Substance abuse rehab is a place you can go when your drug addiction has gotten the best of you. When you’ve hit rock bottom, you need to know that you need medical help to get through this. Rehab will help you get the drug out of your system and begin a new, non-dependant life…free of drugs or alcohol. We often think of substance abuse treatment as something for people who addictions to crack or other street drugs, but it is in fact for everyone suffering an addiction to any substance, whether illegal or even prescribed.

Substance abuse rehab will make sure the drugs exit your body in a safe manner. Our bodies often become dependent on drugs, and without them, our bodies will throw a fit. We can be sleepless, irritable and even run the risk for seizures when the drug is removed from our systems. Medical supervision at a drug abuse rehab clinic will make sure we’re going the healthy route to recovery. Withdrawal symptoms can, in the worst case, end in death.

Understanding Substance Abuse Rehab

If you or a loved one need to gain information about substance abuse rehab, check the internet for facilities that will suit your needs. Remember that not all clinics are created equally, so find a substance abuse rehab center that has experience with your type of drug addiction. Speaking with a medical professional can help you understand the best path of treatment you should take. Don’t attempt to detox alone, it can be very dangerous. Get help and find a reputable substance abuse clinic to help you along your journey.

Despite the need for marijuana dependence treatment in the United States, research on how to intervene effectively with this problem has been conducted only recently. This section describes the results of controlled trials conducted in the last decade to evaluate interventions for adults who are marijuana dependent. Special consideration is given to MTP, which is the largest study ever conducted of people who smoke marijuana.

Controlled Studies

The first controlled trial of marijuana dependence treatment (Stephens et al. 1994b) compared the effects of 10 sessions of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) with 10 sessions of group discussion. The participants were 212 people who had used marijuana daily or almost daily for an average of 10 years. Both counseling approaches were modestly effective in helping a significant portion of participants achieve either abstinence or improvement. Contrary to predictions, the CBT approach was no more effective than social support with adults who were marijuana dependent.

Higher levels of pretreatment marijuana use predicted higher use levels following treatment. Lower socioeconomic status predicted more problems associated with marijuana use after treatment. Finally, individuals who before treatment indicated greater self-efficacy for avoiding marijuana use had more successful posttreatment outcomes (Stephens et al. 1993b).

In a related study (Stephens et al. 2000), a brief, 2-session individual treatment was compared with 14 sessions of CBT skills training. In this study a delayed treatment control group was included to determine the extent to which self-initiated change occurs in this population in the absence of formal treatment. This group was placed on a waiting list and asked to come back in 4 months. The sample consisted of 291 adults who smoked marijuana daily. The 14 CBT skills training sessions were delivered in a group setting over a 4-month period. This treatment emphasized the learning of coping strategies to deal with situations presenting high risk of relapse. It also provided additional time to build group cohesion and support. The second active treatment consisted of two motivational enhancement therapy (MET) counseling sessions delivered as individual therapy over a 1-month period.

An important element involved giving participants normative information so they could compare their marijuana use with that of the general population and that of other people seeking treatment for marijuana dependence. The counselor reviewed with each participant a written personal feedback report generated from questions asked during a comprehensive intake assessment. The counselor used the client’s reaction to the personal feedback report to promote discussion and bolster the client’s motivation to abstain from marijuana use. The information also was used to reinforce clients’ confidence in their ability to end marijuana use and to offer support in goalsetting strategies for behavior change. One month later, the second session reviewed efforts to abstain and the coping skills used in the interim period. In both treatment conditions, participants had the option of involving a support person.

The results showed that both active treatments produced substantial reductions in marijuana use relative to the delayed treatment control condition. Following treatment, there were no differences between the two active treatments in abstinence rates, days of marijuana use, severity of problems, or number of dependence symptoms. Similarly, at the 16-month assessment, 29 percent of group counseling participants and 28 percent of individual counseling participants reported having been abstinent for the past 90 days. The results of this study suggest that minimal interventions consisting of as little as two sessions may be more cost-effective than lengthier treatments.

In another study (Budney et al. 2000), 60 adults who were marijuana dependent were randomly assigned to one of three 14-week treatments: (1) MET, (2) MET plus coping skills training, or (3) MET plus coping skills training and voucher-based incentives. In the last condition, participants whose abstinence from marijuana and other drugs was documented by urinalysis received vouchers that were exchangeable for retail items (e.g., movie passes, sports equipment,educational classes). The value of each voucher increased with each successive instance of confirmed abstinence. Conversely, the occurrence of a cannabinoid-positive urine specimen (or the failure to submit a sample) led to a reduction of each voucher’s value to its initial level. The results showed that participants in the voucher-based incentive condition were more likely to achieve continuous abstinence from marijuana during treatment than were participants in the other two conditions. Moreover, a greater percentage of participants in the voucher-based condition (35%) were abstinent at the end of treatment than was the case in theskills training (10%) or MET (5%) conditions.

The results of these studies indicate that a substantial proportion of adults who were marijuana dependent and who sought treatment have been aided in either stopping or decreasing their marijuana use. However, it is also apparent that not all of those treated achieved the initial goal of sustained abstinence from marijuana. Given the evidence of marijuana’s dependence potential and adverse health and behavioral consequences, continuing development and testing of marijuana dependence interventions are clearly warranted.

Marijuana Treatment Project

MTP was funded by the Center for Substance Abuse Treatment in 1997 and conducted in three States (Connecticut, Florida, and Washington) over a 3-year period. MTP compared two active treatments with a delayed treatment control condition (Stephens et al. 2002). One active treatment consisted of nine individual counseling sessions delivered over a 12-week period. The initial sessions focused on MET. These were followed by CBT skills training along with additional case management if needed. With some minor modifications, the BMDC described in this manual was based on the nine-session treatment evaluated in MTP. The other active treatment used in MTP consisted of two MET sessions delivered over a 1-month period.

A total of 450 participants from diverse ethnic and socioeconomic backgrounds was recruited through media advertisements and agency referrals. These individuals were primarily male (68%) and on average 36 years old. Sixty-nine percent of the group was white, with 12 percent African-American, 17 percent Hispanic, and 1 percent other, which included Asian-American, Native American, or unknown (1% is accounted for by rounding error). Approximately 60 percent of the sample was unmarried. Individuals in this group had, on average, 14 years of education. Sixty-nine percent worked full time, 14 percent worked part time, 12 percent were unemployed, and 4 percent were students, retired people, or homemakers (1% is accounted for by rounding error). Those who worked had been employed at their current jobs for approximately 5 years (Stephens et al. 2002).

Ninety-two percent of the study participants felt that they were currently dependent on marijuana. At the time of the screening, almost the entire sample (99.8%) felt that marijuana was the biggest problem for them (relative to other drugs or alcohol). The group reported smoking marijuana on 82 of the past 90 days (91% of the days), smoked an average of 3.7 times a day, and reported that the number of days since their last smoking episode was 1.2. Use of other drugs and alcohol in the past 30 days was infrequent, in part because individuals who were concurrently dependent on alcohol or drugs other than marijuana were ineligible.

The results of MTP showed a consistent pattern of differences between groups. The delayed treatment group changed little from baseline to the 4-month followup on almost all outcome measures. At each followup point over a 12-month period, both active treatments produced outcomes superior to the 4-month delayed treatment control condition. The nine-session intervention produced significantly greater reductions in marijuana use and associated consequences than the two-session intervention. Abstinence rates at the 4- and 9-month

followups for the nine-session intervention were 23 percent and 13 percent, respectively. The differences between the two active treatments appeared as early as 4 weeks into the treatment period and were sustained throughout the first 9 months of followup.

As was the case in the findings of the studies discussed above, MTP findings demonstrated a moderate degree of efficacy of counseling interventions with adults who are marijuana dependent.

Outcomes from the two-session MET intervention were less positive than those found in the study by Stephens and colleagues (2000), suggesting that the effectiveness of brief and more intensive treatment may vary with the population studied, the content of the therapy, and the skills of the clinicians.

The MTP results indicate that even a brief two-session treatment is associated with substantial reductions in marijuana use and related problems. Nevertheless, a significant percentage of these chronic smokers continue or return to marijuana use, albeit at reduced levels. For example, although the nine-session intervention resulted in a 60-percent reduction in marijuana use up to a year after the end of therapy, it did not produce sufficient abstinence rates to eliminate completely the risk of accidents, injuries, chronic disease, and a return to marijuana dependence.

Nevertheless, even with reduced levels of use, both treatments were associated with significant reductions in anxiety levels, legal problems, and employment problems. It is important to note that, although a substantial percentage of clients did not succeed in becoming abstinent, many individuals remained motivated to overcome their dependence. At the 9- month post treatment assessment, 82 percent had relapsed and 68 percent indicated that they had tried to stop using marijuana at some point between their 4- and 9-month assessment interviews.

These findings suggest that participants who receive a single episode of care remain motivated to change and thus should be followed by aggressive community outreach and support services.

Outreach, Access, and Support Groups

The demonstration of several efficacious treatment interventions for marijuana dependence raises additional questions about how best to engage in treatment people who chronically use marijuana and how best to maintain improvements following treatment. Unfortunately, little research has been conducted in these areas.

Marijuana Anonymous (MA) groups, a mutual-help fellowship based on the principles and traditions of Alcoholics Anonymous (AA), exist in a number of States and internationally. In addition to traditional meetings, MA sessions are held on line. (The organization’s Web site address is www.marijuana-anonymous.org. Its toll-free telephone number is 800-766-7669.) No research has been conducted yet to evaluate the effectiveness of MA, either alone or in combination with formal treatment. Nevertheless, research on AA suggests that mutual-help organizations can play an important role in recovery, both alone and in combination with formal treatment programs (McCrady and Miller 1993).

Conclusion

Individuals who use marijuana chronically as their primary drug tend not to seek treatment in traditional drug treatment settings, but it appears from MTP and other studies that when given the opportunity, they respond to treatment. Given the promising initial research on treatment for cannabis dependence and the potential benefits of brief motivational and cognitive behavioral relapse prevention therapies, there is now sufficient evidence to support the development of focused treatment programs for this population. The manual-guided therapies developed for these projects, particularly MTP, should be transferable to specialized outpatient clinics and to behavioral health care practitioners.

Inpatient rehabilitation centers service many users. These are residential-type clinics where addicts go to stay during their first steps to sobriety. It doesn’t matter what drug you use, inpatient rehabilitation centers work with many kinds of people who are abusing many different drugs. You could be seeking help for the abuse of something like alcohol or diet pills. You could also be seeking help for more dangerous drugs like heroin or methamphetamine. Regardless, and addiction is a terrible addiction that can leave a person damaged or even kill them. Inpatient rehab is an intense beginning to a long road of recovery.

Some inpatient rehabilitation centers may say they specialize in specific types of addictions. Some can claim to be better at treating heroin and others can be better at dealing with alcoholism. This doesn’t mean that they can’t help you with your addiction; they just have staff that has had a little more experience with a different type of drug. You’ll still be in good hands. If you’re weary, just ask to speak with them regarding their education and knowledge about your specific type of addiction. Inpatient rehabilitation centers are willing to talk with you about what services they’ll be able to offer you if you sign on as a patient.

Find Inpatient Rehabilitation Centers in Your Area

If you’re looking for an inpatient rehabilitation center in your area, make sure you’re looking for the right type of center. Some rehab clinics are for long term illness and injury and they are not equipped to deal with drug addicts. Usually a phone book listing or website will specify what type of inpatient rehabilitation center they are, but this is just a forewarning that other types of clinics exist, and they cannot treat your specific problem.

Drug addicts who want to rid their bodies of the chemicals that control them can look for an inpatient drug rehab center in their area. Checking themselves in will give them a greater chance of beating the addiction than just attending programs like Narcotics Anonymous and relying on will power. While these non-profit programs are great, some drug users simply need a little extra TLC to get on the right path. A lot of it depends on the drug they were using.

Inpatient drug rehab has a decent success rate, but this all varies from clinic to clinic. Do your research before you commit to anything. You have a right to know what you’ll be getting you or your loved one into. Inpatient drug rehab is an excellent start to living a better life, but it simply is not the end. After the intense treatment at an inpatient clinic, the patient must follow up with continuous outpatient care.

Succeed with Inpatient Drug Rehab

Entering rehab for drugs means changing your entire life when you get out. There may have been people you hurt you need to make amends with and there may be some people that you simply can’t see any more. You must rise above the influence and keep those out of your life that would lead you to relapse and start using. It can be difficult for some to go through such a dramatic life change, but it’s the best thing for you. You can get through it.