2025 August

by DAVID EVANS – 19 August 2025

There are established five schedules of controlled substances, to be known as schedules I, II, III, IV, and V.

(1) Schedule I–(A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.(B) The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.(C) There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.

(2) Schedule II–(A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.(B) The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States or a currently accepted medical use with severe restrictions.(C) Abuse of the drug or other substances may lead to severe psychological or physical dependence.
(3) Schedule III–(A) The drug or other substance has a potential for abuse less than the drugs or other substances in schedules I and II.(B) The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.(C) Abuse of the drug or other substance may lead to moderate or low physical dependence or high psychological dependence.

(4) Schedule IV–(A) The drug or other substance has a low potential for abuse relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule III.(B) The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.(C) Abuse of the drug or other substance may lead to limited physical dependence or psychological dependence relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule III.
(5) Schedule V–(A) The drug or other substance has a low potential for abuse relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule IV.(B) The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.(C) Abuse of the drug or other substance may lead to limited physical dependence or psychological dependence relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule IV.

Moving marijuana to Schedule III would not legalize the drug, however, the change would greatly serve to benefit state legalized commercial marijuana companies who would no longer be subject to IRS Section 280E and thus could deduct business expenses and drastically increase their profit margins. This means more advertising and normalization. Not only would this mean that marijuana corporations would be able to deduct expenses for advertisements appealing to youth and the sale of kid-friendly marijuana gummies, but it would also dramatically increase the industry’s commercialization ability.

—
Source:  www.drugwatch.org  (drug-watch-international@googlegroups.com)

Filed under: Drug use-various effects,Legal Sector,Prevention and Intervention,Treatment and Addiction,USA :

by UNODC – 20 August 2025

For over three decades, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) has supported non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in low- and middle-income countries implement substance use prevention projects that benefit youth around the world. This support has been made possible through the ongoing contributions of the Drug Abuse Prevention Centre (DAPC) in Japan since 1994. The DAPC Grants Programme enables civil society organizations to initiate and scale up prevention activities for youth and with youth aligned with the UNODC/WHO International Standards on Drug Use Prevention. The grants also empower young people to take active roles in supporting the health and wellbeing of their peers.

Following the 2024 Call for Proposals, which attracted more than 500 applications (more than double the previous year’s submissions), UNODC selected four new DAPC grant recipients through a multi-phased competitive process. Grantees from Cambodia, Iraq, Sri Lanka, and Zimbabwe will soon begin implementing their projects to support youth through locally grounded prevention efforts.

The Youth Aspire Development Trust, based in Zimbabwe, will be implementing their SPARK (Substance Prevention and Awareness for Resilient Knowledgeable Communities) project.  The grantee will engage with schools and communities in the Chitungwiza region of Zimbabwe targeting students, teachers and parents. Teachers from local schools will receive training on classroom-based prevention strategies, early detection of risky behaviours, and ways to foster positive school climates. Students will also be selected as peer leaders and be equipped with life skills, refusal techniques, and resilience training to lead cascade sessions and positively influence other peers. Complementing these efforts, the grantee will also engage parents to strengthen their role in creating protective home environments for their family. And finally, to expand the reach of the programme, trained teachers and parents will conduct cascade trainings within schools and communities.

The Alcohol and Drug Information Centre (ADIC) in Sri Lanka will implement the project “Peer Power: Youth-Driven Substance Use Prevention and Resilience Building” in Colombo. Youth facilitators will be trained to mentor younger peer leaders, who will deliver interactive, skills-based workshops in local communities and schools with the support of ADIC’s resource persons. The project includes a baseline survey, capacity building for youth, creation of a tailored action plan, peer-to-peer education sessions, community and family engagement activities, and social media campaigns developed by youth. By combining in-person outreach with digital platforms, the project aims to enhance youth resilience and decision-making, empower and educate youth leaders, and strengthen community support for such initiatives.

In Cambodia, the grantee Mith Samlanh will implement its “Peer Prevention: A Youth-Driven Project Against Drugs” project by combining national and community-level initiatives. A national multimedia campaign, developed together with youth, will raise awareness about the risks of drug use through videos and prevention messages, reaching young people across social media platforms. In parallel, in-person awareness sessions will engage directly with communities in vulnerable areas of Phnom Penh, helping to bridge the digital divide and reach those who may not be active online. The grantee will also develop and integrate a Drug Prevention module into Mith Samlanh’s existing soft skills training for at-risk individuals, using evidence-informed methods to build resilience and enhance life skills. Additionally, a cascade Training of Trainers modality will strengthen local capacity by preparing teachers, social workers, youth champions, and local authorities to deliver prevention messaging and trainings to support youth and families across Phnom Penh.

In Iraq, the Bestan Child Society (Bustan Association) will implement the “Building Community Power to Prevent Youth Drug Use” project. The grantee will engage with community influencers such as teachers, sports coaches, youth leaders, and journalists to strengthen the local prevention capacity. Trained as prevention champions, they will integrate drug awareness and life skills into sports, arts, and peer-led activities that will be conducted in the target communities. Youth will also take part as informal peer educators through the 3S Initiative (Sport–Smile–Sleep), which will promote resilience and healthy lifestyles in young people.  Also, youth co-created awareness materials will further extend the project’s reach through social media and community events.

UNODC is pleased to support these four new diverse projects under the DAPC Grants Programme. Each initiative reflects a strong commitment to prevention aligned with the Standards, youth engagement, and community-level action — key elements in building healthier lifestyles and safer environments for young people to grow and thrive in. For more information about the DAPC grants projects and the programme, please visit the Youth Initiative website and stay up to date through the UNODC PTRS social media channels  (X, LinkedIn, Facebook).

Source:  https://www.unodc.org/unodc/prevention/youth-initiative/youth-action/2025/August/introducing-new-dapc-grant-funded-projects.html

Filed under: All countries,Crime/Violence/Prison,Drug use-various effects,Prevention and Intervention,Treatment and Addiction,Youth :

Issued by U.S. Customs and Border Protection  – Thu, 08/21/2025

NEW YORK — U.S. Customs and Border Protection Deputy Commissioner John Modlin delivered remarks at a National Fentanyl Prevention and Awareness Day event today in Times Square.

The annual event, hosted by the nonprofit Facing Fentanyl, brings together impacted families and federal, state, and local law enforcement to draw national attention to the synthetic opioid epidemic.

“On behalf of the more than 65,000 fathers and mothers, and sons and daughters, who are also agents, officers and professional staff of CBP, we mourn with those who have lost a loved one to fentanyl poisoning,” said Deputy Commissioner Modlin. “Every hour of every day of the year, CBP is enforcing the law, across the land, in the air, and on the sea. Fentanyl is not just a public health threat – it’s a weapon. Any group that tries to poison Americans will face U.S. law enforcement and national security authorities.”

CBP supports the nation’s fight against fentanyl by prioritizing counter-fentanyl efforts across all operational environments. This includes stopping the ingredients, equipment, and the drug itself from entering or moving through the U.S. CBP has significantly increased its efforts to find and seize fentanyl at border crossings and checkpoints, using a variety of methods, such as officers’ instincts, drug-sniffing dogs, advanced scanning technology, artificial intelligence, and intelligence gathering to target and stop smugglers.

CBP’s approach to combatting fentanyl has grown to also include taking down the criminal groups that ship fentanyl, its ingredients, and pill-making equipment into the U.S. By working closely with law enforcement agencies both within the U.S. and in other countries, CBP helps investigate the larger criminal organizations, not just the individuals caught smuggling drugs at the border.

Fentanyl is a very dangerous drug that CBP first encountered in its final form around 2013-2014. Even a very small amount can be deadly. It’s cheap and easy to make, and there’s a high demand for it. Just one kilogram (about 2.2 pounds) of fentanyl already mixed into pills makes just over 9,000 pills. In contrast, one kilogram of fentanyl powder can make roughly 80,000 pills.

National Fentanyl Prevention and Awareness Day serves as a vital platform to highlight the devastating impact of synthetic opioids and the ongoing efforts to combat this epidemic. CBP’s participation underscores its unwavering commitment to protecting American communities and saving lives.

For more information on National Fentanyl Prevention and Awareness Day, visit DEA Fentanyl Awareness.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is America’s frontline: the nation’s largest law enforcement organization and the world’s first unified border management agency. The 65,000+ men and women of CBP protect America on the ground, in the air, and on the seas. We enforce safe, lawful travel and trade and ensure our country’s economic prosperity. We enhance the nation’s security through innovation, intelligence, collaboration, and trust.

Source:  https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/national-media-release/cbp-observes-national-fentanyl-prevention-and-awareness-day

Filed under: Culture,Drug use-various effects,Fentanyl,Prevention and Intervention,Treatment and Addiction,USA :

 

Social media often gets a bad reputation when it comes to how much time children and teens spend glued to their phones – but there are lots of ways that social media can be a tool for good in the hands of a teen.
The Ups and Downs of Teens and Social Media

Social media issues for teenagers can be rife, and most parents are aware of the dangers. Cyber-bulling is a real problem, and studies show that too much time spent on social media can lead to feelings of low self-esteem and depression amongst teens who compare themselves to unrealistic ideals they see online.

While these are serious concerns, as a foster carer, you can make social media a positive experience for your foster teen by helping them to be aware of the risks and empowering them to take advantage of the benefits. You can also help your teen to limit the negative consequences by encouraging them to enjoy social media in moderation. Teens need time to enjoy life offline – exercise and face-to-face socialisation are both important for their growing brains and bodies.

In fact, a 2019 study found a strong link between the negative effects of social media and a lack of exercise brought about by too much time spent online. That means balancing time on devices with plenty of physical activity can help mitigate some of social media’s more harmful effects.

How to Encourage Healthy Social Media Habits for Teens?

Empower your teen to use social media safely

Talk about what is safe to share online and what isn’t, and make sure your foster teen knows what to watch out for to avoid online predators, scammers, and cyberbullies. Teach them to recognise false information and to think critically about what they read and see online.

Help them understand the risks to their mental health and self-image and decide together how to deal with these feelings if they come up. Make sure they know how to change their privacy settings on different platforms.

Looking for more guidance on internet safety? The UK Safer Internet Centre has a host of resources for teens from 11-19.

Encourage self-expression

Not only can social media be a great way for teens to explore new things like art, culture, and history, it’s also a versatile tool for self-expression. Many creative teens use social media to showcase their own art and performances, while others use it as a platform for building a unique personal brand through what they share and how they engage with online communities.

Using social media in this way can teach a teen digital skills and build an online presence that will put them in a good position for future education and job prospects. You can help your teen build their digital skills through online and in-person courses, such as photo/video editing and content creation. Check out BT’s Skills for Tomorrow portal for a host of free family resources.

Keep connected

For foster children, social media can be a useful way to keep in touch with old friends and family members and build important connections for the future. It also helps many teens strengthen friendships and build communities around shared experiences and interests – particularly when it’s not possible to see one another in person (like when schools are closed, or across long distances).

Being a teen can be lonely if you feel like you don’t fit in, but you can always find someone who’s interested in the same things you are online – whether that’s someone who loves the same band you do or someone from a similar cultural background.

Inspire your foster teen to do good

With the world more connected through social media, teens today have access to a lot more information on global issues – and many more ways to have an impact. Consider 17-year-old Greta Thunberg; in two years, she’s been able to reach a global audience with her message of fighting climate change and now has an Instagram following of over 10 million.

Help your teen find an issue that they care about and encourage them to get involved and have a positive impact, such as promoting community initiatives and organisations.

Be involved

Model healthy social media use by not looking at your phone during meals or family activities, and limit screen time close to bedtime.

Follow your foster teen on social media and make time to chat with them – in person and in a non-judgemental way – about what they and their friends are posting and seeing online. Share interesting and educational feeds with them and keep communication open so your teen knows they can talk to you if they see or experience anything upsetting online.

Teenagers can be truly inspiring with the passion and energy they bring, but many teens suffer without a safe space to grow up. If you have the room to give a young person a stable and supportive home, get in touch today. You can also read our article about fostering teenagers here.

Source:  https://www.compassfostering.com/advice/teenagers-and-social-media

 

Filed under: Culture,Social Media,USA,Youth :

by Kevin Sabet  August 22, 2025 

In 2018, 27-year-old Bryn Spejcher, an inexperienced marijuana smoker in California, killed her boyfriend Chad O’Melia by stabbing him 108 times, a crime the local district attorney described as “horrific” and “one of the worst our medical examiner has ever seen.” A jury found Spejcher guilty of involuntary manslaughter, but she received only probation at sentencing because of a compelling presentation of her defense of cannabis-induced psychosis. Prior to the violent incident, Spejcher had taken two hits of legal marijuana from a bong, and claimed that she began “seeing things that weren’t there” and lost touch with reality. She also stabbed herself repeatedly in the neck, and stabbed her own dog. Law enforcement agents called to the scene had to break her arm with a metal baton to get her to let go of the knife; multiple Taserings had no effect. 

Cases like Spejcher’s illustrate the stakes involved in the federal reclassification of marijuana. If President Trump follows through with such a move, the drug would remain illegal on the federal level, but would receive an imprimatur of being safer and face fewer restrictions, with significant commercial and social implications.  

Yet voices across public discourse persist in asking: why should anyone care if President Trump does just that? 

Celebrities like Mike Tyson and Joe Rogan and hedge-fund bosses like Andrew Lahde tell us that marijuana is no big deal. Numerous states have already legalized it for medical and recreational usage, and they claim to be regulating it well. If we are to believe the advocates, marijuana is a miracle cure for PTSD, anxiety, depression, and bipolar disorder — not to mention an unbeatable salve for the pain suffered by cancer patients.

So what sense does it make for this drug to sit in the same federal category as PCP and heroin? Isn’t marijuana’s placement in Schedule I, the most serious category, merely a relic of discredited thinking from the bad old days of the War on Drugs? It isn’t. To understand why it isn’t, and why a Trump move to reclassify weed would risk unmitigated harm to American health and safety, it’s first important to clear up some common misunderstandings around how and why drugs end up classified as they do.  

Under the Controlled Substances Act of 1971, a five-part schedule was established for classification of potentially dangerous drugs. This schedule is emphatically not an index either of a drug’s “hardness” or a kind of unofficial charging and sentencing guide for prosecutors and judges. Placement is earned specifically through consideration of a drug’s accepted medical use and its abuse risk. Drugs with no accepted medical use and a high risk of abuse get placed in Schedule I.  

That’s the commonality between marijuana and heroin; under federal law, the relevant agencies necessarily view them that way.  

Neither has an accepted medical use, though both drugs have approved medicines derived from them that remain in lower schedules (the medicine dronabinol, for example, is synthesized THC, the active ingredient in marijuana, and is in Schedule III). Both have high risks of abuse. The argument that one is a “hard” drug and the other is not  — which is debatable, especially given today’s ultra-high-potency weed — simply doesn’t come into play.  

Nor does the criminal-justice question. Keeping marijuana in Schedule I isn’t, as critics have it, a carceral strategy; conversely, moving it into Schedule III isn’t a de-carceral one. Under a move to Schedule III, the drug would remain federally illegal, still subject to the enforcement power of the Drug Enforcement Administration and the Department of Justice. No low-level offender would see his sentence commuted. This is sort of beside the point anyway, since most low-level marijuana users never receive a sentence for anything. 

But how can it be, another objection runs, that the drug has no medical use? Most US states currently allow doctors to recommend it. 

That, again, is technically correct. But the decisions those states made to allow doctors (and in some cases, “designated caregivers”) to recommend marijuana to treat pain and other issues were political decisions, not medical or scientific ones. Voters stated a preference; that has no effect on how federal agencies are required by current law to view the question. The facts of just how those recommendations get handed out drive home that political aspect. In 2022, Pennsylvania saw some 132,000 medical-marijuana certifications, a third of the state’s total for that year, issued by only 17 doctors.

Those decisions, taken in the aggregate, don’t constitute an accepted medical use. Or at least, they didn’t until October 2022. That was the month the Biden administration directed its Department of Health and Human Services to look into a possible reclassification of the drug.  

“This schedule is emphatically not an index either of a drug’s ‘hardness’ or a kind of unofficial charging and sentencing guide.”

Again, history is important here. Before the Biden process, the federal government had used an eight-factor test to determine how to schedule various drugs. Those factors focus on what the current and historical patterns of its abuse look like, as well as what that means for individual users, what risk it presents to public health, how likely it is to cause dependence (either physical or psychological), the state of the science around the drug and its pharmacology, and whether it’s a chemical precursor or “analogue” of another controlled substance.  

By these metrics, marijuana is precisely where it belongs in Schedule I. The best science shows that it isn’t an effective medical treatment. One of the most frequent conditions it’s used to treat is chronic pain. But the 2017 study cited to prove its efficacy there has seen dozens of subsequent meta-analyses and reviews fail to support its conclusions; a 2022 study of a decade’s worth of surgical records from a Cleveland hospital even found that using marijuana actually increases pain after surgery. 

The data also demonstrate that marijuana poses a significant risk of dependency: addiction rates are around 30% of all users and rising. Addiction in this case means exactly what it does for other substances: inability to quit, a need for ever more of the drug to achieve the same effect, and even withdrawal symptoms. Given the recent avalanche of data cataloguing marijuana’s harms specifically to cardiac and mental health — like a June British Medical Journal review  connecting it to a two-fold risk of cardiovascular death or the massive Danish study from 2023 suggesting that as much as 30% of schizophrenia cases among men between 21 and 30 were linked to cannabis-use disorder — its wider public-health risks are glaringly clear.  

The Biden administration supplanted the eight factors with a new system seemingly designed to push the drug into a less restrictive schedule. The Biden recommendation — likely a political compromise between the status quo and full legalization, timed just before Joe Biden’s re-election bid — also incorporated the shaky argument that because so many states have made political decisions to allow medical marijuana, that constitutes an accepted medical use.

An incisive article in JAMA Neurology, by the Harvard addiction scientist Bertha Madras, took a hard look at the process and found disturbing evidence of politicization. This included the fact that a high-ranking Biden DOJ official, Acting Assistant Attorney General Peter Hyun, argued that “cannabis has not been proven in scientific studies to be a safe and effective treatment for any disease or condition” — six months before the rescheduling directive appeared. Yet the science Hyun cites certainly had not changed in the interim.  

The federal government has long held the position Hyun laid out. Under the Obama administration, Jay Inslee and Gina Raimondo — then the governors of Washington and Rhode Island, respectively — petitioned the federal government to reclassify marijuana. The administration’s response made clear that federal drug schedules reflect what the science says, not “danger” or “severity.” Obama’s then-DEA chief, Chuck Rosenberg, announcing the denial of the petition, used language Hyun would later echo: “This decision isn’t based on danger. This decision is based on whether marijuana, as determined by the FDA, is a safe and effective medicine . . . and it’s not.”

Suggested reading

I have seen the damage cannabis does

By Peter Hurst

But let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that Trump reverses years of federal precedent to follow the logic of the rescheduling argument. What happens then? 

The truth: no one knows.  

It’s clear that the marijuana industry believes that rescheduling will be an enormous benefit to its shareholders. In one sense, that’s likely correct. Businesses selling substances in Schedule I face severe commercial restrictions under the tax code. A provision of the tax code prevents any such business from taking normal deductions at tax time on expenses like advertising. Lifting those restrictions seems sure to provide an enormous boost to revenues and reach for businesses selling marijuana products.

The impact on society is a different matter. The available evidence suggests that this will be a significant negative for society, especially given the research around how the young start using the drug: data published in June by researchers from the University of Southern California and Rutgers University show that exposure to marijuana social-media content plays a huge role in teens initiating use.  

But there are other externalities in play.  

If marijuana moves into Schedule III, it will be the only substance there without Food and Drug Administration approval. Will that play out in a similar way to the case of opium-poppy straw (i.e., the entirety of the plant, as it exists prior to the processes that turn it into heroin or opium)? Poppy straw is listed in Schedule II, but it also lacks an FDA approval — and it’s regularly seized by drug and border authorities, with a massive shipment grabbed up just in May. Though weed entrepreneurs clearly expect smooth sailing after a reclassification, they may well be in for a rough ride.

Then there’s the fact that substances listed in Schedule III face additional regulatory and enforcement power: Not only from the DEA and DOJ, but also from the FDA. There are strict rules around what sellers of Schedule III substances can and can’t say in advertisements. They’re forbidden from advertising off-label uses — and since marijuana lacks an FDA approval, all therapeutic uses are off-label. It’s easy to imagine another operator in the Schedule III space filing a lawsuit demanding precisely that kind of enforcement. 

In other words, rescheduling opens the door to regulatory chaos, even as it seems certain to add commercial firepower to an industry whose products, on the evidence, are extraordinarily harmful. How this combination will produce the benefits promised by proponents of rescheduling also remains unclear. 

The federal government shouldn’t signal to the American people that a drug that lacks medical or scientific imprimatur somehow possesses such approval. Others disagree — and vocally. They have a lot of money riding on it. But we should be crystal clear about what their preferred policy would  actually mean for American society — nothing good. 

Kevin Sabet, a former three-time White House senior drug-policy adviser, is president of Smart Approaches to Marijuana.

Source:  https://unherd.com/2025/08/the-illusion-of-safe-marijuana/?edition=us?

Filed under: Brain and Behaviour,Cannabis/Marijuana,Culture,Drug use-various effects,Prevention and Intervention,Treatment and Addiction,USA :

by

  • Thomas Kennedy GreenfieldSenior Scientist, Alcohol Research Group, Public Health Institute
  • Libo LiPublic Health Institute, Alcohol Research Grouphttps://orcid.org/0000-0001-7147-9838
  • Katherine J. Karriker-JaffeResearch Triangle Institutehttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-2019-0222
  • Cat MunroePublic Health Institute, Alcohol Research Grouphttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-6950-7200
  • Deidre PattersonPublic Health Institute, Alcohol Research Grouphttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-6775-9682
  • Erica RosenCalifornia State University, Long Beachhttps://orcid.org/0000-0003-1343-7554
  • Yachen ZhuPublic Health Institute, Alcohol Research Grouphttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-8192-6168
  • William C. Kerr Centre Director, Scientific Director, Public Health Institute, Alcohol Research Grouphttps://orcid.org/0000-0001-6612-9200

August 22, 2025

This study from PHI’s Alcohol Research Group and RTI International evaluated the associations between a seven-item summative burden scale and different types of harms attributed to someone else’s use of alcohol, cannabis or other drugs.

There is a growing body of research on the second-hand harms from alcohol and drug use that points to the negative health impacts of substance use extend beyond the individual engaged in the behavior. The literature on alcohol-related harms has explored the connections between secondhand alcohol and drug harms (ADH) and their impact on quality of life, well-being and mental health issues among those affected, often including family members, but there hasn’t been any specific research done on the family burden related to alcohol and other drug harms until now.

This study from PHI’s Alcohol Research Group and independent scientific research institute RTI International evaluates the familial burden of the secondhand ADHs, investigating associations between a seven-item summative burden scale and different types of harms attributed to someone else’s use of alcohol, cannabis or other drugs. The findings reveal the need for family support interventions and policy remedies to mitigate these burdens.

You can view the study here:

Background: Family burden has not been studied in relation to alcohol and other drug harms from others. We adapted a family burden scale from studies of caring for those with mental health conditions for use in the US Alcohol and Drug Harm to Others Survey (ADHTOS). We investigated associations between a seven-item summative burden scale and different types of harms attributed to someone else’s use of alcohol, cannabis, or another drug: (a) being assaulted/physically harmed; (b) having family/partner problems; (c) feeling threatened or afraid; and (d) being emotionally hurt/neglected due to others’ substance use.

Methods: A survey of adults aged 18 years and over conducted between October 2023 and July 2024 (n = 8,311), involved address-based sampling (n = 3,931 including 193 mail-backs) and web panels (n = 4,380), oversampling Black (n = 951), Latinx (n = 790) and sexual or gender minority (SGM) respondents (n = 309). Data from seven items on types of burdens experienced from other people’s alcohol or drug use were provided by those harmed by someone else’s alcohol or drug use and were used to create a burden scale. Analyses used negative binomial regression on burden sum adjusting for covariates, such as age, gender, race and ethnicity, marital status and years of education.

Results: The single factor burden scale showed good internal consistency (α = .91). Components assessing being emotionally drained/exhausted and family friction/arguments were endorsed by 38–39% of participants; finding stigma of the other’s substance use upsetting was affirmed by 33%. Fewer endorsed feeling trapped in caregiving roles (22%), problems outside the family (26%), neglect of other family members’ needs (16%), and having to change plans (14%). In adjusted regression models, seven of eight harm exposures were significantly associated with burden scores.

Discussion: People reported substantial burden from others’ use of alcohol, cannabis, and other drugs. Family support interventions and policy remedies to mitigate these burdens are needed.

About RTI International

RTI International is an independent scientific research institute dedicated to improving the human condition. Our vision is to address the world’s most critical problems with technical and science-based solutions in pursuit of a better future. Clients rely on us to answer questions that demand an objective and multidisciplinary approach—one that integrates expertise across social, statistical, data, and laboratory sciences, engineering, and other technical disciplines to solve the world’s most challenging problems.

Originally published by International Journal of Alcohol and Drug Research

Source:  https://www.phi.org/thought-leadership/study-evaluating-family-burden-among-us-adults-experiencing-secondhand-harms-from-alcohol-cannabis-or-other-drug-use/

 

Filed under: Alcohol,Cannabis/Marijuana,Drug use-various effects,Harm Reduction,Marijuana and Medicine,Prevention and Intervention,Treatment and Addiction,USA :

by: Clare Gehlich ABC8 News – Aug 10, 2025 

Drug prevention education expands in Charles City County

CHARLES CITY COUNTY, Va. (WRIC) — The Charles City County Elementary School will soon re-introduce a program focused on drug prevention and awareness for the 2025-26 academic year.

According to a release from the sheriff’s office, the program, DARE — Drug Abuse Resistance Education program — will come to the elementary school for the upcoming school year.

SRO Corporal Tramayne Mayo, who developed a curriculum to teach the program, reportedly attended a two-week training course as required by DARE to instruct.

“We are excited to get this program back into our school system,” said Jayson Crawley, Sheriff of Charles City County. “We feel that early education of the dangers of drugs should be taught to our youths and can have a significant positive impact on the decisions they make when faced with drugs. This is just part of our continued efforts to deter illegal drug activity in our county.”

Opioid settlement money awarded to all jurisdictions in the Commonwealth from a reported lawsuit filed against prescription drug companies will help fund the program, per the sheriff’s office.

8News previously reported that, in June, Virginia joined all other states and some U.S. territories in agreeing to sign a $7.4 billion settlement with Purdue Pharma and members of the Sackler family who own the company for their part in perpetuating the opioid crisis.

As a result, the state will receive as much as $103.8 million from this settlement over the next 15 years — funding which will go toward local prevention, treatment and recovery efforts, as previously reported by 8News.

Source:  https://www.wric.com/news/local-news/charles-city-county/dare-program-charles-city-elementary-2025-2026/

Filed under: Brain and Behaviour,Culture,Drug use-various effects,Education,Prevention and Intervention,Treatment and Addiction,USA,Youth :
by Emily Murray – August 11, 2025

Fake pills remain a threat, with 5 out of 10 pills tested containing potentially lethal doses of fentanyl.

OMAHA, Nebraska – As students across the state prepare to return to school, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) Omaha Division is encouraging families to have open conversations about the potentially lethal consequences of drug experimentation and the threat posed by drug dealers on social media.

In Nebraska, DEA has seized more than 145,000 fentanyl pills in the first seven months of 2025. This number is more than triple the amount seized by DEA in Nebraska in all of 2024 and represents close to 85,000 deadly doses of fentanyl removed from communities.

Social media plays a significant role in the life of students and cartels are taking advantage of this audience. Parents and caregivers are encouraged to emphasize the dangers associated with buying pills online. In Nebraska, DEA has seized fentanyl pills made to resemble common prescription medications such as Xanax ®, Adderall ® and Oxycodone ®. Never trust your eyes to determine if a pill is legitimate or counterfeit. The only safe medications are prescribed by a trusted medical professional and dispensed by a licensed pharmacist.

“We know that a lot of families sit down at the start of a new school year to go over things like dealing with bullies, taking precautions when walking home and staying organized with classes,” DEA Omaha Division Acting Special Agent in Charge Rafael Mattei said. “We want families to engage on the tough topics including the use of social media for buying and selling drugs. One pill can kill. Let’s raise awareness in our communities and prevent families from suffering a tragic loss of life.”

For families unsure how to begin a conversation on the dangers of drug use, the DEA has resources and fact sheets available online: https://www.dea.gov/onepill/partner-toolbox. Conversation starters, information on drugs including street names and side effects, and helpful tips on ways to stay engaged in these important conversations year-round, are available based on age and grade.

Source:  https://www.dea.gov/press-releases/2025/08/11/drug-enforcement-administration-encourages-open-conversations-dangers

Filed under: Culture,Drug use-various effects,Prevention and Intervention,USA,Youth :

by Nathan Mol­loy – 14 Aug 2025

PREVENTION is Bet­ter is a sub­stance abuse pre­ven­tion train­ing pro­gramme. Their mis­sion is to break the cycle of sub­stance use dis­order by provid­ing evid­ence based pre­ven­tion edu­ca­tion in schools, work­places, and com­munit­ies world­wide.

Its CEO and founder, Ryan Ulrich, has over 20 years of exper­i­ence work­ing in addic­tion and treat­ment and drug pre­ven­tion space. Speak­ing to the Sligo Week­ender, Ryan says that he uses his own lived exper­i­ence of over­com­ing addic­tion to treat people and that he has worked in this field across many dif­fer­ent coun­tries.

Its CEO and founder, Ryan Ulrich, has over 20 years of exper­i­ence work­ing in addic­tion and treat­ment and drug pre­ven­tion space. Speak­ing to the Sligo Week­ender, Ryan says that he uses his own lived exper­i­ence of over­com­ing addic­tion to treat people and that he has worked in this field across many dif­fer­ent coun­tries.

“I have my own lived exper­i­ence of over­com­ing my own sub­stance use addic­tion and I’ve been in healthy recov­ery for over 24 years. I’ve been work­ing in this field in the US and I spent quite a long time, 16 years in China, work­ing there and about four years here in Ire­land. So I’ve worked with many schools and in dif­fer­ent coun­tries across the world deliv­er­ing these kind of pro­grams.”

The ideal Pre­ven­tion is Bet­ter pro­gramme in a school accord­ing to its CEO is one which is run over the course of a week. After that, Ryan says that he hopes either schools or cor­por­a­tions keep them on for a period of three years as that is when they can note the changes in atti­tude in people towards sub­stance abuse.

The ideal Pre­ven­tion is Bet­ter pro­gramme in a school accord­ing to its CEO is one which is run over the course of a week. After that, Ryan says that he hopes either schools or cor­por­a­tions keep them on for a period of three years as that is when they can note the changes in atti­tude in people towards sub­stance abuse.

“Ideally, we would love to work with the school or cor­por­a­tion over a two to three year period. That’s where we can really see the changes in atti­tudes and beha­vior just to really pre­vent and make an impact. That’s really our mis­sion. So it’s quite flex­ible depend­ing on the needs of the school or the cor­por­a­tion.”

“Ideally, we would love to work with the school or cor­por­a­tion over a two to three year period. That’s where we can really see the changes in atti­tudes and beha­vior just to really pre­vent and make an impact. That’s really our mis­sion. So it’s quite flex­ible depend­ing on the needs of the school or the cor­por­a­tion.”

Pre­ven­tion is bet­ter than the cure is a com­monly used pro­verb defined by that it is bet­ter to stop something bad hap­pen­ing than to deal with it after it has happened. Ryan believes that in his field, it is massively import­ant to pre­vent someone get­ting addicted to alco­hol or drugs as it can have a dev­ast­at­ing impact not only them but their fam­ily and friends.

“I think it’s very import­ant and it’s abso­lutely pos­sible [to pre­vent sub­stance abuse].

“I think it’s very import­ant and it’s abso­lutely pos­sible [to pre­vent sub­stance abuse].

“There’s a very evid­ence based way to go about that as well because as we all know when some­body’s addicted to even vap­ing or cigar­ettes or alco­hol, it’s dev­ast­at­ing, not only for the indi­vidual, but for the fam­ily and the com­munity.

“From a health per­spect­ive, each euro inves­ted in pre­ven­tion saves about nine times that in terms of costs over­all, jails or health care. That doesn’t even include the impact on the com­munity. So it’s kind of an over­looked but extremely import­ant part of the broader part of health care and treat­ment over­all.”

Efforts to stop people using drugs has changed over the years. In the 1970s, the phrase “War on Drugs” was pop­ular­ised by then US Pres­id­ent

Efforts to stop people using drugs has changed over the years. In the 1970s, the phrase “War on Drugs” was pop­ular­ised by then US Pres­id­ent

Richard Nixon when he declared drug abuse “pub­lic enemy num­ber one” in June 1971. Accord­ing to Ryan, sub­stance abuse pre­ven­tion has changed a lot since then and that now they’re using a trauma based approach which is more evid­ence based.

“I think even longer, maybe about 40 years ago from the US there was kind of just say no or these scare tac­tics in terms of pre­ven­tion, which was shown sci­en­tific­ally to not work at all. And then there more of an edu­ca­tion approach, which is good.”

“But now we’re mov­ing more towards a trauma-informed approach, where we under­stand the impact both on the fam­ily and the com­munity, the impact on the body in car­ry­ing the trauma. So we take all those evid­ence-based approaches into the classroom. And that’s shown to be more and more effect­ive and have greater impact.”

“But now we’re mov­ing more towards a trauma-informed approach, where we under­stand the impact both on the fam­ily and the com­munity, the impact on the body in car­ry­ing the trauma. So we take all those evid­ence-based approaches into the classroom. And that’s shown to be more and more effect­ive and have greater impact.”

The rise of AI has also help Pre­ven­tion is Bet­ter to get more data to help with their pro­grammes.

“I think the rise of AI and data has had a sig­ni­fic­ant impact as well. So now we can col­lect more GDPRcom­pli­ant data. We can make more impact assess­ments. And that’s part of everything that we do, very datadriven as an organ­iz­a­tion.”

Earlier this year, the HSE’s clin­ical lead on addic­tion, Pro­fessor Eamon Keenan said that approx­im­ately 20% of young people show­ing up to addic­tion ser­vices are using HHC, syn­thetic marijuana. Accord­ing to Ryan, his organ­isa­tion are see­ing this becom­ing more of a prob­lem along with dual addic­tion issues which affects people’s men­tal health.

“So we’re see­ing, espe­cially with the leg­al­iz­a­tion of marijuana in the US, in other coun­tries, that’s become more of a prob­lem. There’s new sub­stances, new psy­cho­act­ive sub­stances that are com­ing into the mar­ket. Dual addic­tion and issues around addic­tion and men­tal health, which has always been there.

“These are becom­ing more pre­val­ent. And so these are just some of the trends that we’re see­ing and the changes over the years.”

Vap­ing and cocaine use has caught the national media’s atten­tion over the past few years. Accord­ing to the rehab­il­it­a­tion facil­ity, Rut­land Centre, women rep­res­ent one of the fast­est grow­ing groups seek­ing treat­ment for cocaine. Treat­ment for the drug as a primary addic­tion rose from 17% in 2023 to 23% in 2024, sig­nalling one of the sharpest single year increases recor­ded for any sub­stance at the centre.

Accord­ing to Ryan, both vap­ing and cocaine have a lot of mis­in­form­a­tion online which makes people think they’re not harm­ful.

“Young women look­ing at cocaine, cocaine has no cal­or­ies, is the typ­ical thing they’ll say. And sure, but that’s not, it’s not a healthy option, to say the least. So there’s these mis­per­cep­tions about these sub­stances being safe or not very harm­ful. There’s a tre­mend­ous amount of mis­in­form­a­tion, espe­cially with things like Tik­Tok or social media. The same with vap­ing as well.”

“For the young kids, they see celebrit­ies vap­ing or blow­ing smoke rings. It looks very attract­ive and all the dif­fer­ent fla­vors. That’s abso­lutely not the case.

“Nicot­ine is one of the most addict­ive sub­stances. Even using a vape one or two times with a high con­cen­tra­tion of nicot­ine is enough to get some­body addicted for life. It’s dif­fi­cult to quit after that.”

“Nicot­ine is one of the most addict­ive sub­stances. Even using a vape one or two times with a high con­cen­tra­tion of nicot­ine is enough to get some­body addicted for life. It’s dif­fi­cult to quit after that.”

Source:  https://www.pressreader.com/ireland/sligo-weekender/20250814/281977498705333

Filed under: Culture,Education,Others (International News),Prevention and Intervention,Youth :
OPINION: Eric Adams is right 
by Charles Fain Lehman – Aug. 14, 2025
Charles Fain Lehman is a fellow at the Manhattan Institute and senior editor of City Journal.
Rampant drug use in and around the Hub by 149th street and 3rd avenue in the south Bronx.                           photo:Stephen Yang

Can New York clean up its public drug-use problem?

Mayor Eric Adams aims to try: On Thursday, he called on the state Legislature to allow clinicians and judges to compel people into treatment when their drug use is hurting them and the city.

“We must help those struggling finally get treatment, whether they recognize the need for it or not,” Adams said at an event hosted by the Manhattan Institute (where I work).  

“Addiction doesn’t just harm individual users; it tears apart lives, families and entire communities, and we must change the system to keep all New Yorkers safer.”

Adams’ proposed state law, the Compassionate Interventions Act, may face an uphill battle in Albany, as “harm reduction” advocates assail it as coercive and dangerous.

But involuntary treatment should be a tool in New York’s arsenal for dealing with the public drug use that has plagued it for years.

Last year it reported nearly 4,000 homeless residents with a history of chronic substance use — probably an undercount, as such people are less likely to be identified by the city’s annual late-night census.

Regardless, it’s not hard to find people shooting up on New York’s streets — just visit the Hub in The Bronx or Washington Square Park in Manhattan.

Such behavior makes whole swaths of the city unlivable.

Public drug use hurts both users — there were more than 2,100 overdose deaths in the five boroughs last year — and the places where they use.

It deters commerce, and creates environments conducive to more serious crime.

Too often the city has responded to these situations with benign neglect, exemplified by its two “supervised consumption sites,” which give people a place to use with Narcan-wielding staff standing by.

These sites continue to operate, in spite of the fact that they don’t work and violate federal law.

Leaving people free to abuse drugs, it turns out, doesn’t save lives.

 

 

 

 

Involuntary treatment, by contrast, tries to correct the behavior that drives drug users to hurt both themselves and others.

That’s why 37 other states already permit it — and why New York under Adams’ plan would join them.

Critics will insist that involuntary drug treatment doesn’t work, and that people have to want to change.

But the balance of the evidence suggests that involuntary treatment performs as well as voluntary treatment.

That’s backed up both by older research on California’s involuntary-treatment scheme, and by strong indications that drug courts, which route drug offenders into treatment instead of prison, can reduce recidivism.

Opponents will also say that it’s immoral to compel people to get treatment they don’t want, and that it violates their “bodily autonomy.”

But there’s no right to shoot up in public spaces, or to ruin your body with fentanyl. And New Yorkers should have the right to expect their public spaces to be free from disorder, including public drug use.

The biggest challenge for Adams, though, may be the state’s limited treatment capacity.

New York state as a whole has only 134 long-term residential treatment facilities.

As of 2023, the most recent available data, they were serving 2,935 clients — fewer than the city’s tallied homeless drug-addict population.

Implementing the Compassionate Interventions Act will almost certainly require more funding for treatment beds, much as Adams’ previous efforts to institutionalize the seriously mentally ill did. That will have to be part of any ask in Albany.

But the mayor’s proposal will also allow diversion to outpatient treatment programs, including a new $27 million investment in contingency management therapy — an evidence-based intervention that has been shown to help treat drug addiction.

What happens if Albany says no to Adams’ proposal? Or if Adams is out of the mayoralty come the next legislative session?

The NYPD can still work to clear encampments. And the city can still try to divert drug users into its drug-courts system, which, while useful, faces administrative problems and lacks transparency.

But actually getting drug users the help they need, rather than just cycling them through the city’s jails, will be hard — much as the administration struggled to handle the seriously mentally ill before it had the power to compel them into treatment.

SOURCE: https://nypost.com/2025/08/14/opinion/involuntary-treatment-can-solve-the-public-drug-scourge/

Filed under: Addiction,Brain and Behaviour,Culture,Drug use-various effects,Harm Reduction,HIV/Injecting-Drug-Users,Legal Sector,Needle Exchange,Prevention and Intervention,Treatment and Addiction,USA :
  •  Sunday, August 3, 2025 8:30 PM

 

ABU DHABI, 3rd August 2025 (WAM) — The International Society of Addiction Medicine (ISAM) has praised the federal decree-law issued by President His Highness Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan establishing the National Anti-Narcotics Authority, describing it as a vital and effective tool that enhances the UAE’s quality of efforts in combating narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances and eliminating their sources.

In a statement, ISAM affirmed that the decree issued by the UAE President reinforces the country’s comprehensive and precise approach in tackling the global threat of drug abuse.

It stated that the UAE has continually updated its legislation to combat narcotics, while simultaneously advancing its security, prevention, treatment and awareness efforts, which have significantly contributed to curbing this menace.

Dr. Hamad Al Ghafri, President of ISAM and Board member of the American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASMA), stated that the establishment of the National Anti-Narcotics Authority provides a holistic framework for developing policies and strategies to combat drug abuse, including mechanisms for prevention, treatment and rehabilitation.

He added that the legal powers granted to the authority would play a key role in enhancing the UAE’s national efforts and institutions, which work relentlessly to eliminate drug sources and confront those who target the country’s youth.

Dr. Al Ghafri explained that the authority’s mandate is built around several core pillars, including reducing both the supply and demand for drugs by tracking and dismantling trafficking networks, bolstering treatment and rehabilitation systems to reintegrate recovered individuals into their families and communities, and advancing legislative frameworks alongside dedicated research.

“These efforts will support community-based prevention initiatives, establish a unified national monitoring system, and promote international collaboration in training and capacity-building. These pillars are central to achieving an integrated approach that combines preventive, security and therapeutic dimensions to effectively tackle all facets of the drug issue,” he added.

Dr. Al Ghafri reaffirmed ISAM’s commitment to supporting all initiatives and programmes related to combating narcotics and psychotropic substances, while enhancing cooperation and coordination and adopting efforts that contribute to building safe and drug-free societies.

Source: https://www.wam.ae/en/article/bl0dfij-isam-praises-uae-presidents-decree-law

Filed under: Drug Specifics,Others (International News),Strategy and Policy :

 

From CDC Media Relations – August 5, 2025
Illustration: Free Mind Campaign

The back-to-school season is a great time to engage with youth about mental health and substance use to promote their well-being throughout the academic year. To support these conversations, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has launched Free Mind, a new national campaign that provides youth ages 12-17 and their parents and caregivers with resources and information about substance use, mental health, and the connection between the two.

The drug overdose crisis is constantly evolving and remains an important public health issue. In 2024, more than 80,000 Americans died from a drug overdose. From 2020 to 2024, 75% of overdose deaths among youth ages 10–19 involved illegally made fentanyl. In addition, the number of teens reporting poor mental health has increased in the past decade. In 2023, 40% of high school students stopped regular activities because of persistent feelings of sadness or hopelessness and one in five students seriously considered attempting suicide.

“Teens may use alcohol and other substances to help them cope with stress, anxiety, and depression,” said Dr. Allison Arwady, Director of the CDC National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. “Talking openly about mental health and substance use, and knowing when to get professional help, is critical to helping teens stay healthy. That’s why this campaign supports youth, parents, and caregivers in having those conversations early, before an issue arises.”

CDC spoke directly with youth about their knowledge and perceptions regarding substance use to develop messages, branding, and tactical strategies for Free Mind. The campaign seeks to resonate with this age group by addressing the connections between substance use and mental health, risk factors that contribute to drug use, and strategies to keep them safe. CDC also has created resources for parents and caregivers about the latest substance use and mental health challenges youth may face.

Source:  https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2025/2025-cdc-launches-new-campaign-to-address-youth-substance-use-and-mental-health.html

Filed under: Drug use-various effects,Mental Health,Prevention and Intervention,USA,Youth :

From Emory University – Aug 6 2025

While overdose deaths in the U.S. sharply declined in 2024, they remain high. Almost 90,000 Americans died from drug overdoses between October 2023 and September 2024. Overdose death rates are particularly high in American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) people.

The earlier someone starts substance use, the more likely they are to have substance use problems later in life. So, it is important to work with young people to prevent substance use early in life. Researchers at Emory’s Rollins School of Public Health recently partnered with Cherokee Nation Behavioral Health to design and implement programs to help prevent youth substance use in their community. 

They created two programs. Connect Kits for Family Action delivers activity kits to families of teens in 10th to 12th grade to help strengthen family relationships. Connect Brief Intervention uses technology to deliver individualized coaching to high school students.

Testing the programs

A randomized trial of the interventions, with results published in the American Journal of Public Health, found that they worked to reduce alcohol and other substance use in high school students in rural Oklahoma.

In the trial, Cherokee Nation Behavioral Health implemented the programs at 10 high schools. Ten other schools did not receive programming to serve as a comparison. The 10 high schools that did not receive the programs during the trial received them after the study ended. Most students at participating schools were either white or AI/AN.

The trial lasted for three years, and students completed surveys every six months to report on their alcohol and substance use.

What they found

Students at the schools that received the intervention had lower alcohol and other substance use than students at the comparison schools.

Every six months, these students reported:

  • 18% less alcohol use
  • 26% less binge drinking
  • 11% less cannabis use
  • 40% less prescription opioid misuse

Why this matters

Adolescent substance use poses serious risks to health, academic achievement, and long-term well-being. Therefore, protecting teens from substance use is key to helping them thrive. Our prevention programs have demonstrated measurable success in reducing alcohol and drug use among high school students. We’re proud of the results and excited to share these adaptable, effective solutions with other communities.”

Kelli Komro, PhD, professor of behavioral, social, and health education sciences at Rollins and project co-lead

“We believe our children are our most valuable resource,” she says. “This project allowed us to work within our own reservation to find ways that affect change in our youth. Our partnership with Emory University and area high schools was vital in making this happen. We learned so much from the challenges we encountered during this trial, making it more effective and sustainable. The improved outcomes from this trial will last into the future generations of our Cherokee families and communities.”

Source: Emory University
Filed under: Prevention and Intervention,USA,Youth :

From Shane Varcoe –

Physical activity emerges as a powerful ally in exercise addiction recovery, offering hope and healing for those struggling with substance dependency. Recent groundbreaking research reveals how structured exercise programmes can reshape both body and mind, providing a natural pathway to wellness that supports long-term recovery goals.

The Science Behind Exercise Addiction Recovery

Two comprehensive studies from leading institutions demonstrate the remarkable impact of physical activity on individuals recovering from substance dependency. Research involving 90 participants in opioid substitution treatment and 43 individuals in drug rehabilitation centres reveals compelling evidence for physical activity recovery benefits.

Neurohormonal Changes Through Exercise

Exercise creates profound changes in the brain’s chemistry that directly counteract the damage caused by substance abuse. When individuals engage in regular moderate-intensity aerobic exercise, their bodies experience:

Increased β-endorphin production: These natural “feel-good” chemicals help restore the brain’s reward system, reducing cravings and improving mood without relying on substances.

Reduced cortisol levels: Exercise helps normalise stress hormone production, which is typically elevated during early recovery phases. This reduction helps manage anxiety, insomnia, and psychological distress.

Enhanced immune function: Regular exercise addiction recovery programmes boost white blood cell and neutrophil counts, strengthening the body’s natural defence systems weakened by substance abuse.

Physical Transformations Supporting Recovery

Body Composition Improvements

Research participants following structured exercise programmes showed remarkable physical changes after 24 weeks:

  • Significant reduction in body fat percentage
  • Increased skeletal muscle mass
  • Improved overall body composition
  • Enhanced physical strength and endurance

These improvements aren’t merely cosmetic—they represent fundamental changes that support sustained recovery by improving self-esteem and physical capability.

Fitness and Functional Capacity

Physical activity recovery programmes deliver measurable improvements across multiple fitness domains:

Cardiovascular health: Participants experienced substantial increases in vital capacity and overall cardiovascular function, supporting better oxygen delivery throughout the body.

Strength and endurance: Upper body and core muscle strength showed significant improvements, enabling individuals to engage more fully in daily activities and work responsibilities.

Flexibility and balance: Enhanced balance control and flexibility reduce injury risk whilst improving quality of life and confidence in physical activities.

Mental Health Benefits of Exercise Addiction Recovery

Anxiety and Depression Relief

The research demonstrates that structured exercise provides substantial mental health benefits:

  • 20% reduction in anxiety scores within 12 weeks
  • Significant decrease in depression symptoms sustained throughout the programme
  • Improved emotional regulation and stress management
  • Enhanced self-confidence and body awareness

The Mind-Body Connection

Exercise programmes that emphasise mind-body integration, such as Pilates, show particular promise. These activities combine physical movement with breath control and mental focus, helping individuals:

  • Develop greater body awareness
  • Learn effective stress management techniques
  • Build emotional resilience
  • Establish healthy coping mechanisms

Types of Exercise for Addiction Recovery

Aerobic Exercise

Moderate-intensity aerobic exercise performed at approximately 70% of maximum heart rate proves most effective for exercise addiction recovery. Activities include:

  • Treadmill walking or running
  • Cycling
  • Swimming
  • Group fitness classes

The key lies in consistency—training three times per week for 20-minute sessions produces measurable neurohormonal improvements.

Mind-Body Practices

Research specifically highlights the benefits of Pilates training for individuals in recovery:

  • Progressive intensity programmes that adapt to improving fitness levels
  • Emphasis on core strength and stability
  • Integration of breathing techniques with movement
  • Low injury risk suitable for deconditioned individuals

Creating Sustainable Exercise Addiction Recovery Programmes

Professional Supervision

Successful physical activity recovery requires proper oversight:

  • Medical clearance before beginning exercise
  • Trained supervision during sessions
  • Heart rate monitoring to ensure appropriate intensity
  • Progressive programme design that prevents overexertion

Long-Term Commitment

The research emphasises that benefits accumulate over time. Participants showed:

  • Initial improvements within 4-6 weeks
  • Significant changes by 12 weeks
  • Maximum benefits achieved after 24 weeks of consistent training

Integration with Comprehensive Care

Exercise works best as part of a holistic recovery approach that includes:

  • Professional counselling and therapy
  • Medical support as needed
  • Peer support networks
  • Structured daily routines

Practical Implementation Strategies

Starting an Exercise Programme

For individuals beginning their recovery journey, successful exercise addiction recovery programmes typically include:

Foundation Phase: Week 1-4:

  • Low-intensity activities focusing on movement quality
  • 40-50% maximum heart rate
  • Emphasis on learning proper techniques

Development Phase: Week 5-12

  • Moderate intensity training
  • 60-70% maximum heart rate
  • Increased session duration and frequency

Maintenance Phase: Week 13-24

  • Sustained moderate-intensity exercise
  • Focus on long-term habit formation
  • Integration of preferred activities

Monitoring Progress

Successful programmes track multiple indicators:

  • Physical fitness improvements (strength, endurance, flexibility)
  • Mental health assessments (anxiety and depression scales)
  • Body composition changes
  • Adherence to exercise schedule

The Role of Exercise in Long-Term Recovery

Preventing Relapse

Physical activity recovery programmes address key relapse triggers:

  • Providing healthy stress relief mechanisms
  • Improving mood naturally through endorphin release
  • Building structured daily routines
  • Enhancing self-efficacy and confidence

Social Benefits

Group exercise activities offer additional advantages:

  • Peer support and accountability
  • Shared goals and achievements
  • Reduced isolation and loneliness
  • Development of healthy social connections

Building Support Networks

Family and Friends

Loved ones play crucial roles in supporting exercise addiction recovery:

  • Encouraging consistent participation
  • Participating in activities together when possible
  • Celebrating milestones and achievements
  • Understanding the importance of exercise in recovery

Professional Support Teams

Effective programmes involve multidisciplinary teams:

  • Exercise physiologists or qualified fitness professionals
  • Mental health counsellors familiar with addiction recovery
  • Medical professionals monitoring overall health
  • Peer support specialists with recovery experience

Evidence-Based Outcomes

The research provides compelling evidence for physical activity recovery effectiveness:

  • 96% programme adherence rates in supervised settings
  • Significant improvements in all measured physical parameters
  • Sustained mental health benefits throughout intervention periods
  • Strong correlations between physical improvements and psychological wellbeing

These outcomes demonstrate that exercise isn’t merely an adjunct therapy—it’s a fundamental component of comprehensive recovery strategies.

Moving Forward with Exercise Addiction Recovery

The evidence overwhelmingly supports integrating structured exercise addiction recovery programmes into comprehensive treatment approaches. By addressing both physical and mental health simultaneously, exercise provides a natural, sustainable foundation for long-term recovery success.

For individuals and families affected by substance dependency, understanding the transformative power of physical activity offers hope and practical steps towards healing. The journey may be challenging, but with proper support, professional guidance, and commitment to consistent exercise, lasting recovery becomes not just possible but probable.

The path to recovery through exercise requires dedication, but the rewards—improved physical health, enhanced mental wellbeing, and sustained freedom from substance dependency—make every step worthwhile.

Filed under: Addiction,Australia,Brain and Behaviour,Crime/Violence/Prison,Drug use-various effects,Prevention and Intervention,Treatment and Addiction :

by Herschel Baker – Director Queensland Director, Drug Free Australia – 03 August 2025 

Story by Kat Lay, Global health correspondent

Avatars smoke in an image shared on social media of a gathering in the metaverse. A packet of Djarum LA cigarettes, an Indonesian brand, sit on the table. Photograph: iceperience.id Instagram via Canary© Photograph: iceperience.id Instagram via Canary

In the image, a group of friends is standing in a bar, smoke winding upwards from the cigarettes in their hands. More lie in an open packet on the table between them. This is not a photograph taken before smoking bans, but a picture shared on social media of a gathering in the metaverse.

Virtual online spaces are becoming a new marketing battleground as tobacco and alcohol promoters target young people without any legislative consequences.

A report shared at the World Conference on Tobacco Control last month in Dublin set out multiple examples of new technologies being adopted to promote smoking and vaping, including tobacco companies launching digital tokens and vape companies sponsoring online games.

It comes from a monitoring project known as Canary – because it seeks to act as the canary in a coalmine – run by the global public health organisation Vital Strategies.

“Tobacco companies are no longer waiting for regulations to catch them up. They are way ahead of us. We are still trying to understand what we’re seeing in social media, but they’re already operating in unregulated spaces like the metaverse,” says Dr Melina Magsumbol, of Vital Strategies India. “They’re using NFTs [non-fungible tokens]. They’re using immersive events to get our kids to come and see what they’re offering.”

In India, one tobacco company made and promoted an NFT, which represents ownership of digital assets, to celebrate its 93rd anniversary.

Canary scans for and analyses tobacco marketing on social media platforms and news sites in India, Indonesia and Mexico. It is expanding to more countries, including Brazil and China, and to cover alcohol and ultra-processed food marketing.

Digital platforms are being used to bypass traditional advertising restrictions and target young audiences

Melina Magsumbol, Vital Strategies India

It is not set up to scan the metaverse – a three-dimensional, immersive version of the internet that uses technology such as virtual reality headsets to enable people to interact in a digital space. But it has picked up references to what is going on there via links and information shared on older social media sites.

Researchers say that children are likely to be exposed to any tobacco marketing in the new digital spaces given the age profile of users – more than half of the metaverse’s active users are aged 13 and below.

Social media companies have deep knowledge of how to drive engagement and keep people coming back for more views, says Dr Mary-Ann Etiebet, chief executive of Vital Strategies.

“When you combine that with the experience and the knowledge of the tobacco industry on how to hook and keep people hooked … those two things together in a space that is unknown and opaque – that scares me.”

Mark Zuckerberg, metaverse’s prominent backer, says in future “you’ll be able to do almost anything you can imagine” there. Already, that includes shopping and attending virtual concerts.

But Magsumbol describes it as “a new battleground for all of us” that is “being taken over by corporate entities that actually push health-harming products”.

“My daughter is very quiet, she’s an introvert. But online, on [gaming platform] Roblox, when she is killing zombies and ghosts, she morphs into a different avatar – she’s like Alexander the Great mixed with Bruce Lee and John Wick. She is so bloodthirsty,” she says.

“Online we behave differently. Social norms change … the tobacco industry knows that very well. And it’s so easy to subtly sell the idea that you can be anything, anyone you want.”

The metaverse art the team saw in Indonesia was shared on an Instagram account for electronic music lovers linked to Djarum, one of Indonesia’s largest cigarette companies. Another example showed a group having coffee, and looking for a lighter.

It all amounts to efforts to “normalise” smoking and vaping, says Magsumbol. “This kind of behaviour is happening and being done by your avatars, but is it seeping into your real life?

“Digital platforms are being used to bypass traditional advertising restrictions and target young audiences,” she says. “What we’re seeing here is not just a shift in marketing, it’s a shift in how influence works.”

Other researchers have set out examples of alcohol being promoted and even sold in virtual stores.

Online marketing is a global issue. At the same conference, Irish researchers shared findings that 53% of teenagers saw e-cigarette posts daily on social media.

A World Health Organization official (WHO) says a rise in youth smoking in Ukraine is due, in part, to Covid and the war pushing children “too much online” and exposing them to marketing.

Related: Vapes threaten to undo gains in tackling dangers of tobacco, health leaders warn

In India, Agamroop Kaur, a youth ambassador at the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, includes social media marketing when speaking to schoolchildren about the dangers of tobacco and vaping. She has seen vapes suggested as a “wellness” item.

“I think educating youth on what an advertisement looks like, why it’s false, how you might not even see that it’s from the tobacco industry and it’s [content posted by an] influencer is really powerful because then that builds a skill – so that when they’re on social media, because they are digital natives, they’re able to see all of that and know that it’s fake and it’s not something they should be attracted by. I think building those skills early from high school to middle school, and even younger, is really important.”

The WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control requires countries to implement bans on tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship. Last year, signatories agreed that action was needed to tackle the increasing focus on “digital marketing channels such as social media, which increases adolescent and young people’s exposure to tobacco marketing”.

But there is no easy answer, says Andrew Black at the framework’s secretariat.

“The challenge of regulating the internet is not a problem that’s unique to tobacco. It’s a real challenge for governments to think about how they can provide the protections that society is used to in a world where borders are broken down because of these technologies.”

Nandita Murukutla, who oversees Canary, says regulators should take note: “What starts out small and you ignore, rises up to a certain point when you’ve got critical mass, and after that, it just explodes, and dialing something back is virtually impossible.”

Herschel Baker

International Liaison, Director Queensland Director, Drug Free Australia – Web https://drugfree.org.au/

Source:  https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/other/smoking-avatars-and-online-games-how-big-tobacco-targets-young-people-in-the-metaverse/ar-AA1J2WHU?

Filed under: Australia,Drug use-various effects,Nicotine,Tobacco, smoking,Vaping,Youth :

by  Shalini Ramachandran  and Betsy McKay – Wall Street Journal – July 31, 2025

Hundreds of thousands of veterans with PTSD have been prescribed simultaneous doses of powerful psychiatric drugs. The practice, known as “polypharmacy,” can tranquilize patients to the point of numbness, cause weight gain and increase suicidal thoughts when it involves pharmaceuticals that target the central nervous system, according to scientific studies and veterans’ accounts. 

The VA’s own guidelines say no data support drug combinations to treat PTSD. The Food and Drug Administration warns that combining certain medications such as opioids and benzodiazepines can cause serious side effects, including death.

Nonetheless, prescribing cocktails of such drugs is one of the VA’s most common treatments for veterans with PTSD, and the number of veterans on multiple psychiatric drugs is a growing concern at the agency, according to interviews with more than 50 veterans, VA health practitioners, researchers and former officials, and a review of VA medical records and studies.

Polypharmacy has multiple definitions when it comes to central nervous system drugs. The VA defines it as taking five or more medications at the same time, while some medical researchers say it’s two or more and the American Geriatrics Society defines it as three or more. 

There is an emerging medical consensus among VA doctors and researchers that taking multiple central nervous system drugs can wreak havoc on patients. Interactions between such drugs aren’t well understood, and their effects in combination can be unpredictable and extreme.

SOME CASE HISTORIES …

Mark Miller

U.S. Navy, Security Forces (1992-2007)

In 2007, Mark Miller was diagnosed with PTSD. The military put him on fluoxetine, otherwise known as Prozac. He became suicidal. Miller eventually weaned himself off medications and used “neuroplasticity” therapy which forms new connections in the brain. This April, returning suicidal thoughts prompted Miller to visit a VA hospital in San Antonio. A nurse practitioner prescribed a powerful antipsychotic in a five-minute appointment. Six days later, Miller returned, stepped off a shuttle bus and fatally shot himself in the head. “He did it clearly to speak for all the veterans who have no voice,” his father said.

  • Aripiprazole
  • Bupropion
  • Cyclobenzaprine
  • Fluoxetine
  • Lithium
  • Quetiapine
  • Tramadol

‘They did not even listen to anything I said — just prescribed stuff. Unreal’— Text from Mark Miller to his father days before his suicide

The VA maintains that the best treatment for PTSD is talk therapy. But therapists are scarce and wait times are long, so overwhelmed doctors default to pills. Because there is no single drug designed specifically to treat PTSD, veterans often end up on drug cocktails as multiple specialists try to ease a variety of symptoms and prevent harm or suicide, according to VA clinical staff, studies and veterans. 

“When it comes to the challenge of polypharmacy in these populations, it’s constantly chasing your tail,” said Dr. Ryan Vega, a chief healthcare innovation official at the VA until 2023, who still treats veterans. “It is where medicine is more art than science. We have medications that treat those symptoms but are we addressing the root cause?”

Nearly 60% of VA patients with PTSD were taking two or more central nervous system drugs at the same time in 2019, the latest year for which data are publicly available, according to a VA study. That works out to more than 520,000 patients, up 62% from a decade earlier, driven by a near doubling of the number of VA patients with PTSD due to more combat tours and better screening. 

One silver lining highlighted by the study was that the percentage of PTSD veterans on five or more CNS medications declined to 7% from 12%, largely due to internal efforts to deprescribe opioids and benzodiazepines. (Central nervous system drugs affect the brain and spinal cord; psychiatric medications are a subset of CNS drugs). The VA declined requests from The Wall Street Journal to provide more recent polypharmacy numbers for veterans in its care. 

The VA has long been aware of the risks of overprescribing, and has internal research since at least 2016 showing the potential harms, including increased risk of suicide. The internal polypharmacy data “was pretty concerning,” said Dr. Shereef Elnahal, who headed the VA health system until early this year. He recalled a veteran advocate who told him about three veterans on more than five psychiatric drugs each who died by suicide, one after the other. They had been “walking around like zombies” before they took their own lives, the advocate told him. 

The VA’s use of psychiatric drugs has come under scrutiny from members of Congress and advocacy groups as the veteran suicide rate is roughly double that of U.S. adults who didn’t serve. Studies by VA researchers link the simultaneous use of multiple psychiatric drugs to suicide risk among veterans, including a 2016 paper that found Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans taking five or more central nervous system drugs faced higher risks of overdose and suicidal behaviors.

Lucas Hamrick

U.S. Army, Special Forces (1996-2019)

Lucas Hamrick was diagnosed with PTSD in the Army. There, and then at the VA, he was prescribed multiple central nervous system drugs. Some put him in a daze, others made him feel like he might want to kill himself. After losing 12 friends on similar drug combinations to suicide, Hamrick quit all the medications by 2023 and turned to meditation, mindfulness and breathing exercises. “It’s about structuring life around how not to let things spill over,” he said.

  • Chlordiazepoxide
  • Diazepam
  • Gabapentin
  • Hydrocodone-acetaminophen
  • Lorazepam
  • Naltrexone
  • Paroxetine
  • Phenobarbital
  • Prazosin
  • Propranolol
  • Rizatriptan
  • Sertraline
  • Trazodone

‘The quality of mental health care made me feel like I was there to check a box and complete the process instead of working toward any type of changes in perspective or disposition.’

Yet the agency has been slow to mandate changes. It has failed to implement nationwide electronic systems to alert doctors when they prescribe multiple psychiatric drugs, despite evidence from its own studies that these alerts improve care. The VA doesn’t uniformly require written informed consent for all psychiatric drugs with suicide risk, something that veterans groups and some members of Congress are urging. Some veterans who have resisted taking cocktails of drugs say they were warned by VA and military doctors that refusing them could jeopardize their eligibility for disability benefits, which can reach $4,500 a month.

“I’ve been mortified by practically every veteran I’ve seen having been prescribed multiple psychiatric medications, often without a timely referral to therapy or without any referral at all,” said Janie Gendron, a therapist who worked for the Defense Department and has seen hundreds of active-duty service members and veterans in the past 25 years.

A VA spokesman said the agency is looking into the issues raised by the Journal, and that the Trump administration is seeking to address serious problems it has identified in veterans’ healthcare that weren’t solved by the Biden administration. 

VA Secretary Doug Collins said at a congressional hearing in May that the agency is pursuing the potential use of alternative therapies, such as psychedelics, to offer more options and reduce the risk of suicide among veterans. 

The rise of the combat cocktail for PTSD has its roots in the overreliance on a single class of drugs: benzodiazepines. By the 1970s, the military and VA relied heavily on Valium and, later, Xanax as a primary treatment for traumatized service members and veterans returning from deployment. But in the 1990s, Defense Department researchers observed that high doses often yielded poor clinical outcomes, and, along with the VA, ultimately advised against their long-term use on veterans in 2004.

Still, against the guideline, the VA has doled out benzodiazepines to more than 1.7 million patients with PTSD diagnoses since 2005, its own data show. It took nearly a decade for the use of those drugs to start to decline.

At the same time, prescriptions to veterans with PTSD rose for other powerful psychiatric drugs.

VA doctors and patients say that existing tools to limit the number of psychiatric drugs a patient takes, and guidance to avoid the use of benzodiazepines and certain antipsychotics for veterans with PTSD, are frequently ignored.

A friend’s suicide

After his best friend’s suicide in 2013, Iraq war veteran Doug Gresenz was diagnosed with PTSD and borderline personality disorder and eventually put on six psychotropic drugs. After one medication’s dosage was increased, he attempted suicide and was hospitalized. When he protested the volume of medications there, he said VA doctors questioned his commitment to recovery and told him he needed the pills to lead a normal life. “I was guilt-tripped,” he said. 

Doug Gresenz

U.S. Marine Corps, Assaultman (2006-2010)

  • Baclofen
  • Bupropion
  • Citalopram
  • Clonazepam
  • Clonidine
  • Cyclobenzaprine
  • Divalproex
  • Doxepin
  • Erenumab-aooe
  • Eszopiclone
  • Gabapentin
  • Hydroxyzine
  • Melatonin
  • Methocarbamol
  • Mirtazapine
  • Olanzapine
  • Oxycodone
  • Prazosin
  • Propranolol
  • Sumatriptan
  • Quetiapine
  • Tizanidine
  • Tramadol
  • Trazodone
  • Venlafaxine
  • Zolpidem

‘I remember thinking: I’m literally poisoning myself.’

In 2016 alone, VA doctors prescribed him more than a dozen drugs, including antidepressants, antipsychotics, muscle relaxants and medications for nightmares, anxiety, pain and sleep, medical records show. Over little more than a decade, he received more than two dozen central nervous system medications. He recalled complaining to VA doctors that he was “so doped up” he would have accidents before getting to the bathroom.

“I remember thinking: I’m literally poisoning myself,” he said. In 2018, he quit benzodiazepines cold turkey and began to taper off the other drugs.

Within a couple of weeks, he collapsed, unable to use his legs. He developed a stutter and extreme light sensitivity. Violent spasms led to another fall, which caused complications that resulted in a severe foot injury and, eventually, an amputation last year.

The VA recommends any one of three antidepressants for PTSD—sertraline (Zoloft), paroxetine (Paxil) and venlafaxine (Effexor). But doctors are free to prescribe other additional drugs off-label—and many do.

“It’s super normal to see someone on five or six medications,” said Mary Neal Vieten, a retired Navy psychologist who has worked with thousands of members of the military and veterans. “That’s like an everyday thing.” Trauma has been medicalized, she said. “They’re acting as if the problem is in the person,” she said. Instead, it’s a normal response to an overwhelming experience, she said.

‘Stop-and-go’ pills

The culture of combat cocktails begins for some who are diagnosed with PTSD while still on active duty. In the military, too, drugs have long been given priority over psychotherapy, according to many veterans, former VA officials and therapists. 

One Navy chaplain said his repeated calls to the Navy for more mental health resources went unanswered despite his documentation of more than 70 critical events, including suicide attempts, at a high-stress installation with nuclear submarines. When the chaplain himself grew suicidal, Navy doctors suggested that refusing the three-medication cocktail they prescribed could lead to discharge without benefits, instead of medical retirement with care. 

Some veterans enter VA care dependent on psychiatric drugs that they were prescribed to improve combat readiness. They include Air Force veterans given “stop-and-go” pills—stimulants followed by sleeping pills. 

Michael Valentino, who was chief pharmacist at the VA until 2021, said he grew alarmed by the rising numbers of service members entering VA care on stimulants without a diagnosis justifying it. “Then the VA has the burden of trying to undo it.”

Heather King

U.S. Air Force, Aircraft Maintenance Craftsman (2001-2010)

Heather King struggled with sleep after the Air Force prescribed Ambien following long flights. After her discharge, she was diagnosed with PTSD, and the VA added eight central nervous system drugs by 2020. King begged for help weaning off. Her VA doctor’s response: “Heather, under no circumstances are you ever going to be a person who is going to operate without meds.” She’s lately been sleeping soundly without pills for the first time, thanks to cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia—something the VA only told her about recently.

  • Amitriptyline
  • Buspirone
  • Cyclobenzaprine
  • Doxazosin
  • Doxepin
  • Duloxetine
  • Fluoxetine
  • Gabapentin
  • Hydroxyzine
  • Lamotrigine
  • Lorazepam
  • Mirtazapine
  • Prazosin
  • Propranolol
  • Ramelteon
  • Trazodone
  • Zaleplon
  • Zolpidem

‘It was like a death sentence. All these medications, they just made me numb. I wanted to feel my feelings, I wanted to actually heal.’

A Pentagon official said several medications at once are sometimes necessary for patients with multiple medical problems or who are treatment-resistant, adding that “records are reviewed to determine if the treating provider has provided clinical justification for the use of polypharmacy.” Service members and their families are offered “a robust and comprehensive array” of mental health programs, the official said.

Chemical messengers

Psychiatric drugs work by affecting levels of chemical messengers in the brain called neurotransmitters, which send signals between nerve cells and other cells in the body. For instance, many antidepressants increase levels of serotonin, a neurotransmitter associated with mood. Benzodiazepines enhance the activity of a neurotransmitter called GABA, while some antipsychotics block dopamine receptors. Layering on several of these central nervous system agents at once can magnify their effects. 

Combining an antipsychotic drug that activates dopamine receptors with one that blocks dopamine can exacerbate psychosis, said Dr. Sanket Raut, a research fellow specializing in polypharmacy at Gallipoli Medical Research in Brisbane, Australia. By the same token, benzodiazepines and opioids taken together can increase the risk of overdose. “Polypharmacy is a big problem,” said Raut. “There are many side effects: cognitive impairment, dizziness and the risk of falls.”

Erika Downey

U.S. Army, Military Police (2007-2013)

Amphetamine-Dextroamphetamine

  • Clonazepam
  • Erenumab-aooe
  • Fluoxetine
  • Lorazepam
  • Trazodone

‘They give out these giant paper bags filled with medicine after your first psychiatrist appointment.’

“They give out these giant paper bags filled with medicine after your first psychiatrist appointment,” said Erika Downey, a 35-year-old retired Army sergeant with PTSD. Women are more likely to be prescribed multiple drugs concurrently against guidelines, VA researchers have found. 

Downey’s bouts of suicidal ideation while taking antidepressants, benzodiazepines and stimulants were so bad she once called a friend to come take away her gun. After that, she decided talk therapy would be the best medicine. She weaned herself off the drugs on her own over two years. She had to wait three years for a VA psychotherapy appointment. “At the VA, you are more quick to get into a psychiatrist”—someone who can prescribe meds—“than a psychologist,” she said. Gray for WSJ

Only 15% of veterans diagnosed with depression, PTSD or anxiety are offered psychotherapy in lieu of medication, according to a 2019 report by the Government Accountability Office. “They’re really leveraging the prescribing to keep up with patient demand,” said Derek Blumke of the Grunt Style Foundation, a nonprofit veterans’ care group. Many VA providers’ impulse is to “get them in and get them out,” said Chris Figura, a patient advocate at a VA in St. Louis.

Navy veteran Dick Johnson, in the VA system for three decades and diagnosed with PTSD and bipolar disorder, was prescribed more than 25 different central nervous system drugs, including antipsychotics, antidepressants and epilepsy medications, sometimes on six concurrently, his medical records show. He blames them for the collapse of his two marriages. “They pretty much destroyed my life,” Johnson said. When he worsened on one antipsychotic and experienced intense withdrawal tapering off, VA doctors tried to patch him up with a cocktail of other medicines including benzodiazepines. In 2006, he started a prolonged dose of Seroquel, a powerful antipsychotic, to get off benzodiazepines, because doctors said it was supposed to be easier to stop. His weight soared and he developed diabetes. Quitting Seroquel “nearly killed” him, as he suffered intense vomiting, diarrhea and a near-inability to digest. He’s still tapering off Paxil and Tegretol today, using a jewelry scale and sandpaper.

Drugged for Decades

Dick Johnson, who joined the Navy in 1989, was diagnosed with bipolar disorder. After he was medically discharged in 1994, the VA put him on a heavy regimen of psychiatric drugs that made matters worse.

  • Medications prescribed, by class and date
  • Mood Stabilizers Anti- Psychotics Anti- Anxiety Anti-Depressant Medicated with lithium, which makes him severely ill 1995
  • Lithium Divorce with first wife  2000
  • Second marriage ’05 PTSD diagnosis
  • Divorce with second wife Seroquel ’10
  • Retires with disability from power plant ’15
  • Side effects of medications lead to ICU visit. Seeks help outside VA to taper off meds ’20
  • After cutting backmeds, joinssupport groupsand shares hisexperience
  • Note: Does not include all medications, including those prescribed for short durations.

Dr. Saraswathy Battar, a VA geriatrician, launched a passion project in 2016 to decrease the use of potentially inappropriate medications. After noticing veterans suffering from debilitating symptoms that she attributed to overprescription, she developed an electronic tool that has helped providers discontinue more than three million prescriptions. About half of VA providers are using the optional tool, she said, but they’re mostly caring for older veterans or those in palliative care, while it’s been hard to get mental health providers to adopt the tool. Some said they were unaware of its existence. “Suicide and homicide get attention,” but “there’s no penalty for not prioritizing polypharmacy reduction,” she said.

A path forward

After years on psychiatric drug regimens prescribed by military and VA doctors, a growing number of veterans are taking healing into their own hands, often exploring unconventional treatments. Many veterans said they are frustrated and angry that the country spends heavily training them to be lethal, but there’s little support for their fragile mental health as they reintegrate back into society.

Scott Griffin, the former special operations soldier who contemplated suicide last year, reached out to a group called Veterans Exploring Treatment Solutions, or VETS, after the episode. Their suggestion: ibogaine, a powerful psychedelic derived from an African plant and illegal in the U.S., but only after tapering off his current medications. When Griffin asked his VA prescriber for help tapering, “he point-blank refused,” Griffin said.

He embarked on a gruelling self-taper. “I was white knuckling. I broke my teeth from clenching,” he recalled, battling intense vertigo and suicidality.

After 12 hours of altered consciousness on ibogaine in Mexico, Griffin took 5-MeO-DMT, a psychoactive compound most famously found in Colorado River toads’ poison, which he says was a profound spiritual experience. Since returning home in March, he has discarded his pills, prays daily and spends time with family, reconnecting after years of being “consumed by panic and anxiety.”

A Stanford study of 30 special operations forces veterans published last year found that ibogaine sharply reduced PTSD and related symptoms. A bipartisan bill in the House aims to fund VA research into psychedelics, which doctors caution remain largely unproven in clinical trials. 

Says Griffin, “How does bark from a tree and venom off the back of a toad beat all this crap, all these pharmaceuticals they push down your throat?”

Source:  Maggie Petito – www.drugwatch.org

Filed under: Culture,Drug use-various effects,Health,Mental Health,Prevention and Intervention,Treatment and Addiction,USA :

by Rebecca H. Johnson, Ashley Speckhart, Franklin Chien, Archie Bleyer – Academia Oncology – June 06, 2025

Abstract

Introduction: The aim of this study was to test the a priori hypothesis that the increasing incidence of testis and breast cancer in adolescent and young adult (AYA) Americans correlates with their increasing cannabis use. 

Methods: The overall study design involved comparing breast and testis cancer incidence trends in jurisdictions that had or had not legalized cannabis use. Cancer incidence was assessed for the U.S. using the U.S. Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) data, and for Canada, using Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation data. 

Results: In the U.S., both breast carcinoma in 20- to 34-year-old females and testis cancer in 15- to 39-year-old males had annual incidence rate increases that were highly correlated (Pearson’s r = 0.95) with the increase in the number of cannabis-legalizing jurisdictions during the period 2000–2019. Both were significantly greater during the period 2000–2019 in the SEER registries of cannabis-legalizing than non-legalizing states (Joinpoint-derived average annual percent change, AAPC1.3, p << 0.001 vs. 0.7, p << 0.001, respectively, for breast cancer, and AAPC1.2, p << 0.001 vs. no increase during the period 2000–2011 for testis cancer). During the period 2000–2019, registries in cannabis-legalizing versus non-legalizing states had a 26% versus 17% increase in breast carcinoma and 24% versus 14% increase in testis cancer. In the same age groups, Canada had a greater increase in both breast and testis cancer incidence than the U.S., and in both countries, breast and cancer trends were both correlated with the country’s cannabis use disorder prevalence by age. 

Conclusions: North America shows evidence that cannabis is a potential etiologic factor contributing to the rising incidence of breast carcinoma and testis cancer in young adults. Canada’s greater increases than in the U.S. are consistent with its earlier and broader cannabis legalization. Given the increasing use and potency of cannabis facilitated by jurisdiction legalization and expanded availability, cannabis’ potential as a cause of breast and testis cancer merits national consideration.

Source:  https://www.academia.edu/2998-7741/2/2/10.20935/AcadOnco7758

Filed under: Cannabis/Marijuana,Drug use-various effects,Health,Prevention and Intervention,USA,Youth :

Opening statement by Herschel Baker

Sent: 31 July 2025 23:41 – 1 August 2025

It does appear that America is taking important action regarding Fentanyl but it’s also very important for America to make nitazene.

https://www.utmb.edu/mdnews/podcast/episode/even-worse-than-fentanyl

<https://www.utmb.edu/mdnews/podcast/episode/even-worse-than-fentanyl>   a Schedule I drug.

<https://www.cadca.org/advocacy/president-trump-signs-halt-fentanyl-act-into-law/>

This important legislation attached permanently designates all fentanyl-related substances as Schedule I drugs.

<https://www.cadca.org/advocacy/president-trump-signs-halt-fentanyl-act-into-law/>

<https://www.cadca.org/advocacy/terrance-cole-sworn-in-as-new-administrator-of-the-drug-enforcement-administration/>

It does appear that Terrance Cole is the right choice Sworn in as New Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration

<https://www.cadca.org/advocacy/terrance-cole-sworn-in-as-new-administrator-of-the-drug-enforcement-administration/> 

Terrance Cole Sworn in as New Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration | CADCA

<https://www.cadca.org/advocacy/terrance-cole-sworn-in-as-new-administrator-of-the-drug-enforcement-administration/>

This Fentanyl Act is a good example that The Australian Federal Government needs to review and implement as a new Act to help keep The Australian community safe:

  1. Alcohol And Drug Foundation https://adf.org.au/drug-facts/fentanyl/

https://adf.org.au/insights/fentanyl-and-nitazenes/

  1. What are nitazenes?

https://www1.racgp.org.au/newsgp/clinical/what-are-nitazenes

  1. AFP warn over alarming potent synthetic opioids in 2024

https://www.afp.gov.au/news-centre/media-release/afp-warn-over-alarming-pote

nt-synthetic-opioids-2024

  1. Weak response from TGA

https://www.tga.gov.au/products/medicines/prescription-medicines/prescriptio

n-opioids-hub/prescription-opioids-what-changes-are-being-made-and-why

  1. Weak response from NIDA

https://nida.nih.gov/research-topics/fentanyl#addictive

  1. Lethal synthetic opioids found in Australian wastewater

https://news.uq.edu.au/2025-03-19-lethal-synthetic-opioids-found-australian-wastewater

  1. Warning of potentially deadly synthetic opioid

https://www.sahealth.sa.gov.au/wps/wcm/connect/public+content/sa+health+internet/about+us/news+and+media/all+media+releases/warning+of+potentially+deadly+synthetic+opioid

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

PUBLIC LAW 119–26—JULY 16, 2025
HALT ALL LETHAL TRAFFICKING OF FENTANYL ACT

To access the full document:

  1. Click on the ‘Source’ link below.
  2. An image  – the front page of the full document will appear.
  3. Click on the image to open the full document.

Source:  HALT ALL LETHAL TRAFFICKING OF Fentanyl Act

Filed under: Fentanyl,Political Sector,Prevention and Intervention,USA :
by Lindsey Culli – Department of Health Policy and Management – July 30, 2025

A new study from researchers at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health sheds light on how people who inject drugs (PWID) are responding to the growing instability and danger in the U.S. illicit drug supply. Despite facing structural vulnerabilities, participants in the study demonstrated a keen awareness of changes in drug quality and content, and many are taking proactive steps to reduce their risk of overdose, injury, and other harms.

Published July 24, 2025, in the journal Health Promotion International, the qualitative study explores the experiences of 23 PWID in Baltimore City, where a growing number of opioid-related deaths and the emergence of new, harmful adulterants like xylazine have made drug use increasingly perilous. Participants reported encountering potent and unpredictable drug combinations and described cognitive, behavioral, and social strategies they use to navigate this new reality. Notably, the paper’s publication comes just two weeks after a mass overdose in Baltimore’s Penn North neighborhood sent dozens of people to the hospital in the span of a few hours and tests revealed unfamiliar ingredients.

“We found that people who inject drugs are not indifferent to the risks they face,” said lead author Abigail Winiker, PhD, MSPH, an assistant scientist in Health Policy and Management and program director for the Bloomberg Overdose Prevention Initiative. “They are making conscious decisions every day to protect their health, whether that’s testing a small dose, avoiding injecting alone, switching to less risky methods of use, or sharing safety information with peers. These are intentional harm reduction strategies grounded in knowledge and a desire to stay safe.”

The U.S. continues to grapple with a historic overdose crisis, with over 107,000 deaths reported in 2022 alone. Fentanyl and its analogs now dominate the opioid supply, but new substances, often unknown to users, are increasingly present. Participants in the study described a “wildcard” market where real heroin has been replaced by unpredictable blends, sometimes laced with benzodiazepines, dissociative agents, or tranquilizers like xylazine, which are not meant for human consumption.

The uncertainty has led to intense fear and physical harm among PWID, with many recounting a range of adverse reactions from illicit substance use, including blackouts, seizures, severe wounds, and overdose. Despite the increasing risk associated with these drug market changes, most participants reported having no access to a reliable source of information about the composition of the drug supply, making it challenging to adapt in the face of new additives. Most knowledge about specific risks or harmful batches was passed on through word of mouth, which could perpetuate rumors and the spread of misinformation.

Individual and Collective Adaptations 

The study highlights the wide array of harm reduction strategies participants use to mitigate risk. Cognitively, many indicated thinking about their drug use in terms of personal health and family responsibilities, with some expressing a motivation to seek treatment or abstain from use entirely in the face of an increasingly risky drug supply.

Behaviorally, PWID described strategies such as taking smaller test doses, sniffing instead of injecting, and having someone present who could administer naloxone if needed. Socially, trust played a critical role; participants emphasized returning to known sellers who warned them about potent batches and relying on peer networks to spread information about adverse events or dangerous batches in circulation. 

“These strategies reflect a deep sense of agency and adaptability,” said Winiker. “Our findings debunk the dangerous myth that individuals who use drugs are reckless or disconnected from their health. This false narrative perpetuates stigma and limits our ability as a society to recognize the incredible resilience and strength of people who use drugs.” 

Policy and Programmatic Implications 

The authors argue that these findings should inform more responsive public health policies and harm reduction programming. While fentanyl test strips can be an effective intervention, many participants noted that fentanyl’s presence is now expected, but what they fear are the unknown additives they cannot identify or test for, such as those that were found in the case of the mass overdose two weeks ago. Universal drug checking services, real-time supply surveillance, and mobile harm reduction outreach are critical next steps, the study concludes.

The research also points to the urgent need to remove structural barriers to harm reduction. In many states, drug checking equipment is still considered illegal paraphernalia. Criminalization and stigma continue to limit access to lifesaving services, especially among those who are unhoused or medically underserved. 

“People who inject drugs are doing their part to reduce harm,” said Winiker. “It’s time to reform our systems so they stop making it harder for them to do so, by legalizing drug checking, ensuring individuals with lived experience have leadership roles in overdose prevention and response efforts, investing in safer supply programs, and ensuring that stigma and punitive laws don’t block access to care.”

The study was conducted as part of the SCOPE Study, a project led by Susan Sherman, PhD, MPH, to design an integrated drug checking and HIV prevention intervention. It was supported by the National Institute on Drug Abuse and reflects growing interest in how PWID are adapting to the post-fentanyl era.

Source:  https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2025/in-the-face-of-a-volatile-drug-supply-people-take-harm-reduction-into-their-own-hands

Filed under: Addiction,Culture,Drug use-various effects,Harm Reduction,Mental Health,Strategy and Policy,USA :

by Rachel Girarda, PATHS Lab, Department of Psychology, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI, USA

Background: American Indian communities consistently identify adolescent substance use as a major concern. However, limited empirical work has examined how culturally specific protective factors – such as family disapproval and cultural affiliation – interact to influence substance use behavior. Given the importance of kinship networks and cultural continuity, understanding these dynamics is critical for informing culturally grounded prevention strategies.

Objectives: This study examines the moderating role of cultural affiliation in the association between family disapproval of substance use and actual use among American Indian adolescents, a population often excluded from national health datasets.

Methods: Secondary analysis was conducted using self-report data from the Our Youth, Our Future study, a nationally representative sample of American Indian adolescents attending schools on or near reservations (N = 8,950; 51% female; Mage = 14.64 years, SD = 1.77).

Results: Multilevel analyses revealed that family disapproval was negatively associated with lifetime alcohol (b = −0.15, p < .001) and cannabis use (b = −0.34, p < .001), controlling for age. Among adolescents who endorsed use, cultural affiliation moderated the relationship between family disapproval and past-year alcohol and cannabis use. Specifically, family disapproval was significantly associated with lower alcohol use at high (b = −0.01, p = .002) but not low (b = −0.07, p = .48) levels of cultural affiliation. For cannabis use, the association was stronger at high (b = −0.51, p < .001) versus low (b = −0.32, p = .005) levels.

Conclusions: Cultural affiliation strengthens the protective effects of family disapproval on substance use among American Indian youth. Findings support culturally responsive, family-based prevention efforts that promote cultural identity and intergenerational communication.

Source: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00952990.2025.2535557?src=

Filed under: Culture,Prevention and Intervention,USA :

by Shane Varcoe – 24 July 2025

Big Alcohol – Big Interference: Unnecessary Harm Podcast – SPECIAL DRY in JULY Episode – #alcoholawareness #soberinspiration

In this eye-opening episode of The Unnecessary Harm Podcast, we sit down with Kristina Spikova, President of Movendi International, a global network of over 170 organizations fighting alcohol harm across 63 countries. As we celebrate Dry July, Kristina reveals the shocking truth about Big Alcohol’s predatory tactics and their devastating impact on global development.

With her extensive experience in public health advocacy, Kristina exposes how alcohol directly affects 15 out of 17 UN Sustainable Development Goals, from poverty and hunger to gender equality and climate change. She discusses the alarming rise in alcohol-related violence, the industry’s deceptive marketing targeting women and children, and the environmental destruction caused by alcohol production – including the staggering 270 liters of water needed to produce just one liter of beer.

Kristina also highlights recent scientific research which underscores the health risks associated with alcohol consumption, noting its classification as a Group 1 carcinogen, alongside substances like tobacco and asbestos. From the WHO’s “best buys” policies to Big Alcohol’s corporate interference at the UN level, this conversation provides crucial insights into the global fight against one of the world’s most harmful legal substances.
Source:  Shane Varcoe – CEO Dalgarno Institute
Filed under: Uncategorized :

by Emily Caldwell – Ohio State News – Jul 08, 2025

Almost 1 in 10 workers in their 30s uses alcohol, marijuana or hard drugs like cocaine while on the job in the United States, a new study has found. 

The risk for substance use among young employees was highest in the food preparation/service industry and in safety-sensitive occupations including construction – a sector linked in previous research with a high risk for drug overdose deaths. 

Based on their prior studies of workplace strategies related to employee substance use, the researchers say these new findings suggest comprehensive substance use policies and supportive interventions could improve safety and help reduce workers’ misuse of alcohol and drugs. 

“Especially for those working in blue-collar or heavy manual jobs, they often have limited access to support to address substance use,” said lead author Sehun Oh, associate professor of social work at The Ohio State University. “It’s easy to blame someone for using substances, but we want to pay attention to understanding their working conditions and barriers at the workplace.” 

Oh completed the study with Daejun “Aaron” Park, assistant professor of social work at Ohio University, and Sarah Al-Hashemi, a recent Ohio State College of Public Health graduate. 

The research was published recently in the American Journal of Industrial Medicine. 

Previous research has suggested that substance use is common among people who work long hours or evening shifts and earn low wages, or who experience life stressors such as low annual household income and limited education. But few studies have been able to report on substance use during work hours, and the occupations at highest risk for on-the-job alcohol and drug use, because the data is hard to come by. 

“There are many studies looking at specific occupations and their risks, and the prevalence of substance use outside work,” Oh said. “There is very limited evidence on workplace substance use, which is more concerning in terms of occupational safety, not just for the workers but also colleagues or others exposed to the workplaces. This is the only data we know of to inform this issue.” 

The study sample included 5,465 young employees who participated in the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997, a nationally representative sample of men and women who were aged 12-17 in 1997 and were interviewed regularly until 2022. The NLSY surveys were conducted by Ohio State’s Center for Human Resource Research. Data for this study came from the 2015-16 survey, the most recent wave to collect information on substance use behaviors. 

Results were based on participants’ reports of substance use immediately before or during a work shift in the past month. Among respondents, 8.9% of workers reported any substance use in the workplace, including 5.6% drinking alcohol, 3.1% using marijuana and 0.8% taking cocaine or other hard drugs, a category that also included opioids. 

Statistical modeling showed a higher risk for all types of on-the-job substance use among food-industry workers, higher alcohol use among white-collar workers (linked in prior research to drinking while cultivating business relationships or celebrating accomplishments), and elevated alcohol and marijuana use in safety-sensitive occupations.

“We’re really concerned to see the findings for safety-sensitive occupations – not just in construction, but also installation, maintenance, repair, transportation and material movement,” Oh said. “In many federal-level transportation occupations, there are policies prohibiting operating under the influence. So we’re surprised to see that still 6% of material moving workers are working under the influence, and 2% of them are using marijuana – this was striking, because other than drug testing policies, it’s hard to implement interventions for workers moving from place to place.” 

Both Oh and Park said these new findings shed light on the impact that comprehensive employer substance use policies and supportive programs for workers could have.  

Variations in workplace substance-use policies may be one explanation for industry differences in risk for employee alcohol and drug use on the job, Park said. In a 2023 study he led, 20% of survey participants reported their workplaces had no substance use policy. The research showed that comprehensive workplace substance use policies – which included recovery-friendly initiatives – were linked to a significant decrease in employee drug and alcohol use across many employment sectors. 

“The work categories least likely to have substance use policies tend to be those managed individually by owners or workers,” he said. “Also the arts, food service, entertainment, recreation – those kinds of workplaces don’t tend to have polices in place.” 

And Oh found in a 2023 study that only half of workers in a national sample had access to support services for substance use problems, such as counseling, at their places of employment. Availability of workplace support services led to lower rates of marijuana and other illicit drug use among workers. 

“What I found was policy alone can’t be effective in reducing substance use problems – policies need to be accompanied by support services,” he said. “That’s one thing we propose in this paper – that combining alcohol and other drug policies with supportive services produces the greatest benefits, rather than relying on either alone.” 

The analysis also showed substance use in the workplace had strong associations with off-work substance misuse: Users of marijuana on the job were more likely to report daily cannabis use and were more than twice as likely to be heavy drinkers compared to those not using marijuana at work, and employees on cocaine or other hard drugs while working were more likely to drink heavily, use marijuana more frequently, and report frequent illicit drug use. 

“Our research shows that those under adverse working conditions with many barriers to economic and well-being resources tend to use substances as a coping mechanism, whether that relates to an emotional toll or physical demands of not just working conditions, but their life circumstances,” Oh said. “There is a need for more structural support to address these huge implications for the health of workers and others, and to reduce the stigma associated with substance use.” 

Source: https://news.osu.edu/9-of-young-us-employees-use-alcohol-drugs-at-work-study-finds/

Filed under: Alcohol,Drug use-various effects,Prevention and Intervention,USA,Workplace,Youth :
by Pat Aussem, L.P.C., M.A.C. – Vice President, Consumer Clinical Content Development – July 2025
Inhalants

Inhalants are ordinary household products that are inhaled or sniffed to get high. Hundreds of products can be misused as inhalants.

“There’s no ID required. It’s odorless. It’s everything kids look for. They can afford it, they can get it, and it doesn’t show in mom and dad’s drug test.” 

Dana O’Rourke lost her 19-year-old daughter to “dusting,” a trend popularized on social media.1 Dusting is one of the many slang terms used to describe the use of inhalants. As O’Rourke says, inhalants are easy to get and generally undetectable, making it appealing to young people. Below, learn more about dusting and huffing, the signs of inhalant misuse, and how to keep your child safe.

Key Takeaways:

  1. Inhalant misuse: Huffing and dusting involve inhaling substances like aerosol sprays or household chemicals, posing serious health risks.
  2. Warning Signs: Look for unusual chemical odors, headaches, dizziness, slurred speech, and behavioral changes.
  3. Prevention: Educate loved ones, keep chemicals out of reach, monitor activities, and seek professional help if needed.

What Are Inhalants?

 Inhalants are everyday household products that some people misuse to get high. This dangerous practice has many slang names including “huffing,” “dusting,” “sniffing,” “whippets,” and “huff.” (see other terms at the end of this article) These products were never meant to be breathed in on purpose and using them this way can cause serious harm or even death.2

Common household items that get misused include:3

  • Computer keyboard cleaners (canned air)
  • Spray paint
  • Nail polish remover
  • Certain types of glue
  • Markers and correction fluid
  • Hair spray and deodorant
  • Cooking spray
  • Cleaning fluids
  • Gasoline
  • Whipped cream dispensers (the propellant)
  • Air conditioner fluid (Freon)

Why This Is Happening More Often

 Inhalant misuse has become more visible, especially among younger teens. There are several reasons why this is concerning:

Easy to Find: Unlike other substances, these products are legal and found in almost every home, school, and store. Kids don’t need to buy anything special or find a dealer.

Social Media Influence: Some social media challenges and videos show people using inhalants, making it seem normal or fun. These videos don’t show the real dangers or the people who get seriously hurt.

False Safety: Because these products are sold in stores, some people think they must be safe to use in any way. This is far from the truth. (There are stores dedicated to the sale of alcohol, for example, and alcohol comes with many health risks.)

Quick Effect: Inhalants work very fast – within seconds of breathing them in, a person feels intoxicated with effects similar to being drunk on alcohol. This quick effect can make them appealing to curious teens, but it’s also what makes them so dangerous. 

The Real Dangers

 Using inhalants is extremely risky, even the first time. Here’s what can happen:

  • Immediate Effects: Within seconds, users may experience slurred speech, inability to coordinate movements, dizziness, confusion, delirium, nausea, and vomiting. They may also have lightheadedness, hallucinations, and delusions.
  • Sudden Death: This can happen to anyone, even healthy people using inhalants for the first time. It’s called “sudden sniffing death syndrome.”
  • Brain Damage: Inhalants can permanently damage parts of the brain that control thinking, moving, seeing, and hearing. Effects can range from mild problems to severe dementia.
  • Heart Problems: These chemicals can cause irregular heartbeat and heart failure.
  • Suffocation: People can pass out and stop breathing.
  • Dangerous Behavior: Because the high only lasts a few minutes, people often keep using inhalants over several hours to maintain the feeling. This greatly increases the risk of losing consciousness and death.
  • Long-term Problems: Regular use can cause weight loss, muscle weakness, disorientation, trouble paying attention and other problems related to thinking, lack of coordination, irritability, and depression. After heavy use, people may feel drowsy for hours and have lasting headaches.  Their use can also lead to addiction.

Warning Signs Parents Should Watch For

 Parents and other caregivers should look out for these signs of inhalant misuse:

Physical Signs:

  • Chemical smell on breath or clothes
  • Paint stains on face, hands, or clothing
  • Red or runny nose and eyes
  • Spots or sores around the mouth
  • Drunk-like behavior without alcohol smell
  • Loss of appetite

Behavioral Changes:

  • Sudden mood swings
  • Becoming secretive or isolated
  • Declining grades
  • Loss of interest in hobbies or friends
  • Finding hidden cans, bottles, or rags

Items Around the House:

  • Empty spray cans or bottles
  • Missing household products
  • Rags or clothing that smell like chemicals
  • Hidden bags or balloons

What Parents Can Do

 Talk Early and Often: Have honest conversations about drugs and inhalants before problems start. Explain that legal doesn’t mean safe. Other important messages are:

    • No temporary feeling is worth risking your life or permanent brain damage.
    • Real friends won’t pressure you to try dangerous things. It’s okay to say no.
    • Remember that social media doesn’t show the whole story. Videos don’t show the people who got seriously hurt or died.
  • Secure Products: Keep inhalants locked up or in hard-to-reach places, especially if you suspect a problem.
  • Stay Involved: Know your child’s friends, activities, and where they spend time.
  • Monitor Online Activity: Be aware of what your kids see on social media and talk about dangerous trends.
  • Get Help: If you suspect inhalant misuse, contact your doctor, school counselor, or an addiction professional immediately.

If you discover that your child is under the influence of inhalants:

  • Don’t leave them alone if they seem confused or sick
  • Call 911 if they pass out or have trouble breathing
  • Encourage them to talk about why they are using inhalants
  • Connect with Partnership to End Addiction for guidance and resources 

Additional Terms and Information

 The following provides more information on inhalants from “The Clinical Assessment and Treatment of Inhalant Abuse”:4

  • Bagging: inhaling fumes from a soaked cloth sprayed with euphoria-inducing substances and deposited inside a paper or plastic bag.
  • Ballooning: inhaling a gas (usually nitrous oxide) from a balloon.
  • Chroming: spraying paint from an aerosol can into a plastic bag and then breathing the vapors from the bag.
  • Dusting: spraying an aerosol directly into the nose or mouth.
  • Gladding: inhaling air-freshener aerosols sprayed near the face.
  • Glue sniffer’s rash/huffer’s rash: refers to a skin condition that occurs around the mouth and midface. Glue or other chemicals dry out the skin and dissolve its natural oils, leading to inflammation, redness, and sometimes infections.
  • Huffing: inhaling a substance from a cloth or rags that have been soaked and are held close to the face.
  • Poppers/snappers: amyl nitrite packaged in small bottles that are opened to release the vapors; sold under trade names Super Rush, Locker Room, Bolt, Jungle Juice, Quick Silver, and Extreme Formula.5
  • Popper’s maculopathy: is damage to vision in the central part of the retina caused by using alkyl nitrites, which are chemicals often found in certain inhalants.
  • Sniffing/snorting: inhaling a substance from an open container directly through the mouth or nose.
  • Snotballs: inhaling smoke from the burning of rubber cement, where the adhesive is rolled into balls then burned to release the fumes.
  • Whippets: vials of nitrous oxide gas, most commonly from whipped cream aerosol canisters. The nitrous oxide can be extracted following whipped cream discharge, after which the released gas can be inhaled at close range or transferred to a balloon and then inhaled.

The Bottom Line

 Inhalant use might seem harmless because these products are common household items, but it’s one of the most dangerous forms of substance use. The risk of serious injury or death is real from the very first use. By understanding the dangers, staying informed, and learning how to spot the signs of inhalant misuse, parents can better protect their families.

Remember: There is no safe way to use inhalants. The only safe choice is not to use them at all. If you’re concerned about your loved one, don’t hesitate to reach out to us for support.

Source: https://drugfree.org/article/huffing-dusting-signs-of-inhalant-misuse-parents-should-know/

Filed under: Culture,Drug use-various effects,Drugs and Accidents,Environment,Parents,Prevention and Intervention,Solvent abuse,USA :
by Jac Charlier, Executive Director, Center for Health and Justice, TASC, and Jason Kew, Centre for Justice Innovation, UK

July 23, 2025.

Lessons from a Decade of Police, Drug Treatment, and Community Partnerships

Ten years ago, an article appeared in the September 2015 issue of IACP’s Police Chief magazine that would introduce a new word into the U.S.  police and justice lexicon: deflection. Eventually, the word also would make its way into the public health world of drug treatment and recovery, as well as move into global usage. In the article, “Want to Reduce Drugs in Your Community? You Might Want to Deflect Instead of Arrest,” author Jac Charlier described a model of crime reduction and crime prevention in which police would “deflect” people who use drugs to substance use treatment rather than arresting and charging them, thereby addressing the root of the problem—that person’s drug use—and, in turn, reducing drug-related offenses in the community. Further, in the case of opioids, police also were seeking to prevent overdoses.

“This scenario is ripe for innovation,” wrote Charlier, adding that deflection lays the groundwork for “comprehensive solutions that work in a variety of jurisdictions.”1

A decade later, the benefits suggested in the 2015 article have borne out, and the practice of deflection indeed has exploded into the emergence of a global field and movement. Reflecting on the impact of deflection over the past decade, many additional lessons and benefits have become evident as well.

What’s In a Name?

At first appearance, the need for a word to describe what was a small and disparate set of police departments working with local drug treatment agencies to address overdoses might have seemed unnecessary. With only a handful of departments across the United States known to be doing what would become called deflection, and with departments each developing their own processes ad hoc, the need for a new word was anything but obvious. Now, 10 years on, the word itself, while still new to some, has stuck. That is in part because of the simplicity and logic of the term: while diversion moves people away from the justice system after they have already entered it, deflection happens earlier, before they even enter it, moving them into community-based services instead. In other words, diversion is post-filing, and deflection is always pre-filing, whether or not an arrest occurs.

At the time the deflection term was coined, it was becoming clear that (1) something new and different was happening between police and drug treatment that had not been seen formally before; (2) when looked at closely, even in those early days, it appeared that what other parts of the justice system (prosecutors, jails, courts, prisons, probation, and parole) had been doing for many years (working closely with drug treatment) had now arrived for police; and (3) this was more than a move upstream to the police now doing diversion; rather, this was something very different because it relied not on the justice system solving the problem, but first and foremost on community, treatment, and recovery as co-problem-solving partners with the police.

“When one thinks about when and where they can have the greatest impact with the fewest resources, including costs, it is always best and better to act first at prevention and then early intervention”

Another aspect of deflection that easily could be overlooked yet deserves to be acknowledged for the tremendous innovation that it represents is this: deflection emerged not from the treatment or recovery movement, but from—almost exclusively at first—police, sheriffs, and other law enforcement agencies. The birth of deflection was in large part, but not exclusively, a response to the overdose crisis, and the maxim that “we can’t arrest our way out of this” is due to the courage, willingness, and creativity of police, sheriffs, law enforcement, and prosecutors to seek alternative solutions.

 While one-off versions of deflection have existed here and there since the 1990s, deflection now is practiced across departments, in multicounty approaches, and even at the level of state police. Deflection exists in training, practice, policy, legislation, research, and funding and continues to expand into new areas. It is here to stay and (together with its older sibling diversion, which also works at the intersection of public safety and public health) forms an entirely new way of understanding a practice-based, community-first-approach to reducing drug use and drug use–related crime, while promoting recovery and well-being.

Another way to think about the emergence of deflection is that whereas before, prevention and diversion of drug-related offenses happened through models such as treatment courts, there now exist new opportunities to reduce drug use and drug-related behaviors earlier than previously practicable by thinking of prevention–deflection–diversion, each offering opportunities to act.

Today, 9 U.S. federal agencies; 41 states; and innumerable counties, cities, foundations, researchers, universities, police training units, and—most importantly—police practitioners, recognize deflection. From those original few sites (and with federal, state, and local funding streams for deflection) it is now estimated that more than1,600 deflection initiatives exist, not including any of the  sites outside the United States.

Deflection on an International Scale

Deflection has evolved in concert with parallel international advances in related drug- and crime-reduction policies grounded in public safety and public health working together. For instance, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), in the past several years, has hosted Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND) side events focused specifically on deflection. Outside of the United States, deflection initiatives have emerged in the United Kingdom, Ireland, Kenya, Mexico, South Africa, Italy, Tanzania, and other countries as communities seek efficient and cost-effective means to reduce substance use and its consequences.2 Just as has occurred in the United States, these initiatives are growing organically and according to local needs and resources. As one example, deflection practice in the UK incorporates a vast menu of options, from children’s referrals from schools, to veterans, mental health co-response, and women-only pathways. Each program is coordinated through the local authority’s community safety partnership, and each local authority is very different from another.

10 Lessons Learned from 10 Years of Deflection

With these roots, 10 major lessons have emerged as deflection has become formalized and has grown across the United States and globally:

  1. Police–treatment partnerships are effective. The first and most important lesson is that police and drug treatment can work together, side by side, with a shared mission and vision, to make a positive difference for the community. This idea, prior to deflection, was not routinely seen nor practiced. Policing and drug treatment historically have had misgivings about working together, starting with not considering how it might benefit them both to work together. Thanks to deflection, this has now changed. Through locally driven efforts unique to each community, where police departments have flexibility and control over processes, along with treatment partners who offer clinical and outreach expertise, deflection offers mutually rewarding solutions whereby both the justice system and public health system benefit from shared goals through a collaborative working relationship. In practical terms, police officers on the street now have a new “partner” working alongside them to figure out how to handle situations for which police were neither trained nor equipped, and the treatment and recovery communities now have earlier-than-before access to people with problem drug use who were not yet, in all but overdose cases, at the point of crisis. Of course, for the deflection participant, they benefit from a supportive “warm handoff” to treatment and services as a way to stop continued drug use.
  2. Police–recovery partnerships are growing. The second lesson, which stems from the first, is that police and people in recovery from addiction could work well together. If the first lesson was a hill to overcome, then this lesson was the mountain. Indeed, the credit of deflection actually working on the ground, day in and day out, goes to the line officers and people in recovery who have learned to work together by understanding and respecting why the other does what they do. Deflection creates a situation where they need each other. This is because while the police previously may have had the contact with the person using drugs, deflection offered a way to build trust that mattered. Through what is known in the field as “relentless engagement,” the partnerships seek to ensure the person knows that both the officer and treatment/services/recovery supports are there to assist them.
  3. The community is on board. The third lesson is that communities can accept deflection, especially and importantly when key community partners are consulted and included from the outset. Binary notions such as “tough on drugs” versus “let people use drugs” are politicized statements that do not reflect the reality on the ground of what the public wants—a response that leads to a solution that actually works for their family members, neighbors, businesses, and the community alike, and then allows their local police to focus more on serious and violent crimes, including, not coincidently, drug trafficking. Limited resources require efficient use of those resources.
  4. Deflection is effective. The fourth lesson underscores all the others: deflection works. From early evaluations to research to now second and even third site evaluations, it is clear that this entirely new field and movement, which sits between drug prevention and justice diversion (post-filing and entry into the justice system), was indeed called for and needed. As anticipated when it came into being a decade ago, deflection evaluations have shown it can reduce drug use and reduce drug use–related behaviors and crime, while also promoting recovery, well-being, and community safety.3
  5. Deflection’s community focus is rooted in the history of policing. Deflection fits naturally within the history and role of policing. Sir Robert Peel, who established the first organized police force in London, England, in 1829, and August Vollmer, who became known as the “father of modern policing” in the United States a century later, each contended that a foundational principle of policing is to prevent crime before it occurs and that this happens in partnership with the community. They both proposed that, by addressing underlying reasons for criminal behavior, policing practices can mitigate the harm caused by crime and reduce its occurrence. Indeed, Vollmer practically described deflection exactly when he suggested at a 1919 IACP meeting that police collaborate with social service agencies as a crime prevention strategy.4
  6. Police want to help people recover from drug use. The sixth lesson is that the police want to learn more about drug use, misuse, and addiction; about drug treatment and how it works; and most importantly, how they can be part of helping people to recover from addiction. Every day, police see people who use drugs. They see them getting worse, not better, and they see the harmful impact of drug use on families and the community at large. Through deflection, police get to see people reduce and then stop and recover from drug use. This is critical to a profession that otherwise often sees only bad and negative things. Police can see in deflection the role they play in reducing the scourge of addiction and how helpful they and their profession can be. They are not asked to provide treatment nor do the case management, but they kick off the entire process. It is said within the field that while police may be only the first step of many to recovery from drugs, without law enforcement, deflection would never get started. (Deflection is now practiced by EMS and fire departments, as well as by others, including second responders, but police deflection still makes up the majority of sites.)
  7. Local, community-based designs, decisions, and control are vital. Deflection is a framework, not a program. This is often heard in the field with the idea being that while some critical elements that make deflection work, and work better, are known, it is and always will exist only within the context of the local community in which it operates. Deflection is a multisystems approach to addressing a complex, often chronic problem: addiction. That means the local community has a say in how it is designed and looks; police have a say in how it operates; and treatment and recovery providers have a say into how it will focus their limited resources. The complexity of deflection, understood within the design of a specific community, is what gives meaning to the statement, “If you’ve seen one deflection initiative, you’ve truly seen only one deflection initiative.”
  8. Deflection is good public policy. The combined voice of police, drug treatment, and community together makes for good, community-grounded public policy, and as a result, is much more powerful when speaking to drug policy, funding, and practice than any of them would be alone. This lesson comes from the work of each of the deflection sites themselves, which figures out how to make it work on the ground and from that, find their shared voice to do more and do better to share deflection insights with neighboring communities.
  9. Barriers to treatment persist. The ninth lesson is that deflection has required greater adjustments for treatment than it has for the police. For police, any initial hesitancy about deflection usually relates to the practical side of how this will work. For treatment, recovery, and health partners, working alongside the police is often a new endeavor altogether. Interestingly, treatment partners will state they know this can be done but do not know how. Deflection creates a bridge between public safety and public health and the resulting connection provides guidance; instruction; training; and most important, one-on-one relationships between officers, people who treat those who use drugs, and people in recovery.
  10. The efficiency of deflection: Why wait for an arrest? The tenth lesson comes directly from the motto of the deflection field: “Why wait for an arrest?” Deflection offers an opportunity to get people to treatment before they reach the point of entering the justice system, and often before addiction has set in at full force. Deflection creates pathways, six to be exact, to connect people to treatment, housing, recovery, and services.5)

This matters because when one thinks about when and where they can have the greatest impact with the fewest resources, including costs, it is always best and better to act first at prevention and then early intervention. This is, of course, where deflection operates. In cases of overdose, its focus is preventing the next potential overdose. Deflection is an early, upstream strategy. This means that deflection is efficient in addressing issues before they become crises or happen again.

First national deflection and pre-arrest diversion summit, held at IACP in Alexandria, VA, 2017.
Photo courtesy TASC’s Center for Health and Justice.

As the decade since the introduction of the term deflection closes out and stakeholders reflect on these 10 lessons learned, the future of this field and movement is nothing but positive. It is growing nationally and globally; it is now common; it has funding and legislative support; researchers and policymakers are doing more of it; the demands to show more and better outcomes by the public are underway; and there is much more to come. Most important, the idea attached to the word deflection—this foundational change in how police and drug treatment work together, in and with the community—is no longer unusual, something not understood. Rather, the communities  practicing it show that deflection can be done, and the field indeed is doing it!

Finally, as deflection celebrates its 10th anniversary with a celebration at the Police, Treatment, and Community Collaborative (PTACC) 2025 International Deflection and Pre-Arrest Diversion Summit in New Orleans, Louisiana, from December 2–4, deflection sites will share their own lessons learned. Police professionals are invited to join PTACC in New Orleans. After that, it’s time to get ready for the next 10 years. Many possibilities exist of where this work will go, but this field and movement, once unheard of, will be more, do more, and achieve more. Indeed, police, treatment, and communities alike are counting on deflection to do just that! d

 

 

Source: https://www.policechiefmagazine.org/deflection-turns-10/

Filed under: Crime/Violence/Prison,Drug use-various effects,Prevention and Intervention,UK,USA :

by Shane Varcoe – Executive Director for the Dalgarno Institute, Australia – Jul 23, 2025

Alcohol affects 15 of the 17 United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, yet remains one of the most overlooked barriers to global progress. Behind the marketing messages and cultural acceptance lies a stark reality: alcohol is a Group 1 carcinogen causing seven types of cancer, with no safe level of consumption.

This week on the Unnecessary Harm Podcast,  we welcomed Kristina Sperkova , President of Movendi International , a global network of over 170 organizations across 63 countries working to reduce alcohol-related harm. Kristina shared powerful insights from her decade of leadership at the forefront of international alcohol policy advocacy, including her recent work at the World Health Assembly.

Kristina reveals how alcohol undermines everything from poverty reduction to gender equality, the predatory tactics of Big Alcohol at UN meetings, and the groundbreaking policy wins that are reshaping how the world views alcohol taxation and regulation.

 Key Takeaways From This Episode 

  • Massive Global Impact: Alcohol directly affects 15 of 17 UN Sustainable Development Goals, from perpetuating poverty cycles to fueling intimate partner violence (50-80% of violent acts are alcohol-related).
  • Environmental Devastation: Producing one liter of beer requires 270 liters of water, highlighting alcohol’s massive environmental footprint through water depletion and agricultural monocultures.
  • Cancer Connection: Since 1988, alcohol has been classified as a Group 1 carcinogen alongside tobacco and asbestos, yet public awareness remains dangerously low.
  • Industry Deception: Big Alcohol uses front groups, creates dependency through corporate partnerships, and spreads lies about employment impacts and illegal production to derail effective policies.
  • Policy Solutions Work: WHO’s “best buys” – availability restrictions, marketing bans, and public health taxation – are proven, fast-acting interventions that reduce consumption and generate revenue.

Recent Victory: After 10 years of advocacy, alcohol taxation was officially recognised as a source of domestic resource mobilisation at the Financing for Development conference – a major breakthrough for global policy.

Source: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/alcohols-global-impact-fight-evidence-based-policy-shane-varcoe-fmc8c

Filed under: Alcohol,Australia,Environment,Health,Strategy and Policy :

 

OPENING REMARK BY NDPA:

Dianova presents itself as a “Swiss NGO recognized as a Public Utility organization, committed to social progress”. Examination of their publications places them as an organisation which is less committed to primary prevention than to reactive approaches, such as harm reduction. A telling quote in this context comes in their publication entitled “Between Music and Substances: a Look at Drug Use at Festivals” … they introduce this by saying “Drug use is a common occurrence at most music festivals: how can we promote self-care and harm reduction among participants?” – there is no mention of prevention as a policy option.

In their ‘history’ Dianova take a position found not infrequently in some other other critics of prevention i.e. any prevention program which does not achieve 100% success is deemed a failure … but no such assessment is made of reactive or accepting policies.

In this publication they dismiss the ‘Just Say No’ program as “…focusing mainly on white, middle-class children, it simply pointed the finger at others, particularly black communities, who were held responsible for the problem.” And yet immediately below this statement they include a photo of a White House ‘Just Say No’ rally, with Nancy Regan surrounded by black youngsters.

Dianova make judgemental remarks – without supporting evidence – in several places, and NDPA take would issue with several of these, but we have elected to retain this paper complete with their judgemental remarks, to illustrate their position on the ‘history’ as they see it.

by the Dianova.org team – 

From the early 20th century to the present day, an overview of the origins of drug use prevention, past mistakes and the current situation in this field

By the Dianova team – Over the past 40 years, prevention has become a key focus of public intervention in many areas, including responses to social issues such as alcohol and other drug use. Prevention strategies are now most often part of a comprehensive approach combining prevention, treatment and harm reduction, and taking into account the needs of people who use drugs and those of society as a whole.

These initiatives are developed on the basis of applied research in the humanities and social sciences, and their implementation and evaluation are based on scientifically validated strategies designed to answer one key question: do they work?

Understanding risk factors is crucial in modern drug prevention interventions, as it enables us to address the root causes of substance use and promote protective factors such as strong family bonds, engagement with school, and community support – Image by stokpic from pixabay, via Canva

Rather than raising awareness of the ‘dangers of drugs’, most initiatives today prefer to target risk factors and protective factors at the individual, family, community and environmental levels. These interventions are designed to be person-centred, while taking into account the many complex interactions between personal and environmental factors that may make certain populations more vulnerable to substance use or addiction. However, this has not always been the case. So what was prevention like before? Is prevention today so different from what it was in the past?

The origins of prevention: combating the ravages of alcohol

All forms of prevention stem from the 19th-century school of thought influenced by Pasteur’s work on the spread of disease: hygienism. This developed in a society plagued by diseases such as tuberculosis and cholera, which were widespread in most European countries, as well as in India, the United States and Canada.

With regard to substance use, it was alcohol that initially became the focus of efforts in Western countries. . In the countries concerned, the Industrial Revolution caused a profound change in drinking habits and exacerbated related problems. The advent of industrialization precipitated a period of exponential growth in the production, transportation and commercialization of alcohol. In urban areas, which experienced a significant increase in population following the rural exodus, millions of workers, reliant on their employers and lacking in social rights, found solace in alcohol, which had become readily available and inexpensive. Alcohol consumption increased significantly, as did the associated problems.

At the time, excessive drinkers were seen as a threat to their jobs, their families and society as a whole. In response, the temperance movement gained strength in America and Europe in an effort to combat alcoholism.

The temperance movement, a group of religious associations and leagues committed to combating the social ills of alcoholism, fought against the consumption of alcohol in the name of morality, good manners and the protection of the family unit. The influence of this movement grew until it reached its zenith in the early 20th century with the advent of alcohol prohibition laws, not only in the United States, but also in Canada, Finland and Russia – with the results we all know.

“The voluntary slave” – press illustration published in “La Fraternité” (France) for the Popular Anti-alcoholic league, author Adolphe Willette – circa 1875 – Adapted from screenshot from L’histoire par l’image

What about illegal drugs?

At the dawn of the 20th century, the concept of ‘illegal’ drugs had yet to be established. Europe and America had recently discovered a ‘remarkable substance’ – cocaine – lauded for its medicinal properties, touted as a panacea for all maladies. Initially imported in small quantities for medical research, its use grew rapidly, particularly within the medical community, and it was prescribed to treat a wide range of ailments, from toothache to morphine addiction. Sigmund Freud himself considered at the time cocaine to be a highly effective medicine for depression and stomach problems without causing addiction or side effects. With regard to cannabis and hashish, these were still available for purchase in all reputable pharmacies, while heroin, a registered trademark of the Bayer pharmaceutical company, was regarded as a sovereign remedy for… coughs.

It should be noted that the issue of substance addiction had not yet manifested itself in the context of affluent, colonizing nations. Elsewhere, the perspective was somewhat different: in a distant country – China – opium had already been wreaking havoc for several decades.

Introduced and marketed by Europeans, it had become a pervasive national scourge affecting millions of Chinese people. Opium  addiction is a prime example of the impact of colonialism on local societies: not only did it trigger two wars against Western powers concerned solely with their economic interests (profits from the opium trade), but it also had profound social and political consequences that are still felt today.

The Western countries’ ‘honeymoon’ with drugs was not to last. The problems they posed became apparent rapidly and, under the influence of American temperance leagues, they swiftly transitioned from being regarded as a universal remedy to being perceived as a threat to society and moral values. This marked the beginning of American policies predicated on drug control (or the war on drugs, depending on one’s perspective), which would shape global policies in this domain for over a century.

The demonization of ‘drugs’

The demonisation of drugs, the effects of which were felt from the beginning of the 20th century, is closely associated with a set of social, racial, political and economic dynamics that resulted in the stigmatization of both the substances themselves and the people who consumed them. As early as 1906, the United States initiated the legislative process, and the phenomenon grew until it culminated in a particularly restrictive and repressive international drug control policy – but that is another matter.

In the 1930s, the American government initiated a media offensive involving the use of racist stereotypes, sensationalist media, and political propaganda to portray cannabis as a dangerous substance that led to violence, insanity, and moral decay.

The process of demonizing drugs was gradual yet unstoppable. The discourse surrounding narcotics such as morphine, opium and heroin was initially shaped by their association with specific demographic groups, namely minorities, the economically disadvantaged, and migrants. This demonization continued over the following decades, fuelled by media sensationalism and public panic, particularly around the use of cocaine and cannabis – substances that were claimed to be the root cause of criminal behaviour and moral corruption.

The criminalization and stigmatization of substances and those who use them have had a profound impact. Not only have they perpetuated and reinforced racist prejudices against Afro-descendant, Latin American and other historically marginalized communities, but they have also completely distorted the approaches and prevention efforts implemented subsequently.

Early drug prevention initiatives

Before the 1960s, the ‘drug phenomenon’ was virtually non-existent in industrialised countries. Apart from a few opium enthusiasts, alcohol and tobacco reigned supreme in the field of substance addiction.

From the 1960s onwards, there was a rapid increase in the use of illegal drugs in the United States, particularly among the counterculture movement. The use of LSD and cannabis – and, to a lesser extent, amphetamines and heroin – spread and became a symbol of rebellion against authority, as part of a broader movement focused on social change.

Within the collective imagination, the 1960s are often regarded as the golden age of illegal drug use. This period was characterised by widespread use of cannabis, as well as the significant distribution of heroin among children in impoverished neighbourhoods. Notable figures such as Timothy Leary, a prominent Harvard professor, popularised the effects of LSD. However, an analysis of historical data reveals that the phenomenon was not as widespread as is commonly believed. Conversely, however, there was a marked increase in the perception of risk associated with drugs. For instance, in 1969, a mere 4% of American adults reported having used cannabis at least once. However, 48% of respondents indicated that drug use was a serious problem.

While many current prevention efforts have a solid theoretical basis and evidence of effectiveness, historic prevention strategies were often based on intuition and guesswork, with an emphasis on such scare tactics as the one depicted above (“Your brain on drugs” campaign, initially launched in 1987)

The notion of prevention as a concept was first developed in the early 1960s within the domain of mental health and behavioural disorders. In the context of drug policy, the first initiatives were echoing the pervasive fear of drugs that was prevalent in both America and Europe during that period. Logically, the primary initiatives were consistent with the propaganda campaigns initiated in previous decades with the objective of demonizing cannabis. The objective of these initial prevention initiatives was not to promote education, but rather to instil a sense of fear and intimidation.

‘People of my generation were taught that cannabis caused acne, blindness and sterility. It was a tactic based on fear, not on educating people.’

Children and young people in the 1960s and 1970s were no more stupid than anyone else and just as observant. They quickly realised that the messages promoted by schools and families did not correspond to reality.

So simple, ‘Just Say No’.

In 1971, Richard Nixon declared drug abuse ‘public enemy number one’ and launched a widespread campaign against drug use, distribution and trafficking. This marked the beginning of a government policy that led to the incarceration of both traffickers and users. The policy would have far-reaching consequences for many countries, whilst in the United States it would have a disproportionately negative impact on the Black community.

The notion that one should ‘Just Say No’ to drugs is predicated on a rudimentary interpretation of the rational choice model, according to which people choose their behaviour in order to maximize rewards and minimize costs (negative consequences).

Nancy Reagan at a “Just Say No” rally at the White House in May 1986 – White House Photographic Collection, public domain

The D.A.R.E. programme: information is not enough

From 1983 onwards, this concept became central to the D.A.R.E. (Drug Abuse Resistance Education) programme. Initially implemented in Los Angeles, this school-based programme aimed to help young people understand that the harmful consequences of drug use far outweigh any perceived benefits. Young people can therefore avoid these consequences by refusing to take drugs.

The D.A.R.E programme’s model was based on three key elements: 1) drugs are bad; 2) when children understand how bad drugs are, they will avoid using them; and 3) the message is more effective when delivered by police officers, who are considered credible.

The programme was subsequently developed in the United Kingdom, and a similar model was adopted elsewhere in Europe during the same period — notably by associations of rehabilitated individuals — which replaced the credibility of police officers with that of former drug users ‘who could speak from experience’.

In response to findings on the ineffectiveness of the DARE programme, a new curriculum was developed (2009) with a stronger focus on interactive activities and decision-making skills, moving away from the traditional lecture-based approach by a police officer – AI-generated image, via Canva

Over the years, the programme has been the subject of extensive study. One study found that people who completed the programme had higher levels of drug use than those who did not. Another study found that teenagers enrolled in the D.A.R.E programme “were just as likely to use drugs as those who received no intervention”.

The impact of popular culture

The aim here is not to portray the D.A.R.E. programme or similar interventions solely in an unfavourable or ridiculous light. Even though it has lost its central position, the programme is still implemented in most US states, and according to its website, it has been developed in 29 countries since its creation. It is true that the programme has since been adapted to incorporate various aspects, such as resistance to peer pressure and the development of social skills.

However, these initiatives face a major difficulty from the outset. As we know, experimentation and risk-taking are part of normal adolescent development, which is why providing young people with detailed information about different substances is likely to arouse their interest in these drugs, especially if the information is not presented in an appropriate manner. Secondly, this type of strategy only has an impact on young people who are susceptible to alarmist messages because of their cognitive patterns, and is not effective for everyone else, as we now know.

Officers in the DARE programme would sometimes arrive in sports cars seized from drug traffickers to exemplify their message on drugs and crime (Crime does not pay) – A Pontiac Firebird in D.A.R.E. livery in Evesham Township, New Jersey – image: Jay Reed – Flickr, licence: CC BY-SA 2.0

Furthermore, when talking about drugs, one must also consider the influence of popular culture, which, without openly glorifying substance use, often portrays alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs in a favourable light, particularly at an age when young people are most receptive.

We now know that providing information about drugs is not enough to make for a good prevention policy. While education and awareness can always play an important role, they are not sufficient, nor even necessary, to prevent addiction.

Should we talk about drugs to prevent drug use?

According to Dr Rebecca Haines-Saah, who spoke at a webinar organised by Dianova last May, the most effective drug prevention strategies do not focus on drugs, but on much broader social issues, such as reducing poverty, combating discrimination and implementing targeted community programmes.

Some prevention strategies even choose not to mention drugs at all, yet they have proven effective in reducing substance use by focusing on broader social, environmental and behavioural factors.

These approaches aim to create conditions that indirectly discourage drug use, particularly by strengthening social skills and improving people’s living conditions. For example, programmes focused on improving the school environment, teaching social skills or promoting healthy lifestyles can have a positive impact on reducing substance use without explicitly targeting drugs.

Similarly, family interventions that strengthen parent-child relationships and improve communication can also help prevent substance misuse by targeting underlying risk factors. These strategies highlight the importance of a holistic approach to prevention that goes far beyond direct drug education.

Prevention is a science

Preventing substance use – i.e. the use of all psychoactive substances regardless of their legal status –  involves helping people, particularly young people, to avoid using substances. If they have already used substances, the objective is to prevent them from developing substance use disorders (problematic use or dependence).

However, the overall objective is much broader, as highlighted by the UNODC in the second edition of the International Standards on Drug Use Prevention. It also involves ensuring that children and adolescents grow up healthy and safe, so they can fulfil their potential and become active and productive members of society.

Drug prevention is now grounded in research and evidence-based practices. This multi-disciplinary field has developed over the last forty years, aiming to improve public health by identifying risk and protective factors, assessing the efficacy of preventive interventions, and identifying optimal means for dissemination and diffusion –  AndreyPopov from Getty Images, via Canva

There is now a vast body of literature on substance use prevention. Its aim is to highlight effective and less effective strategies based on scientific evidence in order to guide decision-makers and practitioners in the field in their choices. Despite this, prevention activities are still sometimes poorly prepared and based primarily on beliefs or ideologies rather than scientific knowledge.

At Dianova, we believe that addiction prevention, particularly among young people, must take into account societal changes (new drugs, new patterns of use, changes in legislation, etc.) using scientifically validated strategies based on standards and methodological guidelines.

These strategies are based in particular on:

  • The acquisition of psychosocial skills (problem solving, decision-making, interpersonal skills, stress management, etc.),
  • Interventions aimed at developing parenting skills (e.g. communication skills, conflict management, setting boundaries, etc.),
  • Prevention strategies tailored to young people with vulnerability factors (e.g. those whose parents suffer from substance use disorders) and taking into account gender perspectives, abandoning androcentric strategies that obscure the situation of girls and LGBTQI+ communities.

In conclusion, we must bear in mind the mistakes of the past so as not to repeat them and, above all, understand that no prevention system is sufficient on its own. Whatever approach is chosen, effective prevention systems must be evidence-based and integrated into broader, balanced systems that focus on health promotion, the treatment of substance use disorders, risk and harm reduction, and countering drug trafficking.

Effective, science-based programmes that can make a real difference to people’s lives can only be developed by integrating all these elements.

Source: https://www.dianova.org/publications/a-brief-history-of-drug-prevention/

Filed under: Addiction,Culture,Drug use-various effects,Harm Reduction,Health,Others (International News),Parents,Prevalence,Prevention and Intervention,Strategy and Policy,Treatment and Addiction,Youth :

 

Report to Congressional Committees – July 2025  / GAO-25-107845 – United States GAO – (Government Accountability Office)

Highlights

A report to congressional committees.

For more information, contact: Triana McNeil – United States Government Accountability Office

What GAO Found

The 12 experts in a forum which GAO convened said that to develop effective media campaigns and evaluate media campaigns, whether on drug misuse prevention or other topics, campaigns need to consider the following: 

Graphical user interface, text, application AI-generated content may be incorrect.

·         Identify and understand intended audience. Once a campaign has identified who it wants to reach, it needs to understand the intended audience—including by identifying the underlying causes of the behavior the campaign wants to change. For example, experts noted that campaigns may decide to target the underlying reasons why people misuse drugs rather than developing campaigns to target specific drugs.

·         Create content, select messengers, and decide on delivery methods. Campaigns need to create content to deliver their messages, which need to be credible and relevant for the intended audience. Campaigns also need to select messengers to deliver their messages, such as community leaders. Additionally, campaigns need to decide how to deliver their messages. For example, campaigns may use print and social media, among other options.

·         Test messages. Campaigns need to test their messages with the intended audience to ensure that the messages are relevant and resonate with the intended audience. This testing can include using focus groups, interviews, or surveys, among other methods.

·         Define the intended outcome. Campaigns need to have a clear understanding of what they are trying to achieve. Then, evaluators can decide what data are needed to determine whether a campaign is meeting its goals.

·         Select qualified evaluators. Campaigns need independent evaluators who can speak to campaign managers about a campaign’s effectiveness using evidence from evaluations. Evaluators need expertise in research methods, evaluation, and other disciplines and need to understand the campaign substance.

·         Decide when and how to measure effectiveness. Campaigns need to decide if they will evaluate the campaign while it is ongoing or after the campaign has concluded. They also need to decide what they want to measure and what data collection methods they will use.

To access the full document:

  1. Click on the ‘Source’ link below.
  2. An image  – the front page of the full document will appear.
  3. Click on the image to open the full document.

Source: https://files.gao.gov/reports/GAO-25-107845/index.html?

Filed under: Drug Specifics,Drug use-various effects,Internet,Prevention and Intervention,Social Affairs,Strategy and Policy,USA :

Back to top of page

Powered by WordPress