capitalism too.
Words have meanings, and you've demonstrated throughout this conversation that you don't know or recognize them.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday January 29 2020, @04:08AM
Welcome to the concept of state capitalism [soylentnews.org].
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Friday January 31 2020, @10:04AM
You're having an argument with yourself.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 5, Funny) by DannyB on Tuesday January 28 2020, @08:03PM (5 children)
I've taken prescription opioid narcotic pain killers for occasional use for more than eleven years now. I haven't gotten into any trouble with it yet.
When I need them, (as Tony the Tiger sez...) They're Great!
When I don't need them, I leave them alone.
I think a major factor in avoiding addiction is that I'm happy enough with my life that I don't need to medicate myself with drugs -- except sometimes for physical pain. You get older, have more accomplishments, fewer goals. Finally, eventually only the one goal of getting modded funny.
The people who rely on government handouts and refuse to work should be kicked out of congress.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 28 2020, @08:51PM
Yes, a combination of fortitude and fortuitousness tends to make life suck just sufficiently less to avoid quite a few problems, but the trick is remembering it takes both in fairly perpetual, uninterrupted supply, which is quite a bit less common a condition than people seem to imagine.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 28 2020, @09:01PM (2 children)
You're caucasian?
(Score: 3, Funny) by DannyB on Tuesday January 28 2020, @09:29PM (1 child)
Yes. But not by choice.
The people who rely on government handouts and refuse to work should be kicked out of congress.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 29 2020, @08:10AM
Funny for now, but I think after picking your gender becomes more common place as the current crop of kids grow up, the next thing people will go after is being able to pick is your race.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 28 2020, @09:13PM
Why different? Your singular experience appears to agree with the article. The study in TFS seems all about the effects of early adversity on addiction, not the drug itself. Closest you get to address the cause is “happy enough” which places your case in the little or no early adversity camp.
(Score: 2) by Username on Wednesday January 29 2020, @01:34AM (1 child)
In humans, those in a lazy mood will be slow about everything while in that mood. Those that are motivated will work hard at everything while motivated. This probably applies to all animals. So, I have a feeling rats deprived of something and have to work hard to succeed will continue to work hard to achieve other things, since they're used to the workload.
Also, as always, if someone wants to do drugs, just let them. We don't need anymore laws, it's hard enough getting medicine, just let them make meth. Drugs laws are hurting my health and pocketbook, and that is unacceptable.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 29 2020, @08:17AM
If drugs were legal again, most of the food companies would put them into their food to increase their addictiveness. They already do as much as possible to keep you grabbing another one. The science that goes into processed food is amazing. Allowing the currently illegal drugs into the mix would make everything so much worse. All food companies would jump on it as if they don't they'll quickly be left behind in sales. Remember, Coke was named Coke for a reason, it contained cocaine.
I agree the drug laws are pretty bad, but we shouldn't just drop them.