The ONDCP's Mad Libs™ Approach to Drug Use Statistics

These are perilous times for drug warriors. With self-reported illicit drug use flat or declining, there is a danger of complacency—or, worse, smaller budgets. At the same time, it's important to claim a victory now and then; otherwise taxpayers may begin to worry that their money is being wasted in a futile effort to stop people from using politically incorrect intoxicants. In its description of the latest numbers from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, the Office of National Drug Control Policy walks that thin line between gratitude and apathy, panic and hopelessness:

YOUTH DRUG USE AT A FIVE YEAR LOW, NEW SURVEY SHOWS

25 Percent Drop in Marijuana Use by Teen Boys

More Youths Starting Drug Use with Painkillers Than Marijuana;
Prescription Drug Abuse Remains a Concern

In short, we know the war on drugs is working because fewer teenagers are smoking pot, but we need to redouble our efforts, because a lot of them are still swiping Percocets from the medicine cabinet. This carefully calibrated message does not hold up very well when you look at the actual numbers. It turns out that self-reported "prescription drug abuse" among teenagers is not only not going up; it fell between 2003 and 2005, then leveled off. Overall, past-month "nonmedical use of psychotherapeutics" by 12-to-17-year-olds went from 4 percent in 2002 to 3.3 percent in 2006, a drop of about 18 percent. That's roughly the same as the decline in past-month marijuana use, which went from 8.2 percent to 6.7 percent during the same period. So one could just as easily say that prescription drug abuse is down, while pot smoking remains disturbingly common, as the reverse. Presumably the ONDCP went with the prescription drug angle for the novelty factor, although it's already getting pretty old.

But what about the "methamphetamine epidemic"? It still stubbornly refuses to show up in nationally representative surveys of drug use. No matter which age group or measure you look at, illegal use of "stimulants" (a subcategory of "psychotherapeutics" that does not include cocaine) has been flat or declining in this survey since 2002, the first year it was conducted. For 2006 the government did not even bother to break out methamphetamine as a separate category.

[Thanks to Mike Kelty for the tip.]

Comments

[Warren]

These are perilous times for drug warriors.

Ha ha ha ha. There hasn't been "perilous times" for drug warriors for the past thirty seven years.

No matter what happens, it vindicates the drug warriors.
Drug use goes down = The WOD is working, we need more money

Drug use goes up = The WOD isn't working, we need more money

We gave you more money and it didn't help = the last administration misspent it, we need more money.

We gave you less money and drug use went down = We did a good job when we had money, now we need more or all our good work will be undone.

Etc. etc. etc.

The only thing that's going to make things rough for the drug warriors is when enough people decide they'd rather stop fighting the WOD and, tax and regulate them.

[Episiarch]

The WOD has too many people invested in it to go away without some huge event. From those who believe drugs are TEH EVIL to the LEOs to whom it gives jobs, tremendous power, and justification, it is now an "American Institution".

It's horrible, but that's the way it is. Maybe, as the older generation that never did pot dies off, things might change.

[J sub D]

The only thing that's going to make things rough for the drug warriors is when enough people decide they'd rather stop fighting the WOD and, tax and regulate them.

Or maybe when politician's children get treated the same as poor, young, black males by the justice system.

[Reinmoose]

Or maybe when politician's children get treated the same as poor, young, black males by the justice system.

Bingo

[Ayatollah Usoe]

I tell my LEO buddies that we (the People) will win the war on drugs in five years, and then we will be trying those LEOs for war crimes.

[SPD]

YOUTH DRUG USE AT A FIVE YEAR LOW

Sub-header: "Adult users, however, still chuggin' along, God bless 'em."

[Warren]

Maybe, as the older generation that never did pot dies off, things might change.

No such luck. The generation that never did pot is already dying off. The generation in power now, did lots of pot when they were young and now don't want their kids smoking pot.

[guy in the back row]

Studies from the DEA have as much validity as genetic-political ones from NYU.

Unfortuantely, the NYU postdocs can't put people in prison for 20 years and piss away billions in tax dollars each year.

[John]

"But what about the "methamphetamine epidemic"? It still stubbornly refuses to show up in nationally representative surveys of drug use. No matter which age group or measure you look at, illegal use of "stimulants" (a subcategory of "psychotherapeutics" that does not include cocaine) has been flat or declining in this survey since 2002, the first year it was conducted."

Oh really?

"The Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN), which collects information on drug-related episodes from hospital emergency departments (EDs) throughout the Nation, has reported a greater than 50 percent increase in the number of ED visits related to methamphetamine abuse between 1995 and 2002, reaching approximately 73,000 ED visits, or 4 percent of all drug-related visits in 2004.

Treatment admissions for methamphetamine abuse have also increased substantially. In 1992, there were approximately 21,000 treatment admissions in which methamphetamine/amphetamine was identified as the primary drug of abuse, representing more than 1 percent of all treatment admissions during the year. By 2004, the number of methamphetamine treatment admissions increased to greater than 150,000, representing 8 percent of all admissions."

If a lot more people are going to emergency rooms and rehap over Meth, I think it is safe to say more people are using it. I am not sure what the "national surveys" you refer to are, but the increase in rehab admissions and ER visits makes me question them. Perhaps meth users don't self report very well.

I am very sympathic to Reason's position on the drug war. But being right on the over all issue doesn't excuse sloppy reasoning and overbroad statements like this one.

[Warren]

when politician's children get treated the same as poor, young, black males by the justice system.

It might be possible for black, white, brown and purple people to deal with the same justice system. However, I don't see any way rich people will ever allow themselves to be subjected to the same system used to deal with poor people.

[Brian Sorgatz]

Jacob Sullum shows (ADJECTIVE) taste and a keen (NOUN) by referring to Mad Libs in the post title. I plan to (VERB) him (ADVERB) from now on.

[John]

"It might be possible for black, white, brown and purple people to deal with the same justice system. However, I don't see any way rich people will ever allow themselves to be subjected to the same system used to deal with poor people."

They are in some ways through minimum mandatoreis. Back in the 1990s more than a few upper middle class hippies got 10+ years in the whole for sending their buddies from Dead concerts LSD through the mail. I really don't think being rich will buy you out of a serious drug arrest. The feds are way to out of control for that.

The difference is that most cops are not exactly brilliant or particularly interested in doing much investigating. What do they do? They concentrait on catching the easy stuff and the people they know. The reason why rich and middle class people don't get busted for drug crimes that much even though we know they do just as many drugs as poor people, is that rich and middle class tend to stay off of the police radar and not get caught. Most people who get busted for drugs, get busted because they are selling (something middle class and rich generally do not do) or they get caught for doing another crime like domestic violance or DUI. A lot of people who are in prison for drugs are there because they committed other crimes, got probation, and failed a drug test, or they got caught doing something else like breaking and entering or beating their wife up and were found in possession of drugs. Basically we have a huge criminal class in this country and we use the drug war as an excuse to keep them in prison longer than we otherwise would.

[de stijl]

Brian Sorgatz,

lugubrious
knife
spank
raw

[SIV]

The only thing that's going to make things rough for the drug warriors is when enough people decide they'd rather stop fighting the WOD and, tax and regulate them.

As a libertarian I oppose the taxation and regulation of drugs.

Could illegal use of stimulants be down as all the kids have ritalin,adderall, and dexedrine 'scripts?

[Rimfax]

John,

While I am sympathetic to your concerns about unsupported assertions, your data doesn't refute Sullum's key phrase, "since 2002." Your data suggests a meth rise between '92 and '04. It includes some of the years that Sullum mentions, but it includes far too many preceding years to adequately address the delta between '02 and '07.

What bothers me more is the use of percentage changes of percentages. The units are meaningless at that point.

[John]

"What bothers me more is the use of percentage changes of percentages. The units are meaningless at that point."

Very true. Also, even if you could get the numbers that wouldn't necessarily mean a lot. If someone who would have used crack before is now using meth, it is pretty much a wash. When people claim things like "an explosion in meth use" they imply that otherwise clean and sober are now using meth, when in fact, the "explosion in meth use" such as it was was just a change in drug fashion. Some people just like drugs and since meth is the hot drug, they take that rather than crack or God knows what else.

[Travis]

I wish people would just lay off the "heads" for once. They are not bad people, they just wanna blow a little smoke now and then. Whats the bid deal ??

[Brian Sorgatz]

LOL, de stijl

[Warren]

John,

Well yes, drug dealers are "rich" in the sense they have lots of money. And they are not cut any slack by the judicial system.

But there's a difference between having money and being "privileged". The children of politicians will never have to answer to the same law as the rest of us. The nature of power is such that the poor will never be given the same consideration by the system either. The discrepancy between poor and privileged is grotesque. We should remain steadfast in pursuing a uniform standard of law. But I don't think it's achievable.

[James]

Everything the feds say about drugs is a lie. Addiction is a habit not an unstoppable force that mows down our volition. There are no drugs that force themselves on users. People snort cocaine, cocaine doesn't snort people. There is no meth epidemic, the meth epidemic is a concoction of bad drug reporting mixed in with deliberate misintrepration of data. Seriously people if you go back and read the articles on cocaine in the 80s or crack in the 90s you will notice a disturbing similarity. MSM hypes whatever drug is the particular boogeyman of that time. Our great and all knowing "elected" representatives immediately take away more of our freedoms in the name of protecting us from said scourge. Research later blows the BS out of the water the MSM never recants and it's on to the next big thing. The point of the WOD is to keep the masses confused about their rights to put whatever they want into their bodies by making drug use a "moral" issue, whatever the fuck that means, instead of a personal one. We have a right to do whatever we want with our bodies. That right only ends where another person's rights begin, please read Vices are not Crimes by Lysander Spooner. We are responsible for our own behavior if there was a drug that could remove our self control the feds would be using it on us already.

[coyote]

One of the arguments for banning adult legal access to drugs like marijuana (and even allergy medications) is that it helps to prevent abuse of these drugs by underage kids. This would be nice to test in a true control group setting, but we really don't have the opportunity under current laws to do so. But we can work by proxy. We can compare drugs that are illicit for everyone, like marijuana, to drugs that are legal for adults but not for minors, like tobacco.

If drug warriors are correct, teenage tobacco use should be much higher than use of other illicit drugs. This is particularly true because the proxy is an imperfect one, since the tobacco is a far less intimidating drug to try than, say, heroin. However, it turns out not to be the case. The new figures our out from our friendly US Government drug warriors, and it turns out that tobacco use is barely higher among teens than illicit drug use.

For example, the study shows that past month tobacco use among kids 12-17 was 12.9% in 2006, while past month illicit drug use in the same group was 9.8% (tables G.16 and G.7). That's lower, but certainly not decisively so. Both of these use numbers have fallen since 2002 at about the same rate.

Even more interesting are the figures for the number of kids 12-17 who had initiated use of certain substances in the past year (table G.26). In that year, 2.45 million had initiated cigarette use, but 2.79 million had initiated illicit drug use. Further, when asked if certain substances carried "great risk" in trying to purchase them, 68.7% of underage cigarette smokers said yes (table G.25). This response was 10 or more points higher than that of teenage occasional users marijuana, cocaine, or even heroin. In short, teenagers are saying it is more difficult and/or riskier to support cigarette use than it is to support a weekly marijuana, cocaine, or heroin habit -- exactly the opposite of the drug warriors' argument for prohibition (but consistent with the libertarian argument that bringing these drug sales above ground will make underage purchase more visible and easier to combat).

[JLE]

Lack of adequate health care will eventually inspire teens to self-medicate, once they're old enough to feel pain.

The drug war is in itself enough reason to be reminded we live in an utterly absurd world; hence, no better reason to want out of it in any way possible.

Pass the Valium.

[The Anti-Chimp]

Nowhere does the ONDCP mention the Single Most Dangerous & Addictive Substance Ever Invented: Taxpayer's Money

Probably just an oversight, right?

[J sub D]

Nowhere does the ONDCP mention the Single Most Dangerous & Addictive Substance Ever Invented: Taxpayer's Money

Excellant point. Let's go to the chalkboard.
It makes the user feel good - check.
Continued use makes the user desire higher dosages - check.
The user will lie to and steal from family and friends to maintain his habit - check.
Withdrawal symptoms including screaming and delusions - check.

There you have it. The drug warriors are addicted to taxpayer dollars and need to be prosecuted, convicted, and severely punished as a warnig to others.

[negatore]

I can't wait for the "Very Special Episode of Ugly Betty" when the smart alecky younger brother gets caught with weed, swears he will never smoke it again and starts hitting Betty's anti-deppresants. Awesome.