They're Not Listening

Mitch Earleywine, a University of Southern California psychology professor and author of Understanding Marijuana, points out in a San Francisco Chronicle op-ed piece that drug use among minors is increasing despite (maybe partly because of) the federal government's ridiculous anti-drug ads. Both the Parent's Resource Institute for Drug Education (PRIDE) survey and the National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH, formerly the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse) show drug use rising between 2001 and 2002.

Earleywine questions the government's claim that, because of methodological changes intended to elicit greater cooperation and candor, the 2002 NSDUH results should not be compared to data from prior years' household surveys. The three major changes were the new name, a $30 payment for participation, and retraining of field personnel to make sure they stick to protocol. Earleywine writes, "I have found nothing in these changes to account for the sharp spike in drug use -- except that more people, including teens, are using drugs."

Over all, the NSDUH numbers suggest a 17 percent increase in past-month drug use, 7 percent among 12-to-17-year-olds. The PRIDE survey, which did not make significant changes in its methodology, found a bigger increase within the latter age group: about 13 percent between 2001-02 and 2002-03 among students in grades 6 through 12.

Comments

[PLC]

If you posit that the trend is real (I haven't looked into the surveys enough to say either way), then you have to ask "what has changed in the past two years to elicit such as rise in usage"?

The only thing I can think of is the economic recession and increased fear of terrorism. Does this imply that in generally more "pessimistic" times, that teens will use more drugs and in generally more "optomistic" times, they will opt not to use drugs?

[Brian Hawkins]

Interesting to note that the feds encourage a more conservative interpretation (i.e., don't compare this to previous data because we changed our methods) of the drug use data when noting an "increase" in reported drug use implies that their propaganda isn't working.

Anyone want to bet on whether they will use this very same data to justify asking for more money to fight the drug war when appropriations time comes around?

[M. Simon]

The belief in "addiction" is what drives all this maddness.

As the first poster (PLC) alluded drug use may be a function of stress. Chronic stress (internal or external) is very likely the cause of chronic drug use.

If that is the case then drugs do not cause addiction. In fact what we call "addiction" is a symptom of pain or stress. Of course we do not deal with root causes. Only symptoms.

Because fighting drugs is easier than fighting pain.

[buck smith]

Year over year numbers on drug use have to be "noisy" at best. How many times has drug use gone up and down since the big increase from 1960 when only jazz musicians were users to 1975 when a broad swath of socially liberal people would experiment and then learn moderation or quit or become junkies.

I suspect the changes in drug use since sometime around 1975 or 1980 have been pretty insignificant.

[Garth]

Those ads always make me want to smoke a joint in protest to the whole drug-war nonsense. Maybe that's what's going on: that kids are smarter than we give them credit for (like, "duh!")

FREE TOMMY CHONG