Acupuncture as a Treatment for Drug Addiction

Acupuncture therapy has been practiced for over 3,000 years, originating in ancient China as both a diagnostic and therapeutic method described in The Yellow Emperor’s Classic of Internal Medicine [1]. Over the past four decades, acupuncture has become one of the most widely used complementary and integrative medicine interventions in the United States. Its growing popularity is often attributed to its reported effectiveness in pain management and stress reduction, along with an expanding body of scientific research examining its physiological effects [1].

According to traditional Chinese medicine, the human body contains more than 2,000 acupuncture points connected by pathways known as meridians, through which vital energy, referred to as “qi,” flows. Acupuncture involves inserting very thin needles into specific points on the body to restore balance and improve the flow of qi when it is believed to be blocked or disrupted [2]. While this explanation is rooted in traditional belief systems, modern research has attempted to understand acupuncture through neurochemical and physiological mechanisms.

In the context of substance use disorders, acupuncture has gained attention as a supplementary treatment option. Currently, more than 700 addiction treatment centers in the United States incorporate acupuncture into their recovery programs. In 1977, the National Institutes of Health acknowledged acupuncture as a valid complementary therapy, and in 1996, the World Health Organization recognized acupuncture as a potential treatment for drug abuse. These endorsements helped legitimize its use alongside conventional Western approaches, such as medication-assisted treatment and behavioral therapy.

Several studies suggest that acupuncture may influence neurotransmitter activity in the brain. Research indicates that acupuncture can stimulate the release of enkephalins, endorphins, serotonin, norepinephrine, dopamine, and epinephrine, which are chemicals involved in mood regulation, stress response, and reward pathways. [2] These neurochemical changes may help reduce withdrawal symptoms, cravings, anxiety, and depression, all of which are common challenges during addiction recovery. This has led some clinicians to consider acupuncture a helpful tool in managing symptoms associated with substance withdrawal.

However, the effectiveness of acupuncture as a standalone treatment for drug addiction remains controversial. While some clinical studies report positive outcomes, others suggest that the benefits may be largely attributed to placebo effects or the supportive environment in which acupuncture is administered. Many experts agree that acupuncture should not replace evidence-based addiction treatments but may serve as a complementary therapy when used alongside counseling, behavioral interventions, and medical care [1].

In conclusion, acupuncture represents a promising, low-risk complementary approach in the treatment of drug addiction. Although more rigorous, large-scale clinical trials are needed to establish its effectiveness as a primary treatment, acupuncture may offer meaningful benefits in reducing withdrawal symptoms, improving emotional well-being, and supporting long-term recovery when integrated into comprehensive addiction treatment programs.

Review Editor: Matthew Ahlers

Design Editor: Jimin Lee

References

[1] Jishun, J., & Mittelman, M. (2014). Acupuncture: Past, Present, and Future. Global Advances in Health and Medicine, 3(4), 6–8. https://doi.org/10.7453/gahmj.2014.042

[2] Johns Hopkins Medicine. (2025). Acupuncture. John Hopkins Medicine. https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/wellness-and-prevention/acupuncture‌

[3] World Health Organization. (2002). Acupuncture : review and analysis of reports on controlled clinical trials. WHO.

[4] The National Institutes of Health (NIH) Consensus Development Program: Acupuncture. (2026). Chiro.org. https://chiro.org/acupuncture/FULL/Consensus_Development_Statement.html

Today's Most Common Addiction? Doomscrolling.

The origins of social media emphasized the social—connecting and chatting with friends, building online communities, maybe even promoting local small businesses. Today, however, social media has evolved to highlight the media. While maintaining relationships with friends remains a major function of social media, the space has evolved to present short-form, highly stimulating, often AI-generated content in algorithms specifically designed to maximize user engagement. These algorithms are designed to stimulate the brain’s dopamine receptors and to create addiction. As a result, this new sensationalist paradigm has sparked massive debate about the ethicality of social media, particularly because, upon exiting social media, dopamine dissipates and a cycle of compulsive use is reinforced [6].

Doomscrolling describes the common habit of spending excessive time “scrolling” through content on social media, a term that gained prominence during the lockdowns of the COVID-19 pandemic. Although generally understood to be a stress-coping mechanism, Harvard doctor Aditi Nerurkar claims that doomscrolling is rooted in the brain’s limbic system. The limbic system, or colloquially, the animal brain, produces signals for hunger, thirst, reproduction, caring for young, and, most relevant to this case, the fight-or-flight response [5, 7]. She argues that stress incites the urge to scroll and to seek information. Doomscrolling is also interpreted as an addiction to negative news specifically, which some argue stems from the brain’s negativity bias, “an evolutionary survival trait that drives more attention to threatening or bad information” [1]. In any case, nearly 1 in 3 US adults admit to doomscrolling to some extent, with Gen-Z and millennials citing even higher figures (~50%) [3].

While mental health research related to doomscrolling is still emerging, doomscrolling has been linked to several negative mental health outcomes. These include a heightened anxiety baseline associated with negative news [4], depression, sleep disturbances from an overstimulated brain at bedtime, and reinforcement of negative thought patterns [1]. Furthermore, as with other compulsive behaviors, doomscrolling can take time away from activities such as connecting with friends and family, schoolwork, and exercise, further compounding its harmful effects.

So, what are some ways to mitigate the effects of doomscrolling? The Mayo Clinic suggests asking oneself some self-reflective questions. How is time online affecting my social health? What am I missing out on because of my time spent scrolling? [2] Setting intentional time limits and using other de-stressors—such as socializing with friends and exercising—are also helpful. Other ways can be implemented directly at the source, such as using screen time apps and setting the screen to grayscale to reduce visual appeal. 

In conclusion, while algorithmic social media platforms are ethically questionable, individuals are not powerless. Many already recognize it as a personal problem, but understanding it more deeply—as both a neurological response and a habit enforced by social media platforms—permits more effective intervention. Through self-awareness and healthier coping mechanisms, the balance between the online and real worlds can be restored.

Designed by: Jennifer Liu

Reviewed by: Vedant Patel

References

[1] Bock, S. (2025). Doomscrolling Again? Expert Explains Why We’re Wired for Worry. Ucsd.edu. https://today.ucsd.edu/story/doomscrolling-again-expert-explains-why-were-wired-for-worry

[2] Bowman, A. (2024, April 18). Doomscrolling: Stop the scroll, protect your mental health. Mayo Clinic Press. https://mcpress.mayoclinic.org/mental-health/doom-scrolling-and-mental-health/

[3] Briggs, E. (2024, March 20). How Americans Feel About Doomscrolling. Morning Consult Pro. https://pro.morningconsult.com/analysis/doomscrolling-impact-users-mood-2024

[4] Cassidy, C. (2022, September 5). Doomscrolling linked to poor physical and mental health, study finds. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/sep/06/doomscrolling-linked-to-poor-physical-and-mental-health-study-finds

[5] Cleveland Clinic. (2024, April 6). What Is the Limbic System? Cleveland Clinic. https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/body/limbic-system

[6] Goldman, B. (2021, October 29). Addictive potential of social media, explained. Stanford Medicine News Center. https://med.stanford.edu/news/insights/2021/10/addictive-potential-of-social-media-explained.html

[7] Salamon, M. (2024, September 1). Doomscrolling dangers. Harvard Health. https://www.health.harvard.edu/mind-and-mood/doomscrolling-dangers

Vaping: Harm Reduction Tool or a New Ethical Epidemic?

Vaping has become one of the most controversial public health issues of the last decade. For some, e-cigarettes represent a powerful harm reduction tool capable of reducing cigarette-related disease. For others, they signal the emergence of a new nicotine epidemic, particularly among adolescents. How do we weigh reduced harm for adult smokers against rising addiction in youth? And how do we confront addiction without reinforcing stigma?

Nicotine is the central issue. Regardless of delivery system, nicotine activates reward pathways in the brain by stimulating dopamine release, which reinforces repeated use and can lead to dependence [1]. Over time, users develop tolerance and experience withdrawal symptoms when nicotine levels drop: irritability, cravings, and difficulty concentrating [1]. Modern e-cigarettes, particularly pod-based devices, can deliver nicotine in concentrations comparable to or exceeding traditional cigarettes [2]. The use of nicotine salts also makes inhalation smoother, increasing the likelihood of sustained use [2].

From a harm-reduction standpoint, vaping differs meaningfully from smoking. Combustible cigarettes produce thousands of chemicals through burning tobacco, including tar and numerous carcinogens. E-cigarettes do not rely on combustion and therefore expose users to fewer of these toxic byproducts [3]. For adults who completely switch from smoking to regulated e-cigarette use, exposure to certain harmful substances is likely reduced [3]. In this context, vaping may serve as a transitional tool away from more dangerous tobacco products. 

However, reduced harm does not equal harmlessness. E-cigarette aerosols contain ultrafine particles, volatile compounds, heavy metals, and flavoring chemicals that may irritate or damage lung tissue [4]. Long-term health outcomes remain uncertain, particularly for individuals who begin using nicotine through vaping rather than switching from cigarettes. This uncertainty becomes especially concerning when considering adolescents.

Youth vaping surged dramatically in the late 2010s, prompting the U.S. Surgeon General to label it an epidemic [5]. Adolescence represents a critical period of brain development, especially in regions involved in impulse control and decision-making. Nicotine exposure during this period may alter neural pathways and increase susceptibility to long-term addiction [5]. Many adolescents who vape report they had not previously smoked cigarettes, suggesting vaping may not function as harm reduction but as a form of harm introduction [6].

The tension lies here: vaping may reduce harm for one population while increasing harm for another. Public health policy must grapple with this dual reality. Blanket condemnation may push adult smokers away from a potentially less harmful alternative. Unregulated promotion, however, risks normalizing nicotine dependence among youth.

Complicating the issue further is stigma. Addiction is frequently framed as a moral failure rather than a neurobiological process. Such framing discourages individuals from seeking help and undermines public health efforts [7]. Adolescents who vape are often portrayed as reckless or irresponsible, ignoring the engineered addictiveness of high-nicotine products and the role of targeted marketing. Effective solutions must address behavior without shaming individuals.

Evidence-based approaches offer a path forward. Restricting youth-targeted advertising, limiting flavors that appeal primarily to minors, and regulating nicotine concentrations may reduce adolescent uptake [6]. At the same time, adult smoking cessation programs should remain accessible and emphasize complete switching rather than dual use [3]. Clear communication is also essential to maintain public trust.

Vaping is not a simple story of good versus bad. It exists within the broader context of addiction science, regulatory ethics, and social responsibility. Whether it becomes a lasting harm reduction strategy or a new public health burden depends on how carefully society navigates this balance in the years to come.

Designed by: Jiyu Hong

Reviewed by: Ayan Jung

References

[1] Benowitz, N. L. (2010). Nicotine addiction. New England Journal of Medicine, 362(24), 2295–2303. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMra0809890

[2] Goniewicz, M. L., et al. (2018). Nicotine levels in electronic cigarette refill solutions: A comparative analysis. Tobacco Control, 27(5), 538–544. https://doi.org/10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2017-053601

[3] National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2018). Public health consequences of e-cigarettes. National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/24952

[4] Allen, J. G., et al. (2016). Flavoring chemicals in e-cigarettes. Environmental Health Perspectives, 124(6), 733–739. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1510185

[5] U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2016). E-cigarette use among youth and young adults: A report of the Surgeon General.

[6] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2023). Youth and tobacco use. https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco

[7] Livingston, J. D., et al. (2012). Reducing stigma related to substance use disorders. Addiction, 107(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2011.03601.x