Revealed: Government helpline tells children ‘cannabis is safer than alcohol’

Children calling the Government’s drugs helpline are being told that cannabis is safer than alcohol and that ecstasy will not damage their health, an investigation by The Sunday Telegraph has found.

 Advisers manning the Frank anti-drug helpline are telling children cannabis is safer than alcohol

Advisers manning the “Frank” helpline are informing callers they believed to be children as young as 13 that alcohol is a “much more powerful drug than cannabis” and that using the illegal drug recreationally is not harmful because it “doesn’t get you that high”.

Callers are also being told that taking ecstasy will not lead to long-term damage and that if they are in doubt, to “just take half a pill and if you are handling that OK, you can take the other half.”   They are even being told that they would be able to smoke a cannabis joint, on top of ecstasy, with no ill-effects.

The advice, given to reporters who rang the helpline posing as young people, has alarmed anti-drugs campaigners who branded it “scandalous” and “irresponsible.”   Health experts have condemned the advice given to children as “frankly appalling”, “factually incorrect” and “worryingly cavalier”.

After being presented with the findings, the Government last night said it had launched an immediate investigation into the Frank service, which is funded by three separate departments, and said it would be taking action advisers involved.

Chris Grayling, the shadow Home Secretary, said: “The idea that the Government’s helpline should be saying to young people “go for it” and that cannabis should be class C when it has just been classified by the Government as class B, shows that the Home Office is all over the place in its approach to drugs.”

Professor Neil McKeganey, professor of drug misuse research, at Glasgow University, said: “Having read one of the transcripts, it is extraordinary that the Frank counsellor seems more concerned to place cannabis smoking in some kind of comfort zone of acceptable behaviour rather than address the risks of such drug use on the part of a 13-year-old child.”

Mary Brett, a spokesman for the Talking About Cannabis charity, said: “It is scandalous. These people are talking to kids, for goodness sake. Taking drugs can trigger all kinds of psychosis in people that have a genetic predisposition to it. Why are they not told that? Medical experts have said time and again that skunk, the newer type of cannabis that many young people are taking, is dangerous.

“These children are being told they can choose. But the risky bit of their brains develops before the inhibitory bit of their brain and they take risks.

“They have to be told ‘this is not for you’. When they hear fair, reasoned arguments against, they respond. It is obvious they are not hearing them from Frank.”

The helpline, established by the Government in 2003 with £3 million funding, was described in a Home Office drugs strategy recently as “the key channel by which Government communicates the dangers of drugs, including cannabis, to young people”.

But in calls to its helpline, manned 24 hours a day, seven days a week, reporters posing as teenagers were told by different advisers that drug taking was not harmful.    At no point in the conversations did the Frank team try to dissuade the callers from taking drugs.

The effects on the body were played down to the extent that one adviser, referring to ecstasy, said: “At the end of the day I know where you’re coming from – doing a pill and it felt great.”

Another counsellor said that cannabis, a class B drug, should be regarded as class C and that “cannabis doesn’t really get you that high. You know you are always in control”.   A third adviser stated: “nicotine is physically addictive. Cannabis isn’t. You can stop smoking it any time you want.”

Alcohol was presented as a much greater danger than illegal drugs, including heroin, more expensive and with many more negative effects.   One adviser told a caller: “The withdrawals of alcohol are worse than heroin for example; people can die when they become addicted to alcohol and stop suddenly.”

The reporters were also told that the police “would not do anything” if they found a young person with cannabis and that if they are caught with pills, they should say they were for their own use to avoid being prosecuted as a dealer.

In one call, where the reporter claimed to be the friend of a 13-year-old boy who had started smoking cannabis, the adviser said: “He won’t get addicted, no. Tell him you spoke to Frank and they told me it’s not as dangerous as alcohol. Tell him they said by using it recreationally, it’s not as bad as alcohol, because that’s the truth in terms of the power of the drug.”

He went on to say that if alcohol was illegal, it would be a class A drug, the most harmful category, whereas “cannabis should just be a class C drug”.   Another reporter, posing as a 15-year-old girl who had taken her first ecstasy tablet, asked if it would affect her health in any way.

The response was “Nah”. He told the caller that he could not say “go and take Es, you’re absolutely fine”, but that “in terms of taking a pill like that, it’s not going to affect your health”.   He went on to say “obviously you had a really good experience. It’s like most things, if you do it in moderation, you lessen your chances.

“A good idea is if you don’t know what it is you are taking, take a half a one and see how you go and if you are handling that OK, you can take the other half.” The adviser was also unsure what classification the Class A drug was.

During a discussion where the adviser talked about mixing drugs, the reporter asked if it was safe to have cannabis after taking an ecstasy pill.

The adviser said: “Again, I’m not condoning it but it wouldn’t spin you out like another pill or powder. If you’re asking me if you could have a spliff with it, would it have any major affects, generally speaking, no, although people are individuals so what works for one might not work for another, but generally speaking, no, you’d be able to have spliff with it.”

An estimated five million people in the UK are users of illegal or street drugs. Health experts are growing increasingly worried about the affects on young people’s mental health. There is also growing evidence that contrary to earlier assumptions, cannabis can be addictive.

Varieties of skunk, which contain much higher levels of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the active chemical, are more dangerous than the cannabis used in the 1960s and 1970s but are now widespread and often the choice of young people.

Dr Zerrin Atakan, consultant psychiatrist at the Institute of Psychiatry, said: “Any drug use while the brain is still developing may lead to structural or functional changes. One Australian study has shown that heavy cannabis users show clear structural abnormalities of the brain.

“Another recent study has also shown that cannabis use before 18 can lead to abnormalities in areas of the brain that control memory, attention, decision-making and language skills.

“Also, contrary to previously held beliefs, it is now considered that regular users can develop ‘tolerance’ to the drug, one of the main characteristics of addiction. Regular users require higher doses to become ‘stoned’. Some people find it very hard to give it up and become highly anxious if they do.”

According to the Home Office, drug use among all ages, including young people, has fallen in recent years. The Government, which downgraded cannabis to a grade C drug in 2004, has recently reclassified it to B.

A Government spokesman said: “It is completely unacceptable for a Frank adviser to be giving out wrong, misleading and inaccurate information. We are urgently looking into the matter and will identify the person or persons involved and take action.

“Frank is an important resource for young people who need help and advice about drugs. It is vital that Frank advisers give out correct and straight forward advice – we have therefore commissioned a review of the training advisers receive and will act upon it.”

Source: www.telegraph.co.uk  l8th April 2009

A third of 14 to 16-year-olds drink every weekend.
Children should learn first aid skills to help friends who become dangerously drunk, the British Red Cross has said.
Its survey of 2,500 11 to 16-year-olds found 10% had been left with a drunk friend who was sick, injured or unconscious and 14% said they had been in an alcohol-related emergency.
The Red Cross wants to promote a broad range of first aid skills, but says the effects of alcohol are a key concern. The charity Drinkaware backed the call, but said parents needed to give advice.
Official figures show that there were more than 7,000 hospital admissions between 2006 and 2009 involving under-15s and alcohol.
Many youngsters told the survey that they drank – 23% of 11 to 16-year-olds said they have been drunk, while one in three 14 to 16-year-olds said they drank most weekends.
Many of those who said they had witnessed an alcohol-related emergency said they had panicked, or did not know what to do. Almost half said they were worried about their friend choking on vomit or simply not waking up.
Joe Mulligan, from the British Red Cross, said: “We need to ensure that every young person, irrespective of whether they have been drinking, has the ability and confidence to cope in a crisis.”
The agency hopes new online training materials, including videos on YouTube, will reach children directly. Its campaign, called Life – Live It, is also sending Red Cross trainers into schools and offering first aid packs to teachers.
Children can learn skills including the recovery position, to avoid someone choking on their own vomit, and resuscitation techniques.
Chris Sorek, from charity Drinkaware, said the findings reinforced the need for children of all ages to be educated about alcohol misuse. “It’s not surprising that children under 16 don’t know how to deal with alcohol emergencies. Ideally they should enjoy an alcohol-free childhood, so we wouldn’t expect them to know what to do.
“But with the young people who drink alcohol drinking at very high levels, it’s important they are equipped with the tips they need to keep themselves and their friends safe.”
But he said that parents played a vital role in educating their children about the dangers of alcohol misuse.
First aid has been part of the school curriculum for two years, but the survey also found that only 5% of those surveyed had received first aid training at school. As well as dealing with alcohol-related problems, the campaign aims to help teach children how to help people with asthma attacks, head injuries, choking and epileptic seizures.

Source: BBC News 13th Sept.2010

A third of 14 to 16-year-olds drink every weekend Children should learn first aid skills to help friends who become dangerously drunk, the British Red Cross has said.
Its survey of 2,500 11 to 16-year-olds found 10% had been left with a drunk friend who was sick, injured or unconscious and 14% said they had been in an alcohol-related emergency.
The Red Cross wants to promote a broad range of first aid skills, but says the effects of alcohol are a key concern. The charity Drinkaware backed the call, but said parents needed to give advice.
Official figures show that there were more than 7,000 hospital admissions between 2006 and 2009 involving under-15s and alcohol.
Many youngsters told the survey that they drank – 23% of 11 to 16-year-olds said they have been drunk, while one in three 14 to 16-year-olds said they drank most weekends.
Many of those who said they had witnessed an alcohol-related emergency said they had panicked, or did not know what to do. Almost half said they were worried about their friend choking on vomit or simply not waking up.
Joe Mulligan, from the British Red Cross, said: “We need to ensure that every young person, irrespective of whether they have been drinking, has the ability and confidence to cope in a crisis.”
The agency hopes new online training materials, including videos on YouTube, will reach children directly. Its campaign, called Life – Live It, is also sending Red Cross trainers into schools and offering first aid packs to teachers.
Children can learn skills including the recovery position, to avoid someone choking on their own vomit, and resuscitation techniques.
Chris Sorek, from charity Drinkaware, said the findings reinforced the need for children of all ages to be educated about alcohol misuse. “It’s not surprising that children under 16 don’t know how to deal with alcohol emergencies. Ideally they should enjoy an alcohol-free childhood, so we wouldn’t expect them to know what to do.
“But with the young people who drink alcohol drinking at very high levels, it’s important they are equipped with the tips they need to keep themselves and their friends safe.”
But he said that parents played a vital role in educating their children about the dangers of alcohol misuse.
First aid has been part of the school curriculum for two years, but the survey also found that only 5% of those surveyed had received first aid training at school. As well as dealing with alcohol-related problems, the campaign aims to help teach children how to help people with asthma attacks, head injuries, choking and epileptic seizures.

Source: BBC News 13th Sept.2010

Last week, it was announced that the Conservative government will soon unveil a new national anti-drug strategy. The plan is said to feature a get-tough approach to illegal drugs, including a crackdown on grow-ops and drug gangs. And while it will also (wisely) include tens of millions for rehabilitation of addicts and for a national drug prevention campaign, it is said to retreat from safe-injection sites and other fashionable “harm-reduction” strategies introduced by the previous Liberal government. To which we say: Good. This editorial column has long urged a softening of drug policy on marijuana and other non-addictive recreational substances. But heroin and similarly addictive drugs are a different story. Moreover, safe injection sites don’t work. And they send the wrong message, too, promoting disrespect for the rule of law by having government facilitating the consumption of illegal substances.

 Too bad most of the proof to back these positive claims come from SIS proponents or the academics who devise harm-reduction theories. Police here, and in Europe (where they have lots of experience with SISs) tell a very different tale.

 When Insite applied to have its three-year licence renewed last fall, the RCMP told Health Canada it had “concerns regarding any initiative that lowers the perceived risks associated with drug use. There is considerable evidence to show that, when the perceived risks associated to drug use decreases, there is a corresponding increase in number of people using drugs.”

Reports that the Harper government is preparing to announce changes to Canada’s outdated 20-year-old national strategy on illicit drug use should be reason for optimism.Source:Addiction & Recovery News May 2007

Source:Addiction & Recovery News May 2007

Four out of ten teenagers know someone with mental health problems caused by cannabis, a report shows. More than half of youngsters questioned also believed that those smoking the drug lose motivation and do badly at school.
The survey, by the Home Office funded drugs advice service Frank, is fresh evidence that the supposedly soft drug has harmed the health, education and careers of millions of teenagers. It comes a week after a study showed that even one-off users of cannabis show signs of behaviour linked to schizophrenia, with half of those tested having an ‘acute psychotic reaction’.
The results challenge the orthodoxy – followed by Frank in its guidance to youngsters – that cannabis is dangerous only to heavy users or those who already have mental health problems.
The advice service’s report showed that 42 per cent of 11 to 18-year-olds knew someone who had suffered mental problems from the drug, including paranoia, panic attacks and memory loss. The figure suggests that 1.5million teenagers have had direct experience of the harm caused by cannabis.
It could be a reason why fewer youngsters have been taking the drug, with use falling since 2001. However, the number of under-25s smoking cannabis was still almost one in five last year. Among those who knew someone who had suffered damage from cannabis, 64 per cent said the harm took the form of panic attacks.
The survey of 28,000 teenagers, which was carried out through a social-networking website, also found that 56 per cent of those questioned ‘associate cannabis use with losing motivation and doing badly at school or college’. Almost 15 per cent said they used cannabis, which they claimed helped them cope with life. But only 11 per cent said they thought using the drug made them look cool.
The criminal status of cannabis was downgraded to Category C by Labour in 2004, meaning it ranked alongside performance-enhancing drugs used by cheating athletes. This meant users would be arrested only rarely if caught by police.
However, deepening concerns over the mental health effects of the drug – and the stronger varieties now sold on the streets – meant it was pushed back into the more serious Category B this year. But still only a few of those caught with cannabis will be arrested, with police more likely to use powers to hand out on-the-spot fines.
Frank spokesman Chris Hudson said: ‘The majority of teenagers don’t want to risk their health by using cannabis, however some people choose to take the risk.
‘Others wrongly believe cannabis is harmless because it is a plant. Cannabis messes with your mind – and reactions can be more powerful with stronger strains such as skunk, which is around twice as potent.’ The organisation is to start an anti-cannabis advertising campaign next week, timed to catch teenagers during their summer holidays when they may be tempted to use drugs.
The Frank website currently states that only regular use of cannabis is associated with the risk of mental illness. It also says that nobody knows whether stronger strains of the drug carry higher risks. Phone lines run by the advice organisation, paid for out of a Home Office subsidy of £6.5million a year, can be even less discouraging.
One caller was told earlier this year: ‘Alcohol is a powerful drug in what it does to your body and how many brain cells it kills and stuff. Cannabis is not to be taken lightly, but it’s a lot less powerful. If alcohol were illegal it would be a Class A drug. Cannabis should just be a Class C drug. In terms of its effects it’s a lot less powerful than drinking.’
Anti-drug campaigners welcomed the Frank research. Mary Brett of Europe Against Drugs said: ‘Frank has been stuck in a time warp. Their website still isn’t up to date. They have always said you should steer clear of cannabis if you have a history of mental illness. It doesn’t seem likely that the damaged people known to 42 per cent of teenagers all had a history of mental illness.’
Source: Daily Mail 6th Aug. 2009

No one wants others to suffer. That’s the “Chink in the Armor” that Serra talks of. There may be some maladies that can be helped by marijuana, even if it is only psychologically. Those who are ill have been catapulted into the middle of the debate … a war, by a heartless and cruel group of people who want to get high and those who will not go speechless to watch our loved ones become like them. There seems to be no middle ground for those on our side understand all too well what the wrong message and role-modeling wrong behavior means.
These days, people on both sides of an issue are so polarized they won’t talk to each other, much less listen. Our side, with some willing to listen and talk, allowed the legalizer’s side to take ground that didn’t belong to them and more of the youth and those ill, (the vulnerable) are being hurt because they are now addicted.
Talking with and listening is an important issue with me – one is often surprised where one finds truth.
A friend suggested I read Sun Tzu’s book for the perspective of “know your enemy”. Understanding this, plus at the prodding of those I work with against drug use, I began to learn about the legalizers – an interesting study.
And then tonight; it’s ironic sometimes what one stumbles upon, poking around on the net! I happened onto a site that offered schooling toward a Criminal Justice Degree. I paused as I perused it; something wasn’t right, but as I looked it over, I couldn’t figure out what it was. I was thinking their ad, offering a salary of $40,000 as a DEA agent, wasn’t much of a motivation – not much to put one’s life on the line for! Still, I couldn’t quite leave that site. That “something’s wrong feeling” was stronger every moment; maybe I was seeing it, but I couldn’t recognize it. As I decided to search for it, I found it, printed lightly – almost as if it were not meant to be noticed.
What I’d noticed was the logo of one of the five schools offering the degree, one I’d seen before, many times now in my study. Evidently this time, for me it had been subliminal . . . . the link probably won’t mean anything to someone who hasn’t studied the players in the legalization movement – “it’s near impossible to keep up on even most issues in this ‘age of information’. I wonder if the DEA knows about this?”, I thought as I shook my head and began to laugh. “I wonder if my prohibitionist friends know about this? Gotta be someone’s idea of a bad joke – a legalizer’s school teaching future DEA agents”, I told myself. “I’ll bet users have noticed, … some of them”.
The school offering the degree? It’s the University of Phoenix. The university’s founder is John Sperling – one of the three men in what I call the “Daddy Warbucks Cartel”, the three men most responsible for funding the ballot measures all across the nation for the legalization of marijuana. (no; they’re not local grass-roots [pun intended] campaigns.)
Another is Peter B. Lewis, of Progressive Insurance. Wouldn’t it seem fitting that the government require all the “medical marijuana users” who drive, to sign with Progressive for their auto insurance? Could be real revealing, couldn’t it? The third man, is George Soros – all three radical politicos.
Another interesting thing I found that ties in as well – on an OSI, Open Society Institute’s site, (one of Soros’ numerous non-profits), I listened to a panel discussion over the net – about how nations like Iran have been successful at shutting down communications and the internet – what works and what doesn’t in totalitarian nations.
I found it interesting that it’s just exactly how the government of Iran recently reacted, attempting to shut down the ability of the people to talk with each other after this fraudulent election. Does anyone else find it ironic that proponents of drug legalization are in bed with a man who (I believe) essentially plans to take away others’ freedom?
If all three groups won’t talk, won’t listen, won’t give, it’s a loose / loose / loose, for everyone! Again, our side gave up or lost too much ground here and all sides are willing to fight to the end.
Source: examiner.com June 18th 2009

Today in Atlanta, concerned parents will meet with regional school officials, drug prevention specialists and student assistance professionals to discuss the promise of a powerful new tool to fight drug use among America’s youth.

Building on the 11 percent decline in teen drug use America has witnessed in the past two years, random student drug testing — locally controlled, nonpunitive and designed to get help for those in trouble — can help consolidate and further our progress.

Addiction is a paediatric-onset disease that needs a public health response. In much the same way that school tuberculosis tests identify children who are sick and can spread a dangerous disease, student drug testing helps identify kids who have a problem with drugs and prevents the spread of the disease of addiction.

Each child prevented from using drugs means there is one fewer child able to pass the disease of addiction to his or her peers, and we know that if we can prevent children from using drugs in their teen years, they are much less likely to go on and use drugs later in life.

In the past decade, the nation’s acceptance of student drug testing has increased, hastened by the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2002 ruling that drug testing students in extracurricular activities is constitutionally protected.

President Bush highlighted this policy as an effective prevention and intervention instrument during his State of the Union speech in January, and backed up his position with a call for increased federal funds for schools that would like to start these programs. This momentum in favour of student drug testing is based on the demonstrated effectiveness of random testing programs to deter use, and a more educated public understanding that student drug test results can only be used confidentially to help students, not to punish them.

Random drug testing of students in extracurricular activities is effective because it demonstrates that a community has set a serious standard for its youth. In addition to creating a culture of disapproval toward drugs, student drug testing also achieves three public health goals:

• It deters children from initiating drug use;

• It identifies children who have just started using drugs so that parents and counsellors can intervene early;

• It helps identify children who have a dependency on drugs so that they can be referred to effective drug treatment.

According to a study in the Journal of Adolescent Health, a school in Oregon that randomly drug tested student athletes had a rate of drug use that was one-quarter that of a comparable school with no drug testing policy.

After two years of a drug testing program, Hunterdon Central Regional High School in New Jersey saw significant reductions in 20 of 28 drug use categories, including a drop in cocaine use by seniors from 13 percent to 4 percent. The U.S. military saw drug use rates drop from 27 percent in 1981 to 3 percent today, thanks to the introduction of random drug testing.

Making it easier for vulnerable people to use damaging addictive drugs is not often a campaign plank for politicians; nor does it turn up as a pronounced goal for health officials.

Yet that’s precisely the effect of the Winnipeg Regional Health Authority scheme to give out free “safer-use crack kits” to crack cocaine users.

This is the taxpayer as enabler.

Opinions vary greatly about the idea of needle exchanges and “shooting galleries” for heroin users; these too enable addicts. They are defended by some on the grounds that a re-used injection needle is a superhighway for HIV and other dangerous viruses.

The Winnipeg medical officer of health, Dr. Margaret Fast, claims the same virtue for her crack kits – glass pipe, screens, alcohol swabs, matches, even a pipe cleaner – saying shared pipes, like shared needles, can spread disease. “If you’re sharing pipes or if you’re having oral sex with someone, that could lead to transmission of these agents.”

Maybe. But crack can also lead to death by overdose, suicide, accident, or confrontation with police.

And what a slippery slope! Should government also provide the drugs, so that addicts don’t have to meet dangerous and rapacious dealers?

Helping people to ruin their lives “safely” is not a suitable object of government policy.

BY REV. HARRY LEHOTSKY

The recent furore about government-funded crack pipes says much more about the reduction of care than the reduction of harm.

My beef isn’t with the notion of curbing HIV and Hep C. I’ve seen the impact of both and don’t want to lose any more people to debilitating diseases.

But cheap pipes and chapped lips are just one of many ways people engaged in a deadly addiction contract deadly diseases. Many will still get, and many already have, the diseases.

What makes me increasingly suspicious is the very selective manner in which many addiction activists show their care for addicts.

They verbally and strenuously defend the distribution of government crack pipes. But they are strangely silent when government, via the Winnipeg Regional Health Authority, cuts treatment programs for addicts. Addicts need help. They’re dying for it. But when they decide to get help, they are told about long waiting lines for treatment.

It’s ironic that an addict wanting to come into treatment might be told to wait two to four weeks but might immediately get a free government crack kit from an outreach worker encouraging him to get treatment.

How can anyone who professes care for addicts sit by silently while already inadequate services to addicts are cut? Where’s the indignation then? Where’s the public outcry?

True advocates for addicts would never accept the political doublespeak which asserts that closing treatment beds and laying off treatment workers does nothing to diminish care for addicts.

Can it be that these agencies and activists have been well trained not to bite the hand that feeds them? They all get their funding from government. Many live in fear of the WRHA, which has more of an interest in serving the health of its political masters than the masses.

No agency or activist seems willing to speak out against the hypocrisy of the funder to whom they owe their very existence. As a result, many dedicated professionals have stopped advocating for the addicts and have been reduced to facilitating a slightly less harmful addiction.

Addicts need treatment. But while they cut already inadequate treatment programs, the WRHA wants a medal for “reducing harm” with government-approved crack pipes! The WHRA’s approach to addiction is a mockery to any sense of intelligence or compassion.

This is one of the reasons I’m getting more and more concerned about the WRHA. A bureaucratic behemoth, it has been devouring an increasing number of mandates and agencies as a means of justifying the existence of obscenely salaried office staff. No one agency can deliver all that they purport to do for people. Especially not as a monopoly!

Harm reduction in this context is more a distraction than a service. The “crack kits” are a convenient red herring to distract us from decreasing options for treatment.

But those complicit in this conspiracy of distraction and silence are the helpers silenced by fear of their funder. The danger is that preservation of their own employment supercedes their care for addicts. The resounding silence of those who “care” for addicts is not adequately compensated for by funding distribution of government crack pipes.

Government is twisting the truism that “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.” Harm reduction is good but it doesn’t replace treatment. Yet that’s exactly what they’re doing. It’s like handing out Band-Aids to folks who need stitches and antibiotics. Harm reduction should not be used to distract the public from noticing the lack of treatment.

What disturbs me most is that I believe these people know better. Part of appeasing their guilty consciences is to narrow the definition of harm reduction and say that it applies primarily to preventing the diseases contracted and transmitted at the point of drug consumption. These harm reduction advocates are strangely silent about the countless incidents of harm before the sale, during the deal, while under the influence and while desperate for another dose.

Harm reduction without the possibility of harm elimination through treatment is no comfort for families of addicts lost to the drug or victims of addicts desperate to lie, cheat or steal their way to their next rock.

By the time addicts approach me about quitting, they’ve likely tempted death for a while. It’s not unusual for them to have lost their kids, been disowned by their families, perpetrated and suffered a wide variety of crimes, considered or attempted suicide and lost almost all hope of change.

So, when someone finally comes for help, it’s sickening to hear them being told to wait for weeks or months to get into a treatment program. They come looking for harm elimination through treatment, and it’s disgusting to think that all the WRHA is prepared to offer is a harm reduction “crack kit” while they’re waiting.

I’m not opposed to the prevention of HIV and Hep C. My beef is not necessarily about what’s being offered. It’s the sickening silence about what’s being withheld.

BY TOM BRODBECK

I finally got around to reading a so-called study on why giving out crack pipes to crack addicts is a good thing to do.

Proponents of free crack pipe kits have been telling me for days — since we found out last month that government was providing users with tools to feed their addiction — that they have studies on the benefits of taking this approach. I kept asking for the studies because I wanted to read them for myself.

Too often when groups and organizations say they have “studies” to back up what they’re pushing, the studies are either bogus or they don’t exist.

So I read one that was sent to me that was supposed to provide me with the empirical evidence that I was looking for.

And, as suspected, the study I was given — printed in the Harm Reduction Journal — is bogus.

It’s called “Does harm reduction programming make a difference in the lives of highly marginalized, at risk drug users?”

And while it has a lot of flowery academic language about “outcomes” and “feelings,” there is no data on whether the program lowered incidences of Hep C or HIV or whether it led towards successful treatment, which is supposed to be the benefit of this approach.

The study is flawed in a number of ways, including a high drop-out rate of drug addicts who participated in the evaluation. One phase of the study began with a sample of 261 drug users in the New York City area and fell to 96 participants by the end of it.

As a result, any data coming out of that phase is skewed and almost completely useless.

The study doesn’t tell me if crack pipes or pamphlets were given out. It doesn’t tell me how many received clean needles, if they kept them, used them, shared them, whatever. It doesn’t really tell me anything other than what some users perceive their condition to be based on 10 indicators.

I want to see a study where they can show me how free crack pipes and how-to pamphlets reduce the incidents of disease. This study doesn’t show that. Not even close. In fact, the authors themselves admit that “almost no research has tried to establish appropriate measures of harm reduction and evaluate its worth.”

And “little empirical research has been made available to judge its merits.” So what we have is a lot of “we think this” and “we believe that.”

And that doesn’t tell me anything.

Also, what no one seems to have studied is what impact this has on users in terms of encouraging drug use. I want to see empirical evidence that it helps users, including preventing the spread of disease.

But then I want to weigh that against how this tacit approval of doing drugs “in a safe manner” (as if there’s a safe way to smoke crack) encourages people to keep doing drugs or even start experimenting.

Proponents of this method tell you that they’re not encouraging people to do drugs, they’re just giving them survival skills.

But when I ask them, “how do you know you’re not encouraging some of them?” they say they don’t know.

So then how do you know that you’re not doing more harm than good?

They don’t know.

This is what happens when social workers hijack the political process. You get experimental public policy that is so out of whack with reality that it becomes a laughing stock.

Governments accept the untested policies because they want to be “forward thinking,” whatever that means. And the public gets really bad policy.

To date, I haven’t heard from a single user, reformed or otherwise, who thinks giving out free crack kits and how-to pamphlets is a good idea.

I’ve heard from many of them. And not one said this type of approach is beneficial.

The people who claim it’s beneficial are the ones in the health-care field who like to think they’re doing cutting-edge work. This is “progressive,” they say. Right.

I say show me the evidence. Show me the money. Show me how giving out crack pipes helps addicts.

Because so far, I still haven’t seen a shred of evidence to back up that claim.

I doubt I ever will.

BY TOM BRODBECK, CITY COLUMNIST

Remember the free crack pipe kits government is giving out to drug addicts?

Now they’re handing out detailed instructions — with diagrams — on how to shoot up, including where to stick the needle, how to prepare your drugs and neat tips on how to strain dope from one syringe to another.

It’s a pamphlet called Prevent and Protect Yourself & Others: Safer Injection Drug Use, and it’s handed out to addicts at clinics and other establishments.

“Choosing a Vein,” reads one header, where they give advice on how best to inject drugs into your system. “Rotate sites,” it says. “Try to use new sites, too much of one vein will cause it to collapse.” You may want to test your shots first before you take a full dose of dope if you’re “using a new dealer,” it continues. “Find a comfortable position, use tourniquet to tie off vein … insert needle into the vein at 45 degree angle. Bevel up. Untie tourniquet. Inject slowly.”

And my favourite:

“Give your veins a holiday once in a while!” it says. “Smoke, snort or eat your drugs instead.”

Wow. I am a wild party. How about: “Give your veins a holiday, don’t use drugs for a while.”

TOO MUCH SENSE

I guess that makes too much sense. I thought the crack kits were bad. This pamphlet takes the cake.

Nowhere in the brochure does it give tips or advice on how to quit drugs.

Instead, it gives you the ins and outs of drug use and it reads more like a Suzy Creamcheese homemaker magazine than medical advice on how to avoid contracting a disease.

“Split up drugs when dry,” it says. “Use your own spoon, filter and water.” “Don’t shoot up alone,” it says. What, bring a friend?

Don’t inject the needle into your head or wrists, it says. That’s good advice. But other parts of your body are OK, it says.

“If surface veins in the arms are good, use them but rotate sites regularly,” it recommends. “The veins on the back of the hand and the top of the foot are fragile, so inject slowly. It will hurt.”

I don’t get this much detail from my dentist on how to brush and floss properly. This is all part of some new-age approach to dealing with drug addicts called “harm reduction.”

It’s the same philosophy behind the crackpot idea of handing out free crack pipes to crack heads. We’re supposed to coddle the addicts and “bring them into the fold.”

When they’re “ready” for treatment — after we’ve given them five years supply of crack pipes, needles and how-to manuals — we then ask them if they would like treatment. Aren’t they dead by then?

What’s interesting is that every recovering addict who has called me over the past few days — in response to my columns on the subject last week — is against this approach. Most of them are enraged that government is doing this and they say all it does is encourage drug use and make it more difficult to quit.

Every time I ask proponents of this harm-reduction approach for scientific evidence to back up their claims that it helps reduce the spread of disease and does not encourage drug use, I never get any.

That’s because it doesn’t exist.

Starting next fall, St. Patrick High School in Chicago, will conduct mandatory drug testing of all students The school, attended by 1,000 boys, is the first high school in the Chicago area to require drug testing of the entire student body.  “Our only objective is to help students deal with societal pressures,” said Brother Konrad Diebold, president of St. Patrick High School. “We do know that kids are under pressure, and this gives them a chance to say no,’ and say no with integrity.” Parents of the students would pay $60 for the test. School counselors would collect hair samples for testing of marijuana, cocaine, and ecstasy use. Students testing positive for drug use will meet with parents and school officials, but would not be disciplined. “Then it’s up to the parents to work something out with the kid,” said Principal Joseph Schmidt. However, he said a second positive test could result in suspension or expulsion.

 Reaction to the mandatory drug tests has been mixed among students. “The majority are against it,”  said Steven Rohlf, a senior at the school. “A lot of people have a privacy problem. I believe we benefit much more than its bad.” Many of the students parents support the testing program. “As a parent, it’s a great thing,” said Rose Mayerbock, mother of a St. Patrick junior. “There are parents that don’t necessarily realize that their child could be on something. For me, one of my biggest fears is if they are on drugs and alcohol. I am very lucky because I trust that my kids are not”.

He may look like a friendly pooch, but the presence of a 4-year-old black Lab called Puma at Penncrest High and Springton Lake Middle School will send a clear signal to students that Rose Tree Media District will not tolerate drugs in its schools.

The district is revising its policy on school searches to authorize canine searches of student lockers and student parking areas. The revised policy is aimed at safeguarding the health and safety of students and staff by reducing or discouraging the presence of drugs, as well as controlled substances, non-authorized medications, alcohol or weapons.

Interquest Canine Services, a national firm with a regional office, will provide a trained drug-sniffing dog to aid Rose Tree Media in enforcing its zero-tolerance policy. It will be the first school district in Delaware County to utilize canine searches, according to Interquest Canine Services owner/dog handler Stephanie Kramer.

“It’s a deterrent. It does work,” said Kramer about the canine searches.

She said the idea to use a trained dog in certain situations at the two schools originated with district Superintendent Dr. Denise Kerr. Before coming to RTM, Kerr was assistant superintendent for the Council Rock School District, which utilizes canine searches.

“We are bringing the program here to Rose Tree Media to send a serious message to our students and to our community that we will not tolerate drugs in our schools,” Kerr said. “The superintendent and school board feel strongly that this program will go a long way toward helping students understand the serious implications of drug abuse.”

To detect illegal substances, Puma is trained to sniff the air around vehicles, lockers, desks, book bags, backpacks, purses and other inanimate items that are on school property or at a school district sponsored event. The dog will not be used to search students.

The revised policy states that all lockers, desks and parking are the property of the school district. Book bags, backpacks, purses and other such objects are permitted in school and at events sponsored by the school district, as long as they are used for legitimate purposes.

The school district reserves the right to authorize its employees to inspect a student’s locker, vehicle, desk, and any personal item to determine whether it’s being improperly used for the storage of contraband or illegal substance. As a result, the policy says students should have no expectation of privacy regarding their lockers, desks or personal property while on school property or a district sponsored event.

Students are encouraged to keep their assigned lockers as well as other inanimate objects closed and locked against incursion by other students.

Random inspection by the search dog, at the discretion of the school administrator, may or may not be announced. Prior to a locker or vehicle search, the student will be notified and given an opportunity to be present. The school principal or representative is to be present whenever a student locker or vehicle is inspected.

Valerie Burnett, district director of pupil services, said the procedure would not be disruptive to the education process. Unlike at some schools, there would be no “lock down” and school would go on as usual.

She noted violators of the policy would be subject to firm disciplinary action. Also, in every instance, the violator will be referred to the district’s student assistance program.

In preparation for the approval of the revised policy and canine searches, last summer a “clean sweep” of all empty school lockers was conducted. Burnett said no problems were found.

The proposed revised policy received its first reading at the school board’s Sept. 22 meeting. A second reading is scheduled for the Oct. 27 meeting. In the meantime, there will be student assemblies and parent information sessions.

Following the second reading, the revised policy is expected to be adopted and will be effective immediately.

While needle exchange advocates claim that such programs effectively prevent the spread of blood borne diseases such as HIV and hepatitis, the latest report from Vancouver, which boasts the largest needle exchange program (NEP) in North America, suggest otherwise. In fact, this report’s ‘smoking gun’ is its finding that both HIV and Hepatitis C have reached ‘saturation’ among the injection drug using population, meaning few if any of who are not already infected are left to become newly infected.
Here are some of the reports specific findings: In 2002, nearly 3 million needles were distributed by NEPs in the City. Injection drug use was the main mode of HIV transmission in British Columbia from 1994 to 2000. Today injecting drug use and men having sex with men tie as the top risk factors for new HIV cases.

Vancouver began its NEP in 1988, and the number of new HIV infections among injecting drug users (IDUs) increased every year thereafter until peaking in 1996. A 1997 study of more than 1,400 Vancouver IDUs revealed an annual HIV infection rate of 18 percent– the highest level anywhere in the developed world and one of the highest incidence rates reported anywhere worldwide The number of new positive tests began to increase again in 2002 and estimates for 2002 anticipate a further increase. This report notes that many infected injecting drug users have not been tested, so these rates are likely to be higher. The current HIV prevalence among Vancouver IDUs is 35 percent.
The report attributes the HIV incidence peak in 1996 not to the success of needle exchange, but rather to ‘the near saturation’ of HIV infection among IDUs, meaning after 1996 there were few drug addicts left to become newly infected. Needle exchange not only failed to prevent HIV from reaching a saturation point among Vancouver IDUs, but also had the same lack of effectiveness if preventing the spread of hepatitis C (HCV). This report notes that like HIV, HCV has also reached a saturation point among Vancouver IDUs with over 80 percent infected with the incurable and deadly blood borne disease. Nearly two-thirds of Vancouver HCV cases are attributable to injection drug use with Vancouver’s HCV rate being nearly four-times higher than the rate for Canada as a whole.

In 1997, the reported rate of newly identified hepatitis B infections another blood born disease often spread by needle sharing– in Vancouver was eight times the rate for the rest of British Columbia and the highest rate in Canada. The leading cause of death of Vancouver drug addicts is overdose, accounting for 25 percent of deaths among those who are HIV-positive and 42 percent among those who are HIV-negative. Although the overall British Columbia crime rate has decreased over the past decade, drug offenses have increased by 63%. A study by the Canadian centre on Substance Abuse estimated that half of gainful crimes such as theft, break and enter, and robberies were attributed to substance abuse.
Source: Vancouver drug Epidemiology report 2003, Posted on www.ccsa.ca/ccendu/pdf/report

Marijuana use and Trends

What’s Down with Marijuana?

What has the latest research shown us about marijuana? Among other things, marijuana has now been linked to violent teen behaviour, may be responsible for youth tongue cancer, and has been shown in weekly users to trigger suicidal depression. For those with a disposition toward other serious mental illness, marijuana has been found to unleash it.

Marijuana usage up somewhat

The myth among youth is that ‘everyone is doing it.’ In fact, the majority is not – 51 percent of high school seniors have never tried marijuana even once. However, 22 percent of seniors are ‘current’ (past month) users of marijuana. The hard-core, or daily marijuana users (20 or more times in the past 30 days) remain a small portion of youth: 5.8 percent of seniors, 4.5 percent of sophomores, and 1.3 percent of eighth graders.

New use and historical patterns

There have been ebbs and flows in use of marijuana over the past 40 years. About 2.4 million Americans tried marijuana for the first time in 2000. This was a substantial increase from 600,000 new users in 1965, However, initiation in the marijuana world peaked in 1976-1977 at 3.2 million, and dipped to its lowest figure in decades at 1.4 million in 1990. New users rose from there until hitting 2.5 million in 1996, where it has remained for half a decade.

Marijuana has been on the American scene for at least a century. In 1906, it was proscribed under the Pure Food and Drug Act. In 1914, Utah was the first state to pass anti marijuana legislation; by 1931, 29 states had prohibited the medical use of marijuana. In 1936, the government film, ‘Reefer Madness’ was released; it is still a cult film. In 1970. the Federal Government eliminated mandatory sentencing for possession of small amounts of marijuana.

The peak year for teen use of marijuana was 1979. In 1985, synthetic THC, or Marinol, was produced to relieve the nausea of cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy. In 2001, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously voted down medical marijuana laws. That same year, the #1 rap song “Because I Got High” by Afroman spoke about the destructive effects of marijuana

The prevalence of marijuana use among young people has risen rapidly in recent years, causing concern over the potential impact on academic performance of such use. While recent studies have examined the effect of alcohol use on educational attainment, they have largely ignored the potential negative effects of other substances, such as marijuana. This paper examines whether the relationship between the initiation of marijuana use and the decision to drop out of high school varies with the age of dropout or with multiple substance use. Data are from a longitudinal survey of 1392 adolescents aged 16-18 years. The results suggest that marijuana initiation is positively related to dropping out of high school. Although the magnitude and significance of this relationship varies with age of dropout and with other substances used, it is concluded that the effect of marijuana in on the probability of subsequent high school dropout is relatively stable, with marijuana users odds of dropping out being about 2.3 times that of non-users. Implications of these conclusions are considered for both policy makers and researchers.
Source: Author Bray, Zarkin et al Research Triangle Institute NC USA July 1999

Two 11-year-olds in every classroom are using drugs, according to official figures which show a rise’ in cocaine use among school leavers. Amid controversy about David Blunkett’s drugs strategy, data published by the Government’s statistical service showed that six per cent of 11-year-olds used drugs during 2001. The figure rose to 39 per cent among 15-year-olds, while a fifth of 11- to 15-year-olds in England used drugs in 2001 Cannabis was the most frequent drug used, with 13 per cent of 11- to 15-year-olds smoking.
Peter Walker, adviser on drugs to the National Association of Head teachers, said, You show me a head teacher that says they haven’t got a drug problem and I will show you a liar. I mean infant schools, primary schools and secondary schools.
Source: Daily Telegraph, Womack, July 2002

Ads warning about the dangers of smoking pot or taking Ecstasy can persuade young people stay away from drugs, according to a study released by an advocacy group.A survey of teens conducted for the Partnership for a Drug Free America found kids who see or hear anti drug ads at least once a day are less likely to do drugs than youngsters who don’t see or hear ads frequently. Teens who got a daily dose of the anti drug message were nearly 40 percent less likely to try methamphetamine and about 30 percent less likely to use Ecstasy, the study found. When asked about marijuana, kids who said they saw the ads regularly were nearly 15 percent less likely to smoke pot.

The partnership produces most of the anti drug messages for the White House. Among them: one featuring a young man visiting the site where his brother was killed by a driver under the influence of marijuana. The difficulty is getting kids to see the ads and pay attention to them. A University of Pennsylvania study released last year found the ads are largely ignored by teens.

A spokesman for the government’s drug policy office, Tom Riley said the partnership changed the tone of the ads in the last year to make them harder hitting and punchier. The ads also play up the negative consequences of drugs more, he said.
“These ads have taught millions of teens the truth that marijuana is a harmful drug,” said Riley.

Barry McCaffrey drug czar during the Clinton administration said the anti drug ads are having a profound impact in a fundamental way, affecting not just adolescents but adults” as well including parents, pediatricians and teachers. The drop in drug use proves the ads are a key part in the battle, he said.
Source: Sunday Partnership for Drug free America 2003

What is preventive education for adolescents or children?
One of the most popular forms of ATOD (Alcohol, Tobacco and Other Drugs)prevention is preventive education for adolescents or children. Youth in classrooms or other community settings are presented with preventive lessons by a teacher, preventionist, trained police officer, or other authority. Often, trained teen volunteers may co-present a lesson. Lesson content may include ATOD information, life skills, or other components. (Note: Preventive education is just one way that schools play a prevention role. See the U.S. Dept. of Education’s list of “Characteristics of a Safe, Disciplined, and Drug-Free School,” in Appendix E of this Best Practices Handbook.)

Why does preventive education work?
Different kinds of curricula are based on different premises. Some seek to remedy a lack of drug information. Some seek to develop decision-making and resistance skills. Some seek to help adolescents counter pro-drug social influence as the youth establish their attitudes about ATOD. Research indicates that only some of these premises are valid.

How effective is preventive education for adolescents or children?
Preventionists have long been aware that preventive education alone is inferior to a more comprehensive approach that includes a focus on parents and community. Even so, preventive education as a sole approach has been one of the most heavily researched approaches to ATOD prevention. As a result of cumulative research, particularly in the 1980s and early 1990s, the evolving consensus of researchers in the field is that:

1. Given the correct curriculum, implementation support, and teaching approach, preventive education can have a significant positive effect in terms of delaying or preventing youth ATOD use.
2. Most currently used preventive education materials are NOT among the effective ones. But, they continue to be used due to political support, low cost, or other factors.
What else does research tell us about preventive education?
For adolescent education, two key research sources are Tobler and Stratton (1997) and Hansen (1996). Following earlier (1986 and 1992) meta-analysis studies of drug prevention programs, researcher Nancy S. Tobler conducted a meta-analysis of 120 experimental or quasi-experimental school-based adolescent drug prevention programs (5th-12th grade) that evaluated success on self-reported drug use measures. Each program was classified as either interactive (included guided discussion among students) or non-interactive (included only a lecture and discussion with the class facilitator).
Tobler found a tremendous difference in effectiveness, with non-interactive programs having little impact but the interactive programs having a substantial impact. Surprisingly, this impact on drug use occurred even when the average program length was only 10 contact hours.

Content categories of the various programs also played a role in effectiveness. Programs that focused only on intrapersonal skills such as decision-making, goal setting, and values clarification were ineffective. Effective programs may have had some intrapersonal skills, but included a strong interpersonal skill component focused on dealing with peer influence. Even with this content, programs delivered in a non-interactive way were substantially less effective, and frequently ineffective.

Another attribute, program size, was unexpectedly found to play a significant role in effectiveness. ‘Small” interactive programs did much better than “large” interactive programs, even though the latter did better than small non-interactive programs. The Tobler article does not define “small” and “large”, but a sub-analysis with “extremely large programs” may be used to infer a cutoff of about 1,000 students between the two categories.

Tobler’s meta-analysis used self-reported drug use as the sole measure of effectiveness, but “mediating variables” including knowledge and attitudes were also measured. An interesting point about the pattern of results on these measures is that interactive and non-interactive programs were approximately equal in producing knowledge gain, but interactive programs were superior in changing attitudes and decreasing use.

William Hansen’s summary of work in progress indicates that the three most powerful curricular elements in ATOD prevention are:

1. Normative Beliefs. Youth tend to greatly overestimate the percent of peers who use drugs. When given actual numbers, they apparently feel less deviant in their non-use.

2. Life Style Compatibility. In spite of hearing about the negative effects of drugs, many adolescents don’t necessarily see any threat by drug use to their desired lifestyle. When these connections are explicitly made, it has an impact.

3. Commitment. Opportunities for adolescents to make a personal, public commitment to avoiding ATOD use can lead to lower use rates.

For preventive education of younger (elementary school) children, the National Structured Evaluation indicates that a “Psychosocial Skill” approach is best. The approach is congruent with a “youth development” model, emphasizing affective, social, and other skills. It includes no didactic ATOD education. Examples of beneficial life skills for prevention include resistance skills, assertiveness, social problem solving, and decision-making.

Source: Best practices in ATOD prevention: US Dept. of Health & Human Services, National

Developed by the Boys and Girls Clubs of America, the Stay SMART program is a drug prevention initiative that utilizes role playing, group activities, and discussions to promote social skills and increase knowledge about the health consequences and prevalence of substance use by youth and adults. The program curriculum calls for 12 sessions, each lasting for an hour or more.
SMART Leaders is a 2-year booster program aimed at reinforcing the skills and knowledge youths learned in Stay SMART. Five booster sessions last 90 minutes and focus on improving self-image, coping with stress, resisting media pressure, and providing education/ discussion modules on alcohol, tobacco, and drugs. Five Boys and Girls Clubs offered the SMART Leaders program to 13-year-old boys and girls of various ethnic/racial backgrounds living in public housing projects in Pennsylvania, Florida, New York, Wisconsin, and Arkansas.

The SMART Leaders booster program was effective in maintaining and furthering gains made in the initial Stay SMART program. Self-reported questionnaires reflected significantly minimized drug-related behavior and fewer misconceptions regarding alcohol and marijuana use than in the control group. Tests also showed an increase in knowledge concerning the health consequences of alcohol, tobacco, and drug use.

The Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) has long recognized the importance of minimizing risk and maximizing resiliency factors in children’s lives to prevent potential involvement with alcohol and drugs. But, many children live in precarious environments and need all the help they can get in order to lead healthy and productive lives. These children, identified by CSAP as youth at high risk for substance abuse, have one or more of the following factors in common:

• Parents who abuse alcohol and drugs
• Physical, sexual, or psychological abuse
• Truancy
• Teen pregnancy
• Economic disadvantage
• Neighborhood crime and violence
• Pre-adolescent and adolescent gang activity
• Involvement in violence or delinquency
• Suicide attempts or other mental health
problems
• Placement in institutions, foster care, or
runaway/ homeless shelters

In order to learn more about ways to help these youths avoid substance abuse, CSAP initiated its High-Risk Youth Demonstration Grant Program, which was active from 1987 until 1995. CSAP awarded 130 grants to community based organizations, universities, and local agencies in the program’s first year.

Services offered by grantees helped parents, their children, and entire communities learn the skills to resist or cease using alcohol, tobacco, and illicit drugs.

Many programs were successful in reducing the prevalence of substance use among youth in high-risk environments. Furthermore, these demonstration programs underscored the crucial need for young people to be involved in caring and supportive relationships, such as those involving mentors, peer groups, families, and communities. The human connection – the attention and time spent with youth – helps guide children in the right direction and creates buffers that help shield them from their high-risk environments. From the High-Risk Youth Demonstration Grant Program, some programs emerged as models, that is, well implemented, rigorously evaluated, effective programs that could be adapted for use in other communities. Following are brief descriptions of the eight model programs:

Parents play a key role in their children’s education and social development and therefore can be influential in educating their children about drugs. Despite this, there has been little research done to date that explores parents’ perceptions. This paper reports research from questionnaires, which sampled 947 parents of 14-to 16-year-olds; telephone inter views of 60 of these responses; and 6 focus groups of primary and secondary school parents. The issues explored included parent’s concerns, needs, and knowledge of drug issues in respect to their children as well as parents’ perspective on drug education. The results show that parents are concerned about drugs in relation to their children, and they report that drugs are easily available to young people and a part of the present youth culture. The study revealed that parents are largely misinformed about the drug situation and request accurate and up-to-date information. They are unaware of their children’s school drug policies and programs and feel the need for easier access to relevant services. Parents rate drug education as important and report that such education should begin during late primary school age. Parents predominantly want their children to be taught the ‘Just Say No’ message. Finally, issues of communication about drugs, between parents and their children, were raised. A number of implications of the results for drug education are presented.

Source: Mallick, J.; Evans, R; Stein, G., Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy, 5(2):169- 176, 1998. Availability: International Periodical Publishers, Carfax Company, P0. Box 25, Abingdon, Oxfordshire 0X14 EUE, United Kingdom.

Introduction
Several reviews of the substance abuse prevention literature have concluded that social-influence-based prevention programmes can significantly delay the onset of tobacco, alcohol, and other drug use and slow the rate of increase in substance use prevalence among entire populations of early adolescents. Less is known about the capacity of these and other primary prevention programmes to effect decreases in substance use. This is an important question, since some youth have already begun to experiment with drugs by the time that usual primary prevention programmes have reached them. Youth exhibiting early drug use relative to their peers are considered at higher risk for later drug use and abuse. The few studies that have investigated the effect of primary prevention programmes on those who have already begun using tobacco or other drugs have yielded equivocal results and have not systematically evaluated maintenance of decreases in use. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the secondary prevention effects of a primary prevention programme in reducing cigarette, alcohol, and marijuana use among baseline users.

Abstract
Objectives. This study investigated the secondary prevention effects of a substance abuse primary prevention programme.
Methods. Logistic regression analyses were conducted on 4 waves of follow-up data from sixth- and seventh-grade baseline users of cigarettes, alcohol, and marijuana taking part in a school-based programme in Indianapolis.
Results. The programme demonstrated significant reductions in cigarette use at the initial follow-up (6 months) and alcohol use at the first 2 follow-ups (up to 1.5 years). Models considering repeated measures also showed effects on all 3 substances.
Conclusions
Primary prevention programmes are able to reach and influence high-risk adolescents in a non-stigmatizing manner.
Discussion
Primary prevention programmes have been criticized for affecting future occasional users but not youth at the highest risk for drug abuse (e.g., current users). In this study, we reported 3.5-year follow-up effects of a primary prevention programme in decreasing drug use among adolescents who were users at either sixth or seventh grade. With a very conservative criterion to define decreased use, the results indicate that the programme did effect reductions in use, especially cigarette and alcohol use. These secondary prevention effects were significant for cigarette users at the 6-month follow-up and marginally significant at the 2.5-year follow-up. Effects were also found among baseline alcohol users through the 1.5-year follow-up. Consistent with other prevention studies, the effect sizes were small for cigarettes (range: .05-.31) and alcohol (range: .08-.24) and medium for marijuana (range: .38-.58). Although no significant effects were detected among baseline marijuana users, it is important to note that the programme group consistently demonstrated greater reductions in all 3 substances across all follow-ups, except marijuana at the 3.5-year follow-up. When the secular trend was also considered, the Midwestern Prevention Project consistently showed significant secondary prevention effects on cigarette, alcohol, and marijuana use.

There are several methodological limitations to this study. For example, a possible threat to the validity of the findings was the reliance on self-reported drug use. However, extensive research conducted on the validity of self-reported smoking dispels this concern, especially if a bogus pipeline activity is built into the procedures for data collection, as was done in the present study. Another possible limitation is that measurements were limited to a fixed point in time (previous month) from year to year, thus leaving open the possibility that the last reported use level may have been an under-estimate of actual normal use patterns. However, given that this study was fully randomized, the programme and control groups should have been equal in regard to their validity estimates of the point prevalence of drug use measured.

This research suggests that social-influence-based primary prevention programmes can have an impact on not only students who are nonusers at baseline but also those who have begun to use drugs. The advantage of such a primary prevention programme is that it may reach and affect a ‘silent’, not-yet-identified, high-risk population of early drug users in a nonstigmatizing , nonlabeling fashion at an age when youth are more easily persuaded (treating the young users, in effect, like nonusers contemplating use).

Source: Chih-Ping Chou, PhD, et al. American Journal of Public Health, June 1998, Vol.88, No6

In middle school 36% of students and 33% of teachers say the drug problem is getting worse compared to 10% of principals; in high school. 51% of students and 41% of teachers say it is getting worse compared with 15% of principals.

In high school. 50% of teachers and 48% of principals believe a team can smoke pot every weekend and still do well in school compared to 23% of teens.

71% of high school students think more than half the students tried pot: only 27% of principals and 26% of teachers do.

There is a dramatic difference between substance use by teens that attend religious services at least four times a month and those who attend less than once a month:

Only 8% who attend religious services at least tour times a month smoked cigarettes compared to 22% who attend less than once a month.

Only 13% who attended four times or more have smoked marijuana compared to 39% who attended less than once a month.

Only 20% who attend four times or more say at least half their friends drink compared to 38% who attend less than once a month.

Only 49% who attend four times or more know a friend or classmate who has used illegal drugs like acid, cocaine or heroin compared to 62% who attend less than once a month.

45% who never smoked pot rely most on their parents’ opinion compared to 21% who smoked it.

17% who never smoked pot hang out with friends after school compared to 1% who smoked pot.

Dear Mr. Soros:

I had the opportunity to attend your very interesting presentation on October 28th at the National Press Club in Washington D.C., and thereafter read your book, ‘The Bubble of American Supremacy.’ While there is considerable validity, in my opinion, to many of your concepts and philosophies, there is one area where I think you radically depart from reality and from your own guidelines for an open society. Drug policy!

My purpose in writing is not to critique your book, but to seek a better understanding of your position on the issue of Drug Policy Reform. One of your concepts of an open society is that “.…We must treat our beliefs as provisionally true while keeping them open to constant reexamination.” First hand experience of the death and destruction of numerous family members from drug dependence has led to my own rather extensive involvement in drug prevention activities. I have learned a lot about the causes, consequences and solutions to substance abuse. But, to the extent my beliefs are erroneous, maybe you can enlighten me. To the extent your position stems from only a superficial understanding of the devastating impacts of drugs on all societies in the free world, maybe my comments will change your position.

I would like to challenge the following comments or points in your book.

• Drug Policy of The United States – On Page 26 and 27 of your book, your wrote “…When I decided to extend the operations of my Open Society Foundation to the United States, I chose drug policy as one of the first fields of engagement. I felt that drug policy was the area in which the United States was in greatest danger of violating the principles of open society. I did not claim that I had all the right answers, but I was sure of one thing: The war on drugs was doing more harm than the drugs themselves – and on that point the evidence is clear. Drugs kill a few people, incapacitate many more, and give parents sleepless nights. On the other hand, the war on drugs has put millions behind bars, disrupted entire communities, particularly in the inner cities, and destabilized entire countries.”

Substance abuse kills Americans at a rate in excess of 1,000 people per week. Drug induced deaths alone account for almost half. 9.4% of the population over 12 years old (almost one in ten) are dependent on drugs or alcohol. The parasitic nature of their existence and the wreckage they impose on society in the form of crime, health care, welfare, mental health, child care and education costs the other 90% of the taxpayers roughly $294 billion per annum. That’s about $1,000 for every man, woman and child in the country. The average addict commits 100 crimes per annum. 70% to 80% of crime is committed while people are under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

Mr. Soros, nothing in modern history compares with this rate of death and destruction. In comparison, it took 18 months to claim 1,000 American soldiers in Iraq. We lose that many Americans every week because of substance abuse. We lost roughly 3,000 people on 9/11. That many Americans die every three weeks from substance abuse. Drugs don’t just “…..kill a few people.” Drugs kill more people than any event in modern history. They kill more people than all other forms of terrorism combined.

Drugs don’t just “…..give parents sleepless nights.” Drugs cause immeasurable pain and suffering for parents whose children have died, and for those of us who endure the endless agony of watching our beautiful young people lose all of their potential for life, as drug addiction turns them to trash and leads them to an early grave. 5 million Americans today are raising their grandchildren, because their own adult children are incarcerated or otherwise incapable of raising their own children. Sleepless nights? Indeed!

Drugs are this nation’s biggest weapon of mass destruction. Why shouldn’t people who sell illegal weapons be incarcerated and treated as any other terrorist whose sole intent is to profit by killing or destroying others? This particularly pertains to those who market drugs to children.

Legalizing the sale of illicit drugs will not fix the problem of death and destruction. Making drugs more readily available will just exacerbate the problem, as we have seen from alcohol, which conquers more people than drugs.

Nor does providing clean needles to heroin addicts prevent the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. It only enables drug addicts to expedite their own demise, as 80% of them die from drug overdose. In the heat of feeding their passion for more and more of what is killing them, they frankly couldn’t care less about contracting a lesser disease. To use tax dollars to enable druggies to self exterminate is morally and legally wrong. And, for those who encourage and augment the addiction in the first place to claim some later form of compassion by helping addicts continue their addiction is highly hypocritical.

It is not the war on drugs that has caused this problem. It is the drugs, and those who sell them, that have caused this problem.

There are several concepts in the following quotes from your book that seem to be in direct conflict with your financial support to organizations that are trying to legalize and proliferate the use of drugs …. such as The Drug Policy Alliance. You stated:

• The Responsibility to Protect: Core Principles (Pages 104 and 105)

I.1. Basic Principles

A. State sovereignty implies responsibility, and the primary responsibility for the protection of its people lies with the state itself.

B. Where a population is suffering serious harm, as a result of internal war, insurgency, repression or state failure, and the state in question is unwilling or unable to half or avert it, the principle of non-intervention yields to the international responsibility to protect…

I. 2. Elements

A. The responsibility to prevent: to address both the root causes and direct causes of internal conflict and other man-made crises putting populations at risk.

B. The responsibility to react: to respond to situations of compelling human need with appropriate measures, which may include coercive measures like sanctions and international prosecution, and in extreme cases military intervention.

C. The responsibility to rebuild: to provide, particularly after a military intervention, full assistance with recovery, reconstruction and reconciliation, addressing the causes of the harm the intervention was designed to halt or avert.

I.3. Priorities

A. Prevention is the single most important dimension of the responsibility to protect:< prevention options should also be exhausted before intervention is contemplated, and more commitment and resources must be devoted to it. …..

You have assailed the Bush Doctrine with regard to Iraq. Perhaps the Bush Doctrine with regard to Drugs deserves some accolades. Since the President has been in office, drug use has declined. Supply lines have been seriously interrupted in several key locations, such as Columbia and Mexico. Drug legalization efforts have been thwarted in many locations, in spite of being outspent 30 to 1. There are now more than 1500 Drug Courts whereby arrestees receive treatment in lieu of incarceration. Of greater importance, the President has recognized and allocated funds for drug prevention where it begins, with school age adolescents.

The President and John Walters, the Drug Czar, are responding to the compelling need to reduce harm by encouraging prevention activities that are known to work, where they need to work; with school age children. The Supreme Court decision in 2002 cleared the way for schools to implement random drug testing programs for athletes and extra curricular activities.

Random Drug Testing has reduced drug use by between 67% and 90% in the work place, schools (where tried) and the military. The vast majority of all those who die or have been destroyed by drugs got hooked between ages 12 to 17, according to the experts, where their bodies and brains are much more susceptible to harm and addiction than adults. Research has shown that if we get kids to adulthood prior to first significant use of alcohol or drugs, they should never have a problem. It behooves us then “…..to respond to situations of compelling human need with appropriate measures.” That would certainly include take all measures possible to safe guard our young people, and in turn the future of our nation.

If, as you have pointed out, “… Prevention is the single most important dimension of the responsibility to protect,” then it follows that our governments at all levels should mandate or at least encourage the use of the best known prevention tool ….. random drug testing.

“…To address both the root causes and direct causes of internal conflict and other man-made crises putting populations at risk…,” does it not follow that we, as a nation, must scrutinize closely not only those who are selling weapons that kill and destroy, but also those who actively corrupt the legislative process based on bribes and false pretenses?

Only in the last few months, actively working against California Senate Bill 1386, did I learn of the existence of the Drug Policy Alliance, and of your financial backing of this organization. This bill was corrupt in its origin (The Drug Policy Alliance) and its intent, which was to prevent local school districts from implementing random drug testing. Fortunately, Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed the bill, so more kids can be saved from the ravages of drugs.

The justifications given for SB 1386 were false. If as you say, “….The war on terrorism as pursued by the Bush administration cannot be won, because it is based on false premises,” than I would say to you that the subversive efforts of the Drug Policy Alliance to legalize and proliferate the use of drugs will not prevail either, because their arguments are based on false premises.

America, and all populations in the free world are “…..suffering serious harm.” The “….primary responsibility for the protection of its people does lie with the state itself.” If, however, the governing bodies in the United States don’t follow the President’s lead to preserve the health and safety of its young people and the future of this nation, ultimately the population will revolt. That would include the 5 million Americans raising their grandchildren; all those who have had children needlessly die or be destroyed because safeguards were not put in place; all those who are victims of the crimes associated with substance abuse; and the unwitting taxpayers who don’t yet understand that conservatively, on the average 13% of their state taxes are wasted on the painful aftermath of substance abuse, while only 1% is spent on prevention. This is horrible economic and social policy, and must change.

In your book, you said you were referred to as a “…..statesman …..a person with principles but no interests.” I have no doubt that in many cases your philanthropy has helped people. But I find it unimaginable that anyone as obviously successful as you could believe in and financially support organizations that promote death and destruction to a nation you have chosen as your primary home.

Please help me to understand.

Sincerely,

Roger D. Morgan

ROGER MORGAN, Co-Founder of Californians For Drug Free Schools, is a San Diego businessman and entrepreneur, and former corporate executive with Volvo of America and Caterpillar Tractor Company. He was Founding Chairman of the Coronado SAFE Foundation, a non-profit dealing with drug prevention, and prior Board Member of the San Diego Prevention Coalition. Armed and repulsed by his experience with two stepchildren who became drug addicted at age 12 and 14 years old, roughly 25 years ago, and two newphews who died of drug related causes, he believes the only thing that could have saved these young people, and others, would have been drug testing. Unfortunately, this prevention tool was not understood or available back then.