If Only He Could Have Seen 2006
Related Topics
Addiction TreatmentAlcohol AddictionDrug Abuse | Drug Abuse ProgramDrug AddictionDrug Addiction Treatment |
"Eaton T. Fores" e...@etfrc.com
Consider the following quote: "The promiscuous use of sedative and hypnotic drugs as an escape mechanism is favored by our present environment, the tensions of everyday life, and the pace at which we live." It is from the following book. Pay particular attention to the year the book was published.
Frederick E. Shideman, M.D., Ph.D.
"Sedation, Hypnosis, and Analgesia" Chapter 14, Page 12 of Pharmacology in Medicine: A Collaborative Textbook V.A. Drill, M.D., Ph.D., Ed 1954 Nineteen Fifty ****in' Four.
This 1954 Pharmacology textbook, which a fellow ADHer was nice enough to allow me to borrow, has some of the most reasonable writing on the subject of addiction I've ever seen anywhere. It is so far from being totally psychotic and insane, that there's absolutely no chance that anything like it could be published today. For example: ============== "It would be difficult to refute the fact thtat there is a tremendous need for sedation at the national level. In all probability the ups and downs of a national "barometer of psychoneurosis," if it could be determined, would follow the curve of national consumption of sedatives, narcotics, and alcohol. The American public demonstrated very dramatically at the polls that they believed alcohol to confer a greater individual and collective benefit than harm, when they removed ALL legal restrictions from an agent which is without doubt THE MOST ADDICTING DRUG OF ALL, qualitatively, quantitively, and by any acceptable definition of the term. It seems CRYSTAL CLEAR that legal control of narcotic drugs ... DOES NOT strike at the heart of the situation and that a major problem will always exist until a solution is sought in CORRECTION OF THE SOCIOLOGIC FACTORS which further the development of psychoneurosis and toward a MEDICAL SEARCH FOR BETTER CHEMICALS with which to treat psychoneuroses, PREFERABLY BY SELF-MEDICATION. These are problems to test the metal of the best brains in the profession." [EMPHASIS added :: ETF] ============== Here it is, half a frickin' century since these very honest, ordinary, and obviously true words were written, and let's see. What has happened?
How can one look at the textbooks of half a century ago and believe in "progress?" I mean, there's been unbelievable progress ... greater than anyone could have imagined ... toward genetically engineering Human Resources, capable of sitting on their ***es and smiling phony smiles for unprecedented lengths of time. But this book reminds me of a time when *wisdom* came with knowledge. However, it has now been determined by the "professional deployers" of capital that wisdom is irrelevant. Wisdom, in fact, has a *negative* short-term impact on the bottom line (all, please genuflect to the Mighty Bottom Line). Wisdom is something that *people* have. Human Resources need not concern themselves with it.
The scientist who wrote those words, in the next paragraph, expresses alarm that the ****ing pigs, rather than follow this simple course, are going to go after barbiturates next ??“ and in doing so cause a drug abuse disaster he didn't know what to call.
He was prescient, except for not knowing what to call it. It's called "DEA," and it's entirely unconstitutional. There was never a "Volstead Act" style Constitutional Amendment to *allow it* in the first place, so there's nothing We The People can do to get rid of it.
In only 50 years, the Constitution has gone from being the living center of American law to being a technicality which is only relevant to the extent the pigs have to think up some flimsy rationalization for ignoring it as they ship kids home in bodybags, spy on citizens, make anyone they want to "disappear." The PATRIOT Act has rescinded the Bill of Rights. Now I hope yer not gonna argue that the Congress can't override the Constitution. We got a waterboard in Gitmo for people who think that the Constitution is the highest law of the land.
--
ETF www.etfrc.com
"MuDeltaKappa" MuDeltaKa...@gmail.com
Truer words have never been spoken, Eaton. It's sad, even scary, to think we live in a country where laws are p***ed purely as a result of people's gut reaction. But, of course, when you're ignorant about an issue, you have nothing else to go on. I get depressed thinking that the insanity of the War on Drugs will most likely never end in our lifetime.
This country has had a good run -- 250 years is respectable -- but it's time for a revolution ;).
-MDK
"G. Silber" gsilber...@hotmail.com
Could it be that this was written without the acknowledgement of the rest of what our purpose is? In the fact that whether legal or not, we still have to get up the next day and lead some sort of a productive agenda? Myself, I could care less whether it is legal or not. Illegal - keeps me away, I'm sick and tired of all the legal wrangling. Legal - will probably kill me, as it will be too cheap and easy to self destruct. How is it that on the list of wants, it is forgotten that this will not help us lay bricks, align conduit, design electronic and security, construct elevator shafts, etc.
with the level of focus " the promiscuous use of sedative and hypnotic drugs as an escape mechanism" allows us, (in a responsible matter so to speak).
When you look at all the infrastructure, like subways for example, ESPECIALLY New York subways, or whatever building to code would exist to it's beauty of structure, from foundation to radio antennas, I don't believe that much of it was built by those who used medicinal escape mechanisms. My last memory of taking more than prescribed pain medication years ago had me praying and slapping my face over and over again to help me make it home safely without p***ing out at the wheel. Can you imagine what disastrous events await the people who rely on my skills to get to and from and work in such buildings? I don't think humanity could afford to treat the sociological factors and the attached psychoneuroses, unless it could be ***ured that self medication by the consumption of alcohol, sedatives and narcotics would be consumed ONLY between the hours of (***uming that most people work between the times of 7AM to 7PM) 8PM through 11PM. Otherwise I don't think there is any branch of medicine that could safely estimate -
much less control the potential for abuse.
"unsubtle 420name brah" unsubtle_420name_b...@witty.com
why would a foreman let someone who was "praying and slapping my face" in doped lunacy go to work constructing a bridge or whatever else?
man, you really seem to be generalizing your own weakness (or whatever you want to call it) into an (imo) unrealistic worst-case scenario, and acting as though it's realistic. i don't agree.
and if there are people who are only alive because drugs are illegal, well, doesn't that mean that they really do want to get ****ed-up-beyond-****ed-up *more* than they want to live? who am i to stand in the way of their or your freedom to make that decision (conversely, who are they to demand a law that constricts the enjoyment of *all people* simply to protect them from their *own* inability to control themselves)?
pardon me if i'm cynical, but the way i look at it is that i'm not under any magical illusions about the "sanctity" of human life. if you *want* to self-destruct, well, that's *what you want*, isn't it? where should i (or the government) come in to play in that equation?
"'taint" doodlevontaintst...@hushmail.com
I am surprised at this ***ertion about alcohol. How can he say alcohol is more addicting than opiates in the physiological sense? How can this be correct?
Taint so It seems CRYSTAL CLEAR
cheech cheech...@goodolyahoo.com
wow, i was born in '54.
i was watching some of the gerald ford hoopla on tv yesterday. he was called the great healer because he pardoned nixon and SAVED the country from the trauma of having to indict a president. in my mind that's where shit began to go serious wrong. we put a government official above the law for the sake of the government.
cheech
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
"Benny" carmeni...@hotmail.com
Hey Eaton (and everyone), Have you all heard the way President Bush has been using these things, I forget their name because Im such a drug addict, but I heard about it on NPR a few weeks ago. The president, if he wishes, upon signing a bill into law, can attach a series of 'instructions,' 'notes,' or 'conditions' to the bill which basically tell future presidents how to interpret the bill, and in effect nullify much of the bill, and thereby removing the executive branch from the balance of power, the checks and balances. They are called 'Presidential somethings', god, it's right on the tip of my tounge, who knows this one? Anyway, all presidents have used them OCCASIONALLY. Bush, setting new records in every category of violating the constitution and individual rights and freedoms that this country was founded upon, has attached hundreds of these little instructions or disclaimers to almost every bill he has signed, for a total of almost 900 of these statements attached to bills signed and p***ed by his holiness. Now, these attachments are public documents, but just recently did this guy start to realize what was going on and I happened to hear him on NPR blowing wide open Bush's scam of the century. These things are meant to be interpreted as law, so in effect Bush gets to take every bill he signs and re-write it so that the next president, probably his son in 30 years if this ****d up country makes it that long, can basically do whatever the **** they want. Bush is by far the most aggressive, power-hungry president this country has ever seen, and IMO it will take decades, most likely longer than the rest of my somewhat pathetic life to see any kind of meaningful repair made, which means I am destined to live under this fascist government in this society where my lifestyle is considered one of the lowest, most disgusting on earth.
I, seriously people, am moving to the Netherlands very, very, very soon. I am sick of this bullshit and I want to live what's left of my life without being treated like garbage, and fighting like hell for every morsel of happiness and peace I get, only to be told I don't deserve it and to be a man. The middle cl*** is ****ed. If I was rich, I would love America because I could get as high as I wanted all the time without consequences because money heals all wounds in this country. But I wasn't blessed with wealth. I come from poverty; I come from apartment buildings and duplexes and traliers; I come from cracked sidewalks and run-down schools with ten year old textbooks, or not enough books; I come from a country where I have to pay 50,000 dollars to get an education so I don't end up making pizza my whole life (no offence to pizza makers, it just ain't my bag) only to end up making 25,000 a year; i live in a country where if you hurt yourself and you don't have insurance, you get stuck with thousands in medical bills, which if you don't pay, will tarnish your credit and ensure that you and your family wll never escape the sinking ceiling of poverty.
Poor me, I know, I know. I'm going to do something about it one of these days because I am sick of these doctors treating all of us like shit when we pay out the *** so they can buy all that worthless shit that gives them that artifcial feeling that they are better than everyone. If I'm paying a doc 100 bucks for a 10 minute visit, he better bust out his prescription pad and say "What'll it be?" Where can I go to get that? I'm guessing the Netherlands. That's what I'm thinkin. I'll see you guys there.
Ben
"Steady Eddy" nonsmoki...@comcast.net
an opposing viewpoint sources cited Drug Use Should Not Be Legalized. Donnie Marshall.
Drug Abuse. Ed. Roman Espejo. Current Controversies Series. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2002.
Drug Use Should Not Be Legalized Table of Contents: Further Readings Excerpted from Donnie Marshall's testimony before the United States House of Representatives, House Committee on Government Reform, Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources, June 16, 1999.
About the author: Donnie Marshall is deputy administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).
Whether all drugs are eventually legalized or not, the practical outcome of legalizing even one, like marijuana, is to increase the amount of usage among all drugs. It's been said that you can't put the genie back in the bottle or the toothpaste back in the tube. I think those are apt metaphors for what will happen if America goes down the path of legalization. Once America gives into a drug culture, and all the social decay that comes with such a culture, it would be very hard to restore a decent civic culture without a cost to America's civil liberties that would be prohibitively high.
There is a huge amount of research about drugs and their effect on society, here and abroad. I'll let others better acquainted with all of the scholarly literature discuss that research. What I will do is suggest four probable outcomes of legalization and then make a case why a policy of drug enforcement works.
Legalization Would Boost Drug Use The first outcome of legalization would be to have a lot more drugs around, and, in turn, a lot more drug abuse. I can't imagine anyone arguing that legalizing drugs would reduce the amount of drug abuse we already have. Although drug use is down from its high mark in the late 1970s, America still has entirely too many people who are on drugs.
In 1962, for example, only four million Americans had ever tried a drug in their entire lifetime. In 1997, the latest year for which we have figures, 77 million Americans had tried drugs. Roughly half of all high school seniors have tried drugs by the time they graduate.
The result of having a lot of drugs around and available is more and more consumption. To put it another way, supply to some degree drives demand. That is an outcome that has been apparent from the early days of drug enforcement.
What legalization could mean for drug consumption in the United States can be seen in the drug liberalization experiment in Holland. In 1976, Holland decided to liberalize its laws regarding marijuana. Since then, Holland has acquired a reputation as the drug capital of Europe. For example, a majority of the synthetic drugs, such as Ecstasy (MDMA) and methamphetamine, now used in the United Kingdom are produced in Holland.
Creating a Market The effect of supply on demand can also be seen even in countries that take a tougher line on drug abuse. An example is the recent surge in heroin use in the United States. In the early 1990s, cocaine traffickers from Colombia discovered that there was a lot more profit with a lot less work in selling heroin. Several years ago, they began to send heroin from South America to the United States.
To make as much money as possible, they realized they needed not only to respond to a market, but also to create a market. They devised an aggressive marketing campaign which included the use of brand names and the distribution of free samples of heroin to users who bought their cocaine. In many cases, they induced distributors to move quantities of heroin to stimulate market growth. The traffickers greatly increased purity levels, allowing many potential addicts who might be squeamish about using needles to inhale the heroin rather than injecting it. The result has been a huge increase in the number of people trying heroin for the first time, five times as many in 1997 as just four years before.
I don't mean to imply that demand is not a critical factor in the equation. But any informed drug policy should take into consideration that supply has a great influence on demand. In 1997, American companies spent $73 billion advertising their products and services.
These advertisers certainly must have a well-documented reason to believe that consumers are susceptible to the power of suggestion, or they wouldn't be spending all that money. The market for drugs is no different. International drug traffickers are spending enormous amounts of money to make sure that drugs are available to every American kid in a school yard.
Dr. Herbert Kleber, a professor of psychiatry at Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, and one of the nation's leading authorities on addiction, stated in a 1994 article in the New England Journal of Medicine that clinical data support the premise that drug use would increase with legalization. He said: "There are over 50 million nicotine addicts, 18 million alcoholics or problem drinkers, and fewer than 2 million cocaine addicts in the United States. Cocaine is a much more addictive drug than alcohol. If cocaine were legally available, as alcohol and nicotine are now, the number of cocaine abusers would probably rise to a point somewhere between the number of users of the other two agents, perhaps 20 to 25 million ... the number of compulsive users might be nine times higher than the current number.
When drugs have been widely available-as ... cocaine was at the turn of the century-both use and addiction have risen." Contributing to a Rise in Crime I can't imagine the impact on this society if that many people were abusers of cocaine. From what we know about the connection between drugs and crime, America would certainly have to devote an enormous amount of its financial resources to law enforcement.
The second outcome of legalization would be more crime, especially more violent crime. There's a close relationship between drugs and crime.
This relationship is borne out by the statistics. Every year, the Justice Department compiles a survey of people arrested in a number of American cities to determine how many of them tested positive for drugs at the time of their arrest. In 1998, the survey found, for example, that 74 percent of those arrested in Atlanta for a violent crime tested positive for drugs. In Miami, 49 percent; in Oklahoma City, 60 percent.
There's a misconception that most drug-related crimes involve people who are looking for money to buy drugs. The fact is that the most drug-related crimes are committed by people under the influence of mind-altering drugs. A 1994 study by the Bureau of Justice Statistics compared Federal and state prison inmates in 1991. It found that 18 percent of the Federal inmates incarcerated for homicide had committed homicide under the influence of drugs, whereas 2.7 percent of these individuals had committed the offense to obtain money to buy drugs. The same disparities showed up for state inmates: almost 28 percent committed homicide under the influence versus 5.3 percent to obtain the money to buy drugs.
Under the Influence Those who propose legalization argue that it would cut down on the number of drug-related crimes because addicts would no longer need to rob people to buy their drugs from illicit sources. But even supposing that argument is true, which I don't think that it is, the fact is that so many more people would be abusing drugs, and committing crimes under the influence of drugs, that the crime rate would surely go up rather than down.
It's clear that drugs often cause people to do things they wouldn't do if they were drug-free. Too many drug users lose the kind of self-control and common sense that keeps them in bounds. In 1998, in the small community of Albion, Illinois, two young men went on a widely reported, one-week, non-stop binge on methamphetamine. At the end of it, they started a killing rampage that left five people dead. One was a Mennonite farmer. They shot him as he was working in his fields.
Another was a mother of four. They hijacked her car and killed her....
Consequences for Society The third outcome of legalization would be a far different social environment. The social cost of drug abuse is not found solely in the amount of crime it causes. Drugs cause an enormous amount of accidents, domestic violence, illness, and lost opportunities for many who might have led happy, productive lives.
Drug abuse takes a terrible toll on the health and welfare of a lot of American families. In 1996, for example, there were almost 15,000 drug-induced deaths in the United States, and a half-million emergency room episodes related to drugs. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has estimated that 36 percent of new HIV cases are directly or indirectly linked to injecting drug users.
Increasing drug use has had a major impact on the workplace. According to estimates in the 1997 National Household Survey, a study conducted by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), 6.7 million full-time workers and 1.6 million part-time workers are current users of illegal drugs.
Public Safety Risks Employees who test positive for drug use consume almost twice the medical benefits as nonusers, are absent from work 50 percent more often, and make more than twice as many workers' compensation claims.
Drug use also presents an enormous safety problem in the workplace.
This is particularly true in the transportation sector. Marijuana, for example, impairs the ability of drivers to maintain concentration and show good judgment on the road. A study released by the National Institute on Drug Abuse surveyed 6,000 teenage drivers. It studied those who drove more than six times a month after using marijuana. The study found that they were about two-and-a-half times more likely to be involved in a traffic accident than those who didn't smoke marijuana before driving.
The problem is compounded when drivers have the additional ...
"neurodancer" tyronethighbone...@hotmail.com
Is this satire? The DEA is a joke, a bunch of fat lazy hate filled bigots sitting on their collective *** until some stool pidgeon sets up a bust so they can plaster it all over the newspapers for a day or two.
They have accomplished one thing, the drugs have never been better or cheaper, which is of course exactly what they want so they still have a job and can sit on their ***es for x years until retirement, when they can start some serious drinking. What a load of crap.
ND
"Steady Eddy" nonsmoki...@comcast.net
I agree with the following statement. If you disagree state why.
Legalization Would Boost Drug Use The first outcome of legalization would be to have a lot more drugs around, and, in turn, a lot more drug abuse. I can't imagine anyone arguing that legalizing drugs would reduce the amount of drug abuse we already have. Although drug use is down from its high mark in the late 1970s, America still has entirely too many people who are on drugs.
In 1962, for example, only four million Americans had ever tried a drug in their entire lifetime. In 1997, the latest year for which we have figures, 77 million Americans had tried drugs. Roughly half of all high school seniors have tried drugs by the time they graduate.
The result of having a lot of drugs around and available is more and more consumption. To put it another way, supply to some degree drives demand. That is an outcome that has been apparent from the early days of drug enforcement.
What legalization could mean for drug consumption in the United States can be seen in the drug liberalization experiment in Holland. In 1976, Holland decided to liberalize its laws regarding marijuana. Since then, Holland has acquired a reputation as the drug capital of Europe. For example, a majority of the synthetic drugs, such as Ecstasy (MDMA) and methamphetamine, now used in the United Kingdom are produced in Holland.
"Vu" towncalledhypocr...@gmail.com
I guess it all comes down to your definition of addiction. It's as elusive as the definition of a hard drug. By some accounts alcohol should be on-topic in this NG. The physical addiction (once developed) is intense and alcohol withdrawal from what I've seen is up there with benzo's for danger and discomfort.
I guess the thing that keeps booze off-topic here is that the vast majority of people who consume alcohol don't develop physical dependence and that for the most part alcoholics are a very different breed of drug user IMO.
Vu
MayBLater not...@gmail.com
How many "straight" people do you know, who have never (ab)used drugs, would *begin* doing so simply because they could no longer be prosecuted for it?
I'd guess that 98% of people who don't do drugs made that choice for their own reasons; they are "straight" personality types, and a substance's legal status has nothing to do with that choice.
People who do use drugs, on the other hand, have made their choice *in spite of* the laws, which do not deter them.
How many is "entirely too many"? too many for what? according to whom?
These are merely numbers, without context. No conclusions can be drawn from them.
-May-
MayBLater not.toni...@gmail.com
It's the very last paragraph of a 400+ line cut & paste post by Steady Eddy.
Props to ND for slogging all the way thru it. That's more than I could do.
-May- has her limits
"G. Silber" gsilber...@hotmail.com
You have every right to be cynical, I was looking at it more from a blue collar view, if I had the resources, I guess I could see your point more clearly. Yes, it could be said that everyone does have a choice of whether it is their choice to self destruct, but I can also understand where the government needs to step in and say, ok fine, go right ahead, just pay your bills in advance.Similar to where riding your motorcycle should allow you the freedom to not wear your helmet, but the rider doesn't take into consideration all of whom are involved when there is an accident. Are the EMTs and the governing hand going to stand by because oh well - this guy has the money to and wanted to self destruct, so we'll just turn this ambulance around and drop any legislation that says it is nobody's responsibility to put this guys eyes back in his head.because on his driver's license it says he wants no ***istance if he so happens to OD or sets his bike down. I guess most people would say yea go ahead, **** your shit up for all I care, but we live in a society where people work for a living caring for those who are incapable or don't feel like caring for themselves. Maybe it's just too easy for this cynical viewpoint to throw a lawsuit saying, those EMT's could have done something before you lost feeling in the lower half of your body that unfortunately won't be coming back either.
"JosE" jose...@ziplip.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ie: quasi-legality vs use Cannabis use in the Netherlands jumped 300% between 1984 (when coffee shops became abundant) and 1996. The rate in 1984 was 15% of 18-20 year olds; in 1996 it was 44%, according to MacCoun and Reuter (who themselves are not against soft cannabis policies).
As the coffee shops boomed between 1984 and 1996, marijuana use among Dutch youths aged 18 to 25 leapt by well over 200 percent. (source: Larry Collins, Foreign Affairs, "Holland's Half-Baked Drug Experiment," 1999)
"JosE" jose...@ziplip.com
He just did one to the postal bill so that now all mail can be opened without a warrant--especially mail from foreign countrys Why hasnt he been impeached?
Where is the outrage over this ****wit?
Clinton made this country economically stronger and viable and was 'impeached' for a blowjob Bush started an illegal and immoral war and has pulled so much shit against mainstream America yet no one dares stand up to him as he flushes our countrys economic future down the drain with trillions of wasted dollars and any day China can throw all their US treasury notes on the open market and watch our nation go bankrupt overnight...thanks, GW What's wrong with the US people anymore?
Must be all the drugs (estrogen) in our meats and food that has pussified this entire country!
Anyway, all presidents have used them OCCASIONALLY. Bush,
"Steady Eddy" nonsmoki...@comcast.net
Good research and factual. The fact is that in the 1850-1900 period Society became alarmed at the number of drugs addicts, particularly opium . The downfall started with the opium wars. Britain wanted Chinese silk, tea and various other raw materials. The Chinese insisted on being paid in silver. So Britain started selling opium to the Chinese to get chinese silver. When other sources of tea and silk were cultivated Britain no longer needed to sell opium to the Chinese.
Now the Chinese had a huge market to themselves. They were the number one consumer and marketer of opium. They controlled the supply.
Discrimination had nothing to do with it. The fact is that drugs have been around a long time and they are regulated because that is the system that has worked the best. Our addiction rates are lower as a result. In fact young kids today have seen the folly of drugs and it is no longer fashionable to be a drug user. I think the tide has turned.
"neurodancer" tyronethighbone...@hotmail.com
. Our addiction rates are lower as a I think you are wrong and, more importantly, totally out of touch with what is really going on. Get your *** out on the street for a while and then tell me "the tide has turned". Lol...just lol.
Next.
ND
"unsubtle 420name brah" unsubtle_420name_b...@witty.com
nd, don't get lulled into the notion that eddy believes anything he's saying. here, i'll give you a sample analogy (from my old SAT study guide): steady eddy : discussing drug policy :: mel gibson : fighting for scotland so stop yelling at the movie screen ha ha
"Benny" carmeni...@hotmail.com
You're absolutely right ND. This is one of the most moronic statements I've read in a long time...people have always used drugs, they've always killed the shit out of each other, they've always ****ed, and ****ed each other over, and none of it will EVER stop, no matter how civilized we convince ourselves we are, or how many laws we p*** or religions we adopt telling us that all these instincts we have are wrong.
I'm not saying using drugs is on par with violence or war morally, just equally unstoppable as far as human nature is concerned. I've read this newsgroup for a long time, just recently started posting, and I've found it to be filled with some of the most intelligent, sensible people anywhere. At least we have adh, and the freedom to do what we please as long as we can outsmart the cops...which hasn't been hard for me so far....(28 years old).
Benny
"Steady Eddy" nonsmoki...@comcast.net
I have posted an article below that backs up my ***ertions. According to the Institute for Social Research at the University of Michigan In 1998 there was a 9.9% decrease in drug use in the 12 - 17 year old range over 1997. In fact that rate of decline is continuing. I think it is great news for society. BTW my facts about the Opium wars are also correct. Addiction rates are declining in the 12-17 year old age group. If you have more than anecdotal evidence I would be interested in reading it. Just look at the news. We are testing everybody from high school kids, athletes, movie stars etc.. Look at Mel Gibson recently in the news. It is no longer fashionable to be a druken louse in publlic. For many workers employment is contingent on random drug testing. We have the technology to test the user and deny them employment. That is a big incentive not to use drugs.
Drug Abuse Among Youths Has Not Increased. Civic Research Institute.
Drug Abuse. Ed. Roman Espejo. Current Controversies Series. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2002.
About this PublicationHow to CiteSource CitationSpanishFrenchJapaneseGermanItalianPortugueseChinese (Simplified)Korean Drug Abuse Among Youths Has Not Increased Table of Contents: Further Readings Excerpted from "Youth Drug Abuse Falls While Overall Use Rates Remain Unchanged in U.S.," by the Civic Research Institute, Juvenile Justice Update, December/January. 2000. Copyright ?© 2000 Civic Research Institute. All fights reserved. Juvenile Justice Update is a bimonthly professional report letter devoted to innovative programs, legal developments, and current services and research for those working with youth in the juvenile system. For subscription information, write Civic Research Institute, 4478 U.S. Route 27, PO Box 585, Kingston, NJ 08528 or call 609-683-4450. Reprinted with permission.
About the author: The Civic Research Institute (CRI) is an independent publisher of reference and practice materials for professionals in criminal justice, health, social, and legal services.
The National Household Survey on Drug Abuse has been conducted annually since 1975 by the Institute for Social Research at the University of Michigan under a grant from the National Institute on Drug Abuse. The 1998 survey was based on a nationally representative sample of 25,500 respondents age 12 and older.... The survey covers an extensive range of behaviors, and allows researchers to produce national estimates of current and lifetime substance use among different segments of the population, and to analyze trends over time. The preliminary results from the 1998 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse are reported in the Summary of Findings from the 1998 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse (Summary of Findings Report).
The sample population for the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse does not include the homeless or those who are institutionalized (e.g., in correctional institutions or residential drug treatment facilities), and drug use rates tend to be high among these missed populations.
Among the survey respondents, some degree of under reporting is ***umed. The use rates yielded from the survey, especially for drugs such as heroin and cocaine, must be considered underestimates of the actual rates for the entire population.
Downturn in Youth Drug Use Seen According to the Summary of Findings Report, the total estimated number of current illicit drug users in the U.S. did not change from 1997 to 1998. There was a significant decrease, however, in the number of drug users among the 12 to 17 age group: 9.9% of youths in this age group reported drug use in 1998, compared to 11.4% in 1997. This represents the first statistically significant downturn in youth drug use as recorded by the survey since 1992, when only 5.3% of the youth surveyed reported past month use of any illicit drug. One note about statistical significance: The 1998 survey included 6,778 respondents in the age 12 to 17 group. With large samples, relatively small changes in drug use rates from one year to another may be statistically significant.
Therefore, while a 1.5% decrease in the percentage of teenagers using illicit drugs may appear trivial, this decrease amounts to hundreds of thousands fewer teens using drugs in 1998 compared to 1997. The 1998 survey results are important because even small significant decreases may be reliable indicators of a downturn in drug use. (In the remainder of this article, all percentages from the survey are rounded to whole numbers.) According to the Summary of Findings Report, the 1998 data "show that overall drug use remained level, and the rate of drug use among youths fluctuated and may have also leveled or possibly started to decrease after a period of increase from 1992 to 1995." The recent National Household Survey results are also consistent with the results of other national surveys which show a leveling off of drug use among youths.
Use of Drugs Other than Marijuana Is Rare Among the entire survey population, 6% were current (past month) illicit drug users, the same percentage reported since 1992. Regular illicit drug use in 1998 was essentially unchanged from the 1997 survey figures among the 18 to 25 age group (16% reported use in 1998), the 26 to 34 age group (7% reported use in 1998), and the over 35 group (3% reported use in 1998).
Among the entire population, 5% reported regular use of marijuana. Less than 3% of the population reported past month use of any illicit drug other than marijuana. Marijuana is the most commonly used illicit substance, and is used by 81% of all current drug users. About 40% of current drug users were users of an illicit drug other than marijuana.
While an estimated 13.6 million Americans were current users of illicit drugs in 1998, only 1.8 million (2% of the population) reported regular use of cocaine. This percentage has remained relatively stable since 1992. In 1998, less than 1% of the survey population reported regular use of crack, heroin, LSD, or inhalants. Among youths age 12 to 17, regular use of cocaine, inhalants, hallucinogens, and heroin by juveniles was very low (1% to 2%) and essentially unchanged from the 1997 survey figures (exception: inhalant use fell from 2% to 1%).
For the population as a whole, regular illicit drug use in 1998 was higher among blacks (8%) than among whites (6%) and Hispanics (6%), and higher among men (8%) than among women (5%)....
Among youths age 12 to 17, rates of past month use of any illicit drug did not vary by race or gender, although regular alcohol use was higher among white youths (21%), than among hispanics (19%), or blacks (13%).
Drug use was higher in rural areas than in non-rural areas. Among youths age 12 to 17, for example, 11% of rural youth and 8% of non-rural youth reported past month drug use in 1998.
Drug Use Correlates with Education and Employment Among those in the 26 to 34 age group, regular illicit drug use is highest among those who have not completed high school (10%) and lowest among college graduates (5%). Among respondents age 18 and older, drug use was much lower for individuals who were employed full-time (6%) than among the unemployed (18%); however, most adult drug users (73%) were employed. In contrast to the patterns for drug use, regular use of alcohol is highest among college graduates (66%) and lowest among those who did not complete high school (40%). Past month binge and heavy drinking was less prevalent among college graduates.
Drugs Easy for Youths to Obtain Over half of the 1998 survey respondents age 12 to 17 said that marijuana was easy to obtain, 30% said it was easy to obtain cocaine, and 21% said it was easy to obtain heroin. These percentages were even higher for the population at large (age 12 and over). Fourteen percent of youths age 12 to 17 said they had been approached by someone selling drugs in the past month. The percentage of youths who believe that regular use of cigarettes, alcohol, or drugs involves "great risk" remained unchanged in 1998.
"unsubtle 420name brah" unsubtle_420name_b...@witty.com
1997 to 1998? hahaha your "devil's clueless advocate" persona rushes in where actual people fear to tread.
Disco Stu: "Did you know that disco record sales were up 400% for the year ending 1976? If these trends continue... ayyyyyy!"
"Steady Eddy" nonsmoki...@comcast.net
IN other words you don't have any facts just insults.
| To Top |