Position Statement – December 2011

The flawed proposition of drug legalisation

Various well funded pressure groups have mounted campaigns to overturn the United Nations Conventions on drugs. These groups claim that society should accept the fact of drugs as a problem that will remain and, therefore, should be managed in a way that would enable millions of people to take advantage of an alleged ‘legal right’ to use drugs of their choice.

It is important to note that international law makes a distinction between “hard law” and “soft law.” Hard law is legally binding upon the States. Soft law is not binding. UN Conventions, such as the Conventions on Drugs, are considered hard law and must be upheld by the countries that have ratified the UN Drug Conventions.

International narcotics legislation is mainly made up of the three UN Conventions from 1961 (Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs), 1971 (Convention on Psychotropic Substances), and 1988 (Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances):

• The 1961 Convention sets out that “the possession, use, trade in, distribution,import, export, manufacture and the production of drugs is exclusively limited to medical and scientific purposes”. Penal cooperation is to be established so as to ensure that drugs are only used licitly (for prescribed medical purposes).

• The 1971 Convention resembles closely the 1961 Convention, whilst
establishing an international control system for Psychotropic Substances.

• The 1988 Convention reflects the response of the international community to increasing illicit cultivation, production, manufacture, and trafficking activities. International narcotics legislation draws a line between licit (medical) and illicit (non-medical) use, and sets out measures for prevention of illicit use, including penal measures. The preamble to the 1961 Convention states that the parties to the Convention are “Recognizing that addiction to narcotic drugs constitutes a serious evil for the individual and is fraught with social and economic danger to mankind”. The Conventions are reviewed every ten years and have consistently been upheld.

The UN system of drug control includes the Office of Drugs and Crime, the International Narcotics Control Board, and the Commission on Narcotic Drugs. The works of these bodies are positive and essential in international drug demand and supply reduction. They are also attacked by those seeking to legalise drugs.

It is frequently and falsely asserted that the so-called “War on Drugs” is inappropriate and has become a very costly and demonstrable failure. It is declared by some that vast resources have been poured into the prevention of drug use and the suppression of illicit manufacturing, trafficking, and supply. It is further claimed that what is essentially a chronic medical problem has been turned into a criminal justice issue with inappropriate remedies that make “innocent” people criminals. In short, the flawed argument is that “prohibition” monies have been wasted and the immeasurable financial resources applied to this activity would be better spent for the general benefit of the community.

The groups supporting legalisation are: people who use drugs, those who believe that the present system of control does more harm than good, and those who are keen to make significant profits from marketing newly authorised addictive substances. In addition to pernicious distribution of drugs, dealers circulate specious and misleading information. They foster the erroneous belief that drugs are harmless, thus adding to even more confused thinking.

Superficially crafted, yet pseudo-persuasive arguments are put forward that can be accepted by many concerned, well intentioned people who have neither the time nor the knowledge to research the matter thoroughly, but accept them in good faith. Frequently high profile people claim that legalisation is the best way of addressing a major social problem without cogent supporting evidence. This too influences others, especially the ill informed who accept statements as being accurate and well informed. Through this ill-informed propaganda, people are asked to believe that such action would defeat the traffickers, take the profit out of the drug trade and solve the drug problem completely.

The total case for legalisation seems to be based on the assertion that the government assault on alleged civil liberties has been disastrously and expensively ineffective and counter-productive. In short, it is alleged, in contradiction to evidence, that prohibition has produced more costs than benefits and, therefore, the use of drugs on a personal basis should be permitted. Advocates claim that legalisation would eliminate the massive expenditure incurred by prohibition and would take the profit out of crime for suppliers and dealers. They further claim that it would decriminalise what they consider “understandable” human behaviour and thus prevent the overburdening of the criminal justice system that is manifestly failing to cope. It is further argued irrationally that police time would not be wasted on minor drug offences, the courts would be freed from the backlog of trivial cases and the prisons would not be used as warehouses for those who choose to use drugs, and the saved resources could be used more effectively.

Types of drug legalisation

The term “legalisation” can have any one of the following meanings:

1. Total Legalisation – All illicit drugs such as heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine, and marijuana would be legal and treated as commercial products. No government regulation would be required to oversee production, marketing, or distribution.

2. Regulated Legalisation – The production and distribution of drugs would be regulated by the government with limits on amounts that can be purchased and the age of purchasers. There would be no criminal or civil sanctions for possessing, manufacturing, or distributing drugs unless these actions violated the regulatory system. Drug sales could be taxed.

3. Decriminalisation – Decriminalisation eliminates criminal sanctions for drug use and provides civil sanctions for possession of drugs. To achieve the agenda of drug legalisation, advocates argue for:

• legalising drugs by lowering or ending penalties for drug possession and use – particularly marijuana;

• legalising marijuana and other illicit drugs as a so-called medicine;
• harm reduction programmes such as needle exchange programmes, drug injection sites, heroin distribution to addicts, and facilitation of so-called safe use of drugs that normalize drug use, create the illusion that drugs can be used safely if one just knows how, and eliminates a goal of abstinence from drugs;

• legalised growing of industrial hemp;
• an inclusion of drug users as equal partners in establishing and enforcing drug policy; and

• protection for drug users at the expense and to the detriment of non-users under the pretence of “human rights.”

The problem is with the drugs and not the drug policies

Legalisation of current illicit drugs, including marijuana, is not a viable solution to the global drug problem and would actually exacerbate the problem. The UN Drug Conventions were adopted because of the recognition by the international community that drugs are an enormous social problem and that the trade adversely affects the global economy and the viability of some countries that have become transit routes.

The huge sums of illegal money generated by the drug trade encourage money laundering and have become inextricably linked with other international organised criminal activities such as terrorism, human trafficking, prostitution and the arms trade. Drug Lords have subverted the democratic governments of some countries to the great detriment of law abiding citizens.

Drug abuse has had a major adverse effect on global health and the spread of communicable diseases such as AIDS/HIV. Control is vitally important for the protection of communities against these problems. There is international agreement in the UN Conventions that drugs should be produced legally under strict supervision to ensure adequate supplies only for medical and research purposes. The cumulative effects of prohibition and interdiction combined with education and treatment during 100 years of international drug control have had a significant impact in stemming the drug problem. Control is working and one can only imagine how much worse the problem would have become without it. For instance:

• In 2007, drug control had reduced the global opium supply to one-third the level in 1907 and even though current reports indicate recent increased cultivation in Afghanistan and production in Southeast Asia, overall production has not increased.

• During the last decade, world output of cocaine and amphetamines has stabilized; cannabis output has declined since 2004; and opium production has declined since 2008. We, therefore, strongly urge nations to uphold and enhance current efforts to prevent the use, cultivation, production, traffic, and sale of illegal drugs. We further urge our leaders to reject the legalisation of currently illicit drugs as an acceptable solution to the world’s drug problem because of the following reasons:

• Only 6.1% of people globally between the ages of 15 and 64 use drugs (World Drug Report 2011 UNODC) and there is little public support for the legalisation of highly dangerous substances. Prohibition has ensured that the total number of users is low because legal sanctions do influence people’s behaviour.

• There is a specific obligation to protect children from the harms of drugs, as is
evidenced through the ratification by the majority of United Nations Member States of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). Article 33 states that Member States “shall take all appropriate measures, including legislative, administrative, social and educational measures, to protect children from the illicit use of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances as defined in the relevant international treaties, and to prevent the use of children in the illicit production and trafficking of such substances”.

• Legalisation sends the dangerous tacit message of approval, that drug use is
acceptable and cannot be very harmful.

• Permissibility, availability and accessibility of dangerous drugs will result in
increased consumption by many who otherwise would not consider using them.

• Enforcement of laws creates risks that discourage drug use. Laws clearly define what is legal and illegal and emphasise the boundaries.

• Legalisation would increase the risks to individuals, families, communities and world regions without any compensating benefits.

• Legalisation would remove the social sanctions normally supported by a legal system and expose people to additional risk, especially the young and vulnerable.

• The legalisation of drugs would lead inevitably to a greater number of dependencies and addictions likely to match the levels of licit addictive substances. In turn, this would lead to increasing related morbidity and mortality, the spread of communicable diseases such as AIDS/HIV and the other blood borne viruses exacerbated by the sharing of needles and drugs paraphernalia, and an increased burden on the health and social services.

• There would be no diminution in criminal justice costs as, contrary to the view held by those who support legalisation, crime would not be eliminated or reduced. Dependency often brings with it dysfunctional families together with increased domestic child abuse.

• There will be increases in drugged driving and industrial accidents.

• Drug Control is a safeguard protecting millions from the effects of drug abuse and addiction particularly, but not exclusively, in developing countries.

• Statements about taxation offsetting any additional costs are demonstrably flawed and this has been shown in the case of alcohol and tobacco taxes. Short of governments distributing free drugs, those who commit crime now to obtain them would continue to do so if they became legal.

• Legalisation would not take the profit out of the drug trade as criminals will always find ways of countering legislation. They would continue their dangerous activities including cutting drugs with harmful substances to maximise sales and profits. Aggressive marketing techniques, designed to promote increased sales and use, would be applied rigorously to devastating effect.

• Other ‘legal’ drugs – alcohol and tobacco, are regularly traded on the black market and are an international smuggling problem; an estimated 600 billion cigarettes are smuggled annually (World Drug report 2009). Taxation monies raised from these products go nowhere near addressing consequential costs.

• Many prisons have become incubators for infection and the spread of drug related diseases at great risk to individual prisoners, prison staff and the general public. Failure to eliminate drug use in these institutions exacerbates the problem.

• The prisons are not full of people who have been convicted for mere possession of drugs for personal use. This sanction is usually reserved for dealers and those who commit crime in the furtherance of their possession.

• The claim that alcohol and tobacco may cause more harm than some drugs is not a pharmacokinetics of psychotropic substances suggest that more, not less, control of their access is warranted.

• Research regularly and increasingly demonstrates the harms associated with drug use and misuse. There is uncertainty, yet growing evidence, about the long-term detrimental effects of drug use on the physical, psychological and emotional health of substance users.

• It is inaccurate to suggest that the personal use of drugs has no consequential and damaging effects. Apart from the harm to the individual users, drugs affect others by addiction, violence, criminal behaviour and road accidents. Some drugs remain in the body for long periods and adversely affect performance and behaviour beyond the time of so-called ‘private’ use. Legalisation would not diminish the adverse effects associated with drug misuse such as criminal, irrational and violent behaviour and the mental and physical harm that occurs in many users.

• All drugs can be dangerous including prescription and over the counter medicines if they are taken without attention to medical guidance. Recent research has confirmed just how harmful drug use can be and there is now overwhelming evidence (certainly in the case of cannabis) to make consideration of legalisation irresponsible.

• The toxicity of drugs is not a matter for debate or a vote. People are entitled to their own opinions but not their own facts. Those who advocate freedom of choice cannot create freedom from adverse consequences.

• Drug production causes huge ecological damage and crop erosion in drug producing areas.

• Nearly every nation has signed the UN Conventions on drug control. Any government of signatory countries contemplating legalisation would be in breach of agreements under the UN Conventions which recognise that unity is the best approach to combating the global drug problem. The administrative burden associated with legalisation would become enormous and probably unaffordable to most governments. Legalisation would require a massive government commitment to production, supply, security and a bureaucracy that would necessarily increase the need for the employment at great and unaffordable cost for all of the staff necessary to facilitate that development.

• Any government policy must be motivated by the consideration that it must first do no harm. There is an obligation to protect citizens and the compassionate and sensible method must be to do everything possible to reduce drug dependency and misuse, not to encourage or facilitate it. Any failures in a common approach to a problem would result in a complete breakdown in effectiveness. Differing and fragmented responses to a common predicament are unacceptable for the wellbeing of the international community. It is incumbent on national governments to cooperate in securing the greatest good for the greatest number.

ISSUED this 21st day of December, 2011 by the following groups:
Drug Prevention Network of the Americas (DPNA)
Institute on Global Drug Policy
International Scientific and Medical Forum on Drug Abuse
International Task Force on Strategic Drug Policy
People Against Drug Dependence & Ignorance (PADDI), Nigeria
Europe Against Drugs (EURAD)
World Federation Against Drugs (WFAD)
Peoples Recovery, Empowerment and Development Assistance (PREDA)
Drug Free Scotland

Theresa May, the Home Secretary, issued a humiliating rebuke to her drug advisers after they called for the possession of drugs to be decriminalised.

The Home Office said there was no intention to give people a “green light” to use drugs because they “destroy lives and cause untold misery”.

The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) risked a fresh row with the Home Office after suggesting those who possess any drug, including cocaine or heroin, for personal use should be taken out of the criminal justice system.

The Government issued a blunt statement insisting drug laws would not be liberalised and “decriminalisation is not the answer”. It is the latest in a series of run-ins between Whitehall’s official drug advisory body and the Home Office.

In 2009, the then Home Secretary Alan Johnson, sacked the ACMD chairman Professor David Nutt after he openly criticised the Government’s stance on cannabis. He had also previously said taking Ecstasy was no more dangerous than riding a horse.

The ACMD called for a review on how those caught in possession of drugs are handled in a submission to the Sentencing Council, which is consulting on guidelines for courts on drug offences.
However, it is not in the remit of the Sentencing Council to consider what would effectively decriminalisation and the ACMD only included its comments in the final section asking for any further comments. It wrote: “There is an opportunity to be more creative in dealing with those who have committed an offence by possession of drugs.

“For people found to be in possession of drugs (any) for personal use (and involved in no other criminal offences), they should not be processed through the criminal justice system but instead be diverted into drug education/awareness courses.”

The courses “would be the equivalent of the apparently successful ‘speed awareness’ courses to which drivers can be referred as a diversion”, the council added. It also suggested that those accused of possessing drugs could also face “more creative civil punishments”, such as the loss of a driving licence or passport.

A spokesman for the Home Office said: “We have no intention of liberalising our drugs laws. Drugs are illegal because they are harmful – they destroy lives and cause untold misery to families and communities. “Those caught in the cycle of dependency must be supported to live drug free lives, but giving people a green light to possess drugs through decriminalisation is clearly not the answer.”

Source: www.telegraph.co.uk 18th Oct 2011

Following the Scottish example, England has piloted drug courts using specially trained magistrates to closely supervise treatment-based community sentences. This initial report found no major glitches but low throughput and uncertain cost-benefits.

Summary The Dedicated Drug Court framework for England and Wales provides for specialist courts which exclusively handle cases relating to drug misusing offenders from conviction through sentence to completion (or breach) of a community order with a Drug Rehabilitation Requirement (DRR). Two magistrates’ courts (Leeds Magistrates’ Court and West London Magistrates’ Court) have been piloting drug courts implemented in line with the Ministry of Justice’s framework.

The critical factors for implementation success are an understanding of local context and scale of need, the enthusiasm of the local judiciary and partner agencies, good partnership working, availability of resources to deliver the drug court and its associated treatment services, the depth of understanding by all staff of offender motivation and, in particular, recognition of the points at which an offender is most likely to make progress in reducing or stopping drug use. Continuity of judiciary is key to successful implementation of a drug court. It provides the focus for communication between the court and the offender and across magistrate panels. Continuity of judiciary was a strong planned feature of both courts. Based on analysis undertaken with data from the Leeds pilot, there is strong evidence that continuity of magistrates has a statistically significant impact on several key drug court outcomes. Greater continuity of magistrates experienced by offenders is associated with their being less likely to miss a court hearing, more likely to complete their sentence, and less likely to be reconvicted.

Break-even analysis showed that (compared to normal adjudication) an extra 8% of offenders seen by the courts would need to stop taking drugs for five years or more following completion of the sentence to provide a net economic benefit to the wider society, and 14% in order to provide a net economic benefit to the criminal justice system. A robust quantification of impact was not possible because of the difficulties in collecting sufficient data on a comparison group of offenders not processed through drug courts.

Findings Commissioned by the UK Ministry of Justice, the report describes the implementation rather than the outcomes of England’s pilot drug courts. In line with international understandings, the courts were intended to specialise in drug-related offenders, presided over by sentencers specially trained for this task who order treatment-based sentences and closely supervise the offender’s progress, aided by regular tests for illegal drug use. The aim is maximise the rehabilitative impact of the sentence by increasing compliance and engagement with treatment through criminal justice pressure (ultimately the prospect of receiving a more typical punishment-based sentence if the drug court’s order fails) and rewards (of which one of the most powerful seems to be the unfamiliar experience of being congratulated by a judge or magistrate).

The report identified no critical fault lines in the implementation of the courts. However, these were particularly promising sites: the Leeds court built on a pre-existing system and in London, court staff were enthusiastic about the proposal and had already been working towards creating a drug court. Nevertheless, offender throughput was lower than expected. Over the 17 months of the evaluation, the London court sentenced just 60 new offenders while in Leeds the total was 276. Low throughput raised costs per offender. Compared to a standard 12-month drug rehabilitation requirement order implemented through normal adjudication, supervising the order through the drug courts cost £4633 extra per offender.

With no comparison group of normally adjudicated offenders, the evaluation was unable to say whether this was money well spent. They were, however, able to calculate the drug use reductions the courts would have to ‘buy’ in order to meet their extra costs – as noted in the abstract, the answer was 8% of offenders ceasing drug use for at least five years compared to the numbers doing so on a normally adjudicated drug rehabilitation requirement order. This calculation though excludes the base costs of normal adjudication and of a normally supervised drug rehabilitation requirement order. This seems to mean that the 8% would also have to be over and above the proportion of offenders who remain abstinent after normal judicial processing. The report gives no indication of how much success would be needed to match the total costs incurred by the criminal justice system in implementing all the elements of a drug court-supervised drug rehabilitation requirement order.

The report’s emphasis on offenders seeing the same magistrate(s) for their sentencing and throughout subsequent progress reviews is backed by evidence from Leeds that continuity is substantially associated with better compliance and drug use and crime outcomes. Steps were taken to reduce the risk that continuity was caused by high compliance and good progress rather than vice versa. However, without actually allocating offenders at random to see or not see the same magistrates, it is impossible to eliminate this possibility. Assuming the effect was real, it is of concern that organising continuity was a challenge, and especially so for ‘breach’ hearings dealing with unacceptable failures to comply with the order, which national regulations required to occur within a set period. Unfortunately, these crucial junctures are just when continuity is most needed, requiring an understanding of whether the offender will do better on a revised order, or the order has failed and should be revoked, often resulting in imprisonment.

A final caution over any such report is that some leading criminologists accuse the UK government of manipulating and distorting criminological research for political gain, to the point where the professor of criminology at the Open University has called for a boycott of government-commissioned work. The featured report was commissioned by the UK Ministry of Justice, a ministry carved out in part from the Home Office, one of the main targets of these accusations.

Scotland preceded England in formally piloting drug courts in Glasgow from 2001 and in Fife the following year. As in England, implementation was not entirely smooth but better than might have been expected. There was a high but it was thought acceptable failure rate, probably aided by Scotland’s more flexible application of drug treatment and testing orders, predecessors to the drug rehabilitation requirements used later by the English courts. However, crime impacts were questionable. Within one year 50% of drug court offenders had been reconvicted and within two years 71%, and the average frequency of reconvictions only slightly dipped in the two years after the order was imposed compared to the two years before. There was no clear crime-reduction benefit from supervising the orders through the drug courts (at an average cost of nearly £18,500 per order) as opposed to normal adjudication. But, as in England, the costs imposed on society by persistent, high-rate offending and drug-related mortality and morbidity, are such that even modest improvements might be cost-beneficial overall.

International experience and research relating to drug courts suggests it is important for courts to emphasise rewards as well as punishments, see offenders frequently enough to apply these swiftly in response to progress, deploy a range of rewards and sanctions short of revocation which are consistently applied, have a strong and sure ultimate sanction when the programme fails, make these consequences absolutely clear to offenders, have rapid access to a range of treatment options, maintain continuity in the judge dealing with the case, and to attend to the range of the individual’s needs. Willingness to continue despite some initial offending makes the structure imposed by stringent requirements and monitoring a positive feature rather than one which leads most offenders to fail. Consistent judicial supervision, the fact that this forces addicts (back) in to treatment, and drug testing which provides a shared measure of how treatment is progressing, probably all play their parts.

Source: www.findings.org.uk March 2009

Illegal drugs not only harm a user’s mind and body, they devastate families, communities, and neighborhoods. They jeopardize public safety, prevent too many Americans from reaching their full potential, and place obstacles in the way of raising a healthy generation of young people.

To address these challenges, today we are releasing the 2012 National Drug Control Strategy — the Obama Administration’s primary policy blueprint for reducing drug use and its consequences in America. The President’s inaugural National Drug Control Strategy, published in 2010, charted a new direction in our approach to drug policy. Today’s strategy builds upon that approach, which is based on science, evidence, and research. Most important, it is based on the premise that drug addiction is a chronic disease of the brain that can be prevented and treated. Simply put, we are not powerless against the challenge of substance abuse — people can recover, and millions are in recovery. These individuals are our neighbors, friends and family members. They contribute to our communities, our workforce, our economy, and help make America stronger.

Our emphasis on addressing the drug problem through a public health approach is grounded in decades of research and scientific study. There is overwhelming evidence that drug prevention and treatment programs achieve meaningful results with significant long-term cost savings. In fact, recent research has shown that each dollar invested in an evidence-based prevention program can reduce costs related to substance use disorders by an average of $18.

But reducing the burden of our nation’s drug problem stretches beyond prevention and treatment. We need an all of the above approach. To address this problem in a comprehensive way, the President’s new strategy also applies the principles of public health to reforming the criminal justice system, which continues to play a vital role in drug policy. It outlines ways to break the cycle of drug use, crime, incarceration, and arrest by diverting non-violent drug offenders into treatment, bolstering support for reentry programs that help offenders rejoin their communities, and advancing support for innovative enforcement programs proven to improve public health while protecting public safety.

Together, we have achieved significant reform in the way we address substance abuse. And the Affordable Care Act will — for the first time — require insurers to cover treatment for drug addiction the same way they would other chronic diseases. This is a revolutionary shift in how we address drug policy in America.
Over the past three decades, we have reduced illegal drug use in America. Over the long term, rates of drug use among young people today are far lower than they were 30 years ago. More recently cocaine use has dropped nearly 40 percent and meth use has dropped by half. And we can do more. As President Obama has noted, we have successfully changed attitudes regarding rates of smoking and drunk driving, and with your help we can do the same with our illegal drug problem.

Source: R. Gil Kerlikowske
Director, White House Office of National Drug Control Policy 18th April 2012

Congratulations to our colleague Manuel Pinto Coelho in Portugal.  This is an enormous victory!  The very liberal drug policy of Portugal is crumbling.

———————————————

 Dear colleagues,

As you can see, although in Portuguese, it is official – Portuguese IDT and all its staff including the president Goulão has been abolished.

 The mask fell down and there is no more “magnificent Portuguese model – an example to the world”. I hope Portuguese authorities decision may arrive in time to dissuade the rest of the world don’t follow countries like Mexico, Argentina and Czech Republic – as you know unfortunately they did bite the hook and decriminalized drugs already.

 The magnificent Health Minister Paulo Macedo (ex-responsible by the treasure and finances) is now trying to understand how it was possible the existence of so many holes of so many millions of euros, opening the eyes FINALY to some personal and/or corporate interests some years ago installed… and as you can imagine there is a (very) few people very worried about…!

 Now there is the SICAD with the competencies of…

 ”…planeamento e acompanhamento de programas de redução do consumo de substâncias psicoactivas, na prevenção dos comportamentos aditivos e na diminuição das dependências num novo serviço criado no âmbito da administração directa do Ministério da Saúde”

 that means, the”… planning and following up of programs to reduce the consumption of psychoactive substances, prevention of addictive behaviours and diminishing of dependencies in a new service born in Health Ministry direct administration.”

 Treatment and harm reduction structures are since today within the responsibility of the several structures in the ground of National Health Service untied to central services… So the licences to internments and other services became responsibility of each and every ARS – Health Regional Administration accordingly its needs in the ground.

 This is a big victory of good sense and REASON and very good news to everyone who suffer with drug dependence, giving to all of us more wings to believe that our efforts must go on moving always forward a drug free society

 Manuel Pinto Coelho, International Task Force on Strategic Drug Policy.  Dec. 2011

This letter is from Dr. Pinto Coelho from Portugal – his English is not perfect but the gist of the paper is very clear .. i.e. the media claims that decriminalisation in Portugal has been successful are simply not true.

The factual picture of Portuguese drug policy
Reaching out English Parliament and David Cameron
 

The Executive Office of the President Barak Obama Drug Control Policy, Director Gil Kerlikowske, in a letter to a member of the International Task Force on Strategic Drug Policy and Drug Watch International, is peremptory: “Our analysts found that claims that decriminalization has reduced drug use and had no detrimental impact in Portugal significantly exceed the existing scientific basis. Because this conclusion largely contradicts prevailing media coverage and several policy analyses in Portugaland the United States, my staff has heavily documented the sources of the data and information contained in this working paper. Please feel free to use this document in part or in whole to help strengthen your own efforts to advance a more honest discussion of decriminalization in Portugal and of the drug policy choices with nations are grappling today.”
 
This report is a consequence of a complete absurd campaign of an unacceptable manipulation of Portuguese drug policy facts and numbers, rose on the 33 pages of a so original as misleading book written by a writer/lawyer, Glenn Greenwald, fluent in Portuguese (on the eve of two important elections in Portugal), for the American “libertarian” think-tank Cato Institute -  a long time advocate of drug legalization.
 
That book, underestimating the readers’ understanding and suggesting the contrary to what the numbers show clearly and unequivocally, has been carried out unconscientiously and naively by some usually responsible national and international press all over the world that boosting the proliferation of the Portuguese “good news” are dangerously distorting the projection of the reality: “The Guardian” -“Britain looks at Portugal´s success story over decriminalizing personal drug use” (September 5th 2010), “The Economist” – “The evidence from Portugal since 2001 is that decriminalization of drug use and possession has benefits and no harmful side-effects” (August 27th 2009) and the Portuguese magazine “Visão” – “Portugal inspira Obama” (Maio 7, 2009) are just a few of the publications that mimicked the phenomena.
 
It was so effective that irreparable damages are already there – Czech Republic, Mexico and Argentina copied the Portuguese “good example” and did decriminalize drugs too…
 
That is the razing power of an attractive fallacy!
 
But lets go to the data (and his sources) and to that high representative USA official above letter: “Drug-induced deaths in Portugal that decreased from 369 in 1999 to 152 in 2003, climbed to 314 in 2007 – significantly more than the 280 deaths recorded when decriminalization started in 2001”. (EMCDDS, Statistical Bulletin 2009, Table DRD-2.)
 
“…the report´s claims of Portuguese drug legalization success, however it trumpets a decline in the lifetime prevalence rate for the 15-19 age group from 2001 to 2007, while discounting a larger lifetime prevalence increase in the 15-24 age group and ignoring the substantially larger lifetime prevalence increase in the 20-24 age group over the same period. (Greenwald, p.14.) Furthermore, the report emphasizes decreases in lifetime prevalence rates for the 13-18 age group from 2001 to 2006 and for heroin use in the 16-18 age group from 1999 to 2005, but once again downplays increases in the lifetime prevalence rates for the 15-24 age group between 2001 and 2006, and for the 16-18 age group between 1999 and 2005”. (Greenwald, pp. 12-14.)
 
“… despite an assertion in the Cato Institute report that increases in lifetime prevalence rates for a general population are “virtually inevitable in every nation”, EMCDDA data indicate that countries have been able to achieve decreases in lifetime prevalence rates, including Spain, for cannabis and ecstasy use between 2003 and 2008.” (EMCDDA, Statistical Bulletin 2009, Table GPS-1.)
 
To this painful data we must add:
 
“There is a notorious growing consumption of cocaine in Portugal, although not as severe as that which is verifiable in Spain. The increase in consumption of cocaine is extremely problematic”. (EMCDDA Executive Director, Wolfgang Gotz, Lisbon, May 2009.)
 
“While amphetamines and cocaine consumption rates doubled in Portugal, cocaine drug seizures have increased sevenfold between 2001 and 2006, rating Portugal the sixth highest in the world.” (World Drug Report, June 2009.)
 
“Behind Luxembourg, Portugal is the European country with the highest rate of consistent drug users and IV heroin dependents”. (Portuguese Drug Situation Annual Report, 2006)
 
“Portugal keeps on being the country with the most cases of injected drug related AIDS (85 new cases per one million of citizens in 2005, while the majority of other EU countries do not exceed 5 cases per million) and the only one registering a recent increase. 36 more cases per one million of citizens were estimated in 2005 comparatively to 2004, when only 30 were referred. It is the only country recording a recent increase. 703 newly diagnosed infections, followed from a distance by Estonia with 191 and Latvia with 108 reported cases.” (EMCDDA, November 2007.)
 
“The highest HIV/AIDS mortality rates among drug users are reported for Portugal, followed by Estonia, Spain, Latvia and Italy; in most other countries the rates are low” (EMCDDA – November 2010).
 
“In Portugal, since decriminalization has been implemented in July 2001, the number of drug related homicides has increased by 40%. It was the only European country with a significant increase between 2001 and 2006.” (World Drug Report, June 2009.)
 
This is the factual picture of Portuguese drug policy.
Unfortunately for drug dependent’ and their extended families and friends, a lie, as convenient as it could be, no matter how many times affirmed, no matter how insistently repeated, would never become the truth. So, “resounding success” seems a gross overestimate. It is rather simple and easy to grasp the reality of the facts, with one look at the real figures, the official figures.
Extraordinarily Mr. Greenwald managed to picture it otherwise and most of the world press bought it. Subsequently some governments disgracefully did too (USA fortunately didn’t) and others are pathetically wondering to “experiment the potential benefits of innovations like Portugal’s.” (“The Observer” Sunday 5 September 2010.) …
 
Manuel Pinto Coelho
Medical Doctor, Chairman of the Association for a Drug Free Portugal – member of World Family Organization and World Federation Against Drugs
Member of International Task Force on Strategic Drug Policy
Portugal Delegate of Drug Watch International
Portugal representative of European Cities Against Drugs
 
 
P.S.  I am political independent – I am not enrolled to any political party.
        I do not practice or have any links to any drug dependence facilities.

Evangelical patriarch Rev. Pat Robertson has long been a leader in the conservative movement advocating for a better civil and moral society. But his recent support of marijuana legalization couldn’t be more wrongheaded.

“I really believe we should treat marijuana the way we treat beverage alcohol,” Robertson said last week in an interview with The New York Times. “I’ve never used marijuana and I don’t intend to, but it’s just one of those things that I think: this war on drugs just hasn’t succeeded.”

“It’s completely out of control,” Robertson added. “Prisons are being overcrowded with juvenile offenders having to do with drugs. And the penalties, the maximums, some of them could get 10 years for possession of a joint of marijuana. It makes no sense at all.”

Robertson’s arguments are wrong on each and every fact. First, regulating marijuana like the way we regulate alcohol (or cigarettes) will only result in the increased use and abuse of marijuana, particularly among youths. As the late, great political scientist, James Q. Wilson, put it, “The central problem with legalizing drugs is that it will increase drug consumption.” Arguing that adding a dangerous substance to the legal marketplace will reduce its usage is to renounce all common sense. Does Robertson truly believe that addicts and first-time users will be curtailed once the substance they seek becomes easier to obtain?

To stay on alcohol for a moment: There are about 79,000 alcohol-related deaths each year. The Center for Disease Control calculated that excessive drinking cost the United States $223.5 billion annually and the government pays more than 60 percent of these health care costs. Is that really the model that Robertson would recommend for the betterment of society?

The Household Survey of Substance Abuse tells us that alcohol, more than tobacco and illegal drugs, is the most used and abused drug among youth. Why is that? Because alcohol is legal; drugs are not. Alcohol is easily available; drugs are less so. Alcohol is culturally acceptable; drugs are, for the most part, stigmatized, in large part because they are illegal. Robertson has long respected the importance of the law and the culture. It is a grave error for him to abandon that now.

As for his other claims, the 2011 World Drug Report paints a detailed picture of marijuana abusers. Among cannabis users in treatment in the United States, 80.5% are not married, 90% have obtained an education of 12 years or less; 25% are unemployed and 46% are not in the labor force (of which 55% are students). Of the cannabis users who entered treatment services from 2000 to 2008, nearly a quarter report psychiatric problems. In addition, new research suggests that driving under the influence of marijuana could double a person’s risk of getting in a serious or fatal car crash.

Why should we promote the legalization of a substance that can irretrievably harm our children’s brains and makes our citizens less intelligent, less productive and less safe? Open and unrestricted drug use cannot coexist with a free, safe and productive society.

Moreover, Robertson’s claim that our prisons are overflowing with marijuana users are wildly exaggerated. The U.S. criminal justice system is the largest referral source for drug treatment programs. And, the large majority of inmates in state and federal prison for marijuana have been found guilty of much more than simple possession. The Office of National Drug Control Policy, for example, recently reported that of all the inmates in state prisons, 0.3% are arrested for offenses involving only marijuana possession.

Contrary to Robertson’s view, we have had successes in the fight against drugs. According to the Drug Enforcement Administration, 700,000 fewer teenagers used illicit drugs in 2010 than a decade earlier, a 16% decline. From 2000 to 2010, current marijuana use by teens has dropped 9%, methamphetamine use by teens has plummeted 60%, LSD use has dropped 50%, and current cocaine use among high school seniors has dropped 38%.

There have been other important victories, too. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, with the help of the Partnership for a Drug Free America, America’s policymakers and opinion shapers got tough on drugs. Through movies, television, mass media, and, yes, sermons, America sent a message: Drug use is not culturally or morally acceptable and it will not be tolerated. The nation was committed to defeating the cocaine epidemic, and it did.

We have much work left in our own fight against drugs. We need more drug education and prevention classes in schools, more rehabilitation and treatment centers, and more resources for law enforcement officials. But all this is for naught if our nation’s leaders, including its religious leaders, undermine and abandon the cause.

During a recent trip to Mexico, Vice President Joe Biden was right to reject the idea of legalization. “There is no possibility the Obama-Biden administration will change its policy on legalization,” he said. It’s time for a new bipartisan coalition committed to defending our children and our future from the dangers of drug abuse and addiction. Surrendering, like Robertson suggests, is not an option.

Editor’s note: William J. Bennett, a CNN contributor, is the author of “The Book of Man: Readings on the Path to Manhood.” He was U.S. secretary of education from 1985 to 1988 and director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy under President George H.W. Bush.

Source: William Bennett CNN 14th March 2012

Congratulations to our colleague Manuel Pinto Coelho in Portugal.  This is an enormous victory!  The very liberal drug policy of Portugal is crumbling.

———————————————

Dear colleagues,

As you can see, although in Portuguese, it is official – Portuguese IDT and all its staff including the president Goulão has been abolished.

The mask fell down and there is no more “magnificent Portuguese model – an example to the world”. I hope Portuguese authorities decision may arrive in time to dissuade the rest of the world don’t follow countries like Mexico, Argentina and Czech Republic – as you know unfortunately they did bite the hook and decriminalized drugs already.

 The magnificent Health Minister Paulo Macedo (ex-responsible by the treasure and finances) is now trying to understand how it was possible the existence of so many holes of so many millions of euros, opening the eyes FINALY to some personal and/or corporate interests some years ago installed… and as you can imagine there is a (very) few people very worried about…!

Now there is the SICAD with the competencies of…”…planeamento e acompanhamento de programas de redução do consumo de substâncias psicoactivas, na prevenção dos comportamentos aditivos e na diminuição das dependências num novo serviço criado no âmbito da administração directa do Ministério da Saúde”

that means, the”… planning and following up of programs to reduce the consumption of psychoactive substances, prevention of addictive behaviours and diminishing of dependencies in a new service born in Health Ministry direct administration.”

Treatment and harm reduction structures are since today within the responsibility of the several structures in the ground of National Health Service untied to central services… So the licences to internments and other services became responsibility of each and every ARS – Health Regional Administration accordingly its needs in the ground.

 This is a big victory of good sense and REASON and very good news to everyone who suffer with drug dependence, giving to all of us more wings to believe that our efforts must go on moving always forward a drug free society

 Manuel Pinto Coelho, International Task Force on Strategic Drug Policy.  Dec. 2011

Jay’s story has a familiar ring. The pre-teen experimentation with cannabis after his father walked out on the family, followed by flirtation with ecstasy and cocaine. He had smoked his first wrap of heroin before he was old enough to buy a pint of beer. But it was only when he was off the street, safely incarcerated in a young offender institution, that methadone was added to Jay’s palate. As the gaunt teenager with grey skin shuffled from foot to foot in the West London drizzle, uncaringly dressed in a hooded tracksuit, his pin-pricked pupils scanned the streets.
“I was running wild with a raging [heroin] habit when they got me,” he said. “They tried to detox me inside but as soon as I complained they put my dose of methadone up again. I came out needing drugs as much as when I went in.”
His six-month stretch inside passed in a methadone-induced daze with, according to Jay, little attempt by prison staff to offer him a pathway to drug-free recovery. When he was released two years ago, Jay, whose only family contact is an elder brother he occasionally stays with, swiftly returned to the messy chaos of an opiate-obsessed existence. He thinks that he will be back in prison within weeks. “Most junkies I know want to be clean but if you can’t do it when you’re inside, when can you?” he says.
Methadone, a heroin substitute that is more addictive than heroin itself, has assumed a dominant position in the State’s drug-control armoury. It is given to half the country’s estimated 300,000 heroin addicts while parliamentary answers have revealed that 65,000 prisoners were prescribed it in the past year, including nearly 20,000 on a maintenance programme which can last years — an annual rise of 57 per cent. In some patches of “broken Britain” it is responsible for more fatal overdoses than any other substance.
Supporters say it stabilises addicts and protects society by removing the need for drug-financing crime sprees. Opponents argue that the State is happy to “park” people on methadone for years, giving up hope that addicts will ever lead a productive, drug-free life.
One aspect most agree on is that drug addiction is a lucrative business. Professor Neil McKeganey, a leading opponent of mass methadone medicating, said: “There’s considerable financial incentive that drug users remain drug dependent.” Drug companies make millions from producing methadone, GPs in many parts of the country get paid in the region of £220 per methadone patient per year, pharmacists can get £200 administration fees plus about £1.50 per administered dose, while more than 150,000 people are employed in drug-action teams funded largely from the public purse.
Mark Johnson, a former drug user who founded the charity Uservoice, said that although prisons are the ideal location for rehabilitation because they are “the only place that removes some people from dysfunction and gives them a respite”, the authorities are increasingly opting for the methadone route. “All we’re doing is containing the problem, not solving it,” he said.
Several studies have shown that a residential-based abstinence programme lasting at least a month has a roughly one in four success rate, while a recent study on addicts in society showed that after three years on methadone only 3 per cent are drug-free.
Despite this, however, the Government, backed by a cadre of policy experts and health professionals, is increasing its multi-million annual spend on methadone maintenance programmes. At the same time, at least 20 residential rehabilitation centres have closed in the past two years because primary care trusts have stopped referring clients. Last month Middlegate Lodge, the only residential rehab centre specifically for teenagers, closed.
Just 850 prisoners were put on the relatively succesful 12-step abstinence programme last year. No figures are available for how many young offenders are prescribed methadone.
Inspectors’ reports into young offenders’ institutions record that while alcohol and cannabis are the biggest substance problems, the use of methadone is being encouraged and is increasing.
Kathy Gyngell, a drugs policy analyst for the Centre for Policy Studies, said that prescribing methadone to young offenders had become routine. She added: “It might appear the easier option but it leads to longer term problems. Individuals who historically used their short sentences to gain clean time now feel the necessity to carry on using methadone, as it takes no effort other than presenting themselves at the healthcare door to get it.”
David Burrowes, a Tory justice spokesman, said that drug treatment was “characterised by methadone” and that a variety of treatment options needed to be available.
Katherine, a former addict, whose descent into heroin addiction began after she was raped as a teenager, said that after a decade ricocheting between methadone in prison and heroin outside, she had finally kicked her habit after becoming one of the few prisoners to be offered a place on a RAPt (Rehabilitation for Addicted Prisoners Trust) abstinence programme.
“Methadone is not a solution,” said Katherine, who left prison drug-free in 2008. “The message it gives is, ‘You come in with a habit and we’ll keep the habit and let you back out into society with no changes whatsoever.” She said that even in prison, addicts are able to exploit the system by using cotton wool to absorb the sickly-sweet green methadone linctus, before selling it on to other inmates and buying heroin with the proceeds.
Rosie, who started taking heroin at the age of 14, was prescribed methadone after leaving a young offenders’ institution and said that she had never seen a succesful methadone-led withdrawal from drug use. “It’s almost more of a poison than heroin, there doesn’t ever seem to be an end to it,” she said. She became drug-free after attending an abstinence-based treatment centre provided by the Nelson Trust.
To its advocates, though, methadone is a useful tool. At best, it stabilises addicts before they are weaned off; at worst, it can be used to maintain addicts long term, minimising the need for them to commit crime to pay for street heroin. Overall, drug-related crime is estimated to cost the country more than £13 billion a year.
There are also risks associated with forcing prisoners to go cold turkey. Cynics suggest the prison authorities’ increasing enthusiasm for methadone may have something to do with the £750,000 it was forced to pay out in 2006 after almost 200 drug-addicted prisoners sued the Government, claiming that their rights were infringed when they were forced to withdraw suddenly.
Even for those who claim to have benefited from it, methadone is at best a stopgap. James, 30, from Renfrewshire, had been a heroin user for nine years when he was given methadone in Barlinnie Prison, Glasgow. “Everything in prison was all about drugs,” he said. “Sometimes you couldn’t get any heroin and you couldn’t eat your dinner, you were in bed with all your clothes on, teeth rattling. They put me on 30ml of methadone, a low dose, and it settled me. I was a lot calmer; it was like a safety net.”
Roger Howard, the chief executive of the UK Drug Policy Commission, an advocate for methadone, admits that it could not alone cure drug addicts. “What everyone wants is to reduce deaths from dangerous street heroin and to reduce criminality,” he said. “Methadone is not the problem. These people come with a bucketful of problems: abuse, unemployment, homelessness, family.”
Professor McKeganey, who works at the Centre for Drug Misuse at the University of Glasgow, warned that Britain was sleepwalking into a situation similar to that in the Netherlands, where the Government provided places at old people’s homes for those with long-term methadone habits: the so-called “geriaddicts”. Mr Howard agreed: “There is a cohort who are probably so damaged and with such profound health problems that they will never get a job and will for ever rely on the State.”
As he prepared to pad the darkened streets of West London in shoes as punctured as his bony, needle-marked forearm in an all-consuming search for his next hit, Jay pondered a parting question: if you could survive in prison on methadone alone, why not, when outside, give your daily, drug-free urine sample, take the supervised dose of methadone and shun street drugs?
“But where would it get me? All right, the craving for smack’s not there but you soon get the craving for the meth. Nobody I know on a heoin ’script is getting any better. They’re just surviving.”

Source: Times Online 17th March 2010

The cost of a quick fix
2.4m Methadone prescriptions written in 2007, a rise of 60 per cent since 2003
£1.2bn Amount spent annually by government (central and local) tackling drug use in England in 2009-10
£15.3bn The cost per year to society of problem drug use
£13.9bn The estimated cost of drug-related offending in 2003, made up of a £9.9 billion cost to victims of crime and £4 billion costs incurred by the criminal justice system
330,000 Estimated number of problem drug users in England, of whom 166,000 are in some form of treatment programme

Sources: NAO, Drugscope, Home Office

THE Conservative’s Holyrood justice spokesman Bill Aitken is no stranger to controversy and his plain-spoken attack on the methadone programme has re-ignited the debate about how best to tackle Scotland’s appalling epidemic of drug addiction.
The debate about the effectiveness of the methadone programme has raged since its inception and there has always been opposition to the principle of handing out free opium-based drugs like methadone to addicts. But there is much in the basis of the scheme to commend it, not least that it has the potential to place those on the programme outwith the reach of criminals. Something that means addicts no longer have to steal to manage their habit and keeps them out of the clutches of gangsters should be a good thing. However, too many just use the methadone as part of their daily drugs routine and find ways of selling it on, despite measures like forcing them to take it in front of the pharmacist.

But the biggest flaw in the current system is that there is no incentive for the addicts to wean themselves off drugs altogether. The methadone programme is only a means to manage the habit, not break it and that must change. There is a great deal of truth in the belief that addicts must genuinely want to give up before any treatment can be successful, and that applies as much to alcohol, nicotine and gambling as it does to drugs. But therein lies the weakness in the system – following the logic, why should alcoholics not get free booze if it helps prevent them following a life of crime? Of course, that would be absurd, but so too is supplying junkies with more drugs for as long as they want without any prospect of a cure.

The extent of drug addiction across the whole of Scotland is only one facet of a wider social malaise, especially in the sprawling sink estates. Edinburgh has its own well-documented drug problems, but its scale is dwarfed by the problems affecting places like Easterhouse. Why is it that some of these places have lower life-expectancy than deprived Third World countries? Why are thousands of people in a prosperous country able to see out their lives without ever doing a useful day’s work? And why is it necessary to lock up more people here than in most comparable Western countries? That there is a deep social malaise in much of Central Scotland is not in any doubt and the answer does not lie in throwing more public money at the problems without a radical re-think.

Bill Aitken’s description of drug addicts sitting “fat and happy” on the methadone programme might be over-blown – few of them are what any normal person would recognise as happy – but he does have a point. Free drugs on the state should only be part of a habit-breaking programme – anything less is little more than state-funded dealing.

Source: Edinburgh Evening News 17 March 2008

BBC Radio 4’s Any Questions: The drug policy debate in early June mentioned an organisation in which I am involved – the UK National Drug Prevention Alliance – many times, so we must respond. In doing so, I hope to convey proven facts about the dangers of legalising drugs.

Nadine Dorries was correct that much modern cannabis is stronger than years ago but we do not agree with her figures. Typically, modern cannabis is three to four times stronger in THC, the psychoactive ingredient, than even the strongest cannabis of the 1960s and 1970s. This has been achieved by selective breeding and in response to consumer demand.

But the picture is more complex than ‘just’ THC strength. The presence – or rather absence in modern forms – of another chemical, CBD, appears to have aggravated the brain-damaging potential of cannabis. Use has also changed. Age of first use and regular use is earlier than in the 1960s and that is another damaging factor. The evidence caused the UKgovernment, with cross-party agreement, to reclassify cannabis upwards two years ago. At the time (Sky News, 6 April 2008), prime minister David Cameron admitted that a parliamentary committee, of which he had been a member, had been wrong about lowering the classification of cannabis. Lessons have been learned and are unlikely to be overturned.  Cannabis contributes substantially to academic under-achievement and very poor mental health, regardless of other effects.

On the wider question of decriminalisation and even legalisation of all drugs, the NDPA believes that a monstrous, well financed and very slick fraud is being perpetrated internationally and that this fraud has fooled some of the “great and good” who signed up as supporters. There is no evidence at all that either measure could reduce the total harm from drugs. The reverse is very much the case, with academic opinion saying that either measure would inevitably normalise and increase, use.  The manifest harm from the legal drugs and the legislation on alcohol and tobacco, as variously applied around the world, confirms that.  Comments on wishful good effects from decriminalisation were profoundly incorrect and reflect manipulative messages. For years, we have been bombarded with the Netherlandsas the example of sound drug policy – despite the fact that the country, through its policies, created the largest base for drugs-related criminality inEurope with supply, warehousing, distribution and manufacture at astonishing levels. At one stage, theNetherlands had more drug related murder than anywhere else inEurope. TheNetherlands is changing. It spends proportionally more than theUK on enforcement and is currently more effective and better organised than theUK.

Portugaland decriminalisation appears now to be “the new orthodoxy” for those with a certain direction of travel and for those “user advocates” who want more freedom to use, regardless of the wider social effects. ButPortugalis being misrepresented, as demonstrated below.

1. The number of new cases of HIV and Hepatitis C inPortugalis eight times the average in other EU countries.
2. Portugalhas the most cases of injected drug related Aids, with 85 new cases per million citizens.  Other EU countries average 5 per million.
3. Since decriminalisation, drug-related homicides have increased 40%.
4. Drug overdoses have increased substantially, by over 30% in 2005.
5. There has been an increase of 45% in post mortems testing positive for illegal drugs.
6. Amphetamine and cocaine consumption has doubled inPortugal, with cocaine seizures increasing sevenfold between 2001 and 2006.

Finally, the suggestion that legalisation would somehow remove criminality from drug supply is ridiculous. Criminality loves use-reinforcing substances and behaviours. Over 20% of theUKtobacco market is smuggled, counterfeit or both. In some other countries, the figures are worse. Legalisation or decriminalisation of substances unfit for human consumption should occur only if a demonstrable “public good” can be evidenced. The problem for the legalisation lobby is that it

cannot.

DAVID RAYNES is executive councillor of the

UK National Drug Prevention Alliance (http:// drugprevent.org.uk/ppp/about-us).

SourceAddiction Today July/August 2011

The true cost of Scotland’s drug habit has been set out by a leading academic, who says a single addict sets the country back more than £60,000 a year.

Professor Neil McKeganey, director of the Centre for Drug Misuse Research at the University of Glasgow, has criticised Scottish Government policy and said the nation is “paying a massive price” for its drugs problem.  Scotland has some 55,000 addicts, so the annual bill in health care, criminal activity, drug driving and other social costs comes to almost £3.5 billion.

Writing in today’s Scotsman, Prof McKeganey argues Scottish society has grown too accepting of all forms of drug abuse and needs instead to preach a doctrine of abstinence. He questions the Scottish Government’s reliance on methadone as a substitute for heroin abusers and argues more effort is required to get addicts off drugs through abstinence.

“At the moment, we have about 22,000 addicts on methadone in Scotland,” he says. “When Scottish ministers are asked whether they have any plans for reducing that number, the typical answer is to say that prescribing methadone is the responsibility of individual doctors.  “Our political leaders, surrounded by those who counsel them on the benefits of methadone, find themselves passing responsibility for our national methadone programme on to the shoulders of those who are prescribing the drug in the first place. This situation is going to get worse.”

Prof McKeganey says Scotland’s drug problem is “virtually without equal anywhere in Europe” and that concern over “legal high” mephedrone, a substance sold as plant food which has become popular as a recreational drug and has been linked to a number of deaths, is just another symptom of the “culture of addiction”.

“What… should we make of a situation in Scotland where young people are prepared to consume plant food to obtain a desired high?” he says.

The Centre for Drug Misuse Research has estimated each problem drug user costs £60,703 a year, while a recreational drug user costs the state only £134.  The costs were calculated by considering the addict’s actions in terms of health, work, driving, crime and other social consequences, such as children in care and even addicts’ deaths.

In 2007, for example, problem drug users made 45,034 visits to accident and emergency departments at a total cost of £9,804,388, while the annual shoplifting bill is £50,611,921.

Prof McKeganey believes that key to tackling Scotland’s drug problem lies in a greater focus on abstinence. “If we are going to change the culture of acceptance around drugs, we need to do something that is almost beyond comprehension – we need to normalise abstinence,” he says.

The growing culture of middle-class drug use, where users argue it is a just reward for personal success, must he tackled, he argues, and there should be more visits to schools by drug addicts and their families to highlight the consequences of addiction.

Last night, a spokeswoman for the Scottish Drugs Forum defended the use of methadone for drug addicts and the necessity for support systems to help drug addicts, even during times of financial hardship.  “Methadone – along with psycho-social support to supplement the pharmaceutical prescription – has an important part to play in helping many people stabilise chaotic drug use, but other approaches must be available, including abstinence-based treatment, for people who want them and who could benefit from them,” she said.  “What matters most is having a range of high-quality and readily accessible treatment which best meets the needs of each individual at each stage of their journey away from harmful drug use.”

Tim Richley, of offenders’ charity Sacro, supported Prof McKeganey’s long-term goal, but said it would require gradual change. “I do understand the argument he is making and I would come down on the side of total abstinence as a good goal that we are trying to achieve, but other factors can help,” he said. “If they were to ditch methadone overnight, there would be a huge rise in criminal activity as addicts seek the money to buy heroin.”

A spokesman for the Scottish Government said it had invested a record £28.6 million in drug treatment and services. He went on:  “It is for individual clinicians to decide on the most appropriate medical treatment for any person, taking into account their lifestyle and what stage they are on the road to recovery.

“The Scottish Government’s new drugs strategy offers a blueprint for all our drug treatment and rehabilitation services based on the principle of recovery, not extending addiction, tailored to the personal needs of individuals.”
Source:  www.scotsman.com 29^th March 2010

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

October 04, 2010

DODGY DOSSIER 3: NATIONAL TREATMENT AGENCY FIGURES

THE STATISTICS OF FAILURE IN THE NTA ANNUAL ACCOUNTS 2009/10, AND 2005 OUTCOMES RESEARCH

 by Deirdre Boyd

 If this country wishes to cut crime and get addicts into recovery, it is vital that our drugs policy is built on a solid foundation of fact not a quicksand of PR illusion which will bury us all. If failed so-called treatments and systems are promoted as successes, then truly successful treatments being considered by government might be discarded as unnecessary.

 That would be a tragedy for Britain. In an attempt to avert this, we must correct the errors published today by Robert Verkaik, home affairs editor of the Independent newspaper, who reiterated to the nation the NTA press release that “The long battle to break the link between drug addiction and criminal behaviour is being won. Nearly a half of all addicts who participated in drug courses in 2005 have been found to be free from addiction and no longer committing crime four years after leaving treatment. For those with cannabis or cocaine habits the success rates are as high as 69 per cent and 64 per cent respectively”. 

 Sorry but this is very far from the truth. It looks as if £848,960,000 has been spent in one year on people NOT leaving treatment satisfactorily.

 Deceptively, the NTA figures were placed beside the real success stories of addicts who now lead drug-free lives thanks to Rapt rehabilitation programmes, as though they were cause and effect. The reality under the NTA regime is that only about 2% of people seeking help get rehab (and a similar number get drug free).

 October is, of course, anniversary time: the NTA board meeting. This time last year, the National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse used our hard-earned taxes to pay for positive PR in the Guardian, whose Terry Kirby wrote that it “has a seemingly perfect response” on spending resources (a Freedom of Information query from Addiction Today elicited that the NTA gave the Guardian £219,337 of our money in that 18-month period). Then Addiction Today number-crunched to put the record straight about lack of recovery-oriented treatment for addicts and thus dismal results. It was vital to identify what went wrong, as covering up the true figures denies tens of thousands – perhaps hundreds of thousands – of vulnerable people a chance to quit drugs and addiction for life.

 Since then, we have changed government and health secretary Andrew Lansley abolished the NTA. But it has two years to embed its practices and its staff into the Public Health Service. Can its directors live up to the trust placed in them by the prime minister over this transition period? Judge for yourself as we numbercrunch the NTA Annual Report 2009/10 and that press release.

 NTA ANNUAL REPORT 2009/10

 In its Annual Report 2009/10, the NTA chooses to quote for its figures a National Audit Office report, Tackling Problem Drug Use, which states that 213,000 people were in contact with the treatment system, 168,000 of these “in effective treatment” – and that only 28,000 “left treatment satisfactorily”. The first question is what happened to the other 140,000 people? The funding per person, according to the NTA report, was £3,000 – so that is £420,000,000 spent on people not leaving treatment satisfactorily. What happened to them?

 And the unexplained costs could be worse. The government-funded DTORS report estimated an average annual treatment cost not of £3,000 per patient but about £4,500 (Summary of Key Findings Research Report 23, section: Cost-effectiveness of drug treatment “With drug treatment costs of around £4,500 …”) but by Research Report 25 this figure had jumped to £6,064  (“The average cost of drug treatment over the whole DTORS sample was estimated to be £6,064…” So the NTA Annual Report 2009/10 could be indicating £848,960,000 spent on people not leaving treatment satisfactorily.

 Perhaps this is why Hansard, which prints all MPs’ speeches in the House of Commons, reported a comment in July by David Burrowes: “The annual report of the National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse, which was presented to the House… is in stark contrast with the 30th report of the Public Accounts Committee in March, which concluded that £1.2billion is spent on tackling drug misuse without the government knowing the overall effect of that approach”.

 And what does “satisfactorily” mean? The previous annual report stated that “24,656 (41%) were discharged successfully, defined as those completing treatment free of their drug of dependency”. This last phrase is removed in the current version – perhaps because, last year, Addiction Today highlighted that it meant patients stopped using one drug but were using others. This is equivalent to saying that an alcoholic has completed treatment free of dependency on whiskey but is now dependent on vodka, brandy, high-strength lagers… Professionals refer to this as cross-addiction, where one drug is replaced with another and the addictive behaviours continue unchanged. The final figure came a maximum 8,980 people perhaps free from dependency: a similar number to those who managed to get into rehabs.

 “Changes in definitions mean that direct comparisons to previous years are not possible,” the NTA Annual Report states. So we must leave you to judge from last year’s for the moment. And ponder this…

 DODGY DOSSIER OF DISCHARGES

 As the NTA prepared for its 5 October board meeting this year, it issued a congratulatory press release not about these latest annual accounts but results from five years ago. “In an international first, the NTA tracked the post-treatment journey of thousands of drug users over a four year period and has discovered that almost half of those discharged in one year subsequently demonstrated sustained recovery from addiction,” said the press release. “Nearly half of those leaving treatment neither need further treatment nor were found to be involved in drug related offending”.

 “These findings are very exciting because they help us define more accurately what ‘success’ looks like for drug treatment,” trumpeted NTA CEO Paul Hayes, promoted from his career as a probation officer to this role and taking home a salary rivalling prime minister David Cameron (£135,000-£140,000 pa). NTA’s performance can also be credited to its executive director over these years, Rosanna O’Connor.

 The sad reality is that only “discharged” patients were included in the study. Again, we do not know what happened to the greater number not classified this way. Nor can we refer to the 41,475 (of 54,000) discharged people in the report as “participants” as the NTA has equated lack of proof of negative results as proof of positive results – see Professor Neil McKeganey’s expert opinion on this below.

 DISCHARGED OR DEAD?

Last year, when the NTA Annual Report referred to “individuals discharged”, a deeper look revealed that 905 were “discharged” from this earth completely, having died.

 More had “moved away”, had “treatment withdrawn” or are “not known”. 1,769 are said to have declined ‘treatment’ – perhaps due to the growing phenomenon of people refusing a lifetime on methadone, or a reflection of stories of a high-volume low-care organisation which gets vulnerable clients to sign DIR forms which they think give treatment but are refusal forms.

 *******

 Professor Neil McKeganey’s blog is copied below for clarity on this topic.

 NTA TREATMENT OUTCOME RESEARCH:
HARD EVIDENCE OR POLITICAL SPIN?
by Neil McKeganey,  Professor of Drug Misuse Research, University of Glasgow

 The National Treatment Agency has announced a near miracle in drug treatment. Followed up over a four-year period, the NTA has claimed that “Nearly half of those leaving treatment neither need further treatment nor were found to be involved in drug related offending”. When you recall that drug addiction is a “chronic, relapsing condition”, you might wonder how any treatment could be that good? Too good perhaps to be true?

 So what is the claim that addicts leaving treatment need no further treatment actually based on? Is it based on any sort of clinical or psychological assessment of the individual drug user to assess his or her level of continuing need? Have the researchers who have undertaken this work examined the living arrangements of the drug users concerned, have they looked at their contact with their children, at whether the individual drug user is in employment, at whether they are still using illegal drugs, at whether they are even using prescribed drugs? Do they know anything about the housing circumstances of the drug users involved?

 The answer to all those questions, sadly, is no.  The NTA has claimed near-miraculous success for drug treatment whilst knowing next to nothing about the lives of the people it is so eager to celebrate as treatment successes.

 hat the NTA has done is to undertake an analysis of client records to see whether drug users leaving treatment re-contact drug treatment over the next four years. If they  do not, then according to the NTA,  the individual must be well on the road to their sustained recovery. Here is another interpretation based on the same data: that a large proportion of individuals leaving treatment were so disappointed by their experience of treatment that they did not return. Another interpretation of the same data is that, having contacted drug treatment services with a drug problem and left those series with a drug problem, many drug users might have wondered at the point of recontacting services.

 Those interpretations would not be welcomed by those providing drug ‘treatment’ or those, like the NTA, responsible for improving the quality of drug treatment. There, I am afraid, is the rub. The assessment of the success or otherwise of treatment has to be based on a good deal more than an analysis of records undertaken by the very agency with a vested interest in the quality of the treatment being provided.

 So what about the claim that ‘treatment’ leads to a massive resolution in drug-related offending? That claim is based on the NTA looking to see whether individuals leaving treatment provided a positive drugs test to a criminal justice agency or contacted the Drug Interventions Programme over the next four years. One would not have thought it needed to be pointed out - but not being drug tested by the police and not contacting the Drug Intervention Programme is not the same thing as ceasing one’s involvement in drug-related offending. 

 The NTA has acknowledged that it cannot categorically assert that all individuals who do not return to treatment or contact the Drug Interventions Programme are leading entirely drug-free or crime-free lives. To do that, it says, would require each of the 40,000 clients in the study to be personally contacted and interviewed.

 In fact, what would be required is only to study a representative sample of treatment leavers. Despite its cautionary caveat, the NTA has done precisely what it should have  refrained from doing – claiming near-miraculous success for drug treatment on the slimmest-possible evidence base.

 The NTA has too much invested in a positive story of drug ‘treatment’ for it to be responsible for the evaluation of that treatment. What we need is for our drug treatment services to be subjected to rigorous and independent evaluation. Only then can we be assured that the claims we are reading in the press and elsewhere about the effectiveness of the treatment services provided are based on hard evidence rather than political spin. 

 Definition of treatment: click glossary.

 Comments

 If independent treatment agencies made such extravagant claims on such flimsy evidence they would ridiculed and in fact their medical staff could be reported to the GMC for misrepresentation.

 Posted by: Peter McCann | October 04, 2010 at 07:15 PM

  As a volunteer with a service user recovery involvement group, this report stinks. We are not allowed into the so-called rehabilitation group – because our job is to promote “best practice” involving the clients actively in the service. The slogan To empower is c**p. More fitting is control.

 Trying our hardest to fight for the rights of service users does not go down well with the services. When a service users tells me that they will except any s**te thrown at them, that tells it all.

 I will continue to be a pain in the butt because when I read these stupid reports it just strengthens my commitment, enthusiasm, motivation and passion.

 I sit round the tables of SUIP, SDRC, SDF and many more. The only reason they invite members of the group is because they have to tick the box.

 I have written to government, just to confirm what part they think service user involvement groups should play. They made it clear that it very important and will continue to support these groups. Well, they should pass this on to the highly-paid judgemental, non-empathy employers they have at present.

 As for the recovery stats, they should attend our group. We are the foot soldiers in the real world of recovery. The real story reads like a horror story. Wake up.

 Posted by: CONFUSED | October 07, 2010 at 12:24 AM

 I worked for one of the biggest providers of the type of ‘treatment’ cited in Dr McKeganey’s report. It has been my experience that this well known organisation is staffed almost through-out by unqualified and inexperienced staff. They operate like a fascist state within the organisation, disciplining individuals or threatening them with disciplinaries if they dare to dissent in any way. In other words if you dare to question the system they call ‘treatment’. It has been my observation over the time that I worked for them that they are very cosy and familiar with the NTA and seem to have extraodinary sway when it comes to commissioners and winning tenders.
The projects that they run are ineffective at best and actually dangerous for clients at worst. Their staff are so incompetent and lacking in self-awareness that there is no room for innovation or clinical excellence. Yet the U turn that has taken where CEOs and others at the top are now bleating on about being ‘recovery focused’! -What this actually means is that they are following the pound note – simple. They have little commitment, interest or knowledge around what is needed to treat addictive disorders and support individuals from a place of crisis and chaos into abstinent recovery.
It appalls me that this agency has any credibility as they have in my experience never shown any aptitude in assisting individuals into recovery. It therefore is only natural for me to question whether their overnight success and strong hold on voluntary sector tenders is closely linked to their relationship with the NTA.
I beleive that all these agencies should be subject to rigorous monitoring in order to assure ethical and clinical excellence.

 ted by: anonymous | October 07, 2010 at 08:25 PM

  I am a recovering addict doing some voluntary jobs and returning to college in January…. it appears what the real interest is . If the services were to keep in contact with their clients after rehab or detox or even self withdrawel , then one would know how the client is or is not doing well , in our after care lives theses things appear to go unnoticed. In my years as an addict for 29 yrs i, feel i have a little bit of experience also having taken on the link with recovering addicts , the after care structure needs to be totally adjusted to say the least. This will only be the time to try and find out about true recovery.

Source:  Addiction Today Oct. 4th 2010

Should drugs be legalized? Some people think so, like a recent article written by Ethan Nadelmann in Foreign Policy magazine. The Executive Director of UNODC, Antonio Maria Costa, put forward his views on the topic to a meeting in New Orleans hosted by the Drug Policy Alliance. Here is a full text of the speech:

Ladies and Gentlemen,

From both sides of the aisle, there have been noises about my presence here. Is it right to invite this fellow, the so-called drug czar of the United Nations, to our annual conference?  Indeed, in some of the pro-legalization literature I am depicted as a die-hard prohibitionist, a drug control Taleban, a naive proponent of a drug free world, even a general in the war on drugs.

I have heard similar complaints from the opposite front: what is the point of the UNODC Executive Director joining the caucus of those who ask for the end of drug control, mixing with drug legalizers, the radical fringe of the pro-drug lobby, pressing for a world of free drugs that will never come?

I am glad that eventually we all decided that this exchange of views could be constructive, and help public opinion understand better a century-old drama: drug abuse, and the damage that it causes.

Is there some common ground between those who insist on a world free of drugs, and those who propose a world of free drugs? By the time this session is over, I hope we will all be able to answer in the affirmative. Here are a few pointers:

• First, health and security have to be protected when we talk about society, including when we talk about how society deals with drugs.
• Second, as a corollary, we can all agree on the need to reduce the harm caused by drugs — by preventing their use, by treating those who abuse them, and by limiting the damage they cause to the individual and society.
• Third, I hope we also agree on the need to ensure that drug policy is evidence-based, not the result of political considerations or ideological preferences.
• Fourth, I submit that the dichotomy prohibition vs legalization is a misnomer. Such a confrontation is too simplistic for scientific deliberations, nor does it help those whom we all wish to assist: our brothers and sisters, the drug addicts.
• Fifth, and finally, I hope you also agree that it is more accurate to refer to our divergence as a difference about the degree to which addictive substances (drugs, alcohol and tobacco) should be regulated. 

If these points are accepted, the discussion is to be centred on  where the bar is set , how to define the degrees of regulation. In other words, instead of accentuating our differences, I hope we build on the ground we share.

Let me begin with the world drug situation: where do we stand?

The world drug situation

In a recent article Ethan Nadelmann wrote: “it is dangerous when rhetoric drives policy”. I agree.  Res, not verba, [actions, not words] my ancestors the Romans, would have said. So let’s begin with the facts.

A growing body of evidence, including recent UNODC World Drug Reports, shows that the drug market has stabilized over time and space. [Opium in Afghanistan is mostly an insurgency issue (4/5 of the cultivation takes place in the areas controlled by the Taliban).]

On the basis of this evidence, I can state that, since a few years, for all drugs there are signs of world market stability (for opiates, cocaine, cannabis, and ATS). What I mean is that in every component of the drug business (cultivation, production, consumption), aggregate totals have lost the upward momentum they had in the 1980s and ’90s. Of course, world aggregates hide improvements in some countries and for some drugs, offset by deterioration elsewhere. Yet, the global totals are stable. This is what I like to call containment.

This finding refers to the past few years. Hopefully, in the period ahead evidence to support this claim – over the long term – will become statistically and logically incontrovertible.

Next question: how did this market change come about? Is this the result of the UNGASS process? I see correlations over time and space, but evidence of causality is hard to come by (social sciences are generally poor in proving cause/effect relations). Drug trends respond to a wide range of factors, especially changes in society’s revealed preferences. Yet for me, the result is what counts. If you have evidence to refute our data, I would like to see it.

Despite evidence of containment the world still has an enormous drug problem. There are some 25 million problem drug users. But let’s keep this in perspective – that’s less than 0.6% of the world’s population. Even if you take into account the number of people who take drugs at least once a year (approximately 200 million people), this is still below 5% of everyone on the planet.

By comparison, 50% of the world’s population uses alcohol, and 30% smoke. Alcohol, we know, kills 2.5 million people a year. More than half of all homicides and road-accidents, and most domestic violence, is alcohol-related. Tobacco kills 5 million people a year, because of cardio-vascular diseases and cancer — two of the greatest killers of our time.

What is my conclusion? There is growing public and medical pressure to tighten controls on the consumption of alcohol and cigarettes. That’s right. So why increase the public health damage caused by drugs by making them more freely available: drugs whose damage — thanks to the controls – is limited to 1/10th the casualties caused by tobacco? Why ignore the knowledge that we have gained from our experience with other addictive substances? 

If dreams come true…..

In order to show where I like to set the drug control bar, let me begin with the slogan so many of you have ridiculed:  a drug free world. Wait, wait: hold on to the tomatoes – I am not the author of this slogan. While in my life time I would certainly like to see a world without drugs, I have never used this slogan. Actually, you will not find it in any of my speeches, nor in any of the official United Nations documents, starting from the most relevant of them: the conventions (of 1961, 1971, and 1988) that created the UN drug control regime, and the General Assembly resolution about drugs (most notably from the UNGASS, 1998).

Yes, of course, several years ago (ie BC, before Costa) my Office put out posters with that slogan screaming across the page. While I never used this concept, personally I see nothing wrong with it. Is a drugs free world attainable? Probably not. Is it desirable? Most certainly, yes. Therefore I see this slogan as an aspirational goal, and not as an operational target – in the same way that we all aspire to eliminate poverty, hunger, illiteracy, diseases, even wars.

So let’s move on. I start with a series of (hypothetical) situations that I deem useful to set priorities in drug policy. I present them to you as dreams.

First, I invite you all to imagine that this year, all drugs produced and trafficked around the world, were seized: the dream of law enforcement agencies. Well, when we wake up having had this dream, we would realize that the same amount of drugs – hundreds of tons of heroin, cocaine and cannabis – would be produced again next year. In other words, this first dream shows that, while law enforcement is necessary for drug control, it is not sufficient. New supply would keep coming on stream, year after year.

So let’s dream a second time. Let’s dream that, by some miracle, we can convince farmers around the world to eradicate the thousands of hectares of drug crops, replaced by the fruits of development assistance (in Afghanistan, Colombia, Morocco, and Myanmar). A great dream of course, but yet again one that would not on its own solve the world drug problem. Why? Because when we wake up after this second dream we would realize that other sources of supply would inevitably open up somewhere else on the planet, to satisfy the craving of millions of drug users around the world.

So we come to a third dream which is the real challenge of drug policy: to reduce the demand for drugs. Prevention, treatment and reintegration, combined in a single health based programme, must be our priority. Of course the world’s supply of drugs needs to be reduced, but lower demand for drugs is the required condition to make drug policy realistic and pragmatic.

I hope you agree on this sequence, to separate the three elements of the drug chain, and their primary agents:  supply, by farmers in need of assistance;  trafficking, by criminals deserving retribution; and demand, by addicts in need of health care. At the UN, governments have captured this concept nicely in the expression shared responsibility.

Our Office focuses on the first and third part of this trilogy, namely the farmers and the drug users. Going after the traffickers is the role of law enforcement agencies. We help indirectly in this endeavour by promoting criminal justice and counter-narcotics cooperation. I take this opportunity to salute the work of counter-narcotics officials around the world whose important work is often carried out at the cost of their lives: please recognize that they deal with loathsome predators who exploit human vulnerability for the purposes of profit.

Health and Security  

With two building blocks of my argumentation in place (namely, stability of the world drug market and the priority of reducing drug demand), let me now turn to the issues of health and security.

Some people say that drug use is a personal and private choice – and nobody else’s business.

I have a few problems with this argument. First, there is a health issue. A growing body of scientific evidence shows that drug abuse is a disease affecting the brain, as much as any other neurological or psychiatric disorder. It is both triggered by vulnerability, and, in turn, deepens vulnerability. This has consequences both for the drug user and society as a whole. 

Second, if people don’t care about the dangers to themselves, what about the dangers that drugs cause to others: like road accidents or crimes committed by people under the influence of psycho-active substances, or the spread of blood borne diseases to others? The pharmacological effects of drugs are independent of their legal status. Drugs are not dangerous because they are illegal. They are illegal because they are dangerous. No wonder that public outcry against the collateral damage of drug use is building, just like successful campaigns against passive smoking or drunk driving. 

Third, drugs threaten security – not only public safety in inner-cities, but the security of states — think of Central America, the Caribbean and West Africa, caught in the cross-fire of drug trafficking.

I know your argument on this last point. Prohibition causes violence and crime by creating a lucrative black market for drugs: so, legalize drugs to defeat organized crime. Thus far, as an economist, I agree with you. But this is not only an economic argument. Legalization may reduce the profits to organized crime, but it will also increase the damage done to the health of individuals and society. Evidence shows a strong correlation between drug availability and drug abuse. Let us therefore reduce the availability of drugs – through tackling supply and demand – and thereby reduce the risks to health and security.  

In short, drug policy does not have to choose between either (i) protecting health, through drug control, or (ii) ensuring law-and-order, by liberalizing drugs. Democratic governments can and must protect both health and safety.

Besides, just because something is hard to control doesn’t mean that its legalization will solve the problem. For example, it is hard to stop human trafficking – a modern form of slavery. This is a multi-billion dollar business. Because the problem is out of control, would you equally propose that we accept it?

Let’s Not Condemn People to a Life of Addiction  

In order not to condemn people to a life of addiction, my Office is putting a strong emphasis on drug prevention and treatment. This goes back to the roots of drug control. The 1961 Convention on Narcotic Drugs is based on the premise that health is the first principle of drug control. This becomes more relevant every day as a growing body of medical and scientific evidence shows that drug addiction is an illness. So let’s treat it that way. There are no ideological debates about curing cancer or diabetes. So why have them about drug addiction? People to the left or right of the political spectrum are not divided on the need for preventing or treating tuberculosis and HIV/AIDS. So why with drugs?

Scientific evidence has proven that drug dependence is a health and social issue, the result of nature and nurture. People are vulnerable to addiction because of a mix of genetic, personal and social factors: gene variants , namely genetic predisposition to addiction, childhood, pre-natal stress and inadequate parental care, neglect, abuse, low school engagement, lack of bonding, and social conditions , marginalization, exclusion, poverty, latent or overt psychiatric disorders as well as popular culture and peer pressure.

There is a double jeopardy at play here: not only are such people more vulnerable to addiction, but addiction deepens their vulnerability. As a result, the disadvantaged are pushed even further away from society.

If drugs were legalized, these people would be condemned to a life of dependence. The privileged can afford expensive treatment for their drug habits, or those of their kids. But what about the less fortunate who lack the same means and opportunities?

Now extrapolate the problem onto a global scale. Imagine the impact of unregulated drug use in developing countries where no prevention or treatment are available. This would unleash an epidemic of drug addiction and all the social and health consequences that go with it.

Instead of reducing harm, there would be increased damage to individuals and communities because of drugs. Will you share the responsibility for the overdoses, HIV, and broken lives?

Beyond 2008 

Ladies and gentlemen, if you really want to rethink drug policy, then help rebalance global drug control in favour of prevention and treatment. You are an outspoken Alliance. Be more radical. Go beyond handing out condoms, clean needles or a bowl of soup. Offer all drug addicts a comprehensive package that includes prevention, treatment and reintegration, not only harm reduction gadgets. Join me as an “extremist of the centre”. We have been hearing about a balanced approach for a quarter century. It’s time to turn it into reality.

If you want to shake things up, if you want to break the vicious circle of dependence and disadvantage, then:

Do not only:

- prevent the spread of diseases that precede and accompany drug use, like HIV and hepatitis.

This is a noble aim that we all share. But let us go further and:   

- devote more attention to prevention and early detection of drug vulnerability;

- reach out to people who need treatment, on a non-discriminatory basis;

- support the mainstreaming of drug therapy into high-quality and accessible public health and social services.

Let us also:

- promote alternative measures to prison for drug addicts, offering them rehabilitation programmes;

- treat all forms of addiction. There is no consolation for stabilizing drug trends if people turn instead to other substances; 

- finally, and most importantly, make drug control a society-wide issue.

Drug policies are too important to be left to drug experts like you and me, and to governments alone. It is a society-wide responsibility that requires society-wide engagement. This means working with children, starting from parents and teachers, to ensure that they develop self-esteem. Support family-based programmes, because prevention begins at home.

Schools teach life-skills. They should also teach the dangers of drugs. Help young people engage in healthy activities, like sports and culture, to prevent social isolation that leads to drugs and crime. Invest in better understanding, preventing and treating the illness of addiction.   People can be steered away from drugs. And those that do suffer the misery of addiction can be brought back into society. This is the true meaning of harm reduction which goes far beyond its usual narrow definition. My Office promotes this approach, together with the World Health Organization.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The strength of the international drug control system is its universality, with all governments solidly behind the United Nations drug conventions and strongly supportive of my Office. I hope I have won you over as well. If not, any change you would like to make to the existing drug control regime must be done by governments. You can influence the process. The review of UNGASS is a golden opportunity. We all want to help the poor farmers – to switch from crops to sustainable livelihoods. We all want to help the drug addicts – to save them from a life of misery. We all want to reduce the violence and crime associated with the drug economy.

So let’s build on this common ground to make a safer and healthier world.  Thank you for your attention.

Source:  Antonio Maria Costa. United Nations Office Drug Control. Dec. 7^th, 2007

It is a cocktail of heroin and cold medicine that can kill your child – and it goes by the name ‘Cheese’. Police in New York are on alert for a wave of deaths as young children get hooked on the latest fad drug to sweep the city.
Coined ‘Cheese’ by the schoolchildren who are addicted to it, the brown powder gives a high for just $2 that can easily be sniffed between lessons.
Victims: Oscar Gutierrez, 15, and Nick Cannata, 16, both died after becoming addicted to ‘Cheese’. Dealers are increasingly the drug, known as ‘starter heroin’, at children to get them addicted young
Dealers have been stamping packets with child-friendly brands like Lady Gaga, Mickey Mouse, the Looney Tunes logo and characters from the Lion King in order to lure in ever younger customers. But once children are hooked they find it incredibly hard to quit – withdrawal symptoms start within six hours meaning addicts have to dose themselves up to 15 times per day.
The dark twist is that ‘Cheese’ also contains a potentially fatal amount of acetaminophen, a common ingredient in cold medicines like Tylenol, giving rise to its other name – ‘Tylenol With Smack’.
The drug has been linked to a string of fatalities in Texas and now police in New York fear it is heading their way too ‘It can ruin lives,’ said an NYPD commander who recently taught patrol officers how to spot it.
Lethal: Cheese is a combination of heroin and cold medicine which is highly addictive and is said to be behind at least 20 deaths in the U.S.
‘Cheese’ has been on the radar of drugs officials since 2005 since when it has been blamed for more than 20 deaths in Dallas alone. Although just 2.6 per cent of high school students have tried heroin, dealers are using ‘Cheese’ to get them hooked at a lower cost. The drug is made by mixing the heroin powder with cough medicine, possibly with the addition of water or other ingredients, and then usually snorted.It has a heroin purity of up to 8 per cent, well below the level of intravenously injected drugs, but enough to make it addictive.
Police have found that children as young as 12 have become hopelessly addicted to the drug and only escaped its clutches with the constant help of their families.
Among those who lost their child to ‘Cheese’ is Dave Cannata from Dallas, who now travels the U.S. warning other parents about the drugs. Mr Cannata found son Nick dead in his bedroom five years ago after he overdosed on the cocktail. The 16-year-old had only been out of rehab for six months when he came home and apparently went straight to bed. He was found dead the next morning.
‘Parents need to be scared of this stuff,’ Mr Cannata said. ‘Every day I look at his picture and I wish that I spent the 40 grand a month to send him away to get some help. ‘You have to jump on the problem right away. This drug is so highly addictive.’
The Drug Enforcement Agency refers to ‘Cheese’ as ‘starter heroin’ because of the low amount of the drug in it. Over time users build up their tolerance level so they need increasingly large amounts to get high – before moving on to the real thing.

Source: – http://www.dailymail.co.uk 14th Oct 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

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

Impact of Parental Substance Misuse on Children’s Educational Attainment, A One Day Conference, Thursday 2nd December 2010, Glasgow

This conference organised by the University of Glasgow will focus on drug and alcohol misuse in families and its impact on educational attainment. Key experts with explore current trends and issues, new research, new approaches to supporting children and provide practical information which can be implemented in the work setting.

The conference should be of interest to anyone working with children and young people who are affected by drug or alcohol misuse from health, education and social care settings.

For a conference leaflet visit
http://www.gla.ac.uk/departments/developmental/cpd/newcourses/ or telephone
0141 201 9264/9353

Legalise drugs and a worldwide epidemic of addiction will follow
Those who argue we should decriminalise the trade in narcotics are blind to the catastrophic consequences
The debate between those who dream of a world free of drugs and those who hope for a world of free drugs has been raging for years. I believe the dispute between prohibition and legalisation would be more fruitful if it focused on the appropriate degree of regulation for addictive substances (drugs, but also alcohol and tobacco) and how to attain such regulation.
Current international agreements are hard to change. All nations, with no exception, agree that illicit drugs are a threat to health and that their production, trade and use should be regulated. In fact, adherence to the UN’s drug conventions is virtually universal and no statutory changes are possible unless the majority of states agree – quite unlikely, in the foreseeable future. Yet important improvements to today’s system are needed and achievable, especially in areas where current controls have produced serious collateral damage.
Why such resistance to abolishing the controls? In part, because the conventions’ success in restraining both supply and demand of drugs is undeniable.
Look first at production. Drug controls slashed global opium supply dramatically: in 2007, it was one-third the level of 1907. What about recent trends? Over the last 10 years, world output of cocaine, amphetamines and ecstasy has stabilised, and in many instances dropped. Cannabis output has declined since 2004. Since the mid-90s, opium production moved from the Golden Triangle to Afghanistan where it grew exponentially at first, but started to decline (since 2008).
My first point is factual: in the distant past as well as recently, production controls have had measurable results. What about drug-use levels? There are 25 million addicts (daily use) in the world, 0.6% of the population. Ten times as many people (5% of the world’s population) take drugs at least once a year. As these amounts are relatively small, statements such as “there are drugs everywhere” or “everybody takes drugs” are nonsense. The drug numbers compare well with those of tobacco, a legal drug used by 30% of the world’s population. Even more people consume alcohol. Tobacco causes 5 million deaths per year and alcohol 2 million, against the 200,000 killed by illicit drugs.
My second point is logical: in the absence of controls, it is not fanciful to imagine drug addiction, and related deaths, as high as those of tobacco and alcohol. What are recent drug-use trends? In rich countries, addiction is high but declining. In North America and Australia, it has declined in the past 10 years, especially among the young. In Europe, opiates use has declined, offset by greater cocaine sales; cannabis and amphetamines are stable or lower. In developing countries, drug use is low, but growing. In South America and west Africa, this applies to cannabis and cocaine; in Asia and southern Africa to heroin.
My third point is intuitive: rich countries are addressing the drug problem, while poor countries lack resources to do so. With the building blocks of my reasoning in place (stability of the world drug supply; alcohol and tobacco hurt more than drugs; the divergent drug trends in poor and rich nations), I find it irrational to propose policies that would increase the public health damage caused by drugs by making them more freely available.
At the same time, drug controls are not working as they should. The resulting collateral damage is the platform upon which critics build the abolitionist argument.
Let’s look at health, security and human rights. Health must be at the centre of drug control, because drug addiction is a mix of genetic, personal and social factors: gene variants (predisposition), childhood (neglect), social conditions (poverty). The pharmacological effects of drugs on health are independent of their legal status. Drugs are not dangerous because they are illegal: they are illegal because they are dangerous to health. Unfortunately, ideology has displaced health from the mainstream of the drug debate and this has happened on both sides of the prohibition versus legalisation dispute.
In the past half-century, drug control rhetoric by governments has been right, but prevention and treatment programmes have lagged. Priority was wrongly given to repression and criminalisation. Similarly, those in favour of legalisation have lost sight of health as the priority. They prioritise handing out condoms and clean needles, while addicts need prevention, treatment and reintegration, not only harm reduction gadgets. In short, the debate on drug policy has turned into a political battle. But why? There are no ideological debates about curing cancer, so why so much politics in dealing with drug addiction?
But there is more. Drugs do harm to health, but they can also do good. Greater use of opiates for palliative care would overcome the socio-economic factors that deny a Nigerian suffering from Aids or a Mexican cancer patient the morphine offered to Italian or American counterparts. Yet such relief is not happening.
Next is the security question. Drugs pose a threat not only to individuals. Entire regions – think of Central America, the Caribbean and Africa – are caught in the crossfire of drug trafficking. In Mexico, a bloody drug war has erupted among crime groups fighting for the control of the US drug market. The legalisers’ argument on security is striking, though it leads to the wrong conclusion. Prohibition causes crime by creating a black market for drugs, the argument goes, so, legalise drugs to defeat organised crime. As an economist, I agree. But this is not only an economic argument. Legalisation would reduce crime profits, but it would also increase the damage to health, as drug availability leads to drug abuse.
Drug policy does not have to choose between either protecting health, through drug control, or ensuring law and order, by liberalising drugs. Society must protect both health and safety.
In a world of free drugs, the privileged rich can afford expensive treatment while poor people are condemned to a life of dependence. Now extrapolate the problem on to a global scale and imagine the impact of unregulated drug use in developing countries, with no prevention or treatment available. Legalised drugs would unleash an epidemic of addiction in the developing world.
Last but not least, there’s the question of human rights. Around the world, millions of people caught taking drugs are sent to jail. In some countries, drug treatment amounts to the equivalent of torture. People are sentenced to death for drug-related offences. Although drugs kill, governments should not kill because of them. The prohibition versus legalisation debate must stop being ideological and look for the appropriate degree of controls. Drug control is not the task of governments alone: it is a society-wide responsibility. Are we ready to engage?

Source: Antonio Maria Costa www.observer.guardian.co.uk 5th Sept 2010

Contrary to the beliefs of those who advocate the legalization of marijuana, the current balanced, restrictive, and bipartisan drug policies of the United States are working reasonably well and they have contributed to reductions in the rate of marijuana use in our nation.

The rate of current, past 30-day use of marijuana by Americans aged 12 and older in 1979 was 13.2 percent. In 2008 that figure stood at 6.1 percent. This 54-percent reduction in marijuana use over that 29-year period is a major public health triumph, not a failure.

Marijuana is the most commonly abused illegal drug in the U.S. and around the world. Those who support its legalization, for medical or for general use, fail to recognize that the greatest costs of marijuana are not related to its prohibition; they are the costs resulting from marijuana use itself.

There is a common misconception that the principle costs of marijuana use are those related to the criminal justice system. This is a false premise. Caulkins & Sevigny (2005) found that the percentage of people in prison for marijuana use is less than one half of one percent (0.1-0.2 percent). An encounter with the criminal justice system through apprehension for a drugrelated crime frequently can benefit the offender because the criminal justice system is often a path to treatment.

“A useful analogy can be made to gambling. Legalized gambling has not reduced illegal gambling in the United States; rather, it has increased it.”

More than a third, 37 percent, of treatment admissions reported in the Treatment Episode Data Set, TEDS, collected from state-funded programs were referred through the criminal justice system. Marijuana was an identified drug of abuse for 57 percent of the individuals referred to treatment from the criminal justice system.

The future of drug policy is not a choice between using the criminal justice system or treatment. The more appropriate goal is to get these two systems to work together more effectively to improve both public safety and public health. In the discussion of legalizing marijuana, a useful analogy can be made to gambling. MacCoun & Reuter (2001) conclude that making the government a beneficiary of legal gambling has encouraged the government to promote gambling, overlooking it as a problem behavior. They point out that “the moral debasement of
state government is a phenomenon that only a few academics and preachers bemoan.”
Legalized gambling has not reduced illegal gambling in the United States; rather, it has increased it. This is particularly evident in sports gambling, most of which is illegal. Legal gambling is taxed and regulated and illegal gambling is not. Legal gambling sets the stage for illegal gambling just the way legal marijuana would set the stage for illegal marijuana trafficking.
The gambling precedent suggests strongly that illegal drug suppliers would thrive by selling more potent marijuana products outside of the legal channels that would be taxed and otherwise restricted. If marijuana were legalized, the only way to eliminate its illegal trade, which is modest in comparison to that of cocaine, would be to sell marijuana untaxed and unregulated to any willing buyer.

Marijuana is currently the leading cause of substance dependence other than alcohol in the U.S. In 2008, marijuana use accounted for 4.2 million of the 7 million people aged 12 or older classified with dependence on or abuse of an illicit drug. This means that about two thirds of Americans suffering from any substance use disorder are suffering from marijuana abuse or marijuana dependence.

If the U.S. were to legalize marijuana, the number of marijuana users would increase. Today there are 15.2 million current marijuana users in comparison to 129 million alcohol users and 70.9 million tobacco users. Though the number of marijuana users might not quickly climb to the current numbers for alcohol and tobacco, if marijuana was legalized, the increase in users would be both large and rapid with subsequent increases in addiction.

Important lessons can be learned from those two widely-used legal drugs. While both alcohol and tobacco are taxed and regulated, the tax benefits to the public are vastly overshadowed by the adverse consequences of their use. Alcohol-related costs total over $185 billion while federal and states collected an estimated $14.5 billion in tax revenue; similarly, tobacco use costs over $200 billion but only $25 billion is collected in taxes. These figures show that the costs of legal alcohol are more than 12 times the total tax revenue collected, and that the costs of legal tobacco are about 8 times the tax revenue collected. This is an economically disastrous tradeoff.

The costs of legalizing marijuana would not only be financial. New marijuana users would not be limited to adults if marijuana were legalized, just as regulations on alcohol and tobacco do not prevent use by youth. Rapidly accumulating new research shows that marijuana use is associated with increases in a range of serious mental and physical problems. Lack of public understanding on this relationship is undermining prevention efforts and adversely affecting the nation’s youth and their families.

Drug-impaired driving will also increase if marijuana is legalized. Marijuana is already a significant causal factor in highway crashes, injuries and deaths. In a recent national roadside survey of weekend nighttime drivers, 8.6 percent tested positive for marijuana or its metabolites, nearly four times the percentage of drivers with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of .08 g/dL (2.2 percent). In another study of seriously injured drivers admitted to a Level-1 shock trauma
center, more than a quarter of all drivers (26.9 percent) tested positive for marijuana. In a study of fatally injured drivers in Washington State, 12.7 percent tested positive for marijuana. These studies demonstrate the high prevalence of drugged driving as a result of marijuana use.
Many people who want to legalize marijuana are passionate about their perception of the alleged failures of policies aimed at reducing marijuana use but those legalization proponents seldom—if ever—describe their own plan for taxing and regulating marijuana as a legal drug. There is a reason for this imbalance; they cannot come up with a credible plan for legalization that could deliver on their exaggerated claims for this new policy.

“Reducing marijuana use is essential to improving the nation’s health, education, and productivity.”

Future drug policies must be smarter and more effective in curbing the demand for illegal drugs including marijuana. Smarter-drug prevention policies should start by reducing illegal drug use among the 5 million criminal offenders who are on parole and probation in the U.S. They are among the nation’s heaviest and most problem generating illegal drug users.

Monitoring programs that are linked to swift and certain, but not severe,
consequences for any drug use have demonstrated outstanding results including lower recidivism and lower rates of incarceration. New policies to curb drugged driving will not only make our roads and highways safer and provide an important new path to treatment, but they will also reduce illegal drug use.

Reducing marijuana use is essential to improving the nation’s health, education, and productivity. New policies can greatly improve current performance of prevention strategies which, far from failing, has protected millions of people from the many adverse effects of marijuana use.
Since legalization of marijuana for medical or general use would increase marijuana use rather than reduce it and would lead to increased rates of addiction to marijuana among youth and adults, legalizing marijuana is not a smart public health or public safety strategy for any state or for our nation.

Source: Published: Tuesday, 20 Apr 2010 Robert du Pont,Institute for Behavior and Health

For the past six months, I have attended the public forums and workshops on poverty and early childhood education in Erie and America. It is agreed that many factors cause poverty, but I will focus on issues with which I have professional experience and knowledge.

I am a registered pharmacist, and during my 35-plus years as Director of Pharmacy Services, both in government and the private industry, I have taught thousands of individuals about drug, alcohol and health issues. To increase and support early educational endeavors for our children, we must first address the abuse of drugs, both legal and illegal, and alcohol.

I was the first pharmacist on the East Coast to start the “Methadone Program” with Dr. B. Kissin in Brooklyn in the early 1970s, dispensing methadone and counseling addicts on the dangers of heroin and other drugs that could kill them or their unborn child.

I have collaborated, assisted and cooperated with local police departments, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency and school programs such as Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.). I have also been a community instructor on medication management.

At the May 27 Economic Summit on Early Childhood Education, Dr. Judy Cameron, a University of Pittsburgh neuroscientist, gave a presentation on “The Science of Early Brain Architecture and the Future of Early Childhood Policy.” Yet there was no discussion relative to the environmental factors in a household. How many children are exposed to secondary/passive illegal and legal smoke? When a mother inhales illegal substances (marijuana and crack cocaine), the effect on the developing fetus is magnified two- to 10-fold.

Our counseling program in Brooklyn had an average success rate of 30 percent with females (some pregnant, some not) who asked me questions that I answered in plain truth: “If you keep this up, you are going to die early or you are going to lose your baby. Period.”

Those in the methadone program who did not pass the drug screen were dropped from the program after one warning. Addicts developed trust because I talked to them in confidence and was a source of good and reliable drug information. I was “the man” who knew drugs.

Many will counter this point because of their agendas. Medical marijuana has been legalized in 14 states. The dummying up of America will continue if we don’t educate individuals that marijuana has equal or more toxic effects than alcohol. It is only when deaths hit families and friends that the anti-drug message sinks in.

In the past 20 years, the family has fragmented so that there is no male hero for the child. There was an added positive response from those I helped when they came from a family unit with a mother and father, because family members have to reinforce this message.

Why has there been such an increase in Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder in our children during the same time period? The fact is that drugs change the maturing of cells in the body and the brain. The mere fact that we are addressing early education for children after birth but are not addressing the effects of both legal and illegal drugs before birth, resulting in mental retardation, a decrease in the attention span and learning abilities of that young child in school, is somewhat backward.

There is debate about whether poverty causes drug abuse or drug abuse causes poverty. I believe it’s the latter.

I recommend a written contract/commitment between parent(s) and assistance program managers (private or government-run) with specific guidelines to decrease the usage of illegal drugs. If the commitment is to raise a person out of poverty, then there has to be a commitment from the person to help themselves, too.

If the government orders that all recipients who receive government financial support, not including the elderly or those with disabilities and legitimate medical conditions, must submit to random drug urine tests, there will be a drastic drop in drug abuse and subsequently a reduction in poverty. If an individual fails the drug test twice in 60 days, they would forfeit financial support for 12 months and be required to attend a drug-abuse program to re-enter the program. If they fail again, they should be permanently removed from all government-assistance programs.

Many citizens have to submit to random drug screens, at any time, when we are employed but those receiving government funds have no responsibility or accountability to either the government, the program or themselves. Why do we hold these individuals to different standards?

When programs don’t contain measurements, standards and contracts for accountability, they will fail and poverty will continue.

Let me close with two quotes: “All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered the point is to discover them” (Gallileo) and “Is silence an endorsement?” (Aliota).

LOU ALIOTA of Millcreek Township, is a registered pharmacist and is a private health-care consultant.

Source: Op-Ed from Erie Times-News (Erie, Pa.) – August 20, 2010

Wednesday 01 September 2010

The Local Alcohol Profiles for England (LAPE 2010) have just been released by the North West Public Health Observatory – profiling 23 alcohol-related indicators for every local authority and 24 for every primary care trust in England.
The profiles provide a national ‘map’ of alcohol-related harms.
Key findings from the profiles:
• Over the five years to 2008/09 there has been around a 65% increase in the number of people being admitted to hospital due to alcohol to 606,799 individuals – an increase of over 240,000 people.
• There were 945,469 admissions to hospital for alcohol-related harm in England in 2008/09. This is 825 alcohol-related admissions a day more than five years ago.
• Two thirds (65%) of all the local authorities suffering the highest levels of overall harms are in the North West and North East regions of England (1). The ten local authority areas with the highest levels of combined alcohol-related harm (2) are, in descending order, Manchester, Salford, Liverpool, Rochdale, Tameside, Islington, Middlesbrough, Halton, Oldham and Blackpool.
• By comparison East of England and South East region contain two thirds (65%) of all the local authorities with the lowest overall harm (1). The ten local authorities with the lowest levels of alcohol-related harm (2) are, in ascending order, Broadland, East Dorset, South Northamptonshire, Babergh, Three Rivers, South Norfolk, Hart, Sevenoaks, Wokingham and North Kesteven.
• Between 2006 and 2008 there were 11,247 deaths from chronic liver disease in men. The number of male deaths from chronic liver disease continues to rise steadily and increased by 12% for the five years up to 2008.
• Across England, there were 415,059 recorded crimes attributable to alcohol in 2009/10; equivalent to 8.1 crimes per 1,000 population. The highest rates of alcohol-attributable crime occur in the London region where there were 12.2 crimes per 1,000 residents, although this has decreased by 2.1% from the previous year. The lowest rate is in the North East region at 6.2 crimes per 1,000 which also showed the largest decrease (13.5%) from the previous year.
• Trends in alcohol-related harms vary between local authority areas. For instance, 64% saw an increase of over 5% in hospital admissions for alcohol-related harm in 2008/09, whilst only 7% showed a decrease of over 5%.
(1) Local authorities are categorised into five levels of harm using a clustering methodology that assigns LAs which have similar alcohol profiles to the same category. Months of life lost due to alcohol (males), months of life lost due to alcohol (females), NI39 (alcohol-related hospital admissions), alcohol-attributable recorded crimes, claimants of Incapacity Benefits due to alcoholism, increasing risk drinking, and higher risk drinking were used to determine clusters.
(2) Ranking for highest and lowest levels of alcohol-related harm use the same data as above and are ranked according to the highest combined rank across the seven harm indicators. City of London and the Isles of Scilly are excluded (figures for these areas should always be viewed with caution due to their small resident populations).
Visit the Local Alcohol Profiles for England website.

Source: www.alcoholconcern.org.uk 1.09.2010

Support for legalising cannabis has dropped from more than a third of people in Scotland to less than a quarter, a study has suggested.
However, most people made a distinction between cannabis and other drugs.
The findings come in a Scottish government study into the public’s attitudes towards illegal drugs and drug misuse.
It showed 47% of people knew someone who had tried illegal drugs, up from 41% between 2001 and 2009.
Statistics from the British Social Attitudes Surveys in the 1980s and 1990s, along with the Scottish Social Attitudes Survey 2001, indicated an increasingly tolerant attitude towards the legalisation of cannabis.
The results from the Scottish Social Attitudes Survey 2009 have now suggested a reverse in this trend.
Mental health
Support for legalising cannabis fell from 37% in Scotland in 2001 to 24% in 2009. Among those who had themselves tried cannabis, support for its legalisation fell from 70% to 47% over the same period.
The views were accompanied by a hardening of attitudes towards prosecution for the possession of cannabis.
The report found the trend may be linked to the mental health debate surrounding new stronger forms of cannabis, called skunk, or it may reflect a changing trend in attitudes towards illegal drugs in general.
In 2008 the government introduced a new strategy to tackle the nation’s drug problems by focusing on “recovery and helping people live drug-free lives”.
In principle this appeared to be supported by the Scottish public, with 80% saying “the only real way of helping drug addicts is to get them to stop using drugs altogether”.
How this should be done was not so clear, the report found.
There was widespread support for enforcement, with only 16% of people agreeing that personal use of heroin should not result in prosecution.
Although education was generally supported as the focus of drugs policy, only 44% of people believed this “education” should involve young people being given more information on how to use drugs more safely.
The survey also indicated that communities with higher signs of heroin use were more likely to be comfortable living near a recovering heroin user. This may mean that actual contact with such issues helps to allay public anxiety, it suggested.

Source: www.news.bbc.co.uk 25th May 2010

“This report summarises the key findings from a report exploring public attitudes towards illegal drugs and drug misuse in Scotland, based on data from the 2009 Scottish Social Attitudes survey. It focuses in particular on attitudes towards opiate misuse, and on views of potential policy responses to this. However, it also places such attitudes in the context of wider views and experiences of illegal drugs.”

Main Findings

■ Support for legalising cannabis – which increased in Scotland (as in the rest of the UK) in the late 1990s – has fallen considerably in more recent years, from 37% in 2001 to 24% in 2009. Attitudes towards prosecution for possession of cannabis for personal use also hardened between 2001 and 2009.
■ Most people said taking cocaine occasionally is wrong – 76% rated it as 4 or 5 on a scale where 5 meant ‘very seriously wrong’.
■ 45% of people agreed that ‘Most people who end up addicted to heroin have only themselves to blame’, while just 27% disagreed.
■ Around half (53%) disagreed that ‘most heroin users come from difficult backgrounds’ (29% agreed).
■ Among those in paid employment, around half (47%) said they would be ‘very’ or ‘fairly comfortable’ working alongside someone they knew had used heroin in the past, while around 1 in 5 would be uncomfortable.
■ Just a quarter (26%) said they would be comfortable with someone who was receiving help to stop using heroin moving near to them, while half (49%) would be uncomfortable.
■ There was no public consensus on what should be the top government priority for tackling heroin use in Scotland – 32% chose ‘tougher penalties for those who take heroin’, 32% ‘more help for people who want to stop using heroin’ and 28% ‘more education about drugs’.
■ Just 16% agreed that people who possess heroin for personal use should not be prosecuted (compared with 34% for cannabis).
■ Public support for providing clean needles to injecting drug users fell from 62% in 2001 to 50% in 2009.
■ Opinion on educating young people about safer drug use was split – 44% agreed that young people should be given information about how to use drugs more safely, but 40% disagreed.
■ Four out of five (80%) agreed that ‘the only real way of helping drug addicts is to get them to stop using drugs altogether’. However, 29% agreed that ‘most heroin users can never stop using drugs completely’, while 27% said they neither agreed nor disagreed or did not know.
■ 63% disagreed that ‘Someone who has been a heroin addict can never make a good parent, even if their drug problems are in the past’.
■ Around two thirds (64%) said that young children of heroin users should be placed into temporary foster care until the parents stop taking heroin. A further 1 in 5 believed the child should stay at home while the family receives help from social workers and just 8% said the child should be permanently adopted by another family.
The full report is also accessible online.

Source: http://uwsnealb.wordpress.com/2010/05/28/scottish-social-attitudes-survey-2009-public-attitudes-to-drugs-and-drug-use-in-scotland/ May 25 2010

Support for legalising cannabis has dropped from more than a third of people in Scotland to less than a quarter, a study has suggested.
However, most people made a distinction between cannabis and other drugs.
The findings come in a Scottish government study into the public’s attitudes towards illegal drugs and drug misuse.
It showed 47% of people knew someone who had tried illegal drugs, up from 41% between 2001 and 2009.
Statistics from the British Social Attitudes Surveys in the 1980s and 1990s, along with the Scottish Social Attitudes Survey 2001, indicated an increasingly tolerant attitude towards the legalisation of cannabis.
The results from the Scottish Social Attitudes Survey 2009 have now suggested a reverse in this trend.
Mental health
Support for legalising cannabis fell from 37% in Scotland in 2001 to 24% in 2009. Among those who had themselves tried cannabis, support for its legalisation fell from 70% to 47% over the same period.
The views were accompanied by a hardening of attitudes towards prosecution for the possession of cannabis.
The report found the trend may be linked to the mental health debate surrounding new stronger forms of cannabis, called skunk, or it may reflect a changing trend in attitudes towards illegal drugs in general.
In 2008 the government introduced a new strategy to tackle the nation’s drug problems by focusing on “recovery and helping people live drug-free lives”.
In principle this appeared to be supported by the Scottish public, with 80% saying “the only real way of helping drug addicts is to get them to stop using drugs altogether”.
How this should be done was not so clear, the report found.
There was widespread support for enforcement, with only 16% of people agreeing that personal use of heroin should not result in prosecution.
Although education was generally supported as the focus of drugs policy, only 44% of people believed this “education” should involve young people being given more information on how to use drugs more safely.
The survey also indicated that communities with higher signs of heroin use were more likely to be comfortable living near a recovering heroin user. This may mean that actual contact with such issues helps to allay public anxiety, it suggested.

Source: www.news.bbc.co.uk 25th May 2010

The latest scientific conclusions — which are causal, not merely correlative — show that pot use significantly increases the likelihood of mental illness.
Back in the 1970s, when I was first exposed to the idea of decriminalizing illegal drugs, it seemed like a good idea. My interest was abstract: I didn’t smoke pot. My wife and I signed a marijuana decriminalization petition one evening around 1980 for a group that acted like they had fallen out of a Cheech and Chong movie. They asked if we could contribute a joint or two to the cause. They were utterly shocked when we told them: “We don’t smoke pot.” They just could not imagine that anyone would support decriminalization without a more personal interest.
There’s no question that making drugs illegal creates serious problems for our criminal justice system. It clogs the courts, it corrupts police officers and government officials, and it funds some really sleazy people. All of this is true — but it turns out that there are some substantial social costs on the other side that simply don’t get any attention. While it may sound like I have been watching Reefer Madness (1936) – a tragically overwrought portrayal of the dangers of marijuana — it turns out that mental illness is one of those social costs.
A surprising number of scholarly studies in the last 25 years have demonstrated that marijuana use seems to cause an increase in psychoses such as schizophrenia, and somewhat less dramatic mental illnesses such as bipolar disorder.
Let me emphasize: This isn’t just correlation analysis — finding that people with a current mental illness are disproportionately potheads. I am well aware that people with significant mental illness problems tend to “self-medicate” using various psychoactive drugs (including alcohol). No, these are longitudinal studies that show the marijuana use comes first, with the mental illness later in life.
The first of these, involving Swedish conscripts, was published in the Lancet in 1987. Those who had used marijuana heavily by age 18 were six times more likely to develop schizophrenia. A British medical journal paper published in 2002 performed a longitudinal study in New Zealand and found that:
Firstly, cannabis use is associated with an increased risk of experiencing schizophrenia symptoms, even after psychotic symptoms preceding the onset of cannabis use are controlled for. … Secondly, early cannabis use (by age 15) confers greater risk for schizophrenia outcomes than later cannabis use (by age 18). The youngest cannabis users may be most at risk because their cannabis use becomes longstanding.
This paper, from the British Journal of Psychiatry in 2004, should also make you a bit concerned. From the abstract:
On an individual level, cannabis use confers an overall twofold increase in the relative risk for later schizophrenia. At the population level, elimination of cannabis use would reduce the incidence of schizophrenia by approximately 8%, assuming a causal relationship. Cannabis use appears to be neither a sufficient nor a necessary cause for psychosis. It is a component cause, part of a complex constellation of factors leading to psychosis.
There’s unquestionably a genetic component. This Schizophrenia Bulletin (2008) paper tells us:
Cannabis use is considered a contributory cause of schizophrenia and psychotic illness. However, only a small proportion of cannabis users develop psychosis. This can partly be explained by the amount and duration of the consumption of cannabis and by its strength, but also by the age at which individuals are first exposed to cannabis. Genetic factors, in particular, are likely to play a role in the short- and the long-term effects cannabis may have on psychosis outcome. … Evidence suggests that mechanisms of gene-environment interaction are likely to underlie the association between cannabis and psychosis.
Obviously, only a fraction of pot smokers are going to go crazy and join the 1-3% of Americans who are psychotic. Think of smoking marijuana on a regular basis as playing Russian roulette once with a 50-shot cylinder, one of which has a live round. (Of course, now that you know that, maybe you do have to be crazy to smoke marijuana.)
At this point, you may be saying: “Big deal! It’s my life! If I want to smoke pot and risk going crazy, that’s my choice!” I would concede that point, except that as of 2002, schizophrenia alone of the mental disorders was costing the United States $63 billion a year in medical costs and in disability payments. Much of that cost is directly governmental, since schizophrenics usually aren’t able to work and thus are reliant on the government.
You might also argue: “What about alcohol? Doesn’t it have risks?” No question — and these risks have been recognized for a long time. Arguing for decriminalization of marijuana because alcohol is a big problem is like arguing that because one of your feet is gangrenous the doctor should also amputate the healthy foot just to be even-handed. (Or even-footed, I suppose.) If anything, instead of decriminalizing marijuana, we should be looking at discouraging alcohol — and recognizing that while Prohibition didn’t work, there may be approaches more educational, and less drastic, that can.

Source: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/author/claytonecramer/ March 3, 2010

One of many reasons that attendance at Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) meetings helps people with alcohol use disorders stay sober appears to be alleviation of depression. A team of researchers has found that study participants who attended AA meetings more frequently had fewer symptoms of depression – along with less drinking – than did those with less AA participation. The report will appear in the journal Addiction and has been release online.

“Our study is one of the first to examine the mechanisms underlying behavioral change with AA and to find that AA attendance alleviates depression symptoms,” says study leader John F. Kelly, PhD, associate director of the Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) Center for Addiction Medicine. “Perhaps the social aspects of AA helps people feel better psychologically and emotionally as well as stop drinking.”

The authors note that problems with mood regulation such as depression are common among people with alcohol problems – both preceding and being exacerbated by alcohol use. Although AA does not explicitly address depression, the program’s 12 steps and social fellowship are designed to support participants’ sense of well being. While mood problems often improve after several weeks of abstinence, that process may happen more quickly in AA participants. The current study was designed to investigate whether decreasing depression and enhancing psychological well-being help explain AA’s positive effects.

The researchers analyzed data from Project MATCH, a federally funded trial comparing three treatment approaches for alcohol use disorder in more than 1,700 participants. While participants in that study were randomly assigned to a specific treatment plan, all were able to attend AA meetings as well. Among the data gathered at several points during Project MATCH’s 15-month study period were participants’ alcohol consumption, the number of AA meetings attended, and recent symptoms of depression.

At the beginning of the study period, participants reported greater symptoms of depression than would be seen in the general public, which is typical among alcohol-dependent individuals. As the study proceeded, those participants who attended more AA meetings had significantly greater reductions in their depression symptoms, along with less frequent and less intensive drinking.

“Some critics of AA have claimed that the organization’s emphasis on ‘powerlessness’ against alcohol use and the need to work on ‘character defects’ cultivates a pessimistic world view, but this suggests the opposite is true,” Kelly says. “AA is a complex social organization with many mechanisms of action that probably differ for different people and change over time. Most treatment programs refer patients to AA or similar 12-step groups, and now clinicians can tell patients that, along with supporting abstinence, attending meetings can help improve their mood. Who wouldn’t want that?”

Source:http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/177607.php

Re: Take ideology out of decisions, by Keith Baldrey, In My Opinion, Burnaby NOW, May 7.
Mr. Baldrey makes a number of misleading statements about me and about opponents of Insite in general. I am the author of the “flawed and questionable report” criticizing the Insite evaluations that Mr. Baldrey referred to. Mr. Baldrey and other supporters of Insite and of harm reduction as the new way to deal with drugs seem to lack any real argument for Insite and its parent ideology – yes, ideology – so they attack the critics themselves. So please let me respond.
First, my report was not flawed or questionable. I am more than amply qualified to comment on printed research reports. In fact, any grad student would see the flawed assumptions and conclusions made in the Insite evaluations, regardless of what journal they were published in. I have worked in the addictions field in B.C. and in Canada for almost 30 years, and, until I disagreed with harm reduction, I was well respected by the people who now attack me merely for expressing professional concerns about the direction drug policy was taking – downward.
Second, I did not write the report for a “prohibition group,” as Mr. Baldrey asserts. I wrote it for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, a key stakeholder in Insite and in drug problems in Canada. They merely wanted a review by someone not ideologically wed to Insite. I stand behind the report and everything I said as true and valid based on reading the published Insite research.
I did not write the paper as director of research for the Drug Prevention Network of Canada, or for them. Incidentally, the Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice, in which my article was published, is a scientific peer-reviewed journal. Public accusations otherwise should be made with caution.
Third, my paper was but one of three academic reports critical of Insite. Garth Davies, a colleague of Neil Boyd’s at Simon Fraser University, wrote one that was equally critical. A federal panel of experts recently released another, saying essentially the same things.
For example, drug overdose deaths have actually increased in Vancouver and in the Downtown Eastside since Insite was initiated. Insite may or may not be preventing up to one overdose death a year. This is fact.
But Mr. Baldrey refers to reports claiming overdoses have gone down. Somebody is indeed putting out misleading information, but it is not me or others concerned about Insite. It is Insite and its supporters. The fact is that Insite is not doing what it set out to do – reduce infections, prevent overdose deaths and reduce public disorder.
Nor is it demonstrating a unique ability to get people into treatment where they belong. It is drawing funds that could be used for more effective things and taking our attention from the real problems – drug use and addiction.
Mr. Baldrey refers to specific people as experts in harm reduction, etc. What he does not say is that these individuals, and many others involved with Insite, are avid proponents of legalizing drugs. I do not fault them or anyone else for holding this ideology, except when people use their positions or authority to unilaterally push it on the public or to lend credence to it by their names, when no such credence exists.
The fact that so many supporters of Insite and of harm reduction are so rabidly pushing it and skewing the facts even when flaws are identified, and that they disparage their opponents, tells me they are so caught up in ideology themselves that they can no longer be objective.
And as for “moralizing,” no one is moralizing here. The Insite test study did not meet its stated objectives. That is not moralizing.
But Mr. Baldrey seems to be saying that any “moralizing” is bad. The fact is “moralizing” is to some extent inevitable in any human discourse. We all have some moral reference point that underlies our ideas and choices at the deepest levels. Trying to entirely exorcize human debate of values – the outgrowth of our morality – is itself impossible.
Mr. Baldrey, you are very loose and misleading in your accusations. I could go on in pointing them out. But suffice it to say, throwing mud and attacking people is neither professional nor a sign of a noble cause.
It comes from an arrogant belief that anyone who disagrees with harm reduction or Insite is somehow stupid, misinformed or an ideologue. I am frankly embarrassed at how deeply this blind arrogance has gotten into otherwise intelligent people and at the utter lack of professionalism their attacks display.
Colin Mangham, PhD, is a Langley resident.
Source: Canada.com – Burnaby Now May 10th 2008

I have read with interest the article in “The Province” Newspaper from British Columbia dated February 16th, 2009 entitled “Huge Price Tag Leads to Call for Audit, and then the articles in the Ottawa Citizen recommended an injection site in Ottawa of Intravenous Drug users.
The newspaper investigated the cost of funding the “Downtown Eastside” in Vancouver dealing with providing housing and support for the residents. This is the first time such an investigation takes place and the result are staggering given the cost was approximately $360 million dollars per year. The article mentions that is cost approximately $ 1 million dollars a day with most of that for the roughly 5,000 disabled people in the community.
It further states that this spending continues to go unabated, with no one in control of the purse strings as conditions continue to deteriorate at street level.
Given these staggering statistics, I believe it would be a good time for the city of Ottawa to do a cost study of their homeless and addicted population to ascertain the cost before going forth with any other programs especially the recommendation for an injection site for intravenous drug users. It would be best practice to evaluate the pilot project in Vancouver when one reads Dr. Raymond R. Corrado’s and Dr. Irwin Cohen “Analysis of the Research Literature on INSITE: Vancouver’s Injection Site Summary”, and the Health Canada report on Vancouver’s Insite.
The stated Insite objectives were:
- Increasing access to health and addiction care;
- Reducting overdose fatalities;
- Reducing the transmission of blood borne viral infections like HIV and hepatitis C;
- Reducing other injection related infections such as skin abscesses; and
- Improving public order.
My question is, have they met their stated objective and if not should we not reconsider it’s effectiveness.
Dr. Carrado states:
“The pilot of a supervised injection site in Vancouver Downtown Eastside was established as a response to high rates of blood born disease (Hepatitis B, Hepatitis C and HIV/AIDS) and a large number of overdoses among intravenous drug users population”
Here are some of their findings:
Blood-borne diseases::
“Dr. Corrado states that there was a “GOOD LIKELIHOOD” that there was a reduction in the spread of blood-borne diseases since several of Insite clients stopped sharing syringes. However, he also underlines that due to the lack of direct measures of blood-borne diseases, it’s not possible to estimate the extent of the reduction.”
In the final report of Health Canada, the Expert Advisory Committees on Vancouver’s INSITE and other Supervised Injections Sites: What has been learned from research from Health Canada states:
Page 11
“There is no direct evidence that SIS’s reduce the spread of HIV infection, and the mathematical models used are based on assumption that may not be valid.
Baseline rates of needle sharing have not been reported for SIS users.
Self-reports of changes in needle sharing beyond the walls of SISs have been validated.
More objective evidence of sustained changes in risk behaviors and a comparison or control group study would be needed to confidently state that SISs have a significant impact on these behaviors.”
Dr. Carraro then states:
” Insite did achieve its objective of reducing the number of fatal drug overdoses. In fact, drug overdoses were minimized and deaths were avoided.”
The Health Canada report states:
Page 11
“There is no direct evidence that SIS influence overdose death rates and large scale and long term, case-controlled studies would be needed to show that SISs influence overdose death rates among those who use INSITE. Mathematical modeling is based on assumptions that may not be valid.”
The overdose rates increased in Vancouver since the Injection site opened it’s doors.
Dr. Irwin Cohen states in his report:
“Several limitations exist within the research and evaluation on supervised injection sites. There are methodological problems regarding outcome measures, as well as an overall lack of research rendering it difficult to compare supervised injection sites to other types of interventions ( i.e.: needle exchange programs and methadone treatment programs). Furthermore, the limitations also result in restricting comparisons of research findings form one study to another.
Health Canada study states the following with regards to limitations of research in the Cost-Effectiveness and Cost Benefit section on page 13 of report.
” While some longitudinal studies have been conducted, the results have yet to be published and may never be published given the overlapping design of the cohorts. Until these studies have been undertaken it will not be possible to show with any certainty that INSITE is cost-effective or to show that the economic benefits exceed the costs.
Mathematical models used to estimate benefit-cost ratios use estimates of the frequency of needle
sharing involving HIV positive and HIV negative injection drug users and estimates of HIV transmission rates have not been locally validated.
Mathematical models used to estimate benefit-cost ratios with respect to lives saves have incorporated an assumption about the economic value of the lives of injection drug users that has not been validated.”
In summary, on page 3 of the Health Canada report, Insite accounts for less than 5% of injections at the site. Many people have been referred to health and addiction care but have not been followed up to see how many have actually gone or how many have successfully recovered from their addiction? The report on page 11 states that Insite saves about one life a year as a result of intervening in overdose events, but overdose rates have increased in Vancouver. I’ve addressed the HIV/HepC results. In the area of Public order what they fail to mention is that the police presence was increased which could explain why there was no increase in crime and loitering. I do not feel that Insite has accomplished it’s stated objectives.
Given the above direct quotes from the Insite report and others, Ottawa should investigate if the site has met these objectives and if not then question the validity of the pilot project and should question whether it should follow suite based on these findings. The fact that it is costing $360 million dollars per year to manage the poorest postal code region in Canada without any improvement in the lifestyle of its residents should be audited and whatever change is required should be implemented without delay. The price tag speaks for itself.
Will Ottawa be next with these statistics given we are modeling Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside philosophy based on Harm Reduction as best practices.
Andre Bigras,
Drug Prevention Network of Canada.

As kids flood weed outlets, Ramon Cortines admits there’s no plan

Los Angeles City Hall is thrashing around as the City Council and mayor belatedly try to control a pot-shop explosion they ignited, which has spawned dozens of freewheeling weed emporiums near public schools. The Los Angeles school board’s response? Nada.

That’s what the Los Angeles Unified School District has done to stop kids from trekking a short distance from Fairfax, Hollywood and other high schools and middle schools to score buds at unregulated neighborhood pot shops that have opened, often in the same block as schools or very nearby.

The LAUSD school board and Superintendent Ramon Cortines have held no meetings about the impact on kids, have no idea how many children are turning to the flood of easy weed, have not tried to assess the money the dispensaries are making off healthy kids, and have not trained faculty and administrators in how to deal with ever-younger stoned students.

Now, following routine questions from L.A. Weekly, some school board members are pledging to deal with it.

The lack of interest from LAUSD’s top officials seems unlikely to help the district — already hammered by high dropout rates and intense competition from charter schools — to win back parents. Scott McNeely, of the Pico Neighborhood Council, complained to the City Council last summer when he heard about 17 dispensaries within a mile and a half of his home, three near elementary schools. “It’s a little discomforting when parents try to walk their kids to and from school and the kids smell marijuana smoke in the air,” he says. “It’s long past time for the LAUSD to weigh in on this issue and pressure the City Council, work with the City Council, just as we are doing. … The school board needs to raise a little hell.”

Some school board members believe the weed-and-kids situation is out of control. “After school you can see students stopping at the dispensary before going home,” says school board member Tamar Galatzan. “That’s unacceptable.”

The first sign that kids were being affected by the medical-pot explosion — and even directly targeted — arose at Grant High School in Van Nuys. It was the end of summer 2006 and time, apparently, to get back to the San Fernando Valley’s version of the three R’s: reading, writing and rolling joints.

On August 10 of that year, Van Nuys police found that a nearby marijuana dispensary, Pacific Support Services, had left fliers on cars in the Grant High School student parking lot. The fliers were emblazoned with the iconic, three-leaf marijuana bud, and underneath was a friendly message:

“It is still legal to own, grow and smoke marijuana as long as you do it properly. Qualification is simple and our experienced physicians are more than happy to help you,” it informed students, who probably had no idea California law gives seriously ill patients the right to smoke pot if they merely obtain a doctor’s verbal recommendation.

The flier language was directly aimed at those who might be tempted to spend their burgers-and-fries money: “$15 off with this flier. … If you do not qualify for a recommendation your visit is free.”

In other cities, the targeting of an academically struggling school like Grant High and its mostly minority, mostly working-class students, which resulted in a Los Angeles Daily News story, might have prompted school leaders to act. But it just floated right over the heads of the seven LAUSD board members.

“We had so many other things going on that I guess we just plain missed it,” says school board member Marguerite LaMotte, who represents much of South Los Angeles. “I can’t speak for the rest of the board but myself, I was more worried about the gangs, the liquor stores and all the other problems in my district. … There’s so much going on in my district.”

Since then, neither the school board nor Cortines has done anything — no new policies, rules or special teacher or principal training — to protect children from unregulated pot dispensaries.

Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and the City Council today have no idea how many pot stores exist, where they are, where they are getting their pot, who is financing them or where the huge profits are going. The exact number of stores in L.A. is a highly fluid calculation, with dispensaries opening and closing daily and dozens filling out paperwork but never switching on the lights. On paper, there are more than 1,000; hundreds are believed to be actually operating.

An analysis by the Los Angeles Times showed that at least 240 of the 1,000 dispensaries are within 1,000 feet of a school, park or library. Teenagers can be seen heading into them after school lets out in Hollywood, Fairfax, Northridge, the San Fernando Valley, Wilshire District and other areas.

According to both police and residents, many medicinal-marijuana shops are covertly targeting healthy kids as young as 14 through street contacts who urge students to “get your card.”

Yet the City Council and school board have yet to open a meaningful dialogue. “On issues that impact LAUSD, there’s been a lack of formal or even informal communication and coordination between the [City] Council and the school board,” says board member Galatzan. “This is the latest manifestation of that problem.”

Galatzan, an attorney who works for the L.A. City Attorney’s Office dealing with street-level crime, supports a tough ordinance proposed by her boss, City Attorney Carmen Trutanich, which among other things would ban dispensaries within 1,000 feet of a school.

The Los Angeles City Council failed for years to adopt state-required local medical-marijuana regulations that other cities, including San Francisco, Oakland and Berkeley, long ago debated and approved.

Those three politically liberal cities cracked down on pot profiteers while adopting rules that allow the ill to easily obtain weed. The City Council here, gridlocked and unable to decide what to do, instead adopted a series of moratoriums — and then missed the state’s legal deadline for acting. Now the council is unhappy with Trutanich’s plan, and is looking at its options once again.

At the time of the Grant High incident, Los Angeles dispensaries had mushroomed from just four in 2005 to dozens in 2006. That was before the great medical-bud flood of the last 18 months.

LaMotte and recently elected school board member Steve Zimmer say they too support a 1,000-foot restriction. Zimmer, however, says his is a narrow endorsement of that one provision. He has problems with the rest of Trutanich’s ordinance, which bans the selling of pot over the counter and profiting from it. Zimmer particularly objects to calls to shut down the existing pot stores.

“I support the 1,000-feet restriction because I believe in creating ‘safe passages’ for our students to travel to and from school,” Zimmer says. “But I also support medical marijuana, and I think Trutanich and [Steve] Cooley are focused too much on suppression and not enough on harm reduction.”

Zimmer insists, “They won’t get one student to stop smoking weed by shutting down the dispensaries.”

Frank Sheftel, an advocate of the medical-marijuana movement and co-founder of the Toluca Lake Collective, a medicinal-pot outlet, favors a restriction of 600 feet, as with liquor stores and pharmacies. “Why create a different set of standards for this industry?” he asks.

But Galatzan notes that pharmacies require written physician prescriptions — not verbal recommendations, as with medical pot — and are so heavily regulated that no L.A. schoolchildren can score drugs at pharmacies. Moreover, liquor stores operate under strict laws forcing them to check age and I.D. Pot stores “are totally different from liquor stores, where kids are not allowed, because minors are [being] allowed into dispensaries,” Galatzan says.

David Berger, a special assistant to Trutanich, tells the Weekly that at least two police investigations are under way involving students and medical marijuana. One stems from a community complaint about a dispensary whose “stoned people” hang out next to a Lexington Avenue elementary school. The other is in Venice, where a pot store opened directly across from one public school and down the block from another. Berger says, “LAPD is documenting all this stuff for us now.”

Source:paulteetor@verizon.net. 5th Nov. 2009

The UK has third highest teenage cannabis use in OECD. A report by UNICEF into child poverty in 21 industrialised countries found that the UK was third highest in terms of the proportion of 11, 13 and 15 year- olds who said they had taken cannabis in the last 12 months. The percentage of children who had used cannabis was 35 per cent in the UK, compared to 27 per cent in France, 18 per cent in Germany and less than 5 per cent in Sweden and Greece (UNICEF, An Overview of Child Well-Being in Rich Countries, 14 February 2007, Figure 5.2c).

• Increase in Class A drug use. The number of people using Class A drugs in the last year has gone up by a quarter, from 2.7 per cent in 1998 to 3.4 per cent in 2006-07(Home Office, Drug Misuse Declared: Findings from the 2006/07 British Crime Survey, October 2007).
Drug offences increased. Total recorded drugs offences have increased from 135,945 in 1998-99 to 194,502 in 2006-07, an increase of 43 per cent (Home Office, Crime in England and Wales 2006/07, July 2007).

Source: Keith Girling News Blog. 24th January 2008

One of the challenges about addiction is the difficulty we have in putting it into a particular “box”. Is it a learned behaviour? is it down to environmental and social influences? Is it a disease?
I am most comfortable with calling addiction a bio-psycho-social condition and taking the complexities on the chin.
The genetics of addiction are beginning to unravel, though it is a not an easy area. Twin studies point towards a genetic component. Adoption studies show that if you are born to an alcoholic parent your personal risk of developing alcoholism is increased.
If both your parents are alcoholics, the risk goes up again. That risk stays with you, even if you are adopted at birth into a non-alcoholic family, suggesting that there is more than learned behaviour and social influence at play.
It appears that some of us are more vulnerable to addiction because of our genetic makeup with around ten genes being strongly implicated and dozens more being associated.
Believe it or not, we have genes for risk taking too, meaning some of us are more willing to try ‘dangerous’ drugs or drink in a riskier way than others.
We also know that there is an overlap across substances. If your twin is addicted to one drug, the chances are you will be vulnerable to that too, but you will also be more vulnerable to other substances. It’s often unhelpful to think in terms of the drug being the problem, it’s more accurate to think that ADDICTION is the problem.
In an abstinence service like ours we can’t quantify that risk, but experience suggests it is significant and we suggest abstinence to all our clients for illicit drugs and alcohol.
But, as I say, it is not simple, it’s a complex interaction between genes and environment with trauma in earlier life being a powerful predictor of later addiction.
Newspapers and some individuals tend to subscribe to the moral model of addiction which goes ‘addicts are bad people with no will power who do bad things’. This model has the advantage of being really simple and easy to understand, but it has a flaw. It is wrong.
The days of that model are numbered as we discover more and more about the complex interactions which generate addiction and open pathways to help those who suffer from addiction (and isn’t addiction true suffering?) find recovery.

Source: WiredIn Community Blog 21sxt Oct.2009

These video case studies are part of a free online course from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) that demonstrates quick and effective strategies for screening patients for heavy drinking and helping them to cut down or quit.
Based on the NIAAA Clinician’s Guide, the course features four 10-minute video case scenarios, each led by an expert clinician who offers insights and engages viewers in considering different strategies for treatment and followup. The course is designated through Medscape® for 1.5 credit hours for physicians, and for nurses, 1.5 nursing contact hours (0.25 hours in pharmacology).
• Free CME/CE credit for physicians or nurses through Medscape®
• Four interactive 10-minute video cases
• Evidence-based clinical strategies
• Patients with different levels of severity and readiness to change
http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/Publications/EducationTrainingMaterials/VideoCases.htm 2008
Source: National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA)
Website: http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/
Email: niaaaweb-r@exchange.nih.gov

A new study suggests that young people without jobs often have the risk of poor health throughout their lives, with one out of ten blaming drug or alcohol addiction on unemployment.
The Prince’s Trust survey of more than 2,000 unemployed people aged between 16 and 25 also found that they could receive “permanent psychological scars” due to constantly feeling ashamed, rejected and unloved.
Nearly one out of four jobless youngsters believed their unemployed statues led to arguments between them and their parents or other family members. Almost the same number of people exercised less and blamed unemployment for an unhealthy lifestyle, while 15percent said their life had no direction. One in three youngsters without a job felt low or depressed and one out of 10 felt almost no one loved them.
“Unemployment has a knock-on effect on a young person’s self-esteem, their emotional stability and overall wellbeing. The longer the period a young person is unemployed for, the more likely they are to experience this psychological scarring,” the Daily Express quoted economist Professor David Blanchflower, as saying in the report. “This means an unhappy and debilitated generation of young people who – as a result – becomes decreasingly likely to find work in the future,” he added. “The implications of youth unemployment stretch beyond the dole queue. The emotional effects on young people are profound, long-term and can become irreversible. We must act now to prevent a lost generation of young people before it is too late,” Martina Milburn, chief executive of the Prince’s Trust, said.
She added: “Young people bore the brunt of the recession last year, with one in five 16-to-24 year olds out of work today. The result is a generation of undiscovered skills and talents. We must invest in these young people, re-building their self-esteem, to ensure that today’s unemployed do not become tomorrow’s unemployable.”
Source: http://blog.taragana.com/health/2010/01/04

Just as Britons brew black coffee to cope with holiday hangovers, they are also digesting a new report that warns the country’s notorious drinking culture is putting an unacceptable strain on hospitals and medical staff.

The cash-strapped National Health Service — the U.K.’s taxpayer-funded medical system — now spends 2.7 billion pounds ($4.4 billion) a year treating patients for drink-related problems, double the amount five years ago, the report said. Total funding for the health care system is currently around 100 billion pounds a year.

The report — published by the NHS Confederation, a health-care providers organization, and the Royal College of Physicians, which represents doctors — warns that about 10.5 million adults in Britain drink above sensible limits, and 1.1 million people have some form of alcohol addiction. The government currently recommends that men should not drink more than three or four units of alcohol a day, and women should not drink more than two or three. A small glass of wine or beer has just over one unit.

One study at a hospital in Leeds, northeast England, found that one-fifth of all emergency-room admissions over four months were for alcohol-related conditions, the report said.

Professor Ian Gilmore, president of the Royal College of Physicians, said the National Health Service could not afford to continue treating alcohol-related problems at current levels, and that health-care providers must be more proactive in preventing people from drinking too much.
Source:. – Erie Times-News, Erie, Pa. January 03 2010

In 2006, it was estimated that 166 million adults worldwide aged 15-64 years (1 in 25 people in that age range) had used cannabis, despite the risks of its adverse effects on health. The issues surrounding cannabis use are discussed in a Review in this week’s edition of The Lancet, written by Professor Wayne Hall, School of Population Health, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia, and Professor Louisa Degenhardt, National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.

The estimates on cannabis use come from the UN Office on Drugs and Crime. Use was highest in the USA, Australia and New Zealand, followed by Europe. Because of their large populations, 31%, 25% and 24% of the world’s cannabis users are estimated to be from Asia, Africa, and the Americas respectively, with Europe next on 18% and Oceania on 2%.

Trends in cannabis use are highly variable within and between regions. Although Australia and New Zealand are in the highest use category (>8% of the population aged 15-64 years are users), in both countries use is declining; similar trends have been reported in Western Europe. In contrast, use may be increasing in some low and middle income countries, a trend that has been reported in Latin America and several countries in Africa.

North American research has shown 10% of ever-users of cannabis become daily users, while 20-30% become weekly users. Use typically begins in teenage years, peaks in early and middle 20s, before declining as young people enter full-time employment, marry, and have children.

The active component of cannabis, tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), leaves users with a mild euphoric high, occurring around 30 minutes after smoking and typically lasting 1-2 hours. Between 5% and 24% of the ‘smoked’ THC reaches the brain. Acute adverse effects include anxiety, panic reactions and psychotic symptoms, most commonly reported by those new to the drug. Concerns exist regarding increasing THC content in cannabis, but evidence on this issue is very limited. Over the past three decades some research has suggested that THC content in seized cannabis products may have risen over that time.

Cannabis use slows reaction time, information processing, and co-ordination-increasing the risk of road accidents for intoxicated users. Cannabis use impairs driving ability more modestly than alcohol use, since cannabis-affected drivers drive more slowly and take fewer risks. But studies suggest cannabis use at least doubles the risk of a road accident, with some suggesting an even steeper increase. A French study estimated that 2.5% of fatal accidents could be attributed to cannabis, compared to 29% to alcohol. Use of cannabis in pregnancy could reduce birthweight, but does not appear to cause birth defects.

Around 9% of people who ever use cannabis will become dependent , with 1-2% of adults affected in any one year. The equivalent lifetime risks are 32% for nicotine, 23% for heroin, 17% for cocaine, 15% for alcohol, and 11% for stimulant users. Some cannabis users seek help to stop report withdrawal symptoms, which include anxiety, insomnia, appetite disturbance, and depression. Cognitive behavioural therapy reduces cannabis use and cannabis-related issues, but only 15% of people remain abstinent 6-12 months after treatment.

Regular cannabis smokers report more symptoms of chronic bronchitis (wheeze, sputum production, and chronic coughs) than do non-smokers. Cannabis smoke contains many of the same carcinogens as does tobacco smoke, with some present in higher concentrations. Case-control studies of lung cancer have found associations with cannabis use but their interpretation is uncertain because of confounding: most frequent and long-term cannabis users also smoke tobacco.

Deficits in verbal learning, memory, and attention are most consistently reported in heavy cannabis users, but these have been variously related to duration and frequency of use, and cumulative dose of THC. More functional brain imaging studies on larger samples of long-term users are needed to see if cognitive impairments in long-term users are correlated with structural changes in brain areas implicated in memory and emotion.

Cannabis use is associated with poor educational attainment, but the cause and effect of this relationship is unclear. The most plausible hypothesis is that impaired educational outcomes are attributable to a combination of higher pre-existing risk, effects of regular cannabis use on cognitive performance, increased affiliation with peers who reject school, and a strong desire to make an early transition into adulthood.

In the USA, Australia, and New Zealand, regular cannabis users are much more likely to use other illicit drugs later on, including heroin and cocaine, and the earlier the age at which a young person uses cannabis, the more likely they are to use heroin and cocaine. This could be for a number of reasons: cannabis users have more opportunities to use other illicit drugs because cannabis is supplied by the same black market; those who are early cannabis users are more likely to use other illicit drugs for reasons that are unrelated to their cannabis use; and pharmacological effects of cannabis increase the propensity to use other illicit drugs. This issue remains the subject of considerable debate.

Cannabis can have an effect on the mental health of users. Studies suggest the risk of schizophrenia more than doubles in those who have tried cannabis by age 18. A meta-analysis reported in The Lancet in 2007 showed a 40% increase in risk of psychotic symptoms or disorders in people who had ever used cannabis, with the highest risk among regular users, and particularly among those with a vulnerability to psychosis. In the case of depressive disorders and suicide, the relationship with cannabis is uncertain.

The authors say that the public health burden of cannabis use is probably modest compared with that of alcohol, tobacco, and other illicit drugs. A recent Australian study estimated that cannabis use caused 0.2% of total disease burden in Australia-a country with one of the highest reported rates of cannabis use. Cannabis accounted for 10% of the burden attributable to all illicit drugs (including heroin, cocaine, and amphetamines). It also accounted for around 10% of the proportion of disease burden attributed to alcohol (2.3%), but only 2.5% of that attributable to tobacco (7.8%).

They conclude: “The most probable adverse effects [of cannabis] include a dependence syndrome, increased risk of motor vehicle crashes, impaired respiratory function, cardiovascular disease, and adverse effects of regular use on adolescent psychosocial development and mental health.”

Source: The Lancet

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/167873.php Oct.2009

Comments on this article below:
When 96 percent of humanity is doing the right thing, i.e., not using cannabis, it’s time to celebrate civilization but, of course, the Lancet may not see it this way.

Most nations of the world prohibit the production and distribution of cannabis. Few prohibit beverage alcohol and do so mostly, if not exclusively, for religious, not health, reasons. Reportedly, an estimated 2 billion people worldwide use beverage alcohol regularly. This represents approximately 29.9 percent of the estimated 6.7 billion persons on Earth. Using the logic of the Lancet’s analysis, almost eight times as many persons consume beverage alcohol on a regular basis, despite adverse health effects, than consume cannabis on a regular basis, despite adverse health effects. (Note: This metric would be slightly lower if we could remove from the analysis the number of under-15 years of age persons who consume beverage alcohol on a regular basis. We were unable to do this on a global basis.)

Conclusion? Prohibition works!

Thanks, Lancet, for making the case for the Single Convention and domestic cannabis controls.

Source: John Coleman Drugwatch International Nov.2009

“Sewages is more than just filth. It’s evidence of our worst habits, everything from caffeine to cocaine, all ingested and flushed down the toilet. Now scientists are using wastewater to drug-test entire cities, and the results are sobering.”

Excerpt:

“In 2001 Daughton proposed the novel ideal of testing for illicit drugs in wastewater…..Sewer epidemiology stalled stateside until 2006, when environmental chemist Jennifer Field of Oregon State University hit upon the idea as a way to help assess Oregon’s growing meth problem…Field began conducting a small proof-of-concept study, analyzing teaspoon-size samples of wastewater from 10 cities left over from an older environmental study. She found that a sample from a popular gambling destination boasted the widest range of drugs, while one from an affluent town tested positive exclusively for cocaine…Her team made headlines last august when they presented these and other findings at the American Chemical Society meeting in Boston. Their results – similar to those of Zuccato and Fanelli – showed cocaine levels highest on the weekends while levels of methamphetamine remained constant. ‘once you’re hooked, you’re hooked,’ field points out.

“Today, Field is heading up the most ambitious community urinalysis test yet. She’s soliciting wastewater samples from 130 treatment plants throughout Oregon, which service approximately 80 percent of its 3.7 million resisdents…Oregon Health Sciences Universitiy, which is footing the $30,000 bill through its Medical Research Fund, stands to gain a trove of data about drug use in individual communities, since Field will have direct estimates from areas in which surveyors have surely never set foot.

“…For marijuana, the target molecule is THC, which is tricky in its owns right. ‘There is a wide variation in the amount of active ingredient in grass,’ Fanelli says. He relies on average potency, which can be gleaned from pot busts. Sewer epidemiologists must factor in all of these variables….And some people worry about how such methods might infringe on their civil liberties. One of the calls Field received after news broke about her proof-of-concept study, for instances, was from High Times magazine. ‘They wanted to know about privacy, she says.”

Source: Popular Science, March 2008

Being a teenager isn’t as risky as it used to be, but too many teens still put their lives and their health at risk, a CDC survey shows.

Every two years, the CDC conducts its huge Youth Risk Behavior Survey. It contains detailed data from more than 14,000 questionnaires anonymously completed by teens in grades 9 through 12.

Overall, the 2007 results suggest that teens are acting more responsibly. Fewer are sexually active, nearly all wear seat belts, drinking and drug use are down, 80% of kids don’t smoke, and there are fewer suicide attempts.

This is good news to Howell Wechsler, EdD, MPH, director of the CDC’s Division of Adolescent and School Health. In some cases, the new numbers begin to approach the CDC’s Healthy People 2010 objectives. “What we are seeing is from the early to mid-1990s to now, on a large number of health risk behaviors, we are seeing very, very encouraging progress,” Wechsler tells WebMD.

Even so, the new numbers are enough to take a parent’s breath away:
• 7% of teens say they’ve attempted suicide (down from nearly 9% in
2001).
• 35% of teens say they’re sexually active (down from 37.5% in 2001).
• 18% of teens say they carry a gun, knife, or club (no significant change from 2001).
• 20% of teens say they smoke cigarettes (down from 36.4% in 1997).
• Nearly 45% of teens say they use alcohol (down from 50% in 1999).
• About 20% of teens say they use marijuana (down from nearly 27% in 1999).
• Only about 21% of kids eat five or more servings of fruits and vegetables (down from 24% in 1999).
• 25% of teens play video games or use the computer for three or more hours a day (up from 21% in 2005).
• More than 65% of kids don’t get enough exercise , and 25% of teens say they don’t even get an hour of exercise on any day of the week.

“We are gratified that there is progress being made,” Wechsler says. “But my take on it is this: I have a bunch of kids myself and I am not going to be satisfied until we meet our goals — and in most areas we are still not meeting our Healthy People 2010 objectives. So I see no cause to be overly
satisfied.”

(Which teens are most at risk? Find out from guest blogger Howell Wechsler on WebMD’s News Watch blog.)

Best States/Cities, Worst States/Cities

In some cases, the overall numbers conceal states and localities where teen behavior is much better — and much worse — than average:
• 62.2% of Kentucky kids have tried smoking cigarettes, compared with only 24.9% of Utah teens (national average: 50.3%).
• 34.5% of West Virginia teens use tobacco products, compared with only 8.9% of kids in Vermont (national average: 25.7%).
• 44.7% of Alaska teens have tried marijuana, compared with only 17.4% of Kentucky kids (national average: 38.1%)
• 90.8% of kids in New York attend physical education classes at least once a week vs. 28.4% of kids in South Dakota (national average: 53.6%).
• 49.7% of Baltimore teens are sexually active, compared with 17.5% of San Francisco teens (national average: 35%).
• 39.2% of ninth to 12th graders in Dallas have been offered, sold, or given an illegal drug, compared with 13.5% of teens in Baltimore (national average: 22.3%).

Wechsler says the survey data don’t show exactly why teens in some areas take fewer health risks than teens in other areas. But he says that state and local efforts to reduce specific risk behaviors pay off. He points to anti-tobacco efforts as an example.

“One thing that is instructive is the tremendous difference in resources different states put into this,” Wechsler says. “In some states, teen tobacco use is much lower than the national rate. And we see this in exactly those states where they have made substantial investments in tobacco
reduction.”

Even Good Teens Take Risks — What Parents Must Do

If none of this sounds like your teenager, listen to Nancy Cahir, PhD, a child/adolescent/adult psychologist in private practice in Atlanta.

“What I have seen in my practice is even parents who think it couldn’t happen to their child — well, it can,” Cahir tells WebMD. “Even with the ‘perfect child,’ there may be hidden issues; even in good families, bad things can happen. There is no discrimination when it comes to high-risk behavior for teens.”

Parents have a responsibility to involve themselves in their children’s lives, Cahir says. They cannot assume their teen is doing fine because they haven’t had calls from the school or because their teen’s grades are good.

“Parents, I say stay close to your children. Know your kids the way you know your best friend, and keep in touch with them,” she says. “Spend time with them, know their friends, and know the parents of the children your children hang out with. Say to them every day, ‘Did you have a difficult day? What’s going on with you? How are you doing?’”

It’s probably not news that teens can be moody, even surly at times. Your teen may respond to your inquiries with something like, “My life is none of your business.”

Not so, says Cahir.

“Every parent has the right to say, ‘It is too my business,’” she says. “Parents sometimes shy away from being more involved because they don’t want to seem intrusive. But it is their business to know whom their child hangs out with, to know whether the child is in distress, and to help their children through these difficult times. Sometimes kids don’t like hearing that, and may respond in defiant ways, but parents must toe the line and say, ‘We have a right to know.’”

But Wechsler agrees with Cahir that communication is not only what your children need, but what they truly want.

“As a parent of two teens myself, you tend to believe them when they walk out of the room and don’t express any interest in hearing from you,” Wechsler says. “But kids really do want that communication with parents. They really do want to hear their parents’ values. They really need their parents to monitor their whereabouts and stay in touch and stay a very strong part of their lives.”

Cahir says the key to communicating with teens is developing mutual respect.

“Each member of a family should treat the others members like a best friend or at least as a guest in the house,” she says. “If you are angry with your teen, or your teen is angry with you, you have to talk it out in a way that is not hostile or aggressive. I’ve seen some families go after each other tooth and nail and they end up really harming each other.”

If communication breaks down, it may be time for the family to sit down with a professional to learn how to express disagreements in a constructive way.

The full CDC report, “Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance — United States, 2007,” is available on the CDC’s web site. For comparison, earlier years’ reports are also available.

Source:CBS News Web 4 June 2008

Shaun Bailey was born on the west London estates that have been linked to investigations into the murder of WPC Sharon Beshenivsky. Here he describes how pop culture and liberal politics have created a feral generation hooked on drugs, crime and violence

I come from a black working-class environment, born and brought up by my single mother on the North Kensington estates in London. Where I live the peer pressure to offend surrounds you. Crime is everywhere. The teenage pregnancy rate is well above the national average. There is a drugs epidemic. There are significant mental health and disability issues. Most people remain trapped.
Yet just a few yards away, on the other side of Ladbroke Grove, you can find houses worth millions of pounds where bankers, celebrities and media stars discuss being attacked and the threat of burglary rather than the problems of today’s youth.
I am one of the lucky ones. Thanks in part to a determined mother, I just scraped into university. But I returned to the North Kensington estates seven years ago as a volunteer youth worker and I came to see from street level how the cycle of deprivation and crime works in the inner cities of Britain.
The level of crime on the estates was already astonishing, but over the past four years the levels of violence with drugs, guns and knives among the younger kids has got much worse.
Eight years ago it would have been fantasy stuff to carjack. Four years ago maybe you would have found one person who’d entertain it and everybody would have thought he was a lunatic. Now I could show you at least 15 people who would consider it, 10 or 15 who would do it and five who have done it.

Kids are carrying guns now because guns are linked to bigger crime. They are selling crack because crack has a shorter turnaround and a higher profit than the likes of weed and heroin. People who smoke crack are so desperate they’d do anything for the money. And the dealers get high on the power.
I know one guy who’s only 17 years old and is a very successful crack dealer. “It’s not so much the money, Shaun,” he told me, “it’s the fact that I’ve got people who work for me.”
For rock he was able to get people to wash his car, clean his house, beat people up, steal stuff for him, send them on missions just because it made him feel powerful.
Crime starts younger, spreads wider and goes further. The number of kids growing out of crime is getting smaller. It’s why we get this horrible stuff with guns and knives: the serious nature of their offences is growing as the percentage of kids staying in crime rises.
The real scary thing is the young age at which it happens. Serious criminals used to be in their late twenties. If you came into my area and interviewed my boys, they have been involved in quite horrible stuff and they are not yet 16 or 17.
THE estates themselves are part of the problem. The blocks were badly designed. We are all too close to each other. On top of each other. One of the estates was built for 1,100 people but now houses 1,450.
There are a lot of Moroccans, a lot of blacks. Everybody there is poor. Overcrowding has an impact on how young people behave.
Most of the flats are built in such a way that nobody can sit around a table. Traditionally a table is where a family has discussions, where parents give attitudes to their children. If children come home and their parents are cooking them food, it establishes their dependency. It gives the parents authority. They can say: “You need to come in for dinner.” They can set rules and boundaries.
That doesn’t happen here. There is no room for a table. We all eat dinner off our laps. Families start to not eat together because there is no point. We don’t have any space at any time. That’s why some parents can’t love their children. They are too busy surviving.
If you talk to those families where children are behaving the worst, you find that the kids have no rules and no boundaries. The reason is that the parents have never had any point at which to put them in place.
Many of the young people I deal with have never spent any meaningful time with their mothers or their fathers. Their parents didn’t do anything with them and they have no set of family rules that govern them.
If you are the younger end of an overcrowded family you share a bedroom with your older brother. Maybe there are three of you in one small bedroom. You have no privacy so you come out of your flat for privacy. You stay on the block because you are comfortable there. It becomes your extended bedroom.
As time has gone on, the people who hang around the block have aged from cute little five-year-olds to 15, 16, 17, 18-year-olds. In some cases 21-year-olds are still hanging around.
On one of the estates here there are 1,600 young people and kids under the age of 19. The sight of a big group of young people just terrorises most people. This is where it starts. The kids are perceived as a threat. They are dealt with in that manner. Then they take on the role they were handed. Put that with difficult parenting and you’ve got a problem.
This was an area where poor white people were sent who couldn’t afford to live anywhere else. The estates have also become home to London’s largest Moroccan enclave and to Jamaican, Portuguese and Spanish communities. But, although we have been housed in our racial groups, racial tension is not a feature of life here. When they found the alleged July 21 bombers on our estates, no form of war took place.
Instead a child is known by the estate he comes from. Kids will fight with other kids just because they are on their road. You defend your “ends” — your locale — because you don’t want to be seen to come from where the pussies live. You club together loosely to make sure you stand up for each other. It is an easy step from here to the creation of gangs.
Some gangs have names. There is the Cold Hearted Crew, the Heartless Crew. The names are always about being mean and tough: Cutlass, Beg for Mercy. Imagine you are a nine-year-old boy living here. You see these groups of older boys. They seem to be tough. They seem to be having a good time. Nobody interferes with them. You want to be a man and these appear to be men to you.
In some of the gangs, some of the slightly older ones have already been in prison. To the kids on the street, prison has become a badge of honour. It’s almost getting to the point that you have to go to prison.
All their talk is about f****** people up. There is no notion of conflict resolution other than battering people. Violence is deeply ingrained in their culture of “respect”. They have to take people on just because what is said might be disrespectful to them. They have to batter them. They have to be in charge. To be in charge they have to be physically violent.
Not having parental love is one reason the kids argue about respect so much. Their view is you have to be a “bad boy” or people don’t leave you alone. With white boys, it’s about being a nutter. You’ve got to be a nutter. You don’t want anyone f****** with you, you’ve got to f*** them up, you’ve got to show people you’re a nutter. The black boy will say things like “bad boy, gunman, man don’t take no shit”. They talk about blowing people’s heads off and about stabbing people.
The kids here also feel they have to have money. When you are poor, you see people on telly with phones, cars, iPods. To you the gang is the best way of getting this stuff because they steal, they rob.
The great majority of them who are “going out there” — that means going out to rob, to make money — are just 14 or 15. They use terms such as “running up in your house” (aggravated burglary). They talk about needing £100-£400 a week. If you have that kind of money, you have respect and you can buy all the cool stuff and you can show them you’ve got it. If you stand around with these boys, it’s not long before someone pulls out a wedge of money. They won’t say anything; it is just to look cool.
Young people here watch a lot of television, particularly MTV. It shows them cars and cribs (houses) and girls. They want it all. They don’t learn about real economics, what’s involved in working for money. That’s why you see them performing some really ugly crimes now, because that is the only way they can finance this lifestyle.
It means they do 20 minutes of something dangerous, then bang, they’ve got all the money. They have the whole of next week, next month doing nothing, waiting for the funds to run out and being forced to do something else.
Lots of kids here, getting towards 25%, smoke weed and skunk. It’s a serious problem. Use is starting younger than it did. It affects their mental health. It undermines their schooling and their life prospects. At our local park, young schoolgirls come around and smoke, young schoolboys, too. They smoke on the way to the bus to go to school. It affects their ability to concentrate.
Weed affects their brain chemistry while their brains are still forming. These kids need all the motivation they can get. The drugs rob them of it. So they move into crime and become more addicted and need to smoke more. So they get excluded, sent to a referral unit or are truanting more or less permanently.
This is one thing that middle-class adult smokers who support liberalising drugs don’t understand. As adults it may not be affecting their brain chemistry doing it once a week. They also have jobs to go to. They may control it. But these young kids don’t.
When the liberal classes have the view that “oh, we can all smoke a bit”, they do not realise how it generates crime for young people here who need to finance their habit. By not making drugs seem like a big deal, by decriminalising the drug, they are criminalising the kids.
This sanctioning of drugs pushes poor kids into bullying at school, then into low-level crime to get the money for drugs. This introduces them to criminality. Most children don’t begin with the desire or the confidence to rob someone. But once they bully for items at school they gradually build up and their targets become more frequent and bigger until they rob adults.
Drinking, smoking and hanging around with undesirables also leads some girls to adopt a different sexual code. They let themselves be shared by the boys. I have been told that if a girl fancies your friend, you’ll make her sleep with you first to get to your friend. Young girls are starting to accept this. They mistake sex for affection.
The next step up from this is when you get girls starting to have a baby just to get real love. Many of the teenagers are the children of the first generation of single mothers to be housed here. The assumption became that it was all right for mothers to have babies on their own. So it is doubly like that for their daughters.
But what you see now is the mother and daughter fighting for attention from the men. I watch a lot of the single mothers round here. I see they are struggling with the loneliness, the depression, the mental health problems. It is getting worse with every generation.
One of the most corrosive aspects of life here is the low expectations placed on parents. Nothing happens to you if you don’t look after your child. Too much of our policy around young people is nothing to do with their parents. Yet all parents need to be involved, need to have responsibility, need to feel the pain if their teenagers are offending.
In turn they need to have higher expectations of their children. Compare what the well-off expect from their children with what the poor think they can achieve: it is so vastly different it is unbelievable.
The parents I speak to do not find parenting easy. They lack information and practical support. None of this is helped by the lack of married families. Marriage does not exist among the black community. It is why we have so many problems with the men.
If you talk to young people, they all support marriage. But people with our lives, in our circles, understand you are better off if you are a single parent. It has reached the point where a lot of people who are not single parents present themselves as such because it makes financial sense.
If anybody thinks that people like us don’t sit around and have these discussions, they are deluding themselves. We soon figure out which way it will make us the most money. And that’s an example of how we are trapped by government policy, which discourages us from raising our children in nuclear families.
SCHOOL was where young people could have gained some moral fibre, but governments have got rid of schools that gave strong moral messages. Young people want boundaries, but school has been emasculated so it can’t give them.
Removing religion and what it is to be British from school has been a disaster. Where else are young people going to learn ethics? Citizenship is not enough. That’s how we’ve had bombers here. They’ve come here and not been exposed to the good things about being British.
Put this with the failure of school to give children real skills. Some are not going to be academically sharp, yet school is finding nothing for them to do. We live in a world of trade and real skills, vocational skills. Yet school is GCSEs or nothing. This creates a separation between mainstream society and the rest of us. This is stopping our children from succeeding, because they go for a job and people start speaking and they literally cannot understand them.
The failure of the schools to impart the most basic of social skills is astonishing. The teenagers here cannot speak to people they don’t know as they only know how to speak their own slang. This estate is not conducive to our kids being socially educated.
You are talking about boys of 22, 23 and 24 who have never been anywhere near a job. They don’t have the academic skills and they definitely don’t have the social skills to attack a job.
They are not able to talk to people without just saying, “wha’d’you want, wha’d’you want?” Not getting offended, not getting scared when somebody asks them a question, not seeing it as a challenge to their respect when they are told or asked to do something — this is all beyond them.
Yet all they talk about is money, money, money. How to raise it. Ways to spend it.
The music our children listen to says you are not worth anything unless you have lots of money. Your worth is directly related to the money you have in your pocket. All this reinforces the need, especially for these children, to get stuff, to expect stuff and to have stuff. It shows them the end product; it doesn’t show them the work involved.
They see the Wayne Rooneys, the Beckhams and their huge financial success. They have false aspirations and then they don’t concentrate on what’s real, on what’s possible for us. So the kids feel they have to have money and this leads to crime.
The education that goes on in school around drugs and sex is also ridiculous, because it is just about the technicalities. It has not dealt with the pressures and realities for kids here. When I spoke in a girls’ school and used the word abstinence, only three out of 90 of them knew what it meant.
There are a lot of really good things about Britain as a place and British people as a body. These are things that children should be taught straight up; they should learn about the community that is Britain and what it is to be British. But by removing the religion that British people generally take to, by removing the ethics that generally go with it, we’ve allowed people to come to Britain and bring their culture, their country and any problems they might have with them.
I can see the argument for taking religion out of the state, out of politics. But as a moral guideline, they need to be maintained. Losing them has meant that people have come here and had very little respect for us.
That lack of integration and lack of saying to people: if you are going to come to England, this is what we expect. That is why the Muslim religion is so powerful among the Muslim people (here).
Sex education in school is just science. Science is not what happens on the street; it is not what happens in bedrooms up and down the country. The fact that young people feel they should be having sex should be addressed. When you say to them here’s condoms, you confirm that young people should have sex. What we should be saying is “No!”
Parents should be told that contraception is being handed out and absolutely they must be told if an abortion is being arranged, because you are talking about the physical and mental health of their children.
Hiding it from the parents deprives them of their responsibility and the opportunity to exercise it. It emasculates the caring parents and it gives dependency to the uncaring ones. If you take that away from them they expect everything else to be done for them.
THEN there is multiculturalism. What it does is rob Britain of its community. Among the working class, unless you are already one of those “Queen and country” sort of British people, you are lost. You don’t know what to do. You bring your children to school and they learn far more about Diwali than Christmas.
I speak to people from Brent in northwest London and they’ve been having Muslim and Hindi days off. What it does is rob Britain of its community. Without our community we slip into a crime-riddled cesspool.
There are a lot of really good things about Britain as a place and British people as a body. These are things that children should be taught straight up; they should learn about the community that is Britain and what it is to be British. But by removing the religion that British people generally take to, by removing the ethics that generally go with it, we’ve allowed people to come to Britain and bring their culture, their country and any problems they might have with them.
I can see the argument for taking religion out of the state, out of politics. But as a moral guideline, they need to be maintained. Losing them has meant that people have come here and had very little respect for us.
That lack of integration and lack of saying to people: if you are going to come to England, this is what we expect. That is why the Muslim religion is so powerful among the Muslim people (here).
It’s like we are ashamed of where we come from.
Lots of people come to Britain and think they’ll be rich. But then they find it’s not so easy and are resentful. They are alienated because they haven’t been exposed to the good things in Britain — our ethics. That’s why we’ve now got a nation of people who wouldn’t do anything for the country. They wouldn’t fight for their country. Why would they? The nation has done nothing for them as far as they are concerned.
The more liberal we’ve been, the more the poor have suffered.
Poor people don’t need all this liberalism. They need direction. Everybody talks about “my rights” — but there is some point when your behaviour needs to be balanced by your duty to your community.
The working class look to rules. The rules are important to them. Take away the rules and they are left in limbo. So they form their own: the kind that are driven by pop economics and lead to crime.
The liberal intelligentsia relax the rules for themselves, not for us.
Bailey’s law: Six ways to stop youngsters growing into criminals
Establish boundaries early
Once children acquire a criminal mentality, they find it hard to lose, says Bailey. So it is important for parents and schools to lay down a clear moral framework from the outset.
This may seem obvious, but for people on deprived estates it’s not easy. They are bombarded by conspicuous consumption elsewhere but have to be taught that money and goods must be earned, not taken. Parents and schools must not shirk from making clear what is right and wrong.
Bailey believes that in other countries, including Jamaica, where his mother came from, parents and schools impose stricter discipline and better behaviour.
Keep them busy
The best way of preventing temptation turning into criminality is to keep youngsters occupied with other things. “You can’t stop people using drugs unless they are busy, unless they have some type of tie to society,” says Bailey. This requires jobs, education, sports or hobbies.
On one estate Bailey helped youngsters get licences to drive mopeds so they could deliver pizzas. “It was about giving them a link to wider society,” he says. “I found it transformed the young people involved.”
He also ran a project to help youngsters repair their mopeds, which led to some training as mechanics.
Be straight, be firm
In Bailey’s eyes, “young people want boundaries”. They want guidance on what is acceptable and what is not. But too many people and institutions are afraid of setting clear boundaries for fear of causing offence. They are, he says, too politically correct. “We make a point of telling youngsters the truth and we find that they grow from it,” he says.
Shield young people from commercial exploitation and celebrity culture
He believes the media, including some music magazines and television channels that promote the “coolness” of money and drugs, are corrosive. He suggests the promotion of violence and pornography, especially by some parts of the music industry, should be challenged.
Don’t wait for the problem to come to you: go and tackle it before it is too late
Instead of setting up a youth or drug centre in a particular building and waiting for people to drop in, go out on the streets. Bailey seeks out and befriends youngsters on the streets of North Kensington and gains their trust.
Keep it local
National initiatives may struggle to work because youngsters are territorial. It’s important to understand an area’s history, culture and needs.
This article is taken from Shaun Bailey’s pamphlet. No Man’s Land: how Britain’s Inner City Youth are Being Failed, to be published tomorrow by the Centre for Policy Studies. www.cps.org.uk
Source: From The Sunday Times November 27, 2005

The CDC report “Deaths: Final Data for 2006” released in April 2009, reveals a spectacular 15% increase in drug induced deaths in 2006 compared to 2005 (latest data available.) These 2006 rates once again have reached yet another new national all-time record high for the 16th consecutive year. It reports that 38,396 Americans died in 2006 directly from “Drug-induced causes” the vast majority of which were overdose deaths from use of illegal drugs or from illegal use of legal drugs. ( See page 93 of 135 of the CDC report at link: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr57/nvsr57_14.pdf )

Steadily increasing OD deaths over the past two decades strongly indicate that current national drug OD death rates in 2009 are raging out of control at national crisis levels. The graph shows the 2006 total of 38,396 deaths with the trend line heading off the chart! This calculates to a rate of over 3,000 deaths occurring MONHLY and rising.

Parents’ drug prevention organizations from throughout the nation recognize that the vast majority of those drug overdose deaths result from the early introduction and addiction of schoolchildren to drugs and alcohol (which is an illegal drug for teens) in their schools. Therefore they have petitioned President Obama and Congress for early enactment of the demand-reducing national drug prevention strategy of implementing a federal mandate for health screening all secondary school students for drugs by Random Student Drug Testing (RSDT) see attached. The legislative precedent for such a mandate is the federal mandate for the 21 drinking age that Congress enacted in 1984 in reaction to widespread tragic teen auto crashes, injuries and deaths on the nation’s highways that had directly resulted from states authorizing teen alcohol use in the 1970s.

“Diagnostic drug testing is the very best means ever found for effectively reducing the kids’ exposure to the deadly disease of drug addiction. This has been well demonstrated in the military, businesses, transportation industry and in the over 4,000 U.S. schools currently using drug testing,” said Joyce Nalepka, president of Drug Free Kids: America’s Concern and former president of Nancy Reagan’s National Federation of Parents. “We parents sincerely appreciate that RSDT is fully supported by Congress, the ONDCP, the U.S. Education Department, DEA, U.S. Justice Department, and all health-related federal agencies,” she added.

Congress should reject recent efforts by professional drug legalization lobbyists to soften federal laws on drug abuse and reduce federal support for RSDT. Their frenzied attempts to get street drugs legalized will only help drug traffickers reap further profits from the drug-related destruction of families, schools and communities throughout the nation. Congress must support parents and their children against the drug traffickers.

“This avalanche of tragic drug overdose deaths among our children should serve as a wake up call to all members of Congress. They must support America’s drug-besieged parents who demand that federal support continue and be increased for utilizing RSDT as a compassionate non-punitive means of reducing the nation’s inordinate demand for drugs and reducing the ultimate harm of massive drug overdose deaths,” said

Source DeForest Rathbone, Chairman of the National Institute of Citizen Anti-drug Policy (NICAP.)
April 30, 2009

By Carolyn Plocher (Bio | Archive)
October 14, 2009 – 17:03 ET
•
England can’t afford to help Alzheimer’s patients pay for their medicine, but it can offer free shooting galleries to heroin addicts.
On Oct. 14 CNN’s “American Morning” aired a segment about the controversial program that “gives heroin to heroin addicts at the taxpayers’ expense.” Correspondent Paula Newton declared, “A safe, steady supply of heroin is apparently just what the doctor ordered … As radical as it is, for some it is really working.” She also said that the British government’s decision to dole out 97 percent pure heroin – “better than anything sold on the street” – “takes heroin off the streets.”
John Strang, a member of King’s Health Partners claimed that the “intensity of the program is quite striking. The bond that is formed and the commitment that’s established between the patient coming in for treatment and the staff is far greater than you’d ever ordinarily see.” Not surprisingly, King’s Health Partners is affiliated with Britain’s National Health Services.
Newton summarized the rest of Strang’s interview:
The key seems to be treating heroin addiction like any other illness, and then having the patience to see the treatment through – even if that means the government is the drug dealer of choice for months, if not years.
That should comfort British taxpayers, who are shelling out $22,000 per year per addict for the program.
Although Newton mentioned in passing that “the jury is still out on this study as to what it actually does to get people off heroin permanently and get clean,” she cited the study’s claim that the program had reduced “street heroin by three-quarters and the crimes committed in trying to get that drug by two-thirds.”
“Taking heroin off the streets is making a difference,” Newton declared.
But if Newton had given any air time to critics of the program, its faults would have been glaringly obvious.
Susie Squire, the Political Director at the U.K.’s TaxPayers’ Alliance, voiced the worst of it back in Septemper:
Many taxpayers will have a massive problem paying for addicts’ heroin, particularly at a time when the NHS is unable to provide them with doctor’s appointments or life-saving cancer drugs.
This approach also reflects a poverty of ambition, with the Government merely accepting hard drug use and instead of trying to crack down and stamp it out, giving out lethal drugs for free.
Heroin addicts attend a clinic twice a day to inject themselves with diamorphine – the medical term for heroin – in the hope that their addiction will fade away. Some liken the idea to making children available to pedophiles in order to help them overcome their problem.
Reminiscent of Jonathan Swift’s “A Modest Proposal,” a blogger recommended this solution: “Perhaps the children taken off mothers that Barnardos [a UK children's protection service] disapproves of can be given to the kiddy fiddlers and then another problem will be solved.” Another blogger quipped, “If the government gives me money then I promise to stop stealing it.”
Mary Brett, the U.K . representative of Europe Against Drugs, feared that the program “will start with the most hardcore cases, but treatment services will find it easier to just give them a prescription, and more and more will be included in this scheme.”
Indeed, Russia, which has a notorious drug reputation, refuses to even consider implementing the program, stating that methadone – the heroin substitute used to wean addicts – “could seep into the black market, given the high level of corruption at many Russian clinics.”
Proponents of the program argue that, since it began in 2005, it has been extraordinarily successful in fighting illegal drug rings and drug related crimes. Of course it’s rarely mentioned that the program only involved 127 heroin addicts. Theodore Dalrymple, a diehard critic of “drug maintenance programs” and author of “Romancing Opiates: Pharmacological Lies and the Addiction Bureaucracy,” said:
The patients are self-selected: they have some motivation to change, otherwise they would not have attended the clinic in the first place. Only a minority of addicts attend, and therefore it is not safe to conclude that, if other addicts were to receive methadone, their criminal activity would similarly diminish.
In fact, the study’s coordinators had difficulty recruiting volunteers because the eligibility criteria and demands of the program were so stringent.
Furthermore, Dalrymple suggested that the real difference between the before and after crime rate could be “considerably less” because “the patients have an incentive to exaggerate it to secure the continuation of their methadone.”
As proof, other countries that have implemented similar programs with larger groups have reported little if any success. Neil McKeganey, of the Centre for Drug Misuse Research at Glasgow University, pointed out that in Scotland 22,000 people are on methadone but there has been no “linked reduction in crime or in the deaths of addicts.”
Even parts of England that have participated in drug maintenance programs have failed to improve. For example, in Liverpool 2,000 people are prescribed methadone for their drug addictions but it’s still the world capital of drug-motivated burglary.
In fact, the program could actually do more harm than good. A shocking 2007 Justice Department study discovered that buprenorphine – another opium derivative that was being used to treat heroin addicts in prison – became the third drug of choice for addicts after marijuana and heroin itself. Similar studies discovered that buprenorphine was 15 times as addictive as heroin.
But even if the program isn’t helping drug abusers kick their habits, the government argues that at least it’s having a big impact on crime … or is it? The British government views an addict as “a person who is ill, like someone with pneumonia, whom it is the duty of the system – the paraphernalia of doctors, nurses, social workers, drug counselors and so forth – to cure.” Therefore, the government believes that if it gives addicts free needles, then they won’t “steal, rob, and burgle.” But the premise is wrong.
The majority of heroin addicts already had an extensive criminal record before they tried heroin for the first time. In other words, criminality is more likely to cause addiction than addiction is to cause criminality.
So if this program doesn’t cure addicts and it doesn’t prevent crime, what other options are there?
First, drug addiction needs to be viewed as a choice, not an illness. Mao Zedong, the former leader of China, cured 20 million opium addicts over just one weekend by announcing that anyone still addicted would be shot on Monday. Dalrymple gave a less extreme example with the “huge numbers of American servicemen addicted … to heroin during the Vietnam war.” He said:
Almost all of them gave up spontaneously soon after their return to the US, and two years later their rate of addiction was no higher than that among drafted conscripts who never made it to Vietnam because the war ended.
And addiction doesn’t come from a one-time adventure, or even a few episodes. In fact, addicts usually spend a year intermittently using heroin before they decide to use it regularly.
Addiction is a choice, and with that choice, the responsibility falls on the addicts – not the government – to walk away from that disastrous life. Perhaps that’s why drug abstinence programs are more successful than drug maintenance programs. The addict has made the choice and “maintaining” even small doses of the drug isn’t acceptable.
It’s hard to believe that with this much information easily accessible via Internet that CNN could present even a small portion of the other side of the story.

Source: www.newsbusters.org 14th Oct.2009

September 29, 2009

A recent analysis of official reports on the Sydney Kings Cross injecting room confirmed that unavailability of heroin is of far greater significance in preventing heroin deaths than the availability of injecting rooms.
Less than 9,800 drug users were registered at Kings Cross, a small number of illicit drug users in New South Wales. Most drug users lived well away from Kings Cross and used the rooms only occasionally so most drug use was elsewhere.
The severe heroin drought at the end of 2000 led to the reduction in drug deaths. In fact, timely ambulance attendance is more likely to prevent a drug death than any other factor.
Source: Kings Cross Injecting Centre Fails to Reduce Overdose Deaths, Dr Sullivan PhD. Click here for the research.
DRUG ADVISORY COUNCIL OF AUSTRALIA COMMENTS
This study confirms overseas research that indicates that injecting rooms are a failure and are being closed down. Restriction of illicit drug supply is effective in reducing use and deaths.
Reducing the demand for illicit drugs is a key to successful drug policy.
Drug policy should divert identified drug users into court ordered and supervised detoxification and rehabilitation to get them drug free.
THE DRUG ADVISORY COUNCIL SUPPORTS:
• More detoxification & rehabilitation that gets illicit drug users drug free.
• Court ordered and supervised detoxification & rehabilitation.
• Less illicit drug users, drug pushers and drug related crimes.
Posted at 10:40 AM in News, Policies, legislation | Permalink
Comments
A very good point. So let’s destroy the heroin fields in Afghanistan!
Posted by: Frugal Dougal | September 29, 2009 at 04:54 PM
There were 2,106 overdose “events” treated at the Centre during the trial period. Nobody died during this time and yet, according to the study, no deaths were necessarily prevented, because these people could have been treated by paramedics or in a hospital ED.
True – as long as they were using with a responsible friend who could call out an ambulance. But the target group, street injecters, often don’t.
It is impossible to say exactly how many of these 2,000+ events would have been fatal had they happened elsewhere, but to choose instead to look for the effect of a single clinic by using overall population data is misguided, or just plain dishonest.
What this study shows most clearly is that people will take the evidence that suits their ideology and use it to attack the good work that is being done by others, simply because, in their opinion, it is “wrong”. Whether lives are saved, or not, is secondary.
Posted by: Adam Baxter | September 30, 2009 at 10:59 AM

NDPA COMMENT
The following item on BBC Online (Newsbeat) 13th July has a spokesperson from the Department of Health declaring that “The government has invested £406 million for drug treatment in 2009/10, of which £24.7 million is available to support young people’s treatment,” … And yet the only residential rehab in the country for those age under 18, Middlegate Lodge, is fighting closure for lack of funds. ‘Treatment’ in the UK often means methadone maintenance (useless for cocaine addiction) or counselling sessions for a few weeks – also useless if the young person is still living in the same area and meeting the same using friends. The Department of Health and the National Treatment Agency need to seriously re-consider ‘treatment’ – and not only for young people – and to seriously invest in more effective drug prevention.

Cocaine A&E cases hit record high
Seventeen people a week are now being admitted to accident and emergency departments after taking cocaine, according to official government figures seen by Newsbeat.

More than one million people regularly use cocaine in the UK
Doctors treated 894 people in England for a “cocaine-induced health emergency” in 2007/8, compared with 740 in 2006/7 and just 448 in 2003/4.
The total number of people taken to hospital after using any type of illegal drug has risen 45% in five years to 9,543, according to the figures obtained by the Liberal Democrats.

“These statistics are really shocking,” said the Liberal Democrat health spokesman Norman Lamb. The price of cocaine has come down significantly but at the same time it has also [become] chic. That hides the massive health risks.”

Health problems
More than one million people regularly use cocaine in the UK – more than any other European country – according to the UN’s latest report.

Snorting the drug in large or strong quantities often leads to hallucinations and disorientation. At the extreme end “cocaine poisoning” can occur where the user starts fitting and vomiting.
Cocaine use also constricts blood vessels and can result in a rise in body temperature, burst blood vessels and, in some cases, death from brain seizures, heart failure and respiratory problems.
Research in the medical journal Circulation suggests that up to 25% of heart attacks in people under 30 can be blamed on regular cocaine use, instead of the more typical coronary artery disease.
John, not his real name, from Northampton told Newsbeat he collapsed in a pub after months of serious cocaine use.
“I had bought coke that day and had been using it. As the night went on I got more paranoid to the point where not a lot was making sense. That’s when the anxiety set in,” he said.
“I remember getting up and thinking I need to get out and within five steps I collapsed and started having fits on the floor. It felt as if I was being kicked to pieces on the ground.”
“I can’t remember a great deal from that evening. I went straight to hospital and was seen by the mental assessment team and that is when I realised I needed to change my life.”

Falling price, growing use
Doctors say the falling price of cocaine means users are more likely to take larger amounts on a night out, increasing the risk of an accidental overdose. The average street price of the drug is now down to £42 a gram – partly because it is increasingly cut with other chemicals – according to the charity DrugScope.

That could make a line more dangerous as people either react badly to the cutting agent or get used to the low purity making them more vulnerable if they accidentally come across a strong batch.
The government’s drug advisors warned last year that they are seeing more cases of young people ending up in hospital after snorting lines of MDMA – or powdered ecstasy – thinking it was cocaine.
Kerry, 23, from Kent, told Newsbeat she had a couple of bad nights on coke before deciding to stop taking the drug for good.
“I was doing too much of it. I remember being sick a few times and eventually I was found underneath the building fitting with my eyes rolling up the back of my head,” she told Newsbeat.
“I don’t remember any of it. I just remember waking up with my friends in front of me crying. They wanted to call an ambulance but I just about managed to come round but was hazy for about three days.”

‘Record investment’
Six months later one of Kerry’s best friends died on a night out after taking the drug.
“She hadn’t touched it for a while and then one weekend she got the wrong sort of stuff – which was mixed with MDMA and some other things – and then once it went up her nose it killed her,” she said.
“By the time she got to the hospital it was too late; she died in the ambulance. I was devastated because we both just thought it was a bit of fun and it would never happen to us.”
While government surveys show that drug use as a whole has fallen since records began in 1995, the number of adults taking cocaine has risen from 0.6% in 1994 to 2.3% last year.
A spokesperson for the Department of Heath said tackling drug misuse remains a priority.
“The government has invested £406 million for drug treatment in 2009/10, of which £24.7 million is available to support young people’s treatment,” she said.
“Drugs use amongst young people is actually declining. Thanks to record investment, specialist substance misuse services have expanded greatly and there are now more young people getting treatment.
“This is encouraging and reflects our continuing efforts to tackle drug use amongst young people.”

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

Drug treatment programmes are only successful for around half of the drug addicts who enrol on them, figures have shown.

Health minister, Dawn Primarolo, said just 35,441 patients out of 69,612 were given “successful discharges” from structured treatment programmes in 2007-08. This works out at about 51%.

That left 34,171 patients who failed to complete their treatment for drug misuse, figures released in a written parliamentary answer to shadow home secretary Dominic Grieve showed.

This included 19,591 – or 28% – who simply dropped out or left, with a 2,169 turning down the treatment and 2,078 having treatment withdrawn. A total of 4,240 (6%) failed to complete their course due to be admitted to prison.

Of the successful cases, only 11% were considered to be “completely free of using illegal drugs”. This totalled about 7,324 ex-users. The remainder were either using drugs in a “non-dependent way” or were referred on to other services.

Source: Nursing in Practice 15th Jan 2009

Last month this blog highlighted an article by Times columnist Libby Purves about late night policing in Ipswich and pointed out the lack of formal sanctions she saw being used while spending a shift with officers dealing mainly with pub and club goers. In particular, the following passage demonstrated the light touch policing method employed:
I question PC Rafferty about his interpretation of “drunk and disorderly”, since one in five of those around us is now, in my view, disorderly. If there were any peace they would be breaching it. He laughs: “Drunk and hopeless.” There aren’t enough cells, or time for the paperwork. The police merely contain the bingers, keep them friendly. By and large it works.
I then asked whether this did in fact ‘work’, and questioned if merely managing or containing drunken and disorderly behaviour was preferable to a more comprehensive solution.Another Times article a few days later by Anjana Ahuja outlined evidence from experiments which help confirm the ‘broken windows’ theory – that tolerating minor wrongdoing results in more serious crime and disorder. One of the experiments conducted was outlined thus:
Dr Keizer’s team left an envelope hanging out of a postbox; the stamped and addressed envelope had a window through which could clearly be seen a five-euro note. How would passers-by, or those posting a letter, react when they saw it? The vast majority (87 per cent) either left it alone, or pushed it into the postbox. Only 13 per cent took it away (this was regarded as stealing).

But roughing up the environment had a dramatic effect. When the postbox was tagged with graffiti, 27 per cent of people stole the letter. When the postbox was surrounded by rubbish (but not graffitied), 25 per cent pocketed the cash.

The academics, who reported their startling results last month in Science, suggest that disorder does indeed beget disorder; when one social or legal norm is obviously violated, we are tempted to loosen our grip on others.
The broken windows theory forms the basis for zero tolerance policing. But, as the experience of policing in Ipswich demonstrates, the reality on the ground is arguably nearer to zero enforcement than the more robust approach required by the science, which in turn perhaps provides some insight into why the UK has such a self-evident law and order problem.

Another important facet of this debate is how out of touch the powers that be – desk-bound senior police officers, politicians, councillors and public servants – are with what happens at the sharp end of policing, and the implications this has for policy-making. Yet another recent Times article provides some evidence relating to this. In a piece about drugs legislation and enforcement, Andy Hayman, an ex-assistant commissioner at Scotland Yard, argues that the reclassification of cannabis and ecstasy will make little difference to policing on the ground. In relation to the bureaucracy he says:
I used to serve on the [Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs] in my capacity as the leading police officer on drugs policy. By the end of my stint I felt that its detachment from grassroots reality had eroded its credibility. Its purpose seemed to be to generate endless rounds of meetings and glossy reports to send to ministers.

Up to 70 members – made up of representatives from all sorts of government and voluntary bodies – attended the unwieldy full meetings, which were supported by a plethora of smaller working groups and sub-committees. I was always struck by how the experience of those living in the thick of the drugs problem got lost among the grey suits having highbrow technical and medical discussions.
As regards enforcement and prosecution:
The council would be horrified to learn that its recommendations on drugs classification are not taken seriously. But that is the case. The public either don’t understand the process or are not interested in it. For the police, the advisory council is a sideshow; officers prefer to apply their professional discretion on whether to caution or arrest suspects.

Put bluntly, how a drug is classified doesn’t help police officers in their day-to-day duties. The first thought of an officer confronted by a user of an illegal drug is to weigh up whether the possession warrants anything more than a caution. To make an arrest and charge doesn’t guarantee a prosecution so it may be simpler to deal with it on the street. That decision is made regardless of the classification of the drug involved.

For the courts, categorising a drug does help to provide a tariff for punishment. But even that idea has become dated as the Crown Prosecution Service now tends to apply its own prosecution guidelines. In practice, the classification of a drug does not significantly change how the courts or police deal with drug offenders.
Of course, these examples are a mere microcosm of the bigger problem, but extrapolate them to policing and crime generally – not to mention the even bigger picture of government and the public services – and the implications are surely self-evident.
About this site
Planet Politics is about disillusionment with the political process.
Planet Politics has absolutely no links to any political party, pressure group or the press, and is best described as anti-politics rather than non-aligned.

Source: planet–politics.blogspot.com Feb 2009

Should cannabis be decriminalised or not? Should it be classifed as a class B or C drug? Debates are irrelevant while they are entrenched in misinformation and disinformation
This article by Deirdre Boyd appeared in Addiction Today, November 2000 – before the ACMD advised then Home Secretary David Blunkett to reclassify it downwards to a class C drug. On the urging of prime minister Gordon Brown, the ACMD is again hearing evidence this February. The facts here have not dated – in fact, more recent research validates them further.
The most noticeable factor in ongoing debates about cannabis is the vast foundation of ignorance on which people are basing the most emotive, entrenched arguments. The fewer facts people have, the more heated they seem to be. This country needs a strategy of health information about cannabis which is as available and comprehensive as that eventually offered by anti-tobacco campaigners.
Cigarette smoking started to reduce because people were – after a battle spanning decades – given the facts about its risks. Cannabis smokers also deserve the truth so that they can make informed decisions about their own health and that of their families.
For example, are the people – including government ministers – who argue that they took pot in the 1960s and 1970s without any harm aware that the pot/marijuana/cannabis of today is not the same substance they took back then? Like every other profitable product, cannabis has been refined over the decades so that it is now four to 12 times more potent than it was 20 years ago.
So, for the moment, let’s put to one side the legal and criminal ramifications and look at what studies show about the effects of cannabis on health.
IDENTIFIABLE SYMPTOMS
When asked by a teacher suspicious of wide swings in academic performance in some of his students what symptoms could help to identify a pupil using cannabis, Dr James West of the Betty Ford Center gave the following answer.
“Cannabis affects the cerebral, cardiovascular, pulmonary and neuroregulatory systems. Acute or chronic use leads to: euphoria, decreased mental functioning, faster pulse, decreased pulmonary function, exacerbation of asthma, conjunctival injection (red eyes), pharyngitis (sore throat), bronchitis, stuff nose, dry mouth, sinusitis, perceptual delusions, paranoia, mood shifts, sleepiness, sexual arousal, anxiety/panic, lethargy and lack of ambition, plus angina in a pre-existing heart disease.
“The symptoms of overdose are very rapid pulse, very high blood pressure, delusions, hallucinations, seizures in epileptics and acute mental changes including psychosis. There are also withdrawal signs for regular users who quit abruptly: irritability, restlessness, insomnia, mild tremors/ bouts of chills and sometimes a low-grade fever.”
CANCER
A report by the British Medical Association found that smoking a cannabis cigarette leads to three times more tar inhalation than from a tobacco cigarette – and long-term use can lead to lung cancer. Dr West states that cannabis contaiins four to five times the lung-cancer-producing hydrocarbons as does tobacco.
BRONCHITIS AND OTHER RESPIRATORY DISORDERS
Such disorders linked with smoking can also be caused by long-term use. It is unclear if there is more risk of these disorders than with tobacco. But cannabis users tend to inhale more deeply and the drug does contain more tar. “Cannabis irritates the respiratory system and obstructs smaller airways with a form of bronchitis-emphysema,” explains Dr West.
HEART PROBLEMS
The heart responds to cannabis with an increased heart rate proportional to the dose of the drug. Usually, after smoking pot, the heart rate increased by 20-40 beats per minute, and rapid rates of 140 beats per minute are not unusual. Chronic use can lead to angina in people with pre-existing heart problems.
ADDICTION
Although infamous for recommending the decriminalisation of cannabis, the Runciman Report states that “the number of people seeking help from drug agencies for problems with cannabis use has doubled from 1,400 in 1993 to 3,300 in 1998 (10% of the total seeking help). This is only the people who identified cannabis as their “main drug”.
Cannabis is addictive, concludes a survey by the US National Institute of Drug Abuse. It found that 75% of people who gave up cannabis had cravings for it, and 70% switched to tobacco in an attempt to stay off. Almost 50% said they became irritable and many were bored after giving up the drug.
And in more recent experiments with monkeys, a NIDA team warned that cannabis might be as addictive as heroin and cocaine.
A 1994 report from the Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University found that 60% of children who smoked pot before the age of 15 years moved on to cocaine, and 20% of those who first smoked pot after age 16 then used cocaine.
RELAXING QUALITIES versus DEMOTIVATION & DEPRESSION
Cannabis is best known as a relaxant. This can lead to lower blood pressure, increased appetite, feelings of relaxation, mild intoxication and increased sociability. Smokers usually feel its effects in minutes and they can last up to three hours. The effect is delayed when eating or drinking, so that it lasts longer and can be harder to control. And the relaxing effect can go too far. Research shows that cannabis affects almost ever bodily system, slowing down reaction times, causing drowsiness and confusion.
MEMORY LOSS
Because cannabis is absorbed into the brain cell wall, it is considered more destructive to brain tissue than opioids. Heavy use impairs general intellectual functioning such as memory and comprehension. Even in small doses, dope smoking is known to cause short-term memory loss.
ACCIDENTS
Even “casual use” of cannabis impairs psychomotor skills like those needed to drive a car. It increases the chance of a traffic accident or accidents while operating machinery.
LEARNING IMPAIRMENT
Studies sow that regular heavy use can cause nerve damage and affect learning.
HALLUCINATIONS, PARANOID DELUSIONS
These can result from even small doses. Anxiety and panic are common.
COORDINATION
This, too, is affected by cannabis.
COMA
High doses can cause coma. But we are not aware of any records of fatal overdose.
PSYCHOTIC ILLNESS
“It can have adverse psychic effects ranging from temporary distress, through transient psychosis, to the exacerbation of pre-existing mental illness,” the Runciman Report states about cannabis.
Dr Andrew Silski, consultant psychiatrist and medical director at Pembury Hospital in Tunbridge Wells, backs this. “I estimate taht 75% of the young people I see suffering psychotic illness have a history of cannabis abuse,” he revealed.
The drug contains hundreds of active ingredients, most importantly cannabinoids, which interfere with the chemical functioning of the brain. Its most serious effect seems to be depleting neurotransmitters – such as dopamine, which is linked with pleasure – and hindering electrical currents vital for brain function.
People with personality disorders can succumb to amotivational syndrome. They lose motivation, drive and willpower, leading to depression. This can damage education, work prospects and relationships.
“There is also an unknown number of people with a mental or chemical predisposition for psychotic illness,” states Wilski. “In them, cannabis can trigger altered moods, confusion, delusions or hallucinations. Cannabis also has a profoundly worrying effect on people with unspecific brain impairment or weakness, such as dyslexia. And it is no coincidence that some ethnic communities, in which cannabis use is endemic, suffer hugely increased levels of psychosis: six to 20 times greater than the norm.”
FALL IN FERTILITY
Abnormalities can occur in the reproductive systems of men and women. Cannabis can cause irregularities in the menstrual cycle. And studies of males have shown reduced sperm count and mobility as well as sperm of abnormal appearance. Sterility and infertility have occurred in users.
LEUKAEMIA IN CHILDREN OF USERS
Smoking pot in pregnancy has been found to be linked to a form of leukaemia in infants.
The facts are here. The choice is yours.
Source: Addiction Today, November 2000

In Britain, Europe’s biggest consumer of narcotics, the Home Office reckons that drugs are brought in by about 300 major importers, who pass them to 30,000 wholesalers and then to 70,000 street dealers. Cocaine, meaning both the sniffable powder and smokable “rocks” of crack cocaine (which can be made using a simple microwave), accounts for about half the value of this industry, being less widely taken than cannabis but much pricier.
Some rare light was shed on the business by a Home Office study in 2007, in which 222 drug-dealers were interviewed in prison by analysts from Matrix Knowledge Group, a consultancy, and the London School of Economics. One dealing partnership, based in London and Spain, bought cocaine from a Colombian importer in 10kg bundles, which they sold to retailers using an employee whom they paid £500 ($703) per transaction. A second employee, paid £250 a day, would collect money from the buyers and pass it to a third member of staff, who would count it (processing up to £220,000 each day). Other employees would pay the Colombians and smuggle the rest of the cash, on their bodies, back to Spain.
Most drug businesses are forced to stay small and simple to evade the police. Only one dealer claimed to be part of an organisation of more than 100 people, and a fifth were classified by researchers as sole traders. Fear of being uncovered also hampers recruitment: most dealers stuck to family and friends, and people from the same ethnic group, when hiring associates. Just like other businessmen, they carried out criminal-record background checks on potential employees—except that, in this case, a record was a good thing.
Kevin Marsh, an economist at Matrix Knowledge, argues that most players in the drug business have a poor knowledge of the market. “Shopping around for new wholesale suppliers is risky, so many retailers stick to the same one and pay over the odds,” he says. Most of the dealers interviewed knew little about the purity of what they were buying, and money laundering was usually fairly shambolic. Managing cashflow is one of dealers’ biggest weaknesses, according to one drug specialist at the Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA): “Supply of powder is the most resilient thing. To destroy the business, you have to go after the money.” That, and extradite foreign dealers, as America has long done. Britain is believed to be negotiating its first-ever extradition of a Colombian, on drug charges, at the moment.
Times may at last be getting harder for cocaine-dealers. Shortly before Christmas, the wholesale price in Britain shot up to £40,000 per kilo, the highest in years. Better policing was one cause; another was the slump of sterling. European retailers’ margins have been chipped away. To protect their profits, dealers are diluting what they sell. A decade ago, average street-level purity was about 60%; police say it is now nearer 30%. “People think there is a lot of cocaine around, but two thirds of it isn’t cocaine at all,” says one SOCA officer.
That would be fine if the remainder were talcum powder. But in the past few years dealers have turned to pharmaceutical cutting agents such as benzocaine, a topical anaesthetic, which mimic the effects of cocaine and may be more harmful. Dealers call such agents “magic” because of their effect on profits. “Grey traders”, who knowingly sell such chemicals to dealers, are starting to be convicted.
Educating drug-takers about what is getting up their noses may lower demand. But cutting raises bigger questions for drug policy. “We may have to say at some stage that taking heavily adulterated cocaine is more physically harmful to the user than taking cocaine that’s less adulterated,” a senior SOCA official says. “That is not the case at the moment. But we’ve got to keep asking the question. I’m aware that the health equation could one day say: Stop trying to stop cocaine coming in.”
Source: Economist.com 5 March 2009

Notwithstanding research carried out by the National Treatment Agency (NTA) which clearly established that the majority of those who have developed dependence, wish to become drug free; here in the UK, the focus for the past 10 years has been on ‘harm reduction’, rather than seeking to engage users into abstinence focused recovery. The outcome of this disastrous and misguided policy has been an escalation in drug related deaths which are at their highest for 5 years, 325 of which are attributed to methadone, the flagship of the harm reductionists, together with a devastating increase in the spread of blood born disease among Injecting Drug Users (IDUs) The statistics provided by the Health Protection Agency for England and Wales are as follows:

• The level of HIV infection among Injecting Drug Users (IDUs) in England and Wales is higher now than at the start of the decade.

• In London where the prevalence of HIV in IDUs is higher than elsewhere in England and Wales, 1 in 20 IDUs is infected.

• In the remainder of England and Wales HIV among IDUs has increased from approximately 1 in 400 in 2002 to around 1 in 150 in 2006.

• The prevalence of Hepatitis C among IDUs has increased from 33 percent in 2000 to 42 per cent in 2006.

• Approximately 1 in 5 IDUs has Hepatitis B infection, which extrapolates as an increase approaching 200 per cent since 1997.

The escalating increase in blood born disease has occurred despite the plethora of needle exchange facilities throughout England and Wales, and the growth of supervised drug consumption rooms

It is self evident from the foregoing that here in the UK at least, it is not the lack of harm reduction measures which is contributing to avoidable deaths and the epidemic of blood born disease being wreaked on our society, but the use of toxic psycho active substances.

It is not so called prohibition which has failed, but the encouragement by way of the tacit permission, and in many instances, the not so tacit encouraging of continued use, inherent in the harm reduction ideology, which has failed users and society so abysmally.

The supporters of Harm Reduction, under their various guises have never allowed the truth to interfere with their propaganda, or indeed their more covert agenda, to legalise drug use; the main beneficiaries of which would be the pharmaceutical industry. Such a move would be to inflict further incalculable harm on society, since it would result in a growth of use and addiction, similar, if not more widespread, to that seen in the late 1800’s when most of the drugs which are controlled today, were in fact legal.

The growth of drug use during that period was the direct result of concerted efforts by leading members of the medical profession in promoting drug use, many of whom were influenced by Sigmund Freud, who was so unethical in his dealings that he accepted separate commissions from two competeing, large pharmaceutical companies, both of whom are still in business today, to write papers extolling the benefits of that destructive substance, cocaine, not only as the ‘elixir of life’, but also as a cure for alcohol and morphine addiction. The rest as they say is history

One has to ask is it a coincidence that many of the bodies, who are pressing for an end to what they term as prohibition, receive ‘research grants’ from the pharmaceutical industry?
Source: Daily Dose; posted by Peter O’Loughlin on 13 Mar 2009 at 6:23 am

By Seth Freedman – Guardian columnist – 5th June 2009.

A simplistic advertising campaign masks the corrosive, corrupting nature of narcotics
Yesterday afternoon, I met Release’s spokeswoman Claudia Rubin outside Old Street station in London. In a perfect piece of vehicular choreography, the first bus to veer past us at the roundabout bore the slogan “Nice People Take Drugs”, the phrase Rubin coined for Release’s latest campaign to kickstart a drug-policy debate.
The advert’s minimalist design was, she told me, inspired by the atheist bus campaign which caused such a stir last year. Release’s version dispenses with pictures or logos, relying instead on bold, orange lettering to convey the four-word mantra to street level. As marketing strategies go, it is a stroke of genius – guaranteed to achieve maximum impact, and luring viewers towards Release’s website to pique their curiosity.
However, the brilliance of the way the message is marketed does not automatically render brilliant the message itself. The intention behind the campaign is to attempt to break the societal taboo on drugs. According to Release, “the public is tired of the artificial representation of drugs in society” – informing passers-by that “nice people take drugs” will help “de-stigmatise drug use”, says Rubin.
Which is all well and good, but the fact that “nice” people have their faults doesn’t mean that their failings should be decriminalised and tolerated by everyone else. Nice people also break the speed limit, download pirated music, and commit any number of apparently minor misdemeanours, but the law isn’t meant to bend to accommodate such immoral behaviour just because a critical mass of people partake in a certain activity.
Defining what makes a nice person is, of course, an utterly subjective matter – as Release knows full well – as is determining at what point a person’s misdeeds turn them from nice to nasty. On one level Release is right: Rubin and I have been friends since we were 12, and the circles in which we mixed would definitely have passed the “nice” test, despite the vast majority of us having done drugs throughout our teenage years.
That we all came, saw and conquered our own mini-addictions and vices without turning to crime or violence is testament to our triumph over temptation, but to pass off our drug use as simply part and parcel of life is to gloss over the darker side of our experiences. Using drugs as an escape route, or a quick fix to our problems, was not a “nice” way to behave. Implying that drug abuse is socially acceptable, as Release are doing via their adverts, is not a noble message to hurl at impressionable children and teenagers who are unable to spot the nuance and meaning behind the stark sloganeering.
To claim, simplistically, that “nice people take drugs” masks the corrosive, corrupting nature of narcotics, as well as the underlying void they fill in users’ lives. The desire to get wasted – to blot out reality and allow substances to numb one’s senses to the present – is a desperate urge, and one which has held vast swaths of society in a vice-like grip since time immemorial. Ridding people of that impulse would do wonders for both their mental and physical health; bowing to so-called public demand and sugar-coating the truth about the dangers of drugs simply passes off as acceptable a wholly insidious behavioural streak.
Release believes that “the current [proscriptive] system has brought us powerful drugs like crack cocaine, skunk, and methamphetamine”, suggesting that the ban on the underlying narcotics has prompted cartels to invent stronger and deadlier variants of the original product. Such a theory is backwards: the demand for more potent strains is what spurs suppliers into action, not the other way round. I smoked skunk with my friends to achieve a deeper and darker haze: the legal status of cannabis was neither here nor there, just as those addicted to high-grade whisky or vodka couldn’t care less whether or not 3% lager is authorised for sale or not.
Addiction is a disease that affects tens of thousands of people in every generation. Allowing greater access to drugs will, as with alcohol and tobacco, only put more vulnerable citizens in temptation’s way – which neither Release nor anyone else should want to happen. Just as speeding laws shouldn’t be changed despite their impact on those drivers able to safely handle a car at 100mph, so too must drugs remain illegal to prevent risking the lives of the majority of the population.
Of the four words in Release’s advert, two leave too much open to interpretation: “nice” and “drugs”. “Good people smoke crack” would be a far more blunt and direct way to make the same point, but whether their message would be so blithely tolerated by the advertising authorities or the public is another matter – highlighting the essential error of drugs campaigning in the first place.
Source: Guardian.co.uk 5th June 2009Seth Freedman is a writer living in Jerusalem. He grew up in Hampstead Garden Suburb and worked as a stockbroker in the City for six years, before moving to Israel. Seth Freedman has written articles published in The Guardian and The Times – 81 articles published in 14 news websites since April 2008. No email address known for Seth Freedman.

Comment by NDPA:

The publicity provoked by the ‘Bus Slogan’ campaign by Release talks of ‘opening the drug debate’. This debate has been on-going for at least thirty years – and every time those who want to legalise drugs, or change the existing laws, lose the argument. They lie low for a few months. Then up they rise like a phoenix and declare ‘we must have a debate about drugs’. What they actually mean is ‘we must keep on debating about drugs until we get the answer we want’. Release and others of that ilk persistently turn a blind eye to the fact that the vast majority of the public (in the UK and worldwide) do not use illegal drugs themselves and they do not want their families impacted by the use of drugs by others. Drugs are unhealthy, unlawful, antisocial and unnecessary. Nice policies don’t accept drugs.

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

More than 11,000 children under 16 years old were treated last year for addictions to alcohol and drugs, including heroin, according to new figures released this week.
The National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse puts the total figure of children treated at 11,294. This includes 6,075 under-16s addicted to cannabis, of which 102 are under 12 years old.
More than 4,000 children received help for alcoholism, including 57 under-12s.
The children addicted to class A drugs included ten under-12s who were dependent on heroin, out of 93 under-16s. A further 323 children were treated for cocaine misuse, 165 for ecstasy, and 36 for crack.
Conservative Health Secretary Andrew Lansley said the government is neglecting a ‘forgotten generation’ of children. “It’s a sad indictment of our broken society that so many are turning to things like drug and alcohol abuse at such a young age” he said.
The Department of Health said the high figures were due to an increase in spending on treatment, a rise of £10million, from £15million to £25million in the past five years,
Funding for the government’s national anti-drug campaign which is aimed at teenagers has been cut by 41 per cent from £9.05million in 2006-7 to £5.35million today.
Charity Drugscope offered an optimistic approach to the figures, saying the overall numbers of young people using illegal drugs has fallen in recent years, especially cannabis.
Source: www.askamum.co.uk 8th July 2009

Resolutions agreed by the Executive Council will obviously be subject to change and augmentation as NDPA itself grows. Full listing of Resolutions is available on request, but this brief synopsis gives a good measure of NDPA’s current strategy:
• NDPA will campaign for Prevention’s potential to be fulfilled, especially for the very young: a rational and ‘seamless’ set of policies across all age ranges is the aim; these should ideally combine to form a ‘Systems Approach’ which unites and empowers all sections of society.
• Policies and programmes should have the aim of healthy lifestyles free of drug misuse. Policies that condone or encourage drug use based on ‘Harm Reduction’ are not acceptable. Treatment interventions seeking to limit damage with known individual drug users have their place, but must be accompanied by an unequivocal health-promoting message. (As National Strategy indicates).
• NDPA supports laws and justice systems which reinforce drug-free and wholly healthy lifestyles, and endorses efforts to maintain and improve this situation. NDPA seeks improved, more accurate public information and far more accuracy and balance in the media. NDPA supports adherence to scientific research standards and ethics prescribed by the world scientific community.

History has valuable lessons to teach policy makers but it reveals its lessons only grudgingly. Close analyses of the facts and their relevance is required lest policy makers fall victim to the persuasive power of false analogies and are misled into imprudent judgments.¬ Just such a danger is posed by those who casually invoke “The lessons¬ of Prohibition” to argue for the legalization of drugs.What everyone “knows” about Prohibition is that it was a failure. It did not eliminate drinking; it did create a black market. That in turn spawned criminal syndicates and random violence. Corruption and widespread disrespect for law were incubated and, most tellingly, Prohibition was repealed only 14 years after it was enshrined in the Constitution.

The lesson drawn by commentators is that it is fruitless to allow moralists to use criminal law to control intoxicating substances. Many now say it is equally unwise to rely on the law to solve the nation’s drug problem.

But the conventional view of Prohibition is not supported by the facts.

First, the regime created in 1919 by the Volstead Act, which charged the Treasury Department with enforcement of the new restrictions, was far from all-embracing. The amendment prohibited the commercial manufacture and distribution of alcoholic beverages: it did not prohibit use, nor production for one’s own consumption. Moreover, the provisions did not take effect until a year after passage ¬– plenty of time for people to stockpile supplies.

Second, alcohol consumption de¬clined dramatically during Prohibition. Cirrhosis death rates for men were 29.5 per 100,000 in 1911 and 10.7 in 1929. Admissions to state mental hospitals for alcoholic psychosis declined from 10.1 per 100,000 in 1919 to 4.7 in 1928.

Arrests for public drunkenness and disorderly conduct declined 50 percent between 1916 and 1922. For the population as a whole, the best estimates are that consumption of alcohol declined by 30 percent to 50 percent.

Third, violent crime did not increase dramatically during Prohibition. Homicide rates rose dramatically from 1900 to 1910 but remained roughly constant during Prohibition’s 14 year rule. Organized crime may have become more visible and lurid during Prohibition, but it existed before and after.

Fourth, following the repeal of Prohibition, alcohol consumption increased. Today, alcohol is estimated to be the cause of more than 23,000 motor vehicle deaths and is implicated in more than half of the nation’s 20,000 homicides.

In contrast, drugs have not yet been persuasively linked to highway fatalities and are believed to account for 10 percent, and 10- 20 percent of homicides.

Prohibition did not end alcohol use. What is remarkable, however, Is that a relatively narrow political movement, relying on a relatively weak set of statutes, succeeded in reducing, by one-third, the consumption of a drug that had wide historical and popular sanction.

This is not to say that society was wrong to repeal Prohibition. A. democratic society may decide that recre¬ational drinking is worth the price¬ — traffic fatalities and other consequences. But the common claim that laws backed by morally motivated political movements cannot reduce drug use is wrong.

Not only are the facts of Prohibition misunderstood, but the lessons are ¬misapplied to the current situation.

The U.S. is in the early to middle stages of a potentially widespread cocaine epidemic. If the line is held now, we can prevent new users and increasing casualties. So this is exactly not the time to be considering a Liberalization of our laws on cocaine. We need a firm stand by society against cocaine use to extend and reinforce the messages that are being learned through painful personal experience and testimony.

The real lesson of Prohibition is that the society can, indeed, make a dent in the consumption of drugs through laws.

There is a price to be paid for such restrictions, of course. But for drugs such as heroin and cocaine, which are dangerous but currently largely unpopular, that price is small relative to the benefits.

Source: Mark H. Moore New York Times, October 16, 1989

Instead of fighting drug-related crime, we need to stop people taking drugs, says Iain Duncan SmithYesterday, the UK Drug Policy Commission recommended that the fight against drugs should focus on dealing with the criminal and anti-social elements that surround their sale. In other words, as long as drug dealers don’t start shooting each other, the police should turn a blind eye to their activities.

Yet the irony is that this plan has been followed all too often – with devastating consequences. In a notorious experiment in Brixton, dealers were left alone to sell cannabis, forcing local people to dodge them as they wandered up and down the streets, and to worry that their children would get caught up in the trade and the police would do nothing about it.

In Balsall Heath in Birmingham, the police also decided to leave the dealers to get on with their trade, preferring to monitor their activities. Residents saw front gardens became littered with needles, and prostitutes moved in. Thanks to the leadership of the sociologist Dick Atkinson, the community drove the dealers and the prostitutes out, and forced the police to treat them normally.

The truth is that the sort of communities where the police are being encouraged to adopt this approach are poor, with high deprivation, high crime and high levels of addiction – in other words, places that have already been written off, and which no one seems to care about. Just imagine the outrage if they suggested doing this to a middle-class suburb.

Yes, we have had a decade of failed drugs policy. But instead of more of the same, we should accept that the present policy has failed because it is centred on the wrong premise: that the purpose of our drugs strategy should be simply to minimise the harm that they do.

This approach is not only defeatist, but dangerous. It is a policy which seems to believe that so long as an addict doesn’t mug someone, kill them or rob their house, then that’s fine. It is a policy that parks addicts on methadone, entrenching addiction and ensuring that many of their children follow suit. It fails to address the problems of drugs and alcohol in terms of breaking the cycle of addiction, or in terms of recovery – which is why a significantly higher percentage of Britons are addicts than is the case with any of our neighbours. Rehabilitation treatment has been marginalised, with only a tiny number of addicts helped to get off drugs. The problem is made worse by the authorities’ failure to recognise that high levels of alcohol consumption among young people have a strong connection to the rise in the drugs culture.

Contrast this with Sweden, or even Holland. There, they understand that a successful drugs strategy needs to have a strong emphasis on clear laws, with the expectation they be policed. People are clear about what will happen if they are caught in possession of illegal drugs. In Holland, they spend three quarters of identifiable funding on law enforcement. Typically, this includes interdicting local production and trafficking. In the UK, the corresponding figure is far less, and there is little clarity about enforcement.

Second, these countries use the justice system to divert criminal drug users to care programmes, the purpose of which is to reduce reoffending and break the cycle of addiction. In Sweden, they tie successful involvement in such programmes to the expunging of the criminal record. Unlike in Britain, rehabilitation is seen as an integral part of the approach – and, unsurprisingly enough, the number of addicts as a proportion of the population is considerably lower than here.

What we need is not more rhetoric about a “war on drugs”, which is political nonsense. Instead, we must start a sustained process that aims to reduce drug-taking behaviour rather than containing it, and thus improves the quality of life for addicts, their families, and their communities.

Iain Duncan Smith is chairman of the Centre for Social Justice

Source: Telegraph UK. 30 July 2009

UK Advocates threatens legal action against health authorities providing drug-based treatments over rehabilitation. Alcohol dependency affects 1.1 million people
NHS authorities that offer alcoholics controlled drinking treatments relying on medication rather than total abstinence could face legal action from a patients’ organisation. UK Advocates, a pressure group campaigning for the wider availability of rehabilitation courses for addicts, is preparing to file claims against the Department of Health and local health services.
The charity maintains it has found evidence of thousands of patients with severe alcohol problems being given “psycho-active drugs” while they are still drinking. The combination, it is alleged, can be “potentially lethal” and is at odds with the manufacturer’s prescription advice and guidelines. “In many cases,” UK Advocates claims, “drugs and controlled drinking programmes are administered to sufferers without the doctor or clinicians involved having performed effective liver function tests to establish the extent of liver damage from excessive drinking.
“Treating alcoholics with drugs and on a basis of ‘moderation’ is similar to advising someone with lung cancer to cut down their smoking,” says Bob Beckett, founder of UK Advocates. “Controlled drinking programmes … hark back to the 1960s and 70s when we believed pharmaceuticals would cure everything, including addiction to alcohol. They simply have not worked.
“There are nearly one million people with alcohol problems taking up NHS beds. If we are serious about dealing with alcohol addiction then we have to look at cessation programmes, not drug-based detox, not hypnotherapy, but properly defined, intensive abstinence treatment.”
UK Advocates says its insistence on abstinence programmes follows guidelines adopted by the World Health Organisation (WHO). The organisation is now assessing whether programmes offered by primary care trusts (PCTs) meet “these statutory requirements as adopted by the European Union in accordance with WHO recommendations”. It says it will take “legal action against those it believes have been negligent by failing to offer day and residential abstinence treatments where clearly required”.
In May, the all-party parliamentary group on alcohol criticised “a general lack of capacity and variety in alcohol treatment services, due to poor levels of funding and, in some cases, a harm reduction agenda driven largely by crime and disorder rather than health considerations”. The committee found that although as many as 1.1 million people are classified as alcohol dependent nationally, only 1 in 18 enter any sort of specialist treatment each year. Spending on drug addiction outweighs that on alcohol dependency. UK Advocates says that it will issue proceedings in the administrative division of the high court “against PCTs and clinicians who may be proven to have acted negligently”.
Tom Gard, a spokesman for the group, said: “We have heard of someone who has been drinking two bottles of wine a day and has [only] been told to cut down to one and a half.” The charity claims that an audit of PCTs across the East Midlands and Yorkshire has revealed a picture, reflected nationwide, of many trusts offering no residential or intensive day abstinence treatment at all.
“In many areas those suffering from alcohol dependence are instead offered only ‘controlled drinking’ programmes, often without appropriate prior tests to establish whether or not the person needs to stop drinking completely to avoid developing serious physical and mental health problems.”
A Department of Health spokesperson said: “We have a comprehensive strategy to tackle health-related alcohol harm. The number of structured alcohol treatment places is increasing. Around 104,000 people were recorded as receiving treatment in 2007-08, against an estimated number of 63,000 in 2004.
“We have launched the alcohol improvement programme which assists PCTs in understanding local need and planning commissioning decisions. Most specialist alcohol services aim to help people reduce the harm associated with drinking. For those with moderate and severe dependence, this will usually involve advice and support to become abstinent, whether in the community or in-patient settings.
“Where a clinician considers medication would be the most appropriate treatment it is normal practice to discuss the effects and potential side-effects of the medication with the patient.”
Source: guardian.co.uk, Monday 3 August 2009

by Kathy Gyngell on Tuesday, 04 August 2009 09:51 Last week brought a new twist to the myth that law enforcement – hyperbolically designated as ‘prohibition’ by the pro drugs lobby – rather than drug use itself is the root of the country’s drug problem.

Tom Feiling, an advocate of legitimising of cocaine, a drug which pretty much he alone rates as neither dangerous nor addictive, started off the week’s drug debate. Plugging his new book, the equally hyperbolically titled, ‘The Candy Machine: how cocaine took over the world’, he pushed the view that pro drugs activists want us to buy – that you can’t stop people using drugs so don’t try. Conveniently bypassed was the fact that cocaine has only ‘taken over’ those countries where enforcement is weak and penalties and asset stripping are rarely or ineffectively imposed. He did not point out that the UK, far from being draconian in anything other than its imposition of methadone, is one such country – hence its rates of cocaine use 2 to 3 times higher than nearly every other country in Europe.

Not everyone bought into Tom’s take on the subject, Stuart Holmes, a medical student, for one. Expressing his horror at the impact of cocaine ‘on swathes of the population to whom the NHS directs so many of its resources’ he found ‘Tom Feiling’s tirade against the illegality of cocaine and other hard drugs a little galling.’ Instead of the balanced exposition of cocaine use in this country, discussion of the source of cocaine and the legal framework surrounding the drug here that he had expected, he found ‘a thinly veiled manifesto for the legalisation of hard drugs.’

Nor, did former Police Commander, Brian Paddick, he who infamously instigated the Brixton experiment of warning rather than arresting people found with cannabis (and many of the negative consequences that followed). Forcefully dissociating himself from Feiling on Sky News he stressed the total unacceptability of both cocaine and crack cocaine, outlining the violence and destruction of lives its use has led and does lead to, quite apart from that involved in its trafficking. He should know.

Nor, clearly, did he think much of the UK Drug Policy Commission’s (UKDPC) contribution to the debate also published this week disingenuously titled “Moving towards Real Impact Drug Enforcement”. When confronted with their innovatory contribution that some drug dealers but not others – the less violent ones – should officially be tolerated because (according to the UKDPC) arresting them ‘can increase violent crime’, he made clear this approach was both impracticable and wrong. His scepticism and his call for nothing less that a total change of social attitudes to a non acceptance of drug use – something singularly missing from any of the UKDPC reports – was an unexpected breath of fresh air. If we can change attitudes to smoking in a generation we can change them to drug use, he declared.

So where have the UKDPC’s ideas come from? They are premised on a variant of the discredited policy idea that only some drug use is harmful which, in this wishful two world view of drug use, can be isolated. That this lobby should make the tactical switch of applying their ideas to enforcement now their preferred but ethically dubious policy of applying liquid handcuffs to so called HHCU’s (high harm causing users) to stop their acquisitive crime has so categorically failed, is perhaps not surprising. After all if you believe that most drug use is non harmful then you are bound to have to think that most dealing is not harmful either – or only if the strong arm of the law comes down on it.

Unbelievably this is the gist of the UKDPC’s Alice in Wonderland view of the illicit drug trade – that the violence that ensues is a function of police actions/enforcement not of the trade – so good dealers can be tolerated while only bad (i.e. violent) dealers will be targeted. Well that’s all right then – all dealers can no doubt be ‘good’ if no one gets in their way. But heaven protect the children, families and communities exposed to the plying of a sanction less trade on their doorsteps with no police to support or protect them. To say nothing of how such a policy would make the UK an even softer target, turn us into an even larger market and encourage more use and incremental damage.

This is political correctness or liberalism taken too far. Will we be blaming the police action as opposed to inaction for murder and robbery next?

Yet startlingly in all the prime time coverage respectfully devoted by the BBC’s Today programme to the report – summaries thoughout the morning each with Home Affairs Editor Mark Easton’s imprimatur – none of these points were raised. The premise of the report was uncritically accepted. Yet as well as being numbingly illogical the report is nothing less than a formula for the backdoor legalisation of drugs’ trafficking – ‘a harm reduction stepping stone to legalisation’, as drugs policy expert, Professor Neil McKeganey, has called it.

According to McKeganey, “the form of policing UKDPC are advocating would in reality give rise to the creation of areas of our cities and our rural communities in which drug use had effectively become legalised. Such a policy raises the frankly idiotic scenario in which we are punishing drug users in some areas and accepting them in others (hardly a sound basis for English law).”

For my own part I would like to see Roger Howard (CEO of the UKDPC) or Dame Ruth Runciman (its Chairman) going to those communities they would designate as suffering minimal harm from drug dealing and which, as a result of their counsel, would be forced to accept the existence of local drug markets. My guess is that these are unlikely be the ones in which they themselves reside.

To judge by the reported comments of Bill Hughes, the agency director of SOCA, following the report’s publication, the thinking of some of those currently involved in senior drug enforcement positions may be equally muddled. He, it would seem, accepts the idea that the report asserts that we focus too much on seizures and arrests, has abdicated the idea of vigorous enforcement and is misguidedly advocating this implausible approach. The UK’s already declining drug seizures and arrests, seen in this context, are even more revealing (see my report, The Phoney War on Drugs) not least by contrast with Holland’s rising cocaine seizures and drug arrests.

The need for smarter enforcement is undeniable. But not of the UKDPC’s interpretation of the concept. Nothing less than a top to bottom rethink – a new, committed and well resourced national strategy with local action to protect our borders, to hit middle and local markets, keeping operations flexible, adaptable and most importantly ongoing – is called for.

This, not the UKDPC’s policy of quasi legalisation, will protect Antonia Senior’s daughter as she grows up; and not her mother’s appallingly ill thought ideas in the Times second ‘legalising’ article in 5 days; the one which brought this particular week’s drug debate offerings to an exhausting end.
Category: prisons and addiction
Comments
Add New Search

Backdoor legalisation
John J. Coleman, PhD, presiden 2009-08-04 13:22:17
________________________________________
An excellent commentary that exposes the illogical premise that more of a bad thing is good for us. It is not the poor of the world who beg for the legalisation of drugs but the elite who can afford to destroy the lives of the poor to preserve their own self-indulgent mandarinic lifestyle. Have they no shame in calling up the hallowed symbols of liberty and compassion to justify their drug lust? The tyrant always seeks to convince the innocent that the effect is causal and not the other way around. To understand this, one only needs to look at the level of violence wherever weak, corrupt, or non-existent government intervention in the drugs trade has produced de facto legalization.
________________________________________
Quote
Professor
Neil McKegney 2009-08-04 15:24:29
________________________________________
The UKDPC have called for enforcement resources to be targetted at those areas within which the drugs trade has caused greatest harm. This is a variant of the current drug policy that is focussed on the most harmful drugs (heroin and cocaine) and which by implication increasingly accepts other forms of drug use. However enforcement needs to tackle the fledgling drug markets with as much vigour as it tackles the well developed drug markets if it is to offer an effective deterrent to drug use and drug dealing. The idea that enforcement agencies increasingly desert those communities where drug use is occurring but not yet reaching the level of harm of other communities is simply a recipe for enforcement failure. What one wonders would the UKDPC say to any community that was seeking enforcement protection but which did not yet reach the bar of high harm that the UKDPC envisages? Communities need protection from the drugs trade and that more than anything else is what enforcement needs to provide. The idea of triaging enforcement resources and concentrating on the most harmed areas may sound attractive on paper but in reality may amount to no more than an abrogation of our responsibility to protect all of the communities affected by the drugs trade.
________________________________________
Quote
UKDPC-Alice in Wonderland policies
David Raynes 2009-08-04 17:18:23
________________________________________
If the ideas of UKDPC on allowing drug dealing/trafficking in some places but not others were to be followed (and Bill Hughes of SOCA apparently & allegedly gave it some positive consideration!)-the limited current system of control would be further undermined. Is that what UKDPC want? Actually this idea and the adverse consequences were demonstrated in several recent episodes of “The Wire”. Of course it is necessary to prioritise, THAT is a different thing from what is being suggested.

Give some dealers/traffickers (even relatively) safe passage in some areas
of activity by location or by methods and experienced law enforcers KNOW, dealers will gravitate there and expand their activity there and grow operations through that ignored system/location/method.
The objective of enforcement policy should be to make dealing and
trafficking a risky business and UK Plc a hard target rather than a soft target for external traffickers, most especially for those who are not British based. Internally to the UK, the objective of enforcement policy should be to make dealing/traficking a risky and unpredictable
business-everywhere. A clear secondary objective is to deter new entrants to the business. To suggest otherwise, as is simply nonesense. It is very much against the experience and evidence of the last 35 years of enforcement and of course would further undermine the current very weak overall UK Plc efforts. Seizures & arrests are not always the answer but they certainly help. Attrition and deterrence without those measures eg by seizing cash & assets can be undertaken but it has not been wonderfully effective so far. Local addict dealers can be persuaded into treatment by making their efforts non viable. Police need to work in partnership with other agencies to achieve this. Of course there has to BE some treatment available!

Containment of traficking IS possible, especially for an island nation. It needs, in the UK, much better coordination of effort between the Border Agency/Customs, SOCA & Constabularies. Does the Home Office understand why this has not happenned? Who was tasked to lead this? Was anyone? If not, why not?
________________________________________
Quote
Drugs & Law Enforcement
Terry Byrne 2009-08-04 21:39:07
________________________________________
UKDPC is right – but only so far as it calls for smarter law enforcement and says that law enforcement cannot eradicate drugs markets. Beyond that, UKDPC shows a low understanding and no sensible ideas about focusing law enforcement effort that is only matched by Bill Hughes of SOCA it would seem. Law enforcement can, at best, only provide a framework of deterrence and prevention so that other vital factors – parents, families and communities, schools, public figures, employers and health agencies – can secure and maintain our UK society’s rejection of drug misuse.
________________________________________
Quote
correcting a number of errors and misconceptions
Steve Rolles 2009-08-04 22:03:50
________________________________________
“the myth that law enforcement – hyperbolically designated as ‘prohibition’ by the pro drugs lobby – rather than drug use itself is the root of the country’s drug problem.”

- ‘prohibition’ is a term in wide use to describe the current approach to drug control – in contrast to regulated markets or free markets. There is no controversy over this and nothing ‘hyperbolic’ about it; it is a purely descriptive term – one used by the UK Government in drug strategies, and by the UNODC.

- ‘The pro-drugs lobby’ is an deliberately derogatory term based on the absurd premise that because you determine your views as anti-drug, those who disagree with you must be ‘pro-drug’. This is a classic example of a false binary, ignoring the obvious reality of many people who are passionately anti-drug but also support reform of ineffective and unjust policy and law – including a debate on legal regulation. Transform’ supporters include bereaved parents, religious leaders and public health professionals. Law Enforcement Against Prohibition is made up of over 10,000 serving and enforcement professionals – are they ALL pro drug? Please stop using this offensive and childish slur.

- finally, the central point of your opening sentence is wrong. Reform advocates such as Transform make a clear distinction between harms created by drug use – for which we advocate a public health response (treatment, education, prevention) and harms created or exacerbated by prohibition/ illicit markets – for which we advocate a rational exploration of regulated market alternatives. You should be aware of this from our meetings, and our publications in which it is clearly stated and which you have referenced.

Regarding Tom Feiling’s piece – it was clearly an opinion piece, and he is entitled to his opinion, just as you are . The reality of cocaine use/demand is a fact – it is the idea that an enforcement response can eradicate it that is delusional, as evidenced by the past 40 or so years. You, again, provide no evidence that increased enforcement is a key variable in decreased use (there is little/none as the WHO found in a massive global research project published last year to which I have directed you previously), beyond your cherry picked examples. Interesting that you again bypass the US experience again re cocaine use and enforcement spend / punitiveness.

Paddick’s views, like Cameron’s, seem to have shifted since he moved into the political mainstream, but clash with those of another met commander you have failed to mention, who responded in the Times this week: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/letters/a rticle6736613.ece
likewise Eddie Ellison former head of the met drug squad, and numerous other police (www.LEAP.cc’ etc).

I don’t have time to deconstruct your analysis of the UKDPC report, beyond highlighting that you have confused legalisation (legal regulation of markets and supply) with de-facto decriminlisation through tolerant policing of certain activities (use or low level dealing). The two are entirely different propositions, the UKDPC having made great efforts to distance itself from the former, whatever conspiratorial silliness you appear to be implying.

Again you provide no evidence that increased enforcement reduces use or more importantly (as a pragamatist) reduces harms, and fail to engage with the overwhelming evidence that enforcement has been largely counterproductive.
________________________________________
Quote
Drug Free Scotland
Bill Cameron 2009-08-04 22:47:13
________________________________________
As a parent for whom the jargon and politics of the battling “pro” and “anti” lobbies is confusing, the latest suggestion from UKDPC to allow drug dealing in certain areas and not in others, merely adds to our confusion. Surely some member of UKDPC can imagine the scenario from a parent’s point of view and conclude that the dealers will expand their activity in the areas relatively ignored by law enforcement. Current drug policy does not, as it seems to have been accepted, focus on only the most harmful drugs and dismisses any other form of drug misuse. UKDPC would be hard pressed to single out one area in Scotland where the uncontested violence and corruption due to drug abuse does not exist.
Why are parents lulled into a false sense of “ your kids are going to use drugs anyway, so just let’s stop trying to stop them”? Rubbish! – not in my home – and anyway who told you that? And are we also to ignore the effects of drugs: stealing; violence; corruption; family breakdown; illness’ death? Certainly not – sorry boys, the two go together.
No one wishes legalisation but currently the state exists where at one side of the street a young person can be lifted for possession of Cannabis (even perhaps for his parent’s M.S.) and at the other side of the street there are lines of young addicts waiting to collect their kit from a needle exchange (no exchange of needles ever evident) after which the go home to use Cocaine or Heroin – legally?
Smarter enforcement? Cooler catching? There is no argument that we require countrywide change across the board, adequately resourced to squash local drug markets. In my own unhappy and tiresome experience that has ever happened.
I am told it was Antonia Senior who quoted “Drugs are evil. Legalise them now” and who went on to protest her fear that her daughter would join the “addict” club. I would advise her to speak to a parent whose child is already a paid up member of that elite club.
Harm reduction, legalisation – call it what you like – is a paraphrase or extension of what the snake said to Eve. “You will surely NOT die……………..(implied) for I will teach you how to sin safely!”
So let’s get smart and expose such things so that social thinking people are able to promote their human rights in their own society. Everything else has not failed. It has not happened yet!
________________________________________
Quote
The effect of increased enforcement
David Raynes 2009-08-04 23:08:18
________________________________________
Steve Rolles you say:
“no evidence that increased enforcement is a key variable in decreased use”.

There is plenty of evidence & well founded suspicion that REDUCED enforcement in the UK has been a variable in increased use of drugs and pecifically certain drugs.

Some recent examples:-

Post 1999, Customs stopped targetting the main importers of cannabis, (though still acting aginst it when found), the market became flooded and in the words of one academic analyst “mature”. That led on to-may indeed have influenced- the unwise declassifying of cannabis, the weird “Lambeth experiment” (wider drug dealing effects conveniently forgotten by UKDPC?) and also the ubiquity of supply and use that we experienced around 2003/4. (Though just maybe I agree, use is falling a little now in older, better educated age groups as a result of increased publicity about harms and reclassification upwards). Even that conclusion is uncertain, cannabis may just have become unfashionable, in favour of cocaine, crack and other drugs.

At the end of the 1990s Customs to a certain extent, ignored or were by what was considered THEN, as pragmatic prioritisation choice, under-active against the organisers of cocaine courier traffic targetted into black communities. This was done in favour of targetting larger bulk consignments. It was significant in effect because the courier traffic was quite suddenly, in mid to late 90s, feeding a crack explosion. This crack explosion-forcast at the end of the 80s by Bob Stutman had been succesfully held off for nearly ten years.

More recently SOCA has focussed on “upstream disruption” and been noticeably unsuccsessful against both heroin and cocaine, direct, UK imports. SOCA has also often neglected to service Customs/Border Agency cold finds (having taken in the resources that previously did that work). They may have learned from that major error though by now and are changing their approach. SOCA is to date, much less successful against serious drugs traficking into the UK than the agencies that operated before it was formed. Cocaine is now ubiquitous in a way it was not, even five years ago. Seizures are down, arrests are down, interdiction of direct smuggling by boat is ata 15 year low.

I do not expect you to know about these things, they are not within your experience nor are they easy to understand from published sources but if you leap in to defend the silliness of UKDPC you ought to make a better effort to understand the history.

There is no defence for the utter garbage of what UKDPC are trying to suggest. Nature abhors a vacuum, so self-evidently does crime. Without a reasonable level of enforcement against any type of organised & profitable criminality it is highly likely to increase. For your evidence look at societies where the power of the state breaks down or the writ of the limited authority that exists, does not run.

It is not just the experience in the examples I have given you, I could give you many more.

Are you supporting UKDPC because legalisation of drugs is what you campaign for and because, having failed to persuade the public and the two relevant dominant political parties, you see causing a creeping breakdown of the present system as your best way forward?

Observers are entitled to be suspicious of both your motives and those of UKDPC. Neither of you in my opinion, are likely to be part of any solution to the UKs worsening drug problems. You have been part of the paid advocacy for liberalisation/legalisation, about which I so often complain and which I suggest has been part of the mixed messages about drugs which has so worsened the UK position in comparison with some neighbours.
________________________________________
Quote
Steve Rolles 2009-08-05 09:41:11
________________________________________
David – none of the examples you cite demonstrate that enforcement has a major impact on overall use, misuse or harm. Its impacts – when they do occur – will largely be displacement – between regions, or criminal networks(or occasionally between drugs) – this is true from producer country activity through to domestic street dealing. I think you identify the real issue re cannabis when you note that the fall in use was probably due to a shift in fashion. Determinants of drug use are largely social, cultural and economic, not enforcement/punishment related.

The fact that there is no international correlation between levels of enforcement and levels of availability and use is an inconvenient reality that you and Kathy both choose to avoid, instead cherry picking examples that support a link (eg sweden)and ignoring those that don’t (eg the US). Neither of you has ever cited or responded to the WHO study I have repeatedly flagged up.

Re UKDPC – we support their call for better evidence and I have personally been impressed with some of the research and analysis they have commissioned and published. We have, however, been publicly critical of much of their analysis (I had a critique of a previous report published in the Guardian – and a recent blog critiqued their new crime report – search the blog for UKDPC), where we disagree with it or feel it misses the point. This is as it should be and is no different from our engagement with Kathy’s work or anyone else’s.
________________________________________
Quote
to enforce or not…
simon aalders 2009-08-05 10:05:44
________________________________________
For the UKDPC to arrive at the conclusion that we should hand over communities to drug dealing, to avoid conflict between gangs was what i heard in the report, is astounding.
As has been stated, if the UKDPC think this is a good idea perhaps they should live in an area blighted by drug dealing and gang culture, or talk to the families trying to bring up children and live fulfilling lives in those areas before making such crass public statements.

There are numerous failed examples of apeasement to criminal gangs across the globe we do not need another failed experiment in the UK. The victims would not be shown on TV, nor gain the headlines as they struggle through the consequences of increased criminal activity. Those that propagate such policies will be long gone and deffinitely nowhere near any of those areas.

In my local area the community praise the Police for sustained enforcement activity, they want the public services to act vigourously to deal with drug/gang culture, and they want drug addicts treated properly – by that I mean taken off drugs to give them the best opportunity to turn their lives around.

They don’t want society to throw up it’s hands and say we give up, it’s too hard.

If the UKDPC have run out of steam and this idea tells me they have, there are plenty of others out here actually making a difference for communities.

Legalisation is no solution.
Decriminalistaion is not a solution.

Proper treatment, enforcement and community involement are.
________________________________________
Quote
Displacement of criminal activity
David Raynes 2009-08-05 10:10:06
________________________________________
Steve Rolles you say :
“Its impacts – when they do occur – will largely be displacement – between regions, or criminal networks(or occasionally between drugs) – this is true from producer country activity through to domestic street dealing”.

Well exactly. You make my very point. THAT is why UKDPC are fundamentally not just misguided, they are categorically wrong. They demonstrate no understanding of how crime operates. What they suggest is intellectually unsound. Displacement quite obviously operates in both directions. It was once said, I think by Da Costa, that countries get the drug problems they deserve. The UK has one of the worst drug problems in Europe now, it was not always thus (my historical view on high level traficking extends back 40 years) and it has got worse at an accelerating rate in the last 15 years compared to some of our neighbours. Precisely the period during which those at the top of UKDPC (Ruth Runciman & Roger Howard) have been most influential on policy and most active proselytising. Correlation is not causality but it is certainly a starting place for analysis. It should cause policy makers in the Home Office to think more clearly about why we are where we are and the history. They should do that and you should not ignore it.
________________________________________
Quote
Good and bad drug dealers
Derek 2009-08-05 10:31:34
________________________________________
Kathy wrote:

“Unbelievably this is the gist of the UKDPC’s Alice in Wonderland view of the illicit drug trade – that the violence that ensues is a function of police actions/enforcement not of the trade…”

So the likes of Al Capone were not a function of alcohol prohibition then? How come the off licence down the road here in Norwich isn’t run by the mob? It is, after all, the same drug being sold and only the regime it’s sold under is different.

Likewise whilst we’re discussing drug harms was not the existence of moonshine or bathtub gin down to the prohibition laws? Quite clearly they were Kathy. Quite clearly the prohibition law creates problems all of its own and these are in addition to any harms drugs can cause.

To deny any connection between the violence and other harms of the illegal drugs supply side with the application of prohibition is surely to deny reality and worse, to ignore the lessons of history.

Almost worse is to write that “law enforcement – hyperbolically designated as ‘prohibition’ by the pro drugs lobby”. Please Kathy, call a spade a spade. What we have is prohibition and is correctly called prohibition. Defend it by all means, but please don’t pretend it’s something else.

It’s interesting also that you claim cocaine use has become established in countries with liberal regimes whilst ignoring the situation in the USA, the leader of the war on drugs and hardly a “liberal” regime. Actually the most compelling reason for the growth of the Euro zone cocaine market is probably the Euro with its usefully high denominations.

It’s very telling though that after all this time the issue of drug law reform not only hasn’t gone away but is again gaining ground. The fact that it’s gaining ground not only here, but in the home of prohibition the USA is most illuminating.
________________________________________
Quote
Corrigendum
ukdpc 2009-08-05 11:13:07
________________________________________
We would like to correct some of the misreading of the UKDPC review on enforcement which Kathy and others have made.

In fact the review is all about making the best use of enforcement resources. It is thus about targeting supply side interventions more effectively, not giving up on enforcement as some have suggested. The thrust of our approach is about using a focus on the wide range of harms that individuals and communites experience from drug markets to stimulate innovation and to encourage assessment of impact to ensure that the maximum benefit is achieved.

We would urge people to read the reports themselves rather than assume that all that is written about them in the media or on blogs is accurate. The full reports can be found on our website at

http://www.ukdpc.org.uk/publications.shtml

________________________________________
Quote
Drug enforcement and Drug Prevalence
Neil McKeganey 2009-08-05 11:56:15
________________________________________
It is puzzling that UKDPC having authored the report on enforcement have not contributed to its blog discussions. However taking up the point made by Steve Rolles that there is no evidence of a link between enforcement and drug consumption. Quite the reverse is indeed the case since none of the currently illegal drugs are consumed at the same level as the legal drugs (tobacco and alcohol). The experience with these two legalised drugs is powerful evidence of the potential level of consumption of the illegal drugs were they to be legalised. As I have pointed out to Steve Rolles before in China at the time of the opium wars an estimated 20% of the population were thought to be addicted to opium. This shows us that there is nothing in the drugs themselves that necessarily limits their appeal to only a tiny minority of the population. If organisations like Transform truly believe that enforcement has no evident impact on level of use one wonders why they spend so much time lobbying for a change in drug laws and enforcement practices.
________________________________________
Quote
Prohibition
Alison Hughes 2009-08-05 11:58:00
________________________________________
If prohibition is so good – why isn’t Kathy Gyngell campaigning for the prohibition of the two most dangerous drugs in th UK – alcohol and nicotine? Instead she focuses her attention on an emotional and ill-informed attack on methadone, which is a useful treatment in helping people come off street drugs and changing their lives around. This does happen and a lot of people do eventually come off methadone but it takes a long time.
________________________________________
Quote
legalisation and drug prevalence
Neil McKeganey 2009-08-05 12:00:18
________________________________________
Taking up the point made by Steve Rolles that there is no evidence of a link between enforcement and drug consumption. Quite the reverse is indeed the case since none of the currently illegal drugs are consumed at the same level as the legal drugs (tobacco and alcohol). The experience with these two legalised drugs is powerful evidence of the potential level of consumption of the illegal drugs were they to be legalised. As I have pointed out to Steve Rolles before in China at the time of the opium wars an estimated 20% of the population were thought to be addicted to opium. This shows us that there is nothing in the drugs themselves that necessarily limits their appeal to only a tiny minority of the population. If organisations like Transform truly believe that enforcement has no evident impact on level of use one wonders why they spend so much time lobbying for a change in drug laws and enforcement practices
________________________________________
Quote
legalisation and drug prevalence
Derek Williams 2009-08-05 13:04:16
________________________________________
Neil McKeganey wrote: “none of the currently illegal drugs are consumed at the same level as the legal drugs (tobacco and alcohol)”.

Whilst this may be true, illegal drugs aren’t (or haven’t been) advertised and promoted. This is especially true for alcohol of course which is marketed ruthless at young people with designer drinks and drug speak advertising. Tobacco use in recent years has dropped considerably partly due to advertising bans and suchlike.

Regarding illegal drugs, we don’t really know how many people take them of course. The number of people who use cannabis is of a comparable order to the number who smoke tobacco and no-one would pretend the estimates for that number are anything better than an underestimate.

If the law was so effective, how are the high levels of use in the US explained? Or come to that the success of the Portuguese regime?

And please, we are all agreed that despite what Kathy might think, what we have out there is prohibition, isn’t it?
________________________________________
Quote
Your Times letter 30/07/09
John Watson 2009-08-05 15:00:28
________________________________________
Kathy,

In your letter to The Times 30/07/09, you say: “As cannabis use rises so, too, does psychosis.”

I have been looking for statistics that show this, as it would be almost certain proof that cannabis causes psychosis. However, I have been unable to do so.

I have found “Assessing the impact of cannabis use on trends in diagnosed schizophrenia in the United Kingdom from 1996 to 2005.” (PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19560900 ), “Between 1996 and 2005 the incidence and prevalence of schizophrenia and psychoses were either stable or declining. [...] In conclusion, this study did not find any evidence of increasing schizophrenia or psychoses in the general population from 1996 to 2005.”

Which seems to contradict your statement.

Where did your statistics come from, please?
________________________________________
Quote
Director Crew 2000
John Arthur 2009-08-05 17:18:05
________________________________________
‘If we were starting with a blank canvas which drugs would be legal and which illegal’ is a well practiced tool in substance use training (attitudes to substance use) which we have used with professionals, young people and community groups for many years now. It is amazing how many would put alcohol in the illegal bracket and allow many of the currently illegal drugs to be sold ‘under regulation’. This is not people who are ‘pro drugs’ or indeed soley people who have suffered alcohol or other drug probems themselves or in their family, but a wide range of professionals across health, social work, police and the justice system. Kathy, as someone who has lost a lot of family & friends through addiction and dependency and who thinks that there are serious flaws in our present system I am saddened by your Bush-esque like pronouncement that everyone who is not happy with the present drug laws and think there may be other solutions must be ‘pro drugs’. Nothing could be further from the truth and I’d like you to at least take that comment back and consider your rhetoric in the future. Of course you are entitled to your opinion as we all are, how else are we to achieve consensus as a society, however your remarks are at best often ill considered and increasingly appear to be deliberately provocative and insulting. To what ends I can only imagine.
________________________________________
Quote
Steve Rolles 2009-08-05 18:52:32
________________________________________
I await – from Kathy, David, Neil, or anyone, some evidence showing a statistically significant link between enforcement spend or punitiveness of enforcement and levels of use or drug harm between states (or regions), or some comment on the WHO (not pro-drug crazies) study last year the headline conclusion of which was;

“Globally, drug use is not distributed evenly and is not simply related to drug
policy, since countries with stringent user-level illegal drug policies did not have lower levels of use than countries with liberal ones.”

Degenhard et al, World Health Organisation, 2008 ‘Toward a Global View of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Cannabis, and Cocaine Use: Findings from the WHO World Mental Health Surveys’

Available in full online
________________________________________
Quote
Drug harm and enforcement
Neil McKeganey 2009-08-06 06:24:28
________________________________________
Steve an absolutely fundamental assumption of the legalisation position adopted by Transform and other organisations is that the greatest harm associated with drug use arises from the enforcement and what you call punitive drug policies. It is that assumption which in essence underpins your arguments for legalisation as being the most effective means of reducing drug harm. But where is the quantitative evidence that shows enforcement is a greater source of drug harm than drug use itself?
________________________________________
Quote
drug harms vs policy harms
Steve Rolles 2009-08-06 10:47:47
________________________________________
Its more complicated than that Neil. The nature of the drugs used, the way in which they are used and the environments in which they are used – are all negatively impacted by prohibition and the illicit anarchic underground culture controlled by criminal entrepreneurs it has created. So drug use itself becomes more harmful under prohibition than it would under a regulated system controlled by the appropriate state authorities, one in which a regulatory environment could progressively encourage a shift in culture towards safer products, behaviours (including abstinence), and using environments.

This is quite aside from the secondary harms created by prohibition in terms of crime, corruption, destabilisation of producer countries, conflict, environmental damage, human rights abuses, erosion of respect for authority and so on. I have made this argument very clearly in a number of publications comparing a user of illicit heroin to one on a heroin prescription.

Which causes more harm is impossible to gleam in this context – its the wrong question. More important is that harm is greater under the current regime than it would be under alternative approaches – which is the core of our argument – (something that in no way makes us ‘pro-drug’ as Kathy, Costa, David and others -but not you Im pleased to say- continue to childishly parrot). We also argue that the political nature of prohibition interferes with the development of evidence based responses, by immunizing the policy from scrutiny and diverting resources away from proven public health interventions into demonstrably counterproductive enforcement ones.

I’m wary of blaming enforcement per se, as that appears to put the blame on the police/army, when in fact they are merely the expression of a political program or ideology – ie prohibition; which is punitive by its very nature (it establishes a set of rules and punishements for breaking them) and place within the criminal justice system (not something I have determined). Would you say prohibition was non punitive, and if so how would you describe it?

And meanwhile, how about an answer to my other questions?

Kathy – why do you never get involved in the blog discussions that follow your comment pieces? I think you are possibly missing the point of blogs – which are supposed to be about dialogue.
________________________________________
Quote
Drug Harm and Enforcement
Neil McKeganey 2009-08-06 17:54:24
________________________________________
Steve I take your point that the ways in which drug use may be harmful are many and varied but in essence you must surely be operating with some notion of the amount of harm associated with the legal position of certain drugs relative to the quantity of harm associated with the consumption of those drugs in whatever legal context. If you are not then the prospect arises that you may well be arguing for the legalisation of substances that are substantially harmful in their own right and where the quantity of harm associated with their use may be only minimaly reduced by a change in their legal status. My sense is that the legalisation position has to assume that harm would be very substantially rather than minimally reduced by a change in the legal status of the drugs concerned. But the question remains as to what you base that assumption on. In the combined article you wrote with Danny K you said that:

The question is not whether human rights or public health comes first. Rather it is whether we collude with a policy that invariably degrades and sometimes destroys our clients and the communities in which they live, or whether we speak out against it, both as individuals and organisationally…More importan(t) is the question of how organisations can most effectively challenge the status quo, terminate prohibition and replace it with an effective system that is effective, just and humane (Kushlick and Rolles 2004:245).

That extract rather assumes that the health harms associated with drug use come a long way second to what you regard as the harms arising from the illegal status of the drugs concerned. If that is indeed you view then surely you need to make clear what your assessment of relative harm is actually based upon.
________________________________________
Quote
Steve Rolles 2009-08-06 19:00:43
________________________________________
We assume that harms to individual users would diminish (as argued above and in the CBA paper we discussed recently), and that harms associated with illegal markets would diminish (for obvious reasons). I don’t think even the UK government or UNODC would disagree with this.
I understand your argument (and theirs) that these gains would be more than outweighed by an increase in health harms associated with an increase in use were drug markets legally regulated – but I don’t agree with your assumptions that underpin this argument – and i also dont think you understand the sort of regulation we are calling for. I find the Chinese peasant opium use in the 19th century a particularly non-useful parallel for modern drug culture in urban Britain, and also do not agree that the experience with alcohol and tobacco supports your contention. Not only are alcohol (which is a deeply culturally embedded food and beverage, as well as drug)and tobacco (which does not intoxicate like most drugs – so does not seem to raise the same degree of moral indignation, despite its awful public health impacts)qualitatively different from most drugs we are concerned about (particularly problematic use of heroin and cocaine), they have also been subject to decades, even centuries, of aggressive marketing (something that would be forbidden under the regulatory models we advocate for other drugs), and had few of the other controls over product, price, vendors, outlets, users etc that we are calling for. Where such have been begun to belatedly implemented use has fallen without resorting to blanket prohibitions – e.g. tobacco in the UK – use of which continues to fall whilst cocaine (7 years in prison for possession, billions spent annually on interdiction) continues to rise.

We have, from the outset, called for better, indeed stricter, regulation of alcohol and tobacco as well – something entirely consistent with finding the optimum regulatory models, re outcomes, for all drugs. The reason we do not focus on these issues more is because there are plenty of agencies (Alcohol concern, ASH, the royal colleges etc) who already do it very well.
________________________________________
Quote
Legalisation and Drug Harm
Neil McKeganey 2009-08-06 20:14:51
________________________________________
Steve where is the template (evidence) for successfully regulated drug markets that Transform clearly aspire to extend to other currently illegal substances? I can see why you do not want to accept the Chinese opium situation fostered by the UK against the expressed wishes of the Chinese government because it does indeed indicate a level of opium consumption that Transform would rather discount as an impossibility within a developed “regulated”heroin market. But of course these awkward historical events are not se easily dismissed simply because they do not mesh with ones preferred view of hisotry and future drug policy and in that sense the examples do have to be considered for their possible relevance to current discussions.
________________________________________
Quote
Steve rolles 2009-08-06 21:30:42
________________________________________
surely a more relevant ‘awkward historical event’ (than opium use in peasant china 150 years ago) for you to respond to would be the steady increase in drug availability, use, misuse, crime, and overall harms (by any measure) under prohibition in the modern world – despite ever increasing resources being thrown at its enforcement. Wheres *your* evidence base for the policy we have now, and how much failure do you think is required before alternatives are regulatory are meaningfully explored. its fine to keep throwing questions at me but what about answering a few of mine?

I obviously cant produce an evidence base for the regulation we are advocating as it has not happened yet – beyond limited and often flawed/problematic models (coffee shops, heroin prescribing etc) or equally problematic – although useful paralell examples (e.g. regulation of gambling, and sex work), so you will always win on that front – I cant provide evidence from the future. I can only speculate with the evidence we have, whilst pushing for more to be gathered.

The problem is that, perhaps uniquely in health and social policy, an entire avenue of policy options has been closed down in perpetuity, on ideological grounds not evidential ones, not just re implementation – but even experimentation and research. This is particularly peverse and anomalous given that regulating risky commodities and and activities is absolutely the social policy norm, indeed it is one of the primary functions of Governments.

To be able to have flexible policy options in almost all aspects, except one; legal regulation of production and supply – is intellectually offensive and profoundly anti-science. Are archaic drug laws create an arbitrary line in the sand that should be an affront to everyone in public health or social policy. By all means make the evidential case for prohibition (and ill argue with you), but not on the basis of preventing others from exploring the alternatives. For ever.
________________________________________
Quote
Drugs and Enforcement
Neil McKeganey 2009-08-07 09:32:20
________________________________________
Steve although you cite the continuing use of illegal drugs as a failure of existing drug laws surely the fact that the level of use of those drugs is not comparable in any country to the level of use of the legal drugs in all countries is the clearest evidence there could ever be that existing drug laws have indeed succeeded in limiting the use of certain substances. I don’t know of any scientific study that could in any way provide evidence on a par with the consistent international pattern of illegal drug use consumption falling a long way short of the level of consumption of the legal drugs. However to argue for a change in our existing drug laws surely has to be based on something more than an ill-defined belief that in some vague ways things would be better under a legalised or regulated regime- better for whom, by how much and for how long? and with what unintended consequences? The standard response that organisations arguing for legalisation provide is to ask for the evidence of success of our current drug laws and then to claim that the failure of drug laws to entirely cease such drug use is a sign of their inevitable failure. This of course is a deeply ironic position for a legalisation group to adopt since illegal drug consumption is not something that they themselves wish to cease anyway. However your point that there is some kind of international policy conspiracy stopping the experimentation with different types of drug laws including legally regulated markets seems a bit strong to be honest since there are many countries that could be cast as having experimented with widely different drug laws including those that have adopted heroin prescribing safe injecting centres lower level penalties for drug possession etc.

Our debate started with the UKDPC publication of their report on evidence and Kathy Gyngell’s blog on that report I still think that it is strange that an organisation such as UKDPC that is clearly wanting to make a contribution to public and policy debate on the drugs issue is so reticent at contributing to this debate leaving you largely on your own as it were to argue for the position they have set out in their paper on harm reduction focussed drug enforcement.
________________________________________
Quote
steve rolles 2009-08-07 13:49:06
________________________________________
(im not arguing for the UKDPC position – which, I repeat, is distinctly NOT legalisation / regulation – this debate took a different turn)

I think you ignore the fact that there are plenty of legal drugs that are not so widely used (inhalants for example), and that amongst illegal drugs some are used far more than others – cocaine use is about ten times that of heroin for example, but it is equally illegal. This – along with the fact that trends in drugs go up and down apparently independtly of legal changes and even price, suggests that people’s drug choices are primarily determined by factors other than legality/punitive sanctions and related deterrence. The evidence base for a deterrent effect is incredibly poor – and just repeating alcohol and tobacco does not fill this yawing evidential abyss at the heart of entire prohibitionist paradigm.

There is no conspiracy against experimenting with legal regulatory options for supply – there are 3 UN conventions that that specifically prevent it, the single convention in particular (much of which was drafted in the 40s) tying states into a system that is no longer relevant to the world today. Challenging the conventions would raise unacceptable political and diplomatic costs (largely in terms of US pressure – but also potentially undermining the valuable aspects of the drug treaty system, and indeed the wider treaty system). Countries can experiment with decrim of possession and medical prescription models but decrim does not involve supply and prescription only covers a tiny proportion of users and the illicit market. Wider exploration of regulated legal supply remains undeniably off limits. The brief experiment with BZP in New Zealand is the only one I am aware of anywhere in the world; whilst not a total disaster, the regulation was inadequate and it has been reversed when the political pressure got too hot (and BZP is also not covered by the Conventions).

Trying to establish a link in international comparisons between levels of enforcement/punitiveness and levels of use is reasonable if done with appropriate methodological caveats (indeed it is something that many people, including Kathy and Costa, like to do – albeit in a cherry picked methodologically laughable fashion -in comparing UK and Sweden – the whole thing about ‘getting the drug problem you deserve’). The WHO did it more systematically and found no link (still waiting for a comment on this).

Significant correlations have, however, been found between levels of use/misuse and income inequality (Wilkinson/Pickett) . I doubt Kathy would want to push on that fascinating finding and see where it leads, but for me it once again highlights the key role in social, economic and cultural factors in determining the contours of drug culture, and relative marginal nature of enforcement policy.

The critique of prohibition’s failure on its own terms (reducing availability,use) is surely legitimate, as is highlighting the unintended consequences. Long term failure of this policy is not the only reason to explore alternatives but it is a perfectly rational and reasonable catalyst. We want to see reduced overall harm (to users and the wider community) and maximised health and wellbeing (rather than obsessing over reduced use). This obviously does not preclude reduced demand, but pragmatically focuses on reducing problematic use (which the UNODC interestingly acknowledges says is only 5% of total illicit use). Reducing non-problematic use is not the priority because it is, well, not problematic (unless one sees it as a issue of personal morality in which case it is a different debate to the pragmatic public health policy and law one).

“Britain’s rehab services are facing collapse. No fewer than 15 of the UK’s 100 rehab centres have closed in the past 15 months, despite an increase in the number of people seeking help for addictions.
Because of changes in government health policy, private rehab centres are finding fewer and fewer health authorities are willing to foot the bill for addicts to have residential treatment, despite that fact that it is much more effective in getting them off drugs, according to the Addiction Recovery Foundation.
The Independent on Sunday learnt this weekend that a flagship rehab centre – £26m Winthrop Hall in Kent – is preparing to shut after only one year of operation.
According to the latest Department of Health figures, 202,660 drug users were seen by addiction services in England in 2007-08.
The National Treatment Agency (NTA) has spent millions of pounds getting thousands more drug users into contact with addiction services since it was set up in 2001. Yet last year only 3 per cent of cases were referred to a residential rehab service, while two-thirds were prescribed heroin-substitute medication by GPs and NHS doctors working in addiction services.
Critics claim there are few long-term benefits of this medication-centred approach. The majority of rehab services use a version of the 12-step programme, and abstinence – becoming drug free – is the goal after four to six weeks of intense therapy. Clinics are run by large companies such as The Priory or small charitable organisations such as the Providence Projects in Bournemouth.
Up to now, rehab has been paid for by the drug abusers themselves or their local health service. But, increasingly, government policy supports putting as many addicts as possible into methadone-substitute programmes because they are cheaper.
As a result, rehab clinics such as Winthrop Hall have become reliant on private clients. The hotel-style addiction clinic was opened in October 2007 by Jon Moulton, a venture capitalist and millionaire, to provide specialist treatment in luxury surroundings for high-flying City executives. But yesterday, staff confirmed that the £32,000-a-year clinic is no longer accepting new patients.
Advocates of rehab say that the closure encapsulates the problem with government thinking on rehab. They point to research by the University of Glasgow, which found drug users who go through residential rehab are seven times more likely to be drug-free after three years than those who go to methadone clinics.
The Health Care Commission last week identified the low use of residential rehab services as a weakness.
Dr David Best, from the Department of Psychiatry at the University of Birmingham, said: “Commissioners have spent bigger and bigger slices of the pie on harm reduction services at the expense of rehab, despite the evidence that rehab works. Users now have to jump through so many hoops to get there, it has become much harder, and rehab centres have closed as a result. It’s not because we don’t need these services but the system has become saturated in methadone clinics, which are a much cheaper and easier way to ‘treat’ people.”
Professor Neil McKeganey, director of the Centre for Drug Misuse in Glasgow, said: “When we stop patting ourselves on the back and look back on this period, we will see that this was a shameful dereliction of our responsibility and we failed the majority of drug users by keeping them locked into addiction. Drug services fail addicts, contrary to official figures which report overwhelming success. Our research shows that those lucky enough to get residential rehab are seven times more likely to be drug free after three years. This is an inconvenient finding for politicians and civil servants who have preferred to support cheaper services that deal with large numbers of people.”
Anecdotal evidence suggests addicts who want to come off drugs are often met with reluctance from drug workers. In some areas, primary care trusts will only pay for rehab if the individual’s health or public safety is deemed to be in imminent danger because of their chaotic drug use. And there are growing reports of desperate addicts committing crimes as they try to convince the authorities to pay for rehab.
The not-for-profit Providence Projects in Bournemouth was forced to open its doors to private clients in 2005 after a drop in NHS referrals pushed it close to ruin. Paul Spanjar, the treatment director, said: “We get calls on a regular basis from friends and relatives who are desperate because the user’s primary care trust will not pay for rehab. Don’t get me wrong, there are great NHS trusts, but in some areas it is impossible for an addict to get funding.”
The NTA points to research that shows substitute prescribing reduces dangerous injecting and crime rates among addicts. It also claims that overcoming dependence is the ultimate goal of all treatment it supports. Paul Hayes, the NTA’s chief executive, disputes the number of rehab closures and believes the proportion referred to rehab is closer to 8 per cent.
ROAD TO REHAB: “YOU MUST LEARN WHY YOU’RE AN ADDICT”
Andy Hayden, 40, a former addict, lives and works with ex-offenders in Weymouth, Dorset. He has been clean for five years.
“I started on alcohol, glue and gas when I was 12, but within a few years I’d progressed on to anything I could get my hands on. At my worst, my girlfriend and I spent £600 a day on crack and heroin. Eventually I ended up living on the streets, picking food up off the floor, and was in and out of hospital with abscesses and cellulitis.
“About six years ago I suddenly realised that if I didn’t do something I was going to die. I went to the local methadone clinic and was immediately prescribed 50ml ‘maintenance’ a day. This was enough, but I told them I needed more so they doubled my dose. I still had no idea what was wrong with me; we never talked about that. So I kept stealing to buy drugs because while methadone stops you feeling ill, it doesn’t give you a high. When the clinic threw me out for using extras, my addiction was even worse. Methadone is a horrible drug to come off, much harder than heroin.
“In 2003 I heard about a project that sent prolific offenders into rehab. I was so desperate by this point that I made up loads of offences, just so that I’d get in. I was eventually referred to the Providence Projects in Bournemouth and have never looked back since. I know rehab is more expensive, but you have to learn why you’re an addict before you can stop.” ”
Source: The Independent Feb.1st 2009

Adaption by James Bradbury of an article from Forreal.org
You may have seen this mysterious number in the form of logos, on TV shows and in films, perhaps without knowing what it means or even noticing it. Few people currently know what this number represents.

Simply put, 420 is a symbol of cannabis and its culture. It’s a “nudge-nudge wink” for pot users akin to the popular euphemism “I like to party”. It means they can speak openly about cannabis use by way of a code so that non-users will remain ignorant of their meaning. Somehow it leaked out into the mainstream and onto commercial clothing and other merchandise. Despite its prevalence, many parents and some teens are still unaware of what 420 means.

Nobody is certain why the number 420 became associated with cannabis culture, but numerous theories exist. Some people believe that it was originally a police code signalling cannabis use, while others think it came from the number of chemicals found in cannabis. As it happens there are over 400 chemicals found in cannabis, many of them carcinogenic, but the exact number and proportions vary widely between plants. Yet another idea is that 4:20 was the time a group of guys met after school to smoke cannabis. In any case, the number has been significant for cannabis users and promoters since the 1970’s.

When you see the symbol 420, be aware of what it represents. The person or organisation behind it is probably advocating cannabis use, its legalisation and possibly that of other drugs. Remember that the use of cannabis frequently leads users into using other drugs due to a variety of physical, psychological and social factors.

Those who make use of the 420 symbol may imply that cannabis use is commonplace, or even normal. This is certainly not true, as over 80% of young people do not use drugs more than once or twice, while 50% never try them at all. For more information about the physical, psychological and social dangers of cannabis, see our Cannabis Information page.

Thanks to Forreal.org for the use of material for this article.

By Roger Morgan. Californians for Drug-Free Schools

Marsha Rosenbaum is a self professed drug abuse expert, whose research was funded for 18 years by the National Institute on Drug Abuse. If the contents of her booklet called ‘SAFETY FIRST, a Reality- Based approach to TEENS, DRUGS, and Drug Education’ is reflective of her research, we should demand our tax dollars back. If ever she was a professional, she has now reduced herself to a snake oil salesman.

The worst thing about it is that 30,000 copies of ‘SAFETY FIRST’ were printed and distributed by her employer, The Drug Policy Alliance (DPA), and copies were given to every school in the nation. That should kill more than a few kids, and keep the supply lines open for drugs …. the mission of her employer. Her affiliation with the DPA alone is enough to expose her true intent.

As a parent who lost two step children to drug addiction twenty five years ago, and a very active drug prevention activist for the last 7 or 8 years, I have searched for solutions with no pre-conceived ideas of what it took to keep kids off drugs. Just about everything I have learned flies in the face of her advice. If she has any expertise with drugs, she certainly exhibits none as a drug prevention expert.

One of our cherished rights is freedom of speech. As reflected in ‘SAFETY FIRST’, the ability to propagate false information for specials interests, whatever they may be, also suggests it is one of the flaws. Ms. Rosenbaum’s special wisdom seems to be gained mostly from kids versus the scientific community: For example, she states:

‘They know there are differences between experimentation, abuse and addiction: and that the use of one drug does not inevitably lead to the use of another.

Yet, conventional drug education programs focus predominantly on abstinence-only messages and are shaped by problematic myths:

Myth #1: Experimentation with drugs is not a common part of teenage culture.

Myth #2: Drug use is the same as drug abuse;

Myth #3: Marijuana is the gateway to drugs such as heroin and cocaine; and

Myth #4: Exaggerating risks will deter young people from experimentation.”

First of all, there is profound evidence that one drug often leads to the use of another. It normally starts with cigarettes, then alcohol and then pot. Experimentation with drugs is a common part of teenage culture only because we allow it. We can stop most of it by doing what we have done to stop it with adults: random drug testing.

There should be no level of drug use that is acceptable for teens, because they are physiologically more susceptible to harm and addiction than adults, and their brains aren’t fully developed until their late teens or early twenties. No responsible adult would say just teach them how to do it responsibility.

With regard to telling kids the truth, there is no reason to exaggerate the risks of drugs. The truth alone should be sufficient for anyone with average intellect who is seeking the truth. However, these are children we are talking about. The reason they can’t vote is that they haven’t gained the cognitive skills to make mature decisions, including making the healthy decisions about their activities as teenagers. Most of us weren’t any smarter at that age, so it’s not a slight. Just a reality.

Ms. Rosenbaum states “. . . Our current efforts lack harm reduction education for those students who won’t “just say no”. In order to prevent drug abuse and drug problems among teenagers who do experiment, we need a fallback strategy that puts safety first.”

How about a program that just keeps them off drugs, Ms Rosenbaum, like random drug testing? For those who will become addicted because of permissive practices, we do need treatment. But treatment doesn’t work most of the time. As you stated, 80% to 90% of kids don’t have a problem. But 10% to 20% do, and many more don’t just come out whole. They aren’t totally unscathed. They are damaged, many of whom will never achieve their full potential, even if they aren’t complete addicts.

Harm reduction is the myth; the mantra of the DPA and other druggies and organizations that want to legalize and proliferate the use of drugs. Any self respecting drug abuse expert would know that some kids have a genetic pre-disposition to addiction of alcohol and drugs. Experimentation for them generally leads to addiction, and addiction to death or destruction. Harm elimination by getting kids to adulthood prior to first significant use, by whatever means possible, is the best harm reduction policy. Science says if we can get kids to adulthood intact they should never have a problem. Neither will society.

Ms. Rosenbaum myopically proposes that we teach children responsible use of drugs; and that we call on parents to have coherent conversations with their children, like her “Dear Johnny” letter, which will convince them to be responsible when they are using drugs or alcohol – evidence enough that she lives on a different planet.

Kids experimenting with drugs and alcohol don’t tend to be responsible. What do you tell them? Just smoke a little bit of pot and don’t get high? Don’t drink and use pot at the same time? Don’t drink or do drugs and drive? If someone offers you heroin, meth or cocaine, a drug that will give you a new high, just say thanks, “I’ll lumber along with pot?”

Her “MOTHER’S ADVICE” to son Johnny is naïve, and myopic in view of today’s family situation. Apparently Ms. Rosenbaum hasn’t noticed that our nation has a 49% divorce rate; single parenting; two parents working; drug using parents; child abuse, et. al. There is a reason why 60% of Americans are at moderate to high risk of using drugs and alcohol. There is a reason why schools are the safety net.

Parents are number one in terms of at-risk behaviour, followed by school environment. Even those parents who try, need help. Rosenbaum suggest parents “ find creative ways to open a dialogue, then listen, listen, listen.”

Ms Rosenbaum, if the kid is already using, you’re whistling Dixie. If he or she is just weighing the options, then parents need to carefully weigh their persuasive skills against peer pressure, the need for a teenager to be accepted, the chance of a genetic propensity to become addicted, and the forceful, deliberate attempt of a $600 billion illicit drug trade focused on getting their child hooked on their insidious products before adulthood, when science says they are safe.

To illustrate that marijuana is not a gateway drug, she states “… For every 100 people who have tried marijuana, only one percent is a current user of cocaine.” The reality is for every 100 people who use cocaine, meth, heroin and other drugs, all 100% probably started with marijuana. Rosenbaum states “there is no credible research evidence demonstrating that using one drugs causes the use of another.” That is simply a lie. There is plenty of research to show the relationship that one drug leads to others. Marijuana is a gateway drug, and it is dangerous in its own right. Over 60% of the young people in rehab programs are there for addiction to pot. Marijuana also has a very debilitating effect on short term memory, adversely affects motivation, retards the maturation process and leads to a multitude of physiological problems, including mental illness. Teaching children there is a safe, responsible level of marijuana use is blasphemous.

If there was any question of her maligned motives, her published responses to seminars presented by the ONDCP promoting random student drug testing in the spring of 2004 laid the matter to rest.

She said research and experience tells us “random drug testing does not deter drug use”. That is simply another lie. In every case where it has been done properly, it has dramatically reduced drug use. Schools in Oregon have shown that drug use by kids were in a school which tested was only 25% of the level in schools that did not test. At Hunterton Central Regional schools in New Jersey, after 2 years drug use was reduced in 20 of 28 categories. At De La Salle High School in New Orleans, which the kids had nicknamed “De La Drugs”, drug use has all but been eliminated by use of hair analyses. Ball State University did a study that showed 73% of High School Principals reported a reduction in drug use among students subject to drug testing, while 2% reported an increase. The big question seems to be is Marsha afraid it will work? And why?

She said testing athletes “can deter them from participating.” Research has shown that not to be true in general, and only for a few. If they are using drugs, they should not be competing in athletics. It is dangerous, for them and others. So, kids – a choice.

The biggest lie of all was that random drug testing is “expensive and inefficient”. She cites school administrators in Dublin, Ohio who curtailed their random drug testing program because they calculated their expenses at $35,000 a year for 1,473 students, at $24 a piece, because they only got 11 positive results, a cost of $3,200 per “positive” test.

We know Ms. Rosenbaum isn’t very knowledgeable on drug prevention, but apparently neither she nor the folks in Dublin are very good at math either. Since random drug testing is a deterrent, the correct way to measure the program would be to divide the cost of $35,000 by the 1,462 kids that didn’t do drugs, which would yield a cost of a little less that $24 per student. That’s cheap insurance! And not that Ms. Rosenbaum wants to confuse herself with facts, but with on-site drug test kits that cost as little as $2.50, all 1,473 kids could be tested today for $3,683. If the school can’t afford that, there are Federal Funds available to help pay for it, and if they only tested 10% of the students they could get the desired deterrent effect.

Under the guise of being a drug abuse expert from 18 years of shabby research, Ms. Rosenbaum has foregone any objectivity and professional integrity that should flow from independent research, and sold her soul to one of the most dangerous organizations in America: The Drug Policy Alliance (DPA), funded in large part by George Soros. The DPA’s mission is to legalize and proliferate the use of drugs. In joining their organization and advocating against the best known drug use deterrent, random drug testing, she has essentially defected to the other side.

Rosenbaum is not credible, and neither her motives or advice can be trusted.

As we set sail for another round of political buffoonery revolving around the drug problem here in Vancouver, there is a lone cry from the crow’s nest. Sadly, there were 14 more drug OD deaths in Vancouver during the first year of operation of the ‘Supervised (formerly ‘Safe’) Injection Site’ (50 in 2003; 64 in 2004 as per the attached documents). I have seen more tragedy down here in the skids (and elsewhere across Canada) than I care to, or possibly can, remember. I do sense that the tide will be changing here soon (I hope) as we are currently drifting in dangerous and uncharted waters.

Tonight I am taking out a Global TV reporter and her camera crew at the request of our good Inspector John McKAY, a worthy seaman who is bolding taking a stand against all of this pro-drug legalization nonsense that is deeply muddying up the waters. I have been policing these barren waters since the mid 80′s and the surface is as choppy as it ever was. It is time to high time say that the “Emperor has no clothes on” and set a new, healthy and prosperous course. The efforts behind the ‘Four Pillars Model’ (prevention, treatment, enforcement, and harm reduction) have been in vain, if you pardon the pun, because there has been too much emphasis on the so-called harm ‘reduction’ components.

Let’s look at it this way. Ask yourself this simple but defining question: Which of the four pillars are anti-drug and which are pro-drug? The answer to this belies why we are veering off course and into shark-infested waters. The drug legalizers are pirates who have hijacked the harm reduction pillar, which they have neatly and quietly whittled down into a harm reduction rudder in order to ‘safely’ steer the ship while the passengers and the crew sleep.

I find it a bit ironic that the warning of ‘ice’ being sighted from the crow’s-nest is being taken seriously, given the death and damage that other drugs have wreaked in our society. One of crystal meth’s nicknames is ‘ice’. Society is waking up to the fact that there needs to be a ‘war on ice’. But what will sink S.S. Society is the 90% of raw destructive power that is below the waterline: the foundation on which this drug is allowed to sit (injection sites, heroin trials, ‘medicinal’ marijuana, legalization attempts, weak drug laws and sentencing, etc.). I can show you a picture of a drug addict that is now largely a waste of human potential. Was this due to ravages of heroin, coke, or meth? What drug was used first: nicotine, alcohol, or pot? Does it really matter? The end result is the same.

The passenger infirmary list is getting longer by the day. If those of us who are deck hands are not to be believed, and if the attached stats are somehow skewed, then let’s just go ashore and ask the store owners and non-drug using citizens about the highly touted success (by Mayors Campbell and ex-Mayor Owen) of the ‘Four Pillars’ (“One pillar and three toothpicks” as one astute politician commented on the overabundance of the HR efforts). No one seems to ask for the opinions of the stalwart deck hands of this ‘success’, none of whom are throwing up their hats in the air in celebration of these joyous announcements. Those in the thriving ‘junkie industry’ are tossing lifesavers made out of blood-soaked meat to the hapless victims who have gone overboard with their drug ‘experimentation’ in shark infested waters. All this is done under the banner of compassion mind you, as we must not take away the freedom of choice. I would argue that to a large degree, the addict is unable to soberly choose what is right for them anymore. Their loss of dignity speaks to that.

Meanwhile the sharks circle below hungrily awaiting for the Captain to declare the water safe for swimming.

What is not a laughing matter is the strong movement afoot to legalize all drugs (‘market regulation’ is the buzz phrase). The sham of “legalization though harm reduction” is at last being exposed here in Vancouver. I hope that the police are not willing to be used as pawns in the legalization game by speaking into their hats. The Vancouver Agreement has been contorted beyond its initial shape and scope. I feel that it is time to speak up or forever live with the shame and further social destruction that drug legalization will bring.

Ed Broadbent (leader of the New Democratic Party from 1975 to 1989 and human rights champion) stated recently that “Human rights are based on the inherent dignity of the human being” (June 16, 2005, ‘CBC One’ radio). Drugs have been robbing that dignity from tens of thousands of people. If some blackguards were killing and torturing people in the high seas as drugs do, then it would be an obvious human rights issue and the purveyors of powdered death and destruction would be forced to walk the plank, be keel-hauled, or thrown into the brig.

Drugs sap the potential of our youth. We owe them a better legacy than drug dependency, for it is very well-established that as the perception of the harms done by drugs decreases, drug use increases, and that is simply unacceptable and completely unconscionable.

The havoc that we have witnessed with drugs in our society to date is but the tip of the iceberg if the drug legalization movement is left unchecked.

Of course these comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of the VPD, but watch and see if they in fact are…Al

Al Arsenault, President
Odd Squad Productions Society
Box 1107, 516 Abbott St.,
Vancouver, B.C. CANADA,V6B 6N7
 www.oddsquad.com
cell: 604-788-7051
bus: 604-408-9945

BYLINE: DR. KEVIN COSTELLO
Published on August 9,  2004- The Press Democrat PAGE: B9

Marijuana … what harm can a little dope do? The short answer is: Plenty.
First, is marijuana addictive? You bet it is. About one in eight people exposed to marijuana will become dependent on it. This makes it a little more addictive than alcohol. How do I define addiction? There’s a fancy medical definition or a more simple one: If you use marijuana every day you are probably addicted to it, especially if you have been doing this for a few months or more.So, let’s say you smoke marijuana every day. Isn’t that your business? Maybe yes, but most likely, no. When you are addicted to a substance your relationships in life are with that substance — not with other people.

In addiction medicine we have found that it is often best to ask the family members of the dependent individual how they feel. Frequently, there is a deep resentment and embitterment about the lack of support or the lack of emotional contact and empathy. A patient of mine was once asked by his wife to stop smoking marijuana for a few weeks, because her father was dying and she needed his support.

He managed to stop for a while, only to return to the addiction after his father-in-law died. It is remarkable how strong the dependency on marijuana can be.

Let’s say you don’t care about anyone else or that all your friends smoke or your significant other is tired of you and just as happy to have you stoned all the time.

What’s wrong with that?

There was an article in the Journal of the American Medical Association a few years ago, that looked at patients who used marijuana at least daily. The authors found that even 19 hours after stopping marijuana, these chronic users were not able to think as well (or memorize, or calculate, or analyze or perform other mental functions). In other words, if you smoke marijuana daily, you are always affected or “stoned” to a certain degree. You will not be able to realize your full intellectual capacity. This is especially important to high school and college students whose futures are determined by how well they do during that critically important eight-year window of academic opportunity.

Marijuana can also affect people in mid-career. A former patient of mine who was a Honda mechanic told me that he would read the shop manuals that came out every year seven or eight times. Despite the repetitive reviews, he was still not able to master the material. After stopping marijuana — which he had been using since high school — he found he only needed to read the manuals once.

One further caveat: some people seem to function very well on marijuana. They hold responsible positions and continue to perform relatively well. These folks are probably very bright and are able to accommodate the decrease in mental capacity. They may not, however, be the people you want performing brain surgery or negotiating an important contract.

Let’s say you really don’t care about any of the things that I’ve mentioned above. All you want is to smoke a little dope. A recent article, also in the Journal of the American Medical Association, showed that people who were using cocaine and methamphetamine (nasty stuff — there is a lot of evidence suggesting that these stimulants cause permanent brain injury) frequently followed a pattern of smoking cigarettes at a young age, then drinking alcohol, smoking marijuana and finally, progressing to harder drugs. The authors concluded that marijuana was not only a “gateway drug,” but seemed to actually precipitate the progression to the stimulants (cocaine and methamphetamine) and even to heroin, in certain individuals. So, you still don’t care. Well, I’ve saved the worst for last. The following is a partial list of the complications associated with the chronic use of marijuana: toxic psychosis (in susceptible individuals), increased heart rate and pain, decreased lung function, impaired fetal growth and development, decreased immune function (important for fighting infections and cancers), weight gain, bronchitis, and more.

Finally, a brief word about “medical marijuana.” The medical marijuana initiative passed by California voters, basically provides for the legalization of marijuana. This is because the initiative states that in addition to several serious illnesses, marijuana may be prescribed for “any other illness for which marijuana provides relief.” There was also no restriction on the age of the patient. Many physicians have no problem with the administration of marijuana to a patient with a terminal illness — but did the people of California really intend (as one United States Supreme Court justice put it) that marijuana be used for “anyone with a stomach ache” or for any reason at all?

I, for one, am not willing to sacrifice the one in eight individuals who are now at increased risk for developing an addiction to this drug due to its significantly increased availability.

I know that this article will raise deeply felt issues with some people. It is not my intention to offend anyone. I have attempted to provide factual information that can be reviewed, and hopefully, help you formulate an opinion about the use of marijuana. If you think that you have an addiction to marijuana, or you have further questions about it, the folks at Marijuana Anonymous can be an excellent source of information and assistance. You could also consult with a specialist in chemical dependency or one of the many local chemical dependency programs.

Dr. Kevin Costello is the chief of the medical division of Chemical Dependency Services for Kaiser in Santa Rosa.

By Jim McDonough Malcolm

The marijuana normalizers – as in, “let’s make marijuana use normal, or acceptable” – loved it; so did some of the press. Both were quick to misportray the study, so much so that the author of the study himself was dismayed.

Andrew Morral of RAND believes he did everything he could to explain he did not disprove the gateway theory but, as he told me, “The story about it misrepresented both our findings and my comments about the relevance of our findings to US drug policy. RAND and I have taken pains to emphasize that we do not believe we have disproved the gateway theory.”

The study did say that a high incidence of progression from marijuana to heroin and cocaine use is apparent; that the younger you are when you start using marijuana, the more likely you are to end up using cocaine and heroin; that the more often you use marijuana, the more likely you will use cocaine and heroin.

In short, the study shows the correlation between marijuana and other drug abuse to be high.

Indeed, the study accepts previous studies that have demonstrated the probability that heroin and cocaine use increases 85 times for marijuana users when compared with those who are not marijuana users; that early teen use of marijuana is even more highly correlated with other drug use than late teen marijuana use; and that the more puffs of marijuana you take, the more likely you move on to injections and snorting of even more dangerous drugs.

But here’s where the misunderstanding begins. The study says that maybe these terrible things happen because the people who use all these nasty drugs do it because they have a propensity for drug use, and marijuana is the first illegal drug to present itself to the young.

Dr. Morral calls that the “common factor” theory.

In other words, all drug users like all drugs; marijuana just comes along first. He suggests that this theory might be more accurate than the gateway theory.

But is a gateway not a gateway because it happens to present itself in front of where you want to go?

Perhaps this study’s findings appear trivial. They aren’t. If marijuana is merely the door through which those inclined to use drugs pass because it is convenient, all the more reason to keep that door locked.

I’m convinced that’s the best way to view Morrall’s findings, because the pro-marijuana lobby and much of what the press missed in this study, as well as other careful studies, were findings that suggest:

• There is a strong correlation between marijuana and other drug abuse, with marijuana almost always occurring first.
• Marijuana, all by itself, is a dangerous drug.
• There is a strong correlation between marijuana use and schizophrenia.
• Marijuana itself is addictive.
• Youth marijuana use correlates highly with violence, truancy, and other behavioral problems.
• The younger the marijuana user, the more psychological and physiological damage done, and the more likely that other drugs will follow.
• Smoking three marijuana joints a day can cause the equivalent respiratory damage associated with 20 cigarettes a day. Marijuana smokers show significantly more respiratory symptoms than people who don’t smoke it.
• Prolonged use can cause attention deficit and deterioration in memory.

As we do more studies, we might turn to these people for insight.

So what of the utility of the “common factor” theory over the “gateway” theory? A weed by any other name still smells the same.

* Jim McDonough is director of the Florida Office of Drug Control. He previously served as director of strategic planning at the Office of National Drug Control Policy.

Source: Christian Science Monitor December 16, 2002

By Malcolm Ritter, Associated Press

NEW YORK — Can Prozac help you kick cocaine? Can Ritalin? How about a blood pressure pill or medicine for muscle spasms?

If you’re an alcoholic, could you get help staying sober by taking an anti-nausea drug used by cancer patients?

Scientists are exploring those questions right now. In fact, in the field of addiction medicine, one of the hottest sources of new drugs is … old drugs.

Despite years of research, there is no drug approved in the United States for treating cocaine dependence. To find such a treatment, the National Institute on Drug Abuse is sponsoring human studies of 21 medicines already on the market for something else. That’s about two-thirds of all the potential cocaine drugs being tested in people, says Frank Vocci, director of NIDA’s pharmacotherapy division.

Over at the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, nearly all the potential alcoholism drugs tested in people under institute sponsorship over the past 10 years were previously approved for some other use, says Raye Litten, co-leader of the institute’s medications development team.

While the strategy is hardly new, “it’s been going on maybe just a bit below the radar screen” for most of the public, Vocci said.

It can certainly work. In 1997, for example, the government approved a stop-smoking pill called Zyban, which was in fact the older antidepressant Wellbutrin.

To be sure, experts haven’t given up on developing new drugs. Most NIAAA-funded drug studies for alcoholism that are in early-stage testing — not yet tried on people — are brand-new drugs, Litten said.

But the notion of examining current drugs for addiction-breaking potential holds several advantages. It’s a lot cheaper to get federal approval for a new use of an old drug than to bring a completely new medicine to market. And experience with an existing drug gives an idea of its safety and dose range for possible anti-addiction effects, Vocci said.

He and others caution that people who happen to have medications on hand that show promise in such studies shouldn’t give them to friends and family with addiction problems. That must be left to professionals. Experts also say that even effective anti-addiction medicines usually can’t work by themselves, but must be used along with nondrug therapy.

The most straightforward approach to testing an existing drug is to follow its approved purpose, but in a different way. For example, some scientists are studying how to prolong the effects of naltrexone, now usually given as a daily pill for treating dependence on alcohol or opiates like heroin and morphine.

Dr. David Gastfriend of Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School and other researchers recently reported that specially formulated naltrexone helped alcoholic men cut down on their drinking for a month when they received the drug as a shot in the buttocks.

Why is a monthly visit to a doctor better than just taking a pill every day?

“The pill requires a daily awareness that this is a dangerous disease and a rational decision to take the pill,” Gastfriend said. “The problem with this illness is that on any given day, a person can feel, No, it would be better if I could drink. So you take the pill the first day and you have to make 29 more decisions” the rest of the month.

“But if you received an injection the first day, those 29 decisions have already been made,” said Gastfriend, a paid consultant to Alkermes Inc., which is developing the formulation he studied, called Vivitrex.

More striking than just reformulating a drug is finding a new and apparently unrelated use for it. Here, scientists are guided by emerging knowledge about how addiction hijacks the brain.

Addicts apparently suffer from a combination of unusually strong desire for a drug and a weak inhibition against using it, Vocci said.

“These people essentially have a revved-up engine and thin brake pads,” he said.

In the brain, scientists have found that cocaine produces euphoria by stimulating nerve circuits that communicate with a substance called dopamine. So they’ve looked for medications that can affect the activity of this dopamine system.

One is a decades-old old drug called Baclofen (pronounced BAK-loe-fen), used to treat spasms, cramps and muscle tightness in people with multiple sclerosis or spinal problems. Steven Shoptaw, a researcher at the University of California, Los Angeles, recently published a preliminary, federally funded study that suggested it can cut cocaine use in addicts. A much larger study is now under way to confirm that, but for now the drug looks promising, Shoptaw said.

Other drugs that work in a similar way and that are being tested in cocaine addicts include the anti-seizure medications tiagabine, topiramate and a drug sold overseas as Vigabatrin.

Cocaine withdrawal symptoms might be eased by boosting the brain’s depleted dopamine levels. So scientists are studying dopamine-boosting drugs like Ritalin, used for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and amantadine, used for flu and Parkinson’s disease.

But addiction is complicated enough to involve many brain circuits, which in turn provide many targets for anti-addiction drugs. Inderal, a blood-pressure medicine, may reduce cocaine craving during early abstinence by interfering with the actions of another brain substance, norepinephrine. The antidepressants Prozac and Effexor, which boost levels of yet another brain chemical called serotonin, are also under study in cocaine dependence.

Then there’s Ondansetron (pronounced on-DAN-se-tron), which is normally used to prevent nausea and vomiting after cancer chemotherapy or surgery. Scientists are studying it for both cocaine and alcohol abuse, again for its action in the serotonin circuitry.

It might seem logical that a single drug could help in multiple kinds of addiction, but even that situation can come with a twist. Consider Antabuse, the anti-alcohol drug that works by making users sick if they drink alcohol. Scientists recently found, unexpectedly, that Antabuse also helps cocaine-dependent people cut back on cocaine, though not by making them sick.

Just how it does that isn’t clear, says researcher Dr. Thomas Kosten of Yale University. Antabuse hampers the normal breakdown of cocaine by the body, and boosts dopamine levels while reducing norepinephrine levels, he said. The net effect may be to reduce both withdrawal symptoms and desire to seek cocaine, he said.

Shoptaw thinks that, within the next five years, some drug will win approval for treating cocaine dependence. Baclofen, Topiramate and Antabuse lead his list of candidates. Each may find a use in a different phase of cocaine dependence, such as getting off the drug or staying off, he said.

And addiction specialists are eagerly looking beyond today’s medicine cabinet toward a drug that isn’t approved for anything in the United States yet. Rimonabant blazed into the headlines in March when researchers reported evidence that it might help people battle both cigarette smoking and obesity.

But why stop there?

Rimonabant blocks the brain’s docking sites for its own marijuana-like substances, part of the “cannabinoid” system that might play a role in addictions beyond food and nicotine, says Dr. Herbert Kleber of Columbia University.

Once the drug is approved for either smoking or obesity, he expects researchers will jump in and test it for things like heroin and cocaine.

And the strategy of squeezing new uses of out existing drugs may score another success. Inside here are some medicines being studied for their potential to stop drug addiction. They are already on the market for these uses:

Prozac and Effexor; prescribed for depression.

Amantadine; flu and Parkinson’s disease.

Baclofen; spasms, cramps and muscle tightness in people with multiple sclerosis or spinal problems.

Ritalin; attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.

Ondansetron; prevention of nausea and vomiting after cancer chemotherapy or surgery.

Tiagabine, Topiramate and a drug sold overseas as Vigabatrin; seizures.

Source:http://www.dailynews.com/Stories/0,1413,200~20954~2380825,00.html

By Susan Greenfield

Oxford, England — Across Europe and America, the legalization of cannabis for personal use generates intense debate.

Britain has, to all intents and purposes, practically decriminalized marijuana usage.

As a neuroscientist, I am concerned. One common justification for legalization or decriminalization of cannabis centres around the idea that it does not involve a victim. At least four reports in major medical journals — Ramstrom (1998), Moskowitz (1985), Chesher (1995) and Ashton (2001) — show the contrary.

Costs to the community include accidents at work or at home, educational under-attainment, impaired work performance and health-budget costs.

Another argument is over that cannabis is nonaddictive. Of course, defining addiction is hard. But if one regards it as an inability to give up, then there is strong evidence that cannabis incites dependence. Recent scientific papers report many users in the United States, United Kingdom and New Zealand now seek treatment for dependence. Other papers show that 10 percent of users want to stop or cut down but have difficulty doing so. A paper in 1998 reported that 10 to 15 percent of users become dependent on pot.

It was shown recently that withdrawal symptoms were experienced after only three days of light use. Heavy users confront a worse situation. Dr. Bryan Wells, a rehabilitation expert, says that for the first time he’s beginning to see in heavy cannabis users the withdrawal symptoms produced by hard drugs.

Another argument is the beneficial effect of marijuana on pain. So far, that evidence is anecdotal; it is hard to exclude placebo effects. The results from clinical trials are awaited.

But distinctions should be drawn between recreational drugs and medicines, as they are for opiates. If cannabis is a painkiller, then it must have a huge impact on the physical brain.

Indeed, widespread reports exist of the impact of cannabis on the brain, in particular areas concerned with memory (hippocampus), emotion (mesolimbic system) and movement (basal ganglia). Cannabis affects a variety of chemical systems and it works via its own receptor — its own molecular target.

The fact that there is a naturally occurring analogue of cannabis in the body, as there is for morphine, provides a basic reason to differentiate it from alcohol.

For an agent that affects a variety of transmitter systems, it is as though it were a transmitter itself. This is not surprising, for cannabis has a clear effect on psychology. Not only does it produce euphoria, but the effects, often overlooked, may also include anxiety, panic and paranoia. Disorders in psychological performance, attention impairments and memory deficits are well known.

More disturbing — and less frequently acknowledged — is the fact that these effects can be long-term.

In one recent study, the attention spans of ex-users were compared to those of current users, short-term and long-term. The abstainers, who had been users for at least nine years, had quit from three months to six years before the study. Of the current users, one group had at least 10 years of dependence; the other, about three years. Everyone in the study had used cannabis from 10 to 19 days per month.

Although the quitters did better than users, all had attention impairments in comparison with nonusers in a control group. The impairment was related to the duration of use. Most disturbing was the fact that no improvement in performance occurred with increasing abstinence.

It was no surprise, then, that because these long-term effects seem to be irreversible, there is an effect on brain pathology. Because much of this data comes from work with isolated systems, and therefore on all brains, an obvious criticism is that you can’t extrapolate from such data. Yet, the evidence suggests that the long-term effects must have a physical basis. Is there a safe dose of cannabis, with no effect on the brain? Even a dose comparable to one joint, and analogous levels of the active THC ingredient to that in plasma, can kill 50 percent of neurons in the hippocampus (an area related to memory) within six days. People are unaware that the THC in cannabis remains in the body for more than five days. For someone using cannabis routinely, the dose carried in the body is higher than they imagine. It is easy to underestimate the dose because of the wide range in the strength of cannabis. Individual variations in body fat and, worryingly, variations in one’s disposition to psychosis, mean that you cannot predict how much cannabis will affect any person at any time.

Cannabis could well be having a serious effect on the mind, which I define as the personalization of brain circuits that reflect an individual’s experiences. A transmitterlike substance, with such powerful effects, must affect those circuits. So blowing your mind might be exactly what marijuana users are doing.

Source: San Francisco Chronicle (CA): Pubdate: Sun, 6 Jan 2002

Note: Susan A. Greenfield, the Fullerian Professor of Physiology at Oxford University, is director of the Royal Institution of Great Britain. This article was written for Project Syndicate, based in Prague.

By Joel Becker, Associate Editor

As methamphetamine makes a larger impact in western Wisconsin, more and more people are making an effort to find out just how bad the drug really is.

As a part of an Elk Mound inservice for school staff, Tim Schultz of the Division of Narcotics Enforcement gave a presentation to those 60 staff members and another 160 or so community members.

Schultz’ presentation wasn’t something that was humorous or entertaining. Rather it was more apropos for a Halloween spook show.

In fact, portions of the presentation, that included videos and photos, were simply gruesome.

Schultz told the audience that he gives the same presentation to high school students and some find it too graphic.

Early in the presentation on meth, Schultz showed a video with pictures of a 4-year-old girl who had been slowly bloodied, scarred and burned before being scalded to death in a bathtub by her parents who were meth users and cookers.

And the most disturbing portion of the presentation were pictures of people who couldn’t escape their homes when their meth labs exploded.

Schultz touched on marijuana as a gateway drug, but focused on meth because “that is the biggest problem we have right now.”

Schultz has been a presenter for 17 years and said the Polk and Barron county areas are the worst places for methamphetamine in the state of Wisconsin.

He said 90 percent of crime in those counties can be attributed to meth use as users search for ways to acquire the money they need to keep up their habit.

He noted that meth is different from any other drug out there because every other drug is natural. Meth is totally manmade and is the most potent drug there is.

When smoked or injected, he cited a report that said that 90 out of 100 users will become addicts by the second time they use.

“There’s no such thing as a recreational meth user,” Schultz said.

He said people start to use meth (crystal, crank, speed, lith-fluff, ice, glass shards) for a couple of reasons. Schultz said people use it because meth causes dramatic weight loss. It gives users incredible energy and keeps them awake for days or weeks at a time.

It also gives the user a euphoria beyond anything else because it forces the brain to release all of its dopamine, the body’s feel-good drug (except that with all of the dopamine in use, the feeling is 40,000 times stronger than any release the body gives naturally). The brain usually recycles the dopamine, but meth keeps the dopamine in the system for a long high (four to 16 hours) and eventually destroys it.

So no high is as good as the first, but the addict will continually try to recreate that feeling, destroying all dopamine in the body, which meth then simulates. The person can have no feeling of pleasure on their own after continued abuse and rely on meth to feel good.

But, as Schultz said in the nearly two-hour presentation, addicts basically turn into paranoid schizophrenics. He said the “meth monsters” make addicts unable to grasp reality.

Schultz told stories of how addicts believe law enforcement officers were always watching them and out to get them. They even believed they could see them peeking in their windows or watching them with night-vision goggles from a roof across the street.

Another user said he thought he was driving 60 miles an hour in his car and saw a relative running along side, so he opened his door to let him in.

Addicts also get “crank bugs,” which cause them to scratch and pick at their skin.

The cuts and scabs are just one indication of a meth user. They also usually have bad teeth and gums, bad breath, body odor, sunken in eyes, gaunt faces and a haggard appearance.

Since methamphetamine is relatively new in Wisconsin (there’s more in Polk and Barron counties than in Madison and Milwaukee combined) Schultz said the recently-enacted law that puts pseudophedrine (a key meth ingredient) behind the counter will have little affect. Thirty-seven states have similar laws.

When the law was enacted in Iowa, meth-related arrests dropped 70 percent. But Schultz says 90 percent of the meth in Wisconsin comes from Mexicans, much of which comes from Mexico.

Though every meth addict is a victim, children are the innocent victims.

“Meth users care more about the drug than their children,” Schultz said.

Children are constantly exposed to the chemicals necessary to making meth and are often harmed by the toxins or die in meth lab fires.

“Living in a home with a meth lab is like living in a toxic waste dump,” he said.

Schultz said those trying to recover often reoffend. He said the only way for users to break the meth habit is by participating in a long-term program.

 Source: www.dunnconnect.con Nov. 2005

By Alberto Carosa
Rome
 From time to time in the not too distant past we could hear about initiatives within and without the UN for the Holy See to be increasingly marginalized or even expelled from the Organisation and its proceedings. Much more rarely do we hear about the contrary, namely the UN seeking co-operation with and help from the Holy See. This is precisely what happened when the head of the UN Office for Drug Control and Crime Prevention, Italian-born Antonio Maria Costa, was recently received in the Vatican by John Paul II and the secretary of State, Angelo Cardinal Sodano (cf. Corrispondenza romana, May 15, 2004).
“I showed the Pope our work”, Costa reportedly said after the talk, “which is also about terrorism prevention, since it has by now been proven that all the organisations of that type resort to drug trafficking as a financial resource”. The UNODC also showed Sodano a graph indicating the various “specialising” activities of the different terrorist groups. “Only to refer to the best-known”, he said, “Al Qaeda trades in heroin, like other groups active in Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Turkey and Uzbekistan; the Colombian FARC is peddling cocaine, while marijuana is being pushed by Hezbollah, Nepalese Maoists and the Abu Sayyaf militiamen in the Philippines”.But there is also the problem of Aids, Costa continued, which should be also addressed because it is partly a result of drug addiction and is on the rise, especially in Eastern Europe and in the Baltic states.  John Paul II exhibited a keen interest, Costa noted, and from his questions one could realise that he was well aware of the problem, particularly in Colombia and in the former Iron Curtain countries.Costa also pointed out that corruption is among the worst crimes and it is caused by drug trafficking, which annually slashes lawful trade by over $ 1 billion, thus turning into a real enemy of development. Another drug-related, appalling scourge is human trafficking, a modern form of slavery whereby million people every year are deprived of their freedom, enduring the worst forms of exploitation. In the face of such phenomena, legal measures, though important, are not enough, Costa stated. “The opposition from civil society should instead be enhanced”.

In Costa’s opinion, prevention measures are of paramount importance. “We need for evil in drugs to be grasped, and for this to be perceived in schools, which I don’t see particularly committed in this regard, in working places, in amenities, such as discos, and worship places, such as oratories”, he said. “Anti-social patterns of behaviour undermine the fabric of all of society, and may be effectively tackled by society as a whole”. From this perspective, and with the aim to keep our youth away from drugs, crime and terrorism, “a possible co-operation between the UNODC and social-oriented Catholic organizations around the world has been thrashed out, especially to strengthen family and community capacities in handling anti-social patterns of behaviour”, concluded Costa in his briefing.

But how can civil society best be involved and mobilised for it to promote its opposition against the drug scourge? An interesting clue in this regard came from a conversation with Mrs Betty Sembler, a veteran anti-drug activist, the president of Drug Free America Foundation (DFAF) and the wife of Melvin Sembler, the US Ambassador to Italy. She supports an aggressive campaign through a series of ads for print and electronic media. This campaign, Mrs Sembler made clear, was the child of another NGO, The Partnership for a Drug Free America, and it is an excellent example of fruitful interaction between public institutions and private-run organisations. These ads were launched first in the United States as a joint initiative with the government, which paid for them through grants to the Office of National Drug Control Policy, and were even televised during the Superbowl. The ads are not only increasingly fine-tuned and effective, but also created with multicultural approach, making them easily transferable from one country to another.

One of these ads particularly struck Mrs Sembler.

“I’ve seen a most effective ad, perhaps the most effective ad I have ever seen, and which I would very much like to see it used in Italy as well”, Mrs Sembler continued. “It was a full newspaper page, which read: ‘How to write an obituary for your son’. This sentence says it all. The text is very short and calls on parents to look after their children, to keep them away from dope, to check on who their school mates and friends are, to identify the wrong information targeting them, and discover those who are promoting drug use among them. ‘Unless you want to write this obituary’ – it’s the shocking conclusion”. Just the idea of having to write an obituary for a son “strikes to the heart of a mother”, says Mrs. Sembler. “I have no direct knowledge of what’s going on in an Italian family, but a mother is always a mother, whether she is Italian or Eskimo”.

Source: Drug Free America August 2004
/span>

The Rocklin City Council recently voted to prohibit a medical-marijuana dispensary in the area, an action that medical marijuana experts said is unprecedented in California. City-council members voted for the 45-day emergency ban after Roseville Police Chief Mark Siemens told officials that the stores caused problems in his city. Since the medical marijuana shops have opened in Roseville, Siemens said, street dealers have begun loitering outside, thieves attack patients leaving the store, and illegal sales or marijuana occurs nearby.

But medical-marijuana supporters said the Rocklin council’s decision was based on incomplete information. They said shop operators are committed to ensuring that patients are safe. The advocates cited the Colfax store as an example, saying it follows strict admission procedures and has cameras and a security guard monitoring the store and parking lot.

“There have been no problems, no reports of crime,” said Placer County Undersheriff Steve D’Arcy of the Colfax store. “It’s been very quiet.”Even Roseville Police Capt. Dave Braafladt acknowledged that while the store has resulted in some calls, there was “nothing of major significance.”But many city officials are uncomfortable with medical-marijuana stores in their community, especially with the conflict between state and federal law. Under federal law, marijuana is illegal, even for medical purposes.

By Maria Lokshin , Associated Press

AMSTERDAM—There’s a whiff of crisis in the air at the Dutch Health Ministry: It has a mountain of marijuana on its hands that it just can’t sell.

The Netherlands rolled out a program last year that allows people with medical needs to buy prescription marijuana at any pharmacy, and get part of the money back from medical insurance.

But in a country where any adult can walk into a “coffee shop” and smoke a joint for much less than the government price, many say the experiment at regulating medical marijuana has been a bust.

“I think it’s a shame that they can’t deliver a cannabis product a little bit cheaper than the coffee shops,” said David Watson, head of Hortapharm, an Amsterdam-based company licensed for research and development of cannabis for pharmaceutical use.

“Why is it that a legal commodity is more expensive than an illegal commodity?”

Cas de Bruijn, 43, sliced off four fingers and part of his thumb in an industrial accident 27 years ago, and to this day feels a “phantom pain” in those missing fingers that eases when he smokes pot.

For him, the problem with the government’s medical marijuana program isn’t just cost but the fact it doesn’t provide him with the kind of weed he needs – a variety high in cannabidiol, or CBD, a muscle relaxant.

“What is now in the pharmacy is very low in CBD,” de Bruijn said. “I didn’t like it at all.”

Whatever the cause, even the government acknowledges its program may be foundering.

“We are not meeting our targets,” said Bas Kuik, spokesman for the Office of Medicinal Cannabis, an arm of the Dutch Ministry of Health. Of the 200 kilograms in anticipated sales, only 80 kilograms were sold since the project was launched last year, he said.

The program allows pharmacies to sell standardized marijuana from authorized growers that have undergone quality control. It is aimed at chronic or terminal diseases such as multiple sclerosis, HIV/AIDS, neuralgia, cancer and Tourette’s syndrome.

It is illegal to privately grow and sell marijuana in the Netherlands. But in the 1970s authorities decided not to prosecute the sale of small amounts, bringing the soft-drug industry above ground where it could more easily be controlled. There is no similar tolerance for dealers in hard drugs, like cocaine or heroin.

Hundreds of marijuana bars, thinly disguised as “coffee shops” to maintain the fiction of legality, sprang up in the cities and large towns. Though patronized mostly by recreational smokers and tourists, people in pain who find relief from cannabis are also customers.

Erik Bosman, manager of the Dampkring coffee shop, says many of his regulars are medical patients, and he even used to offer discounts for people with doctors’ prescriptions.

The Dampkring, just off one of Amsterdam’s busiest shopping streets, has a comfortable amber glow that filters through a thin haze of pungent smoke.

Even at midday, dozens of mostly young people sit at the long dark wood bar sipping soft drinks or beer as they roll their cigarettes or smoke pre-packaged joints. The coffee shop was the set for a scene shot earlier this year of Ocean’s Twelve, and pictures of George Clooney and Brad Pitt with the staff hang on the wall.

The menu, with 23 types of marijuana and 18 varieties of hashish, carries a “fair smoke” reassurance that the cannabis is organically grown.

But many coffee shops are dingy, unappealing hangouts that hardly inspire a feeling of pharmaceutical confidence, and some seriously ill people will pay more for guaranteed quality, especially if it’s covered by their insurance.

The government sells two varieties ranging from 8 and Ç9.50 (US$9.80-$11.70) a gram. Coffee shops sell marijuana as low as 4 (US$4.90) a gram, with only the highest quality weed ringing up prices comparable to the government’s.

One of two legal marijuana growers for the government program is James Burton, a US expatriate in Rotterdam, who immigrated after spending a year in prison in the United States for growing marijuana to fight glaucoma.

The high cost of the Dutch government’s program may have less to do with pot than with packaging. The government says about 60 percent of the cost is related to providing and distributing the marijuana to pharmacies, and the rest is for development, packing and tax.

Watson said coffee-shop marijuana is always a gamble because there is a small but real chance customers could be smoking pesticides, fungicides, insecticides, mould or fungi—all of which can be detrimental for someone with a weakened immune system.

Burton founded the Stichting Institute of Medical Marijuana, and for more than a decade he sold marijuana directly to as many as 1,500 patients. He estimates about 10,000 people in the Netherlands use marijuana for medical reasons.

In 2001 he signed an exclusive contract with the government to provide the cannabis for its program. But the five-year agreement was terminated prematurely after he went on Dutch television talking about the program that he believes is “doomed to fail.”

The government accused him of breaking a confidentiality clause.

“I finally had to come out publicly,” he told The Associated Press. “The program’s not working. They have less than 1,000 patients.” Burton charged that the government “is not dedicated to making sure the program works.”

“Nobody’s promoting it. It’s not a proactive campaign,” he said.

Politics may be to blame, Burton believes, since a conservative coalition has replaced the more liberal government that created the medicinal marijuana program. “The whole country is leaning to the right,” he said. “I think a year from now this program’s gone.”

Kuik, the government official, confirmed the program is up for review early next year.

For de Bruijn, coffee shops and pharmacies are not options. His insurance company will not reimburse him for coffee shop marijuana, and has placed a $560 annual cap on payments—far less than he would spend in a pharmacy.

Instead, de Bruijn buys his marijuana from an organization similar to Burton’s, where it is cheap enough to be covered by his insurance.

But he’s far from satisfied.

“I feel I’m forced to buy there, and I really think they stink,” he said. “It’s not good medical marijuana.”


Source: www.manilatimes.net October 14 2004

By Nick Papps,Herald Sun
December 15. 2003

A TAXPAYER-funded magazine is telling people how to inject drugs, use rock heroin and how to beat a drug test. The magazine, Whack, is produced by drug user group VIVAIDS and even includes a section on finding the best location to inject and tips on how to inject pills.

The organisation. which receives up to $580,000 a year from government, also has a website telling users how to avoid police questions. with links to pro-drug organisations. sex sites and pornographic video outlets. The revelations coincide with the release of statistics showing that Victorian health officials gave away 5.58 million needles in the past 12 months – up 827.000 on the previous year.

Critics claim the needles are being used for heroin start-up kits and health officials have admitted that they are concerned about the rise in needle numbers.

A Herald Sun investigation has also revealed:

•  
  • INDIVIDUAL drug users are taking up to 400 needles each at needle exchanges.
  • SOCIAL workers say drug dealers are waiting outside prisons for former users.
  • THE Department of Human Services says increased heroin supplies and injection of prescription drugs are fuelling the rise in needle use.

Yesterday opposition leader Robert Doyle slammed VIVAAIDS and said its funding should be halted over the magazine.

“The articles in the magazine encourage efficient drug use.” Mr Doyle said.

“The message should be about the dangers of drugs.

“The Government has taken its eyes off the drug issue. This is also shown through the huge numbers of needles being handed out – it’s open slather needle distribution.”

The Department of Human Services figures show that VIVAIDS received $193,000 from the State Government and almost $390,000 in funding from the Federal Government last year.

The magazine includes:

•  
  • A CHART on how long it takes to get a clean urine test after using drugs.
  • TIPS on how to inject pills and break up rock heroin fix injecting.
  • ADVICE on finding a good vein for injection.
  • A YOUNG drug user describing chroming.

The contents page begins with the quote: “I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence or insanity, but they’ve always worked for me”.

The VIVAIDS website has extensive advice on using drugs and guides to each drug, including advice on “how to have a good time” on some drugs. A section on the law includes advice on avoiding police questions. The magazine is distributed in needle exchanges and is written for drug users.

Yesterday Health Minister Tony Abbott said the Federal Government would not knowingly support any organisation that promoted drug use.
“There’s no such thing as a safe way to use illegal drugs,’ Mr Abbott said.

A State Government spokeswoman said that although it funded VIVAIDS. none of the money went towards the magazine. VIVAIDS could not be contacted yesterday for comment. Health workers said that up to 400 needles were being given to drug users a day.

A nurse at a regional hospital said one user demanded he be given 400 needles – “and we must give it to him.”Another man takes 100 needles at a time”. “The person that collects them takes them to a dealer and they’re used as heroin start-up kits.”

But the Department of Human Services’ director of drug policy and services. Paul McDonald said health officials should hand out as many needles as they could. Mr McDonald said there was no requirement For users to hand in needles despite the drug programs being called needle exchanges.
“You can never hand out too many, from a public health perspective,” he said. “The more you are able to make clean syringes available, the more you are going to prevent HIV and Hep C.” Mr McDonald said it was the department’s policy to supply users with the number of needles they requested.

Youth worker Les Twentyman said rising supplies of heroin in Victoria had led dealers to entice former drug users back. “They hang around the jails when they get released. They visit the user at home, Mr Twentyman said.

A positive experience from  Florida, USA. The following article shows how a proactive prevention approach can make a  significant difference in a community.

From drug capital to good example
BY ROBERT McCABE

In the past eight years, Miami-Dade youth have reduced drug use by 50 percent. But there is more to the story. The Florida Youth Substance Abuse Survey found Miami-Dade to have the lowest rate of youth marijuana use of any Florida county, and the Federal Risk Behaviour Survey reported that Miami youth had the lowest rate of marijuana use of 14 large metropolitan areas.
In addition, the Miami Coalition School Survey showed that alcohol and cocaine use were down by a third, and the use of cigarettes, marijuana, LSD, rohhypnol, heroin, MDMA and amphetamines fell by more than half. Although drug use remains a major problem, our youth and the community have reason to be proud of this significant achievement.

We are a better place to live, work and raise families. What caused this amazing change?

In the 1980s, Miami was seen as the drug capital of the world. Cocaine cowboys roamed our streets as crime, corruption and addiction caused by cocaine and inflamed by crack put us at risk. Drug-related deaths, medical emergencies and demand for drug treatment rose dramatically. We had become the drug badlands. Our community rose up in response to this dire circumstance, and in 1988, with the leadership of Alvah Chapman and Tad Foote, the business community organized and funded the Miami Coalition for a Safe and Drug Free Community, which helped unleash a blitzkrieg of anti-drug activity. Miami’s was the nation’s first broadly based community anti-drug coalition and has become the model for more than 900 that exist today. Key to success has been the breadth of involvement New organizations and new methods of prevention sprang up and others intensified their anti-drug efforts. These include Abriendo Puertas (Opening Doors) Switchboard of Miami, Informed Families, D-FY-IT, Catholic Charities, Agape, Camillus House, Betterway, Miami-Dade County Programs, Community Crusade Against Drugs, Here’s Help, Spectrum Programs, The Village and Concept House. Thousands of people continue to participate in these efforts that have been sustained and grown. Under coalition leadership, the courts, corrections and all the law-enforcement groups came together for the first time to coordinate activities. One result was federal designation as a High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area bringing additional resources that reduced drug trafficking through Miami. The county increased crack-house demolition from 54 in 1988 to 376 in 1989. It also passed a law that created “safe no-drug zones” 1,000 feet around schools, and a parent-led effort ensured that the law was enforced. Another first was the creation of a very successful drug court. its success spawned over 100 drug courts in other American communities.

Other accomplishments include the establishment of a countywide Juvenile Assessment Centre to coordinate services. The Miami-Dade School Board placed drug counsellors in the schools and retained them through budget-cutting years. The Faith Committee promoted anti- drug messages. The Greater Miami Chamber of Commerce and the coalition organized a drug-free workplace programme, which now includes 60 percent of the workplace. The media stepped to the plate and in the critical early years, The Miami Herald and community newspapers contributed a full page a week to the coalitions efforts. In the 11 years that data have been kept, the Miami electronic media led the nation nine times in providing public service time for anti-drug messages. More than half of the surveyed youth indicate that they see these messages every month.

Today the coalition has been transformed from a reactive to a proactive organization. Driven by multiple data sources, strategies are developed to address identified needs. The strategies involve many groups that draw on the communities’ drug-related resources. With the broad-based participation and these strategies in place, Miami is well positioned to continue the fight against drug use. We are proud of our community’s accomplishments. The transformation of our city from a dangerous drug-infested area to a model of national leadership in drug prevention is a stunning achievement and testimony to what can be done when we all work together.

By Den Taylor
Daily Mail, 13 January  2004

So this is what happens when the police take the law on cannabis less seriously. In the London borough of Lambeth the experiment of a softly-softly approach to the drug led to an explosion In its use. From the end of this month the Lambeth approach will be effectively introduced across the country as cannabis is downgraded to a ‘Class C’ substance. There is a real danger that cannabis use across the country will soar as teenagers assume they are safe from arrest and that it is acceptable to use the drug From whatever angle this is looked at, It Is a totally wrongheaded reform.

Cannabis Explosion

FEARS over the legal downgrading or cannabis increased last night as figures showed an
explosion in its use. Police in the London borough which pioneered a softly-softly approach to the drug have reported a three fold increase In the number of those caught with It. Anti-drug campaigners said last night that the trend suggested demand for cannabis will rocket when it is formally reclassified as a Class C substance later this month. The statistics are taken from crime figures  Lambeth  widely seen as a template for the government’s drug law reform. In July 2001, Commander Brian Paddick ordered his officers not to arrest and charge those caught with a small amount of cannabis, Instead they were let off with confiscation and a warning. Critics said the year long experiment made Lambeth, and the Britain area in particular, a magnet For so-called drug tourists and increased consumption among children. Supporters claimed that it freed officers to
concentrate on tackling harder substances such as heroin and crack cocaine. Figures show that in the year leading up to the experiment there were 805 incidents involving cannabis in Lambeth.  By 2001/2002 they bad risen to 1,127. Last year, despite the decision  to scrap the experiment, the figure had risen to 2,330. From January 29, the Brixton approach. will effectively become a nationwide policy and officers
will be able to arrest users only in aggravating circumstances’ – if they are under 18 or smoking persistently in a public place or near a school’
The official downgrading means the drug will be  considered no more dangerous than prescription painkillers, steroids or tranquillisers. Doctors fear the change will lead young people to believe the drug is harmless.

Last night, senior police sources said that even though a more aggressive approach to drug use in Lambeth has been employed over the past l8 months, demand for cannabis has continued to rise. Lambeth has also continued to attract drug users from outside the borough. That factor may end when the law is changed. Those opposed to liberalisation believe that what has happened in Brixton is likely to be repeated in many parts or the country. The fear is that demand will go through the roof. Anti-drugs campaigner Mary Brett, a grammar school teacher, said: These figures prove that since the Home Secretary David Blunkett mode his announcement that the law was going to be changed, usage of the drug and demand has gone tip, In some ways it was inevitable. People. particularly children, pick up messages and the message is that it’s OK to take cannabis.’ Alter January 20, those caught in possession for personal use can expect the police to confiscate the drug and issue a routine warning. The maximum sentence for possession will fall from five years to two, although punishments for dealers will increase. However, last night there were Fears that the changes will lead to more confusion.

John DunFord, of the Secondary Heads Association, said: There is considerable confusion on the pert o as to the effect that tills will have, particularly on school discipline. Our advice is to continue to treat cannabis as before. The penalties we advise are a suspension  possession Or exclusion for anyone who is supplying it. About 2 million Britons use cannabis regularly and a third of all l5-year olds have tried the drug according to official figures. Figures  yesterday showed that the price of the drug has dropped by 20 per cent t £66 for an ounce of resin and there is increasing evidence that road accidents re being caused by drivers high on the drug. Last night Chief Superintvn’ dent Richard Quinn, Lambeth’s current commander admitted  there had been a perception that users would not be prosecuted for carrying drug and that it had been ‘legalised’. The bottom line is that the dealers are more overt he said. Mr Quinn, said that as tile new law was rolled out across the country flourishing new markets for the drug would develop unless local officers took a firm  decision to keep a lid on it.

‘Epidemic’ of mental illness warning

SINCE the decision to downgrade cannabis revealed there have been persistent claims that it is linked to serious mental illness. Last November, a court heard how Christopher Francis, a paranoid schizophrenic with a history of smoking the drug, killed his grandmother and aunt with a house brick and kitchen knife. The Judge, Mrs. Justice Heather Hallet, said: “It would  not be the first time, that the use of apparently harmless drugs such as cannabis has led to a tearful explosion of violence.”

Earlier this month a leading expert warned that cannabis is the biggest single cause of mental illness in the UK. Consultant psychiatrist Professor Robin Murray said that up to 80 per cent of new patients at many units hey, a history of smoking the drug. He added that the vast majority  of psychotic patients those who lose contact with reality have used cannabis. He has also led a study which showed that cannabis users are seven times more at risk of developing mental illness than the population in general. One of the main problems, he believes, is that the cannabis is now far stronger than what was available in the 1960s and 1970s. It contains up to ten times as mush of the ingredient tetrahydrocannabinol which includes the ‘high’. The fear is that its wide spread use among youngsters could result in an epidemic of schizophrenia. he warned: the more cannabis that is consumed the more psychiatrists we need. the drug has also been linked to cancer and lung disease.

By Laura Clark
Daily mail  August 2003

FORMER drug addicts are being offered a shortcut to a university degree on the basis of the ‘valuable life experience’ they have gained. They will be allowed to skip extensive periods of formal study if they can prove their ordeal and recovery was relevant to their course.
The astonishing deal is being offered as part of a new higher education scheme titled the Accreditiation of Prior Experiential Learning, which allows universities to waive up to two thirds of courses if students can show their previous experience overlaps with material covered in lessons.
This has been interpreted by Glasgow Caledonian University to offer recovering drug addicts the chance to offset formal study in the preliminary stages of a social science degree.

Another university advises students they may be able to count holiday work as a lifeguard towards a degree In sports science.
Critics lambasted the scheme yesterday as further evidence of dumbing down in higher education.
Shadow education minister Graham Brady said: Life experiences are important for everyone. But however significant those experiences, they can be no substitute for serious academic study.

‘It is particularly worrying if drug addicts are being given an advantage over those who have studied and worked bard.’
Other examples also raised eye-brows. Angila Polytechnic University advises students on its website: The experience of being a holiday life guard has no relevance to a degree In electronics, but would probably have some relevance to a degree in sports science.’
The Quality Assurance Agency, the higher education watchdog, has become so concerned It plans to launch new guidelines to stop dubious uses of the APEL scheme. Wide variations in how universities apply the rules emerged at a recent meeting hosted by the QAA. It revealed that in a few cases, up to two thirds of an award is eligible for APEL’. This means that some students would be able to complete a three-year degree course in a year. Students must pay a charge If they wish their pre-university experiences to be assessed under APEL. This can be anything from a few pounds to £100. But in some cases the assessment involves little more than an informal meeting with an academic.

Explaining the plans at Glasgow Caledonian, Paula Cleary a research fellow at the university. said: The kind of experiences they (the addicts) had had were relevant — they had had to gather information to learn about how to cope and they had to undergo the process of counselling, for example.

Mary Brett, a grammar school teacher in Amersham, Buckinghamshire, said she was thunderstruck’ by the idea and warned it could encourage children to experiment with drugs. ‘It certainly isn’t a deterrent if they know the experience can help their future.’

This month’s 30th Anniversary edition of High Times Magazine has some interesting information that you may or may not already know. In articles by Richard Stratton, Rex Weiner and Ed Dwyer, there is reporting of marijuana use by Norman Mailer and Hugh Downs–something I’ve always suspected, but never have seen in print.

In his editorial in the same edition, Richard Stratton presents an interesting history of High Times if you are interested.

In the September issue, an article called “NORML 2004: A Conference of Heroes” states many of the goals of the pro-drug movement. Steve Bloom, as he accepted an award, said, “It’s my great pleasure to know and work with all of you as we move closer to our ultimate goal, marijuana legalization.”

The movement’s agenda is laid out in an article “Ten suggestions for the Pot Movement.” They include: support for medical marijuana, buy hemp products, resist drug testing, support pot smokers and reach out to the mainstream, among others. These articles help connect all the “dots” together.

The Metro reports that children as young as 13 are being given nicotine patches at a school in an attempt to help them smoking.

In a project, pupils take breath tests before morning lessons to check the levels of nicotine in their bodies.

If they have smoked before they get to school they are given a nicotine replacement patch by a school nurse.

The controversial idea was brought in at Greencroft High School, before the summer break. Seven girls, aged 13 and 14 sought help because they smoked between ten and 20 cigarettes a day.

The breakthrough came when they took part in the dangers of addiction course and were asked about their smoking habits. In addition to patches they were given a hotline number to call if they felt unable to resist the urge to light up.

Four girls managed to stick to the regime and remained tobacco free for two months.

Now 30 of their school mates want to join the programme when they return for the autumn term in September.

The Department of Health said it welcomed any effort to discourage under 16s from smoking.

According to most recent figures, six percent of British 13 year olds smoke regularly and 22 percent of 15 year olds. However, ASH believes many children start as young as nine.

Spokeswoman Amanda Sandford said: “If they start as young as nine or ten, then by thirteen they could be showing all the signs of addiction an adult smoker would. For those children, it is quite reasonable to be given help with nicotine patches. As long as it is done in a controlled way with a teacher or a nurse keeping an eye on them, I don’t see any problem.”

MANY psychiatric units have become little more than ‘cannabis wards’ because of the huge numbers turned psychotic by the drug, a mental health expert claimed yesterday.

Marjorie Wallace, chief executive of the charity Sane, said the situation had become so serious that the entire mental health system was being ‘distorted’.

Patients with non drug-related mental illnesses were being turned away from some wards because the threat of violence from psychotic cannabis users had made them unsafe, she added.

‘Doctors are saying to non cannabis-users, such as young girls with anorexia and middle-aged women, “I can’t admit you if you are not taking cannabis, because it’s not safe”,’ Miss Wallace said.

‘It means people who may be even more seriously ill and even more of a suicide risk are being neglected.

Cannabis has changed the whole way in which the mental health system operates. The popular view of cannabis is that it is a harmless drug. It is not.’ Miss Wallace’s comments came a day after research in Sweden suggested cannabis can permanently damage the development of teenagers’ brains, with users in the age group up to ten times more likely to suffer long-term mental illness.

One of the most outspoken critics of the Government’s decision to downgrade cannabis from a class B to a class C drug in January last year, Miss Wallace has spent 18 years trying to draw attention to the link between the drug and mental illness.

‘In all the years I have campaigned in the mental health field, I think I have only come across two examples of young people developing psychosis in which cannabis was not a factor,’ she said.

‘In London, 80 per cent of people assessed with a first episode of psychosis are on cannabis. The explosion in cannabis-induced psychosis is already happening.’