It appears American teenagers are getting the message about illegal drugs. Unfortunately, too many don’t seem to understand some legal drugs also can be dangerous.
Each year, the University of Michigan’s Institute for Social Research conducts in-depth interviews with about 50,000 teenagers from throughout the country, on a variety of topics. Use of drugs for “recreational” purposes is one of the subjects covered.
According to this year’s study, about 35.9 percent of high school seniors reported using some type of illegal drug during the past year. That’s far too high, but at least progress is being made. The rate in 1997 was 42.4 percent. Only about 1.7 percent of the seniors reported having used marijuana during the past year, compared to 4.7 percent a decade ago.
Survey results for younger children were encouraging, too. Of eighth-graders in the study, 13.2 percent admitted to having used illegal drugs during the past year. That compares to 14.8 percent a year ago.
Again, any use of illegal drugs by teenagers is unacceptable. More needs to be done to prevent them from using such substances.
But, while use of illegal substances seems to be decreasing, abuse of legal drugs is growing. Use of drugs prescribed as painkillers or available over-the-counter as cough and cold remedies is particularly disturbing. It is increasing in some age categories.
Clearly, schools and parents need to convince children even legal drugs must be handled with care.
Source: http://www.advertiser-tribune.com/page/content.detail/id/502230.html
Wednesday, January 2, 2008
It's Time to Legalize Drugs
Rhetoric should not be driving drug policy. Legalization would strip addiction down to what it really is: a health issue.
Prohibition has failed -- again. Instead of treating the demand for illegal drugs as a market, and addicts as patients, policymakers the world over have boosted the profits of drug lords and fostered narcostates that would frighten Al Capone. Finally, a smarter drug control regime that values reality over rhetoric is rising to replace the "war" on drugs.
"The Global War on Drugs can Be Won"
No, it can't.
A "drug-free world," which the United Nations describes as a realistic goal, is no more attainable than an "alcohol-free world" -- and no one has talked about that with a straight face since the repeal of Prohibition in the United States in 1933. Yet futile rhetoric about winning a "war on drugs" persists, despite mountains of evidence documenting its moral and ideological bankruptcy. When the U.N. General Assembly Special Session on drugs convened in 1998, it committed to "eliminating or significantly reducing the illicit cultivation of the coca bush, the cannabis plant and the opium poppy by the year 2008" and to "achieving significant and measurable results in the field of demand reduction." But today, global production and consumption of those drugs are roughly the same as they were a decade ago; meanwhile, many producers have become more efficient, and cocaine and heroin have become purer and cheaper.
It's always dangerous when rhetoric drives policy -- and especially so when "war on drugs" rhetoric leads the public to accept collateral casualties that would never be permissible in civilian law enforcement, much less public health. Politicians still talk of eliminating drugs from the Earth as though their use is a plague on humanity. But drug control is not like disease control, for the simple reason that there's no popular demand for smallpox or polio. Cannabis and opium have been grown throughout much of the world for millennia. The same is true for coca in Latin America. Methamphetamine and other synthetic drugs can be produced anywhere. Demand for particular illicit drugs waxes and wanes, depending not just on availability but also fads, fashion, culture, and competition from alternative means of stimulation and distraction. The relative harshness of drug laws and the intensity of enforcement matter surprisingly little, except in totalitarian states. After all, rates of illegal drug use in the United States are the same as, or higher than, Europe, despite America's much more punitive policies.
"We Can Reduce the Demand for Drugs"
Good luck. Reducing the demand for illegal drugs seems to make sense. But the desire to alter one's state of consciousness, and to use psychoactive drugs to do so, is nearly universal -- and mostly not a problem. There's virtually never been a drug-free society, and more drugs are discovered and devised every year. Demand-reduction efforts that rely on honest education and positive alternatives to drug use are helpful, but not when they devolve into unrealistic, "zero tolerance" policies.
As with sex, abstinence from drugs is the best way to avoid trouble, but one always needs a fallback strategy for those who can't or won't refrain. "Zero tolerance" policies deter some people, but they also dramatically increase the harms and costs for those who don't resist. Drugs become more potent, drug use becomes more hazardous, and people who use drugs are marginalized in ways that serve no one.
The better approach is not demand reduction but "harm reduction." Reducing drug use is fine, but it's not nearly as important as reducing the death, disease, crime, and suffering associated with both drug misuse and failed prohibitionist policies. With respect to legal drugs, such as alcohol and cigarettes, harm reduction means promoting responsible drinking and designated drivers, or persuading people to switch to nicotine patches, chewing gums, and smokeless tobacco. With respect to illegal drugs, it means reducing the transmission of infectious disease through syringe-exchange programs, reducing overdose fatalities by making antidotes readily available, and allowing people addicted to heroin and other illegal opiates to obtain methadone from doctors and even pharmaceutical heroin from clinics.
Britain, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, and Switzerland have already embraced this last option. There's no longer any question that these strategies decrease drug-related harms without increasing drug use. What blocks expansion of such programs is not cost; they typically save taxpayers' money that would otherwise go to criminal justice and healthcare. No, the roadblocks are abstinence-only ideologues and a cruel indifference to the lives and well-being of people who use drugs.
"Reducing the Supply of Drugs Is the Answer"
Not if history is any guide. Reducing supply makes as much sense as reducing demand; after all, if no one were planting cannabis, coca, and opium, there wouldn't be any heroin, cocaine, or marijuana to sell or consume. But the carrot and stick of crop eradication and substitution have been tried and failed, with rare exceptions, for half a century. These methods may succeed in targeted locales, but they usually simply shift production from one region to another: Opium production moves from Pakistan to Afghanistan; coca from Peru to Colombia; and cannabis from Mexico to the United States, while overall global production remains relatively constant or even increases.
The carrot, in the form of economic development and assistance in switching to legal crops, is typically both late and inadequate. The stick, often in the form of forced eradication, including aerial spraying, wipes out illegal and legal crops alike and can be hazardous to both people and local environments. The best thing to be said for emphasizing supply reduction is that it provides a rationale for wealthier nations to spend a little money on economic development in poorer countries. But, for the most part, crop eradication and substitution wreak havoc among impoverished farmers without diminishing overall global supply.
Source: http://www.alternet.org/story/71033/
Prohibition has failed -- again. Instead of treating the demand for illegal drugs as a market, and addicts as patients, policymakers the world over have boosted the profits of drug lords and fostered narcostates that would frighten Al Capone. Finally, a smarter drug control regime that values reality over rhetoric is rising to replace the "war" on drugs.
"The Global War on Drugs can Be Won"
No, it can't.
A "drug-free world," which the United Nations describes as a realistic goal, is no more attainable than an "alcohol-free world" -- and no one has talked about that with a straight face since the repeal of Prohibition in the United States in 1933. Yet futile rhetoric about winning a "war on drugs" persists, despite mountains of evidence documenting its moral and ideological bankruptcy. When the U.N. General Assembly Special Session on drugs convened in 1998, it committed to "eliminating or significantly reducing the illicit cultivation of the coca bush, the cannabis plant and the opium poppy by the year 2008" and to "achieving significant and measurable results in the field of demand reduction." But today, global production and consumption of those drugs are roughly the same as they were a decade ago; meanwhile, many producers have become more efficient, and cocaine and heroin have become purer and cheaper.
It's always dangerous when rhetoric drives policy -- and especially so when "war on drugs" rhetoric leads the public to accept collateral casualties that would never be permissible in civilian law enforcement, much less public health. Politicians still talk of eliminating drugs from the Earth as though their use is a plague on humanity. But drug control is not like disease control, for the simple reason that there's no popular demand for smallpox or polio. Cannabis and opium have been grown throughout much of the world for millennia. The same is true for coca in Latin America. Methamphetamine and other synthetic drugs can be produced anywhere. Demand for particular illicit drugs waxes and wanes, depending not just on availability but also fads, fashion, culture, and competition from alternative means of stimulation and distraction. The relative harshness of drug laws and the intensity of enforcement matter surprisingly little, except in totalitarian states. After all, rates of illegal drug use in the United States are the same as, or higher than, Europe, despite America's much more punitive policies.
"We Can Reduce the Demand for Drugs"
Good luck. Reducing the demand for illegal drugs seems to make sense. But the desire to alter one's state of consciousness, and to use psychoactive drugs to do so, is nearly universal -- and mostly not a problem. There's virtually never been a drug-free society, and more drugs are discovered and devised every year. Demand-reduction efforts that rely on honest education and positive alternatives to drug use are helpful, but not when they devolve into unrealistic, "zero tolerance" policies.
As with sex, abstinence from drugs is the best way to avoid trouble, but one always needs a fallback strategy for those who can't or won't refrain. "Zero tolerance" policies deter some people, but they also dramatically increase the harms and costs for those who don't resist. Drugs become more potent, drug use becomes more hazardous, and people who use drugs are marginalized in ways that serve no one.
The better approach is not demand reduction but "harm reduction." Reducing drug use is fine, but it's not nearly as important as reducing the death, disease, crime, and suffering associated with both drug misuse and failed prohibitionist policies. With respect to legal drugs, such as alcohol and cigarettes, harm reduction means promoting responsible drinking and designated drivers, or persuading people to switch to nicotine patches, chewing gums, and smokeless tobacco. With respect to illegal drugs, it means reducing the transmission of infectious disease through syringe-exchange programs, reducing overdose fatalities by making antidotes readily available, and allowing people addicted to heroin and other illegal opiates to obtain methadone from doctors and even pharmaceutical heroin from clinics.
Britain, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, and Switzerland have already embraced this last option. There's no longer any question that these strategies decrease drug-related harms without increasing drug use. What blocks expansion of such programs is not cost; they typically save taxpayers' money that would otherwise go to criminal justice and healthcare. No, the roadblocks are abstinence-only ideologues and a cruel indifference to the lives and well-being of people who use drugs.
"Reducing the Supply of Drugs Is the Answer"
Not if history is any guide. Reducing supply makes as much sense as reducing demand; after all, if no one were planting cannabis, coca, and opium, there wouldn't be any heroin, cocaine, or marijuana to sell or consume. But the carrot and stick of crop eradication and substitution have been tried and failed, with rare exceptions, for half a century. These methods may succeed in targeted locales, but they usually simply shift production from one region to another: Opium production moves from Pakistan to Afghanistan; coca from Peru to Colombia; and cannabis from Mexico to the United States, while overall global production remains relatively constant or even increases.
The carrot, in the form of economic development and assistance in switching to legal crops, is typically both late and inadequate. The stick, often in the form of forced eradication, including aerial spraying, wipes out illegal and legal crops alike and can be hazardous to both people and local environments. The best thing to be said for emphasizing supply reduction is that it provides a rationale for wealthier nations to spend a little money on economic development in poorer countries. But, for the most part, crop eradication and substitution wreak havoc among impoverished farmers without diminishing overall global supply.
Source: http://www.alternet.org/story/71033/
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
Key advisers attack new drugs policy
The government was at loggerheads with its own advisers last night over its new drugs policy.
An influential Home Office-backed committee raised serious doubts about the consultation process behind the 10-year strategy which will be unveiled in April. The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) described the process as 'self-congratulatory and generally disappointing' and questioned the credibility of much of the evidence presented to government.
A spokesman for the Home Office said last month that the consultation process, which is being conducted by the polling agency Mori, had been 'open' and had included a wide range of views.
But the council said: 'We consider that an opportunity has been missed to address the public health problem relating to drug misuse and the balance with law enforcement and the Criminal Justice System...The consultation would benefit from extending further to the wider social harm of drug misuse.'
It also said: 'It is of concern that the evidence presented, and the interpretation given, are not based on rigorous scrutiny. It is not acknowledged that in many cases the information is uncertain and sometimes of poor quality.'
Last night politicians said the council's response raised questions about whether the government was more interested in spinning its record than tackling the war on drugs.
'The failures of the government's drugs policy are laid bare for all to see when their own advisory committee condemns the Home Office as being misleading and self-congratulatory,' said Liberal Democrat leadership contender Nick Clegg. 'When will the government wake up and acknowledge something many members of the public know: we are losing the war on drugs?' Clegg said
Steve Rolles of think tank Transform, which advises the UN on drugs policy, said: 'The consultation process behind the new strategy has been woeful.' Last month Transform branded the consultation process a 'sham', saying the government had already made up its mind to continue with its current strategy.
Concerns about the direction of the government's next drugs strategy come as senior police officers warn that cannabis now presents a greater 'long-term' threat to Britain than cocaine. The increasing strength of high-grade 'skunk' combined with growing evidence of major criminal involvement in its production was fast becoming an issue of mounting concern. Hospitals recently revealed that the number of mental health admissions as a result of cannabis use had risen by 73 per cent.
Source: http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/story/0,,2220563,00.html
An influential Home Office-backed committee raised serious doubts about the consultation process behind the 10-year strategy which will be unveiled in April. The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) described the process as 'self-congratulatory and generally disappointing' and questioned the credibility of much of the evidence presented to government.
A spokesman for the Home Office said last month that the consultation process, which is being conducted by the polling agency Mori, had been 'open' and had included a wide range of views.
But the council said: 'We consider that an opportunity has been missed to address the public health problem relating to drug misuse and the balance with law enforcement and the Criminal Justice System...The consultation would benefit from extending further to the wider social harm of drug misuse.'
It also said: 'It is of concern that the evidence presented, and the interpretation given, are not based on rigorous scrutiny. It is not acknowledged that in many cases the information is uncertain and sometimes of poor quality.'
Last night politicians said the council's response raised questions about whether the government was more interested in spinning its record than tackling the war on drugs.
'The failures of the government's drugs policy are laid bare for all to see when their own advisory committee condemns the Home Office as being misleading and self-congratulatory,' said Liberal Democrat leadership contender Nick Clegg. 'When will the government wake up and acknowledge something many members of the public know: we are losing the war on drugs?' Clegg said
Steve Rolles of think tank Transform, which advises the UN on drugs policy, said: 'The consultation process behind the new strategy has been woeful.' Last month Transform branded the consultation process a 'sham', saying the government had already made up its mind to continue with its current strategy.
Concerns about the direction of the government's next drugs strategy come as senior police officers warn that cannabis now presents a greater 'long-term' threat to Britain than cocaine. The increasing strength of high-grade 'skunk' combined with growing evidence of major criminal involvement in its production was fast becoming an issue of mounting concern. Hospitals recently revealed that the number of mental health admissions as a result of cannabis use had risen by 73 per cent.
Source: http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/story/0,,2220563,00.html
Monday, November 26, 2007
Canadian Teens Using Prescription Painkillers More
21% of Canadian teenagers in grades 7 to 12 said in a survey that they had used prescription painkillers (opioid drugs), such as Tylenol No. 3 and Percocet at least once during the previous twelve months for recreational purposes - the survey, carried out by the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) in Toronto interviewed teenagers in Ontario. Approximately three-quarter of these teenagers said they obtained the painkillers from their homes. OxyContin was the only drug to show a significant, albeit small, increase in non-medical use since the previous survey - in 2005 18,100 (1%) students reported using it, compared to 2% (about 18,100 teenagers) in 2007.
The surveyors were encouraged to find that there was no increase in the uptake of other drugs, saying that this may be because of effective health promotion initiatives that have been in place over a number of years. Louis Gliksman, Acting Chief of Research, CAMH, study spokesperson, said "The reasons for the increase in OxyContin® use are currently unknown, and we need to monitor this finding to determine whether it is a real trend or a one-time finding. However, the finding that 72% of the student users report obtaining the drugs from home suggests that some intervention with families might be appropriate." Students still opt for alcohol as their drug of choice, the report explains. Approximately 61% of all the students surveyed consume alcohol. About 26% of students binge drink.
In this report binge drinking means consuming five or more alcoholic drinks in one session. 19% of students may be drinking hazardously, the same proportion as in 2005. Drinking hazardously means doing so in a way that significantly raises your chances of having social, psychological and physical problems. 26% of the students said they had consumed cannabis at least once during the previous twelve months - a slight drop on previous years. 14% of all students said they had consumed cannabis at least six times during the previous twelve months.
A higher number of students said they drove a car after using cannabis (16%) than those who had consumed alcohol (12%).Just 5% of all the students said they smoked cigarettes regularly, while 72% had never tried a cigarette ever. In fact, the prevalence of daily smoking is at its lowest since 1977, when records began - today 12% of students smoke cigarettes regularly. Gail Czukar, CAMH's VP of Policy, Education and Health Promotion, said "Survey indicates that it is the legal drugs - alcohol and prescription opioids - that are being used by Ontario's youth today, and our governments' efforts to address substance use among youth need to be in synch with that reality if we want to improve the health of our young people."
The survey also revealed:-- 4% of students use OTC (over-the-counter) sleeping medication-- 3% of students use Jimson Weed-- 1% of students use ADHD (attention deficient/hyperactivity disorder) medicines for non-medical use-- Speed (methamphetamine) and crystal meth (crystal methamphetamine) does not seem to have made any inroads into the student population. In fact 'speed' consumption dropped, from 2% of all students in 2005, to 1% in 2007-- 3% of students consumed cannabis every day during the 4 weeks prior to the survey (about 27,300 students in grades 7-12) -- Approximately 28,700 students in Ontario (3%) may have a cannabis dependence problem-- 15% of all students said they got drunk at least once during the previous twelve months-- 21% were either sold, offered or given drugs at schoolThe survey, called the Ontario Student Drug Use and Health Survey (OSDUHS). It is Canada's longest running school survey of teenagers, describing drug use and changes since 1977.
Source: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/89535.php
The surveyors were encouraged to find that there was no increase in the uptake of other drugs, saying that this may be because of effective health promotion initiatives that have been in place over a number of years. Louis Gliksman, Acting Chief of Research, CAMH, study spokesperson, said "The reasons for the increase in OxyContin® use are currently unknown, and we need to monitor this finding to determine whether it is a real trend or a one-time finding. However, the finding that 72% of the student users report obtaining the drugs from home suggests that some intervention with families might be appropriate." Students still opt for alcohol as their drug of choice, the report explains. Approximately 61% of all the students surveyed consume alcohol. About 26% of students binge drink.
In this report binge drinking means consuming five or more alcoholic drinks in one session. 19% of students may be drinking hazardously, the same proportion as in 2005. Drinking hazardously means doing so in a way that significantly raises your chances of having social, psychological and physical problems. 26% of the students said they had consumed cannabis at least once during the previous twelve months - a slight drop on previous years. 14% of all students said they had consumed cannabis at least six times during the previous twelve months.
A higher number of students said they drove a car after using cannabis (16%) than those who had consumed alcohol (12%).Just 5% of all the students said they smoked cigarettes regularly, while 72% had never tried a cigarette ever. In fact, the prevalence of daily smoking is at its lowest since 1977, when records began - today 12% of students smoke cigarettes regularly. Gail Czukar, CAMH's VP of Policy, Education and Health Promotion, said "Survey indicates that it is the legal drugs - alcohol and prescription opioids - that are being used by Ontario's youth today, and our governments' efforts to address substance use among youth need to be in synch with that reality if we want to improve the health of our young people."
The survey also revealed:-- 4% of students use OTC (over-the-counter) sleeping medication-- 3% of students use Jimson Weed-- 1% of students use ADHD (attention deficient/hyperactivity disorder) medicines for non-medical use-- Speed (methamphetamine) and crystal meth (crystal methamphetamine) does not seem to have made any inroads into the student population. In fact 'speed' consumption dropped, from 2% of all students in 2005, to 1% in 2007-- 3% of students consumed cannabis every day during the 4 weeks prior to the survey (about 27,300 students in grades 7-12) -- Approximately 28,700 students in Ontario (3%) may have a cannabis dependence problem-- 15% of all students said they got drunk at least once during the previous twelve months-- 21% were either sold, offered or given drugs at schoolThe survey, called the Ontario Student Drug Use and Health Survey (OSDUHS). It is Canada's longest running school survey of teenagers, describing drug use and changes since 1977.
Source: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/89535.php
Herald investigation: Party pill pushers beat the ban
Experimental "next-generation" party pills designed to side-step next month's Government ban have hit the streets.
One test batch put a man who took them in hospital.
A Weekend Herald investigation has found at least one of the new pills contains a substance police believe is illegal.
A legal loophole means party pill makers can put products on the market without having to prove they are safe.
Doctors say the new pills being created in the rush to meet demand may be as dangerous as those being banned.
The Government aims to have its ban on core party pill ingredient BZP in effect by Christmas.
The law change will classify BZP as a class C drug.
A range of pills being marketed as "non-BZP" is now on shop shelves. The pills, with names such as "Neuro Blast", cost $40 for a pack of three.
A man who took part in a trial of non-BZP pills for Auckland company London Underground was hospitalised when he found himself almost unable to breath, went numb and had his blood pressure almost double after taking two pills in August.
He said he felt he was going to die when he was hit by a "a surge of adrenalin into my heart".
The Ministry of Health says other users of next-generation pills have had heart palpitations and their fingers or toes have turned blue.
The Neuro Blast pills are being investigated by the police national drug intelligence bureau after scientific testing found they contained a stimulating substance called diphenyl prolinol.
Bureau head Mick Alexander said police believed they could prove this was a close version or "analogue" of pipradrol, a stimulant with side effects ranging from insomnia to psychosis and convulsions.
He would not comment further, saying legal action was possible.
London Underground refused to discuss the pills with the Weekend Herald and did not return calls about the police allegations.
A staff member, who would only give his name as Stan, said he knew of problems experienced by one of the trial participants but would not say what was in the pills.
He said Neuro Blast was no longer in shops - but the Weekend Herald bought some in the city yesterday.
Mr Alexander said police were aware parts of the multi-million dollar party pill industry were "pushing boundaries" with "obscure compounds" before the BZP ban.
"There are party pill suppliers selling pills without even knowing what is in them. If I was a user I would just stay away."
Mr Alexander said the party pill industry was exploiting a loophole in the Misuse of Drugs Act which meant manufacturers did not have to prove pills were safe before putting them on sale, as happened with food and medicine. Instead, the onus was on police to prove the pills were dangerous.
Source: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10473827
One test batch put a man who took them in hospital.
A Weekend Herald investigation has found at least one of the new pills contains a substance police believe is illegal.
A legal loophole means party pill makers can put products on the market without having to prove they are safe.
Doctors say the new pills being created in the rush to meet demand may be as dangerous as those being banned.
The Government aims to have its ban on core party pill ingredient BZP in effect by Christmas.
The law change will classify BZP as a class C drug.
A range of pills being marketed as "non-BZP" is now on shop shelves. The pills, with names such as "Neuro Blast", cost $40 for a pack of three.
A man who took part in a trial of non-BZP pills for Auckland company London Underground was hospitalised when he found himself almost unable to breath, went numb and had his blood pressure almost double after taking two pills in August.
He said he felt he was going to die when he was hit by a "a surge of adrenalin into my heart".
The Ministry of Health says other users of next-generation pills have had heart palpitations and their fingers or toes have turned blue.
The Neuro Blast pills are being investigated by the police national drug intelligence bureau after scientific testing found they contained a stimulating substance called diphenyl prolinol.
Bureau head Mick Alexander said police believed they could prove this was a close version or "analogue" of pipradrol, a stimulant with side effects ranging from insomnia to psychosis and convulsions.
He would not comment further, saying legal action was possible.
London Underground refused to discuss the pills with the Weekend Herald and did not return calls about the police allegations.
A staff member, who would only give his name as Stan, said he knew of problems experienced by one of the trial participants but would not say what was in the pills.
He said Neuro Blast was no longer in shops - but the Weekend Herald bought some in the city yesterday.
Mr Alexander said police were aware parts of the multi-million dollar party pill industry were "pushing boundaries" with "obscure compounds" before the BZP ban.
"There are party pill suppliers selling pills without even knowing what is in them. If I was a user I would just stay away."
Mr Alexander said the party pill industry was exploiting a loophole in the Misuse of Drugs Act which meant manufacturers did not have to prove pills were safe before putting them on sale, as happened with food and medicine. Instead, the onus was on police to prove the pills were dangerous.
Source: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10473827
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
