Dr Don Miller
TEEN RESCUE
|
|||||
Enter subhead content here |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TEEN RESCUE A PROPOSAL FOR A PROGRAM TO RESCUE TEENS FROM
SUBSTANCE ABUSE EARLY IN THEIR SUBSTANCE ABUSE CAREER Don E. Miller, Ph.D. 619-422-2458 NOTE: The first five pages of this document constitute the
basic plan to save teens from substance abuse, the next 72 (of 77) pages
provide in-depth background research. The members of the Government Affairs
Committee of the San Diego Psychological Association have expressed an interest
in finding ways for the Teen Rescue proposal to become law. Federal and state legislators have become more and more
concerned about the high rate of drug overdoses nation-wide, apparently
surpassing highway traffic deaths. Various bills have been proposed to deal with
this issue. But the simple fact is that whatever interventions proposed
generally still let many people drop through the cracks. At present it is
estimated that one of ten people in San Diego County needing alcohol or drug
treatment are receiving it. There are 157,634 teens between the ages of 13 and
17 in San Diego County. There are 43,741 12th graders. About 21
percent report smoking marijuana in the last month and six percent smoke
marijuana daily. Adding estimated totals of daily marijuana smokers from grades
ten to 12 there are approximately six thousand daily marijuana smokers in San
Diego County, approximately 2,000 are in treatment though the emergency rooms
are being flooded with teen age overdoses of marijuana or synthetic
cannabinoids. In County programs, about 1200 are in treatment a year but only
48% are listed as completing treatment. Included later in this document are
several graphs presenting data on drug usage. There are 2,049,464 teens age 14
through 17 in California. Approximately 122,000 are daily users and
approximately 409,892 are monthly users. Approximately ten percent are in
treatment, leaving perhaps 100,000 teen age users in danger. More extensive
data collection may alter these figures but no matter what the final numbers,
many thousands of California teens will be found at risk of damage to their
bodies and becoming long-term addicts. Again, nine out of ten drug users began
using before the age of 18. At present, if a mother calls any number of agencies
including the police and rehab agencies and says, “I need help, my teenager is
in the backroom smoking pot and flunking out of school,” what happens? Almost
always, nothing. The parent is informed of various programs to which they can
take their teen. If she says my teen refuses to go, then what? Again, almost
always, nothing. What if, if that same mother called for help and a team made a
home visit and did an assessment and determined the teen was under the
influence of an illegal substance (in spite of all the medical marijuana cards,
teens under 18 still can’t legally use marijuana). Could TEEN RESCUE
legislation be put in place so that teen could be placed involuntarily in
treatment with careful follow-through to save that teen from the multiple
negative consequences of smoking marijuana? And what are these consequences?
Increased rate of Schizophrenia, damage to the brain due to overwhelming
cannabinoid saturation, preventing normal development of the brain, lack of
motivation for school and most other things. If all pot-smoking teens were
clean and sober by the time they were 18, think of the thousands of substance
abusing teens in San Diego alone who would not go on to a career of substance
abuse and jail. Nine out of ten adult substance abusers began before the age of
18. To have taught life-time sobriety tools to teens before the age of 18 would
surely drastically reduce the adult substance abusing population perhaps by 50%
or more. One of the major problems for certain segments of the population might
be that many parents who are marijuana users who see no harm in the drug are
lighting up and smoking marijuana with their teen age children. Incidentally,
though Marijuana is the most frequently used drug, teens abusing other
substances including meth, opium, heroin, alcohol, etc. will be eligible for
participation in the Teen Rescue program. It is recognized that such a proposal
would involve extensive effort. But the savings in multiple other areas would
be worth it. Millions would be saved in Emergency room visits, prison costs, and
loss of productivity, mental illness treatment including schizophrenia, anxiety
and depression. The program being proposed would provide a response to parents asking
for help. Drug counselors would visit
the home of concerned/suspicious parents and obtain a sample of blood or urine
to determine if the child or teen in question is under the influence of an
illegal substance. New technologies may
make it unnecessary to obtain blood or urine samples, as some pharmaceutical
companies are claiming that even a fingerprint will reveal the presence of an
illegal substance. Isn’t
this invasion of privacy? The law allows
for collection of samples of blood or urine to determine if an individual is
under the influence when there is probable cause. Parental suspicion based on
finding drugs,
paraphernalia, or noticing other symptoms of drug abuse, is probable
cause. Other symptoms of substance abuse
include mood changes, problem behavior, falling grades and truancy. Once found
positive for an illegal substance,
the individual is in violation of the law and a condition of probation is
staying clean. Careful monitoring and
treatment would guarantee continued sobriety in the “Teen Rescue” program.
If
all that is required to rescue teens at the beginning of their drug abuse
careers is enforcing already existing laws, why isn’t this being done now on a
routine basis? Laws already on the books
allow testing for an illegal substance based on probable cause. These laws are
greatly under-utilized because
the police and probation officers are busy “putting out fires” so to
speak. They can’t even keep up with
people re-arrested for new crimes committed under the influence. They claim
that they don’t have the resources
to go after kids already on probation for drug involvement who have run away
from home and hang out taking drugs. And
that’s even when they have been told where to go to find the kids. Basically,
at both the child and adult level,
people, who don’t show up for school, treatment or testing, are lost until
re-arrested for a new crime. A stitch in
time saves nine. Allowing teens to get
very deep into their drug career, until they have committed various crimes is
very expensive. The teen (or in a very
short time, young adult) who could have been sobered up for a few dollars at
the beginning of their substance abuse career is now costing $30,000 to $50,000
a year to maintain in prison. Calls
to rescue teens also could be fielded from the schools where basically everyone
knows who the stoners are. That is, the
ones who fall asleep in class, the ones found with paraphernalia or drugs. Often,
even the finding of drugs on the
person of a student on campus does not result in entering the legal system to
get help in getting sober. The “Teen Rescue” program should be allowed to exist for
at least five
years. It may be that a pilot program in
perhaps once city in California will be tried first. The reason for a five year
program is that by the fifth year there would be an opportunity to demonstrate
a positive outcome. The hypothesis is
that if drug addicts are stopped early in their careers, then teen and young
adult crime rates should plummet, more so each year the program is in
existence. A very large percentage of
all people arrested for anything are under the influence at the time. Almost
half of the approximately 2.3 million
prisoners in U.S. jails are locked up for non-violent drug offenses. What about
heroin and cocaine addicts? The kids don’t usually start with heroin;
they start with pot and amphetamines. Many
researchers now claim that marijuana is not a gateway drug and that people who
like the effects of drugs will try a variety of substances. But teens who smoke
marijuana are 85 times
more likely to go on to hard drugs than non-pot-smoking teens. The new and improved stronger marijuana strains result in psychosis for many
teen users, sometimes just a few months after initiation into pot smoking. Marijuana
is not harmless after all. There were approximately 38,000 crashes in
2003 involving drivers impaired by marijuana. Starting marijuana use during
teen years often results in cognitive impairment later in life. There is evidence
that individuals who start
to smoke marijuana at an early age--while the brain is still developing--show
greater cognitive deficits than do individuals who begin use of the drug when
they are older. Individuals who started using marijuana at age 17 or younger
performed significantly worse on the tests assessing verbal functions such as
verbal IQ and memory of word lists than did those who started using marijuana
later in life or who had used the drug sparingly. The risk of mental illness,
including depression, anxiety, psychosis and schizophrenia are increased in
teen age drug users, even when the numbers are controlled for predisposition
and genetics. Young
people with a parent or sibling affected by psychosis have a roughly one in 10
chance of developing the condition themselves—even if they never smoke pot.
Regular marijuana use, however, doubles their risk—to a one in five chance of
becoming psychotic. If there are several thousand daily marijuana users in San
Diego County, how many of them who would never have become psychotic, will
become Schizophrenic due to marijuana? Some estimates suggest that one percent
of the 700,000 children in San Diego County will become schizophrenic. But in
the marijuana smoking population that number doubles so we end up with an
estimated extra 100 schizophrenics. Taking care of a schizophrenic can cost a
million dollars or more over their lifetime, so sobering up this youthful
population should save San Diego County and the other agencies funding care for
these individuals (including Social Security) 100 million or more over time. In
comparison, youths in families unaffected by psychosis have a 7 in 1,000 chance
of developing it. If they smoke pot regularly, the risk doubles, to 14 in
1,000. Cooperation
of the district attorney, the Juvenile Court System, must be obtained. It is
anticipated that most of the teens
enrolled in the “Teen rescue” program will become clean and sober without
needing detox. Those who refuse
follow-up testing and treatment will need more efforts, possibly time in a
detox facility, possibly a brief stay in a drug free setting. The basic message
will be, “You will be clean
and sober, you can be clean and sober outside, while in treatment and follow-up
testing, or, in some kind of facility.
Take your pick.” The time in a
facility could be as short as overnight with graduated increases if relapse
periods continued. Enrollees in the program will be tasked with helping sober
up each other. Reduced time (let’s say a third relapse has triggered a ten day
stay in a rehab facility, perhaps mountain camp setting) by perhaps a day can
be earned by an individual convincingly presenting evidence to their peers about
the advantages of quitting drugs. And in cases where the drugs were used to
numb unpleasant feelings resulting from trauma or disturbed family life,
alternate methods of dealing with these feelings will be taught, including the
multiple intervention methods available such as mindfulness, cognitive
behavioral therapy, relaxation training, dialectical behavioral therapy, etc. In
some continuation schools, daily marijuana use rises to 26% (instead of the
typical 6% for 12th graders). Whatever traumas resulted in school problems
(continuation school) and greater use among this population would also
hopefully respond to counseling. Another incentive for shorter stays could be
the avoidance of having to go physically take a youth who has missed
appointments for a drug test or detox. If they come in by responding to a phone
call they can do perhaps five days in detox instead of ten. What
about tracking the source of the teens’ illegal substances and catching and
locking up dealers? This is not the purpose of the Teen Rescue program, we have
learned by now that for every arrested dealer ten wait to take his place. There
will be exclusive focus on reducing demand rather than supply. How do youths
get alcohol? One way is to give a homeless guy a couple bucks for buying
whatever you want to drink that day. In states like Colorado where marijuana is
legal, teens have access to unlimited supplies. Thirteen percent of Colorado teens are daily marijuana smokers compared to
a national average of around seven percent. California could go that route
also if marijuana is legalized making the TEEN RESCUE program a very urgent matter. As it is, there are stories about adults
signed up at ten different
Medical Marijuana clinics to get pot for “headaches,” or other vague pains and
then selling at double their price to their teen clients. Let’s hope we don’t
waste time going after the middle-man because it is his teen client we want to
help. This leads to the concept of a distinct revenue stream to fund the
program. Even the medical marijuana clinics pay taxes. In Colorado, the pot
stores provide a major source of governmental funding. Could the taxes from the
Medical Marijuana Clinics, and the pot stores if California makes pot legal, be
directly funneled to the Teen Rescue program? It makes sense that the taxes on
the providers of the pot (not directly but through a middle-man) help pay to
rehabilitate teens from the damage being done to their minds and bodies with
pot and other substances. Cigarette taxes were used to fund various stop
smoking campaigns. The difference is that smokers were not taken into rehab to
stop smoking. What
is different about this program from the programs already in existence? Youths
are already tested, housed in
facilities. The difference is that once
enrolled in the “Teen Rescue” program, no one will be allowed to fall through
the cracks. As it is, even in the best programs
in San Diego and the nation, too many fall through the cracks. In San Diego
County, County funded programs
treat 1200 of the teen drug users a year, only 48% finish their treatment. Eventually
many teen-age substance abusers show up in the criminal justice system, some
not until ten years later - after ten years of drugging and a series of violent
crimes. In the “Teen Rescue” program
workers will go out either the same night a teen doesn’t show up to an assigned
rehab meeting or at the latest by the next day to rescue the teen from their
injurious behavior. “Finishing treatment” will be redefined, possibly in
various ways. Instead of going to 30 or 60 days of drug rehab, you might go for
two days but whether you are sober or not determines outcome numbers, not how
many days you went to treatment. Treatment could start with a ticket when the
teen is found to be under the influence of a drug. If that ticket results in
coming to test weekly, beginning the next day after the ticket (or the day
after being found under the influence) and the test results show a decrease in
toxicity over time (marijuana can take 30 days to get out of the system)
perhaps as little as one meeting a week would be required. Once
the program begins, it could be guaranteed that many thousands of youths who
had started on drugs would remain clean and sober. The focus initially might be
on teens at the very first stages of their substance abuse career. Treatment does not
have to be voluntary. People coerced into treatment by the legal system can be
just as successful as those who enter treatment voluntarily. Sometimes they do
better, as they are more likely to remain in treatment longer and to complete
the program. In 1999, over half of adolescents admitted into treatment were
directed to do so by the criminal justice system. Treatment can help people. Studies
show drug treatment reduces drug use by 40 to 60 percent and can significantly
decrease criminal activity during and after treatment. There is also evidence
that drug addiction treatment reduces the risk of HIV infection (intravenous
-drug users who enter and stay in treatment are up to six times less likely to
become infected with HIV than other users) and improves the prospects for
employment, with gains of up to 40 percent after treatment. Hepatitis C
infections will go down. Virtually no one wants drug treatment. Two of the
primary reasons people seek drug treatment are because the court ordered them
to do so, or because loved ones urged them to seek treatment. Many scientific
studies have shown convincingly that those who enter drug treatment programs in
which they face "high pressure" to confront and attempt to surmount
their addiction do comparatively better in treatment, regardless of the reason
they sought treatment in the first place. New research documents
the
fact that teens who abuse substances are likely to continue into adulthood as
substance abusers, limiting their chances of success in life. Nine out of ten
adult substance abusers started abusing substances before the age of 18. Difficult as it
may be to face one’s problems, the consequences of drug use are always worse
than the problem one is trying to solve with them. The real answer is to get
the facts and not to take drugs in the first place. So what accounts
for the massive correlation between marijuana use and use of other drugs? One
key factor is taste. People who are extremely interested in altering their
consciousness are likely to want to try more than one way of doing it. If you
are a true music fan, you probably won’t stick to listening to just one band or
even a single genre. This doesn’t make lullabies a gateway to the Grateful
Dead, it means that people who really like music probably like many different
songs and groups. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
AND
RESOURCE MATERIAL I have written two e-books
on
drug topics, one fiction, “Angel on Probation” that can be accessed at
Smashwords https://www.smashwords.com/dashboard/seo/78263
and downloaded for free
using
the coupon code NN33L at checkout. Another e book is a factual book about
drugs: “Escape from Hell: Clean and Sober Forever” that that can be accessed at
Smashwords https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/83169 and downloaded for free
using
the coupon code FP26M at checkout. "The foundation for
later substance use is set for most people by the time they finish high
school," said Alicia Merline, a University of Michigan psychologist who
studied men and women who graduated from high school between 1977 and
1983. She and her colleagues found that
those who drank heavily in school were three times more likely to drink heavily
at age 35 than those who were high school teetotalers. Those who had tried marijuana
in school were
eight times more likely to be using marijuana at 35 than those who hadn't tried
it by graduation. I described the proposed
TEEN
RESCUE PROGRAM to a client who screamed, “Where were you when my daughter died
of an overdose?” I apologized for being too late for her daughter but that at
some time in the future we might save someone else’s daughter. THE GOOD, BAD AND THE UGLY
REGARDING MARIJUANA See the 5/25/2015 Time Magazine article, “The
Great Pot
Experiment,” by Bruce Barcott and Michael Scherer. The Good: May reduce
pain and inflammation, may reduce disturbed
sleep and spasticity in Multiple Sclerosis, and may work to reduce epileptic seizures
and may kill certain cancer cells and reduce the size of others. The
Bad: Same as throughout this paper, negatively altered brains, mental
illness and addiction. The Ugly:
Yasmin Hurd had rats get high on THC as adolescents. They showed changes in their
brains. The offspring of these rats played a game, push a lever to get some
heroin. When the game got harder, the offspring of the THC exposed parents (but
not rats not exposed to THC) worked much harder to get the heroin. They wanted
it more. Neural circuitry in offspring from THC exposed parents was different
from offspring of non-exposed parents. Not all, but many findings with rats
apply to humans. Multiple human THC users have demonstrated extensive neural
changes. With more pot smokers are we turning into a stoner nation? This Time
Magazine article quotes rates of one in ten adults and 35% of high school
seniors in America smoke pot. More on the stoner nation: As labor markets
tighten,
employers are having a harder time finding applicants free of drugs, especially
marijuana. A New York Times article describes the new dilemma, “Hiring
Hurdle: Finding Workers Who Can Pass a Drug
Test. Hiring Hurdle: Finding Workers Who Can Pass a Drug Test.” A few years
back, the heavy equipment manufacturer JCB held a job fair in the glass foyer
of its sprawling headquarters near here, but when a throng of prospective
employees learned the next step would be drug testing, an alarming thing happened:
About half of them left. Though one in ten adults in America uses marijuana,
various employers are legally obligated to make sure their employees are sober,
especially those involved in transportation as many accidents are due to being
under the influence of marijuana. For the complete article, click below: The California Department
of
Corrections has a ten billion dollar a year budget and over the past few years
they eliminated and dismantled the Amity in-prison drug rehabilitation and the
job training programs. In contrast, Susan Tucker, Ph.D., chief psychologist and
assistant warden of Bossier Sheriff Medium Security Facility in Plain Dealing,
Louisiana has received several awards for saving the state millions of dollars
through her intensive prison drug education programs. Inmates that pass her
programs are allowed to subtract a year off their prison sentence and the 2,000
graduates who did so (saving more money) had a three percent recidivism rate.
California’s recidivism rate hovers around 70 percent. In the “TEEN RESCUE”
program,
as noted, stays in detox could be reduced if the teens do a presentation on
drugs to their fellow enrollees. Some of the material in this document, which
shows the multiple ways marijuana has negative effects on both teens and
adults, could be part of the curriculum. Or, proven programs such as that of
Dr. Tucker could be used. Here are more details on that program: http://bossierpress.com/bossier-parish-correctional-facilitys-substance-abuse-program-wins-award/
Marijuana
disrupts the regulation and balancing and protection system of the brain.
Myelin sheathing is disrupted as well as multiple other negative outcomes
including memory problems and higher levels of depression, anxiety and
psychosis, even controlling for genetic make-up. The “Teen Rescue” program
would allow a parent or a teacher to call for help in the sobering up of a
substance abusing child (marijuana and other drugs including alcohol). This
help would be in the form of meetings and testing and follow-up visits and days
in detox for those who slip. What right does society have to determine if a
teen is under the influence of an illegal drug? If there is probable cause
to believe that an individual may be under the influence of an illegal drug, it
is not necessary to obtain their permission for an examination, which can be
conducted against their will to determine whether or not they are under the
influence of an illegal drug. This is covered in the California Health and
Safety Code Statute 11552. What is probable cause? Dilated pupils, slurred speech
or erratic
behavior suggest the possibility that an individual may be under the influence
of an illegal substance. The Health and
Welfare Code allows for graduated involvement periods (i.e., longer each time)
upon relapse. Sion Kim
Harris, PhD, at the Center for Adolescent Substance Abuse Research at the
Boston Children’s Hospital Harvard Medical School wrote of “The Teen Brain on
Marijuana.” In 1991 over 70% of teens thought marijuana was harmful, in 2011
only 46% believed that. Not surprisingly, the
recent increases in marijuana use have
been accompanied by a steady decline in the percent of teens who perceive a
great risk of harm from regular marijuana use. The
human brain is sensitive to marijuana because we are all born with
“cannabinoid” receptors on our brain cells to which THC binds. These receptors
were discovered when scientists were studying how marijuana worked in the
brain. Other psychoactive drugs also bind to receptors in our brain, such as
heroin (opioid receptors) and nicotine (nicotinoid receptors). First
discovered in 1992, it turns out that our own brain produces some chemicals
(called endocannabinoids) that bind to the cannabinoid receptors. One of these
chemicals is called anandamide. Essentially, THC and anandamide have some
similarities in chemical structure which is why THC can “fool” the brain by
binding to the same receptors that anandamide does. What does anandamide
do? It
turns out that one of the major functions of the brain’s own endocannabinoid
system is to regulate how active neurons are and how much neurotransmitter they
release. The
endocannabinoid system acts like the brain cell’s volume control dial. If the
volume or signal coming from one neuron gets too loud, the receiving neuron
says “whoa there!” and sends anandamide backwards through the synapse to turn
the volume down on that sending neuron.
So,
the brain’s endocannabinoid system helps to regulate (monitor and control) how
active neurons are, and how much neurotransmitter gets released, including
neurotransmitters that affect pleasure, mood, pain, appetite, motivation,
memory, muscle activity, etc. (e.g., dopamine, serotonin, endorphins).
Therefore, the endocannabinoid system helps to keep brain cell activity in
BALANCE, not underactive (like in depression or ADHD) or overactive (like in
epilepsy or post-traumatic stress disorder). To
use an analogy that a teen might appreciate, a healthy brain is like a high
performance race car. It’s a finely-tuned, sensitive instrument which you don’t
want overheating or getting slow from too much gunk in the engine.
The
endocannabinoid system is already present in the fetal brain and has been found
to help guide neuron growth so that they get to the right places in the brain
for correct function. Also,
because it helps to control neuron activity, it plays a major role in brain
wiring – that is, how brain cells “learn” whether to grow new synapses and
connections to other neurons. The more active neurons are, the stronger their
connections get (neurons that fire together, wire together). The less active
neurons are, the weaker their connections get, or the more they lose
connections altogether.
Finally,
the endocannabinoid system appears to play a role in the MYELINATION of brain
cells. After neurons grow to a certain point, myelin, a fatty white substance,
starts to wrap the long axons of neurons. This myelin sheathing on neurons acts
like insulation on an electrical wire, helping the electrical signal pass down
the axon more quickly and efficiently, therefore making communication across
the brain more efficient.
So,
proper endocannabinoid system function is important for neuron growth,
activity, and connectivity, and therefore, for developing a brain that is
efficient, balanced, and integrated.
So,
how does THC compare to anandamide, the chemical which our own brain makes?
Well, both THC and
anandamide dial down neuron activity, thereby changing the amount of
neurotransmitters released.
However,
when THC binds to our cannabinoid receptors, it has a MUCH STRONGER, LONGER
effect on brain cell activity than anandamide. THC’s effect is like a
sledgehammer compared to the precision scalpel of anandamide. By
occupying those cannabinoid receptors, THC interferes with anandamide’s ability
to naturally protect
and balance cell activity. By
occupying those cannabinoid receptors, THC interferes with anandamide’s ability
to naturally protect
and balance cell activity. As
mentioned before, a balance between inhibition and excitation of neuron
activity is important for proper brain functioning. Because THC changes the
levels of neurotransmitters in the brain, brain cells that get overstimulated
by the effects of THC start to compensate by scaling back the number of
receptors (this is why you get “tolerance” after repeated use of a substance,
and this happens with all types of substance use). On
the other hand, repeated THC exposure continually dampens down the activity of
many brain cells, causing there to be too much INHIBITION. In
response to this imbalance, the brain tries to compensate by making some cells
MORE excitable. When a regular marijuana smoker does not smoke, the inhibitory
effect of THC is not there, leaving some parts of the brain with too much
excitation. This is why we see marijuana withdrawal symptoms like
restlessness, anxiety, increased
sensitivity or reactivity, difficulty falling and staying asleep, etc. These
withdrawal symptoms may not be as dramatic as what is seen for opiate or
alcohol withdrawal where people have physical pain, nausea, sweating, cramps,
etc. However, people in marijuana withdrawal do report substantial distress
over symptoms, particularly with difficulty sleeping, making it hard to quit. One
way that scientists examine whether a substance is potentially addictive is to
see if research animals given free access to it will continually
self-administer it. In rat experiments, rats were found to self-administer THC
doses repeatedly, just as they do other addictive substances like cocaine,
heroin, and nicotine. Also,
THC has been found to increase dopamine release in the “reward” or pleasure
circuit of the brain, just like every other addictive drug. The brain’s reward
circuit evolved to motivate us to engage in behaviors that helped our species
survive, such as eating, sex, and social connection. Addictive drugs strongly
stimulate this reward circuit, giving a “counterfeit” pleasure. When
looking nationally at statistics on why adolescents go into treatment for
substance abuse problems, compared to alcohol, heroin, cocaine, etc.,
substances that everyone agrees are addictive, marijuana accounts for more
teens in substance abuse treatment than any of the other substances combined. We
now know that adolescent brains are different from adult brains. That is, their
brains are still developing, and are more “plastic” and adapt and learn faster
than adults. Does this make teens more vulnerable to developing an addiction
than adults? The
risk of marijuana dependence among those who started use before age 16 was over
four times the risk (17% vs. 4%) as those starting after 21 (after the brain
has mostly matured). That’s 1 in 6 teens who ever smoke marijuana develop
addiction 3 out of 4 people in treatment for marijuana dependence (adult or
teen) started using marijuana before age 17. One
well known effect of marijuana use is memory impairment. Scientists have found
that THC dampens down the activity of hippocampal neurons, below the level
needed to trigger the formation of a memory. With
chronic THC exposure, and therefore, continual suppression of hippocampal
neuron activity, the neurons start to lose connections to other neurons, making
it harder to form and retrieve memories. Brain imaging studies have found that
regular marijuana users actually have, on average, smaller hippocampuses than
non-users, and poorer memory performance. While we all tend to lose neurons in
the hippocampus as we age (which explains why we have a harder time remembering
and learning things as we get older), chronic THC exposure will speed up this
process. Scientists found that young rats exposed daily to THC for 8 months
showed the same level of hippocampal cell loss as unexposed rats twice their
age. Long term marijuana users had lower IQs and the earlier marijuana use
began the greater the drop in IQ. There
is a growing body of evidence suggesting that marijuana may increase risk for
mental illness. Several studies followed individuals from childhood (ages 6 or
younger), before marijuana use began, all the way into their late 20’s. So,
they were able to determine whether symptoms of mental illness were present
BEFORE marijuana use initiation, and perhaps contributed to individuals
becoming marijuana users. Even
after controlling for the confounding effect of mental illness symptoms
preceding marijuana use, these studies showed an increased risk of developing
schizophrenia or mood disorders (depression, anxiety) in adulthood if
individuals regularly smoked marijuana during adolescence. The risk was
particularly heightened if there was any family history of mental illness
(i.e., “genetics provided the loaded gun and marijuana pulled the trigger”).
Also, mental illness, among those at risk, tended to show up earlier with
marijuana use. The risk of mental illness is 2–5 times greater for those
starting marijuana use before age 16. Why
would marijuana use increase the risk for mental disorders? Scans
of the different regions of the corpus callosum fibers reveals thinner corpus
callosum fibers than the scan of the non- indicating that there are white
matter integrity issues for the daily user. Poorer
communication across different parts of the brain that need to work together
for proper cognitive function may be one cause of cognitive disorders such as
schizophrenia. I
imaging studies are finding that there are similar white matter problems in the
brains of people with schizophrenia and of regular marijuana users who started
using in adolescence. Recent
national statistics show that, among fatally-injured drivers who were randomly
selected for drug-testing (excluding tobacco, alcohol, and medications
administered after the crash), more and more are testing positive. In 2009, the
rate of positive tests had increased to 1 in 3. Among
positive tests, marijuana was the most common drug found. Because
there are cannabinoid receptors in brain areas and glands and organs (testes,
uterus) throughout the body involved in growth, pubertal development,
fertility, and reproductive hormones, marijuana use can affect all of these
things. Recent
studies have found that regular marijuana before the age of 16 is associated
with shorter height, and daily use may elevate risk for testicular cancer for
males. It
is important to know that the marijuana of today is, on average, a lot more
potent than it was 20 years ago. The
average THC content of thousands of samples of marijuana products confiscated
each year in the US. From 1993 to 2008, the average THC potency of marijuana
available in the USA more than doubled from less than 4% to about 9%. Some samples
tested in 2007 were found to have as much as 37% THC! As
THC content of marijuana increases, so does its potential to cause adverse
effects such as paranoia, anxiety and panic attacks, hallucinations, erratic
mood swings and aggressive behavior. The
number of young people showing up in the emergency department for
marijuana-related reasons has risen sharply in recent years. In 2009, over
376,000 emergency room visits nationwide were caused by marijuana use. There
is a huge increase in calls to Poison Control Centers across the country (from
13 calls in 2009 to 9,159 in 2011) by people having such adverse reactions
after using “synthetic pot” – plant material sprayed with chemicals developed
in labs to study the effects of THC. These chemicals mimic THC by binding to
cannabinoid receptors. However, these synthetic chemicals are typically 10
times more potent than THC, which is why they cause more, and more severe,
adverse reactions, including heart attacks and seizures. The marijuana clinics
and laws allowing the recreational use of marijuana in some places has resulted
in easy access to the drug for teens. Studies
have generally found that regular marijuana smokers report more of a range of
common respiratory health issues, and more days sick than non-users, regardless
of whether they smoked cigarettes. Lisdahl points to a growing
number of studies that show regular marijuana use —
once a week or more — actually changes the structure of the teenage brain,
specifically in areas dealing with memory and problem solving. That can affect cognition
and
academic performance, she says. "And, indeed, we see, if
we look at actual grades, that chronic marijuana-using teens do have, on
average, one grade point lower than their matched peers that don't smoke
pot," Lisdahl says. Evidence is mounting that regular marijuana
use
increases the chance that a teenager will develop psychosis, a pattern of unusual thoughts or perceptions,
such as
believing the television is transmitting secret messages. It also increases the
risk of developing schizophrenia, a disabling brain disorder that not only causes
psychosis, but also problems concentrating and loss of emotional expression. Another
new paper concluded that early marijuana use
could actually hasten the onset of psychosis by three years. Those most at
risk are youths who already have a mother,
father, or sibling with schizophrenia or some other psychotic disorder. Young people with a parent or sibling
affected
by psychosis have a roughly one in 10 chance of developing the condition
themselves—even if they never smoke pot. Regular marijuana use, however,
doubles their risk—to a one in five chance of becoming psychotic. In comparison, youths in families unaffected
by
psychosis have a 7 in 1,000 chance of developing it. If they smoke pot
regularly, the risk doubles, to 14 in 1,000. For years, now, experts have been sounding
the
alarm about a possible link between marijuana use and psychosis. One of the
best-known studies followed nearly 50,000 young Swedish
soldiers for 15 years. Those who had smoked
marijuana at least once were more than twice as likely to develop schizophrenia
as those who had never smoked pot. The heaviest users (who said they used
marijuana more than 50 times) were six times as likely to develop schizophrenia
as the nonsmokers. Teens who
smoke pot at risk for later schizophrenia, psychosis Ann
MacDonald Posted March 07, 2011, 11:03 am , Updated
November 30, 2011, 2:28 pm Ann
MacDonald, Contributor, Harvard Health Teenagers
and young adults who use marijuana may be messing with their heads in ways they
don’t intend. Evidence is
mounting that regular marijuana use increases the chance that a teenager will
develop psychosis, a pattern of unusual thoughts or perceptions, such as
believing the television is transmitting secret messages. It also increases the
risk of developing schizophrenia, a disabling brain disorder that not only
causes psychosis, but also problems concentrating and loss of emotional
expression. In one
recent study that followed nearly 2,000 teenagers as they Smoke rises from a marijuana
cigarette became young adults, young people who smoked marijuana at least five
times were twice as likely to have developed psychosis over the next 10 years
as those who didn’t smoke pot. Another new
paper concluded that early marijuana use could actually hasten the onset of
psychosis by three years. Those most at risk are youths who already have a
mother, father, or sibling with schizophrenia or some other psychotic disorder. Young people
with a parent or sibling affected by psychosis have a roughly one in 10 chance
of developing the condition themselves—even if they never smoke pot. Regular
marijuana use, however, doubles their risk—to a one in five chance of becoming
psychotic. In
comparison, youths in families unaffected by psychosis have a 7 in 1,000 chance
of developing it. If they smoke pot regularly, the risk doubles, to 14 in
1,000. For years,
now, experts have been sounding the alarm about a possible link between
marijuana use and psychosis. One of the best-known studies followed nearly 50,000
young Swedish soldiers for 15 years. Those who had smoked marijuana at least
once were more than twice as likely to develop schizophrenia as those who had
never smoked pot. The heaviest users (who said they used marijuana more than 50
times) were six times as likely to develop schizophrenia as the nonsmokers. So far, this
research shows only an association between smoking pot and developing psychosis
or schizophrenia later on. That’s not the same thing as saying that marijuana
causes psychosis. This is how
research works. Years ago, scientists first noted an association between
cigarette smoking and lung cancer. Only later were they able to figure out
exactly how cigarette smoke damaged the lungs and other parts of the body,
causing cancer and other diseases. The research
on marijuana and the brain is at a much earlier stage. We do know that THC, one
of the active compounds in marijuana, stimulates the brain and triggers other
chemical reactions that contribute to the drug’s psychological and physical
effects. But it’s not
clear how marijuana use might lead to psychosis. One theory is that marijuana
may interfere with normal brain development during the teenage years and young
adulthood. The teenage
brain is still a work in progress. Between the teen years and the mid-20s,
areas of the brain responsible for judgment and problem solving are still
making connections with the emotional centers of the brain. Smoking marijuana
may derail this process and so increase a young person’s vulnerability to psychotic
thinking. (You can read more about how the adolescent brain develops in this
article from the Harvard Mental Health Letter.) While the
research on marijuana and the mind has not yet connected all the dots, these
new studies provide one more reason to caution young people against using
marijuana—especially if they have a family member affected by schizophrenia or
some other psychotic disorder. Although it may be a tough concept to explain to
a teenager, the reward of a short-time high isn’t worth the long-term risk of
psychosis or a disabling disorder like schizophrenia. I have discussed finding
legislative sponsors for legislation through the Community Mental Health
Committee and/or the Government Affairs Committee regarding our next generation
of drug addicts. Statistics seem to indicate that of 150,000 of San Diego
County’s teen age population, 20% have used drugs, primarily marijuana, in the
past month. Ten percent are heavy users, meaning, 15,000 teens. Initial figures
I have indicate about 1,000 are in treatment, possibly leaving 14,000 (I will
be double checking these figures) in danger as marijuana is a gateway drug.
People argue this point but the vast majority of heavy drug users (Heroin,
cocaine, etc.) used marijuana first. Marijuana disrupts the regulation and
balancing and protection system of the brain. Myelin sheathing is disrupted as
well as multiple other negative outcomes including memory problems and higher
levels of depression, anxiety and psychosis, even controlling for genetic make-up.
The “Teen Rescue” program would allow a parent or a teacher to call for help in
the sobering up of a substance abusing child (marijuana and other drugs
including alcohol). This help would be in the form of meetings and testing and
follow-up visits and days in detox for those who slip. What right does society
have to determine if a teen is under the influence of an illegal drug? If there is probable
cause to believe that an individual may be under the influence of an illegal
drug, it is not necessary to obtain their permission for an examination, which
can be conducted against their will to determine whether or not they are under
the influence of an illegal drug. This is covered in the California Health and
Safety Code Statute 11552. What is probable cause? Dilated pupils, slurred speech
or erratic
behavior suggest the possibility that an individual may be under the influence
of an illegal substance. Hopefully in the next few
months I will firm up the proposals and the implementation strategies. If the lost
14,000 are sobered up, in just ten years most San Diegans between the ages of
14 to 28 will be sober. The more easily available marijuana (getting it from
card holders) puts more teens at risk. I have written e-books (“Angel on
Probation” and “Escape from Hell”) and a movie script (“Street Kids”) on this
subject. Details of the books and script can be found on my website
drdonmiller.net. I am attaching an excellent
article on the teen brain on Marijuana. The article spells out the percentage
of teens using the various drugs and marijuana users outnumber all the other
drug users combined. As
brief a period as possible, first, given a ticket (if a mom calls in and the
teen is found to have illegal substances in his or her body) that calls for
next day attendance at drug rehab meetings. If they are a no show, the next day
they are picked up and placed in detox/rehab for five days, released, and
expected to show up for a meeting/testing the next day. If they don’t show up,
they are picked up and put in detox/rehab for 10 days. If they don’t show up
the next day for out-patient rehab/continued detox they are picked up and spend
30 days, then 60, then 90, then 180 days, with increasing periods in
detox/rehab for each time they go out and don’t show up. In detox/rehab, in a
secure facility, most of their day is spent in meetings. There will be
education meetings, group therapy meetings, and possibly individual therapy
meetings. As soon as possible, they can sign up to be helpers/teachers and
within a short time as much as 75% of the meetings will be conducted by teens
who are there themselves for detox/rehab. Conducting successful meetings will
shorten their time in detox/rehab. Studies show that if a 10 grader is asked to
spend time with a sixth grader teaching him reading, and measures are taken of
increases in reading ability, the 10th grade makes more gains in
reading ability than the sixth grader, though both make gains. So, teaching a
class on drugs and ways of avoiding re-addiction when they go out of rehab will
likely make it more likely that they will remain clean and sober when they
leave rehab. Patterns of Current and
Lifetime Substance Use in Schizophrenia by Ian L. Fowler, VaughanJ. Carr,
Natalie T. Carter and Terry J. Lewin
Schizophrenia Bulletin, 24(3):443-455, 1998 Cannabis abuse has been
associated with the exacerbation of psychotic symptoms, increased hospital
admissions, 6.
ANGLIN, M.D., "THE EFFICACY OF CIVIL COMMITMENT IN TREATING NARCOTICS
ADDICTION." IN LEUKENFELD, C.G.,
AND F. M. TIMS, (eds.), COMPULSORY TREATMENT OF DRUG ABUSE: RESEARCH AND CLINICAL
PRACTICE. National
Institute on Drug Abuse Research Monograph 86, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government
Printing Office, 1988. The
relationship between addiction and crime is well established. Civil commitment
can be an effective approach for reducing drug use. Evaluation of nearly 1,000
addicts who came into the California Civil Addict Program found that civil
commitment (involuntary sobriety) suppressed daily drug use, justifying the use
of a "long tail" or lengthy follow-up. 9.
BALCH, JAMES E. AND PHYLLIS BALCH, PRESCRIPTION FOR NUTRITIONAL HEALTH. GARDEN
CITY PARK, N.Y.: AVERY PUBLISHING GROUP, INC., 1990. Refers
to several studies showing that schizophrenics whose symptoms are in remission
or partial remission can have a resurgence of psychotic symptoms, including,
hallucinations, upon ingesting alcohol, marijuana and a variety of illegal
drugs; lists dangerous side effects of marijuana including impairment of the
immune system, reproductive system and lungs. Marijuana smokers run higher
risks of bronchitis, emphysema and lung cancer. The impaired immune system
leaves the marijuana smoker more susceptible to cancer, AIDS and other
diseases. The user lacks ambition and direction, is passive, apathetic, and
uncommunicative. Withdrawal from marijuana can result in insomnia, tremors,
chills and other symptoms that can last for days. 26.
COOK, L. F. AND B. A. WEINMAN,
"TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES TO STREET CRIME," IN LEUKENFELD, C.G.,
AND F. M TIMS, (Eds.), COMPULSORY TREATMENT OF DRUG ABUSE: RESEARCH AND
CLINICAL PRACTICE. NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON DRUG ABUSE RESEARCH MONOGRAPH 86,
WASHINGTON, D.C. U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, 1988. The
TASC (Treatment Alternatives to Street Crimes) program was begun in 1972. This
diversion program was backed by court authority to keep drug abusers in
treatment. Some of the functions carried out by the program were
identification, assessment, referral and monitoring of appropriate substance
abusing, non-violent offenders. Several evaluations of the TASC programs found
that the TASC linkage was cheaper than jail, and that TASC clients remained in
treatment longer. One hundred sites in 18 states had TASC programs in 1987.
Most important to the success of TASC was the case management aspect which
meant that drug abusers were followed throughout their drug abuse careers. 27.
CORN, DAVID, "JUSTICE'S WAR ON DRUG TREATMENT." THE NATION,
5/14/90, Pgs. 659-662. "Stay'n
Out" is a therapeutic community in-prison treatment program which takes
convicts with a history of drug abuse who are within two years of parole and
places them in units segregated from the general prison population. For a
period of between nine months and two years they attend seminars and counseling
sessions on subjects ranging from how to find an apartment to understanding
what led to their addiction. Prison perpetuates low self-esteem. If you lock a
guy up and give him nothing but hard time (meaning, he gets no treatment for
his addiction) he'll be back. Stay'n Out claims a success rate of 78%. Over
three-fourths of its alumni stayed off drugs and were not arrested during their
parole period. Seventy-five percent of those not in any treatment programs who
are released from state prisons are rearrested. Only 13% of the 10.6 million
Americans who need treatment are receiving it. When inmates leave Stay'n Out
they get a suit, $40, and a subway token. Even so, 70% stay sober. (Authors’'
note: Add Stay'n Out to a good after
prison support system which includes providing a place to eat and sleep and
sober buddies, along with tight follow-up, and the success rate could easily go
to 95% or more). 72.
KRAKOW, BARRY CONQUERING BAD DREAMS AND
NIGHTMARES. SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF: BERKELEY BOOKS, 1992. Subjects
who experienced nightmares were instructed to visualize or imagine themselves
having the same nightmare or bad dream over again, while awake. But this time
they visualized and repeatedly practiced new endings where they won out over
the terrifying creatures of their nightmares. Not only did the nightmares stop,
but depression and anxiety were lifted or alleviated. Feeding new signals into
the unconscious mind can positively affect how well people feel. 78.
LEUKEFELD, CARL AND FRANK M. TIMS, "COMPULSORY TREATMENT FOR DRUG
ABUSE." THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF THE ADDICTIONS, 25(6), 1990, Pgs.
621-640. Provides
an extensive review of the drug abuse literature which leads to the inevitable
conclusion that involuntary treatment is critical to even begin to impact on
the drug addiction problem since as high as 98% of the participants drop out of
treatment programs when their participation is voluntary. Involuntary treatment
results in drastic reductions in crime and drug use. Half or more of those
sobered up have legitimate jobs upon follow-up in two or three years. 114.
PORTERFIELD, KAY MARIE, "MARIJUANA AND LEARNING: GRASS GETS AN F." CURRENT HEALTH 2 16:
11/89, Pgs. 24-27. THC
(the major mood altering ingredient in marijuana) lowers alertness and retards memory
and learning. The higher the dose, the worse the memory. Students smoking marijuana
feel alert but
cannot comprehend, follow, or store much of what is going on in their long term
memory. They may be drug free when they take a test later, but because they
were stoned in the lectures, nothing is recalled. Even moderate doses over an
eight month period destroys brain cells and causes premature aging of the
brain. In a 1981 study of 2,000 high school students not only was the ability
to learn impaired, the desire to learn was impaired. Marijuana has long been
known as a drug which kills motivation and the desire to succeed. Formerly
focused and successful youth, after smoking marijuana for a time, stopped
setting goals for themselves. They forgot about their formerly important career
plans. Five times as many just once-a-week marijuana smokers dropped out of
high school compared to students who used the drug rarely or not at all. After
smoking for a few weeks or months, and as the A's, B's and C's dropped to D's
and F's, the students started to feel like failures. How did they cope with
these unpleasant feelings? They smoked a
little more dope to forget. Before daily marijuana use, only one in 25 students
in a Virginia study had experienced serious school failure. After a few months
of regular use, three out of five were failing in school, half were ditching at
least one class a day and three-fourths had been suspended from school. The
writer concluded "In the final analysis, marijuana doesn't make the grade
- and neither do students who smoke it." 144.
TAUBER, JEFFREY S. THE IMPORTANCE OF IMMEDIATE INTERVENTION IN A COMPREHENSIVE
COURT-ORDERED DRUG REHABILITATION: A
PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE F.I.R.S.T. DIVERSION PROJECT. PREPARED FOR THE
NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON SUBSTANCE ABUSE AND THE COURTS, WASHINGTON, D.C.,
11/7/91. Newly
arrested drug offenders earn points for completing each stage of their
court-ordered treatment. These points can be used to reduce the two year
supervision period and their fine. Defendants have to participate in A.A. and
N.A. meetings, community counseling programs, intensive drug education classes,
and frequent meetings with probation officers. Defendants are given random
urine tests but those who relapse get a second chance. People in crisis (which
is the feeling people have just after arrest) are connected quickly to services
and treatment. Treatment is provided immediately after arrest rather than
several months later (or not at all, as is generally the case across the U.S.) The
participants knew with certainty that
they would be returned to jail for dropping out. Legal coercion can be a
powerful incentive to change if it accompanied by meaningful treatment. The
program costs $330,000 a year. Following participation in the program arrests
of drug offenders dropped in half. The savings in arrest costs alone (not even
counting what was saved by not having to send all those people to jail) paid
for the program. WIKIPEDIA The gateway drug theory
(also called gateway theory, gateway hypothesis and gateway
effect) states that use of less deleterious
drugs precedes, and can lead to, future use of more dangerous hard drugs[1] or crime.[2] It is often attributed to the
earlier use of one of several licit substances, including tobacco or alcohol, as well as cannabis.[1] The reverse gateway
theory
posits that earlier regular cannabis use predicts later tobacco initiation
and/or nicotine dependence in those who did not use tobacco before.[3] The hypothesis is that
the use of
soft drugs like cannabis leads to the use of harder drugs via a sequence of
stages.[1] This is based on the observation
that many consumers who use cocaine or heroin have previously used cannabis,
and most have used alcohol or tobacco; the hypothesis is that progression of
drug use initiation continues from there to other drugs like cocaine or heroin.[1] Some research supports that cannabis
use predicts a significantly higher risk for subsequent use of
"harder" illicit drugs, while other research does not.[1] Some research finds that even
alcohol represents a "gateway" drug, leading to the use of tobacco,
marijuana, and other illicit substances.[4] While some research shows
that
many hard drug users used cannabis or alcohol before moving on to the harder
substances, other research shows that some serious drug abusers have not used
alcohol or cannabis first.[1] The latter is evident in Japan,
where the overwhelming majority of users of illicit drugs do not use cannabis
first.[1] One study finds no evidence that
medical marijuana laws lead to an increase in cocaine or heroin usage.[5] The risk factor for using drugs
in cannabis users may be higher because few people try hard drugs prior to
trying cannabis, not because cannabis users increasingly try hard drugs such as
certain substituted amphetamines (e.g., methamphetamine).
For example, cannabis is typically available at a significantly earlier age
than other illicit drugs. Jacob
Sullum analyzed the "gateway" theory in a 2003 Reason
magazine article, noting that the theory's "...durability is largely due
to its ambiguity: Because it's rarely clear what people mean when they say that
pot smoking leads to the use of "harder" drugs, the claim is
difficult to disprove.": "Notice that none of these interpretations
involves a specific pharmacological effect of the sort drug warriors seem to
have in mind when they suggest that pot smoking primes the brain for cocaine or
heroin. As a National Academy of Sciences panel observed in a 1999 report,
'There is no evidence that marijuana serves as a stepping stone on the basis of
its particular drug effect.' Last year the Canadian Senate's Special Committee
on Illegal Drugs likewise concluded that 'cannabis itself is not a cause of other
drug use. In this sense, we reject the gateway theory.'"[6] The National Institute on Drug Abuse have
noted that while most cannabis users do not go on to use "harder"
substances, reported data is consistent with the theory that cannabis is a
gateway drug. However, they also suggest an alternative explanation. It may be
that some individuals are more prone to using drugs and that these people are
more likely to start with readily available substances such as cannabis,
tobacco, and alcohol.[7] Alcohol tends to precede
cannabis
use, and it is rare for those who use hard drugs to not have used alcohol or
tobacco first; the 2005 National Survey of Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) in the
United States found that, compared with lifetime nondrinkers, adults who have
consumed alcohol were statistically much more likely to currently use illicit
drugs and/or abuse prescription drugs in the past year.[8] Effects were strongest for cocaine
(26 times more likely), cannabis (14 times more likely), and psychedelics (13
times more likely). In addition, lifetime drinkers were also six times more
likely to use or be dependent on illicit drugs than lifetime nondrinkers.[8] According to the NIDA, "People who abuse drugs
are also likely to be cigarette smokers. More than two-thirds of drug abusers
are regular tobacco smokers, a rate more than triple that of the rest of the
population."[9] Alternative explanations for
the
correlation between the use of soft drugs (e.g., marijuana) and the use
of hard drugs (e.g., cocaine, heroin) include, but are not limited to: 1.
^
Jump up to: a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h Vanyukov
MM,
Tarter RE, Kirillova GP, et al. (June 2012). "Common
liability to addiction and "gateway hypothesis": theoretical,
empirical and evolutionary perspective". Drug Alcohol Depend (Review).
123 Suppl 1: S3–17. doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2011.12.018.
PMC 3600369. PMID 22261179. 2.
Jump up ^ Pudney,
Stephen
(December 2002). "The
road to ruin? Sequences of initiation into drug use and offending by young
people in Britain" (PDF). Home Office Research Study 253. (London: Home
Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate). ISBN 1-84082-928-1. ISSN 0072-6435. Retrieved 2009-04-04. 3.
Jump up ^ Peters
EN, Budney
AJ, Carroll KM (August 2012). "Clinical
correlates of co-occurring cannabis and tobacco use: a systematic review".
Addiction (Review) 107 (8): 1404–17. doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.2012.03843.x.
PMC 3377777. PMID 22340422. 4.
Jump up ^ Peters
EN, Budney
AJ, Carroll KM (August 2012). "Clinical
correlates of co-occurring cannabis and tobacco use: a systematic review".
Addiction 107 (8): 1404–17. doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.2012.03843.x.
PMC 3377777. PMID 22340422. 5.
Jump up ^ Chu,
Yu-Wei Luke
(2015-05-01). "Do
Medical Marijuana Laws Increase Hard-Drug Use?". Journal of Law and
Economics 58 (2): 481–517. doi:10.1086/684043. 6.
Jump up ^ Sullum,
Jacob (24
Jan 2003), Marijuana
as a "gateway" drug, Reason, retrieved 2014-04-01 7.
Jump up ^ "Is
marijuana a gateway drug?". drugabuse.gov. National Institute of Drug
Abuse. 8.
^
Jump up to: a
b Illicit
Drug Use among Lifetime Nondrinkers and Lifetime Alcohol Users, NSDUH, 2005 9.
Jump up ^ The
National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), part of the NIH,
a component of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. – Nicotine
Craving and Heavy Smoking May Contribute to Increased Use of Cocaine and Heroin[citation needed] – Patrick
Zickler, NIDA NOTES Staff Writer. Retrieved October, 2006. 10. Jump up ^ McNeill,
A, SC
(2015). "E
- cigarettes: an evidence update A report commissioned by Public Health
England" (PDF). www.gov.uk. UK: Public Health England. p. 38. Retrieved 24
August 2015. 11. Jump up ^ Bell, K. and
H. Keane, "All gates lead to smoking:
The ‘gateway theory’, e-cigarettes and the remaking of nicotine"., Social
Science & Medicine, 2014. 119, quoted McNeill, pp. 37-38 12. ^ Jump up to: a
b Brecher,
Edward M.
(1972). "Heroin
on the youth drug scene - and in Vietnam". Licit and illicit drugs;
the Consumers Union report on narcotics, stimulants, depressants, inhalants,
hallucinogens, and marijuana - including caffeine, nicotine, and alcohol.
Boston: Little, Brown. ISBN 0-316-10717-4. Early exposure to cannabinoids in adolescent
rodents decreases the
reactivity of brain dopamine reward centers later in adulthood.28 To the extent that these
findings generalize to humans, this could help explain early marijuana
initiates’ increased vulnerability for drug abuse and addiction to other
substances of abuse later in life that has been reported by most
epidemiological studies.29 It is also consistent with
animal experiments showing THC’s ability to "prime" the brain for
enhanced responses to other drugs.30 For example, rats
previously administered THC show heightened behavioral response not only when
further exposed to THC but also when exposed to other drugs such as morphine—a
phenomenon called cross-sensitization.31 These findings are consistent with
the idea of marijuana as a "gateway
drug." However, most people who use marijuana do not go on to use other,
"harder" substances. Also, cross-sensitization is not unique to
marijuana. Alcohol and nicotine also prime the brain for a heightened response
to other drugs32 and are, like marijuana,
also typically used before a person progresses to other, more harmful
substances. It is important to note
that other factors
besides biological mechanisms, such as a person’s social environment, are also
critical in a person’s risk for drug use. An alternative to the gateway-drug
hypothesis is that people who are more vulnerable to drug-taking are simply
more likely to start with readily available substances like marijuana, tobacco,
or alcohol, and their subsequent social interactions with other drug users
increases their chances of trying other drugs. Further research is needed to
explore this question. As the 2016 election approaches, marijuana legalization is in the air once
again, with ballot initiatives likely to succeed in at least five states, including California. As usual,
politicians—including some presidential candidates, notably Carly Fiorina—are
trying to turn back the tide by spreading fear that weed is a gateway to more
dangerous drugs. But research increasingly shows not only that the
"gateway" theory is incorrect, but that weed may actually help people
with addictions stop taking other drugs, rather than start. On the surface, the gateway idea
seems reasonable enough. After all, there
are almost no heroin users who didn't start their illegal drug use with
marijuana, and marijuana smokers are 104 times more likely to use cocaine than those haven't
tried weed. Yet as scientists constantly remind
us, correlation isn't the same thing as
causation. For example, the number of people killed annually by dogs correlates
almost
perfectly with the growth in online revenue on Black Friday. And the rise
in autism diagnoses is strongly correlated with the growth in sales of organic
food. It's technically possible that some third factor causes both of these
apparently haphazard connections. However, it's completely implausible that
these connections are causal, and odds are that the links are due to random
chance. In terms of marijuana's specific
correlation with other drug use, slightly
less than half of Americans over 12 have tried marijuana, while less than 15
percent have taken cocaine and less than 2 percent used heroin, according to the latest National Household Survey on Drug
Use and Health. Even smaller portions go on to become addicted to those drugs:
Typically, only 10 to 20 percent of those who try alcohol and other drugs
get hooked. If marijuana were causing other
drug use, most users should progress to
more dangerous substances. But they don't. By the numbers, marijuana use seems
more like a filter that keeps most people out than a gateway that lets the
majority pass through. While there are a few rat studies that suggest marijuana use "primes"
exposed rodents to take more heroin or cocaine when it is offered, they are
marred by a fundamental problem. Most rats do
not like THC, the main active ingredient in marijuana. So they have to be
forcibly injected with it, unlike coke or opioids, which they will happily
press levers to receive. However, stress itself—like,
say, being shot up with a drug that makes you
anxious and paranoid repeatedly—is a well-known risk factor for addiction. And
of course, no one actually shoots marijuana. What these studies mainly suggest,
then, is that stressed rats are at greater risk of addiction, rather
than stoner rats. In fact, a recent study on rhesus
monkeys suggests that being forced to take marijuana may actually make taking
heroin less attractive and rewarding—and monkeys are a far closer model
to humans than rats are. Given these realities, regarding
marijuana as a special pharmacological
"gateway" to other drugs is about as sensible as seeing lullabies as
a "gateway" to Insane Clown Posse. Yes, all types of music lovers
tend to start with kids' tunes during childhood, but what makes someone into a
passionate fan with unusual taste isn't merely raw musical exposure. The most intense enthusiasts of
any type of activity tend to try a variety
of similar experiences. Wine lovers don't stick only to pinot noirs, and art
aficionados check out more than just Picassos. The same is true of drug users:
The first experience doesn't make the fan. Instead, taste develops in a social,
psychological and biological context where people choose whether or not to
repeat it. Further, as with other forms of
compulsive behavior, the reason an activity
can go from being a source of joy or calm to a desperate need isn't necessarily
inherent in the experience itself. No one would suggest that we try to treat
obsessive hand-washing by banning first soap and then hand sanitizer, or stop
cat collectors by making kittens illegal. But we do the equivalent in the war
on drugs. The gateway idea prevents us from
making sense of addiction. Instead, we
need to look at what makes the minority who do become addicted different from
all those experimenters who don't. For one, a large proportion of people with
addictions—at least half—are addicted to more than one substance. This suggests a propensity to seek
escape in general: if you have already
discovered that your use of a substance is causing problems, why try another
one that might make things even worse? Frequently, people with addictions try
many different classes of drugs—stimulants, psychedelics, depressants—a variety
that makes no sense if it is being driven by a particular drug changing the
brain rather than by a person looking for the best way to manage her
consciousness. And in fact, one common reason
that people seek numbness or oblivion is
that they have a mental illness, which makes them feel apprehensive,
disconnected or unhappy. More than half of all people with addictions have an additional psychiatric disorder. Nearly all mental illnesses are
linked with higher risk for addiction, from
attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) to mood disorders, anxiety
disorders and schizophrenia. In the vast majority of these cases, the
psychiatric problem is not caused by the drug use, and studies
that follow children into adulthood repeatedly show that those who wind up with
addictions tend to have emotional and behavior issues that were often visible
as early as preschool. This suggests genetic or perhaps early environmental
risk. Crucially, the nature of the problems
that predispose people to addiction
varies widely—there is no single "addictive personality" that creates
vulnerability. Instead, those who are addiction-prone tend to be outliers on
different, sometimes opposing dimensions. For example, shy, anxious and
withdrawn kids are at risk—but so are those who are wild and impulsive. Another critical factor is childhood
trauma. Each exposure to extreme
stress raises risk: from sexual, physical and emotional abuse to neglect,
witnessing violence and death, losing one or both parents or facing severe
illness or disaster, the more trauma a child experiences, the greater the odds
of addiction. One study, for instance, found that children who had been exposed
to four or more different types of what are known as "adverse childhood
experiences" had a 700 percent increased risk of alcoholism, compared to those
with no adverse experience. In terms of smoking, those with four or more trauma
exposures had a risk that was doubled to quadrupled, compared to those with
none. Socioeconomic status can also affect
addiction liability. While the
American press mostly seems to focus much on addiction when it's framed as
middle class problem—like the ongoing heroin scare—the fact is that those at
the highest risk are the poor. If you make less than $20,000 a year, your risk
of heroin addiction is roughly three
times greater than if you make $50,000 or more—and similar figures are seen
with other substance use disorders. Marijuana isn't the gateway to
addiction: that's far more likely to be
trauma, mental illness, or socioeconomic distress. Most people who smoke pot
neither become addicted to it, nor to any other drug. Addiction is a relationship
between a person, their genetics, their childhood experiences, their social and
economic world, and a substance or activity. Not all addicted people will have
all risk factors, and not all of those who are vulnerable will get hooked. And because marijuana use (and
even addiction)
is associated with far fewer negative consequences than other drugs,
researchers have suspected for years that many heroin and cocaine addicts
actually use cannabis to help them reduce addiction-related harm. I reported on research in this area related to crack for
Alternet back in 2001. Ethnographic data suggested that older crack smokers
gradually replaced their cocaine smoking with cannabis, while young users
smoked weed instead of the crack that they'd seen harm their older siblings or
parents. Two newer studies further suggest
possible uses for marijuana in treating
opioid addiction and alcoholism. The first was a controlled
trial looking at whether adding synthetic THC to an anti-opioid medication
could help people seeking abstinence from heroin or prescription medications.
It showed that while the synthetic THC didn't improve treatment retention, it
did reduce withdrawal symptoms. More intriguingly, however, the study also
found that participants who chose to smoke pot on their own—regardless of
whether they got the synthetic THC or placebo—had much less anxiety and
insomnia and were less likely to drop out of treatment. The second study surveyed medical
marijuana users in Canada, finding that 87 percent used it to replace
alcohol, prescription opioids or other illegal recreational drugs. 52 percent
said that it helped them reduce alcohol use, while 80 percent reported using fewer
prescription pain medications. While most of the people in this study were not
using the drug to treat addiction per se, those who had past addiction
treatment reported were twice as likely to report replacing other illegal drugs
with medical marijuana and equally likely to use it instead of alcohol or
prescription medications. Because
a tolerance builds up, marijuana can lead users to consume stronger drugs to
achieve the same high. When the effects start to wear off, the person may turn
to more potent drugs to rid himself of the unwanted conditions that caused him
to take marijuana in the first place. Marijuana itself does not lead the person
to the other drugs; people take drugs to get rid of unwanted situations or
feelings. The drug (marijuana) masks the problem for a time (while the user is
high). When the “high” fades, the problem, unwanted condition or
situation returns more intensely than before. The user may then turn to
stronger drugs since marijuana no longer “works.” The vast
majority of cocaine users (99.9%) began by first using a “gateway drug” like
marijuana, cigarettes or alcohol. Of
course, not everyone who smokes marijuana and
hashish goes on to use harder drugs. Some never do. Others quit using
marijuana altogether. But some do turn to harder drugs. One study found that
youth (12 to 17 years old) who use marijuana are 85 times more likely to use
cocaine than kids who do not use pot, and that 60% of the kids who smoke pot
before the age of 15 move on to cocaine. The
use of
marijuana is not only harmful to the pot smoker
himself. He can also become a risk to society. Research clearly shows that marijuana
has the
potential to cause problems in daily life. A study of 129 college students
found that, among those who smoked the drug at least twenty-seven of the thirty
days before being surveyed, critical skills related to attention, memory and
learning were seriously diminished. A study of postal workers found that
employees who tested positive for marijuana had 55% more accidents, 85% more
injuries and a 75% increase in being absent from work. In Australia, a study found that cannabis
intoxication was responsible for 4.3% of driver fatalities. It is almost impossible to grow up in
America,
or any country, and not be exposed to drugs. Peer pressure to do drugs is high
and honest information
about the dangers of drugs is not always available. Many people will
tell you marijuana is not dangerous. Consider who is telling you that. Are
these the same people who are trying to sell you some pot? Marijuana
can
harm a person’s memory—and this impact can last for days or weeks after the immediate
effects of the drug wear off. In one study, a group of heavy marijuana users
were asked to recall words from a list. Their ability to correctly remember the
words did not return to normal until as long as four weeks after they stopped
smoking. Students who use
marijuana have lower grades and are less likely to get into college than
nonsmokers. They simply do not have the same abilities to remember and organize
information compared to those who do not use these substances. Drugs block off all sensations, the
desirable ones with the unwanted. So, while providing short-term help in the
relief of pain, they also wipe out ability and alertness and muddy one’s
thinking. Medicines
are drugs that are intended to speed up or slow down or change something about
the way your body is working, to try to make it work better. Sometimes they are
necessary. But they are still drugs: they act as stimulants or sedatives, and
too much can kill you. So if you do not use medicines as they are supposed to
be used, they can be as dangerous as illegal drugs. The
real answer is to get the facts and not to take drugs in the first place. People
take drugs because they want to change something in their lives. Here
are some of the reasons young people have given for taking drugs: They
think drugs are a solution. But eventually, the drugs become the problem. http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/Adolescents#sthash.g2ZB8rU0.0SZzH4Nm.dpbs (Risk of Future
Addiction Disorder) "Teen
users are at significantly higher risk of developing an addictive disorder
compared to adults, and the earlier they began using, the higher their risk.
Nine out of 10 people who meet the clinical criteria for substance use
disorders involving nicotine, alcohol or other drugs began smoking, drinking or
using other drugs before they turned 18. People who begin using any addictive
substance before age 15 are six and a half times as likely to develop a substance
use disorder as those who delay use until age 21 or older (28.1 percent vs. 4.3
percent)." Source: "Adolescent Substance
Abuse: America's #1 Public Health Problem," National Center on Addiction
and Substance Abuse at Columbia University, June 2011, p. 2. (Lifetime Marijuana Use
Among
Students in the US, by Race and Gender) "Nationwide, 39.9% of students had
used marijuana one or more times during their life (i.e., ever used marijuana)
(Table 47). Overall, the prevalence of having ever used marijuana was higher
among male (42.5%) than female (37.2%) students; higher among white male
(40.3%), black male (48.5%), and Hispanic male (45.0%) than white female
(35.4%), black female (37.7%), and Hispanic female (39.1%) students,
respectively; and higher among 9th-grade male (34.9%) and 11th-grade male
(48.7%) than 9th-grade female (26.4%) and 11th-grade female (42.1%) students,
respectively." Source: "Youth Risk Behavior
Surveillance — United States, 2011," Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report
(Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control, June 8, 2012) Vol. 61, No. 4, p. 19. (Early Drug Exposure and
Later Drug Use) "The teen brain is a work in progress, making it more
vulnerable than the mature brain to the physical effects of drugs. The
potential for developing substance abuse and dependence is substantially
greater when an individual’s first exposure to alcohol, nicotine and illicit
drugs occurs during adolescence than in adulthood." Source: Steinberg, L., Distinguished
University Professor and Laura H. Carnell Professor of Psychology, Department
of Psychology, Temple University and author of "You and Your Adolescent:
The Essential guide for ages 10 to 25" (personal communication, June 9,
2011), as quoted in "Adolescent Substance Use: America’s #1 Public Health
Problem," The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia
University (New York, NY: National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at
Columbia University, June 2011), p. 13. (Perceived Availability
of
Drugs Among Youth in the US) Source: "Risk and Protective
Factors and Initiation of Substance Use: Results from the 2014 National Survey
on Drug Use and Health," NSDUH Data Review, Substance Abuse and Mental
Health Services Administration (Washington, DC: Department of Health and Human
Services), October 2015, NSDUH-DR-FRR4-2014, p. 12. (Disapproval of Drug Use
Among 12th Graders in the US) Source: Miech, R. A., Johnston,
L.
D., O’Malley, P. M., Bachman, J. G., & Schulenberg, J. E. (2015).
Monitoring the Future national survey results on drug use, 1975–2014: Volume I,
Secondary school students. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, The
University of Michigan, p. 367. (Impact of Medical Marijuana
Laws on Adolescent Marijuana Use) "Concerns about laws and policy measures
that may inadvertently affect youth drug use merit careful consideration. Our
study does not show evidence of a clear relationship between legalization of
marijuana for medical purposes and youth drug use for any age group, which may
provide some reassurance to policymakers who wish to balance compassion for
individuals who have been unable to find relief from conventional medical
therapies with the safety and well-being of youth. Further research is required
to track the trends in marijuana use among adolescents, particularly with
respect to different types of marijuana laws and implementation of laws in each
state." Source: Choo, Esther K. et al.
(2014), "The Impact of State Medical Marijuana Legislation on Adolescent
Marijuana Use," Journal of Adolescent Health, Volume 55, Issue 2, p. 160 -
166. Estimated 30-Day Prevalence
of Use of Various Drugs for Grades 8, 10, and 12 Combined in the US,
1998-2014 Year: 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Any Illicit Drug 19.5 19.5 19.2 19.4 18.2 17.3 16.2 15.8 14.9 14.8 14.6 15.8 16.7 17.0 16.8 17.3 16.5 Marijuana/Hashish 16.9 16.9 16.3 16.6 15.3 14.8 13.6 13.4 12.5 12.4 12.5 13.8 14.8 15.2 15.1 15.6 14.4 Cocaine 1.9 1.9 1.7 1.5 1.6 1.4 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.4 1.3 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.7 Crack 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 Heroin 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 Hallucinogens 2.8 2.5 2.0 2.3 1.7 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.4 1.3 1.1 1.1 1.0 Ecstasy 1.2 1.6 2.4 2.4 1.8 1.0 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.5 1.4 0.8 1.0 0.8 Tranquilizers 1.9 1.9 2.1 2.3 2.4 2.2 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.0 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.7 1.5 1.5 1.5 Amphetamines 4.3 4.2 4.5 4.7 4.4 3.9 3.6 3.3 3.0 3.2 2.6 2.7 2.7 2.8 2.5 3.2 3.2
Methamphetamine - 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.5 1.4 1.1 0.9 0.7 0.5 0.7 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.3 Any Illicit Drug Other
Than
Marijuana 8.2 7.9 8.0 8.2 7.7 7.1 7.0 6.7 6.4 6.4 5.9 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.2 5.4 5.4 Alcohol 37.4 37.2 36.6 35.5 33.3 33.2 32.9 31.4 31.0 30.1 28.1 28.4 26.8 25.5 25.9 24.3 22.6 Been
Drunk 20.4 20.6 20.3 19.7 17.4 17.7 18.1 17.0 17.4 16.5 14.9 15.2 14.6 13.5 14.7 13.5 11.9 Cigarettes 27.0 25.2 22.6 20.2 17.7 16.6 16.1 15.3 14.4 13.6 12.6 12.7 12.8 11.7 10.6 9.6 8.0 E-Cigarettes 13.9 Inhalants 3.4 3.3 3.2 2.8 2.7 2.7 2.9 2.9 2.7 2.6 2.6 2.5 2.4 2.1 1.7 1.5 1.4 Source: Johnston, L. D., O’Malley,
P.
M., Miech, R. A., Bachman, J. G., & Schulenberg, J. E. (February 2015).
Monitoring the Future national survey results on drug use: 1975-2014: Overview,
key findings on adolescent drug use. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research,
The University of Michigan, Table 3, p. 57. (Use Of Any Illegal Drug
and
Illegal Drugs Other Than Marijuana Among 8th, 10th, and 12th Graders in the US)
Trends in Lifetime
Prevalence of Use of Various Drugs 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Any Illicit Drugs 8th Grade 26.8 26.8 24.5 22.8 21.5 21.4 20.9 19.0 19.6 19.9 21.4 20.1 18.5 21.1 20.3 10th Grade 45.6 45.6 44.6 41.4 39.8 38.2 36.1 35.6 34.1 36.0 37.0 37.7 36.8 39.1 37.4 12th Grade 54.0 53.9 53.0 51.1 51.1 50.4 48.2 46.8 47.4 46.7 48.2 49.9 49.1 49.8 49.1 Any Illicit Drug 8th Grade 15.8 17.0 13.7 13.6 12.2 12.1 12.2 11.1 11.2 10.4 10.6 9.8 8.7 10.4 10.0 10th Grade 23.1 23.6 22.1 19.7 18.8 18.0 17.5 18.2 15.9 16.7 16.8 15.6 14.9 16.4 15.9 12th Grade 29.0 30.7 29.5 27.7 28.7 27.4 26.9 25.5 24.9 24.0 24.7 24.9 24.1 24.8 22.6 Marijuana 8th Grade 20.3 20.4 19.2 17.5 16.3 16.5 15.7 14.2 14.6 15.7 17.3 16.4 15.2 16.5 15.6 10th Grade 40.3 40.1 38.7 36.4 35.1 34.1 31.8 31.0 29.9 32.3 33.4 34.5 33.8 35.8 33.7 12th Grade 48.8 49.0 47.8 46.1 45.7 44.8 42.3 41.8 42.6 42.0 43.8 45.5 45.2 45.5 44.4 Source: Miech, R. A., Johnston,
L.
D., O’Malley, P. M., Bachman, J. G., & Schulenberg, J. E. (2015).
Monitoring the Future national survey results on drug use, 1975–2014: Volume I,
Secondary school students. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, The
University of Michigan, Table 2-1, p. 45. (Noncontinuation Rates
Among
Youth for Alcohol, Tobacco, and Other Drugs Among Youth in the US, 2013) Source: Johnston, L. D., O’Malley,
P.
M., Bachman, J. G., Schulenberg, J. E. & Miech, R. A. (2014). Monitoring
the Future national survey results on drug use, 1975–2013: Volume I, Secondary
school students. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, The University of
Michigan, pp. 96-97. (Opioids Do Not Have
Potential To Cause Malformations To An Embryo Or Fetus) "It is important
to note that, contrary to alcohol, benzodiazepines and nicotine, opioids do not
have teratogenic potential (3). Thus, special attention needs to be paid to
dependence and abuse of legal substances and prescription drugs that can have
severe consequences for the foetus and newborn, such as foetal developmental
disorders or sudden infant death syndrome (Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders
Center for Excellence, 2013; McDonnell-Naughton et al., 2012)." Source: European Monitoring Centre
for Drugs and Drug Addiction, "Pregnancy and opioid use: strategies for
treatment," EMCDDA Papers (Publications Office of the European Union:
Luxembourg, 2014), p. 3. (Perceived Availability
of
Illicit Drugs and Likelihood of Use Among Youth in the US, 2012) Source: Substance Abuse and Mental
Health Services Administration, Results from the 2012 National Survey on Drug
Use and Health: Summary of National Findings, NSDUH Series H-46, HHS
Publication No. (SMA) 13-4795. Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health
Services Administration, 2013, p. 70. Prevalence of
Substance Use Among Youth in the US (Estimated Prevalence of and Attitudes Toward Marijuana Use Among Youth
in the US, 2015) "Marijuana, the most widely used of the illicit drugs,
did not show any significant change in annual prevalence this year in any of
the three grades, nor in the three grades combined. After rising for several
years, the annual prevalence of marijuana has more or less leveled out since
about 2010. Source: Johnston, L. D., O'Malley, P. M., Miech, R.A., Bachman, J. G., &
Schulenberg, J. E. (December 16, 2015). "Use of ecstasy, heroin, synthetic
marijuana, alcohol, cigarettes declined among US teens in 2015,"
University of Michigan News Service: Ann Arbor, MI, p. 5. (Availability of Marijuana Among Youth Measured by Monitoring The
Future (MTF) Study) "Ever since the MTF study began in 1975, between 81%
and 90% of 12th graders each year have said that they could get marijuana
fairly easily or very easily if they wanted some. It has been considerably less
accessible to younger adolescents. Still, in 2012, 37% of 8th graders, 69% of
10th graders, and 82% of 12th graders reported it as being fairly or very easy
to get. It thus seems clear that marijuana has remained highly accessible to
the older teens." Source: Johnston, L. D., O’Malley, P. M., Bachman, J. G., & Schulenberg, J.
E. (2013). Monitoring the Future national results on adolescent drug use:
Overview of key findings, 2012. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, The
University of Michigan, p. 12. (Availability of Alcohol Among Youth As Measured by Monitoring The
Future Study) "Perceived availability of alcohol, which until 1999 was
asked only of 8th and 10th graders, was very high and mostly steady in the
1990s. Since 1996, however, there have been significant declines in 8th and
10th grades. For 12th grade, availability has declined only modestly with 91%
still saying that it would be fairly easy or very easy to get alcohol. In 2012
the drop in availability halted in the upper grades. Overall, it appears that
states, communities, and parents have been successful in reducing access to
alcohol among the younger teens." Source: Johnston, L. D., O’Malley, P. M., Bachman, J. G., & Schulenberg, J.
E. (2013). Monitoring the Future national results on adolescent drug use:
Overview of key findings, 2012. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, The
University of Michigan, p. 38. (Availability of Cigarettes Among 8th and 10th Graders According To The
Monitoring The Future Study) "After holding fairly steady at very high
levels for some years, the availability of cigarettes to 8th and 10th graders
began to decline modestly after 1996, very likely as a result of increased
enforcement of laws prohibiting sale to minors under the Synar Amendment and
FDA regulations. Those declines continued among 8th graders, including a
significant decrease in 2009; the proportion saying that they could get
cigarettes fairly or very easily fell from 77% in 1996 to 56% in 2010, before
declining significantly to 50% by 2013. Over the same interval, the decline
among 10th graders was from 91% in 1996 to 71% in 2013. These are encouraging
changes and suggest that state and community efforts to reduce accessibility to
adolescents—particularly younger adolescents—seem to be working." Source: Johnston, L. D., O’Malley, P. M., Bachman, J. G., Schulenberg, J. E.
& Miech, R. A. (2014). Monitoring the Future national survey results on
drug use, 1975–2013: Volume I, Secondary school students. Ann Arbor: Institute
for Social Research, The University of Michigan, p. 460. ("Drug-Infected" Private Schools) "For the first time,
this year more than half of private high school students say that drugs are
kept, used or sold at the school they attend; we call these drug-infected
schools. This is an increase of 50 percent in just one year, from 36 percent in
2011 to 54 percent in 2012." Source: QEV Analytics, LTD., "National Survey of American Attitudes on
Substance Abuse XVII: Teens," The National Center on Addiction and
Substance Abuse at Columbia University (New York, NY: National Center on
Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University, August 2012), p. 3. ("Drug-Infected" Public Schools) "Sixty percent of high
school students and 32 percent of middle school students say that students
keep, use or sell drugs on their school grounds. For seven of the past eight
years, at least 60 percent of high school students have said they attend a
drug-infected school." Source: QEV Analytics, LTD., "National Survey of American Attitudes on
Substance Abuse XVII: Teens," The National Center on Addiction and
Substance Abuse at Columbia University (New York, NY: National Center on
Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University, August 2012), p. 5. (Prevalence of Marijuana Use Among Youth in the US, 2014) "Annual
marijuana prevalence peaked among 12th graders in 1979 at 51%, following a rise
that began during the 1960s. Then use declined fairly steadily for 13 years,
bottoming at 22% in 1992—a decline of more than half. The 1990s, however, saw a
resurgence of use. After a considerable increase (one that actually began among
8th graders a year earlier than among 10th and 12th graders), annual prevalence
rates peaked in 1996 at 8th grade and in 1997 at 10th and 12th grades. After
these peak years, use declined among all three grades through 2006, 2007, or
2008; after the declines, an upturn occurred in use in all three grades,
lasting for three years in the lower grades and longer in grade 12. Annual
marijuana prevalence among 8th graders increased in use from 2007 to 2010,
decreased slightly from 2010 to 2012, and then leveled. Among 10th graders, it
increased somewhat from 2008 to 2012 and then leveled. Among 12th graders, use
increased from 2006 to 2011, leveled from 2011 to 2013, and declined somewhat
in 2014. (Only one of the 1-year changes in 2013 or 2014 was significant.) As
shown in Table 8, daily use increased in all three grades after 2007, reaching
peaks in 2011 (at 1.3% in 8th), 2013 (at 4.0% in 10th), and 2011 (at 6.6% in
12th), before declining modestly since. Daily prevalence rates in 2014 were
1.0%, 3.4%, and 5.8%, respectively." Source: Johnston, L. D., O’Malley, P. M., Miech, R. A., Bachman, J. G., &
Schulenberg, J. E. (February 2015). Monitoring the Future national survey
results on drug use: 1975-2014: Overview, key findings on adolescent drug use.
Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, The University of Michigan, p. 12. (Illicit Use of Prescription Drugs) "Nationwide, 20.7% of students
had taken prescription drugs (e.g., Oxycontin, Percocet, Vicodin, codeine,
Adderall, Ritalin, or Xanax) without a doctor’s prescription one or more times
during their life (i.e., ever took prescription drugs without a doctor’s
prescription)" Source: "Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance — United States, 2011,"
Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease
Control, June 8, 2012) Vol. 61, No. 4, p. 23. (Drugs Sold at School) "Almost half of high school students (44
percent) know a student who sells drugs at their school. When asked what drugs
are sold at their school: • 91 percent said marijuana; Source: QEV Analytics, LTD., "National Survey of American Attitudes on
Substance Abuse XVII: Teens," The National Center on Addiction and Substance
Abuse at Columbia University (New York, NY: National Center on Addiction and
Substance Abuse at Columbia University, August 2012), p. 2. (Marijuana Use and Educational Attainment) “Teen marijuana users are
approximately twice as likely as non-users to drop out of high school.234 One
study found that, compared to students who did not use marijuana at all in the
past year, those who used marijuana less than weekly were 2.6 times as likely
to be school dropouts (5.8 percent vs. 2.2 percent) and those who used
marijuana at least weekly were 5.8 times as likely to be school dropouts (12.8
percent vs. 2.2 percent).235 Students who use marijuana before age 15 are twice
as likely as other students to report frequent truancy and three times as
likely to leave school before age 16.236 One study found that, by their 40s,
individuals who used marijuana in adolescence and young adulthood had more than
a third of a year’s less educational attainment than non-users. The more
frequent the marijuana use in this age group, the fewer the number of years of
educational attainment achieved.” Source: "Adolescent Substance Use: America's #1 Public Health
Problem," The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia
University (New York, NY: National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at
Columbia University, June 2011), p. 57. (Ease of Obtaining Drugs) "This year we asked teens, 'Which is
easiest to get: cigarettes, marijuana, beer or prescription drugs?' (prior to
2010, we asked, 'Which is easiest to buy?') Cigarettes remain at the top of the
list, with 27 percent of teens saying cigarettes are easier to get than other
drugs. Beer closely followed cigarettes as the easiest drug for teens to get.
Marijuana is third, with 19 percent of teens reporting that it is easiest to
get this year, compared to 22 percent last year. Compared to 2011, slightly
more teens this year say prescription drugs are easier to get than other drugs
(13 percent in 2012 vs. 10 percent in 2011)." Source: QEV Analytics, LTD., "National Survey of American Attitudes on
Substance Abuse XVII: Teens," The National Center on Addiction and
Substance Abuse at Columbia University (New York, NY: National Center on Addiction
and Substance Abuse at Columbia University, August 2012), p. 21. (Deaths and Risk Behaviors) "In the United States, 72% of all
deaths among youth and young adults aged 10–24 years result from four causes:
motor vehicle crashes (26%), other unintentional injuries (17%), homicide
(16%), and suicide (13%) (1). Substantial morbidity and social problems also
result from the estimated 410,000 births (2); 517,174 cases of chlamydia, gonorrhea,
and syphilis (3); and 2,036 cases of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) (4)
reported in 2009 among youth aged 15–19 years. Among adults aged ≥25 years, 57%
of all deaths in the United States result from cardiovascular disease (34%) and
cancer (23%) (1). These leading causes of morbidity and mortality among youth
and adults in the United States are related to six categories of priority
health-risk behaviors: 1) behaviors that contribute to unintentional injuries
and violence; 2) tobacco use; 3) alcohol and other drug use; 4) sexual
behaviors that contribute to unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted
diseases (STDs), including HIV infection; 5) unhealthy dietary behaviors; and
6) physical inactivity. These behaviors frequently are interrelated and are
established during childhood and adolescence and extend into adulthood." Source: "Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance — United States, 2011,"
Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease
Control, June 8, 2012) Vol. 61, No. 4, p. 2. (Impact of Parental Incarceration on Young Adults) "RESULTS:
Positive, significant associations were found between parental incarceration
and 8 of 16 health problems (depression, posttraumatic stress disorder,
anxiety, cholesterol, asthma, migraines, HIV/AIDS, and fair/poor health) in
adjusted logistic regression models. Those who reported paternal incarceration
had increased odds of 8 mental and physical health problems, whereas those who
reported maternal incarceration had increased odds of depression. For paternal
incarceration, with the exception of HIV/AIDS, larger associations were found
for mental health (odds ratios range 1.43–1.72) as compared with physical
health (odds ratios range 1.26–1.31) problems. The association between paternal
incarceration and HIV/AIDs should be interpreted with caution because of the
low sample prevalence of HIV/AIDs." Source: Rosalyn D. Lee, Xiangming Fang and Feijun Luo, "The Impact of
Parental Incarceration on the Physical and Mental Health of Young Adults."
Pediatrics 2013;131;e1188; originally published online March 18, 2013; DOI:
10.1542/peds.2012-0627. (Proportion of Students Using Any Drug Changes Slowly) "Overall,
these data reveal that, while use of individual drugs (other than marijuana)
may fluctuate widely, the proportion using any of them is much more stable. In
other words, the proportion of students prone to using such drugs and willing
to cross the normative barriers to such use changes more gradually. The usage
rate for each individual drug, on the other hand, reflects many more rapidly
changing determinants specific to that drug: how widely its psychoactive
potential is recognized, how favorable the reports of its supposed benefits
are, how risky its use is seen to be, how acceptable it is in the peer group,
how accessible it is, and so on." Source: Johnston, L. D., O’Malley, P. M., Bachman, J. G., & Schulenberg, J.
E. (2013). Monitoring the Future national results on adolescent drug use:
Overview of key findings, 2012. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, The
University of Michigan, p. 10. (Prevalence of Substance Use Among Youth in the US, by Race/Ethnicity,
2014) Source: Miech, R. A., Johnston, L. D., O’Malley, P. M., Bachman, J. G., &
Schulenberg, J. E. (June 2015). Monitoring the Future national survey results
on drug use, 1975–2014: Volume I, Secondary school students. Ann Arbor:
Institute for Social Research, The University of Michigan, p. 99. (Estimated Population of Young Adults in the US With a Parent Who Has
Ever Spent Time in Jail or Prison) "The prevalence of any PI [Parental
Incarceration] was 12.5% with the 95% confidence interval (CI) of 11.3% to
13.8%. The distribution of incarceration status by category was: neither parent
(87.5%, 95% CI: 86.2%–88.7%), father only (9.9%, 95% CI: 8.9%–10.9%), mother
only (1.7%, 95% CI: 1.4%–2.0%), and both parents (0.9%, 95% CI: 0.7%–1.2%). A
significant association was found between race and PI. Black and Hispanic
individuals had the highest prevalence of PI, 20.6% and 14.8%, compared with
11.9% for white individuals and 11.6% for those classified as other. Pairwise
comparison indicated the black and white prevalence rates were significantly
different." Note: Regarding study sample size: "The current study used data
from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health), a
4-wave longitudinal study following a nationally representative probability
sample of adolescents in grades 7 through 12 in the 1994–1995 school year.46 The
first 3 waves of Add Source: Rosalyn D. Lee, Xiangming Fang and Feijun Luo, "The Impact of
Parental Incarceration on the Physical and Mental Health of Young Adults."
Pediatrics 2013;131;e1188; originally published online March 18, 2013; DOI:
10.1542/peds.2012-0627. (Importance of Family Dinners in Substance Use Prevention)
"Compared to teens who have five to seven family dinners per week, those
who have fewer than three family dinners per week are twice as likely to say
they expect to try drugs (including marijuana and prescription drugs without a
prescription to get high) in the future (17 percent vs. 8 percent)." Source: "The Importance of Family Dinners VIII: A CASAColumbia White
Paper," The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (New York,
NY: September 2012), p. 7. (Illicit Use of Prescription Drugs) "Abuse of prescription
medicine [by teens] remains high, but there are signs that it may be
plateauing. Close to one in five teens (17 percent) say they have used a
prescription medicine at least once in their lifetime to get high or change
their mood. This is slightly, although not significantly, down from 22 percent
in 2010 and from 20 percent in 2009. Use of prescription pain medicines,
specifically Vicodin or OxyContin, is trending downward. One out of ten teens
reports using pain medication to get high in the past year and six percent say
they used in the past 30 days – down significantly from 2009 levels." Source: "The Partnership Attitude Tracking Study: 2011 Parents and Teens
Full Report," MetLife Foundation and The Partnership at Drugfree.org (New
York, NY: May 2, 2012), p. 13. (Top Concerns Among Adolescents) "Every year teens tell us that
tobacco, alcohol and other drugs are the biggest problem facing teens their
age. This year, 26 percent of teens surveyed say that alcohol, drugs and
tobacco are the most important issue teens face, followed by social pressures
[18%] and academic pressures [11%]." Source: QEV Analytics, Ltd., "National Survey of American Attitudes on
Substance Abuse XVII: Teens" (New York, NY: National Center on Addiction
and Substance Abuse, August 2012), p. 25. (Prevalence of Sadness or Hopelessness Among Students in the US, 2011)
"During the 12 months before the survey, 28.5% of students nationwide had
felt so sad or hopeless almost every day for 2 or more weeks in a row that they
stopped doing some usual activities (Table 21). Overall, the prevalence of
having felt sad or hopeless almost every day for 2 or more weeks in a row was
higher among female (35.9%) than male (21.5%) students; higher among white
female (34.3%), black female (31.4%), and Hispanic female (41.4%) than white
male (20.7%), black male (18.0%), and Hispanic male (24.4%) students,
respectively;" Source: "Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance — United States, 2011,"
Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease
Control, June 8, 2012) Vol. 61, No. 4, p. 10. (Depression and Marijuana Use) “High school students in CASA’s survey
who report having ever used marijuana are more likely than students who never
used marijuana to report that they feel alone or isolated (26.7 percent vs.
19.9 percent), that they often feel very sad or depressed (27.9 percent vs.
14.0 percent) and that they think they will develop depression during their
lifetime (41.0 percent vs. 25.4 percent).7” Source: Adolescent Substance Use: America’s #1 Public Health Problem," The
National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University (New
York, NY: National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia
University, June 2011), p. 46. (Prescription Medicine Abuse) "It is important to note that the
negative consequences of prescription medicine abuse remain extensive and
troubling. Emergency room visits as a result of prescription medications
increased 45 percent between 2004 and 2009 among children under 20 years of
age1. Admissions to treatment for prescription medicine abuse among adolescents
have also increased and deaths caused by drug overdoses, led by prescription
medicines, now outnumber traffic fatalities in the United States2." Source: "The Partnership Attitude Tracking Study: 2011 Parents and Teens
Full Report," MetLife Foundation and The Partnership at Drugfree.org (New
York, NY: May 2, 2012), p. 14. (Ease of Getting Drugs) "Younger teens (ages 12 to 13 and 14 to
15) are more likely to say that they can get prescription drugs in an hour, and
within a day, compared to marijuana, while older teens (16- to 17) are more
likely to be able to get to marijuana within a day." Source: QEV Analytics, LTD., "National Survey of American Attitudes on
Substance Abuse XVII: Teens," The National Center on Addiction and
Substance Abuse at Columbia University (New York, NY: National Center on
Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University, August 2012), p. 28. (Importance of Relationship with Parents) "Teens who have
high-quality relationships with Mom and Dad are less likely to use drugs, drink
or smoke. Source: "The Importance of Family Dinners VIII: A CASAColumbia White Paper,"
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (New York, NY: September
2012), p. 3. (Impact of State-Legal Medical Marijuana on Adolescent Marijuana Use)
"In conclusion, our study of self-reported marijuana use by adolescents in
states with a medical marijuana policy compared with a sample of geographically
similar states without a policy does not demonstrate increases in marijuana use
among high school students that may be attributed to the policies." Source: Choo, Esther K. et al., "The Impact of State Medical Marijuana
Legislation on Adolescent Marijuana Use," Journal of Adolescent Health,
August 2014, Volume 55, Issue 2, p. 160 - 166. (Social Networking and Drug Use) "Compared to teens who have never
seen pictures on Facebook, MySpace or another social networking site of kids
getting drunk, passed out, or using drugs, teens who have seen such pictures
are: • Four times likelier to have used marijuana (25 percent vs. 6
percent); Source: QEV Analytics, LTD., "National Survey of American Attitudes on
Substance Abuse XVII: Teens," The National Center on Addiction and
Substance Abuse at Columbia University (New York, NY: National Center on
Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University, August 2012), p. 3. (Gangs in Schools) Source: Knowledge Networks and QEV Analytics, "National Survey of American
Attitudes on Substance Abuse XV: Teens and Parents" (New York, NY:
National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University, August
2010), p. 2. (Drug-Related ER Visits) "Patients aged 20 or younger accounted
for 18.8 percent (922,953 visits) of all drug-related ED visits in 2010. About
one half (45.3 percent, or 417,856 visits) of these visits involved drug misuse
or abuse, representing a rate of 476.1 ED visits per 100,000 population aged 20
or younger." Source: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Center for
Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality. "The DAWN Report: Highlights of
the 2010 Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) Findings on Drug-Related Emergency
Department Visits," (Rockville, MD: July 2, 2012), p. 2. (Early Initiation of Substance Use) “When initiation of substance use
occurs in preadolescence or early in adolescence, the risk of addiction is
magnified.8 CASA’s analysis of national data finds that individuals‡ who first
used any addictive substance before age 15 are six and a half times as likely
to have a substance use disorder as those who did not use any addictive
substance until age 21 or older (28.1 percent vs. 4.3 percent).” Source: "Adolescent Substance Use: America’s #1 Public Health
Problem," The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia
University (New York, NY: National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at
Columbia University, June 2011), p. 38 (Delay in Onset of Substance Use) “Each year that the onset of
substance use is delayed until the mid-20s - about the time when the human
brain is more fully developed10 — the risk of developing a substance use
disorder is reduced.11 Among people who used any of these substances before age
18, one in four have a substance disorder, compared with one in 25 who started
to smoke, drink or use other drugs at age 21 or later.”12 Source: Adolescent Substance Use: America’s #1 Public Health Problem," The
National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University (New
York, NY: National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia
University, June 2011), p. 39. (Inhalants) "In 2011, there were 719,000 persons aged 12 or older
who had used inhalants for the first time within the past 12 months, which was
lower than the numbers in prior years from 2002 to 2005 (ranging from 849,000
to 877,000). An estimated 67.1 percent of past year initiates of inhalants in
2011 were under age 18 when they first used. The average age at first use among
recent initiates aged 12 to 49 was similar in 2010 and 2011 (16.3 and 16.4
years, respectively)." Source: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Results from
the 2011 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: Summary of National Findings,
NSDUH Series H-44, HHS Publication No. (SMA) 12-4713. Rockville, MD: Substance
Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2012, p. 58. (Prevalence of Inhalant Use Among US Youth) "Inhalants rank second
among the illicit drugs in lifetime prevalence for 8th graders (11%) and 10th
graders (8.7%); they rank eighth for 12th graders (6.9%). Inhalants also rank
second highest in 30-day prevalence among the illicit drugs for 8th (2.3%) and
fourth (1.3%) among 10th graders, but eleventh for 12th graders (1.0%). Note
that the youngest respondents report the highest rates of use; this is the only
class of drugs for which current use declines with age during adolescence.31" "31: The seemingly anomalous finding of lifetime inhalant
prevalence declining across grade levels could be due to various factors. There
might be lower lifetime prevalence at older ages because the eventual school
dropout segment is included only in the lower grades. If those who will become
dropouts are unusually likely to use inhalants, lifetime use rates could
decline with grade level. That would lead to a relatively stable recurring
difference between the grades in lifetime use (because dropout rates have been
fairly stable in recent years); however, the degree of difference has changed
some over time (see Table 2-1), with larger differences emerging in the
mid-1990s. Another possible factor is changing validity of reporting with age;
but in order to account for the trend data, one would have to hypothesize that
this tendency became stronger in the 1990s, and we have no reason to believe
that it did. Cohort differences may be a factor, but cannot completely explain
the large changes in lifetime prevalence. It seems likely that all of these
factors contribute to the differences observed in the retrospective reporting
by different ages, and possibly some additional factors as well." Source: Johnston, L. D., O’Malley, P. M., Bachman, J. G., Schulenberg, J. E.
& Miech, R. A. (2014). Monitoring the Future national survey results on
drug use, 1975–2013: Volume I, Secondary school students. Ann Arbor: Institute
for Social Research, The University of Michigan, p. 87. (Inhalants) Source: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Office of
Applied Studies. (March 16, 2009). "The NSDUH Report: Trends in Adolescent
Inhalant Use: 2002 to 2007." Rockville, MD, pp. 1 and 3. (Impact on Young People of Incarceration of Their Fathers)
"Paternal incarceration, however, was found associated with a greater
number of health outcomes than maternal incarceration. Also, paternal
incarceration was found to be associated with both physical and mental health
problems, whereas maternal incarceration was found associated only with poor
mental health. Source: Rosalyn D. Lee, Xiangming Fang and Feijun Luo, "The Impact of
Parental Incarceration on the Physical and Mental Health of Young Adults."
Pediatrics 2013;131;e1188; originally published online March 18, 2013; DOI:
10.1542/peds.2012-0627. (Alcohol Use v Marijuana Use - US Youth and "The Displacement
Hypothesis") "Alcohol and marijuana are the two most commonly used substances
by teenagers to get high, and a question that is often asked is to what extent
does change in one lead to a change in the other. If the substances co-vary
negatively (an increase in one is accompanied by a decrease in the other) they
are said to be substitutes; if they co-vary positively, they are said to be
complements. Note that there is no evidence that the 13-year decline in
marijuana use observed between 1979 and 1992 led to any accompanying increase
in alcohol use; in fact, through 1992 there was some parallel decline in
annual, monthly, and daily alcohol use, as well as in occasions of heavy
drinking among 12th graders, suggesting that the two substances are
complements. Earlier, when marijuana use increased in the late 1970s, alcohol
use also increased. As marijuana use increased again in the 1990s, alcohol use
again increased with it, although not as sharply. In sum, there has been little
evidence from MTF over the years that supports what we have termed 'the
displacement hypothesis,' which asserts that an increase in marijuana use will
somehow lead to a decline in alcohol use, or vice versa.8 Instead, both
substances appear to move more in harmony, perhaps both reflecting changes in a
more general construct, such as the tendency to use psychoactive substances,
whether licit or illicit, or in the frequency with which teens party. However,
with alcohol use decreasing and marijuana use increasing over the past few
years, it is possible that the displacement hypothesis is gaining some support.
As a number of states are changing their policies regarding marijuana, our
continued monitoring will provide the needed evidence concerning whether
alcohol and marijuana are substitutes or complements." Source: Miech, R. A., Johnston, L. D., O’Malley, P. M., Bachman, J. G., &
Schulenberg, J. E. (2015). Monitoring the Future national survey results on
drug use, 1975–2014: Volume I, Secondary school students. Ann Arbor: Institute
for Social Research, The University of Michigan, pp. 161-162. (Physical and Mental Health Impact of Parental Incarceration on Their
Children) "As shown in Table 2, bivariate analyses indicate PI [Parental
Incarceration] was significantly associated with 8 of the 16 health conditions
(heart disease, asthma, migraines, depression, anxiety, posttraumatic stress
disorder [PTSD], HIV/AIDS, and fair/poor health). With the exception of heart
disease and HIV/AIDS, individuals who reported neither parent had an
incarceration history had the lowest prevalence rates of these 8 health
conditions. Individuals who reported father incarceration only had the highest
prevalence rates of 3 of the 8 health conditions (heart disease, HIV/AIDS, and
fair/poor health); whereas individuals who reported mother incarceration only
were highest on 2 conditions (depression and anxiety) and individuals who
reported incarceration of both parents were highest on 3 conditions (asthma,
migraine, and PTSD)." Source: Rosalyn D. Lee, Xiangming Fang and Feijun Luo, "The Impact of
Parental Incarceration on the Physical and Mental Health of Young Adults."
Pediatrics 2013;131;e1188; originally published online March 18, 2013; DOI:
10.1542/peds.2012-0627. (Reasons for Non-Prescription Use of Prescription Opioids by US High
School Seniors) "Approximately 12.3% of the respondents -- high school
seniors in the United States -- reported lifetime nonmedical use of
prescription opioids and 8.0% reported past-year nonmedical use. Table 1 shows
the prevalence of motives for nonmedical use of prescription opioids among high
school seniors in the United States. The leading motives included 'to relax or
relieve tension' (56.4%), 'to feel good or get high' (53.5%), 'to
experiment-see what it's like' (52.4%), 'to relieve physical pain' (44.8%), and
'to have a good time with friends' (29.5%). Source: Sean Esteban McCabe, Phd, et al., "Motives for Nonmedical Use of
Prescription Opioids among High School Seniors in the United States:
Self-Treatment and Beyond," Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine,
2009 August; 163(8): 739-744. doi:10.1001/archpediatrics.2009.120. (Pain Relief and Non-Prescription Use of Prescription Opioids by US
High School Seniors) "The lifetime medical use of prescription opioids was
reported by approximately 14.0% of those who did not engage in past-year
nonmedical use of prescription opioids, 76.1% of nonmedical users of
prescription opioids motivated only by pain relief, 71.4% of those motivated by
pain relief and other motives, and 46.7% of those who reported non-pain relief
motives only (p < 0.001). Among past-year nonmedical users of prescription
opioids, approximately 56.5% of those motivated only by pain relief as compared
to 23.1% of those who reported pain relief and other motives, and 14.2% of
those who reported only non-pain relief motives had initiated medical use of
prescription opioids before nonmedical use of prescription opioids. In contrast,
approximately 19.6% of those motivated only by pain relief as compared to 48.3%
of those who reported pain relief and other motives, and 32.5% of those who
reported only non-pain relief motives initiated nonmedical use of prescription
opioids before medical use of prescription opioids." Source: Sean Esteban McCabe, Phd, et al., "Motives for Nonmedical Use of
Prescription Opioids among High School Seniors in the United States:
Self-Treatment and Beyond," Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine,
2009 August; 163(8): 739-744. doi:10.1001/archpediatrics.2009.120. (Children with Parents in Prison) "Since 1991, the number of
children with a mother in prison has more than doubled, up 131%. The number of
children with a father in prison has grown by 77%. This finding reflects a
faster rate of growth in the number of mothers held in state and federal
prisons (up 122%), compared to the number of fathers (up 76%) between 1991 and
midyear 2007. Source: Glaze, Lauren E., and Maruschak, Laura M., "Parents in Prison and
Their Minor Children" (Washington, DC: US Dept. of Justice Bureau of
Justice Statistics, Aug. 2008), NCJ222984, p. 2. (Substance Use and Nonfatal Violent Victimization) "Juveniles
using drugs or alcohol committed 1 in 10 of the nonfatal violent victimizations
against older teens. This was 2-1/2 times higher than the percentage of victimizations
against younger teens perceived to be committed by a juvenile who was using
drugs or alcohol. Source: Baum, Katrina, PhD, "Juvenile Victimization and Offending,
1993-2003" (Washington, DC: US Dept. of Justice, Bureau of Justice
Statistics, Aug. 2005), p. 8. (Characteristics of Cannabis Users, Other Drug Users, and Abstainers)
"Zambon et al also found that having a good relationship with a best
friend was related to increased use of cannabis, alcohol, and tobacco.
Similarly, Hoel et al39 reported that although abstainers are successful in
many social arenas, they socialize less frequently with friends than youth who
drink, while a Finnish study40 indicated that moderate use of alcohol among
adolescents was associated with a positive self-image in social relationships.
Another Source: Suris, J. C.; Akre, Christina; Berchtold, Andre´; Jeannin, Andre´;
Michaud, Pierre-Andre´, "Some Go Without a Cigarette: Characteristics of
Cannabis Users Who Have Never Smoked Tobacco," Archives of Pediatric
Adolescent Medicine (Chicago, IL: American Medical Association, November 2007)
Vol. 161, No. 11, p. 1046. (Cannabis Users Compared With Abstainers) "Interestingly, our
results do not confirm our hypothesis of better overall functioning among
abstainers. In fact, what our research indicates is that the main difference
between COG [cannabis use only group] youth and abstainers [those abstaining
from all drugs] is that the former are more socially driven: they are
significantly more likely to practice sports, and they have a better
relationship with their peers. Moreover, even though they are more likely to
skip class, they have the same level of good grades; and although they have a
worse relationship with their parents, they are not more likely to be
depressed. Nevertheless, our results seem to indicate that, although typical of
the adolescence process, having good support from friends together with a less
solid relationship with parents is a risk factor for occasional cannabis
use." Source: Suris, J. C.; Akre, Christina; Berchtold, Andre´; Jeannin, Andre´;
Michaud, Pierre-Andre´, "Some Go Without a Cigarette: Characteristics of
Cannabis Users Who Have Never Smoked Tobacco," Archives of Pediatric
Adolescent Medicine (Chicago, IL: American Medical Association, November 2007)
Vol. 161, No. 11, p. 1046. (Teen Marijuana Use in Medical Marijuana States) "Our results are
not consistent with the hypothesis that the legalization of medical marijuana
caused an increase in the use of marijuana and other substances among high
school students. In fact, estimates from our preferred specifications are
consistently negative and are never statistically distinguishable from
zero." Source: Anderson, D. Mark; Hansen, Benjamin; and Rees, Daniel I, "Medical
Marijuana Laws and Teen Marijuana Use," Social Science Research Network
(May 2012), pp. 18-19. (Adverse Effects of Substance Use on Academic Performance) "In the
United States in the 1970s and 1980s, cannabis use appears to have increased
the risk of discontinuing a high school education, and of experiencing job
instability in young adulthood (Newcombe and Bentler, 1988). The apparent
strength of these relationships in cross-sectional studies (e.g. Kandel, 1984)
has been exaggerated because those adolescents who are most likely to use
cannabis have lower academic aspirations and poorer high school performance
prior to using cannabis than their peers who do not (Newcombe and Bentler,
1988). It remains possible that factors other than the marijuana use account
for apparent causal relations. To the extent they may exist, these adverse
effects of cannabis and other drug use upon development over and above the
effect of pre-existing nonconformity may cascade throughout young adult life,
affecting choice of occupation, level of income, choice of mate, and the
quality of life of the user and his or her children." Source: Hall, W., Room, R., & Bondy, S., WHO Project on Health Implications
of Cannabis Use: A Comparative Appraisal of the Health and Psychological
Consequences of Alcohol, Cannabis, Nicotine and Opiate Use August 28, 1995
(Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization, 1998). Marijuana Use, Cognition and IQ (Effect of Marijuana Use by Adolescents on Cognition and IQ
Development) "In line with previous work, we found that cannabis users had
lower teenage IQ scores and poorer educational performance than teenagers who
had never used cannabis. At the same time, cannabis users also had higher rates
of childhood behavioural problems, childhood depressive symptoms, other substance
use (including use of cigarettes and alcohol) and maternal use of cannabis
during pregnancy. After adjustment to account for these group differences,
cannabis use by the age of 15 did not predict either lower teenage IQ scores or
poorer educational performance. These findings therefore suggest that cannabis
use at the modest levels used by this sample of teenagers is not by itself
causally related to cognitive impairment. Instead, our findings imply that
previously reported associations between adolescent cannabis use and poorer
intellectual and educational outcomes may be confounded to a significant degree
by related factors." Source: C Mokrysz, R Landy, SH Gage, MR Munafò, JP Roiser, and HV Curran,
"Are IQ and educational outcomes in teenagers related to their cannabis
use? A prospective cohort study," Journal of Psychopharmacology,
0269881115622241, first published on January 6, 2016
doi:10.1177/0269881115622241 (Effect of Marijuana Use by Adolescents on Cognition and IQ) "In
summary, the notion that cannabis use itself is causally related to lower IQ
and poorer educational performance was not supported in this large teenage
sample. However, this study indeed has limitations, in particular the young age
of outcome assessment. While we have demonstrated that confounding may be an
explanation for links between cannabis use and poorer outcomes, large
prospective cohorts tracking young people prior to, during and after stopping
cannabis use, using more objective measures of drug use (e.g. the new
NIH-funded ‘ABCD study’ in the United States; National Institute on Drug Abuse,
2015) are required before we can make strong conclusions. Cigarette smoking in
particular has once again (Hooper et al., 2014; McCaffrey et al., 2010; Silins
et al., 2014; Stiby et al., 2014) been highlighted as an important factor in
adolescent outcomes, as well as a robust independent predictor of educational
performance, and the reasons for this need to be elucidated." Source: C Mokrysz, R Landy, SH Gage, MR Munafò, JP Roiser, and HV Curran,
"Are IQ and educational outcomes in teenagers related to their cannabis
use? A prospective cohort study," Journal of Psychopharmacology,
0269881115622241, first published on January 6, 2016
doi:10.1177/0269881115622241 (Effect of Cannabis Use by Adolescents on Cognition and IQ and the
Potential Influence of Tobacco) "Compared with those in our sample who had
never tried cannabis, teenagers who had used cannabis at least 50 times were 17
times more likely (84% vs. 5%) to have smoked cigarettes more than 20 times in
their lifetime. Accounting for group differences in cigarette smoking
dramatically attenuated the associations between cannabis use and both IQ and
educational performance. Further, even after excluding those who had never
tried cannabis, cigarette users were found to have lower educational
performance (adjusted performance 2.9 percentage points lower, approximately
equivalent to dropping two grades on one subject taken at GCSE) relative to
those who had never tried cigarettes. A relationship between cigarette use and
poorer cognitive (Chamberlain et al., 2012; Hooper et al., 2014; Weiser et al.,
2010; Whalley et al., 2005) and educational (McCaffrey et al., 2010; Silins et
al., 2014; Stiby et al., 2014) outcomes has been noted previously, and may have
a number of explanations. Cigarette use may have a negative impact on cognitive
ability. However, this is not supported by the experimental psychopharmacology
literature, which robustly shows that acute nicotine administration results in
transient cognitive enhancement (Heishman et al., 2010). Alternatively, reverse
causality may contribute to this relationship, for example performing poorly at
school may lead to increased engagement in risky behaviours such as cigarette
smoking. Further, residual confounding may contribute to this link: cigarette
smoking may be a marker of unmeasured factors, for example social adversity
during adolescence, that influence both IQ and educational attainment." Source: C Mokrysz, R Landy, SH Gage, MR Munafò, JP Roiser, and HV Curran, "Are
IQ and educational outcomes in teenagers related to their cannabis use? A
prospective cohort study," Journal of Psychopharmacology,
0269881115622241, first published on January 6, 2016
doi:10.1177/0269881115622241 (IQ Decline Among Adolescent-Onset Marijuana Users) "In the
present study, the most persistent adolescent-onset cannabis users evidenced an
average 8-point IQ decline from childhood to adulthood. Quitting, however, may
have beneficial effects, preventing additional impairment for adolescent-onset
users. Prevention and policy efforts should focus on delivering to the public
the message that cannabis use during adolescence can have harmful effects on
neuropsychological functioning, delaying the onset of cannabis use at least
until adulthood, and encouraging cessation of cannabis use particularly for
those who began using cannabis in adolescence." Source: Madeline H. Meier, Avshalom Caspi, Antony Ambler, HonaLee Harrington,
Renate Houts, Richard S. E. Keefe, Kay McDonald, Aimee Ward, Richie Poulton,
and Terrie E. Moffitt, "Persistent Cannabis Users Show Neuropsychological
Decline from Childhood to Midlife, Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences, www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1206820109, 2012, p. 6. (Cognitive Deficit Among Adolescent-Onset Marijuana Users) "Our
findings suggest that regular cannabis use before age 18 y predicts impairment,
but others have found effects only for younger ages (10, 15). Given that the
brain undergoes dynamic changes from the onset of puberty through early
adulthood (37, 38), this developmental period should be the focus of future
research on the age(s) at which harm occurs." Source: Madeline H. Meier, Avshalom Caspi, Antony Ambler, HonaLee Harrington,
Renate Houts, Richard S. E. Keefe, Kay McDonald, Aimee Ward, Richie Poulton,
and Terrie E. Moffitt, "Persistent Cannabis Users Show Neuropsychological
Decline from Childhood to Midlife, Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences, www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1206820109, 2012, p. 1. Young People and Marijuana (Vulnerability of Teens
to
Effects of Drugs) "The teen brain is a work in progress, making it more
vulnerable than the mature brain to the physical effects of drugs. The
potential for developing substance abuse and dependence is substantially
greater when an individual’s first exposure to alcohol, nicotine and illicit
drugs occurs during adolescence than in adulthood." Source: Steinberg, L., Distinguished
University Professor and Laura H. Carnell Professor of Psychology, Department
of Psychology, Temple University and author of You and Your Adolescent: The
Essential guide for ages 10 to 25 (personal communication, June 9, 2011), as
quoted in "Adolescent Substance Use: America’s #1 Public Health
Problem," The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia
University (New York, NY: National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at
Columbia University, June 2011), p. 13. (Early Use of Marijuana)
"The younger and more often teens use marijuana, the more likely they are
to engage in other substance use and the higher their risk of developing a
substance use disorder. Among high school students, 7.5 percent used marijuana
for the first time before the age of 13. CASA’s analysis of national data finds
that the average age of initiation of marijuana use among high school students
is 14.3 years old. Compared to those who began using marijuana after age 21,
those who first used it before age 15 are: Source: "Adolescent Substance
Abuse: America's #1 Public Health Problem," National Center on Addiction
and Substance Abuse at Columbia University, June 2011, p. 27. (Prevalence and Perceived
Risk of Marijuana Use) "Marijuana use, which had been rising among teens
for the past four years, continued to rise in 2011 in all prevalence periods
for 10th and 12th graders; but in 2012 these increases halted. The recent rise
in use stood in stark contrast to the long, gradual decline that had been
occurring over the preceding decade. (Although use among 8th graders had been
rising, annual prevalence decreased after 2010.) It is relevant that perceived
risk for marijuana has been falling for the past six years, and disapproval
declined for the past three to four years. These changes would normally portend
a further increase in use." Source: Johnston, L. D., O’Malley,
P.
M., Bachman, J. G., & Schulenberg, J. E. (2013). Monitoring the Future
national results on adolescent drug use: Overview of key findings, 2012. Ann
Arbor: Institute for Social Research, The University of Michigan, p. 5. (Marijuana Use vs. Tobacco
Use) "High school students are more likely to use marijuana than to smoke
cigarettes. High school students are: Source: QEV Analytics, LTD.,
"National Survey of American Attitudes on Substance Abuse XVII:
Teens," The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia
University (New York, NY: National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at
Columbia University, August 2012), p. 30. (Marijuana Use by Peers
and
Perception of Harm) "Teens also say they are seeing more peers in school
smoking marijuana and more teens (73 percent) report having friends who smoke
marijuana regularly (71 percent) – significantly higher than four years ago.
Since 2008, there have also been significant declines in teen perceptions that
they will lose respect, harm themselves, or mess up their lives if they use
marijuana." Source: "The Partnership
Attitude Tracking Study: 2011 Parents and Teens Full Report," MetLife
Foundation and The Partnership at Drugfree.org (New York, NY: May 2, 2012), p.
7. (Adolescent Motivation)
"The apparent strength of these relationships in cross-sectional studies
(e.g. Kandel, 1984) has been exaggerated because those adolescents who are most
likely to use cannabis have lower academic aspirations and poorer high school
performance prior to using cannabis than their peers who do not (Newcombe and
Bentler, 1988). It remains possible that factors other than the marijuana use
account for apparent causal relations. To the extent they may exist, these
adverse effects of cannabis and other drug use upon development over and above
the effect of pre-existing nonconformity may cascade throughout young adult
life, affecting choice of occupation, level of income, choice of mate, and the
quality of life of the user and his or her children." Source: Hall, W., Room, R., &
Bondy, S., WHO Project on Health Implications of Cannabis Use: A Comparative
Appraisal of the Health and Psychological Consequences of Alcohol, Cannabis,
Nicotine and Opiate Use August 28, 1995 (Geneva, Switzerland: World Health
Organization, 1998). (Number of Juveniles Held
in
Adult Jails in the US) "About 4,200 juveniles age 17 or younger were held
in local jails at midyear 2014. They accounted for 0.6% of the confined
population, down from 1.2% at midyear 2000. Nearly 90% or 3,700 juvenile inmates
were tried or awaiting trial in adult court. The number of juveniles not
charged as an adult declined by 74% between midyear 2010 and 2014 (from 1,900
to 500 inmates)." Source: Todd D. Minton and Zhen
Zeng,
PhD, "Jail Inmates at Midyear 2014," Bureau of Justice Statistics
(Washington, DC: Department of Justice, June 2015), NCJ248629, p. 4. Sociopolitical and
Health-Related Research (Risk
Factors for Substance Use Among Youth) "The risk factors were stronger
predictors of substance use outcomes compared to the protective factors,
regardless of grade level or substance use type. In particular, the individual
and peer risk factors were strongly related to lifetime and recent use of cigarettes,
alcohol, and marijuana. Among the protective factors, the strongest
associations with substance use were found in the community domain. Several
age-related differences in the associations were also found, suggesting that
family and community factors were more salient among younger grades whereas
peer and school factors were stronger among older adolescents." Source: Michael J. Cleveland, Ph.D;
Mark E. Feinberg, Ph.D.; Daniel E. Bontempo, Ph.D.; and Mark T. Greenberg,
Ph.D., "The Role of Risk and Protective Factors in Substance Use across
Adolescence," Journal of Adolescent Health, (August 2008); 43(2): 157–164. (Addiction and Adolescent
Brain Development) "Addictive substances also adversely affect brain
development and maturation in the areas related to motivation, judgment,
inhibition and selfcontrol.26 As a result, addictive substances impair the
judgment of teens in the face of potential rewards, leading not only to their
engagement in risky behaviors--such as driving while under the influence of
alcohol or other drugs or participating in unsafe sexual practices--but also to
continued use of addictive substances despite negative consequences.27” Source: Adolescent Substance Use:
America’s #1 Public Health Problem," The National Center on Addiction and
Substance Abuse at Columbia University (New York, NY: National Center on
Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University, June 2011), p. 13. (Predictors of Substance
Use)
"Social learning variables, peer attitudes (prevalence of norms favourable
to deviant behaviour), personal approval (adoption of deviant norms), and peer
behaviour have an effect on frequency of alcohol use and alcohol abuse. Alcohol
expectancies and peer delinquency predict alcohol consumption of adolescents. Source: European Monitoring Centre
for Drugs and Drug Addiction, "Preventing later substance use disorders in
at-risk children and adolescents: a review of the theory and evidence base of
indicated prevention" (Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the
European Communities, 2009) , p. 15. (Risk Taking and the
Adolescent Brain) "In sum, risk taking declines between adolescence and
adulthood for two, and perhaps, three reasons. First, the maturation of the
cognitive control system, as evidenced by structural and functional changes in
the prefrontal cortex, strengthens individuals’ abilities to engage in
longer-term planning and inhibit impulsive behavior. Second, the maturation of
connections across cortical areas and between cortical and subcortical regions
facilitates the coordination of cognition and affect, which permits individuals
to better modulate socially and emotionally aroused inclinations with
deliberative reasoning and, conversely, to modulate excessively deliberative
decision-making with social and emotional information. Finally, there may be
developmental changes in patterns of neurotransmission after adolescence that
change reward salience and reward-seeking, but this is a topic that requires
further behavioral and neurobiological research before saying anything
definitive." Source: Steinberg, Laurence, "A
Social Neuroscience Perspective on Adolescent Risk-Taking," Developmental
Review: Perspectives in Behavior and Cognition (May 27, 2008), Vol 28, Issue 1,
p. 18. (Depression, Mood Disorders,
and Marijuana Use) "Depressive disorders have an association with alcohol
abuse or dependence and cannabis dependence. There are also reciprocal effects
of suicidality and substance use. Mood disorders (including bipolar disorders —
hypomania and mania) predict increased rates for cannabis use and cannabis use
disorder. For anxiety disorders, results were variable." Source: European Monitoring Centre
for Drugs and Drug Addiction, "Preventing later substance use disorders in
at-risk children and adolescents: a review of the theory and evidence base of
indicated prevention" (Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the
European Communities, 2009) , p. 20. (Risky Behavior and Substance
Use) "In commenting on problem behaviors among youth, Jessor and Jessor
(1975) and later Jessor (1984) argued that adolescence is a period in which
youth reject conventionality and traditional authority figures in an effort to
establish their own independence. For a significant number of adolescents, this
rejection consists of engaging in a number of 'risky' behaviors, including drug
and alcohol use. Within the past few years, researchers and practitioners have
begun to focus on this tendency, suggesting that drug use may be a 'default'
activity engaged in when youth have few or no opportunities to assert their
independence in a constructive manner (Benard 1994; gentler 1992; Carnegie Council
on Adolescent Development 1992; Cato 1992; Maddahian et al. 1988; Pransky
1991). They note that in contemporary American society, youth have very few
opportunities to participate in activities that allow them to develop a sense
of independence and assume significant responsibilities. Such efforts must
allow youth to exercise considerable control over activity development and
implementation." Source: Maria Carmona and Kathryn
Stewart, A Review of Alternative Activities and Alternatives Programs in Youth-Oriented
Prevention (National Center for the Advancement of Prevention, under contract
for the Substance Abuse Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), Center
for Substance Abuse Prevention, 1996), p. 5. (Monitoring The Future
Survey
on the Potential Impact of Legalization On Youth Marijuana Use) "Marijuana
is one drug that is affected by some very specific policies, including
medicalization and legalization of recreational use by adults. The effects on
youth behaviors and attitudes of recent changes in a number of states will need
to be carefully monitored in future years. Currently, marijuana does not hold
the same appeal for youth as it did in the past, and today’s annual prevalance
among 12th graders of 36% is considerably lower than rates exceeding 50% in the
1970s (documented by this project). However, if states that legalize
recreational marijuana allow marijuana advertising and marketing, then
prevalence could rebound and approach or even surpass past levels." Source: Johnston, L. D., O’Malley,
P.
M., Miech, R. A., Bachman, J. G., & Schulenberg, J. E. (2014). Monitoring
the Future national results on drug use: 1975-2013: Overview, Key Findings on
Adolescent Drug Use. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, The University
of Michigan, p. 49. (Family Risk and Protective
Factors) "Family risk factors in the development of adolescent substance
use are: known familial substance use or abuse, and a lack of parental
supervision. Protective factors are: warm and supportive family environment,
prosocial family processes (rules, monitoring) and attachment." Source: European Monitoring Centre
for Drugs and Drug Addiction, "Preventing later substance use disorders in
at-risk children and adolescents: a review of the theory and evidence base of
indicated prevention" (Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the
European Communities, 2009) , p. 15. (Zero Tolerance Policies)
"The disciplinary policies in effect in many schools today apply zero
tolerance to public school students in three draconian ways. First, they are
blind to the most basic distinctions between types of offenses. In many
schools, dangerousness is irrelevant; the penalties are the same for weapons
and alcohol, sale and possession, robbery, and disorderly offenses. Offenses
that used to be resolved informally with an apology or an after-school
detention now lead to formal disciplinary hearings. Second, they require a
severe sanction, typically suspension or expulsion, for all of these offenses,
regardless of the circumstances of the offense or the intent, history and
prospects of the offender. Third, these policies generally mandate some degree
of information-sharing with law enforcement. This multiplies the consequences
of student misconduct in two directions: out-of-school offenses referred to the
child’s school may result in suspension or other sanctions,18 and in-school
infractions referred to law enforcement agencies may result in juvenile or
criminal prosecution." Source: Eric Blumenson, Eva S.
Nilsen, "How to Construct an Underclass, or How the War on Drugs Became a
War on Education," The Journal of Gender, Race & Justice, (May 2002),
p. 65. (Generational Forgetting)
"Another point worth keeping in mind is that there tends to be a
continuous flow of new drugs onto the scene and of older ones being
rediscovered by young people. Many drugs have made a comeback years after they
first fell from popularity, often because knowledge among youth of their
adverse consequences faded as generational replacement took place. We call this
process 'generational forgetting.' Examples include LSD and methamphetamine,
two drugs used widely in the 1960s that made a comeback in the 1990s after
their initial popularity faded as a result of their adverse consequences
becoming widely recognized during periods of high use. Heroin, cocaine, PCP,
and crack are some others that have followed a similar pattern. LSD, inhalants,
and ecstasy have all shown some effects of generational forgetting in recent
years — that is, perceived risk has declined appreciably for those drugs —
which puts future cohorts at greater risk of having a resurgence in use. In the
case of LSD, perceived risk among 8th graders has declined noticeably, and more
students are saying that they are not familiar with the drug. It would appear
that a resurgence in availability (which declined very sharply after about
2001, most likely due to the FDA closing a major lab in 2000) could generate
another increase in use." Source: Johnston, L. D., O’Malley,
P.
M., Miech, R. A., Bachman, J. G., & Schulenberg, J. E. (2014). Monitoring
the Future national results on drug use: 1975-2013: Overview, Key Findings on
Adolescent Drug Use. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, The University
of Michigan, p. 49. (Alcohol Prevalence Among
US
Adolescents, 2013) Source: Johnston, L. D., O’Malley,
P.
M., Bachman, J. G., Schulenberg, J. E. & Miech, R. A. (2014). Monitoring
the Future national survey results on drug use, 1975–2013: Volume I, Secondary
school students. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, The University of
Michigan, pp. 90-91. (Exposure to Prevention
Messages by Youth In and Outside of School, 2012) Source: Substance Abuse and Mental
Health Services Administration, Results from the 2012 National Survey on Drug
Use and Health: Summary of National Findings, NSDUH Series H-46, HHS
Publication No. (SMA) 13-4795. Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health
Services Administration, 2013, p. 72. (Non-Recreational Adolescent
Marijuana Use) "The findings of this study provide one of the first
in-depth descriptions of youths' use of marijuana for non-recreational
purposes, adding to the growing body of research on the use of drugs to
self-medicate among young people. Teens involved in regular and long-term use
of marijuana for relief constructed their use of marijuana as essential to
feeling better or 'normal' in situations where they perceived there were few
other options available to them. Unlike the spontaneity typically involved in
recreational use, these youth were thoughtful and prescriptive with their
marijuana use – carefully monitoring and titrating their use to optimize its
therapeutic effect. The findings also point to important contextual factors
that further support youth's use of marijuana for relief that extend beyond the
availability of marijuana and dominant discourses that construct marijuana as a
natural product with medicinal properties." Source: Bottorff, Joan L , Johnson,
Joy L, Moffat, Barbara M, and Mulvogue, Tamsin, "Relief-oriented use of
marijuana by teens," Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and
Policy (Vancouver, BC: April 2009), doi:10.1186/1747-597X-4-7. (Impact of Medical Marijuana
Laws (MMLs) on Cannabis Use by Youth) "We replicated the findings of Wall
et al. (2) that marijuana use was higher in states that have passed MMLs, and
our analysis suggests this is unlikely to be a causal association. Our
difference-in-differences estimates suggest little detectable effects of
passing MMLs on marijuana use or perceived riskiness of use among adolescents
or adults, which is consistent with some limited prior evidence on arrestees
and emergency department patients (17). Future analyses that take advantage of
additional policy changes may provide further evidence on this question, but
our results suggest that such analyses should adequately control for potential
confounding by unmeasured state characteristics." Source: Sam Harper, Erin C. Strumpf,
and Jay S. Kaufman, "Do Medical Marijuana Laws Increase Marijuana Use?
Replication Study and Extension," Annals of Epidemiology, March 2012 (Vol.
22, Issue 3, Pages 207-212, DOI: 10.1016/j.annepidem.2011.12.002). (Youth Medical Marijuana Use and Unmet Health Needs)
"Of key importance in the findings are the unmet health needs of these
youth. Health issues such as depression, insomnia, and anxiety were significant
problems that interfered with these youths' ability to function at school,
maintain relationships with family and friends, and feel that they could live a
normal life. The level of distress associated with these health concerns, along
with the lack of effective interventions by heath care providers and family
members appeared to leave them with few alternatives. Researchers have reported
that when adolescents in rural communities experience barriers to seeking
health care, they think they can take care of the problems themselves [30].
Similarly, our study participants believed that their best option was to assume
responsibility for treating their problems by using marijuana. Unpleasant side
effects with prescribed medications and long, ineffective therapies resulted in
little hope that the medical system could be counted on as beneficial. In
contrast, marijuana provided these youth with immediate relief for a variety of
health concerns. Nevertheless, the regular use of marijuana put youth at risk.
Cannabis use has been identified as a risk factor for mental illness such as
psychosis, schizophrenia [21,31,32] and psychiatric symptoms such as panic
attacks [33]. Teens who smoked marijuana at least once per month in the past
year were found to be three times more likely to have suicidal thoughts than
non-users [34], and there is evidence that exposure to cannabis may worsen
depression in youth [35]. Marijuana use among youth has also been associated
with other substance use and school failure [36]. What is interesting is that
the findings of this study suggest that youth have little awareness of some of
these risks; rather, some are using marijuana to counteract these very problems
(e.g., depression, school failure). Teens' perceptions that their health
concerns were not addressed suggest that more attention is needed to assess
these issues and ensure that other options are available to them. Parents and
health care providers need to make a concerted effort to not only understand
the pressures and influences on youth [37], but also gain a better
understanding of the effect of youths' health problems on their ability to
engage in healthy lifestyle choices." Source: Bottorff, Joan L , Johnson,
Joy L, Moffat, Barbara M, and Mulvogue, Tamsin, "Relief-oriented use of
marijuana by teens," Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and
Policy (Vancouver, BC: April 2009), doi:10.1186/1747-597X-4-7. (Youth Medical Marijuana Use and Reasons for
Self-Medication) "Underlying problems related to youth health concerns also
need to be addressed. In many situations, the participants' symptoms appeared
to be directly related to their life circumstances. Along with the challenges
inherent in being an adolescent in today's complex world, some teens were also
trying to deal with significant losses (death of a close friend or family
member), extremely difficult family relationships, disappointments with
friends, school and sports, and a fragile family and peer support network. The
risk of substance use increases substantially when youth are attempting to deal
with these kinds of situations in isolation. Although marijuana provided the
youth with temporary relief, the underlying situation often went unattended –
leading the teens into a regular pattern of use. Appropriate guidance and
targeted support from counselors and health care providers must be sensitive to
meeting the needs of youth as they work through such situations and life
altering events. In addition, adults working with youth must find better ways
to talk with young people about how they are coping with their health issues,
including their marijuana use. Based on the experiences of youth in this study,
there is a wide range of support that may benefit youth including counseling,
stress management, social skills training, anger management, study skills, pain
management, and sleep hygiene. The youth in this study had minimal access to
these types of resources." Source: Bottorff, Joan L , Johnson,
Joy L, Moffat, Barbara M, and Mulvogue, Tamsin, "Relief-oriented use of
marijuana by teens," Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and
Policy (Vancouver, BC: April 2009), doi:10.1186/1747-597X-4-7. (Effects of State Medical
Marijuana Laws (MMLs) on Youth Marijuana Use) "We found no evidence of
intermediate-term effects of passage of state MMLs on the prevalence or
frequency of adolescent nonmedical marijuana use in the states evaluated, with
2 minor exceptions. From 2003 through 2009, adolescent lifetime prevalence of
marijuana use and frequency of daily marijuana use decreased significantly in
Montana, as compared with a more modest decrease in lifetime prevalence and an
increase in daily frequency observed in Delaware (Ps = .03). These 2
statistically significant findings do not appear to represent real effects. Our
difference-in-differences study design involved 40 planned comparisons
(before---after differences in treatment vs comparison states), and naturally 2
significant results (at the P < .05 level) of a possible 40 can be expected
according to chance alone. Source: Sarah D. Lynne-Landsman,
PhD,
Melvin D. Livingston, BA, and Alexander C. Wagenaar, PhD, "Effects of
State Medical Marijuana Laws on Adolescent Marijuana Use," American
Journal of Public Health, June 13, 2013. (Alcohol Use Among US Youth,
2014) Source: Miech, R. A., Johnston,
L.
D., O’Malley, P. M., Bachman, J. G., & Schulenberg, J. E. (June 2015).
Monitoring the Future national survey results on (Cigarette Use Among US
Youth, 2014) Source: Miech, R. A., Johnston,
L.
D., O’Malley, P. M., Bachman, J. G., & Schulenberg, J. E. (June 2015).
Monitoring the Future national survey results on drug use, 1975–2014: Volume I,
Secondary school students. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, The
University of Michigan, p. 85. (Attitudes of Young People
Toward Legalization of Marijuana) Source: Johnston, L. D., O’Malley,
P.
M., Bachman, J. G., Schulenberg, J. E. & Miech, R. A. (2014). Monitoring
the Future national survey results on drug use, 1975–2013: Volume I, Secondary
school students. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, The University of
Michigan, p. 400. (Trends in Attitudes of
US
12th Graders Toward Legalization of Any Illegal Drugs) Source: Johnston, L. D., O’Malley,
P.
M., Bachman, J. G., Schulenberg, J. E. & Miech, R. A. (2014). Monitoring
the Future national survey results on drug use, 1975–2013: Volume I, Secondary
school students. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, The University of
Michigan, pp. 399-400. (Attitudes of US 12th Graders
Toward Legalization of Marijuana, 2013) "89: Chaloupka, F. J.,
Pacula, R. L., Farrelly, M. C., Johnston, L. D., O’Malley, P. M., & Bray,
J. W. (February 1999). Do higher cigarette prices encourage youth to use
marijuana? (NBER Working Paper No. 6939). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of
Economic Research." Source: Johnston, L. D., O’Malley,
P.
M., Bachman, J. G., Schulenberg, J. E. & Miech, R. A. (2014). Monitoring
the Future national survey results on drug use, 1975–2013: Volume I, Secondary
school students. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, The University of
Michigan, pp. 400-401. (Effectiveness of Supply
Reduction) "Overall, supply reduction — that is, reducing the availability
of drugs — does not appear to have played as major a role as many had assumed
in four of the five most important downturns in illicit drug use that have
occurred to date, namely, those for marijuana, cocaine, crack, and ecstasy
(see, for example, Figures 8-4, 8-5, and 8-6). In the case of cocaine,
perceived availability actually rose during much of the period of downturn in
use. (These data are corroborated by data from the Drug Enforcement
Administration on trends in the price and purity of cocaine on the streets.96)
For marijuana, perceived availability has remained very high for 12th graders
since 1976, while use dropped substantially from 1979 through 1992 and
fluctuated considerably thereafter. Perceived availability for ecstasy did
increase in parallel with increasing use in the 1990s, but the decline phase
for use appears to have been driven much more by changing beliefs about the
dangers of ecstasy than by any sharp downturn in availability. Similarly, amphetamine
use declined appreciably from 1981 to 1992, with only a modest corresponding
change in perceived availability. Finally, until 1995, heroin use had not risen
among 12th graders even though availability had increased substantially. Source: Johnston, L. D., O’Malley,
P.
M., Bachman, J. G., Schulenberg, J. E. & Miech, R. A. (2014). Monitoring
the Future national survey results on drug use, 1975–2013: Volume I, Secondary
school students. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, The University of
Michigan, p. 461. (Drug Use Comparisons Between
EU and US) "On average, 7% of the ESPAD students stated that they had used
marijuana or hashish during the past 30 days. As a proportion of the group
reporting lifetime use, this corresponds to roughly four in ten. The highest
rates of past-30-days cannabis use are found in the two neighbouring countries
of France and Monaco (24% and 21%, respectively), followed by the United States
(not an ESPAD country) (18 %) and the Czech Republic and Spain (not an ESPAD
country) (15% each). In these top countries, about 10% of all students had used
cannabis at an average frequency roughly corresponding to at least once a week
during the period in question (3–5 times or more in the past 30 days). This
proportion is considerably larger than the average for all ESPAD countries
(4%)." Source: "The 2011 ESPAD Report:
Substance Use Among Students in 36 European Countries" (Stockholm, Sweden:
Swedish Council for Information on Alcohol and Other Drugs, May 2012), p. 88. (Any Drug Use vs Specific
Drug Use) "Overall, these data reveal that, while use of individual drugs
(other than marijuana) may fluctuate widely, the proportion using any of them
is much more stable. In other words, the proportion of students prone to using
such drugs and willing to cross the normative barriers to such use changes more
gradually. The usage rate for each individual drug, on the other hand, reflects
many more rapidly changing determinants specific to that drug: how widely its
psychoactive potential is recognized, how favorable the reports of its supposed
benefits are, how risky its use is seen to be, how acceptable it is in the peer
group, how accessible it is, and so on." Source: Johnston, L. D., O’Malley,
P.
M., Bachman, J. G., & Schulenberg, J. E. (2013). Monitoring the Future
national results on adolescent drug use: Overview of key findings, 2012. Ann
Arbor: Institute for Social Research, The University of Michigan, p. 10. Adolescents and Crime ("School-to-Prison
Pipeline") "The “School to Prison Pipeline” and similar concepts are
used to describe how some youth are seemingly on a one-way path that begins
with becoming disconnected with school, then continues to dropping out, and
later entering the justice system. School policies that rely on overly punitive
responses to student behavior and a reliance on law enforcement to address
school discipline have led to increases in suspensions, expulsions, and
referrals to the juvenile justice system for even minor infractions. As a
result, students are taken out of school, missing important educational
opportunities and, in some cases, made unable to return to school. The School
to Prison Pipeline not only sends students directly into the justice system,
but missed educational opportunities are linked to increased risk that a
student will one day be involved in the justice system." Source: Petteruti, Amanda,
"Education under Arrest: The Case Against Police in Schools," Justice
Policy Institute (Washington, DC: November 2011), p. 19. (Arrests for Drug Abuse
Violations) There were an estimated 195,700 arrests of young people for drug
abuse violations in 2007. Source: Puzzanchera, Charles,
"Juvenile Arrests 2007" (Washington, DC: US Department of Justice,
Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention, April 2009), p. 10. (Arrests for Drug Abuse
Violations) The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention estimated
that in 2007 there were 195,700 arrests of juveniles for drug abuse violations
out of a total 2,180,500 juvenile arrests. By comparison, there were 97,100
violent crime index offense arrests and 419,000 property crime index offense
arrests of juveniles that year. Source: Puzzanchera, Charles,
"Juvenile Arrests 2007" (Washington, DC: US Department of Justice,
Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention, April 2009), p. 3. Annual Prevalence of
Use of
Various Drugs by US Youth in Grades 8, 10, and 12 Combined, 1998-2014 Year 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Any Illicit Drug 32.2 31.9 31.4 31.8 30.2 28.4 27.6 27.1 25.8 24.8 24.9 25.9 27.3 27.6 27.1 28.6 27.2 Marijuana/Hashish 28.2 27.9 27.2 27.5 26.1 24.6 23.8 23.4 22.0 21.4 21.5 22.9 24.5 25.0 24.7 25.8 24.2 Cocaine 4.5 4.5 3.9 3.5 3.7 3.3 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.4 2.9 2.5 2.2 2.0 1.9 1.8 1.6 Crack 2.4 2.2 2.1 1.8 2.0 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 Heroin 1.2 1.3 1.3 0.9 1.0 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.5 Hallucinogens 6.3 6.1 5.4 6.0 4.5 4.1 4.0 3.9 3.6 3.8 3.8 3.5 3.8 3.7 3.2 3.1 2.8 Ecstasy 2.9 3.7 5.3 6.0 4.9 3.1 2.6 2.4 2.7 3.0 2.9 3.0 3.8 3.7 2.5 2.8 2.2 Tranquilizers 4.4 4.4 4.5 5.5 5.3 4.8 4.8 4.7 4.6 4.5 4.3 4.5 4.4 3.9 3.7 3.3 3.4 Amphetamines 9.3 9.0 9.2 9.6 8.9 8.0 7.6 7.0 6.8 6.5 5.8 5.9 6.2 5.9 5.6 7.0 6.6
Methamphetamine - 4.1 3.5 3.4 3.2 3.0 2.6 2.4 2.0 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.0 1.0 0.8 Any Illicit Drug Other
Than
Mariuana 15.8 15.6 15.3 16.3 14.6 13.7 13.5 13.1 12.7 12.4 11.9 11.6 11.8 11.3 10.8 11.4 10.9 Alcohol 59.7 59.0 59.3 58.2 55.3 54.4 54.0 51.9 50.7 50.2 48.7 48.4 47.4 45.3 44.3 42.8 40.7
Been
Drunk 35.5 36.0 35.9 35.0 32.1 31.2 32.5 30.8 30.7 29.7 28.1 28.7 27.1 25.9 26.4 25.4 23.6 Source: Johnston, L. D., O’Malley,
P.
M., Miech, R. A., Bachman, J. G., & Schulenberg, J. E. (February 2015).
Monitoring the Future national survey results on drug use: 1975-2014: Overview,
key findings on adolescent drug use. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research,
The University of Michigan, Table 2, p. 56. Estimated Daily Prevalence
of Use of Various Drugs By US Youth In Grades 8, 10, and 12 Combined,
According to the Monitoring the Future Survey 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Marijuana 3.4 3.5 3.5 3.7 3.5 3.4 3.0 2.9 2.8 2.7 2.8 2.8 3.4 3.6 3.6 3.7 3.3 Alcohol 2.2 2.0 1.7 2.0 1.9 1.7 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.4 1.3 1.4 1.0 1.2 1.1 1.0
5+
Drinks in a Row in Last 2 Weeks 21.5 21.7 21.2 20.4 18.9 18.6 18.8 17.5 17.4 17.2 15.5 16.1 14.9 13.6 14.3 13.2 11.7
Been
Drunk 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 Cigarettes 15.4 15.0 13.4 11.6 10.2 9.3 9.0 8.0 7.6 7.1 6.4 6.4 6.4 5.7 5.2 4.7 3.6 Source: Johnston, L. D., O’Malley,
P.
M., Miech, R. A., Bachman, J. G., & Schulenberg, J. E. (February 2015).
Monitoring the Future national survey results on drug use: 1975-2014: Overview,
key findings on adolescent drug use. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research,
The University of Michigan, Table 4, p. 58. (Alcohol and Other Drug
Involvement in Criminal Offenses at Schools and Colleges) "Table 9
provides the reported instances in each offense record in which the offenders
were suspected of using alcohol, computers, and/or drugs.22 The data show that
such use was minimal in situations occurring at schools during the 5-year study
period. Of the 589,534 offense records, reports of offenders suspected of using
drugs totaled 32,366, while reports of alcohol use totaled 5,844." Source: Noonan, James H., Vavra,
Malissa C., "Crime in Schools and Colleges: A Study of Offenders and
Arrestees Reported via National Incident-Based Reporting System Data,"
United States Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal
Justice Information Services Division (Washington DC: October 2007), p. 14. (Arrests at Schools and
Colleges) "The most common offense code reported in arrestee records was
simple assault – a crime against persons, followed by drug/narcotic violations
– a crime against society. These two arrest offense codes were reportedly
associated with more than half (52.2 percent) of the total arrestees.
Destruction/damage/vandalism of property accounted for a relatively small
portion of arrestees (6.6 percent). All other larceny and burglary, both crimes
against property, involved 5.8 and 5.0 percent of the arrestees, respectively.
Each of the remaining arrest offense codes accounted for less than 5.0 percent
of the arrestees. Note that the arrest code does not necessarily match an According to the data on
Table 10 of the report, there were 51,462 "Simple Assaults" and
43,294 "Drug/Narcotics Violations" reported by Schools and Colleges
over the five year period from 2000-2004. Other violations during that time
frame included 5,108 "Drug Equipment Violations", 594 "Liquor
Law Violations", 202 for "Drunkenness", and 95 for "Driving
Under the Influence". Source: Noonan, James H., Vavra,
Malissa C., "Crime in Schools and Colleges: A Study of Offenders and
Arrestees Reported via National Incident-Based Reporting System Data,"
United States Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal
Justice Information Services Division (Washington DC: October 2007), pp. 14-17
and Table 10, pp. 15-16. (Historical Trends in
Juvenile Drug Arrest Rates, by Race) "In contrast to the 1980-1993 period,
the overall juvenile drug arrest rate increased by 77% in the short period
between 1993 and 1997. Large increases were also seen in the rates of juvenile
subgroups: male (72%), female (119%), white (109%), American Indian (160%), and
Asian (105%). The black juvenile arrest rate for drug abuse violations, which
had increased dramatically in the earlier period, increased an additional 25%
between 1993 and 1997. Between 1997 and 2003, the juvenile drug arrest rate
fell marginally (22%), with most of the overall decline attributable to a drop
in arrests of blacks (41%) and males (24%)." Source: Snyder, Howard N., and
Sickmund, Melissa, "Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National
Report" (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice
Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, March 2006),
p. 144. (Historical Trends in
Juvenile Arrest Rates) "In 1980, there were an estimated 1,476 arrests of
persons ages 10-12 for every 100,000 persons in this age group in the U.S.
population. By 2003, this arrest rate had fallen to 1,296, a decline of 12%. In
1980, 9.5% of all juvenile arrests were arrests of persons under age 13; in
2003, this percentage had decreased to 8.5% -- with the majority of the
decrease occurring during the mid-1990s." - See more at: http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/Adolescents#sthash.g2ZB8rU0.6xnb5yIk.dpuf 13 Myths
about
Substance Abuse Treatment
Myth #1: Drug addiction is voluntary
behavior. A person starts out as an occasional drug
user, and that is a voluntary decision. But as times passes, something happens,
and that person goes from being a voluntary drug user to being a compulsive
drug user. Why? Because over time, continued use of addictive drugs changes your
brain -- at times in dramatic, toxic ways, at others in more subtle ways, but
virtually always in ways that result in compulsive and even uncontrollable drug
use. Drug addiction is a brain disease. Every
type of drug of abuse has its own individual mechanism for changing how the
brain functions. But regardless of which drug a person is addicted to, many of
the effects it has on the brain are similar: they range from changes in the molecules
and cells that make up the brain, to mood changes, to changes in memory
processes and in such motor skills as walking and talking. And these changes
have a huge influence on all aspects of a person's behavior. The drug becomes
the single most powerful motivator in a drug abuser's existence. He or she will
do almost anything for the drug. This comes about because drug use has changed
the individual's brain and its functioning in critical ways. Virtually no one wants drug treatment. Two
of the primary reasons people seek drug treatment are because the court ordered
them to do so, or because loved ones urged them to seek treatment. Many
scientific studies have shown convincingly that those who enter drug treatment
programs in which they face "high pressure" to confront and attempt
to surmount their addiction do comparatively better in treatment, regardless of
the reason they sought treatment in the first place. Like many other illnesses, drug addiction
typically is a chronic disorder. To be sure, some people can quit drug use
"cold turkey," or they can quit after receiving treatment just one
time at a rehabilitation facility. But most of those who abuse drugs require
longer-term treatment and, in many instances, repeated treatments. There is no "one size fits all"
form of drug treatment, much less a magic bullet that suddenly will cure
addiction. Different people have different drug abuse-related problems. And
they respond very differently to similar forms of treatment, even when they're
abusing the same drug. As a result, drug addicts need an array of treatments
and services tailored to address their unique needs. It is extremely difficult for people
addicted to drugs to achieve and maintain long-term abstinence. Research shows
long-term drug use actually changes a person's brain function, causing them to
crave the drug even more, making it increasingly difficult for the person to
quit. Especially for adolescents, intervening and stopping substance abuse
early is important, as children become addicted to drugs much faster than
adults and risk greater physical, mental and psychological harm from illicit
drug use. Treatment can help people. Studies show
drug treatment reduces drug use by 40 to 60 percent and can significantly
decrease criminal activity during and after treatment. There is also evidence
that drug addiction treatment reduces the risk of HIV infection (intravenous
-drug users who enter and stay in treatment are up to six times less likely to
become infected with HIV than other users) and improves the prospects for
employment, with gains of up to 40 percent after treatment. There are many things that can motivate a
person to enter and complete substance abuse treatment before they hit
"rock bottom." Pressure from family members and employers, as well as
personal recognition that they have a problem, can be powerful motivating factors
for individuals to seek treatment. For teens, parents and school administrators
are often driving forces in getting them into treatment once problems at home
or in school develop but before situations become dire. Seventeen percent of
adolescents entering treatment in 1999 were self- or individual referrals,
while 11 percent were referred through schools. Treatment does not have to be voluntary.
People coerced into treatment by the legal system can be just as successful as
those who enter treatment voluntarily. Sometimes they do better, as they are
more likely to remain in treatment longer and to complete the program. In 1999,
over half of adolescents admitted into treatment were directed to do so by the
criminal justice system. One treatment method is not necessarily
appropriate for everyone. The best programs develop an individual treatment
plan based on a thorough assessment of the individual's problems. These plans
may combine a variety of methods tailored to address each person's specific
needs and may include behavioral therapy (such as counseling, cognitive therapy
or psychotherapy), medications, or a combination. Referrals to other medical,
psychological and social services may also be crucial components of treatment
for many people. Furthermore, treatment for teens varies depending on the
child's age, maturity and family/peer environment, and relies more heavily than
adult treatment on family involvement during the recovery process. "[They]
must be approached differently than adults because of their unique
developmental issues, differences in their values and belief systems, and
environmental considerations (e.g., strong peer influences)." Not every doctor or program may be the
right fit for someone seeking treatment. For many, finding an approach that is
personally effective for treating their addiction can mean trying out several
different doctors and/or treatment centers before a perfect "match"
is found between patient and program. Research indicates a minimum of 90 days of
treatment for residential and outpatient drug-free programs, and 21 days for
short-term inpatient programs to have an effect. To maintain the treatment
effect, follow up supervision and support are essential. In all recovery
programs the best predictor of success is the length of treatment. Patients who
remain at least a year are more than twice as likely to remain drug free, and a
recent study showed adolescents who met or exceeded the minimum treatment time
were over one and a half times more likely to abstain from drug and alcohol
use. However, completing a treatment program is merely the first step in the
struggle for recovery that can extend throughout a person's entire
lifetime. MYTH #13: People who continue to abuse
drugs after treatment are hopeless. Drug addiction
is
a chronic disorder; occasional relapse does not mean failure. Psychological
stress from work or family problems, social cues (i.e. meeting individuals from
one's drug-using past), or their environment (i.e. encountering streets,
objects, or even smells associated with drug use) can easily trigger a relapse.
Addicts are most vulnerable to drug use during the few months immediately
following their release from treatment. Children are especially at risk for
relapse when forced to return to family and environmental situations that
initially led them to abuse substances. Recovery is a long process and
frequently requires multiple treatment attempts before complete and consistent
sobriety can be achieved. Data is available regarding
Marijuana use throughout San Diego County at http://www.mpisdcounty.net/ and selected from the San Diego County
Marijuana Prevention Initiative are tables below on Non Traditional
(Continuation School, etc.) student usage rates. Continuation School student
marijuana usage is higher than traditional schools. Escondido High School notes
26% daily usage, often on school property and 36% starting before age 13. Table 1. Continuation Schools Participating
in the California Healthy Kids Survey (CHKS) Source:
CHKS, 2010/11; County 2009/11 Report School District Continuation
Schools Surveyed School
Enrollment Carlsbad
Unified Carlsbad
Village Academy 127 Escondido
Union High Valley
High 377 Fallbrook
Union High Ivy High 143 Grossmont
Union High Chaparral
High 257 Oceanside
City Unified Ocean
Shores High 215 Poway
Unified Abraxas
Continuation High 220 San Diego
Unified Garfield
High 305 San Diego
Unified Twain High
305 San
Dieguito Union High Sunset
High 132 San Marcos
Unified Twin Oaks
High 202 Sweetwater
Union High Alta Vista
High 61 Sweetwater
Union High Palomar
High 398 Vista
Unified Major
General Raymond Murray High 232 Table 3.
Percent of Non-Traditional (NT) Students Reporting
Marijuana Use School
District Lifetime
Use Current
Use Daily
Use Use on
School Property (Past
30 Days) Escondido
Union High 75% 52% 26% 25% Fallbrook
Union High 58% 29% 8% 15% Grossmont
Union High 63% 38% 16% 11% Oceanside
City Unified 74% 24% 17% 16% Poway
Unified* 83% 51% -- 6% San Diego
Unified 40% 24% 7% 7% San Marcos
Unified* 77% 46% -- 17% Sweetwater
Union High * 58% 34% -- 15% Vista
Unified* 61% 34% -- 11% San
Diego County 71% 47% 18% 15% Findings
from Table 3 show that use among NT students is particularly high in Poway
Unified, San Marcos Unified, Escondido Union High, and Oceanside City Unified.
In these districts, over 70% of NT students reported that they used or tried
marijuana. Daily use is particularly high in Escondido Union High, where
approximately one in four NT students reported using marijuana daily. In over
half of the districts with participating continuation schools, 15% or more NT
students reported using marijuana on school property in the past 30 days. Table 5.
Percent of NT Students Reporting Age of Onset School District
Before
Age 13 Before
Age 15 Escondido
Union High 36% 56% Fallbrook
Union High 12% 33% Grossmont
Union High 26% 50% Oceanside
City Unified 20% 49% Poway
Unified -- -- San Diego
Unified 12% 27% San Marcos
Unified -- -- Sweetwater
Union High -- -- Vista
Unified -- -- San
Diego County 23% 48% http://www.mpisdcounty.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/CCR_SNAPSHOT_District-Level-CHKS-Data.pdf See
the link below for the source of the information that follows the link. Advocates
for drug abuse prevention say many Americans — including and especially those
making public policy and influencing public opinion from massive media
platforms — either have been duped by or are caught up in the hype generated by
an industry that derives its chief profits from addiction. “People are
voting without the knowledge,” Dr. Nora Volkow, director of the National
Institute on Drug Abuse, told hundreds of people gathered in February 2014 in
Washington, D.C., for an annual meeting of the Community Anti- And while
no, most people who use marijuana — and alcohol for that matter — aren’t
addicts, Kaleb says, “You just have to be intoxicated, not an addict, to cause
serious damage. And yeah, getting sober in Colorado is really hard because
drugs and media telling you why they’re so great are everywhere all the time
now.” Indeed, while the state reports that
about 485,000 Coloradans 18 and older are regular marijuana users (defined as
using at least once a month), state auditors examining marijuana sold in
state-licensed facilities found that about 106,000 Coloradans — or nearly “We’re mortgaging our future for the
almighty dollar,” said Kevin Sabet, a former senior White House drug policy
adviser who teamed with former Democratic U.S. Rep. Patrick Kennedy and
political pundit David Frum to start Smart Approaches to Marijuana, a national,
nonprofit group that advocates for marijuana policy reform but does not support
the drug’s legalization. “Make no mistake,” Sabet said. “Legalization is about
cranking up the number of heavy users, targeting the most vulnerable — as every
industry selling an addictive drug does — and making money. That’s it. If it
were about getting people out of prison or increasing science-based prevention,
there are myriad ways to do those things without ushering in Big Tobacco 2.0.” In December, the National Survey on Drug
Use and Health delivered more troubling news reinforcing the cacophony of
late-night jokes that Colorado has a drug problem and plenty of enablers. Pick
a substance — alcohol, abused prescription painkillers, cocaine, heroin,
marijuana or tobacco — and the state ranks above the national average. But it is marijuana use that Colorado
works hardest on these days. The need to explain spiking drug-use rates while
implementing legalization of retail marijuana sales is increasingly pressing:
The state’s 2013 past-month marijuana use rate was the nation’s second highest,
coming in at 12.7 percent of Coloradans age 12 and older. That is up from 10.41
percent in 2012, when voters sanctioned recreational marijuana use, and from
7.8 percent in 2000, when they sanctioned marijuana for medical use. With the
January 2014 rollout of retail marijuana, Colorado usage rates are likely to
increase. Use of alcohol and nonmedical
painkillers also increased in Colorado between 2012 and 2013. While marijuana
legalization’s impact on the consumption of other drugs is the subject of
heated debate among economists and drug-policy advocates, the connection is
much more straightforward for Kaleb. Dr. Christian Thurstone, an associate professor of psychiatry at CU
and also a medical director of the state's largest adolescent-substance
addiction-treatment program weighs in on young people and addiction. “The weed, not alcohol or tobacco, came
first, and the more I used, the more I drank, and the more pills I eventually
popped,” he said. “That (progression) doesn’t happen to everyone who uses weed,
but it happens to enough of us. It’s a gateway.” The trends in marijuana use and
addiction specifically among Colorado’s youths are also disturbing — if for no
other reason than the state has kept poor data and now finds itself building a
baseline by which marijuana’s impact on youth can be determined. The 2013 Healthy Kids Colorado Survey,
administered to youths enrolled in public schools, is the state’s most robust
evaluation of students’ marijuana use and attitudes about the drug, said Alyson
Shupe, chief of the health statistics and evaluation branch of the Colorado
Department of Public Health and Environment. Comparing the 2013 state-survey
data to the much smaller samples collected from students in previous years for
a federally funded study released by the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention is difficult. “The actual percentages aren’t affected so much as the
confidence with which you can say you have a clear picture of what has happened
and can detect meaningful change over that time,” Shupe said. The state now
wishes to press on with a more robust survey, but it will be years before
researchers can determine use trends — a lag in information that could keep a
response years behind any problems. 74 percent
of Denver teens in substance treatment and 18 percent of Denver teens not in
substance treatment reported getting the drug from people with a state-issued
license. (Thurstone is the husband of reporter Christine Tatum, who worked on
this project for The Gazette.) Of the 2.4
million Americans who try cannabis for the first time each year, about 57
percent are younger than 18, according to the NSDUH. Peak use among Americans
is at age 20 — followed by ages 19 and 18. One of every six adolescents who try
marijuana becomes addicted to the drug — a rate medical experts say was determined
decades ago when marijuana was far less potent than it is today. Nearly 10 percent of U.S. teens -- about 1.5 million youth --
smoked marijuana heavily, some 20 times in the past month, according to the
Partnership Attitude Tracking Study, sponsored by MetLife
Foundation. http://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/teens-who-smoke-pot-at-risk-for-later-schizophrenia-psychosis-201103071676 Evidence
is mounting that regular marijuana use increases the
chance that a teenager will develop psychosis,
a pattern of unusual thoughts or perceptions, such as believing the television
is transmitting secret messages. It also increases the risk of developing schizophrenia,
a disabling brain disorder that not only causes psychosis, but also problems
concentrating and loss of emotional expression. In
one recent study that followed nearly 2,000 teenagers as
they became young adults, young people who smoked marijuana at least five times
were twice as likely to have developed psychosis over the next 10 years as
those who didn’t smoke pot. Another new paper concluded that early marijuana use could
actually hasten the onset of psychosis by three years. Those most at
risk are youths who already have a mother, father, or sibling with
schizophrenia or some other psychotic disorder. Young
people with a parent or sibling affected by psychosis have
a roughly one in 10 chance of developing the condition themselves—even if they
never smoke pot. Regular marijuana use, however, doubles their risk—to a one in
five chance of becoming psychotic. In
comparison, youths in families unaffected by psychosis have a
7 in 1,000 chance of developing it. If they smoke pot regularly, the risk
doubles, to 14 in 1,000. For
years, now, experts have been sounding the alarm about a
possible link between marijuana use and psychosis. One of the best-known
studies followed nearly 50,000 young Swedish
soldiers for 15 years. Those who had smoked marijuana at least once were
more than twice as likely to develop schizophrenia as those who had never
smoked pot. The heaviest users (who said they used marijuana more than 50
times) were six times as likely to develop schizophrenia as the nonsmokers. So
far, this research shows only an association between
smoking pot and developing psychosis or schizophrenia later on. That’s not the
same thing as saying that marijuana causes psychosis. This
is how research works. Years
ago, scientists first noted an association between cigarette smoking and
lung cancer. Only later were they able to figure out exactly how cigarette
smoke damaged the lungs and other parts of the body, causing cancer and other
diseases. The
research on marijuana and the brain is at a much earlier
stage. We do know that THC,
one of the active compounds in marijuana, stimulates the brain and triggers
other chemical reactions that contribute to the drug’s psychological and
physical effects. But
it’s not clear how marijuana use might lead to psychosis.
One theory is that marijuana may interfere with normal brain development during
the teenage years and young adulthood. The
teenage brain is still a work in progress. Between the teen
years and the mid-20s, areas of the brain responsible for judgment and problem
solving are still making connections with the emotional centers of the brain.
Smoking marijuana may derail this process and so increase a young person’s
vulnerability to psychotic thinking. (You can read more about how the
adolescent brain develops in this
article from the Harvard Mental Health Letter.) While
the research on marijuana and the mind has not yet
connected all the dots, these new studies provide one more reason to caution
young people against using marijuana—especially if they have a family member
affected by schizophrenia or some other psychotic disorder. Although it may be
a tough concept to explain to a teenager, the reward of a short-time high isn’t
worth the long-term risk of psychosis or a disabling disorder like
schizophrenia. http://www.sandieguitoalliance.org/marijuanaandteens.html Download and print "Marijuana
and Mental Health" [DOC 32KB] Youth marijuana
use is risky and can lead to serious consequences, including mental health
problems. Researchers have long known that marijuana use has been associated
with psychopathology. In the past decade, research on the psychiatric
implications of the drug has increased dramatically. In the past three years,
in particular, evidence has been accumulating that regular marijuana use can
not only aggravate already existing mental illness, but that it may precede, or
act as a catalyst, in mental health problems, including depression, suicidal
thoughts and schizophrenia. This new research also identifies two crucial risk
factors: The
age when marijuana is first smoked has a major impact on the later development
of mental health problems. The earlier the use, the greater the implications. There
is an increased risk of depression, suicidal thoughts and schizophrenia as a
result of marijuana use, even among people with no prior history of a disorder.
However, those with a predisposition for mental illness are particularly
vulnerable. In the case of psychotic disorders, this is estimated to be about
one in four people. Depression and Suicidal
Thoughts Several recent
studies have linked youth marijuana use with increases in depression and
suicidal thinking. Teens
age 12 to 17 who smoke marijuana weekly are three times more likely than
non-users to have thoughts about committing suicide. Some
research shows that marijuana use can precede symptoms of depression. Girls
(ages 14-15) who used marijuana daily were five times more likely to face
depression at age 21. Weekly use among all teens studied doubled the risk for
depression. A
study of adults found that marijuana use quadrupled the risk of later major
depression. A
study of 1,265 children over a 21-year period found that marijuana use,
particularly heavy or regular use, was associated with later increases in
depression, suicidal thoughts and suicide attempts. Past-year
marijuana use has been linked to social withdrawal, anxiety, depression,
attention problems and thoughts of suicide in adolescents. Research
with twins found that the twin who was dependent on marijuana was almost three
times more likely to think about suicide and attempt suicide than his/her
non-marijuana dependent co-twin. Schizophrenia Marijuana use has
been linked to early-onset schizophrenia, and several recent studies show that
marijuana use during adolescence increases the risk of psychotic disorders in
adulthood. Heavy
marijuana users are almost seven times more likely than non-users to be
diagnosed with schizophrenia later in life. Among
men suffering from schizophrenia, those who had used marijuana were much more
likely to experience their first psychotic episode at an early age. A
recent study found that that the earlier the use of marijuana (age 15 vs. age
18), the greater the risk of schizophrenia. A
study published in 2005 found that regular use of marijuana may double the risk
of developing psychotic disorders and that marijuana causes chemical changes to
the brain. The study maintains that smoking marijuana causes symptoms even when
other factors are taken into consideration. Genetic Predisposition Recent evidence
suggests that some people's genetic make-up may predispose them to be
particularly vulnerable to the effects of marijuana on mental health. An
analysis of 2,437 young people found that marijuana use moderately increases
the risk of psychopathology. The risk for those with a predisposition for
psychopathology was much higher. A
study published in spring 2005 found that as many as one in four people may
have a genetic profile that makes marijuana five times more likely to trigger
psychotic disorders. Parents Can Make a
Difference Parents can
make
a difference by talking to their teens about the risks of marijuana and by
monitoring their behavior. They can also take early action if they see signs of
drug use or emotional problems. Parents are
the most powerful influence on their kids when it comes to drugs. A report from
the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse showed that the rate of past-month
marijuana use was lower among kids who believed their parents would disapprove. http://www.schizophrenia.com/prevention/cannabis.marijuana.schizophrenia.html Overview: Use of street drugs (including LSD,methamphetamine,marijuana/hash/cannabis)
have been linked with significantly increased probability of developing
schizophrenia. This link has been documented in over 30 different scientific studies (studies done mostly in the UK,
Australia and Sweden) over the past 20 years. In one example, a
study interviewed 50,000 members
of the Swedish Army about their drug consumption and followed up with them later
in
life. Those who were heavy consumers of cannabis at age 18 were over 600% more
likely to be diagnosed with schizophrenia over the next 15 years than those did
not take it. (see diagram below). Experts estimate that between 8% and 13% of all schizophrenia cases are linked to
marijuna / cannabis use during teen years.
(Image
Above: Source: Cannabis and
schizophrenia. A longitudinal study of Swedish conscripts, Lancet, 1987)
Many of these research studies indicate
that the risk is higher when the drugs are used by people under the age of 21, a time when the human brain is developing rapidly and is
particularly vulnerable. People with any biological
predisposition towards schizophrenia are at the highest risk -- unfortunately
its impossible to accurately identify this predisposition beforehand ( a family
history of mental illness is just one indicator of such a predisposition). [see causes
and prevention of schizophrenia for more information on all risk factors linked to a
person developing schizophrenia] Researchers in New Zealand found that
those who used cannabis by the age of 15 were more than three times (300%) more
likely to develop illnesses such as schizophrenia. Other research has backed
this up, showing that cannabis use increases the risk of psychosis by up to
700% for heavy users, and that the risk increases in proportion to the amount
of cannabis used (smoked or consumed). Additionally, the younger a person
smokes/uses cannabis, the higher the risk for schizophrenia, and the worse the
schizophrenia is when the person does develop it. Research by psychiatrists in
inner-city areas speak of cannabis being a factor in up to 80 percent of
schizophrenia cases. Professor Robin Murray (London Institute
of Psychiatry) has
recently (2005) completed a 15-year study of more than 750 adolescents in
conjunction with colleagues at King's College London and the University of
Otago in New Zealand. Overall people were 4.5 times more
likely to be schizophrenic at 26 if they were regular cannabis smokers at 15,
compared to 1.65 times for those who did not report regular use until age 18. Many researchers now believe that using
the drug while the brain is still developing boosts levels of the chemical
dopamine in the brain, which can directly lead to schizophrenia. Professor John Henry, clinical
toxicologist at Imperial College London said research has shown that people
with a certain genetic makeup who use the drug face a ten times
(1000%) higher risk of schizophrenia. (for example - if your risk of
schizophrenia was 6% (due to a
family history of mental illness) prior to taking cannabis, it could be
60% -- or more likely than not - after taking cannabis). Every person is
different (i.e. has different genes and different environments) - so this
"10 Times Higher Risk with cannabis use"- is just a generalization,
and it may or may not apply to a given person. A recent Dutch study showed that teenagers who indulge in
cannabis as few as five times in their life significantly increase their risk
of psychotic symptoms. The increase in evidence during the past
decade could be tied to the increased potency of marijuana. A review by the
British Lung Association says that the cannabis available on the streets today
is 15 times more powerful than the joints being smoked three decades ago. Schizophrenia can sometimes be triggered
by heavy use of hallucinogenic drugs, especially LSD; but it appears that one
has to have a genetic predisposition towards developing schizophrenia for this
to occur. There is also some evidence suggesting that people suffering from
schizophrenia but responding to treatment can have an episode as a result of
use of LSD. Methamphetamine and PCP also mimic the symptoms of schizophrenia,
and can trigger ongoing symptoms of schizophrenia in those who are vulnerable. Melbourne University's Professor David Castle
stated in a February, 2005 interview that heavy drug use during formative times
of life, such as the years at school, could affect the way a teenager or young
adult thought, impairing cognitive ability and having a long-term impact on job
prospects. Victorian studies had revealed that regular use of cannabis by
adolescent girls could trigger long-term depression. And for those vulnerable
to a psychotic disorder, even a small amount of cannabis could pose a threat. Professor Castle, author of the book Marijuana and Madness,
has said that those people
with this "psychotic proneness" were those who had a family history
of mental illness or who had had a bad response on their first use of cannabis
or to a tiny amount. Others at risk included those who had experienced a
psychotic episode where they had paranoid thinking or heard a voice calling
their name. Professor Castle said experiencing such a one-off episode was far
more common than people thought. "People with such a vulnerability
should avoid cannabis like the plague," he said. Without the effects of the drug, such a
person might live their whole life without ever experiencing mental health
problems. It has been estimated, for example, that between 8% and 13% of people
that have schizophrenia today would never have developed the illness without
exposure to cannabis. Professor Castle compared the effect to
feeding sweets to a diabetic. While high sugar content foods did not cause too
many problems for most people in the short term, they could be catastrophic for
diabetics. He said there was an accumulative effect
when it came to cannabis use and schizophrenia. Those who used the drug more
than once a week were more prone to needing hospitalisation and often suffered
other associated problems such as the breakdown of relations with their family,
isolation, crime and violence. * Cannabis impacts on
neurotransmitters that regulate how arousal and stress are managed in the
brain. Cannabis takes a long time to metabolise, and can quickly build up to
high levels in the body. Once you get to this point, there is a real risk of
depression or schizophrenia being triggered. * A Swedish study of
50,000 military conscripts found heavy use of cannabis increased the risk of
suicide by four times (400%). A Victorian study of 2332 adolescents found
weekly use increased the risk of suicide attempts among females by five times.
Weekly use as a teenager doubled the risk of depression and anxiety. Daily use
at the age of 20 boosted the risk of depression and anxiety by five times
(500%). Helpful Actions: If you want to avoid getting schizophrenia - research
suggests
that the number one thing you should avoid are street drugs (especially
marijuana/cannabis - but because you never know what someone has put into a
street drug, all of them are dangerous). By avoiding use of all street drugs
research suggests that you can greatly reduce the chance (by as much as 50% to
80% if you are biologically predisposed) that you'll develop schizophrenia.
Avoiding marijuana after developing schizophrenia also helps reduce relapse
rates. Some people with schizophrenia suggest that it makes them feel better,
but if depression is an issue we recommend these people talk to their Psych-Doc
about possible anti-depressant use rather than street drugs. Do not use even small amounts of
cannabis if you have any family history of mental illness, have had an episode
of paranoid thinking or hearing voices or had a bad response when first using
cannabis or when using a small amount. Other street drugs are also very
dangerous - partly because they are produced in home laboratories with
virtually any possible combination of additional substances mixed in with the
drugs. See: Crystal Meth & Schizophrenia Schizophrenia and
Cannabis Video Report: A
recent Internet video report on schizophrenia and cannabis has recently become
available. To play the video go to the following link - and then click on
"Play" button to view any of the 6 different sections of the video
report: Messing with Heads: New Research
into the longterm effects of Cannabis (Internet Video, 2005)
from the Australian Broadcasting Company She said studies of children whose mothers used marijuana
during pregnancy suggest that the drug elevates the risk of hyperactivity,
attention deficit disorder, lack of motor coordination and poor academic
achievement during the first two decades or so of life. Researchers said studies indicate
that medical marijuana is most effective at fighting muscle spasms caused by
multiple sclerosis and at combating the neuropathic pain that cancer patients
often suffer. There is also evidence, though less
robust, of cannabis’ effects on nausea caused by chemotherapy, in promoting
weight gain for HIV-infected patients and in easing sleep disorders. Heavy,
persistent pot use linked to
economic and social problems at midlife Posted on March 23, 2016 by
MPI-Media
A research
study that followed children from birth up to age 38 has found that people who
smoked cannabis four or more days of the week over many years ended up in a
lower social class than their parents, with lower-paying, less skilled and less
prestigious jobs than those who were not regular cannabis smokers. These
regular and persistent users also experienced more financial, work-related and
relationship difficulties, which worsened as the number of years of regular
cannabis use progressed. Marijuana
use may reducedopamine
in the brain Written by Marie
Ellis Published: Friday 15
April 2016 Published: Fri 15 Apr 2016 486Share3 Dopamine is
a transmitter in the brain that is important for movement, thinking and memory,
but it is also known as the "reward chemical" for its role in
pleasure. Now, a recent study reveals that heavy marijuana use could compromise
the dopamine system. The researchers, who publish their work in
the journal Molecular Psychiatry, say that heavy cocaine and heroin use
have been shown to decrease dopamine release, but until now, such data
regarding cannabis was notably absent. Lead author Dr. Anissa Abi-Dargham, of the
Columbia University Medical Center (CUMC) in New York, says the recent
"widespread acceptance and use of marijuana" makes looking into the
effects of cannabis on the brain extremely important. She and her team explain that most drug
addictions blunt dopamine release during the chronic phase of drug dependence,
which results in poor outcomes. To further investigate whether marijuana
dependence is linked with similar effects, the researchers conducted their
study in 11 adults aged 21-40 years who were heavily dependent on marijuana,
and they matched them with 12 healthy controls. The adults in the marijuana group started
using it at around age 16 on average, became dependent by age 20 and had been dependent
for around 7 years. Nearly all users in the study smoked
marijuana daily in the month leading up to the study, the researcher say. Heavy use
may negatively affect learning and
behavior' The researchers used positron emission
tomography (PET) scans to track a radiotracing molecule that binds to the
brain's dopamine receptors. From this, they were able to measure the release of
dopamine in the striatum, which is a brain region involved in memory, impulsive
behavior and attention. Additionally, the team was able to track
dopamine release in other brain regions, including the thalamus, midbrain and
globus pallidus. During the study, the marijuana users
stayed in the hospital for a week, during which they abstained from using it.
This was to ensure that the scans were not measuring the drug's effects. Both before and after being given oral
amphetamine to draw out dopamine release, the participants' brains were
scanned. The researchers used the percent change in the binding of the
radiotracer as a sign of dopamine release capacity. Results showed that, compared with the
control group, the marijuana users' striatum had lower dopamine release. There
was also lower release in subregions that play a role in associative and
sensorimotor learning, as well as in the globus pallidus. Upon investigating the link between
dopamine release in the striatum and cognitive performance on learning and
working memory tasks, the researchers did not observe a difference in
performance between the two groups. However, they do note that among all
participants, those who had lower dopamine release performed worse on both
tasks. Commenting on the findings, Dr. Abi-Dargham
says:
"We don't know
whether decreased dopamine was a preexisting condition or the result of heavy
cannabis use. But the bottom line is that long-term, heavy cannabis use may
impair the dopaminergic system, which could have a variety of negative effects
on learning and behavior." The researchers
conclude their study by noting that the lower dopamine release is linked with
inattention and negative symptoms in marijuana users, and with "poorer
working memory and probabilistic category learning performance" in both
groups. I have written two e-books
on
drug topics, one fiction, “Angel on Probation” that can be accessed at
Smashwords https://www.smashwords.com/dashboard/seo/78263
and downloaded for free
using
the coupon code NN33L at checkout. Another
e book is a factual book about drugs: “Escape from Hell: Clean and Sober
Forever” that that can be accessed at Smashwords https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/83169 and downloaded for free
using
the coupon code FP26M at checkout. |
Enter content here |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Enter supporting content here |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||