The ‘Rat Park’: Is The Way We Treat Drug Addiction Wrong?

Drug addiction comes at a significant cost to society – both in monetary and human terms.

Researchers estimate that up to 872 deaths can be attributed to illegal drug use each year, while the cost of treating those who are drug-affected is in the vicinity of $2.12 billion per year.

Of this money, around $298 million is spent treating drug users through rehabilitation programs and pharmacological methods.

But researchers have argued that there is little basis to justify the way Australia and other nations approach drug addiction – finding ‘little evidence’ that current rehabilitation regimes work in the long term.

The Problem With Rehabilitation

Traditionally, drug rehabilitation services focused on weaning people off highly addictive drugs such as heroin and ice.

However, like many other things, drugs tend to come in and out of fashion – and one of the most common drugs currently used by those seeking treatment is cannabis; second only to ice.

Other commonly abused drugs are legal highs such as nitrous oxide and steroids.

But according to researchers, rehabilitation programs have failed to develop specific programs to tackle these changing trends in addiction – and many services prescribe the same treatment plans and goals for every patient, despite scientific research showing that ‘no single treatment is appropriate for everyone,’ and stressing the importance of tailoring plans to individual needs and circumstances.

Treating those who regularly use ‘less harmful’ drugs such as cannabis alongside people trying to overcome heroin and ice addiction is, they say, futile, and can even be counterproductive.

Adding to this problem is evidence from the US which shows that many rehabilitation services are manned by people who do not have any formal training or qualifications to deal with drug affected people.

According to some experts, addiction psychiatrists are a rarity in these environments, with many services instead staffed by counsellors or other non-specialists.

This is despite the fact that research indicates that those who are drug addicted also often have underlying mental health issues – and that treating such conditions is necessary for a successful rehabilitation.

The Root of Addiction

Besides these problems, another criticism of our current approach to rehabilitation is that it fails to address the root of addiction.

What, you might ask, is the root of addiction?

Well, according to one Canadian psychologist, it isn’t the drugs themselves.

In the 1970’s, Bruce K. Alexander, a psychologist and researcher at Simon Fraser University in Canada sought to understand what causes addiction.

He theorised that addiction is not due to the addictive properties of drugs, but rather a flow-on effect of ‘distress’ – and that people experiencing distress turn to drugs to relieve their pain.

So how did Alexander test his theory?

Using lab rats, of course – a move that would undoubtedly enrage those against animal testing.

Alexander built a massive 95 square foot rat cage, nicknamed ‘Rat Park.’

The Park was a kind of rat-heaven – 16-20 rats were free to eat as much as they pleased, play on an abundance of rat-friendly toys, and roam the vast expanse of the cage.

But Rat Park had a sinister twist – instead of supplying the rats with pure water, Alexander and his colleagues offered the rats a choice between water and water containing morphine.

Alexander found that despite the available options, the rats generally opted for the plain water.

Like any experiment, there was also a control group of rats who were kept in smaller, much less luxurious cages.

Incredibly, when presented with the water/morphine-water choice, these rats tended to choose the morphine-water.

Alexander concluded that addiction is based largely on a subject’s environment – and that those from poorer socio-economic environments, with less social supports, are more likely to succumb to addiction when compared to those from higher socioeconomic, more supportive backgrounds.

But a word of caution – Alexander has been criticised for distorting the data in order to provoke a public debate about addiction, and numerous other experiments have failed to replicate his results.

However, research from other sources tends to support Alexander’s general theory.

For instance, many US soldiers who fought in the Vietnam War became addicted to heroin, but only 5% of those continued their drug habits when they returned to the US.

As one journalist notes, ‘They shifted from a terrifying cage back to a pleasant one, so didn’t want the drug anymore.’

By way of parallel, it is noted that there is often little support for recovering addicts once they leave luxurious rehabilitation centres and return home.

It is noted that, once confronted with the pressures of life, there is a great risk that they will relapse.

So how can we better help addicts?

Alexander’s theory suggests that rather than just funding rehabilitation programs, governments should invest in longer term community support services such as housing and employment programs in order to increase the prospects of long term abstinence from drugs..

And although rehabilitation programs are certainly important, they can better assist drug users by developing tailored treatment plans relevant to their particular circumstances, including the nature and level of their drug use.

Of course, all of this costs money – something that is hard to come by in the wake of recent funding cuts to drug rehabilitation programs.

But perhaps with a better understanding of drug addiction, the investment will be worth it in the longer term – reducing the problems associated with abuse.