Former U.S. Congressman Jim Ramstad has joined Hazelden as a policy advisor on issues relating to addiction, treatment and recovery. In addition to health care reform, his main focus will be on the implementation of a new law that will increase access to addiction and mental health treatment through private insurance.

According to Mark Mishek, president and CEO of Hazelden, Ramstad has been nothing short of a “tireless advocate” for those who struggle with addiction.

“His personal passion and his legislative leadership will help not just Hazelden, but our entire field, at a crucial time in the public policy arena,” Mishek said.

Ramstad was a chief co-sponsor of the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act, which was signed into law in October of 2008 but will take full effect this year. The law ends discriminatory insurance restrictions by making addiction and mental illness as entitled to health coverage as other physical illness, and requiring most insurance plans to provide equal coverage for both.

“My experience in Washington taught me there is still a long way to go to convince our elected officials that addiction to alcohol or other drugs is America’s number one health problem,” Ramstad said. 

Ramstad, who served in the Minnesota Legislature from 1981-1990, looks forward to joining the “renowned Hazelden,” and hopes that together, “they can change the terms of the debate for the sake of those still suffering from the disease of addiction.”

The Obama Administration has requested $15.5 billion for the nation’s drug control budget in fiscal year (FY) 2011, up $521.1 million from FY 2010. Prevention and treatment programs saw the most change from this boost, with a 13.4 percent increase in spending on alcohol and drug prevention programs and a 3.7 percent increase for addiction treatment. 

Although many addiction treatment advocates welcomed the increased funding for the prevention side, which has seen declining budgets in recent years, some groups were critical of the budget plan, which allocates 64 percent of the funding for the supply reduction side – with modest increases in spending on law enforcement and interdiction programs – and the remaining 36 percent for demand-reduction programs, such as treatment and prevention programs. 

“This nation must stop blaming source countries for our problems and face the fact that we can do more to reduce drug use by focusing on treatment, prevention and diversion programs,” said drug budget and policy expert John Carnevale.

The FY 2011 Drug Control Budget allocates $151.1 million for the creation of a national, community-based prevention system to protect adolescents, the improvement of specialty addiction care and the development of efficient ways to manage drug-related offenders. 

In addition, a new program called “Successful, Safe and Healthy Students” is set to replace the Department of Education’s Safe and Drug-Free Schools program, with the intention of creating “an improved school climate that reduces drug use.” The new program will receive $283 million under the Obama plan - $107 million more than the SFDS program received in FY 2010 – and will be awarded on a competitive basis. 

Patrick Kennedy is the son of the late renowned Senator Edward Kennedy, and is the only Kennedy in public office today. He made a name for himself by speaking openly about his problems with alcoholism, drug addiction, and depression, and he has been a notable advocate for the mentally ill.  But now, on February 12, five months after his father's death, Kennedy announced that he is finished with the political lifestyle and will not be running for re-election.

Kennedy made the news when he crashed his car outside the U.S. Capitol in 2006.  Since then, he has been in and out of a drug and alcohol addiction center in Maryland. Kennedy came back to Congress by pushing for a bill to require insurance companies to provide coverage for mental health treatment equivalent to the coverage for physical illnesses. The bill was signed into law in 2008.

"It feels like a load off my shoulders," said Kennedy after announcing his retirement. "I'll have a private life and a personal life that heretofore I really haven't experienced. I am looking forward to it."

Kennedy got into politics while he was still in college, and his first elected job was as a member of the Rhode Island Legislature. He would have been seeking a ninth term in Congress this fall if he had chosen to run again. He lived his life in the shadow of his family's political legacy, often struggling to live up to his father's expectations.

"You just have to take an extra pound of grief if you are a Kennedy," said veteran Boston Democratic strategist Dan Payne. "It helps open doors, sure, but you are always measured against the other Kennedys; that's a tough load to carry."

Once Patrick Kennedy leaves Congress, it will be the first time in sixty years that there will not be a Kennedy in office in Washington.

Others in the Kennedy family have brought about change without holding office, however. Some Kennedys have become activists, getting involved with such campaigns as promoting the Special Olympics, protecting the environment, and fighting fetal alcohol syndrome. Kennedy said his father agreed that you don't have to hold public office to make a difference. 

It is possible that Patrick Kennedy's older brother, Edward Kennedy Jr., may continue the family dynasty by running for office. The Connecticut attorney said he is considering getting into politics but has no immediate plans to.

Usually when people think of improving heart health, activities such as exercising regularly, refraining from smoking, and eating fruits and vegetables come to mind. So, it may come as a surprise that more and more studies are adding moderate drinking of alcohol to that list. But before celebrating the news by downing a six-pack, drinkers should consider recent findings that emphasize the dangers associated with binge drinking.

Pooling data from 14 previous studies, researchers found that those who drank heavily every so often were 45 percent more likely to develop coronary heart disease, which is where plaque buildup in the heart arteries impedes the flow of blood and oxygen. In this case, occasional heavy drinking was defined as having five or more drinks in a day at least a dozen times per year.

In contrast, a number of studies have found that moderate drinking — one or two drinks per day — is related to lower risks of heart disease. Hence, the findings, as reported in the American Journal of Epidemiology, suggest that binge drinking, even at irregular intervals, may actually undo any heart benefits of lighter drinking.

The study essentially reinforces the message that "not all alcohol consumption is good for health," said Michael Roerecke, lead researcher of the Center for Addiction and Mental Health in Toronto, Canada.

He added that drinking — sometimes even at moderate levels — has been linked to elevated risk of cancers of the throat, stomach, colon, breast and liver, for instance.

Roerecke said it is best to avoid binges altogether — not only because of the possible heart effects, but also because of more-immediate risks, like accidents and violence.

It is well-known by the scientific community that drinking promotes the development of cancer, but until recently, researchers have been uncertain about exactly how alcohol affects cancer cells. A new study out of Rush University Medical Center may shed some light on the subject. The results of the study are published in the January 2010 issue of Alcoholism: Clinical & Experimental Research, and they are currently available at Early View.

Research suggests that a cellular pathway called epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT) is stimulated by alcohol, which would mean that alcohol-induced cancer cells become more resistant and spread throughout the body more quickly than cancer cells do under normal circumstances.

“EMT is an active area of cancer research, and growing evidence supports a role for EMT during cancer progression and metastases for several cancer types, but previously not for alcohol-associated cancers,” explained Christopher B. Forsyth, assistant professor of medicine and biochemistry at Rush University Medical Center, who co-authored the study with alcohol researcher Ali Keshavarzian. 

According to Forsyth, these alcohol-associated cancers include cancers of the oral cavity, esophagus, liver, colon, rectum and breast, and possibly also of the pancreas and lung.

The researchers collected colon and breast cancer cell samples from eight males — four alcoholic and four healthy — and examined the cells after treating them with alcohol. They focused on a key transcription protein in EMT called Snail, as well as on epidermal growth factor receptor signaling, which is known to promote cancer.

“Our study supports a possible new mechanism through which alcohol may promote cancer progression by stimulating EMT,” Forsyth said. “This now provides a new target for therapeutic intervention for treatment of alcohol-related cancers and for prevention of alcohol-related cancer metastasis.”

Forsyth and Kehsavarzian’s findings could spark a new wave of cancer-related research, according to James L. Mulshine, professor of internal medicine and associate provost for research at the university. 

“If confirmed, it moves the association of alcohol consumption with the risk of a major cancer to a much more firm footing,” said Mulshine, “ … and opens up a whole variety of new studies evaluating the mechanistic basis of early carcinogenesis.”

While the study only looked at cancer cells taken from male patients, the research indicates that women may be at a particularly high risk of alcohol-induced cancer.

“These results suggest that women should consider managing their alcohol consumption more strictly to avoid the cancer consequences of alcohol consumption,” Mulshine explained.

U.K. Prime Minister Gordon Brown and Home Secretary Alan Johnson fired UK Drug Czar David Nutt last month, reportedly for stating that “LSD and ecstasy are less dangerous drugs than alcohol or tobacco,” according to the Daily Mail.

Nutt, former head of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD), criticized the government’s decision to reclassify cannabis, LSD and ecstasy as Class B substances – the same class as alcohol and cigarettes. Nutt did not hesitate in stating the Brown government “is overstepping the line in making scientific decisions” contrary to the advice of its scientific board.

Nutt has called for all drugs, regardless of legal status, to be ranked according to a ‘harm index’ that would rank alcohol only behind cocaine, heroin, barbiturates and methadone. He has harshly criticized the Brown government for its decisions on regulating drugs like cannabis and ecstasy.

Secretary Johnson stated he had ‘no confidence’ in the drug czar, and further proposed that Nutt’s remarks “damaged efforts to give the public clear messages about the dangers of drugs.”

The decision followed a series of controversial remarks made by Nutt about the effect of drugs. Earlier this year, the czar was reprimanded by ex-Home Secretary Jacqui Smith for suggesting taking ecstasy was “no worse than riding a horse.”

Pundits from both scientific and government camps continue to argue over the firing. Nutt warns that his termination will spur more advisors to quit. Sir Leszek Borysiewicz, chief executive of the Medical Research Council, is among those who the former drug czar’s firing, and called for the government to be transparent in its relationship with scientific advisors.

“It is crucial that UK policy is based on evidence and that scientists are able to offer unfettered advice without the fear of reprisal” Borysiewicz said.

This is the first time that an ACMD chair has been fired. “The role of the chair of the ACMD is to provide independent scientific advice, not to lobby for changes in policy,” a Home Office spokesman said.