Drug Policy Question of the Week – 2-26-11

As answered by Mary Jane Borden, Editor of Drug War Facts for the Drug Truth Network on 2-26-11. http://www.drugtruth.net/cms/node/3284

Question of the Week: How many medical marijuana patients are there?

The Congressional Research Service reported that,

“A July 2005 CRS telephone survey of the state [medical marijuana] programs revealed a total of 14,758 registered medical marijuana users in eight states.”

The report also noted,

“More recently, an estimate published by Newsweek early in 2010 found a total of 369,634 users in the 13 states with established programs.”

Medical cannabis programs are changing quickly. Applying the National Survey on Drug Use and Health or the Monitoring the Future survey to U.S. Census Bureau data can extrapolate national estimates.

Using the legal state of Colorado as a basis, the Census Bureau calculated Colorado’s 2009 population age 18+ at 3.8 million. The 2009 National Survey on Drug Use and Health claims that 6.8% of Coloradans are current cannabis consumers. Applying that percentage to the population results in an estimated 260,000 “current users” in Colorado.

According to the Colorado Medical Marijuana Registry, the

“total number of patients who currently possess valid Registry ID cards [was] 95,477”

as of 6/30/2010. Thus, these registered patients represented about 36% of the state’s “current” marijuana users.

Assuming 36% to be a standard patient percentage and applying it to the estimated 16.7 million current marijuana users nationwide results in about 5 million U.S. patients.

This count is supported by the Monitoring the Future survey, which apportions daily marijuana use percentages by age. Daily cannabis consumption implies medical use. Matching survey percentages to the middle series 2010 Census population computes an approximate total of 5 million patients between the ages of 18 and 55.

These facts and others like them can be found in the Medical Marijuana Chapter of Drug War Facts at www.drugwarfacts.org.

Questions concerning these or other facts concerning drug policy can be e-mailed to [email protected]

Drug Policy Question of the Week – 2-8-11

As answered by Mary Jane Borden, Editor of Drug War Facts for the Drug Truth Network on 2-8-11. http://www.drugtruth.net/cms/node/3261

Question of the Week: How are women affected by the drug war?

According to the 2009 National Survey for Drug Use and Health, the percentage of women using drugs and alcohol is less than men. About 6.6% of American women are current users of marijuana vs. 10.8% for men. Men use more psychotherapeutics and cocaine than women. Men are also more likely than women to use alcohol and drink heavily. However, the small percentages for non-medical use of tranquilizers and for methamphetamine are about the same for men and women.

Just because women are less likely to engage in substance use, doesn’t mean that they are spared arrest and incarceration for drug offenses.

The Institute on Women and Criminal Justice reported that,

“The number of women serving sentences of more than a year grew by 757 percent between 1977 and 2004 – nearly twice the 388 percent increase in the male prison population.”

In 2008, 25,500 women were imprisoned under state jurisdiction for drug offenses of one year or more.

While women often play relatively minor roles in the drug trade, they bring special issues to the criminal justice system.

As the Institute noted,

“More than 70 percent of women in prison have children. More than half of mothers in prison have no visits with their children for the duration of their time behind bars. Children are generally subject to instability and uncertainly while their mothers are imprisoned.”

The Institute concluded,

“Incarcerating women does not solve the problems that underlie their involvement in the criminal justice system. ”

These facts and others like them can be found in the Women and the Drug War Chapter of Drug War Facts at www.drugwarfacts.org.

Questions concerning these or other facts concerning drug policy can be e-mailed to [email protected]

Drug Policy Question of the Week – 2-5-11

As answered by Mary Jane Borden, Editor of Drug War Facts for the Drug Truth Network on 2-5-11. http://www.drugtruth.net/cms/node/3256

Question of the Week: What are Special Rapporteurs?

Shortly after enacting its charter in 1946, the United Nations established the Commission on Human Rights. According to its 2009 report, the Commission’s Human Rights Council fields,

“independent human rights experts with mandates to investigate, report and advise on human rights from a thematic or country-specific perspective.”

Some experts are called Rapporteurs, a French term for “reporter.” Rapporteurs carry out their designated mandates via “special procedures.” There are currently 31 thematic and 8 country mandates.

Special Rapporteurs have issued several reports on mandates germane to drug policy.

The May 2010 “Report of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, [by] Philip Alston,” stated,

“…in Afghanistan, the US has said that drug traffickers on the “battlefield” who have links to the insurgency may be targeted and killed. This is not consistent with the traditionally understood concepts under [international humanitarian law].”

The Report of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention

“decided to devote particular attention in 2010 to the issues of the detention of drug users.”

The August 2010 “Report of the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health,” conceded,

“While drugs may have a pernicious effect on individual lives and society, this excessively punitive regime has not achieved its stated public health goals, and has resulted in countless human rights violations.”

The report then concluded,

“The primary goal of the international drug control regime … is the “health and welfare of mankind”, but the current approach to controlling drug use and possession works against that aim.”

These facts and others like them can be in the Human Rights – United Nations section of the Civil Rights Chapter of Drug War Facts at www.drugwarfacts.org.

Questions concerning these or other facts concerning drug policy can be e-mailed to [email protected]

Drug Policy Question of the Week – 1-26-11

As answered by Mary Jane Borden, Editor of Drug War Facts for the Drug Truth Network on 1-26-11. http://www.drugtruth.net/cms/node/3243

Question of the Week: What are Entheogens?

A paper in the Journal of Consciousness Studies defined entheogens as,

“psychoactive agents more generally known as psychedelics (etymologically, mind manifesting) or hallucinogenic … that bring one in touch with the Divine within.”

A 2009 Cornell Law School research paper went on to state that,

“The word entheogen is believed to translate into the phrase “God inside us”. In the literal sense this word refers to plants, shrubs, fungi and seeds used for centuries in religious or shamanic rituals for the purpose of obtaining revelations, spiritual enlightenment, or healing illnesses. Some of these substances include, Ayahuasca, Amanitas Muscaria, Blue Lotus, Hawaiian Baby Woodrose and Morning Glory Seeds, Salvia Divinorum, Khat, Kanna, San Pedro Cacti, Kratom, Henbane, Yopo and Mandrake. There are many more, some of which are illegal (such as DMT, Kava Kava, Cannabis and Psilocybin Mushrooms)…”

Wikipedia includes LSD, Ibogaine, and even ethanol, aka alcohol as entheogens.

The Cornell paper noted that,

“The first scholar to highlight the sacramental use of psychoactive substances was de Felice [who put] forward the hypothesis that the use of psychotropic substances is deeply embedded in human culture, and that it is intrinsically intertwined in a most basic human instinct — the search for transcendence. Thus, he proposes, the use of psychotropic substances is at the roots of perhaps all religions.”

The Cornell paper finally asks, is

“the legal status of many entheogens … another example of legislative inertia and a defect in the law? Are these drugs harmful enough to warrant criminalization? Or, alternatively, are these drugs, with their connection to peoples’ spiritual beliefs, to be protected … as an expression of people’s religion?”

These facts and others like them can be found in the new Entheogens Chapter of Drug War Facts at www.drugwarfacts.org.

Questions concerning these or other facts concerning drug policy can be e-mailed to [email protected]

Drug Policy Question of the Week – 1-22-11

As answered by Mary Jane Borden, Editor of Drug War Facts for the Drug Truth Network on 1-22-11. http://www.drugtruth.net/cms/node/3238

Question of the Week: Does the National Drug Control Strategy achieve its goals?

A 2008 Congressional Research Service report describes a document released annually by the Office of National Drug Control Policy:

“Since 1999, the Administration has developed an annual National Drug Control Strategy, which describes the total budget for drug control programs and outlines U.S. strategic goals for stemming drug supply and demand.”

Goals have varied. The 1999 Strategy proposed

“a ten-year conceptual framework to reduce illegal drug use and availability 50 percent by the year 2007.”

The 2002 to 2005 Goals were roughly the same, with the 2003 Strategy calling for a two-year goal of

“A 10 percent reduction in current use of illegal drugs by 8th, 10th, and 12th graders,”

and a five-year goal of

“A 25 percent reduction in current use of illegal drugs by adults age 18 and older.”

The source for the first percent was to reference a Monitoring the Future survey, which found that current use of illegal drugs by 8th, 10th, and 12th graders for the two years following 2003 declined by –5.2%. The other source, the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, reported that illicit drug use by adults age 12 and older during the five years following 2003 grew by +4.3%. By 2009, the increase was +9.7%.

The National Drug Control Strategy 2010 revised the goals slightly to

“Decrease the 30-day prevalence of drug use among 12–17 year olds by 15%,”

and to

“Reduce the number of chronic drug users by 15%.”

The National Drug Control Strategy FY 2011 Budget Summary says,

“The President’s Fiscal Year (FY) 2011 National Drug Control Budget requests $15.5 billion to reduce drug use…”

These facts and others like them can be found in the Drug Usage and United States policy chapters of Drug War Facts at www.drugwarfacts.org.

Questions concerning these or other facts concerning drug policy can be e-mailed to [email protected]

Drug Policy Question of the Week – 1-10-11

As answered by Mary Jane Borden, Editor of Drug War Facts for the Drug Truth Network on 1-10-11. http://www.drugtruth.net/cms/node/3220

Question of the Week: What are NAOMI and SALOME?

NAOMI stands for the “North American Opiate Medication Initiative.” It is a,

“two-centre, parallel, open-label randomized controlled trial aimed at testing whether heroin assisted treatment offers benefits over and above optimized methadone therapy in the treatment of individuals with chronic addiction who continue to use heroin despite having tried conventional treatments in the past.”

The NAOMI trials took place in Vancouver and Montreal, Canada.

SALOME stands for the “Study to Assess Longer-term Opioid Medication Effectiveness,” and is defined as a,

“clinical trial that will test whether diacetylmorphine, the active ingredient of heroin, is as good as hydromorphone (also known as Dilaudid), a licensed medication, in benefiting people suffering from chronic opioid addiction who are not benefiting sufficiently from other treatments.” The SALOME trial is taking place in Vancouver.

NAOMI and SALOME are among a number of heroin maintenance clinical trials that have also occurred in Switzerland, the Netherlands, Germany, and Spain. According to a 2006 article in the Harm Reduction Journal, the outcomes of these trials were “unequivocally positive.” The article concluded that “prescribing heroin produces substantial declines both in illicit drug use and in criminal activity” and that it was “feasible to conduct a program that made heroin medically available.”

Like its European counterparts, the NAOMI trial found that, “Heroin-assisted therapy proved to be a safe and highly effective treatment for people with chronic, treatment-refractory heroin addiction. Marked improvements were observed including decreased use of illicit “street” heroin, decreased criminal activity, decreased money spent on drugs, and improved physical and psychological health.”

The SALOME trial was scheduled to begin in January 2010. Results would likely be available later this year.

These facts and others like them can be found in the Heroin Maintenance chapter of Drug War Facts at http://www.drugwarfacts.org.

Questions concerning these or other facts concerning drug policy can be e-mailed to [email protected]

Drug Policy Question of the Week – 12-18-10

As answered by Mary Jane Borden, Editor of Drug War Facts for the Drug Truth Network on 12-18-10. http://www.drugtruth.net/cms/node/3189

Question of the Week: Which are the most harmful drugs?

Title 21, Chapter 13, Section 812 of the U.S. Code contains the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 that established five drug “schedules” presumably based on harm. Schedule I are said to the most dangerous. The other four schedules suggest gradually less harm. The United Kingdom has a similar classification system using the letters A, B, and C. Neither includes alcohol or tobacco.

Several studies have compared the harms of various drugs. A famous New York Times article from 1994 looked at nicotine, heroin, cocaine, alcohol, cocaine, and marijuana and found heroin to be the most dangerous, followed closely by alcohol. Cannabis and caffeine were deemed to be least dangerous.

The American Scientist magazine analyzed drug dependence and concluded,

“Heroin and methamphetamine are the most addictive … Cocaine, pentobarbital, nicotine and alcohol are next, followed by marijuana and possibly caffeine. Some hallucinogens—notably LSD, mescaline and psilocybin—have little or no potential for creating dependence.”

A similar analysis recently appeared in the British medical journal, The Lancet that found,

“… heroin, crack cocaine, and metamfetamine were the most harmful drugs to individuals, whereas alcohol, heroin, and crack cocaine were the most harmful to others.”

A table from another Lancet analysis now appears on Drug War Facts. This study ranked 20 drugs by physical-, dependence-, and socially-related harms. The table also shows their legal classifications in the U.K. and U.S.

Of the top five drugs rated as most harmful, only one – heroin – is a Schedule I drug in the U.S. Of the nine drugs that had ranking among the least harmful, four including cannabis are Schedule I.

These facts and others like them can be found in the Crime and Addictive Properties of Drugs chapters of Drug War Facts at http://www.drugwarfacts.org.

Questions concerning these or other facts concerning drug policy can be e-mailed to [email protected]

^{Notes:
– United Kingdom drug classes were initially assigned based on Table 2 in The Lancet report. However, since then, two drugs have been reclassified:
– Methamphetamine was moved from class B to class A in 2006.
– Although Cannabis was downgraded from class B to class C in 2004, it was subsequently upgraded to class B in 2009.
– “n/s” = no scheduling}

A printer-ready “From the Chapters of Drug War Facts” fact sheet in PDF format can be found at: http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/files/Drug-Rankings-by-Harm.pdf

Drug Policy Question of the Week – 12-6-10

As answered by Mary Jane Borden, Editor of Drug War Facts for the Drug Truth Network on 12-6-10. http://www.drugtruth.net/cms/node/3175

Harm Reduction is a term often mentioned in conjunction with drug policy. A recent report from the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies entitled, “Out of Harm’s Way: injecting drug user and harm reduction,” defined Harm Reduction as:

“… a range of pragmatic and evidence-based public health policies and practices aimed at reducing the negative consequences associated with drug use and other related risk factors such as HIV and AIDS. These interventions exemplify human rights in action by seeking to alleviate hazards faced by the injecting drug users, where needed, without distinction and without judgement.”

The Red Cross concluded that,

“Harm reduction is pragmatic, cost-effective and evidence-based. From a public health perspective, it safeguards the well-being of drug users by allowing them to minimize harm to themselves and others”

It went on to say that,

“Changing policies and reforming the justice system are central to harm reduction. Injecting drug use should not be seen as a criminal act but as a major public health issue.”

Another recent report from the International Harm Reduction Association called, “Three cents a day is not enough: Resourcing HIV-related Harm Reduction on a global basis,” supports Red Cross, stating,

“Prevention of HIV is also cheaper than treatment of HIV/AIDS. For example, in Asia it is estimated that the comprehensive package of HIV-related harm reduction interventions costs $39 per disability-adjusted life-year saved, whereas antiretroviral treatment costs approximately $2,000 per life-year saved. Such figures demonstrate that harm reduction is a low-cost, high-impact intervention.”

The IHRA’s conclusion in this report was a simple one,

“More money is needed for harm reduction, and it is needed now.”

These facts and others like them can be found in the HIV/AIDS chapter of Drug War Facts at www.drugwarfacts.org.

Questions concerning these or other facts concerning drug policy can be e-mailed to [email protected]