Thursday, September 8, 2005

Understanding 'need' for treatment Health and Human Services announced today the results of the 2004 National Survey on Drug Use and Health I'm sure that there will be a number of interesting bits of data in this year's results that I'll talk about later, but there's one general point that I wanted to address today: the "need" for treatment. I've had concerns for some time about the definitions for abuse and dependence that are used when dealing with illicit drugs and alcohol. For example, the survey shows that 17.6 of those who used marijuana in the past year are classified as abusers or dependent, while that's true of only 11.9% of those who used alcohol. Of course, in actuality, marijuana causes far less (and far milder) dependence than alcohol, but because "abuse" also includes definitions that are affected by the legal status, that jacks up the percentages for marijuana abuse. The next step taken by the government study is to classify everyone in the "abuse" or "dependent" categories as "needing treatment." They give no reason for this arbitrary judgment. And it's pretty offensive, in my view. Let's take a look at a drug that isn't covered by the survey: tobacco. Many Americans are dependent on cigarettes, and yet it would be odd to consider them all as needing treatment. They may need to decide to quit (and then have no problem doing so), or they may need to get some help quitting (such as a patch or a support group). But to say that merely because they are dependent, they are in need of treatment, sounds like a definition that has been written by treatment professionals to increase their business. Back to illicit drugs and alcohol, if you take a look at the study's own numbers, you see how preposterous the designations are. Of those supposedly needing treatment and not getting it... According to the study, 23.48 million people (or 9.8% of the American population over 12 years old) needed treatment. Wow! What a cash opportunity for the treatment industry. And that's right, of the 21.1 million who supposedly needed treatment and didn't get it, only 1.2 million people actually felt that they needed treatment. Maybe 20 million people are delusional. But I doubt it. The entire concept of "treatment" (and the definitions of those who need it) in drug policy data, needs to be re-examined from the ground up (and not by those who benefit from it). The mere fact that a study can claim that roughly 1 in 10 Americans need treatment is a strong warning sign that the data and/or assumptions are seriously flawed. 9:13:38 PM | drug policy | Related  | permalink | comment []

Don't trot out that tired 'For the Children' argument anymore, Part 2 Via NORML London, United Kingdom: The downgrading of cannabis to a non-arrestable offense has not been associated with an increase in adolescents' use of the drug, according to survey data published by the United Kingdom's Department of Health. The Department found that the number of young people who admitted having consumed cannabis in the past year fell from 13 percent to 11 percent in 2004 - the first reported dip in four years. In January of 2004, Britain downgraded marijuana from a Class B to a Class C scheduled drug. Under this reclassification, individuals found in possession of personal use amounts of marijuana are cautioned by police, but, in general, are no longer arrested. (Police do retain the discretion to make an arrest under special "aggravated" circumstances, such as if marijuana is smoked on school grounds.) Preliminary data published last year by the British Home Office indicated that far fewer Britons have been arrested for minor marijuana offenses since the drug's reclassification. 8:22:36 PM | drug policy | Related  | permalink | comment []

Your horoscope Virgo: August 23 - September 22 Despite your claims of historical importance and the need to remember America's fallen heroes, the authorities continue to refuse to grant you the permits required by your avid group of drug-war re-enactors. From The Onion Ah, how I look forward to the day when we have drug war re-enactments. Bringing out those museum-piece battering rams, "patting down" people on the street, and pretending to search passing cars... 12:32:14 AM | drug policy | Related  | permalink | comment []

DEA re-writes history This has been reported widely already while I was gone (See Grits, and The Agitator (with not one, but two links to rebuttals), and Hit and Run.) However, it bears repeating here. The DEA, at their new JustThinkTwice website, is actually claiming that alcohol prohibition was a success! A word about prohibition: lots of you hear the argument that alcohol prohibition failed---so why are drugs still illegal? Prohibition did work. Alcohol consumption was reduced by almost 60% and incidents of liver cirrhosis and deaths from this disease dropped dramatically (Scientific American, 1996, by David Musto). Today, alcohol consumption is over three times greater than during the Prohibition years. Alcohol use is legal, except for kids under 21, and it causes major problems, especially in drunk driving accidents. Yes, the DEA is longing for the days when alcohol was illegal. How moronic! Interestingly, at one of the other sites, a commenter suggested that we are being unfairly critical of the DEA -- that it could be interpreted that they were just claiming the simple fact that there was a reduction in use, not that prohibition in its entirety (and with all its attendant problems) was a success. But that, of course, is nonsense. You can't ignore the myriad disasters of prohibition and just claim success in a numbers game of use. Particularly when you're using that to justify continued prohibition in another area. Just for the sake of argument, however, let's take a moment and ignore all the violence, corruption, subsidization of criminal elements, uncontrolled dangerous/poisonous substances, collateral damage, increased exposure to youth, etc., etc. Even if you ignore all that, the DEA's argument is specious. First, because they're picking and choosing their numbers. If you read the Agitator's links, you'll see just how much they're fudging (read "lying"). Second, because a numbers game of "use" is useless. When prohibitionists tout the importance of, and supposed reason for, prohibition, they usually talk about the dangers and destruction caused by drugs/drug addicts. But when they use the numbers game, they're actually talking about all drug use regardless of abuse/danger. In fact, prohibition tends to only reduce casual, non-problematic use -- those who prefer to follow the law (even if they disagree with it) and have only a mild interest in using the particular substance. Those who are likely to abuse drugs (or in the case of the earlier prohibition, alcohol) will tend to do so whether it is legal or illegal. So, even a strong prohibition-fueled reduction in use has insignificant value in terms of actually helping those who need it, or reducing abuse. Now, take that insignificant value and add back in all the negatives caused by prohibition and, whether it's attacking alcohol or drugs, you have an inept and cataclysmic policy that destroys everything it touches. 12:14:31 AM | drug policy | Related  | permalink | comment []