International News

Failure of Portugal’s drug legalisation experiment

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

 

 

Marijuana Impaired Driving: A serious safety problem

While “medical marijuana” and marijuana legalization are common topics in the news, little attention is given to a large and growing body of research showing that marijuana impaired driving is a major cause of crashes, injuries and deaths.

The overall number of traffic fatalities has continued to decrease nationally over the past 40 years,1 reaching its lowest level in decades of 33,808 deaths in 2009.2 While reductions in alcohol-related fatalities have led this favorable trend, over the past five years the number of drug-positive drivers, including those positive for marijuana, has increased.3 Of all drug-positive fatally injured drivers in 2009, 28% were positive for marijuana. This accounts for 9% of all fatally injured drivers who had confirmed drug test results. Because many states do not conduct routine – or in some instances any – drug testing of fatally injured drivers, the prevalence of drugs, and in particular of marijuana, among fatally injured drivers is likely to be higher.

 Marijuana is a Schedule I drug of abuse that has serious impairing psychological and physiological effects.4 A recent meta-analysis of nine epidemiological studies concluded that drivers who test positive for marijuana or report driving within three hours of marijuana use are more than twice as likely as other drivers to be involved in a crash.5 Studies of drivers involved in motor vehicle crashes support this conclusion. A study of seriously injured drivers admitted to a Maryland Level-1 shock trauma center showed that 26.9% of all seriously injured drivers tested positive for marijuana.6 A study of fatally injured drivers inWashingtonStateshowed

12.7% tested positive for marijuana and that among alcohol-positive drivers, 17.3% also tested positive for marijuana. The combination of marijuana use and alcohol is of great concern as evidence shows that low doses of marijuana combined with low doses of alcohol causes severe impairment.7 These data also show that combining alcohol and marijuana is common among seriously injured and dead drivers.

Efforts to reduce drunk driving have included strong legislation, effective enforcement and massive national education campaigns, yielding impressive results. The number of fatally injured drivers with illegal blood alcohol concentrations (BAC) of 0.08 g/dL has decreased 49% from 21,113 deaths in 1982 to 10,839 deaths in 2009.8 Similar actions must be taken to reduce drugged driving, including marijuana-specific initiatives since marijuana is by far the leading cause of drugged driving crashes, injuries and deaths. The problem of drugged driving received national attention for the first time in 2010, when the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) identified reducing drugged driving a national priority in the National Drug Control Strategy.9 In 2011, ONDCP renewed its commitment to work to reduce drugged driving by 10% over the next 5 years in the 2011

Commentary December 8, 2011

 The national rate of illicit drug use has increased in recent years after a long-term decline, largely due to increases in marijuana use, particularly among young adults.11 Increased marijuana use poses a heightened risk on the nation’s roads and highways. As perceived risk of marijuana use has decreased, particularly among youth, the rate of marijuana use has increased.12

 The emergence of “medical marijuana” in 16 states and the District of Columbia have made national headlines, sending a strong, misleading message to the public that marijuana use is safe and that marijuana is a “medicine”, leading to increases in marijuana use. Adding to the more permissive state laws and to the changing perceptions of risk of marijuana use, a discussion paper released by the Institute for the Study of Labor recently has received significant international press attention for its conclusions that “medical marijuana” laws cause decreased traffic fatalities and decreased alcohol consumption.13 Analyzing three states which permit “medical marijuana” (Vermont, Rhode Island and Montana), the authors conclude that

“medical marijuana” increases adult marijuana use and not youth marijuana use; that increased adult marijuana use is associated with decreased alcohol use; and that the decrease in adult alcohol use in these states after their approval of “medical marijuana” led to fewer motor vehicle crashes and fatalities.

 As stated by General Arthur Dean, Chairman and CEO of the Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America (CADCA), there are three significant problems with this non-peer-reviewed discussion paper:

 “(1) the study methodology is greatly flawed; and,

   (2) the study’s authors disregard a large body of evidence showing     that          marijuana and alcohol are compliments; and,

 (3) The study’s authors disregard mounting evidence that marijuana use is linked with impaired driving.”14

Former White House Drug Policy Advisor Kevin Sabet, Ph.D. points out that this paper’s authors “clearly dismiss or ignore research about the effects of medical marijuana that happen to be inconsistent with their conclusions.”15 In particular, a recent peer-reviewed study showed that rates of youth marijuana use are higher in states with “medical marijuana” than in states without “medical marijuana,” noting need for further research.16

 Marijuana is not a substitute for alcohol; rather, the use of marijuana and alcohol is complementary. People use both marijuana and alcohol, though not necessarily at the same time. The larger point is however, how could the introduction of “medical marijuana” laws have resulted in such large reductions on the states’ alcohol consumption and highway deaths when only tiny percentages of the states’ populations are “medical marijuana” users?Vermonthas 349 registered “medical marijuana” users, or 0.05% of the state population.Rhode Islandhas an estimated 3,000 users, less than 1% of the state population.Montanahas over 27,000 registered users, accounting for nearly 3% of the state population. These small percentages of the states’ populations could not conceivably account for the large reductions in alcohol use and traffic fatalities reported in this study. What is most noteworthy about this discussion paper is the media coverage it has received. There is a strong contrast between the widespread media coverage of this non-peer-reviewed, obviously misleading, paper and the virtual absence of media attention to the many scientifically 3 sophisticated, peer-reviewed studies showing the significant highway safety threat posed by marijuana use. The large and ever-growing evidence that marijuana use is a significant contributor to highway crashes and deaths should be highlighted in any discussion of “medical marijuana” laws which by all accounts, including the proponents of “medical marijuana,” increase this drug’s availability and use.

 “Medical marijuana” states are not immune to the consequences of marijuana impaired driving.Montana, which had the second-highest rate of alcohol impaired fatalities in the nation in 2009, is no exception to the problems of marijuana and drugged driving.17 Like other states, among drivers arrested for Driving Under the Influence (DUI) inMontana, marijuana is the most widely detected drug. From 2007-2010, the presence of marijuana among DUI suspects inMontanaincreased over 100%.18 In addition, during this period of time, the number of DUI suspects who

tested positive for both marijuana and alcohol increased by over 180%. Among fatally injury crashes in 2010, 38% involved drugs, 33% involved alcohol, and 14% involved drugs and alcohol.

 Two important and related national improvements are cause for celebration: a decreased number of fatal crashes and a decreased number of alcohol-related motor vehicle fatalities. Despite these notable public health and public safety achievements, fatal crashes remain a significant problem, with clear evidence that drug use, and in particular marijuana use, is causing a large proportion of these preventable deaths. While nationally alcohol use has remained stable in recent years, marijuana use has increased,19 particularly among young adults.20 Contrary to the conclusions of the recent discussion paper, increasing marijuana use increases highway fatalities. It does not decrease them.

Robert L. DuPont, M.D. President, Institute for Behavior and Health, Inc.  First Director, National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) 1973 to 1978

 Source:  www.ibhinc.org. Dec 2011

 References

1 National HighwayTraffic Safety Administration. (2009). 2008 Traffic Safety Annual Assessment. Traffic Safety

Facts. Washington,DC:NHTSANationalCenter for Statistics and Analysis. Retrieved December 8, 2011 from

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pubs/811172.pdf

2 National HighwayTraffic Safety Administration. (n.d.). Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS)

Encyclopedia. Retrieved December 8, 2011 from http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx

3 National HighwayTraffic Safety Administration. (2010). Drug involvement of fatally injured drivers. Traffic

Safety Facts. DOT HS 811 415.

4Couper, F.J., &Logan, B.K. (2004). Drugs and human performance fact sheets.Washington,DC: National

Highway Traffic Safety Administration. DOT HS 809 725. Retrieved December 8, 2011 from:

http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/research/job185drugs/drugs_web.pdf

5 Li, M., Brady, J.E., DiMaggio, C.J., Lusardi, A.R., Tzong, K.Y., & Li, G. (2011). Marijuana use and motor vehicle

crashes. Epidemiological Reviews. doi: 10.1093/epirev/mxr017

6 Walsh, M., Flegel, R., Atkins, R., Cangianelli,L.A., Cooper, C., Welsh, C., & Kerns., T.J. (2005). Drug and

alcohol use among drivers admitted to a Level-1 Trauma Center. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 37(5), 894-901.

7 Ramaekers, J.G., Robbe, H.W., O’Hanlon, J.F. (2000). Marijuana, alcohol and actual driving performance. Human

Psychopharmacology, 15(7), 551-558.

8 The Century Council. (2010). State ofDrunkDriving Fatalities in America 2009.Arlington,VA: The Century

Council. Retrieved December 8, 2011 from: http://www.centurycouncil.org/files/material/files/SODDFIA.pdf

9 Office of National Drug Control Policy. (2010). National drug control strategy, 2010.Washington,DC: Office of

National Drug Control Policy. Retrieved December 8, 2011 from

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/ondcp/policy-and-research/ndcs2010_0.pdf

10 Office of National Drug Control Policy. (2011). National drug control strategy, 2011.Washington,DC: Office of

National Drug Control Policy. Retrieved December 8, 2011 from

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/ondcp/ndcs2011.pdf

11 Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2011, September 8). National survey shows a rise

in illicit drug use from 2008 to 2010. SAMHSA News Release. Retrieved December 8, 2011 from

http://www.samhsa.gov/newsroom/advisories/1109075503.aspx

12 Center for Substance Abuse Research. (2011). Marijuana use continues to increase as perceived risk of use

decreases among U.S.high school seniors. CESAR FAX, 20(3). Retrieved December 8, 2011 from

http://www.cesar.umd.edu/cesar/cesarfax/vol20/20-03.pdf

13Anderson, D.M., & Rees, D.I. (2011). Medical marijuana laws, traffic fatalities, and alcohol consumption.

Discussion paper series IZA DP No. 6112.Germany: Institute for the Study of Labor.

14Dean, A. (2011, December 5). Why “study” linking medical marijuana and driving reductions is flawed.

Community Anti-Drug Coalitions ofAmerica. Retrieved December 6, 2011 from:

http://www.cadca.org/blogs/detail/why-%E2%80%9Cstudy%E2%80%9D-linking-medical-marijuana-drivingfatality-

reductions-flawed

15 Sabet, K.A. (2011, December 5). Does medical marijuana really reduce alcohol crash fatalities? Huffington Post.

Retrieved December 8, 2011 from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-a-sabet-phd/media-report-medicalmarijuana_

b_1129654.html?ref=politics

16 Wall, M.M., Poh, E., Cerda, M., Keyes, K.M., Galea, S., & Hasin, D.S. (2011). Adolescent marijuana user from

2002 to 2008: higher in states with medical marijuana laws, cause still unclear. Annals of Epidemiology, 21(9):714-

716.

17MontanaDepartment of Transportation. (2011, August). Overview ofMontana’s Impaired Driving Problem.

Retrieved December 8, 2011 from: http://www.mdt.mt.gov/safety/docs/impaired_driving_prob_overview_2011.pdf

18MontanaDepartment of Transportation. (2011, August). Overview ofMontana’s Impaired Driving Problem.

Retrieved December 8, 2011 from: http://www.mdt.mt.gov/safety/docs/impaired_driving_prob_overview_2011.pdf

19 Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2011). Results from the 2010 National Survey on

Drug Use and Health: Summary of National Findings, NSDUH Series H-41, HHS Publication No. (SMA) 11-4658.

Rockville,MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Retrieved December 8, 2011 from:

http://www.samhsa.gov/data/NSDUH/2k10Results/Web/HTML/2k10Results.htm

20 Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2011, September 8). National survey shows a rise

in illicit drug use from 2008 to 2010. SAMHSA News Release. Retrieved December 8, 2011 from

http://www.samhsa.gov/newsroom/advisories/1109075503.aspx

Filed under: USA :

California Medical Association Not So Medical Says Drug Policy Experts

The California Medical Association (CMA) took a major leap lacking science and common sense. With the issuance of a White Paper calling for the legalization of marijuana for medical and non-medial purposes, they have transitioned from a medical group into a lapdog of the drug legalization lobby.
“I am thoroughly appalled by the CMA’s decision to release this policy in an attempt to legalize a drug that we know causes so much harm to individuals and families,” said Eric Voth, M.D., F.A.C.P. and Chair of the Institute on Global Drug Policy. “The CMA has managed to single-handedly make a mockery of modern medicine and the ethical practices of physicians. There is nothing scientific about this White Paper – it is total politics.”

The White Paper just released contains a number of incorrect statements. Contrary to what the paper states:
• According to the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, the rate of current, past 30-day use of marijuana by Americans aged 12 and older in 1979 was 13.2%. In 2008 that figure stood at 6.1%. This 54% reduction over that 29-year period is a major public health triumph, not a failure! Now, we must not only push back against the drugs but, the advocates who seek to normalize and legalize them.
• The Netherlands reclassified high potency marijuana as a “hard drug” because of the harms that have occurred from the drug and moved to shut down hundreds of “coffee shops” that serve marijuana. Their lenient policy caught up with them and they are moving back to more conservative actions.
• Portugal’s policy that decriminalized consumption and possession of illicit drugs in 2001 was a dismal failure. The 2007 national drug survey showed an increase in life-time prevalence of drug use in the general population, especially regarding cannabis use and use of cocaine has nearly doubled. Cocaine seizures increased seven-fold between 2001and 2006 and murders increased 40%.

“The CMA is dead wrong in asserting that the marijuana legalization movement is driven by the public. Instead it is driven by a group of well-financed legalization advocates. The ballot initiative to legalize pot was defeated in California and no other state has approved such an ill-advised policy, despite millions of dollars poured into this effort by ivory-tower elitists unaffected by the impact of drug use, like the rest of us. Even the issue of marijuana as medicine was rejected by two-thirds of the country,” stated Calvina Fay, Executive Director of Drug Free America Foundation.

“It is laudable that CMA supports more research and more education efforts to reduce marijuana use among children, adolescents, and young adults (although we believe it should include all adults). Ongoing research into potential medicines and cures is an important endeavor but, the solution should be to require marijuana to meet the standards of modern medicine, not by ballot initiatives or legislation and certainly not by legalizing it for recreational use” Fay concluded.
Drug Free America Foundation, Inc. is dedicated to fighting drug use, drug addiction and drug trafficking and to promoting effective sound drug policies, education and prevention.

Source: www.dfaf.org October 17, 2011

Experts Call New Strategies on AIDS Prevention Ineffective!

On Tuesday, July 20th 2010, internationally recognized anti-drug experts from every region of the world united to oppose a set of dangerous unproven global strategies recommended in the Vienna Declaration. The declaration is based on three false premises: 1) that the criminalization of illegal drug use fuels the HIV/AIDS epidemic, 2) that criminal justice and health promotion are conflicting approaches to drug policy, and 3) that the major costs of illegal drug use are those generated by the criminal justice system.
This document was released in anticipation of the 18th International AIDS Conference and has been under scrutiny by several non-governmental organizations. Calvina Fay, Executive Director of Drug Free America Foundation says, “There is no ‘reasonable evidence’ that supports the strategies outlined in the Vienna Declaration. Further, we should reject ineffective harm reduction tactics that are not based on scientific evidence while accepting drug use and creating an illusion that drugs can be used safely or responsibly. Such ill-conceived schemes foster the misunderstanding that drug use itself is not harmful and increases addiction.”
Many of the experts who opposed the Vienna Declaration know from research and practical experience that the optimal way to truly beat addiction, prevent the spread of AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases, and prevent drug-related harm are effective strategies that target drug use and include prevention, education, treatment and law enforcement efforts and do not trade one for the other.
“The best foundation for prevention is policy. We know from experience that a balanced and restrictive drug policy is effective in keeping drug use at low levels. Since drug utilization in itself is an important risk factor for being infected by HIV, it is good AIDS-prevention to preclude illicit drug use. We must always strive to protect young people from getting involved with illegal drugs,” says Sven-Olov Carlsson, International President, World Federation Against Drugs.

To view the full joint statement issued opposing the Vienna Declaration, please visit www.wfad.se. If you would like to conduct an interview with Ms. Fay, Mr. Carlsson and/or other drug policy and prevention experts on this statement, please contact Lana Beck, Director of Communications with Drug Free America Foundation, Inc. at 727-828-0211 or 727-403-7571.

The World Federation Against Drugs (www.wfad.se) is a multilateral community of non-governmental organizations and individuals. Founded in 2009, the aim of WFAD is to work for a drug-free world. Drug Free America Foundation (www.dfaf.org) is a national and international nonprofit organization dedicated to fighting drug use, drug addiction and drug trafficking and to promoting effective sound drug policies, education and prevention. Drug Free America Foundation is a Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) in Special Consultative Status with the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations.

For More Info Contact Lana Beck 727-828-0211 or 727-403-7571 after hours

Source: Joint Press Release from www.wfad.se and www.wfad.se July 2010

Joint Statement in Opposition to the Vienna Declaration Released July 20, 2010

The criminalization of illicit drug use provides positive health and social benefits by deterring nonmedical use of substances that cause great harm to HIV/AIDS-affected individuals. Incarceration that respects human rights and provides drug treatment services can accelerate an individual’s recovery from drug dependence and prevent drug-related harms to HIV/AIDS-affected individuals and prevent further proliferation of both diseases – HIV/AIDS and substance abuse.
In anticipation of the International AIDS Conference (AIDS 2010) from July 18-23, 2010,i the Vienna Declarationii was released by a group of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and signed by private individuals to outline a global strategy to deal with the modern drug epidemic. The Vienna Declaration is based on three false premises:
1) that the criminalization of illegal drug use fuels the HIV/AIDS epidemic,
2) that criminal justice and health promotion are conflicting approaches to drug
policy, and
3) that the major costs of illegal drug use are those generated by the criminal justice system.

The prohibition of illegal drug use does not encourage the spread of HIV/AIDS, but rather it reduces illegal drug use among HIV/AIDS patients, as well as the non-infected population and thereby reduces the population vulnerable to HIV/AIDS infection by contaminated needles. Illegal drug use exacerbates weaknesses of the immune system, making individuals with AIDS more susceptible to infection and death. iii Marijuana use causes impaired immunity,iv v vi vii and opens the door for the virus that causes Kaposi’s Sarcoma,viii life-threatening for individuals with HIV/AIDS. Marijuana also contains bacteria and fungi that put users at risk for infection. ix x xi Illegal drug use among AIDS patients is life-threatening because these drugs lessen the effectiveness of anti-retroviral (ARV) medications.xii Nonmedical drug use is associated with increased risky sexual behaviors which promote transmission of HIV/AIDS in a way that needle exchange cannot prevent. xiii xiv
Illegal drug use also increases sexual violence which in turn results in more HIV infections, particularly among the most vulnerable members of society including womenxv as well as children. Mother-to-child transmission of HIV/AIDS now can be largely prevented by medical intervention; however, there is no protection for unborn fetuses from the adverse effects of a drug-using mother. xvi Joint Statement in Opposition to the Vienna Declaration Released July 20, 2010 Page 2

There are 200 million illegal drug users globally, making up 5% of the world population aged 16-64,xvii and an estimated 33.4 million people living with HIV/AIDS.xviii Since the emergence of the HIV/AIDS epidemic in 1981, an estimated 25 million people have died of HIV/AIDS-related causes and two million people die each year from this disease.xix These numbers are tragically high, but so is the number of global drug-related deaths, estimated at 223,000 each year. xx As previously noted, illegal drug use increases the risks associated with both contracting and treating HIV/AIDS. Reducing drug use must be part of the solution to curb the distressingly high HIV/AIDS death toll
.
The Vienna Declaration concludes that “reorienting drug policies towards evidence-based approaches that respect, protect and fulfill human rights has the potential to reduce harms deriving from current policies and would allow for the redirection of the vast financial resources towards where they are needed most: implementing and evaluating evidence-based prevention, regulatory, treatment and harm reduction interventions.” Prevention and treatment are admirable goals which aim to reduce illegal drug use; however many so-called “harm reduction” interventions normalize illegal drug use and inevitably lead to more nonmedical use of drugs, leading to more drug-caused harm. Real harm reduction is achieved by rejecting illegal drug use to improve the health and safety of would-be drug users.

To promote public health and public safety, and to reduce both illegal drug use and HIV/AIDS, the World Federation Against Drugs (WFAD), Drug Free America Foundation, Inc. (DFAF), Institute for Behavior and Health, Inc. (IBH) and numerous other organizations and individuals support a balanced restrictive drug policy that uses the criminal justice system, and the illegal status of nonmedical drug use, to reinforce both prevention and treatment. The current globally-endorsed balanced drug abuse prevention policy can be improved. Treatment systems can work together with the criminal justice system by incorporating new, effective and evidence-based strategies to reduce illegal drug use among criminal offenders. These approaches also reduce the commission of new crimes and associated incarceration.
The greatest costs of illegal drug use are not generated by the criminal justice system but by the nonmedical drug use itself. These costs include not only sickness and death but reduced productivity and the high healthcare costs generated by illegal drug use.

We are committed to efforts to improve current drug policy to further reduce illegal drug use by building on a balanced strategy that includes the criminal justice system. Rather than choosing between prevention and treatment on the one hand, and the criminal justice system on the other, it is important to find better ways for them to work together to achieve vital public health and public safety goals that neither can achieve alone. We know that the prevention of illegal drug use and HIV/AIDS prevention must go hand-in-hand; they are not in conflict with one another.

Organizations:
Sven-Olov Carlsson, International President, World Federation Against Drugs, www.wfad.se
Robert L. DuPont, M.D., President, Institute for Behavior and Health, Inc., www.ibhinc.org
David Evans, Esq., Executive Director, Drug Free Projects Coalition,
www.studentdrugtesting.org/
Calvina Fay, Executive Director, Drug Free America Foundation, Inc., www.dfaf.org
Members, International Task Force on Strategic Drug Policy, www.itfsdp.org Joint Statement in Opposition to the Vienna Declaration Released July 20, 2010 Page 3

Source: Joint Press Release www.dfaf.org and www.wfad.se July 20 2010

REFERENCES: XVIII International AIDS Conference. (2010). Retrieved July 12, 2010 from http://www.aids2010.org/
ii The Vienna Declaration. (2010). Retrieved June 30, 2010 from http://www.viennadeclaration.com/the-declaration.html
iii Antoniou, T., & Tseng, L. (2002). Interactions between recreational drugs and antiretroviral agents. Annual of Pharmacotherapy, 36, 1598-1613.
iv Cabral, G.A., & Vasquez, R. (1992). Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol suppresses macrophage extrinsic anti-herpes virus activity, Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine, 199(2), 255-63.
v American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology. (2004, November 17). Immunological changes associated with prolonged marijuana smoking.
vi Tashkin, D.P., Baldwin, G.C., Sarafian, T., Dubinett, S., & Roth, M.D. (2002). Respiratory and immunologic consequences of marijuana smoking. Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 42(11 Suppl), 71S-81S.
vii Wu, T.C., Tashkin, D.P., Djahed, B., & Rose, J.E. (1988). Pulmonary hazards of smoking marijuana as compared with tobacco. New England Journal of Medicine, 318(6), 347-351.
viii American Association for Cancer Research. (2007, August 2). Marijuana component opens the door for virus that causes Kaposi’s sarcoma. ScienceDaily. Retrieved July 7, 2010 from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070801112156.htm
ix Fleisher, M., Winawer, S.J., & Zauber, A.G. (1991). Aspergillosis and marijuana. [Letter]. Annals of Internal Medicine, 115, 578-579.
x Ramirez, J. (1990). Acute pulmonary histoplasmosis: newly recognized hazard of marijuana plant hunters. American Journal of Medicine, 88(5), 60N-62N.
xi Taylor, D.N., Wachsmuth, I.K., Shangkuan, Y.H., Schmidt, E.V., Barrett, T.J., et al. (1982). Salmonellosis associated with marijuana: A multi state outbreak traced by plasmid fingerprinting. New England Journal of Medicine, 306(21), 1249-1253.
xii Ghaziani, A. (2005, October). Crystal methamphetamine use and antiretroviral drug resistance: A pilot study of behavioral and clinical correlates. International Association of Physicians in AIDS Care. IAPAC Monthly, 297-299. Retrieved July 9, 2010 from http://img.thebody.com/legacyAssets/22/36/meth.pdf
xiii Wechsberg, W.M., Parry, C.D.H., & Jewkes, R.K. (2010, May). Drugs, sex, gender-based violence, and the intersection of the HIV/AIDS epidemic with vulnerable women in South Africa. RTI Press. Retrieved July 9, 2010 from http://www.rti.org/pubs/pb-0001-1005-wechsberg.pdf
xiv Colfax, G., Coates, T.J., Husnik, M.J., Huang, Y., Buchbinder, S., Koblin, B., et al. (2005). Longitudinal patterns of methamphetamine, popper (amyl nitrite), and cocaine use and high-risk sexual behavior among a cohort of San Francisco men who have sex with men. Journal of Urban Health, 82(1 Suppl 1), i62-i70.
xv Wechsberg, W.M., Parry, C.D.H., & Jewkes, R.K. (2010, May). Drugs, sex, gender-based violence, and the intersection of the HIV/AIDS epidemic with vulnerable women in South Africa. RTI Press. Retrieved July 9, 2010 from http://www.rti.org/pubs/pb-0001-1005-wechsberg.pdf
xvi World Health Organization. (2010). PMTCT strategic vision 2010-2015: Preventing mother-to-child transmission of HIV to reach the UNGASS and millennium development goals. Retrieved July 9, 2010 from http://www.who.int/hiv/pub/mtct/strategic_vision.pdf
xvii United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. (2010). World Drug Report 2010. New York: United Nations. Retrieved July 7, 2010 from http://www.unodc.org/documents/wdr/WDR_2010/World_Drug_Report_2010_lo-res.pdf
xviiiUNAIDS. (2009, December). Global facts & figures. Retrieved July 7, 2010 from http://data.unaids.org/pub/FactSheet/2009/20091124_FS_global_en.pdf
xixUNAIDS. (2009, December). Global facts & figures. Retrieved July 7, 2010 from http://data.unaids.org/pub/FactSheet/2009/20091124_FS_global_en.pdf
xx National Drug Research Institute. (2003, February 25). Tobacco, alcohol and illicit drugs responsible for seven million preventable deaths worldwide. Media release. Retrieved July 7, 2010 from http://db.ndri.curtin.edu.au/media.asp?mediarelid=40

Mexico looks to legalisation as drug war murders hit 28,000

President joins calls for debate after figures reveal extent of violence since launch of military offensive against cartels in 2006.

Murders in Mexico’s drug wars are becoming increasingly gruesome.

Mexico’s president, Felipe Calderón, has joined calls for a debate on the legalisation of drugs as new figures show thousands of Mexicans every year being slaughtered in cartel wars.
“It is a fundamental debate,” the president said, belying his traditional reluctance to accept any questioning of the military-focused offensive against the country’s drug cartels that he launched in late 2006. “You have to analyse carefully the pros and cons and key arguments on both sides.” The president said he personally opposes the idea of legalisation.
Calderón’s new openness comes amid tremendous pressure to justify a strategy that has been accompanied by the spiralling of horrific violence around the country as the cartels fight each other and the government crack down. Official figures released this week put the number of drug war related murders at 28,000.
Until recently the government regularly played down the general impact of the violence by claiming that 90% of the victims were associated with the cartels, with the remainder largely from the security forces. In recent months it has started to acknowledge a growing number of “civilian victims” ranging from toddlers caught in the cross fire to students massacred at parties.
Momentum behind the idea that legalisation could be part of the solution has been growing since three prominent former Latin American presidents signed a document last year arguing the case.
César Gaviria of Colombia, Fernando Cardoso of Brazil and Ernesto Zedillo of Mexico urged existing governments to consider legalising marijuana as a way of slashing cartel profits.
This year Mexico’s national congress began a debate on the possibility that resurfaced again this week during a series of round table discussions between the Calderón, security experts, business leaders and civic groups.
The “Dialogue for Security: Evaluation and Strengthening” is part of a new government effort to counter the growing perception in Mexico that the president’s drug war strategy is a disaster.
“I’m not talking just about legalizing marijuana,” analyst and write Hector Aguilar Camin said during the Tuesday session, “rather all drugs in general.”
After accepting the need to directly address the proposal, Calderón made it clear he did not support it. “It requires a country to take a decision to put several generations of young people at risk,” he said, citing a likely increase in consumption triggered by lower prices, greater availability and social acceptability.
He added that the predicted “important economic effects by reducing income for criminal groups” would be limited by the integration of Mexican drug trafficking into international markets where drugs remain largely underground.
Calderón did not mention current moves to soften drug laws in the US, including a planned vote in California in November on an initiative that would allow marijuana to be sold and taxed. Nor did he address the home grown argument that legalisation would remove the roots of the violence raging in the country.
“Legalisation would render the war pointless as drugs would become just another product like tobacco or alcohol,” Jorge Castañeda, a legalisation advocate and former foreign minister, told W Radio. He added that even if it did prompt an increase in drug use. “It is worth considering whether this is preferable to having 28,000 deaths.”
The new death toll, which was not broken down, is significantly higher than the informal counts kept by newspapers. Milenio newspaper put the number of drug-related deaths in July at 1,234.
Some leading critics of Calderón’s strategy, however, do not believe legalisation is the key to reining in the cartels and the violence, preferring to emphasize the need to increase efforts to go after money laundering and political corruption.
Edgardo Buscaglia, and expert in organised crime around the world, argues that the recent diversification of the Mexican cartels into other criminal activities ranging from systematic extortion to people trafficking would give them ample reason to keep fighting each other, even if drugs were legal. “Legalising drugs would be good public policy,” he said, “but it would not be a tool with which to combat organized crime.”

Source: guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 4 August 2010 20.13 BST

Planning Commission to consider ban on medical marijuana dispensaries

by Eric Pierce

The Planning Commission will consider on Wednesday asking the City Council to revise the city charter to permanently bar medical marijuana dispensaries from operating in Downey.
Citing federal law that still makes it a crime to grow, use or possess marijuana, city administrators recommend the charter be amended to prohibit the dispensaries.

The City Council last year enacted a moratorium on medical marijuana clinics that is scheduled to expire Nov. 10.

In a report prepared by community development director Brian Saeki and senior planner David Blumenthal, city officials also cited reports of violent crime — specifically robberies and homicides — at dispensaries in neighboring cities.

“Besides crimes against persons and property, the operation of medical marijuana dispensaries has been linked to organized criminal activity, money laundering and firearm violations,” the report states.

California voters approved the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes in 1996. The state created a voluntary medical marijuana identification card program in 2003 to protect residents from state marijuana laws. The San Diego Union-Tribune reported in June that of California’s 481 incorporated cities, 132 have banned medical marijuana dispensaries. Another 101 have enacted temporary moratoriums.

Best, Best & Krieger, before they were fired as the city’s law firm, wrote a whitepaper suggesting Downey had the discretion to either regulate or prohibit medical marijuana clinics. The law firm also warned the city against “adverse secondary impacts” dispensaries could pose. “On balance, any utility to medical marijuana patients in care giving and convenience that marijuana dispensaries may appear to have on the surface is enormously outweighed by a much darker reality that is punctuated by the many adverse secondary effects created by their presence in communities,” Best, Best & Krieger wrote. “These drug distribution centers have even proven to be unsafe for their own proprietors.”

The city of Los Angeles recently approved a restrictive ordinance aimed at corralling the city’s estimated 400 medical marijuana dispensaries. Attorneys representing marijuana dispensaries given shut-down notices have said they will sue Los Angeles to remain open.

Only one medical marijuana dispensary has operated legally in Downey. It closed after the city’s moratorium went into effect late last year.

Source: www.thedowneypatriot.com 31st Aug.2010

Marijuana and Youth – Experiences From a Practising Physician

The impact medical marijuana has had on our adolescent substance-abuse treatment program in Denver is profound.

The 2009 boom in marijuana distribution coincides with a tripling of teens referred to our program. Currently, 51 percent of our patients report getting their marijuana from someone with a medical marijuana license.

Not surprisingly, patient attitudes about marijuana are changing – and in ways that make it much more difficult for us to help them stop using the drug. Recently, a teenage boy said he couldn’t stop smoking marijuana because “it is my medicine for anger.”

Even worse, a few young adult patients in treatment for marijuana addiction have marijuana licenses. These patients struggle with conflicting messages from one physician who recommends smoking marijuana and another who recommends stopping.

In Denver, marijuana is advertised on billboards and in magazines and newspapers using themes that appeal to young people. Because youth are highly vulnerable to both the effects of advertising and the addictive potential of marijuana, it is not surprising that 60 percent of the state’s medical marijuana users are under 44 years old.

We must act swiftly to prevent situations such as this from getting worse.
Christian Thurstone, M.D. is the Medical Director of Adolescent Substance Treatment, Education and Prevention at Denver Health and Hospital Authority and Assistant Professor, Department of Psychiatry, University of Colorado Denver.

Source: http://ofsubstance.gov/cs/blogs Wednesday, October 13, 2010

Letter – Portugal is hardly a resounding success

Letter published in The Times April 25th 2011
Sir,
Portugal is hardly the resounding success that the drugs liberalising lobby would have us believe
That fewer young people are trying drugs in Portugal may be the case (“Radical drug law could be imported to Britain”, April 22). But this simply reflects a Europe-wide trend, nowhere more evident than in the United Kingdom. The alarming Europe-wide increase in young people’s illicit drug use between 1995 and 2003 has come to a halt and is decreasing — in Portugal by rather less than the European average.
The picture painted by your report is less rosy overall when the data is examined fully. For according to Portugal’s Special Registry of the National Institute of Forensic Medicine, there has actually been an increase in Portugal’s drug-related deaths since decriminalisation was enacted, from 280 in 2001 to 314 in 2007. In well over half of these cases, opiates or opiates in combination with other substances (mainly cocaine or alcohol) were cited as the main substance involved.
Furthermore Portugal has been the only European country to show a significant increase in [drug-related] homicides between 2001 and 2006, by 40 per cent over a five-year period (2009 UNODC World Drug Report).
Finally, Portugal’s Instituto da Droga e da Toxicodependência reports that the overall prevalence of life time drug use increased from 7.8 per cent to 12.0 per cent in the period from 2001 to 2007, cocaine more than doubling and ecstasy close to doubling, with the prevalence of heroin abuse up from 0.7 per cent of the adult population to 1.1 per cent in the same period.
As to the decreases in new cases of HIV/Aids, not only is this also in line with a Western European trend but it is just as, if not more, plausible to associate this with Portugal’s annual increases in funding for treatment, detox and harm reduction than with the act of decriminalisation per se.
Portugal is hardly the resounding success that the drugs liberalising lobby would have us believe. And if it is what they are relying on to convert politicians and public to their cause it makes for a poor case.
Kathy Gyngell
Research Fellow, Centre for Policy Studies
Neil McKeganey
Professor of Drug Misuse, Centre for Drug Misuse Research, University of Glasgow
Mary Brett
Trustee, Cannabis Skunk Sense

Source: http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/letters/article2997948.ece 25.4.2011

Radio 4 Any Questions – Drug Police Debate

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 UK government, 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 Netherlands as the example of sound drug policy – despite the fact that the country, through its policies, created the largest base for drugs-related criminality in Europe with supply, warehousing, distribution and manufacture at astonishing levels. At one stage, the Netherlands had more drug related murder than anywhere else in Europe. The Netherlands is changing. It spends proportionally more than the UK on enforcement and is currently more effective and better organised than the UK.

Portugal and 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. But Portugal is being misrepresented, as demonstrated below.

1. The number of new cases of HIV and Hepatitis C in Portugal is eight times the average in other EU countries.
2. Portugal has 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 in Portugal, 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 the UK tobacco 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).

Source: Addiction Today July/August 2011

Genetic Risk Factors for both Marijuana and Alcohol Misuse Similar

• Marijuana is the most commonly used illicit drug in the United States.
• New research shows that the use and misuse of alcohol and marijuana are influenced by a common set of genes.
Marijuana is the most commonly used illicit drug in the United States. Roughly eight to 12 percent of marijuana users are considered “dependent” and, just like alcohol, the severity of symptoms increases with heavier use. A new study has found that use and misuse of alcohol and marijuana are influenced by a common set of genes.
Results will be published in the March 2010 issue of Alcoholism: Clinical & Experimental Research and are currently available at Early View.
“Results from a large annual survey of high-school students show that in 2008, 41.8 percent of 12th graders reported having used marijuana,” explained Carolyn E. Sartor, a research instructor at Washington University School of Medicine and corresponding author for the study. “Although many may have used the drug on only a few occasions, 5.4 percent of 12th graders reported using it daily within the preceding month.”
“The active ingredient in marijuana is THC, which mimics natural cannabinoids that the brain produces,” added Christian Hopfer, associate professor at the University of Colorado School of Medicine. “The cannabinoid system is critical for learning, memory, appetite, and pain perception. Most users of marijuana will not develop an ‘addiction’ to it, but perhaps one in 12 will. What is not commonly appreciated about marijuana use is that strong evidence has emerged that it increases the risk of developing mental illnesses and possibly exacerbates pre-existing mental illnesses.”
“Like any drug, marijuana can be used in a way that negatively impacts quality of life, interfering with functioning at school or work or leading to problems with family and friends,” said Sartor. “Although at least three of six symptoms listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders – Fourth Edition (DSM-IV) are needed to meet full criteria for cannabis (marijuana) dependence … the presence of even one or two of these symptoms could create distress or interfere with day-to-day functioning. There is strong evidence for a genetic component to use and dependence on marijuana as well as alcohol, and the use (and misuse) of these substances frequently occur together.”
Researchers examined 6,257 individuals (2,761 complete twin pairs and 735 singletons) listed in the Australian Twin Registry, 24 to 36 years of age. Alcohol and marijuana use histories were gathered in telephone diagnostic interviews and used to derive levels of alcohol consumption, frequency of marijuana use, and DSM-IV alcohol and cannabis dependence symptoms.
“Our findings indicate that … many of the same genetic factors that contribute to alcohol use also contribute to marijuana use,” said Sartor. “Likewise, alcohol dependence symptoms and cannabis dependence symptoms can be traced to some of the same genetic influences. For both alcohol and marijuana, the majority of genetic factors that contribute to use also contribute to dependence symptoms.”
“In other words,” said Hopfer, “the genetic influences on drug use are not specific to individual drugs, but seem to influence a general tendency to engage in drug use. This is important to note because there is a tendency to study drugs in isolation – alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, cocaine, etc. These findings add support to the notion of common mechanisms underlying all addictions.”
“The fact that very little of the environmental influences on alcohol and marijuana use, or on alcohol and cannabis dependence symptoms, could be traced to common sources indicates that there may be important distinctions between those environmental factors that influence alcohol-related outcomes and those that influence marijuana-related outcomes,” said Sartor. “Identifying alcohol- and marijuana-specific risk factors is an important next step in this line of research.”
“Marijuana research is relatively sparse compared to alcohol or nicotine research,” added Hopfer. “However, if you look at reports of at least adolescents and young people using, it becomes clear that marijuana use, including daily marijuana use, is quite common and the effects of this are not well understood. The mental illness/marijuana connection has not received much press, although I think the evidence has grown substantially that marijuana is a causal risk factor for the development of mental illness.”

Source: http://www.attcnetwork.org/explore/priorityareas/science/tools/asmeDetails.asp?ID=643

Study Finds Hospitalization Increases for Alcohol and Drug Overdoses

Hospitalizations for alcohol and drug overdoses – alone or in combination – increased dramatically among 18- to 24-year-olds between 1999 and 2008, according to a study by researchers at the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA), part of the National Institutes of Health.

Led by Aaron M. White, Ph.D. and Ralph W. Hingson, Sc.D., of NIAAA’s division of epidemiology and prevention research, the study examined hospitalization data from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample, a project of the U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality designed to approximate a 20 percent sample of U.S. community hospitals. The findings appear in the September issue of the Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs.

Drs. White, Hingson, and their colleagues report that, over the 10-year study period, hospitalizations among 18-24-year-olds increased by 25 percent for alcohol overdoses; 56 percent for drug overdoses; and 76 percent for combined alcohol and drug overdoses.

“In 2008, 1 out of 3 hospitalizations for overdoses in young adults involved excessive consumption of alcohol,” noted Dr. White. “Alcohol overdoses alone caused 29,000 hospitalizations, combined alcohol and other drug overdoses caused 29,000, and drug overdoses alone caused another 114,000. The cost of these hospitalizations now exceeds $1.2 billion per year just for 18-24-year-olds.”

According to the authors, this is a growing problem for those outside of the 18-24 age range, as well.

“Among the entire population 18 and older, 1.6 million people were hospitalized for overdoses in 2008, at a cost of $15.5 billion, and half of these hospitalizations involved alcohol overdoses,” added Dr. Hingson.
The current study also showed an increase of 122 percent in the rate of poisonings from prescription opioid pain medications and related narcotics among 18-24 year olds. An alcohol overdose was present in 1 of 5 poisonings on these medications.

“The combination of alcohol with narcotic pain medications is particularly dangerous, because they both suppress activity in brain areas that regulate breathing and other vital functions,” Dr. White said.

The researchers noted that the steep rise in combined alcohol and drug overdoses highlights the significant risk and growing threat to public health of combining alcohol with other substances, including prescription medications. They call for stronger efforts to educate medical practitioners and the general public about the dangers of excessive alcohol consumption alone or in combination with other drugs.

“An increase in screening for alcohol misuse would help clinicians identify patients at particularly high risk for excessive drinking and for alcohol and medication interactions,” said NIAAA Acting Director Kenneth Warren, Ph.D. “Clinicians should use brief intervention techniques to help young adults evaluate their relationship with alcohol and other drugs and make wise choices regarding future use

Source www.cadca.org Sept. 2011

Marijuana Under the Guise of Medicine Contributes to the Rise in Marijuana Use

(St. Petersburg, FL) The National Survey on Drug Use and Health conducted by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) and released this week shows a significant rise in marijuana use. In 2007, 4.4 million Americans 12 and older used marijuana; as of 2010 that number has risen to 17.4 million. The National Office of Drug Control Policy’s Director, Gil Kerlikowske, said the increases are prominent in states in which “medical” marijuana is legal. The survey also shows that 21.5 percent of young adults aged 18 to 25 used illicit drugs in 2010, an increase from 19.6 percent in 2008.

“Other than the lone voice of Director Kerlikowske and large marijuana dispensary raids by the DEA, the Obama Administration has basically turned a blind eye to the medi-pot issue, a matter that fuels the rise in marijuana use and continues to be the biggest scam ever to be perpetrated on the American public. While a crude toxic weed is peddled to sick and dying people as a medicine, our government has done far too little to protect the public. It is absolutely no surprise to me that marijuana use has sharply increased,” said Calvina Fay, executive director of Drug Free America Foundation, Inc. and Save Our Society From Drugs.

“Surveys have shown for years that when the perception of the harms of drugs decreases, use rises. The ruse that marijuana is a medicine has created a false sense that this addictive, dangerous drug is not harmful, but in fact helpful. Clearly, this belief has contributed to the increase of marijuana use among young people. In order to protect the public, it is time for our government to take its head out of the sand and aggressively push back against marijuana legalization for any purposes! Perhaps it’s time to withhold federal funds from states that fail to uphold our nation’s drug laws,” Fay concluded.

Source: Press Release Drug Free America Foundation 9th Sept.2011

Increase in HIV infections in Greece

A significant increase (more than 10-fold) in the number of newly diagnosed HIV-1 infections among injecting drug users (IDUs) was observed in Greece during the first seven months of 2011. Molecular epidemiology results revealed that a large proportion (96%) of HIV-1 sequences from IDUs sampled in 2011 fall within phylogenetic clusters suggesting high levels of transmission networking. Cases originated from diverse places outside Greece supporting the potential role of immigrant IDUs in the initiation of this outbreak.

Source: Eurosurveillance, Volume 16, Issue 36, 08 September 2011

Glutamate dehydrogenase as a marker of alcohol dependence.

Slovenian study identifies which chemicals in the blood best identify dependent drinkers in the sense of not missing those who are dependent, confirming when they have stopped drinking, and not falsely identifying non-dependent people as dependent.

Summary

The aim of this study was to determine the value of biochemical tests for glutamate dehydrogenase (GLDH) in the blood as way of diagnosing alcohol dependence, in particular as compared to or in combination with other biochemical markers including gama-glutamyltransferase (GGT), aspartate-aminotranferase (AST), alanine-aminotransferase (ALT) and erythrocyte mean cell volume (MCV). All these levels were assessed three times in 238 alcohol dependent patients admitted to hospital (on admission, after 24 hours and after seven days) and also in healthy members of the public.
Main findings All the values were significantly higher in the patients than in healthy persons. GLDH exhibited the fastest decrease in levels after the resumption of abstinence. 24 hours of non-drinking is sufficient for a reliable evaluation of the fall in GLDH activity, even more so when alcohol dependants had not drunk for three to seven days, offering a way to confirm the cessation of drinking. The time course of changes in GLDH and AST were more applicable than for GGT after a week, but GLDH changes were most reliable. GLDH was the most specific marker with almost 90% specificity, correctly identifying nine in 10 of the healthy subjects as non-dependent. A decision tree combining MCV,
GGT and GLDH markers was selected as the best diagnostic procedure because of its simplicity, easy examination and moderate cost. It gave a model with 84.5% accuracy, excellent specificity at 90% (correctly identifying 9 in 10 healthy subjects as non-dependent) and very high sensitivity at almost 80% (correctly identifying 8 in 10 alcohol dependent patients as dependent).

Conclusions

The high accuracy of our classification model provides an opportunity to apply it as a helping method in finding and diagnosing alcohol dependence in everyday practice, with our exclusion criteria and differential diagnostic cautions taken into consideration. We strongly believe that watching changes in the activity of laboratory markers of alcoholism is an effective yet overlooked aid.
Thanks for their comments on this entry in draft to Matej Kravos of the Psychiatric Hospital Ormoz in Slovenia. Commentators bear no responsibility for the text including the interpretations and any remaining errors.

Source: Kravos M., Malešic I.
Alcohol and Alcoholism: 2010, 45(1), p. 39–44. Revised 22 Aug.2011

Filed under: Addiction,Alcohol,Europe :

Cannabis, synthetic cannabinoids, and psychosis risk: What the evidence says

Research suggests marijuana may be a ‘component cause’ of psychosis

Joseph M. Pierre, MD
Co-Chief, Schizophrenia Treatment Unit, VA West Los Angeles Healthcare Center, Health Sciences Associate Clinical Professor, Department of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA

Over the past 50 years, anecdotal reports linking cannabis sativa (marijuana) and psychosis have been steadily accumulating, giving rise to the notion of “cannabis psychosis.” Despite this historic connection, marijuana often is regarded as a “soft drug” with few harmful effects. However, this benign view is now being revised, along with mounting research demonstrating a clear association between cannabis and psychosis.
In this article, I review evidence on marijuana’s impact on the risk of developing psychotic disorders, as well as the potential contributions of “medical” marijuana and other legally available products containing synthetic cannabinoids to psychosis risk.

CANNABIS USE AND PSYCHOSIS

Cannabis use has a largely deleterious effect on patients with psychotic disorders, and typically is associated with relapse, poor treatment adherence, and worsening psychotic symptoms.1,2 There is, however, evidence that some patients with schizophrenia might benefit from treatment with cannabidiol,3-5 another constituent of marijuana, as well as delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (?-9-THC), the principle psychoactive constituent of cannabis.6,7
Three meta-analyses have concluded cannabis use is associated with an increased risk of psychosis

The acute psychotic potential of cannabis has been demonstrated by studies that documented psychotic symptoms (eg, hallucinations, paranoid delusions, derealization) in a dose-dependent manner among healthy volunteers administered ?-9-THC under experimental conditions.8-10 Various cross-sectional epidemiologic studies also have revealed an association between cannabis use and acute or chronic psychosis.11,12
In the absence of definitive evidence from randomized, long-term, placebo-controlled trials, the strongest evidence of a connection between cannabis use and development of a psychotic disorder comes from prospective, longitudinal cohort studies. In the past 15 years, new evidence has emerged from 7 such studies that cumulatively provide strong support for an association between cannabis use as an adolescent or young adult and a greater risk for developing a psychotic disorder such as schizophrenia.13-19 These longitudinal studies surveyed for self-reported cannabis use before psychosis onset and controlled for a variety of potential confounding factors (eg, other drug use and demographic, social, and psychological variables). Three meta-analyses of these and other studies concluded an increased risk of psychosis is associated with cannabis use, with an odds ratio of 1.4 to 2.9 (meaning the risk of developing psychosis with any history of cannabis use is up to 3-fold higher compared with those who did not use cannabis).11,20,21 In addition, this association appears to be dose-related, with increasing amounts of cannabis use linked to greater risk—1 study found an odds ratio of 7 for psychosis among daily cannabis users.16
There are several ways to explain the link between cannabis use and psychosis, and a causal relationship has not yet been firmly established (Table 1).1-7,11-19,21-25 Current evidence supports that cannabis is a “component cause” of chronic psychosis, meaning although neither necessary nor sufficient, cannabis use at a young age increases the likelihood of developing schizophrenia or other psychotic disorders.26 This risk may be greatest for young persons with some psychosis vulnerability (eg, those with attenuated psychotic symptoms).16,18
The overall magnitude of risk appears to be modest, and cannabis use is only 1 of myriad factors that increase the risk of psychosis.27 Furthermore, most cannabis users do not develop psychosis. However, the risk associated with cannabis occurs during a vulnerable time of development and is modifiable. Based on conservative estimates, 8% of emergent schizophrenia cases and 14% of more broadly defined emergent psychosis cases could be prevented if it were possible to eliminate cannabis use among young people.11,26 Therefore, reducing cannabis use among young people vulnerable to psychosis should be a clinical and public health priority

Source: www.currentpsychiatry.com Vol.10 Sept 2011

Will the Real Drug Policy ‘Emphasis’ Please Stand Up!

A brief look at the confusing messages emerging from current ‘prevention’ application in Australian drug policy.

QUIT – MODERATE – ACCOMMODATE? WHICH EMPHASIS ARE WE FOLLOWING?

What is going on with Australian Drug Policy Prevention application? It appears to be struggling with, what can only be described, as a Dis-associative Identity Disorder (D.I.D). The current interpretation continues to baffle the average Australian, and leaves many of us who are active in the Alcohol and Other Drug (AOD) field scratching our heads in bewilderment and sometimes utter disbelief!

SMOKING – The new leprosy?

The growing and relentless assault against tobacco via the QUIT campaign is something only ‘mushrooms’ would know little of. This vital and effective demand-reduction and education ‘war’ has been clear from its inception, and has continued to burgeon, evermore aggressively to the crusade we now see today.
The message is at the very least unambiguous, at times, bombastic! There is no guessing what the outcome of this endeavour is to be. The message and mandate is not ‘slow down’, it is not ‘moderate’ it is QUIT. The end game is the only game. There are no illusions about the time it may take to reach that goal, but that goal is the only target to aim at and as a consequence measures and outcomes are effective – more and more Australians are quitting!
Let’s commence by acknowledging the following principle, which is all but irrefutable… accessibility, availability and permissibility all increase consumption. When you reduce these, you reduce consumption. For example, the following details shows how education and legislation all reduced demand. Accessibility, availability and permissibility are all restricted and consumption drops.
In 1945 approximately 72% of Australian men smoked. The rate has been dropping ever since then. In 2007 only 18% of Australian males were daily smokers. In 1945 26% of Australian women smoked…In 2007 women were smoking at a lower rate than men with 15.2% still smoking daily. 1
• increases in getting help to quit smoking, especially use of the Quitline (2% to 4%) and nicotine replacement therapy (7% to 10%);
• increase in one year quit rate from 8% to 11% among smokers and recent quitters;
• a statistically significant reduction of about 1.5% in the estimated adult prevalence of smoking. 2
However, as successful as this message has been, the fight is not over yet, as the following excerpt so irrefutably affirms…
“ANTI-SMOKING campaigners have far from finished their battle with the tobacco industry, with some pushing for a ”license to smoke” and many predicting that cigarettes could be outlawed within a decade.” 3
Well so was the bold opening statement in recent article ‘Now butt out: new push seeks to outlaw cigarettes’ in The Age Newspaper.-

Fascinating…outlawing cigarettes, even though around 17% of Australians are still smoking – outrageous! The article went on to note that if such a ban were to take place the government would stand to lose around $6 billion dollars in tax revenue, but save an estimated $31 billion dollars currently spent per annum on smoking related health problems.
No doubt to everyone who is not a smoker this makes good health and fiscal sense…maybe even to some smokers too?
So how is that we have managed to convince a society that a ban could actually be possible on a legal drug – tobacco, that in its boom era (during the 40’s, 50’s and 60’s) was a key social accessory, that a legal ban be actually possible? A quick inventory of the processes engaged may give us some insight…

• A clear and uncompromising acknowledgement from health, government and fiscal sectors that cigarette smoking was damaging our community.

• The ensuing resolve that this must change for both fiscal, but more importantly, health reasons.

• The continuing single voice of disapproval of cigarettes from academics, politicians and health professionals. (Stopped the propaganda of the pro-smoking academics/doctors and started the recognition of the undeniable facts that ‘every cigarette is doing you damage’.)

• The sustained political will to create and implement policies to bring about change, including increased taxation, total advertising ‘blackouts’ and bans on smoking in defined places.

• These have been followed by the creation and implementation of Demand Reduction strategies that only grow in number and intensity and the relentless public education campaign on the dangers of smoking.

It would appear from both empirical data that such resolute policies work…even with a once widely accepted and socially palatable ‘legal drug’ like tobacco.
In a recent war of words over the zealous, if not poorly thought through, ‘plain packaging’ strategy, the Federal Minister for Health Nicola Roxon was quoted as saying…. “Big tobacco are fighting to protect their profits, but we are fighting to save lives.” 4 If that vitriol wasn’t enough, she was also quoted in the Australian Newspaper, again in regard to challenges to the plain packaging strategy …‘”We’re Australians. We can make laws in Australia to protect Australians…” 5 Feisty! I like it! However, comes the question… protect Australians from what? Well, Captain Obvious may answer that in this context it would be protection from the health and health budget destroying wrecking ball that is tobacco.
But is ‘health’ the real motivator that is underpinning this zeal for the wellbeing of Australians? I hope it is, but the utter inconsistency of this focused passion belies another agenda. Or is it that some people just can’t see the utter inconsistencies or, at worst, hypocrisies of this unbalanced policy focus?
If ‘health’ was the sole or main issue, then wouldn’t that same zeal, that same passion for justice of Aussie’s Health be mirrored in other areas of drug policy too? I mean, Roxon is pursuing a policy – plain packaging – that has a number of downsides to it, and only small possibility of a reduction in smoking – But that was enough, it seems, for her to implement the policy! Great I say, go for it, but why doesn’t this same ‘doggedness’ apply to the two other big monsters in the drug arena?
The Federal minister seems passionate about the anti-smoking message, passionate enough to make those sweeping statements we just read – ‘fighting to save lives!’ – ‘Making laws to protect Australians!’ and pursuing every possible vehicle to STOP people killing themselves (and our health budgets)on the way.
In a very recent interview published by the Financial Review, we get a glimpse into some of the motivators behind Roxon’s campaign against tobacco – ‘This is a defining moment for Roxon one that transcends politics and is deeply personal. Her father, a one-time smoker, died of oesophageal cancer at the age of 42…“All of us girls keenly felt the loss of not having our father as we grew up but that is not the same as being out on the street as some families are…it has made me very aware of the impact that smoking can have,” Said Roxon. This mother of a 6 year old daughter went on in the interview to declare that, ”This fight is about the past and the future. “We might be making the world a healthier place for our children, and that is very motivating. I don’t think the political gains will be very high or very quick, but the long-term health impact and feeling [that] you are in government to do some good is rewarding.”’*
I have no issue at all with this motivation from Roxon, I mean it is the personal encounter with tragedy and/or the grief of loss/dysfunction that adds undisputable weight to the abundance of health-destroying evidence that exists. But again, why isn’t this same passion for health/safety/future of children applied to the other life and health destroying drugs in the ‘recreational’ arena? Nicola would do well to spend time at Rehabilitation clinics, with families of alcohol and other drug using individuals who have not only shattered their lives but their families. Countless stories of lives and potential ruined at young ages because a drug was accessible, permissible, available and cheap. This very powerful evidence should also inform the prevention focused emphasis of alcohol and other drugs policy platform. All measures including high volumetric tax, plus clear and powerful warning labels should also be taken immediately to further ensure that children and families have the greatest protection from the damage of these drugs.
Alcohol – The protected substance?
When it comes to the other ‘legal drug’ the (it would appear) culturally entrenched alcohol – options for management have one glaring omission. Can you guess what it might be? No prizes if you said ‘QUIT’. The conspicuousness of the absence of this goal in the strategy is probably the noisiest of all elephants in the ‘Drug policy’ room. So, why is that?

We seem to have no problems creating what ‘defenders of the right to self destruct’ call a ‘Nanny State’ posture when it comes to cigarette smokers or our indigenous communities for that matter – But when it comes to the rest of the population quitting or abstaining from alcohol, then howls of derision chanting anti-‘Nanny State’ mantras are deafening!
James Campbell in his article ‘wowsers enough to drive you to drink’ featured in Herald-Sun 6 drew out, in his classic libertine framework article, some of the same inconsistencies we are bringing to attention in this paper – but I’m quick to add, for very different reasons. (Of course James would never have used the term ‘wowser’ in his title if he had even an inkling of what it stands for – We Only Want Social Evils Rectified – This of course is what all socially responsible people want. Yes, a free society, but a freedom that doesn’t disregard a) the liberty, safety and wellbeing of others b) the protection of the young, and c) bestowal of dignity on every human being… all of which are casualties when the imbibing begins.)
In his article he noted the data and subsequent recommendations recently released by the Cancer Council, but also what he has interpreted their seeming ‘double standard’ on the ‘drink’ issue. Professor Olver was quoted in the Age as saying… ”If you want to reduce your cancer risk as far as possible [abstinence] would be the option you have.” 7 yet in his article, Campbell states they stopped short of recommending abstinence from alcohol and settled for NHRMC recommendations of ‘a couple of standard drinks at any time’.
Now whilst I can see the point of incongruence, I would like to challenge Campbell’s ‘framing’ of the response. It is clear that not all cancers are caused or even added to, by alcohol, but it is equally clear, through evidence based science, that alcohol is carcinogenic.*
The point now is what do we do with that information? Certainly promoting abstinence as an option should be absolutely imperative…but that’s the problem… the ‘A’ word isn’t permitted, even in the ‘optional’ category!
Our culture is either so deeply addicted to this drug or so completely gripped by fear at being labelled something less than human because they don’t drink, that they actually cannot see the option of saying ‘No Thank you!’
Now if this was just, fully developed ‘grown ups’ who don’t care about their health or even worse, are self-medicating the vicissitudes of life with the grog, and never venture into the public space and expose others in the community to their less than sober persona, I suppose it would make less difference if one ‘partook’ (except for the medical and health bills the tax payer will have to fund)! However, it is the vulnerable in our society – the young (under 25 – still developing brains), the mentally ill, the socially and relationally isolated, the violent, the elderly, children and often women, who end up casualties of not only their own drinking, but that of others!
Whilst the link between cigarettes and disease is clear, it is no less clear with alcohol…
Alcohol consumption is the world’s third largest risk factor for disease and disability; in middle-income countries, it is the greatest risk. Alcohol is a causal factor in 60 types of diseases and injuries and a component cause in 200 others. Almost 4% (1 in 25) of all deaths worldwide are attributed to alcohol, greater than deaths caused by HIV/AIDS, violence or tuberculosis. 8
A couple of questions that are often conspicuous by their absence, when it comes to the inconsistencies in drug policy when dealing with tobacco and alcohol, are to do with impact on others. Yes, it is good to have gone to considerable lengths to minimise ‘passive smoking’, but what of the impact of what Professor Rob Moodie calls ‘passive drinking’? A couple of quick questions to ponder…
The real tragedy in all this ‘cultural reinforcement’ is that the imperative message for this demographic of abstinence, and delayed onset of drinking as long as possible, has completely disappeared .
When was the last time a cigarette caused a man to beat his wife to death?
When was the last time a cigarette caused an automobile accident killing two and disabling one for life?
When was the last time a cigarette caused a pub brawl or ‘glassing’ incident?
For the sake of brevity (and being seen to be too merciless on the sensibility of the Aussie imbiber) the following are just some of the long known, but only recently quantified data on this so called ‘social lubricant’….

a) Fiscal Cost: The research by the Australian Education and Rehabilitation Foundation (AER Foundation) has now put the total economic impact of alcohol misuse at $36 billion per annum which is over double 2005 estimates. This comprises $24.7 billion in tangible costs, which include out-of-pocket expenses, forgone wages or productivity and hospital and childcare protection costs. There are a further $11.6 billion in intangible costs, which includes lost quality of life from someone else’s drinking9

b) Consumption: Drinking more than ever before, at least 10.2 litres pure alcohol per person per annum 10

c) Cancer: “Alcohol use has been linked to thousands of cases of cancers including bowel, mouth, pharynx and larynx. 1 in 5 cases of breast cancer are linked to alcohol”. 11

d) Violence: There are more than 70,000 Australians who are victims of alcohol related assaults each year…alcohol-fuelled violence and abuse affects one in five people 12

e) Emergency Services: Ambulance Call outs in Greater Melbourne alone, for predominantly alcohol abuse have increased almost 600%: 1998-99: 1043 by 2008-09 it was 6924 13

f) Crime – In just one State alone, alcohol-related crime in Queensland has increased by 30 per cent, and public disorder offences by 65 per cent just in the past few years alone…Alcohol abuse in Queensland is now responsible for 100,000 crimes annually, or one-quarter of all offences.14

You get the point! This is, if not worse, then at the very least as bad as the smoking issue…. So, why aren’t all zeal, all passion and all strategies being implemented to prevent or stop the impact of alcohol on the Australian people and the economy?
So entrenched is the alcohol culture that according to the Australian Drug Foundation, parental supply has eclipsed all other sources of supply of alcohol to children aged 12-17. Now the excuses tabled for this kind of outrageous conduct are as follows…

a) Parents want to either, initiate their child into alcohol ‘wisely’ or at least ‘know’ how much they are drinking.

b) Parents want to be friends with their child and not parents. Believing they are avoiding stress at home by giving in to negative social influences.

c) Parents believe that if their children are going to ‘experiment’ then it’s better to do so with the legal drug.

d) ‘It’s part of being Aussie, it’s gonna happen, so might as well try and be ‘responsible’ and give them a hand in using this legal drug ‘properly’.’

So, how has that been working for us as a community? Well the evidence seems to correspond with the mindset. Again an Australian Drug Foundation recent release shows that by 16, one in five teenagers regularly binge drinks; by 18 it is 50 per cent.
It would appear this level of permissibility has only added to accessibility and availability and thus consumption has increased. I mean… ‘after all Mum and Dad are giving it to me and they use it, so it must be ok?’
The real tragedy in all this ‘cultural reinforcement’ is that the imperative message for this vulnerable demographic of abstinence and delayed onset of drinking as long as possible, has completely disappeared. All the scientific evidence reveals that their vulnerable developing brains need this option to be aggressively promoted as best practice and their parents, above all, need to get this reality check too.
Again, what continues to generate this disconnect between policy emphasis around the legal drugs of tobacco and alcohol? Both drugs are legal, but perhaps smoking an easy target now that fewer Australians do it, and is marginalised so much that scathing vitriol and uncompromising legislation will have little opposition? “But, not so with alcohol – Whilst approximately 14% of Australians who are legally permitted to drink, don’t, the amount of alcohol being consumed per person, per annum is near record highs. It would seem that challenging this second ‘monster’ can prove a difficulty, if a) votes matter b) the power brokers themselves are unable to say NO to alcohol; c) It has become the central and often sole ‘social amenity’ or even worse, d) it becomes the medication of choice for the ever growing epidemic of community wide psycho-social dysthymia.
Whatever the reason, a clear gulf exists in zeal, attention and endeavour when we juxtapose tobacco and alcohol. A gulf that screams, at best inconsistency, but at worst hypocrisy!
A quick recap…
When it comes to tobacco the policy aim for smoking is ‘quit’, and we have no problem aggressively challenging ‘smoking’ as a reckless act that needs stronger management. We have used Prohibition in its legal context to prevent smoking in a number of places and breaches of such prohibitions have met with not only social censure, but a fiscal punitive response – fines. And in this framework there appears no fear about attracting the pejorative ‘nanny state’ label.
When it comes to Alcohol, the policy aim (at the moment at least) is to avoid the ‘nanny state’ label, calling instead for management, more like a caring friend provoking a peer to a healthier choice. So the push seems to be toward ‘moderation’.
But what is happening in the arena of current illicit drug policy?
We appear to be losing the plot – the pro-drug lobby is trying to take over the judiciary, if not legislature!
When it comes to illicit drugs there appears to be a departure from all regulatory sanity. The ‘State’, on whose advice we can easily guess (George Soros funded propagandists) works ruthlessly to assassinate, mutilate and bury all processes that are focused on prevention or abstinence. Such processes the patronizingly dump into the ‘Nanny-State’ model/basket . Nor, would it seem are they interested in a Good Parent model, or even the ‘caring friend’ model… No, it would appear from all current debate this confederacy has opted for the ‘go with whatever feeling grabs you; it’s your ‘right’ and let the State clean up the mess’ approach!
There appears little to no censure, no label of ‘bad’ or ‘harmful’ or ‘destructive’ to the conduct that is illicit drug using. In fact great pains are taken to remove all terms from public documents that could potentially ‘marginalise’ the drug user. Whilst ‘name calling’ should never be condoned, conduct that illegal and destructive needs to be called for what it is and measures taken to change it. Whether the terms are legal or medical, they can never be ‘neutral’, or worse complimentary and condoning.
What is of greater concern is the tacit message oozing through the permissive interpretation of Harm Minimisation policy by the Harm Reduction Only Lobby, which is that the State sanctions and promotes – not challenges or changes – a drug user’s ‘habit’. (Yet it is the ‘habit’ that needs to change – more on that later.)
For example, they seem to be saying :

a) Please come to a special place with your illegal substance and we will assist you to take the drug of your choice (Medically Supervised Injecting Centre – MSIC). At no point will anyone ‘judge’ you for your ‘lifestyle choice’. Instead we will ensure you are comfortable and enabled in your drug taking activity whilst funding this process with tax-payer’s money. (No matter that this process breaks international laws on illicit drug use)

b) We will give you as many clean ‘needles’ as you like and will not hold you accountable for the return of used ones. In fact we will pay someone to go around and pick up your discarded syringes so you can continue to be free (not irresponsible, that would be pejorative)to continue, unhindered in your substance use, wherever and whenever you choose.

c) If the substance user opts to seek a change in conduct, only then may we humbly recommend a referral to a treatment facility. However, after we have just enabled you to continue your substance abuse (in our MSIC) and you are ‘feeling’ better (yet getting worse) after your State assisted ‘fix’, then it is unlikely that you’ll ‘feel’ the need for detox, let alone rehabilitate. So, the passive referral is ignored or forgotten.

d) If you are one of the single digit percentage of substance users that actually ‘follows through’ on referral, then no requirement will be placed on you to become drug free. No, we are only interested in trying to minimise your potential to kill yourself and make you as comfortable as possible. We will introduce you to other substances that may, or may not lead you to drug free recovery, but again, that is NOT our aim. This, after all, is only for the ‘problematic’ drug user and we must not have anyone feeling discomfort or distress from the withdrawal from drug use, even if is for a week – That would be ‘unkind’. So rather than treat you like a precious, intelligent, whole human being, we’ll simply treat you like a wounded pet and only treat the symptoms and not address the real problem.

e) The recent aggressive upsurge of promotion and use of, so called, ‘legal highs’ has produced an even clearer manifestation of this policy D.I.D/hypocrisy/inconsistencies. As these synthesized ‘designer’ concoctions started getting a more public profile, several States in Australia were quick to react by imposing age restrictions and then applying significant financial penalties (six figure fines) for those involved in distributing/using these products. Yet in some of these same States the use of current illicit drugs such as cannabis (and other currently illicit drugs that have clearly documented health damaging properties) attracts no more than a slap on the wrist for use and little more for trafficking!
It would seem no effort is spared, to ensure the drug user is rarely, if ever, is called to make changes. More than that, and at any point, an act of horrendous nature can be perpetrated against another citizen as we saw recently in the senseless murder of a deaf octogenarian pensioner, murdered by yet another (it would appear by the new label) ‘problematic drug user’. Diminished responsibility, mitigation, equivocation, even obfuscation, are employed to avoid ownership of the issue by the substance user. What’s more disturbing is that at no point is the abysmally interpreted Harm Minimisation Policy used to bring about change, let alone drug free wellness of these dysfunctional people.
The following (conveniently) long forgotten words of the remarkable Statesmen, Edmund Burke, are even more appropriate today than at any other time in recent history…
“Men are qualified for liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites… Society cannot exist, unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere; and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters.” Sir Edmund Burke

The very thing that is needed as outlined by Burke is the very thing the pro-drug lobby works tirelessly to negate. Morality is ‘off the table’ in this arena (The only time morality is invoked these days is when it comes to climate change; nowhere else is this allowed in the public discourse) In this ‘amoral’ space all attempts to impugn drug taking are perceivably removed. Terms like ‘wrong’, ‘bad’ ‘irresponsible’ are no longer permitted. So, if it is no longer referred to as ‘wrong’ then comes the next manipulative question: on what grounds should substance use still be illegal? The next step is to turn the debate into a purely ‘health’ issue. It is true, it is also a health issue, but, it is still a social, psychological and moral issue as well. But even just at the level of health policy, would think that all measures should be taken to rectify the dysfunction /disorder/ailment in order to remove the health damaging substances at least from the patient, even if not the community. Ah, but no, that’s not the agenda of this lobby faction is it!
The health issue is invoked only to manage some of the damage of substance taking and other second tier outcomes of these bad health choices, such as blood borne infections and or death. The call now in this decriminalised, so called amoral and consequence avoiding space, is that all health measures be taken to keep the patient alive and as healthy as possible to continue their ‘lifestyle choice’ of drug consumption.
This is not Australian – Time to Stand up!
At the moment the vast majority of Australians are still smart enough to know (perhaps drug free enough to know) that ultimately there I absolutely no gain/benefit in illicit drug use for individuals or society; The current National Household survey (2007) has the vast majority of Australians declaring their disapproval of illicit drugs and their use.

• 99% don’t want use of hard drugs accepted
• 95% don’t want hard drugs legalized
• 94% don’t want use of cannabis accepted
• 79% don’t want cannabis legalized
• Most Australians want tougher penalties for drug dealers.15

The largest youth survey done in our nation with a sample of around 50,000 young people saw alcohol and others drugs as the second highest on ‘what is an important issue for Australia’. This issue is the most worrying to the youngest in this most susceptible to damage of Australia’s demographic – the ones we need most protect – our children 16

When the overwhelming majority of people disapprove of illicit drugs, it might just be a cue to do something more significant than concede ground to it. You’d think that even the process (let alone value) of democracy, had any weight then the above mentioned majority opinion would mandate all and every action be taken to eradicate illicit drug use from society. According to collected data, around 6% of the world’s population aged between 15 and 64 currently use illicit drugs. 17 Australia’s stats are only a little higher than that. So here we have a user group that is arguably (at most) between a half or a third of current tobacco users, who are involved in a wilful breaking of the law to their own and the wider community’s detriment generating an exorbitant cost to our community.
So what has the response been to this? Well, it depends on where you look, who you talk to and who is playing the strings of the propaganda harp.
In recent years there has been a rising noise, about the need for illicit drug policy change. The standard mantra has been ‘the war on drugs has failed!’ Consequently we need to stop and rethink our processes and priorities.

What ‘war on drugs’? Where did this notion come from?
Well, let’s pretend for a moment there actually was a ‘war on drugs’. How could it possibly be won? Well, again it depends on how this ‘war’ was fought and what priorities were set. If the war on drugs simply attempted supply removal and arrest, then it will have limited success. However, as with most ‘battle strategies’, if they only have one tactic, then success will always be limited or the potential for failure increased. If a ‘war on drugs’ isn’t really waged as it should be then it is locked into only limited success and more likely subject to criticism of its limitation. However, as in all wars the first casualty is always truth and that is no different in this theatre of combat, as the following reveals…

The term “war on drugs” was not used in 1971 and is not used today by anyone except those who mischaracterize history and current drug policy in the US. However, if one were going to connect the term to President Nixon, then it would be more accurate to say that Nixon ended, rather than launched, the “war on drugs.”
The Nixon Administration repealed federal mandatory minimum sentences for marijuana, and on June 17, 1971, for the first time in US history, the long-dominant law enforcement approach to | 12 drug policy, known as “supply reduction”, was augmented by an entirely new and massive commitment to prevention, intervention and treatment, known as “demand reduction”. President Nixon announced this new, balanced approach to drug policy and it received full bipartisan support. Since that time, the idea of taking a balanced approach has enjoyed strong and sustained support through the terms of the seven US Presidents that followed. The US drug prevention policy, fully described in the annual National Drug Control Strategy published by ONDCP, maintains this twin-commitment to supply reduction and demand reduction, with the aim of reducing illegal drug use and the corresponding medical and social burdens that drug abuse imposes upon our nation.18
Supply reduction remains a key tactical component and criminalisation will always lend weight to that vital strategy component. Time and space here will not permit us to go into all the local and national impact on drug use that supply reduction has facilitated, but just two examples will give us a clear indication:

a) ABS 2000 death stats collection: Heroin: 417; methadone: 118;Benzos: 403; anti-depressants: 268; Cannabis: 49 Note the reduction in Heroin deaths the following year when the heroin drought (for whatever reason) caused availability to dry up, the ABS 2001 death stats collection showed: Heroin: 113; methadone: 107;Benzos: 252; anti-depressants: 194; cannabis: 28!

b) According to the Australian Institute of Criminology, the four top reasons why detained illicit drug users had not used in the previous month 19 was in order of main reason to least.

1) Dealer didn’t have drug of choice (highest reason by far)

2) No Dealers available

3) Poor quality product

4) Police presence

I want you to notice that supply reduction elements are the key factor in reducing illicit drug consumption. Again, when you reduce permissibility, accessibility and availability you reduce consumption. This is why complementary Supply Reduction strategies are imperative in conjunction with Demand Reduction strategies and compulsory detox and rehabilitation strategies.
When Ethan Nadelmann and Dr. Alex Wodak, the well-known supporters/ purveyors of the George Soros brand of cultural chaos, were on the media stage peddling their brand of harm ‘reduction’( (including the decriminalisation of illicit drugs), the voices of dissent from any other quarter were hard to hear, but not because they don’t exist considering over 90% of Australians disapprove of illicit drugs. It was the classic situation where the sane majority simply expect the government to do all that is necessary to eliminate drug use without bothering to mobilise against that small, but very ‘squeaky wheel ‘of pro-drug propaganda at legislators doors. Consequently, the long standing anti-drug movements were given no space at all.
The Nadelmann/Wodak ‘spin’ had people believing prohibition drug policy had failed and therefore the only option left was to decriminalise or legalise. They even used cleverly spun unrelated science and misrepresented data from other nations and calling that ‘enlightened’ (Such as the so called Portugal decriminalisation ‘success’). Or they hijacked the debate away from drug use and placed it in the framework of management of damage caused by drug use, which actually increases dysfunction.
It is remarkable that few clinicians or policy makers care to see or even acknowledge that the current illicit drug policy in Australia (among other western nations) has be completely hijacked by the single dimensional ‘harm reduction’ element and that has distanced them even further from the problems of drug use.
This one dimensional focus has barely anything to do with drug use and absolutely nothing to do with reducing drug use. ‘Harm Reduction’ as it currently stands, when it is all distilled down to its core (a one step process) is only focused on the attempted prevention of death and blood borne infections. Whilst this may be a noble aim, we need to move drug policy back to the forgotten reduction or prevention of drug use in our society. We are all for having a policy for reducing the spread of blood borne infections and death, but let’s call it that and move drug policy back to what drug policy is supposed to be about – the prevention and reduction of drug use in our society. Of course, even a ‘blind man’ could see, that if you prevent and/or reduce drug use, you reduce the incidence of the other damage so focused on – but that is the very thing the pro-drug lobby doesn’t want to happen, the reduction of drug use! They advocate continuation of drug use, funded by tax-payer’s who keep them alive and pay for their treatment.
So in our mind, an unavoidable question is – Where was Federal Minister for Health, Roxon on these issues? Where was the same zeal that was focused on cigarettes? At the time where this ‘drug reform’ lobby has used special arguments to remove the protection, where was the declaration, ‘making laws that protect Australians’ from substances that have long been banned because of the undeniable damage they do?
Is it utter ignorance that generates this silence? Or is it as one prominent AOD Clinician once said ‘Harm minimisation is just a euphemism for ‘we don’t know what the hell to do, so we’ve just given up!’. Or is it, reason spare us, a tacit yet wilful pursuit of cultural sabotage foisted on society because a minority of drug users who believe they can control their ‘habit’ have ‘friends’ in high places?
Prohibition is a word that has been marginalised and disparaged, again by hijacking the meaning and reinterpreting it in a different context – the context of purely a moral control of a majority. However, prohibition is, in this context, a matter of law and not a simple moral based endeavour.
We prohibit by law things that are injurious to individuals and the community. With Tobacco law, cigarette smoking is prohibited in restaurants, government buildings, some public spaces, inside cars and so on. Illicit drugs are prohibited at a higher level because of the health, family and social damage and the impediment of function and increased danger they that create. The prohibiting is based on minimising the harms done by these toxins to the community and individuals. Decriminalisation will only lead to greater substance use and experimentation and simply bolsters well the ranks of the damaged and dysfunctional. It will perpetuate this damage in an emerging generation that has little capacity to handle it. This is a crime!

Will the real drug policy emphasis, please stand up and will it stand for health, justice, responsibility and protection of the young?

Source: Shane Varcoe – Executive Director, Dalgarno Institute. www.dalgarnoinstitute.org.au August 2011

Endnotes
1 http://www.cancercouncil.com.au/editorial.asp?pageid=371
2 CHANGES ASSOCIATED WITH THE NATIONAL TOBACCO CAMPAIGN PRE AND POST CAMPAIGNSURVEYS COMPARED by Melanie Wakefield http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/health-pubhlth-publicat-document-metadata-tobccamp.htm/$FILE/tobccamp_c.pdf
3 Stark , Jill The Age, 22.5. 2011 http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/now-butt-out-new-push-seeks-to-outlaw-cigarettes-20110521-1ey2s.html#ixzz1OBTg5SRQ
4 http://www.smokernewsworld.com/market-cheap-cigarettes/
5 Nicola Roxon solid on cigarette packaging Sallie Don and Sue Dunlevy From: The Australian May 27, 2011 http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/nicola-roxon-solid-on-cigarette-packaging/story-fn59niix-1226063781056
6 James Campbell – wowsers enough to drive you to drink, page 78, Sunday Herald-Sun May 28, 2011,
7 http://www.theage.com.au/lifestyle/wellbeing/quit-drinking-to-cut-cancer-risk-20110501-1e38g.html
8 Global Status Report on Alcohol and Health. Taken from Introduction page x, ISBN 978 92 4 156415 1 (NLM classification: WM 274) © World Health Organization 2011
9 Alcohol Education and Rehabilitation Foundation – Range and Magnitude of Alcohol’s Harm to Others August 2010
10 Wine link to rise in alcohol intake, Sikora, Kate; Page 16, Herald-Sun Edition 1 – 2/11/2010
11 Medical Journal of Australia (published May 2011)
12 Alcohol Education and Rehabilitation Foundation – Range and Magnitude of Alcohol’s Harm to Others August 2010
13 http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-news/mateship-abandoned-drunks-left-behind/story-fn7x8me2-1226063706968
14 “Punch Drunk Campaign”, QLD Courier Mail – July 2009

Quit drinking to cut cancer risk

May 2, 2011

CANCER COUNCIL AUSTRALIA has revised dramatically upwards its estimate of alcohol’s contribution to new cancer cases and issued its strongest warning yet that people worried by the link should avoid drinking altogether.
New evidence implicating alcohol in the development of bowel and breast cancer meant drinking probably caused about 5.6 per cent of cancers in Australia, or nearly 6500 of the 115,000 cases expected this year, a review by the council found. This was nearly double the 3.1 per cent figure it nominated in its last assessment, in 2008.
The council’s chief executive, Ian Olver, said the updated calculations revealed breast and bowel cancer accounted for nearly two-thirds of all alcohol-related cancers, overtaking those of the mouth, throat and oesophagus.
”The public really needs to know about it because it’s a modifiable risk factor,” said Professor Olver, calling for awareness campaigns to alert people to the link. ”You might not be able to help your genes but you can make lifestyle choices.”
Professor Olver said public advice should not conflict with the National Health & Medical Research Council’s 2009 recommendation people should drink no more than two standard alcohol units daily, already half the previous safe threshold for men.
But people should also be told there was no evidence of a safe alcohol dose below which cancer-causing effects did not occur – either from direct DNA damage, increased oestrogen levels or excessive weight gain. ”If you want to reduce your cancer risk as far as possible [abstinence] would be the option you have,” he said.
Public advice was especially important, Professor Olver said, because studies that suggested alcohol could protect against heart disease were increasingly being challenged by new findings that people gave up drinking when they became ill or old – meaning any potential benefits of moderate alcohol use for cardiovascular health had probably been oversold.

Source: : http://www.theage.com.au/lifestyle/wellbeing/quit-drinking-to-cut-cancer-risk-20110501-1e38g.html#ixzz1LTPjlgEi May 2011

Supervised drinking at home can lead to alcohol problems as a teenager

Many mothers and fathers think that allowing their children to have a supervised drink is a good way of exposing them to alcohol safely and taking away its illicit thrill. But new research suggests it sends mixed signals that result in them being more likely to abuse alcohol as they enter their core teenage years.
A joint American-Australian study of more than 1,900 12 and 13-year-olds found that those whose parents took such a “harm minimisation” approach were more likely to have experienced “alcohol-related consequences” – such as not being able to stop drinking, getting into fights, or having blackouts – two years later than those whose parents had a “zero-tolerance” strategy.
A year into the study, almost twice as many Australian teenagers (67 per cent) had drunk alcohol in the presence of an adult than their American counterparts (35 per cent), reflecting general attitudes in Australia and the US when it comes to supervised underage drinking.
The following year, just over a third (36 per cent) of the Australians had experienced alcohol-related consequences compared to only a fifth (21 per cent) of the Americans.
While cultural differences alone could feasibly account for the disparity, the results also found that teens who had been allowed to drink while supervised were more likely to have had such experiences regardless of which country they were from.
The results of the study, conducted by the Centre for Adolescent Health in Melbourne, Australia, and the Social Development Research Group in Seattle, USA, are published today in the Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs.
British attitudes to teenage drinking are more similar to those in Australia than America, a matter reflected in law. While in the UK and Australia one can buy an alcoholic drink in a pub or off-licence from the age of 18, in the US the minimum age is 21. However, two years ago Sir Liam Donaldson, then England’s chief medical officer, said children under 15 should never be given alcohol, even though it is legal for parents to give a child over five alcohol in the home.
A separate Dutch study of 500 12-to-15-year-olds, also published in the JSAD today, found that it was the amount of alcohol available at home, and not how much parents drank, that determined teenage drinking habits – suggesting parents should keep their drinks cabinets locked.
Dr Barbara McMorris, of Minnesota University, who led the first study, said: “Both studies show that parents matter. “Despite the fact that peers and friends become important influences as adolescents get older, parents still have a big impact.” She added: “Kids need parents to be parents and not drinking buddies. Adults need to be clear about what messages they are sending. Kids need black and white messages early on. “Such messages will help reinforce limits as teens get older and opportunities to drink increase.”

Source: www.telegraph.co.uk/health 28th April 2011

Brain Scans Show Danger of Meth Exposure During Pregnancy

A new study suggests that the brain damage suffered by children whose mothers used metamphetamine during pregnancy may be even worse than the effects that alcohol has on a fetus.

Researchers at the University of California, Los Angeles, found that some of the brain regions of meth-exposed children were even smaller than in alcohol-exposed children. One such region is the caudate nucleus, which plays a role in learning, memory, motor control, and motivation.

“Our findings stress the importance of drug abuse treatment for pregnant women,” said research team leader Elizabeth Sowell.

According to Sowell and her colleagues, being able to identify which brain structures are affected in meth-exposed children may help predict the specific types of leaning and behavioral problems that will afflict these children.

 Source:  The Journal of Neuroscience. March 17 2011

The so-called ‘Drug War’ in the USA has not been’lost’ !

Gil Kerlikowske, Director of National Drug Control Policy released the Administration’s 2011 National Drug Control Strategy in July .This Strategy coordinates an unprecedented government-wide public health and safety approach to reduce drug use and its consequences in the United States.  The Administration’s new Strategy continues to expand upon a balanced approach to drug control that emphasizes community-based drug prevention, integration of drug treatment into the mainstream health care system, innovations in the criminal justice system to break the cycle of drug use and crime, and international partnerships to disrupt transnational drug trafficking organizations.  The final paragraph of the report says:

“Overall drug use in theUnited Stateshas dropped substantially over the past thirty years. In response to comprehensive efforts to address drug use at the local, state, Federal, and international levels, the rate of Americans using illicit drugs today is roughly half the rate it was in the late 70s. More recently, there has been a 46 percent drop in current cocaine use among young adults (age 18 to 25 years) over the past five years, and a 68 percent drop in the rate of people testing positive for cocaine in the workplace since 2006.”

 

 

Source:  DFAF  July 2011

Filed under: USA :

Harm Reduction: More than just side effects!

 

 

Harm Reduction: More than just side effects!

 The recent stance from the managing editor of the South African Medical Journal in favor of the extremely controversial practice of decriminalizing drugs of abuse (Harm Reduction) is both surprising and disconcerting. It shows a mixture of “arm chair medicine”, selective quoting of studies and conventions, and some really flawed reasoning.

 One wonders when last he has sat in front of a drug addict who’s lost their family, through being consumed by an overriding passion for drugs, or lost their job due to multiple accidents in the workplace related to the abuse of cannabis, heroin or other drugs. Or when last has he treated a marijuana smoker who has developed schizophrenia as a result of his marijuana smoking, a complication which has become increasingly well established in medical publications over the last 4 years?

 Medical Science is exploding with new research on virtually a weekly basis, that proves the harmful effects of marijuana use including:

  •  Causing psychosis in healthy people.[1]
  • Harming the brains of teenagers.[2]
  • Increasing the risk of testicular cancer.[3]
  • Poor foetal growth.[4]
  • Suppression of the immune system. [5]

 I suppose he has also not had to treat wash-out drug addicts from Switzerland like some of us have had to, where they have tried to regulate substance abuse through the medical provision of clean needles, syringes and drugs.

 The archaic argument that we cannot root out drug abuse by keeping it a crime is also a strange way of thinking to Doctors for Life. Since time began we have not managed to root out one single crime, but we are far from considering decriminalizing murder, rape, theft and fraud, to name but a few. Really, to use the example of Jackie Selebi’s corruption as a argument to legalize drugs is an illogical and distorted way of reasoning.

 Even though the article has quite a few references and appears very scientific, one is kind of left wondering what has happened to common sense. Dr van Niekerk keeps on quoting the fact that more harm is caused by legal drugs such as tobacco and alcohol (90% of all drug related deaths in theUK!) than illegal drugs, and somehow seems to miss the obvious point that having legalized them did not reduce the harm done by them. On the contrary, it appears to have increased the harm they cause. The implications of legalizing the use of drugs of abuse for the benefit of the economy of the country are vast. To mention just a few:

 Politoxemia, the simultaneous addiction to different drugs.

  • The financial implication of increased accidents in the workplace.
  • An increase in hours off work.
  • Medical expenses for treating the complications of substance abuse.

 It also includes the expense of establishing an infrastructure of medical personal to oversee the handing out of these drugs (and that in a country where our health system is already overloaded). DFL finds the reasoning justifying decriminalization immature.

 Dr. van Niekerk also quotes the UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs of 1961, but does not mention the UNODC’s 52nd session of the Annual Commission on Narcotic Drugs March 2009, to whichSouth Africa is a co-signatory. When some parties tried to slip in a Harm Reduction policy (such as Dr. van Niekerk is supporting),Sweden,Russia,Japan,USA,Colombia,Sri Lanka andCuba refused to sign the document unless the reference to harm reduction was removed.

 Experiences of a few countries that have moved in the direction of decriminalisation should also be taken note of:

 The Alaska Supreme Court ruled in 1975 that the state could not interfere with an adult’s possession of marijuana for personal consumption in the home. Although the ruling was limited to persons 19 and over, a 1988 University of Alaskastudy, the state’s 12 to 17-year-olds used marijuana at more than twice the national average for their age group.Alaska’s residents voted in 1990 to re-criminalize the possession of marijuana, demonstrating their belief that increased use was too high a price to pay

 In Holland the Dutch government started closing down a third of their coffee shops because they found that many of the coffee shops had become a legal outlet for the illegal drug trade and after 15 years of legalised marijuana use, they were unable to separate the illegal and crime related activities from the legal trade. With the South African Police Force struggling to effectively police crime in the country, how do we think we ever are going to better the Dutch!

 The U.K.first reclassified marijuana as a less harmful Class C drug, but in January 2009 moved it back to a more dangerous Class B drug.

 Doctors For Life International is all in favour of doing more regarding the rehabilitation of drug addicts. But we do feel that having a prison sentence as an alternative to being sent for rehabilitation is a powerful incentive for many substance abusers to try and get help. To this end we would argue for more government funding to established rehabilitation units, and for NGO’s, who to a large extent have taken over the responsibility of the government in this regard.

 Doctors for Life International, represents more than 1800 medical doctors and specialists, three-quarters of whom practice in South Africa. Since 1991 DFL has been actively promoting sound science in the medical profession and health care that is safe and efficient for all South Africans. For more information visit: http://www.doctorsforlife.co.za

 References:

 [1] Causing psychosis in healthy people:                 

Dr Theresa Moore, Theresa HM Moore MSc, Dr Stanley Zammit PhD, Anne Lingford-Hughes PhD, Thomas RE Barnes DSc, Peter B Jones PhD, Margaret Burke MSc, Glyn Lewis PhD

Cannabis use and risk of psychotic or affective mental health outcomes: a systematic review.UniversityofBristol, InstituteofPsychiatryinCardiffUniversity, Wales.

The Lancet, Volume 370, Issue 9584, Pages 319 – 328, 28 July 2007

 [2] Harming the brains of teenagers:                     

Manzar Ashtari, Ph.D: Children’sHospitalofPhiladelphia

Staci A. Gruber:HarvardMedical School

http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2010/11/marijuana-study/

 [3] Increased risk of testicular cancer:                            

FredHutchinsonCancerResearchCenter: Stephen Schwartz

Association of Marijuana Use and the Incidence of Testicular Germ Cell Tumours

http://www.fhcrc.org/about/ne/news/2009/02/09/marijuana.html

Kristen Woodward, 206-667-5095 or kwoodwar@fhcrc.org

 [4] Poor foetal growth:                                            

Hanan El Marroun, Henning Tiemeier, Eric A.P. Steegers, Vincent W.V. Jaddoe, Albert Hofman, Frank C. Verhulst, Wim van den Brink, Anja C. Huizink.
Intrauterine Cannabis Exposure Affects Fetal Growth Trajectories: The Generation R Study
Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry
December 2009 (Vol. 48, Issue 12, Pages 1173-1181)

 [5] Suppression of the immune system:                     

Venkatesh L. Hegde, Mitzi Nagarkatti and Prakash S. Nagarkatti.

Cannabinoid receptor activation leads to massive mobilization of myeloid-derived suppressor cells with potent immunosuppressive properties.

European Journal of Immunology, 2010; 40 (12): 3358-3371 DOI: 10.1002/eji.201040667

 Source:  Doctors for Life International, Dr.Thomas Gray 032 4815550  Jan 2011

Drug Legalisation in USA?

Obama laughed and as someone said, it is no laughing matter. He laughed I think not at the question but at the sheer silliness people who want cannabis legalised, at the irrationality that lies behind the call. Much of the legalisation argument is founded on falsity. Cannabis particularly, low CBD cannabis, has all the harms of tobacco and much more. Tobacco and alcohol as legal drugs (in most countries) cause far more personal and social harm than all the illegal drugs put together. The trivialisation of cannabis harms has been going on for too long, the normalisation and legalisation of this substance would inevitably lead to MORE USE, more use means, without any doubt, MORE personal and social harm as night follows day. So legalisation would not reduce that harm it would on the hard evidence of the tobacco/alcohol model, increase it. The second string of the argument is that illegal drugs are a gift to organised crime and that legalisation would remove that gift. This is a naive or dishonest argument. Illegal sales can always undercut legal sales by price, legal sales would allow crime to produce something “stronger”, regulations around age of purchase would encourage crime to target those excluded by age. Legalisation would produce counterfeit (cheaper) product, the application of any tax at all would encourage crime-to avoid that tax. The end result of legalised cannabis would be more consumption, by more people, for more of their lives. All that amounts to more harm. Just as we have with tobacco and alcohol. If anyone doubts what I say I ask them to consider the personal and social harm from alcohol in those countries where use is culturally or religiously taboo and to compare with similar sized societies where use is allowed and normalised. So why did Obama laugh? I suggest he knows the truth of what I speak, he knows that the tide of scientific opinion continues to move against the safety and harms of cannabis. He knows that the UK has only recently because of that social and personal harm and at the request of our National Director of Mental Health, reclassified cannabis to a more serious drug, (where it historically was under our system). We have rejected the nonsense of the pothead and stoner lobby. So should the USA. You should get off your drugs and get back to work.

Source: David Raynes response to article about drug use in USA March 2009

Success in the USA in Reducing Drugs Use

ACHIEVING THE PRESIDENT’S GOALS FOR REDUCING

YOUTH DRUG USE

Results from the 2004 Monitoring the Future Study

This year’s results from the Monitoring the Future (MTF) study further consolidate the historic reductions observed in last year’s results. In 2003, current use of any illicit drug and marijuana current use each declined 11 percent—exceeding the President’s strategic goal of a 10 percent reduction in 2 years from the 2001 baseline. This year’s MTF results indicate that current use of any illicit drug has declined 17 percent since 2001, while current marijuana use has dropped 18 percent.

Highlights of findings from the 2004 MTF on youth use of illicit drugs, alcohol, and tobacco; changes in anti-drug attitudes; and the impact of anti-drug advertising include the following—all changes discussed here are statistically significant:

Changes Since 2001 in Substance Use Among Grades 8, 10, and 12 Combined

Use of any illicit drug in the past 30 days (current use) among students declined 17 percent, from 19.4 percent to 16.1 percent. Similar declines were seen for past year use (13%, from 31.8 % to 27.5 %) and lifetime use (11 %, from 41.0 % to 36.4 %).

As a result of these dramatic declines, approximately 600,000 fewer youth in 2004 are using illicit drugs than in 2001.

Marijuana use, the most commonly used illicit drug among youth and the drug of primary interest to the Media Campaign, also declined significantly. Current use declined 18 percent, from 16.6 percent to 13.6 percent; past year use declined 14 percent, from 27.5 percent to 23.7 percent; and lifetime use declined 11 percent, from 35.3 to 31.3 percent.

Declines in youth drug use were not limited to these two categories. The use among youth of many of the most commonly used classes of substances are in decline, including LSD, MDMA (ecstasy), amphetamines, methamphetamine, steroids, alcohol, and cigarettes.

The use among youth of the hallucinogens LSD and ecstasy among youth has plummeted.  Lifetime use of LSD fell 55 percent (from 6.6% to 3.0%) and past year and current use each dropped by nearly two-thirds (from 4.1% to 1.6% and 1.5% to 0.6%, respectively).

Lifetime use of ecstasy dropped 41 percent, from 7.4 percent to 4.4 percent.  Past year and current use were each cut by more than half (from 5.5% to 2.5% and 2.3% to 0.9%).

Use of amphetamines, traditionally the second most commonly used illicit drug among youth, also dropped over the past two years. Lifetime use declined 20 percent, from 13.9 percent to 11.2 percent. Past year use fell 21 percent (from 9.6% to 7.6%) while current use fell 24% percent (from 4.7% to 3.6%).

Lifetime, past year and current use of methamphetamine among youth declined by 25 percent each — from 5.8 percent to 4.5 percent, 3.4 percent to 2.6 percent, and 1.4 percent to 1.1 percent, respectively.

Lifetime and annual use of steroids dropped 28 percent and 23 percent, respectively (from 3.2% to 2.3% and from 1.9% to 1.5%).

The use of alcohol, the most commonly used substance among youth, also declined. 

Lifetime, past year and current use each declined by 8 percent (from 65.7% to 60.5%, 58.4% to 54.0%, and 35.7% to 32.9%, respectively). However, there was little improvement in these measures between 2003 and 2004. Reports of having been drunk in the past two weeks declined between 10 and 12 percent in each of the three prevalence categories.

Cigarette smoking among youth continued to decline. Lifetime and current use each dropped 20 percent (from 49.1% to 39.5% and 20.3% to 16.1%, respectively). However, there was little improvement in these measures between 2003 and 2004.

MTF began collecting data on the non-medical use of Oxycontin in 2002. In 2004 there was a 24 percent increase in past year use of Oxycontin for all three grades combined compared to 2002, from 2.7 percent to 3.3 percent.

Changes From Last Year in Substance Use among Grades 8, 10, and 12

MTF collects data from three specific grades: 8th, 10th and 12th graders. There were no statistically significant changes between 2003 and 2004 found for any grade in lifetime, past year, and past month use of hallucinogens in general; hallucinogens other than LSD; cocaine in general; crack cocaine; amphetamines; tranquilizers; heroin and other narcotics; and being drunk. Additionally, there were no statistically significant changes for any grade in lifetime or past year use of Oxycontin, Vicodin, or Ritalin and past year and past month use of alcohol. The following statistically significant differences were found:

Among 8th graders:

Any illicit drug use in the past month declined 13 percent, from 9.7 percent to 8.4 percent.

Marijuana/hashish use in the past month declined 15 percent, from 7.5 percent to 6.4 percent.

Lifetime inhalant use increased 9 percent, from 15.8 percent to 17.3 percent.

Lifetime, past year, and past month use of methamphetamine declined 36 percent (from 3.9%to 2.5 percent), 40 percent (from 2.5%to 1.5%), and 50 percent (from 1.2% to 0.6), respectively.

Lifetime and past year use of steroids declined 24 percent and 21 percent, respectively (from 2.5% to 1.9% and from 1.4% to 1.1%).

Among 10th graders:

Lifetime use of MDMA (ecstasy) declined 20 percent, from 5.4 percent to 4.3 percent.

Past month use of powder cocaine increased 36 percent, from 1.1 percent to 1.5 percent.

Past year use of GHB declined 43 percent, from 1.4 percent to 0.8 percent and past year use of Ketamine declined 32 percent, from 1.9 percent to 1.3 percent.

Lifetime use of steroids dropped 20 percent, from 3.0 percent to 2.4 percent.

The only decline in 2004 of cigarette use occurred among 10th graders. Lifetime cigarette use declined 5 percent, from 43.0 percent to 40.7 percent, and smoking half a pack or more per day declined 20 percent, from 4.1 percent to 3.3 percent.

Among 12th graders:

Lifetime use of LSD declined 22 percent, from 5.9 percent to 4.6 percent.

There were no statistically significant changes found in each grade from last year in lifetime, past year, and past month use of hallucinogens in general; hallucinogens other than LSD; cocaine in general; crack cocaine; amphetamines; tranquilizers; heroin and other narcotics; lifetime, past year and past month use of alcohol; and being drunk. 

Anti-Drug Attitudes

A key aim of the Media Campaign is to improve youth anti-drug attitudes and perceptions; these changes are thought to be precursors to positive behavior change. We have seen improvements among youth in the perception of the harmfulness of using drugs and disapproval of people who use them, particularly for marijuana.  Statistically significant changes include the following:

Among 8th graders, both the perception of the harmfulness of trying marijuana once or twice and smoking it regularly improved from the previous year, by 6 percent and 3 percent, respectively. Perceived harmfulness of smoking one or more packs of cigarettes a day also improved significantly from the previous year, by 8 percent. The levels of these measures in 2004 are the highest they have been since 1993.

Among 10th graders, perceived harmfulness of trying MDMA (ecstasy) once or twice increased by 4 percent, while perceived harmfulness of smoking one or more packs of cigarettes per day increased by 4 percent as well. While the increases from the previous year in all other measures of perceived harmfulness were not statistically significant, the 2004 levels are the highest they have been in recent years.

Among 12th graders, perceived harmfulness of taking heroin regularly declined by 3 percent, while perceived harmfulness of taking heroin occasionally without using a needle and taking one or two drinks nearly every day increased, by 4 percent and 14 percent, respectively. There were no other statistically significant changes in perceived harmfulness among 12th graders.

Among 8th graders, disapproval of people who try marijuana once or twice increased by 3 percent from the previous year, as did disapproval of people who smoke marijuana occasionally and those who take LSD regularly, increasing by 2 percent and 5 percent, respectively.

Among 10th graders, disapproval of people who smoke marijuana occasionally increased by 4 percent; those who smoke marijuana regularly increased by 3 percent, those who try inhalants regularly increased by 1 percent, and those who try MDMA once or twice increased by 3 percent.

As with perceptions of harm, the 2004 levels of disapproval are the highest they have been since 1993 (8th graders) and 1994 (10th graders).

Impact of Anti-Drug Advertising

Exposure to anti-drug advertising (of which, the Media Campaign is the major contributor) has had an impact on improving youth anti-drug attitudes and intentions. Among all three grades, such ads have made youth to a “great extent” or “very great extent” less favorable toward drugs and less likely to use them in the future over the course of the Media Campaign (i.e., since 1998). However, more than half of the increase in most of these outcomes among all three grades has occurred in the past three years. This is particularly striking among 10th graders, the primary target audience of the Media Campaign.

Source: ONDCP, USA, December 21, 2004.

Free Drugs or Drug Free?

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. 7th, 2007

Shocking Impact of Booze on Babies

Irreversible harm… a scan of the brain of a healthy six-week old (left) next to a scan of the brain of a baby of the same age who is suffering from foetal alcohol syndrome.

Photo: National Drug Research Institute

AUSTRALIA has fallen behind in recognising and diagnosing ”completely preventable” foetal alcohol syndrome and wider spectrum disorders, researchers warn.

The federal government has so far failed to respond more than a year after a monograph – an extensive gathering of available studies – was submitted to the Health Minister, Nicola Roxon, recommending favourable treatments.

There are a growing number of intervention treatments for children born with the illnesses and researchers advocate a renewed effort to help pregnant women who suffer chronic alcohol dependence.

Foetal alcohol syndrome causes serious primary structural brain damage, sometimes shown at birth in facial deformities such as a small head, flat mid-face, underdeveloped jaw and a short nose with a low bridge, but just as often in learning and behavioural problems.

More broadly, foetal alcohol spectrum disorder occurs in up to 1 per cent of live births and includes foetal alcohol syndrome and other central nervous system birth defects attributable to alcohol consumption by the mother. US research suggests sufferers are disproportionately likely to face the juvenile justice system.

Early intervention can help but ”Australia is well behind other countries in recognising or diagnosing” the disorders, says Nyanda McBride, a researcher with the National Drug Research Institute at Curtin University.

If no alcohol is consumed during pregnancy – and, some suggest, during preconception and breastfeeding – there is no risk of the ”completely preventable” disorders, Dr McBride said.

Women with chronic alcohol abuse problems needed ”much more treatment and care”, said Lucy Burns, a senior lecturer with the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre at the University of NSW.

”We have virtually no treatments available for alcohol dependence in pregnant women,” Dr Burns said.

Although the National Health and Medical Research Council guidelines recommend women abstain from alcohol during pregnancy, ”we still don’t know the cut-off point at which alcohol starts to have this problematic effect”.

She said she had no date for the release of the monograph.

Elizabeth Elliott, a paediatrics researcher at Sydney University, said the monograph was submitted ”a long time ago”. The conditions had been under-recognised ”partly because health professionals are unsure about how to make the diagnosis”.

A spokeswoman for Ms Roxon said the Australian Health Ministers Conference would respond later this year. The issues were a ”priority” and the government had funded research for screening and diagnosis.

Source: www.smh.com.au July 21, 2010

New Field Poll Shows California Voters Oppose Legalized Marijuana

(St. Petersburg, FL) The Field Research Corporation just released the results of their latest Field Poll evaluating the support/opposition to California’s ballot initiative, Proposition 19. This initiative to tax and legalize use, cultivation and distribution of marijuana is opposed by 48% of the voters, while only 44% support it.

Demographically, the poll reports an overwhelming opposition by double-digit margins from minority California voters. According to Bishop Ron Allen, head of the International Faith Based Coalition and an anti-drug advocate in Sacramento, “The results of this poll show that the African American and Hispanic communities are fed up with drugs being pushed onto their children and into their neighborhoods. People understand that this is a serious public health and safety issue. As an African American I am concerned that the legalization of such poison would bring more drug dealers, increased use, and other negative consequences to our communities!”

Bishop Allen has also been outspoken against the California NAACP’s position that this is a civil right’s issue. Allen refutes, “Contrary to what is claimed, Proposition 19 will not change the prison statistics for drug possession crimes by minorities. Under current California law, there is no mechanism that allows for the arrest of anyone for possession of less than one ounce of marijuana. Proposition 19 would not change that situation but would certainly send the wrong message to our children, make marijuana, and probably other drugs, more readily available thereby driving drug use up. We could expect more drug impaired individuals on our highways, in our workplaces and in our schools!”

Calvina Fay, executive director of Drug Free America Foundation said, “The outcome of this poll is evidence that as the public has become more educated about the dangers of drug legalization and the flaws of this Proposition, they have more readily rejected it.” Fay continued, “This initiative is not a solution to California’s economic problems. In fact, this Proposition, according to L.A. District Attorney Steve Cooley, does not allow the state to generate any revenue because one section of the act prohibits any marijuana-specific state tax. Additionally, there is considerable uncertainty about its potential impact. No government has ever legalized the production and distribution of marijuana for general use, so there is virtually no evidence on which to base predictions or to gamble with the outcomes of such a dangerous experiment with the future of our children!”

“Based on The Field Poll results, the public doesn’t want marijuana legalized,” added John Redman, Director of Community Alliances for Drug Free Youth and a San Diego resident. “California voters would have to agree that it’s acceptable for pseudo-legal drug dealers to profit from the slavery of addiction. Many experts agree that the cost from addiction and usage associated illnesses far outweighs the amount of any revenue claimed to be generated – something the state of California cannot afford,” concluded Redman.

If you would like to set up an interview about this issue with Bishop Allen, John Redman, Calvina Fay or other policy experts, please contact Lana Beck at (727) 828-0211 or (727) 403-7571.

Source: http://www.cadfy.org.php July 9, 2010

Filed under: International News,USA :

Mexico Looks to Legalisation as Drug War Murders Hit 28,000

President joins calls for debate after figures reveal extent of violence since launch of military offensive against cartels in 2006. Murders in Mexico’s drug wars are becoming increasingly gruesome.

Mexico’s president, Felipe Calderón, has joined calls for a debate on the legalisation of drugs as new figures show thousands of Mexicans every year being slaughtered in cartel wars.

“It is a fundamental debate,” the president said, belying his traditional reluctance to accept any questioning of the military-focused offensive against the country’s drug cartels that he launched in late 2006. “You have to analyse carefully the pros and cons and key arguments on both sides.” The president said he personally opposes the idea of legalisation.

Calderón’s new openness comes amid tremendous pressure to justify a strategy that has been accompanied by the spiralling of horrific violence around the country as the cartels fight each other and the government crack down. Official figures released this week put the number of drug war related murders at 28,000.
Until recently the government regularly played down the general impact of the violence by claiming that 90% of the victims were associated with the cartels, with the remainder largely from the security forces. In recent months it has started to acknowledge a growing number of “civilian victims” ranging from toddlers caught in the cross fire to students massacred at parties.

Momentum behind the idea that legalisation could be part of the solution has been growing since three prominent former Latin American presidents signed a document last year arguing the case.

César Gaviria of Colombia, Fernando Cardoso of Brazil and Ernesto Zedillo of Mexico urged existing governments to consider legalising marijuana as a way of slashing cartel profits.

This year Mexico’s national congress began a debate on the possibility that resurfaced again this week during a series of round table discussions between the Calderón, security experts, business leaders and civic groups.

The “Dialogue for Security: Evaluation and Strengthening” is part of a new government effort to counter the growing perception in Mexico that the president’s drug war strategy is a disaster.

“I’m not talking just about legalizing marijuana,” analyst and write Hector Aguilar Camin said during the Tuesday session, “rather all drugs in general.” After accepting the need to directly address the proposal, Calderón made it clear he did not support it. “It requires a country to take a decision to put several generations of young people at risk,” he said, citing a likely increase in consumption triggered by lower prices, greater availability and social acceptability.

He added that the predicted “important economic effects by reducing income for criminal groups” would be limited by the integration of Mexican drug trafficking into international markets where drugs remain largely underground. Calderón did not mention current moves to soften drug laws in the US, including a planned vote in California in November on an initiative that would allow marijuana to be sold and taxed. Nor did he address the home grown argument that legalisation would remove the roots of the violence raging in the country.
“Legalisation would render the war pointless as drugs would become just another product like tobacco or alcohol,” Jorge Castañeda, a legalisation advocate and former foreign minister, told W Radio. He added that even if it did prompt an increase in drug use. “It is worth considering whether this is preferable to having 28,000 deaths.”

The new death toll, which was not broken down, is significantly higher than the informal counts kept by newspapers. Milenio newspaper put the number of drug-related deaths in July at 1,234.

Some leading critics of Calderón’s strategy, however, do not believe legalisation is the key to reining in the cartels and the violence, preferring to emphasize the need to increase efforts to go after money laundering and political corruption. Edgardo Buscaglia, and expert in organised crime around the world, argues that the recent diversification of the Mexican cartels into other criminal activities ranging from systematic extortion to people trafficking would give them ample reason to keep fighting each other, even if drugs were legal. “Legalising drugs would be good public policy,” he said, “but it would not be a tool with which to combat organized crime.”

Source: guardian.co.uk Wednesday 4 August 2010

Hungary Needs A New Drug Strategy

The policy of the Government brought changes in the views, attitudes and directions, comparing to the previous years. The new drug strategy is part of these changes. It is based on prevention, strengthening the families, school education, and reconstruction of the rank of teachers, supporting young people, offering help for those, who got into trouble and on a strong law interdiction against drug dealers. These will form the basis of a new drug strategy, to be elaborated by the end of 2011, together with an action plan.

During the past 8 years new drugs emerged in the illegal marketplace and new forms of drug trafficking and distribution among young people were domesticated. Hungary having been a transit country of drug trafficking became a target country. The children and young people can access drugs and mind altering substances much easier than earlier. Drug liberalization came into the forefront and nothing happened to stop these negative trends. The drug strategy implemented by now had failed, as it was not capable to prevent or reduce the increasing drug problem. Those, who induced this situation, would not be able to create and implement an appropriate new drug strategy.

The drug strategy of the past years, which placed the emphasis on drug liberalization and harm reduction, cannot be continued any more. This policy benefited those, who preferred drug liberalization. Trafficking of yet non-scheduled, harmful substances became profitable, similarly to distribution of illicit drugs.

The task of the state is the protection of society, especially those groups who are the most deprived and endangered, against those, who want to gain profit by damaging them. In the focus of the Government stands now the strengthening of families, raising awareness of parents about their responsibilities and improving the societal solidarity. These goals are met by the measures of Government taken now, e.g. the family tax benefit, earlier retirement of women, sanctioning of avoiding school for more than 50 hours by pupils, stricter penalization of shoplifting. Positive effects of these measures have become visible in a short term.

Source: World Federation Against Drugs Jan. 2011

Filed under: Europe,International News :

Families Protected by Healthcare Professionals Drug Prevention Outreach

Every medical professional witnesses the effects of addiction on patients. Many agonize how addiction destroys families, fuels crime, changes neighborhoods and imperils our youth.

Many professionals are discovering a way to make a difference. The grassroots Reality Tour Drug Prevention Program has been growing county by county since 2004, aided by healthcare volunteers. The consequence-driven, parent/child program started in Butler 2003. It organizes existing community resources to present the real story of addiction.

Neil Capretto, D.O., Medical Director at Gateway Rehabilitation Center in Beaver County, recognizes the collaborative benefits, “One of the many strengths of Reality Tour is that it brings together drug and alcohol treatment providers, schools, churches, businesses, hospitals, police and the legal system. They network through this program to improve the life and health of youth.”

Reality Tour opens with brief dramatic scenes narrated by a ‘teen on drugs’ that involve the audience. Q & A sessions with police and a recovering addict offer insight. The tempo changes as parent/child learn coping skills and experience a revealing self-discipline test. Adults rate it as ‘priceless’ and a follow-up study shows 80% of youth are still working on prevention goals after three months.
CANDLE, Inc., is the Butler non-profit that oversees Reality Tour. Executive Director and developer Norma Norris recalls that, “The program took off by itself in 2003. We quickly had a 2-month waiting list. Soon other communities wanted to replicate it. Parents everywhere are eager to protect their children. Now over 25 communities are licensed.”

Healthcare professionals are key players according to Norris, “Dr. Jeffrey David and his wife Jan played the role of grieving parents for years. Butler Ambulance provided ER props and sends EMT’s monthly. Butler Memorial Hospital and Highmark were supportive.” Over 5,000 Butler residents have attended and all eight county school districts are involved.

Volunteers like VA Pharmacist Tiffany Kimmerle continue to step forward, “I truly feel Reality Tour can change a teenager’s mind about using drugs. Helping a program that has the ability to change lives, and probably save lives is most rewarding.”

County by county replications continued. Armstrong County Memorial Hospital joined with ARC Manor and District Attorney Scott Andreassi in 2005. Originally, six programs per year were planned but demand requires a monthly frequency.
In Westmoreland County, Excela Health plays a primary role. R.N. Tina Bobnar and her family manage the ER scene along with Scot Ritenour. Nurse Educator Sheri Walker recalls, “Excela Health sent an e-mail requesting volunteers. I was interested because I have seen the devastating effects of addiction when I worked in Labor and Delivery. The numbers of addicted moms was on the rise.” Her daughter Liza, who lost a classmate to an overdose, volunteered too declaring, “Mom, we have to do this!”

The parent/child approach appeals to Walker, “What impressed me the most and still does, is the focus on communication between parent and child. The program is not, “just say no,” but is more about, “these are some ideas for how to say no. Reaching children before they start experimenting with drugs is why I believe in this program. Youth who attend have a chance to make an informed decision.”
Research by the University of Pittsburgh’s School of Pharmacy shows the Reality Tour does increase parent/child communication. Youth also report an increase in their perception of harm associated with drugs.

Norris underscores that, “The program is for the general public. Prevention has the best outcome when introduced early. A MetLife study shows a marked increase nationally for youth in grades 9-12, with 38% reporting past 30 day drug/alcohol use.”

While Western PA leads the state with 13 Reality Tour sites, Eastern PA healthcare providers are taking notice. Geisinger Medical Center, Wayne Memorial Hospital and the Child Death Review Team in Pike County are involved. Norris hopes to organize the whole state and has sights on Allegheny County next. Oregon, New York, New Jersey and Vermont will also start programs in 2010.
Any community is just 90 days away from a Reality Tour. Training is facilitated with the aid of CANDLE’s detailed manual and volunteer workshop on DVD. More information and newsletter signup is available at

www.RealityTour.org

E-mail :NormaNorris@candleinc.org t

Source: www.behavioralhealthcentral.com 21.June 2010

Filed under: International News,USA :

Driving under Influence of Marijuana a Growing Problem

When Patrick Sayers received a 30-year sentence for killing Michael Mickelson, it was held up as proof that the system is finally taking driving under the influence seriously.

Thirty years is the maximum sentence for vehicular homicide while under the influence. In seeking it, Deputy Missoula County Attorney Kirsten Pabst LaCroix reviewed the facts:

The Hamilton man put his three toddlers in the back seat of his 1-ton Chevy pickup and then partied with a friend as he drove north along U.S. Highway 93 in 2007. The truck was going 50 mph when it swerved into Mickelson’s car near Miller Creek Road.

“A lethal, loaded weapon,” LaCroix called Sayers’ truck.

Sayers, too, was loaded that day. But not with booze. He was stoned.

Sayers, who smoked two bowls of pot in the truck with his friend that day, is among an increasing number of drivers nationwide who had drugs in their system when they were involved in fatal wrecks, according to federal statistics. A study released a few weeks ago by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration shows the number going up every year since 2005.

Those statistics showed that in 2009, Montana ranked second in the nation, after Alaska, for marijuana involvement in fatal crashes, according to the report “Killer on the Highway,” compiled by Rebecca Sturdevant, who became an anti-DUI activist after a drunken driver killed her son, Highway Patrol Trooper Evan Schneider, in 2008. Some 13 percent of the Montana motorists in the deadly crashes had used marijuana, compared to 4 percent nationwide.
Both the highway agency and Sturdevant cautioned that record-keeping varies widely among states. Nor do those statistics mean that marijuana use caused the crashes.

Still, the study confirmed what Kurt Sager sees on the highways.

While the number of fatal crashes involving booze still ranks high – Montana routinely stands among the worst in the nation – “the rate of increase of drugs is climbing more steadily than alcohol,” said Sager, traffic safety resource officer for the Montana Highway Patrol. “Alcohol-impaired fatalities were down in 2010, but the drug-related fatalities were up. So, we’re winning one battle but losing another.”

DUI has become so synonymous with drunken driving that it’s easy to forget that “under the influence” covers a multitude of substances. (Conditions, too. New Jersey has a law against driving drowsy.)

But even as reports increase, courts and law enforcement struggle with the issue of how to judge impairment when a driver has been using something other than – or, as is frequently the case, along with – alcohol.

Travis Vandersloot, who killed Montana Highway Patrol Trooper Michael Haynes in a head-on crash in 2009, had a blood-alcohol level of 0.18 and also had been smoking marijuana.

David Bugni, the Butte man convicted in the 2009 crash that killed Missoula prosecutor Judy Wang, had been drinking and smoking dope, although his blood alcohol concentration was 0.04 percent, below the legal cutoff of 0.08 percent.

And Daniel Alvin Prindle, a Billings man who pulled his vehicle into the path of an oncoming car in 2008, seriously injuring two people and hurting a third, had marijuana, cocaine and barbiturates in his system. Last week, a judge ordered him to pay $700,000 in restitution.

But only Vandersloot, who’d downed 13 drinks in the hours before he killed Haynes, was charged with being under the influence. That’s because there’s nothing comparable to the 0.08 blood alcohol level when it comes to pot, prescription drugs, cocaine, meth or other drugs.

“You can get a level in their system, but there’s nothing to relate that to that proves they’re impaired,” said Missoula County Sheriff’s Capt. Brad Giffin. “The only way is a circumstantial case that proves they are impaired to a point where they can’t function properly.”

The Highway Patrol’s Sager trains law enforcement around the state as drug recognition experts, applying standardized field sobriety tests as a way to check for impairment, no matter the cause. By spring, he said, some 70 law enforcement officers around the state – there are 12 among the 100 members of the Missoula police force – will be trained. The demand for their services is great.

Missoula Police Sgt. Ed McLean said police have made DUI arrests “strictly for cannabis, strictly for meth … for combinations of alcohol and narcotics, for analgesics combined with depressants. We have made arrests on every drug for DUI.”

Rebecca Sturdevant said she’s seen good progress on raising awareness of the problem of drunken driving. Now she wants to see that same awareness of all types of impaired driving.

She supports a bill sponsored by state Rep. Ken Peterson, R-Billings, that would tweak the drug provisions of the state’s DUI law.

Peterson’s proposal specifies that “driving with any amount of a dangerous drug or its metabolite in a person’s body is a violation,” although it exempts prescription drugs.

“The basic concept,” said Sturdevant, “is that we need to be able to keep people who are smoking and driving off the highway.”

But some substances can be detected in a person’s system long after their effect is gone. That’s true of THC, the main ingredient in marijuana.

“It’s absurd to test for marijuana metabolites that might be present for marijuana usage days ago or weeks ago,” said John Masterson, head of Montana NORML (National Organization for the Legalization of Marijuana Laws). “People shouldn’t be charged for DUI for something that they did weeks ago.”
NORML stresses that “people should not be under the influence of anything while they are driving a motor vehicle,” Masterson said.

He favors the system of drug recognition experts, saying that “when you test for impairment, rather than chemical quantity, so long as it’s a qualified expert you can test for alcohol, potentially marijuana, potentially prescription painkillers, potentially sleep deprivation … all of the sorts of reasons people should not be on the highway endangering our friends and families.”

The voter initiative that legalized medical marijuana in Montana in 2004 specifically states that the law doesn’t permit “any person to operate, navigate, or be in actual physical control of any motor vehicle, aircraft, or motorboat while under the influence of marijuana.”

The number of people legally smoking marijuana in Montana has nearly tripled in the 15 months since the declaration by the U.S. Department of Justice that it would no longer raid medical marijuana distributors. Some 27,292 Montanans held “green cards” as of December.

McLean said officers making traffic stops “tend to get the greatest resistance from people who think that, ‘OK, because I have a medical marijuana card, it’s legal for me to smoke.’ Or, their doctor is prescribing pain medication and then they get behind the wheel of a car and become a danger to themselves and others. That’s the education curve we need to overcome.”

No matter what the substance, said Deputy Missoula County Attorney Jen Clark, the key word is impaired.

“It’s kind of analogous to alcohol,” said Clark. “You can have it, but it doesn’t make it OK to drive if you’re impaired.”

Source: www. missoulian.com 16th Jan. 2011

Filed under: International News,USA :

Doctors Warn of Rise in Substance Abuse

Up to 40 per cent of those presenting with psychiatric disorders are also abusing substances, and that figure rises to 60 per cent in the case of those who have committed suicide.

And doctors treating substance abuse addicts at Dublin’s Rutland centre have discovered that those presenting for treatment for addiction are also experiencing depression, anxiety, and other mental health challenges.

This, according to the Rutland’s Centre’s newly appointed clinical director, Dr Fiona Weldon, is “a reflection of the changing landscape in the use of mood-altering substances that have an impact on mental health, such as cocaine, hash and head-shop substances”.

The Rutland Centre has also seen an increase in those presenting with co-existing mental health issues and eating disorders. As a result, Dr Weldon has launched two new programmes to meet the growing demand for services to deal with issues in the area of addiction and eating disorders.

The first of these, which starts this month, is the Dual Diagnosis Outpatient Programme, an evidence-based intervention utilising Dialectical Behaviour Therapy responding to those experiencing difficulties with mental health and addiction. It aims to break the cycle of addiction and respond to other co-existing issues.

An Eating Disorder Programme will deal with compulsive overeating and an obsessional relationship with food leading to many other health-threatening issues.

Other eating disorders, also on the increase, particularly bulimia and anorexia, are also dealt with in a highly specialised group therapy and psycho-educational programme on a residential basis as well as in a new outpatient group targeting stabilisation of eating and increasing skills to manage psychological distress. Visit www.rutlandcentre.ie for more information.

Source: www.independent.ie Sunday July 11 2010

Filed under: Europe,International News :

33% of Ex-prisoners’ Drug Deaths Occur Within Week of Release

ALMOST a third of prisoners who die from drugs after being released from jail die within a week. Research shows nearly half of this group die within a month including eight out of 10 who are on temporary, or early, release. The report from the Health Research Board (HRB) comes as separate figures show almost 1,000 convicted criminals are on temporary release as the prison overcrowding crisis deepens.

The HRB report — the first of its type in Ireland — said many of the deaths are preventable through inexpensive action such as better links between prisons and treatment services and training to prevent overdoses. The report said there were 130 recorded drug deaths among prisoners and ex-prisoners between 1998 and 2005, but said this was likely to be an underestimate.

The HRB authors, lead by Suzi Lyons, said the 130 represented 5% of the 2,442 people on the National Drug-Related Deaths Index, a “much higher” proportion than for the general population. It said 105 of the 130 had left prison: 93 after completing their sentence and 12 on temporary (or early) release. Of the 105, 25 (or 28%) died within a week of release and a further 17 (19%) within a month. The mortality rate was the worst among the 12 people on temporary release, 10 of whom died within the first month. The research found exact dates of release for 89 individuals.

The results show of 105 drug deaths of ex-prisoners:

*89% were male, 62% were aged 20 to 29 and 84% were unemployed.

*20% were living in unstable accommodation and 10% were homeless.

*97% had a history of drug misuse, 61% had a history of drug injecting use and 34% were reported to be injecting at the time of their death.

*30% were on the methadone treatment register at the time.

*67% of deaths were due to poisonings.

*63% of deaths by poisoning within a month of release were due to two or more drugs.

* Heroin or methadone was involved in 79% of single drug deaths and 96% of polydrug deaths.

Campaigners have said that simple and inexpensive measures could cut the high number of prisoners who are dying. These include better communication between prisons and outside drug services, and more training for users, their families and drug workers on how to prevent overdoses.

Researchers said this number was “much higher” than for the general population and added the figure of 130 was likely to be an underestimate.

The report, Drug-Related Deaths Among Recently Released Prisoners in Ireland, was published in the International Journal of Prisoner Health. It concluded: “The increased proportions of individuals who die so soon after release from prison highlights the need for preventative measures for this at-risk group.

“Such measures include ensuring the release of drug-dependant prisoners in a planned manner, providing continuity of methadone and other forms of drug treatment, and providing accommodation and support to enter education or employment on release.”

It called for improved communication between prison services and addiction treatment and reintegration services.

Source: www. IrishExaminer.com 14th July 2010

Filed under: Europe,International News :

14 Hawaii Religious Marijuana Advocates Indicted

HONOLULU — The founder and director of The Hawaii Cannabis Ministry and 13 associates are facing federal marijuana charges. Federal authorities told a news conference Friday that Roger Christie led a major marijuana growing, processing and distribution ring. Christie says he uses marijuana as a sacrament. But authorities say neither his ministry nor state medical marijuana laws protect him from federal prosecution. Federal officials seized 3,000 plants, with a retail value of $4.8 million. Four Big island residences are facing forfeiture. The defendants were arrested Thursday and flown to Honolulu. Authorities say six were released on bond. Christie and seven others remain in custody pending detention hearings next week.

Source: The Associated Press. 9th July 2010

Filed under: International News,USA :

Dutch law could unleash cocaine flood in Britain

A DECISION by the Dutch government to decriminalise the smuggling of hard drugs could leave Britain vulnerable to a flood of cheap cocaine.

Customs officers are allowing traffickers caught at Schiphol airport, Amsterdam, with less than 3kg of cocaine to go free. The only penalty they face is the confiscation of their drugs.
In the first phase of a policy that could soon be extended to other hard drugs, the liberal measures are being applied to 35 so-called “cocaine flights” a week from the Caribbean.
Last year police caught 2,176 smugglers from the region and seized six tons of the drug. But from now on, traffickers no longer have to worry about hefty prison terms or even arrest.
The policy may prove even more controversial than Holland’s infamous “coffee shops”, where soft drugs such as cannabis have been sold openly for decades.

The Dutch authorities claim the measure will allow them to divert money spent prosecuting offenders into drug seizures. However, critics in neighbouring countries, including Britain, fear it will lead to a boom in the number of people ready to act as “mules” for drug cartels.
The National Drug Prevention Alliance in Britain has warned that the policy amounts to a capitulation by the police with consequences that could spin out of control.

“This won’t just hit the UK badly. It will affect the whole of Europe,” said David Raynes, a former chief narcotics investigator for Customs and Excise. “Holland is the drugs warehouse of Europe and by not controlling its problem it’s creating an infection that will spread to all the countries around.”

In Germany the street value of cocaine has already fallen from €150 (£102) a gram to just €50 (£34), raising the prospect of a sharp rise in the number of addicts. The Dutch government has ignored a plea from Otto Schily, the German interior minister, to toughen rather than weaken its deterrent.

However, Ivo Hommes, a spokesman for the Dutch justice ministry, said the initiative could save millions spent on prosecuting and jailing offenders, allowing more funds to go into the detection and confiscation of drugs. “Locking up thousands of smugglers doesn’t solve the problem. There will always be more of them,” he said. “We’ve been honest enough to admit that we only manage to stop 15% of the drugs coming in, so we are trying something new.”
A leaked ministry memorandum, however, has suggested that the policy was adopted because the prosecution service was overburdened. It emphasised that drug-related arrests should not be permitted to “block the justice system”.

Britain’s National Criminal Intelligence Service is said to be eyeing the policy “warily”.
Source: Sunday Times 1.02.04

Filed under: Europe,International News :

Consequences of Illicit Drug Use In America

Drug Deaths

38,371 people died of drug-induced causes in 2007, the latest year for which data are available. The number of drug-induced deaths has grown from 19,128 in 1999, or from 6.8 deaths per 100,000 population to 12.6 in 2007.1 (These include causes directly involving drugs, such as accidental poisoning or overdoses, but do not include accidents, homicides, AIDS, and other causes indirectly related to drugs.)
There is a drug-induced death in the U.S. every 15 minutes.
Compared to other causes of preventable deaths, drug-induced causes exceeded the 31,224 deaths from injuries due to firearms and the 23,199 alcohol-induced deaths recorded in 2007. In the same year, 34,598 deaths were classified as suicides and 18,361 deaths as homicides.3

Drugged Driving

From a national roadside survey in 2007, one in eight (12.4%) of weekend nighttime drivers tested positive for at least one illicit drug.4
Based on a self-report survey in 2009, approximately 10.5 million Americans reported driving under the influence of an illicit drug during the past year.5
In 2009, one in three drivers killed in motor vehicle crashes who were tested for drugs and the results known, tested positive for at least one medication or illicit drug.6
Among high school seniors in 2008, one in 10 (10.4%) reported that in the two weeks prior to their interview, they had driven a vehicle after smoking marijuana.7

Children

Annual averages for 2002 to 2007 indicate that over 8.3 million youth under 18 years of age, or almost one in eight youth (11.9%), lived with at least one parent who was dependent on alcohol or an illicit drug in the past year.8 Of these, About 2.1 million youth lived with a parent who was dependent on or abused illicit drugs, and almost 7.3 million lived with a parent who was dependent on or abused alcohol.9

School Performance

Significantly fewer youth in school who are current marijuana users report an average grade of “A” (12.5%) compared to those who are not current marijuana users (30.5% report an average grade of “A”).10
College students who use prescription stimulant medications nonmedically typically have lower grade point averages, are more likely to be heavy drinkers and users of other illicit drugs, and are more likely to meet diagnostic criteria for dependence on alcohol and marijuana, skip class more frequently, and spend less time studying. 11

Economic Costs

The economic cost of drug abuse in the US was estimated at $180.9 billion in 2002, the last available estimate. This value represents both the use of resources to address health and crime consequences as well as the loss of potential productivity from disability, premature death, and withdrawal from the legitimate workforce.12
ONDCP seeks to foster healthy individuals and safe communities by effectively leading the Nation’s effort to reduce drug use and its consequences. December 2010
Addiction and Treatment Need
In 2009, 23.5 million persons aged 12 or older needed treatment for an illicit drug or alcohol use problem (9.3 percent of persons in that age group). Of these, 7.1 million persons needed treatment for illicit drug problems, with or without alcohol.13
Of the 23.5 million persons needing substance use treatment, 2.6 million received treatment at a specialty facility in the past year, and of the 7.1 million needing drug treatment, 1.5 million received specialty treatment.14

Acute Health Effects

In 2008, an estimated 2 million visits to emergency departments in US hospitals were associated with drug misuse or abuse, including close to one million (993,379) visits involving an illicit drug. Nonmedical use of pharmaceuticals was involved in 971,914 visits.15 Cocaine was involved in 482,188 visits, marijuana was involved in 374,435 visits, heroin was involved in 200,666 visits, and stimulants (including amphetamines and methamphetamine) were involved in 91,939 visits.

Criminal Justice Involvement

According to a 2009 study of arrestees in 10 major metropolitan areas across the country, drug use among the arrestee population is much higher than in the general U.S. population. The percentage of booked arrestees testing positive for at least one illicit drug ranged from 56 percent to 82 percent. The most common substances present during tests, in descending order, are marijuana, cocaine, opiates (primarily metabolites of heroin or morphine), and methamphetamine. Many arrestees tested positive for more than one illegal drug at the time of arrest.16
According to a 2004 survey of inmates in correctional facilities, 32 percent of state inmates and 26 percent of federal prisoners reported that they used drugs at the time of the offense.17

Environmental Impact and Dangers

There are significant environmental impacts from clandestine methamphetamine drug labs, including chemical toxicity, risk of fire and explosion, lingering effects of toxic waste, and potential injuries. The number of domestic meth lab incidents, which includes dumpsites, active labs, and chemical/glassware set-ups, dropped dramatically in response to the Combat Meth Epidemic Act, (CMEA) of 2005, from nearly 13,000 in 2005 to just over 6,000 in 2007. However, traffickers are devising methods to avoid the CMEA restrictions and domestic meth lab incidents are rising again, reaching 9,800 in 2009.18
Coca and poppy cultivation in the Andean jungle is significantly damaging the environment in the region. The primary threats to the environment are deforestation caused by clearing the fields for cultivation, soil erosion, and chemical pollution from insecticides and fertilizers. Additionally, the lab process of converting coca and poppy into cocaine and heroin has adverse effects on the environment.19
Mexican drug trafficking organizations have been operating on public lands in the U.S. to cultivate marijuana, with serious consequences for the environment and public safety. Propane tanks and other trash from illicit marijuana growers litter the remote areas of park lands from California to Tennessee. Growers often use a cocktail of pesticides and fertilizers many times stronger than what is used on residential lawns to cultivate their crop. These chemicals leach out quickly, killing native insects and other organisms directly. Fertilizer runoff contaminates local waterways and aids in the growth of algae and weeds. The aquatic vegetation in turn impedes water flows that are critical to maintaining biodiversity in wetlands and other sensitive environments.20

Source: Office of National Drug Control Policy. USA Dec. 2010

1 Xu, J; Kochanek, KD; Murphy, SL; and Tejada-Vera, B. Deaths: Final Data for 2007. National Vital Statistics Reports 58/9, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics (May 2010).
2 Calculated from Xu, et al. (2010).
3 Xu, et al. (2010).
4 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2007 National Roadside Survey of Alcohol and Drug Use (December 2009).
5 SAMHSA. 2009 National Survey on Drug Use and Health, Detailed Tables (September 2010).
6 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Drug Involvement of Fatally Injured Drivers (November 2010).
7 University of Michigan. 2008 Monitoring the Future Study. Unpublished special tabulations (December 2010).
8 SAMHSA. Children Living with Substance-Dependent or Substance-Abusing Parents: 2002-2007 (April 2009).
9 SAMHSA. Children Living with Substance-Dependent or Substance-Abusing Parents: 2002-2007 (April 2009).
10SAMHSA. 2007 and 2008 National Surveys on Drug Use and Health, unpublished special tabulations (September 2010).
11 Arria AM; DuPont RL. Nonmedical Prescription Stimulant Use Among College Students: Why We Need to Do Something and What We Need to Do. Journal of Addictive Diseases. 29;4:417-426. 2010.
12 Office of National Drug Control Policy, The Economic Costs of Drug Abuse in the United States, 1992-2002 (December 2004).
13 Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration [SAMHSA]. 2009 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (September 2010).
14 SAMHSA. 2009 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (September 2010).
15 SAMHSA. Drug Abuse Warning network, 2009 (January 2010).
16 Office of National Drug Control Policy, ADAM II 2009 Annual Report (June 2010).
17 Bureau of Justice Statistics, Drug Use and Dependence, State and Federal Prisoners, 2004 (October 2006).
18 National Drug Intelligence Center [NDIC]. National Drug Threat Assessment 2010 (February 2010).
19 NDIC. National Drug Threat Assessment 2010 (February 2010).
20 NDIC. National Drug Threat Assessment 2010 (February 2010).

The Mexican Drug War

A Nation Descends into Violence

By Mathieu von Rohr

The Mexican government has been using the army to fight the nation’s drug cartels for about four years. It isn’t working. Some critics say the army is part of the problem, even if the occasional mission removes a kingpin. But President Felipe Calderón has no one else to trust.
Ivana García didn’t flee when two headless bodies were found in front of the city hall, nor did she leave when a body without arms or legs was hanging above a downtown square. But when fighting erupted on the street in front of her house, when mercenaries working for the drug cartels began firing their Kalashnikovs from armored vehicles, and when house-to-house skirmishes went on for hours, as if Ciudad Mier were a town in Afghanistan, not bordering the United States, she had no choice but to flee. In fact, almost the entire population, about 6,000 people, left Ciudad Mier. When they realized there was no one to protect them — no government, no army — they packed their belongings and left their homes.
Ciudad Mier used to be an inconspicuous Mexican municipality on the Rio Grande River, consisting of a colonial center and a few rectangular blocks of houses. Now it is known throughout the country as a ghost town — one of those symbolic places that exist all over Mexico. Each of these towns can tell the story of a nation descending into violence.
Horrific, but Commonplace
One of them is Ciudad Juárez, where more than 3,000 murders were committed this year alone, making it the most violent city in the world. Criminals battle each other in broad daylight in the resort town of Acapulco. In the village of Praxedis, a 20-year-old woman became police chief because no one else dared to accept the job. On a ranch in northern Mexico, a 77-year-old man shot and killed four of the gunmen who had been sent to kill him, only to be murdered by the rest. He was celebrated as a hero. Horrific news reports have become commonplace in Mexico. Some 29,000 people have died in drug wars within the past four years, and this year the number of killings doubled to about 12,000. An astonishing 98 percent of the crimes committed in Mexico remain unpunished.
It has been four years since President Felipe Calderón came to office promising to defeat the cartels, multibillion-dollar organizations that supply the United States, the world’s largest drug market, with cocaine, crystal meth, heroin and marijuana. Calderón mobilized 45,000 soldiers and federal police officers for his campaign. There was no one else he could trust, including local police forces and governors. The army is his only reliable tool.
There have certainly been many spectacular arrests. Famous drug kingpins were arrested or killed, including the leader of the “La Familia” cartel, who died earlier this month. But have these successes weakened the drug cartels? There are few indications that this is the case.
At first, many citizens saw the violent excesses as the beginning of a necessary evil. Recent opinion polls, however, show that a majority now opposes the government’s strategy. The newspapers are filled with reports of kidnappings, blackmail and beheadings. There are blogs that specialize in publishing photos of severed limbs taken with mobile phones.
It is easy to picture the savagery with which this war is being waged. But it is more difficult to understand why the violence doesn’t stop, what its causes are and what can be done about it. Could the legalization of drugs be the answer, as some experts suggest? Or maybe more border controls? Would a new national police force and a reform of the government solve the problem? Or is it best to simply leave the cartels alone, which for years was the government’s policy?
These are the questions that Mexico is asking itself in 2010, the 200th anniversary of the beginning of its war of independence. The filmmaker Luis Estrada has given his native country a bitter film for its anniversary: “El Infierno” (Hell). It is the portrait of a world consisting of nothing but narcos, whores and corruption. “We have a national problem, and it’s called impunity,” says Estrada, a soft-spoken man with glasses and a gray beard. “People who break the law aren’t punished. That’s why many believe that honesty doesn’t pay. We Mexicans are in hell, that’s for sure. I just don’t know which pit of hell it is at the moment.”

A Ghost-Town Census

It is a hot day in late November, and Ivana García has screwed up the courage to return to Ciudad Mier for the first time since she left. She walks through the abandoned streets of the town that was once hers, a 34-year-old woman in jeans, wearing gold-plated earrings and carrying a plastic purse. The army has hired her to count the number of people still living in the town, but there are few left to count. They offered her 700 pesos, or €42 ($55) a week. She was afraid to take the job, but she needed the money to pay the exorbitant rent for her apartment in Ciudad Alemán, the next town, where she now lives.
García and two other young women walk from house to house, knocking on doors that no one opens. The few people they encounter couldn’t afford to leave or are very old. The questionnaires the women have brought along in clear plastic binders include questions about income and the remaining residents’ opinions about safety. They represent the government’s clumsy attempt to demonstrate that it still exists. Two dozen soldiers follow the women, on foot and in pickup trucks armed with machine guns, securing the streets. Most of the houses they pass are riddled with bullet holes. Starving dogs slink across the dirt roads.
Some 400 people still live in a refugee camp in the next town. They have been there for more than four weeks, and most do not want to return to Ciudad Mier. They say that when the army withdraws, in a few weeks or months, the whole thing will start again.

‘Some States Remind Me of Afghanistan’

Ciudad Mier is in the northwestern panhandle of the state of Tamaulipas, a narrow strip of land bordering Texas. It is one of the areas some experts compare to failed states. One expert, Edgardo Buscaglia, who specializes in drug-related organized crime, is currently working in Kandahar, Afghanistan. In a telephone interview, he said he had stopped using the expression “Colombianization” to describe what’s happening in Mexico. “There are now areas in some states that remind me of what I see here in Afghanistan,” he said. Narcos, or drug dealers, control about 12 percent of Mexican territory, according to some estimates.
There are no longer any police officers or mayors in large sections of Tamaulipas and the northern part of Nuevo León, two states in northeastern Mexico. They were either killed or have fled, and now the narcos operate checkpoints on the streets.
The two drug cartels that are at war in Tamaulipas were allies until a year ago: The Gulf cartel and its paramilitary arm, the Zetas. Here, the term drug war isn’t just a metaphor for a series of gang murders, as it is in Ciudad Juárez. Instead, it describes a level of almost military violence between cartels, which send armies of adolescent “sicarios,” or killers, into battle, often better equipped than soldiers in the Mexican army.
A Code of Silence
The mayor of Ciudad Mier, a perfumed man who wears his shirt open at the chest, is standing in the town hall. He says he cannot give an interview, or else — and he runs his finger across the neck of this reporter to demonstrate what could happen to him if he did. The citizens of his town want to talk, but they also want to remain anonymous. There has always been drug smuggling here, they say, and the Zetas have always been in power. In a town where there was hardly any work for young men, the drug lords were able to entice recruits with the promise of fast money, cocaine and the prettiest girls.
Their villas, built in the ornamental narco style, with gilded railings and decorative columns, are still standing. The owners fled when the Zetas broke with the Gulf Cartel, and today they live in the United States or in Mexico City. There was a victory parade of sorts when the Gulf Cartel captured the town on Feb. 22. A motorcade of 60 SUVs and pickup trucks carrying heavily armed fighters drove into the streets of Ciudad Mier.
They killed five police officers that had worked for the Zetas, beheaded a police chief and a female drug dealer, and laid out the remains on the village square. After that, say local residents, the new gangs were friendly. Unlike the Zetas, they said hello to people on the street. But the fighting wasn’t over yet. In mid-October, Ivana García found a dead Zeta fighter on the street. She had never seen the man. He must have been a mercenary from somewhere else, she thought, a young man wearing brown trousers and with a muscular torso. He was lying in a pool of blood.
On Nov. 2, the Zetas returned, driving 40 heavily armored SUVs with gun barrels poking out of their sides. The ensuing battle wore on for days and nights, killing many, and leading to the departure of residents and the arrival of the army.
The soldiers stalking along behind García as she walks through Ciudad Mier hold their rifles at the ready, as if someone could shoot at them at any moment. They storm suspicious-looking houses. The hooded commander says that he doesn’t know whether all of the bandits were driven out. The government of Tamaulipas claims the town is now safe and has called upon the local population to return to their homes. By the end of her first day of work, García has counted six inhabited houses.

‘Narco Saints,’ Money and Girls

Almost no other business in the world is as lucrative as the drug trade. The United Nations estimates that $72 billion (€55 billion) worth of drugs are sold each year. Cocaine is the most profitable of all drugs. Cocaine paste costs $800 a kilo (2.2 pounds) in Colombia, and in Chicago a buyer pays $100 a gram. The price goes up by 12,400 percent along the way. Mexican cartels smuggle an estimated 192 tons to the United States each year.
There are seven drug cartels in Mexico. While alliances often change, almost all the groups have their origins in Sinaloa, a state on Mexico’s west coast known as the birthplace of the narcos. The area is home to Joaquín Guzmán, also called El Chapo, the leader of the Sinaloa cartel. He’s the world’s most glamorous drug lord, as evidenced by the fact that Forbes includes him on its list of the wealthiest people in the world. (No one, however, has access to his bank statements. Culiacán, the capital of Sinaloa, is the Rotterdam of the cocaine trade, the place where prices are set. It lies between the Pacific Ocean and the green hills of the Sierra, where farmers grow marijuana and opium poppies. It is a friendly-looking city of 600,000 with whitewashed homes, though Culiacán has the second-highest murder rate in the country.
For the past two years, El Chapo has been battling his former allies, the Beltrán Leyva brothers. It is a war of kings, and when author Elmer Mendoza tells the story, it sounds like a Greek tragedy. Mendoza, 61, is a bearded, soft-spoken man born in Culiacán, where his crime novels are set. He portrays this world so realistically that some accuse him of being a narco author.
“I’ve been hearing their legends since I was a child,” he says. “These people had bigger houses and the most beautiful girls, and sometimes songs were even written in their honor.” There is a folk hero in Sinaloa, Jesús Malverde, who is known as the “narco saint,” a Robin Hood who took from the rich and gave to the poor. Many believe that El Chapo is his revenant, a hero of the people. Mendoza says that what is happening to his country is terrible. “But as an author, I admire people who do extraordinary things. Isn’t there something epic about bringing a shipment of cocaine from Medellín to Los Angeles?”

Culiacán, Ground Zero

The gang war that originated in Culiacán and eventually engulfed half the country began on Jan. 21, 2008, when the army arrested the drug lord Alfredo Beltrán Leyva, known as El Mochomo, in a simple house in the Tierra Blanca neighborhood. Did El Chapo tip off the army? Convinced that he did, the Beltrán Leyva brothers brought Zeta mercenaries into the city and began killing everyone who worked for him, including police officers, judges, politicians and journalists.
These people had believed that El Chapo would protect them, but then the Zetas shot and killed one of his sons in a shopping center parking lot. “People began to doubt their hero. They were afraid,” says Mendoza. “Isn’t that beautiful, from a purely literary point of view?” The author stands in the cemetery of Culiacán, the narcos’ final resting place. The graveyard is a city of marble and domed mausoleums known as Jardines del Humaya. It’s the size of several football fields, and it continues to grow.
They’re all buried here, side-by-side — the drug lords and their rivals, their children and the 18-year-old killers who, at the end of their brief lives, were at least able to afford some measure of splendor. The larger than life-sized portraits of young men with hard features hang in giant, 10-meter-tall mausoleums, next to pictures of their girlfriends and their weapons.
Nowhere in Culiacán is the power of the drug cartels as palpable as it is here. This is their temple city, and anyone who desecrates their graves can expect to receive death threats from the scouts and guards before long.
The Absent Government
Why isn’t El Chapo, the most powerful of all drug lords, in prison? He’s been living in a secret location for years. Is the government incompetent, or is it protecting a cartel? Many credible people believe the government has an agreement with the drug lord. Some believe that it is trying to solve the violence problem by handing over the drug trade to one cartel. In a recently published book, investigative journalists Anabel Hernández claims that former President Vicente Fox allowed El Chapo to escape from a maximum security prison in 2001 in return for a payment of $20 million. According to Hernandez, the Calderón government knows his whereabouts, but instead of arresting him it is eliminating his enemies.
There are many rumors and conspiracy theories in Mexico. What is perhaps most remarkable about them is what people believe their government to be capable of. They have little faith in federal institutions, which are weak. Mexico has been a real democracy only for the last 10 years, after being controlled for 70 years by a single party, the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI). The PRI protected organized crime, but also held it in check.
President Calderón declared war on the cartels, but he lacked the necessary tools. The police are corrupt at almost every level, and in some communities they’re identical with the ruling cartel, which helps to explain why so many municipal officers are murdered. The justice system is also viewed as corrupt. There are no independent prosecutors, and charges are never brought in many cases, because they are handled poorly or because defendants buy their way out.
The army is the only institution that Calderón can trust, although the story of Ciudad Mier reveals how ineffective it is. Soldiers can occupy a territory, but they cannot investigate or penetrate the structures of a cartel. According to security consultant Alberto Islas, a cartel is like a logistics company with a military arm. Instead of scrutinizing the structures, the government becomes embroiled in skirmishes with 18-year-old foot soldiers.

A ‘Decapitation Strategy’

The government has hardly any functioning investigative agencies. Mexico receives key information from US government agencies like the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). The Americans provide the army with information on the whereabouts of drug lords, allowing the Mexican soldiers to capture or kill them. This “decapitation strategy” produces reports of successes, but no real success. The cartels quickly replace their leaders.
The massive deployment of the military also poses a threat to society. Throughout Mexico, soldiers have been accused of hundreds of cases of human rights violations and torture, even murder. Critics say the large number of military operations is responsible for the violence in the first place, because it has destroyed equilibriums and triggered turf wars across the country.
The army cannot solve Mexico’s real problems — poverty, lack of education and weak government. Most experts agree on how Mexico ought to liberate itself. The only question is whether anyone has the political power to do it.
The country is a long way from being a stable democratic society, says Luís Astorga, a social scientist in Mexico City. The biggest challenge, according to Astorga, is to create a constitutional state strong enough to resist the power and money of the cartels. This requires nonpartisan political will; but Astorga says representatives of the three major parties all have their hands in the drug business. Astorga says he does not believe the government is cooperating with a cartel. But as long as there are no independent judges, he believes, there will always be rumors and speculation.
Many yearn for simple solutions; they believe in a return to the days when the cartels were allowed to do as they pleased. Even some high-level politicians say privately that the problem is drug consumption in the United States, and that it’s time to legalize marijuana. But the cartels are involved in up to 22 other types of crimes as well, including film piracy, human trafficking and extortion.
Vanda Felbab-Brown of the Brookings Institution in Washington says that bringing in the army was unavoidable, but that what is important now is to finally develop a functioning police force. Mexico does have plans for a national police reform, but they are making slow progress Edgardo Buscaglia, the expert on drug-related crime, and his team studied 17 countries that have successfully fought organized crime. He says that all of them took the same four important steps.
• First, says Buscaglia, comes a reform of the judicial system.
• Second, laws are needed to fight corruption in politics, because 70 percent of all election campaigns in the country are partially financed with drug money.
• Third, Mexico must investigate the flow of funds from the drug trade into the economy. According to Buscaglia, 78 percent of the Mexican economy has ties to the drug cartels.
• Finally, social programs are needed for young people, as the Colombian city of Medellín has demonstrated. Such programs are meant to turn young people’s attention away from a life working for the cartels — a life that can end quickly.

Taking Back Mexico, With PowerPoint

There are many ideas, but who is there to implement them?
Javier Treviño, the lieutenant governor of Nuevo León, has a plan that consists of a large number of PowerPoint slides. He wants to eliminate violence in Monterrey, the city where he lives, and in the surrounding state. Treviño, a short man with a moustache and glasses, speaks English with an American accent. He studied at Harvard, then worked as a diplomat and later in private industry, before he entered politics. He’s one of the few people in Mexico who have not lost faith in the ability of politics to shape the country.
Perhaps it is also a question of honor for Monterrey, Mexico’s wealthiest city. Located in the northeastern part of the country, 140 kilometers (88 miles) south of the US border and surrounded by mountains on three sides, Monterrey resembles an American city, with its glass and marble office towers. Many of the country’s most important companies are headquartered there.
It came as a shock to the city’s affluent citizens when, at the beginning of the year, members of the Zetas and the Gulf Cartel suddenly started shooting each other on their streets. The battle being waged in Ciudad Mier had moved to the middle of Monterrey, an economic center that was always immune to chaos elsewhere in Mexico. Many of the wealthy left town, or even the country — including the publisher of the country’s most important newspaper, La Reforma, who fled to Dallas.
Treviño is proud of the 29 slides in his presentation, which he shows to every visitor. His plan includes all the elements the think tanks have deemed necessary: social programs and reforms of the judiciary and the criminal code. The state of Nuevo León has also established a statewide police force that it hopes will finally be clean and effective. The officers will be required to take regular lie-detector tests. They will be paid well enough to end their dependence on bribes; they will receive scholarships for their children.
Nuevo León is to become a model for all of Mexico, says Treviño. It sounds like an effective plan. And who knows? It might even work. Once it is implemented, there might be at least one state in Mexico with a functioning police force. Treviño wants to make a start by strengthening institutions and society, and what better place to launch such an effort than Monterrey, the most advanced city in the country?
He continues clicking through his slides. The next one shows the country’s highway network. Two of the five main highways in the north are colored dark red, which means that they are safe for travel. The goal for 2011, says Treviño, is to make the three other highways safe as well.

Translated from the German by Christopher Sultan

Source: www.spiegel online 23rd Dec. 2010

Filed under: Law (Papers),South America :

Amsterdam bans smoking of marijuana in some public places

Amsterdam bans smoking of marijuana in some public places

AMSTERDAM – A majority of the city council in Amsterdam voted in favour of introducing a city-wide ban on smoking marijuana in public in areas where young people smoking joints have been causing public nuisance.
The decision comes after a successful trial ban in the De Baarsjes district of Amsterdam.
The experimental ban led to less public nuisance, city district De Baarsjes concluded after the year-long trial.
Source: Expatica.com Jan 2007

Roadside Drug-testing in Victoria, Australia.

The State Government figures show that out of 4619 drivers pulled over, one in 73 tested positive to either cannabis or methamphetamines. This compared to an average of one in 250 drivers testing positive for alcohol. The results surprised police.

The results come just two days after research by the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre showed 57 per cent of clubbers admitted driving under the influence of alcohol and 52 per cent under the influence of cannabis. The VicRoads-commissioned study reported that just under half of those surveyed admitted driving soon after taking other drugs.

43% said they had taken ecstasy and 42 % speed.

Source: Minister for Police & Emergency Services. Victoria. Australia. April 15 2005

CESAR Study Finds 9 Warning Signs of Early Marijuana Use Among Maryland’s Public School Students


June 28, 2004
Vol. 13, Issue 26

Nine behaviours and attitudes differentiate students who used marijuana before age 15 from those who had not, according to an analysis of data from the 2002 Maryland Adolescent Survey (MAS). Overall, one-fifth of Maryland 12th grade students reported using marijuana before age 15. A scale of 9 warning signs of early marijuana use among 12thgraders was developed from an analysis of the MAS data (see below). The scale also detected early use among 8th and 10th graders. The more warning signs a student had, the more likely he or she was to have used marijuana early . For example, approximately three-fourths of 12th graders with 6 or more warning signs were early marijuana users, compared to 3% of 12th graders with no warning signs. Students with more warning signs also reported using a greater number of other illegal drugs*and experiencing a greater number of serious problems **resulting from drug and alcohol use report, “Warning Signs for Early Marijuana Users Among Maryland’s Public School Students,” discusses the implications of these findings for intervening with youth and implementing prevention programs. Complimentary copies of the report can be ordered by contacting CESAR at cesar@cesar.umd.eduor 301-405-9770.

Behaviors•
Cigarette use before age 15
•Alcohol use before age 15
•20 or more unexcused absences
•Drug arrest
•Alcohol arrest
Attitudes/Opinions
•Smoking marijuana is safe
•Smoking cigarettes is safe
•My parents think it’s okay to smoke marijuana
•My parents think it’s okay to smoke

SOURCE: Maryland Drug Early Warning System (DEWS), CESAR, “Warning Signs for Early Marijuana Users Among Maryland’s Public School Students,” DEWS Investigates, June 2004. For more information, contact Dr. Eric Wish at ewish@cesar.umd.edu.

Study: Steroid Use May Fuel Crime

Steroid users appear more likely to commit crimes involving weapons and fraud, scientists in Sweden report.
Steroids are linked to manic episodes, depression, suicide, psychotic episodes and increased aggression and hostility, occasionally triggering violent behavior, including murder.
Researchers at Uppsala University in Sweden studied the relationship between crime and steroid use in 1,440 Swedish residents tested for the drugs between 1995 and 2001 from clinics, including substance abuse facilities, as well as police and customs stations.
Of those involved in the study, 241 tested positive, with an average age of about 20.
The research team found those who tested positive for steroid use were roughly twice as likely to have been convicted of a weapons offense and one-and-a-half times as likely to have been convicted of fraud.
When the researchers excluded people from substance abuse facilities from their analysis the connection with armed crime remained, but the link between steroid use and fraud disappeared.
While steroids are linked with outbursts of uncontrolled violence known as “‘roid rage,” they did not appear to be connected with sexual offenses, violent crimes such as murder, assault and robbery, or crimes against property such as theft.
This investigation instead reveals that steroid use may be linked with premeditated crimes—those involving preparation and advance planning.
One explanation the researchers suggest for the findings is that criminals involved in serious crimes such as armed robbery or the collection of crime-related debts might benefit from the muscularity, heavy build and increase in aggression that comes with steroid use.
The scientists report their findings in the November issue of the Archives of General Psychiatry.

Source: Fox News Live Science Monday , November 06, 2006

Alcoholics facing long-term brain damage

Long-term alcoholics are running the risk of permanent brain damage, according a study published today.
Research has shown that while the brain can regenerate following damage caused by drink, it struggles more after longer periods.
Scanning technology and computer software was used to analyse how the form, function and size of brains in 15 patients changed over a period of six to seven weeks after they gave up alcohol. The researchers, from the UK, Switzerland and Italy, found that brain size increased by an average of almost 2 per cent 38 days after the start of the study.
Levels of chemicals that indicate how intact the brain’s nerve cells and sheaths are also rose significantly, by around 10 per cent to 20 per cent.
Only one patient appeared to continue to lose brain volume and he was the one who had been drinking the longest, for 25 years, the study found.
Dr Andreas Bartsch, from the University of Wuerzburg in Germany, who led the research, said: “The core message from this study is that, for alcoholics, abstention pays off and enables the brain to regain some substance and to perform better.
“However, our research also provides evidence that the longer you drink excessively, the more you risk losing the capacity for regeneration.” The results of such brain scans could be used to help keep alcoholics motivated on staying sober, Dr Bartsch added.
Furthermore, the findings, published in the online edition of the journal Brain, did not simply reflect rehydration.
“Instead, the adult human brain, and particularly its white matter [where nerve fibres are], seems to possess genuine capabilities for regrowth,” Dr Bartsch said.

Scotsman Source: www.aa-uk.org.uk Dec/ 18 2006

School-Based Prevention Cuts Drug Use, Violence, NIDA Says

Research Summary

Fifth-grade students who took part in comprehensive, interactive school-based prevention programs starting as early as first grade were half as likely as their peers to use alcohol or other drugs, act out violently, or engage in sexual activity, according to a new study from the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA).
“This study provides compelling evidence that intervening with young children is a promising approach to preventing drug use and other problem behaviors,” said NIDA Director Nora Volkow. “The fact that an intervention beginning in the first grade produced a significant effect on children’s behavior in the fifth grade strengthens the case for initiating prevention programs in elementary school, before most children have begun to engage in problem behaviors.”
Researchers led by Brian Flay of Oregon State University studied students at 20 public elementary schools in Hawaii who had participated daily in Positive Action (PA), a comprehensive K-12 program focusing on social and emotional development. Students who had received the PA lessons the longest had the least amount of problem behaviors, the study found.
The authors will next look at whether the PA program had lasting effects on older students.

Source: American Journal of Public Health June 18, 2009

Filed under: Education,Prevention,USA :

News media turns young people off illicit drugs

Media reports on illicit drugs “reduce acceptability and increase perception of risk” among young people, study finds.
Mainstream media reporting is far more likely to deter young people from using illicit drugs than encourage their use, a new Australian study has found.
But the study also found that types of reports most likely to have the strongest impact on young people – those on social and health consequences of drug taking – were underrepresented in the media.
The study by the Drug Policy Modelling Program at the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre at the University of NSW, and funded by the Commonwealth Department of Health and Ageing, measured the impact of media reports on illicit drugs on the attitudes of over 2,000 young people aged 16 – 24.
The study also analysed 4,000 newspaper reports referring to illicit drugs and found that just over half focussed on criminal justice and legal issues, while only 24 per cent highlighted the health or social problems associated with drug taking.
Participants were shown eight different types of reports and their responses were measured.
Chief Investigator of the study Dr Caitlin Hughes, a Research Fellow at NDARC’s Drug Policy Modelling Program (DPMP), said that while drugs are one of the most common motifs in popular culture and one of the most frequently reported on there is very little research anywhere in the world on how media reporting on illicit drug issues influences attitudes or behaviour on illicit drug use..
“We know from related fields that media messages can influence people’s knowledge, attitudes and behaviour.
“It is commonly assumed that news media can incite drug use,” said Dr Hughes.
“Our research has found that the opposite is the case. Most media portrayals appear to reduce interest in illicit drugs, at least in the short term.
“They increase perceptions of risk, reduce perceptions of acceptability and reduce the reported likelihood of future drug use,” said Dr Hughes.
”But the irony is that the messages that are most effective at deterring youth interest in drugs are currently under-represented in Australian news media,” said Dr Hughes.
News items which focussed on the health and social issues – for example evidence about cannabis and psychosis or cannabis and poor educational outcomes – were more likely to have a deterrent effect than reports on drug busts and arrests.

“Our results show clearly there is an opportunity to better harness the media to shape young peoples’ attitudes to illicit drugs.
We are not saying news media is the silver bullet in drug prevention, but given news media is so pervasive we do think it ought to be recognised, both within Australian and internationally, as a potentially powerful tool for preventing illicit drug use.”

Key points:
• A total of 2,296 youth aged 16-24 years completed the survey
• All youth were shown 8 different media messages about drugs (on the two most commonly used drugs in Australia – cannabis and ecstasy)
• 66.4% and 86.5% of participants had weekly or more frequent contact with television news, online news, radio news and/or print newspapers
• Most news media messages elicited moderate to large impacts on youth attitudes. Negative health or social messages elicited large impacts on youth attitudes.
• Messages on ecstasy had greater impact on youth than messages on cannabis
• Females more likely to be deterred from use than males
• People who have never used drugs more likely to be deterred than current users
• Reports on criminal arrests significantly less persuasive than reports about negative health or social consequences
• Across all drugs, criminal justice/law enforcement topics accounted for 55% of all topics
• 60% of articles emphasised that illicit drugs lead to legal problems. 14% health problems, 10% social problems, 10% cost to society and 6% other (4% neutral and 2% benefits)
• Tabloids were more likely to emphasise legal problems: 71% compared to 61% for broadsheet
• 11 newspapers, one national, seven major metropolitan, in Sydney, Canberra, Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth and three local in Geelong, Newcastle and Sydney were reviewed

What they said: (comments from the focus groups).
Re power of media to dissuade youth drug use:
“Media is probably one of the few ways that prevention message(s) can keep being pushed.” (20 year old female)
“When I was younger… the way that that was portrayed in the media totally shaped the way that I saw drugs.” (22 year old female)
Re fatal overdose of a young person:
“I think that would convince me not to take drugs. Just „cause……I feel sorry for her.” (17 year old male)

Source: Media reporting on illicit drugs in Australia: trends and impacts on youth attitudes to illicit drug use. Drug Policy Modelling Program, September 2010. It can be accessed through: http://www.dpmp.unsw.edu.au

Filed under: Australia,Prevention,Youth :

Illegal drug usage in older people reduces quality of life

Health and social services are facing a new challenge, as many illicit drug users get older and face chronic health problems and a reduced quality of life. That is one of the key findings of research published in the September issue of the Journal of Advanced Nursing.
UK researchers interviewed eleven people aged 49 to 61 in contact with voluntary sector drug treatment services.
“This exploratory study, together with our wider research, suggest that older people who continue to use problematic or illegal drugs are emerging as an important, but relatively under-researched, international population” says lead author Brenda Roe, Professor of Health Research at Edge Hill University, UK.
“They are a vulnerable group, as their continued drug use, addiction and life experiences result in impaired health, chronic conditions, particular health needs and poorer quality of life. Despite this, services for older drug addicts are not widely available or accessed in the UK.”
Figures from the USA suggest that the number of people over 50 seeking help for drug or alcohol problems will have risen from 1.7 million in 2000 to 4.4 million by 2020. And the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction estimates that the number of people aged 65 and over requiring treatment in Europe will double over the same period.
The nine men and two women who took part in the study had an average age of 57. All were currently single and their homes ranged from a caravan, hostel or care home to social housing. Key findings from the study – by the Evidence-based Practice Research Centre at Edge Hill University and the Centre for Public Health at Liverpool John Moores University – included:
• Most started taking drugs as adolescents or young adults, often citing recreational use, experimenting or being part of the hippy era. Child abuse and the death of a parent were also mentioned.
Some started taking drugs late in life due to stressful life events like divorce or death. Meeting a drug using partner was another trigger. One man started taking drugs later in life to shock his drug taking partner into stopping and ended up developing a drug habit himself.
• First drug use varied from magic mushrooms, LSD, amphetamines and cannabis to heroin and methadone. Alcohol and smoking often featured alongside drug use.
• Some increased their drug use over time, while others had periods when they tried to reduce or even abstain from drugs. All but two of the participants were taking methadone, either as maintenance or as part of a reduction strategy in order to give up drugs.
• A number of the participants said they were trying to use drugs responsibly and it was felt that their age and the influence of drug treatment services were factors in this. They also appeared more aware of the need to maintain their personal safety, based on previous experiences.
• Most recognised that their drug use was having detrimental and cumulative effects on their health, as they had developed a range of chronic and life-threatening conditions that required hospitalisation and ongoing treatment.
• Physical health conditions included: circulatory problems such as deep vein thrombosis, injection site ulcers, stroke, respiratory problems, pneumonia, diabetes, hepatitis and liver cirrhosis. Malnutrition, weight loss and obesity also featured, as did accidental injuries due to falls and drug overdoses.
• Common mental health problems included memory loss, paranoia and changed mood states, with anxiety or anger also featuring.
• All wished they hadn’t started taking drugs and would advise young people not to. A few were keen to give up, but others felt it was too hard. One man described his drug use as “disgusting and squalid” while another said that the older he got the worse his drug use got and that it was a “crazy” situation.
• All were single or divorced and drug use was a common factor in relationship breakdowns. Most lived alone, with three relying on carers who were also drug users. Pets were often important for some, providing companionship as well as a sense of responsibility and structure to their day.
• Drug use was often associated with chaotic lifestyles and relationships and some reported periods of imprisonment.
• Participants were positive about the support they received from voluntary drug services, but had mixed experiences of primary and hospital care. Some felt stigmatised by healthcare professionals, while others received compassion and acknowledgement of their drug use.
“Our population is ageing and the people who started using drugs in the sixties are now reaching retirement age” says Professor Roe.
“It is clear that further research is needed to enable health and social care professionals to develop appropriate services for this increasingly vulnerable group. We also feel that older drug users could play a key role in educating younger people about the dangers of drug use.”

Source: ww.news-medical.net/news 9th Sept 2010

CDC issues statement and recommendations regarding prescription drug misuse

The CDC announced the 2009 National Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) found that 1 in 5 high school students have ever taken a prescription drug such as OxyContin (oxycodone, from Purdue), Percocet (oxycodone/acetaminophen, from Endo), Vicodin (hydrocodone/acetaminophen, from Abbott), Adderall (mixed salts of a single-entity amphetamine product, from Shire), Ritalin (methylphenidate, from Novartis), or Xanax (alprazolam, from Pfizer), without a prescription. Data from the Drug Abuse Warning Network show that in 2008, people 12–20 years of age accounted for an estimated 141,417 (14.5%) of the 971,914 emergency department visits for nonmedical use of pharmaceuticals, not including suicide attempts.

Source: http://www.empr.com June 2010

Filed under: USA :

Drug overdose: Medical marijuana facing a backlash

Montana and other states that have legalized medical marijuana are seeing a backlash, with public anger rising and politicians passing laws to slow the proliferation of pot shops and bring order to what has become a wide-open, Wild West sort of industry.
They are looking to avoid what happened in California, which allowed the pot industry to grow so out of control that at one point Los Angeles had more medical marijuana shops than Starbucks – about 1,000 by one count.
“Yeah, it’s out of control – and it needs control, if not extinction,” Montana Sen. Jim Shockley said Friday. “There’s no control over distribution. There’s no control over who’s growing it. There’s no control in dosage.”
Fourteen states have legalized medical marijuana, beginning with California in 1996, and the District of Columbia followed suit this month. The laws allow chronically ill people to buy marijuana with permission from a doctor.
But many of these states passed their laws without working out the details. And they weren’t ready for the boom in pot shops that occurred this past year after the Obama administration announced it wouldn’t prosecute medical marijuana users.
In some places, law enforcement officials and civic leaders are complaining that there are too many marijuana dispensaries, that buyers and sellers are falling victim to robberies and break-ins, that driving-under-the-influence arrests are on the rise, and that the pot is being sold indiscriminately and winding up on the black market.
Some state and local governments are now rushing to put regulations in place.
Colorado lawmakers passed sweeping rules this month for pot growers and the estimated 1,100 shops selling marijuana, creating a new state bureaucracy led by auditors and criminal investigators who would monitor the industry to make sure, for example, that the drug is being sold only to patients who have a doctor’s recommendation.
Regulators expect only about half of the state’s dispensaries to continue operating under the stricter rules.
The Billings City Council approved a six-month moratorium on new medical marijuana businesses in May after the violence against pot businesses the previous two nights. On Thursday, the city of about 90,000 people ordered 25 of Billings’ 81 pot businesses to shut down after discovering they were not properly registered with the state.

Los Angeles officials recently took steps to shut down hundreds of dispensaries and ensure that the remaining ones meet stringent new guidelines. Owners must undergo a background check, their stores must be 1,000 feet from schools, parks and other gathering sites, and their pot must be tested at an independent laboratory.
Montana’s medical board is considering curbing mass screenings and teleconferences that make it easy for people to get a marijuana card. Montana in recent days has seen “cannabis caravans,” mobile operations that pass through town, charging people $100 to $150 for a doctor’s recommendation to smoke pot.
The push for tighter regulation has infuriated medical marijuana users.
“They are creating ordinances and moratoriums that are blatantly against the law,” said Jason Christ, founder of the Montana Caregivers Network, the group that organizes the cannabis caravans. “They do not serve to protect the welfare of our citizens, and they do no good.”
In Colorado earlier this month, veterans in wheelchairs, college students and dispensary owners packed legislative hearings to speak out against the regulations. The hearings lasted eight hours and reached a fever pitch when several people had to be removed for shouting at lawmakers.
Medical marijuana has been around for more than five years in Montana, but the boom came this past year. The number of registered users in Montana, a state with a population of just under 1 million, has gone from 2,923 last June to about 15,000 today. The number of registered suppliers has increased from 919 to about 5,000.
DUI arrests involving marijuana have skyrocketed, as have traffic fatalities where marijuana was found in the system of one of the drivers, Montana narcotics chief Mark Long told a legislative committee last month.
Also, Montana confidentiality laws prevent law enforcement from knowing where most medical marijuana businesses are, and civic leaders complain they don’t know whether the shops are up to city and fire codes or close to churches, schools or parks.
During Colorado’s legislative debate, state Sen. Chris Romer quoted the Grateful Dead as he contemplated the spectacle of lawmakers actually passing regulations for the legal sale of marijuana: “What a long, strange trip it’s been.”

Source: The Associated Press Friday, May 21, 2010

Filed under: USA :

More Americans Admitted for Opiate, Marijuana Treatment, SAMHSA Reports

Opiate addiction-treatment admissions have risen from 16 percent to 20 percent of all admissions in the last decade, and marijuana admissions have also ticked upwards even as cocaine admissions declined, according to a new report from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA).
Marijuana admissions rose from 13 percent of total admissions in 1998 to 17 percent in 2008, while cocaine admissions fell from 15 percent to 11 percent. Admissions for addiction to stimulant drugs rose from 4 percent to 6 percent.
“Although the concurrent abuse of both alcohol and drugs has remained widespread, the proportion of treatment admissions for the co-abuse of these substances has declined gradually yet significantly during this period from 44 percent to 38 percent,” added SAMHSA. “At the same time there has been a steady rise in the proportion of treatment admissions attributed to drug abuse alone from 26 percent in 1998 to 37 percent in 2008, while the proportion of admissions attributed to alcohol alone fell from 27 percent in 1998 to 23 percent in 2008.”
Teen drug admissions dropped 10 percent between 2002 and 2008 after rising 13 percent from 1998 to 2001. Nearly 4 of 5 teen treatment admissions involved marijuana use, and about half were referrals from the criminal-justice system.
The National Admissions to Substance Abuse Treatment (TEDS) report is available online in PDF format.

Source: SAMHSA Report May 2010

Filed under: USA :

Translating effective web-based self-help for problem drinking into the real world.


Combining a randomised trial with a ‘real-world’ test, studies of the Dutch Drinking Less programme have gone further than any others to establish the beneficial impacts of web-based alcohol self-help interventions.

Abstract

The study was a ‘real-world’ test of a promising Dutch internet-based self-help intervention for problem drinking. A previous randomised trial employing the methodological safeguards possible in tightly controlled research (particularly the recruitment of a comparison group not given access to the intervention) had established that the intervention reduced drinking. At issue in the featured study was whether similar drinking reductions would be seen when the intervention was made freely available to the general public. If they were, then the assumption could be made that these too were caused by having access to the intervention.

Drinking Less is an on-line, interactive programme with no personal therapist input. Aimed at risky drinkers among the general adult population, the intervention is based on principles derived from motivational interviewing, cognitive-behavioural therapies and self-control training. Its home page offers links to alcohol-related information, treatment services, a discussion forum, and the Drinking Less self-help programme, the core of the intervention. Over a recommended six weeks (though this is entirely up to the user) the programme guides visitors in preparing to change their drinking, setting goals , implementing change, and finally sustaining it, preferably by drinking within recommended limits.
The earlier trial had found that six months later, at least 17% of adult problem drinkers randomly allocated to this intervention had reduced their drinking to within Dutch guidelines, compared to just 5% allocated to an on-line alcohol education brochure. Before the study, both groups had averaged about 55 UK units a week. At follow-up, the Drinking Less group had cut consumption to about 36 UK units a week, but the brochure group had barely changed.
The featured study monitored what happened when over 10 months spanning 2007 and 2008 the web site was advertised to the Dutch public. During this time round 27,500 people visited the site, of whom 1625 signed up for the self-help programme, accessing it on average 23 times. Typically they were well educated, employed, middle-aged men. On average they drank about 50 UK units a week, and nearly all who completed the on-line AUDIT screening questionnaire scored in a range indicative of alcohol abuse or dependence.
During the first seven of the 10 months, 378 of site visitors who signed up to the Drinking Less programme also agreed to participate in research to assess its impact. On average they drank roughly the same amount (95% exceeded Dutch guidelines) as all 1625 who signed up and were also similar in age, sex, employment, and motivation to change. Despite some statistically significant differences, they were also broadly similar to participants in the earlier randomised trial. Over 8 in 10 had never received professional help for their drinking. A few weeks later a survey suggested that after signing up, nearly 9 in 10 went on to use the programme, though generally only a few times.
Of the 378 in the baseline sample, 153 responded to an on-line follow-up survey six months later. Before signing up to the programme, just 4% had confined their drinking within Dutch guidelines; six month later, 39% did so. They had also nearly halved their average consumption from 50 UK units to 27. On the ‘fail-safe’ assumption that the intervention had no impact on people who were not followed up, still the drinking reductions were statistically significant; from 5%, the proportion drinking within guidelines rose to 19%, and consumption fell from 51 UK units to 42.
Next the analysts compared these results with those from the six-month follow-up in the randomised trial. Based only on respondents to the follow-up surveys, and adjusting for differences between the samples, in the ‘real-world’ test over twice as many (unadjusted figures 36% v. 19%) people moved to drinking within Dutch guidelines. When the assumption was made that in both trials the intervention had no impact on people not followed up, the figures still favoured the ‘real-world’ test (15% v. 10%), but the difference was no longer statistically significant.
The researchers concluded that the featured study had shown that the benefits established by the randomised controlled trial would be sustained when the intervention was made routinely and generally available to the public. The expected throughput of 3000 Drinking Less programme users a year would amount to nearly 3% of the country’s problem drinkers who would otherwise not have received professional help. Probably because they require the drinker to take the initiative and visit the site, such interventions reach people who, compared to the totality of problem drinkers, are more likely to be women, employed, highly educated, and motivated to change their drinking. Given its low cost per user, this type of intervention seems to have a worthwhile place in a public health approach to reducing alcohol-related problems.
Though only a minority of site visitors may sign up for web-based alcohol programmes, nevertheless the numbers engaged can be very large, and the risk-reductions seem of the order typical in studies of brief advice to drinkers identified in health care settings. In these settings screening programmes typically identify people who are not actually seeking help for drinking problems – ‘pushing’ them towards intervention and change – while web sites ‘pull’ in people already curious or concerned about their drinking. As such these two gateways can play complementary roles in improving public health and offering change opportunities to people who would not present to alcohol treatment services. However, in Britain and elsewhere, both tactics reach only small fractions of the population who drinking excessively, leaving the bulk of the public health work to be done by interventions which drinkers generally cannot avoid and do not have seek out, such as price increases and availability restrictions.
With its combination of a randomised trial and a ‘real-world’ test, the featured research programme has gone further than any other in establishing the beneficial impacts of web-based alcohol interventions. However, largely because many site users do not complete research surveys, it remains impossible to be sure that the results seen in such studies will be replicated across the entire usership of the sites. Details below.

Strengths and limitations of the featured study

The featured study’s combination of a randomised trial with all its methodological safeguards, and a ‘real-world’ trial approximating normal conditions, affords what seems to be the best indication to date of the contribution web-based self-help interventions could make to reducing heavy drinking and associated health risks. However, its twin pillars are weakened by the fact that many people either did not join the studies or did not supply follow-up data; those who did may not have been typical of all the people who might access such sites. In the randomised trial, 40% of the baseline sample did not complete the six-month follow-up survey, and in the featured study, nearly 60%. Though on the measures taken by the study the respondents generally seemed typical of the baseline sample, clearly something was sufficiently different to cause them to respond while the others did not. In both studies this problem was catered for by assuming that non-responders were also non-changers. Though this almost certainly underestimated the impact of the intervention, still in both there remained significant and worthwhile improvements.
What could not be catered for in either study was the degree to which people who join such studies differ from the much greater number who would use the web sites, but decline participation in research. This problem was especially apparent in the featured study, in which it seems that around 6% of site visitors signed up for the self-help programme. Of these, perhaps a third or slightly more of the people who signed up for the programme during the relevant period also agreed to participate in the research. In some important ways (including amount drunk and motivation to change) they seemed similar to the bulk of programme sign-ups, though the researchers suspect they were more likely to have engaged with the programme.

Opening more doors to change for more people

A review of computer-based alcohol services for the general public has rehearsed the advantages: immediate, convenient access for people (the majority in developed nations) connected to the internet; consequently able to capitalise on what may be fleeting resolve; anonymous services sidestep the embarrassment or stigma which might deter help-seeking; such services are available to people unwilling or less able to talk about their problems to a stranger; generally they are free and entail no travel costs or lost income due to time off work; very low operating cost per user if widely accessed; easily updated. In consumption terms, the drinking problems of web site users are comparable to those of drinkers who seek treatment, yet few have received professional help, perhaps partly because their higher socioeconomic status and greater resources have enabled them to restrict the consequential damage. People who actually engage with web-based assessments of their drinking problems have more severe problems than those who just visit and leave. Including the randomised trial which paved the way for the featured study, the review found eight studies which evaluated the effectiveness of computer-based interventions for the general public. In all but one the users significantly improved on at least one of the alcohol-related measures recorded by the studies.
A particular role for alcohol self-help sites may be to offer an easy, quick and accessible way to for drinkers to actualise their desire to tackle their problems, especially when that desire is allied with the resources to implement and sustain improvements without face-to-face or comprehensive assistance. After conducting the Project MATCH trial, some of the world’s leading alcohol treatment researchers argued that “access to treatment may be as important as the type of treatment available”. The implication is that in cultures which accept ‘treatment’ as a route to resolving unhealthy and/or undesirable drinking, having convincing-looking and accessible ‘treatment doors’ to go through may be more important than what lies behind those doors, as long as this fulfils the expectations of the client or patient. This is likely to be especially the case for people who retain a stake in conventional society in the form of marriages, jobs, families, and a reputation to lose. These populations – the kind the featured study suggests are attracted to self-help alcohol therapy web sites – have more of the ‘recovery capital’ resources needed to themselves do most of the work in curbing their drinking.

The British Down Your Drink site

The best known British alcohol self-help web site is the Down Your Drink site run by a team based at University College London, an initiative originally funded by the Alcohol Education and Research Council and now by the Medical Research Council’s National Prevention Research Initiative. In 2007 this was revised to offer set programmes from a one-hour brief intervention to several weeks, but also to generally give the user greater control over the use they made of the site. The approach remained based on principles and techniques derived from motivational interviewing and cognitive-behavioural therapies.
The previous version had been structured as six consecutive modules to be accessed weekly. An analysis of data provided by the first 10,000 people who registered at the site after piloting ended in September 2003 revealed that most were in their 30s and 40s, half were women, nearly two-thirds were married or living with a partner, just 4% were unemployed, and most reported occupations from higher socioeconomic strata. As an earlier study commented, site users were predominantly middle class, middle aged, white and European. Six in 10 either did not start the programme, or completed just the first week. About 17% completed the six weeks. Of these, 57% returned an outcome questionnaire. Compared to their pre-programme status, on average they were now at substantially lower risk, and functioning better and living much improved lives. The sample had been recruited over about 27 months, a registration rate of about 4500 a year. By way of comparison, in England during 2008/09, around 100,000 adults were treated for their alcohol problems at conventional services. User profile and site usage had been similar during the earlier pilot phase. Results from surveys sent to pilot programme completers indicated that three quarters had never previously sought help for their drinking.

Source: Published in Findings 19 May 2010 Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research: 2009, 33(8), p. 1401–1408

Combining a randomised trial with a ‘real-world’ test, studies of the Dutch Drinking Less programme have gone further than any others to establish the beneficial impacts of web-based alcohol self-help interventions.
Abstract The study was a ‘real-world’ test of a promising Dutch internet-based self-help intervention for problem drinking. A previous randomised trial employing the methodological safeguards possible in tightly controlled research (particularly the recruitment of a comparison group not given access to the intervention) had established that the intervention reduced drinking. At issue in the featured study was whether similar drinking reductions would be seen when the intervention was made freely available to the general public. If they were, then the assumption could be made that these too were caused by having access to the intervention.

Drinking Less is an on-line, interactive programme with no personal therapist input. Aimed at risky drinkers among the general adult population, the intervention is based on principles derived from motivational interviewing, cognitive-behavioural therapies and self-control training. Its home page offers links to alcohol-related information, treatment services, a discussion forum, and the Drinking Less self-help programme, the core of the intervention. Over a recommended six weeks (though this is entirely up to the user) the programme guides visitors in preparing to change their drinking, setting goals , implementing change, and finally sustaining it, preferably by drinking within recommended limits.
The earlier trial had found that six months later, at least 17% of adult problem drinkers randomly allocated to this intervention had reduced their drinking to within Dutch guidelines, compared to just 5% allocated to an on-line alcohol education brochure. Before the study, both groups had averaged about 55 UK units a week. At follow-up, the Drinking Less group had cut consumption to about 36 UK units a week, but the brochure group had barely changed.
The featured study monitored what happened when over 10 months spanning 2007 and 2008 the web site was advertised to the Dutch public. During this time round 27,500 people visited the site, of whom 1625 signed up for the self-help programme, accessing it on average 23 times. Typically they were well educated, employed, middle-aged men. On average they drank about 50 UK units a week, and nearly all who completed the on-line AUDIT screening questionnaire scored in a range indicative of alcohol abuse or dependence.
During the first seven of the 10 months, 378 of site visitors who signed up to the Drinking Less programme also agreed to participate in research to assess its impact. On average they drank roughly the same amount (95% exceeded Dutch guidelines) as all 1625 who signed up and were also similar in age, sex, employment, and motivation to change. Despite some statistically significant differences, they were also broadly similar to participants in the earlier randomised trial. Over 8 in 10 had never received professional help for their drinking. A few weeks later a survey suggested that after signing up, nearly 9 in 10 went on to use the programme, though generally only a few times.
Of the 378 in the baseline sample, 153 responded to an on-line follow-up survey six months later. Before signing up to the programme, just 4% had confined their drinking within Dutch guidelines; six month later, 39% did so. They had also nearly halved their average consumption from 50 UK units to 27. On the ‘fail-safe’ assumption that the intervention had no impact on people who were not followed up, still the drinking reductions were statistically significant; from 5%, the proportion drinking within guidelines rose to 19%, and consumption fell from 51 UK units to 42.
Next the analysts compared these results with those from the six-month follow-up in the randomised trial. Based only on respondents to the follow-up surveys, and adjusting for differences between the samples, in the ‘real-world’ test over twice as many (unadjusted figures 36% v. 19%) people moved to drinking within Dutch guidelines. When the assumption was made that in both trials the intervention had no impact on people not followed up, the figures still favoured the ‘real-world’ test (15% v. 10%), but the difference was no longer statistically significant.
The researchers concluded that the featured study had shown that the benefits established by the randomised controlled trial would be sustained when the intervention was made routinely and generally available to the public. The expected throughput of 3000 Drinking Less programme users a year would amount to nearly 3% of the country’s problem drinkers who would otherwise not have received professional help. Probably because they require the drinker to take the initiative and visit the site, such interventions reach people who, compared to the totality of problem drinkers, are more likely to be women, employed, highly educated, and motivated to change their drinking. Given its low cost per user, this type of intervention seems to have a worthwhile place in a public health approach to reducing alcohol-related problems.
Though only a minority of site visitors may sign up for web-based alcohol programmes, nevertheless the numbers engaged can be very large, and the risk-reductions seem of the order typical in studies of brief advice to drinkers identified in health care settings. In these settings screening programmes typically identify people who are not actually seeking help for drinking problems – ‘pushing’ them towards intervention and change – while web sites ‘pull’ in people already curious or concerned about their drinking. As such these two gateways can play complementary roles in improving public health and offering change opportunities to people who would not present to alcohol treatment services. However, in Britain and elsewhere, both tactics reach only small fractions of the population who drinking excessively, leaving the bulk of the public health work to be done by interventions which drinkers generally cannot avoid and do not have seek out, such as price increases and availability restrictions.
With its combination of a randomised trial and a ‘real-world’ test, the featured research programme has gone further than any other in establishing the beneficial impacts of web-based alcohol interventions. However, largely because many site users do not complete research surveys, it remains impossible to be sure that the results seen in such studies will be replicated across the entire usership of the sites. Details below.
Strengths and limitations of the featured study
The featured study’s combination of a randomised trial with all its methodological safeguards, and a ‘real-world’ trial approximating normal conditions, affords what seems to be the best indication to date of the contribution web-based self-help interventions could make to reducing heavy drinking and associated health risks. However, its twin pillars are weakened by the fact that many people either did not join the studies or did not supply follow-up data; those who did may not have been typical of all the people who might access such sites. In the randomised trial, 40% of the baseline sample did not complete the six-month follow-up survey, and in the featured study, nearly 60%. Though on the measures taken by the study the respondents generally seemed typical of the baseline sample, clearly something was sufficiently different to cause them to respond while the others did not. In both studies this problem was catered for by assuming that non-responders were also non-changers. Though this almost certainly underestimated the impact of the intervention, still in both there remained significant and worthwhile improvements.
What could not be catered for in either study was the degree to which people who join such studies differ from the much greater number who would use the web sites, but decline participation in research. This problem was especially apparent in the featured study, in which it seems that around 6% of site visitors signed up for the self-help programme. Of these, perhaps a third or slightly more of the people who signed up for the programme during the relevant period also agreed to participate in the research. In some important ways (including amount drunk and motivation to change) they seemed similar to the bulk of programme sign-ups, though the researchers suspect they were more likely to have engaged with the programme.
Opening more doors to change for more people
A review of computer-based alcohol services for the general public has rehearsed the advantages: immediate, convenient access for people (the majority in developed nations) connected to the internet; consequently able to capitalise on what may be fleeting resolve; anonymous services sidestep the embarrassment or stigma which might deter help-seeking; such services are available to people unwilling or less able to talk about their problems to a stranger; generally they are free and entail no travel costs or lost income due to time off work; very low operating cost per user if widely accessed; easily updated. In consumption terms, the drinking problems of web site users are comparable to those of drinkers who seek treatment, yet few have received professional help, perhaps partly because their higher socioeconomic status and greater resources have enabled them to restrict the consequential damage. People who actually engage with web-based assessments of their drinking problems have more severe problems than those who just visit and leave. Including the randomised trial which paved the way for the featured study, the review found eight studies which evaluated the effectiveness of computer-based interventions for the general public. In all but one the users significantly improved on at least one of the alcohol-related measures recorded by the studies.
A particular role for alcohol self-help sites may be to offer an easy, quick and accessible way to for drinkers to actualise their desire to tackle their problems, especially when that desire is allied with the resources to implement and sustain improvements without face-to-face or comprehensive assistance. After conducting the Project MATCH trial, some of the world’s leading alcohol treatment researchers argued that “access to treatment may be as important as the type of treatment available”. The implication is that in cultures which accept ‘treatment’ as a route to resolving unhealthy and/or undesirable drinking, having convincing-looking and accessible ‘treatment doors’ to go through may be more important than what lies behind those doors, as long as this fulfils the expectations of the client or patient. This is likely to be especially the case for people who retain a stake in conventional society in the form of marriages, jobs, families, and a reputation to lose. These populations – the kind the featured study suggests are attracted to self-help alcohol therapy web sites – have more of the ‘recovery capital’ resources needed to themselves do most of the work in curbing their drinking.
The British Down Your Drink site
The best known British alcohol self-help web site is the Down Your Drink site run by a team based at University College London, an initiative originally funded by the Alcohol Education and Research Council and now by the Medical Research Council’s National Prevention Research Initiative. In 2007 this was revised to offer set programmes from a one-hour brief intervention to several weeks, but also to generally give the user greater control over the use they made of the site. The approach remained based on principles and techniques derived from motivational interviewing and cognitive-behavioural therapies.
The previous version had been structured as six consecutive modules to be accessed weekly. An analysis of data provided by the first 10,000 people who registered at the site after piloting ended in September 2003 revealed that most were in their 30s and 40s, half were women, nearly two-thirds were married or living with a partner, just 4% were unemployed, and most reported occupations from higher socioeconomic strata. As an earlier study commented, site users were predominantly middle class, middle aged, white and European. Six in 10 either did not start the programme, or completed just the first week. About 17% completed the six weeks. Of these, 57% returned an outcome questionnaire. Compared to their pre-programme status, on average they were now at substantially lower risk, and functioning better and living much improved lives. The sample had been recruited over about 27 months, a registration rate of about 4500 a year. By way of comparison, in England during 2008/09, around 100,000 adults were treated for their alcohol problems at conventional services. User profile and site usage had been similar during the earlier pilot phase. Results from surveys sent to pilot programme completers indicated that three quarters had never previously sought help for their drinking.
Source: Published in Findings 19 May 2010 Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research: 2009, 33(8), p. 1401–1408

The Involvement of Marijuana in California Fatal Motor Vehicle Crashes 1998 -2008

Abstract
California data on drivers involved in passenger vehicle fatal crashes using Marijuana were analyzed to determine the impact on traffic safety and to provide information on the possible impact of an initiative, the Tax and Regulate Cannabis Initiative or “TC2010” which is on the California ballot in November 2010 to reform and partially legalize Marijuana.

A total of 1240 persons were killed in the last five years in fatal motor vehicle crashes involving Marijuana. 230 were killed in 2008. Use has increase steadily in the last ten years and is now at 5.5% in fatal passenger vehicle crashes. The use in single vehicle fatal crashes where most drivers are tested shows an involvement rate of 8.3%.

The largest increases occurred in the 5 years following the legalization of Medical Marijuana in January 2004. For the five years following legalization there were 1240 fatalities in fatal crashes, compared to the 631 fatalities for the five years prior, for an increase of almost 100%. In 2008 there were 8 counties where more than 16% of the drivers in fatal crashes
tested positive for Marijuana. Five of the 8 counties had rates over 20%

Based on this experience, a use rate of 16% to 20% is very likely. A rate increase to only 16%, would result in 670 fatalities, and at 20% we would have about 840 fatalities annually. The 20% level would be more than triple the present level of 230 fatalities in 2008. At these levels, Marijuana would rival alcohol at 17.9%, as the top cause of traffic fatalities.

If “TC2010” passes, tax income on Marijuana is estimated at $1.4 billion annually compared to an estimated $4 billion or more economic loss from Marijuana related fatal crashes.
Over 80% of the Marijuana drivers are male, with a median age of 25. In addition, about half (48%) of the drivers using Marijuana also were legally intoxicated. About 75% of the drivers that used Marijuana did not use any other drug. About 1.2 fatalities were reported for each Marijuana involved driver.

Source: Sent by Ronald E. Brooks Northern California High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area June 2010

Cannabis health woes for older users

A TENFOLD increase in hospital treatment for cannabis poisoning or dependence among people in their 30s and 40s suggests the habit has run out of control for a hard core of long-term users.
Australian research shows that while cannabis consumption overall decreased during the past decade, the rate of hospital treatment rose. Treatment rates are highest among people in their 20s, but the steepest increase has been among older people, with those in their 30s only slightly less likely to seek help than younger people by 2007, the study shows.
Seven years earlier, people in their 30s were being treated at only half the rate of their younger counterparts, according to the findings of the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre at the University of NSW. Their faster rise in cannabis-related health problems coincided with greater frequency of daily use.
“These people started their use early and have [in some cases] then gone on to develop problems,” the study leader, Amanda Roxburgh, said. “They might not necessarily think that they have a problem with their use until it kicks into crisis mode.” People in their 20s were about 50 per cent more likely to have used cannabis during a one-year period compared with those in their 30s. But of those who did so, nearly 20 per cent of the older age group had developed a daily habit, against about 15 per cent of the younger adults.
Ms Roxburgh, whose results are published in the journal Addiction, said the rise in problematic use might reflect increased cannabis potency, though there was no formal evidence the drug had become stronger. Its falling price suggested it was being produced more efficiently – perhaps through indoor hydroponic cultivation – and this might have made it more accessible.
Jan Copeland, who heads the National Cannabis Prevention and Information Centre, said older people were more likely to consider cannabis safe. “These people come from age groups where cannabis is a benign herb and natural,” she said. “But when you are doing something every day you don’t realise the difficulties when you try to stop”.
Cannabis use among people aged 14 to 19 more than halved between 1996 and 2005, but the study also found pockets of harmful use in that group. Nearly two-thirds of young daily cannabis users reported difficulties controlling their use.
Members of this group were also more likely to report smoking 10 or more cones or joints a day, and if they were treated in hospital for their cannabis use were more likely to be treated for psychosis than older users.
Professor Copeland said young people now understood cannabis could be dangerous, and fewer were experimenting, but dedicated treatment programs were still needed for young people with a serious habit.
Will Temple, chief executive officer of the Watershed drug and alcohol recovery and education centre in Wollongong, said his centre had gone from treating almost no cannabis users to in the past six months treating 30 per cent of clients for cannabis use.
Source: The Sydney Morning Herald 29th March 2010

Substance Abuse Prevention Dollars and Cents: A Cost-Benefit Analysis U.S.

1. Executive Summary
Policymakers and other stakeholders can use cost-benefit analysis as an informative tool for decision making for substance abuse prevention. This report reveals the importance of supporting effective prevention programs as part of a comprehensive substance abuse prevention strategy. The following patterns of use, their attendant costs, and the potential cost savings are analyzed:
• Extent of substance abuse among youth;
• Costs of substance abuse to the Nation and to States;
• Cost savings that could be gained if effective prevention policies, programs, and services were implemented nationwide;
• Programs and policies that are most cost beneficial.

1.1. Costs of Substance Abuse
Studies have shown the annual cost of substance abuse to the Nation to be $510.8 billion in 1999 (Harwood, 2000). More specifically,
• Alcohol abuse cost the Nation $191.6 billion;
• Tobacco use cost the Nation $167.8 billion;
• Drug abuse cost the Nation $151.4 billion.

Substance abuse clearly is among the most costly health problems in the United States. Among national estimates of the costs of illness for 33 diseases and conditions, alcohol ranked second, tobacco ranked sixth, and drug disorders ranked seventh (National Institutes of Health [NIH], 2000). This report shows that programs designed to prevent substance abuse can reduce these costs.

1.2. Savings From Effective School-Based Substance Abuse Prevention
If effective prevention programs were implemented nationwide, substance abuse initiation would decline for 1.5 million youth and be delayed for 2 years on average. It has been well established that a delay in onset reduces subsequent problems later in life (Grant & Dawson, 1997; Lynskey et al., 2003). In 2003, an estimated:

• 5.6 percent fewer youth ages 13–15 would have engaged in drinking;
• 10.2 percent fewer youth would have used marijuana;
• 30.2 percent fewer youth would have used cocaine;
• 8.0 percent fewer youth would have smoked regularly.

The average effective school-based program in 2002 costs $220 per pupil including materials and teacher training, and these programs could save an estimated $18 per $1 invested if implemented nationwide. Nationwide, full implementation of school-based effective programming in 2002 would have had the following fiscal impact

• Saved State and local governments $1.3 billion, including $1.05 billion in educational costs within 2 years;

• Reduced social costs of substance-abuse-related medical care, other resources, and lost productivity over a lifetime by an estimated $33.7 billion;
• Preserved the quality of life over a lifetime valued at $65 billion.

Although 80 percent of American youth reported participation in school-based prevention in 2005 (SAMHSA, 2004), only 20 percent were exposed to effective prevention programs (Flewelling et al., 2005). Given this level of participation, it is possible that some expected benefits already exist for these students, and the estimates in this paper are adjusted for these probable benefits.
These cost-benefit estimates show that effective school-based programs could save $18 for every $1 spent on these programs.

In a program targeting families with low income, intensive home visitation coupled with preschool enrichment reduced infant/toddler abuse (Aos et al., 1999; Karoly et al., 1998). As these toddlers reach adolescence and adulthood, visitation programs also can reduce a range of problems including substance abuse and violence.

Among indicated programs (targeted to individuals who have detectable symptoms), cost estimates that primarily focused on substance abuse were not available. However, estimates indicating good returns on the investment were available for several violence prevention interventions that address the roots of multi-risk behavior. Moral reconation therapy for adult and youth offenders, and multi-systemic therapy and functional family therapy for youth offenders returned more than $30 per dollar invested.

1.3. Conclusion
The cost of substance abuse could be offset by a nationwide implementation of effective prevention policies and programs. SAMHSA’s Strategic Prevention Framework should include a planning step that considers cost-benefit ratios. Communities should consider a comprehensive prevention strategy based on their unique needs and characteristics and use cost-benefit ratios to help guide their decisions. Model programs should include data on costs and estimated cost-benefit ratios to help guide prevention planning.

Source:
Substance Abuse Prevention Dollars and Cents: A Cost-Benefit Analysis
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP)

Monitoring the Future survey shows that while marijuana continues to be the most commonly


Monitoring the Future survey shows that while marijuana continues to be the most commonly used illicit drug among teens in the USA, current use of marijuana has dropped by 25 also dropped by seven percent among all three grades combined. Teen use of amphetamines, particularly methamphetamine, dropped significantly in five years and year-over-year, between 2005 and 2006, with less than one percent of teens having used it in the past 30 days.

The survey also noted reductions in the following drug categories between 2001 and 2006, including:

** Marijuana use is down in all categories for all grades combined. Lifetime, past year, and past 30 day use decreased 18 percent, 20 percent, and 25 percent (from 35% to 29%; 26% to 22%; and 17% to 13%, respectively).

** Use of cigarettes is down since 2001 in all four use categories (lifetime, past month, daily, and more than one-half pack per day) in all three grades.

** Youth use of alcohol was also down across the board – in all five use categories (lifetime, past year, past month, daily, and more than five drinks in a row in the last two weeks) and in all three grades over five years.

** Lifetime use of steroids for teens declined among all three grades, with past year and past month use also down among 8th and 10th graders.

Source: Source: nyac@TheAntiDrug.com Dec 2006

Filed under: Cannabis,USA,Youth :

Marijuana Use Tied to Cancer Rates Among Maoris

Maoris have the world’s highest lung-cancer rate, and heavy marijuana use could be a culprit, the New Zealand Herald reported Oct. 10.
About one in five New Zealanders are regular users of marijuana. Researcher Richard Beasley of the Medical Research Institute in Wellington, New Zealand, is working on a study that compares cancer rates between marijuana smokers, tobacco smokers, and nonusers. He recently released a research review concluding that marijuana smoking is more cancerous than tobacco smoking.
Beasley performed the research review for a Wellington coroner who has called for a tougher approach than harm reduction to marijuana use in New Zealand.

Source: New Zealand Herald Oct.l7 2005

Filed under: Cannabis,Health,New Zealand :

HIV rates much higher among daily needle exchange users

HIV rates much higher among daily needle exchange users than those who do not use the exchange program, according to latest study
HIV incidence was 75 percent higher among daily users of Vancouver’s needle exchange program (NEP) than among drug abusers that did not use the program, according to a new study published in the latest edition of the American Journal of Medicine. Vancouver, Canada boasts the largest NEP in the Western Hemisphere.

Source: The American Journal of Medicine Volume 120, Issue 2, Pages 172-179 (

Brief skills training is effective to curb college drinking

Brief skills training is effective to curb college drinking
A study in Swedish colleges, where over-use of alcohol is widespread, showed that a Brief Skills Training Program was effective in reducing alcohol consumption over a two-year period.

Students were randomly assigned to a brief skills training program (BSTP) with interactive lectures and discussions, a twelve-step–influenced (TSI) program with didactic lectures by therapists trained in the 12-step approach, and a control group. More than three quarters of the students were rated “high risk” on an alcohol consumption score.

At follow-up two years later, the high-risk students who had received the BSTP program showed significantly better outcomes than high-risk students who had undergone TSI. The TSI students did no better than the control group.

Source:The study results are in the March issue of Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental

Cannabis linked to lung cancer risk

Cannabis smoking may cause 5 per cent of lung cancer cases in people up to middle age, according to a New Zealand study which challenges international thinking on the drug.  Around 15 per cent of New Zealand adults under 46 use cannabis, drug-use surveys have found.
 
Researcher Dr Sarah Aldington, of the Medical Research Institute in Wellington, presented the new case-control study to the Thoracic Society conference in Auckland yesterday.
 
Cannabis users may have thought they were safe from lung cancer after a Californian study of more than 1600 people last year found no link between the disease and smoking the drug.  Dr Aldington said the evidence on cannabis and the risk of lung cancer was limited and conflicting. Her study found the risk rose more than five-fold among the third of users smoking the most cannabis.
 
“In conclusion there is a relationship between cannabis smoking and lung cancer in this study,” she said. “Approximately 5 per cent of lung cancer cases in those aged 55 and under may be attributable to cannabis…”   This equates to about 15 new cases a year – in 2002, 306 people aged 18-55 were diagnosed with lung cancer in New Zealand.  The study questioned about 60 people with lung cancer from eight health districts between Waikato and Canterbury and more than 200 “controls” – people randomly selected from electoral rolls in the same areas.
 
They were asked about risk factors, including cannabis and tobacco use.   The researchers calculated that the risk of developing lung cancer increased by about 8 per cent a year for people whose cumulative exposure equated to smoking one joint a day. This was about the same as the increase for someone with a one-pack-a-day tobacco habit.   The younger someone started smoking cannabis, the higher their risk of lung cancer.
 
“Long-term cannabis use increases the risk of lung cancer in young adults, particularly in those who start smoking cannabis at a young age,” the researchers conclude.
 
Dr Aldington said cannabis was the most commonly used recreational drug in the world, used by 161 million people, and its use was increasing in many countries. She said cannabis contained 50 per cent more cancer-causing chemicals than tobacco.  The study has found what the University of California researchers had expected to find but didn’t.   A researcher from that study, Dr Donald Tashkin, said in the Washington Post his group had thought cannabis smokers’ deeper inhalation and tendency to hold smoke in their lungs for longer than tobacco users would contribute to an increased cancer risk.
 
He said earlier work had shown cannabis contained cancer-causing chemicals as potentially harmful as those in tobacco. But cannabis also contained the chemical THC, which might kill ageing cells and keep them from becoming cancerous.
 
Middlemore Hospital clinical director of medicine Associate Professor Jeff Garrett, a leader of the Thoracic Society, said the Aldington study was “a good pilot study. It’s early work, it’s interesting, but there needs to be more work done.”

Source:  New Zealand Herald
Tuesday March 27, 2007

________________________________________
.

Brain dysfunction blamed for drug fix

Drug users who can’t kick the habit can blame a dysfunctional brain for their addiction, according to new research.
A study by the University of Melbourne has found long-term drug users have more difficulty controlling impulses because their frontal cortex is impaired.

The two-year study found opiate users needed to use more of their brains to resist impulses in a test of self control than those who were clean. The findings shed new light on why drug addicts find it so hard to quit, despite the health consequences.
“Drugs can capture and hijack some parts of the brain,” said Dr Murat Yucel, a lead researcher in the study. In this study we found the frontal cortex, an area that is essential for exercising control over thoughts and behaviours, was working inefficiently. These findings may help explain why it takes addicted individuals enormous effort to exercise control over their drug taking behaviour in the face of adverse consequences and why they are vulnerable to relapse back into uncontrolled, compulsive patterns of use.”
The study – published in the journal, Molecular Psychiatry, last month – also found drug users’ brain cells in the frontal region were less healthy than normal. The research shows drug taking is not a matter of choice for long-term users, who have a reduced biological capacity to stop, Dr Yucel says.
Researchers will next examine whether reduced brain function is a consequence of addiction or a contributing factor that makes some people more vulnerable to drug abuse. Co-researcher Dan Lubman said the study would likely lead to the development of new strategies for the treatment of addiction.
“These findings tell us that we need to provide a combination of pharmaceutical and psychological treatments that will help bolster the efficiency of the frontal cortex and hence the individual’s ability to stop their urge to use drugs,” he said.

Source: www.yahoo7News.com Aug. 2007

Dutch plan crackdown on cannabis cultivation

The Hague – Justice Minister Ernst Hirsch Ballin plans to criminalise the sale of merchandise designed for the cultivation of marihuana. The legislation is aimed at combatting ‘grow shops’ which trade throughout the Netherlands.

A majority of Dutch MPs favour banning ‘grow shops’ which sell everything necessary for growing cannabis plants. The outlets also often give advice on large-scale cultivation of the drug and on getting started in the marihuana trade.

Parliament is today debating the drugs issue and is expected to urge wide-ranging research into the effects of the Netherlands’ famously tolerant drugs policy.

Source: http://www.radionetherlands.nl/news/international/5672665 March 6th 2008

Filed under: Europe :

Clear- Cut Policy Needed To Help Rehabilitated Drug Addicts, Says Lam Thye

The Malaysia Crime Prevention Foundation (MCPF) today called for a clear-cut policy for the government to help rehabilitated drug addicts who have turned over a new leaf to secure jobs. Its vice-chairman, Tan Sri Lee Lam Thye, said both the government and private sector should look into the employment of rehabilitated drug addicts and help them to be re-integrated into society so that they could settle down and not have to live a life of crime.

“The government should consider initiating a policy to help former drug addicts to seek employment just as it has a policy on the employment of disabled persons,” he said in a statement on Sunday. Lee said providing employment to former drug addicts to keep them away from crime was essential as unemployed former addicts had been identified as one of the primary causes of snatch thefts and other petty crimes in the country.

“Drug addicts who have successfully undergone drug rehabilitation and retraining need to be assisted to eke out an existence. “If they fail to seek employment, they will continue to be involved in petty crimes such as snatch thefts,” he said.

Lee said tackling the problem of snatch thefts required an integrated approach, including strengthening street patrols by the police in crime-prone areas.
Besides, he said, more severe punishment for snatch thieves should be provided as a deterrent to others.

Other proposals included installing more road barriers to separate the roads from the pedestrian paths to make it difficult for snatch thieves to grab the belongings of pedestrians, as well as enhancing crime prevention vigilance and awareness among pedestrians, he added.

Source: www.Bernama.com Malaysian news agency 28th March 2010

Filed under: Asia :

Cannabis and Road Safety in Canada: Evidence on the Prevalence of

The Road Safety Monitor, a national telephone survey conducted each year involving Canadian drivers indicates that drug impaired driving is seen as second only to alcohol
impaired driving as a serious issue and that illicit drugs are seen as a more serious
problem than prescription or over the counter drugs1. Overall, 17.7%, or 3.7 million
Canadian drivers report driving within two hours of using illicit, prescription or over the
counter drugs.
Collisions remain a major cause of death and injury in Canada, and concerns about the
role of cannabis in road safety in this country date back many years. Much less is known
about the impact of cannabis on road safety than the impact of alcohol, in part because of
the much greater difficulty involved in measuring the presence and amount of
cannabinoids compared to alcohol. However, there is renewed interest in this issue
stimulated in part by proposed legislative changes on the part of the Government of
Canada to reduce substantially the penalties for possession of small amounts of cannabis.

Objectives
The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of available research and evidence on
the potential impact of cannabis on road safety in Canada focusing on two areas: 1)
research on the prevalence of cannabis use in Canada; and 2) research on the prevalence
of driving after cannabis use in Canada.

Prevalence of Cannabis Use in Canada
Little information is available on the prevalence of cannabis use in Canada prior to the
1960s. However, in that decade, cannabis use increased substantially. While a variety of
possible sources of information on cannabis in the Canadian population have been used
over the years, including such measures as amounts of the drug seized by police and the
number of individuals prosecuted by the courts for cannabis offences, the most direct and
the most accurate measures of the prevalence of cannabis use are those derived from
surveys. Although cannabis is an illegal drug and there are concerns that survey
responses may be influenced by its legal status, research demonstrates that respondents
to anonymous surveys, where there are no adverse consequences involved, generally
provide valid responses.
Smart and Fejer presented one of the very first estimates of the prevalence of cannabis
use in a Canadian population, based on a survey of a representative sample of residents
of Toronto conducted in 1971. They found that 12.2% of males and 5.5% of females had
used cannabis at least once in the preceding year. The prevalence of use differed
substantially by age group and gender. Among males, 41.5% of those aged 18-25, 20.8%
of those aged 26-30, and 1.8% of those aged 31 and over had used cannabis in the
preceding year. Among females, 20.0% of those aged 18-25, 6.3% of those aged 26-30,
and 1.8% of those aged 31 and over had used cannabis in the previous year. These data
clearly demonstrate that, by the end of the 1960’s, cannabis use had become very
common among young people. Ogborne and Smart reported on cannabis use in the
general population of Canada aged 15 and over based on the National Alcohol and Other
Drugs Survey conducted in 1994. This survey was the largest representative survey with
information on cannabis use ever made in Canada, with a sample size of 12,155. Use of
cannabis at that time was relatively uncommon, but not rare. Only 7.3% of respondents
reported using cannabis in the preceding year, and 2.0% reported using it as often as once per week. However, nearly a third (29%) reported that they had used cannabis at least once in their lives. Substantial regional differences were observed, with the proportion reporting use
at least once in the past year ranging from a low of 4.9% in Ontario to a high of 11.4% in
British Columbia.
The data provide a valuable perspective on the use of cannabis across Canada,
unfortunately there is little information on other important issues, such as change in rates
of use over time. However, in Ontario a series of surveys has been conducted over the
past 20 years that allow a picture of current use and changes in use over time in that part
of the country.

The Use of Cannabis in Ontario
Repeated cross-sectional surveys conducted in Ontario by the Centre for Addiction and
Mental Health provide the most comprehensive picture of the use of cannabis and other
drugs use in Canada. These surveys have been conducted among the student population
and adult population since the late 1970s.
A summary of recent data on the use of cannabis and other drugs (any
use in the past year) among students in grades 7 and 126, and among adults aged 18-29
(young adults), 40-49 (the middle-aged) and 65 and over (seniors). shows cannabis is the most
widely used illicit substance, with nearly half of grade 12 students reporting cannabis use
at least once in the past year. It is worth noting that by grade 12 most students will have
reached the age when they will be eligible to drive. Use of cannabis drops with increasing
age, however, and is used by less than 2% of seniors. Use of other illicit drugs is much
less common than the use of cannabis, with highest levels occurring for Hallucinogens and
Ecstasy among grade 12 students. Not surprisingly, alcohol is the most commonly used
substance. While cannabis is used by a smaller proportion of students than alcohol; it is still used
by a substantial minority of students. There have been important changes in the use of
cannabis over time. The general trend appears to have been one of reduced use of cannabis
and alcohol from the late 1970′s to the early 1990′s. The proportion reporting use of cannabis declined from a peak of 31.7% in 1979 to 11.7% in 1991. However, since the mid-1990’s self-reported use
of both substances has increased, with 28.6% reporting cannabis use in 2001.

Prevalence of Cannabis Use and Driving in Canada:

Survey data on the prevalence of driving under the influence of cannabis are available. In
the first reported data from the general population in Canada, the prevalence of driving after
use of cannabis at least once in the preceding 12 months. The
survey included 9943 persons aged 16-69, obtained through random digit dialling.
The prevalence of DUIC varied with age, while the prevalence of DUIC was relatively low,
it was higher in younger age groups. DUIC was significantly associated with a variety of other risk behaviours, such as driving after drinking, use of illicit drugs other than cannabis, and collision
involvement.
Information on the incidence of DUIC in a representative sample of the Ontario adult
population surveyed in 1996/97.
Among all drivers, 1.9% reported DUIC in the previous 12 months. Several factors influenced the likelihood of reported DUIC, including gender, age, marital status and education level. DUIC was most
frequently seen in younger age groups, with 9.3% of the youngest age group (18-19)
reporting the behaviour. DUIC was more common among men (3.0%) than women
(0.8%), more common among those never married (4.7%) than among those married
(0.9%) or previously married (2.1%). It was also least common among those with a
university degree. Among cannabis users, DUIC appeared to be a relatively common
behaviour; 22.8% reported DUIC, and the probability of the behaviour was significantly
influenced by gender and education level As well, DUIC and drinking-driving were strongly
related in this sample.
Prevalence of DUIC by Age among Cannabis Users in Ontario, 1996-97
Data derived from Walsh and Mann8.
The observation that DUIC was more common among younger respondents was recently
extended . Among students with a drivers licence in grades 10-13, 19.3% reported driving
within one hour of using cannabis at least once in the preceding year; this proportion was higher than the
proportion that reported driving within an hour of two or more drinks (15.0%). Males were
significantly more likely than females to report DUIC (23.8% versus 13.5%). DUIC was
more frequently reported than driving after drinking .

Prevalence of riding with a drinking driver, drinking driving, and DUIC by Gender
among Ontario students, 2001
Among respondents, 5.1% reported using marijuana, and 1.5% reported DUIC at least
once in the preceding 12 months. These authors also noted that males and respondents
under 30 were most likely to report DUIC, and also that there was a strong relationship
between DUIC and driving after drinking. Recently, the first report on trends over time in
cannabis use and driving in Canada appeared.

The proportions of Ontario adults reporting DUIC in a representative sample
of the Ontario population surveyed in 2002
A trend for an increase over time was observed, with the proportion of adult drivers reporting DUIC increasing from 1.9% in 1996/97 to 2.7% in 2002. The authors note, however, that this increase is not statistically significant and recommend further monitoring of this trend.

Conclusions
The data presented here indicate that cannabis use is relatively common in Canada,
particularly among young people. The prevalence of use appears to have increased
substantially in the 1960s and ‘70s, while since then some fluctuations have occurred.
Driving after cannabis use is less common, but among cannabis users it does appear to
occur with some frequency. In particular, young cannabis users appear more likely to
report DUIC. Among high school students, DUIC appears to occur as frequently, or more
frequently, than driving after drinking. These data provide grounds for concern about this
behaviour, particularly among younger drivers. Further research on the prevalence of
DUIC in Canada, including differences between provinces, is needed.

Source: CAMH Population Studies eBulletin, May/June 2003 No.20

Filed under: Canada :

Hawaii kills medical marijuana dispensary measure

A proposal to create medical marijuana dispensaries in Hawaii has gone up in smoke.
The idea is dead because the House Judiciary Committee refused to consider the measure before a legislative deadline Thursday.
Committee Chairman Rep. Jon Riki Karamatsu says he was worried that marijuana dispensaries would fuel illegal sales of the drug. He’s also concerned about the state running up against federal drug laws.
Medical marijuana patients argue that Hawaii needs to reform its decade-old law allowing them to smoke and even grow the drug, but prohibiting them from buying it.
The bill passed the Senate and two House committees before stalling. Medical marijuana dispensaries will likely be considered again during next year’s legislative session.

Source: www.omaha.com, 1st April 2010

Injecting room abuse

DRUG addicts using the controversial Kings Cross injecting room are taking advantage of the safe environment to test their tolerance to higher doses of heroin and other cocktails of dangerous illicit drugs.
The claims were made during interviews with the peak body Drug Free Australia and were repeated in Parliament by Christian Democratic Party MLC Reverend Gordon Moyes late on Tuesday night during debate over a possible four-year extension of the injecting room.
Mr Moyes told the Upper House the injecting room “has encouraged (users) . . . to try wilder mixes of drugs” after he read aloud a transcript of a recorded conversation between Drug Free Australia secretary Gary Christian and a former injecting room client.
During the interview, the man claimed there was widespread dangerous mixing of heroin and pills including Benzodiazepene, Normasin, Oxycodone and Xanax.
“I have seen that they are going in for one thing but really they are going in for two (or three), with the heroin on top of the pills, but they won’t (tell anybody that),” he said.
“They feel a lot more safer, definitely because they know they can be brought back to life straight away. They know . . . they can, like some people go to the extent of even using more. So in a way they feel it is a comfort zone, and no matter how much they use if they drop (die) they (might) be brought back.”
Drug Free Australia had sought answers as to why the injecting room had “massive” numbers of heroin overdoses, measured between 36 and 42 times higher than normal rates of overdose in the community.
“In 2003 our expert committee analysing injecting room data found that clients of the injecting room were recording a prior history of one overdose for every 4380 injections on average in their intake questionnaire,” Mr Christian said.
“But inside the injecting room, there was an extraordinary one overdose for every 106 injections, 42 times higher than the client’s previous history.”
The former injecting room client said the rife experimentation was done behind workers’ backs.
“You can hide anything from everybody,” he said.
“It is not the workers’ (fault) . . . they try their best, it is just (that we) are (all) sneaky people.”
Mr Moyes told Parliament a second former client revealed users were using the safety of the room “to get the biggest rush they can, even if there is the risk of overdose”.
“Consequently, far from combating the problem and helping these people to stop harming themselves, the injecting facility has actually encouraged them to try harder, to try wilder mixes of drugs, and to push themselves right to the point of death,” Mr Moyes said.
“For six years the NSW Government has funded a drug experimentation laboratory where users can push their boundaries and where they have medical help immediately on hand from a nursing sister if they go too far.”

Source: The Daily Telegraph (Australia)June 28, 2007 12:00am

Filed under: Australia :

Ottawa to step up fight against smoking, drugs

The federal government is stepping up its fight against tobacco, with a promise to cut smoking rates in Canada from 19 per cent last year to 12 per cent by 2011.
Health Minister Tony Clement, in Vancouver today for the Canadian Medical Association’s annual general meeting, said the target is ambitious but not unrealistic. “Seeing the great progress we have made over the past few years, I am confident . . . we can achieve this goal,” he said in a statement.
Clement also reiterated a promise to get tough on illicit drug use, saying mixed messages about the acceptability of drugs – including marijuana – must end.
“Canada has not run a serious or significant anti-drug campaign for almost 20 years, and the messages young people have received during the past several years have been confusing and conflicting, to say the least,” he told delegates.
“We are very concerned about the damage and pain that drugs cause families and we intend to reverse the trend toward vague, ambiguous messaging that has characterized Canadian attitudes in the recent past.”
He sidestepped questions about whether the anti-drug strategy would include harm-reduction measures such as Vancouver’s safe injection site, saying enforcement and prevention can also be considered harm reduction.
Furthermore, he said there is conflicting research about whether the safe injection site has been successful, adding that Ottawa will review all the data before making the long-awaited decision about whether the site can continue to operate.

Source: www.canada.com/vancouversun August 2007

Filed under: Canada :

Canadian kids smoke more pot than cigarettes: report

OTTAWA — By the time they’re 14, many Canadian youth have done it all — cigarettes, drugs and alcohol — so a new report on substance abuse and addiction should serve as a “call to action” to change that, the organization behind the research says.
The Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse says Canadians need to pay closer attention to the facts that the average age when a child smokes a cigarette for the first time is about 12, 13 when he or she uses alcohol and gets drunk and 14 for first-time drug use.
In a report released Wednesday, titled Substance Abuse in Canada: Youth in Focus, the CCSA outlines gaps in Canada’s overall approach to dealing with these worrying statistics and it suggests several strategies to plug the holes.
The report paints an alarming portrait of drug and alcohol use by youth. By the time they are in their first year of high school, about two-thirds of students had consumed alcohol, according to one survey. Another survey of youth age 15-24 showed that 83% were currently drinking or had consumed alcohol within the past year. If it’s any comfort to parents, the students characterized their drinking as light to infrequent.
More than a third of students in grades 7 to 9 have binged on alcohol, meaning they consumed five or more drinks on a single occasion, researchers found. The same was true for 40% of 15- to 19-year-olds, while another survey showed that one-third of young drinkers drank at a hazardous level.
After alcohol, cannabis was the most commonly used illegal substance among youth. Cannabis use is reported by 17% of students in grades 7 to 9, about 29% of 15- to 17-year-olds, and almost half of 18- to 19-year-olds, the CCSA report said.
Pot smoking, in fact, now exceeds the rate of cigarette smoking among youth, the study found.
The statistics underline that new approaches are needed to prevent and treat substance abuse by youth, said Michel Perron, the CCSA’s chief executive officer.
In general, Mr. Perron said in an interview, there needs to be more funding for services, better co-ordination between all levels of government and non-governmental agencies, and better use of evidence-based research to evaluate which approaches are most effective. Specifically, Mr. Perron says, services need to be matched to the age and needs of certain kinds of youth, especially those at higher risk of substance abuse.
A universal prevention strategy that talks to youth about peer pressure, for example, can be effective up to about age 12, but beyond that, a one-size-fits-all approach won’t work, he said.
“We know that beyond 12 years old, and because the age of initiation is dropping consistently in Canada, which is a concern to us, we need to start matching our services to the age of youth,” he said.
Prevention strategies should target youth as early as possible, said Mr. Perron, ideally at around age 10.
“The longer we stave off a young person from trying illegal drugs or the like, the better it is, the less likely that they’ll carry on into the future,” he explained.
Canada also needs to “professionalize” addiction treatment services to make them more effective, said Perron. There’s a shortage of knowledgeable workers and no consistency in training, his organization says.
There’s also room for improvement in schools, the CCSA report said. Prevention strategies would be more effective, for example, if teachers had better training to recognize youth with substance abuse issues, it states.
Mr. Perron said he is optimistic about the ongoing challenges of curbing substance abuse among youth. While addiction was not on the political or public radar five or 10 years ago, said Mr. Perron, encouraging signs are now emerging.
He’s eagerly awaiting the anti-drug strategy promised by the federal government and expected this fall, and the recently established Canadian Mental Health Commission is another move in the right direction, he said. Good progress is being made at provincial levels too, Mr. Perron added.
The CCSA report is a call to action for both levels of government and the general public, he said.
“We’re very much looking to mobilize Canadian attention that we need to address substance use and addiction by youth in Canada,” he said. “We can’t do this with government alone; we have to be willing to work together.”

Source: CanWest News Service Wednesday, September 05, 2007

Filed under: Canada :

Vietnam aims to minimize drug addiction

Vietnam has targeted to lower the number of drug addicts to below 0.1 percent of its population by 2010, Vietnam News Agency reported Wednesday.

Under the national anti-drug program by 2010 approved by Vietnamese Prime Minister Nguyen Tan Dung on Tuesday, the country has eyed to have 60 percent of its communes without drug addicts, and reduce the rate of people relapsing into addiction.

To this end, Vietnam, with population of over 84 million, will intensify surveillance on trading kinds of drugs from abroad into the country, eliminate growing trees providing materials for drug production, and tighten control over additive substances.

It will also complete law systems on drug prevention, improve public awareness and intensify international cooperation on the issue.

As of late 2006, Vietnam had a total of 160,226 drug addicts, over 70 percent of whom are in the age bracket of 18-35, according to statistics from the country’s Ministry of Public Security.

Source: Xinhua Peoples Daily Online 26.09.07

Filed under: Asia :

Methadone – Last Not First

By: Ross Goodridge, Sydney, Australia
This year I published a paper entitled “The Methadone Conspiracy – Can Addicts Sue?”, highlighting the fact that Australia currently has approximately 24,000 people on long-term methadone maintenance programs. Patients receive daily methadone, which is ultimately supplied by the Federal Government of Australia. The methadone is often provided without any attempt to control long-term use or to restrict the addict’s use of other illicit drugs. Most methadone is provided by way of “take-away doses,” and thus an estimated 29 percent of methadone in Australia is re-sold on the black market. Methadone has become a substantial primary drug of addiction.
Methadone is a synthetic opiate, developed in Nazi Germany in 1941, in an attempt to replicate heroin for relief of pain. Methadone acts upon the body in a manner very similar to heroin, attaching to the same brain receptors and creating euphoria by the same chemical process.
In Australia, like most western countries, there are often many views expressed as to how society should deal with illicit drug users. There are those who promote a tougher on drugs policy, while others promote legalisation.
Since releasing “The Methadone Conspiracy,” I have personally attracted much criticism by those who promote legalisation. They believe that narcotics should be available either freely or by prescription. They already have one drug available on this basis – methadone.
On receipt of this criticism I posed the question for myself, “Can methadone maintenance be considered a successful drug treatment program?”
The starting point in answering this question is, “What is meant by success?”
If one starts with the position that no drug addict will ever be cured, and there is no point in trying, then I suppose it could be considered a success to provide clinically pure amounts of narcotic each day to that addict each day. This will provide lower risk of harm to the addict of HIV infection, criminal behaviour, etc.
From my prospective, I cannot, and do not, accept that the best outcome that can ever be achieved for any one addict is a lifetime of addiction.
Australia has a rapidly rising number of drug addicts, a rapidly rising number of methadone addicts, and rapidly rising crime. Australia’s prisons are over-flowing, and it is estimated that 80 percent of all prisoners have a drug addiction, which was a cause of their criminal behaviour. The direction must be changed.
Methadone programs do little to reduce the demand for heroin. An estimated 72 percent of people on long-term high dose methadone programs are also frequent heroin users.
Methadone addicts regularly sell part of their take-away doses in order to obtain money for heroin purchase.
Trading in methadone occurs directly outside of the methadone clinics in Australia.
Nobody involved in the field can be unaware of this fact; it is obvious and patent.
Heroin addicts buy methadone because one “done” (usually 20 or 40 millilitres), will help sustain a heroin addict until he or she can buy more heroin. Teenagers use methadone because of a perception that it is a “safe drug.” It is less daunting to take a sip than it is to inject, and teenagers experiment with methadone as a first drug.
Notwithstanding that there are now over 24,000 long-term methadone addicts in Australia, the Government does not offer any programs to help people overcome their methadone addiction. Drug addicts are placed in jail or given free drugs, and historically almost no funds are available to overcome drug addiction!
I am not opposed to methadone per se. I am opposed to methadone as the first and only option provided to people who would otherwise achieve abstinence.
Ross Goodridge is a senior Barrister-at-Law practising in Sydney, Australia. He is credited with the Australian introduction of Drug Courts and was responsible for the endorsement of Drug Courts by the AMA, most political parties and the broad community. Mr. Goodridge has been a keynote speaker at a number of conferences and an active supporter of the Australian Cities Against Drugs movement.

Filed under: Australia :

OTTAWA – PM Stephen Harper set to announce a $64-million anti-drug strategy

OTTAWA – Prime Minister Stephen Harper is set to announce a $64-million anti-drug strategy that cracks down on dealers and offers more help for users.Harper is to make the announcement Thursday in Winnipeg, casting his Conservative government’s approach as a balanced one that relies as heavily on prevention as it does on punishment. The new plan includes stricter penalties for drug-traffickers while spending millions on rehabilitation and public-awareness programs. The government wants to avoid having the plan portrayed as a Canadian version of the U.S. war on drugs. “There are two aspects to this,” said a source familiar with the announcement. “How can you help the user? And the other thing is punishing the dealer. Funding for the initiative was set out in the 2007 federal budget. The plan is expected to include: -A border crackdown on drug smuggling. -$32 million on treatments like detox and rehab centres.-About $10 million for an awareness campaign aimed at young people. One of the key goals of the awareness program is to alert kids to the dangers of marijuana and remind them that it remains illegal. Since the Conservatives took office, the number of people arrested for simple possession of marijuana has skyrocketed. Toronto, Vancouver, Ottawa and Halifax all reported increases of between 20 and 50 per cent in 2006 of arrests for possession of cannabis, compared with the previous year. As a result, thousands of people were charged with a criminal offence that, under the previous Liberal government, was on the verge of being decriminalized. Police say those Liberal efforts to decriminalize pot sent mixed messages to the public. They say many pot smokers have been emboldened by the talk of decriminalization and are more apt to smoke in public – all of which has resulted in more arrests. Proponents of more liberalized drug laws have ridiculed the Tory approach to marijuana, calling it a waste of taxpayers’ money to prosecute pot smokers. Drug-dependency experts have also challenged the common notion that pot is a so-called ‘gateway’ to other drugs, and argue that it actually keeps people from experimenting with more dangerous ones.Health Minister Tony Clement, who will be one of three cabinet ministers present at the announcement, has said his government wants to clear up the uncertainty about marijuana. “There’s been a lot of mixed messages going out about illicit drugs,” Clement said recently. “We’re going to be back in the business of an anti-drug strategy. . . In that sense, the party’s over.”

Filed under: Canada :

THC Content of Cannabis in Netherlands.

The policy on cannabis use in The Netherlands is substantially different from that in many other
countries. It is based on the idea that separating the markets for hard drugs and soft drugs prevents soft drug users to resort to hard drug use. Over the years so-called coffeeshops emerged.

Coffeeshops are alcohol free establishments where the selling and using of soft drugs is not prosecuted,provided certain conditions are met. Many of the cannabis products sold in these coffeeshops originate from Dutch-grown grass called ‘nederwiet’. Critics of the Dutch drug policy have claimed that the THC-content of nederwiet has increased drastically over the last decades.

However,the THC-content of cannabis products as sold in coffeeshops has not systematically been
tested. On request of the Ministries of Health and Justice, the potency of cannabis products as sold in coffeeshops in The Netherlands has been investigated since 1999.

Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) is the main psychoactive compound in marihuana and hashish. The
aim of this study was to investigate the concentration of THC in marihuana and hash as sold in
Dutch coffeeshops. In addition we wanted to know whether there are differences between the cannabis products originating from Dutch grown hemp (nederwiet) and those derived from imported hemp. It is the eighth time that this study has been performed.

It might be that there are differences in potency of cannabis products in different seasons of the
year. For that reason, since 2001, every year extra samplings have been done in September. In
these extra studies only nederwiet was bought. The names and addresses of 50 Dutch coffeeshops were randomly selected. For the purpose of this study, 53 samples of nederwiet, 24 samples of foreign marihuana, 14 samples of Dutch hash and 42 samples of hash prepared from foreign hemp were anonymously bought in the selected coffeeshops.

In addition, 47 samples of the most potent marihuana product available in the coffeeshop,
were bought. As a rule samples of 1 gram were bought. The average THC-content of all the marihuana samples together13 was 14,2% and that of the hash-samples 17,2%. The average THC-content of nederwiet (16,0%) was significantly higher than that of foreign marihuana (6,0%). Hash derived from Dutch hemp contained more THC (29,1%) than hash originating from foreign hemp (13,3%). The average THC percentage of nederwiet was significantly lower than last year (16,9 vs. 17.5%).

Again, the THC-percentage in foreign marihuana did not differ from the previous samplings. The average THC-percentage of the marihuana samples that were bought as most potent (16,5%) did not differ from the average percentage of nederwiet. The potency of nederwiet bought in September 2006 was not significantly different from samples bought in December/January 2007. It was the first time that no seasonal influence in THC-levels was found. There seems to be a stabilization of the potency of nederwiet. Such stabilization was first seen in the cannabis samples bought in September. Most potent as indicated by the coffeeshop personnel. This is not corrected for in terms of relative contribution of number of foreign or Dutch samples.

Prices that had to be paid for foreign marihuana were lower than those for any of the other
cannabis products. The prices of nederwiet increased significantly the last year.
The most notable finding in the current investigation was a significant decrease in the potency
of imported hash (from 18,7% in 2006 to 13,3% in 2007). Climate factors in the countries
of origin seem to be the most logical explanation. Future monitoring has to show
whether this is an incident or a trend.

Source:THC-concentration in weed, netherweed and hasj in the Dutch coffeeshops (2006-2007)’, English summary.Trimbos Institute

Filed under: Europe :

No to Dail coke tests: minister


For distribution to your contacts.
We are in agreement on the effects of ineffective international policies, political agendas and poor services.

We are requesting the Irish Government to take responsibility towards its Ministers as you will see from the article in our main National newspaper the Sunday Independent. [http://www.independent.ie/national-news/no-to-dail-coke-tests-minister-1
116996.html]
In the name of National security and especially as they are responsible
for national drug policy we feel it is imperative. This is similiar
for all other Governments.

If anyone is using it, means they are compromised in their position.
We did one hour on national radio yesterday discussing the effects of drug use on crime and the harm that our present national policy has
caused . Ireland has one of the highest rates of drug use in Europe.
When I work in Sweden we see the effects of a Drug Free Policy.
Less drug use, crime etc. Although they have a problem it is not in any way equal to that which we see under present ‘Harm Reduction’ – Harm Production policies internationally.

Source: Marie Byrne, Aisling Group International,Ireland. October 2007

Filed under: Europe :

Dutch to ban magic mushrooms

The sale of hallucinogenic magic mushrooms is about to be banned by the Dutch Government in the latest sign of a conservative backlash against Amsterdam’s relaxed attitude towards sex and drugs.
A series of high-profile deaths and injuries linked to magic mushroom trips has proved too much for ministers, who are expected to discuss prohibition proposals from Ab Klink, the Health Secretary, at a Cabinet meeting today. The move follows growing official impatience with the unforeseen consequences of traditional Dutch tolerance, which instead of normalising drug taking and prostitution has drawn in people-traffickers, dealers and organised crime gangs from across Europe.
Mr Klink’s push for a ban on the mushrooms follows plans by the Mayor of Amsterdam for an upgrade of the city’s infamous red-light district, including the closure of many of its prostitute windows and coffee shops where cannabis is openly sold. Job Cohen, the mayor, has also proposed a three-day “cooling-off” period between ordering mushrooms and buying them, to put off Amsterdam’s many weekend tourists, but that did not go far enough for Mr Klink.
Fresh mushrooms — as opposed to dried fungi which are already banned — are legally on sale at so-called smart shops, about 40 of which have sprung up in the capital selling all manner of herbal and chemical compounds. The sale of hallucinogenic mushrooms is illegal in most other countries and the dramatic rethink in the Netherlands has followed a rise in medical emergencies in Amsterdam linked to mushroom use.
Ambulance call-outs rose from 70 in 2005 to 128 last year, with nine out of ten cases involving tourists. Britons were the largest group among them. In July an 18-year-old from Iceland threw himself out of a hotel window, breaking both his legs.
But what really caught the public imagination was the death of a 17-year-old French girl who jumped from a bridge over one of Amsterdam’s canals to her death in March, apparently under the influence of magic mushrooms. In May, Mr Klink ordered the national health institute to carry out a fresh study on the risks of mushrooms, following an earlier report that played down the health dangers and led to a continuation of the tolerant approach.
Magic mushrooms are not addictive, but can have severe psychological consequences. Over the past six years mushrooms in dried and fresh form have been banned in Britain, Denmark and Ireland. In Britain, freshly picked magic mushrooms have been classified as Class A drugs for two years. The Drugs Act 2005 brought the law on fresh mushrooms into line with dried specimens. Britain acted after a significant rise in the amount of imported magic mushrooms.

Source: Daily Dose 11th October 2007

Filed under: Europe :

Needle exchange an unmitigated disaster

Friday, October 19, 2007
Forensic psychiatrist Dr. Shabehram Lohrasbe, who has an office in the area, says the exchange is a neighbourhood nightmare of filth, confrontation and constant threats of violence.

I write out of concern that the desperation, exhaustion and fearfulness of the citizens who work and live near the Cormorant Street needle exchange has not come through clearly enough. Frustration can come across as insensitivity, a lack of compassion or a kind of NIMBY attitude, which would be very misleading.
Many of us who encounter the unhappy souls who struggle with addiction are not unsympathetic to their plight. I work regularly with the addicted, the homeless and the mentally ill in our province’s prisons.
For those of us who observe the devastation of a neighbourhood in the name of a social experiment, resentment is focused not on the unfortunates, but on those who planned and implemented this disaster, including our mayor and council. We are exhausted and outraged by their failure to deal with the unsurprising consequences of simply providing needles to a group of people who need much more.
It is the restraint of those who have tolerated this abandonment of civic responsibility that has kept things from getting out of control.
Let me provide one example, a mild one. Not long ago, a man barged into my office, demanding to use the washroom. Having been burned by acceding to a similar demand in the past that resulted in needles and blood in my washroom, I refused and asked him to leave. He did, walked outside and then urinated on my door, aiming at the door handle.
Consider my options. Should I call the police? Or physically push him off my property, risking being doused by urine or stabbed by a needle? Should I risk a shouting match and possible retaliation?
So he walked away smirking, with no fear of any consequences. I washed the door before my next patient arrived. This on a day that started with me scooping diarrhea embedded with needles off my front steps.
Used needles, human feces, discarded underwear, assorted condoms and other unsanitary byproducts of addiction are frequently deposited on properties in the neighbourhood. After earlier protests, the city installed a “porta-potty” outside the needle exchange. That lasted but a few days, apparently because of the refusal of those who have to clean the toilets to deal with the needles and other paraphernalia jammed into them.
Trained workers understandably refused to face the health risks, yet citizens are left to their own devices.
We have asked for toilets, increased policing, assistance in regular cleaning or tax relief so that we can hire our own crews and private security. Our pleas have gone nowhere and the mayor has not responded to my last letter.
In it, I have told him that if the lawsuit over the injection site fails, my neighbours and I will have no choice but to erect tall fences topped with barbed wire along our streets. This is what it has come to in our once-beautiful city; citizens are left to wall themselves off, prison-like, in a downtown area.
Since I spend a good part of my work week in prisons, it is not especially harsh for me, but for a 70-year-old pensioner who grew up in a city where she once walked fearlessly, it is utterly disheartening.
I am outraged by the complacency of those who seek power and responsibility and then do nothing when faced with a crisis.
I work here, but many senior citizens, some handicapped, live here. Many are unable to sleep at night, never mind take a walk. They are intimidated by the arguments and yelling, the confrontations and their increasing fears of violence.
The fears of those who bear the brunt of this disaster are not exaggerated or misplaced. The needle exchange is a gathering place for addicts and the predators that they inevitably attract. It is the latter group that is becoming increasingly prominent and more confrontational.
Drug dependence, especially on short-acting opiates, creates desperate cravings, often several times a day. There is a clear relationship between substance abuse and criminality, including acts of violence.
There are three broad ways in which alcohol and drugs influence crime and violence. The first is physiological, through a direct effect on mental functioning, when disinhibition of behaviour, including aggressive behaviour, is common. The second influence is due to the financial needs of the addict. Finally, there is the “business” aspect of addiction, the turf wars between dealers and others who prey on addiction.
By funnelling a large proportion of the city’s drug-related crime and disorder into a small neighbourhood, those responsible for this disaster have absconded from their responsibility for follow-through with services for the addicts, protection from the predators they attract and basic services for the citizens left to cope with the crime, filth and public disorder.
The “service” of providing needles ends before sundown when the needle exchange shuts down, leaving the addicted with no support, supervision, food or water, protection from predators, shelter or toilets.
Where do the politicians and planners think these people go to shoot up, steal money for their next hit or next meal, sleep, urinate, rant and rave, intimidate, vent their fury against the society they believe has abandoned them and destroy property and peace-of-mind?
Invited to bring their suffering and their rage to a particular spot, then left to their own devices, they inflict their despair and their frenzy on a small group of citizens who have been left to cope with the predictable consequences of “injecting” a crime-prone subculture into what was once a beautiful, pleasant and safe neighborhood.

Source: www.Canada.com 19th Oct.2007

Filed under: Canada :

Proposed “Safe-Injection” Site in San Francisco Ignores Proven Solutions to Treating Drug Addicts

Drug treatment works. How do we know? Today, there are millions of millions of Americans successfully recovering from drug and alcohol addiction. These courageous Americans are living proof that effective drug treatment can save lives and reduce our national drug problem.
That’s why it’s so troubling to see this:
“SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — City health officials took steps Thursday toward opening the nation’s first legal safe-injection room, where addicts could shoot up heroin, cocaine and other drugs under the supervision of nurses.
Hoping to reduce San Francisco’s high rate of fatal drug overdoses, the public health department co-sponsored a symposium on the only such facility in North America, a four-year-old Vancouver site where an estimated 700 intravenous users a day self-administer narcotics under the supervision of nurses…
… Bertha Madras, deputy director of demand reduction for the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, called San Francisco’s consideration of such a facility “disconcerting” and “poor public policy.”
“The underlying philosophy is, ‘We accept drug addiction, we accept the state of affairs as acceptable,’ Madras said. “This is a form of giving up.” [AP]
Indeed, no one proposes aiding and sustaining an alcoholic by providing a supervised site for alcohol use. At best, so-called “harm reduction” is half-way measure; half-hearted approach that accepts defeat. Pretending harmful activity will be reduced if we condone it under the law is foolhardy and irresponsible.
Need more proof that treatment works? Consider this:
• Nearly 10,000 clients in community-based programs in 11 cities were compared before and after treatment on a number of key outcomes. Depending upon treatment modality, the data showed reductions in weekly use of heroin (between 44 and 69 percent), cocaine (between 56 and 69 percent), and marijuana (between 55 and 67 percent); reductions in illegal behavior (between 36 and 61 percent); and improvements in employment status (between 4 and 12 percent).
• One year following discharge from drug treatment, use of the primary drug of choice dropped 48 percent; arrests dropped 64 percent; self-reported illegal activity dropped 48 percent; and the number of health visits related to substance use declined by more than 50 percent.
• Five years after discharge, there was a 21 percent reduction in the use of any illegal drug—a 45 percent reduction in powder cocaine use, a 17 percent drop in crack cocaine use, a 14 percent decline in heroin use, and a 28 percent drop in marijuana use. Similar reductions were reported for criminal activity: a 30 percent reduction in selling drugs, a 23 percent decrease in victimizing others, and a 38 percent drop in breaking and entering, as well as a 56 percent drop in motor vehicle theft.

Sources: Drug Abuse Treatment Outcome Study, National Treatment Improvement Evaluation Study, and Services Research Outcomes Study.

Filed under: USA :

Vancouver – City to clean up streets within four months

Vancouver is a beautiful city – but they have a dreadful situation around Gas Town on the East side –
The needle exchange programme there attracts the most desperate of drug users. Now Victoria has very similar problems around their NEP.

Mayor promises to find homes for 50 of the most troubled homeless people; plan expected have ‘enormous’ impact
Published: Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Victoria Mayor Alan Lowe promises the city will sweep off the streets 50 homeless people who are shooting up drugs and causing conflict downtown within four months.
The move, which makes good on recommendations contained in task force report released last week, should have an immediate and dramatic effect as the the group is one of the most visible symbols of the substance-abuse, mental-health and homelessness problems plaguing the city. Lowe said the first community outreach team called for in the report will be “up and running immediately,” and will find homes for the 50 “hardest to house” homeless people within 120 days.
One of the most visible examples of the city’s homelessness and addiction crisis is the needle exchange on Cormorant Street. Many of the most troublesome homeless people hang out there, leaving a trail of filth, faeces and needles.
Currently, the 50 people have nowhere to go, so often are sprawled outside the needle exchange on Cormorant Street or Streetlink on Store Street, amid feces, filth and scattered hypodermic needles.
The City of Victoria task force action plan unveiled last week aims to find 1,550 housing units over the next five years for the homeless. Within a year, the city plans to find accommodations, through rent subsidies, for 350 people.
The Vancouver Island Health Authority has kicked in $7.6 million toward the effort to deal with the homelessness and addiction crisis – more than $3 million of that going toward the creation of four outreach groups, dubbed “Assertive Community Teams,” to provide support to people on the streets, in shelters or supportive housing. Another $1.7 million is earmarked for adult detox treatment.
Victoria lawyer Stewart Johnston, who is leading a court action to shut down the needle exchange near his law office, said helping those individuals and finding them a place to live will change the entire look and feel of downtown Victoria. “If you take the worst 45 to 50 off streets, and then another 300, the difference would be enormous,” he said.
Police have estimated about 45 people are causing most of the problems around the needle exchange, Johnston said. Housing that group of people “would make all the sense in the world,” said Rev. Al Tysick of Our Place Society. A meeting on Friday should better clarify how the 50 people will be selected, he said.
Victoria police acting chief Bill Naughton agreed the plan will have an immediate and “very significant impact. It could also make easier the job of police, who continue to shuffle homeless residents from one doorway to another as business owners complain. Police can’t solve the housing piece of the puzzle but we recognize how important it is,” Naughton said.
Police estimate a group of 324 homeless, addicted and mentally-ill people were responsible for 23,033 police incidents over a period of 40 months, at a cost of $9 million. Some of the hardest to house will go to the soon-to-open Our Place Society drop-in street shelter and transitional housing complex, “but I don’t think it is a good idea to put them all in one location,” Lowe said. “They need to be dispersed, as long as there are support services available to follow the individuals.”
Victoria Coun. Charlayne Thornton-Joe said the plan is to use rent subsidies to place people throughout the region in existing housing. As long as there is “support wrapped around the individual,” and landlords have a housing team they can call around the clock, such placements are highly successful, she said.

Source Times Colonist Oct 2007
COMMENTS ON THIS STORY

Sylvia Oertel
Wed, Oct 24, 07 at 04:54 AM
There’s big talk about getting these poor souls off the street & I applaud that action. Now let’s not forget their greatest needs which are continuing health care, mental health care, rehabilitation programs, AA-NA,co-dependancy, abuse& anger mgmt programs ‘for all’ not just a chosen few & no endless wait lists! Then there’s self esteem courses, budgeting help, education & training… I could go on forever with the needs of these persons as they are obviously going to require a myriad of complex treatment to fully recover as it’s more than just addictions now….. There was a time when they thought “oh, I’ll never become an addict, I only do it when I party”, but that devils dust got hold of them and has had them in its grip for a decade or more! Maybe rather than a cheque each month (which at this date is generally being used to support addictiions),until they are stable they get Rent ‘paid direct’ & food credits, & laundry facilities, to assure that the $ are spent on essentials to help keep them healthy & clean…. After all the proof is in the pudding that so far the funds have been supporting habits. That wouldn’t change just because there’s a roof over their head. Not without some type of cautions in place. Maybe to encourage them to attend programs they could earn incentives… These ideas and insights come from the heart of a mother of 2 addicted daughters. Why do I care? Because I have a mother’s heart.When I counted their ten tiny little toes this wasn’t the dreams & hopes I had for my girls….. So when it comes to my girls I can only live 1 day at a time, no making plans with them for days ahead. I go to bed & wake up saying tpraying ‘ Serenity Prayer’, and dreading the knocks on my door or the calls that may be the time someone tells me they’re lost to me forever……….. Please just sign me :’Mom of 3 & Grandma of 6′

Nick
Wed, Oct 24, 07 at 03:57 PM
As a former long time Victoria resident, I think I should warn you that BC is THE destination for drug-loving lowlifes from the rest of the country. Build it and they will come, no sooner will you get rid of the current crop and the next batch will arrive from Ontario, Quebec, or other eastern provinces. BC should be petitioning the feds to make it possible to deport bad apples to their homes.

Nick 2.
Wed, Oct 24, 07 at 08:57 PM
Nick above has it right. Some people need to give their heads a good shake. Surely you must realise that if we citizens of Victoria start (continue) putting our taxes towards free needles, food, shelter etc for those who themselves put the needle in themselves, the flood gates will open. So let me see if I have the picture straight! If I shoot up, leave needles in the street, deficate publically, beg, sleep in someone elses doorway, or have a dog I don’t want to give up you are going to give me a place to live??? Sounds good to me, where do I start and can get a free dog please?

Filed under: Canada :

HEROIN is set for comeback on Sydney streets

HEROIN is set for a devastating comeback on Sydney streets and could trigger a major surge in overdoses, drug experts warned yesterday.
While a recent heroin drought led to a drop in overdoses in Australia, an influx of pure heroin from East Asia is expected to flood the local market, sparking grave fears of more drug deaths.
The quantity of heroin imported to Australia has almost doubled in the past two years, jumping from 40kg in 2005-06 to about 70kg last financial year, the latest statistics show.
A dramatic increase in poppy production in Afghanistan and Burma due to favourable weather conditions has been blamed for the increased supply of pure heroin, which experts say is destined for Sydney, which is renowned as Australia’s heroin capital.
The Australian National Council on Drugs yesterday warned low grade heroin supplies were being supplemented by higher concentrations.
“The increase in purity has a potential problem for more overdoses,” the council’s executive director Gino Vumbaca said.
“Sydney is the market where it comes to and there’s an increase in usage patterns.”
The UN has recently confirmed Burma had dramatically increased poppy yields.
“They’re expecting a lot of heroin to be produced and sold and the destination will be Sydney and Melbourne,” Mr Vumbaca said.
The trend has angered Australia’s leading drug support group which held a memorial service in Canberra this week – attended by more than 100 people – to pay tribute to family members lost to drug overdoses.
“We haven’t solved the problem, we haven’t done anything to make long-term solutions,” a Families and Friends for Drug Law Reform spokesman said.
The heroin issue was also raised at a national drug strategy conference on the Gold Coast yesterday with experts saying supplies were certainly on the rise.
National Drug and Alcohol Research Council spokeswoman Louisa Degenhardt said internal research showed drug users confirmed that heroin supply was increasing.
“A greater proportion said it was very easy to get compared to last year,” she said.

Source www.news.com.au Oct 2007

Filed under: Australia :

Methadone link as drug deaths soar

DRUG deaths soared from 111 to 162 in the Greater Glasgow and Clyde Health Board area last year.
Heroin or morphine was the cause of 97 deaths and methadone was involved in 58 cases.
In Glasgow alone, there were 113 drug-related deaths, a sharp rise from 75 last year.
The rises in both areas were far higher than anywhere else in the country.
The figures, in a report from the General Register Office, revealed there were 421 drug-related deaths in Scotland, 85 more than last year.
They also show that there were 204,168 methadone prescriptions in the Greater Glasgow and Clyde Health Board area at a cost of almost £4.7million Glasgow Tory MSP Bill Aitken said: “These figures are so bad they point to a loss of control over an already desperate problem.
“The message has got to get across that dabbling with drugs then becomes a serious addiction and frequently ends with the loss of a life.
“We have to react to these tragic statistics. There must be a no-tolerance approach to drug taking, strict and punitive enforcement on drug dealers and better efforts to rehabilitate those who are willing address their demons.”
Minister for Community Safety Fergus Ewing said drug abuse was “one of the greatest problems facing us as a nation”.
He added: “It’s a long term problem, we need long-term solutions – not quick fixes. We will launch a new drugs strategy next year that will be focussed on using resources more effectively to get addicts drug-free.
“Connecting people to the right services and integrated care to help them lead drug free lives should be the norm across Scotland rather than the exception.”

Source: Evening Times. 19/12/07

Filed under: Europe :

Let’s not go soft on hard drugs

IT IS clear for all to see that Ireland has a growing cocaine problem which we must face in a sensible and coherent manner. But in the process of tackling the problem, we must steer a careful path between two major mistakes that would make the situation worse.
The first mistake is that of normalising the problem by hyping its prevalence. The recent Prime Time Investigates programme grabbed the headlines with its findings that cocaine traces can be found in most pubs and nightclubs. But that is a long way from showing that most individuals take cocaine. If we create the impression that “everyone” takes cocaine when they clearly don’t, and if we communicate the idea that cocaine use is now the expected behaviour for young people, we can make the problem worse because of the powerful effect of social norm perceptions on human behaviour.
The second, and even greater, danger is to indulge in poorly thought-out policy reactions that will have the ultimate effect of making the problem worse. That’s why arguments about legalising cocaine and other drugs, must be rejected.
One of the arguments for legalisation is that state controls would put the crime lords out of business. But there is absolutely no evidence for this. Do we really believe that the gangs who have made millions, and who are prepared to kill to protect their narcotic empires, will simply walk away and retire?
At what age should children be allowed to buy legal cocaine? One study released earlier this year indicated that 40 per cent of Irish 15-year-olds have dabbled in illegal drugs. Should cocaine be legal for kids of this age? Unless we make cocaine more freely available than alcohol and tobacco, and place no age limits on it, a black market for underage cocaine will remain. In such a scenario, what’s to stop our drug lords killing each other to capture the teen coke market? And what if the cocaine magnates diversify into other banned substances, creating a new, expanded market where they won’t have to compete against the local cocaine-selling pharmacy? Do we really want expert drug pushers pursuing our teenagers in this way? What about the cost of legal cocaine? What’s to stop the criminal gangs from undercutting the price of legal cocaine?
But even if, in some alternative reality, the decriminalisation of cocaine would reduce crime, we still face a choice between two major evils and must ask ourselves which of them is the lesser: gangs wiping each other out or the prospect of even greater drug abuse and death in the rest of the population due to decriminalisation?
Legalising cocaine would inevitably increase drug consumption levels and with them, drug-related tragedies because the law plays a significant role in influencing human behaviour. Of course, it is peers that have the most intensely powerful impact on our behaviour, precisely because friends help to establish the social norms. But if this potent peer pressure has already led to a significant cocaine problem, how much greater would our problem be if the State endorsed cocaine?
Britain, in taking a softer approach to marijuana, has seen a 22 per cent increase in hospital admissions of cannabis users. The Netherlands, with its enlightened drugs policy, has seen a dramatic rise in heroin use since soft drugs were legalised. Meanwhile, Sweden, with some of the toughest drugs laws has Europe’s lowest consumption rate.
After the recent cocaine-related death of Kevin Doyle, 21, of Waterford, his family said that they “sincerely hope that no family has to suffer the pain that we are going through”. Can we really believe that a dangerous experiment with legalised cocaine would help their wish to come true?

Source: Independent i.e. Sunday December 23 2007
Patrick Kenny is a lecturer in marketing in the Dublin Institute of Technology.

Filed under: Europe :

Czech pot smokers exhale with relief over new drug law

Czech pot smokers have breathed a sigh of relief after the government clarified a law on drug use, turning the country into one of Europe’s safest havens for casual drug users.
Under the more transparent and liberal law in effect since January, people found in possession of up to 15 grammes (half an ounce) of marijuana or growing up to five cannabis plants no longer risk prison or a criminal record, but can only be fined if caught. The new law replaced an ambiguous one that made it a penalty to be in possession of “a larger than small amount” of marijuana.
But Karel Nespor, a doctor who heads the addiction treatment centre at Prague-Bohnice psychiatric hospital, is concerned about impact the eased law may have on health. “One study found that the risk of heart attack is four times higher in the hour after someone smokes a marijuana joint,” he recently told the Czech daily Dnes .”Marijuana use also risks provoking ‘cravings’ for the drug,” he said.
Adopted after years of wrangling, the new drug law also allows people to possess less than 1.5 grammes of heroin, a gramme of cocaine, up to five grammes of hashish, and five LSD blotter papers, pills, capsules or crystals.
Czechs can also legally grow up to five cannabis or coca plants or cacti containing mescaline, and possess up to 40 magic mushrooms. If growers comply with the legal limits, possession is treated as a minor offence, while the possession of bigger amounts may result in up to six months in prison for hemp and up to a year for magic mushrooms, plus a fine. In neighbouring Poland and Slovakia, people possessing any amount of marijuana risk ending up behind bars.

Source Daily Dose 18.03.10

Filed under: Europe :

Obama is AWOL in the Drug Wars

On March 1, Ethan Nadelmann of the Drug Policy Alliance had expressed pleasure that “Obama and his Drug Czar, Gil, have made it clear that they don’t want to talk about marijuana at all.” Nadelmann considered the silence to mean assent to his agenda of marijuana decriminalization and legalization. But just three days later, in a dramatic development, Gil Kerlikowske, the director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), came out in strong opposition to almost everything that Nadelmann and his “progressive” backers represent.

In a major speech on March 4, Kerlikowske denounced the use of marijuana, including its “medical” version, and cited facts and studies linking the weed to all kinds of health problems. “The concern with marijuana is not born out of any culture-war mentality, but out of what the science tells us about the drug’s effects,” he said. “And the science, though still evolving, is clear: marijuana use is harmful. It is associated with dependence, respiratory and mental illness, poor motor performance, and cognitive impairment, among other negative effects.”

This has to be perceived as a tremendous setback for Nadelmann and the rich liberals, led by George Soros and Peter Lewis, who have financed the drug legalization and “medical marijuana” movements. The Kerlikowske speech constitutes belated recognition that the drug wars south of the border are inexorably linked to the growing use of marijuana in California, where some of the same Mexican drug gangs are planting and harvesting their crop.
A report, Organized Crime in California Annual Report 2007-08, prepared by the California Department of Justice, states that “Mexican drug trafficking organizations [DTOs] command a large portion of the illegal drug trade in California.” Those DTOs, which “dominate the outdoor cultivation of marijuana in California,” are, in turn, linked to criminal street gangs and organized crime groups.

Maryland Considers Pro-pot Bill

Despite the wake-up call from Obama’s own Drug Czar, the well-financed movement to legalize dope continues on many fronts. On Thursday, March 18, Joyce Nalepka, former President of Nancy Reagan’s favorite charity, the National Federation of Parents for Drug-Free Youth, will testify in hearings before the Maryland State Legislature in Annapolis. She says that Maryland Senate Bill SB 627 would allow use of marijuana under the guise of “medicine.”
Thursday will mark the ninth time Nalepka has testified on this issue in Maryland. “There is nothing new to say, except the marijuana that kids are using today is so much more potent, they refer to it as ‘Skunk.’ Eighteen nations, including the U.S., now link ‘Skunk’ marijuana to depression, psychosis and schizophrenia,” she says.

On the national level, supported by Soros and Lewis, then-candidate Barack Obama adopted the soft-on-drugs approach. As President, his Attorney General Eric Holder decided to withhold federal resources from the war on drugs in California, at least as they apply to the growing “medical marijuana” program. But that was before a psychotic pothead named John Patrick Bedell came all the way from California with a “medical marijuana” card and opened fire on the entrance to the Pentagon, wounding two guards before getting killed himself.

Ironically, on the same day that Bedell was preparing his assault, Kerlikowske was getting ready to speak to the California Police Chiefs Association Conference in San Jose, California. His topic: “Why Marijuana Legalization Would Compromise Public Health and Public Safety.” The speech was so powerful, in terms of the facts he presented about the problems associated with marijuana, including “medical marijuana,” that it is somewhat shocking to consider that he has a job in the Obama Administration.

The editorial board of the Christian Science Monitor was pleasantly surprised, saying that “The Obama White House has finally laid out its most thorough, reasoned rebuttal to arguments for marijuana legalization—countering a campaign that is gaining alarming momentum at the state level.” Its editorial headline highlighted that this position had “finally” been articulated, reflecting frustration with the silence and confusion on the matter of drug legalization coming from the Obama Administration. The editorial referred to the “well-financed, well-organized pro-marijuana effort,” without noting that billionaires Soros and Lewis, major Democratic Party donors, are behind it. Obama should be asked at his next news conference, when and if he ever holds one, if he agrees with his Drug Czar about the dangers of dope, which he smoked as a young man, along with snorting cocaine. But the President has apparently been too busy with national health care legislation to take an interest in the health impact of illegal drugs and the drug wars that are resulting in part from its cultivation and use in the “Golden State.” Pot Linked to Mental Problems

In its editorial, “Marijuana legalization? A White House rebuttal, finally,” The Christian Science Monitor made prominent mention of John Patrick Bedell’s marijuana use and mental problems, which gave urgency to Kerlikowske’s remarks. It said, “The recent ‘Pentagon shooter,’ John Patrick Bedell, was a heavy marijuana user. The disturbed young man’s psychiatrist told the Associated Press that marijuana made the symptoms of his mental illness more pronounced.”
There is a contrast, as noted by the publication, between Kerlikowske’s tough talk to the California police chiefs and the Holder policy of withdrawing from a big part of the war on drugs in California. Attorney General Holder insists that the Department of Justice just doesn’t have the “resources” to do anything about the “medical marijuana” problem.

Kerlikowske alluded to “the problems associated with medical marijuana dispensaries,” where people get their dope with the simple approval of a pro-pot doctor, and said that “We’ve seen the problems of medical marijuana here in this state but also in places like Colorado, too, where kids are given the message that since marijuana is a medicine, it must be safe.” Although he failed to say anything about the Administration having basically given up on doing anything about those dispensaries, his comments have put him on a collision course with Holder and perhaps Obama himself. In California, anti-drug activists are examining what can be done about the pro-pot doctors behind the “medical marijuana” scam.

The Warning

As the Christian Science Monitor pointed out, some of the best material in the speech came in a jam-packed footnote. The paper said, “As Kerlikowske pointed out, marijuana is harmful—and he has the studies to back it up. Read the footnotes in his speech; they’re sobering, especially No. 8.” That footnote describes the scientific studies linking marijuana to respiratory illnesses, lung injury, and mental illness, including psychosis. Little did Kerlikowske know that, as he was speaking to the police chiefs, a crazed California pothead was on his way to try to kill people at the Pentagon because he thought the U.S. military was involved in a conspiracy of some sort. Of course, this is just one aspect of the mental problems associated with marijuana use. Simply put, the weed reduces the ability of people to think and act clearly.

On the matter of why drug legalization will increase and not solve any marijuana-related problems, Kerlikowske said that “it is clear that the social costs of legalizing marijuana would outweigh any possible tax that could be levied. In the United States, illegal drugs already cost $180 billion a year in health care, lost productivity, crime, and other expenditures. That number would only increase under legalization because of increased use.”
Regarding the claim that legalization would eliminate the black market, reduce crime and strike a blow against the drug trafficking organizations, he explained that the evidence indicates that there would still be a “profit motive for the existing black market providers to stay in the market, as they can still cover their costs of production and make a nice profit.” As a result, he noted, legalization would “saddle government with the dual burden of regulating a new legal market while continuing to pay for the negative side effects associated with an underground market whose providers have little economic incentive to disappear.”
In practical terms, he added, “Legalization means the price comes down, the number of users goes up, the underground market adapts, and the revenue gained through a regulated market will never keep pace with the financial and social cost of making this drug more accessible.”

Now Under Attack

Predictably, Kerlikowske is being attacked by the illegal drug lobby. The Peter Lewis-funded Marijuana Policy Project called his speech “supremely uneducated.” Like John Patrick Bedell, the potheads won’t rest until society recognizes their right to smoke, grow and even worship pot. Do they have an ally in President Obama? “Yes we Cannabis!” they say. But the public, concerned about a generation literally going to pot under a President who inhaled and liked it, may have something to say about that. With all the criticism of Obama’s various “Czars,” at least one of them, Gil Kerlikowske, has taken a bold stand that is out of step with what Obama’s “progressive” base has been demanding. It will be interesting to see how long he lasts.

Source Cliff Kincaid March 17 2010

Filed under: USA :

Why Marijuana Legalization Would Compromise Public Health and Public Safety


Thank you for inviting me here today to address your conference. I especially want to thank Chief Rob Davis for that introduction.
Furthermore, I’d like to congratulate and thank your new President, Susan Manheimer.
I also want to acknowledge my friend, Barney Malekian, and congratulate him on his appointment as the COPS Director. I believe our appointments speak very clearly about the level of support and respect this Administration has for local law enforcement.
You have been at the forefront of some very controversial issues, and I appreciate your leadership. Other states look to California 2
for guidance, and your thoughtful and timely efforts on drug issues ranging from medical marijuana to pseudoephedrine are important for the health and safety of all Americans.
When President Obama asked me to serve as Director of National Drug Control Policy, he explained that one of my first duties would be drafting his Administration’s first National Drug Control Strategy, laying out the policies and programs best suited to curb drug use and its consequences.
But the President didn’t want a traditional policy paper, with a few people from Washington putting their ideas down and then submitting to Congress a plan that would be forgotten or disregarded by the field. Instead, he asked me to travel the country and sit down with people on every side of this issue.
Since my confirmation, I’ve visited 37 cities in 19 states, as well as 8 foreign countries, holding roundtable discussions and meeting with hundreds of drug prevention and treatment experts, local officials, law enforcement, parents, teachers, community groups, academics, and young people.
We also convened a working group made up of the 35 Federal agencies with a role in the anti-drug effort. The group’s task was to develop a coordinated approach at the Federal level.
These months of consultations across the country helped highlight an important truth – that public safety and public health are threatened by drug use and its consequences. Addressing these 3
challenges requires a balanced, comprehensive, and evidence-based approach.
The Administration’s Drug Control Strategy, which will be released soon, will build on the hard-won knowledge we already have, but it will also incorporate new information and new tools that experience in the trenches and our best research have provided us.
The scope of our country’s drug problem is disturbingly clear: drug overdoses outnumber gunshot deaths in America and are fast approaching motor vehicle crashes as the leading cause of accidental death. It’s hard to believe since we seem to hear much more about H1N1, the Toyota recall, and texting while driving.
We are also deeply concerned about two relatively recent threats to public safety and public health: prescription drug abuse and drugged driving.
Prescription drug abuse harms the people who take these pills and those close to them. While we must ensure access to medications that alleviate suffering, it is also vital that we do all we can to curtail diversion and abuse of pharmaceuticals.
Past-year initiation of non-medical prescription drug use has surpassed the rate for marijuana.1 Moreover, between 1997 and 2007, treatment admissions for prescription painkillers increased more than 400 percent. The latest data from the Monitoring the Future study show that seven out of the top ten drugs used by teens are prescription drugs
.
1 Results from the 2008 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: National Findings, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), 2009 4
2 Treatment Episode Data Set (TEDS) Highlights – 2007, SAMHSA: National Admissions to Substance Abuse Treatment Services.
3 Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN), SAMHSA, 2010. Found at https://dawninfo.samhsa.gov/
4 See Supra note 1.
And between 2004 and 2008, the number of visits to hospital emergency departments involving the non-medical use of narcotic painkillers increased 111 percent.3
Because prescription drugs are legal, they are easily accessible, often from a home medicine cabinet. Further, some individuals who misuse prescription drugs, particularly teens, believe these substances are safer than illicit drugs because they are prescribed by a healthcare professional and sold behind the counter. This is not the drug that people buy behind a gas station wrapped in tin foil, and so people think it is somehow safer.
We know from the latest National Survey on Drug Use and Health that most people who abuse these drugs are getting them from friends and family or from a doctor.4
As law enforcement professionals and community leaders, you can help spread an important message to parents and other adults: If you have unused prescription drugs in your home, dispose of them properly. I also know that many of you have initiated take-backs with the community to help this problem, and I applaud you for that. 5
Another priority for us this year is drugged driving.
A Department of Transportation study released in December showed that 16 percent of nighttime weekend drivers were under the influence of a licit or illicit drug.5

5 2007 National Roadside Survey of Alcohol and Drug Use by Drivers: Drug Results, U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, December 2009. Accessible at http://www.ondcp.gov/publications/pdf/07roadsidesurvey.pdf

This study highlighted the alarming prevalence of drugged driving, and I’ve made anti-drugged driving efforts a top priority.
We will be assessing how we can help states deal with this issue, and I will be meeting with leaders – from trainers of Drug Recognition Experts (DRE), to police chiefs, researchers, and policy makers –to see how the Administration can engage with them to reduce this threat.
This evening I’ll be in Sacramento, meeting with 30 officers currently undergoing DRE training. I will encourage them in their efforts and sit down with them to better understand the issues they face in this area.
I know it is impossible to talk about drug policy issues ranging from prevention to policing, from drugged driving to treatment, without mentioning the role of the most commonly used illicit drug today – marijuana.
You all know the impacts of marijuana in this state– from the proliferation of marijuana being grown on public lands and indoor grows, to the negative effects of marijuana use among youth, the 6
increasing influence of violent gangs on the marijuana trade, and the problems associated with medical marijuana dispensaries.
As I’ve said from the day I was sworn in, marijuana legalization – for any purpose – is a non-starter in the Obama Administration. I’d like to explain why we take this position.
First, on the medical marijuana issue, I believe that the science should determine what a medicine is, not popular vote.
We’ve seen the problems of medical marijuana here in this state but also in places like Colorado, too, where kids are given the message that since marijuana is a medicine, it must be safe.6

6 “Doctor says medical marijuana laws hurt teens,” NPR. Talk of the Nation, Feb, 10, 2010. Accessible at http://www.npr.org/templates/rundowns/rundown.php?prgId=5&prgDate=02-10-2010
7 “Government to scale down coffee shops,” Ministry of Health, Welfare, and Sport, Sept. 11, 2009. Accessible at http://www.minvws.nl/en/nieuwsberichten/vgp/2009/government-to-scale-down-coffee-shops.asp. Also see “Dutch border towns to close coffee-shops,” Expatica, October 24, 2008, http://www.expatica.com/fr/news/local_news/Dutch-border-towns-close-coffee_shops.html. It is also worth noting that research from MacCoun, R. and Reuter, P. (2001; Drug War Heresies, Cambridge University Press) shows that, despite traditionally higher rates of marijuana use in the U.S., there was a tripling in lifetime marijuana use and a more than doubling of past-month use among 18- to 20-year-olds in the Netherlands from 1984 to 1996 – a time when the commercialization of Dutch coffee shops was rapidly expanding

But we’ve also seen how localities are dealing with this, with success, through zoning, planning regulations, nuisance laws, and other mechanisms.
I recently met with officials from the Netherlands, they are closing down marijuana outlets – or “coffee shops” – because of the nuisance and crime risks associated with them. What used to be thousands of shops have now been reduced to a few hundred, and some cities are shutting them down completely.7 7
This brings me to the issue of outright legalization.
The concern with marijuana is not born out of any culture-war mentality, but out of what the science tells us about the drug’s effects.
And the science, though still evolving, is clear: marijuana use is harmful. It is associated with dependence, respiratory and mental illness, poor motor performance, and cognitive impairment, among other negative effects.8

8 Moore and colleagues (2005) summed up the literature on respiratory illnesses and marijuana in the Journal of General Internal Medicine by stating that “the current literature of case reports and clinical samples suggests that marijuana-related respiratory problems may constitute a significant public health burden.” See Moore, B.A., et al, Respiratory effects of marijuana and tobacco use in a U.S. sample, Journal of General Internal Medicine 20(1):33-37, 2005. Also see Tashkin, D.P., Smoked marijuana as a cause of lung injury, Monaldi Archives for Chest Disease 63(2):93-100, 2005. Other evidence on the effect of marijuana on lung function and the respiratory system, and the link with mental illness, can be found in expert reviews offered by Hall W.D, and Pacula R.L. (2003), Cannabis use and dependence: Public health and public policy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press., and Room, R., Fischer, B., Hall, W., Lenton, S., and Reuter, P. (2009), Cannabis Policy: Moving beyond stalemate, The Global Cannabis Commission Report, the Beckley Foundation. Room et al. write, “Cannabis use and psychotic symptoms are associated in general population surveys and the relationship persists after adjusting for confounders. The best evidence that these associations may be causal comes from longitudinal studies of large representative cohorts.” Also see Degenhardt, L. & Hall, W. (2006), Is cannabis a contributory cause of psychosis? Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 51: 556-565. A major study examining young people and, importantly, a subset of sibling pairs was released in February 2010 and concluded that marijuana use at a young age significantly increased the risk of psychosis in young adulthood. See McGrath, J., et al. (2010), Association between cannabis use and psychosis-related outcomes using sibling pair analysis in a cohort of young adults, Archives of General Psychiatry.

We know that over 110,000 people who showed up voluntarily at treatment facilities in 2007 reported marijuana as their primary substance of abuse.9 Additionally, in 2008 marijuana was involved in 375,000 emergency visits nationwide.10 8
Several studies have shown that marijuana dependence is real and causes harm. We know that more than 30 percent of past-year marijuana users age 18 and older are classified as dependent on the drug,11 and that the lifetime prevalence of marijuana dependence in the US population is higher than that for any other illicit drug. Those dependent on marijuana often show signs of withdrawal and compulsive behavior.12

11 Compton, W., Grant, B., Colliver, J., Glantz; M., Stinson, F. (2004), Prevalence of Marijuana Use Disorders in the United States: 1991-1992 and 2001-2002, Journal of the American Medical Association, 291:2114-2121.
12 Budney, A.J. & Hughes, J.R. (2006), The cannabis withdrawal syndrome, Current Opinion in Psychiatry, 19: 233-238.; Budney, A.J., Hughes, J.R., Moore, B.A. & Vandrey, R. (2004), Review of the validity and significance of cannabis withdrawal syndrome. American Journal of Psychiatry, 161: 1967-1977.; Budney, A.J.,Vandrey, R.G., Hughes, J.R., Moore, B.A. & Bahrenburg, B. (2007), Oral delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol suppresses cannabis withdrawal symptoms, Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 86: 22-29.; Kouri, E.M. & Pope, H.G. (2000), Abstinence symptoms during withdrawal from chronic marijuana use, Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 8: 483-492.; Jones, R.T., Benowitz, N. & Herning, R.I. (1976), The 30-day trip: clinical studies of cannabis use, tolerance and dependence. In Braude, M. & Szara, S. (eds.), The Pharmacology of Marijuana. New York: Academic Press, Vol. 2, pp. 627-642.
13 For a review of the evidence on marijuana and educational attainment, see: Lynskey, M.T. & Hall, W.D. (2000), The effects of adolescent cannabis use on educational attainment: a review, Addiction, 96: 433-443.

Travelling the country, I’ve often heard from local treatment specialists that marijuana dependence is as a major problem at call-in centers offering help for people using drugs.
Marijuana negatively affects users in other ways, too. For example, prolonged use is associated with lower test scores and lower educational attainment because during periods of intoxication the drug affects the ability to learn and process information, thus influencing attention, concentration, and short-term memory.13 9
Advocates of legalization say the costs of prohibition – mainly through the criminal justice system – place a great burden on taxpayers and governments.
While there are certainly costs to current prohibitions, legalizing drugs would not cut the costs of the criminal justice system. Arrests for alcohol-related crimes such as violations of liquor laws and driving under the influence totaled nearly 2.7 million in 2008. Marijuana-related arrests totaled around 750,000 in 2008. 14

14 Federal Bureau of Investigation (2008) Uniform crime reports, Washington, DC. Available at: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm
15 Heron M., Hoyert D., Murphy S., et al. Deaths: Final data for 2006. National vital statistics reports; vol 57 no 14. Hyattsville, MD, National Center for Health Statistics, 2009. See http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr57/nvsr57_14.pdf
16 For example, see: Williams, J., Pacula, R., Chaloupka, F., and Wechsler, H. (2004), “Alcohol and Marijuana Use Among College Students: Economic Complements or Substitutes?” Health Economics 13(9): 825-843.; Pacula R., Ringel, J., Suttorp, M. and Truong, K. (2008), An Examination of the Nature and Cost of Marijuana Treatment Episodes. RAND Working Paper presented at the American Society for Health Economics Annual Meeting, Durham, NC, June 2008. Jacobson, M. (2004), “Baby Booms and Drug Busts: Trends in Youth Drug Use in the United States, 1975-2000,” Quarterly Journal of Economics 119(4): 1481-1512.

Our current experience with legal, regulated prescription drugs like Oxycontin shows that legalizing drugs is not a panacea. In fact, its legalization widens its availability and misuse, no matter what controls are in place. In 2006, drug-induced deaths reached a high of over 38,000, according to the Centers for Disease Control – an increase driven primarily by the non-medical use of pharmaceutical drugs.15
Controls and prohibitions help to keep prices higher, and higher prices help keep use rates relatively low, since drug use, especially among young people, is known to be sensitive to price.16
The relationship between pricing and rates of youth substance use is well-established with respect to alcohol and cigarette taxes. 10 There is literature showing that increases in the price of cigarettes triggers declines in use.17

17 See, for example, Chaloupka, F., “Macro-Social Influences: Effects of Prices and Tobacco Control Policies on the Demand for Tobacco Products,” Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 1999, and other price studies at http://tigger.uic.edu/~fjc and www.uic.edu/orgs/impacteen. Orzechowski & Walker, Tax Burden on Tobacco, 2006. USDA Economic Research Service, www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/tobacco. Farelly, M., et al., State Cigarette Excise Taxes: Implications for Revenue and Tax Evasion, RTI International, May, 2003, http://www.rti.org/pubs/8742_Excise_Taxes_FR_5-03.pdf. Country tax offices. CDC, Data Highlights 2006 [and underlying CDC data/estimates]. Miller, P., et al, “Birth and First-Year Costs for Mothers and Infants Attributable to Maternal Smoking,” Nicotine & Tobacco Research 3(1):25-35, February 2001. Lightwood, J. & Glantz, S., “Short-Term Economic and Health Benefits of Smoking Cessation – Myocardial Infarction and Stroke,” Circulation 96(4):1089-1096, August 19, 1997, http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/full/96/4/1089. Hodgson, T., “Cigarette Smoking and Lifetime Medical Expenditures,” The Millbank Quarterly 70(1), 1992. U.S. Census. National Center for Health Statistics.
18 See http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=399
19 Harwood, H. (2000), Updating Estimates of the Economic Costs of Alcohol Abuse in the United States: Estimates, Update Methods and Data. Report prepared for the National Institute on Alcoholism and Alcohol Abuse.

Marijuana has also been touted as a cure-all for disease and black market violence – and for California’s budget woes. Once again, however, there are important facts that are rarely discussed in the public square.
The tax revenue collected from alcohol pales in comparison to the costs associated with it. Federal excise taxes collected on alcohol in 2007 totaled around $9 billion; states collected around $5.5 billion.18
Taken together, this is less than 10 percent of the over $185 billion in alcohol-related costs from health care, lost productivity, and criminal justice.19
Alcohol use by underage drinkers results in $3.7 billion a year in medical costs due to traffic crashes, violent crime, suicide attempts, and other related consequences.20 11

20 See Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation (PIRE), 2009, Underage Drinking Costs. Accessed on March, 1, 2010. Available at http://www.udetc.org/UnderageDrinkingCosts.asp
21 State estimates found at supra note 27. Federal estimates found at https://www.policyarchive.org/bitstream/handle/10207/3314/RS20343_20020110.pdf, Also see http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/31/weekinreview/31saul.html?em and http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/research/factsheets/pdf/0072.pdf; Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids, see “Smoking-caused costs” on p.2.
22 The Economic Costs of Drug Abuse in the United States, 1992-2002, Office of National Drug Control Policy, Executive Office of the President, Washington, DC: (Publication No. 207303), 2004.
23 Pacula, R. (2009). Legalizing Marijuana: Issues to Consider Before Reforming California State Law. Accessed at www.rand.org

Tobacco also does not carry its economic weight when we tax it; each year we spend more than $200 billion and collect only about $25 billion in taxes.21
Though I sympathize with the current budget predicament – and acknowledge that we must find innovative solutions to get us on a path to financial stability – it is clear that the social costs of legalizing marijuana would outweigh any possible tax that could be levied. In the United States, illegal drugs already cost $180 billion a year in health care, lost productivity, crime, and other expenditures.22 That number would only increase under legalization because of increased use.
Rosy evaluations of the potential economic savings from legalization have been criticized by many in the economic community. For example, the California Board of Equalization estimated that $1.4 billion of potential revenue could arise from legalization. This assessment, according to a researcher out of the independent RAND Corporation is, and I quote, “based on a series of assumptions that are in some instances subject to tremendous uncertainty and in other cases not valid.”23 12
Recent testimony from a RAND researcher concluded that “There is a tremendous profit motive for the existing black market providers to stay in the market, as they can still cover their costs of production and make a nice profit.”24

24 Ibid.
25 Gruber J., Sen, A. & Stabile, M. (2003), “Estimating Price Elasticities When There is Smuggling:
The Sensitivity of Smoking to Price in Canada,” Journal of Health Economics 22(5): 821-842.
26 See Supra note 23.

Canada’s experience with taxing cigarettes showed that a $2 tax differential per pack versus the United States created such a huge black market smuggling problem that Canada repealed its tax increases.25
Legalizing marijuana would also saddle government with the dual burden of regulating a new legal market while continuing to pay for the negative side effects associated with an underground market whose providers have little economic incentive to disappear.26
Now that I’ve told you what the research says, let me tell you what this means in practical terms. Legalization means the price comes down, the number of users goes up, the underground market adapts, and the revenue gained through a regulated market will never keep pace with the financial and social cost of making this drug more accessible.
Now let’s talk about what will work to reduce drug use. 13

The Office of National Drug Control Policy is pursuing a combined, coordinated public health and public safety strategy.
This strategy recognizes that the most promising drug policy is one that prevents drug use in the first place.
We have many proven methods for reducing the demand for drugs. The demand can be decreased with comprehensive, evidence-based prevention programs focused on adolescence, which science confirms is the peak period for drug-use initiation and the potential for addiction.
Our young people must be made aware of the risks of drug use – at home, in school, in sports leagues, in faith communities, in places of work, and in other settings and activities that attract youth.
This is vital because an individual who reaches age 21 without smoking, using drugs or abusing alcohol is virtually certain never to do so.
ONDCP’s National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign can reinforce these efforts by connecting with youth through popular television shows, Internet sites, magazines, and films. Community anti-drug coalitions can provide an environment conducive to remaining drug-free. Expanding early intervention services for drug users and treatment options for the addicted will also be major components of our effort to reduce demand for drugs in this country. 14
Surveys of prevalence show that these efforts work. Drug use today remains comparatively low. Annual marijuana prevalence peaked among 12th graders in 1979 at 51 percent. By 2009, annual prevalence had fallen by about one-third. Similar statistics can be found for other age groups. However, we are seeing some troubling signs that have bubbled up in the last year or two. The perception that drugs are dangerous is dropping, and that usually predicts imminent increases in use.
At the same time, we’ve learned that trying to manage drug-addicted criminal offenders entirely through the criminal justice system results in a costly, destructive cycle of arrest, incarceration, release, and re-arrest.
Together, we can transform this situation through new collaborations between the criminal justice system and the treatment system. Drug courts are just one example of how these systems can work together.
Re-entry programs that provide addiction treatment, combined with intensive monitoring and swift and certain sanctions for violations – as evidenced by Hawaii’s HOPE program – are another example of the kind of scientifically supported cross-system initiatives we seek to expand, especially in the probation system, which represents a highly important but often under-utilized and forgotten role in drug and crime control.
We advocate further research on pre-arrest diversion programs like the one piloted in High Point, North Carolina. These programs threaten dealers in a community with credible sanctions, but also 15
offer them other resources to change their lives. Research on these kinds of pre-arrest diversion programs is just emerging, but preliminary results have been positive.
We are also firm believers in the law enforcement techniques you employ every day, based on local assessments of needs and available resources.
A balanced approach based on a combination of public health and public safety strategies is the surest route to reducing drug use and its consequences. This approach employs best practices in prevention, treatment, and law enforcement with community partners. We know that working together has resulted in lowering crime and drug use.
Thank you for being on the front line of these issues. I look forward to supporting you to reduce drug use and its consequences.

Source: Statement from ONDCP Director R. Gil Kerlikowske
Delivered at the California Police Chiefs Association Conference
March 4th, 2010 San Jose, CA

Filed under: USA :

More drug de-addiction centres mooted across India

Admitting an absence of credible data affording an insight into the drug abuse situation in the country, Union Minister of Social Justice and Empowerment Mukul Wasnik said he has suggested setting up of more drug de-addiction centres across India.

Wasnik said he has suggested to the union health ministry to consider setting up of centers, like “national drugs dependent treatment centre, which is functioning at All India Institute of Medical Sciences”, in different parts of India as it would be a big step in dealing with drug abuse.

He was speaking after releasing the International Narcotic Control Board ’ s (INCB) 2009 annual report here.

“I would have to admit that data available on drug abuse has not been of such a nature that can give us a total insight into the entire situation,” Wasnik said.

He added that his ministry has been coordinating with other ministries on the issue and a big network of about 350 voluntary organisations is involved in dealing with the situation.   The INCB report highlights that rates of drug abuse tend to be higher among teenagers and young adults.   Another new trend noted by the report is increase in young women using drugs – the gap with the level of drug use by young men has narrowed substantially.

It said: “Primary prevention strategies need to focus on the whole population, as such strategies can reduce demands for drugs as well as identify gaps or population that is not sufficiently served.”   “Primary prevention needs to begin with prospective parents, by raising their awareness of the harms caused by drug, alcohol or tobacco abuse during pregnancy,” it added.

“Drug education is an important prevention component in early adolescence. Nightclubs, discotheques, bars and music festivals are key locations for getting messages about drug abuse across the older adolescents and young adults, as well as colleges and universities,” the report said.

It said that besides other steps, there needs to be collaboration with NGOs and others to tackle drug abuse.

Source:Times of India 25th Feb 2010

Filed under: Asia :

Canada to look at drug policies

 

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

 

Safe-injection sites (SIS)– typically inner-city facilities where addicts may go to shoot up with clean needles under the watchful eye of medical specialists –are often said to work wonders. Benefits claimed on behalf of Insite, Canada’s one and only SIS in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside since 2003, include reduced needle sharing, reduced spread of deadly diseases such as HIV and hepatitis, fewer needles discarded in surrounding neighbourhoods and fewer addicts overdosing in alleys. Lives have been saved, advocates claim, the “well-being of drug users improved,” and all without increased street dealing around Insite.

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

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

That has certainly been the case in Europe. Currently there are more than three dozen major European cities on record against SISs. Most have had such facilities and closed them because they found that drug problems increased, not decreased.

After an injection site was opened in Rotterdam in the early 1990s, the municipal council reported a doubling of the number of 15- to 19-year-olds addicted to heroine or cocaine. Over the 1990s, the Dutch Criminal Intelligence Service reported a 25% increase in drug-related gun murders and robberies in neighbourhoods housing one of that country’s 50 official methadone clinics or addict shelters. Zurich closed its infamous needle park in 1992, after the police and citizenry became fed up with public urination and defecation, prostitution, open sex, panhandling, drug peddling, loud fights and violent crimes.

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

 

Source:Addiction & Recovery News May 2007

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

Parents encourage youngsters to drink, finds Oz study

A new Australian study suggests that parental encouragement leads to alcoholism in teenagers. The latest MBF Healthwatch survey found that 63percent of Aussies in the higher income bracket approve of alcohol consumption by 15 to 17 year olds at home under the eyes of parents.
“Our survey suggests many Australians believe it’s acceptable to buy alcohol for teenagers and allow them to drink under parental supervision at home,” Bupa Australia Chief Medical Officer, Dr Christine Bennett, said.
Dr Bennett continued: “Some parents may think this is harmless; some may see this approach as a way to teach their teenage children about socially responsible drinking. But we want parents to understand that early exposure may actually be doing them damage. “Evidence suggests that the earlier the age that alcohol is introduced, the greater the risk of long-term alcohol related health problems.
“Binge drinking in young people is on the rise. Too much alcohol impairs young people’s judgement, which can lead to violence, injury and build a pattern of use that leads to lifetime dependence. “It’s shocking to think that one teenager a week dies of alcohol abuse. We teach children about the harmful effects of smoking, unsafe sex and taking illicit drugs, but we also need to teach them about the damage that alcohol can do.”
The survey also found that people’s acceptance of supervised underage drinking was closely related to their income levels. Nearly 63percent people earning over 100,000 dollars approved supervised drinking; 53percent people with incomes between 70,001 to 100,000 dollars were comfortable with the idea followed by 48percent people getting paychecks ranging from 40,001 to 70,000 dollars.
Dr Bennett added: “Given that social drinking is a common part of the Australian culture, our challenge is to help our young people learn how to enjoy alcohol in a socially responsible way and protect them from harm now and in the long-term.
“That will mean educating young people about the risks of underage drinking and, as parents and a community, being good role models.”

Source: Health News Dec. 3rd 2009

Filed under: Alcohol,Australia,Parents,Youth :

Kids who drink with parents ‘develop alcohol problems’

Children, whose parents allow them to have alcohol at home in a bid to teach responsible drinking, drink even more outside of home, a new study claims.
A study of 428 Dutch families has found that teens who drank under their parents’ watch or on their own were at a greater risk of developing alcohol-related problems. The researchers insists that the study puts into question the advice of some experts who recommend that parents drink with their teenage children with the aim of limiting their drinking outside of the home.
Dr. Haske van der Vorst, the lead researcher on the study, said: “The idea is generally based on common sense. For example, the thinking is that if parents show good behavior-here, modest drinking-then the child will copy it. Another assumption is that parents can control their child’s drinking by drinking with the child.” Every family, which was quizzed, had two children between the ages of 13 and 15. Parents and teens completed questionnaires on drinking habits at the outset and again one and two years later.
The researchers found that, in general, the more teens drank at home, the more they tended to drink elsewhere; the reverse was also true, with out-of-home drinking leading to more drinking at home.
In addition, teens who drank more often, whether in or out of the home, tended to score higher on a measure of problem drinking two years later.
Haske van der Vorst, of Radboud University Nijmegen in the Netherlands concluded: “I would advise parents to prohibit their child from drinking, in any setting or on any occasion. “If parents want to reduce the risk that their child will become a heavy drinker or problem drinker in adolescence, they should try to postpone the age at which their child starts drinking.” (ANI)

Source: Health News. Jan 28th 2010

Filed under: Alcohol,Europe,Parents,Youth :

Teens Who Drink With Parents May Still Develop Alcohol Problems

Parents who try to teach responsible drinking by letting their teenagers have alcohol at home may be well intentioned, but they may also be wrong, according to a new study in the latest issue of the Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs.

In a study of 428 Dutch families, researchers found that the more teenagers were allowed to drink at home, the more they drank outside of home as well. What’s more, teens who drank under their parents’ watch or on their own had an elevated risk of developing alcohol-related problems. Drinking problems included trouble with school work, missed school days and getting into fights with other people, among other issues.

The findings, say the researchers, put into question the advice of some experts who recommend that parents drink with their teenage children to teach them how to drink responsibly — with the aim of limiting their drinking outside of the home.

That advice is common in the Netherlands, where the study was conducted, but it is based more on experts’ reasoning than on scientific evidence, according to Dr. Haske van der Vorst, the lead researcher on the study.

“The idea is generally based on common sense,” says van der Vorst, of Radboud University Nijmegen in the Netherlands. “For example, the thinking is that if parents show good behavior — here, modest drinking — then the child will copy it. Another assumption is that parents can control their child’s drinking by drinking with the child.”

But the current findings suggest that is not the case.

Based on this and earlier studies, van der Vorst says, “I would advise parents to prohibit their child from drinking, in any setting or on any occasion.”

The study included 428 families with two children between the ages of 13 and 15. Parents and teens completed questionnaires on drinking habits at the outset and again one and two years later.

The researchers found that, in general, the more teens drank at home, the more they tended to drink elsewhere; the reverse was also true, with out-of-home drinking leading to more drinking at home. In addition, teens who drank more often, whether in or out of the home, tended to score higher on a measure of problem drinking two years later.

The findings, according to van der Vorst, suggest that teen drinking begets more drinking — and, in some cases, alcohol problems — regardless of where and with whom they drink.

“If parents want to reduce the risk that their child will become a heavy drinker or problem drinker in adolescence,” she says, “they should try to postpone the age at which their child starts drinking.”

Available at: http://www.jsad.com/jsad/link/71/105

Source: H. van der Vorst Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs 71 (1), 105-114. Jan 2010

Filed under: Europe,Parents,Parents :

Cocaine in half of all schools in Rotterdam

Amsterdam: – The alderman of Rotterdam, responsible for education, Leonard Geluk wants that all middle schools are going to perform drug tests among their students in order to track down traces of use. Geluk responded to the outcome of a test, done by the topicality show Netwerk on 12 different schools in Rotterdam. At half of these schools traces of cocaine were found. It is new and startling to find that cocaine is used at so many schools. I am really worried about this.

Netwerk had these tests performed in the same way the police and military police use to track down drug use. Besides traces of drugs, traces of marihuana use were found on 10 out of these 12 schools. At one school traces of heroin use were found. If you, as a parent, send your child to a school in Rotterdam, you can not and will not expect that your child encounters drugs, and especially not cocaine. The truth of the matter is very different and concerning.

Alderman Geluk pleas to perform drug tests on students who are allegedly drug users. Geluk is –by this plea- quicker than the minister of Justice, who has promised the Chamber a letter about the use of spray to track down traces of use. If there are any legal difficulties about using this spray, we have to check the other possibilities in order to be able to test on drugs.

Source: Renee Besselling Eurad Secretariat 15.01.08

Filed under: Europe :

Federal anti-drug campaign will educate youth on ‘harms of illicit drug use’

OTTAWA — A new national program designed to prevent youth from using drugs received $10 million from the federal government Wednesday.

The money is slated to go toward the Drug Prevention Strategy for Youth, a new five-year plan led by the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse, the government-supported national agency for substance abuse. The strategy will target youth between the ages of 10 and 24 and will have several goals: to reduce the number of youth using illegal drugs, to delay and deter the onset of drug use, to reduce the frequency of drug use, and to reduce multiple drug use among those young people who do use.

The funding comes out of the government’s $64-million National Anti-Drug Strategy, launched last fall. Part of that plan includes a two-year mass media campaign by Health Canada aimed specifically at youth. Health Minister Tony Clement, speaking at the Ottawa-based CCSA, said there hasn’t been a “serious or significant” anti-drug campaign in almost 20 years, and one is long overdue. He said the CCSA’s national prevention strategy is key to the government’s plan.

“This project will reach out to young people and will provide them and their parents the plain truth on the harms of illicit drug use,” said Clement. “We will discourage young people from thinking there are ‘safe’ amounts, or ‘safe’ drugs. And we will highlight the fact that, for young people, having clear and unimpaired judgment is a safety issue,” the health minister said.

The CCSA’s strategy will complement Health Canada’s media blitz with a new consortium media corporations, marketing and advertising agencies, youth agencies and parent groups. It will reinforce many of Health Canada’s messages, but on a wider platform, and with high-risk populations targeted.

According to the CCSA, the average age a Canadian tries an illegal drug for the first time is around 14 or 15, so prevention messages need to start as early as 10 years of age. Sixty per cent of illegal drug users in Canada are 15 to 24 years old, according to the national substance abuse agency, and young people are the most likely to use and abuse substances, and to experience harm as a result.

Source: Canwest News Service January 31, 2008

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=a9d26354-09a5-4fc0-a6aa-89d120ed22b1

Filed under: Canada :

Plea deal for Canada’s “Prince of Pot” falls apart

VANCOUVER, British Columbia (Reuters) – Canada’s “Prince of Pot” believes the Canadian government wants to punish him by blocking a plea deal with U.S. authorities, who want him to face charges of selling marijuana seeds from his Vancouver store to American customers.
Canada refused to go along with Marc Emery’s deal with U.S. prosecutors to plead guilty in return for the United States dropping charges against two co-accused and allowing him to serve most of the sentence in a Canadian prison, the marijuana activist said on Friday.
The B.C. Marijuana Party founder said Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Conservative government is pursuing a get-tough policy on drug use and is upset by his long-running campaign for marijuana legalization.
“They want to make an example out of me,” Emery told CKNW radio in Vancouver. “They just don’t like me.”
Emery was arrested in 2005 at the request of U.S. officials for allegedly selling millions of dollars in seeds to U.S. buyers, mostly by mail-order, from the seed business he operated openly in Canada for years.
A U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency statement in 2005 hailed Emery’s arrest as blow to the “marijuana legalization movement” and cited his financial support of pro-pot groups in Canada and the United States.
Emery is also charged with money laundering, but he says he can prove he declared all his earnings to Canadian tax officials and gave most of the profits to charities and political candidates.
He is scheduled to appear in a Vancouver court next month, with an extradition hearing likely to start late in the year.
Source: Reuters Canada 28th March 2008

Filed under: Canada :

Scotsman exclusive: Growth industry Scots don’t need

POLICE have raided 100 cannabis factories capable of producing more than £60m worth of the drug for home and export. More than 100 cannabis factories capable of producing nearly £60 million of a super-strong variety of the drug every year have been found in Scotland.

The Scotsman can reveal the alarming scale of cannabis cultivation in a country which has never before witnessed large-scale illegal drug production.It comes as Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister, insisted he is determined to see cannabis upgraded back to a Class B drug in order to send a signal to young people that its use was “unacceptable”.

But a government drugs advisory panel appears set to recommend that it stays at Class C .

In Scotland about 43,000 plants – mainly a high-strength variety known as “skunk” – have been recovered from houses, garages, and disused factories since south-east Asian crime gangs began setting up illicit production plants in the summer of 2006. An explosion in cannabis cultivation has been witnessed over the past 18 months as organised crime, sensing massive profits from a previously non-existent drug export trade, has moved in after being forced out of England and Wales.

For an outlay of about £30,000, individuals can set up a cultivation capable of reaping more than £500,000 worth of cannabis every year. They rig up high-powered lighting and watering systems in order to grow the skunk plants quickly. Despite the high demand for cannabis in the UK, police suspect the operation has yielded so many plants that much of it is being exported into lucrative markets in Europe and beyond.

The phenomenon has alarmed police and prosecutors, triggering a massive operation to root out factories and causing a senior judge to take the unusual step of issuing sentence guidelines to ward off potential growers. The trade is fuelling a growing human trafficking problem. A number of illegal immigrants involved in running cannabis factories, mainly from China and Vietnam, have been arrested since a Scottish police crackdown – called Operation League – began in December 2006. Some are locked in properties 24 hours a day in temperatures exceeding 38C as the bosses threaten to harm their families back home.

Detective Chief Superintendent Stephen Whitelock, head of intelligence at Strathclyde Police, said: “Within Strathclyde to date we’ve identified 70 cultivations and recovered over 35,000 plants. That equates to a maximum street value of £11million. More than 50 people have been arrested. “Across Scotland we’re talking over 100 cultivations and over 43,000 plants worth around £14million.”

Each plant is capable of producing four harvests every year, meaning the 100 factories smashed by police would have created an annual revenue of nearly £60 million had they gone undetected. More than two-thirds of the cannabis factories shut down by police have been found in Strathclyde, but others have been uncovered in towns virtually the length and breadth of the country, including Ayr, Thurso, Newmachar, Cambuslang and Livingston.

As well as the production of the illegal drug, police are extremely concerned about the risk of a fatality if a factory catches fire.

One officer told The Scotsman that the vast amount of heating equipment used to cultivate cannabis, and the fact that many of the factories tap straight into the electricity mains supply to avoid detection, meant it was “miracle” there have been no serious blazes. Each factory typically uses around 20 times the power used for a normal house to grow the cannabis. The cost to power companies is thought to be about £2 million a year.

Police, who say the number of officers on Operation League fluctuates depending on the amount of information they receive, have been known to monitor power supplies and even use infra-red cameras in spotter planes to identify areas of unexplained heat. Mr Whitelock said Operation League had been a huge success, revealing that most factories had been uncovered following tip-offs from the public.

“The main point of Operation League was to put it into the public arena, the threat of organised crime. We’ve had a great response from the public, speaking to officers and phoning Crimestoppers. “The public are generally aware what to look for – that gives us the eyes and ears of five million people in Scotland.

“They’ve had a significant impact on those involved in this area of criminality. But it remains a profitable concern for those involved. “They’re using Scotland as a base to cultivate cannabis for a market elsewhere that has yet to be identified. “Scotland is a consumer society for drugs. But we are now seeing cannabis being produced within our own shores.” He added: “We have identified the production sites, we have identified those involved in the manufacture and production of the plant. But there are obviously plants being cultivated and that is where our knowledge gap is: where do the plants go?”

Police believe the same crime network is involved because of similarities in electrical work and joinery they have found in their raids. Mr Whitelock appealed to landlords to help stamp out cannabis cultivation, insisting they have a responsibility to check what is going on in their properties.

He said police had a “better understanding” of the problem thanks to Operation League. “But it would be naive to say there are no other cannabis activities ongoing,” he added. “The primary people involved are south-east Asian organised crime groups. There are many links also with indigenous crime groups,” added Mr Whitelock.

Last November, Scottish judges were given tough new sentencing guidelines in an attempt to crack down on cannabis farms. Lord Hamilton, the Lord Justice General, said the move was needed to tackle a big increase in the farms, warning that even low-level cannabis “gardeners” should expect to face between four and five years in prison.

Source: The Scotsman.4.4.2008

Filed under: Europe :

Smoking, drinking and illicit drugs are costing the Australian economy $56 billion a year.

Australia’s drinking, smoking and drug-taking caused a lot of sickness, disease, premature death, reduced productivity, crime and accidents in the year to July 2005. The report shows costs were up to $56 billion, from about $34 billion when the estimate was last made in the late 1990s.
The latest estimate puts the cost of alcohol-associated problems at $15 billion. It estimates Illicit drugs cost Australia about $8 billion. But by far the biggest problem is tobacco. The report says it cost $31.5 billion – 56 per cent of the total.
“The smoking rates are reducing but the delayed health effects of past smoking are still being seen,” Health Minister Nicola Roxon said. “So we do hope that in the future, pretty long term in the future, that the lower rates of smoking will see a decline in this social cost.”
Professor Simon Chapman from the School of Public Health at the University of Sydney says Australia is a world leader in anti-tobacco campaigns, but more practical steps need to be taken to make smoking history. “We could begin by putting all cigarettes under the counter in the way that pharmaceutical, ethical drugs are not displayed,” he told AM.
“We could put them in plain packaging rather than the really enticing attractive boxes which are highly market researched to appeal to young people. We could put the price of cigarettes up a lot more and we could regulate the product itself. It’s the only product that is taken into the body which is not subject to, sort of quality controls, safety controls.”
The Labor Party says it is taking a different approach to the previous government in health policy, putting more emphasis on prevention. The director of the Australian Institute of Health Policy Studies, Professor Brian Oldenburg, says there is little detail so far.
“I think at least compared to the previous government, there is the expressed intent to really put more effort into prevention, but we are still waiting to see how that is going to work its way through the system,” he said. Ms Roxon will release the figures on the social costs of drugs and alcohol at the first ever national illness prevention summit, which begins in Melbourne today.

Source: ABC News April 9th 2008

Filed under: Australia :

Dutch plan to shift coffeeshops worries neighbors

MAASTRICHT, Netherlands (Reuters) – Sitting among the mellow smokers in a coffeeshop in Maastricht it is easy to forget that a plan to relocate half of the cannabis-selling outlets to the city limits has aroused fury. The southern Dutch city has been trying for five years to push seven shops to three new “coffee corners” at its northern, western and southern borders.

The marijuana equivalent of out-of-town shopping malls would serve the 1.5 to 2 million people who pour into the city each year in search of a powerful puff. Neighboring Belgian districts and the Dutch community of Eijsden, enraged by the prospect of coffeeshops on their doorsteps, forced Maastricht to back down after winning a legal challenge last month.

The Dutch city has now put forward a watered-down proposal to place two coffeeshops in a single “coffee corner” at its southern edge for a trial period of three years. Its neighbors are still not happy.
“We see reckless driving, car theft… We already have the highest level of crime of any countryside district in Belgium and 95 percent of it is due to drugs,” said Huub Broers, mayor of the Belgian district of Voeren, just south of Maastricht.

About 80 percent of the city’s coffeeshop customers are foreign — of which 60 percent come from Belgium and the rest from France and Germany. Most buyers come at the weekends but even on a weekday morning, there are Belgian cars clustered around coffeeshops. “Slow Motion,” near the station, is anything but, with a stream of customers in and out within minutes.

DRUGS GANGS

Both proponents and critics of the plan generally agree that the coffeeshops and the vast majority of their customers who come for a joint or a small bag of hash are not the problem, although residents do complain about congestion and parking.

The trouble comes from the criminals they attract, notably about 500 “drug runners” on the streets peddling substances such as cocaine, ecstasy or heroin. Western Europe is the world’s largest market for cannabis resin and Europe is the second-largest global market for cocaine, the United Nations International Narcotics Control Board said in March.

John Walters, director of U.S. national drug control policy, said earlier this month the euro’s gains against the dollar may be behind an enormous increase in the availability of cocaine in Europe: selling in euros may be more profitable than in dollars.

“Maastricht is plagued by drug gangs,” said Brice de Ruyver, a professor of criminology and drugs expert at Ghent University. “The coffeeshops themselves need huge quantities of illicit supplies. Then you have trouble in the city because of dealers. The reasoning is that whoever is interested in cannabis in a coffeeshop may also want something harder as well.”

Residents attest to the problems.

“You see the dealers jump out in the middle of the street flagging down French or German cars. They get in and can be aggressive,” said the owner of Nautica Jansen, a water sport shop beside two floating coffeeshops on the river front. While Voeren’s mayor fears Maastricht’s plan would simply move the criminals towards his district, Maastricht argues it is difficult to stamp out drug crime in the tight central streets.

At more isolated sites outside the city, the Dutch say, policing would be easier and dealers less able to reach people driving into gated coffeeshop enclosures. Marc Josemans, chairman of the Maastricht coffeeshop association, believes illegal dealers would find demand reduced.

That would in turn cut supply: “It’s a normal market mechanism,” he said. “We cannot prove it, because no one has given us the chance.” A survey by Joseman’s association found that a third of customers would prefer out-of-town sites: not surprising, given that so many are foreign.

CLAMPDOWN

The Dutch have cracked down on coffeeshops: there are now around 700, compared with around 1,200 in 1997. In Maastricht, all customers must prove they are at least 18 years old and there are plans to bring in finger scanners to ensure no one buys more than 5 grams per day.

“It’s easier for a terrorist to enter Europe than for a dope smoker to get inside a coffeeshop,” said Josemans “Tolerance in Europe has declined. You see that towards foreigners, religions. And that’s a key reason why the number of coffeeshops has fallen.”

But in Belgium, the rules have softened. Belgians are no longer prosecuted for possessing up to 3 grams (0.1 ounces) of cannabis and can grow a single plant, but would still face arrest for selling resin, plants or seeds in their country. De Ruyver says the coffeeshops cannot simply be labeled a Dutch problem. “If 60 percent of those visiting the shops on the border are Belgian, we must take our responsibility too,” he said.

Source: Reuters 20th April 2008

Filed under: Europe :

Opposition is not just ‘ideology’


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

Worrying side effects attached to mephedrone

In different forms it’s been sold as plant food, but little is known about a new recreational drug hitting Australian streets, other than it prompts acts of horrendous self-mutilation by some users. Within the past few months in Sydney there have been reports one user tried to castrate himself while under the influence of the drug. Another severed half a finger using a kitchen appliance and degloved his penis in an apparent circumcision attempt.
The drug in question is 4-methylmethcathinone or mephedrone – but more commonly known as 4-MMC, MMCAT, bubbles, megatron, bath salt or miaow miaow. As a derivative of methandienone, the drug is a prohibited substance in Australia.
Continuing to prove hugely popular on the UK clubbing scene, the drug is believed to be partly responsible for the deaths of a woman in Sweden in 2008 and a 14-year-old girl in England in November. It has since been made illegal in some European countries.
The psychoactive drug creates a state of euphoria similar to, but not as extreme as cocaine, with an ecstasy-like hit at the end. Reports of little after-effects and a mild “come-down” have made the drug popular among young professionals who like to party at the weekend before having to return to work.
Since September 2008, the Australian Federal Police (AFP), along with Australian Customs and the Border Protection Service, have detected 25 attempts to import a combined total of more than 20kg of the drug. An AFP spokeswoman confirmed that mephedrone “is a new drug that has emerged in Australia”. While prohibited here, the drug is readily available for legal purchase abroad, predominantly in China and Israel.
In Tasmania, police have labelled the drug “Israeli’s”, because of its country of source, and report its popularity with people who believe it’s legal to possess. “We conducted an investigation at the start of the year and a number of persons were charged with trafficking,” Tasmanian Police Detective Inspector Ian Lindsay told The Mercury newspaper in October last year. He added that since those charges were laid there had been a “dramatic reduction” in the amount of mephedrone seized across the state.
In a report from the Tasmanian Department of Police and Emergency Management, the drug is said to have been possessed “in an attempt to circumvent existing legislation”. In the Northern Territory, a 16-year-old boy faced Darwin Youth Justice Court on January 15 for allegedly importing 1kg of mephedrone, ordered online from a legitimate chemical company in China. The court heard the boy paid $8,000 and was expected to pay an additional $12,000 when the drug arrived, the NT News reported. The matter is ongoing.
Brisbane-based Rave Safe project coordinator Michael Brennan said use of the drug in Australia was “worrying” and people continued to consume the substance without knowing its effects or what’s used in its production.
Typically, mephedrone is mixed with caffeine and the compound can take effect very quickly. However, for users of other recreational drugs, Mr Brennan said the effect may not be as strong as that to which they’ve become accustomed.
“Reports are that it’s incredibly more-ish, which can be a concern in itself,” he said. “It is one thing to pop one or two tabs of ecstasy, but taking this stuff, they could be inclined to take several hundred milligrams.
“In a way these things are more dangerous because people will take one or two doses and not get the effect they want so then they take a lot more of them. When a substance like this comes up that was really only invented only a few years ago, it’s hard to say what the effects will be, so it’s really worrying to me. It’s just a real unknown at this stage.” Typically, the drug is purchased in crystal form and snorted for quick effect, but can also be taken orally.
Mr Brennan said mephedrone had proven popular among ecstasy users, but added that few seemed to move onto long-term use. “I think some people are quite happy with that effect, that you don’t get this terrible after-effect with it,” he said.
“A lot of ecstasy users have been taking it for a try, but a lot of long-term users have gradually lost the attraction to it. And I would bet that 4M CC will slowly disappear into the background.”
As a stimulant, the drug affects the human cardio system and users have experienced varying symptoms including palpitations, paranoia, anxiety, depression, insomnia, headaches and short-term memory loss.
In one case, documented in an online forum, following the consumption of about 100mg over a week, a male user noticed his fingers and knees turn a dark red to purple colour before he passed out. After about six months, including a short stint in hospital, the discolouration disappeared, but the symptoms returned after again trying a small amount of mephedrone.
In the Sydney cases, it’s unknown whether the male users were also under the influence of other substances, but online discussions about the drug frequently list paranoia as a common side-effect. Both men were hospitalised for their injuries, but NSW Health does not have a system in place to record how many patients have been admitted to hospital due to the drug.
Nor is the use of mephedrone recorded by major agencies, including the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, or the Centre for Population Health.
The Australian Injecting and Illicit Drug Users’ League in Canberra has only anecdotal data about the drug. All agencies report having been made aware of the drug’s existence in Australia since about 2008, but concede there is little or no information about mephedrone.
Online forums suggest Australian use or sampling of the drug is most popular in states along the eastern seaboard. Part of the drug’s appeal is its relative cheapness, with online advertisements for various forms of mephedrone available from $170 for 100mg.

Source: www.smh.com.au 29th Jan 2010

Filed under: Australia :

Taxing Marijuana

Can your state afford to gamble on legalizing marijuana?

California is capturing national media coverage as the state debates the issue of legalizing and taxing marijuana. A legislative bill (AB 390) and three potential ballot initiatives propose different strategies to allegedly profit financially from marijuana. Promotion of those measures rely on a biased study. The study suggesting potential revenue gains is not only questionable, but also neglects to identify societal costs associated with marijuana.

In a written response to an article published by the Sacramento Bee, Police Chief Scott C. Kirkland addresses what the pro-drug lobby and the study they promote have neglected. His response may have been written to specifically address issues in California, but his points are relevant to other states considering similar measures.

Can your state afford to gamble on legalizing marijuana? After reading what Chief Kirkland has to say, I think you will agree the answer is NO; our nation cannot afford the damaging cost such efforts would have on society.

On August 6, 2009, the Sacramento Bee published an editorial by F. Aaron Smith entitled, “Legalized pot is more than a tax bonanza.” I would like the opportunity to present the other side.

My name is Scott C. Kirkland and I am currently the Police Chief in El Cerrito. I am on the Board of Directors for the California Police Chiefs Association as well as the California Peace Officers’ Association. Moreover, I am currently the Chair Person of the California Police Chiefs Medical Marijuana Task Force. The task force is comprised of representatives from the California Peace Officers’ Association, California Police Chiefs Association, California State Sheriff Association, California District Attorneys’ Association, California Narcotics Association, and other interested parties.

The purpose of this article is to write specifically about the financial aspect of the issue. I would be more than happy to contribute other articles that discuss the Assembly Bill specifically, the substance itself, or any other aspect of this issue should you so desire.

The advocates on this issue have once again selected a very well crafted message to the public. In essence, they are saying that the State of California should legalize and tax marijuana and that this action would allow the State to remain solvent. The argument would then be that with a solvent State, police officers, firefighters, and teachers will not be laid off. Mr. Smith states that there would be $1.4 billion in new tax revenue available to solve the state budget crises. But, let us examine those numbers and see if the State of California could afford such a gamble.

Yes, the Board of Equalization did identify a potential revenue stream from the sale of marijuana but are those numbers accurate? In their bill analysis, the sole report that is cited as the basis of their revenue projections is entitled, Marijuana Production in the United States (2006). The report was written by Jon Gettman, who served as President for the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws. He writes the “Cannabis Column” for the HighTimes.com. Mr. Gettman owns DrugScience.com which he cites six times in his report. Upon reading the report and comparing the report to various law enforcement data that is published, his estimates of marijuana crops are more than twice as high.

I believe it is and was irresponsible for the individuals that wrote the bill analysis not to have known who the author of the report was and to have questioned his credibility. In this day of Internet usage I have become in the habit of doing a “Google” search on authors upon reading their work. It is important to me to know where the author is coming from and it should be important for those who complete a bill analysis. It took me ten minutes to glean information about Mr. Gettman. I believe it is important for all who delve into this emotional issue to fully research it and failure to do so results in a slanted and inaccurate analysis.

Since the Bill Analysis is utilizing a study that shows double the estimates of any other law enforcement data, the Board of Equalization’s initial projections are simply wrong. I believe it is this type of financial forecasting that has caused the State of California so much trouble today.

In May of 2009, the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University released a report entitled, “Shoveling Up II: The Impact of Substance Abuse on Federal, State and Local Budgets.” This one hundred and seventy-six (176) page report documents for the first time the costs of the two legal substances that are abused today (Alcohol and Tobacco). The costs are substantial!

In 2005, the State of California spent $19.9 billion dollars on substance abuse and addiction or $545.09 per capita (population of 36.5 million). Once again I am talking specifically about Alcohol and Tobacco. But, the State of California collected $1.4 billion dollars of tax revenue or $38.69 per capita on the sale of Alcohol and Tobacco products. Yes, the costs far exceeded the revenue!

I believe it is also worth mentioning that as of June 19, 2009, California’s Carcinogen Identification Committee of the Office of Environmental Health and Assessment Science Advisory Board issued a ruling that listed marijuana smoke as causing cancer. This is just another reason why the financial analysis of the bill does not make economic sense. From a public health stand point, why would we, residents of California, want to legalize a crude substance that is known to cause cancer when the costs of substance abuse of the psychoactive drug will far outweigh the amount of monies the state receives? Are we that short sighted? How is the State of California going to find the monies to pay for the costs of abuse, treatment, and damage to youth? These are all unanswered questions that must be addressed in order for there to be a fair and impartial analysis that voters rely on when they go to the polls.

Source: Source: Save Our Society From Drugs Oct 2009

Filed under: USA :

The Personal and Financial costs of INSITE in Vancouver, Canada

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 inj