New Group At Risk For Addictions - People With Developmental Disabilities

If you have family members, friends, clients or patients with developmental disabilities (lifelong conditions developing prenatally
through adolescence that cause a wide range of functional and intellectual challenges) you are encouraged to consider what the effects of normalized access to intoxicating substances might be in this varied population. It is a cutting edge accomplishment at this time that the topic appears within an “addictions” resource and information publication. Eighty-four percent of people diagnosed with some type of developmental disability have mild intellectual and social impairments and are likely, in the current social context, to have enough independence to access alcohol and other drugs. If people are not taking psychoactive medications for behavior control, mental illness or seizure disorder, do not have chronic neurological problems with impulse control or disinhibition and are not genetically or socially predisposed to addictive substance abuse, there may be every expectation that legal intoxicants can be reasonably used. As discussed in Dr. Hartney’s articles, there are well-documented risk factors common to many members of the populations of people with mild-to-moderate intellectual and learning disabilities that may predispose those people to either be led into or to fall into destructive patterns involving substance use. Two additional statistics prompt us to include assessment of alcohol and drug use when providing family supports and professional caregiving services to the population. One is that approximately seventy percent have co-occuring medical conditions. The second is that the prevalence of diagnosable psychiatric conditions in the population (adults and children with developmental disabilities) is significantly higher than in the general population. Both of these sets of co-occuring conditions are likely to be negatively impacted when substance abuse is added to the “whole person” health picture. In addition to advocating more wholistic assessment of people with complex needs, there are unmet needs for prevention and treatment services
that are attitudinally and functionally accessible to people who may need more time, communication adaptations and behavioral supports in order to benefit from prevention and treatment.

Finally, it would be very interesting to increase exploration of the questions of when, how and which types of behavioral therapies (such as applied behavioral analysis grounded in Skinnerian operant conditioning theory) may lead to overcompliance and submissive social functioning in children and adults with disabilities. It is acknowledged that many
behavioral therapies teach social skills that allow children and adults with disabilities to function in more socially appropriate and engaged ways than families and caregivers had thought possible. However, concerns about the effects of “compliance training” regardless of the teaching methodology, are relevant to many thorny elements of social functioning
including how people will perform to resist sexual, physical and emotional abuse and to resist other types of unethical manipulation by other people, including drug dealers. Let’s talk about this!

This is an interesting subject, and one that’s been poorly researched.

Because the impacts of skinnerian (and more modern) forms of ABA are easily evaluated (the goals, processes and outcomes are clearly delineated), ABA as an intervention for autism is better researched than any other intervention for autism. What’s more, ABA works – in that it does produce compliance (people with autism do what they’re asked to do).

In the best of all worlds, “discrete trials” (truly skinnerian) ABA is just one in a whole series of behavioral interventions. Once a person has mastered the basic skills through discrete trials, an ideal sequence would then involve the person in naturalistic situations in which the skills are practiced – and refined.

Again, in an ideal world, people with autism would finally grasp the skills without generalizing the idea that compliance is always best.

There’s really very little research out there to say whether or not this happens – or to what degree people internalize and generalize the idea that “do what you are told to do” is the best response 100% of the time.

Lisa Rudy (about.com guide to autism)

What’s the difference between risk and consequence? When there was darkness, there was the word.

I’ve just published definitions for risk http://addictions.about.com/od/glossar1/g/defrisk.htm and consequence http://addictions.about.com/od/glossar1/g/defconsequence.htm, which might help you to understand the difference between the two terms. One way to think about it is that risks are possible events that may or may not occur as a result of what you do in the future, whereas consequences are events that have actually happened as a result of what you did in the past.

I write as I listen to Ron Kuby/Air America. His advice in this matter was overkill, unhelpful. I had contemplated making my litigation simpler versus the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

The risk I took (DWI/no accident) was unjustified as the consequence was a year minimum in county stir.

But the case lingers: Pike County’s Warden, County President Judge and D/A also must have contemplated the risk of requiring jail-house church attendance (A.R.R.O.W. & M.O.R.E.) for defendants’ release from its jail, since 2003’s elections positioned them and their agenda to sentence and administer local (in-)justice so.

If proved in Federal Civil Rights Court, that the county officials knew the risk, then it follows they also knew the activity violated the Establishment Clause (First Amendment, U.S. Constitution).

Notwithstanding that, Pike County & the Poconos have the WORST, twisty roads in the nation, are the least favorite of truckers far and wide, and extra care must be employed by motorists.

A solution: emplacement of the Commonwealth’s statutes on CD-ROM at public libraries – and/OR – the foloowing web sites per same:

http://www.pacode.com/

http://government.westlaw.com/linkedslice/default.asp?SP=pac-1000

I & family appreciate the fori (pl.) — it’s definitely less expensive than analysis and (P.C.C.F.-pseudo) therapy, or lawyers.

Albest,

C.J. Caveman J., pro se, B.S. Univ. of Illinois ‘83, DUI ‘05

Ars longa, vita brevis

People With Developmental Disabilities have a fixed income. Unfortunately, this does attract the interest of drug dealers. It is very true that these people have become a target and unfortunately after they are addicted, they are in a special category and it is very hard to get them treatment.

I know this is times of recession but this is not something that the general public can solve on their own. Developmentally disabled people need to be treated for their addictions by someone that understands their special needs. Government will have to get involved, provide special funds and facilities for these people and they will require more follow up than the norm.

As a tax payer and a concerned resident, you can get involved and do some good. Write your politician and press them to get involved. If you know of anyone with a developmental disability, watch out for them. If you see certain people trying to become their friends, might be time you take on a new friend yourself and keep them away from the influence.