Drugs FAQ part 3
The bulk of this document has been extracted from the book "THE CRUEL HOAX" by ELAINE WALTERS - Permission granted
The Questions:
- Why do so many health professionals believe marijuana has no serious side effects?
- Why do so many people believe marijuana is relatively harmless?
- How long does it take to return to normal after being a regular user of marijuana?
- What incentives do adolescents and young adults have to give up using marijuana?
- Can marijuana be effective in medical treatment?
- Is there an association between the use of cannabis and road accidents?
- How do you explain that marijuana used in countries like Jamaica is considered an energiser?
- How prevalent is marijuana use among young people?
- Are young people more at risk when they smoke marijuana?
- What causes people to become dependent?
- Is marijuana dependence psychological or physical?
- What factors determine whether a drug is addictive or not?
- Is there a pattern to drug use?
- In Australia can it be said that street drugs are tolerated as normal?
- Why are young people so accepting of illegal drug-taking?
- But why isn't drug-taking acceptable?
- Where do young people obtain illegal drugs?
- Why can't we legalize street drugs and then educate people about the side effects?
- Why can't people learn to use street drugs in a reasonable and responsible manner?
- Why should street drugs be illegal when there are more deaths and health problems associated with alcohol and tobacco?
- What is meant by the American 'War on Drugs'?
- If prohibition didn't work in the U.S.A. in the twenties, why should it work now?
- What has turned the tide against illegal drug use in schools in the United States?
- Why has liberalisation of drugs failed in the Netherlands?
- Who constitutes the International Scientific Community?
Answer 1:
Why do so many health professionals believe marijuana has no serious side effects? An interesting facet of the marijuana issue is the extent to which unverified reports and unsubstantiated statements appear in the media or, even more surprisingly, in medical journals.
An example concerns the research conducted by Dr. Robert Heath on the effects of marijuana on the brain structure of the Rhesus monkey (36,37). After publication of his findings, it was reported in the May edition of "Hospital Physician" (1979) that the THC content used by Dr. Heath in the experiment was exceedingly high. This claim was later discredited, but not before it had been read and accepted as fact by many health professionals.
Another example of misleading information appeared in the Columbia University Encyclopedia 1975 edition which stated:
most evidence indicates that marijuana does not induce mental or physical deterioration".
The following comment was found in a 1982 article in The New England Journal of Medicine:
"Marijuana cannot be exonerated as harmless, neither can it be convicted of being as dangerous as some have claimed."
This clearly was at variance with the opinion of the United States Surgeon General who issued the following statement in the same year:
"As Surgeon General, I urge other physicians and professionals to advise parents and patients about the harmful effects of using marijuana and to urge discontinuation of its use. The health consequences of marijuana use has been the subject of scientific and public debate for almost 20 years. Based on scientific evidence published to date, the Public Health Service has concluded that marijuana has a broad range of psychological and biological effects, many of which are dangerous and harmful to health."
The Canadian Ministry of Health 1981, issued the following statement in a publication "Cannabis, Health and the Law":
"......adverse consequences will occur for some people on the basis of even occasional use. The consequences of high levels of use may severely damage health ...... There is the possibility of genetic mutation affecting future generations. These consequences are very serious for society and therefore on the evidence available, the Foundation advocates strongly that marijuana not be used ....... It would make no sense from a public health perspective to acquiesce to any use of marijuana." (77)
In contrast, the March 1987 edition of the, "Manual of Diagnosis and Therapy," which is read by physicians world wide, stated that:
"Cannabis can be used on an episodic but continuous basis without evidence of social or psychic dysfunction....There is little evidence of biologic damage even among relatively heavy users."
Finally the 1989 edition of the Columbia Encyclopedia defines marijuana as:
"a relatively mild, non-addictive drug. Adverse reactions are relatively rare and most can be attributed to adulterants frequently found in marijuana preparation."
Despite this diversity of opinion, according to the most prestigious publications and organisations in the world, the health risks associated with the use of marijuana are cause for great concern.
It is hardly surprising that so many medical practitioners are unaware of the side effects of marijuana. Nevertheless, in spite of some misleading reports, there is still an enormous amount of relevant scientific and medical literature available for social workers, psychiatrists and psychologists who work with people suffering the effects of drug dysfunctioning and addiction.
If health professionals are misled by incorrect information in medical journals, it is easy to understand the difficulties experienced by the general public. There are dozens of pro-drug books which are published commercially and magazines such as "High Times" have millions of readers throughout the world. On the other hand, books which reflect the mainstream opinion of the international scientific community on the detrimental effects of street drugs are difficult to find. To give credence to proponents of legalisation, truth and fact must form the basis of the debate. There are many high profile, intelligent, honorable people who have been persuaded (often by those who should know better) that the laws relating to street drugs must be changed on the pretext that these drugs are not addictive and present minimal risks.
Answer 2:
Why do so many people believe marijuana is relatively harmless? Some absolute statements are made about marijuana without scientific data to support them. However, they sound very authoritative and are accepted by many people as fact. Lay people do not have easy access to medical literature and will accept an 'expert' opinion which may be prejudiced because of a particular ideology or a commitment to legalise marijuana.
Sometimes concern to avoid any controversy leads to ineffective summaries of all the scientific data without any clear conclusion. By the time such reports are processed by the media, the message is that scientists are confused and that they cannot agree. The problem is further exacerbated because many people do not really want to know the facts and thereby justify their continued use of the drug. If they happen to be in positions of authority, such as in the public service or the medical or teaching professions, their opinions pass right down to the youngest and most impressionable people in the organisation.
Answer 3:
How long does it take to return to normal after being a regular user of marijuana? Although marijuana is cleared from the body after approximately thirty days, there is no guarantee that the mind will function effectively within this time span. If symptoms of PDIS (Refer question 36) have not developed, thus causing irreversible damage, recovery can take weeks, months or years depending on a number of individual factors. However, the majority of marijuana users have a complete reversal of all side-effects. No research is yet available on the reversal of sub-clinical damage on hormones, liver, immune system and lungs. Withdrawal symptoms may include irritability, headache, insomnia, nausea, depression and a craving for marijuana. Relapse is very common. Most users seem to relapse after about twelve weeks non-use, but with the right incentive and encouragement will start the process of abstinence again. It usually takes about five years for someone to be considered drug-free. One of the greatest problems associated with marijuana is that of dependence. With the best will in the world some people have enormous difficulty in giving up this drug. This is often because: "The addict does not suffer from his disease, but enjoys it". (78)
Answer 4:
What incentives do adolescents and young adults have to give up using marijuana? Often young people give up using marijuana when they observe that some of their contemporaries have 'lost the plot'- in other words are experiencing burn out or Post Drug Impairment Syndrome. This condition includes basic neuropsychological disturbances such as impairment of memory, learning, verbal fluency and mood swings. Sometimes young drug users may even observe their friends developing psychopathological problems such as depression, paranoia, hostility, flashbacks or acute and chronic psychosis. This often provides the incentive for them to reassess their own habit.
If users are experimenting, factual information and counselling can sometimes deter further use. Young people do not like to think they might sustain brain impairment or become a dropout in school, sport and social activities. Occasionally, users observe changes in their own behaviour, or realize they are becoming dependent and the desire for self-preservation can be enough incentive to give up their habit. Often something, or a special someone, comes into their lives and takes precedence over their drug taking. A significant number of young people use marijuana for a short time and then pass on to another phase in their lives.
Answer 5:
Can marijuana be effective in medical treatment? The potential of marijuana as a medication is yet to be realized, partly because of its reputation as an intoxicant and the legal difficulties involved in doing research. It is important for lay people to understand the difference between non-therapeutic or recreational use of marijuana, and the use of extracts and synthetic compounds for medical purposes.
There are important differences between a crude drug and its pharmacologically active pure ingredient, in this instance between marijuana and THC. While crude marijuana preparations made of plant material and containing THC display similar pharmacological properties to THC, their overall effect is quite different.
Cannabis is referred to as being a pharmacologically 'dirty' drug, containing many active substances with multiple effects and unknown modes of action. According to Mrs. Christine Gray, a professional development pharmacist at the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain: "This wealth of ingredients and actions present both problems and opportunities". Clinical trials for the use of marijuana to relieve certain medical conditions are presently taking place on a small scale in Great Britain Prof. Fred Evans from the Pharmacognosy department, the School of Pharmacy, London, is working with Dr. Anita Holdcroft and other anaesthetists at London's Hammersmith Hospital to organise the first British trial of cannabis since the removal of the drug from medical practice many years ago. The team will be investigating its effects on patients with pain from permanent nerve damage resulting from viral disease. The trial aims to prove that cannabis does not have to produce pain relief. The initial trial will use standardised oral dosage forms of cannabis manufactured by Prof. Mike Newton at the School of Pharmacy. Pharmacological tests on one cannabinoid, cannabidiol (CBD), have shown it to be 357 times more effective than aspirin for peripheral pain. THC, the psychoactive component, was 590 times less potent than CBD.
The benefits of cannabis in reducing muscle spasm and tremors in cerebral palsy or multiple sclerosis have been shown to be successful in some cases. However, it has also been found to impair posture and balance in patients with spastic MS. There are also suggestions that cannabinoids may be effective in the treatment of nausea which results from chemotherapy.
A small number of patients in the US are supplied with marijuana under licence to treat wide-angle glaucoma, a major cause of blindness. To date however, it appears that THC eye-drops and oral cannabinoids are probably unsuitable for glaucoma treatment. THC in the form of an aerosol spray has been investigated as an anti-asthma drug. A study suggests that a synthetic cannabinoid, levonantradol, is an effective analgesic for postoperative pain and pain caused by cancer, but at the cost of adverse effects. Although a synthetic cannabinoid, dronabinol, is under trial in the US as an appetite stimulant for AIDS patients, the question of whether the immunosuppressant effects of cannabinoids presents a significant threat to AIDS patients remains to be resolved. (91)
With those few exceptions the US Government will not permit clinical trials of cannabis for medical treatment. In December 1989, the US Government, after an extensive inquiry, issued an order rejecting an application from various organisations to reschedule cannabis. The following is an extract from the Federal Register, Vol. 54, No. 249, December 29, 1989:
"It is clear that cannabis cannot meet the criteria for safety under medical supervision. The chemistry of cannabis is not known and reproducible. The record supports a finding that cannabis plant material is variable from plant to plant. The quantities of the active constituents, the cannabinoids, vary considerably. In addition, the actions and potential risks of several of the cannabinoids have not been studied.
These are not the Dark Ages. The Congress, as well as the medical community, has accepted that drugs should not be available to the public unless they are found by scientific studies to be effective and safe. To do otherwise is to jeopardize the American public, and take advantage of desperately ill people who will try anything to alleviate their suffering.
The Administrator strongly urges the American public not to experiment with potentially dangerous, mind-altering drugs such as cannabis in an attempt to treat a serious illness or condition. Scientific and medical researchers are working tirelessly to develop treatments and drugs to treat these dieaseses and conditions. As expressed in the record, treatments for emesis (nausea and vomiting) associated with cancer chemotherapy have advanced significantly in the last ten years. Recent studies have shown an over 90% rate of effectiveness for the new antiemetic drugs and therapies. NORML (National Organisation for Reform of Marijuana Laws) and ACT (Alliance for Cannabis Therapeutics) have attempted to perpetuate a dangerous and cruel hoax2 on the American public by claiming cannabis has currently accepted medical uses. The Administrator again emphasises that there is insufficient medical and scientific evidence to support a conclusion that cannabis has an accepted medical use for treatment of any condition, or that it is safe to use, even under medical supervision."
Answer 6:
Is there an association between the use of cannabis and road accidents? Drug consumption, especially of cannabis, has markedly increased during the past two decades and has been associated with car accidents. It is difficult to separate cannabis from other drugs, particularly because of the high incidence of poly-drug use. There have been a number of studies on drugs which affect coordination and psychomotor performance. They include alcohol, opiates, benzodiazepines and barbituates. However, the following percentages of those injured in accidents where it has been established that cannabis had been consumed prior to the accident have been reported by the following:
| USA | 16% | Sterling Smith (79) |
| USA | 37% | Williams(80) |
| USA | 34.7% | Soderstrom (81) |
| Sweden | 12% | Holmgren (82) |
| Australia | 20% | Hendtlass (83) |
| France | 14% | Aussedat & Niziolek-Reinhardt (84) |
Cannabis consumption impairs motor coordination, reaction time, sensory perceptions and glare recovery. This is described in a series of studies by Adams (85) and Chesher (86). Studies on a driving simulator by Rafaelson (87) or in a real situation by Hansteen (88) have illustrated serious driving impairment after cannabis consumption. Futhermore, it is possible that the residual effects of cannabis on motor coordination persist for 24 hours following acute exposure.(89) One study found that the risk to have an accident is 3 to 5 times greater after cannabis consumption. (90)
A few studies have been conducted on the relationship between drugs and road traffic accidents. In 1990 the preliminary findings of Starmer, et al. on a study of the blood of 769 crash injured drivers found that of the 743 samples that were chemicially extracted, 363 (47.3%) positive drug identifications were made.
Of these positives, the drugs which may be of concern in traffic safety terms as a percentage of the total were:-
| Cannabis (THC) | 8.7%. |
| Amphetamine and illicit stimulants | 14.3%. |
| Narcotic analgesics (excluding pethidine) | 5.66%. |
| Anti-convulsants (anti-epileptics) | 7.2%. |
| Tranquillisers and anti-depressants | 17%. |
In 1990 The Victorian Institute of Forensic Pathology "Study of Incidence of Cannabinoids in 195 Dead Drivers" found 23 screened positive to use of cannabis. In 1991 The Victorian Institute of Forensic Pathology, in the Robertson Study "Performance Decrement Analysis and its Role in the Study of Drugs in Driving", found that a substance (drug) abuse was the sole culpability factor in the death of 337 drivers:-
| Alcohol | 78 |
| Benzodiazepines | 12 |
| Amphetamines | 11 |
| Cannabis | 13 |
It would appear that drugs are now almost half the culpability factor of alcohol.
Road crashes: pot as common as alcohol
CANNABIS is as prevalent as alcohol among drivers involved in road accidents, with the substances present in about 3 in 10 drivers, a study of severe, non-fatal accidents says.
Cannabis was detected in the urine of about 15 per cent of drivers, 84 per cent of who were men, while alcohol was present in a further 16.5 per cent, of who 78 per cent were men. But the study by one of the country's leading trauma research units, the major trauma service at Sydney's Liverpool Hospital, found little evidence of mixing alcohol and cannabis, and suggests that marijuana might be used to avoid drink driving.
In contrast to previous report, the study, published in the Australia and New Zealand Journal of Surgery, detected both alcohol and cannabis in only four of the 164 drivers tested, which it said suggested the populations using each of the substances were different.
"It is possible that some drivers may take cannabinoids to avoid police detection during random breath checks," it says.
Blood levels of cannabis provide a poor measure of the extent of the drug's effects because of its rapid metabolism and prolonged excretion - for up to 46 days after consumption.
But the study shows that cannabis was present at very high levels in more than half the drivers - suggesting recent ingestion.
The study investigated all people involved in non-fatal road accidents in the 12 months to October 1993 treated in Liverpool Hospital, comprising 164 drivers, 55 passengers, 31 pedestrians and 12 cyclists.
It also found benzodiazepenes such as Valium in 5 of the 164 drivers tested, with heroin and cocaine detected in one driver each and amphetamines in one passenger.
"The present investigation confirms that alcohol remains the most common drug found in road trauma victims in south-western Sydney and high urine levels of cannabinoid metabolites in the urine are not uncommon," it says.
By Medical writer Justine Ferrari, The Weekend Australian, Dec 1995.
Answer 7:
How do you explain that marijuana used in countries like Jamaica is considered an energiser? It is true that in Jamaica marijuana or 'ganja' is considered an energiser and laborers take ganja breaks just as tea breaks are taken in Australia. Studies suggest that chronic marijuana use does not usually impair motivation and intellectual ability in populations with pre-existing low skills or non-stimulating lifestyles. In Jamaica, where the ganja is mixed with tobacco, the smoking procedure resembles cigar smoking. This means there is little or no deep inhalation and therefore less absorption of the cannabinoids. It must be remembered that Western societies involve more complex lifestyles which demand precision thinking to achieve and survive.
Answer 8:
How prevalent is marijuana use among young people? In Australia there has been an alarming increase of marijuana use by young people in the past decade. However, in some countries, notably Sweden and U.S.A., there has been a significant decline. Because marijuana is illegal there is a certain secrecy involved in its use and most teachers, parents and many medical practitioners are unaware of the extent of the problem. Parents who are concerned have great difficulty in finding accurate and updated literature and unfortunately teachers often deny the extent of marijuana use among students to protect the reputation of their schools. For many medical practitioners it is not economical to offer psychotherapy or counselling, others lack postgraduate training and in many cases the time is not available.
Answer 9:
Are young people more at risk when they smoke marijuana? Young people are particularly vulnerable to marijuana because adolescence is a time of physical change in bones, muscles, larynx, skin, breasts and gonadal tissue. New hormones are secreted and additional neural connections formed. It is also a time when the pre-adolescents and adolescents are dealing with problems of identity, emotional separation from parents and psychosexual readjustment. During this phase of development, a drug such as marijuana which interferes with memory, learning and emotion can seriously retard the process of maturation both physically and psychologically.
Answer 10:
What causes people to become dependent? It is important to understand that drug dependence is not related to the reasons which originally led to contact with the drug, such as experimentation and peer pressure. Nor is it necessarily the result of psychological, cultural or economic problems. Rather, it is an independent condition and learned behavior which has taken on the form and intensity of a natural drive. In other words, drug taking moves from experimentation and peer pressure to a need as strong as natural pleasures such as food and sex. Pleasure from the drug is all the time reinforcing the need to have it.(17) According to Prof. Nahas:
"Drug dependence results basically from the reproducible interaction between an individual and a pleasure-seeking biologically active molecule. The common denominator of all drug dependence is the reinforcement resulting from reward associated with past individual drug interaction and the subsequent increasing desire for repeated reinforcement. Positive reinforcement towards drug taking is in turn enhanced by the negative reinforcement produced by the depression of mood occurring when drug effects have ended."
Tolerance is one of the characteristics associated with dependence. In order to obtain the initial high it is often necessary for a drug user to increase the strength of the drug. For example, for many people a 2% or 4% THC content will not suffice after a period of time and they will seek out stronger marijuana strains such as sinsemilla or skunk which are readily available in the drug market. Whatever the initial factors which contributed to the early uses of the drug, tolerance and the addictive state then emerge as the main determinants of continued use.
TO TOPENTER>
Answer 11:
Is marijuana dependence psychological or physical? One of the single most important reasons why there has been an upsurge in the use of illegal drugs by Western youth is the mistaken belief that marijuana is a 'soft' drug, not causing physical dependence, and mood-altering rather than mind-altering. Studies of the characteristics of drugs and patterns of their use and the observations of parents, doctors, teachers and ex-drug users have made it clear how misleading these assumptions have been. When, independent of physical addiction, psychic dependence was thought to be solely a mental attraction to a drug, it was accepted that even if a habit were formed, it could easily be broken by free will. Withdrawal symptoms, thought mistakenly to be the main sign of true physical dependence, would not occur with abstention from use of these 'only psychologically addictive' drugs.
Physical dependence was thought to occur mainly with opiates like heroin, because terminating its use causes a severe and dramatic withdrawal syndrome. However, all intoxicating dependence-producing drugs cause physical and chemical changes in brain cells and these are responsible for mental, behavioural and physical disturbances, including dependence. Some drugs produce dependence without a severe withdrawal syndrome. The best examples are cocaine and amphetamines. Although they only produce moderate withdrawal symptoms they are the only drugs which experimental animals (monkeys and rodents) will take repeatedly until death, ignoring food, water and sex. It has now been established that all street drugs
"produce measurable circulating and biochemical alterations in the brain, which are therefore physical in nature." (2)
There is no such thing as physical without psychological dependence or of psychological without physical dependence. Although a subtle distinction, 'mood-altering' suggests that only temporary feelings are involved when in fact these moods are the result of biological changes in the brain. 'Mind-altering' is the more accurate and preferred term. Another term is cerebral dysfunction - well known with alcohol.
Answer 12:
What factors determine whether a drug is addictive or not? The World Health Organisation (WHO) merged its previous definition of drug addiction (referring to severe forms of abuse) and drug use into the single term 'drug dependence'. ('Toxicomania' is the another term, though not commonly used.)
In 1990, at an international symposium organised at the Paris National Academy of Medicine, an analysis of the common properties of illegal dependence-producing drugs was described as follows:
"Until recently, drug dependence was only described by its behavioural manifestations which include acute and chronic symptoms. The two acute reversible symptoms produced after drug intake result from a temporary impairment of brain function. They are:
- a primary pleasurable and rewarding sensation.
- an impairment of intellectual function (neuropsychotoxicity) manifested by an incapacity to relate oneself in an authentic fashion to the environment. (It should be noted that tobacco and alcohol in small doses do not induce neuropsychotoxicity). Next to these acute symptoms, associated with drug intake, two others will appear following repeated drug administration. They are tolerance and withdrawal, which are manifestations of persistent alterations to obtain the initial functional effect. Withdrawal is a state of malaise, dysphoria, and anxiety which appear when regular intake of the drugs is stopped. Finally these illicit drugs are all characterised by their property of reinforcement.
Reinforcement is at the core of dependency to drugs, and may be functionally defined by their capacity to entertain a stereotyped drug-seeking, drug-consuming behaviour, which may reappear after months or years of abstinence. Reinforcement is associated with a dominant 'affective' memory which is imprinted in the brain. The drug which induces the most compelling reinforcement is cocaine, which the Rhesus monkey will self-administer until death if the drug is made freely available.
Some have, in the past, made a distinction between drugs which induce 'psychic' dependence and those which produce 'physical' dependence. The latter referred to the abstinence syndrome of the opiate type. As a result, cocaine or cannabis were considered to produce only psychic dependence because interruption of their consumption was not associated with an abstinence syndrome of the opiate type. Now it is well established that all illicit drugs produce measurable circulating and biochemical alterations in the brain, which are therefore physical in nature. And cocaine may induce an even stronger dependency than heroin.
Today drug dependence and its functional manifestations must be considered as resulting from an impairment of cerebral neuro-transmission, reversible at first but capable of leading to a chronic and, at times, irreversible deregulation of brain function." (2)
Answer 13:
Is there a pattern to drug use? The progression of drug use in adolescents usually follows a predictable pattern.
Stage 1
The 'setting' for drug experimentation by adolescents is influenced by a number of factors, including the promotion of illegal drugs in videos and films and in the lyrics of rock music. Adults must also accept responsibility for the upsurge of marijuana use by young people because we have failed to convey consistent and reliable information about all of the street drugs and, in particular, marijuana. Some authorities even promote the concept that these drugs can be used responsibly and it is 'normal' for young people to experiment. The use of terms - soft and hard drugs - also suggests that the soft drugs are safe to use. These misleading propositions and the constant debate on legalisation, with extreme points of view from both sides, do little to gain the confidence and respect of young people. Add to these the lack of coping mechanisms and skills that might help adolescents resist the urge to experiment, and the first stage for drug use is set.
Stage 2
The use of alcohol or marijuana often begins with a friendly gesture to share an exciting experience. Once this invitation is accepted (perhaps after a number of refusals) the learning process begins. Both marijuana and alcohol are usually tried at this stage and, with practice, feelings of being intoxicated, high and stoned are all experienced. Progression to fairly regular weekend use is common.
Stage 3
Because it is usually difficult for parents to recognise the beginning of a drug problem, young people slip into stage three with ease. Drinking and marijuana use are no longer confined to weekend entertainment, but are also used to avoid stress. Old friends are dropped and there is often withdrawal from family activities. Also there is an increased risk of experimenting with other illegal drugs and a greater vulnerability to unprotected and indiscriminate sexual activity.
Stage 4
At this stage all activity is directed towards the next 'high'. Behaviour has deteriorated and there are usually problems involving school, family, sex and the law. Drugs cost money and 'dealing' is common. These problems are often associated with depression, guilt, remorse and suicidal thoughts. Other drugs are often tried, although marijuana and alcohol remain the main chemicals. Parents are now fully aware of the drug taking. Often the mother will lean towards guilt and believe her child's problems are due to lack of love and understanding and the father tends towards anger and feels the child needs more discipline. Both parents secretly hope it is just a phase, but as long as they deny the basic problem, which is the child's use of drugs, the less chance there is of preventing that child from progressing to the next stage of drug use.
Stage 5
Constantly in search of chemicals to ease inner pain, the child is out of school, worth little on the job and often unwanted by the family. Fatigue and cough are chronic symtoms, flashbacks, overdosing and amnesia are usual and are bound to get worse unless the child is helped.(91)
Answer 14:
In Australia can it be said that street drugs are tolerated as normal? Drugs are now part of many people's lives at every stratum of Australian society; in small country towns, in regional areas and in the cities, at schools, in the work place, colleges, universities, in pubs, clubs and concerts, at large social gatherings and intimate parties. Marijuana, hashish, amphetamines, heroin, cocaine and an array of designer drugs are smoked, injected, snorted and mixed and matched with alcohol and medical prescriptions. Such obsessive drug-taking has never occurred before in the history of mankind.
Many young people accept alcohol and street drugs as an intrinsic part of their entertainment. Few understand the potential for harm and addiction which these dependence-producing drugs involve. Many health professionals are not aware of the extent of drug use among young people and when treating a client or patient often consider the problem psychological rather than behavioural. By adopting this approach the inference is made that the young person's upbringing, social development, family life etc. are somehow inadequate or dysfunctional. Usually this is not the case at all. Young people take drugs because they are pleasurable, easily available, trendy to use, and they think there is no real harm. It never occurs to them at the time that they may become addicted.61 Why are young people so accepting of illegal drug taking? Traditional social and ethical standards have changed considerably since the 1960s. Western countries now tend towards the nineteenth century English liberalism of Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, where the pursuit of pleasure was deemed the supreme value. Those who hold traditional values, concern for others before self. Consider these are the values more likely to generate a sense of caring and justice.
The concept of rational self-interest favoured by contemporary philosophers and intellectuals has resulted in a generation educated to believe that their own immediate well-being has precedence over the rights of the community. It is trendy to believe that because values vary with the different people who hold them, they are, on that account, equally valid. This thinking leads most young people to tolerate and accept illegal drug taking among their peers because they do not wish to appear to be making a value judgement. What is overlooked, of course, is that since psychoactive drugs affect human behaviour, which can threaten the safety and well being of others, the liberty and rights of others are in fact being infringed.(92)
Challenging the status quo is the cutting edge of progress and since the beginning of time societies have been formed and reformed by political and social revolutions. The various movements of the 1960s have had enormous multiplicative effects on the present generation, and while acknowledging that many of the reforms have made a positive contribution to the cause of social justice, it would be a serious error of judgement to place drug use in the same philosophical context. The question is fundamental, and the answer obvious to those who are aware of the true implications of drugs and dependence: how can one justify the right of an individual to alter his state of mind so radically that he is in fact unable to exercise his basic right of free choice?
Answer 15:
But why isn't drug-taking acceptable? Our intellectual faculties, language, symbolic expression, analytical ability and consciousness of self, emanate from the highest and most recently acquired functions of the mammalian brain.
When drugs are used therapeutically for mental illness such as depression or schizophrenia, many sites in the brain can be affected. When drugs are used for pleasure rather than for clinical reasons or chemical malfunction, there is a grave risk that the delicate equilibrium of the brain will be disrupted:
"in such a way as to make the brain's ability to function dependent on a chemical source of stimulation and thereby to lose its ability to respond normally without it."(2)
Because chemical stimulation falls into the category of sensual pleasure, it is important to examine the issue from another perspective to complete the analysis. The role of sensual pleasures such as eating, drinking and sex, is to reinforce through pleasurable sensation a sequence of behaviours which ultimately result in the survival of mankind, e.g. alleviating hunger - preventing starvation; quenching thirst - avoiding deyhydration; bonding relationships - propagation of the species. Like natural pleasures, psychoactive drugs stimulate the pleasure centres without passing through the sensory pathways and therefore they by-pass the neurological controls that govern sex and other natural pleasures.(17) The difficulty of controlling chemically induced pleasure has been demonstrated in laboratory animals. When left to supervise their own dosage, animals eliminate productive behaviours which incidentally produce pleasure (e.g. indifference to fertile animals of the opposite sex, loss of interest in food and in replacing liquids) in favour of instant gratification.(92)
Because of the nature of adolescence and the easy availability of drugs, young people are attracted to chemically induced pleasure. It requires very little effort to achieve a very powerful result. It is completely self-serving and for many the craving for drug-induced pleasure takes on the strength and character of a basic drive (e.g. becomes as strong as, or even stronger than, the sexual drive or need for nourishment) and they become dependent/addicted.(17)
Answer 16:
Where do young people obtain illegal drugs? Illegal drugs, marijuana in particular, are easily obtained at school, pubs and clubs or from older brothers, sisters and friends. Some grow their own cannabis plants in pots around the house, interspersed in the vegetable garden or between ceiling and roof. Some obtain their drugs through dealers, meeting them at appointed places on the street or going to their homes. Dealers often arrange these meetings via mobile phone. There is a strict code of silence among the dealers and buyers, and even those on the fringe rarely pass on information of the dealing to adults.
In the last two decades a drug culture has been established right under the noses of unsuspecting parents and cottage industries now florish in suburbia.
Answer 17:
Why can't we legalise street drugs and then educate people about the side effects? Drug prevention and education go hand in hand with strict law enforcement. The message must be clear and consistent: prohibited drugs have a destructive impact on society as well as on the individual, and the law is a direct expression of society's attitude. Drug education should inform young people of the law and legal consequences of non-therapeutic drug use.
While acknowledging that factual information in isolation is not effective, relevant, accurate and up-to-date information is an important part of the whole approach. No choices should be given to young people about illegal drugs, and their use cannot be regarded as a civil right or privilege. "JUST SAY NO" is a clear and concise message.
Young people should be taught to evaluate advertisements and to recognise promotion of drug use in music, videos, records and other commercialised forms of entertainment. Peers educating peers can be an effective part of a programme. This means that responsible children and older students who are themselves good role models, receive factual and uncomplicated material which they in turn pass on to their fellow students. These students also encourage social disapproval, which is undoubtedly the most effective deterrent to experimentation. Drug use and under-age drinking among adolescents should not be regarded as normal. Neither should it be regarded as a psychological problem. It is a behavioural problem which requires correction, intervention and common sense from parents, teachers and members of the community.
Experience shows that one cannot be in favour of legalisation and hope to discourage drug use by youth. In the U.S.A., when support for strict law enforcement and drug education was at an all time low, surveys showed that half of high school seniors were using, or had experimented with, marijuana, and 11% became intoxicated or stoned daily. Today, both the law and drug education are strongly supported and the result is that the use of marijuana among high school students has dropped, with daily use down to 4%. Our experience with alcohol proves that a drug which is legal for adults cannot be kept from young people. More students drink alcohol, which is legal for adults, than smoke marijuana or use cocaine, which are illegal for everyone. Research has demonstrated that those who drink alcohol to become intoxicated are more prone to alcoholism than those who drink but avoid intoxication. Illegal drugs are used solely for their intoxicant effect. Drug legalisation will result in more people experimenting with drugs, more experimenters becoming regular users and more regular users becoming addicts. (81)
Answer 18:
Why can't people learn to use street drugs in a reasonable and responsible manner? The belief that a mind-altering drug can be used in a responsible manner when by definition the drug itself is mind-altering (psychoactive), is indicative of the bizarre logic inherent with the controlled use concept.
It is important to remember that the original reason for the classification of the opiates, cocaine and marijuana was their potential for harm. Modern technology is able to confirm this original supposition and it has been well established that these particular drugs interfere with brain mechanisms associated with pleasure and reward. In principle, any individual and any animal will develop an addiction to certain drugs if they are administered in certain quantities during a certain period of time, and the more potent an addictive substance the quicker is the development of dependency.(77)
There are also epidemiological surveys which demonstrate the difficulties associated with the use of street drugs. For example, 7 to 9% of a drinking population are alcoholics or heavily dependent on alcohol.(93) In a similar analysis of marijuana smokers in Jamacia (where marijuana, although illegal, is inculcated into the culture) it has been demonstrated that 50% of users are intoxicated daily. In a 1978 US survey where the drug was illegal and therefore not as available as alcohol, 18% of adolescent users were stoned on a daily basis. In a survey of coca leaf chewers in the Bolivian Andes, out of a population of users, 90% were intoxicated daily, using the equivalent of 300-500mg of cocaine a day. Surveys of heroin addicts demonstrate that the majority have an overwhelming compulsion to shoot up on a daily basis. It has been concluded that the dependence-producing potential of marijuana and that of cocaine or heroin would be, respectively, 7 and 14 times greater than the dependence-producing potential of alcohol.(94)
Answer 19:
Why should street drugs be illegal when there are more deaths and health problems associated with alcohol and tobacco? Often one of the reasons given for removing legal sanctions by those favouring legalisation of drugs is the fact that higher mortality and physical morbidity are associated with the legal drugs, alcohol and tobacco. Ironically this is probably the strongest argument against legalisation. What is obviously not understood is that the very reason why there are more health-related problems and deaths associated with tobacco and alcohol use is because these drugs are legal, and therefore more readily available to be used widely and abused.
Another perspective which needs consideration is the havoc that can arise when a new psychotropic drug is introduced into a new society. This is demonstrated in the case of the American Indian and our own Aborigines. Many factors have contributed to this development within many indigenous communities. These include:
recent legal availability
a lack of cultural control over use
deep social and psychological distress
dangerous patterns of drinking
Answer 20:
What is meant by the American 'War on Drugs'? The first time America experienced a significant drug epidemic was during the Civil War in the 1860s. This, combined with the fact that some medicines were opiate-based and often prescribed indiscriminately within the civilian community, accounted for at least 3% of the U.S. population being addicted to narcotics by 1895.(10) In 1909 the United States Congress ruled that opium could only be imported for medical purposes. This not only upheld the International Treaty, but was deemed a necessity at the time. Cocaine had also started to emerge as a problem in the U.S.
Cocaine-based remedies were promoted as a cure-all. In 1886 a pharmacist, John Pemberton, produced an elixir of coca and kola which he called Coca Kola. Subseqently the name changed to Coca Cola, but in 1903 the coca component was discontinued when it became clear that it was habit-forming. In 1914 The Harrison Narcotic Bill was passed. It did not ban maintenance doses of narcotics for addicts, but restricted opium and its derivaties to a medical prescription and these had to be recorded. However, in 1924 an amendment to the Harrison Act prohibited the importation of opium for the purpose of making heroin.(95)
It was the histrionics accompanying the prohibition of marijuana in the early thirties which resulted in the U.S.A. losing much of its credibility in coping with the issue of prohibited drugs. Henry Anslinger, the Director of the new U.S. Federal Bureau of Narcotics, in association with the press of the day, denounced marijuana as 'reefer madness'. Without any reliable evidence marijuana was blamed for all kinds of weird manifestations including violent crime - especially among Mexicans and Afro-Americans. Extreme penalties were instigated for selling or possession of marijuana, e.g. life imprisonment. Many of these unreasonable sentences were still on the books in the sixties when young people became involved in the penal system for using marijuana. This led to harsh prison sentences in some parts of America and much bitterness ensured.
Governor Nelson Rockefeller was the first American politician to call for "an all out war against drugs!" President Nixon was in the White House, there was dissent over Vietnam and many soldiers returned home with narcotic addictions; the youth counter-culture was evolving and among its symbols were marijuana and psychodelic drugs. The drug issue became part of the Nixon political agenda for the 1968 election campaign. This resulted in a shift in emphasis of the drug issue from health to politics and for the second time this century logic was overwhelmed by emotion and the opinion of the American community was once again polarised. Similar to the early thirties, exaggerated claims and counter claims accompanied the political rhetoric and in some instances civil liberties were placed in serious jeopardy.(95)
Nevertheless, out of chaos many sensible policies have emerged. The stated objectives of the U.S. war on drugs now include eradication of the supply of drugs from illegal sources, reduction of trafficking, treatment and rehabilitation of addicts. However the main focus of the nineties is education. Like the rest of the world, the American war on drugs aims to minimise street drug use among the adult population, and limit use among young people as much as possible. The U.S. policy attracts a certain amount of resentment and prejudice from civil libertarians and Australian academics, but this is because the policies are often misrepresented. This is a pity because America has not only accumulated a vast amount of knowledge and valuable experience, but also leads the world in drug research.
It is inevitable if some drugs are declared illegal, that there are measures in place to reinforce the legislation. One element is education which justifies the policy, but the second element is deterrence for those who reject education and defy the law.
Answer 22:
If prohibition didn't work in the U.S.A. in the twenties, why should it work now? Advocates of legalisation claim that the U.S. experience with alcohol prohibition from 1920 to 1933 proves that drug prohibition does not work. However, the historical analogy is incorrect. Alcohol use had been a socially accepted, legally sanctioned behaviour in most Western societies for centuries. In the United States before prohibition, alcohol sales were restricted to adults and regulated as to time, place, amount, etc. Alcohol problems among minors were extremely rare and, there was no commercial youth-alcohol culture. Thus, prohibition removed a previously acceptable adult beverage from the legal market. Conversely, the consumption and sale of street drugs, especially marijuana and hallucinogens, expanded, predominantly among minors. Use of these drugs has never been socially or legally accepted by the majority of adults in Western societies.
Proponents of legalisation often claim that prohibition failed to curb alcohol abuse and led to vast increases in crime. However, they fail to consider that the law banned "the manufacture, sale or transportation of intoxicating liquors", but it allowed the purchase and consumption of alcohol. Thus it countenanced, through omission, patronage of the bootlegger. Alcohol use was half-legal, half-illegal - a situation similar to the experimentation with decriminalisation of marijuana. Nevertheless, even with its half-measures, alcohol prohibition was a success in terms of greatly reducing the use of alcohol and its negative effects on health and safety. The media and entertainment industry exaggerated the rise of Al Capone and organised crime associated with the prohibition of alcohol during the 1920s but in fact there is no evidence that prohibition brought on a crime wave. When prohibition was finally lifted, it failed to control organised crime. Operations were merely switched to other illegal activities. (97)
Legalisation of heroin, cocaine and marijuana is no longer considered an option by the United States Government. In 1990, when the detrimental effects of marijuana on the foetus, brain and immune system were scientifically documented, the American Bar Association rescinded an 18-year old resolution supporting decriminalisation of marijuana and issued new sanctions based on this research.
Answer 23:
What has turned the tide against illegal drug use in schools in the United States? In the 1970s, throughout the length and breadth of the United States, parents became alarmed about the ever increasing use of marijuana among young people. When they sought help from doctors and health professionals they met with ignorance and apathy. Marijuana use was regarded as a passing fad; unfortunately, no-one realised it was to become an enormous problem. As a result, middle class parents lost faith in health professionals and in Government systems. They took control of the situation themselves and following Sweden's example, established community groups throughout the country. Within a short time these groups became known as the Parent Movement'. Its aim was to promote awareness within the community and, despite discouragement by academics and many professionals, these organisations became very active.
Eventually the U.S. Government started funding scientific research. Although initially the results were meagre and in some instances controversial, the results of previous studies, e.g. The Indian Hemp Drug Commission 1893, the La Guardia Report of 1938 and the collective reports and clinical observations of parents, teachers and doctors which surfaced in the 1970s and 1980s, clearly indicated that marijuana was not, as many had assumed, a benign substance. However, "the easiest thing of all is to deceive oneself, for what a man wishes he generally believes to be true". (98) Over the past two decades, despite volumes of scientific research and clinical evidence, some people still remain unconvinced about the inherent dangers of marijuana.
American parents have insisted on quality drug education in schools and correct up-to-date information for the general public. Originally they experienced resistance from the media, the bureaucracy and health professionals in bringing to public attention the disturbing scientific research about marijuana. However, eventually it became increasingly clear that marijuana was the most widely used illegal drug and its effects, particularly on adolescents, could be very serious. Today in the United States, there has been a decline in consumption of marijuana and there is a wide perception of the risks associated with its use. This has been achieved by educating people with facts based on history, science and epidemiology.
Answer 24:
Why has liberalisation of drugs failed in the Netherlands? In the Sixties, despite pressure from other members of the European Community, the Dutch Government adopted a de facto legalisation policy, especially in the case of marijuana. This came about due to a series of political, social and cultural changes.
In his article "The Dutch Cannabis Debate, 1968 - 1976", published in the "Journal of Drug Issues 24" in 1994, Marcel de Kort, a social historian who is currently preparing his doctorial thesis at Erasmus University in Rotterdam on the history of drug policy in the Netherlands, notes the following points:
"When we examine the arguments, points of contention and policy alternatives discussed within the Dutch ministries between 1968 and 1976, it becomes clear that the de facto decriminalisation of 'soft drugs' was more the result of absence of policy and of a belated adaptation to already existing circumstances, than of any rational, well-considered action."
Furthermore, Marcel de Kort contends that the policy of toleration resulted in the emergence of the so-called 'coffee shops' in the 1980s. Today the marijuana debate in many European countries has yet to subside, while in the Netherlands the discussion on the legal status of soft drugs is no longer being reviewed. This change of attitude occurred after an inspection team from the International Narcotics Control Board of the United Nations visited the Netherlands in late 1992. They informed the Dutch government that the policy was not in agreement with the Single Convention. As a result, the government decided stricter measures should be implemented. This is despite the fact that the present policy is widely supported by many Dutch scientists and some political parties.
According to de Kort it was because of the lack of scientific and epidemiological data that, in 1968, a social-science study of drug use among youth by H. Cohen received wide attention and eventually played a significant part in the outcome of the debate. At the same time a report by Professor L. Hulsman advised the government in 1971 to "decriminalise" the use and possession of "small amounts" of marijuana. At this time there was an upsurge of the use of heroin, and law enforcement officials, gave priority to fighting so-called hard drugs. 'Coffee shops', where marijuana could be sold on the premises, came into existence. Over the years these shops have steadily increased and now number in the thousands throughout the Netherlands. (99) This policy of toleration can be pursued because the nature of Netherlands' law makes it possible not to prosecute certain offences.
Other concepts which de Kort cites as significant in the development of the lenient Dutch way are included in the following quotes from his paper:
(a) The "counterculture, primarily a youth culture.... demanded greater political, social and cultural freedom and Influence..... The use of soft drugs played an important part in these movements."
(b) "The drug problem, it argued, was not only medical and judicial in nature, but also psychological, sociological, and cultural."
(c) "In the press, articles dominated that argued marijuana was not the dangerous and addictive substance one had presumed it to be."
(d) "Voices stressing the dangers of marijuana were mostly to be heard in law enforcement circles. Their cogency, however, was all but cancelled out by the wide publicity enjoyed by those propagating legalisation or decriminalisation.
(e) "... a group of immoral entrepreneurs was active" in the Netherlands and "received extensive access to media."
(f) "In politics, an attitude of tolerant procrastination" prevailed - a kind of accommodation of non-treatable problems". This politics of non-treatment of problems also applied to the cannabis issue".
(g) The media argued "draconian penalties being imposed for possessing tiny amounts of marijuana were not in keeping with marginal noxiousness of the drug itself...the ministry (Justice) was being subjected to strong public pressure from the media."
(h) "Public Health held prime responsibility for defining drug policy .... drug users are not criminals but patients ................................................"
(i) "Sceptism further increased when Public Health failed to demonstrate adequately that cannabis formed a greater health risk than alcohol or tobacco."
It is more due to the liberal application of the expediency principle than to the altering of the law that the use of cannabis has become normalised to a large degree in the Netherlands.
The Dutch maintain that marijuana has acceptable risks - in other words its harmful effects are equated with the legal drugs, alcohol and cigarettes. This opinion is at variance with the international scientific community. Since normalisation the consumption of marijuana by young people has almost trebled.
A 1995 poll, carried out by the Erasmus University in Rotterdam, has found that most Dutch people reject the use of drugs, dislike the liberal drugs policy and oppose any move toward legalisation.
The Dutch experience is often cited as an example of the success of decriminalisation. However, an extract from the 1995 Report of the International Narcotics Control Stategy Board clearly demonstrates there has been "a steady and sometimes explosive increase in demand". A survey conducted among secondary school pupils (De Zwart 1993) revealed that in 1984 4.8% of pupils between 12-18 years had used cannabis. In 1988 it was 8% and in 1992 13.6% At the age of 14-15 years 14% had used cannabis. According to Mrs Horstink-von Meijenfeldt, Drug policy advisor to the Dutch Ministry of Justice, "Today the drug situation is even worse than 3 years ago. Cannabis is used by more and more pupils of steadily increasingly lower age. In a small city like Doesburgs (in the Eastern region of Holland) it became known that the local "coffee shop' was selling cannabis even to children of 10-12 years".
Answer 25:
Who constitutes the International Scientific Community? The global dimensions of the problems of a drug epidemic underscore the need for a universal approach, co-ordinated through the United Nations. Specific tasks are entrusted to the Secretary-General, the Economic and Social Council, and in particular to its functional organisations, the Commission on Narcotic Drugs, the International Control Board (ICB) and the World Health Organisation (WHO).
To fulfil this extensive mandate it is essential for the various committees to interact with the "creme de la creme" of world authorities in all disciplines, including lawyers, criminologists, sociologists, toxicologists, pharmacologists, research scientists, physicians and psychiatrists. These UN consultants who are involved in scientific and medical research and who work in close co-operation with other acknowledged world authorities are normally referred to as the 'International Scientific Community'. In 1948, these authorities, reviewed the data on marijuana and concluded:
"that use of the drug was dangerous from every point of view whether physical, mental or social."
Nearly twenty years later the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs was tabled. It stated that marijuana in all its forms, be limited exclusively "to medical and scientific purposes."
