The Mail pick up on figures that appear in Druglink about hospital admissions as a result of cocaine abuse. Almost all of the contributors to the piece are sure that celebrities are acting as recruiting sergeants for the drug. Here’s Mary Brett:
‘We were supposed to see cocaine use being targeted as a class A drug, instead it’s going through the roof.‘Young people think it’s cool to use cocaine, that it’s a safe recreational drug but it can have dramatic effects on the body and cause psychosis.
‘We need more health campaigns and some way of getting the message through that celebrities are not role models, they can afford the rehab unlike some of those who get addicted.’
I didn’t see any mention of price as a factor in people’s use of the drug. Going back a few months Harry Shapiro made the case against seeing celebs as the cause of any cocaine culture there may be:
Yet still the charge remains that the pied-pipers of pop are leading our young people by the nose leaving a trail of death and devastation in their wake. So how do young respond? A group from Mentor UK were asked this very question by MPs at last week’s meeting of the All Party Parliamentary Substance Misuse Group – as were listeners to the youth-oriented radio station 1Xtra. And what did say? ‘We’re not that stupid’ – and it is symptomatic of our patronising attitudes towards young people that we should think them so gullible. In fact, fans of pop stars with drug problems generally feel sorry for them and wish they could get their lives back together again.
And just in case you need a reminder according to the BCS 94% of British young people (16 – 24) haven’t taken cocaine in the last year, and amongst the immediately younger group (11 – 15) that rises to 98.4%. Even in terms of attitudes it’s important to remember that 97% of pupils don’t think it’s OK to try taking cocaine “to see what it’s like”.
This isn’t to say there isn’t a problem, just looking at the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction report tells us that comparatively we do have high use of the drug, but “through the roof” seems less than accurate.
This is similar to the claims last year about increased numbers of hospital admissions for cannabis use. There can be a lot of reasons why these figures would rise. First of all, lets not underestimate the possibility of a rise in prevalence – though I agree with you Andrew, other evidence doesn’t suggest this level of increase. There is a strong possibility that rather than there actually being a increase in admissions, there is an increase in A+E codifying of certain symptoms as cocaine related. A heart attack may have simply been codified as a heart attack in the past – greater awareness of cocaine use among A+E staff could be enabling them to be clearer now about the underlying causes. If cocaine use is becoming more acceptable, though not necessarily more widespread, people could be more willing to admit using the drug when in A+E. There could have been local changes in responses within units that mean that drug use is more readily picked up – I know a number of places where drug referral workers are attached to A+E units, or where drug screening has been brought in as part of triage. All of these factors, singly, or in combination could bring about an increased level of reporting.
I didn’t see the original Druglink article as I don’t subscribe but I would hope DrugScope were able to point out the story underneath the figures – numbers can mislead.
‘Through the roof’, is only accurate when used in the comparative of the rise in cocaine and drug use generally. However you seem to be missing the point, which is the total harms being caused by escalating use.
This writer suggests it would be a far more positive contribution if all ‘drug education’, focused on the total harms caused by use, rather than so called safe ways of using addictive, psycho active drugs.
To suggest or imply that there are safe ways in which to use such drugs, is an oxymoron, All drugs have side affects, addictive, psycho active drugs, are no exception, but will subliminely ecourage use.
no drug education I’ve ever come across talks about safe drug use, only safer drug use. It is disingenuous to suggest otherwise – and there is an important difference. whilst not using should be encouraged for all young people, we have to pragmatically accept that some people will use regardless, and for those people, harm reduction advice can, unsurprisingly given the name, reduce the harms they will face. To not do so – as some suggest – on the unfounded basis that this would encourage use in others is a rather appalling and profoundly unethical proposal. Effectively a policy of drug education by human sacrifice. Harm reduction concepts can and do fully incorporate aspirations to abstinence within a realistic hierarchy of goals (no use, reduced use, safer use etc). It is a shame that some of the abstention evangelists are unable to incorporate harm reduction.
Steve
You know or should, that “harm reduction” for existing users is considered acceptable by most people, even those you label “abstention evangelists” (me presumably?). The trouble with the phrase is that it has become corrupted by those who preach harm reduction to non users as a form of proselytising about drugs use generally, often in pursuit of their nirvana of legal drug use for all. The term “harm reduction” got corrupted and devalued. I suggest you read Peter Stoker’s all encompassing 3 part series on it starting here :http://www.globaldrugpolicy.org/1/2/4.php
It IS a fact that cocaine availability and use is increasing across all social classes, it is extraordinarily disingenous to suggest that celebrity use has little or no effect on the drug using culture. Drug use is ALL about the prevailing culture around use. Regular stories about celebrity drug use subtly normalises drug taking behaviour. To suggest otherwise flies in the face of common sense. More use of drugs, which your position would inevitably bring, would mean more total harm. it has been like that with tobacco & alcohol. More use = more harm. Examine the evidence.
Semantics cannot hide the fact that the pro drug lobby in this country is desperate to see all drugs legalised. It is absolute rubbish to say that young people can be protected from the increased use arising from legalisation, not unless that is dealers in the secondary market suddenly develop scruples, and agree not to sell to young people and also ask their non registered punters to enter into a contract that any supplies they buy will not be provided to young people, and of course a pig has just gone flying by the window.
Harm reduction cannot repeat cannot reduce the harms already caused by drugs of destruction, nor can their ongoing use, reduced or otherwise, prevent further mental damage and collateral suffering. to suggest otherwise is misrepresentation.
Misrepresentation Peter? Malfeasance more like.
Quote from their website:
“Transform exists to reduce harm and promote sustainable health and wellbeing”
It is a form of newspeak, words apparently mean whatever Steve Rolles and Transform think they mean. Legalising more drugs can never “promote sustainable health & well being”. Messages are corrupted and even fabricated, “some of the abstention evangelists are unable to incorporate harm reduction”. Not true. I know of no one who debates these things who does not support some harm reduction methods for existing users, I myself was probably the first law enforcement officials to accept heroin prescription for some users in carefully controlled circumstances. I debated the subject with Arnold Trebach, (the father of the Transform legalisation position) when Steve was in short pants or even earlier. Understanding the history would helps deal with the present.
Yes, David, the liberal use of meaningless semantics to promote drug use is noted, but then again that is common with the pro drug lobby in general.
The current attempts to divert attention from the damage cocaine is causing by the introduction of a shoal of ‘red herrings’, is typical. neverteless the scientific factual evidence which cannot be denied, clearly shows how drugs of addiction, or as I believe they should be termed, drugs of destruction,destroy the complex interacting systems of the brain.
Whilst it is true that in the early stages of the destruction process caused by the pathological increase in dopamine brought about by drug use, is relatively speaking, minor, as the addiction progresses with continuing ingestion of the drugs, all of those brain systems are eventually destroyed, thus rendering the addict powerless over the ability to make a rational choice regarding continued use. In short the addict’s free will has been eroded through the use of drugs of destruction. quite how ‘harm reduction’ can assist those unfortunates escapes my comprehension.
Wow – as someone working directly with young people I find it a bit worrying how one reply from Sarah aimed at untangling some figures, open to media and political spin, can suddenly turn into a bit of a tit for tat legal debate. Yes we are in the business of delaying or preventing use of substances, both legal and illegal, but it doesn’t mean there isn’t a service for those who have chosen to use something like cocaine, particularly where this is an uninformed choice. As a drug worker, I find it a bit insulting to read a post claiming harm reduction messges are being given to non-users without taking account of the complexities each young person brings. I’m sure most of the readers of this blog would agree that someone working with a young person would be assessing whether they are using, and their safety around any identified use, before embarking on any work around HR over and above general education and normative messages.
Additionally, most young people I have been working with have been influenced more by the negative images of celebrity use rather than the positive ones ie. the media reports are acting as a protective factor. Therefore the ‘normalising’ of cocaine use has been fudged by reports of celebrity use. Andrew’s initial higlight of Hario Shapiro’s comments need to be considered than making snap assumptions around what young people are influenced by, however well meant they are.