Waismann Method® Podcast: Should Drugs Be Legalized or Decriminalized?

Dwight Hurst, CMHC: Welcome back, everyone. Certainly glad to have you with us listening again. This is a podcast to answer your questions on addiction, recovery and mental health by the Waismann Method Opioid Treatment Specialists and Rapid Detox Center. I’m your co-host, Dwight Hurst joined today by Clare Waismann and David Livingston. And we’ve got a great thing to address today. I find that when we have our question and answer sessions where we’re talking about questions that are related to issues of recovery and addiction, oftentimes the best conversations we have are when we have cause to question the underlying assumptions that are built into the question itself and say, you know, let’s take a little bit of a deeper dive. And today there’s a great opportunity to be able to do that. Our question today that we’re going to focus on is “Legalization or Decriminalization of Drugs”. In other words, should drugs be legalized? Should the legal accountability or the legal consequences for drug use be changed? What do you how does that hit you?

Clare Waismann, RAS/SUDCC: For me personally, not well, I don’t believe so, I believe in United States with the lack of good, accessible, effective mental health issues we have, legalizing drugs is just putting gasoline on the fire. And when I mean drugs, I don’t mean just illicit drugs. I mean even marijuana. I think what’s going on with marijuana right now is insanity.

Dwight Hurst, CMHC: Hmm. So you have some concerns about the existing changes to legislation that are happening. That’s interesting.

Clare Waismann, RAS/SUDCC: Now. Correct. You know, especially with the patients we see, marijuana can be extremely depressive, you see these kids driving completely high. They feel lethargic, socialization becomes an issue. So I think. Again, if you got somebody really, really healthy, there was productive, you know, they had a full life and was able to. And I’m talking about, you know, not the illicit drugs. I’m talking about marijuana, to use it once in a blue moon to have fun like people have a glass of wine, be it. But the way that is being sold to everybody, regardless of their mental health history and regardless of their social surroundings, I think is irresponsible. And I think we will suffer tremendously the consequences of that.

Dwight Hurst, CMHC: Would you be more supportive or are you more comfortable with a like limited use legality for marijuana, like if it was under the care of a doctor prescription then? Because I know they’ve done that in some places before. Yeah, California used to be that way, right?

Clare Waismann, RAS/SUDCC: Yes, I probably would. Much more than having, you know, marijuana trucks, delivery stores in every corner.

Dwight Hurst, CMHC: Yeah, it’s it’s a weird relationship now living in the West as I do. I live in Utah and you guys are in California. So, you know, at of course, you’ve been the location people have gone to for a while. But in the West, with the laws being so different in different states, we’re pretty used to people crossing boundaries here for those reasons, like others dispensaries in Nevada. So we’ll go over here and now with it being to where where I live, it is essentially sort of like low key decriminalized to where they’re not really arresting unless someone’s selling, it seems like. But at the same time, they can get a card from your doctor, but they don’t really have dispensaries here. And so people are like, do I want to get a card from my doctor and have the state know I’m doing that when I’m not sure that they’re really legalizing. And so having all the different states on such different playing fields is also very it does things to people’s behavior. That’s interesting is all. You know, I don’t know what the answer is to that one, but with people residing in different states that border other states with different laws, then you get people doing a lot of so let’s just say self-management and self-management of our own medicinal world is sometimes tricky if you are prone to addiction, because what is addiction, if not intensive self-management of my needs. Right.

Clare Waismann, RAS/SUDCC: Yeah, and also if you have, you know, mental health issues.

Dwight Hurst, CMHC: Exactly.

Clare Waismann, RAS/SUDCC: That are not being properly treated. So. Yeah. How do you manage that?

Dwight Hurst, CMHC: Yeah. Yeah. No, that’s a very interesting way to see it there. So that is kind of like two things you’re carving out there. One is like use of marijuana is kind of covered under one. It’s always been lumped in with just all the other illicit drugs. We could say because you have. But I think a lot of people look at it in like kind of like different levels, don’t we? I mean, as far as the way culturally and legally, we tend to look at it as like alcohol, legal, you know, with restrictions. Marijuana depends on where you’re at and go back in time enough just absolutely an illicit drug. And then you have other drugs that then we tend to say more serious, but it doesn’t mean you can’t hurt yourselves with any other substances before we get to that level of illicit. Right, correct. And then many of those are also available under prescription. So if we talking about opiates is our main thing on this show.

Clare Waismann, RAS/SUDCC: Right.

Dwight Hurst, CMHC: So, yeah, and then you’ve got more illicit like heroin or methamphetamines or different, you know, things like that.

Clare Waismann, RAS/SUDCC: But see, this is where I find myself on social media, you know, having these discussions with people that are always, always saying to me, like, kratom, OK, that is a drug that we detox. So they say, “But kratom is much better than heroin.” Of course it is, you know, but we have to choose one evil from the other. Can we just be free of both evils? So this is the constant, you know, discussion. Marijuana is much better than thinking of taking painkillers. I understand that. But sometimes when you’re using marijuana to treat emotional pain that is not being treated by a professional, things will progress and not in a good way.

Dwight Hurst, CMHC: So you see a similarity there, too, with alcohol use, right. Because people will use alcohol very dangerously and, you know, and die from alcohol use as well, especially when there’s untreated mental illness.

Clare Waismann, RAS/SUDCC: I mean, you can give the drug to the person. But if you are giving to somebody that cannot handle the responsibility of that because of, again, of irresponsibility or mental health issues, then you have a problem. So the problem is might be not the substance as much as it is who is acquiring it. And I’m not blaming the person. I just, you know, bringing the issue that most of the harmful things we have in our society happen because of lack of mental health. And until we don’t understand that things are just going to snowball like they are.

Dwight Hurst, CMHC: I think, as you put it, is, you know, in a culture where we don’t take mental health very seriously, decriminalization and legalization of drugs could be very dangerous. And I think that’s that’s a very interesting qualifier you put there and say it’s inseparably connected as well, is what you’re saying, that there’s a connection there, that if we want to just talk about drugs and the laws about drugs, where if if that’s all we’re talking about, we’re ignoring the issue that that brings up, which is mental health, and how is that going to connect to the availability and use of drugs? So it’s kind of a lazy question in a way. If we don’t talk about what context would this exist within, if we say, oh, if we don’t have any drug laws, OK, then what? And we’re not going to address any of the other underlying things that would make that a huge problem.

Clare Waismann, RAS/SUDCC: Then that’s the reason it becomes a huge problem because what we are focusing on, it’s not the problem, but we always find reasons especially and again, I believe in capitalism, that’s not where I’m going. But, you know, we are mandated by, you know, pharmaceutical companies and other major manufacturers that are pushing us to believe that the reason we should purchase these kinds of substance, that they are not harmful for us because we need them for a reason, A, B, C, D. But that’s truly not the reason why people are using these medications, including a lot of people that do use opioids. I’m not undermining anybody’s thing. I think sometimes emotional pain is harder to live with than physical pain. But I think we’re harming people that that’s all I it’s we’re not doing. We can do much better. Let’s put it this way. We can do much better than we are doing as a society that has every possible resource out there to truly help people.

Dwight Hurst, CMHC: And David, let’s loop you in here a little bit. What are some of your thoughts about what we’re talking about, legalization or decriminalization?

David Livingston, LMFT: Oh, boy,

David Livingston, LMFT: I’m not sure, so I think in general, we’re certainly better off with limits, especially around things that are the more addictive something is, the better off we are with limits. I think that generally the best way to live is to have, as little mind-altering substances as possible. And overall, you know, there’s I understand like that the idea of like going out and having a glass of wine at night or something like that. I understand that unless someone has a problem with alcohol or something, that can be a part of enjoying life. And I understand that’s not the case for everybody, but we also live in a culture where moderation is not the easiest thing. And so that’s a part of it. And it’s complicated. Is it better to to decriminalize something? And then, you know, it’s going to you’ll create an underground world in which it will be sort of dealt with from that perspective. There’s problems with that. So I don’t think people’s lives from the as you guys are talking about, from a mental health perspective, I think if you habituate to any of this stuff, you have a worse life.

Dwight Hurst, CMHC: Yeah, it’s such a complicated thing to look at that and see, you know, are we talk in laws or are we talking health? We’ll have an intersection there when we look at it and say, well, this person got in, they got in their car and drove around a whole bunch while they were intoxicated. And so do we just say, hey, you should stop it? Or do we say, you know, there’s a real serious criminal charge? And if you don’t do what we’re telling you to do here in treatment, then you’re going to go to jail like long term. And then you see some people who really turn themselves around with that. I mean, I’ve worked in court ordered treatment settings, and I believe that those programs and some of those laws have saved a lot of lives. At the same time, you can’t get away from the fact that a lot of people come through those programs like a revolving door, only because there’s a sword hanging over their head. And as soon as it’s not hanging over their head, they don’t have a lot of incentive to stay healthy. So you see kind of both occurrences within the same system, right. So it does become difficult to know how do we sort out what the best way to do is? I’m, you know, reacting kind of in a it’s is very intriguing to me.

Dwight Hurst, CMHC: I think we’re moving into a place where, to your point, kind of, Clare, I think that we’re taking away from trying to say this and not not as confusing away. One of the things I think is very intriguing is the fact that we’re talking about what is the underlying concept of society. Right? You both have kind of touched on that, as you put it. If we don’t have we don’t take mental health seriously, why are we even messing around with it? And then, you know, David, as you’re saying, like, are there rules of what we should or shouldn’t do? But, you know, basically what’s the health that we have and what’s moderation in our culture, which has that has nothing to do with laws necessarily. But how do we look at it in moderation? I say that in a I tried to say that in as confusing the way as I could. So if I say enough things, I haven’t said anything yet. But yeah, but basically when I’m reacting to this, the ideas of moderation and mental health as cultural constructs that are probably even a little more important than what the laws say. Right?

Clare Waismann, RAS/SUDCC: Yeah, yeah, but I think we have to start from some point, you know, and the laws cannot be applied to each person differently. So if we just start from somewhere and then if somebody gets caught, you know, or driving under the influence or doing something that no more serious or more harmful to others, I think that’s why we have courts and laws to, you know, make the distinction, the distinction and decide, you know, what is the penalty for that. But we have to start from somewhere. It can’t be everything is wide open, like pretty much is right now, because look at the mess we’re living in. And as kids, you know, I have three of them. I always thought that they did much better as children when the lines around them were solid. So I think if as a society, you know, if people don’t know their lines and where we can’t cross, where we shouldn’t cross. It’s a very anxious life. It’s a very unsafe life for everybody involved.

David Livingston, LMFT: Structure helps – clear boundaries, you know? I’m a big fan of personal responsibility. I think that helps. And I’m also a fan of freedom. So, like, how does this all work? You know, I really don’t know what the answer is. I have some mixed feelings about it all. And I mean, I just really focus more on individual’s health. You know, that’s really because that’s what I do. I think I have the best understanding of that. And I think it’s possible for some people to use some substances, you know you know, some people can have a glass of wine at dinner. Some people can even smoke marijuana occasionally. But it is not good to habituate. You will have a less creative, less attuned, less alive life. You will deaden yourself at some point. And usually, there are other issues. So I don’t really know the answer. I know those things. I’ve seen it for a long time or, you know, true that these other issues are hard. Not sure.

Dwight Hurst, CMHC: When we come at it. I think from that societal management standpoint. Right? That’s the part that gets tricky. I think that we also have to try to accept that we don’t come to anything. None of us are on a desert island somewhere, setting up the ideal therapeutic community from step one. Right. We’re all in existing systems and what works in one nation versus another whole different, you know, geopolitical construct or whatever and a whole different historical relationship with substances. So it’s hard to say, well, what do we do? We have to we have to go from, OK, where are we today and move forward. And I think that’s hard. So I tend to think that it gets oversimplified when people look at that and just say, hey, am I allowed to do a thing? Because if that’s all we’re talking about is am I allowed to go somewhere, you know, buy a container of fill in the blank and go home and ingest it. Am I allowed to do that? And the complicated answer to that is depends what that thing is. And if we have decided that you’re allowed to do that legally or not, but that has nothing to do with should I go and do that, really? You know, from what we’re talking about from a standpoint of “Should I?” and how much of that and, you know, should I do it at all? There are ethical, health, moral, subjective reasons. You know, who’s in the home with me? Am I going to be able to be taking care of those that are dependent on me? Are they going to have to take care of me? Am I going to put them at risk for myself at risk? And how much risk and how much benefit and why am I doing it? All of that is things that aren’t legislated that I think then unfortunately, some people put too much stock in “Oh, it’s legal. So I can and I will”, instead of being like,well, that’s never in a treatment setting. That’s never why we would say you should or shouldn’t do something is whether or not it’s illegal. All us the only reason.

Clare Waismann, RAS/SUDCC: Right, right. That most people think that way. They know it’s legal. So why can’t they know how many calls I get from people saying I’m going to smoke my marijuana in treatment because it’s for my anxiety and is prescribed for me. And that is how they think because is illegal is it should be allowed and is the right thing to do.

Dwight Hurst, CMHC: And not surprisingly, your experience, you know, in your your own career experience and your health care experience has been dealing with something that is prescribed by a doctor that people to take. Right? I mean, think about opiates. That’s where those problems start.

Clare Waismann, RAS/SUDCC: Correct! But again, then I go back to, you know, the mental health issue. I think obviously there was a combination of issues of opioids. You know, it was the misleading pharmaceutical company information about what it was and the possibilities of addiction. And it was a time where, again, mental health assistance was not available. So a lot of people that started taking opiates for a back injury end up taking it because it just gave them an overall feeling of, you know, of wellness that they didn’t have for a very long time and they couldn’t distinguish between physical and emotional. And, you know, there was absolutely no control of who was prescribing where and how much. So I think the combination created the storm that, you know, we’re still suffering from.

Dwight Hurst, CMHC: And then what’s the obligation then publicly to say, do we make something available without any sort of follow up or accountability? And just because. Yeah, it does create if you tell me it’s legal for me to sell something, someone’s going to start selling it. And is that person I mean, our experience has been that people who sell things, even legal substances, let’s look at alcohol and cigarettes and say those are not the most ethical companies out there. They’re not that’s not what they’re famous for saying. How can we ethically take care of customers who are going to make this legal, too? So when they’re selling heroin, I’m going to make a note to cut that out. When? When some company.

Clare Waismann, RAS/SUDCC: Yes.

Dwight Hurst, CMHC: So when some company make a big note there, when some company decides to sell heroin, why would I trust that they’re going to be responsible in how they do this?

Clare Waismann, RAS/SUDCC: But again, if some companies out there are selling forms of opioids that feel very much like heroin, yes, they know that gives you a euphoria very similar to heroin. So, again, I mean, it’s such a complicated issue because A, you want the people that need help to get help. You want those suffering from pain to have a quality of life. Now, you know, you talk about even cancer patients with marijuana. So it is what I what I was trying to say from the beginning. I think there should be. Some control, some legislation about, you know, about what should be prescribed, what shouldn’t be prescribed and responsible parties that are going to be liable to spread the happiness for too many people that cannot handle it. Yeah, let’s put it that way. It because I truly believe it is harming society. And especially when I say society, I’m talking about the young the younger generation, the 20, 22, 23 year old.

Dwight Hurst, CMHC: And the message that they get from that from the policies about it and things. Right? Yeah, you know, I wonder… I went a few years ago, I went to a conference. It was a conference specifically oriented around methamphetamine use in treatment. And there was a heavy dose of harm reduction approach. And we haven’t talked a ton about the differences in this approach, I don’t think on this show. But one of the guys had organized a conference. I got to talk to him a little bit. And he said that he was a harm reductionist, meaning that he would try to meet the patients where they’re at and help them to make goals about their substance use. And when he described it, it sounded very similar to some of the Waismann Method philosophies that you’ve shared here, which is trying to get to know the patient, seeing where they’re at, seeing what their needs are, trying to check-in, that they’re being realistic and have their own health and just kind of taking that health management approach. But he said that one of the things that was frustrating sometimes is he would get people on one side who would say, oh, you’re, you know, advocating like needle, clean needle programs. So you’re advocating for drug use, you’re for drug use, pro drug use. And he said, I’m very much not. I’m a treatment professional. And then on the other hand, you get other people coming and saying, hey, you know, you’re telling people they should be safe with their drug use. We don’t we don’t mind that. But you’re also still saying people should stop. So you’re not being, like, open enough on the other side. And so he get it. And it struck me that when you’re trying to kind of find a balanced answer to a complicated issue, you get people on both sides who are like, hey, you’re too approving and or you’re too restrictive or whatever. And it’s like, I’m just trying to figure something out. Does that make any sense?

David Livingston, LMFT: Right. Perfectly! And all in all cases, the movement is away from that which is destructive towards that which is healthy, but that that should be said before. But those are yeah, those are the two words that that I think clarify things the best. This is destructive to myself or someone else or is this healthy for me? And and to ask and answer that question honestly. And so if somebody is moving towards health. Right. And doing something that’s safer and then realistically, honestly, that’s a that’s an improvement. It’s a movement towards that. And that’s as good as it’s going to be. That’s not that’s not it. You’re not advocating you’re not advocating anything other than, you know, safety is part of health and moving towards, you know, and and based on where someone’s at and what they’re telling you there, they’re willing or able to do at any point in time. You have to work with that. Otherwise, there is there is no you’re not helping them. There is no work. And you know that that isn’t to say you can’t be confronted at times or or and really see what is possible, but. You know, the black or white thing is that that type of binary approach is you don’t you don’t have a working relationship usually, and so so anyway, I’m just agreeing with you.

Dwight Hurst, CMHC: Yeah, no, I, I, I appreciate that, though, because I think that that’s the tricky part. You know, there’s some things I’m interested to see maybe what you guys think about this, but I’ve been interested lately to hear some of the research around some programs that aren’t they’re not done in places that are decriminalizing the use. But they’ll say, like, for example, I heard a doctor recently talking about a program that she’s part of in West Virginia where there’s a lot of IV drug use. And so they have clean needle availability and, you know, instructional things to people who can come in self-identified. They don’t have to come in and, you know, they don’t go looking and labeling anyone. But someone can just come in and say, hey, can I obtain clean needles? And how do you safely dispose of non-clean needles? And they will give resources, information to that person. There’s some research that indicates to someone who’s an IV drug user might be less likely to die or less likely to spread the infection to other people if they are being more safe within, you know, whereas ideally they would stop. And but sometimes we the policies of programs are stop or else. And that’s all. And so then that person just uses dirty needles.

David Livingston, LMFT: Yeah, you’re right. And you can do both. You can say, look, you know, it’s terrifying that you’re going to do that. It’s so dangerous. But if if your mind’s made up and that’s what you’re going to do and you’re telling me that, then please do it as safely as you can. And here’s some information towards what that is. Right. And so it isn’t as if you’re advocating you know, the danger is, you know, and I think this goes back to the initial question about the legality and what’s authorized. I mean, the problem is once when things go, some people think it’s authorized, it’s been authorized and it’s legal. Right. But that’s not taking responsibility for your life. And so I really think people get better when they take responsibility for their lives. And I think it’s a big problem we have in our culture right now where everybody’s looking towards everything else, everyone else in terms of what’s authorized or what’s not or what it’s like. This is your life. What do you want? How do you want to live this kind of what do you really want for yourself? And, you know, and then OK. And then if you can get people to answer that. And by the way, it’s the hardest question I ask people because they often don’t want to answer it or they haven’t even formed it in the end. And if you haven’t formed that in your mind, you are so susceptible to being pushed and pulled in any direction.

Clare Waismann, RAS/SUDCC: But they would do what you’re talking about. There is one of the most important things to be emotionally healthy is accountability for your own happiness, for your own being. And I think there’s so you know, we see such a fight towards that. You know, it’s not my fault I didn’t do this. You know, I’m a victim of what happened. So is the accountability.

Dwight Hurst, CMHC: And that’s where legislation meets health care, right, because you’re legislating, as you put it. Dave, if you don’t have a relationship with someone, you don’t know what they need. And so if I’m making a rule for a million people, I don’t know a million people. Right. And so those rules I remember when I worked in court-ordered treatment, there was a thing that went around. And Clare, you mentioned kratom earlier, which is one of those that kind of popped up. There was also “spice” some people might be familiar with. That concept, which was like essentially was a chemically treated benign plant. So it basically was trying to the plant was benign, but the chemicals that were sprayed on it and then when it was dried out and made so it could be smoked, they were the whole goal behind that existence was that it didn’t show up on your standard drug tests. And so I would have these group therapy sessions with people who were on probation. And some of the people in the facility where I worked were just like “We’re not even talking about that. That’s a just, “You go out and use spice. That’s a full relapse. It’s bad. Don’t do it. If if I find out you did, I’m telling your people.” And so that way… But I actually liked to encourage some conversation about it in the group because what it brought out was the fact that people were making decisions on whether or not someone who’s in danger of legal trouble and or death because of their addiction problem is now making a decision on whether or not I should and just something based off of whether someone can catch me doing it.

Dwight Hurst, CMHC: And that’s so dangerous for that to be, especially for someone who has been prone to addiction. I will say, you know, that is a dangerous precedent and a dangerous thought process to reinforce. And so I would always encourage that. We have these conversations among and saying, well, you know, is it not a relapse just because I can’t get caught by peeing into a cup? Well, what other things can happen that have nothing to do with anybody knowing whether or not I did that thing? Well, I could have a car accident. Well, I could be acting goofy at my job and get fired. Well, I could, you know, whatever, whatever. And trying to have these discussions over, you know, how does that impact my life and how does that influence the way I make decisions? So nothing declarative there. I just I just thought it was very interesting to see when that decision-making had been sort of outsourced from the individual right. And it’s been outsourced from my own brain to whether or not I’d get caught and in trouble. And if I won’t get caught and in trouble, I’ll probably do it if I would get kind and I won’t do it. And the incompleteness of that thought.

Clare Waismann, RAS/SUDCC: It’s just hoping that people are going to be able to make, you know, the decision on when I when I say “able to”, it is truly, truly, emotionally able to, not “wanting to”, but “able to”. I think there’s a huge difference. And I wish everybody was, David, able to make those decisions on their own, you know, wish they were healthy enough that they they actually knew, you know, what is the best and healthier path for them. But that’s not always the case. I mean, we see, you know, with somebody that we’re dealing right now that wants to come to treatment so bad and we speak we’ve been speaking to him for months, you know, and he wants it. He wants to be well, but he is emotionally not able to make a decision that is going to last, you know, the end of the conversation with him because of mental health issues. So you feel, you know what I’m saying? Like, you want to help this person and you want to believe that everything he’s saying is occurring. But you understand clearly that in five minutes from now, his thoughts are so confused then, you know, engaged in so many different areas that he won’t be able to complete the process. So that’s what I’m trying to say to you. I think I think going back to the law, the law is never going to be able to be good for everybody. Yeah, probably going to be harmful to a lot, but it has to be based on the majority at the time we are living, it can’t be, you know, a 100-year-old law. Things change. I think my kids are have a very different perception of life and responsibility than I did. So I think the law should be based in, you know, our society at this time and what’s best for the overall society thinking obviously in the repercussions not just short term, but long term as well. And I think the long term is being forgotten now.

Dwight Hurst, CMHC: Well, it sounds like overall, I mean, if we’re looking at the most accurate answer to a question like this is there are a lot of variables. We don’t know for sure, but there’s a lot more that has to be looked into and stabilized. I mean, I guess if we’re looking for either or answer the answer to should drug use be legalized or unilaterally decriminalized, the answer is no. It’s like one of those. What’s the old expression – “no with a ‘but’”. But it’s like, but we shouldn’t say “yes” and we shouldn’t say “no” and then stop the conversation. Definitely. That’ll be the worst outcome is to say either answer and then stop the conversation. It’s almost like “no”, but there’s a lot more we should talk about.

Clare Waismann, RAS/SUDCC: Correct!

Dwight Hurst, CMHC: And I think that the way we engage with that would look very different if we felt more safe about a lot of things in society. I think to that point that we can’t really ask that question without asking a lot more questions that are difficult to answer, but would be really good and is really good when we see people working on those answers.

Clare Waismann, RAS/SUDCC: Yeah, I think individualizing, you know, our thoughts not just about drugs, but everything, you know, looking at the intent, where the action is going to occur is very important. So, you know, for some patients, using certain drugs is just a humane approach, it is the right path for some other patients, it’s detrimental, risky, not just for them, but everybody around them looking at the person that you’re dealing with, you know, at that moment instead of, you know, the overall, it’s that we do that a lot. When David was saying about, you know, even if they decide, if somebody decides to do something bad, it is how safe can we make that bad situation be. You know, we give patients Naltrexone and Vivitrol, they are opioid blockers after detox. And it is so important, especially for David and what he does to make patients really aware of the blocking, you know, agents, what would happen if they use and to explain to them if they really decide to use, you know, when they should stop the blocker and what can happen if they use? Because, again, if they are decided to do that, we have to help them the safest way possible, because that’s the end result there. It’s, you know, life or death.

Dwight Hurst, CMHC: And we are going to leave it there for today. Thank you so much for joining us. I hope that you found today’s conversation to be revelatory and get you thinking. . This podcast is a production of the Waismann Method Opioid Treatment Specialists and Rapid Detox Center. To learn more about us, go to opiates.com, email us at info@opiates.com, or go on Twitter and just go to @opiates. We got that one. So any of those are good ways for you to also contact us. If you have questions that you’d like to see addressed on the show or just questions and learning about treatment for opioid dependence and addiction and recovery as well. We are here for you to do that. Our music for the show is the song Medical by Clean Mind Sounds. This show is also produced by Popped Collar Productions, a company that will help you to start, maintain, host and record your podcast, which you can learn more about at poppedcollar.net. For Clare Waismann and David Livingston, I’ve Dwight Hurst. Remember to ask questions so you can find answers. Because if we can find answers then we can find help. Have a great week! Bye-bye for now.